Role Suction

Role suction Role suction is a term introduced in the USA by Fritz Redl in the mid-twentieth century to describe the power of a social group to allocate roles willy-nilly t o its members. W. R. Bion's group dynamics further explored the ways whereby the group (unconsciously) allocates particular functions to particular individuals in order to have its covert emotional needs met;[1] and the process has recently been highlighted anew within the Systems Centered Therapy of Yvonne Agazarian.[ 2] Contents [hide] 1 Roles 2 Driving forces 3 Role of the therapist 4 Wider systems 5 Criticism 6 See also 7 References 8 Further Reading 9 External links [edit] RolesAmong regularly occurring group roles are those of the scapegoat for the group's troubles; the joker; the peacemaker; the critic/spokesperson for gr oup standards; the idol, or upholder of the group ideal; and the identified pati ent.[3] In mixed gender groups, women may be disproportionately pressured by role suctio n into playing a nurturing/peacemaker role.[4] [edit] Driving forcesBehind role suction, such forces as projective identificati on and countertransference have been singled out as operating at an unconscious level in the group.[5] Role lock - confirming mutual suction into complementary roles, such as victim and abuser - is ensured by the intermeshing of projective identifications.[6] The ease whereby people pick out those who play complementary games,[7] and the psychological splitting of good and bad help fuel such role differentiation.[8] [edit] Role of the therapistBion has described his experience as a group therapi st when he "feels he is being manipulated so as to be playing a part, no matter how difficult to recognize, in somebody else's phantasy...a temporary loss of in sight, a sense of experiencing strong feelings, and at the same time a belief th at their existence is quite adequately justified by the objective situation".[9] Bion's work has also been used to illustrate the part played by role suction in the selection of group leaders – dependent groups favouring narcissistic leaders, the fight/flight group paranoids.[10] R. D. Laing considered that a central part of the therapist's job was "not to al low himself to collude with the patients in adopting a position in their phantas y-system: and, alternatively, not to use the patients to embody any phantasy of their own"[11] - to resist role suction. Later therapists however have explored how a measure of adaptation to patients' role suction - a degree of role respons iveness - can be a useful element in the therapeutic use of the countertransfere nce.[12] [edit] Wider systemsThe British anti-psychiatrists explored the theme of group s uction in connection with role attribution in the family nexus[disambiguation ne eded],[13] as well as with the allocations of roles in the wider social system, David Cooper suggesting that 'there are always good or bad, loved or hated 'moth

ers' and 'fathers', older or younger 'brothers' and 'sisters'...in any instituti onal structure”.[14] A wider variety of roles can however be found in organizational life, the person -in-role acting as a container for the (unconscious) group forces.[15] [edit] CriticismDebate has arisen about how far the group imposes roles, and how far the individual's own personality goes to meet the group halfway. Earl Hoppe r has used the term personification to challenge Redl's concept, suggesting inst ead that group roles reflect the underlying personality of the individual involv ed.[16] However, Kibel objects that in many cases the roles imposed are in fact ego-dystonic;[17] with others pointing to how personal tendencies combine with g roup expectations with varying degress of fit.[18] From the point of view of systems centered therapy, the debate relates to the in terface between a personal system and the psycho-dynamics of social systems them selves.[19] [edit] See alsoForeclosure Karpman drama triangle Peer Pressure Persona (psychology) Role engulfment [edit] References1.^ R. E. Anderson et al, Human Behavior in the Social Environm ent p. 157 2.^ Y. M. Agazarian/F. B. Carter, 'Discussions on the large group' 3.^ Victor L. Schermer/Malcolm Pines eds., Ring of Fire (1994) p. 54 4.^ .L. Navarro/S. L. Schwartzberg, Envy, Competition and Gender (2007) p. 36 5.^ C. James/U. Connolly, Effective Change in Schools (2000) p. 53 6.^ Yvonne Agazarion, Systems-Centered Theory and Practice (2011) p. 224 and p. 94 7.^ John Dusay, in Eric Berne, A Layman's Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis (1976) p. 327 8.^ Scherner/Pines ed., p. 42 9.^ Quoted in R. D. Laing, Self and Others (Penguin 1969) p. 37-8 10.^ Chris Oakley, What is a Group? (1999) p. 109 11.^ Laing, p. 123 12.^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (1990) p. 165-6 13.^ Laing, chapter 10 14.^ David Cooper, The Death of the Family (1974) p. 6-7 15.^ M. B. McRae/E. L. Short, Racial and Cultural Dynamics in Group and Organiza tional Life (2009) p. 84 16.^ Howard Kibel, in Earl Hopper, Traumatic Experience in the Unconscious Life of Groups (2003) p. 159 17.^ Kibel, in Hopper, p. 160 18.^ McRael/Short, p. 84 19.^ Yvonne Agazarion, Systems-Centered Theory and Practice (2011) p. 82 [edit] Further ReadingL. Horowitz, “Projective Identification in Dyads and Groups”, Int. J. of Group Psychotherapy (1983) 33:259-79 Motherwell/J.J. Shay, Complex Dilemmas in Group Therapy (2000) [edit] External linksRobert M. Young, “Mental space and group relations”