Are groups necessarily destructive? This question is the focus of Cynthia Burack's new book. To address it, she constructs a conversation among psychoanalytic political theorists, psychoanalytic group theorists, and black feminist theorists. As the structure of the book makes clear, Burack hopes to broaden her audience to readers unfamiliar with any or all of these discourses. She intends to convince students of politics and feminists (particularly black feminists) that psychoanalytic theory can contribute much to understanding the dynamics of that ubiquitous feature of political life, groups. Furthermore, she wants to bridge the disciplinary gap between those who study groups and those who engage in discourse analysis. Discourse analysts are presently primarily located in humanities and cultural studies, and when they employ psychoanalytic thinking, it tends to be the Lacanian strand. Burack argues for a different tack, psychoanalytic object relations theory, particularly as articulated by Wilfred Bion, D. W. Winnicott, and Melanie Klein.

While she intends to instigate a conversation among equals, the reader senses that the most important dialogue is between Burack and psychoanalytic political theorists. These theorists are the primary source cited for the proposition that groups are necessarily destructive. Theorists such as Fred Alford claim that groups are inherently destructive because they construct and maintain identities in part by projecting unwanted qualities on outsiders, creating hated enemies as the other that bounds the group, and demanding that their members sacrifice individuality to effect a homogeneous and regulatory unity. In contrast, while Burack agrees that such dynamics can occur within any group, constructive ones also exist. As evidence, she offers black feminist theory. Its practices, she claims, are “reparative.” Although black feminist theory seeks to create solidarity among black women and to repair wounds caused by the interwoven effects of race and gender domination, it does not do so through projection, enemy creation, and repressive norms of unity and authenticity. Instead, black feminist theorists stress honoring diversity among group members, forming coalitions with outsiders, and constantly negotiating differences, both intra- and intergroup. Further, since she asserts that group life is an ineradicable feature of social and political life, rather than seeking to eradicate identity group politics, students of politics ought to adopt black feminist practices as a model for doing them differently.

Although Burack's ideas about “reparative” groups are suggestive, the force of her argument is undercut by slippage and ambiguity in her deployment of central terms, including group and black feminism. The author is quite clear that she intends to analyze group discourse, not group behavior. However, sometimes she posits an at least implicit equivalence (if not identity) between group behavior and group discourse. For example, she argues that group processes occur within discourse, and that such discourses may offer the “most accessible source of information about the interplay of the political and psychological in the identity groups to which people are committed in everyday social life” (p. 2). She also claims that in the case of black feminist theory, discourse is itself a form of action (p. 62). She discusses accounts of group processes that object relational psychoanalysts derive from observing and intervening in them. However, she argues that while this strand of psychoanalytic theory correctly identifies common group dynamics, its accounts must be complicated by close attention to the specific practices and contexts that cause variations in group behavior. Attention to such practices may necessitate revisions in these psychoanalytic theories and political ones as well. The corrective practices she cites are black feminist discourses.

Burack also conducts a mostly subtextual argument against theorists who not only focus on the potential dangers of identity groups but also contest their desirability as a basis for political change. Such theorists, for example, Wendy Brown and Paul Gilroy, mount cogent arguments against identity group politics. The argument that identity group discourse can do reparative work is not sufficient to overcome these critiques. It avoids central questions, such as those raised also by Hannah Arendt, about whether such work ought to be a central or organizing purpose of political action at all. An equally important issue is whether identity formations, such as race and gender that are so interwoven with relations of domination, ought to be repaired or resisted. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that just because groups are endemic to political life, identity groups must be. As Michel Foucault and others argue, “identity” itself is a concept with a specific genealogy and is only one of the many ways subjectivity has been practiced. Its emergence as a site of political action is fairly recent.

Burack's own discourse made me more sympathetic to the claims of Alford and others about the dynamics of such identity formations. I found myself growing increasingly uncomfortable with her use of black feminist theory. She seems to fall victim to attitudes she herself warns against (p. 81). Black feminist theory appears as an idealized all-good object, located solely on the positive side of a binary reparative/destructive split. Furthermore, I do not think she finesses the problematic use of discourse to counter arguments based on observations of group behavior. As any political activist can attest, a vast gap often exists between the discourse of a group and its dynamics and effects. Such a gap, for example, between the discourse of equality and the practice of gender subordination motivated many women in the civil rights movements to start feminist groups. This is not to say that one of her central propositions is faulty. I agree that whether one is interested in increasing their efficacy or analyzing them, psychoanalysis has much to contribute to our understanding of groups. Whatever their stated purpose, a diverse, constructive, and destructive assortment of psychodynamic processes are endemic to groups. It is inaccurate to treat them as simple aggregates of utility-maximizing individuals. Nor are groups or their members solely rational actors whose pursuit of their stated goals is their only agenda or sufficient explanation for their dynamics or appeal. However, Burack could have made a stronger case for her argument by showing that black feminist theory has some of the reparative effect she claims.

Critics of identity politics might be more persuaded of its constructive possibilities had she met their arguments more directly. As presented in Healing Identities, unfortunately, Burack introduces much potentially rich material but is unable to produce the effects she intends.