31

What kind of ambivalent, and even paradoxical, relationships do group analysts maintain in their clinical practices with groupality, when seen in terms of the effects, phenomena and group processes mobilised? In what way do the latter introduce an element of the uncanny (inquiétante étrangété) into the difficulty of identifying and differentiating what belongs specifically to the subject in his singularity and what is induced by the place that he occupies and which is attributed to him not only in his group of belonging or professional group but also in the psychotherapy groups, team supervision groups or groups for analysing practice (from which the analyst or analysts themselves cannot be excluded)?If the group, in the unconscious dimension of its effects that open out onto a necessary epistemological decentring, was originally unfamiliar to psychoanalysis (except for applied analysis), we can bet that, in spite of practices (undertaken in spite of everything within the framework of the extensions of psychoanalysis), it is still sometimes largely unfamiliar to the psychoanalyst who has difficulty in operating the Keplerian decentring that is implied and required by any form of multi-subjective analytic work.Accepting the implications of an extratopographical psychic reality, which would thus not be wholly located in the subject, does not simply involve methodological modifications or epistemological accommodations, but implies an ontological break.