The interview was originally part of my scientific work (as a kind of "fieldwork") during the psychotherapy training leading to certification, with a group-analytic orientation (“Psychotherapy Society” in Stockholm). The title of the thesis was: “An Argentine Operative Group Approach. The Thought World of Enrique Pichon-Rivière, Ana Quiroga, and the Pichonian Concept of the ‘Operative Group’.”
The interview takes place at the Institute of Social Psychology (Escuela de Psiquiatría Social, Dr. Pichon Riviere), which Pichon-Rivière founded in Buenos Aires in the 1960s and which Ana Quiroga took over as director after his death.
As a curiosity, it’s worth noting that we are sitting in Pichon’s old treatment room (which has been left unchanged), with well-stocked bookshelves, paintings, a couch, and a desk. Despite it being evening, the institute is bustling with people coming to or from lectures. Ana Quiroga herself is scheduled to lead a class immediately after the interview.
For clarity’s sake, some quotes not included in the original interview have been added. These quotes define concepts specific to the Pichonian terminology, using Pichon-Rivière’s own formulations from his texts. The reason I use these alongside Ana’s own words is that her thinking frequently draws directly from Pichon’s formulations when she develops her own arguments.
The Operative Group Over the Past Forty Years
The operative group (viewed as a group) focuses on the task, and its aim is to learn how to think in terms of solving difficulties that arise and are manifested within the group’s field. It is thus not about each individual group member per se—otherwise, we would be speaking of individual psychoanalysis within a group setting. But the focus is also not solely on the group itself (as in Gestalt approaches), because in every here-and-now-with-me moment of the task, one operates in two dimensions. In this way, a synthesis of all the tendencies present within the group is achieved to a certain extent.
The patient (and the event they highlight) is seen as a spokesperson for both themselves and the group’s unconscious fantasies. Since interpretations are made in two tenses (now–then) and in two different directions (vertical–horizontal), this operative technique differs from other group techniques. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Grupos operativos y enfermedad única [Operative Groups and the Single Illness], in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
What does our technique consist of?
One could say it consists of two fundamental aspects—the explicit (manifest) and the implicit (latent). In this sense, we approach the analytic technique, which in reality aims to make the unconscious conscious or the implicit explicit. From a technical perspective, one usually starts from the explicit in order to uncover the implicit, with the goal of making the implicit explicit—this occurring in a continuous spiral motion. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Historia de la técnica de los grupos operativos [History of the Technique of Operative Groups], in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
Sören Lander: What I am primarily interested in learning more about concerns the concept of the “operative group.” What does it look like, and has it changed?
Ana Quiroga: What aspects have changed? I think that the essential point when trying to define an "operative group" is that its focus is the task. And I understand "task" as something complex with multiple dimensions.
At certain moments, the focus may be on what's stated in the explicit contract. At other times, we work with fantasies … various forms of anxiety … transference … the relationship to the framework and to the institutional setting. I believe this is what characterizes what is essential and specific about the operative group – and that has not changed.
However, many other things have changed. One of these is the possibility of including other forms of interaction beyond verbal ones, such as something that Pichon both thought about and valued – psychodrama … working with roles and with a conflict through dramatization.
All this has developed much further than during the Pichon era. However, this does not mean that action-oriented techniques have come to dominate over the verbal ones. These are still extremely important … but sometimes one needs access to other means … a “tool” that involves other modalities, yet still maintains a coordination perspective and keeps the group task focused around the concept of task. Still, these additions do not change the fundamental nature of the operative group.
Another aspect that has changed considerably is the nature of groups themselves. The forms of “groupness” have gradually shifted over the last forty years. I have examined how these traits have changed … for instance, how “groupness” appeared among us during the period of military dictatorship, when the group had both unconscious and quite conscious significance as a refuge … since there were not many places where one could meet “the other” in a safe and confidential way, etc.
So, relationships among people were marked by this need for a safe haven. The relationships became more like primary relationships. Transference became more primitive and intense. As trainers, we worked with what essentially comes from Hernán Kesselman – “the coordinator’s feared scenes” … they were terrifying scenes. The levels of regression were very intense.
Then we realized that these scenes were deeply connected to the horrors occurring at the societal level … and that they triggered terrifying experiences and fantasies among group members. This is not something we see today.
Sören Lander: Could people talk about everything in the groups during the military dictatorship? Or did they have to self-censor to avoid putting anyone at risk?
Ana Quiroga: Two things happened. To a fairly large extent, there was confidentiality and safety. It was possible to talk. But then there were moments when this was lacking, and the relationships were marked by some mistrust.
It was hard to form groups because there was a high degree of idealization. During this and the following period, one could observe the phenomenon that Anzieu speaks of as “group illusion” … the idea that “we are all one and we are fantastic, etc.” There were ideas that the group was an object.
The idealization was strong due to anxiety, loneliness, and fear. At the time, I often thought of something René Kaës said: “one of the fantasies of being in a group is that you belong to a body that can neither break apart nor die.”
Among us, this had a very special meaning … experiencing fragmentation or death anxiety or something even worse than death … namely, to disappear … to not be able to imagine what that means – all of this was very present among people. We who worked in psychology and those who were in training were heavily persecuted.
S L: These were real events…?
A Q: Yes, something very real, made worse by the presence of armed groups. Group activities were not appreciated by those in power. So various forms of gatherings were attacked – and groups were something suspicious.
This happened during the period when we were just starting our work. Pichon lived through part of that era. He died in 1977, and this began to unfold between 1975 and 1977. That’s when we started to perceive the meanings of “groupness” … the search for a safe space … the “uterine group” as a refuge … then the contradiction between intense fear and desire … and the mobilization of regression.
During the 1980s, there was less regression in groups. There was a kind of functioning based on solidarity, etc., and people began to put words to much of what had been silenced during the previous period, in which I doubt people spoke about everything. Many never told what they had experienced … or what had happened to them personally or to their families … very difficult things.
Then came a time when there were more words and greater opportunities for communication and storytelling. Then came the 1990s – a time of fragmentation and resistance to “groupness.”
S L: As a reaction?
A Q: As a reaction or a reevaluation of what the “other” is. What is “the other”? If you think about the market’s law, it says that “the other” is a rival … this was also in the air. Society went through a period of exalted individualism … and that does not favor “groupness.” People sought groupness, but it comes at a cost … it costs a lot to accept differences … to go through a dialogue where this can be made explicit. Expressing differences (between people) is still very difficult.
That was not the case in the 1970s … people had more opportunities to meet … to discuss and to express different positions without experiencing it as a catastrophe.
S L: But was there also a desire – as a reaction – to simply forget in the 1990s … to forget what happened in the ’70s and ’80s?
A Q: Yes, that could also be the case.
S L: Perhaps it is reappearing now in what’s happening in Argentina today?
A Q: Yes, indeed, among what’s emerging now are things that could not be forgotten …
Other things also emerged in the 1990s that were more individualistic and distanced. We studied, for example, what image people on the street had about the size of a group. We found that people thought a group consisted of three … four people … but not more … if it was more, it was not a group, but a mass. So, the ability to feel something as a group was reduced … a group was seen as fewer people. In people’s ideas about the size of a group … some might consciously think a group is larger, but unconsciously that did not function as a reference.
There were also other social references to larger groups. There were moments when people referred to the family group … middle-class families, among whom we typically move in our training programs, usually consisting of 4–6 people.
In other social strata – we conducted our research on the street, not just inside the institute – groups were perceived as larger because people there live more collectively and with different relational forms and norms.
S L: In the lower classes?
A Q: Among the lowest classes, we saw a very different concept of closeness.
We tend to isolate ourselves in our homes, etc., while people from other parts of society move around and live together in different ways. But of course, there are moments when they close their doors due to conflicts or violence. They “close the situation” and won’t let us in, for example. But at other times, when there’s less conflict, they are more open to people coming and going.
S L: Do you think this “reduction” of group size had something to do with earlier repression?
A Q: Yes, and with intolerance … and with the inability to tolerate difference and the valorization of individuality. One’s peer had to be very much like oneself … very much a mirror image. It was a very narcissistic phase … and there was also great fear of “the other.”
It was like going backward for us. We had thought the most transformative processes had occurred in the 1980s because that was when people spoke a lot.
S L: Do you think the “dialectical spiral” closed at a certain stage … and that it is opening again now?
A Q: Yes, but all this also has to do with the weight of the economic models that took hold in Argentina, which implied lifestyles that came into play during the 1990s. This was a time of labor market crisis. Many people lost their jobs. And people began to be pitted against each other. Life became more difficult, and people turned inward. It was a different kind of isolation than during the dictatorship. Then, there was more solidarity.
This later kind of isolation, however, is less solidaristic and is tied to many losses … people have lost so much over the last 10 years. What has now exploded in Argentina is the rage over all that was lost. Earlier there was more of a silent pain … an enormous, costly pain … people suffered greatly in silence. Now there is more of a social explosion in this. In recent months, we’ve seen changes in group relations because people are coming closer to one another again.
What I mean is that if groups change in some way in how they function socially, then the coordinator also ends up in a different position in relation to how the group works. Not because it’s dictated or we have new rules, but it has become more difficult to work with groups today than before. It has also taken more effort for us to process our own relationship with group members – our own countertransference or transference to the groups – because we too are part of this situation. We are not outside it.
If I think about your question regarding changes in the “operative group” … then these are the things that have happened. Some technical openings have occurred by incorporating new questions. There have been important influences from the broader field of group work. But Pichon’s ideas about “groupness” still hold value, and their usefulness is confirmed in practice.
S L: ECRO (the conceptual, referential, and operative schema) as a flexible tool that opens up and is increasingly enriched?
A Q: The idea that ECRO should open this way or that way in practice led me, for instance, to begin investigating what was happening during Argentina’s societal crisis … and with people and groups. At one point, however, it seemed that the tools I had no longer worked … and that was something I had to examine further.
Among the core elements included in ECRO, we want to emphasize the concept of feedback between theory and practice. In line with the dialectical process and its model of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, the a posteriori of one situation becomes the a priori of a new one. To the extent that one studies a dialectical process – the human relationship with their surroundings – ECRO, as a method of approach, includes a dialectical methodology. That’s why the social psychology we propose has an instrumental character that does not find solutions within a closed circle but through the ongoing enrichment of theory via its encounter with practice. The experience of a practice conceptualized through criticism and self-criticism enriches and corrects the theory through mechanisms of rectification and ratification. (Quote from “Concepto de ECRO,” upcoming edition. In: Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
It was about praxis and ratification … and verification … something related to dialectical materialism – and which became even more prominent toward the end of the 20th century … an idea of thinking in a complex way and not abandoning the notion of multidimensionality, complex thinking, etc. That fits well with dialectical materialism … and if one cannot progress in this sense, then suddenly one is left without tools and cannot understand what is happening.
S L: And ECRO had closed?
A Q: Exactly. And there is nothing more disheartening when working with people than suddenly not understanding or failing to notice … that was the point I had reached.
In operative groups, so much more happens … and finding out what that is. But not even being able to get close enough to see what it is! I think that became a very important driving force to think – and think again – and again.
How does an operative group work?
S L: How does one start a session? What is the coordinator’s role at the beginning of a session?
A Q: Generally, it starts in the simplest way possible. “Hi, how are you?” etc. It’s very important for us to observe how the session opens. How do people arrive? Late, early, together, individually? What do the members manifest at this beginning? Usually, there are clues in this opening that indicate what will unfold later in the meeting.
S L: The task – when and how does an operative group decide what its task will be?
A Q: You’re asking me how one opens the session – from the perspective of the task. It depends on the task. If it’s a therapeutic group, the opening is free. Members take their places in the room. It’s time to begin the session, whatever the topic may be. The task is already “installed” in the initial contract that was established earlier.
If it’s a study group, the theme of the day is defined – assuming a lesson has already been given… and then one waits. A new theme isn’t set every day since the contract already states that the group’s task is to work with the information provided during the lessons.
The systematic analysis of oppositions (dialectical analysis) constitutes the central task of the group. Fundamentally, this analysis aims to explore the unconscious ideological infrastructure that is activated in group interaction. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Aportaciones a la didáctica de la psicología social, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
If it's institutional work, there has also been a prior contract, which has been made explicit. One often returns to the contract as it is gradually understood in a spiral manner until it’s integrated; until it’s understood and accepted... until a psychological contract is in place that establishes a working connection between coordinator and group members – a connection that allows one (as coordinator) to “operate”… to interpret, for example.
S L: Does the coordinator summarize the session at the end?
A Q: Regarding how to "close," it’s sometimes important to give a kind of summary of what happened and what the session was about. Sometimes, it’s better to refrain from this if the group is still processing and it’s not yet time to return anything. This is a situational criterion.
It also depends on the coordinator’s style and whether the group meets monthly… and whether a summary is necessary. If the group meets weekly, it may be useful to leave the ending open. It depends on what has occurred.
S L: In group analysis, the therapist plays a fairly passive role (at least outwardly) – it seems to me that the coordinator in the operative group is more active. Is that true?
A Q: The coordinator should not be passive in an operative group. Passivity tends to intensify regression. But the coordinator should not be excessively active either… the coordinator should be a “co-thinker”… a support and companion. This, too, relates to the group’s task since regression in a therapeutic group doesn’t mean the same as in a learning group. In any case, as a coordinator, one is neither a leader nor a task organizer.
The coordinator’s or co-thinker’s function in these group techniques is mainly to create, maintain, and promote communication, which through progressive development takes the form of a spiral where didactics, learning, communication, and effectiveness converge. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Técnica de los grupos operativos, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
The coordinator plays a prescribed role in the group. The role consists in helping members to think so that they can tackle the epistemological obstacle posed by fundamental forms of anxiety. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Estructura de una escuela destinada a psicólogos sociales, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
S L: An operative group… how many people does it consist of?
A Q: How many people do we work with in an operative group? We have a limit. If the individuals are used to working in operative groups… up to 20–21 people. And the lower limit… generally 6–7 people… maybe 5. It depends greatly on the task. If it’s a therapy group – whose task is therapy – then it’s a much smaller number… 6–7… or 8… but not more. Learning groups can have more people.
S L: In these operative groups… do members change, or is it the same group throughout?
A Q: For one year, yes. In reality, for nine months… like a pregnancy (laughs).
S L: How often do they meet?
A Q: Once a week. There may be other meetings, but then one isn’t working with group techniques. Then the members mix with each other… form other subgroups, etc. But those working within the “operative group” framework… it’s the same group for one year.
S L: I’ve never had the opportunity to see an operative group in action… but I feel I have a fairly clear theoretical picture of it. Since I constantly compare it with the group-analytic model, it’s difficult to “see” the operative group situation. There’s a coordinator in the operative group… but there can also be one or two co-coordinators, right? Can you describe how this works… or is it that when the operative group’s task is psychotherapy, there is only one coordinator?
A Q: Co-coordination is always a possibility in the operative group technique. Pichon didn’t particularly like it… he said he feared that if competition or complementarity were to arise between coordinators, it could disturb the group’s functioning.
There is also an observer in the group (usually non-participating). Their function is to capture all the material expressed verbally or preverbally in the group and thereby contribute insights that may help the coordinator lead the group. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Estructura de una escuela destinada a psicólogos sociales, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
I can say that co-coordination provides a learning experience in complementarity… it’s something you discover over time. I’ve used co-coordination in both therapy and learning-task groups, and it has worked well provided the relationship was well-developed and the frame of reference shared key points… though this didn’t necessarily mean it was homogeneous.
Kaës and Anzieu work in an interesting way with the theme of intertransference, both regarding the observer and the coordinator (i.e., the mutual transfer between them – Translator’s note)… and this can also apply in situations with two coordinators. I’ve also experienced coordinator rotation (in training), where one session is led by one coordinator and the next by another. It’s interesting to note what different styles evoke.
S L: I’m thinking of other forms of group therapy… group analysis, for example. Have you compared the “operative group” technique with these?
A Q: One person who has worked specifically with this is Hernán Kesselman, as well as Juan Campos. Apart from Hernán, we haven’t examined it in depth. I’ve read Foulkes, and his ideas are very interesting. His thinking is rich. It was a line of thought that was completely silenced for many years. No one here knew that there was an Englishman apart from Bion (laughs)! I came across Foulkes’ work… I was in Denmark… Copenhagen, in 1980.
First of all, I must say that Bion contributed very interesting things regarding groups… but then he left that area. Foulkes, however, continued to be interested… he died during a group session, didn’t he? And then his ideas started spreading, especially in Europe. I know that many people in Eastern Europe were also influenced by Foulkes.
But this is something that has happened quite recently, because 20–30 years ago… at least 30 years ago, this wasn’t available. It was much more limited back then.
Link, Matrix, and Depression
S L: Link … “link” is a very problematic concept to translate into Swedish. I spoke with Ángel Fiasché (Argentinian psychoanalyst – student of Pichon-Rivière – who, along with his wife Dora, was among the founders of the Gothenburg Psychotherapy Institute) about this several years ago to get a more detailed explanation in Spanish. What’s interesting, however, is that Foulkes uses a concept called matrix, and … these two concepts – “link” and “matrix” – share similarities.
A Q: Yes, there’s a lot of common ground there.
S L: Is it the case that the link in a group more or less constitutes the matrix?
A Q: I’d say rather a network of links. Initially, Pichon analyzes the link between two people, right? – but with reference to a third. In other words, there is always another person involved … and that other is not the same for you as for me.
But – I would say that the concept in Pichon’s work that most closely corresponds to Foulkes’ matrix is this network of links with its interlinkages … established through mutual internalization or mutual inner representation … along with another concept, which would be the group structure of the inner world. I believe these two aspects are very closely aligned … practically overlapping. They are conceptualized differently, but I see the central idea as very similar.
S L: The analytic group is closed off from the outside world because it is a therapeutic group. But operative groups open themselves to the environment, and this is also one of the operative group’s aims?
A Q: Yes, that’s correct.
S L: For example, I’ve imagined that what’s currently happening in Argentina – the neighborhood assemblies (Asambleas and piqueteros) … the movement of unemployed workers … who gather – may have something to do with the fact that certain individuals had experiences in operative groups and then carried these experiences into, for instance, neighborhood assemblies …
A Q: I would actually say the opposite. The operative group arises by engaging with the group phenomenon in social life.
For example, we work as an operative group with a very large organization of unemployed individuals. They asked us for help – but not to organize themselves. That is part of their struggle, and they know much more about that than we do. But they asked us for another kind of help … help that is essentially about managing suffering and enduring … about finding a space to talk about conflict-ridden family issues … for example, domestic violence, which is a major theme … teenage pregnancies … young people’s drug use.
It’s striking how drugs, in very poor and unemployed areas – and with a profound lack of life content – come to organize life. To pay for the drug – if you have no money – you must steal. So, you go out and steal, buy the drug, and … the drug ends up becoming something that organizes your life.
Gradually, one becomes aware that behind this destructive chain of events lies a horrific upbringing environment from birth … though there are always individuals who manage to get out of this in different ways. And the operative group serves the purpose here of finding other ways to imagine growing in society … for example, for people who haven’t finished school, who are semi-illiterate, or similar.
They begin to develop projects, which is important … with a sense of belonging to something. And if there is a therapeutic function in these cases, it has to do with accomplishing tasks of a social struggle … unless the task is about growing as a group and as individuals … or about being neighbors from the same community and learning to resolve conflicts among each other.
S L: Learning to think … learning to learn. That’s another concept.
A Q: One of the things that strikes me most in my work every time I work with these people is that, in reality, they are perfectly capable of thinking. They are extremely sharp. And I believe it’s the struggle their living conditions have forced them into that has made them so sharp. This applies to certain areas of their lives … women, for example, are very brave and strong, but in other respects, they are very dependent on their family situation.
The concept of learning as praxis makes it possible to formulate the process in terms of learning to learn and learning to think. This concept is of an instrumental nature and is based on a theory of thought and knowledge operating in a social context. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Grupo operativo y modelo dramático – Operative Group and Dramatic Model in Pichon-Rivière, E., Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
And the man becomes depressed. Unemployed men become depressed and stay in bed. Then they become alcoholic and – that’s where the violence begins!
These are the kinds of issues … and the opportunity exists to learn to think differently … to get out of this … for example, what it means for men to get out of bed … because they lie down and … feel defeated and just want to die. There are many suicide attempts.
The depressive response should be understood as a total behavioral pattern in situations characterized by frustration, loss, and deprivation. Its nature is consistent in terms of occurrence, structure, and function. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Empleo del Tofranil en psicoterapia individual y grupal – Use of Tofranil in Individual and Group Psychotherapy in Pichon-Rivière, E., Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
Because depression always grips the bed, doesn’t it? That’s the fundamental pathology … depression. And it appears frequently.
We speak of “a single illness” in the sense that we regard depression as the fundamental pathogenic situation. Other pathological structures – formed on the basis of stereotypical ego techniques (defense mechanisms) of the schizoid-paranoid position – are seen as failed or inadequate attempts at healing. This inadequacy (which can be seen as a disturbance in the ability to “read” reality) gives these structures their pathological character. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Grupos operativos y una enfermedad única – Operative Groups and the Single Illness in Pichon-Rivière, E., Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
The Inverted Cone and the Dialectical Spiral
S L: “The inverted cone” or “the dialectical spiral”. Are they the same thing, or are they two different concepts?
A Q: They are related, but not the same.
S L: Can you draw and describe them?
A Q (draws): This idea may seem contradictory, doesn’t it?
(Points to “the inverted cone,” where the base and the largest part represent “the explicit” and the tip and smallest part represent “the implicit.”)
It doesn’t seem to align with Freud’s thinking… he says the opposite… we see this (points to “the explicit”), and it’s here we seek to reach (points to “the implicit”).
Why does Pichon draw such a diagram? Not because he doesn’t think like Freud… there is a lot here (points to “the implicit”). But, for example, if in a group setting we are faced with a series of actions or events that are explicit… and if we then carry out an analysis that follows this path (points to the “dialectical spiral” in the diagram), we can arrive at an implicit element. If this implicit element is interpreted – a hypothesis, right? – then it can become part of the “explicit” that is found here (points to the base of the cone).
S L: Like an “emergent” or…?
A Q: Yes, exactly – the emergent has aspects here… and aspects here (points in turn to the tip and the base of the cone). I register something here… a hypothesis takes shape and I touch on something… some conflict or chain of associations. What I say – whatever it may be – might trigger a chain of associations that allows something to become explicit.
In this cone, we see a base, a tip, and the dialectical spiral.
a) The base: This is where the clear or explicit content that emerges is located.
b) The tip: The foundational situations or implicit universals.
c) The spiral represents the dialectical movement of exploration and clarification that moves from the explicit to the implicit, with the aim of making the latter explicit.
The explicit would be what we see, the manifest; starting from this, we can gradually, by following the direction of the spiral in a dialectical manner, observe and – little by little – reach the bottom of the situation we are aiming at. With this dialectical spiral, we can reach the central core where the fear of change – as resistance – is located.
What first appears in the diagram is the explicit. The implicit, on the other hand, corresponds to the zone of the unconscious. But it is by starting from the explicit and moving through a continuous spiral that one can reach the implicit. In this process, the elements involved are analyzed, and the rigid structure of the situation is examined in order to break it open and make possible a situation of progress and a new formulation. (Quote from El Proceso Grupal: Tratamiento de grupos familiares: psicoterapia colectiva / The Treatment of Family Groups: Collective Psychotherapy, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995.)
The diagram of the inverted cone is intended to represent, at its base, all manifest situations in the operational field, and at its tip, the fundamental universal situations that operate in latent form.
Broadly speaking, this means that our task consists in breaking down stagnant situations—whether they involve a “stuckness” in illness, in learning, or in any other area of life—and in making the situation dialectical. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis can lead precisely to a situation of movement within the group, and to the possibility of learning without risking loss—that is, the loss can be “displaced” in the face of the opportunity for operational learning.
With this technique, the group, in any case, moves from the explicit to the implicit, so that—through this process—a new explicit can emerge. In other words, what was latent, disturbing, and conflict-laden becomes explicit. In this way, the corrective operation can indeed be represented as an inverted cone. (Quote from De próxima edición: Historia de la técnica de los grupos operativos / Forthcoming Edition: The History of the Technique of Operative Groups, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995.)
AQ: What we have here (points to the tip of the cone) … for Pichon, this is where the forms of anxiety are located (fear of loss and fear of attack). To me, these ideas seem strongly influenced by the English school and Melanie Klein.
The basic fears:
Fear of losing the structure that has been built so far, and
Fear of attack in the new situation that is about to be structured.
(El Proceso Grupal: Tratamiento de grupos familiares: psicoterapia colectiva / The Treatment of Family Groups: Collective Psychotherapy)
The field of action for the social psychologist is the field of fears; their task is to clarify the origins and irrational nature of these fears. Ultimately, they can be reduced to two: the fear of loss and the fear of attack. (Quote from Psicología de la vida cotidiana: El Psicólogo social / The Social Psychologist, in Pichon-Rivière, E. Diccionario de términos y conceptos de psicología y psicología social. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995)
However, Pichon arrives at slightly different ideas … but this position of the forms of anxiety is very important as an organizing element for actions, anxieties, and fantasies (points to the tip of the cone).
These are matters that may be explicit on one level and implicit on other levels. He says that when one form of anxiety is explicit—for example, persecutory anxiety (fear of attack)—there is simultaneously a depressive situation (fear of loss) that cannot become manifest. Because Pichon believes that these forms of anxiety coexist. This is where he differs from Melanie Klein. They coexist and interact. But when one is manifest, the other is here (points again to the tip of the cone).
Pichon says that when the patient enters the treatment room and looks under the couch … he doesn’t seem particularly sad. What he’s showing is that he feels persecuted. But if we explore what he’s defending against—what does this obviously persecutory situation contain?
S L: And behind that lies the fear of loss?
A Q: Exactly. The patient is sad and troubled about this situation of loss. This is when Pichon draws his first diagram of the cone…
I’ll probably never know why Pichon chose the second model (draws the figure with the vectors: attachment/belonging, cooperation, pertinence, learning process, communication, and telé)—and I don’t think he knew either, but it worked for him.
For example, he said that when analyzing a group… he used this (the vector model) because it complicated the other one (the cone)… and he incorporated more… and these vectors are related to Kurt Lewin’s ideas. Pichon picked up ideas from various group theorists.
So here we have the theme of “attachment”... “belonging.” “Belonging” would be a level much further removed from “identification.” “Attachment” is an even more distant form of identification… more labile… weaker.
And “belonging” is this… the team and the matrix… the mutual internal representation here… and this has implications for “cooperation”… because the possibility of cooperation when there is belonging has significance for applicability.
The first vector… includes attachment to or identification with group processes. However, in these, the individual/subject retains a certain distance and does not completely merge with the group. This first moment of attachment—characteristic of what happens in all groups—later transforms into belonging, which entails a higher degree of integration into the group…
Cooperation consists of contributing—albeit silently—to the group task. It is based on differentiated roles. Through cooperation, both the interdisciplinary character of the operative group and the interaction we will later define as verticality and horizontality are manifested.
Pertinence is the name we have given to the category that involves the group focusing on how the given task can be clarified. The qualitative aspect is evaluated based on the amount of preliminary work, the group’s creativity and productivity, and whether openings are created that point toward a project.
The fifth category on our scale consists of communication—both verbal and preverbal, in the form of gestures—between members. Within this vector, we note not only the content of the message but also its appearance and sender. We call this metacommunication. When these two elements come into opposition, misunderstandings arise within the group.
The sixth vector concerns a fundamental phenomenon—learning. By bringing together the group members’ information at a certain point, the dialectical law of transformation from quantity to quality operates. A qualitative change occurs in the group—a change that can be translated as anxiety resolution, active adaptation to reality, creativity, project development, etc.
As a universal category in the group situation, the factor telé is included—defined by Professor Moreno as a negative or positive attitude toward cooperating with a particular group member. Telé creates an atmosphere that can be translated as positive or negative group transference, both in relation to the coordinator and regarding the relationships among group members themselves.
It should be emphasized that the attitude toward change constitutes the central situation of the operative group. This attitude can manifest as either an increase or a decrease in depressive or paranoid anxiety (fear of loss and fear of attack). These forms of anxiety coexist and interact in time and space. A consequence of this is that the coordinator, in their interpretation, should also include the other, underlying form of anxiety when one of these manifests in a group situation (Pichon-Rivière, E. El Proceso Grupal. Del Psicoanálisis a la Psicología Social I. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1995).
A Q: And this is another level (points to the right side of the figure where the vectors learning process, communication, and telé are) of vectors… communication, learning… and then this idea of telé… which Pichon actually takes from Moreno but interprets simultaneously…
Pichon, as mentioned, often took ideas from other theorists and reworked them. But he did not warn his listeners, who knew nothing about this… and it became complicated. For example, I once had a discussion with him and said, “No, that’s not how it is!” “Okay,” he replied, “but it works anyway.” Because the telé concept is about perceiving something real… Pichon also includes this in his concept… that one perceives something real… and transference processes are then triggered.
See here how in this open ECRO we move with the coexistence of two theoretical frameworks that Pichon integrates in this idea that if I have a good telé toward someone, there is something real I have perceived in them, something that appeals to me, etc.—and which refers me to other connections.
Moreno says that telé appears when the transference has been worked through. Pichon says, “No, that’s not so… between transference and telé there is a permanent interaction.” This idea that a past relationship is actualized in a current relationship must have to do with telé… with transference.
S L: This thing about “pertinence”… does it have to do with the relevant…?
A Q: … with the purposes. When we say “pertinence” we must also consider the concept of the task. But this task concept is complex because there are moments when it is relevant to bring certain group problems to the foreground… and in other moments, it is not relevant to do so. For example, working with integration is relevant at the moments when the question arises… or in the beginning. But in other moments when integration is at issue, a contradiction concerning belonging may arise. When this occurs, it is relevant to work with the group’s connections.
S L: You delve into this?
A Q: Pichon continues to seek out this toward the apex and the fundamental forms of anxiety. That was something he never changed. He used more or less the same schema for two different “entry forms.” Because you can use this schema even in individual psychoanalysis.
Pichon never stopped using individual analysis… as this couch shows (laughs and pats the couch)… sometimes he used it and sometimes he worked face to face.
Addition by Ana Quiroga sent via email November 2004 after a question I asked during a group training in Sweden. In my question, I asked Ana to clarify the meaning of the concept “emergent.”
S L: What is an emergent?
A Q: As a first attempt to approach what an emergent is, one can say that there is something observable in it. This observable is here not only of a material nature like a chair or a book. It is also so that the presence or absence of certain objects and their handling can make the emergent observable.
In the operational area, the observable in the emergent appears as something different and contradictory; as discontinuity and “break” (in relation to what has been so far). But—discontinuity in relation to what? Between the preceding, which we call the “existing”—that which has reached a certain degree of presence and has also been established with a certain hegemony within the interaction area—and something new.
When we speak of emergent, it is because something “breaks in”… something that can be a modality or a mode of expression. But an emergent is also something previously non-present, which more subtly begins to hint at or outline itself as new.
The emergent—this new quality—appears with different forms of intensity. “New quality” means, in other words, according to Enrique Pichon-Rivière, that a significant change is taking shape even though it is not yet possible to determine its extent… it constitutes a “synthesizing” and creative event. He refers here to the importance of paying attention to the sequence of the process, which consists of the different forms of connection between the preceding/existing and the new/emergent.
Let us imagine a situation that is beginning to take shape in a group integration process. The entire group experiences, in fact, always qualitatively different shifts in the integration process—but now we will try to imagine the significant “experience situation” that arises among the group members when a qualitative leap occurs in the group’s integration process…
When this our identificatory experience—different from others and a boundary that separates us from the group’s external symbolic (environment)—is “installed,” we also distinguish ourselves from the “other” that exists in the external. This event has to do with a specific moment in the mutual internalization movement… with changes in the mutual internalization process that one was engaged in.
This intensely experienced inner “presence” tends to be expressed in the form of a spatial language. The external here can consist of our everyday scenarios…but at this moment there is something contradictory between this integration process and “group presence” and all other “presence.” Other “presence” seems to threaten intimacy. One can conclude that in this integration and identification moment or “boundary moment,” the group gathering offers a maximum in terms of support, strengthening of the ego—and perhaps also of illusion.
If we in this situation are coordinators or observers, what is registerable for us—in the form of words, actions, body language, cooperation, ways of advancing the task, etc.—will be something almost obvious. Something changed!
This level of integration is different from the previous one. We will gain a sense of time, process, and that what happens is something different and, in some sense, opposite to what came before. Depending on the ongoing integration, something has transformed, and this has also been registered by the group members. Emotionally, this satisfies us. However, the direction of the task and our analytic commitment require that we be attentive to the contradictions we have noted are active within the field and that may give rise to different developmental lines.
We are here facing a significant integration emergent. But—what happened to the previous? It is not true that groups have no history. Within the field until recently, there were labile forms—“hesitations” regarding integration and approach… what happened to the initial fragmentation? Have these non-integration aspects been completely wiped out or diminished as one pole in the contradiction and turned into secondary ones?
The line we follow in the task will largely depend on whether we can “open up” these questions within ourselves. Because in the observable, which constitutes parts of the emergent, there is much to explore since these are not simple but complex facts. This new event contains contradictions. There is a multiplicity of active aspects within the group field, and these can set off different movements.
If we as social psychologists position ourselves from an understanding of complexity, movement, contradictions, and interrelations regarding phenomena, then we must both ask ourselves and ask what it is that emerges; this group—or (possibly) organizational—form that emerges is not simple but complex. Why? Because things contain both something of the old or preceding and something of the new—even if the new is now dominant.