President’s Forward

Are We Leaderless?

When this edition of Contexts is published, I shall be in Nepal, after working for a week on the Indian GA training, in Kathmandu. I shall have missed the March Seasonal Gathering. One colleague on the management committee told me that this was a failure of responsibility on my part and I could see her point.

As soon as I became GASi President, in 2017, I recall a public disagreement between some members over the nature of the role.  On one side was the idea of ‘president’ as a leader; on the other was a categorical denial of a leadership function – rather, president and MC members were cast as servants of the membership. In a therapy group where I have recently stepped into the conductor’s role, a similar difference arose. Some wanted to say that the group had acquired a new leader, while others were not ready to see me in that light; it remains a question in pursuit of an answer.

Some members certainly feel that there is a failure, or absence, of leadership, in GASi and some believe that Group Analysis has long suffered from a reluctance to confront the thorny issue of leadership.  The late Morris Nitsun addressed this in his Foulkes Lecture.

At various times I have been both castigated and congratulated for my form of leadership. In both cases I have tried to draw out the assumptions underlying the criticisms. I have been called out, on the Forum, as failing to fulfill the responsibilities of my role when antagonisms there reached extreme levels of expression. My understanding was that what was being called for was some form of arbitration – either over what should be considered appropriate content or else over acceptable forms of expression.

Many of the problems that arise on the forum reflect those that have developed in social media generally, which shouldn’t surprise us. For me, the most troubling tendency that is observable is absence of respect for the opponent in an argument. When this develops, the exchange becomes debased as antagonists show little sense of believing they have anything to learn from the other; communications aim to satisfy supporters rather than pursue understanding.

However, these are states that are passed through and there are also reparative processes evident, which reflect group analytic aspirations that underlie our relationship, and that we might not expect to find in many other spheres of social media.

Does the containment of conflict depend on the presence, or intervention, of a leader or is this a function that, given time, we can hope that a group such as ours is capable of sustaining?

We are coming towards the end of my presidency so this would seem to be a good time for us to be discussing what sort of president members have in mind.

The MC created the monthly Reflective Members Groups to provide an opportunity for such matters to be discussed before the next AGM, in September.  I hope that many of you will be able to participate.

David Glyn