Interviewers' Reactions to Holocaust Survivors' Testimony Aviva Mazor, Yolanda Gampel, Gilit Horwitz Interviewers' Responses in the Documentation Process Since the 1970s, an increasing group of survivors (in Israel and other countries) have documented their pasts in a non-clinical setting, such as an interview, a creative workshop, or a group meeting designed to deal with their traumatic biographies (Bar-On, 1994; Des Pres, 1976; Felman et al, 1992; Hemmendinger, 1984; Kestenberg et al, 1983; Langer, 1991; Lifton, 1979; Mazor and Gampel, 1990, 1992). This trend indicates survivors' attempts to reconstruct their past in order to gain some sense of continuity in their personal history, and to leave a written testimony for future generations (Aurehahn and Laub, 1984; Kestenberg et al, 1983). Empirical evidence for interviewers' responses is scarce in clinical and literary works. Descriptions of such responses are given by only a few authors who conducted interviews. They have described reactions very similar to those of therapists (Davidson, 1980; Felman et al, 1992; Langer, 1991; Lifton, 1979; Moskovitz, 1983; Vegh, 1979). Laub (Felman et al, 1992) develops an insightful perspective on the interviewing process. He assigns a unique role to "the testimonial interviewer" hearing of a trauma, specifically the Holocaust trauma. One can refer to the testimony as "a brief treatment contract." The similarities Laub draws are very important both conceptually and clinically. As he describes it: "For the testimonial process to take place, the intimate and total presence of another in the position of one who hears, means that the listener says to the testifier: 'For this limited time, I'll be with you all the way, as much as I can. I want to go wherever you go, and I'll hold and protect you along this journey. Then, at the end of the journey, I shall leave you'" (p. 70). The listeners, accordingly, become "co-owners of the traumatic event: through their listening they partially experience the trauma in themselves." The consequences of this interviewing process evoke in the interviewer the following defensive feelings: a sense of paralysis, outrage and anger, withdrawal and numbness, fear and hyper-emotionality. Laub describes three levels of witnessing in relation to Holocaust experiences which seem relevant to our present study. The first level is that of the survivor who is a witness to her/himself. The second level is that of the interviewer of survivors, who is the immediate receiver of the testimony. The third level refers to the process of witnessing, which is itself being witnessed. Our research focuses on the second level by presenting and analyzing phenomenologically, the interviewers' responses as bearing witness to the survivors. We also highlight the third level by our observation and understanding of the written descriptions and explanations of the interviewers' responses. Together with the survivor, the interviewer attempts to locate the time and place of these memories in relation to the present time. Gampel (1986, 1989) describes the significant listener as someone creating "new skin" or a "protective mean" which envelops the survivor. It is important to stress that telling the trauma does not necessarily entail assimilation or understanding, either by survivors or listeners, but it enables the reconstruction and transformation of hidden memories into externalized and concrete evidence, which becomes shared knowledge between survivor, listener, and society as a whole (Felman, 1992; Langer, 1991). From the listener's perspective, the interview is part of a process that starts before the actual meeting. Both survivor and interviewer go through a preparatory stage before meeting, when both have expectations and fears. Lifton (1979) describes the survivor as being physically and emotionally in contact with death, although remaining alive. Meetings with the survivor generate a fear of encountering death, and horror through memories. In addition, the meetings are concerned with death, and reopen previous life experiences of the listeners themselves, such as separation, break-up, death and feelings of mourning and sadness. All these generate vulnerability on the part of the interviewer. According to the literature, due to the extremity of the Holocaust, the interview with survivors is considered unique in comparison with other clinical interviews (Aurehahn et al, 1984; Felman et al. 1992; Kestenberg et al, 1983; Kestenberg, 1992). Such an interview focuses on highly traumatic experiences, mainly real events. The interviewer's role is to listen, knowing that the survivor's testimony cannot be transcended, metabolized or interpreted; frequently it cannot be connected to any prior knowledge or feeling one has had. Despite that, the interviewer's presence is maintained by the capacity to continue to listen and let the survivor release his personal memory. The interviewer's empathic listening discloses the capacity of bearing witness to the survivor's revelations. Simultaneously, the ability to 'interact' with the survivor assists in the struggle to give words, images and thought to the survivor's experience. Empathy is a two-way process in which one enters into another's situation, not always to help but to create human contact through affective resonance. More specifically, empathy involves resonating with the other's unconscious affect and experiencing the event together with the other, while the empathizer maintains the integrity of his self (Basch, 1983; Lifton, 1974, 1979). Our inquiry is concerned with the process of listeners' resonances with Holocaust survivors' experiences. Hence, the following questions are at the center of the present study. First, What are interviewers' characteristic responses in the interview interaction with Holocaust survivors? Second, do these sets of responses differ because of interviewers' professional and personal backgrounds? [Page 3 of 9]