14° European symposium in Group Analysis Dublin ,17-22 August Despair , Dialogue , Desire

1. 14° European symposium in Group AnalysisDublin,17-22 AugustDespair, Dialogue, Desire Dialogue through images, dialogue through projects Dott.sa Angela Sordano

2. Theoreticalconcepts Group inter-subjective relationships tend to be structured through symbolic configurations which characterize the meaning of interpersonal exchanges. In a Junghian perspective these configurations are archetypically and mythologically featured.

3. The fourlevelsof a groupconfiguration • Structure • Collectiveimaginary: mythological, archetypical • Emotive knots • The contents

4. Theoreticalconcepts • Our psychodynamic model does not refer to object relations, but to a “Self model” based on intersubjective (Fonagy, 2001) and Jungian concepts of personality (Lyard D, 1999, Neumann E, 1991). In this perspective, mind is a dynamic field regulated by integrating or deintegrating forces within the individual and the relational context.

5. self /Groupevolution Selbst Undifferentiated self Ego You- mother Ego Third father Selbst You mother Bodied self Selbst Shadow Ego Psychological self Alienated self Other Therapist Grand father non Mother Father

6. Theoreticalconcepts • Figurative thinking (dreams, art, imagination) is the main media which allows interaction between affectivity and self structure (Jung. C.G., 1976, Kaes R.,2001,Sordano A. 2006, Arnheim R. 1996, Lucignagni e al.,2007)and between acting and thinking. The failure in working through images is an important diagnostic sign.

7. First meeting:the Opening scene • A VERY WARM SUMMER DAY IN WHICH MY FRIENDS AND I WENT INTO A FOUNTAIN AND PLAYED SPLASHING EACH OTHER

8. The contents • Opening dream:“I am at the beginning of a wood. It was dark, but I felt the entrance as inevitable, even if I was scared. After a while I saw a fountain. I entered and suddenly I felt drawn into it. I realized to be in an abandoned town where all the buildings were damaged. The place inspired great desolation and everything was grey. Houses did not have doors or windows. After a while a dog came towards me and enjoyed playing with me. It was brown. It looked like my old dog. The one I had at home!”

9. FIRStconfiguration • structure: the group constitution • Collective imaginary: separation from home, the entrance into the wood and the wolf meeting • Emotive knots: despair and loneliness • The contents: most of the adolescents confront on experience of abandon and loss, parents’ inadequacy

10. The contents • Someone speaks about her escaping from home and forgetting her shoes. • All the members play throwing their real shoes at each other. The leader feels thrown out of the group.

11. SECOND configuration • Structure: the couples of brothers. • Collective imaginary: meeting the witch and the brothers’ partnership in the wood . • Emotive knots: the transgression experiences • Contents: most of the adolescent speak and act measuring adult limits

12. the contents • Opening dream:”I was with my schoolmates at lunch. A boy and a girl were in love and another boy was making fun of a friend of mine-I tried to help her, but in the meantime professors came in and suspended us.” • A real memory:”The teacher knew who stole the pokermon cards, but she wanted me to betray my group class”.

13. THIRD configuration • Structure: generationaldifferences • Collectiveimaginery: the defeatof the Giant • Emotive knots: the persecution feeling and invisibilityas a protectionstrategy • Contents: holocaust, repression and conflictualrequestsfromadults

14. Contents • Opening dream: “I was on mybedwith a girl ofthisgroup.Suddenlymymotherenters in mybedroom and startstodialoguewithme.Shedoesn’t see the girl. Probablyshecouldn’t imaginewhat I wasdoing. Shethinks I amstill a baby” • Realmemory:”I am in the kitchen and havingdinnerwithmyparents and brother. The televisiontransmits the news in which a 15°year old girl waspregnant and wanted tocarry on the pregnancyagainstherparentswill. Mybrotherasksmyparentswhatwouldtheyhavedoneif the girl hadbeen me. Theybecomeangry and shout at him.”

15. Fourthconfiguration • Structure: the gendersencounter and the constructionof a innerdialogicalspace • Collectiveimaginary: the love between Eros and Psyche • Emotive knots: overcomingfamiliarmatrixlinks and the birth ofsubjectivity • Contents: the impossibilitytoavoid examinations and the ritualityofsexualinitiation

16. CONTENTS • Opening : aboy’s dream: twoboys are fightingover a girl. The relationshipisn’t equalsinceoneisbigger and stronger and the otheronelookslike a child or a victim. • Ridefinitionof transgenerational script: A girl withphobia:” I remembermygrandfather and a trip in whichhe, mycousin and I weretraveling in anold open car…hewasteaching me howtobe free and howtobe in contactwith nature. • Project: I imagineto stop being Snowhite, I preferleave the groupas a princesstowhom the kinghasleft the kingdom” • Question: Do youadultsdreamlikewe do?

17. Fitfhconfiguration • Structure: the passagefromdiadic relashionshipstotriadicones • Collectiveimaginary: the heroappearance (new ego) • Emotive knots: overcomingvictimization, transgeneretionalpredictions and trauma • Contents: the discoverof the “Third” and the birth ofnew self projects

18. Therapeuticfactors • The birth of couples who imitate and tease each other. This kind of partnership is a mirroring form and the key to increase self esteem and self perception through the “other” relation.

19. Therapeuticfactors • The necessity to permit a “performance space” in which body can freely express through its objects and games for the passage from acting out to enactment and to dream (Sordano A.,2006- Schechner R.,1984).

20. Therapeuticfactors • The connections within dreams, real happening in the group and personal experience through a figurative narration able to translate projections and feelings within a dramatic plot (Sordano A, 2006, Gasca G.,2003).

21. Therapeuticfactors • Role playing and free play as promoters of empathy and emotive tuning (Zizzo G.2002).

22. Therapeuticfactors • Leader subjectivity, through the ability to swing between the necessity to impose limits and to read the symbolic scene of the group dynamics (Richardz B.,2008).

23. Therapeuticfactors • Group cohesion to overcome developmental conflicts between generations ( Evans J,2001-Cramer A.F.J, Richmond L.H.,1989).

24. THERAPEUTIC FACTORS • Triangulating fuction through the group promotes secondary intersubjectivity level (ability to represent the other’s mental state): “Do you adult dream as we do?”(Fonagy P.-Target M.,2004- Lyard D,1999- Neumann E.,2000)