Towards a full comprehension of our paradigm—A response to Mário David’s article ‘How to be a “good-enough” group analyst’

Abstract

It has been a pleasure to read, think through and comment on this excellent article by Mário David, since it deals with several themes that have been the focus of much of my thought and writing for many years. When trying to establish 'how to be a good-enough group analyst', the author does not discuss problems of theory and technique, but rather strives to identify and enquire 'the most pertinent features which are related to the group analyst as a person when he faces people within a group setting and how this is significant for productive development of group processes' (David, 2019: 204 [my italics]) This places David's article in the very centre of an issue that applies to both psychoanalysis and group analysis, as well as to the wider field of psychotherapy: does the analyst (therapist) influence the persons he works with, through the application of a set of theory-oriented techniques, or through the relation he establishes with them in terms of his personal being? More succinctly, does she cure by what she does or says, or by what she is?This has been a long-standing controversy in psychoanalysis, a discipline and practice which is unquestionably the antecedent of group analysis, and which still has a major influence on most group analysts. In this, psychoanalysts seem to be split in two clearly opposing groups, which find it very difficult, or even impossible, to have any meaningful dialogue on the matter. Many others manage to avoid 831105G AQ0010.

Beyond psychoanalysis and group analysis. The urgent need for a new paradigm of the human being

“…But this revolutionary stance of Foulkes coexisted, as Farhad Dalal (1998) has shown, with an unquestioned allegiance to Freud’s theory and practice. Thus, although he conceived the group analytic process as derived from a free-floating conversation among the group members, in which the conductor’s contribution, beyond establishing the group and providing the conditions for the process to develop, consisted in being present, and not in implementing technical interventions, such as interpretations (Tubert-Oklander, 2019b), in his actual clinical work, most of his interventions were interpretations, usually framed in terms of Freudian theory. This has been analysed by Dalal as a contradiction between a Radical Foulkes and an Orthodox Foulkes, which generates an inner tension in his work.…”

“…This establishes a social fact: the subservience of the community of group analysts vis-à-vis their highly prestigious relative, which manifests itself both in the use of various orthodox psychoanalytic theories in the understanding and interpretation of the patients’ behaviour and discourse, and in attitudes that mimic a stereotyped image of ‘what an analyst should be’, such as neutrality, abstinence, and anonymity (Tubert-Oklander, 2019b).…”