Book Review by Dr Katy Mason of Intersectionality and Group Analysis: Explorations of Power, Privilege, and Position in Group Therapy
Intersectionality and Group Analysis: Explorations of Power, Privilege, and Position in Group Therapy
Edited by Suryia Nayak and Alasdair Forrest
I do not live in a bubble, thus have heard the term “intersectionality” used many times over the past decade, often accompanied by calls to action. I was not entirely sure what angle the book “intersectionality and group analysis” would take, and how it would develop my understanding, but looked forward to reading it as I thought that the combination of authors and backgrounds looked interesting and refreshing.
The book starts with a solid description of the authors understanding of intersectionality. There was lots of use of metaphor, and imagery, such as “death by 1000 cuts”. The authors continue to weave these same metaphors into their ideas, which provides a helpful sense of continuity throughout the book. The authors then offer some critique of why group analysis, both as a training and as a therapy may need to evolve. They give illustrative examples, such as exploring the emotional impact of studying texts relating to homophobia and being the “location of disturbance” in a group.
The book made me reflect on the “socialisation” aspect of group analysis, which is something that I have probably found helpful, and I have been able to make use of. However, it made me think back to my early experiences in a group analysis foundation course, when I was less well socialised. I often made comments that were too direct for the group to tolerate. I learnt, via a process of shaming, that my comments at times were insensitive, and that they could be delivered more carefully and phrased from a slant of curiosity to get a better result. I soon learnt. Overall, I have found this intervention from the group helpful. However, this chapter took me back to those days of being “the location of disturbance” in the group with different eyes. I realised that in one sense, I had been really taught how to say the same thing, but in way that was more palatable. It made me reflect on socialisation and culture, and how we make decisions as a group about what is an acceptable way to challenge and disagree, and how certain individuals in the group may want to express or do things differently. In the group, it felt clear that I was the one with the problem. How does the group manage that and what is it like for the individuals who need to bend? Was my way of being wrong? Or was it just that most members of the group didn’t like it? I have even wondered at times, whether it resulted from my lack of private school education. This was only a single experience, and reading the book, I thought about how exhausting it must be to always end up in that position time and time again because of always being the one who is “different”. As the authors say, death by 1000 cuts.
The book is brilliantly ordered in a way that builds on ideas. After the initial descriptive chapter, we move onto a chapter about a group in a women’s prison. This group is very diverse and illustrates perfectly how intersectionality is far more complex than ethnicity and gender alone. We hear how the members of this therapy group wrestle with their differences, and see how issues of power, privilege and position are still at play in a group who are all extremely marginalised. We then move onto chapters about bodies, exploring visible differences and how these differences may attract relentless aggressive projection and projective identifications. The authors consider the long-term impact of this. The authors then explore less visible differences such as sexuality. The authors again, use an example of a film where all the men are gay, but all have different experiences of being in the world and develops the readers understanding of the need to consider the socio-political field as well as childhood experiences.
The book then moves on to another chapter by Shelhi, a mixed-race woman who describes her experiences of oppression within group analysis. She describes the pain and despair of being in a group where the group refused to hear her message. She describes failing to receive the support from authority, giving examples of being told she is avoiding addressing more personal issues by the conductor, and to take her concerns back to the group by training management. This is a difficult chapter. I know I’ve been in groups where a member has felt like this and felt completely lost as to how to move forward. I have not felt equipped do anything other than continuing to locate the disturbance in that person, and the authors draw our attention on to the pitfalls of over-reliance on exploring childhood experiences. This is where it is helpful that the authors start to really develop the narrative about a shift in group analysis, to develop the understanding of the impact of the social and the political as well as the personal. In my mind, I had an image of ladders between people. If there are too many steps between us, we may struggle to understand each other. In the chapter about bodies, I had reflected on putting on weight during the covid-19 pandemic. I had found that there was a very sudden and abrupt line, where I did not fit into the world anymore. The shops stopped stocking my size in clothes, I worried about going on aeroplanes and to theme parks. When I read the chapter about bodies, this experience helped me resonate when the authors talked about living in a body which was subject to regular micro-aggressions in the socio-political sphere. It took me a step closer. I thought about how in groups this is so important, if you’re trying to convey something about your experience, but if no member of the group has experienced something similar, it can be hard. I am mindful of comparing my experience of struggling to buy a dress with that of someone subject to relentless racial trauma but am trying to make the point that if groups are too homogeneous, and only one person has had an experience that others cannot resonate with, the group is going to struggle when the gulfs between their experiences are too wide. Does the model of group analysis work when someone is at the far side of this gulf? What are the barriers to forming more heterogeneous training and therapy groups, so that there may at least be a bridge?
Next, we move to a chapter where Nayak and Dizadji are in conversation about Dizadji’s experiences as a political refugee. This chapter uses Dizadji’s powerful narrative, which really helps illuminate how using a lens of intersectionality is important when understanding the political, social and cultural contexts in which traumatization occurs. This chapter is perfect in a conversational format, as it is so inherently relational.
The final chapters offer some exploration of shifts which could be made within group analysis to incorporate intersectional thinking into group analysis. There is a useful chapter from Forrest where he explores mirroring and diffraction, using metaphors of a prism and ideas from quantum physics. He explores how mirroring can also be rejecting, malignant and “not seeing”, and introduces us to the idea of diffraction, and seeing many different truths from different positions. We then move onto another conversation, this time between Bacha and Blackwell. This is a heated exchange, via email correspondence about how group analysis might move forward. Full disclosure, I couldn’t understand this chapter. It was clearly heated, and full of intellectual rigour and political discourse. I just found it a bit beyond me, others who are more learned in these issues may really love it. The authors also state that the two correspondents did not feel like they were really in dialogue, and this may have been what I was struggling with. I felt like they were throwing facts and theories at each other. Perhaps this is fitting, when thinking about the challenges of balancing the need for an academically rigorous training with the need to come out of it being able to work with groups of individuals. One comment I will continue to think about, is Blackwell’s concern that Group Analysis may cause harm to black or working-class members who embark on the training. I know that Psychiatrists such as myself don’t have an easy ride on the training either, which may be different to that of marginalised groups, but perhaps something still akin to “you don’t belong here”. I reached diploma level in the training and decided not to continue, instead moving into the series of workshops, Creating Large Group Dialogue in Organisations and Society where we do give more focus on the impact of the social and political, looking at both figure and ground. I know it is not time or resource that has stopped me trying to take the training forward, but something about the need to conform to a way of being that I’ve found (on balance) helpful to date, but that I don’t have the urge to take forward at present. It’s something I’ve thought was internal, but that perhaps is something more in line with Blackwell’s thinking.
Happily, the book does not finish on this exchange but concludes with a manifesto about moving forward.
This is a really contemporary book, which explores intersectionality and the position of group analysis from both a training and therapy perspective. It is thought provoking and maintains a balance between theory and personal experience. It helped me think about my own experiences in a different way and how a greater focus on the socio-political may help groups understand and work together. It’s also exciting and a real call for evolution. Many thanks to the authors for their work in pulling this work together. It was illuminating.
Dr Katy Mason
Forensic Psychiatrist and Medical Psychotherapist