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.
This paper examines some issues related to the Tavistock (Bionian) and Group-Analytic (Foulkesian) approaches to group therapy, in the context of an out-patient group which met weekly over thirty-two months. Reference is made to theories and models within the frameworks of Psychoanalysis and Group-Analysis.
To conduct this group was a part of the author's training at the Institute of Group Analysis; although the group met at the Tavistock Clinic (‘next door’). The author had previously trained for four years in Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at the Tavistock; and he negotiated this unusual set-up with the Tavistock Clinic's management, becoming the first Institute trainee to run such a group at the Tavistock.
The author had two supervisors simultaneously; hence there was a constant tension between the two theories throughout the history of the group. The Tavistock's supervisor played an active part in the early stages, especially during the process of setting-up the group; his role progressively changed to that of overseeing the work. On the other hand, supervision at the Institute was ninety minutes weekly for three years, in a small group of up to four trainees.
In contrast to usual Group-Analytic practice, on the advice of the Tavistock's supervisor, eleven patients were invited to join the group without meeting the conductor beforehand. In contrast to usual Tavistock practice, on the advice of the Institute supervisor, one group member was seen, after she had left the group, for individual psychotherapy by the conductor. Being ‘caught up in the middle’, the conductor himself was stretched to breaking-point. But he survived, and every one of the eleven members with him.