The Dominant Ontology of Trauma: Why It Keeps Us Stuck
Trauma is a word we encounter frequently—in conversations about mental health, in discussions about societal harm, and in our personal experiences. Yet, the way trauma is understood and treated in dominant frameworks often keeps us stuck in cycles of harm. This is because trauma is typically framed within what Arturo Escobar and others refer to as the dominant ontology—a worldview that emphasizes separation, individualism, and control.
In this model, trauma is reduced to a personal affliction, a problem within the individual that needs to be “fixed.” While this perspective has contributed to advancements in mental health, it also comes with significant limitations. It overlooks the relational, systemic, and historical dimensions of trauma, focusing instead on symptoms, diagnoses, and individual recovery. But trauma doesn’t exist in isolation, and healing cannot truly occur without addressing the broader context in which it arises.
How the Dominant Ontology Frames Trauma
The dominant ontology is built on a foundation of separation. It views humans as separate from nature, mind as separate from body, and individuals as separate from one another. Within this framework, trauma is seen as an internal disruption—something that affects the individual’s psyche or body but is disconnected from the systems and relationships that shape their lives.
This perspective is deeply rooted in Western, colonial ways of thinking. It treats trauma as a problem to be solved, often through medical or therapeutic interventions that prioritize control and normalization. While these approaches can be helpful, they also reinforce the idea that the individual is solely responsible for their healing, disregarding the systemic forces—like colonialism, capitalism, and racism—that contribute to trauma in the first place.
Why This Approach Keeps Us Stuck
By focusing on individual pathology, the dominant ontology obscures the relational and systemic roots of trauma. For instance, the ongoing impacts of colonialism on Indigenous communities are not just historical—they are active, systemic traumas that affect relationships with land, culture, and identity. Addressing these traumas requires more than individual therapy; it requires systemic change and relational repair.
When trauma is framed as an individual problem, it also isolates those who experience it. People may feel shame or inadequacy for not “recovering” quickly enough, or for needing support beyond what is typically offered. This isolation perpetuates harm, as it reinforces the very disconnection that trauma creates.
Rethinking Trauma Through a Relational Lens
Relational ontologies offer a different way of understanding trauma—one that emphasizes connection, community, and interdependence. In this view, trauma is not just an individual wound but a rupture in relationality. Healing, then, is not about fixing the individual; it’s about restoring relationships—with oneself, with others, and with the systems and environments that sustain life.
This shift in perspective invites us to move beyond the dominant ontology and toward a more inclusive, holistic approach to trauma. It asks us to consider how systemic forces like colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy contribute to harm, and how addressing these forces is essential for true healing.
An Invitation
What would it look like to reimagine trauma not as an individual flaw, but as a signal of disconnection in our collective web of relationships? How might healing change if it prioritized relational repair and systemic transformation over individual recovery?
The dominant ontology of trauma keeps us stuck because it isolates us, obscures systemic harms, and treats healing as a personal responsibility. But by embracing relational ways of being, we can begin to mend the fractures in our relationships and create pathways to collective healing. Let’s walk this journey together, weaving new ways of understanding, connecting, and healing.
