Thinking through Media Theories: Understanding and Furthering Trauma Studies

Abstract

Trauma studies, a field of cultural enquiry that boomed in a brief span of around a decade at the turn of 21st century, according to Marder, “has something of a privileged and paradoxical relationship to interdisciplinary studies” (2006, p. 1). One of the areas with which the field maintains such frontier, which, as yet, has not drawn serious attention, is communication studies. To examine the nature of interdisciplinary linkage, the paper: 1) revisits a number of trauma theories setting them against major postulations in media studies and explores the nature of communication circuit assumed in the trauma theories, and 2) suggests the applicability of communication models in understanding trauma theories and opening up further potential to theorizing trauma studies. The paper begins with a brief note on some major theoretical positions in trauma and media studies based on the principle of reciprocal relevance. Then, it brings to light the insight from media that runs prominently but in limited and modified version in trauma theories to reveal how media theories underlie in the postulations of literary trauma. Finally, I purposes possibility of interdisciplinary borrowing, particularly of George Gerbner‟s communication model to apprehend issues in trauma studies in general and trauma narration in particular.

Full text

8
Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012 ISSN: 2141-4092
THINKING THROUGH MEDIA THEORIES: UNDERSTANDING AND FURTHERING TRAUMA
STUDIES1
Khagendra Acharya
Department of Languages and Mass Communication, School of Arts, Kathmandu University, Nepal
khagendra@ku.edu.np
ABSTRACT
Trauma studies, a field of cultural enquiry that boomed in a brief span of around a decade at the turn of
21st century, according to Marder, “has something of a privileged and paradoxical relationship to
interdisciplinary studies” (2006, p. 1). One of the areas with which the field maintains such frontier,
which, as yet, has not drawn serious attention, is communication studies. To examine the nature of
interdisciplinary linkage, the paper: 1) revisits a number of trauma theories setting them against major
postulations in media studies and explores the nature of communication circuit assumed in the trauma
theories, and 2) suggests the applicability of communication models in understanding trauma theories and
opening up further potential to theorizing trauma studies. The paper begins with a brief note on some
major theoretical positions in trauma and media studies based on the principle of reciprocal relevance.
Then, it brings to light the insight from media that runs prominently but in limited and modified version
in trauma theories to reveal how media theories underlie in the postulations of literary trauma. Finally, I
purposes possibility of interdisciplinary borrowing, particularly of George Gerbner‟s communication
model to apprehend issues in trauma studies in general and trauma narration in particular.
KEY WORDS: trauma, media, interdisciplinary insight, Gerbner‟s model
Trauma studies: Major developments and frontier
I begin with the etymology of the word though it may sound more like a cliché: trauma comes from the ancient
Greek τραῦμα meaning a wound, physical scar. This sense prevailed in the notion of trauma used in late 17th
century medical Latin. The understanding of trauma as more than beyond bodily injury dates back to around
two centuries: it was acknowledged in medical science and then proliferated in psychoanalysis, literature and
cultural studies. Among others, two explanations – one pertaining to technological advancements and the other
related to literary crisis – answer why trauma became prominence preoccupation. First line of argument
reasons that the duration from mid-nineteenth to twentieth century as a witness to a series of catastrophic and
cataclysmic activities ranging from railway disaster to Holocaust to Vietnam War created a congenial
environment for trauma upsurge. Second line expostulates that the prominence of trauma is a function of
refuge for poststructuralists and deconstructionists when cultural critics‟ attack against them heralded crisis in
their preoccupation (Radstone, 2007). The two versions, despite the point of departures in their reasoning, do
not debate over the fact that trauma studies occupy a significant space in scholarly debates.
Antonio Traverso and Mick Broderick have succinctly summarized the contour of concern in trauma from its
inception to present proliferation. In their observation, five major developments are visible:
concepts of trauma developed in psychoanalysis and, more broadly, psychology; application
of post-structuralist and deconstructive concepts and methods to psychoanalytic and
neurological models of trauma; philosophical reflections on historical trauma; psychoanalytic
and philosophical concepts of trauma reworked through the discipline of history; and the
application of a sociological framework to the understanding of cultural trauma, as a distinct
category from psychological trauma. (2010, p. 8)
1 I acknowledge Prof. Prafulla Kar, the director of Forum on Contemporary Theory, Baroda (India) for awarding me
Scholar in Residence Grants and many thanks to all members of the Forum for providing scholarly atmosphere
during my stay in Baroda. My Ph. D. supervisors Prof. Dr. Abhi Subedi and Prof. Dr. Janga Bahadur Chauhan
deserve special gratitude. Dr. Beerendra Pandey deserves special thanks for inspiring me to work in the area of
trauma studies and providing guidance. Kathmandu University, School of Arts, Department of Languages and
Mass Communication deserves special acknowledgement for awarding me Manisha Shrestha Memorial Ph. D.
Scholarship set by Dr. Manik Lal Shrestha and Mrs. Rajshree Shrestha in the memory of their late daughter.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
9
Traverso and Broderick‟s précis covers major developments in trauma studies. For example, the first category
acknowledges the contribution of early scholarship such as Jean-Martin Charcot, Sigmund Freud, Josef Breuer,
Pierre Janet, Sándor Ferenczi, and many other psychoanalysts and psychiatrists2. The second development
encompasses the work of Cathy Caruth, Shoshana Felman, Dori Laub and Geoffrey Hartman3, among others.
The works of Christine van Boheemen-Saaf (1999), Allen Meek (2010), among others can be put under the
third group. The fourth category includes the works of Dominick LaCapra (1994, 1998, 2001) and some other
scholars. The last category circumscribes the works of Kai Erikson, Ron Eyerman, Jeffrey Alexander4. Clearly,
the scholarship in trauma has been immensely diverse to bring interdisciplinary concerns such as
historiography, trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, and so on.
Nonetheless, the development so far has not amply broached the nexus of trauma and communication even
after a thought provoking call from one of the precursors of the field, Cathy Caruth. In her seminal book,
Trauma: Explorations in Memory, Caruth has contended that the issues in trauma “unsettles and forces us to
rethink our notion of experience and of communication” (1995, p. 4). The postulation in a typical post-modern
voice leaves us with the sense that trauma ruptures existing epistemology on communication. If, as Caruth
argued, traumatic events compel to retrospect our understanding of communication, then, scholars in media
and communication studies must answer pertinent questions such as a) does trauma really defy received
notions of communication, and if it does so, i) what role do the interlocutors in canonical communication
theories perform, ii) what is the nature of message and feedback in the communication process, iii) how does
the channel function, and iv) what nature of communication circuit can be envisioned. Following Caruth‟s
concern, the paper sets out to examine major takes in trauma in the light of elements in media theories so as to
answer the above mentioned concerns. I find it appropriate to start with the discussion on some of the
fundamentals in media theories before the paper shifts focus to the interrelationship of media and trauma.
Media theories: Perspectives and postulations
Media theories, in general, concern social, political, economic and psychological dynamics of media and
society. In other words, media theories elucidate how advancement in technology/ audience-ship of media
correlates with societal functions or vice versa. As McQuail observes, the relation between media and society
has both a political dimension and a normative or social-cultural aspects (2001). A cursory glance at the knot
of media and society reveals that the use of interdisciplinary insight has resulted into a number of theories
since 16th century. Grounding on the nexus of newspaper and society, or radio and society, or any new media
and society, the theories have hypothesized on different aspects. All the theories underscore that media operate
significantly in many domains of society including politics and culture. McQuail (2001) presents two-fold
function of media in politics to explicate the connection: one, as “an essential element in the process of
democratic politics”; and two, as “a means of exercising power”. Similarly, in relation to culture, media
function as “primary source of definitions and images of social reality and the most ubiquitous expression of
shared identity” (p. 4). The multi-functional dimension of media clearly shows how ubiquitous it has been.
The ubiquity of media both as producer and disseminator of meanings has ignited debates on its pragmatics
and resulted in numerous theories. McQuail has categorized theories under four major headings: media-
culturalist, media-materialist, social-culturalist and social materialist. These perspectives, he suggests, produce
four kinds of theory – social scientific, normative, operational and everyday (p. 7). Contrasting the spectrum of
McQuail, Baron and Davis have presented formulation that differs from earlier postulations in many respects.
According to them, media theories can be categorized into four types: mass media theory, limited effects
perspective, cultural perspectives and meaning making perspective (2010, pp. 11-38).
Drawing on from these two insights presented above, the following section sheds light on some of these
theories against a number of trauma theories.
2 See Micale and Lerner (2001) for a detail analysis of scholarly discussion in this period; Wastel (2005) and Kaplan
(2005) for an analysis of Freud‟s contribution.
3 Deriving ideas from medical sciences, especially from the definition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
the scholars extended the notion both in analyzing literary representation of trauma and reconstruction of traumatic
history. See Felman and Laub (1992); Caruth (1995, 1996); Hartman (1995).
4 See Alexander et. al. (2004); Eyerman (2001)

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
10
Trauma in/of media
Media has been one of the most desired sites to project traumatic events. Whether it was during Iraq war, or
9/11 in America, or 7/11 in India, media constantly catered the scenes of trauma. Traverso and Broderick‟s
observation on the portrayal of catastrophe, atrocity, suffering and death in media, sounds very succinct:
“During the past 100 years or so, traumatic historical events and experiences have been re-imagined and re-
enacted for us to witness over and over by constantly evolving media and art form” (2010, p. 3). Despite such
observations, there has been only scanty attention to explore dimensions of media and trauma. Among limited
studies, Baran and Davis, for example, have analyzed how Hitler used new media of his time during
Holocaust. “German Nazis,” they write, “improved on World War I propaganda techniques and ruthlessly
exploited new media technology like motion pictures and radio to consolidate their power” (2010, p. 29).
Clearly, the assessment reiterates an understanding of scholars during mass society theory5, an era when media
was used by dictators for exorcising power.
Media in trauma studies
Apart from a few scholarships from media scholars, the analysis of Nazis‟ use of media in particular and other
people‟s use of media in general by trauma scholars has almost been negligible. Even when the connection is
accepted, scholars have attempted to sanctify the nexus and thereby negate the possibility of producing critical
appreciation6. This, however, does not intend to imply absence of quality scholarship in trauma studies; I mean
to say that it is very insular and the nature of interrelationship has not been explored aptly. Undoubtedly, the
fields such as medical sciences, psychology, literature, cultural inquiry, among others, have addressed concern
pertaining to multiple aspects of individuals and society emerging from trauma. Many issues including the
trauma and memory (Freud and Breuer, 1895; Appelbaum, Uyehara, Elen ed., 1997), need to vicariously
witness (Felman and Laub, 1992), alternative historiography (LaCapra, 1998), nature of testimony (Caruth,
1996), cultural cohesion (Alexander, 2004; Eyerman, 2001), and extension of trauma to non-western cases
(Scraps and Buelens, 2008) have been comprehensively brought. Yet, trauma in relation to media, as I mean to
state, has appeared very sparsely and sporadically.
An early instance of study on trauma in relation to media can be traced in the writings of Judith Herman
(1992). Herman broadly brings the issue of power in Louis Althusser‟s sense of state apparatus and shows how
study into trauma has suffered from intermittent amnesia. Apart from Herman‟s concern, it is curious to see
many trauma scholars showing either apologetic or amnesiac interest to media despite the fact that the very
foundation of the theory is Holocaust. Moreover, we hardly find them examining the propagandist value of
media exploited by Hitler. For instance, Felman seems to defend Paul de Man who has been critiqued for
supporting Nazi cause during the War as correspondent: “de Man‟s silence has an altogether different personal
and historical significance, and thus has much profound and far-reaching implication than this simplistic
psychological interpretation can either suspect or account for” (1992, p. 121). Caruth, on the other hand,
demonstrates amnesiac attitude. A close reading of her work reveals hardly any noticeable extension of her call
to examine how trauma forces us to rethink our notion of communication. The reason for such a disregard even
after raising the issue can widely be guessed to be located in her fundamental understanding of trauma: “…,
trauma is described as the response to an unexpected or overwhelming violent event or events that are not fully
grasped as they occur, but return later in repeated flashbacks, nightmares, and other repetitive phenomena”
(1996, p. 91). In her observations, the schema of traumatic event in relation to the traumatized appears so
encompassing that the victim seems to find no refuge to two-way symmetrical communication process7. I will
discuss this issue under subheadings below.
5 Among the four eras outlined by Baran and Davis, mass media theory covers the span from around the mid of 19th
to first four decades of 20th century. They view media as a powerful weapon “to profoundly shape our perceptions
of the social world and to manipulate our actions, often without our conscious awareness”; and thereby argue that
“media influence must be controlled” (p. 46).
6 See the discussion below on Laub and Felman, and Caruth.
7 Grunnig and Hunt (1984). Unlike the other three forms of communication – two-way asymmetrical, public
information and press agentry model – two-way symmetrical model emphasizes on dialogue and thereby the
potential of active interaction.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
11
A major break in the overlook of trauma studies scholarship on media can be traced back to September 11
attacks at twin-tower in America. In Ann Kaplan‟s words, “The phenomenon of 9/11 was perhaps the supreme
example of a catastrophe that was experienced globally via digital technologies (Internet, cell phones) as well
as by television and radio”. Based on this observation, Kaplan argues for the examination of mediated trauma
because “most people encounter trauma through the media” (2005, p. 2). Kaplan‟s reinforcement to Herman‟s
ostensive acknowledgement of media (1992) is certainly a call for investigating the issues in trauma studies
with no further bracketing of media. The invitation in 2005, it can be seen, has catered an important
orientation: we can find some noticeable responses thereafter. Independent of September 11 attack study,
scholars who are credited for initiating the discourse of cultural trauma have also discussed on how media can
contribute to cultural trauma. Smelser (2004), for instance, writes that the mechanisms of cultural trauma
unlike that of psychological trauma are newspaper, television and radio.
The number of publications after 2005 demonstrates increased magnitude of the concern8 when we examine
the availability of the books that combine media and trauma. In addition, there is a long legacy of study on
screen studies, which is basically concerned with visual representation, appropriating discourses on trauma.
This paper, however, does not discuss this domain as the focus is on earlier theories. In the section below, I
examine the nature of treatment given to the components of communication in some of the canonical theories
of trauma.
Felman, Laub and media
The two pioneering scholars in trauma studies, psychoanalyst Dori Laub and Yale literary critic Shoshana
Felman, were concerned with personal and social histories related to individuals‟ harrowing experience. In
their words, they endeavored “to grasp and to articulate the obscure relation between witnessing, events and
evidence” (1992). Their collaborative work Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and
History argues for the urgency to construct history from vicariously traumatized individuals as Holocaust is
“an event without a witness” (pp. xiii-xvii). Felman finds it necessary to examine the relationship between
pedagogy and trauma. Based on her experiment in the seminar class of Yale graduate students, she concludes,
“a „life testimony‟ is not simply a testimony to a private life, but a point of conflation between text and life, a
textual testimony which can penetrate us like an actual life”. In other words, she aims to construct testimony,
“composed of bits and pieces of memory that has been overwhelmed by occurrences that have not settled into
understanding or remembrance” (p. 2, 5). Similarly, Laub contributes to this necessity by primarily
investigating the impact of listening to traumatic experience. The experience, he contends, “precludes its
registration; the observing and recording mechanisms of the human mind are temporarily knocked out,
malfunction”. Yet, the hearer becomes “the blank screen on which the event comes to be inscribed for the first
time” (p. 57). In both the postulations, we find the authors invoking essential components of communication
with due significance to encoding and decoding of traumatic event.
Since Laub and Felman emphasize on meaning making and thereby decoding trauma, I find bringing
Schramm‟s model9 (figure 1) appropriate to elucidate their notion. The model, as explained by Schramm,
assumes a source which encodes message and transmits it to the intended destination. Then, the message is
decoded based on the receiver‟s overlapped field of experience with the speaker.
8 See, for instance, Zelier and Allan, ed. (2002); Feinstein (2001); Cramer and Owen (2003); Moorcraft and Taylor
(2008); and Meek (2010).
9 Emphasizing the process of encoding and decoding in sender as well as receiver, Schramm (1961) points out that
source and the destination must have same field of experience for understanding to take place.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
12
Figure 1: Wilbur Schramm‟s model (Source: Croft, 2004)
The first thing to note in Felman and Laub is the erasure of primary encoder who in Schramm‟s model
comprehends based on the function of sensory mechanism. The process of encoding, in Felman and Laub‟s
schema, does not occur because the person‟s normal cognition mechanism becomes defunct at the site of
trauma. In addition, the language as a medium fails to convey traumatic experience. So, the primary encoder in
Schramm‟s diagram plays hardly any role. In their schema, to bring Craps and Buelens (2008) insight:
The respective subject positions into which the witness and the listener/reader are
interpellated are those of a passive, inarticulate victim on the one hand and a knowledgeable
expert on the other. The former bears witness to a truth of which he or she is not fully
conscious, and can do so only indirectly, making it impossible for his or her testimony to act
as a political intervention. The latter responds to the witness‟s testimony by showing
empathy, a reaction that supposedly obviates any need for critical self-reflection regarding his
or her own implication in ongoing practices of oppression and denial, let alone political
mobilization against those practices. (pp. 4-5)
Even in the absence of an encoder‟s agency, the message is availed to the receiver in the form of testimonial
account, which is the only form of possible message. When the testimony reaches the hearer or reader,
decoding process starts so as to endow meaning to the traumatic event. The next element in communication –
feedback which is thought to be essential to make encoding-decoding more friendly – disappears from the
circuit. What appears then is a reminder of Roland Barth‟s notion of author‟s birth at the hands of reader
progenitor (1977, pp. 142-148).
Caruth and Media
Cathy Caruth‟s take on trauma foregrounds the role of belatedness i.e., the period from traumatic event to its
later manifestation. Referring to Freud‟s surprise at the literal return of the event in traumatized individuals,
she emphasizes on the importance of “understand [ing] the nature of suffering, without eliminating the force
and truth of the reality that trauma survivors face and quite often try to transmit it to us” (1995, p. vii). The
ethical imperative implied through the notion of belatedness assumes a peculiar role from the witness, i.e., the
receiver of message. So, the hermeneutical enterprise to be undertaken appears highly complex. How
enigmatic the idea sounds can be discerned from Caruth‟s claim expressed in the following lines: “trauma
opens up and challenges us to a new kind of listening, the witnessing, precisely, of impossibility” (p. 10).
If, as Caruth argues, trauma calls for a new kind of listening, then what special form of communication circuit
she envisions becomes a pertinent question. Finding no answer in Caruth‟s theorization, I respond to the
question setting the issue in a broader frame of existing communication model. I examine Caruth‟s idea setting
it against Aristotle‟s model, which in Stone, Singletary and Richmond‟s words, is a “the primary source of
communication theories for people living in democratic societies” (2003, p. 2). The model comprises three
elements – speaker, message and listener – bounded by the speaker‟s intention to impart desired effect. The
linear model envisioned in Aristotle‟s notion of rhetoric appears as shown in Fig 2:

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
13
Figure 2: Aristotle‟s model of communication (Source: Croft, 2004)
In Caruth‟s postulation, none of the components as outlined in figure 2 appear functioning the way they are
envisioned by Aristotle. Instead, Aristotle‟s speaker becomes dysfunctional due to the fact that “the most direct
seeing of a violent event may occur as an absolute inability to know it” (1995, p. 218). The defunct nature of
traumatized subject‟s consciousness allows no direct agency to message. Further, the listener also does not
accomplice the speaker to attain desired effect even if s/he has any. Consequently, the fundamental situation of
communication becomes mumbo jumbo. In Caruth‟s words, “This speaking and this listening – a speaking and
a listening from the site of trauma – does not rely, I would suggest, on what we simply know of each other, but
on what we don‟t know of our own traumatic past” (p. 11). The dysfunction in the whole mechanism is due to
the failure of speaker whose function in Aristotle‟s model comprise of invention, arrangement, style, memory
and delivery. Unlike Aristotle‟s speaker, the traumatized subject in Caruth cannot be conscious of essentials in
effective communication namely, logos, pathos and ethos. Moreover, the castration of speaker‟s arrangement
and style as a consequence of traumatic experience provides no scope for memory and thus the speaker fails to
deliver. In sum, Caruth‟s schema of trauma in the light of Aristotelian frame of communication, I argue,
elucidates archetypal postmodernist position over the linear model of communication.
Cultural trauma and media
Cultural trauma refers to the traumatization of a larger unit of individuals sharing the same culture due to
atrocious events to the community. Because trauma causes “tear in the social fabric,” it develops a
phenomenon of collective identity (Eyerman, 2001, p. 2). In Alexander‟s words, cultural trauma refers to a
situation “when members of a collective feel they have been subjected to a horrendous event that leaves
indelible marks upon their group consciousness, marking their memories for ever, and changing their future
identity in fundamental and irrevocable ways” (2004, p. 1). The nature of impact upon the group, it is argued,
depends on multiple factors; one of them is the role of public reflection and discourse: “Here, mass-mediated
representations play a decisive role. This is also the case in what we have called cultural trauma”. Elucidating
further, he writes:
[traumatic] experience is usually mediated through newspaper, radio, or television, …. Mass
mediated experience always involves selective construction and representation since what is
seen is the result of the actions and decisions of professionals as to what is significant and
how it should be presented. (Eyerman 2001, pp. 2-3)
The idea of “selective construction and representation” reiterates two widely known theories of communication
– two step flow and agenda-setting theory. The essence of two-step10 lies at the role acknowledged for opinion
leaders who are essentially intermediaries; they have ability to frame any message and use them as per their
interest. Another useful insight is agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) that bases on the
investigation of election campaigns. The theory argues that the agenda set by media becomes public agenda.
10 See Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet (1944); Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955)

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
14
Noelle-Neumann (1973), and Gerbner and Gross (1974) have also argued along the line of McCombs and
Shaw‟s formulation. When the two-step flow and agenda-setting are put together in the context of Trans-
Atlantic slave trade, we can understand what cultural trauma theory intends to do. It becomes clear that trauma
experience, to become a source of cultural identity, needs the role of opinion leaders initially and the
responsibility of media later.
Beginning
The examination of scholarship in trauma studies through the elements outlined in media theories, as done
above, demonstrates how the latter can facilitate understanding of the former. With this schema in mind, I find
another question worthy to put: can we consider borrowing any comprehensive model of communication for an
alternative in trauma theorization; for instance, the model developed by George Gerbner? The potential, I
assume, is feasible. The model is presented in Fig. 3.
The model brings ten elements in communication process namely person, event, reaction, situation, means,
availability, form, context, conveying context and consequences. As shown, communication begins with M
(someone), a communicating agent, a perceiver and a reactor. The process of perception and reaction is
constrained by the factors like situation and means consecutively. In the next step when the message is
communicated, it transfers the perceived message. Finally, when it reaches the listener, it is perceived in
certain context and as a consequence brings some result.
Figure 3: Basic generalized graphic model [Source: Gerbner, 1956, p. 175]
Because the model incorporates elements from event perception to rendition, its applicability in other than
communication studies cannot be negated. To recall an assessment of a prominent scholar in media, the
model‟s applicability lies in its wider function: “it can explain any example of communication [,] and in
particular draws attention to those key elements that are common to each and every act of communication”
(Fiske, 2002, p. 24).
Based on the two observations in Gerbner‟s communication model a) inclusion of major components of
communication from perception to cognition and ultimately to affective processing, and b) compatibility of the
model to explicate existing postulations in trauma, the paper hypothesizes that Gerbner‟s model can be a
stepping stone in thinking alternatively about trauma studies. I conclude with an optimistic note and an
invitation to the scholars in trauma as well as in media studies for collaborative exploration of this possibility.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
15
REFERENCES
Alexander, J., et. al. (Eds.). (2004). Cultural trauma and collective identity. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Appelbaum, P. S., Uyehara, L. A., & Elen M. R. (Eds.). (1997). Trauma and memory: Clinical and legal
controversies. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baran, S. J., & Davis D. K. (2010). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and future (6th Ed.)
USA: Wadsworth.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image Music Text. Heath, S. (Trans). London: Fontana Press.
Bohemeen-Saff, C. V. (1999). Joyce, Derrida, Lacan, and the trauma of history: Reading, narrative and
postcolonialism. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Caruth, C. (Ed.). (1995). Trauma: Explorations in memory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
…. (1996). Unclaimed experience: Trauma, narrative, and history. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Craps, S., & Buelens, G. (Eds.). (2008). Introduction: Postcolonial trauma novels. Studies in the Novel, 40
(1&2), 1-12.
Croft, R. S. (2004). Communication Theory. Retrived March 22, 2012, from
http://www.eou.edu/~rcroft/MM350/CommunicationModels.pdf
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious. New York: Basic Books.
Eyerman, R. (2001). Cultural trauma: Slavery and the formation of African American identity. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feinstein, A. (2001). Risking more than their lives: the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on journalists.
Freedom Forum, www.freedomforum.org, April 12.
Felman, S., & Laub, D. (1992). Testimony: Crisis of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History.
New York and London: Routledge.
Fiske, J. (2002). Introduction to Communication Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism. Katherine Jones trans. New York: Vintage.
Freud, S., & Breuer, J (1895). Studies on Hysteria. Strachey, J. (trans. and Ed). New York: Basic.
Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 4 (3),
171-199.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1974). System of cultural indicators. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 460–461.
Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hartman, G. (1995). On traumatic knowledge and literary studies. New Literary History, 26(3), 537-63.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: BasicBooks.
Kaplan, E. A. (2005). Trauma culture: The politics of terror and loss in media and literature. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
16
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass
communications. New York: Free Press.
LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
…. (1994). Representing the Holocaust: History, theory, trauma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
…. (1998). History and memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people's choice: how the voter makes up his mind in
a presidential campaign, New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
Leys, R. (2000). Trauma: A genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marder, E. (2006). Trauma and literary studies: Some „enabling questions‟. Readings on, 1(1), 1-6.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. S. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36 (2), 176-187.
McQuail, D. (2001). McQuail’s mass communication theory (1983). Los Angeles: SAGE Publication.
McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1993). Communication models for the study of mass communications. New York:
Longman.
Meek, A. (2010). Trauma and Media: Theories, Histories, and Images. New York, London: Routledge.
Micale M., & Lerner, P. (Eds.). (2001). Traumatic pasts: History, psychoanalysis and trauma in the modern
Age, 1870-1930. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moorcraft, P. L., & Taylor, P. M. (2008). Shooting the messenger: the political impact of war reporting.
Washington: Potomac Books.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973). Return to the concept of powerful mass media. Studies in Broadcasting, 9, 67–
112.
Owen, J., & Cramer, C. (2003). Dying to tell the story. The Iraq war and the media: A tribute. Brussels:
International News Safety Institute.
Radstone, S. (2007). Trauma theory: Context, politics, ethics. Paragraph, 30 (1), 9-29.
Rothberg, M. 2009. Multidirectional memory: remembering the Holocaust in the age of decolonization. USA:
Stanford University Press.
Schramm, W. (Ed.). (1961). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: The University of
Illinois Press.
Stocks, C. (2007). Trauma theory and the singular self: rethinking extreme experiences in the light of cross
cultural identity. Textual Practice 21, 1: 71-92.
Stone, G., Singletary, M., & Richmond, V. P. (2003). Clarifying communication theories: A hands-on
approach. Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
Tal, K. (1996). Worlds of hurt. Reading the literature of trauma. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Traverso, A., & Broderick, M. (2010). Interrogating trauma: Towards a critical trauma studies. Continuum, 24
(1), 3-15.

Acharya, Khagendra: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 4 (2): 8-17, 2012
17
Wastel, C. (2005). Understanding trauma and emotion: Dealing with trauma using an emotion-focused
approach. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Zelier, B., & Allan, S. (Eds.). (2001). Journalism after September 11. London and New York: Routledge.