Group-Analytic Contexts, Issue 81, September 2018

64 Group-Analytic Society International - Contexts
C 2 1 7 ( ; 7 6 & 2 / 8 0 1 , 6 7
S
Quantitative Unease
By Susanne Vosmer
A column dedicated to demystifying psychotherapy research –
O R Y H L W K D W H L W R U E R W K « D W O H D V W W U \ W R N Q R Z Z K D W L W V D O O D E R X W
The Return of the Repressed
Just as the theory of repression was considered as one of the
cornerstones on which the structure of psychoanalysis rests, the
quantitative research paradigm was one of the building blocks, on
which science rests. If Group Analysis (GA) was a science, it would
then depend on the quantitative paradigm, wouldn’t it? But is it true
that GA is a science? Or is it an art, or even a religion, as someone has
suggested? How can we decide? To say that GA is a science (or an
art), only makes sense, if we can either confirm or reject these
statements, from a semantic relativist viewpoint. This means that we
need ‘evidence’ that makes us decide. But what kind of ‘evidence’?
And what counts as ‘evidence’?
Over the years, ‘evidence’ has become synonymous with
‘reality’ in the same way as the repressed was a synonym of
unconscious. This leaves us with another dilemma. What is ‘reality’?
From a truth-relativism point of view, the opinion that GA is a science,
or art, can’t be said to be simply true, but it’s true only relative to a
social practice or social group. There is an inherent paradox though,
as we shall see: When Dalal suggests that GA is an art, it only means
that it’s an art for him. And when Foulkes argues it’s a science, it’s
true for him. Consequently, when Foulkes believes that GA is a
science and Dalal says it isn’t, there’s no contradiction between these
beliefs. They’re both true and GA could be a science and an art. Where
does this ‘truth’ leave us in relation to what constitutes ‘reality’ and
‘evidence’?
Nowhere. It seems to me that GA has been caught up in the
battleground between positivist and anti-positivist proponents. We
inherited the application of mathematical methods from 18 th century
Enlightenment that formed a happy relationship with 19 th century
positivism. The rational understanding of reality and with it,
predictability and reproducibility, became an ‘ego-ideal’. An ideal,