1992年2月，台北市婦女救援基金會（婦援會）設立前台籍「慰安婦」申訴專線，開啟了封存近半世紀的私密創傷，使其獲得進入公共領域的機會。從精神分析觀點出發，筆者自2007年末，援用人類學田野研究方法，觀察婦援會自1996年起開辦的「阿嬤身心照顧工作坊」（原名：慰安婦心理治療工作坊），期待探問個人史與集體史之間的辯證關係如何影響主體對於自身創傷經驗的理解，不意在此「臨床田野」當中，察覺到「慰安婦」個人創傷敘事的公共化在社會動員過程中扮演的重要角色。藉由對於環繞著前台籍「慰安婦」所形成的二個社會動員層次的觀察（一、替戰爭性奴役受害者爭取人權、國際正義，要求日本負起戰後責任等的跨國倡議及訴訟活動；二、為生活困頓的慰安婦「阿嬤」提供日常照顧和團體心理治療的社工和心理處遇），筆者試圖描繪「慰安婦」女性戰爭創傷主體進入公共領域的幾個重要場景，觀看這些殖民政權與父權暴力的「受害者」如何在NGO社會動員所搭造的多重現身場景中，逐漸向「倖存者」、「見證者」發聲位置挪移的學習歷程。據此，筆者亦嘗試探討私密創傷在公開場域的現身如何對創傷的心理療癒帶來助力、抑或造成限制。總言之，透過「慰安婦」敘事場景的回顧和檢視，本文意欲彰顯精神分析式聆聽對於主體認納與歷史銘印的著重，或許能為臨床實踐者提供另一條理解「症狀」與「療癒」的路徑，將心理創傷重新置回社會關係的脈絡中。

In February 1992, the Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation (TWRF) set up a complaint hotline searching for former "comfort women" in Taiwan, allowing the historical trauma kept in secret for half a century to enter into public space. From 2007, I started a fieldwork on the “Psycho-physical Caring Workshop for ‘Ah-Ma’” (formerly known as “Psychotherapy Workshop for Comfort Women”) organized by TWRF since 1996. Based on a psychoanalytical approach, my initial intention was to interrogate how the dialectic relationship between personal history and collective History would affect subject’s understanding of one’s own traumatic experience. Through this “clinical fieldwork”, I unexpectedly discovered the crucial role played by the publicization of traumatic narratives in social mobilization. I have then been focusing my observations on two levels of mobilization around the Comfort women issue: firstly, the transnational advocacy movement looking for international recognition and urging the Japanese government to take its postwar responsibility by delivering formal apology and compensation to the victims; secondly, the social care and psychological treatment provided by TWRF to the “Grandmas”, mostly living in poor condition. Based on these observations, I will describe and analyze some major scenes in the publicizing process of Comfort women’s stories, showing how these old ladies learned from public appearances settled by NGOs to move from the position of “victim” to that of “survivor” and “witness”. Furthermore, I will discuss if the going public has facilitated healing or, on the contrary, impeded it. To sum up, by re-examining the formation of Comfort women’s narrative, I intend to highlight the importance of subject’s recognition and historical inscription, both pivotal for psychoanalytic understanding of trauma. That might offer clinical practitioners another path to consider symptoms and healing, and to bring psycho-trauma back to social relational context.