In a time of relentless violence, what does it mean to bear witness? This was the central question explored in a compelling conversation between Prof Jacqueline Rose and Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela. Their discussion, rooted in psychoanalysis, history and ethics, navigated the complexities of witnessing, victimhood and the possibility of repair in the aftermath of atrocity.

“What is the role of witnessing in our time?” asked Gobodo-Madikizela, setting the tone for an interrogation of historical memory and the moral obligations of witnesshood. Rose, an internationally renowned scholar of feminism, psychoanalysis and public conflict, emphasised that witnessing is not a passive act but an ethical responsibility that demands recognition of suffering and a confrontation with historical truths. She reflected on the Holocaust as the paradigmatic moment when bearing witness gained ethical significance. The documentation of Nazi atrocities forced the world to grapple with the inhumanity of mass violence. Yet, as she pointed out, the challenge remains. How do we ensure that witnessing does not merely become a spectacle but a transformative act that fosters justice?

One of the conversation’s most striking insights was the danger of victimhood becoming an identity rather than a state. Rose cited the Israeli writer Shulamit Aloni, who warned that a nation that defines itself solely by its past suffering can justify any atrocity in the name of self-defence. “Victimhood is something that happens to you. It is an assault, a violation of human rights. The moment it becomes an identity, psychic or political, you are trapped,” Rose asserted. Gobodo-Madikizela connected this to South Africa’s own struggles with historical trauma stating that “we are increasingly experiencing the same thing over and over again. In psychoanalytic terms, this is repetition. But the question is, when will it end?” Their discussion underscored how historical injustices, whether in Gaza, South Africa or the legacy of colonialism, often repeat themselves in cycles of violence, with nations and individuals caught in patterns of unresolved trauma.

Drawing on her research, Gobodo-Madikizela spoke about perpetrators of violence who experience deep remorse yet remain isolated in their reckoning. She referenced the case of apartheid era figures who, upon recognising their actions, found themselves abandoned by the very systems they once served. “Once they look into their own remorse, the truth is exposed and they are left completely alone. The community for whom they committed their crimes disappears.” This isolation, Rose argued, speaks to the broader failure of societies to meaningfully engage with the past. She described a psychological mechanism in which those who recognise their culpability must either confront unbearable shame or retreat into denial. “There is suffering and injustice enough for everyone,” she quoted Edward Said, emphasising the need to think histories together rather than in opposition.

As the discussion progressed, the conversation turned to the expressive limits of witnessing. Gobodo-Madikizela invoked historical moments of lament, the unscreamed screams of women, the cries of enslaved people as forms of testimony that exist beyond verbal articulation. “How do we even find language to speak about all of these screams hovering over our histories of colonialism and oppression?” she asked. For Rose, psychoanalysis offers a crucial insight. History is not merely something that happened, it is something we carry with us into the future. She referenced Freud’s concept of the “future perfect,” explaining, “we are always in the process of becoming what we will have been.” This perspective urges us to see history not as a closed book but as a site of ongoing transformation.

The conversation closed with a reflection on contemporary struggles. The audience, many of whom were students, grappled with their own role in bearing witness. As one attendee noted, students protesting outside the venue were reenacting the very histories of struggle discussed inside. This poignant contradiction highlighted the urgent need for witnessing to translate into action.

In a world where acts of public witnessing are often met with hostility rather than compassion, Rose and Gobodo-Madikizela’s conversation was a call to engage, not just as observers but as active participants in the pursuit of justice. As Gobodo-Madikizela put it, “we must always historicise, but we must also ask. What is bearing witness, if not acting in response?” Ultimately, the challenge remains. Can witnessing move beyond testimony to real transformation? Their dialogue offered no easy answers, but it reaffirmed the necessity of the question.