US Congressman John Lewis once famously encouraged all Americans to "get in good trouble, necessary trouble." On this episode of the podcast, Deb and Maury further explain why they think it's a good thing to stir up some trouble through their project of "Deconstructing Davanloo."

First, Deb explains that the term "deconstruction" does not mean tearing something down, but rather that the title of the podcast is a nod to the work of post-structuralist philosopher, Jaques Derrida. Derrida used the term deconstruction to challenge the idea that texts have fixed or essential meanings. Derridean deconstruction is therefore a process of looking for multiple meanings within textual data while recognizing that there is no true, one-to-one correspondence between the signifier (word) and signified (the thing the word is trying to symbolize). Maury suggests that the sheer amount of data with Davanloo's cases offers us a treasure trove of text, open for interpretation of multiple and layered meanings.

Deb and Maury offer the project of this podcast as a counterpoint to more "orthodox" readings of Davanloo, where his work has been taken as handed down wisdom to be accepted as is. Deb references Aner Govrin's 2016 book, Conservative and radical perspectives on psychoanalytic knowledge: The fascinated and the disenchanted, as helpful in framing the ISTDP community as consisting of both "fascinated" and "troubled" sub-communities. Govrin's work suggests that an intellectual community needs both camps, the fascinated and the troubled, to be active in order to ensure ongoing vitality and evolution. (Errata: Deb mis-communicated the title of Govrin's book, full reference below). Deb and Maury agree that while they see themselves leaning more towards a "troubled" reading of Davanloo, they are simultaneously fascinated by his work, and that both the "troubled" and the "fascinated" are part of a necessary dialectic.

In that vein, Deb and Maury take turns sharing the top 3 things they love about Davanloo. For Maury it is Davanloo's "maverick" stance of pushing against the status quo in psychoanalysis, his development of the pathways of anxiety discharge, and his emphasis of timing in clinical interventions. Deb's top 3 things she admires about Davanloo are his confidence in calling it like he sees it, his desire to "bust open the door" to the unconscious, and his emphasis on working through conflicts of conscience.

Deb and Maury and the episode by letting listeners that episode 3 will be a deep reading of Davanloo's engagement with Freudian theory through his references to Freud in "Unlocking the Unconscious," specifically in the beginning of the chapters Clinical Manifestations of Superego Pathology, Part 1, and Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy with Highly Resistant Patients, I: Handling Resistance. They also encourage listeners to send them questions, comments or concerns by reaching out to either of them directly or messaging on their instagram account, @deconstructing_davanloo

References:

Davanloo, H. (1990). Unlocking the unconscious: Selected papers of Habib Davanloo, MD. John Wiley and Sons.

Govrin, A. (2016). Conservative and radical perspectives on psychoanalytic knowledge: The fascinated and the disenchanted. Routledge.

What is this podcast about?

In the landscape of modern psychotherapy, few figures have inspired as much admiration, anxiety, and controversy as Habib Davanloo, the founder of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP). His case reports read like dispatches from a revolutionary frontier—complete with heroic struggles, breakthroughs, and an almost mystical confidence in his own method. But beneath that certitude lies a question that has rarely been asked aloud within the ISTDP community: what happens when we stop taking Davanloo entirely at his own word?

Deconstructing Davanloo is a podcast devoted to that question. It begins from a simple but radical premise: that Davanloo’s brilliance and his blind spots are inseparable. His writing is electrifying, but it is also curiously devoid of self-reflection. His voice is authoritative, absolute—handing down insights as if from on high, untroubled about the possibility of countertransference, bias, or the epistemological limits of the human mind. This tone, while intoxicating, has helped to cultivate a culture around ISTDP that can at times prize certainty over inquiry, devotion over dialogue. Too often, the literature is understood not as an evolving theory but as scripture.

This podcast proposes an alternative. Rather than accepting Davanloo’s formulations as finished truths, we take them as living hypotheses—provocative, incomplete, and worthy of interrogation. We read his case reports not as unassailable demonstrations, but as texts: stories that reflect not only the patient’s psyche but Davanloo’s own mind, his historical moment, and the analytic assumptions of his time. In doing so, we invite listeners to join us in a collective act of re-thinking—one that blends close reading, theoretical analysis, and clinical reflection. Across episodes, the hosts and their guests will explore Davanloo’s major papers alongside the work of later ISTDP teachers and neighboring traditions in psychoanalysis, attachment theory, and affective neuroscience. Each conversation aims to illuminate what still shines in Davanloo’s vision and what might need revision or reintegration.

Deconstructing Davanloo is not a project of debunking or deification. It is an act of dialogue. The hosts share the conviction that the ISTDP community’s vitality depends on its willingness to think critically about its origins. Davanloo published only nineteen cases; his method, powerful as it is, remains an unfinished experiment. If we treat his words as final, we risk stagnation—repeating his moves rather than extending his thought. But if we bring to his work the same curiosity and rigor that he once brought to the analytic canon, we may discover new paths forward.In the end, the podcast is an invitation—to therapists, trainees, and scholars alike—to join in a shared project of intellectual and ethical reappraisal.

To admire Davanloo’s genius while also asking what his confidence conceals. To appreciate his method’s unique power while inquiring seriously into its limits. And, most of all, to model a form of discourse that values reflection over reverence. Because only by questioning our founding figures can a living tradition continue to evolve.

Mentions: The Journal of Contemporary ISTDP