Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
To establish her argument, Redstone provides brief context on the rise of trauma research, then clearly states that the essay aims to discuss the potential and limitations of trauma theory, as well as encourage an engaged and critical relationship to ‘trauma theory’. There are short, titled sections that make the article easy to navigate. Her tone is sensitive, which is appropriate considering the topic concerns human suffering and traumatic events such as the Holocaust. Her caution when approaching these topics provokes consideration of how problematic studying trauma theory has the potential to be. Her tendency to question each theory she presents inspires the reader to do the same. She has some strong and convincing opinions about new methods of approaching trauma theory and her opinions are supported by sufficient evidence from studies of trauma theory. However, as there is so much evidence, some without sufficient explanations, individual research was required. I didn’t feel as though the article led me to a distinct conclusion on how I think trauma research should be conducted, as Redstone explores the nuances of approaches yet doesn’t endorse one single approach that should be taken, giving instead multiple points to consider and warning against certain approaches.
The abstract explores research on trauma theory and identifies the sources Redstone intends to use, such as the writings of Caruth, Felman, and Laub, and the Laplanchian and object relations psychoanalytic theory. It critiques trauma theory’s model of subjectivity, linking it to theories of referentiality and representation, history, and testimony. Then it argues the importance of the theory’s politics; throughout the article, she is mindful of the subject matter. She advocates for further examination of the context in which the theory has become prominent and concludes that trauma theory needs to prevent Manicheanism, rather than enable it. Under her first subheading, titled ‘The academic context’, Redstone explains that trauma theory is supported by deconstructuralism, poststructuralism, and psychoanalysis, as well as clinical work with survivors. She also references the neuroscientists and literary theorists she has studied, discussing the codification of PTSD and the neuroscientific approach to memory disorders. She also explains the purpose of the following sections and references the idea, which is reinforced throughout the article, that trauma theory promises a way through difficulties instead of around them. The section ‘Referentiality’ introduces the idea that the absence of traces in trauma theory indicates that it is more concerned with referentiality than memory of an actuality, exploring whether ‘encoding’ could become the foundation for a general theory of representation.
Radstone begins the section on ‘Subjectivity’ by condoning the lack of debate on the model of subjectivity implied by trauma theory. She explores how trauma theory upon the ‘postmodernization’ of Freud, and how ‘postmodern’ psychology also emphasizes intersubjectivity and the role of the listener or witness. She then uses this to highlight a contradiction between a mimetic and an anti-mimetic theory of trauma, which she then explores, using sufficient evidence such as the work of Leys, for the remainder of this section, covering problems such as how the contribution of hypnosis to understanding trauma threatened individual autonomy, and subsequently bourgeois ideas about subjectivity. The following section ‘Subjectivity, Forgetting and Testimony’ outlines how a traumatized subject doesn’t repress fantasies, they have dissociated memories, thus dismissing any misconceptions of how trauma works. The idea of testimony demands a witness, as dialogic meaning-making takes the place of unconscious processes of repression. Radstone uses the works of Felman, Laub, Caruth, and Leys to support her point.
Radstone uses the next brief section on ‘history’ to address both mimetic and anti-mimetic theories, this time comparing them to the Holocaust to demonstrate the problems of each.
Finally, in the last section, ‘Analysts and Readers: The Ethics and Politics of Trauma Analysis’, Redstone links theories of trauma, testimony, and witnessing to how they are currently informing literary, film, and media studies. She addresses the issue of which texts should be chosen and which should be excluded and the delicate balance between making sure the discussion isn’t unethical and yet still permitting discussion. After presenting a balanced and thorough argument she warns the reader against the Manichean tendencies which govern western politics and culture.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.