Daniel Anderson. Group Analysis. Volume 49, Issue 3. July 2016.
Introduction
Group analysis as a discourse of knowledge has much to offer how we construct homosexuality within society particularly given its roots within psychoanalysis, politics, education, sociology and critical theory. Yet despite this rich background, group analysis has been slow to construct a clear theory of psychosexuality, and specifically homosexuality. Even the basic experiences of being gay in a therapeutic group, or of conducting a group as a gay analyst, have only been described briefly if at all.
Recent developments within Lacanian theory as applied to group analysis (Burman, 2012; Nitzgen, 2009), social theory via the group analyst Erica Burman (Burman, 2005a; 2005b; 2009) and contemporary work within classical group analysis via Morris Nitsun (Nitsun, 2006), have started to examine the field of gender and sexuality in groups, but the work is still in its infancy. Further work to find common ground between these theoretical schools is required, which might allow for novel theoretical approaches to understanding homosexuality within group analytic psychotherapy. This may also create new interpretations of Lacanian theory as applied to groups within such concepts as the Other, and a move towards postmodern group analysis as seen initially in Foulkes’ more radical work as described by Farhad Dalal (Dalal, 1998).
An exploration of homosexuality within the frames of desire, sexuality, gender and the Other could provide new understandings of groups and their analysis. Within the context of queer theory, this could likewise be part of a paradigm shift in the approach to the sexualities and gender in group analysis. The aim of this article therefore is to consolidate and expand current conceptions of sexuality in group analysis through an exploration of homosexuality.
Group Analysis and Sexuality
Weegmannn (2007) comments on the curious silence around homosexuality within group analysis. He wonders if group analysis feels it does not require a particular view of homosexuality but he cautions about the silence being over determined. He wonders if there is a risk of indifference or an attempt to hide hostility ‘behind defensive liberalism’ (2007: 68). Weegmann suggests four areas where group analysis can actively contribute to an understanding of homosexuality. Firstly, he wonders how we might understand the character of the homosexual in relation to dominant discourse paradigms. Secondly he wonders if group analysis can contribute to the development of new psychodevelopmental models, which rely less on the centrality of the norm. Thirdly he questions how norms are defined at all and that group analysis is well positioned to debate such issues. Finally, he also believes that group analysis can have much to say on the issue of homophobia.
Burman (2007) offers a commentary on Weegmann’s article. She questions the use of the term hostility in that it might suggest overt conscious neglect or a failure to interrogate. She suggests that indifference offers something closer to contempt and a wilful ignorance of the issue. However Burman suggests that indifference may function as a denial of difference in that there is a ‘refusal to interrogate a presumed superiority of position or of knowledge’ (Burman, 2007: 77). Burman also suggests that homophobia needs to be thought about in conjunction to heterosexism and heteronormativity. Finally, she suggests that the category ‘homosexual’ cannot be thought about solely on this one axis but also has to include gender, culture and class.
In an earlier article Burman (2002) offers an extensive analysis of gender, power and sexuality. She uses the category of the ‘homosexual’ to elaborate the idea of this being a device through which all sexual social behaviour is regulated. She links this to Foucault’s genealogical explorations, which highlight ‘how norms rely for their construction on their differentiation from the very pathologies they name’ (2002: 542). Burman (2002) further highlights how, within group analysis, there are few articles addressing sexuality in groups. However, she does highlight that sexuality appears in many accounts of groups in terms of sexual transference and homoerotic relationships and also desires within a pathological frame of morality.
Finally Burman (2002) suggests that discussing sexuality within psychoanalysis and group analysis remains problematic as the dominant paradigm is to pathologize such representations. For example, sexualized homosexual transferences can be thought of as being something pre-oedipal in that they may be a defence against early trauma and longings for an unavailable mother rather than genital, oedipal transference perhaps understood at a sibling or peer level. By doing this, homosexuality gets pushed down the developmental scale as being something akin to an arrest or deficit. Such thinking then seeps into the analyst’s understanding of how sexuality might be represented in the consulting room through interventions that might be focussed at an earlier apparently pathological level.
Nitsun (2006) questions the extent to which it is possible to talk openly about sexuality in a group given the social restraints around such discussions. He questions the usefulness of an open sexual discourse of the group and individual. Nitsun (2006) separates the idea of sex in itself from identity and the move to identification created around sexuality. He wonders about whether the group could be seen as an object of desire in the sense of being in a challenging and enlivening space that can create meaning and challenge acceptable and unacceptable positions. He describes the phobia of sexuality being discussed in groups particularly given recent sexual misconduct cases by psychotherapists. However he also suggests that the continuing anxiety about sexuality is reinforced by the lack of any theoretical framework to consider it in a group but acknowledges that group analysis has a unique standpoint in terms of the critical psychologies in that it places at the centre of its theory social, cultural and political discourses in addition to individual psychology.
Nitsun (2006) proposes three aspects of the sexual self. He proposes an individual sexual self, which is essentially internal and based on fantasy and would include autoerotic sexuality. He goes on to propose a relational sexual self, which is a process of coupling. Finally he also proposes a social sexual self, which includes expression of sexual identity orientation role within groups, family and community. However he does propose that all three selves are profoundly social at their core. He links these three sexual selves into a developmental pathway moving from the mother–infant relationship through to triangular relationships understood within the Oedipus complex and then into a social model through peer relationships.
However within Nitsun’s idea of social necessary restraints is the concept of power within discourse and who then has ownership of dominant social values. There is a potential for splits to be created between sexual desires that are socially permitted, and those that are not and remain private. This situation becomes akin to Foulkes’ basic law of group dynamics in that the group becomes the norm from which deviation is measured (Foulkes, 1975). This is perhaps a somewhat pessimistic view however of what a group can create. A group can challenge traditional social values and can expand itself into other areas and redefine what is acceptable and what is permitted. This does beg the questions of just how far can such orthodoxies be challenged, and what would be the limit?
The question of just how far can a group go to challenge orthodoxies is an interesting one in that it brings into question our demand or perhaps desire for the Other to be present socially. This links into an idea of the group as witness where verbal intimacy grows within the context of social observation. Various aspects to grow, such as support and empathy but also guilt and shame, can be explored. Just how sexually liberated are we prepared to become and what is really necessary or wanted? What gets sexualized and what gets eroticized? What happens to intimacy when there is no touching?
The Location of Desire and Sexuality in Groups
Nitzgen (2009) takes Foulkes’ article from 1972 on the ‘Oedipus conflict and regression’, as well as work by Pat de Maré, to argue that psycho-sexuality cannot be localized within the body but is considered to be within the group. He then links this to Lacanian concepts of desire and jouissance. He argues that the Freudian theory of the Oedipal conflict being located in biology is refuted by Foulkes. Foulkes describes the Oedipal conflict within the whole family and as such moves it from an intrapsychic situation to an interpersonal one in that he argues for cultural inheritance being transmitted socially.
Nitzgen (2009) argues that Foulkes’ focus was on the interactive foundations of sexuality whereas de Maré’s focus was on its symbolic nature. By this he is referring to the passage from biological instinct to verbalized sexual desire. Nitzgen (2009) writes that de Maré describes the human psyche as being governed by pleasure and reality principles in addition to the principle of meaning. Meaning is generated through verbalized desire in the form of language. Desire becomes registered in language and as such becomes a social phenomenon. To conclude this thinking, psycho-sexuality becomes something learned through the acquisition of symbol. The idea that psycho-sexuality is rooted within social experience brings up interesting questions about how desire is understood within a group.
Lacan describes desire as being the desire of the Other (Evans, 2005). Another way to describe this is the desire to be desired by another. It operates on a verbal level through the signifier and is insatiable in that once the object is acquired the desire inevitably continues. Lacan describes desire as being neither an appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for love, but is the difference between the two (Evans, 2005). For him the object of desire is always a lost object, which cannot be regained. It is not just lost but also impossible and forbidden and is why the birth of the desire is so deeply rooted within infantile sexuality, castration and paternal law (Evans, 2005).
Desire can only be recognized through the presence of the Other, which for Lacan is the ultimate aim of the analytic process in that the subject needs to be able to name his or her desire (Raphael-Leff, 2010). Lacan also introduced the concept of jouissance, which he describes as a prohibition against going beyond a certain limit. He conceives of it as going beyond a certain limit within pleasure. It is the idea that pleasure becomes so pleasurable that it hurts and causes pain. For Lacan jouissance was the path towards destruction and death. While pleasure might result in a reduction in tension, jouissance leads to an increase in it, which is experienced as a bodily tension (Nitzgen, 2009).
Nitzgen (2009) proposes a number of similarities between Lacanian concepts and group analytic concepts. He links the idea of infantile sexuality in interaction as being similar to the Lacanian understanding of desire taking place between persons. He further links the group analytic idea of levels of communication within the group, distinguishing between Oedipal transference reactions from projective level communications and bodily level communications, with desire at the Oedipal level and jouissance at the bodily level. Finally, Nitzgen links the idea of the group matrix as being an ever-growing network for communication, with ideas around communication, dialogue and interpretation. He proposes that groups concern themselves with the regulation of jouissance and the verbalization of desire. Jouissance in groups is managed through the concept of dynamic administration, providing boundaries and limits at which behaviour and interpretation can be considered, and beyond which brings on destructive anti-group phenomena.
The Group as a ‘Queering’ Experience
The philosopher Michel Foucault (1978) has explored how some experiences such as ‘madness’ or sexuality have become objects of particular institutional forms of knowledge such as psychiatric or medical. He has examined cultural and historical discourses of these terms to create an understanding of how particular identities such as being mad or being homosexual have been now attached to individuals as identities instead of remaining as particular behaviours. These individuals are then seen as objects for examination in their own right and can thus then be subjected to control and subjugation.
Discourse is seen as a set of rules for the creation of knowledge, which is perceived through statements about this knowledge and in effect creates the subject (Foucault, 1978). Of course what we wish to attach to the statements can vary enormously and widely so that in essence anything that is assigned to the subject could be reassigned elsewhere. This has enormous implications when we consider subjects such as the ‘mad’ patient or being homo- or heterosexual. Whatever the definition however, what remains important is that a degree of power is created and also therefore creates a degree of resistance to the power (the so-called reverse discourse).
Queer theorists offer the opportunity to examine desire from multiple perspectives (Watson, 2009). Queer theory has grown from a background of critical theory and post-structuralism, and attempts to take on an anti-identity stance. It has taken on the cultural and historical roots of sexuality. Queer theory challenges apparently stable words such as gay, homosexual and heterosexual. It shows these words to be essentially unstable. Queer theory questions why some differences seem to matter more than others and questions naturalised accounts of being human and identity.
Queer theorists have recognized that people do not fit neatly into particular sexualized or gendered categories and identities. Queer theorists have taken on these themes to engage in various deconstructive and interdisciplinary pieces of work (Watson, 2005a). There is a rejection of any sexual identity being singular or fixed. This has been expanded into any activity that goes against the grain such as a piece of literature being read in a queer way i.e. anti-normal and anti-discursive. Indeed queer theory has gone in multiple different directions including an anti-normal stance through to activism of gay and lesbian subjects through to sexuality not being real and therefore does not exist and as such cannot be studied.
The feminist Judith Butler (1990) has examined the idea of resistance to power and discourse by calling to action attempts to parody heterosexual norms in the form of drag. She is also credited with creating competing discourses by exposing the falsity of the idea that an original homosexuality or an original heterosexuality truly exists. Queer theory is closely linked to the idea of activism through the transgression of heterosexual norms. Such activities include breaking taboos and other anti-normal behaviours, which were seen as transformative and to be celebrated. One such activity was around displaying same-sex physical affection in public spaces, which even now may cause a response by those observing. However Butler was concerned about these transgressive strategies created by activists. She was concerned that picking and choosing aspects of gender and sexuality might be seen as being similar to picking and choosing what to wear that day from the wardrobe.
Likewise, Muriel Dimen (2003) has explored ambiguity in gender and the role of desire. She too has called for a shift from dualism to multiplicity and also called for a return to Freud by examining notions of sexuality in more fluid terms. She has questioned the limits of Darwinian theory specifically with regard to how homosexuality can be understood. These are radically different positions from where psychoanalysis sat within the 20th-century in their attempts to move homosexuality from a disturbance of normal psychosexual development to it being accepted and celebrated within the broadest sense of discourse.
Storck (2005) asks questions around how queer theory can be applied in group analysis. She does not doubt its value but asks questions around its applicability. She discusses dominant discourses and criticizes their lack of inclusivity and potential corruption. She discusses established institutionalized powers, which can be blind to certain voices that might speak with ‘elitist, racist, sexist, and ageist overtones’ (Storck, 2005: 88) within group analysis. She sees one of the values of the theory being the challenge to a discourse of deviant sexualities and the pathologizing of them. She questions versions of the truth, which psychoanalysis and psychiatry have traditionally spoken of with authority.
Bacha (2005) comments about individuals losing a sense of self and how that can be eroded in a group process through a deconstructive process that can become harmful. Watson (2005b) picks up on Bacha’s comments about the group being a place where the norm is created. If we are to assume a non-norm policy, then how do we create a space for thoughts and feelings to deviate from the norm and how do we also attend to inclusivity? Watson (2005b) suggests that the task would be to develop ideas around how such a space can actually be created where the norm has disappeared. Perhaps this is the task for the whole group in that the norm for the group needs collectively deconstructing, or at least made contestable? It may be too easy or tempting to locate this within the one apparently non-normal individual in the group, which is perhaps where the destructive and damaging aspects that Bacha (2005) refers to might occur.
Clinical Material
I offer the following material as a brief example of some of the issues that can be raised. I am mindful that this does not represent all the issues that a gay man may bring, nor will all of these issues be present in this way. Likewise I am also very mindful of the experience of being a gay woman in a group, which brings in differing topics and experiences. As in all groups the task is to work with what is there for that individual group.
Example
In this session a gay man, who recently joined the group, ‘comes out’. There is surprise at this as no one had thought he was gay. One heterosexual man feels stupid for not knowing. The gay man however had also thought this man was gay. A discussion occurs about who is coming out to whom? Is this just the task of the homosexual member? What is assumed of each other?
The gay man reflects that he feels he has revealed his sexuality very quickly but he thought this is what the group would want him to do. He feels uncomfortable now talking about being gay as usually people expect him to talk about certain topics such as fashion or music, and he wants this to be different to the usual ‘gay act’ he puts on. He reveals he does not believe in gay marriage and does not believe that gay sex is right as he feels it disgusts him, and marriage is for straight people only as it is a heterosexual institution imposed on gay people to control them. He resents having to fit into what society determines is normal. He believes they must also agree with him deep down.
A woman challenges this and notes his multiple assumptions of them, and also his own homophobia. He seems startled by this as no one has ever said this to him before but he can appreciate where she is coming from after an initial flash of anger and accusation of her homophobia. He feels he never knows what is acceptable to discuss in the group. He reveals that he has had many sexual partners but finds the experiences leave him feeling lonely and empty yet he goes back for more. He talks about masturbating to porn and then subsequently feels guilty as if he had been doing something wrong. He speaks about being hurt in relationships and finding it hard to trust other men as they cheat on him. He reminisces about when he lived in Manchester and had a boyfriend there who had HIV, which both scared and fascinated him.
The group does not respond immediately and seems silenced by the material. Instead they discuss their own individual experiences of being in Manchester. Some like the city and its energy but others find it too much and too busy. I suggest that perhaps the group feels similar, and they do not feel they know what to do with the material. I note the lack of curiosity of certain parts and that they perhaps feel it is difficult to explore. The group struggles to use this interpretation but they do acknowledge that they do not know what to say as they do not have the experience.
I have a sense of them all trying to become intimate with each other but that emotional intimacy has to be expressed in a sexualized way. They seem to struggle to find a degree of relational intimacy that can be verbalized. I have a sense of a sexualized conversation, which feels promiscuous in that they are relative strangers to each other and especially to the newest member. I wonder what the ‘morning after the night before’ feeling might be like and express a concern that some degree of shame and guilt might come in consequently. This is not overtly disagreed with.
As the weeks and months progress some of this material is referred back to including his experience of relationships and his fear and his parent’s fear of him acquiring HIV. The group becomes able to relay that they felt initially overwhelmed and afraid of what he had said, but through this they can appreciate the fear he has lived with and why he tries hard to be the one to please people when he first meets them for fear of them being disapproving of him.
Eventually he starts a new relationship with a man and, through the group, he starts to think about his desire to have sex with other men despite being in this relationship. He talks about how there is a culture with some gay men doing this when in relationships and it not being seen as cheating. He feels uncertain about what feels right, and the group concurs with this. They also do not know what is right but some reveal they have had sex with others despite being in relationships. He finds it surprising and reassuring to find out that it is not just a ‘gay thing’ to do. As months pass by he reflects on how he rarely refers to being gay but instead talks about his boyfriend, other relationships and other parts of his identity. He starts to wonder what being a father might be like. The group questions what being gay or straight really mean as the terms feel almost meaningless within the space now that they know each other more intimately.
The group provides a medium to explore what is socially possible and discussible. By doing so, over time, taboo areas are named and eventually opened up. He seems to become the location of disturbance when he joins. He rapidly reveals his sexuality and invites in a conversation about the most vulnerable aspects of himself. There is a role for the conductor in helping to slow this process down, and pre-group assessment work might help him to predict this happening. The group does manage to destabilize the idea of ‘coming out’ by questioning whether this was just the gay man’s task alone. He acknowledges his own homophobia but by doing so perhaps stops the group’s homophobia from coming to the surface. This is likely a defence by pre-empting their own views and values but essentially alienates him further by assuming he knows their minds. His acknowledgement of his guilt at masturbating to porn is perhaps an attempt by him to repair their potential irritation at him.
The group finds it hard to discuss certain topics initially and appears distressed, but this limit to their experiences becomes lifted and redefined as time moves on. The group’s containment and ability to continue to think with him allows him the opportunity to remain in the group, which is then reflected in him starting and maintaining a loving relationship outside. Affect seems removed from the words he uses, with guilt and shame no longer featuring as the main experiences of what he was saying to others. Old and new parts of his identity find meaning in the space with him ultimately wondering with the others what such terms as ‘homosexuality’ actually mean. He still feels sexual desire towards men, but also to women. This does not diminish his identity as being gay but he feels it enhances him as a person within the experience of being with others, which he can also see as type of new desire not dependent on gender or sex or sexuality.
Conclusion
Watson (2005a) suggests that being queer is akin to being like someone in therapy who is in a state of flux and is challenging boundaries and definitions. This needs an examination of the relationship between the institution of being gay and discursive attempts to deconstruct it. Perhaps the task in a group is somehow doing both at the same time. In essence, Lacan, Nitsun and Nitzgen (and arguably Freud) have located desire outside of sexuality. Lacan locates desire as occurring in relation to desire of the Other. This brings group analysis to a radical position where the group in itself is argued as being the object of desire, potentially agreeing with Lacan by locating desire outside of sexuality. This has potential similarities to queer theory and the pink therapy movement in their attempts to move our understanding of sexuality from sexual instinctual drive to desire sat within an interpersonal discourse. This would be a novel understanding of homosexuality within group analysis.
Bacha (2005) proposes that sexuality can be broken down into identity, desire and gender. By doing so, we can see the inherent instability of identity based around sexuality. She proposes that to be in a group could be seen as a queer experience in itself in that it is an attempt to deconstruct identity through dialogue. This could be taken further and more specifically to wonder about what happens to a gay person in a group. If being in a group is queer in itself, in that it can deconstruct the individual and identity, then does being gay in a group also result in a queer experience where an identity such as being homosexual can be deconstructed? This could be seen as highly polemic particularly given the recent statements by various organizations and the Department of Health that conversion therapy has no evidence base and is highly questionable from an ethical point of view.
However this is not about converting from one discourse such as homosexual into another equally invalid discourse such as heterosexual. Being gay in a group and giving up an identity that has been painfully fought for and is a hard-one standpoint is a difficult experience. However it could be extremely helpful for an individual in that this may enable a working through of anger and shame, and also allow other identities to come to the fore. It would be concerning if a gay individual were giving up their gay identity within this process of deconstruction to a position of heteronormative presumptions that might exist within a group or indeed giving it up to sea of grey unknown identities where, in effect, there are no identities. The latter of these two possibilities would be a very bland affair where difference is ignored.
The task of a group is for all identities to deconstruct within its space by all participants equally. The group has to construct its own discourse within its own newly formed matrix. If the matrix is understood to be this network of communication and, if it is structured by language, then the group has to find its own new language with its own symbolic meanings.
These ideas also link into a Lacanian interpretation of the Other within group analysis as suggested by Giraldo (2012) as that of the Symbolic role of language. By this Giraldo is referring to dialogue of the group, as opposed to dialogue in the group. This has remarkable similarities to Foulkes’ original description of group analysis as it being a form of therapy by the group, of the group, including its conductor (Foulkes, 1975). Giraldo describes dialogue in the group as being part of the Imaginary order, whereas dialogue of the group is part of the Symbolic. It seems there are important similarities here that need bringing together into a cohesive group analytic theory of psychosexuality and specifically homosexuality.
The discussion of sexuality might be a process that includes naming difference, but with the purpose of accepting difference. This is not meant as a toleration of difference but actually thriving on difference and desiring it. If there is no difference then there can be no argument, history and change. In effect nothing would happen in the group. However experiences involving relationships with people, particularly condensed experiences like being in a group, can produce powerful feelings, which frequently alienate us further from each other. The unique feature of the group is that one cannot simply just leave the space and ignore the difference but inevitably one has to try and work through it and its associated affect.
Desire however can underpin both destructive and creative aspects of group processes. Social difference highlights aspects of ourselves which are Other. We come to know that which we do not know of ourselves, which is usually an aspect that needs further work. I may desire to know that aspect or desire to not know and destroy it. I project that difference into others in the space. By doing so am I trying to destroy an aspect of myself I cannot accept? What do we give up to make a sexual identification and how do we mourn that loss?
As already described, Foulkes said that the group forms the norm from which individual members deviate. This has all sorts of assumptions within it and is a potentially risky statement as simply the majority represents the norm. That is not a position of equality. However the group can become the Other in that the group will decide collectively and unconsciously what the Other might be through a dialogue of difference. Dialogue then locates the Other within language and the matrix. In essence the matrix becomes the Other and the task of individual members is to locate the Other in themselves into the group.
Desire becomes verbalized into language and so enters the group matrix. A term like ‘homosexual’ will have multiple associations and meanings. A group must deconstruct such meanings, which itself is a queering experience pushing each member of the group and the conductor into new and sometimes uncomfortable positions. A multiplicity of desires is poured into the matrix. Sometimes however some desires may become too painful or difficult to express. Lacan refers to this point as jouissance, which represents the shift from pleasure into pain. There must exist a bar between desire and jouissance, which is crossed at the group’s peril. Norbert Elias might have termed this bar the ‘necessary restraints’ (Elias, 1994).
What exists then is a weaving across this bar whereby the group keeps trying to push desire further but sometimes pulls back when it becomes too painful. However by doing so the chain of signifiers associated with an identity, in this case homosexuality, becomes broken up into more manageable chunks. Foulkes might have likened this process to the ever more articulate expression of the symptoms as each chunk becomes embedded into the language and matrix of the group.
This weaving across the bar challenges assumptions of what is shameful and needs restraining within the group. By doing so, the group raises the bar and so allows more and more communication and intimacy. Just who controls the bar fluctuates between the conductor and the group itself. The bar, and its position, is entirely under the control of the group, including its conductor, as Foulkes might say.
Group analysis, like psychoanalysis, can be rightly criticized for discussing sex in a heteronormative way. There are often normative discussions about the mother and father of the group, discussions about sex and procreation, and there is often derogation of anal functions. Finding ways to bring in such conversations into a group is a challenging task for the analyst but it is important if differences in power relations are to be properly examined. The responsibility of the conductor, and the institution that trains and regulates the conductor, is to be open to the process of allowing the bar to be raised. Without this openness, the group ceases to find new meanings as the members cannot tolerate differences to be discussed safely. The group would then cease to be helpful, and potentially becomes damaging, which applies to whichever difference is being examined irrespective of being homosexual.
It therefore becomes essential that group analytic research describes and examines a number of applied areas so as to provide group analysts the verbal tools whereby the experience of being gay, or simply other, can be described. I suggest the following as a start:
- What is the experience of being gay in, what is likely, a heteronormative analytic group?
- How do differing sexualities interact in the intense but contained process of being in a group?
- What is the experience of being a gay group analyst?
- How might an exploration of these experiences better inform what it is to be gay in today’s society?
- How might those experiences better inform analysts of the psychological needs of their gay patients, and how do we help analysts to not make normative or even fixed sexual identifications of their patients (or themselves)?