Whether by constitution and temperament, by personal inclination or by group selection, the scapegoat is ultimately a non-conformist. If this non-conformist potential is not too insistently and self-destructively expressed, it may be employed by the group to lever itself from a simple dual opposition between leader and led to a more differentiated and evenly-distributed exchange between the group members themselves. The change is one from compliance and suggestibility to self-initiative and social responsibility. The scapegoat may be used to facilitate this transition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agazarian, Y.
(1991) `Discussion on Paper by Keith Hyde I: The Systems-centred Perspective', Group Analysis24(3): 289-293.
2.
Bion, W.R.
(1961) Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock Publications.
3.
Foulkes, S.H.
(1948) Introduction to Group Analytic Psychotherapy. London: Heinemann. Reprinted London: Karnac, 1983.
4.
Foulkes, S.H.
(1964) Therapeutic Group Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin. Reprinted London: Karnac, 1984.
