Harvard- “Child Sexual Abuse Not Traumatic”
January 28, 2010 by Diane
A Harvard researcher wrote a book recently titled: The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children—and its Aftermath. The New York Times wrote about it on January 25, 2010 as follows:[1]
“For a graduate research project at Harvard in the mid-1990s, the psychologist Susan A. Clancy arranged to interview adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, expecting to confirm the conventional wisdom that the more traumatic the abuse had been, the more troubled an adult the child had become. Dr. Clancy figured she knew what she would find: “Everything I knew dictated that the abuse should be a horrible experience, that the child should be traumatized at the time it was happening — overwhelmed with fear, shock, horror.””
“But many carefully documented interviews revealed nothing of the sort. Commonly, the abuse had been confusing for the child but not traumatic in the usual sense of the word. Only when the child grew old enough to understand exactly what had happened — sometimes many years later — did the fear, shock and horror begin. And only at that point did the experience become traumatic and begin its well-known destructive process.”
“Her data flew in the face of several decades of politically correct trauma theory, feminist theory and sexual politics. “Unfortunately, when people heard ‘not traumatic when it happens,’….some assumed I was blaming victims for their abuse.” She argues, it is her model that may really help victims. Adult survivors of childhood abuse are commonly mortified by their own behavior as children. By not fighting back or calling for help, they blame themselves for effectively colluding with their abuser. It can be intensely comforting for them to hear that their reaction, or lack thereof, was completely normal.”
“Dr. Clancy’s model also makes some sense of the whole sticky question of repressed memory. If instances of sexual abuse are simply among the many confusions that characterize childhood, they are perfectly forgettable: “Why should a child remember them if, at the time they happened, they were not particularly traumatic?” The moral of Dr. Clancy’s story is clear: science should represent truth, not wishful thinking.
Three top trauma researchers from the Trauma Division of the American Psychological Association responded to this article in the New York Times by stating:
“While it’s fashionable for authors to position themselves as contrary to a dominant narrative as a means of attracting attention to their work, Susan Clancy’s stance is neither contrary or new. Since the mid 1990’s, researchers and clinicians in the field of child sexual abuse (CSA) have known and written about the fact that what is traumagenic for some of the victims of this crime is their later understanding that what has been done to them is a relational betrayal. Clancy correctly challenges the notion that all trauma is fear-based, given that much CSA occurs in family and other close relational contexts. What she ignores, and reviewer Zuger, not a trauma expert, could not know, is that the field of trauma psychology has long since understood that some traumas arise from relational betrayals and the violation of social contracts, what Janoff-Bulman long-ago called the loss of the just world, and Freyd calls Betrayal Trauma.”
“Child sexual abuse is damaging to the vast majority of its victims, not simply because it is sometimes frightening, but also because of the many ways in which it disrupts normal child development and the capacity for normative relational functioning. Regardless of how the child formulated what is happening at the time of CSA, survivors of this type of abuse often find, later in life, that this violation has deprived them of the opportunity to experience adaptive and gratifying sexual functioning, left them with a greatly disrupted capacity to trust other people, and created the experience of tremendous confusion about, and discomfort engaging in, emotionally intimate relationships.”
Before I talk about my reaction to this book, I would like to hear from other survivors your reactions. I’ll discuss my thoughts in my next blog.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/health/26zuger.html?emc=eta1
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm and is filed under Brick Wall of Denial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 29, 2010 at 7:08 pm
I haven’t read the book, but according to the conclusion here, it does look like Clancy’s understanding of the matter is very limited. Nothing new, as the Trauma Division pointed, but very very scary it should come from Harvard…. Next thing, the perpetrators will be off on a fine.
January 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm
It is scary. First of all, most perpetrators are never identified, and when, on the rare occasion, they are tried in court, they plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist. In the meantime, we as survivors suffer with their the aftermath of our abuse our entire lives.
January 30, 2010 at 7:36 pm
I was sexually abused/violated as a child by my father. My main psychological memory (if this makes sense) was that he didn’t really mean to do it. Pity, I felt pity for him. I feared him. I was reluctant to speak, reluctant to be seen, feeding in many ways into the secret.
As an adult, I can’t connect with and I do not trust people. I have been suicidal, and then live as though in defiance of all that exists before me. I cannot accept gifts from men most especially.
I am a college graduate, slinking in as a mature undergraduate and then moving on through graduate school because I found institutes of higher education exactly an institution.
Clancy’s research, in my experience, is light weight. Perhaps I write here out of context of her full document, but when you are raised as I was raised there is a normalcy to sexual violation and psychological abuse that when you move out into the world you find this normalcy is far from what is the normal, far from what is accepted.
January 31, 2010 at 11:14 am
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your experiences. One of the most difficult issues we have to deal with in recovery is how to interpret both our abuser’s and our own behavior when growing up. The power difference between an adult and a child is enormous, thus a child is totally at the mercy of the adult. When our trust is betrayed because we were reaching out for innocent affection, it is hard to put the blame where it really belongs – on the child molester. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong. You were totally innocent and now are dealing with the consequences. Your reactions are normal based on what you experienced.
You used a great description of Clancy – a light weight.
With using the Harvard name, she implies legitimacy in what she says. I learned a long time ago, just because you have a title, college credentials, or other trappings of authority, does not make your interpretations valid. I will go into more detail in my next blog about what I think about her book, but I hope I’ve responded to your thoughts in a way that is helpful.
January 31, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I agree, Diane. I work in higher education administration. A person can argue anything true and build a fence around them made out of certificates, degrees, accolades, so what are “credentials”? Controlled studies are always biased.
I thought just that my experiences shared here in a nutshell would add murk to her clear and watery light weight findings, not ever doubting the point in sharing a link to her article here.
For her to ask “did you feel afraid” or “do you remember feeling afraid” and have the majority not remember – what I think every person can remember from childhood (abused, not abused) is being on the receiving end, being open to receive. Memories are likely more to do with what is going on outside rather than how we felt inside at the time. Children are not focused on themselves. Children are not narcissistic. Children are too dependent to think of themselves, how they feel about things, and sex is adult, sexual violation. It is entirely adult.
I would tell Clancy I have physiological memories, and these reoccur and there’s nothing to prevent them. To explain what these are or might be like, I would say these might be like experiencing a second terrible car accident, following one you were in years ago where you were the only survivor. Like, being kidnapped after a history of living in a concentration camp. How would an adult feel inside?
There’s a tremendous stigma in America and I think it has to do with paralysis. If there is no such thing as healing from (in my case ‘repeated’) sexual abuse as a broken bone heals, if there is no such thing actually as ‘moving on’ the way some people marry and divorce and remarry, there’s the dirty well situation. The town won’t drink the water, they know they cannot help the situation, there’s no such thing as ‘help’. There’s understanding and the idea we need to take any amount of it and run evokes promise there’s a solution.
The solution won’t be found in any study.
I’ve been annoyed that university’s nearly guarantee child abuse will always be around, given the degree programs offered in counselor education, e.g. Child abuse is a part of the economy on many fronts, and by now I have gone off my point: studies are bunk, which I think ultimately was the point to including a link to this one out of Harvard here.
January 31, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I agree with everything you said. My response to this book will appear in my blog tomorrow. It is very strong because I am tired of survivors getting the short end of the stick. I hope you will comment on that blog as well.