Report: GASI International Summer School Ljubljana, July 2018
Report by a participant from Slovenia, with an interest in group work.
Disclaimer: This is a description of a personal experience. Certain information on GASi and the summer school was chosen as it fitted the story, while at the end there are links to relevant websites.
It was a personal invitation from a friend that made me decide to dedicate a few days of summer of 2018 to the group analytical experience. Only through the proceedings of the event and later, during efforts to understand the intensity of its processes, I learned that there is a history, even a tradition of the school, and a community of participants who have met several times, summer after summer. It is this repetition and regularity that enabled a special bond and atmosphere, shall we say also a group matrix, which we could witness during the unfolding of the summer school programme.
I decided to write the report, starting with what I learned, but first something about the aims and mission of the summer school, adding a brief history of its three prior gatherings.
The aims of GASI International Summer School in group analysis are to strengthen group analytic identity and to develop group analysis as well as GASi, through attracting people from all over Europe and beyond, offering affordable access to high level group analysis. The mission is connecting people in the international sphere on a deep personal level, enhancing mutual understanding through an intense group analytic experience, in which equal participation is possible for group analysts in training, already trained group analysts as well as other people with an interest in groups.
The summer school was born out of a partnership between GASi and different group analytic institutes or societies. The first summer school was held in Belgrade, Serbia in August 2013. It had 34 participants. There was a great preponderance of Serbian students, attributed to a number of reasons (another international event and avoidance of colleagues from the neighbouring countries of former Yugoslavia). The staff team was made up of 5 ‘international’ members and 4 Serbian women. There were considerations regarding staff team roles and authority being ill-defined. Overall, feedback from both students and staff members has suggested that the school was well-received and highly valued. The staff team drew on the considerable experience of its members, to contain and work with some complex dynamics.
The second one was held in Prague, Czech Republic, in July 2015. There were 51 persons participating, 37 Internationals and 14 from Czech Republic. The event was overshadowed by the sudden death of its chairperson 10 days before the beginning, and mourning was still going on. The summer school was opened with a commemoration of Marie Hoskova and a minute’s silence in her honour. Lectures covered a wide range of subjects from clinical issues to questions of the broader society and provided a very intense input into the small and large groups. The dynamics of the summer school were deeply influenced by two main factors: 1. Marie’s death; 2. The post-totalitarian situation in the host country (a constant question of what could/should be said and what had to remain unspoken). In addition, the issue of language was a source of anxiety, present in the school but seldom openly addressed. The staff team worked excellently together.
The third Summer school in group analysis was held in July 2016 in Athens, Greece. There were 79 participants from 10 nations. The program structure was basically the same as developed for Belgrade summer school (as in the Ljubljana event) with the exception of the discussion groups that were dropped. There was an ongoing discussion about whether the program should be more academic or more oriented towards experiential learning. At least 20 persons came for a second or third time, which signals the fact that a tradition has already taken root.
At the 4th GASI summer school in group analysis, held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, there were around 60 participants. Many of them participated in at least two or all three prior summer school events, and that was the core factor for the development of the group and community atmosphere that enabled us to share intimate feelings, wounds and hopes, of which many were able to gain a process of healing, while for some it was just too intense.
The structure of the meeting was as developed in the beginning in Belgrade, with some twists having been made. The latter was evident already in the first lecture (D. Glyn and V. Vodušek), entitled “In place of an introduction: A dialogue between an older and a younger man”. The setting was a fishbowl group with two people in the centre, presumably a teacher and a student, facing each other. They spoke between themselves, about different generations within group analytic psychotherapy. What I remembered (and someone else would remember something different) were thoughts about leaning on other generations, which lowers anxiety; that a particular generation exists only when it discerns from other generations, so only in relation to them, not by itself alone; the older generation is supposed to give something to the younger one, while young one is supposed to take it (while you might not); the older generation can receive something from the younger (while it might not accept); that once certain behaviour is developed and it repeats itself in certain situations or processes (for example when one generation matures and develops the same attitude towards the younger generation as the older one had toward it) this is tradition. Later on, they spoke about authority (who sets rules and who follows), the younger man repeating his words in different tones. I felt it as a sign of questioning authority, which would not be respected just for the sake of generational difference.
Towards the end there was some swapping of seats with members from the audience, both younger and older, with questions and answers.
The first discussion group
It started with the dilemma of the introductory “lecture” (discussion between an older and a younger man). The impressions and reasoning were quite different. Some members thought it was nebulous and awkward. For some, it addressed something quite personal in relation to psychotherapy both as a method and as a question about which generation each individual belonged within the study and structure of the (inter)national organisation. After some interventions also from the “older” participants the “younger” ones spoke about feeling pressure to speak, rebelling through silence, and also about the dilemma of which generation(s) one is a part of, as some started the study of psychotherapy in later years, being “older” in some aspects and “younger” in other.
The first large group
It started with the question, continuing from one of the discussion groups, about the impact of war on generations of Slovenian people. It continued with the disturbing finding of the swastika in the ladies’ bathroom. This evoked different unpleasant feelings mostly of guilt on the part of hosts, uncertainty of being welcome by members from abroad, leading to their doubts about being accepted as who they are in Slovenia where maybe there are groups hostile to foreigners. Some participants from Slovenia tried to explain the context of the building: It is a middle school, and in Slovenia, to teenagers this sign is more connected with rebellion, as a way to express personal tensions, than a political stance. The question what to do with the sign was opened (erased, covered, left as it was) with no conclusion. Slowly the content moved toward the relation with the large group: about doubts whether in this group we feel safe enough to express ourselves and if we can allow ourselves to make mistakes (in the form of words, expressions, tone of voice hurting others non-intentionally) and to learn from them. There were some very personal issues briefly opened and feelings of being wounded expressed. Someone said that it is disturbing how popular Hitler is, while others were concerned by the term “popular” for such a figure. One member said that for her, the swastika is a sign and a word that has no meaning, just as she doesn’t give any meaning to a certain word for black people, and she said that word. The black person, the only one that attended the seminar, expressed clearly that such an expression is hurtful for her and she asked that it not be used. The member who said it answered that there really is no bad meaning she would attribute to that word, and in all honesty, she repeated it. What followed was as a flooding wave of shouting from various parts of the group about doubts of the capacity of some participants to understand or even to try to understand what is hurtful for others. It was all aimed toward the person who started it, who shouted back repeating her stance; suddenly she went quiet, bursting in anxiety and tears. The tension in the group, at least for me, was such as if I could touch it outside, in the room, or maybe inside, in my body. There were questions of responsibility for the reactions that we were witnessing, different opinions were exchanged by members. “Something is not spoken”, a few members said during the group and towards the end of it. Later, some participants said that the tension was not too much to stand in comparison to their experiences in former summer schools where some persons ran out of the large groups.
The first small group
We started with the introduction of origins, education and professional roles. We tried to find what is similar between us and in which ways we are different. There were many questions about which generation we belong to, regarding chronological age, education within psychotherapy, life events. When the content slowly moved to personal issues, one participant started to notice disturbing elements in the background (fine rattle – from loudspeakers; too high temperature – the climate control was off). Others could relate to that and found that it was to do with issues from the large group which remained unspoken in the small group.
The second lecture
Entitled “Gaps and bridges between generations” (link: https://www.ljubljanasummerschool.si/). In it, B. Čibej Žagar presented different meanings and definitions of the word (“generations”) in different contexts and sciences. One of the definitions that I thought works for me stated that being a part of a certain generation is not about chronological age, but instead of the following three characteristics: perceived membership, common beliefs and behaviours and lastly, common location in history. Besides, one of the relevant differences between the younger and the older generation that brings up problems in mutual understanding is the use of language (slang) and the way of communication. There were some findings regarding specific differences between “our” generation(s) who were born before globalisation (Baby Boomers and up to 1980) and the youngest one(s) (1980/1990, “Millennial”): The socialisation of younger generations took place in different conditions when compared to the socialisation of older generations. There are also different values and new behavioural patterns of younger people, which brings about differences in life style, habits, motivation, attitude towards work, family and the prevailing psychopathology that we and they are faced with. She went on to cite some theorists who claim that the prevailing psychopathology has reflected deep developmental disorders since the late 1980s and 1990s. Some researchers find out that the younger generations are much more oriented towards extrinsic values, while the intrinsic values are less relevant to them, which in turn leads to very specific behaviours and choices, in the end influencing also mental health issues, with higher distress and worse psychological well-being of the younger generations. She also showed an entertaining and explicit video clip about differences among the generations regarding the use of electronic devices and social media (A Millennial Job Interview).
The second discussion group
We continued with this issue of difference among generations, what older generations expect from the younger one and vice versa. There were some possibilities of listening to different generations. Someone repeated an issue of the lecture, that is, even if chronologically someone pertains to an older generation, she or he can be at the same time a part of a younger generation in some other aspects (one of the examples was of persons of middle age who are parents and who become students of psychotherapy).
The first supervision group
A case of a verbally abusive man with a traumatic history of abandonment as a child was presented. During the process of supervision, the opinion of the group was that it is of utmost importance to support, as a priority, the striving for safety of the therapists, and only after that came the question of how to help the difficult patient. It was shown that also for him, clear boundaries and limits to his behaviour were important. The question emerged of how to preserve contact, affection or in Freudian terms, libidinality, in the relationship towards such a patient.
The second large group
Again brought the theme that “something is not spoken.” Slovenian participants verbalised the pain coming from losses in the last year, especially the death of an important member of the group analytic community in Slovenia and a team member for this summer school, Vlasta Meden Klavora. Participants from other countries related to their experiences of losses, individuating a similar one from the summer school in Prague two years ago. In Belgrade almost two decades ago, only one member of the group analysis school finished the diploma after a teacher announced, a few years into the course, her withdrawal due to terminal illness. Than other members returned to the group, here and now. Are there issues that were not spoken? Can we, in such an environment, proceed to express ourselves, our needs? A conductor of the large group from Slovenia said at the end of the group: “At this moment, I am not speaking as a conductor of the group but as Vladka. We lost a very important and active member of our group analytic community just weeks before this seminar. We could not mourn properly. The preparations continued. I thought it must not interfere with the program, I did not wish to put the burden on the participants with it. But what happened was that it did. I held this feeling of loss in me and maybe somehow you felt it also, even if I didn’t want this to happen.” Many participants replied that what she said was important, courageous; that now they can better understand what they felt in the group.
The second small group
It was held in the morning of the third day of the summer school. One member, coming late, started to speak about a call to her daughter. A second member spoke about his daughter who said in the morning: “Dad, you can’t go dressed like this, it is as if you would go to dance, not to work.” A third member started to talk about her grandchildren. They are about to become teenagers. How they soon will go on their own. The second member said she experienced that for teenagers, grandparents are even more important than for children. A fourth member said that it is a common proceeding in any group that the group members start to speak about their children sooner or later. It is disturbing when it sounds like a normality to which we should all belong, while it is not so. And it is not so for gay people. In the large group there was a lot of nonunderstanding and a lack of sensitivity. Members of the small group started to share their own needs and wishes for themselves in their lives, also about what they are hiding, being afraid to show to the world. The fears and hopes were shared that members had there and then, in the small group and for the large group.
The third lecture
Entitled “Between the generations: Destruction, survival and creativity”. The lecture was interactive, exploring issues of survival and development across and between the generations in a range of hospital and therapeutic community groups and activities, drawing particularly on the thoughts of S.H. Foulkes and D.W. Winnicott. It was done using psychodramatic techniques in the fish-bowl group and in three parts. The presenter M. Tait had a pre-agreement with some participants to more or less elaborate and at the same time spontaneously perform some scenes. One was about destructive elements in the process of education in psychotherapy (if I remember right, mostly about mistakes that teachers made or the rigidity of the study system). The presenter said that anyone can join from the audience and I indeed jumped in. Those who had an agreement to participate in the scene readily accepted my contribution. That was an important experience; I instantaneously felt part of the community. The second part was about the destructive power of aggression, shown through developmental phases, as evolving from pre-verbal and pre-relational, moving through the phase of actions and non-verbal interactions to verbal exchange. For the presentation of the first phase, there were just bodies in agony (some participants threw themselves on the floor, as if overflown with discomfort or pain within their bodies, without the capacity to express it in other ways, pass it on or give it away); for the second phase, children poking each other, somewhat maliciously; than persons saying awful words to each other. The third part, the longest one, was the presentation of a case of a child many times abandoned, who developed aggressive behaviour towards peers and adults (adoptive parents, psychotherapists and policemen) alike. The presentation was done through several vignettes, all but one with the boy: from peers fighting to social worker interventions (or attempts at it), moving to a therapeutic community for children with behavioural problems, confrontation with policeman, then two vignettes where the boy’s preferred therapist was included and were pivotal in the process. In the first of these two vignettes, the boy was aggressive to the therapist. In the second vignette, and the only one without the boy, the team of therapists in the community held a session; the therapist, still (physically and emotionally) hurt from the boy’s violent kicks, was further in pain as she wanted to go to the boy to wish him a good night as she always did, but others from the therapeutic team prevented her (also physically) to do so, explaining that it is important for the boy to have the experience of consequences to his act. In the following vignettes, the boy was shown controlling his violent impulses for the first time, and in the last one there was a meeting with his mother, psychiatric patient, who could not convey clear emotions, but was instructed and guided to say to the child that she wanted the best for him, to apologise to him for not being able to care for him and that she is glad for him to go on with his life in another family. An awkward hug followed, and the presentation ended.
The discussion afterwards brought some quotes from works of psychoanalytic experts, concentrating on aggression, its roots, shapes, modes of expression, and possible interventions. The presenter was in the role of supervisor during treatment of that child in a therapeutic community.
The second discussion group
Many opinions on the lecture were shared, mostly among older participants; they explained their experiences from work and life. It became evident that the younger participants were mostly quiet. Only when older members became silent, the younger members started to talk, mainly sharing experiences about difficulties during the study of psychotherapy.
The third large group
It started with the member who was exposed in the first group saying that it was difficult for her after the first large group as she really didn’t want to hurt anyone. She said she needed help to understand what was going on, and that finally she feels support and warmth. One of the two conductors (the one from Slovenia) was seated alone (two chairs on each side were empty). Some participants verbalised this observation. Just at that point her phone rang, in response to which giggles started, in low voices. A participant said aloud the fantasies of the group: “Someone saw you are sitting alone and called you to ask if you would like some company.” The member who was exposed in the first group promptly stood up, walked in front of us across the middle of the room to the conductor and sat by her side. Later she said loudly: “It was a projective identification, that I know. And then, I also feel safer here.”
There were many opinions about two women leading the large group, with various fantasies about their relationship and roles. The traditional way was that a couple would be leading a large group, that is a man and a woman. A discussion followed about the roles of men and women in the large group and in other kind of groups.
A city tour followed for those who were interested in Ljubljana’s beautiful and varied, at times, somewhat hidden sights. Later in the evening, the gala dinner took place, and after it, dancing with live music by the Kontrabant group. After the dinner the group was able to blend in dance and musical variations, merging old and new, western and eastern styles and melodies into one song, which was done repeatedly, up to the start of the following day.
The third small group
It started with a few minutes of silence and tension, after which sharing started on formative experiences in childhood. It was mostly about the attitudes of and relationships with parents; members of the small group tried to understand and to explain to others how come they are who they are on different levels and in various aspects. Later, decisions in life were shared and discussed, in an atmosphere of respect and support towards meeting our needs. The group went on, moving slowly to issues that members wished to be spoken about in the large group.
The fourth lecture
Entitled “Between generations: On becoming a group analyst” (link: https://www.ljubljanasummerschool.si/). D. Trampuž presented the origins of group psychoanalytic therapy, where it is diferent from psychoanalysis, exploring the differences in personalities of the founders of both methods. She continued with experiences of group work in times of socialism, where theory was developed of self-government and ordered in practice, involving large meetings of all the employees from the cleaning lady to the manager. But they did not seem to work in industry, nor in clinical settings of staff groups or patients and staff median and large groups; as if members would have no thoughts and no voice. She described a vignette of those times: When she urged a patient, who in a dyadic context would bring up some brilliant insights on the relational context, to present his observations to the large group, he declined: “I am psychotic but I ain’t mad.” She continued with the history of group analytic training in former Yugoslavia, where painful and debilitating changes entered the training and large groups from the terrible political and war proceedings: “Group analytic training is not in itself a safeguard against therapists experiencing regressive phenomena…” Is there the possibility of preventing it? She said: “Implementing the ideas and practices inspired by social constructionism into our working and teaching groups can help us cultivate the sensitivity to issues of power that need to be openly discussed.” It is important that trainers are sensitised regarding the trainees. She presented some expectations of trainers and supervisors of themselves and of their trainees.
I. Prosen presented results of research among eight trainees in various stages of training, including one who just earned her diploma last year. He was able to organize a focus group discussion where feelings could be expressed and shared, resonating among them and giving all another perspective on the experience of group analytic training. The aim was to better understand where in the training process there is this valuable and important space “in-between” generations of trainers and trainees for transmitting and co-creating group-analytic skills and knowledge. Among many aspects explored, what struck me the most was that from the standpoint of the students of group analysis, there was one consensus among all of the interviewees: “That the peer group is an important anchor that gives you stability and strength to carry on.” Everything else, even if important, was viewed in different modes from various participating students.
The third discussion group
Discussed various experiences in training, studying and teaching not only for therapists, but also in other fields of work with people. There were also considerations of the different experiences in different countries with different histories.
The second supervision group
The aim was to demonstrate the Greek model of supervision, using a process of a case study of a therapeutic group, with a specific dilemma of the group therapist’s possible approaches toward one member. It is not possible to describe this model; what is possible for me to say is that the model enabled the participants to open creatively with associations regarding the presented group, psychotherapist, the member in question and their relationship (transference and countertransference), through which the dilemma of the therapist became clearer and viewed from various standpoints. At the same time, the person presenting the case was not directly exposed or addressed, and felt safe, not challenged but on the contrary, supported, in the process.
The fourth large group
The discussion about two women leaders was opened again; how this differs from tradition. But we could not know how it fared unless we try it and try for some time! The issue widened to the society’s other spheres. The relationship among men and women was brought in. Are men afraid of women? One said and many agreed: It is about women getting power, it is not about men! Men have to become active finding a way in these relationships. There were questions about other traditional patterns. One of them was that only a mother and a father with two children can be a proper family. What about two mothers, two fathers, transsexuals? The issues went on to personal beliefs, experiences, some members opening up about sexual orientation and experiences during childhood, growing up with it, facing social norms and prejudices; and others talking about being parents of gay children, following their growing up and their experiences when facing the prejudices not only of other people, but sometimes also of family members. Discussion about hetero- and homo-normality opened. Gay members, the only black member in the group and others expressed their reasons why it is important that these issues are spoken about, not to become normality, but to discuss how it is to be different, how a homosexual person feels in an environment where heterosexuality is the norm, or how black people feel in the society where white people are the norm. The drawing in the bathroom was mentioned; some change happened that not all were able to notice or recognise.
The fourth small group
Members spoke about very personal experiences and difficulties, wishes, pains and worries. Some regarding how they felt with parents, some in their relationships or families. Members were searching for a way to relate to one another, sharing not only personal stories but also trying to explore relationship issues and feelings among members of the group. This brought about other personal stories to which members were trying to relate. Intense feelings were expressed when searching, almost fumbling the ways to touch, gain contact, make and retain relationships even if our experiences, preferences, beliefs were different, even when our time in the group was coming to an end. It was also a process of separation. I felt it was done in a delicate, respectful way. There were questions on how to take these issues and atmosphere of the little group to the large group.
The fifth large group
The process that was going on in our small group seems to pour somehow into the large one. There were sharp differences in beliefs of members on different issues; at the beginning it was about what makes a person’s sexual orientation, and how family members would react to that. Others opened about their personal experiences in the family and environment, how this influenced their development in some ways but had not defined them completely. One member said it was touching to see how we try to relate, even though the reality is that differences among us will remain. There was sharing of personal issues, and at least I felt they were heard, accepted, contained in the large group. Some members questioned what was going on in the group. Was it right to allow this way of proceeding, that the process in the large group develops as if it would become a large small group? One of the staff members said it is a right thing to explore. It will bring the experiences upon which evaluations could be made. There was still a mystery. Who messed with the swastika sign? It was still there, even though changed so that it could not be recognised any more. One of the Slovenian staff members raised her hand. She said she had changed it, she made something else out of it. While she was speaking, I felt as if I was a little embarrassed because it seemed as she would do an act of rebellion; I was worried and puzzled, first that it was she who did it and second, because she admitted it in front of all of us. At the end I could not resist but to feel somewhat proud of what she did. She said she wanted to play with it. She is the oldest of the Slovenian team, and one of the oldest members of the Summer School, and in spite of that she wanted to do something playful, trying to be creative, while at the same time not denying the fact that there is a dark cross on the bathroom wall. So, she thought a lot and decided, in secrecy, by herself, to take what there is and work with it. She took a suitable marker and started, all alone in the bathroom, to pull some lines over the existing ones. She changed it to a drawing of an open window.
References
GASI Statement of purpose: https://groupanalyticsociety.co.uk/statement-of-purpose/
Scholz R. & Glyn D. Report on the 1st Summer School in Group Analysis. https://groupanalyticsociety.co.uk/first-gasi-summer-school/
Scholz R., Glyn D. & Despotovic T. Report on the 2nd Summer School in Group Analysis. https://groupanalyticsociety.co.uk/report-prague-summer-school/
Scholz R. & Glyn D. Report on the 3rd Summer School in Group Analysis. https://groupanalyticsociety.co.uk/athens-13th-17th-july-2016/
Čibej Žagar. Gaps and bridges between generations. https://www.ljubljanasummerschool.si/
Trampuž, & I. Prosen. Between generations: On becoming a group analyst.
https://www.ljubljanasummerschool.si/
Evgen Kajin
Slovenia
evgen.kajin@amis.net
With the collaboration of Barbara Čibej Žagar