The Group Therapy Model of Political Activism

The question as to how our groups should be structured is still an open one

The question as to how our groups should be structured is still an open one. To say by consensus is to inquire how it is that consensus is enacted. One needs a rather concrete specification of our desired relations with each other in these social molecules called organizations. A worthwhile description would suggest a structure that is able to propagate itself in the face of external repression, internal disruption, and perhaps most difficult, the harsh wilderness of American society.

One might say that the contemporary practice of consensus represents progress disparate radical groups have made in recent decades. Consensus as we know it seems to have crystallized sometime in the 90s, gaining currency along with the large protests of the early 00s. David Graeber provides a historical sketch of the concept from informal beginnings in the early 60's, through the destruction of the New Left to the schisms of Radical Feminists, the successes and subsequent flare-out of the AntiNuclear Movement, on up to present day. [1] One valuable aspect of looking at the history here is that, beyond any determinate fact, it shows consensus constructed by trial and error, through a process that consigned more than one formation to wreckage. In the end perhaps, something useful has emerged from all these internal struggles, forged in the fire to use one metaphor. Graeber tends to link this consensus to Anarchism even though he recognizes it is of a non-Anarchist vintage. In fact it is used in identical forms in many progressive/socialist/anarchist

groups, groups which ostensibly disagree about a great deal. But while this form of consensus we've inherited may represent progress over hierarchical formations or the ambiguous consensus processes that marked earlier radical efforts, there is of course no reason to believe that we have on hand a uniquely perfect or finished state. One would be at pains to suggest that if things were to continue on as they are that any kind of Radical Left would ever become a formidable challenge to the current system of Imperialism. Radicals however, in our capacities as humans, are conservative in actual practice and the methods used for achieving consensus are well known and quite comfortable to us at this point. A group's culture, once established, is resistant to change. [2] Whether this depends on the type of group or individuals making up the group is less clear, but one may reasonably doubt that it is so. There are inherent difficulties in changing a group's (any group's) culture. This does not mean there are no good reasons for trying. Empirical observation brings forward several relevant features. We have no strategy, no long-term goals except the most vague and abstract, and there is a tendency to pass off this inability as radical. Our ranks are usually on the verge of collapse. Burnout is endemic and a given activist lasts on average 1-2 years. One key contradiction is that we claim to act in the interests of the most disenfranchised and oppressed, but these rarely constitute us in any significant way. Graeber notes that, while historically movements for wide-scale change usually nucleate in the middle or even upper classes, for such a movement to really take hold and be successful it must at some point translate to being made up of those closer to the bottom of the social hierarchy. However leftist formation are arguably no closer than at any point in the last 40 years of making this translation. It is significant in this regard that many of the most thriving projects either involve defending a relatively helpless victim (the earth, animals, the abused or violated, or prisoners), providing some social service,

or making up a countercultural institution (worker-run businesses, zine libraries, low-power radio, etc.). This is not to criticize these projects (the author has been involved in more than one), nor is it to revisit the organizer/activist debate. Instead we wish in a certain sense to overcome the antagonism between activism and lifestylism. It is clear that we need to be much more in solidarity we each other, dependent on each other, that is to say interdependent. One might claim that activists should take a lesson from the poor. One factor in the experience of poverty is the saturation of the world's social aspect. Even in isolating conditions, the poor is more aware of and enmeshed with those around them than the comfort class.

But how to get there? This is a perilous question, one which brings up several others such as why do men tend to predominate our meetings (at least numerically)? What are the true motivating factors for our activism, and what can sustain us for the long haul, as Myles Horton titled his autobiography? Activism is tough, as one of the contributors in The revolution will not be funded succinctly put it. [3] It generates its own wounds, and we have to learn how to deal with those in our work, but also but also in our lives.

One of the few lines of thinking that has pursued these issues is the Icarus Project, a group therapy project for political activists. [4] The Icarus Project allows people to draw explicit links between their mental diseases and the socioeconomic order. There is much that is positive in this. Were the Icarus Project to expand and continue to develop it likely would fill many of the needs outlined here. However, there are differences between it and what this essay proposes. One is that the Icarus Project is, so to speak, just another group or another meeting to attend. While

some activists (and not a few AA members) have the ability to make multiple meetings per week, this is still a challenge for many. Another difference is that we are not so interested here in criticizing psychology as in critically appropriating its strongest concepts. That does not mean we ignore psychology's dark history or structural bias toward individual solutions, but it does imply an acceptance that it is very difficult to look at oneself in a critical light as a matter of course and that even if all our problems are at root caused by global structures of domination that we are not likely to have a clear view of how this is so with the analytical tools currently on hand. [5] The main point of difference, though, is not (only) to provide a therapeutic avenue for activists to reflect on our experiences, but to change group culture by doing so. This would mean valuing discussion about the dynamics of the group itself as expressed in the here-and-now interactions of its members. The positive benefits of such a value change would be numerous. For instance it has been shown that even just open discussion of group processes tends to level social hierarchy. [2] Another major benefit is that burnout could be dealt with in such a way that the feelings leading to it could be aired in such a way as to ultimately strengthen the social fabric. Not to make it scientific but our experience is something like data which can help us to evaluate the relative failure or success of these planned social experiments. Its not that the subjective experience of the organizers/activists are necessarily most important in a national or international social-change process, but failing to pay attention to this cannot but be a huge loss. Lets consider for a moment how group therapy and political activism are already kindred spirits in some ways. In their excellent treatise on the subject [6], Yalom and Leszcz propose 11 therapeutic factors:
1.

The instillation of hope

2. Universality
3.

Imparting information

4. Altruism
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

The corrective recapitulation of the primary family group Development of socializing techniques Imitative behavior Interpersonal learning Group cohesiveness

10. Catharsis 11. Existential factors One should be careful not to see a hidden desire for conformity in such categories, for instance imitative behaviors. Therapeutic imitation is actually a creative move, where imitation can be a first step towards learning about oneself and being open to different modes of being, a trying on of selves. Similarly for the instillation of hope. The hope of terminally ill cancer patients (Yalom worked with this identity group for many years) for a death without undue pain or dignity loss is not an illusioned hope. Many of these dimensions are found in the successful political organization, for instance: existential factors in fighting the good fight and being connected to a historical legacy; the instillation of hope and universality in meeting like-minded others; catharsis in those utopian moments of success or unrest; altruism in the self-sacrifice such work takes; development of socializing techniques, imitative behavior, and interpersonal learning in anti-oppression work. Where there are differences between group therapy and political activism, it is political activism which comes out worse for the comparison (except of course, in the superiority of aims in radical politics). Readily observable is that

the corrective recapitulation of the primary family group(number 5) is totally absent from radical left organizations. This is not an accident of course, as radical leftists tend to locate problems in abstract social structures and bureaucratic organizations that have committed evil. Number 5 then looks like some kind of Freudian throwback, with more than a hint of the Oedipus Complex. What radicals lose in their dismissal of this dimension of group existence is the notion of transference. Transference, one of the most drawn upon and observed processes in clinical theories, as well as playing a structuring role in works of literature, includes the idea that in a sense we bring social roles with us to the table pre-made from our pasts. This often leads to an inappropriate interpretation of others words and deeds. Often transference centers on the relationship between the therapist and a client. Classically, the therapist adopts a neutral stance with regards to what the client tells him or her. Over the course of a treatment the client may put onto the therapist certain attitudes, beliefs, or desires. Assuming the therapist really does maintain a somewhat distant neutrality, then the client is engaged in transference. The client has warped reality to fit their own needs. Now, this idea is clearly not unique to the one-on-one therapy situation, nor to therapy at all. Surely anything going on on the couch is also happening in the street, not to mention the activist meeting. The consequences of omitting transference are enormous, one imagines, as the ability to discriminate between what is most significant and amenable to our efforts becomes unduly obscured with unacknowledged or unknown personal needs. Of course it cannot be said we activists put all our problems out there. In the US at least the last 40 years or so radical groups have seen the chickens coming home to roost. Echols clearly shows that the New Left was weakened by its inability to deal with the issue of sexism within its midst. This history is painful to anyone hoping for The Movement to spring to life re-awakened as the crisis of

capitalism. To give the punch-line, in the wake of second-wave Feminism and the movements it would unknowingly inspire (AIDS, queer and trans activisms most especially), post-capitalist groups could not, cannot ignore the extent to which larger structures of inequality or oppression reveal themselves in our milieu. The question is, how to do accomplish this? To take a concrete example: Recently I heard it be urged that we put out to people at the occupation that one in such a situation should be striving to act with a level of thoughtfulness somewhat higher than what would be expected at, say, work. Or, in other words, casually dropping phrases such as cocksucking [n-word] when were trying to make a better society is not okay and will not be tolerated. Its not an unreasonable request (to say the least), but a larger issue that gets overlooked is the level of regulation built into our interpersonal exchanges. Indeed, political activist culture seems much more regulated than most other countercultural movements, indeed is most closely compared to the social environment of East Coast liberal arts schools. The author is skeptical of any fundamental difference between P.C. and anti-oppression, insofar as both have this same feeling. If we were to give another name to this feeling it would be dread. The feeling that you better watch what you say is inimical to the therapeutic process (one reason for infiltration). From this perspective anti-oppression is almost worse than PC insofar as PC is content merely to police what one says while anti-oppression aims to get inside your head too. One should not say bitch or even think it now. Theres really no problem here with the ethical standard but the fact that it appears in such a way as to render meaningless any open discussions about gender that might occur in the context of the offending words use. We havent taken the time to understand the dynamics of how it is that people change their minds about subjects. The problem with our current system is that it bases judgments on individuals on categories rather than history or on

how people respond to their history. In short, you have to know people first. One may respond to this by pointing at, say, the Black Freedom Movement for overflowing examples where attempting to empathize with ones oppressor did in no way attenuate the level of such oppression. However, such attempts by the Pacifist wing of that struggle did tend to lead to effective action (at least in the early days). Indeed, Stokely Carmichael [7] was probably right in his criticism of James Lawson et al.s dogmatic pacifism, but probably wrong in his belittlement of attempts which acted to promote some kind of bond or understanding between the oppressor and oppressed. Such views clearly have their limits, but if we are going to incorporate the oppressor into part of our identity as those who are striving for collective liberation, that is if we are going to put this split into the heart of our groups and ourselves, then we really ought to at least come up with daily and practical methods (I am tempted to say rituals) for dealing with this. From the perspective of group therapy, one could say that activist groups have little for maintaining group cohesiveness besides shared suffering and a common ideology. Is that enough? Postscript: The foregoing does not explain how such concepts would be put into practice. So what does this view leave us with in terms of concrete alternatives? A few ideas: more time for reflection In meetings, both about group processes and personal concerns, possibly the development of parallel meetings (the core group), addition of new elements into meetings (such as scenario discussions or role-playing), shift away from criticism to questioning, shift away from privilege to history. It is important to note that group therapy does not avoid conflict. 1) David Graeber, Direct Action: an ethnography. AK Press, 2009. Alice Echols, Daring to be bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975. University of Minnesota Press, 1989. James Miller, Democracy is in the Streets. Harvard University Press, 1994.

2) Rupert Brown, Group Processes: Dynamics within and between groups. Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 3) INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, The revolution will not be funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, South End Press, 2007. 4) http://theicarusproject.net 5) For one notable exception, see Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books, 2009 6) Irvin Yalom with Molyn Leszcz. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. Basic Books, 2005. 7) Stokely Carmichael with Michael Thelwell, Ready for Revolution: the life and struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture). Scribner Press, 2005.