Abstract
A book about Trigant Burrow leads the reader on a tour into the midst of the history and politics of both psychoanalysis and group analysis. Edi and Giorgio Pertegato, supported by reputable contributors and the Lifwynn Foundation, carried out an indisputable archaeological work, which started at the Italian Group Analytic Society. During 20 years of dedication and research, the authors managed to organize, compile and analyse Burrow’s articles. By means of an excellent introductory essay, Edi and Giorgio Pertegato draw the readers into Burrow’s universe, revealing details of his intellectual journey and providing a critical analysis of his contributions.
The work explores attributes of Burrow’s character and details his background, which has contributed to his worldview. Burrow was affected not only by his mother’s religiousness in contrast to his father’s scientificism—but also by the American pragmatism, biology, philosophy, sociology, and the theory of relativity. Such confluences have enabled Burrow to develop a binocular vision and a critical standpoint vital to the conceptualization of the ‘social basis of consciousness’, which determined his particular psychoanalytical framework and the development of his group analytic experience.
The Pertegatos’ investigation arrived at a surprising conclusion: the presentation of an independent and original thinker who was excluded from, and later forgotten by, the psychoanalytic community due to his innovative ideas, far ahead of his time. The book is divided into three sections: the first one consists of psychoanalytic essays produced during the period covered by the years 1913 to 1918; the second, brings psychoanalytic essays in the new perspective of group analysis, written during the period covered by the years 1924 to 1927; and the third gathers group analytic articles produced during the period covered by the years 1926 to 1930.
Burrow’s psychoanalytic articles demand careful reading, not only for the novelty of concepts like the ‘principle of primary identification’ and its theoretical and clinical implications, but also for the fact they attest to his dissatisfaction, since his first writings, with the individualistic paradigm and the intrapsychic universe of Freud’s psychoanalysis. Apparently Burrow was the first psychoanalyst to highlight the social character of the individual in interaction with the family, the cultural and social environment as well as the social origin of neurosis. Undoubtedly, his theoretical standpoints—which anticipated ideas that would be later presented by Balint, Fairbairn and Pichon-Rivière, among others—suggested an epistemological shift, ‘from drives to relationships’ that place him, alongside Ferenczi, as the precursor of the object relations theory.
Burrow’s first works inspire readers to delve into the psychoanalytical theory of that time as well as into the historical and political vicissitudes of psychoanalysis and its relationship with its dissidents. Thus, Burrow’s discussions not only reveal how the construction of the theoretical framework of Freud’s psychoanalysis have dealt with dissensions but also invites the reader to reflect on how the distinct social, cultural and political contexts of America and Europe—restraints and constraints stemming from social unconscious dynamics in both continents—influenced both psychoanalytical thinking and theoretical developments.
The second part of the book reports on the outcome of a six-year break (between 1918 and 1924) in Burrow’s psychoanalytic practice, during which he fully dedicated himself to the ‘laboratory method’, namely, group analysis, conducting clinical studies on the social character of human behaviour in group analytic settings (small and median groups). Much of the discredit imputed to Burrow resulted from his clinical practice during this period, which makes us think that, since the very beginning, group analytical practice was seen as a threat to the theoretical and technical purity pursued by psychoanalytical circles. Within this segment, and in the light of a new epistemology, Burrow revisits key psychoanalytic concepts like resistance and transference, in Psychoanalytic Improvisations and the Personal Equation (1925) and Psychoanalysis in Theory and in Life (1926). In Social Images Versus Reality (1924) he remarkably brings forth concepts like the social unconscious—long before Fromm and Elias, but not in the same way that Hopper and Weinberg (2011) are discussing nowadays—private and social images, mirroring processes, and still very intuitively points at the existence of transgenerational psychic transmission. His inaugural presentation of the social unconscious, in the 1920s, incites us to dive into its historical roots making use of interdisciplinary studies on that period of time as well as the almost forgotten Freudo–Marxist literature.
The third part of the book consists of six group analytic essays which, if examined under the historical development of group analysis work, is rather disturbing. Through his ‘laboratory method’, Burrow gained the clinical experience which enabled him to observe group formations features, which would only be recognized 20 years later. It is, therefore, very hard to tell which one is Burrow’s most interesting article, for all of them reveal a deep knowledge of group psychodynamics. Concepts like the social character of human nature, mirroring processes, countertransference, group transference and group resistances in their relation to the social unconscious highlight new intuitive ways of reflecting on the social unconscious. Moreover, it is amazing how reading between the author’s lines we are led into an archaeological approach of many key concepts. Furthermore, such findings indicate that group analysis began earlier than first assumed, signalling the irrefutable and perhaps traumatic fact that such developments have been kept silent and buried for years.
The publication of such accurate investigation, carefully edited by Earl Hopper, lifts Burrow, in the past regarded as a ‘forgotten pioneer’, in spite of being constantly recalled by Malcolm Pines and Juan Campos Avillar, to his real status in the history of both psychoanalysis and group analysis. Burrow’s works will henceforth become required reading in training institutions as well as in group analytical circles. The uneasiness derived from decades of censorship and oblivion must now be replaced by the deep interest that Burrow’s works awaken, eliminating the ‘here to stay attitudes of mind’ (p162) and moving us towards investigations that refer to the origins of group analysis, now into a dialogue not only with Foulkes and Elias, but also with Trigant Burrow.