Conflicted. Earnest writing with some concerning content.
While this review is focused on what troubled me about this book, the 3 stars I chose to give are vibrant stars. Nicole appears to be an introspective person who has gone deep into her head and heart to unearth why she thinks, acts and behaves in the manner she does (and has historically). When this level of personal insight is met with a doctorate in clinical psychology, field experience, and excellent writing skills, the result can be a very powerful thing. After reading this book, I got the feeling that Nicole went on a journey of self-discovery and after many years of pain and struggle she came out beaming. And now she wants to share her process, knowledge and wisdom so that you too, can beam.
While this sounds good on paper and may be the driving force behind her work, I find it’s really not as easy and clean as that. My following critique is based on my intuition, which the book tells me to trust. The idea of being a self healer is valid, though I find the way it’s packaged in this book to be concerning. Yes, healing happens within the self, no one can do it for you, it is deeply personal, however, it simply does not happen on your own. I often felt mixed messages that led my intuition to have fears related to the power of this book and the impact that it could have on the vulnerable and impressionable people that read it. We are all vulnerable and impressionable in some ways I think (self included), and I believe folks drawn to self-help topics who are searching- sometimes desperate and longing, for ways to heal, grow and recover, deserve special attention. I found that Nicole would frequently say things like “you’re your own best healer” but I often found other unspoken messages to be present, messages like, I’m the teacher that can show you the way. This is the way to do the work. The more I read on the stronger that feeling got for me. After reading the book and sitting with my thoughts and feelings, the cover hammered it in. The title is “How to Do the Work” and it’s written in all caps in a pretty large font size, as is the author’s name. Hence, I got more confusing vibes. It made me think, So, I can be a self healer but you are shouting at me with this enormous font that doing the work means following you and what you have written? This is not me shaming anyone for the space they take up. Yes, Nicole and you and me and all of us, take up as much space as you want and feel you need, I’m giving an example of how my intuition stopped me and caused pause. There is no single book on doing the work and I found the title to be elitist. This planet is 4.5 billion years old, there are approximately 6500 languages spoken on earth, so many diverse cultures, various fields of science, do you really think that your content is what constitutes “the work”? A more fitting title to me seemed to be, “How I Did My Work.”
Dr. LePera has become hugely popular and with this fame comes responsibility. The millions of people that keep up with her on IG are literally called “followers” and that is powerful. In light of this power, I believe there needs to be (ethical) checks and balances of sorts in place, including a disclaimer stating from the author, this book is not therapy. It was written by a person who has a doctorate in clinical psychology (and is a retired therapist I gather), and is designed to help empower the reader to actualize growth and change using the *tips* she outlines but this does not = therapy. I found that not having a clear stance about therapy was like an elephant in the room. More confusing vibes. Without this clarity the focus on being a self healer felt like it was shaming to others who can’t be self healers on their own or through following Dr. LePera and may also need therapy. For example, the person who reads this book, tries to self heal and implement the tactics outlined but is still unhappy and may think, “What is wrong with me. Millions of people have read this work and can self heal, why can’t I? I’m such a _____.”
Additionally, there are power dynamics in play and I think mentioning and briefly discussing the complex topic of power differentials would have been important to include. Similarly, I think this book needs a more clarifying position from the author that her path is not necessarily the path to awakening for everyone. She does have a paragraph and “note on doing the work” but I found the sentence included to “…find your own version…” was not sufficient and needed more detail. It took courage to share the personal examples she did and doing so illuminated certain concepts and topics, I see the value in what Nicole shared. What I am saying is that without more clarity (or warning) at the get go and beginning of the book, someone who is impressionable with parallel family dynamics may read this book and feel hyper connected to Nicole and her story and think, I need to do x, y and z like her. She’s the doctor. I’m growing, choosing me, cutting off ties to my family and moving to California. The possibility of this felt scary to me. I felt worried about the potential damage it could cause to someone trying to “self heal.” I believe and know humans have agency, but to an audience of millions you can’t know where folks are on their path. Clarifying positions on certain topics are therefore critical in my opinion.
I also wonder if Nicole could have benefited from consulting and hiring a BIPOC mental health professional or colleague with a specialty in social justice and race, to read her book before it was published and have that person write a part in the beginning to the BIPOC community. Something like, “a note to the BIPOC reader.” Since Dr. Nicole does not seem or claim to be an expert on social justice or race, the times she mentions certain topics related to BIPOC issues felt disjointed, even if they were meant to be sincere.
My intuition had other moments of pause and alarm when I encountered something that didn’t feel right, and when reading certain things that didn’t seem true but were presented as truths. Page 25 “The reality is this: few of us have any real connection to who we really are, yet we want others to see through all of our layers of self-betrayal and into our core selves.” I have a big problem with the implications of this statement and find it to be loaded and simply untrue. Where is the data that shows only a few of us are connected to who we are and are you saying this is why we need your book (?) for you to show us the way? I felt scary underlying and hidden messages here. Page 29 “We are not evolutionarily wired for change.” I think we are. We may be creatures of habit who fear change but if we weren’t wired for it we could never have adapted and survived. That is central to evolution. Page 51 “Anytime an intrinsic need is denied, resentment soon follows.” Disagree. Sometimes a child may not feel seen or heard for lots of different reasons and I don’t think it automatically leads to resentment. (There is a thing called good enough parenting too, that would have been nice to see included.) Page 57 “Most of us did not have parent-figures who were able to identify, let alone regulate, their feelings.” Loaded statement again and I question the validity of this (not writing as a defensive parent here, I don’t have kids). Where is the data that shows most of us had parents like this? Page 96, last paragraph of the intermittent fasting part, “Anyone with a history of restricted eating patterns should not engage in this practice.” What if someone had anorexia 15 years ago and has not had restricted eating in the last 12 years? Your title and work are teaching us how to “recognize your patterns, heal from your past, + create your self,” so then, shouldn’t a person be able to heal from anorexia? (That whole fasting part was not helpful for lots of reasons.) Page 100 healing with movement and using yoga as the single focus. How about the low income person who works two jobs and can’t afford yoga (or sleep for 8 hours a day), why not include ideas like marching or running in place, or stretching- accessible content for wheelchair bound readers- as examples too. The point, things that don’t cost money and are accessible to different bodies. Chapter 10 on boundaries suggests avoiding using “you” language then the example given on 202 uses “you” six times. Page 212 language, “If you recognize yourself in this paragraph, I give you permission to put the book down, take a step away, and go back before continuing.” Give you permission- excuse me, what?! This language is in the reparenting chapter (!) and made me feel big control vibes. Page 217 “There have only been three times in my life when I honored my needs even though it meant that others would be hurt by my decision.” Nicole spent a whole chapter earlier telling us about boundaries and that having and enforcing them may hurt or disappoint others but show up for yourself and do them anyway, and gave examples of when she used them. A big premise of this book seemed to be specifically about how honoring one’s needs is something that with practice, can accumulate, and leads to change and growth. The statement that Dr. Nicole has done this “only” three times had martyr complex undertones to me.
Finally, the last chapter, I was quite excited to read it and for me it was a bum out. It discusses interdependence and I think that not including a section on service to others was a pretty huge missed opportunity. Giving back through volunteering and donating your time, resources and/or money to populations, causes and communities in need, and to organizations whose work resonates with you and that you want to support and see grow, are solid ways to establish connection to the collective “we.” Doing something that is *outside of yourself* can connect you to the “we” in a remarkably meaningful way. I felt like this chapter was more of an ego stroke to readers instead of a way to empower and inspire us to connect to matters that could truly advance the “we.”
Posting critical feedback on a platform like this, especially towards a female (I’m a woman too), is weird and uncomfortable because the person it’s directed at cannot respond and it would be cool if there could be a conversation between reviewers and authors. I do trust my intuition but I also know that confirmation bias is a real thing for many of us, and some of that feels present for me here. I decided to post this in case anyone could relate to my conflicted feelings and shares a similar tacit experience of the book. I felt mixed emotions after reading the book because some of the content is fantastic but other vibes were concerning. Using language from the book to summarize my concern, I’ll say that all in all, while there is good content, I worry there is potential for trauma bonds to be created or exacerbated between a vulnerable and impressionable reader (with a hero worshipper archetype possibly) to someone with strong features of a humanitarian who also sits in an authoritarian position. I worry that when the air from the highs this book promises, clears, there may be a lot of folks who benefited but also some very hurt people on the other side too. Dr. Nicole seems earnest in her writing but the moments that my intuition caused me to pause were more than I felt good about. Just like no two children live the same childhood, maybe no two readers live the same experience of this book. Either way, each reality is valid and I think that’s part of the beauty of diversity in human nature.