Group Analytic Contexts, Issue 77, September 2017

Newsletter – Autumn 2017 129
attention to spiritual and therapeutic journeys that emphasized selfreflection
and advocated responding to the actions of others
thoughtfully. They inquired into the psychological development of
forgiveness and the capacity for concern and the organizational
implications if this informed policy. They asked why so much of this
thinking was not familiar to social discourse.
There were psychotherapeutic professional bodies who,
despite finding the visitors refusal to categorize or condemn anyone
difficult to stomach, considered that aspects of their guiding theories
were more in accord with the points that the visitors were making.
Representatives of these bodies invited the visitors to consult with
them separately. The Visitors declined - but encouraged those
individuals to make themselves heard in the large group settings.
Representatives of training and practice committees explained at
length why this would be impossible. The Visitors’ replies left large
groups of grumbling professionals feeling as if they had been
somehow treated as resistant patients.
The Visitors created space within the hubbub to hear about
the beliefs, learning styles and organizational structures of these
apparently benevolently motivated organisations. They listened to
therapists explaining their practice. They were curious with regards to
the extent to which the practice of any group corresponded with the
description of their beliefs. They noticed the variations of practice that
occurred within most organizations and enquired whether adaptations
were in response to a relationship which was as relevant as the method.
The woman who had given up shrugging listened closely.
‘What was the balance between thinking and feeling? What
was the value accorded interactions with an individual, a group or a
culture as vehicles for development? Could thoughtful interactions be
standardized? What was a ‘therapeutic relationship’ when the variety
of potentially helpful ways of being with another seemed infinite?’
Practitioners who tried to explain ‘scientific method’ and
boundaries found themselves confounded by the lack of both in their
current settings. The Visitors seemed bemused by the notion of
assessment as measured in a moment in time or in a defined piece of
work. They’d observed that parents were unlikely to measure their
children in this way and inquired as to whether such practices were
reserved for strangers. ‘What was difficult about continual
conversations and evolving knowledge in the context of developing
relationships? Did assessment, diagnostics, objectification,
accreditation and certification institutionalize a faith rather promote
understanding?’