Personal Transformations in Small Groups

A Jungian Perspective

Robert D. Boyd

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134950706
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Psychotherapy
• Index: Psychology

The theoretical propositions of analytical psychology are difficult to verify and usually rest on the empirical evidence of reported case material. In this book, Robert D. Boyd and his colleagues break new ground by subjecting case material to a rigorous analysis in their report of a research programme which has focused on the expansion of consciousness in the small group and the interrelated phenomenon of personal transformation.A matrix model, conceptualizing the small group as a dynamic structural system, frames the empirical studies in the book. These include the exploration of symbolic archetypal themes and the observation of influential members who play crucial roles in group transitions. The book describes a new methodology for studying the social grieving brought about at times of transition, and the small group personal transformations that occur as individuals work through episodic themes of individuation. It also shows how personal transformations are affected by behaviours evoked by the anima and animus. Each chapter contains case materials and an extensive review of the relevant literature.These are pioneer studies in the field, reflecting more than twenty years of research. The different ways put forward of analyzing small group dynamics have practical implications for group leaders, and the methodologies described in the book can serve as both a model for research and as a source of research tools.Personal Transformations in Small Groups is the first book to look at small group functioning from an empirical perspective of analytical psychology and will be of considerable value to all those working with small groups or interested in group research.

Chapter one
The Matrix Model
A conceptual framework for small group analysis

Robert D.Boyd

The small group from six points of view

I take my place at the circle of tables. Shortly I am joined by other men and women who have entered the room and make their way to one or another of the ten empty chairs arranged around the tables. Some stop to exchange greetings, others engage in light conversation before sitting in the chair that they have selected. After a few minutes all have taken their places at the tables and an acknowledged hush falls over the group. I look about me catching the accepting smiles of some members, noting the poker faces and the preoccupied expressions of the other members. I am once again in the chair of the leader. I am being looked to as one who, by designated position and expectations based on cultural socializations, will guide, instruct, support and, counsel the group and the members. The dynamic field of the group remains uncompleted until my part as leader has been entered as a dynamic within that field.

The initial question would appear to be: How do I define my role in the group? As critical as this question is, there is a more fundamental question that must be answered. In order to address the question of what a leader’s role might, could or should be, it is necessary to have clearly in mind how you, as a leader, are conceptualizing the nature of a small group. My interventions to guide, instruct, support and counsel both members and the group are structured upon my conceptualization of the small group. The first task of any leader is to have clearly in mind a conceptual metaphor, model, or paradigm which gives some understanding to the complexity of the phenomena that are being rapidly played out and to which the leader’s interventions must contribute insights and guidance. The direct relationship of grounded practice to its operational framework is recognized by any thoughtful practitioner and needs no further argument here.

Many conceptual frameworks have been put forward (Cartwright and Zander, 1968; Mullen and Goethals, 1987). They have all been supported by empirical studies of one form or another, or case studies that are offered as documentation or as an argument for their operational validity. They are different ways of making sense of the complex and complicated phenomenon we speak of as the small group. The frameworks can be differentiated by examining the sets of assumptions upon which the frameworks are based. From a more global perspective, these different ways of explaining this phenomenon are a function of the observer’s Weltanschauung. Investigators and practitioners make their most meaningful contributions as they live in good faith with their Weltanschauung. Such a statement may strike those who are looking for a more unified social psychology as a tolerant position to hold but one that is entirely unacceptable and at best a disappointing state of affairs. But at this point in time, we are a long way from arriving at one accepted conceptual paradigm by which to explain the dynamics of the small group. There is a more fundamental fallacy in such an expectation, for it reflects a serious lack of understanding. It fails to realize that the phenomenon of the small group can be viewed from the perspectives of different questions and frames of references. Any unity that may be achieved will not be by insisting upon a universally accepted paradigm but by acknowledging the various aspects of the Weltanschauungs that have played a part in structuring our views of the dynamics of the small group. Thus what unity we may find will be a function of the question we ask.

The literature on small groups contains many conceptual frameworks which describe and explain the nature and dynamics of the small group. It is not my intention to review this literature but that is not to say that I will ignore it. This chapter presents my Matrix Model. In the presentation of my work there will be many occasions when I will note my indebtedness to other investigators whose work I have built upon or whose work has clarified points upon which there are clear differences.

I propose that any conceptual framework of the small group must attempt to deal with six points of view. They are, the structural, adaptive, developmental, transactional, Gestalt, and content points of view. Each of these are important in order to perceive the nature of the small group and critical to an understanding of the Matrix Model. They form a general framework within which to conceptually view the small group. Collectively these six points of view constitute the Matrix Model. Each point of view will be explained in turn, thus building the framework of the Matrix Model as the discussion progresses. The reader may find it helpful in reading about the six points of view to refer to Figure 1.1 Page which presents the Matrix Model in diagram form.

The structural point of view

Individuals compose small groups and most paradigms focus only on the individuals, the roles they take, the status they have in the group, and their patterns of interactions. To explain what is happening in the group by observing individual members is not only an accepted mode of investigation but a very instructive one. But from the structural perspective the individual member is only one component system. There is also a social and a cultural system. For the present, a discussion of the cultural system will be set aside in order to first illustrate the existence of the social system, which is evident in the following incident.

The setting is a seminar for psychology majors. Different members over the course of the last two sessions have suggested agendas that the group could work on but none of these have been adopted. When they were put forward they were explored politely but no commitment was made to adopt them after they were briefly discussed. It appeared that the members could not come to any consensus. A general sense of apathy was present among the membership because, in their view, nothing had been resolved. Some members pushed their chairs back from the table and appeared to have physically withdrawn from the group. Other members looked apprehensive while others looked bored. A silence fell on the group. At this point a member whose agenda had not been accepted moved his chair back to the table and said, ‘I think we are waiting for Dr B to step in and lead us. I think we have abdicated our autonomy and this makes me damn angry.’ An immediate upsurge of energy can be felt in the situation. There is a rush of agreements and denials. Members find it difficult to break into the rapidly moving discussion. It is difficult to conceive that this is the same group of some ten minutes earlier.

How can we describe this phenomenon other than to posit the existence of some entity different from the individual membership in the group? What was observed was not the summation of that membership but the expression of a structure that has its own existence. Groups are frequently described as manifesting a sense of trust, while at the same time, it is recognized that the trust that exists between members can vary within a wide range from little to a great deal. The illustration above is offered as evidence that, in addition to the structure of membership, there is the structure of a social system. Viewing the small group as a social system does not replace or discount the view of the group as involving interactions among individual members. Small groups can be examined in terms of the interactions among members or personality systems, but the small group can also be viewed as a dynamic entity—as an existing social system.

The social system, unlike the individual who brings historical content into the small group, comes into being at the initial period of the small group’s formation. Its unique identity is developed in the course of the group’s life. The social system comes to have its own history. As a dynamic structure it asserts itself on other structures within the small group and expresses its own nature in the life of the group. It is a proactive and reactive system from the initial moments of the group to that moment when the group terminates. It is a system entirely defined in a specified time—the span of the small group’s existence. In that sense we may speak of it as a system which is focused on the here and now and recognizes nothing other than its own history as being pertinent and valid.

To the personality system and the social system we add a third structural entity—the group’s cultural system. Unlike the social system which comes into existence and is terminated within the lifespan of the small group, the cultural system, like the personality systems, can trace a continuity before and after the group. The small group exists in a cultural context; it is an entity within a given society. The group is directly affected by the cultural structures and patterns of the society in which the group exists. This is evident in the pattern of relationships between members and the designated leader, in the values that are expressed in the group, in the numerous mores and rituals that get played out in the group. The influence of the cultural system can also be observed in the ties that members seek between the group and the larger society. The following statements are frequently heard in small groups. ‘In what ways is this group like the ones I work with?’ ‘I can’t see how what we are doing here can be used in the groups we work with.’ ‘What we are doing here is so unreal.’ It is evident in these remarks that a group is always linked to a larger context even when the relationship is not made explicit. The culture of a society is every bit a part of the group’s structural framework as are the personality systems of the members who compose the group.

The impression should not be left, especially at this point in time, that we may look for only one predominant culture which serves as the formative structure of a small group. A small group may be drawn from two or more cultural publics within a given society. In such cases there exists the potential for growth as well as the basis for serious conflict. In so far as the difference among cultural publics may serve as the potential for growth, we have an example of the formula of polarity to which Jung so frequently spoke.

In summary, a small group can be conceptualized from a structural point of view as having three interacting and dynamic systems: the social, personality, and cultural systems. Each is concurrent in the life of the group yet unique in both the matters it deals with and the manner in which it functions. Each system is autonomous in that it can be viewed as having its own agenda in dealing with the primary tasks to be encountered and resolved. The manner in which these tasks are handled and resolved comes to define its own identity in the sense that its unique development can be described. These qualities of the structural systems will be treated in greater detail as we examine the other points of view.

The developmental point of view

There have been a number of studies which describe the small group from the developmental point of view. Notable among these contributions have been the works of Bales and Strodtbeck (1951), Bennis and Shepard (1956), and Tuckman (1965). Hill and Gruner (1973) reported on over 100 papers written on small group development These studies describe the group as a whole progressing through phases of development. Here, there is a fundamental difference between these studies and our studies which lead to the formulation of the Matrix Model. The Matrix Model views the small group as a collective concept constituted by three systems, the social, personality, and cultural, which are the dynamic components of the small group. Unlike previous investigations of group phase development, I propose that each of the three systems progresses through its own phase of development. The concrete formulations of the developmental phases for each of the systems will be presented in the following section. In focusing upon the developmental point of view we must continue to recognize that all six points of view are interconnected and interrelated; however, the developmental and the adaptive points of view are tied conceptually in the way they are formulated at the observation stage. It is because of this relationship, that a more meaningful discussion of the developmental point of view can be presented in conjunction with our explanation of the adaptive point of view.

The adaptive point of view

The adaptive point of view describes the ways in which the three systems encounter and work at three primary tasks. Each system faces the tasks of (1) defining the nature of its identity, (2) establishing modes of relating, and (3) developing means to relate to reality-adaptive demands. The three tasks are discussed immediately below and illustrative examples from group observations are given to show how each system may deal with these tasks, which may provide some concreteness to our treatment of these primary tasks.

The social system without some definable form of an identity cannot be related to and, accordingly, would have no meaning for the members. It is not uncommon to hear expressed in the initial sessions of a small group, ‘I don’t know what this group is. I don’t know whether I can trust this group or not.’ For a group that has been developing a sense of its identity we hear very different expressions. ‘I have good feeling about this group. I don’t think we are clear yet about what we are about but there is commitment here.’

The task of establishing identity is fundamental to the personality system. Individuals can be observed working at establishing their identity in the group: as a person to be trusted, a person who can be counted on to help make decisions, as a person who is not afraid to work. Some can be observed reworking their identities. For example, the social system is struggling with the issues of control and authority and a member identifying with the conflicts these issues raise for him/her personally, can be observed struggling with his/her personal crisis of autonomy. ‘I have often found it difficult to accept authority figures and I am beginning to see how this has sometimes prevented me from relating to others in a positive way.’

The cultural system works at establishing its identity when it focuses attention on the development of and adherence to mores, roles, norms, and group values, These serve to set the boundaries of the group’s unique cultural structure and how that structure is to relate to the other two systems as well as to the larger society.

The second primary task is the establishing of modes of relating. Specific modes of relating become dominant in the social system at different times in the life of the small group. At a given time there is a sense in the social system that aggressive behavior is acceptable and even appropriate. At other times the social system’s emotionality may be one of dependency which is directed toward the leader. This mode of relationship may be clearly descriptive of the social system although, simultaneously, it is possible to observe certain individual members who do not overtly subscribe to the dependency emotionality being expressed in the social system. Our reading of the social system is not based on the summation of the members’ behaviors, a point that has been emphasized earlier, but on the general sense of the social system itself. To explain these modes of relating expressed by the social system we have turned to the contributions Bion (1959) has made in his studies of emotionalities in the small group. He has described the emotionality of dependency, as illustrated above, as a basic assumption culture of the group. Stock and Thelen (1958), Thelen (1959), and Slater (1966) have extended Bion’s work and have also contributed corroborating evidence to Bion’s original work.

Since the structural perspective views the social system as an entity, metaphorically as an organism (Thelen, 1959), it must out of necessity develop specific modes of relationships to deal with other entities that it encounters. For example, the social system develops specific ways of relating to the leader as its agenda changes. A member who is radically out of step with the social system’s mode of relating can be viewed as obstructing, acting in conspiracy or withdrawing.

The interpersonal relationships of individuals has long been a focus of research and an extensive body of literature reports on the modes of relating employed by members of small groups (Penland, 1974). At any time in the life of the group, members can be observed working at developing or avoiding relationships with other members, as well with the social or cultural systems. Every member is faced with the primary task that involves the decision whether to approach or avoid a relationship and how this is to be done.

The cultural system also encounters the task of relating to other entities and issues. The cultural and the social system are frequently observed as being at cross purposes. For example, the cultural system may have an agenda of furthering a particular norm—personal boundaries must be respected—while the social system is striving to establish trust in the group. The cultural system may resist a confrontation through flight. In another sphere the question is raised in the group, what is the relationship of the group to the larger society? Here we are observing the cultural system struggling with the primary task of evolving a mode of relating.

There is a third primary adaptive task that all three systems must face and handle—developing means to more fully deal with reality-adaptive demands. Although in a later section we will go into some detail describing the nature of these reality-adaptive demands, a few words of explanation are needed to clarify what is meant here by ‘reality-adaptive demands’, Its meaning is framed within analytical psychology. There are three constituent parts to what we call reality and these are manifested in the three existential dynamics, the social, personality, and cultural systems. Each interrelately shapes and is shaped by the project...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures and Tables
• Contributors
• Introduction
• Chapter One: The Matrix Model: A Conceptual Framework for Small Group Analysis
• Chapter Two: Methodology for the Study of the Development of Consciousness In the Small Group
• Chapter Three: Understanding Group Transformation Through the Focal Person Concept
• Chapter Four: Grief Work: A Social Dynamic In Group Transitions
• Chapter Five: A Conceptualization of Individuation In Learning Situations
• Chapter Six: The Anima and Animus In the Transactions of Small Groups
• Chapter Seven: Mary: A Case Study of Personal Transformation In a Small Group
• Chapter Eight: Facilitating Personal Transformations In Small Groups