3 learnings from the first 10 blog-posts

Trauma-Informed Design Reflections #10

Introduction

Welcome to the 10th (wow double digits!) edition of the trauma-informed design blog, a weekly series of thoughts and reflections on the intersection between trauma and design.

This week (22–28 Apr) I reflected on my process with the blog thus far and I wrote about my main learnings. I’m amazed by how many things I learned by exploring this space through writing. I hope that some of what I share here feels relevant.

What I’ve been learning

Since this is blog-post number 10 I took the arbitrary decision to look back on what I have written thus far and to highlight my top learnings.

I also felt that it would be nice to tie them directly to SAMHSA’s trauma-informed principles. But then I realized that my learnings in some principles were disproportionately deeper and more important than in others. So I let some darlings go (killing feels too harsh).

Here we go.

Safety

Let me share with you one of my favourite quotes. One that I’ve been trying to include in this blog since the beginning, but never felt quite right. It’s basically why I’m doing what I’m doing (or at least why I’m trying). It’s a bit long but bare with me:

I think the major difference between a social justice and a white/colonial lens on trauma is the assumption that trauma recovery is the reclamation of safety — that safety is a resource that is simply ‘out there’ for the taking and all we need to do is work hard enough at therapy. I was once at a training seminar in Toronto led by a famous & beloved somatic psychologist. She spoke brilliantly. I asked her how healing from trauma was possible for people for whom violence & danger are part of everyday life. She said it was not.

Colonial psychology & psychiatry reveal their allegiance to the status quo in their approach to trauma: That resourcing must come from within oneself rather than from the collective. That trauma recovery is feeling safe in society, when in fact society is the source of trauma. Colonial somatics & psychotherapies teach that the body must relearn to perceive safety. But the bodies of the oppressed are rightly interpreting danger. Our triggers & explosive rage, our dissociation & perfect submission are in fact skills that have kept us alive

The somatics of social justice cannot (i believe) be a somatics rooted in the colonial frameworks of psychology, psychiatry, or other models linked to the dominance of the nation-state (psychology was not always this way, but has become increasingly so over time). The somatics of social justice cannot be aimed at restoring the body to a state of homeostasis/neutrality. We must be careful of popular languaging such as the ‘regulation’ of nervous system & emotion, which implies the control and domination of mind over emotion & sensation.

Because we are not, in the end, preparing the body to ‘return’ to the general safety of society (this would be gaslighting). We are preparing the body, essentially for struggle — training for better survival & the ability to experience joy in the midst of great danger.

In the cauldron of social justice healing praxis, we must aim for relationality that has the potential to generate social change, to generate insurrection. We must be prepared to challenge norms. Acknowledge danger. Embrace struggle. Take risks. And above all, we must not overemphasize the importance of individual work (which is important indeed) to the detriment of a somatics that also prepares us, essentially, for war. Somatics that allow us to organize together. Fight together. Live together. Love each other.

- Kai Cheng Thom

When I first came upon trauma-informed design I used to believe that safety comes from within, and that the environment’s impact could be considered insignificant if only we did enough inner work. I was wrong; of course.

I now see that this belief is rooted in privilege and that for real healing to happen there needs to be a safe enough environment. I also believe that this is true in both the physical and the digital world.

Trauma-informed design goes beyond creating safety. But I don’t think it’s random that “safety” is the first trauma-informed principle. It’s just so important for trauma survivors.

And, what I’ve been learning as I’ve been engaging with this work is that our responsibility as trauma-informed designers (and trauma-informed practitioners in general) is to create safe enough environments for people. If we have the power to do it, we must do it.

Collaboration and mutuality

As I was working on my blog I’ve (repeatedly) stumbled upon the concept of “designing for the 80%”. In case you’ve never heard that, it’s the idea that we can build something for the “average user” and ignore the edges. It’s quite common in tech.

This idea is problematic for many reasons, I will highlight two. It fuels inequity (the “80%” part) and it does not allow space for co-design (the “for” part).

Perhaps there is a parallel universe in which designing for the 80% means centering the needs of the traditionally marginalized people (who are the global majority anyways). But in our universe I see companies excluding the most vulnerable from their design decisions by labeling them as “the 20%”. It’s a not-so-subtle way of upholding power structures.

So, I initially thought that a good alternative would be to “design for the 20%”. If we prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable people, not only we are more equitable but we often end up accounting for the needs of the “masses”. But that is a short-sighted approach.

Since then, I’ve been learning about “designing with” through KA McKercher’s great work on co-design. I’m not sure I completely grasp that topic yet, but it places a lot of focus on including people with lived experiences in the design process, instead of assuming that we can understand their reality and make decisions for them. It’s a significantly more inclusive way to do design.

So my newly proposed alternative is to design with the 20%.

Will that change in the future? Probably. But for now I like it.

Cultural, historical, and gender issues

Probably the most important thing I’ve learned throughout this process is that being trauma-informed is not a passive or reactive practice. Let me elaborate.

I used to believe that being trauma-informed meant being mindful of triggers, validating people’s experiences and feelings, and being sensitive to trauma. And it is all those things. But it’s more.

Being trauma-informed is also about challenging. It’s about challenging power structures and systems of oppression. It’s about challenging long held briefs and unconscious biases. And it’s about challenging what makes environments unsafe in order to have the opportunity to build safe spaces.

It’s not passive work, it’s active. It’s not being nice to everyone. It’s a fight. It’s not avoiding triggers. It’s being intentional about where to apply pressure. It’s feminism. It’s trans inclusion. It’s disability rights.

And, it’s continuous learning; continuous unlearning.

Does this mean that this work is harder? Larger? More demanding? Absolutely. But it also means that it’s more essential and more meaningful. Once again: If we have the power to do it, we must do it.

Notable on trauma-informed design

This section doesn’t include any personal reflections, instead it includes things that happened in the trauma-informed design field and are worth giving a look at (according to me). Enjoy! :)

• If you haven’t noticed by now Michelle Keller writes a weekly series of blog-posts on trauma-informed design. This week’s blog-posts is touching on everything she wrote about before and in a way is tying everything together. (How beautiful when things rhyme.) It also includes a lot of great questions for us to consider as we practice trauma-informed design. You can find it here.
• Jax Wechsler’s next training on trauma informed design research is coming up in June (11th, 13th, and 18th, also depending on time zones). I have attended this training in the past and it is very good. You can find the registration link here. July registrations have opened as well. (online)
• The Trauma-Informed Design Discussion Group is an amazing community to join. They offer support, share knowledge, and organize monthly calls on trauma-informed design. I can’t recommend them enough! You can request to join the group using this form. They are also building a really great directory of resources, which you can find here. (online)

(This section does not include promotions. Everything is being shared with permission.)