Download Rudolf_Balmer_Psychoanalysis_in_Group_Analytic_Training

EGATIN Study Days 22-24 April 2016 in Zurich
Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis – Common Ground and
Differences
Rudolf Balmer, SGAZ
“The meaning is common to both – or it does not exist” (Jean-Luc
Nancy, French philosopher)
Dear Colleagues,
Jean-Luc Nancy
When I was thinking about this paper, there were two questions in my mind: why this theme
and what was my personal interest in it? The answers to both questions opened up a
quiteextended field of thought.
Why this theme?
We all are experiencing many changes in the world of psychology, PA and GA. This is very
interesting and shows the dynamic nature of our field, but it mightalso be frustrating. We
have to question some of our essential principles and also assess the value of new concepts,
such as the "change of paradigm"
in PAinbyTraining
the intersubjective
Relevance
of GA model or the concept of
"mentalisation" in GA. In this period of change, like everybody in this room, I am trying to
find a pathway through the wood of theories and techniques. Since I am a member of the
Training Committee of the SGAZ, it is also my duty to find this pathway together with my
colleagues. But do we really understand all these new concepts? How can wefind a way of
including them in the curricula of our training courses?
Despite the fact that we all have more or less well defined curricula,there is still space
available. What important PA concepts should be discussed in the training? What could the
theories and concepts for the future be? The end of this questioning was that we have to
deal with variety - a variety of persons, groups,ways of thinking and concepts. And this is the
business of our GA.
What is my personal interest in this subject?
During my professional life I have always been concerned with the question of the
relationship between the social situation of the individual and the influence of individuals on
society. This interest in interrelatedness, or dialectic dynamics, between the individual
psyche and social reality brought me into social psychiatry andGA at the beginning of my
professional life. In the present period I am confronted with two opposite developments. In
psychiatry the perspective of the "social element” is declining, but in the world of PA and GA
we are aware of more elaborate attempts to integrate individuality and the social element. It
seems to be a good moment for this project. As Sabine Taxis mentioned in her
introduction,we in Switzerlandhave to go througha new process foraccreditation of
1
psychotherapy training institutes. This process will lead to a more strongly linked network of
analytic institutes that allows stronger collaboration between PA and GA in our country.
Fundamental elements of Group Analysis
Group Analysis is based on Psychoanalysis and on two other scientific dimensions: sociology
andneuroscience. All three componentshave developed enormously in the past few decades.
(Slide 1) Fundamental elements of Group Analysis
Concerning the contribution of neuroscience, Foulkes was influenced by Kurt Goldstein. He
conceived the brain as an interacting neuronal network which develops through learning and
human interactions. This network must be seen as holistic and flexible; parts of the system
are able to take over functions of other parts. In the past few decades we could observe
many developments in neuroscience that supported concepts in GA. The best known is
certainly the detection of “mirror neurones” by Giacomo Rizzolatti which supported the
concept of “resonance”. Some of the developments have led to a differentiation of our
knowledge of psychic functions. We have learned more about child development (primary
cognitive functions, “mentalisation”), about memory functions (“implicit process memory”
and “explicit episodic memory”) and about some neurophysiological changes in clinical
states (such as: dependency disturbances or traumatic reactions). All these findings highlight
the biological basis of human beings. We have to studythis carefully but alsokeep in mind
that this “biological reality” (even the genetic foundations) is created and transformed by
social processes.
The biological basis of human existence – even if one accepts the social nature of human
beings – is important for our discussion today. Freud based his understanding of human
development on sexual drives. The biological and sexual roots were important for him in
understanding activities towards the “other”or others - which he called “the object”. Since
Freud PA concepts have changed towards theories of interrelatedness. We have to ask how
we are to weight biological factors or the interaction of biology with psychosocial dynamics.
In the end, which concepts should we teach - implicitly and explicitly – in our teaching
programmes in GA.
The basis of sociology in Group Analysis was created by Norbert Elias (mainly withthe
figuration theory) and by different approaches of the “Frankfurt School” where Adorno and
his colleagues were involved in research projects into the authoritarian personality in prewar German society. After World War Two – and the beginning of GA in Great Britain by
Foulkes and Bion – we can recognise different approaches designed to integrate
psychoanalytic thinking and sociology (Wilhelm Reich, Helmut Dahmer, Paul Parin, Mario
Erdheim, Rolf Haubl, Farad Dahlal and many others). The importance of these approaches
was to define mechanisms of interaction between the inner psychic world and the social
reality of the individual and of groups.
2
(slide 2) Book cover of Schülein’s Social Psychology)
The Austrian Sociologist Johann August Schülein in a paper entitled “The fate of analytic
social psychology” (Zum Schicksal der analytischen Sozialpsychologie) reflected on the
development of the relationship of both sciences – PA and sociology. His interpretation was
(at least at this time) that analytic sociology could not be established either in the
mainstream of psychoanalysis or in sociology. I mention this because it has also some
relevance for our theme today. For him the misconnection was due to the following:
-
Both sciences work in two different languages. PA focuses on the meaning of social
reality for the subject. Sociology searches for the impact of social reality onthe
human beingas a whole. There is an inherent conflict. From a sociologist’s point of
view, PA tends to psychologize social reality, whereas PA objects that the
sociologist’s point of viewreinforces defence mechanisms by rationalization.
-
Both sciences study “autopoetic” processes. These processes are affected by
overlapping or interaction between thesubject and the object. The findings of these
sciences never can be seen as “the” truth; they will always be “asymptotic”. In both
sciences a variety of conceptualizations of the topicwill emerge. This heterogeneity
makesboth sciences difficult to relate.
-
These differences have consequences for the institutionalisation of the sciences and
scientists. PA tends more towards the clinical fieldanddefines this field as relevant
for their discourse and for professional positions. Psychoanalytic sociology is inclined
more towards the academic world of social sciences and has to challenge approaches
which are not favourable to PA thinking.
The relationship between Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis
Schülein’s reflections lead us to some thoughts about the relationship of GA and PA.
In a recent article Brigitte Mittelsten Scheidhas described the relationship as “complicated“.
Group Analysis has never been recognized as an equalapproach within the PA movement.
She stresses that this was not only the result of different concepts and ideas but the result of
the institutionalization of PA and of GA. Since Freud PA has been accompanied by various
exclusions of members and concepts differing from the leading mainstream. The crucial
argument has most often been the judgment on whether an idea can be regarded as
“analytic or not”, according to present-day thinking. I think that you know about all the
incidences of exclusions which also affected Foulkes and Burrows, both pioneers in GA. An
important factor in this history of expulsions was the fear of delusion of the PA movement.
The fear and intention was to keep the conceptions of PA within a clearly defined
framework. This was regarded as a precondition for the survival of PA on an institutional
level. Today we know that PA will only survive – on an institutional level - when the
3
psychoanalytic movement becomes able to integrate various tendencies on a conceptual
level.
(slide 3) Dialectic of individuality and the social element)
Regardingthe level of concepts, the main controversy between PA and GA can be
formulated with the following dialectic or paradoxical poles:
- individualperson versus social element,
- fantasy versus reality,
- intrapsychic versus interpsychic processes.
The paradox can also be formulated in other words:
As individuals we need others - for recognition (in the broadest sense, of being seen, being
mirrored, having interactions, being cared for), for being loved and for being part of a “We”.
But, at the same time as individuals, we want to be unique and autonomous.
These polarities are liable to cause splitting processes,but they are in fact interrelated in a
whole psychosocial world.
In Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis we observe quite different foundation matrices.
Both PA and GA are aware of the biological and sociological factors of human existence,
but in a quite different way. In the history of PA biological forces occur in theories of
development which are based on drives and later on motivational systems searching for
object relations; the socialelement can be seen as part of the relationship between children
and their parents.
In GA we stress the aspects of the “network” or “matrix” as the basic common structure of
both thebiological and social foundation for groups and individuals. The social element is
inherent at any level of human existence. Group analysis reflects the interdependence of
social and psychological dynamics.
When we discuss common and different concepts, we have to keep in mind that PA and
GAgain their knowledge in different settings: PA in the one-to-one setting, GA in a setting of
several persons. From this perspective one can understand that transference of conceptions
from one setting to the other is not obvious and may be doubtful.
Here are some examples. There has been a long debate about the localisation of the
unconscious in the group. Is it in the individual, is it in the group, or it in both? I can still hear
the voice of one of my teachers who has written many intelligent books about group
analysis: "The unconscious has to be attached to a body and an individual psyche.
Unconscious knowledge cannot be stored in a virtual space of several persons". What was in
this case a spontaneous reaction can be reflected - e.g. from an ego-psychology perspective
as Cohen and Ettin did it (2002). Writing about the “transpersonal group self” they
understand it as the experience and perceptions of the individual with other members of the
group. Or – another example: Weinberg is defining the social unconscious as “conconstruction” resulting of intersubjective experiences in the group (Cit. by Scholz 2014)
4
For PA as a whole - and when we remember the beginning of our GA training - it is hard to
understand how concepts like projection, transference or projective identification can be
seen and analysed in situations with several persons and a great number of interactions
which cannot be differentiated at any moment. The question remains, “Is it really possible to
differentiate between all these possibilities of transference processes”?
Scientific approaches to specific phenomena are bound to the field of exploration.
Theycannot be seen as being independent of the investigator’s perspective, thinking, role
and personal interactions. The investigator is always part of the process and the outcome.
A vignette
The leader of a therapeutic group got into a not openly declared aggressive clinch
with a female member. She did not accept the group therapist’s interpretations and
did not want to realise and discuss her negative feelings and transference with him.
Despite this clinch the patient progressed well, became an active member of the
group, overcame her depression and managed to begin a good relationship with
him. When she announced her intention to leave the group, the leader doubted
whether he had done his job properly, since he could not explain the negative
transference. Theoutcome of the reflection inthe supervision group was that the
group therapist had stuck too closely to ideals of working through transference
conflicts in two-person settings and had notrealised sufficiently the different
creative side of the development of the particular member. He failed to realise he
had givenhis patienta constructive container and was restricted by his two-person
way of thinking.
In the scientific exchange - and the exchange between PA and GA –differentviewpoints
must berespected. In his latest book ("From the Couch to the Circle"),John Schlapobersky
tries to get closer to this exchange of mechanisms gained in different settings. For him one
of the main dynamic mechanisms in groups is resonance. He explores how this concept was
developed by Foulkes in groups and by psychoanalysts in their individual work with patients
(e.g. Balint). Resonance can be seen as a concept common to PA and in GA but has a quite
different place in their theories. As with other findings, an open dialogue is called for.
In the following slides I will try to give a summary of thedifferent concepts in PA and GA. I
will also try to show how the concepts are linked. To show the GA concept I will use the
EGATIN list of essential training standards.
(slides 4 and 5 Concepts in Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis I and II)
5
Concepts in Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis I
PA
Relation
Development of man,
e.g. object relation theory, selfpsychology, relational
psychoanalysis, intersubjectivity
(triangulation)
Dyadic analytic relationship
(matrix: concept in intersubjectivity)
GA based
on the PA
concepts
Unconscious, personal
Basic PA
>>>>>>
-------------
Psyche: personal psychodynamic
entity
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<
GA
Man’s social nature (E)
Relational matrix (E)
Group as a whole
Transpersonal process
Unconscious, personal and collective
Open systems: persons, groups,
organisations (E)
Concepts in Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis II
(Essential Training Standards EGATIN)
PA
Triangulation
Communication
Verbalisation
Symbolisation
Mirroring
Symptom shift
Resonance
Transference
Countertransference
Projective identification
Identification
Defence mechanisms
Actingout
Containing / content
Relation
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
----
>>>>>>
<<<<<<
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
<
>>>>>>
<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<
GA
Network
Communication
Translation
Mirroring
Location
Condensation
Polarisation
Resonance
Transference
Countertransference
Group transference
Projective identification
Identification
Defence mechanisms
Specific, basic assumptions
Enactment
Containing/content
6
When we look at these tables we see that
- GA is really and fundamentally interwoven with PA. For instance, we all know that
elaboration of the unconsciousremains a fundamental concept of both PA and GA.
- But we can also see that GA has developed views of some concepts that are adapted to the
group situation.
- But that some concepts of GA - or more precisely - the discussion of these specific GA
concepts did not enter into the discourse of PA.
- Most of the concepts do more or less undergo a process of redefinition in the light of
“intersubjectivity”. For instance, the concept of the unconsciousis seen as a “coconstruction” within the setting, either in a two-person or in a group setting (Stehr 2012)
As other example, the concept of enactment (Ermann 2016)
The traditional concept of acting out was redefined in the context of
intersubjective approaches as enactment. When a resistance was previously
recognized in the analysis of classical neuroses that had to be resolved for a
promising analysis, in enactment the creative preverbal expressions of covert
procedural experiences can now be recognized, which become revealed in regressive
states and in structural disorders. They create scenes of preverbal communication in
which the analyst becomes involved in the inner world of experiences. This has a
strong reparative potential. It can be utilized for new experiences and development
if the analyst becomes entangled in such scenes as a co-actor, accepts the relationship
offer of the patient and contributes to solutions for the entanglement; however, this
requires something more comprehensive than the traditional defensive concept of
transference. It emphasizes in particular the activity of the analyst and its impact on
the formation of the analytical process and recognizes the involvement of the analyst
as a constitutive factor in the process of his own transference. Thus, a new
definition of abstinence in terms of a selective abstinence is achieved, which is
nowadays characteristic of the developmental approach in psychoanalytic treatment.
Which concepts could be regarded as useful inconnecting PA and GA?
Freud - in "Mass Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego" – already had the idea of
interrelatedness. He wrote in the introduction: "...and individual psychology is therefore
socialpsychologyfrom thebeginning in this broad and fully justified sense".
Freud’s main concern in this text was the influence of the masses and generally of others (as
the object) on the individual psyche. He had a rather negative view of the social element (he
thought that forces of the mass facilitate regression or the petrification of defence
mechanisms by collective superego structures. Freud concentrated on individual and
intrapsychic dynamics but did not work on social dynamics.
7
Freud’s view of the relatedness of human beings is formulated in his drive theory. The Drive
Theory is still an important cornerstone in PA theories, because - since Freud - there have
been many developments which extended and deepened his theory. Some of them are
different but more or less related to the drive theory. I mention here a late colleague from
Zurich, Heinz Müller-Pozzi, who worked intensively to integrate the drive theory and
concepts of interrelatedness of the subject and the other.
Freud’s conception included not only the one-to-one relationship but also triangulation.
Triangulation opens the psyche to the different others, to symbolisation, to thinking and to
superego structures. Triangulation can be seen as the cornerstone of Group Analysis as well.
About the concept of triangulation
I would here like to digress on the concept of triangulation.
On a journey near Basel my partner and I were almost alone in the carriage of a train. A third
person was present, obviously a mentally handicapped woman. At one moment my partner
recited a nursery rhymethat was included in one of the first lessons of our French textbook:
“Moi, toi et le Roi, nous sommes trois, Moi, toi et le Roi “
”Me, you and the King, we are three, we are three“
The third person in the railway carriage started to laugh and was thoroughly delighted to be
included in some way in our conversation. She was certainly touched by something
fundamental in the psyche.
I would like to remind you of the widespread existence of the concept of triangulation in
various religions, philosophical or linguistic systems.
Trinity inthe Christian religion
(slide “Trinitad”)
The Trinity in the Christian religion was decided at the Council of Constantinople in the
fourth century. There was a controversy about two positions (God the Father as the only
God – or God in the figuration of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The figure on this slide is
an illustration of popular devoutness in South America. It is a figuration of both positions at
the Council of Constantinople but was in fact banned at the Council. Perhaps figurations of
this kind are more likely to be understood than an abstract construction of the Trinity.
Triangulation in Chinese thinking
In classical Chinese writing and representation of traditional thinking there are three
elements: I and You and the relation between us both. This means not only the spoken
relationship but it also includes the interplay and what is happeningin between. It is
interesting that the meaning of this sign with tree lines is: three, king, me – and
containseverything expressed in the rhyme just quoted.
8
Slide: Chinese Sign: three, king, me
Slide: Senegal
And here I show you another example for triangulation. I have taken this you out of a grandmother project in Senegal. The Project will revaluate the position of grandmothers in
the society by animating the grandmother to tell and explain old saws to their grandchildren.
In French: Les porteurs d`un toit de chaume doivent s`entendre. This means in English: The
porters of a roof of a cottage have to talk and to understand each other. To put a roof on a
cottage is a common work. I took this example not only because of the meaning of
commonality but also because of the picture: the roof symbolised by a triangle.
“Moi, toi et le Roy, nous sommes trois, nous sommes trois” – What could be the meaning
of “the Roy – the King”?
Obviously this rhyme refers to triangulation processes in a very unconscious way, to
triangulation processes which may occur in various situations. I asked myself about the
meaning of this association – in the context of this presentation!
First I thought of the logo we designed for these Study Days.
(slide logo of the Study Days)
Two interfering structures form a third structure, but this third structure shows various
shapes when seen from different perspectives. The third one does not come from outside
but is inherent in the given structures – and the third differs from the viewer’s perspective
(the third as the viewpoint of the duality). We have created this symbol to show that the
combination of PA and GA could form a new third configuration that is more than only the
two added together. It is a new quality.
It is interesting how Foulkes introduced the “third” in GA – to my view - formulating “the
basic law of GA”: According to this ‘law’ he suggested that collectively the members of a
group constitute the very Norm from which, individually, they deviate (Foulkes, 1983: 29).
Dieter Nitzgen (….) thinking about this concept is saying: “ This implies that with regard to
values and norms Foulkes considered the group a “working whole’ (Foulkes, 1944: 36). This
view is consistent with the ‘holistic’ or ‘systemic’ view of society, which Foulkes had adopted
from his teacher Kurt Goldstein. Therefore, the reason why the members of a (sub-) group
together constitute the very social norms and values from which they individually deviate is
because they have internalized in their superego and ego-ideals the culturally accepted
norms and values of a given community.” Bearing in mind the deep reaction of the
handicapped women and the ubiquitous triangular structure - it seems that even deeper and
9
not only culturally formed norms are part of this “very Norm”. Beside this, it is to note, that
Foulkes had in mind a phantasmal construction of this “very Norm and the derivation of it”.
This thinking has similarities to the concept of “co-construction of the unconscious” in an
inter-subjective sense.
When thinking about the “common ground and differences between PA and GA”we could
ask what could the “king”, the “third” in both concepts be?
Our search for linking concepts has led us to developments of PA in the last few decades.
Most of these developments focus on the inter-relatedness of the subject with the other– or
the inter-related process of the psychoanalyst with his patient.
You are familiar with these further developments of PA that I have listed in the following
slide
(slide developments in Psychoanalysis)
Developments of Freudian Psychoanalysis
- Ego-psychoanalysis
- Self-psychoanalysis
- Different trends in Great Britain: Melanie Klein, Anna Freud, Wilfred Bion
- Object-relation theory
- Attachment theory
- Lacanian theory
- Inter-subjectivity
and many other related concepts, such as Jungian psychoanalysis
The latest development -”intersubjectivity” - comes very close to many concepts of GA.
Core ideas of “intersubjectivity” (slide)
 Relatedness as thebasis of human development and existence
 The analytic process and human growth depend on interaction: the psyche
develops between human beings.
 The personal self develops through intersubjective processes
 The reality of the other (analyst and patient) influences the process
 The intersubjective field – the intersubjective matrix
 The intersubjective unconscious
 Including findings of neuroscience and mother-child investigation
(mentalisation, concepts of memory)
 The intersubjective field as a playground
10
Let me refer to some open questions when we enter into, the discussion of GA and the
“Intersubjectivity perspectives”.
In a number of articles on this subject we are confronted with the task of redefining a great
number of concepts. As an example, how could we now understand the terms “resistance”
or “countertransference”?
In 2012 Brigitte Mittelsten Scheid wrote an article entitled “What willbecome of
resistanceinthe perspective of intersubjectivity?” It is concerned with the understanding of
“resistance” in GA. She argues that in GA the concept of “resistance” is obsolete and thatthe
central issue is how the Group Analyst modelsrelationships. Can we accept this idea when
we think of all the traumatic and pre-oedipal injuries in the subject’s self-development due
to insufficient object relations or to paranoid groups or societies?
In GA we are aware of the different ideas about “countertransference”.It varies from “all
subjective feelings of the GA in the analytic situation are countertransference” to the
opinion that “no countertransference but only transference of the Group Analyst to the
group or some group members exists”. The intersubjective approach understands all
interactions as both kinds of transference and as an ongoing interrelated process. Perhaps
we don`t have much difficulty with this shift of conception, but thiscould be also a challenge
in training in GA, since many of our trainees come from psychoanalytical training with quite
different approaches.
In a critical review of (12) different perspectives of intersubjective concepts Bohleber (2013)
states:
”It will already have become clear that no consensus exists on what is understood by
‘intersubjective’ in intersubjective consideration of mental phenomena.It is not easy to find
one’s way about the variety of intersubjective theories, beyond tagging them as generically
‘intersubjective’”.
Bohlebernames different critical aspects of intersubjective theories.
(slide critical aspects of intersubjectivity concepts)
11
 The theory is not consistent. Aspects of “intersubjectivity” occur in various shapes
and non-compatibleconcepts.
 Most of the concepts refer to philosophy (Hegel, Husserl, Gadamer, Heidegger etc.)
but the transference to psychological systems is not explained.
 Localisation on the horizontal plane of a here-and-now relationship: aspects of time
are not explained.
 Developmental processes (of early childhood) cannot be extended to processes in
adulthood.
 Disappearance of triangulating reality
 Unassailable reminder of negativity and destructivity
 The concept of the autonomy of the subject is not explained, even as the result of
the intersubjective process.
The last point of the subject’s “autonomy” brings us to the aspect of “alterity”. How do we
think about “alterity” in all the concepts involved? What do I mean by “alterity”? “Alterity”
can be defined as:
- The quality or state of being radically alien to the conscious self or a particular cultural
orientation. Or in other terms:
- The state of being different, especially with respect to the perception of one's identity
within a culture. (1)
In the field of PA and GA we can observe “alterity” on a social level (the individual being part
of a specific social group, class or race and being a distinct member of other groups) and on
a psychological level as being an individual distinct of others but also as being distinct from
our psychosocial identifications. For example, in the last century we learned about this from
Erik H. Erikson’s book ”Identity and the Life Cycle”, or as another example from Jacques
Lacan. He referred to a concept of “radical alterity” of the big A that is beyond identification
and has a symbolic meaning.(2) He also refers to the French poet Rimbaud who stated: “Je
est un autre.” This statement has led to a great debate about the understanding of the
concept of the “subject”, a debate which is still open.
Why do I refer to this point? In bothPA and GA we have something like the “untouchable
self” (Winnicott) in mind. It is a part of the individuality which is a non-definable rest.
It might be that in GA and in all concepts about the interrelatedness of human beings we are
more aware of this untouchable rest. Or, on a more psychologically expressed level,we are
more in touch withwhat we call the “autonomous self”.
In searching the literature for this paper I found a short article by the Austrian Philosopher
Pfaller about the “splendour and misery of collectivity”(“Glanz und Elend der Kollektivität”).
He didsome interpretations of films by Antonioni in the 1960s. In most of the films (typically
“Deserto Rosso”) Antonioni shows a collective atmosphere of emotional emptiness and
separation of people involved. Contrary to the predominant interpretations (that Antonioni’s
films show the non-connectedness in society), Pfaller believed that Antonioni was
celebrating the independent state of human beings as a requirement of relatedness. And in
12
this article he also stressed that to be a member of civil society we have to maintain a
position of “alterity”.
Variety in PA: How are we able to integrate variety in the teaching of GA?
In PA we are aware of important different approaches and a variety of concepts which
cannot all be brought together into a coherent body of thinking. In the last decade PA also
had to face and cope with this situation. One of the questions in this respect is the extentto
which the representatives of the approaches take responsibility for discussion and discourse
among them.The danger of this is that variety may also lead to an arbitrary accumulation of
concepts, as a fruitless situationof “anything goes” (Bohleber 2013).
For us in GA the question ishow to cope with this variety. What could be the criteria for our
integration in GA training?
Let me approach these questions from a quite different aspect.
I dare to say that Group Analysis can be regarded as the “Utopia” of Psychoanalysis.
I use the term “Utopia” in the meaning of Greek “Ektopia” or being outside the present
location. This means that the GA model – standing outside of the different streams in PA could be a model for integration of differences and otherness. John Schlapobersky expressed
similar thoughts when he pointed to the logical continuity from“resonance” to “monologue”
to “dialogue” and finally to “discourse”,“discourse” as a core concept in GA. Discoursecan
also be seen as a multitude of “triangulation processes”, processes in a defined space but
open to the outside.
For me this means that in GA and between GA and PA we have to integrate discourse about
variety in our concepts (as we do today or we do on other occasions). It might be difficult to
establish this idea in the training Institutions, since it requires teachers with high
competences in synthesising the different approaches.
Anna Ursula Dreher,at the EFPP Congress 2015 in Berlin, also dealt with this question and
emphasised the necessity of discourse. She pointed out that the discussion of clinical
material could bring different viewpoints and concepts closer together.
She also reminded us of Goldschmidt, the translator of Freud into French, who said that
every language has blind spots like my language andpresentation here, held in English and
based on my thinking in German.
What could be some steps towards this utopia that both analytic approaches could come
closer? How can we think about this in GA training?
 To define the relevant concepts of PA for GA we need definitively being connected
with the discourse within PA, which has to respect the variety in PA thinking.
But how to do it? I think it is fundamentally an institutional charge. Important is that
13
we in GA are aware of the developments in PA. (e.g. definition processes such as
Bohleber et al. in the IPA)
 In our training courses we could try to connect PA and GA.
Most of the training courses are working on a “two step model”: First PA
qualification, then GA qualification, and the GA trainings are based on what the
students learned in the individual PA training.
In Zurich we are on the move to work towards a closer relation – and with the new
accreditation (for the title of State approved Psychotherapist) we try to offer a
comprehensive program. The realisation depends on two sets of problems:
-- we have to convince the official body that the outcome of our scheme meets all
requirements of the title, requirements which are based on an individualistic view,
and
- we have to debate within our seminars and also on the level of EGATIN, if a lower
scale of PA training (some kind of a basic course of 3 years) could be regarded as
enough for the comprehensive training.
Preparing this paper I have studied various papers about the goals of training programmes:
which should be the competences obtained?
In PA and in GA we observe (1) a set of general competences and (2) a set of specific
competences assigned to the setting.When we are reflecting about these competences then
PA and GA are common in a broad sense – but both approaches need a specific handling and
training in the respective setting.
(Slides Exhibition Pipi Lotti Rist Kunsthaus Zürich)
Before I finish, Iwould like to take you to the present exhibition of the Swiss concept artist
Pipi Lotti Rist at the Kunsthaus in Zurich. This exhibition has something to do with our theme
today. The artist createsa world of realexisting objects (in an ordinary family home) and
fantasies. To create this fantasy world, she uses music, her own songs and video projections
on objects like her father’sold desk, a young girl’s desk, a double bed, a refuse container and
so on. All these real things will be transformed in another, third, spirited and vivid
dimension. Sometimes the objects are misplaced, like the panties she fixed to this
candlestick. Together with colourful changing projections, she has created a prestigious
place wherevisitors can project their associations and significance.
Last slide:
Languages have blind spots.
Concepts have blind spots.
Variety and heterogeneity express specific historical developments and backgrounds…
…and they can be seen as a valuable contribution to our thinking.
Let us start with the discourse.
14
Literatur Referat EGATIN Tagung 2016 RB
Berger Wolfgang(2014): Gegen eine radikale Psychologisierung des Triebkonzeptes. Psyche - Z
Psychoanal 68, 2014, 735-739
Bohleber, Werner (2013) The concept of intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis: Taking critical stock. Int J
Psychoanalysis (2013) 94: 799-823
Bohleber, W., Fonagy, P., Jiménez, J.P., Scarfone, D., Varvi, S. &Zysman, S. (2013) : Für einen besseren
Umgang mit psychoanalytischen Konzepten, modellhaft illustriert am Konzept „Enactment“. Psyche –
Z Psychoanal 67, 1212-1250.
Bohleber, W., Jiménez, J.P., Scarfone, D., Varvi, S. &Zysman, S. (2016): Unbewusste Phantasien und
ihre Konzeptualisierungen: Versuch einer konzeptuellen Integration. Psyche – Z Psychoanal 70, 2016,
24-59. (vgl. Tabelle S.51)
Cohen, Bertram D. and Ettin Mark F. (2002): Personal Group-Self and Transpersonal Groupobject,
Group Analysis Vol. 35(2) 287-300.
Dreher Anna Ursula (2015): Inside Babel. Vortrag am EFPP Kongress Juni 2015 in Berlin.
Veröffentlicht in den Textunterlagen des Kongresses (www.efpp.com)
Ermann, Michael (2013): Der Andere in der Psychoanalyse. Die intersubjektive Wende. Stuttgart
(Kohlhammer)
Michael Ermann (2016) Forum Psychoanal (2016) 32:53-68
Hayne M.: Psychoanalyse und Gruppentherapie. Textunterlagen auf der Website der Weiterbildung
in Gruppenanalyse Altausee.
Jiménez, J.P. (2006): After pluralism; Towards a new, integrated psychoanalytic paradigm. Int J
Psychoanal 2006; 87: 1487-1507
Köhncke, Dietlind, Mies Thomas (2012): Der Matrixbegriff und die intersubjektive
Wende.Gruppenpsychother. Gruppendynamik 48:2, 26-52
Mittelsten Scheid, Brigitte (2012): Was wird aus dem Widerstand unter der intersubjektiven
Perspektive? gruppenanalyse Vol. 22 (2012) 50-65
Mittelsten Scheid, Brigitte (2015): Psychoanalyse - Gruppenanalyse, Eine Schwierige Beziehung.
gruppenanalyse Vol.25 (2015) 100-117
Müller-Pozzi, Heinz (1995): Psychoanalytisches Denken, Bern;Göttingen;Toronto; Seattle: Huber 1995
(2.korr. Auflage)
Müller-Pozzi, Heinz (2014): Triebe und Triebschicksale oder der Andere und das Subjekt. PSYCHE - Z
Psychoanal 68, 2014, 306-335
Pfaller, Robert (2010): Glanz und Elend der Kollektivität. Werkblatt, 27 (2010), Nr.64, 35-49
15
Scholz Regine (2014): (Foundation-)Matrix Reloaded—Some Remarks on a Useful Concept and
Its PitfallsGroup Analysis; vol. 47, 3: 201-212.
Stehr Harm (2012): Die Intersubjektive Erkundung des Unbewussten in Gruppen am Beispiel von
YrvingD.Yaloms Roman "Die Schopenhauer-Kur".Gruppenpsychother.Gruppendynamik 48:2, 53-77
Strauss, B., Mattke, D. (Hsg) (2012): Gruppenpsychotherapie. Lehrbuch für die Praxis. Heidelberg,
Springer, 513 Seiten
Ungar, Virginia (2015): Der Analytiker und sein Werkzeugkasten: Die Deutung neu erkunden. PSYCHE
– Z Psychanal 69, 2015 413-435.
( Veränderung der Deutung seit Strachey(1934), Etchegoyen(2014): Übertragungsdeutung als die
eigenste und spezifischste unseres Wirkens..S.424 ff.)
Foulkes:
Foulkes, S.H. (1948): Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy London: Karnac, 1983.
Foulkes, S.H. (1964): Therapeutic Group Analysis . London: Karnac, 1984.
Foulkes, S.H. (1975): Group Analytic Psychotherapy. Methods and Principles London: Maresfield
Library.
Foulkes, S.H. (1990): Selected PaperS. London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H. and Anthony, E.J. (1957: Group Psychotherapy. The Psychoanalytical Approach. Second
Edition London 1965; Reprinted London: Karnac, 1984.
16