I get asked somewhat frequently why I'm drawn to practicing group therapy. Really, it's groups of all kinds that I'm interested in. But that sort of begs the question.
I'm interested in groups because I'm interested in people, and groups tend to be how people are organized. I'm not sure if this is a provocation or not. I'd like it to be one:
We live our lives in groups.
I think this statement is at one and the same time controversial and self-evident.
How is it self evident?
"I'm a loner," you argue. Or, perhaps you're inclined to point to all the people on the New York City subway who seem to be heading uptown to a dinner for one. I could argue that all those New Yorkers in the subway car constitute a group (or that "New Yorker" is itself a category easily designated as a group--even if a diverse one). But I don't need to go that far.
As I write this, I'm alone in my office. And yet even while I'm physically alone, I am a member of countless groups. I'm a part of countless friendships, a member of a family (or two, depending on how you count). As a psychotherapist I have affiliations of various kinds made up of membership organizations to which I belong. I'm a member of 16 Facebook "groups." In about twenty minutes the patients in my Wednesday night group will arrive, expecting leadership and guidance from me.
You get the idea.
(And yes: I consider groups of two--i.e. "relationships" to be groups as well.)
What's the controversy?
We're pretty attached to the Myth of the Individual. For one thing, the academic discipline of psychology (which has so dominated the study of human functioning as to be synonymous with that very study) is almost entirely dedicated to the study of the individual, and the clinical practice of psychology (which, again, has so nearly defined the clinical activity of helping people with their emotional lives as to be synonymous with that practice) is almost entirely focused on helping individuals.
I think the controversy itself betrays the very need for group therapy: We fail to acknowledge just how omnipresent groups are in our lives (or, perhaps more accurately, just how omnipresent we are in groups) for the very reason that, in spite of this presence, we really suck at being in groups.
Provoked yet?
Well, I'm trying. (And, yes, I'm aware that there's a tautology at play here: We're bad at being in groups because we deny their presence in our lives and we deny their presence in our lives because we're bad at being in them.)
You don't need me to cite statistics on divorce, broken families, dysfunctional work environments or friendships torn asunder. Nor do you need me to point to the prevalence of violence in schools, in our communities, in families and in political relationships within and among the countries of the world.
"OK, so you think we should all sign up for group therapy?"
Yes, actually. But fortunately group therapy isn't the only way to get better and being in groups. I think we need to take groups more seriously. We need to work harder at recognizing the simple fact that groups are. Like it or not, groups are the way the world is organized. We need to insist that schools and employers take groups more seriously, and engage critical questions like, "Who are we?" "What do we want to accomplish together?" "What do we need from one another in order to function better as a group."
And if you happen to be thinking about therapy, consider taking on the issue of your development as a group builder. The world needs more of them.
