View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Chapter Seven – A Discussion – Page 217
of the imminent ending. Ending in turn links back, through a kind of resonance, to the
threatened impending loss of security for the boy with whom Kelly was working.
There are some issues raised so far that are worth highlighting. First, there is the impact
of the previous session noted above. For example, Tom reported feeling identification
with the child in the case, and Frances also noted (from a different perspective, that of
clinician) that her professional response to a case that she was dealing with was very
different following the discussion in the previous session.
Second, the timing of this session, coming as it does just before the end of the course, is
highly significant. In one of the few works to explore structuring of the
psychotherapeutic process, Cox (1988) argues persuasively that if we don’t know when
the end is, then we also don’t know when just before the end is, a time when a great deal
can happen therapeutically. In this case, we do know when the end is (and indeed, we
are at just before when the end is), However, I am aware that we didn’t make much
acknowledgement of that together with the students. Whatever our responsibility or
otherwise, this is a highly significant point in the course and the semester.
Third, the time available for the discussion (although, again, not well structured by the
tutors) is six times longer than in previous sessions, and as I look now, I see this
difference as a significant contributor to the depth of discussion and interaction that can
be accomplished. In the latter part of this segment (the first half of the two hours),
people are referring to some very deep phenomena, and connecting in a manner more
typical of an established group-analytic therapy group (Foulkes, 1975) than that of a
traditional learning group. The lead-up to Paula’s utterance of the symbol is long and
highly associative.