On “Reflections on Mirroring”: A tribute to Malcolm Pines. 

Malcolm Pines wrote a very important article on mirroring which was also was presented at the Foulkes Lecture back in 1982.

In this paper, part of the GAD project, the aim is to make group analytic concepts as clear and accessible as could be and to encourage the study of the concept and the addition of new ideas that could be relevant for the development of the concept.

Sigmund Karterud from Norway brought Pines ideas on mirroring to the attention of the Scandinavian Group Analysts where they have had a significant influence. When I was a trainee back in the years 2000-2002 this was an article which impressed and touched me very much.  His article is still a part of the curriculum at the training program at IGA in Copenhagen.

Victor Schermer (2010) calls it a “seminal” article which indeed is true because of the rich ways Malcolm elaborates his reflections on mirroring and go further with his associations and discussion of Foulkes’ concept on “mirroring and mirror reactions”. This is one of Foulkes concepts, of group specific factors amongst resonance, exchange and socialization.

Malcolm’s paper draws on reflections from literature, mythology and developmental psychology and is written in a period where Kohut’s self-psychology theory played a major role and, in many ways, contributed to new lines in the theoretical framework.

In Reflections on Mirroring there are of course references to Foulkes’ concepts on mirroring but Malcolm also goes further with associations and reflections like the myth of Medusa, Narcissus and Echo – we cannot develop without the ‘other’ if we are not seen or heard. We need to engage and be involved with others and to create “a third” – like Perseus did when he blinded Medusa and Pegasus was born from the blood of the decapitation. Hereby the possibility for play and creativity was created.

As I will mention later, the shift from benign to malignant mirroring (Zinkin, 1983) gave rise to some new theoretical understanding of these phenomena. Zinkin proposed that Malcolm’s ideas mostly put forward the benign aspects of mirroring. In my view although Malcolm points out that mirroring could be positive or negative, I agree that further exploration highlighted the malignant aspects that could take place. Caroline Garland (1983, p.127) comment on Zinkin’s article on Malignant Mirroring was that ‘benign and malignant mirror reactions may not necessarily be construed as dichotomous, ‘either’/’or’ but as part of a continuum.

Malcom made some references to mirroring and developmental psychology but he went more in depth with these aspects in a chapter he wrote in Circular Reflections (1988). He made an overview of mirroring outlined from Lacan, Kohut, Winnicott, Stern among others.

A common basic theoretical approach is that early relationships are important in the formation and development of the personality. One of the phenomena commonly referred to is mirroring.

Foulkes & Anthony put it like this: “In the development of a baby, the so-called “mirror reactions” help in the differentiation of the self from the not-self. The reflections of the self from the outside world lead to greater self-consciousness, so that the infant Narcissus eventually learns to distinguish his own image from that of other images, The mirror reactions are, therefore, essential mechanisms in his primary narcissism” (Foulkes & Anthony, 1965, p. 150)

He might very well have been influenced by Winnicott’s statement: “The mother gazes at the baby in her arms, and the baby gazes at his mother’s face and finds himself therein… provided that the mother is really looking at the unique, small, helpless being and not projecting her own expectations, fears and plans for the child. In that case, the child would find not himself in his mother’s face but rather the mother’s own projections. This child would remain without a mirror, and for the rest of his life would be seeking his mirror in vain”.

In the last four decades or so, developmental psychology, from for example Daniel Stern and Peter Fonagy & al. (2002), has influenced mirroring as an important concept. This is seen in the massive influence from self-psychology and empirical infant studies (Stern) and in recent times where neuroscience has entered the clinical field – especially the discovery of mirror neurons.

Personal recollections

I only have had a few encounters with Malcolm. First, I met him in Bologna at the Group Analytic Symposium in 2002, at the same time as I first heard about the observations on mirror neurons. I was staying at the same place as Malcolm and we met a couple of times, in the evening, on our way home and we had a drink. He told stories about his friendship with Anna Freud. Today I think his impulse to talk about this was related to my interest in child psychology and therapeutic work with children and adolescent. I do not remember much from our conversation but I remember the feeling of being met from one of the “grand old men” in the group analytic field.

In 2014 I had the privilege to chair a workshop in Lisbon at the Group Analytic symposium, where Malcolm Pines made a presentation about the lives of Foulkes and Fromm and he wondered why these men did not “meet each other“, concerning theory and practice. They both had a background at the “Frankfurt school” in the thirties – both fled abroad. Foulkes to UK and Fromm to US.  Both had a Jewish background and were psychoanalysts.  Both were concerned about the rising Nazi regime and Foulkes developed his group analytic psychotherapy as model for treatment but also as consequence of the non-democratic development in Germany. He saw the group analytic approach as a means to develop a democratic human mind and thereby meet and prevent authoritarian and anti-democratic societies.

Fromm was occupied with the same problem – how can we understand the development of a dehumanized society and develop maturity and a sane society. Fromm devoted his life to the “political large group” and how the character formation was formed in exchange with the “outside world” while Foulkes developed his theory to group matrix as a nucleus in man’s personal and social development.

This meeting with Malcolm inspired me later to make a paper presentation on “social character and group analysis” at a GAD workshop 2015 in Vilnius.

Mirroring and exchange are concepts that are interconnected. Malcolm influenced many people with his work in the group analytical society and was able to mirror similarities and differences in theory and as a trainer, teacher and supervisor. Personally, I enjoyed the conversation that Sue Einhorn had with Malcolm (can be seen on the GASi website) which also reflects the development of group analysis.

Mirroring and Mirror Reactions in Group Analysis 

The former editor of CONTEXT’S Terry Birchmore took up the idea of the GAD project and compiled a selection of quotations on mirroring (Birchmore, 2015).

Curative factors that are active in individual analysis are also active in group analysis. Foulkes added a number of specific factors and mirroring/ mirror reactions is one of these – like socialization, condensation and exchange as the main concepts.

The concept of mirroring turns up twice in Foulkes’ first book from 1948. At first, when he says (p.28) that the therapist learns from the (a part of the) neurotic patient, as the patient reflects the therapist’s incompetence when he says; “ … Neurotic patients are, after all, like you and me and part of our annoyance is due to the fact that they show us our own incompetence in a mirror, like a caricature”.  Moreover, at the end of the book S. Foulkes defines mirror reactions /mirroring as a group-specific phenomenon.  He states:

“The discussion, interpretation or analysis of such material (problems discussed in a group), is therefore, effective in a number of people, even if they merely listen to it, …. forces of identifications and contrast are at work here. This whole set of factors we feel inclined to distinguish by giving them a special name, for which we propose “mirror reaction”. (Foulkes, 1948, p.167).

Sensory – perceptual processes are constantly at play, in the way we look – recognize, hear – recall and how one feels and experiences oneself and others in the group consciously as well as unconsciously.

A particular reflection of the reaction is part of the field in where therapeutic- and developmental processes take place.

Mirror and mirror reactions are described by Foulkes in the following way:

“Mirror reactions are characteristically brought out when a number of persons meet and interact. A person sees himself, or part of himself – often a repressed part of himself – reflected in the interactions of other group members. He sees them reacting in the way he does himself, or in contrast to his own behaviour. He also gets to know himself – and this is a fundamental process in ego -development – by the effect he has upon others and the picture they form of him “. (Foulkes, 1948, p.110)

This is a dialectical process in which reflected similarities (” he sees them self-reacting in the way he does himself “) and differences (“or in contrast to his own behaviour”).

Foulkes perceived mirroring essentially as a benign process in which the individual /group member can learn about himself and the way others see and perceive him.

Foulkes calls the group “a hall of mirrors.” This means that there exist many mirrors in the group. Unlike individual psychotherapy where the therapist acts as a mirror and constantly has to adjust the mirror, the group is considered as a hall of mirrors. Mirroring/ mirror reactions  is like a conceptual dynamic matrix. Mirror reactions can be regarded as a web of interconnected processes which take place in dyadic, triadic and on group-as-a whole levels as well as on an individual level in the sense that you can reflect about yourself in the “here and now”, the past history and dreams.

Pines (1982) says that the therapist/conductor is not just a reflective surface, but through his intervention, vocabulary and behaviour, he holds a mirror up to the individual group members and the group-as-a whole.

The dialogue, interaction and mirroring in the group contributes to the individual in the way she finds herself in that there is a “(re) establishment of self-unity and coherence” or a changed identity. (Foulkes and Pines). In this process “the group-as-a whole” also changes gradually.

Group Analysis is relational and interpersonal in nature but through the group process also a self-developmental process takes place. According to Foulkes, mirroring unfolds at all “levels of communication”. The paradox seems to me to arise from the fact that self-knowledge makes us increasingly aware of our self-knowledge; that knowing ourselves means seeing ourselves and that seeing ourselves means ourselves seeing ourselves. This very act of self-knowledge also produces self-estrangement.

The concept of “malignant mirroring” is outlined and described by Louis Zinkin (1983), in response to a description of “negative reflection” which Pines briefly outlines this process that starts when the person can no longer ‘negotiate’ and reflect, when in the midst of a conflictual situation in which learning and reflection is no longer possible. In such a situation, learning and reflection is no longer possible. ”We are as Perseus without his mirror” in the myth of Medusa meaning there is no “third position” present or space for reflection.

Zinkin (1983, p. 113) demonstrates the “paradoxical nature” of mirroring. The paradox exposes the fact that ‘self-knowledge’ makes us aware of ourselves, that knowing ourselves means seeing ourselves through the gaze of ‘the other’. This very act of self-knowledge also produces self-estrangement. It can serve as a therapeutic factor and also be a rather destructive element in the group. Mirroring has an alienating quality and not only a ”benign” quality as Foulkes proposed.

As an interpersonal process Zinkin describes how two people are trapped in a “double – mirror reaction” which is influenced by projections that are adjacent to distortions.  The core of the process is – that two group members either see themselves as similar or as opposites to each other. The relationship is characterized by a special attraction and repulsion of each other at the same time, while the group avoids looking at its part in the conflict.

Both Zinkin (1983) and Pines (1982, 1988) sees this as early dyadic conflict and to resolve the conflict a “third level/third position” is necessary, an interaction that can accommodate both participant’s similarities and differences.

In a dynamic perspective, challenges or threats to the self, introduce paranoid – schizoid aspects into the fore. Feeling challenged in a non-recognizing or in a non- acceptable way, can be solved by a regressive and destructive option, as a defence against anxiety, shame and doubt. These processes are particularly humiliating and shameful when they are played out in public.

The concept of mirroring is heavily influenced from diverse developmental perspectives such as D. Winnicott, J. Lacan and in the latest decades from Stern (1985) and Fonagy et all (2003).

Summary

• Mirroring is a specific term that is actively dyadic and triadic – multiple in a group therapeutic context, as in the conflict between subgroups in a group.
• Mirroring is a general term that has features in common with other group -specific factors and psychological processes as identification, introjection, projection, projective identification, affective attunement, sympathy and empathy.
• Mirroring – negative as well as positive aspects must be seen in a continuum.
• Mirror reactions are constantly present / active – consciously or unconsciously in a group therapeutic context.
• Mirroring contribute to group cohesion and mirroring is an inevitable part of the matrix ‘ communicative network.
• Dreams reflects and mirror intrapsychic states, relational /interpersonal aspects and the social world.

References

Birchmore, T. (2015). Group Analytic Concepts: Mirroring Compiled. Contexts. Issue 67,(2):57-60.

Garland, C. (1983).  Discussion on Paper by Louis Zinkin.  Group Analysis,16, (2):126-129.

Fonagy, P. , Gergely, G, Jurist. E.L and Target, M. (2002). Affect Regulation, metallization, and the development of the self. New York:Other Press.

Foulkes, S.H. (1948).  Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London: Karnac. (Reprinted 1984)

Foulkes, S.H. and Anthony, E.J. (1965). Group Psychotherapy – the Psychoanalytic Approach. London: Karnac. Reprinted 2003.

Foulkes, S.H (1964).  Therapeutic Group Analysis. Karnac. (Reprinted 2002).

Lacan J. (1966).  Le stade du mirroir. Écrits.

Pines, M. (1982). Reflections on Mirroring. Group Analysis, vol.15, 2.

Pines, M.  (1988). Mirroring and Child Development. In: Circular Reflections. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Schermer, V. L (2010). Reflections on “Reflections on Mirroring”. Group Analysis, vol.43, 3.

Stern. D. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. Basic Books.

Winnicott. D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London, Routledge.

Zinkin, L. (1983). Malignant Mirroring. Group Analysis vol.16, 2:113-126.

Lars Bo Jørgensen
Clinical psychologist, child psychologist and Group Analyst. He is member of the Institute of Group Analysis in Copenhagen and member of GASi. He is a Delegate at Egatin and a Board Member in IGA-Copenhagen. Since 2008 he has been in the Training Committee, and teaches and supervises at the Institute’s Training Program. He has been part of the Group Analytic Dictionary project since its’ beginning in Copenhagen in 2012.
lars@psyc.dk