Not All Somatic Work Is Trauma-Informed: A Framework for Clarity
Both trauma-informed care and somatic practices have gained attention in therapy, bodywork, and healthcare. While they are often mentioned together, they are distinct concepts.
Understanding how they overlap — and where they diverge — can help practitioners use them more clearly and ethically.
What Is Trauma-Informed Care?
Trauma-informed care (TIC) is a framework that recognizes the widespread impact of trauma and aims to avoid retraumatization while fostering safety, empowerment, and choice. Rather than a set of techniques, it’s a lens — a way of approaching all interactions with an awareness of how trauma shapes the nervous system, behavior, and relationships.
TIC emphasizes:
Safety (physical, emotional, relational)
Collaboration (minimizing power imbalances)
Empowerment (supporting autonomy and choice)
Understanding (acknowledging trauma’s effects and adaptations)
Our on-demand Trauma-Informed Care course equips you with foundational knowledge and actionable strategies to recognize, respond to, and support individuals impacted by trauma. Learn at your pace and build essential skills to foster safety, trust, and empowerment in your work and relationships. Perfect for practitioners and anyone seeking to make a meaningful impact!
What Is a Somatic Approach?
“Somatic” simply means “of the body.” A somatic approach brings attention to felt bodily experience — including movement, breath, sensation, and nonverbal communication — rather than focusing only on thoughts, insight, or language.
This matters in trauma work because trauma often bypasses cognition. It lives in the body. The nervous system reacts long before the mind can make meaning. That’s why working somatically is essential for many people. But that doesn’t mean all somatic work is trauma-informed.
Categories of Somatic Practices
Not all somatic practices are created equal when it comes to trauma-informed care. Rather than sorting them into “good” or “bad,” it’s more helpful to ask: How is this practice structured? And does it support or undermine the principles of trauma-informed work?
Here are three broad categories of somatic approaches based on how they relate to trauma-informed care:
1. Practices That Are Trauma-Informed by Design
These methods were built with trauma recovery in mind. They prioritize interoceptive awareness, relational safety, and the pacing of choice. They understand that healing comes not from pushing through distress, but from reclaiming agency and rebuilding trust in the body.
Examples include:
Somatic Experiencing (SE)
NeuroAffective Relational Model (NARM)
These approaches don’t just involve the body — they work with the body’s signals, and they respect the adaptive strategies people carry.
2. Practices That Can Be Made Trauma-Informed
Some somatic methods — like yoga, breathwork, and massage therapy — were not originally developed with trauma in mind. But with thoughtful adaptation, they can become deeply trauma-informed.
For example:
Yoga
Massage Therapy
Breathwork
These practices aren’t trauma-informed by default, but they can be, when offered with nuance, humility, and respect for the nervous system.
3. Practices That Are Incompatible with Trauma-Informed Care
Some approaches, by their very nature, conflict with trauma-informed principles. These practices tend to:
Force people into overwhelming states
Treat intensity or catharsis as the goal
Strip away choice or rely on authority
Override pacing or interoceptive cues
Assume more sensation is always better
Examples include:
High-intensity breathwork without preparation or regulation
“Release” techniques that impose outcomes rather than invite awareness
Rigid posture correction, aggressive manipulation, or “no pain, no gain” bodywork
These practices may be marketed as healing — but they often replicate the dynamics of trauma: something is done to the person, rather than with them.
Final Thoughts
Trauma-informed care is not a set of tools — it’s a philosophy grounded in safety, agency, and trust.
Somatic work can be profound — but only when it aligns with a person’s capacity, choice, and nervous system.
Some methods are built to be trauma-informed. Others can be adapted. And some, by their nature, are not appropriate for trauma recovery.
The difference lies less in what is done, and more in how — and why.
Author
Dr. Mark Olson holds an M.A. in Education and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of Illinois, specializing in Cognitive and Behavioral Neuropsychology and Neuroanatomy. His research focused on memory, attention, eye movements, and aesthetic preferences. Dr. Olson is also a NARM® practitioner, aquatic therapist, and published author on chronic pain and trauma-informed care. He offers a variety of courses at Dr-Olson.com that provide neuroscientific insights into the human experience and relational skill training for professionals and curious laypersons.
