{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018711018711018712, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002598752598752599, 'mean_word_length': 5.189710610932476, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Boundary Problem From the Standpoint of Academic Self-Analytic Groups

tension between opposing tendencies of personal boundary maintenance and boundary loss when people become members of groups. The significance of this research is that it suggests a psychosocial basis for group structure and dynamics. The sequence of developmental stages frequently observed in training, self-analytic and therapy groups can be explained in terms of recurring individual and group boundary concerns. The cyclical or pendular quality of group development reflects efforts to establish group equilibrium based on attempts to meet the opposing needs of autonomy or separateness and fusion with the group. For example, Hartman & Gibbard (in Gibbard, Hartman & Mann, Eds., The Analysis of Groups, Z974:Z54ff), who perhaps follow through the developmental implications of this thesis more than any other researchers, argue that the group, during the early stages of its evolution, is perceived as a maternal entity where the relative absence of differentiation and individuation conjures up fantasies of fusion with the group. They argue that this stage of group life is much like the &dquo;pre-oedipal&dquo; period of family life in which object relations between children and parents are based on very primitive and relatively undifferentiated perceptions of self and other. In this initial situation the attachment of members to the group and the leader is a highly ambivalent one the maternal group entity is experienced as being both warm and supportive and fearful and malevolent whereas the (male) leader, likened to the oedipal father by Hartman and Gibbard, is perceived to have power over the group-mother but to be free and independent at the same time. His autonomy is both exciting and anxiety provoking because it symbolises the freedom that comes with autonomy and the loss of security that comes from fusion with the group.