The psychological trauma, although it has a character of objective gravity, is always defined in relation to the ability of the subject to support its consequences.

In this sense, trauma is defined as an emotionally not sustainable event for those who suffer it, which threatens the health and well -being of an individual, making it helpless in the face of a danger (Eisen & Goodman, 1998).

The inability to react, impotence before the trauma therefore represents the central element in understanding the event that takes on the connotation of trauma.

Trauma represents a devastating experience also from a cognitive point of view, since it pushes us to question the basic assumptions of survival. Each of us has their own vision of the world made up of assumptions, expectations, beliefs that, without even realizing it, guide our daily behavior. They represent the backbone of our action.

When a traumatic event comes across an individual’s life, three fundamental hires can be violated (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).

The first is that the world is benevolent and bad things will not happen. Intellectually we know that negative things happen but emotionally it is as if we said: “Not to me”. When this occurs, we find ourselves dealing with our emotional vulnerability: realizing that that negative event happened to us is really ‘too’.

The second intake that is violated in the case of a trauma is that life is something controllable, the outcome of which is determined by the person. The assumption below is the illusion of control: what happens depends on what I do. Sismologists may provide an earthquake or limit their damage, but they certainly cannot avoid it. After a trauma or a significant loss, therefore, the world is no longer predictable and internally you do not feel more safe.

Finally, the last intake to be violated is that the self has value. Most people deeply keep the belief of being worthy and worthy of positive results and therefore good things do not happen to good people.

In summary, we can assert that trauma represents a psychologically ‘seismic’ event that reduces our understanding of the world, of themselves and others into rubble; It goes to undermine the foundations of our beliefs by forcing us to question them.

We are literally shaken and the need is required to reconstruct new basic conditions. The physical reconstruction of a city that takes place after an earthquake can be compared precisely to cognitive processing and the reorganization that a subject lives immediately after a trauma, looking for a new world view within which to pursue new objectives.

Is it possible that this self -reconstruction consequent to a traumatic event is accompanied by a positive implication? Or do we have to resign ourselves to the idea of ​​trauma as something terribly negative that makes you feel as if life had ended a long time after the event has passed?

In the last twenty years, psychologists have shown a growing interest in the perception of positive changes of life that emerge following difficult life situations, such as the diagnosis of a chronic or terminal disease, lose a loved one, or even sexual violence.

This phenomenon is described as post-traumatic growth (Germans & Calhoun, 2004) and researchers discovered five specific growth areas that often emerge after a traumatic event: interpersonal relationships, identification of new possibilities for their lives, personal strength, spirituality and appreciation for life.

For example, the subjects following an adverse event can come to establish more intimate and profound relationships characterized by a greater sense of empathy for others, an opening towards new experiences or changes in life purposes; They come to develop greater inner strength in facing the obstacles of life, as well as an increase in spiritual life, up to a greater sense of gratitude towards one’s life that is accompanied by the desire to live more fully every single moment.

The post-traumatic growth process is not a direct consequence of the trauma but rather of the incessant struggle in order to achieve an adaptation to the new reality imposed by the traumatic event.

Among the psychological processes that can explain how the perceptions of positive change occur following stressful events there is also the debate if the construct of post-traumatic growth represents real growth.

In other words, Taylor (1983) proposed that individuals in the face of traumatic events develop and maintain positive illusions not linked to real positive changes.

Creativity as a manifestation of post-traumatic growth

Negative life experiences represent a recurring theme in the biographies of illustrious artists. We think, for example, of the famous Mexican painter Frida Kahlo.

His life was intense and cruel characterized by serious personal events: first Poliomielite, then a car accident in which he was seriously wounded, up to three pregnancies that he never managed to complete. It is interesting to ask how much he can have been able to transform his suffering into art, to exploit the pain of negative life experiences as a fuel to inspire and motivate his artistic work.

Life experiences, reported by highly creative individuals, suggest that traumatic events may have played a role in increasing their creativity.

These observations, mostly anecdotal, seem to suggest a close relationship between traumatic life experiences and creative thinking, and aim for the possibility that these individuals may have been able to transform their negative experiences into a source of inspiration and motivation for their work, contributing (perhaps) to their care process.

Marie Forgeard, a psychologist of the McLean Hospital and the Faculty of Medicine of Harvard, in 2013 conducted a research that provided scientific support for the existence of a relationship between adverse life experiences and the perception of creativity and the hypothesis that the perceptions of an increase in creativity constitute a manifestation of post-traumatic growth.

According to Forgeard (2013) when a painful event forces us to abandon our beliefs by shattering them, the mind opens up to new questions and new challenges, helping to stimulate the inspiration and fantasy. Here, therefore, that pain and suffering can represent the spring for a creative growth that allows to reinvest in a new representation of self and the surrounding world and that attributes a sense and meaning to the traumatic experience.

The results of this research do not suggest that the suffering consequent to a traumatic event represents the necessary and sufficient condition for the development of creativity. The traumatic experiences, in fact, are psychologically devastating, regardless of the type of creative growth that follows, and fortunately there are many different stimuli that can inspire and motivate our creativity.

However, given that most people unfortunately do experiences of negative events in some time of their lives, they really appear to be a fascinating challenge to be able to exploit these experiences, both alone and with the help of a psychotherapist, to heal, grow and satisfy their creative potential.

Essential bibliography:

Eisen, ML, & Goodman, GS (1998). Trauma, memory, and suggestibility in Children. Development and Psychopathology, 10717-738.

Forgeard, MJC (2013). Perceiving Benefits After Adversity: The Relationship Bethaeen Self-Reported Postraumatic Growth and Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 245-264.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered Asshopctions: Towards in New Psychology of Trauma. New York: Free Press, pp.256.

Taylor, S. (1983). Adjustment to Threatening Events: A Theory of Cognitive Adottion. American Psychologist, 381161-1173.

Germans, RG, & Calhoun, LG (2004). Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual Foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inciry, 151–18.