Trauma doesn't cause PTSD in all cultures

One of the real problems when  dealing with trauma such as child abuse or rape or war - is the assumption that there is a universal scientific model of psychological trauma. "Trauma in - PTSD out." The traumatized individual is assumed to have been betrayed, his/ her personal boundaries crossed, felt helpless, experienced depression, lost self-esteem and ability to trust others. The intrapsychic needs to be dealt with, understood and repaired when a wide variety of trauma occurs. In fact, however, in non-Western societies trauma might be not even be experienced or is manifest primarily in somatic symptoms or rejection by family and society resulting more in shame than personal degradation. Torture in some communities is best understood by reference to political or social concepts rather than psychological ones. This is I believe the major cause of dissatisfaction of Modern Western educated observant Jews who are embarrassed to find that the "obvious" traumas of child abuse, rape and other indignities - are apparently not a significant concern in the traditional Jewish literature. They readily assume that there is a coverup and ignoring or ignorance of PTSD resulting from various traumatic situation- or that G-d or rabbis don't care. In fact it seems that much of the trauma in traditional Jewish society was damage to social status or betrayal of religious norms of either the victim or perpetrator - rather than to the psyche. This is a major topic and one that Western mental health workers have trouble accepting or even understanding.

 The issue is what is the trauma? If it primarily comes because of psychological damage- then an event such as abuse or rape will have a wide range of consequences in different cultures - especially ones in which the psychological dimension is relatively small.

See Victor Frankl who was shocked to discover that the impact of being in a concentration camp varied greatly - depending on how the events were perceived. See Gail Sheehy's book  Spirit of Survival (1987) about her adopted Cambodian daughter - who experienced the horror of the "killing fields" and yet didn't seem to have been traumatized by the events.

The article is saying to stop viewing certain events as if they were objective and clearly defined forces. The impact of these events is mediated by the victims perception and it is not a mechanical cause and effect paradigm. This is a major theme in Jewish writings about suffering

To put it another way - should rape and war be viewed as being equivalent to being beaten. Depending upon where the blows fall and the person's strength - a particular blow will have varying effects. However  for the same blow in the same spot and the same personal strength - there will be a high degree of consistency of damage.

This other model says that the impact of rape or abuse is largely determined by how it is viewed in a particular culture by a particular individual. For some it will be totally devastating but for others the impact will be minimal.

There is also a consequence for therapy. A mechanical model says that all traumatic events produce serious damage. Therefore the therapy looks for and encourages acknowledgement of this damage - catharsis.

The other model says that the main focus should be on developing cognitive frames that minimize the impact of these events and that it is possible that little or no damage has actually occurred and therefore encourage catharsis or talking about these events actually is more damaging than the original events.

There is evidence that the cathartic focus in catastrophe counselling is actually counterproductive - even in Western society.

 
The following article just provides a brief - but very intelligent - introduction to the topic.

==========================================

Psychological Responses to War & Atrocity

Psychotherapy, as practiced in western countries, largely takes the form of an individual client consulting a therapist. In Africa and other Third World settings most therapy directly involves other family members and sometimes the wider community. When it comes to responding to the effects of violence western style psychotherapy can have the effect of 'individualising' the suffering of the person involved. Psychotherapy of this mode might be inappropriate and indeed harmful in more "sociocentric" societies where the individual's recovery is intimately bound up with the recovery of the wider community. This is true for individuals and communities still living in the Third World but also for refugees who are living in western countries. 

Thus it is apparent that what will be effective healing healing for victims of violence, will be largely determined by the cultural and social context. Such factors will also determine what types of healing are available. Indeed Herman makes the point that the therapeutic strategies associated with the western discourse on trauma have only become available because of particular political developments during the past 20 years:

The systematic study of psychological trauma therefore depends on the support of a political movement. Indeed, whether such study can be pursued or discussed in public is itself a political question. The study of war trauma becomes legitimate only in a context that challenges the sacrifice of young men in war. The study of trauma in sexual and domestic life becomes legitimate only in a context that challenges the subordination of women and children 

Conclusion

All scientific approaches to understanding use metaphors at a very basic level. Certain metaphors underlie the approaches of modern biomedicine and psychiatry. Even though these metaphors may be the source of problems for the conceptualisation of psychiatric illness in the West, at least in this part of the world they are metaphors widely used and endorsed by society. In parts of the world where such forms of understanding are not the norm the introducing of concepts such as PTSD based as it is on a likening of the mind to an 'information processing instrument' may be at best confusing. Fear and suffering are facts of human life that belie simple explanatory models, and attempts to account for them in terms of such models have to be, at most, tentative.

If we ignore these problems, we are at risk of introducing inappropriate treatment models and strategies in our attempt to help the rehabilitation of individuals and communities who are the victims of violence and trauma. In addition, because such models of therapy involve expertise, training and a new 'language', the possibility of creating a new 'expert syndrome' arises and with it the possibility of undermining already existing medical and non-medical approaches to the alleviation of distress caused by organised violence. This in turn may have the effect of undermining local community structures, the very forces which act as 'protective' elements with regard to the effects of trauma and the very structures which need to bear testimony in their own terms.

Beracha "Didn't make me a woman" - Magen Avraham

Magen Avraham (O.C. 46:9):... The Bach asks why we don’t say a beracha “that G‑d has made me a Jew” [rather than the negative version that He hasn’t made us a non-Jew] which would be similar in structure to the other morning berachos such as “gives sight to the blind” in which we bless the good? Some answer it is because our Sages concluded that it would have been better that Man had not been created. Thus we are say it would have been better if we hadn’t been created but now that we exist I bless G‑d that at least He did not make me a non-Jew, slave or woman. In addition I think that if a person said “Who has made me a Jew” he would not be able to also say “Who has made me a free man” or “Who has made me a man” because that would be included. The intent therefore is to say a blessing on each detail.... These are the words of the Bach. His words imply that if a person erred and said “Who has made me a Jew” - that he would no longer be able to say the beracha of not being made a slave or a woman. It also seems to me that even if he said Yisroel or Jew – a woman is included. That is because the entire Torah is expressed in the masculine form and nevertheless it includes women. We see this from Tosfos who says that only when the Torah says the Children of Israel it implies an exclusion of the Daughters of Israel. Nevertheless Sanhedrin (84) implies that this is because the Torah equates a woman to a man. In Bava Kama (15), Menachos (93) and the beginning of Erachin – it indicates that “slave” should be said before “woman” since it states that a slave is inferior to a woman. It is also implied in the Bach according to what is says in Sefer Chassidim concerning “freeing the prisoners that it is the same here. If a person says “who has not made me a woman” first he can no longer say the beracha concerning a non-Jew or a slave.

Mitt Romney at Yeshiva University

The Left fears Israel's demographics

Haaretz   This week, as children returned to school, another public servant, Deputy Education Minister Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Moses, was quoted at a gathering of Haredi school principals saying with satisfaction that this year, for the first time, a majority of children in Israeli kindergartens are either ultra-Orthodox or religious. It was a misleading statistic - Moses was not including Arab children in his calculations and not all the children enrolled in religious kindergartens are actually religious. Many parents place them there for the longer hours or simply because they are closer to their homes and next year they will continue in secular schools. But the Haredi rabbis who privately despise the national-religious for their compromises with modernity are happy to include them in their camp when it pushes secular Israelis into a minority. Today the kindergarten - tomorrow the Knesset. 

But despite Malthusian demographic trends indicating a joint Haredi-settler majority in Israel by 2050, both Moses and Levanon are aware how tenuous their advantage could be. None of the current trends are inexorable. As the Haredi community grows, the hold of its ancient leaders over a generation who have grown up in the 21st Century is rapidly eroding and the trickle of defections will increase to a torrent. The growing number of West Bank settlers is also misleading. Three-quarters live in comfortable suburbs by the Green Line, easily absorbed into the sovereign Israeli state as part of a two-state solution which a clear majority of Israelis still support. 

The fundamentalists see their majority beckoning on the horizon if only they can hold on for another 20 years, perpetuating the settlement program and shutting off their young from outside influences. It is impossible to foresee whether they will prevail, but we are giving them a much better chance of success by not listening to what they say.

Priest-Therapist blames some Victims of Sexual Abuse

NYTimes   A prominent Roman Catholic spiritual leader who has spent decades counseling wayward priests for the archdiocese provoked shock and outrage on Thursday as word spread of a recent interview he did with a Catholic newspaper during which he said that “youngsters” were often to blame when priests sexually abused them and that priests should not be jailed for such abuse on their first offense.

“Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him,” Father Groeschel, now 79, said in the interview. “A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

He added that he was “inclined to think” that priests who were first-time abusers should not be jailed because “their intention was not committing a crime.”

Assault on Aharon Friedman - reward for information

Reward Poster

Modesty in requesting marital relations

 This is material that I am trying to understand for my latest sefer on the Torah understanding of gender and sexuality. The point is that we have what is an accepted halacha and yet the Seforno, Malbim and Torah Temima acknowledge the pshat of the verse is against the halacha.

Leah is used in Eiruvin 100b as proof that a woman is not supposed to verbalize her desires - and yet Leah apparently did. The gemora indicates that are apparently two views in Chazal and yet it concludes there is only one.

=====================================
Meiri (Eiruvin 100b):  Even though the attribute of modesty (tznius) is praiseworthy for everyone – nevertheless it is more praiseworthy for women.  In spite of this whoever makes themselves beloved to their husbands and entice them to the mitzva of sexual relations – this is not considered pritzus (immodesty) but rather zariz (alacrity) to do the mitzva and it is a desirable characteristic. She is rewarded for her concern with this mitzva by having proper children. That is because her intent is only for children. The Torah has already given an example of the appropriateness of this concerning Leah, And Leah went out to meet Yaakov and told him that he was to sleep with her that night instead of Rachel (Bereishis 30:16).

Bereishis (30:16):  And Yaakov came from the field in the evening and Leah went out to meet him. And she said to him, You shall come to me [tonight] because I have paid for you with the mandrakes of my son. And he lay with her that night.

Eiruvin (100b): R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses. For of the generation of Moses it is written: Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men and understanding, and full of knowledge, and then it follows: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and full of knowledge. while men of ‘understanding’ he could not find, whereas in the case of Leah it is written in Scripture, ‘And Leah went out to meet him, and said: Thou must come unto me, for I have surely hired thee, and subsequently it is written, ‘And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment. But can that be right? seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, ... ’ And he shall rule over you - this teaches that a woman asks with her heart while her husband asks directly for intercourse. This is a good attribute in women. In other words she acts seductive and ingratiates herself with him but does not directly say what she wants.

Torah Temima (Bereishis 9:16.4): In other words from this pregnancy Yissachar was born as is states explicitly in the Torah. The gemora (Eiruvin 100b)  asserts  that she didn’t ask Yaakov directly for sexual intercourse because to do so is a disgusting behavior and her children would have been called the children of brazeness [ instead of praising her]. In fact she seduced him by showing her strong feelings of love. But the language of the Torah apparently contradicts this explanation since she is quoted as saying, “You shall come to me [i.e., have sexual relations]”. However this phrase is to be understood that she meant that he should come to her tent but not that she was saying she wanted sexual intercourse....

In contrast others sources seem to assume Leah spoke bluntly and directly - but since she was on a much higher spiritual level - we can not learn that it is permitted for women today to speak this way.

Rashi (Bereishis 30:16): I hired you tonight – I paid Rachel [to be with you tonight]. 

Malbim (Bereishis 30:16): And she said to Yaakov , You are to come to me. This teaches that her intent was solely for the sake of Heaven. Therefore she wasn’t embarrassed to speak this way. That is because she had no lust which would have caused her embarrassment. This was like Adam prior to the Sin that he and Eve were naked and did not feel shame.

Seforno (Bereishis 30:16): You are to come to me since I hired you. And she did not do an injustice with her behavior in taking away the sexual rights of her sister since it was done with her knowledge and agreement. At first glance this story seems to be disgusting to those who look for excuses to say negative things about the Torah. In fact we learn from this that the Avos were similar to Adam and Eve prior to the Sin. Their intent was not at all for their own pleasure but was solely for the sake of Heaven to establish descendants for the honor of G‑d and to serve Him. We learn from this that since the intent of the Matriarchs was pleasing to G‑d in their efforts ... Their prayers were accepted. That is because it is appropriate for a tzadik to make efforts according to nature as much as possible to obtain that which he desires and to also pray that he succeed. Our Sages note that G‑d desires the prayers of Tzadikim (Yevamos 64a).

Religious leaders decree tight clothing inappropriate for men

YNet  A new decree signed by top Israeli rabbis this week prohibits devout men from wearing tight pants.

"Every Jewish man is mandated by the holy Torah to dress modestly in loose-fitting clothing," read the edict, which was published in the ultra-Orthodox media. 

The public service messages were accompanied by pictures of Jewish men in times of old dressed in loose, gown-like attire.

Fluff allegation about Mary Murphy's reporting on Bobov - Rejoinder

I would like to take up your offer to post my rejoinder [to your post about Mary Murphy].

You have my full permission to post it, in its entirety, as long as I am credited and there is a link to my posting.

Thanking you in advance,

Yerachmiel Lopin

============================

Just a couple of observations.

 1) Lopin is the one who concluded that there was a coverup - not Mary Murphy. He claims based on earlier reports - her report confirms that there was a coverup.

2) Lopin states, I keep saying, “If true,” because Rabbi Eidensohn bases his dismissal of the story on the premise that Mary Murphy is a dumb, sloppy or dishonest reporter. He doesn’t explicitly say it but why else would he dismiss a report that documents molesting and a cover-up. Lopin is correct I never said that Mary Murphy is a dumb, sloppy or dishonest reporter. I did say that the report on this topic was a poor job and that certain facts were not verified and those that were presented were not clearly presented in context. This is especially problematic for a reporter who has won 18 emmies for her reporting! He says ,"why else would he dismiss a report that documents molestering and a coverup". It is strange because in my post I explained very clearly why I dismissed the report. She never confirmed that her informant was a parent as he claimed. If she had evidence of a coverup why didn't she present it to the police? If she did why did they dismiss it and concluded that there was no basis for the allegations?  My point is that is one must conclude either the police or Mary Murphy is wrong. I accept the conclusions of the police.

3) The police investigated the allegations and reported that there were no basis to the allegations. If there is evidence presented that makes the police change their minds -I would have no problem of accepting that there was abuse and a coverup. However Mary Murphy has only reported allegations,rumors and an anonymous person claiming to be a father who said that the kids were told not to talk to each other. That is not a coverup but is excellent advise to prevent interfering with the police investigation. If it was claimed that the kids were told not to speak to the police - then that would indicate a coverup. Mary Murphy did not reach such a conclusion.[to be continued]

============================

IDF to send out draft notices to ultra-Orthodox Jews

Haaretz  The army will be sending first draft notices to some 7,500 ultra-Orthodox men in early September.

The notices will ask 17- and 18-year-old Haredim eligible to be drafted in 2013 to report to draft offices to begin the process of determining where they will serve. The notices are being sent because the Tal Law, which governed draft deferrals for Haredi yeshiva students, expired in August and the government hasn't yet managed to pass alternative legislation.

However, the chances that the army will actually enforce the draft notices are considered very low.

In 2013, Haredim will constitute 13 percent of all draft-age males. Currently, however, only about 30 percent of Haredim do either military service or alternative civilian service; most don't serve at all.

An Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism

A subtitle might be -  cleanliness and vaccines increase autoimmune disorders

NYTimes   So here’s the short of it: At least a subset of autism — perhaps one-third, and very likely more — looks like a type of inflammatory disease. And it begins in the womb.[...]

The lesson here isn’t necessarily that viruses and bacteria directly damage the fetus. Rather, the mother’s attempt to repel invaders — her inflammatory response — seems at fault. Research by Paul Patterson, an expert in neuroimmunity at Caltech, demonstrates this important principle. Inflaming pregnant mice artificially — without a living infective agent — prompts behavioral problems in the young. In this model, autism results from collateral damage. It’s an unintended consequence of self-defense during pregnancy. [...]

YET when you consider that, as a whole, diseases of immune dysregulation have increased in the past 60 years — and that these disorders are linked to autism — the question seems a little moot. The better question is: Why are we so prone to inflammatory disorders? What has happened to the modern immune system?

There’s a good evolutionary answer to that query, it turns out. Scientists have repeatedly observed that people living in environments that resemble our evolutionary past, full of microbes and parasites, don’t suffer from inflammatory diseases as frequently as we do.  [...]

Generally speaking, autism also follows this pattern. It seems to be less prevalent in the developing world. Usually, epidemiologists fault lack of diagnosis for the apparent absence. A dearth of expertise in the disorder, the argument goes, gives a false impression of scarcity. Yet at least one Western doctor who specializes in autism has explicitly noted that, in a Cambodian population rife with parasites and acute infections, autism was nearly nonexistent. [...]

Chareidi solider allegedly kicked out of shul

Jewish Press based on this bhol  Hebrew article

A Haredi IDF soldier was chased out of the Toldos Avraham Yitzchak shul on Monday morning, in the Beit Shemesh neighborhood of Nachala U’menucha, after appearing at Shacharit services in his uniform.

B’Hadrei Haredim reported that the soldier arrived at the shul, located at Hazon Ish Street, at about 10 AM, looking to participate in the morning service there.

Before entering the shul, he sat outside the building. One of the Chassidim passing by requested that the soldier “keep out.”

He explained to the soldier that since he was wearing the uniform of the “Army of the Zionist State,” he was not permitted to enter a shul whose members strongly advocate an anti-Zionist ideology.