The Skewed Image of the Holocaust Survivor and the Vicissitudes of Psychological Research Jacob Lomranz The Corpus of Research on the Holocaust and Its Implications for Psychological Investigations Fifty years of accumulated, one-sided, faulty research on Holocaust survivors leaves us bewildered as to how such a state of affairs could have prevailed for so long. This impels us to examine some of the basic issues in psychological inquiry and their bearing on science and culture, and to attempt to comprehend the creation of the research-engendered skewed image of the Holocaust survivor. Accordingly, the questions posed at the beginning of this paper will be reconsidered in view of Holocaust research as a "case study" for this discussion. Essentials in Science: Critical thinking about our own concepts and methodology reminds us that reexamination of basic, overt, and covert assumptions is a necessary part of science. The work of Popper (1961) and Meehl (1978), viewing the credo of science as the attempt to subject theories to refutation, has often been ignored. We often refer to a statement as a "theory," knowing full well, for instance, that it is impossible to put it to a test of refutation or replication because initial conditions cannot be repeated, as is the case with most of the research on the Holocaust. Popper (1961) is often cited for his famous dictum relating to the principle of falsification, which states that the claim that all crows are black may be proven and repeatedly corroborated, but the single appearance of only one white crow falsifies such a claim. When are theories and research directions accepted and when are they rejected? Existing theoretical positions often exert a negative influence by obstructing progress and dominating a discipline, so that investigation or even consideration of a new field of inquiry is preempted (Schultz, 1981). Does the accumulated "clinical" research on Holocaust survivors play such a role? Ever since Freud many have thought to comprehend the normal through the abnormal, and accordingly most Holocaust research is conceptually based on the pathological. As we have seen, however, some of that research has also revealed data indicating that many survivors function very well. That evidence constitutes much more then "one white crow." Why, then, have scientists not heeded such data and attempted to explain it? Have the interpretations and generalizations of research results fallen under the paradigm of "The Blind Men and the Elephant," a fable that teaches how each blind person who touches the same elephant comes to a different conclusion as to what he has encountered? Or do the times and values still preclude a more salutogenic (Antonowsky, 1979) approach to Holocaust research, or perhaps does methodology prescribe theory instead of serving it? Do we only search for the coin under the lamp?: The murder of six million Jews, in its unparalleled scope, demonic manner, and incomprehensible intent, exceeded any evil imaginable to man. The consequences were, above all, mass death and immense suffering. Pathology is the most natural and easily identified phenomenon to look for in posttraumatic instances in general and in the study of the Holocaust in particular. Lay epistemology (Kruglanski, 1980) rightfully notes that scientists, like lay people, typically look for confirming instances (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) in forming opinions. In addition, it may also be easier to ask questions about pathology than about strength, since we also possess clinical knowledge and methodology that can easily be applied to posttraumatic investigations and may mold the formulation of deficit-oriented research questions. There may also be an underlying assumption that the lifelong devastating effects of the atrocities and trauma of the Holocaust will always remain detectable, coupled with another underlying assumption that positive, "healthy" qualities cannot be found in Holocaust survivors or that the horror was so great that such qualities could only be minimal and insignificant in the total fabric of a Holocaust survivor's life. It should not come as a surprise that the research on the Holocaust continuously confirms pathology, as in fact the review reveals. Nevertheless, as scientists, we strive to comprehend all manifestations of behavior including those that are less approachable. Lacking the appropriate conceptualizations and methodology, we may fail to formulate the questions we should be asking about adjustment, growth, and the long-term impact of the Holocaust and may find ourselves looking for a lost key under a lamppost because that is where the light is. Avoiding formulation of basic theoretical questions does not eliminate the need to provide answers (Lomranz, 1986). The Image of Man in Science and in Holocaust Research It is no wonder that research that starts out seeking deficiencies and is weak in methodology and in differentiation, contributes to the overgeneralized, undifferentiated, and stereotyped perception of survivors. The body of research corroborates and supports the basic image of Holocaust survivors as maladjusted, psychopathological persons. Historical and cultural designs combined with scientific endeavors deny us a fuller picture of the Holocaust survivor. One case in point may be the issue of silence. The literature repeatedly emphasizes the damaging aspects of silence, the fact that survivors found no climate in which to speak of their trauma. But perhaps the greater the trauma, the greater the period of silence needed around and after it? We know that mourning necessitates a period of silence; for many, perhaps, fifty years of silence may have served adjustment. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence that survivors who talked about their trauma are better adjusted than those who did not. In our biographical research, many survivors recalled a desire to abstain from talking, rejecting applications for membership in Holocaust organizations and not wishing to dwell on their memories. Instead, they preferred to invest all their energies in rebuilding their shattered lives. The so-called "conspiracy of silence," invariably negatively portrayed in the literature, may have played a positive role for many in their rehabilitation. It is my contention that not only may we have erred in our conceptual and methodological approach, but perhaps we were also inattentive to the impact of personal and cultural factors on our own research. [Page 3 of 4]