Neuroscience and the Social Unconscious

Group analysts have not much turned their attention to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. There is only one paragraph on it in this journal—and in fact it was in the newsletter accompanying it (Leal, 2013)—alongside a few incidental references. In part, this may reflect a general distrust of diagnostic labels, particularly those relating to disturbed development, defined medically. It may also reflect the recent lack of attention towards group-analytic formulations of specific psychopathological constructs. Instead, group-analytic writers have recently been particularly interested in the social unconscious and a more detailed analysis of issues of power and positionality. While this is necessary, and no analysis of people social to their core is competent without it, there is also space for a detailed consideration of psychopathology. To advance this, I attempt a group-analytic understanding of the concept of ADHD. I do this because I shall argue it is a clear example of the balance between projection and introjection, and that an adequate analysis of disturbance in a network must account for both sets of processes. I shall also do it to illustrate that such a group-analytic formulation should be possible, and to encourage further group-analytic formulations of other specific psychopathological constructs. Initially, I shall describe the development and utility of the concept, tying it to neurobiological findings, particularly those related to the Default Mode Network. Next, I shall suggest a group-analytic formulation. I shall then go on to describe the clinical implications of taking this approach, and shall describe how ADHD is too important to keep out of the analytic field, and suggest that group analysis has much to offer in the emerging discourse on social interactional neuroscience.

Section: This Approach—and Its Clinical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, networks and introjection

Forrest¹

2021

“…Bhurruth stated that the circuit could constitute a substrate for the foundation matrix, representing our collective experience as a species, including unconscious aspects (Bhurruth, 2019). Clare Bacha is on the same path in her work Neuroscience and the Social Unconscious (Bacha, 2017).…”

Section: The Brain Behind Groups: Bridging Neuroscience and Group Ana...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Working on the future of group analysis – scientific exploration of efficacy, concepts, and neurobiological connections

Pešić

2024

This article addresses the imbalance in research focus, highlighting a pronounced emphasis on research in the American context compared to the field of group analysis, which is underscored by the identification of two literature reviews. The discussion delves into Lorentzen’s research contributions and the introduction of Focus Group Analytic Psychotherapy. Diverse perspectives on research are presented, with Nitsun and Lorentzen advocating for its importance, while Dalal takes a critical stance. The text investigates discrepancies within key concepts of group analysis, specifically the social unconscious, with Nitsun critiquing an undue emphasis on its significance and questioning its practical relevance in group settings. The relationship between group analysis and neuroscience is explored, shedding light on the reinterpretation of certain concepts through a neuroscientific lens, notably examining the framework of the neurobiology of intergroup relations. Ultimately, the article emphasizes the necessity of believing in and validating the advantages of collective thinking.

Response to Neuroscience and the Social Unconscious by Claire Bacha

Bhurruth¹

2017

I welcome this article into the paradigm of group analytic thinking. The author wonders whether findings in neuroscience can have application in the delivery of group analysis to clinical groups, the economy and politics. And in raising this thought poses a tension. Will incorporating discoveries from neuroscience into the conceptualization and theory of group analysis change the theory of group analysis? Neuropsychology in collaboration with biochemistry, whilst not new sciences, have in the past 30 years benefitted from technological improvements of scanning equipment to map, measure and deduce brain functioning. There has been a growing interest amongst neuroscientists in considering the brain/mind relationship. Biology meets psychology in seeking new ways to understand emotions and higher order verbal expression of feelings with associated meaning. Most brands of psychological therapies are now reaching towards neuroscience, considering this as a hard physical science, with credibility, rather than a social science, to gather evidence that supports their model of therapy. This is an imperative placed upon psychological therapies in the context of funding for therapies being driven by economic and evidence based practice political drivers. Do we pick and mix specific aspects of neuroscientific discovery to fit our group analytic paradigm, or more radically do we develop our theory even if that means leaving our founders behind? Not necessarily behind, but perhaps re-finding them. This article is prescient and reminds us that both Freud and Foulkes started their careers in psychoanalysis as neurologists.