The Suitably Romantic Therapist: Response to Stone Richard M. Billow1 issn 0362-4021 © 2013 Eastern Group Psychotherapy Society group, Vol. 37, No. 3, Fall 2013 243 1 Director, Group Program, and Clinical Professor, Derner Institute Postgraduate Programs in Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. Correspondence should be addressed to Richard M. Billow, PhD, 49 Cedar Drive, Great Neck, NY 11021. E-mail: rmbillow@gmail.com. 2 References specific to group psychotherapy include Billow (2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2011, 2013), Moeller (2002), Nitsun (2006), and Nitzgen (2009). Walter N. Stone has opened a topic that is insufficiently developed in our literature, and probably in our groups as well: romantic feelings that emerge in the course of group psychotherapy.2 I will expand on Stone’s interesting observations by briefly noting other domains of love and also by calling attention to and emphasizing the importance of the therapist’s available libido vis-à-vis member and group. Eros, philia, agape—three types of love: sensual attraction to another person; affection for family and humanity in general; and love of “God,” or “truth,” that which is infinite and unknowable. The three types are inherent in normal developmental and ongoing interpersonal relationships. Environment releases various love potentials in each of us, sometimes unexpectedly. Our loves differ in strength and expression, arrangement and balance of elements, and fascinations. Each or all may be denied, forestalled, displaced, inhibited, or perverted. Still, and always, the three types of love provide coexisting and overlapping “vertices” (Bion, 1965/1977), relational perspectives through which individuals experience themselves and each other. Stone writes about the first type. Romance, erotic interest, sexual feelings, and sexual identity (or identities) energize the waking and sleeping dreams that shape our thought and participate in the narratives of group life. “A group is clearly held together by a power of some kind: and to what power could this feat be better ascribed than to Eros, which holds together everything in the world” (Freud, 1921, p. 92). Erotic mental relationships, variously inhibited, sublimated, and exhibited, 244 billow get played out in the psychotherapy group, contributing to the regressions of the “basic assumptions” and to the maturity of the “work group” (Bion, 1961). They spur disarray, acting out, and impasse and, more positively, group cohesion, therapeutic alliances (including member to member), and the evolution of meaning. Fero (2002) suggested that “any story pertaining to sexuality is itself a story that can be listened to and understood as an account of the emotional problem current at that particular time in the consulting room” (pp. 93–94). I propose a larger frame: Any relational exchange tells us something about the nature of the romance possible among the participants. And that includes, especially, the romance(s) possible with the group therapist. We have our own sexuality like everybody else—a dimension of our own psychic world—and we bring it into the group setting (see Hirsch, 1994, 1997; Kuchuch, 2012; Mann, 1997; Sherby, 2009). Each individual has a lovemap (Money, 1986), a very personal pattern of feeling sex and love. Person (1980) referred to the sexprint and Morin (1995) to the core erotic theme. We see, hear, and smell each other, producing romantic dreams, some unknown to ourselves, mentalized preverbally and integrated into relational exchanges. They are natural, expectable, an enjoyable aspect of bonding. Perhaps it is even essential for productive work for the therapist to come to know, appreciate , and admire each and every group member “in essentially the same way one appreciates the body and flesh of one’s closest friends or one’s own children in their entirety” (Bach, 2006, pp. 129–130). I am alerted to possible trauma in a patient’s life when I do not have evidence of or confidence in my “lovemap,” that is, erotic mental activity in myself; when it becomes intense, arousing, or disquieting; or when I feel defensive about what I am thinking, feeling, or fantasizing. When Freud described psychoanalysis as “in essence a cure through love” (Freud & Jung, 1974, pp. 12–13), he was referring to the patient’s relationship to the doctor.3 I am asserting that, to a degree not expressed by Freud, love must be requited: The therapist also must love. The mother...
Read full abstract