Self-Discovery Through Group Dynamics

The lifespan of the Personal and Professional Development Group (PPDG) Year Three has enhanced a therapeutic quality, which has cultivated a working through obstacles to the relational connection and intimacy (Rose, 2008) (See Appendix I, IV). Identifying personal and professional patterns of interacting and responding has led to valuable insights and learning. Although these learnings took courage and endured self-discovery’s moments of discomfort; they have brought awareness to what may have laid concealed unconsciously for the rest of my life (Zinker, 1978). Berne (1966) stated that: ‘It all depends on the individual how many planes of consciousness he evolves into’ (Berne, 1966, p,12). There lies uncertainty to the way, that the group process can powerfully move me (see Appendices I, V). However, realising the potential of growth promoting elements encourage me to self-question my assumptions and beliefs on a journey of self-exploration within my social environment. Yalom (2005) stated that: ‘Man has always abhorred uncertainty and through the ages has sought to order his universe by providing explanations’ (Yalom, 2005, p.7). I hold curiosity and gratitude in the PPDG learning, which is captured through what I am sensing and feeling in relation to myself and group members moment to moment (Merry, 1999). However, I also realise confusion and discontentment around the group process, which inhibits my ability to be fully present and to engage in a way that may allow for more connection and working things out with group peers (See Appendix IX, X). Fluctuating between wanting to engage and bringing myself into the group to moments of noticing myself not being able to connect and retreating. On deeper reflection, I notice the insecurity in me, where I become preoccupied with how much approval or recognition I am getting and this is another barrier for me to be able to give continuous signals of the affection, towards others and to create bonds and relational depth how I truly desire (Houston, 1990). For me to function socially, I need to have a sense of worth for myself and others and that at times others value me. We are self-reflective organisms and develop a sense of self (Schneider, et, 2015). A frustration harbours within me, when I am not sensing the environment being appropriate for me to make close contact on an emotional intimate level, in which I need to feel secure. However, I felt an emotional intimacy with member L in session 6, through an exchange of a positive stroke (see Appendix XIV). Thus, my psychological and social level felt congruent (Stewart and Joines, 2002). Stewart and Joines argued that: ‘Because intimacy is not pre-programmed’ (Stewart and Joines, 2012, p. 92)

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Bilingualism in Arabic Learners.

I was aware of a sense of fogginess within me in the forming of the group, which I shared with the group and I worked this through reflection and in personal therapy; and this helped me to realise to being present in the group and the ‘fogginess’ shifted (see Appendix XII). Through the environment triggering my anxiety, I try to alleviate this sense by seeking psychological closeness, and for myself not receiving enough encouraging responses or witnessing empathic positive interactions between my peers and this can provoke my anxiety and I feel less secure within the group boundaries (Merry, 1999), which links to my secure attachment style (Bowlby, 2005). By presenting an I’m ok position, Which links to Transactional Analysis theory life positions (Stewart and Joines, 2002) I wonder if that may appear to peers as not warming and without showing my vulnerability and I am aware of being defensive in not showing my feelings of spiritual hunger to connect within the group (see Appendix ). My Journal (2019) stated: ‘I don’t need the power or obtain authority from others I’m happy in my skin as I am and realise that I am my own healer, hero and leader’ (Journal, 2019). However, I value the peer members, who are more open, as they allow me to get in touch with my subjective experiencing and also allow me to communicate empathic communication (See Appendix V). For significant personal intimate experiencing, I feel that, the group is too large, which encounters difficulties for me to build trust for countless reasons where I feel comfortable in my own skin (see Appendix X, XI). Reflecting on this, it is my secure attachment style, which desires an environment to match with suitable conditions for adapting; before I can fully communicate, feel safe and hold a sense of a mutual trust, with a capacity to embrace the core conditions (Mearns and Thorne, 2007 ) (see Appendices VII, XV). However, I am hopeful and working towards building trust to enable me to interact with the peers on a more intimate level. It feels important for me and also for my group members to get to know me, I shared in the beginning about my reluctancy in sharing due to a previous experience which gave me a block (See Appendix II). Gerhart (2015) argued that: ‘If love can be found, it still has the power to shape a new reality’ (Gerhart, 2015, p.27).

My patterns of interacting and responding have fluctuated between wanting to engage and bringing myself into the group to moments of noticing myself retreating. Corey, et al, (2014) argued that: Resistance can be considered as a way we attempt to protect ourselves’ (Corey, et al, 2014, p. 219). A reluctance in me was particularly prominent in the groups early forming. My Journal (2019) stated: ‘I also feel that I’m taking on more of a psychodynamic view which is more negative and pessimistic rather than a Humanistic view’ (See Appendix II). This was frustrating for me and I felt an anti-oppressive way of communicating, which contradicted my Humanistic philosophy and principles (Schneider, et al, 2015) (see Appendix III). In the beginning, I noticed myself bringing in a way of working creatively with drawing, which could be linked to Gestalt theory by myself offering a peer another way for them to express themselves by means of drawing (Rogers, 1993). Member L expressed to be mindful of not taking on the role of a therapist, in this moment I felt shut down and my internal dialogue was able to rationalise that, Member L had a valid reason which encouraged me to look at why I introduced the creative arts and the messages I may have given (Rogers, 1993). After careful reflection, I concluded that, as much as I felt grounded in myself, there was a sense of feeling isolated and that no one was looking after me. I did not feel comfortable to disclose this when our group was just forming and felt willing to give member L authority as I valued their experience and trusted their judgements. Yalom (1970) stated that: ’Learning that how I feel today is related to my childhood and development’ (Yalom, 1970, p.73). Bringing an object in felt comforting, which relates to Bowlby’s attachment theory (Bowlby, 2005). I was trying to create an environment, which is safer for me to be emotionally engaged. Most of intense of all human emotions arise during the formation, the maintenance, the disruption, and renewal of affectionate bond’ (Bowlby, 2005, p.86). Another example was, when I became aware that I was indirectly challenging member Z to speak up, when I asked them his view on my expression to the group about my expressed thoughts on it being harder for the younger generation to engage within the group process. My immediate awareness felt that part of me was hopeful that Member Z may rescue me, (due to their struggle with engaging in the group process) and what appeared to be a comment that was not well received, which I understand and value the reasons. Upon further reflection, I think my frustrations of member Z appearing disassociated came out in a passive aggressive manner of my feelings in response to their disassociation within the group (see Appendix VI). Rowan (1993) argued that: ‘if the victim doesn’t respond in the right way, the rescuer starts to experience the victim as a persecutor who is frustrating the whole enterprise and starts to fight back against this’ (Rowan, 1993, p.37).

I felt frustration that member Z responded differently to how I expected, however, I learnt to pay more interest in trying to understand and value their subjective experience, which allowed me to be less worried about how I may be perceived by the group and honour that, I did not filter through my words with enough consideration to how this may impact others as well as respecting my own subjective experience. Corey, et al, (2014) concluded that: ‘members must live with the consequences of their choices, not the leaders’ (Corey, et al, 2014, p.75). Thus, allowing myself to be a passenger in the vehicle of the group process dynamics; to be less rigid in my own judgments and be more open to new experience, which links to the Humanistic principles (see Appendix III). However, I think that Freud is relevant here, as I seek to understand my own unconscious drivers being played out and by noticing these in others as we tread on each other’s shadows (Jacobs, 2017). Whitton (2003) stated: ‘groups are freedom to discover self’ (Whitton, 2003, p.21). I find it challenging to witness member Z looking as though they are sleeping. This brings out concern in me for their well-being and the levels of anxieties and fear present in the room. Zinker, (1978) argued that: ‘when your album is filled with stamps… you can cash it in for a suicide attempt ’Or by becoming catatonic and not saying a word to anyone’ (Zinker, 1978, p.214). However, this has also increased my ability to respect a client’s autonomy and to be process sensitive (Mearns and Thorne, 2007). Thus, to not push my drive for psychological wellbeing to fit with a person before valuing and recognising, where the person is at and this experience has further developed a reduction in the anxiety and this kind of dissociation brings up within me. Furthermore, in order to allow me to engage with the clients for lengthy time in silence and not to rescue them, it is especially coming from my need of easing my discomfort. Having an increased awareness of what is going on for me without losing the ability to focus fully, the individuals experiencing organism is fundamental to experiential person-centred theory (see Appendix VIII) (Wilkins, 2016). This learning enriches my ability to be emotionally engaged and encourages a relational depth that is relational, whereby, I am not just working with spoken words but also a person’s behaviour and experiencing, which relates to Roger’s theory assuming potential for a person’s ideal self-becoming congruent with their behaviour, which links to the seven stages of process (Rogers, 1961). (Saunders, et, 2012). Within my deeper reflections, I noticed that, I am also a maternal driver of rescuing member O, as they expressed their difficulties in connecting with the group due to their own defences and personal reasons. we have been friends from previous years of PPDG, however, since them getting closer with member A and member Z, our friendship feels more distant and It appears to me that this is a subgroup that has formed within the group due to sharing lifts with member A. Thus, it appears that this subgroup’s benefits out of the group joins them within the group.

There appear interesting changes to be a game play for gaining proper position within the group. I can link this to Gestalt and an organismic self-regulation. Zinker (1978) argued that: ‘A psychological cycle goes on in every person’ (Zinker, 1978, p. 90). However, certain actions and consequences of role play and game play may be a satisfaction of needs for one person but push out the needs of another person and they may become a victim in relation to TA’s drama triangle (Stewart and Joines, 2002). Also relating to Gestalt theory of contact boundary disturbances, the relationships with other people are created at the ego boundary. The group appears to be forming into different psychological groups (Berne, 1966) (see Appendix). Secure and avoidant attachments styles – careful and cautious – distant father reflects the distraction in the way I communicate I am careful about what I know, can’t build the secure attachment in a group of 12 its impossible for me to be able to have a secure attachment and less able to communicate. In session 17, I noticed that Member K challenged me in a way that felt to be in an anti-oppressive manner (Clifford, 1995), I realise a power relation within the relationship. I did not express, how I felt as I was worried about conflict and I am aware of this member being in a subgroup with member X, with whom I have had previous conflict with, and I am not sure if Member X has fully resolved their differences. However, I am also concerned of offering space for member K to find a new source of inspiration and perspective towards me, which links to the humanistic principles, where we aim to create an environment which facilitates hope and possibility (Appendix III). However, Perge and Berkow (2005) argued that: ‘Problems can be shared less therapeutically when they are expressed in a manner that avoids or diminishes a members awareness of current relationship’ (Perge and Berkow, 2005, p. 31). I felt warmth for and still gave authority to member X, but also felt confident to the challenge if the moment was to arise, as I have developed my self-concept enough for it not to be distorted (Rowan, 1993). Also relating to Gestalt theory of contact boundary disturbances, where relationships with other people are created at the ego boundaries (Houston, 1990).

It is the role play and pretence that inhibits me from being my true self where I can be open with my feelings in a way that would allow me to connect more (Rowan, 1999). Whitton (2003) argued that: ‘emphasis was on the freedom for people to be themselves and to avoid pretence and roles’ (Whitton, 2003, p. 21,22). However, I recalled one occasion, where I became aware that, I was intentionally trying to gain my position by bringing down my defences and allow my vulnerability to surface to gain acceptance and feel connected to the group (Rose, 2008). Rose stated that: ‘When tragedies and traumas are shared, there is the possibility of intimacy and healing’ (Rose, 2008, p.49). I felt fearful to be rejected due to my previous session’s statement about age that was not well received comments as well made by member K about my perfectionism and their behaviour towards me (see Appendix). I agreed with Yalom’s theory that: ‘A discrepancy between the two will place the individual in a state of dissonance and he will initiate activity to remove the dissonance’ (Yalom, 1970, p.47). So, I was mindful of the power of the group process and how this could change me in how I would normally interact, and behaving this way felt incongruent to me. Was I playing a game? A role? It felt unfamiliar territory. Known as Imitative behaviour in group theory (Yalom, 1970). However, self-awareness of my interacting gave me a sense of my own instability and insecurity within the group. Rowan, (1993) argued that: ‘Any breakthrough into new awareness brings with it these same feelings of exposure to danger, of falling through the bottom of infinitive emptiness’ (Rowan, 1993, p.64)

I have learned that, the group process can move a person in a direction, that may empower and disempower them. In my case, I felt powerless. However, either way there is great learning. Yalom (1970) argued that: ‘it may function to help the individual “unfreeze” by experimenting with new behaviour’ (Yalom, 1970). It was my self-awareness, which allowed me to take control and realise that, it was not my true sense of self. I was feeling vulnerable, but I wasn’t feeling connected in a way to share parts of me and doing so through giving gestures or remarks of my story, was the part that felt it was the power of the group that pushed me in to this way of interacting and that sat uncomfortable with me. Also relating to the ego states in Transactional Analysis (TA), whereby the ego -state is a consistent pattern of feeling and experience connected to a matching behaviour (Stewart and Joines, 2002). My sense of self is threatened, if there lies risk of being challenged that may be directive or in an inappropriate manner lacking genuine empathic communication (Rowan, 199. Towards the end of our group process, this could be group known as group storming. – I felt I received punitive comments from member K after I mentioned to another member that I trusted my skills, by them stating: ‘you trust your skills, do you?’ I also received a comment out of the room by member K stating: ‘you always have to be so perfect’ I sense this may be an Envy strike, which links to TA theory (Stewart and Joines, 2002). Thus, inhibiting growth for psychological integration. However, I am still open for new experience and to face this risk and as much as I am staying in control, I am fluid in my sensing and hold a willingness to encounter and explore challenging encounters. Thus, a higher level of self and relational care that is necessary for a serviceable healing process (Cooper, et al, 2008). Genuineness is important - I need to be in tune, with what I am feeling and in contact with what the other person is feeling and this is difficult for me in a large group. Most of intense of all human emotions arise during the formation, the maintenance, the disruption, and renewal of affectionate bond’ (Bowlby, 2005, p.86).

Member A displaying a disturbing motive, which creates a power dynamic in which member A is challenging member L by what appears to me as ways of trying to gain authority and out of the group seems to create disturbing scenarios (Yalom, 1970). This kind of behaviour unsettles me and brings a disliking out in me towards member A. However, I feel empathic towards them, when I try to relate their frame of reference, as I try to understand their reasons as they appear to have psychological disturbances, that is causing their suffering and behaviour. Barker et al, (2010) found that: ‘Empathy allows the client complete freedom to explore their own internal and external world without fear of being misunderstood’ (Barker, et, 2010, p.116).

I am trying to get a closer sense to their subjective experience and internal locus of evaluation, to enable to be feel less separated from their process and allow for some psychological integration that may reduce their suffering and increase my acceptance to them (Merry, 1999). I am trying to view member A as a whole person without focusing on their presenting issue (Beisser, 1970). Beisser (1970) argued that, a natural state of a person is a whole being and not split into two or more parts (Beisser, 1970). This may just be my perception and my reality, however what I witnessed and how member A challenged member L appeared unhealthy and quite damaged. It had a sense of bullying and felt to me anti oppressive practice. I felt disappointed and lost faith in any resolution for myself to be able to connect with the group as I do not like this kind of challenging, it reminded me of a child like school atmosphere. The group process of members accepting an individual enhances qualities of bringing the person into awareness with their here and now experience which links to the Gestalt therapy (Totton, 2010). However, I felt that, the group has since shown support to member L and generally become strong enough to protect against known as any ‘disturbing motives’ in group theory (Yalom, 1970). Rowan (1993) argued that: ‘Power at the real-self stage is power with others’ (Rowan, 1993, p.66).

Jungian -source of my own patterns of relating – seeing in others what comes up- dominant.

In conclusion, the PPDG process carries an ongoing learning process of an emotionally and intense manner, whereby I am concerned of my defences and have noticed the barriers and how they present in physical symptoms, whereby I am keen to share this with the group and allow for trust to build (Rogers, 1970). I am hopeful that, with time moments will arise where I can connect on a deeper level with group members. Still, I am noticing my external structure weakening and noticing the core conditions present (Rogers, 1995). Thus, feeling a warmth for all my group members with a genuine care and acceptance, regardless to difference to behaviours not fitting to mine, where I am on the overall not judging and I am just appreciating and learning (Rowan, 1993). Throughout my PPDG experience, I continuously seek to understand my own process and the group members processes to help create a relational space for self-exploration. Consequently, exploring the link between my personal accountability and behaviours and emotions, which raise awareness to fighting the past in the present in order to obtain a future (Berne, 1966). However, I am mindful that the power of the group process can influence my perceptions (Berne, 1966). Thus, the more the group matters to me, the more likely I may subscribe to the group valves and be inclined to agree with the group judgement (Yalom, 1970). Growth and change have progressed to an enriched understanding of my emotional needs and behaviour and how to relate with others (Beisser, 1970), which promotes a psychological climate of being intimately engaged and equally grounded within my own sense of self as well as being fully respectful to the truest part of another individual’s worldly views and difference (Moran, 2000). Thus, encouraging growth potential for myself and in others on a journey of self-actualisation (Rogers, 1961).

Bibliography

Barker, M, Vossler, A, Langdridge, D, (2010) Understanding Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage.

Berne, E, (1966) Principles of group treatment, New York: Grove Press.

Corey, M, S, Corey, G, Corey, C, (2014) GROUP WORK, PROCESS and PRACTICE, 9TH edn, Delhi: Brooks/Cole.

Glassman, U, (2009) Group Work, A Humanistic and Skills Building Approach, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Rowan, J (2005) The future of training in psychotherapy and counselling: instrumental, relational and transpersonal perspectives, Hove: Routledge. READ ONLINE MOODLE

Mearns, D and Thorne, B, (2007) Person Centred Counselling in Action, 3rd edn, London: Sage.

Merry, T, (1999) Learning and Being in Person-Centred Counselling, London: P.C.C.S Books Ltd.

Moran, D, (2000) Introduction to phenomenology, Oxford: Routledge.

Page, R, C, Berkow, D, N (2005) Unstructured Group Therapy, creating contact, choosing relationship, Ross -On -Wye: PCCS BOOKS LTD.

Rogers, N, (1993) The Creative Connection, Expressive Arts as Healing, United States of America: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.

Schneider, K, J, Pierson, F, J Bugental, J, F, T, (2015) The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology, Theory, Research and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sage.

Totton, N, (2010) The Problem with Humanistic Therapies, London: Karnac.

Yalom, I, D, (2005) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, 5th ed. New York: Basic Books.

Zinker, J, C, (1978) Creative process in Gestalt Therapy, New York: Vintage Books.