Blog #2 - In the Beginning

In reading Yalom's chapters on group formation and the beginning phase, the bit that stuck out the most to me was the importance of group cohesiveness as a mechanism for change. I knew that group cohesiveness was important but I never thought of it as analogous to the therapeutic relationship (I don't know why, it's kind of obvious once it's spelled out for you). Yalom states that both the client-therapist relationship in individual therapy and group cohesiveness in group therapy create the same conditions necessary for growth and change, such as: opportunities for inter- and intrapersonal exploration, catharsis and risk taking. In both of these settings it is important for the client to feel that their emotional experience is validated and accepted, and this can come from the therapist or group members. Yalom mentions that some clients find acceptance by group members more meaningful than acceptance by therapists because they aren't getting paid to do it. This is one of the advantages that group work has over individual work.

Reading about the importance of group cohesiveness just underscored everything that comes later in the book about forming groups. It's clear to me now that since cohesiveness is so important, ensuring that it is developed and maintained is just as important as planning curricula or activities for a group. I will always keep this in mind. I think learning to recognize good group cohesiveness or encourage it along is something difficult and abstract in practice that I can only learn from experience.

I found Yalom's exploration of client selection methods interesting; especially coming from my psychology background. I've studied a bit about psychological assessment and I love the idea of a pre-therapy group meeting in order to assess possible members' goodness of fit by watching them socially interact in real time. It's very psych. I don't know how feasible it would be in real life though, since I imagine we don't get too much power over client selection in the real world. Yalom's pragmatic advice of having exclusion criteria rather than inclusion criteria and focusing on behaviors that could disrupt group cohesiveness is what I'll be keeping in mind. When I was at my field placement at Akins, we met briefly with students who were interested in our groups individually so that we could talk to them and get a "feel" for whether they are "group appropriate." These were nebulous concepts that my supervisor never concretely explained. Basically I was to look out for kids who seem like they might be disruptive or flaky, or if they seemed to be at a level of emotional or cognitive development incongruent with other group members. It was a murky, trial and error thing, and I imagine it's something you develop a instinct for after years of practice.