This be the Verse – of a Young Group Analyst.
“They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you.” – Philip Larkin
Returning to GASi after a three-year hiatus has brought following reflections to the surface.
In 2021, I let my membership lapse in the midst of personal grief following multiple miscarriages and difficult pregnancies. Life demanded my attention elsewhere, and while the dynamics of GASi remained of interest, they became peripheral. Through friends who stayed engaged, I caught glimpses of the ongoing struggles within the society—conflicts that seemed to persist unchanged. The same factions, the same grievances, the same circular accusations. Yet, when I encountered these colleagues in person, I experienced them as thoughtful, warm, and engaging—so strikingly different from how they appeared in the written exchanges I had read. The contrast was both intriguing and, to an extent, unsettling, but not enough for me to leave.
I had no immediate plans to return, certainly not at this stage of my life. My children are still young, and the adjustment to parenthood has required my presence at home. But my decision to re-engage was catalyzed by an unexpected event: an invitation to join the so-called “concerned members group.” The invitation was vague, and when I asked for clarity, I was met with hesitation and caution. The reason? My friendships with certain individuals who were not members of this sub-group. That was enough, it seemed, to disqualify me from being fully informed. I remember thinking: this is paranoia! The lack of transparency was very unsetteling.
Whatever conflicts I had previously observed in GASi had never seemed this extreme. As I gradually gained more insight, I felt a deep sense of disappointment—disappointment in those I had regarded as wise, knowledgeable, and experienced. I soon discovered that paranoia was flourishing on both sides. A quick glance at the macropolitical landscape provided insights into the dynamics within GASi, shedding light on both the underlying mechanisms and their implications. The parallels between these broader patterns and what is unfolding in GASi are both striking and thought-provoking. Whether we have something to gain by venturing along those analytic paths is unclear to me, however I do believe it is important to aknowledge that the parallels exist.
Growing up, I learned that adults are far from perfect and at times provide neither safety nor wisdom. That realization has extended beyond my childhood and into my “GASi childhood”. Hence my reference to Philip Larkin. It has dawned on me that I can not remain a “child” within this organization. I feel compelled to take more responsibility, to participate—not because I hold any illusion that I can resolve the conflict, but because I have little confidence that those in leadership on both sides of the conflict can navigate it without deeper self-reflection.
The meeting on March 2nd was disheartening. The conflict unfolded in real-time, uncontained. From the outset, when members of the MC announced they would “convene” the group, it was evident that neutrality—a fundamental principle—was being compromised. As Maria Puschbeck noted, “true neutrality is a fantasy.” I agree with her. However, I would also add that the aspiration toward it remains crucial. What we witnessed instead was a stark demonstration of why those leading a group should not be directly entangled in the very conflict they are attempting to mediate. That being said, it saddens me that despite these less-than-ideal conditions, there was no attempt to soften the conflict. People became fixated on who was convening, rather than the deeper issues at hand. My effort to reconnect with everyone in the group—simply by saying hello and highlighting what unites us—went seemingly unnoticed. However, I am grateful that it inspired a few of you to reach out to me afterward.
What has surprised me most is the apparent inability to step beyond personal wounds and traumas in order to examine what is happening between us. It is one thing to have blind spots in the heat of the moment; it is quite another to remain blind after time, distance, and dialogue should have allowed for greater clarity. Since my return to GASi (which, incidentally, took almost six months for my membership to be reinstated!), I have observed only one individual demonstrating this capacity on numerous occations: Reem Shelhi. While I do not agree with every stance she has taken, I hear in her voice an effort to take responsibility—to shift the focus from “what has been done to me” to “what has happened between us.” – a perspective emphasized by Nick Jones in the meeting on March 2nd, where he spoke about the importance of moving from me to us, though not in reference to Reem specifically. David Glyn’s words about exploring one’s own accountability and contribution to the conflict also tie in closely with this point. In the midst of this painful rupture, I believe that Reems effort should be acknowledged.
Another striking difficulty, which seems to be a reocurring topic, is the conversation around symbols. I recognize that what I am about to say may invite accusations of anti-Semitism. Perhaps there is bias in my perspective—but isn’t that true for all of us? Is anyone in GASi truly unbiased? When I see an image of the Israeli flag peeling away to reveal a swastika, I do not perceive it simply as “a swastika.” I see an attempt—however provocative and arguably unwise—to draw historical parallels between atrocities, a symbol screaming: “Have we learned nothing from our past?!” Had I been more closely connected to my Jewish heritage, perhaps I would experience this differently. Yet, I am struck by how insistently this image is referred to only as “the swastika.” Is this my blind spot? Or is it a privilege to engage with such symbols without the weight of direct intergenerational trauma? Perhaps it is both, depending on one’s vantage point.
What I do know is this: despite my disappointment in those I have long admired, I still believe there is hope. That said, I have to admit that my hope now rests with the younger generation of group analysts—especially in light of what I have witnessed since my return. I want GASi to be inclusive—not only in welcoming new members but in ensuring that existing members do not feel driven to leave. However, this responsibility does not fall solely on the MC—it belongs to all of us. It is important to take accountability for one’s own choice to leave. Choosing to leave is an act of self-exclusion, and while the pain of separation is real, returning on one’s own terms while lamenting exclusion tells only part of the story.
I do not believe that debating procedures and semantics will help us resolve this. Fixating on who left the MC in what order, of who should resign etc. is of little relevance in the grander scheme. It is evident that certain members of our society harbor deep animosities toward one
another. That pain must be acknowledged and worked through. But we cannot afford to remain trapped in the past. The question I am left with is: what do both sides need in order to move forward? Is there a genuine desire to heal, or does the conflict serve some unseen function?
Some may be disappointed by what I have written. Some may not care. Others may appreciate the honesty. Regardless, the question remains: how do we move forward?
Rather than retreating into familiar perspectives, I want to move forward in dialogue—not only with those who share my views but also with those who challenge me. I recognize the importance of engaging with different viewpoints, as they help illuminate my blind spots and expand my understanding.
In moments of frustration, the idea of creating a society for group analysts under the age of 55 feels tempting—perhaps as a response to feeling overwhelmed and helpless by what I have witnessed. But I recognize this as a fantasy, one that only offers temporary relief. Instead, I choose to remain here, engaged, and committed to the work of repair.
With love and sincerity
Warm thanks to Maria, Reem, Nick and David, who approved being mentioned by name.
email: mia.henriks@gmail.com