Big ‘T’ and small ‘t’ traumas
In the landscape of trauma studies and therapy, two distinct categories have emerged: big ‘T’ and small ‘t’ traumas. These two groups serve to acknowledge the severity of single-event, easily identifiable big ‘T’ traumas, such as natural disasters, violence, war or abuse, while not dismissing the subtler, yet equally profound, effects of small ‘t’ traumas, such as dysfunctional households, divorce, or financial insecurity.
Big ‘T’ traumas are the catastrophic events that rupture one’s sense of safety and security. They can leave visible scars, on both body and mind, shaping the narrative of one’s life in undeniable ways. Conversely, small ‘t’ traumas encompass the less conspicuous, yet nonetheless impactful, adverse experiences that accumulate over time.
These categories can aid individuals in recognizing that trauma need not result from life-threatening, fear-inducing events. Rather, it should be expected that any experience that produces feelings of disturbance, distress and/or helplessness can result in an impactful trauma.
Misclassification
Nonetheless, there remains something erroneous about deeming any trauma ‘big’ or ‘small’, especially when so many still experience dismissal of their small ‘t’ traumas as “not a big deal”. New labels should be named that eliminate the opposing adjectives of ‘big’ and ‘small’ while still recognizing the differences in traumatic experiences.
Another error of these labels is associating them with ‘trauma’ instead of ‘traumatic event(s)’. Trauma can be understood to be the wound left by traumatic experience(s). Therefore, eliminating ‘big’ and ‘small’, these categories should really be considered something like ‘singular’ and ‘chronic’ traumatic experiences.
The Missing Label
Regardless of the terminology, there remains a silent yet formidable force that transcends these size-based labels – the lack of secure attachment in childhood. Despite its understated presence that may appear similar to an accumulated small ‘t’ trauma (or chronic traumatic experience), this form of trauma yields detrimental implications that reverberate throughout an individual’s life.
One might assume that relationships between caregivers and a child would need to be toxic and abusive to be considered traumatic; however, while insecure attachment may lack the intensity the cumulative effect is not to be underestimated, especially in the effect of the ability to process and recover from future traumas.
Attachment theory, pioneered by psychologist John Bowlby, highlights the fundamental role of early caregiver-child relationships in shaping one’s emotional and psychological development. A secure attachment provides a foundation of trust and safety, fostering resilience in the face of hardship. Children who are securely attached view their caregiver(s) as reliable and responsive to their needs, providing a safe base from which they can explore the world. However, the absence of such bonds can inflict deep wounds that reverberate across the lifespan.
The impact of insecure attachment manifests in myriad ways, permeating various aspects of an individual’s life. From struggles with intimacy and forming meaningful relationships to challenges in regulating emotions and coping with stress, the repercussions are far-reaching. Moreover, the absence of secure attachment can predispose individuals to a host of mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and personality disorders.
Despite its pervasive influence, the trauma stemming from insecure attachment often eludes recognition within traditional paradigms of trauma.
Nonetheless, insecure attachment does not just wound; it stunts emotional brain development.
Imagine a person like a house. Trauma would be cracks in a once stable foundation and the traumatic experience of the jack hammer drilling into it. Insecure attachment trauma would be laying a foundation of dried and splitting mud, building upon it a house that doesn’t stand a chance against even the smallest of rain.
It is not enough to recognize it as a chronic traumatic experience. To overlook the impact of the relationship-based trauma of insecure attachment is to disregard the cornerstone of human experience – our innate need for connection and belonging. Indeed, the absence of secure attachments represents a fundamental betrayal of this primal need, echoing throughout the lifespan with enduring consequences. Research has shown that the difference in a person’s ability to heal and process trauma rests heavily on their relationship in early childhood with their parents or caregivers.
In conclusion, as we endeavor to create a more trauma-informed world, let us be mindful of the terminology and labels we accept in a ‘name-it-to-tame-it’ fashion. Additionally, let us not overlook the quiet yet profound wounds inflicted by the absence of secure connections.