This morning, I arrived at the conference at about 7:15 to attend the large group. Like a typical large group, the chairs were arranged in a spiral. Felix de Mendelssohn, who was leading the large group sat at the middle of the spiral. Seated a little further out where Haim Weinberg and Martha Gilmore, who had run the small group in previous years. I saw a friend that I knew from the mailing list and talked about trying to determine what sort of role should I take. Should I be the detached reporter or observer? Should I be an active participant? My friend encouraged me to be an active participant and noted that the role of participant-observer is common in research.

Some people in the group have come to many large groups at AGPA in the past and knew many stories about past leaders of the large groups. Other people were new to AGPA and this was their first large group. For me, it was an interesting combination. I've attened large groups in the Tavistock or Group Relations tradition. I had heard stories of previous large groups through the mailing list, and was friends with a few participants, yet at the same time, it was my first time at AGPA or an AGPA large group.

I left my laptop in its case. There was no wifi and no power outlets. I felt that the laptop might be too obtrusive. So, my comments here are based on my recollections after the fact. I've always enjoyed large groups. From my outsider perspective, especially as I would describe to the uninitiated, the large group is a chance for everyone to sit around share random associations, and learn something from and about the group as a whole. In a session filled with experienced group psychotherapists, it seems like an opportunity for people to make short, witty comments, full of nuance and psychological overtones. Is there competition in the large group to be the wittiest, most profound, or get the most attention? It sure seems so.

This group started off with playful banter around the transition of leaders. Concerns were expressed about whether or not the new leader was selected appropriately. People drew in parallels to the U.S. political situation as we look at replacing your leader through the electoral process, as well as whether of not the votes had been properly counted in the past or would be in the future. We danced around issues of how we mourn the loss of one leader, and our hopes for a new leader.

I explored the issue of hope a little bit, in terms of the group process, our hopes for the leader of the large group and the role of hope in the U.S. elections. In doing so, I spoke about my role as a blogger, or member of the press. I have yet to see another press pass, and people seem very curious about me, as a member of the press.

Given the confidentiality of therapeutic work, my presence provides more grist for the participants, not only myself as I try to navigate the boundary between participant and observer, and respect what should or shouldn't be said from or about the large group, but also for others as they think about their reactions and the possible observation and writing about them. Because of trying to respect some of this, this blog post may seem a bit bland compared to the actual event.