Abstract
The articles in this edition of Group Analysis were presented at a joint workshop between GASI and the Austrian Institute of Group Analysis in November 2014. It was entitled Group Analysis Today and Developments in Intersubjectivity. We sat in the elegant Europahaus Schloss Miller-Aichholz just outside Vienna, in a room resonant with 19th-century history and, as so often in our workshops, tried to grapple with far too many ideas in the short time available. It has been a pleasure to edit them as I have had the privilege of reading them at leisure and hope you will enjoy them in this way as well.
However, an element of triumph could be detected in our work as it seemed that the wider psychoanalytic community was finally catching up with our perspective that it is the interrelationship between the patient and therapist or group and conductor that is paramount. This interrelationship is special because it has a therapeutic focus for the patient or group members but it does include the therapist as a personality and active presence.
Robi Friedman’s introduction to his article looks at the theoretical links to these ideas, while Regine Scholz’s beautifully presented personal article describes how we have been steeped in these ideas through Foulkes’ teaching. She urges that much of the current research and clinical discussions usefully take the ideas further—although Dieter Nitzgen’s article is more concerned with what may have been lost through the inadequate translations of Foulkes’ work. Peter Potthoff carefully explores the history and the development of Foulkes’ work on intersubjectivity and relates it to wider developments in the psychoanalytic field that have arisen because of a need to understand interrelatedness in the consulting room.
The blank screen, the silent work of the therapist’s thoughts around transference and countertranference that seemed key aspects of the parental power relationship between patient and analyst was challenged by Foulkes in two very important ways. Firstly, Foulkes emphasized that any therapeutic encounter had to ‘include’ the conductor, not just as an object of transference but also as a ‘special’ group member whose personality would influence the preoccupations of group members.
This is because, as a second key challenge to the consulting room, we also need to take into consideration the social and historical context within which we are working, as well as the power relations both within and outside the room. Whether as a dyad or a group, each mind and personality is permeated by others in the room in a shared ‘foundation matrix’ while seeking to understand the unique nature of each individual’s struggles and experience.
Certainly the historical context within which we were meeting in Vienna was very movingly shown by Wilhelm Rösing and Marita Barthel in the film Enjoy The Music—The Pianist Edith Krauz (2012) directed by Wilhelm Rösing. Her strength of personality and great talent as a pianist enabled Edith Krauz to survive Terezin and, after the war, return as a visiting teacher and pianist to Vienna when, through connecting with young Austrians she was able to use her love of music to heal a little of the past.
The three articles by Miriam Berger, Avi Berman and Ivan Urlicć are summaries from their book Victimhood, Vengefulness and the Culture of Forgiveness (2013). The articles take us directly into the struggles we all have with other people’s passions and hatreds that clash with ours. The articles help us to find our minds again and to think about the usefulness of forbidden thoughts.
Perhaps the most controversial article is from Hanni Biran who needed to ‘include’ herself as a group conductor in her clinical group because she became ill. Her perspective on intersubjectivity led to an openness that challenged many and certainly added heat to our discussions.
Finally, in the spirit of the complexity of levels that we were discussing, I think it is important to say a few words about the large group with which we ended each day. As always we struggled with intergenerational concerns and with our survival as a discipline in a world increasingly impatient with methods that take ‘too’ long to work.
We were also thinking about the pressures on group analysts in Vienna and the hierarchy of relationships between the psychoanalysts and group analysts in Freud’s hometown. Our community came together in discussing the articles but in the large group, each person was also very aware, through language and perspective, of their country or culture of origin. As GAS becomes more International, I did wonder what the resonance was, in that large group in Vienna, that the UK ended up providing a sanctuary for both Freud and Foulkes.
Not all the articles were available for publication but these certainly take our understanding further and cover key aspects of our work. Enjoy!