What the Most Famous Book About Trauma Gets Wrong
People kept telling me to read “The Body Keeps the Score.” I was shocked at what it actually says.
If you know me, you know I have strong feelings about The Body Keeps the Score, the mega-hit bestseller by Bessel van der Kolk. (TW: SA) After a child runs away from her group home and is gang raped, VDK writes:
“Trying to explain her behavior in terms of victim/perpetrator isn’t helpful.”
WHAT? My friends, that is just the beginning.
For over a year, I pitched a story that was a close read of the book. When I pitched Mother Jones the editor suggested: “Why don’t you report it?”
And OMG. The things I learned.
I was having a great conversation with Jennie Noll, a leading sexual abuse researcher, and asked her opinion on this passage, summarizing a study:
“Oh my god,” she said, “That’s so awful” and went on and on about how that is not the norm, not accurate on average, and is so disrespectful to summarize any group of people as being “simply too weird” to have friends.
After our call, I wondered: how would the researcher who wrote did study feel about this summary of it?
Friends, Jennie Noll was the researcher!!!
This was my wildest ride yet as a writer. So grateful to Mother Jones and my amazing editor.
If this book helped you or someone you know, I’m so glad! But I still think it’s worth giving my article a read, if only to get a broader sense of how research gets used (abused?) — and maybe why you might not want to recommend the book…
What did you think of The Body Keeps the Score if you read it? Are you surprised by this story?!
I, like others, read this book a decade ago, and I remember liking it (but I bet if I read it now, I wouldn't as much). From what I remember, he made strong points about the pharmaceutical industry having too much power over what is and isn't classified as an mental illness, leading to children with trauma being diagnosed with ADHD or anxiety (which can be easily medicated)— so surface-level symptoms are effectively stifled but the deeper trauma is not addressed. I liked the end, when he explores alternative therapies. And he also makes some generally interesting observations about the nervous system and common therapies for trauma, such as EMDR. (I'm sorry EMDR did not work for you. Your therapist— wtf.)
But even in 2014, I was shocked that he included the Vietnam veteran who confessed to raping women during the war and was a horrible husband and father after the war. He was likely to be abusing his family. The author knows many people who will purchase the book are likely victims of trauma, so why would he include this sympathetic vignette about a person who perpetrates traumas? I've read that abusive men often lie in therapeutic contexts, so how can he trust the abuser is telling the truth when he says he has improved? Did he reach out to the wife and kids? How do we know he didn't have a violently misogynistic perspective before he went to Vietnam— what if he went to fulfill his most disgusting fantasies without repercussions? How can he feel empathy for the victims and truly understand their condition if he is expressing empathy for abusers simultaneously? I remember feeling so bad for people who may feel re-victimized after reading that. Imagine experiencing trauma and looking for resources that will help you heal just to read that? At the very least, exploration of rehabilitation/therapy for abusers should have been a separate book.
And, as you say in your article, his writing is so frustratingly careless. Like, people who experience trauma *could* be more likely to put themselves in further traumatic situations because of trauma bonding, being in mental/physical pain that causes them to make unhealthy decisions, relying on/trusting people who give bad advice, sticking to the known (even if bad) vs. the unknown (even if good), but "addicted to trauma" doesn't say all of that.
(Also, the idea that "abused people abuse people" feels off to me. It describes some abuse, certainly, but there are many people who experienced abuse who do not abuse others and many who did not experience abuse who do. Abuse comes from a mindset of entitlement, not of mental illness. In old movies, if the TV didn't work (by showing moving pictures), the character feels entitled to slap the metal. In abusive relationships, if a woman "doesn't work" (by freely offering sexual, domestic, and emotional labor at all times and having no emotions, needs, or will of her own), men feel entitled to slap the woman. Both of these actions come from a set of beliefs that hinge on entitlement. It's a mindset. I'm using a heterosexual example with a male abuser and a female victim because I think it's the easiest to understand. (I am not a therapist nor any kind of expert on abuse, but this is what makes more sense to me. Lundy Bancroft explores these themes in his books.))
His generation of psychologists and psychiatrists operated in a much more white-centric, heteronormative world, and now their research feels outmoded. For example, John Gottman is a well-respected researcher who focused on couples. I love and often recommend parts of his books, especially "What Makes Love Last?" and "Raising an Emotionally Intelligent Child". He applies a therapy-client model in which trust is paramount and respect is assumed to couples. A lot of his recommendations are just therapy practices modified for couples (emotion identification, validation, etc.). And that is awesome, but respect is not always assumed in a couples relationship. He doesn't address, for example, toxic masculinity, gendered socialization, race, or even sex! So it feels really outdated. Another example is Philip Zimbardo. In "The Lucifer Effect", he invokes an example about Israeli judges (who are more likely to give out more lenient sentences in the morning than in the afternoon), and says outright that Israelis are not biased against Palestinians. Girl! How am I gonna trust anything you say after that one? So anyway. These men had a lot to offer through their observations, research, and theories, but because of their insane blindness towards racism and misogyny, their work is glaringly flawed.
Oh well. Take what is salvageable and throw out the rest. Onward.
I guess I had that on my chest for ten years. Gotta eat lunch now!
I read the book a couple of years ago and it really helped me to understand that the PTSD symptoms I had were a result of my brain not working properly, not because I was a bad or weak person. It made me feel better to know and understand that my brain was activating in a way it was trained to do. This provided a comfort to me. I didn't notice the other things you mentioned, likely because I was feeling so much relief that someone was at least delving into this phenomenon that could explain why my body and brain were doing things I couldn't seem to control. I'm looking forward to reading your article.