Being in Berlin: a Large Group Experience in the Berlin Congress

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90:809–825 doi: 10.1111/j.1745-8315.2009.00169.x

Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress

H. Shmuel Erlich*, Mira Erlich-Ginor* and Hermann Beland** *Israel Psychoanalytic Society Midbar Sinai 42, 97805 Jerusalem, Israel – [email protected] **German Psychoanalytic Association ⁄ IPA

(Final version accepted 19 November 2008)

In July 2007, the International Psychoanalytic Congress convened for the first time since the war in the former Nazi capital, Berlin. An open large group forum was held at this meeting, where attendees (Jewish, German and others) had the opportunity to explore the emotional aspects stirred up by being in Berlin. Hun- dreds of people participated in the event and described it as the ‘heart of the Con- gress’. We examine several aspects of the event, including the passions stirred, the containment of the setting, and the voices present and absent.

Keywords: anti-Semitism, experiential large group, Holocaust, reparation, trauma

To my surprise I discovered that my hotel room happens to be above the bunker where Hitler committed suicide. Then came the thought: As an analyst, do I have to identify with Hitler? I had the sudden thought of having lived with a ‘Nazi mother’ all my life. My shame at the sight of the German flag – I only hope my daughter will be free of this burden. It hadn’t occurred to me for a single moment that I might say something. Then I thought that I come from a family that remained silent all the Nazi-years. The history of psychoanalysis, by virtue of its unique relationship with Sigmund Freud and the disproportionate ratio of Jews among its early and later adherents, was deeply scorched by the rise to power of Nazism and the per- petration of the Holocaust. The persisting residues of this history make hold- ing an international psychoanalytic congress in Germany a far from neutral event. A great volume of writing has been devoted to the subject of psychoanalysis during the period of Nazi rule and afterwards. It is impossible to summarize briefly this vast historical research, which deals with the fate and adaptation of psychoanalysis under the Third Reich, the Holocaust, the collective self- scrutiny of the decades after the war, the continuing discovery by German analysts of what had happened and how they were involved in the Holocaust and the rupture of humanity, and finally with the Hamburg Congress and the ‘Nazareth Conferences’. A highly selective sample from this vast literature may include representative references such as: Beland (1988), Brainin and Kaminer (1982), Brecht et al. (1985), Erlich (2001b), Frosh (2005), Goggins and Brockman Goggins (2001), Ostow (1988) and Wallerstein (1988).

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA on behalf of the Institute of Psychoanalysis 810 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland The 2007 IPA Congress in Berlin was the second time this international psychoanalytic gathering has taken place in post-war, post-Holocaust Germany. Twenty-two years have passed since the previous congress took place in Hamburg in 1985. In the Hamburg Congress, ‘a form of denial’ was poignantly noted and described by Rafael Moses and Rena Hrushovski- Moses (1986). They spoke of the elusive yet palpable feeling that the burning issues of Nazism and the Holocaust were ‘papered over’ and not openly addressed or available in that congress. They attributed this denial to the fear of the organizers, who wanted to give these issues a place but were afraid of the emotional impact of potentially massive accusations and defensiveness. This denial and its consequences may have been on the minds of the organizers of the Berlin IPA Congress of 2007. Early on, they consulted with colleagues, including us, expressing their full awareness and cognizance of the special meaning of a psychoanalytic congress in Berlin, the Nazi capital, which for many is still heavily linked with the burden of that era, and their clear wish to provide a setting that would acknowledge this. This perspective was reflected in the theme chosen for the congress, ‘Remembering, Repeat- ing and Working Through in Psychoanalysis and Culture Today’. It was also concretely and contextually present in the numerous panels and lectures that dealt forthrightly with the Holocaust and the World War II years in Ger- many and elsewhere, many of them expressing painful personal experiences and reflections. Nevertheless, the organizers thought that this would not be enough. They felt that a more direct form of dealing with the anticipated emotional experiences might be needed. Responding to this need, we suggested, designed and carried out an event entitled ‘Being in Berlin’ that took place for one hour each morning of the three days of the Congress, parallel to the discussion groups following the main lectures. The event evolved into a high-profile and powerful experience. In what follows we wish to describe this event, its design and evolution in the actual space and time of the Congress. Such a write-up would serve as testimony to the spirit of openness and the willingness to share difficult personal feelings and intimate reflections of the many colleagues from around the world who took part in the event.

Method and design In conceiving and designing this event we were greatly helped by several pertinent experiences: our considerable familiarity and experience in designing and conducting Group Relations conferences in the Tavistock tradition (Miller, 1989), our experience of consulting to large groups within such conferences and, most importantly, the work we have done over many years in working conferences of German, Israeli ⁄ Jewish and other psychoanalysts and psychotherapists, in which the unbearable pain and guilt of each group could emerge and be explored.1 All these experiences helped prepare us for the task of designing this event and consulting to it.

1These conferences and the work done in them were the subject of a panel presentation in the Congress (Erlich et al., 2007).

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 811 Tavistock Group Relations Conferences provide a model for social reflection (Khaleelee and Miller, 1985). Basically, a staff is organized to provide an extended opportunity for here-and-now reflection from people, coming from a wide range of social roles, in various relatively unstructured group settings within a framework of an agreed upon task (ordinarily focusing on some aspect of leadership and authority, but often taking up wide-ranging social themes such as: Violence in the Family, Germans and Israelis, Polari- zation in Society, Prejudice and Racism, etc.). The staff works to conceptu- alize and speak to the group as a whole, a model of intervention that helps individuals locate themselves in the group process (Carr and Shapiro, 1989). In large groups, there are often several consultants working at grasp- ing the group. The purpose of multiple consultants is to have a formal role distinct from participants, authorized both to hold the perspective of the group and to speak from different viewpoints. In the setting of the Berlin Congress, we chose male and female Jewish-Israeli analysts and a male German analyst, under the working assumption that some of the themes that might emerge in the discussion might usefully be seen from these different perspectives. Using this basic framework, our foremost consideration was to provide an opportunity for a contained space for the range of thoughts, feelings and reflections that attendees from various backgrounds might experience in response to the special circumstance of ‘being in Berlin’. While we recognized that such a space might attract the more painful spectrum of reactions to World War II, we wanted to make the opportunity as open as possible. We determined that the event would take the form of an open ‘large group’ that would meet at the same time each day, with well-defined time and space boundaries. The three of us would serve as consultants to this large group, and would thus provide the necessary boundaries and containing functions. Our initial thought was to call the event ‘Coming to Berlin’.However,we realized that this title would only address those who came to Berlin as visitors, whether for the first time or not. On reflection, this might have been perceived as excluding German colleagues, who as hosts may have to deal with their feelings as well. The title was therefore changed to ‘Being in Berlin’. The description of the event, which is reproduced below, served as the only invitation and announcement and was addressed to both hosts and guests:

Being In Berlin These daily sessions are intended as a container for reflecting, in a large group setting, on the experience of being in Berlin. For many, both hosts and guests, being here is not a neutral experience of visiting a well-known, foreign and important historical city. During the Congress, the exclusive focus on pursuing psychoanalytic goals and work can be very absorbing and push aside personal and subjective feelings. These sessions offer an opportunity for all who may wish to pause to reflect on their experience and to express personal thoughts and feelings. Consultants: Hermann Beland, Shmuel Erlich, Mira Erlich-Ginor

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 812 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland Doubts, fears and resistances

The fears, fantasies and hopes that preceded the event touched on different themes and levels, of both a methodological and personal nature. Methodo- logically our concerns included the question of the authorization to do the work; the dissemination of the information about it; and the ubiquitously difficult nature of working in a large group. At the personal level, there was anxiety about the way the event would be perceived and received, whether people would find it of interest, the number of people who would attend, given the tremendous competition for time and attention in the Congress, and not least the anxiety about the size and power of the genie we might release from its bottle – the intensity and unpredictability of what may come up in the large group. Our fantasies and hopes ranged from being largely ignored to being overwhelmed by a deluge of participants. The issue of authorization is essential. Psychoanalysis has articulated the value of a clearly delineated frame in which two distinct roles and a clear authorization for work allow for the unfolding of the patient’s inner life (Etchegoyen, 1991). This is equally true for group work (Erlich-Ginor, 2006; Shapiro, 1997, 2005). The sense of being authorized in one’s role usually derives from a clear contract or mandate, anchored and embedded in a well- recognized structure in which the sources and distribution of authority are clearly spelled out from above and from below, and imbedded in a recogniz- able tradition (Obholzer, 1994). In the typical Group Relations working con- ference this is handled by the way the event is structured, and by providing a clear contract for those who decide to join. But how could this be done within the frame of a congress? Why would participants join such a discussion, so loosely defined? How could they trust the framework, the other members and the consultants enough to speak freely? The event could be found in the programme yet it did not stand out. It was listed as one of the discussion groups following the main lectures of each day. The paragraph introduction, though available in the programme, was not linked to the schedule; only the title was there. How then would people learn or be informed about this event? Both these issues – authorization and communication – received an unexpected and at least partial solution in the Congress Opening. In his welcoming address, Georg Bruns, Chair of the Program Committee, expressly mentioned this event as one of two ‘experiments’ within the congress. He mentioned the names of the two Israelis [MEG and HSE], leaving out the name of the German consultant [HB]. By doing this, he broadcast the information and underlined our authorization, as well as opening an opportunity for interpretation of his slip. It was clear that this event was important to the organizers and the announcement served to give it publicity. Left open and still unknown was the issue of working in a large group setting, which deserves some elaboration. Large groups are known to be extremely unpredictable and difficult to work with. Because of the regressive tendency to project into a crowd, large groups have been described as posing a threat to individual identity (Turquet, 1975) and as readily manipulated to

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 813 identify and attack real or imagined enemies (Erlich, 1997, 2001a). The experience of being in a large group may be productive, however, provided one does not succumb to the threat to be swallowed up and merged with the group, or the defensive need to isolate oneself from its process and be in the role and posture of a non-member or ‘singleton’. The impact and contribution of consultancy can be decisive in influencing the course and shape of such developments. Clearly, we were embarked on a mission that contained many hidden dan- gers and potential pitfalls. It should be noted that an ‘experiment’ of this kind has never before taken place in an IPA congress, and we recognized that the potential size of the group might vastly outnumber those we had previously experienced. The experiment, not surprisingly, evoked anxiety. Georg Bruns, Chair of the Program Committee, writes: ‘‘… Evidently there were unconscious anxieties concerning this group. Though I had it announced rather early in the Program Committee in order to reserve slots, repeatedly it disappeared from our ‘screen’ and finally it was difficult to find a good place for it in the program’’ (personal communication). And only the two Israeli consultants were mentioned in the Congress opening. In the consultants’ discussion prior to the event, we wondered if the slip suggested that facing these anxieties might be experienced as only the province of Jews and that bringing Jews and Ger- mans together might be too ‘hot’. In addition, it proved difficult to assign a reliable space for the event. Although the event had been discussed and formulated long in advance, it turned out that, while the time slot was indeed the same every day (something we insisted on), the same space could not be; we would have to ‘wander’ or ‘relocate’ ourselves to a different room each day. We had no prior familiarity with the nature and size of the rooms provided, but it was hinted that some of them might be quite small. Since we had no way of knowing in advance how many people would turn up, there was no point in challenging this assignment. Our acquiescence may also have been driven by anxiety about the prospective number of participants. The possibility of having a handful of people in a huge hall, though equally interpretable, felt more uncomfortable than its opposite. Later on it would become clear that ‘administrative’ decisions about the space played a significant role in the unfolding meanings of the event.

The event Before getting into some of the major themes, we want to describe what happened around and through the setting. On the first day, we found ourselves in a small room that contained only 25 chairs arranged in rows facing a table. We rearranged the chairs in a cir- cle around the walls. Our requests to remove the table were politely ignored by the hotel staff. People streamed in, much before the time, and quickly took up all the available seats. As more and more people arrived, in what began to feel like an endless stream, people squeezed in, sitting on the floor, which soon was filled too, on the table, the window sill, finally standing wherever they could, mostly in the doorway.

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 814 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland As on each of the following days, one of the consultants recapitulated at the start the ideas and invitation contained in the blurb as a reminder of the task at hand. The announcement on this day was immediately overshadowed by what was happening at the door. The behaviour was both frightening and trou- bling: while 60 or 70 people were quite uncomfortably squeezed into the room, there seemed to be twice as many outside the door trying to get in. A struggle developed between the people standing inside and those outside. There were feeble attempts by those standing in the doorway to explain that there was no more room, and the noise from the hall was quite disruptive to whatever was beginning to transpire inside. Finally, there was a decisive slamming shut of the door. Immediately, associations came up from the group of being ‘‘squeezed into a cattle car’’ and the ‘‘doors being shut as in the gas chambers’’. Alerted to these developments, the organizers informed us that, instead of another small room that had been assigned for the next day, the event would be relocated ‘‘just for tomorrow’’ to a larger space. This turned out to be a non-existing, ‘fabricated’ room; we were relocated to the large foyer leading into the main lecture hall, where the main lecture of the day took place shortly before. The space also contained stands for earphones for simultaneous translation and a large display of psychoanalytic caricatures. In order to create this space, the doors on all four sides had to be closed and guarded by specially hired personnel, and special directional signs were put up. We were told, however, that only 50 chairs could be provided ‘because of fire regulations’. Our requests to provide more chairs were unsuccessful. On the morning of the second day people streamed in to take up seats 20 minutes ahead of time. The 50 chairs were immediately filled, and the congress organizers, who, anticipating problems, were on hand, ordered more chairs. As hotel staff rolled in stacks of chairs, people started to grab them, sometimes violently, and one person was hurt. The rapid, rhythmic metallic sound of chairs being dislodged from the carriers was constantly in the background and several people associated it to the sound of trains. In all, 100 chairs were distributed and arranged in concentric circles, and still at least another hundred or so persons stood around outside the circles. The organizers decided that for the third and last day we would stay in the same space. The fire regulations were ignored, the display boards were moved out of the way, and 261 chairs were brought in and arranged ahead of time in several concentric circles. Still, there were dozens of people who did not have seats and stood around in various formations. Once again, many people came in very early to secure seats. These management and frame details seemed intrinsically connected with what this event stirred up in the participants. The unfolding drama of the impossible space, the provision of chairs, the discomfort and seemingly unsuitable conditions – all expressed poignantly, in unspoken ways, essential aspects of what ‘being in Berlin’ evoked. Attempting to provide a space for feelings and associations evoked images in the participants of the slamming shut of boxcar doors and the sound and sensation of trains; angry wishes

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 815 for the ‘conductor’ – the leader or Fhrer – to act more forcefully in order to establish order in the chaotic situation; aggressive shouts and objections directed at the congress photographer who tried to take pictures, and so on. These were readily available associations and recapitulations. They testify to the poignancy and aliveness of the associations, symbolizations and feelings about Nazi Germany and its atrocities. They served to pave the way to the more acute, personal and impersonal evolution and development of this striking large group. They illuminate the atmosphere, which was both immensely charged and intensely engulfing. The scene was one of people heavily crowded but eagerly involved, in spite of a certain measure of physi- cal discomfort and unease; people listening intently, trying to catch every- thing, to understand and make sense of it; and people ready to speak up, often in the most moving, personal, painful and self-disclosing way, trusting the others to understand and be able to relate to what they entrusted them with, which was often very precious. At times, especially towards the end of the third meeting, the competition to seize the moment and to be heard became very strong. And most poignantly, all this took place in a group of several hundred participants.

Themes present and presented It would not be possible, nor is it our intention, to provide detailed process notes of the event or a synopsis of the contents that surfaced over its three sessions. As is usually the case in large groups, themes, contents and feelings shifted rapidly and dramatically, reflecting a momentary need and readiness of someone for self-expression rather than adhering to a seemingly rational thread of discussion. People were moved to speak and seized the moment to express themselves, at times connecting with the previous intervention, at others speaking as if out of a seeming sequence. The consultants, dispersed within the group, mostly listened, each trying to grasp and make sense of what transpired, relying in this on his or her own present experience and to some extent on previous experience and background. They spoke very little, making no more than two or three interventions each in the course of a session. The aim of the consultants’ intervention is to frame the relatively chaotic large group experience so as to render it more comprehensible, reflecting the individual consultant’s understanding at that moment (Carr and Shapiro, 1989). It is not to ‘lead’, ‘facili- tate’ or ‘direct’. In this sense, the consultants do not represent an agenda, and there is no aim to be achieved. Analogously to the psychoanalytic situation, interpretations and interventions grow out of present experience and understanding (Carr and Shapiro, 1989). The number of consultants is arbitrary, but the fact that there are several in this role, of different gender (male ⁄ female), backgrounds and nationality (Israeli ⁄ Jewish ⁄ German) makes it possible to listen to the material from a number of different perspectives. The three consultants met after every session in order to process the material and their experiences: to compare their different understandings, their feelings and countertransferences, and to negotiate a shared view of the meaning of what had taken place.

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 816 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland What follows are selected moments, in the hope of communicating something of the feeling tone of the group process. They are necessarily taken out of context. We chose examples that contain interventions by the consultants in order to give some flavour of that, giving a skewed impression of the frequency of these interventions. Nevertheless, we hope that the reader will be able to get a taste of the experience.

German shame and hope A German man talks about the shock he just had: when the curtains [in the room of the first day] were pulled up to allow people to sit on the window sill, all of a sudden a huge German flag filled the entire window. He feels uncomfortable with the German flag and at the same time ashamed. During the ‘Mondial’ he bought a German flag for the first time in his life. His 14 year-old daughter had the German flag painted on her cheeks. In tears he says: ‘‘I hope she will not have to go on carrying the burden of the past.’’

Identifying with Hitler A colleague, for the first time in Berlin and Germany, hired a flat and found himself sleeping over the ‘Fhrerbunker’ [Hitler’s last shelter where he committed suicide]. He could not sleep all night. He asked himself if, as an analyst, he had to identify with Hitler, and he actually tried to. It made a consultant [HB] exclaim: ‘‘This indeed is really ‘Being in Berlin’ – trying to identify with Hitler!’’

The voices of the dead The first remarks on the second day were about longing for yesterday’s space. This created an ‘Old-timers ⁄ Newcomers’ split: ‘‘It was not comfort- able in that tiny room, but we could talk to each other, we could see who we were talking to, be connected. Here we can’t hear and we can’t see who is talking, it is just voices.’’ There was some joking about ‘‘eerie’’ voices from behind the exhibition walls and columns. Consultant [HB]: ‘‘We can hear better the voices of the dead.’’

Being faceless and nameless [A woman sitting on a table in back, very agitated:] ‘‘I want to see Erlich! Is he here? I have read what he wrote, I must see his face! Does anyone know him?’’ A consultant [HSE] responds: ‘‘The anxiety is about being faceless and nameless.’’ The absent voices A woman from Latin America tells the story of three women in a cab who decided they wanted to go to the Jewish museum. But one of them did not want to; she is not Jewish so it did not interest her. Consultant [MEG]: ‘‘In our cab we don’t have those who did not come because it is coming to Berlin. These are the voices we can’t hear.’’

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 817 Jewish-Nazi mothers ‘‘When a German participant spoke about her father who was born in 1919, I was surprised that I had a surge of anger. My thoughts were about my own father, also born in 1919, and what had happened to his life as a result of Hitler’s Germany. I also had a sudden thought of having lived with a ‘Nazi mother’ – a bitter and resentful woman whose own young life and ambitions had been totally disrupted by ‘The Anschluss’ and having to flee to a new country. I admire her for the decisions she took at such a young age but she was a Nazi Mother.’’

Maternal longing – the ‘Jewish’ mother A German woman states she is angry at what Shmuel [HSE] wrote [in the special Congress issue of Psyche] – that German mothers did not love their children, only took care of them physically. Her mother loved her! Another German woman says that after the Congress she will buy CDs of German and Yiddish lullabies. She realizes that she never sang to her children. The Jewish mother, on the other hand, is perceived as warm and good. Consultant [MEG]: ‘‘The mother we all long for is called ‘the Jew- ish mother’.’’

Impossible marriages and the monsters they produce Someone reads a poem by Hçlderlin in which the phrase ‘twin souls’ occurs. Consultant [HSE]: ‘‘The tension in the group is around intermar- riage – can these different parts actually live together? There is aggression in the group and feelings about wanting to kill the other. The question is, is there room for close souls that are separated by war?’’ A participant responds: ‘‘There are Germans and there are Jews. What shall I do? I am a German-Jew!’’ A Jewish-Israeli man who lives in Berlin says he is mar- ried to a German wife. Last night his wife got up in terror: ‘‘What are we going to do? Are we going to have to divorce?’’ As this is not at all in their relationship, he sees it as part of the tension here. In which culture will they raise their children? Consultant [HB]: ‘‘We are pregnant with the German ⁄ Jewish parts and are afraid of the monster that will come out.’’

Envy of the Jews A woman talks about her parents who, as members of the Resistance, were active in hiding and protecting Jews. Rather than being proud of them, she felt angry at and envious of ‘the Jews’ who received her parents’ attention and care instead of her. The Jews seem to have the exclusive privilege of suffering and sorrow, and ‘the Others’ in the group feel envy and want a space for their own suffering. This sudden surge of anger at the Jews who are ‘monopolizing’ pain and suffering and are privileged in some way seemed to recapitulate, alarmingly and in vivo, the development of anti- Semitism.

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 818 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland Longing for the missing parts A number of Jewish participants voiced the longings of their parents for their missing European or German parts, and their own uncanny feelings in unexpectedly encountering these in Berlin. It came up mostly in connection with language – the German spoken at home by grandparents and parents and the experience of meeting it in Germany and Berlin. A German woman spoke about missing the Jews and her longings for things Jewish – food, music, language. The silence – Do I let others speak for me? ‘‘When I went to bed the night before the last session I became aware that it hadn’t occurred to me for a single moment that I might say something as well. Instead I was waiting and hoping for someone to react to something that I felt urgent to be taken up. The title of Hanna Segal’s paper on nuclear weapons came to my mind: ‘Silence is the real crime’ and I found this association rather dramatic. But then I thought that I am coming from a family who stayed silent all the Nazi years, and suddenly I knew what I wanted, and would try to say: ‘how grateful I am for the many people who, despite their painful memories and feelings, did come to the Congress and to this Being in Berlin event. Speaking to each other has nothing to do with forgiveness but is a matter of survival as human beings.’’ The pain of the next generation Near the end of the third and last session, a young man, a candidate, talks movingly of his expectations, as the next generation and the future, to be recognized and welcomed at the Institute. Instead, everyone is so concerned with making life easier for him. He has to prove himself constantly. He asks his parents’ generation to see him – not to care for him so much, but merely to see him, to actually want to be in contact with him. An older-generation German responds to him: ‘‘Don’t cry, I cannot stand it that you cry, there is no basis for it [for all sorts of given reasons].’’ There are immediately many voices that speak out angrily, almost at once: ‘‘Why should he not cry? What is wrong with crying?’’ The time gets rapidly closer to the end of the session and the event. Fol- lowing the young man’s intervention there was applause, as well as after some other interventions. The atmosphere is one of excited and intense pressure. It is as if the sentiments that were stirred up can no longer be contained, and applause is the only way one can express oneself in the short time left.

Discussion The event’s signiﬁcance Moses and Hrushovski-Moses (1986, p. 178) reflected that in Hamburg ‘‘what was so obviously missing was the experiential part of a return to Ger- many’’. In their conclusions they suggest that the Congress also avoided

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 819 dealing psychoanalytically with the issue of human evil. Of these two dispa- rate options, it was the experiential aspect that we sought to make time and space for in Berlin. Of the close to 3000 participants in the congress, we estimate that about 10%, and perhaps more, took part in the ‘Being in Berlin’ event. The eagerness to take part in it, the willingness to speak up, often under difficult to contain emotional upheavals, the range of topics raised, the thoughts and strong feelings that emerged – all bear testimony to the fact that it met a real need on the part of many Congress attendees. One participant, a former president of the IPA, said when it was over: ‘‘This is the real thing! What we will do [in the forthcoming panel] is dead com- pared to this. This was alive!’’ As Georg Bruns put it: ‘‘I felt this group to be the emotional centre of the congress’’ (personal communication). We believe these spontaneous expressions sum it up well. Many other participants communicated the same feeling, in writing and in person, during the Congress and afterwards (e.g. Schwaber, 2007). What may be seen as the valued contribution of the event appears to be that it provided an opportunity for many – both the silent participants and the ver- bal ones – to share and relive fantasies, experiences and creative ideas about very personal and role-related aspects of the experience of being in Berlin. The impact of the event was not confined to its here-and-now; for several participants it had a deferred or aprs-coup effect. Nevertheless, there are several issues we must contend with in order to round up the picture. We have already mentioned the question of authorization. In this event, it seems that participants derived the authorization to do their difficult work from three different sources: the public announcement of the event in the opening session; the presence of the consultants and their being clearly in role, as well as the work they did both before and during the event, which gave it a frame and suitable container and demonstrated that it was safe to take up the role of participant, but, most importantly, from their own self-authorization to do the work. With- out this, it is difficult to understand the rapid and immediate way in which participants understood the task and took up their roles in relation to it. A further aspect of this is the way in which participants were able to work with us as consultants and with the task at hand, even though these aspects were hardly spelled out in a formal or public sense. This is particularly striking in view of the fact that usually great stress is laid on spelling out these aspects formally and precisely, whereas here they were not. Yet it did not seem to hin- der or interfere with the participants’ capacity to establish such relatedness quite firmly. In searching for explanations, we suggest that our readiness to meet the unexpected, to face the dynamics of the large group and to articulate what we understood as its shared unconscious material are what allowed participants to join the discussion. Furthermore, the fact that German and Israeli consultants worked together set a model of possible exchange. A significant operant motivation and driving force in the group participation is the need to tell one’s personal story. We have encountered this repeatedly in the series of German–Israeli Conferences described elsewhere (Erlich et al., 2009) as well as in the Congress (Erlich et al., 2007).2 This

2See also: www.p-cca.org and http://www.internationalpsychoanalysis.net/

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 820 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland need is very strong among survivors and offspring of both victims and per- petrators, and it constantly seeks and clamours for expression, latently and overtly. It is as though a missing piece of personal history, obliterated by silence, has created an unspoken, unaddressed void that strives for rectifica- tion through verbalization, digestion and assimilation, so as to repair the broken historical chain (Volkan, 2001; Volkan et al., 2003). The experience of one’s self within a historical chain and context is an immanent component of one’s sense of being and connectedness, and its rupture severely undermines one’s sense of identity and existence (Erlich, 1998). Many of the stories told in this event were highly personal, and a few seemed to have found expression here for the first time. What is striking about these stories is that they are typically full of details, yet it is precisely the details that give this telling its authenticity. What makes it even more striking is the capacity of the group to respond to authentic communications in kind, and, at the same time, to unerringly identify inauthentic ones and reject them.

Basic assumptions and anti-Semitism A difficult question to answer is whether this large group was indeed able to pursue and deepen the understanding of the themes (work group), or did it stray into unproductive and escalating irrationality (basic assumption)? If it was such an irrational group, this was certainly not readily identifiable. The three types of basic assumptions identified by Bion (1961) – dependency, flight–fight and pairing – did not seem to be present in a sustained or dom- inant way, although certainly some tendencies towards one or the other are inevitable and could be sensed momentarily. At the same time, the fact that it was a very large group, beginning with approximately 60 on the first day and numbering several hundred people by the second and third days, should have rendered it ineffective as a group in pursuit of a rational goal almost by definition. The pursuit of a goal is assessed by the relationship to the primary task and the ability to carry it out. In this event, the primary task was stated in the blurb quoted above, distributed on the first day, and verbally restated and announced by one of the consultants on each of the three days. If we consider this to be the announcement of the primary task, we may say that the group understood it well and worked with it and towards it unerringly. This is certainly rather exceptional for such a very large group. Per- haps it again reflects the powerful need to engage in this particular task. Once the setting and frame were provided, the process took off almost immediately and continued uninterruptedly. One deepening irrational process that we did witness was the in vivo occur- rence of what might be described as the development of anti-Semitism. As the group process developed, there were increasing manifestations of split- ting and projections with regard to Jews and Jewishness. It took the form of idealization on one hand, like the Jewish mother image, or of the Jews as cultural heroes. On the other hand, there was envy directed at the Jews, and envious attacks on what was described as their monopolization of suffering and not leaving room for the suffering of others. The envy, anger and hinted aggression that accompanied these manifestations, though isolated, could be

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 821 heard and noted. Perhaps there are implications here for the need to watch out for such spontaneous developments of anti-Semitism. Another instance of irrationality is the outburst of anger and aggression directed at the older German colleague for his response to the young man. He was apparently identified as a member of the older generation attacking the younger generation. This was probably a projection by the group, many of whom were of the older generation, of their own aggression, identifying him as the enemy and acting to silence him.

The sound of silence It must be remembered that, although the degree of participation in this event was impressive, it nevertheless included only about 10% of the Con- gress attendees. This Congress was one of the most heavily attended ever, and many analysts probably came because it was in Berlin, while many others did not come because it was in Berlin. The silent voices of the latter we could not hear and did not have. The second tier of silence consists of those who came to the Congress and to Berlin, but did not come to the event. What do the silent voices of those who chose not to attend the event tell us? Can anything be gleaned from their non-participation? This is certainly even more difficult and risky to interpret, and we can do no more than offer some very tenuous reflections. Several thoughts present themselves. The Congress is like a market-place, bustling with an over-abundance of lively psychoanalytic offers, and also with an enormous amount of work in progress. The competition for atten- dance for any event is fierce and subject to a variety of dynamics. This was an experiential event, and, as already mentioned, not the usual fare for an international psychoanalytic congress. Major addresses and keynote lectures on highly relevant topics, followed by discussion groups, took place at the same time as this event, and, very understandably, many colleagues pre- ferred to attend these and receive the psychoanalytic rejuvenation and input for which they came to Berlin. It is also very probable that the issue of ‘being in Berlin’ did not possess the same emotional significance for everyone. Given the variety of tempting possibilities available, we must take into account that people cannot be everywhere and must make choices. It must also be recognized that an important and influential component in making these choices is the very existence of the event and the awareness that it is taking place. It contributes to the feeling, conscious or unconscious, that others are attending to this task ‘on our behalf ’, as it were. In this sense, the work done by those who were present was indeed done on behalf of many others who for whatever reason did not attend. A related observation was the striking absence of Israeli colleagues from the event in view of the fact that a sizeable group attended the Berlin Con- gress. This absence was noted by us and commented on by a number of the participants. Perhaps it reflects the difficulty many Israeli colleagues experienced around coming to and being in Berlin, which some of them expressly denounced, and, on the other hand, the over-abundant and almost daily exposure of Israelis to the presence of survivors and the commemoration of

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 822 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland the Shoa in their culture. At the same time, however, it might also indicate the need to distance oneself from engaging with these difficult contents. We have encountered the same resistance quite powerfully towards the afore- mentioned conferences of Germans and Israelis, which, although steadily supported and sponsored by the Israel Psychoanalytic Society, have attracted only a handful of Israeli psychoanalysts. This absence stands in stark contradiction to the large number of Diaspora Jews who attended the event in Berlin or the German-Israeli ⁄ Jewish conferences alluded to. The issue obviously has to do with ‘Israeliness’, and not with ‘Jewishness’.Itis probably much more difficult for Israelis to take part in these events because of a deeply ingrained emotional stance founded upon the negation and dis- avowal of the victim’s position. The Israeli identity is self-consciously and powerfully constructed as reparation for what is painfully regarded as the victim’s stance of Jews throughout much of history, who are perceived as ready to go like sheep to the slaughter. The emotional confrontation with being in Berlin may well have been too much of a threat to this deep and yet shaky identity component. The third tier of silence is the voice of those who were present in the group yet did not speak. Of course, not everyone can speak in a group of several hundred people, nor is speaking necessarily the equivalent of joining. We obviously cannot say very much about this group, yet its existence must be acknowledged and demands reflection. Certainly some of those who remained silent did so out of a sense of estrangement or critical appraisal. A person who attended only the last day told us afterwards that he experienced the event as somewhat ‘‘theatrical’’ and felt removed and unable to take part. Others who remained silent, however, were very much involved and came every day. In fact, we observed that many of those who came on one day joined again on all subsequent days. We could not observe salient features that might characterize either those who spoke or those who did not. One reason for this is probably the relatively short duration of the event – three hours in all – that did not allow for the exploration of ques- tions such as the voice represented by silence.

Implications for the future Was this a one-time event, or can it be seen as a new format to be included in future congresses? The combination of the emotional intensity of being in Berlin, a city symbolizing the horror and trauma of World War II, Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, with the frame and methodology of working in a large group in the Tavistock model was undoubtedly unique. Is there anything to be learned from this that may be of relevance to future IPA congresses or similar events? One strong impression was the readiness and perhaps even thirst of congress attendees for an opportunity for self-expression at a meaningful personal level – a setting in which they could speak from their heart. The contrast between the tenor in the large group and the learned discourse in the usual type of scientific meeting was obvious and striking. The experience suggests that there may be room for considering the inclusion of an event

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 823 that allows for direct personal expression as an addition to the high level of scientific exchange we are accustomed to in IPA congresses. This should not be done, however, without careful consideration and preparation. Large groups are not always the most adequate and pertinent way to allow for self-expression and the frame under which they take place is essential. The organizers of future congresses may wish to contemplate the inclusion of such a frame if it is estimated to be an appropriate way to focus on certain specific issues. These would be topics that are of immediate concern to many and affect us as psychoanalysts who practise under a variety of social conditions. The other important prerequisite is that the containing function must be strong, which is a combined function of the setting, the theoretical stand- point and the moderation or consultancy. Examples of pertinent topics may be: the erosion of standards; the integration of different perspectives on analysis; the impact of social violence on analytic practice; terrorism, funda- mentalism and the unconscious; and so on. Combining a topic of social cum analytic prominence with the approach described here may be an opportunity for analysts of different social cultures and theoretical persua- sions to relate to issues as well as to each other in a meaningful manner.

Conclusion We have reported on the experience of a large group of several hundred people that took place on three consecutive days at the Berlin Congress in 2007 and dealt with feelings, thoughts and reflections stirred up by ‘being in Berlin’. The event received the support of the Congress organizers, yet diffi- culties emerged around the space accorded to it, eventually overcome by the pressure of the large numbers who clamoured for participation. The emotional and reflective contents that emerged in these sessions were moving and poignant, touching on personal notes and at the same time serving as a collective expression. The discussions reflect the courage and willingness of the participants to address very difficult topics in this very large group setting. We discuss a number of issues of working in such a large group. It is our understanding that this event represents an attempt to repair a missed opportunity in the Hamburg Congress of 1985, namely the absence there of an experiential component. The present event met the need of a large seg- ment of those who came to Berlin and attended this Congress, which took place on German soil, in a city heavily laden with the enduring burden of the Holocaust, Nazism and World War II.

Acknowledgement We are deeply indebted to Dr Edward R. Shapiro for his helpful comments.

Translations of summary In Berlin: Eine Großgruppenerfahrung auf dem Berliner Kongress. Im Juli 2007 fand der Inter- nationale Psychoanalytische Kongress zum ersten Mal seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Berlin, der ehema- ligen Hauptstadt der Nazis, statt. Integriert in den Rahmen des Kongresses war auch ein Großgruppenforum, das den (jdischen, deutschen und anderen) Teilnehmern Gelegenheit gab, die emotionalen Aspekte des Aufenthalts in Berlin zu erforschen. Es wurde von hunderten von Menschen

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 824 H. S. Erlich, M. Erlich-Ginor and H. Beland besucht, die diese Veranstaltung als das ,,eigentliche Herz des Kongresses’’ bezeichneten. Wir untersuchen verschiedene Aspekte des Forums, u.a. die durch den Berlin-Aufenthalten geweckten leidenschaftlichen Gefhle, das Containment des Settings und die anwesenden und fehlenden Stimmen.

Estar en Berlı´n: La experiencia de un grupo grande en el congreso de Berlı´n. En Julio de 2007, el Congreso Psicoanaltico Internacional se reuni en Berln, la capital nazi, por primera vez desde la Segunda Guerra. Durante este encuentro se realiz un foro abierto en el cual los participantes (judos, alemanes y otros) tuvieron la posibilidad de explorar los aspectos emocionales movilizados por la estada en Berln. Cientos de personas participaron en este evento y lo consideraron el ‘‘corazn del congreso’’. En este trabajo examinamos varios aspectos del foro, incluyendo las pasiones despertadas, la contencin del entorno y las voces presentes y ausentes.

Etre a` Berlin: Une expe´rience de groupe e´largi durant le congre`s de Berlin. Au mois de Juillet en 2007, le Congrs International de la Psychanalyse s¢est, pour la premiere fois depuis la guerre, runi dans l¢ancienne capitale nazie, Berlin. Un groupe largi ouvert a constitu un forum dans lequel les participants (Juifs, Allemands et autres) avaient la possibilit d¢explorer les aspect motionnels veills par le fait d¢Þtre Berlin. Des centaines de personnes ont assist l¢vnement et ils l¢ont dcrit comme ‘‘le coeur du congrs’’. Nous examinons plusieurs aspects de l¢vnement, les passions y veilles aussi, le contenant du setting, ainsi que les voix prsentes et absentes.

Trovarsi a Berlino: L’esperienza di un ampio gruppo al Congresso di Berlino. A luglio 2007, per la prima volta dai tempi della guerra, si tenuto a Berlino – l’ex capitale nazista – il Congresso inter- nazionale di Psicanalisi. Durante questo incontro stato organizzato un vasto open forum in cui i parte- cipanti (ebrei, tedeschi e altri) hanno avuto l’opportunit di esplorare le emozioni suscitate dal trovarsi a Berlino. Centinaia di persone hanno partecipato all’evento descrivendolo come il «cuore del congresso». Esaminiamo qui diversi aspetti dell’evento, incluse le passioni ispirate, il riserbo dell’ambiente e le voci presenti e assenti. References Beland H (1988). How they know themselves: Confronting the past - A contribution to the history of the German Psychoanalytic Association. In: Freedman N, Special Issue editor. Psychoanalysis and values: Reflections on the Hamburg Congress. Psychoanal Contemp Thought 11(2):267–83. Bion WR (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. London: Tavistock. Brainin E, Kaminer IJ (1982). Psychoanalyse und Nationalsozialismus. Psyche 36:989–1012. Brecht K, Friedrich V, Hermanns LM, Kaminer IJ, Juelich DH, editors (1985). ‘Hier geht das Leben auf eine sehr merkwu¨rdige Weise weiter ...’ Zur Geschichte der Psychoanalyse in Deutschland. Hamburg: Kellner. Carr AW, Shapiro ER (1989). What is a Tavistock interpretation? In: Carr AW, Gabelnick F, editors. Proceedings of the International Symposium, 53–8. Washington, DC: AK Rice Institute. Erlich HS (1997). On discourse with an enemy. In: Shapiro ER, editor. The inner world in the outer world: Psychoanalytic perspectives, 123–42. New Haven, CT: Yale UP. Erlich HS (1998). Adolescents’ reactions to Rabin’s assassination: A case of patricide? Adolesc Psy- chiatry 22:189–205. Erlich HS (2001a). Enemies within and without: Paranoia and regression in groups and organizations. In: Gould LJ, Stapley LF, Stein M, editors. The systems psychodynamics of organizations, 115–31. London: Karnac. Erlich HS (2001b). Milch, Gift, Tra¨nen. Bericht von den Nazareth-Gruppenkonferenzen ‘Germans and Israelis - The Past in the Present’. In: Bohleber W, Drews S, editors. Die Gegenwart der Psycho- analyse – die Psychoanalyse der Gegenwart, 128–38. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Erlich HS, Erlich-Ginor M, Beland H, Kreuzer-Haustein U (2007). Shaping the future by confronting the past: Germans, Jews, and affected others. IPA Congress Panel, Berlin, 25 July 2007. Erlich HS, Erlich-Ginor M, Beland H (2009). Fed with tears, poisoned with milk: Germans and Israelis, the past in the present. Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag. Erlich-Ginor M (2006). Structure and design of group relations conferences: Issues and dilemmas. In: Bruner LD, Nutkevitch A, Sher M, editors. Group relations conferences: Reviewing and exploring theory, design, role-taking and application, 30–43. London: Karnac. Etchegoyen RH (1991). The fundamentals of psychoanalytic technique. London: Karnac. Frosh S (2005). Hate and the Jewish science: Antisemitism, Nazism and psychoanalysis. Basing- stoke, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Goggins JE, Brockman Goggins E (2001). Death of a Jewish science: Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich. West Lafayette, ID: Purdue UP. Khaleele O, Miller EJ (1985). Beyond the small group: Society as an intelligible field of study. In: Pines M, editor. Bion and group psychotherapy, 353–83. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90 ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Being in Berlin: A large group experience in the Berlin Congress 825

Miller EJ (1989). The Leicester model: Experiential study of group and organizational processes. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. (Occasional Paper No. 10.) Moses R, Hrushovski-Moses R (1986). A form of group denial at the Hamburg Congress. Int Rev Psychoanal 13:175–80. Obholzer A (1994). Authority, power and leadership: Contributions from group relations training. In: Obholzer A, Zagier Roberts V, editors. The unconscious at work, 39–47. London: Routledge. Ostow M (1988). Apocalyptic thinking in mental illness and social disorder. In: Freedman N, Special Issue editor. Psychoanalysis and values: Reﬂections on the Hamburg Congress. Psychoanal Contemp Thought 11(2):285–97. Schwaber P (2007). On being in Berlin. American Psychoanalyst 41:15. Shapiro ER (1997). The boundaries are shifting. In: Shapiro ER, editor. The inner world in the outer world: Psychoanalytic perspectives, 7–25. New Haven, CT: Yale UP. Shapiro ER (2005). Joining a group task: The discovery of hope and respect. Int J Group Psychother 55:211–27. Turquet P (1975). Threats to identity in the large group. In: Kreeger L, editor. The large group: Dynamics and therapy, 87–144. London: Karnac. Volkan VD (2003). Large-group identity: Border psychology and related societal processes. Mind Human Interact 13:49–76. Volkan VD, Ast G, Greer WF Jr (2001). Third Reich in the unconscious: Transgenerational trans- mission and its consequences. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner Routledge. Wallerstein RS (1988). Psychoanalysis in Nazi Germany: Historical and psychoanalytic lessons. In: Freedman N, Special Issue editor. Psychoanalysis and values: Reﬂections on the Hamburg Congress. Psychoanal Contemp Thought 11(2):351–70.

ª 2009 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2009) 90