Abstract
Dear Kevin,
I catch at the reading of your post to enter into what seems to strike you as an obscure matter that you raised also in your lively and thoughtful review of From Psychoanalysis to Group Analysis - The Pioneering Work of Trigant Burrow, which appeared recently in Contexts (September, 2013, p. 61).
As far as I am concerned as editor together with G.O. Pertegato, obviously we have nothing to do with the wholly contrasting Foulkes’ mentions of Burrow published respectively in the 1957 and 1965 editions of the book Group Psychotherapy – The Psychoanalytic Approach by S.H. Foulkes & J. Anthony. In truth, at the time, your having raised the same specific queries, I corresponded with you about such discrepancy (see our e-mails of June 27 and 28, 2013). I would like to report what I replied, with some additions since. I have the impression of misunderstandings, in particular, about our omission of the above editions in the bibliography and about the contrasting Foulkes’ evaluation of Burrow’s work and our consequent conclusions.
1) The 1957 1st edition was not traceable, being surely out of print. That’s why we couldn’t list it in the bibliography. Further, how could we know if Foulkes had written something different on Burrow with respect to the 1965 2nd edition (reprinted in 1967, 1968,1971)? What is more, it is by a lucky chance that, as you yourself said, you bought “a second hand copy twenty five years ago” of the first edition! Apropos of this, you were so kind, being available to send me the page with that passage, which I haven’t as yet received. Can I hope to get it?
2) What then about the 1965 2nd edition which we have used? Of course, since the 2009 Italian edition of the book on Burrow, I had thoroughly checked it and it emerged that at p. 16, Burrow is simply generically named by Foulkes, together with himself and other authors of the analytic approach to groups (by three lines and two words), as follows: “Some early contributions in this field were made by T. Burrow, Louis Wender, P. Schilder, S. H. Foulkes, and in a systematic form by S. R. Slavson. This work is not explicitly reviewed here.*”
Please note that the asterisk is a cross-reference to a footnote, which does not give further details, but suggests that the reader turn to another book in these words: “For this the reader may be referred to S. H. Foulkes: Therapeutic Group Analysis, Allen & Unwin, 1964.” Evidently, not only there were no traces of the 16 lines of the first edition in praise of Burrow you spoke of, but also there was nothing relevant, but a mere list of names. Given that we didn’t draw anything from it, with the umpteenth generic mention, here much more generic than any other, where Burrow is assembled together with much later analytic group psychotherapy figures, also the 1965 2nd edition was omitted in the bibliography.
3) Consequently, as indicated by the above mentioned footnote, we turned to and consulted Therapeutic Group Analysis (1964). As I wrote to you, here one meets with fewer generic words of appreciation: “Trigant Burrow did put the group into the centre of his orientation. That was and remains his great merit.” Stop. And Foulkes continues with lots of misinterpretations, historical distortions and belittlements of Burrow’s work. Though he outlined the group analytic method and many basic concepts from Burrow without giving due credit, he writes: “I think I somewhat overestimated the range of his work”.
I agree that you cannot avoid asking why those 16 lines of encomium of Burrow disappeared in the “second edition, 1965”; but, thanks to Hanne’s recent attachment, we now know that Juan Campos refers to it as a “revised edition” (my italics). All this may help us to trace to Foulkes himself, being the author of the introduction, the cutting off of those 16 lines. But why did he cut off this passage of Burrow’s eulogy in which he writes that Burrow is “one of the most important pioneers of group analysis”? On the basis of my long study, it is not so surprising to me. Apart from the fact that Burrow is not “one of the most important pioneers of group analysis”, but he is the first pioneer, such behaviour seems to stand as a further element which witnesses Foulkes’ ambition to present group analysis as his own creation.
In addition, might it be perhaps of some importance that the Editorial Foreword by C.A. Mace qualifies the 1965 book as “the first attempt to give a comprehensive account for the lay reader of the principles and method of Group Psychotherapy”? (p.11, my italics)
I am sorry, Kevin, I cannot but be in dissent on your disagreement in Contexts with some of our conclusions on Foulkes’ evaluations of Burrow’s work. You correctly acknowledged that Burrow pioneered group analysis and made a list of some basic group analytic concepts introduced by him, and others could be added, like the therapeutic factors, so specific to group analytic treatment.
And what about theory? But Foulkes never quoted Burrow’s specific concepts either about theory, for instance, the social nature of the human being, or the method, from which he significantly drew. Moreover, you yourself recognize that Foulkes “does make some acknowledgements of Burrow’s work, though without going into detail about how exactly this influenced him as he does with, for instance, Goldstein’s work” (K. Power, 2013, p.35). And this coincides with our view.
In the 2013 GASI Autumn Workshop, on the basis of Foulkes’ writings andpublished and unpublished documentary sources, a brief report specifying “Foulkes’ roots in Trigant Burrow’s writings” was presented, along with the evidence of a strict parallelism between the basic concepts of the two approaches and the disquieting attitude of Foulkes in substantially denying and consigning Burrow’s work to obscurity.
It is most interesting that Dieter Sandner’s statement too, who, like myself, discovered Burrow fortuitously and studied his work, is quite correspondent:
“Extraordinarily Foulkes does not explains in what mood he is debtor to him and does not quote his works on group analysis” (2003, p. 154, my italics)
About the paternity of the term “group analysis”, there are some contradictory versions in Foulkes. Anyway, even when Burrow introduced the term “phyloanalysis” (borrowed from the ancient Greek phylum) which was adopted in order to avoid the implication that group analysis could be identified only as a group treatment, the term group analysis continued to be used often interchangeably with it, being considered its “synonym”. Perhaps it is worth specifying that the term phyloanalysis, as Burrow himself explains in the glossary, is a “method developed by the author for investigating disorders in human behaviour.”
I cannot enter now into the merit of these issues. They have been confronted either in the book (2013, p. lxvii-lxviii; p. xcii-xciv) or deepened in some papers (E.Gatti Pertegato 1994-a, 1994b, 2009a, 2009b; E.Gatti pertegato & G.O.Pertegato, 1995) and I further developed “Foulkes’ roots in Trigant Burrow’s writings” at the recent Vienna GASI Autumn workshop.
But what then about Foulkes? Surely he developed in some way group analysis and I think that an honest, accurate, and comparative study, free from preconceptions, should be carried out in order to distinguish his own contribution from that of his very illustrious predecessor, whose work is far from being known in its entirety. [Apart from any other things, it is a question of: “Dare a Cesare quel che è di Cesare!” or Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s].
Anyway, now Burrow’s essays on group analytic theory and the methods of the Twenties speak for themselves. I quite agree with you, Kevin, that “Burrow has been ostracised, censored, plundered and ignored” and that time has come to restore the historical truth. As group analysts, to whom history is of the utmost importance, we should not fail this. It would be a remunerative work as it has been with me.
I share and applaud your courageous proposal that “Burrow’s work needs large re-assessment.”
Many thanks for your dedication and the exacting task of reviewing Burrow’s book!
All the best Edi Gatti Pertegato