Trauma studies, an area of cultural investigation that came to prominence in early-to-mid-1990s, prides itself on its explicit commitment to ethics, which sets it apart from poststructuralist criticism of 1970s and early 1980s in which it has its roots. Standing accused of irrelevance or indifference to real-world issues such as history, politics, and ethics because of its predominantly epistemological focus, this earlier, paradigm was largely eclipsed around mid-1980s by overtly historicist or culturalist approaches, including historicism, cultural materialism, cultural studies, and various types of advocacy criticism (feminist, lesbian and gay, Marxist, and postcolonial). Trauma studies can with some justification be regarded as reinvention in an ethical guise of this much maligned textualism. Cathy Caruth, one of leading figures in studies (along with Shoshana Felman, Geoffrey Hartman, and Dominick LaCapra), counters oft-heard critique of poststructuralism outlined above by arguing that, rather than leading us away from and into political and ethical paralysis (Unclaimed 10), textualist approach can afford us unique access to history. Indeed, it makes possible rethinking of reference, which aims at eliminating but at resituating it in our understanding, that is, at permitting to arise where immediate understanding may not (11). By bringing insights of deconstructive and psychoanalytic scholarship to analysis of cultural artifacts that bear witness to histories, critics can gain access to extreme events and experiences that defy understanding and representation. Caruth insists on ethical significance of this critical practice. She claims that the language of trauma, and silence of its mute repetition of suffering, profoundly and imperatively demand new mode of reading and of (9) that would allow us to pass out of isolation imposed on both individuals and by experience. In a catastrophic age such as ours, according to Caruth, trauma itself may provide very link between cultures (Trauma 11). With forming bridge between disparate historical experiences, so argument goes, listening to of another can contribute to cross-cultural solidarity and to creation of forms of community. Remarkably, however, studies' stated commitment to promotion of cross-cultural ethical engagement is borne out by founding texts of field (including Caruth's own work), which are almost exclusively concerned with experiences of white Westerners and solely employ critical methodologies emanating from Euro-American context. (1) Instead of promoting solidarity between different cultures, studies risks producing very opposite effect as result of this one-sided focus: by ignoring or marginalizing non-Western events and histories and non-Western theoretical work, studies may actually assist in perpetuation of Eurocentric views and structures that maintain or widen gap between West and rest of world. If, as Caruth argues, history is precisely way we are implicated in each other's traumas (Unclaimed 24), then Western histories must be seen to be tied up with histories of colonial for studies to be able to redeem its promise of ethical effectiveness. Attempts to give suffering engendered by colonial oppression its traumatic due have begun to be made in various disciplines in recent years. Mental health professionals, for example, are becoming increasingly aware of need to acknowledge experiences in non-Western settings and to take account of cultural differences in treatment of trauma. These concerns are reflected in titles of two recent collections of essays: Trauma and Dissociation in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Not Just North American Phenomenon (2006) and Honoring Differences: Cultural Issues in Treatment of Trauma and Loss (1999). …