Hartman Over Generalizes

Dr. Hartman has presented a judicious exploration of possible theoretical frameworks for the writing of group psychohistory. Actually, there are two distinct parts to his article. The first part I agree with and utilize. The second part I am aware of, but Hartman’s caveat regarding the use of analogies prevents me from using that system.

The first section is based upon small group observations. I find his scientific study of the uncertainty and anxiety students experienced in his group process classes when the professor failed to give structure to be parallel with my unscientific observations. As a professor, I assigned all classes—including freshman—a 3,000 word paper on any topic within the parameters of the course in which they have an interest. There were always students who found this “freedom” too anxiety producing and insisted that I assign a topic.

When a society or an individual is in turmoil, there are various theoretical systems used to reestablish order. Historians of political theory or psychoanalytic theory are familiar with these solutions. Classical Greeks wrote of the humors being out of sync. They believed the conflict or anxiety remains until the humors are stabilized or are in stasis. Dr. Joseph Sandler, in his theory of safety states that a patient seeking therapy will remain in therapy until he reaches a level where he feels safe. That is a level where the problem could be lived with rather than

Page 16

resolved. While neither the society nor the individual have resolved the difficulty, that difficulty has been sufficiently quieted as to be dormant.

The methodology is “universal” but the conclusion is idiosyncratic. The Greeks believed that Athens, Thebes, and Sparta would each have “time of troubles.” We can say that patient A, B, and C will each have an anxiety attack. But, since each of the six will be coming from a different place, the point of stasis or safety will be different. To turn the solution of Athens on patient A into a universal procrustean bed is an error. Idiosyncratic problems require idiosyncratic solutions, even when we use similar theoretic methodology.

The second part of the article is a cautious discussion of using analogy. I eschew such methods in theory and try not to use them in practice. Individuals may have a fantasy and a group may have a fantasy, but to conclude that the two are identical has not been established: similar and identical are neither synonyms nor are they interchangeable.

Page 17