Report: Tolerating tolerance, working towards integration

Premise

Before entering into personal and technical considerations on the Summer School experience in Rijeka, I believe it is useful to contextualize my professional group analytic matrix, above all with regard to the bond I have with GASi[1], the institution that promotes the event.

I first came into direct contact with the GAS culture in 2009, at the IAGP (International Group Psychotherapy Association) congress held in Rome, during my group analytic training[2]. On that occasion, I was able to appreciate and participate in the pre-congress group on the Social Unconscious held by Earl Hopper and Haim Weinberg. It was a sort of ‘baptism’ of the international dimension of Group Analysis.

Nine years have passed before I decided to apply for membership in the GAS, which in the meantime had become GASi and therefore more clearly ‘home’. An ‘I’ that makes you feel less ‘guest’, less ‘tolerated’, or better still, it makes you feel more ‘citizen’ of an international scientific community that gathers around the theory and practice of group analysis. The decision was taken after a long time, both for a personal ‘acceptance’ in relation to the ‘young’ ideal, projected onto the international society, but above all, because of a linguistic barrier linked to not mastering a good English, an Italian cultural / national issue.

Once registered as a Full Member, I started participating in the Quarterly Members Group (QMG) in London, through which I began to understand better the complexity of the organization, the functioning and the critical points of the GASi Institution. Thanks to the pleasant welcome and the valuable experience of participating in the QMG, the wish to explore more GASi educational ‘territories’ has grown, especially outside the borders of England, a country that still maintains a ‘centrality’ of cultural reference at international level[3].

And here we come to the participation in my first GASi Summer School, in Rijeka, which I reached by car, a non-negligible aspect in terms of geographical proximity to the city, that also has the Italian name of Fiume. And here is where the first questions arise: Rijeka or Fiume? An Italian or Croatian city? Who occupied who? Who is the guest? Who will tolerate who and what? All these questions have highlighted my ignorance about the history of this city, which contains so much Italianness[4].

Since Rijeka / Fiume was an Italian city, I had the fantasy that I could claim ‘citizenship’. It is precisely with this spirit that I approached the Summer School experience, that is, with a sense of citizenship that can be expressed at different levels: geographical, professional, cultural, a sense of belonging to the GASi and to the international group analytic community.

Event Structure

The Rijeka Summer School was an event opened not only to ‘experts in the field’ (psychologists, psychotherapists and group analysts) but also to other professions and, to my pleasant surprise, to patients who previously had or were having an experience of group analytic psychotherapy.

The structure of the Summer School is in itself very intensive, characterized by a constant and rapid transition from one setting to another, namely: small groups; lectures; discussion groups; supervision groups; and large groups.

Of the same importance is the transition to  ‘spontaneous group experiences’, created during the breaks and evenings, at the end of work gatherings for coffee, trips to the beach, dinners, long chats and some ‘acting-outs’ – result of the intense ‘regression’ stimulated by the experience.

Small Group

The small group (about 10 participants) is a setting in which, physiologically, one enters in a dimension of greater intimacy, protection and containment, in order to be able to face possible destabilizations or disturbances stimulated in the participants by the experience. For example, in my small group we discussed the issues that had most intensely resonated with the participants, especially those that emerged and were lived in the Large Group, but obviously connected to the experience as a whole. I greatly appreciated the conducting of Marit Joffe Milstein, who constantly kept the analytic function active on different levels, passing from the intrapsychic, to the relational and to the group, maintaining a ‘meta’ observation point, including also her role as a participant in the other settings.

Lectures

I can say that I appreciated the interventions of all the lecturers, although in some moments some doubts arose, doubts that I shared afterwards in the discussion groups. However, the lecturer I liked most was Mirijana Pernar, not only for the scientific approach but above all for the methodology of the presentation,  as I was able to follow her lecture by reading the text projected on the big screen. A clear lecture on the process and ethics of supervision in psychotherapy in general and in Group Analysis in particular.

Discussion Group (without a conductor)

Regarding the discussion groups (about 20/25 participants), it was very interesting for me to participate in one of the two groups without a conductor. I believe that the presence of the figure of President, David Glyn, despite his always humble attitude, clearly influenced the possibility of the group to face the anxiety related to not having a ‘recognized’ figure as a leader, that reassures and protects the group from the fantasies of chaos and anxiety, resulting from the struggle for power and leadership (Freud, 1913, 1921). It was however interesting to see how the group’s communication was self-regulated without too many difficulties. In my opinion, it was the most ‘mature’ group on the communicative and reflective level.

Supervision Group

In the supervision group I attended (about 15/20 participants), conducted by Bessi Karagianni and Ante Bilić, we worked on the cases of two colleagues in training (one for session). We experimented with two structurally different conductions: the first, with a clear ‘task’ to follow regarding the working method (a pre-structure), more directive and more ‘in’[5] group; the second much more ‘classically’ group analytic, with the conductor on the background and the free floating discussion. 

Large Group

Regarding the large group (about 100 people), led by Tija Despotović and Vedran Bilić, I will spend some more reflections, due to the passion[6] I have for this setting.

The conductors were abstinent and left the group free to follow its oscillations and took on the ‘attacks’ and protests of the group without ever entering into symmetry. The male conductor ‘stimulated’ the group with more interventions, sometimes of a sexual-symbolic matrix, while the female conductor was more silent and had a greater ‘containment’ function. Without going too far into the question of the ‘function of the conductors’ of a large group, based on my experience and in my humble opinion, a ‘reading’ of the ongoing dynamics by the conductors would be really desirable, especially in moments of greater defense, during which the group tries to ‘control anxiety’ through intellectualized discourses and attempts to create ‘order’ in the communication, to maintain ‘good manners’, and to be politically correct, at times goody-goody.

It is precisely from this type of dynamic that my drive / ‘push’ to make the interventions that I will mention below was born. I felt a frustration deriving from the feeling that in the group there was no possibility of accepting feelings such as anger, fear, hate and fragmentation anxiety deriving from the threat to personal, social and institutional identity (Turquet 1975). I perceived them as split and denied feelings in the group, while I felt that they personally crossed me with a strong intensity and to which I felt the need and the ‘responsibility’ to ‘give voice’. But, in me there was also a conflict between exposing myself to taking the role of the ‘counter-culture’ (the ‘pain in the ass’, as I will describe later) or the possibility of staying silent and ‘taking refuge’ in the ‘shadow’ (I think of political refugees and migrants). In other words, to choose between tolerating and being tolerated by the group or trying to reach a level of integration, of ‘citizenship’, of split feelings on an individual and group level. The choice to ‘risk’ for an ‘ideal’ of integration, ‘acting’ the role of provocateur (of those who question authority, the revolutionary anarchist) took place thanks to the ‘trust’ placed in the group and in the institutional setting that crossed it, referring to the subtitle of the event  – ‘Harbouring diversities’.

My first intervention was about the title of the Summer School, the word ‘Tolerance’ which, as I lived it, contains in itself the point of view of those who have the power to tolerate (the ‘landlord’), and therefore also to discriminate (social discrimination), asking myself and the group how useful it could be to ‘include’ the point of view of those who ‘suffer’ tolerance and discrimination. Therefore, an intervention that highlighted ‘negative’ aspects of the meaning of the word tolerance, in function and in relation to the process of tolerance: there are those who tolerate and those who are tolerated.

The second intervention, at the Large Group on the third day, focused on highlighting and amplifying the anger and potential violence that appeared in the group through the voice of a German colleague (also a participant in my small group). His taking the word with ‘great strength’ prompted me to ‘act’ a ‘strong’, ‘raw’, apparently violent mirroring, telling him that I had the feeling and the fantasy that he could have been a ‘Nazi’. Clearly, it was a ‘bomb’ intervention to detect and bring out the fear and anguish connected to the aggressive forces that circulated in the group, and that until then had been ‘tamed’, controlled, through intellectualization. This intervention aroused an immediate reaction of the group, dividing itself in supporters and opponents, both in defense of my German colleague – object of ‘attack’, and in my defense – to contain my potential ‘lynching’. The unexpected thing was that the colleague, after having thought about it, admitted that my statement could actually be true. In this way, with a great act of courage, he recognized to himself and above all to the group, the possibility of coming into contact with aspects of violence and hate underlying the dynamics of tolerance, which turns out to be, rather than a starting point, an intermediate point of arrival of the wider and more difficult process of ‘integration’, of being accepted fully as ‘citizens’ of a polis, of a community. The group was therefore able to tolerate, i.e. ‘express and experience tolerance’, rather than just ‘reflect on tolerance’ through intellectualized discussions. The result was that the group did not ‘take out’ anyone, neither the ‘nazi’, nor the ‘terrorist’.

My third intervention, born from a statement in the group on avoiding interventions ‘not appropriate to the context’, was intended to ‘defend’ the freedom to be ‘crazy’, ‘stupid’, ‘provocative’ and to let emerge the most irrational, aggressive and destructive parts, in order to ‘work’ with them through dialogue, aiming at Koinonia (de Marè, 1991). Initially, I used an iconic communication, saying that I and another colleague of my small group were sitting right behind the two conductors and that we could ‘take them out’ by pointing a gun at their head. Clearly a provocative intervention, but also symbolically representative of the rebellion/revolution to the establishment, to the authority, to the parents, to the heads of government, to those who hold the power. This intervention provoked a protest reaction from an Italian colleague (part of the staff, the establishment), and from another colleague (she too, in a way ‘connected’ to the institutional authority) who said that my interventions were a ‘pain in the ass’. At that point, I chose to respond more ‘seriously’, in a more ‘mature’ and rational communication mode, in strongly affirming freedom of thought and speech, even if this freedom can disturb and annoy. The affirmation of the right to ‘be crazy’, ‘disturbed’, strange, different, has been a reference to the right to be ‘tolerated’, as long as it is within the fundamental rule of a group of group analytic type (free associations and free floating discussion) and as long as there is an institution (setting, conductors, government, school….) that monitors the ‘law’.

At the end, shifting from a general and social point of view (there and then) to an institutional and professional one (here and now), I shared with the group the idea of  reflecting also on the power that we have in our professional role as psychologists, psychotherapists and group analysts, to “tolerate”, “discriminate” or “be violent” with our patients or colleagues, similar to some experiences that were shared in the different settings of the whole summer school event.

Conclusion

I can say that the Summer School experience in Rijeka was a beautiful ‘immersion’ into international culture groups, a training experience on a human, professional, group analytic and social level. Not least, I could perceive in myself and in the participants whom I got to know better, a strong regressive ‘emotional wave’, which has brought back ‘pending’ issues on a personal, professional and social level. A push to change, hopefully towards growth. However, when in doubt on the possible outcome  and given the heterogeneity of the participants and also the presence of patients, I believe that it is would be fruitful to ‘think’ about the ways how to facilitate the readjustment and the ‘re-emergence’ of the participants in an ‘evolutionary’ way. It would be desirable, in my humble opinion, to plan for a final plenary session, during which the staff could share with the participants a ‘reading’ of the main steps of the experience (the salient points, a summary). These could serve as ‘coordinates’ that would help the participants in ‘putting the pieces together’ during the phasing out from the event, in the phase of ‘re-emergence’ from the psychic and relational regression activated by the experience.

A final reflection concerns the relation between the described process and the setting of the Large Group, with respect to the arrangement of the chairs: I think that the arrangement in only two large circles is very defensive and anchored to a communicational ‘ideal’ that recalls more the median and the small group, instead of the specific large group process (Kreeger, 1975; Schneider, Weinberg, 2003; D’Auria, Negro, 2016). Having at the centre a circle of no more than 9/11 persons and the presence of at least three concentric circles of chairs, would increase the possibility of experimenting with the center-periphery dichotomy and the verticality of power, that is determined in terms of communication (whoever is at the centre hears better and is more easily heard than those on the periphery). Moreover, this arrangement can ‘better’ represent the structure (network) and culture (matrix) of the external reality at a social, political and institutional level.

Bibliography

de Marè P., Piper R., Thompson S. (1991), Koinonia. From Hate, through Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group, Karnac Books

D’Auria A., Negro S. (2016), Dal Large Group al Gruppo Allargato Analitico, GRUPPI, Vol.2/2016

Foulkes S.H, Anthony E.J. (1957), Group Psychotherapy: The Psychoanalytic Approach, Penguin, London

Freud S. (1913), Totem and Taboo, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIII

Freud, S. (1921). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XVIII.

Kreeger L. (ed.) (1975.), The Large Group, Constable, London

Schneider S. & Weinberg H. (2003), The large group re-visited: the herd, primal horde, crowds and masses, Jessica Kingsley, London

Turquet P. (1975), Threats to identity in the large group, In: Kreeger (ed.), The Large Group, Constable, London

Notes

[1] Psychologist, Psychotherapist, specialist in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Group Analysis. Full Member of GASI (Group Analytic Society International), Full Member of ‘Il Cerchio’ – Italian Association of Group Analysis, Full Member of COIRAG (Italian Confederation for Analytical Group Research), Professor at the SRBA – Roman School of Analytic Balint Group.

[2] Four-years training in Group Analysis (Two-years course at the Group Analysis Laboratory and other two-years with Il Cerchio – Italian Association of Group Analysis).

[3] Almost all the QMGs are in English, or at least colleagues who live in England, with a small number of colleagues coming from other European countries. I believe that  language is not the only barrier (a limitation that I attribute, in my experience, to Italian colleagues), but also economic factors, as well as the  ‘time’ needed to fly to London and participate in an one day event every three months.

[4] In this regard, I greatly appreciated the first day lecture on the history of the city, by Tea Perinčić.

[5] For the difference between psychoanalysis in, of and by the group I refer to Foulkes and Anthony (1957).

[6] Since 2011, I have been regularly conducting Large Groups and Analytic Large Groups. For those who want to learn more about the difference between the two settings, please refer to the article D’Auria A., Negro S. (2016), Dal Large Group al Gruppo Allargato Analitico, GRUPPI, Vol.2/2016.

Alfonso D’Auria
Rome, Italy
alfonsodauria@gmail.com