Beyond psychoanalysis and group analysis. The urgent need for a new paradigm of the human being

Abstract

Freud’s momentous discovery that the largest part of mental life, both individual and collective is unknown to us and out of our control, brought about a major revolution in epistemology and our conception of the human being, but such evolution was stalled by Freud’s adherence to several assumptions that were an essential part of his Weltanschauung or ‘Conception of the World’. These were the individualistic paradigm and the misguided attempt to turn the discipline he had created into a positivistic science, framed in the model of the natural sciences. Orthodox psychoanalysis has since focused on the intrapsychic, leaving out the interpersonal and social dimensions. Group analysis, as introduced by Foulkes has been a bold attempt to transcend the limitations of psychoanalysis and integrate the dimensions it has ignored or denied. Nonetheless, the development of Foulkes’ revolutionary contributions was encumbered by his adherence to Freudian theory, just like the latter was by his creator’s subservience to positivistic natural science. Psychoanalysis and group analysis are two aspects of the wider field of analysis, but they are still impeded by a series of assumptions held by both science and common sense. These are: i) materialistic metaphysics, ii) the Cartesian subject, iii) deterministic positivism, iv) neutral objectivism, and v) rejection of teleology. Hence, the need to go beyond psychoanalysis and group analysis and formulate a new paradigm of the human being. This is a work in progress, being tackled by many people from different fields of human knowledge and practice, such as physical science, biology, neuroscience, psychoanalysis, group analysis, sociology, political science, philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, and the Humanities, among many others. It is an interdisciplinary enterprise, to which analysis may and should contribute, but only through an open dialogue with its peers in the field of human thought.

Mountain or river? — A response to Emma Reicher’s article ‘Approaching the mountain: A journey into the wilderness of large group thinking’

“…So here we are dealing with an incipient group-analytic theory of Mind, derived from the group-analytic experience, which differs from that of Freudian metapsychology (Tubert-Oklander, 2019b). This is not intended to replace psychoanalytic theory, derived from the bi-personal experience, but needs to enter into a fruitful dialogue with it, on an equal standing.…”

‘Every child that’s born alive . . .’ — Response to Regine Scholz and Earl Hopper

“…Psychoanalysis has always been relational, and this was present in Freud’s clinical work and writing from the very beginning. The problem is that those revolutionary discoveries were subordinated to the straightjacket of a causal-deterministic theory—namely, metapsychology—that was utterly alien to their very nature, which was necessarily relational and hermeneutic, not naturalistic (Tubert-Oklander, 2008). While these core values of Freud’s discovery and endeavour kept emerging in disjointed clinical observations and reflections, scattered among his writings and letters, it was Sándor Ferenczi (1933), his prime disciple, who made explicit, theorized, and openly explored what had been implicit in his master’s writings.…”

Matrices, internal groups, and the psychic apparatus. Response to article by Clarisse Vollon and Guy Gimenez ‘A “complementarist” approach to the group as matrix and as psychic apparatus’

“…They are well-equipped for this, being group conductors trained and experienced in the psychoanalytic tradition of working with groups of Anzieu and Kaës, and clearly informed about the group-analytic theory and practice. This is a much-needed endeavour, but a truly difficult one, since all our previous assumptions, values, and intentions, stemming from our Conception of the World ( Weltanschauung ), always underlie all our theoretical and technical choices (Tubert-Oklander, 2019; Tubert-Oklander and Hernández de Tubert, 2004). This is,a set of assumptions about reality and existence that underlies all our experiences, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and actions, and is derived from the earliest introjections of our primary personal relations and of the social context in which they occur.…”

“…It is therefore mainly unconscious, unacknowledged, and unthinkable, since we tend to take it as ‘just the way things are’. (Tubert-Oklander, 2019: 414)…”