Group, Vol. 20, No.

4, 1996

Interpersonal Conflict in Group Therapy: An

Object Relations Perspective 1
Richard J. Daniele 2'3 and Robert M. Gordon 2

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how object relations theory can be
used to understand and regulate interpersonal conflict in group psychotherapy.
Such concepts as projective identification, intersubjectivity and the analytic
third are used to describe how conflict emerges in group psychotherapy and
how it can be worked through. Case material is also provided to illustrate
concepts and techniques in promoting a group's transition from a para-
noid~schizoid to a depressive position. Positive aspects of the concept of pro-
jective identification are discussed including its use as a form o f
communication, a method of reducing anxiety and reintegrating previously
dangerous and threatening aspects of the self.
KEY WORDS: group conflict; intersubjectivity; projective identification; analytic third.

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents an analysis of interpersonal conflict in group ther-

apy from an object relations perspective. Object relations theory of group
therapy focuses on internal fantasized images, self-representations and early
anxieties reactivated by regression of individuals within a group setting. The
focus is primarily on the aggression and the primitive defense mechanisms
expressed against aggressive reactions and anxieties generated by group
members in a group situation. Ganzarain (1992) discusses these issues and
how the group itself becomes an internal object through which group mem-
bers respond and utilize primitive defense mechanisms, such as splitting,

1The paper was funded by Evan F. Lilly Memorial Trust Grant PV 13,067.
2Rusk Institute, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York.
3Correspondence should be directed to Richard J. Daniele, Ph.D., 250 West 90th Street, New
York, New York 10024.

303
0362-4021/96/12004)303509.50/1 9 1996Eastern Group PsychotherapySociety
304 Daniele and Gordon

projective identification, denial and omnipotence. He perceives growth as

a process of resolution of the primitive anxieties of the paranoid/schizoid
and the depressive positions described by Klein (1932) and how the mem-
bers begin to form the ability to construct love, concern and intimacy.
The paranoid/schizoid position frequently occurs in a group setting
when group members' dependency needs are frustrated by the therapist due,
in part, to the fact that the needs of multiple patients simultaneously and
perhaps contradictorily are expressed in the group. Paranoid/schizoid reac-
tions also occur when the group leader chooses not to gratify the members'
dependency needs for comfort, which result in anxiety, tension and anger
on the part of the members. The depressive position emerges when the in-
dividuals begin to feel compassion and concern for others in the group for
the damage that occurs from the aggression that is often mobilized during
the paranoid/schizoid process. Ganzarain illustrates in a clinical example
how these defense mechanisms unfold and are treated in group therapy.
Brigham (1992), utilizing object relational and ego psychology perspec-
tives, examines how regression occurs in a group setting around the leader.
The leader in an object relations approach is regarded as an internal object
onto which members project their part-object images. He discusses how the
group itself becomes a part object and how regression fosters a breakdown
in ego functions resulting in the use of primitive defenses and the loss of
identity. The disintegration of the ego results from the force the group exerts
on the individual to give up his/her control and identity to the group.
The clinical example that follows illustrates how the group therapist
is able to resolve the primitive defense mechanisms mobilized in regressions
that occur in intense conflict in group situations and move the group into
a more secure place where members are able to reunite, share their trans-
ference experiences and express concern, warmth and compassion for one
another. Emphasis is given to contemporary views of transference and
countertransference and how the therapist is able to utilize his/her own
associations in the process. Ogden's (1994) notions of intersubjectivity, sub-
jectivity and the analytic third experience are introduced to explain the ten-
sion that is produced in group conflict and how it can be used to move
the group to resolve the conflict.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE: DEFINITION OF INTERPERSONAL

CONFLICT

From an object relations perspective, interpersonal conflict can be

viewed as a result of a refusal of a participant in a social interaction to
accept a fantasized bad object projected by a second individual. What is
Interpersonal Conflict in Group Therapy 305

involved is referred to by Ogden (1979) as a process of projective identi-

fication in which a group of unwanted fantasies and accompanying self-
representations are deposited into another person and then returned in a
modified version. Projective identification differs from pure projection in
that it not only expels outward aspects of the self, but also induces the
object of projection to experience the projection. The individual uncon-
sciously or consciously attempts to induce another into a particular role,
identity, response, or set of feelings in order to protect himself/herself
against dangers posed by bad objects, thus reducing his/her own anxiety
(Knapp, 1989). However, if dangerous projected elements stir up threat-
ening internalized objects in the recipient of the projection, it may trigger
a counter-projective identification in the recipient causing a return of the
threatening objects to the projector in a hostile or angry manner. Conflict
between the participants of the encounter may then ensue.
From a neo-Kleinian perspective, interpersonal conflict may occur
when a recipient of a projection refuses to serve as a "containing function"
(Bion, 1962) for the projector's threatening internalized objects. The pro-
jector is then forced to consider his/her own separateness and deal with
the terror associated with facing his/her own internal objects. The projector
might also search for another recipient to accept the projected threatening
parts, thus maintaining the projective identification process. The projector
may also need a mechanism to avoid awareness of his/her separateness,
sense of loss, anger and envy (Joseph, 1988). It provides the individual with
the opportunity to observe the environment's reaction to rejected parts of
oneself (Malin and Grotstein, 1966).
Another useful concept for describing the dynamics of conflict in group
settings is the notion of the interplay between subjectivity and intersubjec-
tivity in analytic settings (Ogden, 1994). Ogden states that "it is fair to say
that contemporary psychoanalytic thinking is approaching a point where
one can no longer simply speak of the analyst and the analysand as separate
subjects who take one another as objects" (p. 62). The notion that the
analyst is simply a blank screen for the patient's projections is becoming
extinct. Instead, theorists are now focusing more on the interplay between
the patient's and the analyst's subjective realities in the analytic process.
Ogden (1994) emphasizes the dialectical nature of intersubjectivity in
the analytic process elaborating and extending Winnicott's (1960) notion
that "there is no such thing as an infant apart from the maternal provision"
(p. 39). He claims that although the mother-infant dyad exists in unity,
they obviously are separate entities with their own physical and psychologi-
cal subjectivities that often are in conflict with one another. The harmony
that exists between the mother and the infant is what Ogden refers to as
intersubjectivity, whereas the mother's and the infant's separate realities
306 Daniele and Gordon

represent their subjectivities. The interplay between the intersubjectivity of

the mother-infant dyad and the mother's and the infant's subjectivities pro-
duces a dynamic tension or conflict. In response to the conflict, the infant
may construct a mental product, such as in the creation of a transitional
object, which represents a bridge between the mother's and the infant's
own separateness. Similarly, in the analytic process, the intersubjectivity of
the analyst-analysand unit continually interacts in a dialectical manner with
their subjectivities resulting in what Ogden (1994) refers to as the analytic
third. It may take the form of a feeling, an image or a thought that is
unique to either the analyst or the analysand which then may become part
of the analytic experience.
The notions of intersubjectivity and subjectivity are examples of how
the concept of countertransference has evolved from its original depiction
as an obstacle or impediment to treatment to a contemporary and more
object-related concept where it is described as a valuable and necessary
component of the treatment process, from a one to a two-person transac-
tion. Freud viewed the patient's transference feelings as representing re-
pressed feelings and fantasies toward early significant others that were
unconsciously displaced onto the analyst. Transference was seen as an es-
sential vehicle for therapeutic progress. In contrast, countertransference
was viewed as an obstacle that the analyst had to eliminate through self-
examination or further psychoanalysis (Mitchell and Black, 1995). Klein
elaborated upon Freud's narrow view of transference by stating that pro-
jected elements in transference also included self-representations and mani-
festations of the id, ego and superego (Langs, 1981).
Interpersonalists and relational writers such as Hoffman (1983),
Mitchell (1993), Aron (1992), Gabbard (1995) and Fiscalini (1995a) have
also expanded the clinical importance and usefulness of countertransfer-
ence reactions and view transference and countertransference as mutual
creations by the patient and therapist. Transference ultimately shapes the
therapist's countertransference feelings, reactions and reveries, whereas the
therapist's countertransference partly determines the patient's transference
(Fiscalini, 1995b).
The dividing line in current approaches to countertransference involves
whether the therapist's countertransference reactions should be disclosed
to the patient. On the one hand, self-disclosure may interfere with the ex-
ploration and elaboration of the patient's negative reactions to the therapist
(Mitchell and Black, 1995) or their understanding of their therapist's cen-
tral conflicts (Aron, 1992). On the other hand, careful use of countertrans-
ference reactions may create new material for exploration and can facilitate
the analysis of deeply-rooted conflicts in treatment (Renik, 1993).
Interpersonal Conflict in Group Therapy 307

The present authors will illustrate how the feelings, private thoughts
and associations of the group therapist can be disclosed to patients without
revealing the specific content of the therapist's reactions. The therapist may
reveal to the patients his/her subjective experiences in the form of an in-
tervention that is related more to the current experience unfolding rather
than the transference aspects of the experience. The notions transference
and countertransference will also be viewed more as a dynamic and con-
tinual unfolding of subjective and intersubjective experiences between the
patient and analyst similar to that described by Ogden, rather than as dis-
crete pockets of experience within the analytic process. The present
authors' view of transference and countertransference also parallels a social
constructivist's notion of reality (Hoffrnan, 1992) where the individual is
constantly influencing experience by his/her unique and subjective way of
representing reality. According to this view, the therapeutic experience is
conceptualized more as a flow of experience that contains properties of
the patient's and therapist's subjective experiences constantly interacting in
a dynamic process from which new experiences emerge, such as with the
analytic third.
The following clinical example is presented to illustrate how the no-
tions of projective identification, subjectivities of experience and the ana-
lytic third can be used to describe and work through interpersonal conflict
in a group setting. The example depicts a group that was trapped in the
paranoid/schizoid position where the group members relied heavily on split-
ting, denial, projective identification and omnipotent thinking as a means
of protection against disturbing internal objects and feelings of annihilation.

Clinical Vignette

The group conflict emerged when Mr. C, an obsessive-compulsive man

with narcissistic defenses, confronted Mr. B, a homosexual suffering from
a narcissistic disorder, who mentioned that he intended to stop his medi-
cation (Prozac) because it made him feel drowsy and interfered with his
sexual performance. Mr. C responded in a very angry and demeaning man-
ner by saying to Mr. B. "So you want us to diagnose you and tell you what
to do!" Mr. B became silent momentarily and then said that he was just
looking for someone to tell him what he should do about the medication.
Mr. C said, again, in an angry tone to Mr. B, "Why don't you just do what
you feel is best for you which seems to be to stop the medication?" Mr.
B revealed that he already stopped the medication, but was concerned
about the side effects of being Prozac free. At that point, Mr. C's anger
and indignation escalated. He said that Mr. B encouraged him to give him
advice only to dismiss it, and that he did not truly seek group input. Mr.
308 Daniele and Gordon

B also became very angry and claimed that Mr. C was being insensitive.
The group then supported Mr. B, and felt enraged at Mr. C's arrogant and
hostile manner. Mr. C then attacked the group collectively by saying that
there was something wrong with all of them, and that they were unable to
understand what had transpired.
Mr. B and Mr. C were clearly engaged in a struggle with the entire
group. Negative aspects of the members' internal objects were being pro-
jected outward onto one another and deflected into the group into a full
blown conflict. The group leader remained silent leaving them on their own
to deal with the conflict. The group's initial response to the conflict was
fear that Mr. C's attack upon Mr. B would be damaging and push him
into a suicidal episode. The group members also denied their anger at Mr.
B for his incessant and insatiable need for caring and sympathy, for which
Mr. C had particular contempt. Instead of becoming aware of their anger,
they split it off and projected it onto Mr. C, who adopted a superior and
omnipotent attitude. The entire group was unaware of their projections
and were unable to neutralize the anger that continued to mount.
The tension in the group continued to escalate. Ms. A and Mr. D,
who were often silent members of the group, became more silent and with-
drew, while Mr. G, who often was very outspoken and protective of Mr.
B, became enraged at Mr. C. The group was at a stalemate, trapped in a
paranoid/schizoid position unable to resolve the dispute. At one point, Mr.
C even apologized for hurting Mr. B, but the group refused to accept it
and continued to criticize him for his aggressive behavior. Finally, Mr. C
adopted a superior and arrogant position toward the members, feeling that
they were all naive and inferior to him in their thinking.
The therapist focused on the subjective experiences and feelings of all
the members, and validated their subjective realities in an attempt to create
a feeling of safety in the group instead of probing for transferential mean-
ings underlying their affective states. The therapist, for example, supported
Mr. C's belief that he did not mean to hurt Mr. B. and that Mr. B was
indeed hurt. Mr. C's reality was also important in that he believed that he
did not want to hurt Mr. B, even though he had. Mr. C needed support
for his reality as well. However, the group continued to feel abandoned by
the therapist, and angry at him for allowing the conflict to continue.
At this point, the therapist started to experience the feeling that the
group could not contain the anger that was developing and that it was in
danger of collapsing. Images also emerged in the form of a reverie of a
childhood experience. He was getting ready to go into the backyard to play
in a hut that was built by him and his cousins who lived in the same neigh-
borhood. Suddenly, before he had the opportunity to reach the yard, he
could see fighting occur between his cousins resulting in the destruction of
Interpersonal Conflict in Group Therapy 309

the hut, with the walls and the roof collapsing into one big mess. This
reverie represented an analytic third experience as a result of the intersub-
jective experience of the conflict that emerged in the group, and the thera-
pist's own particular subjective history.
With this experience in mind, the therapist questioned the group col-
lectively by asking whether anyone was concerned about the group crum-
bling under the tension that was created by the conflict. This represented
a turning point for the group with the various transferences of the members
entering into their consciousness and being shared among them. Mr. D
and Ms. A started to discuss their discomfort and fear about the aggression
in the group. Mr. D also expressed concern about the therapist's ability to
handle the aggression in the group and fear that the group would disinte-
grate. This raised childhood associations for Mr. D about the chaos and
anger that was expressed in his home between his mother and father, and
fears that his family would fall apart. Mr. D elaborated on how Mr. C
reminded him of how terrified he was of his father. Ms. A followed with
her associations on how terrified she was of her father, and how she would
feel small and helpless. She said that she was feeling the same way in the
group during the conflict. Throughout this period of resolution, the group
reached a much greater feeling of intimacy than was previously experi-
enced.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper presented an analysis of how the notions of projective iden-

tification, the interplay between intersubjective and subjective states and
the analytic third can be applied in a group setting. The authors presented
a historically early object relational perspective anchored in Kleinian theory
with the focus on aggression in the transference. However, the paper also
included contemporary notions of relational theory by its emphasis on the
intersubjective play between the patient's and therapist's subjective experi-
ences.
The example also illustrated how the utilization of the notion of an
analytic third experience by the therapist can move a group that is trapped
in a paranoid/schizoid position into a more developmentally secure position
where the members can feel united and safe. Focus was achieved by the
leader of the group in realizing how the process of projective identification
was mobilized, and by the group, when the therapist disclosed his own
subjective experience to help the members resolve the conflict. One point
of view is that what enabled the therapist to move the group to a safer
place was the ability to project good aspects of the self into the group
310 Daniele and Gordon

in the form of concern and caring. The good aspects of the self were then
utilized by the members in a manner that allowed them to perceive their
conflict from the subjective experience of other members who represented
positions antagonistic to their own.
Another possible reason why the leader was able to mobilize the group
to a more secure position was the leader's ability to contain the group's
aggression without fear of retaliation or annihilation. The underlying pro-
jected dread experienced by the members was then restructured and pro-
jected back into the group in a more benign and protective manner. The
sense of safety that was created allowed group members to move to a 'po-
tential space' (Ogden, 1985) in which to discover and explore their own
transferential experiences with one another. The exploration of the trans-
ference was important in defusing the tension in the group and in deep-
ening the level of intimacy experienced by the members. As new material
was shared, each member continued to respond, thus creating new expe-
riences until, once again, conflict would emerge. The process will continue
to unfold in a dynamic fashion, maintaining the life force of the group
without which it could no longer exist.

REFERENCES

Aron, L. (1992). Interpretation as expression of the analyst's subjectivity. Psychoanalytic

Dialogues, 2(4), 475-508.
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from Experience. New York: Basic Books.
Brigham, P. (1992). Object relations and regression in groups. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, 42, 2, 247-266.
Fiscalini, J. (1995a). Transference and countertransference as interpersonal phenomenon. In
M. Lionells, J. Fiscalini, C. H. Mann, and D. Stern (Eds.), The Handbook oflnterpersonal
Psychoanalysis (pp 603-616). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Fiscalini, J. (1995b). The clinical analysis of transference. In M. Lionells, J. Fiscalini, C. H.
Mann, and D. Stern (Eds.), The Handbook oflnterpersonal Psychoanalysis, (pp 617-642).
Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Gabbard, G. O. (1995). Countertransference: The emerging common ground. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76, 475-485.
Ganzarain, R. (1992). Introduction to object relations group psychotherapy. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 42, 2, 205-223.
Hoffman, I. Z. (1983). The patient as interpreter of the analyst's experience. Contemporary
Psychoanalysis, 19, 389-422.
Hoffman, I. Z. (1992). Some practical implications of a social constructivistic view of the
analytic situation. Psychoana~tic Dialogues, 2, 287-304.
Joseph, B. (1988). Melanie Klein Today, Vol. 1: Mainly Theory (ed. E. Spillius). New York:
Routledge.
Klein, M. (1932). The Psycho-Analysis of Children. New York: Humanities Press.
Knapp, H. D. (1989). Projective identification: Whose projection--whose identity.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 6 (1), 47-58.
Langs, R. (I981). Classics in Psychoanalytic Technique. New York: Jason Aronson.
Malin, A. and Grotstein, J. (1966). Projective identification in the therapeutic process.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 47, 26-31.
Interpersonal Conflict in Group Therapy 311

Mitchell, S. and Black, M. J. (1995) Freud and Beyond. New York: Basic Books.
Mitchell, S. (1993). Hope and Dread in Psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.
Ogden, T. (1979). On projective identification. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60,
357-373.
Ogden, T. (1985). On potential space. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 66, 129-141.
Ogden, T. (1994). Subjects of Analysis. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Renik, O. (1993). Countertransference enactment and the analytic process. In M. Horowitz,
O. Kernberg, and E. Weinshel (Eds.), Psychic Structure and Psychic Change, (pp. 137-160).
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, New
York: International Universities Press.