You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It is not a simple matter for analysts across nations, oceans, generations, and schools to be discussing Germans and Jews post WWII. I found the discussions of my paper moving and troubling; they offer powerful teachings on listening to the kind of dislocated traumatic tales that patients carry into analysis, however left me still wishing to return to the power of nationalism and ideology as major forces that shape psychic reality and argue against reducing this realm into the language of family drama and object relations. In reviewing my work with Nyx following these discussions, I suggest that by being “former enemies” to some degree we functioned transferentially as ambassadors of our collective, and of history. Our field teetered between falling under the spell of a tribunal to a reconciliation committee, while we were negotiating the possibility of historical redemption. My way of working with Nyx manifests an underlying assumption that ideology, as expressed through history, is one of the key factors that constitutes one’s psychic reality and is very important to engage with psychoanalytically. With that in mind I discuss some thoughts on why it is so difficult to signify the horrors of mass trauma and suggest some ethical considerations that can help us think about the difference between Wolff Bernstein’s invitations for us to hover on the rim of the Real, Bohleber’s commitment to historical precision, and Faimberg’s way of listening to the transference.