This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Shambaugh, P. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Mythic Structure of Bion's Groups

Harvard Medical School

Despite its continuing influence, Bion's theory of small groups remains obscure. This paper hypothesizes that his basic assumption groups are shared fantasies, explicated by certain widespread societal myths and by recent studies of religious symbolism. The dependency group is homologous to the myth of the primordial earthly paradise and the dependency fight-flight group to three mythical versions of the fall of man. Similar to all sacred symbolisms, the basic assumption groups synthesize the members' images of the group with certain emotional states, give philosophical meaning to the existential crises through which the group must pass, and interpret and shape the ongoing working group.

Human Relations, Vol. 38, No. 10, 937-951 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/001872678503801002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. L. Mcleod and R. B. Kettner-Polley Contributions of Psychodynamic Theories to Understanding Small Groups Small Group Research, June 1, 2004; 35(3): 333 - 361. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. White, M. C. Mcmillen, and A. C. Baker Challenging Traditional Models: Toward an Inclusive Model of Group Development Journal of Management Inquiry, March 1, 2001; 10(1): 40 - 57. [PDF]

				G. B. Adams Organizational Metapaiterns: Tacit Relationships in Organizational Culture Administration Society, August 1, 1993; 25(2): 139 - 159. [Abstract]