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.
Arturo Ezquerro and Martha Cañete are London-based psychiatrists and psychoanalytic psychotherapists and graduates of the Institute of Group Psychotherapy founded by the psychoanalyst S. H. Foulkes in London. As background to this review, it is important to mention that Ezquerro was supervised for a period of 6 years by John Bowlby until Bowlby died in 1990. Ezquerro has written a very personal and beautiful book about his supervision with Bowlby (Ezquerro, 2017).
Group Analysis Throughout the Life Cycle is remarkable in several ways. The authors’ life cycle developmental approach is an important contribution to the literature on group therapy, as well as the concept of group attachment that they see as an extension of Bowlby's attachment theory. I know of no other book on group psychotherapy that has been organized based on selecting patients by their age and common developmental phases. This format allows the authors to discuss issues that are common developmental tasks affecting the group, while at the same time attending to issues that are particular to each group member. The authors provide clinical examples that illustrate the work they do with members that are of similar ages. The book is devoid of jargon and is written in clear language that makes it a pleasure to read.
The authors’ approach to groups is centered on the work of S. H. Foulkes, a psychoanalyst who developed a sophisticated, in-depth, and compassionate approach to group therapy. Foulkes's attitude was in contrast with the brilliant but more austere and remote approach of Wilfred Bion, the other main figure who has dominated approaches to groups and group therapy in the United Kingdom. These two camps did not speak to each other and Ezquerro found himself in the middle, as he had group supervisors from each of the camps. The experience proved to be very stressful but ultimately rewarding, as he was able to take from each what was best in their approaches. But as Ezquerro and Cañete describe their