Expiation, Substitution and Surrender: Levinasian Implications for Psychotherapy

Abstract

This essay will build on Emmanuel Levinas's rejection of ontology as foundational and draw out the implications for psychotherapy. We will explore Levinas's concept of substitution (in both his more Jewish writings and his philosophical treatises) and consider its meaning in relationship to the role of a psychotherapist. Levinas understands the Other as a calling for substitution of the self and of a taking on of responsibility. We explore the notion of surrender in the work of the psychoanalyst Emmanuel Ghent and argue that his position is ultimately lacking in ethical injunction; requiring nothing of the self in relationship to the Other. It remains within the confines of the conventional, self-reflexive models that Levinas critiques. Following Levinas, we suggest that the therapist bear the burden of ethical responsibility by being exposed to the client's ethical call and by responding out of a kenotic self-emptying."No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13) Western Enlightenment models of therapy are continuous with Descartes' self-conscious ego, capable of positing itself, engaging in intentional action, and deciding how and when to relate to the other. This ego encounters the world, rationally orders it, thematizes it, making A. Dueck ( ) School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary,

Change is an Ongoing Ethical Event: Levinas, Bakhtin and the Dialogical Dynamics of Becoming

“…Further, initiatives in therapy and mental health practice influenced by Levinas explicitly put ethics at the core of the therapeutic encounter both in family therapy (Andersen, ; Larner, ) and individual psychotherapy (e.g. Dueck & Goodman, ). Some present the implications of Levinas’ ethics as incompatible with a modern approach based on diagnoses and corresponding methods (Dueck & Parsons, ).…”

Representing the Good: Pastoral Care in a Secular Age

“…Concerning the pastoral relationship, representing the Good means recognizing the mysteriousness of clients as Others. This underlines the relevance of Levinas’s work to understanding the pastoral relationship (Doehring 2015 ; Dueck and Goodman 2007 ; Dueck and Parsons 2007 ; Lynch 2002 ). Doehring ( 2015 ), for instance, explains, “According to Levinas we choose life when we become open to the mystery of the other” (p. 47).…”

The “Heroic I”

“…The "heroic I" and its modern psychological forms represent a radicalizing of the self-reflexivity of which Levinas was so critical. They epitomize a version of the self oriented for-itself, a self fallen prey to the temptation of temptation (Dueck & Goodman, 2007). Williams and Gantt (2002) argue this clearly when they state, "In adopting the methods and philosophical justifications of a positivist, naturalistic science of human behavior, most psychologists have felt it necessary to abandon questions about morality and ethical obligation" (p. 1).…”

“…As Levinasian clinicians, our concern would be, in part, the narcissism of this preponderantly self-reflexive self. Therapy would have as its goal, in addition to other components particular to the needs of the client, a calling into question of the ego configuration that is largely for-itself (Dueck & Goodman, 2007). It would include a calling of the client beyond him-or herself, toward another (Marcus, 2008).…”