Dr. Pamela Steiner on Collective Trauma
By Alla Drokina

Up to and possibly more than a million Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire were exterminated by their government from 1915 to 1923. In April 2021, as many know, President Biden made history when he became the second American president to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

However, President Biden’s more recent nomination of former US senator Jeff Flake as ambassador to Turkey has raised concerns.

Dr. Pamela Steiner, a senior fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health and author of Collective Trauma and the Armenian Genocide: Armenian, Turkish, and Azerbaijani Relations Since 1839, shares her opinion on the nomination and other steps that are crucial for conflict resolution between opposing ethnic groups with a deep-seated history of trauma.

Dr. Steiner, a practitioner in conflict resolution as well as a psychotherapist specializing in trauma, contends that the change that could bring peace among certain parties includes the necessity of acknowledging genocide and dealing with generational trauma.



Can you tell me what collective trauma is about?

Collective trauma occurs when a large group of people shares a similar horrific, terrorizing and destructive event, such as genocide or war.

But a very wide range of events will likely lead to collective trauma: examples are the collective experience of COVID-19, a huge drought, ongoing poverty, a plane crash, a major hurricane, and some are less obvious, such as loss of, or threat of loss of, social status.

Traumas include serious threats, as well as actualized events, and collective trauma is one that threatens many people. That is, a collectivity can be traumatized by a major threat, such as a threat of being murdered, even if the threat does not materialize. I assume that if such threats hang over a collectivity for a long time, it has many effects.

How can the knowledge or acceptance you know of these harrowing historical events help us inform the present?

There are so many ways. Since trauma disturbs our nervous systems, at the same time it diminishes our thinking capacities. In public or collective life, unhealed trauma contributes thereby to reckless or irresponsible behavior by leaders and their people alike in a tragic feedback loop.

But if we are interested in the healing of people or collectivities — as much healing as possible, that is, because certain traumas, I believe, are never fully healed —so that a people or collectivity can become more trusting, productive, responsible, and happier, steps have to be and can be taken.

Acknowledgment of what happened comes first.

We must differentiate between the healing within a group and the healing between groups. Between groups, the victimizer or perpetrator must acknowledge and indicate remorse for the pain and damage they brought on.

But within a group, healing can be promoted by acknowledgment, too, but of course, that cannot lead the victim group to trust the perpetrator group.

Between groups, other steps should include promises not to repeat, and be followed by trust-building activities and processes.

If all these monumental steps can be taken, a people become able to move away from being trauma-dominated to some important extent, the primary example today being the ability of Jews to trust Germany.

Using that example enables us to see how Germany, the Jews, and the world benefitted from Germany’s efforts that of course, in no way erased the crime.

In contrast, with regard to the Armenian-Turkish relationship, I maintain that Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide importantly contributed to its failure to mature as a democratic nation. Turkey has more than once set out to make itself a real democracy but regresses in denial of its past and in continuing policies supporting Muslim superiority.

Some 12 years ago a leading Turkish diplomat told me, in confidence, that they knew very well that the last Ottoman government carried out a genocide of the Armenian people. Of course, it wasn't the same or his Turkish government. It was the government of the Ottoman Empire that committed genocide; the present Turkish Government is a republic.

Nonetheless, the Republic is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire. This diplomat told me that they did not want to acknowledge the Genocide, because it would cost them so much money in reparations. It is said that the US denies the genocide of the Native Americans for a similar reason.

But in addition to the financial cost is the psychological factor of the avoidance of public shame and humiliation: the current president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, said that no Muslim could commit genocide, that it was impossible for a Muslim to do such a terrible thing.

Admission means he and his countrymen would experience shame and humiliation publicly for what happened and maybe the deepest reason why today Turkey denies the commission of genocide.

Germany carries that shame and in bearing it honestly gives itself self-respect that denial deprives Turkey of.

Acknowledgment of truth means becoming conscious of that truth and provides the basis for taking responsibility for one’s deeds. Both becoming conscious and accepting responsibility can help prevent a repeat of the trauma. Otherwise, trauma is likely to repeat itself in some way, by which I mean that, as someone said, history rhymes, even if it doesn't repeat.

We have to know what the past was to heal the present, and that past has to be spoken and acknowledged.



Absolutely. Can you please describe a moment in your career in conflict resolution, when you did see meaningful progress between conflicting groups?

I would love to, and my best example of this is in my book. First, the background. There were five men who were most responsible for carrying out the Armenian genocide. Three were the heads of the Ottoman government. One of the three was called Djemal Pasha.

When I went to Turkey in 2008 Djemal Pasha’s grandson, Hasan Cemal, was the editor of an important newspaper and a well-known journalist who also hosted a regular TV program, One of his great friends was the Armenian-Turkish journalist, Hrant Dink, who had recently been murdered in cold blood in Istanbul by a right-winger.

The murder changed Hasan Cemal. He began to speak out about the Armenian Genocide, culminating in writing a book that became a bestseller in Turkey called 1915: The Armenian Genocide.

In his journey post-Dink’s death, Cemal traveled went to Armenia, a very small republic located in the South Caucasus west of Azerbaijan. This was a moment when Armenia and Turkey were trying to normalize their relations. Hasan Cemal accompanied the Vice President of Turkey to Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, to observe a football match/”football diplomacy” between the two countries.

While there as a reporter, he took time in his private capacity to meet with the grandson of a man who supposedly assassinated his grandfather. Cemal also visited the genocide memorial, Tsitsernakaberd, and laid flowers in front of its eternal flame.

I met him shortly after that, having immediately thought “This person is genuine,” and immediately invited him to speak at Harvard. I used the photograph of the moment he laid the flowers at the memorial in my notice of the meeting where he agreed to speak (and paid himself for his entire trip).

About a year later, an audience of about 200 who overflowed the hall. Hasan Cemal described how he had reached this point of speaking publicly on the issue.

This was followed by some spontaneous dialogue that took place between him and the audience. That was the moment I am proudest of in my work, and it also inspires some of my recommendations in my book for relationship improvement.

Robert Lifton, the great psychohistorian and author of many important books including on Hiroshima and Nazi doctors, attended the event. Robert said to me afterward that it was a success because it didn't please everybody.

In other words, it pleased a lot of people in a lot of ways but not everybody in all ways, It could have been a beginning for much more open dialogue.

What is the most difficult part of facilitating conflict resolution?

There are two most difficult parts. The first is to know how to go deep, as deep as these incredible traumas are, without getting caught or stuck solely at a personal level. You of course want to hear and acknowledge individuals’ personal experience, but then primarily to understand and work with it as collective or structural.

The second most difficult matter is bringing in and addressing the immense impact of those with power, who are often more interested in holding on to their power than in anything else, and often also corrupt.

We in conflict resolution rarely address either trauma or power (especially as corrupt/arrogant/ignorant). My goal going forward is to try to gather practitioners together to come up with ideas for expanding our work and exploring how to deal with these two gigantic impediments to change. I don't think we have it yet. Not at a large scale level.

I have a little video of a Palestinian and a Jewish Israeli yelling at each other but found their great common ground and then became friends, but it's just two people without political power.

The concepts in conflict resolution and its general method are, I believe, indispensable, but as currently conceived and practiced, it's not sufficient, obviously, to change what's going on at the structural level. As it is, ‘conflict resolution’ is in sum essential but not nearly enough.

Can you speak on the event of President Biden nominating Jeff Flake, as US ambassador to Turkey and the implications of that?

I do not know why President Biden nominated this man for this particular position. Jeff Flake is certainly able and a Republican who supported Biden when it counted.

But why nominate him for Turkey if, right after Biden recognized the Genocide, he, as a member of the House and Senate, voted repeatedly against the Armenian Genocide resolution?

It seems likely that in Biden’s mind, his 2021 recognition settled the U.S. stance on the reality of the Genocide, freeing him to choose someone able to oversee the U.S.’s other important concerns, interests, and complex relations with Turkey.

But it may not be good for faith in the word of the United States. It raises questions to recognize the genocide and send an ambassador who seems to have denied it.

What exactly do you hope readers of your book will come away with?

I really hope they come away with an awareness of how profound the reality of collective trauma is, not only of the traumatic threats and events but also an understanding of the nature and persistence of the trauma across time and space.

Both peoples still show symptoms of trauma over 100 years after. So, I hope people come away with an awareness of the reality of collective trauma in the past, and how it persists.

I hope they come away with an awareness of how those persistent effects hinder improved relations going forward. I hope they become aware of the fact that people in power, who may be the victimizers, often understand themselves as victims, and that they have a basis in reality for that.

And that doesn't mean that those people who committed those terrible deeds should be let off, I believe they, that is, the successor government, must be held responsible, and it does mean that they have some of the same effects of trauma as those who are victims.

You can learn more about Dr. Pamela Steiner, her work, and her book Collective Trauma at www.hsph.harvard.edu/pamela-steiner/

inmag.com Hollywood, CA 323-874-5726 info@inmag.com

Home | Actors/Models | Art | Books | Dining
Film & Video | Food & Wine | Health & Fitness
MediaWatch | Money and Business | Music | Profiles
Professional Services | Sports | Style & Fashion
Technology | Theatre | Travel & Leisure

---

Copyright 1995 - 2024 inmag.com
inmag.com (on line) and in Magazine (in print)
are published by in! communications, Inc.
www.inmag.com