У статті порушено проблему теоретичної (ре)концептуалізації травми в сучасних
літературознавчих, соціокультурних дослідженнях. Зокрема зосереджено увагу на питанні
вивчення рецепцій і наслідків психологічної і культурної травм, указано на важливість та
ускладнення оприявлення індивідуального та колективного травматичних досвідів. Окрему увагу
приділено проблемі психологічних і соціальних механізмів травми, питанню про взаємозв'язок
травми з категоріями мови, мовчання, тіла, ідеології.
The paper raises the problem of theoretical (re)conceptualization of understanding trauma in modern
literary and sociocultural studies. The conceptual difference, internal logic and contradictions in the
studies on psychological and cultural traumas have been noted. Additional attention is focused on the
study of receptions and consequences of trauma, experiencing and expressing negative events; a
special stress has been made on the importance and complications of pronouncing and manifesting
individual and collective traumatic experience.
It is found out that the concepts of psychological and cultural traumas, substantiated by the modern
researchers’ works, are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other. In general, trauma
researchers emphasize the importance of transferring negative memories into a narrative, which
gives subjects of traumatic experience the possibility of (re)constructing their identity. A narrative
about traumatic experience acquires the status of testimony, which is one of the defining concepts
in the trauma studies.
The paper also considers the issue of psychological trauma, in particular the problem of the crisis of
testimony, the relations between psychoanalytic and legal theories and discourses in the Sh. Feldman’s
writings. It explains the idea of the genealogy of trauma, the opposition of mimesis and anti-mimesis in
the works by R. Leys. Attention has been drawn to the problem of temporal coherence of the trauma,
the conceptual essence of unclaimed experience and the voice of wound in K. Caruth’s studies.
In addition, the definition of cultural trauma as a process proposed by N. Smelzer is taken into
account, along with his assertion that a cultural trauma does not occur, it is constructed within
defined discourses and narratives instead. From this perspective, the works of R. Eyerman and J.
Alexander concerning the impact of cultural trauma on the splitting and restoration of identity have
been considered. The paper also highlights the problem of psychological and social mechanisms of
trauma, the issue of relations between the theory of trauma and the categories of language, silence,
body, ideology.
