Trauma is frequently used in everyday language to describe any distressing or challenging experience. However, within psychological literature, trauma does not simply refer to what has happened but rather to the internal impact an experience leaves behind. Psychological trauma emerges when an individual’s capacity to cope is overwhelmed, resulting in lasting disruptions in emotional regulation, sense of safety, and self-coherence (Pearlman & Saakvitne, 1995). In this sense, trauma is not defined by the intensity of an event alone, but by the degree to which it exceeds the individual’s available psychological and emotional resources.

Trauma fundamentally challenges an individual’s assumptions about safety, control, and continuity in relation to the self, others, and the world. While difficult events are common in human life, not all adversities are traumatic. Trauma is shaped less by the event itself and more by how the experience is internally processed and whether the individual has access to emotional support during and after the event.

For example, an airplane taking off is a familiar and expected occurrence and therefore does not elicit a traumatic response, whereas an airplane crash is unpredictable, overwhelming, and potentially life-threatening, making it traumatic. Similarly, knowing that earthquakes are a reality of life differs significantly from directly experiencing one; the latter confronts the individual with a sudden loss of safety and control that may overwhelm coping capacity. When an experience cannot be emotionally integrated, it remains unprocessed and continues to exert its influence long after the event has passed.

Judith Herman (1998) conceptualizes trauma recovery as a staged process involving the restoration of safety, the integration of traumatic memories, and the reestablishment of meaningful connections with others and with life. From this perspective, trauma is not resolved solely through symptom reduction but through rebuilding a sense of agency, trust, and relational engagement. The presence of safe and supportive relationships plays a central role in mitigating the isolation and helplessness that trauma often creates. Without a foundation of safety, attempts to process traumatic material may feel overwhelming or even re-traumatizing, highlighting the necessity of relational stability before meaning-making can occur.

Similarly, Gabor Maté emphasizes that trauma is not defined by the external event but by the internal disconnection it produces. According to Maté, traumatic experiences disrupt the individual’s connection to their emotional world and bodily awareness, leading to patterns of emotional suppression and self-alienation (Maté, 2010; Maté, 2018). Healing, therefore, involves restoring contact with one’s emotions, body, and authentic self through compassionate and attuned relationships. From this perspective, trauma creates a narrowing of the individual’s capacity to respond to life, constricting flexibility and choice. This constriction is experienced not only psychologically but also somatically, as the body remains organized around survival rather than engagement.

Both Herman’s and Maté’s perspectives highlight that trauma recovery is not an isolated, purely intrapsychic process. Rather, it unfolds within relational contexts that foster safety, understanding, and emotional attunement. Reconnecting with life after trauma does not mean erasing the past but integrating the experience in a way that allows the individual to regain flexibility, meaning, and a renewed sense of belonging.

This relational dimension is particularly evident in childhood trauma. For children, traumatic impact often arises not solely from the event itself, but from the emotional responses of caregivers. When a child is exposed to intense loss, fear, or disruption, such as in a funeral setting, without explanations, emotional mirroring, or reassurance, the surrounding reactions may become more overwhelming than the event itself. In the absence of a containing and clarifying environment, the child’s internal experience may solidify into a deeper traumatic imprint.

Healing, in this sense, is not about returning to who one was before the trauma but about developing a new relationship with oneself and the world, one that can hold both vulnerability and resilience.

References

Herman, J. L. (1998). Recovery from psychological trauma. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 52(S5), S145–S150.
Maté, G. (2010). In the realm of hungry ghosts: Close encounters with addiction. North Atlantic Books.
Maté, G. (2018). When the body says no: The cost of hidden stress. Vintage.
Pearlman, L. A., & Saakvitne, K. W. (1995). Trauma and the therapist: Countertransference and vicarious traumatization in psychotherapy. W. W. Norton.