Report of the EATGA Study Day - Milan, March 10/11-2001
Transmission and Comprehension: Innovation or Repetition?
Content of the Day
In the morning various founding members will tell why and how the association been founded in order to underline the re asons for starting the association. The association is trying to understand how to make a transition between different generations, concepts and the reasons of the actual difficulties. An open discussion will follow. During the first part of the afternoon the participants will work in two subgroups to better continue the discussion about the actual situation of EATGA. It is made clear that the setting is intended to help a discussion group and not an experiential one. At the end of the day all the participants will meet and a feed back on the different issues will be given by some of them. The main points to be explored during the two different parts of the day are: What do we transmit as a transcultural associahon? The history of EATGA in the view of its founders How to develop the future (meaning how do we conceive our own development as an association)?
President's Introduction to the Study Day Kurt Husemann, EATGA Board President, opens the Study Day underlying that what in EATGA in latest times it has been an institutional and organisational problem has now become the research theme of the Study
Day: Transmission and Comprehension: Innovation or repetition? He refers to A. Modell's three transcendent facts of life: Death, Dependence and the Experience of being excluded from parental intimacy. Their elaboration lead to the aknowledgment of alterity In Associations, institutions, groups which live independently from individuals' life not aknowledging facts of life endangers the institutional life. So rules, structure, roles which are not linked to individuals must be developed m order to garant evolvement.
Jaak Le Roy Jaak Le Roy exposes the setting and method of the Study Day. The aim is to explore how the Association transmits what it has been founded, how it gives way to the new. The Study Day is a way to go through the Associations development. The group will work as a discussion group. Participants are asked to react to the issues proposed in order to find connections and links to what was previously split Participants are asked to reflect and discuss if they share the interest in the main issues proposed by the Board, if the project is interesting for the Associations future.
Jean Claude Rouchy He traces the history of EATGA from 1982 Reunion in London to the French meeting (Paris, Salpetriere, July 1 982).He relates about the founding members, the ideas, the hypothesis at the basis of EATGA workshops, EATGA foundation in Maastricht in 1985: The main working hypothesis proposed by Rouchy were: 1) culture is incorporated and not menthalized in the familiar group 2) belonging groups strengthen interiorization of space and time 3) the encounter with other foreigners make us loose these reference points 4) the basic importance of setting (dispositif) The transcultural EATGA setting was envisaged as the only place where cultural incorporates become visible and can be explored by means of group processes. Now the problem is the transmission of 20 years experience to the new generations which have since then joined EATGA.
Malcom Pines' letter is read by Marlene Spero He traces the history recollecting, remembering the enthusiasm of the first days, the triumph of Maastricht WS, of Heidelberg. Then and the first doubts raised by Paris WS. Retrospectly he now believes the enthusiasm was due to post war need for reconciliation. Now he sees there were unresolved issues to do with power, leadership and interpenetration of each otheris ideas. In retrospect he sees that more intensive exploration between originators was needed in order to work through leadership and relationship issues.
Dennis Brown In his opinion the dynamics of the Association reflect those of Europe after the Maastricht Treaty of 1991. There is a kind of fear competing with idealism. The name itself reflects this dichotomy: Transcultural and Intercultural. Would it not have been better to call the Association The European Association for Cultural Group Analysis? Follows a sketch of the main workshops of the last years. The final question are:
Is the Association becoming stuck because of avoiding the differences? Is the organisation afraid because there is a fear of immigrants coming into the Fortress Europe? Is there a need to start with an examination of the complexity of the Foundation Matrices in each of the members of the Association?
Christine Schwankart Perez de Laborda She relates about the themes of the first meetings of EATGA from 1982 to 1990 about the main themes explored. The first meeting took place in Paris in 1982 with the representatives of the Foulkesian school, of the French one and of the German school In 1983 the meeting was held in Lausanne and the central question was about the organisation of the workshop. In an important letter, Roger Snakkers December 83, proposes the creation of an Association. The fifth meeting took place in London, January 1984. The themes included among others, mythology, the interculturality and violence, the neutrality of the groups. For the first time the name of European Association of transcultural Groups Analysis was used. Next meetings in Dusseldorf, March 1984. The statutes elaborated by Le Roy and Snakkers formed part of the Arret Royal. In the eight meeting held in Paris the discussion about the design of the workshop and the objective of the large group continued. Another meeting in Lyon took place just before the workshop in Maastricht in August 1985.
Monique Soula Desroche The founding members and early members had a lot of experience with organisations as well as clinical theory. In 1985 an organizational structure was needed in order to con duct workshops to investigate cultural phenomena in groups. So difficulties were denied. The actions taken to create an organization resulted in the suppression of differences. Organizationaldynamics began to overtake the original purpose and attenuate the stated goals. The group bylaws began to determine process more than creativity. Democracy of the group made for equality of individuals which made it difficult to concentrate on inequalities. Subsequent workshops recruited new members but they did not know of the values and aims of the organization. The workshops became experiences in themselves and not tools for research that could develop a coherent body of data to illuminate our central concern: cultural influences on group process. New members began to feel dominated by the rules and regulations of the organization because they had never participated in the founding fever. Groups which form an association cannot do research on a process when one wishes to be convivial and fraternal. Belonging interferes the distancing needed for the analytic method.
Giovanna Cantarella
She relates" on the answers to the questionnaire sent to 16 Eatga members in January 2000 The explored themes were: the knowledge of EATGA scientific ideas, its istitutional history and geography at its birth the scientific themes, the scientific hypothesis at the basis of EATGAresearch the themes emerged through EATGA workshops the institutional objectives the present scientific and istitutional developments present institutional dynamic also in rela tion to unfaced institutional problem of the past. The answers can be summarised as follows: One can say that in EATGA the scientific focus is both on: the attention on the frame, on the setting allowing the research on the cultural basis of personality (more from the francophones members) the attention on the signs on the individual psyche of social, cultural and political problems of social traumas, of social changements explored by means of groups in workshops settings. All members mention EATGA workshop as the most important means for exploring inter-transcultural themes and the relevance of EATGA workshops (and their capacity to let re-emerge the wounds linked to the consequences of hystorical traumas, of social, generational, familiar silences). They express the need of more structured publications after the workshops. - The questionnaire has revealed two wishes/ preoccupations of members: one towards the future, the other towards the past. They can be summarized as follows: the necssity of opening towards new research hypothesis, towards new members and to manage consequent conflicts the necessity of connection with the scientific past, the cultural wealth of EATGA; the history of ideas of the Association they have chosen.
General Discussion Some of the disagreements in the association may be related to the difference between the psychoanalytic approach to groups and to the group-analytic one. It is pointed out that the same kind of setting cannot be used in exploring one's belonging to the primary groups and the belonging to the secondary ones.
Opinions are different over the opportunity of carrying the exploring of the transcultural aspects of the professional identity as it has been performed in the 1999 workshop in Fiesole. According to some opinions, being the professional identity connected to one's belonging to the secondary groups, the expression of thematics linked to the belonging to primary groups should not be encouraged. There might be a false problem, since secondary groups are influenced by primary groups and by the social sphere they develop in, therefore it may not be useful trying to differentiate too much both matters. It is made clear that the debating is about the opportunity (possibility?) of using the same kind of setting to explore so different thematics. An exortation is expressed to improve a more general discussion about the associat. Some think that it is difficult to consider the organization as if it were a complex one. There is a risk of discussing in terms of relations between individuals and not in terms of relations internal to an organization. Some of the new participants point out that those issues which may be for many of the participants only a repetition of well known thematics, are on the contrary necessary to understand the situation. A general agreement is expressed about the urge to regain the spirit of research present during the first years of common work. It is necessary to go over the history of the association to find out whether the things done in the last years would today be performed in a different way.
14.30 Small groups
Group A - Conductor G. Cantarella People are invited to express their opinions
on the papers presented in the morning. There is a discussion about the model presented by Husemann (A. Modell). It follows a discussion whether it is necessary for the association to become wider and better known. The group expresses kind of a dicothomy organization/research as if it were impossible to conjugate these two dimensions. There are mainly two opinions: a more important than growing as an organisation is to make it possible for the associates to get to know each other (professional identity and theoretical belonging). And also to confine the experiential groups and most of all to focus the attention on the research. b Growth is the natural evolution of any organization. Otherwise it is extintion. It is very important to understand why many associates have left the association and also why it is difficult to share the differences as a resource and not as an impediment. It is important to be able to transmit the experience. Even to become able of teaching to new members. There is a general request that the association provides to written results of the researches and experiences done in and by the association during the first years. At the end of the group three participants living in the same country decide to try to work toghether during next year on a small transcultural research.
Group B - Conductor M. Spreng The group discussion began with some encouraging remarks, suggesting that we had a very valuable instrument of research at our disposal: the methodology of transcultural group analysis, as developed in our society through the experiential workshops. The group attention was drawn to the fact that we need to tune in more to the problems of the younger generation. However, we have sibling rivalry, between the older and the younger generation and the youngcconsider the older generation have nothing to give. A vote of confidence ensued as to our methodology, which some of us claimed was a permanent link >from the old to the new, if we could aufficiently trust it. The ensuing considerations concerned the influence of the new economy on all our thinking with its lack of traditional hierarchy. Underlying the ideas behind the new economy is a new paradigm of nondifferentiation. We have to acknowledge differences however, because a sense of hierarchy is necessary for the rule of law. In our transcultural work, there is of necessity an innate resistance on the part of the researchers to examine the influence of religion, nationality, identity, which is the object of our research, but which also forms us. The concept of "identity" comes from sociology and, in our transcultural association, none of us can claim to belong, or how do we define our transcultural identity. Our common denominator is in our training, because we are all psychologically trained. We should connect also to the other sciences. Not only the outside world changes, we change. PANEL: Issues explored by Jean Claude Rouchy; Ugo Corino; Jaack Le Roy, Giovanna Cantarella; Mary Spreng Courtney; Marlene Spero; Jason Maratos and Anna Maria Fahrlander: There is a need to be more precise about the cultural aspects of identity :primary identity of the self and secondary professional identity. There are differences between discussion groups, experiental groups and analytic groups that we may need to relearn.We can both repeat and innovate. It is necessary to integrate our experiences, values and practices. Growth and Health are paramount to Individuals and Groups. Growth encompasses maturation in clarity and complexity and change incorporates the new while discarding the outdated.