Quantitative Unease or Quantitative Easing?
Those of you, who regularly read my columns, may have noticed the change of title from ‘Quantitative Unease” to “Quantitative Easing”. It just happened. But as we all know, events, situations, and actions do not just happen. Because nothing is ever as it appears, as psychoanalysis has taught us. So, perhaps this change says more about the hopes of the editor, who chose this new title of my column, than reflecting an actual shift in Group Analysis from ‘unease’ to ‘quantitative easing’.
I wonder whether an even deeper unconscious unease is hidden in the past participle of the word ‘ease’.
‘Easing’ means making something unpleasant or intense less serious or severe. But is this really the case? Could ‘easing’ not simply reflect the workings of unconscious defence mechanisms, reaction formation, for example? This begs the question as to what exactly it is about quantitative research that requires transformation into ‘ease’. Is it to do with ‘number crunching’? Statistics? Or is the complexity of RCTs just too threatening? All these are worries that many psychotherapists tend to have with regards to the nomothetic paradigm.
Of course, there are other possibilities. ‘Quantitative Unease’ may need to be disavowed. I don’t think that it is repression, because my column has made unconscious assumptions about quantitative research conscious over the years. So this defence is out, isn’t it? Denial fits better. ‘Easing’ could also reflect the workings of the social unconscious. Perhaps the quantitative unease merely resonated in the psyche of the editor, who then acted on the free-floating anxiety in the group analytic community. To ease their discomfort.
Well, there are many possibilities. I like to believe that group analysts have become less resistant towards quantitative research. Nowadays, they feel more at ease with numbers and randomisation than they did a decade ago. After all, several group analysts have carried out quantitative studies that have demonstrated that analytic groups are effective for the treatment of many mental health problems since then. Hence, I am cautiously optimistic that ‘easing’ is the better word. I am feeling positive. After all, that is what positivism is about, isn’t it?
If you agree, then I suggest that you read August Comte, who coined this term. ‘Positivism’ has nothing to do with a positive attitude, but what he thought constituted knowledge. Evidence must be derived from sensory experience. Comte believed in ‘the truth’ and ‘certainty’. Probably, Group Analysis does require further ‘easing’ into these assumptions after all. The idea that quantitative studies can provide us with certainty about human mental states and behaviour.
Food for thought.