Listen To The Article
The explosion at the Port of Beirut on August 4, 2020, as well as other sudden, cataclysmic events, each elicit individual responses based on the unique interplay of one’s conscious and unconscious personal history. These responses frequently defy our standard logical frameworks which guide our self-perception and social interactions. In these extraordinary circumstances, irrational behaviors and perceptions frequently surface, leaving individuals surprised and bewildered by their reactions. Similar experiences may manifest following the death of a loved one, surviving an accident that claims others’ lives, or emerging unscathed from a terrorist attack.
Common among these varied scenarios is the emergence of a profound sense of guilt, often expressed through a relentless, self-reproaching question: “Why them and not me?” To illustrate, consider the narrative of two Lebanese individuals who fled their homeland’s precarity to seek opportunities in Turkey. One persuaded the other to join him in this journey. When one perished in the earthquake, and the other survived, the survivor was consumed by guilt, feeling culpably responsible for his friend’s death.
Similarly, a young expatriate in Turkey was rescued from a collapsed building during an earthquake. Initially, he experienced relief for his survival. However, when he learned of his family members’ demise in the same incident, he was inundated by intense guilt. What initially felt like a reprieve from death, now seemed like an insufferable curse as he wrestled with his existence while his loved ones perished.
On another note, a woman living miles away from the Beirut explosion found herself obsessively reproaching herself as she watched videos of the tragedy. She was haunted by the thoughts that she could have contributed to the aid efforts, that she should have proactively offered support instead of remaining a passive onlooker.
In post-civil war Lebanon, ex-combatants have shared their experiences of overwhelming guilt. They felt culpable for surviving when their comrades didn’t, for engaging in acts of torture, and for their involvement in bombings and terrorist activities that led to the loss of innocent lives.
These aforementioned scenarios epitomize what is referred to as Survivor’s Guilt Syndrome. This syndrome is characterized by the emergence of relentless, guilt-ridden thoughts after a traumatic incident. Individuals grapple with feelings of shame, guilt, and are often consumed by rumination. It triggers restlessness, sleep disturbances, nightmares, irritability, and a pervasive lack of motivation. For some, the remorse and pain are so intense that they significantly disrupt daily life, especially if they have experienced the shocking psychic intrusion of the traumatic event. However, it is essential to note that these symptoms are not universal. The haunting question “Why them and not me?” persists. Faced with a complex interplay of states often incomprehensible to their understanding, individuals strive to derive meaning from these experiences. However, the answers found, or those provided by their immediate environment, often fall short of offering the necessary reassurance, especially when confronted with such profound incomprehension.
Survivor guilt frequently originates from a process of identification with the deceased or injured victims, articulated to intolerable mental constructs of the ordeal that they imagine the victims must have endured. Survivors may also identify with those present at the scene of the catastrophe and their associated anxiety, particularly with those who were present moments prior, a group to which the survivor might have belonged. Some survivors experience a revival of previous guilt, felt in scenarios where they found themselves culpable for not intervening to aid or alleviate the distress of those in need. This often reignites suppressed conflicts that the survivor believed they had resolved.
According to psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, trauma is a fundamental constituent of an individual’s psyche, and subsequent traumatic experiences reactivate primary feelings of anxiety and danger, as well as those of the initial rupture, remnants of which their unconscious memory has retained. While the survivor has indeed evaded death and remains alive, they are often beleaguered by a variety of disturbances that impede the progression of their existence.
Paradoxically, guilt can serve a productive function; it compels the individual to explore the causes of this sentiment, both extrinsic and intrinsic, and relate it to their personal narrative. It encourages them to take action, to respond more effectively in the face of a future catastrophe, or to mobilize their life forces by initiating concrete private or collective endeavors with the aim of challenging, amending, or enhancing what ought to be. Perhaps there is an underlying desire for redemption.
Guilt, accompanied by a spectrum of emotionally tumultuous states, constitutes a part of the bereavement process. The duration of this process varies among individuals, countering some views that limit it, either chronologically or quantitatively. This process is two-pronged: on one side, it involves allowing oneself the necessary time to digest the painful confrontation with the new reality associated with the irrevocable absence of a person with whom a bond of attachment had been formed. On the other, it necessitates a complex and essential introspective endeavor to accept the loss, that is, to relinquish the surrogate sources of gratification derived from the relationship with the departed individual. This guilt may be accompanied by considerations of one’s mortality or the recall of past bereavements, rekindling ambivalent thoughts or experiences.
The role of a support network is indispensable in the face of traumatic shock, providing essential companionship to the individual. This support should manifest as patient and authentic comprehension of the individual’s experience. Empathic listening to loved ones, as well as encouragement to express their anguish both verbally and non-verbally, can provide much-needed solace. Conversely, pitying or sympathizing gazes, along with awkward or impatient behaviors leading to statements such as “Pull yourself together! Be thankful you weren’t among the victims! Forget about it; all of this will pass. Resume your life!” and other clichéd phrases should be avoided as they only exacerbate the individual’s discomfort and augment their withdrawal.
Participation in a support group, led by professionals and comprising individuals who have experienced similar trauma, can foster internal psychic reconstruction. This is especially true when the group operates within an environment characterized by mutual trust, solidarity, freedom of expression, and attentive listening.
If these resources prove inadequate or absent, potentially due to the unbearable resurgence of the memory traces of past traumas or guilt, then the recourse to psychoanalytic therapy becomes indispensable. This therapy may ultimately facilitate the return of a repressed subjective truth to consciousness.
Finally, before concluding this discourse, let us briefly address the repeated seismic tremors in Lebanon and the pervasive panic they evoke among the populace. If some individuals deem these reactions irrational or nonsensical, it is likely that they are in denial of the traumatic resurgences rooted in each person’s unconscious, resurfacing with each unexpected event. These fears are understandable if one acknowledges that the citizenry’s psyche is precarious, worn thin by the deleterious conditions of their existence over many years. Demonstrating understanding and solidarity in the face of these anguished behaviors is the only appropriate response, especially considering the Lebanese populace’s justified lack of faith in their ruling clique – a power structure characterized by mendacious promises, false compassion, and a psychopathic, decayed core, responsible for the premeditated demise of the Lebanese cultural identity.