On participating in the online group on online groups – views of the participants
Carla Penna
Rob, I liked very much the text that you wrote for Contexts, which is improving daily with Peter’s skills. Thank you both for this!
I think the experiment was very interesting because a small group was invited to talk about on-line experiences, interact and share impressions for a month. Unfortunately, too me it was a busy time because during part of the experiment I was in holidays and involved with the Autumn Workshop in London. Moreover, when I returned home, I had to face the busiest time of the year in Brazil. December coincides with the end of the working/ school year plus the holidays and the beginning of summertime. So, in my country everybody looks like crazy!!! so I felt guilty for not giving more of me to the group interactions…
The experience as a whole was successful, but I wonder why Haim, Bob, Maria, Liat and I were chosen, plus Rob as chair and Peter and Tiziana probably due to their roles in GASi. In my fantasy I feared the envy of other colleagues with this invitation, but felt comfortable when I knew that all the interaction were going to be available to readership.
In my opinion, the group dynamic was somehow contaminated by the GA forum mood, its fears and clashes and certainly some of the forum dynamics were enacted in our small group. Nevertheless, we had a careful and nice interaction where senior and younger group analysts shared ideas. It might have caused some strangeness, but when we invite to a small on-line group discussion a pioneer in the field, such as Haim Weinberg, it is impossible not to count with his expertise but also and reactions to it. It is not only about differences in generations and power relations. It is about knowledge and experience and how we as a group could benefit from it, without blocking our own capacity and creativity to make something new. I think we were able to deal with the issue in a good way.
I also noticed a gender issue in our interactions. Women tended to post more warmly, and motherhood played an interesting role in the experience. It helped us to care more for each other and to diminish the tension in a few moments. In counterpart, men disclosed easily and in a touching way, revealing men’s sensibilities which are not so often brought to on-line interactions. It was good!! As a whole, we achieved a good male-female balance!!
It was also nice to meet Rob and his constant search for improvement as a human being, with his curiosity, reflections and critical judgement!!! I hope he joins the GA forum to bring his skills to the whole group.
I thank all my partners in the endeavour.
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Haim Weinberg
Here are my impressions, written as short items to ponder about. I wrote it before reading Rob’s summary.
∼Again, I experienced the difference between a leaderless large group, such as the GASi forum, and a group that is convened. Rob’s interventions held the forum well, reflected some of the dynamics and allowed me to ponder about them, and created a safety net.
∼It strengthened my belief that the presence of the group conductor on online groups is crucial for creating a nurturing culture and good enough functioning of the forum. It compensates for the boundless cyberspace.
∼However, we should remember that we were a small group (according to the number of participants, although the virtual quality of the group makes it a large group anyway), and perhaps it was easier to create safety in a small group whether we have a convener or not. We also need to take into consideration the fact that I personally knew most of the participants.
∼I learned something new when I copied parts of my book into a conversation, which felt like flooding the forum. I noted that if you enclose a link that leads to a long article, it is not experienced as “flooding”, but if you copy the article into the email – it does.
∼I also learned that I can be perceived as “teaching” when I quote myself or even share conclusions from my experience in leading online groups. This is something I have to think about. I thought that I was invited to this forum because of my expertise in online groups, but actually I did not clarify this assumption with Peter who invited me, and even if that was his intention, I am not sure that other members saw it this way.
∼Perhaps it’s about power and hierarchy? There is an unconscious assumption that the Internet “flattens” hierarchy and participants in a forum object to people who put themselves above others. Maybe this is why there were so many voices in the GASi forum to change the status from leaderless to being led?
∼It seemed very easy to establish a warm atmosphere on this forum. I wonder what contributed to it and why is it so difficult to do it on the GASi forum?
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Robert Hsiung
Revisiting an Online Group Discussing Online Groups
Hi, Contexts readers,
I often thought about you, and “looked” beyond our “cloud” toward / for you. Now that I have an opportunity to address you directly, I’d like to revisit some concepts that emerged / were birthed during the group experience.
asynchronous : not simultaneous or concurrent in time
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asynchronous
Communication is “synchronous” when something’s heard when it’s said, for example, in a room or on the telephone. Communication is “asynchronous” when what’s “said” isn’t “heard” until later, for example, when mailing letters or posting to email lists.
out of sync : in a state in which two or more people or things do not move or happen together at the same time and speed
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out%20of%20sync
What’s the relationship between “asynchronous” and “out of sync”, between communication technology and human experience?
“Foundational asynchronicity” is being out of sync with one’s foundation matrix. Rob White posted one example at the very beginning of our group: “experiences of perplexed observation [such as] seeing for the first time a baby in a buggy happily playing with an iPad” (#1). Another was his later experience of Haim Weinberg’s “mega-post” (#78): “It was as if someone in a real-life group stood up and proceeded to read several pages from his own book” (#82). That, however, was “contextual transference”. Ours was not a “real-life” group. Rob could’ve posted before finishing Haim’s post — without interrupting him. Rob and other “digital immigrants” (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b) are out of sync with today’s foundation matrix. The day before our group ended there was a non-digital example of foundational asynchronicity in the non-digital media: ‘The World Moves On And You Don’t.’
http://time.com/5466441/the-world-moves-on-and-you-dont
“Dynamic asynchronicity” is being out of sync with one’s dynamic matrix. It can be caused by not reading posts (for example, #85b). A non-digital analogue is missing group sessions. When the member returns, they’re out of sync with the group / the dynamic matrix.
Even if members read every post, however, there still will be dynamic asynchonicity. The members can’t read the posts until they receive them, and that won’t be until after they’re posted. The dynamic matrix is always moving, and the members are always catching up. Dynamic asynchronicity is inevitable in asynchronous groups.
My own contextual transference had to do with the online here-and-now (#89). I didn’t appreciate that the here-and-now was an inherently synchronous concept. It assumes group members are in the same place at the same time, that they share a “here” and a “now”. I expected a synchronous concept in an asynchronous context.
In the communication context, an alternative term for “asynchronous” is “store-and-forward”:
store and forward : a telecommunications technique in which information is sent to an intermediate station where it is kept and sent at a later time to the final destination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/store_and_forward
Asynchronous group process isn’t shared by members as it happens; it’s stored as it happens and forwarded to them to experience at times of their choosing. It’s like recording a television show and watching it later. The show’s audience no longer watches it together / synchronously.
In the health care context, Deshpande et al. (2009) refer to “equitable access”. It’s more equitable for a show to be accessible by everyone interested, not only those available when it airs. It’s more equitable for a group to be accessible online, not only those in the area.
Television shows and perhaps even health professionals can be available “on demand”. In an online group, other members can’t of course be conjured on demand, but it’s a possibility 24/7 that another member might reply to one’s post. That reinforces object constancy and diminishes separation anxiety. Less separation anxiety may make easier to join/attach.
Hope to see you in the Forum,
References
Deshpande A, Khoja S, Lorca J, McKibbon A, Rizo C, Husereau D, Jadad AR. (2009). Asynchronous telehealth: a scoping review of analytic studies Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal, 3(2), e69-91
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765770
Prensky M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1 On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6
http://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think
Differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6
http://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Maria Puschbeck-Raetzell
Closing statement regarding Contexts Digital Discussion Group
Right before the GASi Autumn Workshop in November 2018, I was invited to join an online group discussion for four weeks about online communication, its potential, its difficulties and how it influences face-to-face meetings. I was grateful for that opportunity, because ever since I became a member of the GASi Forum in December 2017, I was trying to figure out what was going on in that virtual ‘large group’ (I’m still trying and I don’t even know if it’s okay to call it a large group). Maybe we needed a small group to understand the dynamics of the Forum, that special online group, that experiment – or at least, give it a shot in trying to understand it a little better. Luc Tuymans says, “It’s ridiculous to fight new media. You can’t win, so you just have to incorporate it into your toolbox.” I know that Rob would most probably disagree with this statement.
I liked the questions that arose in our group about the meaning of the GASi Forum: Is the Forum the unconscious of GASi? Does it represent the “pleasure principle” with no rules, no inhibitions, no politeness? Is the Forum a defence against feelings of separation and abandonment after GASi Events like the Symposia, Workshops, Summer Schools, etc.? Is the Forum a way to truly connect with colleagues of different nationalities and languages in different time zones?
What I learned and will keep thinking about is – besides many things – the experience of disembodiment in online groups: An obvious feature of online groups is the lack of seeing and experiencing facial expressions, eye contact, tone of the members’ voices, body language, and so on. That means, there is also less opportunity for flirting which can potentially reduce tension, frustration and even aggression in some situations. We also talked about gender differences and that women tend to show or write about emotions more than men. Or maybe certain types of emotions are easier to express for women compared to men. I’m sure, there are many reasons for that, e.g. societal conventions, and there is most probably plenty of research about it which I haven’t had a look at. So one reason aggression arises in online groups could be because of the missing bodies and the lack of opportunities to flirt and maybe that is more difficult for men to bear (#118-123).
Sometimes I have the impression that psychoanalysts and group analysts forget that humans have a body. Being “all head” they think, think, think. I just have to visualise our conferences with way too much sitting and nobody seems to care that it’s unhealthy and uncomfortable. The older the analyst, the less aware he or she is? Children would run around, play, jump, and dance. The “fear of the body” might be a “fear of one’s own sexuality” that mobilises defence mechanisms like intellectualisation. Is it possible that group analysis carries this fear as a legacy of its founding father(s)? There is a link to the “well-known group-analytic nervousness about gay themes” as Rob pointed out in his impressions.
Part of our discussion was an image that was often mentioned: Liat and I were together on the dance floor at the Gala Dinner of the Berlin Symposium in August 2017. I will always remember that symbolically important scene: an Israeli and a German colleague dancing and enjoying life in peace. We were dancing “cloud flakes”, eager to meet again on the dance floor in Barcelona at the next GASi Symposium. I’m looking forward to it!
Berlin, December 30th 2018
maria_puschbeck@yahoo.de
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Liat Warhaftig Aran
The presence of anti-group phenomena in text groups
I am grateful to Peter, the organiser for inviting me to the “Contexts’ group”. My experience had been one of curiosity, intimacy and pleasure from belonging to a creative space. At the same time, I propose that anti-group phenomena have a heightened presence in text groups.
Carla told us that her iPad saved her arm during an accident. This experience reminded me of stories from books that I have read as a little girl, about Jews who carried in their pocket prayer books that absorbed the bullets that were shot at them during the pogroms and this way saved their lives. The group suggested that Carla’s image reflected the vulnerability present in our group. I will tie these images to an idea of a duality that exists regarding the centrality of technology in our time. On the one hand, digital technology has an immense influence on our lives, and perhaps received an almost “religious” or “lifesaving” status, and on the other hand, text groups involve a heightened potential for anti-group phenomena because of a stronger presence of misunderstandings and failed communications (as opposed to digital or traditional face-to-face groups).
Text groups allow for dynamic asynchronicity, a concept coined by Bob, which refers to situations in which the order in which the reactions arrive at the group reflects technological pace and not necessarily the order of the spokespersons’ reactions to each other, a condition that creates misunderstandings and sometimes leads to hurt feelings. In addition, text groups allow for long, uninterrupted reactions, that in face-to-face groups could have been perceived as a monologue, and which created in our group experiences of detachment and attack in our group.
Haim Weinberg, in his book on online groups, suggested that projective processes are increased in text groups, and I, too, believe that the inability to read cues from facial expressions increases negative projective interpretations. Or, perhaps we can say that we bring to text groups our unique vulnerable and more projective self-states, as opposed to face-to-face group situations. Drawing on Morris Nitsun’s idea, I would like to argue that anti-group phenomena require special attention on the conductor’s part.
One such event that occurred in our group was interpreted by Rob, our conductor as representing a struggle over seniority in the group. But the reservations some of the group members, myself included, had about this interpretation made Rob take his intervention back. Rob invited the women to re-enter the conversation. Peter managed to connect the two generations that seemed to be split in this “storm” and enabled us to return to a more reflective space and recognise the possibility that there had been a power struggle in the group. Nitsun stressed the importance of the conductor’s authority and interventions in anti-group situations. In our group, Rob made group interventions and highlighted the split that was created between men and women and invited the silent women to return to the conversation. In addition, he made a self-disclosure regarding his ambivalent attitude towards his own authority.
Although Tiziana was silent in this anti-group event she quite often brought associations about mother-child relationships and contributed a sense of softness to our group reverie. With this idea in the background the anti-group’s working through led to the development of Bob’s creative idea that the text group is shaped like a “cloud” (a term that in the realm of technology refers to a possible way of storing information online) and was developed by me into “cloud flake”, an image that connected between Maria’s idea of the group visual shape as “snowflakes” and Bob’s idea of a “cloud”.
After this experience, I believe that working through of the anti-group phenomena in our group fostered creativity. Still, it seems to me that a more comprehensive working through of intense experiences such as those involved in anti-group phenomena requires more time in text groups, as opposed to face-to-face groups, due to the heightened presence of negative projective processes in the former. In addition, it seems that it is necessary to continue the discussion on the role of the conductor in anti-group situations in text groups.
11.03.19
liatwarhaftig@gmail.com
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Tiziana Baisini
The specificity of online Forums – are they groups, or different “creatures” with some group features?
It was very interesting to take part to the “group interview” for Contexts, a.k.a. “the online group discussing online groups”.
The idea of exploring online communication took place also from a “palpable sense of anxiety around talk of the GASi Forum in particular, and social media in general” (quote from the introduction written by Rob White to our experiment).
I think that part of the anxiety which arises when faced with new technologies comes from an attempt to reduce them to something familiar (and therefore less anxiety provoking). This is partially unavoidable, since it derives from the way human beings process the unknown, but it is not always the most effective way to deal with unfamiliar things. The main downside is that this might bring more confusion, since on one hand the unique and new features of the tool can’t be fully acknowledged, and on the other hand the new object doesn’t match with the familiar one as expected, causing therefore an increased sense of anxiety.
We are group analysts, groups are our bread and butter. We know them, we study them, we experience them and we love them. But we might tend to see groups also where there aren’t – or to reduce to a “group” also what is not exactly a group, like for example an online forum.
Of course, an online forum can share some features with a group and can show, to some extent, some group dynamics. But there are also some inherent differences which are in my opinion so deep that it is required to think differently about it – it is another social creature which has to be treated otherwise.
The lack of a bodily, physical presence is a huge challenge: this causes an absence of immediate feedback since the facial expressions, as well as the prosody – the musicality of the speech – are not there to give emotional clues. So, the intentions have to be massively guessed (and are subjected to massive misunderstandings). When the exchange is mediated by text, the one who writes needs to bear in mind the other much more than in a face-to-face interaction in order to avoid misunderstandings. A developed form of intersubjectivity is required, since our mirror neurons can’t fire and foster emotional attunement. Emoticons were invented as a way to bypass this issue, but I think it is quite evident that they are not as effective as the human presence.
But even more than that, I think that the main feature which differentiates a forum from a group, either in-person or online*, is the lack of co-presence in the former. My image for a forum is more like a square where people come and go, meet and greet and share, form subgroups, can spend a lot of time or very little. While the time boundaries in a group are very precise and shared by all the members, a forum offers a chance but doesn’t require commitment.
The fact that an online forum lacks that co-presence which is shaped by the rhythm of the sessions in a group creates several shades of asynchronicity, as it was pointed out in various moments in our online interview. Thinking of a forum as a group might foster, in my opinion, a false assumption that there is a common ground, while in an online forum the boundaries of what has been shared with whom are much more blurred.
I need to stop here for having reached (and exceeded) the limits of space, but there is much more to point out and to think about. I think that we need to regard forums in their own specificity in order to be able to take advantage of their great potential.
* when I refer to online groups, I mean either experiential or therapy groups through video-chat services such as Skype or Zoom.
♦♦♦♦♦♦
Peter Zelaskowski
A few reflections
I would like to start by saying something about the things that were on my mind and that lead me to set up the group. Also, I’ll say something about the group’s composition.
The group was focused, time-limited and had a task: during a period of 4 weeks discuss online communication and how it impacts on our face to face relationships. This theme, I’d had in mind since the 2018 Foulkes Lecture and Study Day where I sensed among those present a palpable degree of anxiety about the encounter, given what had been happening on the forum, as if the forum might contaminate the event. Additionally, there was some significant amount of disappointment expressed about the study day large group in particular, that they’re just not how they used to be. Were the two things connected?
I have also been recently responsible for managing the digitalisation of Contexts, a task, during the course of which, I encountered (unsurprisingly) much resistance to and disappointment at the loss of the much loved hard copy that people would receive through their front doors and could hold in their hands, place on a shelf, throw across the room, use to make a fire, etc. The feeling that we were losing (or destroying rather than gaining) something of great value, as a consequence of digital modernity, was a constant companion.
When I was thinking about the composition of this mini-forum group my first thought was to invite people whom I knew to be involved in the forum and whom I had also met at GASi events, in other words, people who move between GASi’s virtual and face to face spaces. I also wanted to have a sufficiently mixed group, in terms of age, experience, gender and nationality, that was also, in an inevitably limited sense given the size of the group, representative of the membership of GASi. The end result was a small group with quite a global spread of locations, mother tongues and time zones: Brazil, USA, UK, Germany, Spain and Israel.
During one variation of Stanley Milgram’s (in)famous Experiment 18 in the early 60s, when the ‘teacher’ was able to see the ‘learner’ he was significantly less likely to apply the ‘electric shock’. A number of questions occur to me: are we more likely to ‘other’ the disembodied group members of a forum in a way that tends to distort and polarise our communication? Or, on the contrary, does the forum’s disembodied relating potentiate the confronting of core global conflicts in a way that the face to face encounter might cause us to tend to avoid? The forum confronts us with some hard realities, revealing that and how we ‘other’ others.
(https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html#fact)
One of the things I noticed about my participation in our mini-forum is that, I think because of its asynchronous 24/7 nature, I still felt, as I do in the GASi forum, that it is too present, that it kind of follows me around in a way that I find oppressive and that, inevitably, my busy life kept getting in the way, such that I was unable and reluctant to engage with it in anything more than a cursory and fragmentary way. For me, this was a small group with a very big presence during the 4 weeks we met online. I know I much prefer groups that allow for leaving and returning without the built-in fear of missing out (FOMO) that binds us and stirs up so much fusional anxiety.
Rob turned out to be an active and engaged interviewer/moderator. He brought his personal struggle with the role, as well as enabling thinking and participation from others and generally keeping us on task. This has caused me to reflect on the forum leadership. In my view, the forum moderator role has, over time, quietly morphed, without ever being announced, into a forum administrator role. I think this has happened in part because the role itself is highly challenging and load bearing, in part because we operate with an isolated single-parent moderator model. Does this reflect a broader shift in the leadership roles or attitudes towards leadership in GASi? As a member of the MC, with a full-on GASi workload at the moment, I often feel very alone with the work and like nothing more than a faceless bureaucrat. Alongside this, in recent GASi events I have noticed a significant amount of suspicion and mistrust focused on the current leadership emanating from past leaders. What has been/is being enacted in the forum through the moderator/administrator split?
Finally, many many thanks to Rob, Carla, Haim, Bob, Maria, Liat and Tiziana.