An Introduction to the Group Analytic Dictionary (GAD) – Historical Background

First I would like to give my thanks to the editors of this current edition of CONTEXTS, Maria-José Blanco and Luis Palacios Araus, for the opportunity to introduce the GAD project to our Spanish speaking colleagues.

I will start with a brief historical perspective: The idea of bringing together the best known group analytic terms, originated in the Scandinavian countries around 2011. It developed in the course of conversations and discussions amongst group analysts in conferences and workshops. It began with members of the Institute of Group Analysis in Copenhagen writing definitions of G.A. terms and soon it was decided that it should become an international endeavour open to all Group Analysts. I would like to highlight that it was  Soren Aagard (Denmark) who took responsibility for leading the project.

It was agreed that the Wikipedia format would be the most suitable as it allowed for academic articles of Foulksian terms to be sent to a ‘blog’ that would then be available to all to comment or add a further entry. A few years later, in November 2015, a meeting took place at the Institute of Group Analysis in London, where it was decided that the project would continue under the aegis of the Group Analytic Society International (GASI). In those days there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the project and soon a central editorial committee was formed who took responsibility for developing a structure, edit and publish papers about the subject. This was replicated in some countries who formed local editorial groups, met regularly to discuss ideas, write and send new entries to the Central Editorial Committee. In total, including those entries sent to the ‘blog’, the project has accumulated around 35 articles.

The original plan of publishing a hard copy book with the most important terms used in Group Analysis has not been achieved, even though many Group Analysts have freely given their time to the project in various ways. The work continues and in 2019, the current Editorial Group formed by Svein Tjelta (Norway), Carla Penna (Brasil), Raquel Chejanovsky (Israel) and Carmen O’Leary (United Kingdom), began, with the support of the editor of Contexts, Peter Zelaskowski, to publish some of the already written and edited entries in each new edition of Contexts.

By contributing to this bilingual edition, we hope to attract and stimulate debate amongst Spanish speaking colleagues, whom, without doubt, will bring another cultural dimension to the understanding of these concepts. We also believe that it will form a base for the current and future generations of Group Analysts, in the international sphere, to further develop the existent group analytic theory.

Introduction to ‘The Concept of Mind in Group Analysis’ by Rachel A. Chejanovsky

In this current bilingual (Spanish/English) edition of Contexts, I have the great pleasure and honour of introducing the article written by Rachel Chejanovsky on ‘mind’, as used by S.H. Foulkes in his group analytic theory.

Rachel is a Group Analyst, Clinical Psychologist, Supervisor, Trainer, member of the Israeli Institute of Group Analysis (ILGA) and an affiliated member of the Israeli Association of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. For many years Rachel worked in Public Mental Health Centres, currently she practices in the private sector working with adolescents, adults, couples and groups. She has published numerous articles and has written a chapter in the book edited by Robi Friedman and Yael Doron ‘Group Analysis in the Land of Milk And Honey’.

The concept of ‘mind’ has been studied in various cultures by philosophers throughout the centuries. European and Islamic philosophers were influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Hinduist and Chinese (Buddhism and Confucianism) thinkers also debated the existence and composition of the mind. It was Descartes who first started to conceptualise and identify the mind with the idea of having a conscious self, he made the distinction between the brain, as the physical seat of the intelligence and the mind. In the psychoanalytic field, Freud’s interest was mainly focused on the identification of the activity of the mind, dividing the functions of the mind as conscious, preconscious and unconscious.

Rachel Chejanovsky, in  this concise and clear paper, describes how Foulkes conceptualised the term ‘mind’ in his group analytic theory and the subsequent revisions of some of his followers; Pat de Maré, Dick Blackwell and Roberto Schollberger. In her exposition, Rachel refers to some radical ideas of Foulkes, who questioned that the pathological symptoms of the patient were simply the product of an individual mind, but instead, they were a consequence, a response to the cultural and social milieu of the patient.

Rachel contrasts Foulkes ideas on ‘mind’ with those of De Maré and Schollberg, as well as with the conclusions about this term reached by Dick Blackwell. Her explanations simplify their complex propositions.

This paper offers the opportunity to rethink this much debated concept and brings to our attention the necessity to establish a dialogue, to exchange opinions and to exercise our minds in the service of continuing to develop the theory and practice of group analysis.

Carmen O’Leary
Group Analyst (London)
carmenoleary@icloud.com