DRAFT
THEORY AS THICK DESCRIPTION[1]
Robert Prince, Ph.D.
The question, How did the cataclysm that befell Europe during the Holocaust effect Psychoanalysis?—has been seriously neglected if not repressed. An attempt to consider this question leads immediately to trying to understand its avoidance, and implications of its avoidances for psychoanalytic institutions and ideas.
Psychoanalysis is a survivor of the Holocaust. Certainly we approach all survivors, even those who happen to be psychoanalysts, with care, partly because of our own dread and awe and their sensitivity acknowledging the impact of the external world on their lives and especially to attributions of damage. If insight amounts to shining a light on something that is, in Salberg's(2007)felicitous phrase, "hidden in plain sight." then Emily Kuriloff's decision to look at six psychoanalytic theorists in the context of their personal Holocaust experience is a stunning illumination. To use a concept from anthropology, Kuriloff "thickly" (Geertz,C.1973) describes psychoanalytic theory by adding this layer of historical context. The goal of my discussion is to provide further historical support and elaboration regarding the perspective that Kuriloff brings to psychoanalytic ideas.
While most psychoanalysts aspire to support theory by clinical observation, lurking just beneath this surface objectivity is a passion about our psychoanalytic beliefs that becomes all too apparent when they are challenged. The broad range of often maddeningly inconsistent or contradictory tenets of diverse psychoanalytic theorists has gradually necessitated a recognition that in addition to its being a limiting factor, a theorists' subjectivity can also significantly enhance the dimensions of theoretical constructs(Stolorow R., Atwood, G. , 1979) One such aspect of theory, rarely discussed but especially salient in psychoanalysis, is its social function. Shared tenets provide a unique cohesiveness. Freud eloquently expressed this idea with reference to Judaism on his reception by representatives of the Hebrew Community of London who greeted him in 1938 after his flight from Vienna :" "We Jews have always known how to respect spiritual values. We preserved our unity through ideas, and because of them we have survived through this day. ( Diller J.,1991, p. 122 ) " In her essay Kuriloff goes as far as to suggest that this need for unity in the face of Nazi persecution left theory nearly sacrosanct, so that creative innovators may have had to struggle to find their voices. It is not exaggeration to say that the price of continuity and belonging was for some analysts a strict adherence to a set of theoretical constructs. In some groups the boundaries of ideas were so narrow that transgressing them fractures personal relationships as well as risks expulsion from the group. The ultimate psychoanalytic insult is "superficiality" , and many of the theorists who included a cultural dimension particularly feared disparagement as "mere sociologists." Here is another possible contribution of the silence regarding the impact of the Holocaust. Nevertheless it is an unacknowledged truism that psychoanalytic theories are always located in a wider social context and understanding the context gives breath to understanding the theory.
One context for psychoanalysis is its origins during the struggle for emancipation and assimilation of Middle European Jews (Diller,J 1991, Oxaal, I.,1998, Sallberg, J. 2007) Jews not only constituted the overwhelming majority of the new science but also had, as a primary objective, precisely so it would not be regarded as a Jewish science, attracting non-Jews to the fold. At the same time, the expansion of psychoanalysis after World War I coincided with the rise of Nazism and the ultimate annihilation of not only the original centers of psychoanalysis in Vienna and Berlin but also of European Jewery.
Kuriloff frames her discussion within the social context of modern day terrorism, or the decision to go on with a psychoanalytic meeting at the William Alanson White Institute as the twin towers were literally falling. This scene evokes a eerily similar story of a meeting of the Prague Psychoanalytic Society chaired by one of Kuriloff's subjects, Otto Fenichel. Also in the midst of an historical emergency-- the Anschluss on March 18, 1938-- a group of psychoanalysts gathered around the radio are considering canceling the reading of a paper by Dr. Hannah Heilbrun .Fenichel evokes a story of his father. Anxious about an ill family member, the elder Fenichel refuses dinner until mother tempts him by telling him that his favorite roasted meats are being served. Father's mood lifts and he says that such fare is welcome on any occasion. Fenichel draws a parallel to psychoanalysis, and just , as dinner was served, so, too, the meeting was held (Simmel, E.,1946 ). The story, however, does not solve the problem. Although it strives for an heroic enunciation of an ideal by gamely disavowing a grave threat, anxiety lurks. A similar scene occurred later that same year at the Psychoanalytic Congress in Paris, the last one before the war. The assembled analysts do the psychoanalytic business of attending papers while in the spaces between they discuss with one another their plans for escape As Meszaros (1998) writes, "During the presentations, the participants dealt with internal psychic events, and in the breaks, they discussed the threatening external reality. All personal concerns revolved around the question of emigration (p.211)." Although this may have been the only means by which the meetings-and by extension the supportive experience of a professional 'society'- could continue at all; in an ironic inversion , the real depth seems to be located in conscious concerns about reality while the superficial is located in the presentations about the unconscious and psychical reality.
While all of these vignettes speak to a denial or dissociation during a catastrophe,the degree of post war dissociation of Holocaust trauma is also quite evident, and not only among the theorist/victims themselves. The majority of psychoanalysts notoriously minimized if not ignored the significance of the Holocaust in the analyses of survivor, and later children of survivors analysands. In the first three decades after the end of World War II, the literature was sparse. Bettleheim's (1942) and Niederland's (1961,1964) articles in which the term "survivor syndrome" was given currency appeared outside of psychoanalytic publications. 1 In an added irony, Axelrod et. al. ( 1980) published a study of the in-patient charts of hospitalized children of survivors in the very same journal Niederland (1961) had published his landmark article almost twenty years before. In an era in which extensively detailed histories were an integral part of hospital case records, Axelrod found that a history of parents' survivorhood was still overwhelmingly omitted.
The neglect in psychoanalytic writing seemed to mirror neglect in clinical work. Henry Krystal 's watershed Massive Psychic Trauma was published in 1968 and was the first comprehensive presentation of clinical findings by leading psychiatrists. Judith Kestenberg, another of the pioneers in the field, who was to organize a Study Group of the American Psychoanalytic Association in 1974, sent out several hundred questionnaires in preparation for a congress on child psychiatry to be held in 1970 in Israel. (Bergmann,M., Jucovy, M. ,1982) Her results "enabled her draw more conclusions about the analysts that the patients. She found that many analysts showed an amazing indifference to the problems, and that many were startled because it had never occurred to them to link their patient's dynamics to the history of their parents' persecution (pp. 26-27)."
As Kuriloff notes in her discussion, Krystal's work was extolled in the growing trauma and survivor literature. However, it was marginalized by mainstream psychoanalysis. A central theoretical obstacle in attending to survivor dynamics has been the antimony in psychoanalysis between psychic reality and external reality. Boulanger, (2007), for example, has written extensively about the challenge to psychoanalytic theory posed by adult onset trauma. Confronted with overpowering reality, it seems that psychoanalysts retreat to the primacy of infantile phantasy. The connection between Holocaust trauma and the patient is minimized or avoided. For example, Freedman (1978) reports his analysis of a patient who had developed an unusual perversion. When anxious, he would seek barbers of very specific appearance and provoke them with complaints that they were not shaving him closely enough, particularly around the throat. During these encounters he masturbated under the sheet. The patient had lost his family in the Holocaust. A hero of the Warsaw Ghetto, he had been a partisan fighter who strangled the enemy with wire and was finally interned in Bergen-Belsen until the end of the war. None of these facts were integrated with the content or meaning of his perversion, and instead, the analysis was conducted entirely on the basis of the interplay of "primitive and oedipal elements (p749) " with bare reference to the role of his Holocaust experiences. The case, or more accurately the "classical" approach to it , has since attracted much discussion ,(Blum, 1978; Roiphe 1978; Oliner, 1996, 2000; Scharff,1998 ) and appreciation for some of the intertwining of early experience with adult trauma (Oliner, 1996) and emphasis on the role early pathology in the unfolding of the effects of later trauma. (Scharff, 1998).
Kohut's (1971) Mr. A. also had a childhood history of persecution when his family was forced to flee the Nazis twice, at ages 6 and 8. When Kohut was asked by Kestenberg (1982) to "provide the material that would allow us to search a connection of the pathology with Holocaust experiences , he felt certain that such a connection did not exist (p.41). " Kuriloff has suggested that such adamant denial of the Holocaust stem in part from Kohut's own defensive anti Semitism.
The strongly held theoretical justifications for holding on to the classical view are put in some perspective by the following observation of Hochman (1978) from a psychoanalytic clinic in a major city cited by Wilson and Fromm (1982), "Two cases came up for discussion, where social and ethnic factors were important. One was an Irish Catholic and one was the daughter of Polish Jews. While there was an extensive discussion about the importance of the cultural factors in the first case, there was little such discussion in the second case, with no recognition of the importance of the Holocaust. … Many analysts have been affected directly and indirectly by the Holocaust. In spite of extensive analytic discussions of the death instinct and murderous and sadistic fantasies, discussions of murderous and sadistic reality take on an unsettling presence in the analyst's consulting room (p. 290)." .
The six theorists that Dr. Kuriloff chooses highlight the most salient- and overlooked- characteristic of both survivors and of analysts – namely how different they all are. Their heterogeneity conflicts with our desire to make neat categories based on similarities. In fact common traumatic experiences produced highly individual effects. But their experiences were in fact quite varied. While all endured significant danger and losses , the quality and degree varied. One important difference was when they escaped (Hale,N., 1995,Eisold,K. 1998)As Kuriloff notes in her comparison of Klein and Fromm, analysts who emmigrated earlier, for example Horney, Alexander, and Rado, tended to be more adventuresome in their thinking, coming by invitation and choice, seeking opportunity. They may have planned to return. However, like Judith Kestenberg who had come to the United States to do research with Paul Shilder, they found themselves stranded. The later ones, who came by necessity and in desperation. tended to represent more mainstream psychoanalysis . Thus the backgrounds of persecution of the theorists Kuriloff presents are dramatically different from each other except with respect to the fact that a thick curtain has fallen over the entire era with the events relatively unknown despite the survival of the vast majority of analysts.
In fact very few were actually interned. The notable exceptions were Bruno Bettleheim who was a political prisoner in Dachau and Buchenwald between 1938 and 1939; Edith Jacobsen, some of whose patients were murdered and whose arrest in 1935 and incarceration over many months stirred fears she would be tortured to reveal names ; Karl Landauer, one of Fromm's analysts who with his family was stuck in Holland, died in Concentration Camp; the heroic John Rittmeister ,whose name seems to have been forgotten, one of two Christian analysts[2] who joined the resistance.
Most analyst got out of in time, which is not to say that their flight was without suffering. Although Anna Freud referred to it as a "new kind of Diaspora (Steiner, 1989) it was largely dissociated from institutional consciousness. Grinberg and Grinberg (1984) draw attention to the scant attention psychoanalysts have paid to migrations despite personal experience during their careers. Exact numbers are elusive but of the 2000 psychiatrists in Germany in 1933, 600 had left for 80 countries around the world by 1939 (Peters, U. 1988). By 1934, 24 of 36 full members of the German Psychoanalytic Society had managed to leave. Between 1938 and 1943, 149 analysts were aided in the emigration by a most ambivalent American Psychoanalytic Association and the Emergency Committee on Immigration (Hale,1995). The intent of that committee was equally to control the process of assimilation (Eisold, K., 1998); its charge stated 'the primary functions of the committee were to restrict and control immigration, to direct it to communities not already overcrowded, and to keep the teaching of analysis centered in the hands of our recognized teaching institutes' (Muhlleitner & Reichmayr, 1995, pp. 108-9).
Ernst Jones stands out as a eminence gris simultaneously raising funds and using influence with powerful figures of the day and also magisterially directing émigrés to various countries and even specific cities based on their politics, personality and above all their theoretical fealty (Hale,N.,1995, Roazen, P.,2001, Steiner,R., 1989) In contrast to the earlier group of refugees who were initially received as authorities and special teachers anointed by their personal contact with Freud, this group was greeted as if they were threats, interlopers demanding scarce resources, potential competitors for a diminishing patient pool. Lay analysts faced particular hurdles in America while medical analysts faced recertification in a foreign language. In the best of circumstances they faced humiliations that contrasted sharply with their previous positions as members of the psychoanalytic aristocracy. Princess Marie Bonaparte in a 1943 letter to her son from South Africa writes, :"Its horrible being a refugee. One is a 'nuisance' to everybody, and, oh, don't they just let you feel it. (de Mijola,1993, p139 )"
Fredrick Wyatt who left Austria in 1934 and returned to teach in Germany in 1974 bitterly describes the refugees as suffering rebuffs, scrounging for a living, learning a new language and mores and feeling helpless. He goes on to describe withdrawal and resignation, a slow place of adaptation, the challenge learning idioms (Wyatt,F., 1988). He writes: " Adaptation to a new culture inevitably means giving up what, in essence, has been an integral part on one's self.(p.148)" In a similar voice, Paul Federn's son Ernst Federn (1988) writes, "I can now present to you adequately the true tragedy that befell psychoanalysis in exile. Not only did that exile mean the loss of home, but also the loss of language and the loss of philosophical bearings. This loss was all the harder to bear as language and philosophy also meant economic and social status (p. 158)."
If looking forward would be fraught, so to would be looking back. Anna Freud's use of the word "Diaspora" was of course reference to the result of the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. The third temple was the Berlin Institute. Chasseguet-Smirgel (1988) writes, "Where the history of psychoanalysis under Nazi rule in Germany is concerned, it is almost as if one had quite literally obeyed the order: 'You are requested to close the eyes" appearing in one of Freud's dreams. One must not see (p. 1058).' With the ascension of the Nazis in 1933, Jews could no longer serve in the administration of medical societies and two members of the Berlin group who Would later be identified as confirmed Nazis (Roazen, 2001) , Felix Boehm and Carl Muller Braunschweig with Jones' support, approached Freud for his blessing taking over control of the Institute. Their purported aim was to preserve psychoanalysis in Germany until better times. However the exclusion of the Jews as part of official Nazi persecution was mirrored by the tacit collaboration by the non- Jewish members who remained. Thus Eichoff (1995) reports the bizarre scene in 1936 of two separate celebrations of Freud's birthday, one attended by Jewish, the other by non-Jewish members. The Berlin Institute would withdraw from the I.P.A. later that year and be absorbed into the Goring Institute where it would contribute ideological support for Nazi crimes against humanity. Not surprisingly, the events of these years raise a range of opinions. At one extreme, Peter Loewenberg, a historian and psychoanalyst judges the attempt to preserve the Berlin Institute harshly: "Freud was clearly more interested in preserving the organization and presence of psychoanalysis in the Third Reich than he was in the dignity and self-esteem of his Jewish colleagues or in the conditions that are necessary for psychoanalysis to function as a clinical therapy…. It is painful and mortifying to read the record of how the leaders of an honored institution, in order to save the organization and promote the careers of the new successors to leadership, humiliated and cast out a large majority of its members to accommodate to a totalitarian state. That a "scientific," or for that matter a "humanistic," society would exclude qualified members for ethnic, racial, religious, or other extrinsic grounds for the sake of the existence of the institution, defies the autonomy of science from political ideology and the morality of valuing individuals which is the humane liberal essence of psychoanalysis itself. [Cited in Roazen,P. 2001, pp. 23]"
In contrast Chasseguet-Smirgel (1988), in a review of Evard's (1984) Les Anees Brunes (The Brown Years) expresses suspicion of "these reproaches (p.1063)" and calls for " a little more Sorrow and a little more Pity (p 1065)." Recalling Freud's fateful meeting with Boehm, she repeats Lampl-de Groots report that Freud said to Boehm, " I have nothing to forbid them and nothing to demand of them," and then observes "Is not this remark, with all the scorn and bitterness of the world, totally in keeping with Freud's character? Moreover, is it really so extraordinary that the majority of Germans, and Freud too, were unable to predict the horrendous acts that were to follow? (p 1064)."
However, there is more to the narrative. In 1949 the German Psychoanalytic Society (DPG) under Harald Schultz- Hencke petitioned the I.P.A. for re-admission and was granted provisional membership. The objection to full membership was not Nazi era misdeeds but rather questions about Schultz- Hencke's "neo-analytic perspective (Conci 2003,p 176) ", i.e. his deviations from adherence to classical Freudian theory. Consequently the German Psychoanalytical Association (DPV) formed under Muller- Braunschweig and was granted full membership in 1951. In a clear example of the the social function of theory ( Goggin J., Goggin E., 2001) conclude that theoretical orthodoxy was "one way of advertising one's dissociation from the Nazi past" ( p. 145).
The I.P.A. returned to hold a congress in Germany for the first time in 1986. Chasseguet-Smirgel (1987), served as program chair and in an exquisitely nuanced yet emotionally electric article, describes a meeting filled with tension above and below the surface. In particular she evokes the specter of the past and the present conflict between fear of and the need for remembering and understanding. She writes, cutting in several directions and through multiple time periods, "We must regretfully conclude that our analytical identity is fragile and that courage and independence of mind are rare (p.437.)" Chasseguet-Smirgel's account, whether one agrees with all of her conclusions, is written from the vantage of one is undeniably sees the world through the eyes of a thoroughly classical psychoanalyst, yet one who avoids using theory in the service of disassociation The result is a description of past events brought into the present that is nuanced, powerful and extremely uncomfortable.
Chasseguet-Smirgel's willingness to address the legacy of the Holocaust for psychoanalytic relations is unusual. However in the last twenty years there has been an increasing attention to the history and maladaptive aspects of psychoanalytic organization (Eisold K., 1994; Kirstner,D.,1998; Hale, N. 1995; Prince, R.1999; Roazen.P., 2001) . Few links, and these are usually in passing, are made to trauma. And most, in the spirit of Dr. Kuriloff's frequent wise reminders to appreciate complexity and repudiate reductionism, reflect multiple strands of explanation. However in a paper describing the history of French psychoanalysis during the Occupation, de Mijolla (2003) rhetorically asks: "How was it possible in these times of mistrust, impoverishment, and scarcity not to arouse deep-seated resentments, which were simply waiting for the right moment to manifest themselves?( p.155)"
The answer is: It wasn't. Authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, betrayal, intimidation, all become evident in psychoanalytic institutions. Many of these organizations became dictatorships governed by what Kirsner(1998) called " a ruling clique." Schisms occurred in almost, if not all Europe, Australia, South America and in the new hubs replacing Vienna and Berlin, the United States and England. Henry Murray, of the Boston Psychoanalytic Institute, is reported to have commented on "an atmosphere too charged with humorless hostility … an assemblage of cultists, rigid in thought, armored against new ideas, and …ruthlessly rivalrous for power (quoted in Eisold, 1994, p. 786). Victor Rosen (cited by Kirsner, 1998) describes the isolation of the institutes from the surrounding communities. A series of "outposts" wishing the rest of the world would go away; a description eerily reminiscent of the isolation of survivor families. Eisold (1994) also describes " a psychoanalytic Weltanschauung that places the analyst, in his own mind, apart from the world within which he lives and works (p795.)." Such separation and isolation effectively results in making the psychoanalytic organization, like the survivor family, a kind of refuge from a threatening world that could be regarded with condescension or contempt.
In the U.S. , intensifying with the influx of the refugees, a second "Psychoanalytic Civil War (Hale,N. 1995)" is described between 1939 and 1942 with a particular battleground over who could be a training analyst. It pitted earlier and later arriviste and native American against each other and in shifting alliances with each other. The importance of the "training analyst" status and membership on the institute education committee is that represented the power basis guaranteed control of the power. According to Arnold Richards, (cited by Kirsner, D. 1998) once one became a training analyst one was almost like God and could do what one wanted. Analysts traced their "lineage" to Freud via their training analyst and this guaranteed the continuity of power going forward. In the post war years the Europeans kept to themselves and according to Kirsner (1998) did not socialize with their American counterparts. He writes, "Given the trauma and terror suffered by the Europeans during the 1930s together with their common background, it was understandable why they grouped together socially in the US. But this carried over to professional matters, leading to a climate of paranoia in the institute which affected all its members Like refugees throughout the ages, perhaps their experiences of persecution in Europe, followed by becoming refugees and living in a totally new environment predisposed them to being more defensive, to try to cover over their fears and insecurities with a strong need to achieve and to cling on to power (Chap. 1)." Both his and Kuriloff's text suggests that this conflagration is a repetition, or enactment, rather than an acknowledgement of the original trauma of living in an authoritarian society
Suffering different degrees of trauma, the psychoanalysts of Europe nevertheless shared the necessity of mourning . However to some degree they were faced with significant obstacles to completion of this vital task. The death of Freud, their totemic figure, was far overshadowed by their own enormous losses and the challenge to survive in a new, present reality. Varvin (1995) discuses the severe consequences when interrupted mourning becomes part of group process. He cites Volkan (1993) who wrote :" A group that has been persecuted transmits its grievance from one generation to the next… and the latest generation is psychologically motivated to repeat in one way or another symbolic or realistic derivatives of the event in order to change passivity into activity, and to correct wrongs done to the forbearers. (p.103)." The transposition of what Kirsner (1998) called " a fortress mentality" and other totalitarian themes into their current realities rises to the status of such "derivatives."
Can we identify broad dimensions of theory that are likely to show the impact of the Holocaust? For individuals who had endured such losses, would not the idealization and overvaluation of the ideas they brought with them, particularly the Freudian canon, even at the cost of rigidity and the inhibition of progress, be some kind of compensation? Would they fiercely protect this ideas both as a connection to a past and as a way of restoring lost status and self-esteem? A prime example of such an over valued idea is the extreme emphasis on psychic reality at the expense of the all too painful other kind. Closely related is the psychoanalytic theory of trauma. The continued post-war radical privileging of early childhood events in the face of massive adult trauma speaks to the operation of some defensive blinders. Another instance or the impact of history is the move in ego psychology pointed out by Hale (1995), away from hereditarian beliefs in reaction to the Nazi glorification of instinct and irrationality. The clinical theory emphasizing anonymity, with deep roots in Freud's writing if not his actual practice, bares a second look in light of the secretiveness of the group of analysts who dominated after World War II. For example, despite their predominant Jewish backgrounds, Ostow (1982) speaks of a "gentleman's agreement" among these analysts "one does not discuss Jewishness (p150) " For a group whose personal exposure brought such danger, it would make great adaptive sense, as again it did for survivors, to reveal as little of themselves as possible.
Perhaps the most important theoretical response to the Holocaust is the struggle to derive meaning and a reason for living - a theoretical phoenix rising from the ashes. Implicit in the thought of each of the psychoanalysts of the Holocaust is some transcendent response to it. Most concretely, Frankl titled his opus, Man's Search for Meaning. As Kuriloff notes, Kohut articulated the complementary visions of heroic and tragic man and the striving for the realization of the nuclear self. Fromm presented the goal of the development of a humanistic conscience. Fenichel's passion for psychoanalysis seems to have formed the basis of his own adaptation. In a review of Fromm's Escape from Freedom (Fenichel,O. 1954), he applauds Fromm's social interest as he criticizes his every deviation from Freudian thinking. Klein's world of internal objects persists regardless of the surround. Krystal addresses the completion of mourning as a necessity and a life goal. In a remarkable essay he writes that "heart of the work of psychoanalysis can be reviewed in two parts….(the second is ) the acceptance of the inevitability and necessity of every event which was part of one's life as having been justified by its causes. It may be said that the challenge in the acceptance of one's old age and the completion of psychoanalytic work is the same- to acquiesce and embrace what has happened and to renounce continuing anger about it. (Krystal,1995,p83). Even Bettelheim, lately castigated for his image of the concentration camp inmate, strove to develop a theory of autonomy.
Dr. Kuriloff's examination of psychoanalytic theory through the lens of the impact on it of historical trauma can potentially be taken as an attempt to pathologize and thus devalue.The sensitivity of both survivors and analysts to attribution based on trauma remains a concern. However, as pointed out by Rakoff, not to have been effected by such trauma is the true indictment of one's humanity. Personally, my own struggle to construct a view of the world and an image of human being has taken place in the shadow of my knowledge of the Holocaust. I freely admit the possibility of projection, but it seems there is ample evidence for the representation of Holocaust trauma in psychoanalytic theory and the further enactment of it in psychoanalytic institutions. Bringing the perspective of the traumatic context of a crucial period in psychoanalytic history is emphatically not intended to detract but to add a layer of understanding. Today's psychoanalysts are like the second generation offspring of survivors to whom Holocaust trauma was oftentimes unwittingly transmitted. Awareness of what is otherwise denied and enacted is essential to our understanding and moreover our sense of agency, both as professionals and as human beings. Recognizing that we are descendents both of an intellectual tradition and the historical context in which it was formed only deepens our appreciation of the legacy of our psychoanalytic mothers and fathers.
Axelrod,S. Shnipper,O, Rau,J., ( 1980) Hospitalized offspring of Holocaust Survivors: Problems and dynamics. Bull. Menninger Clinic., 44(1): 1-14.
Bergmann,M., Jucovy, M. ,(1982) Prelude in M. Bergmann,M., M. Jucovy, eds. Generations of the Holocaust, New York: Basic Books.
Bettleheim (1943) Individual and mass behavior in extreme situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,38, 417-452.
Bergmann, M.S. (1997). The Historical Roots Of Psychoanalytic Orthodoxy. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 78:69-86.Bergmann, M. S. (1993). Reflections on the history of psychoanalysis.J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc., 41:929-953.
Blum, H.P. (1978). Psychoanalytic Study of an Unusual Perversion—Discussion. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 26:785-792
Boulanger (2007) Wounded by Reality, Hillsdale,N.J. :Analytic Press
Chasseguet-Smirgel, J. (1987). 'Time's White Hair We Ruffle'. Reflections on the Hamburg Congress. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 14:433-444
Chasseguet-Smirgel, J. (1988). Les Années Brunes. Psychoanalysis Under the Third Reich.1. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 36:1059-1066
Cocks, G. (1985), Psychotherapy in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cocks G. 2001 Death of a "Jewish science"? Psychoanalysis in Nazi Germany. Psychoanalysis and History;3:211-25.
Conci, M. (2003). James E. Goggin and Eileen Brockman Goggin, Death of a "Jewish Science". Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich. Int. Forum Psychoanal., 12:173-178
de Mijolla, A. (2003). Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalysts in France between 1939 and 19451. Int. Forum Psychoanal., 12:136-156
Geertz,C (1973)The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic
Diller, J. (1991) Freud's Jewish Identity: A Case Study in the Impact of Ethnicity.London: Associated University Presses.
Eisold, K. (1994). The Intolerance of Diversity in Psychoanalytic Institutes. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 75:785-800
Eisold, K. (1998). The Splitting of the New York Psychoanalytic Society and the Construction of Psychoanalytic Authority. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 79:871-885
Eickhoff, F. (1995). The Formation Of The German Psychoanalytical Association (Dpv): Regaining The Psychoanalytical Orientation Lost In The Third Reich. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 76:945-956
Federn,E. (1988) The fate of a science in Exile. in E . Timms and N Segal Eds. Freud in Exile, New Haven, Yale pp156-153.
Fenichel,O. (1954) Psychoanalytic remarks on Fromm's book, Escape From Freedom, in H. Fenichel, D. Rapaport (eds.) The Collected Papers of Otto Fenichel,New York: Norton. P
Evard,J. (ed.) Les Années Brunes. Psychoanalysis Under the Third Reich. Paris: Confrontations, 1984, 216 pp.
Frankl, V. (1985), Man's Search for Meaning (rev.). New York: Washington Square Press.
Freedman, A. (1978). Psychoanalytic Study of an Unusual Perversion. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 26:749-777
Gillman,S, Contructing the image of the appropriate therapist: The struggle of psychiatry with Psychoanalysis. In eTimms,E.
Goggin,J, Goggin,E (2001) Death of a "Jewish Science". Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich: Indiana: Purdue University Press,
Hale, N. G. (1995). The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Hochman, J. (1978), Unpublished manuscript.
Kirsner (1998) Unfree Association: Inside Psychoanalytic Institutes. www. Human-nature.com/kirsner/index.html
Grinberg, L., Grinberg, R. (1984). A Psychoanalytic Study of Migration: Its Normal and... J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 32:13-38.
Kestenberg,J., Kestenberg,M., The Background of the Study, in in M. Bergmann,M., M. Jucovy, eds. Generations of the Holocaust, New York: Basic Books.
Kirsner, D. (2000). Unfree associations: Inside psychoanalytic institutes. London: Process Press.
Krystal, H Ed. (1968)Massive Psychic Trauma, New York, Int. Univ. Press.
Krystal, H. (2007) Personal communication.
Kohut, H. (1971) The Analysis of the Self , New York, Int. Univ. Press.
Mészáros, J. (1998). The Tragic Success of European Psychoanalysis: "Int. Forum Psychoanal., 7:207-214.
Niederland, W.G. (1961) The problem of the Survivor J. Hillside Hospital., 10:233-247.
Niederland, W.G., (1964) Psychiatric Disorders among Persecution Victims : A contribution to the psychopathology of concentration camp pathology and its aftermath., J. Nerv. And Mental Dis., 139: 458:474.
Ostow,M. (1982) Judaism and Psychoanalysis, New York , KATV
Oliner, M.M. (1996). External Reality: The Elusive Dimension Of Psychoanalysis.. Psychoanal Q., 65:267-300.
Oliner, M.M. (2000). The Unsolved Puzzle of Trauma. Psychoanal Q., 69:41-61.
Muhlleitner, E. & Reichmayr, J. (1995). The exodus of psychoanalysts from Vienna. In F. Stadler & P. Weibel. ed. The Cultural Exodus from Austria, Vienna: Springer Verlag, pp. 98-121.
Peters,U (1988) : The Psychoanalytic Exodus: Romantic Antecedents and the loss to German intellectual life. in in E . Timms and N Segal Eds. Freud in Exile, New Haven, Yale pp156-153.
Prince, R. (199) The Death of Psychoanalysis: Murder?Suicide?Or Rumor Greatly Exaggerated? Northvale N.J.:Aronson.
Oxall,I (1988) The Jewish Origins of Psychoanalysis Reconsidered. in E . Timms and N Segal Eds. Freud in Exile, New Haven, Yale pp156-153.
Roazen, P. (2001). The Exclusion of Erich Fromm from the IPA. Contemp. Psychoanal., 37:5-42.
Simmel, E. (1946). Otto Fenichel. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 27:67-71
Roiphe, H. (1978). Psychoanalytic Study of an Unusual Perversion—Discussion. J. Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 26:779-783.
Scharff, D.E. (1998). The Holocaust: Chaired by Ilany Kogan, Rehovot. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 79:376-379.
Stolorow R.,Atwood G., ( 1979) Faces in a Cloud: Subjectivity in Personality Theory, New York: Jason Aronson
Steiner, R. (1989). 'It is a New Kind of Diaspora…'32. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 16:35-72
Timms,E. Segal, N. , (eds.) (1988) Freud in Exile: Psychoanalysis and its Vicissitudes. New Haven: Yale.
Varvin, S. (1995). Genocide and ethnic cleansing. Psychoanalytic and social-psychological viewpoints. Scand. Psychoanal. Rev., 18:192-210
Volkan, V. (1993). What the holocaust mean to a non-Jewish psychoanalyst. In: Moses, R. (ed.), (1993). Persistent Shadows of the Holocaust. Madison, Connecticut: Int. Univ. Press.
Wilson, A. and Fromm, E. (1982). Aftermath of the Concentration Camp. J. Amer. Acad. Psychoanal., 10:289-313
Wyatt,F. (1988) The Severance of Psychoanalysis from its Cultural Matrix, in E . Timms and N Segal Eds. Freud in Exile, New Haven, Yale 1988 145-155
________________________________________
[1] Originally presented as a Discussion of Dr. Emily Kuriloff's "Theory as Trauma" at the Clinical Conference of the William Alanson White Institute , New York April , 2007
1 A symposium sponsored by the Israeli Psychoanalytic Society was held in 1966 and in 1967 the International Psychoanalytic Association Congress in Copenhagen sponsored a symposium titled, "Psychic Traumatization through Social Catastrophe."
[2] Käte Dräger was the other. Chasseguet-Smirgel (1987). Cites the following from Dräger 's lecture delivered in 1970 to commemorate the Jubilee of the Berlin Institute: "We can ask after the event whether the analysts should not have all emigrated in 1933…. the chronicle of the years 1933–1945 would be easier to write if we could tell the tale today: At a certain point in the development of the situation, the "Aryan" analysts simply said "no" (p436)."
Robert Prince, Ph.D., ABPP
robertprincephd@verizon.net
|
