Abstract
The correspondence between S.H. Foulkes and Wilfred Abse (1915–2005), a Welsh psychiatrist, group analyst and an old colleague of Foulkes in Northfield where they worked together for three months in 1944 (Harrison and Clarke, 1992: 700) is a fascinating read. Initiated by Abse who asked Foulkes for a comment on a forthcoming presentation of his, it is not only a hallmark of professional exchange and a deeply felt friendship, but also a remarkable account of the last period of Foulkes’ professional career as a group analyst. As such, it not only offers valuable insights into the origins of group analysis but also provides an overview of its theoretical and clinical advances at the beginning of the 1970s. Moreover, it allows a fleeting glimpse of the group analytic community in London at the time.
It is well known that in the 1960s, Foulkes published a collection of papers on the history of group analysis since its inception and later on (Foulkes, 1964). Regarding its origins he wrote: ‘In the mid-twenties, I came across one or two papers by Trigant Burrow which must have made a deep impression on me as they put the idea of group analysis as a form of treatment into my mind’ (Foulkes, 1984: 13) 1 . However, apart from Burrow, Foulkes emphasized that at the time, there were other influences in the air’ (Foulkes, 1984: 13) which had an impact on his thinking, namely a number of plays from the contemporary theatre; for instance Six Characters in Search of an Author by Pirandello, and Maxim Gorki’s play on The Lower Depths (Nacht-Asyl) (Foulkes, 1984: 13)’ which he remarked was ‘a play without a hero, a leaderless group on the stage driven by strong anonymous forces (ibid)’. It was this play that made him wonder ‘about the pathogenic and therapeutic power of the theatre and of everyday life’ (ibid.). Taking this into consideration, it is quite obvious that the group analytic project was not only one born out of science but also out of art—a perspective that with the exception of Wilfred Abse (1974) and Wolfgang Martin Roth (2014a, 2014b, 2023) has not been acknowledged as it should have. Due to this, the usual comparison between the musical conductor and the ‘group conductor’ (Foulkes, 1984: 54–55) needs to be supplemented in favour of a broader view.
In contrast to this, it needs to be recognized that the influence of the theatre is at least equally important if not dominant for the inception of group analysis than that of music. Although this was first pointed out by Wilfred Abse (1974), it was fully confirmed by Wolfgang Martin Roth, an Austrian group analyst. Building on his thorough research of published and unpublished material mostly from the archives of the Wellcome Library in London (cf. S.H. Foulkes, Folder PP/SHF/B36), Roth claims the ‘the birth of group-analysis from the spirit of theatre’ (Roth, 2014a). He finds strong evidence for this claim in the correspondence between Foulkes and Abse during the 1970s, particularly in an as yet unpublished letter of Foulkes from November 1970. Moreover, Roth also re-evaluated the influence of Trigant Burrow on Foulkes which for want of space I will not go into here in any detail.
In my comment, instead, I will focus on Foulkes’ unpublished letter to Abse. This letter is a curious mixture of freely associated revelations, clarifications and intuitions. Apart from revealing unknown autobiographical details, it also addresses a number of theoretical issues which Foulkes felt were ‘incompletely understood’ by his colleagues (Foulkes, 1970: 3). Thanking Abse for sending his ‘very interesting essay on the group analytic situation and his ‘explicit observations’ on Pirandello, Foulkes first acknowledges that the theatre had been ‘a stimulus to work in group analysis’ (Foulkes, 1970: 4). However, although he admits that throughout his professional life ‘I have a much more interesting and real theatre, drama, tragedy and comedy, going on’ (ibid.), he agrees with the view that in groups, the individual can be seen as a participant in a drama’ (Foulkes, 1990: 203; italics in original). Moreover, he confesses that once he even contemplated becoming ‘a producer or director as a profession’, an idea his father, who had retired after the First World War, did not support. Instead, he insists taking up ‘what he calls (in German) a Brotberuf a ‘bread and butter job’. Nonetheless, Foulkes also discloses that what ‘deterred him’ from becoming a theatre director was the necessity to become an actor first, a prospect which frightened him as he felt ‘completely inhibited’ to speak in public. However, he adds that there was a still ‘deeper reason’ for this, namely his becoming ‘familiar’ with the work of Freud (Foulkes, 1970: 4) which inspired him to become a psychoanalyst rather than a producer. Returning to the importance of the theatre once more, he emphasizes its practice rather than its theory. To explain this, he refers to the works of Anton Chekhov and Bertold Brecht (Foulkes, 1970: 5–6; cf, Foulkes, 1984: 287). Considering Chekhov, Foulkes fully concurs with his biographer’s emphasis on the principle of ‘indirect action’ (Magarshack, 1952; Foulkes, 1970: 5) which he said also applied to analytic groups in so far ‘a lot happens, but not much action takes place . . . in the group itself’, but outside of it, ‘in the patients’ own personal network’ (Foulkes, 1970: 5). For this he claimed to have found evidence not only in his own analytic practice, but also in Freud’s case histories; namely in the case of ‘Dora’ in which he found ‘clear evidence . . . that Freud without knowing its significance’ was ‘a member of a total network in connection with the patient’s (Foulkes, 1970: 5)’.
However, and although he did not refer to it in his letter, such a perspective was already implicit in the practice of ‘group supervision’ introduced by his training analyst, Helene Deutsch (cf. Rath, 2008). There is a further and crucial reference to the theatre and its influence on group analysis which is passed over in the letter to Abse. There are Foulkes’ group analytic reflections on Freud’s structural model of the mind (cf. Freud, 1923a). To justify his view of ‘the analytic group’ as ‘a model of Freud’s mental apparatus’, a model whose ‘dynamics are dramatized and personified’ in the group situation (Foulkes, 1984: 112; italics mine), Foulkes referred to the Sophoclean tragedies (1984: 112). Building on Friedmann and Gassel’s psychoanalytic observations of these tragedies (Friedmann and Gassel, 1950, 1951), he argued that in the group ‘a process analogous to this may be seen in the theatre’ (Foulkes, 1984: 112), ‘where the characters in a play not only speak as individuals but can express a conflict of feeling present in the audience as individuals and as a group’ (Foulkes and Anthony, 2014: 222; italics mine). Accordingly, they ‘not only represent themselves but stand proxy for the audience’ (Foulkes, 1984). Therefore, it is not by coincidence that Foulkes concurred with Jakob Moreno’s ‘insight into the dramatic situation’ and his use of ‘dramatic techniques’ in psycho- and socio-drama for psychotherapy (Foulkes and Anthony, 2014: 222); an approach already practised in Northfield (Foulkes, 1983: 115, 153).
But, perhaps the most important of the conceptual clarifications he made in his letter concerned the ‘proper use and comprehension of the word free association’ (Foulkes, 1970: 2), an issue that was particularly relevant to him. Emphasizing that what he ‘really’ meant by this, was an ‘association of ideas that occurs especially in groups’ (ibid; italics mine). Referring to his seminal idea of a ‘free floating discussion’ (Foulkes, 1983: 71, 86), Foulkes clarified that it is only due to this associative flow which allows claiming that ‘the group associates, responds and reacts as a whole’ (Foulkes, 1984: 118; italics mine). Building on this, he eventually conceptualized what he referred to as the ‘group equivalent’ (Foulkes and Anthony, 1984: 253) of Freud’s original conceptualization as ‘free association’ in psychoanalysis. In contrast to this concept he stated ‘our practice of a free association of ideas in the group’ (Foulkes, 1984: 159; italics mine) is to be understood as ‘a new principle of operation, the social equivalent of psychoanalytic free association’ (Foulkes, 1984: 299). This principle he insisted is very different from the original understanding as a ‘one-person concept on a brain physiological level’ (Foulkes, 1984: 291). Explaining this, he then referred to a conflict with an ‘old colleague’ of his who he wrote ‘expressed his doubts and scepticism towards ‘the idea of using the whole group’s communication as an equivalent of free association’ (Foulkes, 1970: 2). According to Foulkes, this critique was unfounded because this colleague (most probably Pat de Maré) had taken this understanding of Foulkes ‘too literally’ (Foulkes, 1970: 3), and thereby ‘seems to have overlooked’ the complexity of the group analytic concept of communication (ibid) (Foulkes, 1970: 3) 2 . Moreover, according to his advanced theory, group associations are but ‘quasi-associations to a common context’ (Foulkes and Anthony, 1984). Due to this, ‘we accept that ideas and comments expressed by different members have the value of unconscious interpretations’ (Foulkes and Anthony, 1984: 29; italics in original).
In the letter to Abse this view is echoed in his statement that ‘sometimes successive ideas have the significance of conscious or unconscious interpretations’ (Foulkes, 1970: 3). For the late Foulkes, this view relates to resonance, a concept he announced in his letter ‘I may talk at some other time’ (Foulkes, 1970: 3; cf. Foulkes, 1990: 214; 1990: 297–306)) 3 . However, on the last three pages of his letter, he went even further than this. Quoting at length from his (as yet) unpublished paper originally presented in Lisbon (cf. Foulkes, 1971) which Abse was presumably unaware of, he introduced an extension of the group matrix by differentiating between a ‘foundation matrix’ as a ‘pre-existing part of it’ (Foulkes, 1970: 10–11; cf. Foulkes, 1990: 212) and a ‘dynamic matrix’ (Foulkes, 1970: 11; cf. Foulkes, 1990: 213. Building on this, he spoke of the group as a ‘unified field’ connecting the historical past to the present (Foulkes, 1970: 11). In the context of this, Foulkes reminded the reader(s) of the decisive theoretical turn he had already taken in the 1960s (cf. Foulkes, 1984: 155) when he claimed the dominance of ‘socio-cultural inheritance’ over ‘biological inheritance’ (Foulkes, 1970: 11). Taking these advances into account, the contours of his disagreement with de Maré went far beyond the differences concerning the conceptualization of small and large(r) groups (cf. de Maré, 1975; Foulkes, 1975). Moving from theoretical to clinical issues, Foulkes in his letter also pointed out some aspects of group analytic technique which he felt were not properly appreciated by his colleagues. Regarding Bertold Brecht’s notion of an ‘epic theatre’ (Foulkes, 1984: 287) and his ‘alienation effect’ (Foulkes, 1970: 5–6; italics mine), he emphasized its relevance for analytic therapy as it ‘counteracts’ the ‘fatality of the action’ in classical, Aristotelian drama by ‘using technical means of letting the actors . . . step out of their roles’ (Foulkes, 1970: 6). Comparable to the patient in analytic therapy, the audience in the theatre may feel momentarily released from their ‘fatalism’ and thus become at least able to anticipate that ‘one can also step out of one’s determining factors and decide to react and act differently’ (ibid.) 4 . Clinically, this anticipation allows for a greater ‘freedom of choice’ and for ‘an increased feeling of personal responsibility’ (ibid.). Analytic understanding Foulkes cautioned ‘can go too far’ and may thus ‘contradict the effectiveness’ of therapeutic action and change (ibid). Due to this, ‘in the Brechtian sense, non-understanding could be a more salutary attitude’ (1970: 6; italics mine). Therefore, he suggested ‘to leave things unresolved, in mid-air incomplete (no closure)’ (Foulkes, 1984: 287). It is interesting to note that in these comments Foulkes once more returned to modern theatre as a source of inspiration for the practising analyst, individual and/ or group. Finally, in the last part of his letter to Abse he gave an example of what in his last book (Foulkes, 1975) referred to as the conductor’s receptiveness ‘to the current problems of his time’ (Foulkes, 1986: 157).
Commenting on a David Frost television programme, broadcasted on 7th November 1970, in which Frost interviewed Robert Ardrey, a US writer and anthropologist, together with Jerry Rubin, the leader of the Youth International Party—during the interview a group of 20 Yippy friends of Rubin entered the stage, and to Foulkes’ dismay ‘effectively’ exploded the situation by ‘shouting everybody else down’ (Foulkes, 1970: 8), accusing Frost of giving ‘an infantile performance’ (Times, 8th November, 1970)—Foulkes labelled their action as ‘immature’ as well as ‘extremely silly and inarticulate’ (Foulkes, 1970: 8) and thus ‘very impressive in a very negative sense’ (ibid.) as it only demonstrated ‘once again how powerful action can be’ (ibid.). However, for Foulkes it also illuminated ‘a few very basic points in our present world-situation as well as, inevitably, what concerns us in group analytic psychotherapy’ (Foulkes, 1970: 8), namely that ‘in the last resort a world of anarchy cannot prevail against the world of order’ (Foulkes, 1970: 9). Joining with Ardrey’s view that ‘those communities which do tolerate such a state of affairs have been eliminated’ (Foulkes, 1970: 9), he claimed ‘that it should not even be necessary in a very mature community to have competition, / at all/’ (ibid) provided that due to group analysis it is possible ‘to make the group aware, / that / the best order is when each is employed at the optimal level he can achieve’. This, he maintained applies to ‘each member’ of the group and also to ‘the whole community’ (and vice versa). Remaining sceptical in spite of the little hope involved in this, he concluded that ‘inevitably there seems to be a pessimistic perspective—either the democratic state can deal with this (but seems not to be able to), or not. ‘Personally’ he added ‘I can see ways how it could, or rather see a little hope as to how it could, but it will eventually be necessary to meet force by force, to meet anarchy and terror by force, which leads to fascism. For in the world as a whole we have strife, competition and in the last resort there is a life and death struggle, nuclear war’ (Foulkes, 1970: 9–10; italics mine). Bleak as it is, Foulkes’ outlook here is reminiscent of Beckett’s Endgame in which Clov asks Ham: ‘What is there to keep us here?’ To which Ham responds ‘The Dialogue’. This resonates well with the group analytic view of Foulkes that ‘the group process tends to go on interacting, communicating . . . until it has found each time a shareable key, or if you like a common coin by which these transactions become negotiable’ (Foulkes, 1970: 11; italics mine).
However, as we know such negotiating is not a given but may indeed fail. This is alluded to by Foulkes himself in the foreword he had written on Abse’s request to his forthcoming book (Abse, 1974). Ending it gloomily he wistfully remarked: ‘Perhaps geographical distance has made it easier for Wilfred Abse to express a more positive attitude to my work than is sometimes possible for those who are in more intimate personal contact’ (Foulkes in Abse 1974: xiv). Although we have not yet been able to elucidate the details of the conflict mentioned in his correspondence with Wilfred Abse, we may infer that his letter to him can be considered as summary of what Foulkes thought were the essentials of the group analytic approach at the time. As such it can be considered as a bottled message similar to the one encapsulated in his review of Goldstein’s book on ‘The Organism’ (Goldstein) dating from 1936 (Foulkes, 1936).
There is a strange ambiguity in Wolfgang’s well-founded assumption that group analysis was born out of theatre.
Wolfgang Martin Roth certainly has a point when he assumes that group analysis was born out of the theatre. However, there is a strange ambiguity in his phrasing as it is reminiscent of Nietzsche’s view of ‘tragedy as being born out of music’ (actually Wagner’s); a relationship which we know turned from mutual admiration to unrequited friendship. It is fascinating to see that in his letter to Abse Foulkes managed to convey both aspects: His passion for the theatre and his quest for friendship.