ABSTRACT
This essay counters Richman’s assertion that the great majority of literature about survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants is pathologizing and ignores issues of resilience. First, the origin of the “survivor syndrome” diagnosis is presented in terms of its context in trying to garner reparations from Germany for survivors. Second, the claim that massive trauma eludes representation is discussed. Third, the death of Primo Levi is considered in light of the challenge it evokes when considered as a suicide. Fourth, the power of engaged witnessing to serve reparative functions, and the power of its absence to solidify the trauma of non-recognition is highlighted. Richman’s story of her injurious testimonial experience highlights, albeit in an inadvertent way, how engaged witnessing is an essential relational mode of therapeutic action. Emphasizing the enduring impact of trauma does not negate survivors’ postwar creativity and resilience, and should not be reduced, as does Richman, to a proposal for a singular and constraining guide for how to listen for, and respond to, the unique trials and triumphs of each survivor and his or her descendants.
