Dynamics of the Recorder-Observer Group Psychotherapy Waiter
in
N. Stone
A
BOUT 12 years ago a colleague in a paper on multiple leadership in group therapy noted almost as an aside that complex problems emerge when a therapy team includes a silent observer-recorder.2 Very little has been added to his observation since that time. In the meantime, training in group psychotherapy has undergone significant shifts. The increasing availability of videotape equipment and further appreciation of the benefits of experiential learning have been the primary contributions to these changes, and currently many centers use a combination of experiential and didactic groups as the basic introduction to group psychotherapy.4sR*‘o Certainly these methods have broadened the scope of training opportunities, but attention has shifted away from learning about group psychotherapy from the standpoint of a silent recorder-observer. Moreover, negative attitudes toward the recorderobserver role arising from incomplete appreciation of the manifold learning opportunities further contribute to the relative neglect of this learning method. For instance, Sadock and Kaplan” state: “This training model has been used with less frequency in recent years because of disillusionment by all concerned-the therapist, the recorder, the supervisor and the patient. The senior therapist generally has great difficulty in using process notes written by someone with less experience and the supervisory session has suffered as a result. The recorder is implicitly discouraged from verbal participation, and his therapeutic intent is often frustrated. Patients tend to misperceive the recorder’s role in a variety of ways, and the recorder often reacts non-verbally to group events, thus, further confusing the situation.” Despite such critiques and changes in training format, the opportunity of functioning as a live recorder-observer taking part in the multiple learning opportunities associated with this role can provide unique learning experiences. Though an overview of the literature seems to emphasize the recorder mainly in a static observational-mechanical role, rather than in a dynamic evolving process, the observations that follow may offer a desirable corrective. They constitute a distillation of my observations about the phasic development of the recorder experience and the processes and unique learning opportunities afforded by such a role. Briefly, in the setting of Central Psychiatric Clinic, the main outpatient training center for residents in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati, the usual therapy team consists of two therapists in training and a less experienced recorder-observer (hereafter called recorder). The recorder is told From the Department of Psvchiatr),. University of Cincinnati College q/‘ Medicine, Cincinnari. Ohio. Walter N. Stone, M.D.: Associate Professor oJ‘Psychiatry. Department ofP.~ychiatrt~. Universir, of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. o 1975 by Grune & Stratton.
Inc.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 16, No. 1 (January/February).
1975
49
50
WALTER
N. STONE
that one of his main tasks is to take notes of the process and content of the group meetings. He is generally not permitted to speak. The three members of the therapy team then usually meet for a “rehash” immediately following the group meetings; in the rehash all may participate in any fashion they choose. The recorder is also responsible for presentation of the data from the group in supervision. The therapy group meets weekly for 90 min, and the post-meeting rehash lasts an additional 30 min. Supervision is provided for 1 hr every other week. PHASE I
Initially the recorder may attempt to simulate electronic equipment, with verbatim transcripts of the group meetings-a task doomed to failure. In silent periods the recorder may note nonverbal behavior of the group members, but in the main, duiing the early sessions the recorder is preoccupied with verbal communication. Often the therapists will emphasize the need to have their interventions carefully recorded in order to study the therapeutic process, and alert recorders will usually respond to such a request. In the rehash session, the recorder may listen to the experienced therapists discussing the proceedings and find himself utilized for “instant replay.” The recorder thereby often seems to be mainly an extension of some mechanical apparatus. The supervisory sessions in the initial phase are characterized by an important underlying developmental process for the therapy team occurring simultaneously with the discussion of the therapy group. The recorder reads verbatim the notes from the meeting, with the therapists passively awaiting the supervisor’s comments. Sometimes the recorder, while presenting the notes, is interrupted, and the therapists begin to summarize the meeting, thereby covertly excluding the recorder. These patterns (which are purposely overdrawn) reflect the therapists’ anxiety about their functioning in the group and about exposing their peccadilloes in supervision, where they are not only under the scrutiny of the supervisor but of peers as well, i.e., both the recorder and co-therapist. Thus the recorder then may be offered up to the supervisor as if he were the therapist (“he can be criticized”), or alternatively affectively excluded from the supervisory process. One treatment team in this phase unwittingly emphasized these issues by arranging for the recorder to sit outside the group circle-a pattern that was repeated in the supervisor’s office, all the while the recorder was presenting the patient group material. The supervisor then asked for a seating diagram from the group meetings, and the exclusion of the recorder then became available for discussion of role and status issues. Occasionally a simple observation by the supervisor that the recorder seems to be primarily a tape recorder will stimulate the therapy team to examine their own functioning in this phase. Such an observation is often particularly helpful to the recorder, who may sense an ally in the supervisor, and then be able to break out of the restricted role. PHASE II
Such an initial exploration of the mechanical role of the recorder ushers in the next phase, characterized mainly by the recorder’s increasing assertiveness. In supervision he wilI not only begin to conceptualize and present material from the group sessions more effectively, but also introduce some of the discussion from
DYNAMICS
OF THE
5’
RECORDER-OBSERVER
the rehash, which will open up another area to explore attitudinal responses to the therapy. The recorder often will tender tentative personal observations in the rehash sessions (indicating he is no longer a mechanical recording device) prior to offering opinions in the supervisory meetings. The shift in recorder behavior should alert the supervisor to emergence of competitive themes. Signs of competitiveness may be reflected in the interaction of the patients themselves, as they pick up the as yet unexpressed feelings in the therapy team. In the supervisory session increasing tension and irritability may be noted, with the competition not being mentioned until the supervisor directly confronts the team with direct evidence of their competitiveness. Competitive themes in the rehash, the patient interaction, or directly in the supervisory session should serve as a signal to focus on the competitive interaction within the therapy team. In one group that was in considerable turmoil resulting from the inexperienced leaders’ excessively intrusive and confronting style, the recorder seemed to present the most “reasonable” voice in supervision. However, the therapists would interrupt and prevent presentation of the data. In addition, it was discovered that only a 5- to IO-min post-group meeting was held with the recorder, following which the two therapists would ride home and have dinner together privately continuing their discussion of the group. In this situation the recorder was pushed out or extruded from the therapy team apparently because his observations and primary data were sensed as competitive and threatening. Another therapy team was having progressive difficulty working together because of the recorder’s frequent absences due to a significant physical illness. The therapists totally ignored the recorder’s increasing competitiveness in supervision and sudden verbal participation in the group. For several weeks the therapists’ surprise, anger (in part generated by the absences), and reaction formation effectively prevented discussion and resolution of their feelings in response to this unanticipated talking during the group session by the recorder. Only when the supervisor pointed out the resultant confusion in the patient group was this therapy team able to redefine roles appropriately and subsequently explore the tensions within the team. Block2 considers that the role requirement of silence in and of itself produces considerable frustration, and consequent acting out by the recorder. Although he did not mention speaking, such participation is obviously the most direct oppositional response to the role-required enforced silence. Often therapy teams seem to get stuck at this competitive phase, and usually a number of supervisory sessions are needed to achieve partial resolution. PHASE III
Once a working alliance of mutual respect develops in the therapy team, the next developmental stage may appear. This step involves the recorder’s developing freedom to experience fluctuating identifications and internalizations. The recorder is in almost a unique situation, in which he is actually sitting in the circle as an emotional participant involved with the group process, yet not having the responsibility of speaking. One part of the recorder’s identification is with the therapists, whom he imitates in fantasy, and subsequently he may internalize portions of the therapeutic techniques and attitudes.” Another part of the recorder becomes identified with the patient group. Actually this process may begin very
52
WALTER
N. STONE
early in the group outside the awareness of either the supervisor or the recorder. A portion of the treatment team development may be understood from the vantage point of the recorder’s working through his identification with the patients. The initial unconscious experience of identifying with the patients is often felt as a narcissistic blow to the recorder (i.e., he should not learn about himself as if he were a patient). In defending against such role suction the recorder defensively may become critical of the therapists.g This dynamic sequence often significantly contributes to the competitiveness mentioned above. However, this development of a positive working alliance within the learning situation should encourage the recorder to accept and utilize his dual identification in a fashion that adds a valuable dimension to the therapy team learning about its own work. Buie and Maltzberger3 state that one of the ego capacities requisite to the beginning therapist is to bear intense affects and impulses: “The affective processes of the would be therapist must be utilized when he imaginatively projects himself into the patient and makes use of responses evoked in himself for the understanding of the patient.” In groups this is not only an active process, but occurs passively as a result of the group pressures and the special role requirement of the recorder. Usually with the aid of the supervisor, the recorder can be encouraged to talk to the therapists from both the active and passive vantage points. He may then be able to describe subtle affective responses he imagined were experienced by the patients, a description of the therapeutic situation that otherwise would be unavailable in the learning process. Other aspects of the recorder’s patient identification can be utilized to demonstrate very powerful group dynamic processes. In one therapy group of three men, one woman, and a therapy team of two male resident therapists and a female nurse recorder, a process evolved in which the men patients were struggling to explore their depth feelings of inadequacy. At a session in which one of the therapists and the recorder were absent, the theme of inadequacy on the part of the male patients directly emerged and was followed by a sudden shift, with the men scapegoating the lone woman. At the following meeting, when the absent therapist and recorder returned, further feelings of inadequacy emerged and were again followed by a sudden shift, this time to fantasies about the therapist and the recorder having an affair the previous week. The recorder then became the focus of discussion and was alternately described as pretty and as “nothing more than a ball point pen.” Interspersed with these comments were questions directed to the therapists about additions of new patients to the group. In the supervisory session the recorder described considerable discomfort at the attention she received, and added somewhat hesitantly that she felt seduced into being a patient in the group. Clearly the men had attempted to bolster their sagging self-esteem, first by attacking and depreciating women and then attempting to entice the recorder away from her fantasied powerful partner. The recorder’s freedom in discussing her affective response was very useful in understanding the nuances of this specific group dynamic of role suction or billet.’ The recorder thus became a valuable teacher, for she was able to tune into dynamic processes otherwise unavailable for scrutiny. The supervisor is often pivotal in helping the recorder overcome some feelings of shame over his varying identifications, thereby freeing affective responses.
DYNAMICS
OF THE
53
RECORDER-OBSERVER
DISCUSSION
Group therapy patients frequently express fantasies about the recorder, ranging from placing the recorder in a patient role (he is bootlegging therapy), to derision of the learning role, or to elevation of the recorder to an omnipotent status (he is secretly the supervisor and is telling the therapists about their work after the meeting). As Kadis et aL5 point out, the “recorder even if he says nothing is likely to be the object of some of the group’s transference relationship.” Such fantasies are best understood in the context of their appearance in the meeting, but equally important, they are valuable for the response they evoke in the recorder. Often such experiences provide a forerunner of the affective response the recorder will experience when he assumes full therapeutic responsibilities. In this training period, not having responsibility of making therapeutic interventions frees the recorder to tune into his own feelings, and to utilize them in further understanding the group process. The supervisor can capitalize on the importance of the recorder’s affective experience in understanding the therapeutic process and extend the model to include the primary therapists. Since a recorder is in a training position, the question naturally arises concerning the optimal length of time for this portion of his learning experience. No categorical response is possible, but often after a 6-month period the recorder is ready to assume responsibilities for a group. Evidence of decathexis from the recorder role is usually heralded by disgruntlement with the chore of writing. By this time a number of learning goals should have been achieved. In addition to the basic knowledge of group dynamics and process, the recorder through his unique role should attain an increasing freedom in the use of his own fantasy material. Only rarely do trainees have an ongoing opportunity to be participantobservers of psychotherapy in such a very real sense. The uniqueness of the recorder role derives from the limits of silence placed upon the recorder, while he is experiencing considerable affect. Reflection upon the integration of both cognitive and affective material is pursued in both the rehash and supervisory session. The polarized positions, freedom to express one’s feelings on one hand, and strong prohibitions against such expressions on the other, remain an unresolved cause of stress for many psychotherapists. The recorder in group psychotherapy can experience his own affects, review and evaluate them in the light of the therapeutic flow of material. Newton’ has pointed out that abstinence in a broad sense is an integral part of the psychotherapist’s role: “The therapist seeks to empathically sense his patient’s needs and tolerances and to adjust the degree of gratification (or, equally, the degree of frustration) at any given moment to the level which most facilitates the work.” The recorder thereby evaluates his affect and his corresponding empathic awareness for understanding the treatment process as well as considering the effects of sharing his own feelings. Ideally, a recorder should reach a point where he can conceptualize his own learning experience arising from his cognitive and affective states. Such ideals are not often reached, but a movement toward the ideal is necessary before the recorder can move into the more taxing and rewarding role of therapist. In summary, the recorder role provides a multitude of opportunities to learn about group psychotherapy. A developmental process takes place as a recorder becomes a part of the therapy team: Passivity, competitiveness, and shifting
WALTER
54
N. STONE
identifications between therapist and patient role are seen as aspects of this process. By not having the direct therapeutic responsibility of leader, the recorder has a unique opportunity to utilize the affects stirred within him during the sessions. Often patients verbalize fantasies about the recorder and so contribute significantly to the affective response of the recorder. These affects and shifting identification then provide valuable data with which to understand therapeutic movement, and in addition, help all members of the therapy team become aware of the potential value of their own fantasies in understanding personal affective responses, and their role in the psychotherapeutic process. REFERENCES 1. Arsenian
J, Semrad
CV,
Shapiro
D: An
analysis of integral functions in small groups. Int J Group Psychother 2. Block
SL:
and therapeutic Compr
12:421-434,
tool
Psychiatry
2:2l l-218,
Buskirk Psychotic
D
learning,
(eds):
JT: Growth
and
CV,
Van
Psychotherapy
New York,
therapeutic
of
Grune & Strat-
8. Ollstein
L:
psychotherapy.
Training
Bull
issues
Menninger
in
Clinic
group 35:249-
261, 1971
Psychotherapy
Los Angeles, Calif.,
SH: A Practicum York,
Harper
6. Kelman
Krasner
JD, Winick
C, Foulkes
of Group Psychotherapy.
New
Association
9. Redl F: Psychoanalysis
Annual
197 1 and group therapy:
point of view. Am J Orthopsy1963
FC,
training.
Astrachan
Am
B: Group
J Psychiatry
dy-
125:1501~
1507, I969
11. Sadock
5. Kadis AL,
in super-
Presented at American
Meeting,
namics
34:391-400
recordings
Group
IO. Redlich
J Group
as a role require-
Psychiatry
A: Videotape
A developmental
Int
1963
PM: Abstinence
ment in psychotherapy.
chiatry 33:135-147,
ton, 1969, p 94 4. Horwitz
change.
13:399-432,
vision of group therapy.
in Semrad
Teaching
Patients.
psychotherapy.
1961
3. Buie DJ Jr, Maltzberger apprenticeship
as a teaching
in group
of
Psychother 7. Newton
1966
Multi-leadership
duction
BJ, Kaplan
HI: Training
dards in group psychotherapy, dock
BJ
& Row, 1963, p 46
chotherapy.
HC: The role of the group in the in-
1971,p790
(eds):
Comprehensive
Baltimore,
and stan-
in Kaplan HI, Sa-
Williams
Group &
Psy-
Wilkins,
in
N. Stone
A
BOUT 12 years ago a colleague in a paper on multiple leadership in group therapy noted almost as an aside that complex problems emerge when a therapy team includes a silent observer-recorder.2 Very little has been added to his observation since that time. In the meantime, training in group psychotherapy has undergone significant shifts. The increasing availability of videotape equipment and further appreciation of the benefits of experiential learning have been the primary contributions to these changes, and currently many centers use a combination of experiential and didactic groups as the basic introduction to group psychotherapy.4sR*‘o Certainly these methods have broadened the scope of training opportunities, but attention has shifted away from learning about group psychotherapy from the standpoint of a silent recorder-observer. Moreover, negative attitudes toward the recorderobserver role arising from incomplete appreciation of the manifold learning opportunities further contribute to the relative neglect of this learning method. For instance, Sadock and Kaplan” state: “This training model has been used with less frequency in recent years because of disillusionment by all concerned-the therapist, the recorder, the supervisor and the patient. The senior therapist generally has great difficulty in using process notes written by someone with less experience and the supervisory session has suffered as a result. The recorder is implicitly discouraged from verbal participation, and his therapeutic intent is often frustrated. Patients tend to misperceive the recorder’s role in a variety of ways, and the recorder often reacts non-verbally to group events, thus, further confusing the situation.” Despite such critiques and changes in training format, the opportunity of functioning as a live recorder-observer taking part in the multiple learning opportunities associated with this role can provide unique learning experiences. Though an overview of the literature seems to emphasize the recorder mainly in a static observational-mechanical role, rather than in a dynamic evolving process, the observations that follow may offer a desirable corrective. They constitute a distillation of my observations about the phasic development of the recorder experience and the processes and unique learning opportunities afforded by such a role. Briefly, in the setting of Central Psychiatric Clinic, the main outpatient training center for residents in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati, the usual therapy team consists of two therapists in training and a less experienced recorder-observer (hereafter called recorder). The recorder is told From the Department of Psvchiatr),. University of Cincinnati College q/‘ Medicine, Cincinnari. Ohio. Walter N. Stone, M.D.: Associate Professor oJ‘Psychiatry. Department ofP.~ychiatrt~. Universir, of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. o 1975 by Grune & Stratton.
Inc.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 16, No. 1 (January/February).
1975
49
50
WALTER
N. STONE
that one of his main tasks is to take notes of the process and content of the group meetings. He is generally not permitted to speak. The three members of the therapy team then usually meet for a “rehash” immediately following the group meetings; in the rehash all may participate in any fashion they choose. The recorder is also responsible for presentation of the data from the group in supervision. The therapy group meets weekly for 90 min, and the post-meeting rehash lasts an additional 30 min. Supervision is provided for 1 hr every other week. PHASE I
Initially the recorder may attempt to simulate electronic equipment, with verbatim transcripts of the group meetings-a task doomed to failure. In silent periods the recorder may note nonverbal behavior of the group members, but in the main, duiing the early sessions the recorder is preoccupied with verbal communication. Often the therapists will emphasize the need to have their interventions carefully recorded in order to study the therapeutic process, and alert recorders will usually respond to such a request. In the rehash session, the recorder may listen to the experienced therapists discussing the proceedings and find himself utilized for “instant replay.” The recorder thereby often seems to be mainly an extension of some mechanical apparatus. The supervisory sessions in the initial phase are characterized by an important underlying developmental process for the therapy team occurring simultaneously with the discussion of the therapy group. The recorder reads verbatim the notes from the meeting, with the therapists passively awaiting the supervisor’s comments. Sometimes the recorder, while presenting the notes, is interrupted, and the therapists begin to summarize the meeting, thereby covertly excluding the recorder. These patterns (which are purposely overdrawn) reflect the therapists’ anxiety about their functioning in the group and about exposing their peccadilloes in supervision, where they are not only under the scrutiny of the supervisor but of peers as well, i.e., both the recorder and co-therapist. Thus the recorder then may be offered up to the supervisor as if he were the therapist (“he can be criticized”), or alternatively affectively excluded from the supervisory process. One treatment team in this phase unwittingly emphasized these issues by arranging for the recorder to sit outside the group circle-a pattern that was repeated in the supervisor’s office, all the while the recorder was presenting the patient group material. The supervisor then asked for a seating diagram from the group meetings, and the exclusion of the recorder then became available for discussion of role and status issues. Occasionally a simple observation by the supervisor that the recorder seems to be primarily a tape recorder will stimulate the therapy team to examine their own functioning in this phase. Such an observation is often particularly helpful to the recorder, who may sense an ally in the supervisor, and then be able to break out of the restricted role. PHASE II
Such an initial exploration of the mechanical role of the recorder ushers in the next phase, characterized mainly by the recorder’s increasing assertiveness. In supervision he wilI not only begin to conceptualize and present material from the group sessions more effectively, but also introduce some of the discussion from
DYNAMICS
OF THE
5’
RECORDER-OBSERVER
the rehash, which will open up another area to explore attitudinal responses to the therapy. The recorder often will tender tentative personal observations in the rehash sessions (indicating he is no longer a mechanical recording device) prior to offering opinions in the supervisory meetings. The shift in recorder behavior should alert the supervisor to emergence of competitive themes. Signs of competitiveness may be reflected in the interaction of the patients themselves, as they pick up the as yet unexpressed feelings in the therapy team. In the supervisory session increasing tension and irritability may be noted, with the competition not being mentioned until the supervisor directly confronts the team with direct evidence of their competitiveness. Competitive themes in the rehash, the patient interaction, or directly in the supervisory session should serve as a signal to focus on the competitive interaction within the therapy team. In one group that was in considerable turmoil resulting from the inexperienced leaders’ excessively intrusive and confronting style, the recorder seemed to present the most “reasonable” voice in supervision. However, the therapists would interrupt and prevent presentation of the data. In addition, it was discovered that only a 5- to IO-min post-group meeting was held with the recorder, following which the two therapists would ride home and have dinner together privately continuing their discussion of the group. In this situation the recorder was pushed out or extruded from the therapy team apparently because his observations and primary data were sensed as competitive and threatening. Another therapy team was having progressive difficulty working together because of the recorder’s frequent absences due to a significant physical illness. The therapists totally ignored the recorder’s increasing competitiveness in supervision and sudden verbal participation in the group. For several weeks the therapists’ surprise, anger (in part generated by the absences), and reaction formation effectively prevented discussion and resolution of their feelings in response to this unanticipated talking during the group session by the recorder. Only when the supervisor pointed out the resultant confusion in the patient group was this therapy team able to redefine roles appropriately and subsequently explore the tensions within the team. Block2 considers that the role requirement of silence in and of itself produces considerable frustration, and consequent acting out by the recorder. Although he did not mention speaking, such participation is obviously the most direct oppositional response to the role-required enforced silence. Often therapy teams seem to get stuck at this competitive phase, and usually a number of supervisory sessions are needed to achieve partial resolution. PHASE III
Once a working alliance of mutual respect develops in the therapy team, the next developmental stage may appear. This step involves the recorder’s developing freedom to experience fluctuating identifications and internalizations. The recorder is in almost a unique situation, in which he is actually sitting in the circle as an emotional participant involved with the group process, yet not having the responsibility of speaking. One part of the recorder’s identification is with the therapists, whom he imitates in fantasy, and subsequently he may internalize portions of the therapeutic techniques and attitudes.” Another part of the recorder becomes identified with the patient group. Actually this process may begin very
52
WALTER
N. STONE
early in the group outside the awareness of either the supervisor or the recorder. A portion of the treatment team development may be understood from the vantage point of the recorder’s working through his identification with the patients. The initial unconscious experience of identifying with the patients is often felt as a narcissistic blow to the recorder (i.e., he should not learn about himself as if he were a patient). In defending against such role suction the recorder defensively may become critical of the therapists.g This dynamic sequence often significantly contributes to the competitiveness mentioned above. However, this development of a positive working alliance within the learning situation should encourage the recorder to accept and utilize his dual identification in a fashion that adds a valuable dimension to the therapy team learning about its own work. Buie and Maltzberger3 state that one of the ego capacities requisite to the beginning therapist is to bear intense affects and impulses: “The affective processes of the would be therapist must be utilized when he imaginatively projects himself into the patient and makes use of responses evoked in himself for the understanding of the patient.” In groups this is not only an active process, but occurs passively as a result of the group pressures and the special role requirement of the recorder. Usually with the aid of the supervisor, the recorder can be encouraged to talk to the therapists from both the active and passive vantage points. He may then be able to describe subtle affective responses he imagined were experienced by the patients, a description of the therapeutic situation that otherwise would be unavailable in the learning process. Other aspects of the recorder’s patient identification can be utilized to demonstrate very powerful group dynamic processes. In one therapy group of three men, one woman, and a therapy team of two male resident therapists and a female nurse recorder, a process evolved in which the men patients were struggling to explore their depth feelings of inadequacy. At a session in which one of the therapists and the recorder were absent, the theme of inadequacy on the part of the male patients directly emerged and was followed by a sudden shift, with the men scapegoating the lone woman. At the following meeting, when the absent therapist and recorder returned, further feelings of inadequacy emerged and were again followed by a sudden shift, this time to fantasies about the therapist and the recorder having an affair the previous week. The recorder then became the focus of discussion and was alternately described as pretty and as “nothing more than a ball point pen.” Interspersed with these comments were questions directed to the therapists about additions of new patients to the group. In the supervisory session the recorder described considerable discomfort at the attention she received, and added somewhat hesitantly that she felt seduced into being a patient in the group. Clearly the men had attempted to bolster their sagging self-esteem, first by attacking and depreciating women and then attempting to entice the recorder away from her fantasied powerful partner. The recorder’s freedom in discussing her affective response was very useful in understanding the nuances of this specific group dynamic of role suction or billet.’ The recorder thus became a valuable teacher, for she was able to tune into dynamic processes otherwise unavailable for scrutiny. The supervisor is often pivotal in helping the recorder overcome some feelings of shame over his varying identifications, thereby freeing affective responses.
DYNAMICS
OF THE
53
RECORDER-OBSERVER
DISCUSSION
Group therapy patients frequently express fantasies about the recorder, ranging from placing the recorder in a patient role (he is bootlegging therapy), to derision of the learning role, or to elevation of the recorder to an omnipotent status (he is secretly the supervisor and is telling the therapists about their work after the meeting). As Kadis et aL5 point out, the “recorder even if he says nothing is likely to be the object of some of the group’s transference relationship.” Such fantasies are best understood in the context of their appearance in the meeting, but equally important, they are valuable for the response they evoke in the recorder. Often such experiences provide a forerunner of the affective response the recorder will experience when he assumes full therapeutic responsibilities. In this training period, not having responsibility of making therapeutic interventions frees the recorder to tune into his own feelings, and to utilize them in further understanding the group process. The supervisor can capitalize on the importance of the recorder’s affective experience in understanding the therapeutic process and extend the model to include the primary therapists. Since a recorder is in a training position, the question naturally arises concerning the optimal length of time for this portion of his learning experience. No categorical response is possible, but often after a 6-month period the recorder is ready to assume responsibilities for a group. Evidence of decathexis from the recorder role is usually heralded by disgruntlement with the chore of writing. By this time a number of learning goals should have been achieved. In addition to the basic knowledge of group dynamics and process, the recorder through his unique role should attain an increasing freedom in the use of his own fantasy material. Only rarely do trainees have an ongoing opportunity to be participantobservers of psychotherapy in such a very real sense. The uniqueness of the recorder role derives from the limits of silence placed upon the recorder, while he is experiencing considerable affect. Reflection upon the integration of both cognitive and affective material is pursued in both the rehash and supervisory session. The polarized positions, freedom to express one’s feelings on one hand, and strong prohibitions against such expressions on the other, remain an unresolved cause of stress for many psychotherapists. The recorder in group psychotherapy can experience his own affects, review and evaluate them in the light of the therapeutic flow of material. Newton’ has pointed out that abstinence in a broad sense is an integral part of the psychotherapist’s role: “The therapist seeks to empathically sense his patient’s needs and tolerances and to adjust the degree of gratification (or, equally, the degree of frustration) at any given moment to the level which most facilitates the work.” The recorder thereby evaluates his affect and his corresponding empathic awareness for understanding the treatment process as well as considering the effects of sharing his own feelings. Ideally, a recorder should reach a point where he can conceptualize his own learning experience arising from his cognitive and affective states. Such ideals are not often reached, but a movement toward the ideal is necessary before the recorder can move into the more taxing and rewarding role of therapist. In summary, the recorder role provides a multitude of opportunities to learn about group psychotherapy. A developmental process takes place as a recorder becomes a part of the therapy team: Passivity, competitiveness, and shifting
WALTER
54
N. STONE
identifications between therapist and patient role are seen as aspects of this process. By not having the direct therapeutic responsibility of leader, the recorder has a unique opportunity to utilize the affects stirred within him during the sessions. Often patients verbalize fantasies about the recorder and so contribute significantly to the affective response of the recorder. These affects and shifting identification then provide valuable data with which to understand therapeutic movement, and in addition, help all members of the therapy team become aware of the potential value of their own fantasies in understanding personal affective responses, and their role in the psychotherapeutic process. REFERENCES 1. Arsenian
J, Semrad
CV,
Shapiro
D: An
analysis of integral functions in small groups. Int J Group Psychother 2. Block
SL:
and therapeutic Compr
12:421-434,
tool
Psychiatry
2:2l l-218,
Buskirk Psychotic
D
learning,
(eds):
JT: Growth
and
CV,
Van
Psychotherapy
New York,
therapeutic
of
Grune & Strat-
8. Ollstein
L:
psychotherapy.
Training
Bull
issues
Menninger
in
Clinic
group 35:249-
261, 1971
Psychotherapy
Los Angeles, Calif.,
SH: A Practicum York,
Harper
6. Kelman
Krasner
JD, Winick
C, Foulkes
of Group Psychotherapy.
New
Association
9. Redl F: Psychoanalysis
Annual
197 1 and group therapy:
point of view. Am J Orthopsy1963
FC,
training.
Astrachan
Am
B: Group
J Psychiatry
dy-
125:1501~
1507, I969
11. Sadock
5. Kadis AL,
in super-
Presented at American
Meeting,
namics
34:391-400
recordings
Group
IO. Redlich
J Group
as a role require-
Psychiatry
A: Videotape
A developmental
Int
1963
PM: Abstinence
ment in psychotherapy.
chiatry 33:135-147,
ton, 1969, p 94 4. Horwitz
change.
13:399-432,
vision of group therapy.
in Semrad
Teaching
Patients.
psychotherapy.
1961
3. Buie DJ Jr, Maltzberger apprenticeship
as a teaching
in group
of
Psychother 7. Newton
1966
Multi-leadership
duction
BJ, Kaplan
HI: Training
dards in group psychotherapy, dock
BJ
& Row, 1963, p 46
chotherapy.
HC: The role of the group in the in-
1971,p790
(eds):
Comprehensive
Baltimore,
and stan-
in Kaplan HI, Sa-
Williams
Group &
Psy-
Wilkins,
