On Group Analysis1

The interest of a Psycho-Analyst in any form of collective treatment is likely to be only an indirect one. Of all forms of Psychotherapy, Psycho-Analysis calls least for supplementation. If carried out simultaneously, it might almost be considered as one of the contra-indications for Group treatment. Otherwise, Analysis would have to reconsider its own approach to the problem of the Psychoneuroses. Valuable clues towards an answer to this particular problem might result if one were to subject a number of patients, by way of experiment, to full psycho-analytic treatment and Group Analysis at the same time. On the other hand, to be a Psycho-Analyst does not, in itself, qualify anyone to conduct Groups. Indeed, it can be expected that Psycho-Analysts have as many resistances to a group approach as any other Psychotherapists or Psychiatrists. I will, therefore, on the present occasion not say much on procedure or technique. Nor will I speak on results and the reasons for them, which belong to the theory of Group Therapy. I must refer in this respect to previous publications (Foulkes & Lewis, 1944) and (Foulkes, 1946). It would also be premature at this stage to try to give such an account. What one can say at present is that everyone experienced in group methods, no matter how widely they differ from one another, is agreed on their therapeutic value and on the fact that the theory is in its infancy.

It has been rightly said that group therapy has a very long past and a very short history. Even so, this would in itself fill an evening, and to compare and contrast the different methods might prove confusing. There is a better reason for not entering into the history of group treatment here and now. Until fairly recently I myself have known only by hearsay of the work done by others, and my knowledge of it is very patchy even at the present moment. I must, therefore, take it that you are interested to have some information on the development of group treatmen