What do you think?
Rate this book
Traumatized: The New Politics of Public Suffering
How trauma became a weapon in the culture wars, by the acclaimed author of Virtue Hoarders
What happens when an idea born of genuine suffering is weaponized as a tool of social control? Traumatized is the story of how shell shock became PTSD, how Oprah turned pain into profit, and how “authenticity” became the ultimate brand. It is a history of surveillance capitalism’s greatest convincing us that wounds define us and that accommodating each other’s trauma is more important than challenging the powerful.
Catherine Liu delivers an unflinching diagnosis of our current crisis, rooted as it is in the collapse of liberal politics, the ascendance of performance fragility, and the rise of emotional display as a surrogate for political action. Sharp, provocative, and urgently necessary, Traumatized argues that we must reject a politics of permanent victimhood since it destroys solidarity and leaves us defenseless against the systems that cause real harm.
What happens when an idea born of genuine suffering is weaponized as a tool of social control? Traumatized is the story of how shell shock became PTSD, how Oprah turned pain into profit, and how “authenticity” became the ultimate brand. It is a history of surveillance capitalism’s greatest convincing us that wounds define us and that accommodating each other’s trauma is more important than challenging the powerful.
Catherine Liu delivers an unflinching diagnosis of our current crisis, rooted as it is in the collapse of liberal politics, the ascendance of performance fragility, and the rise of emotional display as a surrogate for political action. Sharp, provocative, and urgently necessary, Traumatized argues that we must reject a politics of permanent victimhood since it destroys solidarity and leaves us defenseless against the systems that cause real harm.
192 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 29, 2026
About the author
Catherine Liu
25 books283 followersCatherine Liu is the director of the University of California Irvine’s Humanities Center, a professor in Film and Media Studies, and the coeditor of The Dreams of Interpretation: A Century Down the Royal Road. She is the author of Oriental Girls Desire Romance (a novel), Copying Machines: Taking Notes for the Automaton, and American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critique.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
The word “trauma” derives directly from the Greek word τραῦμα meaning “wound” but the contemporary sense of the word, the metaphorical idea of an invisible psychic wound, only emerged at the end of the 19th century. This semantic development followed a growing psychiatric awareness of mental and nervous disorders but Liu’s book shows a deeper change in the word, beyond the inward shift from exterior wounds to psychic scars: discussing specific historical cases of trauma-related discourses (insurance claims, child-welfare interventions, the Vietnam War, and finally, the Oprah Winfrey Show), Liu explores how trauma took shape in the Anglo-American world as a new form of capital—both monetary and moral.
As Liu explains, trauma theories of the mind were first used by victims of train derailments and veterans of war to claim compensation or seek medical care; second-wave feminists invoked the concept of personal trauma (whether from domestic abuse or assault) to confer moral authority on their larger critiques of gender inequity and oppression in the public sphere; moving into mass culture, Oprah Winfrey used her own story of childhood abuse to fashion herself as an authentic, vulnerable, accessible television-host, making her traumatic upbringing part of her public brand. Trauma, in all these instances, was transmuted into a cachet that could secure money, entitlements, recognition, book contracts, moral status. To be a victim of trauma meant to be a survivor, a witness, a prophet, someone to be heard, seen, cared for, deferred to.
The confession of trauma was thereby assumed into the neoliberal commerce of social movements, entertainment media, psychiatric institutions, government agencies. Trauma became part of an activist’s political credentials; agents and publishers could take stories of trauma and repackage them for mass consumption (I love Helen DeWitt’s “The English Understand Wool” in which an editor tries to squeeze a familiar narrative of trauma and survival from a young girl who declines all the trauma cliches). As Liu points out, trauma culture and trauma narratives have sunk into everyday life: US high-school students applying to college are often taught (explicitly/implicitly) to present stories of setback, suffering and resilience, parroting these broader scripts of trauma, recovery and empowerment. Trauma and victimhood have been incorporated into the repertoire of identity and self-marketing.
Liu’s ultimate point, however, is that this commodification of trauma ultimately erases class-based consciousness, centering individual stories of trauma and ignoring systemic injustice. “Capitalism loves trauma culture,” she writes pithily. The Oprah Winfrey Show might be celebrated for its outward rhetoric of progressive feminism, Oprah herself translated her story into meaningful political action (promoting the 1993 Child Protection Act), but her interviews tend to silence discussion of class, inequality and feminism. People tune in to watch a programme of disclosure and therapy. As Liu puts it catchily, “Liberal revelations were being televised, even if the revolution was not.” Spiritual self-care, positive thinking and emotional catharsis disarm collective action and solidarity.
Catherine Liu’s book joins a critical turn against trauma (see Parul Seghal’s piece “The Case Against the Trauma Plot” in The New Yorker) and her book offers a valuable rejoinder to the mass-marketing of individual suffering as a lucrative fodder for political and commercial ends—and yet I found it strange that Catherine Liu could only see trauma as a discourse to be theorized. Her book, ultimately, lacked an obvious acknowledgement: trauma is real. At a neurological level, trauma can rewire the brain and victims of trauma may find themselves unable to disentangle past events from their present moment. Trauma for them is not some concept to be historicized but something that they are constantly reliving. Some people really do have deep psychic wounds—which cannot be solved by Marxist-informed collective awareness.
A provocative and polemical book—certainly one to court controversy. Thanks to the publishers for the advance copy!
As Liu explains, trauma theories of the mind were first used by victims of train derailments and veterans of war to claim compensation or seek medical care; second-wave feminists invoked the concept of personal trauma (whether from domestic abuse or assault) to confer moral authority on their larger critiques of gender inequity and oppression in the public sphere; moving into mass culture, Oprah Winfrey used her own story of childhood abuse to fashion herself as an authentic, vulnerable, accessible television-host, making her traumatic upbringing part of her public brand. Trauma, in all these instances, was transmuted into a cachet that could secure money, entitlements, recognition, book contracts, moral status. To be a victim of trauma meant to be a survivor, a witness, a prophet, someone to be heard, seen, cared for, deferred to.
The confession of trauma was thereby assumed into the neoliberal commerce of social movements, entertainment media, psychiatric institutions, government agencies. Trauma became part of an activist’s political credentials; agents and publishers could take stories of trauma and repackage them for mass consumption (I love Helen DeWitt’s “The English Understand Wool” in which an editor tries to squeeze a familiar narrative of trauma and survival from a young girl who declines all the trauma cliches). As Liu points out, trauma culture and trauma narratives have sunk into everyday life: US high-school students applying to college are often taught (explicitly/implicitly) to present stories of setback, suffering and resilience, parroting these broader scripts of trauma, recovery and empowerment. Trauma and victimhood have been incorporated into the repertoire of identity and self-marketing.
Liu’s ultimate point, however, is that this commodification of trauma ultimately erases class-based consciousness, centering individual stories of trauma and ignoring systemic injustice. “Capitalism loves trauma culture,” she writes pithily. The Oprah Winfrey Show might be celebrated for its outward rhetoric of progressive feminism, Oprah herself translated her story into meaningful political action (promoting the 1993 Child Protection Act), but her interviews tend to silence discussion of class, inequality and feminism. People tune in to watch a programme of disclosure and therapy. As Liu puts it catchily, “Liberal revelations were being televised, even if the revolution was not.” Spiritual self-care, positive thinking and emotional catharsis disarm collective action and solidarity.
Catherine Liu’s book joins a critical turn against trauma (see Parul Seghal’s piece “The Case Against the Trauma Plot” in The New Yorker) and her book offers a valuable rejoinder to the mass-marketing of individual suffering as a lucrative fodder for political and commercial ends—and yet I found it strange that Catherine Liu could only see trauma as a discourse to be theorized. Her book, ultimately, lacked an obvious acknowledgement: trauma is real. At a neurological level, trauma can rewire the brain and victims of trauma may find themselves unable to disentangle past events from their present moment. Trauma for them is not some concept to be historicized but something that they are constantly reliving. Some people really do have deep psychic wounds—which cannot be solved by Marxist-informed collective awareness.
A provocative and polemical book—certainly one to court controversy. Thanks to the publishers for the advance copy!
October 7, 2026
i promise i tried to give this book a fair shot but catherine liu is utterly morally reprehensible for writing this book.
there are some ideas in here i thought were interesting but at no point does she connect any of them coherently. liu hopes that you will make the connection yourself because she is quite frankly not talented or empathetic enough to connect them to her greater thesis. and speaking of that thesis, what even is it? i got the impression liu just wanted to rant about a group she thinks gets too much empathy: raped women.
im writing this in the context of the horrific gang rape of jane doe at cornell university and to a lesser degree in the fall out of youtuber jacob geller being revealed as a rapist. i had hoped that liu had something to say about trauma beyond mere awareness campaigns, but instead she takes long, tedious detours to explain the history of orphan trains and chile under Pinochet. i felt she was going to thread the needle at any moment, that she would finally explain how any of this has to do with anything else, but it all culminates with liu insisting that it would be absurd for an american victim of sexual harassment to claim trauma over, say, a ugandan child bride.
the book is also very concerned with attacking so-called identity politics. given its focus on labor rights, one of the things i had hoped she would discuss was how rape and abuse cripples victims' economic ability through creating psychiatric damage AND social, reputational damage, especially because society is deeply hostile to victims but nope! its actually about how women are too focused on preventing abuse and rape instead of like, caring about the working class.
catherine. have you at all considered that workplace sexual violence IS a working class issue? she just pretends thats not the case, that the only women who cry rape and harassment are members of the 'PMC', or professional middle class.
despite lius obsession with prioritizing class over everything else, she refuses to accept how ones relationship to gender and race is itself a class relation, that sexual violence in and outside the home keeps women economically exploited no matter where they are or what they do, that the fight for bodily autonomy is about as working class as it gets. she also acts like shes some kind of labor radical but shes an academic, literally a member of the PMC she complains so loudly about, and despite citing marx, also does not want to use the word 'anticommunism' once. she complains so much about liberals and yet behaves exactly the same so what is the fucking point of her?
i also thought she was going to talk about how psychiatry criminalizes and pathologizes victims of trauma but she instead takes this specific example of a specific feminist psychiatrist doing it rather than applying it to the entire field. liu constantly seems like shes gearing up to talk about how widespread trauma is, how trauma proliferates as a direct result of capitalist and class society generally, but she REFUSES to make that claim, which gives off the impression that she sees interpersonal violence and abuse as essentially a private, individual matter. it is true that survivors are encouraged to come out about it only once we have neatly wrapped up our trauma and put it in the past, to present this careful narrative of overcoming, but she doesnt think to discuss how most survivors struggle, how the stigma of abuse keeps us silent and sick.
this whole book comes off as a list of petty grievances. liu is angry someone would identify as a 'survivor', insisting that doing so limits our ability to fight for other causes and that seeking to end abuse itself is a 'distraction'. its an incredibly cruel and cynical view of survivors that borders on rape apologia.
anyway. this was one of the nastiest books ive ever read. just because youre dressing up your hideous feelings in the language of academia doesnt mean youre not full of fucking shit.
there are some ideas in here i thought were interesting but at no point does she connect any of them coherently. liu hopes that you will make the connection yourself because she is quite frankly not talented or empathetic enough to connect them to her greater thesis. and speaking of that thesis, what even is it? i got the impression liu just wanted to rant about a group she thinks gets too much empathy: raped women.
im writing this in the context of the horrific gang rape of jane doe at cornell university and to a lesser degree in the fall out of youtuber jacob geller being revealed as a rapist. i had hoped that liu had something to say about trauma beyond mere awareness campaigns, but instead she takes long, tedious detours to explain the history of orphan trains and chile under Pinochet. i felt she was going to thread the needle at any moment, that she would finally explain how any of this has to do with anything else, but it all culminates with liu insisting that it would be absurd for an american victim of sexual harassment to claim trauma over, say, a ugandan child bride.
the book is also very concerned with attacking so-called identity politics. given its focus on labor rights, one of the things i had hoped she would discuss was how rape and abuse cripples victims' economic ability through creating psychiatric damage AND social, reputational damage, especially because society is deeply hostile to victims but nope! its actually about how women are too focused on preventing abuse and rape instead of like, caring about the working class.
catherine. have you at all considered that workplace sexual violence IS a working class issue? she just pretends thats not the case, that the only women who cry rape and harassment are members of the 'PMC', or professional middle class.
despite lius obsession with prioritizing class over everything else, she refuses to accept how ones relationship to gender and race is itself a class relation, that sexual violence in and outside the home keeps women economically exploited no matter where they are or what they do, that the fight for bodily autonomy is about as working class as it gets. she also acts like shes some kind of labor radical but shes an academic, literally a member of the PMC she complains so loudly about, and despite citing marx, also does not want to use the word 'anticommunism' once. she complains so much about liberals and yet behaves exactly the same so what is the fucking point of her?
i also thought she was going to talk about how psychiatry criminalizes and pathologizes victims of trauma but she instead takes this specific example of a specific feminist psychiatrist doing it rather than applying it to the entire field. liu constantly seems like shes gearing up to talk about how widespread trauma is, how trauma proliferates as a direct result of capitalist and class society generally, but she REFUSES to make that claim, which gives off the impression that she sees interpersonal violence and abuse as essentially a private, individual matter. it is true that survivors are encouraged to come out about it only once we have neatly wrapped up our trauma and put it in the past, to present this careful narrative of overcoming, but she doesnt think to discuss how most survivors struggle, how the stigma of abuse keeps us silent and sick.
this whole book comes off as a list of petty grievances. liu is angry someone would identify as a 'survivor', insisting that doing so limits our ability to fight for other causes and that seeking to end abuse itself is a 'distraction'. its an incredibly cruel and cynical view of survivors that borders on rape apologia.
anyway. this was one of the nastiest books ive ever read. just because youre dressing up your hideous feelings in the language of academia doesnt mean youre not full of fucking shit.
May 24, 2026
While I know that this wasn't the intent of the author, the tone she ended up writing this in ended up coming off to me as super judgemental that trauma victims are sharing their stories publicly and incredibly dismissive. I get that she is trying to assess this trend from a Marxist point of view and to showcase it as a dark element of capitalism (especially with the Oprah chapter), but she isn't able to fully disengage her own personal bias. Better luck next time.
April 2, 2026
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for this ARC!
This is a fascinating book that reads as somewhat more so of a long form essay, exploring the tokenisation and alteration of trauma in the public consciousness and how we have commodified it. I found it to be somewhat alarming, but also remarkably interesting.
So often we are caught up in the narrative of suffering- what it means to have ‘lived experience’ of something versus being educated but not having actually experienced it. This leads to a concept that is, perhaps, more interesting than all others- the idea that we have invalidated research and data in favour of anecdotes.
This book goes aways to explaining this, and more. I think the part I found most interesting was the segment on Oprah and her business modelled off trauma. We have seen the rise of this even more sharply on the internet in recent years, and it’s got an undertone of ill-will underneath.
I think as the world develops further into comfort and we see the rise of a specific narrative in relation to technology, we are going to only see more of this kind of thing. I do wish that we got a little bit more about the advent of the internet in this book, but with that said, it was definitely more than fascinating.
This is a fascinating book that reads as somewhat more so of a long form essay, exploring the tokenisation and alteration of trauma in the public consciousness and how we have commodified it. I found it to be somewhat alarming, but also remarkably interesting.
So often we are caught up in the narrative of suffering- what it means to have ‘lived experience’ of something versus being educated but not having actually experienced it. This leads to a concept that is, perhaps, more interesting than all others- the idea that we have invalidated research and data in favour of anecdotes.
This book goes aways to explaining this, and more. I think the part I found most interesting was the segment on Oprah and her business modelled off trauma. We have seen the rise of this even more sharply on the internet in recent years, and it’s got an undertone of ill-will underneath.
I think as the world develops further into comfort and we see the rise of a specific narrative in relation to technology, we are going to only see more of this kind of thing. I do wish that we got a little bit more about the advent of the internet in this book, but with that said, it was definitely more than fascinating.
September 30, 2026
This book is crap. Liu is ostensibly arguing in favor of the class-centric analysis of the Old Left and viciously critical of its antithesis, the identity-based politics of the New Left, and even worse, the more recent menace of DEI and modern liberal identity politics. This book does not actually have a thesis, it’s just sort of a disorganized rant about everything. Liu can’t just say she doesn’t like the somewhat nebulous interdisciplinary field of “trauma studies” (which somehow I’ve never heard of), she has to associate it with CIA efforts to destroy socialism in the global south.
The connections she makes between trauma and American anticommunism in Vietnam and Chile are tenuous at best. Like Naomi Klein, she sees the Chilean coup as emblematic of the connection between right-wing torture regimes, neoliberalism, and individualized analyses of mental illness. This worldview obviously is limited, in its most extreme variant blaming capitalism or “big pharma” for all mental problems that individuals suffer. While capitalism no doubt exacerbates mental illness, there is no doubt that many people simply benefit from treatment or medication. Saying that every medical condition is merely a consequence of medicalization may be true in an abstract sense, but it’s not very helpful for treating anyone. While I agree with Liu that the framework of trauma is lacking in a many ways, this book makes a horrible case for it.
The author is so annoying that I actually want to defend trauma studies now. While critical of postmodernism and the new left and dripping in venomous hatred of the “professional managerial class” (PMC) Liu fails to realize that most people who she claims to defend would probably hate her and consider her just another liberal elite who espouses “critical race theory.”
The connections she makes between trauma and American anticommunism in Vietnam and Chile are tenuous at best. Like Naomi Klein, she sees the Chilean coup as emblematic of the connection between right-wing torture regimes, neoliberalism, and individualized analyses of mental illness. This worldview obviously is limited, in its most extreme variant blaming capitalism or “big pharma” for all mental problems that individuals suffer. While capitalism no doubt exacerbates mental illness, there is no doubt that many people simply benefit from treatment or medication. Saying that every medical condition is merely a consequence of medicalization may be true in an abstract sense, but it’s not very helpful for treating anyone. While I agree with Liu that the framework of trauma is lacking in a many ways, this book makes a horrible case for it.
The author is so annoying that I actually want to defend trauma studies now. While critical of postmodernism and the new left and dripping in venomous hatred of the “professional managerial class” (PMC) Liu fails to realize that most people who she claims to defend would probably hate her and consider her just another liberal elite who espouses “critical race theory.”
October 18, 2026
What an utterly unserious book… although Liu uses some intriguing references here and there (the history of youth care for example and its depoliticised origins), she weaves around them a disjointed, patronising and basically soulless discourse that scarcely manages to support her underlying thesis that ‘trauma culture ruins class struggle’ (a point that has already been made better and with greater nuance elsewhere; yet Liu refers to this too little).
I can appreciate polemical essayists sometimes but not when it comes to such thorny painful complex issues. What a waste, I was looking forward to this book :—-(
I can appreciate polemical essayists sometimes but not when it comes to such thorny painful complex issues. What a waste, I was looking forward to this book :—-(
September 14, 2026
With a world as harsh as ours, our relationship to trauma is as personal as it is global. We are driven to ease the suffering that we both experience and witness. Our understanding of trauma has only deepened from this pursuit. The body keeps the score, but we do not all play on the same field. Trauma is political, but this conversation is repeatedly ruled out-of-bounds by an endless cycle of cultural referees. Trauma, no matter the scale, is bound to history and its material societies. Yet in order for the culture of trauma to remain commodified and privatized, trauma is placed in a contextual vacuum. This mystification allows for the root causes of poverty, exploitation, and oppression to remain unaddressed. Instead, we are presented with individualized narratives of awareness and recovery that remain as abstract as the curative properties they claim to offer.
Catherine Liu challenges the rhetoric of these scripts in Traumatized. She argues that trauma culture prevents discourse around collective policies of health in favor of curating individual identities in isolation. By separating the subjects of suffering from their economic class, trauma becomes a currency available to all—sanitized from the reality that it is unequally distributed. Liu traces the history of how the epidemics of child abuse, sexual violence, and PTSD were uncovered to the general public. With the media often presenting the most sensationalized examples of these traumas, the public rightfully reacted with horror yet remained indifferent as welfare programs, social services, and mental health institutions were demolished at the same time.
The main concern raised by this incisive book is this: trauma culture is stained by ethical superiority and political malleability. Those who suffer are objectified, and are deemed worthy or unworthy of care based on their ability to tokenize their trauma in a depoliticized and decontextualized manner. This book centers on the hegemony of American & Western trauma culture. It is unacceptable that countless numbers of international & illiterate poor must fashion their bodies wounded by the slow violence of capitalism according to the aloof scripts written by those same insulated servants of capital. All for a scrap of recognition, and even that can be just a prologue to surveillance. In order to pave new paths to healing, we must confront the truth that our world is created and cruel. Addressing systemic faults while advancing collective healthcare policies is crucial if we are to ever slow the score that our bodies keep.
Catherine Liu challenges the rhetoric of these scripts in Traumatized. She argues that trauma culture prevents discourse around collective policies of health in favor of curating individual identities in isolation. By separating the subjects of suffering from their economic class, trauma becomes a currency available to all—sanitized from the reality that it is unequally distributed. Liu traces the history of how the epidemics of child abuse, sexual violence, and PTSD were uncovered to the general public. With the media often presenting the most sensationalized examples of these traumas, the public rightfully reacted with horror yet remained indifferent as welfare programs, social services, and mental health institutions were demolished at the same time.
The main concern raised by this incisive book is this: trauma culture is stained by ethical superiority and political malleability. Those who suffer are objectified, and are deemed worthy or unworthy of care based on their ability to tokenize their trauma in a depoliticized and decontextualized manner. This book centers on the hegemony of American & Western trauma culture. It is unacceptable that countless numbers of international & illiterate poor must fashion their bodies wounded by the slow violence of capitalism according to the aloof scripts written by those same insulated servants of capital. All for a scrap of recognition, and even that can be just a prologue to surveillance. In order to pave new paths to healing, we must confront the truth that our world is created and cruel. Addressing systemic faults while advancing collective healthcare policies is crucial if we are to ever slow the score that our bodies keep.
October 10, 2026
as much as I intuitively dislike liu (she's been mean to me online and I take that personally) I think she did a good job here. extremely well-sourced takedown of trauma culture and how it depoliticizes lived experience, thus shutting marxist class explanations down and instead feeding into progressive liberal narratives. I think it could have been longer, given its aims. Also the conclusion was horrid, way too short and the first half feels like she wanted to make another case study chapter but didn't. so ultimately the book doesn't have a set conclusion except the one you give it, which is unacceptable for a book under two-hundred pages. but regardless this is an interesting history of the rise of trauma culture and its effects upon class politics; interesting how it will shake out given the resurgence of anti-trauma-culture on the "right." perhaps the book could have benefitted from being released six years earlier.
October 16, 2026
To be honest, this book can be summarized in one sentence: American culture’s obsession with trauma is a distraction from the Marxist aim of liberating the working class and overthrowing capitalism. I didn’t know anything about the author before going into this book, but it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that she is a bona-fide, dyed-in-the-wool, Engels-quoting Marxist who denounces, among other contingencies, second-wave feminists, civil rights activists, supporters of abortion, and child welfare advocates for overlooking what she sees as the one real problem that underlies every other problem — oppression of the wage-laboring classes. The book is a screed against what Liu calls “trauma culture”, which is not an empirical, descriptive, or sociological term, but rather is defined primarily in its relation to the self-protective interests of the “professional-managerial class”. Its language is consistently hyperbolic, and Liu seems completely out of touch with the basic reality that most liberals and progressives (the chief subject of her ire) do not solely care about women’s rights, racism, or child welfare to the total exclusion of alleviating poverty or reducing inequities in wealth. Although I think that Marxists might enjoy this book, I think she’s largely preaching to a Marxist choir. Certainly I did not find this book particularly helpful in actually understanding “trauma culture”, where it came from, and where it might go from here.
October 11, 2026
The author would be better off spending her time in therapy. This book is a hot mess.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
I finished the last page of the book and felt that despite the best of intentions since the 19th Century, great harm continues.
An individual’s best of intentions can be debated because the author makes a solid case that the practitioners and lay people were/still are ill-prepared. At worst, too many in history had the intent to do further harm.
The depth of the research done in each of the chapters could be a separate book itself. For that reason, I felt it would be best served as a text in the curriculum for an undergraduate degree. It belongs with students in the social science or practicing clinicians.
I felt that it wasn’t well-suited for the casual reader. It also left a sense that trauma continues to run rampant and we aren’t any better served in present day.
I thank NetGalley, the publisher and the author for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
An individual’s best of intentions can be debated because the author makes a solid case that the practitioners and lay people were/still are ill-prepared. At worst, too many in history had the intent to do further harm.
The depth of the research done in each of the chapters could be a separate book itself. For that reason, I felt it would be best served as a text in the curriculum for an undergraduate degree. It belongs with students in the social science or practicing clinicians.
I felt that it wasn’t well-suited for the casual reader. It also left a sense that trauma continues to run rampant and we aren’t any better served in present day.
I thank NetGalley, the publisher and the author for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.
July 27, 2026
Thank you to NetGalley and Verso Books for providing me with an ARC of this book. All opinions are my own.
“Traumatized” is a confronting and bold look at the emergence of trauma culture liberalism and the ways in which this ideology has failed to produce a better world and instead legitimises inequality, the proliferation of technosolutionism, and has provided cover for American imperialism.
I really appreciated this book, particularly the chapter around the mythology around social work and the way trauma culture has bypassed economic deprivation and material reality. I felt that many of the critiques made by Liu are things that have been bubbling in the corners of my brain for many years but that I’ve struggled to articulate in any meaningful way.
I would recommend reading this book alongside “Elite Capture” by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, a book I read this year that I also found particularly illuminating on the topic of identity politics and its subservience to neoliberalism.
“Traumatized” is a confronting and bold look at the emergence of trauma culture liberalism and the ways in which this ideology has failed to produce a better world and instead legitimises inequality, the proliferation of technosolutionism, and has provided cover for American imperialism.
I really appreciated this book, particularly the chapter around the mythology around social work and the way trauma culture has bypassed economic deprivation and material reality. I felt that many of the critiques made by Liu are things that have been bubbling in the corners of my brain for many years but that I’ve struggled to articulate in any meaningful way.
I would recommend reading this book alongside “Elite Capture” by Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, a book I read this year that I also found particularly illuminating on the topic of identity politics and its subservience to neoliberalism.
Read
September 28, 2026Such an interesting topic! The early chapters promise to look at the way "trauma culture was born on television, migrated into literature and liberal political spaces and is not firmly entrenched as a feature of social media. It provides a way for us to connect with each other in a highly mediated, pseudo therapeutic manner." She points out that the right has also using trauma culture to "police the public domain and censor language to its advantage by suppressing satire, criticism and dissent."
The author is a media studies professor, so I was expecting a book written through that lens. But at times this reads more as an American history textbook, going back to Victorian times, nineteenth century bourgeois parenting, and the Industrial Revolution (riding on high speed trains was apparently considered physically and psychologically traumatizing). The book centers its critique around something called Professorial Managerial Culture in contemporary times (which is a critique of the totality of bourgeois consciousness and intersubjectivity.)
While fascinating, to me, this read more like a dissertation adapted as a textbook than a book written for the average reader interested in media and psychology. As wrote a dissertation, reading this actually gave me a bit of PTSD.
The author is a media studies professor, so I was expecting a book written through that lens. But at times this reads more as an American history textbook, going back to Victorian times, nineteenth century bourgeois parenting, and the Industrial Revolution (riding on high speed trains was apparently considered physically and psychologically traumatizing). The book centers its critique around something called Professorial Managerial Culture in contemporary times (which is a critique of the totality of bourgeois consciousness and intersubjectivity.)
While fascinating, to me, this read more like a dissertation adapted as a textbook than a book written for the average reader interested in media and psychology. As wrote a dissertation, reading this actually gave me a bit of PTSD.
October 12, 2026
This book touches on so many of the most important issues of today. Oftentimes, in criticism of the subjectiveness of present day politics and the “personal is political” mantra, I find that the voice feels not so different from an uncle at Christmas lamenting cancel culture.
Catherine Liu tows this fine line quite gracefully. In offering up stories of trauma culture, it rarely feels like she is lambasting even the most privileged of survivors for their personal struggle, but rather for their egregious entrepreneurial attitude towards the commodification of their most intimate and formative memories.
It makes me wonder what healing looks like for her.
However, I think she, as a lot of more economically minded leftists, creates a bit of a false dichotomy. She decides prince Harry’s spectacle on Apple TV is voyeuristic and not therapeutic, but I wonder why if can’t be both. Why did the first and second wave feminists have to focus on unions or middle management? Why can’t a movement advocate against sexism in both?
Catherine Liu tows this fine line quite gracefully. In offering up stories of trauma culture, it rarely feels like she is lambasting even the most privileged of survivors for their personal struggle, but rather for their egregious entrepreneurial attitude towards the commodification of their most intimate and formative memories.
It makes me wonder what healing looks like for her.
However, I think she, as a lot of more economically minded leftists, creates a bit of a false dichotomy. She decides prince Harry’s spectacle on Apple TV is voyeuristic and not therapeutic, but I wonder why if can’t be both. Why did the first and second wave feminists have to focus on unions or middle management? Why can’t a movement advocate against sexism in both?
October 20, 2026
paul de man created trauma studies, sure what the hell why not
October 25, 2026
the conclusion ate down
October 22, 2026
entertaining but facile
October 15, 2026
Required reading for therapists
October 19, 2026
Traumatized by Catherine Liu
Is nightmarish
Liu does a very good job balancing issues plaguing society that lead to individual harm and performative trauma with a goal of profiting.
We read through 4 well argued chapters (connecting essays really) they focuse on child abuse, second wave feminism, PTSD, and Oprah. Liu paints a picture of trauma turning from an issue for culture change in society with legal movements for a better society to one of personal narratives for profit and solutions that profit a few and entertain the rest of us.
It is a good critic of performative liberalism. Where certain movements focus on talking and power moves into profit or politics - rather than solving the issues. At the same time turning a blind eye, or worse burying, root causes ensuring that the trauma continues indefinitely. It specifically speaks about the poor, and how social-economic status leads towards certain outcomes. It is well illustrated for child abuse, and rates Liu outlines. Think “he has a promising future” type mentality.
A meaningful study Liu presents is the change from “asylums” to more individual care, leading to more choice and a plethora of medication to cure. Which as she says, one is now free from the institution to have the choice to be on the streets as homeless veterans, or for the victims of abuse to find safety in prisons having committed the same crimes inflicted on them due to a never ending cycle.
This book is for anyone who would like a critique of why it seems we can pinpoint the problem, recognize it, but cannot seem to solve it substationally. And also why there are so many riffs in so many movements.
Is nightmarish
Liu does a very good job balancing issues plaguing society that lead to individual harm and performative trauma with a goal of profiting.
We read through 4 well argued chapters (connecting essays really) they focuse on child abuse, second wave feminism, PTSD, and Oprah. Liu paints a picture of trauma turning from an issue for culture change in society with legal movements for a better society to one of personal narratives for profit and solutions that profit a few and entertain the rest of us.
It is a good critic of performative liberalism. Where certain movements focus on talking and power moves into profit or politics - rather than solving the issues. At the same time turning a blind eye, or worse burying, root causes ensuring that the trauma continues indefinitely. It specifically speaks about the poor, and how social-economic status leads towards certain outcomes. It is well illustrated for child abuse, and rates Liu outlines. Think “he has a promising future” type mentality.
A meaningful study Liu presents is the change from “asylums” to more individual care, leading to more choice and a plethora of medication to cure. Which as she says, one is now free from the institution to have the choice to be on the streets as homeless veterans, or for the victims of abuse to find safety in prisons having committed the same crimes inflicted on them due to a never ending cycle.
This book is for anyone who would like a critique of why it seems we can pinpoint the problem, recognize it, but cannot seem to solve it substationally. And also why there are so many riffs in so many movements.
October 31, 2026
I’ve learned so much from Liu’s talks and books. Her work has really helped me think through my own views on American politics, class, woke culture, and more importantly, Communism.
What I find very compelling is her critique of the professional managerial class (PMC). How people can serve the interests of capital while seeing themselves as virtuous liberals just because they acknowledge other people’s trauma and champion feminism in the workplace. It’s a politics that lets people feel they’re being a good person, making a difference in the world without having to look at the structures that benefit them and ignores the others.
AOC, Oprah, Prince Harry and many more have been using their platforms to share their trauma publically to create an illusion of solidarity while ignoring the enormous class differences untouched. Sharing the language of trauma doesn’t mean sharing the same material circumstances or having the same resources to recover. No wonder the democrats electoral failures were so epic.
I ready some critical reviews from libs calling Liu not empathetic because she wants to silence rape victims and biased because she’s a Marxist, which makes me believe even more that one person one vote is definitely not the best form of democracy.
The book moves constantly among history, politics, economics, psychology, and sociology and I sometimes struggled to follow the connections due to gaps in my own knowledge so I’ll definitely re-read it at some point. Also super excited for the Chinese translation too. Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!
What I find very compelling is her critique of the professional managerial class (PMC). How people can serve the interests of capital while seeing themselves as virtuous liberals just because they acknowledge other people’s trauma and champion feminism in the workplace. It’s a politics that lets people feel they’re being a good person, making a difference in the world without having to look at the structures that benefit them and ignores the others.
AOC, Oprah, Prince Harry and many more have been using their platforms to share their trauma publically to create an illusion of solidarity while ignoring the enormous class differences untouched. Sharing the language of trauma doesn’t mean sharing the same material circumstances or having the same resources to recover. No wonder the democrats electoral failures were so epic.
I ready some critical reviews from libs calling Liu not empathetic because she wants to silence rape victims and biased because she’s a Marxist, which makes me believe even more that one person one vote is definitely not the best form of democracy.
The book moves constantly among history, politics, economics, psychology, and sociology and I sometimes struggled to follow the connections due to gaps in my own knowledge so I’ll definitely re-read it at some point. Also super excited for the Chinese translation too. Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!
November 1, 2026
I was really looking forward to this book as I was hoping for an incisive analysis of the overuse (and weakening) of the term trauma and the rise of suffering and identity as dominating concerns in academia. I had heard snippets about the book from podcast interviews with the author that sounded provocative. The topic is really timely. Unfortunately, this is a very glib take on trauma culture. It's one note hit repeatedly: class is left out of analysis in the American situation. There are reductive accounts of historical influences across centuries, particularly the first chapter where there's a jump from Rousseau to twentieth-century America. The claims made for Oprah are similarly asserted rather than argued for. In fact, there's a lot of assertions rather than careful arguments. There's a truly bizarre claim that trauma studies emerges in response to revelations about Paul de Man's war time writing despite the fact that Liu notes Caruth had started her doctoral study on trauma with de Man before the revelations. List to a podcast you'll get the drift, alas the book is not worth buying or reading.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
What I initially thought was a book, is in reality more of a scholary essay. The first section is almost entirely inaccessible to anyone who isn't steeped in the modern college vernacular. That's not inherently a bad thing but it did catch me off guard and make the content a bit dry for my personal taste. The second section improves a bit, delving into the history of psychology as it pertains to PTSD. I really enjoyed learning about some of the early interpretations of trauma induced symptoms. The third section about Oprah really shines. I would love an entire book about daytime talk shows and the way they've shaped modern views of trauma and recovery. Absolutely fascinating. Overall this feels a bit unpolished. While it might get an A in a classroom, it doesn't quite reach that mark as a casual interest reader. The author has some great insight though and it was definitely worth the read.
Read
September 19, 2026wow! this book certainly challenged me, and i can't say i fully understood it- but i respect liu's approach and analysis of trauma culture. really intrigued by the history of diagnosable traumas like PTSD, and i found myself learning a lot in these sections. i also agreed with the author, in that i too feel we are too focused on our individual traumas and using them to define ourselves as different, to the extent that we are alienating ourselves from each other. a very harmful thing when we need more unity to actualize real change in the systems that are the cause of so many of these traumas in the first place. going to seek out some additional lectures from liu because i am curious to learn more about her analysis and this topic.
October 20, 2026
Good. Clearly a well-versed argument by a true paragon of working-class ideology. I just can’t help but believe her argument could have used a more literary and historical citation, than the extensive criticism of Oprah she gave in this book - and, as well, of course, the anthology of the other related cultural case-studies within trauma politics.
It’s got this whole, Walker, “why we sleep,” narcolepsy to it that puts us to sleep under a tap of “examples” and “reasonable expletives”
The whole thing reads like another sociopolitical essay crafted more for a critical journal rather than a book. I think it’s going to be a lasting work, but I know she is capable of much more, more vivifying rhetorical maneuvers.
It’s got this whole, Walker, “why we sleep,” narcolepsy to it that puts us to sleep under a tap of “examples” and “reasonable expletives”
The whole thing reads like another sociopolitical essay crafted more for a critical journal rather than a book. I think it’s going to be a lasting work, but I know she is capable of much more, more vivifying rhetorical maneuvers.
October 26, 2026
This is a brave book. It made me uncomfortable because it called me out — and it was right to do so! I think it was well-written and unapologetic; I know the bluntness will scare some people away but I believe that this book could have a huge impact if its able to seep into pop culture.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Absolutely in awe of this - one of the best non-ficton books ive ever read. So well researched!
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
this might be the best non-fiction i've read this year. so well articulated and researched.
October 2, 2026
Incredibly important essay with a tricky topic to discuss but one which Catherine Liu doesn’t shy away from.
October 4, 2026
essential reading for capitalist critique and how everything is a weapon in the hand of the capitalists
October 24, 2026
Broaden the scope tho
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews