You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In this volume, Malcolm Pines reflects his well-earned stature as an erudite scholar, editor of many books and of the Journal of Group Analysis, experienced psychoanalyst and eldest son of group analysis. The book contains a selection of published papers, many of which were originally given as key lectures to a range of national and international analytic organizations. Although arranged in Sections
(Group Analysis, Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Historical Perspectives), the chapters overlap creatively in that the author re-turns from many angles to exploring the ‘self’ in relation to early development including mirroring and coherence, the key role of empathy, attunement and dialogue, the echoing of history, and the ubiquity of the socio-psychological. His research, thoughts and penetrating insights encompass individuals, dyads, groups, organizations and society as a whole. While Foulkes and Kernberg are recurrently referred to and engaged with, the text is also illuminated by, and illuminating in relation to, many analytic practitioners, theoreticians and researchers, as well as social scientists, philosophers, poets and writers of fiction.
The first two chapters comprehensively explore and develop the concept of mirroring, particularly in relation to child development. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 consider psychic development and healing in group analysis and its particular application to working with borderline patients. Pines suggests that both psychoanalysis and group analysis strive to replace cohesion (linked to undifferentiation) with coherence (responsible cooperation in a group and ego development in the individual). Group analysis strives for healing, a notion which Freud, unlike Jung, eschewed. In the group, healing relates to the process of developing a sense of ‘wholeness’ which is akin to Jung's concept of individuation.
Regarding analytic work with borderline patients, Pines agrees with Segal about the breakdown of symbol formation, but favours aetiology