Reflections on a panel: Socially Unconscious Aspects of the Covid Pandemic: Changing and/or Maintaining the Frame of our Group Therapy Practice Online
I was moved to have been invited to create a short introduction on a significant triplite of papers by Dr. Gila Ofer, Dr. Earl Hopper, Dr. Haim Weinberg. Their panel was presented at the 1st Greek Conference on Relational Psychoanalysis and Group Dynamics ,organized at Athens, Greece, by the Institute for Relational Psychoanalysis and Group Psychotherapy.
While its paper holds its own dynamic reference to authors’ psyche ,the three of them as whole really offered an exceptional manifestation on theory and practice about pandemic effect on our practices as well as a great reflection of a ‘good enough’ relational dynamic between the three authors . I am to follow the sequence they presented.
Dr. Hopper started first offering a sufficient theoretical understanding that embraced his historical thinking on social unconscious .He created a multiple conceptual understanding of ways the virus has been objectified via intergenerationally transmitted scapegoats to serve the current homeostasis of the Large Group of humanity. He explained adequately in one group analytic case how a BIPOC woman was scapegoated as well as in a psychoanalytic case how a female patient projected her xenophobia to immigrants carrying the virus. He then admitted how painful it was to own his helplessness to contain aggressive projections of his patients/groups in moments he was objectified as Trump, non-empathic with viruses anxiety, etc… and moments he was not receiving even slight recognition of his virus’ vulnerability. He then linked how Organizations in the field suffer by losing members protesting on older ‘Establishment representatives‘ .He continued by suggesting a trauma theory of envious manifestation would help us understand better areas of antisocial tendencies . Finally he remained skeptical on how mature hope as co-created in human and honest interactions could become a panacea for social traumas of the Larger Group.
I was relieved to read Dr.Ofer’s brilliant paper, where she started by admitting in despair her involvement in the plague caused her to become uncertain, not ‘neutral’ though creative enough to survive her mind in difficult clinical scenarios.Fistly she raised technical and ethical questions regarding the ‘attack’ on the frame this time coming from an external factor ,the pandemic. She balances her opinion of group conductor as container of generalized anxiety of hygiene issues as well as provider of relative safety and stability of the frame .
She encourages us to become flexible and reliable regarding loosening the frame though still holding the frame on behalf of our groups. In a paradigm ,a long lasting block training group cannot end in person due to borders’ closure and Dr. Ofer leads the group in obligatory termination via zoom setting under various challenges. Another therapeutic group moves from in person to zoom meetings and this becomes a procedural ‘elephant in the virtual room’ that hijacks the group. A positive unpredicted experience for her as well as the participants emerged in relation to a Large virtual group. The attacking pandemic has opened a space for innovative bonding in a Large group among clinicians.
Dr.Weinberg, started his paper by focusing on the parallel processes evident in society and the various ways they were occurring as well in the groups he run. That is a constant fight between individualism that ignores the group needs and massification (4th basic assumption according to Hopper) where individuality is waved for the shake to follow narcissistic leaders. Group therapists have been innovative enough to conduct on line groups ,a blasphemous idea before. He edited a special book on the matter that received high recognition from surprised colleagues. He predicted that on line group therapy would evolve independently of the pandemic as equal to other modalities. Cyberspace and use of technology co created a new version of social unconscious the technological one that needs further exploration and new theoretical understandings. He concluded by offering marvelous clinical vignettes showing how rupture accompanied by repair and flexibility can enrich the group setting as long as the conductor feels ready enough to departure from his/her own rigidity to understand boundaries.
Through Dr.Hopper’s thoughts I articulated better some of my own scepticism about relevant issues. How the pandemic magnified social inequalities and stimulated social unconscious traumatic areas of intergenerational transmission of non-mourning are fascinating areas to be explored more. How a Large group can visit such traumatic memories and whether the conductors are to focus more on the ‘here and now’ manifestations or /and the ‘there and then’ parameters Is an ambivalent issue I have not found a clear reply yet. In case of two Leaderless Virtual Large Groups I have participated such ambivalence becomes more evident .
Dr. Ofer’s experiences with her many different groups made me think of violent disruptions of endings as well continuations. In my own groups we chose a ‘plasticity mode’ that is according to governmental directions plus institutional preferences we choose virtual ,hybrid or in vivo attendances in a dynamic way. What is the experience for groups as whole under such circumstances? Does moving from virtual to hybrid and then to in vivo attendance represent new starting points, ending phases or both? And who decides for whom what is represented under such circumstances?
Dr.Weinberg ’s assumption that narcissistic leadership attracts followership under pandemic effect challenged me to question whether egalitarianism can be combined with some kind of healthy narcissism in good enough leadership styles. The technological unconscious layer as well provoked me to wonder what the correlation between style of leadership and virtual space is .And whether that constitutes an independent layer among other layers that longitudinal studies is desirable to include in the short run.
I really think that the same panel will have much to offer in its dynamic continuation to explore all those issues as we start preparing to organize the 2nd Greek Conference on Relational Psychoanalysis and Group Dynamics.
Stavros Charalambides, CGP, Psychoanalyst, Director of Institute for Relational & Group Psychotherapy Ltd (Greece based), Certified Group Therapy Supervisor (Yalom Institute USA), Iarpp Board of Directors (elected) & Co-chair , Iarpp Special Interest Group for Couples, Families, Groups, International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy.