The Mask of Sanity
In the cultural treasures of the Nusantara, a mask is not merely a performance prop. It is a language. It is a gesture, even a philosophy. What it hides is the face, but what it displays is the character one wishes to be believed.
Indonesia is familiar with many mask traditions. In Cirebon, there are the Panji, Samba, Rumyang, Tumenggung, and Kelana masks. In Bali, the Topeng Keras, Topeng Tua, Bondres, and Topeng Ratu are known. Malang, Yogyakarta, and various other regions also have mask traditions with their own philosophies.
A mask is indeed not made to change a person’s face. A mask is made so that others see a face that is not the real face. In the performing arts, a mask is a medium of expression. But in real life, a mask sometimes becomes a tool of disguise. And therein lies the danger.
There is evil that comes brandishing a machete, making it easy to recognise. People immediately avoid it when they see it. But there is also evil that comes bearing a smile, gentle words, convincing attention, and even an image of a polite and religious individual. It is this second type of evil that is often more deadly. It does not attack from the front, but creeps in through trust.
The tragedy that befell Yuvita Tri Rezeki in Cileunyi, Bandung Regency, reminds us that not all threats have a frightening face. Taufik Hidayat came to her bringing hope and love.
There are people who appear completely sane, good, and pleasant, but hide a dark side known only to their victims. In psychology, this phenomenon is what Hervey M. Cleckley called the mask of sanity.
Why can someone lead a seemingly ordinary social life, while behind closed doors such horrific violence is alleged to have occurred? This question brings me back to the thoughts of two important figures in forensic psychology: Hervey M. Cleckley and Robert D. Hare.
The term ‘the mask of sanity’ was actually introduced by Cleckley through his book published in 1941. He described individuals who outwardly appear normal, rational, intelligent, and even charming, but actually suffer from a personality disorder that causes them to lose empathy and conscience.
Decades later, Robert Hare developed the concept through scientific research that gave birth to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), an instrument that remains one of the main references in world forensic psychology today.
I was reminded of this concept after receiving a number of messages from Prof. Lucky Aziza Bawazier. The Professor of Medicine at the University of Indonesia once studied directly with Robert Hare and organised seminars and training on psychopathy in Indonesia in 2006 and 2008.
In the view of the doctor who owns a hospital, the Yuvi tragedy must not only be read as a criminal case, but also as a major lesson for families and society about how the face of evil can hide behind charm.
This is where society often misunderstands psychopaths. Many people imagine a figure who is always rude, brutal, or easily angered. Yet various psychological studies show that some individuals with psychopathic characteristics are actually capable of building a very good first impression.
They can appear confident, communicative, humorous, charismatic, and adept at gaining the trust of others. It is this mask that makes victims, families, and even the surrounding environment late in realising the real danger.
Therefore, if during the investigation process a suspicion of psychopathic characteristics in a suspect arises, the approach is not sufficient using only a legal lens. Investigators certainly have competence in building criminal constructions, collecting evidence, and proving the elements of an offence. However, understanding a person’s behaviour patterns requires a different scientific discipline.
This is where forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, and doctors who understand both medical and legal aspects can provide a very important perspective. They do not determine whether someone is guilty or not, but help explain behaviour patterns that may not be readable through a purely legal approach. This is important because psychopathy is not a diagnosis that can be simply attached based on media reports or public opinion.