Dr. Annie St. John-Stark, Dr. Robin Tapley
HRSJ 5220 reshaped the way I think about trauma, violence, and justice, especially in the context of war and gender‑based harm. I expected the material to be heavy, but I didn’t anticipate how deeply it would challenge my assumptions about what counts as violence, whose suffering is recognized, and how societies decide what justice even means.
Working through the historical and philosophical foundations of “rights” gave me a clearer sense of how fragile and contested these ideas really are. Rights are often spoken about as if they’re universal and stable, but the course made it clear that they are shaped by power, politics, and history. That point stayed with me as we moved into discussions of gender, war, and the many forms violence can take such as physical, psychological, structural, and symbolic.
The lectures and conversations about trauma were some of the most impactful. Learning about trauma not only as a medical or psychological condition but also as a political and cultural category forced me to think about who gets to define trauma, whose experiences are validated, and whose are dismissed. Trauma theory, memory studies, and survivor testimony added layers that made the topic feel both intellectually complex and deeply human.
Our discussions about war – its codes, its moral justifications, its gendered dimensions – were equally challenging. The idea of a “just war” felt increasingly complicated as we examined how violence is rationalized, who bears the brunt of it, and how gender shapes both vulnerability and resistance. The course pushed me to see war not only as a geopolitical event but as a lived experience that fractures bodies, communities, and histories.
What I appreciated most was the shift toward imagining possibilities for peace and healing. Peacebuilding wasn’t presented as a neat solution or a checklist, but as a long, relational process shaped by culture, memory, justice, and the willingness to confront harm honestly. It made me think differently about what peace actually requires and what it asks of us.
Throughout the course, I found myself returning again to the broader human rights questions that underpinned everything: Who is protected? Who is forgotten? What does justice look like for those who have endured the worst kinds of violence? These questions didn’t always have clear answers, but sitting with them was part of the work.
By the end of the term, I was more capable of analyzing the complexities of gender‑based violence in conflict, more attuned to the politics of trauma, and more thoughtful about what meaningful justice might entail. Like many of the courses in the HRSJ program, it didn’t offer easy comfort, but instead offered clarity, depth, and a sense of responsibility. It’s the kind of learning that lingers, reshaping how I understand conflict, healing, and the fragile possibilities of peace.
globalindigenousvoice.org 