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.
Even among psychoanalytic wise men we rarely find a vision trained specifically on the nature of treatment. A few heroes come to mind. The first committed treater was Ferenczi, and it is no disrespect to his foresight, courage, and experimental persistence to say that in later years he was guided more by how he wished treatment to work than by what he saw there. We can all think of a few brilliant therapists whose insights were blurred and blended in their charisma. Many others fell into the gravitational field of institutional loyalty. Many quickly patented an eponymous formula.
Human nature being what it is, we are all compelled to take part in the sociable chatter of our peers, but there are a few thinkers who are so intent on deciphering the mysteries of dynamic therapy that they let go of collegial concerns and wrestle with the mystery simply because it bugs them. For them it's essentially a private puzzle. Bewitched by the therapy puzzle, these single-minded questioners are open to every hint of an answer, but seem indifferent to the debate of the moment. I think of Leston Havens. I think of Merton Gill, seen in the light of his overall life work. We know there are others. But not many, I dare say, and some of them with no gift for—or interest in—writing, and therefore known only to their immediate circle. Narrowed down to therapy-obsessed investigators whose wondering is pure, whose gifts are singular, and whose way with words is a fair reflection of their genius for therapy (and I use that word carefully), we will not find a large crowd around Edgar Levenson.
It is not likely that Levenson would have been bewitched by any overarching, institute-sponsored theory. But he rightly gives the White Institute credit for its tolerance and pluralism and for not distracting him from his fresh and immediate experience of practice—indeed, even endorsing his quizzical focus on “what's going on around here.” It is also a stroke of luck for the institute, because, no matter