Category Archives: Trauma

Trauma

What is Trauma? The Unfinished Response

Posted on by

What if trauma isn’t only what happened?

Trauma is commonly understood as the lasting impact of something overwhelming that happened to us.

The event matters. The circumstances matter. What happened before, during and afterwards matters.  But what if the event itself is not the trauma?

What if trauma has more to do with what the nervous system was unable to finish?

When the nervous system detects threat, it automatically organises a response.  It may turn away, move back, block, resist, push, run, fight or become still.  These responses are not random. They are organised attempts to prevent harm, protect ourselves, preserve the connection, or survive.

Usually, the response does its job and the nervous system moves on.  But sometimes something prevents that from happening.

We may be too young to act.
We may be physically overpowered or trapped.
Another defensive response may take priority.
Protecting ourselves may carry consequences we cannot afford.
Preserving an important relationship may matter more than protest, resistance or escape.

The event may end.  But something the nervous system organised to do has not.

That unfinished response can continue influencing physiology, perception, behaviour and prediction long after the original circumstances have changed.

This is the central proposition of the Biological Completion Model™:

Trauma is the persistence of an unfinished biological defensive response.

What we later call anxiety, hypervigilance, avoidance, shutdown, reactivity, tension or other trauma-related symptoms may be expressions of that continuing organisation.

The symptoms matter.  But they may not be the trauma itself.  And if that is true, it changes the question from “how do we reduce the symptoms?” or “how do we calm the nervous system?” to:

“What is this nervous system trying to do?”

That question is the beginning of nervous system logic.

Safety Is Not the Destination

Posted on by

“Feel safe again.”

This has become a familiar promise in trauma work.

And safety matters.

If danger is ongoing, the nervous system has good reason to respond to it. Creating conditions in which a person is no longer being threatened, overpowered or required to abandon themselves is fundamental.

But feeling safe is not the destination.

When the nervous system is organised around threat, wanting to feel safe makes complete sense.  Safety feels like the opposite of the problem.

But the opposite of threat is not necessarily the destination.  A living nervous system is not designed to remain permanently calm.  It is designed to respond to changing circumstances.

Life will not always feel safe.
People disagree.
Relationships change.
Boundaries are crossed.
Loss occurs.

Unexpected things happen.

Sometimes we need to protest.
Sometimes we need to protect ourselves.
Sometimes we need to move towards something.
Sometimes we need to move away.

If the goal is simply to feel safe, what happens when life is not?

A life organised around maintaining safety can become increasingly small.

Avoid the difficult conversation.
Avoid uncertainty.
Avoid conflict.
Avoid risk.
Control the environment.
Become increasingly rigid or compulsive about maintaining what feels safe.

A life organised around preserving a feeling of safety can itself become another form of constraint.

That may feel slightly safer.
But it is not freedom.

The destination is not a life in which nothing activates us.  It is a life in which we can meet what happens.

Respond.
Protect ourselves.
Move.
Speak.
Stay.
Leave.
Choose.

Safety matters. But safety is not the destination.

Agency is.

Beyond Fight, Flight and Freeze

Posted on by

The Preventative Response

Over years of working with clients, I noticed a recurring phenomenon that I initially had no explanation for.

People could escape a situation.  They could avoid the harm altogether.  Sometimes the feared outcome never actually occurred.

And yet something persisted.

The nervous system continued responding as though the threat remained.

What I eventually began to notice was that the familiar fight, flight and freeze responses were not always where defence began.

There was often an earlier response.

A movement away.
A turn of the head.
An impulse to block or interrupt.
A change in posture.
A subtle attempt to prevent what was happening from progressing any further.

I came to call this the preventative response.

These responses can be so small that neither the person nor the practitioner recognises their significance.  Attention naturally goes to the larger event — the fear, the escape, the fight, the freeze, the aftermath.

But the nervous system may have begun organising defence much earlier.

Recognising that changed the questions I was asking.

Instead of looking only at how a person survived what happened, I became interested in what their nervous system had been attempting to do before survival became necessary.

That observation eventually became an important part of the Biological Completion Model.

It also raised a much bigger question:

What happens when an early defensive response never gets to do what it was organised to do?

That question led somewhere I did not expect.

And it changed how I understood why trauma can persist.

How We Define Trauma Determines What We Treat

Posted on by

Definitions and diagnoses matter.

How we define something determines the action we take.

If we develop health symptoms, we try to identify the problem so that we can treat it. If a child develops unusual behavioural issues, we try to understand what is happening so that we can help the child. We understand that treating or masking symptoms does not resolve the underlying condition.

So how is trauma commonly defined?

Some define it as the event.

Some define it as the emotional and physical response to, and lasting effects of, an overwhelming event.

Some define it as trapped survival energy.

Each definition directs us towards a different solution strategy.

If trauma is the event, we focus on what happened.

If trauma is the lasting emotional or physiological effect of the event, we focus on those effects.

If trauma is dysregulation, we focus on regulation.

If trauma is trapped energy, we focus on releasing energy.

An incomplete definition directs us towards an incomplete solution.

We know that the same event affects people differently.

Insight does not complete a defensive response.

People can become highly skilled at regulating their nervous system and still experience the same triggers, anxiety, hypervigilance, avoidance or reactivity.

So what is sustaining the pattern?

Living systems are organised around maintaining functional integrity.

A signal identifies a requirement.  Action is organised to meet that requirement.  When the action succeeds, the system no longer needs to organise around it.

Thirst signals a need for water. We drink. The requirement is met.
Hunger signals a need for food. We eat. The requirement is met.
Threat follows the same biological logic.

When the nervous system detects threat, it organises defensive action intended to prevent harm, protect us or help us survive.

When that action cannot succeed or complete, the event can end while the defensive response remains unfinished.

This is the definition at the centre of the Biological Completion Model:

Trauma is the persistence of an unfinished biological defensive response.

That definition changes what we look for.  The symptoms are not the trauma.  They are expressions of the unfinished response.

And the central question changes from: “how do we reduce or manage these symptoms?” to “what is this nervous system trying to do?”

We have spent decades asking,  “what happened?”

This definition of trauma also requires us to ask, “what didn’t get to happen?”

Because how we define trauma determines what we try to treat.

When Regulation Becomes Suppression

Posted on by

Regulation can be incredibly helpful.  It can help us develop capacity, remain present with experience and prevent activation from becoming overwhelming.

But regulation is not necessarily the endpoint.

In trauma work, regulation is often treated as the goal. The calmer the person becomes, the more successful the intervention appears to be.  But what if the activation itself is meaningful?

Living systems mobilise in response to biological requirements.

Pain is not meant to be managed forever.
Hunger is not meant to be regulated forever.
Thirst is not meant to be regulated forever.

These functions exist to drive action.

Once the action is completed, the function naturally resolves.

What if some trauma responses work the same way?

What if the activation isn’t a mistake?  What if it isn’t dysregulation?  What if it is the nervous system attempting to continue a defensive response that was interrupted?

That changes the role of regulation.

Regulation can support enough capacity and presence to remain with what is happening.  But when regulation is repeatedly used to reduce, override or stop defensive activation, it can interrupt the response again.

The response becomes quieter.  More tolerable.  Easier to live with.  But it remains unfinished.

At that point, regulation has become management.  And management can become suppression.

The question is no longer only:  “how do I regulate this?”

It also becomes:  “what is this nervous system trying to do?”