“There’s no Such Thing as a Wrong Feeling” – an Interview with Birgit Bucher on Trauma-Informed Education

In her book Psychoanalytisch fundierte Traumapädagogik Ms Bucher explores this perspective in greater depth. In this interview, she talks about the book’s origins, the specific contribution of psychoanalytic concepts to trauma pedagogy, and the importance of self-reflection for professional practice.

Ms Bucher, congratulations on the publication of your book „Psychoanalytisch fundierte Traumapädagogik“. What prompted you to write this book?

Thank you very much! My motivation for writing this book was simply that I would have liked to read it myself. As nothing of this kind existed in such systematic detail, I wrote it myself. I was guided by the assumption that psychoanalytic trauma theory could enrich trauma pedagogy – something I can now confirm, as I provide a comprehensive justification for this in the book. In fact, I was involved in developing the „Trauma Pedagogy“ curriculum at the invitation of Alexandra Schmidt-Wenzel, but, in line with the guidelines of the DeGPT (German-Speaking Society for Psychotraumatology), this perspective did not initially play such a significant role for us. However, as lecturers, we brought our psychodynamic perspective from our practical work: Bettina Kupfer is an analytical child and adolescent therapist, and I, as a psychological counsellor and family therapist, am also trained in depth psychology. Consequently, this approach was automatically incorporated into our teaching and, due to the strong response from participants, gradually expanded, until we were all ultimately convinced of its value. Today, the fact that the course pays such close attention to the unconscious impact of traumatic experiences is an important quality criterion for us and virtually a unique selling point within the field of trauma-informed educational training. Therefore, in addition to theory and personal practical application in the form of case work, we place great emphasis on professional self-reflection, which, as profession-related self-awareness, is facilitated by Franziska Lamott, an experienced group analyst, and runs throughout the entire training programme. 

Many educational and social care professionals encounter traumatic experiences among children, young people or adults in their day-to-day work – often without having been specifically trained for this. Where do you see the greatest need for support?

I see the greatest need for support, above all, in the case of professionals feeling overwhelmed; they generally support severely distressed clients with great dedication whilst under intense pressure to act – not infrequently to the point of reaching their breaking point or beyond. In fact, trauma-informed pedagogy is still far too under-represented in university courses, meaning that the necessary training is lacking and professionals have to rely on their intuition in challenging situations, with the consequences described. This applies to virtually all areas of practice: from child and youth welfare, through nursery and school, to supporting the homeless, refugees or people with mental health conditions. At the start of the training programme, we always ask in great detail about the participants’ practical realities, and this is conveyed to us very clearly. When structural shortcomings within the institutions are added to this (e.g. staff shortages, a lack of supervision or little support from management and the team), trauma-informed practice becomes virtually impossible. Simply recognising these interconnections often provides some initial relief. 

Trauma-informed pedagogy is now offered in many training programmes. With your book, you broaden the perspective to include a psychoanalytic approach. In your view, what is new or distinctive about this approach?

This approach is not, in fact, new. We are building on the long tradition of psychoanalytic pedagogy, which, as far back as a hundred years ago, focused its attention on educational relationships and the role of the professional. For when dealing with traumatised young people, educators today – just as in the past – are confronted with destructive relationship dynamics, despite all their best efforts. This means that aggressive outbursts, boundary-crossing behaviour, and self-harm or harm to others characterise the challenging day-to-day practice, which not infrequently leads to intense feelings of helplessness, anger or defensiveness among professionals. A psychoanalytic perspective views this as an attempt to re-enact unresolved life history by re-staging early attachment experiences as a coping strategy. Being able to recognise, understand and deal with these mostly unconscious psychodynamic processes forms an important professional foundation for trauma-sensitive practice. A psychoanalytic foundation in trauma pedagogy thus goes beyond methodological knowledge, diagnostic competence or familiarity with trauma-pedagogical concepts. At the heart of this lies the ability to use one’s own emotional reactions and unconscious dynamics as a source of insight. Professionalisation in this field therefore entails not only the acquisition of knowledge, but above all the capacity for self-reflection.

In practical terms, how does this perspective change the way we support people who have experienced trauma? Can you give a practical example that illustrates the added value? 

The complementary psychoanalytic perspective in trauma pedagogy significantly broadens one’s view and, above all, one’s understanding of the dynamics of interaction. Take, for example, the concept of trauma, which in trauma pedagogy is usually defined in line with the clinically psychiatric diagnosis of (K)PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) – and neurobiologically as an archaic emergency response to extreme stress, to which one should respond with psychoeducation, safety and stabilisation. All of this is correct, and for psychosocial professionals, an understanding of these concepts already opens up helpful new approaches to working with traumatised people, as their behaviour – which can sometimes seem strange – suddenly makes subjective sense, whilst other diagnoses, such as ADHD or anxiety disorders, can be explained as possible consequences of traumatisation. However, what this does not yet capture is the deeper dimension of traumatic development in its relational complexity. This applies in particular to early attachment relationships and cumulative traumatisation. Psychoanalysis’s object relations theory, in particular, broadens the question of what trauma is to include this essential depth by drawing on concepts from developmental psychology and providing a precise explanation for the vulnerability of early development. This, in turn, has concrete implications for educational practice, as these insights prove to be particularly significant in the context of relationships. My book deals with this in detail.

Your book combines scientific foundations with numerous case studies. Why was this practical relevance particularly important to you, and what role do such examples play in the professional development of practitioners? 

I wouldn’t necessarily say that my book provides numerous case studies, but in the fourth part, using our continuing professional development programme as an example, it illustrates very specifically how we convey psychoanalytic concepts in an experience-based way. After all, case studies always serve to illustrate a point, whether in the written word or in the classroom. In our continuing professional development programme, we establish a link to the participants’ practical work right from the start, not least because they have a great need to discuss challenging practical experiences within the group. But there is another, almost more important aspect to this: whilst the relational nature of traumatisation – which invariably leads to pedagogical entanglements and the emotional involvement of professionals – can be explained through psychoanalytic theoretical concepts, it can only be understood in a practice- or case-oriented way. Otherwise, there is a risk that psychoanalytic concepts will not be explored in sufficient depth and will lead to schematic oversimplification. The theory must therefore be closely aligned with the participants’ experiences.

What skills or attitudes should professionals develop in order to provide professional support to traumatised people? And what in particular would you like to convey to the readers of your book in this regard?

Two aspects are particularly important to me: on the one hand, psychosocial professionals need a nuanced understanding of the diverse phenomena through which traumatisation manifests itself and how trauma is reflected in the psychological structure and thus in interpersonal dynamics – something that psychoanalytic concepts in particular shed light on. It follows, on the other hand, that professionals must become aware of the significance of their personal role within the case. Central to this is the ability to make oneself an instrument of understanding – that is, to gain insight into the dynamics of the relationship within oneself, to find a language to express this, and to make it available to the other person with compassion. For example, the professional’s sense of powerlessness is often the child’s sense of powerlessness. Whilst this may sound simple at first – and perhaps even overly simplistic – it is highly demanding in practice, as it requires training in self-reflective perception and the ability to endure uncertainty. The triad of self-awareness, theoretical learning and practical application – which has proven its worth in psychoanalytic training – forms the basis for adopting such a psychoanalytically-(trauma) educational attitude of understanding, which must be acquired and practised over the course of a prolonged relational process of learning and experience; a process that begins in further training but which can ultimately extend to all areas of social life. 

You helped develop the curriculum for the „Trauma Pedagogy“ further training programme at the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam and support the programme as a lecturer. What experiences do participants have over the course of the programme – and what changes do you observe in their professional practice? 

Over the course of the programme, participants get to know and understand themselves and their learners better. Siegfried Bernfeld, a psychoanalytic educator from the last century, put it this way: in education, one is always faced with two children – the one to be educated standing before one, and the repressed one within oneself. Without self-reflection, one cannot help but treat the child in front of one in the same way one was treated oneself. It is therefore essential to distinguish between these two children, and this requires a thorough understanding of oneself. Whilst participants may be searching for practical tools at the start of the training programme, their focus shifts over the course of the year spent together towards fostering sustainable relationships. 

If you could share one thought from your book with professionals who work with traumatised people, what would it be?

Every feeling that arises when working with traumatised people is an important clue in terms of counter-transference and can be harnessed to aid understanding. There is no such thing as a ‘wrong’ feeling, provided it is recognised and reflected upon.

The next psychoanalitical funded trauma paedagogy at the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam will take place from the 20th of November 2026 to the 6th of November 2027. It combines theory, practical application and professional self-reflection. Find out more about the course content, programme and how to apply.