Anthropological discourses on the globalization of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in post-conflict societies

[Trauma and literality: psychodynamic reason in the spirit of neuroscientific traumatization]

Since its origin in the surgical medicine of the 17th century, trauma research has had multiple interpretations and has been associated either with visible injuries to organs and tissues, or with the influence of pathogenic psychic agents on memory, consciousness and personality. With the intensification of the role of classification systems since DSM-III, the phenomenon of trauma came to be incorporated into the psychiatric realm through Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and destined finally to the constraints of neuroscientific research. Based on a narrative review, this article will address one of the fundamental epistemological premises for this transition, which informs how psychological trauma gained autonomy over anatomical descriptions to be reclassified, around a century later, as an essentially bodily phenomenon and incorporated into the jargon of neurosciences.

Neuroscientific perspectives for a theory of trauma: a critical review of integrative models of biology and culture

In the last 25 years of the 20th century, psychopathology coded a diverse range of social phenomena under the heading of trauma, featuring the study of psychological trauma as an autonomous area progressively informed by cultural and neurobiological research. In this scenario, we witnessed the emergence of the biocultural paradigm, an epistemological perspective that seeks to elucidate the interactive trajectories by which culture and biology consolidate each other´s effects. This article will address the intersections between the field of psychological trauma and neurosciences, based on the analytical dimensions of expansion of the category of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the epistemological premises of neurobehavioral studies of stress and fear, and the limitations of the bidirectionality hypothesis advanced by contemporary cultural neurosciences. The elaboration of definitively integrative approaches can assist the development of comprehensive models capable of conceiving knowledges and practices at the level of human experience, avoiding reductionist interpretations that submit complex cultural and subjective experiences alternatingly to the imperatives of the brain and to semiologic codes of pathogenic reasoning.

The factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among Rwandans exposed to the 1994 genocide: A confirmatory factor analytic study using the PCL-C

The factor structure of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in Euro-American populations has been extensively studied, but confirmatory factor analytic studies from non-Western societies are lacking. Alternative models of DSM-IV symptoms were tested among Rwandan adults (N=465) who experienced trauma during the 1994 genocide. A cluster random survey was conducted with interviews held in Rwandan households. PTSD was assessed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Civilian version. Competing models were the DSM-IV, emotional numbing, dysphoria, aroused intrusion, and dysphoric arousal models. Results showed that the emotional numbing, dysphoria, and dysphoric arousal models had almost identical, good fit indices and fit the data significantly better than the other models. The emotional numbing and dysphoric arousal models also exhibited good construct validity. Results suggest that the latent structure of PTSD symptoms in Rwanda are comparable to that found in Euro-American samples, thereby lending further support to the cross-cultural validity of the construct.

Between negative stigma (cultural deprivation) and positive stigma (learning disability): the historical development of two special education tracks

This article posits an updated, broader perspective on the concept of learning disabilities (LDs) than that accepted in the local Israeli literature, revealing how it is immersed in class, ethnicity, and culture. This is shown through historical description, accreditation, and contrasting of the two special education discourses: the "cultural deprivation" discourse and the "LDs" discourse. There are three sections. Part One presents the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological background of the sociological and discursive debate about LDs. The social-constructivist model used in an analysis of the two categories is proposed as an alternative to the clinical-medical model. The definitions of LDs and cultural deprivation accepted in the Israeli discourse are presented in Part Two. The metamorphoses in the discourse about the category of LDs are uncovered through reference to their conceptual and historical antecedents. This part discusses the various understandings and constructions of learning difficulties. Part Three examines the textual representation of parents of children with disabilities in both cases, exploring the meanings of guilt, responsibility, and agency in each discourse. The conclusion clarifies the social and political significance of the distinct textual and rhetorical representations. It becomes evident that the discourse on LDs and the discourse on cultural deprivation are two special education tracks directed at different target audiences: the culturally enriched audience, well-off and educated on the one hand, and the Mizrahi audience of limited means and education on the other hand.