From the Couch to the Circle

This article proposes a conceptualization of symptoms from an interpersonal perspective and advocates group analysis as an appropriate medium for treatment. Psychoanalytic theory has traditionally conceptualized symptoms using the language of intrapsychic conflicts in the individual’s mind. In this article, drawing on ideas from group analysis and contemporary psychoanalytic theories, I propose an interpersonal conceptualization of symptomatic phenomenology. In addition, I introduce a concept that describes a treatment process based on this perspective: Relations Training in Action1. I will argue that a symptom occurring in one person symbolizes an inadequate interpersonal relations pattern, and that recognition of the pathological relations pattern in therapy enables a process which paddles the creation of healthier communication. Furthermore, I suggest group therapy as a space which offers a rich set of opportunities for the repetition and reparation of relations disorder (Friedman, 2007), and that the transition from the language of intrapsychic symptoms to the language of relationships plays a significant role in broadening the areas of interpersonal communication (Foulkes, 1964). Therapy based on an interpersonal perspective regarding symptoms will facilitate participation in a meaningful and significant relationship with the other, improve the mental health of patients and decrease their need to cling to the symptom.

Section: Development Of the ‘Relations Training In Action’ Conceptmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Development Of the ‘Relations Training In Action’ Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Development Of the ‘Relations Training In Action’ Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From an intrapsychic to an interpersonal symptom: Relations Training in Action

Bitan¹

2020

“…Schlapobersky describes how this conversation led to further conversations about sexuality, in which additional members participated, and how the group as a whole engaged in an atmosphere of pleasure and enjoyment, along with an increased sense of security and trust. After a while, both these members left the group and after some time, the conductor learned that they were both involved in good, balanced romantic relationships with other people (Schlapobersky, 2016: 260). This vignette demonstrates how, when the group keeps the affair symbolic, without acting it out outside the group sessions, it is much easier to contain and process the complicated contents that emerge.…”

Section: Possible Positive Aspects Of Romance In a Therapeutic Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

The problem of romance in an analytic group

Doron¹

2018

The phenomenon of two participants falling in love in a group and continuing this love outside the group is not so rare, despite the 'law' explicitly forbidding personal contacts in between the group sessions. In this article, I wish to argue that a romance in a group should not be seen only as a phenomenon that occurs between two participants, but also as a transpersonal symptom of the group, a matrix event, and a special sort of 'relations disorder'. As such, it binds the whole dynamic matrix and should be deciphered, processed and also understood at the group level. When this kind of romance develops in the group, it may lead to a serious crisis in the group, but it can also become an opportunity for individual participants, as well as for the group as a whole, including the conductor, to develop.

“…And finally: It seems that group analysts have already begun to think and communicate in relational terms. The following are some of our contemporary contributions: Relational moments of meeting, dialogue and witnessing (Schlapobersky, 2016); the question of self-disclosing of the conductor’s negative countertransference (Warhaftig-Aran, 2016), the group as a relational field (Weinberg, 2015; Weegmann 2014), relational perspective on the individual and society (Roseneil, 2013) and holding in relational terms (Yogev, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational Group Analysis. A Response to R. Billow: Relational Group Psychotherapy: An Overview: Part II: Relational Models of Group Process, June 2017

Berman¹

2017

The simultaneous existence and evolvement of the intra-psychic and the interpersonal is the basis of the term 'relational'. Group analysis seems to have the same convictions about the essence of the human mind, the interconnection of minds and the need to refresh our psychotherapeutic concepts. Referring to Billow's article, I suggest that the clearest connection between his ideas, the relational point of view and group analysis is his view about the meaning of nodes as an active (rather than passive) processing communication. However, contemporary relational thinking requires some self-report of the therapist's counter-transference as a manifestation of relational attitude. From this point of view, some parts of Billow's article are written from an orthodox, one-person psychology perspective. It seems that Foulkes' suggestion that the conductor is also a participant and is subject to the same group processes is an essential connection between group analysis and relational thinking. Recognizing and understanding the conductor's participation in the group may be relevant and rewarding to our professional elaboration in relational terms.