Beginning an introduction and book review with a long quote (especially one not from the book under review) is perhaps not very common. Here, however, it serves as a way to let the reader step into the hidden context implied by the title’s “long South American journey through time and space.”
Norwegian — and generally Nordic — psychiatry, including its psychotherapeutic branch, has for several decades been oriented toward the United States. However, to understand what is happening in the field of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis today, we must broaden our horizon and take note of developments in the French-, German-, and Spanish-speaking parts of the world.
But isn’t it a bit far-fetched to take an interest in psychoanalysis in Latin America? one might ask. The answer is that countries like Argentina and Brazil are not only giants when it comes to literature, cinema, and football, but also in psychoanalysis. At least a quarter of today’s psychoanalytic literature is authored by individuals whose native language is Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. These countries may have a shorter tradition than ours, but they’ve benefited from receiving ideas from multiple cultural spheres. In the 1960s, psychoanalysts there were reading Hartmann, Rapaport, and George Klein alongside Lacan and Bion — at a time when, in the Nordic countries, we barely even knew the latter two names. Argentine analysts have contributed in many areas, especially in child analysis and early child development, technical aspects of therapy, psychoses, and metapsychology. (1)
The situation described in the quote above primarily concerns the “cultural (and linguistic) barrier” that in various ways seems to block the inflow of ideas from parts of the world outside the Anglo-American sphere. Over the past ten years, as I’ve translated Argentine texts on psychoanalysis and psychology (particularly by the Swiss-born Argentine psychoanalyst Enrique Pichon-Rivière — one of the truly great names in Argentine psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and social psychology), I’ve repeatedly been struck by the lack of translated material from Argentina, despite its rich and sophisticated theoretical contributions, especially in the psychoanalytic field.
It was therefore a great joy, during a visit to London in December 2003, to discover a long-awaited book (for me) at Karnac’s bookshop. The title is Operative Groups. The Latin American Approach to Group Analysis (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London and New York, 2004. International Library of Group Analysis 24). The book is written by two Mexican analysts, Juan Tubert-Oklander (born in Argentina and emigrated to Mexico in 1976) and Reyna Hernández de Tubert. With growing interest in the English-speaking world, the authors aim to introduce the concept of “operative groups,” which developed in Latin America as an independent group-analytic tradition based on the work of the aforementioned Pichon-Rivière.
The book has three main objectives:
to introduce Pichon-Rivière’s concept of the “operative group” to English-speaking readers;
to present the authors’ own ideas and experiences (rooted in the operative group tradition, but also influenced by the English group analyst S.H. Foulkes and his “companions”);
to clearly illustrate how the operative group’s theoretical and technical concepts can be used in practical group work.
Tubert-Oklander and colleagues have made a deliberate effort to make the book accessible to English readers by building conceptual bridges between the group-analytic and operative group traditions. The authors frequently discuss similarities and differences between Pichon-Rivière’s operative groups and Foulkes’ group analysis. As an interesting aside, they note that Pichon-Rivière actually began his “group-analytic” work as early as 1938 — two years before Foulkes began his. (We often think of Foulkes as one of the “pioneers” of group analysis.)
The authors are firmly convinced that the two group traditions have much to learn from each other. So far, however, an exchange has been hindered by language barriers. Only a few of Foulkes’ works have been translated into Spanish — and some of those translations are poor. And Pichon-Rivière has not been translated into English at all. Judging by Malcolm Pines’ foreword in the book, it seems the concept of the “operative group” has nonetheless spread through various group-therapeutic circles, generating interest that has so far been difficult to satisfy through available literature:
“For many years my Latin-American colleagues in psychoanalysis and group analysis have frequently told me that in Latin America Enrique Pichon-Rivière was the great pioneer in our field, that his ‘operative groups’ – to me a mysterious concept that was never properly clarified – were closely related to Foulkes’ group-analytic groups, as were their basic idea. The few papers set out to illustrate Pichon-Rivière’s work were stimulating but insufficient, snacks rather than a substantial meal. Now we can feast on the substance of this remarkable, important book.” (2)
Regarding certain concepts and focal points, there are minor differences — probably due to the different contexts in which the two traditions emerged. Otherwise, these group-analytic schools share a common view of human beings, group processes, and group-analytic psychotherapy. In the book’s foreword, the British group analyst Malcolm Pines reflects on this relationship:
“Pichon-Rivière was a radical reformer who studied and influenced social organisations, at one time even attempting to work with a network of a whole city, Rosario. The Latin-American lifestyle of meeting in cafés late into the night with ardent discussions is in marked contrast to Foulkes’ more conventional London lifestyle. What is fascinating is the convergence of their ideas, part of the developing network of psychoanalytic and socio-psychological knowledge of the mid-twentieth century.” (2)
However, there is one key difference between these two early “pioneers” of group analysis. Pichon-Rivière consistently emphasized the “task” as the primary “organizer” of the group process. Foulkes, on the other hand, argued that there is no formal task in group-analytic psychotherapy — that any such conscious procedure would act as a form of resistance.
The book’s short concluding chapter becomes a reflection on operative groups and group analysis in relation to psychoanalysis. The authors present the idea that group analysis represents a natural development of psychoanalysis. Their reasoning is twofold: First, that the concepts of group analysis and psychoanalysis differ greatly due to their distinct experiential origins. Second, that the concepts nonetheless converge because both seek to explore hidden meanings in human behavior and experience, and both involve a particular way of listening. This line of thought culminates in the following “conclusion”:
“...perhaps, instead of being sometimes psychoanalysts and sometimes group analysts, we are just analysts, working with people in an attempt to understand them, as well as ourselves, and using whatever concepts we may find useful in this endeavour.” (2)
Enrique Pichon-Rivière – A Background Sketch
Because Pichon-Rivière’s contributions are so little known in our part of the world, I have chosen to continue this review with a relatively extensive description of the "imprint" he left—both theoretically and practically—on the Argentine psychoanalytic context. This will serve as something of an introduction to both the man and his way of thinking. Parts of this presentation are based on my introductory text about operative groups and Pichonian thought, "An Argentine Operative Group Approach: The Thought World of Enrique Pichon-Rivière, Ana Quiroga, and the Pichonian Concept of the 'Operative Group'" (7). As in the rest of this review, I will refer not only to Tubert-Oklander et al., but also to Spanish-language sources (see bibliography) that go beyond those cited in the book.
Enrique Pichon-Rivière (1907–77) was born in Geneva to French parents, who emigrated to Argentina when he was very young. He grew up in the sparsely populated northeastern part of Argentina, where the influence of the indigenous Guaraní culture was significant. He trained as a physician and psychoanalyst and became one of the major figures in Argentine psychoanalysis, group theory, and social psychology (at times, one gets the impression that it’s almost obligatory to refer to him in certain psychoanalytically inclined Argentine texts). He was also one of the founders of the APA (the Argentine Psychoanalytic Association) in the early 1940s and was for a long time an orthodox psychoanalyst with a "Kleinian" orientation.
As a result of his clinical work, Pichon-Rivière became increasingly aware of the practical limitations of psychoanalysis as an individually focused treatment method—and particularly of which people actually have access to it. He was also, in some respects, critical of certain psychoanalytic concepts, including its drive theory and its blindness to the historical-social context’s role in shaping the human being. In tandem with this, his thinking took on a more social-psychological character. These ideas, emphasizing the study of interpersonal relationships, laid the foundation for the psychiatry of the link, which Pichon-Rivière developed based on psychoanalytic postulates. The concept of the link (in which the intrasubjective "object relation" is extended into an intra- and intersubjective "link") is one of the key concepts in his theoretical framework. It represents a structure of interpersonal relationships including a subject and an object, the subject’s relation to the object and vice versa, where both parties fulfill a function within the context of a social situation. The concept also contains an implicit inner multipersonal network through the fact that we are born into a group. In Pichon’s psychosocial thinking, the individual’s (and the link’s) problems are always related to a network of inner and outer connections.
In a series of lectures in the mid-1950s, he clarified his theory of the link. Here, a shift toward group thinking also becomes increasingly apparent. He uses the concept of the internal group to highlight the social-psychological approach he believed was already hinted at in Freud’s work—even if Freud never formulated it systematically.
We understand the internal group as a collection of internalized relationships—that is, they have gone from "the external" into the internal world and are in constant interaction. They are internalized social relations that, in the Ego’s environment, reproduce ecological relations (interplay between organism and environment). (5)
The individual internalizes the people he or she has links with, the groups to which he or she belongs, the institutions he or she is part of, as well as society as a whole—its culture, values, traditions, roles, and conflicts. The concept of the link and the internal group shed light on the inner drama he believed existed in each person’s inner world—a drama which, through intersubjective interaction with others in various forms, tends to repeat itself in outer relationships (links). The question Pichon came to ask himself when faced with a patient and their issues was:
“What is it we must analyze? Where does what happens in the inner world come from, and how does it manifest in the transference link—the link to the analyst?”
It was when Pichon-Rivière reached a point in his development where he perceived that the couch and traditional psychoanalysis "locked in" the patient that he began to promote the group as a treatment form. The group, according to Pichon, has a greater ability to access and expose conflicts; it constitutes a stage—and so does the human inner world. However, he never abandoned psychoanalysis as an individual treatment method.
When Pichon-Rivière founded La Escuela de Psicología Social (today known as Escuela de Psiquiatría Social, Dr. Pichon Riviere, led by his successor Ana Quiroga) in the late 1960s, its aim—apart from serving as a forum for dialogue—was twofold: 1) to teach students how to construct a conceptual, referential, and operative schema (ECRO/CROS) as a way to systematize their thinking; and 2) to train so-called social operators (a kind of social therapist who, through their specific knowledge of working with groups, could help free society from phenomena with alienating effects). The intellectual exchange that took shape here helped Pichon overcome the epistemophilic resistance (3) (meaning an emotional barrier to approaching a particular object of knowledge) he felt—not so much against writing per se, but against giving his theory a condensed written form and having it published.
An important idea behind Pichon-Rivière’s psychosocial institute (an idea continued by Ana Quiroga) was that people with this (operative) educational experience could become agents of change in their own social environments. For that reason, his institute accepted people from all professions and social classes—even those without any prior formal education. The aim was to train a new kind of "problem solver" who could help individuals, groups, families, institutions, etc., to diagnose their own problems and investigate their "everyday life," plan corrective interventions, train their members to carry out such interventions, and evaluate them in a spiral-shaped developmental process. In this way, the interventions became a combination of research, learning, and therapy.
The particular kind of research propounded by this school is the inquiry into the hidden meanings and sources of everyday life, in order to free the social actors from their ideological subjection. In this, Pichon-Rivière’s project was not only scientific and therapeutic, but also political. From his point of view, the greater development of the individual’s personality is rooted in his participation in collective projects, and therefore requires a social change, in addition to the individual and the group change. (2)
The exploration of the obvious or everyday (the explicit)—as a more or less "royal road" to reach the most determining social relations (the implicit)—is one of the foundational aspects of Pichon-Rivière’s psychosocial thinking (cf. Freud and the dream as a royal road to the unconscious).
Operative Group, Group Analysis, Change, Learning, and Worldview
The group treatment initiatives that Pichon-Rivière began in the late 1930s within a psychiatric inpatient context (at Hospicio de las Mercedes) were called operative groups. These groups were strongly influenced by Kurt Lewin's Gestalt perspective and expressed the idea that patients, caregivers, and doctors should be viewed as a unified whole. Based on this, Pichon-Rivière sought to create a more operative and constructive form of treatment work. By the late 1950s, this group-operative technique had evolved and was applied in what became known as the Rosario Experiment. The explicit goal was to carry out a community project—a social laboratory in the city of Rosario (Argentina’s third-largest city), open to anyone who wished to participate. It was an attempt to analyze an entire city through intensive interpretive work in small groups, using certain techniques and interdisciplinary didactics.
The Rosario Experiment gave rise to several new groups, which continued to engage with the city’s problems under the supervision of Pichon's institute IADES. These operative groups—whose forerunners can be traced back to Pichon’s group activities at Hospicio de las Mercedes in the 1940s—contributed to moving groups and psychoanalysts out of the clinical treatment context and into various sectors of society and culture. The experiment was later documented with the help of José Bleger, David Liberman, and Edgardo Rolla (well-known names in Argentine psychoanalysis), and published under the title Técnica de los grupos operativos (“The Technique of Operative Groups”) in Acta Neuropsiquiátrica Argentina, 6, 1960.
The most significant result of the “Rosario Experiment” was the presentation of Pichon’s operative group methodology. The foundation of this method is that a group—focused on creating a relevant conceptual, referential, and operative framework (ECRO or CROS) for itself—can reflect on its difficulties in accomplishing a particular task. Operative groups were soon introduced into teaching at medical faculties, in psychology, and other educational fields. Teachers, who often lacked pedagogical training, began to receive it by learning to manage groups, reflect on the group’s challenges with a task, and understand how an ECRO/CROS tailored to the specific group could be developed. Both the terminology and the technique were popularized during the 1960s.
According to the authors, many people have tended to view operative groups as a distinct type of group, separate from therapy groups, educational groups, etc. This, however, is incorrect. The name “operative group” actually refers to an entire view of how life in groups takes shape and how groups should best be led. Pichon-Rivière did not draw a sharp line between educational/learning processes and therapeutic processes.
“The group technique we have created—in the form of so-called operative groups—derives its character from the fact that it explicitly focuses on a task. This task may concern learning, healing (which includes therapy groups), diagnosing the difficulties of a work organization, developing advertising, etc. Beneath this explicit task lies another, more implicit one, aimed at breaking down stereotypical patterns that hinder learning and communication—and that, as such, are obstacles in every development or change process.” (4)
The authors argue that the above definition is quite similar to the standard definition of group analysis found in the works of S.H. Foulkes. They illustrate with the following quote from Elizabeth T. Foulkes (The Origins and Development of Group Analysis, 1984):
“Group analysis or more specifically, group-analytic psychotherapy, is an intensive form of treatment in small groups. The term group analysis also includes application of the principles both within and outside the therapeutic field. While fully based on psychoanalytic insights, it is not an application of psychoanalysis to a group but a method and technique based on the dynamics of the group. It is therapy in the group, of the group and by the group, the group providing the context in which the individual person is treated. Intra-psychic processes are seen as interacting within the mental matrix of the group as a whole.” (2)
As a didactic model, the operative group concept focuses on the factors that facilitate learning and the obstacles that hinder it. As a tool for therapy, supervision, and research, among other applications, the concept emphasizes the difference between the lived group experience and the (theoretical) group concept. Hence, the strong emphasis on the importance of praxis in shaping ECRO as a theoretical framework. A theory is not valid in itself but should always be evaluated in relation to concrete human beings and their ongoing communication with their reality/environment—something Kurt Lewin succinctly expressed in his famous statement:
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” (5)
One of Pichon-Rivière’s close collaborators, José Bleger, provided the following definition of an operative group in Grupos operativos en la enseñanza (1961), which Tubert-Oklander et al. consider perhaps the most concise:
“…an operative group ... is a set of people with a common goal, which they try to approach by acting as a team.” (2)
However, an operative group is not primarily defined by its goals. It is rather a perspective—a way of thinking about and acting in groups—and a set of values about what promotes better functioning and “productivity” in human groups. It concerns the kind of learning process one considers desirable, which in turn depends on the worldview (see ECRO/CROS) and values of the person choosing the form of learning. Tubert-Oklander et al. (2) emphasize that the coordinator’s main task in an operative group is not to “distribute” information, but rather, as Balint (1957) puts it, to “contribute to a limited but deep change in the personality of the group members,” thereby opening the way for new ways of thinking.
Pichon used psychoanalysis’ concepts of “manifest” and “latent” (though he called them “explicit” and “implicit”) to clarify the processes taking place within a group. So, if a group discusses how to complete its task (its “work”), this process also offers an opportunity to observe and “read between the lines” what is happening in the group—and to make the implicit explicit. The coordinator’s technique is to help clarify the “implicit” (obstacles) so the group can become aware of them and move forward in its task.
This exploratory process—from the surface toward depth—is illustrated by an inverted cone, where the spiral represents the dialectical, exploratory, and clarifying movement from the explicit (external connections) to the implicit (internal connections), with the goal of making the latter explicit. Ana Quiroga describes the line of thought:
“…if, for example, in a group context we are faced with a series of actions or events that are explicit... and if we then carry out an analysis that follows this line (she points to ‘the dialectical spiral’ in the figure), we can arrive at an implicit element. If this implicit element is interpreted—a hypothesis, right?—it can become part of the ‘explicit’ that is found here (points to the base of the cone)…
…the emergent has aspects here… and aspects here (points to the tip and then the base of the cone, respectively). I register something here… a hypothesis begins to take shape and I touch on something… a conflict or chain of associations. What I say—whatever it may be—can initiate a chain of associations that allows something to become explicit.” (7)
The emerging emergents form the new explicit (which can also be referred to as the existing, as part of what Pichon-Rivière calls the basic work unit: existing–interpretation–emergent). The emergent "summarizes" the latent content that appears on the manifest level.
In this process, the coordinator should act somewhat like a co-thinker, walking alongside group members and seeking to understand their own perspective—and, when needed (if the group process gets stuck in a stereotypical loop), intervene (by pointing out the obstacles in the process of ongoing discovery) and support the kind of "reading" the group itself can carry out of the situations it experiences throughout the process. Reflecting in this way on experiences—and in turn letting those experiences correct the theory in a continuous cycle of perception–reflection–action–new perception (or, in other terms, existing–interpretation–emergent–new existing, etc.)—is what Pichon-Rivière refers to as praxis.
Pichon-Rivière’s operative technique aimed at integrating the false opposition between theoretical and practical work into a concrete praxis, understood as a perpetual coexistence of inquiry and operation, in a complementary and mutually enriching relation... this mutual regulation between theory and practice is what Pichon-Rivière calls praxis, and it takes the form of an ever-widening dialectic spiral. (2)
The dialectical spiral can be understood as an expanding process of communication and thought. The operative approach aims to help group members “learn to think” and “learn how to learn.”
The group coordinator in an operative group should support the development of a more scientific attitude among the group members by fostering a mode of group thinking that progresses from everyday thought to more scientific, exploratory thinking. Something fundamentally essential in this (which is also implicitly present in the term operative) is the idea that only action can change reality. A group that is operative is therefore centered around a task whose ultimate purpose is transformation. Within the group, members are invited to reflect together on the difficulties involved in engaging with a specific task (which can lead to change).
Pichon-Rivière later modified the inverted cone and constructed a vector model, in which the idea of the dialectical spiral remains. The purpose of this new model was to "read" the group’s processes using six different interpretive vectors. The members' participation in the group is thought to be reflected through these vectors.
"Connection" is what initially characterizes an individual’s experience in a group. It refers to a rather superficial identification with the group and its processes. "Belonging" means that individuals in the group begin to view both themselves and the others as truly part of the group, rather than—like during the connection phase—simply being there. "Cooperation" is the result of group members mutually internalizing one another. "Pertinence" means that individual members have internalized the group’s task, so that their actions become relevant to the group’s overall purpose.
Within the communication vector, the coordinator observes not only the content of various messages but also their form and sender (if these come into conflict, misunderstandings arise in the group). "Learning" refers to a qualitative transformation within the group, where members’ pieces of information in a given moment are brought together—this transformation can be equated with anxiety resolution, active adaptation to reality, creativity, "projects", etc. "Télé", finally, creates an atmosphere that can be translated as a positive or negative group transference—toward the coordinator, the task, and between group members themselves. The attitude toward change constitutes the central issue of the operative group. This attitude may manifest as either an increase or decrease in depressive anxiety (fear of losing a stable, secure situation) and paranoid anxiety (fear of being "attacked" in a new or changed situation).
There is a purpose behind the placement of the vectors in the model described above. By following the vectors from bottom to top, their meaning becomes clearer. This can be seen as a kind of "reading" of group dynamics, somewhat playfully called the "elevator game", in which one follows each side of the cone from the bottom up. If one detects a deficiency in the applicability/relevance vector—or a negative applicability/relevance (i.e., the group cannot focus on the task)—this implies a dysfunction in the vector just above it, the cooperation vector. This, in turn, suggests that regressive forces are dominating. And if there is a disruption in the cooperation vector, one must examine the next vector above: the belonging vector. If a disturbance exists there, it means that the group has not transitioned from connection to belonging (from "I" to "we"). In such cases, group members are often in "deception" situations, in which they behave as if they had made the transition from connection to belonging—when, in fact, it is a case of pseudo-belonging.
If, on the other side of the cone, one encounters a negative telé that disrupts group development to the point where relationships between members are paralyzed or disturbed, it indicates that something is not functioning properly at the next vector level, the learning vector. We must then consider what epistemophilic obstacles (emotional barriers that prevent individuals from approaching certain knowledge or learning certain things) are at play—those that hinder the group from finding new ways of relating to each other, as opposed to the stereotypical patterns they’ve previously returned to and repeated. In such a group, alternative behaviors cannot be learned, and members cannot relate to one another in new ways.
In that case, we need to move upward to the next vector. Something, in other words, is malfunctioning at the communication level, and we must attempt to identify the breakdowns and misunderstandings that are blocking communication from flowing smoothly (which also causes group members to regress and behave more immaturely). In the Pichonian model of thought, communication and learning go hand in hand, and every disturbance in the communication process inevitably leads to changes in how one learns from reality and experience—something Pichon-Rivière regarded as a foundational factor in the development of mental illness.
The Task Process: Preparatory Work, Task, and Project
As previously mentioned, the concept of the "task" plays a central role in Pichon-Rivière’s operative group approach. The function of the task is to provide an overview in relation to what emerges as problematic, pathological, etc. With this knowledge, a plan is then created with the aim of producing change. The task helps define and establish elements of the contract, the working alliance, or the framework within which the group "works." But the task is also a metaphor. In reality, no one fully knows what the task is, since what appears to be the task at the beginning of the process is no longer the same by the time the process concludes.
Ana Quiroga describes the relationship between the task, the contract, and the group connection in the following way:
The task is "installed" in the initial contract that was previously established... If it is a study group, the day's theme is set—if a lecture has already been given—and then one waits. A new theme is not set each day, since the contract states that the group's task is to work with the information provided during the lectures.
The group often returns to the contract, gradually “taking it in” in a spiral fashion until it is integrated; until it is understood and accepted... until a psychological contract exists that "installs" a functional connection between the coordinator and group members—a connection that allows the coordinator to “operate”… to interpret, for example.
In Pichon-Rivière’s operative group concept, the group task has both an explicit and an implicit dimension, the latter of which is initially only apparent to the coordinator. However, it is not possible to focus on just one of these dimensions—the group must engage in both in order to function as a working team. Sticking solely to the external (explicit) task—without engaging with the internal (implicit) one, which provides meaning—will cause the group’s activity to quickly lose momentum, leading to minimal productivity. Conversely, an internal task alone, without an external referent, becomes an empty ritual. The internal task gains meaning only in relation to an external one.
Tubert-Oklander and others make the following analogy with the functioning of the body:
The difference between the internal and the external task could perhaps be better clarified if we compared the internal task with the organism’s basal metabolism – i.e. that continuous work that our body has to carry out, just to keep on living, even when it is in repose – and the external task with the additional energy expended by our organism whenever it starts to “do something”.
In a group, the task can be described as a cycle, comprising the following stages:
1. Preparatory Work: In this stage, there is a kind of unconscious “conspiracy” aimed at preserving the status quo. This is a regressive phase marked by fragmentation, denial, omnipotence, idealization, devaluation, and primitive forms of projection and introjection.
The underlying driving forces include:
Confusional anxiety (fear of being overwhelmed by new knowledge),
Paranoid anxiety (fear of being harmed by new knowledge, habits, or relational patterns),
Depressive anxiety (fear of losing old knowledge, habits, or relational patterns).
These unconscious conflicts must be worked through either via spontaneous insight within the group or through interpretive interventions by the coordinator, aimed at revealing the underlying anxieties and defense mechanisms.
2. The Task Phase: This phase begins when the group is able to start working toward achieving the manifest goal. Initially, members approach this in a dissociated manner. Issues are framed in terms of absolute opposites, without acknowledging the connections between them. The discussion becomes an "either-or" dilemma, where group members are stuck between two partial insights. This is referred to as the Dilemma Phase. At this point, the group task is no longer absent (as it was during the preparatory phase), but it suffers from internal fragmentation that impedes progress. The coordinator now seeks to highlight this fragmentation and its underlying motives through interpretations, helping the group recognize the particular and complementary aspects of the opposing positions being expressed.
Learning necessarily involves giving up—though often not consciously—other ways of viewing the world, reality, or whatever it is that is felt to be lost. This gives direction to the work. Because the operative group allows for learning, it becomes just as therapeutic as if another technique had been applied. The earlier defensive strategies are abandoned, and the subject can learn new aspects of reality—of the concrete world—which revise their previous worldview.
After moving past fragmentation, the group enters the Problem Phase. Here, the group is able to address the task from multiple and varied perspectives. A new creativity emerges. Members are able to formulate the question in workable terms by using all available information and by collaborating in discussion, rather than wasting energy on sterile confrontations. The group can now:
Identify variables and possibilities,
Weigh these against their own capabilities,
Ultimately reach decisions that pave the way for the final phase—the Project Phase.
This is what Pichon called “the scientific method.”
3. The Project Phase: This phase begins when the group defines a new course of action based on realistic analysis and newly discovered shared interests. At this point, one cycle of group activity ends and opens the way for a new one—one that may extend beyond the boundaries of the formal sessions with the coordinator. This often occurs when the group is working in a "real-life" setting—such as a family, organization, or work team—or when the original members decide to form a permanent group.
"An apparatus for thinking reality." The conceptual, referential, and operative schema (ECRO/CROS) and Weltanschauung
Pichon-Rivière sees the individual’s (subject’s) constant dialectical interaction with the world as the only way to construct an adequate “reading” of their reality. The loss of this dialectical interplay leads to the reference framework—the way of perceiving, distinguishing, and “operating” in the world—taking on an anachronistic character, whereby the possibility of a mutually transformative interaction with the world disappears. To “close off” one’s own referents thus favors the emergence of old “ghosts” that are projected onto present social relations.
These ideas led Pichon to formulate the conceptual “tool” ECRO/CROS (ECRO = Esquema conceptual referencial y operativo; CROS = Conceptual referential operative schema), which can be seen as a flexible “thinking apparatus for thinking reality.” In this, he emphasizes both the conceptual elements (the surface structure) and the individual’s own “life journey” (the deep structure).
The referential aspect in an ECRO/CROS points to the area of reality (the phenomenal world) under consideration and influence. That the schema refers to a specific, determined sector of reality is fundamental because no conceptual schema can encompass the entire reality. The operational criterion (or action criterion) here represents what, in other referential schemas, is called the truth criterion—i.e., what in the thought or conceptual (conceptual world) corresponds to reality.
That the schema always refers to a concrete situation and is used as a “guide for action” in the specific sector of the world where we “operate” also functions as a determinant, ensuring it is always tested against reality—which in turn fosters an attitude of self-criticism. Of importance is not only how “true” an interpretation is, but also how adequate it is in practice (i.e., timing). In an operative group, therefore, effectiveness is the only criterion that can be said to apply. One can liken it to a football team; what determines its effectiveness is whether it wins its matches. Similarly, an operative group’s effectiveness depends on what results it achieves—that is, how effectively it tackles its task.
It is the mutually transformative (dialectical) interaction with the environment that governs verification or falsification of the “reference framework” constituted by a person’s ECRO/CROS. “Discoveries” are made possible by how adequately the investigator’s conceptual schema is set in relation to the characteristics of the phenomena under investigation. Therefore, an ECRO/CROS should also be modifiable—not because it would be good or bad in itself, but because it needs to be supplemented with new knowledge. It thus functions as an open, modifiable system. Every previous experience is incorporated into the schema and forms part of the perspective influencing the interpretation of later experiences—but also vice versa, so that later experiences/knowledge change the interpretation of earlier experiences.
In an operative group, different frames of reference or worldviews necessarily clash with one another. The mere fact that other people perceive, think, and act differently than oneself, and based on different assumptions, can open the way to developing critical thinking (which includes room for unlearning, relearning, and new learning).
Concretely, this group process proceeds such that, initially, each group member has their own understanding of things (their own “code” or ECRO/CROS). What complicates the “meeting” within the group is that large parts of each member’s ECRO/CROS are unconscious. The group coordinator’s task here is to “interpret” these and help create an explicit formulation of what up to that point has been a set of implicit assumptions (personal thoughts about how things relate, which, incidentally, promotes dogmatism). Pichon-Rivière speaks of how images from the past implicitly remain as a “as if.” Tendencies to misunderstandings thus arise when each person’s personal ECRO/CROS encounters those of others. Tubert-Oklander and others emphasize that misunderstandings constitute a more serious communication failure than lack of understanding, since a person who has misunderstood actually believes they have understood—and therefore lacks reason to further investigate what is communicated to them.
The group coordinator highlights the presence of possible misunderstandings to facilitate group members’ progress in exploring each other’s referential “codes” or “schemas.” The ultimate goal is to arrive at a shared “code” that enables effective communication within the group. Thus, one of the group’s main tasks becomes building a common ECRO/CROS. In the process of constructing a shared ECRO/CROS in an operative group, the original misunderstandings can be transformed into understanding. However, this creation of a “common language” also entails a partial and temporary loss of the group members’ “individualism,” which instead is subordinated to the need to create an effective team capable of solving the group’s task (whether it is educational or more therapeutic in nature). This loss implies a sense of grief; giving up some of one’s individual distinctiveness also becomes part of the path into the group.
It should also be noted that Foulkes had similar ideas in that he stated that a group— in order to reach a satisfactory level of functioning—needs to develop a common foundation and a common language. He described this (Teaching, Study and Research, 1964) in terms similar to Pichon-Rivière’s:
“… basic differences of personality make-up … creates a further problem for every group as to whether sufficient common ground or language can be found to render full cooperation possible, while making allowances for the individual personalities involved (2).”
The Operative Learning Group and Group Operative Technique in the Supervision Situation
Unfortunately, there is no clear description in the book of how an operative group with group psychotherapy as its “task” functions. Possibly, this is one of the book’s weaknesses. However, some clues about how this proceeds can be found in the latter half of the book, which is devoted to describing how the authors concretely proceed when dealing with operative learning groups and supervision groups coordinated with group operative technique.
In its way of working, the operative learning group discusses a prepared topic while the coordinator observes the discussion and intervenes at regular intervals (in interpretive terms) to point out obstacles that block the work on the task. The coordinator strives both to identify underlying premises in the discussion and to relate these to the members’ referential schemas. The purpose is to find out the conceptual elements that a person usually (more or less unconsciously) uses to perceive, think, and act. In their interpretations, the coordinator discusses and analyzes these schemas and helps the group members develop a common ECRO/CROS so that they receive both theoretical and practical help in effectively dealing with the problem they are struggling with.
The function of the group coordinator resembles both that of a group analytic therapist—in that they seek to identify and interpret the group’s emotional conflicts in relation to the task at hand—and that of an epistemologist, in that they encourage group members to critically analyze their own theories and the assumptions underlying them.
Such an analysis requires, among other things, that members and coordinator share a common starting point or common information as a “discussion starter.” This can be done in three ways:
An introductory lecture is given on an agreed-upon subject, after which the group is asked to discuss it. This is the model Pichon-Rivière and his colleagues chose in the “Rosario experiment” in 1958. In this form of large group, the lecture is usually given by a teacher, and the audience is then divided into smaller discussion groups, each with a coordinator or a coordinating team.
The second model is usually used in smaller classes or study groups that meet regularly over a longer period. Here, all members have had the opportunity to read recommended literature in advance, and the group’s task is to discuss their reading based on the impressions it has given them. The coordinator does not answer questions or clarify difficulties encountered by group members in their reading; instead, they help them use their own resources to clarify and further discuss the material and its implications. The coordinator assumes that the group members have read the material. If this has not happened, they generally “choose” to perceive the situation as an obstacle and resistance to the task, and therefore also investigate the motives behind this and the conscious and unconscious meanings involved.
The model is often used in small workshops at institutions or conferences, where the starting point is a particular problem or question, usually stated in the name chosen for the workshop. The coordinator begins by reminding the group of the problem the members wish to address. Then they ask the members to share their views on the subject and to discuss their conclusions. Here, the coordinator avoids giving their own perspective on the topic so that the members have room to express their own opinions. Then the coordinator seeks to help them develop a critical analysis of underlying assumptions and “belief systems.” Only in the concluding phase of this type of group may the coordinator express their own opinion—but not as a summarizing conclusion, rather as an additional example of the various viewpoints (vertices) one can apply to the initial question and its consequences.
In the authors’ description of supervision in the group operative form, this is contrasted with the traditional normative supervision model, described as follows: supervision is conducted by an expert who arrives at diagnoses, therapeutic indications, and treatment planning; the supervisee is taught how the “correct technique” should be applied at all stages of the treatment process and is given suggestions on actions to take. The traditional supervision model is based on the assumption that there is a standard technique for practicing psychotherapy, which must be taught by a supervisor to a supervisee who learns it. The essential point here is that the supervisee learns to apply the method correctly. The operative supervision group, by contrast, emphasizes the creative aspects of clinical discussions as well as the reconstruction and critical discussion of underlying assumptions and theories. One might call this process an epistemological critique of clinical practice. Such a perspective regards every treatment as a joint “creation” of patient(s) and therapist (therapeutic team) adapted to place, moment, people, and circumstances (and thus incompatible with accepting any kind of standard technique).
In the practical application of the group operative model in a supervision situation, Tubert-Oklander and others place special emphasis on how the group’s emotional and defensive processes are dynamically influenced by the unconscious aspects of the presented material. As a supervisor, one can observe the material’s impact on each group member. Just as a patient’s emotional processes resonate in the analyst’s feelings—and vice versa—the complex unconscious exchange occurring between them resonates throughout the supervision group (including the supervisor). The group operative technique is used to create a reflective space in which the supervisee’s conceptual, referential, and operative schema (ECRO/CROS) can be reconstructed, analyzed, and questioned. The aim is to help the therapist develop their own referential schema and maintain a constantly questioning attitude towards the clinical phenomena under consideration.
Tubert-Oklander and others stress the importance that every group operative supervisor (who is engaged in “research” on the group they work with) gives back to the group everything they have learned from it and its members, so that these in turn can use, correct, or reject what the supervisor presents. The purpose of this is primarily to enable group members to further discuss with the analyst and help them revise their understanding of what has been shared. Pichon-Rivière emphasizes here the importance of “democratic leadership”:
The ideal role one can assume in group work is democratic leadership. The interplay between leader-coordinator and group takes the form of a permanent spiral in which learning and unlearning processes are connected as a unit of giving and taking (feedback).
If the members of the supervision group (with the coordinator’s help) are capable of understanding what emotional reactions, for example, a particular case description induces in them—and if they find ways to synthesize this multifaceted “image”—they will gain a much deeper and more multidimensional understanding not only of the treatment presented for supervision but also of what psychoanalysis is and could become. In supervision groups coordinated with group operative technique, the emotional reactions evoked by the case material are used to initiate reflections and theoretical understanding of what is going on both in the supervised treatment and in the supervision group itself. The ultimate goal of the group’s thought process is conceptualization and to “bring to life” previously read literature, which can now be connected to new personal experiences.
The Operative Group as a Therapeutic “Project”
When operative technique is applied to a therapeutic “project” – in which “cure” constitutes the implicit task – the group’s therapeutic function becomes apparent. As noted above, this is not explicitly addressed in the book. Therefore, the section below serves as a complementary description of a technique and a way of thinking (which I imagine the book’s authors are well familiar with) where the idea of learning plays an important role.
In Pichon-Rivière’s individual psychotherapeutic perspective, individual psychoanalysis (or psychotherapy) is seen as a learning process – a dialectical functioning system that opens and closes. The relationship that exists between therapist and patient can be described as a dialectical spiral in constant motion. In this dialectical relationship, what one (the patient) experiences and feels is translated by the other (the therapist). It involves the therapist’s re-experiencing of the patient’s experiences and the therapist’s re-translation in the form of an interpretation. This interpretation is a function of what is awakened within the therapist. The therapist acts towards the patient and vice versa. Consciously, the therapist works towards the patient through interpretations aimed at changing the shared field that the therapist and patient form (an interaction situation between two persons). Everything here should be considered as a function of the entire relationship (Gestalt) created between subject and object, between therapist and patient, between observer and observed. Every movement, attitude, etc. of the therapist acts on the patient’s unconscious and evokes changes within the shared field. These changes in turn influence back (this whole reasoning about mutual influence could be briefly seen as something like the principle of connectedness).
In the “Pichonian” group-operative perspective, the coordinator and group members (and context) together form a Gestalt that is constantly changing based on the interplay occurring. The relationship between coordinator and group members is formulated as a dialectical spiral relation in which the former inevitably is somewhat of an “active agent” and not a “pure observer.” Pichon emphasizes the interplay between Gestalt and Gestaltung (the shaping/forming process) that takes place. The Gestalt constitutes what exists, and from it emerge the emergents, which in the form of a nascent “new situation” point to a process of change in the making.
Here the emergent appears as a sign of an implicit process, i.e., as a sign of the already existing underlying process that must be made explicit. Making the implicit explicit takes place in the “structuring,” which means being a constantly open circuit. The word Gestaltung has this meaning. At the beginning of our task, the word Gestalt appeared constantly in terms of structure or function. But when the spiral nature of the continuous process was discovered, we had to give it a special meaning. Even the Gestalt psychologists themselves, including Kurt Lewin, began using the term Gestaltung, which is related to Gestalt and means “structuring”… The definition we could give the process was “structuring” – not “structure” – because of the constant motion it was in… We defined the group as a Gestalt, as is commonly said. For example, social psychologists who work focusing on the group define it as a Gestalt with a fixed and not dynamic meaning. If one says that it (i.e., Gestalt) is a Gestaltung, one transforms the process into a structuring. The process therefore happens gradually and in a determined direction; Gestaltung became the most suitable term to denote that it was a moving process in an open circuit – and not closed as Gestalt can be. (8.)
Each group member’s “inner drama” (the vertical or life history) together with the “outer drama” (the horizontal or what the group here and now has together) forms what is in motion in the group (Gestaltung). The process is partly illustrated in the description below, made by a member of an operative group:
“At first, some of us in the group try tentatively to express ourselves – as if trying to speak ‘submerged under the water surface.’ The initial observations here constitute stories that suddenly seem to me ‘like from another film’… and the coordinator is on edge, searching for emergents and blindly (at least it seems so to me) directing toward whomever it may be in the group… Gradually… ‘line’ by ‘line’… language and its consequences emerge on the scene… and we sink into the ‘second act’ of the play. The confident continue to sink… those of us who hesitate continue with our ‘salsa’… and those who don’t know where they are going want to continue their journey. It is strange, but I notice that a space for feelings opens and that we begin to learn… Interpretations arise within us. We listen attentively, respectfully, and now also with pleasure. Everything we say to each other has consequences. Even when we talk about ourselves, changes appear in our feelings… sometimes fantastic changes… At first, silences occur which we quickly try to fill with ‘music’ without caring much how it ‘sounds.’ Today, however, the silences are long, expressive, and delicate. We exchange looks without fear (‘where words die, music arises’)… and we listen for the resonance of our life destinies… Suddenly the coordinator intervenes and brings out an emergent… and as if by magic, a change occurs. We are shaken… stop… fall… but then come back on our feet.” (12)
It is interesting to observe how the group, in order to perform its task (or “work”), generates a way of associating that could be called an “association chain” (the group’s way of applying “free association”?). One member says something… another says something based on this… and yet another enters the dialogue, etc., and in this way the group event moves forward. In line with the previously described interplay between the “inner group” and the “outer group” (see above section “Operative group, group analysis, change, learning, and worldview”), this process can be described as externalized thinking (group thinking). Communication becomes an externalized “thinking process” (in the outer group), while individual thinking constitutes intrapersonal communication (in the inner group). Pichon uses his concept “the inverted cone” (the dialectical spiral – see above!) to graphically illustrate the dynamic between implicit and explicit that is present here (and can be seen as an expanding thought and communication process).
By being observable on the surface, the explicit – or manifest – in the situation is at the base of the cone. The implicit – or unconscious – is placed at the tip. From the outside, one may get the impression that the explicit plays the leading role by occupying the largest space in the figure. However, the implicit here should be seen as analogous to an iceberg – the largest part is not visible. Within this cone moves the dialectical spiral, which in this context represents both individual and group process. Based on the universals (the two basic forms of anxiety – fear of loss and fear of attack) placed at the tip, the group process will gradually increasingly change in a permanent emergence of new emergents. Here, symptoms can for example be seen more as “situational emergents” (something new and original as moments of, for example, the shared Gestalt the therapist and group members form with their behaviors) rather than direct results of the individual’s (subject’s) past and something already given (the implicit is however present through the transference situation). From the same reasoning, the operative group establishes a meaningful relationship between the vertical (the individual) and the horizontal (the situation created in the meeting). When “ruptures” occur in the horizontal (group event), the different “verticalities” (individuals with their “subjectivities”) emerge.
Pichon-Rivière points out that the role of narrative in individual analytic treatment is rather played by the dramatic event in a group. Therefore, the group therapist (the group coordinator in an operative group) must, more than just listen analytically, also observe analytically and ask what is happening before their eyes in the “network of connection” that is in motion and alternately gestalted and gestalts. This “observer role” is described in a simplified “premature” form in the quote below:
(Pichon) recounts how he (in his teenage years) ... performed his first non-participatory observation – the archetype and model for how coordinators of operative groups were trained:
“For example, the village women gathered once a week in our house to talk. My mother actively participated in these meetings. I had arranged a hole to see and listen through. In this way, I noted the contradictions and the events that took place in these groups. And I believe it was there that I – as a non-participating observer – gained my first knowledge of how human groups function. One could say it was teaching through the keyhole.” (9)
If Freud thus grounds classical analysis on getting the patient to observe their own fantasies in order to then tell them to the analyst, the group proceeds in the opposite way. And it is then that the group therapist must observe and interpret the group and its dialogue like a dream unfolding before their eyes. The forms the group constructs (and then more related to its productivity and what emerges) can here be described as a kind of “group text” or “writing” in an extended sense (i.e., not only something verbal) produced in the group. This “group text” has the capacity to generate further meanings. An implication of this is that the meaning which at a certain moment a certain “reading” attributes to an aspect of the group event therefore does not exhaust the productivity of this “group text.” One can here most closely compare with, for example, the “text” of a dream. The group’s “texts” are inexhaustible, and it is more about something that has no end. Rather than being a hidden substantial meaning that interpretation should reveal, the “text” tirelessly generates meanings, which in the form of different expressions are “written into” not only the said or unsaid.
Summary Comment
Hopefully, Tubert-Oklander’s book will contribute to increased knowledge about an Argentine group tradition that is largely unknown in Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world (to which one is sometimes tempted to suspect that at least Sweden belongs) — but also partly in its own country, as the following quote shows:
In the twenty-five years that have passed since his death, he has been largely forgotten in the world of psychoanalysis. Even though his name still rings a bell for young psychoanalysts, his works are rarely read or quoted in psychoanalytic papers. His books on groups and social psychology are ignored by many analytic group therapists, even though they are mandatory reading for those with a social bent (2).
One of Pichon’s goals was to “democratize psychoanalysis” — hence the title of his collected works Del psicoanálisis a la psicología social (6). Tubert-Oklander and others, however, argue that he was mistaken in this regard and that his work meant something more.
His work is really a breakthrough in psychoanalytic theory and practice. It is a major contribution towards the development of a new paradigm of the human being that we so sorely need (2).
Both Pichon-Rivière and Foulkes — as clinical psychiatrists and psychoanalysts — created an opening towards sociology, philosophy, and other disciplines. This allowed them to enrich the vision they had as psychoanalysts of constructing an ECRO/CROS (conceptual, referential, and operative scheme) with the possibility to create understanding and explanation of human group behavior. Possibly, this openness was also something shared by both pioneers (11).
Pichon-Rivière also moved simultaneously in several fields — psychiatry, psychoanalysis, art, journalism. One might even go so far as to say that Pichon-Rivière belongs to the group of avant-garde intellectuals in Argentina from the early last century onward — alongside names like Borges, Roberto Arlt, Cortázar, etc. (authors who were part of the Latin American literary boom known as “magical realism”).
At times, when reading his texts, one gets the feeling that it is only now, at the turn of the twentieth to the twenty-first century, that contemporary times have caught up with Pichon-Rivière in his interdisciplinary thinking, which in many ways can be described as a tendency to allow interfering creative aspects to arise in both theory and practice (something which, according to psychoanalyst Marie Langer, created a certain unease and disorientation among his psychoanalyst colleagues).
Pichon moves from one group to another... he makes certain groups appear within others, he turns oligophrenics into football players, caregivers of the ill, opens therapeutic “rooms” within educational institutions while at the same time seeing therapy as a learning process (9).
In South and Central America, Pichon-Rivière has “given rise to” Morenians, Freudians, Kleinians, Lacanians, systemic thinkers, Gestalt therapists, analytic psychodramatists, etc.; not only professional practitioners from various currents within dynamic psychology, but also representatives of disciplines covering the most diverse societal areas: education, work, recreation, health, etc. (11).
Some group therapists active in Argentina — more faithful to the traditional way of educating only doctors and psychologists as group therapists and counselors — have tended to distance themselves from the revolutionary project Pichon-Rivière initiated (and which has now been continued by Ana Quiroga). Tubert-Oklander and others’ view is that Pichon-Rivière’s concepts and techniques definitely deserve attention even if one does not share the implicit political ideas and goals he had. A prominent Argentine group therapist, Ana María Fernández (10), reflects on whether Pichon-Rivière might be better characterized as “someone who strays outside the institutional” rather than as a “groupologist.” Regarding his group contributions, however, she emphasizes the importance of not just stereotypically repeating what he came up with, but developing it further.
It should be added that the name Enrique Pichon-Rivière previously — as far as I know — has only appeared in Swedish-language texts by the well-informed Svein Haugsgjerd (including in his Den nya psykiatrin):
Pichon-Rivière is known for the psychotherapeutic work he conducted with psychotic patients in the 1940s and for applying psychoanalysis in group and milieu therapy, among other things by establishing an institute for social psychology (1).
However, he is not entirely unknown in Sweden. For those who have come into closer contact with the Gothenburg Psychotherapy Institute, the name is familiar because this institute, since its start in the 1970s, has maintained close contact with the Argentine branch of psychoanalysis, especially with “disciples” of Pichon-Rivière.
Bibliography
(1) Haugsgjerd, S. The New Psychiatry: Background and Development. Stockholm: Prisma, 1988.
(2) Tubert-Oklander, J. & Hernández de Tubert, R. Operative Groups. The Latin American Approach to Group Analysis. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London and New York, 2004. International Library of Group Analysis 24.
(3) Actualidad Psicológica. Dialogue with Ana Quiroga. Pichon-Rivière Between Social Psychology, the Learning Process, and Lacan. (Interview with Ana Quiroga. Pichon-Rivière between social psychology, learning process, and Lacan). No. 133, June 1987.
(4) Pichon-Rivière, E. The Group Process. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology I. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995.
(5) Zito Lema, V. Conversations with Enrique Pichon-Rivière. On Art and Madness. Buenos Aires: Timerman Editores, 1976.
(6) Pichon-Rivière, E. The Group Process. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology I. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995 / Psychiatry. A New Problematic. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology II. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1983 / The Creative Process. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology III. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1982.
(7) Lander, S. An Argentine Operative Group Approach. Enrique Pichon-Rivière’s World of Thought, Ana Quiroga and the Pichonian Concept of “Operative Group”. Thesis for the licensure-based psychotherapy training with a group analytic orientation, Psychotherapy Society, Stockholm, 2003.
(8) Pichon-Rivière, E. Dictionary of Terms and Concepts in Psychology and Social Psychology. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995.
(9) Manero Brito, R. The “Madnesses” of Pichon-Rivière. (Pichon-Rivière’s ‘Idiosyncrasies’). Internet: Group Library. (Website www.campogrupal.com)
(10) Pavlovsky, E. & De Brasi, J. C. (Editors). The Group. Becomings. (Ana Fernández: The Group Device). Stories. Buenos Aires: Galerna – Búsqueda de Ayllu, 2000.
(11) Kesselman, H. Operative Psychotherapy I. Chronicles of a Psycho-Argonaut. Buenos Aires: Editorial Lumen-Humanitas, 1998.
(12) Hermosilla Ríos, J. Language and Emotions from the 3rd Meeting on Fields of Intervention in Operative Groups, Santiago, Chile, 1997.