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.
Lauren Levine’s book, Risking Intimacy and Creative Transformation in Psychoanalysis, is as impressive for what it demonstrates as for what it says. It shows us, rather than telling us, how theory can inform clinical choices. It is also a master class in embodying what I have (Buechler, 2004) called “clinical values.” And, perhaps most impressively, it seamlessly weaves together psychoanalytic and artistic creativity.
A psychoanalytic Janus, Levine simultaneously faces theory and clinical interchanges. In several cases, Levine manifests what she has learned from Bromberg’s concept (Bromberg, 1998) of “standing in the spaces,” when dissociation is the patient’s defensive go-to. It would be hard for me to imagine someone who has learned more from the work of Harris (2009), Davies (2004) and many other contemporary Relational thinkers, as well as older pathfinders such as Bion (1959), Ferenczi (1932/1988), and Loewald (1979). And Levine is unafraid to take her cues from outside the strictly psychoanalytic literature, learning from Frankl (1959) and Rankine (2020) among many others.
Most moving to me personally is Levine’s embodiment of what I (Buechler, 2004) call the “clinical values” of curiosity, hope, a sense of purpose, courage, kindness, integrity, and the capacity to bear loss. Each of these is amply displayed in Levine’s vignettes. What I mean by a “clinical value” is an ideal that spans theoretical viewpoints. Classical Freudian analysts are no less invested in nurturing curiosity than Lacanian, Interpersonal, Relational, and others. Levine offers a great example of encouraging curiosity in her discussion (Chapter 8) of her treatment of Angela, a Caribbean-American woman. Raising the issue of how Angela felt, being seen by a White therapist, Levine at first accepted Angela’s quick response that it was fine. But then Levine wondered (p. 167): “How much does our mutual need to protect the trust we’ve built inhibit our capacity to raise questions that go further, d