Kevin Power

On the Primordial Origins of Group Analysis and their Relation to the Creative Nature of Humanity

Of Foulkes’ Four Levels of interaction (Therapeutic Group Analysis, 1964: 114) the primordial has received the least notice, despite it being the foundation for the others. This article explores where this category may have originated and then presents a digest of anthropological research into human social group origins, and their relation to group-analysis and current human concerns.

Vote of Thanks and Response to Tom Ormay’s Foulkes Lecture

When you invited me, Tom, to provide the formal response to this lecture, I was at first hesitant, but a little later accepted. It is an honour that comes few people’s way. I had already responded warmly to your book of the same title, having written the review for the Society’s journal, Group Analysis Volume 45, No 4, December 2012 . So may I now thank you personally for these few moments? What attracts me to the theme of your book and this lecture is the uncovering of the ‘cul-de-sac’ quality of the tripartite model of the mind that Freud published in 1923—Id, Ego, Superego . For almost a century this model has framed how psycho-analysis and psychiatry in general theorize about the human mind. Foulkes’ work and that of other group psychotherapy practitioners often emphasizes the individual in the group, for instance:

Art for Foulkes’ Sake or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Trust the Group

This article addresses the title of the GASI’s 15th Symposium in Lisbon, ‘Group-Analysis as Art and Science’. It is eclectic and seeks to expose some fallacies in certain areas of practice and theory, and questions the trend towards medico-technological practice rather than valuing group analysis as a creative practice that contains much more for its participants than mere ‘recovery’. The underlying argument is that the process-art of the group that the members participate in is the dynamo of change in the group.

A Response to Farhad Dalal’s Foulkes Lecture, 11th May 2012

After two recent analytic events—the EGATIN weekend workshop on Love Passion and Intimacy in Lisbon two weeks ago and the following weekend a morning presentation and response from Iain MacGilchrist on his recent book, The Master and his Emissary (2009)—I felt I had much additional material with which to resonate with Farhad’s lecture; what I present here is a collection of responses to the lecture and not a measured and argued article. To the lecture itself. I think his broad argument—that psychotherapy and group analysis are ethical activities through and through—is unchallengeable. However I was struck by the relative absence of references to groups, and where the only example of human interaction was that between Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell (and that rhinoceros). So I would like to introduce some of these elements in order both to reinforce what I think Farhad has given us and to expand on that provision. What stayed with me after a first reading was the idea of love as the main element of relation between patient and therapist. Only what kind of love? And in what manner might this be expressed by the therapist? English is poor in words for the range of loves there might be. Greek has four words covering various kinds of love, which in English are covered by that one word, love—no wonder Brits have difficulties. These four forms are: eros — philia — storge — agape 461709 GAQ45410.1177/0533316412461709Group AnalysisPower: Response to ‘Foulkes Lecture’ 2012