Trauma and the Politics of Emotions: Constituting Identity, Security and Community after the Bali Bombing
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117809348712 |
| Author | Emma Hutchison |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
TRAUMA AND THE POLITICS OF EMOTIONS 65
Trauma and the Politics of Emotions: Constituting Identity,
Security and Community after the Bali Bombing
Emma Hutchison
Abstract
This essay examines how traumatic events can infl uence the constitution of community in
international relations. Trauma is often perceived as isolating individuals and fragmenting
communities. This essay argues, in contrast, that practices of representation can make
traumatic events meaningful in ways that give them a collective and often international
dimension. Central to this process is the role played by emotions. Often neglected in scholarly
analysis of international relations, emotions play a crucial political role during times of crisis
and can become pivotal sites for the renewal of political stability and social control. The
essay illustrates the ensuing dynamics by examining media portrayals of the Bali bombing
of 12 October 2002. Focusing on photographs and the stories that accompany them, the
essay shows how representations of trauma can provide a sense of collective feeling that is
capable of underpinning political community. It concludes by suggesting that international
relations scholars can learn much about the politics of community and security by examining
prominent representations of trauma and the emotional discourses they mobilise.
Keywords: Bali bombing, community, emotion/s, media, representation, textual and visual
analysis, trauma
Introduction
The bombing of the Sari bar in Kuta, Bali resulted in the death of 202 people, 88 of
whom were Australian. This is why Australia has generally been seen as the nation in
which the impact of the bombing was most sharply felt. Indeed, in the days that fol-
lowed the 12 October bombing it was suggested that Australia, as a nation, must now
‘prepare itself for the worst’.1 As the extent of the atrocity unfolded it almost seemed –
if one were to use the media as a gauge – that so too did any differences that can keep
a society apart. Discourses of commemoration and national mourning took over the
space the violence opened, ascribing meaning to the potential meaninglessness of
victims’ pain. Front-page articles documented, through both words and pictures, the
distress of survivors – emotions crumbling the composure of their faces, the plight
of those left still fi ghting for their lives, and more generally the blinding destruction
that the bombs had wreaked. The pain of victims was swiftly referred to as that of
a nation.2 And an ensuing sense of trauma – the shock and the gravity of loss – was
invoked as damaging Australia’s ‘collective soul’.3
Portrayals of the Bali bombing are among many examples that demonstrate the
collectivising potential of representing trauma.4 They show how singular events of
© The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol 24(1): 65–86
[DOI: 10.1177/0047117809348712]
66 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 24(1)
trauma can be represented in ways that shift them from the realm of the individual
to that of a collective.
The central objective of this essay is to examine the relationship between trauma
and the constitution of political community. I argue that – and I demonstrate how –
representations of trauma can generate widely shared meanings, which in turn
underpin political identity and community. The paper therefore opposes common
conceptualisations of trauma as a solitary and deeply internal experience. Instead, I
show that popular representations can mediate and attribute trauma with emotional
meanings that are instrumental to the construction or consolidation of wider polit-
ical communities. To do so I use the Bali bombing as an empirical backdrop against
which I examine a range of key conceptual issues. Focusing on the role of emotions
in particular, I scrutinise how traumatic events can be represented in ways that make
them meaningful to a wider community: to those who do not experience trauma dir-
ectly but only bear witness, from a distance. Representations of trauma often draw
attention to the harrowing nature of traumatic events: they signify shock, vulnerability
and confusion. Witnesses strive to make sense of what they are seeing, being affected
by emotional responses and drawing upon prevailing discourses and symbols to makes
sense of what they see and feel. In this way, traumatic, catastrophic events can acquire
shared meaning and become perceived as a collective experience.
In developing this argument I seek to contribute to three distinct debates in the
study of trauma and international relations. The fi rst way is by engaging critically
with contemporary trauma theory. A signifi cant part of this literature has emerged
from Holocaust-based understandings of trauma. With a few notable exceptions, these
studies tend to emphasise the solitude and deep sense of anxiety that accompany trau-
matic encounters. They stress that the diffi culties involved with representing trauma
obviate the possibility of understanding it in a social and thus collective manner. This
essay both draws upon and questions the limits of this approach, ultimately suggesting
that while trauma theory may hold true for conceptualising trauma’s impact at the
level of the individual it stops short in helping to appreciate how particular trau-
matic events can resonate and gain wider social and political infl uence. The second
key contribution of this essay lies in conceptualising and empirically illustrating the
centrality of emotion for understanding the politics of identity and community in
international relations. Doing so is important, in part because emotions play a crucial
political role during times of crisis and trauma, and in part because conventional
social scientifi c modes of analysis tend to dismiss emotions as purely private and
personal phenomena. Finally, my investigation provides insight that helps to better
comprehend the often parallel politics of community and security in international
relations. Key here is that popular representations of trauma tend to pave the way
for political responses that defi ne security narrowly and create contexts in which
antagonistic or belligerent security policies prevail. In this way, I suggest that the
type of solidarity constructed after trauma often serves not merely to reinstate a con-
servative and ultimately exclusionary vision of political community, but moreover
it can become a source of perceived cultural (or national) injury that risks fuelling
new confl ict.
To continue reading
Request your trial