Group and Koinonia: The More You Participate, the More You Can Hope for the Future The Example of GASI Summer School 2024
Summary**
This article is about what unfolded during GASI’s Summer School 2024, which took place in Turin, 24-28 July, with a focus on the Large Group sessions. The timing of this scientific meeting coincided on an international scale with a turbulent surrounding atmosphere, environmentally, politically, socially, economically and value-wise. At the same time on the micro-scale of the GASI organization it coincided with a period of turmoil and tension. And all this after a long period of pandemic preceded and in the midst of two wars underway, involving the European continent. It was therefore to be expected that this meeting would take place on a combustible ground of meetings, discussions and confrontations. The risk of a strong conflict and the challenge of the meaningful meeting were present from the very beginning: the former as expected, the latter as necessary in order to develop our tools, as a group scientific community, to relate in all its forms, aware of our responsibility to the continuum and open to hope and a sustainable future. The title of the Summer School, TransformActions: caring for our future, set the mood of the context of the meeting in relation to the sense of responsibility for the level/order change that any such turbulent phase requires. And this meeting, although it started with difficulties in an “explosive” surrounding atmosphere, as if it shifted us, within ourselves and in relation to each other, to transformaction behaviors, the only thing that can lead relationships, organizations, institutions and states to sustainability. And though it seems perpetual: connection-conflict-disconnection, re-connection, etc., it is at the same time this spiral course – if it mutates into a spiral course – that also serves life, while at the same time the question and consequent agony in the enigma and absurdity of human existence will remain unanswered.
Keywords: GASI’s Summer School 2024, Large Group sessions, TransformActions, sense of responsibility, sustainable future, spiral path, identity, human existence, conflicts, social interactions, connection, language
**I am very grateful to my colleague Lillian Markakis, Psychiatrist and Group Analyst, also a participant in the Summer School, for her valuable contribution to the “reading” of the experience, as well as to my theoretical thinking.
Introduction
In his book The fabric of the cosmos: space, time, and the texture of reality (2024), Professor of Theoretical Physics Brian Greene, director of the World Science Festival, discussing concepts that involve Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics, talks about superstrings, a theoretical concept that, if proven correct, states:
“We will be forced to accept that the reality we know is, but a delicate fabric stretched around the surface of another, denser and more structured one.”
It makes you question for a moment your absolute certainty of what you know and the futility of your so far laborious and “sure” dynamic course. It makes you wonder for a moment: that is, everything I know, my “rights” and “wrongs”, all the things I’ve worked for, are not “objective”? Is it all in vain? It’s absurd, it’s not “in my mind”. And, if it’s all a fallacy, where do I stand? And how do I stand from here on?
To this anguished question, I can thing an answer in a book written during bleakest days of the Second World War, The Myth of Sisyphus, which argues for an acceptance of reality that encompasses revolt, passion and, above all, liberty, gained through an awareness of pure existence: Albert Camus in this essay The Myth of Sisyphus: Essay on the Absurd (Le mythe de Sisyphe/ Essai sur l’absurd, 2010) says:
If there is no God to give meaning to our lives, humans must take on that purpose themselves. This is our “absurd” task, like Sisyphus condemned forever to roll a rock up a hill. Written during the bleakest days of the Second World War.
As a mental health specialist, I question whether any theoretical or clinical expert in group dynamics can doubt the value of repeatedly participating in groups. How else can an expert practice concepts such as “me and the other,” “me, the other,” and “me and us” except by being a member of analytical groups, especially in a constantly changing environment? Where else can they apply the tools needed to stay aware in a world that often seems mindless, in terms of group membership? How can they address and transform their own destructive tendencies and primal anxieties if not through active participation? How can they observe and understand the dynamics of the world without being involved themselves?
In an interview with Kathimerini newspaper, the well-known Greek classical violinist and orchestra conductor Konstantinos Kavakos notes: “If you don’t practice constantly, you fall!”. And he documents it as follows:
“Playing is a delicate and complex process, if you don’t practice all the time, you “fall”. On the other hand, studying is not just about the instrument, it’s also about thinking. There is an ‘athletic” side to our work, but there is also the mental practice, that which is achieved with the mind, with the ear. We have a specific music text, which we have to perform, which has obvious but also hidden instructions, so you need a decoding, to see what is behind the notes, what the composer might have been thinking, his patterns, the harmonies, the ideas, the phrases, just like reading a literary text. Yes, the words have their meaning, but the way each writer uses them may differ. “* (Καβάκος, Kathimerini 4-8-2024).
And it goes on to say:
“For me, the way we learn has always been a big problem. In school, you don’t have people explaining to you why you need to know history. They don’t explain to you what has brought you to this point, how others see you. History teaches you your place in the world. But you don’t learn it that way, you learn it as information that someone has chosen in a sequence. Same for chemistry. Chemistry is how you get along with another person, it’s not how you spell manganese. Not to mention the importance given to the arts. …I try to help my students find themselves, discover who they are through music.”
So is the theorist and clinician of group dynamics: if he does not practice constantly, he “falls”. His mode of participation “falls off” and degenerates into the sum of group membership, his thinking about his participation and coexistence with other members “falls off”, his ability to decode “what is said behind what is heard” “falls off”, his ability to pass from the ego individual to the ego member of a group “falls off”.
The group, through participation in it, teaches you about yourself over and over again, your place in the world each time, mirrors dysfunctional or functional aspects of yourself, shocks you into immaturity, pushes you to struggle to move from the initial fear and terror reactions (brain stem), to the emotional brain centers and from there to the thinking sides of the brain (neocortex). That is, the group challenges you to “go” from the position of fierce desire and mania, from the “madness of love” for an idea or a position about the right, from the madness of fear for the other, the other idea, the other point of view, to emotions and from there to thinking. The primal survival part (limbic brain system) will always push us into initial, rigid and automatic reactions, to be followed, if disaster does not follow, by emotions, feelings and then reason. The path to relating to the Other person, follows on a micro scale the same course of our phylogenetic evolution.
In the annual Foulkes Lecture (47th Foulkes Lecture & Respondents, May 2024) the speaker on the topic, “On the impulse to impart….”, which concerned how the move from primitive, archaic to language of communication, underlined one of Foulkes’ core ideas: that language defines humanness.
And at the Summer School we were challenged to move from our primitive brain responses of fear and terror to the language of communication and activate complex other connections in the neocortex. And this in the absence of leaders, in the absence of old “recipes” (many historical GASI members for various reasons were either absent and/or have left the organization and/or it was not possible to attend), in the midst of many different generations, members with history or no history in the GASI organization, members “with or without “roots””, in a fluid context about “right and wrong”. And we managed to endure weakness, imbalance, to become flexible, to take initiatives, without previous prescriptions, to collaborate and adapt. And we managed without a navigator, with all the mistakes and oversights on the table of our meeting with each other, including the socio-historical and political current events, with all our weaknesses naked, to make space for the so many intensely different things that happened! And we achieved group navigation!
We didn’t come to an agreement, but we behaved as a team! We wanted to continue to be on the GASI team, to increase our self-awareness, as well as our awareness of the foreign, the other right, the different and largely hostile, and we stood there with intensity and curiosity. Space was created and time flowed in that position: the different was recognized in its existence and we did not destroy it, nor did it destroy us.
This year’s Summer school in Turin, a city of constant transformations and changes (urban, socio-economic, historical, community), there was a meeting of very different attitudes, generations, educations, commitments, languages, identities. Who managed to coexist, to confront, to blame each other, to co-exist and to talk each one about their different vision: about the world, about their loves and hates, about GASI, about the finite due to history and/or temperament. In order for this to take place, we had to firstly establish rules of coexistence in the context, and secondly to agree on the necessity of the contexts (organizations, institutes, parents, families, countries, states, etc.) and that without these contexts, in this case without the GASI organization, we would not have the possibility of this co-response and the opportunity for conflict, agreement and hopefully dialogue. We also needed to reposition ourselves on the concept of “roots”, at the micro and macro level, to revisit our origins, to revisit our uproots, in the “here and now” and transgenerationally, and their function in our lives. Finally, we have had to accept our generational and potential differences, as well as our limitations.
In the microcosm of the GASI organization, it was finally necessary to talk about wild contradictions and events at the hierarchical level, denials and disappointments, to recognize stereotypes and barriers, as well as various distortions. For the first time, in the thirty years I have been professionally in the field of group therapy, at such a group meetings, with colleagues either experienced or newly trained, dialogue and synthesis in the midst of such high contrasts and differences was really possible! The prognosis was that we would fall apart! The outcome turned out to be transaction-transformation! It was the act of engaging the whole membership differently (as opposed to AGPA Large Group 2024*) that led to meta-transformation and affected the quality of both the group-analytic groups, group supervision and social dreaming group!
*At AGPA2024, the Large Group, taking place under similarly turbulent conditions on both micro and macro scales, failed to achieve any transformative act—transaction-transformation. In that educational and training annual meeting many experienced group analysts and psychotherapists participated, but the week-long educational group meeting fell into the convention of “political correctness”, and a wild conflict ensued, with many participants being scapegoated in the harshest manner.
I dare to say that GASI Large Group 2024 was a “historic” in vivo reset of Foulkes’ (1948) basic thesis “the Individual as Whole in the Total Condition” and re-infused our group-analytic thinking and practice with theoretical and existential concerns. The dynamic that developed succeeded in cultivating a brilliant consciousness of participation, despite the absurdity of the human contradictions of the participating members, and made it possible to correct, even if only partially, misunderstandings and distortions, to listen to each other differently from the primitive initial hearing (habituation or resonance), to reposition members in their individual and social aspects, and to refocus both intra-individually and in social interaction and interaction (Gantt & Badenoch, 2013).
In conclusion, this meeting slowly turned into “a fearless to speak group”. How did this happen? Obviously because there was “no other way”. We had to accept the realities around us, both on a macro and micro level. But we managed to maintain in the midst of this acceptance the freedom of free thought, the freedom to be who we are and to wish to show it to another, even to an indifferent, hostile, dissenting other. The other did not represent the criterion for our existence. This led us to a new dynamic of self-consciousness and/or a new perspective on the other and the group as a Whole, and of course to another group dynamic.
Nodal Points in Group Culture and Connection: Aggression, Destructiveness, and Metabolism
Something important was observed during the Summer school in terms of aggression and empowerment. Concepts such as war, destructive change, invasion, occupation, locals and immigrants, who is entitled and who is not, laws that are fearful, laws that change rapidly, rules that are not followed, people-co-workers reporting fellow-workers to the police, history that “imprisons”, history that teaches, etc., came to the room immediately and, together with the individual characteristics of the members present, created conditions of high tension, individual and collective anxiety, attacks, resistance or attempts to impose. There were manifestations of extreme verbal and emotional aggression but also focal points at various levels of group meetings (social dreaming group, small process groups, supervision groups), which helped the Large Group to withstand the aggression and move away from our destructive aspects.
I believe that such nodal points were, among many others, the following:
- A critical number of brave members who, sometimes out of inexperience, sometimes out of courage, sometimes out of a desire to “you to see who I really am and how I think”, sometimes out of a desire really to understand the other, restrained the instinctive and destructive dynamic and gave the opportunity for space and reflection.
- The focus on language: as a language of communication for European colleagues, immigrant colleagues, young age colleagues, colleagues from war-torn countries, native American colleagues, second-generation immigrant American colleagues, as a language not understood, as a language of mediation, etc.
- The presence of the Turinese colleagues, the presence of the Italian colleagues.
- The venue of the whole meeting: the meeting took place in the city of Turin, in the Cascina Fossata complex, a space with a history and function of rural cooperative culture, redesigned to become a multidimensional hub in the city of Turin, offering affordable housing, utilities and an environment that encourages social interaction and integration, strategically located near the city center and well connected to public transport.
- And Turin itself, a hub city of interaction between different social groups and cultures in different historical periods, a center of industrial, political and cultural innovation in Italy, with a multicultural working class – and its consequent legacy – in the industrial revolution, with a leading role in Italian unification in the 19th century, a center of knowledge and culture with an emphasis on education, arts and architecture in the 20th Destination of immigrants from the south of Italy and other countries in the second half of the 20th century and a multicultural reputation that follows it to this day. Finally, a city that has its own dialect, Torinese, which presents differences with the dialect of the rest of the province, Piedmontese, in terms of usage, word meaning and pronunciation, but also communicability to a large extent due to a historical affinity with French.
In such a place, of varied compositional history, with many members present from the city or from neighboring places and/or from places part of this historical trajectory and/or from places with similar trajectories, it would be impossible for conscious and unconscious processes to be the same as anywhere else.
- And finally, the attendees ’obvious desire from the very beginning to learn, to reminisce, to experiment with group culture and to connect!
Destructiveness due to the other, to the outside is inherent in human existence. Psychoanalysis later came to emphasize its existence within us and not only in the external environment. Accepting that it co-exists with human existence, we can think that the sources of human beings in matters of supreme weakness, in traumatic situations, in evil in general, are nothing but acceptance, recognition of our weakness and limitations – M. Klein’s Depressive Position – the feeling of hope, the feeling of belonging, the acceptance and awareness of the influence of our history inside us and as it is reflected on our behavior and the necessity of relating. These sources, from which human logic is held together and develops thought, are the only ones I believe that can lead us to encounter and help transform fear, anxiety, despair, into dialogue within and out there.
In the historical course of group analysis, but also of our perception of the other in general, the ways of experiencing the other and different, the one that is different in our own perception or really threatening, have been formalized, modified and/or sometimes some have been overcome and/or transformed into something else. And theoretical thinking about the passage from the individual to the group and vice versa continued to produce work and techniques.
At the Turin meeting, a participating member, responding to the Large Group and to the present and absent members of the “old generation” of analysts, on the occasion of the “intra-family turbulence” in the GASI organization, spoke of a paradigm shift and said: “action is the new analysts’ way”. And he explained it by emphasizing “me and the other”, “the other in me”, “the other in me” in terms of co-humanity and co-existence, without historical and/or theoretical baggage. And the wing of young colleagues present underlined it emphatically, in words and deeds.
As K. Morogiannis (Μωρόγιαννης, 2012) states, “it has been said that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. But what is an adequate theory for the individual, the group, and thus group analysis, is a complex and intractable problem”. Following on from this thought, I remember another group analyst Erl Hopper (2003) who states: “How does a particular theory articulate, model the processes surrounding infant development – emphasizing projection or introspection? If we emphasize projection, then we prioritize the internal world in the innate and intuition, whereas if we emphasize introspection, then we prioritize the external world, the acquired and culture.”
Kurt Goldstein in his work “The Organism ([1934]1995), one of Foulkes’ theoretical influences, underlines the, despite the medical explanations recorded and formulated up to that time, often inexplicable effect of brain injuries and the extraordinary adaptation of wounded soldiers to them. And thus introduces a “holistic” theory of the human organism, the concept of “totality of manifestations and interactions”, meaning the totality of the behavior and interaction with the surrounding milieu. That is, something that takes us beyond the aggregate type of logical perception and understanding of the behavior of individuals. And much more this happens in the midst of a group dynamic!
It is understood that the individual is conceived not as an omnipotent and self-sufficient totality, but as a node in the network of total interconnections. Something that Foulkes brought out in his theory. Further I need to recall Foulkes’ other major influence of Freud’s work, especially in relation to the method of free association which for him was a way of accessing the personality as a whole and allowed access to the unconscious material, involving the context, i.e. the duality of analyst-analyzed through transference, “..the total personality and the total situation” Further, by introducing into the group dynamic the same technique, that of free association, he linked it to the total situation of the group (Foulkes, 1948).
Many years later (1957) he would speak of group analysis, borrowing the term from Karl Manheim (1943), whose theoretical thinking was directed towards “community therapy” rather than group therapy as a democratic response to authoritarian regimes. And as he waw influenced by the theoretical thinking of Elias (who was also influenced by Manheim), he insisted on Elias’s thesis of the importance of the social in shaping the individual and vice versa. The word he chose to describe this simultaneous influence was permeation, the process by which a substance, idea or influence diffuses and permeates fully into something else, gradually or continuously.
It is also good to keep in mind the temporality of all these theoretical quests, reflections and answers: it is the 1930s, preceded by wars, economic depression and great economic and social difficulties among peoples, troubled nations, the rise of Hitler. And in these circumstances Foulkes, the group of sociologists who influenced him, and many other academics and clinicians in the mental health field, found themselves hunted and uprooted in London: and “invaded”! Amidst local populations and endogenous rivalries, amidst hierarchies they were unfamiliar with and trying to impose their own, amidst ‘me and the other’ or ‘me the other’. And they tried, despite rivalries, intrigues, power relations, weaknesses, etc., to understand, synthesize, contain and help themselves and society, with all their weaknesses “on the table”.
One could say that the present moment in Europe and elsewhere is equally turbulent: people are desperately looking for solutions and “saviors” for the ever-emerging violence of all kinds, for the frightening and unmanageable environmental conditions, for the moral dumbing down of individuals and societies, for democracy that is sliding inexplicably, for the movements of individuals and populations for better living conditions and/or to save their lives. Politicians and state organization prove inadequate and the desperation for no apparent solution causes fear and terror to grow within individuals, reinforcing individual weaknesses and/or pathology, which finds outlet and expression in countless collective destructive acts of incredible absurdity and violence.
To understand and think further about the processes at GASI Summer School 2024, it is useful to recall sociolinguistic studies of the structure of languages: how they describe the thinking of speakers and subsequently how speakers perceive and interpret in their experience of the world. And ultimately, how the dominant language of a social group culture can violate, isolate, separate, and ultimately “close” the communication where it seems to “open” it. And in European language, according to Elias, there is a dichotomous tendency of the type “inside-outside, individual-group, nature-society”, etc. And the more recent discipline of the sociology of language research emphasizes how these dichotomies reflect, describe and consolidate social dichotomies (Elias, 1966; Labovi, 1963, 1966,1972).
Finally, at the level of the person speaking, the manner also expresses the substance, the personality of the person speaking. Often the choice of a linguistic utterance is not so much related to convenience or habit as to status vis-à-vis other participants in the communication. And at the individual-listener level, even if they are not able to identify themselves through words and/or signs, they can make associative identifications and draw conclusions about their social status based on non-verbal communication (expressions, tone of voice, etc.).
The only functional response to this dichotomous linguistic approach comes from an awareness of interdependence, interconnection, and limitations. This leads us to what Elias calls formation, i.e. knowledge made in the “here and now”, through the information we exchange, i.e. through thought, language, speech, knowledge and consciousness (Dalal, 2007), as well as the symbols that capture it, Elias adds. Therefore, this knowledge-information-formation in group relationality is not something static. It is under constant evolution, reformulation and reconfiguration and is symbolized, which also has a limiting character (Burkitt, 1991).
Gasi Summer School 2024 highlighted the importance of group analysis, examining issues such as aggression, destruction and changes in group dynamics. Through intense discussions and analysis, participants were confronted with challenges related to injustice, pain, grievance and resistance, combining theoretical insights with practical applications.
The following nodal points, which I consider having a transformaction quality, emerged:
- The need for bravery and honesty: The importance of honest communication and bravery in overcoming destructive dynamics was highlighted.
- Communication barriers and language: language challenges affected understanding and communication between different groups, while language remained critical for smooth interaction.
- The influence of space and history: The venue of the meeting and the historical and cultural significance of Turin contributed to strengthening the community and the connection between the participants.
- The importance of co-existence and connection: The desire to learn and connect with the group culture emerged as a central success factor.
- The evolution of theory and practice: We highlighted and reflected on theoretical concepts of prominent theorists such as Foulkes, Freud, and Goldstein in understanding group dynamics.
Indeed, the absence of historical members, despite the initial chaotic situation it caused, provided new perspective and freedom, also allowing us all to get involved in normative processes and initiatives. It put us in a more participatory position and so we felt more real, that is, fully present and functioning.
And the way the coordinating leadership group acted was conducive to this: it moved consensually, explanatorily, on the ground, acknowledging weaknesses, stating information publicly and letting the process unfold without interpretation or any kind of guidance. This gave room for what Elias describes as formation: in the present of LG, knowledge was made from the exchange of information, knowledge and thoughts, with the synergistic participation of various linguistic and/or non-linguistic channels of communication, which captured the encounter of people beyond instinctual drives and destructive passions.
The conclusions from the Summer School include the need for continued evaluation and adaptation of theoretical approaches to practice, as well as recognition of the importance of interaction and community in developing group analysis. It succeeded in promoting understanding of group dynamics, enhancing collaboration and providing new insights that will lead to future developments and improvements in the field of group analysis
A new paradigm: GASI’s Summer School 2024
In the Large Group of the Summer School, influenced by the unprecedented for the modern era suffering of humanity, as well as by previous aggressive attitudes among GASI members, directly linked to these incidents, we were invited from the beginning to the topical and unanswered questions “why war?” and “who is right?” and “whose right?”, literally and metaphorically. And this in an ambient atmosphere of a sense of “no leader”, until it was understood and recognized by all present that we seek for leaders as we used to and that we had leaders in “here and now” but in another way. This automatically changed the dynamics by putting all participating members at the center of the leadership and “pushing” each of us to find the power of our voice and speak up despite any opposition, overcoming technical barriers and moments of high hostility, shouting and strong negative emotions. In the four Large Group sessions I believe that everyone turned to be able to speak his truth, whatever the subjective connotations of that truth, and that everyone – almost – managed to hold back the destructive impulses that developed, on individual and group level. And despite the intense conflict, the attack, the pervasive fear and the despair that dominated the first LG session, during the second LG session as a focal point, we managed to stay within ourselves, to acknowledge our vulnerability, to talk about our griefs, to experience our fear and talk about it, and to be heard, to talk about our guilt, about our “black” sides of us. And most importantly: we succeeded to link our apparent behavior to those sides. And so we managed the encounter, the coexistence with the other, and the sense that despite our differences the group is the tool and the space, metaphorically and literally, to exist in terms of sustainability and hope for the future.
By summarizing nodal points of the four sessions, I will try to describe the process as I “read” it:
Session 1 of the LG
The group gathered for the first time, in overlapping oval formations due to limited space. The members differed in their understanding of English and Italian, which were the official languages of the meeting. Some knew neither language nor had limited knowledge of either language. English, as the main language, dominated implicitly, excluding those who did not understand it. The acoustics of the room were problematic, with noise from the main door opening and closing, making it difficult to hear the speaker and/or understand him. The LG began with exclusion barriers, both linguistic and practical.
The session began with tension around the issue of the war between Israelis and Palestinians, creating a charged atmosphere. Members representing both sides passionately expressed their views, leading to constant attacks and defenses. The demand was to condemn and exclude the other side, internationally and in GASI. Most of the group remained silent, watching the situation numbly.
Subsequently, the discussion turned to the internal unrest and the absences of leading members of GASI, linked to that war. Some members were absent by choice, while others appeared to have been forced “under persecution”. The report of the absences caused even more upset, with members voicing loud questions and queries. Confusion and insecurity were evident, and some were reluctant to speak out for fear of being perceived as being on one side or the other. The anxiety of the new members, who were participating for the first time, was particularly evident as they wondered why the leaders were not present and why the group was not resolving these issues and/or why should it matter to me.
A sense of frustration and dread spread through the atmosphere and the tension flared up with new questions and accusations about absences and responsibilities: who is missing, who is to blame, who denounced whom, who excluded whom and other related questions. Alongside the verbal upheaval, there was intense non-verbal communication. Physical movements, exclamations and nervous reactions emphasized the anxiety of the participants. The mood of the session was remind me of ancient Greek tragedy, with the discomfort of the members being keenly felt.
You could see the paranoid anxieties everywhere! Winnicott came to mind and the question he tried to answer all his life: how is the human psyche structured? What forces and conditions facilitate it, what conditions restrain it? We found ourselves immediately, as participating members, in a condition of unimaginable anxiety watching the conflict. In these conditions of terrifying anxiety, a group dynamic was created that began to introvert, as an infant seeking for absolute dependency: in the intensity of the first conflict over the war, the group sought its “leaders” and in the revelation of their absence, feelings of frustration and disappointment at not being relieved of terror and fear found an outlet in hostile attack in every direction.
Thus, the issue was extended to the other war, the Russo-Ukrainian war, and the position adopted by the GASI at the time, raising questions of justice, as well as the “morality” of the GASI and its leadership. The unanswered question on earth, “is it not unjust?” is raised. And silence has prevailed.
The first session was completed, and I was left with a sense of a strong presence within me and a keen interest in what was to come.
Session 2 of the LG
The second LG session I believe it was a nodal session. It created a supportive environment, in line with Winnicott’s theory of the “care pair”. The process developed managed to reduce individual weakness and allow for the development of a personal rhythm for the group members. In other words, an environment “adequate” was created, even if only a little, that managed to hold the participating members so that the encounter between individual weakness and/or pathology and history and external reality did not turn out to be destructive and allowed the individual pacing of the participating members to emerge (Dethiville & Νικολοπούλου, 2023).
Initially, the session started with solving the practical real problems, which in the first session were barriers to exclusion, such as the extreme noise from the main door and difficulties in finding seats and/or seating. Group members suggested solutions such as arriving early or moving the chairs for better seating arrangement:
“Shall we all come on time?” (did not seem to be feasible and/or acceptable).
“Should we all move to the empty chairs next to us so that newcomers can find a seat?” (brought a partial response), etc.
Also, the issue of language as an exclusionary factor was raised from the beginning and various ideas were proposed, both in terms of which language to use, which language we prefer to speak, and also how to communicate using any means to be understood by everyone and so on (this issue of language in the third session created a highly collaborative atmosphere of using any language tool with the sole aim that no one is excluded because of language and everyone can speak in any language they want).
These suggestions and actions, which in hindsight I realize in retrospect were interactions behaviors, helped to reduce anxiety and create a more supportive and less unstable and unstable environment. And the human psyche, in a relatively friendly environment, went into a process of exploration. It resembles the condition of what Winnicott called the relational-object paradox of the created-object-found paradox. That is, those external conditions were created in order to make room within us to feel and become aware of who we are (“what do I want, what do I feel now and from what position and in what role?”), and go out there and be able to recognize a “good object” , despite the diversities. And the group also seemed to have adapted and created a “good object” in its internal, making the atmosphere more friendly and conducive to cooperation. This change in atmosphere prepared the ground for the next two sessions.
The second session ended leaving in me and in the overall atmosphere a strong imprint of connection. I left with multiple internal connections and associations and external interactions, as well as an enhanced awareness of the human condition and its countless potential.
Session 3 of the LG
The third LG session focused, Ι would say, on seeking for the “out there object” (Winnicott, 1984) and on clarifying the positions of the members who had clashed in the first session. The members, with courage and honesty, shared their personal stories and connections to current and historical conflicts, creating a rich dialogue. However, this was preceded by a reconciliation of linguistic – for many – exclusion and a variety of interactions, collaborative acts on it.
The discussion opened up on multiple levels, with topics such as personal identity, uprooting, and the connection with history and the homeland. Members exchanged emotional and historical approaches. Most of the group members participated in it, connecting with the previous speaker, building on it, and speaking for themselves. Members were connecting, coming back to information they misread, to members who overstepped, and rejoining the group. And the group listened, critiqued, analyzed, and/or reflected.
There was something very promising in all this: this interchange opens up horrific stories of conflict, pain, sorrow, grief and destruction in the external reality and subsequently in the carrier intrapsychic. And the members express themselves simply, without evasion, wonder aloud, reconsider their past behaviors to present members, reveal tragedies and weaknesses, and reflect. They share stories, thoughts, emotions and suggestions with each other. The issues were about:
Decision, life choices and the “legacy”:
Are you going to stay and fight or leave? But what about “this is your life”. What will your life be like elsewhere? How did the previous generation decide?
You’re running for your life. And go where? Isn’t it “home”? How will you be saved from your agonies?
How do I get over “I was told never go to Austria. Hitler was born there”? How to live with all my fears and anxieties without the experience and rules, instructions of the previous generation?
Migration and Cultural Controversies:
The Italians and the immigrants, the “invasion” of their country.
The “invasion” of English in this educational meeting, where the main language was also Italian.
Israelis and Jews: their nationality and personal histories.
The present group member from Russian and Albanian: historical and cultural conflicts.
The young Italians who like the immigrants, the old Italian generation who blame the immigrants for all the misfortunes.
Northern and southern Italians: differences.
Roots and Identity:
Our roots: ethnicity, language, sense of self, and the conflict with uprooting.
Parents who voluntarily uproot themselves for their children and the transfer or acceptance of the roots or the refusal to do so.
Uprooting for your own good, melancholy of nostalgia (disease), and root management.
Natives and immigrants of every nationality, both native and adopted children.
Organizational and Social Dimensions:
The new generation at GASI and the old generation: disconnecting from history.
GASI-organization and GASI-individual members: lamenting life events, defects and destructive actions.
Native adopted children aware of birth parents, children given “for their own good”.
Leadership and Conflict:
The Germans and the Jews: historical conflicts.
Debates around leadership: “do we have leaders?”, “what are leaders?”.
People in the group talk about their contradictions and their struggles, their weaknesses. And the new, different “leadership” helped in an easy quiet way. One member responds to someone who has just expressed despair and horror at changes in family law in Italy: “I disagree with your choice but here (at LG) I want you not to be afraid to speak up!”. The discussion evolved into reflection on personal and collective identities, with examples from the history and current situation of the group:
Mussolini, who thought he was going to defeat the Greeks, and the result was a disaster.
The leaders of LG, who are they; not known Are they present? I thought we didn’t have any.
And we, what are we here for? Why do we need leaders like this, who have abandoned us?
We have leaders, they are leaders by example!
Leaders are people too!
The group moved from mass thinking to thoughtful conversation. Members questioned their roots and the obstacles that arise from conflict and loss, as well as their personal meaning:
We have lost our roots. Whose fault is it?
The previous generation that set prohibitions and rules. Should we reconsider about it? Will we make personal meaning, sense of life and values?
Can we do something else but the historical same? Do you know what it’s like to know that your child is 200 yards away from you? You could walk, but you don’t know where to look. The old way …. (assault, conflict, violence, war, right and wrong).
The atmosphere in the group became heated as the discussions brought back the concepts of conflict and justice. Suddenly one member made an association with the Oresteia, a trilogy from ancient Greek literature. Another member, originally from Greece, spoke of its meaning:
It speaks of the perpetual conflict between the old and the new order, and man’s inability to escape the cycle of violence and revenge. Because “everyone was right!”. And each one was right in killing the one before him. It was defined by human (the rightness of the ancestors) and divine rightness that this reaction was determined. But all suffered the consequences of their actions.
The session ended in silence, leaving members to reflect on the deep questions that had arisen. I left the session with a paradoxical sense of power and deep connection, feeling awe and admiration for the group members, while feeling grateful for my own participation in the experience.
Session 4 of the LG
The fourth and final LG session was touching, moving and impressive. The understanding and cognitive expansion that came from the whole process enhanced the mental world of the members. The formation of relationships, as described by Elias, is evident in the accounting and rectification of past behaviors by various members of the group, which were made public in front of everyone.
The session ended with a deep sense of acceptance and awareness of our individual weakness, and possibly despair, but having succeeded in coexisting and recognizing the value of the present human being beyond the problems. Each member had the opportunity to speak, be heard and expose their deep struggles and traumas, their failures, affirming the importance of self-awareness and interaction within the group. The resulting satisfaction, directly linked to the ability demonstrated by the participating members to stand alone, i.e. as a talking thinking person, in the presence of others, i.e. not being carried away by manifest inadequacies or misunderstandings, took the group at this year’s Summer School to another level. The group reached a point where external validation became less important, as group survival and personal self-awareness emerged as key achievements. This highlights Winnicott’s (1984) quote about the ability to be alone while someone else is present, which seems to accurately describe the group’s experience during the sessions.
The moving illustration of this experience is shown in the following quote from one member to another: “I didn’t know the story so I didn’t see the human behind your behavior and yet you never showed me the human siede.” This observation captures the deep human connection achieved during the Summer School in Turin, enriching the theoretical thinking and psyche of the participants.
References
- Dethiville L.& Νικολοπούλου Ε. (2023) Συνομιλώντας για τον D.W. Winnicott και την κλινική του. Αθήνα, Εκδ. Αρμός, σειρά Γραφές της ψυχανάλυσης.
- Burkitt, I. (1991) Social Selves. London Sage.
- Camus, A. (2010). Ο μύθος του Σίσυφου. Δοκίμιο για το παράλογο. Αθήνα: Καστανιώτης
- Dalal, F. (2007). Η Ομαδική Ανάλυση μετά τον S.H. Foulkes. Ας (ξανα)μιλήσουμε σοβαρά για την Ομάδα. Αθήνα. Κανάκη.
- Elias, N. (1996). Η Διαδικασία του Πολιτισμού. Μτφ. Θ. Λουπασάκης. Αθήνα. Αλεξάνδρεια.
- Friedman, R. (2015). Towards a More User-Friendly Setting in the AGPA’s Large Group: Developing an Internal and Social Dialogue. The Group Circle: The Newsletter of the American Group Psychotherapy Association and the International Board for Certification of Group Psychotherapists.Y.: AGPA.
- Elias, N. (1939). The Society of Individuals. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
- Foulkes, S.H. (1948). Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London: Karnac, 1983.
- Goldstein, K. (1995). The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man. New York: Zone Books (first published under the title Der Aufbau des Organismus: Einführung in die Biologie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Erfahrungen am kranken Menschen, in 1934)
- Greene, Β. ([2005]2024). Η δομή του κόσμου. Χώρος, χρόνος και η υφή της πραγματικότητας. Θεσσαλονίκη: Ροπή.
- Foulkes, S.H. (1948). Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London: Karnac, 1983.
- Hopper, E. & Weinberg, H. (2011). The Social Unconscious in Persons, Groups and Societies. Karnac.
- Labovi, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of Englishin New York
- Manheim, K. (1943). Diagnosis of Our Time. London: Kegan Paul.
- de Mare, P. (1991). Koinonia: From Hate through Dialogue to Culture in the Large Group. KarnacBooks.
- Σκαλή, Θ., Μωρόγιαννης, Κ. (2021, επιμ.). Ομαδική Ψυχοθεραπεία και Διαπροσωπική Νευροβιολογία (Gantt, S., & Badenoch, B., 2013). Αθήνα: Τόπος
- Skali, Th. (2016). A Large Group in Athens. Group Analytic Society International: Contexts (June)
- Winnicott D.W. ([1984] 2023) Διαδικασίες ωρίμανσης και διευκολυντικό περιβάλλον, Μελέτες για τη θεωρία της συναισθηματικής ανάπτυξης. Εισαγωγή-Μετάφραση: Θανάσης Χατζόπουλος. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις του Εικοστού Πρώτου.
Internet references
- Καβάκος, Κ. (2024) Συνέντευξη στην εφημερίδα Καθημερινή https://www.kathimerini.gr/opinion/interviews/563156779/an-den-exaskeisai-diarkos-pefteis/
- Wikipedia, Τορίνο, https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A4%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%BF
- Μωρόγιαννης, Κ. (2012). Σύγχρονες τάσεις στην ομαδική αναλυτική θεωρία. Παρουσίαση στο Συνέδριο της E.F.P.P., Αθήνα
Theodora Skali
Laboratory Teaching Faculty in Psychology, MSc, PhD, Psychotherapist, ECP, GCP, Department of Medicine, 1st Psychiatric Clinic-Eginition Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
t: +0030 210 7230010, +0030 6932827303
E-mail: dskalis@yahoo.gr