One of Britain's most notorious plays of the 1990s, Sarah Kane's "Blasted" shocked the public and critics alike due to its graphic depiction of death and violence. Beneath this surface lies, however, a carefully thought out representation of trauma and its effects on the human soul. This paper explores the links between trauma theory and Kane's most famous work.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Trauma and trauma theory
2.1. Etymology and historical considerations
2.2. The psychological definition of trauma
2.3. Symptoms of trauma-related disorders
2.4. The bigger picture: psychoanalytical contributions to trauma theory
2.5. Trauma and testimony
2.6. Trauma and literature
3. Trauma in Blasted.
3.1.1. Characters: Ian
3.1.2. Characters: Soldier
3.1.3. Characters : Cate
3.2. Stylistic devices: language, body, narration
3.3. “Blasted” in the context of In-Yer-Face Theatre
4. Concluding remarks
List of works cited:
1. Introduction
Few plays cause as much controversy as Sarah Kane’s Blasted, which became the flagship of Britain’s innovative brand of In-Yer-Face Theatre. The graphic and explicit depictions of rape, death and violence present a challenge to the spectator and critic. But, as I’m about to lay out, its intentions go way beyond merely shocking the audience. Instead, the play takes up one of the most complex, least understood, and most fascinating aspects of the human psyche: the concept of trauma, the relationship of the traumatised individual with it, the consequences on the survivors life and state of mind.
It is for this reason that the biggest part of this paper doesn’t actually deal with Blasted itself, but with trauma and the theories that seek to explain or define it. Firstly, I will define the phenomenon briefly and comment on the history of its exploration. A more precise definition and psychology’s understanding of trauma will be provided thereafter. In the next chapter, I will take a closer look at the symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD, the most prominent trauma-related syndrome, and key to understanding the play’s characters.
After the first subchapters, which will provide a view on the subject heavily influenced by standard clinical psychology and its diagnostic tools, I will shift to a different perspective, that of psychoanalysis. This discipline doesn’t focus on trauma’s definition and diagnosis, but on its mechanisms and explanation. Two more subchapters on the relevance of testimony in trauma theory and the representation of trauma in literature conclude the first part of this paper, which aims to provide the basic understanding of trauma theory that will be used to interpret Blasted.
The second part is an analysis of the way trauma is represented in the play and in its characters. Additionally, the stylistic devices used in these representations will be discussed briefly. The play will also be put into context, in this case, into the context of In-Yer-Face Theatre, before some concluding remarks resume this work.
2. Trauma and trauma theory
2.1. Etymology and historical considerations
The entry on the term trauma in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of the English language does not only reveal that it comes from the Greek word for wound, but proves that the word is an ambiguous term. While a psychologist would only speak of a trauma if the victim is severely affected in his or her well-being, the term has acquired the general meaning of something that is emotionally upsetting. Further, a physician or nurse uses it for any injury that was caused by an extrinsic agent that damaged bodily tissue. These observations tell us two things: firstly, that the term has become sufficiently popular to leave the jargon of psychology, and secondly, that humans, in some way, perceive physical and psychological injuries to be similar in some way. This idea is something we will encounter regularly when studying the history of the term and of trauma psychology.
There were of course narrations of traumatic experiences before the term or modern psychiatry came into existence - one example for this is Joseph Pepys, an English chronicler from the Renaissance era who had difficulties coping with what he saw in the 1666 fire of London. Pepys was “diagnosed” with PTSD by R.J. Daly (1983: abstract). But it is in the second half of the 19th century that systematic and scientific investigation of the subject begins, and in 1889 German neurologist Oppenheim was the first to use the term traumatic neurosis, as pointed out by Van der Kolk et al. (1994: p.20). The same author mentions that the first hot topic of discussion was if the symptoms of trauma were caused by organic or non- organic factors. Although there was no universal consensus, organic factors seem to have been the more popular explanation - not least because now combat soldiers (the most important group of patients in the early stages of trauma theory) could be absolved from cowardice, which was a violation of the military’s codes of conduct that could be punished by death. This also explains why psychological causes for trauma were more popular among psychiatrist working in civilian settings (Van der Kolk et al., 1996: p.20-21).
French psychiatrists at the Salpêtrière hospital in Paris were among the first scientists that conducted systematic research on the relationship between traumatic experiences and mental illness. But the fact that dissociative mental states could be induced by suggestion, along with the inability to openly discuss child abuse (one of the most common traumatic experiences) led to a shift in focus: instead of concentrating on traumatic experiences, the suggestibility and what was believed to be false memory (especially in cases of incest) became more important research topics for some. This school of thought inspired German psychiatrists to view trauma as something connected to the strength of the individual’s will, and this ideas blossomed during the First World War (ibid.: p.21-22).
Nevertheless, French researcher Pierre Janet managed to construct a trauma theory that, in some crucial aspects, resembles today’s models of explanation quite a bit: his notion was that his patients had experienced emotions that they couldn’t integrate into their psyche, so that the traumatic event was split off from it. At the same time, the trauma could not be overcome (he used the term phobia of memory), and the patients remained attached to it. This surprisingly advanced model prevailed until psychoanalysts like Freud would place more value on fantasy, often arguing that the traumatic events the patients suffered from didn’t really take place (ibid.: p.23-26). Trauma theories and investigations of psychoanalysts, which later overcame these tendencies, will be discussed in a separate subchapter. During World War II, Kardiner, an American psychiatrist, would go back to the method of detailed observation, and he described many of the symptoms of PTSD correctly. In the aftermath of the war, the psychological conditions of former inmates of concentration camps were studied by psychiatrists, extrapolating the enormous effect of severe psychological stress on long-time health, as well as contributing to the refinement of trauma models (ibid.: p.27-29).
Van der Kolk et al. point out that until the 1970s, the trauma victim was generally thought to be male, and that for many years little research was carried out on trauma in women and children. This changed in the 1970s and 1980s, when it became known that survivors of rape, abuse and other domestic violence often developed symptoms similar to those of war veterans. In 1980, PTSD was included in the DSM-III, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Since then, the number of studies on the subject has grown, and there are several research journals that cover the subject of trauma, with some dealing exclusively with childhood trauma (ibid.: p.31-32). In general, psychiatry has moved from a point of view that paid less attention to the traumatic event (ascribing the symptoms to physical damage or even suggestion and imagination) to a standpoint that comprehends the importance of it, and from an attitude that openly questioned the victim (thinking, for example, of the notions of willpower and cowardice in the times of World War I) to one that respects the traumatised person and his or her suffering.
2.2. The psychological definition of trauma
The exact definition of trauma and its mechanisms is a complex issue, and can thus not be discussed in a paper on modern literature. But since a more exact definition of the term contributes to the understanding of how literature has treated the phenomenon, some brief clarifications will be provided in this subchapter.
The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation is an association of mental health professionals that aims to raise awareness of the issue and to promote research and investigation on the subject. It provides information on trauma on its website, in the form of texts that resume the current state of the art of trauma research, which makes it an ideal source of information concerning the purpose of this subchapter.
It is important not to confuse cause and effect in the field of psychological trauma. An event that is considered extremely stressful may or may not traumatise an individual, depending on a multitude of factors. The event itself is called a stressor, and one can only talk of a trauma if the stressor severely harms the mental well-being of the individual in a certain way (the symptoms of trauma-related disorders will be discussed in the next subchapter). Stressors may occur only once, or repeatedly over a period of time (in the cases of repeated child abuse, or in the case of combat soldiers that are exposed to the horrors of war over a prolonged period of time). Singular events cause so-called Type I-traumas, while repeated stressors cause Type II-traumas. In the case of severe neglect in children, the stressor can also consist of the chronic absence of psychologically necessary experiences such as love, care and attention. According to the ISSTD, an extreme stressor will cause trauma-related disorders in about 10%-25% of the population. The question of why the same or a similar event does more or less damage to the psyche of different individuals is one of the hot topics of research. The factors that are considered influential include the characteristics of the stressor itself (deliberate interpersonal violence is believed to be more likely to cause trauma than accidents or catastrophes), the number of times the individual is exposed to the stressor (chronic stressors that persist over time are more likely to cause trauma than stressors that occur only once), the meaning the individual assigns to his or her experience, as well as the age and the psychological state of the individual that suffers exposure to the stressor. Dissociative disorders have been linked to Type II-traumas and will also be discussed in the next subchapter (ISSTD a: no date of publication or page number).
2.3. Symptoms of trauma-related disorders
There are several disorders that are related to trauma, of which the most famous is PTSD, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The subcategory of Complex PTSD is used by some researchers to designate the reaction of the psyche to prolonged extreme stressors that persist over years, and there are proposals to include Complex PTSD in the diagnostic manuals. ASD, or Acute Stress Disorder, presents essentially the same symptoms as PTSD, but lasts between two days and a month. If the symptoms persist after that period of time, a PTSD can be diagnosed. ASD symptoms appear in the first four weeks after the traumatic event (ISSTD a, no date of publication or page number). Finally, the so-called dissociation disorders are also related to trauma, especially to trauma caused by reoccurring stressors, known as Type II- trauma (ISSTD b: no date of publication or page number). The DSM-V diagnostic manual contains further disorders that occur in young children, since these are less relevant for the discussion of Sarah Kane’s play, I will focus on the symptoms of PTSD, ASD and dissociative disorders. Rather than paraphrasing them, I will try to categorise.
In the case of ASD and PTSD (including the complex form mentioned above), the diagnostic criteria state that the symptoms must have been caused by stressors (as opposed to physical brain injury or side effects of medication), and that these stressors must fall into the categories of “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violence” (APA, 2013: p.271). The traumatised individual may be affected directly, or may have witnessed the event. Learning about the violent experiences of close friends or relatives may also cause traumatisation, as may the first-hand exposure to details of them (e.g. among police forces, firemen or paramedics). If a stressor that doesn’t fall into this category causes symptoms similar to a PTSD, an adjustment disorder is diagnosed (ibid.: p.279). Additionally, the diagnosis criteria include phenomena that Pierre Janet called phobia of memory: the stressor must affect the patient in the form of reoccurring memories, dreams, dissociative reactions such as flashbacks, stressful experiences when exposed to cues that recall the traumatic event, or physiological responses. Further, the victim either shows behaviour of avoidance or altercation in his or her cognition, such as withdrawal from social interactions or the reduction in the expression of positive emotions. Additionally, the person’s level of arousal is affected, causing behaviour patterns such as hyper-vigilance, altercation of sleep, loss of concentration or sudden aggressive behaviour without (or with only a minimal) external stimulus. Finally, the traumatic disturbance must harm the individual’s ability to engage in social relations in order to be classified as PTSD (ibid.: p.272-274).
The group of dissociative disorders is closely related to traumatic experiences and describes a number of psychological reactions to stressors, some of which are also included in the symptoms of PTSD. Generally speaking, a mentally stable individual has a sense of reality, access to his or her memory, and perceives his or her self as one. Dissociative disorders destroy these kind of bonds with the psyche and lead to a distorted sense of reality (derealisation), to failures in memory (dissociative amnesia, which may be generalised or specifically related to the stressor) or to the splitting of the self into different sets of personalities that coexist (ibid.: p.291).
[...]