International relations (IR) scholarship has seen numerous “turns” over the decades; from the New Materialist to the emotional, to the practice and the aesthetic. In From the Ashes of History, Adam B. Lerner makes the case for a “trauma turn” in IR, arguing that “collective trauma must be understood as foundational to the international system” (p. 91). He contends that “collective trauma can shape the enduring understandings of self and other that delineate the international arena’s primary actors, as well as the logic informing these actors’ interactions” (p. 11). The claim is ambitious and requires both theoretical and empirical rigor from the author. Lerner succeeds in part.
From the Ashes of History presents a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding and interpreting collective trauma in international politics. Applying this framework to three case studies, Lerner demonstrates how taking collective trauma seriously can shed new light on the dynamics of contestation and change in various contexts. He provides an impressive level of empirical detail in the three case studies: India, Israel, and the United States. However, the cases also illuminate the limitations of the work. In short, Lerner identifies but fails to counter the Western bias in trauma and IR scholarship. Moreover, the absence of the individual in his empirical work undermines his conceptualization of collective trauma as a multilevel crisis of representation.
Lerner builds upon a burgeoning IR trauma scholarship (see, e.g., Jenny Edkins, Trauma and the Memory of Politics, 2003; Emma Hutchison, Affective Communities in World Politics: Collective Emotions after Trauma, 2016) in addition to the interdisciplinary field of trauma studies (Cathy Caruth, Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History, 2016 [1996]; Dominick LaCapra, Writing History, Writing Trauma, 2001). In the former, Lerner pays particular attention to psychoanalytical and emotional approaches to trauma in international politics. Crucially, he identifies a theoretical gap in accounting for variation in outcomes: in other words, how some, but not all, traumas come to shape international politics (pp. 10–11). For the latter, Lerner identifies scope for broadening trauma studies to the international political level, beyond the European and North American origins of the discipline (p. 218).
The book’s first main contribution is “a new approach to reading the mass violence of international politics and its long-term impact on political imaginaries” (pp. 209–210). Lerner’s theoretical framework works from the fundamental paradox that “while underlying individual psychic trauma can repress memory and break down social ties, collective trauma is typically identified as a potent social and political force that can mobilize groups and motivate action” (p. 27). Lerner advocates for ontological fluidity, which leads him to define “collective trauma” as “the multilevel crisis of representation that stems from the politicization of mass violence” (p. 20). According to Lerner, this crisis results from multiple levels of tension “between self and other (especially the subaltern self and the elite other), between individuals and institutional actors such as states, and between the ideational and material” (p. 48).
The strength of Lerner’s theory comes not from its innovation, but from its synchronization of numerous connections between trauma and international politics. Like other IR trauma scholars, Lerner asserts that in this context of crisis, it is narratives of collective trauma that serve as “vital meaning-making devices” (p. 55). These collective trauma narratives, Lerner continues, impact international politics in their ability to shape and reshape state identity (p. 66). Lerner is not the first to connect collective trauma with political identity. Nonetheless, his theoretical framework adeptly articulates the explanatory power of collective trauma in international politics and provides for empirical application.
The second central contribution of the book is the challenge it mounts against Western bias in the study of trauma (p. 210). Lerner’s identification of this bias is commendable, and the work rightfully acknowledges the Eurocentric origins of both IR and trauma studies scholarship. Unfortunately, however, the author is less successful in meeting the challenge. Lerner builds his theory and method on predominantly Western literature, examples, and assumptions. Situating the work within existing Western scholarship there is a glaring absence of the vast literature that speaks directly to the trauma of imperialism, colonialism, and postcolonial politics: work by Frantz Fanon, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, and Ashis Nandy, to name but a few. Lerner’s account also omits feminist work that critiques trauma as an experience based on the White, European male (Bonnie Burstow, “Toward a Radical Understanding of Trauma and Trauma Work,” Violence against Women, 9(11), 2003; Laura Quiros and Roni Berger, “Responding to the Sociopolitical Complexity of Trauma: An Integration of Theory and Practice,” Journal of Loss and Trauma, 20(2), 2015). These exclusions are problematic in any critical account of trauma, but even more so given the author’s stated ambition to challenge Western bias. Moreover, Lerner employs a number of illustrative examples to guide the reader through the theoretical chapters that center Western knowledge and experience. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Global War on Terror are used frequently. Lerner briefly uses the cases of Slobodan Milošević, the People’s Republic of China, and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Lastly, specific normative assumptions in the work replicate Western interpretations of trauma and healing. This is visible in Lerner’s reference to debates over “acting out” and “working through” collective trauma in which there is a subtle but evident normative value placed on the latter (see p. 45). Given the European and North American origins of the concepts, such an assumption is questionable in a work seeking to challenge Western bias.
The failure to challenge Western bias becomes more problematic in the empirical chapters. Firstly, the cases remain focused at the Western-centric IR “level” of the state. This is puzzling given Lerner’s theorization of collective trauma as a multilevel crises of representation. Throughout the case studies, the first level of this crises, between the subaltern and the elite, is absent: The trauma of individuals is assumed. Thus, despite calling for ontological flexibility and epistemological evolution, Lerner remains within the traditional state-centric remit of Western IR. The first case, that of Indian independence and the building of an autarkic state, does empirically push the boundaries of trauma studies and IR trauma literature. The problem lies in Lerner’s application of a theory largely formulated in the Western literature and canon to a non-Western case. In other words, despite his intentions, Lerner effectively reproduces the Western, colonial epistemic hierarchy: Theory comes from “here” (the West) and data comes from “there” (the non-West) (see Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 1999). The following two cases, that of Israel and the Eichmann Trial and the United States and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are nominally Western centric. Lerner’s argument concerning the Israeli case involves the translation of collective trauma from Germany to Arab neighbors. The regional dynamics of the case, however, are minor compared to focus on the trial and Israeli–Europe relations. Finally, the US and PTSD chapter is wholly Western-centric. Lerner’s use of data is innovative and he makes an important point regarding the sidelining of Iraqi and Afghan victims through the use of PTSD discourse (p. 201). However, once more, it is unclear how the case contributes to his stated aim of challenging Western bias in trauma studies and IR.
In sum, From the Ashes of History provides an articulate and comprehensive theoretical framework of collective trauma, proficiently building upon existing IR and trauma studies literature. Lerner’s framework does have potential for illuminating the central role of trauma in shaping and reshaping national identities and thus, international politics. However, the author’s ambition to challenge the Western bias of trauma studies and IR is left unfulfilled. From theory to empirics, From the Ashes of History centers Western approaches and understandings of trauma that become increasingly problematic when applied to non-Western contexts. Future work seeking to meaningfully counter this bias would benefit from engaging in literature and practice by non-Western scholars to consider what trauma is and how it functions outside of the ontology, epistemology, and methodology of the Western academy.
