BOOK REVIEW

Rebecca Kraus New York University

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.

n The Empire of Trauma, Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman examine the history of trauma and explore the transition of the victim from a marginalized to a respected role, and trauma itself, once considered a personal defect, to a moral category. Fassin, a leading French social anthropologist, and Rechtman, a psychiatrist, respectively, do not seek to evaluate the validity of this change, but rather examine its societal implications. Their conclusion is unsettling: while trauma allows victims to gain societys support, it has also become a politically charged, moralizing force that decides who qualifies as a victim. Moreover, personal experience and individual history are erased and replaced by the universalizing force of trauma. The Empire of Trauma is divided into four parts, each with several chapters. Part I traces the history of trauma from the mid nineteenth century to the present day. Trauma used to be viewed as an abnormal response reflecting the victims character rather than the situation. Yet in the late

Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 205208, ISSN 0003-549. 2010 by the Institute for Ethnographic Research (IFER) a part of the George Washington University. All rights reserved.

205

Didier Fassin & Richard Rechtman | The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood

twentieth century a major shift modified the common perception to one of normal responses to extreme situations. Parts II through IV explore case studies, which exemplify both a shift in the concept of trauma and how politics play a role in the way the concept operates in society. Part II, The Politics of Reparation, examines the 2001 explosion of the AZF chemical factory in Toulouse, France. Fassin and Rechtman argue that this event demonstrates a turning point in which trauma left the clinical realm and entered the public realm in France. The emphasis of disaster response was on psychological support and providers need not be experts but merely listeners. Moreover, one need not be diagnosed with trauma to be considered a trauma victim one qualified merely through their presence. However, there were many factors that determined how traumatized someone was considered, which in turn affected reparations. Some of the factors were based on proximity to the event, but others were dictated by social determinants, such as professional and economic status. Part III, The Politics of Testimony, examines humanitarian psychiatry through a case study of Palestine, which Fassin and Rechtman say demonstrates a key shift in humanitarian psychiatry to a focus on bearing witness. Organizations began to replace first-hand testimony with second-hand testimony, but not without shortcomings. The idea that just bearing witness is an act of humanitarianism was a novel idea. Fassin and Rechtman argue that bearing witness requires that you eliminate otherness so that you can see the person as another self, and the concept of trauma makes this possible. Yet, as they point out, this functions much better at a theoretical level than in reality. When the testimony of Israelis and Palestinians are both put forth by humanitarian organizations, the specific histories get erased and melded into 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 decades ago, and there has been a shift whereby political violence takes precedence over all other experiences, all other forms of suffering that the concept of exile, by virtue of its imprecision, so flexibly encompasses (238). The concept of exile has been replaced by a narrow definition of trauma, which has in turn now requires a form of proof. Whereas people used to need a certificate from a doctor, now in lieu of this, a psychiatrists certification is an expected and necessary part of the asylum application in France.
206

REBECCA KRAUS

Interestingly, this proof of trauma has actually silenced the individuals and disempowered them. The fact that an experts confirmation of their trauma is required devalues their own word. In the conclusion, The Moral Economy of Trauma, Fassin and Rechtman reiterate their goal to avoid questioning whether or not trauma victims are legitimate, but rather to examine the effects of societys overwhelming acceptance of trauma. They argue that trauma victims, once viewed with suspicion, are now legitimate and important figures in society. One result of this, however, is that trauma erases distinctions between different experiences: survivors of combat, sexual abuse, or natural disaster get the same diagnosis. Ultimately, trauma chooses its victims with disparities in use. It reinvents good and bad victimsfor example there was more focus on the tsunami in Thailand than the earthquake in Pakistan because of the presence of Western tourists. Fassin and Rechtman conclude by analyzing trauma as a moral judgment (284). They reveal the classification of trauma as a force to legitimate victims that society values and to dictate moral responsibility. While trauma has brought victims to the forefront and society has begun to value and respect victims, it has also allowed for only some people to be classified as victims. This bias, often hidden, goes unrecognized. One point that I found over-generalized is the idea that all of society readily accepts trauma victims seeking compensation without suspicion of exaggeration. Their cited Vietnam War examples exemplify trauma finally being recognized, but these were also met with significant heavy skepticism. While the overall perception has certainly undergone a major shift, as Fassin and Rechtman point out, I would not go so far a to say that there is no suspicion of trauma victims, especially those seeking compensation. Similarly, their contention that trauma homogenizes all victims and obliterates experience is true to a point, but also could be more nuanced. The detailed history of traumas place in psychology leaves out current work differentiating PTSD and complex PTSD, a form of PTSD caused by captivity or repeated abuse, altering the self and core values in a unique way that regular PTSD does not. There is a movement to enter complex PTSD as a separate diagnosis in the DSM, which would differentiate between people who have suffered from one isolated incident versus those who have lived in captivity or been victims of repeated abuse. 1 Even without knowledge of the field of psychology, one could argue that public perception of certain types of trauma victims is still
207

Didier Fassin & Richard Rechtman | The Empire of Trauma: An Inquiry into the Condition of Victimhood

varied: domestic violence victims, for example, may be viewed differently than combat veterans. Despite these limitations, The Empire of Trauma is an extremely important contribution to the fields of anthropology and trauma studies. Its examination of the major shifts in societys view of the concept of trauma are timely, as they point out that many ideas taken for granted todaysuch as the fact that trauma victims deserve sympathy and reparationsare part of a relatively recent attitude toward trauma. Furthermore, their insightful analysis of the moral and political implications of traumas move from the clinical to the everyday is novel and significant. Indeed, their examination of those marginalized by societys focus on trauma sheds light on oft-overlooked injustice.

ENDNOTE
1

For more information on complex PTSD, see Herman, Judith Lewis. 2004. Complex PTSD: A Syndrome in Survivors of Prolonged and Repeated Trauma. In Knafo, Danielle, ed. Living with Terror, Working with Trauma: A Clinicians Handbook, pp. 35-50. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.