Friday, 20 February 2026

Dr. Judith Herman’s observations fit squarely within what we know from trauma psychology, military history, and the sociology of help-seeking. Both quotes are psychologically and historically well grounded.

1) Veterans seeking help “on their own turf”

The “rap groups” Herman describes were pioneered by psychiatrist Chaim F. Shatan in the early 1970s to support veterans of the Vietnam War. These groups were part therapy, part political consciousness-raising.

Her point highlights several important dynamics:

A. Institutional mistrust

Many Vietnam veterans distrusted the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (then the VA hospital system). Reasons included:

Fear of being pathologized or labeled “crazy”
Stigma associated with psychiatric treatment
Concern that authorities would not understand combat experience
Anger toward institutions perceived as complicit in the war

Seeking help outside formal psychiatry gave veterans control and dignity.

B. Control and trauma recovery

Herman’s own trauma theory (especially in Trauma and Recovery) emphasizes that trauma involves:

Loss of control
Helplessness
Disempowerment

So treatment environments that restore agency are psychologically reparative.

Peer-led groups:

Reduce hierarchy
Increase mutual recognition
Normalize symptoms
Replace shame with solidarity

Modern trauma research strongly supports this model. Peer support and shared identity reduce isolation — a major driver of post-traumatic distress.

C. Political context

These groups were not purely clinical. They also:

Challenged prevailing narratives about war
Helped define what would later become PTSD

In fact, advocacy by Vietnam veterans contributed directly to the inclusion of post-traumatic stress disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-III in 1980.

So Herman’s quote captures both a clinical innovation and a political moment.

2) Morale and leadership as protection against breakdown

The second quote reflects a long-standing finding in military psychology:
Unit cohesion is one of the strongest buffers against psychological collapse.

This insight predates Vietnam. During World War II, military psychiatrists observed:

Soldiers did not primarily fight for abstract ideology.
They fought for the small unit — the men next to them.
Strong leadership and cohesion reduced psychiatric casualties.

Later research consistently confirmed:

Social support reduces trauma impact.
Perceived abandonment worsens it.
Moral injury (feeling betrayed by leadership) increases long-term distress.

The protective effect works through:

Shared meaning
Reduced isolation
Collective regulation of fear
Clear chains of trust

Conversely, chaotic leadership or unit fragmentation correlates with higher rates of breakdown.

3) How the Two Quotes Connect

These two observations actually reinforce each other.

In combat:

Cohesion protects the soldier.

After combat:

Loss of cohesion increases vulnerability.

Vietnam veterans often returned individually rather than demobilizing as intact units. Many experienced:

Social hostility
Lack of communal recognition
Moral ambiguity about the war

The rap groups recreated, in civilian life, something like a small unit:

Shared experience
Mutual accountability
Emotional permission
Nonjudgmental space

In that sense, the therapy model mirrored the same protective mechanism Herman describes in combat.

4) Overall Assessment

Herman’s statements are:

Empirically supported
Psychologically coherent
Historically well documented

They reflect a shift in understanding trauma from:

Individual pathology
to
Injury shaped by social context and group bonds.

Modern trauma theory strongly supports her view that relationships — especially trusted, cohesive groups — are central both to resilience and to recovery.

If you’d like, I can also explain how this relates to contemporary debates about “moral injury” versus PTSD.

The distinction between PTSD and moral injury has become one of the most important debates in contemporary trauma psychology — especially in military contexts.

It builds directly on the dynamics Judith Herman highlighted: cohesion, betrayal, meaning, and social context.

1. PTSD: A Fear-Based Trauma Model

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was formally introduced in 1980 in the DSM-III by the American Psychiatric Association, influenced in part by advocacy from Chaim F. Shatan and Vietnam veterans.

Classic PTSD centers on:

Exposure to life-threatening events
Fear conditioning
Hyperarousal
Intrusive memories
Avoidance

The core emotional driver is typically fear.

It fits well with:

Combat exposure
Assault
Natural disasters
Life-threatening accidents

Neurobiologically, it’s often framed in terms of:

Overactivation of threat systems
Dysregulated stress hormones
Impaired fear extinction

2. Moral Injury: A Meaning-Based Trauma Model

The concept of moral injury gained prominence in the 2000s, especially through the work of psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, who worked extensively with veterans of the Vietnam War.

Moral injury refers to:

Psychological, social, and spiritual harm that results from perpetrating, failing to prevent, witnessing, or being betrayed in acts that violate deeply held moral beliefs.

The core emotional drivers are usually:

Guilt
Shame
Betrayal
Moral disorientation
Loss of meaning

The injury is not primarily fear-based.
It is meaning-based.

3. Why the Distinction Matters

PTSD asks:

“What terrifying thing happened to you?”

Moral injury asks:

“What did you do, fail to do, or witness that shattered your sense of right and wrong?”

For example:

A soldier under fire may develop PTSD from repeated life threat.
A soldier who kills a civilian, or feels abandoned by leadership, may develop moral injury — even without classic PTSD symptoms.

Many veterans experience both.

4. Leadership, Cohesion, and Betrayal

This is where Herman’s quote about morale and leadership becomes crucial.

Strong small-unit cohesion protects soldiers psychologically because:

It creates shared meaning.
It distributes responsibility.
It reinforces moral structure.
It ensures no one feels abandoned.

But when leadership fails, or when soldiers feel betrayed by command decisions, the psychological damage deepens.

Jonathan Shay argued that:

Betrayal by legitimate authority in high-stakes situations is central to moral injury.

This connects directly to veterans seeking peer-led “rap groups” instead of institutional care. If trauma includes institutional betrayal, institutional treatment may feel unsafe.

5. Why PTSD Alone Is Not Enough

Some clinicians argue that PTSD medicalizes all war trauma into a fear disorder.

But many veterans report that their deepest suffering is not:

Nightmares of explosions
but
Shame about actions
Anger at leadership
Alienation from civilians
Loss of moral identity

Standard PTSD treatments (like exposure therapy) may reduce fear symptoms but not resolve guilt or moral conflict.

Moral injury often requires:

Communal acknowledgment
Ethical dialogue
Forgiveness processes
Spiritual or existential reconstruction

In other words, relational and moral repair — not just symptom reduction.

6. The Debate Today

There is ongoing debate about whether moral injury:

Should become a formal diagnosis
Is a subtype of PTSD
Is a distinct but overlapping construct
Is better understood as a moral-philosophical category rather than a psychiatric one

Some worry that medicalizing moral injury risks turning ethical conflict into pathology. Others argue naming it reduces stigma and improves care.

7. Connecting Back to Herman

Judith Herman emphasized:

Trauma is fundamentally about powerlessness.
Recovery requires reconnection and restoration of agency.
Social context matters as much as neurobiology.

The rap groups recreated small-unit cohesion in civilian life — which may help repair both PTSD and moral injury:

They restored voice.
They reduced shame.
They rebuilt moral community.

In that sense, the debate isn’t just diagnostic — it’s about whether trauma is primarily a disorder of fear circuitry or a rupture in moral and social bonds.

Yes — there were also genuinely self-organized veteran groups, both alongside and independent of Shatan’s early efforts.

It’s important not to over-credit any single psychiatrist. The Vietnam-era peer movement was partly catalyzed by professionals like Chaim F. Shatan, but it also grew organically from veterans themselves.

Here’s how that unfolded.

1. Grassroots Veteran Organizing

One of the clearest examples of self-organization was Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), founded in 1967.

Although VVAW was primarily a political organization, many local chapters:

Held informal discussion circles
Created mutual-support spaces
Shared combat experiences
Helped members process distress

These gatherings were not structured as clinical therapy. They often emerged from veterans meeting at protests, campuses, coffeehouses, or community centers.

Psychological support developed as a byproduct of political solidarity.

2. The Winter Soldier Investigation (1971)

At the 1971 Winter Soldier hearings organized by VVAW, veterans publicly testified about wartime experiences.

While this was a political event, participants later described:

Emotional catharsis
Validation
Relief from isolation
A sense of collective recognition

This was not therapy in a formal sense — but it functioned psychologically as group witnessing and moral processing.

3. Informal Vet Centers Before the VA Adopted Them

Before the United States Department of Veterans Affairs formally created Vet Centers in 1979, veterans in some cities were already:

Renting shared spaces
Meeting weekly
Running peer-led discussions
Supporting each other outside hospital systems

Some of these later became institutionalized when Congress authorized community-based Vet Centers.

So in a few cases, the government effectively formalized what veterans had already built.

4. Why Self-Organization Happened

Several conditions made organic groups likely:

Veterans often returned home individually rather than demobilizing as intact units.
There was widespread public ambivalence or hostility toward the war.
Many veterans felt misunderstood by civilians.
Institutional psychiatry was perceived as stigmatizing.

The need for reconnection — something like small-unit cohesion — naturally pushed veterans to find one another.

In that sense, self-organization was psychologically predictable.

5. Relationship to Shatan’s Rap Groups

Shatan’s early rap groups were among the first to publicly name and legitimize combat trauma. But they existed within a broader ecosystem of:

Campus veteran groups
Antiwar networks
Community meetings
Informal support circles

Some groups were clinician-facilitated.
Some were hybrid.
Some were entirely peer-run.

The movement was decentralized.

6. A Broader Pattern in Trauma History

This pattern — peer support emerging before formal psychiatric recognition — shows up repeatedly:

Holocaust survivor groups before PTSD was defined
Sexual assault survivor consciousness-raising groups in the 1970s
12-step recovery communities (though focused on addiction rather than trauma)

Often, lived experience organizes itself before institutions catch up.

The idea that mental illness is intrinsically linked to "danger" isn't a single "Eureka" moment in history. Instead, it’s a legal and social construct that evolved as we moved from viewing madness as a spiritual issue to a state-managed medical one.

Historically, the shift happened in three major waves.

1. Ancient & Medieval: The "Family Burden" Era

In antiquity and the Middle Ages, there was no formal "danger to self or others" doctrine. Mental distress was often seen through a religious lens (demonic possession or divine punishment) or a biological one (the Four Humors).

Social Control: Because there were no state-run asylums, the "danger" was managed privately. Families were legally responsible for their relatives.
Roman Law: Under the Corpus Juris Civilis, a person deemed furiosus (furious/insane) was assigned a curator. The focus wasn't on public safety, but on protecting the individual’s property and preventing them from harming the family’s reputation or assets.

2. The 17th & 18th Centuries: The "Great Confinement"

This is where the "danger to others" narrative really took root. As cities grew, "madness" became a public nuisance rather than a private family matter.

Police Power: Governments began using "police power" to clear the streets of the "undesirable." The focus shifted from healing to social order.
The Vagrancy Acts: In 1744, England’s Vagrancy Act explicitly allowed for the apprehension of people who were "disturbed in their town and senses" and might be "dangerous to be left abroad."
The 1792 Watershed: In revolutionary France, Philippe Pinel famously "unchained" patients at the Bicêtre Hospital. While this was a humanitarian move, it also codified the idea that the state must classify who is "manageable" and who is "dangerous."

3. The 19th Century: The Medicalization of Danger

The 1800s saw the birth of Forensic Psychiatry. This is when the "danger" became a formal medical diagnosis used to justify involuntary commitment.

The M'Naghten Rule (1843): After Daniel M'Naghten tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister, the legal system established a standard for "insanity" based on whether a person understood the nature of their actions. This cemented the link between "mental illness" and "potential violence" in the public imagination.
The "Danger to Self" shift: While "danger to others" was about public safety, "danger to self" (suicidality) became a major justification for commitment later in the 19th century as medicine replaced the church in supervising morality and life-preservation.

A Note on the "Modern" View

It’s worth noting that the specific phrase "danger to self or others" became the gold standard for involuntary commitment in the U.S. and Europe primarily in the 1960s and 70s. This was part of the de-institutionalization movement, intended, in part, to restrict the state’s power—essentially saying you can't lock someone up just for being "unwell," only if they are demonstrably dangerous.

Ironically, while meant, in part, to protect civil liberties, it reinforced the stigma that the only "valid" reason to talk about mental illness is in the context of violence.

Great question — this gets into the legal logic behind how insanity was understood in Ancient Rome and later codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis under Emperor Justinian I (6th century CE).

The Roman approach was fundamentally about status, capacity, and property, not public dangerousness in the modern sense.

1. What Was a Furiosus?

In Roman legal terminology:

Furiosus = someone considered legally insane, out of their mind, or incapable of rational self-governance.
The key issue was lack of reason (ratio).
Legal incapacity flowed from impaired rational judgment.

Roman law distinguished between:

Someone permanently insane (furiosus)
Someone temporarily mad (mente captus)
Someone with lucid intervals (during which their acts could be valid)

The emphasis was on capacity to transact, not on violence.

2. The Role of the Curator

A curator was appointed to manage the affairs of a person deemed incapable.

Important points:

The curator controlled property and contracts.
The insane person could not validly enter into binding agreements.
The curator’s role resembled modern guardianship.

This applied especially when:

The individual was sui iuris (legally independent adult male)
There was no paterfamilias above them

The goal was to prevent economic damage — especially alienation of land, slaves, dowries, or inheritance rights.

3. Why Property Was Central

Roman society was structured around:

Family lineage (gens)
Inheritance continuity
Preservation of estates
Social honor tied to property stability

An irrational head of household could:

Sell land irresponsibly
Squander inheritance
Contract ruinous debts
Damage marriage alliances

This was seen as a threat to the family unit, not primarily to public safety.

4. Criminal Responsibility

Roman law generally held that:

A furiosus was not criminally liable.
“Madness itself is punishment enough” appears in Roman legal reasoning.
Criminal responsibility required intention (dolus).

So the law reduced punishment because reason was absent — another sign that incapacity, not dangerousness, was the central concept.

5. Public Order vs. Private Harm

Romans certainly recognized that a mad person might act violently.

However:

There was no systematic doctrine that insanity = public danger.
Confinement was usually domestic (within household control).
State intervention focused more on guardianship than institutionalization.

Large-scale custodial confinement for public safety (like early modern asylums) did not exist in Roman law as a general solution.

6. Comparison to Later Law

The contrast with later periods is striking:

In early modern Europe, confinement became linked to social control.
By the 19th–20th centuries, dangerousness became the central legal threshold.
Roman law focused instead on legal capacity and patrimonial stability.

In short, the Roman legal category of furiosus was primarily about protecting property and preserving family continuity.

The tension you’re describing is a core conflict in modern economics: the friction between Thermodynamics (physical limits) and Neoclassical Economics.

To understand why ecological limits are ignored in favor of "artificial scarcity" (the idea that we lack money or "value" while having an abundance of physical resources we are destroying), we have to look at how our financial systems are designed.

1. The "Externality" Loophole

In standard economic accounting (GDP), the environment is treated as an externality. This means the "services" the Earth provides—clean air, water filtration, climate stability—are valued at $0 until they are extracted and turned into a commodity.

The Logic: A standing forest has no "value" in a GDP calculation. A felled forest sold as timber adds millions to the turnover.
The Result: We treat the planet’s "capital" (the resources themselves) as "income" (profit). We are effectively spending our inheritance and calling it a salary.

2. Debt-Based Monetary Systems

Most of the money in the global turnover ($40 trillion+ mentioned earlier) is created as debt. When a bank issues a loan, that money must be paid back with interest.

The Pressure: Because the total debt in the world is always greater than the total money in existence (due to interest), the economy must grow physically to generate the value needed to pay back that debt.
The Conflict: You cannot have exponential financial growth on a finite physical planet. This creates a "fictional scarcity" of money that forces us to over-exploit "real" ecological abundance.

Shutterstock

Explore

3. The Decoupling Myth

Many policymakers ignore ecological limits because they believe in "Absolute Decoupling." This is the theory that technological advancement will allow us to grow the economy (GDP) indefinitely without increasing our use of energy or materials.

The Reality: While we have become more efficient (relative decoupling), global material footprint and $CO_2$ emissions have historically risen alongside GDP. We haven't yet proven we can grow the "fictions" without consuming the "real."

4. Short-term Incentives vs. Geological Time

The systems we discussed—NGOs, Governments, and Corporations—operate on very short cycles:

Corporations: 3-month quarterly reports.
Governments: 2-to-4-year election cycles.
The Ecosystem: Operates on decades, centuries, and millennia.

When a system is rewarded for growth now, it is structurally incentivized to ignore a limit that might cause a collapse later.

Comparison of Real vs. Fictional Limits

Feature	Ecological Limits (The Real)	Economic Scarcity (The Fiction)
Source	Laws of Physics/Biology	Human Policy & Central Banks
Flexibility	Non-negotiable (e.g., Photosynthesis rates)	Highly flexible (e.g., Printing money/QE)
Feedback	Ecosystem collapse, extinction	Inflation, recession, debt crisis
Current Status	Over-budget (Overshoot)	Artificially constrained

The "Degrowth" or "Doughnut" Alternative

Economists like Kate Raworth argue that we should flip the script. Instead of trying to grow the economy and hoping it fits the planet, we should start with the Ecological Ceiling and the Social Foundation, and let the economy be whatever size it needs to be to fit within those two boundaries.

To understand Marx’s take on Cartesian dualism, we first have to look at what he was rebelling against. René Descartes famously proposed a strict separation between the Res Cogitans (the thinking mind) and the Res Extensa (the physical world/matter).

Marx found this divide not just philosophically wrong, but socially dangerous. Here is how he broke it down:

1. The Rejection of "Ghost in the Machine"

Marx was a materialist. For him, the mind is not a separate, ethereal substance that exists independently of the body. Instead, consciousness is a product of biological and social existence. In his view, Descartes had it backward: it isn't "I think, therefore I am," but rather "I live and act, therefore I think."

The Shift in Priority

Descartes: Ideas are primary; the material world is secondary or doubted.
Marx: Material conditions (food, shelter, labor) are primary; ideas are a "sublimation" of these material life-processes.

2. Consciousness as a Social Product

Marx argued that the "mind" isn't a private, internal theater. He believed that human consciousness is inherently social. In The German Ideology, he famously wrote:

"Consciousness is, therefore, from the very beginning a social product, and remains so as long as men exist at all."

By separating mind from matter, Cartesian dualism treats the individual as an isolated ego. Marx argued that this "isolation" is an illusion created by alienation in a capitalist society. We feel like "minds" trapped in "bodies" (or "subjects" observing "objects") because our labor and our social connections have been stripped away from us.

3. The Problem of "The Spectator"

Marx’s biggest gripe with dualism was that it turned humans into spectators. If the mind is totally separate from the material world, then the mind’s job is simply to "observe" or "reflect" on reality.

Marx countered this with the concept of Praxis (action/practice). He argued that we don't understand the world by sitting back and thinking about it; we understand it by changing it. The "mind/matter" divide disappears when you are swinging a hammer or organizing a strike—at that moment, your thought and your physical action are a single, unified process.

Feature	Cartesian Dualism	Marx’s Dialectical Materialism
Relation	Mind and Matter are separate substances.	Mind is a function of Matter (the brain/society).
Direction	Thoughts determine how we perceive the world.	Social existence determines consciousness.
The Individual	An isolated "I" or "Ego."	A "Social Being" defined by relationships.
Knowledge	Attained through internal reflection.	Attained through labor and revolutionary practice.

4. Why the Divide Exists (According to Marx)

Marx didn't just disagree with Descartes; he explained why people found dualism so convincing. He believed that the division of labor—specifically the split between mental labor (the people who plan) and manual labor (the people who do)—creates the intellectual illusion that the "mind" is a higher, separate entity from the "physical" work of the world.

Wednesday, 18 February 2026

From What Is to What If is a book by Transition Network founder Rob Hopkins that argues for reclaiming collective imagination to solve environmental and social crises. It advocates moving from stagnant, current realities ("what is") to a future-focused, imaginative mindset ("what if"), highlighting community-driven, creative solutions to foster rapid, positive change.

Key Themes and Concepts:

Reclaiming Imagination: Hopkins argues that modern society has suffered an "imaginative decline," leaving us unable to envision better alternatives to the status quo.
The Power of "What If": The book encourages asking "what if" questions to spark creative thinking about alternative futures, such as "What if we took play seriously?" or "What if schools nurtured imagination?".
Actionable Examples: It showcases examples of community-led initiatives—from local energy projects in Totnes, England, to creative urban planning—demonstrating that tangible change is possible.
Overcoming Apathy: It acts as a call to action to move beyond just analyzing current crises (the "what is") and instead to actively design and build a desirable future (the "what if").
Focus on the Local: The book emphasizes that profound change can begin in local communities and through individual, collective actions.

The book is aimed at anyone looking to address the climate crisis and other global challenges through a more human, creative, and proactive approach.