Seite - 39 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Band 04/01

Trauma and Conformity | 39www.jrfm.eu 2018, 4/1, 35–46 health care. It summarises current thinking on trauma, and I therefore use it as point of departure for my description of this phenomenon. There is a lot of criti- cism about the use of the DSM, but to go into this extends the scope of this article.5 We should note that the DSM’s description of trauma refers not only to events that have happened directly to the patient but also to events in which the patient is only indirectly involved, for example, as a witness to a trauma- causing event or as a close friend to someone who has been affected by severe misfortune. The concept of trauma is applied broadly here, an approach also adopted with the contention that role in the original incident is not a determin- ing factor in the diagnosis of trauma – both perpetrator and victim can suffer as a result of events of the past; the sufferings of each are not distinct. PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS: DOES THEIR SUFFERING MEAN THE SAME THING? If both perpetrator and victim suffer as a result of their pasts, is their suffering identical? There is no doubt that Anwar Congo suffers, but does his suffering have the same meaning as that of his victims? On this point the rough-woven understanding of trauma and violent events proves inadequate, unable to pro- vide careful and accurate analysis of this phenomenon. The positions of perpe- trator and victim are, in fact, radically different. The victim suffers as a result of the misfortune they were forced to undergo; the perpetrator suffers as a result of inflicting harm. This difference cannot be conjured away. Reflection on trau- ma must not focus too much on symptoms, paying little or no attention to the role of the person – perpetrator or victim – concerned in the original incident. Previous editions of the DSM provided more opportunities to distinguish between perpetrator and victim. In these versions helplessness is mentioned as characteristic of a traumatising event. The inability to act in a situation that requires action for self-preservation is found pre-eminently among victims, who had no choice. By contrast, perpetrators remained “in control”. The concept of helplessness can be applied to distinguish between perpetrators and victims even within the terms established by the DSM, at least in its earlier editions. Congo suffers; he is traumatised by his role as a perpetrator. Should we not be glad that he is suffering? He killed on a large scale. Let us imagine that the responsibly for such killing left no impression on the perpetrators, that they carried out their actions without any negative emotional effect. Would we not understand that response as unbearable indifference to human life? Such non- chalance is seen in The Act of Killing, in a scene in which one of the perpetra- tors tells of the rape of young girls. Forty years later he still enjoys the memory, relating that the experience was “heaven” for him. 5 See Dehue 2008 and Dehue 2014 for a critique of the DSM.