Psychotherapy as a Subversive Art

Psychotherapy is an art: for many practitioners – I count myself among them – this claim has considerable appeal. This may be true even when, in deference to the scientism currently in vogue, some of us select a rather contrite version of the above statement, describing therapy as a science of the art (Schore, 2011). My intention here is not to merely defend the claim, but to see how far it can go. To vaguely endorse it feels apologetic; it also implies a facile polarization between art and science – between a (preferred) subjective, qualitative dimension, and a seemingly objective and quantitative domain. Besides, it would be wrong to bring art into the equation without some appreciation of the aesthetic experience. In relation to therapy, this requires developing a better grasp of the craft of therapy – of its imaginative response to the sheer elusiveness of mental distress. Appreciating our practice as a craft already frustrates to some degree the neoliberal robotic takeover to which most therapeutic orientations comply. But something more is needed: a pervasive _re-envisioning _of how we understand the craft of therapy and how it may relate to art and aesthetics.