Resistance to in-depth discussion of the Holocaust continues at the IPA meetings, despite a growing expression of need on the part of German, Jewish and other analysts to break the silence and attempt to talk with each other about it. Squeezed into a one-and-a-half-hour slot on the last day of the IPA meetings in Montreal was a special open discussion entitled “Further Discussions of Reactions of Psychoanalysts to the Nazi Persecution and Lessons to be Learnt”. This was chaired by Rafael Moses of Israel whose paper, with Rena Moses, on “A Form of Group Denial at the Hamburg Congress” had appeared in 1986 in The International Review of Psychoanalysis, criticizing the handling of this subject at the 1985 IPA meeting in Germany.
In general, there seems to be consensus that the 1985 meetings in Hamburg touched only tangentially on issues relating to the Holocaust, perhaps because of a felt need to protect German colleagues, perhaps to avoid intense emotional outbursts, perhaps because of a collective need to defend against personal pain. Analysts spoke about their experiences with their patients, but few spoke openly about themselves. As a result, many left feeling frustrated, angry and confused by emotions not understood or worked through.
Curiously, the discussion at this summer's meeting reflected some of the very same resistances. More than half of the allotted time went to prepared statements which were informative, and at times courageous, but which intruded into time necessary for members of the audience to begin to talk to one another. And it became clear that many had come wanting to talk.
The meeting opened with comments by four panelists which helped toward understanding why it had been so difficult
to explore issues relating to the Holocaust. Moises Kijak, from Argentina, stressed that the Jewish Holocaust was different from all others in the degree of organization, efficiency, ideology and scientific participation in the dehumanization and attempted extermination of an entire people. We retreat from the horror of this. Mortimer Ostrow, from Riverdale, New York, felt that the possibility of discussion is further complicated by the fear on the part of many descendants that any collaborative effort at dialogue with our German colleagues means betrayal of lost relatives, and that these inhibitions may prohibit reconciliation before the passing of at least one more generation.
Ludwig Haesler from West Germany spoke of the silence of our German colleagues, who cannot speak because of unbearable guilt and shame, their envy toward those who have morality on their side, their conflict over accepting guilt for acts they did not commit, and the inevitable defenses that develop to protect their self-esteem and national identity. Hans Keilson from the Netherlands spoke about the long history of anti-semitism. Everyone identifies in some way as victim, persecutor, collaborator, indifferent bystander or helpless defender and retreats from the personal pain evoked by such identifications.
Yet, despite these difficulties, when discussion was opened to the group, it was clear that many who were there were ready to converse on a personal if painful level. One American analyst, herself a survivor, urged her German colleagues to engage in dialogue, saying that she herself felt ready, but could find no partners. Another, long committed to the study of Holocaust survivors and persecutors, encouraged both sides to speak—and to listen. A third pleaded for more time at the IPA meetings, perhaps a day, when those interested could begin the work that has to be done. The meeting allowed for little more than opening statements on the part of participants. Many left feeling frustrated and filled with emotions which are yet to be shared.
It was clear from those who spoke that much needs to be said. Hopefully, more time will be provided during the meetings in Rome.
Interest in the issues of the Holocaust continues as evidenced by the following announcements:
The Fourth Conference of the Sigmund Freud Center for Study and Research in Psychoanalysis, of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in collaboration with the Israel Psychoanalytic Society, will take place in Jerusalem from May 24th to 26th, 1988. The tentative title: “The Meaning of the Nazi Holocaust to Those Not Directly Affected: A Psychoanalytic View!”
The Max Hayman lectureship on the subject of the Holocaust, genocide, or concentration camp survivors, is named in honor of the donor, a retired psychoanalytic colleague in the United States. It will be a lectureship given by either a psychoanalyst IPA member or an invited scholar, selected by the Congress Programme Committee and will be given as a special lecture at each Congress beginning with the one in Rome.