Contexts June 2005. Issue 28 - Group Analytic Society

Newsletter – Summer 2005 35
circumstances, leaving to the board to solve the problems behind the
crisis, which they from the director’s point of view would not be
able to – this is basic and a consequence of the dynamics of
different interpretations of facts such as economy, recruitment
(sales) etc. Tom Ormay offers in his text “Back to the Future” in
Group-Analytic Contexts in December several interesting points of
view on the problems of collaboration in boards where the members
come from different cultures. But: the Management Committee is
not a psychotherapeutic group seeking insight but a board where the
members handle power in their own interest and in the interest of
the organization they serve. This is a political problem that cannot
be transformed into anything that can be handled as conflicts in a
psychotherapeutic context. Cultural distortions must be tolerated
and processed by the board in the progress of their work.
Tom makes a lot out of “international”. To me “international” is
an almost empty word. It might be synonymous with “colonial” or
“missionary” or “dominion” or…. We might need each other in
different countries, but for what? The Management Committee must
answer that impertinent question. Groupanalytic theory does not
need an organization for its survival. The theories or similar theories
will be used as long they fit the problems they are applied to. Peter
Wrede points in the chat on the web at that the international must be
preceded by the national: “All the ‘natives’ of other lands (than UK)
can find energy to support nationals GASs”.
Going for the international might be an escape from conflicts and
problems on the national level. I learned at the seminar preceding
the AGM that a problem for the British is that the old Society no
longer is attractive to younger grouptherapists. It is burdened by an
older generation of groupanalysts and their interests, many of them
not British and not in contact with the needs of the young
generation of groupanalysts there, especially when the Society goes
international.
Juan Campos and I have proposed a change of the structure.
We proposed that the Society could be a Group Analysts’ Society
developed as a network very much relying upon internetcommunication
between local units. We suggested a decentralisation.
Still there must be an administrative spider in the net, running
the central computer, arranging the Foulkes’ lecture, collecting
subscriptions for the journal GroupAnalysis and tasks I might have
forgotten. I guess it is, say, 90% administrative tasks. That leaves
10% for creative decisions.