Rolf Haubl, group analyst, former co-director of the Sigmund Freud Institute, and professor emeritus of psychoanalytic social psychology at Goethe University in Frankfurt, passed away in May last year at the age of 73 after a long illness. In this article, I would like to attempt to summarize his central concerns, which he formulated over the years for group analytic training institutes, because they contain important impetus on the path to the professionalization of group analysis. He repeatedly points out obstacles that make it difficult to establish group analysis as an independent, theoretically sound method. He locates these obstacles in group analytic institutes, which tend to remain stuck in a family dynamic because, like psychoanalysis, they work with transference processes and the unconscious, thus complicating the experience of transition from family to culture. This is linked to the difficulties of developing an autonomous role identity as a group analyst. Group analytic institutes are places of a & bdquo;community of practice" and only loosely connected to science. Haubl calls for greater importance to be attached to & bdquo;skill" by creating more space in further training for the connection between 'skill' and & bdquo;knowledge." As long as self-awareness remains at the heart of group analytic continuing education, this treasure, as he calls implicit knowledge, will remain untapped. He calls for an investigative approach to link these two areas and thus advance the development of group analytic theory and technique. This article is also an attempt to answer the question of why the claim to develop a consistent group analytic theory is regularly formulated but has not yet been fulfilled.
Rolf Haubl, group analyst, former co-director of the Sigmund Freud Institute, and professor emeritus of psychoanalytic social psychology at Goethe University in Frankfurt, passed away in May last year at the age of 73 after a long illness. In this article, I would like to attempt to summarize his central concerns, which he formulated over the years for group analytic training institutes, because they contain important impetus on the path to the professionalization of group analysis. He repeatedly points out obstacles that make it difficult to establish group analysis as an independent, theoretically sound method. He locates these obstacles in group analytic institutes, which tend to remain stuck in a family dynamic because, like psychoanalysis, they work with transference processes and the unconscious, thus complicating the experience of transition from family to culture. This is linked to the difficulties of developing an autonomous role identity as a group analyst. Group analytic institutes are places of a & bdquo;community of practice" and only loosely connected to science. Haubl calls for greater importance to be attached to & bdquo;skill" by creating more space in further training for the connection between 'skill' and & bdquo;knowledge." As long as self-awareness remains at the heart of group analytic continuing education, this treasure, as he calls implicit knowledge, will remain untapped. He calls for an investigative approach to link these two areas and thus advance the development of group analytic theory and technique. This article is also an attempt to answer the question of why the claim to develop a consistent group analytic theory is regularly formulated but has not yet been fulfilled.
The article explores the emergence of group-analytic matrix formations arising from the entanglement of individual psychodynamic conflict constellations with microsociological interaction dynamics. It begins with the observation that groups-whether in therapeutic, supervisory, or everyday contexts-constitute themselves as dynamic relational fields in which unconscious conflict patterns, status negotiations, and affective synchronization processes interweave. Using the example of a supervision team and a scene from the Hamburg subway, the text traces how individual conflict scripts (including those based on the OPD-3 conflict typology) become inscribed into a specific matrix structure through projective processes, reciprocal adaptations, and collective power clarifications. There, the conflicts are temporarily & bdquo;frozen". This matrix functions as a collective defense formation that enables psychological coherence within the tension between unconscious anxieties and social demands. Theoretically, classical concepts such as projective identification, regression, or Bion's basic assumptions are interwoven with microsociological perspectives on emotional energy. The matrix proves to be both the arena and the stabilizing pattern of psychodynamic conflicts.
The general effectiveness of group therapy is well documented. Group psychotherapy based on the psychoanalytical-interactional method (PIM-G) is a clinically recognized and widely used method for treating patients with personality disorders, but empirical evidence of its effectiveness is still lacking. This pilot study investigated the feasibility of a planned randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of PIM-G using quantitative measures (adherence, questionnaire measures) and qualitative research methods (interviews on the experience of the study conditions from the patients' perspective). A group of 10 patients received 40 sessions of outpatient PIM-G. Weekly questionnaire surveys were conducted, and additional qualitative interviews were conducted three times per patient. The aim was to investigate whether patients found the tested research conditions acceptable. The evaluation confirms the basic feasibility of the study project, particularly with regard to recruitment and acceptance of the study conditions. There is room for improvement in anticipating treatment discontinuations, questionnaire selection, and the technical implementation of video recordings accompanying the study.
