Remembering Trauma

by McNally

Are horrific experiences indelibly fixed in a victim’s memory? Or does the mind protect itself by banishing traumatic memories from consciousness? How victims remember trauma is the most controversial issue in psychology today, spilling out of consulting rooms and laboratories to capture headlines, rupture families, provoke legislative change, and influence criminal trials and civil suits. This book, by a clinician who is also a laboratory researcher, is the first comprehensive, balanced analysis of the clinical and scientific evidence bearing on this issue―and the first to provide definitive answers to the urgent questions at the heart of the controversy.

Synthesizing clinical case reports and the vast research literature on the effects of stress, suggestion, and trauma on memory, Richard McNally arrives at significant conclusions, first and foremost that traumatic experiences are indeed unforgettable. Though people sometimes do not think about disturbing experiences for long periods of time, traumatic events rarely slip from awareness for very long; furthermore, McNally reminds us, failure to think about traumas―such as early sexual abuse―must not be confused with amnesia or an inability to remember them. In fact, the evidence for repressed memories of trauma―or even for repression at all―is surprisingly weak.

A magisterial work of scholarship, panoramic in scope and nonpartisan throughout, this unfailingly lucid work will prove indispensable to anyone seeking to understand how people remember trauma.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Mental Health, Counselling

448 pages, Paperback

First published April 22, 2003

Reviews

[Kirsten · Rating 5 out of 5]

How do humans remember? How does memory work? How do traumatic events affect memory? McNally is a scientist who studies memory, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and delves deeply into so-called repressed memories and "False Memory Syndrome." McNally has made major strides into disproving the popular conception that memory functions as a flawless record, and that experiences can be completely repressed and then recalled with complete clarity and acccuracy. He argues compellingly that in many cases, people who think of themselves as "remembering" abuse never really forgot it in the first place -- they simply actively choose not to think about it, or (as in the case of early childhood abuse) do not recognize the import of memories they have until much later. In other cases, he believes that people have "recovered" false memories due to sloppy or suggestive therapy techniques. He goes into a lot of detail about the studies he and his colleagues have performed, and also points out potential flaws in prior major studies of PTSD and memory. It's a truly fascinating read. It reminded me somewhat of Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, except that McNally places much more emphasis on research that furthers our understanding of memory, rather than simply discrediting recovered memory specialists.

[Jeroen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant scientific deathblow to such profoundly unscientific theories as 'repression' (Freud) and 'dissociation' (Janet)... Perhaps a dry read for some... I found it well build-up and well written...

[Wietse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scholarly rebuttal of popular claims about trauma(tic memory). Probably a bit dry for the lay public (although there are quite some jokes), for professionals or scientists in any contact with these issues, a must-read.

[Maggie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yay thesis.

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

Have a lot of complicated thoughts on this book but it is probably one of the most pervasive examples of "heartbreaking - the worst person you know just made a great point" I've ever stumbled across. Probably just leave my thoughts at that, tbh.

Update 02/05/2024

Okay, just some more thoughts on this but I think what kind of interests me are these books that cover this whole debate surrounding false versus recovered memories and the underlying veracity that surrounds both of them and it's always kind of interesting just how there's always these little details that are shared in common with them. Memory is not like a tape recorder and is malleable with regards to details remembered and how they're contextualised, and there's definitely something in this book where it seems to put an entire lid on the concept of "repressed memory" and so forth. Something that also pops up is how there is definitely a suggestion towards recovered memories in this just that it's contextualised in a way where it's about an evolving conceptual framework with regards to memories and how traumatic memories can be mixed in as a result of that - that it is entirely possible for memories to be spontaneously recovered without really thinking about them. Beyond trauma, it's interesting how so many things like that can click into place and it's not merely just a lack of talking about things or being "too scared to" but way more underlying problems with how things are contextualised up in someone's headspace.

That said, I think McNally is kind of interesting to me because there's a lot that he goes on about that's really fascinating and he does kind of have a very vivid way of describing stories and showing the contradictions behind things. One thing this book really does show is that he wants you to think about and challenge your perception on memory that I think really does kind of stand out in a lot of passage. McNally also does kind of strike me as a bit of a pontificator as well like he's the authority on memory rather than anyone else, and there's some bits in this (such as the way that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is described here - a pernicious as all hell organisation) that seem a bit suspect to me and also yeah, this was also written by the same guy who published a research paper against trigger warnings, which my god does that show here in how it's written. Elizabeth Loftus is cited a lot in this book as well who I also definitely have a very conflicted opinion on as well. Yeah, personally I'm extremely conflicted on this book and just the whole topic it covers in general. It's one of those things where you can really see the whole thing swinging either way in terms of what people are a bit too credulous about, which is not so much just with this book but just basically about anyone covering this field. On one hand you've got denial of the topics surrounding traumatic memories and then on the other hand you've got extremely credulous examples such as with Satanic Panic, and it just seems like a topic that lacks proper contextualisation with some folk so it leads on into the topic being discussed in a totally insane way. Very controversial and something where I just think there isn't really a definitive sort of answer to it (indeed I think memory may be a bit too paradoxical for such a thing to really come to fruition anyway), but it is interesting to read about stuff like this. I'd highly recommend this book if you're remotely interested in the topic. Not saying I entirely agree with everything that's written in this book but hey, isn't that what's so thrilling about reading stuff like this?

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everything I ever wanted to know about the science of memory. Absolutely fastenating!