Russian-Speaking Group Analysis (RSGA). A Look from the Inside
(The Presentation at the XVII Anniversary Conference of SGA (OGRA) “We Are 30 Years Old. Russian-Speaking Field of Group Analysis, Language, Culture, School” on January 29, 2022)
As he sowed, some seeds fell by the roadside, and the birds came and devoured them. Others fell on rocky ground, where they didn’t have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of earth. When the sun had risen, they were scorched. Because they had no root, they withered away. Others fell among thorns. The thorns grew up and choked them: and others fell on good soil, and yielded fruit: (The Gospel of Matthew. Chapter 13 verse 4)
The idea of the conference topic appeared as a result of my own almost two-year experience of participating in the work of two different LG (LG GASi and LG Garus). Being in them prompted me to reflect, firstly, on the role and place of the Russian group analytic community in the international group analytic movement and, secondly, on the general nature of the Russian-speaking community itself. It is important to say here that these reflections express my private opinion, i.e. they are in no way the position of the GA-organisation I belong to from the moment of its foundation, i.e. all those 30 years.
In fact, we are talking about two sides of the same coin.
It is logical to start with the appearance of group analysis in the field of the Russian non-governmental psychotherapeutic movement.
PART 1. Introduction “What / Where / How You Sow …”
The domestic group analysis took its first steps in a country called “the USSR”. Of course, nobody talked about any “Russian-speaking field of group analysis” at that time.
In a video interview preceding this conference, my colleague, Andrey Sklizkov, spoke about the “GA map in Russia”. In response to my request, Andrey sent it to me and I am grateful to him for that. Some important points, which will be discussed below, are based on that map. Although, as a metaphor, I would prefer to talk about a tree. Trees are known to grow from the seeds. Such group analytic seeds were sown in the Russian field by a generous foreign hand and continue to be sown successfully till now.
Today we can talk about two main centers, schools, where group analysis began from its further development in Russia.
In the early1990s, the first seminars on group analysis began to be held in Moscow and Leningrad. (For obvious reasons, it is easier for me to talk about Leningrad – St. Petersburg). In Moscow, for reasons not entirely clear to me, the seed “were scorched because they had no root, they withered away” In Leningrad, that seed, which did not cause doubt about its primogeniture, apparently fell “fell on good soil, and yielded fruit not very quickly”.
There was a certain combination of circumstances in Leningrad, there were several interested enthusiasts from the British and Soviet sides. There was a hospitable day-hospital of one district neuropsychiatric dispensary. And, most importantly, there was the context of the social atmosphere surrounding all of us at that time, filled with changes, energy of enthusiasm and confidence in the coming “Brave New World”.
As a result, in 1991, a professional community (1 [1]) was founded in St. Petersburg, on the basis of which the teachers of the London Institute of Group Analysis (IGA) began in 1994 and completed in 2010 the programs of standard qualification training of group analysts.
Impatient and self-confident St. Petersburg neophytes (whom I include myself) quite early – since 1995 – began to sow Russian fields on their own, i.e. to train the “second generation” of local group analysts. Having received an “intermediate” at the beginning, and after the completion of the IGA Diploma Course by the SGA (OGRA) members– “qualified membership” in EGATIN, SGA training programs received the status of completely legitimate ones.
Since 1995, SGA (OGRA) has held about 20 courses on the “Fundamentals of GA” program, and for the last 6 years SGA (OGRA) has been conducting an annual recruitment for a course on a program similar to the IGA Diploma Course. In 2020, thanks to the efforts of Tatiana Dmitrieva, the Institute of Group Analysis and Other Psychotherapeutic Practices (IGA&OPP) was established in the frame of SGA (OGRA). That made it possible to bring the training closer to the official state level.
Following the process of splitting, inevitable for many organizations and quite transparent in its latent content, at certain moment specialists trained in SGA (OGRA) separated from SGA (OGRA) and formed their own institutions – one in Novosibirsk (NIGRA ([2]) and two in St. Petersburg (“Training Center for Group Analysis (TCGA)” and “Center for Modern American Group Analysis”). Separation was successful in a number of cases (TCGA and NIGRA are members of EGATIN), and the break was clear.
Thus, SGA (OGRA) today is a non-governmental professional group analytic community engaged in equal proportions in the training of a new generation of Russian-speaking group analysts and in what can be called “Postgraduate education”.
SGA (OGRA) :
* organized the first course in group psychoanalysis in Russia in St. Petersburg (see below),
* organized an IGA postgraduate course in St. Petersburg on the implementation of the GA approach to supervisory groups running,
* for 7 years conducts monthly online seminars “Theory and Practice of GA” for group analysts who have completed their training,
* recently held two Taster Days of the IGA course “Reflective Practice in Organisations”, which is starting its work this year,
* held 17 conferences,
* since 1995, about 20 courses have been held on the “Fundamentals of GA”,
* for the last 6 years has been conducting annual recruitment for the course in a program similar to the IGA Diploma Course. Several people have successfully completed their studies and received the appropriate qualification status in the SGA (OGRA)
* published 2 volumes of papers, with one of them being translated into English.
These are not all, but probably the most important characteristics of the tree sprouting in the Russian-speaking field, which grew out of the “London project”.
The second “Tree” arose on the basis of a joint German-Swiss-Austrian project on teaching various forms of group psychotherapy conducted by the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP) in Ukraine in the 1990s. Sometimes that project is called “Truskavetsky”. An integral part of its program was a training course in group psychoanalytic therapy. According to the stories of the participants of this project, the training program and structure differed from the EGATIN program recommended today. That seed also began to grow, but in a slightly different way – the rooting of long layering occurred far from the place of initial sowing.
The main center of growth of that Truskavets seed was formed in Moscow. There was organised a Center for European Psychotherapeutic Education. Soon it also split into two organisations, which today continue the successful and quite legitimate (status in EGATIN) training in group analysts (MOGA ([3]) and MIGA ([4])). These are the two brightest appendages from the trunk of the European school of group analysis.
It is necessary to mention two more peculiar plants, two organisations growing in the field of Russian group analysis. In any case, those organisations actively use the term “group analysis” in their work.
First of all, I am referring to the International School of Group Psychoanalysis – IShGP ([5]), which was founded in Moscow in 2010. Group psychoanalysis is taught there based on the Italian School of Group and Institutional Psychoanalysis and on the experience of the Truskavets Project. Despite some discrepancy with the requirements of EGATIN concerning the organisation of training and the obsessive confusion of terms (and maybe paradigms) of group analysis and group psychoanalysis, the IShGP receives intermediate membership in EGATIN, and, thanks to the active and professional management of its director, is rapidly growing in the cities and towns of Russia. A new breakthrough in the expansive development of IShGP was achieved thanks to the merge and use of the resource of the Russian organization “European Association for the Development of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy” (EADPP).
Another peculiar plant that grows on Russian soil at an even greater distance from the classic British (“Foulkesian”) group analysis grew from a seed sown in St. Petersburg by the American analyst Harold Stern. Under his leadership and direct participation on the basis of SGA (OGRA) in the late 1990s, the staff of the American Center for Group Studies (Center for Group Studies, N-Y, led by L. Ormont) held a set of seminars and then a one-year course on “Group Psychoanalysis”. The result of the germination of that seed was the separation from SGA (OGRA) of a group of specialists who organized the “Center for Modern American Group Analysis” in St. Petersburg. I mentioned that organisation in the context of the RSGA list solely in connection with the strange framing of an understandable term (“group analysis”) with the words “modern” and “American”.
To be fair I must say that the educational institutions generated by the graduates of the Truskavets project were not limited to Moscow. Similar training programs appeared in Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Rostov-on-Don and Stavropol. In Stavropol, the initiative group has relatively recently organised group analysis training legitimised by E.G.A.T.I.N, based on the group analysts from the Israeli Institute of Group Analysis and local specialists from MIGA. In Novosibirsk, the initiative group has been holding an independent group analysis training program for several years. In two other cities, apparently, the seed “fell on rocky ground, where they didn’t have much soil”. In any case, E.G.A.T.I.N does not list any training organisations from those cities.
This lengthy but necessary historical overview allows us now moving to the main points of my presentation. Limited time forces me to be concise and only mention certain nodal points, without getting into their more thorough description and analysis.
PART 2. The RSGA Field as a System. “… that You Will Harvest”.
So, that is “the field of Russian-speaking group analysis”. Relying on Internet resources, I managed to find 13 “trees” – organizations that are sprouting in the field today. Almost all of them were described in more or less details above.
In other words, we have a system consisting of 13 subsystems. At the same time, each of the subsystems, in turn, has its own system structure.
First, let’s look at the common features in the configuration (in the sense of Patrick de Maré) of the subsystems
Subsystem – structure
The structures of the subsystems are arranged
- either as a democratic system of professional community with replaceable elected management bodies (e.g. SGA (OGRA))
- or as sufficiently centralized, with fixed, usually irremovable management in the person of the founder-director (e.g. IShGA, MIGA, NIGRA)
- or the internal structure has not yet settled (e.g. small initiative groups in Novosibirsk, Stavropol)
Subsystem – Process
Basic processes taking place in the subsystems are connected
– (mainly) with the implementation of training programs. Of the 13 organizations, about 10 with varying degrees of enthusiasm and success are engaged in training of mainly local specialists – group analysts.
– (to a lesser extent) with the professional development of local group analysts (through the postgraduate training). These are seminars, demonstration supervisions, group analytical qualification improvement courses, conferences, seminars;
– (to a minimum extent) with the development of practical professional activities of its members, scientific and research work.
An important process occurring in many of the subsystems is internal conflicts quite often manifesting themselves in the form of destruction, disintegration, splitting. The result of such processes is the emergence of new independent subsystems (organisations). An example of that is Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Stavropol.
Subsystem – Content
It is determined by the main objectives of the activities of the subsystems.
Where, I repeat, commercial success is, in my opinion, an important, if not the main task for the vast majority of organisations running trainings. It can be assumed that it is the struggle for dominating in that field of activities that is the main mechanism of the above-described process of splitting of the subsystems and the second process, which manifests itself in low connectedness between subsystems within the RSGA system (see below).
In most subsystems, organised activities aimed at improving the professionalism of their own members, scientific research (including writing articles, books, preparing seminars, author’s lecture courses) are far less occurred or even absent.
Those 13 subsystems form a system that we call the “Field of Russian-Speaking Group Analysis (RSGA)”. Let’s try to outline briefly the main features of that system.
THE SYSTEM – STRUCTURE.
The main feature of the structure of the RSGA is the extreme incoherence between the elements. Horizontal connections between subsystems in most cases are very weak or practically absent. In some cases, this is not the absence of a connection (i.e. the weight of the connection is “0”), but undeclared negative connection, the predominance of repulsive forces.
The second important property of the RSGA structure is the presence of clear vertical connections connecting each element of the RSGA structure with a common controlling element hierarchically located above the RSGA field that does not belong to the RSGA system. The nature of the communications is mostly unidirectional (top-down); feedback is either absent or poorly functioning. In other words, the management of the RSGA system is not carried out from the system itself. The connection regulates only one type of activities of the RSGA elements, namely, the process of initial professional training.
It is not difficult to guess that I am talking about EGATIN. If we use a well-known scheme illustrating the difference in the nature of communications in the GA group and in the psychoanalytic group, but the structure of the RSGA is closer to the second one.
THE SYSTEM – PROCESSES
The processes occurring in the field of the RSGA system are a simple sum of processes going on in each individual element. The nature of horizontal intra-system connections described above (their absence or weakly negative feature) leads to the fact that group processes (amplification, resonance, condensation, cooperation, etc.) are absent.
THE SYSTEM – CONTENT
The content of the processes occurring in the RSGA field is also a simple sum of the processes occurring in the elements forming the RSGA.
It can be assumed that the described configuration of the RSGA system at the latent level is largely related to business processes that permeate the entire non-governmental structure of psychological-therapeutic organisations in Russia.
It is important to note that the presence of two initially different models of GA training described earlier (the “St. Petersburg Project” and the “Truskavets Project”), rooted and spread in the Russian-speaking space of non-governmental psychoanalytic therapy, leads to another process. The content of which, in my opinion, is counterproductive for the RSGA.
I would call it “blurring the boundaries of group analysis”. In a number of institutions that initially differ in the group analytic training of their participants, there is a process of blurring the boundaries of the group analytic paradigm. At the manifesting level, this is revealed in the specificity of the learning processes organisation, in the clearly demonstrated misunderstanding of the differences between psychoanalysis in a group and group analysis, in sometimes quite far-reaching deviations from the declared European standards of group analytic learning.
For me, the apotheosis of that kind of blurring of boundaries is the idea, which is practically already being realised, that in group analytic training, people who do not have any or have very weak group analytic training background can teach, lead training groups or conduct supervisions.
Since the training standards and the definition of the boundaries of the group analytic paradigm of group analytic practice came to Russia from Europe, it is appropriate to move on to the last, the third part of the presentation.
PART 3. RSGA as an Element of the Suprasystem of European English-Speaking Group Analysis
The Russian-speaking community can be considered as one of the constituent elements included in the system of the group analytic movement in Europe. I believe that everyone reading my article is well aware that the pan-European system is structured by two regulators: GASi and EGATIN. The organizations differ in the principles of membership and, most importantly, are designed to solve the non-overlapping tasks of group analysis development.
I would like to draw attention to two, in my opinion, the most important challenges related to the specific place and role of the RSGA in this pan-European system.
I would like to start with a few facts.
- In the spring-summer of 2020, weekly English-speaking LG GASi took place. Its sessions were usually attended by about 150-180 participants from different, mainly European, countries. There were 1-3 participants of the Russian group analysts. Based on my little experience, I would take a risk to note that the same situation is observed in most other GASi and EGATIN events, which are apriori designed for the widest possible representation of all participants in the European group analytic network.
- The members of that particular pan-European group analytic conductor, the global regulator of training organisations – EGATIN, which I have repeatedly mentioned, are 43 institutions representing 23 countries. Russia today is the most representative country in EGATIN. There are 7 Russian organisations registered there, with 2 of them having the highest qualification level (qualifying membership) and 5 of them having intermediate membership.
- In the main pan-European professional group analytic community – GASi – there is only one Russian organisation listed among the group analytic communities and institutions – SGA (OGRA).
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, the representation of the Russian group analysis in EGATIN, such a scanty participation of RSGA members in pan-European events, or, in other words, such a large distance of the RSGA from the other elements forming the system of the pan-European community, deserves close attention.
A relatively simple reason for that lies on the surface – insufficient knowledge of the English language. Group analysis in Europe requires the English language. In the European group analysis itself, I have not yet met an open discussion of that issue. Fluency in English is a necessary condition for joining the international group analytic community. However, it is obvious that knowledge of a foreign language is the surface of the problem. A common place is the idea of the influence of the native language on the structuring of unconscious and conscious mental processes, on the entire process of perception and thinking and communication. The unity of language and culture does not require any proof.
It is obvious that group analysis in its foundation has a culture and a system of values formed in other historical conditions and structured by other kind of thinking and culture. I would take a risk to say that the European matrix is trying to rely on manifested values aimed at the freedom of the individual and society, on the primacy of the individual over the state. The traditional Russian matrix is based on the idea of the primacy of the state, the idea of the primacy of interests, if not of society as a whole, then certainly of a group of people governing the society, on the primacy of the power of the selected over the mass.
What happens when the paradigm theory of behavior of groups of people generated by European culture, European mentality, the system of social and individual values (all that we call the “foundation matrix”) is transferred to the soil of another culture, another “foundation matrix”? In relation to the agricultural metaphor used at the beginning of the presentation, the question could be formulated like this: to what extend specie grown as a result of careful breeding in one climate and on one soil can take root in another climate and another soil. Or does it have to change itself in order to survive? Will group analysis keep the original structure of basic values during the transition to another culture, or will it be changed? If it is changed, then how and to what extend? Probably GASi, having added that small letter “i” to its name, has already faced or should face the problem of transcultural differences of a broader scale.
Based on such reflections, it can be assumed that the low interest of Russian-speaking group analysts in the pan-European group analytic movement and vice versa the low interest of European colleagues in the group analytic movement in Russia, is related to deeper differences in the foundation matrix. In any case, this assumption gives rise to hope and shows the way.
To understand and accept the differences, to look for what we have in common, while preserving cultural authenticity, is probably an important direction of the development of the RSGA
The second, narrower problem is related to the nature of the regulatory activity of EGATIN concerning the RSGA. (I do not know how the regulation is carried out concerning other countries). I mean, firstly, some uncertainty of the boundaries and rules of the training process organising, formulated by EGATIN for its members ([6]) And, closely related to that, a fairly soft control over their compliance. It seems that this problem is not only related to EGATIN ([7]) It may be the main reason for the blurring of the paradigm boundaries of group analysis, which occurs at the very heart of the development of the RSGA – in the training of local specialists. I talked about it in more detail earlier, analysing the processes inside the RSGA.
Conclusion
It seems to me that the further development of the RSGA is connected to two tasks.
The first is to understand and evaluate the differences that exist both between organisations within the RSGA field and between the RSGA and the pan-European GA. At the same time, it seems important to look for the common features uniting us, but also to preserve cultural and institutional authenticity.
The second is to define more precisely the boundaries of the group analytic paradigm within the framework of the training and professional activities of the RSGA, to control that Overton window and not to allow a shift, and even the substitution of the paradigm of group analysis with other paradigms.
The author believes that the content of this article has largely lost its relevance after the events that began in Europe at the end of February 2022.
[1] AGRA – Association of Group Analysis (later renamed into the Society of Group Analysis (SGA, OGRA)
[2] Novosibirsk Institute of Group Analysis
[3] Moscow Society of Group Analysis
[4] Moscow Institute of Group Analysis
[5] International School of Group Psychoanalysis
[6] For example, such uncertainties include (a) the absence of transparency of the conditions under which the EGATIN organization of the “intermediate” membership level can carry out qualification training, (b) the lack of clear requirements for the level of training of teachers leading supervision and training groups, (c) uncertainty in the permissible degree of deviation of the training process organisation from that recommended by EGATIN, etc..
[7] For example, it is still difficult for me to understand the reasons that allowed IGA not only to declare admission to a Diploma course in supervision (https://www.groupanalysis.org/post/diploma-in-supervision) specialists who do not have any training in the field of GA, but also invite specialists who also do not have group analytic training as supervisors leading training groups at the course.