Agenda Interior

Fracture of the Social Mind of Sinaloa

State of Hypervigilance and Normalization of Trauma in the Sinaloan Collective Unconscious

Ernesto Alonso López

TEXT X

If Sinaloan society were to enter a consultation today, it would not arrive saying “I am not okay,” but something more concerning: “everything is normal.” In psychology, this can be understood as the normalization of trauma, that is, when events that once would have caused shock now become part of everyday life. Freud explained that the mind seeks to protect itself from excessive pain, and Judith Herman points out that in contexts of repeated violence, people reorganize their perception in order to keep functioning. A clear example: when an armed attack occurs in a neighborhood and the next day the conversation revolves more around “which area it happened in” or “what time” rather than the horror of the event itself. It is no longer debated whether it is serious; it is assumed to be so, and people move on to surviving it.

What is observed is a state of hypervigilance (DSM-5, APA), that is, constant alertness. People check social media, WhatsApp groups, or live streams to find out where there were shootings, checkpoints, or movements. This is not simple curiosity; it is a way of orienting decisions—whether to go out, which route to take, or what time to return. As Bessel van der Kolk suggests, the body remains in alert mode even when there is no immediate danger. An example in Sinaloa: people changing routes, canceling nighttime outings, or staying attentive to their phones in case things “get bad” in a certain area. The mind does not fully rest; it is always calculating risk.

Emotional dissociation also appears. Freud spoke of splitting, and Pierre Janet of fragmentation of experience. In simple terms, it is when what is lived is not felt with the same intensity. A very clear example: narrating a shooting in an almost neutral tone, or even with dark humor like “here we go again,” not because it does not impact, but because fully feeling it would be too overwhelming. Emotion is toned down in order to keep working, studying, or taking care of the family.

Another key point is learned helplessness (Seligman). After repeatedly seeing that things do not fundamentally change, many people stop believing they can influence the situation. Example: comments like “it doesn’t matter who is in charge,” “this won’t change,” or the decision not to engage in public matters because it is perceived as ineffective. It is not total apathy; it is an adaptation based on previous experiences where effort did not produce visible results.

The relationship with authority can be understood through institutional trust (Luhmann). People need to believe in order, but at the same time they doubt it. Example: when a new security secretary or an operation is announced, some see it as progress, while others say “it’s the same as always.” Both interpretations coexist because trust is not consolidated. This creates a stance of observing without fully committing emotionally.

Fear becomes everyday, as explained by environmental psychology. Space changes meaning. Example: neighborhoods that were once just transit zones are now identified as “hot spots,” certain times are avoided, or decisions like “better not go out tonight.” This is not paranoia; it is a reorganization of life based on real or nearby experiences.

From Jung’s perspective, one can speak of the collective shadow, that is, the integration of the negative into the social imaginary. Example: the constant use of references to violence in conversations, memes, or jokes. It is not celebration; it is a way of processing what is being lived. Violence becomes part of language and cultural identity at certain levels, even if it is uncomfortable.

Despite everything, there is resilience (Cyrulnik). People move forward. Example: businesses that open every day, families that continue their lives, young people who study, individuals who start new ventures. It is not that nothing is happening; it is that life does not stop. This resilience is practical: adapting without giving up, even in a difficult environment.

In summary, what is being experienced is adaptive chronic stress. The collective mind remains alert, reduces emotional intensity, becomes accustomed to difficulty, and continues functioning. A clear example: a day in which violent events occur, yet at the same time the city keeps moving, working, consuming, and living. It is not normal in a healthy sense, but it is a form of adaptation. In the long term, this can lead to two paths: either feeling less and less, or, at some point, society itself seeking to regain control and change the way it lives.