Abstract
Any one patient in a therapy group is likely to develop multiple transferences to a variety of different persons in the group, each of whom may have a different symbolic meaning to him. Multiple transference is the process by which each patient responds transferentially to what Alexander Wolf (1969) has called “the variously provocative characteristics of the multiple personalities in the group.” Wolf describes the advantages of the group context as follows: “. . .The presence of patients of both sexes facilitates the appearance and resolution of early conflicting unconscious trends formerly elicited by father, mother, sister, and brother. The group recreates the family unit in which the patient can more freely reanimate the impelling and denying emotional demands whose contradictions he was once unable to solve. As he gradually becomes able to dispose of compulsive investments and discerns group members in fact, they become the social bridge to the establishment of normal communal relations”.
“Neither Bion nor Foulkes was, according to Halton, strong on working with the transference and countertransference in groups. They consequently ended up neglecting conscious work with Oedipal material (Halton 1999, pp.71–91). Bion’s theory was rooted in the preoccupation of the object relations theorists with the mother–child containing and holding relationship. Foulkes focused on the group as a good object that could be implicitly trusted to reveal the creative potential within it”. (Lipgar & Pines, 2003).
“Foulkes changed his mind at least twice about the emphasis that should be given to the interpretation of the transference and the transference neurosis in clinical work in groups. In 1957, Foulkes and Anthony argued that the group situation is not favourable to the formation of the transference neurosis, but that if and when it does occur, the group setting does not favour its analysis and working through (Foulkes and Anthony, 1957). However, in 1964, Foulkes wrote that on the basis of 20 years of experience he had changed his mind in that he had observed that individual transference neuroses could be recognized in the group situation, and, therefore, be analyzed and worked through (Foulkes, 1964). Yet, in 1975, he objected to what he called the ‘modern’ (Kleinian) tendency to place transferential interpretations at the centre of the analytical
process’, which he believed could be done but should not be done, because this strengthened the neurosis (Foulkes, 1975)”. Extract from Hopper, 2006).
Grotjahn (1973) identified three major types of transference: transference toward the therapist as a paternal figure, transference to peers as siblings, and transference to the group as a whole as a trusted mother.
“Transference in group therapy has several characteristics:
Multiple Levels. Transference may be to fellow group members, to the therapist, or (very crucial and often overlooked) to the group as a whole.
Multiple targets. In group therapy multiple transferences by a patient are possible at the same time – for example, mother, father, siblings, grand-parent.
Familial Aspects. A patient may have a transference to the whole group as a family in either the positive sense (“This group is like the family I never had”) or the negative sense (“You’re just like my family”).
Dilution. Because of the presence of multiple targets for transference, any one particular transference, for example the transference to the therapist, may be diluted and therefore may be easier to resolve” (Bernard and MacKenzie, 1994).
“.….group members regard therapists in an unrealistic light…… True transference or displacement of affect from a prior object, say earlier parent figures, is one source. Conflicted attitudes towards authority – for example, dependency, autonomy, rebellion – which become personified in the leader, are another. And still another source is the patient’s tendency to imbue psychotherapists with superhuman features, such as ultimate wisdom about human nature, so as to use them as shields against existential anxiety” (Vinogradov & Yalom, 1989).
“The early group therapy theoreticians transposed the dyadic situation into the group, and with it the therapist’s efforts to maintain a blank screen attitude, which was thought to elicit a transference neurosis. In the extreme, this approach resulted in what Leo Stone referred to as “the cadaver model” of the therapist. In this framework, peers were representatives of siblings or objects of displacement from the authority of the therapist…. the impact of the therapist is thought to be minimal, for the therapy setting would allow the transferences to emerge…… A more contemporary model emphasises the contribution of the patient’s perceptions of the analyst and the treatment situation, taking into account their reciprocal interactions. This approach searches for, and focuses on, the here and now transactions…… The interactional patterns in groups provide opportunities to explore differing aspects of transferences: the transactions of the therapist among the members and the members’ image of the group as a whole” (Rutan, Stone & Shay, 2007).