caruth_unclaimedexperience

8/3/2019 caruth_unclaimedexperience

1/13

Unclaimed Experience: Trauma and the Possibility of History

Author(s): Cathy CaruthSource: Yale French Studies, No. 79, Literature and the Ethical Question (1991), pp. 181-192Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930251 .

Accessed: 18/07/2011 14:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930251?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930251?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/13

CATHY CARUTH

UnclaimedExperience:Trauma andthe Possibility fHistory... it took the warto teach it, that you wereas responsibleforeverythingousaw as youwere or verythingoudid.Theproblemwas thatyou didn't lwaysknowwhatyouwere eeing ntil ater,maybeyears ater,hat lot of tnevermade t n atall, t ust tayedstored herenyour yes. -Michael Herr, ispatches

Recent iterary riticismhas shown an increasing oncern that the epis-temological problemsraisedby poststructuralistriticism,n particulardeconstruction, ecessarilyead topoliticaland ethicalparalysis. he pos-sibility hat references indirect,nd thatconsequentlywe maynot havedirect access to others',or even our own, histories, eems to implytheimpossibility fanyaccess to othercultures, nd hence ofanymeans ofmaking oliticalor ethical udgments.To such anargumentwould ike tocontrast phenomenon risingnotonly nthereading f iteraryrphilo-sophicaltexts, utemergingmostprominently ithin hewiderhistoricaland political realms,that is, the peculiarand paradoxicalexperienceoftrauma. n its mostgeneraldefinition,raumadescribes n overwhelmingexperience fsudden,orcatastrophic vents,nwhich theresponse o theevent ccurs ntheoften elayed, nd uncontrolled epetitiveccurrence fhallucinations ndother ntrusive henomena.2 he experience fthe sol-dier facedwith sudden and massive death aroundhim,for xample,whosuffers his sight n a numbedstate, onlyto relive t later on in repeatednightmares,s a central ndrecurringmageoftrauma n our century. s aconsequenceof the increasing ccurrence fsuch perplexingwar experi-ences andother atastrophic esponsesduring he asttwenty ears, hysi-

1. For recent xpression f hisopinion,ee S. P. Mohanty,Us andThem,"n TheYale JournalfCriticism /2 Spring989).2. There s no firm efinitionor rauma, hich asbeengiven arious escriptionstvarious imes ndunder ifferentames. or gooddiscussion f hehistoryf henotionandfor ecentttemptso definet, ee Trauma nd tsWake, olumes and2,ed.CharlesR. FigleyNewYork:Brunner-Mazel,985and1986).YFS 79, Literaturend theEthicalQuestion, d. ClaireNouvet,X 1991byYaleUniversity.

181


3/13

182 Yale FrenchStudiescians andpsychiatristsavebegun oreshape heir hinkingboutphysicaland mental experience, ncludingmost recently heresponsesto a widevariety fexperiences including ape,child abuse,auto and industrial c-cidents, ndso on) whicharenow often nderstoodn terms f heeffects f"post-traumatictress disorder." would proposethat it is here, n theequally widespreadand bewildering ncounterwithtrauma-both in itsoccurrence,nd n theattempt o understandt-that we can begin o recog-nize thepossibility f historywhich s no onger traightforwardlyeferen-tial (that s,no longer ased on simplemodels ofexperience ndreference).Throughthe notion oftrauma, will argue,we can understand hat a re-thinkingfreferences notaimed at eliminating istory,ut t resituatingtin our understanding,hat s, ofprecisely ermitting istory o arisewhereimmediateunderstandingmay not.Thequestionofhistorys raisedmosturgentlyn one of hefirst orks ftrauma n this century,igmundFreud'shistory ftheJews ntitledMosesandMonotheism.Because of ts seeming ictionalizationf heJewish ast,this workhas raised ongoingquestionsabout its historical nd politicalstatus; yet tsconfrontation ithtrauma eems,nonetheless, o be deeplytied to our own historicalrealities. have chosen this text as a focusofanalysis,therefore,ecause I believe it can help us understand ur owncatastrophic ra,as well as the difficultiesfwriting history romwithinit. will suggest hat t s in thenotionofhistorywhich Freud ffersnthiswork, swell as in thewayhiswritingtself onfrontsistorical vents, hatwe mayneed to rethink hepossibility fhistory,s well as ourethical andpoliticalrelation o it.The entanglementfFreud'sMoses andMonotheismwith ts ownurgenthistoricalcontext s evident n a letterwritten o ArnoldZweig in 1934,whileFreud sworking n thebook, ndwhileNazi persecutions f heJewsareprogressingtrapid peed.Freud ays:

Facedwith the newpersecutions,ne asks oneself gainhowtheJewshave come to be what hey reandwhy hey ave ttractedhisundyinghatred. soon discoveredheformula:Mosescreated heJews.3Theproject fMoses and Monotheismsclearlyinked,n these ines, o theattempt oexplain he Nazi persecution f heJews. utthiscanapparentlybe done, ccording oFreud, nly hrougheferenceo a past, nd nparticu-lar tothepast representedyMoses. Byplacing heweight fhishistory nthenamingofMoses, moreover,he iberator fthe Hebrewswho ledthem

3. Letter f 30 May1934. Quotedfrom he Letters fSigmund reud ndArnoldZweig, d. Ernst . Freud NewYork:Harcourt raceJovanovich,970).


4/13

CATHY CARUTH 183out ofEgypt, reud mplicitly nd paradoxically onnects heexplanation fthe Jews' ersecution o theirvery iberation, hereturn rom aptivity ofreedom. n the centralityf Moses thus ies thecentralityfa return: hereturn fthe HebrewstoCanaan,where heyhad livedprior o their ettle-ment,andbondage, n Egypt.Moses and Monotheism'smostdirect efer-ence to, and explanationof, ts presenthistoricalcontextwill consist nFreud's new understanding f the story f captivity, rexile, and return.4The notionofJewishhistory,s a history freturn,mightseem un-surprisingn theperspective f a psychoanalyst, hose worksrepeatedlyfocuson thenecessity fvariouskindsofreturn-onthereturn ooriginsnmemory,ndon the "return fthe repressed." ut n thedescriptionfhisdiscovery,n the concise littleformula otteddown for weig, "Moses cre-ated theJews," reudsuggests hatthehistory f theJews urpasses anysimplenotion freturn. or fMoses indeed "created" heJews,5n hisact ofliberation-ifthe exodusfrom gypt, hat s,transformshehistory f theHebrews,whohadpreviouslyived nCanaan,into thehistory ftheJews,who become a truenationonly n their ct of eaving captivity-thenthemomentofbeginning,he exodus from gypt,s no longer imply return,but srather,more ruly, departure. he questionwithwhichFreud rameshis text, nd whichwill explainboth theJews' istorical ituation ndhisownparticipation,s a Jewishwriter, ithin t, s thus: nwhatway s thehistory f culture, nd ts relation o apolitics, nextricablyoundupwiththe notion ofdeparture?6Freud's urprisingccountofJewish istory anbe understood,ndeed,as a reinterpretationf the nature,as well as the significance, f theHebrews' eturn rom aptivity.nthebiblical ccount,Moses wasone of hecaptiveHebrews who eventually roseas their eaderand led them out ofEgypt ack to Canaan.Freud, ntheotherhand, nnounces tthebeginningofhisaccount hatMoses, thoughiberator f heHebrewpeople,was not nfacthimself Hebrew,but an Egyptian, ferventollower fan Egyptian

4. While he erm exile," sed nthe ontextfJewishistory,efers,trictlypeak-ing, o the exile nBabylon, heEgyptianaptivity asconsideredaradigmaticfthislater vent. husTheEncyclopediafJudaismays, nderheheading exile," hat it sthis prenatal' gyptianervitude hichbecomes heparadigmfGalut[exile]n therabbinicmind."See Geoffrey igoder,heEncyclopediafJudaismNewYork:Mac-millan,1989).5. "Created" is an accurate translationof the German text, which says"hat . . . geschaffen."6. Among hemore nterestingttemptsograpplewith hepolitical imension fMoses and Monotheism re Jean-Josephoux, "Freud t la structureeligieuse unazisme," n his Les IconoclastesParis: euil,1978);andPhilippe acoue-LabarthetJean-Luc ancy, Le Peuple uifne ravepas,"andJean-Pierreinter,Psychanalyseel'antisdmitisme,"oth n La Psychanalysest-elle nehistoireuive?, d.byAdelie tJean-Jacquesassiel Paris: euil, 1981).


5/13

184 Yale French tudiespharaoh and his sun-centeredmonotheism.After he pharaoh's murder,accordingoFreud,Moses became a leaderof heHebrews ndbroughthemout of Egypt n order o preserve hewaningmonotheistic eligion.Freudthusbeginshis storybychanging heveryreason for he return: t is nolonger primarily he preservation f Hebrewfreedom, ut of the mono-theistic od;that s, t snotso much thereturn oa freedom f hepast, s adeparture nto a newlyestablishedfuture-the future f monotheism.7 nthis rethinking fJewish eginnings, hen, he future s no longer ontinu-ous with the past, but is united with t through profound iscontinuity.The exodus from gypt,which shapes the meaningof the Jewish ast, s adeparture hat s both a radicalbreak and theestablishment f a history.

The secondpartofFreud's ccountextends, ndredoubles, hisrethink-ingofthe return. or fter heEgyptianMoses ledtheHebrewsfrom gypt,Freudclaims, theymurdered im n a rebellion;repressedhedeed; andinthe passingoftwogenerations,ssimilated-his odto a volcanogodnamedYahweh, nd assimilatedthe iberatingcts ofMoses tothe acts ofanotherman,thepriest fYahweh alsonamedMoses),who was separated rom hefirst n time andplace. The mostsignificantmoment n Jewish istorysthus, ccording oFreud, otthe iteral eturn ofreedom,uttherepressionof a murder nd its effects:Thegod Jahvettained ndeservedonourwhen .. Moses' deedof ib-erationwasputdown ohisaccount; uthe hadtopay or his surpation.The shadowofthegodwhoseplacehe had takenbecame trongerhanhimself; t the end of hehistorical evelopmenthererosebeyond isbeing hat f heforgottenosaicgod.Nonecandoubt hat t wasonlythe dea of his ther od hat nabled hepeople f srael osurmountlltheir ardshipsndto survive ntilourtime. 62;50-5118

If hereturno freedomsthe iteral tarting ointof hehistoryf heJews,what constitutes he essenceof heir istorys therepression,ndreturn,fthedeeds ofMoses. The nature of literal return s thusdisplaced bythenatureof anotherkindofreappearance:Tothewell-knownuality f Jewish]istory.. we addtwonewones:thefoundingf wonewreligions,hefirst ne ousted y he econd nd7. It s interestingonote hat his utureanalso be thoughtf n terms f hedivineofferf a "promisedand," nd thus can beunderstoodn terms f the future-oriented

temporalityfthepromise.8. All quotations fFreud re takenfrom igmund reud,Moses and Monotheism,translatedyKatherine ones NewYork:VintageBooks, 1939).The first et ofpagenumbers ollowinguotationsefero this ext. hesecond etofnumbers efersoJamesStrachey'sranslationfMoses and Monotheismn the tandard dition f heCompletePsychologicalWorksf igmund reud,dited yJamestrachey,olume 3 London: heHogarth ress, 964).


6/13

CATHY CARUTH 185yetreappearingictorious,wofoundersfreligion, hoareboth alledby the same name,Moses,and whosepersonalities ehavetoseparatefrom ach other.Andthesedualities renecessary onsequences fthefirst: ne sectionofthepeople passed through hatmay properly etermed traumaticxperience hich heotherwasspared.64-65; 52]

The captivityndreturn,whilethebeginning fthehistory ftheJews,sprecisely vailableto themonly hroughheexperience f trauma. t s thetrauma, heforgettingandreturn) f the deeds ofMoses, thatconstitutesthe inkuniting he old with the newgod, hepeoplethat eaveEgypt,withthe people thatultimatelymake up the nation of theJews.Centering isstory n thenature of the leaving,and returning,onstituted y trauma,Freudresituates hevery ossibility fhistorynthenature fa traumaticdeparture.Wemight ay, hen,that the centralquestion,bywhichFreudfinally nquires nto the relationbetweenhistorynd tspoliticaloutcome,is: what does itmean,precisely, orhistory obe thehistory f a trauma?Formanyreaders, hesignificancefFreud's uestioning fhistory-hisdisplacement f thestory fa liberating eturn, ythestory fa trauma-has seemed tobe a tacitdenial ofhistory. yreplacing actualhistorywiththecuriousdynamics ftrauma,Freudwould seem to havedoublydeniedthepossibilityofhistoricalreference: irst, yhimself ctually replacinghistorical actwith his ownspeculations;andsecondly, ysuggestinghathistoricalmemory,rJewish istoricalmemory tleast, s always matterofdistortion, filteringftheoriginal ventthrough hefictions f trau-maticrepression, hichmakestheevent vailableat best ndirectly.ndeed,when Freudgoes on, ater n hiswork, o compare heHebrews'traumaticexperience o the traumasof theOedipal boy, epressing is desirefor hemother hroughhethreat fcastration,his eadsmanyreaders oassumethattheonly possiblereferentialruth ontained nFreud's extcanbe itsreference o his own unconscious life,a kind of self-referentialistorywhichmanyhave readas thestory fFreud's unresolved atheromplex."9And thisanalysishas itself einterpretedhefigure fdeparturend returnina very traightforwardashion, s Freud'sdeparture rom isfather, r hisdeparture romJudaism.Formanycriticsthe cost ofFreud'sapparently

9. See EdwinR. Wallace, ThePsychodynamiceterminantsfMosesandMono-theism, sychiatry0:(1977).There s a longhistory fpsychoanalyticnterpretationsfFreud'swritingsnMoses.Among hemorenterestingncludeMarthe obert,'OedipeaMoise: Freud t a conscienceuive Paris: almann-Levy,974), ppearingn English sFromOedipus to Moses: Freud'sJewishdentity,rans.RalphManheimLondon:Rou-tledgendKegan aul,1977);MarieBalmary,sychoanalyzingsychoanalysis,rans. edLuckacherBaltimore: heJohns opkins ress, 982).A review ndcritique fthe ap-pliedpsychoanalyticraditionnthis ontexts tobe foundnYerushalmi,sychoanalysisTerminablend nterminable: nExplorationfMosesandMonotheism,ectures ivenat YaleUniversityFall 1989), orthcoming.


7/13

186 Yale French tudiesmakinghistory nconscious,or ofdepriving istory f tsreferentialiter-ality,s finally he fact hatthe textremains t best a predictable ramaofFreud's nconscious, nd moreover dramawhich ellsthe tory fpoliticaland culturaldisengagement.'0Whenwe attend loselyhowever o Freud'sownattempt oexplainthetrauma,we find somewhat differentnderstandingf what it means toleave and to return.While the analogy with the Oedipal individual con-stitutesmuch ofhis explanation, reud pens thisdiscussionwith anotherexamplethat s strangely nlikely s a comparison or humanhistory ndyet resonates curiouslywith the particularhistoryhe has told. It is theexample of an accident:

Itmayhappen hat omeonegets way, pparentlynharmed,romhespotwhere e has sufferedshocking ccident,or nstance train olli-sion. nthe ourse f he ollowing eeks, owever,edevelops series fgrave sychicalnd motor ymptoms,hich an beascribed nly o hisshock orwhatever lse happened t the time of theaccident.He hasdeveloped "traumatic eurosis." hisappears uite ncomprehensibleand s thereforenovelfact. hetime hat lapsedbetween he ccidentand the first ppearance fthe symptomss called the "incubationperiod," transparentllusion o thepathology f nfectiousisease.Asan afterthought,tmust trike s that,n spiteofthefundamentalif-ferencenthetwocases,theproblemf he raumatic eurosis ndthatofJewishmonotheism,heres a correspondencen onepoint. tis thefeaturewhich onemight ermatencyThereare the bestgrounds orthinking hat nthehistoryftheJewish eligionheres a longperiod,after hebreakingway rom heMosesreligion, uring hichno trace stobe found f hemonotheisticdea ... thus he olution f urproblemis to be soughtna specialpsychologicalituation.84; 67-68]In the term latency,"heperiodduringwhich theeffectsftheexperienceare not apparent, reudseems to comparethe accident to the successivemovementnJewish istory romheevent o tsrepressiono tsreturn. etwhat is truly trikingbout theaccidentvictim'sexperience ftheevent,and what n fact onstitutes hecentral nigma evealed yFreud's xample,

10. There reof ourse number f xceptionsothis tandardnterpretation.mongthem retheworks yGoux,Lacoue-LabarthendNancy,Winter,ndYerushalmi,itedabove, s well as RitchieRobertson,Freud's estament:Moses and Monotheism,"nFreudnExile, dited yEdward imms nd NaomiSegal NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 988).Useful reatmentsfFreud ndJudaismnclude hilipRieff,heMindof heMoralistNewYork:Anchor, 961), ndMartin .Bergmann,Moses nd heEvolution fFreud's ewishdentity,"sraelAnnalsofPsychiatrynd RelatedDisciplines, 4 March1976).A useful ibliographyanbefound nPeterGay, reud:A Life orOur Time NewYork:Doubleday, 988).Gay's wndiscussionnthiswork fFreud's ewishdentityndgenerallyf hewritingfMoses and Monotheismshighlylluminating.


8/13

CATHY CARUTH 187is not so much theperiodofforgettinghat occurs after heaccident,butrather hefact hatthe victimofthe crashwasnever ully onsciousduringthe accident itself: the person gets away,Freud says, "apparentlyun-harmed."The experience ftrauma, hefact f atency,would thus seem toconsist, not in the forgettingf a realitythat can hence never be fullyknown;but n an nherentatencywithin heexperiencetself. The histor-ical powerof the trauma s not ust thatthe experience s repeated fter tsforgetting,ut that t s only nand throughts nherent orgettinghat t sfirst xperienced t all. And it is this inherent atencyof the event thatparadoxically xplainsthepeculiar, emporal tructure,hebelatedness, ftheJews'historicalexperience: ince the murder s not experienced s itoccurs, t is fullyevidentonly in connectionwithanotherplace, and inanother ime. freturn s displacedbytrauma, hen, his s significantn sofar as its leaving-the space ofunconsciousness-is paradoxicallywhatprecisely reserves he event n its literality.orhistory obe a history ftraumameansthat t s referentialrecisely othe extent hat t s not fullyperceived s itoccurs;ortoput tsomewhatdifferently,hat history an begrasped nly n the very naccessibility f ts occurrence.The indirect eferentialityfhistorys also, wouldargue, t the coreofFreud's nderstandingf hepolitical hapeofJewish ulture,n tsrepeatedconfrontationith ntisemitism. or hemurder fMoses,as Freud rgues,is in facta repetition fan earliermurder n thehistory fmankind, hemurderof the primalfatherby his rebellioussons, which occurred nprimeval istory; nd t s theunconsciousrepetitionndacknowledgmentof hisfact hat xplainsbothJudaismnd ts Christian ntagonists.ndeed,Freud ays,whenPaulinterpretshedeathofChrist s theatonement or noriginal in,he is belatedly ndunconsciously ememberinghe murder fMoses which still, n thehistory ftheJews, emainsburied n uncon-sciousness. n belatedly toning, s sons,for hefather'smurder, hristiansfeelOedipal rivalrywith theirJewish lderbrothers, lingeringastrationanxiety, rought ut by Jewish ircumcision, ndfinally complaint hattheJewswill not admittheguiltwhich theChristians,ntheir ecognitionof Christ'sdeath,have admitted.By appearing nlybelatedly, hen,thehistorical ffectf rauma,n Freud's ext,sultimatelyts nscriptionf heJews n a history always bound to the historyof the Christians.The

11. It s also nterestinghat he wovehicles, oming ogether,eem oresemble hetwomennamed Moses" nd thetwopeoples oming ogether,n a missingmeeting,tQades.Freud escribeshis vent lso as a kind fgap:"I thinkweare ustifiednseparat-ing he wopersons rom achother nd nassuming hat he gyptian osesnever as nQadesandhadnever eard henameofJahve,hereasheMidianiteMosesneveretfootin Egypt ndknewnothing fAton. norder o make he wopeoplento ne, raditionrlegend ad to bringheEgyptian oses toMidian; ndwe have een thatmore han neexplanation asgiven ort" 49; 41).


9/13

188 Yale French tudiesHebrews'departure,hat s, or their rrival s a Jewish ation, s also anarrivalwithin history o longer imply heir wn. t is therefore,wouldlike to suggest,precisely n the veryconstitutive unction f latency, nhistory,hatFreuddiscovers he ndissoluble, oliticalbond to otherhisto-nes. Toput tsomewhatdifferently,e couldsay that he traumatic atureofhistorymeans that eventsare onlyhistoricalto the extentthat theyimplicateothers.And t s thus thatJewish istory as also been the suffer-ing of others' rauma.12Thefull mpactofthisnotionofhistory anonlybegrasped, owever, henwe turn o thequestionofwhat t wouldmean, nthiscontext, oconsiderFreud's own writing s a historical ct. In the variousprefaceswhich heappendsto hiswork, reudhimselfmposesthisquestionuponus by draw-ing our attention o thehistory fthe text'sownwriting ndpublication.The processof the actualwriting f the booktookplacebetween1934and1938, during he periodofFreud's astyears nVienna, ndhis first ear nLondon, owhichhe moved nJune f1938because ofNazi persecution fhisfamily nd ofpsychoanalysis. he first woparts f hebook,containingthehistory fMoses, werepublishedbefore e leftAustria,n 1937,whilethethird art, ontaining hemoreextensive nalysisofreligionngeneral,was withheldfrom ublicationuntil 1938,after reudhadmoved to Lon-don. n themiddleof histhird art, reud nsertswhathe calls a "SummaryandRecapitulation" or Wiederholung,iterally repetition"),nwhich hetells thestory f his bookinhis ownway:Thefollowing art f his ssay the econd ection fPart hreel annotbe sentforthnto heworldwithoutengthyxplanationsndapologies.For t is no other hana faithful,ften iteralrepetitionfthefirstpart.... Whyhave I not avoidedit? The answerto this question

12. It s importanto note hat reud oes not mply henecessity or nyparticularkind fpersecution;hat s,whilehe nsists n what ppears obe a kind f niversalityftrauma, e doesnot uggest hat he esponse o traumamustnecessarily e themistreat-ment f he ther.n fact, e distinguisheshristian atred f heJews rom azi persecu-tion, escribingheformers determinedy nOedipal tructure, hileof he atter esays: "We must not forget hat ll the peopleswho now excel n the practice fanti-Semitism ecameChristians nly n relativelyecent imes, ometimes orced o t bybloody ompulsion. ne might ay that hey ll are"badly hristened";nder he thinveneer fChristianityhey ave remainedwhat heir ncestors ere, arbaricallyoly-theistic. heyhave not yet overcome heir rudge gainst he new religionwhichwasforcednthem, ndthey aveprojectedtonto the ource rom hichChristianityameto them.... The hatred orJudaisms at bottom atred orChristianity,nd t is notsurprisinghat n theGermanNationalSocialist evolutionhis lose connection f hetwomonotheisticeligions inds uchclear xpressionn thehostile reatmentfboth"(117; 91-92). A brilliant xplorationf herelation etween udaismndChristianitynfive uthors, hich akes ff romhequestion freturnnthe toryfAbraham,an befound nJill obbins, rodigal onand ElderBrother:ugustine, etrarch, ierkegaard,Kafka, Levinas (University f Chicago Press, 1991).


10/13

CATHY CARUTH 189is ... rather ard o admit. havenotbeen ble to effacehe races f heunusualway n which hisbook came to be written.ntruththasbeenwritten wiceover. he first imewas a fewyears go n Viennawheredidnotbelieve hepossibilityfpublishingt. decided oput taway, utithauntedme ike n unlaidghost, nd compromisedypublishingwoparts of the book.... Then in March 1938 came the unexpected GermanInvasion. tforcedme to eavemyhome, ut lsofreedme of hefearestmypublishinghebookmightausepsychoanalysisobe forbiddennacountry here tspracticewas stillallowed.No soonerhad arrivednEnglandhan found he emptationfmakingmywithheld nowledgeaccessible to the world rresistible.... I could not make up mymind torelinquishhe twoformerontributionsltogether,ndthat showthecompromiseame aboutofadding naltered wholepieceofthefirstversion o thesecond, devicewhichhasthedisadvantagefextensiverepetition.... [131-32; 103-041

Readingthisstory reudtells of his own work-of a historywhose tracescannotbe effaced, hichhauntsFreud ike a ghost, ndfinally merges nseveral publications nvolving xtensiverepetition-it is difficult ot torecognize hestory f theHebrews-of Moses' murder,tseffacement,nditsunconsciousrepetition. he bookitself, reud eems to be telling s, isthe site ofa trauma;a traumawhichin this case moreover ppearsto behistoricallymarkedbythe eventswhich,Freud ays,dividethebook intotwohalves:first,he nfiltrationf Nazism intoAustria, ausingFreudtowithholdor repressthe thirdpart,and then the invasionof AustriabyGermany, ausingFreudto leave,andultimately obring hethird arttolight.The structurendhistory f hebook, nitstraumatic orm frepres-sionandrepetitive eappearance,husmark t as thevery earer f histor-ical truth hat s itself nvolved n thepoliticalentanglementfJews ndtheirpersecutors.Butsignificantly,n spite of the temptation o lend an immediate efer-entialmeaning o Freud's rauma n theGerman nvasion nd Nazi persecu-tion, t is not, nfact, recisely he direct eferenceo the German nvasionthatcan be said to locate the actual trauma n Freud'spassage. Fortheinvasion s characterized, ot in termsof its attendant ersecutions ndthreats,fwhichtheFreud amily id nfact ave their hare, ut nterms fthe somewhatdifferentmphasisofa simplephrase:"itforcedmeto leavemy home, but it also freed me . . ." [(sie) zwang mich, die Heimat zu ver-lassen,befreitemich aber .. ].13 The trauma nFreud's ext,s first f ll atraumaof eaving,thetraumaofverlassen. ndeed, t is thiswordwhichactuallyties this "Summary nd Recapitulation" tselfto the traumatic

13. German uotations fMoses and Monotheism retakenfrom igmund reud,Studienausgabe and9,FrankfortnMain: 1982).


11/13

190 Yale FrenchStudiesstructuring f the book, n its implicitreferralo two earlierprefaces,p-pended to the beginning f Part II. These twoprefaces, ubtitled BeforeMarch 1938" (while Freudwas still in Vienna), nd "In June1938" (afterFreudhad resettled n London),describe, espectively, is reasons fornotpublishing he book, and his decision finally o let it come to light, n-nounced as following n thesecond preface:

Theexceptionallyreat ifficultieshichhaveweighed n me duringhecompositionf his ssaydealingwithMoses ... are he easonwhy histhird nd finalpart omesto have twodifferentrefaces hichcontra-dict-evencancel-each other. ornthe hortnterval etweenhe woprefaces heouter onditions ftheauthor averadically hanged. or-merly livedunder heprotectionf heCatholic hurch ndfearedhatbypublishinghe ssay should ose that rotection.... Then, uddenly,the German nvasion.... In the certainty f persecution.. I left[verliessch],withmanyfriends,hecitywhichfrom arly hildhood,througheventy-eightears, adbeena hometo me. 69-70; 571

The "intervalbetween the prefaces"which Freudexplicitlynotes, andwhichis also theliteral pacebetween "BeforeMarch1938" and "In June1938,"also marks, mplicitly,hespace ofa trauma, traumanot simplydenotedbythe words "German nvasion,"butrather ornebythewords"verliess ch," "I left."Freud'swriting reserveshistory reciselywithinthisgap nhistext; nd within hewords fhisleaving,wordswhich donotsimply efer,utwhich, hroughheir epetitionnthe ater SummaryndRecapitulation," onvey he mpactof history recisely s whatcannot begraspedabout eaving.Indeed, n Freud's wn theoretical xplanation f rauma,ntheexampleoftheaccident, t is, finally, he actof eavingwhichconstitutes ts centraland enigmatic ore:

Itmayhappen hat omeonegets way literally,leavesthesite," dieStddte erlisstl,pparently nharmed,rom hespotwherehehas suf-fered shocking ccident, or nstance train ollision.The traumaoftheaccident, tsvery nconsciousness, s bornebyan act ofdeparture.t s a departure hich, n the fullforce f tshistoricity,emainsat the same time in some sense absolutelyopaque, both to theone wholeaves,andalso to thetheoretician,inkedto the sufferernhis attempt obring heexperience o light.Yetat the same time, hisvery pacitygener-ates thesurprisingorce f a knowledge, or t is theaccident, n German,Unfall,which reverberatesn Freud'sown theoreticalnsightdrawnfromtheexample,which s laced in the Germanwith other orms ffallen,"tofall":


12/13

CATHY CARUTH 191Asan afterthought,t must trike s [esmussunsauffallen],hatnspiteof hefundamentalifferenceetween he wo ases Fille], etweenheproblemf raumatic eurosis ndthat fJudaicmonotheism,heres acorrespondencen onepoint, amely,nthe haracternemight escribeas latency. here re thebestgroundsor hinkinghat n thehistoryftheJewish eligionhere sa longperiod,fterhebreakingway AbfallIfrom heMoses religion, uringwhichno trace s to be found fthemonotheisticdea.... 14

Betweenthe Unfall,the accident,and the "striking" f the insight, tsauffallen,s theforce f fall, fallingwhich s transmittedreciselyntheunconsciousact of eaving. t s thisunconsciousness f eavingwhichbearsthe mpactofhistory. nd t s likewisefirstf ll intheunconsciousness fFreud'sreferenceo his departurenhis owntext hat, wouldsuggest,wefirst ave access to itshistorical ruth.The full mpactof thishistory ccurs forus, however,n yetanotheraspectof he actof eaving,n what Freud alls "freedom."nthe"SummaryandRecapitulation" reud ays:

It forcedmeto leavemyhome,but talso freedme ofthefearest mypublishing he bookmight ause psychoanalysiso be forbiddenn acountry here tspractices stillallowed.Leavinghome,for reud,s also a kindoffreedom,hefreedom obring orthhis book nEngland, hefreedom,hat s,tobring is voicetoanother lace.The meaningofthis act s suggestedn a letterwhichresonateswiththeselinesfrom he"Summary," letterwritten yFreud ohisson Ernst n May1938,whileFreudwas waiting or inal rrangementso leaveVienna:Twoprospects eepmegoingnthesegrim imes: orejoinyou lland-to die n freedom.

Freud's reedom o eave s paradoxicallyhefreedom, otto ive,but to die:tobring orth isvoiceto othersndying. reud's oice emerges, hat s, as adeparture.'5And it is this departurewhich,moreover, ddressesus. In the14. It is also worth oting hatwhat s translatedere s "As an afterthought"snachtraglichnGerman, heword reud ses elsewhere o describe he "deferredction"or retroactive eaning ftraumaticventsnpsychic ife;herewhat s nachtraglichsFreud's heoreticalnsight, hich hus lso participatesn thetraumatictructure. nexcellent iscussionf he tructurend emporalityf raumanearly reud anbefoundin Cynthia hase,"OedipalTextuality,"nDecomposing igures: hetorical eadingsntheRomantic raditionBaltimore:heJohns opkins ress, 986),ndJean aplanche,"Sexuality nd the Vital Order,n Lifeand Death in Psychoanalysis,rans.JeffreyMehlman Baltimore:heJohns opkins ress, 976).15. Theresonancef he ettero ErnstwithMosesandMonotheismsalsoapparentinthe ineswhich ollow hose uoted bove:"Isometimesomparemyself ith he ld


13/13

192 YaleFrench tudiesline hewrites o hisson,the ast fourwords- "to die nfreedom"-are not,like the restofthesentence,writtennGerman, ut rather nEnglish.Theannouncement fhisfreedom,nd ofhis dying,s given na language hatcan be heardbythose n thenewplace to which he brings isvoice, tous,uponwhom the egacy fpsychoanalysissbestowed. t s significantmore-over hat hismessage s conveyed otmerelynthenew anguage, nglish,butpreciselyn the movementbetweenGerman ndEnglish, etween helanguages f hereaders fhis homeland ndofhisdeparture.would ike tosuggest hat t is here, n the movementfromGermanto English, n therewritingf the departurewithin the languagesofFreud'stext,thatweparticipatemostfullynFreud's entralnsight,nMoses andMonotheism,thathistory,ike the trauma, s neversimplyone's own,thathistory sprecisely the way we are implicated n each other'straumas. Forwe-whether s German- ras English-speakingeaders-cannotreadthis sen-tencewithout, urselves, eparting.nthisdeparture,nthe eave-takingfourhearing,we are first ully ddressed yFreud's ext,nwaysweperhapscannotyetfully nderstand. nd, wouldpropose oday,sweconsider hepossibilitiesof cultural ndpoliticalanalysis, hat the mpactofthis,notfullyconscious address,maybe not onlya valid,but indeeda necessarypoint ofdeparture.16

Jacob ho,when very ldman,was taken yhischildrenoEgypt,sThomasMann s todescribe nhisnextnovel.Let us hopethat t won't lso be followedy n exodus romEgypt.t s high ime hatAhasuerus ame torest omewhere."16. Robert ay ifton'smarvelous reatmentf rauma nFreud,n "Survivor xperi-ence and Traumatic yndrome,"oints otherelation etween he ater evelopmentfthenotion f raumandthe ccurrencefWorldWar. It wouldbe nterestingoexploretheway n which henotion f rauma nscribes he mpact fwar nFreud'sheoreticalwork.

caruth_unclaimedexperience

Documents