The Anti-group

In this December edition of Contexts, we would like to introduce the GA concept ‘The Anti-Group’, as a homage to Morris Nitsun who, sadly, died only a few weeks ago on the 10th of November 2022.

Morris wrote this draft definition of the ‘anti-group’ as an entry for the Group Analytic Dictionary (GAD) a few years ago.  It was going to be one of his contributions to a project that he supported, recognising the value of revisiting theoretical concepts in order to bring them into focus with the changed awareness of present times. Some theoretical concepts are understood and used by Group Analysts in ways that are different from what the author might originally have had in mind. These changes, depending on the context, could be considered an enriching development or an unhelpful distortion. It is important to be aware of what are the conscious and unconscious factors at a personal and societal level that determine these changes.

The concept of the anti-group is well known and often used to describe negative phenomena that takes place both in small and large groups. It’s now timely to bring it to the attention of readers of GA Concepts and Methods, in order to reflect and discuss its application to current day group analysis. The constructive aspect of ‘recognising and addressing the anti-group’ which Morris emphasised, is not so often mentioned, but it is by doing so that the group can reach its ‘creative potential’.

When Morris wrote and presented his paper on the concept of the ‘anti-group’ to an audience composed of members of what was then the Group Analytic Society and London IGA students, who were made  automatically Associate Members, the paper created a stir as it pointed out that Foulkes had not made explicit the aggressive and negative processes that take place in groups, the attacks that threaten the survival of the group, and therefore failed to convey the beneficial therapeutic potential that working with these processes could bring to the group. He also said that perhaps Foulkes was excessively optimistic about the undoubted beneficial aspects of group analysis.This was seen by some, as a criticism of Foulkes who was thought to be described as idealising group analysis. It became a controversial term and initiated a debate on how destructive processes in groups could be conceptualised. There were criticisms on the concept and whether destructive processes in groups should be described as anti-group.

Morris went on to write a book, published in 1996: ‘The Anti-Group. Destructive forces in the group and their creative potential’ in which he explained how the anti-group was a process that groups might engage in depending on a number of factors including the group composition. Amongst other subjects he explored in some depth the links that can be made between two abstract concepts; the death instinct and the anti-group. He also examined the anti-group process using a philosophical dialectic perspective to explain how destructive phenomena in the group when communicated and worked through can generate creative therapeutic opportunities and how in turn this generates other opposing responses in a continuous regenerative process.

This and his second book ‘Beyond the Anti-Group: survival and transformation’ (2015) have become significant contributions to group analytic theory.

We think it is important to consider Nitsun’s creative personality. He had an unquiet mind, in the sense that he was always looking for aspects that are there but often unseen. We think this is also apparent in his visual art work. He was a serious scholar and teacher focused on the study of group psychotherapy who was actively and creatively involved in his work as a group analyst to the end.

The Antigroup

The concept of the anti-group was formulated by Morris Nitsun in 1990 as a challenge to the optimism of Foulkes’ group analysis. Foulkes advocated the group as a powerful therapeutic medium, in general a force for good. Although there was reason to promote a positive vision of the group, Nitsun argued that Foulkes had underplayed its negative, disruptive aspects: fear and hostility in and towards the group could potentially undermine its collaborative and therapeutic function. While presenting the anti-group as a critical principle, Nitsun nonetheless stressed the constructive purpose of the concept: by recognising and addressing the anti-group, there was a greater chance of the group reaching its creative potential.

History of the concept

Nitsun’s original paper on the anti-group, published in 1991, won the Fernando Arroyave Essay Prize, an in-house prize at the Institute of Group Analysis, London, that invited submissions of articles challenging an aspect of Foulkes’ theory. This was followed by the publication of his first book on the anti-group (Nitsun 1996), then a series of articles (Nitsun 1999, 2009), and a second book on the subject (Nitsun 2015).

Intrinsic to Nitsun’s thinking is his view that Foulkes underestimated the power of antagonistic and destructive processes in groups. Foulkes made several comments in his papers that suggested an intense awareness of destructive and self-destructive processes and the need to recognise these in psychotherapy (Foulkes 1964, Part 3,Chapter 11). However, his main attempt to do so in the group-analytic context was limited and schematic. He suggested that aggressive forces could be used constructively to break down members’ defensive behaviour and neurotic patterns, which could then be repaired and transformed. Although this could be seen to happen in some cases, in other groups powerful forces of aggression and conflict could be unleashed and these may not be readily diverted into constructive channels. They may in fact have a painfully disruptive effect on the individual and the group as a whole, leading to an impasse or rupture in the development of the group. In such a situation, the group itself may acquire a negative or destructive connotation in the minds of participants. Instead of representing a good experience, nourishing and containing, the group represents a bad experience, depriving, dangerous, and even damaging. Consideration of the power of these forces in groups was germane to the formulation of the Anti-group (Nitsun 1996).

Recognising these phenomena may help to understand the resistance to groups that occurs in many settings: the mistrust of groups, the reluctance to join a group, the poor attendance and high drop-out rate in some groups, the acting-out in groups and the feared and sometimes real disintegration of a group in the face of a predominantly negative valency.  These can all be seen as manifestations of the anti-group.

Nitsun’s 1996 book explores the phenomenon in depth but the following are the major principles –

• the anti-group is a process rather than a fixed entity in group
• the process varies considerably from group to group: in some groups it is hardly apparent, inothers it overwhelms the group
• it has latent and manifest forms
• it derives from both group and individual members
• it can be seen in dialectic terms, with the anti-group representing anti-thesis to the pro-group
• it may be manifested as a developmental phenomenon and/or as its developmental function is to challenge and ultimately strengthen the group through the confrontation with anxiety and hostility. It becomes pathological when the doubt and hostility overwhelm the constructive development of the group and the dialectic breaks down.
• It exists in a complementary and potentiating relationship with the creative and transformational properties of the group
• It is mirrored in the wider organisational and socio-cultural

Looking more fully into the determinants of the anti-group, Nitsun suggested that anti-group triggers were linked in a circular rather than linear fashion: rather than one factor being responsible, several factors may interact. These might include phenomena that are experience-near: such as survival anxiety, failures of communication, envy, interpersonal conflict, hatred and aggression; and others that are interpretive constructs such as projective identification, attacks on linking, group regression, the primal scene and the (putative) death instinct. By focusing on regressive phenomena, this view came closer to Bion’s thinking on groups and suggested a bridge between the more optimistic vision of Foulkes and the more pessimistic vision of Bion. Nitsun, however, argued that his vision was realistic and not pessimistic.

Nitsun further explored the technical implications of the anti-group, recognising that these processes present a great challenge to the group conductor, who might feel overwhelmed and at a loss in dealing with them. Given the challenge to the integrity of the group and the tendency to attack connections, the overall purpose of the group conductor is to maintain the group perspective. This may require interventions aimed at strengthening the connecting function of the group: encouraging group feedback and helping the group to take responsibility for its development.

Response to the concept

In a forthcoming publication, Nitsun, describes the ambivalent response to his writing on the subject. Comments on the positive side include Saul Tuttman’s account of the original paper as a “historical and ideological breakthrough”. Tuttman agreed that Foulkes had minimized the problematic nature of groups. Jerome Gans described the 1996 book as “destined to become a classic in the field”. Both these comments are from American writers / reviewers. Nitsun felt that the reaction in Europe, including the UK, was more varied, with some group analysts voicing strong counter-criticism.

Applications of the concept

Nitsun has written extensively about the relevance of the concept to fields outside the consulting room. These include the work organization, institutions and families, where the integrity of the underlying group constellation is essential for survival but where anti-group processes may erupt. He has additionally related it to the broader social sphere where national and international co-operation is frequently marked by division and fragmentation and where hostilities oscillate between the idealized ‘host’ group and denigrated other groups. Fundamentalism and terrorism are extreme examples of the anti-group and its enactment. Nitsun has additionally considered climate change from an anti-group perspective, noting how the destruction of the natural universe can be understood as an attack on the host environment.

In Nitsun’s most recent book, “Beyond the anti-group”, he develops these themes further, questioning why some groups are more prone to anti-group phenomena than others and why some are better able to process the anti-group. He further relates the concept to fields of artistic endeavour, such as performance art and the cinema, highlighting how art represents and processes different manifestations of the anti-group. Moreover, he highlights how cultural changes and technology in the 21st century are generating new forms of anti-group through social dis-connectedness, paradoxically in the face of seemingly greater connectedness. The need for group analysis to help keep human intimacy alive in the technological age may be more important than ever. Recognition of anti-group processes is a crucial part of this endeavour.

References

Foulkes S. H. 1964. Therapeutic Group Analysis. Reprinted 1984, Karnac Books. London

Nitsun M. 1991. Fernando Arroyave Memorial Prize Essay The Anti-group: destructive forces in the group and their therapeutic potential”, in Group Analysis 24(1): pp 7-20

Nitsun M. 1996. The Anti-Group. Destructive forces in the group and their creative potential. Routledge: London and New York

Nitsun M. 1999. Authority and Revolt: the Challenges of Group Leadership, Group Analysis. 42 (4): pp 325-348.

Nitsun M. 2009. Debating the Anti- Group: Communication on articles by Werner Knauss and Dick Blackwell. Group Analysis 32 (3): pp 418-426

Nitsun M. 2015. Beyond the Anti- Group: survival and transformation. Routledge. London and New York.