Ethos - 2023 - Schneider - Rape Ritual Rupture and Repair Decentering Euro American Logics of Trauma and Healing in An

Received: 19 May 2022 Accepted: 20 February 2023
DOI: 10.1111/etho.12392
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Rape, ritual, rupture, and repair: Decentering

Euro-American logics of trauma and healing in an
analytic autoethnography of the five years after my
rape in Sierra Leone
Luisa Theresia Schneider
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Abstract
Correspondence Responses to the trauma of rape vary. People find different
Luisa Theresia Schneider, Vrije Universiteit responses helpful and a multiplicity of trauma theories should
Amsterdam.
be considered. Through an autoethnography and critical phe-
Email: l.t.schneider@vu.nl; lschneider@eth.mpg.de
nomenology of myself and my collaborators in Sierra Leone
after I was raped there, I analyze how subjective and cultural
frames for managing rape impact an individual’s processing
of the experience; how they shape ideas of self, commu-
nity, and world; and how they frame their unraveling and
remaking. While I retreated, internalized, and individualized
my rape, my collaborators wanted me to externalize it, let
the community help, and undergo a ritual to disconnect me
from my rapist. Cross-cultural exchange can enhance under-
standings of responses to trauma and approaches to healing.
This is done not to cement cultural frames, to localize or to
particularize trauma, nor to overgeneralize but to consider
interlocking factors, fill in politically created gaps in focus and
memory, and consider multiplicity as enriching on a level play-
ing field. This may help decenter Euro-American notions of
trauma and foster an ethics of care.
KEYWORDS
trauma, healing, rape, ritual
“Get up, you need to move,” commanded Darren, who also lived in the one-room-and-a-parlor dwelling
I shared with 11 others during parts of my research in Sierra Leone. His words barely reached me, his
proposition seemed absurd, and his presence intolerable, so I shut him out of my world by closing my
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Ethos published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Anthropological Association.
Ethos. 2023;51:255–270. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/etho 255

15481352, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/etho.12392 by Cochrane France, Wiley Online Library on [08/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
256 ETHOS
eyes. By refusing his presence, I tried to reject the reality that had now become mine, a reality in which I
had been raped and would never not have been raped.
My world felt sterile, cold, without sound, color, or smell. And I was under. My rapist’s hands had
pushed me down and, eventually, I had given way. I did not stop, however, when I hit the ground. I drifted
below its visible materiality to a place that had now become my world: a place devoid of feeling, devoid
of senses. Words reached me, but I could only see and act upon the actions of others through a filter that
stripped everything of emotional qualities. Under was where I stayed; a place of depression. My new reality
was somewhat bearable, but Darren desperately wanted me to come back from there.
“Hey,” he insisted, pushing through the walls of my place below. “You need to get up and move,
otherwise it will grow.”
His voice was muffled, as if I was covered by sound-proofing insulation. Still, I heard him.
“What will grow?” I questioned him. “It’s done.”
“No, it isn’t,” he said warmly. “It has just begun.”
After I was raped in Sierra Leone, Mohammed, my research assistant, and Darren, my housemate,
wanted me to undergo a separation ritual to cut the connection between me and my rapist. Mohammed
told me:
He left something in you and through that something he controls you. A meresin man
[medicine man] needs to cut this bond. If you don’t do it quickly, he will have power over
you, the bond will grow stronger and you can never break it.
Darren added: “If you don’t separate this relationship, he will forever be connected to you.” I related
their talk of the “bond” to the power ascribed to semen in Sierra Leone. As Kumba Femusu Solleh writes
about the Kono of Sierra Leone, the word shaman comes from the word semen and refers “to the male
energy of creation” (2011, 12). Bodily fluids are crucial in Sierra Leonean secret societies and in rituals as
concentrations of gender, sexuality, purity, and pollution (Bledsoe, 1980; Eberl-Elber, 1936; Ferme, 2001).
Yet the thought that, by leaving his semen in me, my rapist had created a relationship between us that could
only be broken through ritual was unbearable to me. I did not want to hear about a connection between
us. I felt that Darren and Mohammed were making the rape about my rapist. They explained that the ritual
would require me to be naked, drink a cleansing substance, and rub my body with something that would
expulse “the bond.” However, being naked and vulnerable with another man or men was inconceivable to
me. Instead, I washed myself repeatedly to ensure that all residues of semen were removed from my body.
This was a rape, where my rapist had ejaculated in me. I did not want to elevate his power by considering
his semen to have uncanny qualities. So I refused to undergo the ritual.
In this article, I depict how I tried to “figure out what to do, how to live” (Bochner and Ellis, 2006,
111) and how to make sense of my rape and myself afterward. Using analytical autoethnography (Ander-
son, 2006) and critical phenomenology of the body (Csordas, 2002), I bring to the fore my sociocultural
coping mechanisms and compare them to those proposed to me by friends and collaborators in Sierra
Leone. Using autoethnography when studying the topic of fieldwork and researcher rape allows insights
into embodied processes that might otherwise elude us (Minge, 2007; Qambela, 2016). It facilitates an
analysis of how rape impacts ideas of self, community, and world, and how one’s subject positions and
sociocultural repertoires shape their unraveling and remaking (Brison, 2011; Winkler, 1991, 1996). First-
person narratives are then crucial in “facilitating our understanding of trauma and victimization” (Brison,
2011, xii). I examine the role and place of cross-cultural exchange in enhancing understandings of and
access to the manifold ways in which people respond to trauma and approach healing. Thus, this article
offers an understanding of how subjective and cultural frames for managing rape impact the processing
of the experience, and how we may be able to decolonize and decenter rape responses, perceptions of
trauma, and pathways toward healing, not just in theory but in practice, too. This, I hope, may foster an
ethics of care, by which I mean compassionate responses to the manifold ways in which people respond to
the trauma of rape. Such ethics recognize that trauma is contextual and relational and that there is no one
RAPE, RITUAL, RUPTURE, AND REPAIR 257
way of responding. Concurrently, it gives access to various coping registers. It is a collective, caring ethics
of mutual respect and support.
LOCATED SELVES AND THE PLURALITY OF TRAUMA
Trauma does not follow the logics of a “single story” (Adichie, 2009; see also Hinton and Good, 2016).
How trauma manifests in us is not globally universal (James, 2015; Nicolas cited in Marcus, 2017). It
is subjective and rooted in our socialization, in cultural repertoires, and in expectations we put on our-
selves and receive from our communities. When we are personally affected, we may react differently from
how nuanced theoretical work outlines. Indeed, developments in academia are not always reflected in the
embodied ethos of everyday life. The clash between how I responded and how I theoretically perceive
trauma are indicative of this and require a sketching of trauma theory’s developments through my eyes.
Trauma theory gained popularity in the 1990s under the hegemony of the American Psychiatric Associ-
ation (APA), which built on Freudian logics of trauma, memory, and time (ahistorical, phylogenetic, and
mythical) (Breuer and Freud, [1895] 1995; Freud, 2003; Visser, 2015, 254). In the third edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the APA (1984), trauma is defined as a “serious
injury or a threat to the physical integrity of the self in the form of an overwhelming, sudden, and unassim-
ilable experience” (Visser, 2015, 252). This presupposes that conscious and unconscious elements form a
particular self that has a contour and that can be attacked (the whole, concrete self). Trauma that causes
disturbances must be brought to the conscious mind to become manageable and to allow a person to be
functional (the stable self). This psychoanalytic, Euro-American idea assumes that a self can be integer
and thus stable and fixed, with instability and fluidity being threats to well-being. It also locates trauma
in “the completed past of a singular event” (Caruth, 1995, 1996; Felman and Laub, 1992; Hartman, 2003;
Rothberg 2008, 230).
Such a narrow understanding of trauma causes multiple problems. Because it is depoliticized and dehis-
toricized, it cannot grasp the (collective) traumas of (neo)colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, violence,
and conflict that persist (for analyses of such traumas, see Erikson, 1994; Lascelles, 2020; Nkrumah, 1974).
Focusing on the bygone neglects “everyday forms of traumatizing violence” (Rothberg, 2008, 226), “the
intergenerational transmission of trauma” (Rothberg, 2008, 230), and the “unequal recognition of disparate
traumatic histories” (Craps, 2010, 53). It ignores that although everyone can be subjected to trauma, trauma
has historically affected some groups of people much more than others. Moreover, the questions of how
far people who experience trauma are taken seriously and supported, and how traumas interlock and pile
onto each other, are intersectional and influenced by race, gender, class, sex, and other factors (Crenshaw,
1989, 1991). In particular, Indigenous people and women of color, as well as women who experience(d)
Soviet erasure politics, have been subjected to interlocking traumas that, despite being collective and mul-
tiple, have been individualized and silenced (Budryte,̇ 2010). Additionally, people do not always experience
or display (any) symptoms that adhere to the DSM’s criteria (e.g., James, 2015, 360–1).1 Not accounting for
diversity in how trauma is experienced and expressed ignores cultural, material, bio-social and structural
processes and conditions, erases patterns of insecurity and exploitation, and can lead us to underesti-
mate the prevalence of trauma (James, 2015, 360–1; Lock and Nguyen, 2010). It can also further unsettle
and traumatize affected people who are made to feel as if they do not respond “as they should.”Hence,
the narrow Euro-American conceptualization of trauma of the 1990s has been critiqued and extended in
important ways (e.g., Andermahr, 2015; Lloyd, 2000).2 I follow postcolonial and critical literary scholarship
that has moved trauma away from “event-based” theories (Rothberg, 2008, 228) that adopt an “accident
model” (Styvendale, 2008, 207) toward an appreciation of trauma as event and process that can be “cumu-
lative, collective, intergenerational, and intersubjective” as well as “trans/historical” (Styvendale, 2008; see
also Martinez-Falquite, 2015, 127). I believe that only by embracing plurivocality and a multiplicity of expe-
riences, approaches, and directions can trauma theory attempt to capture the intricacies of trauma (Apter,
2006; Melas, 2007; Rothberg, 2008, 225). This requires enhancing cross-cultural dialogue. I do not wish to
cement cultural frames, localize or particularize trauma, nor overgeneralize. Instead, I hope to contribute
258 ETHOS
to the consideration of interlocking factors, fill politically created gaps in focus and memory, and compile
a rich, multidirectional assemblage of tools.
It took me many years to get here. When first exposed to the trauma of rape, I responded in exactly those
Euro-American logics scholars have worked to decenter, and which I do not believe in. I therefore ask what
the emotions and reactions to rape can tell us about how we understand self and world, what subconscious
logics are at play in us, and how we might bring them to the fore, expose their limits, and burst past
their straitjackets. How might these lessons be used to reconnect academic thought and lived experiences,
to reconcile body and mind, individual and community, doing and speaking, desiring to overcome and
learning to live with trauma? To arrive at answers, I analyze the first five years following my rape, my own
reactions and process and those of the people around me, chronologically rather than thematically. This
journey offers insights into how differently we reacted and conceived of ways forward but also how similar
were our underlying perceptions of trauma’s harm and the needs of those who suffer from it is.
FROM A WORLD BELOW TO NORMALIZING PAIN IN THE

COLLECTIVE WOUND
After having been raped, I felt remarkably similar to how some filmmakers portray those who have sur-
vived rape and domestic violence: like I was in a black hole (e.g., Smith Metzler et al., 2021) or disappearing
into the cracks of a wall (e.g., Wilson, 2011). I felt a wall between myself and everything else. Things were
muffled; I was muffled. I felt singular, cut off from the world. I could see what others were doing, hear
what they were saying, but they never quite reached me. Everything looked the same, but it no longer felt
the same. I noted news and events that had previously filled me with emotions—such as the state of our
planet or the election of Donald Trump—but no longer felt any reactions. Future, life and planet seemed
to contain the good, bad, and in between, but these were no longer of any consequence for me; there
seemed to be no future, life, or planet for me. I had lost the capacity to experience, in Robert Desjarlais’s
sense, but was instead struggling along. For Desjarlais
to experience is to engage in a process of perception, action, and reflection couched in mind-

ful introspection…A good day for someone who is experiencing might be one in which there
is a novel integration of personal undertakings…The features of such a day build on the stuff
of novelty, continuity, transformation, plots, and movement. A good day for someone who is
struggling along, in contrast, might be a smooth one…not too bad. The ingredients of such
a day draw from the forces of contingency, expediency, equilibrium, and stasis. (1997, 22)
A day was bearable if it was routine. I was reacting to instead of acting upon the world, and I could not
reach me, much less think through me (Desjarlais, 1997, 13). My rape, which I experienced as humiliation,
had severed all ties to “the community of human beings” (Taylor, 2018, 439), including to myself.3 Dianna
Taylor explains that
humiliation … has the potential to fix the self in an abject relation in which it is displayed
before itself merely as a negation, as not only unworthy but indeed incapable of freedom, for
if one experiences oneself as unworthy of self-transformation, why would one endeavor to
transform oneself ? (2018, 439–40)
However, while I existed in negation, disgust, humiliation, and unfreedom in this sterile place below the
ground, my Sierra Leonean research collaborators and friends focused their attention on reverting such
removal. I remember lying on my bed not much more than an hour after the rape, listening to Darren’s
propositions.
“We need to tell people,” he said.
“I don’t want anyone to know,” I responded.
“You should not be alone now. Everyone should be here with you, grieve with you.”
“I don’t want anyone to know,” I repeated.
“Kadiatu, Eleanor, Papani, they need to be here with you now.”
“I don’t want anyone to know,” I maintained.
Our immediate concerns were different. I could not bear the humiliation before myself—a self that
I had previously perceived as concrete, stable, and whole but that had now been attacked and unmade.
Hence, the idea of letting others know what had happened was inconceivable.4 Darren wanted to bring it
into the collective conscience. He understood me as intrinsically fragmented, relational, and fluid. For me
time stopped, but for Darren every minute counted. My conception of trauma was event-based. I treated
rape as an incident that affected only me and was now in the completed past, an incident that, if spoken
about and shared, might bring pain and stigma not only to me but to my loved ones, too. This met and
rubbed against a notion “where interdependence and interconnectedness are considered the foundations
of well-being” and where “the impact of a traumatic event, though personally experienced … [can] be felt
by … family and community” (Fofana-Ibrahim, 2009, 253–54). If well-being is connection, withdrawal is
a threat. Indeed, in the Allentown community in Eastern Freetown where I lived, when someone fell ill,
suffered a loss, or got hurt, family, neighbors, and loved ones came to keep them company and endure
together. A few days after a loss, the women would clean the house, beat the carpets, dust the shelves,
and reintegrate the hurt person back into the rhythm of work that shapes the day. They picked them up in
the morning, got them out of bed, and brought them back home in the evenings, knowing that eventually
roles may reverse. People who have been ill are encouraged to sit outside, walk around, and slowly regain
their bearings, and those who have been hurt are asked to let go of negative emotions so not to become
bitter. There is a ritualistic aspect to this rhythm of being there after or, if possible, while something
painful is occurring, bearing the weight of the emotions—be they active or passive, silent or loud, angry
or accepting—only to then clean the house of the residues of this pain and ask people to go back to living,
working, and taking on responsibilities. This is similar to how, in Germany, people who have been sick take
a long shower or a bath and change their clothes when their health improves. Cleaning the house, dusting
off the old, opening the curtains to let the sun in are all forms of pointing to the world beyond trauma.
It reflects the workings of an organism that focuses attention on a suffering tissue but does not allow
the person to become the suffering tissue or to infect the organism. Asking people to continue equals
showing them how much they matter to the organism’s functioning. Laura Murphy (2012, 170, 171–73)
so aptly shows that trauma involves “the suffering of survival” but also, as Cathy Caruth (2013, xi) puts it,
the “imperative to live.”
The Sierra Leonean approach demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the dangers of individualized
suffering. It acknowledges that suffering is inevitable but does not make people “less” and should not
and need not be carried alone. Hence, while people can, of course, not experience in the same way, they
nevertheless engage in interexperience (Porter, 2013). This requires not sympathy but instead a focus
on empathetic distance (Enria, 2015, 40–42). People acknowledge pain irrespective of responsibility and
blame. Mediation, sanctioning, or punishment for wrongdoing occurs in other spaces and at different
moments (Schneider, 2018). Practically, such care is a form of suicide watch, preventing people from
taking drastic measures or climbing down into a world below (depression). It is a direct confrontation with
the “excess of life” (Biehl and Locke, 2010) with loved ones, with kin ties, with community. I have seen
people long for this connection, while others turn their backs on their visitors, go mute, or send them away.
However, while no one judges or influences if such visits are appreciated, no one is left alone in a state of
acute pain. Focusing intensively and communally on pain makes it difficult for individuals to claim their
pain for themselves, as it is now part of public consciousness. This centers the pain and foregrounds its
urgency, but it also makes people more than their pain because they neither have a monopoly on suffering
nor can be reduced to an experience. This limits pain’s reach and durability. Process-wise, then, pain is first
focused on and then put in its place so that it may, in Darren’s words, “be with you but not become you.”
This initiates the process of learning to live with and bearing pain rather than pushing it aside, or seeking
to overcome immediately and entirely. In Allentown, the collective attention devoted to pain normalizes
260 ETHOS
and deindividualizes the pain. If pain becomes part of the collective wound, with time, no one is exempt
from it. No one is perfect. No one is unscathed. Pain is part of life, part of you. But pain is not all of you.
Not only pain but many other emotions, practices, and experiences that may be considered private
and individual in some places are communal in others.5 This points to an understanding of self that is
intrinsically fluid and relational and that can therefore not be undone by an experience that shatters its core.
Decentering the Eurocentric perspective of trauma and its individualistic approach to healing is imperative
to make space for the wisdom that alternative perspectives and community approaches to healing offer.
This allows for the practice of multiple, multivocal approaches that move us toward a decolonizing ethics
of care.
COPING INDIVIDUALLY AND A SEPARATION OF BODY AND MIND

By refusing a collective response, I stayed alone with my pain. I left the place below only because I felt
undeserving of self-pity and thought that otherwise my rapist had “won.” In Aftermath, Susan Brison (2011)
analyzes the difficulty of living in a space bereft of feeling after having been raped while shouldering the
weight of continual societal demands. Because I was conducting research for my PhD, I needed to disclose
the rape to my supervisors (Schneider, 2020). I also told three female friends, my then partner, and my
mother. I then began compartmentalizing the rape as an incident that I could isolate and separate from
life and people, stuff into a locked box in the most remote corner of my consciousness and starve of all
attention until it died. That made speaking about it or engaging with it impossible.
My process of coming to terms with what had happened to me was an individualized cognitive one that
began about six months after the rape. I wanted to give voice to this experience. I now sought to “regain
my power.” I hoped to define what had happened to me rather than have it define me. By renaming the
rape “my rape,” I sought ownership over the event and its consequences. I thought I might be able to live
on if I refused to be silenced, refused to bear my pain alone. I became preoccupied with reading blogs and
forums on surviving rape. I also turned to writing. At the same time, however, I discarded my body. The
encounters I had with my body during this period were violent ones, moments when the fear that lived
there spilled over, when my body responded to memories and sensations. I had flashbacks and started
shaking when I felt a hand moving up my spine. This hand on my back became a constant and made me
feel as if my rapist was always with me, living through my body and experiencing every part of my life. I
tried to limit his control by only sitting on chairs that backed against a wall and were far away from doors
and windows, and by using public transport only if there was a space where I could put my back against
a wall. I replaced my double mattresses with a single bed that I pushed to the wall, and I hardly went
shopping—to this day, I still don’t. The open aisles make it impossible to put matter between my back and
the invisible hand that grabs at it. After the rape, I no longer looked at myself naked, I no longer took care
of or nurtured my body; I did not touch myself and others could not either, and sex became an out-of-
body experience. When my body revolted against this neglect with desire, I suffocated it under a cloud of
darkness and disgust. It took me a long time to understand what I had done to by body by neglecting it
and what I had done to my construction of self (concrete, whole, stable) by focusing my trauma entirely
on my mind. It is remarkable that while I felt the trauma in my body, I believed I could only lessen its
impact by working with my mind. I was living in the residue of a Euro-Christian conception of mind and
body (see Descartes, 1984, II 275; 1996, VII 213) wherein the body is but the shell of the eternal soul, the
latter being the only thing that must be nourished for it transcends living on earth.
A CONCRETE, STABLE SELF: MOVING TOWARD NARRATING,

RESILIENCE, AND OVERCOMING
The demand I put on myself to overcome was due to seeing myself as a concrete, stable self that had been
split by the rape. I thought of the rape as a rupture between myself before and myself after. I felt humiliated
and ashamed (UN Security Council, 2017) and I wanted to shed these feelings and return to how I had
previously felt about myself. I constructed the process of healing around a modern notion of resilience
and overcoming, whereby I would be healed once I returned to my previous notion of self (whole, stable,
concrete). The conversations about and reactions to my rape showed that my family and loved ones in
Europe shared this notion, whereas my Sierra Leonean friends and research collaborators perceived what
had happened to me differently (following a fragmented, relational, fluid sense of self).
While I tacitly subscribed to elevating thinking and talking “above bodily engagements” (Mol, 2021,
1–2), Darren did not need me to talk. As I walked to my room through the parlor where he sat with his
two sisters, just wanting to crawl into bed, Darren followed, asking, “What did he do to you?” I did not
reply. “Did he rape you?” I shook my head. He tried to take my left hand, which I jerked away from him.
“Please,” he said, taking it again. “I just wanted to check something.” Then he moved his index finger up
my wrist and forearm. My entire body began shaking. I saw the rape in front of my eyes and I could no
longer breathe. The whole scenario took no more than a few seconds but Darren knew what had happened
by decoding the signs of my body.
Six months after the rape, I accepted Darren’s suggestion that he disclose what had happened to me to
the other members of the Allentown household. No one was surprised. “Yes, we knew,” they apparently
said. “We could see it on her. We just didn’t know who it was.” Until about seven months after the rape,
I did not speak with any of the other members of the household. Respecting my approach, no one ever
asked me about it, partially because in this context, understanding does not necessarily require words. But
they did begin sharing their experiences with violence while never making me talk about mine unless I
wanted to. This approach built bridges between us. Eleanor once put it in the following words: “You were
hurt and will always be hurt, but it does not make you less or different; if anything, it makes you more.” By
contrast, however, the few people I told back home in Germany or the United Kingdom worried that the
rape would irrevocably change me and somehow make me less. They focused on the “everything will be
OK, you are OK” narrative, with “OK” meaning “like before.” I did the same. When I disclosed what had
happened, I did so by intertwining a statement about my well-being with the story: “Something happened
to me but I will be OK.”
That it was impossible for me to not be OK, even temporarily, shows the violence I was doing to
myself by how I understood self. By seeing self as an entity that is whole and concrete and that has a
stable core instead of something that is always in flux, always transforming, I treated my rape as a moment
that shattered this concrete whole. I saw healing as putting myself back together (functional self). Under
a macro-perception of success versus failure, binaries ordered my world. Days in which I experienced
flashbacks or breakdowns constituted failures on this linear path. Days when I felt OK constituted suc-
cesses. Days when I managed something new, like walking home alone or being in a room without the
door closed: successes. Days when something that had previously worked no longer did, or when I did not
achieve milestones: failures. Almost any passage from the hundreds of pages I wrote in my diary indicates
this. In search of an excerpt, I opened a random page that I wrote four years after the rape. It reads:
Yesterday dancing. Went well at first. Then approached by a man who wanted to dance. He
came too close and I froze. M said I looked like I collapsed into myself, like I lost all of my
power and became very small. What a disappointment. I believe I ruined everyone’s night.
They all had to walk me home after this. I told them not to bother and to stay. I know they
hated going. I had been further than this. It’s a f***ing disgrace. Then they look at me, the
broken one, ask over and over whether I am OK. And I say yes, over and over because what
else would I say? Their world and mine are worlds apart.
For Ann J. Cahill, the serious and potential lethal damage rape can cause lies in it being an “assault on
a woman’s underlying conditions of being” that “not only denies but also, at least temporarily, negates
their capacity to act at all, let alone exercise their capacity to become other than what they currently are”
(2001, 132). Rape, an act where something was “done to me” without my consent or participation, had
dismantled “the reciprocity of intersubjectivity.” (Taylor, 2018, 441). Rape “broke” me “by destroying
262 ETHOS
[my] personhood and hence the grounds for [my] own intelligibility” (Taylor, 2018, 441). After my rape, I
internalized this individuation. I could no longer relate to others nor myself. When I felt an emotion, it was
humiliation. Taylor describes humiliation “as a manifestation of the relationship one has to oneself” (2018,
435), with rape leading one to internalize the humiliation one experiences. Consequently, one does not only
feel humiliated but becomes humiliated and cannot see oneself in any other way. All I was was stuck in the
moment of being a person who is being raped. Unsurprisingly, my notion of overcoming was tied to the
capacity to “act” and “to become other,” to become more than this event and feel more than humiliated.
The continued self-blame and guilt (Gilligan, 2003), both toward myself and others, connected to setbacks
in my progress.
There is an obvious contradiction here. I did not treat self as self-contained. Instead, I did appreciate
that I am formed and shaped by that which is around me and with which I engage (experiences, opinions,
perspectives, norms, relationships, behaviors) (Margalit, 1989, 125, cited in Taylor, 2018, 439). However,
rather than appreciating that every experience shapes me and I can therefore not be reduced to one expe-
rience, I gave my rape near complete power to define my self-relation and stripped other experiences of
the possibility of having any effect. Hence, while my rape was a defining moment that established myself
as disgusting, the desire of someone who loved me could not change this self-relation. For years, I could
not look at my hands without seeing my rapist holding them, much less other parts of my body. Avasahai
Margalit illustrates this when he describes how victims internalize seeing “through the eyes of another”
while still “respond[ing] from [their] own point of view” (1998, 121, cited in Taylor, 2018, 439). In the years
after my rape, no matter how much love and desire people extended to me, I threw it back, explaining my
self-relation as one of revulsion, making it inconceivable that I could be either loved or desired. When I
had to lean on friends and family, this leaning made me feel like a burden, a failure, and a disappointment.
I kept silent when I could and I never repeated myself.
But humiliation was not the only logic at play. Colonial and white ideas of safety and security as property
played a role, too (Garland, 1999). Coming from a white, German, middle-class household, I had grown
up in a world where safety and security were stable constants (Harris, 1993); where insecurity, violence and
harm were, if at all present, somewhere in the shadows and befalling others. There are several reasons for
this. The widespread lack of empathy with trauma victims can “result from an active fear of identifying with
those whose terrifying fate forces us to acknowledge that we are not in control of our own” (Brison, 2011,
xi). This is also due to a “cultural repression of memories of violence and victimization” (Brison, 2011,
xi), especially concerning slavery, war, genocide, and forms of structural oppression and marginalization.
Moreover, it is due to the colonial imposition of the European gender system, normalized and racialized
(sexual) violence as part of the lives of women who have been dehumanized to fit the “coloniality of
gender” (Lugones, 2010, 2016). Women of color and other women who resist such oppressive categoriza-
tion are subordinated due to their gender and also racially understood to be semi-humans or nonhumans
(Wynter, 2003). Thus, the enmeshing and interlocking (Adefarakan, 2011) of racial, sexual, heterosexual,
and class oppression make such women a “valid” target of violence (Berry et al., 2017; Stephen and Speed,
2021; Velásquez Estrada, 2022).
Acknowledging that the problem of sexual violence is collective and political requires examining the
colonial makeup of perception. My starting point from a position of “safety”—or, as Brison calls it, from
living “in a just world, in which nothing that is both terrible and undeserved will happen to us” (2011,
75)—is a position I had occupied without questioning what this “we/us” entails. I did not consider that
it was due to my privilege that I thought this perspective is universal when it is not; it had been possible
because of my lack of understanding of the inequalities I helped sustain. Getting hurt ruptured this house
of cards and exposed me to the frailties of the world I had so carefully shielded myself from as part of a
colonial and global violence paradigm.
Rape ripped to shreds this subconscious idea of safety as property and exposed the pitfalls of con-
structing inviolability as rights that one was entitled to, or even as properties to own. Looking away from
violence, seeing it as something far from life, does not encourage preparation for or acceptance of the
inevitability of pain, nor does it enable the integration of coping mechanisms into the rhythm of life. The
collaborative immediacy of the Allentown response treated harm as an inevitable part of life that one can-
not rise above but that one does not need to bow before either. There, no one saw me differently and
no one made a big deal of it either. I, in contrast, put intense pressure on myself by way of the constant
comparison with a highly unrealistic and unachievable “imagined image” (Carlbom, 2003) of a self that
was “above this,” a self (whole, stable) I was not measuring up to.
OVERCOMING COLONIAL LOGICS AND BODY–MIND SPLITS
I slowly moved away from this abject self-relation once I realized what I was doing to myself. Yet I did
not see myself as desirable or as free of my rapist: he had given me the subject position “raped” and he
was inscribed in my body as my post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) led me to feel his hand on my
back. I could only see my body through what I thought his eyes saw when he was on top of me. This is
what Darren and Mohammed meant by the bond, and what they had hoped to break through a ritual. Four
years after my rape, I arrived there, too, thinking that if “trauma cannot be fully verbalized nor understood”
(Visser, 2015, 256), this incommensurability may be overcome by listening to and working with one’s body.
This was difficult after having neglected my body for so long. A dear friend advised that I reclaim my body,
not for others but for myself. “Which body?” I had responded. “When I look at it, it is all dark and ugly.”
“Then change the narrative,” she said. “On a good day, stand in front of a mirror naked, look at yourself,
just look and see that there is no disgust planted in you.” When I eventually did, I saw nothing but disgust,
nothing but my reinterpretations of my body after he had claimed it. When I told her this, she encouraged
me to replace these memories with others, these sensations with others:
If you cannot look, then close your eyes. Explore your body with your own hands, see how
it feels, see how nice it is. And then when you are really brave begin using a sex toy. It is an
object, yes, a foreign party you introduce to your body but one which you can control. Only
when you have new memories, then look at yourself again.
For the first time rejecting the emphasis I had put on seeing/witnessing, hearing, and speaking, I began
to work with my body through touch and, slowly, my self-relation changed. With time, moments when
I felt my rapist’s hand on my back, when men who came close suddenly had his face, or when the rape
started playing before my eyes as if someone had turned on a movie and then taken away the remote
control, became less frequent. The persistence of these moments can be attributed to the one-sided power
dynamic between myself and my rapist. Although I am subjected to his gaze, I am unable to influence his
perception of me (Guenther, 2011, 61). By reestablishing a personal view of myself that was no longer
stable, concrete, and whole but beautifully fluid and multirelational, I could slowly begin to see how others
saw me: they did not see his hands when they looked at my hands, they saw no hand on my back, and
to them, my body was a canvas they filled with their own interpretations, which were free of rape. Most
importantly, I could begin relating to myself in new ways that had nothing to do with rape.
Understanding the concept of self (whole, stable) I had created and stuck to has helped me navigate
the violence that was done to me and the violence I did to myself. I also became aware of the double
logic I was applying to myself and my rapist. I stopped accepting my rapist’s inhumane treatment of me
as my permanent subject position by learning to view myself and my rapist as fragmented individuals.
No longer seeing him as a concrete whole took away his ability to exercise his power and render me
“less than human”. I began understanding that his perspective was likely inspired by systemic patriarchy,
which led him to perceive a woman’s body as an extension of his territory and placed me in an inherently
subordinate position in relation to him simply because I am a woman. This led me to see his weaknesses, his
shortcomings and failures, instead of his strength. It reconstituted my rape as a terrible experience but one
that need not define me. Learning how to live with rape, how to love my body and mind despite the dark
flashbacks, allowed me to move away from a notion of overcoming by erasure or rejection. Instead, I began
seeing the humanity in my struggles to live on and appreciate trauma as the “product of an inexperience
264 ETHOS
of inhumanity and the proof of the humanity of those who have endured it” (Fassin and Rechtman, 2009,
20).
I could now finally deindividualize the rape as “my rape” and see the wider sociopolitical issue. Over-
coming rape would have meant compartmentalizing my rape as something personal and individual that was
an attack against me, and from which I now needed to heal (stable, concrete self). This would have required
me to distance myself from the fact that rape, like other forms of oppression, is a sociopolitical issue and an
attack on the entire human organism that requires collective solutions. Indeed, as Taylor argues to combat
sexual violence we must move away from capitalist individuation which facilitates the blaming of women
and an idea of the inevitability of sexual violence but instead see it as the “effect of human-generated
sociopolitical conditions” which gives us the possibility of resources to combat it (2018, 443; see also Hall,
2004, 6). Such a process requires examining harm along intersectional lines and globally dismantling one-
dimensional individualizing paradigms of suffering. I am now acutely aware of the role and place of rape in
the world, its manifold manifestations, and its consequences, from acceptance to impunity to putting the
burden of proof on victims. I have educated myself about the ways I had contributed to harm and how I
can do my part in lessening violence. And I found comfort in alliances. I have received manifold gifts from
postcolonial literature on trauma, particularly on embracing wounds rather than hiding them away. After
moving beyond self-help blogs and forums that told me to center myself and become a strong survivor,
I began reading Jay Rajiva’s (2021) brilliant writing on trauma and animism. Now the panther that had
dominated my dreams for years began making sense. When I consumed the words of Patricia Grace, who
in Baby No-Eyes (1989) likens the narration of traumatic memories to unwinding bandages, or the powerful
contributions to This Bridge Called My Back, edited by Gloria Anzaldúa and Cherríe Moraga (1981), which
speak of vulnerability and power as collective resources, the hardened, packaged, ordered, and hidden-away
parts of myself began flowing again. Such work made trauma accessible, expressible, unique, and share-
able at the same time. It showed me that we can relate, we can connect, we can support and strengthen,
while never assuming to experience in the same way (relational, fluid selves). It was postcolonial studies
and social sciences that helped me see that trauma can have both “centripetal and centrifugal tendencies”
that, despite their immense negative effects, can also render possible belonging, kinship, and mutual trust
(Erikson 1994, 236).
I began seeing the barriers I had built between “my way” and that of Mohammed and Darren. Is there
really that much difference between trauma-induced flashbacks and the “bond”? I am connected to my
rapist. He comes to me in my sleep, approaches when I sit on freestanding chairs, glances at me through
the windows of malls and trams. Maybe the proposed ritual had less to do with him and his semen and
more to do with giving me the possibility of closure by confronting what he had done to my body and
then reclaiming it. While to me the medicine man is a stranger to whom I did not want to tell “my secret,”
to Sierra Leoneans meresin and alfa men (herbalists and spiritual leaders) are, as Aisha Fofana-Ibrahim
writes, trusted experts whose approaches have been proven to be effective. They “are already in the lives
of those traumatized; they are their neighbors and relatives and have been there lending their support in
sadness and in joy” (Fofana-Ibrahim, 2009, 262). Additionally, they “understand and attribute problems in
a way that increases social status, rather than conferring a stigmatizing label on mental illness” (Solomon,
2013, 3, cited in Fofana-Ibrahim, 2009, 262) and they can “provide continuous care through visitations”
(Fofana-Ibrahim, 2009, 261). In a society where the communal is held above the individual, turning to
community members makes as much sense as relying on psychologists and counselors in Germany, and
thus on strangers who are removed from our lives. Yet, regardless of where one is from, individuals may
find such approaches more or less helpful, and prescribing how one should respond to rape or trauma
is neither helpful nor appropriate. Hence, such comparisons should not be done to cement culture or
hyperparticularize ways of coping. Offering an analysis of different ways of coping is not then to argue
that A people cope in A ways whereas B people cope in B ways (such notions of personhood do not
exist, in my view, and “local” and “global” are deeply mutually influenced rather than separate). Instead,
they demonstrate that there is not just one way of experiencing, expressing, or healing from trauma. The
registers mentioned here like withdrawal, silence, PTSD, therapy, individual resilience, ritual, communality,
suffering together, and bearing are just some out of many other possibilities. I have foregrounded cultural
and subjective frames here, but I could have also focused on the various roles we occupied or on the
relationships between us. I could have examined my role as researcher and rape victim, the role of my
collaborators, friends, family and so on along the lines of, for example, gender, age, or experience. This
work is not then about foregrounding a parameter as the parameter but about showing that responses
to rape vary. People respond differently, they have different needs and may find different things helpful.
I believe that we can build on the knowledge and experiences we have together to best support those
who suffer. Having access to a multitude of coping registers may help prevent further harm to those who
experience trauma, and therefore aid their recovery. This may allow us to deconstruct the hegemony of
individualized suffering.
DECONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SAFETY AND

SECURITY AS PROPERTY AND SHEDDING THE VIOLENCE OF A
CONCRETE SELF
My rape and the five years thereafter show that my habitual response to trauma, and the responses of my
family, university, and so on, were aligned with the Eurocentric, individualized formulation of trauma the-
ory of the 1990s. Rape causes a moment of “moral breakdown” (Zigon, 2007), which disorients and shakes
us. At such moments, taking a step back and reflecting on how one acts is hardly possible. Instead, the
habitual takes over. In contrast, decentering requires us to render subconscious assumptions and reactions
conscious.
Two factors allowed me to begin recognizing the harm of my approach and working toward decentering
it. Being raped in Sierra Leone and remaining in the country for 11 months after but then battling the long-
term consequences in the United Kingdom, Germany, and now the Netherlands has allowed me to reflect
on the differences and meeting points between the various approaches I came to learn about, and their
colonial and postcolonial logics. I thereby answered Michael Rothberg’s (2008), Irene Visser’s (2015), and
Aisha Fofana-Ibrahim’s (2009) call to undertake comparative analyses beyond Eurocentric frameworks.
In this article I have showed that whereas Mohammed and Darren saw the rape as the beginning of a
relationship between my rapist and myself, I saw it as the end of my relationship with my sense of self as
“being OK.” Whereas I individualized my rape, Darren and Mohammed saw coping registers rooted in
community. We had different temporalities, too. My reaction entailed a complete refusal to engage with
what had happened at first, withdrawing instead to a place below the world, where life remained bearable.
Only much later did I slowly begin the hard work of removing myself from that place, constantly putting
pressure on myself to “improve” in a linear fashion.
In contrast, Darren and Mohammed had urged me to confront what had happened immediately, to
avoid a separation from the world, and to share my pain with the community so as not to “feed the
darkness.” Additionally, while my Sierra Leonean friends read the signs of my body, I discarded my body
and focused instead on healing my “mind” by “thinking through” and, much later, “speaking about.”
These differences expose the fact that despite me having deconstructed a mind–body split and a concrete
self in my work, I had not done so within myself. I still held onto a Eurocentric, colonial conception of
self that is protected and, while constantly evolving, has a stable core. I saw rupture, they saw continuity.
I saw the rape as a defining moment that had shattered my previously intact being, while Mohammed and
Darren saw wounds as integral parts of fragmented, relational selves.
In The Empire of Trauma, Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman write of “the traumatization of experience
… [through] the conceptualization of the past event as a painful scar” (2009, 22). Thinking of wounding
and scarring requires thinking of time. Time must have passed between that which occurred and caused
a wound and the formation of a scar. On the one hand, scarring is the body’s natural way of repairing
a wound; on the other hand, the way we treat wounds impacts the level of scarring. My Sierra Leonean
friends attempted to treat and dress the open wound immediately—or at least as quickly as possible—
through ritual and community and then leaving it alone while the scab builds a protective surface under
which new tissue can form. These can be interpreted as attempts to help the wound close with minimal
266 ETHOS
scarring. I had let the wound scar before I began picking at the scab as I started “speaking and listening
from the site of trauma” (Caruth cited in Fassin and Rechtman, 2009, 19). In time, I understood that I
had originally hoped from my process of healing to somehow fashion a world in which I was not only
no longer adversely affected by having been raped but in which I had not been raped at all. I wanted to
recreate a self that had overcome rather than learned to live with (to reconstitute a concrete, stable self). I
was looking for ways to erase the wound and replace the scar with unscathed tissue, rather than learning
to treat my fragmented and scarred self as a loveable resource, one that was never whole to begin with.
Fassin and Rechtman ask,
How does thinking about individual experience in terms of trauma, and collective memory in
terms of wounds, transform our vision of humanity? How does representing social responses
in terms of healing, whether in the literal terms of psychiatry or as a political metaphor, alter
our way of interacting with the world? (2009, 22)
The approach of the Sierra Leoneans I engaged with was very different to mine and that of people who
sought to help me in Europe in their temporality, focus (individual versus communitarian), and perception
of trauma (Cartesian, event-based versus embodied, processual), and self (concrete, whole, stable, fixed
versus fragmented, relational, fluid). Yet what I have come to understand as PTSD and what they under-
stand as a “bond” is much the same. Underneath our different approaches, we share an understanding of
the longevity of trauma and the impact it has on how we see ourselves and others, and how we engage
with the world we live in. Hence, I would add to Fassin and Rechtman’s questions a question about the
communalities between such apparently different mechanisms. If people were no longer confined by their
embodied subjectivity and weighed down by cultural registers that seem to have no alternatives, if people
could profit from accessing different ways of coping as I fortunately could, what ways of living, feeling,
and doing may become possible? If we would treat cultural repertoires of coping not as hierarchical but as
a necessary and enriching multiplicity on a level playing field, how may we then enhance our understanding
of trauma?
This brings me to my second reason. I firmly believe decentering to be one of the most important tasks
of my life, or arguably of any life, so I work on bringing the logics and undercurrents behind my (in)actions,
reactions, and presuppositions that have not often been reflected upon to the fore. Why, one could ask,
would I write an article about my coping with rape over the years? Why would I make myself so vulnerable
to the reading eyes of strangers who will now know how I see myself naked and what my deepest fears are?
I do it because if we seek to move toward a fugitive anthropology that holds embodied aspects of thinking
and doing accountable and “centers an embodied feminist ethos” (Berry et al., 2017, 561), we must begin
with ourselves. This piece is, therefore, not written as a reckoning with Euro-American logics “out there”
but within me. It is part of my journey of understanding the violence I subjected myself to by the log-
ics I embodied and helped sustain. It is an attempt to decenter and open up my constrained views. Only
if we begin with ourselves can we bring to life pedagogies that support collective re-existence, plurivo-
cality, and multiplicity; pedagogies that are not conditioned upon “the theoretical tenets and conceptual
instruments of Western thought” (Mignolo and Walsh, 2018, 7). This is necessary not least because, with
rape being a fundamental problem in academia and fieldwork, it requires as much a disciplinary—here
anthropological—solution as it does a personal positioning (Shandy and Torres, 2021).
Rendering subconscious assumptions visible is no easy or straightforward process. It cuts the ground
from under one’s feet. It is forever unfinished, painful, and confronts one with one’s complicity in and
embodiment of colonial violence. Conceiving of alternatives is hard work when the habitual is colonial. Yet,
it can be a path toward healing. Indeed, the violence of colonial logics also affect those who benefit(ted)
from them. I am stuck in colonial violence if my mother and I cannot have a conversation about my rape,
if I feel that I need to hide it, or am dirtied by it. If I feel the self-created pressure to solve my trauma
on my own while the logics of resilience make me feel like I am constantly failing. If I am unable to see
that my Sierra Leonean friends’ approaches to the bond and my experienced PTSD have similarities, and
that their approach to dealing with trauma communally and together is not insane (see Quijano, 2007). If
I constantly evaluate these responses against my own, I am unable to escape the colonial binary in which
I am the standard. If I constantly reproduce such colonial violence it limits, blinds, and confines me (see
Dussel, 1994; Grosfoguel, 2011). The colonial is then in me and, so long I do not decenter it, it will live
in me and I will pass it on. Beginning with our own practices and ways of being and decentering singular
perspectives, (e.g., Mignolo, 2000) hierarchies and binaries, will make room for advancing the path toward
fostering a greater ethics of care. Ultimately, this can show us that another world is possible (Gordon, 2014;
Lorde, 2007), both in how we respond to the trauma of rape and how we treat the role and place of rape
in the world. Rape responses, therapy, and healing are then not about “single stories” or universalist tropes
but about treating one another seriously in our own individuality and subjectivity, about learning from
cultural repertoires, not to focus on and cement differences but to help each other figure out what works,
together. It is, in short, about fostering dignity and respect through a “balance of stories” (Adichie, 2009,
referring to Chinua Achebe) that may be expressed by various means, whether spoken, written, drawn,
practiced, embodied, and so on. This can then help formulate a multidirectional, plural response.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I cannot provide a complete list of people whose presence or works helped me survive, who offered
me glimpses into a world that can be possible, and who cared, but I am deeply grateful. I especially thank
Darren, Mohamed, Papani, Eleanor, Kadiatu, Micha, Chris, Marcin, Vera, Anna, Mailee, Ashlee, Anastasiia,
Youri, Roland, and Karin. I thank the anonymous reviewers for their nuanced feedback, which helped me
further improve the piece and sharpen my argument. I am also grateful to the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
and the Max Planck Institute of Social Anthropology for supporting the publication of this work.
ORCID
Luisa Theresia Schneider https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8305-8547
ENDNOTES
1 For example, Erica Caple James (2015) shows how in Haiti, many people suffering from trauma continue to work and perform
childcare and daily routines, and Carl Gutiérrez-Jones (2003) analyzes the significance of humor in relation to trauma in Chicano
culture.
2 The definition of trauma has also become more inclusive in the later editions of the DSM, namely DSM-IV (1994), DSM-IV-Text
Revision (2000), and DSM-V (2013). It now includes sexual violence within the core premise of trauma, encompasses a continuum
of responses, enabling trauma to occur in varying degrees, and extends to vicarious trauma, which pertains to individuals who
witness or receive traumatic events. Furthermore, these later editions have eliminated the emphasis on individual traumatization,
thereby expanding the scope of the definition (Visser, 2015, 252). DSM-V-Text Revision (2022) made further changes.
3 Being “below” and “severed” also meant I did not realize I needed medical attention and somehow managed to get home despite
being seriously hurt.

4 Similarly, Susan J. Brison (2011) writes about how she initially said no when loved ones asked her whether she had been raped.
5 For example, Lila Abu-Lughod (2005) on “the defloration of the virgin” in Bedouin society, or Roseline K. Njogu (2016) on how
patriarchy and the internationalization of English monogamy shape rape law.
REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2005. “Is There a Muslim Sexuality? Changing Constructions of Sexuality in Egyptian Bedouin Weddings.” In
Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 4th ed., edited by Caroline B. Brettell and Carolyn F. Sargen, 247–56. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Adefarakan, Temitope. 2011. “(Re) Conceptualizing ‘Indigenous’ from Anti-Colonial and Black Feminist Theoretical Perspectives:
Living and Imagining Indigeneity Differently.” In Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A Reader, edited by George J. Sefa
Dei, 34–52. New York: Peter Lang.
Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. 2009. “The Danger of a Single Story.” TED video, 18:33. https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_
ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.
American Psychiatric Association. 1984. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Dsm-Iii. 3rd ed. Washington: American
Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Dsm-Iv Fourth ed. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Dsm-Iv-Tr 4Th ed., text revision ed.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
268 ETHOS
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Dsm-5. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American
Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Dsm-5-Tr fifth edition, text revision
ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing. https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.
books.9780890425787.
Andermahr, Sonya. 2015. “Decolonizing Trauma Studies: Trauma and Postcolonialism—Introduction.” Humanities 4 (4): 500–5.
Anderson, Leon. 2006. “Analytic Autoethnography.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35 (4): 373–95.
Anzaldúa, Gloria, and Cherríe Moraga, eds. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, 1st ed. Watertown,
MA: Persephone Press.
Apter, Emily S. 2006. The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Berry, Maya J., Claudia Chávez Argüelles, Shanya Cordis, Sarah Ihmoud, and Elizabeth Velásquez Estrada. 2017. “Toward a Fugitive
Anthropology: Gender, Race, and Violence in the Field.” Cultural Anthropology 32 (4): 537–65.
Biehl, João, and Peter Locke. 2010. “Deleuze and the Anthropology of Becoming.” Current Anthropology 51 (3): 317–51.
Bledsoe, Caroline H. 1980. Women and Marriage in Kpelle Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bochner, Arthus, and Carolyn Ellis. 2006. “Communication as Autoethnography.” In Communication as … Perspectives on Theory, edited
by Gregory J. Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas, 110–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Breuer, Josef, and Sigmund Freud. (1895) 1995. “Studies on Hysteria.” In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of
Sigmund Freud, edited by James Strachey, 1–335. London: Hogarth Press.
Brison, Susan J. 2011. Aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Budryte˙, Dovile.̇ 2010. “Experiences of Collective Trauma and Political Activism: A Study of Women ‘Agents of Memory’ in Post-
Soviet Lithuania.” Journal of Baltic Studies 41 (3): 331–50.
Cahill, Ann J. 2001. Rethinking Rape. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Carlbom, Aje. 2003. “The Imagined versus the Real Other: Multiculturalism and the Representation of Muslims in Sweden.” PhD
diss., Department of Sociology, Lund University.
Caruth, Cathy. 1995. Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Caruth, Cathy. 1996. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Caruth, Cathy. 2013. Literature in the Ashes of History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Craps, Stef. 2010. “Wor(l)ds of Grief: Traumatic Memory and Literary Witnessing in Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Textual Practice 24
(1): 51–68.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of
Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 139.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.”
Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–99.
Csordas, Thomas J. 2002. Body/Meaning/Healing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Descartes, René. 1984. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald
Murdoch. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Descartes, René. 1996. Oeuvres de Descartes. 11 vols., edited by Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: Vrin.
Desjarlais, Robert R. 1997. Shelter Blues: Sanity and Selfhood Among the Homeless. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dussel, Enrique. 1994. 1492 El encubrimiento del Otro: Hacia el origen del ‘mito de la modernidad’. La Paz: Plural.
Eberl-Elber, Ralph. 1936. Westafrikas letztes Rätsel: Erlebnisbericht über die Forschungsreise 1935 durch Sierra Leone. Salzburg, Austria: Das
Bergland-Buch.
Ellis, Carolyn, and Arthur Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject.” In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 733–68. London: SAGE.
Enria, Luisa. 2015. “An Idle Mind Is the Devil’s Workshop? The Politics of Work Amongst Freetown’s Youth.” PhD diss., Department of
International Development, University of Oxford.
Erikson, Kai. 1994. A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fassin, Didier, and Richard Rechtman. 2009. The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Felman, Shoshana, and Dori Laub. 1992. Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. New York: Routledge.
Ferme, Mariane C. 2001. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History and the Everyday in Sierra Leone. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Fofana-Ibrahim, Aisha. 2009. “Connecting Testimony, Trauma, and Memory: The Sierra Leone Experience.” Pacific Coast Philology 44
(2): 249–71.
Freud, Sigmund. 2003. An Outline of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Helena Ragg-Kirkby. London: Penguin.
Garland, Elizabeth. 1999. “An Anthropologist Learns the Value of Fear.” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 7, 1999. https://www.
chronicle.com/article/an-anthropologist-learns-the-value-of-fear.
Gilligan, James. 2003 “Shame, Guilt, and Violence.” Social Research 70 (4): 1149–80.
Gordon, Lewis R. 2014. “Disciplinary decadence and the decolonisation of knowledge.” Africa Development 39(1): 81–92.
Grace, Patricia. 1998. Baby No-Eyes. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Guenther, Lisa. 2011. “Resisting Agamben: The biopolitics of shame and humiliation. ” Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (1): 59–79.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2011. “Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political-Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial
Thinking, and Global Coloniality.” TRANSMODERNITY: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1).
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/21k6t3fq
Gutiérrez-Jones, Carl. 2003. “Humor, Literacy and Trauma in Chicano Culture.” Comparative Literature Studies 40 (2): 112–26.
Hall, Rachel. 2004. “It can happen to you”: Rape prevention in the age of risk management. Hypatia 19 (3): 1–19.
Harris, Cheryl I. 1993. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106 (8): 1707–91.
Hartman, Geoffrey. 2003. “Trauma within the Limits of Literature.” European Journal of English Studies 7 (3): 257–74.
Hinton, Devon E., and Byron J. Good, eds. 2016. Culture and PTSD: Trauma in Global and Historical Perspective. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
James, Erica Caple. 2015. “Culture, Trauma, and the Social Life of PTSD in Haiti.” In Culture and PTSD, edited by Devon E. Hinton
and Byron J. Good, 359–86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lascelles, Amber-Louise Cora. 2020. “Black Feminism in a Neoliberal World: Resistance in Contemporary Black Women’s Fiction.”
PhD diss., University of Leeds.
Lloyd, David. 2000. “Colonial Trauma/Postcolonial Recovery?” Interventions 2 (2): 212–28.
Lock, Margaret, and Vinh-Kim Nguyen. 2010. An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Chichester, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
Lorde, Audre. 2007. “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” 1984 Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Ed.
Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press, pp. 110-114.
Lugones, Marìa. 2010. “Toward a Decolonial Feminism.” Hypatia 25 (4): 742–59.
Lugones, Marìa. 2016. “The Coloniality of Gender.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development: Critical Engagements in Feminist
Theory and Practice, edited by Wendy Harcourt, 13–33. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marcus, Erin. 2017. “PTSD Manifests Differently in Haitian Patients, Says Researcher.” HuffPost, May 19, 2010, updated December
6, 2017. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ptsd-manifests-differentl_b_580825.
Martínez-Falquina, Silvia. 2015. “Postcolonial Trauma Theory in the Contact Zone: The Strategic Representation of Grief in Edwidge
Danticat’s Claire of the Sea Light.” Humanities 4 (4): 834–60.
Melas, Natalie. 2007. All the Difference in the World: Postcoloniality and the Ends of Comparison. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Minge, Jeanine Marie. 2007. “The Stained Body: A Fusion of Embodied Art on Rape and Love.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
36 (3): 252–80.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Durham and London: Duke University
Press.
Mol, Annemarie. 2021. Eating in Theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Murphy, Laura. 2012. Metaphor and the Slave Trade in West African Literature. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Njogu, Roseline K. 2016. “Decolonising Sex: Fifty Shades of Rape.” Southern African Journal of Policy and Development 13 (6): 16–25.
Nkrumah, Kwame. 1974. Neo Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism, 2nd ed. London: PANAF.
Qambela, Gcobani. 2016. “‘When They Found Out I Was a Man, They Became Even More Violent’: Autoethnography and the Rape
of Men.” Graduate Journal of Social Science 12 (3): 179–205.
Quijano, Aníbal (2007) “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. ” Cultural Studies 21 (2-3):168–178.
Porter, Holly E. 2013. “After rape: justice and social harmony in northern Uganda.” PhD diss., Department of International
Development, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Rajiva, Jay. 2021. Toward an Animist Reading of Postcolonial Trauma Literature: Reading Beyond the Single Subject. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Rothberg, Michael. 2008. “Decolonizing Trauma Studies: A Response. ” Studies in the Novel 40 (1/2): 224–234.
Schneider, Luisa T. 2018. “‘Teeth and Tongue Jammed Together’: Violence in Relationships and its Mediation in Freetown, Sierra
Leone.” PhD diss., Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Oxford.
Schneider, Luisa T. 2020. “Sexual Violence During Research: How the Unpredictability of Fieldwork and the Right to Risk Collide
with Academic Bureaucracy and Expectations.” Critique of Anthropology 40 (2): 173–93.
Shandy, Dianna, and M. Gabriela Torres. 2021. “Rules Matter: How Can Professional Associations Remap Intracommunity Norms
around Sexual Violence?” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 47 (1): 209–34.
Solleh, Kumba Femusu. 2011. The Damby Tradition of the Kono People of Sierra Leone West Africa, vol. 2. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Smith-Metzler, Molly, director. 2021. Maid. Netflix. 1 season.
Stephen, Lynn, and Shannon Speed, eds. 2021. Indigenous Women and Violence: Feminist Activist Research in Heightened States of Injustice.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Styvendale, N. Van. 2008. “The Trans/Historicity of Trauma in Jeannette Armstrong’s ‘Slash’ and Sherman Alexie’s ‘Indian Killer’.”
Studies in the Novel 40 (1/2): 203–223.
Taylor, Dianna. 2018. “Humiliation as a Harm of Sexual Violence: Feminist Versus Neoliberal Perspectives.” Hypatia 33 (3): 434–50.
UN Security Council. 2017. “Shame, Stigma Integral to Logic of Sexual Violence as War Tactic, Special Adviser Tells Security Council,
as Speakers Demand Recognition for Survivors.” Security Council 7938th Meeting, May 15, 2017. https://press.un.org/en/2017/
sc12819.doc.htm.
Velásquez Estrada, Ruth Elizabeth. 2022. “Intersectional Justice Denied: Racist Warring Masculinity, Negative Peace, and Violence
in Post-Peace Accords El Salvador.” American Anthropologist 124 (1): 39–52.
Visser, Irene. 2015. “Decolonizing Trauma Theory: Retrospect and Prospects.” Humanities 4 (2): 250–65.
270 ETHOS
Wilson, Juanita, director. 2010. As if I am not there. Corinth Films. 108 minutes.
Winkler, Cathy. 1991. “Rape as Social Murder.” Anthropology Today 7 (3): 12–14.
Winkler, Cathy. 1996. “Rape Attack: Ethnography of the Ethnographer.” In Fieldwork Under Fire: Contemporary Studies of Violence and
Culture, edited by Carolyn Nordstrom and Antonius C. G. M. Robben, 154–84. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its
Overrepresentation—An Argument.” CR: The New Centennial Review 3 (3): 257–337.
Zigon, Jarrett. 2007. “Moral Breakdown and the Ethical Demand: A Theoretical Framework for an Anthropology of Moralities.”
Anthropological Theory 7 (2): 131–50.
How to cite this article: Schneider, Luisa Theresia. 2023. “Rape, ritual, rupture, and repair:
Decentering Euro-American logics of trauma and healing in an analytic autoethnography of the
five years after my rape in Sierra Leone.” Ethos 51: 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12392
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Luisa T. Schneider is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and a

Research Partner at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.

Ethos - 2023 - Schneider - Rape Ritual Rupture and Repair Decentering Euro American Logics of Trauma and Healing in An

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethos - 2023 - Schneider - Rape Ritual Rupture and Repair Decentering Euro American Logics of Trauma and Healing in An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 19 May 2022 Accepted: 20 February 2023

Rape, ritual, rupture, and repair: Decentering

Luisa Theresia Schneider

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Ethos. 2023;51:255–270. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/etho 255

LOCATED SELVES AND THE PLURALITY OF TRAUMA

FROM A WORLD BELOW TO NORMALIZING PAIN IN THE

to experience is to engage in a process of perception, action, and reflection couched in mind-

COPING INDIVIDUALLY AND A SEPARATION OF BODY AND MIND

A CONCRETE, STABLE SELF: MOVING TOWARD NARRATING,

OVERCOMING COLONIAL LOGICS AND BODY–MIND SPLITS

DECONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF SAFETY AND

being seriously hurt.

patriarchy and the internationalization of English monogamy shape rape law.

Luisa T. Schneider is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and a

You might also like