It seems appropriate to start the New Year with a post that reminds us of the essential question that faces the therapy professions, that is: what type of therapy do we support? In a recent essay published on Lee Jussim’s substack, Unsafe Science, Drs. Nina Silander and Eddie Waldrep identify the key problems arising out of the current turn towards a politicized therapy and argue for a return to the original position of professional neutrality; they also make a case for advancing clinical competency in sociopolitical diversity.
Both authors are clinicians and are well-equipped to offer an informed and incisive analysis: Nina, a health psychologist, is the co-author of a chapter on the politicization of therapy in a recent academic book (also see her interview on the CTA podcast discussing her contribution on this topic to Cynical Therapies); and Eddie, a clinical psychologist, has written for various platforms and publications on the ideological capture of veteran mental health services.
Their essay, Political Therapy or Open Therapy?, opens as follows (read the whole essay here):
The ‘safest space’ should be that found in therapy. We meet an unfamiliar professional, divulge our histories, and often reveal intimate parts of ourselves that we may be reluctant, even unwilling, to share with anyone else. Frequently, going to therapy happens as a last resort–when one has exhausted other means of self-help and social support.
The Politicization of Therapy
Unfortunately, the politicization of mental health professions jeopardizes the safe space of psychotherapy. This politicization is also bringing about the beginning of implicit and explicit partisan therapy services, which are fundamentally antithetical to universal professional values. Yet, the mental health needs of the politically disenfranchised must also be met. Let’s consider mental health professions’ ethical underpinnings, and then the benefits and problems associated with partisan services, before suggesting a way forward.
Each professional mental health organization has a code of ethics calling for professionals to be aware of potential biases and mitigate their possible influence (APA), to be aware of, and avoid imposing, their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (ACA), and to not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination (NASW), and to prevent discrimination based on any protected categories (e.g., race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). Psychologists have long deliberated about the incorporation of values in the therapeutic space, such that if therapists could not remain value-neutral, the degree to which their personal values (and biases) influence the therapeutic relationship and work should be minimized. This goal was to avoid causing harm to clients and to preserve client autonomy.
Mental health professions esteem ‘cultural diversity’ and, in turn, promote development of cultural humility, sensitivity, and competency. Graduate education, supervision, and training focus frequently on developing such expertise and knowledge–related to many aspects of cultural diversity, typically based on immutable or other physical characteristics (e.g., gender/sex, disability), and for many demographic groups (e.g., immigrants, native/indigenous, the elderly, etc.). Yet, at this time, sociopolitical diversity is not formally, nor even informally, recognized as a component of cultural diversity, which is striking given the extent to which sociopolitical values are a “deep culture” component of diversity.
(continued on Unsafe Science substack)
Leave a Reply