“Study of Communication in a Group by a Group” (S.H. Foulkes, 1948[1] [2])

Introduction by Hanne Campos

 This paper of S. H. Foulkes is a foundational paper by antonomasia which investigates communication in a groupanalytic group. This group —which met regularly at the end of the forties of last century and whose members investigated the groupanalytic practice in different educational and healthcare settings of the post-war— is also foundational for its multidisciplinary character[3]. What is more, seven of its ten members founded in 1952 the Group Analytic Society (London). The paper here made reference to and the extract of the historical discourse of Foulkes’[4] to the first Society meeting furnish a groupanalytic vision of communication. In summary, that group comes to elaborate a diagram which serves to visualize its arguments and conclusions:

A = Structured (for ex. a didactic group

B = Unstructured (for ex.a groupanalytic group

 

This visualization emerges from the different professional practices of the members. On one extreme, there are those who work with highly organized groups, as may be didactic classes, where there exists a program and a determined way of proceeding, a tangible structure which sustains the procedure. On the other extreme there are the ones that uphold a groupanalytic practice, in which apart from the established hour and place of meeting, the regular procedure is minimal and there is no fixed theme or program, an organization that tends to bring to the fore personal aspects. The group asked itself if it is valid to consider that groups in general are situated on a scale as the one suggested by the diagram, which goes from the more institutionalized to the more spontaneous; and where the presence of the organization and a definite frame of reference inhibits spontaneity, or vice versa. Another question that is posed is if the poles of organization of the group, on one extreme the structured group and on the other the unstructured one, are qualitatively different or if they defer only in grade. Other questions are: In what measure  is it true that the groups which meet for other ends, for example unions or religious communities, find themselves before a similar choice, so that the type of problem revealed in groupanalysis is also present in the more structured group, and is only the procedure that impedes observing it? These types of questions and clarifying examples make up the field of debate that leads to determined conclusions.

The subjects considered more specifically are three: Communication in the group (general characteristics); the problem of understanding and/or misinterpreting; and the influence of interpersonal relations in the process of communication.

Of great interest is the commentary of the Commission in reference to the group itself: “We had to choose which place on the scale of group organization this Preparatory Commission would like to occupy. On one extreme, there existed the very definite sensation that the personalities should not impose themselves, in a way that we could avoid the therapeutic pole. On the other hand, if we wanted to accumulate material, we could not permit ourselves to organize a program. After five months, we are starting to know each other mutually sufficiently as to try and make formulations, although these should be less related with what we have achieved than with what we may achieve…”  The subject is of actuality and the questions are still open in the process of any group, be it a task group or groupanalytic group, and need to be clarified so that the group in question can fulfil its objectives.

From a groupanalytic point of view it is indispensable to recall diverse and very special intra- and inter-professional as well as international circumstances of those years of post-Second-World-War. The same months and year of that Congress, Foulkes publishes his first books[5] [6] carrying the subtitle “Studies in the social integration of individuals and groups”. Other circumstances of great impact which determine the context of this paper are the following: The Second World War had terminated three years before, and this Congress entailed an extraordinary significance for the social sciences and psychiatry, with wide repercussions on a local, national and international level. On one hand, it marks an historical moment in the endeavours of these disciplines towards the acceptance in the family of sciences and, on the other hand, towards recognition in relation to world questions. The General Report of the Preparatory Commission of the Congress[7], a document of a wide conception, is addressed to “administrators, workers in social sciences, in psychiatry, medical and allied professions, and to thinking people everywhere”. This Report underlines the universal application of the principles and practices of mental health, speaks about vast promises of the social sciences and psychiatry to reduce human losses and suffering, stating that we are on the threshold of a new era of the science of man with enormous possibilities of constructive efforts, not forgetting the destructive forces that can break loose, but meeting the problems of a better education for a life in common. It warns that peace needs a world-wide foundation, and that this requires sustained team work of those dedicated to the study of the human being and society.

It should also be remembered that just before the Congress, on July 5, 1948, the English National Health Service was founded.[8] Also in 1948 the United Nations and its associate the World Health Organization was founded. Following these epoch making foundations, the World Federation of Mental Health[9]  was created, and its foundational document was drafted during a special meeting in August 1948 —probably during the Congress—, of which the key contributor was Harry Stack Sullivan, the main driving force of a “world mentality”. The Document was titled “Mental Health and World Citizenship”, understanding “world citizenship” in terms of “the humanity we have in common”, respecting individual and cultural differences, and declaring that “the final objective of mental health is to help people to live with their fellow human beings in a single world”.