Fight Flight Basic Assumption

The fight-flight basic assumption occupies a pivotal position within Bion's tripartite schema of unconscious group life, standing alongside dependency and pairing as one of the three fundamental emotional postures into which a group regresses when avoiding the demands of genuine work. In Bion's own formulation, the fight-flight group operates on the premise that the human being as a gregarious animal convenes specifically to fight or flee from a perceived enemy, and it therefore elects as its natural leader any figure capable of licensing instantaneous attack or instantaneous escape. The group's coherence is maintained precisely through this readiness for extremity: flight and attack are interchangeable, and panic is merely the inverse of rage. Secondary commentators, notably Flores, have situated the fight-flight assumption as characteristic of the middle phase of group development, linking it to hostility, fear, and evasion of therapeutic task. Flores further distinguishes between the pathological fight-flight leader—who must be unbeatable or uncatchable—and the more adaptive figure of the courageous leader who emerges in a mature work group. Bion's own structural elaboration locates the fight-flight group within the proto-mental system, where, when another basic assumption is dominant, fight-flight energies are held in abeyance yet remain latently active. The Army, in Bion's sociological extension, serves as the specialized work group corresponding to the fight-flight assumption, just as the Church corresponds to dependency. Throughout the corpus, the fight-flight state is distinguished by its incapacity for the love and understanding that developmental work requires.

In the library 13 passages

Flight offers an immediately available opportunity for expression of the emotion in the fight-flight group and therefore meets the demand for instantaneous satisfaction—therefore the group will fly. Alternatively, attack offers a similarly immediate outlet—then the group will fight.

Bion defines the structural logic of the fight-flight basic assumption: the group obeys whichever defensive pole—flight or attack—offers the most immediate discharge of the shared emotional state.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

being as a gregarious animal chooses a group he does so to fight or run away from something. The existence of such a basic assumption helps to explain why groups show that I, who am felt to be pre-eminent as the leader of the group, am also felt to be shirking the job.

Bion argues that the fight-flight basic assumption defines the human being's most primitive understanding of why groups exist, thereby exposing the therapist who neither fights nor flees as an incomprehensible figure.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The fight-flight group expresses a sense of incapacity for understanding and the love without which understanding cannot exist. But the leader of the fight-flight group brings back into view one of the feared components, an approximation either to the dreaded father or the infant.

Bion situates the fight-flight basic assumption within the Oedipal dynamics of the group, arguing that its leader embodies a dreaded parental imago and that the assumption is fundamentally anti-developmental.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

if the sophisticated group is suffused with the emotions associated with the dependent basic assumption then the flight-fight and pair basic assumptions are confined within the limitations of the proto-mental phase. They are the victims of a conspiracy between the sophisticated group and the operating basic assumption.

Bion explains the structural relationship between the three basic assumptions, showing that when one is active the fight-flight assumption is suppressed into the proto-mental system yet remains potentially operative.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the fight-leader must be unbeatable and the flight-leader uncatchable... In the mature work group, which makes a more adaptive use of appropriate assumptions, the leader of the fight-flight group is courageous.

Flores differentiates the pathological from the adaptive expression of the fight-flight basic assumption through the quality of leadership it demands, mapping the distinction onto stages of group development.

Flores, Philip J, Group Psychotherapy with Addicted Populations An, 1997supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

In the fight-flight group a similar sub-group fulfils a similar function. If the analyst proves obdurate material, he is liable to evoke reactions which I have already described as associated with the threat of the new idea.

Bion identifies the sub-group formation within the fight-flight basic assumption as a mechanism for handling the anxiety provoked by interpretations that threaten developmental change.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

fight-flight group, 63, 64, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 97, 152, 160 dependent group and, 81, 82, 91 leadership of, 161, 177, 180 security in, 94-5

The index of Bion's Experiences in Groups maps the extensive cross-referencing of the fight-flight group across the text, confirming its structural centrality to the entire theoretical framework.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Middle phase of group development is marked by flight from tasks or engagement of battles within or outside of the group. The emotional state is one of hostility and fear.

Flores assigns the fight-flight basic assumption to the middle developmental phase of the therapeutic group, characterizing it by hostility, fear, and avoidance of the work task.

Flores, Philip J, Group Psychotherapy with Addicted Populations An, 1997supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

when a group is pervaded by the emotions of the dependent group the emotional states of the fight-flight group and pairing group are in abeyance. They are not manifest in the sense that the emotions of the dependent group are manifest.

Bion describes the dynamic suppression of the fight-flight assumption when the dependent basic assumption is active, illustrating the oscillatory structure among the three assumptions.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the change from the fight-flight group to the group met to pair. As the culture becomes established, individuals again begin to show their discomfort.

Bion traces the shift from the fight-flight culture to the pairing culture, noting that relief from one basic assumption is invariably followed by the discomforts characteristic of the next.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Bion asserted that the primitive states of mind operating covertly in the basic assumption group tended to dominate the work group and would come to interfere with the declared task of the group.

Flores summarizes the foundational claim of Bion's basic assumption theory—that covert emotional states, including fight-flight, systematically undermine the overt therapeutic task of the group.

Flores, Philip J, Group Psychotherapy with Addicted Populations An, 1997supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

fight-flight, 542

The index entry in Flores places fight-flight resistance alongside dependency and pairing as one of three Bionian categories structuring group resistance in addicted populations.

Flores, Philip J, Group Psychotherapy with Addicted Populations An, 1997aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the basic assumptions now emerge as formations secondary to an extremely early primal scene worked out on a level of part objects, and associated with psychotic anxiety and mechanisms of splitting and projective identification.

Bion grounds all three basic assumptions, including fight-flight, in archaic primal-scene dynamics and Kleinian part-object relations, providing the metapsychological substrate of the theory.

Bion, W.R., Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, 1959aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Related terms