Confusion in a virtual large group

Key words: large group, confusion, conducting, projective identification, introjective identification, function.

Justification[1]

Throughout my career since 1976 (Sunyer, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2001), large groups have consistently stood out due to their magnitude. There is no doubt that they are an inexhaustible well of experiences that lead to reflections on the variety of phenomena that are involved in them and in the human being in general.

Most of them have been organized by the OMIE Foundation within the framework, fundamentally, of the Group Analytic Psychotherapy[2] courses, which are held in Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid. They are placed in a training context in a similar way to those that  are held in other places, both in our country as well as in the rest of the world, especially in the Institutes that are part of the European network of Training Institutes in Group Analysis (EGATIN).

The most recent opportunity that reactivated this paper took place at the beginning of September of this year 2020, within the framework of the 1st virtual Congress of the Group Analytic Society International. Every three years it organizes a symposium. This was to be held in Barcelona and the motto was “The languages ​​of Groups: the power to include and exclude.” However, the pandemic forced us to reconsider the event and transform its format into a virtual event. Such an event, as usual, is still a space for various encounters, with various group formats (experiential and conceptual) among which we find large groups.

In this paper I want to reflect on the second session[3] with more than 300 participants, in which confusion reigned throughout the entire session. The meeting was virtual, with simultaneous interpretation from Spanish into English or vice versa, depending on the speaker.

The scene

There were three sessions. In the first one, many of the 270 participants expressed their pleasure and enthusiasm about the reunion, since many of them knew each other. In the third session, participants showed their gratitude and desire to see each other again. The plot, as in any theatrical act, was found in the second one.

To allow for a certain amount of objectivity and since the sessions had not been recorded to preserve privacy, I asked three participants to write about five or six lines describing what happened from their perspective. Their versions appear after my first description.

It begins with my welcome for being the reference conductor on this occasion. Shortly after it began, someone complained about not having been acknowledged by an authority in Congress because of being from Palestine; and attributing it to a discriminatory attitude for ideological reasons. This comment triggered a chain of contradictory remarks among several participants. They even reproached the one who had started to complain about having chosen an Israeli conductor with whom he had ended up fighting three years ago! The person in charge of the congress who had forgotten about it, apologized, blaming it to the complexity of the event and the associated stress. But criticism was maintained, this time focusing on other colleagues in the group and always on the basis of discriminating on ethnic aspects – not linguistic, but also. Someone commented that the apologies expressed by the director of Congress were an acknowledgement that also had to be appreciated, but it was not attended to. The tension increased with allusions to other ethnic groups in Africa, also in conflict or without recognition, and to problems in other continents. Even another person —not a Catalan— alluded to the rights of the Catalan people to their destiny.

Faced with this situation, one of the conductors tried to introduce some thought, even arguing that we were no more than representatives of ourselves and not of any territory or ethnic group; that wrapping oneself in flags meant substituting individual identity for collective identity at a time when those of us who were here were concrete people.

But these interventions and others did not appease the spiral of critical remarks, some of them with very personal nuances. To make matters worse, technical difficulties appeared that made it more difficult for the translators to follow up; to the extent that the image of the main conductor disappeared from the screen, leading to comments laden with much anguish. The weather warmed up and the session ended suddenly at the end of 90 minutes and the system was disconnected.

Observer 1

The second large group began with a few words from the Director of the symposium and president of GASI. He said he was very sorry for his mistake in opening the meeting by not having mentioned the presence of Palestinians in it. This had been claimed by a participant from Palestine in the first session of the previous day. Immediately an endless verbal fight between Israelis and Palestinians began. Conductors were unable to interrupt or intervene. Both the group and the conductors found themselves trapped in seemingly endless chronic paralysis.

Reflecting on this situation, it seems to me that this announcement by the president caused a feeling of total powerlessness in the group that could not be contained. If the president makes a mistake and says so, it means that authority is missing and, as a consequence, a battle begins between the brothers. His words were too much in this situation and the group could not contain or explore them. They did not open a path to reflection, but rather the path to war, between victims and perpetrators, a fight that was denied. The attack was strong and showed the devastating force behind the entire conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Observer 2

The LG session is opened by the president of the GASI apologizing for not including Palestine in the welcome the day before… I think that already conditioned the session a lot. The group was all the time in a mode of flight – attack and Israelis were stigmatized as “oppressors” and the Palestinians (all women by the way) were defined as “oppressed people”, although the former tried to stir some discomfort towards Great Britain as the power established in GASI through language. The conductor made attempts to make himself heard, but it was impossible, there was a lot of tension. He tried to introduce “speaking from each one and not from the flag”; But in that context, it meant to pour even more gasoline into the fire of the confrontation. The LG session produced a lot of uncomfortable feelings and finally reached its climax in the aggressiveness of an Israeli towards a Palestinian. It was a very unpleasant scene … In the end, the conductor managed to close the session, but there remained a feeling that a lot of anger and frustration had emerged, perhaps also because of the online setting of the symposium, not being able to be there in presence? Or the other way around, because it was because of the zoom that people who normally do not participate because they cannot pay for the trip or accommodation? By being more inclusive, and egalitarian in this sense, maybe some felt bothered?  

As can be seen, there are logical discrepancies attributable to the distance between the event and its story written days later; or to the confusion of the group itself.

I’m going to focus on this second half. I will try to answer three questions:

1. a) How to understand that professionals with experiences in this type of group entered with such ease in a river of associations that pushed us to confusion?
2. b) Why did our attempts to channel and to think not bear any fruits?
3. c) Why does a large group tend to include confusion in its dynamics and how does it get in and out of it?

Large group definition

Foulkes (1975) in the clearest contribution that I know of in this regard says:

There hasn’t been much debate about the optimal size (of a group). When does it become a large group? At what point does your character change? The question is important if we consider that we do not simply have a large group and a small group, but rather that we move on a scale where all of this is a bit relative. The essential point to underline is that quantity becomes quality (…). The leap from 8 to 30 or 40 members, not to mention 100, involves very different group characteristics (…) For example, in mixed groups (…) 8 seems to be the correct number. From 8 or 9 onwards there is a substantial change in its character; Let’s accept that that stays up to, say, 14 people. The zone between 14 and 20 members or even 25, that I know, is not explored from this point of view (…) once we have 30 or 40 individuals, only 10 or 20 can make a difference. The type of group we have in mind when thinking in large groups is made up of at least 30 people; but more likely between 50 and 100 or even 120. (1975: 51-2)

It is possible that this reference is the one we have become accustomed to or the one we have tacitly admitted. I agree with him: a group consisting of up to ten members is a small group; until thirty, I will call it a medium-sized and, from that number onwards, it is called a large group; always bearing in mind that the border between one and the other is very diffuse (Sunyer, 2008).

Such a classification is not random. Anzieu (1978) tells us in this regard:

It varies between seven and fifteen, with eight being optimal for a psychotherapy group, and ten or twelve for a training group. The reasons are based on a law that dialectics has enunciated for a long time: reaching a certain threshold, the quantitative variation produces a qualitative leap (…) the total number of possible interindividual relationships between individuals are found by means of the following formula: n (n-1) / 2. (1978: 34-5)

This confirms that the number of interrelationships that occur increases exponentially as a function of the number of participants. Surely there are difficulties that emerge in large groups.

Pat de Maré (1991, 2010), when speaking of large groups, thinks of those that contain a number above twenty; however, he says that:

In 1987 it was decided at the seminar to establish a large group section as part of the Group Analytic Society. It became increasingly clear that since the large groups ended up being medium in size and not large, there should therefore be two sections. A medium-sized group section that is proving to be very active, and a large group section that, to date, has not been developed. The large group is still a too general or global term (1997: 23).

Perhaps that is why he put more emphasis on what happens in medium-sized groups than in large ones. And when he introduced the term koinonia – communion – he was underlining the ability of those who make up a group of this size to develop relationships based more on collaboration than competition.

Not everyone agrees with this classificatory idea. Nor do I think that in a small group it is more difficult to perceive social aspects. Yes, the dynamics that occur in a large group are very similar to what Volkan describes in relation to social groups. He writes:

“A large group is one made up of dozens, or hundreds, or thousands or millions of individuals, many of whom will not meet in life, will not know of their existence, despite sharing a feeling of similarity” (2013: 29).

Thus, we could consider humanity as a large group that is highly fragmented and with high tensions between the various subgroups – nations. His perspective comes from his experiences of mediation between societies, having intervened in numerous inter-ethnic conflicts (2004, 2006, 2013a 2013b), emphasizing identity and how it feels threatened or manipulated, although it is also constituted from the relationships that arise in large contexts. We also see this in our large groups.

A novel parameter was added to the project of this symposium: the Pandemic forced us to rethink the symposium and, given the impossibility of meeting face-to-face, we reinvented our idea, transforming it into a virtual event. That was new for everyone, and especially to those conducting a LG of more than 300 people.

Indeed, as of March 2020, various programs were offered on a large scale allowing people to meet virtually and emotional movements could be verified. That is still a field of scientific interest and of theoretical and practical research, with all its complexity, provided that we manage to ignore their seductive aspect.

Thus, the participants were invited to participate in three large groups (Sunyer 2008) to communicate, to discuss and to exchange experiences focused on the here and now of the meeting; of course they were affected by those experiences that each one had had and that come from their own group environments.

I will now return to the three questions I raised previously. Let’s go to the first one: how can it be explained that professionals with experiences of conducting large groups enter easily into streams of associations that lead to confusion?

The confusion

Being professionals does not vaccinate us against states of anxiety and confusion. In many cases, this derives from the relational context in which we find ourselves, rather than from personal situations. In addition, although training gives us tools and knowledge, it does not necessarily prevent us from feeling confused when we find ourselves in troubled waters.

In 2001, I addressed confusion in groups: that emotional, psychic experience, by which anxiety in a given situation generates or activates signals that affect the way individuals live what they are experiencing and how they interact with others. The individual perceives a certain difficulty to understand what they hear or are experiencing, and to organize their thoughts according to that is going on in the context. This activates thoughts that are not very coherent, but very diverse and barely connected with the situation in which they appear: difficulty to understand what is happening, feeling that one does not belong in there, and even some degree of disconnection with reality that, in turn, increases the state of alarm. The experience of loneliness and non-recognition by others increases the signs of anguish.

When anxiety —hardly recognizable as such because it altogether seems absurd to feel anxious— rises, difficulties affect the perception of others —with modifications of space and time—. Doubts arise regarding the intentionality of those around the individual, perhaps even feeling persecuted for his/her ideas or for what they want to tell him/her. Moreover, although in many cases individuals know that what they experience has a point of irrationality, one cannot avoid it. This activates a dissociation —what is lived, what is thought—, which activates personal confusion and the experience of marasmus. I do not doubt the increase in personal discomfort and rage, anger and even hatred that one feels in these situations towards those around him; feelings that, while being rejected, are still experienced.

These states of confusion with derealization, temporal-spatial disorientation, or even with perceptual alterations, are temporary and subside in a short time. They tend to surprise (and scare) those, who are not used to this type of experience, claiming that the neurotic is less comfortable in large groups than the psychotic. The vital defence and communication systems they use —and those who are somewhat more used to this type of experience— allow them to bear the confusion better than those of us in the generic group of neurotics. It is true that a person’s ego is not always capable of regaining balance and appeasing these experiences. In some very specific cases, complementary professional help has been required, and even some medication[4].

In a large group, everything acquires a dimension that exceeds the individual capacities to elaborate the perceptions that one has. The information that we capture through our senses surpasses the individual capacities to process it. Everything acquires such a volume and intensity that our mental capacity does not always cope with it. Our communication mechanisms are not always capable of containing anxious information with which they connect. The cognitive is overwhelmed by the emotional that prevails in the interpretation of what is perceived. This is related to at least two elements: the group itself and the way it is conducted.

The group: hall of mirrors

This idea by Foulkes does not seem far-fetched (Nitsun, 1996). In reality, if each one is for the others an object in which many of their personal characteristics are reflected —by means of projections and projective identifications—, we might say that the group resembles that specular labyrinth that we find in amusement parks. With the distortions of each reflective surface. The complication comes from the fact that the images that we perceive of ourselves at the same time are many and very diverse, and we are not always able to unite them by differentiating the projected part of the mirror’s own distortion. Thus, a comment awakens so many contradictory responses to each other, that the subject lives dismembered, affecting their own identity.

I defend the idea that psychic communication mechanisms correspond to the so-called defence mechanisms (Sunyer 2018). Indeed, every defensive mechanism always tells us something. For example, setting an alarm at home indicates one’s fear that someone could break in. The same happens with our defensive mechanisms. They warn or transmit the idea that something is happening there: something scary, something of the identity falters, or changes appear in the permeability of the psychic membrane.

In a small group situation, these processes are also alive: although they are more contained. However, the enlargement of the group —a greater number of mirrors— increases fears and, consequently, these mechanisms become more evident. In large groups, the most active elements are introjection, projection, identification, projective and introjective identification, splitting and dissociation. It is true that intellectualization, rationalization are also present; but I think the former are more basic while the latter try to curb the consequences of the former.

I agree with Foulkes (1975), Main (1975) and with Turquet (1975) when they refer to the appearance of psychotic mechanisms in these group spaces —which indicates that the situation is experienced as dangerous—. Experiences of fragmentation and invisibility (Turquet, 1975) can increase levels of confusion. If containment does not appear and the ability to think is paralyzed the emergence of projective and introjective identifications transform the situation into a chaotic one.

Creating a space in which the recognition of the other is a reality requires time and confidence in conducting the group. This allows us to pass from being able to being able to feel; from there to being able to think and finally being able to speak[5]. This process, which varies from individual to individual, provides important doses of security in the permanence of the Self that one does not always feel that they are guaranteed.

We know that the return of the image by the Other reinforces the binding ties as long as the narcissistic ties with the group and its members are maintained; fundamentally those that intervene in the secondary narcissistic contract (Kaës, R, 2009). Most likely, the experiences of invisibility and loneliness indicated by Turquet (1975) are related to doubts about their persistence.

Now —second question— why did our attempts to channel thought to creativity not bear fruit? This leads us to think about the role of the conductor.

The conductor and his conduction

Many may be surprised that we use the word conductor instead of calling them a therapist or group psychotherapist.

Why a conductor? Because they are responsible for ensuring that each musician —patient— brings out the best of themselves in the interpretation of the score, so that the ensemble sounds as it should. The musicians contribute all their technique and knowledge so that the conductor obtains the result they are looking for. They are not the one who play the instruments. They are the ones who strive to achieve the atmosphere, the emotional climate and the relational style so that the symphony sounds in a certain way.

Such is the significance of the role of the conductor of a group. The objective is to achieve a sufficiently facilitating environment so that each one contributes as much as possible to the normological development of all. This marks an important difference between the more classical positions of group psychotherapy and group analysis – at least as I understand it, more radical in the sense of the relational (yes, very well said!)

Different conducting styles depend to a large extend, on the characteristics and experiences of the professional. But also the conceptual references on which he or she build his or her style; in my case, f.e. it evolved from Kleinian positions —even Lacanian— to others that would mean, my style is radical (Dalal, 2002), emphasizing the relational (Mitchell, 1993). Possibly, the range reaches from one extreme in which the conductor addresses the group without feeling fully part of it (which would be the position of Bion, 1976), to another, in which he or she is part of the group (despite a series of responsibilities that differentiate him or her) in what could be a position close to T. Burrow (Gati Pertegato, 2013). A positioning and its opposite are represented in Foulkes as Dalal very well showed us.

When the objective of the professional aims at sanitizing relationships —we are in the verbalizing function (Sunyer, 2008)—, what they seek is that all who make up the group (including themselves) can talk about whatever they want in a trustworthy and reliable atmosphere; as a good enough mother allows interactive play to enhance children’s development (Winnicott, 1981, 1971). Consequently, the “free floating discussion” —parallel to the “free association” of the psychoanalytic space— becomes the terrain for the exploration of the internal objects with which we constitute ourselves (Sunyer, 2002). That which seems very generic, is not so generic. Achieving this goal goes beyond a mere organizational capacity or having acquired a series of conducting skills. I call the conducting or conducting function the set of mental operations (Bion) aimed at achieving that goal.

From Hopper (2018) I learned a scheme that seemed very clarifying to me. It addresses the place and time coordinates in which the group conversations take place:

What is expected, ideally, is for the group to focus its work on the here and now. Because it is the common playing ground. There we all know the variables that occur with respect to what happens to us. However, the heart of the conversation tends to be located in any of the other boxes. It is easier; but it hides a reality: that of focusing attention on what is happening in the present moment; which is where the problem or problems of those who make up the group are located. And it is also a problem for conducting. Where is the conductor or where are the conductors placed?

When thinking about the history of the individuality of each member of the group, we tend to value the stories insofar as they provide clues, clues that explain or clarify their individual situation. But considering the here and now, these stories are still relational movements that seek to get away from the bonds we establish with the other members of the group. They are, in reality, the metaphorical reflection of things that are happening in the group here and now. They have to do with past stories of the members of the group or stories that are related to the social: all this refers to aspects of the relationship, to the difficulties we have in the real encounter with the other. As the saying goes, when Paul speaks about Peter, he speaks more about Paul than about Peter.

And in our case?

Contamination of the object of study: a reading of the session

The characteristics of the people who form a group as well as the objectives that are sought determine the relationships that are established. I called this a contamination of the object of study, which is nothing more than the consequence of developing relationships between group members in which the difficulties or common characteristics of its members and those of the institution that shelters them are inoculated (Sunyer, 1997, 2008). That is in a way what Nisun recalls when pointing out to the organizational mirror (Nitsun 1998a, b).

In our case, all the groups and activities came under one motto: The languages ​​of the Groups: the power to include and exclude. This means that inclusion and exclusion will be present in all activities carried out. How did it appear in the LG?

As soon as the second meeting began, comments appeared about being included or not, which in a certain way greatly activated the ghost that dominated the meeting and that concerned those of us who participate in the group experience. Mainly inclusion or exclusion: an error in the communication of the president of the Symposium (not mentioning the presence of people from a specific country) lit the fuse of exclusion.

It is essential to feel included. Even more so in a LG in which any failure in communication acquires dimensions proportional to the number of mirrors in this room. If identity is that image —and the consciousness that is derived— that is built from relationships with oneself, and with everything that surrounds them and constitutes their existence, when a person is immersed in a large group, one of their fears is to keep up the maintenance of their identity.

That forgetfulness on the part of a person in charge of the Symposium was experienced by a person as a non-recognition of their national identity. That was a moment in which the tent (Volkan, 2018) supporting the collective identity of each member of the group was shaken. In reality, virtual encounters are also a threat to individual identity: we are not what we were. Something related to the ideological claim (Volkan, 2018) becomes part of the individual and collective identity. In this sense, when someone feels —or interprets— that their exclusion amounts to a non-recognition of their personal and collective identity, they react. The virtual, joining us, separates us. Where is our identity?

At this moment, and in the face of the fragility of being immersed in a virtual group, a chain of identifications with the fragility of other members of the group begins. In some cases, also claiming their recognition as representatives of their national or ethnic identity. In others, identifying with the injured person, they show solidarity through that same identification: they too have been damaged. At the same time, third parties show solidarity with another part of the group, immediately joining that association chained by grievances and shared non-recognition.

When this happens, people’s reaction confirms the damage suffered; and when living with such multiplicity, none of the reasons that can be argued to reduce the intense feeling of suffering connected with the wound is not enough. When entering this circle, it is easy for many to identify with the pain of the person who feels discriminated, feeling themselves discriminated or with the possibility of being discriminated. In these moments one does not feel like a thinking subject but rather a representative of a language, an ethnic group, a religion or an ideology. They are no longer subjects in relation to other subjects. The group seems to become a meeting of representatives of languages, ethnic groups, territories, races. One, their identity, has been reduced to what they “represent” and not what they are. It is difficult to recover the capacities to think, to create thoughts that allow to redirect the feelings and facilitate that the group, that mental space of elaboration of internal objects goes for its objective and reason for being. Emotion trumps reason. And that is where the confusion penetrates the group that has been contaminated by the object of study, that is, by the reason why we are together.

To all this reality we must add another one: virtuality.

Indeed, the enormous difference with other LG has been its virtual format. It is impossible to have the almost 300 participants on one screen, so the individual and their visibility are severely damaged. To the loss of information that comes from body language —only the face of the speaker is visible,— was added a very important distortion of voices. If simultaneous interpretation was taken into account — remember that the congress was trilingual— it was almost impossible for the professional who carried out this work to transmit the tone, its modular variations, its nuances, the verbal rhythm of the speaker, so the impression that was transmitted was rather negative: loss of identity. If the direct voice of the speaker was listened to, not everyone was fluent in the other two languages, so many aspects were also lost: isolation. To this must be added the spatial element that, even being on the same screen, in reality each one was in their homes (their castle), exclusion and far away!

The virtual excludes the real.

Conducting

In this scenario, conducting was happening—at least the one that corresponds to me—. There I admit having detected the second of the moment in which the confusion was introduced and began to take root.

I wanted to intervene but two doubts appeared in me:

1. a) Was that the GASi style? I did not know; which is not intended to be an excuse. I was still a foreigner in that land. Like when you are invited to eat at a house for the first time and you do not know the rules or regulations that govern its dynamics; for example, where each one sits. Exclusion or non-inclusion?
2. b) If I would have intervened as I wanted to —silencing all voices to make myself heard – I wonder if the group would accuse me of prohibiting the free development of thought of this group.

I admit that I had seconds of doubt and that, when I intervened, I felt that my voice did not reach —let’s see, wait! I was repeating over and over again— as if in some way I was excluded from the group because I did not belong to the dominant culture (GASi).

When I put myself together, I panicked: my image had disappeared from the screen and my voice was not reaching the ears of the group. It was seconds, I know; until technical service brought me back into the session. Someone said the conductor is not here, we have no conductor!, which aggravated the level of collective anxiety.

It was certainly difficult —almost impossible— for the voice of any of my conducting partners to reach the members as “something the conductor is saying”. The interpreters could not put our own voice, our own style. Our voices, those of the interpreters, those of the rest of the members of the group intermingled in a maddening whirlwind. We had to mute all the microphones to enable our voice to be heard.

What did this technical aspect generate? The experience that we have no one to guide us. And from there to chaos or confusion, there is just one step. Exclusion took place, activating what in Bion’s terms would be the flight-fight scenario; which in our terminology is called group confusion and aggressiveness.

Now, the third question: why does a large group tend to, or include, confusion in its dynamics and how do you get in and out of it?

Ways by which confusion penetrated

There are five sufficient and necessary functions to organize any group: the convener, the binding, the hygienic, the verbalizing, and the theorizing functions (Sunyer 2008). It will be necessary to think that possibly the penetration of the confusion was carried out through them.

The convening function (Bion, 1987) welcomes the set of aspects that are related to the convocation itself: who, when, where, how and why is invited to participate in a group experience. Here such a function was carried out by the organization itself, who decided who the conductors would be. Those of us who accepted this assignment —with two substitutions when changing the format session— had met previously, and were even supervised by Morris Nitsun. However, the assigned conductors are invited by the organization. This introduces a weak link between those who attend and those who are responsible for accompanying them in these meetings. The conductors barely knew each other (more, Sue and Elisabeth) and the necessary complicity required could not be fully realized – not to add the language difficulties. Those gaps (possibly unavoidable under the circumstances) could have contributed to the appearance of confusion.

The binding function. It was virtual —it means, false, apparent— which certainly affected all of us. Because even if being all on the same screen, we were each in our castle. True, there was no alternative; but the bond that is established is not the same. Most of the body language disappears, the voice is modified (adding the voices corresponding to the interpreters for whom it is impossible to do more than their work) and, above all, it is impossible or very difficult to capture the dynamics of the body languages ​​of the group in general. I understand the fascination that such a medium generates in many, but at the same time it is a threat to the interpersonal relationship.

Hygienic function is about the rules and framework of our relationship. And although they are well internalized in all —or most— of the participants, the structure of the call itself was complex. Silencing the group in general to avoid background noise, matching some comments with others, seeing how each one felt with the environment. They did not take time to consider the virtual nature of the meeting, its pros and cons, how comfortable or uncomfortable we could be. Let alone the administrative and economic elements of the congress, the development of the various activities, etc. All this was not discussed. By not reviewing the structural aspects of the here and now, all the complaints that might have been attended to were excluded from the relationship.

It was difficult to establish the verbalizing function. The presence of abundant projective and introjective identifications ended up paralyzing the ability to think; overwhelmed by unleashed emotions. When the group ego function cannot be structured, it must be retaken by the conductors. But in our second meeting, the technical complexity made it difficult and almost prevented us from assuming it. That facilitated the victory of confusion and, therefore, the breakdown of the group.

The conceptual is the one that is carried out through these lines. Presumably, as the functions cannot be fully developed, confusion — that is, destructive forces — seize the group. But I will get to that later.

Final assessment

I think it is important to value the five functions that, following Bion, allow us to develop the ability to think about what happens in any group. The establishment of the team of drivers must follow the metaphor of going in tandem more than that of riding bicycles (Sunyer, 2016) since the work team must be able to work as a team (Sunyer, 1997)

Despite the fact that most of us lived through the complex situation of the second meeting, the weight of the relationships between us remained and it was possible to conclude by sharing a pleasant farewell. It is clear that the elaboration processes could be given. Hence, that was the result.

Bibliography

Bion, W. R. (1976). Experiencias en grupo. Buenos Aires: Paidos.

— (1987). Aprendiendo de la experiencia, 1ª Reimpresión. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

Dalal, F. (2002). Taking the Group Seriously, London, Constable.

de Maré, P. (2010). Textos escogidos. Barcelona Cegaop Press

de Maré, P., Piper, R., Thompson, S. (1991). Koinonia. From Hate, through Dialoge, to Culture in the Large groups. Londres: Karnac Books

Foulkes, S.H. (1975). Problems of the large group from a group-analytic point of view. En Kreeger, L. (1975) (Ed). The large Group. Londres: Constable.

Gatti Pertegato, E.; Pertegato, G. O. (2013). From Psychoanalysis to Group Analysis. The pioneering work of Trigant Burrow. London: Karnac

Hopper, E. (2018) The development of the concept of the Tripartite Matrix: A response to ‘Four modalities of the experience of others in groups’ by Victor Schermer. Group Analysis, June 2018, pp. 197–206

Kaës, R, (2009). Les alliances inconscientes. París: Dunod

Main, T. (1975). Some psychodinamics of large group. En Kreeger, L. (1975) (Ed). The large Group. Londres: Constable

Mitchell, S.A. (1993). Conceptos relacionales en psicoanálisis. Una integración. México: S. XXI

Nitsun, M. (1998a). The Organizational Mirror: A Group-Analytic Approach to Organizational Consultancy, Part I. Group Analysis 31 (3): 245-267

­—(1998b). The Organizational Mirror: A Group-Analytic Approach to Organizational Consultancy, Part II. Group Analysis 31 (4): 505-518

Sunyer, J.M. (1996). Una experiencia grupoanalítica en el marco de la enseñanza universitaria. Clínica y análisis grupal 18(3):379-95

­—(1997). Del equipo de trabajo al trabajo en equipo. En J.M. Sunyer (comp) Escritos grupoanalíticos. Todo un tiempo aprendiendo. Madrid: VieLibro

— (1998). El grupo grande. Desarrollo histórico y psicoterapéutico. Boletín 11:3-21

— (1998a). Algunos aspectos de la contratransferencia en una experiencia grupoanalitica universitaria

— (2001). La confusión en el grupo grande. Boletín. 22:3-14

— (2002). El grupo: espacio mental de elaboración de los procesos de integración y diferenciación de los elementos biospciosociales del ser humano. En J.M. Sunyer (comp) Escritos grupoanalíticos. Todo un tiempo aprendiendo. Madrid: VieLibro

— (2008). Psicoterapia de grupo grupoanalítica. El proceso de coconstrucción de un conductor de grupos. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva

— (2016). Bicicletas o tandems. En J.M. Sunyer (comp) Escritos grupoanalíticos. Todo un tiempo aprendiendo. Madrid: VieLibro

Turquet, P. (1975). Threats of Identity in the large group. En Kreeger, L. (1975) (Ed). The large Group. Londres: Constable

Volkan, V. (2013). La identidad del grupo grande y el prejuicio compartido. Teoría y práctica grupoanalítica. 3(1):29-44

— (2013b). Psicología de las sociedades en conflicto. Barcelona: Iniciativas grupales. Hay una nueva edición publicada por Herder en 2918.

— (2004). Blind trust. Large groups and their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror, Virginia, Pitchstone Publ.

— (2006), Killing in the name of identity, Virginia, Pitchstone

— (2013a). Enemies on the Couch.A psychological journey trheugh ward and peace. Virginia, Pitchstone.

Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Realidad y juego. Barcelona: Gedisa

— (1981), Preocupación maternal primaria. En Winnicott. D. W, (1981), Escritos de pediatría y psicoanálisis,  Barcelona, Laia.

Footnotes

[1] This paper has been translated by Cristina Grau

[2] Master’s Degree in Group Analytical Psychotherapy. Universidad de Deusto-Fundación OMIE

[3] Together with Elisabeth Rohr and Sue Einhorn, I led the three groups in virtual format which were attended by around 300 people. Each of us led a session; I got the second one.

[4] I experienced several LG situations in which one of the members required professional attention after the group session, being medication advisable in some cases.

[5] These four phases were described but never published by J.Mª Ayerra.

Dr. J. M. Sunyer
Doctor in Psychology. Clinical psychologist. Group analyst. Retired Professor of the Faculty of Psychology of the URL. Patron of the OMIE Foundation. Member of the Institute of Group Analysis (OMIE foundation), of the Association for Group Analytic Psychotherapy, and Honorary Member of the Group Analytic Society International.
josemiguelsunyer@gmail.com