The Next Generation

Recognizing the Generational Uniqueness

Initially, children of survivors were known as just that – “descendants of” – and were initially treated as an outgrowth of their parents who had undergone the horrors of the Holocaust. In the late 1960s, when the oldest children of survivors were in their late teens and early twenties, psychologists studying them noted what appeared to be diverse and even contradictory characteristics of that group. Some spoke of severe phobias, chronic depression, and anger, while others disagreed, noting that survivors spent more quality time with their children than other parents, and the children had a rich fantasy life that enhanced security and provided relief from anxiety.³

By the mid-1970s the American Psychoanalytic Association began using the term “Second Generation” instead of “children of survivors”, with the new nomenclature acknowledging this group’s independent identity. No longer were they appendages to the survivors; their generation had now come into its own. Consequently, Holocaust researchers from various disciplines expanded their studies to examine the Second Generation as a distinct group with independent characteristics.⁴ At the same time, members of the Second Generation, possibly influenced by the growing movement for self-exploration, became interested in better understanding themselves and how their parents’ Holocaust experiences had affected them.

The first documented Second Generation groups were short-term awareness groups, run by psychologists Bella Savran and Dr. Eva Fogelman at Boston University (1976), and then by Fogelman at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1978).⁵ Their inspiration came from reading what they felt was an eye-opening dialogue between children of survivors that had been published in Response: A Contemporary Jewish Review, in 1975. Meeting for eight to twelve sessions, these were the first 2g groups that discussed issues pertaining to the lives of children of survivors. This was the first time that the concept of transgenerational transmission of trauma was being raised by the Second Generation and not just by therapists who had treated them.

Parallel to the development of 2g groups worldwide, numerous studies from the late 1970s onward began focusing on various psychological and social issues stemming from this transgenerational transmission of trauma. Harvey and Carol Barocas,⁶ dealt with the psychological and social consequences of separation issues that some 2gs had with their parents. Gertler and Wardi⁷ took these consequences a step further, probing issues of interpersonal adjustment, and touching upon potential or actual difficulties that some 2gs appeared to have in their emotional intimate relationships, particularly those whose parents had lost children in the Holocaust. Over the next few decades scholars such as Zilberfein, Schneider, Mazor & Tal, Miley, Wiseman, Silbert, Somer & Nizri,⁸ developed these themes, some exploring the gender factor and others less, while examining various aspects of how the intergenerational transmission of trauma affects the Second Generation’s resilience, drive, and interpersonal relationships.

From the 1990s and onward the biological aspect of the 2gs was also studied, beginning with an examination of their cortisol levels, and leading to the topic of epigenetics, exploring trauma-induced genetic changes among Holocaust survivors and the question of whether and how these altered genes were transmitted to future generations.

Over more than three decades, scholars followed the Second Generation from young adulthood through late middle age, charting the changing nature of 2g self-perceptions and intimate relationships as their parents aged and passed away. Among their conclusions were that lack of balance between closeness and separation among 2gs often leads to problems of interpersonal adjustment; that many 2gs have great difficulty saying “no” to a survivor parent, something that consequently affects the degree of control that they are comfortable exercising in all their relationships; that the role that many 2gs assume of being responsible for their parents’ happiness translates into other relationships by affecting their ability to focus on fulfilling their own needs; and that some 2gs perceive themselves as keeping distance in interpersonal relationships because of a need for control over anything affecting their lives, connected to the lack of control over their lives that their parents had during the Holocaust. Other studies, particularly in Israel, examined 2gs as they cared for their aging parents, or how they responded to war and other traumatic situations.⁹

It is hard to draw sweeping conclusions from these studies as none of the responders were random participants, but rather strongly identifying self-selected 2gs (and later 3gs), many already involved in self-help 2g groups or belonging to a particular chronological, demographic, or geographic 2g subsection. As such, they were not necessarily representative of the general 2g/3g population. Could one use the responses of 2gs born soon after the war to reach conclusions regarding those born two decades later? Were the experiences of 2gs in Australia representative of 2gs in Israel, Belgium, or the United States? Not necessarily.