General systems theory and system-centred therapy 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 2 Group analytic theoretical framework

Introduction

As a concept or construct, boundaries feature, to a limited extent, explicitly in group analytical theory, but, implicitly, boundaries form an integral part of the conceptualization and application of the framework of group analytical theory. In the first part of this chapter, an overview of the essential components of the group analytical framework will be given. The main purpose of the overview is to create a framework that can be related to the concept of boundaries; it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the theory.
In the first section, historical roots are highlighted. This section demonstrates that the personal history of Foulkes, the father of group analysis, shaped his conceptualization and application of group theory. Thereafter, the basic components of the conceptual structure of the group in the group analytical theory and how they relate to boundaries will be addressed. This will be followed by development in a group and the underlying dynamics that contribute to creating a group conducive to healing or growth, as well as the dynamics that prevent or hinder the group from progressing. A section will follow that will give a brief overview of the position and role of the leader in the group. Lastly, the contexts in which the framework have been and can be applied will be discussed.
At the heart of group analysis, with Foulkes (1898-1976) as the founder and main exponent, lies the attempt to integrate the dichotomy between the individual and the group. As Dalal (1998) puts it: “This question [division between the individual and the group], forms the basis of his [Foulkes] group analytic theory” (p.1). Although group analysis shares analysis with psychoanalysis as a method, the “both-and” approach of the individual and the group is in contrast with the “classical” Freudian psychoanalytical approach.
In this chapter it will be shown that one of the central, and also radical, concepts in the theoretical framework is the notion that just as a person cannot be understood outside of his context so the group-member cannot be understood outside of the context of the group. In his definition of Foulkes’ view on the structure of the group this becomes apparent: “Group analytic psychotherapy is a form of psychoanalytic therapy which takes as its frame of reference the group as a whole. As in all psychoanalytic frameworks, it puts the individual into the centre of its attention.” (Foulkes, 1964, p. 39). From his definition, the two main elements of his conceptual structure are apparent: the group-as-a-whole and the individual. The boundary demarcation as well as the dynamic interplay between the group and the individual will be highlighted in the discussion on the dynamics underlying the conceptual structure.

Historical roots of the conceptual structure of the group

In his personal history, Foulkes had contact with different groups in the medical field. These experiences played an important part in his conceptualisation of the group. Although group analysis has developed and established its own concepts, part of its uniqueness lies in the way it integrates different theoretical perspectives and concepts. “What distinguishes group analysis from other approaches is its unique integration of psychoanalytic concepts within open-systems and gestalt framework that underpins both its theory and practice” (Pines and Hutchinson, 1993, p. 29). The main influences on Foulkes and group analysis will be discussed briefly in the sections that follow. It will be illustrated that what Pines called “creative crises” in Foulkses’ life contributed to the conceptualisation and development of constructs in his theory. It was not only theoretical influences that shaped his framework but also his personal history (Pines, 1998, p. 396).

Neuroscience

After his initial medical training, Foulkes moved to Frankfurt in 1925 for postgraduate studies where he received training in neurology for two years under Prof Kurt Goldstein. Influenced by Goldstein, Foulkes applied principles of neuroscience to groups. Goldstein, (1939), postulated that the central nervous system is a network of interconnectedness. “The holistic view in my own case links up particularly with my apprenticeship with my teacher Kurt Goldstein who did pioneering work in that direction. What Goldstein could demonstrate was that the organism always reacts as a whole, that the central nervous system is an interconnected network which reacts as a whole” (Foulkes, 1975, p. 15). In response to damage, the central nervous system and the total person engage in a compensatory struggle. In illness, the damaged element ceases to be a nodal point and becomes a focal point. A nodal point is part of the total network as opposed to a focal point which has become isolated from the whole. Although Foulkes acknowledges the impact that exposure to a theoretical field had on the formulation of his ideas, his personal history quite likely also played a role. We can also draw some parallels between his conceptualization of the group and his personal experiences at the time.
Foulkes grew up in Germany, and, although Jewish, his family regarded themselves as integrated and assimilated into German society (Pines, 1998). The time when Foulkes studied with Goldstein (1926-28) was also the time of the rise of Nazism in Germany. Foulkes left for Vienna but returned to Frankfurt in 1930. Whereas a few years before, during World War 1, Foulkes had been part of the German army, he now progressively (as a Jew) became isolated and a target of hatred within the very society of which he regarded himself a part. Applying the principles of neuroscience, we can argue that Foulkes changed from being a nodal point to a focal point in the society. It is therefore very likely that not only theory, such a Goldstein’s (1939) view on the central nervous system, but also his personal history, informed Foulkes’s central constructs.
The important implication of the conceptualisation of a network, was that it allowed Foulkes not to have to choose between the boundary of the individual or the group but to see both together.

READ  Economic Order Quantity

Gestalt psychology

In addition to his training in Neurology, Foulkes also attended classes in Gestalt psychology, presented by Adhemar Gelb (Roberts and Pines, 1992). In Gestalt psychology the figure-group relationship is fundamental to the process of perception. Foulkes then combined the idea of the group as a matrix with the figure-ground concept. The matrix is the ground against which everything in the group can be perceived. The figure-ground also gave Foulkes the flexibility to switch between the individual and the group, sometimes focusing on an individual and at other times focusing on the group-as-a-whole. So, in addition to conceptually integrating the member and the group, he was now able to justify his technique of shifting focus between the member and the group-as-a-whole. “He was able to allow his attention to float and to alight eventually on the location of the currently most significantly active or meaningful element of the group process.” (Roberts and Pines, 1992, p. 479.).

Psychoanalysis and sociology

Another source of academic and theoretical influence came from Psychoanalysis. Foulkes received psychoanalytic training under Helene Deutch in Vienna from 1928 – 1930. The psychoanalytic training was in the Freudian tradition. In the Freudian tradition, the internal world is emphasised over the external world. Dalal (1998) is of the opinion that, although Freud oscillates between the internal and the external, “in the end he prioritizes internal reality over external reality.” (p. 21)
In contrast to the individual analytical approach Foulkes had extensive exposure in Frankfurt to the Sociological Research Institute of Frankfurt from 1930 – 33. His association with the sociologist Norbert Elias extended over a number of years and is probably one of the important influences that helped tip the scale for Foulkes in favour of the social over the biological. “I am inclined to see the human development more in the light of transmission than in terms of direct, inherited, archaic repetition” (Foulkes, 1990, p.238). He came to regard the group and the community as the primary unit of consideration.
Although Foulkes claims that his theory is psychoanalytic, some of his ideas can be regarded as anti-Freud (Dalal, 1998). In some cases he does away completely with the inner drive and inheritance and replaces it with external influences and transmission from the social environment. Foulkes (1990) said that one of the driving principles in human existence is the need to belong. This is close to Fairbairn’s (1952) notion that the infant is object seeking and not pleasure seeking as would be the case in the Freudian tradition.

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Personal reflection on experiences with groups
1.3 Research Problem
1.4 Research Purpose and Objectives.
1.5 Thesis statement.
1.6 Significance of the study
1.7 Delineation and demarcation
1.8 Outline of study
Chapter 2 Group analytic theoretical framework 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Historical roots of the conceptual structure of the group
2.2.1 Neuroscience
2.2.2 Gestalt psychology
2.2.3 Psychoanalysis and sociology
2.3 Conceptual structure of the group
2.3.1 Group matrix
2.3.2 Group space.
2.3.3 Communication in the matrix
2.3.4 Figure, ground.
2.3.5 Configuration and location, focal and nodal points
2.3.6 The Collective and Social unconscious in the group
2.3.7 Group as dynamic context and the role of communication
2.4 Development in the group
2.4.1 Developmental enhancing dynamics.
2.4.1.1 Socialisation
2.4.1.2 Mirroring
2.4.1.3 The “condenser” phenomenon
2.4.1.4 “Chain” phenomena and linking
2.4.1.5 Resonance
2.4.1.6 Resisting re-enactment
2.4.2 Destructive dynamics and defences in the group
2.4.2.1 Resistant conversations
2.4.2.2 Scapegoating
2.4.2.3 Resistance in joining the matrix
2.4.2.4 The anti-group
2.4.2.5 Malignant mirroring
2.4.3 Group phase development.
2.5 Conductor of the group.
2.6 Context of application.
2.7 Summary with specific reference to boundaries.
2.7.1 Introduction
2.7.2 Historical roots
2.7.3 Conceptual structure
2.7.4 Development in the group
2.7.4.1 Developmental enhancing dynamics
2.7.4.2 Developmental destructive dynamics
2.7.5 Role of the group leader
2.7.6 New applications and developments
2.8 Some limitations of the group analytic framework
Chapter 3 Group-as-a-whole framework.
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Historical roots of the conceptual structure
3.3 Conceptualisation of the group
3.4 Development in the group
3.5 Patterns of the basic assumption groups
3.6 Application of group-as-a-whole framework
3.7 Synopsis of structure and dynamics
3.8 Some limitations of the group-as-a-whole framework
3.9 Group-as-a-whole/Tavistock framework and boundaries
3.10 Some working hypotheses
3.11 Contemporary developments
3.12 Concluding comment
Chapter 4 General systems theory and system-centred therapy 
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Field theory applied to groups
4.3 General systems theory
4.4 From theory to practice – system-centered therapy (SCT)
4.5 Development in the group
4.6 Some comments and impressions on GST and SCT
4.7 Contemporary developments
Chapter 5 Methodological orientation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Qualitative research
5.3 Operationalization of the research design and methodology
Chapter 6 Interpretation and explication of results 
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Interpretation of the distribution of directedness and effect thereof on boundaries
6.3 Boundary movement explication through application of themes
6.4 Concluding comments
Chapter 7 Discussion of results and conclusion 
7.1 Integrating theory and the results of the textual analysis
7.2 General observations
7.3 Implications of research findings for the practice of groups
7.4 Summary of research outcomes and contribution
7.5 Suggestions for future research
7.6 Limitations of the study
7.7 Concluding comments
List of references
Appendix
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT

Related Posts