Lawton Responds to the Commentators

Although I do not completely agree with the position of Paul Elovitz on attempting group process analysis at IPA Conventions, he deserves our thanks for facilitating this opportunity to more openly discuss the issues involved.

My statement, “Attempting Group Analysis,” printed above, was distributed as a hand out to those attending the conference who might be curious about the rationale for such an effort. Similar handouts have been distributed in the past from time to time. After the 2004 Conference, Paul Elovitz asked me if I would agree to have my handout published in Clio’s Psyche with comments, as a way to stimulate debate on a part of IPA that for some remains quite controversial. I readily agreed and here we are.

People come to group process at IPA with widely varying expectations and fantasies about what will occur, e.g. some hope they might experientially learn more about how groups work and do not work emotionally; some desire free therapy or to be able to verbalize personal traumas; others use the group as a kind of theater to act out their own neurotic pathologies; some actually try to work with friends and colleagues in the service of understanding, and to work though, with varying degrees of success, feelings positive and negative about what they have learned and experienced at the conference; and on and on it goes. Some come away from the experience feeling they have gained valuable insights into how groups function; others tend toward the opposite view and believe the whole effort is counterproductive and injurious to IPA; if they have a viewpoint at all, most

Page 84

are probably somewhere in between these two poles of opinion.

For anyone interested in the subject of group process, John Hartman’s work is basic, along with that of Bion, Anzieu and a few others. I find myself in total agreement with what he says. He states that the idea of group process work “remains a useful and perhaps necessary one for the effective functioning of any group. However, like individual exploration of unconscious processes, it is difficult, problematic, and uneven. It is also not for everyone” (Emphasis mine). This is why we began, a number of years ago, to stress the voluntary nature of participation in the sessions. That the facilitator should be relatively outside the group and not one of the leaders (as has too often been the case) is totally correct. Sadly, this principle has to some degree gotten lost in IPA. Finding people on the periphery of the group to handle facilitation duties has always been very hard. Getting co-leaders or a team has been even harder, but on the occasions when this has proven possible our process work has tended to be a more positive experience.

Lloyd deMause is emphatic in his belief that group process has been successful. I am not sure he is correct to claim that that those who do not return, really do not “believe in studying the emotions of groups so nothing is lost.” Even though he has a point, I would not be quite so absolute on this issue. I was surprised that he does not mention that Group Process is supposed to be an experiential learning process, rather he seems to see it as a sort of therapy (verbalizing and working through difficult feelings, etc.). While this can be a part of what goes on, I have always viewed what we seek to do as more of a learning process than a therapeutic one.

David Beisel gives a lucid statement of the rationale for group process in the first two paragraphs of his comment that I agree with. He is adamant that the effort has not lived up to its promise. He believes that group process too often “serves an excuse for acting out,” and is responsible for having driven many, who might otherwise stay, away because they are appalled at the level of acting out that the group can be capable of. But he admits that people leave the group for many reasons. This is quite correct. In my capacity as IPA Secretary I have done intermittent survey of members who did not renew to find out why they left with an eye to ascertaining what we might be doing wrong. Reasons given varied quite a bit – excessive dues, inability to afford travel costs to the conference, retirement, changed interests, and even upset about group process. But to claim that “hundreds” have not returned because of upset about group process analysis is, in my experience, an overstatement. He goes on to remind us that it is false to claim, “no harm has been done, that only a few people have been affected, that the absence of many is irrelevant.” Quite simply, while David Beisel does have a point, the reasons for lost members are more varied and complex than he may realize or wish to believe. Yes, we have people in the group who engage in hurtful acting out behavior, and we know who they are. Some leave but there are also some that try to understand why this goes on and fight such conduct as best they can.

Paul Elovitz’s position is much the same as that of David Beisel. Like Beisel, Elovitz seems to feel that group process was a great idea that, for a variety of reasons, has not lived up to its promise. I would be the last to deny that there isn’t some truth to this assertion. He next expresses concern about newcomers feeling unheard or not welcomed. Despite some progress (the Wednesday evening party), this remains a problem. I would agree with his belief that the role of the group process Analyst is important. Certainly the quality of our analysts over the years has been variable. As John Hartman noted, ideally the analyst should be on the periphery of the group rather than part of the leadership. But getting a decent, experienced person has often been harder than Paul Elovitz seems to realize. People “come to group process sessions for many reasons” aside from wishes “to better understand themselves and the nature of groups.” This is true and quite beyond our ability to control. There is always going to be an edge of uncertainty about the character of the group that will excite some and be anxiety provoking for others. Like David Beisel, Elovitz points out that group process can be alienating and hurtful. Even though I would differ with them about the degree to which this goes on, the concern is a valid one. “My own experience … has led me to believe that the essential issue is how to create a safe and secure environment” in the group. Fair enough, but groups, despite our best intentions, are not always safe, nor can we expect a group to be all sweetness and light. Where do you draw the line? Do we want to help

Page 85

people to understand groups as they are, warts and all, or as we would like them to be? I have to say here that there was one year when we did not list group process on the program but left time for it. If the group process had been so hurtful one might have expected that it would have silently died. But that was not the case. When they saw that nothing had been set up, a number of attendees (outside the leadership) spontaneously took matters in the own hands and set the sessions up on their own each day. It was quite amazing.

When Paul Elovitz notes that some of those “with knowledge of group process” whom he invited to respond “felt strongly that it hurt the organization but would not publicly comment for a variety of reasons,” what am I to say to this? While these people are certainly entitled to their reticence I must wonder what they expected had they chosen to reveal themselves? I feel some disappointment at being denied an opportunity to respond to them. Sadly, Jerry Piven’s disillusionment with “the experience” is valid, but it is more complex than what is stated. Paul Elovitz goes on to suggest that even though group process is “the brainchild of Lloyd deMause,” I have been a major force keeping it alive. He seems to believe that my handout was intended as a justification when, in point of fact, it was intended as a statement of rationale rather than a justification. To suggest that I have “little regard” for what has “actually been happening” in the group process, when he admits that he has not been there on a regular basis for a number of years, seems to me a bit much. I have been the recipient of attacks and acting out behavior over the years, and, yes it is unpleasant, but rather than packing it in I have always tried to understand what was going on and why. More properly, the comments by Elovitz, Beisel and others clearly show that we see the issues involved differently.

In conclusion, I want to offer some personal observations and make some suggestions about the conduct of our group process work. Our group is too large to be a leaderless group. Even a single leader is questionable; we need co-leaders or, better yet, a team of at least four people who could work together. A team would help defuse much of the acting out that can occur in a single leader or leaderless group. In those rare years when we were able to have co-leaders or a team the quality of the work tended to be much more positive. What are the reasons for the limited success of such efforts at improvement? A lot of it had to do with ignorance of the issues involved. Large groups by their very nature can also be quite anxiety provoking. It is simply not easy to find people emotionally suited or with necessary experience to lead. Should we stop trying? The answer seems obvious to me.

Group process as we attempt to practice it is a radical enterprise. Other organizations do not attempt to do this, despite the fact, as John Hartman shows, that it could be beneficial. Why is this? It could be do to anxiety, intellectual conservatism, concern about how others might see us, etc. Does attempting group process make IPA look like a group of crazy people? In the eyes of Elovitz, Beisel, and, possibly, many others, the answer would seem to be yes. Does this mean that IPA is crazy? In my view it does not! One of many reasons that psychohistory remains something of a marginal field is because of resistance to facing and accepting the importance of emotion and fantasy as basic features in the mix of reasons for any historical motivation. If we shrink from trying to look at the force of emotion and fantasy in our own group and ourselves, how can we look at such issues in historical groups with the honesty that is necessary? The IPA has to attempt group process. If we shrink from doing so because of anxiety, concern about how others may see us, or whatever, we stand revealed as hypocrites!

But group process still can be hurtful, intimidating, and drive some, maybe many, away. Why have we largely failed to make it safer? As I have tried to suggest, there are ways that the experience can be made better, safer, and less hurtful without creating something that is artificial. Are those who like to use the group for acting out their own destructive pathologies perceived as too strong? The answer seems obvious. Has the group felt powerless against such types? Sadly, this too seems obvious. Why is this? It is not always easy for people of good will to confront such types. Maybe members have not seen these issues with enough clarity. Even when members try to speak out on the problems of acting out, nothing much seems to happen. Things may calm down for a while, only to newly erupt in subsequent years. All of this involves questions of group process that are seldom voiced. An obvious answer would be to more aggressively verbalize concerns about acting

Page 86

out and attacking when they emerge. But the offenders would counter that they also have a right to be heard without censorship. So where do we draw the line? Should we stop trying to understand? Does this mean we should give it up, as Paul Elovitz suggests, because in the eyes of some group process damages the reputation of IPA and reflects poorly on our field? How important is the question of how others see IPA and our field? How correct are their perceptions? Do some of those who feel this way express resistance or anxiety to what psychohistorians try to do? Is their concern—well-meaning though it may be—misplaced? I think we could agree that psychohistory tries to ask hard questions, which is a scary proposition. It asks us to face irrationality in our institutions and ourselves without shrinking and/or trying to hide. I am the first to agree that our group process is hardly perfect and that it can be hurtful to at least some (myself included), but I must respectfully disagree with my academic colleagues. If we are worth the name psychohistorian we cannot shrink from trying to understand the full range of historical motivation, rational or irrational. In the case of group process there are ways we can and should be trying to make it better. Whether we will succeed or fail only the future can tell. But you would certainly be mistaken to think that such uncertainty is grounds to absolve us from continuing to try.

Page 87