Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ada Fetters
Seattle University
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 2
Introduction
of the face without which… it could not commence” (Levinas, 1979, p. 202). Emmanuel
reductionism translates into letting the diagnosis speak instead of the patient. Even now,
mainstream psychology holds Karl Jaspers’ view that diagnoses and terms are a necessary
template; that we must label schizophrenia and its symptoms in terms of form rather than
content because such individual characteristics of the content mean there is no truth in
such experiences for a therapist to understand. I contend that Levinas offers an ethical
alternative to this rather dehumanizing point of view by reminding therapists that only the
Other human being knows the truth of his own individual experience, and this holds true
for schizophrenics just as much as for therapists, or anyone else for that matter.
therapists from comprehending the patient fully by seeking one universal truth or
template to contain them. However, it is the job of the therapist to understand the nature
of patient’s struggle. Levinas can help therapists here as well. He reminds us that
language (the primary tool of a psychotherapist) can be both a bridge and a barrier for
Psychological language is liberating when it gives words to those who do not yet have
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 3
their own vocabulary, but terminology can still their voices if it reduces their experience
to generalizations.
Levinas writes of the limitless distance between all individuals in his Totality and
Infinity. Behind the face of the Other person, the physical features and affect, is the vast
reach of interiority. He writes that “The face is present in its refusal to be contained. In
this sense it cannot be comprehended, that is, encompassed” (1979, p. 194). This is
because for Levinas, the human face was much more than a membrane stretched over a
bony casing. For Levinas, the face was the manifestation of transcendence. The infinite
uniqueness and Otherness of the person not only shows in their face, but always
overflows their mere appearance. The face is not just flesh. It is the way the Other
presents himself while always exceeding not only his own form and image, but also any
idea I have about him and his character. It is “the infinite in the finite, the more in the
less” (p. 50). The infinity of the interior is constantly being produced so that it is in a
Before we go any further, it is important to note that I do not intend to reduce the
According to Levinas, the Other comes from a transcendent height, and I am forever
below. The dimension of height is noteworthy and its application or lack thereof to the
therapeutic relationship has been long debated among philosophers and psychotherapists.
However, this paper will focus on Levinas’s dimension of distance as applied to the
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 4
therapist and patient, as well as the benefits and deficits of language to bridge that
distance. The various angles of therapeutic height will not be discussed here.
Levinas’s insights into the dynamic of relation versus totalization are particularly
useful when a therapist is faced with a schizophrenic patient, for two reasons. Firstly, the
interiority of a schizophrenic Other is unique, as are those of all Others with whom we
across the distance that separates each person from everyone else. However, Levinas’s
insight is even more important in that it helps therapists to remember that the second does
not negate the first. No matter what his words or lack thereof, the schizophrenic patient
is an Other with an infinite internal landscape and his face, in Levinas’s sense, is beyond
fully, not that we can never understand them at all, the way Karl Jaspers maintained. He
was so impressed with the idiosyncratic nature of the schizophrenic person that he
proposed that hallucinations be classified according to form rather than content, for the
content itself was so unique from case to case as to lack pathognomic finality. He wrote
that hallucinations were basically empty and meant nothing, and thus could never be
Nothing could be further from the insight Levinas offers: that the schizophrenic is
an Other coming from his own viewpoint with his own meanings - not that his meanings,
however bizarre, do not exist simply because we cannot comprehend them. “Madness is,
after all, defined by its very difference from reason,” writes Brendan Stone (2004),
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 5
entropy, chaos, silence and senselessness” (p. 18). In the last century we reasonable ones
have grown skittish of the chaos of madness, especially that of schizophrenia. Although
both amorphic and polymorphic in that no one is sure whether it has no form at all or
whether it is actually several different things. Either way, its vague outline does not sit
easily with the Age of Reason. We tend to turn away from the possibility of meaning in
1961/1988, p. 228). Levinas, with his ethics of relation between two infinitely distant,
irreducible, Other beings, absolves the therapist from knowing the final, static truth about
a schizophrenic patient. A therapist does not have to set the patient to a template in order
to sit with him. Antonin Artaud declared, “I am not of your world / mine is on the other
side of all that is, knows itself, is / consciousness, desires and acts. / It’s entirely another
thing” (1965, p. 201). Levinas’s ethics allows room for both the therapist’s world of
reason and the world of the schizophrenic patient in all its amorphous, alien,
unreasonable Otherness.
“How can the same… enter into a relationship with an other without immediately
divesting it of its alterity?” (Levinas, 1979, p. 38). In other words, if Levinas demands
that an ethical therapist not totalize the schizophrenic patient, then what is the therapist to
do? Levinas can help here as well. Instead of attempting to comprehend, he advises the
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 6
therapist to relate. “The relation between the same and the other-- upon which we seem
to impose such extraordinary conditions-- is language” (p. 39). Dialogue is not only the
primary tool of a therapist, but it is also a form of relation that does not totalize. Levinas
writes that language is the universal: it takes the individual into the general. It allows
people to relate, draws them together into a common world, while also allowing them to
remain separate. All therapeutic conversation is the patient informing the therapist of
their meaning. “For in the patient’s insane words there is a voice that speaks; it obeys its
thematize the world as they speak about it, and their way of thematizing what they notice
about the world of phenomena, is different from anyone else‘s. This is especially so with
schizophrenic patients, whose perception of the world is often radically different from
Communications Breakdown
manifested by brief, laconic, empty replies. The individual with alogia appears to have a
(p. 301). Certainly, most of what we can observe of a schizophrenic patient is their lack
of facial expression and dearth of speech. The DSM-IV-TR attempts to be objective and
impartial. After all, it is describing phenomena that exist and are extremely problematic.
Yet its definitions for such symptoms as “alogia” and “flat affect” spill over from
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 7
state. Alogia originally comes from the Greek α-, “without,” and λόγος, “speech.” The
original meaning of the word was not specifically directed toward capacity for thought. If
we cannot see expressions and do not hear words, Western (behavioral) medicine tends to
assume that emotions and thoughts do not exist. Antonin Artaud, a diagnosed
schizophrenic who suffered greatly from his lack of words, wrote that “a man possesses
himself in flashes, and even when he does possess himself he does not quite overtake
fragments of himself?” (1965, p. 20). Out of sight is out of mind, especially when those
In this case, the “idealist” Levinas is actually the voice of moderation and reason:
he points out again and again that people are infinitely more than their physical forms and
observable behaviors. He reminds therapists that the affect we can see is only part of the
human face. The vast majority of what goes on lies behind the plastic form. Indeed, the
hypersensitivity. The excellent Sass writes, “Far from indicating a lowering or shutting-
Mark Vonnegut writes about his first schizophrenic breakdown, “Holy shit, my
mind is running. The coffee isn’t even cold yet. I’m thinking about a million miles an
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 8
hour, spinning fantastic webs. It’s a gas. Cramming whole lifetimes of thinking in
between sips of coffee” (1975/2002, p. 139). Yet Vonnegut also demonstrated alogia
such that “my voice came out all funny. I t was too fast or I had said it backward or
something. I couldn’t make my voice sound right…” (p. 134). At times such as these
Vonnegut could barely speak at all, let alone let anyone else know what was happening to
him. However, a diagnostician who used the term “alogia,” with its “dimunition of
thoughts,” would miss the greater part of this patient. Levinas, who was not a therapist or
psychologist, would likely have seen more of Vonnegut than a behavioral psychologist.
Levinas held the view that ethics is a matter of optics. So, in many ways, is
psychotherapy. The way a therapist looks at a patient determines to a great extent how
which reflects an interior state that we cannot observe and thus can never know for
certain, a therapist is better served by looking at “the thing itself,” αλόγος, that is, a
patient’s loss of language. In other words, alogia might be more ethically (and
Again and again we see accounts of schizophrenics who are distressed by their
loss of words. Levinas’s distinction between the form and transcendent meaning can help
therapists understand at least part of what is happening when a schizophrenic person uses
isomorphic language. For example, Renee, a young schizophrenic girl, notes that during
one of her earliest hallucinations, she cries, “Stop, Alice, you look like a lion, you
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 9
frighten me!” (Sechehaye, 1979, p. 23). Her schoolmates tell her that she does not know
what she is talking about. Renee appears to be distressed by the fact that she could not
communicate almost as much as by the experience itself. “But actually, I didn’t see a lion
at all: it was only an attempt to describe the enlarging image of my friend and the fact that
Renee‘s words take form: “Alice, you are a lion!” Yet she is also trying to express
her terror at her perceived transformation of her little friend. In fact, her transcendent
meaning is more even than this. All words and expression overflow their form just as the
presence of the face does. They transcend beyond anything a patient could ever tell a
therapist or anyone else. It is extremely important that the therapist understand this
and more strangely than most Others’. A schizophrenic patient is not trying to deceive
when this happens. Renee was trying as best she knew how to communicate. The trouble
came because her friends’ understanding of a word differed so greatly from the meaning
she was trying to give it. Therapists run into the same difficulty with all patients, but
schizophrenic patients in particular tend to seek apparent synonyms, which turn into
Levinas (1979) offers the valuable insight that “The primordial essence of
expression and discourse does not reside in the information they would supply concerning
an interior and hidden world” (p. 200). Levinas meant that over and above the
information that is or is not conveyed by a patient‘s words, discourse is about the call to
responsibility manifested by the patient who expresses himself. The task of the therapist
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 10
is not to comprehend the patient‘s interiority, but to offer support for the individual
struggling with this problem and guidance toward the patient’s own responsibility.
Note that this section was not titled “Form versus the Transcendent.” Both are
without the benefit of forms, that is, words. If there were, there would be no dialogue.
We would exist en masse, in comprehensive unity. There would be no need for language,
Thus by its very nature language is a bridge for the therapist and patient, but it is
also a barrier. For most philosophers and psychotherapists, this means that a patient’s
the words that are said and the transcendence of the face as an expression of meaning.
For Levinas, language can be a barrier because it reveals and conceals, not because it is
merely symbols that require our translation. For example, Renee’s schoolmates did not
understand her. Their widely agreed-upon meaning for “a lion” was completely different
than Renee‘s isomorphic one. If a therapist looks at language this way, as meanings
expressed instead of a sort of concretized “code” that we must decipher, then speaking
with a schizophrenic Other is less nerve-wracking. Therapists are absolved from having
into reason or struggle to make the patient’s fragmented statements fit into theories.
playmates would probably have known what she meant. There is no guarantee that they
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 11
would have believed her, and they might not have been very understanding even if they
did believe, but they would have known what she was trying to communicate. The
general public has agreed upon what the word “hallucination” entails. However, the
trouble with such terminology is that it is general, and the particular trouble with
idiosyncratic.
In order to form a relation across infinite distance, it is critical for the therapist to
have at least some understanding of what the schizophrenic patient is “saying” in the
words he has “said.” It is difficult for even the most ethical therapist to help a patient if
she cannot understand his experience at all. While language provides a way to relate,
therpists are absolved from having to comprehend totally via language. Levinas reminds
us that speech does not arise where there is already knowledge and agreement, but that
“speech proceeds from absolute difference” (1979, p. 194). This is the case with any
Other, even two brothers who grew up in the same household at the same time with the
same parents. They speak when they need a better understanding of the way the other
brother views the world. This is especially so for a schizophrenic patient. This also
Terminology: A Barrier
All language reveals and conceals. The more general a word is, the more it tends
to conceal about the specificity of the patient’s meaning. Antonin Artaud (1965) wrote
with great irritation that all terms were “for me really TERMS in the proper sense of the
terminations” (p. 36). Artaud’s thoughts overflowed his words so quickly that his letters
are dizzying, rife with his own frustration at the way words for his ever-transcendent
meanings do not capture them alive, but instead deaden them. Artaud actually wrote and
spoke aloud with flair exceeding that of many reasonable people, but he was very angry
when his transcendence appeared to stop in the terminal of form. Hence, “I no longer
have the gift of the tongue” (p. 39). He felt that he could not make his meanings
understood. It might have helped his psychologist to adopt Levinas’s attitude. “Better
195). There is always more to the patient and more to their words than what they have
said. If a therapist tried to get a sense of the meaning Artaud expressed, instead of
attempting to translate him into reason by picking at his words, both therapist and patient
might have been a great deal less frustrated. As it is, Artaud (1965) accuses his therapists
of being “dogs, I mean you go around barking, I mean you rabidly persist in not
understanding” (p. 37). They let his diagnosis speak for him, which this rather brilliant
patient did not appreciate at all. He felt that he was being totalized.
account that deals much with “anxiety in the early catatonic stages of disorganization”
(1964, p. 110). Anonymous uses the very ideological language Artaud despises. She
gives great respect to the science of psychology by using its terms and by writing an ode
in the form of a poem called “A Vision of Science.” Anonymous’s narrative is “as clear a
picture of schizophrenia as one can find anywhere” (p. 89) because she uses terms that
anyone who has taken Psychology 101 can recognize. At the level of the words that are
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 13
said, she communicates what happened to her much more easily than Artaud does. Yet
experience itself, he simply accepts the scientific interpretation which I hand to him and
continues his alienation from his true self in a more sophisticated way than before” (p.
155). Anonymous’s neat terminology and explanations very likely stem from exactly the
same loss of words as Artaud, Renee, Vonnegut and many others experienced. She not
only borrows from the language of psychoanalysts, she also borrows words from poets:
Swinburne, Shakespeare, Emerson and others. “Poetry could be counted on not to lead
me astray,” Anonymous writes. When she was “unable to think coherently or plan [her]
next action” (1964, pp. 96-97), she sought refuge in the words of others. The pre-set
meaning of words such as “guilt feelings” and “anxiety” kept her own meanings from
An ethical psychotherapist can see that although Anonymous has many problems,
she does not suffer from lack of thought or lack of sensitivity. She has, as she writes, a
(1964, p. 98). It is true that not much of this creative inspiration comes through in her
narrative, which is quite dry. She uses reductionist language to the point of obscuring her
own meaning. A therapist can easily get a general idea of what is going on, but it is very
difficult to know Anonymous herself from this account. Thus it is important to remember
that Anonymous’s personal experience has just as much meaning as Artaud’s or any
other. She is no less a unique Other because she is using psychoanalytic terminology to
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 14
Terminology: A Bridge
It is tempting for a therapist who sees through the optics of Levinas’s ethics to
denounce all terms and terminology as psychagogy, conformist and useless, nothing but a
Procrustean bed which chops off bits and pieces of highly individual schizophrenic
patients to make them fit into a very general psychopathology. Did not R.D. Laing (1965)
correctly point out that “it is just possible to have a thorough knowledge of… just about
everything that can be known about the psychopathology of schizophrenia without being
able to understand one single schizophrenic” (p. 30)? Yet let us remember again the high
level of cognitive chaos endured by these particular patients. Not all of them have words
for what they are going through, let alone words that a therapist will understand. Levinas
would never wish for the excision of terminology at the cost of further isolation of the
patient. In some cases, terminology can build a two-way bridge from patient to therapist
is a good step, but she would be best served by gently exploring her own “intimate
structure,” for it does exist. Out of sight is not out of mind for the ethical therapist. Just
because someone cannot speak (or write, or put up appropriate expressions on their face
like a signpost), that does not mean that personal experience is not there. It does not
mean they do not feel or think. It does not mean that they have no meaning that they are
was more than a collection of psychologisms. She loved poetry, after all. She could
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 15
recall verses during severe mental anguish. Poetry was her link to the world. It was her
way of deciding a course of action and of expressing herself; Anonymous also wrote
poetry. Perhaps it is not great poetry in an artistic sense, but it is a great step in
expressing her own sentiment in her own words - something neither Levinas nor a
Conclusion
Levinas reminds therapists that the loss of words is not mere silence. It is also
isolation. If a patient lives in a world for which there are no words, let alone words that
others will understand, then it is extremely difficult to relate across the infinite distance
that separates all human beings. Sometimes the best a schizophrenic patient can do is
of the words themselves, a therapist should also explore expressed meaning. All words
reveal and conceal this meaning, but some words conceal more than others, especially if
they are very general. Thus while psychiatric terms can give words to someone who has
no vocabulary for what is happening to him, terminology can be just that, a termination
which totalizes and obscures by speaking for the patient. Whether the language is unique
or general, a therapist must “be constantly aware that language can never be the
experience” (Van Kaam, 1966, p. 158). Although some schizophrenic patients may have
limited capacity for language, their interiority is beyond mere comprehension. Just
because we cannot grasp the extent of their experience and meaning does not mean these
things do not exist. For Levinas, out of sight is definitely not out of mind.
LEVINAS, LANGUAGE, AND THE SCHIZOPHRENIC OTHER 16
References
Anastasio, T. (2009). Twenty Years Later [Phish]. On Joy [CD]. Burlington: JEMP
Records.
(Ed.), The inner world of mental illness (pp. 89-115). New York: Harper & Roe.
Artaud, Antonin. (1965). Antonin artaud anthology (2nd. Ed.). San Francisco: City Lights
Books.
Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason.
Laing, R.D. (1965). The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness. New
Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity. (A. Lingis, Trans.). Boston: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Stratton.
Stone, B. (2004). Toward a writing without power: notes on the narration of madness.
Vonnegut, M. (2002). The eden express: A memoir of insanity. New York: Seven Stories