Building on Bion’s Legacy:
How not to throw the
Baby out with the Bathwater
Robert M. Lipgar,
Ph.D., ABPP
(
As is apparent in recent ISPSO programs, interest in
Wilfred R. Bion and in his work is growing.
International conferences most recently in
Bion is often regarded as brilliant,
but difficult - dense to read, obscure and idiosyncratic in his use of language
and symbols. One example of this is a recent paper by Kenneth Eisold, president of the International Society for the
Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations, delivered last June in
As I read Bion, his legacy is
strongest and rests most firmly on his probing awareness of the
inter-subjective, himself included, and his ability to apprehend the
socio-cultural context. He was as Grotstein has noted
a ‘social psychiatrist’ before he was a psychoanalyst. (Lipgar
& Pines 2002a, p. 9) He is, in my eyes, a pioneer and leader -brilliant,
insightful, influential, and generative - the stuff of heroes.
To set the stage for building on Bion’s
legacy, I will refer briefly to the social and cultural context in which he
worked. I will not review here the tensions within the British psychoanalytic
community during the middle years of the last century, although these were of
concern to him. Bion lived and worked in the vortex
of the turmoil of the great issues of the 20th Century. He went to
war - twice. As an adolescent he volunteered for the Tank Corps in World War I
and became immersed in the madness, the blood and mud of battle. As a
psychiatrist in WWII, he made innovative contributions to the selection of
candidates for officer training which were of assistance to the British Army as
it rebuilt after its defeat at
Malcolm Pines has put it this way:
“He [Bion] strikes at the heart
of things, he seeks out danger, plunges as deeply as he can into the depths of
the mind. Truth and falsehood, sanity and madness are the matters that concern
him and which will not let him go and few who have read him will be free of his
concerns thereafter.” (Pines1985, p.xii)
Of course, Bion was not alone
among analysts and intellectuals trying to understand and manage the turmoil
and violence. Even as the storm clouds were darkening
Einstein:
“There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence
a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and
vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to
suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics,
which will eliminate these obstacles.” (Freud, Standard Edition, p.199)
“And so we come to our last
question. Is it possible to control man’s mental
evolution so as to make him proof against
the psychoses of hate and destructiveness?”(ibid, p.201)
Freud:
“Wars will only be prevented with certainty if mankind
unites in setting up a central authority to which the right of giving judgment
upon all conflicts of interest shall be handed over. There are clearly two
separate requirements involved in this: the creation of a supreme agency and
its endowment with the necessary power.” (ibid, p.207)
“My belief is this. For incalculable ages mankind has been
passing through a process of evolution of culture . . . We owe to the process
the best of what we have become, as well as a good part of what we suffer
from. . . . The psychical modifications
that go along with the process of civilization are striking and unambiguous.
They consist in a progressive displacement of instinctual aims and a
restriction of instinctual impulses. . .
. Of the psychological characteristics of civilization two appear to be the
most important: a strengthening of the intellect, which is beginning to govern
instinctual life, and an internalization of the aggressive impulses, with all
it consequent advantages and perils. (ibid, p.214-215)
“War is the crassest opposition to the psychical attitude
imposed on us by the cultural process, and for that reason we are bound to
revel against it; we simply cannot put up with it any longer. . . . And how long shall we have to wait
before the rest of mankind become pacifists too? There is no telling. But it
may not be Utopian to hope that these two factors, the cultural attitude and
the justified dread of the consequences of a future war, may result in a
measurable time in putting an end to the waging of war.’” (Jones vol. 3, 1957,
p346)
Einstein in seeking Freud’s support in establishing an
international association of intellectual elite, who “would have to make a
consistent effort to mobilize the religious organizations for the fight against
war,” was aware that such an endeavor was in jeopardy because of social and
group forces that were as hard to control as they were to fathom.
“Such an association, would, of course, be a prey to all
the ills which so often lead to degeneration of learned societies, dangers
which are inseparably bound up with the imperfections of human nature. But
should not an effort in this direction be risked in spite of this? I look upon
such an attempt as nothing less than an imperative duty. . . (Einstein 1954, p. 105)
“I had rather put these proposals to you than to anyone
else in the world, because you, least of all men, are the dupe of your desires
and because your critical judgment is supported by a
most grave sense of responsibility.” (ibid)
Einstein in opening his letter (written in 1931 or in
early1932) expressed his respect and admiration this way:
“It is admirable how the yearning to perceive the truth
has overcome every other yearning in you. You have shown with impelling
lucidity how inseparably the combative and destructive instincts are bound up
in the human psyche with those of love and life. But at the same time there
shines through the cogent logic of your arguments a deep longing for the great
goal of internal and external liberation of mankind from war. This great aim
has been professed by all those who have been venerated as moral and spiritual
leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country without exception, from
Jesus Christ to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been
universally accepted as leaders, even though their efforts to mold the course
of human affairs were attended with but small success?” (ibid, p.104)
There are three points here I wish to make: 1) that great
minds were struggling to comprehend the irrational expression of aggression and
power, not only among individuals but within institutions and among nations; 2)
that psychoanalysis was front and center, seen as a powerful, perhaps
indispensable tool in that struggle; and 3) that we have not, as leaders and
followers, learned much from our experience.
Among psychiatrists and
psychoanalysts, Bion was a leader - early in his
career and late - in studying irrational and non-rational behavior in groups
and individuals. He took on the task of finding ways to advance man’s emotional
development - much as Einstein had asked Freud: “Is it possible to control
man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate
and destructiveness?” As chair of the
Medical Section of the British Psychological Society in 1947, Bion set the agenda in these terms:
“There is no corpus of knowledge that does for the study
of the group what psycho-analysis does for the study of the individual. The
material which is relevant for our study is embedded in the information amassed
by several at present widely separated disciplines. . . . In the field of emotional and
intellectual development, the situation is very different [from that of the
scientific field of acquiring of technical skills of the mechanical type];
mimesis is of no value and, indeed, is a great danger, for it produces a
spurious appearance of growth; no method of communication of emotional
development has yet been found which is not hopelessly limited in its field of
influence. . . . Hope . . . must depend
on the development of a technique of emotional development, and, one would
imagine, that is precisely what we in this society are concerned to provide.” (Bion 1948, p.84)
In this address he outlined the challenge to develop
techniques or methods required for “dealing with the underlying emotional
tensions in human relationships [and] it is precisely these primitive
unconscious tensions which present the fundamental problem in all human
relationships.” (Bion 1948, p.83) Bion
makes it clear that he would take psychiatry beyond the dyadic doctor-patient
relationship. He sets his sights on studying the behavior of groups and
society: “I consider nothing but Western Civilization.”(ibid. p.82)
Let me move from the socio-cultural to the subjective,
from the outside world to the inner with these lines by Gerard Manley Hopkins:
“No worse, there is none. Pitched
past pitch of grief,
More pages will, schooled at forepangs, wilder wring,
Comforter, where, where is your
comforting?
Mary, mother of us, where is your
relief?
My cries heave, herds-long; huddle
in a main, a chief-
Woe, world-sorrow, on an age-old
anvil wince and sing –
Then lull, then
leave off. Fury had shrieked ‘No ling-
ering! Let me be fell, force I must be
brief’.
“O the mind, mind has mountains,
cliffs of fall
Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed. Hold them cheap
May who ne’er hung there. Nor does long our small
Durance deal with that steep or deep. Here I
creep,
Wretch, under a comfort serves in
a whirlwind: all
Life death does end and each day
dies with sleep.” (Hopkins, 1953 p.61)
‘To sleep, perchance to dream . . .’ I shall spare you
further recitations at this point, but I mean to bring you closer to the
context in which Bion moved so that we can better
appreciate his journey, the heights and depths of his studies.
Yes, I admit to seeing Bion as a
hero. Yes, I believe I can trust myself not to fall into the sins of idolatry
or the errors of idealization – particularly now at my advanced age and after
many years of analytic work and work in group relations. Eisold
is right to encourage us to take up our own authority, find our own voices, and
come out from behind Bion’s shadow. However, let us
not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Eisold’s
aim was “to find better ways of using him, and here I mean ‘use’ in the
profound sense of the term that Winnicott (1969)
taught us to understand.” (Eisold, 2004 p.2) “In
short, in wanting to stop venerating him, I want to find ways to actually use
him to help us think again.” Noble aims, but in the body of the Coesfeld paper Eisold’s use of the words “attack,” “challenge,” and
“quarrel” (Eisold, 2004, p.2) can lead to the
dismissal of Bion’s legacy. Well-intended revisionists
can impede as well as advance our work.
Revisionists and reformers, I suggest, can interfere with
our development as much as those who venerate Bion or
other significant teachers and may glorify their gifts. As with other great
teachers, we need to see beyond the mistaken images, both positive and
negative, that often involuntarily invade and distort
our perceptions and opinions.
I will note here three building blocks that I take from Bion’s work. One, there is Bion’s
assertion that ‘silence gives consent’. This forms the foundation, for me, of
social responsibility and of society’s ability to learn from experience.
Second, there is the idea of the ‘group mentality as a pool of anonymous
contributions’, an insight and formulation which grounds my thinking about
covert processes in social systems. This provides a launching pad for my
thinking about metabolizing or managing toxic psychological materials, for
finding ways to contain rather than export destructive aggression mindlessly . Third, there is Bion’s
concept of the ‘Proto-mental’ which moves me to deepen my understanding of
relationships such as those of mind and body, of thought and action, of knowledge
as learning as distinct from knowledge as discrete applications.
It is ironic to me that when so much is said and written
about Bion’s darkness, about his having a more
pessimistic view influenced perhaps by his bloody experience in WWI. In his
interview with Banet (1976), Bion
flatly rejected the notion that his wartime experience had influenced his work
in any significant way. Such interpretations and speculations about his worldview, may block an appreciation of the consistency and
persistence with which he sought ways to advance our emotional development as
individuals and as societies. Furthermore, it is seldom remembered that he says
explicitly that the ‘work’ group will triumph, will overcome the distractions
of the basic assumptions.
Unfortunately, Bion is too-often
presented as the cup half-empty. For many, Bion is
not precise but obscure, not reserved but opaque, not thoughtful but remote,
not shy but arrogant. I find that good/bad object splitting is ubiquitous and
that evidence of projective identifications are in
abundance in seminar rooms and professional societies’ meetings and panels.
These are certainly as common and prevalent as evidence of stymieing veneration
and neurotic idealizations.
Bion’s concept and discussion of the Basic Assumptions (B.A.) is probably more readily associated with his name than any
of his other ideas. It is also the idea most commonly misused and often
mistakenly criticized. Only, Bion himself, only Bion’s personality and stance have been more commonly
targeted for attack. I’ve discussed these misconstructions in detail and in
print elsewhere (Lipgar, 2002, 1993). Here, I will
merely summarize my main points.
Careful reading of Bion’s Experience in Groups does not support
the notion that he looked at groups as being either a Work group or a Basic
Assumption (B.A.) group. Not so.
Rather, he proposed that these two modalities of mental activity are (in his
experience) in a relationship of constant tension and that creative leadership
would need to find ways of harnessing B.A.
on behalf of the psychological work required to maintain and benefit from contact
with reality. Although he spoke of mental activity’, a term that can give the
impression that he made too much of the role of cognition to the neglect of
affects, the contrary is the case. The assessment of B.A. activity was determined by the emotional tone of the group as
a whole.
Further, the three categories of Basic Assumptions are not conceptualized as group equivalents of
Freud’s stages of development, oral, anal, and phallic. Rather, Bion is careful to articulate his view of groups as occasions
for fresh observations and discoveries. Further, he does not speak of the
‘basic assumptions’ as developmental phases or as a sequence of development.
There is nothing linear or static in his study of groups. He does, however,
speak of the ‘basic assumptions’ in terms of their defensive function against
terror, chaos, and irrationality. Basic assumption activity is neither
primitive nor irrational so much as non-rational. The
‘basic assumptions’ are collective unexamined beliefs in the service of preserving
the group cohesiveness, observable clusters of psychological phenomena
competing with the need to ‘learn from experience’ – that difficult work of
engaging in reality exploration and in the testing and application of “common
sense.” (Bion, 1965, p.2)
Other misrepresentations of Bion’s
legacy concerns technique perhaps more than theory. Here the criticisms come
closest to attacks on Bion’s personality although
they are couched usually in terms of his approach or stance as a leader. There
were early reports that Bion’s advocated leaderless
therapy groups (Taylor, 1961), followed, ironically perhaps, by Yalom’s objections that Bion’s
model was “leader-centered” . . . “prescrib[ing] a role that was entirely limited to interpretations -
an impersonal mass group interpretation at that” (Yalom,
1985).
The more often cited critical revision, however, is the
one made by Gustafson and Cooper in their article “Collaboration in small
groups: Theory and technique for the study of small group process” which
appeared in Human Relations in 1979
and was reprinted in the A.K. Rice publication Group Relations Reader 2 in 1985. Gustafson and Cooper go to some
pains to show that Bion’s first nine interventions
reported in Experiences in groups
were “merciless”, actually one interpretation repeated 8 or 9 times. They also
suggest that the group phenomena Bion theorizes about
were more a function of Bion’s stance than Bion’s report seems to imply. They also complain that Bion was both remote and intrusively attacking in his group
consulting while also presenting him as abdicating the leadership role.
(Gustafson & Cooper, 1985, pp.144-145)
It is awkward, to say the least, to stand here in this age
of political correctness regarding issues of diversity and inclusiveness, to
stand here in the post-modern or post-structuralist
21st Century and suggest that collaboration in small groups
may not be the whole story and that it may not have been Bion’s
primary enterprise - nor is it mine, for that matter. As noble a goal as collaboration
may be, it is the basis for a different enterprise than the study of group life
that Bion undertook. Bion
stressed the study of groups and learning from experience about the obstacles
and impediments to sophisticated work groups (which incidentally must include
collaboration and teamwork among other virtuous and difficult to achieve
attributes needed for development and survival). By emphasizing collaboration,
Gustafson, Cooper and others embrace or espouse a different educational
enterprise – one in which the primary task is more one of providing training
and less one that seeks to deepen our understanding of group processes through
‘knowledge of experience’. Eric Miller, I believe, makes essentially this point
in his much over-looked paper “The politics of involvement” (Miller, 1980).
In my article “Bion’s work with
groups: Construed and misconstrued” (Lipgar, 1993)
and also in the chapter “Re-discovering Bion’s Experience in groups: Notes and
commentary on theory and practice” (Lipgar &
Pines, 2003), I provide the reader with Bion’s text
and argue that these nine interventions are neither “merciless” nor reducible
to a single interpretation and that they are better construed as participatory
and empathically involved in the here and now.
Far from deserving a reputation characterized by “his
oracular manner . . . and dogmatic pronouncements” (Eisold,
2004, p.2), Bion suggestions regarding leadership in
small groups provide a very different model, one that may be “minimalist” but
far from silent or dogmatic. His model emphasizes being present in the here and
now. His model is that of a participant-observer speaking in an independent
voice - not by intention “evocative.”
Here are a few words by Bion on
technique:
“In making interpretations to the group I avoid terms such
as group mentality; the terms used should be as simple and precise as
possible.” (Bion 1961, p.60)
“… the situation should be
described in concrete terms and the information given as fully and precisely as
possible, without mention of the theoretical concepts on which the
psychiatrist’s own views have been based.” (ibid, p.61)
“The psychiatrist must not always wait for changes in the
group before he describes what he sees.
. . . for example (to take the case of an
individual), a patient had complained of considerable anxiety about ‘fainting
off’. Sometimes he had described the same phenomenon as ‘becoming unconscious’. At a later group he was somewhat boastfully
saying that, when things happened in the group which he did not like, he simply
ignored them. It was possible to show him that he was describing exactly the
same situation this time in a mood of confidence, as he had on another occasion
described with anxiety as ‘fainting off’. His attitude to events in the group
had altered with an alteration in the basic assumption of the group.” (ibid,
p.97)
“The group always make it clear
that they expect me to act with authority as the leader of the group, and this
responsibility I accept, though not in the way the group expect.”(ibid, p.82)
“I will, however, emphasize one aspect of my
interpretations of group behavior which appears to the group, and probably to
the reader, to be merely incidental to my personality, but which is, in fact,
quite deliberate – the fact that the interpretation would seem to be concerned
with matters of no importance to anyone but myself. (ibid, p.40)
Before continuing, let me note here that I never met Bion, nor saw him. I will, however, present images of Bion by others who worked with closely with him and knew him
well - associates and analysands - and Bion himself. These observations of Bion
counter the myths of his “arrogance” or inclination toward “certainties” (Eisold, op. cited)
Eric Trist wrote:
“He was detached yet warm, utterly imperturbable and
inexhaustibly patient. He gave rise to feelings of immense security – the Rock
of Gibraltar quality. But the Rock of Gibraltar is also powerful and he exuded
power (he was also a very large man). This did not make the patients afraid of
him; rather it endowed him a special kind of authority which gained him added
attention. The patients became aware that they had secured a very exceptional
person as their therapist. It represented an
X factor, the effects of which I could not fathom.
“His interventions were on the sparse side and tended to
be terse. They could be kept so because he always waited until the evidence for
what he would say was abundant. He expressed himself in direct, concise
language that everyone could understand. If a patient made an intervention before
he did, so much the better, there was no need for him to make it. He seemed to
want to make the group as self-interpretative as possible and to facilitate its
learning to become so.” (Trist, 1985, pp.30-31)
Isabel Menzies-Lyth wrote:
“Many people have remarked on his superb powers of
observation. But, in some ways, that seems an understatement. His observation
was backed by an equally striking capacity to make sense of his observations.
As we know, it is almost impossible to make ‘pure’ observations, a fact of
which Bion himself was only too well aware. It was
the ‘mix’ in Bion that was so extraordinary.
“A companion point about his work is perhaps less
familiar, but most obvious to a member of one of his groups – his remarkable
capacity to be observed. His papers show that he was aware of being under
constant scrutiny and that he experienced considerable turmoil, the effect of
massive projection by the group, his own doubts and uncertainties, the pain of
waiting for insight to evolve, the frequent unwelcomeness
of his interpretations. He remained apparently unmoved and imperturbable. His
colleague and friend, A.K. Rice, said of him, ‘Bion
can sit farther behind his own face than any other man I know.’ This was an
invaluable asset to the clinician in groups, giving the group freedom to pursue
its own course uncontaminated by inappropriate messages from the leader. Those
of us who have tried to emulate him know how difficult this is.” (Menzies-Lyth, 1981, p.662)
About Experience in Groups, Bion
says:
“What follows is a sketch to indicate the lines along
which progress could be made and which I have found helpful. (Bion, 1962, p.42)
Bion reported that no one can speak
for the group. I take this to mean that he is aware of how fluid and powerful
group forces are in shaping the behaviors of the group and of those in it.
Perhaps the most vigorous development and application of Bion’s work has been at the Tavistock
Institute for Human Relations where A.K. Rice, Pierre Turquet,
Eric Miller, and their associates developed the tradition of group relations
conferences. ‘Working conferences’ were developed in the mid-1950’s
and continue to be conducted worldwide. Several generations of staff and
members have gained from opportunities to study authority and leadership
designed in the ‘Tavistock tradition’.
In the
Through the use of Q-methodology, we found four basic
orientations to the consultant’s role. For convenience, we can refer to these
as Interpretive, Educative, Participatory,
and Protective orientations. We found that the
distinguishing features of these bore a strong resemblance to the four aspects
of group life Bion had sketched in Experiences in Groups - Work, Dependence, Pairing, and Fight/flight, reaffirming Bion’s observations and
their usefulness.
Based on our empirical research as well as my clinical and
conference experience, I suggest that whatever our training and schools of
thought – all of us in group leadership roles (therapist, conductor,
consultant, facilitator, or chairpersons) must attend to and manage desires,
feelings and fantasies within ourselves as well as within others and in the
group as a whole. I suggest that our success as leaders – whatever the group’s
primary task or goals - depends in large measure upon our ability to track and make
sense out of anxiety, frustration, deprivation, and assaults on self-esteem.
Leadership requires that we speak to the group of these emotional and cognitive
events in ways that illuminate rather than aggravate. Of course, it should be
kept in mind that whether our interventions are experienced as illuminating or
aggravating depends on factors and forces not
immediately apparent nor entirely under our control. However, such forces can
be discerned and spoken to in an ongoing effort to participate and work to make
participation and learning from experience possible and to minimize the impact
of obstacles and impediments as these emerge.
This means that interpretative
behavior must be balanced with educative
efforts to help the group develop, with a participatory
presence which provides some measure of protection
for personal and group boundaries. Since, we found that these four orientations
were associated with experience and leadership, we can say we have empirical
support for Bion’s view that interpretations remain
primary as the most powerful or transformative interventions. This is not to
say, however, that other modes of intervention are of little or no importance.
Nor do these findings in any way mitigate the need to track and manage those
aspects of group life customarily seen as administrative concerns and too often
seen as distinct from the psycho-social dynamics.
This brief description of empirical research in the
context of group relations conferences can be linked with Bion’s
own efforts to adapt accomplishments in science and math to the requirements of
psychoanalytic objectives and methods. As Bion
struggled to find ways to make possible a more productive and disciplined study
of psychoanalytic objects and techniques, he spoke, for instance of Beta and Alpha elements. His use of abstractions and symbols was part of his
search to find ways to refine psychoanalytic technique and to make sharing of
psychoanalytic narratives more disciplined and productive of learning from each
other. Symbols, such as L (love), H
(hate) and K (knowledge), can make communications more precise while still
leaving space in which to “saturate” these abstractions with the particulars of
live experiences.
Bion requires close reading to be
understood with the degree of accuracy that all serious scholars deserve. His
writing is often dense but his train of thought and its journey are clear. It
would be a gross misreading of Bion to take his use
of symbols as evidence that he was removed from his or from his patients’ emotional
experience. As a model, he leads us to
be deeply immersed in, and profoundly respectful of affects and the part they
play in the development of emotional intelligence essential to the survival of
the species.
Although his persona and personal history contribute to
myths and misconstructions about him, these must not out-weigh a careful
reading of his work. We have responsibility as teachers, students and
colleagues to read him carefully, and not simply read about him, or rely on
what we’ve been told about him and his work secondhand.
I want to add here at least these two statements by Bion that give the lie to references to his arrogance or
his certitude:
“I have felt, and some of my colleagues likewise, that
when the patient appears to be engaged on a projective identification it can
make me feel persecuted, as if the patient can in fact split off certain nasty
feelings and show them into me so that I actually have feelings of persecution
or anxiety. It this is correct it is sill possible to keep the theory of an
omnipotent phantasy [referring here to Klein’s formulation of projective
identification], but at the same time we might consider whether there is not
some other theory which would explain what the patient does to the analyst
which makes the analyst feel like that, or what is the matter with the analyst
who feels as he does.” (Bion, 1990)
“Freud made a very illuminating observation about the ego,
the id, and the superego. It is only when one tries to contemplate it, tries to
look at the human being, that he begins to see that these psychodynamic
formulations which are very fruitful, are really not quite good enough. But
it’s difficult, because one doesn’t really know whether one’s misrepresenting
Freud or whether one’s got onto the right track.” (Banet,
1976)
I will end now with the words of two non-analysts, one an
emigrant from
You may recognize their voices. First, from 1939:
“I’m sorry but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not
my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help
everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black men - white.”
and he continues:
“The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have
lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls – has barricaded the world with
hate – has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed,
but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in
want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We
think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More
than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life
will be violent and all will be lost.”
And from 1935, these words:
“Endless invention, endless
experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion,
But not of stillness;
Knowledge of words and ignorance
of the word.
“Where is the wisdom we have lost
in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have
lost in information?”
First, is from The
Great Dictator (released in
His was in the pursuit of our emotional development as
humans, and this is his legacy.
Bion stood on Freud’s shoulders and
took up Einstein’s challenge:
“is it possible to control man’s
mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and
destructiveness?”
Answers will come only from us if we choose to take up the
challenge and build on the legacies of those brilliant and courageous men and
women who struggled before us.
References
Banet, Jr., A.G. (1976) ‘Interview’
(with W.R.Bion) Group
& Organization Studies 1 (3), 268-285
Bion, W. R. (1961) Experiences in Groups.
Bion, W.R. (1962) Learning from Experience.
Bion,W.R. (1965) Transformations.
Bion, W. R. (1970) Attention and Interpretation.
Bion, W.R. (1990) Brazilian Lectures: 1973 Sao Paulo 1974 Rio
de Janeiro/Sao Paulo.
Einstein, A. (1954) Ideas and Opinions.
Eisold, K. (2004) ‘The
Shadow of a future without Bion.’ A Paper presented at the 2004
Symposium of ISPSO, June 16-19,
Eliot, T.S. (1935) ‘Burnt Norton.’ The Complete Poems and Prose.
Brace & Co.
Freud, S. (1932/3) Why War? (Einstein
and Freud).
S.E.22.
Gustafson, J.P. and Cooper, L. (1979) ‘Collaboration in
small groups: Theory and
technique for the study of small group
process.’ Human Relations 31,
155-171.
Hopkins, G.M. (1953) Gerard
Manley Hopkins: Poems and Prose.
Classics.
Jones, E. (1957) The Life and Work of
Sigmund Freud.
Lipgar, R.M. (2003) ‘Re-discovering Bion’s Experience in
Groups: Notes and
commentary on theory and practice.’ In R.M. Lipgar & M. Pines (eds) Building
on Bion:
Roots.
Lipgar, R.M. (1993) ‘Bion’s
work with groups: Construed and misconstrued.’ In S.
Cytrynbaum, and S.A. Lee, (eds) Transformations in Global and Organizational Systems: Changing
Boundaries in the 90s, 98-106. Proceedings of the Tenth
Scientific Meeting of the A.K. Rice Institute.
Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.
Lipgar, R.M., Bair, J.P. & Fichtner, C. (2004) ‘Integrating research with group
relations
conferences: Challenges, insights and
implications.’ In
D.A.Noumair (eds) Group
Dynamics, Organizational Irrationality, and Social
Complexity: Group
Relations Reader 3.
Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.
Menzies-Lyth,
Dare Disturb the
Universe? A Memorial to W.R. Bion.
Library, Karnac.
Miller, E. (1980) ‘The politics of
involvement.’ J. of Personality and Social Systems, 2,
37-50. (also, In A.D. Colman & M.H. Geller, Group Relations Reader 2, Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute).
Stock, D. & Thelen, H.A. (1958) Emotional
Dynamics and Group Culture.
Press.
Thelen, H.A. ‘Research with Bion’s Concepts.’ In M. Pines (ed) Bion and Group
Psychotherapy.
Trist, E. ‘Working with Bion in the 1940’s: the group decade.’ In M. Pines (ed) Bion and
Group Psychotherapy.
Yalom, I.D. (1985) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. (3rd ed.). (2nd
ed. 1975).
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Ann Kaplan and to
Gerard van Reekum for their editorial suggestions and
other useful advice, and to Dr. Kenneth Eisold for
provoking me to think more and learn.