‘Her life saves lives’; ‘This war must end’: Personal trauma as ground for change when subjective accounts defy facts

How and why reality is constructed and mobilized within talk are central questions in discourse studies. Research shows that accounts presented as objective are typically regarded as more valid, effective, and desirable, particularly when used to advance a stance on controversial topics. Conversely, arguments rooted in subjective understanding and/or personal experience are often viewed as less generalizable and more vulnerable to criticism. This article examines how speakers portray themselves as firsthand victims of traumatic experiences, leveraging personal suffering to influence general understandings and advance specific policy. By invoking and assuming the identity of a direct victim, these speakers transform their traumatic experiences and emotional involvement, traditionally seen as liabilities due to potential bias, into direct knowledge and thus a form of entitlement that boosts their credibility. The speakers’ altruistic motives enable them to adopt the role of legitimate witnesses capable of challenging powerful regimes and dominant ‘objective’ rhetoric, rather than appearing merely as victims.