Let Us Talk Peace — Peace Groups

Introduction

In his famous incompleteness theorems, Gödel proves that for any axiomatic system:

Gödel’s theorems provide a logical basis that justifies mediating one theoretical system by applying another theoretical system. We wish to claim that within any peace-promoting dialogue group some things exist that cannot be solved using the group’s theorems; and this inconsistency cannot be solved based on the group’s axioms, but only by borrowing theorems from another theory. Psychoanalysis (as well as other systems of thinking and interpretation) can therefore suggest solutions to the dialogue groups, and vice versa—the dialogue groups’ theorems may promote solutions that analytic theory cannot provide.

As we see it, the creation of true peaceful relations between nations necessitates a dialogue characterized by emotional availability—an axiom, with its accompanying theorems, that is absent from many dialogue groups. In the following article we wish to examine this thesis with regard to theories of emotional availability and the ability to be with another in a state of conflict. We will then present guidelines for the group psychoanalyst’s presence and interventions when working with such groups.

Emotional Availability and Its Development

Emotional availability refers to an individual’s capability to know and express his or her inner emotional world honestly and authentically. Inspired by Mahler, Pine and Bergman (1975), it was elaborated by Emde (1990; 1988), and further developed by Biringen and Robinson (1991). A person low in emotional availability may be fully or partially unconscious of his feelings and inner conflicts; but either way, as he is unable to describe and share this inner reality with others, and he is doomed to isolation from other people. This ensuing loneliness is the result of difficulties experienced with emotional resonance, which forms the basis for empathetic communication (Yogev, 2012). Thus, even though emotional availability is not a necessary prerequisite for the acceptance of another’s inner world, it is a necessary condition for the creation of true dialogue and familiarity. That is why emotional availability forms an indispensable prerequisite for the formation of profound, mutual relationships.

Emotional availability develops in the first years of life as a derivative of infant–parent attachment relationship (Bretherton, 2000). Optimal development will take place when the infant–parent relationship is characterized by secure attachment, positive emotional tone and emotional availability of the parent, who sensitively cares for the infant’s various needs. The parent’s emotional availability is expressed through:

Parental sensitivity—refers to the parent’s awareness of and reaction to the child, to creativity shown during play, to the quality of conflict management by the parent, and to the overall emotional tone of infant–parent relationship. In the sphere of analytic groups parental sensitivity can have a twofold manifest, both in the sensitivity shown by the group psychoanalyst towards the group, and in the sensitivity shown by the majority sub-group towards minority sub-groups ¹ .

Parental structuring—refers to the parent’s ability to structure the interactions with the infant in a way that engages the child in sustained interactions.

Parental non-intrusiveness—refers to the parent’s ability to be caring and available without intruding upon the child’s autonomy.

Parental non-hostility—refers to parental verbal and behavioural patterns that are not abrasive, antagonistic or that show impatience towards the child.

Exploration and reaction—refers to parental ability to emotionally and verbally explore and react to the child in ways consistent with the child’s age and with the situation.

Emotional Availability in Analytic Group Settings

From the principles characterizing optimal parental care described above we can deduce which work principles should guide the group analyst when striving to advance the development of emotional availability in the group. We believe that the five work principles for the promotion of emotional availability in groups (regardless of participants’ age, culture etc.) are: parental sensitivity/majority sensitivity; interaction structuring; non-intrusiveness; non-hostility; exploration and reaction. We suggest these work principles based on the belief that the analytic space invites and enables personal development; and that positive therapeutic experience based on those optimal characteristics of the infant–parent relationship can compensate for difficulties and deprivations experienced in infantile relationships, and so expand and deepen the emotional availability of the participants and of the group as a whole. In our conception of the group as a whole we follow in Foulkes footsteps, seeing the group as a: ‘ . . . living organism, (as) distinct from the individuals composing it. It has moods and reactions, a climate, an atmosphere . . .’ (Foulkes, 1948: 140). It should thus be clear that promoting the emotional availability of individual participants is not, and indeed cannot, be achieved without promoting the emotional availability of the group as a whole; rather, both group and individuals develop together, intractably.

The group analyst’s sensitivity will be expressed through her awareness of the group, her sensitivity to the group’s reactions and needs, her empathetic and attentive conflict management, and her openness and creativity in facilitating the group. Another parameter of the analyst’s sensitivity will be evident in her emotional tone: in the same way that a parent’s positive, emotional tone prompts the child to playfully explore his environment (Hornik, Rissenhoover and Gunnar, 1987), so the analyst’s positive emotional tone will prompt the analytic group participants to communicate, explore and experience their inner and exterior realities (Yogev, 2012).

The analyst’s interaction structuring will be seen in how the analyst structures his interventions in the group; this should be done in a way that involves the participants of the groups in interactions both with the analyst and with each other. When witnessing parent-infant interactions we can see a ‘dance’ of closeness and retreat, separation and individuation, effected by the developmental stage of the infant and by the emotional tone of her relationship with the parent: parent and infant must learn to deal with the losses of rapprochement. In the analytic group we can also witness how participants alternate between closeness and separation from the analyst, in accordance with the group’s and their own developmental stage, in addition to the sensitivity of the analyst’s reflections. The paradox surrounding approach–withdrawal interactions between parent and child and between analyst and patient is one of the main foundations of the ability to be with another in a state of conflict, which we shall discuss later in this article.

The analyst’s non-intrusiveness will be expressed both towards the group as a whole and towards every participant individually. With regard to the group as a whole, non-intrusiveness is expressed in intervening with the group’s interaction only when the intervention might promote the group. With regard to individual participants, non-intrusiveness is expressed by interventions that are guided by respect for the participants’ feelings and autonomy, and that are therefore questioning and explorative in nature, as opposed to offering decisive interpretations of their inner world. This is because exploring and explaining their inner world is the prerogative of each participant, while the analyst is there only to offer assistance, should they so choose; this is the mirror reaction. Foulkes (1948; 1957) viewed the ‘mirror reaction’ as a central group-specific therapeutic factor. Also, a participant that experiences the analyst’s intervention as intrusive or disrespectful may reflect that feeling to the analyst as is done at group analysis.

The analyst’s non-hostility will be expressed in keeping her own interventions, as well as group discussions, patient and respectful—especially when there are conflicts in the group.

Exploration and reaction in the analytic group refers to emotions and the inner world; that is, the exploration is done in order to obtain personal insight, as well as insights about other participants, through questions, reflections, resonance and empathetic reactions. This shared exploration can be done by every member of the group, since the respective roles of parent and child are dynamic within the group setting (Yogev, 2006); the only exception to this rule is the group analyst, who will always be the ‘parent’ and never the ‘child’.

Applying these principles in the group will enable the creation of a safe, sensitive space for exploration and emotional experimenting within the group, both inter and intra-personally; and will therefore promote the participants’ emotional availability.

Observing parent–infant interactions lends much to our understanding of work principles in personal and group therapy. In the same spirit, observing the development of emotional availability in infants and children teaches us about the developmental stages of emotional availability in the analytic group. Three developmental stages of emotional availability are evident in infants:

1. Self-regulation (Nava, 2007), resonance (Foulkes, 1977: 77), and emotional attunement (Feinman and Lewis, 1983). These abilities, developed in accordance with parental containment, form a part of the ‘secure base’ in the parent–infant relationship. When successfully developed, they create in the infant a sense of security and capability when exploring his inner world; their development is therefore a prerequisite for the establishment of a proper sense of self in the infant, without which one cannot form relationships with other people.

2. Deepening the communication with the other: In this stage the infant learns to communicate his inner world, while adapting the complexity of such communications to the parent’s level of emotional availability. When the parent is emotionally available the infant can express the full complexity of his self; but if the infant has learned that the parent’s level of emotional availability does not allow her to cope with such complexity he will construct a shallower, simpler expressed self. Should this happen, communication will remain superficial and will lead to feelings of dissatisfaction and loneliness.

3. The ability to be with another in a state of conflict. This third and final stage is especially complex, since it refers to the child’s ability to truly be with another when he and the other person are conflicted. In order to achieve this the child needs to be simultaneously emotionally available to himself and to the other person—a state that can be achieved only when the child can cope with both sides’ complexity, to simultaneously hold diverse and even opposing points of view, without seeing one as inertly superior or truer than the other. The ability to be with another in this holistic, complex way saves us from loneliness and gives birth to the ability to love and to be loved. It is a dialogue between sameness and otherness, based on the understanding that both sameness and otherness are respected and welcome elements, crucial for love and creativity (Benjamin, 1991; 1988; Berman, 2010; Bersani and Philips, 2008; Kohut, 1984; 1971; Mitchell, 1992; Ogden, 1986).

Various factors can contribute to the ability to be with another in a state of conflict. Central among those variables is the existence of a common goal: a shared goal unites us with others and encourages us to see the good in them—since those who share common interests with me cannot be viewed altogether negatively.

Psychoanalytic theory is fascinated with the parent–infant dyad, but in effect, since the moment of birth, the infant is exposed to diverse types of group interaction: these can refer to two-sided interactions between different kinds of objects—since a group can also be experienced as single subject (Yogev, 2006). We can therefore view the group as a mental state, encompassing multiple kinds of dyadic interactions: between two single objects (i.e. two family members), one of whom is experienced as a subject; or between one object and a group of objects who are experienced as a single subject (i.e. the sibling group).

The analytic group constitutes a social microcosm. In it we can see (on a smaller scale) events that illustrate processes and dynamics taking place in society at large, including inter-personal conflicts that stem from different ethnical, political or religious backgrounds. This happens naturally, since the group participants represent (albeit to varying degrees) the attitudes, beliefs, fears, aspirations and memories of the community from which they came (Kelman, 1997). In any given group, the ability of the participants to communicate and co-exist can illuminate the way for individuals and groups to co-exist in the external world. In the course of the group’s life we can observe the three stages of emotional availability expressed, either in the discourse among the group participants themselves or in the discourse between them and the group analyst.

How Can the Group Analyst Promote Emotional Availability in the Group?

Enhancement of emotional regulation, resonance and emotional attunement: One technique is encouraging the group to offer free associations relating to the subject being discussed. The contents of these preliminary associations are related to the self as well as to the here and now, but are mostly kept hidden by the subject. As the participants listen and respond to one another more associations arise; these associations express their inner world and may be expressed as resonance through gestures or words.

Deepening communication with the other: The next developmental stage will begin with the analyst or one of the group participants reflecting to another their own subjective impression. Such a reflection always refers to the here and now and is related to past associations: it shows how past experience is reflected in the group’s here and now. This type of communication, characterized by the attempt to explore what happened before the resonance, goes deeper than the preliminary ‘association game’. This exploration generates an emotional reaction, followed by a deeper-still communication, allowing the other to bring her inner world, including conflicts and childhood memories, in a more complex manner yet in a way that allows others to learn about it. For this process to succeed the expressed complexity of the inner world must match the emotional availability of the group as a whole; this will not necessarily be the case, as we often see in the analytic group shallow discourse that does not allow complexities. Such shallow discourse is characterized by labelling, and more generally by a tendency to view individuals and events categorically and dichotomously, especially when conflicts arise in the group. When recognizing such shallow discourse the group analyst must aspire to deepen it, creating a discourse that accepts the complexities of the psychic realities in the group. This discourse will set the basis for the highest level of emotional availability: the ability to be with another in a state of conflict.

The ability to be with another in a state of conflict: Once the analytic group becomes capable of deeper emotional exploration (both individual and mutual) we can start touching upon conflicts—not only the inner conflicts of the participants, but conflicts between participants in the here and now.

One of the prerequisites to the ability to be with another in a state of conflict is the ability to read the other’s unconscious, feeling the emotions hiding underneath the words and gestures we display. The wish to become known through and through is always present in our lives; but we learn to keep this need restrained. Learning and accepting the fact that others will not always be emotionally available stimulates the analyst to continuously strive to develop the group’s emotional availability. When (and, indeed, if) the group arrives at that stage we will witness a discourse characterized by the freedom to experience and explore emotions and thoughts through free associations, playfully and without the super-ego interfering. The emotional tone at this stage will be one of complete love: the ability to fully see the other and let him see me, without fear of judgment, guilt, or shame.

The emotional pattern of the ability-to-be-with can be nurtured by the analyst’s non-judgmental curiosity about the unconscious contents, processes, thoughts and behaviours of the group participants. This curiosity, wondering about a participant without forcing some interpretation, association, or emotional stand regarding said participant, is experienced as non-threatening and non-intrusive; thus it enables the participant to walk through the ‘door’ the analyst has opened for her and try to explore that which is hidden behind it (Ehrenberg, 1996). In other words, the group may experience interpretations as threatening and intrusive; the analyst avoids that by encouraging mutual exploration and offering a space for growth and a model for co-existence. This stance of emotional availability is manifested in the analytic relationship. We must not forget, though, that psychoanalysis is not reality, but an illusion of reality (Yogev, 2008); whereas in peace groups our main concern is reality, not illusion.

Upon arriving at the third stage—the ability to be with another in a state of conflict—participants in the analytic group become aware of the conflicts and contradictions surrounding their everyday life; for example, when they experience conflicting needs or forbidden emotions that they cannot express to themselves or in their meaningful relationships. The unawareness allows the participants to go on maintaining these relationships, while denying the existence of those conflicts and sometimes even banishing them from conscious thought altogether; so that only parts of the personality are present in the interpersonal and intra-personal dialogue, while other parts remain unspoken. Maintaining relationships can be easier this way, but such relationships are partial at best; it is no wonder that the group participants experience loneliness in these relationships, despite the physical proximity to another.

We thus conclude that in order to create a true intersubjective experience, a person must develop the ability to be with another in a state of conflict. In the adult psyche the three stages of emotional availability will be manifested as emotional–behavioural patterns indicating different degrees of the ability to be with another. To achieve loving, intimate relations with others, the most frequent emotional pattern of the adult psyche will need to be the one corresponding to the third and final stage of development: that is, she will need to communicate her inner world to others and be available and receptive to their inner worlds—even when she is in a state of conflict with those others. In a similar vein, for the analytic group to enable love, intimacy and growth, group participants as individuals and the group as a whole will need to achieve a level of emotional availability enabling them to be with another in a state of conflict. We will now turn to peace groups and the role, which the group analyst ought to play in them.

Dialogue Groups and Their Role in Peace Processes

Studies dealing with prolonged, intractable conflicts between states or between religious/ethnic groups teach us that the processes of settling such conflicts and reaching reconciliation are inevitably long, extremely complicated and prone to setbacks. Such processes involve profound emotional elements as well as systematic cognitive biases that cause the adversaries to strongly cling to their respective worldviews while rejecting the other’s (Bar-Tal and Halperin, 2011; Halperin, Bar-Tal, Nets-Zehngut and Drori, 2008). Therefore, in order to achieve true reconciliation in intractable conflicts—that is, not only formal peace accords between governments but true mutual understanding and acceptance between people on opposing sides—a deep cultural and psychological change must take place. We believe that expanding the adversaries’ emotional availability and their ability to be with another in a state of conflict is a necessary component of the required psychological change for true reconciliation to take place.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict often serves as a case study for intractable conflicts: it is a violent conflict, lasting for over a hundred years, centred on issues both sides perceive as crucial for their very existence. Even so, many groups and initiatives aimed at promoting reconciliation and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians have taken place throughout the generations of conflict, and continue to this day. The scope of this article does not allow a comprehensive description of the many activities in this arena, but they can be roughly divided into two categories.

The first category contains groups and organizations that were first and foremost established to promote dialogue concerning the conflict, its causes, and ways to bring about its solution, between Israeli Jews and Palestinians (that can either be Israeli citizens or not). These initiatives’ primary goal is to establish a life of peace and coexistence between the Jewish people and the Palestinian people. For example ² , we can see organizations such as Peace Now, Oasis of Peace, The Parents Circle-Family Forum, etc.

Alongside groups and associations that primarily deal with promoting dialogue in the hope of promoting peace, there exists a wide range of groups and organizations uniting Jewish–Israelis and Palestinians who work together to achieve an extremely wide range of goals. Although these common goals are always related to the conflict, promoting dialogue about the conflict is not part of the core identity of these groups; for they believe in promoting other goals, sometimes in the hope that these external goals will, in some way, help to achieve peace, and sometimes with the view that these goals are important in their own right. Such, for example, is the Peres Centre for Peace, Breaking The Impasse, Anarchists Against the Wall, etc.

The five work principles of emotional availability—parental (majority) sensitivity, parental structuring, non-intrusiveness, non-hostility, exploration and reaction—apply to all groups, yet every group is different and so the five principles will be differently emphasized. The group analyst will need to apply those principles that are not well developed in the group, and so to bring about a more open dialogue among the participants; hopefully, this will create relationships in the group that will enable participants from both sides of the conflict to recognize that they have much in common. The binary division of the group—‘us’ versus ‘them’—will collapse, to be replaced by a complex group of ‘me’ and ‘we’. This new group will encompass all its participants, who, after all, share many of the same interests and problems: water, energy, air pollution, transportation problems, encouraging tourism, encouraging scientific development, and so on and so forth. In this new state of dialogue the conflict may be overcome by common interests to create a new, more peaceful, ‘we’.

Let us consider two of the exemplary groups described above—Breaking The Impasse (BTI) and The Parents Circle—Family Forum. We can assume that the business people involved in BTI will be skilled in structuring interactions; moreover, they will have minor problems in identifying the common goal bringing them together. They will, however, probably need a better understanding of hierarchical relationships such as strong–weak, wealthy–poor, etc., so they can act out of sensitivity towards the needs of others in their promotion of peace. This group, therefore, will need a modelling for majority sensitivity. The Parents Circle—Family Forum, which is composed of bereaved families, will be sensitive in the extreme to each other’s personal loss and grief; they will probably identify with each other’s pain and bereavement. Indeed, their identification may be so strong that they will be prone to experience intrusiveness—since everyone is different, everyone experiences their bereavement differently, and no sweeping generalizations should be made about this emotional experience and its impact. This group, then, may be in need of modelling of non-intrusiveness as well as exploration and reaction, as they search for this common ‘we’ that will allow them to peacefully coexist.

Concluding Remarks

While finishing the article, we could not help but think of Bruno Latour’s Actor Network Theory, in which Latour analyses the relationships between human and non-human actors. The theory describes a world that is comprised of assemblages of human and non-human actors, sharing interactions of mutual influence. Thus the theory provides ample ground for the analysis of relationships between people and their environment, and observes the ways in which non-human objects play a definitive role in shaping social relationships. Following the Actor Network theory, it can be claimed that in states of conflict and war there exists a hybridization between people and territory, alongside of intergroup purification. The equation of territory and people establishes and shapes the identity of social networks. These two variables—people and territory—are asymmetrical: while the first is perceived to be shaped by men, the second is perceived as a given, natural entity. This asymmetry resembles the one between culture and nature (Latour, 1987; 2005): while culture is perceived as man-made, nature is perceived as a given entity.

Our claim is that emotions exist in every aspect of conflict and play a central role in the outbreak of war: using Latour’s theoretical work, we can say that when emotional availability is present as an actor within the network, it enables us with hybridization and translation of other actors in the network, both human and non-human. Different peace-promoting groups may include different actors: an academic group of scientists involves science as a non-human actor, a business group includes business and finance as actors, etc. All such peace-promoting groups represent and create new social networks, which are no longer founded on the traditional axioms and categorizations underlying the conflict. However, even within these peace-wishing groups difficulties and conflicts may arise out of the inability to truly understand another’s pain and point of view, and the lack of relevant theorems to solve such problems.

Clearly then, the group analyst can fulfil an important role in peace and dialogue groups, and so in the promotion of peace and coexistence between conflicted social groups. We believe that a critical mass of such groups and initiatives may expand the boundaries of the social group people perceive as ‘we’ to include a greater variety of people in it, and so help us overcome the simplistic divisions of Jewish/Israeli versus Muslim/Palestinian. In changing this perception, we can significantly promote the creation of true peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, and so start to hope for a future where relations between the nations will be based on understanding, coexistence and cooperation, rather than hostility, rejection and violence.