The Therapist as the "Good-Enough Commodity": From Holding to Selling

Darragh Sheehan

May 30, 2025

As the private practice mental health marketplace expands, psychotherapists face increasing pressure to market themselves on websites, social media platforms, and professional listservs. In doing so, most therapists are inadvertently forced or intentionally trying to commodify themselves as a personal "brand[1]". As such, in today's identitarian[2] and narcissistic culture, therapists are pushed to present themselves as affirming and understanding to "sell" themselves as "good objects". 

This professional "branding" ranges from the less problematic display of clinical specialties (diagnoses, issues, and modalities) to more concerning disclosures of personal experiences, identities, lifestyles, trauma histories, political views, hobbies, and increasingly, therapist’s own psychiatric diagnoses as well as selfies. Most of these disclosures seem to demonstrate "authenticity" and "empathic capacity". Whether on Psychology Today, Instagram, individual/group practice websites, or directories like "Kink Aware Professionals", this curated self-presentation often aims to attract patients who recognize aspects of themselves in the therapist or group practice. 

Therapists who adopt identitarian approaches are often consciously guided by good intentions and the desire to create safer therapeutic spaces for marginalized communities that have historically been excluded, misattuned to, or even harmed by the field. These efforts are important; however, many of the more overtly affirming and identity-centered approaches to therapy, fueled by the logic of online branding and marketability, appear to be overcorrections of these problems. 

As psychotherapy becomes increasingly commodified and sought after on online markets, a form of professional splitting emerges between the therapists who engage in identity-based branding and those who do not. Meaning when a therapist brands themself as a professional who "gets it" (by using their identity), they explicitly or implicitly suggest that other therapists (often without that identity or lifestyle, etc.) don’t. This is fostering an increasingly competitive and market-driven ethos within the field, making it so that most clinicians feel more and more pressured to demonstrate to patients that they, too, "get it". 

The desire to seek out a therapist who shares specific identity markers or subcultural affiliations can be understood as a wish to be mirrored, and possibly the need to idealize another. Idealizing the therapist early in treatment can unconsciously help patients manage feelings of rage, mistrust, or ambivalence, and also provide a sense of containment, especially before deeper affective material emerges. This is a natural and essential aspect of the therapeutic process, which reflects the therapist's skill in cultivating a therapeutic alliance or what is called basic trust. 

Needless to say, establishing trust is crucial for effective therapy; however, when the therapist preloads the therapeutic process or curates the initial transference via branding with mirroring, sameness, affirmation, personal disclosures, and an identitarian emphasis, we need to critically analyze how this impacts not only the clinical relationship but also the way contemporary psychotherapy is being practiced. In other words, What does it mean for clinical practice when from the get-go the therapist symbolically says: "I will be able to understand and support you better because I fuck like you", or "You’re safer here because I am like you: politically, culturally, neurologically, etc".

While safety is essential for therapeutic work, the process itself is inherently risky. This is because true transformation challenges our defenses and often feels anything but safe. Yet, the emphasis on "sameness" in the therapeutic relationship has become implicitly tied to notions of "safety" and/or the idea that someone who shares your identity or lifestyle is inherently less likely to cause harm. This stance, however, unintentionally reinforces the illusion that understanding does not come through difference or alterity (meaning "otherness" or the state of being other), but rather through "sameness" (via identification or ego-syntonic experiences). In this way, "similarity" by implication is equated or positioned as “safe” and, ultimately, that which "heals". 

For many individuals or communities who have been socially and politically marginalized or oppressed, the desire for a therapist who personally "gets it" reflects a valid developmental and social need for recognition and attunement. But, when this translates into the therapist positioning themselves primarily as a reassuring identity-affirming mirror, rather than as a distinct other/person, the practice of psychotherapy risks becoming a space where both the "unknown" and difference are suppressed or "sanitized". This invites us to ask: What is happening to psychotherapy at large when "the psychotherapist" is not positioned as a "symbolic other", (meaning, an other who can help metabolize unformulated or disavowed aspects of the self), but rather a mirror that will affirm the patient's already existing self-perception? 

Contemporary psychotherapy practices and marketing thereof that equate "alikeness" with safety might inadvertently be contributing to the co-creation of a 'progressive discourse' that frames "otherness" and difference as inherently threatening. While likely unintentional, this framing stems from prioritizing emotional safety in ways that align it with familiarity, ingroup homogeneity, and/or ideological agreement. Needless to say, it is highly ironic that 'progressive' spaces which champion "diversity" may also be reinforcing ideas that equate the unfamiliar as unsafe or undesirable, or differing identities or perspectives with emotional threat. In doing so, this discourse may inadvertently contribute to the deepening of social, cultural, and political divides, under the guise of promoting 'psychological safety' and the steadily commodified language of 'mental health awareness'. Ultimately, psychotherapy—often seen as a social good in progressive circles—may also play a role in advancing narratives that weaken collective political action. 

The commodification of therapy, along with evolving cultural narratives, is reshaping how psychotherapy engages with 'identity', as it is increasingly becoming an emotionally and morally charged organizing principle. This reality risks turning the practice of psychotherapy into a process where identity is emotionally valenced (a term taken from social psychology that refers to the affective value assigned to something, specifically experienced as either emotionally "positive" or "negative"). With this framework, identities are positioned as stable and inherently affirmable constructs. Yet, this framing runs counter to say, a psychoanalytic perspective (the foreparent of psychotherapy), which does not view identity as fixed or fully knowable, nor even affirmable, but rather as inherently unresolved, never knowable, and conflicted. 

In this context, the countercultural elements of certain branches of psychodynamic psychotherapy might even become diluted, specifically, the poetic and philosophical sensibilities that are relevant to the therapeutic encounter in many depth-oriented psychotherapies. These traditions are better described as ethical disciplines which seek to cultivate self-reflection, and tolerance for ambiguity, psychic dissonance, and the unarticulated, which allows meaning to emerge relationally and dialectically, rather than through imposition or affirmation.

Accordingly, depth-oriented psychotherapies represent a distinctive tradition within Western culture, one that has the potential (based on its unique theories of subjectivity and consequent clinical praxis) to engage patients in processes that contest the commodification of self. In this light, certain interpretations of psychodynamic therapies can be seen not only as countercultural but also as politically and socially relevant. And while the shift toward affirming approaches and their marketing (along with ideologically grounded practices labeled as "decolonial" or "liberatory") may appear 'progressive', they consistently commodify and potentially flatten the political potency of the clinical encounter, functioning as a form of false progressivism and at times performative radicalism. 

A Professional Shift Toward The Therapist as the "Good Object"

In The Analyst’s Vulnerability: Impact on Theory and Practice, the psychoanalyst Karen Maroda (2022) suggests therapists’ personality traits are often rooted in early developmental experiences: traits that include, but are not limited to, conflict avoidance, excessive empathy, and difficulty asserting personal needs. She adds that a therapist’s attachment to specific clinical theories is often influenced by their own early childhood experiences and personality traits. She interprets the shift toward relational models as an attempt to reject the image of the "grandiose, narcissistic, and authoritarian" classical analyst. As a result, she states psychotherapists began to overly glorify the therapist’s empathy, self-denial, and personal suffering as a means of becoming the "good object" for the patient. This, she argues, leads therapists to a form of narcissistic vulnerability. As a consequence of this, perhaps leading to a cohort of therapists exhibiting covert narcissism, where the qualities of self-denial and empathy are overly glorified.

Maroda critiques the ideal of the 'self-sacrificing, endlessly empathic therapist' and views the contemporary emphasis on the therapist as a "good object" in psychotherapy as an overcorrection of the classical analyst's emphasis as a "bad object". In this contemporary framework, the therapist aims to be empathic, kind, and non-confrontational, and as such, in her view, ends up suppressing both tension and conflict. In this light, the rise (and marketing) of affirming and identitarian therapies might represent another form of covert (and increasingly overt) narcissism, where the therapists’ public displays of empathy, identity, affirmation, political virtue or ideology, and identitarianism serve to signal professional status as a "good object".

By extension of Maroda’s logic, identitarianism and marking thereof, most likely impacts the clinical encounter by also suppressing conflict, difference, etc. In this context, might the dominant framing of 'therapeutic containment' as affirming reflect a subtle form of cultural compliance and suppression of dissent, i.e. the formation of subjects that have the fantasy of enhanced emotional attunement, only as a result of suppressing conflict, negativity, and difference?

The Therapist as Social Media Influencer and The Betrayal of the Therapeutic Task 

The merger of therapeutic and advertising cultures is changing the role of the therapist, as the lines between clinician and social media/ online persona are becoming blurred. The contemporary overtly ‘affirming’ therapist, especially in social media and other online spaces, appears to unconsciously curate a persona or experience to reflect the patient’s idealized self-image—similar to the dynamics of social media influencers. 

This raises critical questions: What happens to the therapeutic process when a patient unconsciously relates to their therapist (or even other therapists/influencers online) as an influencer (whether in person or on Zoom) or as a consumable pre-branded "object"? And how might the therapist inadvertently strengthen the patient's narcissistic defenses in this dynamic? How does this shift curate a transferential dynamic toward—unacknowledged or unanalyzed—idealization, narcissistic twinship, or even consumer-like expectations? 

In the essay "The Imaginary, Social Media and Lacan’s Mirror Stage", Aayush Aaryan provides insights into these trends. Drawing on Lacan, he makes the argument that social media platforms function as modern-day "mirrors" as part of developmental processes, and that this actively shapes how individuals are constructing their contemporary sense of self. By expanding on this idea, we can assume that therapists—who are steadily pressured to present themselves as idealized figures online and becoming 'influencers' on social media—are increasingly serving as "objects" of identification in this digital reality. 

In a sense, the therapist as a "good-enough" object has become a hyperreal projection of therapeutic value. This risks transforming the therapeutic space into an extension of the therapist’s brand or a place where self-curated "wholeness" is mirrored to and back by the patient. As a result, in a Winnicottian sense, the holding environment may become compromised, as the therapist's online and perhaps even real presence increasingly resembles idealized reflection, affirmation, and simulation. This is, in a sense, a betrayal of the therapeutic task. 

Selling Care: Narcissism and the Online Therapeutic Persona

There is a peculiar growing trend among psychotherapists, particularly among attractive younger clinicians, who publicly share intellectually stylish and sometimes subtly seductive photos of themselves in their offices or other types of selfies on social media and websites etc. And while a few well-taken photos can humanize a practice, repeated sharing of self-images (including sensualized ones) no doubt blurs the line between professional psychotherapist and ("sexy") social media influencer. 

Relatedly, I’ve noticed a trend in group therapy practices that are increasingly composed of predominantly young, attractive, and sometimes “hipster” therapists. While a therapist clearly cannot control their innate attractiveness or “coolness,” what I find pertinent to explore is the act of intentional curation for marketing and referral purposes. To illustrate this, one private group practice owner I spoke with admitted that it was intentional on their part to hire attractive therapists because it helped them gain more patient referrals. 

I was further shocked to come across the Instagram page of a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in New York City, curated like an Upper East Side 'girl power' lifestyle influencer. The account featured her "authenticity" with trendy videos, her daily outfits, daily spending habits, pampering routines, and also…links to buy merchandise on Amazon (from candles to workout gear) and even the clothing she was wearing in her posts. All of which was accompanied by a booking link for "relationally focused therapy" sessions with her or a clinician in her group practice. In this case, her branding was not related to affirming a marginalized identity, but rather an upper-class wellness lifestyle and aspirational notions of health linked to consumerism. She still affirms an identity though: one tied to class privilege, aestheticized self-regulation, and the moral authority of (emotional) "wellness" as a lifestyle.

Unlike other therapists online, her self-branding and overt narcissism were unapologetically transparent, along with the glaring ethical concerns and conflicts of interest. And while her commodified approach to psychotherapy may appear extreme (potentially even warranting review for licensing misconduct), it can also be seen as an exaggerated reflection of broader trends currently shaping the therapeutic field. In addition, her practice exemplifies the superficial appropriation of relational psychoanalysis, interpreted reductively by a wide range of therapists. Increasingly, it is applied not as a clinical discipline (in its rigorous traditional and theoretical sense), but as a superficial empathic form of relating in the clinical space. As such, describing one’s practice as "relational" has increasingly become a marketing tool, used to create a brand around the image of "authenticity".

On the other end of the influencer-therapist spectrum, there is a well-known Instagram influencer/mental health professional and "healer" who preaches about the "decolonization" of mental health. She sells courses tailored to "wyte, settler colonizers to work on decolonizing" themselves, for thousands of dollars, mind you. Wearing feathers and using social media filters, speaking in a slow, performative "spiritual voice", she offers vague, "decolonial" rhetoric dressed up as "pre-colonial spiritual wisdom". It’s pure aesthetic and empty rhetoric, lacking in any real substance or political action; in other words, it’s a brand. And yet, many self-identified "progressive" or "radical" individuals and therapists remain under the illusion that she is offering important healing wisdom and a deconstructive clinical perspective, failing to recognize that she is a salesperson.

The 'influencer' approach to therapy is symptomatic of a broader shift. In particular, as private practices adopt business-like models, there's a risk that private therapists and group practices might prioritize marketable attributes, such as age, appearance, style, aesthetics, and/or niche identities, political beliefs etc., to attract and engage patients, over a commitment to therapeutic skill, experience, clinical theory, and, in the end, a psychotherapeutic process. Said differently, therapeutic authority in popular culture is increasingly being linked to marketable attributes along with empty rhetoric, more than a clinician’s actual years of clinical experience or training; undoubtedly carrying the potential to significantly transform the field.

From the "Empty Self" to the "Branded Self" 

In the 1990 essay, "Why the Self is Empty: Toward a Historically Situated Psychology", Phillip Cushman, coined the term the "empty self", in which he refers to the "empty" subject of late capitalism. Due to a lack of communal connections, he argues, this "empty self" compensates by "filling" itself up with the consumption of products, food, celebrities, etc. We perhaps could add that in our contemporary lives, the use of social media, smartphone gratification/compulsion, "one-click online buying", and identitarianism are all now used to fill this "empty self", as well. 

Cushman points out that advertising and psychotherapy are institutions tasked with healing this contemporary “self” by promoting “lifestyle solutions,” designed to “fill the emptiness” with symbols and behaviors of idealized (“whole”) identities. While this may offer temporary relief and satisfaction to us, he believes that it further risks alienating us from solving our social problems and risks reinforcing superficial cultural values, empty rhetoric, and the repetition of slogans, all of which leave people vulnerable to exploitation by authorities: cult leaders, political figures, and therapists (see former examples of therapists discussed above). 

Now, fast forward 35 years from when Cushman first wrote this essay, where social media, along with digital marketing, have become central platforms where psychotherapy and advertising have merged. What has occurred is a somewhat perfect alliance between psychotherapy, advertising, and now digital culture (add the ever-growing use of AI into the mix, particularly as “replacements” for human therapists among other things), tailoring to the “empty self.”  

Expanding on Cushman’s idea, I would argue that the “empty self” has evolved into a “branded self” [3] in contemporary life. This “branded self” (promoted by social media and other web platforms) curates and presents the self as a personal brand, carefully selecting images, lifestyles, consumption patterns, political rhetoric/symbols, book lists, careers, and affiliations to display an identity that has market and/or social value. It operates through social media, but also how we increasingly relate to the world and ourselves off the web. In this sense, the self becomes rooted in our ability to perform a sellable, attractive identity for: potential customers, patients, lovers, social media followers, employers, brands, or broader audiences like friends and acquaintances, etc. This “branded self” has transformed identity into a project oriented toward market validation (lifestyle capitalism) and consumption, rather than autonomy, democratic engagement, poetic self-creation, and genuine communal belonging (which are ironically, the very lack we seek to fulfill through lifestyle consumption). And psychotherapists are playing right into it. 

The logic of the "branded self" has become fundamental in shaping contemporary professional subjectivities and identities in a broad range of careers, with a particular salience as noted within the psychotherapy profession. On a broader scale, this hyper-focus on the therapist as a "good-object" prevents us from confronting the complexities and contradictions inherent in our professional role in society, particularly our participation (as ‘mental health’ professionals) in the reproduction of power and ideology. A deeper examination of our profession may reveal uncomfortable truths about the field, ourselves, and the narcissistic drives that often lead us here. But if we are serious about psychotherapy’s political potential, these realities must be confronted.

Professional Conformity and the Therapist as a Symbol of "Political Goodness"

Concerning professional dialogue and critique, Maroda argues that the repression of conflict has extended to the professional collegial environment as well, where clinicians rarely openly disagree with each other theoretically. She states that because our attachment to certain clinical theories originates in personal life experiences, when the clinical theories we believe in are challenged, we often personalize it, turning clinical and/or academic debate or discussion into a personal attack. I would add that this may extend to a lack of open, nuanced critique of the history and direction of the profession itself, alongside virtual silence on the increasingly consumerist nature of the profession. It is almost as if differing ideas towards clinical theories and practice or critiques of the profession itself run the risk of  "hurting" our colleagues' feelings, reinforcing the notion that "difference" is inherently unsafe. Moreover, when clinical practice (or other relating) is rooted in identity, dialogue can break down due to narcissistic wounding and heightened sensitivity, leading people to take critiques personally, which can lead to the act of or fears of the silencing or "canceling" those who dare to question their sense of self.

Adding to this are algorithms on platforms like Instagram and LinkedIn, as well as platforms like Psychology Today that are designed to reward sameness and the "therapist as brand" posts or images that repeat similar messages. This further deepens a consensus in mainstream or "niche" psychotherapy practices, especially among younger clinicians more prone to participate in social media. In addition, what results, now with social media, is a kind of (pseudo) intellectual groupthink: enthusiasm around the "next right thing" (new modalities, trendy buzzwords, politically fashionable ideas) with minimal critical discussion, analysis, nor self-reflection on why certain theories, terms, branding, or online behaviors by therapists etc. are popularized. 

The key concern here is the psychotherapeutic community’s broader lack of professional self-reflection on how macro-level forces (ideological, social, economic, political, algorithmic) feed into and shape psychotherapy and vice versa. These forces are actively co-transforming the practice of psychotherapy, even deskilling it (a word used to describe when specialized work is simplified, leading to a decline in professional expertise and autonomy), often in ways that go unanalyzed by a broader community of clinicians. We are indeed a profession in crisis and cannot afford to deny this. Notably, many senior clinicians, meant to mentor the next generation of psychotherapists and sound the alarm on stated crisis, are failing to actively engage in this fundamental responsibility. Instead, many of them are focusing on how to build group practices with newer clinicians and in a sense, trying to "get in line" with the times. 

This lack of critical engagement and analysis of how psychotherapy is impacting the broader socio-economic and political environment and vice versa is ironically most absent among the therapists/group practices who most visibly brand themselves as "socially and politically conscious". In reference to this, in certain niche markets, therapists are also increasingly expected to display and "brand" themselves as politically conscious, i.e. present themselves as "good political objects", and in doing so, they implicitly offer themselves as more than clinicians: they market themselves as symbols of political alignment and ideological "safety".

The therapist thus becomes a stand-in for the "right side of history". And the professional pressure to present oneself "on the right side of history", not only often stifles open discussion and dissent in the field, but also creates fears of being "canceled", which can lead to clinicians "playing it safe" by not engaging in critical dialogue essential for clinical growth. And while the "therapist" on "the right side of history" may seem "politically conscious" or "radical", it has the opposite effect in that it depoliticizes the therapeutic encounter and "politics" by turning it into a commodified, pre-packaged (ready-made) experience. 

Accordingly, this is a core function of branding and marketing: to provide consumers with a sense of assurance that a product or service is consistent and predictable. We know, for example, exactly what McDonald’s fries will taste like, which makes the choice more comfortable than gambling on the fries at a random corner deli. In this way, marketing and the phenomena of branding reduce complexity, ambiguity, and the discomfort of the unknown, qualities that are often central to both meaningful political engagement and psychotherapeutic work.

As Hannah Arendt (1958) argues, the health of our political life depends on the ability to appear before one another in difference, not in a homogenized consensus. Yet, despite widespread rhetoric about diversity in progressive culture, we face a growing social dilemma marked by a diminished capacity to engage with what is unfamiliar, different, or contradictory—whether politically, culturally, ideologically, etc. In a sense, we are in a social contemporary crisis of alterity that spans across all political and ideological spectrums. Fueled by defensive reactions to "difference" and algorithmic echo chambers, liberals and other progressives sometimes uncritically think this dilemma is capable of being resolved under the banner of "diversity" and "inclusion". 

For some, the so-called resolution to this crisis is the consumption of commodities/products, lifestyle-oriented experiences, a curated "branded self" along with other forms of identitarianism or ideological alignment, while for others, it manifests as a pull toward authoritarianism and even fascism. This dilemma is increasingly reflected in and enacted through the ways we steadily practice and market psychotherapy, and it is time to bring these topics to the forefront. 

The Work We Can No Longer Evade

In this paradigm, the therapist is no longer just a "good-enough mother" but is slowly becoming the "good-enough commodity", a consumable persona curated for consumption within specialized psychotherapy markets. By centering identification, affirmation, and consumerism over depth, difference, and clinical theory/praxis, we risk forgetting that the true political potential of psychotherapy lies not in being seen by a familiar mirror but in being challenged by a different one. And to do this requires the capacity and courage to stay in conflict without becoming consumed by aggression or retreating into "sameness". 

If psychotherapy were to embrace a broader social and political purpose, it might be, in my mind, to explore the co-creation of a subjectivity capable of holding this tension. After all, active participation in democracy as citizens, rather than as consumers or subjugated selves, demands a subjectivity capable of engaging with conflict, dialogue, negativity, and debate; holding dialectical contradiction; transforming aggressive impulses in socially constructive behaviors; embracing the complexity of the "other" in relation to the self; reorienting self in relation to community and shared responsibility, as well as resisting subjugation not only by external forces but also by the authority of internalized introjects. Without these capacities, both psychotherapy and democracy risk dissolving into exercises of ideological reinforcement, as is increasingly evident in our contemporary world.

Let us consider the words of Audre Lorde, who reminds us that: "Too often, we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring differences into pretending those differences are insurmountable barriers, or that they do not exist at all. This results in a voluntary isolation, or false and treacherous connections. Either way, we do not develop tools for using human difference as a springboard for creative change within our lives" (1984). If we aspire to cultivate a collective politics of solidarity, this is the work we can no longer evade—the work that certain types of psychotherapies, like psychoanalysis and depth-oriented psychodynamic psychotherapies, perhaps can help us both articulate and, within its scope, put into practice.

---

Footnotes

[1] In the realm of public relations, branding is related to "managing perception" and focuses on how something looks or feels over what’s actually happening. In other words, branding is related to "telling a story" and/or creating an "identity". The brand offers the consumer symbolic meaning, as well as simplicity, order, and control (think of the consistency mainstream brands offer, no surprises or risks). On the other hand, marketing is the mechanism through which that identity/brand/symbol is distributed. Marketing has transformed over the past few decades: from one-way messaging (brands talking to consumers) to personalized, interactive engagement (brands talking with consumers through reviews, posts, and social media, etc.). This two-way communication increasingly co-creates markets, driven by digital platforms that enable hyper-targeted marketing based on algorithmic behavior and demographics. In other words, psychotherapists are participating in this co-created "two-way marketing", where therapists' identities become part of their marketing strategy, inevitably shaping the contemporary practice of psychotherapy itself. 

[2] Identitarianism refers to a political or cultural orientation that centers on fixed identity categories (like race, gender, or sexuality, etc.) as central to political struggle and social recognition. This perspective can risk reducing individuals to essentialized or static group identities, often neglecting historical context, material conditions, as well as class relations. 

[3] Prior to developing the concept independently, I was unaware of the term "branded self" being used elsewhere in the academic literature. However, I have since encountered its usage in Brands and Cultural Analysis (2019) by Arthur Asa Berger, where it is discussed in a different disciplinary context.

---

References

Aaryan, A. (n.d.). The Imaginary, social media, and Lacan’s “The Mirror Stage”. Medium. https://medium.com/@ayush0.0aryan/the-imaginary-social-media-and-lacans-the-mirror-stage

Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

Berger, A. A. (2019). Brands and cultural analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cushman, P. (1990). Why the self is empty: Toward a historically situated psychology. The Psychotherapy Patient, 7(1–2), 35–51. 

Lorde, A. (1984). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. In Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (pp. 114–123). Crossing Press.

Maroda, K. J. (2022). The analyst's vulnerability: Impact on Theory and Practice. Routledge.

---

Darragh Sheehan is a clinical social worker, psychotherapist, and adjunct lecturer at Silberman School of Social Work (City University of New York) from New York City. She has been in direct practice for over 15 years in community mental health. Her primary post-graduate training is in a neo-Reichian somatically oriented psychodynamic psychotherapy (one of the earlier clinical attempts to integrate the political, the body, and subjectivity). She hopes to share her thoughts and experiences on the frontlines of direct social work practice, in order to promote substantive approaches to merging the socio-political with psychotherapy. She is a co-director of the Center for Critical and Clinical Analysis. To find out more visit cccacommunity.com