What Is the Biomedical Model of Trauma?
Trauma is often understood through the biomedical model, a framework rooted in Western medicine that focuses on diagnosing and treating trauma as an individual, biological problem. This approach views trauma as a disruption in the brain or body, often attributed to specific events or conditions, and emphasizes interventions aimed at “fixing” these disruptions. While this model has contributed valuable insights, its limitations are increasingly evident, particularly in addressing the systemic, relational, and cultural dimensions of trauma.
Understanding the Biomedical Model
The biomedical model of trauma focuses on the physical and psychological impacts of trauma on the individual. It often emphasizes measurable changes in brain chemistry, nervous system dysregulation, and symptoms such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD. This framework has been instrumental in advancing treatments such as medication, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and trauma-focused therapies aimed at symptom reduction.
While these tools can be effective for some, the model’s focus on individual pathology can overlook the broader context in which trauma occurs. By isolating trauma within the individual, the biomedical model risks ignoring the systemic forces—like racism, colonialism, and economic inequality—that create and perpetuate cycles of harm.
The Limits of Individualized Pathology
One major critique of the biomedical model is its tendency to depoliticize trauma, framing it as a personal issue rather than a relational or systemic one. For instance, survivors of intergenerational trauma rooted in colonization or systemic oppression may be diagnosed with PTSD, but the diagnosis alone doesn’t address the historical and structural causes of their suffering.
This reductionist approach often reinforces the logic of separation—a hallmark of colonial systems—by disconnecting individuals from the relational and cultural contexts that shape their experiences. It also risks pathologizing those who deviate from “normal” behavior, sidelining diverse ways of coping, healing, and being in the world.
Toward a Relational Understanding of Trauma
In contrast to the biomedical model, relational frameworks view trauma as a rupture in relationships—between individuals, communities, systems, and the land. This perspective shifts the focus from “fixing” the individual to repairing connections and addressing the systemic roots of harm.
For example, trauma experienced by marginalized communities cannot be fully understood without considering the impacts of colonialism, systemic racism, and economic inequities. Healing, in this context, must involve not only individual recovery but also collective and systemic transformation.
Relational approaches emphasize the importance of community, cultural practices, and mutual care in the healing process. They challenge the biomedical model’s emphasis on individual responsibility, advocating instead for collective accountability and systemic change.
An Invitation
What if we moved beyond seeing trauma as a problem within individuals and began to view it as a signal of disconnection in the web of relationships that sustain life? How might healing change if it centered relationality, community, and systemic transformation?
I invite you to reflect on how the biomedical model shapes our understanding of trauma and to explore alternative frameworks that honor the relational, cultural, and systemic dimensions of healing. Together, we can imagine new pathways to resilience, connection, and justice.
