Date of Award

4-30-2024

Author's School

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Author's Department

Philosophy/Neuroscience, and Psychology

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Degree Type

Dissertation

Abstract

In recent years, the term “trauma” has become increasingly controversial. Many of these controversies revolve around the definition of trauma, and the way that this definition varies across contexts. What kinds of experience can plausibly be considered “traumatic”? In some contexts, the standards are incredibly permissive, while others are much more restrictive. These different ways of understanding “trauma” prompts an important question: Who has the authority to define trauma? In other words, who decides which conception of trauma is the most “legitimate” – who decides when an experience is or is not traumatic? My project attempts to answer these questions by considering each of the different conceptions of trauma that arise in a variety of distinct contexts. In particular, I will recognize three major areas making use of the concept: I will attempt to outline the theories of trauma that arise from (1) The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), from (2) animal researchers in neuroscience and similar laboratory settings, from (3) theories of trauma in clinical psychology. Then, I argue that there is need for yet another conception, what I call the Social Ameliorative Conception of Trauma which helps us to acknowledge and recognize potentially novel kinds/cases of trauma. Finally, I conclude by attempting to unify these disparate perspectives with my Schematic Account of Trauma.

Language

English (en)

Chair and Committee

Carl Craver

Download

Share

COinS