Group Analysis in China—Challenges in a Changing Society

Abstract

In 1988, a legendary conference took place in Kunming, China, introducing western psychotherapy to Chinese colleagues. It consisted of three branches: psychodynamic, behaviour therapy and systemic family therapy. This conference found an immense echo all over China and raised a strong desire for training in these therapies to be set up. Soon, curriculae were created and proffered. A real run on these trainings followed, most of them in individual therapies. A group of German psychoanalysts carried out the psychodynamic training in two-year long courses for Chinese psychologists and psychiatrists. In 2008, a two-year training course in psychodynamic group psychotherapy was added for those participants who had concluded their training as individual therapists. In the beginning this training was oriented towards the concept of the German psychoanalyst Hermann Argelander (close to Bion), but later on was influenced by the model of Foulkes, studying the standard book of Behr and Hearst, that was soon translated into Chinese. The participants were members of an experiential group and of a working and supervisory group as well. Group work was complemented by daily lectures. The two-year course consisted of four blocks of eight training days each, comprising 56 experiential sessions altogether. Towards the end of the course, the participants had to establish a group of their own, find a supervisor and conduct the group for a reasonable time. They then had to write a report about their group, which was discussed in the supervisory group. This led to the conclusion of the course. I joined this project from 2011 to 2013, conducted an experiential and a working group, and gave lectures on group analytic theory. During this period there were six such groups with German colleagues, who had regular meetings together with the Chinese staff and the interpreters. This article tries to sum up the process in the experiential group, to show the development of the group and its characteristic features in this very different society compared to our western cultures. Is there anything that is ‘typical Chinese’ in these 56 sessions? What could that be? Does the application of the group analytic approach in such a different culture with such a different foundation matrix make sense? There are many questions. I hope this clinical report answers at least some of them.