USING BION

Abstract

This article attempts to restore a dialogue that has been made difficult to conduct as a result of Bion's role as an established authority on groups and on thinking. Whereas his theory of “basic assumptions” presumes a fundamental level of group motivation, existing below social and interpersonal interactions, the work of Alderfer calls attention to the profound importance of “identity groups” in charting group behavior, and the work of Agazarian notes the fluid formations of “subgroups.” Similarly, Bion's theory of thinking appears rooted in biological processes beneath social interaction. Hamilton calls attention to the elements of ambiguity and play, stressed by Winnicott. Cavell, furthermore, notes the role of relationships and triangulation in the development of judgment, fundamental to thinking, a role stressed in current philosophy as well as infant-mother research. In both cases, Bion's theories are seen to neglect the role of interpersonal and social relationships in shaping behavior.

Full text

USING BION
Kenneth Eisold, PhD
New York, New York
This article attempts to restore a dialogue that has been made difficult to conduct
as a result of Bion’s role as an established authority on groups and on thinking.
Whereas his theory of “basic assumptions” presumes a fundamental level of
group motivation, existing below social and interpersonal interactions, the work
of Alderfer calls attention to the profound importance of “identity groups” in
charting group behavior, and the work of Agazarian notes the fluid formations
of “subgroups.” Similarly, Bion’s theory of thinking appears rooted in biolog-
ical processes beneath social interaction. Hamilton calls attention to the ele-
ments of ambiguity and play, stressed by Winnicott. Cavell, furthermore, notes
the role of relationships and triangulation in the development of judgment,
fundamental to thinking, a role stressed in current philosophy as well as
infant–mother research. In both cases, Bion’s theories are seen to neglect the
role of interpersonal and social relationships in shaping behavior.
Keywords: Bion, basic assumptions, group behavior, metapsychology
Wilfred Bion’s trenchant comments on the relationship between the “mystic” (or genius
or creative individual) and the group (or Establishment) have particular relevance to the
course of his own career. As he put it in Attention and Interpretation (Bion, 1970), the
relationship can be “symbiotic,” one of struggle but mutual growth, in which the group
accommodates the mystic while assimilating his vision, or it can be “parasitic,” destruc-
tive of both parties:
In the parasitic association even friendliness is deadly. An easily seen example of this is the
group’s promotion of an individual to a position in the Establishment where his energies are
deflected from his creative– destructive role and absorbed in administrative functions. His
epitaph might be “He was loaded with honours and sank without a trace.” (Bion, 1970, p. 78)
Very likely, Bion was describing his own experience. He wrote these words shortly
after he left England for California in 1968, having served as director of the Tavistock
Clinic from 1955 to 1962 and as president of the British Psychoanalytic Society from 1962
to 1965. Within the same period, he published not only Experiences in Groups (1961) but
also Learning From Experience, Elements of Psycho-Analysis, and Transformations.
Kenneth Eisold, PhD, independent practice, New York, New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kenneth Eisold, PhD, 353
Central Park West, New York, NY 10025. E-mail: keneisold@aol.com
Psychoanalytic Psychology Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation
2005, Vol. 22, No. 3, 357–369 0736-9735/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0736-9735.22.3.357
357
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.