Response to ‘Glover, Bowlby, psychiatry, Bion and the War Office Selection Boards’ by Christine Vickers

History too often is seen as a pleasant dessert to the hard work of the main course of daily practice. Something to be read in one’s spare time. Unfortunately, this leaves the tree without roots. The continuing debate between the group analytic approach and that of the Tavistock is an obvious example of a controversy deeply embedded in the past. Attempts to overcome the division have to recognize the different traditions or they are likely to fail. Exploring the history of group therapies both offers new perspectives and an understanding of the social trajectory in which we are embedded, as well as an opportunity to review preconceptions about the actors. In responding to Christine Vickers’ glimpse into our controversial past (Vickers, 2023) I will take up two issues, the neglected role of Edward Glover at the British Psycho-Analytical Society and the uncertainties around the development of group practice in the British Army. At the heart of the conflict at the British Psycho-Analytical Society was the concern to preserve an untainted theory against heresy. As Eric Rayner has observed practitioners who use psychoanalysis in the service of others can be accused of watering it down, or ‘obscuring, analytic essentials, whilst those who maintain a “pure” position may be accused of “sterile self-absorption” (Rayner, 1996: 259–60)’. Those who worked in the British Army found themselves facing practical issues that enforced solutions that were psychoanalytically informed, but employed techniques derived from other schools of thought. Thomas Kuhn has ably demonstrated how we cling on to received wisdom in the face of overwhelming evidence, until a 1188701 GAQ0010.1177/05333164231188701Group AnalysisHarrison: Response to Vickers research-article2023