1
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction
Some Personal Background
Description of PhD Publications
Describing the thesis
Chapter 2: The Group-Analytic Frame of Reference
Group Analysis as a Qualitative Research tool
From the individual in the group to Group Analysis
From Group Analysis to the Analysis of Social Processes
More Core Concepts in Group Analysis
From the Small Group to the Large Group page 19 page 21 page 24 page 25
From Individual Unconscious to the Social Unconscious page 28
From Conservative Group Analysis to Radical Group Analysis page 31
Using the frame of reference of Group Analysis for this thesis page 34
Conclusion page 34 page 5 page 6 page 8 page 8 page 10 page 14 page 17 page 17
Chapter 3: The non-body on the Internet : Presence, immediacy, subjects and (group) therapy
Introduction
What is Presence? page 36 page 36 page 37
Different aspects of Presence
1.
Presence as social richness
2.
Presence as realism
3.
Presence as transportation page 39 page 40 page 42 page 44
4.
Presence as immersion page 45
5.
Presence as social actor within medium, and 6. Presence as medium as social actor
Summary
Chapter 4: Cultures and Groups
What is culture?
Psychological Aspects of Culture page 47 page 48 page 50 page 50 page 53

2
Culture and awareness
Summary
Culture and Oppression
Is Culture a Unity? Relations between groups and culture
An Internet Group Example page 55 page 58 page 60 page 66 page 69
Chapter 5: More Group Analytic concepts and their implications for
Large and Cyber Groups page 71
Group setting, boundaries and dynamic administration: page 71
Boundaries, group setting and cultures
The Matrix
Mirroring and Resonance
Mirroring page 73 page 75 page 78 page 78
Resonance
The Conductor's functions page 80 page 82
Small group versus Large Group functions of the leader page 82
Leader's functions and basic assumptions
Fight-flight and protection
Dependency and nurturing
Pairing and representation
Massification/Aggregation and flexibility
A Cyberspace vignette: the conductor, Internet forums and cultures
Summary and Conclusions
Chapter 6: The Social Unconscious
The concept of the Social Unconscious
Definitions of the Social Unconscious
Misperceptions about the Social Unconscious
It is not the superego
It is not just the social in the unconscious page 84 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 page 92 page 94 page 95 page 98 page 99 page 99 page 100

3
It is not the collective unconscious
It is not just hidden cultural norms page 102 page 103
Large Groups, chosen trauma, and the fourth basic assumption page 104
Summary and Conclusions page 107
Chapter 7 : The Israeli Social Unconscious and the Internet
Unconscious
The Israeli Social Unconscious
Analysing the Israeli society according to Foulkes's four page 108 page 108 levels page 111
1.
The current level
2.
The transference level
3.
The Projective level
4.
The Primordial level page 111 page 111 page 112 page 113
The Manifested ways of the Israeli Social Unconscious page 115
1.
Assumptions: what is taken for granted page 115
2.
Disavowals: disowning knowledge or responsibility
3.
Social defences page 116 page 117
4.
Structural oppression: control of power and information
The Israeli Social Unconscious and its chosen trauma page 118 page 119
The fourth basic assumption revealed in the Israeli society page 122
The Internet Unconscious
The Manifested ways of the Internet Unconscious
1. Assumptions page 125 page 128 page 128
2. Disavowals: Internet, intimacy and E-ntimacy page 130
3. Social Defenses page 133
4. Structural Oppression page 134
Internet and multiculturalism
Conclusions and implications
Chapter 8: Conclusions page 135 page 138 page 140

References
List of PhD Publications
Appendices
4 page 146 page 159 page 160

5
I wish to thank my supervisors Erica Burman and Ian Parker for their help along the journey of writing this thesis. I deeply appreciate their patience and support in difficult periods. Their comments and remarks have always been of great value for my writing and thinking.
I also want to thank my soulmate, Martha, for her support and for being what she is.
March 2006

6
Submitted in partial fulfillment of PhD by Publication
This thesis uses the frame of reference of group analysis to explore larger groups (rather than traditional small therapy groups), their cultures and their implications for societal practices generally. As key examples, I analyse Internet phenomena from a group-analytic perspective to understand them in relation to social processes.
Group Analysis is well known for its therapeutic implications in groups, but it also has a broader perspective and can be useful for studying wider systems. In this thesis I discuss how we can use its concepts and theoretical framework to understand phenomena and processes in organizations, cultures and societies. Concepts such as mirroring, resonance, setting, dynamic administration or even the functions of the group conductor, can be explored in the larger context (including the virtual environment) to prompt interesting insights about society.
Next I address how the large group, an unstructured intriguing event appearing more and more in group therapy conferences, is a useful tool for exploring powerful social constraints relating to authority, organizational dynamics, majority-minority group relations and other social conflicts. It provides opportunities for understanding the crystallization of identities such as gender, religious, political, and ethnic identities. The large group is an important tool for learning about social interactive processes and the Social Unconscious.
The concept of the Social Unconscious is explained and described after situating my own analysis in relation to other treatments. I define the Social
Unconscious as the co-constructed shared unconscious of members of a certain social system such as community, society, nation or culture. It includes shared anxieties, fantasies, defences, myths, and memories. In this dissertation I use it as a test case to explore the Israeli Social Unconscious, and later the Internet Unconscious.
Extrapolating from Cyberspace and the virtual environment, with its disembodied features, to face-to-face reality is not self evident and demands justification. In terms of the claims made for this thesis I argue that we can gain valuable information about our culture by researching the Internet culture. I suggest

7 that the Internet Unconscious, a term that I coin in this work, manifests shared fantasies, myths and defenses from which we can learn about multi cultures and hidden social issues.

8
Some Personal Background:
Groups always intrigued me with their power and dangers: I was intrigued by their ability to exert pressure on their members and change their behavior, the ubiquitous need of people to belong to them, and the everlasting danger of losing one's individuality in the crowd. One of the books that impressed me most as an adolescent was Lord of the Flies (1954) by William Golding. The book describes in detail the horrific exploits of a band of young children thrown onto a deserted island, who make a striking transition from civilized to barbaric. In contrast to other stories about children on a deserted island, that followed a romantic tradition and an idealized view of childhood and society, recounting a beautiful story of survival, taking care of others, generosity and altruism - this book is different. It focuses on the evil forces in human nature and society. The children in the story are flooded with anxieties from the unknown, develop tribal rituals to overcome them, and their aggression easily breaks out in the right circumstances. Classic group processes such as group cohesion, leadership, members' roles, scapegoating, etc. are described through this impressive story with its pessimistic outlook that seems to show that people are inherently tied to society, but that under the thin envelope of civilization lies savagery.
At that period of adolescence I could not conceptualize the group processes described in the book as I do now, and could vaguely sense the deep relation between groups and society. I remember feeling distressed for a while after reading it, without exactly knowing why, and finally dismissing it as a good story without fully understanding its deep implications at that time. Years later when I became a group psychotherapist, and especially through my group analytic training, my interest in finding connections between groups and social processes returned and intensified.
I started practicing group-psychotherapy when I became a licensed clinical psychologist after taking an academic course in this field. Soon I was leading a therapy group, sensing the power of the group as a transforming agent to its participants. At that time I still did not grasp the wider point of view of the interacting groups with their individuals. Group therapy worked because the groups were intensive and encountered their members with daily and interpersonal situations. The

9 idea that the connection between the individual and society is inseparable was still beyond me.
When I first became involved in group therapy, I was enchanted by the intense processes, and fascinated by the vivid interpersonal interactions I found in the group. I soon began to look for a way to bridge the gap between the dynamics taking place in the small group and the events happening in outer reality. It seemed that when the group was working well in its advanced stages, members were more authentic and vital than outside the group. Sometimes they created meaningful relationships that they could only dream of creating outside the group. Soon I began asking myself why this kind of interaction and immediacy is so difficult to achieve in "real life" and whether we create a different isolated reality in the group.
One of the ideas that struck me most in group therapy was that we could look at the group as a microcosm, and observe how it reflects reality. The more I developed expertise in groups, I could see how people behaviors in the group usually resemble or reflect their daily behaviors, although not in a one-to-one fit. Analyzing the group dynamics helped me understand the apparent difference between the behaviours of people in and out of the group. In social reality, people wear masks, exhibit their polite social persona, and act according to their well-known roles. They avoid giving authentic feedback to one another and protect their self-boundaries. In the psychological group, defenses melt, regression appears, and the inner world is exposed. The interactions between members, the interpersonal relations, and the roles members take in the group in the long-run, reflect pretty well their being in the world, personal difficulties and the relationship they create with significant others.
My interest in groups grew stronger. I became involved with the Israeli
Association of Group Psychotherapy and with organizing local conferences and study days. Starting the group analytic training in Israel brought forward tensions, conflicts and political issues that could not be ignored. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict that governed the public discourse and daily life at that time penetrated the seemingly safe envelope of the analytic groups. Culture and therapy groups became undifferentiated.
In 1996, during my group analytic training, I established a forum on the
Internet dealing with group psychotherapy. Its main goal was to create a space for group therapists to exchange ideas about their groups, consult one another, share information and discuss issues in group therapy. It seemed as if this forum came right on time and answered the needs of many professionals dealing with groups. Very

10 quickly this list attracted many of them. I either found the right way of publishing it to the appropriate population, or the timing was right, or maybe I was just lucky.
Anyway, soon I had around 400 subscribers from more than 30 countries. This number seems to stay fixed for years despite the coming and going of many subscribers. It attracted senior therapists, including authors of papers and books, as well as students and young professionals who just start their first group. A vivid interaction about leading groups started, with discussions of theoretical and practical issues, from which I (and I assume others too) gained a lot of knowledge. Gender issues, questions of the screening process for group members, problems in co-leading groups, transference, counter-transference and projective identification processes, all came to life with examples, ideas, and a diversity of solutions from various approaches and people.
The more the interaction on the forum continued, the more members related to each other personally. Communication became laden with emotions. There were warm responses to some posts and hot debates and conflicts triggered by other messages. I could identify times when people responded by giving feedback to one another about their style of communication ("May I, as politely as I can, suggest that when you have a strong emotional response that you take time and give a little more thought before you respond"). Surprising self-disclosure showed up too and not only around therapeutic issues. I remember when one of the list members shared his pain around the death of his child a few days after he had been born. Letters of condolence, empathy and sharing of other experiences of loss flooded the forum as a response. At that point I understood that this list behaves similar to face-to-face groups I conduct in my office, and that the dynamics and processes could be analysed with group analytic tools.
Description of PhD Publications:
When I noticed that Internet forums have similar characteristics to face-to-face groups, I decided to study this phenomenon. The Internet and Cyberspace became a hot issue of research towards the end of the 20th century, but surprisingly no one had written at that time about the group dynamics in an Internet discussion list. My experience as a group analyst and group therapist led me to a different point of view focusing on issues of group cohesion, transference, defense mechanisms, etc. My first

11 paper (Weinberg, 2001) was published in 2001 on the International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy (appendix A) comparing processes and phenomena between face-toface groups and Cyberspace forums. I was impressed by the fact that most of the members on such forums ignored the lack of boundaries on the Internet and the dangers of disclosing oneself in the public. My conclusion was that such a forum is a large group with an illusion of a small group. Although it was a virtual media of contact, the significant web of communication had been developed among a small group, which had created a virtual group matrix.
This Internet forum has become a community whose members feel a sense of belonging, develop relationships and become involved with one another far beyond their professional lives. I noticed that this forum has developed its own culture, tradition and norms, such as respect to the diversity of schools of thoughts from all over the world. As a group analyst I was interested with the hidden norms that develop in such a community, and so I originated the idea of a community unconscious over the Internet. This was the first seed of my idea, that we can identify an Internet Unconscious just as we can talk about the group unconscious or the Social
Unconscious. When I was asked to write a paper for a special issue of Group Analysis in the new millennium, I wrote about " Community Unconscious on the Internet "
(Weinberg, 2002, Appendix B) continuing to explore the processes in Internet forums.
I focused on the list manager's counter-transference in response to the idealization and projections on the forum, and explored the Unconscious of the discussion list on the
Internet in order to understand common hidden norms and values of the community of mental health professionals. This community unconscious is built through common partly and fully unconscious fantasies, beliefs, and values that members of the communities share. The Internet became an ideal tool to study this unconscious from the exchange of messages, which were open for everyone to research.
Without noticing, these papers led me to delve into the question of culture and different cultures. The idea that the Internet might have become another culture with unique features was fascinating, because it was created right in front of everybody's eyes, and everyone participated in developing it. Like an anthropologist I wanted to know more about various cultures, and first I studied the closest culture I could find:
Groups in Israel. I co-authored a paper on group therapy in Israel (Nuttman-Shwartz
& Weinberg, 2002, Appendix C) using group analysis concepts to analyse the

12 structure of Israeli society and to identify some of its key norms and myths, which express the Social Unconscious. The paper also describes the influences of Israeli identity on group participants and on group therapists’ behavior. The importance of this paper is in its approach to analyse cultural and societal phenomena not from a sociological or historical point of view but from a group analytic one. This can be done if we relate to a nation as acquiring large group features. Later we broadened our analysis in a paper published in a Dutch book on group therapy (Weinberg &
Nuttman-Shwartz, 2004, Appendix D) in which we summarized the developments in group psychotherapy practice and training in Israel since the year 2000, intertwining political and social issues with professional and group activity. In addition we have written another paper (Weinberg & Nuttman-Shwartz, 2006, Appendix K) describing the developments of group psychotherapy practice and training in Israel as a reflection of a regressed-traumatized large group and society.
I became deeply interested in larger groups. I was curious about social processes and how they relate to group processes. The question I asked myself was what could we learn from the small group about organizations, institutions, and society-at-large? I wanted to know whether the group reflects more than its members' behaviour as individuals. Can we deduce from the issues that the group deals with (or avoid dealing with), from its climate, from the forces exerted in it, from the unconscious processes - to the culture or society it belongs to, or to political processes that are important to understand or even to global and universal phenomena? Another question is how the Internet can help us understand more about society and different cultures.
It is true that we can infer from processes in small groups to the wider environment. But small group dynamics might also be misleading. Small groups develop a culture of their own that might be quite different from the culture outside them. If we want to learn about bigger organizations, associations and institutes or even about culture, we should study psychological constellations that better simulate reality. We should study human behaviour and group dynamics of a larger group.
Large Groups allow the exploration of hidden dimensions, which do not appear in small group settings. In an effort to learn more about Large Groups, and noticing the paucity of writing about this issue, I co-edited a new book about it (Schneider &
Weinberg, 2003), gathering Large Group experts from around the world to contribute each their unique point of view about Large Groups. Together with my co-editor we

13 wrote a comprehensive introduction (Weinberg & Schneider, 2003, Appendix E), summarizing issues not mentioned anywhere else before, such as the structure, dynamics and development of Large Groups. Remembering the Internet as my starting point I also contributed a paper on the Large Group in a virtual environment
(Weinberg, 2003a, Appendix F), in which I re-described the Psychodynamics of
Large Groups in Virtual Reality, but also termed the concept of "the Internet
Unconscious" for the first time.
Culture and groups are intertwined. Culture is constituted from many groups that have common values. In my next paper (Weinberg, 2003b, Appendix G) I studied the relationship between groups and cultures, connecting Large Groups to the Social
Unconscious. The Social Unconscious of a certain culture is reflected in groups, especially in Large Groups. The paper describes groups from different cultures and their unique features. Entering an existing group can be analyzed as a kind of immigration to a new culture. The paper also mentioned the Internet as a culture. The
Internet is supposed to be the ultimate democratic, egalitarian, freedom of speech culture. Is it really so?
During my growing interest in Large Groups and Cyberspace groups I noticed that many important group analytic concepts, such as the group matrix, resonance, mirroring and regression, have never been researched in such wider settings. I decided to write a series of papers exploring some of these concepts beyond the classical small group. One paper analysed mirroring in Small, Large and Virtual Groups (Weinberg
& Toder, 2004, Appendix H). Another one (Weinberg, 2006, Appendix I) looked deeper into the concept of regression in groups, continuing a long term discussion about how different it is from regression in individual therapy and adding its manifestations in the large and virtual group. With these papers I combined the group analysis theoretical framework with my fields of interest and my PhD.
Overall, these papers composed a body of knowledge connecting groups (especially large ones), cultures, and the Internet. But some arguments and connections could not be spelled out in these papers because of the small space and journal limitations.
Because of the brevity that is enforced on papers in journals, the subject cannot be investigated in depth. The current thesis comes to fill in this shortage.

14
Describing the thesis:
The PhD is to be composed of a series of published papers, which eventually have a substantial introduction attached to them. The following chapters come to serve as the introduction for the thesis. The brevity of the form of papers for publication forces the writer to make rather large generalizations, which cannot be investigated.
Using group analytic concepts and theory in a research study is not selfevident and might be questioned for its legitimacy. Group analysis is considered a therapeutic technique and not a research tool. Group analysts treat individuals in groups, helping them learn about themselves and improve their interpersonal relationships. Connecting group analysis to social issues and utilizing it to understanding broader systems has to be justified. It is true that additionally, group therapists apply the principles of group analysis to other settings and situations such as businesses, schools and community organizations, but this is only the first evidence that group analysis goes beyond therapy. That is why the next chapter deals with the frame of reference of group analysis, explaining that Group Analysis is as much a methodological system as well as theoretical system and arguing that it provides tools to analyse unconscious processes and learn about society and communities (including
Internet communities) in more depth.
Another issue that was left out in the papers (and actually taken for granted) is the question of "Real" relationships versus "Virtual" ones. Talking with lay persons about Cyberspace relationships usually elicits the response, "but this is not real", meaning that relationships over the Internet are essentially different from those outside Cyberspace. So before I analyse the differences and similarities between faceto-face groups and groups over the Internet, I should have addressed this question.
Discussing this issue enters into the old philosophical question of "what is real?"
Because this is a PhD in psychology I limited my discussion to the psychological aspects of reality and explored it from various psychological viewpoints, focusing especially on theories and concepts from group psychotherapy. This is the purpose of the third chapter "The non-body on the Internet: Presence, immediacy, subjects and
(group) therapy". This chapter touches the question of what is "presence", and discusses the effect of embodiment on the sensation of physical presence, social presence, and self-presence in virtual environments. The meaning of presence is closely related to our understanding and perceiving of reality. As said in the chapter's

15 summary, if we want to understand deeper the meaning of presence and reality, we need to deconstruct these conceptions and analyse how they change according to different ontologies, in different societies and different cultures. The surprising conclusion is that all interactions are mediated, but some forms of mediation are naturalized within dominant culture. The answer to the statement that Internet love relationships are not real can be that every love object is an internalized-virtual object.
After addressing and justifying the methodology I used for the thesis, and the issue of non-embodied relationship, the next chapter (number four) is about cultures and groups. This chapter comes to deepen the understanding of culture and the difference-relationship between groups and cultures. In my paper about groups from different cultures (Weinberg, 2003b) it could be read as if I am using a monolithic version of culture – thus implying that all those within a culture are similar, and more importantly implying that each person belongs to just one culture. In the chapter on cultures and groups I address the definition of culture from several points of views, focusing on psychological aspects of culture, and its unconscious elements. I specifically relate to the digital and cyberspace culture. Understanding Cyberspace culture serves not only as an aim for itself but also illuminates surprising aspects of our non-virtual culture, which is the purpose of my thesis.
Because the implications of group analytic concepts for the large and virtual groups were scattered along several papers, the next chapter (five) completes the work about larger groups. It assembles the ideas from those papers (Weinberg and Toder,
2004; Weinberg, 2005) and examines more concepts that usually belong to the small group, in the context of the large and virtual group. Core concepts such as the matrix, resonance, mirroring and also notions of setting, dynamic administration, boundaries and especially the conductor roles and functions are explored and expanded beyond the small group. This chapter builds on the previous chapter that described the group analytic frame of reference, and apply the idea that group analysis's interest is beyond therapeutic group into wider systems.
The purpose of the sixth chapter is to further develop the idea of the Social
Unconscious, define it, explain it in detail, describe its misconceptions, and understand better its meaning and manifestations. The Social Unconscious is quite an evasive concept and several writers disagree about its definition and what it includes.

16
In this chapter I present these views and state my original contribution. I also detail what should be included when we analyse the Social Unconscious of a certain culture.
These understandings and explanations lay the foundations for the last chapter
(number seven) in which I analyse the Israeli Social Unconscious. I use Foulkes's
(1964) different levels of communication and Brown's (2001) Social Unconscious ways of manifestation, thoroughly described in chapter six, for a group analytic examination of the Israeli Society. Later on I summarize the conclusions about the
Internet Unconscious and its implications for society and cultures.

17
Group Analysis (Foulkes, 1975) is much more than a therapeutic approach and is grounded in the social sciences. It is a way of analysing data and looking at the world: it is a research tool. Group Analysis is as much a methodological system as well as theoretical system (Parker, 1997). It is useful for the analysis of small therapeutic group processes, but also for the analysis of large groups such as communities, ethnic groups and even societies. Because of its primary emphasis on communication and interrelatedness, a group analytic approach is useful for the analysis of systems. It provides tools to analyse unconscious processes and learn about society and communities (including Internet communities) in more depth. In this chapter I will describe how Group Analysis illuminates the philosophical, sociological and psychological aspects of groups, cultures and society at large.
Group Analysis as a Qualitative Research tool:
In the previous century research has been dominated by the scientific method.
This positivist and quantitative research emphasized objectivity, neutrality, measurement and validity. In the last thirty years the domination of positivism has been challenged. Increased dissatisfaction with its dominance has led to the development of a variety of methodologies (Lather, 1991). One of them is the qualitative research.
All research (whether quantitative or qualitative) is based on some underlying assumptions about what constitutes 'valid' research and which research methods are appropriate. Generally, qualitative research can be characterized as the attempt to obtain an in-depth understanding of the meanings and 'definitions of the situation' presented by informants, rather than the production of a quantitative 'measurement' of their characteristics or behaviour (Wainwright, 1997). Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. Examples of qualitative methods are action research, case study research and ethnography. Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher's impressions and reactions

18
Hunt (1987) drew our attention to the role of subjectivity in research. For
Hunt, the research process is ‘hermeneutic’– an interpretative activity that aims for deeper understanding of the research material. For years, psychoanalysis has been considered too 'subjective' for an objective research. The emergence of qualitative research put psychoanalytic ideas back on the agenda, and enhanced its use as a research tools. The role of subjectivity in psychoanalytic research is crucial.
Subjectivity is viewed by psychoanalysis, as with much qualitative research, not as a problem but as a resource (and topic). To draw upon one’s own subjectivity in the research process does not mean that one is not being ‘objective’, but that one actually comes closer to a truer account (Parker, 1997).
But psychoanalysis as a research tool has its shortcomings too. It postulates a number of assumptions about the nature of human experience (such as ‘the unconscious’, ‘the Oedipus Complex’ and ‘defenses’), but regards them as absolute truths. What is more important: Psychoanalysis is looking for the cause of human problems inside the individual, thus serving a hidden political agenda. Describing social problems as stemming from intra-psychic drives helps maintaining the sociopolitical status quo, promising the continuation of cultural dominant forces
(Prilleltensky, 1989). Change comes out of personal change and not a social one.
The relationship between the processes taking place inside the self and the social, cultural and political processes happening outside the individual but affecting her/him, is one of the essential dilemmas for modern psychotherapy (Guigon, 1993).
If the one who is responsible for psychological problems is the individual and not the culture s/he inhabits - then society and its political institutions are fine, and the problematic one needing therapy is the individual. This approach serves well the social order and preserves it. Thus, therapy advances the interests of the sociopolitical elites. It might even be that psychotherapy perpetuates the same problems it suggests itself as their solution (Sarason, 1985). For example, in the family therapy field, Fowers & Richardson (1996) claimed: "The modern ideal of individual and family [is] itself the root of many of the very difficulties that that family therapy has been called to alleviate. If this is true, then family therapy is in the awkward position of perpetuating a potent ideology that seems to bear some of the responsibility for the very distress that family therapy seeks to remedy" (p. 124).

19
Group analysis, as we will see later, followed another direction: interpersonal, group, system, and social oriented. Thus it avoids the pitfalls of psychoanalysis that is looking only for interpsychic causes for distress. The ideas of "the-group-as-a-whole"
(Ettin, Cohen & Fidler, 1997), and understanding the voice of the individual as the voice of the group, shifts the focus from the one to the many, and from the individual to the organization and society. The notion that the individual is inseparable from his/her culture points to the direction of change as brought by observing and analysing the mutual influences (all these ideas will be elaborated and explained in more detail later). Change is achieved by creating a holding environment and analysing, understanding and becoming aware of the processes in the group and in society.
The research paradigm shift from quantitative to qualitative methods mentioned earlier, is only part of a larger paradigmatic shift, taking place in the Western World in the late twentieth century. The move is manifested in many areas: from modernity to post-modernity, from nationalism to globalization, from cultural supremacy of one group over others to the concept of multi-culturalism and the acknowledgment of cultural diversity. As we shall see later, group analysis deals with social phenomena and processes, incorporating them with the subjective experience. Thus it is a very appropriate instrument for researching issues related to these social changes.
From the individual in the group to Group Analysis:
The development of group psychotherapy in general and group analysis in particular is strongly related to other developments in the social and natural sciences, including General System Theory (GST) as introduced into the scientific field by the biologist Von Bertalanffy after WW2. The mechanistic approach alone could not supply answers for understanding complex systems anymore. According to Von
Bertalanffy (1956) GST deals with formulating and deriving the principles valid for every system in general. A system is defined as a set of elements in interaction.
Although GST started with biological systems, it quickly expanded to other scientific areas, including behavioural, social and psychological ones (Buckley, 1967).
Community psychiatric approaches, family therapy and group therapy resulted from this development (Hill, 1972). Some assumptions of GST are especially attractive for analyses of human beings and groups. Although various systems exhibit wide variety

20 of behaviours fundamentally they all posses a common underlying structure. Change takes place across system or sub-system boundaries. The idea that the particle is part of a bigger whole, and cannot be analysed outside its system, led to the notion that the individual cannot be studied out of the context we are dealing with, whether it is the family, the group or society.
Pines (1981) characterises the evolution of group analysis as follows: "The emergence of analytic group psychotherapy as a theory and as a technique was facilitated by a new scientific paradigm, that of the move from the study of the single entity, the item, the individual, to the study of the relationship between an entity and the field of forces in which other entities are encountered….. The classical psychoanalytic model of mental apparatus will not do, as it is based on one-body psychology. In group psychotherapy we need other models; perhaps a systems model will do" (page 276). Adopting a system model for groups transforms group therapy from 'the analysis of individuals in groups' to 'group analysis'. The paradigm is not that of psychoanalysing the member in the group setting, because the group is more than a background and the analysis is of that gestalt too. The idea of the group developing in stages (MacKenzie, & Livesley, 1983; Tuckman, 1965), concepts such as 'the group-as-a-whole' (Ettin, Cohen, & Fidler, 1997), and the 'mother group'
(Foguel, 1994; Scheidlinger, 1974), and the emergence of the Large Group as an instrument for studying social systems (Schneider and Weinberg, 2003) could not become manifest without the broader understanding of groups as living systems.
It is interesting that both Bion and Foulkes, the two pioneers of group psychotherapy in Britain, developed the notion of the group-as-a-whole at the same time, even though they never worked together and their theories are quite diverse.
These ideas followed the tradition of the German Gestalt psychology arguing that the whole is not just the sum of its parts. One step further led them to argue that the group is more than the sum of its individuals and to the revolutionary idea (at that time) that the group defines its members and not vice versa. On the other side of the ocean, in the US, Trigant Burrow made a similar shift from psychoanalysis to working with groups, developing a pioneering thinking about the original nature of man as social
(Hinshelwood, 2004), and coined the term "group analysis" which Foulkes used later in his writings.
Group analysis understands the behaviour of the individual in terms of the whole group, just as social psychology understands the individual's behaviour in

21 terms of the whole social group of which s/he is a member (Mead, 1968). Actually the idea of changing the behaviour of the individual through the group, is connected to the notion that the deviant behaviour was created in the context of the social and family group. If we want to correct this malfunctioning, we need to get back to the original environment, a group environment. Foulkes's (1975) concept of "ego training in action" means that the individual's understanding of him/herself is promoted through the analysis of transference in communicative action in the group. It means
"self development through subjective interaction" (Brown, 1994, page 987) in the transitional space of the group. There is still the danger that the behaviour in focus will repeat itself in the group. Foulkes (1948) had an answer to that possibility. He believed that group members reinforce each other's normal behaviour and correct their neurotic reactions. He shows deep trust in the beneficial nature of the group that was thoroughly criticized later (Nitsun, 1996).
From Group Analysis to the Analysis of Social Processes:
Foulkes, the founder of group analysis, worked in Frankfurt before the Nazis took over. He probably had some contact with the Frankfurt School of Social
Research. He was interested and enormously influenced by the sociology of Norbert
Elias (1978). Elias allocated centrality to social relatedness, explored the political, philosophical, and psychological forces behind the dichotomy between the individual and the group, and even inquired how these forces are institutionalised within the individual's psyche. Pines (2002) wrote that, according to Elias, the evolution of society profoundly affects individual psychodynamics. Summarizing Elias' approach, he noted that as individuals civilize their behaviour and restrain their impulses, the strength of the social forces inside the individual increases, and the structure of the psyche changes. The civilizing process described by Elias has to do especially with libidinal energy, invested in such activity as the management of eating, disposal of waste, cleanliness, and of course aggression. Society gradually monopolizes the sanctioned use of violence, and self-restraint is rewarded by the protection of the law.
Pines sees Elias's influence on group analysis in examining the psychoanalytic primacy of projection over introjection.
Elias wrote, "Humans... are made by nature for culture and society" (1991, page 84). Following Elias, Foulkes wrote of, "The microcosm of the individual repeating and reflecting the microscopical changes of the society, of which he forms a

22 part" (Foulkes, 1948, page 14). So Foulkes sees the individual as embedded in and produced through the social. The theoretical and clinical infrastructure of group analysis was based on the central role of society and culture in the founding of the individual subject: The focus moved from the subject to culture. We will follow this shift by focusing on culture in chapter four and later exploring the emergence of
Internet culture through group analytic lens (chapters five & seven).
Foulkes shaped his ideas during his service as a psychiatrist in WW2 in
Northfield, an army base in the Midlands, England where he treated, together with several other colleagues, soldiers who suffered from the horrors of the war. The
Northfield Experiment, as it became known, became a turning point for group psychotherapy and most of the writers that influenced the British thinking about groups (such as Bion and Ezriel) developed their ideas there. Foulkes wrote his
Introduction to Group-Analytic Psychotherapy (1948) following this experience. It is interesting to note that already in 1948 he related to group analysis as a new kind of treatment on one hand, and provided detailed instructions for the conductor's contributions, but also as a new frame of reference relating to the individual only as an abstraction of social relations.
The basic position of group analysis is that through the group and the evolving interrelations of its members, the patient first reveals and ultimately heals or treats his or her individual subjectivity. Looking at it from this end, group analysis is used as a method of psychotherapy and deals with transference, counter-transference, defense mechanisms and other practical matters developed to make this therapy more effective. A fine example of this approach to group analysis can be found in Foulkes's book Group Analytic Psychotherapy, Method and Principles (1975). But even when dealing with the practice of group analysis the deeply social nature of the human being is always there.
A key concept of group analysis is the matrix. This concept bears the many facets of group analysis because it spreads from the individual into culture. It is derived from the Latin word 'mater', meaning mother, but it also means a womb or a place of creation. Foulkes and Anthony (1965) saw the group as creating the individual, but also as providing him the background. The interplay between figure and ground, creator and created, individual and group/society, is one of the

23 cornerstones of group analysis. The matrix is the mould in which individual is made.
The group matrix is a shaping space enabling growth and development.
Foulkes presented several complementary definitions of the matrix. The most widely cited is: "The matrix is the hypothetical web of communication and relationship in a given group. It is the common shared ground which ultimately determines the meaning and significance of all events and upon which all communications and interpretations, verbal and non-verbal rest" (Foulkes, 1964, page
292). Sometimes the matrix is treated as a kind of "group mind" – although this is a subject of some controversy in group analysis. But to make it more complex, Foulkes
(1975) differentiated between three modes of matrix: First there is the personal matrix , a complex system of intra-psychic processes. This matrix can be compared to the neuron network in the brain (Foulkes probably developed this notion because he was influenced by Kurt Goldstein, a holistic neurologist with close ties to the Gestalt psychologists; Goldstein had a holistic theory of the human organism, one that challenged reductivist approaches). Then we have the dynamic matrix, which is the interrelationship between the group members. This is what creates the group substance and the 'group-as-a-whole' phenomenon. We can compare it to hidden fibers connecting individuals in groups, making them into one entity. The last type is the foundation matrix which is "based on the biological properties of the species, but also on the culturally firmly embedded values and reactions" (Foulkes, 1975, page
15). It seems that the foundation matrix is a biologically based web, connecting individuals from different cultures, and inside cultures.
We will return to the concept of the matrix in the following chapters, but for the purpose of the current discussion my treatment so far serves to show how group analytic concepts start from the individual and permeate to society (and, as we will see later, also vice versa). The same group analytic terms are used in relation to the individual, the group and society at large. This is no surprise because according to group analysis the individual is 'penetrated' within a longitudinal network of transpersonal processes. Group analysis enables us to perceive the resonance between the social, interpersonal and the intra psychic levels of experience.
So, within a group analytic frame we can see the importance of addressing the wider context beyond the personal.
Throughout, the development of the group analytic theory became more and more engaged with the analysis of social issues. Papers on gender, economy, culture,

24 social regression, the impact of war, terror and trauma, and the influence of the
Internet have appeared lately in the Group Analysis Journal. Special issues of the journal were published about Group Analysis in the new millennium, relational goods and the Social Unconscious (detailed later). Small wonder that one of the most important books in group analysis, describing the developments of this theory towards the end of the previous century, is titled The Psyche and the Social World (Brown &
Zinkin, 1994).

More Core Concepts in Group Analysis
Foulkes devoted many writings (e.g. 1975) to core concepts in group analysis including detailed description of handling therapy group sessions. He describes precisely the room and seating arrangements, the circle of chairs (even its size and the kind of low table in its center), the size of the group (7-8), and the duration and frequency of sessions. All these important details are considered the group setting .
Other group analytic authors followed this tradition writing about the setting of the group (Van der Kleij, 1983), the external space of the group
(Walshe, 1995), etc. Foulkes (1975) referred to the classical principles of conduct required from the patient, such as regularity, punctuality, discretion, abstinence, no outside contact and no "life" decisions during treatment.
Foulkes was concerned not only with the procedural details of the group setting, but also with their implications for the group work. Although he detailed the provision of the physical space, the marking of the starting and finishing times, the means of communication from outside to the group, and the admission of new members to the group, he referred to them also as the " dynamic administration " of the group. By this term he meant that administrative functions have dynamic meanings: They provide the group with a sense of safety and continuity, and enhance a dynamic flow of communication.
Dynamic administration is strongly connected to the maintenance the group boundaries . Boundaries are the interface between the group and the outside world. Managing the boundaries of the group, so as to facilitate an experience of safety and protection, is crucial to the survival of a group as a discrete entity. The capacity to establish and maintain boundaries (the frame of the group) and to organise and manage the setting, are considered core skills essential to the practice of group analysis.

25
Internet forums and discussion lists, which are part of the raw material of this thesis, present a specific dilemma around their management and dynamic administration. When referring to them as groups (see for example my arguments in Weinberg, 2002, Appendix B) we assume that the level of safety in the boundless virtual world is low since the boundaries of time and space in a discussion group, so typical to a face-to-face analytic group, do not exist. My surprising observation was that a small group gathers around every issue discussed, behaving like a small analytic group ignoring the hundreds of silent observers around them. This observation led me (Weinberg, 2001, Appendix A) to conclude that the discussion list is a large group with an illusion of a small group. But more than that, the dynamic administrative function of the forum moderator is crucial in providing this sense of safety. In a boundless, new, unsafe and unknown environment such as cyberspace, especially for those inexperienced with technology, this function seems to be the most important characteristic to let the list members feel that someone is taking care of them.
The above section demonstrates well one of the main ideas of this thesis: using group analytic theory and concepts to understand phenomena on the
Internet. This has been done in two more papers (Weinberg & Toder, 2004,
Appendix H; Weinberg, 2006, Appendix I) about the mirroring function and regression in groups. More concepts of group analysis (such as resonance ) will be thoroughly dealt in chapter five together with the discussion about their implications to Cyberspace.
We cannot finish this section without mentioning the group conductor , although this will be elaborated too in chapter five and examined vis a vis his/her functions on Internet forums. The group conductor has many functions, such as moving between engaging in the process and reflecting and observing, linking different levels of communication, linking group, subgroup and individual, linking structure, process and content, moving between different levels of transference, etc. The analyst has two practical tasks: to enhance the flow of communication within the group boundaries, and to attend to events beyond those boundaries. This last task is achieved both by taking charge of the administration of the group's setting and by translating 'external material' brought within these boundaries, as matter pertaining to the dynamic flow of communication 'here and now'.

26
From the Small Group to the Large Group
Group analysts are interested in large groups no less than in small groups.
Small groups are suitable for therapeutic purpose. They provide safe boundaries and perfect conditions for the development of trust, self-disclosure and therapeutic exploration. Traditionally, group psychotherapists work in small groups (a small group means 7 plus or minus 2), focus on the here-and-now, avoiding the social and political events outside the group. When they deal with the social context they use the social and political events to explore what they mean to and for group members.
We can infer from processes in small groups to the wider environment, as the group is always a microcosm. But small groups typically develop a culture of their own that might be quite different from the culture outside them. In the atmosphere of safety mentioned before that is created in the small group, intimacy develops and selfdisclosure is possible. This is in a sharp contrast from the alienated environment we often encounter in our everyday life (and sometimes the source of attraction for those groups). In order to learn about bigger organizations, associations and institutes or even about culture, group analysts study psychological constellations that better simulate reality. They study human behavior and group dynamics of a larger group.
Large Groups (from 20 and upward according to de Maré [1990], to 40-80 according to Turquet [1975], and hundreds or even more, according to Volkan [2001]) allow the exploration of hidden dimensions, which do not appear in small group settings
(Weinberg & Schneider, 2003, Appendix E).
The culture of Large Groups was spread through the Association of
Therapeutic Communities from the 1970s using them extensively in psychiatric wards and hospitals. At the same time it flourished in the Group Analysis Symposiums and other group therapy conferences and organizations, crossing the ocean to the US too
(Pines, 2003a). Large Groups provide opportunities for understanding powerful social constraints relating to authority, organizational dynamics, majority-minority group relations and other social conflicts. They can be used to explore the crystallization of identities such as gender, political, religious, ethnic identities and differences.
Participating in a Large Group in a conference brings forth questions about the meaning of belonging to society and being a citizen. "Should I open my mouth?"
"How much impact can my words have in this crowd?" "Wouldn't it be wiser not to

27 enter this conflict?" are some of the questions typically crossing the participant's mind
(Schneider, 2003; Turquet, 1975; Weinberg & Schneider, 2003, Appendix E).
The Large Group is usually not the best forum for dealing with the specific feelings and pains of the individual and, often times, can intensify feelings of aloneness. It cannot function as a form or type of psychotherapy, although, in some participants, there can be engendered feelings of containment. The Large Group is, however, an important tool in understanding social interactive processes and interrelationships within society. As de Maré, the innovator of the median group (18-
20 members according to de Maré et al [1991] and 15-30 according to the more accepted standard [Storck, 2002]) writes: "The large group…offers us a context and a possible tool for exploring the interface between the polarised and split areas of psychotherapy and sociotherapy. This is the area of the inter-group and of the transdisciplinary…" (1975, p. 146).
The lesson we learn from unstructured Large Groups conducted in group therapy conferences is quite gloomy. On the dark side of relating to authority we can sometimes see infantile yearning for strong authority, leading to readiness of giving up one's judgment. Or unreasonable attack on authority out of what seems to be a regressive oedipal competition. The dynamic processes, and especially projections, projective-identifications and splitting, might lead to stormy conflicts between subgroups and the emergence of crude aggression. The fear of losing oneself in the crowd
(Turquet, 1975), the threat of annihilation and alienation force the individual to use a variety of techniques to protect herself, including clinging to familiar others, creating national, gender, religious and other socio-political divisions, etc. On the bright side we can explore the ways we can avoid these dangers, from increasing awareness by interpretations and introspection to structuring the group or emergence of natural positive leaders. De Maré (1975), one of the pioneers of Large and Median Groups, pointed out that while the function of the small group is to socialize the individual, the function of the Large Group is to humanize society. As I pointed out in my paper about the culture of the group (Weinberg, 2003b, Appendix G) the Large Group is a valuable group structure from which we can learn about the Social Unconscious and society at large.

28
The psychological processes in the Large Group are intensive and, by the use of the parallel process concept, we can see them as representing what is happening in the outside world. The concept of parallel process has its origin in the psychoanalytic concepts of transference and countertransference. The transference occurs when the consulter coming to supervision recreates the presenting problem and emotions of the therapeutic relationship within the supervisory relationship. Countertransference occurs when the supervisor responds to the counselor in the same manner that the counselor responds to the client. Thus, the supervisory interaction replays, or is parallel with, the counseling interaction. By the same token, processes in the Large
Group replicate social and political processes. One of the merits of the Large Group is that we can use it to study the Social Unconscious.
From Individual Unconscious to the Social Unconscious
According to Freud's topographical model of personality organization, psychic life can be represented in three levels of consciousness: the conscious, the preconscious and the unconscious. Freud was not the first to talk about the unconscious. Already in 1765 Leibniz stressed that there are more perceptions apart from those of which the mind is aware. There are endless other perceptions that are not salient enough to be registered in the memory, and are recognized through their results. Many eighteenth and nineteenth-century philosophers agreed that we could not understand human behavior without assuming active unconscious mental life.
Freud added another dimension by stating that the unconscious is a mental apparatus with a different mode of functioning than the conscious one. Different rules conduct and govern the two systems: reality testing, rational thinking, logical codes are typical of the conscious system but are absent from the unconscious one. Freud believed that significant aspects of human behavior are shaped and directed by these unconscious irrational forces, and that they are inadmissible to direct awareness (Freud, 1933). We can learn about the individual unconscious through the interpretation of fantasies, dreams and slip of the tongue phenomena.
When we move to groups and as we see groups as an entity, a new kind of unconscious emerges: the group unconscious. Bion spoke explicitly of group mind and introduced concepts such as protomental system, basic assumption and work group. Bion's basic assumptions are examples of the group unconscious: nobody owns

29 them and nobody wants to be responsible for them. Foulkes (1964) created the group matrix model to describe better that multidimensionality he thought to be characteristic of group thinking and communication. With the concept of "matrix", chosen for its clear link with the concept of "mater", Foulkes aimed to underline the original and specific quality of group situation, not only depending on the sum of single members' personality features. The matrix shows its own structure and functional autonomy, in some way transcending individuals, even if it's constructed and shared by the whole of individuals. In fact the matrix is at some extent able to affect their thought, language and behaviour. "In this sense we can postulate the existence of a group 'mind' in the same way as we postulate the existence of an individual mind" (Foulkes, 1964, p. 118). It is a product of the interaction of individual group members but is not static. Whether we term it the group mind, matrix or unconscious it is clear that we are talking about some abstraction that is beyond the individual members of the group and not the simple adding of their individual minds.
Like the individual unconscious we can only deduce about its existence from the group's acts or discourse.
The idea of the group unconscious and the hidden ways that groups affect their members is difficult to perceive by lay-people in the Western world whose culture is based on the belief in free will and the individual right for the pursuit of happiness.
Still there is a longstanding research tradition in social psychology showing the impact of the group on its members and their unawareness to this hidden exertion of power. Coming to the next level of abstraction is even more difficult to accept: the
Social Unconscious. In general the idea of the Social Unconscious implies that we are driven by social forces we are unaware of, in the sense that these forces structure our behaviors, thoughts and perceptions. This concept is different from the Jungian concept of the Collective Unconscious (1934) because it represents unconscious dynamics that are specific to a certain society or culture, while the Collective
Unconscious is universal, shared by all societies and based on the same hidden archetypes common to all human beings no matter from which society.
The idea of the Social Unconscious construct is double-sided. On one hand it reflects the social and cultural arrangements of which individuals are unconscious
(Hopper, 1996) and on the other it means the representation of social forces and power relations in the psyche (Dalal, 2001). A special consideration should be given to the study of the Social Unconscious through groups, especially Large Groups. The

30 idea of the Social Unconscious assumes that some specific hidden assumptions guide the behaviour of a certain society or culture. In the same manner that unconscious forces drive an individual without knowing it, a group, an organization or the entire society can act upon unconscious forces too.
The term Social Unconscious was first mentioned by Foulkes in his book
Therapeutic Group Analysis (1964): "… the group-analytic situation, while dealing with the unconscious in the Freudian sense, brings into operation and perspective a totally different area of which the individual is equally unaware. …One might speak of a social or interpersonal unconscious" (page 52). It seems that Foulkes did his best to go beyond the classical Freudian concept of the individual unconscious to include the social and communicational forces affecting interpersonal and transpersonal processes. Hopper (1996, 2001, 2003b) has contributed many papers to this concept, being one of the most consistent exponents of the Social Unconscious. His definition of it is, "the concept of the social unconscious refers to the existence and constraints of social, cultural and communicational arrangements of which the people are unaware" (Hopper, 2001, p. 10). This definition means that living in a specific culture and belonging to a certain society has its influence on the behaviour of its members and their ways of communication without noticing it. Observing from the outside, we can identify common behaviours and attitudes of people from the same society and culture, but to people living in that society these aspects are elusive and less obvious.
North Americans can be unaware of their individualistic approach, especially if they have never lived in other countries. Jewish Israelis might be unaware of their sensitivity to threats, and exaggerated response due to centuries of persecution.
Brown (2001) analyzed the social defenses structured within this unconscious and stated the most powerful ones as denial and projection. In addition he found the repression of memory to be very powerful especially in traumatic social experiences.
His observations lean heavily on the workshops of the European Association for
Transcultural Group Analysis taking place from the 1980s. From my own experience in Large Groups, I would emphasize the mechanisms of splitting, idealization and projective identification acting strongly in the group and society as well. Brown
(2001) summarizes four ways in which the social unconscious is manifested: 1.
Assumptions - what is taken for granted and natural in society. 2. Disavowals - disowning knowledge or responsibility for things that are unwelcome. 3. Social defenses - what is defended against by projection, denial, repression or avoidance. 4.

31
Structural oppression - control of power and information by competing interests in society and the international community.
This last dimension of structural oppression is missing in Hopper's (1996) original definition, but appears saliently in Dalal's (1998) definition. He adopts a more radical approach claiming that the Social Unconscious is not 'the social in the unconscious', (my emphasis) meaning that it is not just the way someone is affected by their particular cultural system. "The social unconscious includes, but is bigger than, what might be called the cultural unconscious. The cultural unconscious can be described as consisting of the norms, habits, and ways of thinking of a particular culture. … The social unconscious … includes the power relationships between discourses. The social unconscious is a discourse which hierarchically orders other discourses" (page 212). Faithful to what he titles "radical Foulkes", Dalal (2001) asserts that we cannot talk about two parts of the psyche, and that "the unconscious is constituted by social at every level" (page 554). Hopper (2003d) himself tries to minimize the differences between the two approaches and even expresses serious reservations about the current interest in the Social Unconscious, as creating an
'overly-socialized' concept of man. In my opinion the debate only emphasizes the importance of social factors in group analysis and the fact that individual and society are inseparable.
We will return to the Social Unconscious in the following chapters when exploring the hidden facets of culture and elaborate on the Internet Unconscious in the last chapter.
From Conservative Group Analysis to Radical Group Analysis
It is impossible to deal with group analysis and social issues without having to deal with political issues or at least developing an attitude towards political matters and the question how to tackle them in an academic essay. This is not an easy task and sometimes it is difficult to separate a scientific analysis from expressing a political position. Using group analysis as a tool for understanding cultural and societal phenomena immediately confronts us with this dilemma.
Although there is a strong political tradition within psychoanalysis, it has been largely washed our by the medicalisation of psychoanalysis in the US. Jacoby (1983) persuasively argues the case that a hallmark of our narcissistic culture is the reduction of all social and collective problems to their psychological component in individual

32 psyches. He uses the term "psychologism." Very simply, Jacoby defines psychologism as "the reduction of social concepts to individual and psychological ones (page 78)." Problems whose reality is inextricable from their collective and sociological nature are apprehended as individual and psychological problems. Jacoby makes a very convincing case that an alarming characteristic of recent liberal thought has been the tendency to reduce all actions and ideas, all experience and history, to their psychological components.
Many psychologists and psychoanalysts try to refrain from being identified with a definite political attitude, claiming that this will draw them out of the "neutral" analytical stance. Classical psychoanalysis practice was based on the three principles of "anonymity", "neutrality", and "abstinence" (Eagle & Wolitzky, 1992). Cohen,
Ettin and Fidler (1998) have extended this classical psychoanalytic stance to group therapy. Anonymity refers to the therapist's remaining a 'blank screen' so as not to interfere with the group members' projections and transference towards the group analyst. It is rarely useful for the analysts to air their political attitude in groups. To this principle we can add the therapist neutrality meaning that therapists do not take side in group members' inner or outer conflicts including political conflicts. So if the group is composed of Catholics and Protestants from Northern Ireland, the analyst keeps a neutral stance regarding the conflict - but obviously has to address and work with the conflict as it is manifested in the relations between the group members.
This old-fashioned stance kept many psychologists, psychoanalysts and group analysts from taking a stand and expressing a political point of view. More than that, they became cautious not to be identified with any political party so that they can strictly keep their attitude of neutrality and anonymity. Group analysis, with its focus on the social, perceiving the individual as embedded in culture and its clear implications for society and culture, changes this stand dramatically. Analysing societal phenomena, exploring the Social Unconscious, and describing cultural hidden norms are difficult to achieve from a completely neutral position. An interest in sociopolitical processes and the social unconscious is usually informed by a sensitive social consciousness. We are always in the danger of crossing the line between analysing a social/political situation from a group analytic point of view, and between harnessing the group analytic theory for promoting a political statement. On the other hand, as we are part of the culture and society we analyse, how can we avoid being involved with this object of our research?

33
Actually, to begin with, Foulkes's idea (1948, p.10) about the individual as only an abstraction is quite radical. It negates our sense of individual identity and our perception of ourselves as separate entities. Dalal (1998) took this statement further and argued that we cannot isolate an individual from the interpersonal, group or social context. Just as Winnicott dramatically asserted that 'there is no such a thing as a baby', because the baby can never be studied outside the dyad of baby-caregiver,
Dalal can be paraphrased as saying 'there is no such a thing as an individual'.
According to Dalal (1998), two versions of Foulkesian theory actually exist:
Foulkes's orthodox ideas follow Freud and psychoanalytic theory. The orthodox position is usefully extended to include the Gestalt notion of figure-ground relationships, that is, alternating attention to individuals and groups as foreground or background. It seems that this Foulkes had to compromise (or depart from), both theoretically and politically, with the influential psychoanalytic thinking of the time. His radical ideas entail prioritizing the group over the individual (consonant with Marxist thinking); the whole over the part (following Gestalt psychology); the social over the biological (in contrast to Freud); the external over the internal (as a counterclaim to Klein and Bion); the Social Unconscious (or hidden influence of socio-political and cultural constraints) over the Freudian unconscious (as the receptacle of repressed contents), and the mechanism of social transmission over biological inheritance.
So, according to this reading, group analysis is deeply rooted in a radical position. It is tempting to connect the practical and therapeutic aspects of group analysis to conservative-orthodox Foulkes while relating the social implications of this theory to radical Foulkes, but this will be too much of a simplification. In a way group analysis radical ideas preceded postmodern ideas in which certainties are gone and linear relations between cause and effect are no more valid. Towards the end of the 20th century more and more papers appeared in Group Analysis connecting this theory to complexity theory (Stacey, 2000), to intersubjectivity (Schulte, 2000), to gender, sexuality, power and feminism (Burman, 2002), and to class, social status and inequality (Lauren, 2002).
Perhaps the best paper connecting group analysis to rapid developments in the
20th century in areas such as political economy, popular culture, personal and sexual

34 relationship, and psychotherapy, is that of Blackwell (2002). He asserts that, like psychoanalysis, group analysis has had to struggle with the tension between being a radical discourse and becoming a respected profession. Economic and ideological emphasis on individualism brought practitioners to neglect the revolutionary ideas at the basis of group analysis. But a mounting dissatisfaction with divided society, fuelled by ideological struggle against racism, sexism, oppression and cultural imperialism pushed again into the foreground the radical aspects of group analysis, making it a way of understanding and working with groups from families to the whole society. The result of these processes is that the conductor cannot be old fashionedly neutral because she is part of the group matrix, and the researcher using group analytic methods should abandon the belief in the possibility of being neutral in the sense of being objective, because he or she is part of the political system s/he is exploring.
Using the frame of reference of Group Analysis for this thesis:
Usually, qualitative research produces large amounts of textual data in the form of transcripts and observational field notes. The researcher has to make sense of the data by sifting and interpreting them. Data analysis often takes place alongside data collection to allow questions to be refined and new avenues of inquiry to develop. This is exactly the way this research proceeded: the more data was collected on Internet groups, the more questions and explored areas were developed and refined. The more papers I have written for the sake of this thesis - the clearer it became to me how they are related together. Textual data are typically explored inductively using content analysis to generate categories and explanations. Qualitative research uses analytical categories to describe and explain social phenomena. In order to do that, the researcher needs to identify a thematic framework - identifying key issues, concepts, and themes by which the data can be examined and referenced
(Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). The thematic framework for this thesis is that of group analysis.
In order to understand the group phenomena in Cyberspace and connect them to questions of cultures and society, I wore the group analytic lens while observing data on Internet forums and discussion lists. I used group analytic terms and concepts to explain my observations and to give meaning for my findings. Relating to the former aspects of group analysis, I moved from analysing individual phenomena to

35 social ones, from small groups to large groups, from the individual unconscious to the
Social Unconscious, always keeping in mind the radical perspective of group analysis.
Conclusion:
Group analysis is not merely a form of psychotherapy for individual patients.
It moved far beyond the individual, undermining its separate existence, into the study of social processes and cultural phenomena. It begins to emerge as a discourse of both small and large groups, maintaining dialogue over cultures and nations. It also enables members of different cultures to explore their differences and similarities, to study their Social Unconscious, and understand their cultural identity. It addresses familial, sexual, gender, cultural and political themes, and provides an opportunity to explore conflicts and contradictions.
"Group analysis, so Foulkes hoped, would provide not only an effective means of psychotherapy, but also an approach to social phenomena, a way of understanding the individual and her society and the relationship between them. It could, he believed, provide a meeting point for psychoanalysis and sociology, for social psychology and anthropology" (Blackwell, 1994, page 27). This is what I try to do in this thesis: using the group analytic frame of reference to analyse culture and social phenomena, to understand the culture of the Internet and its communities, and to connect it to psychoanalytic thinking. I should add that the radical aspect of group analysis assures that sometimes my subjective interpretation of events will guide the analysis.

36
Presence, immediacy, subjects and (group) therapy
Introduction:
Before entering the discussion about relationship and groups on the Internet, we should deal with a common criticism about Internet interaction arguing that such relationship is not real because no one is present there in Cyberspace.
The Internet is revolutionary not only because of the way people connect with one another or retrieve information, but also because of the philosophical and psychological premise that reside behind it. The non-existence of the body in
Cyberspace enables exploration of postmodern ideas that so far had no way of being tested. The ability people have on-line to create different characters, play several roles, change their age, appear as another gender clearly demonstrate the multi-facets of the self and of subjectivity. It seems that without being connected to their bodies people can explore more possibilities of the self and their subjective experience in ways that were blocked for them before the Internet era. It brings an "understanding of human subjectivity… as a partial, polymorphous and adaptable phenomenon" (Sey,
1999, page 26).
In her book Life On the Screen (1995) Turkle describes how, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, she lived in France in a culture that taught "that the self is constituted by and through language, the sexual congress is the exchange of signifiers, and that each of us is a multiplicity of parts, fragments and desiring connections" (page 14).
These ideas (of Lacan and Derrida, for example) seemed like inspiring abstractions that had nothing to do with everyday life. The embodiment of the self in ordinary life prevented people from having any access to experiencing their selves the way those philosophers and psychoanalysts described - as a decentered self. There was no way for ordinary people to have an experience that will materialize the idea that the unitary self is an illusion. Turkle (1995) describes the Internet experience, accessing MUDs, participating in a virtual community, chatting on-line, etc. as providing such an experience for the crowd.
This revolution changes our ways of thinking not only about the self but also about relationship, intimacy and human connectedness. The possibility of relations that does not involve the body might be confusing, but it also enables a new

37 understanding of connection. It is a connection between selves, partial and decentered as they are.
The new understanding of relationship cannot pass by without having a serious impact on psychotherapy. Whether we talk of individual, couple, family or group therapy, we imagine people sitting next to one another, seeing each other, hearing the others' voices, and feeling the therapist as present physically, emotionally and psychologically. What happens if we take away the bodies and move to
Cyberpsychotherapy?
What is Presence?
Most of the traditional views relate to 'presence' as involving the body.
Actually covert norms of relationship and communication in Western Society presuppose the co-presence of two bodies in the interaction. These cultural hidden norms have structured the notions of individual-society relation, and even conceptions of subjectivity. Two embodied subjects meet in order to interact, communicate and make a relationship. Accordingly, this metaphysics of ‘presence’ structures most therapeutic approaches, and consequent devaluates ‘mediated’ (none face to face) encounters. Turkle (1995) interviewed students who suggested that computers would need bodies in order to be empathic, and need to grow up with attachments in order to feel pain. Actually these attitudes reflect their images of therapy.
Conventional counseling and therapy covertly emphasize a face-to-face, real time interaction. Most of them see the relationship between the therapist and the client as the most significant element in therapy, and value authenticity as one of the
‘healthy’ ways of being in the world. Cyberspace and its implications severely undermine this most common connotation of 'presence'. By doing this they challenge most psychotherapies who rely on a face-to-face interaction.
Let us return to the group-analytic concept of "the matrix" we presented in the previous chapter. The matrix is what connects people together in various situations. It is the communication web in a group, but also the connectedness of people in society.
Powell (1991) argues that we can delineate the matrix as either inside us or outside us.
The inside matrix is the embodied matrix and is susceptible to psychobiological investigation. On the other end there is also the outside unembodied matrix which encompasses the nature of the transpersonal mind (in chapter six it will be termed the

38
Social Unconscious). This matrix is not based on the existence of human bodies and refers to a relational interface.
Does ‘presence’ necessitate a body? The human body materializes itself in two emotionally laden features that define presence in general: Voice and Look. The presence of the other is felt through hearing the other's voice and seeing the other's body feature. The fact that the other looks at us and talks to us causes us to feel present and "seen". Usually this is one of the ways "mirroring" can be achieved
(Weinberg & Toder, 2004, Appendix H). Another aspect of the look and the voice is its authoritative oppressive function. These functions originate in God's act as the founder of the world. When God "said", creatures were created. When God "saw", people felt they could not escape justice. So looking and saying can also become powerful tools of enslaving the other. We can say that voice and look participate in being present and in connection in a double fold way: a benign one (e.g. being seen and mirrored by the other) and a malignant one (being oppressed by the other’s look).
The voice in the psychoanalytic-Lacanian approach is the expression of subjectivity. Expressing one’s unique voice is an important indication of having individual thoughts, ideas and feelings. A silent member of a group or society can easily be ignored and related as inexistent. Social minority groups are keenly aware of this lesson and do their best to be heard. In a Large Group sometimes people feel intimidated and the words are “stuck in their throats”. It might create the threat to one’s identity (Turquet, 1975) and one’s subjectivity. The crowd seems to devour and swallow the subjectivity of the individual. When a participant in the Large Group expresses her voice for the first time she feels quite a relief as if acknowledging her existence.
The voice of the other brings to our attention the fact that others exist too. So awareness to the presence of the other and sometimes to his or her uniqueness and specific needs awakes by hearing their voice. At the same time opening one’s eyes activates awareness too. In the book of Genesis after Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge their eyes opened and they became aware of their nakedness.
Awareness to ones nakedness and vulnerabilities brings shame and fear, but can also become a vehicle and an engine for progress. Western society and civilization achievements are partly the result of becoming aware of human vulnerabilities and weaknesses and trying to overcome them.

39
The existence of an observer is what differentiates between an object and a subject. Actually this sets up the boundary between the object and the subject. It also distinguishes between enslaver and enslaved, oppressor and oppressed. This might become a basic fault in any therapy, because the therapist (object) who is always looking, seeing, analysing and interpreting the patient (subject) is always in an authoritarian (oppressive) position. He has the power, she knows the “truth”, she is
“the object who is supposed to know it all”. Possibly, that is why post-modern approaches in psychoanalysis present themselves as inter-subjective in nature. They try to change the power structure in therapy by positioning two subjects who interact in the therapeutic session and each of them impacts on the other. This is a more balanced view of the therapeutic relationship. Is it possible that the Internet creates the same revolution because it usually lacks voice and sight, and this way breaks down the definition of subject and object?
As technology advances, communication becomes more and more mediated. It becomes virtual and lacks some “real presence” features. In phone conversations the face of the speaker is absent, but the voice is still loudly present. TV broadcasts transmit sound and picture, but the observer cannot touch or smell the speaker. The
Internet brings part-communication to its extreme. It lacks all features and cues but text. It is the prototype of “indirect”, mediated communication.
But does unmediated communication really exist? We are used to think that a face-to-face interaction is an unmediated one. It is, only if we disregard the air that separates between the speakers, and if we ignore the space and the distance between their bodies. The fundamental Western belief is that speaking and thinking are copresent and that speaking is immediate. Writing is supposed to be the substitute for the immediacy of the voice and represents the non-presence. Derrida (1974) opposes this common view and argues that speech is already inhabited by writing and hence is mediated and derivative. Derrida's ideas receive their utmost expression on the
Internet, where writing is the common way of communication, but is experienced by most authors who exchange emails or chat in chat rooms as "talking".
Different aspects of Presence:
So what is presence? Schloerb (1995) defines physical presence as 'the existence of an object in some particular region of space and time' (page 68). Still he believes that an aspect of physical presence, which is causal interaction, does not

40 necessarily require physical presence. He also adds that physical presence supports subjective presence. According to Lombard and Ditton (1997) there are 6 conceptualizations of presence in relevant literature. All of them lead to a definition of presence as 'the perceptual illusion of non-mediation'. A summary of their concept explication follows with its implication to therapy and Cyberspace.
1.
Presence as social richness: In organizational communication presence is the extent to which a medium is perceived as sociable, warm, sensitive, personal or intimate when it is used to interact with other people. The more someone is transmitting warmth, sensitivity, and creates an atmosphere of intimacy, the more this person is perceived as present in relationship. In most therapies, the therapist is supposed to be warm and sensitive towards the client. Failure to do so will result in a feeling of alienation for the client, and maybe in ending therapy. In the self-psychological frame of reference, for example, this nonpresence of the therapist might be termed as an empathic failure. Other psychotherapeutic approaches, such as Rogerian or Existential, stress the importance of acceptance and close relationship in therapy.
We are so used to thinking about this social richness as possible only in face-to-face relationship, that it is hard to believe that Internet connection can create the same impression. Actually, even TV broadcasters can transmit this ‘presence’ through the TV screen, and their observers discuss their appearance as more or less “warm”. Small wonder that McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) concluded (and showed) that, “relationships will develop closeness and intimacy significantly faster over the Internet than will relationships begun offline, because of the greater ease of self-disclosure, as well as the founding of the relationship on more substantive bases, such as shared interest” (page 11).
This aspect of presence is related to two important concepts implied to non-mediated interpersonal communication: intimacy and immediacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965). Intimacy was discussed earlier and is no doubt possible in Cyberspace (It will be discussed again in

41 chapter seven from another point of view, when talking about the
Internet Unconscious). How about immediacy?
In therapy and especially group therapy, immediacy is a term mostly used in the Modern Group Analysis approach. Ormont
(1996/2001) explained that striving for immediacy in group therapy means that, “we want the members to experience themselves and others exactly as they are in the moment” (page 39). The immediacy concept in groups and relationship is strongly related to the “here-andnow” experience, focusing on what is happening at the present moment right on the spot.
Actually immediacy has two meanings. The first means, "not mediated". If we restrict our discussion to this aspect, then by definition a discussion list on the net is mediated in two ways: first the contact goes through another medium (this aspect will be the same when we talk in the phone), and then the asynchrony means that time is mediating between responses (the same as in writing letters).
But immediacy is used in another meaning in group therapy.
This aspect is related to the "here and now", and is mentioned by
Ormont in his book the Group Therapy Experience (1992, page 43) as
"on-the-spot emotional experience" of oneself. If we relate to this aspect of immediacy then we can have an on-the-spot emotional experience to the writing of people on the list and be aware of it. There might be some strong emotional responses to others’ emails. The emotions people feel are to posts appearing days ago but they ARE
'on-the-spot'. Chat rooms are closer to the immediacy response because the interaction is synchronic and concurrent.
Although there might be a delay in reaction, the internal responses of the reader are immediate. Immediacy implies “right now”, but what kind of “right now” response will be considered as immediacy? Maybe we have to define a new “immediacy” for Internet interaction? Here is what a participant in the group-psychotherapy list wrote about it which describes very well this new approach: “If I have an immediate response to someone’s post, my reaction to it is also immediate. But I have a dilemma of how to try and communicate that

42 reaction across a medium that has no facial expression, no tone of voice, no non-verbals to speak of, emotions notwithstanding. My own approach to this is to spend some time formulating my language carefully, so as to convey my response as precisely as possible, nuanced so as to convey my “immediate” experience. Granted, this is a different way of thinking about immediacy, but it’s as valid a representation of what I can come up with at the moment.” (7 April
2001). If immediacy usually means having an immediate response to the other, on Cyberspace it will become having immediate response to the other’s message.
2.
Presence as realism: In this conceptualization presence is determined by "the degree to which a medium can produce seemingly accurate representations of objects, events and people - representations that look, sound, and/or feel like the 'real' thing (Lombard and Ditton, 1997,
P. 6)." This aspect touches the old philosophical question of "what is real?" and is used as the main argument by conservatives against relationship on the Internet, "but this is not REAL relationship". But how real is real?
According to Lacan (1977) three layers construct the human experience: The Real, The Imaginary, and the Symbolic. The Symbolic realm is achieved when entering language. We encounter language from the minute we are born and given a name. The world is already structured for us through words. Human beings cannot exist outside language. Language not only represents objects but also “creates the world of objects”. The Imaginary is created when a child sees a reflection in the mirror and the adult says, “This is you”. This way the child identifies himself erroneously with what s/he is not. The result is an ego alienated from the self. The Imaginary is the total identifications of the ego and its relationship with its objects. The Real relates to the human existence before entering the Symbolic, the world of words. It relates to the primary unity, when we are not aware of any lack, or any differentiated objects.

43
Lacan’s theory implies that most of our existence is in the
Symbolic realm. It is interesting to note that what Lacan labels “real” is very different from what people mean “real” in everyday life. What we consider “real” is actually symbolic and only signifies reality. This is argument stresses the critical importance of reality representations, mostly language. Words only point to other signifiers and not to any entity beyond language (Barratt, 1993). Derrida (1974) connects this illusion that words represent reality to the fact that when a person speaks his voice seems to carry the expressions of his subjectivity and mental experience. It appears as 'the unique experience of the signified producing itself spontaneously from within the self' (page 20). Speech receives a transcendental meaning, or as Sampson (1989, page 9) writes explaining Derrida, 'a source which itself has no source other than its pure being, pure spontaneity, pure presence; a source that serves the ground for truth itself'.
There are several philosophers who touch the question of reality and its representations, such as Plato who claimed that earthlymaterialistic-sensual reality could only reflect the shadows and imitations of ideas, and Kant who argued that we could never grasp the
‘thing in itself’ with our mind and senses. Among psychoanalysts Bion
(1984) distinguishes between the sphere of ultimate truth, that can be known out of experience but we can never really know about (he labeled it O), and intellectual knowledge (which he labeled K).
The important issue here is that what we consider “real” is bound to interpretations and is not necessarily what is perceived by our senses. The most common meaning of "real" is what we perceive by our sense. Can we not trust our senses at least? Actually not. The brain only interprets the stimulus that is transmitted by the neuron and we believe it shows "the truth". In the world of Virtual Reality, where we can wear a helmet with virtual glasses and gloves and believe whatever an illusion the computer creates, we cannot distinguish between what we imagine and what "really" exist anymore. If we wear special eyeglasses with lens that turn the world upside down, at first we shall

44 see the world upside down, but after a few days our brain will adapt itself to the "new world" and show us "the real world".
Perhaps this is the reason why a movie such as The Matrix gains so much popularity nowadays. Disguised as a science-fictionaction movie, it actually asks the question "what is real?" and offers a simplistic answer that we live in an imaginary world created by a computer program. So the world around us is just an illusion. The
Matrix is the network designed to make us believe that the world we
"see" and "sense" is the real world. In the Internet world this is actually what happens. People are connected to one another through invisible wires, relate to the environment they face as real, and belong to virtual communities in which they are emotionally invested. Maybe twenty years ago, before Cyberspace became ubiquitous, a film like The
Matrix could not become so popular.
3.
Presence as transportation: This definition of presence involves the idea of transportation, whether the user is transported to another place, or another place and its objects are transported to the user, or both people in interaction are transported to another place.
Transportation to another place does not necessarily have to involve a traffic vehicle. It only requires good imagination. When two lovers immerse in an intimate conversation they feel as if they are taken from the regular everyday reality and are both transferred into a world only they share. When you watch a good movie and you are totally absorbed in it, you feel as if you are transferred into another world.
The therapeutic hour transfers its two participants to another world too, protected from the regular everyday reality. Clients often complain that the therapeutic relationship is "unreal" and that they feel as if surrounded by a bubble. The therapeutic holding environment is a safe womb giving the client the feeling that he can talk about everything without being judged. The unconditional acceptance and positive regard of the therapist (Rogers, 1957) brings back the client to the lost Garden of Eden of childhood, whether s/he really had such an

45 experience in the past or just longed to have. The therapist creates this
"illusionary reality" by his or her unique presence. The psychotherapist develops a special presence giving up his needs and "ego" and being there for the client. Self-psychology describes this presence, as being ready to serve as the patient's self-object. In this position, through empathy, the therapist reaches the almost impossible achievement of
"touching the subject from zero distance" (Kulka, 1991).
Groups can create this illusion of being transferred to another place too. The group reflects the outside world on one hand, but it also creates its own culture, own norms and unique ways of behaviour. In therapy groups people can be honest and open, disclose issues they never talk about and express their feelings in an intensity they never dared to share in the "real world". Entering regression participants unconsciously perceive the group as a mother and merging fantasies are often activated.
(Foguel, 1994; Scheidlinger, 1974).
Virtual reality strongly shakes our regular perception of
'presence'. In virtual reality people are transferred into an imaginary reality which imitates so well "real" reality and sometimes cannot be distinguished from it. Objects presented in virtual reality can easily be mistaken for real ones. What happens when we project a virtual therapist and conduct a therapeutic session in virtual reality? This possibility upsets the conservative norms of therapy perceiving two embodied persons in interaction as a necessary condition for therapy.
We can go further and think about a group of people meeting in virtual reality for group therapy, each of them stays at home but their image is projected onto a virtual room where the group meets. There is no reason why the results of such group sessions be different from face to face meetings as long as the illusion of reality and the sense of presence is well-kept.
4.
Presence as immersion: This feature of presence is closely related to the idea of presence as transportation, because when we are psychologically and perceptually immersed, the body is entrusted into another reality. Actually this component stands behind imagined

46 transportation. As described before, the presence of the therapist is one of the most important factors that determine the result of therapy. This unique presence is achieved by being genuinely involved and absorbed in the story of the client, almost "forgetting" the therapist's own interests and needs. Although in the beginning the relationship with the therapist seem to clients artificial, they find themselves more involved in the therapeutic relationship and the presence of the therapist accompanies them in the break between the sessions. When this happens, clients find themselves "talking" to their therapist in their imagination, consulting them in their minds, and imagining their answers. The psychotherapist is becoming "a good internal object" for the client.
We can observe the same phenomenon in groups. Members who become engaged in group therapy report that they feel the group as accompanying them in their everyday life, giving them support, strength and courage to do things they refrained from doing before.
The intense relationships and interactions occurring during the group meeting have their impact and exert their influence outside the group too. If the group represents a mother figure, it is internalized as a good mother encouraging the development of her child.
Presence as immersion is the most obvious feature of romantic relationship on the Internet. The lovers are involved in an intense bond even though they might have never met one another face to face. They perceive their relationship as real, bringing happiness to their lives and influencing their day-to-day routine more than many other persons they meet. When someone is involved with a lover overseas, others might call him a virtual object, but looking deeper into love relationship with its typical idealization, lovers relate to one another in an unrealistic way, projecting their ego-ideal onto one another and creating virtual objects even when they meet daily.
Psychologically one can say that every internal object is a virtual object . Internal objects have no body, no concrete contour features. They are representations of real objects for sure, but they do not represent these objects with ingenuous realistic details. The

47 psychoanalytic school of object relations is based on the hypothesis that we internalize the significant others from birth on as internal representations and their inner relations guide our lives. Dismissing virtual objects as unreal and unimportant means dismissing the object relations approach in psychotherapy.
5.
Presence as social actor within medium: and 6. Presence as medium as social actor: Those two characteristics of presence are intertwined and cannot be discussed separately. One deals with relating to a person or computer character and the other deals with relating to cues provided by the medium itself. When interacting with a social actor within a medium, such as TV broadcaster or computer software imitating a person, people tend to disregard the one-sided interaction, and forget how mediated and artificial this relationship is. A cyber pet, such as
"The Tamagotchi" can acquire features of and children might treat it as a "real" pet.
The famous ELIZA software from 1966 imitating a therapeutic session gave the impression of an empathic and accepting Rogerian psychologist. The possibility of a Cyber-psychologist brings to mind the old debate about "Turing Test", and whether a computer can completely mimic a human being. In this test (named after Alan Turing who first suggested it) a person should try to differentiate between two actors, leading a conversation with the person behind a screen, and decide which of them is flesh and blood and which is a machine. Many science-fiction movies focus on such a possibility, sometimes evoking archaic fears about machines controlling humans ( Space Odyssey 2001,
The Matrix , etc.) and sometimes arousing social and ethical questions
( Artificial Intelligence, Blade Runner , etc.). In the Internet era one can never know whether the person with him we are connected on-line is a
"real" person or just a sophisticated computer program.
Considering the above, there is no reason to think that a Cyberpsychologist (a machine that imitates the professional responses of a psychologist) will have a different impact on the client than a real therapist. As long as the illusion of presence is working, and the social

48 cues that are normally reserved for human-to-human interaction exist in this interaction, we can perceive the entity on the other end as a real social entity and relate to him as such.
Summary:
Taking into consideration all the facets of presence mentioned above we can summarize that the meaning of presence is close related to our understanding and perceiving of reality. In the post-modern era reality cannot be described as "what is perceived by our senses". Reality is socially constructed and is based more on a consensus agreed upon in a specific society. As Mantovani & Riva put it (1999, page
541) '‘‘reality’’ is not out there in the world, somewhere ‘‘outside’’ people’s minds, escaping social negotiation and cultural mediation; reality is co-constructed in the relationship between actors and their environments through the mediation of the artifacts (Riva & Mantovani, 1999)'. 'Individuals experience "reality" through interpretive grids that are generated by the preexisting social structures that have presided over their socialization processes and live in "reality" that is usually a social space' (ibid, page 545).
Reality is not something objective, but is constructed in people minds according to their cultural and environmental influences, to which many of them are unconscious or at least unaware of. If we want to understand deeper the meaning of presence and reality, we need to deconstruct these conceptions and analyse how they change according to different ontologies, in different societies and different cultures.
We also need to understand the concept of the Social Unconscious, which is closely connected to constructing reality in society. The questions of culture and the Social
Unconscious will be addressed in the following chapters. Regarding reality as socially constructed brings forth language as the primary societal tool in constructing reality.
Language not only defines objects, calls them by names, and describes them, but also molds and shapes how we perceive the world (Derida, 1974; Lacan, 1977).
Another conclusion is that there are no unmediated objects and unmediated communication. All interaction is mediated, but some forms of mediation are naturalized within dominant culture . We can start with Derrida's (1974) argument that speech is already inhabited by writing and hence is mediated and derivative. We can also say that there is no interaction outside a medium, but the medium can appear to be transparent, and as such invisible. But above all, if reality and presence are socially

49 constructed it means that society and culture covertly and unconsciously mediate every interaction. The illusion of non-mediation might become stronger in a specific culture, reinforcing the medium to cause psychological immersion, but culture still mediates any experience of presence.
The implications of these conclusions to therapy are imperceivable. They challenge the norms common to Western society that therapy should be conducted between two embodied people (or a group of people), who are physically present having a face-to-face interaction.
Maybe we can adopt a new definition of therapy that involves two selves (or a group of selves) in interaction instead of two embodied persons. The self is not equivalent to the body, is not contained by the body and even does not necessarily reside inside a body. "A body is not 'covered' by the skin, it does not 'contain' the
'self'." (De Jesus, 1999, page 83). The new approach to therapy, enhanced by a new understanding of human connection appearing on-line, portrays two decentered selves, partial, subjective and polymorphous as they are trying to connect over a mediated space, having rare moments of close-touching connection.
Turkle (1995, page 139) pointed out that there is a parallel between the historical development of psychoanalysis and historical development of artificial intelligence: "In both fields there has been movement away from a model in which a few structures act on more passive substance. Psychoanalysis began with drive and artificial intelligence began with logic. Both moved from a centralized to a decentered model of mind. Both moved towards a metatheory based on objects and emergence".
We will benefit a lot if instead of resisting this parallel between psychoanalysis and artificial intelligence, human and machine, face-to-face and virtual interaction, we explore it and learn from it about our culture.

50
In a movie titled The Gods Must Be Crazy (1984) a Bushman from Africa finds an empty Coca-Cola bottle that someone threw from an airplane, and brings it to his tribe. The Coke bottle that dropped magically from the sky is considered a generous gift of the gods. They have never seen such a useful present that the gods sent them. They use it to pound tubers into mesh, to smooth snake skin while curing it, as stamps to apply decorative ink to leather, and as a musical instrument where you blow across the top to make a whistle. It seems that when people do not know of the original purpose of an object, they make creative uses of it.
But as time goes by the useful present from the gods becomes an evil object for this culture, which so far had no possessions and no ownership. Suddenly everyone is in need for this precious object and unfortunately there is only one bottle.
So fights and competition start in this peaceful happy tribe, until finally they decide to get rid of that corrupting object.
This movie story is not only a criticism of the western culture (symbolized by the Coke bottle) but also shows how cultures can be very different from one another.
So different that if we try to absorb elements from one culture into another the result might be more harmful than helpful.
In the next chapters I would like to discuss Cyberspace culture and its unconscious, and connect it to Internet groups and forums. But before doing that we should define culture, explore and analyse its distinctive features, and discuss the connection between groups and cultures.
The question of Culture can be approached from many perspectives: Social,
Anthropological, Psychological, Philosophical and Political. Perhaps this is the reason why no agreed definition of "culture" exists and the number of definitions equals the number of writers on this important issue. There is not even a consensus among scholars, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists as to what exactly the concept should include.
Studying culture involves several aspects that should be explored and analysed
(see Carrithers, 1992, Cole, 1996, Greetz, 1973, Rogoff, 2003, for some cultural

51 studies readers). A cultural studies course should include many areas, such as (see http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/index.html
for an example):

Cultural representations and signifiers explore the use of language to construct meaning. This area analyses how we make sense of words and images through media from books and newspapers to television, movies and computer technology.

Cultural differences and constructed identities consider the effects of cultural representations on the construction of identities: how a complex 'sense of identity' is constructed by and for individuals, marking both their difference from others and their connection with groups on the basis of shared histories, beliefs and values.

Cultural production asks how cultural products are produced, marketed and sold; and how they are inscribed with particular meanings so as to offer identification for consumers in the context of the global economy.

Cultural consumption moves on from production to consumption. It looks at the ways in which culture is used with meaning at the level of the locality, the group and the individual. It asks how far cultural products are subject to diverse, unexpected uses and are remade by those who use them.

Cultural change and regulation asks whether the pace of social change and consequent cultural diversity mean that ideas of cultural authority are no longer tenable.
Culture involves what people think, what they do, and the material products they produce. Although definitions of culture vary widely, there is agreement about the following features: The shared aspect of culture means that it is a social phenomenon (Carrithers, 1992), that is it arises when group members share the same norms, values, beliefs, and behavioral patterns (Taylor, 1989). Culture is learned, not biologically inherited, and involves arbitrarily assigned, symbolic meanings of which language is primary (Greetz, 1973). It also includes ways of organizing society, from kinship groups, clans, and tribes, to states and multi-national conglomerations, and the distinctive formation of groups and their products (Ridley, 1996).

52
From the conventional arts and media perspectives, culture is associated with different forms of creative expression in the areas of literature, music, drama, etc. It is usually divided between 'high culture', relating to the interests of an intellectual élite, and 'popular culture', relating to the pleasures and leisure of wider society. Today references to culture seem to permeate all aspects of society. 'Culture', it seems, is implicated in everything we do and everything we are.
Anthropology views culture as defining space, time, health, relationships, rituals and groups. Bodley (1994), an anthropologist, summarizes the following inventory of cultural aspects:
Topical:
Culture consists of everything on a list of topics, or categories, such as social organization, religion, or economy
Historical:
Culture is social heritage, or tradition, that is passed on to future generations
Behavioral: Culture is shared, learned human behavior, a way of life
Normative: Culture is ideals, values, or rules for living
Functional:
Culture is the way humans solve problems of adapting to the environment or living together
Mental:
Culture is a complex of ideas, or learned habits, that inhibit impulses and distinguish people from animals
Structural:
Culture consists of patterned and interrelated ideas, symbols, or behaviors
Symbolic:
Culture is based on arbitrarily assigned meanings that are shared by a society
From a hermeneutic point of view (Christopher, 2001) culture provides meaning and structure that make social life feasible. Human life is not conceivable without culture because it provides the common understandings that allow the social world to have a meaning.
It gives some significance to being a person and provides

53 some understanding of human nature. These 'webs of significance' (Geertz, 1973) permeate our social life, practices, institutions and daily functioning even without noticing. Being so pervasive it becomes impossible to separate culture from individuals. We can never fully detach ourselves from the culture we live in because the self is embedded in culture.
From an evolutionist point of view culture is an 'adaptation', giving its owner some advantage over alternative forms in the population (Rose, 1997). Culture is helpful to survival and reproduction, because it unites people into groups. Groups of people that collaborate and have some common cultural features uniting them, have a better chance to survive than individuals.
Each perspective on culture hides deeper questions and attitudes, especially around the necessity of change or preservation of the current situation as is. All the above aspects have implications regarding the dominant culture and its superiority over other cultures. For example, if culture is a learned social phenomenon, society and its institutions can make use of it to preserve its social classes, gender differentiations, etc. If the self is embedded in a culture that gives meaning to his/her existence, western culture, that stresses individuality and finds significance in selfactualization, is by no means superior to eastern culture who focuses on tribe or extended family ties and finds meaning in the individual belonging to a larger group.
The advantage of culture over individuals is not only in survival. There is a psychological advantage in belonging to a culture. Belonging in itself is a basic need and creates a feeling of safety. A member of a specific culture encounters, whether consciously or unconsciously, all the above mentioned patterns, symbols, ideas, and values that make culture what it is. It brings a sense of familiarity and some illusion of certainty in life. Apparently culture has some psychological functions. Kaës (1987) describes four psychic functions of culture: 1. Maintaining the individually undifferentiated basis for psychic structures necessary for belonging to society. 2.
Guaranteeing common defenses. 3. Enhancing identification and differentiation, which guarantee the continuity of the distinction between the sexes and the generations. 4. Constituting an area of psychic transformation by providing signifiers, representations and modalities for treating and organizing psychic reality.

54
Le Roy (1994) explains that in the first two functions culture contains the undifferentiated aspects of the individual psyche, and in the last two it promotes the structuralization of the psyche through its introduction into a series of symbolic orders.
Culture protects us from primitive anxieties by structuring the environment and by giving it a meaning. It helps its members to sublimate their impulses and drives, and engage in daily rituals that provide relief from existential anxieties. We know how to deal with life and death through cultural codes and tradition.
Culture is strongly connected to the question of identity. Sometimes when we speak of culture we mean a style of life that is typical or even defines a community or a group people belong to. In this sense it would be better to talk about identity. The sameness of customs, norms, language, dress, code of behavior, enhances the individual to structure and develop an identity. Erikson (1950) saw ego identity as anchored in a cultural identity. When developing his individual identity the youngster is leaning heavily on the cultural identity, its normative expectations and definitions of what is right. In a relative stable environment that culture provides the adolescent can shape his role in society and invest in an identity formation process. When culture changes (such as in migration) this stability is shaken and identity formation is disrupted.
A personal identity cannot be formed without a collective identity to serve as a reference point. Taylor (2002) defines the collective identity as "that descriptive aspect of the self-concept that the individual shares with every member of one's group" (page 44). Collective identity refers to many group identities and not just the cultural group. It can be based on the professional group people belong to, their neighborhood, or their constant friends group. But there is something special about the collective identity emerging from culture, because it encompasses almost every area of life. Culture represents the individual's most pervasive and all-inclusive collective identity. Therefore, culture forms the basis for a person's personal identity.
The psychological aspects of culture might explain why is it difficult to analyse culture from a neutral perspective and de-construct its deeper meaning. The psychic structures necessary for belonging to society are threatened when we explore the meaning of culture and its underlying values. Culture seems like a safety envelope

55 that holds together those primitive anxieties mentioned above. Culture stands as a self-evident but often unanalysed entity. Impinging this imaginary envelope by questioning its basic meaning threatens to undermine society's foundations and set free the anxieties. What will happen to us if we question the distinction between the sexes and the generations?
Some cultural dimensions and aspects are quite obvious and people are very aware of them. We are aware of the tradition and habits of the culture we live in. We can easily be aware of the manners and common behavior that belong to our culture.
When we meet people we know we usually greet them in a polite way, and if we fail to do that it looks strange. Language is one of the most important elements of culture especially if it is unique or endangered. Usually people from a certain culture are more aware of their culture norms when they step out of them and sometimes get the feedback (verbally or just by a rebuking look) that we did something wrong. We know exactly what kind of dress belongs to our culture and can easily identify a person from another culture by the way they dress, even if we never stopped to define our typical cultural code of dressing (The above sentences assume that culture is unitary. Another possibility is that there might be numerous sub-cultures in a seemingly uniform culture. We will discuss this question later).
But some of the cultural aspects are more elusive and less obvious. North
Americans can be unaware of their individualistic approach, especially if they have never lived in other countries. Israelis might never understand why they are considered rude until they go to Europe and are amazed by the different daily relationships and politeness people display when they relate to one another. Actually, one of the ways to understand one's culture and to become more aware and critical about its features is to look at it from the outside. Only by distancing yourself from your origin and compare it to other places you might notice that things are different in other places. Another way of becoming aware to hidden cultural codes is by analysing the media, such as TV broadcasts or movies. The mass media represents very well the culture it stems from [On the hidden cultural codes within the media, and how the media synthesise and reproduce them, see Williamson (1988)].

56
Actually culture is ubiquitous even without our noticing its presence. It impregnates our daily life and the texture of relationships. As we saw in chapter three about the non-body and presence, culture also constructs our minds and has its impact on our perception and understanding of reality. In that chapter I wrote about the medium of interaction as appearing to be transparent. We can say the same about culture and relate the cultural medium as being invisible. As said there, if reality and presence are socially constructed it means that society and culture covertly and unconsciously mediate every interaction. Culture can be seen as an invisible web standing behind our behaviours and interactions. A culture links its individuals through shared conscious and unconscious assumptions (Sengun, 2001).
Foulkes (1964) coined the concept of the group matrix, which can be described as the communication network of the group members at both the conscious and unconscious level. This term holds a central position in Group Analysis.
Elaborating on the matrix concept Foulkes (1971) further developed the concept of the foundation matrix and the dynamic matrix. The dynamic matrix is still the network of verbal and nonverbal communication in a certain group; dynamic because it undergoes a steady change. The foundation matrix points to the social preconditions enabling group communication to take place. It is 'the pre-existing community or communication between the members, founded eventually on the basis that they are all human' (page 212). It addresses the common ground shared by group members before they enter a group. This means that the foundation matrix connects people from the same culture and speaking the same language. The dynamic matrix is usually portrayed as being superimposed on the foundation matrix and in between are levels that are "transmitted by parents and family in the first place, who in turn transmit the values of what is good, what is bad, etc. in their culture" (page 213). Thus, the dynamic matrix concept is broadened to include a cultural foundation matrix, which unconsciously and covertly ties and links the individual to society. Among the common grounds allowing the communication among members of the same culture we can count language, cultural and ethical common values, and common interpretation of relationships (including dimensions of gender and generation).
In the past, analytical group therapy discussion hardly dealt with the foundation matrix, maybe because the groups were usually homogenous linguistically and culturally. When therapists stopped working only with middle class homogenous

57 groups of equal native speaker, ethnic, and cultural origin, questions about the foundation matrix started to emerge. We can conclude that as therapists we can be unaware of deep cultural important issues, unless the circumstances change. But can we speak of a more core universal matrix that seems to be lacking in Foulkes' description? This is the matrix connecting people wherever they are based on their common inheritance as human beings. In the current world of globalisation and immigration, we must look further beyond the foundation matrix and ask questions about this core matrix. We might find out (as we do in multiculturally composed groups) that the differentiation into cultures that we are used to, is not so self-evident, and that more basic tenets unite people than separates them. We will see later that this is one of the potentials of the Internet culture: to enable exploring this core matrix.
Culture surrounds us in invisible ties. The process of the psychic development of the individual is embedded in the dominant culture, but the person is unaware of its existence in everyday life or at least its heterogeneity. Culture impacts our eating customs, bodily contacts, child raring patterns and relationship to time, space and the other, but it is always there in the background unnoticed. It is especially difficult for people from a dominant majority group to notice their invisible values and codes of behavior because they often take for granted their practices as the norm (Perry, 2001).
For example, North Americans going to international conferences have difficulty understanding that the use of English excludes others and is an advantage and even a powerful position for them over others. The most difficult cultural processes to examine are the ones that are based on unquestioned basic assumptions. One of them is the presumption of the homogeneity of cultures. Only points of tension/conflict prompt awareness of diverse sub-cultures, e.g. around gender, class, sexuality or dominant/minoritised cultural status. As we saw earlier, one of the key tenets of group analysis is to acknowledge and work with these tensions.
Cultural processes surround us involving subtle, tacit, taken-for-granted ways of doing things (Rogoff, 2003). For example, a member of a majority group is usually unaware of the privileges this social group belonging bestows. Even information processing is influenced by the social minority-majority contexts (Turner et al., 1987) whereas members of majorities tend to perceive more homogeneity in the outgroup than in the ingroup, members of minorities often show the opposite tendency.
Perhaps the way to become aware of the tiny numerous culture mechanisms that hold

58 our reality together is to create some estrangement of daily routine and make it less taken for granted. Distancing ourselves from what is usually comprehensible enables us to suddenly see what evades our eyes regularly. In order to do this we should get rid of ethnocentrism and be able to adopt an outsider perspective of our community.
In a way the Internet provides us with such an estrangement and distancing. It not only provides a meeting space for different cultures, encountering people with their daily believes, but also shapes a new culture in a seemingly egalitarian environment.
That is why studying groups in Cyberspace supplies us with invaluable information about the creation of a new culture through the assembly of people from all over the world.
The idea of the Social Unconscious, which will be discussed in another chapter (number six), is strongly related to question of how much we are aware of the invisible cultural constraints that surround us. Actually we can see the cultural areas we are unaware of as part of the Social Unconscious (although we will see that it is much more than these areas).
We are born into a culture, introjecting its norms from early infancy. We are first introduced to the family culture, which in itself is embedded in the social world.
We cannot escape internalizing cultural codes as we grow up: how to dress, how to behave, how to speak, what is correct and what is wrong. From the moment of birth we are surrounded by cultural symbols, messages and values that become part of our social identity. So even though western liberal thinking subscribes to notions of free will whereby we imagine we can choose which behaviour suits us, actually these behaviours vary along quite a limited range. The fact that we are not aware of those invisible cultural ties facilitates the illusion that we are free to choose what to wear and how to speak. Actually culture is a golden cage. It is golden because it offers many advantages for those who obey its hidden code. As said before, culture is essential for survival, brings a sense of belonging, grants meaning to life, soothes deep anxieties, etc. Only when people behave in contrast to cultural norms, they are surprised to receive censoring reactions. They suddenly realize how entrapped they were in an unconscious pattern.

59
Belonging to a group triggers a conflict that has its echoes in being part of a culture. On one hand the member wants to be part of the group (community, culture), and thus fulfill his/her needs for belonging and not feeling lonely. On the other hand in order to belong to the group, the individual has to give up some of his/her separateness and uniqueness by conforming to the norms. According to Mackenzie &
& Livesley (1983) this dilemma appears in the first stage of a group life, but actually might only be stronger or clearer at the beginning and it continues to linger in the background as long as the member belongs to the group. In his Civilisation and Its
Discontents , Freud (1961) had already discussed the individual as caught in a struggle between the demands of culture and 'civilisation' and the pleasure principle. Freud argued that there was a conflict between our id or instinctual nature and the requirements of civilisation. We can apply his argument to every culture or group.
This struggle, which is inevitable and fundamentally never resolved, is a necessary part of being part of a culture.
Awareness itself is not always enough to free ourselves from the hidden chains of cultural oppression, although sometimes it is a necessary step. Marginalised and minority groups internalize their social status and the negative attitude towards them, resulting in a lower self-esteem. Disadvantaged groups still tend to use "depressed entitlement" (Jost, 1997) and low status groups still show out-group favoritism
(Sidanius & Prato, 1999) despite the enormous development in strengthening favorable social identities and empowering minority groups. An extreme example is the case of women surviving domestic violence. They have been subject to social isolation, but paradoxically when they escape to secret refuges they are even more isolated and marginalised (Burman, 2004). It is not only their own inner dynamics influencing this process, but also an institutionalised social solution, keeping this marginalised oppressed minority group more isolated, despite the good intentions and social awareness of the helping services.
The Internet appeals to many people because it seems as a culture freer than any other culture. People are free to create their own identity, play whatever role they want to present, change their gender and at the same time disclose very intimate information about themselves. On the surface it looks as if the Internet is the ultimate democracy, where each person has an equal status and ability to influence, and with no gender, race or ethnic bias. A more thorough exploration shatters this simplistic

60 notion. In relating to gender issues, for example, there are two opposing approaches to
Cyberfeminism. Researchers such as Plant (1997) argue that women are becoming liberated from the traditional patriarchal power structures that surround and engulf them. In turn, gender roles and gender identity are breaking down, where our societal notions of being human, feminine, and masculine are in transition. Others (see VNS
Matrix website at http://sysx.org/vns/ ) criticize this "net utopianism" claiming that information exchange on the Internet does not automatically obliterate hierarchies, and fear that cyberspace will simply recreate the same old stereotypes of gender identity, given that it too is structured by capitalist and patriarchal social relations.
The question of the Internet culture and its unconscious features will be discussed more in the next chapters.
Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are supposed to be free from moral judgment and cultural unbiased. They are not. I dare say that they cannot. Freud wanted to base psychoanalysis on a pure scientific basis, and put the psychoanalyst in an objective role. Many theoreticians criticized this point of view. For example, his equating femininity with passivity was vigorously attacked by many feminists
(Benjamin, 1998). Actually, Freud was entrapped in the cultural norms of his time and place, and even though he was revolutionary in relation to sexuality, he could not free his mind from cultural ties when it came to gender issues. His dichotomy and binary approach to doctor and patient, object and subject, male and female were deeply influenced by the hierarchical views of the end of the 19 th
century (Frosh, 1999). It took almost a century to transform psychoanalysis into an intersubjective experience, and what probably contributed mostly was the Postmodern Zeitgeist with its deconstruction of any binary terms and flat structures of systems. Just as the feminist discourse has pointed out that the public language has been a way of putting women and other minority groups "in place", we can claim that psychoanalytic language is acting as the formal dominant-controlling culture in the psychotherapeutic field.
Studying culture poses the question of whether we can treat it as a monolithic entity. When people belong to the same culture we assume some uniformity of behavior and ways of thought. This is a doubtful assumption and might become a dangerous misleading overgeneralisation. Being an American means belonging to the

61
American culture, but does it mean that a Californian and a New Yorker have similar norms and codes of behavior just because they are both Americans? Or is a Muslim from Iran the same as a Muslim from Morocco? And if s/he is similar, what might the continuity across diverse cultural contexts mean? We might even question the existence of a unitary Cyber culture encompassing the behaviour and attitudes of all the members in an Internet community. The closer one looks the more likely one is to discern differences within groups, and the splitting of groups into subgroups can go on ad infinitum. In a way this problem has echoes with the different layers of the matrix mentioned earlier, as the core matrix connects all human while the cultural foundation matrix (defined earlier) is the hidden network for a certain society and the group matrix are the covert fibers binding a certain group.
Why, then, do people assume homogeneity of culture? We can learn from the way groups (try not to) deal with diversity through an avoidant strategy that overemphasises sameness. This strategy is invoked when archaic anxieties are triggered. These groups might ignore differences around gender, class, sexuality or underprivileged minorities. Many group experts referred to the shared illusion of group members about the existence of a group entity that keeps the group's cohesiveness. Anzieu (1984) called it 'the group object', Segalla (1996) termed it 'the group self-object', Karterud (1998) named it 'the group self', and Cohen (2002) - 'the group's self'. In a similar way there is a need for people to imagine an envelopeunitary culture that maintains the cohesion, identity and safety of the individual and groups within this culture. Just like in groups, they also ignore diverse sub-cultures.
Discourses of culture have historically and currently appeared to be deeply connected with notions of 'same' and 'different'. The issue involves the question of how differences come to be viewed as such, and which remain 'unmarked' through being part of a dominant culture, and so are normalised into invisibility. We are all aware of the stereotyped-racist notion in western culture that "all Japanese (Chinese,
Blacks, whatever) look alike". Phoenix (1987) discussed the ways black women are represented in academic discourses as a normalised absence /pathologised presence.
This attitude towards a minority group denies differences among that group, and easily leads to stereotyping and pathologising minority groups. Some ways of thinking about difference deny overlap and intersection in ways that foster affirmations of absolute difference. For example, Israelis tend to relate to Arabs living in Israel as a united block, not differentiating between Muslim Arabs and Christian

62 ones, which are enormously different. This is and easy way for Israelis to protect themselves from a (realistic or imagined) danger and put all the "suspected enemies" in the same basket. Similarly foreign workers in most countries are treated as a crystallised unity (even though they might come from very different cultures) which makes it easy to treat them as a marginalised minority group. So in some contexts fostering affirmations of absolute difference might contribute to racism and apartheid.
If we take the matter of cultural differences seriously, we can conclude that people coming from different cultures have different psychologies and different psyches. This conclusion presumes internalisation of the cultural forces into the individual’s psyche. We should bear in mind that individuals and culture are inseparable and that development of the person is intertwined with the person’s culture. Having said the above we risk the danger of justifying racism. Dalal (1998) offers a critique of the ways in which different psychologies are attributed to different cultures, and provides a set of other conceptual tools for thinking about difference, in ways that not mutually exclusive. He goes further to warn about the dangers of attributing different psychologies to different cultures, because it leads to racism and apartheid (page 208). This might become true if we confuse differences with worthiness. The fact that people from different cultures differ (either inside or outside) does not make them better or worth. Denial of differences out of fear of racism is like throwing the baby with the water.
Let us take as an example the differentiation that Hall (1976) is making between individualistic and collective cultures. Individualistic cultures are guilt provoking cultures: members who do not follow their culture norms and rules tend to feel guilty. Their personal conscience (which is the internalisation of social norms) functions as an internal guide for their behavior. Collective cultures are shame-ridden cultures. A deviation from expected behavior evokes shame not only in the individual, but the entire group feels ashamed. This might be a useful analysis, but is it not an overgeneralisation? Another example is the four factors mentioned in my paper about groups from different cultures (Weinberg, 2003b; Appendix G) that differentiate between western and eastern cultures: Individualism vs. communalism (collectivism), cognitivism vs. emotionalism, free will vs. determinism, and materialism vs. spiritualism. Although these are not dichotomies, we can still arrange different cultures along the continuum of these axes. Does it imply that all people from the East are emotional, determined and so forth – whilst those in the West have free will and a

63 mind to think with etc.? Although one can argue that this sort of gross division between the so-called East and West is useless because it is too general, it still describes well the general principles and motives for behavior of people from different cultures. This point is further elaborated in my paper about the culture of the group (Weinberg, 2003b; Appendix G).
A possible solution is to describe individuals’ participation in cultural communities instead of thinking of culture as consisting of separate categories
(Rogoff, 2003). Cultural features can be treated as interdependent aspects of multifaceted pattern. As the individual belongs to many communities who overlap, we cannot talk separately about his belonging to a specific culture. Community can be defined as a group of people who have some common and continuing values, interests, understanding, history, and practices. This does not mean that people from the same community have precisely the same point of view or share the same interests. So Americans can share some common features and still be very different according to their ethnic origin. This solution can also answer the above question about the Internet non-monolithic feature. People can belong to an Internet community but still not share exactly the same values or perspectives. They belong to other communities and cultures outside the Internet, which no less have their influence on their lives.
Ridley (1996) argues that society and culture exist to bind and cohere groups together. His point of view is biological and based on the evolutionary assumption that groups of people that collaborate survive better than the isolated individual. Elias
(1989) reaches the same conclusions from a sociological standpoint. He claims that a sense of cohesion develops over time in the family, based on a stock of common memories, attachments and dislikes.
So if we agree that groups are essential to human development and that people relate themselves to groups, the question is: to what group or groups? This brings back the issue of identity and the multitude of potential identities. At first it seems that the question is where to draw the imaginary boundary between one group and another.
It is easier when two groups have seemingly distinctive cultural and physical features and clear differences (such as North Americans and Japanese), but most of the time groups overlap in many features, and they might be different along one distinct dimension while looking similar in other dimensions. In many cases the distinction into Us and Them is just an easy way to simplify and split reality into more

64 comprehensible categories. Actually, when people from groups who look so different are ready to really talk to one another, strange things happen. If they are ready to change an ideological discussion (meaning that there is only one truth and it is the ideology of my group) into discourse dialogue (meaning that it is not an external reality but a self-referential), they find out that they have much more in common than they thought.
Of course language is a key medium of cultural identity/difference and is still left as an impassable barrier. People from different language speaking cultures will always feel less privileged and weakened when forced to speak in their dialoguepartner's language. On the surface it looks as if language is the ultimate boundary clearly differentiating cultures, and unconsciously becoming the instrument of oppression for the dominant culture. For example, the fact that Internet communication is mostly conducted in English is on one hand trying to unify the
Internet into a homogenous culture, but it also gives an enormous advantage to
English speakers, and excludes people who do not speak this language. But when we turn into the spoken-heard language, we find out that not all English-speakers have the same accent. Not only that Americans, Australians, and British sound different, but even inside the UK or the US people from different regions can be identified according to their particular pronunciation of words. So language too, that seemed as setting the boundaries for cultures is again fragmented when delving with the different groups that belong to that same-language-speaking culture.
We can use the term “group” as ‘a collection of people who interact with one another as parts of a social system…. Each has its own culturally defined goals, roles, rules of procedure, and leadership style’ (Cohen, Ettin, & Fidler, 2002, page 182).
This way groups are connected to culture already through their definition.
Groups develop and have their own cultures. "We could say there is the internal (intrapsychic) culture, the family culture, the subgroup culture (psychologists, military, list-members), and the social culture (US, Israel), etc. If the group members come from the same social culture, the developing group culture can replace the values and norms of the original culture of the group members" (Weinberg, 2003b, page 264; Appendix G). Sometimes the norms and behavioural patterns of groups more easily reflect the culture of the larger communities. Other times smaller groups and larger groups’ culture is interchangeable, or at least it is impossible to determine who impacts whom. Take the case of the family, for example. A family is a group too,

65 which has its habits, ways of relating to the world, child rearing patterns, gender roles, and practices. A certain culture can be deduced when many families from the same community behave similarly. E.g. U.S. middle-class families often report that it is important for a child’s developing independence and self-reliance to sleep apart
(Morelli et all, 1992). However, putting babies to sleep apart from their mother is an unusual practice when viewed from a worldwide perspective (Trevarthen, &
McKenna, 1994). At the same time families have their own unique culture that does not reflect the outside urban, ethnic, or national culture. A specific family might develop rigid boundaries that prevent a smooth information exchange with the outside world, or other unique rules that are different from the culture around it (‘in our family we do not answer phone calls after 9 PM’).
Culture can include many groups all of them share some common values. The group boundaries are more clearly defined than cultural boundaries. Culture is a more abstract entity than a specific group that usually includes a definite number of people. There is a lack of terms in which to discuss groups and culture at the same time, without betraying the complexity and the depth or the influence of either. As pointed out in my paper
(Weinberg, 2003b; Appendix G) "We can look at the question of groups and cultures from two different angles. The first is to see groups as representing cultures and learn from them about the processes, norms, and features of the culture they come from".
Therapy and process groups have a culture of their own too. "A psychotherapy group is a small temporary society with a therapeutic purpose, so this experience of the group is a cultural experience" (Jacobson, 1989, page 476). But contrary to natural groups such as families, this culture develops along these groups' lifetime. If we see the group as a microcosm we might learn from the development of the group culture about the development of wider cultures. Cohen, Ettin, & Fidler (2002) tried to do this by applying group processes to political problems. They even ambitiously mapped political systems onto their process group analogies, crowning democracy and its culture as most developed group stage based on independent and interdependent forms of human governance. Alternatively, Jacobson (1989) uses Bion's (1959) ideas about the basic assumptions that develop in the group to describe the creation of a fantasized unitary "group" entity that is distinct from the collection of individuals in the room. This "group" becomes an object in the cultural field. Cultural objects like this "group" are ubiquitous in linking individuals to their groups. As he puts it, "It is one of those things via which we relate to larger groups of which we are a part, and

66 which are important to our experience of ourselves as members of the group"
(Jacobson, 1989, pages 492-493).
Different cultures create different frames of references for group therapy.
These differences are reflected even in the name of the group therapist, which is called group leader in the USA and group conductor in the UK. This is not just a semantic question, as we know that language shapes our mind. A leader has the authority to make decisions and to lead the group in the way s/he finds right. A conductor tries to integrate between the different voices and in Group Analysis s/he becomes a more equal partner of the group. The seemingly slight differences become prominent in the following example taken from my group-psychotherapy Internet discussion list:
A stormy exchange of emails took over the scene on the list when a new member entered the discussion. She was definitely not a group therapist like the other participants, and had a lot of criticism towards therapists, which she aimed towards the list members. At the same time she sent so many messages that the members were overwhelmed with the volume of emails. Some of them attacked her and some tried to protect and understand her. After some interpretative intervention, in an effort to quiet the scene, the list manager (myself) decided to take a "leader's" stance and announced that this member's (S.) posts will be reviewed by him prior to releasing them to the list. In addition he restricted her postings to 5 a day.
A very hot discussion followed his decisions. Here are some responses:
"
Thank you Haim. For me this quiets down the voice inside that has been telling me to leave the list. The past events on the list have made it hard to simply lurk and remain on the sidelines due to the huge amounts of maintenance required just to keep my inbox from being overrun with GP messages. I think your strategy is a good one."
"Throughout the tumult that has occurred over the last several days, when the topic of what to do or what not to do about S.'s behavior

67 arose there was usually a comparison made to a therapy group. I'd like to propose a different analogy.
I agree with A. when he said "I have found the forum to be an oasis in my life as a place to come and share ideas, make friends both professionally and personally, and once and a while laugh."
With that in mind I prefer to liken this forum to a professional meeting or workshop. If someone claiming to be a member of our profession entered our meeting and behaved in the way that S. did... disrupting, manic, borderline rage, etc...I know I would not turn my attention from the gathering and try to therapize (another word from the dictionary according to J.) or educate that person. I would be looking toward the people in charge to kindly escort that person out of the room and set some boundaries and limits. Giving them the choice to participate in a way that is not destructive either to the gathering or to themselves.
I think that is what Haim did...I am suspecting, or rather hoping, that the 5 post limit will be rescinded at some point soon, but I see it, as a necessary frame tightening for the moment. Oh gosh...I think I just fell back into the therapy analogy. Lol"
So far, the messages support the leader's intervention. A hidden tacit assumption is included in these responses, which is that the task of the person in charge (the list manager in that case) is to set up the boundaries and put limits to a deviating member. As pointed out before, this assumption might be part of the "takenfor-granted way" that leaders are supposed to act in the culture of messages' writers.
The writers are probably unaware that their expectations are part of a specific cultural norm. Behind this norm many other cultural codes are concealed, such as a patronising approach that gives leaders the authority to decide who is behaving well and who should be restrained.
Compare these responses with another message:
"I am opposed to your changes; they make me feel like giving up.
How will your changes affect other members, who have often posted more than 5 times in a day? Why should you be the one to decide which of S.'s messages is worthy of response; if she sends sixteen will you decide which five to forward?
Part of the problem, recently has been the inability of other members to make enlightened judgments about when and how to respond; now you

68 seem to be offering to do this on everyone's behalf. I experience it as debilitating and undermining of the group members' capacity to think about what has been troubling them/us.
Doubtless there is great pressure on you to act in this sort of way.
Perhaps this is the 'American way' - using power to step in and solve others' problems for them.
I am fulminating."
These messages represent two ways of looking at the list manager's actions:
One is focusing on the protective function (creating a safe environment) and the other is a developing function (giving the opportunity for group members to solve their problems alone). Both are valid and acceptable in various group situations. The interesting point was that most of the list members who supported the list moderator's managerial decisions were Americans while most of those who opposed his authoritarian position were British or Europeans. This observation leads to the assumption that the different responses represent more than individual differences and reflect deeper cultural aspects. One of the most important social institutes is the leadership unit. The different attitudes towards leadership in every culture and the diversity of interpretation of its tasks and functions in society reveal much about the elusive nature of that culture. Americans are probably unaware how and why they are perceived as "using power to step in and solve others' problems". It is also important to note that this entire debate took place after the second Gulf War where the US decided to attack Iraq despite the world protest.
Another difference that is reflected through these responses and that might be attributed to cultural influences on group therapy is the individual point of view vs. the group-as-a-whole perspective. Americans are more used to looking at the individual's welfare and achievements and focus on the person in groups too, while
Europeans adopt a more systemic point of view. Individualism is a very deep value in the American tradition and myth, from the days of conquering the West. The example above leads to the conclusion that different group psychotherapy approaches that developed in various parts of the world are deeply connected to culture too. The group analytic approach, that focuses on society and sees individual and culture as interrelated and inseparable (as mentioned in chapter two on the group analytic frame

69 of reference), could not be accepted in the American individualistic culture, but flourished well in Britain with its tradition of social parties and theories.
This example strongly relates to the question of the Internet culture as a unity mentioned above. We can see that although the group-psychotherapy forum members belong to the same Internet community to which develop strong ties (and with one another), they still hold to their original values and beliefs from their
"mother culture" as country or professional training. Should we give up the notion of the Internet as a holding environment new culture? Not so quickly. In one of my articles (Weinberg, 2002; Appendix B) I explore the common beliefs of the group psychotherapy discussion list and show the hidden values of the group therapist community. The fact that the members continue to belong to this Cyber community, and make an effort to discuss their different perspectives, means that they feel committed to dialogue around the different cultures they come from. This means that the hidden norm of this community is dialogue, not as a means to persuade the other but to be able to present your beliefs and let the other do the same with a feeling of mutual respect.
Summary:
Even though there is no agreed definition of culture there is a consensus that it is a social phenomenon, that it is learned, and that it involves arbitrarily assigned, symbolic meaning. Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics focus on different aspects of culture. Psychologically, being part of culture answers the basic need of belonging, and strengthens common defenses, thus bringing some illusion of safety in life. It quiets down deep anxieties by giving meaning to the surrounding. Our personal identity is strongly connected to our collective and cultural identity.
We are only partly aware of the cultural ties that surround us. We can be more aware to norms and codes of conduct, but culture also enters our way of thinking and of perceiving of the world. If we want to be more aware of the ways that culture affects our existence, we should look at it from a distance, by living in a different culture or by estranging ourselves from it in some other way. A possible was of doing that is exploring the Internet culture through studying Cyber groups and communities.
The Social Unconscious is one ingredient in the aspects of culture that we are

70 unaware of, and will be discussed in another chapter (number six). Without being aware of societal and cultural ties and limitations, culture might become a restrictive and even oppressive institution.
Culture is combined of and includes many groups and sub-groups and is not a unitary concept. Cultural features can be treated as interdependent aspects of multifaceted pattern. We can talk of the many communities that the individual belongs to. It is difficult to discuss groups and culture at the same time without ignoring the complexity of their interdependence. Groups can reflect the microcosm, thus providing a way to learn about culture, but they also develop a culture of their own. Psychotherapy groups serve as an object in the cultural field, and through them we relate to large social groups.
A specific culture that is of interest to this study is the digital and cyberspace culture. These cultures developed in the last decades of the previous century and have an enormous impact on our life, not all of it we are aware of. The Internet arouses several issues around groups and cultures. It contains numerous groups in the form of discussion lists, forums and chats, which became part of our modern life. It also enables people to belong to their "mother culture" (country, nation, profession, gender) while be committed to another community on the Internet. Understanding
Cyberspace culture serves not only as an aim for itself but also illuminates surprising aspects of our non-virtual culture. Studying those groups and understanding this culture and its unconscious is the purpose of our last chapter.

71
Chapter 5: More Group Analytic concepts and their implications for
Large and Cyber Groups
Group analytic core concepts can be applied to larger groups including social, culture, and groups on the Internet. As described in the second chapter about the group analytic frame of reference, the interest of group analysis goes beyond the small therapeutic group to encompass wider systems. Concepts that usually belong to the small group, such as the matrix, resonance, mirroring, regression, and also notions of setting, dynamic administration, and boundaries, can be explored in the context of the
Large and Virtual Group. Moreover, the conductor's roles and functions should be expanded beyond the small group setting, examining their implications in social leadership and Internet forum management. In two published papers (Weinberg, 2006, in press, Appendix I; Weinberg & Toder, 2004, Appendix H) I explored the meaning of regression and mirroring for Large and Virtual Groups. This chapter fills the gap by looking at other group analytic concepts in the context of larger groups, especially resonance and the role of the conductor.
Group setting, boundaries and dynamic administration:
Keeping the group setting and boundaries in small groups is important to ensure the group safety and stability. The fixed setting of time, duration, space, etc. provides a sense of continuity and allows for the smooth flow of communication in the group. Boundaries are especially important for enhancing self-disclosure in groups. They can be guarded in many ways, from keeping the door of the room closed
(spatial boundaries) to terminating a session on time (time boundaries). Adding new members to the group in as less intruding way as possible, and departing properly from a terminating group member is another boundary issue. The question of confidentiality and which information is kept only inside the group provides another example of boundary issue. It is one of the conductor's tasks to protect the boundaries of the group, although it is not always clear when s/he should take practical steps or just interpret the boundary violation in order to restore safety.
Boundaries can be seen at all systemic levels. The group boundaries differentiate between what is inside and what is outside the group. Other possible

72 boundaries can be between subgroups, including the boundary between the members' subgroup and the conductor. In a small group, members can subgroup along previously fixed dimensions such as gender or ethnic division, but they can also divide into ''talking members'' vs. ''silent ones'', etc. In a larger group, division is more common along social subgroups - from minorities to religious congregation. Actually joining and connecting with a person's social subgroup in a Large Group is one way of dealing with the alienation found in those groups, and with threats for the member's identity (Turquet, 1975).
But most important are the self-boundaries. They protect the individual from being exposed too early and provide him/her with a sense of control over the situation. Sometimes the group conductor has to check if the group member's boundaries were not violated without noticing. Self-boundaries can be well preserved in a small group. Group members can decide when they want to reveal or disguise themselves. Unless under group pressure it seems that people can easily control the level of self-disclosure. It is different in a Large Group. Although on one hand, overt group pressures on the individual is less common, there are hidden unconscious pressures creating situations where members of the Large Group speak against their decision to stay quiet. Members of the Large Group can feel sucked into a role and find themselves representing positions they never thought they would express. In
Internet groups where boundaries seem non-existent (neither spatial boundaries, as
Cyberspace is endless, nor time boundaries as the Internet forum never ends), self boundaries can be well preserved. People can at least keep the illusion of having control of what they write. It is interesting to notice that under such conditions of anonymity, people tend to reveal more than in a face-to-face meeting.
The administrative function of the group conductor is far beyond a technical issue, and relates to many psychodynamic undercurrent issues. For example, if the group conductor arranges the chairs for the group in a circle, this closed form with its ancient associations of a womb conveys the meaning of a perfect maternal container.
The conductor takes charge of the administration of the group's setting and translates
'external material' brought within these boundaries, where appropriate, as matter pertaining to the dynamic flow of communication 'here and now'. This is why Foulkes
(1975, ch.6) calls this task which includes attending to events at and beyond the

73 boundaries of the group, ever in the service of the group's better understanding of its experience, 'dynamic administration'.
The above cannot be attained in the Large or Virtual group. The boundaries of these groups are too flexible and fluid to strictly be kept. In a Large Group people can enter or leave without anyone noticing them. In an Internet forum you do not see who is online, or even who subscribed to the list. It is not the spatial concrete boundaries that determine who belongs to the Large Group and who is excluded. If we relate to
Large Groups as representing organisations, ethnic groups or society-at-large - what determines a sense of inclusion and belonging is not clear-cut boundaries. I can leave my country to live in another place, and still feel like an Israeli, behave like an Israeli and be considered an Israeli by others. In a virtual community, such as an Internet forum, people come and go without any notice, but the community is there, alive and vivid. The level of involvement and commitment of the participants hints to their being part of the community. In a boundless larger group like this, the administrative function of the leader is crucial for creating a holding environment (Winnicott, 1986).
The implications of the administrative function of the Internet group are described in my paper (Weinberg, 2003a, appendix F) about the virtual Large Group included in the book I co-edited (Schneider & Weinberg, 2003).
Boundaries, group setting and cultures
Although the need for boundaries seems universal and it goes without saying that the sense of security in a group depends on keeping a strict setting, the amount of boundaries needed for self-security is culturally based. Cultures differ significantly in their members' need to guard their privacy. It is manifested not only in the different body distance kept in an encounter in various societies, but also in the depth of personal information a person is ready to share with other members of his community.
In a professional visit to Brazil (August 2004) I was taken to one of the poor neighborhoods (a favela) to observe a session of "community therapy" that took place in one of the huts of the community center. The event takes place once a week, and participation is allowed for anyone interested. About 30 people were present in the meeting we attended, most of them the favela inhabitants. I was surprised at the level of personal problems presented. I thought that in community therapy people would talk about problems of the community, but they presented the same problems I am

74 used to in my therapy groups. A woman told about her daughter who had relationship with a married man. When the daughter decided to leave him, this man became aggressive and broke the furniture in their house. One day he drugged the mother and she found herself with him naked in bed. Another person presented himself as a physician who works in the community and was told to stop working for the poor.
The third speaker had learning difficulties and said that only half of his brain functions. His friend came with him to help him in case he forgets to say something important.
Later I asked the interpreters how these people could talk about such intimate issues in public. They told us that poor people have nothing to lose, and that anyway in these poor neighborhoods, everyone knows what's going on in his neighbor's bedroom. Many issues of boundaries and confidentiality were very different from what I am used to in my practice. People went in and out, children were there
(sometimes trying to sell us postcards), the whole event was recorded (probably for research purposes, but as far as I noticed without asking the people's permission), and during the session hostesses entered with some food and a drink. Still it seems that the participants were not troubled by the boundary violation. We cannot ignore the role of the interpreters in structuring the account I conceptualized, and perhaps the poor people did object, or maybe they are accustomed to being treated with disrespect.
Another community where self-disclosure is surprisingly high despite loose boundaries and a flexible setting is the Internet forum and online discussion lists.
McKenna et al. (2002) explained this phenomenon due to the anonymity of the members in these forums, which reduces the risks of ridicule or rejection of people disclosing personal information, and compared it to the "stranger in the train" phenomenon. My observation is that it also happens in forums where members do not disguise their identity and are not anonymous. I described it in most of my publications about Internet groups (Weinberg, 2001, appendix A; Weinberg, 2002, appendix B; Weinberg, 2003a, appendix F) and explained it by the creation and development of a core group that carries on group norms of tolerance and openness, and an atmosphere of cohesion, "we-ness", and belonging. The core group helps developing the illusion of a small group in a Large Group setting. In addition, members writing on the Internet feel control over their self-boundaries. Sitting in a private room, without seeing the others or being seen by them and being dressed informally, gives a sense of protection and of more control over the amount of

75 disclosure. Because the writer feels there is more choice about what to reveal, s/he is able to write many personal things, especially if the general atmosphere of the group is accepting and tolerant.
Although Internet forums and the Brazilian favela population seem as very different communities, one associated with rich countries and financially-able people and the other associated with very poor people, they both point out the same issue around self-disclosure: Safety is not so dependent on concrete-physical boundaries as we are used to think in the Western world. A sense of belonging to a community is not determined by its spatial location, and the group ego-skin (to use Anzieu's [1999] wonderful term), providing a sense of safety under an illusionary virtual envelope, can be expanded to include communities, large groups, ethnic groups, nations, etc. perhaps Cyberspace and favela-space is not entirely different: if we look at social class as a Large Group (Storck, 2002), and relate to Internet forums as Large Groups as well (Weinberg, 2001, Appendix A), we can conclude that "Boundaries or borders of these large groups are permeable, extended and multiple (analogies are made with cyberspace)" (Storck, 2002, page 363).
Is it possible that these are signs of a new culture? Can we conclude that this
Internet "brave new world" diffuses boundaries not only between countries, and nations, but also blurs self boundaries, creating a mass of Internet "we-ness"
(Lawrence, Bain, and Gould, 1996)? We will get back to this question in the last chapter about the Internet unconscious.
The Matrix:
The matrix is one of the basic concepts in group analysis. Foulkes described it most frequently as a network (Foulkes & Anthony, 1965): the network of individual mental processes, of the group members' communication and interaction. "Members of a group are connected by a network of mental processes which both join the members and pass through them, and which emerge in the analytic group to comprise the 'group mind'" (Powell, 1991. p. 304). The term 'group mind' is quite controversial, and was disputed by Foulkes himself, but for our purposes it helps to manifest the encompassing quality of the matrix. Roberts (1982) pointed out many other connotations of the matrix, such as mother, womb, background substance, mould in which something is made, etc. The matrix is the common substance which determines

76 the significance and interpretation of the events occurring in the group.
As mentioned in chapter 2 of this thesis (the group analytic frame of reference), Foulkes (1975) described three different kinds of matrix. The personal matrix is the individual's mind, composed of a complex system of intra-psychic processes. The dynamic matrix is structured through the interactions and communicational exchanges of group members. The foundation matrix is based on biological properties and cultural influences. Being interested in the larger context of groups and its relation to society, culture and cyberspace, the concept that is mostly relevant here is the foundation matrix. Foulkes' formulations of the different kind of matrix are ambiguous enough to allow for various readings. One interpretation of the difference between the personal/dynamic/foundation matrix is less in spatial terms
(i.e. less individual mind/interaction/biological base) and more what's going on when and where: the individual as a node in the network of communication, with the dynamic matrix being the current state of that network and the foundation being its more enduring properties. I see it as related to different networks that connect people in more and more expanding structures: from the individual, through the small group, to the Large Group.
In the foundation matrix Foulkes (1975) tries to combine biology and culture as he believes that biology is always culturally-structured. But trying to combine both in the foundation matrix creates some ambiguity. As the matrix is considered the network that connects people in the group (whether small or large one) we should ask:
Do people connect easier on a 'biological base' (i.e. using the notion that we are all human and thus all the same) or on a 'cultural basis' (meaning that cultures are not so different as they seem to be)? I think that people tend to enter conflicts around cultural differences more than around biological differences. While biological characteristics seem to unite us all, making us look more similar and connecting people trans-culturally (simply because they have more in common biologically), cultural aspects seem to divide people, pointing to the differences and hinting towards cultural-diversity (just because people from different cultures tend to focus more on their differences). Compounding these two aspects in the same term is simply confusing.
When a multicultural group meets, subgrouping is usually evident, and there is a high risk of conflicts. This means that the foundation matrix in such groups does not exist at first, because it is more difficult for the members to find similarity and enter

77 an engagement phase. Many times these groups are stuck in a conflictual stage
(individuation according to MacKenzie & Livesley [1983] or fight-flight phase according to Bion [1959]). In a Large Group these conflicts are fed by splitting and projective identification processes. They seem to exist also in virtual Large Groups and are titled "flame wars", enhanced by lack of other modalities of communication but text. Scholz (2004) concluded that "multicultural groups have a high potential of insecurity due to a smaller common ground (foundation matrix)" (p. 533).
Scholz (2003) pointed out that Foulkes's first innovation was a methodological one, changing the setting from the couch to the circle. This changed the free association, which was the rule in psychoanalysis, to 'free-floating' discussion that became the rule of group analysis. Changing the setting required a change in theory assuming that a group is not just a collection of several individual unconsciousness, but has a common unconscious, revealing itself in the matrix. What happens when we change the setting further into larger groups, that cannot be seated in one circle (see
Weinberg and Schneider, 2003 [Appendix E], about possible settings of the Large
Group)? And what happens further when we change the setting more dramatically, moving the group into cyberspace where there are no chairs at all (and as pointed out in chapter 3 - no bodies either)? Do we need a new theory? Are we still talking about the same matrix? Foulkes (1990) wrote that "even a group of total strangers, being of the same species and more narrowly of the same culture share a fundamental mental matrix ( foundation matrix )" (p. 228). There is a hidden assumption that what connects people as human beings ("being of the same species") is similar to what connects people from the same culture. I want to argue that Foulkes is again confusing two kinds of matrix. As mentioned above, multicultural groups are more difficult to connect. This happens frequently in the Large Group and almost always on Internet forums. We should separate between the foundation matrix, connecting people from the same culture, and a new kind of matrix, whose fibers are weaker. My suggestion is to add another kind of matrix, the core matrix , to the previous three kinds. This core matrix unites people from different cultures (will it unite humans with aliens when we meet with them just as in the science fiction TV series Star Trek ?). In chapter 4
(groups and cultures) I started a discussion describing the Internet as a potential field of research for this core matrix. In the last chapter I will expand this idea through exploring the concept of the Internet Unconscious.

78
Mirroring and Resonance:
In psychoanalysis and psychodynamic group therapy interpretation has a central role. The group analytic tradition, based firmly on the notion that an individual is permeated to the core by the collective, downplays interpretation. Foulkes (1964) held the notion that interpretation follows change rather than precedes it and that it should be used to articulate a pattern just as it is emerging. Instead of interpretation as a primary technique he saw the group conductor's first aim as that of facilitating participation in group life by the members of the group. Foulkes (1964) introduced important concepts for the phenomena peculiar to the group situation. Mirroring and resonance are group specific. These processes differentiate individual analysis from group analysis. It is through such processes that group members recognise more deeply the truth about themselves. It happens through their work with others, through being seen, and seeing split-off, denied and unwanted parts of the self in others; accepting the vision of others about hidden aspects of the self which come to the fore in the interactions within the group situation. According to Stacey (2001) in group analysis the therapeutic factors are: socialization, the process of sharing experience; mirroring, the process of seeing oneself reflected in others; resonance which is unconscious or pre-verbal, communication between people; and translation or interpretation, making the unconscious conscious.
Mirroring:
It is easier to recognize other people's problems and to consider ways these might be resolved then look directly into one self's problems. Foulkes (1964) calls this the mirror reaction: "Mirror reactions are charesterictally brought out when a number of persons meet and interact. The person sees himself, or part of himself - often a repressed part of himself - reflected in the interactions of other group members. He sees them reacting in the way he does himself, who are in contrast to his own behaviour. He also gets to know himself - and this is a fundamental process in ego development - by the effect he has on others and the picture they form of him" (page
81). According to Roberts and Pines (1991) Foulkes defines the mirror reaction as the
"aspect of the self reflected by members of the group through image and behaviour, allowing identification and projective mechanisms, enabling the individual to become aware of these hitherto unconscious elements (page 76).” The unique contribution of

79
Foulkes and Anthony (1965) is in defining the group as a hall of mirrors , that is as a place where the individual can be reflected in many mirrors, through different eyes.
One of the papers I published as part of the PhD requirements is The Hall of
Mirrors in Small, Large and Virtual Groups (Weinberg & Toder, 2004. Appendix H), so I will only summarize it here and add a few more ideas regarding mirroring. It seems that generally there are two kind of mirrors, reflected in literature and myth: a killing mirror and a growing one. Pines (1984) uses Greek mythology to describe these two kinds: The reflection that Narcissus sees in the pond brings death upon him.
The mirror that is given to Perseus helps him kill the monster and save his family.
Foulkes focused on the benign and positive effects of the group mirrors, assuming a group atmosphere characterised by sympathy, identification and empathy. These aspects enable an experience of self-discovery and belonging. Zinkin (1983) wrote about malignant mirroring, and the dangers of the mirrors in the group. This kind of mirror is more archaic in its nature and more prone to become malignant because it is less conscious and more contagious.
Because mirror is primarily based on the ability to look into other people's eyes and be seen by them, mirroring in the Large Group is difficult to achieve due to lack of eye contact. Contrary to the small group where people can see their reflections literally in the others' eyes, in the Large Group they might see the other's back, which makes room for paranoia and not mirroring. In addition, many of the sentences that
Large Group's members utter remain unanswered and with no response, so the feeling of being lost without any reflection prevails. What does exist in the regressed situation of the Large Group is affect contagion which may be connected to mirroring processes. Unfortunately, this contagion leads to a malignant mirroring. Nitsun (1998) distinguished between the interpersonal aspect of mirroring based on communication and its more archaic form based on resonance. The Large Group lacks the communicational mirror. There might be malignant non-verbal mirroring based on automatic identifications and affect contagion. Actually this non-verbal mirroring resembles more of a resonance process than a mirroring one (see later). This is a dangerous process stemming from the fourth basic assumption of “One-ness”
(Turquet, 1975) and leading to the uncontrolled impulsive behavior of the mob.
The same phenomenon can be observed in the virtual environment. The only concrete reflection people see in Cyberspace is their reflection on the screen. From time to time people do feel mirrored in Internet forums, but most of the time their

80
"voice" seems lost in ether. This is quite a narcissistic blow for many people who refrain from raising their voice in the crowd (real or virtual one) in order not to face the painful experience of being ignored. Large and virtual groups supply an example of why people avoid participating in social and political activities, fearing the possibility of being ignored or (worse than that?) even ridiculed. If good citizenship means participating in political activities, enhancing mirroring in the crowd might encourage more people to join.
Resonance:
Foulkes (1975) borrowed the term resonance from physics to designate the ability of the members of a group to catch and share each other’s thoughts and emotions on a preverbal basis. This term is also taken from the musical field, just as the concept of the conductor, the group leader who takes care that each individual's musical instrument will be heard and that overall the music will sound harmonic.
Originally resonance happens when one string instrument is played at one edge of the orchestra and another string instrument reverberates without anyone touching it.
Resonance is a reflective identification acting as an analytic agent in the patients. One group member is talking about losing her father and another member immediately starts crying about his divorce and the loss of his marriage. "Foulkes described resonance as the individual responses that group members make to shared events, each responding at their own level of attunement to the predominant affect in the group" (Pines, 2003b, page 512).
Resonance as a therapeutic factor is invaluable in situations when memories are so painful that patients have difficulty talking about them. In the general discussion of the group there is a loosening and stimulating effect on what the individual is prepared to speak about. It is easier to talk when a particular topic has been broached. In a way resonance is an uncontrollable response. It happens without the individual's conscious and cognitive decision to talk about the issue. Suddenly someone finds himself weeping in response to someone else's sad story without understanding where he has been touched so deeply. "Resonance is a good example of communication taking place without any particular message being sent or received"
(Foulkes, 1990, page 299).

81
Resonance lies in the basis of a member's identification with the other. "It is necessary for empathy, intuition, and the experience of being part of something that includes oneself, whether a dyad, a group, a species, or the cosmos" (Brown, 1994, p.
82). The processes in the group echo within oneself, reverberate through, and sustain a deep sense of similarity between members. When no resonance occurs in a group, there is an inability to take part in exchange and dialogue. Resonance is the process behind universality (Yalom, 1995). It connects people in a deep unconscious level, tuning in group members to similarities among them. Each communication in the group resonates at some level with the group matrix, opening up further opportunities to communication at many levels. Because resonance does not create a complete duplicate of the previous response, it enriches and deepens the theme played by the original group "player". It is more like a Jam Session: After the band plays the known melody all together, one player plays an improvisation of that melody, the band returns to the basic melody and then another one improvises on his instrument. The only difference in the group is that the improviser has no conscious control over the tune.
Resonance strongly participates in the introjection and internalisation of cultural codes by the infant. The early state of indistinction and fusion with the others encourages the incorporation of cultural coded models and binds the individual with the group to whom he belongs. "This cultural basis continues to function during our whole life, it forms the frame of the feeling of 'us', as a part of our self, and of the phenomenon Foulkes called 'resonance'" (Le Roy, 1994, p. 183). As mentioned in the previous chapter about 'groups and cultures', this process occurs out of awareness, and in routine daily life we ignore the impact of resonance on our behavior. In times of crisis and distress the slogan "united we stand" is an evidence for the prevailing resonance processes in the Large Group. Charismatic leaders can strengthen the power of this phenomenon, by evoking deep national feelings echoing in hidden unconscious strings, especially when they relate to a "chosen trauma" (Volkan, 1999).
This term refers to the shared mental representation of a massive trauma that the group's ancestors suffered. Chosen trauma describes the collective memory of a disaster, the echoes of which become a paradigm that keeps the existential threat in the national memory in order to ward off potential complacency. We can say that in
Israel every act of terror revives a primary threat to Jewish survival from the

82 destruction of the second temple, exile from Spain in 1492, the Holocaust, etc. I will elaborate more on this issue when talking about the Israeli social unconscious in the last chapter.
In the Large Group, resonance is probably responsible to the "one-ness" basic assumption. Turquet (1974) wrote that, in the Large Group, “the group member is there to be lost in oceanic feelings of unity or, if the oneness is filled, to be a part of a salvationist inclusion“ (p. 360). There are two opposing mechanisms for dealing with the existential threat in the social Large Group. One is the rising of national ideological movements reflecting the fourth basic assumption of “One-ness.”
(Turquet, 1974). The opposing, the fifth basic assumption of “Me-ness” (Lawrence,
1996) works as well, reflected in selfishness and ignoring community interests.
Individuals who feel that it has become dangerous to rely on any social structure thus emphasize the ‘I’ and do not recognize the value of the group. Hopper (1997) claims that these two extremes swing like a pendulum. We will get back to his assumption later and in the next chapter.
On the Internet, resonance is the mechanism that creates the phenomena I titled
'a Large Group with the illusion of a small group' (Weinberg, 2001, Appendix A). The feeling of belonging, developed in the virtual community after several months of participating in on-line interaction, and the cohesion that the "core-group" in Internet forums creates, is enhanced by resonance: One member starts a "thread" (an Internet expression indicating an issue discussed and elaborated by several authors), another reverberates to this issue, yet another one continues and resonates.
Mirroring and resonance reflect different poles most of the time. While resonance connects the group members in a deep level, letting them sense how similar they are and pushing them to respond with a theme affected by the other's emotional position, mirroring acknowledges the individual's uniqueness, when a member is seen by the others and confirmed by them. The one exception is when the noncommunicational mirroring that is based on automatic identifications and affect contagion prevails. In this case resonance and mirroring merge, and it is hard to differentiate between these two phenomena.
The Conductor's functions:
Small group versus Large Group functions of the leader:

83
A group therapist has many functions to fulfill. Corey (1994) lists twenty two skills a group leader should have: Active listening, restating, clarifying, summarizing, questioning, interpreting, confronting, reflecting feelings, supporting, empathizing, facilitating, initiating, setting goals, evaluating, giving feedback, suggesting protecting, disclosing oneself, modeling, linking, blocking, and terminating. This comprehensive list suits well the functions of a small or therapy group leader but is of little value for a Large or Virtual group leader, not to mention a political leader. Is there a way of analysing the group leader's functions that encompasses both the small, virtual and larger groups? Usually the functions of the leader in a small group are holding, containing and interpreting. These functions can be examined for other kinds of groups too.
In the section above about the group setting, boundaries and dynamic administration, we focused on the administrative function of the conductor, showing its relevance to Internet forums and Large Groups. In Large Groups the boundaries are loose (space is bigger and the individual feels less commitment to the group), so the need to clarify them becomes stronger. In Cyberspace space is (at least in part) imaginary and can contain an unlimited amount of members. In asynchronic discussion lists (where the participants are not simultaneously online), time boundaries are erased completely. The administrative function in Cyberspace can be achieved in guiding forum subscribers with technical issues (thus helping them manage their anxiety in facing this unknown environment), and manifesting a leader's presence. More than once I forgot that members of my Internet forums do not see when I nod my head in affirmation for their messages and was surprised to get letters expressing frustration for my not answering and responding. In a faceless crowd, people are looking for a known face to feel acknowledged, and the leader is surely a clear articulated figure. This lesson is true for political leaders too, especially in times of crisis.
What about the containing and interpreting functions in those kinds of groups?
Most of the forums on the Internet are not process groups. They focus on a subject that interests its members and is specified in the forum title (e.g. parenting, French films, addictions, etc.). In task (content-process) groups, the leader should interpret the process only when a serious interruption erupts, intruding the flow of communication and blocking the group from working on its task. As long as the

84 working group prevails there is no need for interpretation. The same applies to the
Large Group on the Internet. There is no need for the leader to interpret the process, unless some crisis occurs or the group is severely distracted from achieving its goals.
Containing in Large and Virtual Groups is very difficult to achieve. Hopper (2003a, page 98) writes about the function of the Large Group leader: "The therapist is being asked to bear, and to share, what is essentially unbearable and unshareable. To tolerate these demands he must have recognised, acknowledged, and to some extent become reconciled with what is unbearable and unshareable within himself". In stormy situations where conflicts arise and hot debates prevail (such as "flame-wars" on the Internet) the task of the leader is not to side with one subgroup, but reflect the issue in the discussion, respecting each side and facilitating the expression of different ideas. This task is rarely attained in social and political Large Groups, e.g. in a multicultural society. The leader should represent not only one party or the majority group, but also encourage other social parties and subgroups (especially minority groups) to express their suppressed voice.
Leader's functions and basic assumptions:
Cohen, Ettin, & Fidler (2002) outlined major work-group functions of leadership common to political and therapy group settings. They move from face-toface leadership to leadership-at-a-distance in Large Groups (whether national or virtual). According to their analysis, the efficacy of political leaders is determined by
1) how well they deal with external relations, providing security from outside aggression, 2) how they manage internal tensions and conflicts, facilitating the people's welfare, and 3) how much they represent the nation as an object of identification. They refer to these functions as the protective, nurturant, and representational functions of the leader. They also connect these leadership functions to Bion's (1959) famous group basic assumptions and argue that these irrational assumptions apply to nations as well as small group (although it is always risky to treat nations like small groups and the conclusions are limited to crisis times when nations regress and do behave like small groups). Each of these leaders' functions might be considered as a "normal" response to the Large Group's members unrealistic expectations from the leader.
Fight-flight and protection:

85
The protective function connects with the basic assumption of fight-flight.
Members in the small therapy group have irrational yearnings that the group conductor protects them from any outside danger, facing imaginary enemies by heading for a fight or organizing an ordered retreat. This expectation is not so fantastic in states and nations setting, and citizens of a country reasonably anticipate that their leader assures their safety from any outside attacks. Nationalist and totalitarian political leaders make good use of this fantasy by diverting the nation's attention to imaginary enemies from outside or inside (fifth column). In therapy groups the conductor should not get involved directly in fulfilling this task in order not to fall into the pitfall of the fight-flight basic assumption, thus weakening the group members' own capacities to deal with dangers in their lives. In Large and
Virtual Groups the leader's capacity to provide protection from outside disturbing environments is limited to taking measures for supplying a secure and confidential setting. This can be done by a very clear contract with the group or Internet forum, so this function has to do with the group analytic dynamic administration mentioned before. Unfortunately some Large Group conveners and Internet forum managers fail to understand the importance of this function, and the need for intervention in time of breaking the boundaries of the group (Weinberg and Schneider, 2006, in press, appendix J). For example, when during an Internet forum discussion a participant reveals that he is forwarding posts from the forum to another internet list, the leader should clarify that this might be considered a violation of confidentiality and breaking of boundaries. It should be stated in the original agreement, and the forum leader should be there to keep the agreement.
Dependency and nurturing:
The nurturing function is a realistic "normal" response to the basic assumption of dependency, where the small therapy group members act like helpless children, looking upon the conductor as a powerful parent who is the only source for their growth and welfare. The conductor has to remember that acting upon these expectations is in conflict with the task of empowering group members. The question of how to encourage growth has to do with the group stage as well: as the group develops, authority and power are distributed to group members as interdependent peers, and to the group as a social system. Leaders of non-democratic countries

86 activate well this dependency basic assumption by crowning themselves as "the father of the nation". Stalin, for example was extremely effective in becoming the fatherfigure for his people. Large Groups, that are prone to outbursts of conflicts and chaotic events due to fragmentation anxieties and subgroups tensions (Weinberg and
Schneider, 2006, in press, appendix J), and virtual groups, that are typified by regressive-aggressive crude "flame wars" (Weinberg, 2006, in press, appendix I), definitely need the leader to provide a psychological containing atmosphere. This capacity is related to the interpretative function mentioned above. The danger of splitting and social subgroup tensions, occurring regularly in a multicultural society, is that it might lead to social fragmentation and in extreme cases to a civil war. The political leader's responsibility is to calm such tensions by providing space for each social group.
Pairing and representation:
The last group leader's function that Cohen, Ettin, & Fidler (2002) mention is the representational one. It becomes most salient when a nation's autonomy is under serious threat, and charismatic authority is called upon. In times of crisis, in traumatized societies and when a Large Group regresses – there is a need for a
"messianic" leader who unites the group, usually under some inspiring ideology that installs hope. When this process appears in the Large Group, it is probably a result of
Bion's basic assumption of pairing, where group members expect that an intensive interaction between members (often between two members, but not necessarily) will lead to the birth of a "messiah" and bring a productive and original solution. Volkan
(2002, p. 458) offers a list of signs of social regression, among them: group members lose their individuality, rally blindly around the leader, become divided into "good" &
"bad" segments inside society, and create a sharp "us" & "them" division with
"enemy" groups. These signs remind us sharply of the atmosphere in the USA after the terrorists attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in September 2001. Small wonder that president Bush could stir up intense feeling against the "evil powers" residing in Afghanistan and get so much support for attacking the Taliban. One of the problems with the representational function and charismatic leadership is that it can be corrupted by narcissism. The leader's needs for self-validation interfere with the interests of the group.

87
Here is an example taken from my paper about ethical considerations in the
Large Group (Weinberg and Schneider, 2006, in press, appendix J):
In an international conference participants were going in and out of the Large Group session, creating a sense of instability and chaos in the room. When the leader tried to interpret the meaning of this process and parallel it to migration of people around the world, he was criticised for his overly psychodynamic approach. "Why don't you accept the fact that it is just boring here, and people leave because they are uninterested in this bullshit?" a member of the group asked. The leader lost his temper and shouted: "I am the authority here and I am not going to bear such a behaviour in my group".
In this short vignette the leader is confusing his self-validation and gratifying needs with the group needs. His outburst will not make him a representational leader as he wishes to be, but reveals a possessive attitude and a deep leader's position assuming that the group is there to serve his needs instead of remembering that he is supposed to be "the servant of the group".
Massification/Aggregation and flexibility:
Hopper (1997) claims that a regressed traumatised society manifests behaviours stemming from a fourth basic assumption. This assumption is an extension of Bion's (1959) original three basic assumptions. The fourth basic assumption is expressed in bi-polar forms of incohesion. When this assumption is activated, groups and group-like social systems oscillate between Massification and Aggregation. In the massification polarity, denial of differences and an illusion of togetherness and sameness prevails. The group responds to annihilation anxieties with "we-ness"
(Turquet, 1974). In the aggregative polarity, people feel alienated from one another.
Indifference, hostility and withdrawal from relationships are prevalent. In its extreme form each sub-group is against each other sub-group. “Me-ness” (Lawrence et al.,
1996) is the prevailing theme, reflected in selfishness and ignoring community interests.
What Hopper (1997) left out from his description is the function of the leader when this fourth basic assumption is activated. We might assume that what a Large
Group needs when it is pushed or pulled to one pole of this assumption, is a leader who is able to reduce the impact of that extreme, or even balance these polarities.
Thus, when the Large Group or even a nation is aggregating, creating unrelated fragments and split subgroups, the leader should be able to unify these fragments.

88
When states regress, they behave more and more like small groups (Hopper, 1997). In times of regression subgrouping leads to a group's disintegration into smaller and simpler groupings, often foreign or hostile to one another. What they need at times like these is a leader unifying the people under a vision. Ben Gurion, who was the first
Israeli prime minister, succeeded doing it in the 1950ies when Israel became a melting pot for Jews from the Diaspora, by setting the goal of flourishing the desert, modeling it by his resigning from his position and settling in the Negev desert. The other extreme is when a nation or a Large Group massifies, denying differences and creating the illusion of uniformity (Kernberg, 1989), thus allowing no diversity. The danger in this situation is with growing frustration of minorities and sub-cultures that cannot express their unique voice. The Large Group leader in this phase should encourage true multi-culturalism, respecting the emergence of differences in social setting.
But above all, when the fourth basic assumption prevails, Large Group and political leaders should be flexible as to change their position from the unifying to the diversifying function because of the oscillation of positions in society from one extreme to another. Being flexible, moving from one attitude to another, but still transmitting a coherent approach is a task that only few political leaders achieve, without being accused of being opportunistic or betrayal.
A Cyberspace vignette: the conductor, Internet forums and cultures
The following example clarifies the relationship between the role of the conductor, groups on the Internet and different cultures:
After managing the international discussion list on group psychotherapy for eight years (from 1996), I decided to establish (in April 2004) a similar forum in
Hebrew for Israelis working with groups. In general this forum provides a space for group practitioners to discuss issues of their work, consult one another and write about their professional experience. As I have written in my papers (Weinberg, 2001,
Appendix A; Weinberg, 2002, Appendix B; Weinberg, 2003a, Appendix F) these forums behave like groups and portray some of the processes found in face to face groups.
I expected the Israeli forum of group psychotherapy to behave the way I was used to from my international forum. The phenomena in this Internet groups were

89 described in detail in my early paper "group processes and group phenomena on the
Internet" (Weinberg, 2001, Appendix A). I have found the Internet forum to be cohesive, with fluent and rich interactions, and members creating relationships and expressing their emotions towards one another just as I am used to in my face to face group. The transference towards the forum manager/group conductor was described in another paper (Weinberg, 2003a, Appendix F) and seemed to be mostly that of idealisation. A more sophisticated form was idealisation of the group, as you can see in the following example:
"The international/multi-cultural conversation here is invaluable. A shiny mine of perspectives. How unusual to have a "group of group therapists"! A picture of a group with a mirror reflected in another mirror...questions are raised by all answers. Adventures of the heart, well-spoken" (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, April 29, 2003).
To my dismay, the Israeli forum behaved differently. After a short period of enthusiasm from the new media, the interaction in the forum became less interpersonal and focused more and more on technical issues, conference announcements, and referral requests. There were only a few exchanges of messages between the members, and if they were – some of them deteriorated quickly from warm ones to tense and conflictual ones. The pattern of communication started to crystallise in the forum was that of a star shape, with the conductor in the center and members communicating mainly with him. Although I tried to change this pattern and encourage people to interact, I was drawn more and more to a continuous one-to-one interaction with the participants. It was very different from what I have expected due to my experience in the international discussion list where people interacted without my intervention for many cycles of messages. The flow of messages in the Israeli forum slowed down and even responses to my messages became scarce. I thought that maybe people dropped from the list, but the number of subscribed members stayed quite similar in the international and Israeli forum (around 400) and checking the statistics of the number of members reading the forum I found out that the number of passive listeners outnumbers the active participants.
But more disappointment followed. Trying to understand what goes on in the group, I invited the members to speculate on the process. Instead of idealisation and praises for the group conductor, a lot of criticism and dissatisfaction began to appear

90 on the forum. There were complaints that I do not respond quickly enough, that the emotional tone on the forum is cold (and that I contribute to it), that my responses are patronising. In short, it seemed as if whatever I did – I did wrong. In a dynamic group, such reactions can easily be interpreted as negative transference towards authority and leadership, but why was it so different from the international forum?
My first understanding of these reactions was around the Israeli culture and
Social Unconscious (see details next chapters). As I describe later, Israelis know better, especially better than authority. Sometimes this feature is almost ridiculous and absurd when they invite experts from abroad just to show them that they know nothing. I thought that the reactions towards me as the forum manager/conductor, are typical to the Israeli attitude towards leadership and authority. It might also be that my international status and expertise made me a better target of attack, symbolizing someone who has broken out of the boundaries of the small country. I hypothesized about classical envious dynamics (Klein, 1957), where the envious person tries to take away or destroy the envied person's achievements, this way restoring the balance of power between them.
But according to psychoanalytic and group analytic tradition, I had to check my behavior and counter transference too. I could not satisfy myself with social explanations without asking myself what I contributed to this matrix. This became especially clear because in another forum opened in the same website of Hebrew
Psychology by another manager, sharing the same technology and many of the members, and focusing on clinical issues in individual therapy, the atmosphere was very different. Many of the phenomena I mentioned in my papers that described the international forum repeated themselves in this clinical issues forum, including the group cohesion, warm atmosphere and sense of belonging to a community. More than that, the leader of that forum was praised for his containing approach and how gently and sensitively he dealt with crises.
So my next hypothesis was that this is an interesting case of an interaction between social factors (some of them unconscious) and individual features of the leader. Was I being arrogant or conceited? Is it possible that I bragged about my international contacts and other achievements, thus triggering and stimulating envy and aggressive responses? Because it seems that I behaved differently in the international forum, mostly provoking positive reactions and creating friendly

91 connections, thus contributing to the group cohesion, it had to do with my attitude too.
Using my understanding of Large Groups and their impact on their participants and leaders (especially virtual Large Groups, see Weinberg, 2003a, appendix F) it retrospectively entered my mind that I was quite anxious about opening this Israeli forum, facing the Israeli group leaders' community and their well known criticism and difficulty of giving positive reinforcement. In contrast to the international forum, where I started with some humble attitude, wanting to learn from the others, and was surprised with the admiration I quickly faced, in the Israeli forum I started with a detached attitude, coming "from above", showing my expertise and knowledge.
Actually I forgot my group analytic conductor's skills and approach, with "the analysis by the group, of the group, including its conductor" (Foulkes, 1975) and unconsciously adopted a typically arrogant Israeli approach.
Reflecting later on this group process I also noticed that I ignored the fact that the Israeli forum was a group in its first stages of formation. Groups follow distinct stages of development (MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983) and the leader's task is different in each stage. When establishing this new group I was unaware that it is not at the same level of development as the international discussion list, and related to it as a group in the advanced stage (Berman & Weinberg, 1999), probably a case of
'expecting more of one's own'. A group in the advanced stage does not need a lot of the attention of the leader. They see him/her more as a consultant with whom they feel equal. A group on the first stage of engagement (MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983) or forming (Tuckman, 1965) is much more dependent on its leader and needs the conductor to help them unite and form a cohesive entity. On the Internet, with its boundless space and feeling of alienation and anonymity, the leader is needed even more in order to make the member feel that they are part of this community. As mentioned before, the dynamic administration of the virtual community is crucial in maintaining a collaborative functioning of the members.
The above analysis is not only theoretical but has important concrete implications. Following the line of thought described above, I changed my attitude on the Israeli forum, becoming more emotionally present and focusing less on knowledge demonstration. The result was a gradual but steady change in the number of messages of group members, more among themselves than towards the leader, and a change of

92 tone too. It seems that even the communication with me became less loaded and conflictual.
As the reader might have noticed, analysing this case combines issues of cultures, understanding Internet virtual processes, and a group analytic frame of reference. Observing the process through only one of the lens will be misleading: the cultural aspect alone (e.g. attitudes of Israelis towards authority, or even the Israeli
Social Unconscious as stemming from a history of persecution) is not enough to explain why the same phenomenon did not occur in a similar-neighbour Israeli list.
The perspective of understanding virtual forums adds more to the perplexity and clarifies that something strange is going on here. Only combining the group-analytic point of view with cultural aspects and Internet-group-understanding leads to fuller comprehension of the situation and taking the necessary measures to correct it.
Summary and Conclusions:
Although group-analysis is embedded in the social world as much as in the psyche, and although the frame of reference of group analysis shifted psychoanalysis from small groups to larger groups, no effort has been made yet to apply its main concepts to larger groups. This does not mean that there are no articles using group analytic concepts to analyse social phenomena and social processes. On the contrary: more and more papers that appear in the journal Group Analysis are related to social issues, from immigration (Sengun, 2001) to Feminism (Burman, 2004). But even the latest special issue of the journal about contemporary debates in Social Theory
(Burman, and Frosh, 2005) lacks exploration of basic group analytic concepts and their application to the social field. It is as if the philosophy behind group analysis is easier to connect to contemporary social ideas than its unique group processes. Maybe it is easier to relate the radical Foulkesian ideas (as explained in chapter 2) to critical theory and postmodernist, poststructuralist, post-colonial ideas. Or maybe it is more risky to take processes and concepts that relate to the small group and apply them to larger groups, including social and national groups. The risk is that it will face the
(sometimes justified) criticism that you cannot analyse a high-order system with tools used for analysing a first-order structure. As I repeated along this chapter and the entire thesis, even states can regress and manifest group characteristics sometimes. It is true that group analysts tend to conflate all social formations, and to use the word
‘group’ to denote all social formations as opposed to ‘individuals’. A social system

93 constitutes a group to the extent that its organisational structure is relatively ‘simple’ rather than ‘complex’. Looking at social formations through group analytic lens does not mean that these social structures are the same as therapeutic groups.
Whatever the cause might be, the fact is that the group analytic literature misses a comprehensive analysis of possible application of concepts such as mirroring, resonance, dynamic administration, etc. to the social world (it is less true about the matrix). So actually there is a gap between papers relating to higher abstractions of group analytic perspectives to practical concepts that differentiate group analysis from other theories. This chapter is intended to fill some of this gap in order to be able to use those terms and frame of reference in the next chapter. We cannot talk about the Social
Unconscious without understanding the social matrix it is based on, and how resonance unites people from the same culture, creating a feeling of 'us'. Trying to analyse the
Internet Unconscious, as I do in the last chapter, cannot be accomplished without the foundations laid in the present chapter for applying group analytic concepts to virtual groups.

94
Understanding larger groups can be achieved from many different angles.
Societal Large Groups, such as ethnic, cultural, political or even national, are very complex conglomerates and it could be questioned whether they behave according to any (overt or covert) clear rules. Social formations vary in terms of numerous properties. They can be analysed in terms of patterns of interaction, norm system and communication: interaction refers to relationship and affiliation; norm system refers to beliefs, norms and values; and communication refers to imparting and exchanging information. They may also be analysed in terms of their styles of thinking and feeling, and of leadership and followership (Hopper, 2003e).
As social scientists we are looking for order and construction to explain social structures. It is easier to explore order in small groups, and to analyse their developmental stages, styles of leadership, members' roles, and dynamic processes.
Sometimes we conclude that chaos governs the scene but even then we can use complexity and chaos theory to make sense of what we see (e.g. Brabender, 2003;
Rubenfeld, 2001). When we turn to higher hierarchy living systems, simple models are not enough. The need to have meaning for complex social formations leads to different perspectives explaining cultures, society, and nation states. From the psychological point of view we are looking for a method to uncover the "deep structure" of a society or of cultural belief systems. Following the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic tradition, we look for some unconscious motives driving an individual, a group, or communities. The first question that comes to mind is whether it is justified to relate an "Unconscious" to a larger social system. So the first task of this chapter is to justify the use of the Social Unconscious concept and explain its meaning and misinterpretations. I introduce several definitions of the concept of the Social
Unconscious, including my own, and outline the necessary dimension to be described when analysing a specific society and its unconscious. This chapter lays the foundations for the next chapter in which I describe in detail the Israeli Social
Unconscious as an example for this concept and relate to the Internet Unconscious as a new concept.

95
The concept of the Social Unconscious:
What connects a group of people together? Which are these invisible ties that make members of a group feel that they belong to the same group? Why do human beings construct and become attached to nations and similar imagined communities?
What can we conclude from shared hidden system of beliefs, fantasies, myths that construct a larger social group? Psychology today moved from a one-person to a twoperson psychology (Aron, 1996). Whenever two or more individuals are together there is a shared unconscious field to which they belong and of which by definition they are not aware. We can talk about 'relational unconscious' process co-created by both participants.
Group analysis moved long ago to multi-person psychology, not only because there are several people participating in the group interaction, but also because they create something beyond their individual contributions. The psychic activity occurring in a group is much more than the simple addition of the psyche of its members. The notion of the matrix, discussed in chapters 2, 4 and 5, implies an unconscious connection between people in a group. The matrix shows its own structure and functional autonomy, in some way transcending individuals, even if it is constructed and shared by the whole of individuals. Bion's basic assumptions (1959) are also examples of the group unconscious because they mean that any group is threatened by regressive forces from within the group. When regressed, the group behaves "as if" its members have some common shared hidden purpose. There exist "total group phenomena". The basic assumptions can also be regarded as collective defense mechanisms resorted to in order to cope with deep anxieties.
If we agree that groups have some common unconscious fantasies and can use collective defense mechanisms, we should also consider this possibility in higher social structures, such as communities and even societies. This does not mean that
Large Groups and societies behave like small groups, but that we can infer from the existence of a group unconscious the existence of a higher level unconscious which has its own features: the Social Unconscious. Similar to the individual unconscious, the Social Unconscious is also out of space and timeless. Due to its timelessness members of a group are able to re-live and re-enact in the here-and-now relationships and pertinent emotions from the remote past. Correspondingly, members of social

96 groups could be said to unconsciously re-live and re-enact in the present emotions related to past events of their society. When regressive conditions occur (such as in times of war or other social dangers) these unconscious fantasies and anxieties might impact the behaviour of society-at-large. It is because phylogenetically and ontogenetically the Social Unconscious precedes the individual consciousness, that a shared unconscious can and does develop among total strangers. This phenomenon clearly happens in a small group: Members of an analytic group have a lot in common even before they meet. This holds true no matter how heterogeneous their disturbances are. They have in common what Foulkes termed the "foundation matrix", based on the biological properties of the species and also the culturally firmly embedded values and reactions. A similar foundation matrix exists in larger and social groups: every group produces it own foundation matrix.
Some writers (Hopper, Dalal) vehemently argue against the use of the term
"group mind" because it assumes an existence of a physical group body. More than that, even Hopper, who is the most important exponent of the Social Unconscious, has lately withdrawn from using this term because the word ‘unconscious’ implies the existence of a brain, and social systems do not have brains. In a personal communication (21/10/05) he wrote to me, "I most profoundly disagree with you that social systems of any kind have an ‘unconscious’ of any kind, but I can entirely see the benefits that derive from referring to social systems as though they were organisms and/or persons."
When I use the term "Social Unconscious" I do not mean to say that social systems have brains, or that they behave as an organism. What I mean is that they behave as if their members have similar elements in their individual unconscious.
They share anxieties, fantasies, defenses, myths, and national memories. They coconstruct a shared unconscious. In my opinion clinicians who use the terms ‘group transference’, basic assumptions, foundation matrix, automatically imply that there is some co-constructed phenomenon belonging to a small or Large Group. Thus it is also justified to use the term 'Social Unconscious'.
The idea of the Social Unconscious assumes that some specific hidden myths and motives guide the behavior of a certain society or culture. It also assumes that a
Large Group or society might use some shared defenses. In the same manner that unconscious forces drive an individual without knowing it, a group, an organization or

97 the entire society can act upon unconscious forces too. As we will see later, Large
Groups, being an important tool in understanding social interactive processes and interrelationships within society, and prone to powerful regressive forces, serve well to bring the Social Unconscious into the open air.
Foulkes (1964) describes four levels of relationships and communication existing in the group at the same time:
1.
The current level – everyday relationships in which the group represents the reality, community, social relationships and public opinion. The conductor is perceived as a leader or authority.
2.
The transference level – corresponding to mature object relations, where the group represents the family, the conductor is perceived as a parent and the group members as siblings.
3.
The projective level – corresponding to primitive object relations of partobjects with projected and shared feelings and fantasies. Members can represent elements of the individual self. The group represents the mother image or even her womb, and body images are reflected and represented by the group and its members.
4.
The primordial level – the group represents shared myths, archetypical images and the collective unconscious.
Brown (2001) points out that in levels 2, 3, 4 we allow for processes that involve not only the individual unconscious of classical psychoanalysis, but also processes occurring between and through people. These levels of communication exist in small groups as well as larger groups including social ones. We might wonder where is the level of the Social Unconscious? Two answers are possible. One is to add this level to the four already existing levels of Foulkes, assuming that he neglected adding it. Another solution is to assume that the Social Unconscious exists in each of these levels with the first one serving as a background (we will see later that the fourth primordial one might be excluded). If we choose this solution then when analysing the Social Unconscious we should relate to all these levels and look for unconscious hidden aspects shared by members of a social system at each level. For example, we should analyse the myths of the family (transference level) shared by members of a certain culture.

98
According to Brown (2001) there are four ways in which the Social
Unconscious is manifested: 1. Assumptions - what is taken for granted and natural in society. 2. Disavowals - disowning knowledge or responsibility for things that are unwelcome. 3. Social defenses - what is defended against by projection, denial, repression or avoidance. 4. Structural oppression - control of power and information by competing interests in society and the international community.
We need to add each of these above items when describing the ways in which a certain Social Unconscious is manifested. We will use these categories in the next chapter when analysing the Israeli Social Unconscious. But first we need to define our object of study.
Definitions of the Social Unconscious:
The term Social Unconscious was first mentioned by Foulkes in his book
Therapeutic Group Analysis (1964): "… the group-analytic situation, while dealing with the unconscious in the Freudian sense, brings into operation and perspective a totally different area of which the individual is equally unaware. …One might speak of a social or interpersonal unconscious" (page 52). Thus Foulkes went beyond the classical Freudian concept of the individual unconscious to include the social and communicational forces affecting interpersonal and transpersonal processes, but he did not elaborate further on this concept. Hopper (1996, 2001, 2003b) contributed many papers to this concept, actually being one of the most consistent exponents of the Social Unconscious. Hopper (2001) defines the Social Unconscious like this: "The concept of the social unconscious refers to the existence and constraints of social, cultural and communicational arrangements of which people are unaware. Unaware, in so far as these arrangements are not perceived (not ‘known’), and if perceived not acknowledged (‘denied’), and if acknowledged, not taken as problematic (‘given’), and if taken as problematic, not considered with an optimal degree of detachment and objectivity" (page 10).
Dalal (1998) persistently argues that the dichotomy between the social and the individual, culture and personality, is false. He identifies two theories hidden in
Foulkes's approach, the first he has called Orthodox, as it retains its allegiances with individualism and instinctivism; the second theory he has called Radical, as it challenges the orthodoxy that prioritized the individual over the social group. In the same manner he argues that Foulkes's definition of the Social Unconscious, cited

99 earlier, does not go far enough because it suggests the presence of an unconscious that is not social, or prior to the social, or outside the social. Dalal's (2001) radical idea following Radical Foulkes is that one cannot talk about a Freudian unconscious that is different from a Social Unconscious. Thus, he claims that the Social Unconscious is not 'the social in the unconscious' [my emphasis], meaning that it is not just the way someone is affected by their particular cultural system. "The social unconscious includes, but is bigger than, what might be called the cultural unconscious. The cultural unconscious can be described as consisting of the norms, habits, and ways of thinking of a particular culture. … The social unconscious … includes the power relationships between discourses. The social unconscious is a discourse which hierarchically orders other discourses" (page 212). Specifically he explores some of the consequences of bringing the notion of power into the discussion, and examining its consequences for the contents of the Social Unconscious.
My definition of the Social Unconscious is somehow different from Hopper's
(2001) or Dalal's (2001): The Social Unconscious is the co-constructed shared unconscious of members of a certain social system such as community, society, nation or culture. It includes shared anxieties, fantasies, defenses, myths, and memories. Its building bricks are made of chosen traumas and chosen glories (Volkan, 2001, explained later).
Misperceptions about the Social Unconscious:
It is not the superego:
In his structural model, Freud divided the mental apparatus into three structures: the Id, the Ego, and the Superego. The last one is the internalisation of social norms and values, through the prohibitions and reinforcements activated by parental figures as representatives of society. The Superego represented our conscience and stands in opposition to the desires of the Id. The Superego, Freud stated, is the moral agent that links both our conscious and unconscious minds. It is part of the unconscious mind, and based upon the internalisation of the world view, norms and mores a child absorbs from parents and the surrounding environment at a young age. Dalal (1998) calls these unconscious parts of the superego, the unconscious social (page 211). As the conscience, it is a primitive or child-based

100 knowledge of right and wrong, maintaining taboos specific to a child's internalisation of parental culture.
One might argue that because the Social Unconscious represents the social restraints, constraints and barriers, it resembles the Superego. But although the
Superego is the child's internalisation of parental culture, it differs from the Social
Unconscious in several important aspects: First of all it has individualistic features, as my superego is not the same as yours. This is because the social agents (the parental figures) through which these social norms were internalised differ from one individual to another. Second, the interpretation of these social taboos and restrictions change from one individual to another, and they are applied according to each person's level of maturity. Of course, there are some common moral elements in each individual's
Superego, such as the Divine commandment 'Thou shalt not kill', but the degree of guilt a person feels while disobeying this commandment varies from one person to another. The Social Unconscious, as we will soon see, is common to people belonging to the same society.
As Ormay (2001) writes, "The superego contains the value system of the family and of society. What is missing in psychoanalysis is a direct representation of the bigger human context. The superego goes towards it to some extent, but it falls short because it is only a part of the ego, a special group of internal representations of a few people with their idiosyncrasies, largely negative, locked up in solipsism. A genuine, shared social function is missing" (page 172).
It is not just the social in the unconscious:
One way of understanding the Social Unconscious is to see it as the social aspects in the individual unconscious. Surely people are affected by their particular cultural system, and their unconscious is shaped according to the social forces. We can analyse these hidden influences and title the parts in the individual unconscious attributed to the impact of culture and society as the Social Unconscious, but this is not what we mean when talking about this concept. Indeed, when Hopper (2003c) analyses a clinical vignette in an early version of his papers on this theme (although first drafted in 1985 it has not been published until the appearance of his book in
2003), he is looking for the social context of his counter-transference. It seems as if he relates to this concept as the social constraints on his personal responses.

101
In his last unpublished paper, Hopper (2005) clearly states: "although it can be said that an unconsciously co-created microcosm within the group is an expression of the ‘unconscious of the group’, I do not think about the dynamics of groups and other social systems in terms of their ‘unconscious’, because I do not believe that social systems have minds, conscious or otherwise. Certainly they do not have brains……
However, the metaphor that social systems are like people and have minds in the same way that people have minds, is an extremely useful heuristic device that directs our attention and curiosity towards those parts and aspects of social systems of which people are unconscious. This is especially apposite under conditions of trauma when wounded people regress, as do the systems of which they are members (page 29)."
Actually we can question this concept from its other end. According to Dalal
(1998), if we take the group seriously, we can say that there is no such a thing as an individual, because we can never talk about the individual outside the social context.
If we extend this idea we can also conclude that there is no such thing as an individual unconscious which is different from the Social Unconscious. Indeed Dalal (2001) asserts that "the unconscious is constituted by the social at every level" (page 554) and Knauss (2004) claims that each individual’s unique unconscious life forms a dynamic group matrix. This process expresses itself through an on-going wordless or verbal conversation within imagined or real groups (Stacey, 2001).
Social aspects, constraints and influences might portray themselves in the individual unconscious, and the individual unconscious might be social through and through, but in order to relate to something as coming from the Social Unconscious we need to find evidence to it in most individuals belonging to the same culture/society. This is because the Social Unconscious, according to my definition is the shared unconscious fantasies. Actually this is an interesting case where the inner and outer are compounded to create a combined shared phenomenon. We can find this unseparated combination in Dalal's (1998) definition, "The social unconscious includes, but is bigger than, what might be called the cultural unconscious. The cultural unconscious can be described as consisting of the norms, habits, and ways of thinking of a particular culture. … The social unconscious … includes the power relationships between discourses. The social unconscious is a discourse which hierarchically orders other discourses" (page 212). We do not have to talk about the group mind or the relate to society and culture as an organism in order to agree that

102 members of a social system co-create some unique unconscious and share fantasies, repressed memories, anxieties and defenses.
It is not the collective unconscious:
Jung (1936) termed the concept of "the collective unconscious" to describe that part of a person's unconscious which is common to all human beings. He distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, which is particular to each human being. The collective unconscious contains archetypes, which are universal mental predispositions not grounded in experience and are manifested by all people in all cultures. The archetypes are not memories of past experiences but "forms without content" representing the possibility of a certain type of perception and action. They are part of the inheritances of all human societies. They offer a certain kind of readiness to produce the same or similar mythical ideas over and over again.
The Social Unconscious differs from the collective unconscious that emphasizes the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It is common to people belonging to the same culture or society, while the collective unconscious goes beyond a certain culture. The Social Unconscious is based on shared memories of a certain society, especially traumatic memories transmitted through the generations.
This is clearly different from the archetypes that are the basis for the collective unconscious and are not based on memories. The Social Unconscious is similar to more contemporary Jungian views of the ‘shared unconscious’, which emphasize the interpersonal, the intersubjective and socialization (Zinkin, 1979). It is also similar to the ‘cultural unconscious’ introduced by the American psychoanalyst Spector-Person
(1992) in Romantic Love: at the Intersection of the Psyche and the Cultural
Unconscious . However, Brown (2001) argues that it is useful to think of the primordial level of group communication (mentioned above in the four levels of relationships and communication) which represents the collective unconscious, as active in the unconscious influence of the particular societies each individual, family or social group belongs to. We might trace aspects of the collective unconscious in the
Social Unconscious if we notice that certain archetypes are more powerful in a specific culture.

103
It is not just hidden cultural norms:
As written in chapter 3, some cultural aspects are more elusive and less obvious than other aspects. Culture itself can be seen as an invisible web standing behind our behaviours and interactions. But although the Social Unconscious has to do with the subtle, tacit, taken-for-granted ways of doing things in one's society or culture, it is not just the norms that we are unaware of. For example if we consider the spatial distance common in different cultures in day-to-day relationships, we will find that
Mediterranean people keep less physical distance and touch one another more than the
British. This might be related to the Social Unconscious, as it seems to fit the definition of "the existence and constraints of social, cultural and communicational arrangements of which the people are unaware" (Hopper, 1996), but it is not enough to make it unconscious. When we look for unconscious elements we usually assume that there are some motives for keeping these elements unconscious, and that there is some defense involved in this process.
So we are looking for a meaning behind this hidden cultural norm or covert behaviour. If we find out that the behaviour of keeping physical distance in a certain culture is related to some difficulty in intimate relations or that there are myths that relate touch to dangerous outcomes (such as the one about King Midas, whose touch turned anyone into gold) we can include this behaviour in the Social Unconscious.
What differentiates between merely being a hidden social norm and being part of the
Social Unconscious is an unconscious motive, a defense, or a deep conflict.
That is why traumatised societies become a rich source for exploring the
Social Unconscious. Traumas involve painful events. Pains against which we build strong defenses and develop various behaviours to avoid recollecting them.
Uncovering these traumatic memories or the way they unconsciously impact on a society is the essence of the Social Unconscious.
So the social defenses participating in this unconscious could be analysed as part of it. Based on his observations from the workshops of the European Association for Transcultural Group Analysis, Brown (2001) stated the most powerful ones as denial and projection. In addition he found the repression of memory to be very powerful especially in traumatic social experiences. My own experience in Large
Groups has led me to add the mechanisms of splitting, idealization and projective identification acting strongly in the group and society as well.

104
Large Groups, chosen trauma, and the fourth basic assumption:
Unstructured psychodynamic Large Groups that are organised in conferences
(usually group psychotherapy conferences, but not necessarily) can be an important instrument for studying and exploring the Social Unconscious. The Large Group is a valuable group structure from which we can learn about the Social Unconscious, mass psychology and society-at-large. Although we usually focus on the here-and-now in groups, when we want to explore the Social Unconscious and trans-cultural phenomena, we deduce from the here-and-now to the there-and-then.
Large and median groups, more than small groups, usually start with chaos. Participants try to find order and make sense of the chaos so as not to feel lost, alone, isolated and possibly have "a fear of breakdown" (Winnicott, 1974, p.87) and disappear. They feel
"a threat of annihilation
…a very real primitive anxiety" (Winnicott, 1956, p.303).
Due to the weaker container function of the Large Group, fluidity of boundaries, and the seemingly chaotic structure, which creates regression, the large group awakens feelings of anxiety. "In a Large Group the single member feels threatened and isolated and a sense of helplessness in the face of chaos is dominant" (von Platen,
1996, p. 486).
As I mentioned in my paper about regression (Weinberg, 2006, in press,
Appendix I), the Large Group arouses a powerful pull of regression, threatening individual identity (Turquet, 1975) and inviting crude aggression between its members and sometimes towards the leaders. Anzieu (1984) stresses the denial of differences between the sexes due to the pressure for narcissistic and pre-oedipal regression in the Large Group, and Kernberg (1989) focuses on the tendency of the
Large Group to promote conformity, thus contributing to the illusion that the Large
Group is homogeneous. In these conditions of regression, shared fantasies and anxieties reveal themselves easily. De Maré et al (1991) write: "…large groups provide a setting in which we can explore our social myths (the social unconscious) and where we can begin to bridge the gap between ourselves and our socio-cultural environment…" (p.10). The observant conductor can connect some of the overt themes discussed in the Large Group with hidden themes relating to Social
Unconscious issues. The way members of the Large Group protect themselves from feeling anxious and isolated (or too enmeshed) also gives a clue to social unconscious themes. As said before, social defenses are part of it.

105
At the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) annual conference, two conveners, a man and a woman, conducted the Large Group continuously for years. When the woman announced her resignation from leading the group next year, the participants talked about it anxiously but without expressing their sad feelings. The male conductor suggested that the group feels abandoned by its mother, and maybe is worried by the loss of the good breast. In addition to connecting it to the transference towards a mother figure, he hypothesized about the difficulty for North Americans to mourn the loss of their motherland when immigrating to America. This theme is definitely a deep Social Unconscious issue transmitted over generations in a society of immigrants, affecting the way different ethnic groups integrate in this multicultural society. This vignette shows how a Large
Group interpretation can relate both to the transference level (mother figure) the projected level (the good breast) and the Social Unconscious level (mourning motherland loss).
A special version of the Large Group is found on the Internet and arouses regression as well (Weinberg, 2003a, appendix F). It seems that regressive fantasies and early object relations govern the scene on the Internet regression. We will explore the meaning of the Internet regression for the Social and Internet unconscious in the next chapter.
The Social Unconscious reveals itself also in traumatised societies and in community and national crisis events. In times like these, natural Large Groups
(Large Groups as societal, educational, ethnic and political structures) become regressed too. Hopper (1997) claims that a regressed traumatised society manifests behaviors stemming from the fourth basic assumption, which is an extension of Bion's
(1959) original three basic assumptions. This assumption is expressed in bi-polar forms of incohesion. When activated, groups and group-like social systems oscillate between Aggregation and Massification. In the massification polarity the group seems unified, members tend to merge in fantasy and present enmeshed characteristics, deny differences and an illusion of togetherness and sameness prevails. In the aggregative polarity, people feel alienated from one another and indifference, hostility and withdrawal from relationships are prevalent. In its extreme form a massive splitting mechanism is active and each sub-group is against each other sub-group. The deep anxieties invoked in traumatic states and the defenses against them, manifested in the

106 fourth basic assumption should be analysed as part of the Social Unconscious of a certain culture.
A special consideration when exploring the Social Unconscious, especially in traumatic situations and their aftermath, should be given to the idea of the "chosen trauma". Volkan (2001) refers to "chosen trauma" as the collective memory of a disaster, which becomes a paradigm that keeps the existential threat in the national memory in order to ward off potential complacency. The chosen trauma is the shared mental representation of a massive trauma that the group's ancestors suffered. When a
Large Group regresses, its chosen trauma is reactivated in order to support the group's threatened identity. 'Chosen Trauma' is an echoing trauma, becoming a paradigm that reassures existential threat, and exists in the national memory. "Memories," perceptions, expectations, wishes, fears, and other emotions related to shared images of the historical catastrophe and the defenses against them, may become an important identity marker of the affected Large Group and actually construct its Social
Unconscious. Years, even centuries, later, when the Large Group faces new conflicts with new enemies, it reactivates its chosen trauma in order to consolidate and enhance the threatened Large Group identity. In this way the Social Unconscious re-enacts the past. The mental representation of the past disaster becomes condensed with the issues surrounding current conflicts, magnifying enemy images and distorting realistic considerations in peace negotiation processes. It is clear from this description that chosen traumas reside in the Social Unconscious, maybe even constructing it just as archetypes construct the collective unconscious.
There is also an opposite aspect of the chosen trauma, which is the chosen glory. "The mental representation of a historical event that induces feelings of success and triumph ['chosen glory'] … can bring members of a large group together. Usually such triumphs are deserved victories over another group… Chosen glories are reactivated as a way to bolster a group's self-esteem. Like chosen traumas they become mythologized over time" Volkan (1999: page 224). Chosen glories influence identity less pervasively than chosen traumas, however, because their effect is less complex. Chosen traumas bring with them powerful experiences of loss and feelings of humiliation, vengeance, and hatred that trigger a variety of unconscious defense mechanisms that attempt to reverse these experiences and feelings.

107
We can conclude that the Social Unconscious includes chosen traumas, chosen glories and phenomena stemming from the fourth basic assumption.
Summary and Conclusions:
I have argued that the Social Unconscious is a heuristically useful concept to explore unconscious social phenomena without assuming an existence of a "social mind". It is co-constructed by members of the same community, society or culture and contains the shared fantasies, myths, anxieties, defenses and memories. It is not the superego, neither just the social in the unconscious. It is also not the Jungian collective unconscious and includes more than hidden cultural or social norms to which people are unaware. Volkan's (2001) chosen traumas and chosen glories are embedded in the Social Unconscious, assembling its shared myths and national memories.
Any analysis of the Social Unconscious of a certain society should include the four levels of communication and relationship described by Foulkes (1964) and the ways it is manifested in that society according to Brown's (2001) suggestion. We will use these dimensions to analyse the Israeli Social Unconscious and relate to the
Internet Unconscious in the next chapter.

108
In the previous chapter I defined, described and analysed the Social
Unconscious. Now it is time to use this analysis for a test case. As an example of an analysis of the Social Unconscious I chose to relate to the Israeli one, being an Israeli all my life. I have already written some papers about groups in Israel (Weinberg,
2000; Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002, Appendix C; Weinberg & Nuttman-
Shwartz, 2004, Appendix D; Weinberg & Nuttman-Shwartz, 2006, Appendix K) reflecting social issues. I am aware of the drawbacks of an analysis made by a participant-observer who belongs to the culture s/he describes, but due to my traveling around the world, participating in international congresses, and meetings with colleagues from different cultures I believe I developed some "outsider's lens" to
Israeli society. In the following paragraphs I will focus mostly on the hidden unconscious aspects of the Israeli society.
But the purpose of this thesis is not to understand the Israeli society. Along the previous chapters I use many examples from Cyberspace because I think we can learn from the Internet about deep aspects of every culture. The culture of the Internet developed in front of our eyes in less than two decades. We are all participantobservers in this culture, being part of its formation, sharing common myths around its nature, and contributing unconsciously to its gradual creation. So finally I introduce the concept of the Internet Unconscious and its implications for understanding society and cultures.
The Israeli Social Unconscious:
Israel is a melting pot for Jews coming from the Diaspora to "the Promised
Land". Even this short sentence conveys shared fantasies and yearnings transmitted for hundreds of years through generations of Jews. "Next year in built Jerusalem",
Jews would say annually for generations when reading the Hagada in the traditional
Passover Seder. So immigrating to Israel for the Jews is an act saturated with emotions, longing, expectations, idealisation, and shared fantasies. Indeed there is a

109 special word for this act - making "Aliya", which means ‘going up’. The opposite act of emigrating from Israel is called "Yerida" meaning ‘going down’, with all associated negative connotations. So we can expect the Israeli Social Unconscious to be strongly connected with the Jewish fate and history. In fact we cannot understand the current social and political situation in Israel without relating to historical events and their residence in the Social Unconscious. On top of that, being a melting pot for many ethnic and cultural groups, we can expect Israel to deal intensively with questions of diversity and multiculturalism.
The idealisation of Israel and Israeli society was part of the myth of Jews coming back to their former homeland. A famous Israeli poet (Bialik) once said, "we will be a normal state only after we have the first Hebrew thief and a Hebrew whore".
This idealisation contributed to the denial of many unjustified acts occurring in Israel in its first decades. The whole world participated in creating the myth of the
"halutzim" (pioneers, settlers) who came to the desert to flourish their land. This myth ignored the existence of another people in Israel who has been settled for years in
Palestine.
In addition, in order to establish a new identity unifying different ethnic and social groups, and in contrast to the image of the weak Jew in the Diaspora, certain social-cultural myths and narratives were developed. The most important of them was the image of the "Sabra", the newborn in Israel. It required the creation of a new entity based on a common past (ignoring communities who did not suffer the
Holocaust which therefore privileged the experience of European/Ashkenazi Jewry), and a united illusionary identity with no differences of religion or tradition (including denying the Arab minority living in the country) and with a clearly identified external enemy (Moore and Bar On, 1996). This creation prevented the working through of traumas from the Holocaust and immigration. The focus on activity, such as the combination of building a new country and going to war, impeded the working through of emotional issues such as mourning the loss of families in the Holocaust and elaborating guilt feelings. The Sabra image included classical heroic (and culturally masculine) features, including the focus on physical strength and denying of weaknesses. Historical events in Jewish history representing chosen glory were illuminated and praised while (what I will later discuss in terms of) chosen traumas were denied and repressed. Emotional expression was considered a weakness. Life in

110 the shadow of war also contributed to the difficulty in dealing with these traumas.
This need for a new identity in the midst of existential threat encouraged seclusion and strengthened outer boundaries while blurring inner ones.
The Kibbutz and its ideology of equality, where everybody works according to her or his ability and receives from the community according to her or his needs is an example of these processes (irrespective of its actual practices). There was also a felt need to create an illusion of a new society with modern humanistic social norms praising the image of the enlightened Israeli “Sabra” warrior (Gretz, 1995). This was in stark contrast to the image of Jew as Holocaust victim, or physically frail intellectual.
Another aspect of the Israeli Social Unconscious is expressed in the profound and repeated phrase of "I am not going to be a sucker". Israelis argue about everything, they are keen on getting a deal, and will not let anyone play tricks with them. They always know better than the other does especially when the other is an authority. If the authority comes from abroad they are in conflict. On one hand they invite the famous guest and want to hear what he has to say. On the other hand they compulsively need to undermine his expertise and authority. When the British group analyst Morris Nitsun gave a workshop in Israel in 1997 he told me, "I have never had such an experience of so many people approaching me during the break telling me how to lead the workshop". Once an Israeli philosopher (Yeshayahoo Leibovits) explained this as "we are fed up of being ruled by the Goyim (non-Jewish people)". It seems that this sentence reverberates in the Israeli Social Unconscious. The revolt against the shared memory of the Jew who is controlled and governed by others creeps into daily acts, maneuvering Israelis into a paranoid position of wanting to show "who gives the orders here". Maybe this is one of the reasons why Israelis tend to break any rule, test the limits, and reject authority. Israelis do not like being told what to do. This attitude has its impact even in issues of foreign affairs, starting with
Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister) who said that "what the Goyim have to say is not important ".
So, in groups, usually the criticism of the leader and sometimes an attack on his or her leadership is quite common and comes earlier in the group stages. On the
Internet, as I described in chapter five, comparing the group psychotherapy international discussion list and the Israeli forum of group psychotherapy, the leader's

111 idealisation that ruled the international list for several years in its beginning, was cut short less than half a year after the start of the Israeli forum (the same leader led both forums). The need for idealisation found its sublimation in idealising the list itself, but it was not as strong as the in the international one.
Analysing the Israeli society according to Foulkes's four levels:
As I wrote in the previous chapter, one way of analysing the Social
Unconscious is along the line of Foulkes's levels of communication and relationships
(1964), so let us do it now regarding the Israeli society.
1. The current level – Israel is a traumatised society with memories of centuries of persecution and the long shadow of the Holocaust, and the recent past of ever-present wars and threats. It is a multicultural but polarised society, conflicted internally and externally, struggling with difficult questions of social and national identity. Issues of territory, identity, security, rigid outside boundaries and blurred inner boundaries contribute to its current situation. From its inception it is preoccupied with wars or threats of war with Arab countries. In the last decades the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict deeply affects Israeli society and horrors of terror are part of everyday life.
2. The transference level – this is the level of the group representing the family. The family has always been very important in the life of the Jewish community, with classical gender roles of the father as the provider and the mother as taking care of the household and the education of children. Gender stereotypes are hidden in the image of the Sabra mentioned earlier. On the surface it is not directed to a specific gender, creating the illusion of equality and unity. Actually it is based on a masculine stereotype of physical strength and the repression of emotions.
The importance of the family and its stability has slowly changed in some sections of the population but not in religious families. Jewish mothers are perceived as castrating of their sons, not letting them grow up and not allowing them get away from their control. Modern Israeli mothers are still expected to fulfill their nurturing role in the family while also developing a career outside the family, thus exerting quite a pressure on them in becoming a superwoman.

112
It was surprising for me to find out with my female patients that even modern
Israeli women who are financially independent and have their own careers, still feel that they have not actualised themselves if they are not married. Even if disguised, the quest for the male partner is always there, with a hidden assumption that a woman is not really worthy without a man she obtained. Israeli men usually do not feel that their worth depends on whether they have an ongoing relationship, and are more prone to draw their sense of worthiness from their professional status. More than once I have met in therapy Israeli women who are professionally successful and financially independent, but have panic attacks when a man they have dated for less than two weeks seems to lose interest in them. They act as if their lives depend on his approval and wanting them. I have never met an Israeli man having such a panic attack because of this reason.
3. The Projective level – this level corresponds to narcissistic relations with part-objects, and involves archaic defenses of splitting, projection, introjection and projective identification. The Israeli society (based on Jewish tradition) is expert in using splitting. They say that wherever there are two Jews – there are three synagogues. Israel is supposed to be a melting pot for the different ethnic groups from the Diaspora, but it is still divided into social subgroups with substantial cultural and class differences. The main division is between Ashkenazim (whose origins are from mostly from European and American countries) and Sephardim (who generally came from Africa and Asia). This general division does not fully describe the diversity of subgroups and their features. Of course when you look closer, the Sephardim are also divided into many different origin subgroups.
This disintegration is expressed also between religious and secular Jews. This issue becomes even more complicated because many of the religious Jews (not extreme in the religious area) are identified with a politically extreme right-wing ideology and populate the settlements behind the green line (the border before the
1967 war). Thus religious variation becomes political differentiation as well.
But of course, the issue that involves mostly splitting and projections is the relationship with the Arabs. For years, the Arab countries were Israel’s main enemy, enhancing annihilation anxieties and paranoid feelings about Israel facing another holocaust. In more recent times, the Palestinians changed from terrorists, to legitimate

113 partners for negotiation. This process engendered upheaval for many Jewish Israelis, for whom negotiation with the PLO had been taboo. During the last twenty years, peace agreements and settlements were signed with two Arab countries and with the
Palestinian Authorities, but the complete longed-for peace is still far away.
4. The Primordial level - this is the level of the archetypes and the collective unconscious. Although we explained earlier that archetypes are part of the inheritances of all human societies and as such should not be included in the analysis of the Social Unconscious, we will take Brown's (2001) advice mentioned in the previous chapter to think of the primordial level of group communication as active in the unconscious influence of the particular society. We will trace aspects of the collective unconscious in the Israeli Social Unconscious by following certain archetypes that are more powerful in Israeli culture.
The myths in Mediterranean countries such as Greece or Italy are often taken from Greek mythology. The myths in Israel should certainly be taken from the Bible that is part of the Jewish culture and legacy. One of the most influential Biblical stories is that of Isaac's sacrifice. The story is presented as a proof of Abraham and
Isaac's deep faith in God, but beyond it we read about the readiness to sacrifice a son due to some superior value or belief. The possibility of sacrificing their children, by sending them to the army knowing they might be killed in wars, haunts Israeli parents day and night. The "Promised Land" should have been accompanied with a promise for quiet peaceful life. Instead of leaving a better place for their children, the next generations have to deal with the same issues of life and death. In the name of national-secular ideologies sons' death becomes sacred.
We can learn a lot about the Social Unconscious from art works. Many Israeli writers and poets expressed the theme of the sacrifice. From the poets, I chose
Yehudah Amichai, a famous Israeli poet, who takes up Isaac's binding a second time in the poem, "Three sons had Abraham, not just two" (in his book, "Open Closed
Open"). [Hebrew-English translations that might help understanding this poem:
Yishma= will hear. El= God. Yitzhak (the Hebrew name of Isaac)= will laugh.
Yivkeh= will cry]
Three sons had Abraham: Yishma-El, Yitzhak, and Yivkeh.
First came Yishma-El, "God will hear,"

114 next came Yitzhak, "he will laugh," and the last was Yivkeh, for he was the youngest, the son that Father loved best, the son who was offered up on Mount Moriah.
Yishma-El was saved by his mother, Hagar,
Yitzhak was saved by the angel, but Yivkeh no one saved.
When he was just a little boy, his father would call him tenderly, Yivkeh,
Yivkeleh, my sweet little Yivkie but he sacrificed him all the same.
The Torah says the ram, but it was Yivkeh.
Yishma-El never heard from God again,
Yitzhak never laughed again,
Sarah laughed only once, then laughed no more.
Three sons had Abraham,
Yishma, "will hear," Yitzhak, "will laugh," Yivkeh, "will cry."
Yismah-El, Yitzhak-El, Yivkeh-El.
God will hear, God will laugh, God will cry.
Another Israeli artist who is haunted by the theme of Isaac's sacrifice is the famous painter and sculpture Menashe Kadishman. He painted hundreds of innocent sheep along his artistic career. But when his son was drafted to the army he started painting and sculpting works protesting against sending the boys to death. Here is a picture of one of sculptures. In this artwork Abraham does not appear at all, probably because he is the leader sending the sons to war. The decapitated head is of Isaac, not the ram, while the ram itself us threatening from above.

115
The Manifested ways of the Israeli Social Unconscious:
As written in the previous chapter, Brown (2001) suggested four ways in which the Social Unconscious is manifested. Let us explore these ways in the Israeli context:
1. Assumptions: what is taken for granted. a. The Chosen People - The Jewish nation is often referred to as "the Chosen
People." They were chosen by God to influence the rest of mankind, a "light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6). However, the sense of being a chosen people occurs in both religious and nonreligious contexts. Views of being a chosen people convey a meaning of superiority and are sometimes connected with ethnocentrism and racism.
At the same time the "chosen status" also claims to carry greater responsibility and sacrifices than others. For some Israelis this taken-for-granted assumption, residing in their national memory and Social Unconscious, means that Israelis should portray higher moral codes and values, hence their tendency to be overly self-criticised (the world surely joins this attitude of judging Israel in different criteria than other nations). For others it means superiority and justification for acts which ignore other people's rights.

116 b. The Promised Land - According to the Bible (Genesis 17:8), the Land of
Israel was "promised" to the descendants of Hebrew patriarchs by God, making it the
Promised Land.
This is another taken-for-granted assumption residing in the Israeli conscious and unconscious. Religious and right wing Jews consciously use it to expel
Palestinians from their land, but being unconscious too, it can also explain the amazingly lenient attitude of left-wing government and public opinion towards the settlers in the West Bank (Zertal & Eldar, 2004). c. The Jewish State - The State of Israel was established after the Holocaust as a safe home for the persecuted Jewish People. A special law was passed at the inception of Israel about the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel. The taken-forgranted assumption that Israel is the Jewish state, a natural place for Jews, can be understood in the light of the above, but it also deprives other ethnic groups living in
Israel from some civil rights. Being the State of the Jews, Israel persistently discriminates against other minorities. It might be consciously and deliberate, but if the Israeli Social Unconscious includes this assumption, it might be done sometimes even without awareness. d. All Israel are friends – This idiom ("Kol Israel Haverim" in Hebrew) reveals an assumption that impacts an interpersonal and inter-group relationships among
Israelis. On one hand it establishes a clear boundary between those who belong (all the Jews) and those who are "not friends" (Arabs and other minorities). At the same time it establishes a sense of togetherness and unity, sometimes artificial and sometimes very real. When a Jew meets another Jew somewhere in the world they have a strong sense of connection due to long standing traditions and beliefs, partly based on this idiom. The norm of mutual help, which is very strong in Jewish communities, also has its roots in the belief that "all Israel are friends". Israelis continue this tradition in many ways, from gathering in groups whenever they meet abroad, to creating mutual help and interdependency between community members, for example in the kibbutzim. This assumption might be the reason why even when
Jews split, or enter a conflict, there is always a sense of togetherness that prevents the conflict from deteriorating into a war between "brothers".
2. Disavowals: disowning knowledge or responsibility.
Because Jews considered themselves morally superior to their neighbours from early history, and indeed the Hebrew law in general laid the foundations for a

117 developed moralistic attitude, Israelis could not see themselves as creating injustice.
In addition, due to centuries of persecutions and Anti-Semitism, criticism from other nations was rejected and labeled Anti-Semitic. Thousands of years of helplessness and victimhood made it difficult for the Israelis to understand that they can be aggressive too, and not only as a response to annihilation threats. The possibility of a deep mechanism of identification with the aggressor, which might explain how the persecuted people became persecutors, is hard to perceive for Israelis, narcissistically hurting their self-image as merciful people. Even today many Israelis still disown and have difficulty accepting the fact that they have done harm to Palestinians too. An attempt to discuss this possibility encounters an immediate reaction that "the
Palestinians are all terrorists and that either we did nothing wrong, or we only protected ourselves from their aggression, or that all we have done is nothing compared to their cruelty". A strong disavowal of responsibility exists in Israel for its part in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Traumatised societies, such as Israel, tend to create rigid ideologies (Staub,
2000). Zertal (2002) shows how the central voice in the Israeli Social Unconscious has always been characterised by an endless accounting of the Jewish historical role as victims, and with the tendency to split. Whoever experienced such traumatic persecutions must protect himself from the recurrence of the past. The victim is never an aggressor; he is a survivor.
In an academic course in Israel about group processes, the teacher asked the students to write a memory about their "first group". One of the students shared with the group her memory from kindergarten where the sadistic nursery teacher made them sing "Jerusalem of Gold" for hours and deprived them of food until they sang it well. The group was quite shocked. Associations followed about the Holocaust and
Nazis abusing Jews. Another association was about Israeli soldiers in the army basic training where the officers abuse their power to make them stand for hours in the hot sun and sing. No one had an association to the stories read in the newspapers about
Israeli soldiers in the blocks, forcing Palestinians to sing national Israeli songs. When the teacher (actually a group analyst) asked about it, the students (all Israeli Jews) admitted that they couldn't think about Israeli soldiers as abusers.
There is another side of the split in which Israelis are flooded by guilt feelings and view their aggression as aimed towards helpless and innocent Palestinians. This is no less ignoring a complicated reality. Benjamin (1998) refers to the tendency to split

118 action into two extremes: either you do or are done to. The possibility that each side can become both an aggressor and a victim cannot enter the discourse.
3. Social defences:
Denial, projective identification and splitting are massively active in the Israeli
Social Unconscious. The use of splitting was discussed in my account of Foulkes' projective levels. Together with that, the Israeli society uses projection and projective identification quite often. Arab countries were perceived for years as evil and wanting to destroy the Israeli State and "throw all the Jews into the sea". This was not totally untrue but also helped the Israelis develop a distorted perception that they are a peaceloving country while the Arabs are blood thirsty. The peace treaty with Egypt (and later with Jordan) and the escalation of violence between Israelis and Palestinians shifted this perception from Arab countries to the Palestinians, using the same defence mechanisms. Now the Palestinians became the warmongerers, and Arafat was understood to have proved that "we have no partner for peace talks".
Denial was used a lot around Holocaust issues. This mechanism and its consequences will be discussed when describing the Holocaust as the Israeli chosen trauma in the next section.
4. Structural oppression: control of power and information.
This dimension is very difficult to observe directly in a democratic country. It can still be deduced from the distribution of resources, such as governmental budgets.
The amount of money allocated for education, constructions, welfare, etc. for Arab villages in Israel, is definitely less (actually one third) compared to the amount invested in the Jewish population. This might occur due to a directed and intentional governmental plan to discriminate between Arabs and Jews, but it can also be due to unconscious racial attitude towards minorities. Samooha (1978) in his book Israel:
Pluralism & Conflict even claims that Zionism does not go together with an equal status and equal rights to the Arabs. This claim is connected to the assumption mentioned earlier that Israel is the State of the Jews.
The different attitude towards Israeli Arabs and their discrimination in the approach of the Israeli police became clear in the events of October 2000, after the beginning of the second Palestinian intifada. Israeli Arabs joined their Palestinian brothers starting riots in Israel, blocking main roads and threatening free

119 transportation. The police opened fire on the Arab crowd, killing 13 citizens. Never before had policemen in Israel opened fire on a crowd, and it is generally agreed that they would probably not have taken such extreme measures had it been a Jewish crowd.
Control of power reveals itself also between genders in Israel through comparing salaries of men and women in the Israeli society. Men earn averagely more than women at the same jobs. This discrimination is not dictated by any explicitly declared governmental policy, so it might reflect a deep relation in the Social
Unconscious.
Although mass media communication in Israel seems free of any censorship, as is common in other democratic countries, articles relating to military actions and involve national security issues still need to be approved by the military censor. The
Israeli newspapers also have their own inner censorship deciding which news should not be revealed to the public in order to avoid damaging actions against terrorists.
Censorship is enforced more carefully on foreign reporters who might release news that endanger the national security. Although this attitude can be understood when talking about a country that is under a real threat of terror, it reveals a semi-conscious trend to use security as an excuse for undemocratic acts and possible abuse of power.
Actually every junior army officer can close an area in the Palestinian territories from journalists' access, claiming it to be a military area, but actually hiding acts of injustice.
The Israeli Social Unconscious and its chosen trauma:
As described in chapter 6, a 'Chosen Trauma' is an echoing trauma, becoming a paradigm that reassures existential threat, and exists in the national memory. Surely the most echoing trauma in the life of the Jewish people is the Holocaust. The murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis reduced the Jewish population of the world by third.
Moreover, the way it was so orderly carried out, and the seemingly helplessness of the victims, left its marks on many survivors and their families. The State of Israeli was mainly conceived because after the Holocaust it became self-evident the Jews need a safe place. Many Holocaust survivors had immigrated to Israel even before it was formally established in 1948. A lot of survivors tried to overcome the horror they had

120 been through by repressing the memories, avoiding any discussion about them, and ignoring the death-camp-prisoner number tattooed on their wrist. Those who were born in Israel joined this "conspiracy of silence", avoiding confrontation about the painful past with "those who were there". In the early days of the Israeli State (the
1950s and 1960s) no public discussion about the Holocaust existed. Denial governed the scene. The memories were still too painful, and an element of shame for being helpless and not resisting the massacre prevented an open discussion. Israeli youngsters were brought up either on the myth of the Jews who, in popular Israeli imagination, were presented as going like sheep to slaughter or that they all fought like brave warriors in the revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto. At any rate the absence of a discussion about what really happened there left the survivors feeling isolated and misunderstood. They were not able to mourn the losses, and focused on surviving without touching the painful memories. Sometimes it resulted in nightmares, sometimes in hidden guilt feelings, and mostly was transferred to the second generation of the holocaust survivor children. According to Volkan (1997) this is the natural platform for the emergence of a chosen trauma that cannot be elaborated in worked through in the nation's memory. The image of the strong Sabra appearing the
Israeli Social Unconscious can be explained as a counter-reaction to the weakness of the Jews who – according to the dominant Social Unconscious - went as sheep to slaughter.
From the 1970s on it seemed as if the opposite phenomenon occurred: overuse of the Holocaust in the public discourse. The Holocaust memory was associated with almost everything, sometimes cynically used by politicians for their purpose, but no doubt creeping into the Israeli Social Unconscious. In the first Gulf War (1991) Israel was attacked by missiles that were suspected of carrying chemical warheads, and they all had to enter "sealed rooms" to be protected from this threat. Many anxious responses and exaggerated acts were not only because of the real threat but because of the shared memory of the Holocaust, combining a threat of annihilation with a gas attack, and entering a sealed room. The association to the gas chambers of the Nazi camps was strong not only for Holocaust survivors or second generation children of survivors. The reader might argue these associations might still be understood well due to the dangerous situation, so let us take another situation: the disengagement process from the Gaza Strip (which took place in August 2005). In order to fight this

121 government decision and protesting against it, the settlers wore a yellow star, named the evacuators Nazis and used the Holocaust as a metaphor for expelling them from their houses. Here are some vignettes from a forum of Israeli psychologists discussing the psychological impact of this evacuation on everyone involved. The following writer is an Israeli male psychiatrist who immigrated from Argentina years ago
(originally in Hebrew. My translation):
"I really appreciate what you said, Y. and your words touched me at the intellectual and emotional level. I want to tell you that I am hurt too. Can you listen to my pain? I was raised in the Diaspora in a community of survivors and refugees from the Holocaust. Until I grew up almost everyone surrounding me were Jews who survived the most terrible horrors, were orphaned in the cruelest and most shocking ways, and that for them being despised, expelled and exiled, losing their property, not being wanted anywhere is the easiest part of the story. Why do I tell you all this? You know, the Holocaust is not a stranger to any Jew. Yet, if you knew, Y., how much I felt hurt, insulted, humiliated, and disparaged by those people who trampled the memory of tens of thousands of Jews who were exterminated, through a shaming and disgraceful scene of wearing yellow stars on the clothes of crying children standing with their hands up close to men in uniform? Do you know what ghosts and demons these pictures evoked in me? What right did they have? For the Jews with whom I grew up, the establishment of Israel was a miracle and the IDF was the actualisation of a dream for every oppressed and persecuted Jew. Against these soldiers they shouted unforgiveable things."
This writer does not have to explain too much in order for Israelis to understand what he is talking about. The picture of a Jewish child surrendering to Nazi soldiers is part of the national memory, evoking strong emotions whenever it is presented
(usually in Holocaust memorial days). Here is one of the responses to this message posted by a woman psychologist:
"When I read your letter, I felt deeply touched, in the physical level too: I shivered and teared. I too live with a heavy burden of the Holocaust, of uprooting, of extinction, of losses, of helplessness, and the desperate struggle of my parents to survive. This survival was possible thanks to the nobility, courage, high moral level, tolerance to difference, and decisive resistance to the racist extermination of two

122
Polish Christians (their religion is important) who hid my parents for a year and a half in a closet, endangering their own lives".
These vignettes show how Holocaust memories penetrate through the Israeli public discourse no matter what the subject is about. It can be overt as in the previous example, but it can also be covert and only deduced from what is said. As explained earlier, the Large Group with its regressive pull can reveal some of the Social
Unconscious of the society within which it exists. Here is another vignette from a
Large Group study day for group leaders and conductors in Israel. After some conflict between Israeli Jews and Arabs taking place in the session, a Jewish woman said: "I do not know why, but I tend to identify very strongly with the suffering of the
Palestinians. Actually, whenever I hear about painful experiences of minority people -
I feel the pain myself. It is really irrational".
In my interpretation, this woman expressed one part of the Israeli-Jewish unconscious which tends to over-identify with victims and minorities. Deep inside themselves, Jews are well acquainted with persecution and being a suffering minority. The other hand of this equation is the need to deny this experience because it is too painful, and so we can see opacity and insensitivity as a response to Palestinian suffering as well.
But the Holocaust is not the only chosen trauma in Jewish history. Centuries of persecution preceded this unperceivable event and probably echo intensively in the national memory as well. Jews were persecuted for their strange clothes, traditions, behaviors, etc. for hundreds of years. They became the perfect other, an object of projection and hate. Fears of annihilation accompanied Jews and Jewish communities from their first exile from Israel. Other traumas of persecution and anti-Semitic nature are well remembered in Jewish history and taught in Israeli schools again and again.
Small wonder that every act of terror in Israel reconstructs a primary threat to Jewish survival, from the destruction of the second temple, exile from Spain 1492, the holocaust, etc. (Gretz, 1995). In a way the impact of the Jewish history on the Israeli
Unconscious reminds of Frosh's (1997) analysis of the history of psychoanalysis which is deeply embedded in the secular Jewish culture of the late nineteenth century, at a time in Europe when Jewish and other identities were undergoing radical change.
The Jews were both inside and outside Western society: newly "emancipated" and able to claim influential positions, yet still victims of social exclusion, anti-Semitic populism, and new forms of "racial" anti-Semitism that were gradually replacing the

123 old Christian anti-Judaism. Psychoanalysis emerged from this background as one significant expression of the "Jewish mind," reflecting and analyzing Western civilization, revealing its irrational and intense underside.
The fourth basic assumption revealed in the Israeli society:
As said many times before, Large Groups can reveal the Social Unconscious because of the regressive forces exerted on its members. In a Large Group convened at a conference in Israel around the subject, "the individual and the group - risks and chances", many questions of belonging were discussed during the sessions. At first the participants focused on issues of belonging in the "here-and-now": Whether to enter the inner circle (the members were seated in several concentric circles), whether to feel part of the Large Group by expressing one's voice or to shut up and stay an outsider. Then the discussion moved to questions of belonging to Israeli society: What does it mean to be an Israeli? Can you live in the United States and still be an Israeli
(one of the leaders was going to move to the States)? Immediately after that, members became preoccupied with dangers of losing their identity in the Large Group:
"Someone said that this conference will be remembered as 'The Israeli Society' conference, because we focus on these issues", a member of group said, "but I am not ready for you to decide for me how to remember this conference or how to title it!"
Another member concluded the discussion: "I want to belong here very much, but I still want to express my opinions without being perceived as 'the other' for this group.
How do I keep my uniqueness and still belong here?"
The issue of 'one-ness' vs. 'me-ness' is a classical issue in Large Groups. It usually manifests the ways of dealing with threats of annihilation that Large Groups evoke (Turquet, 1974). Turquet wrote that, in the Large Group, “the group member is there to be lost in oceanic feelings of unity or, if the oneness is filled, to be a part of a salvationist inclusion” (p. 360).
But in this specific setting and context, it also reveals a lot about the Israeli
Social Unconscious and the ubiquitous presence of Hopper's (1997) fourth basic assumption in Israel. As I mentioned in my co-authored paper about group therapy in
Israel (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002, Appendix C) there are two opposing mechanisms for dealing with the existential threat that Israelis face. One is the rising of national ideological movements reflecting the fourth basic assumption of “One-

124 ness.” (Turquet, 1974). The opposing, fifth basic assumption of “Me-ness”
(Lawrence, 1996) works as well, reflected in selfishness and ignoring community interests. As explained in the previous chapter, Hopper (1997) combines Lawrence and Turquet's basic assumptions into one approach, claiming that they represent the same phenomenon acting as a pendulum. He argues that the fourth basic assumption in the unconscious life of groups and group-like social systems is actually bi-polar. He refers to Incohesion: Aggregation/ Massification in which systems can be seen to oscillate between these two polarities, i.e. One-ness or massification, and Me-ness or aggregation.
So the previous vignette from a Large Group in Israel reflects another layer apart from the 'here-and-now' of the Large Group, because it is happening in the
Israeli context, and the thread of associations continues from "how do I belong to this group" to "what does it mean to be an Israeli". The question of "how to belong to the community and still keep my identity and not be considered as 'the other'" reverberates in Israeli society and culture. It is of special importance in Israel if we bear in mind that this assumption in the unconscious life of social systems, and the processes associated with it, are especially important in traumatised social systems.
When a society has been traumatised, the organisations and groups - including therapeutic groups - within it manifest the fourth basic assumption (Hopper, 1997).
This is perhaps why many features of Israeli social, cultural and political life evince patterns of oscillations between massification and aggregation, without seeming to develop. This is typical of traumatic experience associated with incomplete and inauthentic mourning. As I have already mentioned, in the first decades of the State of
Israel it was almost impossible to talk about the Holocaust either with the survivors or in the public discourse.
As also mentioned in the analysis of shared assumptions, traditionally Israel builds on the famous claim that "all Israelis are friends". When endangered, Israelis are known to show a united and unified front to the world. Based on a schizo-paranoid position Israelis are easily manipulated by their leaders to a position that accepts "the whole world is against us", and rationalise this phenomenon with the belief that "all the Goyim [non-Jewish people] are anti-Semites". At other times Israelis show massive splitting of social groups with conflicts between majorities and minorities. In general Israel swings between periods of unquestioned consensus and illusion of

125 united solidarity especially during wartime or terror attacks and periods of hot conflicts between sub-groups (right-wing and left-wing ideologies, Ashkenazi and
Sephardic Jews, religious and secular Jews), especially lately.
We can see how the Israeli Social Unconscious, that builds on a history of persecution and the chosen trauma of the Holocaust, easily drives Israelis to massification and merger against outside threat and those 'anti-Semites' (Gretz, 1995;
Malkinson, & Witztum, 2000; Witztum, 2004). The need to be strong and individualise themselves leads Israelis to the other hand of aggregation and shifts the pendulum to the other extreme.
The above analysis of the Israeli Social Unconscious is not a comprehensive one, and there are surely many other aspects that can be explored through this group analytical frame of thought. The purpose of this analysis is to use the scheme developed in the previous chapter for exploring the Social Unconscious and apply it to a certain society. After this experiment we are ready to utilize these ideas in a more daring field – Cyberspace and the Internet Unconscious.
The Internet Unconscious:
If the concept of the Social Unconscious is misleading and is prone to misconceptions as we saw in the previous chapter, the idea of the Internet
Unconscious is much more confusing and generates both misunderstandings and resistance. As some of the arguments against the use of the term ‘the Social
Unconscious’ come from the fact that society is not a living organism and as such has no brain, relating an unconscious to the Internet, with its disembodied features, at a first glance seems more than puzzling. More than that, the Internet is not a country, neither a state nor a nation, and it is questionable whether we can relate to it as a society.
Again, just as we saw when describing the misperceptions about the Social
Unconscious (in chapter six), relating to the Internet Unconscious does not mean that the Internet itself is an entity that has an unconscious, but that the people who use it, belong to its communities, think about it, and imagine what it looks like, have shared thoughts and fantasies about it, of which they are unaware. If we go back to some

126 features of the unconscious we can see that they are well connected with Cyberspace.
Freud (1933) talked about the unconscious as existing beyond space and time. The individual unconscious has no spatial limitations, and does not recognize time boundaries. We can also say that the unconscious is not connected to reality limits, as reality is always bounded by time and space. Bion (1984) expanded this argument to the group unconscious and its basic assumptions, claiming that time and space are ignored in the group unconscious. Cyberspace seems as if it was originated in order to explore the unconscious because it is the ultimate boundless-timeless environment where reality rules do not exist. It can become a place to explore utopian possibilities, or a wrecking yard for traditional culture.
The second argument, that the Internet is neither a country nor a society, ignores the fact that the Internet did develop a culture of its own. Searching the
Internet with Google reveals 285000 indications of the term "Internet culture". If a culture is typified by its language, then the culture of the Internet contributed many new words to the spoken language: Hoaxes, chain letters, flaming, spam, Google, hackers, netiquette, lurker, are all new terms or terms with another meaning in the newly developing folklore of the net. In Cultures of Internet , Shields (1996) describes the main features of this culture: The Internet is supposed to be the ultimate democratic, egalitarian, freedom-of-speech culture. No one controls it, and its structure is not based on class. This one shared fantasy people have about the Internet, and as such it is part of the Internet Unconscious. We will discuss it further when describing the Internet Unconscious' manifestations.
Can we argue that the Internet is inhabited by virtual communities developing their own cultures? Van Vliet and Burgers (1987) claim that communities contain the following elements: social interaction, a shared value system, and a shared symbolic system. Communities in cyberspace attain these three elements. Even when they are very task oriented (e.g. forums focused on technical help for personal data assistant users), participants are involved in many types of social interaction: thanking one another, empathising with others’ difficulties, etc. The shared value system of participants in Internet communities is evident in different layers, both conscious and unconscious. For example, as mentioned earlier, there is a shared belief in freedom of speech and respecting the other’s expression of ideas. The shared symbolic system

127 can be seen in its simplest version by the different icons developed in order to convey feelings across the Internet, and by the use of Internet special abbreviations.
So Cyberspace inhabits virtual communities in which 'an increasing number of people are finding their lives touched by collectivities which have nothing to do with physical proximity.' (Wilbur, 1997, p. 5). Each of these communities might develop its own culture, but there is something that connects all of these cultures which is the
Internet culture and its unconscious. The views of Rheingold (1994), concerning community formation in Cyberspace and the way in which social groups may be moulded into virtual communities, have been cited with approval and espoused by many writers and commentators and are clearly becoming influential. The underlying belief is that the ease of communication facilitates community formation in the sense that it is a simple matter for those of like mind and interest to form groups within which the members feel as at ease as they might in a physical community. In one of my article (Weinberg, 2002; Appendix B) I suggested that there is a community
Unconscious in a discussion list on the Internet. This Unconscious can be inferred from the communication on discussion lists and forums. It is built through common partly and fully unconscious fantasies, beliefs, and values which members of these communities share. As an example I explored the common beliefs of the group psychotherapy discussion list to show the hidden values of the group therapists' community.
If we look for an "Internet Unconscious", one possibility is that the Social
Unconscious on the Internet reflects the unconscious of the community of people who share a common field of interest. But this will restrict our discussion to a specific forum and a limited number of people, while we are looking for a phenomenon that reflects the foundation matrix – the deep hidden ties and assumptions connecting people wherever they are. If we elaborate on my definition of the Social Unconscious
(see previous chapter) we can say that the Internet Unconscious is the co-constructed shared unconscious of members belonging to Internet communities and cultures. It includes shared anxieties, fantasies, defenses, myths, and memories about the Internet.
In order to analyse the Internet Unconscious and describe the ways it expresses itself, we will use Brown's (2001) four ways of the Social Unconscious manifestation as we did for the Israeli Social Unconscious.

128
The Manifested ways of the Internet Unconscious:
1. Assumptions: a. The Internet is a free democratic society - Shields' (1996) description of the
Internet culture mentioned above, is actually a set of assumptions about the Internet.
These assumptions are taken for granted and shared by most people who think they know this media. For many, the Internet offers the hope of a more democratic society.
By promoting a decentralised form of social mobilisation, it is said, the Internet can help us to renovate our institutions and liberate ourselves from our authoritarian legacies. The Internet does indeed hold these possibilities, but they are hardly inevitable. Some countries, such as Iran and the People's Republic of China, restrict what people in their countries can see on the Internet, especially unwanted political and religious content. Chinese government, for example, watches its citizens' communication on the web, blocks too democracy-provoking websites and censors certain expressions. Authoritarian societies will attempt to suppress the cultural practices of networking, and democratic societies will promote them. The Internet can become a tool for social progress, but it can also become a tool of oppression or another centralised broadcast medium.
The Internet is supposed to be the ultimate free-democratic society. No one governs or controls it, and any participant has the right to express his/her ideas with no restrictions. Many Western people hoped that the Internet would facilitate the spread of democracy and become ubiquitous and widely available around the world.
This illusion continues to rule even though connection to the Internet is still rare in poor countries. The Internet Unconscious contains an illusionary belief that ultimate freedom of speech is achieved in Cyberspace and that forum members always show respect and tolerance to different opinions. b. Internet forums are similar to face-to-face small groups - In the virtual environment on Internet discussion lists and forums, the communication might look like the kind of interaction we are used to in small groups, but actually the participant's fantasy creates an intra-psychic process. Weinberg (2001, Appendix A) saw virtual groups on cyberspace as Large Groups with an illusion of small groups.
This means that members in these groups and the virtual group as a whole can regress too. Holland (1996) identified three signs of regression on the Internet: aggression or
"flaming" - where anger and rage appear at the slightest provocation, sexual

129 harassment or "flirting" - when crude invitations are made for sexual contact; and altruism – where extraordinary generosity is shown (although it can be argued whether altruism should be included in signs of regression). As regression is a return to an earlier mode of relating, it is not surprising that in the absence of visual cues and heightened ambiguity, members of cyberspace groups resort to an earlier known attitude. Holland traces these regressions to unconscious fantasies people have to the computer itself - about power, sex, narcissistic gratification and mirroring, oral engulfment, and parental love. At the heart of this Internet regression is the individual's tendency to confuse the person and the machine. In cyberspace the user sees the computer as human and dehumanizes other people. c. People and machines are essentially different - Turkle (1995) claims that as human beings become increasingly intertwined with the technology and with each other via the technology, old distinctions about what is specifically human and specifically technological become more complex. The more people spend time in
Cyberspace and create technologically enmeshed relationships, we might ask to what extent they have become cyborgs, transgressive mixtures of biology and technology.
Haraway (1985) explored the interfaces between human/machine/animal/information and deduced from them to the politics of the Other - whether that other be defined in terms of race, gender, species, or technology. She focuses on the metaphors which science uses and how those metaphors subtly determine the networks of power which control our world. The old traditional distance between people and machines has become harder to maintain and our assumptions about the clear distinction between human beings and machines collapse. The fact that disembodied relationship can feel as deep and intimate as face-to-face embodied ones is a shocking revelation undermining our common belief that only what we can touch, smell and taste is real.
We discussed this issue in length in chapter three. d. The multi-self – We usually see ourselves as bound by our boundaries, identity, physical features, gender, etc. Our personal, professional, religious and ethnic identity seems something fixed, unchangeable and unquestionable. The Internet shows us that our self-definition is a matter of self-decision and inter-personal agreement. The fact that I can introduce myself as a male while biologically I am a woman, or write as an adult when outside cyberspace I am an adolescent, or pretend to be a religious Jew while holding atheist beliefs, is much more than deception.

130
Relationships over the net are identity transforming relationships. What we find out is that we have more control than we have ever imagined around constructing our identities. These experiences on the Internet can only be understood as part of a larger cultural context. It is the context of the post-modernist era, with its eroding boundaries between the real and the virtual, the animate and the inanimate, the unitary and the multiple self (Haraway, 1985; Turkle, 1995).
What enables this new image of the multi-self is the freedom from embodied interaction. As I have written in chapter 3 the traditional perception of a relationship is that two embodied subjects meet in order to interact, communicate and make a relationship. The unitary self seems strictly related to the embodied self. Experiences over the net help us change the traditional image of relationship from two unitary objectives selves unmediated connecting with one another - into two decentered selves, partial, subjective and polymorphous as they are trying to connect over a mediated space, e. The Internet is "for free" – From its inception, Cyberspace became an environment where generosity prevails. Freeware (software distributed for free) and shareware (software that can be used after paying a small amount for registration) became common. You could find the most advanced word processors and spreadsheet programs for free on the Internet. It seems as if people enjoyed sharing their creative products with others whom they have never met and mostly with whom they had no connection whatsoever. This strange generosity, uncommon in most western industrial societies manifested itself in Internet forums too. Request for information or for assistance coming from forum members are usually answered quickly and with a lot of good will. Total strangers will give up hours of their time to send one another research data.
In my field of expertise, group-psychotherapy, I could spend time looking for references in response to requests from people I have never heard of.
Holland (1996) included this extraordinary generosity as one of the signs of the
Internet regression.
The assumption that on the Internet, services and even goods should be for free is one of the obstacles that merchants and traders on the Internet face. People got used to not paying for services on the Internet, and they are enraged when they are asked to pay for these services. It takes a lot of time to accustom Internet users that they will be charged for Internet services.

131
Behind this assumption lies the question of whether the virtual environment is going to be a capitalistic society or a utopian socialist one. There is a paradox between the so many Internet uses common for a capitalistic society (from commerce to banking) and its so many welfare uses (from support groups to connecting communities). f. The Internet connects/disconnects people: For each of these two assumptions we can find evidence. It is true that time spent online is inevitably time we could have spent with others in our physical surroundings. We can also say that the connection to distant others is a form of detachment in itself.
On the other hand we cannot ignore the fact that the Internet connects people from different cultures, countries and ethnic origin. So the conclusion is that both are true: Although the
Internet is bringing us together, it also keeps us apart. The question is how we use it.
2. Disavowals: Internet, intimacy and E-ntimacy
Participants in the Large Group usually look for the intimacy they are used to in small groups - and become disappointed. The Large Group is not capable of creating the warm-accepting-containing atmosphere that is easily built up in a small group. On the contrary, the Large Group is usually characterized by lack of face-toface and mirroring interactions. As written in the introduction to my co-edited book about the Large Group (Weinberg and Schneider, 2003, Appendix E), this, in effect, categorises the dynamic understanding of the Large Group: such large numbers do not allow for intimacy but rather can engender feelings of difference and alienation. The crowd is not the place to establish close relationship with people. A typical short vignette from a Large Group of school psychologists, hinting to the search for intimacy: someone hesitated whether to share with the group what she wants to talk about, and when "seduced" by other members she suggested talking about love. She was sneered at, following her suggestion.
Popular wisdom describes intimacy as "into-me-you-see". If we look for this kind of intimacy in the Large Group we are sure to become frustrated and disappointed. But maybe another kind of intimacy is possible; an intimacy based on belonging, confluence and influence? Surely, this is not the intimacy praised by the
"let's talk about it" Western culture norms and Hollywood movies. Neither is it the deep feeling of close encounters evoked by Buberian I-Thou relationship. It is more the feeling of togetherness, being a part of a community. On the Internet Large Group

132 it is usually based on the creation and development of a core group that carries on group norms of tolerance and openness, and an atmosphere of cohesion, "we-ness", and belonging. The core group consists of members that are more involved in the exchange of messages, post more often and become more salient and important in this virtual Large Group. Sometimes this togetherness moves to its extreme manifestation of the fourth basic assumption of one-ness (Turquet, 1974), where the individual merges with the crowd, losing his identity (the Massification pole in Hopper's [1997] assumption), being endangered by a non-verbal mimetic engulfment mirroring (see my paper about the hall of mirrors, Weinberg and Toder, 2004, Appendix H). When this kind of togetherness prevails, the Large Group massifies and a denial of differences appears creating the illusion of uniformity (Kernberg, 1989).
This is exactly what happens in Cyberspace. The fantasy of "we are all the same" in this virtual environment is very strong. Anonymity on the Internet is enhancing this fantasy because it seems as if there are no presumptions about the writer based on color, age, or even gender. Even in forums based on professional interest (such as my group-psychotherapy discussion list) it seems at first that the voice of the junior, young and inexperienced has the same weight and is heard just the same as the voice of the senior expert. The Internet seems to replicate the ideal flattened hierarchy suitable for post-modern global organisations. The reality on the
Internet is different, which hints to a common denial and disavowal of differences.
Although it seems that equal space and opportunity is given to both young and older, experienced and junior, very quickly the old differentiation (and sometimes discrimination) takes over. Playing with selves is a nice game, but the longer this game lasts, older identities emerge, as people bring their self-image into Internet communication.
Returning to the question of intimacy, this is one of the major critics of outsiders who do not belong to Internet forums and community: "Relations on the
Internet cannot be real relationships with real intimacy". This issue was explored in chapter 3 where we introduced the questions of presence, and what is real in this disembodied environment. Anonymity online, which can have the negative effects of de-individuation and alienation, can have positive effects too. McKenna and Green
(2002) mention that anonymity on the Internet helps members to express how they really feel and think, and encourages the emergence of healthy group norms. In

133 another paper McKenna, Green & Gleason (2002) found out that relationships develop closeness and intimacy significantly faster over the Internet than offline.
We can also say that the quest for intimacy in Cyberspace denies the fact that on the Internet another kind of intimacy develops to which I coin the term E-ntimacy.
E-ntimacy is based on fantasy and idealisation. It is a deep relationship between to non-bodies. But whereas Freud and classical psychoanalysis saw fantasy as opposed to and clouding reality, post-Freudian psychoanalytic authors (especially intersubjective and relational ones; see Aron, 1996; Mitchelle, 2002) regard fantasy as enriching and enhancing reality. And whereas idealisation has been considered as a dangerous illusion, inimical to stable long-term relationship, it can also be regarded as a process of bringing alive features of the other that are hidden and masked in ordinary interactions (Mitchell, 2002). On the Internet a person's playing with multiple selves (Turkle, 1995) which has the possibility of exploring deeper layers of the selves beyond those bound to reality testing, meets well with the fantasy of the other, as long as both members in this bonding remember that Internet rules are different from face-to-face rules. The problem starts when people forget that
Cyberspace is not a day-to-day space and try to enforce Internet rules on the reality outside, confusing intimacy and E-ntimacy.
The above description of E-ntimacy as different from intimacy has many transformative aspects and implications in extending the Internet Unconscious to real embodied Social Unconscious contexts. These are relevant to the project of group analysis about exploring what is at stake in differences with groups rather than adapting people to groups.
3. Social Defenses:
Projection is the most obvious defense mechanism on the web. It is used massively, probably because we only have text data and no other cues. The lack of facial expression, tone of the voice, or any other embodied expression leaves the reader with many gaps of information s/he is trying to fill. Projection on the Internet leads to many misunderstandings and therefore conflicts. People interpret written text according to their fantasy and own perception of the world and not according to the author's world. True, it can happen outside Cyberspace too, but when we have other

134 clues to the speaker's intention, such as the tone of her voice or his smile, misperceptions are minimized. In face-to-face interaction people rely on the combination of textual, visual and auditory cues to interpret the meaning of the speaker's sentences. This is so common that people do not notice how important each of these dimensions is to (what they think is) an exact understanding of the speaker.
The Internet leaves the written word as the only source of interpretation and this leads to many misunderstandings. Suller (1996) writes that because the experience of the other person often is limited to text, there is a tendency for the user to project a variety of wishes, fantasies, and fears onto the ambiguous figure at the other end of cyberspace.
Usually projections lead to a negative interpretation of the writer's intention, and might start word-wars (called "flaming" on the Internet) when a comment that was meant to be humorous is conceived as insulting by the reader. But projections can also lead to idealisation. At other times the reader projects benevolent intentions upon the author, and develops idealised fantasies. It might be related to the current needs of the reader and to the written text that fits these needs. Idealisation on the Internet can be very strong, leading to infatuation and virtual romances on one hand and to leaders' idealisation on the other.
The shift between negative projections and idealisations can create splits, when some objects are perceived as "all good", while other are perceived as "all bad".
These poles are evident when conflicts in Internet forums arise, splitting the members into two parties, causing "flame wars" and discharge of crude aggression. This is one of the possible dangerous dynamics of a Large Group, and the Virtual Large Group is no exception (Weinberg, 2003a, Appendix F).
4. Structural Oppression:
At first glace it seems as if the Internet is providing an equal opportunity environment. There is no discrimination on the basis of color, gender or ethnics.
Everyone is welcome to write whatever is in their minds. It is the most egalitarian society because social status does not pertain and the same space is given for the black and the white, the Jew or the Moslem, men and women, the rich and the poor, young and old, expert and novice. Cyberspace seems to eliminate differences and inequality. But if we examine the use of the Internet distribution by gender, for

135 example, we will find out that, in reality, a significant gender bias toward men exists in the adoption of modern information and communications technologies. For instance, the user survey conducted by Graphic, Visualization, & Usability Center
(GVU) in 1998 found that 66.4% of the Internet users in the world were men and
33.6% were women (GVU Center 1998).
The same illusion exists regarding the use of the Internet all over the world.
Theoretically it is the World Wide Web, but practically in poor countries many people cannot access the Internet either because the cost of computers and Internet connection is too high for their income, or because no service provider is available. In
Sudan, a poor country in Africa with a population of 40 million people and average income of 1900$ (see http://www.nationmaster.com/country/su ) there are only 2
Internet providers. While in North America there were around 183 millions Internet users in May 2002, in Africa at the same time there were no more than 6 millions
( http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/chap5.htm
). Talking about globalisation and the “global village” in regard to the Internet is ignoring the fact that the growth of the
Internet has been anything but even, and large areas of the world have scarcely been touched by the internet explosion. The barriers to technological development are exactly the same as the barriers to any economic development: market restrictions, lack of contract law, state controls, customs duties, bureaucracy, corruption and so on.
With these still in place, diverting resources to information and communications technologies is just another distraction from other real structural differences.
A stable society develops where there is some assumed general agreement between its members or where a set of values can be identified which define the limits of both the social order and of individual contributions to social groups within that society. Most conventional territorial societies exhibit a hierarchical structure between the governed and the government and power is exercised within certain constraints which are usually imposed by the government and related to its ideology. In
Cyberspace, hidden structural hierarchy which resides in the Internet Unconscious replaces governmental ideology of established states. This structural oppression, with its inequality (related for example to gender and the distribution of financial resources) is well disguised under the common Internet illusion of "we are all the same".

136
As said earlier, the basic assumption of "one-ness" (Turquet, 1974) is ubiquitous in Cyberspace, and is responsible for this illusion of equality and equity. It is interesting that at the same time, in other Internet communities, the opposite assumption of "me-ness" (Lawrence, 1996) can work as well, when people forget that on the other edge there are other human beings too, and indulge in destructive acts, from sending viruses to becoming verbally abusive.
Internet and multiculturalism:
There is no better place to gain perspective on our own cultural assumptions than on the Internet. Without moving from the chair, a person meets with people from all over the world, exchanging ideas, entering conflicts, creating E-intimacy with them. From a cultural awareness perspective, the Internet has been both an advantage and a liability.
For people who are interested in other cultures it provides a significant amount of information and an interactivity that would be unavailable otherwise. However, for people who are not interested in other cultures there is some evidence indicating that the Internet enables them to avoid contact to a greater degree than ever before.
Cyberspace creates the opportunity of grasping the social construction of experiences we unthinkingly regard as universal, and through that to have a clue to one's own social unconscious. This encounter evokes a surprising clash between our presuppositions and those of other cultures. We can say that the Internet is the ultimate multi-culture.
Multi-kulti is a term currently in vogue. Multiculturalism is defined as a situation where different cultures exist one beside the other (Leonetti, 1994). Differences between social and ethnic groups are very concrete and deep. The division into "Us and Them"
(Berman, Berger, and Gutmann, 2000) is very basic and is built gradually for years, strengthened by education and social pressures. Oldenquist (1988) argues that human beings need social identities as entities, because otherwise they will feel isolated, alienated and meaningless. Multi-cultural societies are the norm nowadays, from Europe to the US. These societies face repeating problems of intolerance, difficulty with accepting "the other", and minority violence. A healthy society can contain many differences and diversities among people and social groups. In such a society there is place for different attitudes, opinions, norms and behaviours, as long as they do not enforce themselves on others. For this reason, the Internet seems an ideal society.
Cyberspace is open to everyone, and it feels free to express any idea without censorship.

137
As dialogue is disembodied there is no danger of activating physical force threatening to prevent people from expressing their opinions. But Cyberspace can be a dangerous psychological space. It is a place where impulsivity can win, aggression might prevail, verbal flaming can burst out, and regression takes over. In Cyberspace psychological vulnerabilities heighten.
As both aspects are possible on the Internet, it can become a laboratory for exploring the conditions in which an authentic dialogue develops, and those in which destructive conflicts between social sub-groups arise. When does freedom to express anything in Cyberspace become freedom to let out aggression and impulsivity? How to avoid unfruitful ethnic clashes and intercultural tensions from developing on the
Internet? As mentioned before, Holland (1996) saw the uncontrolled aggression expressed in Internet communication as one sign of the Internet regression and traced it to unconscious fantasies people have to the computer itself. Internet users tend to confuse humans and the machine. They are ready to hurt other participants in the discussion because the others are anonymous and unknown. So when they verbally abuse their dialogue partner, it does not look to them as if they hurt another human being, but more like playing with a machine or a video game. This means that one of the conditions (either on the Internet, face-to-face interaction, or social communication) is to
"humanise the other". This can be done in many ways from enhancing personal acquaintance to adding individual features that make the other less anonymous. We can see the impact of anonymity in Large Groups where it leads to alienation and massification/aggregation.
Another main factor impacting the atmosphere in an Internet forum is the leader's attitude and presence. A leader supporting tolerance, acceptance and pluralism, encourages an atmosphere of multiculturalism. In chapter 5 we focused on some of the leader's functions and their implications for social leaders. The containing and protective functions are crucial for strengthening a multicultural approach. These functions are especially important in times of conflicts, crises, and fragmentation. When Hopper's
(1997) fourth basic assumption is evident in the group, the leader should be able to unify the fragments that are the result of aggregation or make room for diversity when encountering massification. The issue of the Internet and multiculturalism might be a good field for quantitative research of different leadership styles.

138
Conclusions and implications:
Our long journey led us from group analysis to the Internet Unconscious. We have started with introducing the frame of reference of group analysis (chapter 2) finding out that group analysis can be used to explore and understand larger groups and societal processes, providing tools to analyse unconscious processes and learn about culture and communities, including the Internet culture. Is there Internet culture, something more substantial than shared mastery of the email or chatroom "smiley,'' or is that an oxymoron? First we had to deal with the question of how "real" Internet connections are and what is the meaning of presence in Cyberspace (chapter 3). Then we related to various definitions of culture in chapter 4, connecting it to groups and to cyberspace. Culture surrounds us in invisible ties to which we are only partly aware.
Our thinking, perception and language are unconsciously constructed by our culture.
Internet research helps us clarify this hidden world. In chapter 5 we elaborated on more group analytic terms and concepts applying them to larger groups and the
Internet. The cornerstone of this thesis was the description, definition and analysis of the Social Unconscious (chapter 6). We used this concept and its manifestations to analyse the Israeli Social Unconscious and finally the Internet Unconscious.
Understanding society and the Internet through its unconscious elements adds new dimensions to scientific exploration. It opens new possibilities of analysing other cultures in depth. When using the group analytic frame of reference for studying a specific Social Unconscious according to the axes I suggested in the previous chapter, the way I utilized it in this chapter, one goes beyond the visible elements and discovers unknown powerful discourses existing in the culture under scrutiny. There are more practical implications in it regarding leadership, multicultural societies, and
Large Group processes.
Cyberspace, which became an arena for social experience, involuntarily reveals crucial aspects of identity such as gender, age, and race. Usually these bits of identity are completely masked by computer-mediated communications. Studying the
Internet Unconscious reveals that what at first seems like binary relationships
(person/machine, fantasy/reality, physical/ethereal states) includes a space between binaries. Examining groups and relationship on the Internet has many implications for daily life.

139
Cyberspace is a place to explore utopian possibilities, but also a junk yard for traditional culture. In my thesis I tried to address both poles. When impacted by the utopian view of the Internet I was fascinated by this new postmodernist playground and the possibility to explore unconscious features of our culture through using group analysis. Shifting to the other extreme of the dystopian view, I was disappointed to find out that when immigrating to Cyberspace, people could not leave behind their drives, needs, and perceptions of the other and that the same socially constructed reality exists in this disembodied environment. Both extremes are probably equally true.

140
In the heart of every scientific exploration there is a hope to discover something new, to find something original, or to create an innovative theory. This thesis is no exception. When I started this study I wished to contribute a body of knowledge bridging the gap between small therapy group and larger social groups. In order to fulfill this goal I started with a series of publications, each of them focusing on one aspect of my field of interest, from Cyberspace to culture. The current thesis is meant to integrate all these publications into a coherent scientific research. I harnessed both group analysis as the tool of investigation and the Internet as the intermediate space of exploration. Connecting between these two different fields is not self-evident.
Group analysis is mostly known for its therapeutic applications. It is widely used in therapy groups following the Foulkesian tradition where 7-8 people, together with their conductor, gather weekly to discuss their problems. Its major concepts relate to ego training in action, dynamic administration, the matrix, mirroring, and resonance. All these concepts explain well processes and phenomena in the small group and how they promote change in group members. But, as mentioned in chapter
2, group analysis has a wider frame of reference originating from the notion that the individual and society are inseparable. The group analytic point of view has moved from the individual in the group to the analysis of the group and further into the analysis of social processes: from small group to larger groups including social ones, and - what is more important - from the individual unconscious to the social unconscious.
The Internet is mostly known as a virtual space for information and communication. Huge amounts of data can be retrieved out of its web-pages, some of it useless but some invaluable. On the practical level, it connects people around the globe in a way that has never been done before, facilitating relationship and bridging
(or creating conflicts between) very different cultures. Its social impact is still unperceivable and its cultural revolution has still not been studied enough. On the philosophical level it creates a division between an inert body left behind while a disembodied subjectivity inhabits a virtual realm (Hayles, 1999). Cyberspace can be seen as an infinite laboratory for postmodernist theories. Perceiving human beings

141 through virtuality shoots the Western idea of a coherent, independent subject to pieces. In order to extrapolate from the Internet to the materialistic world, we should leave behind old-fashioned ideas about humans, bodies, presence, "real interactions", and how real is real (as I tried to do in chapter 3). If we do that we might find that our traditional concepts about human interactions are deeply shattered and that the
Internet developed its own culture. This culture reveals some hidden and unconscious features of our society as well as having its specific unconscious and norms (Plant,
1997; Shields, 1996; Wilbur, 1997). Internet culture is not human but infra-human, through automatically fulfilling the classical fantasy of an individual that totally controls his destiny (Virilio, 1994). The Net suggests a perfect virtual world for individualists, providing them with an environment in which they can escape their
"real" selves. At the same time the individual surfing the web is drawn into a space with rules of its own, unconsciously adapting to e-culture, creating E-ntimacy. It reminds us of Elias's (1978) ideas that the individual is thoroughly socialized and individualized at the same time.
In chapter 4 I claimed that culture links its individuals through shared conscious and unconscious assumptions and can be seen as an invisible web surrounding us, standing behind our behaviours and interactions. Psychic development of the individual is embedded in the dominant culture, affecting every bit of behaviour, thought or perception. I even argued that we are captive in a golden cage we are unaware of. The fact that we are not aware of those invisible cultural ties facilitates the illusion that we are free to choose. In chapter 3 we saw that even reality is not something objective, but is constructed in people’s minds according to their cultural and environmental influences. It seems that there is no escape from this influence the minute we start using language, as language is the primary societal tool in constructing reality. Language not only defines objects, calls them by names, and describes them, but also molds and shapes how we perceive the world. So the question that comes to mind is, "is there any way of freeing oneself from this cultural oppression and observe the world from the outside?"
In a short and brilliant essay titled Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) , an author naming himself Hakim Bey (1991) asks whether we are doomed never to experience real autonomy and freedom, and declares war on the consensus reality that it is foisted upon us by television and the mass media. Hakim Bey refers to cyberspace as ‘military space’; he points out that the Internet was developed by the

142
US military, but that is operates on war of a centrifugal kind (that is pre-industrial wars that dispersed power) rather than (US style, for example) centripetal war (which concentrates power). So, they created something that has spun out of their control. He believes that by extrapolating from past and future stories about "islands in the net" we may collect evidence to suggest that a certain kind of "free enclave" is not only possible in our time but also existent. Bey is looking for historical examples and evidence for those temporary autonomous zones, and finds them on one hand in settlements of "Pirate Utopias" created by the sea-rovers and corsairs of the 18th century. On the other hand he finds TAZ in cyber-frontier residing on the Internet.
The Net clearly has two aspects: The hierarchic aspect is manifested by transfers that are privileged and limited to various elites. Other transactions are open to all combining a horizontal or non-hierarchic aspect as well. This aspect of "counter-net" allows for clandestine illegal and rebellious use of the Web in the form of data-piracy and other forms of leeching off the Net itself.
One might wonder whether posthumanism is really a forum for reactionaries or radicals, but my thesis has never meant to be radical even if it has some radical implications. What I seek is a frame of reference for understanding society and culture more deeply, including some of its unconscious aspects. Using group analytic concepts helped me to explain Large Group phenomena and processes, drawing some conclusions about social issues as well without overgeneralization (I hope). This is mainly what I did in chapter 6. As Internet forums can be seen as virtual Large
Groups, maintaining many of the Large Group features even when moved to
Cyberspace, analysis in such terms served as a useful tool to explore, describe, exemplify and manifest the social processes in question. Cyberspace provides a means of breaking away from the invisible ties of culture, by an imaginary immigration to another space and another culture.
The concept of the Social Unconscious hovers over this thesis. This is quite a complicated concept attracting much misunderstanding. It does not imply that society has a brain or behaves like an individual, but that its inhabitants share common fantasies, anxieties, defenses and memories. In chapter 6 I explicated the idea of the
Social Unconscious and lay guidelines for its exploration in a certain society, by using
Foulkes's (1964) four levels of communication and Brown's (2001) analysis of the forms of its manifestation. I do not stay in the theoretical realm but take the Israeli society as a test case (in chapter 7), analysing its Social Unconscious in all possible

143 level. Finally I use my definition and grid of the Social Unconscious to analyse the
Internet Unconscious as well.
One of the difficulties I faced in this thesis is the fact that the issues I study connect with so many other fields such as sociology, philosophy, computer studies, social psychology, etc. I tried to touch some of these areas without making them the focus of attention, because my main goal was to analyse the data from a group analytic point of view and a psychodynamic approach. I assume that it might have led to some shallowness in relating to these other areas. I hope that my analysis of the
Social Unconscious with its Israeli and Internet examples did not fall into this trap.
Another difficulty I had to overcome was to step out of the bubble and analyse cultural and societal issues "from the outside". As I mentioned in chapter 4, it is a very difficult task for a member of a certain society to grasp the hidden and unconscious aspects of her Large Group from the inside. It reminds me of the famous mathematical sentence of Gödel claiming that one cannot prove consistency or inconsistency of a mathematical system from within the system itself. This is where the Internet has proved so beneficial because its culture is so different from any other known culture, thus providing a way of looking at culture from the outside: both looking at culture in the process of its development and extrapolating from this "new world" about our non-virtual culture as well. This limitation of stepping outside the bubble proved especially difficult when trying to analyse the Israeli Unconscious while being an Israeli.
We are living in an era where those who decipher and analyse the data acquired in a scientific research are not just scientists. Acknowledging the value of information analysis has accelerated the establishment of companies specializing in the evaluation of information. But data analysis is an act of cultural importance beyond its scientific significance, or economic interests. Take for example the deciphering of the genetic code. It cannot be perceived as disconnected from the physical context in which we live, and the social-cultural contexts in which we function. Even when we evaluate and analyse code on the basis of scientific research
– we are always mediated by another system. What we can at least do is acknowledge our biases, and be aware of that context.
My interest in the Social and the Internet Unconscious is strongly impacted by my being an Israeli and Jewish. As I explained in chapter 7, both these features mean living in a society that is still unconsciously influenced by annihilation anxieties,

144 adopting a suspicious attitude towards the world on one hand and an arrogant one on the other, switching from overreaction and hypervigilance to insensitivity and numbness. In a traumatized-regressed society like Israel the best coping mechanism is to become an observer trying to understand what is really happening. I am sure that the social implications I deduced from group analytic concepts and theory are strongly connected to the social context I am living in. One example can be my interest and sensitivity to multicultural issues.
There are still many more areas for exploration arising from this thesis. First of all it might be of interest to analyse other societies along the lines I displayed about the social unconscious. Pisani (1993) made an attempt to describe some aspects of the cultural unconscious in Southern Italy using Foulkes's (1964) four layers of communication, but it is only a beginning. Of special interest might be a comparison between the North American Social Unconscious and European countries. The USA builds on a tradition of individualism, while the United Kingdom has a long standing interest in socialism (maybe this is why group analysis has never been incorporated in the States). Historical events such as the civil war, eliminating Native-Americans, slavery, the gold rush, and conquering the West should be evident in the North
American Social Unconscious.
Along the thesis I did my best to bridge the gap between small and Large
Groups, deducing about society, politics, etc. This is especially prominent in chapter 5 where I try to make use of group analytic concepts, usually applicable in small groups, and adapt them to Large and societal Groups. I even suggested some recommendations for the political leader based on the group analytic frame of reference. I am sure that this line of thought can be developed more. Although group analysis is deeply interested in social issues, its applications to politics and practical social questions are still scarce.
Cyberspace also has much more potential for further investigation. There are already many articles about cyber-culture and understanding the Internet revolution from a sociological point of view. There are also psychological researches about the impact of the web on people, studying net-addiction, self-help groups, relationship formation on the Internet, but not enough papers about the hidden psychological impact of the net on society. There is more need for looking at Large Group dynamics on the Internet and concluding about groups in society. The issue of multiculturalism and how to diminish tensions between minorities and social subgroups is another area

145 to be further studied through Cyberspace communities. In addition group analysis, with its focus on perceiving people as embedded in groups rather than exerting pressure to adapting them into groups, can be helpful in analysing interactions on the
Net. Hence Cyberspace is an infinite laboratory for exploring many more facets of human behaviour, and it can still serve many studies.

146
References:
Anzieu, D. (1984). The group and the Unconscious. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Anzieu, D. (1999). The Group Ego-Skin. Group Analysis, 32, pp. 319 – 329.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, pp. 289-304.
Aron, L. (1996). A Meeting of Minds. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Barratt, B.B. (1993). Psychoanalysis and the postmodern impulse. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination. New York: Pantheon
Benjamin, J. (1998). Shadow of the Other: Intersubjectivity and gender in psychoanalysis. New York: Routledge.
Berman, A., & Weinberg, H. (1998). The advanced stage therapy group. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 48(4), pp. 499-518.
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000). The division into Us and Them as a universal social structure. Mind and Human Interaction, 11(1), pp. 53-72.
Bey, H. (1991). The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic
Terrorism. N.Y.: Autonomedia
Bion, W.R. (1959). Experiences in Groups and Other Papers. New York: Basic
Books.
Bion, W.R. (1984). Transformations. London: Karnac Books.
Blackwell, D. (1994). The psyche and the system, in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.),
The Psyche and the social world, pp. 27-46. London: Routledge.
Blackwell, D. (2002). The Politicization of Group Analysis in the 21st Century.
Group Analysis, 35(1), pp. 105-118.
Bodley, J.H. (1994). Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Brabender, V. (2000). Chaos, Group Psychotherapy, and the Future of Uncertainty and Uniqueness. Group, 24(1), pp. 23 - 32.
Brown, D. (1994). Self Development through Subjective Interaction. A Fresh Look at
"Ego Training on Action", in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.), The Psyche and the social world, pp. 80-98. London: Routledge.

147
Brown, D. (2001). A contribution to the understanding of the social unconscious.
Group Analysis, 34(1), pp. 29-38.
Brown, D., & Zinkin, L. (eds.) (1994). The Psyche and the social world. London:
Routledge.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Burman, E. (2002). Gender, Sexuality and Power in Groups. Group Analysis, 35(4), pp. 540-559.
Burman, E. (2004). 'Organising for Change? Group-Analytic Perspectives on a
Feminist Action Research Project', Group Analysis, 37(1), pp. 91-108.
Burman, E. and Frosh, S. (2005). Group Analysis Special Issue: New Currents in
Contemporary Social Theory and Implications for Group-Analytic Theory and
Practice. Group Analysis, 38, pp. 7 - 16.
Carrithers, M. (1992). Why Humans Have Cultures: Explaining Anthropology and
Social Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christopher, J.C. (2001). ‘Culture and Psychotherapy: Toward a Hermeneutic
Approach’, Psychotherapy, 38(2), pp. 115-128.
Cohen, B.D. (2002). 'Groups to resolve conflicts between groups: Diplomacy with a therapeutic dimension. Group, 26(3), pp. 189-204.
Cohen, B.D., Ettin, M.F., & Fidler, J.W. (1998). Conceptions of leadership: The
'analytic stance' of the group psychotherapist. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, & Practice, 2, pp. 118-131.
Cohen, B.D., Ettin, M.F., & Fidler, J.W. (2002). Group Psychotherapy and Political
Reality: A Two-Way Mirror. Madison, CT: International Universities Press
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Corey, G. (1994). Theory and Practice of Group Counseling. Pacific Grove:
Brooks/Cole.
Dalal, F. (1998). Taking the Group Seriously: Towards a Post-Foulkesian Group
Analytic Theory. London: Jessica Kingsley
Dalal, F. (2001) ‘The Social Unconscious: A Post-Foulkesian Perspective’, Group
Analysis, 34(4), pp. 539-555.
De Jesus, N.C. (1999). Genealogies of the self in virtual-geographical reality. In A.J.
Gordo-Lopez, and I. Parker (eds.), Cyberpsychology, pp. 77-91. Houndmills,
Hampshire: Macmillan Press.

148 de Maré, P. (1975). The Politics of Large Groups. In: L. Kreeger (ed), The Large
Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable. de Maré, P. (1990). The Development of the Median Group. Group Analysis, 23, pp.
113-127. de Maré, P., Piper, R.,& Thompson, S. (1991). Koinonia: From Hate through
Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group. London: Karnac.
Derrida, J. (1974). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Eagle, M.N., & Wolitzky, D.L. (1992). Psychoanalytic theories of psychotherapy. In:
D.K. Friedheim (ed.) History of Psychotherapy: A Century of Change, pp.
109-158. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Elias, N. (1978). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Elias, N. (1989). Theory, Culture, Society. London: Sage.
Elias, N. (1991). The Symbol Theory. London: Sage.
Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Ettin, M.F., Cohen, B.D., & Fidler, J.W. (1997). Group-as-a-whole theory viewed in its 20th century context. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice, 1, pp.
329-340.
Foguel, B.S. (1994). The group experienced as mother: Early psychic structures in analytic groups. Group Analysis, 27, pp. 265-285.
Foulkes, S.H. (1948). Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London:
Heinemann.
Foulkes, S.H. (1964). Therapeutic Group Analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Foulkes, S.H. (1975). Group analytic psychotherapy, method and principles. London:
Gordon & Breach.
Foulkes, S.H. (1990). Psychoanalysis and Group Analysis. In E. Foulkes (ed.)
Selected papers. London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H. (1990). The Group as a Matrix of the Individual's Mental Life. In E.
Foulkes (ed.), Selected papers, pp 223-233. London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H. and Anthony, E.J. (1965). Group Psychotherapy: the Psychoanalytic
Approach. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Reprinted 1984. London: Karnac.
Fowers, F.C. & Richardson, A. (1996). Individualism, Family Ideology, and Family
Therapy. Theory and Psychology, 6(1), pp. 121-151.
Freud, S. (1933). The Structure of the Unconscious. New Introductory Lectures on
Psychoanalysis, translated by W. J. H. Sprott. N.Y.: Norton

149
Freud, S. (1961). Civilisation and its discontents. London: Norton & Company.
Frosh, S. (1997). For and Against Psychoanalysis. London and New York: Routledge
Frosh, S. (1999). The Politics of Psychoanalysis: An Introduction to Freudian and
Post-Freudian Theory (2 nd
edition). N.Y.: New York University Press.
Greetz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gretz, N. (1995). Captive of a dream: National myths in Israeli culture. Tel Aviv,
Israel: Am Oved Publisher Ltd (in Hebrew).
Guigon, C.B. (1993). Authenticity, moral values and psychotherapy. In C.B. Guigon
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, pp. 215-239. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
GVU Center (1998). GVU's 10th WWW User Survey. Graphic, Visualization, &
Usability Center.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.
Haraway, D. (1985). Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist
Feminism in the 1980's.” Socialist Review, 80. pp. 65-108.
Hayles, K.N. (1999). How We Became Posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago
Hill, R. (1972). Modern system theory and the family: A confrontation. Social
Science Information, 10(5), pp. 7-26.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (2004). Two Early Experiments with Groups. Group Analysis,
37(3), pp. 323-333.
Holland, N. (1996). The Internet regression. [Online]. In J. Suler (Ed.), Psychology of cyberspace. Available: http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/holland.html
.
[Retrieved 1 May, 2003].
Hopper, E. (1996). The Social Unconscious in Clinical Work. Group, 20(1), pp. 7-42.
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption, Group Analysis, 30, pp. 439-470.
Hopper, E. (2001). The Social Unconscious: Theoretical Considerations. Group
Analysis, 34, pp. 9 - 27
Hopper, E. (2003a). 'Overview' of the Survivor Syndrome Workshop. In E. Hopper,
The Social Unconscious: selected papers, pp. 95-102. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Hopper, E. (2003b). The Social Unconscious: selected papers. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.

150
Hopper, E. (2003c). Wounded Bird: a Study of the Social Unconscious and
Countertransference in Group Analysis. In E. Hopper, The Social
Unconscious: Selected Papers, pp. 162-188. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Hopper, E. (2003d). Letter to the editor. Group Analysis 36(3), pp. 439-440.
Hopper, E. (2003e). Traumatic Experience in the Unconscious Life of Groups.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hopper, E. (2005). Notes for Lectures on the Concepts of Transference and
Countertransference in Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Group Psychotherapy and Group Analysis: Unpublished paper.
Hunt, J. (1989). Psychoanalytic aspects of fieldwork. London: Sage.
Jacobson, L. (1989). 'The group as an object in the cultural field'. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 39(4), pp. 475-497.
Jacoby, R. (1975). Social Amnesia: A Critque of Contemporary Psychology From
Adler to Laing. New York: Beacon Press.
Jost, J.T. (1997). 'An experimental replication of the depressed entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, pp. 387-393.
Jung, C. G. (1934). The archetypes and the collective unconscious, in collected papers
Vol. 9, Part 1. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jung, C.G. (1936). The concept of The Collective Unconscious. Journal of St.
Bartholomew's Hospital (London). XLIV.
Kaës, R. (1987). ‘La Troisième Difference’. Revue de Psychotherapie
Psychoanalytique de Groupe. 9-10, pp. 5-30.
Karterud, S. (1998). 'The group self, empathy, intersubjectivity and hermeneutics: A group analytic perspective'. In I. Harwood & M. Pines (Eds.), Self experiences in group: Intersubjective and self psychological pathways to human understanding, pp. 83-98. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Kernberg, O.F. (1989). The Temptations of Conventionality. International Review of
Psycho-Analysis, 16, pp. 191–205.
Klein, M. (1957). Envy and gratitude. New York: The Free Press.
Knauss, W. (2004). The Group in the Unconscious - a Bridge between the Individual and the Society. Paper given to the Group Analytic Section of the EFPP, 7th-
9th October 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

151
Kulka, R. (1991). Reflections on the future of self-psychology and its role in the evolution of psychoanalysis. In A. Goldberg (ed.), The evolution of selfpsychology: Progress in self-psychology, 7, pp. 175-183. Hillsdale, NJ: The analytic press.
Lacan, J. (1977). Ecirts: a selection (A. Sheridan, translator). New York & London:
W.W. Norton.
Lather, P. (1991). Feminist Research in Education: Within/Against, Deakin
University Press, Geelong, Victoria
Lauren, S.E. (2002). Special Issue: A Group Analysis of Class, Status Groups and
Inequality. Group Analysis, 35(3), pp. 339-341.
Lawrence, Gordon, W., Bain, A., and Gould, L. (1996). The fifth basic assumption,
Free Associations, 6(37), pp. 28-55.
Le Roy, J. (1994). ‘Group Analysis and Culture’, in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.),
The Psyche and the social world, pp. 180-201. London: Routledge.
Leibniz, G.W. (1765). New essays concerning human understanding.
Leonetti, I.T. (1994). From multicultural to intercultural: Is it necessary to move from one to the other? In J. Lynch. C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (eds.). Cultural diversity and the schools, pp. 153-156. Washington: Falmer.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
MacKenzie, K.R., & Livesley, W.J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R.R. Dies, & K.R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and Practice, pp. 101-116. New York:
International University Press.
Malkinson, R. & Witztum, E. (2000). Collective bereavement and commemoration: cultural aspects of collective myth and the creation of national identity in
Israel. In R. Malkinson, S.S. Runin, & E. Witztum (Eds.). Traumatic and nontraumatic loss and bereavement: clinical theory and practice, pp 295-320.
Madison: Psychological Press
Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). "Real" presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence and virtual presence.
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), pp. 540-550.
McKenna, K.Y.A, and Green, A.S. (2002) 'Virtual group dynamics'. Group Dynamics
6(1), pp. 116-127.

152
McKenna, K.Y.A, Green, A.S., and Gleason, M.E.J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), pp.
9-31.
Mead, G.H. (1968). The genesis of the self. In C. Gordon and K. Gergen (eds.), The
Self in Social Interaction, pp. 51-59. New York: Wiley.
Mitchell, S.A. (2002). Can Love Last? The fate of romance over time. N.Y.: Norton
& company.
Moore, Y. & Bar-On, D. (1996). Narrative biography analysis: Life story of a second generation to Holocaust survivors. Sihot-Dialogue: Israel Journal of
Psychotherapy, XI (1), pp. 36–48.
Morelli, G.A., Rogoff, B., Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. (1992). ‘Cultural variation in infants’ sleeping arrangements: Questions of independence’.
Developmental Psychology, 28, pp. 604-613.
Nitsun, M. (1996). The anti-group: Destructive forces in the group and their creative potential. London: Routledge.
Nitsun, M. (1998). 'The Organizational Mirror: A Group-Analytic Approach to
Organizational Consultancy'. Group Analysis, 31(3), pp. 245-267.
Nuttman-Shwartz O. & Weinberg H. (2002). 'Group Therapy in Israel'. Group, 26(1), pp. 5-15.
Oldenquist, A. (1988). An explanation of retribution. Journal of Philosophy, 41, pp.
464-478.
Ormay, T. (2001). Group in Foulkes. Group Analysis, 34, pp. 169 - 177.
Ormont, L.R. (1992). The group therapy experience. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Ormont, L.R. (1996). The group as agent of change. In L.B. Furgeri (ed.) (2001). The
Technique of Group Treatment: the collected papers of Louis Ormont, pp. 37-
45. Madison, Connecticut: Psychosocial Press.
Parker, I. (1997). Psychoanalytic culture: Psychoanalytic discourse in western society.
London: Sage.
Perry, P. (2001). ‘White means never having to say you’re ethnic’. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 30, pp. 56-91.
Phoenix, A. (1987). 'Theories of gender and black families', in G. Weiner and A.
Amot (eds.), Gender Under Scrutiny, pp. 16-50. London: Hutchinson.
Pines, M. (1981). The frame of reference of group psychotherapy. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31(3), pp. 275-285.

153
Pines, M. (1984). Reflections on Mirroring. International Review of Psycho-Analysis,
11, pp. 27-42.
Pines, M. (2002). The coherency of group analysis. Group Analysis, 35(1), pp. 13-26.
Pines, M. (2003a). Large Groups and Culture. In S. Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.),
The Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses, pp.
44-57. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Pines, M. (2003b). Social Brain and Social Group: How Mirroring Connects People.
Group Analysis 36(4), pp. 507-513.
Pisani, R.A. (1993). Neuroses and Group Culture in Southern Italy: The matrix of a
'real' Large Group. Group Analysis 26, pp. 239-249.
Plant, S. (1997). Zeroes + Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. New
York: Doubleday
Pope C, Ziebland S, & Mays N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal, 320, pp. 114-116.
Powell, A. (1991a). Matrix, Mind and Matter: From the Internal to the Eternal. Group
Analysis 24, pp. 299-322.
Powell, A. (1991b). The embodied matrix: discussion on paper by Romano Fiumara.
Group Analysis, 24, pp. 419-423.
Prilleltensky, A. (1989). Psychology and the Status Quo. American Psychologist, 44, pp. 795-802.
Rheingold, H. (1994). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier. New York: Harper Perennial.
Ridley, M. (1996). The origins of virtue. London: Viking.
Riva, G., & Mantovani, G. (1999). The ergonomics of virtual reality: human factors in developing clinical-oriented virtual environments. In J.D. Westwood, H.M.
Hoffman, R.A. Robb, & D. Stredney (Eds.), Medicine meets virtual reality.
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Roberts J., and Pines, M. (eds.) (1991). The Practice of Group Analysis. London and
New York: Tavistock/Routledge.
Roberts, J.P. (1982). Foulkes Concept of the Matrix. Group Analysis, 15(2), pp. 111-
126.
Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessity and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, pp. 95-103.

154
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rose, S. (1997). Lifeline. London: Penguin Press.
Rubenfeld, S. (2001). Group Therapy and Complexity Theory. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(4), pp. 449-471.
Sampson, E.E. (1989). The deconstruction of the self. In K.J. Gerken, and J. Shotter
(eds.), Texts of identity, pp. 1-19. London: Sage Publications.
Sarason, S.B. (1985). And What is the Public Interest? American Psychologist, 41(8), pp. 889-905.
Scheidlinger, S. (1974). On the concept of the "mother-group". International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 24, pp. 417-428.
Schloerb, D.W. (1995). A quantitative measure of telepresence. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4, pp. 64–80.
Schneider S. (2003). The Mystical and the Spiritual in the Large Group. In S.
Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.), The Large Group Revisited: The Herd,
Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses, pp. 73-85. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Schneider S. & Weinberg H. (eds.) (2003). The Large Group Revisited: The Herd,
Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Scholz, R. (2003). The Foundation Matrix – a Useful Fiction. Group Analysis, 36(4), pp. 548-554.
Scholz, R. (2004). Self-esteem and the Process of its Reassessment in Multicultural
Groups: Renegotiating the Symbolic Social Order. Group Analysis, 37(4), pp.
525-535.
Schulte, P. (2000) Holding in Mind: Intersubjectivity, Subject Relations and the
Group. Group Analysis, 33(4), pp. 531-544.
Segalla, R.A. (1996). 'The unbearable embeddedness of being'. Group, 20, pp. 257-
271.
Sengun, S. (2001). Migration as a Transitional Space and Group Analysis. Group
Analysis, 34, pp. 65 - 78.
Shields, R. (ed.) (1996). Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living
Bodies. London: Sage.
Sidanius, J, & Prato, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

155
Smooha, S. (1978). Israel: Pluralism and conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press
Spector-Person, E. (1992). Romantic Love: At the Intersection of the Psyche and the
Cultural Unconscious. In T. Shapiro and R. Emde (eds) Affect: Psychoanalytic
Perspectives. New York: International Universities Press.
Stacey, R. (2000). Reflexivity, Self-Organization and Emergence in the Group
Matrix. Group Analysis, 33(4), pp. 501-514.
Stacey, R. (2001). Complexity and the Group Matrix. Group Analysis, 34(2), pp. 221-
239
Staub, E. (2000). Genocide and mass killings: Origin, prevention, healing, and reconciliation. Political Psychology, 21, pp. 367-382.
Storck, L. (2002). 'Reality' or 'Illusion'? Five Things of Interest about Social Class as a Large Group. Group Analysis, 35, pp. 351-366.
Suller, J. (1996). Transference among people online. Retrieved March 5, 2000 from the World Wide http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/transference.html
Web:
Sye, J. (1999). The labouring body and the posthuman. In A.J. Gordo-Lopez, and I.
Parker (eds.), Cyberpsychology, pp. 25-41. Houndmills, Hampshire:
Macmillan Press.
Taylor, D.M. (2002). The quest for identity: from minority groups to generation xers.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Taylor, S.E. (1989). Positive Illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind.
New York: Basic books.
Trevarthen, W.R., & McKenna, J.J. (1994) 'Evolutionary environments of human birth and infancy: Insights to apply to contemporary life'. Children’s
Environments, 11, pp. 88-104.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 63, pp. 384-399.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987)
Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorizing theory. Oxford, UK: Basol
Blackwell.

156
Turquet, P. (1974). Leadership - the individual and the group, In G.S. Gibbard, J.J.
Hartman, & R.D. Mann (Eds.). Analyses of Groups, pp. 87-144, San Francisco
& London: Jossey Bass.
Turquet, P. (1975). Threats to Identity in the Large Group. In L. Kreeger (ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy, pp. 87-144. London: Constable.
Van der Kleij, G. (1983). The Setting of the Group. Group Analysis, 16(1), pp. 75-80.
Van Vliet, W., and Burgers, J. (1987). Communities in transition: From the industrial to the postindustrial era. In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (eds.), Neighborhood and community environments. New York: Plenum Press.
Virilio, P. (1994). The vision Machine. Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Volkan, V. (1997). Bloodlines from ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism. New
York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.
Volkan, V. (1999). Psychoanalysis and diplomacy: Part I. Individual and large group identity. Journal-of-Applied-Psychoanalytic-Studies. 1, pp. 29-55.
Volkan, V. (2001). Transgenerational Transmissions and Chosen Traumas: An Aspect of Large Group Identity. Group Analysis, 34, pp. 79-97.
Volkan, V. (2002). September 11 and societal regression. Group Analysis, 35(4), pp.
456-483.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1956). General System Theory. General Systems, 1(1).
Von Platen, R. A. (1996). Thoughts on the Setting of the Large Analytic Group.
Group Analysis, 29, pp. 485-489.
Wainwright, D. (1997). Can sociological research be qualitative, critical and valid?
The Qualitative Report [On-line serial], 3(2). Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain.html
Walshe, J. (1995). The External Space in Group Work. Group Analysis, 28, pp. 413-
427.
Weinberg, H. (2000). Group psychotherapy and group work in Israel: 1998. Copublished simultaneously in S.S. Fehr (ed.), Group therapy in independent practice, pp. 43–51. Haworth Press Inc. N.Y. And in the Journal of
Psychotherapy in Independent Practice, 1(2), pp. 43–51.
Weinberg, H. (2001). Group Processes and Group Phenomena on the Internet.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(3), pp. 361-378.
Weinberg, H. (2002). Community Unconscious on the Internet. Group Analysis,
35(1), pp. 165-183.

157
Weinberg, H. (2003a). The Large Group in a Virtual Environment. In S. Schneider &
H. Weinberg (eds.), The Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde,
Crowds and Masses, pp. 188-200. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Weinberg, H. (2003b). The Culture of the Group and Groups from Different Cultures.
Group Analysis, 36(2), pp. 253-268.
Weinberg H. (2006). Regression in the group revisited. Accepted for publication in
GROUP.
Weinberg H. & Nuttman-Shwartz O. (2004). Groups in Israel after 2000. In T.J.C.
Berk et al. (eds) Handboek Groepspsychotherapie, The Netherlands, Houten,
Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum bv, chapter V.8. (in Dutch)
Weinberg H. & Nuttman-Shwartz O. (2006). Group Work and Therapy in Israel - mirroring a regressed - traumatized society. Accepted for publication in the
Journal Organisational and Social Dynamics OPUS 151
Weinberg, H., & Schneider, S. (2003). Introduction: Background, Structure and
Dynamics of the Large Group. In S. Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.), The
Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses, pp. 13-
26. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Weinberg, H., & Schneider, S. (2006). Ethical Considerations in the Large Group.
Accepted for publication for The International Journal of Group psychotherapy.
Weinberg H. & Toder M. (2004). The Hall of Mirrors in Small, Large and Virtual
Groups. Group Analysis, 37(4), pp. 492-507
Wilbur, S. (1997). An archaeology of Cyberspace: Virtuality, Community, Identity. In
D. Porter (ed.) Internet Culture. London: Routledge.
Williamson, J. (1988). Decoding Advertisements. London: Marion Boyars Publishers.
Winnicott, D. W. (1956). "Primary Maternal Preoccupation." Through Paediatrics to
Psycho-Analysis. London: Hogarth Press,1982.
Winnicott, D. W. (1974). Fear of Breakdown. In: C. Winnicott, R. Shepherd, & M.
Davis(eds.), Psycho-Analytic Explorations. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1989.
Winnicott, D.W. (1986). Holding and Interpretation: Fragment of an analysis. New
York: Basic Books.
Witztum, E. (2004). Mind, loss and bereavement, Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Ltd.
(in Hebrew).

158
Yalom, I.D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New
York: Basic Books.
Zertal, I. (2002). Death and the Nation. Tel Aviv: Dvir Publishers. (in Hebrew)
Zertal, I. & Eldar, A. (2004). Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel
1967-2004. Tel Aviv: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir Publishing house (in
Hebrew).
Zinkin, L. (1979). The Collective and the Personal. Journal of Analytic Psychology,
24(3), pp. 227–50.
Zinkin, L. (1983). Malignant Mirroring. Group Analysis, 26(2), pp. 113-126.

159
List of PhD Publications:
In order of publication
Weinberg, H. (2001). Group Process and Group Phenomena on the Internet.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(3), pp. 361-378. Appendix
A.
Weinberg, H. (2002). Community Unconscious on the Internet. Group Analysis,
35(1), pp. 165-183. Appendix B
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. & Weinberg, H. (2002). Group Therapy in Israel. Group, 26(1), pp. 5-15. Appendix C
Schneider S. & Weinberg H. (eds.). (2003). The Large Group Revisited: The Herd,
Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses. Jessica Kingsley Pub
Weinberg H. & Schneider S. (2003). Introduction: Background, Structure and
Dynamics of the Large Group. In S. Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.) The
Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses, pp.
13-26. Jessica Kingsley Pub. Appendix E
Weinberg H. (2003a). The Large Group in a Virtual Environment. . In S. Schneider &
H. Weinberg (eds.) The Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde,
Crowds and Masses, pp. 188-200. Jessica Kingsley Pub. Appendix F
Weinberg H. (2003b). The Culture of the Group, and Groups From Different Cultures.
Group Analysis 36(2), pp. 255-267. Appendix G
Weinberg H. & Nuttman-Shwartz O. (2004). Groups in Israel after 2000. In T.J.C.
Berk et al. (eds) Handboek Groepspsychotherapie, The Netherlands, Houten,
Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum bv, chapter V.8. (in Dutch). Appendix D
Weinberg H. & Toder M. (2004). The Hall of Mirrors in Small, Large and Virtual
Groups. Group Analysis 37(4), pp. 492-507. Appendix H
Weinberg H. (2006). Regression in the group revisited. Accepted for publication for
GROUP. Appendix I
Weinberg H. & Schneider S. (2006). Ethical Considerations in the Large Group.
Accepted for publication for International Journal of Group Psychotherapy.
Appendix J
Weinberg H. & Nuttman-Shwartz O. (2006). Group Work and Therapy in Israel - mirroring a regressed - traumatized society. Accepted for publication in the
Journal Organisational and Social Dynamics OPUS 151. Appendix K.

160

161
Published on the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, (2001), V 51(3), pp. 361-379
This article identifies group processes and group phenomena in discussion lists on the Internet, and examines the differences and similarities with the processes in small and large groups. Group dynamics and phenomena such as boundaries, cohesion, transference, scapegoating and the leader's role, are addressed. Large group features such as alienation, vulnerability, and the vast amount of discussed issues talked about in parallel are described. There are similarities between the discussion list and small groups on issues of cohesion and group norms, and in the psychological mechanisms of transference and scapegoating. There are differences regarding the contract, boundaries, leaving the group, and extra-group socialization.
Although many of the phenomena described resemble a large group, a discussion list on the Internet maintains the illusion of being a small group and frequently acts like one. While a virtual therapy group would be somewhat different from a real group it could nonetheless be useful.

162
1.
Introduction:
Many group psychotherapists agree that the Internet is one of the major communication and publishing developments of this decade, yet the understanding of group phenomena in it and its implications for group work and group therapy are far from developed. This article identifies group processes in discussion lists on the
Internet, examines the differences and similarities among them and the dynamics that can be identified in small and large groups, and suggests implications for group therapy.
The Internet is a network of computers linked together. There are two main ways of using the Internet: retrieving information through the use of web-sites, and exchanging information by using e-mail (electronic mail). To experts in the mental health field, e-mail can be used for making contact, exchanging ideas and effective collaboration among colleagues.
A discussion list is a group of people with a common interest who electronically discuss issues in their field. In discussion lists open to the public, anyone interested in joining the list can send a subscription command to a computer, called the server, and receive all the messages that members of the list send to the server, and every note the subscriber sends is automatically distributed to all the list members. Each discussion list has a leader that facilitates the discussion. In moderated lists, all messages initially are sent to the list leader, who then forwards appropriate messages on to the full membership.
There are discussion lists in almost every field of interest, including many on psychological and mental health issues. The group-psychotherapy discussion list (G-P list) was established in 1995 by this author for professionals interested and working in this field. Its objective is to facilitate the exchange of ideas between group therapists and thus to develop group therapy all over the world. As of May 2000 there were 401 members of the G-P list from 33 different countries. A total of 272 (68%) were from the United States. The writer is the list leader, but the list is not moderated.
References to discussion lists throughout this paper mean this site in particular, unless specified otherwise.
Typically the list functions by members sending email messages, discussing issues in group work, or responding to issues raised by others. Members of the list describe their professional experience, consult colleagues, ask for references, suggest new techniques, discuss research in progress or inform others about important
2.
conferences and workshops worldwide. Because they are group therapists sensitive to process issues, from time to time they address the dynamics. Some of the subjects discussed in this forum over the last year include: entering a group, working with special populations in groups, intimacy in groups, the leader and co-leader in the group, large groups, combined individual and group therapy, and difficult patients in the group.
Small or Large Group?
In his review of small group research, McGrath (1997) describes the group "as a complex network of member-task-technology ties" (p. 12). Groups over the Internet can be even more complex. The Internet is a virtual space with no boundaries. From a psychological point of view, it can be seen as a giant, boundless potential space
(Winnicott, 1987) for reality and fantasy, playing and imagination, relationship and alienation. Suller (1999) describes how people connected to cyberspace "often feel -

163 consciously or subconsciously - that they are entering a "place" or "space" that is filled with a wide array of meanings and purposes". (p. 1). A discussion list on the
Internet is a more focused part of this space. The question to be discussed here is whether phenomena familiar from therapy groups also occur on the Internet discussion list. More specifically, does a discussion list essentially resemble a large group, or are the phenomena more similar to those encountered in a small group?
Another possibility is that it is more like a fishbowl, where a small number of members of a larger group participate, while the larger membership just watch quietly.
Davidson (1998) claimed that, as in a large group, a discussion list not only reflects society but also is society at large. He says, "In the small group … one may change one's form of psychic experience, all the while taking into account the other seven or so people at large in the group and one's relation to them" (p. 467). The small group evokes associations with earlier experiences in other, superficially different but essentially related forms of social relations - the family as well as social and work groups. In a large group, it is difficult to create close relationships between people and one cannot take into account each individual within the group. In large groups, members seldom have time to work through their experiences. Instead, members try to understand something about citizenship and personal responsibility in a faceless, anonymous situation.
When a person's message in a discussion list brings no response whatsoever, the person feels as if her/his voice disappears in cyberspace. This is similar to the threat to the individual identity in the large group described by Turquet (1975) and Hopper
(1997). When the list disregards them, people can feel hurt, or insignificant, and sometimes they retaliate in anger.
"I too am impacted when my words seem to vanish into cyberspace, feeling unheard, insignificant, small, etc. I have discovered that when this happens I either shrink away quietly for a while or come back "yelling louder".
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, November 14, 1998)
1
It seems that alienation and the feeling of being only "a cog in the machine" arise when the individual is ignored. It is difficult for the individual to find her/his unique place in the large group and people feel the threat of a loss of self.
"I wonder why I feel this anxiety here - in fact, in relation to this group, I wonder about that a lot. I think it's related to N.'s observation about having some difficulty finding a place in the group. I, too, have had this experience, along with the sense that there is some banter between the "core" members that I don't understand
(thank you N., for putting words to this). It's a feeling of having my nose pressed up against a glass, wanting to be inside but not quite knowing where the door is (and would I have the sense to walk over to it and turn the knob if I did know where it was?) I know myself and groups well enough to know that this is about me much more than it is about the members of the group; nonetheless the fact that this is happening in an electronic group fascinates me." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list,
January 08, 1999)
1 All quotations are taken with permission from the g-p discussion list.

164
Another issue that resembles the large group is the vast number of subjects talked about in parallel and in a seemingly unrelated manner. The feeling is that people do not listen to one another. It is difficult to follow one "thread" (a common
Internet expression for a chain of letters on one theme), as there can be many voices uttered on the same time. Some of the members might react with overwhelmed silence.
People seem surprisingly vulnerable to feeling ignored and misunderstood, and even narcissistically injured. In response to this traumatic experience, the group seems to aggregate and then to seek homogeneity until the list regains its experience of cohesion and coherence, and work group is re-established, which is identical to the process that Hopper (1997) described in large analytical groups.
Another possibility that deserves consideration is whether a list serve is more like a fishbowl. The number of people participating in a discussion on a specific issue on a discussion list is usually 10-15. Others, who may be observing the discussion, do not write. This is similar to a fishbowl where a subset of members participates in the discussion and the others do not intervene and only watch. Their existence might almost be forgotten. However, in a fishbowl the boundaries are much more rigid then in the virtual space of the list, where all participants can join in whenever they want to. In fact, each issue brings new discussants to the fore. Most of the time the list maintains an illusion of a small group and ignores the many observers. Without writing there is no evidence of the silent members' existence. They are easily forgotten. Rippa (2000) counted the number of contributions to the list for each member participating in a period of 4 months. He found that only 19% of the members participate and concluded, "although it was a virtual media of contact, the significant web of communication had been developed among a small group which had created a virtual group matrix" (p. 1). Therefore, a discussion list is like a large group in many ways. Yet, because of the special influences of virtual reality, this large group often behaves as if it was a small group. It is a large group with an illusion of a small group.
Because the list behaves like a small group, it is informative to look at the
3.
phenomena typical in a small group and determine if similar ones exist on the list.
Contract:
Usually a formal group works according to a contract or an agreement presented by the leader. The contract sets the rules and the boundaries (e.g., times and confidentiality) and thus structures the frame of work and creates primary safety.
Without a contract, the leader cannot highlight behaviors that deviate from it and interpret them. The closest thing to a contract in the G-P discussion list is the welcome letter that every member who subscribes to the list automatically receives.
This letter specifies possible contents that may be discussed and the basic rules regarding the etiquette of posting messages. The rules are connected to the use of the
Internet, such as not using the forum for illegal or commercial purposes. The necessity to keep the confidentiality of patients is mentioned. Nothing is said about keeping the posting to the list confidential. Because the Internet is in the public arena, the assumption could be made that one can use the emails of the list members without asking for permission. The contract is comparatively open and does not clarify what is
"right" and what is "wrong" during the participation in the forum. From time to time questions such as "is it a therapy group?" or "are personal letters allowed to be sent to the list?" arise. Such questions can be heard in any group, especially a "young one", and usually they are asked by new members.

165
Ethical issues are especially important, but are still unformulated in this developing area of cyberspace. Janoff & Schoenholtz-Read (1999) who used computer-mediated communication in supervising group psychotherapy trainees, list some ethical guidelines. One of them is that all email material cannot be used for any other purposes except supervision. When I started to formulate my observations about the process of the discussion list, I notified the list members that I was writing a paper about it. This evoked an important discussion with many of the list members involved and provided some important insights into the dynamics of the list. In addition, it became clear that the original contract was not clear enough. I did not anticipate how much like a group the list would be and did not foresee the need for a very structured contract in advance. Following this discussion I revised the contract reminding the participants that their posts are observed.
4.
Boundaries:
The basic elements in a therapeutic group create some important boundaries.
MacKenzie (1997) points out 7: external group boundary, subgroup boundaries, leadership boundary, therapist boundary, personal boundary of the individual member, interpersonal boundaries, and intrapsychic boundaries. Boundaries in a group create safety and a sense of stability. They contribute to the development of intimacy and the ability of the participants to develop trust and openness. Time and space boundaries are especially important.
The Internet does not have a beginning or an end. Time and space boundaries are vague and meaningless in cyberspace. The list is based on e-mail, and anyone can send and receive mail to the list whenever it suits them.
2
One would expect that this lack of time and space boundaries would result in incoherence characterized by chaos and instability. However, this does not happen. It seems that the list members are sensitive to time and know when it is still suitable to relate to an issue. They intuitively create time boundaries. If a subject is not in focus anymore, it does not attract more responses. The frequency of logging on to the Internet and reading the mail probably influences the amount of involvement in the list. Those who "arrive" at the list less often are more prone to be lurkers (the common term on the Internet for silent members). In this sense, the list is an open group, with a lot of flexibility and tolerance for the presence or absence of members and the frequency of their participation. The ability to write to the list at a convenient time reduces the pressure that a member feels in a real group. This, I believe, enables more reflective writing.
Self-boundaries in the discussion list can actually be kept more strictly than in reality. Sitting in a private room, without seeing the others or being seen by them and being dressed informally, gives a sense of protection and of more control over the amount of disclosure. Because the writer feels there is more choice about what to reveal, s/he is able to write many personal things, especially if the general atmosphere of the group is accepting and tolerant. The following is an example:
"One thing I am aware of in my participation in this group - I am often in a far more casual state than when I am at work, or in a therapy group. Nowhere else can I participate in a group while dressed in torn sweats, or even less. Sometimes sipping a glass of wine. I suspect my casual demeanor, while not evident to readers, might
2 It is different in a group based on "chat" where the participants are simultaneously on-line, and can see what the other writes the minute s/he types on her/his keyboard

166 impact my posts. Should there be a dress code and sobriety requirement for cyber participants?

" (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, September 16, 1998)
4.1. Extra-list communication:
In group therapy it is usually recommended that members should not be involved in social relationships with members outside the group meetings.
Outside the group contact can be interpreted as "an attack on the group boundaries". Yalom (1995) claims that a subgroup created outside the group can achieve higher precedence over the relationships in the group. Even if there is no instruction for group members not to associate outside the group, it is usually recommended to bring events happening outside between group members and deal with them in the group.
In the discussion list members can write each other outside the list. It often happens that someone writing to the list wii directly receive private e-mail responses. It is possible to speak about "the group outside the group". Usually this does not affect the group cohesion, but sometimes there are events that have an impact on the list atmosphere. The relationship outside the list gets the attention of the list members only when someone writes about it to the list. For example someone may privately receive insulting letters and acknowledge this on the list, or someone may suggest that a private letter be distributed to the whole list. There are various responses to this private communication. Some see it as a threat to the list integrity. This exists only if there are concrete subgroups who might split the list and create conflicts of interests between them. Some feel excluded, as if they are not important enough to take part in the outside discussion. When someone reports receiving insulting private e-mail, the group tries to bring these letters to public discussion.
Real meetings also occur between members of the discussion list. Such meetings probably happen between members who live in the same neighborhood and belong to the same professional community. There is also the opportunity for face to face meetings at conferences, whether they are local or international. The
G-P list established a tradition of encounters between list members participating in the annual meeting of the AGPA in the USA, and the international group psychotherapy conferences of the IAGP. These meetings had a special impact on list life, because they were initiated and encouraged by the list manager. Although these meetings encourage and nurture international collegial relationship, they instigate emotional reactions including anger, jealousy and feelings of exclusion.
The first time such a meeting was initiated by the list manager (1997 in New
York), some of the members who could not participate in the meeting wrote about the danger of a coalition between the leader and some of the members. A partial solution to this problem was to write a full report to the list about this meeting, so that everyone could share the experience. The list manager also took pictures and presented them on the Internet for every list member to see. This issue has been managed in a way similar to small groups that do not prohibit extra-group socializing but encourage that it be brought back into the group.
4.2. Newcomers to the List:
People who join the list are requested to introduce themselves. Such introductions evoke different responses. Sometimes the newcomer faces a warm

167 welcome from veterans; sometimes the introduction produces questions and interesting new threads (e.g., when a music therapist joins the list, and it led to a discussion about music therapy in groups). At other times, such as when the list is absorbed in a hot discussion, newcomers are totally ignored.
The behavior of the newcomer can be compared to the behavior of members joining a real group. Some are silent, and their presence is unnoticed. Some want to know the norms of the list before they post. Others send their messages immediately, become very involved in the discussion, and take their share in a large volume of the posts. As in a real group, this may stir up the old members who feel as if the newcomer is ignoring the group's history and its veterans, and not respecting them.
5.
4.3. Leaving the Group:
Participation in the list can be terminated without the group's knowledge by sending a sign-off command to the server. This differs significantly from a real group where no one can leave without being noticed. The process of people leaving the list without any sense of closure has created discomfort at times. Thus, some sentences have been added to the welcome messages ("the contract") asking people to announce their intention to leave the list and to let the others say farewell. However, only a few members do this, and usually such an announcement is accompanied by some disappointment or criticism about the function of the list (e.g., too much time spent on minor issues). The responses of the participants to that criticism are usually defensive and retaliative. When someone leaves the list after participating for a long time, and thus having a familiar name, the termination evokes intense responses, as it does in real groups.
The following is an example of a letter of termination from a list member:
Listmates,
A while ago there was some discussion about list members making a brief statement of explanation/farewell before signing off this list. Even before that discussion I was considering signing off, but it made me more aware of all the people who leave groups and what they take with them - the voice of the nonmember. So, I want to speak with that voice here by saying that I will be signing off on Friday, January 8. If the group had not touched me I would not take the time to write this. And it is not written without ambivalence. While I am probably not as enthusiastic about the way this list has functioned as some other writers have been,
I have developed a fondness for its style and for many of the contributors. It would be nice to have you in my non-cyber life.
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, January 04, 1999)
Group Norms:
Norms of a group are constructed both from expectations of the members for their group and from the explicit and implicit directions of the leader and more influential members (Yalom, 1995). Every discussion list develops norms of its own. The norms can determine the accepted style of writing, the discussion atmosphere, how the group deals with aggression, and the amount of support between members. Internet usage and e-mail have their own norms. Writing e-mail is usually less formal then writing a letter to a colleague. The speed of writing and the immediacy of response require adopting new writing rules, more informal,

168 friendly and flexible. A letter to the list might open with "hello listmates" or even with no specific opening.
The group norms are usually created through a discussion about the suitable responses to situations occurring in the list. The following is a letter relating to boundaries and the problem of out-of-the-list connection:
"I have to disagree that such a reprimanding message would have to be delivered in secrecy, i.e. only between C. and F. I think this situation is quite a common one that we cannot afford to keep it silent. Imagine receiving such a message secretly.....one would be put in quite an awkward position: if one came out to the group and said this happened it might be like complaining to the headmaster … instead of confronting the attacker. On the other hand, if one kept it silent it would be like being abused and never breathing a word about it. (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, September 12, 1998).
In some lists the level of aggression is high and there are blunt attacks when people do not agree with each other. The g-p list developed norms of tolerance and respect towards different ideas, perhaps because this is the norm between professionals. As can be seen in the above quote, conflicts and tensions are discussed with the ability to observe the process and to try to understand the source of difficulty
(whether by the group members or with the help of the list manager). This supportive climate expresses itself in warm personal responses. Norms of mutual acceptance are also expressed in response to new members that join the list and introduce themselves.
Usually someone will take the lead, welcome the newcomer and relate to her/his words of introduction.
5.1. Cohesion and Belonging:
Yalom (1995) attributes great importance to group cohesion and writes,
"group members deeply value the acceptance and support they receive from their therapy group.… Highly cohesive groups have an overall higher outcome than groups with low esprit de corps". (P. 54).
The members in the discussion list are deeply involved in the discussion.
They follow the threads and participate in the exchange of ideas. Some of them invest a great deal of time reading and writing to the list. In many cases, the list becomes part the of the individual's professional life. It stimulates thoughts and feelings and members feel that they are part of a professional community with its own norms, which contributes to their work, and which personally connects them to other colleagues all over the world. Affectionate and caring attachments can develop among the members, with messages relevant to the participants' personal lives. One can find letters of condolences for the death of a member's father, warm congratulations on the opening of a new private practice (including advice and referrals), or sharing about a wedding anniversary while opening a discussion
(with personal examples) about what facilitates a good long marriage.
The following is an example of a letter that expresses a member's relationship to the forum:
"Just a few days ago I came to a STARTLING REALIZATION. I read all of the messages faithfully and I have come to the conclusion that I have been considering the list like a real, live group. That is, even though I wasn't speaking up, that you all "knew" I was in the room. Since I could "see" and "hear" all of you

169
6.
(through your posts), I assumed that you were all aware of my presence. That is why I decided to write. I want you to be aware of my presence, even though I am often silent." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, October 09, 1999)
In a therapy group, the distance between young and old, and between people with a high social status and those who are in the social margins, is reduced. In the discussion list anyone can join regardless of stature (e.g., an experienced group therapist, or someone with a PhD) or junior. The list is a framework with no discrimination or evident status. This means that the contributions of students are available as well as those from the authors of the books and articles from which they are learning. Some people include a signature with professional status – like degrees - while others do not. From time to time the list discusses the effect of the
PhD signatures. Some feel intimidated. This discussion enables members to reexamine projections:
"As many of those who have been around as long as I have or longer know, I come awake when the threads contain personal reflection, stories, case situations, and practical topics. I shy away from (intimidated) from the more academic, jargons, intellectual subjects. Although the M.D.s and Ph.D's on the forum for the most part "real" people [Sic] , my lack of degrees (and knowledge of the "published works", reference materials, etc.) causes me to shy away for fear of asking the
'dumb' question'. So, I read these threads, learn much, but often feel alone in the group." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, November 14, 1998)
5.2. Content versus Process:
Yalom (1995) defines the content of a small group or of a psychotherapy group in terms of "the nature of the relationship between interacting individuals"
(p. 130). The aim of the G-P discussion list is to discuss professional issues related to group therapy. Nevertheless, group dynamics occur naturally. From time to time the focus of attention shifts to these dynamics, and thus the discussion shifts towards the process. Because the participants in this specific list are group therapists, they have the skills to analyze and examine the processes occurring on the list. The change of focus away from content arouses a constantly recurring discussion between those who argue that the list is not a therapy group and, therefore, it is not suitable to examine the group process, and others who argue that it is impossible to disregard these observations. The debate about the appropriate focus of attention can become heated, and resembles the debate in any group that has both task and psychological components. When should the group focus on the task and when should it focus on the process? Usually the list examines its dynamics when it is clear that something is blocking the way to the group goals and making it difficult to function well. The conflict between the two foci can be seen as two subgroups struggling over their values. The same thing happens in a real group, where a struggle between two subgroups can lead to the feeling that there is only one truth that should prevail.
Psychological Mechanisms:
6.1. Transference:
Authors writing about group therapy dedicate many paragraphs to transference in the group (Fehr, 1999; Rutan & Stone, 1993; Yalom, 1995).
Transference in the group exists towards the leader, the members in the group, and

170 the group as a whole. Because the Internet lacks audio-visual cues, it encourages massive projections onto the writer and onto the meaning of what is written. Suller
(1996) writes: "Because the experience of the other person often is limited to text, there is a tendency for the user to project a variety of wishes, fantasies, and fears onto the ambiguous figure at the other end of cyberspace" (p.1).
Those writing on the Internet have created a special sign language to overcome this problem. These signs help the reader to understand the intent associated with the content of the post. This does not prevent all misunderstandings and at times there are aggressive reactions to letters written with no bad intentions.
Every reader on the list creates an image of the writing participants. The image can be of the writer's age, appearance, character or even gender. Foreign names also provide a challenge. Readers develop personal attitudes toward each of the regular writers. For example, a person may immediately delete a writer's posts without even reading them, because they are seen as usually irritating or boring. Other writers might have qualities such as wisdom, experience, or impulsiveness attributed to them.
6.2. Regression
Regressive process are evident in therapy groups, expressed in the use of archaic defenses, regression to early object relations, and dependency on the leader and the group. For example, the unclear situation of the forming stage creates regression (Rutan and Stone, 1993), and the members expect the leader to rescue them from the anxiety of not knowing what is expected. Holland (1995) wrote that regression could be found on the Internet too. He observed three regressive phenomena: primitive aggression, that finds its expression in flames (defamation wars and heated debate), sexual harassment (crude invitations to people about whom one knows no more than their online signatures), and extraordinary generosity. The anonymity of the writer and the immediacy of response in e-mail encourage regression.
6.3. Scapegoating:
One of the dangerous situations in a group (and a good example of regressive primitive aggression) is when the whole group finds a scapegoat to attack. In this situation the group projects its "badness" on the scapegoated individual, hoping to get rid of split-off unwanted inner parts by attacking or expelling the scapegoat from the group. Yalom (1995) sees this situation as endangering the integrity of the group and requiring the leader's intervention. Corey (1995) suggests that the leader turn the attention of the attacking members to their inner worlds and what is going on inside them.
Such a situation also occurs in a discussion list. It can happen when someone
"draws the fire" of the members by a certain irritating or provocative style of writing, by posting too frequently, or by an extremely annoying response. The scapegoat also can be chosen for this role because of a certain weakness (e.g., inexperience with groups in the case of g-p). In these instances there are many impulsive attacks on the individual, as if the whole discussion list has turned against that person. While conflicts and disagreements arise in almost every group, usually when someone is attacked, some people will defend the attacked person.
One of the signs that a scapegoat process is developing is that no one defends the one who is attacked. Perhaps since the emotional reactions of the attacked person on the list are unseen, the aggression increases

171
6.4. Passive Participants:
The silent participants in a therapy group, who do not share their inner world with the group and avoid reacting to others, usually evoke emotional reactions like anger or a feeling of threat. Fehr (1999) identifies problematic participants in the group and counts the silent member among them. Usually the active participants feel a sense of unfairness when someone is consistently silent. Feelings of exploitation can arise, as if the silent members are peeping into the others private lives but are not ready for a mutual relationship. A very similar phenomenon occurs and recurs in the discussion list. As mentioned before, the common term on the Internet for silent members is lurker . In everyday life this term is full of negative connotations. Therefore it evokes difficult reactions (offense, anger) in newcomers who do not know its use on the Internet.
Many members subscribe to the G-P list but are not active at all. They could be ignored, as they do not interfere with the stream of communication, but this not the case. The list constantly returns to deal with them. This issue usually rises after an emotional subject has been discussed and some of the participants feel exposed in some way, or when a hot debate develops with only few members involved, which raises the question of where the others are. It can also occur with a massive or powerful entrance of a newcomer that sometimes undermines the existing norms of the list. The result may be an exploration of the group's situation and the place of the passive members in it.
The Leader's Role: 7.
Small group leaders perceive their roles in various ways from facilitating the process to setting the group goals. A group counselor focuses on growth and development; a group therapist addresses unconscious issues and behavioral disorders; and a task group leader structures the meetings to help the group reach its goals. What are the roles of the discussion list leader? Is s/he an administrator, technical problem solver, discussion leader, or a group conductor whose role is to interpret and reflect the process? Every list owner interprets her/his role differently. If the list owner moderates the discussion, the group phenomena might be very different.
It is clear that the participants have expectations of the list manager that are very similar to the expectations that members in other groups develop towards the group leader. This is prominent in times of stress and crisis. In times such as these, there is a search for a leader who is expected to protect the list or get it out of the mud. Even if this is not discussed on the list, the leader has a special status and is perceived as an authority who should be respected. Every letter s/he writes gets special attention. If s/he initiates an issue to be discussed, the leader can look forward to many responses.
After a hot debate on the list, where one of the members was attacked, someone asked where is the leader. Here is a response to that question:
" There have been a number of postings lately on the topic of where is H. our leader. I get the notion that like in the book of Genesis since he created the list serve, he therefore is God "the creator" who is our leader and should now come in and tell us whether we have been too mean to N. or not." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, September 16, 1998)
The list manager should be especially sensitive to the possibility of private exchange of e-mail outside the list (called backchannel communication). The

172 participant could regard it as special relationship and even derive from it the narcissistic satisfaction of being a "special child".
Should the list manager interpret the group process? As indicated in the paragraph about content versus process, there is a struggle between two subgroups, one focusing on the content and the other on the process. In my opinion, a wellfunctioning group should give space to both fields and attempt to integrate them. In situations where the process blocks the group's way to its task, a way to remove the block must be found. The task of the G-P list is to discuss issues related to group therapy and group work. Every time the list vastly deviates from such a discussion
(and usually this is a result of emotional and interpersonal issues stopping the process), it is recommended that the leader intervene.
The process of scapegoating is one of the rare situations where the list manager should definitely intervene. Just as in a therapy group, the intervention should not be authoritative, but reflect the process and encourage the members to discuss what is happening. Scapegoats are destructive to a group and also to a discussion list. If the group or list succeeds in expelling the scapegoat, the question becomes "who will be the next victim"?
8.
Conclusion:
This article is one of a number of early attempts to describe the various phenomena and processes occurring in a discussion list on the Internet, from the point of view of a group therapist. The processes and phenomena of this specific discussion list of professionals, whose aim is the professional exchange of ideas and not therapy, are similar to those found in both task and therapy groups. Many of the dynamics found on the Internet list, such as the lack of definite boundaries or the vulnerability to feeling ignored, resemble a large group. Yet the list maintains the illusion of a small group in terms of cohesion, openness, and a feeling of belonging.
There are many similarities between the dynamics of the list and those found in a small group; for example, the dimensions of cohesion and group norms, and the psychological mechanisms of transference, regression and scapegoating. There are also many differences: There is no clear contract, the list is boundless in terms of time and space, people can enter and leave the list without being noticed, and there is a great deal of extra-list communication.
Left for further exploration is how the list manager's interventions affect the list operation. Many list members have expectations of the list manager that are similar to those expressed towards a group therapist. It is unclear what kind of interventions would change the climate of the list. Also open for further exploration is whether the manager's role is administrative, interpretative or supportive.
Generalizations from this specific Internet discussion list may not apply to other discussion lists with other populations. The population of this list is particularly unique. They are all group therapists who reflexively process their own interactions.
Generalizations to other professionals discussing topics in their field of interest require further study. The most provocative question of whether one can lead a therapy group on the Internet, and whether its results would be similar to groups in reality. The first attempts of research comparing virtual and face-to-face group found statistically nonsignificant improvement in participants’ self-image, social relations, and well-being, with a trend in favor of the virtual group (Barak & Wander-Schwartz,
2000). The reports of the members in the G-P list on the significance of this list in their professional and personal lives provide support for the idea that an Internet

173 therapy group, with the aims of working on personal problems and personal change, while somewhat different than a "real" therapy group, could be useful and effective.
This is a new and challenging field in need of further exploration.
References:
Barak, A., & Wander-Schwartz, M. (2000). Empirical evaluation of brief group therapy conducted in an Internet chat room. The Journal of Virtual Environments
5. Retrieved March 31, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://journal.pennmush.org/v5n1/cherapy3.htm
Corey, G. (1995). Group counseling (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Davidson, B. (1998). The Internet and the large group. Group Analysis, 31, 457-471.
Fehr, S.S. (1999). Introduction to group therapy: A practical guide.
New York: The
Haworth Press.
Holland, N.M. (1995). The Internet regression. Free Associations. Retrieved March 5,
2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/holland.html
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups. Group
Analysis, 30, 439-470.
Janoff, D.S., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (1999). Group supervision meets technology: A model for computer-mediated training at a distance. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, 49, 255-272.
MacKenzie, K.R. (1997). Time managed group psychotherapy: Effective clinical applications.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An intepretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 1, 7-27.
Rippa, B. (2000, August). The group matrix in a global international context. Paper presentated at the 14th International conference of the IAGP, Jerusalem, Israel.
Rutan, S.J., & Stone, W.N. (2000). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy (3nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Suler, J. (1996). Transference among people online. Retrieved March 5, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/transference.html
Suler, J. (1999). Cyberspace as psychological space. Retrieved March 5, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/psychspace.html
Turquet, P. (1975). Threats to identity in the large group. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The large group: Dynamics and therapy (pp. 87-144). London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D.W. (1987). The maturational process and the facilitating environment.
London: Hogarth Press.
Yalom, I.D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New
York: Basic Books.

174

175
Published on Group Analysis 2002, 35(1), 165-183.
This article explores the group dynamics in a discussion list on the Internet. After explaining what the Internet is and its uses, the writer focuses on the special psychological mechanisms that appear on the Internet. A discussion list resembles a large group, and the processes characteristic of the large group are relevant to its study. The transference of the list members towards the moderator and the list as a whole is examined together with the counter transference of the moderator. Some of the dynamics that appear on the list deviate from what usually appear in a large group. Exploring the Unconscious of a discussion list on the Internet helps to understand common hidden norms and values of organizations and communities, especially the community of mental health professionals.
Key words: community, discussion list, group analysis, Internet, Community
Unconscious, large group, transference.
Cyberspace presents new challenges in almost every aspect of living. The
Internet has changed our perception of communication, distance, collaboration, learning, information transmission, and even relationship. Marshal McLuhan's (1964) vision of the global village has become an everyday reality through this new electric worldwide tribe and its grapevine called the Internet. We can communicate immediately with people on the other side of the globe and find out within seconds what is going on far away from us. The concept of "on-line" accurately describes the meaning of this social change: the individual is constantly connected to the wide world.
How To Use The Internet?
The central uses of the Internet are the retrieval and transmission of information on one hand, and communication on the other hand. Communication can be on various levels of acquaintanceship and closeness spanning the range from formal communication to intimate and even romantic ones. People make connections and establish relationships through the Internet. This raises the question of the quality and even reality of these relationships. What does "real relationship" mean? Can a relationship emptied of audio-kinesthetic cues still be considered a real relationship?
The information retrieved on the Internet covers every possible area from everyday life (news, weather forecast), through leisure time (movies, vacations),

176 hobbies (gardening, stamp collecting) and to professional fields (law, medicine, economy, psychology). The information can be retrieved in a passive way - through surfing the web and finding the relevant information on websites, or by a more active way such as participating in chats, newsgroups, discussion lists or forums. These last formats (discussion lists and forums) usually have a discussion moderator. A discussion list consists of a group of people who communicate over the Internet regarding some specific area of common interest. Technically it is activated by sending a request to join the list to the server (which is a bigger computer situated somewhere in the world and permanently connected to the Internet). From the moment of the acceptance and confirmation of this request by the server (usually automatically), the sender is subscribed to the discussion list. This member automatically receives all the letters sent to the list, and each letter he or she sends to the list address is immediately distributed to all the list members. This entire communication goes through email. Some discussion lists are open to everyone interested, while others are restricted to certain populations (e.g. professional groups such as physicians, lawyers, etc.)
A forum is a similar group, but instead of reading and sending letters via email, they are written and read through Internet websites. The difference between the two formats is in how actively people search for information. In discussion lists the information reaches the subscriber automatically, without any effort after signing on.
In a forum, people have to actively surf to the forum website to read the messages.
This website is like a huge message board. This different way of retrieving information definitely affects the level of commitment and feelings of belonging of the participant. In a discussion list the member receives all the email and feels more attached to the list (providing that the member does not delete the messages immediately). In a forum one reads any of the messages according to her/his interest.
The forum feels like a more exposed public area. Throughout this paper I will use the words list and forum interchangeably because of similar processes observed in them.
Both lists and forums are asynchronic means of communication because retrieving email and reading it can be done with no reference to the time of writing. "Chat" is another way of exchanging ideas on the Internet in which communication is synchronic, and the words written by one member appear at the same time on the screens of all the participants in the discussion.
The list owner can moderate the discussion list. Moderating the list means that all email goes initially to the moderator who then decides which email is going to be transferred to the list. The moderator is a kind of gatekeeper controlling the level of discussion and its regularity. Some lists are unmoderated, where all email goes automatically to everyone subscribed. In this case, the list owner can limit her/himself to more administrative functions or can serve other functions as well (see Weinberg,
2001). Discussion lists and forums on the Internet can be more task-oriented or more open and general, just as there are face-to-face task groups and more experiential and open groups. On task-focused forums and lists that are usually for professional aims, people consult with others about issues related to the subject (e.g. software). Usually in these forums/lists they ask practical and matter-of-fact questions answered to the point by experts or people with relevant experience in the subject of the forum. The dynamic processes in these forums are covert. From time to time there might be signs of the existence of deeper processes, e.g. by an angry message of a member who is frustrated with the level of discussion, etc. These forums do not encourage selfdisclosure. Other kinds of forums and discussion lists are more similar to contentprocess or psycho-educational groups where the interpersonal interaction is more

177 significant. The author's personality in these lists seems clearer behind the written sentences, people write about personal events relevant to the list subject, and the group dynamics and their influence on the list are obvious.
This article is primarily based on the processes in the group-psychotherapy
(G-P) discussion list, but also on other forums and lists with some relevance to psychology. Therefore, caution must be used in generalizing these ideas to other lists and other populations. The group-psychotherapy discussion list is asynchronic and unmoderated which is more similar to analytic groups than moderated lists. It includes group therapists from all over the world consulting and exchanging ideas about their work. There are no restrictions about who can be a member of this list and the members vary from students to seniors and group therapy book writers. Theoretically laypersons can join the list too. The writer of this paper manages this list. This discussion list fully integrates the possible uses of the Internet. As a work group it is used to exchange information about group therapy. Members consult each other, share vignettes from their groups, discuss theoretical issues in group therapy, or ask for references. As a process group, members create professional and personal relationships through participating on the list. They respond personally, get closer and know each other more, and build a professional community with strong attachments.
Psychological Processes in Cyberspace:
Those unfamiliar with computers may find it strange to use group analytic thinking to understand Internet phenomena. The computer is perceived as a mechanical, alienating tool, far from clinical practice and theory. They might stereotype Internet users as having either schizoid personality traits or social phobias.
Relationships developing through this media might be thought as "unreal" because they lack the audio-visual dimensions of communication. The idea of doing therapy
(individual or group) on the Internet could be seen as blasphemous. But if we examine the ideal conditions for the traditional psychoanalytic setting we find that the conditions on the Internet suit it well. The psychoanalyst is totally unseen and unheard and only her/his words appear on the screen. These are ideal conditions for the psychoanalyst to become a blank screen and a target for projections.
Projections and transferences are massive mechanisms on the Internet. The absence of cues other than the written text offers many sources for projections. In face-to-face interaction people rely on the combination of textual, visual and auditory cues to interpret the meaning of the speaker's sentences. This is so common that people do not notice how important each of these dimensions is to (what they think is) an exact understanding of the speaker. If we take out the visual component (e.g. in a phone conversation) we still have the voice and its nuances to tell us if the intention was humorous, sad, or sarcastic. The Internet leaves the written word as the only source of interpretation and this leads to many misunderstandings. A lot of word-wars
(called "flaming" on the Internet) start in discussion lists when a comment that was meant to be humorous is conceived as insulting by the reader.
The following is an exchange of letters on the G-P list exemplifying this phenomenon well:
One member writes to another one:
"I have noticed that you use "Hmmmm" a lot and it is confusing to me what it might signify in each instance. I don't know if it is your intention, but to me it comes across as smugness disguising anger, and perhaps detracts from more important aspects of some of your posts." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, Dec 12, 1999)

178
To which the member responds
"In fact, whenever, I type the "hmmmmmmm..." it is to indicate that I am giving further thought to what has been said and need time to put these thoughts into the proper form for this group.
I am actually slightly surprised that you felt my above reply seemed angry because I am not really angry ". (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, Dec 12, 1999)
Yet another responds:
"For what it's worth, my own mental image when you've used "hmmmm", is that of my mother with arms crossed, foot tapping, and staring at me with an accusing glare...
"So the cookie's were here this morning, they're all gone now, but you didn't eat them? Hmmm....."
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list,
13 Dec. 1999)
Projective identification appears on the Internet in times of heated discussion.
When "flaming" starts, they sweep away many members of the forum, driving mature adults into regressive behavior, impulsive reactions and disrespectful sentences. The hostility felt in the list is projected onto the members and they identify with it and become hostile themselves. This process makes it difficult to identify who is the attacker and who is the attacked. The confusion is so strong that in the same letter one can find reflective, wise advice intertwined with insulting remarks. The following two sentences appeared on the same email.
"May I, as politely as I can, suggest that when you have a strong emotional response that you take time and give a little more thought before you respond", together with,
"I thought you either have to be very young and inexperienced or very rude and insulting". (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 7 Mar 2001).
Regression is also often seen in discussion lists. Holland (1995) observed three symptoms of regression on the Internet. The first symptom is primitive aggression that finds its expression in defamation wars and heated debate. Another symptom is sexual harassment such as crude invitations to people about whom one knows no more than their online signatures. The last one is extraordinary generosity (e.g. total strangers will give up hours of their time to send one another research data). The anonymity of the writer and the immediacy of response in e-mail encourage regression.
Are these psychological dynamics typical to cyberspace relevant to group analysis? Could the Internet and its groups (discussion lists, forums and chats) be considered groups similar to face-to-face "real" groups? Weinberg (2001) argued that group dynamics and phenomena such as boundaries, cohesion, transference and scapegoating can be identified in a discussion list. If the list is a group, it can be analyzed like any other group. "Real" psychological groups provide a bounded space, a laboratory for experiencing and experimenting various behaviors. Cyberspace is a space without boundaries. It enables people from different geographical regions to connect, ignoring the physical distance, time gap and cultural discrepancies. It is a true transitional space (Winnicott, 1987) in which people can play, be creative, regress, become aggressive or affectionate, change identities, and learn about themselves.

179
Discussion lists as large groups:
A discussion list can include dozens or even hundreds of members. In principle, the number of members is unlimited. The group psychotherapy discussion list, on which this paper is based, contains around 400 members. The number changes dynamically because a new member can join the list any minute and another one can resign. The boundaries of this group are quite vague. People can come and go almost without notice. With this number of participants the association is of a large group.
Newcomers to the list who are familiar with how large groups work in group analytic symposiums and training, immediately react with astonishment, "this is exactly like a large group".
Foulkes (1975a) differentiated between three types of large groups: problemcentered, experience-centered and therapy-centered. The G-P discussion list may be situated between problem and experience-centered. It has a definite task (to discuss issues in group therapy) but also allows its members to experience how it feels to be a member of such a large group and to reflect on that.
Much has been written about the dynamics of large groups. Schiff and
Glassman (1969) describe some variables found as group size increases. They include an increased tendency to sub-grouping, less opportunity for the individual to speak, dilution of affectionate ties, decreased familiarity with others, skewed participation with more active leaders and very silent members, and a greater threat to the individual. De Mare, Piper and Thompson (1991) argue that large groups are experienced as intimidating, inhibiting, and frustrating. At first it might be difficult for the individual to find a voice and a place. They also indicate that topics that come up in the large group include social and macro-cultural aspects that are part of the human condition, such as illness, death, class, race, politics, etc. In his paper "The
Internet and the large group", Davidson (1998) concludes that the communication processes within a discussion list can be likened to the dynamics of the large group, a developing interface between intrapsychic, interpersonal, political, professional, cultural and societal reflective exploration.
A superficial overview of the discussion list email exchange strengthens the impression of a large group. The multiplicity of voices and themes expressed create a sense of confusion and overwhelming flood. Connecting to cyberspace is often related to a sense of alienation. Conflictual situations and emotional intensity with regressive tendencies may take control of the situation. At first it seems risky to send a message to the net and find one's voice and identity in that crowd. Here are some examples of sentences written by list members exemplifying some of these phenomena:
"I too am impacted when my words seem to vanish into cyberspace, feeling unheard, insignificant, small, etc." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list,
November 14, 1998)
"My lack of degrees [...] causes me to shy away for fear of asking the 'dumb' question. So, I read these threads, learn much, but often feel alone in the group."
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, November 14, 1998)
"I also have felt the impact of the V O I D when there is no response to a particular post of mine. Sometimes I imagine that there is at least one of the lurker members (300+) that is responding in positively though in silence. I am not sure why
I often connect lack of response to negative feelings ...." (Personal communication, G-
P discussion list, March 29, 2001)

180
These vignettes clarify that the difficulty to find a voice, the intimidation by the crowd, the anxiety facing the mass and the confusion produced by so many voices, exist on the list in the same way as is seen in the large group.
Another salient and dangerous feature of large groups is their tendency to use primitive defense mechanisms such as splitting and projective identification, resulting in a paranoid atmosphere, aggressive expressions and the deterioration of communication into meaninglessness. "Since the large group is by its very size frustrating - it generates hate" (De Mare, Piper and Thompson, 1991, p. 18). In some lists this is what happens. In a forum open to the public, discussing psychological issues (psychology forum on IOL - Israel-On-Line) one of the participants started sending volumes of insulting and aggressive messages to the members. The members who were hurt retaliated with counter attacks or with affront. The atmosphere became heated, nobody listened to the other and it seemed as if a dialogue was impossible.
The result was that the forum manager had to close it for some days and reopened it with new and strict rules about approved messages.
Most of the time the G-P discussion list has developed different norms for communicating which show mutual respect. This may have happened because the members on this list are mature mental health professionals that are aware of process and are comfortable with discussing it whenever a problem arises. There are deeper dynamics on the G-P list involved with this avoidance of primitive aggression so typical to the Internet and large group, to be discussed in the section in this paper about the community unconscious. However, this is a clear discrepancy from the phenomena usually seen in a large group.
There are other features that are different between a large group and what is seen on a discussion list on the Internet. The large group makes it difficult to create significant interpersonal relationships between members and develop intimacy among them. Earl Hopper (1997) described the fourth basic assumption of Aggregation/
Massification. When this basic assumption is active, and it is usually intensively active in a large group, there is no room for the individual and no place for the voice of uniqueness. Extrapolating then one should expect only a small amount of selfdisclosure on the list, and only a few responses to any that occurs. Self-disclosure on the Internet is surprising also because the level of safety in the boundless virtual world is supposed to be low since the boundaries of time and space in a discussion group, so typical to a face-to-face analytic group, do not exist. Each member sends posts whenever seems appropriate to him or her, and reads the messages on the list in his or her own time. Members enter the list or leave it all the time and the writer has no idea about who is a member in the list at a specific time, and who else might read the posts in addition to the regular members. So clearly, there are many barriers to feeling the necessary safety for self-disclosure.
Based on the above assumptions, the high level of personal revelation on the list is quite unexpected. The G-P discussion list is perceived as a cohesive community with which many of its members feel deeply involved. The list is meaningful to their professional life and beyond. They create relationships that they see as close and intimate. People share with one another painful events, e.g. death of parents or chronic illness of family members, and receive many comforting responses.
An example of the emotional tone seen on the list is an event when one of the members lost his newborn son. He wrote a very touching letter to the list about it.
Here is a short paragraph from it.

181
" My heart is broken - words can't convey the grief, and I realize only now that the depth of this pain is beyond comprehension. I feel waves of horrible sadness and utter bewilderment. I'm sure that anger will come, though it has not yet shown itself " (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 2 Jul 2000).
A flood of responses followed his email all emotionally sharing their condolences and personal losses.
" Tears are falling as I write this, this 'wet strength' reflecting the passion of your connection to and loss of your newborn son."
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 2 Jul 2000).
" I have not been responding to the many threads that have been happening here - but, your post arrested me. I grieve with you. I cannot imagine a deeper pain than that associated with the loss of a child.
" (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 3 Jul 2000).
It is an important issue to understand how members of this large group manage to ignore its vastness and still feel safe enough to write such personal letters. This will be discussed at length in the section about the unconscious of the list. Observing the discussion in the G-P list and in other forums leads to the conclusion that for each issue discussed (called "thread" on the Internet) there are no more than 10-15 participants intensively writing. This means that a small group gathers around every issue discussed, behaving like a small analytic group ignoring the hundreds of silent observers around them. This observation led Weinberg (2001) to conclude that the discussion list is a large group with an illusion of a small group. It can also be interpreted as if the basic assumption of pairing prevails (Bion, 1959), moving a small subgroup of members to do the work for the whole list. This subgroup might have a feeling of "saving" the list from deteriorating into silence and degenerating.
The discussion list has to deal with the diversity among its members. In the G-P list people come from different geographical locations (around 33 countries) with different cultural backgrounds. They are quite heterogeneous in terms of age, professional experience, and seniority. Their professional experience is based on different psychological schools. As De Mare et al (1991) put it, "the miniculture of the large group emerges as a result of dialogue" (p. 19). In order to build up a dialogue, the list has to agree not only on the discussed subjects but also on the way it deals with differences and overcomes conflicts. On rare occasions the G-P list acts as would be expected from a large group with its paranoid/schizoid features and hostile atmosphere. As strange is it may seem, the conflicts on the G-P list are not about different approaches to group therapy or heated debates about methods of intervention in groups. Instead, the atmosphere can be very tense about personal attitudes, impatient interpersonal exchanges, insulting remarks, etc. Most of the time, the strong conflicts appear when active newcomers join the list, and enter the discussion without paying attention to the well-developed norms. It seems that the large group on the
Internet is intolerant of conspicuous strangers who break the norms and are disrespectful to the history of the group. Actually it tells more about the veterans than about the "intruders". Newcomers can point out group norms that regular group members became used to, or even complacent about. They can often draw silent participants (lurkers in Internet jargon) out of the wood who, finally, feel enough sense of empowerment and solidarity to express their own dissent from the developing or established group norms. So the strong reaction to active newcomers is a kind of defense and scapegoating of those who challenge covert assumptions.

182
Transference and the functions of the list leader:
What are the essential functions of a list leader? Most of the list moderator's interventions are actually administrative. He maintains the list and helps continue its smooth functioning. Foulkes (1975b) lists the administrative function of the conductor as primary and focuses on the very detailed practical things the conductor does to maintain the work of the group. Although this function seems less "psychological" or sophisticated than interpretation, actually this is what builds the holding and safe environment (Winnicott, 1987). In a boundless, new, unsafe and unknown environment such as cyberspace, especially for those inexperienced with technology, this function seems to be the most important characteristic to let the list members feel that someone is taking care of them. Here is a member's reaction to the function of the
G-P list leader:
"It's been my experience over time that Haim doesn't claim the chair of group leader. He seems to operate as moderator, administration wizard, technical aid, encourager, cordial host, etc. but makes very rare "group leader" interventions. My take on it is he is excellent in allowing us to flounder, argue, come and go and grow from this experience in large group with no doors, no hours, no dress code, etc. (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 16 September 1998).
As long as communication flows well there is no need for the list leader to intervene. The administrative function of the conductor seems good enough as long as the list is functioning as a working group (Bion, 1959). When basic assumptions take control and cause the cognitive-collaborative abilities of the members to become damaged, there is a need for different interventions of the conductor. In such times the list enters an accelerated emotional storm that provokes anxiety and aggression.
The following is another reference to the list moderator's function:
" I really like your way of conducting us. I have thought a bit about your way of conducting.
First you set and arrange the setting and you do that out from a competence, interest, time investment and love. Secondly you seem to say "hello and welcome" to everyone and thirdly you take an active part in using the list in your own professional and personal interest. I think it is this combination that makes the list work as a communicative large group. As a large group leader you way of conducting is much more active and much more self presentative. You really conduct, not just facilitate ". (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 18 Jun 2000).
Anzieu (1984) describes two characteristics of large group transference, the frozen silence and the fragmentation of individual transference (multiplicity of transferences without resonance that amplifies fragmentation anxiety). He argues that the collective transference generally appears as negative transference in non-directive large groups (chapter 4, p. 84). Indeed there are forums with periods of silence that make the participant wonder whether the forum still exists. But none of these transferences appear on the G-P list. On the contrary, the flood of messages in heated times can become overwhelming, and the collective transference of the list members towards its leader is more of an idealization. This idealization showed itself clearly when this virtual group became real for a moment. The list existed for one and half years (from 1996) when it was decided that list members attending the AGPA
(American Group Psychotherapy Association) conference in New York would meet there (in February 1997). The list moderator joined this meeting. The excitement and

183 expectations for the meeting were high. Everyone wanted to see the unknown leader of the list. The fact that I came from Israel added elements of fantasy that Americans have about the Israelis and their technological skill. The image projected on the list moderator before he showed himself was of a wise elderly man, both a computer and group expert, a nerd, someone who integrates the technological and psychological worlds and brings some tidings of a non-alienated future. This distorted and exaggerated image had nothing to do with the real act of establishing the list, which was not very heroic, difficult or technologically complicated. It simply seemed that there was a need for group therapists from all over the world to have an arena for exchanging ideas about their profession, and the list provided for this need just in time.
This consistent positive transference is a real discrepancy from the negative, aggressive transference that usually appears towards the conductor in an open large group. This transference has still not subsided after more than 5 years of the existence of the list. On the rare occasions that list members have some criticism against the list moderator's acts, there are always many voices protecting him and mentioning his enormous contribution to the list. Even invitations for more direct criticism from the list members have been answered with humor.
Perhaps the asynchronous nature of the list supports this idealization by allowing the leader to function in a more ideal way. In contrast to the group conductor who might feel under the pressure of time to react, especially when the group is distressed or emotionally flooded, the list manager can take the time to think about alternative reactions and choose the right one without time pressure. In a face-to-face group, when a member is attacking the conductor, criticizing or getting angry, the conductor cannot postpone the reaction for too long. In a discussion list, the manager has time to work through emotions and respond less out of counter transference. The manager can even consult a colleague before responding when it feels too emotionally involved. This process can work only in an asynchronic list and not in a synchronic chat. This advantage of the Internet over a non-virtual group facilitates more ideal interventions of the list leader. The asynchronic discussion enables empathic, accepting and "clean" responses without the overly emotional involvement of the manager. The time differences between receiving email, elaborating and sending a reply enables the "emotional distancing" recommended for the group conductor when emotionally flooded.
Counter Transference:
The group psychotherapy discussion list started with the vision of establishing a transitional space for group therapists from all over the world to meet in cyberspace and exchange ideas about their work. The similarity of the list to a group did not occur to me at the beginning. It took some time to notice how processes that I know from my therapy groups appeared in the discussion list as well. It took me more time to establish a clear view about my role as the list manager. Even if this is a group, it is not a therapy group, so it is not clear whether the manager has the mandate to interpret the process to the list, or to clarify the dynamics behind different members' behavior. Intuitively, and maybe because I was more concerned about building up the list and helping it function, I refrained from interpretations and avoided the exchange of letters outside the list (called backchannel communication).

184
As said before it seems that what the list needed mostly was the administrative function of the manager. I was quite surprised and confused to find out about the idealization that my role attracted. Some writers (Stone and Whitman, 1977; Stone,
1992) describe the need of the group for an idealized self-object, especially in the first stage of dependence. In early stages the members need the conductor as a strong idealized model with whom they can identify and who can protect them. From the point of view of the group leader, idealization is a double-edged sword. On one hand it is very flattering to receive highly positive feedback (and narcissistic group conductors might fall into that trap and believe that this idealization describes them correctly). On the other hand it creates high expectations from the conductor and may feel dangerous because of the potential de-idealization it carries. My way of dealing with the idealization was not to fight it but in the first stage of the list share dilemmas from my practice the same way as everyone else did. The list responded well to this kind of sharing, and the only sign that the members are aware that they were relating to the manager's request for consultation was in the greater number of responses the manager was likely to receive.
The G-P discussion list developed beyond my expectations. The involvement of the members, the warm relationship created, the professional and personal benefits that people gained, and their positive feedback for what they get, all this filled me with pride for my creation. At other times, when strong conflicts arose on the list and signing-off messages increased I felt anxious at the threat of de-idealization and fragmentation, just as I feel the same threat when too many members in my therapy group leave in a short period.
My counter-transference changed along the list development. As the list advanced, the members developed norms of dealing with its diversity, conflicts and volume of messages. The list stabilized at around 400 members with about 10% of its members posting regularly. Interesting group issues, both theoretical and practical, were discussed thoroughly. The list exchanged ideas about co-therapy, competition and gender, larger group phenomena, leaving and joining groups, sub-grouping, transference and projective identification, and many other issues. Almost every day there were emails flying between list members and if there was a short break people started to wonder if their Internet connection was out of order. In this state of affairs the list manager could intervene less, sit back and enjoy the richness of ideas shared on the list. The list became an important part of its members’ professional and personal lives, and mine too. It was like a baby growing up, finding its own way, and making its creator proud of its achievements.
Regular members of the forum started taking definite roles and became more identified with clearer features. Frequent writers created a nuclear subgroup that maintained the flow of letters with a warm climate and private jokes. One could identify the intellectual member, the emotional one, the provocative participant, the peacemaker and the young inexperienced therapist. The different voices and sounds integrated into a harmonious orchestra. It was clear that the group could take care of its own route.
Harwood (1983) claims that as the group develops, the individual is able to substitute his admiration for the group leader to admiration for group ideals. On the
G-P list the members developed admiration for the list ideals, but kept the admiration for the leader along with that. The importance of the list to its members and their identification with its norms shows itself clearly in times of crisis, when there is a

185 threat to the continuous dialogue and mutual understanding. In a time like this a member writes,
" The more time I spend on this listserve, the more I come to realize how much I value it as a part of my work day (reading posts before work, over lunch, during cancellations, after the last person leaves, etc.)".
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 8 Mar 2001).
And another one adds,
" I realize that while I appreciate those well thought out posts that are filled with insight, most of all I am drawn to the caring and respect that many people express, whether supporting someone else or disagreeing with them".
(Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 9 Mar 2001).
As the list developed, more members took leading roles in the process. When newcomers joined the list and introduced themselves, there were always other members (and not only veterans) who greeted them warmly and were interested in their fields of interest. The tradition of meeting face-to-face, once a year, at the conference of the AGPA has continued. Last time in Boston (in 2001) a list member made the arrangements for this meeting, taking all the responsibility upon herself.
These are signs that the list is maturing and does not need the conductor to take so much care. The manager can enjoy watching his creation maturing and becoming a grownup. An alternative interpretation could be that members are competing with the conductor and are involved in a power struggle. This interpretation, although valid at other timing, excludes the possibility of a group in an advanced stage.
Berman and Weinberg (1998) describe the advanced stage in groups and conclude that in this stage transference distortion for the group leader and other group members decreases. There is an increased personal attachment to the group leader, sometimes expressed as concern and sympathy. This ability of members to care for the conductor showed itself on the G-P list in a time of fire and terror in Israel. There were many worried messages about the situation, questions about the danger and expressions of support. By this time I thought that I could make my conductor's role on the list more flexible, based on the assumption that the list was mature enough.
When a list member criticized the Israelis for their attitude towards the Palestinians, I let myself express my anger about his one-sidedness. Many responses followed this letter ranging from siding with one side to expressing empathy with both sides. Here is one of the messages exemplifying how the group in the advanced stage can take care of both the conductor and the member in conflict. Note how the participant writing this vignette is equally addressing the conductor (Haim) and the other member
(D.) involved in the conflict:
" Dear Haim
Thank you very much for your open and direct response about your situation and your reaction to D. When you are clear about what affects you deeply and infuriates you than you take away the possibility for fruitless guessing what is going on. I appreciate the fact that you stand up straight for keeping this list for enriching our professional knowledge, despite the fact that I can imagine you only want to be given a break now. […..] I wish you some rest.
Dear D.
I can empathise with your anger and desperation and not knowing what to do with it. It's an awful place to be in. When I am myself in a position like that, the only thing I can do is to sit silent and only feel for the people, the nation I care for. When I am stuck in anger like you were I tried to find in myself an Arabic, a Jewish, an American or a British part and let those parts talk together. Of course that does not help them but it helps me to get "unstuck" and sometimes it loosens up the fixed position

186
I am in. In your reaction to the list I also felt true care and concern ". (Personal communication,
G-P discussion list, 21 Oct 2000).
Community Unconscious on the List:
Powell (1994) summarizes Foulkes' four levels of group process. The first level has a bearing on the total context in which the group is embedded. On this level the group reflects Society, the community, or the organization in which the group exists. Large groups especially reflect this and the information gained from analyzing large group phenomena to aid understanding society and organizations is invaluable. What can we learn about the community of the people in the helping professions from the Internet as seen in the G-P discussion list then?
What combines these people from different areas around the globe, different therapeutic approaches and different backgrounds? How does a sense of community appear in such a discussion list and what glues the members together? What creates the special matrix of this network? The forum gives an opportunity to analyze what people project onto cyberspace, what are the common values, norms and fantasies of mental health professionals, and to speculate on the needs behind those values. In my view, what make the list a community are some common partly and fully unconscious fantasies.
It seems that the therapist community values self-disclosure. Whenever a list member shares something personal, talks about difficulties, or expresses a problem in life, other members identify, resonate to it, share their own experience and respond emotionally. This is what happens regularly in analytic groups and creates the phenomenon of resonance, but the fact that it happens here in a task-oriented group has to do with the basic values that therapists share about communication. It seems that there is a need for this population to be in touch with their feelings, to focus on awareness and to balance theoretical thinking and intellectualizing with deeper connection. In other task groups such self-disclosure might create embarrassment and uneasiness. People in the therapeutic field, and especially those in the group therapy area, adjust well to this kind of communication. They seem to know well what they expect from their group members, and they have the same expectations for themselves. This also provides a mechanism for identifying with their group members, which is frequently commented on.
Another feature of communication in the therapist community is the importance of empathy. Being empathic is very important, of course, to therapists' work and to group conductors as well. But sometimes it becomes a pillory, forcing mental health professionals to suppress their feelings and to artificially "understand" the other. This might be one of the reasons why the G-P list has suffered fewer
"flaming" than many other Internet lists whose members do not belong to the therapist community, and especially to the group conductor community. In the role of the conductor, a person expects non-judgmental, understanding and accepting responses.
Failure to exhibit these qualities in communication with colleagues is severely criticized. In a group of group therapists one must comply with certain covert expectations about how to behave properly or jeopardize your reputation as a professional. An example of this fear can be seen in a message privately sent to the list moderator by one of the list members, asking him to delete the sender’s last message from the archives because it was too impulsive and she/he fears that colleagues might notice it.

187
Group therapists tend to express their anger less frequently than people in other professions do. If anger is expressed it is quickly felt as potentially destructive and the tendency of the group is to push towards conciliation. On the occasions when the G-P list has become stormy and dense with angry letters exchanged, one mechanism used to move quickly to calmer and more mature discussion is for the angry members to take responsibility for the aggressive behavior and explain it in some psychological term (e.g. projection). Sometimes there has been no time to process the anger in the original post before the next one came psychologically explaining the attack. The deep covert wish of the regular members is to make the list an 'ideal' group. They idealize the list and its leader, praise the process as enormously valuable for their learning and development, refrain from criticizing the forum and do their best to stay in harmonic relationships. The existence of destructive forces is almost totally denied among group therapists on the list, as if no competition or envy exists there. Perhaps there is a need for a place safe from the conflicts, hostility, and aggression that they must often contend with in the groups they conduct. The forum is therefore a kind of refuge after the day of hassles in the role of the conductor.
The denial and avoidance of tensions and conflicts that are normal part of a group and relationships has to do with a difficulty in conflict management and a need for sanitization of difference. There is a lot at stake in group analysts and group therapists being on the net together. Competition and rivalry seem dangerous and destructive to mental health professional (following the history of psychological organizations) so they try to ignore status differences as a way to avoid envious attacks. The Internet magnifies this tendency because on a forum, there is an equal opportunity for senior and less experienced therapists to express an opinion. This rare warm group climate helped building the illusion of safety, but it did not help to develop enough appropriate ways to deal with conflicts when they showed up. When these conflicts appeared lately (March 2001) - they couldn't stop, as if the imp was released from the bottle. This process can be interpreted as the dance of intimacy/distancing. After too much closeness and being warm and intimate - list members needed to distance themselves. Conflict is a perfect way for distancing.
A common fantasy on the G-P list is the illusion of safety. Usually a clear setting and definite boundaries create safety in a group. The contract introduced in the beginning of the group establishes the group rules. The clearer this contract is, the better members know what the boundaries are, inside of which they can move freely.
If the time limits of the group meetings are clearly defined, there is a lot of freedom to regress within those limits, knowing that after the session the member can return to his grown-up functioning. The contract in the G-P list was originally poorly defined.
The basis for the contract on the list is the opening welcome letter automatically sent to the new subscribers. This letter states the aims of the list and mentions some general rules such as not to use the list for commercial purposes.
When I informed the list that I would like to publish a paper based on the processes I identify on the list, a heated debate arose concerning the question of confidentiality and whether the communication on the list is private. Some of the messages related to the unclear contract. Here is one of them:
"I guess one of the main reasons that I bring this to your attention is that it relates to my comments on the purpose of this group. Aside from whether there is merit to focusing on process vs. topical issues, there is no real clarity about whether this will be done (referring to the welcome letter). Perhaps the welcome letter could be more clear about your intent with this list, both regarding the nature of

188 participation (is there a process component?), and the use of the archives. Perhaps you could even set up the subscription process so that a person must read and "agree" to the informed consent document before being subscribed. Also, I think that the confidentiality warning in the welcome notice should have a little more devoted to it." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, 7 Mar 2000).
This discussion made me change and add some sentences in the welcome letter in order to inform the new members about the process component and the question of confidentiality.
As this author (Weinberg, 2001) demonstrated, the G-P discussion list acts as if it is a small group. Considering the fact that anyone can sign up to the list and read the exchange of letters, and that the archives of the list are open to the public, it is surprising how the list members ignore the dangers and are ready to expose themselves. This makes sense in forums where the identity of the participants is disguised, or where there is a culture of play or ambiguity over identities. By choosing a pen name they can feel protected and under this cover they might feel free to tell many secrets from their lives. But on the G-P list people identify themselves by their real names, and many of them are well known in their communities. When threats have been experienced, requests about clarifying who is on the list have been made as if this could be clearly determined. Since anyone can join or leave the list at any time and the archives are public this is clearly impossible. These factors indicate that there is a shared unconscious fantasy that the list is a safe environment with clear and definite boundaries. The need for this denial of the reality and the difference in this dimension between the G-P list and other public forums on the Internet might represent an idealization of group therapists and a desire to show that group therapy has merit and group knowledge can be used to bridge gaps and create dialogue.
Despite the wide variety of professional orientations on G-P land, still something unites them all. Almost all the members share other unspoken values. They all believe in the power of the group. They agree about the value and potency of the group process and its contribution to the individual. Compassion and interest in others, the importance of staying in dialogue, expressing one's voice and making a contribution are other values that are seen within the group discussions. It seems likely that these values reflect the beliefs of group therapists around the world no matter their school of thought
Summary:
Although relatively new, the Internet has created a revolution in information dissemination, communication, commerce, and relationships. Group analysis should be interested in researching the philosophical, sociological and psychological aspects of Cyberspace just as it is interested in exploring any other culture (Le Roy, 1994).
Observing the processes that occur on a discussion list on the Internet reveals common group processes, in particular large group dynamics. The difficulty of finding one's voice, the anxiety facing the mass, the confusion when faced with so many messages, and the danger of a paranoid atmosphere leading to crude aggression are reminiscent of large group phenomena. Still it is not a typical large group. It is possible to form close relationships and warm feelings towards members of this large list and the list as a whole. This ability is facilitated by an illusion of safety, denial of the boundary-less environment, and formation of sub-groupings, creating a small group type experience around particular themes.
This article suggests that there is a community Unconscious in a discussion list on the Internet. This Unconscious can be inferred from the communication on

189 discussion lists and forums. It is built through common partly and fully unconscious fantasies, beliefs, and values that members of these communities share. Group analysis provides tools to analyze this unconscious and learn about these communities in more depth. As an example this article explores the common beliefs of the group psychotherapy discussion list to show the hidden values of the group therapist community. Left for further exploration is whether there is an Internet Unconscious parallel to the Social Unconscious (Hopper, 1996), and how we can learn about the social unconscious from the Internet as a whole. The culture of Cyberspace might seem estranged from everyday "real" life, but psychological understanding of it can contribute to understanding Society and Culture.
References:
Anzieu, D. (1984). The group and the Unconscious, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Berman, A., & Weinberg, H. (1998). 'The Advanced Stage Therapy Group',
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. 48(4): 499-518.
Bion, W.R. (1959). Experiences in groups and other papers, New York: Basic Books.
Davidson, B. (1998). 'The Internet and the large group', Group Analysis, 31(4): 457-
471.
De Mare, P., Piper, R., and Thompson, S. (1991). Koinonia: From hate, through dialogue to culture in the large group, London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H. (1975a). 'Problems of the large group from a group analytic point of view', in L. Kreeger (Ed.), The large group: Dynamics and therapy, pp. 33-56,
London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S.H. (1975b). Group Analytic Psychotherapy, Method and Principles,
London: Gordon & Breach.
Harwood, I.H. (1983). 'The application of self-psychology concepts to group psychotherapy', International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 33(4): 469-487.
Holland, N.M. (1995). 'The Internet Regression', Free Associations, Retrieved March
2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/holland.html
Hopper, E. (1996). The 'Social Unconscious in Clinical Work', Group, 20(1): 7-42.
Hopper, E. (1997). 'Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption', Group analysis, 30: 439-470.
Le Roy, J. (1994). 'Group Analysis and Culture', in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.), The
Psyche and the social world, (pp. 180-201). London: Routledge.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Powell, A. (1994). 'Towards a unifying concept of the group matrix', in D. Brown &
L. Zinkin (eds.) The Psyche and the social world: Developments in Group Analytic
Theory, pp. 11-26, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Schiff, S.B., and Glassman, S.M. (1969). 'Large and small group therapy in a state mental health hospital center'. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 19(2):
150-157.
Stone, W.N. (1992). 'The place of self psychology in group psychotherapy: A status report', International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 42(3): 335-350.
Stone, W.N., and Whitman, R.M. (1977). 'Contributions of the Psychology of the Self to Group Process and Group Therapy', International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,
27(3): 343- 359.
Weinberg, H. (2001). 'Group Process and Group Phenomena on the Internet',
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(3): 361-378.

190
Winnicott, D.W. (1987). The maturational process and the facilitating environment.
London: Hogarth Press.

191

192
Orit Nuttman-Shwartz
Haim Weinberg
34
Published in GROUP Vol. 26(1) pp. 5-15 March 2002.
Abstract
This paper analyses the group therapy and the group work phenomena in Israel as a microcosm of the Israeli society and culture. The article briefly situates its analysis in relation to the structure of Israeli society and its features, identifies the key norms and myths, which express the social unconscious, and discusses some events that mark critical points of change. Drawing on this, the paper describes some examples of the influences of Israeli identity on participants and group-therapists’ behavior, and on current training programs.
Key Words: group therapy, social-cultural myths, Israel, society
3 Authors contributions are equal

193
Some theories of group functioning propose that a group is a microcosm of the environment in which it functions (Hopper, 1985; 1996). Therefore, in order to understand the phenomena of group therapy in Israel, it is necessary to understand the social, cultural, and political context in which these groups operate. It is also necessary to examine the development of group psychotherapy in Israel within the perspective of the emergence and development of Israeli society.
This article correspondingly begins by first describing some of the key features of the practice of group therapy in Israel and connects them with major social cultural and political trends in terms of society-as-a-whole as well as society as a conglomeration of subgroups. It then, secondly, identifies the fundamental norms and myths, which express the social unconscious. Inevitably, we must be highly selective and even personal in our choice of material and perspective. Thirdly, we go on to describe some perhaps unique difficulties in leading groups in Israel and points out special influences of Israeli identity on the group therapists and participants' behavior. The question of the mutual influences of group work on the Israel society is raised in the discussion
The state of Israel was born to create "a national home for the Jewish people," but it was built through battles and struggles. In order to facilitate the immigration of Jews from all over the Diaspora and establish the identity of the Jewish settlement, certain social-cultural myths and narratives were developed. They were based on solidarity from within and faith in Israeli justice in the shadow of war. This meant the creation of a new entity based on a common past, with a united illusionary identity (the Israeli
’Sabra’: the newborn in Israel) (Moore and Bar On, 1996), with no differences of religion or tradition (including denying the Arab minority living in the country), and with a clearly identified outside enemy. In our view this creation prevented the working through of traumas from the Holocaust, immigration, and life-style alterations. The focus on activity, such as the combination of building a new country and going to war, was contradictory to dealing with emotional issues such as mourning the loss of families in the Holocaust and elaborating guilt feelings. Life in the shadow of war also contributed to the difficulty in dealing with these traumas.
This need for a new identity in the midst of existential threat encouraged seclusion and strengthened outside boundaries while blurring inner ones. The Kibbutz and its ideology of equality, where everybody works according to her/his ability and receives from the community according to her/his needs, together with ignoring manners in
Israel, are examples of these processes (irrespective of its actual practices). There was also a felt need to create an illusion of a new society with modern-humanistic social norms, praising the image of the enlightened Israeli ‘Sabra’ warrior (Gretz, 1995) (i.e. distancing from image of Jew as holocaust victim, as nonphysical intellectual).
The six-day war (of 1967) expanded the country’s geographic boundaries, strengthened the illusion of power, and precluded difficult issues from entering the social conscious. The solidarity and unity myth, with its denial of otherness and requirement of being in a state of war, barred the opportunity for developing diversity.

194
A transformation in the myths followed the Yom Kippur War (of 1973). Israel was no longer a country exclusively of omnipotent strong people. The social myths were shattered due to the war’s events; the surprise, the number of fallen and disbelief in the leaders. This undermining led to feelings of weakness, failure, and subgroup diversity that had been previously denied. It enabled the view of Israel as a "normal" country and part of the whole world. The social rupture following this war created a split in the Israeli society, rebellion against the traditional leadership and, perhaps most significant, the dissolution of the social dream. In reaction to this process, and in an effort to maintain the myth of unity and power, the regime became more ideologically right wing. Disagreement and social division increased with the
Lebanon War (1982). Eruption of social differences was not accompanied by acceptance but by a magnification of the differences and a fortification of the boundaries between subgroups (in contrast to the prior rigid boundaries between
Israel and the outside world.) The neighbor became the enemy. The peace process accelerated and increased the fragmentation tendencies and the possibilities for addressing the needs of a multicultural society. However, these trends did not involve the entire population. Some subgroups still wanted to keep the rigid identity of the
Jewish State, fight for its existence and isolate from the world. An extreme expression of this tendency was manifested by the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by an extremist right-wing Israeli.
Israel as a multicultural society
The multicultural Israeli society can be defined according to three main characteristics: 1) Israel is a state of immigrants, 2) there is a lack of segregation between state and religion, and 3) there is a large Arab-Palestinian minority.
Since its inception in 1948 the Jewish State opened its gates to all the world’s Jews.
With the law of return many Jews from the Diaspora immigrated to Israel in the fifties. This means that between the Jewish citizens of Israel (Jews consist of 79% of
Israeli citizens) there are subgroups with substantial cultural and class differences.
The main division is between Ashkenazim (whose origins are from mostly from
European and American countries) and Sephardim (who generally came from Africa and Asia). This general division does not fully describe the diversity of subgroups and their features. For example, an Iraqi Jew is quite different in his way of thinking and attitudes from a Moroccan Jew, even though both are Sephardim.
This multicultural heterogeneity could have led to tolerance and mutual acceptance, but it has not. The Sephardim have many complaints about longstanding discrimination against them. They feel that the Ashkenazim built the model of the
Israeli ‘Sabra’ partially in an attempt to erase the Sephardim’s identity. Their counter- reaction was to reinforce their traditional identity and maintain high community cohesion.
The disintegration and disillusionment processes are expressed not only in the above split but also between religious and secular Jews. Again, the real division is more complicated because among the religious Jews there are many subgroups too. Most of the tension exists between the secular and the extreme religious Jews (Haredim) who do not serve in the army but get many financial benefits from the government. This

195 issue becomes even more complicated because many of the religious Jews (not extreme in the religious area) are identified with a politically extreme right-wing ideology and populate the settlements behind the green line (the border before the
1967 war). Thus religious variation becomes political differentiation as well.
Above all these issues hovers the threat to the existence of the state of Israel and its relationship with the Arabs. For years, the Arab countries were Israel’s main enemy, enhancing the annihilation anxieties and paranoid feelings about Israel facing another holocaust. Each war, recurring in cycles of about a decade, enhanced the self-image of the Israelis as “David against Goliath” or “a small country surrounded by foes.”
Israel has faced terrorist threats for years. This, too, has contributed to shaping its attitude about the Palestinian identity. In more recent times, the Palestinians changed from terrorists, with whom every talk was a threat to the security of the state, to legitimate partners for negotiation. This process engendered upheaval for many
Jewish Israelis, for whom negotiation with the PLO had been taboo. During the last twenty years, peace agreements and settlements were signed with two Arab countries and with the Palestinian Authorities, but the complete longed-for peace is still far away. This is a complex problem. Not only are the Arabs residing outside of Israel major facets in the discord, but the Arab minority within Israel (about 20% of the population) identify with, or as, Palestinians.
In summary, Israel has a traumatic and tumultuous background. The Holocaust and historical memories of persecutions and wars are ever present; it is a multicultural, polarized country, in permanent inner and outer conflict. On-going issues of boundaries, territory, identity, peace and war, marking rigid outside boundaries and blurring inner boundaries all contribute to the zeitgeist. These elements reflect in the large and in the small group contexts.
MacKenzie & Livesley (1983) describe a model of the group developing in stages.
According to their model groups develop from engagement through differentiation to individuation. The process of establishing the young State of Israel and the myths accompanying it fit the engagement stage in the MacKenzie & Livesley (1983) model. In the early days of the state and in order to deal with the many threats from within and without, Israeli society was busy rigidly marking the boundaries between
Israel and its enemies, in addition to building up the myth of Israel as a melting pot that could assimilate all Jews. This myth was intended to blur differences and to create an imaginary solidarity through the illusionary image of the Israeli ‘Sabra’, a model encouraging a singular identity for a diverse population. However, over the years and with the diminution of the external threat, Israeli society started dealing with the relationships within the large Israeli group. Developmentally one can say that the group has begun to move into the “stage of differentiation”. The overriding message was no longer “we are a united people” but “everyone has her/his own way.”
Acknowledging this diversity facilitated personal individuality, expressed in legitimization of different coteries, but undermined the perception of the state as a secure container.

196
The readiness for more self-examination after the Yom Kippur war (1973) can be seen as having elements from the third stage in the group developmental theory of
MacKenzie & Livesley (1983). In this stage of individuation the individual is ready to explore his inner world and recognize his disadvantages and drawbacks. This readiness to collectively question issues that had been previously accepted as selfevident increased, leading to signing peace treatments with Arab countries.
Societies regress and, therefore, become like groups when they are traumatized.
Under these conditions it is appropriate to infer findings from the study of groups to the study of societies. Processes of equivalence, sometimes referred to as "parallel processes" become ubiquitous, or at least especially so.
Bion (1961) described the strong regressive unconscious powers activated in a group and divided them into three Basic Assumptions. With the establishment of the State of
Israel, the operative basic assumption was “fight-flight.” The collective solution was creating a strong authoritative leadership that would help defend against the existential threat and provide the security needs of the people. This assumption had a basis in reality because there was a tangible danger of annihilation. This is the reason that Israelis had difficulties seeing the reality distortions of this assumption. As mentioned before, the six-day war only strengthened the paranoid attitude and prevented self-observation. The illusion of security and the euphoria of power were maintained until the Yom Kippur war. The crack in the safe container following that war split social groups in Israel, strengthened ethnic differences, increased social alienation and violence (Le Roy, 1994), and encouraged a process of “Us and Them” by seeing the “other” as a dangerous enemy (Berman, Berger, & Gutmann, 2000).
The existence of Israel has always been accompanied by events of terror and violence, penetrating the outside envelope of illusive safety. These situations strengthen the basic assumption of dependency, and the yearning for a strong leadership (Nuttman –
Shwartz, Karniel-Lauer, Dassa-Shindler, 1998). There are two opposing mechanisms for dealing with the existential threat. One is the rising of national ideological movements reflecting the fourth basic assumption of “One-ness.” (Turquet, 1974)
Turquet wrote that, in the large group, “the group member is there to be lost in oceanic feelings of unity or, if the oneness is filled, to be a part of a salvationist inclusion.“ (1974, p. 360).
The opposing, the fifth basic assumption of “Me-ness” (Lawrence, 1996) works as well, reflected in selfishness and ignoring community interests. “The individuals who feel that it has become dangerous to rely on any social structure thus emphasize the ‘I’ and do not recognize the value of the group. They feel that their self is of utmost importance and strive to protect it and fortify themselves within it” (Lawrence, 1996).
Hopper (1997) combines those fourth and fifth basic assumptions into one approach.
He argues that the fourth basic assumption in the unconscious life of groups and group-like social systems is actually bi-polar. He refers to Incohesion: Aggregation/
Massification in which systems can be seen to oscillate between these two polarities, i.e. One-ness or massification, and Me-ness or aggregation. This assumption in the unconscious life of social systems and the processes associated with it are especially important in traumatized social systems. When a society has been traumatized, the organizations and groups, including therapeutic groups, within it, manifest the fourth basic assumption (Hopper, 1997). This is perhaps why many features of Israeli social, cultural and political life evince patterns of oscillations between massification and

197 aggregation, without seeming to develop. This is typical of traumatic experience associated with incomplete and inauthentic mourning.
Israeli identity and its influence on participants and group leaders
Understanding group processes in Israel must start with understanding the Israeli identity. The combination of the traumatic background and the small size of the country generate in the overall population, and in group members in particular, strong emotions of cohesion and belonging. It resembles an enmeshed family; when one member catches cold, the other member sneezes. When a soldier is injured, all the population worries about his situation. Some of this is massification as a defense against aggregation in response to traumatic experience (Hopper, 1997). This closeness and cohesiveness creates acquaintances and a sense of closeness among members in the group and between members and leaders. The atmosphere in the group might reflect the belief that “we all served in the same army and know each other.” Within the therapeutic community, this mobility can create multiple-role situations, for example, a leader in a group with a participant who is leading her/him in another group. This incestuous situation with its blurred boundaries makes it difficult to create an adequate container and therapeutic space.
Social events reflected in groups and their effect on boundaries:
The social processes in Israel are strong and affect everyone. It is impossible to stay indifferent when terrorist attacks happen and the bloody scenes appear on the TV. The strong emotions penetrate the therapy group, influencing members and leaders as well. It is difficult to differentiate between the “professional” identity and the attitudes, values and Israeli identity of the leader in these situations. The boundaries of the leading unit are fluid and cannot avoid the penetration of the “there” and “then” into the group (Hopper, 1996).
The difficulty facing a group leader in Israel is exemplified in the following vignette.
In an experiential group of university students meeting once a week for a semester, there were 13 Israelis and one Palestinian. It was a time of everyday fire incidents and regular terrorist acts between Palestinians and Israelis. In one of the sessions the male participant declared that he is going to be away for the next month because of serving in the army reserve. Most of the group members were worried whether he would be in dangerous places. Later the Palestinian said, “I hesitated whether to share it with you. I am afraid of the Jews. When you said that you are going to the army reserve, I thought, are you going to kill my people?” A long silence followed.
Then another member said, “so let me tell you how I feel. I am afraid of you, the
Arabs. My husband is going to the army too, and I am afraid he will be killed.” The leader, who was a Jew, felt it almost impossible to separate his personal reactions from his professional ones.
Difficulty with authority:
Having to continuously face problems of boundaries, territory and existential threat has turned Israelis into local patriots. Loyalty to the country is deep and for years those who immigrated abroad were considered almost traitors. There is also envy of those immigrating. The deep conflict of attraction – repulsion common in the national belonging, expresses itself in boundary testing. This testing is manifest in therapy

198 groups by lateness, absences, acting out and other trials of breaching the setting. The boundary testing and confronting the leader never end; one sees this in the emphasis that Israelis put on independence, individuality, and arrogance. Israelis think,
“Everyone can be a General.” This emphasis on independence can reflect early failure of parenting, and failure of previous generations to be attuned to the needs of the youngsters because they were busy with “establishing the state”.
When Morris Nitsun (author of “The Anti Group”, 1996) led a workshop in Israel in
1997, he told one of the authors that he had never faced a situation where participants in the workshop approached him during the break to tell him how he should lead it.
Israelis are ambivalent towards “famous names,” especially from abroad. On one hand, the guest is perceived with higher status and more knowledge.
On the other hand, the participants try to show her/him that they know better. The persistent struggle against authority probably reflects generations of Jews being at the mercy of other authorities. It is difficult for Israelis to understand that visitors from abroad need more help and guidance than it appears.
The image of the 'Sabra' reflected in the group:
The Israeli ‘Sabra’ is well known for his outside roughness. Against the image of the
Jew from the Diaspora, who was perceived as weak, the Israeli male developed an armor of external strength. The existential struggle amplified the need to look strong.
Thus, the social desirable behavior in Israel suits the ethos of the 'Sabra': to be a strong, modern warrior. Although this model serves well the need for an antithesis to the Jew from the Diaspora, it denies the multi-cultures that exist in Israel. This model strengthens the Ashkenazic elite and disregards the ethnical diversity. In a therapy group two out of ten members were Sephardim. One of them usually feels helpless, sees himself as a loser and always describes only his failures. When he was fired from his job, he asked the group to solve his problem. The other Sepharadic member could not tolerate his helplessness and shouted at him to speak like "a man". The other member's expression of failure and weakness, for him served as a reconstruction of the inferiority he felt in his childhood as a Sepharadic.
This example reflects the social conflict between Sephardim and Ashkenazim that still exists today, and the desire of some Sephardim to adopt the 'Sabra' model.
The 'Sabra' ethos also encourages gender splitting. Attitudes attributed to women such as warmth, support, nurturing, and sensitivity, are unacceptable for the 'Sabra' (the
"fighter" ethos). Small wonder that it is difficult to find men revealing their emotions or showing sensitivity in a group. It requires more than usual therapeutic encouragement to enable them to get in touch with their emotional and inner world.
As we will see later, this process is important also in light of the fact that most of the group therapists in Israel are women.
Another influence of the Israeli history is reflected in the belief that “the whole world is against us.” It became a slogan after the six-day war when many countries condemned Israel and even enforced an embargo. In truth, this belief has deep roots in the persecutions that Jews experienced for centuries. One might say that the Israeli perceives the “other” with some paranoid element, which was justified and contributed to survival at times. This phenomenon reflects itself in the group when members are sure that others talk about them after the group finishes.

199
The multicultural tensions of Israeli existence and its polarities challenge the leader to create an adequate holding environment and containing space. The aggression, violence, obliteration of the other and identifying him as the enemy, work against a culture of understanding, dialogue and therapeutic atmosphere in the group.
The differentiation between group work and group therapy in Israel is ill defined.
There is no requirement in Israel for special group therapy training (Weinberg, 2000) and no registration for group leaders or therapists. Actually, until recently, there were no specific training programs for group therapy. Graduates in psychology, social work, educational counseling and other helping professions learn some group understanding and group intervention in their academic studies. Recent years have seen a significant growth in training programs for group leaders in universities, colleges, seminars for teachers and Private institutes. Postgraduate programs lasting one to two years, and involving actual group leading accompanied with supervision have become available and valued. (See for example Nuttman-Shwartz & Shay,
1998). The information gathered from the Israeli Association of Group Therapy shows that most group leaders are women who represent diverse psychotherapy professions. Most hold a M.A degree and are between the ages 45-55. It seems that group therapists in Israel have a rich personal and professional experience.
British theories, primarily Bion, are dominant in Israeli group training. Leaders primarily learn psychodynamic, experiential, open group styles and modalities. (This is in contrast to task-oriented, time-limited focused groups.) Even the programs that focus more on task groups are increasingly utilizing the psychodynamic approach to groups. Bion’s approach to groups in its Israeli application encouraged the growth of an authoritative, strong leader, possessing perceived omnipotence. This suits the
Israeli myths of leadership based on militaristic authoritative models and the longing for a big father defending against outside threats. In recent years, due to increased openness to the world, training has expanded to include more theoreticians from the
USA and UK such as Yalom and Foulkes. Though quite different, both of them build on a more humanistic approach and encourage dialogue suiting the zeitgeist.
Another interesting aspect of group leaders training in Israel is the preferences for coleading. In most of the training programs, the student begins the experience of coleading as an “apprentice” to a senior leader. The next step is co-leading with another young leader with the same status. After completion of training, leaders continue to prefer co-leadership. It is justified in some of the groups because of the need for combined containment with intensely emotional groups, such as those dealing with trauma, bereavement, terrorism and the holocaust. It seems to reflect more fear than is generally acknowledged and uncertainty about a competence of one leader /therapist/ conductor.
In addition to these training programs, there is a tradition of enrichment for group leaders in seminars, lectures, conferences and workshops. Many are in collaboration between the Israeli Association of Group Psychotherapy and the training institutes.
For example, the subject of the last conference, in 1999, was “Groups in a
Multicultural Society”. Last year (2000) Israel hosted the International Conference of the IAGP (International Association of Group Psychotherapy) in Jerusalem. Over 100

200
Israelis contributed to this conference by leading workshops and lecturing. In conjunction with universal themes, such as envy and generosity in groups, co-leading, developmental stages, there were many subjects related to Israeli society, such as holocaust, conflict and dialogue between social groups, groups for terrorist attack survivors and social identity in the group process.
In the last few years, psychoanalytic institutes and academic schools of psychotherapy started training programs for group therapists. Training in group analysis for senior group leaders is in its initial stages as well. There are numerous signs of deepening group expertise in Israel. Israelis are participating in international conferences, building the unique group psychotherapy website and discussion list on the Internet by an Israeli, one of the authors, and more professional writing about groups in Israel and by Israelis in professional journals. This special issue continues this trend.
Aftermath and future thoughts
The state of Israel was born from the traumatic background of the Holocaust and centuries of persecution. The Israeli Society can be perceived as moving along two parallel axes: the inter-group axis, and the intra-group one. The inter-group axis is enhanced by existential threats stemming from security problems. It is expressed by identifying the enemy outside the country, and distinguishing between Israel and the world. The intra-group axis is facilitated by global trends, giving legitimacy to cultural and ethnical differences. The Israeli group world is influenced by its existence in a multicultural, polarized state, always in internal and external conflict, obsessed with dilemmas of boundaries, territory and identity. We can describe the
Israeli society as a group frozen in pseudo-cohesion due to external threats. The permanent preoccupation with issues of survival prevents a process of differentiation into fuller development.
The Israeli-Jewish poet Saul Tshernichovsky wrote in one of his poems, “The person is patterned after the scope of his homeland”. In the same way, group therapy in
Israeli society reflects attitudes and emotions that are a product of life in Israel along with myths and themes characteristic of the state from its birth. These influences can be observed both in the participants and the group leaders. The leaders strive to balance authority and competent leadership. This is an on-going challenge. Groups in
Israel are mostly short-term, fitting into the Israeli tempo, and focused on “Israeli” areas of problems such as post-trauma, conflicts and dialogue. The group process is characterized in an encounter with a different subgroup culture but with a high sense of cohesion and testing the rules.
This examination of the development of group psychotherapy in Israel within the perspective of the development of Israeli society leaves us with a number of interesting questions concerning whether the group can be an intermediary between the individual and society. Could there be an inverted influence, so that the power of group-knowledge helps the Israeli society become “a normal one” and facilitates dialogue across differences to reduce gaps? Can we use group therapy and group interventions to influence Israeli society? How to develop a model of a multicultural society that can acknowledge differences as a rich resource, rather than a threat and so elaborate forms of group identity and coherence that do not erase, but attentively build up cultural, class, ethnic, religious, and gender. differences?

201
The Israeli group therapist community has expanded its professional boundaries in the last few years through participating in international congresses and activities, and collaborating with colleagues from abroad. Will this trend create a new professional space and facilitate a reduction of the boundary blurring between group leaders and their groups?
After reviewing the portrait of group leaders in Israel some other questions also arise:
Does the profile of the group leaders impact the themes of the groups, or the integration of social issues into group work? For years the image of the rough Israeli
“Sabra” predominated in the behavior of Israelis and had its effect on group participants and leaders. This pattern has softened lately. Will this trend continue, and if it does, what will be the ultimate impact?
References:
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000). The division into Us and Them as a universal social structure, Mind and Human Interaction, 11(1), 53-72.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other papers, London: Tavistock.
Gretz, N. (1995). Captive of a Dream National Myths in Israeli Culture, Tel Aviv,
Israel: Am Oved Publisher Ltd.
Hopper,E. (1985). The problem of the context in group analytic psychotherapy, in M.
Pines (Ed.). Bion and group psychotherapy, (330-353). London : Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Hopper, E. (1996). The Social Unconscious in Clinical Work, Group, 20(1), 7-42.
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption, Group Analysis, 30, 439-470.
Lawrence, Gordon, W., Bain, A., and Gould, L. (1996). The fifth basic assumption,
Free Associations, Vol. 6, No. 37, 28-55.
Le Roy, J. (1994). Group Analysis and Culture, in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.), The
Psyche and the social world, (pp. 180-201). London: Routledge.
MacKenzie, K.R., & Livesley, W.J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R.R. Dies, & K.R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy:
Integrating research and Practice (pp. 101-116). New York: International University
Press.
Moore, Y. & Bar On, D. (1996). Narrative Biography Analysis: Life Story of a second Generation to Holocaust Survivors, Sihot - Dialogue: Israel Journal of
Psychotherapy, Vol. XI (1), 36 – 48.
Nitsun, M. (1996). The Anti Group: destructive forces in the group and their therapeutic potential. London: Routledge.

202
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. & Shay, S. (1998). Transition to Leadership: An Innovative
Program to Prepare Helping Professional to Lead Parents Groups. Social
Work with Groups, Vol. 21(1/2), 117-128.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., Karniel-Lauer E., and Dassa-Shindler, S. (1998). Support
Volunteer Groups for Terrorism Victims - A Social Defense Mechanism,
Paper presented in the 13th International Congress of Group Psychotherapy.
London.
Turquet, P. (1974). Leadership - the individual and the group, In G.S. Gibbard, J.J.
Hartman, & R.D. Mann (Eds.). Analyses of Groups. pp. 87-144, San Francisco &
London: Jossey Bass.
Weinberg H. (2000). Group Psychotherapy and Group Work in Israel - 1998. Copublished simultaneously in S.S. Fehr (ed.) Group Therapy In Independent Practice,
(pp. 43-51). Haworth Press Inc. N.Y., and in the Journal of Psychotherapy in
Independent Practice. , Vol 1 (2), 43-51.

203

204
5
6 7
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace."
Introduction:
Since the year 2000, the Israeli society has passed through many sociopolitical changes affecting inter-relationship between groups in Israel and between
Israel and the world around it. The second half of 2000 shattered the illusion of a peace treatment between Israelis and Palestinians and collapsed the vision of creating a new Middle East. An open and aggressive conflict between the Jewish citizens of
Israel and its Arabic citizens broke out for the first time, following the support of the
Israeli Arabs of their Palestinian brothers. Numerous terror attacks in city centers and main roads in Israel followed the El-Actza Intifada. Anxieties around personal safety and feelings of insecurity arose. The deterioration of the economic situation in Israel had its impact on society too through closing of factories, high unemployment rate, and new poor populations.
This article continues and updates our previous paper about group psychotherapy in Israel, published on the special issue of GROUP about groups in
Israel (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002). We review the developments of group therapy and group leading according to the current situation of the Israeli Society. We connect the social changes with the new directions in training group leaders and group analysts, and with common group interventions and group therapies. We consider these trends as expressions of the social unconscious and as ways of dealing with the new socio-political situation.
For years the vision of the Israeli society has been based on the "redemption myth" and the "return of the Israeli sons to their borders". The state of Israel was born as "a national home for the Jewish people" and was built through battles and struggles since its establishment. The stereotype of the Israeli "Sabra" was created in order to unify a social identity that deals with the differences between people from the
5 Haim Weinberg, M.A. Group leaders training programs in Tel Aviv University and Beit Berl College.
6
Orit Nuttman-Shwartz, M.S.W, Ph.D. CGP; Department of Social Work, Ben-
Gurion University of
the Negev and Sapir College , Israel
7 Authors contributions are equal

205
Diaspora, portrays a heroic character standing against all pressures and contradicting the image of the weak and victimized Jew after the Holocaust (Almog, 1997; Gretz,
1995). It resulted in blurring the identity of the Arab minority living in the country and emphasizing an outside Arab enemy, thus creating a strong experience of 'Us and
Them' (Berman, Berger, and Gutmann, 2000).
The identity of the Israeli State was crystallized as a strong people leaning heavily on its military power and shutting down from a hostile outside world. The
Holocaust had a central part in molding this identity, together with centuries of persecution. Volkan's (1999) term 'chosen trauma' is relevant here. It refers to the shared mental representation of a massive trauma that the group's ancestors suffered.
Chosen trauma describes the collective memory of a disaster. It is an echoing trauma, becoming a paradigm that reassures existential threat, and exists in the national memory. We can say that in Israel every act of terror reconstructs a primary threat to
Jewish survival from the destruction of the second temple, exile from Spain in 1492, the holocaust etc.
The image of the strong heroic but still enlightened Israeli Sabra with humanistic social norms, was enhanced after the six days war (1967). Many Israelis believed that this victory would persuade their enemies of the Israeli strength and would lead to peace. This belief was strongly shattered after the Yom Kippur war
(1973) and later in the Lebanon war (1982). Not only the illusion of power was broken to pieces, but also the belief in strong omnipotent leadership. Expressions of weakness and failure together with more inter and intra-group diversity followed.
Breaking the social dream and massive splitting in the Israeli society created instability and insecurity. A right wing government came into power in order to preserve the myth of unity, but social splitting and disagreement only increased.
Extremists raised their voices daily resulting finally in the murder of Prime Minister
Rabin (1995).
This assassination resembled an earthquake whose consequences are still echoing. It terminated the dream of a peace treatment with the Palestinians, created an immediate threat to security, undermined stability and in the long run fragmented
Israel into subgroups along lines of politics, culture, national identity, religion, country of origin, and economic status.
In the last four years the security situation deteriorated dramatically and the relationship with the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinian became the focus of the public discourse. Existential anxieties and paranoid feelings returned to the center of attention. Concerns about security became prioritized over questions of humanity. The more Israelis tried to defend themselves from threats of terror, the more insensitive to injustice they became. Only lately new voices trying to break through the frozen political status quo and suggest new ideas for peace with the Palestinians are being heard.
In summary, Israel is a traumatized society with the long shadow of the
Holocaust and persecutions, and the near past of ever-present wars and conflicts. It is a multicultural polarized society, conflicted internally and externally, dealing with difficult questions of social and national identity. Issues of territory, identity, security, rigid outside boundaries and blurred inner boundaries contribute to its current situation and are reflected in large and in small groups.

206
Israel as a Regressed Traumatized Large group:
Looking at society as a group and applying group processes to understanding society is too much of an oversimplification unless we talk of a traumatized society.
Societies with traumatic experiences tend to regress with the organizations and groups within it (Hopper, 2003). As described before Israel is traumatized both by its past and by its present, so we should now explain what is a regressed society.
Laplanche and Pontali (1974) define regression as, "a return from a point already reached to an early one" (p.386). Volkan writes (2002), "In general terms, regression in an individual involves a return to some of the psychological expectations, wishes, fears, and associated mental defense mechanisms from an earlier stage of human development" (p. 456). In the same article he also describes
'large group regression' that occurs after a society has faced a massive trauma. It occurs when a majority of people belonging to that society share anxieties, behaviors and thoughts typical of regression, and its purpose is to maintain or repair the shared social identity.
Volkan (p. 458) offers a list of signs of social regression, among them, group members lose their individuality, rally blind around the leader, becomes divided into
"good" & "bad" segments inside society, and creates a sharp "us" & "them" division with "enemy" groups. It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze all these signs as appearing in the Israeli society, but more than half of the signs can be attributed to
Israel with a certain degree of intensity. The items involving the use of massive splitting were described earlier: with regard to outside "enemies", relating to the Arab states as ‘eternal’ enemies (and vice versa) delayed the possibility of serious peace talks for decades. The tendency to perceive the Palestinians as people insensitive to the sacredness of life, especially after suicide bombings, delays the option of any reconciliation nowadays. The same pattern we can also see inside Israel as in-group processes. Regarding inside division, intolerance to differences is one of the worse flaws of the Israeli society. For example, left wing people consider the Jewish settlers who inhabit territories in the West Bank enemies of peace, while people with left wing ideology are named criminals and terrorists' friends by right wing people. The assassination of Prime Minister Rabin only proved where this polarization might lead.
Worth noting is how the public mood in Israel changes dramatically from depression and feelings of helplessness, especially after terror attacks, to euphoria and manic feelings, especially after victories or successful military actions (Hadari, 2002).
This phenomenon fits well with Volkan's description of extensive introjective and projective mechanisms accompanied by massive mood swings. At same time this oscillation is also a coping defense mechanism enabling Israelis to continue living under ongoing existential threats.
Hopper (1997) claims that a regressed traumatized society manifests a behavior stemming from the fourth basic assumption. This assumption is an extension of the original Bion's (1961) three basic assumptions. According to Hopper (1997) the fourth basic assumption is expressed in bi-polar forms of incohesion. When this assumption is activated, groups and group-like social systems oscillate between
Aggregation and Massification. In the aggregative polarity, people feel alienated from one another. Indifference, hostility and withdrawal from relationships are prevalent.
In its extreme form each sub-group is against each sub-group. In the massification polarity, merger with the 'group mother' (Scheidlinger, 1974), denial of differences and an illusion of togetherness and sameness prevails. Undoubtedly Israel swings

207 between periods of hot conflicts between sub-groups (right wing - left wing ideologies, Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews, religious and secular Jews) especially lately, and periods of unquestioned consensus and illusion of united solidarity especially during wartime or terror attacks.
Having suffered from massive and continuous traumas (national & individual), recent research shows that the Israeli society manifests a limited sense of safety and substantial distress. Most Israelis reported adapting to the situation without substantial mental health symptoms and impairment, and most sought various ways of coping with terrorism and its ongoing threats. This may be related to the processes of adaptation and accommodation (Bleich, Gelkopf, & Solomon, 2003) Even though we cannot define the Israeli society as suffering from a clinically PTSD syndrome according to the DSM, it still manifests the never-ending pendulum movement between hyper vigilance and numbing of responsiveness typical of PTSD. Herman
(1992) describes the dialectic of those contrasting mental states as the most typical feature of the post-traumatic symptoms. Intrusive symptoms alternating with emotional anesthesia become the playground of this disorder. This dialectic is clear regarding reactions to terror threats and attacks. Israeli citizens may overreact to threats of suicide bombing, leaving mothers anxious whenever their children go out, or avoiding malls and restaurants. But sometimes the opposite reaction prevails and they seem indifferent to the horrors of terrorism, ignoring dreadful scenes on the TV and continuing their day life as if nothing has happened.
The impact of this emotional pendulum on life in Israel is enormous but subtle. The diminished responsiveness to the external world, known as "psychic numbing", originally built up as a defense against penetration of too painful experiences, can explain the avoidance and encapsulation many Israelis develop in order not to see the consequences of ruling another people for a long period. Some of these consequences are freedom deprivation, restriction of transportation, and acts of humiliation, justified by security considerations. This insensitivity does not stop on the borders and can be seen lately by ignoring social injustice and the huge gaps between rich and poor in Israel itself.
Training programs:
Training for group leaders and group therapists in Israel is offered in two tracks. One possibility is to add some courses about groups during the regular study of a helping profession. Such courses might be offered to people who study psychology, social work, counseling, organizational consulting etc. This track is usually not sufficient for mental health professionals to become experts in group psychotherapy.
The second track is to become group leaders through special training programs suggested by almost any university and college in Israel nowadays. These postgraduate training programs, lasting between a year and two years, include a large range of group interventions and modalities from psycho-educational groups to psychotherapy groups. They usually involve an active leading of a group during the studies accompanied with supervision.
For years the British group theories were the leading ones in training group leaders, especially Bion's theory. Most of the training programs focus on psychodynamic and process groups, more than any other type such as task oriented, short term, or support groups. Even the programs dealing with task oriented groups

208 emphasize the psychodynamic understanding of the group. The Israeli version of
Bion's theory encouraged the development of an authoritarian omnipotent leader. It seems that such a leader suits the Israeli myths of leadership based on authoritarian military models as well as the yearning for a big father protecting from fear of annihilation that is part of the Israeli existence (Davidson-Arad, Stange, Wilson &
Pinhassi, 2002; Nuttman-Shwartz & Shay, 1998).
In the last ten years training for group leading in Israel opened to new theoreticians and influences from the USA and Great Britain, such as Yalom and
Foulkes. Despite the major differences between these theories, they both lean on a more humanistic ideology and on dialogue. The expansion of training and openness to new theories is another sign of multicultural awakening in Israel.
Two events signify the progress of training programs in Israel lately: opening a training program for group leaders in a multicultural society at Beit Berl College, and establishing the Israeli Institute of Group Analysis (IIGA). These developments reflect dealing with social pluralism, diversity, and cultural exclusion on one hand
(the Beit Berl program), but also creating a social-cultural isolated elite on the other hand (the IIGA), just like the two polarities in Israeli society.
The training program for group leaders in a multicultural society deals with the ever-existing civil-social agenda of a multicultural state with many inner and outer conflicts. As microcosms of Israeli society, almost all groups encounter one or more of these inter-cultural issues; so it is important that facilitators be experienced and skilled in handling them. However, while there are groups and courses that deal with specific conflicts (e.g. the Arab-Jewish conflict), until the opening of this program there have been no Israeli training programs for group facilitators that support a broader view of the multicultural society and develop a culture-sensitive group facilitation.
The Israeli Institute of Group Analysis is a private enterprise of senior group therapists that wanted to deepen the knowledge and training of group psychotherapists and to establish group analysis as a leading modality in Israel. After a prior failure to set up a diploma course through the Institute of Group Analysis in London, they opened the course along the guidelines of the European Group Analysis Training
Institutes Network (EGATIN). The institute was established in 2001 and includes 70 members, half of them still in training. Inserting the group analysis modality to Israel shows a need for a softer approach and a wish to belong to the European Union. The group analytic approach suits well the preoccupation of Israelis with social issues, because it has strong social implications (see Dalal, 1998).
An interesting byproduct of spreading the group analytic approach in Israel is the reevaluation of co-leadership as the default option for leading groups. This modality begins in most training programs and is continued as a preference of choice later (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002). It seems justified in some groups that require a lot of containment, such as bereavement, trauma or terror survivors, but not in other groups. Co-leadership reflects the "togetherness"/massification process mentioned earlier as so common in the Israeli experience. Moving to an approach that requires only one conductor, as group analysis does, is a shift towards a need for individualization.
The accelerated development of group psychotherapy in Israel is seen in the variety of study days and conferences in group therapy in Israel, and the amount of

209
Israeli participants and presenters in international conferences (Weinberg, 2000).
Forty Israelis participated in the last Group Analytic Society Symposium in Bologna
(August 2002). About the same amount participated in the IAGP (International
Association of Group Psychotherapy) last congress in Istanbul (August 2003), many of them presenting papers or leading workshops. The need to break out of the country borders and meet with group psychotherapists from abroad is part of the need to breach the social-professional-political isolation. The thirst to connect with experts from abroad manifests itself by inviting guests from abroad to lecture in Israel. For example, in the last half of the year 2003, Jeffrey Kleinberg, Malcolm Pines and Earl
Hopper presented and lectured in Israel.
Another sign of this development is the growing number of papers authored by
Israelis and published in group psychotherapy journals and books. Among them we can indicate the special issue of GROUP about groups in Israel edited by Nuttman-
Shwartz (2002), the book, 'Dreams in Group Psychotherapy' , co-edited by Neri, Pines and the third is Friedman who is an Israeli (2002), and 'The Large Group Revisited:
The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses', co-edited by Schneider & Weinberg
(2003).
Group Work and Therapy groups:
Most of the groups led in Israel (including therapy groups) are similar to those common in the western world. There are groups in psychiatric wards, in-patient and outpatient groups, groups for sexual abused women, for women empowerment, for acquiring social skills, for assertive training, for consulting parents, etc. The frame of reference in most these groups is psychodynamic, especially understanding the group according to Bion's theory. In addition there are groups based on feminist theories, and CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy) groups.
Usually these groups are short-term (the duration of longest can be two years), weekly groups. A group session lasts an hour and a half and they usually take place in public institutions such as welfare agencies, hospitals or governmental services. This short term frame of reference suits the Israeli concept of being "young, fresh and healthy", focusing on immediate consequences, and might even fit the restlessness and need of change typical to PTSD behaviors.
More unique groups in Israel compared to the world are the many group interventions dealing with loss and trauma related to the security situation. This model was developed by the Rehabilitation Department of the Ministry of Defense after the
Yom Kippur war in 1973 due to the many casualties. Because this is one of the prototype group interventions with trauma and loss in Israel we will describe this model in detail. The National Insurance Institute adopted the model offering psychosocial interventions to people injured in terror attacks.
The defined goal of the group is "to prevent and/or change pathological conditions and processes stemming from the loss and bereavement" (Granot, 1978, p.
8). The basic assumption is that the participants in these groups consist mainly of mentally healthy people experiencing difficulties following loss. The difficulties caused by the loss are viewed as normal and normative, and the participants in the group are thus treated as clients of a support service and not as ‘patients’ or as
‘emotionally disturbed’.

210
The group intervention is offered to bereaved parents by the rehabilitation social worker who is working with the family from the first period of bereavement.
The group is a closed one, consisting of 8 to 15 people. The drop out is relatively low and occurs mainly during the first sessions of the group process. Each group is co-led by two mental health professionals receiving supervision, working from a psychodynamic or integrative perspective. The sessions consist of two-hour meetings, held once a week for a period of two years
The groups deal with a variety of issues related to bereavement, including mourning, loss and separation, as well as means of coping and adaptation. They also delve into the couple and family relationship in the aftermath of loss, and into improving the group members occupational and social functioning.
The group model used is of a long-term support group with a therapeutic component aimed at connecting the particular ways in which group members mourned their losses and their unresolved emotional conflicts. The emphasis, however, is on the ” here and now” and not on delving into the past.
The rational for the long-term model lies within the belief that normative bereavement process is long and contains different. In addition, it reflects the intense and long-term commitment of the military system, in the name of the Israeli society, to those who lost their son or daughter during their military service, defending their home and country. The participation in the group is free of charge, as the psychological services to the bereaved families are given by the Ministry of Defense by law (Malkinson & Witztum, 2000).
Since the year 2000, about thousand Israelis were killed in terror attacks and about the same number were wounded or impacted by being close to the event. In addition to debriefing groups held immediately after the attack in hospitals, community centers and working places, there is a huge amount of group intervention for population suffering from trauma due to "national background". These unique groups strengthen the Israeli identity but might distance the parents/injured from reintegration in the "healthy" society and leave the traumatized families as living memorials for Israeli traumas (Malkinson & Witztum, 2000; Volkan, 1988).
Other unique groups in Israel are conflict and dialogue groups. Their basic assumption is that the Israeli society includes subgroups with different and contrasting worldviews. An authentic dialogue between social groups based on the true acceptance of the other is crucial to the healthy development of society and its resilience. These groups are primarily arranged by volunteer organizations that focus on the development of modes and methods for dialogue enhancement in conflict situations and encouraging communication processes in community and national level. They deal with splits between Israelis and Arabs, religious and secular people, left wing and right wing political views, and people from different ethnic groups.
Discussion:
The State of Israel was established with the background of the holocaust and a history of persecution, and is still dealing with an existential threat. The world of groups in Israel is influenced by the social atmosphere and unconscious, coping with the price of living in the shadow of war and terror and with multi-cultural dilemmas.
Israel seems to be in an everlasting inner and outer conflict, preoccupied with questions of territory, borders and in-group and inter-group identity.

211
Does all the above has its impact on group therapy in Israel, and how? Do
Israeli group therapists and members have the same group space as their colleagues abroad? Is it possible to stay in the "here and now" in the group when life events are so powerful and ever-penetrate the group skin and boundaries? Is it possible in the
Israeli reality to recognize the metaphoric and symbolic value of group interactions and contents or maybe life events are too powerful and emotional laden so that they cannot be uses symbolically in the group? These are some of the dilemmas that an
Israeli group leader faces.
In addition Israeli group leaders are in the same boat with their group members and have difficulty keeping the appropriate distance from the group. When terror attack occurs, the anxiety is overwhelming for everybody. When conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis evoke in a dialogue group, the leader is either an
Israeli or Palestinian, is deeply involved in this conflict and has an opinion of his/her own about it. When dealing with post trauma issues there is a high chance that the group leader personally knows someone who has a traumatic background. It is hard to keep neutrality in a conflicted situation. In addition "all Israelis are friend" and the boundaries between leaders and participants blur because people feel like in a small country where everyone knows everybody.
The Israeli society experiences the dialectics between the yearning to be "a people like all the other peoples", and being a "chosen people". This permanent move between the edges manifests itself in myths and historical events. They shape the regressive way of coping with the current situation, impacting training programs, therapy groups and the functioning of group leaders.
The description of the Israeli society arouses the question whether something can change or are we doomed to an everlasting reconstruction of the social traumatic and conflictual situation in the small and large group. Can the knowledge acquired and accumulated in groups help creating a healthy and more normal society, enhancing dialogue and diminishing gaps? Can we make use of group interventions to influence and change society? As mentioned above, the new training programs and the development of the Foulksian approach bring a new climate and some hope for integration between the individual, community and culture. Time will tell whether group leaders and therapists might become social change agents to deliver the message of Israel as all the other peoples.
This chapter clearly intertwines political and social issues with professional and group activity. It might not sound like a detached academic article about group intervention in Israel, but it reflects well the fact that in Israel social issues and therapy groups are inseparable.
References:
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000). The division into Us and Them as a universal social structure, Mind and Human Interaction, 11(1), 53-72.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other papers, London: Tavistock.

212
Bleich, A., Gelkopf, M. & Solomon, Z. (2003). Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental health symptoms, and coping behaviors among a nationally representative sample in Israel. JAMA 290, 612-620.
Dalal, F. (1998). Taking the Group Seriously: Towards a Post-Foulkesian Group
Analytic Theory. London: Jessica Kingsley Pub.
Davidson-Arad, Stange, D., Wilson, M., & Pinhassi, B. (2002) Four Chapters in the
Life of a Student Experiential Group - A Model of Facilitation, Group, 26(1), 81-94.
Granot, T. (1978). Loss: Its effects and the coping. Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defense
(Hebrew).
Gretz, N. (1995). Captive of a Dream National Myths in Israeli Culture, Tel Aviv,
Israel: Am Oved Publisher Ltd. (In Hebrew).
Almog, O. (1997). The Sabra – Profile, Tel Aviv, Israel: Afikim Library, Am Oved
Publisher Ltd. (In Hebrew).
Hadari, Y. (2002). Messiah riding on a tank: Israeli public thinking between Sinai
War to Yom Kippur War :1955-1975 . Jerusalem, Shalom Hartman Institute
(In Hebrew).
Herman, L.J. (1992). Trauma & Recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption, Group Analysis, 30, 439-470.
Hopper, E. (2003). The social unconscious: selected papers. London: Jessica Kingsley
Pub.
Laplanche, J. and Pontalis, J.B. (1974). The language of Psychoanalysis. Norton &
Company.
Malkinson, R.& Witztum, E.(2000).Collective bereavement and commemoration: cultural aspects of collective myth and the creation of national identity in Israel. In R.
Malkinson, S.S. Runin, & E. Witztum (Eds.). Traumatic and nontraumatic loss and bereavement: clinical theory and practice (pp 295-320). Madison: Psychological Press
Neri, C., Pines, M. & Friedman, R. (Eds.). (2002) Dreams in Group Psychotherapy.
London, NY: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. (Ed.) (2002). Special Issue: Group Psychotherapy in Israel.
Group, 26(1).
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. & Shay, S. (1998). "Transition to Leadership: An Innovative
Program to Prepare Helping Professional to Lead Parents Groups". Social Work with
Groups, 21(1/2), 117-128.

213
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., & Weinberg, H. (2002). Group Therapy in Israel. Group, 26(1) pp. 5-15.
Scheidlinger, S. (1974). On the concept of the "mother-group". International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 24, 417-428.
Schneider S. & Weinberg H. (Eds.) (2003). The Large Group Revisited: The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Volkan, V.D. (1988). The Need to Have Enemies and Allies. London: Jason
Volkan, V. (1999). 'Psychoanalysis and diplomacy: Part I. Individual and large group identity'. Journal-of-Applied-Psychoanalytic-Studies. 1, 29-55.
Volkan, V. (2002) September 11 and societal regression. Group Analysis, 35(4), 456-
483.
Weinberg H. (2000). Group Psychotherapy and Group Work in Israel - 1998. Copublished simultaneously in S.S. Fehr (Ed.) Group Therapy In Independent Practice,
(pp. 43-51). Haworth Press Inc. N.Y., and in the Journal of Psychotherapy in
Independent Practice. , Vol 1 (2), 43-51.

214

215
8
From: Schneider, S. & Weinberg, H. (eds.) (2003) The large group revisited: The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses (pp. 13-26). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Historical Background
The impetus for this book arose out of the burgeoning interest in recent years in the large group. In the early 1970s, studying about the large group became part of the educational curriculum in some training programs in group analysis. But it was only in 1972, that the Institute of Group Analysis and the Group Analytic Society (London) formally included the large group experience as an experiential part of their conferences. Many international and local group conferences ( e.g. those run by the
American Group Psychotherapy Association, the International Group Psychotherapy
Association, the Eastern Group Psychotherapy Association, Israel Group
Psychotherapy Association, and others) followed suite and now include the large group experience as part of their programs. In addition, therapeutic communities and psychiatric facilities make use of the large group in unit and ward meetings. A collection of papers on the large group (Kreeger, 1975) and a special issue of the journal Group, appeared in order to provide needed understanding on large group processes, however, what is still lacking, is a clear exposition and description of the theoretical, technical and practical aspects of technique with regard to the large group.
This book attempts to fill that vacuum.
What we should be noting now is the date or period of time that large groups have been in vogue, but we find it is very difficult to pinpoint a time period when group psychotherapists began to focus on the dynamics and theoretical underpinnings of the large group.
We could look at Le Bon's (1896) classic work on The Crowd, as a philosophical beginning in studying the psychology of large numbers of people who come together.
Or, as Le Bon subtitled his work: 'A Study of the Popular Mind.' Le Bon felt that the individual who joins a crowd subjugates one's individual self, unique personality traits and moral values in order to be part of a large amorphous whole and this releases the
'wild' part of one's personality. The individual in the crowd operates on a lower ethical and personality level, losing individuality and revealing 'quasi-psychopathic leanings' with weaker superego functions and with reduced feelings of guilt and anxiety. The reason for the behavioral change is due to the fact that the crowd gives to the individual a feeling of power while at the same time diffusing power and responsibility which paradoxically transforms the individual from being part of a crowd to an anonymous individual within the crowd. The crowd has tremendous power over the individual and has a contagion effect. We only have to look at
8 © Copyright reserved. Please do not copy or distribute this paper.

216 political and sporting events around the world in order to be able to see the effects of a crowd.
Or, possibly we should look to Bion's (1961) book, Experiences in Groups, as a starting point since this work serves as a basic guideline for Tavistock, A.K.Rice
Group Relations Conferences and the Leicester Conferences; Bion having led groups at Tavistock and Rice was one of his group members (cf. Rioch, 1981). As an aside, it's important to note that Rice (1965) viewed the large group in leader-centered terms, and even called his text: Learning for Leadership. While this is not exactly what we have in mind with regard to large group dynamics, we can nonetheless see how influential large group theory can be with regard to practical applications.
The concept of the large group was applied in another direction by Main (1946), who began to view the therapeutic institution, in this case the psychiatric hospital, as a large therapeutic group. Main's experience came from the Second Northfield
Experiment where a cadre of pioneering intellectuals advanced the idea of a therapeutic community and therapeutic milieu (Harrison, 2000). However, the real pioneer in advancing the concept of the large group to the sphere of therapeutic communities, was Maxwell Jones (1953). For the first time, psychiatry became cognizant of the importance of social factors in treating larger numbers of patients
(Schneider, 1978).
From a theoretical vantage point, Marshall Edelson (1970) was instrumental in applying large group theory and principles in understanding how socio-therapy can deal with inter- and intra-group tensions. While he viewed therapeutic community meetings as task-oriented (shades of Bion's concepts), Foulkes (1964, 1975) utilized group analytic principles with larger groups that were not necessarily task-oriented.
With this as a backdrop, de Maré (1972, 1985, 1989, 1991) entered the fray. de Maré coined the phrase: the larger group, to refer to groups that had numbers above the usual and traditional amount. For the first time we had a theoretical framework that distinguished between: small groups, 'regular' groups, median groups and large groups. de Maré feels that "the capacity for change in the large group is immense"
(Whiteley & Gordon, 1979, p.128). We now began to appreciate the importance of larger groups both as a capacity for change as well as for understanding culture and society.
In 1975, Kreeger edited a volume entitled The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy.
For the first time, a collection of papers centering around the theme of the large group, attempted to quantify and qualify the concept. Some of the original papers
(i.e.by: Foulkes, Main, Turquet, de Maré, Hopper & Weyman, and Pines) have become classics. This book comes to the fore over twenty five years later, and shows how large group theory has evolved and helps explain culture, institutions, organizations and…even individuals. We have experts, clinicians and theoreticians, from seven countries (Austria, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States) who, in fourteen papers, guide us through the intricate web of large group theory and practice.
Definition of Terms

217
We now need to define our terms. What should be the size of a group, and what constitutes a large group? As de Maré (1972) writes: "The problem for the member of the small group is how to feel spontaneously…whereas for the large group it is primarily how to think" (p.106). Small groups optimally have between 7-12 members, with some theoreticians allowing for up to 15. Gosling (1981) even writes about very small groups of 5 members. The median group, as defined by de Maré et al (1991), notes "…that the figure of 18-20 members appears to be the appropriate size for…median groups" (p.16). Others (Storck, 2002) note the more accepted standard of 15-30. In order to obviate the need for a precise categorization, de Maré's terms: "the larger group" (1991, p.15) and "the larger-sized-group approach" (1990, p.115), counts 20 and upwards. We generally count large group membership as anything above 30-35. Turquet (1975) addresses himself to large groups of 40-80
(p.87). However, large groups can include many hundreds of participants or even more if we include societal groups: ethnic, cultural, political etc. (Volkan, 2001).
Not only do numbers change the physical characteristics of a group, but the dynamics and character of the group also changes with the numbers of group members. As
Turquet (1975) notes: "…with such numbers the group can no longer be face to face"
(p.88). This, in effect, categorizes the dynamic understanding of the large group: such large numbers do not allow for intimacy but rather can engender feelings of difference and alienation. This raises a technical issue that has psychological importance: how to plan the seating arrangements. Having only one large circle doesn't enable the conductor/s to recognize those sitting at the other end of a large room. It creates a feeling of a large cavernous body without the ability to contain; metaphorically a womb that is unable to be fertile. What has proven to be more efficacious (although, not without drawbacks) are "three to five concentric circles" (Turquet, 1975, p.88) that enable group participants to be closer to one another. However, this gives rise to a situation whereby some participants are facing the backs of others and this can foster paranoid thoughts, as well as a dizzy, convoluted feeling. Add to this the common practice that more seasoned veterans of large group experiences usually sit within the 'inner' circle and/or close to the conductor/s, and we de facto awaken feelings of superiority and inferiority.
Purpose
What is the purpose of the large group? This can be viewed as a 'trick' question because large groups as societal, educational and political structures exist anyhow.
But we do artificially create large group settings in order for participants to learn experiential what actually are large group processes. In general the consensus holds that large group experiences are not, in of themselves, psychotherapy. A notable exception is Springmann (1975), who discusses the large ward meeting on a psychiatric ward. Today, we would more refer to this type of 'psychotherapy ' as a large therapeutic community, and not psychotherapy proper.
We utilize the large group experience as a laboratory in which to study large group processes, both conscious and unconscious, as a way of understanding their impact and influence upon social, organizational and systemic thinking, feelings and actions.
The large group is not capable of dealing with the specific feelings and pains of the individual and, often times, can intensify feelings of aloneness. It cannot function as

218 a form or type of psychotherapy, although, in some participants, there can be engendered feelings of containment. The large group is, however, an important tool in understanding social interactive processes and interrelationships within society. As de Maré writes: " The large group…offers us a context and a possible tool for exploring the interface between the polarised and split areas of psychotherapy and sociotherapy. This is the area of the inter-group and of the transdisciplinary…"
(1975, p.146).
Foulkes (1964) delineated multiple dimensions that operate within the group. He wrote that we could discern four levels "from surface to deeper and hidden aspects"
(p.114). The last level, "the primordial level" (p.115), corresponds to the deepest unconscious level of Freud and the collective unconscious level of Jung. Powell
(1994, p. 16) wonders ("wishful thinking") how Foulkes attributed primordial images to Freud. In Foulkes' own words: "…it is always the transpersonal network which is sensitized and gives utterance, or responds. In this sense we can postulate the existence of a group 'mind'…" (1964, p.118). We can see from the spiralic transvergencies that occur within the large group the parallelisms that occur within the social interactional environment known as the societal microcosm. The large group reflects not only what is occurring in the here-and-now, but also relates on a transferential level what is occurring in the organization, conference, political climate etc.
The participant in the large group learns how to be a good 'citizen' in the group and/or society. As de Maré notes: "…large groups are tilted towards socio-cultural awareness. Citizenship is only adequately observable in a larger setting…"(1991, p.11). As a citizen one learns how to influence others and also how impotent we all may be. The large group participant develops connections and feelings of belonging to society -- the large whole -- and not to a specific sub-group. This enables participants to take a more active role (emotionally if not actually physically) and allows one "to be able to take in other people's points of view" (James, 1994, p.60).
This is "important to the development of citizenship" (James, 1994, p. 60).
The large group helps in role differentiation and integration in the developing of both an individual as well as group identity. These identities can include: gender, political, religious, ethnic etc. While these individual identity traits emerge, they are always in the context of the large group: as comparison, to accentuate difference or to imitate.
The large group is an ideal venue for investigating issues of leadership and authority.
The Tavistock Conferences explore these issues with clearly defined boundaries which is often perceived as engendering feelings of alienation and loneliness. In organizational consultation, the large group is also used in order to explore conflicts and tensions within organizational structures. As de Maré (1991) writes: "…large groups provide a setting in which we can explore our social myths (the social unconscious) and where we can begin to bridge the gap between ourselves and our socio-cultural environment…" (p.10).
The large group participant is the 'individual' within the 'crowd.' This is, generally, an uncomfortable feeling. The individual feels like a cog in a wheel, losing part of his individuality and being pulled by regressive large group dynamics. One feels in limbo between conscious and unconscious dynamics with the collective unconscious

219 adding its weight to the regressive phenomena. And there is a regressive pull in the area of separation-individuation, between self and other. On one hand there is the need to belong and feel part of and contained, and on the other hand, an opposing pull towards separation and individuation. It's very hard to maintain one's sense of self against the onslaught of large group/crowd dynamics.
Dynamic Processes
The dynamic processes, specifically the projective processes, are different in the large group than we find in other smaller group constellations. The large group awakens feelings of anxiety much sooner than we find in smaller groups. This is probably due to the weaker container function of the large group, fluidity of boundaries, and the seemingly chaotic structure which awakens regressed, primary anxiety formations of feelings of fragmentation, disintegration and loss of reality. "In a Large Group the single member feels threatened and isolated and a sense of helplessness in the face of chaos is dominant" (Ricciardi von Platen, 1996, p. 486). Group participants try to find order and make sense of the chaos so as not to feel lost, alone, isolated and possibly have "a fear of breakdown" (Winnicott, 1974, p.87) and disappear. They feel "a threat of annihilation
…a very real primitive anxiety" (Winnicott, 1956, p.303). Or, as
Kohut described it, disintegration anxiety: "The core of disintegration anxiety is the anticipation of the breakup of the self…" (1977, p.104). Some large group participants sense the increasing anxiety and align themselves to sit next to a known person or sit within a sub-group structure which may divide according to nationality, religion, gender, socio-economic divisions etc. And then there is the individual who protects the self by staying a "singleton" (Turquet, 1975), the one who is alone within the crowd.
It is not easy to talk in the large group. There are some participants who feel that if they talk even only once, they have broken the ice and achieved something major.
This risking of self may also enable them to try again. And there are others who are silent for the entire large group experience, because the anxieties associated with attempting to talk and then to deal with whether what was said was accepted, or will be mocked etc., is too much too handle.
Another important 'technical' factor that has importance for the large group experience is the ability to hear what is being said. We refer to hearing in both the literal sense of sensory auditory input as well as auditory perception. While the former relates more to the physical plant and acoustical structure, the latter refers to the emotional auditory perception. We often hear in large groups the difficulty participants have with 'hearing;' obviously an important part of the large group process. Both aspects, the physical and emotional, need to be contended with by conductors of large groups.
An interesting phenomenon that occurs in the large group experience that is spread over several sessions, is that the group participants in the first or earlier sessions complain that they cannot 'hear.' Miraculously after this initial auditory 'blockage,' group members now hear and recall what they didn't hear earlier on. We clearly see how emotions, especially anxiety, can block even abstract thinking processes and regress participants to a more concrete mode of understanding (Schneider, 1987).
This move from flexible feeling and thinking to a more inflexible mode is an expectable part of the psychodynamic process in large groups.

220
Feelings of alienation are most prominent in the individual who is now part of a crowd, or large group. This is because in the large group there is a feeling of being alone among a large mass of people, not connected to anyone, feeling very alone and isolated. The fact that important visual and other perceptual cues are either absent or lost in the crowd, do not allow the individual to gauge the body language of the other.
The intersubjective experience is missing. For those who are used to more fulfilling experiences in smaller group situations, the large group is an initially jolting experience. The expectation of containment, warmth and acceptance is experienced differently in the large group. Sometimes the 'wandering participant' phenomenon occurs. This is where a large group participant feels alone and without any grounding and moves to another part of the large group in order to try and receive warmth and holding from others. This wandering often brings with it an opposite response from that expected. Often times the participants who now feel intruded upon react with angry and rejection. Instead of acceptance, holding and empathy, the 'wandering participant' feels even more isolated and alienated.
Individual identity undergoes a type of transformation. Those who are strongly identified with their own self, are able to accept the roller coaster effect that the large group has on their individual identity. However, there are those who feel lost when exposed to a large group experience. The individual feels that basic coping skills are deficient and is not able to separate one's own self from the others in the large group.
One feels a regressive pull towards joining and merger and now seeks out the other in order to form an identity. This blurring of identity and boundaries is a distinct possibility in the large group. In order to re-assert control over one's own identity, there is the possibility of acting out in order to create a strong statement of 'here I am.'
This can be expressed in a verbal manner whereby the participant blurts out something to the large group that is not in line with what would normally be expected.
However, this 'statement' is necessary in order for the group participant to assert one's identity.
At times the group participant feels the unconscious need to assert oneself and defend
'the flag.' When one feels attacked and identity is shaky, the counter-phobic reaction is to over-extend and bend-over backwards in order to reinforce and strengthen one's identity. This arises out of a fear of losing one's identity.
Main (1975), in a pioneering paper, discusses projective processes and reality testing in the large group. Main tries to explain why the participant in the large group often times may have the feeling of unreality -- a type of divorcement from reality. This is not a psychotic split but rather a protective mechanism to allow the participant the ability to 'float' above what is going on in order to eventually find a comfortable level of containment and functioning. As Main (1975) writes: "In malignant projective identification…with the ego impoverished by loss of a major part of the self, realitytesting becomes defective" (p.63). If one projects into another, there is something missing in oneself -- this is the feeling of unreality: "…many individuals because of projective loss now become 'not themselves'"(p.69). This feeling of unreality mixes with feelings of "depersonalization and personality invasion…accompanied by bizarre object-relations…" (Main, 1975, p.64).
Due to the frustration that may arise in the large group participant, anger and hate may erupt in potentially uncontrollable ways. de Maré describes this as a necessity in

221 understanding and accepting the importance of the "larger-sized-group approach"
(1990, p.115). One needs to have "an appreciation of the significant relationship of hate as the driving power of mind and mental energy" (de Maré , 2002, p.205). We see polarization of feelings and affects in the large group: splitting, extremism, prejudice, and stereotypical thoughts, feelings and behaviors in the large group. A knowledge and awareness of projective processes, can help the conductor/s be better able to understand the group process and judiciously know when, and when not to, intervene.
Outline of the Book
We have divided the book into two main sections: 'The Large Group: Theory and
Technique' which contains 7 chapters and 'The Large Group: Application in Society' which contains 6 chapters. The book ends with an Epilogue.
The first section of our book opens with an interesting contribution from Lamis Jarrar
(USA). Jarrar who leads workshops in the Tavistock and A.K. Rice traditions writes from the perspective of a consultant, clinician and trainer, who is attempting to analyze the large group unconscious. Equally adept at Object relations and Kleinian theory, Jarrar looks at how polarizations need to, and can be, bridged in order to reach the 'other,' while taking into account the consultant's biases and prejudices.
Large group participants and the conductor's identities interact with each other, as the large group venue enables transforming and transformative dialogues to take place.
Malcolm Pines (UK) gives a comprehensive description of the history of the large group and its various appearances in different cultures, starting with Trigant Burrow's pioneering yet forgotten research in America in the second decade of the twentieth century. Pines' rich experience with groups around the world allows him to recount the story of the large group in countries such as France, Argentina and South Africa.
Pines has been a pioneer in the study of group process in general and large group process in particular, especially in the context of transcultural understanding.
Earl Hopper (UK) outlines several propositions about aggression in the large group leaning on his fourth basic assumption of 'Incohesion: Aggregation/ Massification'.
He starts with the intriguing idea that not all social systems are groups, specifies the targets, functions and forms of aggressive feelings in the large group, and explains assassination, character assassination and scapegoating.in the light of the fourth basic assumption. A true trailblazer in the theoretical and philosophical understanding of group process, Hopper's developing the fourth basic assumption took great courage and put himself on the firing line against many old-time hardliners who were resistant to new understandings and interpretations. This chapter also includes some of his ideas about leaders and their vulnerabilities.
In recent years we have witnessed a proliferation of studies on the dynamic unconscious and intersubjectivity operating in all psychotherapeutic encounters. In the large group the potential for strong underlying unconscious processes is greater than in any other therapeutic context. Stanley Schneider (Israel) looks at the mystical and spiritual dimensions of the large group experience. His chapter also looks at
Kabbalistic and Buddhistic understandings of mystical awareness and unconscious communication.

222
Chaos and order are themes that predominate in the large group experience. In attempting to inject some order into understanding the large group, Gerhard Wilke
(UK) points out that although group analysts, following Foulkes, understood how the group matrix could have a healing power, widening and deepening the communication between its members, they failed to transfer this optimistic attitude from the small into the large group setting. He analyzes three generations of group therapists starting from Bion and Foulkes, and concludes that we now have the chance to integrate the work of the 'grandparents' and the 'parents' into preventative and curative models in large group work.
No study on large group processes could be complete without a theoretical understanding of Bion's contributions, and Robert Lipgar (USA) who has recently produced two books on Bion and group process, does justice to the task. Lipgar, building on Bion, describes his own experience with starting a large group in the
Manteno Mental Health Hospital in Illinois, USA, in the early 1960's. It is interesting to follow the difficulties he encountered by starting a large group experience on the psychiatric ward. His persistence and consistency, in a true Bionic tradition, were the main reasons why this adventure had positive outcomes. Lipgar summarizes aspects of Bion's thinking that influenced his work and concludes that "large group meetings work best when leadership is able to bring to the meeting a clear understanding of the distinctive purpose of the gathering".
Projective processes are the 'bread-and-butter' of large groups. Joseph Berke (UK) has worked with Maxwell Jones and R.D. Laing and has learned through these associations how malignant projective processes can be crucial in developing therapeutic community programs. Berke, one of the founders of the Arbours programs in London, a pioneer program in the containment and treatment of persons in emotional distress, describes the power of projective processes in the large group.
Berke's mixture of clinical, theoretical and anecdotal material makes for an interesting read from a gifted theoretician and clinician.
Otto Kernberg (USA) opens our second section of the book with a comprehensive paper on social sanctioned violence from a psychodynamic viewpoint. Today we note a major increase in violence and terror, and Kernberg feels that society sanctions the use of violence. His paper reviews psychodynamic group psychology, ideologic beliefs in violence and terror and the effects of the mass media, and ends with an investigation into fundamentalism with its narcissistic and paranoid parts. Ending on an optimistic note, Kernberg writes: " In so far as psychological factors, however, influence conflicts and violence both at individual, group, and national levels, and provide understanding for the structural analyses of ideological systems as well as leadership, hopefully, they will become part of our social armamentarium to reduce, if not eliminate, the terrible problem of violence in our human reality.
The jump from society-as-a-whole to political process is a short one. Josef Shaked
(Austria) muses about the way the large group reflects political processes. He brings examples from large groups in Austria, the Ukraine and Israel, describing how political events and process such as the end of the Cold War, German-Jewish memories of the Holocaust, and the Israeli-Arab conflict impact upon what is going on in the large group and is reflected in it. The large group becomes a remarkable

223 trans-cultural meeting, where the confrontation with the stranger offers an understanding of the stranger within us.
Joseph Triest's chapter returns us to the old debate between Le Bon and McDougall about the differentiation between the mob and the organization. His original conclusion is that "an organization traps the 'group spirit', like a genie in a bottle, and by so doing in fact preserves an eternal tension". The meaning here is that the dialogue between order and chaos continues even when the large group is apparently tamed into being part of the organizational setting. Nonetheless, "the large group will always threaten the setting imposed upon it by the organization". Triest's training both as a psychoanalyst and organizational consultant, pairs the theoretical and clinical in an interesting and unique way.
Many of the original early experiences with large groups took place in institutional settings. Rolf Schmidts (Germany) describes in detail in-patient large group meetings at the Clinic Menterschwaige in Munich, Germany. He addresses technical questions such as the large group's venue and seating arrangements, the director's tasks, subgrouping and absences of staff members. His chapter clarifies how an in-patient large group develops a therapeutic culture. A fascinating treatment of a complex subject.
Haim Weinberg (Israel) introduces us to the new innovative world of the large group in Cyberspace. He compares the large group attributes in face-to-face settings to that in the virtual environment. It is surprising to find many similar features in both environments. Expressions of alienation, aggression, being lost in the crowd and losing one's voice appear also on the Internet. What is quite different is the strong tendency for idealization of the group leader on the Internet. Weinberg coins a new term, "the Internet Unconscious" which is related to the Social Unconscious.
Thor Kristian Island (Norway) turns our focus to a different setting in describing the large group experience in a group analytic training program in Norway. This context of the large group is seldom written about. One of its important aspects is the integrating function as the training community “city square”. This unique setting implies that the large group is conducted by a team of conductors and arouses questions about collective leadership. It seems that group-analytic candidates attribute much of their personal and professional development to the large group, and this paper offers us some insight as to why it is so important in the training program.
Our book ends with an Epilogue written by Pat de Maré (UK) and Roberto
Schöllberger (Italy). In this concluding chapter de Maré and Schöllberger muse philosophical about the Larger Group as a meeting of minds. A fitting conclusion by one of the more original thinkers in group analysis and the median group, Pat de
Maré.

224
References
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock. de Maré, P. (1972). "Large Group Psychotherapy: A Suggested Technique." Group
Analysis,5: 106-108. de Maré , P. (1975). "The Politics of Large Groups." In: L.Kreeger(ed), The Large
Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable. de Maré, P.(1985). "Large Group Perspectives." Group Analysis,18:78-92. de Maré, P. (1989). The History of Large Group Phenomena. New York:
Brunner/Mazel. de Maré, P. (1990). "The Development of the Median Group." Group Analysis, 23:
113-127. de Maré , P. (2002). "The Millenium and the Median Group." Group Analysis, 35:
195-208. de Maré, P., Piper, R.,& Thompson,S. (1991). Koinonia: From Hate through
Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group. London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S. H. (1964). Therapeutic Group Analysis. London: Karnac, 1984.
Foulkes, S. H. (1975). Group Analytic Psychotherapy: Methods and Principles.
London: Karnac, 1986.
Gosling, R. (1981). "A Study of Very Small Groups". In: J.S.Grotstein (ed.), Do I
Dare Disturb the Universe ? London: Karnac,1983.
Harrison, T. (2000). Bion, Rickman, Foulkes and the Northfield Experiments.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
James, D. C. (1994). "'Holding' and 'Containing' in the Group and Society." In:
D.Brown&L.Zinkin(eds.), The Psyche and the Social World. London:
Routledge
Jones, M. (1953). The Therapeutic Community. New York: Basic.
Kohut, H. (1977). The Restoration of the Self. New York: International Universities
Press.
KreegerL (1975) (ed.). The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable.

225
Le Bon, G. (1896). The Crowd. London: Ernest Benn, 1952.
Main, T. F. (1946). "The Hospital as a Therapeutic Institution." Bulletin of the
Menninger Clinic, 10: 66-70.
Main, T. F. (1975). "Some Psychodynamics of Large Groups." In:L.Kreeger(ed), The
Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable.
Powell, A. (1994). "Towards a Unifying Concept of the Group Matrix." In: D. Brown
& L. Zinkin (eds.), The Psyche and the Social World. London: Routledge.
Ricciardi von Platen, A. (1996). "Thoughts on the Setting of the Large Analytic
Group." Group Analysis, 29: 485-489.
Rice, A. K. (1965). Learning for Leadership: Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations.
London: Tavistock.
Rioch, M. (1981). "The Influence Of Wilfred Bion on the A.K. Rice Group Relations
Conferences." In: J.S. Grotstein (ed). Do I Dare Disturb the Universe. London:
Karnac, 1988.
Schneider, S. (1978). "A Model for an Alternative Educational/Treatment Program for
Adolescents." Israel Annals of Psychiatry,16: 1-20.
Schneider, S. (1987). "Psychotherapy and Social Work Training: Individual
Differences." Jewish Social Work Forum, 23: 38-48.
Springmann, R. (1975). "Psychotherapy in the Large Group". In: L.Kreeger (ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable.
Storck, L. (2002). "'Reality' or 'Illusion'? Things of Interest about Social Class as a
Large Group." Group Analysis, 35: 351-366.
Turquet, P. (1975). "Threats to Identity in the Large Group." In: L.Kreeger (ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London: Constable.
Volkan, V. (2001). "Transgenerational Transmissions and Chosen Traumas: An
Aspect of Large Group Identity." Group Analysis, 34: 79-97.
Whiteley, J. S. Gordon, J. (1979). Group Approaches in Psychiatry. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Winnicott, D. W. (1956). "Primary Maternal Preoccupation." Through Paediatrics to
Psycho-Analysis. London: Hogarth Press,1982.
Winnicott, D. W. (1974). "Fear of Breakdown." In: C. Winnicott, R. Shepherd, &M.
Davis(eds.), Psycho-Analytic Explorations. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press,1989.

226

227
From: Schneider, S. & Weinberg, H. (eds.) (2003) The large group revisited: The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses (pp. 188-200). London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Until recently, the common uses of Large Groups in therapeutic settings were in mental hospitals and therapeutic communities, group analytic training studies, conferences, and organizational consultation. In the last ten years, since the Internet has spread out around the world, a new version of the Large Group has emerged: The
Large Group in Cyberspace. Do these groups present the same phenomena as face-toface Large Groups? What unique features do these “virtual” Large Groups acquire?
What can we learn from Large Groups in Cyberspace about Large Groups in general?
The present chapter discusses these interesting and other related questions.
The Internet Large Group:
One of the main uses of the Internet is as a media for communication for people around the world. People “talk” by sending email, exchanging ideas on discussion lists, forums, and virtual communities or participating in online chats. The difference between chat and other multi-participant modes of communication mentioned above is its synchrony. In chat rooms people must be online at the same time in order to communicate. In discussion lists, forums, and virtual communities, they can send email and retrieve the others’ responses at their own convenience. To join a discussion list one just sends a subscription command to the server and is automatically subscribed. From that moment on until signing-off, all the messages distributed to list members reach the subscriber's email-box. Discussion lists can contain an unlimited number of participants. This means that theoretically hundreds or even thousands of people can participate in the discussion. Numerically, this makes the list a Large Group.
A practical-structural definition of the Large Group can be, "Any group with such a large number of participants they cannot be encompassed in a single glance".
This makes Internet groups Large Groups by definition because people cannot see one another at all, so the real number of registered members is not important. This definition stresses the importance of seeing everyone in a group. Seeing everyone is essential to have the intimacy typical in small group dynamics. Strange enough, this means that any email exchange on the Internet, even between two people, involves some Large Group dynamics. It is possible that when people cannot see all the details, fertile ground for imagination and projection is found.
Before going any further, I want to clarify that I confine my analysis to
Internet discussion lists of mental health professionals (especially the grouppsychotherapy discussion list based in www.group-psychotherapy.com), and to unmoderated and unstructured Large Groups (unmoderated on the Internet means that no one controls the flux of information, unstructured means that the group does not have a dictated set of rules). Large Groups can be an important instrument to study social forces and inter-group relations in society at large. As Pat de Marè (1975) put it, “the large group … offers us a context and a possible tool for exploring the interface between the polarised and split areas of psychotherapy and sociotherapy.

228
This is the area of the inter-group and of the transdisciplinary … can occur.” (p. 146).
He recommends exploration of “meetings of the same members over a considerable time, and not simply a sudden short burst of meetings, however 'marathon'”, as is usually done in conferences or plenary meetings. Discussion lists on the Internet provide such an opportunity. People “meet” for a prolonged period of time (as long as they are subscribed to the list), exchange ideas, communicate around their field of interest and engage in social interaction. Although these meetings lack the rigorous group-analytic setting, and are not meant to be therapeutic (but neither are Large
Groups), we can still learn a lot from them about the dynamics of Large Groups, intergroup interactions, and social conflicts. The social insight and elucidation of current unconscious social assumptions that de Marè (1975) mentions develops in Large
Groups, shows itself clearly in virtual reality.
Belonging to an ongoing Large Group makes a member a citizen of a community. According to many writers (e.g. de Marè et al., 1991) developing a sense of citizenship is one of the main tasks of participants of the Large Group. There may be active or passive members of the Large Group, but they all feel a sense of belonging to the group. The degree of involvement in the group, portraying itself by the volume of messages a member sends to the list, changes through time. Sometimes activity level is related to the issue discussed, which might interest certain members but not others. This is a natural result of ongoing groups, whether online or outside the virtual environment. On the other hand, in a Large Group meeting outside
Cyberspace, people do not have the same competition from external forces i.e. life, since everyone is committed to being in the room and distractions can only be internal. Other causes for changed involvement over time might be the person’s priorities. Life commitments compete with members’ participation, as it takes time to read and answer the letters. For those reasons we can observe periods of time where certain members lead the discussion, while at other times some of them, whose contributions have been prominent in the past, become silent and others take the lead.
Some members’ contributions are remembered for a long time, even though their silence is long-standing. They might even sign-off the list without anyone noticing, because in contrast to face-to-face Large Groups where leaving the room cannot stay unnoticed, a member can leave the virtual group without anyone paying attention.
Van Vliet and Burgers (1987) argue that communities contain the following elements: social interaction, a shared value system, and a shared symbolic system.
Communities in cyberspace attain these three elements. Even if they are very task oriented (e.g. forums focused on technical help for personal data assistant users), participants are involved in many types of social interaction: thanking one another, empathizing with others’ difficulties, etc. The depth of interactions attained in discussion lists with a psychological component will be illustrated later. The shared value system of participants in Internet communities is evident in different layers, both conscious and unconscious. For example, there is a shared belief in freedom of speech and respecting the other’s expression of ideas. We can see additional unconscious values in lists of mental health professionals. Anger, hostility and frustration expressed directly or covertly are also part of such a community. The shared symbolic system can be seen in its simplest version by the different icons developed in order to convey feelings across the Internet, and by the use of Internet special abbreviations.

229
As Internet groups progress, new members join and others sign-off. When too many departures and entrances occur in a group, its stability is severely shaken. In small groups, too much rotation in group membership can evoke a feeling of fragmentation, endanger the conditions needed for the group to become a safe environment, and affect the openness of group members and their self-disclosure.
Trust develops with stable objects. Does this mean that Internet groups become unsafe and that people cannot be open in their Cyberspace interactions? Not necessarily. Two factors work in favor of creating an illusion of safety in the Large Group in the virtual environment. The first is the anonymity of the members, which reduces the risks of ridicule or rejection of people disclosing personal information. Online interaction is similar to the "stranger in the train" interaction. As McKenna, Green & Gleason
(2002) found out, relationships develop closeness and intimacy significantly faster over the Internet than offline. Anonymity has its impact on the presentation of identities on the Internet too, but it is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss. The second factor is the creation and development of a core group that carries on group norms of tolerance and openness, and an atmosphere of cohesion, "we-ness", and belonging. The core group consists of members that are more involved in the exchange of messages, post more often and become more salient and important in this
Large Group. The newcomer might sometimes have the notion that the group is dominated by this subgroup, and this might first restrict the participation of new members. However, once the newcomer is ready to respect the group norms and its veterans, he or she can be included in that core group. New people who join the group cannot differentiate between active-involved members who joined the group a few months ago, and those who were there from the beginning.
Time perception in Internet groups is very subjective and different from common time reference in everyday life. Many responses to one’s email bring the impression of short time lags. Time perception also has its impact on the emotional tone of the Internet Large Group. There are no auditory or visual cues in Cyberspace, so it seems as if a person’s emotions can only be judged from the content of their posts. However, the perception of the emotion in a post is often influenced by the surrounding climate. The group emotional climate is also highly determined by changes and contrasts in content over time. For example, if messages on a list change suddenly from openness and interpersonal empathy to angry and annoyed posts, it will be perceived as an outburst of uncontrolled affect parallel to what can be observed in a face-to-face Large Group.
Large Groups tend to generate strong emotions in its members, such as annihilation anxiety, feeling one’s identity is threatened, envy, aggression and sometimes also compassion. They also tend to restrict, or even temporarily block, clear thinking within its participants and conductors. de Marè (1975) claimed that the powerful emotions could easily become uncontrollable and uncontainable. Many other theoreticians who studied Large Group processes (e.g. Anzieu, 1984, Main,
1975, Turquet, 1975) focused on these destructive powerful forces and saw them as a result of unconscious psychological defense mechanisms such as projection, splitting, displacement, and projective identification.

230
Cyberspace provides an inevitable source for such psychological processes. Its incomprehensible boundless vastness evokes anxiety, and its lack of other than textual cues encourages projections to fill in the incomplete picture and only partial information that the reader receives. Just as in the psychoanalytic setting, when the patient lying on the couch projects an array of feelings onto the psychoanalyst because the information provided is limited, the computer screen is almost a perfect
“blank screen”, devoid even of the voice components of the analyst. Small wonder, then, that Internet communication can become a source for a lot of misunderstandings, and that strong emotions develop in a discussion. Projections on the Internet seem more massive than in individual therapy or in a small group and resemble the quick changes of emotional discharge that can be seen in Large Groups. A calm and intellectual exchange of ideas can swiftly become an uncontrollable interchange of angry feelings, a process known in Cyberspace language as “flame-wars”. Suspicion, impulsivity, inability to listen to the other, rage and high anxiety govern the scene, reminiscent of similar vignettes from face-to-face Large Groups.
Understanding and predicting the events in the Internet Large Group is quite complex. Linear causality no longer prevails in these circumstances, and instead we should use nonlinear theories, especially complexity theory (Rubenfeld, 2001). There is no way of anticipating when a "flame war" is going to burst, or which email receives a volume of responses and which will be totally ignored. Chaos Theory and non-linear determinism explain better the course of the Large Group, especially in the virtual environment. The bigger systems are the more difficult it is to predict their processes. Social processes are unpredictable unless we take into consideration the chaos that creates unpredictable waves in a seemingly quiet lake.
The Large Group is full of negative feelings, expressed in anger and aggression. The frustration of not being heard or mirrored, the alienation one feels in the crowd, the stimuli bombarding that blocks cognitive functions, the tendency to find some refuge from losing one’s identity in the mob by clinging to subgroups and attacking other subgroups, all these and much more lead to a hostile atmosphere bursting sometimes into angry interactions. These phenomena help us understand better the psychology of the mob and how it can be so easily incited. The “flame wars” of the group in the virtual environment serve the same purposes; discharging the frustrations resulting from being unheard, unrecognized and misunderstood, and also bring forth the image of the restless crowd. But, in contrast to the intensive negative feelings expressed in a face-to-face Large Group, Large Groups in
Cyberspace act more like Janus, the double-faced god in the Greek mythology.
Sometimes they show their ugly and aggressive face, looking like the angry and hateful mob, but sometimes they can show compassion, care, mutual help and altruistic behavior.
It seems that Cyberspace provides a wider containing ability than is anticipated. The anonymity, which can have the negative effects of de-individuation and alienation, can have positive effects too. McKenna and Green (2002) mention that anonymity on the Internet helps members to express how they really feel and think, and encourages the emergence of healthy group norms. Simple leadership interventions, even administrative ones such as taking care of the technical details,

231 give the group members a feeling of safety and decrease the alienation typical of
Large Groups.
Foulkes (1964) and Pines (1984) saw mirroring as an important 'group specific phenomena'. Group members see themselves reflected through the others' reactions.
In a small group, mirroring starts with looking at the other in the eyes. In Large
Group, where "participants cannot be encompassed in a single glance", such a mirroring is impossible. In fact, instead of seeing the other's eyes sometimes all one can see is the other's back. Small wonder that the Large Group arouses paranoid feelings. Mirroring in the virtual Large Group seems, at first, even more impossible.
Instead of looking into the other's eyes, one looks at his own reflection on the screen.
In order to feel that the others really see him, the Large Group in Cyberspace should develop other modes of mirroring. This is not an easy task to accomplish, and requires a lot of sensitivity and attunement from the members and the leader.
The fact that the screen reflects one's image might explain why people relate to the computer as a selfobject, expecting it to always function properly as if it is part of their body, and becoming frustrated (even slightly depressed) when it crashes.
Self/other relationships are more fluidly shifting or differently constituted in the absence of fewer contextual cues, so that in this imaginary Large Group one might write to/for oneself as much as another, or might treat other(s) as an extension of oneself with less immediate reality principle contradiction. When you look at your screen what do you see? Yourself. This phenomenon reminds us of Winnicott's sentences (1971) in 'Mirror-role of Mother & family in Child Development': "What does the baby see when he or she looks at the mother's face? I am assuming that ordinarily, what the baby sees is himself or herself (p. 131). Unconsciously, the computer screen makes the writer regress to archaic developmental stages.
As time progresses and the Large Group in Cyberspace advances, some participants become consistently and extensively involved in every discussion. Their contributions are obvious, they write frequently to the forum, respond to upcoming threads, and introject the discussion list as part of their professional (and sometimes personal) life. They become a core group, which develops private jokes, unique kinds of humor, and hidden norms. These participants create a sense of cohesion in the
Large Group, relate to one another as old friends (and sometimes develop real friendship in and out Cyberspace). They carry the tradition of the forum and its norms over time, and those who later join the list have the feeling that they are entering a close group. This core group is responsible for the illusion of a small group, because they counteract the feeling of alienation and become more open and self-disclosing over time. When one of these frequent contributors fails to write to the forum for a period of time, it is felt like a missed presence.
The Functions of the Group Leader
Holding is the main function of the leader in the “virtual” Large Group.
Usually the functions of the leader in a small group are holding, containing and interpreting. Holding or containing mean something different in Cyberspace, given that their origins presuppose particular notions of embodiment that rely on copresence or proximity that do not apply, or apply differently, in Cyberspace. This is a much broader question for further investigation. Given the scope of this chapter I will only say that the holding function is most important in Cyberspace because this space

232 is far from being a holding environment by its basic characteristics. Cyberspace is perceived as a huge endless space with no boundaries and no limitations. One can surf the Internet and move from websites physically situated in the surfer’s area, to those that are thousands of miles away with a click of the mouse. This fact can arouse the illusion of a boundless space. The ease of communication with people from far away countries feels as if “the world is at the tip of my finger” on one hand, but also creates some anxiety of getting lost in those interactions. People are worried about becoming addicted to the Internet, or spending too much time surfing the web and writing emails. The fear of drifting away and becoming immersed in that huge environment is very common. The leader’s holding functions as an anchor to stabilize participants and reduce their anxieties so they are safe enough to interact.
Holding can be achieved by very simple measures. In small groups the holding function is similar to the function of the blue-collar worker. The leader provides the basic conditions for making the environment convenient. The group members should be free of worries about the physical environment in order to be able to work on their psychological issues. Holding the group starts with very simple actions such as taking care of the arrangements of chairs in a circle. Providing holding also has to do with clear boundaries. Setting the rules or taking care of the boundaries of time and space can achieve this function. In Large Groups the boundaries are looser (space is bigger and the individual feels less commitment to the group), so the need to clarify them becomes stronger. As said before, the Large Group in Cyberspace has even vaguer boundaries. The space is imaginary and can contain any amount of members without limit. In asynchronic discussion lists, time boundaries are erased completely.
Most of the forums on the Internet are not process groups. They focus on a subject that interests its members and is specified in the forum title (e.g. parenting,
French films, addictions, etc.). What does this imply about the leader's interventions?
In task (content-process) groups, the leader should interpret the process only when a serious interruption erupts, blocking the group from working on its task. As long as the working group prevails there is no need for interpretation. The same applies to the
Large Group on the Internet. There is no need for the leader to interpret the process, unless some crisis occurs or the group is severely distracted from achieving its goals.
For example, when the group faces a danger of turning a member into a scapegoat, a leader intervention is necessary, preferably by an interpretation first.
Transference
Contrary to what happens in face-to-face Large Groups, the main transference towards the leader identified in the Large Group in the virtual environment is idealization. This phenomenon does not subside even after a long period of existence of the group. This phenomenon is in sharp contrast to Anzieu (1984) who argues that the collective transference generally appears as negative transference in non-directive
Large Groups (chapter 4, p. 84). It can be argued that this strong negative transference is an artifact of the approach focusing on authority and leadership, such as the
Tavistock approach. Indeed some writers in this book do hold this position. This approach might enhance alienation between the group and its leaders.
The lack of cues, other than textual ones on the Internet, can lead to two different situations. One is the projection of aggressive feelings and interpreting ambiguities in a negative way. This was described earlier as leading to the sudden,

233 intensive development of "flame wars". But another possibility is that people tend to
"fill in the blanks" with idealization instead of suspicion. Bargh, McKenna, and
Fitzsimons (2002) concluded that different interpersonal goals of the interaction partners caused projection of the idealized, hoped-for qualities of a best friend onto the partner. We can conclude that Internet group members project the qualities of the good-enough conductor and idealize the function of the manager because they need a safe object in this vast anxiety-provoking environment. All the conductor has to do is to provide the participants with adequate holding in order to maintain this idealization for a long time.
Idealization of the Internet Large Group Leader is enhanced by virtues of this media. When the participants are not very computer-sophisticated (and let me remind you that I am talking specifically about mental health lists, and that most mental health professionals are computer beginners) they start their Internet discussion list experience with some inferiority feelings and anxiety evoked by the unknown situation. So they can easily project wisdom and computer-wizardry onto the leader.
Talking specifically about the group psychotherapy discussion list, the fact that each member entered this list with a welcome and netiquette message from the leader might contribute to idealization. This modeled a relationship between individuals that might mitigate some of the more terrorizing aspects of the Large Group dynamics...
In asynchronic discussion lists, the list leader has enough time to consider responses and not act them out even when the list is very stormy. In face to face Large
Groups, the group exerts a lot of pressure on the group leader to intervene when the process seems to get out of control. It is difficult for the leader to stay in an observing mode and plan the intervention calmly when regressive dynamics take over and the group uses projective identification mechanisms. But on the Internet, in the absence of time pressures, the virtual Large Group leader can even consult a colleague when a difficult situation arises. This makes the leader's intervention more optimal. So the idealization of the leader and its intervention has some basis in reality.
Unfortunately, idealization is a double edge sword. It fosters unrealistic expectations of the group leader and when these expectations are not met, the group becomes furious. For example, on one forum the members changed from admiring the leader to being very disappointed and turning against her, when they found out that a member of the group was an imposter and made up a false crisis in his life. They were angry that the group leader did not detect that this member was an imposter beforehand.
Idealization creates an intensive counter-transference reaction of the leader. It is very easy to fall into the trap and believe that the leader is really the best Large
Group leader that there ever was. Such counter-transference might blind the leader from seeing the real dynamics of the Large Group and being ready for the possibility of de-idealization.
The Internet Unconscious
Large Groups can be effective in exploring the Social Unconscious. The idea of the Social Unconscious construct is double-folded. On one hand it reflects the

234 social and cultural arrangements of which individuals are unconscious (Hopper, 1996) and on the other it means the representation of social forces and power relations in the psyche (Dalal, 2001). The Large Group with its tendency to mobilize strong emotions in its participants gives an opportunity to study the Social Unconscious by analyzing the events from a broader point of view through using parallel process concepts.
In the same way we can argue that processes on the Internet Large Group reveal the Social Unconscious too. But which society does this unconscious reflect?
Members of Internet communities and forums come from different countries and cultures. Weinberg (2002) postulated a community unconscious in a discussion list of group psychotherapists, which portrayed itself in stressing empathy and acceptance while avoiding anger and conflicts among therapists. Professional identity might play a role in the (self) regulation of members in such groups. They invest in presenting themselves as competent, efficient, integrated, knowledgeable etc - and so less likely to exhibit the kinds of inconsistencies/fluidities/open-ness to new radical changes that characterize other people's behavior in Cyberspace. So one possibility is that the
Social Unconscious on the Internet reflects the unconscious of the community of people who share a common field of interest. Another possibility is that it represents the unconscious of Society at large, not of specific culture (thus becoming close to
Jung's concept of the collective unconscious). But there is a third option where we can relate to a specific concept we can label "the Internet Unconscious".
The Internet is supposed to be the ultimate free-democratic society. No one governs or controls it, any participant has the right to express his/her ideas with no restrictions, it is the most egalitarian society because social status does not pertain to it and there is no differentiation between young and old, men or women, expert and novice. In fact it was hoped that the Internet would facilitate the spread of democracy and become ubiquitous and widely available around the world. This illusion continues to rule even though connection to the Internet is still rare in poor countries. The
Internet Unconscious contains an illusionary belief that ultimate freedom of speech is achieved in Cyberspace and that forum members always show respect and tolerance to different opinions.
Implications of Virtual to Face-to-Face Large Groups:
The most salient difference between groups in reality and in the virtual environment is the ability to develop norms of tolerance and even intimacy in
Cyberspace. This warm atmosphere is in sharp contrast to the usually alienated climate in face-to-face Large Groups. Can we learn from the Internet Large Groups how to make groups in reality less alienated?
Part of the answer might reside in the holding functions of the leader that can sooth the anxiety evoked in the alienated and strange situation. As said before, we rarely have the opportunity of exploring the dynamics of long-term Large Groups.
Cyberspace provides this opportunity. What this valuable opportunity reveals is that, after some time, members who constantly contribute to the group create a core group that develops an illusion of a small group with norms of intimacy and self-disclosure.
Continuing the process of the Large Group, even when it seems hopeless and violent, with the wise interventions of a holding-leader might eventually lead to dialogue.
References:

235
Anzieu, D. (1984) ' The group and the Unconscious', London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y.A, and Fitzsimons, G.M. (2002) 'Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the true self on the Internet'. Journal of Social
Issues 58(1): 33-48
Dalal, F. (2001) ‘The Social Unconscious: A Post-Foulksian Perspective’, Group
Analysis 34(4): 539-555.
De Marè, P. (1975) 'The politics of large groups'. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The large group: Dynamics and therapy (pp. 145-158). London: Karnac.
De Maré, P., Piper, R.,& Thompson,S. (1991).
Koinonia: From Hate through
Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group . London: Karnac.
Foulkes, S. H. (1964) ' Therapeutic Group Analysis '. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Hopper, E. (1996) ‘The Social Unconscious in Clinical Work’ Group 20(1): 7-42.
Main, T. (1975) 'Some psychodynamics of large groups'. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The large group: Dynamics and therapy (pp. 57-86). London: Karnac.
McKenna, K.Y.A, and Green, A.S. (2002) 'Virtual group dynamics'. Group Dynamics
6(1): 116-127.
McKenna, K.Y.A, Green, A.S., and Gleason, M.E.J. (2002) 'Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction?' Journal of Social Issues 58(1): 9-31.
Pines, M. (1984) 'Reflections on Mirroring'. International Review of Psycho-Analysis ,
11:27-42.
Rubenfeld, S. (2001) 'Group therapy and complexity theory'. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 51(4): 449-471.
Turquet, P. (1975) 'Threats to identity in the large group'. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The large group: Dynamics and therapy (pp. 87-144). London: Karnac.
Van Vliet, W., and Burgers, J. (1987) 'Communities in transition: From the industrial to the postindustrial era'. In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (eds.),
Neighborhood and community environments . New York: Plenum Press.
Weinberg, H. (2002) 'Community unconscious on the Internet' Group Analysis
35(1): 165-183.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971) ' Playing and Reality '. London: Pelican Books.

236

237
Haim Weinberg
910
Published in Group Analysis 2003, V36(2), 253-268.
Culture and groups are intertwined. Culture is essential in crystallizing our social identity and provides the common understandings that allow the social world to have a meaning. Culture is constituted from many groups that have common values. The social unconscious of a certain culture is reflected in groups, especially in large groups.
This paper explores different aspects of the social unconscious and describes how the individual and the group/society always coexist. The concept of the binocular vision is used to integrate between two approaches to the social unconscious: the social in the unconscious and the representation of the institutionalization of social power relations in the psych.
Do different cultures create different groups? The paper describes groups from different cultures and their unique features. It concludes that even though the order of stages is kept in groups from any culture, some cultural norms might prevent groups from reaching advanced stages of development.
Groups come from a certain culture but also create their own cultures.
Entering a group is analyzed as a kind of immigration to a new culture. Every group session is an inter-cultural meeting. As the group progresses members can abandon the norms of the cultural groups they are coming from, and establish their unique group culture.
Key words: culture, social unconscious, large group, immigration, binocular vision, group culture, group analysis.
On September 11, 2001 four airplanes were hijacked in the USA by terrorists.
Two crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in NY, causing them to collapse, and killing thousands of people. One hit the Pentagon, and the other hit the ground in Pittsburgh. We are still under the influence of that trauma. Reactions to that vicious attack changed from shock, inability to perceive it, numbness, anger and rage, to deep sadness. Articles in the papers and politicians seek revenge. Splitting became ubiquitous. At last people could talk undoubtedly about evil and good. For a moment it became clear who were the bad guys and who were the good guys. They say it is war. They describe it as a war between cultures: a culture of light and a culture of darkness. Some people describe it as a war between the western, democratic, liberal
9
A shorter version of this paper was presented to the Dutch Group Psychotherapy Conference,
Amsterdam, Holland, 9 November 2001
10 I would like to thank Farhad Dalal and Erica Burman for their helpful comments and Martha
Gilmore for her editing

238 world, and the fundamentalist, dark, fanatic world. Tony Blair, the British Prime
Minister described it as "a battle of values" (2001).
In times of peace it is not politically correct to define one culture as "bad" or
"evil". In the era of postmodernism, where everything is relative, we usually understand that good and bad are relativistic terms too. In everyday life, good and evil are undifferentiated. We are ready to admit that we can inadvertently act badly, but to acknowledge the evil part in ourselves is a threat to our self-image (or the positive image of our culture). After the attack on the USA, as the threat of terrorism did not subside and people could not clearly identify the terrorists, it became necessary to get rid of the bad parts of the culture-self. The solution was to project all the evilness on one person or one culture and make him or it responsible for wickedness. This way western culture could ignore its faults and righteously attack another culture. The price of this process is that it cultivates hate between people, groups and cultures, and when hate prevails the consequences are disastrous.
What can we learn from groups about cultures? Can we use groups to understand what culture means in the deep and even unconscious sense, what is the meaning of different cultures, and how do people change when they immigrate from one culture to another? Can we find ways to bridge the gap between different cultures by exploring how the group builds its own culture?
What is Culture?
We are born into a culture. First we are introduced to the family culture, which in itself is embedded in the social world. Then, when we grow up we learn our culture codes: how to dress, how to behave, how to speak, what is correct and what is wrong.
We internalize which body contacts are appropriate in our culture, what distance we should keep from other people, and even what language we should use in various situations. From the moment of birth we are surrounded by cultural symbols, messages and values that become part of our social identity. We learn about culture through interaction with our close friends and relatives, and from the mass media that bombards our minds. Through this process we finally crystallize our social identity.
The social identity is the definition given by the individual regarding the feeling of belonging to a milieu, a super structure or a larger society (De Mare, 1991).
We define ourselves as Dutch, Israelis, Americans, etc. Defining ourselves this way we declare our membership in a specific culture. Individuals build their identity in a continuous process of choosing alternatives and interpreting the surroundings.
Although identity is based more on difference than on similarity, the culture links its individuals through shared conscious and unconscious assumptions.
Christopher (2001), relating to culture from a hermeneutic point of view, writes that human life is not conceivable without culture because it provides the common understandings that allow the social world to have a meaning. He argues that we are partly constituted by our cultures, which means that we can never fully detach ourselves. A culture’s worldview establishes what a person is. Every culture includes values and moral assumptions about the nature of the person and of the good life, so a culture is strongly connected to moral views.

239
From an evolutionary point of view, culture appears because it gives its members some advantage. Anthropology views culture as defining space, time, health, relationships, rituals, and groups. Le Roy (1994) citing the French writer Kaës
(1987) describes four psychic functions of culture: (1) Maintaining the individually undifferentiated basis for psychic structures necessary for belonging to a social whole.
(2) Guaranteeing a set of common defenses. (3) Giving points for identification and differentiation, which guarantee the continuity of the distinction between the sexes and the generations. (4) Constituting an area of psychic transformation by providing signifiers, representations and modalities for treating and organizing psychic reality
(p.181). Le Roy himself explains that in function (1) & (2) culture contains the undifferentiated aspects of the individual psyche, and in function (3) & (4) it promotes the structuralization of the psyche through its introduction into a series of symbolic orders.
Culture protects us from primitive anxieties by structuring the environment and by giving it a meaning. It helps its members to sublimate their impulses and drives, and engage in daily rituals that provide relief from existential anxieties. We know how to deal with life and death through cultural codes and tradition. Foulkes'
(1964) concept of the group matrix, which can be described as the communication network of the group members at both the conscious and unconscious level, might be broadened to include a cultural foundation matrix which unconsciously and covertly ties and links the individual to society. Culture can include many groups, all of them share some common values. The group boundaries are more clearly defined than cultural boundaries. Culture is a more abstract entity than a specific group that usually includes a definite number of people.
Although culture seems at first to be monolithic, meaning that all people belonging to it have something in common, and implying that all those within a culture are similar in a way, a deeper exploration undermines this view. For example, is ‘Islam’ a culture? If so who owns ‘true’ Islam? Was Afghanistan in the 1970s
Islamic? What is the relationship between those two states of Islam? Does a Muslim in the USA belong to one culture or many? Actually each person belongs to more than one culture. Returning to the concept of the social identity, a person might feel as belonging to more than one milieu.
The Binocular Vision and the Social Unconscious:
We can look at the question of groups and cultures from two different angles.
The first is to see groups as representing cultures and learn from them about the processes, norms, and features of the culture they come from. Actually, the previous analysis of the world events following September 11, 2001 is based on group analytic concepts, understanding group processes and extrapolating from them to social processes. The mechanisms of splitting, projection, denial, repression, scapegoating and projective identification, are prominent in groups. We can use group concepts, terms, dynamics and processes to analyze social issues.
So one possibility is to see the group as a microcosm of society. The other point of view is to observe the group culture, how it develops, who is involved in creating it, etc. Two models are presented here – groups as creators and carriers of culture. The creation of the group culture will be discussed later, but we should bear

240 in mind that at the same time groups come from a certain culture and create their own culture as well.
Bion (1959) wrote about 'the binocular vision' of the group therapist. The therapist looks with one eye at the Oedipal metaphor and with the other at the Sphinx and its riddles. Hanna Biran (2001) enlarged the scope of this idea and applied Bion's concepts to clinical practice. She added that the therapist should always keep in mind at the same time the view of the individual and the group-as-a-whole. In my opinion, when the therapist is examining the individual in the group, questions of competition, aggression and the Oedipal frame of reference might be very useful. Looking at the whole group brings to the forefront the group unconscious; anxieties and catastrophes related to the wide view of the social field.
Understanding societies from the study of group processes (and vice versa) strongly connects us to the concept of the social unconscious. Earl Hopper defines this as "the existence and constraints of social, cultural and communicational arrangements of which the people are unaware" (1996). The social unconscious should not be confused with the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is shared by all societies, emphasizes the inheritance of acquired characteristics and expresses itself in myths, legends, sculptures, drawings, etc. The social unconscious is different in each society and reflects deep unconscious motives that stem from the history and traumatic events of that society.
Hopper (1997) claims that the unconscious life of social systems and the processes associated with it are especially important in traumatized societies. For example, when a society goes through massive trauma such as the holocaust, it is engraved in the memory of its population for generations, and has overt and covert impacts on behavior. So we might assume that Israel, established as a state as a result of the holocaust, is very sensitive to threats on its security and unconsciously sees them as threats of annihilation.
Farhad Dalal (1998, 2001) has a different view of the social unconscious. He claims that the social unconscious is not the social in the unconscious , and contains much more than the unconscious influences of society upon the individual or the effect of the particular cultural system on the group member. Paraphrasing Winnicot's famous sentence that "there is no such thing as a baby", because the baby is always part of the dyadic baby-mother system, Dalal declares that "there is no such thing as an individual". The person can never be discussed outside the individual-social context. Other writers (Christopher, 2001; Greetz, 1973) join this view too.
We can return to Bion’s ‘binocular vision’ idea to understand how the individual and the group/society always coexist although it seems that we usually close one eye and look from only one point of view. This confusing double vision reminds me of a similar binocular vision in Modern Physics. Some of us may already be accustomed to Einstein’s idea that mass and energy are just two forms of the same entity. The idea that particles and waves are two forms of the same thing is much more incomprehensible. We can view light as a ray of particles or as waves. Neither of these views is inclusive. Neither of them is totally true. The idea that particles can be perceived AND BEHAVE like waves (and vice versa) is very difficult to understand, but still true. We can even measure the wavelength of every particle. In just such a manner the Social and the Personal are two forms of the same phenomenon.

241
The large group is a valuable group structure from which we can learn about the social unconscious and society at large. The psychological processes in the large group are intensive and by the use of the parallel process concept, we can see them as representing what is happening in the outside world. Although we usually focus on the here-and-now in groups, when we want to explore the social unconscious we deduce from the here-and-now to the there-and-then. Processes in the large group represent unconscious dynamics in the organization in which the large group is working or in society at large. For example, if in a certain group psychotherapy association conference there is a harsh conflict between two subgroups in the large group, we can reach one of the following conclusions. Either the association is split into two conflicted subgroups or that the society in which this association is functioning is in a conflict situation with different groups fighting one another. We might think of both assumptions as correct and that the split in the association represents a split in society.
Splitting in society and the division into Us and Them seems to be a basic structure in the social organization of people (Berman, Berger, & Gutmann, 2000).
Volkan (1988) argues that the need for enemies, in the social and political sense, is universal, rooted deeply in infancy and related to primary processes of crystallizing personal identity and social belonging. In the large group a person feels a powerful pressure of representing his country, religious orientation, culture, or other sub-group he belongs to. Perhaps this is why people in large groups feel a threat to their identity and of losing their individuality (Turquet, 1975)
As pointed out before, actually we have two versions of the social unconscious: Hopper’s (1996) and Dalal’s (1998, 2001). Dalal points out that 'the social unconscious is a representation of the institutionalization of social power relations in the structure of the psyche itself. In this sense it is a bridge between the social and the psychological. The material of this bridge is language' (1998, p. 209).
Following the binocular vision I think that both concepts of the social unconscious coexist and are valuable. Both can be deduced from and observed in the large group.
Referring to Dalal’s definition of the social unconscious, in large groups we can also observe and explore the social power structure and relations, and analyze the language variations that become the royal road to the social unconscious. An example comes from a large group led in a military setting, where there were two leaders, a woman and a man. The group members mostly talked to the male leader, remembered his interventions better than hers, and sometimes even attributed important interpretations given by the female leader to the man. The gender power structure in the army clearly reveals itself through these phenomena.
Different Cultures – Different Groups?
Let us turn now from the aspect of learning about culture from group processes, to examining the differences between groups from different cultures. In
1993 I participated in the Pacific regional rim conference of the IAGP (International
Association of Group Psychotherapy), which was held in Taipei, Taiwan. Most of the participants came from the Far East. Among other events I went to some psychodrama workshops that took place at that conference. One of the group members recounted an event in his life about which he wanted to act bravely. When the leader of the group

242 asked him what kind of animal he would like to play to represent the virtue of bravery, he chose to become a dragon. I imagined that in a psychodrama workshop, taking place in the western countries, he would choose to be a lion. What impressed me most was that apart from the different symbols and stories – the group process looked almost the same as in western groups I am used to: the group opened with an engagement stage, where members tried to include everyone in the process, followed by some resistances, which were expressed very quietly, and then the real work began. Inevitably these observations led me to ask whether there is any difference between groups from different cultures.
Cultures are both similar and different. The similarity/difference complexity deserves more elaboration than this paper is able to give it. In what ways are they different, what makes them the same – when are differences more paramount – when the similarities? If cultures were identical, there is no point talking about different cultures.
Cultures vary along many dimensions. They vary around norms, values, ethics, codes of conduct, common history and even representations of the Social
Unconscious. It is only reasonable to assume that these differences will be reflected in the groups that come from those cultures. Pittu Laungani (2001) proposes four factors that differentiate between western and eastern cultures: Individualism vs. communalism (collectivism), cognitivism vs. emotionalism, free will vs. determinism, and materialism vs. spiritualism. Although these are not dichotomies, we can still arrange different cultures along the continuum of these axes. This does not imply that all people from the East are emotional, determined and so forth – whilst those in the
West have free will and a mind to think with etc. Although one can argue that this sort of gross division between the so-called East and West is useless because it is too general, it still describes well the general principals and motives for behavior of people from different cultures.
We can imagine that a group led in a society that strongly emphasizes collectivism (such as the Indian or Arab societies, where family, clan, or caste ties precede the individual) will not focus on self-actualization in the same way as a group led in a culture that emphasizes individuation and healthy narcissism. Or in a culture with strong and rigid status boundaries and a deep respect for authority, (e.g. Japan) it will be difficult to find criticism towards the group leader, as one can easily find in cultures that encourage autonomous thinking and independency. On the other hand, in western cultures that tend to be activity-centered it might take more time for members in the group to focus on their inner worlds.
Let us look more deeply at some characteristics of groups from specific cultures. Groups in Israel present some distinct features. In my papers about group psychotherapy in Israel (2000, 2002) I describe some unique phenomena in the group process. Compared to other countries, the level of interpersonal tolerance in the beginning of an Israeli group is quite low, and the level of aggression is quite high.
Expressions of anger replace vulnerability or pain in the group. If we look at the social unconscious affected by centuries of persecution as well as the holocaust, we might conclude that Israelis learned to put up a façade of strength, never showing a weakness in front of potential enemies. I am always impressed how quickly members of groups from other countries are able to quickly touch their vulnerability in the group, while in Israel the group therapist has to patiently wait and help build a very safe environment before members, especially men, can talk about weakness.

243
Another phenomenon characteristic to Israel that has its impact on the group process, is the tendency of Israelis to break the rules and test or reject authority. We can assume that it represents the need of Israelis to show their independence after thousands of years of being in the Diaspora. This means that the second stage of group development can become lengthy and sometimes the group remains stuck in issues of differentiation. This is in sharp contrast to groups that I lead in the States where people seem cooperative at least on the surface, and resistance is expressed in a mild way.
Japan is different from Israel in many ways. Hofstede (1991) describes the
Japanese society as one "in which people from birth onwards, are integrated into strong, cohesive subgroups, which, throughout people's lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" (p. 51). This is why Kotani (1999) hypothesizes that when Japanese people are in a group, the intense cohesiveness is experienced as if there were a common self. Japanese are preoccupied with the danger of public embarrassment, leading to a "loss of face" and even resultant suicides. A regular nondirective process group would fail in Japan because the members would feel threatened by the push to express their individuality. They are used to conforming to society and authority and feel overwhelming anxiety when given the freedom to diverge from social norms.
Other unique, culture-specific group processes are described in Devan (2001) in Singapore. He focuses on three areas: relationship with authority, individuation, and intimacy. Respect to parents and authority are fundamental in Singapore culture, so the group maintains a strict hierarchical relationship with the leader, not expressing disagreement openly. Group members are more dependent on the leader and deny separation. Intimacy is not expressed in public due to cultural codes.
We can look at another culture that is not tied to any country. This is the culture of the Internet. The Internet can also be described as a culture. In "Cultures of
Internet", Shields (1996) describes its main features: The Internet is supposed to be
THE ultimate democratic, egalitarian, freedom of speech culture. No one controls it, and its structure is not based on class. Internet culture can be deduced from the culture of the on-line communities that construct it. On-line communities can be defined as
"social relationships forged in cyberspace through repeated contact within a specific boundary or place that is symbolically delineated by topic of interest" (Fernback &
Thompson, 1995). Actually on-line communities are virtual large groups. The Internet is related to groups through the dynamics involved in these communities. I have already described elsewhere (Weinberg, 2001) the group processes and phenomena on the Internet. What I found is that despite the inherent lack of boundaries in on-line communities, that should create a sense of insecurity, surprisingly members of these communities behave as if it is safe to be open and self-disclose. Maybe the anonymity of the writers provides a sense of false security. This allows group processes in virtual reality to become evident.
Let me give a specific example to describe a certain community culture. On the Internet I manage a group psychotherapy discussion list. For those who are unfamiliar with the Internet and its discussion lists, let me explain that the Internet provides numerous forums that discuss almost every topic you can imagine. In the group psychotherapy list about 400 therapists interested in groups discuss various issues in the area of group therapy. This forum has become a community, whose members feel a sense of belonging, develop relationships and become involved with one another far beyond their professional lives. This forum has developed its own culture, tradition and norms, such as respect to the diversity of schools of thoughts

244 from all over the world and an annual meeting face to face of those attending the
American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) annual conferences.
When the crisis of the 11th of September erupted, the group psychotherapy discussion list became a source for abreaction, comfort, keeping in touch and dialoguing in a time of stress. Examples from the exchange of email on the list at that period reflect features of the Internet culture. People could share their personal stories, talk about their deep emotions and be supported by other members, as we usually witness in groups. A member writes, "I would like to share with the group some things that have emerged for me to this point about the occurrence of the inconceivable in North America. I am interested in any comments or feedback anyone might have." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, October 04, 2001)
Another member writes, "My heart is torn by your personal stories (C., A. and others) and I send to you my warmest expressions of love and support." (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, October 01, 2001). Still another one summarizes,
"I can thank this List for communicating, which has been one of the most helpful aids for me. I, too, can only imagine the intensity for some of you. Reading what everyone has to say helps me gain needed perspective. And, my warmest regards go to those of you who are battle-worn nearer to 'ground zero' in the USA and beyond. In this odd but heartfelt way, I send good thoughts throughout and around" (Personal communication, G-P discussion list, October 03, 2001). These vignettes exemplify how a virtual community can develop a culture of support and become helpful in times of crisis. We can conclude that forums on the Internet, despite being large groups, maintain an illusion of a small group with its ability to be empowering for its members, and develop their unique cultural characteristics.
From the examples given above we can conclude that different cultures do create different group contents. Cultural norms might prevent groups from developing towards advanced stages (Berman & Weinberg, 1998), such as intimacy, although the order of stages is kept in every group from any culture.
Immigration and Cultural Transformation:
Moving from one culture to another poses a special stress upon the individual and exemplifies the difficulty of cultural change. Immigration is not a one-step change and it takes a long time, sometimes years, for immigrants to feel that they belong to the culture they moved to. Sometimes this process is so difficult that older people who immigrated to a new country never learn the language of their new place, and feel uprooted for the rest of their lives. In order to become part of the new culture a person has to understand, accept and incorporate the norms, customs, language, and non-verbal gestures of the new society.
The Bible tells us that the sons of Israel left Egypt after years of slavery.
Exodus seems like a sudden, miraculous, singular event. It was not. The Israelis went out of Egypt in a rush one evening, but they could not take Egypt out of themselves for years. They had to wander in the desert for forty years before they stood at the gates of their homeland. The desert of Sinai, where they wandered, is not so big that one can get lost there for forty years. Symbolically one might say that the Israelis had to go through a long process from being a union of dependent slaves to becoming a nation of independent warriors. As long as they remembered the food they had received from their Egyptian enslavers and disregarded the price they paid for it, they could not enter Israel as free people.

245
Cultural change involves a psychological process of loss and mourning. For a long time the immigrant is confused and overwhelmed with the new information s/he needs to absorb. Before a person can identify with the new culture and integrate its aspects into his/her personality, the immigrant must give up aspects of the old culture.
Sengun (2001) noticed that unless there is recognition of the loss, and mourning for it, integration cannot be achieved. She defines successful immigration as "one where the person, after a long period of struggle, is able to integrate both past and present experiences and cultural values" (p. 66).
The country of Israel is a country of immigration. After the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 it opened its gates to every Jew. Jews from the Diaspora immigrated to Israel trying to forge a new culture. It was a shock for many of them that found themselves in a strange place, with a very different climate from their place of origin, a new language that they had to learn, lower status and jobs, and especially new manners. Some of them have never recovered from that shock, never learned
Hebrew and their self-esteem has been damaged. In order to distance themselves from the image of the Jews in the Diaspora (who were perceived as weak, passive and victims, like the Israelis in Egypt), most of the immigrants' children tried to identify and imitate the image of the Israeli ‘Sabra’ warrior (Gretz, 1995). The consequences were that people estranged themselves from their original cultures, gave up their traditions and lost their roots.
Though it may seem far-fetched and strange, learning to use computers and the Internet is a kind of immigration too. There are norms on the Internet that a newcomer has to learn, with expressions, abbreviations and jargon specific to this media. Older people have difficulty learning this instrument just as they have difficulty learning the manners of a new culture. Children are quick to study the
Internet ways, and parents learn from them how to surf websites, just as immigrants learn from their children how to behave in a new country. Immigration to the Internet can be a cultural shock too.
But actually entering a group is a kind of immigration too. Newcomers to groups pass through a period of anxiety, confusion and loss of orientation, until they learn the culture of this group. Let us look at this culture and how it is created.
The Culture of the Group:
Every group session is an inter-cultural meeting. Members of the group come from different families. Each family has its own culture, own values, own myths. A family culture is partly influenced by the culture of the society it belongs to, but every family has its unique characteristics too. The social unconscious is also reflected in the family values, power structure, and norms common to all families in a certain culture. Group members also come with different histories. These facts create different inner worlds with diverse associations. What group members slowly (and sometimes surprisingly) find out as the group advances, is that the assumption that everyone interprets reality in the same way is wrong. It starts with language and even with simple words. When someone is saying, "my mother said", everyone imagines the way his or her mother talked. So the speaker's mother might be very cold while the listener's imagined mother is warm and smiling. One of my group members could not understand how other participants could criticize their parents. He was raised in a family where a child should respect his parents and never even think that they might be wrong. Whenever someone said something bad about her parents, he thought she was exaggerating and over-reacting.

246
Our understanding of reality is based on our inner worlds, histories, and associations. When group members intimately communicate they are trying to bridge the gap between their differing cultures whether the differences are between selves, families, or social cultures. They are doing more than bridging that existing gap. They are establishing their own group culture. As the group advances, more and more events and scenarios become part of the group history and enter the common associations of group members. Metaphors, specific words, and images become loaded with unique meaning for that group.
In one of my therapy groups someone told of having a dream where all the group members were already on a bus moving away while she was still standing at the bus stop. This dream became a code for the group. Every time they wanted to check if someone was progressing or stuck they asked, “Are you still waiting at the bus stop”?
We could say there is the internal (intrapsychic) culture, the family culture, the subgroup culture (psychologists, military, list-members), and the social culture (US,
Israel), etc. If the group members come from the same social culture, the developing group culture can replace the values and norms of the original culture of the group members. I have seen this happen more than once in groups of soldiers or officers in the army. Military culture is deeply rooted in doing. The task of the army is to defend and attack; not to think, feel, and reflect. In Bion’s terms we can see the army as an institution based on the basic assumption of fight - flight. Its purpose is to fight the enemy, and its commander should be strong enough to lead the army to victory. When the group unconscious works along the fight-flight basic assumption, the group has no time for thinking and cannot become psychologically oriented. So when army commanders participate in a workshop, usually they strongly resist the norm of reflection, introspection and psychological explanation presented by the group leaders. If they go through a successful intensive workshop an interesting transformation occurs. They begin to appreciate the value of introspection.
In an intensive five-day workshop in the Israeli air force the subject was authority and leadership. It was an unstructured Tavistock style workshop. Soldiers are used to fulfilling commands and following orders. In the beginning of the week, the officers complained about the ambiguous task and asked for clear definitions of the goals. “What exactly will be the products of this workshop?” one of them asked.
At the end of the workshop the same officer said how much he had learned about his patterns of leadership saying, “I am very glad that you did not direct me what to do and let me figure out what to do all by myself”. He transformed from needing orders and setting up clear goals to valuing and enjoying the process and the way to the goal.
In groups I lead that focus on gender issues, men and women explore the deep meaning of being male or female in their lives. When these groups enter the stage of conflict, typically the second stage of the group process (Individuation stage in
Mackenzie’s model (1983), or Storm stage in Tuckman’s (1965), the women in the group become united against the men, and vice versa. The conflict seems to be not between the individuals in the group but between a feminist culture that values relationship, empathy, emotional expression, connectedness, and acceptance versus a masculine culture that values achievement, status, hierarchy, action, and thinking. It takes time for the group (if it develops successfully beyond that difficult stage) to discover that maleness/femaleness is not a dialectic, but a continuum. When the group discovers this, men can connect to the feminine parts in themselves and women can connect and voice their masculinity.
The task of creating a new group culture is especially difficult and important in groups constructed of members coming from different ethnic origins. These

247 members may have different languages, religions, social attitudes, non-verbal communication, and customs. Learning and understanding each other’s culture contributes to the process of integration inside and outside the group. Developing tolerance to ethnic and cultural diversity can become a challenge to the group and its leader. They must avoid the dangerous trap of stereotyping the culture of the individual, yet also refrain from putting too much pressure on the group member to conform to the norms of the dominant society. This pressure could cause the individual to lose her unique cultural and ethnic features. Dissimilar value systems and split loyalties can present a problem to minorities in the group. Salvendy (1999) writes that the price of the desired change in the group can be the alienation or disapproval from one’s own cultural community. The effectiveness of groups with people coming from multiple cultures is determined by how much its members feel free to discuss their feelings about the group and to what extent they feel free to express criticism or caring for each other (White, 1994).
Summary:
In the beginning of this paper I questioned what could we learn from groups about cultures. Through large groups we can explore the social unconscious. In small groups we can see how groups from different cultures behave differently. Groups from different cultures maintain the same group development, but still differ in other aspects, such as their content, norms, metaphors and even their social unconscious. I have used an extension of Bion’s concept of binocular vision as a way to focus on both the individual and the culture simultaneously. The concepts of person, group, and culture appear to be interchangeable.
Groups from different cultures pose a special challenge to the group therapist because they might get stuck in a developmental stage that is reinforced and accepted by cultural values and norms without advancing to higher stages. It requires a special skill from the expert to facilitate such an atmosphere in the group that helps group members to take risks and experiment emotional expression or a degree of closness that is uncommon in the member’s society.
Entering an established group is immigrating into a new culture. I tried to show how each group develops its own culture eventually, so actually every group
(especially groups with members from different subcultures, gender. age, etc.) can be seen as a melting pot and an experiment in forming a multicultural society that needs to work as an integrated body. The success of the group is partly determined by achieving cohesion, yet helping the members to maintain their sense of individual identity. If we want to find ways to bridge the gap between cultures or maintain the balance in a multicultural society, we should learn more about how to do it in groups.
References:
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000) ‘The Division Into Us and Them As a Universal Social Structure’, Mind and Human Interaction 11(1): 53-72
Berman, A., & Weinberg, H. (1998) ‘The Advanced Stage Therapy Group’,
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 48(4): 499-518.

248
Bion, W.R. (1959) ‘Experiences in Groups and Other Papers’. New York: Basic
Books.
Biran, H. (2001) Paper presented in a study day about Bion's Contribution to Groups,
Israel, October 2001.
Blair, T. (2001) ‘Speech at Labour Party conference’, Brighton 2001. Retrieved
October, 08 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.labour.org.uk/lp/new/labour/docs/LONGSPEECHES/TBCONF2001SPE
ECH.html
Christopher, J.C. (2001) ‘Culture and Psychotherapy: Toward a Hermeneutic
Approach’, Psychotherapy 38(2): 115-128.
Dalal, F. (1998) Taking the Group Seriously: Towards a Post-Foulkesian Group
Analytic Theory. London: Jessica Kingsley Pub.
Dalal, F. (2001) ‘The Social Unconscious: A Post-Foulksian Perspective’, Group
Analysis 34(4): 539-555.
De Marè P., Piper R., Thompson, S. (1991) ‘Koinonia: From Hate, Through Dialogue
to Culture in the Large Group’. London: Karnac books.
Devan, D.G. (2001) ‘Culture and the practice of group psychotherapy in Singapore’.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 51(4): 571-577.
Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (1995) ‘Virtual communities: abort, retry, failure?’
Retrieved August, 10 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html
Foulkes, S.H. (1964) ‘Therapeutic Group Analysis’. New York: International
University Press.
Greetz, C . (1973) ‘The interpretation of cultures’. New York: Basic Books.
Gretz, N. (1995) ‘Captive of a Dream, National Myths in Israeli Culture’. Tel Aviv:
Am Oved Publisher Ltd.
Hofstede, G. (1991) ‘Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind’. London:
McGraw Hill.
Hopper, E. (1996) ‘The Social Unconscious in Clinical Work’ Group 20(1): 7-42.
Hopper, E. (1997) ‘Traumatic Experience in the Unconscious Life of Groups: A
Fourth Basic Assumption’ Group Analysis 30: 439-470.
Kaës, R. (1987) ‘La Troisième Difference’. Revue de Psychotherapie
Psychoanalytique de Groupe. 9-10, 5-30.
Kotani, H. (1999) ‘Aspects of Intrapsychic, Interpersonal and Cross-Cultural
Dynamics in Japanese Group Psychotherapy’. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy 49(1): 93-104.
Laungani, L. (2001) ‘Cross Cultural Perspectives on Work, Stress, and Family
Life: India and England’. Paper presented in the 2nd Stockholm Group Conference on
Social Issues, August 2001.
Le Roy, J. (1994) ‘Group Analysis and Culture’, in D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.), The
Psyche and the social world, (pp. 180-201). London: Routledge.
MacKenzie, K.R., & Livesley, W.J. (1983) ‘A Developmental Model for Brief Group
Therapy’. In R.R. Dies, & K.R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy:
Integrating research and Practice (pp. 101-116). New York: International University
Press.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., & Weinberg, H. (2002) ‘Group Therapy in Israel’, accepted for publication in Group.
Salvendy, J. (1999) ‘Ethnocultural Considerations in Group Psychotherapy’.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 49(4): 429-464.

249
Sengun, S. (2001) ‘Migration as a Transitional Space and Group Analysis’. Group
Analysis 34: 65-78.
Shields, R. (ed.) (1996) ‘Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living
Bodies. London: Sage Publications.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965) ‘Developmental Sequence in Small Groups’. Psychological
Bulletin 63: 384-399.
Turquet, P. (1975) ‘Threats to Identity in the Large Group’. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy (pp. 87-144). London: Karnac.
Volkan, V. (1988) ‘The Need to Have Enemies and Allies’. NJ: Jason Aronson.
Weinberg H. (2000) ‘Group Psychotherapy and Group Work in Israel – 1998’. Copublished simultaneously in S.S. Fehr (ed.) Group Therapy In Independent Practice,
(pp. 43-51). New York: Haworth Press Inc., and in the Journal of Psychotherapy in
Independent Practice 1(2): 43-51.
Weinberg, H. (2001) ‘Group Process and Group Phenomena on the Internet’,
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 51(3): 361-378.
White, J.C. (1994) ‘The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Transference and Counter-
Transference in Combined Individual-Group Therapy’. Group 18: 89-99.

250

251
Haim Weinberg and Miki Toder
Published in Group Analysis (2004) V37(4)
Abstract:
Mirroring is one of the central phenomena in group analysis. It can be interpreted as a kind of projective identification. Philosophy, Literature, Mythology and Psychoanalysis present the double face of mirroring. It can be a growing device and a damaging one as well. In this paper we examine the conditions for benevolent mirroring and the types of destructive one. We also analyze the possibilities for mirroring in the large group and the virtual environment.
Key words: group analysis, large group, destructive and benevolent mirroring,
Cyberspace, projective identification
Introduction:
"If you can see - look. If you can look - observe" (Saramago, 1995)
In this article we would like to explore one of the central phenomena that occurs in groups and has great therapeutic value: mirroring.
The mirror as a central feature in intrapsychic and interpersonal relations is acknowledged in different cultures, myths, philosophy, literature, and of course psychoanalysis. Foulkes (1964) was the first to describe mirroring in the group process. According to Roberts and Pines (1991) Foulkes defines the mirror reaction is the "aspect of the self reflected by members of the group through image and behavior, allowing identification and projective mechanisms, enabling the individual to become aware of these hitherto unconscious elements (page 76).”
The unique contribution of Foulkes and Anthony (1965) in connecting this concept to groups is in defining the group as a hall of mirrors , that is as a place where the individual can be reflected in many mirrors, through different eyes.
Contrary to the regular everyday situation, the group’s space enables exploring, comparing and observing different mirrors, meeting hidden and unconscious parts of the self through them, thus enriching self-awareness. It also facilitates accepting important feedback, examining interpersonal interactions these mirrors invite or block, and acknowledging the relativity and subjectivity of those mirrors.
We will examine the Foulksian hall of mirrors in the small group, the large group, and also the special features of the virtual group that suggest a new kind of mirroring. In contrast to Foulkes, who focused on the positive effects of the group mirrors, we will follow Zinkin (1983) who wrote about malignant mirroring, and explore the dangers of the mirrors in the group. We will also examine how the conductor and group can acknowledge mirroring, reduce its negative effect and enhance its positive use.
The Mirrors:
The use of the metaphor of eyes and sight is pandemic in Western culture.
Sight, mirrors, reflections are used in both positive and negative ways to indicate one’s self concept and place in the world. “The eyes are the mirror of the soul”, says

252 the common proverb. A person’s inner world, his feelings and experiences, are seen, perceived and reflected through the eyes of the observer.
Small wonder that culture, literature, myths and psychology focus on the metaphor of eyes and sight frequently. The Bible warns man not to gaze upon God on pain of death. This hints at the idea that seeing someone not only intrudes but also can rob the one seen of some important quality. But the Bible also reminds man that he was created in the image of God, that damaging others is like hurting God and caring for others shows one’s love of God. Therefore seeing the other also means giving, care-taking and taking responsibility. Fairy tales and children’s stories tell about the power of mirrors. Snow-white’s stepmother holds a mirror whose function is to strengthen her pathological narcissism. When this mirror fails its function, by telling the truth instead of flattering her, she tries to murder Snow-white out of envy. The mirror in “The Beauty and the Beast” is given to the girl as a transitional object to keep her connection with her father. Using this mirror she can reach and save him when he needs her.
French philosophy frequently employs the metaphor of the eyes and sight.
Sartre claims (in Huis Clos, 1964) “L’enfer c’est les autres (hell is the other)”, which means that a person sees in the other observing him, a mirror of his own ugliness. The hero of his story Le Mur (“intimacy” in Hebrew, 1989, pp. 11-125) behaves in a disgusting, immoral way. When he perceives how he is seen by the other, he is filled with self-hate and kills the other.
In contrast to this approach, Levinas (1984), another French philosopher, argues that when a person sees the other’s face he becomes responsible for the other.
Seeing the other turns into a moral commitment. “I perceive the difference of the other, therefore I become responsible for what is not mine, or even related to me, or maybe it does relate to me, as it stands in front of me as a face”. This responsibility is translated by Levinas into a responsibility to dialogue. Seeing you means that I have to talk to you, be in a relationship, I cannot ignore you. The same mirror that reflects ugliness and hate in the eyes of Sartre reflects acknowledging otherness and responsibility to relationship in the eyes of Levinas. But Levinas adds, “This will happen only by describing the face positively and not only negatively” (page 73). This is a fundamental point when talking of mirroring, which we will discuss later.
Saramago in his book “Ensaio sobre a Cegueira” (“Blindness”) (1995) expresses a similar idea. People in his book endure a plague which causes all to become blind. Losing their eyesight they lose their humanity, and deteriorate to a complete loss of human dignity and basic values. “It seems that feelings and morality accompanying life developed only because we had eyes. Man’s soul is reflected through his eyes. Now everything becomes estranged. Nothing is self-evident anymore” (Menachem Perry, book review, Israel 2000).
Pines (1984) uses Greek mythology to describe two kinds of mirrors and reflections: a killing mirror and a growing one. The reflection that Narcissus sees in the pond brings death upon him. The mirror that is given to Perseus helps him kill the monster and save his family. So mirrors and reflections can be growing devices, enabling connection, responsibility and love, and at the same time they can isolate, alienate and kill.
Psychoanalysis joins this dialectic. Although Freud’s developmental theory focused on the importance of open organs: the mouth, anus and female genitalia, because of their function to connect inside and outside, the eyes were not included, but as they have the same function of connection, they are no less important. Later

253 theories related primary importance to sense organs. The skin and touch became central in self and object relations and so did the eyes.
Winnicott (1971) describes the process of mirroring as a primary developmental milestone. The development of the infant begins with the motherinfant gaze. He claims that the baby does not see a breast but a face. In this face the baby sees herself reflected through the mother’s eyes. “The mother is looking at the baby and what she looks like is related to what she sees there” (page 131). A good enough mother reflects holding, loving eyes supplying the baby with omnipotent feelings that are necessary for his normal development. A mother preoccupied with herself reflects her own mood, without room for any reflection of the baby. Her baby learns through mirroring to give himself up and adapt to her. Winnicott combines this idea of early maternal mirroring with other mirrors that the family gives to the baby
(similar to Foulkes’ idea of the group as a hall of mirrors) and how these mirrors create significant opportunities for the baby’s growth. There are limits of the models of gender set in play by the mother-child analogy, and they have their impact on the perception of "the group as a mother" too, but this is far beyond the scope of this paper.
Kohut writes about mirroring as a basic primary transference influencing the child’s sense of self-worth. In his book “The Analysis of the Self” (1971) he expresses the notion, “I am reflected – therefore I exist”. According to Kohut, narcissistic personality disorder is a result of a primary failure of this reflection.
Psychoanalysis relates to the problematic situation where reflection persists too long and is unrealistic. A child who becomes an endless object of adoration for his parents is owned by them. Endless admiration and reflection damages differentiation and individuation (Miller, 1981). Such mirroring does not serve the child’s needs but the narcissistic needs of his parents. This causes another kind of narcissistic failure.
In normal development, the mirror reflects interpersonal interactions that influence and are influenced in an endless process of the intra-personal perceptions.
The baby develops through a gradual process in which first the mother, as a primary central object, is reflected and reflects his value. Later on new objects enter his life, and through their reflections he builds his healthy (or pathological) narcissism. Life provides all kinds of reflections, in various degrees, by different people. Normal development is a series of reflections that suit the developmental stage and the child’s needs. Pathological narcissism will develop when an array of reflections and mirrors fail. Thus the dialectic between the positive and negative aspects of mirroring in psychology parallels the concepts seen in mythology, philosophy, and wider cultural norms.
The uniqueness of the group is its ability to reconstruct this process for the individual and the group as a whole. The participants and the conductor experience, through the group, different events and experiences that are connected to reflection and mirroring. Of course, the hazards of pathological mirroring remain and must be addressed.
Mirroring as Projective Identification:
Mirroring can be seen as a development of the concept of projective identification, first presented by Melanie Klein (1946) and expanded by Heiman,
Segal, Rosenfeld, Bion, and Betty Joseph (Bott Spillius, 1992). Further expansion of this model into the realm of groups, the participant brings an uncontainable emotion,

254 behavior or aspect of relationship to the group. He “spills or pushes” it into the group space in order to distance it, usually by projecting it onto others in the group. The other group members perceive and introject this part (beta material, in Bion’s terms) and respond through their own projections. The hall of mirrors within the whole group contains the entire interaction, but every participant chooses a role that resonates inside of him. This projective identification enables the elaboration of the material. In
Bion’s terms the material is transformed into alpha particles which are easier to digest.
We can see this process in the following vignette: Don always brings up difficult and emotionally laden issues, but immediately obscures them by being artificially nice. He becomes an object of irritation and anger in the group, and is accused of making the group stuck. Don sees himself as rejected and beaten by the group. After some time he talks about his past as a beaten child, and his resulting great efforts to block his own aggression. He tries to restrain his aggression by being passive, armoured and invulnerable but these defenses result in others being aggressive towards him. One member identifies his own passive-aggressive parts through watching Don. Another member meets his passive-aggressive mother through this mirror, explores his need to attack such an interaction and rediscovers his disowned passivity. The group gives Don an important mirror of a frightened, angry self, stuck with his emotions and reconstructing them again and again.
Nitsun (1998) pointed out that there are two different aspects of mirroring in group analysis. One form is interpersonal and based on the communicative response that illuminates undiscovered aspects of the self. This mirroring happens when we see ourselves through the other's image of us. It happens in a potential space where the participant is more able to differentiate between herself and the other, and to decide which aspects of the mirror belong to her or to the other. It is accessible to selection and introspection. A more archaic form of mirroring is based on resonance and happens through reverberation of feelings across group members. Nitsun (1998) sees this form as mimetic engulfment: an automatic identification. This kind of mirroring is non-verbal in its essence, and is a product of resonance duplication, a process that
Sandler (1993) distinguishes from projective identification because it more passive and automatic in its nature.
Non-verbal communication is ubiquitous but is usually far beyond awareness.
Dahlin, Ohlstrom and Rodriguez Vareau (2002) think that in groups people look at each other, smell one another, and listen to the other voice intonation, rather than hear the words they is saying. Members in the group make noises, spread smell, and display body postures. This mirroring is more evasive, more difficult to notice in a group, and more difficult to talk about.
Both kinds of mirrors happen in the group all the time. Participants might be impacted by one of the mirrors according to their personalities. A person with borderline features will strongly react to the mimetic engulfment while someone with narcissistic features will respond to verbal feedback that touches the self-esteem. The developmental stage of the group should be considered too. The more the group advances, its participants are increasingly aware of who they are as individuals and what distinguishes them from others (Berman and Weinberg, 1998), which reduces the impact of the archaic resonance-based mirror.
The Benevolent Mirror:

255
As pointed out before, Foulkes (1964) was the first to talk about the process of mirroring in the group. Mirroring facilitates exploring various interactions within the group matrix. Through the mirrors a person meets parts of himself that were forgotten and far from awareness, and other parts that are more conscious or pre-conscious, but in an intensified way different from everyday life, making them more difficult to ignore as one might in ordinary life. These encounters facilitate exploration of the personality, amplification of inner and outer awareness, and an opportunity for change. “He can discover his real identity and combine it to past identities” (Foulkes,
1964, page 150).
Example:
In an experiential workshop the participants were asked to work in couples.
Their task was to follow the movements of the other with the same movements. One of the male participants, who worked with a woman, summarized the experience, saying that something new had happened to him during this exercise. He could look into the eyes of his partner, something that has been very difficult for him before. For him it meant that he could be in a more intimate relationship. In his past he felt physically unattractive and flawed because of his too pale skin. He felt rejected, just as he had been rejected by his mother who never kissed and hugged him. Even before that exercise, during the group meetings he could gradually talk more and more openly about his flaws, and the group contained it “with a loving look” – a Kohutian corrective experience to rejection. The mirror exercise (following the other’s moves) became a good closure for this process. He could be close to another woman (another mother?) while experiencing a corrective reflection: she sees him from a very close distance, but instead of rejection he finds acceptance.
When Foulkes and Anthony (1965) describe the advantages of mirroring, they assume a group atmosphere characterized by sympathy, identification and empathy.
These aspects enable an experience of self-discovery and belonging. Foulkes assumes an automatic emergence of these conditions accompanies the mirroring so that a benign mirroring is in action. He does not address the possibility of a negative mirroring experience. Refereeing to Nitsun's (1998) differentiation of two kinds of mirrors, the "communicational" mirror has the potential for being a benevolent one because participants are more aware of its presence.
We identify the following conditions that facilitate a benevolent mirror: a. The distance between the mirror and the observer:
The distance that the group provides, through its many participants, paradoxically minimizes the distance between the mirror and the self. It is as if by seeing oneself disguised and from a distance through another person’s story, a person can identify within himself things he cannot notice when looking at himself directly.
Just as in observing a big drawing, a certain distance provides a better view of the entire picture and sometimes of important details. The communication-based mirror enables some distance through discussion and verbal exploration in the group. b. Empowerment:
Mirroring in the group is amplified because it is the result of several pairs of eyes. The mirror is validated by the fact that several people agree with it, while in the individual experience it can be denied. Foulkes sees mirroring as an objective and real experience.
“Experience has taught us that the image given back is surprisingly true to life”. (Foulkes, 1964, page 151) c. Sharing:

256
Another advantage of mirroring is related to the important group phenomenon of sharing. Foulkes sees sharing as a component of mirroring. When the group shares a common experience its members are acting as mirrors to one another. The experience is reflected in different intensities and modes. The participant looking at the mirror sees different aspects of his experience in the assuring envelop of a
“normalizing” common fate. The pain associated with recognizing is reduced because the sharing that follows makes it clear that others are in the same boat. According to
Foulkes (1964), this experience of externalizing what is inside and introjecting what is outside leads to the self-definition “as a social being” (page 149). This shared experience and the resulting sense of belonging is an important benefit of the benevolent mirror. d. Mutuality:
Mirroring combines the ability to see with the ability to show. According to
Hopper (1996) this creates an important process of simultaneously getting and giving help. It brings symmetry and mutual dependence to relationship, in contrast to individual therapy where mirroring, generally, is one-sided. e. Diversity and Multiple Points of View
Pines (1984) expands the group mirroring possibilities, by claiming that reflection can happen when the other is different. Difference is a source of mirroring too. Take, for example, a situation where a group member who has difficulty in asserting himself and taking a place for himself meets with a self-centered member who always takes a central place in the group. In this mirror he can see his opposite self-image, the joy of taking up space in the group. This may result in some envious feelings on seeing this egocentric attitude. The group can show him that this envy is an expression of something missing in his own life.
An “opposite mirror” can also illuminate a gap between the way a person perceives himself and the way others in the group perceive him. For example, a member that is certain that she is open and shares intimate things easily is surprised to find a different mirror of herself in the group. The group members tell her that she shares only completed, already elaborated and clear things. The difference in perceptions shows her that she elaborates things alone and brings them to the group when they are already done with only the disguise of openness and readiness to work on them.
The uniqueness of the group, as Foulkes described it, is its multiplicity of mirrors. Foulkes sees these many mirrors as intensifying the experience. Pines (1984) emphasizes the loss of objectivity through different mirrors. In contrast to classical individual therapy where the only mirror is that of the therapist, the group presents a variety of mirrors. This way it shows the subjectivity and relativity of the mirror.
When a group is able to present a diversity of mirrors it enables a developmental process similar to the transition from pre-Oedipal relations, with its dyadic motherchild bonding, to triadic and even social relationships, with an increase in complexity of relationships and points of view.
The presence of two conductors in the group is meaningful to mirroring too.
Each of them shows a different perspective and angle of the group, thus a different mirroring. This may also help the group explore the difference between their perceptions and differentiate between the authority figures.

257
The Destructive Mirror:
So far we have described the positive effects of mirroring and its therapeutic advantages, but there is another side of the mirror. In 1995 Nitsun commented about
Foulkes’ ignoring the problematic parts of the group and its dangers. This is reflected in Foulkes’ writing about mirroring too. It is interesting that he brought up the possibility of the mirror distorting reality but answered very reassuringly that, “If a patient sees himself more and more in and through the group, is there any likelihood of a comic distortion from the group? Experience has taught us that the image given back is surprisingly true to life. Neurotic distortions tend to cancel out” (Foulkes,
1964, page 151).
As we see mirroring as a process that builds out of projective identification, and following Foulkes’ successors (Zinkin, 1983; Pines, 1984) we can also look at the dangers of the mirrors. This was called “malignant mirroring” by Zinkin. The kind of mirror that is more archaic in its nature and based on resonance is more prone to become malignant because it is less conscious and more contagious. Here are some features and examples of the dangerous mirror.
Types of Negative Mirrors:
The shrinking mirror:
This group phenomenon selectively reduces the number of mirrors in the group, preventing its members, including the conductor, from seeing certain material necessary for their development. It can lead to shrinking the images until they lose their meaning. The same thing happens when a mother hides or blurs the outside reality from her baby, even though he can contain this reality already. Thus she prevents painful feedback that might become a source of growth. The shrinking mirror in the group reflects an unconscious assumption that clear reality perception and testing is dangerous and should be avoided. This group, led by the “blind” conductor, wraps the mirrors, distorts its reflections, attacks those who stubbornly want to show this “dangerous” data, and does not enable encounter and elaboration of this material. The group members resemble a spoiled child. Actually it is a deprived child apparently protected and enveloped, but actually closed in a bubble. This is a vicious circle because the situation preserves the group defenses and makes it risky to glimpse outside. As long as it continues, the participants distance further from the outside world and dealing with reality becomes harder.
Take as an example a group of disabled people who create a shrinking mirror ignoring their own roles in rejecting the “healthy people’s world”. They prefer to see the able society as alienating and rejecting. It might be partly true but they have their rejecting part too. This shrinking mirror causes the group to have difficulty in termination because they strengthen the attitude of “no one outside this group can really understand”. The same thing might happen in a group of women that were sexually abused, lost their faith in the world, and feel as if the only place where they can tell their story and be understood and supported is in the group of women of their kind. (This is one of the reasons why it is advised for such women to join heterogeneous groups after they finish the group for only sexually abused women.)
The shrinking mirror can happen as a result of many internal attitudes. We would like to focus on the fears of the conductor-mother, reducing the mirrors in an effort to stay an ideal conductor, and provide the group with a protective womb, a corrective emotional experience opposite to the difficulties of the world. The

258 conductor, together with the group, tries hard to keep for themselves an infinite ideal reflection. Unconsciously they try to avoid separation. Bion (1967) would term this a symbiotic container in which a certain containment is provided, but it cannot exist outside the specific container. The relationship of the container-contained fails to develop autonomy and internal authority.
Kohut (1971) claimed that it is necessary for the therapist to become an admiring reflective mirror for the patient. This approach claims that growth comes out of such an attitude. Kernberg (1975), like many other Kleinians and neo-Kleinians, saw such a mirror as disregarding important reality dimensions, showing too little of the real world on one hand, and too much of a reflection of uniform omnipotence.
Using Pines (1984) ideas, we can see Narcissus as a group member lacking a real mirror. Pines focuses on the deprivation of Narcissus who is alone at the water’s edge
(maybe in the individual therapy of a loving-admiring therapist functioning as Echo without a stance of her own). A group can enter this position too out of its narcissistic needs, and cancel the possibility of other mirrors.
Betty Joseph (1987) describes another type of shrinking mirror situation in individual therapy, which we know from groups too, when a patient “forces” the therapist to reflect only contents fitting his projections. Such a mirror can be seen as a kind of pathological projective identification. A group example would be when a sadistic person abuses the group, and sees only his sadistic ugliness and destructiveness through their reflections. The group shows him only his own sadism and is unable to perceive and reflect other, more positive aspects of him. This would, of course, be prime material for a scapegoating process.
Zinkin (1983) warns of another kind of shrinking mirror which he calls
a “double mirror”. This happens when two participants trap one another and create mirrors for each other which become an absolute and very limited truth. Zinkin does not indicate the role of the conductor in such a destructive process. We think that the role of the conductor is to stop such a mirroring process and to make the members aware of their destructive needs.
Take as an example a woman in the group telling about the betrayal of her boyfriend and receiving back a horrible feedback showing her how ugly she is and how she deserves such treatment. The group therapist found it hard to show the group how they identify with the betrayed friend because of their fear of betrayal and rejection in the room. The group chose to present only one mirror and use it to evacuate any anxieties and difficult emotions stimulated by the betrayed woman. The conductor’s task was to identify this malignant mirror and to prevent its damages.
The malignancy of such a mirror, according to Zinkin, stems from the fact that in order to destroy it we could destroy the person himself, because of a lack of differentiation. Exactly as in killing a tumor, we destroy both good and bad cells. The group should take care that the “good parts” are not touched. The participants in this process need the group conductor to return their projections to them, in order to understand better the dynamics underneath and to prevent mirroring which shrinks complex reality into a stereotype.
The magnifying mirror:
Contrary to the mother who diminishes and narrows the reflection space, there is the mother who shows too much. This is the “opposite container” relationship. The mother cannot take into consideration the developmental-emotional situation of her child and prematurely burdens him with the difficulties of her world. Children of the
“opposite container” learn from their early development to contain their mother

259
(Landau, 1993; Miller, 1981; Winnicott, 1960). They are the result of the failure of the good enough mother to provide a timely encounter with reality. Good enough development, as Winnicott (1951) describes, is related to coordinating between outer reality and the ego abilities of the baby to perceive and elaborate it. When the baby lacks appropriate ego strengths, and the mother is unable to gradually expose reality to him, it becomes flooding and threatening. These children adapt to the situation according to their abilities along a continuum between constructing a false-self to psychotic disconnection.
When mirroring in a group reflects reality that is still beyond the group’s capacity to contain and manage, this exposure will not be therapeutic for the group.
The magnifying mirror is typical for groups with a sense of maturity and independence. Often we can find it among mental-health professionals groups, who are trained in helping others and have difficulty showing neediness. They are skilled with “the right language” and seduce one another (including the conductor) to expose vulnerable and difficult parts without a real ability to cope with these reflections. The danger is in flooding the group with threatening material, and developing a groupfalse-self.
The mirror that shows too much does not take into account the need or ability of group members not to see certain things. Pines (1984) connects the development of the “I” concept to shame. He cites others who talk about the paradox of identity that exists between seeing and not seeing, as related to the mother’s task to show and not to show. A good enough mother censors the mirrors, keeping some of them to herself, and releasing them according to the needs and ego strengths of her baby. She censors elements that might arouse damaging shame for the baby, in order not to lower his self-esteem.
In a group of bereaved parents, one participant talked constantly about her exhusband’s negative attitude towards her memorializing of their dead son. The group was in its early developmental stages (and whose losses were still fresh in memory) identified with this woman and joined her criticism of him. They mirrored her feelings of absolute justice and righteousness. The reflection for the whole group was of being a wonderful support group in contrast to the injustice of the outside world, represented by the hated ex-husband and the world that took their children’s lives. Only in a more advanced stage (Berman and Weinberg, 1998) would it be important to show the participant more mirrors bringing forward other stages of her mourning process.
The all-knowing mirror:
Foulkes (1964, page 150) uses the words “true” and “objective” while describing the group mirror. These words put him in the classical theories where the therapist is perceived as knowing the truth, and the patient is coming to therapy to seek that truth, resisting it because it is too painful. Zinkin (1983) sees the human mirror as a double-sided intersubjective mirror. The all-knowing mirror will claim for absolute justice and erasing of all doubt. Although Foulkes uses the idea of objective truth, the term “hall of mirrors” means that it is important for several mirrors to exist, creating diversity. A hall of mirrors negates objectivity and inserts subjective dimension to the group. When the group sets up a collection of identical mirrors, it is obstructing diversity and differentiation.
A well known example of identical mirrors carrying a group “truth” is the phenomenon of the scapegoat. Unconsciously the group presents a uniform mirror, usually because of the need to project aggressive elements onto one person. The reaction of the scapegoat is either defensive, fragmented, or terminating his

260 participation in the group. None of these reactions is therapeutic for the individual or for the group.
The all-knowing mirror can be connected to Zinkin’s warning (1983) not to confuse mirror and reality. Sometimes the exact reflection is actually a distortion because it does not give important information about the difference between reality and its reflection (like a window so clean that we might break trying to go through it).
When we understand the relativity of the mirror, we can negotiate with its reflection, accept or reject it, and understand that some things can be seen differently from various points of view. A group (and its conductor) should enable this freedom to its participants otherwise it turns into a jail instead of a place of growth.
Lack of mirror:
Pines (1984) writes about another aspect of negative mirroring: lack of mirror.
He relates this phenomenon to a self-centered person that can see no one but himself.
Groups can go through a self-centered stage in their development when anything someone says about himself is responded to with, “I feel the same”. The lack of mirror is another type of pathological mirroring. This experience can be felt in a group when meaningful issues said in the group are not answered and the group responds with silence or indirect talk. This phenomenon points at an early developmental deprivation, reconstructing a lack of primary mirroring in the life of the participants. These members suffer from privation more than deprivation. They are characterized with a kind of emotional absence, a kind of nothingness, which colors their relationships with others.
In a group of Israeli orphans, who lost their fathers when they were several months old, during the Yom Kippur war, and most of whom did not complete their mourning process, the most outstanding dynamic in the room was of lack of mirroring. Now they are grown-ups and some of them have children already. One of them, whose first son was born lately, says that he thought how many times he uttered the word “daddy” in his life, and how many times his son will say this word. The two group conductors shudder from the power of his words, but the group does not pay any attention to what has been said. Only later they can explore the experience they felt as children when their mothers could not respond to the absence they felt inside of them. Typical responses of these mothers were “do not pity yourself, you have a father from the second marriage, everything is ordinary in our family”. They recreated this experience in the group by not responding to the experience of the new father.
The mirror in the Large Group:
The large group is defined as a group whose members cannot encompass the entire group in one glance (Turquet, 1975). This definition stresses the importance of the glance in moving from small to large group. In the small group one can still see the other’s eyes. Because "the eyes are the mirror of the soul", in the small group one can deepen the understanding of the other, see him, empathize with him, and be seen by the other. In the large group one cannot see the eyes of all the others, and when people cannot see the others’ eyes, different processes than in the small group prevail.

261
In the large group people cannot become close or intimate. When people only see the other’s back or neck, alienation, ambiguity, and paranoia can result.
On the other hand, the large group brings freedom to massively project onto the others. The person in the crowd (or the large group) is an object for projection.
Facts are less important and reality does not prevail. When the other is not seen, the anonymous discharge of aggression is facilitated, like pilots who free their bombs with no compunction when they do not see the faces of those they kill. As Levinas said (1984) when I do not see the other’s face I am free from taking responsibility for him.
Theoretically, the large group is an ideal place for multiple mirrors, but practically more often instead of a group we find a herd that is very intolerant to diversity and variety of ideas. Anxieties flooding the large group enforce conformity and paralyze different opinions. Unity and massification protects against annihilation, but disables differentiation. Unity strengthens the power of survival, but creates dangerous conformity. Hopper (1997) argues that society and large groups might use the fourth basic assumption of Aggregation/Massification, especially societies that underwent trauma. In times of crisis, survival can overrule differentiation. A variety or mirrors is a privilege kept for those whose survival is assured.
So instead of different points of view and a variety of reflecting mirrors, the large group uses splitting mechanisms in order to deal with differences. It creates the phenomenon of “us vs. them” (Berman, Berger & Gutmann, 2000): we are right and they are totally wrong. The large group cannot tolerate insights and deep understanding. Thinkers are attacked, and impulsivity and drives flourish. The large group presents an attack on linking (Bion, 1967). The more mature functions of checking, testing and taking risks becomes untenable.
We are in disagreement with Storck (2002) who writes that mirroring can still be conceptualized in the large group. She sees common interests and communications as leading inevitably to mirroring, even at a distance. Yet she agrees that, “as the mirror continuously reflects the diversity of the large group… the sense of belonging is challenged by confusion and disagreement” (page 359). We think that common interests are not enough for creating mirroring in the large group and communication there is seldom coherent. As mentioned before, two phenomena make mirroring in the large group very difficult. First, lack of eye contact. Contrary to the small group where people can see their reflections literally in the others' eyes, in the large group they might see the other's back, which makes room for paranoia and not mirroring.
Second, many of the sentences that members of the large group say remain unanswered and the feeling of being lost without any response or reflection prevails
In a discussion on the Internet about mirroring in the large group Hopper agrees that it is difficult to detect and experience positive and negative/malignant mirroring processes in large groups. However, he adds that, "it is possible to think of various large group processes in connection with mirroring phenomena, especially when such groups are particularly regressed. For example, affect contagion may be connected with mirroring processes", as might a variety of individuation phenomena.
(personal communication on Special Interest Group list on Large Group and
Group Analysis, January 20, 2003). Returning to Nitsun (1998) who distinguished between the interpersonal aspect of mirroring based on communication and its more archaic form based on resonance, we conclude that there is lack of communicational mirror in the large group. There might be malignant non-verbal mirroring based on automatic identifications and affect contagion. This is a dangerous process stemming from the fourth basic assumption of “One-ness” (Turquet, 1975) and leading to the

262 uncontrolled impulsive behavior of the mob. In a way the large group invites "antimirroring" in the sense that it enforces members to abandon the personal-introspective stance and relate to more social aspects.
The difficulty of mirroring in the large group gives the individual the feeling that s/he is not seen. It resembles more the "lack of mirroring" we discussed earlier.
Participants talk and no one relates to what they said. The person feels as if s/he does not exist. No one reflects their sentences, or acknowledges their existence. There is a danger of being absorbed by the large group and disappearing in it: a threat to identity according to Turquet (1975). On the other hand there is a danger if the person speaks and everyone stares at him. The member feels attacked by the one-eye Cyclops who eats human flesh. That is why people are afraid to open their mouth in the large group, and it takes some courage to speak up in front of the crowd. So there is either an absent mirror or an attacking hugely distorted one in the large group.
Sharing is difficult in the large group. In the absence of adequate mirroring, sharing becomes dangerous. That way he might feel ignored, exposed, humiliated, and rejected. The risk of narcissistic injury in a large group is high.
Every participant in the large group faces the challenge of dealing with the absence of adequate mirroring in this setting. One way of dealing with this threat is by provocation or taking things to their extremes. Another possibility is expressing only the lowest common denominator opinions. This way a participant might feel that others agree with him and feel mirrored. The greatest challenge is to be in the position of the child in Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. This child has the potential of creating the greatest change, with his courage and innocence. His individual opinion has its impact on the crowd and reveals the truth. He should be a child, free from memories and desire (Bion, 1967). The challenge of the whole large group and its conductors is to raise such children that will extricate society from its fixated lies. The conductor’s role is to nurture such voices, encourage their expression and protect them from the attacks of the mob.
There is no vision in the virtual environment. We cannot see our reflections in the concrete eyes of the other while we exchange emails with him or even “chat” with him. This may help people who are afraid to be seen and let them express themselves freely, but it also invites people to be whatever they want to be; to invent or distort identities.
When people connect through the Internet, all they see is their reflection on the monitor. This is the ultimate narcissistic reflection. The screen adds nothing of itself and stays an admiring mirror. Even people with low self-image can project their ideal-ego on the screen. The writer can look at what s/he has written and enjoy it. It gives her all the time in the world to correct, repair, and perfect his writing: a perfect self-object. On the other hand, especially in synchronic groups and chats there is a pressure for immediate reaction without time for elaboration and just send immediately.
After sending the message, the writer stays alone until getting a response.
Without a response one can get lost in Cyberspace the same way one can be lost in the large group, yet feel less exposed. If the person is hurt in a small group everyone sees the hurt. In the large group people might fantasize that everyone saw the humiliation.
On the Internet people can take some comfort in imagining that nobody saw or paid attention to the injury. In the large group, "auditory mirroring" (mirroring through

263 auditory cues) can replace visual mirroring: people heard me. On the Internet even this possibility fails and what is left is only text. Is textual mirroring (mirroring through text alone) possible? Yes, but it is more difficult to attain.
Again, there are two possibilities of the effect of mirroring on the Internet.
One possibility is that as fewer senses are involved – less shame is evoked. People can still defend themselves with a stronger control of self-boundaries. The writer feels that she decides when to self-disclose and the pressure of the group, so typical of the small group, is diminished. The possibility of intrusion is lowered. An opposite direction is of a magnifying instead of shrinking effect. People can experience the emptiness and lack of visual cues within Cyberspace as acutely persecutory and find the ambiguities of communication hard to tolerate.
In a way, the Internet can become a corrective experience for failures of the archaic virtual environment that Winnicott (1989, page 285) talks about: "the baby at first lives in a subjective world. The baby exists precariously in dependence on the human mother figure. Here and no where else is an experience of omnipotence.
Elsewhere omnipotence is the name given to a feeling or a delusion, but at the theoretical start the baby lives in a dream world while awake". The baby is trying to build herself a virtual environment by thinking, “I am the center of the world, I created the object”. If the mother is not there at the right moment to strengthen this illusion, this (virtual) environment collapses. The Internet is a new opportunity to correct that failure. The writer invents Cyberspace, plays with the buttons that create this world.
The Internet provides the environment for massive projections because it lacks everything but textual cues. These projections create two possibilities. One is to put the other in the position of the bad object, distort what he writes in order to prove his negative mean intentions. This is the schizoid-paranoid position. The other is to project the ego ideal onto the other in Cyberspace and see him as all good.
The existence of the other on the Internet is less narcissistically harmful for the self than in a face to face group, because the other does not rob one’s personal space. The huge vastness of Cyberspace means that there is place for everyone. It gives maximum control over the ability to run away, disconnect, disappear, and change from the personal to the anonymous in the click of the button. Maybe it is the best manic defense: the possibility to eliminate the threatening or hurting object by just clicking “delete”.
Summary:
Examining mirroring in different group situations, its advantages and disadvantages, the main conclusion is that mirroring should be attuned and controlled, taking into consideration an array of data: the participants’ personalities, their life situations, and the group stage of development. Out of these we notice the members’ abilities to see or not to see, to be seen or not to be seen. Looking from this perspective, we can see Narcissus and Perseus as two kinds of participants with different needs. Narcissus represents the member needing admiration and precise mirroring, while Perseus needs challenging, encouraging him to get out of the swamp, and to enjoy an arena of relating to the other. They both can be seen also as participants in different stages of the group: Narcissus representing members in the beginning phase, when the conductor should be very selective in his mirroring because the members are not strong enough yet to stand too intense feedback. Perseus

264 represents members in a more advanced stage, ready for more frustration and relationship based on differentiation.
Foulkes, describing group mirroring as having the abilities to cure early narcissistic pathologies, did not take into consideration the ability of the specific patient to stand this mirroring. Not every group member can learn from the mirrors the group provides them, especially those with early narcissistic disorders. This should be taken into consideration in the screening process for the group.
It is especially difficult to notice the non-verbal mirrors in the group and translate them into words. Being more archaic, body language arouses strong emotions of shame and embarrassment. The level of trust and openness in the group should be very high in order to relate to body mirrors. It might be a good idea to develop a non-verbal way of relating to these mirrors.
Using Zinkin’s approach (1983), we can see the mirror as intensifying Eros and Thanatos in each of us, as well as in every group member. The mirror reflects and magnifies our good parts, but also our destructive parts, and shows how they are all reflected in our relationships. The group should provide both kind of mirrors, but eventually it is important that the positive-benevolent mirror should overcome the destructive-malignant one if we want the group to become a therapeutic environment.
REFERENCES :
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000) 'The Division into Us and Them as a Universal Social Structure', Mind and Human Interaction 11(1): 53-72.
Berman, A., & Weinberg, H. (1998) 'The Advanced Stage Therapy Group',
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 48(4): 499-518.
Bion, W.R. (1967) Second Thoughts . London: Heineman
Bion, W.R. (1959) Experiences in Groups and Other Papers . New York: Basic Books
Bott Spillius, E. (1992/2001) 'Clinical experiences in projective identification', In R.
Anderson (ed.) Clinical Lectures on Klein and Bion , pp. 101-120 (in Hebrew version, 2001) Tel-Aviv: Modan.
Dahlin, O., Ohlstrom, A., and Rodriguez Vareau, M. (2002) Non-Verbal
Communication – Hard Currency in the Group Economy. Paper presented in the GAS conference The Economy of the Group , Bologna, Italy, August
2002.
Foulkes, S.H. (1964) Therapeutic Group Analysis . London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd.
Foulkes, S.H., and Anthony, E.J. (1965) Group Psychotherapy: the Psychoanalytic
Approach 2 nd
edition. London: Penguin books.
Hopper, E. (1996) 'The Social Unconscious in Clinical Work', Group 20(1): 7-43.
Hopper, E. (1997) ‘Traumatic Experience in the Unconscious Life of
Groups: A Fourth Basic Assumption’,
Group Analysis 30: 439-470.
Kernberg O. (1975) Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism . New York:
Jason Aronson.
Klein, M. (1946) 'Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms', International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis 27(3),
Kohut, H. (1971) The Analysis of the Self . London: Hogath Press.

265
Joseph, B. (1987) 'Projective Identification: Some Clinical Aspects', In J. Sandler
(ed.) Projection, Identification, Projective Identification , pp. 65-76.
Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Landau, M. (1993) 'Reflections about Container and Contained', Sihot – Dialogue,
Israel Journal of Psychotherapy , 7(2): 103-110.
Levinas, E. (1984/1986) 'Ethics of the Infinite', In R. Kearney Dialogues with
Contemporary Continental Thinkers , pp. 47-69. Manchester: Manchester
University Press. Reprinted in R. Cohen (ed.), Face to Face with Levinas , pp. 13-33. Albany: Suny Press.
Miller, A. (1981) The Drama of the Gifted Child . New York: Basic Books.
Nitsun, M. (1991) 'The Anti Group: Destructive Forces in the Group and Their
Therapeutic Potential'. Group Analysis, 24: 7-20.
Nitsun, M. (1998) 'The Organizational Mirror: A Group-Analytic Approach to
Organizational Consultancy'. Group Analysis, 31(3): 245-267.
Pines (1984) 'Reflections on Mirroring', International Review of Psycho-Analysis , 11:
27-42
Roberts J., and Pines, M. (eds.) (1991) The Practice of Group Analysis . London and
New York: Tavistock/Routledge.
Sandler, J. (1993) 'On Communication from Patient to Analyst: Not Everything is
Projective Identification', International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 74:
1097-1107.
Sartre, J. P. (1989) Le Mur . Israel: Hadar Publishing House (in Hebrew).
Sartre. J. P. (1946) ' Huis Clos '. Translated and last review 1998 Penguin ed.
Saramago J. (1995) Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira.
Lisboa: Jose Saramago e Editorial
Caminho, SA. English version (1997) Blindness . Great Britain: The Harville
Press.
Storck, L.E. (2002) Reality or Illusion? Five Things of Interest About Social Class as a Large Group. Group Analysis , 35(3): 351-366.
Turquet, P. (1975) 'Threats to Identity in the Large Group'. In L. Kreeger (Ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and therapy, pp. 87-144. London: Karnac.
Winnicott, D. W. (1951/1992) 'Transitional Object and Transitional Phenomena, In
Through Pediatrics To Psycho-analysis , pp. 229-242. London: Karnac
Books.
Winnicott, D.W. (1960/1990) 'Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self, In The
Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment , pp. 140-152.
London: Karnac Books.
Winnicott, D.W. (1971) 'Mirror Role of Mother and Family in Child Development', In
Playing and Reality , pp. 130-138. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Winnicott, D.W. (1989) Psycho-analytic Explorations . Edited by Clare Winnicott,
Ray Shephered, & Madeleine Davis. Cambridge , Massachussetts: Harvard
University Press.
Zinkin, L. (1983) 'Malignant Mirroring'. Group Analysis , 26(2): 113-126.

266

267
Accepted for publication in GROUP , 2006
A shorter version of this manuscript has been submitted as part of the requirements for completing the Group Analysis Diploma.
Abstract
This paper discusses regression in group therapy, and large and virtual groups, compared to regression in individual therapy. In general regression can be defined along two frameworks, either a developmental one - returning to an earlier stage of development, or as an emergence of unconscious material. The author analyzes four dimensions of regression: Primitive defense mechanisms, primary object relations, archaic fantasies and regressive behavior. All of them exist in the large group too. Not all of these dimensions occur simultaneously or at the same deep level in the group, which explains some of the differences between regression in individual and group therapy.
Introduction:
In mid-twentieth century discussions, several authors (see for example Durkin and Glatzer, 1973; Scheidlinger, 1968; Wolf and Schwartz, 1962) questioned the possibility of regression in psychotherapy groups, or at least wondered whether it can be as deep as the regression in individual therapy. Eventually regression in group became an accepted concept (Rutan & Stone, 1993, p. 24). This paper presents a new way of looking at regression in groups (psychotherapeutic, large, and virtual) by distinguishing several dimensions of regression. The depth of regression in the group differs along these dimensions. Perhaps this complexity fueled the original controversy. In addition, this paper analyses large group regression, concluding that the same dimensions can be witnessed there too.
Review of literature:

Definitions and classification:
In their famous book, 'The language of Psychoanalysis', Laplanche and Pontali
(1974) write: "regression means a return from a point already reached to an early one"
(p. 386). They add that topographically regression occurs along psychical systems through which excitation normally runs in a set direction. Temporal regression denotes a reversion to past phases of development. Formal regression means the transition to modes that are in a lower level. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1995) defines regression as "a trend or shift toward a lower or less perfect state". The
Oxford English Dictionary (Edmund and Simpson , 1989) defines it as a "return to a subject, or place, or into a former state". English and English Dictionary of
Psychoanalytic Terms (1958) defines regression as "a return to earlier and less mature behavior". It is clear from these definitions that regression involves returning to an earlier or less mature state.

268

The value of regression for psychotherapy:
Regression can be seen as a defense mechanism against anxiety, as Anna Freud described in The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1936). Perceived this way, regression is an alarming sign in psychotherapy, and can be interpreted as the last defense against breakdown or psychotic withdrawal. There are even views (Kauff,
1997) that question the necessity of regression for an analytic session (either dyadic or group) to work, and warn against its hazards.
11 However, therapy cannot progress without some regression. Without it, unconscious material cannot break through rational censorship, fantasies will be condemned and transference will be criticized as inappropriate. Only in regressing to less mature and irrational forms of feelings, fantasies, behavior, attitude, and relationship with the therapist, the patient can become aware of very early deprivations, needs and flaws, and have the opportunity of repairing these faulty patterns regularly hidden in everyday life (Sweden, 1995).
Even critics of regression in treatment (Kauff, 1997) agree about its effectiveness as a vehicle for accessing affect. On the other hand, regression alone is not enough to create therapeutic change, and is justifiably not included in the therapeutic factors of the group (e.g. Yalom, 1995). Only when an observing ego is involved (either during the regressive event or at least afterwards) in this process, can it become fruitful and therapeutic. Only when reality testing is rehabilitated, can the patient examine the regressive incident with an "objective lens" and learn something significant.

The Developmental View of Regression:
A most common view of regression is along a developmental framework.
Volkan writes (2002), "In general terms, regression in an individual involves a return to some of the psychological expectations, wishes, fears, and associated mental defense mechanisms from an earlier stage of human development" (p. 456). Many models describe the group as advancing along developmental stages (see for example
Bennis & Shepard, 1956, MacKenzie & Livesley, 1983, Tuckman, 1965). If we consider regression as withdrawal to an earlier stage we can conclude that just as an individual in a group regresses by portraying behaviors from an earlier stage of development, the whole group can regress to an earlier group stage. For example the group can become dependent upon the leader after showing signs of differentiation before. This developmental framework is useful for group leaders by serving as a map and a compass showing them the direction of progress and helping them to identify any regressive deviation from the expected path. As happens to many models, it might also become a pillory that does not allow any unexpected creative behavior in the group to be interpreted in other ways but regression.

The Topographical View of Regression:
Other views of regression deal more with the shift from conscious to unconscious processes or from secondary to primary processes. In his classic paper,
Scheidlinger (1968) mentions four views of regression in individual psychoanalysis: topographical regression - shifting mental functioning from the Conscious to
11
There are also some normal expressions of regression, such is in sleeping, recreation, or even in orgasmic discharge (Meerloo, 1962). These expressions involve conscious voluntary lessening of control and are not discussed in this paper.

269
Unconscious System. Drive regression - reversion to partial drive characteristics of earlier developmental stages. Ego regression - emergence of infantile modes of functioning. Phylogenetic regression - reactivating of archaic collective unconscious memories. Turning to groups, he disqualifies the possibility of a group-as-a-whole regression. However, Scheidlinger differentiates between two process dimensions on the individual level, operating simultaneously in groups: the contemporaneousdynamic level pertains to conscious needs, group-roles and ego-adaptive patterns. The genetic-regressive level refers to unconscious motivations, defensive patterns and conflicts.

Regression and group phases:
Bion (1959) joins conceptualizing regression as a transition between different levels of consciousness. He does not conceive of the group as advancing along a sequential progression, but rather as twisting between different phases. These phases are not to be mixed up with stages as they come and go without an expected order and are even exhibited concurrently. He described the group as functioning on two parallel levels: work group level and basic assumptions group level. On the basic assumption level, unconscious anxieties prevail and shared unconscious fantasies evolve. He describes three modes of basic assumptions, two of which are especially regressive in nature. These are the 'dependent basic assumption group' and the 'fightflight basic assumption group'. Scheidlinger (1968) connects the group regression
(while himself disqualifying it as a group-as-a whole phenomenon) mostly to the dependency phase of group formation and mentions Bion's (1959) dependency basic assumption as reactivating regressive levels deeper than in individual analysis.
Kernberg (2003) calls these group phases, respectively, as 'narcissistic regression' and
'paranoid regression'. Idealization, projected omnipotence, and dependency characterize the narcissistic regression, while splitting, projective identification and aggression dominate the paranoid regression. In this framework, regression can happen anywhere along the life of the group, and is not bound to individual or group stages. What is lost in seeing regression as withdrawing to unconscious level is a clarification of the depth level of regression, as it is not related to earlier stages of development.

Individual vs. group regression:
Horowitz (1994) posed the same question that this paper explores about the difference between individual and group regression, but only regarding transference regression. His abstract opens with the following sentence: 'An ongoing controversy in the field of group psychotherapy is whether transference regression is greater in groups than in individual treatment' (p. 271). He argues that group therapists split into two camps: On one-hand writers believe that the multiple transferences in the group are diluted by the realistic demands, but other writers contend that groups are capable of intensifying the transference. The answer to the question whether groups enhance or inhibit regression in members is "both". The main factor contributing to transference dilution is the presence of increased reality inputs in groups compared to individual therapy. These inputs include a greater exposure to the real personality of the therapist, peer pressures and the modulating effect of multiple viewpoints, the use of the group as a transitional object, etc. Factors promoting transference intensification are the contagion effect and the inherent frustration of sharing time and attention with the others.

270
Among the many differences between individual and group therapy, one factor that impacts regression is the strong reality testing enforced on the members by the observations and feedback of the others. This factor assures that when individual regression in the group does occur, it may be reversed before it deepens. Another factor that might contribute to the different regressive patterns between individual and group therapy is the differential levels of intimacy which are typically experienced as more intense in individual therapy. Yalom (1995, p. 400) mentions that borderline patients cannot tolerate the intimacy of the one-to-one treatment which can result in a malignant regression. On the other hand, the loss of the individual transferential tie to the therapist and the fragmenting impact of multi-transferential experiences in group, may result in other difficulties which require careful consideration in deciding on group treatment for regressive pre-oedipal patients.
In order to explore regression we need to define it and understand its various facets and expressions. The definition of regression along a developmental axis is more useful for comparing individual and group regressions. Understanding regression as "returning to earlier stages" means that there should be clear manifestations of preoedipal states. Laplanche and Pontali (1974) write that regression is generally conceived of as a reversion to earlier forms in the development of thought, of object relationships or of the structure of behavior. Expanding their frame of reference we can think about regression as having to do with the following aspects: 1. Primitive defense mechanisms. 2. Early object relations . 3. Infantile behavioral patterns and responses especially infantile dependency . 4. Childish fantasies and conflicts . Not all these aspects occur simultaneously, nor are they identifiable without the application of specific and differently nuanced models.
Perhaps one of the common features of all these interpretations is that overall we expect regression to contribute to impaired reality testing.
Dimensions of Regression:
Rutan and Stone (1993) wrote that, "regression can take place in libidinal, object relations or cognitive lines of development" (p. 23) but did not connect these different manifestations of regression to different dimensions of development or to understanding the difference between regression in individual and group therapy.
Berman and Weinberg (1998) suggested that groups advance along several axes
(dimensions). They identified the following axes of group development: internalization and containment, symbolization, self and self-other development, differentiation and individuation. I would like to suggest the same principle regarding group regression: groups (and group participants) regress along several possible axes
(dimensions). But in contrast to group progress where these axes develop contemporaneously and are equally important in the advanced stage, regression occurs differently along the dimensions. When the group advances, the axes work correspondingly and reinforce each other. When the group (or the individual in the group) regresses, it can withdraw along some of the dimensions but not along the others. Moreover, regression in individual therapy is not along the same dimensions we identify in groups, because the dyadic nature of individual therapy is not similar to the group member's connection with the group-as-a-whole. This is probably the

271 reason why the phenomenon of group regression does not always show the same features as appear in individual therapy.
Let us describe each of the regression dimensions in more detail, picturing them by a clinical vignette. All the examples are taken from small therapy groups led (or co-led) by the author in different settings. The identity of group members is disguised.
A warning comment is needed here: Delineating different aspects of regression in groups implies that they are differential. Actually these dimensions are not mutually exclusive of one another but phenomenologically overlap, and careful examination of any particular incident in a group shows evidence of all four. Delineating the four components of regression has heuristic value. It provides us with a taxonomy that can be used to further clinical investigation
1.The Defense Mechanisms Component:
One aspect of regression often mentioned by writers is that it includes the use of primitive defense mechanisms. These prior psychic mechanisms are introjection and projection, but also include a massive use of splitting and projective identification.
Another mechanism used in regression is idealization, which has a component of an immature perception of the world and the other. Berman and Weinberg (1998) identified the self - self-object axis as one of the axes of progress in the advanced group, where the groups’ need for an idealized parental imago decreases as the group matures. Moving in the reverse direction, the group and its members sometimes have this need to give them the feeling of safety and idealize the group therapist as an allgood object.
These defense mechanisms are activated not only because members have entered a regressed state but also in order to cope with the more primitive anxieties and wishes evoked by the regressive state.
In a therapy group, a woman started criticizing a male participant for things he had said in the group. The more she talked the more angry she became, as if stoking her fire. She started shouting and accused the man of things he had never said and that were obviously not related to him. It seemed like an uncontrollable psychotic outburst. The group became anxious and paralyzed. Finally the group therapist asked her, "who do you see behind this man"? She became quiet and started sobbing.
Although this example looks like a horizontal transferential phenomenon, it involves a strong emotional component and a personal conviction that could be attained only in a very regressed phase based on a primitive mechanism. This is an example of a massive use of projection in a regressive individual in a group situation.
The woman projected her hatred towards her father on the male participant, and the more her anger increased, the more she became blind to the real person in front of her.
The regression was enhanced by the unstructured situation, and as long as no one dared to set up containing boundaries, her regression deepened, until finally the therapist's intervention brought some sense of reality to the room.
Reality distortions due to the use of primitive defense mechanisms can become powerful in groups no less than in individual therapy. The intense feelings involved in groups make it harder to work through these distortions, but the existence of other

272 group members and their feedback help to encourage the development of an observing ego that becomes aware of the distortions. That is why in group therapy these distortions, projections and the use of primitive defenses of the individual may resolve more quickly than in individual therapy. An exception to this helpful factor is when the whole group regresses as can be seen in the following example:
For a long time the group related differently to its two leaders. The male therapist was treated as un-empathic, not caring, and detached, and his interventions were less considered and less responded. The female therapist was perceived warm and her interventions were considered as right to the target. Eventually the group decided that the male leader is less experienced while the female leader is more senior. In reality the situation was the opposite. These perceptions of the therapists were so strong and persistent that the senior male therapist started doubting his style of leadership in the group.
In this example the whole group regresses using primitive defense mechanisms of split, idealization and devaluation. It also involves projective-identification because it seems that the group succeeded implanting inferiority feelings and doubts with his competency in the male therapist.
Another advantage of the group setting is that the containment of the other group members and attachment to them may help participants to remain involved in the process long enough to obtain resolution where they might prematurely terminate individual treatment.
2.Early Object Relations Component:
The early object relations aspect of regression resembles the developmental axis of differentiation and individuation mentioned in Berman and Weinberg's (1998) paper. Early object representations consist of either part or merged objects. In the process of individual or group therapy, patients relate to the therapist, to group members or to the group-as-a-whole the same way they related to objects they encountered in their early development. Relating to the therapist as the good breast or connecting the group with the safe womb is quite common. It is also not unusual to find merging fantasies of patients in therapy albeit it seems that merging in individual therapy is deeper than in groups.
Let us compare two examples of merging from group therapy and individual sessions:
A group member was very late for the group meeting. Entering the room he said nothing. The group was in the middle of a hot discussion and continued the issue discussed for a while without relating to the latecomer. Suddenly he burst with anger and blamed the group for not caring at all about the fact that his car had broken down and he had to wait for an hour to be towed to the mechanics. He complained harshly that they did not really pay attention to his suffering. Another group member asked him how on earth could they know what happened to him and that it seemed as if he expected them to guess about the toil and trouble he had gone through to reach the group meeting.

273
In this example the patient assumed that the group was part of himself, as if they were inside his mind and knew what he thought and felt. He related to the group as a good-enough-mother who is supposed to sense her child's needs and distress and to fit herself to his emotional situation.
Let us compare this vignette to an example from an individual session:
The therapist noticed that the patient failed to pay for the last eight sessions without any explanation. He questioned the patient, who was surprised by the inquiry, for the meaning of this behavior. The patient explained that he was in financial difficulties and assumed that he can postpone his payments to the time he will terminate therapy. He planned to return the money then bit by bit. He was sure that the therapist approved of this plan even though he shared with the therapist nothing about these ideas. He was really surprised to hear that he should have discussed his plan with the therapist.
This is an example of early object relations (and merging fantasies, as we will see later) too. The patient was sure that the therapist knows about his thoughts and approved of his plan. Both examples relate to seeing the other as part of oneself, but the vignette from the individual session sounds more regressed because the patient developed a whole plan without discussing it with the therapist and ignored the fact that the monetary issue is the therapist’s business too. In both cases we are talking about patients with a high-level ego organization and well-functioning in reality. They did not seem to have a borderline personality disorder and usually did not show regression in every day life situations. The need for attention of the group member in the first example, and the vulnerability generated by the individual patient's financial difficulties as also expressed in the therapeutic situation made them regress to early object relations.
Sometimes the pattern of early object relations with the group or the therapist is unnoticeable. Other times it seems almost as if the patient is trying to suck at its mother's breast. Consider the following vignette from group therapy:
A young woman behaved quite passively in the group. She was usually quiet, never uttering a word, withdrawing shyly. The group therapist tried to involve her in the conversation inquiring her which help does she need in order to talk. She asked the therapist and group members to approach her frequently, encourage her to speak up, and pay attention to her even when she seems uninvolved. "You mean, you want us to treat you like a baby?" one of the other participants required. "Why not?" she answered, "I do feel sometimes that I wish I could be a baby again and let my mother take care of me".
3.
The Behavioral Regression Component:
Regressive behavior and infantile patterns are perhaps the most impressive manifestations of regression. When an adult behaves in an immature and inappropriate way it evokes strong reactions in the observers. Because people tend to inhibit socially unaccepted patterns of behavior in public, fearing the "public eye" and its reprimand, we would expect regressive behaviors to be less prominent in the group than in the individual setting where the therapist is perceived as accepting and

274 empathic. In contrast to these expectations we find out that therapeutic and analytic groups become an extensive space for regressive behavior. This phenomenon points out the intensive pull of regressive forces in the group, overcoming social sanctions and individual inhibitions. Regressive manifestations cover a wide range of behaviors, from silent withdrawal to tempter tantrums.
A woman in a group developed a repetitive pattern of drawing the attention of the group towards her. She started with covering her face with her long hair, as if hiding behind a curtain. When no one paid attention to this behavior, she slowly slid down along her chair until she almost sat on the floor. When this behavior did not help to draw attention either, she left the room angrily, hoping that someone will run after her, asking her to return. The group got used to her behavior and let her deal with her frustration alone. When she returned to the room and the therapist asked her if she wanted to say something instead of behaving it, she burst out with anger saying that no one in the group really cared and threatening to kill herself.
This woman acted like a child trying to draw the attention of his parents without saying anything. Just as the child does not have the skills to express her needs verbally, this woman had no other way to express her needs and frustration but to act them out with her behavior. Attention seeking can be a powerful facilitator of regression.
Because groups can be regarded as representing the social world and participants are seen as exhibiting their regular behavior in it, generally we can see in a group a variety of infantile behaviors that we do not usually see in individual therapy. Group members interact with one another and members respond differently towards different members in the group. The richness of behavioral expressions in groups is greater than in the individual setting, including the expression of regressive behaviors.
4.
Childish Fantasies and Conflicts Component:
Consider the following example:
For a few weeks, a group veteran behaved in a strange way. He became provocative towards other group members, making them angry and hostile towards him. He started missing group sessions without leaving a note and coming late to meetings he did attend. In most of the meetings he imitated the role of the therapist, interpreting the behavior of others, and stopped bringing his own issues. He also had the need to clarify that he did not really care about the members and their feedback.
Prior to that period he was well integrated in the group discussions and people liked him. Now they turned against him. The group therapist invited him several times to speak up about what is happening, but in vain. Then the member announced that he is going to terminate the group. When the therapist inquired about the reason, this man accused the therapist angrily, saying that for weeks he is trying to make the group therapist love him, but no matter what he does, it seems that the therapist does not care. After this outburst he repeatedly insisted that the therapist answers his simple direct question, "do you love me?"

275
Although this example shows behavioral regression too, there is also an element of infantile fantasy in this vignette. This patient’s primary goal when he joined the group was to change his isolated social position and improve his interactions with friends. Instead, it looked as if he replaced this goal with the fantasy of getting an overt expression of love from the group leader, and was ready to sacrifice his original goal for that.
Merging fantasies are often activated in group regression. The merging fantasies are often discussed in terms of the "mother-group" (Foguel, 1994; Kibel,
1991; Scheidlinger, 1974). The group entity becomes the symbolic representation of a nurturing mother for the group members and is perceived as either a "good" feeding and nourishing breast, or a "bad" abandoning and persecutory one. This extends to attributing an even earlier fantasy, the experience of being in a group evokes unconscious memory traces of having been in and of the womb (Elliot, 1994). All of these fantasies are seen to evoke the early conflict of separation-individuation, fears of engulfment, and a counter-behavior trying to pull out of this symbiosis. The fantasies can be directed towards the parental figure, looking for a special attitude and love from group therapist. In other ways, the surrounding presence of the group and group members are understood to evoke fantasies and memories of the enveloping environmental mother (Winnicott, 1989) and the wishes and fears related to that oneness. Other fantasies and conflicts might revolve around primitive aggression, especially in the service of developing one’s independent self and agency separate from the group.
Regression in the Large Group:
The large group arouses a powerful pull of regression, threatening individual identity (Turquet, 1975) and inviting crude aggression between its members and sometimes towards the leaders. The pressure for narcissistic and pre-oedipal regression in the large group is emphasized by Anzieu, (1984) who stresses the denial of differences between the sexes, thus contributing to the illusion that the large group is homogeneous. Kernberg (1989) focuses on the tendency of the large group to promote conformity and form the illusion that the group is uniform. In a later paper
Kernberg (2003) argues that the dimensions of narcissistic and paranoid regression emerge as major dimensions around which regressive social pathology crystallizes.
The regressive group processes may activate primitive aggression in the large group and under the influence of acute socially traumatic circumstances or crises violent acts may emerge.
Triest (2003) claims that regression in the large group is two-fold. We can witness a "vertical - topographic" regression, caused by a breach of structural boundaries and expressed by a flooding of the "conscious" by the unconscious. We can experience a "horizontal regression" as well on the separation-individuation axis, which "melts down" the boundaries between self-representations and objectrepresentations, leading to the loss of individuality in the large group. The dimensions of regression identified earlier in the current paper fit well with this dichotomy because early object relations and fantasies are included in the horizontal regression, while regressive behavior and archaic defense mechanisms are caused by flooding of the conscious and belong to the vertical - topographic regression. Triest's model

276 actually combines the two definitions of regression mentioned in the introduction, and proposes that both inhabit the large group.
Regression in the large group and the threat for identity it creates leaves two possible strategies for the participant. One is regression to a narcissistic state of "Meness" (Lawrence, Bain, and Gould, 1996) while the other is the opposite "One-ness", involving fusion with the whole group as a defense against abandonment and loneliness (Turquet, 1975). Hopper (1997) combines those fourth and fifth basic assumptions into one oscillating bi-polar behavior, and proposes that large groups, especially traumatized social systems shift between two polarities: One-ness or massification, and Me-ness or aggregation. It is interesting to note that all these authors describe regression in the large group more in behavioral terms, although the childish fantasies are evident beyond "One-ness" or "Me-ness".
Here is a vignette showing a large group defense against regression while revealing its deep existence at the same time. It is taken from a three day conference in Israel about "transference and countertransference in groups" in which there were two large group sessions every day:
The first session of the large group begins with an uncontrollable attack of laughing and ridiculing. Members make belittling comments towards the leaders which later change into mutual scorning. When the leaders interpret the manic, indirect aggressive atmosphere as a defense against regression anxiety the group denies any aggression. Then, at one point a subgroup of women starts singing, "who is going to love me, who is going to hug me?"
We can see this subgroup of women as fusing into "one-ness" with their singing, hoping to find refugee from the aggression that prevails in the group. The contents of their song reveals their regressive fantasies and yearning for some warmth.
The power of regression in large groups can be demonstrated in a new type of group, which we are now beginning to experience and appreciate - virtual groups that appear on the Internet. In a previous paper, (2001) I saw virtual groups in cyberspace as large groups with the illusion of being small groups. This allows members in these groups and the virtual group as a whole to regress as well. On this theme Holland
(1996) identified three signs of regression on the Internet: aggression or "flaming" - where anger and rage appear at the slightest provocation, sexual harassment or
"flirting" - when crude invitations are made for sexual contact; and altruism – where extraordinary generosity is shown. It is not surprising that in the absence of visual cues and with heightened ambiguity, members of cyberspace groups regress and resort to a previously known attitude. Holland traces these regressions to unconscious fantasies people have about the computer itself - regarding power, sex, narcissistic gratification and mirroring, oral engulfment, and parental love. At the heart of this
Internet regression is the individual's tendency to confuse the person and the machine.
In cyberspace the user sees the computer as human and dehumanizes other people. It

277 seems that regressive fantasies and early object relations govern the scene on the
Internet regression.
We can conclude that the four dimensions of regression are activated in the large group too, and sometimes quite massively. Primitive defense mechanisms, such as splitting, idealization, projection and projective identification, are very strong. The regressive use of primitive defenses can be shown by the tendency to use massive projections in the large group. For example, the super-ego function can be projected on the whole group, sometimes in an effort to avoid violence and protect the identity of the ego through ideology. Early object relations and archaic fantasies can be extrapolated from the strong identification of social large groups' members with their organization or nation to the extent of surrendering their own identity. In addition, the large group evokes a strong need for mirroring. The member feels lost in the crowd and looks for a reassuring reflection in the others’ eyes. But the large group is a
"faceless mother" (Turquet, 1975), and its members suffer from a lack of mirroring.
The lack of a communicational mirror in the large group (Weinberg and Toder, 2004) may cause a regressive-malignant non-verbal mirroring based on automatic identifications and affect contagion. Finally, regressive behaviors, from intimidated silence to aggressive outbursts, are quite common in a large group as well. Overall it seems that large group dynamics are more in favor of group-level regression
(represented by Bion, 1959), than of individual level regression (represented by
Scheidlinger, 1968), probably because a mass of individuals is perceived as a nonindividualized crowd.
Discussion:
Following Horowitz (1994), the answer to the question whether groups enhance or inhibit regression in members is "both". The nature of the group as an arena where several people compete to fulfill their needs, is sure to frustrate regressive fantasies very quickly, while in an individual setting these fantasies may be prolonged and sustained for quite a long period. That is why we usually refer patients with more ego strength and more ability to sustain frustration and delay need gratification to group therapy. The nature of the dyadic bond and the passive stance of the analyst encourage fantasies of regressive type and archaic object relation formation more than the intense, sometimes hectic interaction in the group.
Clarifying the dimensions of regression helps us conclude which regressive components tend to show up more easily in the group. We might conclude that early object relations and regressive fantasies and conflicts go deeper in individual therapy, and that infantile regressed behavior is expressed more in groups. In addition it seems that the intensity of primitive defense mechanisms and their massive use is more prominent in groups. We can adopt Triest's (2003) conceptualization about large group regression for all groups and say that horizontal regression is deeper in groups compared to individual therapy, while vertical-topographic regression is deeper in individual setting. The distinction into several regression dimensions and the various depths they reach in individual and group therapy goes hand in hand with Horowitz's
(1994) conclusion that both transference dilution and transference intensification exist in a group setting. More than that, they explain which dimensions intensify the regression and which dilute it.

278
One of the questions that might be asked about the difference between regression in group and individual therapy is whether it is just an artifact. Perhaps in both group and individual settings the inner regression is the same, but in groups there are more social sanctions against showing it overtly. Such an interpretation could also explain the seeming difference between individual and group regression. The fact that we witness infantile behaviors in groups despite social censorship excludes this possibility. If group members acted only according to social desirability they would avoid showing any regressive behaviors.
A related question is whether we can count the behavioral regression as an aspect that stands alone or just as an overt expression of the other dimensions. We can say that the infantile conflicts, fantasies and archaic object relations portray themselves through behavior, so that behavior should not have a distinguished status.
My intention was to describe a behavior that comes instead of words, or when verbal communication is absent. This is pre-verbal behavior which justifies its differentiated status. Fantasies and manifestations of primary object relations can be expressed through words and not just behaviors. Laplanche and Pontali (1974) too include behavior as one of the forms of regression in addition to thought and object-relations.
We cannot talk about regression nowadays without exploring this concept from the relational theoretical approach. This means that we should add the contribution of the therapist to the phenomenon of regression. The depth of regression the patient can go through depends on the depth of regression the therapist can tolerate .
Talking about the patient's regression without considering the therapist's ability to contain it is treating therapy as acting in a void. From this perspective it can be said that it is more difficult for the group therapist to contain the many regressions activated in a group than in individual setting. The group therapist feels less control on the therapeutic situation and might be less tolerant to regressive signs that are too deep. Thus, the level of regression in the group can be less deep than in individual therapy because the group therapist is not able to contain it all.
The inevitable question following this paper is what are its implications for clinical work. Should we encourage regression in the group and, if the answer is yes, which of its delineated component? First, delineating dimensions of regression has its merit even if only for providing clinicians with taxonomy that can be used for further clinical investigation. Second, as mentioned in the review of literature, therapy cannot progress without some regression, but regression alone is not enough for the progression of therapy unless an observing ego is involved. What follows is that the therapist should encourage the development of this observing ego. The advantage of the group is that other group members apart from the protagonist can serve as observing egos. This means that one of the group therapist's tasks is to encourage group participants to become observing egos for the regressed member and enhance the ability of group members to distance themselves from the regressive situation after being pulled into it. Knowing that horizontal regression is deeper in groups recommends greater effort for the group therapist to facilitate this position for the members when primitive defense mechanisms or regressive behaviors are involved.
Describing regression as activated along several dimensions has its merits in understanding the conditions for regression in the group too. Usually the more loose the structure of the meetings the more regressed its members become. Such is the fate of Tavistock-style workshops (the Leicester conference group relations tradition in the

279
UK and A.K. Rice in the States). It is as if with a permissive leader who encourages lack of a clear structure, role definition and task of the group, inner structures start to collapse and participants withdraw into infantilism. In the absence of cues and heightened ambiguity, people resort to what is familiar. But on the other hand an autocratic leader with a directive style of leadership can also lead to infantalised behaviors of group members. Probably these two extreme styles of group leadership evoke two different dimensions of regression.
In a group, in addition to the possibility of individual regression, members develop shared psychological defenses to cope with the group-as-a-whole regression.
Group-level regression is represented by Bion (1959), Ganzarain (1989), Kernberg
(2003), and Hopper (1997), while individual-level regression is represented by
Scheidlinger (1968), Rutan & Stone (1993), and Slavson (1964). Horowitz (1994) pointed out that group-centered therapists tend to emphasize an intensification of transference regression in groups, while individually focused group therapists emphasize transference dilution in groups. We might say that the level of group regression is deeper than individual member's regression in a group, probably due to reality inputs given by non-regressed members. The question of individual member's regression versus the whole group regression in group therapy awaits further exploration. Do these phenomena appear together? Is it possible that the group-as-awhole regresses without the regression of all its participants? What would this imply about our model of individual/group relations? Although sounding like a paradox, the above discussion points out to the possibility that when the individual in the group regresses "alone", it is a different regression than the one attained when the whole group regresses.
References:
Anzieu, D. (1984). The Group and the Unconscious . London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Bennis, W.G., & Shepard, H.A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human
Relations, 9, 415-438.
Berman, A., and Weinberg, H. (1998). The advanced stage therapy group.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 48(4), 499-518.
Bion, W.R. (1959) Experiences in groups and other papers . New York: Basic Books
Durkin, H.E., and Glatzer, H.T. (1973). Transference neurosis in group psychotherapy: The concept and reality. In L.R. Wolberg & E.K. Schwartz
(eds.), Group therapy 1973: An overview . New York: International book
Corporation.
Edmund, W.S., and Simpson J.A. (Eds.) (1989). Oxford English dictionary . Oxford University
Press
Elliot, B. (1994). The womb and gender identity. In D. Brown, & L. Zinkin (eds.), The Psyche and the social world , (pp. 118-128). London: Routledge.
English, H.B., and English, A.C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green &
Co.

280
Foguel, B.S. (1994). The group experienced as mother: Early psychic structures in analytic groups. Group Analysis, 27, 265-285.
Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. In The writings of
Anna Freud, vol. 2, pp. 3-176. New York: International Universities Press.
Ganzarain R.C. (1989). Object relations group psychotherapy . Madison, CT:
International Universities Press.
Holland, N. (1996). The Internet regression. [Online]. In J. Suler (Ed.),
Psychology of cyberspace . Available: http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/holland.html
. [Retrieved 1 May, 2003].
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption, Group Analysis, 30, 439-470.
Horowitz, L. (1994). Depth of transference in groups. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy 44(3), 271-290.
Kauff, P.F. (1997). Transference and regression in and beyond analytic group psychotherapy: Revisiting some timeless thoughts. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy 47(2), 201-210.
Kernberg, O.F. (2003). Socially sanctioned violence: The large group as society.
In S. Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.), The large group revisited: The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses (pp. 123-147). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Kernberg, O.F. (1989). The Temptations of Conventionality. International
Review of Psycho-Analysis, 16 , 191–205.
Kibel, H.D. (1991). The therapeutic use of splitting: The role of the mother-group in therapeutic differentiation and practicing. In S. Tuttman (ed.),
Psychoanalytic group theory and therapy (pp. 113-132). New York:
International Universities Press.
Laplanche, J. and Pontalis, J.B. (1974). The language of Psychoanalysis . Norton
& Company.
Lawrence, W.G., Bain, A. and Gould, L. (1996). The fifth basic assumption. Free
Associations 6(37), 28-55 .
MacKenzie, K.R., & Livesley, W.J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R.R. Dies, & K.R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (pp. 101-116). New York:
International University Press.
Meerloo, J.A.M. (1962). The dual meaning of human regression. Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Review, 49, 77-86.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1995). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.
Retrieved 2004, June 12 from http://www.m-w.com
.
Rutan, S.J., and Stone, W.N. (1993). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford Press.
Scheidlinger, S. (1968). The Concept of regression in group psychotherapy.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 18, 3-20.

281
Scheidlinger, S. (1974). On the concept of the "mother-group". International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy 24, 417-428.
Slavson, S.R. (1964). A textbook in group psychotherapy . New York: international; Universities Press.
Swedden, R.C.V. (1995). Regression to dependence . New Jersey: Jason Aronson.
Triest, J. (2003). The large group and the organization. In S. Schneider & H.
Weinberg (eds.), The large group revisited: The herd, primal horde, crowds and masses (pp. 157-168). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin , 63 , 384-399.
Turquet, P. (1975). Threats to identity in the large group. In L. Kreeger (ed.), The
Large Group: Dynamics and therapy . London: Karnac (pp.87-158).
Volkan, V. (2002) September 11 and societal regression. Group Analysis, 35(4) ,
456-483.
Weinberg, H. (2001). Group process and group phenomena on the Internet',
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 51(3), 361-378.
Weinberg, H., and Toder, M. (2004). The hall of mirrors in small, large, and virtual groups.
Group Analysis 37(4) .
Winnicott, D.W. (1989) Psycho-analytic Explorations . Edited by Clare Winnicott,
Ray Shephered, & Madeleine Davis. Cambridge , Massachussetts: Harvard
University Press.
Wolf, A., and Schwartz, E.K. (1962). Psychoanalysis in groups . New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Yalom, I.D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.) .
New York: Basic Books.

282

283
12
13
Accepted for publication for International Journal of Group Psychotherapy
ABSTRACT
The facilitation of large experiential process groups has become common in conferences and therapeutic communities but still lack an ethical code. This paper examines codes of ethics and practice guidelines of several associations dealing with small groups and their application to the large group. It also explores typical large group ethical dilemmas focusing specifically on the question of confidentiality. The conclusion is that the code of ethics suitable to large group forum is that of nontherapy groups, and especially the one used in organizational development settings.
INTRODUCTION
Although large groups in psychological settings have existed since the first half of the 20th century, only in the last thirty years have they flourished across the
United States and in other parts of the world. The setting for large groups has mostly been found within institutions (Pines, 2003). At first they appeared in therapeutic communities and mental hospitals (Main, 1946). Later on they became an inherent part of the Tavistock and Leicester Conferences in the United Kingdom and at the
A.K. Rice Group Relations Conferences in the United States. Since the 1970's, they have become part of the educational curriculum in training programs in Group
Analysis and they began to be formally included as an experiential part of the Group
Analytic Society meetings . For the last decade large process groups have become an integral part of the group psychotherapy conference of the American Group
Psychotherapy Association (AGPA), and recently the Eastern Group Psychotherapy
Society (EGPS) has run a large group. In Europe, they are an established part of the culture of the Group Analytic Society symposiums in which the large group sessions include all the conference participants. The growing interest with the large group in the USA integrated as an ongoing Open Session during the entire week of the AGPA annual conference, and a new Special Interest Group (SIG) on larger groups in the
AGPA began several years ago. In addition, during the past three AGPA annual conferences, there has been a theoretical Open Session on the large group.
The literature about the large group is still limited. Following the classic book by Le Bon (1896) on crowds, a forerunner of the beginning conceptualization of the large group, and McDougall's (1920) early observation that group organization could turn the large group into a functioning unit, a collection of papers on the large group was published in 1975 in a book edited by Kreeger. Another book written in 1991 by de Maré, Piper & Thompson entitled 'Koinonia: From Hate, through Dialogue, to

284
Culture in the Large Group' was actually about a type of larger group called the median group. A special issue of the journal GROUP (edited by Bernard and West) about the large group was published in 1993. A new book appeared (edited by
Schneider and Weinberg , 2003) presented the latest developments in this field. In the sparse literature we have cited, nothing has been written about ethical issues in large groups. Considering the growing interest and the expanded use of the large group in training institutes, conferences, organizational consultation, workshops, hospitals, or other suitable settings, this is a deficiency that needs to be redressed. As Etchegoyen
(1991) writes regarding psychoanalysis and ethics: "…ethics are a part of the technique…Ethics are integrated into the scientific theory of psychoanalysis not as a simple moral aspiration but as a necessity of its praxis. A failure of ethics in psychoanalysis leads inexorably to technical failure, as its basic principles, especially those that structure the setting, are founded on the ethical concepts of equality, respect and search for truth" (p.11).
ETHICS
When we utilize the term "ethics" we are referring to a corpus of moral principles or values that are particular to certain cultures and groups. Therefore, one groups' ethical principles are not necessarily the same for another group’s. Morals or morality, on the other hand, refer to a pre-judgement of right or wrong -- "proper" or
"correct". Rules of morality are internalized through parental, societal and educational interactions and are reinforced by the significant others in our lives. Barton & Barton
(1984) delineated schematically the different terms ethics, values and morals in the following way: "…morals at the core of one's values; attitudes and etiquette are expressed in contact with others. Ethics are rules which govern professional conduct toward patients, members of the profession, and society" (p.11).
The concept of morals and an ethical value system has its roots in superego theory. This concept has undergone modifications over the years since Freud first introduced the theoretical framework as part of his tripartite theory in 1923. The large group conductor's relationship to the group participants parallels the transferential and fantasy world of the parent-child relational paradigm. As Freud (1933) noted:
“…Parents and authorities analogous to them follow the precepts of their own superegos in educating children…. Thus a child’s superego is in fact constructed on the model not of its parents but of its parents’ superego; the contents which fill-it are the same and it becomes the vehicle of tradition and of all the time-resisting judgments of value which have propagated themselves in this manner from generation to generation” (p. 67). If the Large Group's leader is the group's parent, how might the seductive and regressive force of large group dynamics compromise the leader’s ethics or moral stance? How might the formal large group leader manage the role in an ethical manner in the face of massive group induction into basic assumption mentality?
The strength of the emotions that emerge from the large group can subvert the universal ethical balance. Too much aggression or, conversely, passivity may emerge.
Introjections and projections abound. The internal world of group participants -- and of the conductor --- influences how the large group operates. In the large group there is constant influencing -- consciously, unconsciously, in fantasy and in reality, and there is a constant shifting from 'reality' to 'non-reality'. Hartmann (1960) tried to describe this in the following manner: “Even after the institution of the superego the

285 moral systems are not fully static. They are open to influences from within and without through the mediation of superego and ego; they are in constant interaction with the social structure and cultural values in which the individual lives; …(The) efficiency of the codes will be more secure if they have strong cultural support in the environment, and, of course, one will have to consider the methods by which society manipulates individual moral development” (pp. 31-32).
In an international conference participants were going in and out of the large group session, creating a sense of instability and chaos in the room. When the leader tried to interpret the meaning of this process and parallel it to migration of people around the world, he was criticized for his psychodynamic approach. "Why don't you accept the fact that it is just boring here, and people leave because they are uninterested in this bullshit?" a member of the group asked. The leader lost his temper and shouted: "I am the authority here and I am not going to bear such a behavior in my group".
Facing the pressures of the Large Group, and its regressive tendencies, the leader should have a firm and coherent code of ethics. The formulation of large group ethics might enhance the leader’s ability to maintain some level of civility, morality, principles of ethical practice, rules of engagement or psychocultural and sociopolitical context or normative behaviors or etiquette.
When dealing with ethical considerations in the large group: are we talking about large groups, generically? Or, are we talking about a specific type of large group -- unique either to culture, language, professional affiliations, sexual orientation or some other variable? The focus of this paper is to address ethical considerations particular to the facilitation of large experiential process groups.
DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF THE LARGE GROUP
Much can be written about the nature/definition and purpose of the large group. Since our focus will be on a specific issue regarding the ethical dimension of large experiential process groups, we will confine ourselves to a very brief description of the large group.
There is no accepted definition of the large group, its purpose, structure or even basic technical details such as seating arrangement, hall size, or use of microphones; most theoretical writings ignore these seemingly basic questions. In a recent discussion on the AGPA SIG Internet list (January 2004) even well known large group "experts" were not able to characterize or define a specific model. Even the title (and role) of the leaders of such large gatherings was unclear: are they
"conductors ,
" "conveners," "leaders," "consultants," “analysts” or “facilitators”?
There is also a "clear ambiguity" regarding the number of participants that constitute a large group -- from 20 and upward according to de Maré (1990), to 40-80 according to Turquet (1975), and hundreds or even more, according to Volkan (2001). A practical-structural definition of the large group is, "Any group with such a large number of participants (that) they cannot be encompassed in a single glance"
(Weinberg, 2003, p.189).
In general we can talk about two large group models: the group relations (A.K.
Rice, Tavistock, Leicester) model versus the group analytic model. In the group analytic model the purpose is to promote dialogue, to learn from experience why dialogue is so difficult, or to learn about large groups (and the social unconscious) in general. The primary task of the group relations conferences is to study member’s

286 relationship to authority, power, influence, while exploring overt and covert dynamics of the group as a whole. Recent theme conferences address, in situ, the vagaries of racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, ethic projections and other social identifications and defenses.
Wilke (2003) addressed the split between Bion and Foulkes. The Foulkesian
‘pro-group’ conductor influences the quality of the experience in the large group by the way he makes himself available during the session and by making it known that he exists at the start. The conductor belonging to the Bionic 'anti-group' tradition gives the large group as much space as possible to regress by refraining from saying anything at the start or the end of the group…The competent conductor of a large group needs to hold both perspectives in mind and use Bion to understand the defences of the group and Foulkes to develop a flexible way of conducting it"(p.102).
Most theoreticians agree that large groups are not a true type of psychotherapy, even if there is therapeutic value. The large group is, however, an important tool in understanding social interactive processes and interrelationships within society (Schneider and Weinberg, 2003). Study of the large group offers a connection between the sociological and the psychological. In addition, developing a sense of citizenship is one of the main tasks of participants of the large group (in the group analytic model).
Members of the large group experience also learn what it means to belong to a community or society, how much they are involved in what is going on, whether they are active or passive or take responsibility or an informal leadership role. They can also learn about conflicts between subgroups and their social identities including gender, political, religious, and ethnic affiliations (in the group relations model).
ETHICAL CODES IN GROUPS
A principle guiding any ethical professional code is to act in the best interests of the client/patient while minimizing any potential harm. This is based on the
Hippocratic Oath's adjuration: "I will keep them from harm and injustice." We understand this to mean that a code of ethics for the large group should maximize the benefits for its members and minimize the risks and dangers. And if we follow the credo of the Hippocratic Oath, it also requires that we protect our clients/patients and contain what they bring into the large group setting. The potential dangers are great: crude expressions of aggression or even outbursts of violence, scapegoating an individual or subgroup, polarizations and acute conflicts, threats to one's identity and other potentially injurious events and processes. It's as if the id has become unleashed without the stabilizing effects of one's internal ego and guilt suppressing qualities of the superego. Thus, the need for outside sources of control and containment on the part of the conductor/leader/convener/consultant or other delineations of the role.
In order to explore the ethical considerations in the large group, it seems reasonable to first explore the codes of ethics in small groups and see how this may apply to larger groups. We will examine the guidelines of the American Group
Psychotherapy Association (AGPA), the Association for Specialists in Group Work
(ASGW), and the International Association of Group Psychotherapy (IAGP). These are three major organizations whose membership consists of trained persons in the field of group psychotherapy, group work and psychodrama.
The AGPA (under the auspices of its affiliated National Registry of Certified
Group Psychotherapists - NRCGP) has developed “Guidelines for Group
Psychotherapy Practice.” These guidelines can be found at the following web site:

287 http://www.agpa.org/group/ethicalguide.html
. They focus on the group psychotherapist's responsibility towards the patient/client and on the professional standards of the group psychotherapist. The main points mentioned in the section on the group psychotherapist's responsibility to the patient/client are:
1.
The group psychotherapist provides services with respect for the dignity and uniqueness of each patient/client as well as the rights and autonomy of the individual patient/client.
2.
The group psychotherapist safeguards the patient/client's right to privacy by judiciously protecting information of a confidential nature.
3.
The group psychotherapist acts to safeguard the patient/client and the public from the incompetent, unethical, illegal practice of any group psychotherapist.
In the section on professional standards, the group psychotherapist is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the practice of group psychotherapy. This includes upholding and maintaining professional standards by focusing on formal and informal learning activities and experiences. The group psychotherapist is also charged with insuring the ethical practice of group psychotherapy by reporting violations of ethical standards .
It is interesting to note that the AGPA directs ethical complaints to "the state licensing board or, in the absence of a state license, to the designated primary professional organization of the individual." It seems as if the AGPA does not regard group therapy as a profession in itself but as a sub-specialty of the therapist's primary profession (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or other mental health degreed professional.) (Triest, 2003). This perception is reinforced when one studies the details of the guidelines and finds out that almost none of them relate to specific phenomena in groups (except once when the entire group should agree to protect the identity of the members). Actually, in every sentence where it is written, "group psychotherapist", we could have replaced it with "therapist" and would have a generic code suitable to any other profession in the mental health field.
The ASGW identifies itself as a division of the American Counseling
Association (ACA), and notes the commitment of its members to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of its parent organization. Its practice guidelines can be found at the website: http://www.asgw.org/best.html
. It differs from the AGPA ethical guidelines in that it has a greater level of detail and views group workers as "ethical agents". Also note that the ASGW utilizes the generic term "group worker" rather than "group psychotherapist." It addresses the group workers' responsibilities in planning, performing and processing groups. In a way it is a step-by-step guide to
"how to properly lead groups." As an example, in the "planning" section, the need for prior assessment is stressed (of self and environment), as well as developing the appropriate group program and preparing the members for the group. In the
"performing" section assisting members is mentioned in order to generate meaning from the group experience. In the "group processing" section there are paragraphs about processing schedule, evaluation and follow-up.
An important sentence found in the ASGW code but lacking in the AGPA guidelines is: "Group Workers have a basic knowledge of groups and the principles of group dynamics, and are able to perform the core group competencies." This sentence identifies leading a group as a special profession that needs specific knowledge.
Group psychotherapy is considered a specialty area with its own core competencies and certification.

288
The IAGP is developing an 'Ethical Orientation for Group Coordinators.' It is still under consideration by the Association, but it is important for our discussion because it tries to combine ethical codes of Associations from different countries. The term 'coordinator' has been chosen, as a temporary solution in attempting to overcome the difficulty of the use of so many different descriptions of the person who is in charge of the group: conductor/leader/convener/consultant/group worker/group psychotherapist/group analyst, among them. As in the AGPA code, group coordinators must have a license to practice a specific mental health profession, and they are then subject to that professional ethical code. The sections of this ethical orientation deal with the attitude towards the group (e.g. leading the group democratically), professional training, confidentiality (that extends to group members) and relations with colleagues.
IMPLICATIONS OF SMALL GROUPS ETHICAL CODES
FOR THE LARGE GROUP
As Weinberg and Schneider (2003) have pointed out, the dynamic processes, specifically the projective processes, are different in the large group than we find in other smaller group constellations. It goes without saying that just as we require group therapists to have considerable knowledge about group dynamics, so too, it is important for large group consultants to be knowledgeable about large group dynamics. Although this requirement sounds most reasonable, it is not so easily attainable. As far as we are aware, there is no "large group course" taught at any university, academic setting, or group work/group psychotherapy professional organization (except for the one that Weinberg has recently established and directs: the Program for Leading Groups in Multicultural Societies, at Beit Berl College in
Israel, 2003). So, at the moment, there are no prerequisite studies for becoming a large group leader. The A.K. Rice Institute offers weekend large group trainings sporadically and at irregular intervals, but no one requires this training to qualify them to lead large experiential process groups. In effect, anyone can become a large group leader, and this unfortunately is clearly demonstrated in large groups found in fringe cult groups such as "I AM", "EST" or "Landmark Forum."
Frustration arises when we try to apply the ethical guidelines that relate to the small group, that we have previously cited, to the large group. For example, one of the ways that the professional fulfills the ethical duties in a small group is by using the group contract in order to require group members to also follow the ethical code
(especially maintenance of confidentiality). But we do not have a contract with participants in the large group. If anything is distributed in writing to the participants in a conference setting before the large group, or if the leaders say something at the beginning of the first large group meeting, it is usually about the purpose or the primary task of the group. Nothing is said about the rules of conduct. The first item in the AGPA guidelines states: "The group psychotherapist shall provide the potential group patient/client with information about the nature of group psychotherapy and apprise them of their risks, rights and obligations as members of a therapy group."
Obviously this guideline is seldom fulfilled in the large group.
Should these guidelines which were created for small group practice be applied in situ to the large group? If the purpose of the large group is not true psychotherapy, why should it follow rules that were designed for psychotherapy?
"We utilize the large group experience as a laboratory in which to study large group

289 processes, both conscious and unconscious, as a way of understanding their impact and influence upon social, organizational and systemic thinking, feelings and actions"
(Weinberg & Schneider, 2003, p. 17). If this is a laboratory, it should have different rules than psychotherapy. In addition, the large group represents social issues, and parallels life in society. If we want the large group to resemble society, and since we do not have written ethical codes for social behavior (we do have laws that limit what people can do in society, but not a social written ethical code) should we have them for the large group?
Our feeling is if we want to apply the codes discussed above to the large group, we need to focus on non-therapeutic groups. Since large group leaders are sometimes called "consultants," it would be more appropriate to look for an understanding of the consultants' role and utilize a code that relates to this. The
ASGW "best practice guidelines" might be more suitable because of its commitments to community standards. We can easily agree that the following item in the assessment section is also suitable for the large group: "Ecological assessment. Group
Workers assess community needs, organizational resources, sponsoring organization mission, staff competency, attitudes regarding group work, professional training levels of potential group leaders regarding group work; client attitudes regarding group work, and multicultural and diversity considerations." But things become less clear when we go on to the other paragraphs, for example, when encountering the question of group members' preparation. This certainly does not exist in the large group setting, and would need to be accommodated to in this unique setting. But can we really prepare hundreds of participants in a group setting? Certainly not by individual interviews! What we can see from all of this, is that the large group needs a different code of ethics that will be suitable to its' specific structure, dynamics and purposes. Providing written information or a brief statement about purpose and groundrules in introduction to the experience itself might be a good starting point as preparation for large group participation.
If large group leaders are called "consultants" than we better look at the practice guidelines of organizational consultants. The International Organization
Development (O.D.) Code of Ethics (retrieved from http://members.aol.com/odinst/ethics.htm
) first states the values of O.D. professionals. Its ethical guidelines comprises five areas of responsibilities: to self, for professional development and competence, to clients and significant others, to the profession, and social responsibility. The guidelines are quite general: e.g. "I commit myself to….: Act with integrity; be authentic and true to myself". "Recognize my personal needs and desires and, when they conflict with other responsibilities, seek all-win resolutions of those conflicts". "Accept responsibility for the consequences of my acts". Because they are not related to a specific situation they fit well into guidelines for leading large groups. Even though O.D. consultants often work with clients (company presidents or executives) and not with large groups, and their ethical responsibility is to the company - we can adopt their ethical line of thought to the
Large Group setting. It is a small wonder they fit because, as mentioned earlier, the large group represents an organization or society.
SOME TYPICAL ETHICAL LARGE GROUP PROBLEMS AND EXAMPLES
Every code of ethics that relates to group work includes a section about confidentiality (see section no. 2 in the AGPA guidelines above, or ASGW item

290
A.7.d: "Group Workers have the responsibility to inform all group participants of the need for confidentiality"). However, the issue of confidentiality in group psychotherapy is not all that simple. The group leader must keep the confidences of members and also encourage group members to keep one another's confidences. "A case in point concerns a very disturbed girl who had difficulty in understanding the boundaries of reality. When Nancy spoke to her individual therapist about an incident that occurred in her group therapy session, she felt she was violating the contract that the group had established regarding confidentiality. The issue she raised with her therapist was the shooting of John Lennon. She felt that since the group discussed Lennon's murder it was a confidentiality issue not to be raised outside the confines of the group" (Schneider, 1984, p.228).
Can we apply this principle of confidentiality to the large group? Consider the following situation that occurred in a study day on the large group that took place in
Tel Aviv, Israel, in November 2002. Several theoretical papers (by various authors) were presented. Some of those attending this study day had participated, several months earlier, in the large group at the GAS (Group Analytic Society) symposium which was held in Bologna, Italy. A verbatim report of one of those large group sessions had been written by one of the participants, and it was scheduled to be brought to the study day for analysis and discussion. Objections regarding a breach in confidentiality, was brought by several of the study day participants. The issue was brought up for discussion, and a very stormy debate ensued in which it was clear that for many members it seemed inappropriate to reveal detailed information of large group process, as this was (for them) a violation of confidentiality.
Another example of ethical difficulties is reporting on large groups that took place at conferences (AGPA or EGPS) on the Internet in professional discussion lists such as the 'AGPA SIG on Larger Groups and Group Analysis' or on the 'Group-
Psychotherapy List.' The aim of these lists is to discuss group therapy issues and learn about large groups, so reporting and discussing these events is relevant. But how detailed is the information that can be given?
We cannot ask large group members to keep the information confidential. In a way, life in the large group is similar to life in society (in organizations, associations, and extended networks of work or family relations). Just as it seems absurd to ask members of society or organization not to talk about what is happening in their social interactions, there is no reason (or possible way) to ask large group members to avoid revealing the events of the large group. Another reason why large group sessions should not be kept secret is that currently there is a paucity of accounts in the literature of actual large group meetings or sessions.
Providing real case material explicates and amplifies theory and technique, while educating the next generation of large group leaders about the nature of the beast. Learning need not end after each large group experience is completed. It can be extended to other and future audiences.
It seems that there is some confusion in the field about the difference between confidentiality and secrecy (Ettin, Cohen & Fidler, 2002). Confidentiality requires that the identity of members be protected. We suggest that what is said can be reported, but who says it should be protected, with the identity of the speaker unidentified or disguised.
From all the reviewed codes of ethics mentioned above, the way the
International Organization Development (O.D.) Code of Ethics treats confidentiality is most suitable. This issue is mentioned in the Responsibility to Clients and
Significant Others section: "I commit myself to…. define and protect the

291 confidentiality of my client-professional relationships". This is broad enough to suit the large group situation too.
Other questions of boundaries parallel the issue of confidentiality. In psychotherapy groups we recommend that group members avoid extra-group contact.
It is clear that the large group setting makes this recommendation incongruent.
People meet in between large group sessions in conferences, communicate during and after the conference. Even the large group leader cannot avoid out-of-the-group contact with his group members in conferences. Still s/he should avoid discussing large group matters with group members in these informal meetings. (In Tavistock
Conferences, there is a debriefing event conducted in small groups toward the end of the conference where the consultant staff helps members understand what happened to them during the conference as a whole, including the large group. So, within proper parameters it would be appropriate to talk to members about their large group experience).
A more problematic issue is the question of screening, which is impossible to achieve in the large group, and actually contradicts its' goal to resemble society.
What follows is that the large group leader does not know all the members of the group. Some of the problems arising from this situation stem from the possibility of overlapping roles. An example for this situation can be where both therapists and their patients are in the same group or when two family members participate in the group (including a member from the leader's family). But more problematic is the possibility of a very disturbed person participating in the large group. The large group contains threats to identity (Turquet, 1975) and the forces exerted on the individual are quite strong. A person with a borderline personality organization and other people with loose, fragile boundaries can feel their anxiety heightening to the threat of fragmentation and psychotic breakdown. Is this part of the leader's responsibility?
Should the leader do anything to avoid these threats, or at least notify members about these dangers? One of the essential functions of the group leader is the protective function (Cohen, Ettin & Fiddler, 2002). How should/can the large group leader provide such protection?
The question we need to focus on is how much the large group leader should or can be responsible for the welfare of the group members. We might say that in contrast to the situation of the small group, where the group therapist or conductor can and should take care of the welfare of the individual, in large groups, all the leader can do is to provide the safety and containment conditions for the group-as-a-whole.
Unfortunately many large group leaders ignore even this responsibility and do not take any action to provide it.
CONCLUSIONS
We cannot apply the principles relevant to group psychotherapy to the large group setting because the purpose of the large group is not personal psychotherapy.
The situation is more similar to non-therapeutic group work and that is why we feel that the ethical considerations should be taken from group work and consultation settings. The code of ethics of organizational consultants suits best because it is broad enough to include the large group situation, which is similar to an organizational one.
Regarding the matter of confidentiality, it is incongruent, unreal and impossible to ask the large group participants to keep the information revealed in the large group confidential. The only one who should be committed to confidentiality, which means not revealing who said what, is the large group leader. The large group

292 is essentially a "public" setting where privacy is not possible or enforceable, if one chooses to participate or talk about what has happened. What is important in the context of a large group is not so much who is speaking, but what is said, referred to and meant for references groups who are present (or might have been).
By the same token avoiding extra-group contact is impossible. This does not mean that the reportage of large group case studies (even transcripts) should be totally restricted. Such a solution will greatly impede the field and mystify the large group process in a way that prevents learning from the experience of others.
Large group leaders should be aware of their responsibility for the group-as-awhole's welfare. They should take the necessary means and inform the participants of possible dangers and appropriate behavior in the large group.
We feel we urgently need to compose a code of ethics for the large group based on the above principles. This will be a pioneering work. We recommend using the guidelines of organizational consultants as a starting point. Nothing yet has been written on ethical considerations in the large group. We are sure that many experts involved in large group activities have other points of view about the need for ethical guidelines for leading large groups or what should be written in such guidelines, and we invite them to further discuss these issues.
REFERENCES
AGPA and NRCGP (2002) Guidelines for Ethics. http://www.agpa.org/group/ethicalguide.html
. Retrieved 01/20/2004
ASGW (1998) Best Practice Guidelines. http://www.asgw.org/best.htm
.
Retrieved 01/20/2004.
Barton, W.E. & Barton, G.M. (1984). Ethics and Law in Mental Heath
Administration. New York: International Universities Press.
Cohen, B.D., Ettin, M.F. & Fidler, J.W. (2002). Group Psychotherapy and
Political Reality: A Two-Way Mirror. Madison, CT: International
Universities Press. de Maré, P. (1990). "The Development of the Median Group". Group
Analysis, 23: 113-127. de Maré, P., Piper, R., & Thompson, S. (1991). Koinonia: From Hate through
Dialogue, to Culture in the Large Group. London: Karnac.
Etchegoyen, R.H. (1991). The Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique.
London: Karnac.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. S.E., vol. 9. London: Hogarth Press,
1981.
Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. S.E., vol.
22. London: Hogarth Press, 1981.
Hartmann,H. (1960). Psychoanalysis and Moral Values. New York:
International Universities Press.
International Organization Development Code of Ethics. http://members.aol.com/odinst/ethics.htm
. Retrieved 04/01/2005
Kreeger, L. (ed.) (1975). The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. London:
Constable.
Le Bon, G. (1896). The Crowd. London: Ernest Benn, 1952.

293
Main, T. F. (1946). "The Hospital as a Therapeutic Institution." Bulletin of the
Menninger Clinic, 10: 66-70.
McDougall, W. (1920). The Group Mind. New York: Arno Press, 1973.
Pines, M. (2003). "Large Groups and Culture." In S. Schneider & H.
Weinberg (eds.), The Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde,
Crowds and Masses (pp. 44-57). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Schneider, S. (1984). "Confidentiality: The Moral/Legal/Treatment Conflict."
In A. Carmi, E. Chigier, & S. Schneider (eds.) Disability (pp.222-229).
Heidelberg: Springer/Verlag.
Schneider S. & Weinberg H. (eds.) (2003). The Large Group Revisited: The
Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Triest, J. (2003). "Ethical Issues in Group Psychotherapy." In G. Shefler, Y.
Achmon, & G. Weil (eds.) Ethical Issues for Professionals in
Counseling and Psychotherapy (pp. 348-362). Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University Magnes Press. (In Hebrew)
Turquet, P. (1975). "Threats to Identity in the Large Group." In L. Kreeger
(ed.), The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy (pp. 87-144). London:
Constable.
Volkan, V. (2001). "Transgenerational Transmissions and Chosen Traumas:
An Aspect of Large Group Identity." Group Analysis, 34:79-97.
Weinberg, H. (2003). "The Large Group in a Virtual Environment". In S.
Schneider & H. Weinberg (eds.), The Large Group Revisited: The
Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses (pp. 188-200). London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Weinberg, H., & Schneider, S. (2003). "Introduction: Background, Structure and Dynamics of the Large Group". In S. Schneider & H. Weinberg
(eds.), The Large Group Revisited: The Herd, Primal Horde, Crowds and Masses (pp. 13-26). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Wilke, G.(2003)."The Large Group and its Conductor." In R.M. Lipgar & M.
Pines (eds.), Building on Bion: Branches (pp. 70-105). London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.

294

295
14
15 16
This paper summarizes the developments of group psychotherapy practice and training in Israel as a reflection of society. It describes the main relevant characteristics of the Israeli society, focusing on its being a regressed-traumatized large group, the accelerated development of group psychotherapy in Israel, exhibited by the spread of training programs, and groups that are more unique to Israel, such as groups dealing with loss and trauma and dialogue groups. On the surface, the expansion of training programs and openness to new approaches is a sign of multicultural awakening in Israel. Deeper exploration reveals a covert encapsulation according to Hopper's fourth basic assumption (Hopper, 1997).
14 Haim Weinberg, M.A. Group leaders training programs in Tel Aviv University and director groups in multicultural society training program Beit Berl College.
15
Orit Nuttman-Shwartz, M.S.W, Ph.D. CGP; Head of the Department of Social
Work, Sapir academic College and Lecturer at the Department of Social Work, Ben-
Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
16 Authors contributions are equal

296
Introduction:
Since the year 2000, the Israeli society has passed through many sociopolitical changes affecting relationships between groups in Israel and between Israel and the world around it. The second half of 2000 shattered the illusion of a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians and collapsed the vision of creating a new
Middle East. An open and aggressive conflict between the Jewish citizens of Israel and its Arabic citizens broke out for the first time, following the support of the Israeli
Arabs of their Palestinian brothers. Numerous terror attacks in city centers and main roads in Israel followed the El-Aqsa Intifada. Anxieties around personal safety and feelings of insecurity heightened. The deterioration of the economic situation in Israel had its impact on society too through closing of factories, a high unemployment rate, and increasing poverty.
This article reviews the developments of group therapy and group leadership arising out of the current situation of Israeli society, by connecting the social changes with new directions in training group leaders and group analysts, and with common group interventions and group therapies. The article considers these trends as expressions of the social unconscious and as ways of dealing with the new sociopolitical situation.
Before describing the Israeli society and its specific characteristics it is important to stress that the authors of this paper are two Israeli group analysts. We are aware of the drawbacks of an analysis made by participant-observers who belong to the culture they describe, and hope that we have developed some "outsider's lens" to the Israeli society.
Israeli Society:
For years the vision of the Israeli society has been based on the "redemption myth" and the "return of the Israeli sons to their land". The state of Israel was born as
"a national home for the Jewish people" and was built through battles and struggles from its establishment. The metaphor of the Israeli "Sabra" was used in order to create a unified social identity out of the different peoples of the Diaspora. The Sabra portrays a heroic character standing against all pressures in contrast to the image of the weak and victimized Jew of the Holocaust (Almog, 1997; Gretz, 1995). It resulted in minimizing the identity of the Arab minority living in the country and emphasizing an outside Arab enemy, thus creating a strong experience of 'Us and Them' (Berman,
Berger, and Gutmann, 2000).
The identity of the Israeli State was crystallized as a strong people leaning heavily on their military power and protecting themselves from a hostile outside world. The Holocaust had a central part in molding this identity on top of centuries of persecution. Volkan's term 'chosen trauma' is relevant here (Volkan, 1999). It refers to the shared mental representation of a massive trauma that the group's ancestors suffered. Chosen trauma describes the collective memory of a disaster, the echoes of which become a paradigm that keeps the existential threat in the national memory in order to ward off potential complacency. We can say that in Israel every act of terror revives a primary threat to Jewish survival from the destruction of the second temple, exile from Spain in 1492, the Holocaust, etc.
The image of the strong, heroic but still enlightened Israeli Sabra with humanistic social norms, was enhanced after the six day war (1967). Many Israelis

297 believed that this victory would persuade their enemies of Israeli strength and would lead to peace. This belief was strongly shattered after the Yom Kippur war (1973) and later in the Lebanon war (1982). The illusion that power would lead to a peaceful solution was broken to pieces, as well as the belief in strong omnipotent leadership.
Expressions in the Israeli society of weakness and failure followed. Breaking the social dream and massive splitting in the Israeli society created instability and insecurity and inter and intra-group diversity increased. A right-wing government came into power in order to support the myth of unity, but social splitting and disagreement only intensified. Extremists raised their voices daily resulting finally in the murder of Prime Minister Rabin (1995). This assassination resembled an earthquake whose aftershocks are still felt. It terminated the dream of a peace treaty with the Palestinians, created an immediate threat to security, undermined stability and in the long run fragmented Israel into subgroups along the lines of politics, culture, national identity, religion, country of origin, and economic status.
In the last four years, the security situation has deteriorated dramatically and the relationship with the Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians has become the focus of public discourse. Existential anxieties and paranoid feelings have returned to the center of attention. Concerns about security have taken priority over questions of humanity.
The more Israelis try to defend themselves from threats of terror, the more insensitive to injustice they become. Only recently have new voices tried to break through the frozen political status quo and new ideas for peace with the Palestinians are being heard.
In summary, Israel is a traumatized society with the long shadow of the
Holocaust and centuries of persecution of Jews, and the recent past of ever-present wars and conflicts. It is a multicultural polarized society, conflicted internally and externally, struggling with difficult questions of social and national identity. Issues of territory, identity, security, rigid outside boundaries and blurred inner boundaries contribute to its current situation and are reflected in large and small groups.
Israel as a Regressed Traumatized Large Group:
Looking at a society as a group and applying group processes to understanding society is too much of an oversimplification except in the case of a traumatized society. Societies with traumatic experiences tend to regress along with the organizations and groups within it (Hopper, 2003). As discussed above, Israel is traumatized both by its past and by its present. We will now examine the characteristics of a regressed and traumatized society, look at how Israel exhibits them and describe the consequences.
Laplanche and Pontali define regression as, "a return from a point already reached to an early one" (Laplanche and Pontali, 1974, p 386). Volkan writes, "In general terms, regression in an individual involves a return to some of the psychological expectations, wishes, fears, and associated mental defense mechanisms from an earlier stage of human development" (Volkan, 2002, p 456).
To understand the intrapsychic mechanism in times of distress we rely on
Mahler’s (1975) assumption that the infant’s ego must be protected from stress. The infant needs to be protected from internal and external traumas, which is accomplished by a symbiotic “delusion”. The delusion of a common boundary reduces anxiety and that “even if infants could distinguish self from other very early

298 in life on perceptual grounds, they would not do so for protective or defensive reasons” (Stern, 1983, p.55). The persistence and redevelopment of these states of mind in response to annihilation anxiety, fragmentation of identity and confusion between self and other, are ubiquitous, even for those who have not been severely traumatized (Billow, 2001). In addition, continuous exposure to anxiety creates concretization and restricts the ability for symbolic thinking (an attack on linking in
Bion's (1959) terms).
Volkan (1999) states that individuals faced with the real possibility of annihilation need to feel a part of a large and protective ‘tent’ and tend to see their personal identity in terms of a social identity, as being part of a large group. They then sense a ‘we-ness’. This phenomenon is common in a time of existential threat.
The individual and the society endeavor to protect the integrity of each by blurring the boundaries between the self and the society .
He also describes 'large group regression' that occurs after a society has faced a massive trauma. It occurs when a majority of people belonging to that society share anxieties, behaviors and thoughts typical of regression, and its purpose is to maintain or repair the shared social identity.
Volkan offers a list of signs of social regression, among them: group members lose their individuality, rally blindly around the leader, become divided into "good" &
"bad" segments inside society, and create a sharp "us" & "them" division with
"enemy" groups (Volkan, 2002, p 458). More than half of the signs he enumerates can be observed in Israel with a high degree of intensity and with dreadful consequences.
The use of massive splitting was described earlier in regards to the Israeli Sabra standing as a heroic force against the eternal enemy of the Arab states. This type of splitting has delayed the possibility of serious peace talks for decades. Also, the tendency to perceive the Palestinians as people insensitive to the sacredness of life, especially after suicide bombings, prevents the option of any reconciliation nowadays.
We can also see the same pattern of splitting inside Israel as in-group processes.
Intolerance to internal differences is one of the worse flaws of the Israeli society. For example, left-wing people consider the Jewish settlers who inhabit territories in the
West Bank enemies of peace, while people with left-wing ideology are named criminals and terrorists' friends by right-wing people. The assassination of Prime
Minister Rabin only showed where this polarization could lead.
Worth noting is how the public mood in Israel changes dramatically from depression and feelings of helplessness, especially after terror attacks, to euphoria and manic feelings, especially after victories or successful military actions (Hadari, 2002).
This phenomenon fits well with Volkan's description of regressed societies' use of extensive introjective and projective mechanisms accompanied by massive mood swings (Volkan, 2002). At the same time, this oscillation can be seen as a coping mechanism enabling Israelis to continue living under ongoing existential threats.
Hopper claims that a regressed traumatized society manifests behaviors stemming from the fourth basic assumption (Hopper, 1997). This assumption is an extension of Bion's original three basic assumptions (Bion, 1961). According to
Hopper the fourth basic assumption is expressed in bi-polar forms of incohesion
(Hopper, 1997). When this assumption is activated, groups and group-like social systems oscillate between Aggregation and Massification. In the aggregative polarity, people feel alienated from one another. Indifference, hostility and withdrawal from relationships are prevalent. In its extreme form each sub-group is against each other sub-group. In the massification polarity, merger with the 'group mother' (Scheidlinger,
1974), denial of differences and an illusion of togetherness and sameness prevails.

299
Israel swings between periods of hot conflicts between sub-groups (right-wing and left-wing ideologies, Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews, religious and secular Jews) especially lately, and periods of unquestioned consensus and illusion of united solidarity especially during wartime or terror attacks.
Having suffered from massive and continuous traumas (national & individual), recent research shows that the Israeli society manifests a limited sense of safety and substantial distress. However, most Israelis reported adapting to the situation without substantial mental health symptoms and impairment, and most sought various ways of coping with terrorism and its ongoing threats. This may be related to the processes of adaptation and accommodation (Bleich, Gelkopf, & Solomon, 2003). Even though we cannot define the Israeli society as suffering from a clinical post-traumatic stress syndrome, it still manifests the never-ending pendulum movement between hypervigilance and numbing of responsiveness typical of PTSD (DSM-IV, 1994). Herman describes the dialectic of those contrasting mental states as the most typical feature of post-traumatic symptoms (Herman, 1992). Intrusive symptoms alternating with emotional anesthesia become the playground of this disorder. This dialectic is clearly seen in reactions to terror threats and attacks. Israeli citizens may overreact to threats of suicide bombings, leaving mothers anxious whenever their children go out, or avoiding malls and restaurants. But sometimes the opposite reaction prevails and they seem indifferent to the horrors of terrorism, ignoring dreadful scenes on the TV and continuing their daily life as if nothing has happened.
The impact of this emotional pendulum on life in Israel is enormous but subtle. The diminished responsiveness to the external world, known as "psychic numbing", originally built up as a defense against penetration of too painful experiences, can explain the avoidance and encapsulation many Israelis develop.
Hopper (2003) claims: "In the same way that traumatized people may be able to encapsulate the entire traumatogenic process, including both memories and affects, and, thus, protect themselves from the full weight of the fear of annihilation and its associated phenomena, traumatized people may also be able to encapsulate their good experiences and sense of hope for survival and re-creation in order to protect themselves from overwhelming helplessness" (pp. 203-204).
This process is clearly evidence in Israel. The need of building a new country and going to war, impeded the working through of emotional issues such as mourning the loss of families in the Holocaust and elaborating guilt feelings. The denial and avoidance involved in this encapsulation created blindness to the consequences of ruling another people for a long period. Some of these consequences are freedom deprivation, restriction of transportation, and acts of humiliation, justified by security considerations. This insensitivity does not stop on the borders and can be seen lately in how people ignore social injustices and the inequities of huge gaps between rich and poor in Israel itself.
Training programs:
As group therapists our challenge is to explore how does the political and social situation described above reflected in training for group psychotherapists in
Israel, and what can we learn from training programs about the Israeli social unconscious?

300
Until lately training programs in Israel did not differentiate between group therapy and other forms of group work. For years the Classical British group theories were the primary models used in training group leaders, especially Bion's theory of group. The Israelis interpreted Bion's theory to support the need for an authoritarian omnipotent group leader. Such a leader suits the Israeli myths of leadership based on authoritarian military models as well as the yearning for a big father protecting from fear of annihilation that is part of the Israeli existence. This rigidity fitted well the need to be strong, fight the wars, and keep the heroic stance, but it also contributed to more withdrawal and encapsulation, giving up an analytic exploration that intertwines self and others.
Many of the Israeli group leaders started their career as organization consultants in the army and were trained to lead groups in the military School of
Leadership, leaning heavily on Bion's approach as interpreted in the army. But, as
Dahan (2005) states, contrary to Bion who worked with soldiers 'that failed' (= had combat reactions), the Israeli army consultants worked with those 'who succeeded': officers and officer cadets. Applying the Tavistock tradition to the military setting involved rigid boundaries and an authoritarian leadership approach. In addition some of the influential supervisors were immigrants from South America (especially
Argentina) applying the psychodynamic model quite strictly. As a result, most of the training programs focused on psychodynamic and process groups colored by the
Bionian approach, more than any other type such as task-oriented, short-term, or support groups. Even the programs dealing with task-oriented groups emphasized the psychodynamic understanding of the group (Davidson-Arad, Stange, Wilson &
Pinhassi, 2002; Nuttman-Shwartz & Shay, 1998). Dahan (2005) also claims that because the Bionian approach was "orally" conveyed in Israel from one generation of group experts to another (meaning without a written interpretation or practical manual), as time passed by this unique concrete interpretation of his theory (adjusted to the Israel climate) became the formal one, shielding Israelis from learning about innovations in Bion's work.
In the last ten years training for group leading in Israel opened to new theoreticians and influences from the USA and Great Britain, such as Yalom and
Foulkes. Despite the major differences between these theories, they both lean on a more humanistic ideology and on dialogue. The focus on psychodynamic and process groups has continued while incorporating these new theories. The expansion of training and openness to new approaches seems at first as another sign of pluralism awakening in Israel as well as a sign of hope and peacefulness.
Two events signify the recent progress of training programs in Israel: the opening of a training program for group leaders in a multicultural society at Beit Berl
College (2002), and the establishment the Israeli Institute of Group Analysis (IIGA)
(2001). These developments seem to reflect a focus on social pluralism, diversity, and cultural inclusion on one hand (the Beit Berl program), but also the creation of a social-cultural isolated elite on the other hand (the IIGA), reflective of the two polarities in Israeli society.
The training program for group leaders in a multicultural society deals with the ever-existing civil-social agenda of a multicultural state with many inner and outer conflicts. As microcosms of Israeli society, almost all groups encounter one or more of these inter-cultural issues; so it is important that facilitators be experienced and skilled in handling them. However, while there are groups and courses that deal with

301 specific conflicts (e.g. the Arab-Jewish conflict), until the opening of this program there were no Israeli training programs for group facilitators that supported a broader view of the multicultural society and taught a culturally sensitive group facilitation.
Strange enough, despite the efforts of its director, this program's faculty failed to represent enough diversity, at least in terms of the ethnic origin of the teachers and the students.
The Israeli Institute of Group Analysis (IIGA) is a private enterprise of senior group therapists who wanted to deepen the knowledge and training of group psychotherapists and to establish group analysis as a leading modality in Israel. After a prior failed attempt to set up a diploma course through the Institute of Group
Analysis in London, Israeli senior group therapists opened a training course for a group analysis diploma along the guidelines of the European Group Analysis Training
Institutes Network (EGATIN). The institute was established in 2001 and includes 70 members. Introducing the group analysis modality to Israel shows a desire for a softer approach and a wish to belong to the European Union. The group analytic approach suits well the preoccupation of Israelis with social issues, because it incorporates strong social focus (see Dalal, 1998).
At first glance these two projects signify development and expansion of group work and training in Israel, but deeper exploration shows that they express well the social-traumatic situation. The first program is focused on the self and "the other" in the Israeli society, but maintains its subgroups: We find very few Arab students, and the staff belongs to the Askenazim elite. The second program creates an illusion that
Israel is the same as all other peoples, but it was directed by a local board who decided about leaderless sessions when the European staff failed to appear in times of heightened danger. Themes of power, authority and boundaries remained problematic in the IIGA. It seems that the change could not be incorporated yet.
Group Work and Therapy groups:
Group Psychotherapy in Israel has been described in previous papers by the authors (Nuttman-Shwartz & Weinberg, 2002; Weinberg, 2000). Most of the groups led in Israel (including therapy groups) are similar to those commonly found in the western world. The frame of reference in most of these groups is psychodynamic, relying heavily still on the common paradigm in Israel which is Bion's theory. It seems that the new theories being added to training have yet to trickle down into practice. Teplitz (2005) claims that the central issues developed in England at the
Tavistock/Leicester conferences in the fifties of the 20 th
century (Rioch, 1981), are still relevant to the Israeli Society: These are issues of authority, role and boundaries.
Regarding authority he adds that despite the modern models of team work and synergy applied into Israeli organizations, there is still a deep yearning and longing for a centralistic-strong leadership. Talking about boundaries, he mentions that keeping the time boundaries by Israeli group leaders have been associated at first with military regimes or European culture.
In order to analyse how Israeli Society is mirrored through group work we chose to describe two types of groups that are unique to Israel and reflect its social dynamics: Groups dealing with loss and trauma related to the security situation, and dialogue groups. The model for groups dealing with loss and trauma was developed by the Rehabilitation Department of the Ministry of Defense after the Yom Kippur

302 war in 1973 due to the many casualties, and adopted by the National Insurance
Institute to offer psychosocial interventions to people injured in terror attacks. These groups express the traumatic-regressive situation in Israel that has not been worked through yet.
The defined goal of the group is "to prevent and/or change pathological conditions and processes stemming from loss and bereavement" (Granot, 1978, p 8).
The basic assumption is that the participants in these groups consist mainly of mentally healthy people experiencing difficulties following loss. The difficulties caused by the loss are viewed as normal and normative, and the participants in the group are thus treated as clients of a support service and not as ‘patients’ or as
‘emotionally disturbed’.
The group model used is of a long-term support group with a therapeutic component aimed at connecting the particular ways in which group members mourned their losses and their unresolved emotional conflicts. As in most support groups, especially in traumatic situations (Weinberg, Nuttman-Shwartz, & Gilmore,
2005) anxiety is defused, regression is discouraged, transference is uninterpreted, and confrontation is minimized. The emphasis is on the ”here and now”. The rational for the long-term model lies with the belief that the normative bereavement process is long and contains different stages. In addition, it reflects the intense and long-term commitment of the military system, in the name of the Israeli society, to those who lost their son or daughter during their military service, defending their home and country. Since the year 2000, about a thousand Israelis were killed in terror attacks and about the same number were wounded or impacted by being close to the event.
The participation in these groups is free of charge, as the psychological services to the bereaved families are provided by the Ministry of Defense by law (Malkinson &
Witztum, 2000). These unique groups strengthen the Israeli identity but may also distance the survivors and families from reintegration into "healthy" society and leave them as living memorials to Israeli traumas (Malkinson & Witztum, 2000; Volkan,
1988).
The homogeneity and cohesion in groups of trauma victims serve to support the victims' weakened egos. At the same time they make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the individual group members to go on to the separation-individuation that is essential to working through the traumatic experience. The more homogeneous and cohesive the group is, the less room allowed for individual expression and the more pressure for denial, repression, and projection of anything outside the group consensus (Weinberg, Nuttman-Shwartz & Gilmore, 2005).
Other unique groups in Israel are conflict and dialogue groups. Their basic assumption is that the Israeli society includes subgroups with different and contrasting worldviews. An authentic dialogue between social groups based on the true acceptance of the other is crucial to the healthy development of a society and its resilience. These groups are primarily arranged by volunteer organizations that focus on the development of models and methods for dialogue enhancement in conflict situations and encouraging communication processes at community and national levels. They deal with splits between Israelis and Arabs, religious and secular people, left-wing and right-wing political views, and people from different ethnic groups. The process in these groups suits the model of identity exploration: the task of the group is to reach a differentiation of the self and others representations, while, at the same time, diffuse the individual identity for the collective one (Sagy, 2002).

303
Two approaches compete in the area of inter-cultural groups, both stemming from Tajfel's (1978) social identity theory, but reaching different solutions. The first approach, titled de-categorization contact (Brewer & Miller, 1984) is based on reducing the saliency of inter-group boundaries, making the encounter more interpersonal than inter-cultural. The second approach (Hewstone & Brown, 1986) supports keeping the inter-cultural boundaries because real changes in society will happen only through contact between social groups and not between individuals. Both approaches can be found in Israel, but do they really contribute to social dialogue and change in the social basic assumptions?
It might seem that in some points it is not clear about what type of groups or leaders we are talking of. Are we talking only about group facilitators, group leaders in health or non profit organizations, leaders in general and also profit organizations, or about group therapists? Actually we are talking about all of these levels. Most group experts in Israel do not restrict themselves only to one type of group leading.
We can find the same people doing group psychotherapy, consulting organizations through group work, or facilitating groups in non profit organizations. The sort of blurring of boundaries among the different levels and roles is typical to Israel and is part of the culture we were trying to describe.
Discussion:
The State of Israel was established with the background of the Holocaust and a history of persecution, and is still dealing with an existential threat. The world of groups in Israel is influenced by the social atmosphere and unconscious, coping with the price of living in the shadow of war and terror and with multi-cultural dilemmas.
Israel seems to be in an everlasting inner and outer conflict, preoccupied with questions of territory, borders and in-group and inter-group identity.
Does all of the above have its impact on group therapy in Israel, and how? Do
Israeli group therapists and members have the same group space as their colleagues from abroad? Is it possible to stay in the "here and now" in the group when life events are so powerful and ever-penetrate the group skin and boundaries? Is it possible in the
Israeli reality to recognize the metaphoric and symbolic value of group interactionsand contents or maybe life events are so powerful and emotionally laden that they cannot be used symbolically in the group? These are some of the dilemmas that an Israeli group leader faces.
The exposure to trauma events, such as frequent terror attacks, missiles' dropping etc., restricts the possibility of symbolization and working through social defenses to anxiety. Exposure to trauma is not unique to Israel, but the description of the Israeli society raises the question whether there is any chance for change or are we doomed to an everlasting re-enactment of traumatic and conflictual situations in the small and large group. Can the knowledge acquired and accumulated in groups help to create a more healthy and normal society, enhancing dialogue and diminishing splits?
Can we make use of group interventions to influence and change society? As mentioned above, the new training programs and the development of the Foulkesian approach bring a new climate and some hope for integration between the individual, community and culture. But close examination reveals that this development is only on the surface.
When the group analytic training course opened in 1995, it included Arab psychotherapists and professionals representing not only mainstream. Those were

304 days of hope for peace and resolution of the conflict. The assassination of Rabin during the course was traumatic indeed for its members. The crisis in the course causing its premature termination only echoed this social trauma (Hadar & Offer,
2001). When the group analysis diploma course reopened in 2001, after the burst of the second Intifada, its population no longer reflected Israeli multicultural society.
Examining closely the composition of members of the new Israeli Institute of Group
Analysis, we find that they represent the elite of group psychotherapists in Israel.
They are composed mostly of Ashkenazim secular Jews, No Arabs, no religious, and probably no right wing political thinking are included. As Volkan (1997) described it, chosen trauma causes seclusion and withdrawal. As described earlier, the same phenomena occurred among the staff and students of the multicultural program in Beit
Berl.
So although the first impression might be that the entrance of the Yalomian and Foulksian approaches signify development, the people who apply them seem to reflect more of the encapsulation phenomenon according to the Aggregation polarity of the fourth basic assumption (Hopper, 1997).
Examining therapy and support groups in Israel reveals the same picture.
Many authors suggest that the homogeneity of trauma victims' groups may block progress beyond the initial stages of the treatment because it undermines the emotional support and understanding required for the group members to grapple with their individual problems (Berman and Weinberg, 1998; Johnson, Lubin and Corn,
1999; Nuttman-Shwartz, Karniel-Lauer & Offir, 2002). The homogenous-cohesive group of victims might keep the members from interacting with society around their problems and thus encapsulate them in a bubble out of involvement with community.
Again we can see at the same time signs of development and regression in these groups, reflecting a similar ambivalent situation in the Israeli society.
Dialogue groups manifest the same question. Contact groups, where the focus is on interpersonal relationship, function well in reducing stereotypes between group members from different social groups in Israel, but their impact on society is minimal.
They might serve to continue the illusion that social tensions between minority and majority groups are lessened. On the other hand focusing on the contact between groups while keeping their boundaries only intensifies the tensions and the dialogue becomes political and hopeless. What is needed is an approach integrating between the two kinds of groups.
Israeli group leaders are in the same boat with their group members and can have difficulty keeping an appropriate distance from the group. When a terror attack occurs, the anxiety is overwhelming for everybody. When conflicts between
Palestinians and Israelis arise in a dialogue group, the leader is either an Israeli or
Palestinian, is deeply involved in this conflict and has an opinion of his/her own about it.
The conductor's counter transference might prevent the groups from working on conflict issues. The group members might perceive the leaders as vulnerable and in order to protect them from potential disaster, avoid dealing with heterogeneity or develop pluralistic dialogues. This kind of counter transference is common for group therapists in societies in conflicts (Benson, Moore & Kapur,
2005).

305
In the introduction for this paper we mentioned the fact that as Israelis we might have difficulty observing the social phenomena in Israel from the outside. We think that writing this paper involved a process of "stepping out of the Israeli bubble".
Actually, talking about encapsulation, our keen awareness of this mechanism helped us not to become trapped in the bubble. We can only hope that we achieved this goal.
Time will tell whether group leaders and therapists might become social change agents to improve the situation within the conflicted Israeli society. The complicated situation reveals both signs of encapsulation and attempts to avoid social involvement among Israeli group therapists, together with attempts to break boundaries, examine the social implications of group psychotherapy and relate to the traumatic social and political situation, along with becoming involved in the global community of group therapists.
This paper clearly intertwines political and social issues with professional and group activity. Any examination of group therapy training and techniques in Israel cannot be understood outside of this complex social climate. We hope we have demonstrated this intricate web of relationships and enlightened the reader about the multifaceted consequences.
References:
Almog, O. (1997). The Sabra – Profile.
Tel Aviv, Israel: Afikim Library, Am Oved
Publisher Ltd. (In Hebrew).
Benson, J.F., Moore, R., and Kapur, R. (2005). Management of intense countertransference in group psychotherapy conducted in situations of civic conflict. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy , 55, pp. 63-86.
Berman, A., Berger, M., and Gutmann, D. (2000). The division into Us and Them as a universal social structure. Mind and Human Interaction , 11, pp. 53-72.
Berman, A. and Weinberg, H. (1998). The Advanced-Stage Therapy group.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy , 48, 499–518.
Billow M.R. (2001). I am I:A/M - the therapist as personification of Hopper’s fourth basic assumption, Group, 25, 173-180.
Bion,W.R. (1959). Attacks on linking. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 40:
308-315.
Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in Groups and other papers . London: Tavistock.
Bleich, A., Gelkopf, M. & Solomon, Z. (2003). Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental health symptoms, and coping behaviors among a nationally representative sample in Israel. JAMA, 290, 612-620.
Brewer, M.B. & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller, N. & Brewer, M.B. (Eds.), Groups in

306 contact: The psychology of desegregation . Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp.
281-302.
Dahan, G. (2005). Comments on Tradition and the Tavistock Tradition in Israeli
Perspective. Organizational Analysis, 8, 16-23. (In Hebrew).
Dalal, F. (1998). Taking the Group Seriously: Towards a Post-Foulkesian Group
Analytic Theory . London: Jessica Kingsley Pub.
Davidson-Arad, Stange, D., Wilson, M., & Pinhassi, B. (2002). Four Chapters in the
Life of a Student Experiential Group - A Model of Facilitation.
Group , 26, 81-
94.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1994). (DSM-IV). APA.,
Washington DC.
Granot, T. (1978). Loss: Its effects and the coping . Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defense
(Hebrew).
Gretz, N. (1995). Captive of a Dream National Myths in Israeli Culture.
Tel Aviv,
Israel: Am Oved Publisher Ltd. (In Hebrew).
Hadar, B. & Ofer, G. (2001). The Social Unconscious Reflected in Politics,
Organizations and Groups: A Case of Overseas Group Analysis Training.
Group Analysis , 34, 375-385.
Hadari, Y. (2002). Messiah riding on a tank: Israeli public thinking between Sinai
War to Yom Kippur War :1955-1975 . Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute
(In Hebrew).
Herman, L.J. (1992). Trauma & Recovery . New York: Basic Books.
Hewstone, M. & Brown, R.J. (1986). Contact is not enough: an integrgroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. In Hewstone, M. & Brown, R.J. (Eds.),
Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters.
. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1-44
Hopper, E. (1997). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups: A fourth basic assumption, Group Analysis , 30, 439-470.
Hopper, E. (2003). The social unconscious: selected papers . London: Jessica
Kingsley Pub.

307
Johnson, D.R., Lubin, H. and Corn, B. (1999). Course of treatment during a cohort based inpatient program for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Group , 23, 19–35.
Kretch, R., Ben-Yakar, M., Baruch, E., & Roth, M. (1997). A shared reality of therapists and survivors in a national crisis by the gulf war, Psychotherapy,
Theory, research, Practice and Training , 34, 28-33.
Laplanche, J. and Pontalis, J.B. (1974). The language of Psychoanalysis . Norton &
Company.
Mahler, M., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human
Infant . New York: Basic Books.
Malkinson, R.& Witztum, E.(2000). Collective bereavement and commemoration: cultural aspects of collective myth and the creation of national identity in Israel.
In Malkinson, R., Runin, S.S. & Witztum, E. (Eds.), Traumatic and nontraumatic loss and bereavement: clinical theory and practice . Madison:
Psychological Press, pp 295-320.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., Karniel-Lauer, E. & Offir, S. (2002). Group Therapy with
Terror Injured Persons in Israel: Societal Impediments to Successful Working
Through. Group , 26, 49-59.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O. & Shay, S. (1998). Transition to Leadership: An Innovative
Program to Prepare Helping Professional to Lead Parents Groups. Social Work with Groups , 21 , pp. 117-128.
Nuttman-Shwartz, O., & Weinberg, H. (2002). Group Therapy in Israel. Group , 26, 5-
15.
Rioch, M. (1981). "The Influence Of Wilfred Bion on the A.K. Rice Group Relations
Conferences." In: J.S.Grotstein (Ed). Do I Dare Disturb the Universe . London:
Karnac, 1988.
Sagy. S. (2002). Intergroup encounter between Jewish and Arab students in Israel:
Toward in international approach, Intellectual Education , 13, 259-274.
Scheidlinger, S. (1974). On the concept of the "mother-group". International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 24, 417-428.
Stern, D. (1983) The early development of schemas of self, of other, and of self with others. In J. Lichtenberg, & S. Kaplan (Eds.). Reflections of Self Psychology .
(pp. 49-84) Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

308
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social Categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In
Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups.
London: Academic
Press.
Teplitz, M. (2005). Thoughts about Authority, Role and Boundaries. Organizational
Analysis, 8, 32-38. (In Hebrew).
Volkan, V.d. (1997). Bloodlines From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism . New
York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Volkan, V. (1988). The Need to Have Enemies and Allies . London: Jason
Volkan, V. (1999). Psychoanalysis and diplomacy: Part I. Individual and large group identity. Journal-of-Applied-Psychoanalytic-Studies. 1, 29-55.
Volkan, V. (2002) September 11 and societal regression. Group Analysis , 35, 456-
483.
Weinberg H. (2000). Group Psychotherapy and Group Work in Israel - 1998. Copublished simultaneously In Fehr, S.S. (ed.), Group Therapy In Independent
Practice. Haworth Press Inc. N.Y. ,43-51, and in the Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice , 1, 43-51.
Weinberg H., Nuttman-Shwartz O., & Gilmore, M. (2005). Trauma Groups: an overview. Group Analysis , 38, 189-204