View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

I'll mention before the meeting tomorrow
that I’m not for these sandwiches again.
Bill
Well did you read the email?
Judi
Yes.
Bill
Yeah, good. Yeah I've just brought it back.
Judi
But you've said there's an agreement about
it.
Bill
Well we have made an agreement.
Judi
Obviously I wasn't there.
Bill
You probably weren't. We agreed we’d
try it once but I haven't actually done
anything about it yet.
Judi
Well I wouldn't try it once I don't think it's
worth trying once. I wonder about your
anxiety in relation to S and Q (Reflective
Group conductors).
Bill
Oh they, I mean the difficulty, we just get
backed up a bit it's hard trying to sort of
contain all of the processes that go on in
that meeting, which, many of which are
kind of reflections of what's going on in
the different groups.
Judi
Well they may be, but I think a lot of the
stuff with S and Q is a reflection of their
wish to be part of (The Centre), and to
make sure that they are seen to be that.
You probably don't agree with that.
Bill
I don't have the history with Q but, no I
think it's them possibly being
overwhelmed by their identification with
Chapter Eight – A Consulting Break - Page 249
and densely symbolic issue of the
sandwiches revenge for my criticising Judi
about rescuing Heidi? (Here, I’m
reflecting on the fact that Judi has on a
rational level, i.e. at Matte-Blanco’s
(1975) Stratum One, merely taken the
chance to raise an administrative issue
concerning the course, whilst on another
level (Stratum Two and below) she has
gone to another issue (in addition to the
question of a community meeting about
which we disagreed above) external to the
group we are with, and that is the focus of
considerable conflict amongst the staff
(including between she and I), and which
is the focus of struggles about ideology
and identity as psychoanalytic
psychotherapists).
Probably in response to obviously: who is
in denial now?
I wonder if this interpretation of my
anxiety is actually a defensive response.
Here and in my response, we are
representing between us what can be seen
as a dilemma between pursuing either an
individual or a group perspective.
I’m incoherent here – perhaps reaching out
for Lacan’s ‘Le Nom du Père’. (Here, I’m
drawing on Lacan’s concept of the name