Mission Statement of Lacanian Attachment Analysis.

The present world looks increasingly a dangerous and unpredictable environment and few people would deny this. So what is to be done? Many of the arguments are concentrated on large strategies. rather than tactics tailored to problems - whether local or global.

Lacanian Attachment Analysts have invented ³thinking tools² that can help people think about working on particular and specific contradictions. The problematic can be small, local or just two persons right through to the global and international.

The kernel or core of Lacanian Attachment Analysis is our distinction between Creative Versus Destructive Fighting. We have drawn upon the work of psychoanalysts, political thinkers, historians, anthropologists, scientists, economists, artists, musicians, et al.
Key figures in our thinking are Hegel, Marx, Freud, John Bowlby, Jacques Lacan, Wilhelm Reich, Alice Miller, Wilfred Bion, Donald Winnicott,Karen Horney, Eric Hobsbawm, George Monbiot, Susie Orbach, Valerie Sinason, Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu, Marcos of Mexico, Michael Moore and religious radicals through the ages.

At its simplest we say that creative fighting of all kinds aims to disarm the Other whereas Destructive Fighting aims to dismember the Other. If this work is of use to someone who reads our site then that unique person with her or his unique take on the small or large world will be aided in working on the problematics that concern her or him.

If our work is as useful as we think it is, then two protagonists with opposing views could both use it to argue for their particular and personal opposing viewpoints. However, as with all socio-political statements our work is not ³neutral². We predict that any religious or political ideology that feels it is OK to dismember some Other (physically or organizationally) then its proponents will find our frameworks distasteful. A current application of this work is on Hidden Tribal Dynamics in Organisations. (see p2)

>From 2003 how can we replace destructive fighting with creative fighting? Elizabeth London posed this as:

Without creative fighting our species will produce personal, social and world environmental abuse.

Please explore our site www.lacanianattachmentanalysts.com
(Launched Jan 02 -10,707 hits in the last 6 months)
John Southgate and Elizabeth London. Jan 03.
e-mail johngate@dircon.co.uk
mail 12 Nassington Rd, London NW3 2UD, UK
Tel. 020 7 435 2663, Fax 020 7 433 1263

Hidden Tribal Dynamics in Organisations

Bion in Experiences in Groups noticed what we now call Hidden Tribal Dynamics. He was working with small therapy groups of less than 12 persons. He called these three dynamics basic assumption groups. We name these as the unconscious tribal dynamics we have inherited from our ancestors - in Lacan¹s terms it is the law of the (dead) Father.

The basic assumption of Fight-flight (baFF) is led by someone who will indiscriminately fight or flee. Bion says rudely, but accurately that the group unconsciously chooses the most psychiatrically sick paranoid member to lead it to fight or flee. He argues that its archetype is the army general or warrior. In attachment terms it is anxious and chaotic attachment. Lacan¹s law of the the (dead) Father prevails to defend against real, imaginary or symbolic threats to the group¹s survival,

The second Basic assumption group is baP or Pairing. Leadership is with the Royal King-Father\Queen-Mother\Prince\Princess. There is a phantasy that they will produce a baby who will ensure the survival of the dynasty and its royal subjects. The attachment dynamic is the Anxious Ambivalent relation - moving towards against and away (Karen Horney). Underlying is the ambivalence of the infant¹s desire to be loved and fear of abandonment. The third basic Assumption group is baD or dependency. The child¹s desire is for secure attachment but is replaced by anxious resistance. In Jungian terms the desire is for the magical Mother Archetype who will sooth away all fears.The feature of all the basic assumptions of baD, baP, baFF is that they are defences against a lack, a gap, an agonising deficit in the attachment needs in the family, group, organisation, tribe, nation. These are social structures that defend against the lack of wants, needs, desires and demands for security and creativity. It is the story of our species trying to reach its desires in the face of frustration, aggression, cruelty and oppression but tending to produce destructive fighting.

Creative and orgasmic dynamics.

But all is not misery and damnation. There is love and liberation too.
Bion posits a W or work group where the group seeks leaders who can promote co-operation and love. Bion did not develop this much. He saw it as allowing productive work and relationships. Bowlby and Ainsworth named the Secure Attachment that arises from Mom-baby and family which is the precondition for creative fighting. John Southgate (1976) called this the Creative Orgasmic Cycles of Nurturing, Energising, and Relaxing, (after Wilhelm Reich). So, the central contradiction of our times is how the hell can we promote love and creativity in these troubled times - what Nancy Hollander calls ³love in a time of hate².

John Southgate & Elizabeth London. London January 2003