Alexander has argued the need for a new cultural sociology. One part of this cultural sociology is Alexander’s notion of “cultural trauma”. Critically discuss this theory, using Alexander’s example of the Holocaust and the construction of moral universals PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay looks into Alexander’s notion of cultural trauma, understanding the effects of it on a collectivity through examples of the Holocaust. It also look at critics of Alexander’s work and draw on conclusions of his theory of cultural trauma....

Description

SOSC222 Trimester One Monica Harris 300368954 Alexander has argued the need for a new cultural sociology. One part of this cultural sociology is Alexander’s notion of “cultural trauma”. Critically discuss this theory, using Alexander’s example of the Holocaust and the construction of moral universals.

Jeffrey C. Alexander, an American sociologist, is best known for his works surrounding cultural sociology and cultural trauma. In his 1993 works The Discourse of American Civil Society, Alexander and his coauthor Smith propose for a new “sociological approach to culture”. (Alexander and Smith, 1993) Alexander, in his research and findings, has recognised and delivered culture as an independent variable, where previously culture was often addressed as just a dependent variable. (el-Ojeili, 2017) Alexander and Smith’s early work was influenced by Durkheim’s cultural sociological views, and they argued that the notion of culture should be a symbolic system which divides the world into good and evil. (Alexander and Smith, 1993) Alexander’s work in the following decade focussed on the notion of “cultural trauma”, otherwise understood as group trauma or societal trauma. He states that “trauma is a socially mediated attribution” (Alexander, 2003, p. 91), that can occur before, during or after an event, and often hypothetically. Alexander believes that cultural traumas create and mould collective identities, meaning that events from the past shape the contemporary status and stance of collectivities and societies. This essay will look into Alexander’s notion of cultural trauma, understanding the effects of it on a collectivity through examples of the Holocaust. It will also look at critics of Alexander’s work and draw on conclusions of his theory of cultural trauma.

Alexander’s works in the areas of cultural sociology and social theory have, over time, made him a central figure to these topics in a sociological capacity. His views a widely accepted, and widely available, especially his definition of cultural trauma. According to Alexander, cultural trauma “occurs when members of a collectivity feel they have been subjected to a horrendous event that leaves indelible marks on their group consciousness, marking their memories forever and changing their future identity in fundamental and irrevocable ways.” (Alexander, 2003, p. 85) He goes on to state that cultural trauma “is an empirical, scientific concept, suggesting new meaningful and causal relationships between previously unrelated events, structures, perceptions and actions.” (Alexander, 2003, p. 85) A significant point of Alexander’s concept of cultural trauma is that trauma itself, in a sociological context, is a social construct; it doesn’t exist outside of society. (Alexander et al., 2004) What we can draw from these definitions is that when Alexander refers to cultural trauma he is referring to the trauma effecting a group, or in his words a collectivity; rather than at the level of the individual. What Alexander also wants to maintain is that events themselves are not creators of trauma, they are not “inherently traumatic” (Alexander et al.,

SOSC222 Trimester One Monica Harris 300368954

2004, p. 8), however they are the central to an event – they help identify the situation in a period of time, or the event does not even need to occur, the hypotheses of the event are often equally traumatising as an actual event.

Alexander takes his concept of cultural trauma deeper by understanding it from different perspectives. The main perspective is ‘lay theory’, which Alexander further divides into Enlightenment thinking and psychoanalytic thinking. He uses these theories in his work to help understand the trauma of the Holocaust and constructions of moral universals. Alexander uses lay theory to create the simple yet comprehensive understanding that “human beings need security, order, love and connection” (Alexander, 2003, p. 86), and if a traumatising event abruptly effects these needs or changes human nature, then this is when trauma is experienced. Alexander’s use of the Enlightenment understanding draws on the past to justify the response to a traumatic event. The Enlightenment thinking, as stated by Alexander, suggests that “trauma is a kind of rational response to abrupt change” (2004, p. 3) and that its obvious the way we react to traumas such as political scandals, economic depressions, lost wars, natural disasters and technological disasters. (Alexander et al., 2004) The Enlightenment thinking of trauma provides a systematic way of thought and action, opposed to the more sympathetic approach of lay theory. Alexander’s Enlightenment thinking suggests that responses to trauma are both “problem-solving and progressive” (2004, p. 87). Psychoanalytic thinking of lay theory, on the other hand, is a much more complex and filtered approach. Alexander uses this level of thought at the level of the individual to explain the effect on groups. He states that “when bad things happen to good people…they can become so frightened that they can actually repress the experience of trauma itself” (Alexander, 2003, p. 88), and continues to say that the experience becomes engraved in a human’s mind and memory. (Alexander et al., 2004) Alexander’s positon on psychoanalytic thinking of lay theory is that is still follows the natural responses of humans, however it focuses more on the capabilities of human perception to trauma. (Alexander et al., 2004)

Alexander uses historical events such as the Holocaust to help understand how cultural trauma occurs and how it effects human beings. The Enlightenment thinking of the trauma of the Holocaust explains how the response to the treatment of Jews sparked postwar ends to anti-Semitism in America and other countries. (Alexander, 2003) Alexander argues that societies have a central moral nature, which has been established in the past of religion and Enlightenment. (Alexander et al., 2004) From this we understand the reaction to trauma is systematic and usually brings about further change, to move away from past situations. Reaction to trauma is often attacking current beliefs and stances, because trauma is brought about by

SOSC222 Trimester One Monica Harris 300368954

atrocities and events that have occurred under these belief systems. In his work on ‘cultural trauma, morality and solidarity’, Alexander provides the understanding that cultural identity comes about as a result of cultural trauma and the process of this trauma. (Alexander, 2016) He uses the Holocaust as an example of this idea, stating that “the Holocaust came to occupy a central position in the collective identity of Western societies” (Alexander, 2016, p. 5). It is from this Enlightenment perspective that we understand how the past guides the actions, thinking and notions of the future. (Alexander, 2003)

Alexander’s psychoanalytic lay theory thinking of the cultural trauma of the Holocaust shows an insight into the reactions of groups affected, by presenting us with one of the many collective group reactions, stating that “Jews and non-Jews alike reacted not with criticism and decisive action but with silence and bewilderment.” (Alexander, 2003) This statement knocks down the societal influences of race, culture, ethnicity, diversity and so forth to show that this theory investigates reactions of human beings as one, not of colour or race. When we understand Alexander’s psychoanalytic version of the Holocaust and its cultural trauma, we understand the ways that humans could have reacted to such trauma and compare this against how the majority of humans actually did react. It is this process of trauma that shapes future changes and attitudes within society.

Alexander uses the concept and situation of cultural trauma to show how moral universals are constructed, and how they create identities in collectivities in a given period of time. (Alexander et al., 2004) He uses the Holocaust to illustrate that the trauma of this event in history created a potential of hope for future collectivities and societies by creating new expectations and new shared thought. (Alexander et al., 2004) An example of this is that following the Holocaust, it became a crime, particularly in Europe, to deny the Holocaust. (Alexander, 2003) Cultural trauma builds and develops universal moral rightness and values within a collectivity, society, and world. The Holocaust has been universalised as a symbol of moral evil and destruction of basic human rights, and effects not only the humans directly involved in it but generations afterwards, as an event and trauma like this changes the course of collective identity, which is explored and understood by looking back at our history. Moral universals are like the rules to a society, the basic understanding of right and wrong, a change provoked by a shared experience.

While Alexander’s theory of cultural trauma is well-researched and well-documented, it has still met to criticisms by sociologists such as Hans Joas (Germany) and Gregor Mclennan (United Kingdom). In Joas’

SOSC222 Trimester One Monica Harris 300368954

work on Cultural Trauma, he suggests that it is possible that Alexander has over-looked the significance of individual trauma (el-Ojeili, 2017), and further questions whether or not if trauma can be extended from the level of individuals to whole cultures. (Joas, 2005) Mclennan has described Alexander’s work surrounding trauma in cultural sociology as “monolithic and unqualifed” (2005, p. 8), and questions if this concept is the only way modern cultural sociology is conducted. (Mclennan, 2005) These critics for the most part commend Alexander on his work, but have managed to find weak points in his social theory.

Cultural trauma can be compared to a disease pandemic. We don’t know how we will react or how the trauma will affect people until we are directly faced with the traumatic experience, much like we don’t know what our symptoms of an illness we have not had before, we know they will be bad we just do not know how bad. While no pandemic is the same, we can still group them into this category as the effect on people and society are similar in magnitude; and this is the same with cultural trauma. The effects of the systematic, anti-Semitic killing during the Holocaust can be compared to other war crimes such as chemical poisoning effects in 1960s Vietnam, or the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. While they are not the same in course of action, the affects on humans, the societal change and trauma process following these events are of similar magnitude.

Jeffery C Alexander’s work on cultural sociology and cultural trauma is widely available and widely discussed in the sociological context. His research and findings have drawn a new attention to culture as a variable, which he uses as an independent variable instead of dependent. (el-Ojeili, 2017) Alexander famously states that “cultural trauma occurs when members of a collectivity feel they have been subjected to a horrendous event that leaves indelible marks on their group consciousness…” (2003, p. 85) and further explains that the concept changes and moulds the identity of a collectivity. By researching the concept through different filters such as the lay theory, Enlightenment thinking and psychoanalytic thinking, Alexander explains that trauma is implanted in everyday understanding, and that when presented with a trauma we are presented with a challenge that questions the progress of a collectivity and the moral universals of the contemporary international society. (Alexander et al., 2004) Alexander frequently uses the Holocaust, amongst other historical events, to explain how trauma effects a collectivity and what changes or morals it can cause to be implemented. One of the moral universals to emerge from the Holocaust as a result of cultural trauma is the expectation that Holocaust denying is considered a crime. (Alexander, 2003) This is especially relevant in European countries. While Alexander faces some criticism, no theory is free of this scrutiny and critique, which only helps to strengthen such theories and broaden our understanding for notions like cultural trauma. Cultural trauma is a systematic, logical and

SOSC222 Trimester One Monica Harris 300368954

sympathetic concept which is clearly evident in contemporary society as the processes of such trauma have shaped the moral universals and the society that we live in. By creating culture as an independent variable, we are able to understand how Alexander views the effects of cultural trauma in modern and past societies.

References Alexander, J. C. (2003). The Meanings of Social Life: A cultural sociology. Retrieved from https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2012/SOC403/um/ALEXANDER_The_meanings_of_social_life.pdf Alexander, J. C. (2016). Culture Trauma, Morality and Solidarity: The social construction of ‘Holocaust’ and other mass murders. Thesis Eleven, 132(1), 3-16. DOI: 10.1177/0725513615625239 Alexander, J. C., and Smith, P. (1993). The Discourse of American Civil Society: A New Proposal for Cultural Studies. Theory and Society, 22(2), 151-207. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657770? seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Alexander, J. C., Eyerman, R., Bernhard, G., Smelser, N. J., and Sztompka, P. (2004). Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Retrieved from http://www.centerfortraditionalmedicine.org/uploads/2/3/7/5/23750643/cultural_trauma_and_collective_i dentity.pdf el-Ojeili, C. (15.03.2017). ‘Introduction and Alexander on the Holocaust as Cultural Trauma’ (Lecture One), Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Joas, H. (2005). Cultural Trauma: On the most recent turn in Jeffrey Alexander’s cultural sociology. European Journal of Social Theory, 8(3), 365-374). Retrieved from http://www.agpolpsy.de/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/joas-cultural-trauma-on-the-most-recent-turn-in-jeffrey-alexandere28099scultural-sociology.pdf Mclennan, G. (2005). The ‘New American Culture Sociology’: An appraisal. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/0263276405059411...