The use of concepts proper of psychoanalysis has been a very helpful strategy in academic work on the so-called collective traumas. One of the reasons for the use of psychoanalytic concepts is that they allow an understanding of the collapse of the inscription and representation mechanisms that characterizes collective traumas. However, from the perspective of Cultural Trauma Th eory, it is pointed out that collective traumas are the result of complex and rich social processes of discursive production, which implies a questioning of the psychoanalytic emphasis regarding the irrepresentability of collective traumas. In response to this critique, we will propose that cultural trauma theory fails to recognize that the irrepresentable and anti-narrative character of trauma is precisely one of the driving forces of the work of discursive construction. Finally, we will point out the risks of dehistoricization and depoliticization implicit in the theory of cultural trauma, given its emphasis on the narrative dimension of collective traumas and what can be the contribution of psychoanalysis to diminish such dangers.