791117

research-article2018
GAQ0010.1177/0533316418791117Group Analysis 51( )de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science

Article group
analysis

Group, basic assumptions and complexity

science

Giulio de Felice , Giuseppe De Vita,

Alessandro Bruni, Assunta Galimberti,
Giulia Paoloni, Silvia Andreassi
and Alessandro Giuliani

This article represents the first complete systematization of the basic

assumptions as theorized by Wilfred R. Bion and post-Bionian authors.
The authors reviewed, compared and systematized all the Bionian
developments concerning the basic assumptions taking the prevailing
anxieties, group topology, leader peculiarities, interactions with the
work-group mentality into account. The analysis evinced five main
ba(s) and five subsets (i.e. their features resemble one of the five
main basic assumptions). Briefly, in the first paragraph the authors
summarize Bionian thought and its underlying logical criteria while in
the second they reviewed all the new proposals for basic assumptions
emerging from the psychoanalytic literature (i.e. Lawrence, Bain and
Gould, 1996; Romano, 1997; Sandler, 2002; Sarno, 1999; Turquet,
1974; Hopper, 2009). In conclusion the authors focus on the main
strengths and critical points of the systematization. In the last section
‘Promising developments’ they address the methodology of the study
of basic assumptions, its main features and potential developments.
The article rounds off with a clinical appendix.

Key words: experiences in groups, group dynamics, complexity

science, basic assumptions, psychoanalysis, thinkability

© The Author(s), 2018. Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316418791117
Vol. 52(1): 3­–22; DOI: 10.1177/0533316418791117
4  Group Analysis 52(1)

Wilfred R. Bion: ‘Experiences in groups’

Experiences in groups (1961) was described as a milestone in the
conceptualization of the unconscious functioning pertaining to
human beings in groups (Lawrence, et al., 1996; Sherwood, 1964). It
has contributed to the development of systemic theory, management
and the broad spectrum of approaches later historically identified as
the ‘Tavistock Model’. In Experiences in groups, Bion develops a
theoretical framework of group functioning comprising two different
mentalities: the ‘basic-assumption mentality’ and ‘work-group men-
tality’. These two terms relate to two fundamental ways of perceiving
and thinking, and determine the ability of the members to relate to
each other in relation to the purpose for which the group has met. The
‘work-group mentality’ describes the members’ disposition to toler-
ate tension and frustration coming from the group in order to achieve
the shared objectives; the outcome when a certain prevalence of this
kind of mentality occurs is constituted by the ‘capacity for realistic
hard work’ (Bion, 1961: 157). The ‘basic-assumption mentality’, on
the other hand, describes the status of a group all wrapped up in its
own emotions: ‘anxiety, fear, hatred, love, hope, anger, guilt, depres-
sion’ (Bion, 1961: 166); the outcome in case of prevalence of this
kind of mentality is constituted by losing contact with the aim for
which the group has met, collapsing into a collusive process of ‘stag-
nation’ (Bion, 1961: 128). Bion stressed three different types of group
configurations belonging to this latter type of mentality and emerging
from the ‘proto-mental’ dimension: the baD (basic assumption of
Dependence), baP (basic assumption of Pairing), and the baF (basic
assumption of flight–fight).

Later contributions
In the article Leadership: The individual and the group (Turquet,
1974) theorized and added a fourth basic assumption: the BaO (basic
assumption of One-ness)—a mental activity in which ‘the members
seek to meet in an omnipotent union, abandoning themselves in a
position of passive participation and feeling the existence, the wel-
fare and integrity only by means of the unification with the group’
(Turquet, 1974: 357). The members of the group are thus lost in a
feeling of ‘oceanic union’ and ‘preserved inclusion’. The assumption
grounding the relationships between the members is constituted by
the thought of generating an omnipotent force. It can be specified that
the leader here is represented by the group itself, acting as an
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 5

omnipotent breast for the members and giving them the feeling of
unity and supremacy. Time is perceived as infinite, and space col-
lapses into the emotional dimension.
At the opposite end of the baO lies the baM (basic assumption of
Me-ness): a group configuration which stresses separateness and
goes against the idea of ‘us’. In other words, the authors specify that
the baM can also be seen as the ba not-baO. In Free Associations
(1996) Lawrence, Bain and Gould underline that the assumption
grounding the relationships between the members is constituted by
the implicit, latent unconscious agreement to be a non-group. The
members thus behave as if the group did not exist because, if it did, it
would be perceived as extremely persecutory. The idea of a group is
thus felt as a contaminant, as impure; in other words, as everything
that can be harmful. Gordon Lawrence published a useful example. It
concerns the way some of his colleagues attended the Tavistock con-
ference Group Relations:
people attend these conferences because they want to learn about the work-group
mentality. They also believe that collapsing into a basic assumption mentality
means getting lost in an uncontrollable process. They, therefore, want to move
towards the work-group mentality in the least tiring and fastest possible way.
Hence, in these cases, the group shows powerful aspirations to know, but also
powerful reasons to not-know. The paradox is that this type of attitude and belief
among group members co-create the baM, entering in a basic assumption mentality
despite their efforts to avoid it1.

The leader of this configuration is represented by the feeling of

not-to-be-group, the prevailing emotions are fear, anxiety and hatred.
Time and space are still in accordance with the previous indication.
In the 1990s Romano (1997) showed a further basic assumption:
the baCoS (basic assumption of Conspiracy of Silence). It is seen
when the group works as if the members are meeting in order to keep
a secret: in other words, the group exists because there is a secret to
keep. It is not behaviour geared to the will or decision or need to
safeguard or hide something since, as for any other basic assumption,
the motivation is unconscious: the secret is split from consciousness.
The expression or manifestation of the baCoS in the group is not
necessarily in the sense of silence: indeed, at times it is achieved with
a great deal of talk in order to censure, avoid or not denounce; this
manner of communicating gives anyone listening the impression that
the people are talking about something else. When a new member
comes into the group, the prevailing sentiment is suspicion because
6  Group Analysis 52(1)

while in the group in which there is another prevailing assumption

the new member may be considered as a messiah, saviour or destroy-
ing devil, the group in baCoS considers him simply as a spy. It must
be recognized that silence is not against the group, but is a pathologi-
cal way to defend the group; it is not an attack on the container, but a
perverse way to preserve it. In fact, one of the hidden needs, covered
by the conspiracy of silence, is a certain narcissism, the individual
interest. If it should prevail, the group would be devastated. The
leader(s) of this configuration is/are the one(s) who is/are the first to
hold the secret to be kept, or, on a more symbolic note, the very idea
of a secret to be kept. The main emotions are suspicion, guilt and a
latent anger. The considerations highlighted above for time and space
are coherently valid for this basic assumption as well.
Sandler (2002), a psychoanalyst of the Brazilian Institute, theo-
rized another basic assumption: the baH (basic assumption of
Hallucinosis of exclusion/membership). This type of configuration is
characterized by the desire to be ‘at the top’ that is identified with an
idea, an idol precisely linked to the illusion of fame and immortality.
At ‘the Top’ there is the subgroup ‘A’, hallucination of membership;
the object excluded is the ‘out-of-A’, hallucination of exclusion.
Under the auspices of this configuration, the group relationships are
grounded on defamation, gossip and scams aimed at protecting the
cleavage between the subgroup ‘A’ and ‘out-of-A’. In analysing this
basic assumption, therefore, one should consider a first level charac-
terized by the paranoid idea of superiority and a second level repre-
sented by the group manifestation of sadistic exclusion which refers
to the classical Oedipal structure. The leader of this configuration is
the subgroup ‘A’ and/or the perceived idea of superiority that this
group has. The main emotions are hatred and contempt. The consid-
erations highlighted above for time and space are coherently valid for
this basic assumption.
Furthermore, Sarno (1999) analysed the institutional functioning
of a Mental Health Centre and highlighted two further basic assump-
tions. The first is the basic assumption of Arrogance (baA), for which
the group of medical practitioners overestimates the purposes and
obscures the means of medical care. The purposes become imposed
unilaterally and the means are no longer contracted with patients.
Medical care becomes the most straightforward way to relieve symp-
toms, while there is never time to treat the patient as a person. If
arrogance prevails, it leads to an ideological exaltation of theoretical
references (i.e. psychodynamics, cognitive factors or something else)
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 7

that make the clinical scene deserted, always seen from a greater dis-
tance. It means aiming at ‘goodness’ as an a-priori category without
worrying about the process of wellbeing. The leader of this configu-
ration is symbolically represented by the a-priori theoretical refer-
ence, e.g. the psychodynamic ‘company’. The main emotions are
arrogance and a sense of superiority, on the one hand; impotence and
anger, on the other.
The second is the assumption grounded on Cowardice (baC). ‘It
is a bit like if’, underlines the author, ‘laying in front of the anxiety
of the dark and fall asleep, the mum would desert the scene, not
being able to ensure us that the night will end, and the separation
will be metabolized’. It is characterized by an atmosphere of sus-
picion in which the clinical history becomes the aim and not a
means, a permanent alibi for each project that by definition will
not succeed. The refuge in a regression without development in a
lazy disposition towards patients (vilis), which creates a harmful
working environment. Similar to the structure of the inner world
described by Freud, when in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920)
he speaks of toxic slags obstructing the organization of thought. At
present, the ‘hospital-company’, concludes Sarno (1999), must
spend as little money as possible (cowardice), selling it as medical
care (arrogance). The leader in the baC is represented by the theo-
retical damaging ideal to represent the hospital as a business com-
pany. An idea of effectiveness and efficiency borrowed from the
economic field and applied as it is to a context which has to do
with the care of human beings.
Finally, we must mention the work by Earl Hopper (2009) for its
crucial importance in addressing the dynamics of the psychotic anxi-
ety of annihilation, particularly in traumatized patients. As the author
highlights, the phenomenology of the fear of annihilation involves
psychic paralysis and the death of psychic vitality, characterized by
fission and fragmentation (i.e. what the author calls the dynamic of
group ‘aggregation’), and then fusion and confusion (i.e. what the
author calls the dynamic of group ‘massification’) of what is left of
the self with what can be found in the object. Fusion and confusion
are a defence against fission and fragmentation, and vice versa. For
example, the fear of falling apart and of petrification is associated
with fission and fragmentation; the fear of suffocation and of being
swallowed up is associated with fusion and confusion; but the former
offers protection against the latter, and vice versa. Each psychic pole
is associated with both its own characteristic psychotic anxieties and
8  Group Analysis 52(1)

its own characteristic modes of defence against them, including the

shift to those associated with the opposite poles. Thus, when present
in a group in response to the fear of annihilation of thought and iden-
tity, these co-occurring and oscillating dynamics are summarized as a
basic assumption of ‘Incohesion: Aggregation/Massification’ or ‘ba
I:A/M’. Hence, the author comments,
a group-like social system in which the fear of annihilation is prevalent is likely to
be characterized by oscillation between aggregation and massification, the bi-polar
forms of incohesion (derived from the fear of annihilation). However, oscillations
are rarely total and complete, and, at any one time, vestiges of aggregation can be
seen in states of massification and vestiges of massification in states of aggregation.
Moreover, each polar state can become located simultaneously in different parts of
a social system, and even in different geographical locations. (Hopper, 2009: 226
[italics by the authors])

The leader in the baI:A/M, according to the author, can be a ‘lone

wolf’ in group aggregation, representing the fragmentation and indi-
viduality of thought, mind and identity at that stage, and a ‘cheer-
leader’ in group massification, representing the fusion and confusion
of what is left of the self with an other.

Conclusions
The following table shows the main features of each basic assump-
tion. Following on the argument made by French and Simpson
(2010), we have emphasized the mutual relationships between the
basic-assumption mentality (ba) and the work-group mentality (w).
The first column contains an example for each basic assumption. In
the second column the modality of interaction between ‘ba’ and ‘w’,
i.e. the grounds on which the relations between the group members
are based. The third column shows the functional aspect of each ba,
considered as a supporting component to the work-group mentality
(Bion, 1962). We have described the functional aspects of each ba
with regard to their corresponding work-group mentalities (e.g. WP,
functional aspect of the baP). The fourth column gives the leader of
each configuration, and the fifth shows how time and space are char-
acterized. With regard to the latter two notions, we found no differ-
ences in the variety of basic assumptions, precisely because the
concept of ba intrinsically contains the process of collapsing into the
emotional dimension of any given experience, making time infinite
and space metaphorically one-dimensional. The sixth and seventh
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 9

columns show the prevailing emotions and anxieties, respectively (de

Felice and Andreassi, 2015). Finally, the eighth column describes the
topology of each basic assumption (i.e. highlighting their spatial
divisions)2.
As can be seen in Table 1, the division between the main basic
assumptions and their subsets is quite intuitive. The baO (basic
assumption of One-ness) may be included in the Bionian theorization
of baD (basic assumption of Dependence). In baO the members effec-
tively idealized the group as a construct from which they expect new
and fertile ideas and solutions to the problems of everyone. In other
words, the dynamics of baD recurs with the only difference of not
finding a suitable object in a given member of the group or in a par-
ticular idea outside it, but in a safe, protected and omnipotent place:
the group itself as a good breast. The bah (basic assumption of
Calcinosis of exclusion/membership) is also based on a dynamic
already highlighted by Bion in the theorization of baF (basic assump-
tion of flight–fight). In bah the group creates a strong division between
two subgroups, ‘we’ and ‘they’, the ‘A’ group in which the members
are perceived as superiors and holders of a truth precluded to the ‘out-
of-A’ group. In other words, the flight–fight dynamic here falls within
the group generating the typical splitting process good/bad breast
repeatedly emphasized by the psychoanalytic literature. The bara and
baC follow the same rationale, but with reference to the institutional
relationship between the group of medical practitioners and the group
of patients in the Mental Health Centres. They appear as two sides of
the same coin: the first as an attempt to attack the emotional existence
of their patients, while the second as an effort to shun it by means of
an autistic closure. Both of them naturally emerged from the process
of switching from the idea of a hospital as a place of care/treatment to
a hospital as a business organization. A more sophisticated considera-
tion is needed in order to elucidate the baM (Me-ness) features, origi-
nally born as an antithesis to the baO of Turquet. Gordon Lawrence
and colleagues proposed shedding light on the reverse side of the baO,
highlighting a dynamic in which members, although attracted by par-
ticipating in the group life, strongly avoid it due to a great fear of col-
lapsing in some process on which they could not have any type of
control (i.e. the basic-assumption mentality). For these reasons, we
considered the baM as a subset of the baF: the splitting process gener-
ated by the flight–fight dynamic has, as its suitable object, the group
as a construct from which the members fled as a defence mechanism
against the fear of losing control inside it. With respect to the baO, we
Table 1.  the basic assumptions with specific characteristics and identities are given in bold, their subsets are in italics.
ba Mentality Interaction W Leader Time and Space Prevailing Prevailing Topology
between BA Mentality emotions Anxieties
and W

BaP Pairing: WP: The messiah Temporal Hope Oedipal Object triad:
E.g. idealisation relationship relationship or saviour or a dilation anxieties couple-group-
of a pair source between two between two book or an idea and one- solutions/ideas
of hope people or people as the dimensional
groups or idea- foundation space
group of thinking
10  Group Analysis 52(1)

(i.e. coupling) together

BaD Dependence: WD: The The omniscient Temporal Sense of guilt Anxieties Object triad:
E.g. the relationship leader as group Saviour dilation and depression concerning leader-group-
idealisation of between the mentor and one- separation- solutions/ideas
the omniscient leader and his dimensional abandonment
leader “followers” space
BaO One-ness: WO: union of The construct Temporal Uniqueness, Anxieties Object triad:
E.g. idealisation uniqueness and the group of group dilation omnipotence, concerning group-
of the group as omnipotence to and one- joint force separation- solutions/ideas-
a construct whom belongs dimensional abandonment individuality
to the group space (background)
BaF Flight-Fight: WF: The Temporal Anger, hatred, Sadistic and Object triad:
E.g. Paranoid split between assertiveness Commander dilation fear persecutory group-
anxieties “we” and in achieving and one- anxieties outgroup-
projected onto “they” objectives dimensional solutions/ideas
an out-group space
Table 1. (continued)

ba Mentality Interaction W Leader Time and Space Prevailing Prevailing Topology

between BA Mentality emotions Anxieties
and W

BaM Me-ness: split WM: The Self Temporal Fear, worry, Anxieties of Object triad:
E.g. the between “me” “regression dilation hatred fusion individual-
protection of and “group” in the service and one- solutions/
each member of ego”, dimensional ideas-group
from incursions private mental space (background)
coming from space where
the group as a processing
construct the shared
experience
BaH Hallucinosis WH: The Temporal Hatred, Sadistic and Object triad:
E.g. of exclusion/ assertiveness Commander dilation contempt persecutory group-
persecutory membership: in achieving and one- anxieties outgroup-
anxieties split between objectives dimensional solutions/ideas
projected onto “we” and in case of space
an out-group “they” unproductive
members
BaA Arrogance: WA: Dean of Temporal Arrogance, Sadistic and Object triad:
E.g. split between assertiveness department or dilation impotence, persecutory group-
persecutory “us-medical in therapeutic the theoretical and one- anger anxieties outgroup-
anxieties practitioners” intervention reference of the dimensional solutions/ideas
projected onto and “they- practitioners space
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 11

an out-group patients”
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)

ba Mentality Interaction W Leader Time and Space Prevailing Prevailing Topology

between BA Mentality emotions Anxieties
and W

BaC Cowardice: WC: protection Dean of Temporal Fatigue, Sadistic and Object triad:
E.g. Autistic split between from burn-out departmentor dilation impotence, persecutory group-
regression of “us-medical the theoretical and one- detachment anxieties outgroup-
the group of practitioners” reference of the dimensional solutions/ideas
practitioners and “they- practitioners space
12  Group Analysis 52(1)

to shun the patients”

emotional
content of the
process of cure
BaCoS Conspiracy of WCoS: Exclude The one who Temporal Suspicion, Anxiety Object triad:
E.g. the Silence something holds the secret dilation guilt, anger regarding group-secret-
maintenance or someone first and/or the and one- change and outgroup
of a common unproductive idea of secret in dimensional persecutory
secret itself space anxieties
BaI:A/M Incohesion: WI:A/M: deal The role of Temporal Fragmentation, Anxiety of Object triad:
E.g. dealing group with fear of “Lone wolf” in dilation Fusion, Fear, annihilation of fragmentation-
with the fear of aggregation annihilation aggregationand and one- Hatred thought, mind work group-
annihilation and group “Cheerleader” dimensional and identity fusion
massification in massification space
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 13

Figure 1.  The systematisation of the bionian basic assumptions and their further
developments.

can conclude by underlining that the baM is not its negative (non-
baO) but its antithesis and its complement, since the latter always
assumes the group as a construct from which the members escape or
are afraid of.
Finally, the baCoS and the baI:A/M seem to be the only two post-
Bionian proposals having peculiar features not observable in the
original Bionian repartition. In the former, the code of silence,
enacted as a defence mechanism against anxieties related to change,
while in the latter, the dynamics of group aggregation and massifica-
tion in order to protect the group mind identity from the fear of anni-
hilation, are important psychoanalytic insights into the group
dynamics.
We shall now introduce the complete panorama of ba(s) proposals
coming from the international psychoanalytic literature.
It must be specified that the spatial arrangement of the five basic
assumptions does not represent a hierarchical ordering in terms of
importance, but it corresponds to a container-contained relation.

Promising developments
We have analysed the topology of each ba by taking into account the
triad of objects that characterizes it (Table 1). Reasoning in ‘Oedipal’
terms is inherent in the mind modality of experiencing and analysing
the external world. In the analysis of a clinical phenomenon, the mind
arranges and analyses the interacting elements of reality (i.e. trains of
thought in our clinical work) dividing/grouping them in triads. The
14  Group Analysis 52(1)

basic assumptions are emergent ordered states of the analytic field,

reducing the complexity of a group to a thinkable triadic interaction.
A triad of interacting elements enters the sphere of thinkability and
can be used according to one cell of the grid (Bion, 1963).
All the proposed configurations come after the Bionian tripartite
model, i.e. baP, baF, baD, can be represented as its subsets. However,
we have two exceptions: a) the baI:A/M, the only one clearly
addressing the dynamics to protect the mind against psychotic anxi-
eties. It could be viewed as a higher order conceptualization includ-
ing the baO with its fear of separation–abandonment, and the baM
with its fear of fusion, but shifting the picture to the psychotic func-
tioning; b) the baCoS (Conspiracy of Silence) that seems be com-
posed of the three-dimensional structure in which a subgroup is
considered as the first holder of a fundamental secret to hide from
the other two subgroups. We can therefore regard it as geometri-
cally equivalent to the baD though based on another bond, the con-
spiracy of silence.
The group, as with all the external realm, can be investigated by
means of a minimum of complexity3 (determinism) in which every-
thing is predictable (e.g. the group always loves every object or idea),
to a maximum of complexity (brownian motion) in which nothing is
predictable because there are random interactions between elements
and, consequently, no constant conjunctions (e.g. non-analysable
group, completely unpredictable, described as the several times
quoted ‘drunkard’s walk or random walk’ where you never know
where the drunkard will make the next step) (de Vita and de Felice,
2016; Halfon et al.2016; Orsucci et al. 2016).
These findings mirror what Willy and Madeleine Baranger high-
lighted in The Analytic situation as a dynamic field:
Experience shows a clear pre-eminence, within these structures that stand out
against the background of the therapeutic situation, of the tri-personal or triangular
structure (Pichon Riviere, 1956–58). The analytic couple is a trio, one of whose
members is physically absent and experientially present. Freud expressed the same
when he described the Oedipus complex as the nuclear complex of the neuroses. It
could be said that all the other structures are only modifications of this triangular
structure, whether in the progressive direction, by distribution of the conflict
among secondary characters and by their inclusion, which transforms the tri-
personal structure into a multi-personal structure, or in the regressive direction, by
elimination or loss of the third party, thus reducing the tri-personal structure to a
bi-personal one, but in this case experienced as a relation with a partial object.
(Baranger and Baranger, 2008: 798)
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 15

The basic assumptions reduce the complexity of the analytic field to

a thinkable triadic structure, and from this perspective, they corre-
spond to the use of Oedipus complex in individual psychoanalysis4.

Appendix: Clinical material

The clinical material presented here shows two pictures characterized
by a very different degree of complexity of the field (Brownian
motion or PS versus determinism or D). In the first, the group field is
rich and complex, and even after one hour of discussion there were
still at least three divergent trains of thought. Thus, in this case, we
were wrapped up in a group process lying before the emergence of
basic assumptions. In the second, on the other hand, the group field
was more organized and moving around a core group anxiety (‘sta-
tionary attractor’ in terms of complexity science). Specifically, the
members shared the fear of losing their identity within an intimate
relationship and, perhaps, within the group process. A clinical situa-
tion that could be interpreted as the ba Me-ness (i.e. a subgroup of
flight–fight) grounded on anxieties of fusion, in which the members
implicitly believe that collapsing into a group process means getting
lost in an uncontrollable process.
Two different kinds of intervention to handle and develop those
clinical pictures are presented and discussed.
The group comprises seven people. One analyst and six patients
who referred to the public service in southern Rome (the only outpa-
tient clinic in the city dedicated entirely to individual and group psy-
choanalytic psychotherapy). They are young adults between 19 and
27 years of age.

September 2017, eighth month of the group, first session after

the summer holidays
Mi: For me it was a difficult summer because I did not go
away, I stayed in Rome. And my friends were all away.
I felt alone. Then I cried for John (the boyfriend) . . .
the relationship is not right, but maybe I’m too demand-
ing . . . I realize I have some rigidity, but I cannot do
any better, even if I see that John is committed to make
me happy, I’m always unhappy and angry. Then I had
a dream, too . . . I was on a raft with my sister and my
mother . . . and I saw a storm approaching on the
16  Group Analysis 52(1)

horizon, a hurricane. I don’t know where from, but

luckily we manage to get a plane so that, passing near
the hurricane, and with everything shaking, we man-
aged to escape.
S: Now that I think about it, I had a dream, too. I was at
home and a man came in stealthily and tried to attack
me. But I defended myself with an American pepper
spray that I had bought before, and with a knife, too, I
managed to hurt him, and he ran away. However, I also
wanted to say that my summer was pretty good. I was
a bit with Alexander (her new boyfriend).
D: Well, I did not enjoy it so much; the only thing I did
outside Rome was a religious voluntary service near
Rieti, where I went with my other companions of the
parish to help nuns. And . . . well, we were all in rooms
for two . . . and I ended up with David . . . I do not like
him . . . but, I don’t know, it was very strange . . . I
don’t know what happened to me, at some point there
were three days where I heard some voices saying
pretty bad things about my homosexuality . . . That I
was a dirty gay and I shouldn’t have been. I couldn’t
bear it anymore and I had to change room. I was alone
then and it went better . . . then, you know what hap-
pened? I had to tell my father Carl that I am a homo-
sexual and he swore at me. When my father tried to hit
me, I defended myself by blocking his hands with
mine. But when he yelled at me, I felt like when I’m
attracted to Simon.
Analyst: It seems that these holidays were very busy for eve-
ryone. Not having a group in which we can think
leaves us alone in the face of hurricanes, like M., or
the persecutors who came in the house of S. But it is
the first time I notice that you have tools to defend
yourselves: an airplane to escape, a pepper spray and
a knife to react. How difficult it is to live much of
your childhood life with parents who do not seem to
see you or care for you. In this case it seems that the
screams of an adult become gratifying and do not
turn into anger. However, the anger of the group
(the group was angry with D in mid-session: they
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 17

perceived his defence modality as insufficient) is

useful because you (D.) can recover it. Like some
conflicting feelings with which you live your homo-
sexuality, if we could perhaps talk about them here,
we can avoid having to expel them from your ear.
(-intervention 1-)
D. (smiles and seems happy): a dream came to my mind. I
was at the FAO, just in front of its headquarters here in
Rome. There was Simon behind and David in front. I
was happy.

September 2017, next session

Ma: I wanted to tell you that with Alex it’s going very well
. . . I’m just sorry that he seems to care about our rela-
tionship more than me . . . I still cannot let myself go;
the other time we were going to do it, but I was stuck—
tense . . . I did not feel it was the right time.
Mi: I also had a dream: in the street below my house there
were three ‘friends’ of mine that I know disliked me. I
walked towards John (her boyfriend) and, walking with
him, we entered a palace, a room, on a table, and we
started to have sex. But I was still tense, while only he
was moving . . . I was terrified that some of my friends
could come in from outside. I sometimes feel stiff like
Ma. But not in terms that I cannot make love to John,
but I feel like I always have to take care of him . . . like
with my sister . . . given the conditions of my sister
(self-harm conducts), practically I had to be her second
mom . . . it is very tiring . . . now she doesn’t want to do
the fifth year of high school . . . just go to school and
give me a break!
   Silence
Analyst: We can think that we could be afraid of letting our-
selves go in certain contexts because we are going to
experience something that we don’t know, that this
pleasure could be dangerous; we could lose ourselves
inside it. (-intervention 2-)
Ma: I do not know yet . . . but now I can talk (Ma. was com-
pletely silent the first three months).
18  Group Analysis 52(1)

Intervention 1.
It happens to deal with members of a very productive group that
have just dealt with their first summer break. This is the case of this
group, which met for the first time at the beginning of September
2017. After about one hour of session, the psychic landscape contin-
ued to be rather jagged and I decided to return it to the group paint-
ing it. On the one hand, S. and Mi. seem to bring the difficulties due
to the absence of the group during the summer break; they turned
into thieves and hurricanes, respectively. On the other hand, D.
emphasizes two different themes (in order of appearance in the
material): a) the impossibility of feeling neither sexual attraction nor
anger transformed into a ‘super-egoic’ instance and expelled outside
the ear (according to Bion, we say that the sensorial element is inter-
preted by column five or ‘Inquiry’, i.e. by the search for its moral
meaning. We are in A5 or B5 depending on how much evolution is
attributed to the phenomenon ‘the voices’); b) the unconscious equa-
tion anger = love that we could summarize by emphasizing the lack
in the patient’s life of a nourishing aspect of benign narcissism (D.
has a history of childhood violence and, after living within the social
services, has now been adopted). Painting with the reader then: to
the left, hurricanes and intrusions, external and internal persecutors
with whom we must deal with; at the centre, the phenomenon of ‘the
voices’; to the right, the lack of benign narcissism. Thus, it is clear
that the group psychic landscape is jagged even though, probably, if
we wait long enough, its connection aspects will emerge more visi-
bly. Nevertheless, we are in a clinical situation in which one hour
before the end of the session I want to paint the group field back to
the group. In order, I comment a) left b) right c) centre. I believe that
the group has been nourished by the intervention and this has been
transformed into the communication of D. regarding, in fact, the
Food and Agriculture Organization.

Intervention 2.
The group psychic landscape here is much more saturated and per-
ceptible in its integrity (depressive position of the field). My analyti-
cal positioning here is directed towards the group anxiety concretely
represented by Mi.’s borderline sister and symbolically represented
by the fear of entering into a condensed dimension that refers to
pleasure and pain. The group responds by encouraging this attempt
with the words of Ma.
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 19

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the two reviewers for their vital
suggestions.

Notes
1. It must be emphasized that such an attitude can be found, for example, dur-
ing the analysis of trainees in which the strong institutional dimension is
likely to generate the above-mentioned paradox. The trainee is striving to
participate with as much delicacy and friendliness as possible in the analytic
process, completely shunning the emotional experience pertaining to it.
2. Topology: the study of the properties of figures and shapes that do not
change when there is a deformation without tearing and gluing. It is one
of the most important branches of modern mathematics. Note here that we
have analysed the topology of each ba by taking into account the triad of
objects that characterizes it. We believe that reasoning in ‘Oedipal’ terms
is inherent in the mind modality of experiencing and analysing the external
world. In the analysis of a clinical phenomenon, the mind can decompose
the observation by taking a maximum of three objects or features at a time
into account. For example, in the ba Dependency, the group estimates the
leader and our mind may think that this event has some positive or nega-
tive consequences with respect to the achievement of a given solution for
the problems experienced by the group. Here, we only wish to mention
the issue of analysing a phenomenon by taking four, five or more objects
together into account. How does the mind operate in this case? It seems that
dividing the phenomenon into groups of triadic aspects, features or objects
and analysing their interactions works. For example, let us analyse the ba
Dependence by taking the leader, group, solutions to the problems of the
group, and the psychoanalytic treatment into account. If the group loses its
esteem for its leader, how does this affect the achievement of the solutions
to the problems of the group and the relationship between members and the
psychoanalytic treatment? It seems, at this point, that the mind is unable to
give an answer unless by means of dividing the ‘quadriadic’ problem into
triads or dyads of objects.
3. Complexity Science could be viewed as the analysis, synthesis and modi-
fication of any given complex system ranging from cell to mind and soci-
ety. Every phenomenon, both human and natural, lies in between the two
polarities of determinism and Brownian motion. One of the most crucial
tasks of any scientist is understand when complex things become simple
(i.e. technically a ‘phase transition’). It is impossible to interpret a clinical
material without losing at least part of the patient’s trains of thought. The
20  Group Analysis 52(1)

analyst has to convey something that is neither too complex or rich in terms
of information (Brownian motion) nor too simple and trivial (determinism).
This is true not only for our clinical work but for science and research in
general. A concrete example is Statistical Mechanics, a branch of theoreti-
cal physics that uses probability theory to study the average behaviour of
a mechanical system whose exact state is uncertain: macroscopic coarse
grain emergent properties like pressure, volume and temperature whose
mutual relations were largely independent of the knowledge of microscopic
details (the behaviour of any given molecule) are used to monitor the rel-
evant dynamics of the system as a whole. What is the ‘pressure’, ‘volume’
and ‘temperature’ of psychoanalysis? The basic assumptions can be used
to describe the relevant dynamics of the group field independently of the
personality of each member.
4. We hope to arouse the reader’s interest by stressing that mathematical
clustering methods aim to provide an easy way to visualize interactions
between more than three elements (e.g. Halfon et al.2016). Furthermore,
around 1670, Isaac Newton invented a calculus method based on differen-
tial equations which is still the most sophisticated methodology created by
humankind to investigate interactions between more than three elements
and more than three dimensions. We must bear in mind, however, that we
are far removed from the clinical sphere: the more we go into abstract con-
cepts, the further away we go.

ORCID iD
Giulio de Felice https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6993-0914

References
Baranger M and Baranger W (2008) The analytic situation as a dynamic field.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis 89(4): 795–826.
Bion WR (1961) Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
Bion WR (1962) A theory of thinking. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 43:
306–10.
Bion WR (1963) Elements of psychoanalysis. London: Karnac Books.
de Felice G and Andreassi S (2015) How is the shape of change in the psychothera-
peutic complex system? Chaos and complexity letters 8: 2–3.
de Vita G and de Felice G (2016) Il gruppo psicoanalitico come sistema umano comp-
lesso. Gruppo: Omogeneità e differenze 1: 61–72.
French R and Simpson P (2010) The work group: redressing the balance in Bion’s
Experience in Groups. Human Relations 63(12): 1859–1878.
Freud S (1920) Beyond the Pleasure Principle (The Standard Edition). Trans. James
Strachey. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
de Felice et al.: Group, basic assumptions and complexity science 21

Halfon S, Çavdar A, Orsucci F, Schiepek GK, Andreassi S, Giuliani A and de Felice

G (2016) The non-linear trajectory of change in play profiles of three children in
psychodynamic play therapy. Frontiers in psychology 7, 1494: 1–15.
Hopper E (2009) The theory of the basic assumption of incohesion: aggregation/mas-
sification or (BA) I: A/M. British Journal of Psychotherapy 25(2): 214–229.
Lawrence GW, Bain A and Gould L (1996) The Fifth Basic Assumption. Free
Associations 6(1): 2855: 1–20.
Orsucci FF, Musmeci N, Aas B, Schiepek G, Reda MA, Canestri L, Giuliani A and de
Felice G (2016) Synchronization analysis of language and physiology in human
dyads. Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences 20(2): 167–191.
Romano R (1997) L’assunto di base di omertà. In: IPA Conference on Psychoanalysis.
London: International Psychoanalytic Association.
Sandler PC (2002) A sixth basic assumption? In: Bion Conference. Los Angeles:
International Bion Conference.
Sarno M (1999) Contributo psicoanalitico all’etica psichiatrica. Rivista di Psicoanalisi
45(3): 591–599.
Sherwood M (1964) Bion’s Experiences in Groups: A Critical Evaluation. Human
Relations 17(2): 113–130.
Turquet PM (1974) Leadership: The individual and the group. In: Gibbard GS, et al.
(eds) The Large Group: Therapy and Dynamics. San Francisco and London:
JosseyBass.

Giulio de Felice (corresponding author) is a clinician and a lecturer. He has is

private practice in Rome, predominantly in group and individual psychoanalytic
psychotherapy. He is also a lecturer at the NCU University, based in London. He
teaches psychodynamic psychology, group dynamics, clinical psychopathology
among others. He received his B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Rome, at Sapienza
University, his D.Psych. at the Institute of Group Psychoanalysis. He spent the
last year of his M.Sc. working as a Research Assistant at the Tavistock Clinic and
in the University of Surrey. Research interests: child, adult and group psychoa-
nalysis and psychotherapy, psychotherapy research, complex systems, nonlinear
dynamics, self-organization, statistical mechanics. Address: Via dei marsi, 78
Rome 00100, Italy. Email: giulio.defelice@uniroma1.it

Giuseppe De Vita was professor of psychology at Roma Tre University of

Rome. He is currently working in Latina, Italy as the head of the department of
clinical rehabilitation. He is also past president of the Italian Institute of Group
Psychoanalysis of which he is a founder member together with Francesco
Corrao, Giorgio Corrente, Claudio Neri and Alessandro Bruni. He received his
M.D. and his M.Sc. in Biological Sciences in Rome, at Sapienza University.
Throughout his career he worked as a psychoanalyst of organizations, groups,
and individuals in Italy. Address: Via della Giuliana 38, Rome, 00195, Italy.
Email: devipi@libero.it

Alessandro Bruni has a M.Sc. in biology, following which he received his psy-
choanalytic training at the Italian Psychoanalytic Society. He is a founder mem-
ber of the Italian Institute of Group Psychoanalysis that takes the heritage of
22  Group Analysis 52(1)

Wilfred R. Bion’s thought. The Bionian Italian Seminars were, in fact, held in the
Roman Institute. He is a full time private practitioner in Rome with groups and
individuals. Address: Via della Giuliana 38, Rome, 00195, Italy. Email: alessan-
drobruni.ab@libero.it

Assunta Galimberti received her B.Sc. and M.Sc. in psychology at Sapienza

University of Rome and her D.Psych. at the Institute of Group Psychoanalysis.
She is a full time private practitioner in Rome with groups and individuals.
Address: Via Carlo Fadda 25, Rome, 00195, Italy. Email: susy.galimberti@
libero.it

Giulia Paoloni received her B.Sc. and M.Sc. in psychology, University of

Chieti-Pescara, Italy and her Ph.D. at Sapienza University of Rome. She is a
founder member of the Institute for Complexity Science of Rome. Her main
research interests: smart cities, complexity science, psychotherapy research,
social psychology. Address: Via dei Marsi 78, Rome, 00100, Italy. Email:
g.paoloni@uniroma1.it

Silvia Andreassi received her B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. in psychology at Sapienza

University of Rome and her D.Psych. at the Italian Association of Child
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. She is currently a researcher at Sapienza
University of Rome and she works as a child and adult psychotherapist in Rome.
She is head of the scientific committee and international relationships of the
Association of Child Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. Main research interests:
psychotherapy research, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders particularly referring
to extreme and multiple traumas. Address: Via dei Marsi 78, Rome, Italy. Email:
silvia.andreassi@uniroma1.it

Alessandro Giuliani received his B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Biological Sciences
at Sapienza University of Rome. He is visiting Scientist at the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Bioinformatics Institute, Singapore, Keio
University, Japan, Kerala Bioinformatics Institute, Caltech, Pasadena (US);
Professor of Biophysics at Sapienza University of Rome. He is currently Senior
Scientist at Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy. He, together with prof.
Webber and prof. Zbilut, developed the Recurrence Quantification Analysis
(RQA), now broadly used mathematical tool for non-linear data analyses. Main
research interests: systems biology and statistical mechanics. Address: Viale
Regina Elena 299, 00161, Rome, Italy. Email: alessandro.giuliani@iss.it