ABSTRACT
Looking through this book as though I was a reader not an author, which is almost impossible to do since self-observation is always biased, I was struck by one motif than seemed to be present in every chapter. The theme I observed was, that when I told the story of the various groups it became obvious that most groups had developed very individual meanings and procedures. Traditionally, when writers discuss the theory behind group process they note how it conformed to Yalom (1995) and Corey’s (1990) basic principles. It was striking how the impact of mental health providers and the severity of the client’s problems had forced drastic modifications of these principles. Both the above experts laid out the normal evolution of group process, and their guidelines still are important, however, the external pressures and cultural shifts have had high impact on the classic interpretation of group. It is still true that we strive for a cohesive group involvement—but think of the composition of so many groups today. It is not reasonable to expect attention deficit boys to move in the direction of trust in the same manner or at the same pace that an eating disorders women’s group advances. Every group is created in the frame of its context and content. I have tried to show how the language of art informs the therapist about the internal and external factors at work in the process. Examples of these deviations from the classic mold make up the body of this text.
