In contemporary society, people talk about ‘trauma’ more frequently than ever before. Whether in the media, schools or on social media platforms, the suffering of individuals and groups is constantly being expressed and discussed. On the one hand, this phenomenon indicates that people are placing greater emphasis on mental health and social justice; on the other, however, it raises a noteworthy issue: trauma is gradually shifting from an experience that requires understanding and treatment to an identity that can be displayed—or even exploited. Terms originally belonging to the field of psychotherapy, such as ‘trauma’, ‘harm’ and ‘sense of security’, now frequently appear in public discourse and have been assigned new functions. They no longer merely describe an individual’s inner state, but have become tools for seeking attention, sympathy and even resources. In this context, communication between people is sometimes no longer aimed at understanding, but turns into a competition over ‘who is suffering more’. This phenomenon might be termed ‘performative trauma’. In other words, whilst the suffering itself may be genuine, when it is repeatedly displayed in a fixed manner and serves to reinforce identity, it gradually becomes a ‘performance’. The result is that genuine healing is neglected, whilst public discourse becomes more prone to polarisation. In certain social contexts that emphasise equality and diversity, people are more sensitive to injustice and harm, and tend to voice their grievances openly. In such cultures, ‘victimhood’ can sometimes confer a moral advantage, making it easier for individuals to gain support and attention. This is not necessarily a deliberate act, but rather an incentive mechanism within the social environment: when expressing distress yields benefits, people are naturally more inclined to do so. At the same time, certain psychological concepts originally designed to help individuals cope with difficulties have been widely applied to institutions and policies. For example, in schools or workplaces, individuals can obtain additional support by expressing anxiety or other psychological difficulties. Whilst this is reasonable in principle, when judgements become increasingly reliant on subjective expressions, the boundaries can become blurred. Sharing one’s trauma is, in itself, an important form of healing. Through sharing, people can make sense of their experiences and gain understanding and support. However, when such sharing enters a space centred on public attention, the dynamic can shift. The focus is no longer on ‘how to cope with the trauma’, but rather on ‘how severe the harm is and whether it is acknowledged’. The audience, too, ceases to be merely listeners; they are expected to respond by taking a stance. This trend is even more pronounced on social media. People consciously amplify their emotional expressions in order to attract more attention. Over time, accounts of trauma may become a form of curated display, even taking on a competitive edge. Ordinary discomforts are magnified into ‘trauma’, and personal setbacks are interpreted as systemic issues. More notably, this environment may actually serve to overlook genuine, profound suffering that is difficult to articulate. Many people who have experienced profound trauma are often unable to articulate their experiences clearly, nor are they willing to speak out publicly. Their voices, conversely, are more likely to be overlooked. When trauma becomes an identity, new problems arise. If a person’s sense of self and social relationships are built upon the identity of a ‘victim’, recovery may become difficult. This is because once they ‘get better’, this identity is undermined and may even be questioned by others. In some cases, recovery is no longer encouraged. Consequently, the expression of trauma may no longer be aimed at recovery, but instead become a form of perpetual display. Spaces intended for psychological support may also become places that constantly reinforce the identity of the victim, rather than helping individuals to grow and change. We therefore need to rethink the purpose of discussing trauma: is it to foster better understanding and healing, or to remain stuck in suffering? The goal of psychology should be to help people face reality and build resilience, not to foster long-term dependence on a particular identity. Of course, this does not imply denying genuine trauma or refusing to offer help. Expressing pain and seeking support are healthy and necessary processes. However, if a society requires people to constantly emphasise their vulnerability in order to gain basic respect and rights, then the problem lies not with the individual, but with the system itself. Before any identity labels, we are first and foremost human beings. Everyone should possess basic dignity and opportunities without needing to prove their worth by emphasising their experiences of victimisation. Only when we can both acknowledge our pain and move towards recovery and growth will trauma cease to be a shackle and become an experience that is understood and ultimately transcended.