Group Analytic Contexts, Issue 77, September 2017

to be a bit beyond their own?
Newsletter – Autumn 2017 139
DP:
Sure, I don’t object to criteria like having practiced for at least
five years and some evidence of running a few groups, but that
could all be done in a job interview and I’m not objecting to
that, just to the double hurdle creating a hierarchy of the
approved and the non-approved. Apart from anything else the
system doesn’t work, I mean, have you met TGA’s? Some are
a danger to shipping and shouldn’t really be practicing when
clearly GA hasn’t worked in humanising them. Not many,
maybe, but enough to make you worried, and not just for
trainees but for ordinary punters who end up thinking that the
car-crash they are experiencing is GA – it’s more than tragic!
Doc: But if system isn’t perfect, doesn’t another level of scrutiny
make it safer.
DP:
Maybe, but rather than post training scrutiny, it should be like
abolishing so called “public” schools so we give the best
possible education to everyone, they should eliminate the idea
of TGA’s and make sure everyone is trained to that standard,
then it’s up to the usual interview process - I’m not saying that
I think everyone is equally skilled or self-aware.
Doc: Maybe you should get on the training committee?
DP:
You seem to be forgetting I’m not IGA, that’s Lavinia
Doc: What is it with your parents and their children’s names?
DP:
Ok, they were crap at it, I mean, Crystal Palace, really? I’ll
ignore that but don’t get me started on IGA’s superiority
complex or I’ll be here for more than 50 minutes in a sort of
Lacanian way. Anyway, as it happens, I do have something
else I want to talk about.
Doc: Thank god, sorry, know she doesn’t exist and don’t mean to
imply that there are things I like you talking about and those
not.
DP:
Except that sometimes you do, you bastard! Anyway
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx