Grup d´Analisi Barcelona

2008 IAGP-SEPTG: Building Bridges

   Titulo

III Regional Mediterranean Conference organized jointly by the International Association of Group Psychotherapy (IAGP) and the Sociedad Española de Psicoterapia y Técnicas de Grupo (SEPTG)

By Mercè Martínez, 2012

Mar MediterraneoWHere we report on the process of preparation of the Plenary Conference titled “Constructing bridges between groups”. The guest speakers are Malcolm Pines (England/Inglaterra) and Juan Campos (España/Spain. The president of the table is Hanne Campos and the coordinator is Mercè Martínez.  This act, celebrated on February 28, 2008, is videotaped by Mónica Tanny —an Israeli groupanalyst colleague who met with Juan Campos through Internet. The video is edited to make the conference available in vivo for anyone interested.

All starts in a meeting of the Organizing Committee of the SEPTG (13-1-2007) where inter alias the subject of the invited speakers of the plenary conferences was discussed. The aim was to avoid ad hoc conferences and the idea was to promote shared spaces between two speakers who dialogue with one another and who open a space of dialogue for the attending public.

To count with the joint presence of Juan Campos and Malcolm Pines is a luxury, as Hanne said in the presentation.

Malcolm Pines and Juan Campos are two pioneers who are living testimonies of the development of group work of the last half century. What links them is the groupanalytic matrix in which they have been trained and their interest in history. Juan is known as the Xenofont, the historian of groupanalysis and also of psychoanalysis. His particular preoccupation has been the democratic and harmonic functioning of our professional associations. Malcolm is known as the Standard Bearer of Group Analysis. Malcolm is a great articulator of different points of view in Group Analysis and psychoanalysis, while Juan articulates languages and cultures, meetings face to face, by correspondence, virtual and digital. The contributions of both permit us to achieve a perspective of the historical development of our professional work.

But let us talk about the process: What do two groupanalysts do when invited to share a conference? Or, what did these two groupanalysts do concretely?

The answer is, to start a dialogue, and if possible with a group, where to freely associate ideas and proposals and, later, decide together what can be transmitted in the space of a Congress.

Therefore, largely what ensued is the result of a group process which was initiated on April 7, 2007, in a virtual group space (a Yahoo group) which gave continuity to two face to face meetings in Barcelona.

The first one took place on June 1st and 2nd, 2007, with the participation of Malcolm, Juan, Hanne, Pere and myself, except Malcolm all members of Grup d’Anàlisi Barcelona. From this first encounter emerge to a large extent the resonances which mark the questions to be discussed afterwards. These resonances can be read in the presentation Resonances which include the posterior commentaries and the photos of the encounter. This document reflects clearly the process of resonating “one with another” in group and the paths followed by the free floating discussion in a group of peers.

P1010881R-300x228There was a second encounter, celebrated on August 21, 2007, when the group was joined by E. James Anthony and his wife Ginger. Only to say that it was a memorable encounter between three people who were, although in different ways, disciples, colleagues and friends of S. H. Foulkes in the years after the Second World War and which gave birth to a new version of groupanalysis: E. James Anthony, coming from the United States, Malcolm Pines, once again coming from England, and Juan Campos.

Without doubt, this experience was fascinating and during one and a half days we had the pleasure of catching a glimpse through the dialogue between them of the heroic times of group psychotherapies, and how the relationships teacher-students developed which, in some cases, crystallized in lasting friendship. Also, in the interchanges emerged the contribution of two other pioneers in group work: Trigant Burrow and Wilfred Bion.

From the resonances to the first encounter emerged a scheme that seemed useful to all of us for organizing the dialogue between Malcolm and Joan, making it the instrument for retracing the professional history of each one. The guide was an interview which gathered parts of this same scheme. Both answered the questions and brought up numerous graphic documents that served to illustrate their dialogue on the day of the presentation. (See Building bridges between groups)

Also, we elaborated a CD which included diverse materials of both authors which could be acquired at a moderate price at the bookstall of the congress. In relation to the content of this CD we would like to point out that it includes papers of Juan and Malcolm on Trigant Burrow and W. R. Bion. In relation to historical aspect, the CD also incorporates a two-column synoptic table with the most significant aspects of the personal and professional pathways of Juan and Malcolm. Another interesting aspect of the CD are the interviews made to Malcolm Pines by Dorothy Flapan, Ph.D. in 1986 and to Juan Campos by Dr. Iñaki Márquez, director of the journal Norte de Salud Mental in 2007. Since the subject of training and the transmission of groupanalysis has been a constant preoccupation throughout the professional career of Juan and of Malcolm it seemed appropriate to incorporate in the CD diverse papers of both where they deal with such important aspects from multiple perspectives and, particularly, beyond the strictly therapeutic ones.

The conference met the objectives of making known the positioning of the speakers and explaining the development of group analysis these last fifty years. There was a rich debate at the end… We came away with the feeling that the group had realized its task of accompanying in the process and that between all we created an enriching space of dialogue for the speakers and the attendees.

All the content of the CD is in Castilian and in English. The index in English is:

1. Building bridges between groups. Synoptic, Chronological Table for the conjoint inaugural conference of Juan Campos and Malcolm Pines, by Hanne Campos.

This table reflects the personal and professional milestones of Malcolm Pines and Juan Campos as well as the relevant historical facts for the evolution of Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis.

2. Presentation of the Conference by Hanne Campos

3. Interview and contents of the Conference by Mercè Martínez

The interview is the result of the resonances which emerged in the group and which afterwards were elaborated through the Yahoo group. This is a different way of preparing and presenting an inaugural conference with two pioneers of group analysis.

4. Photographic albums by Mercè Martínez

  • 4.1   Resonances. Photographic album 1: Joan Campos & Malcolm Pines. Building Group Analytic Bridges  (1925-1975)
  • 4.2. Resonances. Photographic album 2: Joan Campos & Malcolm Pines, “the network knitter” & “ the standard-bearer”

5.       Bibliography and selected articles of Joan Campos

 JuanA recent interview which shows the points of view of Juan Campos on different subjects, his professional pathways and ideas about future perspectives of group analysis.

 This paper analyzes why there is such difficulty in situating the work of S. H. Foulkes in relation to other group authors. The fact that E. J. Anthony, co-author of the famous Penguin introductory book, put much emphasis on the topological approach of K.Lewin, is unnecessary and has led to important misunderstandings. In the Argentinean literature, to put Foulkes together with Ezriel, Bion and the Kleinian School is more of the same. The author treats these “lapsus” and other questions like “over-determined symptoms” which —in Bion’s terms— aim at problems of sovereignty and power of the psychoanalytic institution of the system over the group of group analysts, related to extra-economic —ideological— aspects of the capitalist structure in which we are moving. It is considered that a historic and psychological study on these lines should be of great use to our professional community.

 This chapter of a collective book on “Dynamic Group Psychotherapy” is about the development of the group psychotherapies from their origin in psychoanalysis, the influence this origin has had in that development, and the resistances of the psychoanalytic institution and most of its members to the latter. It is also about how, in this complex context, three of the pioneers —Burrow, Bion and Foulkes— managed to create in spite of all a theoretical and practical frame of reference for group work. The author also contemplates the ideological, social and socio-professional changes necessary for being able to give the step which goes from the individual to the group treatment. Finally, he underlines Foulkes’ Group Analysis which, without renouncing any of the psychoanalytic principles in relation to individual psychogenesis and psychopathology, distinguishes a series of factors which dynamically are specific to the group situation.

 The author examines four aspects of Foulkes as a teacher: 1. the integration of his psychiatric and psychoanalytic training; 2. his experience as a teacher; 3. the training institutions he inspired and promoted; and 4. the experience of the ones who were his disciples.

Comparing and relating the conditions of training in psychoanalysis and group analysis, the arguments are generated on which to base Foulkes’ conviction that group analysis is the best method for making effective the revolutionary discoveries of psychoanalysis on a wider front in psychotherapy and in training.

 This paper contributes various new concepts within the context of the group. It divides in three parts: First it exposes the concept of Professional Plexus as it has been elaborated from the more general concept of Plexus of S. H. Foulkes. Then it refers to some of the group experiences and papers of the author from which it has emerged and was elaborated. Finally, the concept is applied in an analysis of the “group function” in the development of the psychoanalytic institution. In what concerns the professional practice, a useful differentiation is developed between group of identification, group of pertaining —of pertenence— and group of reference.

 This paper is about a historical moment and the re-introduction of the work of Trigant Burrow during the XI Congress of the IAGP in Montreal in 1992. In the presence of Alfreda Galt, then president of the Lifwynn Foundation —analytic community founded by Burrow— the adhesion of the most ancient of group association to the CAOA of the IAGP was celebrated. In a meeting of the Study Group in Group Analysis a Symposium was held on “Beyond Dichotomy: The orientation of Trigant Burrow”, which on one hand presented the origins of his work relating it to Freud and Foulkes and, on the other hand, explored up to which point the work of Trigant Burrow is still relevant to the solution of the problems that as group analysts we are facing today.

6.       Bibliography and selected articles of Malcolm Pines

WP1010240 Interview during the 1981 Annual Conference of the American Association of Group Psychotherapy held in Houston. The interviewer leads us along the professional and personal pathways of Malcolm Pines, in his experience as a student, professor and therapist.

 The International Congress of Medical Psychotherapy in 1979 gives the group psychotherapies a place on equal footing with other forms of psychotherapy. This paper follows first the evolution of the group psychotherapies as a frame of reference in therapy to than go on to the subject of training in this ambit. There are many forms of group psychotherapy which emerge from different models of the human being and different philosophies. ¿Should group psychotherapists be trained in all these techniques? The author does not think so. He thinks that there is a place for many different forms of training and practice, and that experience and investigation will help us find an adequate fit between treatment and the needs of the patients as well as training and the personality and capacity of the future professional. The paper centers particularly on analytic group psychotherapies, their process of separation/individuation from the “paternal matrix” of psychoanalysis and their specific characteristics as a frame of reference in the training of professionals.

  •  6.4   Pines, M. (1998). Neurological Models and Psychoanalysis. In G.Guttmann & I. Scholz-Strasser (Ed.). Freud and the neurosciences: from brain research to the unconscious (47-55). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenscaft.

 In this chapter of a collective volume on “Freud and the neurosciences: from brain research to the unconscious” the author draws out some of the underlying features of the neurological model used by Freud, notably in his Project for a Scientific Psychology (I895) with the very different neurological models used by Kurt Goldstein and Paul Schilder. After having sketched out the distinctions between the models of Freud, Goldstein and Schilder, he also relates to developments in the understanding of language and communication which seem to follow the same developmental path: in particular I shall briefly refer to Saussure, Vigotsky and Bakhtin. The chapter is well documented, and includes schemes that relate Freud’s model with the one of Goldstein and Schilder, and of Schilder’s basic concepts, including the ones on the body image.

  •  6.5   Pines, M. (1998). On History and Psychoanalysis. In Circular Reflections. Selected Papers on Group Analysis and Psychoanalysis (167-182). London: Jessica Kingsley.

 This paper presents Freud’s own personal history in the context of his family and their cultural and historical era in view of sketching out some enduring personal pattern in Freud’s relationship to the socio-political environment of late 19th century medicine and science and how these very subjects themselves were influenced by historical processes. This in turn is to finally argue that Freud, because of the novelty of his discoveries, could not take these historic-political contexts into account and in his interpretations collapses the entire range of allusions to social and political circumstances into his, although revolutionary, conceptual frame of reference focussed on the individual. Now, more than a century afterwards, we need to look anew at Freud’s theories and concepts, redress the balance, become aware of the hidden dimensions within our social unconscious, those taboos which limit our ability to see further into our social context. Our ideas of the maturational process of the human beings, of child rearing and family dynamics are in need of urgent revision. There is an urgency of reappraisal of ourselves and society.

 At first sight, there could not possibly be two people more different than Bion and Foulkes. However, in this profound, original and long thought out paper the author creates a “dialogue between imagined points of view” where the respective cultural histories are articulated in a highly significant manner. Although it left slightly different imprints on either, for Bion and Foulkes a line of descendants is established from the neurological thinking of the epoch —Huglings Jackson-Trotter-Goldstein— and from the social and socio-historical thinking —Trotter-Rickman-Elias. Influenced by the same socio-cultural context of the first half of last century, a contrast is established between two different personal styles: Bion’s early work makes a tremendous start, while Foulkes processes slowly and steadily. This style and the difference in the written production are based on a philosophical attitude also different: Bion is a confessed Kantian, in search of a model of the mind as a base of his searches for «the thing in itself», an unseen, non-sensory reality, ultimately ineffable. Foulkes can be considered more a Hegelian: Individual, groups, society, all are intertwined; society is both inside and outside us. Foulkes is not drawn to the «formless infinite», the ultimate truth which Bion strove to reach.  His interest is in trying to find out why and how individuals and groups go about trying not to understand. In the last instance, the author constructs this piece of extraordinary writing on the idea that theory is a metaphoric projection of oneself; this is to say that there is a repertory of states of mind which are mobilized in interactions with other people.

 In this article, I shall consider the issue whether when and how a clinical practice of psychotherapy can become an academic discipline: this represents the move from a training designed to prepare competent practitioners for the rigorous of clinical practice to the in-depth study of a subject in an academic setting.

7.       Presentation of the Complete Works of S. H. Foulkes in Castilian Language by Pere Mir.