Pichon.se är en nätpublikation med fokus på Pichon Rivieres gruppoperativa metod. Du kan läsa vidare om detta här

Experiences of Applying Enrique Pichon-Rivière’s Group Operative Concepts in Sweden, 2002–2015

By Sören Lander

The Pichonian Project as Part of Enlightenment Thinking

Could we view the Pichonian project as an extension of Enlightenment ideals—seeking to “illuminate” and bring greater clarity? Yes, perhaps we can. The Enlightenment’s core idea was faith in human reason. It posited that all individuals are capable of thinking independently and should not uncritically accept claims made by authorities or other powerful figures. Additionally, it emphasized that society develops best when individuals collaborate as equals (source: Wikipedia).

Introductory Reflections

After much deliberation about whether my experiences from teaching and applying Enrique Pichon-Rivière’s theories—particularly concerning groups—between 2002 and 2015 might be of broader interest, I have finally written this text.

Now retired and no longer professionally active, I am able to reflect with some distance on how Pichon-Rivière’s concepts enriched my professional life as a psychologist and psychotherapist. Over the last 10–12 years, I have also established connections within the international Pichonian community, enabling me to share insights about how this theoretical framework has been received in Sweden.

My ability to comment on this subject is grounded in four key factors:

1) Language Skills and Translation Work: I speak and read Spanish fluently and have translated numerous Pichonian texts from Spanish to Swedish. This also allows me to follow developments on various Pichonian websites.

2) In-depth Knowledge of Pichon-Rivière’s Work: I have been deeply engaged with Pichon-Rivière’s theories for at least 25 years. This depth of understanding is crucial for accurately translating his and his followers' texts.

3) Active Engagement with the International Pichonian Movement: I remain in regular contact (as of 2024) with the international Pichonian network through the internet, email, and conferences. This includes maintaining connections with Göteborgs Psykoterapi Institut (GPI), which was instrumental in introducing Pichon-Rivière’s ideas to Sweden, as well as with individuals at GPI who continue to explore his work.

4) The Pichon.se Website: I manage a website—www.pichon.se—that hosts various texts, both my own and those of others, related to Pichon-Rivière’s work. The site still serves as a resource, with links to it from several other platforms.

Reflections on the reception in Sweden

This piece aims to provide an overview of how Pichon-Rivière’s thinking has been received and applied in Sweden, drawing on both personal experience and broader observations within the Swedish psychological and psychotherapeutic context.

Background
I first encountered the intellectual world of Enrique Pichon-Rivière in the mid-1980s during my psychology studies at the University of Gothenburg. Mats Mogren from the Gothenburg Psychotherapy Institute (GPI) was responsible for the section on clinical psychology. Within that course, some of Pichon-Rivière's concepts were introduced. It is worth emphasizing that it was through GPI that Pichon-Rivière was introduced to Swedish psychology in the first place.

For me, as a future psychologist, the Pichonian worldview filled a vacuum I perceived in Swedish psychology, which was predominantly influenced by Anglo-American perspectives. Concepts such as context or society were almost absent from that framework, and when present, they appeared in fragmented or disconnected forms. It was rare to gain the impression that psychological processes occur in a historically situated space with specific conditions likely to influence how people perceive their lives and the world around them. This situation remains largely unchanged today, which is why Pichon-Rivière’s thinking continues to be relevant for me.

What attracted me to Pichon-Rivière's thinking was the way he integrated the individual and societal dimensions in a comprehensible manner. His texts struck me as potentially operational (practical), offering a clearer understanding of how psychological knowledge could be applied more effectively.

Earlier, in the early 1980s, I had studied Spanish at the University of Gothenburg, though my grasp of the language and its nuances was not particularly strong. However, Pichon-Rivière's work was so compelling (and I was able to read Spanish texts fluently) that I began considering translating his work.

This became a reality in the late 1990s through commissioned translations for GPI. I translated Pichon-Rivière’s Teoría del vínculo (The Theory of the Link), El Proceso Grupal (The Group Process), and a pivotal interview book crucial for understanding both his life and work, Vicente Zito Lema’s Conversaciones con Enrique Pichon-Rivière. Sobre el arte y la locura (Conversations with Enrique Pichon-Rivière: On Art and Madness). These translated texts were later used in GPI's internal teaching.

However, due to challenges in obtaining publishing rights, these texts were never released in book form, despite multiple attempts over a long period. An exception is Zito Lema's interview with Pichon-Rivière from 1976. Publishing rights for this interview were recently secured, and with a new foreword written by Zito Lema in May 2022, just months before his passing.

Now, in 2024, when I reflect on the total volume of translated texts connected to the Pichonian intellectual tradition, it amounts to between 2,000 and 2,500 pages. Given how little-known this theoretical tradition is in Sweden, one of my colleagues may be correct in calling these translations a “cultural contribution.”

Encounters and Insights

In 1997, I had the privilege of meeting Ángel Fiasché in Gothenburg for a lengthy interview about Pichon-Rivière. Fiasché, one of GPI's founders in 1974, shared insights that became part of my translation work for GPI. The final version of the interview spanned 25 pages and was significant in highlighting aspects I had not previously noticed or understood. Particularly, the concept of the emergent was something of a revelation, along with the psychosocial philosophy that permeates Pichon-Rivière’s thinking.

In 2002 and 2011, I conducted interviews in Buenos Aires with Ana Quiroga, as well as with Dora Fiasché, Hernán Kesselman, and Tato Pavlovsky, about their perspectives on Pichon-Rivière and his influence. Over the past 20 years, I have continued to follow Spanish-language discussions within the "Pichonian" world through books, journals, and online forums, gaining a relatively comprehensive understanding of the ongoing discourse in this field.

As a Swedish representative, I have also participated in conferences in Southern Europe and South America, where the focus has been on Pichon-Rivière and operative groups.

Some Initial Reflections

What makes the pichonian theory so interesting? I think it has got to do with certain concepts that, for me, are highly relevant and useful in both group and individual interventions:

• The emergent;

• the basic work unit (existing-intervention-emergent);

• “prework-task-project” as a secuence;

• the dialectical spiral or the “inverted cone”;

• the link;

• the ECRO (Conceptual, Referential, and Operative Schema);

• the operative group.

Of course, there are many more interesting concepts, but these form a sort of central "conceptual cluster" for me. They emphasize the dialectical principle of constant movement and the Gestalt-Gestaltung process. This way of thinking is crucial as a practical "instrument" in, for instance, therapy groups. The modified version of the "Inverted Cone" (which I call the "Vector Model") functions as something of a mental map, allowing one to orient and reorient oneself within a group's (or an individual's, for that matter) evolving process, especially when the process becomes stagnant (stereotyped) and appears to lack openings.

The "emergent" as concept is, however, what most fascinates me in the pichonian thinking. It pertains to something new that emerges—seemingly unexpectedly—and is not merely the sum of what was previously known or mastered. (The word "emergent" actually exists in Swedish and is defined by the National Encyclopedia as: "emerging," "unexpected," derived from the Latin emergo, meaning "to rise," "to appear," signifying something that arises or becomes apparent more or less unexpectedly or unpredictably).

In a 2017 text (Pichon-Rivière's Psychoanalytic Contributions: Some Comparisons with Object Relations and Modern Developments in Psychoanalysis, from The International Journal of Psychoanalysis (2017) 98:129-143), the authors (D.E. Scharff, R. Losso, L. Setton) elaborate on this idea in the following way:

Among recent devolopments outside psychoanalysis that can enlarge our understanding of Pichon-Rivière’s ideas, chaos or complexity theory (Gleick, 1987) from the fields of mathematics and physics has shown how combining complex systems results in unpredictable results that allow for pattern recognition. The dynamic action of complex systems fosters the development of emergent properties not predictable from understanding of the subsystems that make up these complex systems. This is reminiscent of the way Pichon-Riviére discussed the quality of a maturing system as an emergent … Pichon-Rivière’s idea of an emergent quality of personality foreshadowed the formulations of complex systems by chaos theory. In addition, however, complexity theory postulates that alternative organizations exist in all of us, and that under certain conditions a person may take up a little-used pattern that represents either dysfunction or alternative new potential for enhanced function, depending on circumstances. Chaos theory gives a mathematical model for discontinuous growth, for the capacity of individuals, families, and groups to break with the past and move suddenly from previously dominant patterns of thought and behavior towards new potential (Ibid sid 139-140).

Something new emerges against the backdrop of the old, becoming the synthesis which—in a dialectical perspective (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)—forms a new thesis, along with its antithesis, and subsequently another synthesis, and so forth. (Here, one might also consider this from a Gestalt psychology perspective, where the emergent is an aspect of the interplay between figure and ground).

Pichonian Perspective with Elements of Group Analysis 2002–2015

In 2001, I initiated studies to become a licensed group psychotherapist at the institute called "Psykoterapisällskapet" in Stockholm. The institute’s teaching focused on the theoretical perspective of the German-English group analyst S. H. Foulkes. It was referred to as "group analysis." These new ideas about groups in a practicas sense influenced my understanding of the pichonian group operative concept. For the sake of clarity I will now briefly diverge to describe what I perceive as some essential features of Foulkesian group analysis.

According to the Foulkesian perspective, every individual is born into a network of communication processes that inevitably exert a profound influence from birth, and perhaps even before. Naturally, the newborn child also contributes to this communication network with their unique actions and responses. Foulkes views humans as socially related individuals, existing both in the external physical reality and the internal psychological one.

At its core, Foulkes considers a sick individual as a relatively isolated part of an "organism"—namely, the social group, and primarily the family, from which people develop their personality and identity. Foulkes saw loneliness and isolation from the group as symptoms of illness and as disruptions in communication ability. An individual's departure or isolation from the group (society and other people) is seen as a path toward destruction.

Foulkes argues that neuroses and various other psychological disorders consist of disturbances in the ability to communicate. Communication is also the primary tool used in group analysis, analogous to free association in psychoanalysis. The aim of group-analytic therapy is to restore the capacity for communication. This communication seeks to achieve greater self-awareness and make the unconscious conscious.

In group-analytic theory, the group is viewed as a whole, with the individuals as its components. Group analysis is the analysis in, of, and through the group. The group is the primary unit, and the individual is merely a part of it.

Foulkes describes how the therapist aims to use the group as a therapeutic tool. By establishing and maintaining the group-analytic situation, the therapist forges and continuously refines this "tool." The therapist primarily focuses on the immediate present situation.

Interpretation of resistance and transference is incorporated into group analysis from psychoanalysis. However, the therapist’s guiding principle is trust the group, meaning the therapist interprets as little as possible and instead facilitates communication among the members. Too frecuent interventions or premature engagement by the therapist can act as a barrier for the group’s own development. When the therapist does interpret, this is done at both the group and individual levels (that is, the individual in relation to the group).

The concepts of "foreground" and "background" (borrowed from Gestalt psychology) are central to Foulkesian theory. The total communication network that develops within the group—known as the matrix—inevitably becomes the background against which each individual in the group participates and acts. Each individual becomes a node in this hypothetical network field.

According to this framework, the group exhibits a manifest behavior (figure) among its members that arises from a latent shared foundation—the group matrix (background). The matrix ultimately determines the meaning and significance of all events; all communication and interpretations rely on it. This hypothetical network field is temporally (vertical and referring to personal life history) and spatially (horizontal and referring to interactions within the group) related.

Everything expressed in the group originates from the matrix, and everything said in the group also leaves an imprint on this matrix, which directs the group's dynamics. The matrix represents a slowly evolving group phenomenon in which individual members' neurotic responses can be mapped in relation to the group context.

Foulkes entertained ideas about a creative adaptation to society, but not as a superficial phenomenon. His vision focused on strengthening each group member’s creative capacity and development, reducing the neurotic inhibition of spontaneity, sensitivity, and the ability to emotionally belong and relate to others.

I soon discovered striking similarities between Foulkes’ and Pichon-Rivière’s ways of thinking, although I read Foulkesian group analysis through my "pichonian lenses." Many "aha!!" moments arose while reading Foulkes. Pichon-Rivière clarified concepts I found obscure or convoluted in Foulkes, while Foulkes, in turn, helped me recognize and understand aspects of Pichon’s thinking that I had previously overlooked. Above all, the practical experience of leading therapeutic groups analytically and “trusting the group” (a kind of Foulkesian mantra) proved invaluable.

At the time, the director of Psykoterapisällskapet was Göran Ahlin. He showed an interest in what Pichon-Rivière could contribute, as the name was familiar to him through his Italian group-analyst contacts. Göran also guided me to Olov Dahlin, another prominent figure in Swedish group analysis, who became my thesis supervisor.

My thesis was titled "An Argentine Operative Group Approach: Enrique Pichon-Rivière’s Conceptual World, Ana Quiroga, and the Pichonian Concept of 'Operative Group.'" It served as an introduction to the key concepts in Pichon-Rivière’s group-oriented thinking. The central part of the thesis was the "fieldwork" I conducted in the form of an interview with Ana Quiroga in Buenos Aires in 2002.

The Foulkesian approach, with its focus on fostering a creative adaptation to society, resonated more with me than the Bionian tendency dominating Swedish group thinking at the time, especially in AGSLO groups (influenced by Tavistock in England) focused on organizational contexts. By the early 2000s, I had already developed a deep interest in groups, largely thanks to my translation work centered on Enrique Pichon-Rivière and his Argentine followers, including Ángel Fiasché, Hernán Kesselman, Tato Pavlovsky, and Ana Quiroga. This background allowed me to read Foulkes with a pichonian perspective, which both enriched my understanding of group processes and highlighted aspects of Foulkes' thinking that complemented the Pichonian framework.

After completing my training as a group psychotherapist, I began applying these insights in my work within adult psychiatry in central Sweden, utilizing both pichonian and foulkesian approaches in my therapy groups. From 2002 to 2015, I maintained at least one weekly therapy group, gaining substantial experience as a group therapist. My practice allowed me to blend different theoretical models, including the increasingly dominant cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). While my foundational perspective remained pichonian, I adapted my ECRO (conceptual, referential, and operational schema) to include various methodologies.

However, I observed with concern the narrowing of available therapeutic modalities in Sweden, driven by administrative policies favoring CBT at the expense of other approaches. And now, 2024, CBT dominates both individual and group therapy in Sweden and thereby stifling innovation in other therapeutic models—a trend I believe could harm the population's possibilities to get access to good psychological and psychiatric treatment in the future.

Between 2004 and 2009, I was invited to provide group training within my psychiatric practice, applying the operative group model in both short-term and long-term contexts. The Vector-model (“or the inverted cone”) proved especially useful in illustrating group and treatment processes, whether in primary care, Balint groups for doctors, or teacher supervision in elementary schools.

Bridging Pichon-Rivière and Foulkes: Insights and Discoveries

One striking observation during this period was the relative obscurity of Pichon-Rivière in the English-speaking world - and, conversely, of Foulkes in the Spanish-speaking world, where Bion’s influence predominates. This became evident through my contact with the Spanish group analyst Juan Campos, who had collaborated in the 1970s on translating Foulkes into Spanish. Campos and Hernán Kesselman, a disciple of Pichon-Rivière, sought in the 1980s to synthesize their approaches into what they termed “operative group analysis.” This cross-pollination underscored the richness of integrating these two paradigms.

From my perspective, Pichon-Rivière’s writings and theories appear broader, deeper, and more multidisciplinary than Foulkes’. While group analysis can be seamlessly incorporated into the operative group framework, the reverse is less evident. This may stem from Pichon-Rivière’s definition of his framework as “social psychology,” encompassing more than just group dynamics. The centrality of ECRO in Pichonian thought provides a comprehensive schema for understanding social and psychological processes, potentially explaining its broader applicability compared to Foulkes’ group-focused model.

For several years in the early 2000s (until 2009) I was a member of the “Swedish Association for Group Therapy and Group Development” and its management team (serving as vice chairman for a period and briefly as chairman, though I stepped down for personal reasons). Similar to my time during my training in the institute of “Psykoterapisällskapet”, I sought to generate broader interest in the pichonian thought and particularly concerning groups. For a number of years, I was also a member of the "Group Analytic Institute (GAI)" in Stockholm and the “Group Analytic Society” in London.

I previously mentioned two significant group analysts in Stockholm who were instrumental in my efforts to disseminate knowledge about Pichon-Rivière: Olov Dahlin and Göran Ahlin. A third was Inger Larsson. All three had international connections and some awareness of Pichon-Rivière's theories, though they had not been able to study them in depth due to the lack of written material available in either Swedish or English.

Now, let us delve into some of the experiences from the years when I sought to spread the “Pichonian gospel” in Sweden! This account is based on notes I made directly in connection with my applications of the group operative approach.

Experience 1, Year 2004

Apart from a couple of scattered and not entirely thought-through presentations in 1991 and 2002, it was not until April 2004 that I made my first more “serious” presentation of the Pichonian paradigm. This took place at the GPI in Gothenburg and was referred to as an “open seminar.” The fact that it happened at GPI was likely due to the existing knowledge and experience there regarding the application of pichonian thinking (and it was, after all, Mats Mogren from GPI who first opened my eyes to the existence of an interesting theorist named Pichon-Rivière in Argentina).

The group of listeners was surprisingly large (about 90 people), considering that the subject was relatively new and that later presentations hardly drew as many attendees. One question that arises is whether the number of listeners (then and later) has to do with the topic, the “spirit of the times,” or the manner in which the concept was presented. My reflections after this presentation in Gothenburg (and extending into subsequent presentations) were that there were already existing notions about Pichon-Rivière among some of the listeners and that, consequently, the operative group was seen as something synonymous with a “change agent” and thereby representing something new, challenging, mysterious, and complex.

Such a “change agent” can evoke both depressive anxiety (fear of loss) and persecutory anxiety (fear of attack) because it can possibly challenge the prevailing “stereotypes” or ways of thinking (general opinions, accepted norms, everyday practices, traditional use, and so on; today, one might also include “evidence-based practice” in this enumeration of stereotypes).

When a group of people gathered in 2004 for this first public lecture on Pichon-Rivière and operative groups, they brought with them their respective frames of reference/ECROs (largely shaped by the traditions of Anglo-Saxon psychology and psychotherapy). Perhaps their frames of reference were challenged or at least questioned by this pichonian ECRO—a perspective that, among other things, brought society and politics into a “room” where such questions are typically not discussed.

In an interview from the 1980s, Ana Quiroga provides the following insightful comment about what an ECRO is:

"In reality, any theoretical system containing operational elements can be called an ECRO. The ECRO we use is based on Pichon’s thinking … Pichon’s thought provides a general theoretical framework regarding the individual and a methodological conceptual scheme that makes it possible to analyze the various variables of a situation and, based on that, to design courses of action."

This ECRO perspective and its usefulness were further illuminated for me through an insightful comment made by an Argentine doctor attending the lecture.

Pichon-Rivière emphasizes the importance of "learning to think", which, in its extension, can generate anxiety because such an act (or behavior) can lead to something new appearing or coming to life. Based on each person’s ECRO (or worldview), different aspects of the observed reality emerge as important (emergent phenomena). There is no theory-free, ideology-free, “pure” observation; what one sees (or thinks one sees) is conditioned by one’s underlying worldview (or ideology). Perhaps this realization is why the Pichonian way of observing (of course also an “ideology”) can highlight aspects of reality that might otherwise be obscured (hidden, "below the radar," to use a modern phrase), particularly within the predominantly neo-positivist perspective that prevails today (“everything must be measurable, and what cannot be measured does not exist or cannot be considered”).

Among the questions that lingered after the seminar at GPI were primarily two:

• Why haven’t the translations of Pichon-Rivière’s works been published yet?

• What obstacles hinder the publication of his texts?

Already in 2003—while presenting and defending my scientific work during my training at Psykoterapisällskapet in Stockholm—I encountered reactions that hinted at how Pichon-Rivière’s worldview might be received in the Swedish therapeutic community. During my training, I had given a brief introductory lecture on Pichon but had not delved into details. The reactions at that time included:

• The societal perspective in Pichon’s work was interesting, new, and exciting, as was the dialectical perspective.

• From a Kleinian perspective, there were some speculations about whether the argentine society of 2002 was in the schizoid-paranoid position.

• The pichonian terminology was so new and complex that a glossary would be needed to define the new concepts.

• The pichonian way of working resembled a systemic network-like approach (my objection was that the pichonian theoretical framework is significantly deeper with its vertical psychoanalytic perspective, whereas the network perspective primarily has a horizontal one).

• This isn’t new! It resembles the network perspective, sociology, object relations theory, etc. In what way would the pichonian perspective be superior to the group-analytic one? (This last comment is understandable if one approaches Pichon from a group-analytic perspective; I, on the other hand, did the opposite and incorporated the group-analytic approach as a new part of my pichonian ECRO).

• One of the fundamental ideas in Pichon’s work seems to be “the inverted cone”, the dialectical spiral… in this text or discourse one is not introduced to the simplest parts of the theory first (as is traditional when encountering a new theory); instead, one suddenly finds oneself directly in the pichonian world, in the here-and-now of the modern argentine world … and in spiral form, certain concepts are repeatedly coming back - with each new encounter being different from the last.

• Pichon is a “boundary-crosser”.

• Pichon is largely unknown in Europe, and in the education given by Psykoterapisällskapet no one except director Göran Ahlin, who was familiar with Pichon through his Italian group analysis contacts, had heard of him.

• Through the scientific thesis of Sören and his earlier lecture, one gains access to a theoretical tradition previously unknown due to language barriers.

I find the above comments relevant to include as part of “Experience 1” because they show (in a perhaps more reflective way) the reactions to the existence of a theorist who was previously unknown. At GPI in Gothenburg, there was some awareness, but at Psykoterapisällskapet in Stockholm, essentially no one except Göran Ahlin was familiar with Pichon.


Experience 2: 3 Seminars - "The Simplicity of the Manual Versus the Depth of Reflective Space".

After conducting a year-long training program with a colleague, aimed at providing advanced group knowledge to practitioners with group experience in adult psychiatry, an opportunity arose to apply the group-operative concept in a more specific form within an institution ("The Collective Institute"), which was already familiar with this Argentine concept.

A limited number of participants (20–25 per session) attended these three seminars. The initiative involved a few weekend sessions (ultimately three weekends, each consisting of 10 hours – Friday afternoon and all-day Saturday – held during 2006 and 2007) and a more theoretically focused approach. This included a clear emphasis on the operative group as a modality and tool, to be utilized, among other things, in the institution's internal processes.

The institution initially expressed a desire for training in the operative group in a practical format, with pedagogical elements, to take place over weekends. The explicit task was therefore to impart knowledge of the "operative group" as a method in a practical, group-operative form.

During the third and final session, the explicit task also touched upon what could be considered an "institutional task" – namely, using the operative group method to create a reflective space concerning the institution's very purpose.

Approximately one month before the first seminar weekend in 2006, we, the seminar leaders, produced the "running order" that we would follow for all three sessions.

Schedule for Day 1

• 18:00: Introduction with a brief "warm-up lecture." Small group assignments.

• 19:00: Small group discussion with a coordinator and participating observer, based on the lecture and a previously distributed text.

• 20:00: Break for coffee, etc. Coordinators and participating observers withdraw for 30 minutes to discuss emergent themes from the group discussion.

• 20:30: Feedback on the processed emergent themes. Large group discussion on this.

• 21:30: End of the evening. A brief text is distributed to each group member for reading before the following day.

Schedule for Day 2

• 09:30: Course leaders/coordinators reflect on the events of the previous day as a form of feedback and "kick-off" for the day.

• 10:00: Small group discussion with a coordinator and participating observer, based on the previous day's events, the reflections shared by the course leaders/coordinators, and the short text read after the previous day.

• 12:00: Lunch.

• 13:00: Coordinators and participating observers meet privately for 30 minutes to discuss emergent themes from the group discussion.

• 13:30: Feedback on the processed emergent themes. Large group discussion on this.

• 14:30: Break for coffee, etc.

• 15:00: Concluding discussion about the two days. Opportunity to address questions, thoughts, reactions, etc.

• 16:00: End.

In this seminar model, there are distinct roles and tasks for: a) The Group; b) The Observer; c) The Participating Observer; d) The Coordinator.

a) The Group’s Task

After the warm-up lecture, two groups (each led by one of us seminar leaders acting as coordinators) and observers (appointed by the groups themselves) will proceed to separate group rooms. The task is to discuss and process the content of the lecture and, more importantly, the pre-read text. This should be done based on personal impressions and the intended content of the seminar.

The operative group method is applied here, aligning with the seminar’s theme. The purpose of this approach is to enable participants to learn the model by actively engaging with it. This provides knowledge that can assist in "diagnosing" the dynamics of both these and other groups.

The group acts as the "holding" instrument in the learning process, with the dialectical spiral serving as a navigational tool. Throughout, the model is maintained as a foundation for reflection, ideally translating into practice.

b) The Observer’s Task

The observer’s role is to observe the group’s dynamics and share these observations with the group when requested by the coordinator. The observer does not participate in the discussion.

c) The Participating Observer’s Task

The participating observer engages in discussions with the other group members while simultaneously observing. They share their observations with the group when requested by the coordinator.

d) The Coordinator’s Task

The coordinator does not answer questions or resolve difficulties related to the reading or lecture (these are addressed in the large-group sessions). Instead, the coordinator helps the group use its own resources to clarify and further discuss the material and its implications.

If obstacles arise, the coordinator highlights them, potentially with input from the observers' reflections. By patiently allowing processes to unfold, the group can become a "playing field" where questions, thoughts, and emotions can be held and explored, rather than being prematurely redirected or blocked.

Even outright “rebellions” against the framework can serve as a learning process (for both the group and the coordinator), allowing the group to progress through its implicit task, even if expressed as protest or resistance.

Through this work, the group creates its collective ECRO (Conceptual, Referential, and Operational Schema), enabling increasingly smooth communication over time. This process produces a "map" that provides a better overview of both the task and any obstacles.

Some surprises emerge along the journey. One such insight is the importance of the observer role. The coordinator can call on the observer to share their observations with the group (and the coordinator) – both as a "mirror" of the process (a form of "holding") and as an external witness. This introduces a sense of distance and a pause for reflection. In this way, the observer also becomes a "co-thinker" for the coordinator, offering an additional perspective to consider.

It becomes clear that the presence of both the coordinator and the observer can convey a sense of containment. Once this sense of containment is established, participants are better able to focus on the work they have come to accomplish.

The group’s capacity for self-containment should not be underestimated. Once members realize that answers will not come from the coordinator (whose role is to highlight obstacles in the group’s approach to its task) or the observer (who remains silent until invited by the coordinator to share reflections on the group’s process), a "play space" emerges. Within this space, the group can begin to address the epistemological and epistemophilic obstacles blocking its progress.

Opportunities for both recognition and lack of recognition are created through the emergent feedback we provide twice during each "course session." The feedback to each group consists of emergents from the opening, middle, and closing phases. These are developed by the coordination team (coordinator and observer). During these feedback sessions, both moments of realization ("aha experiences") and conflicts arise – for example, feelings of being unseen, misunderstood, or even the sentiment of "Was that all you observed?!"

The vertical (historical) aspect of an operative group's work has proven to be an almost indispensable element. The operative group can be likened to "a stone thrown into a mirror-still pond; there are consequences both from the stone's descent to the pond's bottom and the sediment it stirs up, as well as from the ripples that propagate outward, resonating across the water's surface." These ripples affect everyone in the group, representing the horizontal aspect.

It has been easy to observe that a process is set in motion once the group begins to work. This process involves conflicts and memories being reawakened, shared histories revisited, different modes of communication explored, and so on.

Gradually, a more collective mode of reflection has emerged. Participants have (re)discovered that they share something unique that others do not – their own "culture." This unique culture has been shaped by the training they received at the institute. Even when encountering someone trained at the institute in a different context, there is a shared "language"/ECRO/frame of reference/"map."

This could be referred to as the institute’s ECRO (or perhaps its "matrix" if one prefers to use a "Foulkesian" term), within which various theoretical preferences and personal ways of being coexist harmoniously.

Emergent Feedback and Its Role in the Process

Emergent feedback has been a distinctively operative group element in the process. In theory, this approach is intended to enable participants to delve deeper into the dialectical spiral as part of the knowledge-seeking process. Through this process, elements that were previously unspoken, implicit, or entirely unconscious can surface, and the epistemological and epistemophilic obstacles present can be identified. Ultimately, this ongoing processing of emergents aims to illuminate how fundamental forms of anxiety (fear of loss and fear of attack) can hinder change and lead to rigid, stereotypical patterns within the institute.

The emergents documented during these three seminar sessions reflect a non-linear, meandering movement that gradually approaches what appears to have been an implicit task for the institute: gaining greater clarity about its position concerning past, present, and future.

A significant factor in this process has been the opportunity provided by the operative group to address a task under the observation of the coordination team. The team does not focus on the task itself but observes the group process, how the task is approached, and identifies potential obstacles along the way. This process highlights the importance of naming implicit or dilemmatic issues to create containment – a space where elements can be deposited – without imposing any obligation to provide immediate answers or solutions. At the final session, the phrase "operative dissociation in the service of the depressive position" was even coined.

A key insight into group dynamics is the importance of being able to "wait."

Phases in the Group Process: When reviewing the process – both across the three sessions as a whole and each session individually – elements of the three operative group "phases" become discernible: preparation, task, and project. It seems that when groups manage to articulate the task in terms that can be worked with, or even just name and contain it, something new emerges, opening the way to further questions. Alternatively, premature or forced naming may prove counterproductive and blocking.

The "Frame": The frame was a recurring topic of discussion throughout these sessions. The fact that the frame was not perfectly upheld led to questioning (or problematization) of the trustworthiness of the method or the course coordinators. In hindsight, these "frame discussions" seem to reflect resistance to fully engaging with the task. This reaction might be viewed as an "individual-psychotherapy stereotyping," irrationally imported from the psychoanalytically-influenced individual session into a group learning task, where it served a blocking function.

Notable Emergent Themes

1. Concerns for the Institute's Future: During the first session, a concern for the institute's future became visible. Diverging perspectives, possibly in conflict, also emerged. One such divergence appears to involve "the Argentine model" (of which the "operative group" concept is a part) possibly contrasting with the English object relations school. This could even reflect a broader dichotomy of "Latin" versus "Anglo-Saxon" approaches.

2. Communication Noise and Misunderstandings: From the outset and throughout the seminar series, there was a consistent "noise" in communication, punctuated by misunderstandings and feelings of vulnerability.

3. The Institute's History: The institute’s history emerged as a factor influencing discussions. This raised the idea that a historical account of the institute – encompassing its ideas, projects, conflicts, and developments – could be valuable. Such a record would not only shed light on the institute’s evolving ECRO but also provide a legacy for future members.

4. Space, Participation, and Leadership: Issues regarding the institute’s physical and symbolic space, participation versus non-participation, leadership functions, and capacity or willingness to assume responsibility were highlighted. These themes align with the vectors of connection, belonging, and collaboration and underscore the need to make the institute’s "life space" more visible.

Evaluation Based on the Vector Model.

Considering the three occasions when we, as course leaders, engage with the institution, an evaluation of the process can be attempted by using the vector figure (i.e., the "inverted cone"). This approach allows for a "reading" of the dynamics at play in the small and large groups formed over these six days.

In terms of connection, some individuals participated in all three sessions, some in two, and others only in one. A few dropped out along the way, and it is unclear whether this was due to waning interest or other compelling reasons for absence. In total, however, it can be assumed that just over 30 people have come into contact with the group-operative concept in this process. It should also be noted that a few individuals attended the first day but were unable to participate in the subsequent sessions. The disadvantage for these individuals is that they cannot follow the development of the group process, only its beginning. The same can be said for those who participated in session 2 but not session 3, as these two sessions were meant to be connected.

Once the groups were divided and coordinators/observers were in place during the small group discussions, it became clear that a sense of belonging quickly developed, and the group began to engage with the explicit task in one form or another.

The cooperation within the groups was, on the whole, constructive—despite the fact that the proposed task was sometimes problematized, and new paths were sought. Naturally, tensions arose during this process, and it can be assumed that some of the individuals who "dropped out" found the process to be destructive, uninteresting, or unproductive. An additional complicating factor for the institution’s members was that they had to occupy the roles of coordinator, co-coordinator, and observer during the process; it can be difficult to be both a member of the institution (and perhaps in a specific role) and simultaneously hold a distinct role in the operative group, trying to maintain an observer function without being too influenced by the pre-existing relationships and connections already in place within the institution. This sometimes became a complicated situation to manage, particularly in the small groups but also in the large group. In other words, the usual roles within the institution partially collided with the roles in the group. Put another way, the vertical (the individually historical aspect within the institution) collided with the horizontal (the ongoing "here-and-now" process within the small and large group settings).

The pertinence vector concerns how much the group is able to focus on clarifying and solving the explicit task in a way that makes it applicable (in other words, developing a functioning practice). As always tends to happen in the operative group, the explicit task is present—but perhaps more as a "pretext" for solving the implicit task, which tends to take priority over the explicit one. This entails a necessary "pre-work" within the group, where dilemmas surrounding the execution of the explicit task (which also illustrate the group’s functioning) are clarified and formulated as problems to work on. The group's creativity and productivity are demonstrated in this process. Across the seven small groups formed during these three sessions, it is striking how the process advanced in such a way that underlying concerns and dilemmas gradually became clearer.

From the first session, it was evident that there was an underlying concern about the institution's future, along with fears about irreconcilable conflicts within the institution. By session 2, it became increasingly clear that the institution's internal work contained complicating elements, which were also expressed directly in the group work. When these concerns were brought to the large group, they were magnified, creating a tense and at times painful atmosphere. Feelings of vulnerability, not being seen or heard, and not being respected in one's role as a coordinator and/or observer became apparent. In that moment, this possibly illustrated a problem already present within the institution in the form of communication issues. Much anxiety was also expressed about the boundaries for the entire assignment (which we, the course leaders, had problematized as "secrets" that should not be transferred from small groups to the large group). In a transferred sense, this anxiety likely spoke more about the climate at the institution than about the scope of the "boundary-breaking" incidents that occurred during these days (which should, in fact, be seen as something to work with).

In brief, one could say that the explicit task served as a "door" through which the group could enter and discuss the more relevant implicit task that gradually emerged as an emergent concern.

By the end—at session 3—much was said during the concluding "round-the-team" reflection, pointing toward possible openings for a "project" (in the group-operative sense), which, more hopeful, points toward the future... and also toward the fact that within the institution, there is a unique "culture"/ECRO that clearly distinguishes it from other institutes or institutions, and which likely holds significant potential to meet the challenges the outside world and the future present. In this sense, these three occasions have pointed toward a relevant handling of an institutional dilemma, and in the end, there is greater hope of finding appropriate "tools" for continued work (both individually and collectively).

The communication within these different group configurations has been an interesting chapter, especially because it has likely illustrated a communication problem (or dynamic) that can be limiting and, at worst, can lead to locking patterns (stereotyping or repetitive behaviors) for the exchange of thoughts and ideas, which is so necessary for the functioning of a democratic institutional model. In this vector, it is important to note not only the content of the message, its appearance, and the sender, but also how the communication loop is "closed" by the recipient through their response. Uncertainties seem to exist regarding the concepts of "discussion," "dialogue," "conversation," and "debate," and in what context(s) they might be relevant to use. "Punctuation" seems to occur in such a way that members of the institution do not get a chance to finish speaking or develop their thoughts before being interrupted, which carries the risk of subsequent misunderstandings. It is important to remember that it is worse to misunderstand based on thinking one has understood than to not understand (and to be aware of not understanding allows one to ask questions about what is unclear).

By bringing together the information or knowledge of group members at a certain point, the dialectical law of transformation from quantity to quality seems to operate. This is related to the learning process. A clear example here has been the observers' occasional return of their observations to the groups—this as a way of making the process visible (being seen and heard), but also allowing the group and the coordinators space for reflection on the ongoing process they are involved in. Perhaps less obviously, the emergent factors in the small groups, when considered together, may have provided clues to the issues (in the form of implicit task processing) that the institution is grappling with.

Having participated in the operative group in a practiced form has likely yielded learning effects (both positive and negative) that could not have been achieved through only theoretical studies or lectures in a more traditional format. To the extent that the method will be used by group members, it is likely dependent on how much the operative group has become a learning experience, one that is also seen as a creative opening to something new and constructive/applicable.

The télé-vector (which can be translated as the positive or negative mutual transfer regarding both "course leadership," group members, history, and task) has likely played a role in the communication process that has at times been so complicated. A clear emotional charge was transferred from session 2 to session 3, which also affected the framework planned for session 3. The entire history of the institution became very relevant in some groups during session 2 and might have influenced the selection of the explicit task for session 3. Clear references were made to the founders of the institution as "parent figures," and at times, there were also references to the "course leadership" (that is, us as the seminar leaders).

From a broader perspective, it has been insightful to observe the processes that have taken shape throughout the "journey." Not least, it has been repeatedly confirmed that beneath an explicit task lies an implicit one (the former tends to "open the doors" to the latter). It is through working with the implicit task that the conditions are created to (perhaps in ways not always fully realized) solve the explicit task (which, in the end, does not necessarily need to be identical to the one described at the "beginning of the journey"). Ultimately, the process that develops will be guided by the group's actual needs as well as its inherent resistance to change.

Interlude

During these years, my translation work continues (primarily between 1996-2007), and it is now mainly texts by Ana Quiroga that are being translated. I had interviewed her in Buenos Aires in 2002 (in connection with my academic thesis at the Psychotherapy Society's psychotherapist training program) and have since continued email correspondence with her for several years, receiving valuable consulting support in my use of the operational group. I also translate around 100 pages from Fernando Fabris' 2007 biography of Pichon-Rivière: Pichon-Rivière, un viajero de mil mundos. These knowledge-enriching factors are what enable me to confidently apply the operational group, in whole or in part, in various contexts in the years to come. Another important factor is that in 2006, I participate in the Actualidad del grupo operativo conference in Madrid, where I make contact with the international Pichonian movement in both Southern Europe and South America.

But equally important is that in my daily work as a psychologist and psychotherapist (individual and group), I apply what I have learned from both Foulkes and Pichon-Rivière. This results in a gradual transformation of my way of working, while new emergent phenomena create a partially new perspective.

Experience 3. Stockholm: Short Lecture about the Operative Group Concept, 2007

In November 2007, I gave a short lecture in Stockholm on Pichon-Rivière and the operative group concept. This took place before a small (seminar) gathering of 10 people, nearly all of whom were focused on group and societal issues. The group primarily had a group-analytic perspective. At that time, both the group-analytic and psychoanalytic/psychodynamic paradigms were under strong criticism within Swedish healthcare (ultimately, they would be more or less excluded from the range of healthcare offerings through strict administrative measures affecting both training and treatment options, something that remains the case today).

Among the emergents that arose during the subsequent discussion (and possibly sparked by the content of the lecture) were the following elements:

• A sense of being "locked in" within an unmanageable situation, accompanied by fears of loss and attack… but, eventually, also a feeling of confusion – as the then-current psychotherapy reality became very present in the discussion (a reality marked by anxiety over losing what one has, lacking tools to handle a new situation, and ultimately not knowing what to do).

• The notion that stepping forward to express one's stance, desires, and thoughts involves the risk of having one's words dissected (overanalyzed), "destroyed" (that is, subjected to criticism and/or dismissal).

…………………………..

In this context, there was a strong tendency among the audience to cling to what they already had and to shut out the new. They did not want to acknowledge that the situation had changed, and with it, the conditions … Thus, they also became "blind" to new emergents breaking into the situation. In "Freudian" terms, one might say that the group repressed the danger by not naming it, which meant they could not think about it either. They neither sought passive nor active adaptation – instead, they attempted to manage the situation by "closing down." This, in turn, prevented their ECRO (the conceptual, referential, and operational schema) from being enriched by anything new and from creating new "tools" to handle the situation.

There existed a desire for a freer intellectual climate within the world of therapy ... yet the (seminar) group’s own (group-analytic) group-ECRO seemed to "prohibit" anything beyond their previously established (now implicit) framework.

With the lecture on Pichon-Rivière and the operative group, I felt as though I had stepped into a forbidden area or been "put on ice" ... because the audience didn’t know what to do with what they had heard. What was evoked by this new material? What would need to be done with it? Was it "friend or foe"? Would it need to be "frozen" to make it possible to reflect upon? And how much did their reactions reflect the state of crisis within their own paradigm or ECRO?

From an ECRO perspective, it might be possible to view their reference framework a little more distantly ... as one framework among many. How can different languages and worldviews begin to communicate with each other? Perhaps this can only be achieved through a "third language" – a third terminology or conceptual framework – that is less determinative of what can be said and/or recognized. Does Pichon-Rivière and the operative group concept suggest that one can indeed think about one’s situation (from an ECRO perspective), but by thinking, one also introduces elements that could threaten what has existed until now?

The discussion of the explicit and implicit task within the operative group process opens up the idea that a group must also work on its own relationships – not just on the content introduced by, for example, a lecture. It becomes possible to "read between the lines" of group dynamics when one begins to think and discuss what was said during a lecture. As for this seminar group: Discussing how an operative group functions with its explicit and implicit tasks might enable them to reflect on their own group and consider whether the same processes are present in their own situation and could be discovered by "putting on different glasses."

The dialectical spiral illustrates this group’s process ... but one might also consider that cultural and power issues simultaneously become visible as part of "descending the spiral."

When emergents from a coordinating team returns as feedback (an interpretation) there is often silence and a kind of reflection seems to begin within the group ... for it is what the group itself has developed that has been further processed by the coordinating team and then returned in "refined" form. This feedback becomes a way of retaining what the group has developed while also advancing the work by having someone "seeing" it from outside and providing a commentary. The Swedish group analysis pioneer Olov Dahlin, who participated in the seminar, made the following insightful observation:

"By processing what the group has worked on and returning the emergents this has given rise to one helps to retain what has 'risen' to the explicit surface (of the spiral)."

Possibly an emergent in this group-analytic seminar group is the notion that what the group has worked on is "sacred and untouchable" – which it certainly not is! The lecture highlights that something can indeed be done beyond what the group has achieved – and one can also introduce observations about the group making it possible for the group members to see more than they would have on their own. Is there a worry or fear that something perceived as free and unbound might become formalized and mechanical if a conceptual framework is allowed to "map or chart" it? When the word "framework" is mentioned, the immediate thought might be that something is rigid and constrained ... or?

What the operative group approach adds to other group perspectives (not least the paradigm present in the seminar group) is the ability to use new concepts to see things slightly differently – which can, in turn, appear as both a threat and an opportunity. But one might also consider that the coordinated emergents – as a development of the group’s own thinking – could be seen as opposing the group-analytic "trust the group" attitude held by the seminar group.

Is there, then, a conflict between the operative group’s task philosophy and group analysis’s "trust the group" philosophy? Put differently, is it a question of letting the group find its own way or - to some extent - guide it?

Experience 4. Stockholm: Seminar Lecture 2008

In March 2008, I gave a seminar-like lecture aimed at spreading information about Pichon-Rivière and the operative group. The audience consisted of ten highly experienced therapists with a group-analytic orientation.

A key premise of the lecture was that most participants had never heard of the operative group before and thus lacked basic knowledge of its conceptual framework. Consequently, I had some questions for myself about how the group would receive my presentation:

• What will the participants experience? Will emergents arise that lead to new thoughts and openings?

• The group field (as a phenomenon) was introduced from a perspective different from what they might be accustomed to. Would this broaden their understanding of the own perspective (or ECRO) they bring with them? Or would everything feel familiar - though presented with new terminology and concepts?

• Are there aspects of the operative group concept that introduce something new? For instance:

  • The observer role, which they can now observe in action, as a potential container?

  • The dialectical spiral model as a mental framework, illustration, or "map."?

  • The vector model as a way to "locate" points or areas in a group process where resistance or obstacles arise—or where solutions begin to emerge?

The lecture lasted 45 minutes and was followed by a discussion facilitated by me and an observer chosen from the audience. This approach aimed to let participants experience firsthand what it feels like to sit in an operative group with its unique coordination techniques—a kind of learning by doing.

In the final phase of the session I discussed the explicit work the group had engaged in. I elaborated on ECRO as a "map" and thinking tool, emphasizing that a coordinator can provide new information when the group seems to "wander" or get stuck due to a lack of knowledge essential for continuing the process. Additionally, I emphasized that each participant brings their own ECRO into the group. And the concept ECRO can be viewed as a kind of metatheory, enabling deeper understanding and thinking in today’s therapeutic and clinical world.

The observer concluded by reflecting on how the next turn in the spiral might have unfolded if there had been time to continue exploring the implicit aspects. Unfortunately, there was no time for a second small-group discussion after the feedback from the coordination team.

One emergent from the discussion was the question of whether the operative group concept is perhaps too intellectually challenging to implement in today’s psychiatric context. Within the dominant paradigms of contemporary psychiatry—CBT, antidepressant medication and neuropsychiatric diagnoses—is there even room to understand or utilize the "operative group" as a tool? Is there, as Bion might suggest, so much "attacking on linking or thinking" in today’s psychiatric and therapeutic settings that the concept of the operative group is automatically excluded?

Experience 5. Gothenburg 2008: Informative Lecture on the Operative Group

In November 2008, I gave an informative lecture at the GPI in Gothenburg on the operative group at a meeting organized for individuals interested in groups and group therapy. The lecture was included as an "additional theme" in the program and was short and introductory.

The audience was small with most participants already familiar with the operative group concept (as the majority of the listeners came from the therapy institute GPI). Interestingly, some attendees had even used the method to a limited extent. The emergents from this meeting included the following:

• In contrast to more Bion/AGSLO-oriented group approaches, the operative group seems to foster calmer discussions, in contrast to the more "attacking" stance characteristic of the above mencioned bionian model.

• What does working with groups really mean? Should we move away from a purely group-therapeutic focus and consider even other approaches such as the operative group concept?

• At one point in the lecture the dialectic spiral and vector models were used to explain Pichon’s thinking. Is the use of those illustrative models in itself an important emergent linked to the operative group concept? The emphasis on clarity and explanation with illustrations as "rails" to communicate information seems essential. What happens in a group when visual aids are used?

• Could the two models—the spiral and the vector model—be superimposed? Would this complicate the representation of the explicit and implicit aspects in relation to one another? For instance:

  • Does each vector have explicit and implicit dimensions?

  • Does the degree of implicitness increase as one moves further down the vector model? Similarly do “belonging” and “communication” align more with the explicit in the dialectical spiral while “pertinence” and “télé” align more with the implicit?

• The Gestalt concept of "figure-ground" is an essential aspect of the operative group concept (as it is in group analysis).

• Does introducing the operative group and Pichon’s thinking into an organization or team naturally give rise to the spiral? Or alternatively - does it facilitate the integration of the individual ECROs present in the group?

• The operative group seems more characterized than group analysis by an active coordinator, which is achieved through the task concept. Does this also make it easier to integrate cognitive/CBT thinking into an operative group approach?

• ECRO serves as a background from which different perspectives can emerge and be emphasized. ECRO, therefore, acts as a "metatheory" that organizes various theoretical perspectives. It conceptualizes and "relativizes" the fragmented theoretical landscape that seeks to describe group (and individual) phenomena.

Interlude

The above Experiences 3, 4, and 5 take place while Experience 6 has already begun. The same applies to the following Experience 7. Together, these four experiences can be said to reflect thoughts and ideas that, in some way, relate to Experience 6. In this way, Experience 6, through its duration and systematic nature, will—just like Experience 2—form a central part of my account of the attempts to “install” a group-operational and Pichonian way of thinking in Sweden.

My everyday experiences as an individual and group therapist undergo, as previously mentioned, gradual changes, which are linked to the new knowledge provided by the Foulkesian and Pichonian perspectives. A direct consequence of one of the earlier seminars is that I gradually begin to leave my group-analytic working method in favor of introducing Pichonian elements. Among these is the practice of starting sessions, whether in individual or group contexts, by giving brief feedback on the previous session, in the form of the emergents that have arisen in me from the work the patient or group has done (although, as before, I can also wait for the group or patient to introduce the day's theme themselves).

Experience 6. Västerås: Group Operative Framework Used During a Two-Year Therapy Training Program (2007-2009)

This presentation concerns a basic therapy training program conducted over two years (2007–2009). The 24 participants in the program had different professional backgrounds and varying levels of experience. Their ages ranged from 30 to 50 years, with two-thirds being women.

Both external lecturers and lecturers from our own (psychiatric) institution provided the knowledge and information distributed during the training period. The program began with a two-day residential seminar and concluded in the same manner.

The training had both an (individual therapy-oriented) psychodynamic focus during the first year and a cognitive focus in the second year. Whether the term "cognitive" or "CBT" should be used is unclear, as this was a transitional period when CBT was starting to replace "cognitive psychotherapy" as a designation. Additionally, special emphasis was placed on the educational group's process in what was called "organizational and process knowledge," a sub-course that was integrated throughout the training. In the following presentation, this will be referred to as the "group framework component," which included "process days"—opportunities to lecture on different group theories and to study group processes more closely within the smaller subgroups (base groups). The focus here is on the group rather than on the individual therapeutic competence that the training aimed to develop.

The inclusion of the "group framework component" stemmed from the training provider’s desire, based on previous experience, to utilize the group process occurring over these two years in an educational manner. The goal was to make group aspects more visible and understandable by incorporating recurring reflection spaces into each training session. As designated "group consultant" during the training I was primarily responsible for this component.

The specific objectives of the group framework component were as follows:

• To consciously develop the working climate within the newly formed training groups;

• To increase understanding of processes at the individual, group, and organizational levels through studies and observations of the training groups;

• To apply various group theories to the existing training groups, gaining awareness of the forces at play within groups and the dynamics that can be utilized for therapeutic purposes;

• To discuss the formal aspects of the training and participants’ personal goals.

The model I chose to meet these objectives was a modified form of the operative group approach. During the introductory residential seminar, I gave a short lecture on both Pichon-Rivière and operative groups, which served as the participants’ first introduction to Pichonian thinking.

It may be of interest to review the content of this lecture on Pichon-Rivière and operative groups, as I delivered a similar introductory lecture—with some variations—in other contexts where I introduced the Pichonian perspective.

Each training session required participants to engage in two tasks:
a) absorbing the informational and theoretical content presented in lectures and literature;
b) reflecting on the small groups' processes through the specific (group operative) working methodology.

We will begin applying this teaching model (learning by doing) today to allow space for any questions, concerns, or complications that may arise when implementing a method in practice.

The lecture I am giving now (on the theoretical background of the group framework model) is the first lecture of the training. It will continue until approximately 11:00. From 11:00 to 12:00, you will discuss and formulate emergent issues or questions (1–3) within your small groups, which you will then present via overhead projector after lunch (13:00–13:30), followed by a half-hour discussion with the entire group from 13:30 to 14:00.

I want to emphasize that this working method is not something one masters immediately. It is natural that you will interpret what I have said differently, both individually and within your groups. Likewise, your understanding now (through practical use) will likely differ from your perspective in six months or a year.

Throughout the training, I will periodically visit each small group to address obstacles, complications, or emerging questions.

This is the structural framework we have envisioned for this training. The specific content of the various courses will be handled by the respective course instructors.

About Pichon-Rivière and Operative Groups

Enrique Pichon-Rivière (henceforth E P-R) is the originator of a theory about life in groups. This is not limited to therapy groups but applies to all kinds of groups—learning groups, institutions, organizations, sports teams, etc. E P-R (1907–77), an Argentine psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and social psychologist, had his "golden era" during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. His work was partly connected to the rise of anti-psychiatry, which emerged as a protest against the biologically and medically focused psychiatric care of the time. As he shifted from an individual-centered perspective to a group-oriented one, he developed the concept of the “operative group”—a “device” that could be used for therapy, learning, and other group-related processes.

Very briefly, an operative group can be described as a set of individuals with a shared goal, which they strive to achieve by functioning as a team.

However, the operative group is not defined primarily by its objectives. It is also a perspective—a way of thinking about and acting within groups. For example, what kind of learning process is considered desirable? It is not merely about acquiring information (knowledge in a limited sense) but also about opening new ways of thinking. This, in turn, is one of the goals of this psychotherapy training.

When a group discusses how to carry out its task, this process also creates an opportunity to observe and "read between the lines"—to make the implicit (what is hidden "between the lines") explicit and visible.

According to this perspective, learning always occurs against something—meaning obstacles arise when acquiring new knowledge. These obstacles may be epistemological (purely knowledge-based), such as lacking prior information about a new subject. However, they may also be epistemophilic (emotionally based), where something in the learning process is difficult to absorb—curiosity is hindered, and the motivation to discover or accept something new diminishes. (For example, many adults carry "traumatic" memories from school math lessons, which may lead them to avoid anything involving mathematics later in life.)

These epistemophilic obstacles are often implicit. In a group, they may manifest as difficulties or blockages in completing a task—getting stuck in a dilemma without being able to articulate the problem. By clarifying these implicit (unconscious/latent) obstacles, the group can move forward with its task.

This process is illustrated by a model E P-R called the "dialectical spiral."

In this spiral, one moves from the explicit (what is manifest, conscious, and possible to describe) downward into the implicit (what is unclear, diffuse, invisible, unconscious, and therefore difficult to articulate due to a lack of words).

The "descent" is depicted as a spiral, meaning it is not a straightforward process of simply uncovering the implicit. It requires effort—work against resistance.

Through this work, new insights and meanings emerge, and crucially, there is a greater awareness of what inhibits learning.

At the bottom of the spiral lies the source of resistance. E P-R identifies two (or actually three) different fears (forms of anxiety) that limit an individual or group trying to learn something new (i.e., something that brings about change).

1. Fear of confusion—confusional anxiety, arising from encountering something unfamiliar.

2. Fear of loss—resistance to letting go of existing knowledge when adopting new information.

3. Fear of attack—anxiety about applying what has been learned in an unfamiliar setting, leading to insecurity about having the necessary "tools" to handle new responsibilities (for example, new work tasks after completing this training).

In response to these fears, one might withdraw, struggle to absorb new knowledge, or resist change—whether in an educational setting, therapy, organizational transformation, or life in general. People revert to familiar patterns, repeat previously successful behaviors, and suppress the emergence of new insights and abilities.

The new insights that emerge are called "emergents." This term refers to something novel arising that is not merely the sum of previous knowledge. (The Swedish word emergent exists and is defined in Nationalencyklopedin as "emerging," "unforeseen," from Latin emergo, meaning "to surface" or "to appear.") The emergents form a new explicit reality—thus, in the spiral model, we see an upward movement where new insights transition from the implicit to the explicit.

In group work (whether with or without a coordinator, as operative groups typically include coordinators and observers), the associations that arise from lectures, text readings, discussions, and group dynamics become part of the learning process. E P-R termed this process the "basic work unit": existing → interpretation → emergent → new existing (alternatively: perception → reflection → action → new perception). This practice (from the Greek praxis, meaning action) can be defined as:

a) reflecting on experiences;

b) allowing these experiences or insights to revise individual or group hypotheses/theories in a continuous cycle.

This process fosters a reciprocal enrichment of theory and practice, and the dialectical spiral can thus be described as an expanding process of communication and thought.

The Dialectical Perspective in Groups

A dialectical perspective is a particular approach to reality, focusing on contradictions and opposites. In every group process (according to operative group theory), there are five fundamental oppositions. While more exist, these five are the most basic and recurring. They are never fully resolved; their very persistence ensures the continuity of a "project." (If any of these oppositions were permanently resolved, the process would stagnate and cease.)

Various syntheses (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) emerge in relation to these oppositional pairs, keeping the process in motion (as seen in the "basic work unit").

The five fundamental oppositions are:

1. Individual – Group

2. New – Old

3. Need – Satisfaction

4. Project – Resistance to Change

5. Manifest – Latent

Later, E P-R modified the dialectical spiral into what I call the "vector model." The purpose of this modification was to provide a more precise framework for "reading" what occurs in a group as it works on a given task (though this model can also be used to analyze individual therapeutic processes).

The model includes the following vectors (in E P-R’s terms):

1. Connection/Identification: Initially, individuals identify with the group process while maintaining some distance. This later evolves into belonging, fostering greater group integration.

2. Cooperation: Contributions—silent or explicit—toward the group’s task, involving differentiated roles. Cooperation manifests the interdisciplinary nature of the operative group.

3. Applicability/Relevance: The group focuses on clarifying the assigned task. The quality of this work is assessed based on preparation, creativity, productivity, and whether it generates new perspectives.

4. Communication: Both verbal and non-verbal (gestures) exchanges between members. This vector includes metacommunication—examining not only the content of messages but also their form and sender. If these elements conflict, misunderstandings arise.

5. Learning: When members share information, a qualitative transformation occurs—leading to reduced anxiety, reality adaptation, creativity, and project development.

A crucial factor in group situations is telé—the positive or negative inclination to collaborate with a particular member. Telé creates an atmosphere that influences group dynamics, including relationships with the coordinator and the task itself.

The vector model helps structure group observations. It represents a spiral movement culminating at the point of greatest resistance. The group's work forms the spiral, which gradually moves inward, using interpretative vectors to reach the core resistance to change.

In Pichon-Rivière’s framework, communication and learning are intertwined, and disruptions in communication inevitably affect one’s ability to learn from reality and experience—a concept he considered fundamental in understanding the development of mental illness.

This group-operative perspective forms the foundation of the group work model used in this training.

The group-operative perspective described above forms the basis of the group work model that frames this training. It is a modified form (the main difference from a typical operative group is the absence of a coordinator) aimed at providing a space for reflection in the middle of the day. This allows for emergent thoughts, insights, and questions to develop, which can then be brought back to the lecturer in a dialogue that helps clarify aspects of the lectures or literature that may seem vague or unclear.

…………………………………………………

A modified version of the group-operative methodology was thus applied throughout the training.

More specifically, the teaching model (for each training day) was structured as follows:

8:30-9:00 A course management representative is available.

9:00-12:00 The day's lecture.

12:00-13:00 Lunch.

13:00-14:00 Discussion in small groups with a "participating observer" (from the same group) who takes notes. The lecture is discussed within the small groups. Each group must formulate 1-3 questions to write down on an overhead sheet to bring into the continuation of the lecture from 14:00-16:00. A rotating observer schedule is applied to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity to act as an observer. The observer should: a) Participate in the discussion like other group members. b) Observe and take notes on how the group works (i.e., the group process), focusing on what occurs during the discussion’s beginning (opening), middle (development), and end (closing). c) Write a short summary "chronicle" (maximum one page) based on their observations. d) Make copies and email them to the respective base group members and the course coordinator.

14:00-16:00 Presentation of the small groups' questions, followed by a continued lecture based on these and other topics. The questions presented are the result of discussions held between 13:00 and 14:00. These discussions are based on both literature readings and the morning lecture. Ideally, lecturers should be able to address and deepen the small groups' questions while also expanding on the lecture content.

I personally conducted what were called "process days" (full days with lectures on various group theories followed by group discussions). Additionally, I made periodic "drop-ins" to the groups on days when other lecturers were present to address and answer any questions regarding the group framework component.

My process days focused on the following theorists and themes:

• Group framework and the operative group – Pichon-Rivière.

• On Bion.

• Foulkes and group analysis.

• The large group – Turquet.

• Final lecture on group framework, including the cognitive group perspective with an emphasis on process.

Finally, I assessed the individual final assignments that each participant had to complete as a practical application of their group knowledge.

This structure was thus integrated into the two-year therapist training program, which focused on both psychodynamic and cognitive perspectives. The purpose of the five "process days" and the small group meetings was to make group members aware of what was happening within the group's process—not only recognizing the open, visible, and explicit events but also the more subtle, invisible, and implicit dynamics. This awareness aimed to enhance understanding of what can occur in working groups, organizations, and discussion groups.

Since the training spanned approximately two years, a total of around 90 chronicles were produced (divided among three small groups, each consisting of eight participants, with 30 chronicles per group). The groups were tasked with:

a) discussing the content of a given lecture;

b) having the observer document what took place within the group during the discussion.

In my later analysis of the chronicle material, I focused primarily on comments and reflections that pertained to the group-operative method and the ongoing dynamics within the groups. Although discussions of other group theories were interesting, they fell outside the scope of this particular study.

As the person responsible for the group framework, I continuously considered the following questions throughout these two years:

• Is it possible to observe a process or development in the small groups in the form of emergents? If so, what are these, and when do they appear? Can the group utilize them, and if so, in what way?

• Are there clear turning points in the process where new information or experiences create openings or blockages? What are these, and do they manifest at different times and in different ways across the three small groups?

• Can the phases of "preparation," "task," and "project" be observed over time? Are there interventions from the training leadership (or myself) that either facilitate (by removing epistemological knowledge barriers) or hinder (by creating emotional epistemophilic obstacles)?

• Is the practice of writing chronicles and identifying/returning emergents a completely new element in educational contexts, contributing to a different and more operative learning process? What would be new here is that the lecture content is processed in small group discussions (where emergents emerge and are preserved through the chronicles), and that uncertainties and audience reflections are surfaced for further exploration. (Pichon-Rivière himself was not opposed to repeating a lecture if it became clear that the first presentation had not "landed" or remained unclear.)

• Finally, do my own recurring vector evaluations contribute to a growing body of knowledge on my part throughout the process? If so, what does this knowledge look like, and can it take a more general form as part of broader reflections on the application of the vector model in other contexts? Do my potentially increased insights lead to a shift in my approach to the training group and its process from the beginning to the end of the program?

…………………………………...

A wealth of material was produced over these two years, providing ample opportunity to illustrate what happens in a group when it is subjected to the "demand" to produce a self-reflective "response" in the form of chronicles and emergents within a learning-related context.

These small groups had to work within an ambiguous situation where each individual was also required to draw upon their own (subjective) experiences, knowledge, and interests—their own ECRO (Esquema Conceptual, Referencial y Operativo)—in order to extract meaning from what they encountered. Alternatively, they had to find a distinct form (a "best Gestalt") that could make the educational situation more comprehensible. During the initial residential training, the groups were confronted with a partially unstructured perceptual field—an unfamiliar and novel educational setting—that, through group interaction, needed to be "organized" or structured in a way that was operatively meaningful. Here, "operative" also implied that the task given during the introductory training was intended to provide lasting benefits in the future.

As something of a "conclusion" to the process, each group member ultimately wrote a theoretical reflection based on one of four group theories (Pichon-Rivière, Bion, Foulkes, or Turquet). This reflection analyzed what had transpired in their respective small group across its 32 "observed" sessions—sessions that were, in turn, "immortalized" through the written chronicles.