My theory that the U.S. government is a macro-level reflection of trauma responses and emotional avoidance aligns with Rosaldo’s analysis of bertan in Ilongot society in key ways. Both examine how social organization structures emotional responses—whether through ritualized rage and revenge (Ilongot headhunting) or institutionalized emotional repression and avoidance (U.S. governance).
- Bertan & Ilongot Headhunting as a Socially Organized Trauma Response
In Ilongot society, grief is not an internalized experience—it demands external action to be released.
The bertan structure provides the mechanism for this transformation of grief into rage, where the social unit channels emotional suffering into retaliatory violence (headhunting).
This ritualized emotional expression prevents stagnation—emotions are not bottled up but expelled through structured means.
➡ Connection to U.S. Governance & Emotional Avoidance:
The U.S. system, instead of ritualizing and integrating emotional experiences, institutionalizes avoidance mechanisms:
Policing and carceral systems → Criminalize emotional distress and trauma-driven behavior instead of addressing root causes.
Hyper-individualism & meritocracy myths → Discourage emotional interdependence, forcing individuals to internalize distress.
Militarization of foreign policy → Similar to Ilongot revenge structures, grief and fear (e.g., post-9/11 trauma) are channeled into aggression (warfare), but without the cathartic emotional resolution seen in Ilongot headhunting.
- Trauma Response at Scale: Headhunting vs. Bureaucratic Violence
The Ilongot transform grief into rage in a way that is culturally acknowledged—it is a predictable, ritualized process that ultimately restores equilibrium in their society.
In contrast, the U.S. government pathologizes and suppresses emotional expression—rather than ritualized grief processing, American institutions promote structural repression that fuels cycles of dysfunction.
Instead of structured catharsis, the system maintains chronic dysregulation through:
Mass incarceration (punishing symptoms rather than healing causes).
Over-policing trauma-affected communities (criminalizing emotional distress).
A punitive economic system that forces survival-based emotional suppression rather than allowing authentic social connection.
➡ Key Difference: Ilongot grief-rage is channeled into a communal, socially accepted process, while the U.S. suppresses emotions at the systemic level, creating a collective state of unresolved trauma. - Structural Avoidance as a Barrier to Healing
Ilongot society acknowledges grief as a force that must be reckoned with.
The U.S. system builds layers of abstraction to avoid facing collective trauma:
Bureaucracy → Distance between those suffering and those making decisions (e.g., social services being complex to access).
Neoliberalism & Capitalism → Convert emotional struggles into individual failures rather than systemic dysfunctions.
Law & Order Mentality → Frames trauma-driven behavior as deviance, not a call for intervention or restructuring.
➡ Structural avoidance is a key feature of the U.S. government. Instead of mechanisms that acknowledge and integrate emotions into governance, the system is designed to:
Fragment and isolate emotional distress (e.g., treating mental illness as an individual problem rather than a systemic issue).
Redirect unresolved grief into state-sanctioned aggression (e.g., war, excessive policing).
Label emotional pain as pathology (e.g., treating depression, rage, or addiction as personal moral failings rather than expressions of collective distress).
- Toward a Functional Conflict Perspective of Governance
If the bertan model represents a functional way to channel grief-rage into predictable social action, then the U.S. government represents a dysfunctional conflict system—one that denies emotional realities rather than integrating them.
A governance model based on trauma-informed systems change would:
Recognize and legitimize collective grief (e.g., addressing generational trauma).
Replace avoidance-based policies with restorative emotional processes (e.g., shifting from punishment to healing-based justice).
Integrate emotional intelligence into policy decisions, treating governance as a system of social-emotional regulation rather than control.
Conclusion: From Headhunting to Bureaucratic Violence to Restorative Systems
Rosaldo’s analysis of Ilongot grief-rage shows how social organization provides a channel for processing trauma. The U.S. government, by contrast, operates as an institutional trauma response itself, designed to suppress and redirect emotions rather than integrate them into governance. This perpetuates chronic social fragmentation, punitive control, and cycles of unprocessed grief at a national scale.
Rosaldo, Renato. Ilongot Headhunting : 1883-1974 ; a Study in Society and History. Stanford, Stanford Univ. Press, 2000.
Spirolateral 