Transactional Analysis Journal 2013 Van Beekum 347 51

8/12/2019 Transactional Analysis Journal 2013 Van Beekum 347 51

1/6

http://tax.sagepub.com/Transactional Analysis Journal

http://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0362153713518174

2013 43: 347 originally published online 10 January 2014Transactional Analysis JournalServaas van Beekum

Changing the Focus: The Impact of Sibling Issues on Group Dynamics

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Transactional Analysis Association

can be found at:Transactional Analysis JournalAdditional services and information for

http://tax.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tax.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 10, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 3, 2014Version of Record>>

by Bisttran Rodica on April 29, 2014tax.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Bisttran Rodica on April 29, 2014tax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347http://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347http://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347http://www.sagepublications.com/http://itaaworld.org/http://tax.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tax.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tax.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tax.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/10/0362153713518174.full.pdfhttp://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347.full.pdfhttp://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347.full.pdfhttp://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tax.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/10/0362153713518174.full.pdfhttp://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tax.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tax.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://itaaworld.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/content/43/4/347http://tax.sagepub.com/


2/6

Article

Changing the Focus:

The Impact of Sibling Issueson Group Dynamics

Servaas van Beekum

Abstract

The author explores the impact of a shift in focus from the classical vertical orientation in psy-

chotherapy and consulting to a lateral-horizontal orientation within a two-person psychological

frame. He discusses sibling transferences in group dynamics and illustrates these ideas with a case

vignette drawn from his experience with a training group.

Keywords

siblings, transference, group work, relational approach, holding, loss

Over the last decade or so, I have become increasingly interested in sibling issues in consulting andtherapy. This has all to do with my personal background of being the fifth child in a family of nine.

One of the challenging aspects in my own journey of training and being on the couch has been to

acknowledge the profound effect my siblings had on me and that it was not all about my parents

and parental messages. Bernes (1972) script apparatus (p. 110) and vertical psychotherapeutic

orientation did not work for me. Once I acknowledged this, the challenge became to have the dis-

cussions with my peers, my trainees, and my analyst, who often were, like me, initially not pre-

pared to think into a lateral frame. Struggling between my classical training in the vertical

paradigm and the emerging new evidence of horizontal influences on script building, I started

to embrace interpretations of script impact from a more horizontal perspective. A breakthrough

publicationcall it a peer permissionwas Juliet Mitchells (2003) bookSiblings,in which she,

in a scholarly and passionate manner, challenged the near exclusive dominance of vertical com-

prehension to the interaction of the horizontal and the vertical in our social and psychological

understanding (p. 1).

In 2012 the Australian Centre for Integrative Studies organized a conference in Sydney with the

title Allies & Enemies: The Role of Real and Metaphorical Siblings in Our Psychological World.

Probably the most profound insight from that conference was how, as therapists or consultants, we

actually move continuously between the vertical and the horizontal or lateral dynamic in relation-

ships with our clients. We are all familiar with the vertical (oedipal) paradigm in consulting and

psychotherapy. The background for the dominance of the oedipal is extensively described by Lamb

Corresponding Author:

Servaas van Beekum, 158 Wellington Street, Bondi Beach 2026, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Transactional Analysis Journal

2013, Vol. 43(4) 347-351

International Transactional Analysis

Association, 2014

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0362153713518174

ta.sagepub.com

by Bisttran Rodica on April 29, 2014tax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ta.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://ta.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


3/6

and Sutton-Smith (1982), Mitchell (2003), Coles (2003, 2006), Sanders (2004), Lewin and Sharp

(2009), and van Beekum (2009, 2013).

Twenty-five years ago, theTransactional Analysis Journal(Friedlander & Bonds-White, 1988)

devoted a theme issue to TA and Children, with contributions from Clarkson and Fish, Shmukler

and Friedman, Massey, and Campos, among others. They reflected the zeitgeist in which all issues in

child therapy or even systems therapy are considered part of the vertical orientation. Extended fam-

ilies are extended in the vertical (grandparents), hardly ever in the horizontal. The concept ofsibling

is missing in that theme issue of theTAJ.One of the articles for which Cornell (1988) won the 2010

Eric Berne Memorial Award challenged the focus on the vertical intrapsychic dimension of script

theory, later elaborated by Summers and Tudor (2000) and van Beekum (2009).

Since then, the horizontal dimension has been gaining ground.

Those who study children are, of course, adults. As psychotherapists and consultants we study the

Child in our clients by observing and engaging with it. One of the unintended side effects of this may

be that, unwillingly and unconsciously, the vertical parent-child relationship is replicated in our

mode of research. Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis practice this form of research, which hasbecome the template for most consulting work as well as for teaching, coaching, and counseling.

We explore a mode of research in which the transference onto the therapist/consultant of the clients

unresolved issues about his or her parents is a central avenue of investigation. As part of that, we

have developed skills, insights, and resilience for being on the receiving end of the clients transfer-

ence. Consultants and psychotherapists, on the one side, and clients, on the other, (unconsciously)

act in their roles in this well-defined vertical paradigm. As therapists/consultants we take up our role

with our clients from early on in the process, for which interpretations into the vertical oedipal frame

match remarkably well. The original Freudian one-person psychology model (Stark, 1999; Tudor,

2011) applies this quite one-dimensionally to the clients transference, reenacted in the here and now

of the relationship. A two-person relational psychology model extends this research to the consul-tants countertransference toward the client, in which unresolved issues of the consultant, reenacted

in the here and now of the sessions, play a role as well.

We need to expand these transference paradigms in two directions. The first is to include and

inquire about those transferences that stem from our clients sibling relationships, something

I argued for in an earlier publication (van Beekum, 2009). The client may project a brother or sister

onto the consultant or psychotherapist, not only a parent. As professionals in our role, however, we

may have difficulty accepting and researching sibling transference from our clients. Not only are we

not prepared and trained for it, we also may unconsciously resist the experience of the injury of being

demoted from a parent to a sibling in the clients transference.

The second direction we need to expand into is for the psychotherapist or consultant to reflect

on whether our countertransference comes from our own sibling background and is not, a priori,

a figment of a parent-child relationship. This may be particularly hard when we fear that sibling-

related countertransference is forbidden ground or seen as unprofessional.

Most consultants and therapists are not trained for expansion in either of these directions. In her

analysis of Byatts (1993) tale of intersecting hysterias entitled The Chinese Lobster, Dent (2009)

pointed out the difficulty for clinicians of accessing the horizontal axis and how poorly trained

we are for that possibility. Mitchell (2009) added, This, I believe, is because in our training we have

rarely met with an understanding of lateral transferencesthese are seen to happen only elsewhere,

such as in our jealousy of those coming after us, siblings in the waiting room (p. 170).

We are groomed to interpret the dynamic in the consulting room in terms of a vertical paradigm

and it suits us: The vertical feeds our hidden wishes to be important. When the potential of horizontalsibling transference is experienced, shown, or even named by the client, we quickly bring it back to

the safe and known territory of the vertical, labeling the clients interpretation as defensive resis-

tance or a game. But, perhaps the client is right, and it is not a form of resistance or an invitation

348 Transactional Analysis Journal 43(4)

http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/


4/6

to a power game when the client does not recognize parent transference or is angry with the consul-

tant as a reflection of transference related to a sibling, not a parent. Equally, there is a challenge for

the consultant or therapist to work with the sibling links in their own countertransferences. When my

client bores me, it may reenact my boring siblings, not my boring parents.

This change of paradigm has an impact on psychotherapists, consultants, and analysts. To work

with sibling transference interpretations is probably one of the greater challenges in our professions

today. Bank and Kahn (1982) suggested that the neutral stance that predominates in more analyti-

cally oriented therapies often stimulates a parent-child dependency. Sensale (2009) made the link

with humanistic psychologies when she argued that an approach that veers towards the humanistic,

person-centered point on the spectrum may more readily facilitate the emergence of a sibling trans-

ference (para. 25). Therefore, transactional analysis, with its analytic and humanistic roots, is in an

interesting place with regard to these dynamics.

Consulting to groups can more easily include attention to sibling dynamics than one-on-one

psychotherapy. Sibling-fueled transference exists in a group (a team, an organization) among the

participants often long before the consultant steps in. The challenge is to open up to the sibling levelof the group imago. The consultant works both as a potential peer (i.e., joining in) and as a potential

parent (i.e., holding the siblings).

Case Study

For more than 25 years, I have offered transactional analysis training in combination with group

relations theory. My preferred approach is relational transactional analysis because it focuses

actively on unconscious process on both the individual and the group level. Group relations theory,

despite its Kleinian roots, is actually, in its methodology, very relational, which fits with thisapproach well. Those who enter the training course are interested to learn experientially first and

conceptually second about unconscious process in groups and organizations and appreciate the inte-

gration with relational transactional analysis. The trainees are a mixture of senior managers, human

relations (HR) executives, learning and development staff, team leaders, and free-floating consul-

tants, coaches, and psychotherapists.

In each of the annual 20 days of training, one full hour is spent on the study of the unconscious

elements of process in the training group itself, from a here-and-now, experiential perspective.

When trainees are participants in this experience, I operate as a consultant to their process. After the

hour, we spend about 30 minutes reflecting on the process from a theoretical perspective. This is

where experience is integrated with theory.

After reading Mitchells (2003) book, I found my way of consulting to the group process sessions

changing. I started to pick up more lateral issues in the group, issues among the group members

themselves, instead of focusing on vertical issues related to me as the consultant.

This came, however, with a sense of loss. Although I had expected that, I was not prepared for the

intensity of the feeling. Vertical issues are inclusive of me as a consultant in projected positions of

power and authority, which goes with a sense of importance that potentially feeds into my narcis-

sism. Vertical issues are also familiar because I am well trained to work with transferential issues

related to my authority, good or bad, present or absent, supportive or abusive. When a client group

works with those themes, I am part of the picture. I am rather central in their search for understand-

ing, in their rejection of me, or in their struggle to work with me in my role as a consultant to their

process.In contrast, horizontal issues often do not actively include me as the consultant. The work is, first

of all, between group members, with me as a containing consultant in the background. To leave the

dynamic with the group, supporting them in working with it and not taking it back to myself as the

van Beekum 349



5/6

consultant, forced me into an inescapable learning curve. I often felt left out and not important in the

group, which are unfamiliar feelings for me in a consulting role.

In one of my latest training groups there were eight participants representing large- and small-size

family backgrounds and carrying eldest, middle, youngest, and single children histories. The

dynamic over the year of training started with peer issues related to professional competency, envy,

and rivalry and turned increasingly into sibling strife and sibling love. On a personal level, it repre-

sented awareness growing curves for all involved; on a group level it showed how group members

could take responsibility for part of the collective group dynamic by joining in emotions and actions

that were carried by one or two members of the group. The work was often painful and triggered a

sense of shame about the exposure. Because this was not a counseling group but a group learning

about group process, the depth of learning was not in terms of counseling individuals through their

pain but in taking personal responsibility for what was expressed by any group member who acted as

a mouthpiece for the group. As a consultant, my role was mainly to contain that process and keep it

on track where it belonged: among them.

The loss I experienced was the loss of being on top of the vertical and being projected on as thecentral father figure who could be either hated, fought, and killed off or loved, admired, and

embraced. And everything in between. Instead, my presence was often felt as bland. At times I had

the image of being like a grandparent sitting knitting in the corner while the kids worked out their

issues. It was a loss of status, a loss of importance, and a loss of self-indulgence in that dynamic. My

contributions were more about them and not so much about them and me. I felt more humble and

there were moments when I started to experience admiration and sometimes gratitude at witnessing

such profound work among the trainees. And while my sense of pride to see them come through was

growing, I realized that there was still a good deal of vertical dynamic in the room, picked up and

experienced by me as my silent internal parental pride about how well they were doing. At the same

time, I was also envious. Being left out, I wanted to be part of them, I wanted to share their dynamic.I realized that I was watching something that was healing for me as it touched my own history of

not-well-worked-out issues between me and my real-life siblings.

The complexity of these experiences increased my awareness of the many layers of containment.

One of them is just witnessing and sitting with the groups process, which provided the environment

the training group needed to feel safe enough to experiment with each other.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication

of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Australian Centre for Integrative Studies (ACIS) (2012, 23-24 March).Allies & enemies: The role of real and

metaphorical siblings in our psychological world. Conference sponsored by the Australian Centre for

Integrative Studies, Sydney, Australia.Bank, S., & Kahn, M. (1982). The sibling bond. New York, NY: Basic Books

Berne, E. (1972).What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of human destiny. New York, NY: Grove

Press.

350 Transactional Analysis Journal 43(4)



6/6

Byatt, A. (1993). The Chinese lobster. In A. Byatt,The Matisse stories(pp. 93134). New York, NY: Random

House.

Coles, P. (2003).The importance of sibling relationships. London, England: Karnac Books.

Coles, P. (Ed.). (2006).Sibling relationships. London, England: Karnac Books.

Cornell, W. F. (1988). Life script theory: A critical review from a developmental perspective. Transactional

Analysis Journal,18, 270282.

Dent, V. (2009). Reply to Juliet Mitchell: Siblings in clinical work. Psychoanalytic Dialogues,19, 171174.

Friedlander, M. G, & Bonds-White, F. (Eds.). (1988). TA and children [Theme issue]. Transactional Analysis

Journal,18(2).

Lamb, M., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1982).Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan .

London, England: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewin, V., & Sharp, B. (Eds.). (2009). Siblings in development: A psychoanalytical view. London, England:

Karnac Books.

Mitchell, J. (2003). Siblings: Sex and violence. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Mitchell, J. (2009). The bright forms: Commentary on paper by Vivian Dent. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 19,169170.

Sanders, R. (2004).Sibling relationships: Theory and issues for practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sensale, C. (2009). The significance of siblings. Contemporary Psychotherapy,1(2). Retrieved fromhttp://

contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-1-no2/the-significance-of-siblings/

Stark, M. (1999). Modes of therapeutic action: Enhancement of knowledge, provision of experience and

engagement in relationship. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Summers, G., & Tudor, K. (2000). Cocreative transactional analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 30,

2340.

Tudor, K. (2011). Understanding empathy. Transactional Analysis Journal, 41, 3957.

van Beekum, S. (2009). Siblings, aggression, and sexuality: Adding the lateral.Transactional Analysis Journal,39, 129135.

van Beekum, S. (2013). The murderous sibling. Manuscript in preparation.

Author Biography

Servaas van Beekum,drs., Teaching and Supervising Transactional Analyst, has a background in

analytic, humanistic, and systemic modalities. He is a past president of both EATA and the ITAA and

a founder of Group Relations Nederland (1992) and Group Relations Australia (2005), both of

which promote the study of unconscious process in groups and organizations. He works globally

as a psychodynamic consultant, trainer, and supervisor and is the author of more than 20 articles.Servaas lives in Sydney, where he is the director of the consulting training arm of the Australian

Centre for Integrative Studies (ACIS) (www.acissydney.com.au). He can be reached at 158 Welling-

ton Street, Bondi Beach 2026, Australia; email: [email protected].

van Beekum 351

http://contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-1-no2/the-significance-of-siblingshttp://contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-1-no2/the-significance-of-siblingshttp://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://tax.sagepub.com/http://contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-1-no2/the-significance-of-siblingshttp://contemporarypsychotherapy.org/vol-1-no2/the-significance-of-siblings

Transactional Analysis Journal 2013 Van Beekum 347 51

Documents

Transcript of Transactional Analysis Journal 2013 Van Beekum 347 51