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.
I felt like the book was a slog. I read it, but didn’t feel very enlightened by it. I just remember feeling angry that it took men coming back from Vietnam for *any* research about PTSD to begin.
I couldn't make it past the first chapter, as I felt like he was intentionally triggering the reader with the horrific violence of war crimes. I thought Stephanie Foo's memoir of recovery from cPTSD was much more helpful for me personally.
Same. I felt traumatized by reading the passages of horrific violence and cruelty. Couldn’t make it though first few chapters and felt like a failure since it was such a Bible. Glad to have found this thread and the article by Emi.
As a follow up…I’m now listening to Gabor Maté’s Realm of Hungry Ghosts and he at one point refers to an act of violence for which there would be no benefit in sharing in detail within the narrative. Thanks, Gabor. Appreciate it.♥️
Hi Emi I read the book several years ago when I was trying to understand how trauma affects our brain and life. After reading your article I see the bigger picture now and can see that a lot of it is based on his opinion and theory…ask most people what theory means and they give you that look! so thanks for the help sorting some of the mess out
Van Der Kolk reminds me of Brene Brown - the “practitioner” who is also mostly a money- making platform (if you are around psychology or the trauma world at all, you cannot avoid their self-promoting events, as if they were continuously reproducing bots). Brown had a much more negative effect on me, and she is a general fraud as a social worker/“researcher,” could you do an article on her? As if what women need to learn is to become more vulnerable. Both Kolk and Brpwn are deeply condescending towards the people they are purporting to “fix.” I have always directed women away from Kolk and towards Judith Herman. Kolk also assumes throughout his book that the trauma is over and the victim is safe, which really only applies to certain types of trauma, and to DV almost never. As a survivor of severe DV I detest CBT and have found talk therapy to be the least helpful, but that is why should have options, and everyone needs to stop telling us what to do and putting us in one basket. Thank you for this article.
I have been waiting for someone to write this piece!
I first read this book in the depths of my trauma, and was horrified by so much that I discovered inside it. The complete lack of humanity afforded to the Vietnamese woman raped by an American soldier has stayed with me, in particular.
Thank you so much for writing this important piece. I'll be referring people to it for years to come!
I am a trauma therapist who works primarily with children and families who have experienced foster care/adoption. TBKTS was a gateway for me, and I have (regretfully) recommended it to others (I have since changed my recommendations). It was a really big deal in that it made people aware but your reporting is also enlightening. There seems to be very little “practice wisdom” in that the author is not primarily a practitioner any more and does not know how to speak or conceptualize the horrors that people go through. I’m glad for the callouts and recognizing how much is written off/dismissed/marginalized etc etc in the book. Grateful for a better understanding now than I had then.
I have it but have not read it. Supposedly it’s the Bible of trauma books therefore it is in my library. Now I’m thinking I should can it altogether. I’m too old to waste my time on bad books! I did just read What My Bones Know and felt it was very powerful and just what I needed to make some very insightful revelations about my life. I’m thinking of moving onto Peter Levine next. Any thoughts?
It's a shame that this book is recommended as required reading for those with trauma, because I've found it to be extremely triggering and not really helpful at all to those who are not practitioners or therapists. At the time that Van Der Kolk wrote this, the idea that trauma lived in the body was totally disregarded as quackery and "woo woo." I think the way he writes the book was intention in that he was trying to gain some legitimacy in the psychology space. In this sense, I think he succeeded pretty impressively! Unfortunately the psychology space has always been very ego driven and has always had a chip on it's shoulder in trying to be accepted as a more "hard science." In this way, I'm really grateful for the Body Keeps the Score because it opened the door for other practitioners to write more client-centered books and legitimized somatic psychology. I don't think we can fault Van Der Kolk for playing the unfortunate but necessary "game," but rather to start to understand why the game even exists in the first place and the harm it causes to victims of trauma and mental illness.
agreed completely! my therapist training happened before the book was published and we didn't learn ANYTHING he covered so as you said the book introduced a lot of really useful concepts. he wasn't the first but the success of BKTS allowed for a wider reach so people could expand their understanding of trauma. I'm enjoying seeing the additional recommendations here too!!
I appreciated your Mother Jones article and the whole discussion. Research and data, like all systems is so skewed by the lenses of white supremacy, colonialism, and patriarchy. I love that the answer is getting to tell (and write) the story over and over until we feel better, free, and in charge of our own goddamn story.
Thanks for this. There seems to be some books that serve a purpose of somehow being a gateway to a new world and way of seeing for a lot of people. They are usually not the best book on that topic by a long shot. And they are often deeply flawed and yet serve a purpose of getting people to see and think a new way.
For anyone interested we did an interview with Resmaa about My Grandmothers Hands.
I could never get into it and this article expands on my experience. I had a great experience with Resmaa Menakem’s My Grandmother’s Hands - it includes the sociocultural elements that contribute to trauma
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!
yes! Yes Yes! Glad you got it off your chest and I agree with both the positives and the negatives!
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.
I'm really glad it was helpful to you! Don't let anything I write negate that
I felt like the book was a slog. I read it, but didn’t feel very enlightened by it. I just remember feeling angry that it took men coming back from Vietnam for *any* research about PTSD to begin.
agreed!!
I very much disliked this book, beginning with that narcissistic tone of the author. Where can I find your article?
Also, I loved Complex PTSD by Pete Walker. He's kind and humble. That's probably why his book is hard to find.
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2024/12/trauma-body-keeps-the-score-van-der-kolk-psychology-therapy-ptsd/
Complex PTSD by Pete Walker is an excellent book!
Thank you for this. I got some amazing things from the book, and oddly didn’t register any of the many problematic points you addressed.
aww thank you!
I couldn't make it past the first chapter, as I felt like he was intentionally triggering the reader with the horrific violence of war crimes. I thought Stephanie Foo's memoir of recovery from cPTSD was much more helpful for me personally.
Same. I felt traumatized by reading the passages of horrific violence and cruelty. Couldn’t make it though first few chapters and felt like a failure since it was such a Bible. Glad to have found this thread and the article by Emi.
As a follow up…I’m now listening to Gabor Maté’s Realm of Hungry Ghosts and he at one point refers to an act of violence for which there would be no benefit in sharing in detail within the narrative. Thanks, Gabor. Appreciate it.♥️
Hi Emi I read the book several years ago when I was trying to understand how trauma affects our brain and life. After reading your article I see the bigger picture now and can see that a lot of it is based on his opinion and theory…ask most people what theory means and they give you that look! so thanks for the help sorting some of the mess out
Thanks!!
Ugh this book kills me. Thank you so so so much for writing this!
You are SO welcome! <3
Van Der Kolk reminds me of Brene Brown - the “practitioner” who is also mostly a money- making platform (if you are around psychology or the trauma world at all, you cannot avoid their self-promoting events, as if they were continuously reproducing bots). Brown had a much more negative effect on me, and she is a general fraud as a social worker/“researcher,” could you do an article on her? As if what women need to learn is to become more vulnerable. Both Kolk and Brpwn are deeply condescending towards the people they are purporting to “fix.” I have always directed women away from Kolk and towards Judith Herman. Kolk also assumes throughout his book that the trauma is over and the victim is safe, which really only applies to certain types of trauma, and to DV almost never. As a survivor of severe DV I detest CBT and have found talk therapy to be the least helpful, but that is why should have options, and everyone needs to stop telling us what to do and putting us in one basket. Thank you for this article.
would also LOVE to see a critical analysis of Brene Brown!
I have been waiting for someone to write this piece!
I first read this book in the depths of my trauma, and was horrified by so much that I discovered inside it. The complete lack of humanity afforded to the Vietnamese woman raped by an American soldier has stayed with me, in particular.
Thank you so much for writing this important piece. I'll be referring people to it for years to come!
I am a trauma therapist who works primarily with children and families who have experienced foster care/adoption. TBKTS was a gateway for me, and I have (regretfully) recommended it to others (I have since changed my recommendations). It was a really big deal in that it made people aware but your reporting is also enlightening. There seems to be very little “practice wisdom” in that the author is not primarily a practitioner any more and does not know how to speak or conceptualize the horrors that people go through. I’m glad for the callouts and recognizing how much is written off/dismissed/marginalized etc etc in the book. Grateful for a better understanding now than I had then.
I made the mistake of recommedning it to some of my early trauma clients too, Michael
I have it but have not read it. Supposedly it’s the Bible of trauma books therefore it is in my library. Now I’m thinking I should can it altogether. I’m too old to waste my time on bad books! I did just read What My Bones Know and felt it was very powerful and just what I needed to make some very insightful revelations about my life. I’m thinking of moving onto Peter Levine next. Any thoughts?
It's a shame that this book is recommended as required reading for those with trauma, because I've found it to be extremely triggering and not really helpful at all to those who are not practitioners or therapists. At the time that Van Der Kolk wrote this, the idea that trauma lived in the body was totally disregarded as quackery and "woo woo." I think the way he writes the book was intention in that he was trying to gain some legitimacy in the psychology space. In this sense, I think he succeeded pretty impressively! Unfortunately the psychology space has always been very ego driven and has always had a chip on it's shoulder in trying to be accepted as a more "hard science." In this way, I'm really grateful for the Body Keeps the Score because it opened the door for other practitioners to write more client-centered books and legitimized somatic psychology. I don't think we can fault Van Der Kolk for playing the unfortunate but necessary "game," but rather to start to understand why the game even exists in the first place and the harm it causes to victims of trauma and mental illness.
agreed completely! my therapist training happened before the book was published and we didn't learn ANYTHING he covered so as you said the book introduced a lot of really useful concepts. he wasn't the first but the success of BKTS allowed for a wider reach so people could expand their understanding of trauma. I'm enjoying seeing the additional recommendations here too!!
I appreciated your Mother Jones article and the whole discussion. Research and data, like all systems is so skewed by the lenses of white supremacy, colonialism, and patriarchy. I love that the answer is getting to tell (and write) the story over and over until we feel better, free, and in charge of our own goddamn story.
Thanks for this. There seems to be some books that serve a purpose of somehow being a gateway to a new world and way of seeing for a lot of people. They are usually not the best book on that topic by a long shot. And they are often deeply flawed and yet serve a purpose of getting people to see and think a new way.
For anyone interested we did an interview with Resmaa about My Grandmothers Hands.
https://www.oneyoufeed.net/racialized-trauma/
I could never get into it and this article expands on my experience. I had a great experience with Resmaa Menakem’s My Grandmother’s Hands - it includes the sociocultural elements that contribute to trauma