Morality, Selflessness, Transcendence: On Treatment Goals of a Spiritually Sensitive Psychoanalysis

Abstract

Psychoanalysis has historically been understood to evince a suspicion or hostility to all ideas or ideals of “religion.” But in recent years, a new analytic tradition seems to be emerging, characterized by being spiritually sensitive. In this article, I briefly explore the budding theories of development, transference, and psychopathology as they are newly understood by spiritually sensitive psychoanalysts. I expound on the way they see the healthy personality and how this affects their therapeutic goals. I suggest four main clusters of such goals: 1) changing problematic patterns of faith, 2) developing a moral stance of compassion and responsibility, 3) lessening preoccupation with the self, and 4) helping patients get nearer to the numinous. Finally, I show how spiritually sensitive psychoanalysis's contribution to the spiritual person is unique, compared with other spiritually sensitive psychologies or spiritual traditions. I also discuss the tensions arising between this emerging field of thought, and the existing body of psychoanalytic knowledge.

Keywords:

• psychoanalysis and religion
• psychoanalytic treatment goals
• psychoanalysis and spirituality
• psychoanalysis and Buddhism
• psychoanalysis and morality
• transcendent position

Notes

¹ Etezady (2008) defined faith, in an intersubjective context, as “a state of relatedness to an object whose dimensions exceed the grasp of cognitive or affective reach” (p. 562).

² The literal meaning of the word is “to suffer with.” Young-Eisendrath (2001) defined the concept thus: “By compassion, I mean a kind and loving response to the suffering and adversity of oneself or another. Compassion is more than pity, sympathy, or the urge to help. True compassion allows us to respond to difficulty and anguish in a way that is truly helpful and not simply reactive, trivializing, or premature” (p. 276).

³ An action originating from the superego, observed Symington (1994), is an action the person feels he or she must do (usually without a reason or rational explanation for the feeling of obligation), whereas an action originating from the conscience is an action the person wants to perform (a will he or she can explain).

⁴ As mentioned, Lacan is one of the only analysts who talked about “no-self” before the spiritual-turn in Western culture. Moncayo (1998) wrote about the connections between Lacanian psychoanalysis and Buddhism, and claimed that for both “true self is no-self” (p. 383). Or, in Lacanian terms, “true subject is no ego” (Moncayo, 2003, p. 349).

⁵ The great 18th century Hassidic rabbi, Baal Shem Tov, interpreted Moses’ saying from the Book of Deuteronomy (5:5) “I stood between the Lord and you at that time” as meaning that “I”—that is, the perception of self, a perception that there is an “I” who has a separate existence—is what stands between the person and God.

⁶ I am indebted to one of the reviewers for this distinction.

⁷ The other two points are denial of the reality of time and a belief that any expression of evil is an illusion.

⁸ Spiritually sensitive psychoanalysis is indeed influenced by Jung's analytic psychology (see Samuels, 1996; Stephens, 1999).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gideon Lev

Gideon Lev, Ph.D., works in private practice in Haifa, Israel. He is a member of the Program for Psychoanalysis and Culture, the Department for Hermeneutics and Culture, Bar Ilan University, Israel. He recently published his first book, llove (Tel Aviv, Israel: Matar).