Bridge Builder to China

Expansion in Eastern Europe, Asia, and China are major recent developments characterizing contemporary psychoanalysis. In Eastern Europe, the revival is linked to the fall of the Communist regimes during which psychoanalysis was forced underground, while three generations suffered long periods of traumatization and repression in one of the darkest tragedies of the 20^th century. Here, the reintroduction of psychoanalysis has been embraced with enthusiasm and passion; psychoanalysis is seen not only as a therapeutic method for personal suffering, but also as a way to understand and describe historical traumas.

In Asia and particularly in the Far East—India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China—we have a different situation. Here, the development of psychoanalysis reflects separate socio-political historical contexts, each with a rich cultural texture and fueled by the interest of a new generation of mental health professionals for psychoanalysis as a therapeutic method.

These two recent developments differ from the other major phenomena that characterized the diffusion of psychoanalysis during and after the Second World War: the phenomena of the Diaspora, the forced migration during and after the War, when analysts from Vienna, Berlin, and Budapest had to leave their own countries and move to London, the United States, Latin America, and farther away to South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, where they remained, founding new schools and diffusing psychoanalytic thinking.

But, as we know, the vicissitudes of psychoanalysis and of its protagonists have always been marked by migration and exile.

In Asia, psychoanalysis was not established by “forced” migration and exile, but rather by a voluntary one. In these countries, we are witnessing a movement initiated by local pioneers: by psychiatrists, psychologists, and intellectuals who, inspired by their readings of Freud and by their encounter with western colleagues, left their countries to have analysis and psychoanalytic training in

Page 100

Europe and the United States and then went back home to start psychoanalytic schools, which are now recognized as part of the International Psychiatric Association family. Another, and different, kind of exile has been that of the Western analysts who choose to move to Asia in order to start psychoanalytic training there, as is presently the case in China.

Peter Loewenberg has been part of both these movements: of the experience of migration and exile and of the development of psychoanalysis in China. As he describes in his evocative and moving paper, “Clinical and historical perspective on the intergenerational transmission of trauma,” a chapter of the book Lost in Transmission, his parents, having experienced the traumas of the German civilian population after the first World War when 750,000 people died of starvation, and concerned for the safety of the family under National Socialism, researched various countries to move to and eventually settled in Shanghai when Peter was six weeks old. From the other side, as Chair of the China Committee of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), he has given a fundamental and passionate contribution that has put the seed for the present and future development of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic thinking in China.

So much of Peter’s personal history is linked and intertwined with China, and in thinking about his engagement with China and about the energy and creativity which he has put in the project, one wonders at the part played by Shanghai, which accepted in the 1930s the Loewenbergs as refugees. As we know from documents of the time, being accepted in 1933 as a Jewish refugee was not a simple matter; yet words from such documents don’t convey what transpired: the despair of waiting for permits and visa, and the fear of time running out, as a failure to obtain those papers was equivalent to a death sentence. So, the fact that China opened its door must carry a significant meaning.

But there is another element that links this personal history and China, and it is trauma. In fact, we cannot talk about China without talking about trauma: the traumas of the past, the “century of humiliation,” so that for most of the 20^th century China viewed itself as a weak and vulnerable country that was denied a place in the sun (D.A. Bell, China’s New Confucianism, Princeton Univer-

Page 101

sity Press, 2010); the traumas of the more recent past, with the cultural revolution; and the traumas of the present, including the stories of early separation that still affect more than 20,000 children of migrant workers.

It is this understanding of China’s history that, I believe, has fueled Peter’s empathy with the Chinese people and his understanding of the Chinese context. His empathy has translated to an ability to convince his western colleagues and the IPA that the investment of resources in China was worthwhile and that it would open far-reaching possibilities. This view may at times clash with the well-known ambivalence of the West toward China— ambivalence that is present also in regard to the expansion of psychoanalysis as it carries anxieties about its destiny in China.

I would like to conclude with the description of an event, which is an example of Peter Loewenberg as a bridge builder in more ways than one. In fact, as Chair of the China Committee, Peter has played a pivotal role in these events, which have potential not only for the development of our profession in Asia, but for far-reaching scientific exchanges, links, and connections that may have a ripple effect in the region in the future.

In 2010, on the occasion of the 100^th anniversary of the foundation of the IPA, the China Committee together with the China Association of Mental Health organized the first IPA Psychoanalytic Conference in Asia. The conference took place in Beijing, with more than 500 participants, from the West and China, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, India, Russia (including Siberia), Ukraine, and Latvia.

As Stefano Bolognini said, “This important meeting not only extended and placed previously informal dialogues on an official basis, but it also represents an historic turning point in the long adventure of psychoanalysis. For psychoanalysts all over the world it was particularly moving that this event is occurring as we celebrate the centenary of the IPA” (“Press Release of the First IPA Conference in Beijing,” October 2010).

This was a unique event in several ways. One, it was a meeting of professionals from countries that still today have tense diplomatic and political relationships and powerful historical lega-

Page 102

cies of conflict, and who for the first time were working together engaged in the common scientific endeavor of developing a psychoanalytic culture. Two, it introduced the psychoanalytic work, competence, and seriousness of our colleagues in the east to western colleagues. Three, it exposed the vicissitudes of their histories. Four, during the conference, for the first time, a group of Asian leaders sat together around a table to share their concerns and discuss issues regarding their own groups and societies with IPA officials; they were representatives from psychoanalytic groups and societies of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and of societies in Eastern Europe. The coming together of leaders from countries with a recent history of war and dominance over each other, now engaged in a fruitful dialogue, was of great significance. This has been the first step toward the formation of an Asian Region of the IPA, an official recognition of the determination, enthusiasm, and good work that such groups have done in the past years.

Page 103