Being a New Face at the Lisbon Symposium

Hello. My name is Sarah Tyerman and I was one of the ‘new faces’ at the Lisbon Symposium. It was my first exposure to group analysts en masse, some 44 nationalities someone said.

People said it was nice to see some new young faces there. Actually I am a ‘new old’ face. I am in my last stage of training as a Group Analyst at the IGA London after retiring from being a government policy analyst for 35 years.

I first want to thank GASi for giving me a Bursary to attend Lisbon. Truly it was one of the most rewarding, exciting experiences I have had in a long professional life.

Why? Well, the day I got back I emailed a friend saying that I had just come up to the surface from somewhere very deep. Intense immersion, coupled with not enough sleep. A richness of choice that I was not alone with: standing in front of the workshop lists, I heard other voices saying – how to choose? There is so much here that we want to know about…. [even] they have given us too much!

The wealth of provision included the fabulous food and drink throughout. If an army marches on its stomach, so does a conference. From coffee breaks to the four-course conference dinner, we were very well fed and watered. I watched with amusement when the organizers put out ice lollies in the afternoon break – so many distinguished colleagues reverting to childhood in a rush to grab the goodies.

It was all part of the great generosity and warmth shown us by our Portuguese hosts. In the Large Group a Portuguese member wanted us to understand that the doors of the meeting hall had been left open as part of a good host’s wish to keep his guests cool in the hot Lisbon summer.

Generous as that thought was, it did not seem to counteract the fearful emotions that were sparking around the Large Group. I had never been in a Large Group bigger than 40 before and here was one of 300+ where an entire bloc of participants dragged their chairs forward, there was no continuity of dialogue because of constant interruptions of “can’t hear” and people, including non-participants, were coming and going through the open doors.

I had been intrigued before the Symposium by the role played by GASi’s online forum. My sense was of an unboundaried, unfacilitated space where a small minority of members were exchanging aggressive, politicized statements about the Israel-Gaza conflict, seeking support for their own position rather than consensus. But others on the Forum were holding out the expectation that a wider(?), more reasoned(?), dialogue would take place in the Large Group.

This didn’t seem to happen. Instead there was a re-enactment of the conflict, little listening, mainly angry shouting. Some understanding emerged on the third day when the President spoke of his anguish about leaving his family in Israel to fulfil his responsibilities to the Symposium. A Russian delegate talked about finding a welcome amongst colleagues at a conference in Ukraine. I cried, as did others. But the ceasefire didn’t last and the fourth session was very hard again. Above us a plaque in the hall exhorted ‘Workers Unite’, but down below on the hall floor, there seemed to be no escape from discord and division.

Yet I loved it. It was one of the most vital, absorbing struggles to connect that I have ever witnessed. I felt proud to be part of a profession that even tries to make sense of the tragic discord in the world. And as we know from our own groups, often the work happens in the space between sessions. In the small and median groups, in the myriad of conversations over meals, meaningful connections were made, individual human stories were told that meant so much more (to me at least) than political statements.

I want to thank my small group particularly. It was a very containing space in which I could let loose the intense emotions I was experiencing. Everyone participated with a depth and honesty that was very moving.

Before this becomes a panegyric, here are my grumbles. As with our own groups, difference is so hard to face and yet is everywhere. Gender and sexuality was one of the sub-themes for the last day yet seemed barely to feature in the formal agenda. In every other way, the gender divide felt huge to me, and was certainly much reflected in my small group. Issues of sexuality and sexual orientation felt invisible, formally and informally. When are we as a Society going to tackle this?

Another big difference was seniority. It was very evident who the big names were, and how well they knew each other and sometimes disliked each other. They addressed each other by name in the Large Group, distinguishing each other from the ranks of anonymity.

‘So what’, I hear you say. Isn’t hierarchy inevitable in any organization? Well, yes, but let’s be on our guard lest it becomes an agent of exclusion. A new member said she felt a little lost, not loved, because the senior members did not reach out and make the newer ones feel included. One of the best aspects of Foulkes’ teaching was his questioning about what kind of leader a group analyst should be.

I went to Lisbon uncertain whether I was an enthusiastic group analyst or not. I came away thrilled to be one. Here was a way of looking at the complexities of human connections that mattered passionately to a large number of people of different nations and cultures, more united by their passion than divided by it. There was such courage on display all week: from individuals facing their anxieties about giving a workshop to the impetus required to connect with the unknown but similar person next to you at dinner.

Thank you to the organizers for completing their very difficult task so successfully, thank you to everyone I met individually for your companionship and thank you to the Large Group for putting me in touch with painful but real struggles.

Sarah Tyerman