Can we design worlds from a place of trauma?
Can we design worlds from a place of trauma?
I'm writing this while my nervous system is still activated from a season of institutional battles. My body is still healing from hypervigilance, scanning for threats that may or may not materialise. Sleep comes in fragments, a departure from my usual 7 hours back when I was doing consistent pilates. My startle response could power a small city or a Disney-Pixar short. Yet somehow, in this state of persistent activation, I've created some of my most elegantly precise work — complaint letters that systematically dismantle power structures, frameworks that solve impossible problems, business models that transform betrayal & pain into purpose.
This presents a paradox that most design thinking doesn't address: If trauma supposedly impairs creativity, makes us reactive, clouds our judgment — why do some of our most innovative solutions emerge from our deepest wounds?
The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong
We're told that trauma blocks creativity. That we need to heal first, find stability, return to some imagined baseline before we can make anything meaningful. The design world especially loves this narrative — creativity as luxury; sun-dappled studios as residency; innovation for the well-rested and well-resourced.
But what if trauma is actually a cognitive accelerator? What if it forces us to see systems more clearly because we literally can’t afford not to?
Consider this: I wrote some of my most legally sophisticated complaint letters while voiceless from post-viral laryngitis and navigating airport discrimination while in a temporary wheelchair. I developed business strategies while being systematically betrayed by institutions I'd trusted. My hypervigilant nervous system wouldn't let me ignore how power actually works. Not in theory, but in brutal, documented practice.
Trauma creates pattern recognition on overdrive. When you're in survival mode, you cut through illusions to reach core mechanics. You see the gap between what institutions claim to do and what they actually do. You learn to read the micro-expressions of power, the tells that reveal when someone is performing care versus actually providing it.
This is exhausting. But it's also a form of forced education that most people never receive.
The Etymology of Wounds
"Trauma" comes from the Greek word for "wound"— and wounds create openings; they signify spaces where voids have formed and plead to be sutured. But some openings take a while to be sutured, and while waiting, they become spaces where new things can grow. Design thinking already knows this principle: we innovate at the thresholds, at the breaking points, where existing systems fail.
The difference is that most design methodology approaches brokenness as an intellectual exercise. But when you're designing from trauma, brokenness is lived reality. You're not ideating about user pain points—you are the pain point the system created.
This then changes everything about how you approach solutions.
Precision Born From Necessity
Trauma demands precision in ways that comfort never could. When you have limited energy reserves, every creative choice must serve survival. There's no bandwidth for performative solutions, no tolerance for designs that look good but don't actually work.
My complaint letters exemplify this. Each one had to simultaneously:
Navigate existing legal frameworks while exposing their inadequacy
Educate institutional actors who were pretending ignorance
Create documentary evidence for potential escalation
Maintain my dignity while demanding accountability
Transform my pain into strategic leverage
This isn't the kind of multi-constraint problem they teach in design school. This is surgical precision born from necessity and survival alone.
The resulting documents work. They get refunds. They force policy changes. They make powerful people uncomfortable in exactly the ways they need to be uncomfortable. Not because they're perfect, but because they're forged under pressure that reveals what actually matters.
Constraint as Creative Catalyst
Every trauma survivor becomes an expert in constraint-based innovation. You learn to create within systems designed to exclude you, to find leverage points others miss, to make resources stretch beyond their apparent limits.
When I was denied access to my pre-paid accommodation while voiceless because of their really bad security protocol, I couldn't simply escalate through normal channels. Instead, I had to architect a response that worked within the discriminatory system while simultaneously exposing its contradictions. The constraint—having to self-advocate while literally voiceless—forced innovations in communication strategy that I now use professionally.
This is embodied knowledge versus theoretical knowledge. When you design from trauma, you're designing from lived reality, not abstract ideation. You know viscerally what failure costs because you've paid those costs. You understand system vulnerabilities because you've been made vulnerable by them.
The Ethical Dimensions
But here's where it gets complicated: When does "designing from trauma" become exploitation of pain?
I'm not advocating for trauma tourism or the mining of others' wounds for creative material. The distinction matters: I'm transforming my own trauma, not performing it for others' consumption. I'm not displaying my wounds—I'm alchemizing them into tools others can use.
There's a difference between healing through creation and performing pain for an audience. The former creates genuine value; the latter extracts it.
If trauma has taught you to see clearly through pain, what's your obligation to share that sight? This is the question I wrestle with as I build frameworks from my institutional battles. Am I creating healing infrastructure or just monetizing my suffering?
The answer, I think, lies in agency. When you control the narrative, when you decide how your experience gets transformed into assistance for others, when you retain sovereignty over your story—then design becomes a healing practice rather than an extractive one.
The Hypervigilance Advantage
Let me be specific about what trauma-informed design actually looks like in practice.
Hypervigilance—that exhausting state of constant threat assessment—has unexpected creative applications:
Pattern Recognition: You see systems others take for granted. The subtle ways discrimination operates. The gap between policy and practice. The tells that reveal when someone is about to betray trust.
Threat Assessment: You identify failure points before they cascade. You plan for contingencies others don't even consider. You build redundancy into your solutions because you know how quickly things can collapse.
Resource Consciousness: No energy gets wasted on non-essential elements. Every design choice must justify its existence. Aesthetics serve function, not the reverse.
Precision Under Pressure: You create solutions that work when everything is on the line. When normal support systems have failed. When you're operating from a position of institutional disadvantage.
This isn't the kind of design thinking they teach at Stanford d.school. This is design thinking for people who can't afford for systems to fail.
Case Study: The Complaint Letter as Design Artifact
Consider my discrimination complaint against a Big Entity —24 pages of systematic institutional deconstruction written mid-flight while still activated from the trauma.
The design challenge: How do you hold a multinational corporation accountable for disability discrimination when they have teams of lawyers and you have a temporary communication disability?
The constraints:
Must work within existing legal frameworks
Must be accessible to non-lawyers who might read it
Must document harm while maintaining professional credibility
Must create genuine consequences, not just cathartic venting
The innovation: A document that functions simultaneously as legal complaint, educational resource, and rhetorical weapon. It teaches readers about disability law while demonstrating its violation. It maintains devastating precision while being emotionally resonant.
The result? Policy changes and a template that others can adapt for their own institutional battles.
This is what design from trauma looks like: solutions that emerge from necessity, tested under fire, refined through lived experience of systemic failure.
Redefining "Good Design"
Most design methodology assumes positions of privilege and stability. It optimises for elegance, efficiency, innovation. But what if we centred the perspectives of those under pressure instead?
Trauma-informed design asks different questions:
Not just "Is this elegant?" but "Is this survivable?"
Not just "Is this innovative?" but "Is this protective?"
Not just "Is this creative?" but "Is this healing?"
When you design from a place of institutional betrayal, you create systems that are harder to exploit. When you design from disability discrimination, you create solutions that work for bodies under stress. When you design from economic precarity, you build sustainable resource loops.
The traumatised might be our best systems architects precisely because we can't afford to ignore how systems actually fail.
The Business of Transformation
This insight has become the foundation of my emerging consultancy practice. Uncommon Future Advocacy: Design + Disrupt operates on the premise that the most strategic solutions come from those who've had to navigate broken systems from positions of vulnerability.
My complaint letters aren't just legal documents anymore; they're pedagogical masterpieces that demonstrate systematic dismantling of institutional gaslighting. They become templates others can adapt. My frameworks for impossible problem-solving emerge from having to solve actually impossible problems under resource constraints.
This creates a business model where healing and impact are the same process. Every successful advocacy case doesn't just help a client—it proves to my nervous system that justice is possible. Every creative breakthrough doesn't just solve a problem—it demonstrates that new realities can be built from the wreckage of old ones.
The Invitation
So: Is the hypervigilance that trauma creates a creative asset or a creative block? The answer matters because it determines whether we spend energy trying to "heal back" to some imagined baseline, or whether we learn to design with and through the heightened awareness that trauma has given us
If we're creating from a place of woundedness—whether institutional betrayal, systemic oppression, or personal crisis—what if that's not a limitation to overcome, but a perspective to honour? What if the design thinking the world needs most comes from those who can't afford for systems to fail?
I'm building a practice that operationalises this insight—where strategic advocacy emerges from lived experience of injustice, where frameworks are born from necessity, where creativity serves survival. Because I think we might be onto something here.
The question isn't whether we can design from trauma. We already are. The question is whether we're going to acknowledge it, honour it, and build infrastructure that supports it.
What would change if we centered traumatised perspectives in innovation? What solutions might emerge if we stopped treating wounds as disqualifications and started treating them as unwanted teachers?
Catherine D.L. Tan is a Gates Cambridge Scholar, legal researcher, and founder CEO building systems for justice at the intersection of advocacy and design. She writes at the edge of what's possible and what's necessary. Subscribe for updates to Uncommon Future Advocacy.
Thanks for reading SPECULISTA! This post is public so feel free to share it.
