No abstract

The Merchant of Venice contains some of the most powerful depictions of Jewish–Christian relations in an era when Christian antisemitism dominated European life. It is one of the most difficult plays for Jews to watch: not only for Shylock’s torment at the treatment he is subjected to, particularly in the Christian characters’ relentless contempt for him, but for the depiction of his gradual descent into violent revenge, as a result of which he himself is crushed. The revenge part of Shylock’s speech is crucial. The anti-Semites in the play unconsciously fear their victim, especially after treating Shylock with cruelty and contempt. The racists then project hatred, consequently fearing that Shylock will hate them, that he will be filled with rage and seek a revenge even more cruel than that which has been perpetrated upon him. Shylock speaks the racist’s fear and then wants to carry it out. In Shakespeare’s play, Shylock becomes a justification for hatred. If we look at this as the unconscious of antisemitism, then Shakespeare is personifying this unconscious in the character of Shylock. Seen in this way, The Merchant of Venice is a dramatic depiction of the violent effects of antisemitism on the subjectivity and identity of both victims and perpetrators. We know that racism creates trauma. Sue Lieberman’s work on transmitted trauma (Lieberman, 2015) and Earl Hopper’s work on massification and aggregation both explored unprocessed trauma (Hopper, 2003). However, the permeating trauma of both racism and antisemitism has festered without being addressed adequately. Our purpose in this article is to begin to look at this disturbing truth. We will address the historical relationship between antisemitism and racism. We will make links to the development of psychoanalysis and group analysis. That Foulkes, himself was a victim of racism has always been present but largely unspoken. Unspoken, it has created blind spots, including our own racism.

Groups have been shown to be effective therapeutic tools in the hands of skilled group conductors. Clients often observe that they feel better somehow, but that they do not know how this has happened. The author proposes that group analytic groups heal because they evoke the `Human Group', the species-specific group which evolved together with other facets of human biology, and which formed the hunter—gatherer tribes up to the spread of agriculture 10,000 years ago. The author states that, besides the theoretical and philosophical notions of the group, and of the social unconscious, there are also historical and pre-historical notions. Some of these notions can be found in primatology, palaeontology, archaeology, anthropology, and sociology, when writings in these disciplines are viewed with a focus on the group.

No abstract

Jaak Panksepp, like Foulkes, broke from the dominant paradigm in his field to fashion a series of experiments. In the process, Panksepp discovered that the midbrain is the seat of seven basic emotions. Moreover, these basic emotions are shared with all mammals. He called this discovery ‘affective neuroscience’. Panksepp’s work, taken seriously, is transforming ideas, previously expressed in the area of philosophical thinking, into a new kind of social psychology. Group analysis is a vital element in this transformation. Among other things, Panksepp shows us that humans are not unitary. The most that we can hope for is a comparatively peaceful integration of the various processes that make up our selves and our small and large groups. The external and internal role of the group conductor is helpful, philosophically, clinically and politically, to promote this integration.