Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman (Translated by Rachel Gomme). The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood.

Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman (Translated by Rachel Gomme). The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood. Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman (Translated by Rachel Gomme).The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009 [2007]. 305 pp. In The Empire of Trauma, Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman examinethe history of trauma and explore the transition of the victim from amarginalized to a respected role, and trauma itself, once considered apersonal defect, to a moral category. Fassin, a leading French socialanthropologist, and Rechtman, a psychiatrist, respectively, do not seekto evaluate the validity of this change, but rather examine its societalimplications. Their conclusion is unsettling: while trauma allowsvictims to gain society's support, it has also become a politicallycharged, moralizing force that decides who qualifies as a victim.Moreover, personal experience and individual history are erased andreplaced by the universalizing force of trauma. The Empire of Trauma is divided into four parts, each with severalchapters. Part I traces the history of trauma from the mid nineteenthcentury to the present day. Trauma used to be viewed as an abnormalresponse reflecting the victim's character rather than thesituation. Yet in the late twentieth century a major shift modified thecommon perception to one of normal responses to extreme situations. Parts II through IV explore case studies, which exemplify both ashift in the concept of trauma and how politics play a role in the waythe concept operates in society. Part II, "The Politics ofReparation," examines the 2001 explosion of the AZF chemicalfactory in Toulouse, France. Fassin and Rechtman argue that this eventdemonstrates a turning point in which trauma left the clinical realm andentered the public realm in France. The emphasis of disaster responsewas on psychological support and providers need not be experts butmerely listeners. Moreover, one need not be diagnosed with trauma to beconsidered a trauma victim--one qualified merely through their presence.However, there were many factors that determined how traumatized someonewas considered, which in turn affected reparations. Some of the factorswere based on proximity to the event, but others were dictated by socialdeterminants, such as professional and economic status. Part III, "The Politics of Testimony," examineshumanitarian psychiatry through a case study of Palestine, which Fassinand Rechtman say demonstrates a key shift in humanitarian psychiatry toa focus on bearing witness. Organizations began to replace first-handtestimony with second-hand testimony, but not without shortcomings. Theidea that just bearing witness is an act of humanitarianism was a novelidea. Fassin and Rechtman argue that bearing witness requires that youeliminate otherness so that you can see the person as another self, andthe concept of trauma makes this possible. Yet, as they point out, thisfunctions much better at a theoretical level than in reality. When thetestimony of Israelis and Palestinians are both put forth byhumanitarian organizations, the specific histories get erased and meldedinto a larger narrative of trauma. Part IV, "The Psychotraumatology of Exile and Asylum,"examines shifts in the way that trauma factors into the asylum process.Asylum seekers are viewed with more suspicion now than a few decadesago, and there has been a shift whereby "political violence takesprecedence over all other experiences, all other forms of suffering thatthe concept of exile, by virtue of its imprecision, so flexiblyencompasses" (238). The concept of exile has been replaced by anarrow definition of trauma, which has in turn now requires a form ofproof. Whereas people used to need a certificate from a doctor, now inlieu of this, a psychiatrist's certification is an expected andnecessary part of the asylum application in France. Interestingly, thisproof of trauma has actually silenced the individuals and disempoweredthem. The fact that an expert's confirmation of their trauma isrequired devalues their own word. In the conclusion, "The Moral Economy of Trauma," Fassinand Rechtman reiterate their goal to avoid questioning whether or nottrauma victims are legitimate, but rather to examine the effects ofsociety's overwhelming acceptance of trauma. They argue that traumavictims, once viewed with suspicion, are now legitimate and importantfigures in society. One result of this, however, is that trauma erasesdistinctions between different experiences: survivors of combat, sexualabuse, or natural disaster get the same diagnosis. Ultimately, traumachooses its victims with disparities in use. It reinvents"good" and "bad" victims--for example there was morefocus on the tsunami in Thailand than the earthquake in Pakistan becauseof the presence of Western tourists. Fassin and Rechtman conclude byanalyzing trauma as a "moral judgment" (284). They reveal theclassification of trauma as a force to legitimate victims that societyvalues and to dictate moral responsibility. While trauma has broughtvictims to the forefront and society has begun to value and respectvictims, it has also allowed for only some people to be classified asvictims. This bias, often hidden, goes unrecognized. One point that I found over-generalized is the idea that all ofsociety readily accepts trauma victims seeking compensation withoutsuspicion of exaggeration. Their cited Vietnam War examples exemplifytrauma finally being recognized, but these were also met withsignificant heavy skepticism. While the overall perception has certainlyundergone a major shift, as Fassin and Rechtman point out, I would notgo so far a to say that there is no suspicion of trauma victims,especially those seeking compensation. Similarly, their contention thattrauma homogenizes all victims and obliterates experience is true to apoint, but also could be more nuanced. The detailed history oftrauma's place in psychology leaves out current workdifferentiating PTSD and complex PTSD, a form of PTSD caused bycaptivity or repeated abuse, altering the self and core values in aunique way that regular PTSD does not. There is a movement to entercomplex PTSD as a separate diagnosis in the DSM, which woulddifferentiate between people who have suffered from one isolatedincident versus those who have lived in captivity or been victims ofrepeated abuse. (1) Even without knowledge of the field of psychology,one could argue that public perception of certain types of traumavictims is still varied: domestic violence victims, for example, may beviewed differently than combat veterans. Despite these limitations, The Empire of Trauma is an extremelyimportant contribution to the fields of anthropology and trauma studies.Its examination of the major shifts in society's view of theconcept of trauma are timely, as they point out that many ideas takenfor granted today--such as the fact that trauma victims deserve sympathyand reparations--are part of a relatively recent attitude toward trauma.Furthermore, their insightful analysis of the moral and politicalimplications of trauma's move from the clinical to the everyday isnovel and significant. Indeed, their examination of those marginalizedby society's focus on trauma sheds light on oft-overlookedinjustice. Rebecca Kraus New York University ENDNOTE (1) For more information on complex PTSD, see Herman, Judith Lewis.2004. "Complex PTSD: A Syndrome in Survivors of Prolonged andRepeated Trauma." In Knafo, Danielle, ed. Living with Terror,Working with Trauma: A Clinician's Handbook, pp. 35-50. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.