Early Foundations: Trauma as an “Unconscious” Phenomenon (Charcot, Janet, Freud)

Modern Psychotraumatology has its roots in late 19th-century clinical observations of hysteria and psychological shock. In the 1880s, Jean-Martin Charcot and his student Pierre Janet in France were among the first to investigate how traumatic experiences could lead to psychological symptoms systematically. Charcot observed “traumatic hysteria” in patients at the Salpêtrière Hospital and used terms like névrose traumatique (traumatic neurosis) to describe post-traumatic symptoms (Herman, 1992).

Charcot’s work suggested that even in the absence of a physical injury, psychological trauma—often following accidents or shock—could produce neurological-like symptoms (van der Kolk & van der Hart, 1989). His findings on hysteria and the use of hypnosis to treat it laid the groundwork for viewing trauma as a psychological injury. Janet built on these ideas, pioneering the concept of dissociation, or the compartmentalization of traumatic memories outside of normal consciousness (van der Kolk & van der Hart, 1989). He observed that people overwhelmed by fright could experience a “narrowing of consciousness,” splitting off intolerable memories and feelings.

In 1889, Janet published L’automatisme psychologique, analyzing how traumatic memories are stored as subconscious “fixed ideas” that can intrude as sensory fragments or emotional states rather than verbal narratives (Janet, 1889/1973). Janet was one of the first clinicians to link a patient’s present-day symptoms to past traumatic events and to emphasize that the mind may dissociate to cope with overwhelming horror. He also coined the very terms “subconscious” and “dissociation” in this context (Ellenberger, 1970).

These early French contributions—Charcot’s traumatic hysteria and Janet’s dissociation theory—were foundational: they introduced the idea that traumatic experiences, especially those too overwhelming to process, could be banished from conscious memory yet continue to cause psychological distress. As Herman (1992) notes, “two French clinicians—Charcot and his student Janet—pioneered our understanding of the concept of trauma,” inspiring others like Freud to develop the “talking cure” as a treatment for neurotic symptoms.

The young Sigmund Freud, initially influenced by Charcot and Janet, also explored the concept of trauma in the 1890s. Freud’s early work with Josef Breuer on hysteria led to his “seduction theory” (1896), which posited that repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse were the root cause of hysterical symptoms. In Freud’s view, the unconscious mind stored these traumatic memories, which later manifested as conversion symptoms—paralyses, amnesia, etc.

However, Freud famously reversed his seduction theory a few years later, concluding that many reported childhood traumas were unconscious fantasies. He shifted focus from external trauma to internal conflict, emphasizing infantile wishes and forbidden desires as causes of neurosis. This marked a retreat from acknowledging real trauma. As van der Kolk and van der Hart (1989) observe, “while Freud initially considered external traumatic experiences (e.g., sexual abuse) in the genesis of hysteria, he later emphasized internal drives and fantasies,” thereby de-emphasizing the role of actual trauma.

As a result, for much of the early 20th century, mainstream psychoanalysis viewed neuroses through the lens of intrapsychic conflict (e.g., repressed instincts, Oedipal fantasies) rather than through the lens of real traumatic events (Herman, 1992). Janet’s more trauma-focused perspective was sidelined mainly as Freud’s theories rose to dominance.

Nevertheless, a core insight from this early period persisted in psychotraumatology: traumatic memory is not like standard memory. Janet and Freud (in his early work) both recognized that horrific experiences can overwhelm the psyche’s ability to integrate information. The memory of trauma may then be split off, returning in intrusive ways—nightmares, flashbacks, somatic symptoms—without conscious control. In short, trauma was initially conceptualized as an unconscious wound—a psychological injury that the mind attempts to seal away, often with pathological consequences.

By the turn of the 20th century, interest in trauma had a brief flourish and then a hiatus. Pioneers like Charcot, Janet, and early Freud had opened the door to studying “psychological trauma,” but psychiatry soon lost interest in trauma as a central explanatory concept. Van der Kolk and van der Hart (1989) note that after around 1900, the topic of psychological trauma “ceased being a central concern in psychiatry” for many decades. Other than a few isolated studies of “war neuroses” and post-disaster reactions, trauma was not a focus of mainstream research or clinical practice through the first half of the 20th century.

This would change only when historical events tragically re-forced trauma into prominence, most notably, the massive psychological casualties of World War I and World War II. Before turning to those developments, it is essential to note the legacy of the early foundation: the idea that traumatic events (especially interpersonal violence) could produce lasting neuroses was established, as was the notion that the mind might defend itself via dissociation and repression. These concepts would be resurrected later, after mid-century, as clinicians once again grappled with trauma in soldiers and civilians.

— Revised 06102025
LKM