The fact that most participants stayed home and joined the session on their mobile phone, was a serious impediment to group interactions, because not everyone could see everyone else. This led to the development of large group’s typical dynamic within a small group process. The topics were more “basic,” such as men/women, us/them, etc., and were not specific or [related to the] interpersonal relations among group members themselves. Interactions more [frequently] took the form of alternating monologues. The effect was completely flat and was reflected in extremely long periods of silence or a peak in the form of a very emotional discussion in which participants were on the verge of losing control…. It should also be noted that even when there were no technical problems and everyone was present, it was very difficult to manage “group discourse” due to the impaired dynamics, where each person had to speak separately, and when one group member interrupted another (even in error, because she thought that the speaker had finished), this cut off the national flow [of the discussion]. An increasing number of group members chose to be passive. It seems that groups were less able to support an “independent center of initiative,” as Kohut taught us.
Judith also encountered “flat discourse,” even when sessions were conducted on PCs and laptops. She described the phenomenon in her interview summary:
… it was often difficult to motivate the group to e-motion, to real action. As if we froze behind the screens, missing the human and emotional, intra-personal and interpersonal encounter. However, and this is an important reservation, despite the difficulties, we succeeded to work…The Zoom did not allow spontaneous discourse. I noticed a minority of conversations between the group members. I found myself encouraging the participants to relate to each other and give and receive feedback, much more than usual.
Therapists also expressed some resistance to using Zoom, even in groups that had some prior experience working with Zoom and had a relatively large degree of openness to remote psychotherapy work. Yehudit courageously described her feelings in the early stage of the pandemic:
I came with a fear of [working on] Zoom. I came with a lot of reluctance, both conscious and unconscious, about handling Zoom and initial attempts to impose my [psychodramatic] techniques on something that I didn’t think was going to work…
Gil also explains:
I should note that I have been conducting therapy on video for several years. Mainly with clients who live far away. At first I objected to therapy on video because I didn’t feel that it could offer us the ability to feel the connection, which is necessary in therapy. But, over the years I learned that if we have already met and experienced therapy face-to-face, considerable parts of the therapy can be conducted on video with good results. I should note that in the Corona period, this was the first time…that my entire practice in my private and public clinic was [conducted] on video.
