You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Randall Lehmann Sorenson is professor of psychology at the Rosemead School of Psychology in La Mirada, California, and a training and supervising analyst at the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles. Upon reading the dust jacket of Minding Spirituality,
I optimistically looked forward to a useful contribution, from an experienced analytic clinician and teacher, to the important matter of how analysts can work effectively and in authentic analytic ways with religious patients. My expectations were disappointed, however, since there is little in the book that addresses the complexity of this delicate and important matter in present-day psychoanalysis. Discussions of the pros and cons surrounding this debate are sparse, or at least sparser than I would have hoped. This may speak more to my own desires than to any deficiency in the book. Professor Sorenson did not have to write a book to suit my wishes.
Even so, I must say up front that to his credit he offers a message that I fully endorse and celebrate, namely, that the religious beliefs and convictions of our patients are not only fair game for analytic exploration and understanding, but that they are important aspects of the patient's psychic life that are eminently deserving of such exploration and understanding. Sorenson makes the case for openness and acceptance in the analyst toward the patient's belief system, but at the same time eschews blind endorsement as much as ready dismissal. What comes through in the clinical material he presents is the image of a sensitive, empathic, and thoughtful analyst, one conscious of and responsive to the religious aspects of the patient's anxieties and conflicts. As it turns out, the religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices of our patients can serve as vehicles for conflictual and maladaptive behavior just as well as any other human involvement. Religion has no prior claim to exemption or transcendent exclusion from analytic scrutiny. Thus far Sorenson a