Wow! This was such an important conversation in the context of the series (so far - I am still far behind). I have been going backwards and forwards on this issue for a long time, but today I recognised the benefits of the approach of psychotherapists being congruent (as opposed to being neutral) in the room with their clients regarding controversial issues discussed in the later stages of the discussion. However, it is still problematic as wide application comes with caveats that need to be considered. Firstly, it would also have to be accepted that counsellors and psychotherapists can be political, and therefore secondly, that means we would need to accept that people can be (are) politically in the opposing camp. This would mean that they could also be felt as challenging from a opposing point of view, and cite their examples of their experiences. As a note I have left therapists before who i have felt were not on my page politicially (/ held stereotypes I found offensive) Overall, it does probably hint that there would be a greater risk of rupture within the relationship, on either side. This is fine in private practice, those who can afford to move can do so, but what about people took a big step coming to therapy and may not return, or if we are looking at government services, what might the impact of the rupture be. If it would not be right to discuss in an IAPT environment, then political exploration becomes more likely applied solely based on the context of which the therapy takes place in and the practitioner's belief system. As I say, I have shifted back and forth on this dilemma throughout your discussions, and it is so important to have this debate. When I started writing I felt like I agreed, now i'm less sure again. I will keep thinking about this. I propose that is what the therapist within the relationship must ensure that they are doing if they did implement the strategy (consider the impact on the overall, multi-dimensional process) when thinking about broaching with their clients. Thanks all 🙂
I have to say, at face value, "integrating social activism into therapeutic practice" sounds like a truly terrible idea. Clients come to therapy for help and support and to feel safe being themselves. Bringing our own social views and opinions, or politics into it is the last thing any therapist should even want to do? I shudder at the mere thought of it, and the terrible implications that could arise from it, such as negative experiences for clients and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole. As therapists we should serve all clients, not promote our own ideologies. And remember, not every therapist is going to share YOUR social and political beliefs and views, if this is the direction the profession moves in, then therapists who believe the opposite to what you do, will also come through that open door and bring their own views into their practice too. What ever happened to professionalism?
I have a lot of respect for Carl Rogers, but I don't understand why almost every training provider is stuck with his books as core reading materials, where a lot of other more recent authers are presenting the same concepts in a more comprehensive way.
I'm not sure if there's going to be a *significant* change after July 4th even with a Labour government. Post-Starmer maybe but not while Starmer is at the helm.
Wow! This was such an important conversation in the context of the series (so far - I am still far behind). I have been going backwards and forwards on this issue for a long time, but today I recognised the benefits of the approach of psychotherapists being congruent (as opposed to being neutral) in the room with their clients regarding controversial issues discussed in the later stages of the discussion.
However, it is still problematic as wide application comes with caveats that need to be considered. Firstly, it would also have to be accepted that counsellors and psychotherapists can be political, and therefore secondly, that means we would need to accept that people can be (are) politically in the opposing camp.
This would mean that they could also be felt as challenging from a opposing point of view, and cite their examples of their experiences. As a note I have left therapists before who i have felt were not on my page politicially (/ held stereotypes I found offensive)
Overall, it does probably hint that there would be a greater risk of rupture within the relationship, on either side. This is fine in private practice, those who can afford to move can do so, but what about people took a big step coming to therapy and may not return, or if we are looking at government services, what might the impact of the rupture be. If it would not be right to discuss in an IAPT environment, then political exploration becomes more likely applied solely based on the context of which the therapy takes place in and the practitioner's belief system.
As I say, I have shifted back and forth on this dilemma throughout your discussions, and it is so important to have this debate. When I started writing I felt like I agreed, now i'm less sure again. I will keep thinking about this. I propose that is what the therapist within the relationship must ensure that they are doing if they did implement the strategy (consider the impact on the overall, multi-dimensional process) when thinking about broaching with their clients. Thanks all 🙂
You are all very inspiring, specially for someone like me, from the middle east currently living in the UK studying psychotherapy 🙏❤️
I have to say, at face value, "integrating social activism into therapeutic practice" sounds like a truly terrible idea. Clients come to therapy for help and support and to feel safe being themselves. Bringing our own social views and opinions, or politics into it is the last thing any therapist should even want to do? I shudder at the mere thought of it, and the terrible implications that could arise from it, such as negative experiences for clients and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole. As therapists we should serve all clients, not promote our own ideologies. And remember, not every therapist is going to share YOUR social and political beliefs and views, if this is the direction the profession moves in, then therapists who believe the opposite to what you do, will also come through that open door and bring their own views into their practice too. What ever happened to professionalism?
I agree with quite a lot of what you say here
🙏🌻
I have a lot of respect for Carl Rogers, but I don't understand why almost every training provider is stuck with his books as core reading materials, where a lot of other more recent authers are presenting the same concepts in a more comprehensive way.
I'm not sure if there's going to be a *significant* change after July 4th even with a Labour government. Post-Starmer maybe but not while Starmer is at the helm.