My role as President of GASi includes this pleasant task, of welcoming you to our Winter Workshop, on the theme of Leadership and Authority.  You are, indeed, all, very welcome, and we are grateful to our St Petersburg colleagues for inviting us to convene the workshop here.
Group Analysis has crossed borders, taken root in different languages, cultures and histories, and created a society, which, as a reflection of that process, increasingly sees itself as an international body.

There is an issue of authority, contained in the idea of achieving an international identity.  GASi is marked by its origins; yet its capacity to survive and flourish depends on being able to adapt so as to allow all of its members to recognise themselves within its structure.  What forms of governance, authority and leadership are needed?  Is there a will to think about these matters in the context of an organisation of group analysts?  Is there, indeed, such a thing as a group analytic organisation? If there is, would we expect it to develop distinctive forms of leadership? How would authority be structured, managed and understood? In what ways do different forms of leadership derive from changing structures of authority, at different stages of development? And – something that I ask myself - what does the title of President tell us about our current view of the type of internal and external authority that is appropriate to our society?

Perhaps we can tell ourselves that these questions have been addressed and resolved, and that GASi constitutes the answer. Alternatively, we may need to find opportunities to again address questions, such as these, against a background of global crises of authority, leadership and democratic forms.  This workshop may, in part, represent such an opportunity.

How we use and understand terms like ‘authority’, ‘power’ and ‘leadership’ is ideological and contested.  Their meanings shift, as social relationships change.  In our different states, we will discover different assumptions about the meaning and value of authority.  In every case, though, authority is defined through its being challenged from within, as well as from outside, the group in which it is rooted. In a Foulkesian context, healthy authority is capable of being challenged.
The issue of authority is present, in every group.  Authority can be seen as that which lends form, or structure, to relationships both within a group and with the rest of the world.  It holds things together. Authority arises out of faith, habit, tradition, expertise and formal legitimacy. Authority is that which seems to promise security, through knowledge, conviction or access to higher powers.

The issue of authority, in any group, is never entirely resolved internally, within the group. There is always an external influence, which plays a part in defining legitimacy and modifying power relationships in the group. The child’s development involves increasing awareness of the context and limits of parental authority; in the therapy group, transferences which reflect earliest forms of authority combine with awareness of the individuals’ and the group’s emerging authority, to create the possibility of new forms of mutual dependence and adulthood.

It is interesting to wonder why GASi chooses to have a ‘President’.  What is the value of that figure and what does he or she hold for the Society?  The title hints at some form of leadership whilst at the same time declaring to the world something of the status that we wish to be accorded to our organisation.

Although the title of president may have connotations of power and leadership, I prefer to draw on the model of president as one who represents a unifying influence.  This links my picture of the president’s task with my view of the role of conductor, who also, I believe, has, as a fundamental objective, the maintenance of the integrity of the group, sometimes in the face of schismatic, scapegoating or polarising forces.

In a period which is often characterised by powerful polarising forces, it becomes increasingly difficult to conceive of a unifying authority. This may signal the exhaustion of existing forms of authority, a longing for new forms and the means to develop these.  At the same time, the breakdown of generally recognised authorities spawns forms of leadership, which become effectively unaccountable.

It’s a very good moment for us to be meeting to think together about our different relationships to authority and its place in our lives.

So, again, welcome…