Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Integration Paper
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE
BY
DAVID FLAXER
2011
2
Abstract
directly addresses, head-on, the meaning of existence, and provides a guidepost for the
transformation of how a patient can live in the world. Psychology addresses the suffering of
the mind, and the resulting cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes. I subscribe to the
both for the therapist and for the patient. The therapist is enjoined to clearly hear the call of
the patient in their suffering, to recognize their alterity by not totalizing their existence, and
to meet an ethical responsibility by responding to their needs with such attuned sensitivity
that no violence is done. For the patient, the ethical objective of the therapeutic encounter is
to help enable the patient to not only tend to their own life, but also to grow resilient enough
In previous coursework, found in Sections I and III of this paper, I theorized about
the implications of Levinasian philosophy in the therapeutic forum. Now that I have begun
to work with patients, in this paper I revisit these writings and reflect on how they
particular, I highlight what aspects of Levinasian philosophy that hold significant potential
in working with patients in the community-based clinic serving the underprivileged and
disenfranchised.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE
implications of movement between these existentially lived states as a paradigm for treating
the suffering patient. In particular, it addresses the ability of the patient to break through
their barrier of interiority, and to interact with the world, despite their own internally
focused suffering. The objective of the therapeutic encounter is to help enable the patient to
not only tend to themselves, but to grow resilient enough to assume the responsibility of
Levinas refutes the basic notion of the sameness of the Other and turns the idea
completely around in a startling and counterintuitive way: the Other is not the same as me.
The testament of this is known by the presentation of the face of the Other.
The face with which the Other turns to me is not reabsorbed in a representation of
the face. To hear his destitution which cries out for justice is not to represent an
image to oneself, but is to posit oneself as responsible, both as more and as less than
the being that presents itself in the face. Less, for the face summons me to my
obligations and judges me. The being that presents himself in the face comes from a
dimension of height, a dimension of transcendence whereby he can present himself
as a stranger without opposing me as obstacle or enemy. More, for my position as I
consists in being able to respond to this essential destitution of the Other, finding
resources for myself. The Other who dominates me in his transcendence is thus the
stranger, the widow, and the orphan, to whom I am obligated. (Levinas, 1969, p.
215)
As a face, the face of the Other possesses the capability of expression that exceeds
the knowledge and control of the Same. It overflows with meaning, with otherness, such
that the Same that confronts it is itself overflowed. It is not the Same; it is alterity,
4
foreignness, exceeding all possible understanding. Levinas states: “The face is a living
discourse” (Levinas, 1969, p. 66). The face is intentional, not to be overlooked and denied,
as it announces: do not totalize me, do not objectify me, do no violence unto me. Such a
view breaks the power of the State over me and it derails any march to tyranny.
The Other is always above me. In their neediness the Other calls me to exercise my
responsibility. It is an ethical choice we are each presented with: we can choose to recognize,
honor and support the Other. We can choose to provide to them with even more than what we
provide to ourselves. Or instead, we can place ourselves above all, tending to our own
devices, leaving the Other to fend for them self. This is in our nature: we cannot avoid
hearing the call of the Other, but we can choose to ignore it, or pretend it is not heard.
The Same and the Other are now and forever separate. The face of the Other is
transcendent as it asks the Same to accept their alterity, that their otherness will never be fully
understood, and that they will forever be infinite. Yet paradoxically, their face is remarkably
close, so close that its mere presence is capable of generating strong feelings that necessitate
the on coming of difficult ethical decisions within the Same. The face is thus an ethical
relation, and calls me to responsibility. In my response to the Other I give to them freely and
openly the gifts of by being: the gentle compassion, wisdom, teaching and the transfer of
tangible possessions. In return I am presented with the opportunity for transcendence that
both startling and broad. It calls on the therapist to view his practice as an ethical relation that
5
is stringently higher than that professed in traditional psychological practice. This idea is
Levinas asserts the concept of interiority and exteriority as a basic component in his
Where ever I go in the world, in this exteriority to myself, Others in their suffering call to
me. My nature is such that I cannot truly evade their cry. With such insistent but gentle
demands, insatiable in their neediness, where can I go for respite and peace, to care for the
egoist I that is also in our nature, and to enjoy the fruits of my labor? Levinas observes that
it is in the place of interiority that we go for required enjoyment and renewal. “Egoism,
separation—are necessary for the idea of Infinity, the relation with the Other which opens
forth from the separated and finite being” (Levinas, 1969, p. 66). Thus interiority may be
interpreted as a psychological haven, where the separation of the I from the exterior is
The home is a place of refuge from the responsibilities of the world. As Levinas
(1969) writes, “To be separated is to be at home with oneself” (p. 147). The isolation of the
home provides a respite to the demands of the world. It is a private and comfortable place
that is a sanctuary and a blessing. The home is a place which accommodates my interiority,
and accordingly, allows me to reflect on the conditions of my life. Reflection constitutes the
renewal of ideas, actions, plans and activities that I accomplish in the exterior world. This
respite brings me renewal and generates the energy to enter the world that calls to me from
just beyond the walls of my home, and to act responsibly and ethically within it. Says
Levinas (1969): “The home occupies a privileged place” (p. 152). It is the concretization of a
place of separation and refuge where I can recollect and find enjoyment. The need for a home
is embedded in our nature; so much so that even those with nothing still seek to delineate a
Consider then the psychological perspective of interiority, the confluence of mind and
body, where we exist in our ipsiety. This is the center place of the I: our cognitive thoughts,
our embodied feelings, all components of our unrelenting observant ego. It is a private
interior world that none can enter. It is a given that when we enter the world we present our
face to the Other, so passive and expressive, which is beyond our very control. But to share
in our psychological interiority we must speak; for it is only in dialog with the Other can we
within ones self. However, while psychological interiority presents a barrier to the world, it
cannot be so concrete as to prevent the world from reaching me. Interiority must be a
7
permeable membrane, susceptible to penetration by the exterior world, and must permit our
senses to feel and respond to its influence. “In the separated being the door to the outside
must hence be at the same time both open and closed.” says Levinas. (1969, p. 149) If one
was to exist only in interiority they would be so introvert they would live in narcissistic
isolation; if one lived only in exteriority they would be hyper-manic. In either case, their
A patient comes to therapy for many reasons. They may be facing an immediate and
stressful crisis: the ending of a major relationship, the death of a loved one, a financial
excessive mania, or a cycling between them. They may be facing a joyless and general
unhappiness and dissatisfaction in their life activities, relations with others and profession.
Or, they may be experiencing a more deeply felt loss of self esteem, an acute sense of
anxiety and an eerie feeling of disconnection from the world in which they live, leaving
them drifting and alienated. Maybe they have fallen into a habitual pattern of destructive
behavior such as gambling, consumerism or substance abuse. The reasons go on and on.
All aspects of the human condition and their sufferings are represented by our patients: the
neurotic, the psychotic, those with mild or deep seated behavioral issues, mood disorders,
loss of identity, life crisis, anxiety and alienation, or existing in a joyless and negative state.
What do all these conditions have in common? They are our dysfunctional
reactions to existing in the world, of human life itself. The consequence of these events is
the embodiment of suffering, which more often than not, results in psychological
The practice of psychology, with its methods, processes and techniques for relating
to the patient, for treating their cognitive, behavioral and affective disorders, goes just so
far. It is not in the realm of psychology to address the underlying meanings of life; it cannot
present a context of existing, and for that we look to works of philosophy. Here we seek an
practice.
This is where the Levinasian notions of interiority and exteriority, the alterity of the
Other and the practice of ethical responsibility come into play in the therapeutic forum. It
sets a philosophic view of human existence, defining the bounds and benefits of separation
from the world and the responsibility we have for our self and for the Other. From this
philosophic point of view the psychologist can approach the patient in treatment, enabling
What then is the goal of ethical psychological therapy? Alvin Dueck and David
Goodman (2007) first provides a picture of what it is not: “The goal of therapy is less a
matter of the self discovering itself but the therapist engaging in self sacrifice in the
presence of the patient (Sorenson, 2004) The focus is less on encouraging the patient to
assert him or herself, exercise rights and power, master the ego and the environment. The
goal is not so much individuation from the Other, the constellating of a unique identity. Nor
is the self constellated in comparing oneself to Others as one being among many so as to
Levinasian terms the goal of therapy is to enable the patient to exercise the ethical call to
responsibility: to care for the Other. As Steen Halling (1975) writes: “The therapy situation
might then not just be a protective environment where one is relieved of distress, but a place
9
where one is called from unreal obligation and false guilt to real responsibility and genuine
guilt in the face of the Other. It is not just a situation in which I as the therapist am simply
obsessive focus on the patient’s conditions of suffering, such that they remain fixed in their
personal interiority, unable to sense and break through the barrier that partitions them from
the world. This is a psychological condition that locks the mind, behavior and affect,
stuck egoistically in their interiority, unable to recognize or respond to the callings of the
exterior world. They may be fixed on their own problems and immediate issues. Their
perspective may be self-centered and narcissistic. They may feel distrustful or paranoid.
Whatever there state of existence is, one thing is clear, they are feeling encapsulated in their
personal interiority.
Existence is not static and all is in constant change; it is only in mental dysfunction
and emotional disturbance that one’s life seems static and unchanging. “With alienation,
isolation, loneliness …we can summarize the fact that all these mental states never stand by
themselves and are never abstractions, but ceaselessly reveal themselves in the reality of the
surrounding world, in the reality of objects in the reality of personal relationships, and in the
reality of body and of time” (Berg 1972, p. 108). In other words, in neurosis and psychosis
10
the patient is stuck in a timeless and unchanging existence, locked in an internal separation
We are in our nature intersubjective beings. It is in our wiring as the human animal,
when at the dawn of man, we huddled together in social bond to insure our survival. Within
the Levinasian perspective, a radical intersubjectivity can be defined as the relation to the
Other in total passivity and goodness: hearing the cry of the Other, understanding and
appreciating their alterity and in responding with ethically responsible giving. The one who
suffers presents their face to the Other, so passive and expressive, which is beyond their
very control. However, even for the sufferer, a radical intersubjectivity places an ethical
responsibility for them as well: they should try at least to recognize the gifts that the Same
provides. When the sufferer is locked beyond their ability to control their interiority, this
The suffering patient that is hopelessly caught in interiority is unable to enter the
world to announce their suffering. They cannot intentionally turn their face to Others
around them. They cannot intentionally cry for help in a voice that can be understood.
They cannot hope to receive the aid of Others; they are unable to receive gifts when given.
They are lost and adrift in an interior that permits no contact. There is yet another loss in
this rigid interiority. As they are mute and have no voice for calling, they have no ears to
hear the cries of Others. They cannot go beyond themselves and cannot break the crust that
separates them from the exterior. There is little if any sense of intersubjectivity. There is
release of focus on their own suffering, an egoistic grasp that obscures everything but their
11
pain. They miss the bond of fraternity. And worse yet, they deny themselves the
As a patient they are present in the therapeutic encounter, which by itself is a first
movement to exteriority, and herein provides a strategy by which the ethical therapist can
enabler of intersubjectivity, such that the patient can begin to penetrate the barrier that
When a patient comes to therapy in a state of interiority, too fearful, stuck and weak
to act, the therapist can work with them to build an opening of hope and possibility. It is in
these cracks in the wall of interiority that the patient can exercise the courage to achieve a
movement to exteriority. As the patient comes to understand their relation to the Other a
shift in their existential existence may occur. They are no longer held in a lived-experience
of isolation. They can freely express themselves to Others, they have the ability to
recognize and receive the gifts of the Other, and they can find an existential comfort in the
relation. Now that interiority is made porous, a different context of existence is available to
the patient.
goal of self discovering and personal mastery, and more the recognition and assumption of
THERAPEUTIC PRACTICE
This section presents a series of psychological issues that arose during my practicum
considerations such as those described in the first section, these issues were presented to me
by the face of the Other, the suffering patient, with whom I am engaged in psychological
treatment. What I am probing is this: in the face of such concrete presentation, and piteous
suffering, what can Levinas’s philosophy do to address the urgent needs of these patients? A
discussion of the world of the clinic is first presented, followed by an evaluation of the
psychological disposition of the patients I am treating. For each psychological theme the
The first section of this paper argues that suffering, and the other vicissitudes of life,
draw us away from the world and into our own interiority until we are stuck in an internal
distorted beliefs that drive them to interiority despite knowing that their terrifying grasp
holds them back. As Patient C stated on more than one occasion “…it is more work to stay
stuck then to take a risk…” and went on to say that “…it is madness to hold so tightly to an
idea that serves me so poorly.” What drives these poor people to cling to such mistaken
ideas and conclusions about life which distort all expectations and drive them into a
secluded madness?
13
One path these erroneous conclusions develop is at an early age, when the child is
called upon to make sense of the suffering he or she feels within and about them.
Confronted with a dysfunctional family life, confused and inconsistent attachments, and
outright abusive physical and emotional relationships, the sensitive child seeks an
explanation to make sense of their suffering. But their sense is limited to a child's world and
experience; they do not possess a broad view or a nuanced understanding of the world.
Thus, their explanation of suffering is presumed to be caused by their own faults and
limitations. In explaining his general sense of unworthiness, Patient C said “I was always
told as a child what I thought and felt was not right.” He could not recognize his
remarkable sensitivity to the world as a positive attribute, but rather, sought to deny and
destroy it in the wake of the Others taunting and derision. In another case, Patient F simply
concluded in childhood that “My feelings are not my friends.” Having put her feelings
aside, she had no measure or compass in which to evaluate critical life decisions. Instead
she went fumbling through unproductive and discouraging human relations throughout her
life, all the while searching in her interiority for the missing components of existence that
The bleak ramifications of a misguided conclusion about life are not limited to
demands an answer and even as an adult we choose explanations, beliefs and conclusions
that fail to serve us well. These misguided notions distort reality, diminish our transcendent
capabilities and leave our psyche dry and lifeless. An example was Patient G, a person who
grew tired of the repetitive calling to life that life itself is, and intentionally withdrew,
resigning from the world in shame, guilt and self-hatred. Yet another person, Patient B, who
14
through the unfortunate circumstance of ill health, first of his dying wife and then of his
own bodily illnesses, drifted into a state of existential doubt, having come to the conclusion
Prior to delving into the mapping between Levinasian philosophy and psychological
relationship that Levinas had with psychotherapy. It is an absolute given that in Levinasian
philosophy the ethical relation is a foundation of human existence. Further, the ethical
relation precedes the spoken word and the conscious act, such that it is said: ethics precedes
ontology. “We have called this relation metaphysical…..it is prior to the negative or
affirmative proposition; it first institutes language, where neither the no nor the yes is the
first word” (Levinas, 1969, p. 42). This notion is also reflected by Critchley (1999) as he
writes: “Ethics does not take place at the level of consciousness or reflection; rather, it takes
So, for Levinas, any attempt to obscure the metaphysical relation, which is to say
ethics and the implicit understanding of truth before language, is cast into doubt as an
egology that places the self above ethics and the Other. It is this suspicion that Levinas
holds against psychotherapy: that it reinforces the self at the expense of ethics.
However, Levinas’s view of psychotherapy may be too narrow and parochial for a
true understanding of the objective of psychology, for its ultimate aim is not the
aggrandizement of an individual ego and its strength and domination over Others. Rather,
psychotherapy focuses on the ability of the patient to tolerate the discomfort of the original
trauma, that is to say, the alterity of the Other, and by extension, the obscurity of ethics by
15
egology. Psychotherapy enables the patient to grasp the metaphysical relation and to
experience the commandment of ethical behavior that is intrinsically a part of our humanity.
The revelation of the ethical relation results in the realization that caring for the Other is
indeed a transcendent experience that brings primal comfort to the existential angst that
plagues the unsettled patient. Psychology, therefore, is the means to a clearing such that
subjugation of egology, which is in fact the answer to the call of the Other, and opens the
serves the low income population of Snohomish County, located north of the City of
Seattle. While the clinic is contained within the YWCA (the women’s membership branch),
services are provided to men and women of all ages and includes individual, child, couple,
family and group counseling activities. Services are available on an out-patient basis, by
appointment only. Excluded are persons who present current domestic violence, drug
addition or those who, as a result of mental distress, are incapable of managing a relatively
stable living environment. While the population and problems are diverse, the patients all
and alike. It aggravates familial and social relationships. It diminishes self-worth and
obscures possibilities and the will to change. It fosters a desperate need to escape into
numbness using alcohol, drugs, food or other behavioral anesthetics. It instills an anger and
16
resentment that causes pain to others while diminishing the spirit. It exaggerates mental
illness and in some cases may even trigger and drive it. Further, it is difficult, and
sometimes almost impossible, to treat psychological issues when the patient is facing
practical problems, such as homelessness or basic living concerns, that would be daunting
even for those of sound mental health to handle. So, part of the role of the therapist in the
The clinic is structured in an unusual and compelling way for a mental health
independently conducting intake, therapy and services, acting under the general supervision
and rubric of the administrative staff. The clinic has deep and extended roots within the
community and practices a patient-centered therapy where the health of the patient is the
primary focus. As such, obstacles that distract from this gaze are carefully managed:
bureaucratic paperwork and reporting is kept to a minimum and decisions that concern the
patient are based on the best therapeutic effect and not on the ease or benefit of the system.
For example, a patient is never refused treatment for lack of payment. There are several
funding streams including Community Service Block Grants in addition to other community
and non-profit funds that subsidizes treatment services. The therapist may select patients
from the intake process and can formulate a therapeutic strategy that is well matched to the
patient, within the context of ongoing collaborative supervision. Within this nurturing
environment, the soon-to-be-therapist can expect warm and collaborative support from their
The sense of the clinic and the sensibility of its members make it an attractive
to the care and treatment of the patient. During my introduction to the clinic two
significant impressions emerged: first, the care and health of the patient is primary; and
second, the therapist is recognized as a valued and respected care giver who receives
nurturing support and supervision. Taken with these two compelling messages, and the
expectation they induced in me, it is little wonder that I enthusiastically accepted the
Health Clinic I have had time to experience what it is like to work in a community-based
setting serving the underprivileged and disenfranchised. Some of my illusions have been
broken with astonishing swiftness and power. Of these are the realization that when
working with patients whose basic living circumstances are precarious, therapeutic
treatment of psychological issues are sometimes, and I think I can say more often than not,
set aside in deference to the immediate pressures of housing, work and social necessity.
Driven by unending class, race and gender pressures, hyped with poverty and a constant
sense of vulnerability and exclusion, patients of the clinic require so much more than
psychological counseling.
Extended case management addresses how a person can maneuver through the rules
and policies of social service programs offering housing, medical, food and employment
safety nets. When looking at the abyss of homelessness and hopelessness, the concrete
solutions that case management provide sometimes trumps the softer issues of
18
psychological neurosis, depression and anxiety, all of which may be reasonable emotional
Given the complexity of this discussion, how does a therapist, whose approach can
range from the concrete to the ephemeral, choose to work with the patient in the clinical
setting? For many patients of the clinic, first addressing the most immediate crisis of
hunger, housing and safety seems the only reasonable path. While this is more a case
management task, it is unlikely that any therapeutic progress can be made until these issues
are settled. However, even when safety is not a concern, it is not often that issues of
work that are likely to be tackled. Here, there appears to be two paths to take. The first
choice is a directed-focused approach where the therapist and patient work together to form
a solution, part cognitive, emotional, and intersubjective, in which to solve a specific issue,
an objective, within the trajectory of a longer held arc of life. The other path is one that
provides the patient with a clear and open space in which to explore whatever sensations,
emotions, thoughts and intersubjective feelings that are shared in the little theater of the
therapeutic dyad. This is a longer term endeavor, an act of creation from the elemental
constructs that are embedded in our basic nature and brought forward in our unique identity.
It is an effort of mutual exploration, plowing the depths of raw existence and inspirational
attainment; it presumes a breaking of the boundaries of external societal power and internal
self-imposed limitations, which more often than not, make grotesque the expectations of
life.
A survey of patients
19
during my practicum at the YWCA–Pathways Mental Health Clinic. In particular, the table
highlights various psychological dispositions patients presented, and evaluates the extent of
their commonality amongst the group. It is asserted that these psychological dispositions
reflect drives toward psychological interiority. In many cases it is the unjust or irrational
circumstances of the world that torments the individual, which include: child abuse, trauma,
societal pressures and general poverty. These worldly factors cause an intrapersonal
and psychic annihilation, which presents in the following symptoms and behaviors: anxiety,
depression, physical illness, substance abuse, poor body image, alienation, existential crisis
are not an exhaustive list in the least; however, they are the ones that have been presented to
me during my practicum.
The key assertion is that for all these patients, worldly factors and their
psychological reaction to them result in an attachment to interiority that prevents them from
improving their cognitive, behavioral, emotive, and spiritual existential state. They are
stuck in their own interiority, desperately clinging to their dysfunctional behavior, which is
more often than not, formed by their mistaken impressions and conclusions about the world
associated with each patient in an effort to ensure a degree of confidentiality and privacy.
whether the person is currently in relationship with another, and whether they have had
20
children. In reviewing these demographic statistics one finds that: 66% of the patients are
female; 58 % are currently single (interestingly, all male patients are currently involved in a
couple's relationship); most patients are in their 40s and 50s with the average age being 47;
and 85% had children, with the average number being 2.35 children per patient. None of the
patients were a member of an ethnic minority, which may be statistically explained given
the demographics of the county is close to 90% Caucasian. The religious upbringing of the
patients was not collected though it is presumed that all of the patients come from a Judeo-
Christian heritage.
elements that affect 75% of the group come to the forefront: trauma, substance abuse, and
depression. These three factors are not unrelated. Trauma, and most notably child abuse, is a
profound experience that impinges on the very integrity of the self and causes alienation in
various forms. Further, it drives a need for avoidance and numbing that substance abuse,
both alcohol and drugs, attempt to provide. However, there is no escaping from suffering
and depression, which is a form of psychological repression and emotional numbing, that is
extract key psychological themes that were presented during therapy. To accomplish this a
qualitative research method was applied that involved the analyst’s engagement in a
hermeneutical interaction with the patient records. This process reflects a fusing of horizons
(Gadamer, 2004) between the therapist and the patient that result in an interpretive
understanding of the material. There is a cyclical flow in the hermeneutic approach such
that interpretations of the parts influences the whole and spurs a circle of ongoing
21
reconsideration of interpretations. The result was an ever widening and deepening spiral of
understanding and the emergence of the key psychological conditions of: child abuse,
trauma, alienation, poverty, productive work, substance abuse, health, body image, anxiety,
Having identified 12 psychological conditions, these were then clustered into higher
level groups of thematic meaning. This act of aggregation enabled a clearer understanding
of the meanings and dynamics of the lived experience. Through the process of clustering
key characteristics of super-ordinate themes emerged and the relationships between them
became evident. Clustering is an interpretative process, applied in much the same way as
described in the previous analytic steps. The analyst brings their experience to the survey
data and employs their cognitive, affective and embodied sensations as tools to identify and
interpret clusters of meaning. Analysis criteria may be varied and includes concepts such
process used in this study was to reflect on all psychological conditions, and then organize
them into logical groupings, based on an abstraction criterion, using a spiraling hermeneutic
process of engagement with the material. What emerged as a result of this process were
three super-ordinate themes: (1) trauma and abuse, (2) power, economy in society, and (3)
the ineffable body. The super-ordinate and psychological conditions (now referred to as
childhood abuse and trauma, in addition to the experience of alienation, which is a closely
linked effect of trauma. The super-ordinate theme of power, economy and society groups
together sub-themes that are experienced by patients as a consequence of the power of the
22
world over the individual. The influence of power and economy bears directly on the
patient's ability to find productive work and escape poverty. Substance abuse, body image
and physical health are all influenced directly or indirectly by society’s cultural, economic,
political and moral messages that cause distortion and misinterpretation within the psychic
structure of the patient. Finally, there is the ineffable body, which refers to the sacred and
words. It is this body human that contains, as a vessel, the transcendent exaltation's of life;
but this vessel also experiences the states of human suffering that is anxiety, depression,
hopelessness and existential angst. In the expression of these three super-ordinate themes
this paper looks to Levinasian philosophy to shed light on the psychologically therapeutic
relation.
23
In the following sections various aspects of worldly factors and the psychological
reaction to them are examined from a Levinasian perspective. What, for example does
Levinas have to say about trauma, societal circumstances of power and economy, and the
states of the ineffable body? As each area is examined the implications of Levinasian
philosophy may bring to light a psychological approach to addressing the patient's issues
that drive them to interiority and the closing of themselves to the world.
overwhelming experience that is processed by the victim in many ways. Trauma of any type
may result in devastating effects in the life of those who have experienced it, sometimes
leaving a person incapable of living a joyful and productive existence. Often deeply
traumatic events, both psychic and physical, are so overwhelming that the victim needs to
separate the cognitive and emotive memories from their awareness in order to preserve the
integrity of their very self. This defensive dissociation provides a mechanism to handle the
effects of trauma in the short term. However, as with any defense that is employed for too
pathological condition in itself. Such is the case in treating traumatic experiences: often it is
not just the trauma that needs to be exposed and resolved, but it is the defensive
dissociation, that cocoons the memories of trauma, which need be exposed as well.
What is the defensive dissociation and what are the memories that have been
repressed? It is argued that in the wake of trauma the very nature of humanity is lost on the
traumatized: they cannot see past their own sense of distorted experience, which repeats
Levinas first presents trauma as an experience of the alterity of discourse “…is thus
traumatism of astonishment…” (1969, p. 73). However, for Levinas, trauma goes far
beyond discourse and enters into the realm of the presence of the Other. That is to say that
the very alterity of the Other, in the presentation of their face to the Same, in their helpless
and seemingly insatiable suffering, and in their so passive call for assistance in their
suffering, all this and more, this experience of witnessing by the Same is a trauma that
assaults the Same and has the potential to overwhelm and diminish. This is construe as an
original trauma. “Astonishment is traumatic because it is occasioned by, and is itself the
occasion of, the breakup of self-consciousness from within and without. The other breaches
the ego from within, in the disguise of the idea of infinity overwhelming cognition and from
on alterity as a traumatic intercession with the Other, and goes on to assert that it is this very
However, what happens when we are overwhelmed by the infliction of the Other,
not just their presence, and their face, but by the deliberate and brutal violence promulgated
on the Same? Bernet (2000) writes there is a compellingly strong consistency between
26
Levinas view of trauma and “in the psychoanalytic sense …the event of the encounter of the
subject with something totally foreign that nevertheless irremediably concerns it and does
so right in its most intimate identity” (p. 162). So, the effect of experiencing the trauma
that is the alterity of the Other is to neutralize the Same into diminishing their self into
something disconnected from humanity, unable to recognize the Other in any sensible way,
and to retreat into a protective interiority. Further, the more violent the imposition of the
Other is on the Same, the deeper and more compelling is the drive to interiority. This
interiority may involve a psychic and spiritual sense of fragmentation, separation and
it remains torn between two contradictory imperatives: appropriating the foreign to itself
and rejecting it in order to preserve that which is its own” (Bernet, 2000, p. 170). Bernet
brings forward three lessons in the nature of trauma from the Levinasian perspective. First,
trauma is by its nature shocking as there is no preparing for the experience. Second, alterity
has no prerequisite to past experience. Finally, the third lesson is that profound traumas
strike a “…bodily sensibility and not in its recognitions or cognitions” (p. 173).
Childhood trauma
In her book, Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman (1992) writes “Recovery can
take place only within the context of relationships; it cannot occur in isolation” (p. 133).
of safety for the patient. Most of my efforts in the therapeutic forum focus on establishing
and enhancing a relationship of mutual respect and bidirectional dialog with the patient.
This leads to willingness on the part of the patient to access and express feelings, thoughts
of faith, a belief nurtured in the therapeutic relationship, for the patient to face and share his
Patient C, a 50-year-old male, had for the past five years been disabled and was
unable to work due to an injury. Now that his recuperation was completing he was facing
the difficult prospect of reentering the workplace. In the face of this pressure he reacted
with profound anxiety and depression, and was convinced that he would be unable to find a
job. He began to envision himself becoming alienated, homeless and despondent. Despite
our numerous attempts to address the practicality of his situation - to examine his feelings
of distress and develop a plan of small steps to help enable him in finding employment - he
was unable to make any progress. With the Christmas and New Year's holidays approaching
Patient C’s outlook took a significant downslide, with Patient C seeing the world as a
our next session to conduct an intervention of sorts with the aim of stopping his emotional
backslide and to inculcate a voice of support and hope within him to counter the obsessive
self- narrative of unworthiness and hopelessness. During the session I pressed the following
key objectives: to reflect back to him that he was passively heading into an abyss; to call
out the existential conflict he was engaged in - one of life and death; to acknowledge the
difficulty and greatness of his conflict and to assure him he had resources, including the
safety and support of our therapeutic sessions; and finally, to prevail upon him to make a
choice to live and to bring a voice of life and hope into his personal narrative. It was a
somewhat dramatic and difficult session for the two of us to engage in. However, Patient C
28
left convinced of the genuine care and concern I had for him, which I hoped would instill a
sense of safety in our relationship and motivate him to take renewed action in his life.
In a series of extraordinary sessions that followed this intervention these hopes were
realized. On the job front, Patient C completed a resume, bought a sports coat, and made
arrangements to participate in the next job fair that was hosted in the area. More
surprisingly, however, was his ability to build on an increased sense of safety that resulted
in him disclosing a deeply traumatic event that occurred to him in childhood. This was
something he had not shared with anybody in 35 years, an event that he kept hidden in a
cage of overwhelming shame and sense of unworthiness. This traumatic event was crucial
in understanding Patient C’s current lived experience and would be further explored in
future sessions. The key lesson here was that Patient C saw the therapeutic relationship as a
a greater sense of safety that enabled him to express a deeply held childhood traumatic
event.
The previously cited observations lead to a possible approach for treating the
the view that trauma is an embodied sensibility points to a means in which to reach the
traumatized patient. I present as an example Patient K, who had been in therapy for many
years, was freely able to describe the traumatic sexual, physical, and psychic assaults he
suffered as a child at the hands of his parents and other guardians. However, his narratives
were hollow and devoid of affect. Frequently in our sessions he would drift, in mindless
29
numbing or a zoning-out, and I too, through the process of projection, began to experience the
During the initial part of a particular session I tried various ways of exploring the
tried to encourage the patient to reflect on the embodied sensations he was feeling. This is
consistent with Gendlin’s focusing approach to psychotherapy in which he asserts the notion
of the direct referent. This sensing is yet another avenue of experiencing the world. “…in
addition to external objects and logic, we also have an inward bodily feeling or sensing”
(Gendlin, 1964, p. 111). I will have more to say about embodiment in the next sub-section of
this paper. At this point the patient presented a dramatic and vivid description of the bodily
sensations he felt: “In my stomach…it a lot of times feels like I'm holding something in my
stomach” (Private transcript, January 24, 2011). And again this imagery reprises a little later
in the session: “It feels like there's a really bad storm inside. [Long pause] I don't know…a
lot of emotions all tied up together I can't tell which emotion is which. That I feel like I have
This statement could not be clear: that which was repressed, the lived experience of
trauma in its raw emotional and overwhelming presence has been relegated to the body,
banished within its core, where it resides as a dissociated emotional memory. And what was
it? All of the lived experience of trauma: the sexual abuse, the horrific taunting, and the
diminishment of a child's will to grow into a happy and fulfilled person - all of this packaged
in a physiological sensation that demanded full and ongoing containment least it get out or “it
[I] will all go crazy.” Here now is an exemplar of defensive dissociation caused by trauma:
the emotional lived experience too terrible to feel, too consequential in its ramifications in all
30
aspects of life, are broken off into an umbra of not knowing, a distant unawareness, if only for
the embodied sensation of a knot in the core of the body that when provoked can only be
While Patient K was unable to reach a point of full recognition of the meaning of his
trauma, the treatment plan was clear: to have the patient come to recognize the trauma done to
him and to see the Other, who so badly inflicted pain upon him, as a human being suffering
with all their flaws. And while it seems impossible, that despite his self, Patient K would be
able to find the humanity and the goodness of understanding his tormentor and to enter into a
Levinas introduces the term proximity in which to approach both the spatial
discontinuity between the past and present. Even in the break between distance and time
the overwhelming trauma, so inflicted by the Other, needs to be addressed in the most
Yet another view is contained in the Levinasian term substitution, which represents
the idea of a drawing nearer such that the Same and the Other are both as one and as
distinct, metaphysically coupled in time and space, but seemingly suspended in dual and
complementary states. Such a relation transcends egology and selfhood, sacrifice and
burden, and enters in the frame of the immediate and implicit where the assumption of
31
responsibility for the care of the suffering Other is coupled with the realization that the
Same is the cause of it as well. Such a position may open the door to the impossible: the
Even in the worst inhuman and traumatic conditions, such as those described in the
Nazi death camps by Viktor Frankl, there is still a responsibility for oneself and for Others,
and the ability to overcome the suffering of extreme trauma. ”The more one forgets himself-
-by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love--the more human he is and
the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at
all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss
The dynamics of the domestic abuse relationship is a complex one with multiple
competing psychological forces at work, making the situation difficult to live with by both
the perpetrator and victim, and clouds the ability of the therapist to map out an affective
resolution. Such was the case with Patient E, who was engaged in a dysfunctional and
abusive relationship with her boyfriend X, with whom she was living. X was an addicted
drug abuser who was thoughtless and disrespectful to Patient E at every turn. Their
relationship was three years old and had been degrading significantly in the last year or so.
Patient E reported that X was verbally abusive to her saying mean and disrespectful things
at every opportunity, and included comments about her weight, her emotional state, and her
32
sense of worthiness. In response Patient E would get extremely angry and enraged,
particularly when she drank, at which point she described herself as ‘mean drunk’, without
caring at all about the Other. In May of last year their fights became so bad and so intense
that the police were called to intervene and a legal restraining order was secured by Patient
E. However, their relationship continued and the abuse did not stop. When I asked Patient
E what she thought X got out of the relationship she replied she paid the rent, provided
money for him to buy drugs, cleaned the house, did the laundry and performed ‘motherly’
duties. When I asked why Patient E stayed in the relationships she said: “I love him.” She
hoped he would stop taking drugs; but later acknowledged that she knew he would never
stop. So, what did Patient E get out of the relationship? She went on to say, almost spoken
in a sad, defensive and nervous laughter that the reason she stayed in this abusive
relationship was her fear of living alone. That is to say, that her feelings of isolation, and
alienation were overwhelmingly painful for her to deal with and that in comparison the slow
cuts of verbal abuse and relationship dysfunction were a small price to pay for avoiding the
What then is the meaning of Patient E's statements about the relationship and her
desire to stay within it? It may be too simplistic to say that she sustained the relationship in
solely in the fear of the terrifying loneliness that was sure to be felt should it come to an
end. While she could not explain her statement “she loves him” it may very well be that
what she feels, in the intensity of this dysfunctional relation, is a powerful allegiance and
connection to the idea of forgiveness: the hope and restoration of the persecuting and
predatory Other. This may be a perverse twist in the ethical relation, one based on an
internal and self-satisfying egology, a fantasy of her need for her own forgiveness, hope and
33
restoration. But an underlying metaphysical and ethical foundation may be at play here.
That is to say, in the suffering of both the persecutor and persecuted the desire for a
born of an initial attempt at goodness but perverted in suffering, can and will.
Here is a possible approach for psychological treatment: the appeal to each of the
parties to recognize the humanity of the suffering Other, to disarm themselves at the
presence of the Face, and to engage in the Levinasian view of substitution. Such may be the
path of redemption for both the tormentor and the tormented. While forgiveness, the
metaphoric act of reversing time and neutralizing offenses may not happen in the absolute,
another’s suffering, to the transcendent surprise of the Same and the Other, may be
achieved.
There is a paradox implicit in the nature of power and economy within society. That
is to say, the powerful and affluent are directly connected to, and cannot escape from, the
impotent and poor. The empowered and the disenfranchised are coupled together in a
dance that neither can break from. Both conspire together in a dysfunctional codependent
relationship. These paradoxes, set in context in Levinasian philosophy, are best described
What are the paradoxes of power and weakness? The response is: power can be the
very basis of powers weakness as well as its power; and weakness, still weak, can be
the power of the weak. At the foundation of both the individual and societal
struggles of weakness against power and power against weakness we find these
34
unnatural paradoxes: power nurtures its own weakness and weakness possesses its
source of power in that weakness. (p. 14)
reference to all Others aggregated together into a societal whole. But while the Other has a
face, and his call is immediate and personal, the Third is anonymous and distant. How can
the Third be called to recognize justice and be heard by the Same as he would hear an
Other? Such an answer comes of the exteriority of ethics, which is to say that justice, ethics
and moral character are transcendent to life itself and affects the Third as it would any Same
or Other. “In this way, the idea of ethics, coming from outside the manageable world [i.e.
all societal organizations] with other Others, causes an awareness of, and an interest in, the
concept of justice and how this can be managed” (Aaland, 2007, p. 224). So, the idea of an
ethical stance in business or in politics, that is to say, the institutions of the Third, is not
Of course, the whole perspective of ethics immediately emerges here; but we cannot
say that is already philosophy… It is in as much as I have not only to respond to the
face of the other, but alongside him to approach the third-party, that is necessary for
the theoretical attitude arises. (Levinas, 1998, p. 103)
According to Levinas, the transactions of money have the ability to diminish the
human encounter and enable the hiding of the face of the Other. This anonymity makes
accessible a contempt for the Other, and he goes on to state: “Expressed in monetary units –
in numbers, prices – these values give rise to homogeneity, letting themselves be compared
the human services that it bears – related, rightly so, to utility and profit sharing
[inte´ressement] – the unrewardable dignity of this work as human, which as such is pitted
35
against other principles that are supposedly incalculable” (Levinas, 2007, p. 204). The
question to be asked then is: can an economy function within an ethical standard, or is the
idea of money and its interests apart from any ethical transaction? Put another way can a
business and ethics coexist? This question is examined by Aahland (2007) who argues that
“a reading of Levinas places ethics exterior to management” (p. 225) and goes on to assert
Likewise, Levinas holds a suspicion of the State having the power to eradicate the
face of the Other through anonymous third-party interactions. But this is not to say that
Levinas is opposed to politics, or the orderly systems in which society is managed. What he
He wants to indicate how the order of the state rests upon the irreducible ethical
responsibility of the face-to-face relation. Levinas’s critique of totalizing politics
leads to the deduction of an ethical structure that is irreducible to totality: the face-
to-face, infinite responsibility, proximity, the other within the same, peace.
(Critchley, 2002, p. 24)
The key question in exerting power, such as political or economic power, is the
intentionality of its use. In a society where its constituency practices the notion of for-
noteworthy article on this topic is a chilling report on the potential for evil in any socially
configured political system, economic enterprise or cultural movement. But more than that,
it clearly describes the mechanism of how moral disengagement can be personally adopted
with the inevitable conclusion that any human being, under the right set of social and
environmental influences, can be corrupted into the complete an entire disregard for the
One can easily cite horrors of war and genocide as extreme examples, but moral
disengagement is at work in all human endeavors including capitalism and commerce. Our
society is based on a mastery of consumerism and the accumulation and spending of wealth.
Within this context all behaviors, strategies, plans and actions are seemingly available,
without regard to the impact these self-motivated endeavors has on society or the
individuals that comprise it. This can easily be extended to include any industry where
governmental or social pressures attempt to exert a moral curb on their activities. This form
of self-deceit also extends to the individuals that comprise social systems; we are after all
members of the very government we exist in and are employees of the corporations we
work for. We all too easily deny the moral effects of the work we do, but really, most of us
are dumb and blind to the ramifications of our presence and activity in the world.
Bandura (1996) asserts that there exists a power of humanization that matches moral
disengagement. As he writes on page 202: “What is rarely noted is the equally striking
evidence that most people refuse to behave cruelly, even under unrelenting authoritarian
commands, if the situation is personalized by having them inflict pain by direct personal
action rather than remotely and if they see the suffering they cause.” How does this come
about? Bandura continues: “People's recognition of the social linkage of their lives and
their vested interest in each other's welfare help to support actions that instill them with a
sense of community…the affirmation of common humanity can bring out the best in others”
(p. 202). I ask then, is this not a result of the compelling call of the Other, their face and
For Levinas, the heart of social justice is expressed in the encounter between the
Other and the Same. While the third-party is a group, a social organization dedicated to
some achievement, social justice is made in the relation between two people; however, in
this context an intersubjective relationship is not at all private “…everything that takes
place here between us concerns everyone…..the third-party looks at me in the eyes of the
Patients live within a societal power structure that exerts its influence toward the
conformity of culture, the vapid promotion of wealth and possessions, and the myth of
individualism and identity. As clinical therapists we are asked to assist our patients in
individual is, within the context of a nominal view of societal life: productive and
values of the society that are defined within its hidden framework and power structure. This
may be one overarching lesson that psychological counseling can bring to the distressed
patient in the clinical setting: that their emotional state is a natural consequence of
existence within a social structure and cultural environment that they do not fit into, either
because of race, class and gender exclusions that are primarily economic or power based.
Patients within the clinic present a wide range of symptoms that refect
powerlessness: they feel de-centered, useless, isolated, incompetent and impotent (Kunz,
1998). From a cognitive point of view they are distracted, uninformed, compromising,
apathetic, deflated, relinquishing, lost and not in control. All of these factors contribute to a
rigid assumption of fatalism: that their life is predetermined to be deprived and their future
Levinas would argue that to break from this confinement, this willful interiority, one
would look toward the face of the Other; that is to say, though the Same may appear
powerless, in service to the Other will the Same find their power. Herein lies another
overarching lesson that the therapist can give to their patient: that the way out of their
suffering, their interiority, is through the recognition and service to the Other.
The uneasy relation between the individual and the Third, in this case the Welfare
State, was exemplified by Patient L, a female in her 40’s, and the mother of multiple
children, who was divorced in unpleasant and acrimonious circumstances. The two
youngest children, ages seven and nine, were removed from her custody by Child Protective
Services and were being brought up by an aunt. Patient L wanted to get her children back,
and repeatedly said that “the kids were my life.” Patient L grew up in a dysfunctional
family, was sexually abused by her stepfather in early childhood, and was brought into child
protection and foster care at an early age. She was currently on Social Security Insurance
39
due to a medical disability that included asthma, pain, and seizures. She was not employed,
was not in a current relationship and, with the exception of her desire to regain custody of
her children, she had few ideas about her future. Among her psychological issues were:
depression, trauma (PTSD), recurrent nightmares, panic, distrust of family and social
systems, and poor self-esteem and identity. Most notably was her long life experience of
being, as she said, “a child of the system,” That was to say, her life experience had been to
live in a world where her possibilities were restrained and circumscribed by the Third, in
Rather than hold to the limited view that the Third pressed on her, Patient L might
have served herself better were she able to look at the Welfare State and its overwhelmed
and insensitive representatives as being inured to her suffering. That is to say, that Patient L
could see that her own humanity, in this case her very life and aspirations, had been
subjugated to the expediency of the political relation and that this was anonymously
totalizing and violent. Through the clear understanding of her world, limited to scraps and
minimal nourishment by those who have not the resources to serve the Other in respectful
commitment, Patient L could have reframed her situation from that of the victim to that of
statement of a caring for the Other, and by extension the Third, such that the suffering of
society caused by its inability and failure to meet the poor and disenfranchised face-to-face
can be ameliorated. In doing this, through service to the Other, Patient L could find
Society holds power over the population which constitutes itself; the power of the
Third is in many ways an acceptance of subjugation by the Same. This can be turned and
40
redirected through the exercise of ethical relation, the call from and response to the Other.
But how does the ethical act toward the Other relate to the society as a whole? And how
does the neurotic compulsion for repetition of trauma unto death, which Freud observed in
his psychological studies, relate to the metaphysical relation and the original trauma by the
Without a relation to that which summons and challenges the subject, a summons
that is experienced as a relation to a Good in a way that exceeds the pleasure
principle and any promise of happiness (any eudaimonism), there would be no
ethics. And without such a relation to ethical experience — an experience that is
strictly inassumable and impossible, but which yet heteronomously defines the
autonomy of the ethical subject — one could not imagine a politics that would
refuse the category of totality. The passage to justice in Levinas — to the third party,
the community and politics — passes through or across the theoretical and historical
experience of trauma. No democracy without the death drive. Now, there's a
thought. (p. 195)
Is there no greater act of interiority than that of the substance abuser, the inebriated
psychological disposition of unworthiness, these suffering patients devote their time and
energy in an effort to withdraw from the world and to eradicate their own temporal
existence. In the existential battle between life and death these patients pick neither, but
rather remain in an intoxicated or narcotic induced shadow land, neither living nor dying,
but rather stuck hopelessly in interiority without movement. “For Levinas, to be sure, drug
intoxication is far from an experience of alterity…” writes Nealon (1995) “… [it] can best
be understood as an attempt to withdraw from contact with and responsibility for the
other...”, and goes on to state that, “according to Levinas, intoxication brings only a greater
41
However, there is a paradox here, that is to say, the addict’s addiction is without
limit and because of this there is an imperative need to enter into the exterior world to find
the substances of their imprisonment, which is also boundless. Herein lays a Levinasian
strategy for reaching the substance abuser. First, in an awakening realization they are
indeed a member of the world and are dependent in the world for any existence they so
choose, even in substance abuse. Second, that because they are dependent on the world they
can obscure but cannot deny the fraternity of Others; that they are not singletons, isolated
and free-floating. Finally, the substance abuser can come to learn of the nature of their
internal subjectivity and its manifest desire for transcendent responsibility to Others. Thus,
Nealon (1995) speculates that this is the basis of a Levinasian oriented rehabilitation
program.
For the "just say no" moralistic version of drug rehabilitation, the dependency of the
addict needs to be exposed and broken so the subject can be free again. If there were
a Levinasian rehab, it might proceed in exactly the opposite way -- by exposing the
dream of subjective freedom as symptom of addiction rather than a cure for it; such
a "cure" might hope to produce not a sutured subject, free again to shape its own
destiny, but rather "an ego awakened from its imperialist dream, its transcendental
imperialism, awakened to itself, a patience as a subjection to everything" (Levinas
1981, p. 164)…However, in Levinas [the calling of the Other] functions not as the
drug counselor's negative portrait of an unfree self, but as a kind of deliverance of
the self from its dreams of subjective imperialism. (p. 69)
Levinas asserts the role of the body in his philosophy in two distinct ways. First, that
of the apparition of the Other, the face that beckons to and disarms the Same into acting in
goodness and ethicality. Second, the body as the container of the ethical relation, preverbal
42
and implicit, as reflected in our sensations and exalted transcendent desires. In the first
case, the image of the body, as represented in the face and in nudity, is the catalyst for the
ethical relation between the Other and the Same (Crignon, 2004). However, it is with in
ourselves, our very body that the clarity of ethics is to be found, through profound
reflection, based on the implicit commandment towards goodness that is built into our very
nature. It is this perspective, the need for moral and ethical reflection, which is most
dispositions that are presented in the therapeutic theater. These include the presentation by
The sense of the body plays a significant role in the writings of Levinas and appears
in his earliest papers, including his prophetic article entitled “Reflections on the Philosophy
of Hitlerism” published in 1934. While this article was primarily based on the major social
and political movements of that era, such as National Socialism, Marxism and Liberalism,
Levinas presents his perspective on the body: its meaning to our self, our spirituality, our
But the body is not only something eternally foreign. Classical interpretations
relegate to an inferior level, and regard as a stage to be overcome, a feeling of
identity between our bodies and ourselves, which certain circumstances render
particularly acute. Not only is it the case that the body is closer and more familiar to
us than the rest of the world, and controls our psychological life, our temperament,
and our activities. Beyond these banal observations, there is the feeling of identity.
Do we not affirm ourselves in the unique warmth of our bodies long before any
blossoming of the Self that claims to be separate from the body? Do these links that
blood establishes, prior to the birth of intelligence, not withstand every test? In a
dangerous sport or risky exercise in which gestures attain an almost abstract
perfection in the face of death, all dualism between the self and the body must
disappear. And in the impasse of physical pain, is it not the case that the sick man
experiences the indivisible simplicity of his being when he turns over in his bed of
43
suffering to find a position that gives him peace? … The body is not only a happy or
unhappy accident that relates us to the implacable world of matter. Its adherence to
the Self is of value in itself. It is an adherence that one does not escape and that no
metaphor can confuse with the presence of an external object; it is a union that does
not in any way alter the tragic character of finality. (Levinas, 1990, p. 69)
The context of this discussion was wrapped around the idea of racism and the
perverted view that the body was the “object of spiritual worth” that was reflected in
the science of eugenics, that was held so highly at the time. What he finds so
objectionable in the philosophy of National Socialism and its perspective on the body,
in the alternative, opens the door to the view of the body as an indicator of integrity,
truth, humanity and ethics. Thus, “…by rooting his conception of our humanity, of
what makes us fully human, in the bodily experiences of Self and Other, he offers a
conception of humanity that he hopes can be taken seriously by a society that affirms
the identity between our bodies and ourselves” (Manning, 1998, p. 135). Going still
further in this vein, that the embodied self is a source of moral self-disclosure,
Zimmermann (2009) states, “Such a placing of the body as the nexus point of our
engagement with a moral universe demonstrates further Levinas’ own thinking on the
cause is generally neither known nor manageable by the suffering patient. More than
that, these bodily sensations are rooted in a form of unawareness, that is to say, have no
44
language to describe them and are thus stuck in a pre-verbal and disturbing umbra. It
can be asserted that these conditions represent issues of ethical ambiguity, so confusing
and primal they cannot bear to be reflected on by the suffering patient. But only
through reflection can the patient uncover ethical conflict sufficiently so that the unity
of the body and the mind is achieved, not only to identify the psychological issues
involved but choose an ethical path toward resolution. It is in this sense that a
pull from exteriority, the face of the Other, but the push toward ethical conduct as
The therapeutic experience is replete with mystery, and it falls upon the therapist to
establish their practice, explicitly and consciously, based on a clear philosophic foundation.
In her article entitled “What difference does philosophy make?” Marion Hendricks (2002)
work of the noted partnership between E.T. Gendlin, a philosopher, and C.R. Rogers, a
to both the therapist and patient. For the therapist it enables a means of understanding the
sensations and thoughts that occur in the therapeutic rapport. The same dynamic applies to
the inward looking patient in drawing out their own pre-reflective and unaware feelings and
The basis for this process is founded on the idea of congruence between feelings and
words. That is to say, congruence is the representation of feelings in words, and more
abstractly, the ability to experience feelings, and the representations they induce, with
45
experience that which they might not be aware or conscious of. The therapist might ask
“How can I understand the experience of the patient when a representation of their
experience is not explicitly expressed by them?” On the other hand, the patient may ask:
“How can I feel experience that I ‘m not aware of and may even be taking great pains to
inaccessible but that is not the same as being absent. Other means are required to detect it,
and herein we look to the body and its attuned network of sensations to provide insight into
that which is not consciously available. This concept is called the felt-sense and is the
starting point of a process that results in congruence of experience. The felt sense is
abstracted message from the shadows of the pre-reflective and non-verbal subconscious. It
is an inchoate sensation, the barest seed of an experience, from which the individual can
explore and study in an effort to apply a representation of it in the form of words, images
and gestures. These representations add meaning and color to the sensation, building
approximate, though not necessarily exact description, and bring the experience to light,
“not there” is now transformed into something that now “is there”, and is exposed in the
present moment.
The embodiment of emotion and experience is a strongly held belief in the practice
of the Existential-Phenomenological viewpoint and is based on the notion that the mind and
46
body are not distinct. To the contrary, they are one in the same; the person is a whole, mind
and body. All aspects and realms of their existence is a singularity and what the mind
forgets the body may sense. As stated in Halling (1989): “…we want to emphasize how
attentiveness to another’s bodily being, and to our own bodily reaction to him or her, is
crucial for developing understanding of the other, whether the other is normal or ‘abnormal’
” (p. 188).
sensations does not guarantee an end to suffering; what it does is it presents a starting place
for continued reflection in the hopes of an ethical and psychological resolution. As I stated
But what I'm wondering, what I'm probing at, is how can we approach things a little
deeper for one. And if your tendency is not to probe things deeper, but rather to stay
on the surface because if you get too deep it becomes overwhelming, than I'm
wondering what the consequence of this is in your life? And how can we work
together to improve this in your life…to improve your relationships? Because there
may be things that you're not saying, not facing. Like not facing with your parents,
not facing with Z [his significant other], not facing with the existential
characteristics of your life … This is progress, but it is an initiating progress. How
do you face the un-faceable is where we’re at. (Private transcript, January 24, 2011)
There is a different point of view that maybe taken with regard to the body: that
embedded in its very structure and musculature, its sinews and ligaments, a physical
memory and bodily familiarity exists that can result in a paralysis of an emotional state.
Such is the case with many patients who cling to a self-destructive emotional affect that is
reinforced by their physical stature. Such is the case with Patient C, who struggles with an
overwhelming sense of self unworthiness, which is reinforced by its very familiarity in his
47
body. So familiar is this physical and affective state that he works significantly harder to
maintain it than it would be for him to accept change. In a letter sent to me Patient C wrote:
It takes work to stay out of depression, even more work to get out of depression, yet
even more work to feel paralyzed in depression. I don’t even like the word “work”;
therefore, I need to do an awful lot of work in order to do the least amount of work.
As I’m sure of all, I would like to “enjoy contributing” for the good of all kind and
make a living doing it. (Private correspondence, May 5, 2011)
One way to break this deadlock is through “movement of the muscles”, meaning a
program of bodily exercise designed to change the very physiological memory that
just a first step, a means by which the tolerance for accepting exteriority can be achieved. It
is by far a much bigger step to realize one's worthiness, as for example, in this statement by
Patient C: “Others would do better with my bodily parts”, that reflected his existential wish
for death., to which I replied “You mean to say you are not worthy of your own organs?”
(Private transcript, December 16, 2010). In mirroring his pathetic statement back to him
Patient C realized the extreme implication of his rumination and entered a state of primal
and overwhelming emotive affect. This state could be construed as the Levinasian
description of the metaphysical relation, in this case focusing on his own intrinsic worth as a
living human being, endowed with the ethical responsibility and power that life intrinsically
extends, as reflected, and in this case perversely so, by his overwhelming egology and
Many of my patients suffer from a lacking of the ineffable body, that is to say, their
inability to process sensations and open up to feelings that bridge toward the transcendent.
Instead, they seem stuck in an emotional gridlock, a confused and unclear set of feelings, or
an atomized or sometimes even repressed set of sensations. Such are the conditions of the
48
suffering patient. They suffer from deep distress and anxiety that can barely be controlled.
When presented with a cascade of complex and contradictory feelings they lock themselves
in a state of depression and anxiety, a form of hiding. They convince themselves that their
feelings are facts, that these facts are immutable and will never change. They turn into a
state of deep and isolated existential angst and are locked in a cognitive, behavioral,
emotive and spiritual prison, situated in ceaseless interiority. These ideas are illustrated by
Patient G was a bereft woman in late middle-age who was stuck in a hopeless
depression unable to initiate any agency despite the approaching possibility of homelessness
and destitution. Patient G presented herself as being tired and unhappy; her life was joyless
and she felt that there was no future for her. While being a parent of teenage children, she
had no authority or control over them. Rather, she presented to her children a person that
was stuck, depressed and was more in need of their parenting. Her life she felt was a bleak
series of failures: her inability to be a good wife and parent, her inability to build a
constructive and accomplished career, and her inability to develop an attitude of self worth.
However, the most difficult part of Patient G’s life revolved around what Søren
becomes actual once again: someone who repeats is renewing actuality” (Carlisle 1986, p.
525). Repetition implies a striving, insistence and resoluteness of the patient to existence: to
bring themselves back to their self. This notion is worthy of additional expaination that is
presented as follows.
Kierkegaard asserts several basic existential themes in his philosophic work. First, he
observes that day-to-day life can be deeply unfulfilling. The fact of our birth does not
49
endow our life with an entitlement of satisfaction and contentment. Kierkegaard’s second
claim is that existence is a tension between facticity and transcendence. In this he means
we struggle in the grasp of our complacency and we are lulled by our possessions and
predispositions. However, as conscious entities we are also endowed with a longing desire
for higher meaning. We are pulled in both directions. The third theme states that a meaning
in life comes through struggle, choices and commitments. Here Kierkegaard presents a path
toward overcoming the burdens of the previous two themes; that through struggle and
attention we have the ability to transcend. Finally, he asserts that certain decisions are more
fulfilling than others. He is clarifying and extending the third theme, that as beings we are
the composition of the decisions we make and the choices we follow. We are our own
construction. It is the first two of Kierkegaard’s existential themes that most reflects
psychological pathology.
The reaction to suffering and dissatisfactions of life can take many maladaptive and
dysfunctional forms, especially those identified as clinical disorders that affect emotional
and physical states. This is a direct reaction to the trials of existence and the seeming
inability to transcend them. While we are endowed with the desire to overcome, many do
not possess the belief or skills to do so. Here lies a hope of the therapeutic process: our
state of existence is in our own hands, we can change ourselves through diligence and hard
work, with a deliberate movement toward fulfillment. And this daily effort is called
repetition. From a Levinasian perspective, repetition can be construe as the sustained desire
to hear the call of the Other, to see the suffering face of the Other and to deliberately choose
Tired of the repetition, of the constant demands of life, Patient G deliberately, with
malice of forethought, accepted the notion that she would no longer show diligence and
hard work, but rather, let life overwhelm her. So she withdrew into an inactive state of
interiority, showing no agency or involvement in the exterior world, freely letting the will of
the world control her while she withered into a shadow land state that hovered in the
ambiguity between death and life. In doing so she lost connection to the fraternity of
community, the warmth of family, and the responsibility toward the Other. What she had
and what could not be let go is her enduring suffering that she carried, as a cross,
Yet another example of a patient who was dissuaded from her ineffable body by the
will of her own intention was Patient F. Here was a woman in her 50s who described
herself as religiously faithful with high morals and ethical standards. As a child she grew up
in a dysfunctional and alcoholic family. Her parents were emotionally and physically
abusive to her. She had multiple children and was married for several decades to a man
who was verbally abusive and who continually diminished her abilities and self-esteem.
Some time ago, after wrestling with a deeply conflicted sense of marital duty and religious
faith, she divorced her husband. As a result of this Patient F felt she was on her own, with
no one to help her in living a life. In reflecting on the divorce Patient F reported that she felt
the following effects: a low level depression, a lack of joy, a sense of unworthiness, and a
rejection by the world and her children who believed that the failure of the marriage was
caused by Patient F who was committing a mortal sin by divorcing. Patient F repeatedly
expressed a desire to find a relationship with a worthy man, but was discouraged and stated
she did not have faith that she would meet someone. For many sessions Patient F and I
51
worked on exploring her feelings. It was apparent that feelings were hard for Patient F to
experience. Patient F stated that her feelings were private. I found that her feelings were not
only private to others, but they were private to her self as well, which is to say she
deliberately chose to be unaware of them. She repeatedly stated “My feelings are not my
friends.” which was a belief she arrived at in early childhood as a defense of the abuse and
suffering about her. We talked about this and the impact on her life of not wanting to
experience feelings, how she shut them out and shunted them aside. In the past Patient F
said she felt there was something wrong with her, that there was something missing in her
self and in her life. We discussed how life events were influenced by feelings, resolved by
feelings, and that feelings were a major component in the ability for a person to have a clear
identity, sense of self, and a connection to the world. However, she remained adamant to
not allowing the experience of embodied sensations and their subsequent generation of
feelings and emotions. These were just too much for her to bear. While her life felt hollow
and disconnected her psyche refused to allow feelings in. Without feelings she had no
compass in which to evaluate her desires. She could not experience the revelation of the
Other that stood before her. And while she was deeply religious and behaved in a deliberate
moral attitude, practicing generosity and assistance to others, she could not feel the deep
sense of ethical relation and transcendent goodness that is a basis of Levinasian philosophy.
What she did possess was a synthesized view of emotion, driven by intellect and
accomplishment, but devoid of embodied feeling. Thus, the notion of the ineffable body
The body is a source of sensations that express our pre-reflective and unaware lived
experience, in a way that precedes language and the formation of conscious thought the
accumulation of which defines our very world view. Aggregated together these sensations
establish the foundation of feelings and emotions that facilitate and enable the
transcendence into the exalted state of the ethical relation, that which binds all living things
My own heritage extends well beyond my Yiddish speaking grandparents and reaches
past each preceding generation, past Australopithecus and Neanderthals, past the birth of
mammals and reptiles, into the creation of single celled life, headlong toward the first
strands of proteins that were able to replicate themselves at the beginning of biology. This
is my DNA, and I feel it in my body, the influence it has over me as I am propelled to live
each day in the best measure I can, toward some unknown and never to be discovered end,
with the faith that there is a manifest-destiny to life but one that I can never even begin to
conceive of, for in my current state of evolutionary being that awareness is an impossibility,
just as an ant cannot conceive the beauty of a Shakespearean sonnet. Yet, even with these
limitations, I know the transcendent and the resplendent ethical relation, because they are
PRACTICING THERAPIST
In this section the role of the therapist is examined in the context of an ethical
Levinasian perspective. The therapist serves the patient by providing their gifts, which
includes the idea of radical intersubjectivity, a form of ethical practice that is also a
is argued that both fields of thought are required for the therapeutic encounter to be
meaningful.
Levinasian philosophy has much to say about the ethical practice of psychology and
the principles of the therapist: to hear the call of the patient in their suffering, to recognize
their alterity by not totalizing them, and to meet the ethical responsibility by responding to
their needs, in such a way that no violence is done to them. Edward Gantt in his well written
article (1994) concisely describes the ethical relation of the therapist as follows.
Levinas’s principles of ethics are applicable to the therapeutic encounter which places
a level of awareness, sensitivity and responsibility on the therapist. In this forum the patient
in their suffering is openly exposed and vulnerable. In the face of the appeal from the patient,
the therapist is called upon to act in ethical conduct, to leave the trappings of opinion and
judgment at their home, and surrender themselves to the excruciating neediness of the patient.
The therapist is cautioned not to dominate the patient, to keep them fixed in the highest
position with complete respect to their alterity. The therapist approaches the patient in a desire
to respectfully participate with them, in goodness and passivity, on their journey of realization
and actualization. In the therapeutic relationship the patient acts in freedom, openly exploring
possibilities in a creative and welcoming environment, such that they not only can care and
tend for themselves, but they are also able to be responsible to Others.
Therapeutic practice is based on a mutual exchange between the therapist and patient,
To recognize the Other is therefore to come to him across the world of possessed
things, but at the same time to establish, by gift, community and universality.
Language is universal because it is the very passage from the individual to the
general, because it offers things which are mine to the Other. To speak is to make
the world common, to create commonplaces. Language does not refer to the
generality of concepts, but lays the foundations for a possession in common. It
abolishes the inalienable property of enjoyment. The world in discourse is no longer
what it is in separation, in the being at home with oneself where everything is given
to me; it is what I give: the communicable, the thought, the universal. (Levinas,
1969, p. 76)
What are the gifts of the therapist? It is suggested that there are two levels of giving,
both of which are found within the face-to-face dialog of the therapeutic encounter. The first
gift is the communion and comfort of radical intersubjectivity, which includes the gentle,
tolerance of the suffering patient. This gift is founded on language. “The calling in question
of the I, coextensive with the manifestation of the Other in the face, we call language”
(Levinas 1969, p. 171). In a sense, the first statement of the therapist is an apology, an
expression of humility before the Other, but in recognition of the infinite otherness of the
patient that they will never fully know, “Apology does not blindly affirm the self, but already
The second is the gift of teaching. In the therapeutic forum teaching is an engaging
dialog in which the therapist shares their educated knowledge and experience of
However, this teaching is not a one way dialog; to be so would reduce the therapeutic
encounter to domination and violence. The patient in their presence also teaches the therapist,
such that: “The first revelation of the Other, presupposed in all the other relations with him,
does not consist in grasping him in his negative resistance and in circumventing him by ruse. I
do not struggle with a faceless god, but I respond to his expression, to his revelation”
How does the therapist help the patient move from their interiority to exteriority, and
do so within the Levinasian framework of ethical responsibility? Three themes are here
56
suggested: (1) the therapist’s self disclosure to the patient; (2) allowing the patient to teach
the therapist; and (3) the enactment of the ethical relation in the practice of radical
intersubjectivity.
The very presence of the patient in the therapeutic encounter is their first opening.
In this forum the call to exteriority begins. In the face-to-face exchange, a radical
intersubjectivity is established, which by its very nature breaks the barriers of interiority and
exteriority. The gift of psychological technique further advances the opening. This is based
on an ongoing dialog, wherein the patient and therapist openly expose themselves to one
movement from interiority to exteriority. While their histories, roles and skills are notably
different, both therapist and patient are engaged in a vulnerable exposure and an open
available exchange. The therapist is not a “blank slate” as was asserted by the Freudian
analysts at the beginning of the era of psychological practice. Rather, the therapist conducts
an open exchange, to the limits that the patient’s psychological state can tolerate. The
degree of therapist’s disclosure to the patient has long been a focus by Karen Maroda, a
But within this small theater, where only certain acts can be played out, there is no
such limitation on the world of emotion, which is at the heart of the therapeutic
enterprise. All manner of emotions can be expressed, by both analyst and patient,
even though the analyst must take greater responsibility for finding constructive and
helpful ways to express herself. For example, rather than simply disclosing every
strong feeling the analyst has, feelings should be expressed at the patient's direction
and behest, allowing him to be in control of the emotional action between them. If
the analyst discloses primarily when the patient asks for it, either overtly or through
repeated projective identifications, then the patient is less likely to be victimized by
the analyst's need to relieve herself at the patient's expense. (Maroda, 1999, p. 138)
57
relationship, with the realization that “the order of developmental progression dictates that the
interpersonal necessarily occurs first, with the intrapsychic following” (Maroda, 1999 p. 84).
This is another way of saying that celebrating the patient’s alterity in a relation of open dialog
is the start of psychic healing. “Mutual surrender is not an expression of the analyst's love,
though the analyst may love her patient very much….Rather, mutual surrender constitutes an
emotional opening up, a falling away of the analyst's resistance to being known by the patient
in the deepest way possible… as such, the analyst's surrender is both an intrapsychic and an
interpersonal event” (Maroda, 1999, p. 58). Maroda goes on to state: “The key ingredients
open about his or her own experience…..it is the therapist's willingness to be forthcoming and
to show emotion that is curative and stimulates emotional honesty in the patient” (Maroda,
1999, p. 103).
The therapeutic dyad works because the relationship and dialog runs both ways, a
mutual surrender, wherein the therapist and the patient open themselves in an intimate
exchange. For the patient this surrendering is transformational, as Maroda (1999) writes:
“Based on my own clinical experience, I would take this one step further and state that
surrender is the self-altering process. In the moment that a person surrenders he or she is
irrevocably changed” (p. 54). While the act of surrender is therapeutic, it is also recognized
as a gift to the therapist from the patient: an offering of the other’s lived-experience and an
Says Halling (1975): “Maybe the "good therapist" is the person who remains
willing to let the other person reveal himself to him” (p. 223). It is an honoring of the Other
for the therapist to accept the patient’s gift of teaching. The therapist is called upon, within
their commitment to the ethical relation, to receive this offering with interest and grace.
The ethical therapist is aware they are not the sole owner of truth and knowledge, for that
would be totalizing. In the field of human interaction we are all inadequate experts. We all
moments, we reach the heights of ethical relation in the act of teaching one another.
The ethically responsible therapist celebrates the separation and alterity of the patient
and places them above all: “First, we need to remember that the coming into question of one's
own freedom is simultaneously the welcoming of the Other, the Other over whom I can have
no power” (Halling, 1975, p. 215). This notion of learning from the patient is also supported
by Brent Robbins (2000) who writes: “Levinas (1969) shows us that all learning comes from
the Other. To uphold the ethical responsibility of our call to be psychotherapists, our learning-
to-be-psychotherapists must ultimately come from the patient. We learn from our patients….it
is the patient who teaches us how to put ourselves out of business” (p. 2).
Interiority to excess is by its very nature a loss of ethical responsibility to the Other.
This is a concept lost in the ipsiety of suffering in the patient. However, by treating the Other
in the highest Levinasian ethical relation, and by maintaining the notion of radical
intersubjectivity, the therapist is able to teach the patient, through the ongoing ethical
relationship within the therapeutic encounter, to view themselves in the activities of the
“First, if ethics is first philosophy then therapy is an ethical event. It is ethical not
simply because ethical principles govern the relationship and the ongoing process. It is ethical
because the client as Other presents a claim on me” (Dueck, 2006, p. 279). In saying this, the
therapist is called to meet the ethical principles set by Levinasian philosophy within the
relation of radical intersubjectivity. Thus the therapist serves the patient by conducting a
Paul Marcus describes the role of the therapist in this endeavor as follows: “In this
context, the role of the analyst is to expand the analysand’s awareness and understanding of
what conscious and unconscious personal factors (e.g., thoughts, feelings, wishes, and
fantasies) and, especially, valuative commitments impede, diminish, or take the place of an
Another view of ethically enabled treatment is described by George Sayre, who after
considering the well meaning but ultimately flawed person-centered approach to therapy,
aspirations of those we work with, namely, to be good…in rejecting the ego-logical ethic of
therapy and moving toward a de-centered understanding, we are better able to understand
relations” that exists for the therapist: the ethical relationship is higher and more elusive than
any set of therapeutic methods, techniques and skills known to the well educated practitioner.
It may be said that radical intersubjectivity reflects a state-of-being, reaching beyond facticity
and knowledge, beyond empathy and altruism, and enters into the realm of the transcendent.
Radical intersubjectivity is an implicit understanding of the infinitely distant and the infinitely
60
close; a state where time itself spans the dimensions of past and future and are embodied in
the very present. It is a metaphysical relation. Radical intersubjectivity is a state where the
patient is seen in their resplendent apparition, where the therapist bears witness, with utmost
passivity and humility, with the unknowable being of the Other that sits before them. In
radical intersubjectivity the therapist extends his hand in grace, which precedes his language.
This is a presence that is ineffable but is palpably felt. It is a state “of before”, a primordial
being-connected to the wellspring of the profoundly ethical commandments that is our human
nature. This view may contain the highest aspirations of Levinasian philosophy: a profound
psychology addresses the suffering of the human condition, and the resulting cognitive,
behavioral, and affective outcomes, philosophy teaches us a way of existing in the world.
Philosophy is more than a subjective and relativistic psychological world view; that is, an
direct anchoring and sensibility that holds existence, human life, in an abiding, orderly and
coherent belief. While psychology addresses the internal and external behavioral and
addresses, head-on, the meaning of existence, and provides a guidepost for the
This paper examines the notion of interiority and exteriority, as defined within the
Levinasian philosophy and presents a perspective for working with the suffering patient in the
therapeutic encounter. It is asserted that when the patient is encapsulated in their interiority,
61
to the exclusion of the world, the consequence is psychological dysfunction. Such a patient is
chained to their suffering. By denying themselves of exteriority, they are imprisoned in two
ways. First, they are stuck mute, in laryngitis of a sort, are unable to issue a call to the Other
and to be able to receive the gifts of their assistance and grace. Second, by not being in the
world they are not present to hear the Other’s call. They have denied themselves the
transcendent exaltation of service to the suffering Other. Such is the highest goal of the
therapeutic encounter: to enable the patient to not only attend to themselves, but to recognize
In the therapeutic encounter the therapist is called into an ethical practice: to establish
a non-totalizing relation where the patient is recognized and honored for their infinite
otherness, yet is helped with the gentle passivity that only the gifts of discourse and teaching
enable. This paper suggests three means for the therapist in achieving an ethical
psychological therapy: the therapist’s disclosure to the patient, allowing the patient to teach
the therapist, and the practice of radical intersubjectivity. It is posited that radical
intersubjectivity is more than a set of carefully practiced approaches. Rather, for the therapist
it is a state of being, a metaphysical relation of gentleness and grace beyond judgment, where
the infinitely unknowable Other is so passively honored, and is received with transcendent
goodness.
62
References
Aasland, D. (2007). The Exteriority of Ethics in Management and Its Transition into Justice:
16(3), 220-226.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral
Carlisle, C. (1986). Kierkegaard's Repetition: The possibility of motion. British Journal for
Crignon, P., Simek, N., & Zalloua, Z. (2004). Figuration: Emmanuel Levinas and the
Dueck, A., & Goodman, D. (2007). Expiation, substitution and surrender: Levinasian
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man's search for meaning: an introduction to logotherapy. New York:
Pocket Books.
63
Gendlin, E. T. (1964). A Theory of Personality Change. In: Worchel, P. (Ed.), & Byrne, D.
Halling, S. (1975). The Implications of Emmanuel Levinas’ Totality and Infinity for
Therapy. In A. Giorgi, C.T. Fischer, and E.L. Murray (Eds.), Duquesne Studies in
Halling, S., Hill, J. D. (1989). Demystifying Psychopathology. In: Vallee, R., Halling, S.
Hendricks, M.N. (2002). What difference does philosophy make: Crossing Gendlin and
Rogers. In: Watson, J., Goldman, R.., Warner, J. (Ed.) Client-centered and
England.
Kunz, G. (1998). The paradox of power and weakness: Levinas and an alternative
paradigm for psychology. Albany, NY US: State University of New York Press.
Lévinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being or beyond essence. (Alphonso Lingis, Trans.).
Sean Hand in Critical Inquiry 17, 62-71. (Original work published in (1934.)
Lévinas, E., Bouchetoux, F., & Jones, C. (2007). Sociality and Money. Business Ethics: A
Lévinas, E. (1998). Entré Nours: Thinking Of the Other. Trans. Michael Smith and Barbara
Rodopi, 1998.
Marcus, P. (2007). "You are, therefore I am": Emmanuel Levinas and psychoanalysis.
Nealon, J. T. (1995). 'Junk' and the Other: Burroughs and Levinas on Drugs. Postmodern
http://mythosandlogos.com/Levinaspaper.html
Sayre, G. (2005). Toward a therapy for the Other. European Journal of Psychotherapy,
Williams, R. N. (2007). Levinas and psychoanalysis: The radical turn outward and upward.
Zimmermann, N. (2009). Karol Wojtyla and Emmanuel Levinas on the Embodied Self: The