Redefining symbolic authority in contemporary societies: a group-analytic perspective on the transformation of the social bond

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56217/forum.vol14.107

Keywords:

symbolic authority, paternal function, group analysis, dependency, anxiety, artificial intelligence

Abstract

Contemporary societies are undergoing a profound transformation in the symbolic organization of authority, dependency, and belonging. This paper proposes that the current crisis of authority should be interpreted not merely as political or institutional instability, but as a breakdown of symbolic containment at the level of the social unconscious. Drawing on group-analytic theory, key psychoanalytic perspectives, sociological analyses of civilizing processes, and the concept of the social imaginary, the paper explores how the erosion of symbolic authority destabilizes psychic organization and relational structures, giving rise to disturbances that reverberate through personal, dynamic, and foundational submatrices. Attention is given to the weakening of the paternal function, the “dead father effect,” and the emergence of regressive collective formations such as aggregation and massification. The analysis further examines how digital acceleration and artificial intelligence intensify these dynamics by compressing symbolic delay and technologizing dependency. By integrating Byung Chul Han’s reflections on the disappearance of ritual, the paper shows how the loss of shared forms diminishes containment and fuels messianic longings and permissive forms of authority. It concludes that the crisis of symbolic authority may represent both peril and potential: while it fosters polarization and authoritarian regression, it also opens conditions for reconstituting containment through dialogical, group-based, and reflective forms of authority beyond domination.

References

Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Polity Press.

Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process. Blackwell.

Foulkes, S. H. (1975). Group-analytic psychotherapy: method and principles. Gordon & Breach.

Foulkes, S. H. (1984). Therapeutic group analysis. Karnac.

Foulkes, S. H., & Anthony, E. J. (1957). Group psychotherapy: the psychoanalytic approach. Maresfield.

Green, A. (1986). On private madness. Hogarth Press.

Han, B.-C. (2015). The burnout society. Stanford University Press.

Han, B.-C. (2017). The disappearance of rituals: a topology of the present. Polity Press.

Hopper, E. (2003a). The social unconscious: selected papers. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hopper, E. (2003b). Traumatic experience in the unconscious life of groups. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Hopper, E. (2009). The theory of the basic assumption of incohesion: aggregation/massification or (ba) I:A/M. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 25(2), 214-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0118.2009.01116.x

Hopper, E. (2012). Introduction. In: Hopper, E. (Ed.), Trauma and organizations. Karnac.

Hopper, E. (2024). The tripartite matrix: Foundation, dynamic, and personal matrices in group analysis. Routledge.

Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits. W.W. Norton.

Penna, C. (2023). From crowd psychology to the dynamics of large groups: The social unconscious and social trauma. Routledge.

Žižek, S. (2001). Did somebody say totalitarianism?: five interventions in the (mis)use of a notion. Verso Books.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-13

Issue

Section

Original Paper