Preamble
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) is one of the largest professional associations of counsellors and psychotherapists in the UK, with 65,000 members. It is currently revising its Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions (EF) (2018). This is a surprising move given that the most recent version of the framework was only six years ago, and, furthermore, that version has been widely acknowledged to be an exemplar of ethical guidance based on a flexible combination of principles, values and personal qualities. Critics such as Peter Jenkins believe that the BACP’s adoption of an EDI strategy lies behind the need to reshape the EF along Critical Social Justice(CSJ) lines.
This CSJ agenda is made explicit in the BACP’s Therapy Today March issue which includes an article (Morahan & Reeves, 2024) justifying the decision to revise the EF. The authors argue that it will promote the necessary move towards decolonisation in the therapy professions (presumably they share Thema Bryant’s vision?). They also seem to believe the new EF will advance relational ethics (at CTA we would argue that this is impossible as CSJ is, by its very nature, anti-relational).
The following piece by Sue Parker Hall, a concerned member of BACP, is a reflective and considered response to this published justification.
A Response to the BACP ‘Reshaping the Ethical Framework’
Acknowledging the significance of social justice issues in counselling and psychotherapy is something many of us can agree upon. However, consensus might elude us when determining a singular method to integrate these concerns into our practice.
The recent ‘Reshaping the Ethical Framework’ article in the BACP journal Therapy Today (Morahan & Reeves, 2024) invites BACP members to view the EF through new lenses, aiming to further entrench it within the realm of relational ethics and a ‘decolonising’ Critical Social Justice approach.
My feedback centres on two primary critiques: firstly, the EF was conceived and continues to operate as a fundamentally relational guide; and secondly, the discourse and proposed trajectory of change seems steeped not in a diverse array of theoretical and ideological perspectives reflecting the breadth of membership, but rather in a distinctively left-wing political ideology, namely Critical Social Justice (CSJ).
This political foundation may not be evident to all members; CSJ is to the left of liberalism which embraces a majority of people at the centre, centre right and centre left of UK politics; the ideology has subtly permeated our professional discourse in a manner reminiscent of the metaphorical slowly boiling frog.
The BACP Ethical Framework and relational ethics
The article by Morahan & Reeves advocates for a shift towards ‘relational ethics,’ yet the EF already encompasses the principles necessary for ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion. My learning experience under the EF’s principal author, Dr. Tim Bond, coupled with my practical application of the EF, convinces me of its comprehensive and adaptable nature, capable of addressing ethical dilemmas across various contexts. The framework is fundamentally relational in its ethics, a point seemingly misunderstood by the article’s authors.
Upon reading the article, I encountered political and ideological rhetoric, familiar yet discordant with my own perspectives. It suggested an implicit expectation to uncritically accept that the current EF is insufficiently relational and fails to adequately serve certain, albeit unspecified, groups and practice contexts. This positioning appeared to preemptively endorse the authors’ viewpoints as incontrovertible, rather than presenting them as one potential interpretation of the framework.
The abstract character of the article left me seeking concrete illustrations of the purported deficiencies within the EF. My correspondence with the authors of the article was an attempt to uncover specific social and cultural shifts since 2018 that the existing framework supposedly cannot accommodate, along with the particular client demographics and varied settings purportedly under-served. Unfortunately, their response did not clarify these points as I had hoped. This lack of specificity challenges my understanding of the proposed changes’ necessity and complicates the task of relating these theoretical discussions to tangible practice and experiences.
The term ‘reshaping’ carries a weighted connotation, embedded deeply within the ethos of Critical Social Justice. It signifies more than a critique of current norms and systems; it embodies an activist commitment to fundamentally transform or thoroughly revamp structures under the banners of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
In reality, therapists have been incorporating principles of diversity and inclusion in their practices for decades, trained to recognize, and not reduce clients’ experiences to mere individual issues, but to understand them within broader socio-economic and political contexts, including systemic barriers like race, gender, and socio-economic status.
Decolonising the Ethical Framework
In the dialogue around the EF, ‘colonisation’ and ‘decolonisation’ serve as pivotal concepts advocating for this ‘reshaping.’ These terms are laden with assumptions not universally accepted across the membership, particularly when members are fully informed. The narrative posits the EF as ‘colonised’ and needing ‘decolonisation,’ a proposition presented more as an ideological stance than an evidence-based argument. It is crucial, albeit challenging, to examine the historical and conceptual foundations of these terms.
Originally, ‘colonisation’ referred to the expansion and dominion of imperial powers over foreign territories, leading to a complex process of ‘decolonization’ that saw these territories regain political independence. This backdrop frames the contributions of Frantz Fanon , a Martinique-born psychoanalyst and revolutionary thinker, who reinterpreted Marxist theory to address colonialism, advocating for revolution against colonial forces rather than solely class struggle.
Modern anti-colonialists extend the battlefield from national liberation to cultural domains, targeting media, academia, and religious institutions for revolutionary change. Within this framework, the EF is seen as a cultural construct ripe for overhaul. The proposed modernisation, while seemingly benign and potentially appealing to some members, hints at a radical restructuring. The suggestion veils an intent, not just to organically evolve the EF and our profession, but to dismantle existing foundations, replacing them with ideologies and practices rooted in far-left political thought. This approach suggests a departure from inclusive, evidence-based development, towards an imposition of a specific set of values and ideological perspectives; it is divisive, creating a primitive type split, setting the colonised against the colonisers.
The push for reshaping the ethical framework appears to stem from a phenomenon akin to entryism, originally defined as the infiltration of one political group by another to subvert its policies. This process sees a critical minority leveraging their power, exploiting members’ pro-social nature and goodwill, with intent not for negotiation but for indoctrination and aiming to dominate every discussion and institution.
Concerns about the article’s ideological bias
In extreme cases, anti-colonial rhetoric has led to the denigration of traditional values and institutions representative of Western Judeo-Christian culture, including marriage, family, and biological sex, among others. Everything wrong in our world today is explained by white racism and white supremacy. There’s a risk of losing respect for valuable aspects of our professional and cultural heritage in the rush for change.
The article, featured in a magazine that aims to serve as a resource for professionals across modalities, employs terminology deeply rooted in Marxist critical theories—such as decolonising, discourse, othering, privilege, normative perspectives, marginalising, exclusion, microaggressions, binary, and stakeholders.
I do wonder how many BACP members would align themselves knowingly with these Marxist beliefs? And how the authors of the article apparently feel so entitled to present these political ideas as uncontested facts. This raises the question, ‘how informed are the general BACP membership about the origin and meaning of these terms and how aligned are they or would they be?’
The call for ‘reshaping’ is justified by significant social and cultural shifts since 2018, including the pandemic and the move to online work. However, the article lacks specificity about what changes are necessary and why. A more detailed sharing of findings from ongoing member consultations could enrich the discussion.
Questions remain about identifying these significant changes and understanding how the EF falls short in addressing the nuances of online work or diverse settings. Historically, the BACP has adapted by offering targeted guidance for emerging challenges, a practice that has proven effective, without necessitating a complete overhaul of the EF.
Concerns about a Critical Social Justice (CSJ) Approach
I acknowledge the need for a just society and to give this objective continued attention. However, members of the CSJ movement seem to discount what significant achievements have been made in this field and to believe that they alone are seeking social justice and that they alone know what real social justice is.
The conversation around embedding left-wing blended with postmodern ideologies within talking therapies has been surprisingly muted; there has been a silencing of any critical public debate concerning the arrival of CSJ-driven therapy which is a radically different approach to traditional therapies.
Professional bodies like BACP have adopted this stance with little discussion with members, or the opportunity for resistance, which marks a departure from their historical political neutrality. The UK Council for Psychotherapy, on the other hand, has recently taken a strong stand against ideological capture and has withdrawn its signature from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy.
The CSJ approach, as outlined by Thomas, seeks to gain influence by:
- capturing and refashioning [reshaping?] foundational narratives and principles and making them politically actionable;
- silencing any debate or critique;
- harnessing professional education to an activist agenda.
Dangers of adopting a CSJ edge to the Ethical Framework
This approach, while advocating for equality, diversity, and inclusion, ironically does not extend these virtues to those who have a different opinion who are perceived as harmful. I fear we are creating a polarised profession where disagreement is increasingly being met with hostility and repercussions, such as
- labelling those who have a different point of view with terms like ‘alt-right’, ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’;
- accusing them of speaking from a place of privilege to silence opposition;
- dismissing them as uninformed or behind the times;
- a disagreement resulting in an invitation into a struggle session, being mocked or asked questions from a CSJ activist’s frame of reference which is at odds with your own, has a proscribed response and, if you capitulate, an argument that you can never win;
- facing professional repercussions such as fitness to practice or professional conduct processes.
Such an environment is marinated in fear, stifling open dialogue and collaboration with CSJ proponents, presenting challenge and an inhibition to those seeking to engage with alternative perspectives. Ironically, ideological purity eclipses diversity of thought.
Social justice activists argue that prioritising the collective in the form of group identities over the individual is essential for addressing systemic inequalities and injustices that disproportionately affect certain groups; and to understand the broader social and historical contexts of oppression and to formulate effective strategies for social change.
Critics of a CSJ approach highlight several concerns regarding its focus on the collective dimension of human experience:
- prioritising group identities over individual ones can overlook personal responsibility and undermine an individual’s agency;
- collectives are not homogenous; there may be as many differences, if not more, between individuals in a single identity group as there are between identity groups and individual expression and diversity within groups may be suppressed. There is the potential for reinforcing stereotypes;
- it may foster groupthink which stifles dissent and innovation due to pressure to conform to group norms;
- it conflicts with liberal democratic principles that emphasise individual rights and freedoms, potentially leading to policies and practices that infringe on these liberties;
- individuals can be reduced to single aspects of their identity, such as race or gender, oversimplifying challenges and solutions;
- emphasising group identities can stifle free speech and dialogue, as expressing divergent viewpoints may be discouraged, hindering debate and discussion.
These concerns underscore a tension between acknowledging group injustices and respecting individual diversity and freedoms. I hope the BACP will endeavour to find a balance between acknowledging the importance of group identities and experiences while respecting and fostering individual rights and diversities.
A CSJ approach could signal a departure from traditional psychotherapy and counselling with regard to its categories of opressed/opressor. This may nurture an unhelpful Karpman Drama Triangle-like dynamic , where a client may be cast in the role of victim, some person/group/system as persecutor and the CSJ-driven therapist as rescuer; this may nurture resentment and victimhood, rather than healing and overlook a client’s narrative, autonomy and agency.
It can be argued that a CSJ approach, in seeking, not only to treat personal distress and psychological issues, but also to challenge and transform the societal conditions that contribute to such problems, has too broad a scope in addressing individual, systemic, and societal issues within the therapeutic process. This could be overwhelming for both therapist and client. It may mean an uninvited exploration of complex social dynamics and structures beyond the client’s immediate psychological concerns.
Language shapes and constrains knowledge, truth, meaning and morality which means it can be used to control individuals’ perceptions and actions. The CSJ movement uses language to establish and maintain its ideological and practice territory. This involves using complex or unclear language, or infusing common terms with a new political meaning, making discussions or subjects harder to understand.
Those who are not deeply familiar with the specific vocabulary can feel marginalised and anxious about being left behind, or ostracised for being labelled as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘transphobe’ etc. The new language code that is being embedded in our profession constrains the subjectivity and free speech of trainees and practitioners. There is an atmosphere of increased self-consciousness with regard to what it is permissible to say, which can rob those who are under the influence of the CSJ ideology of their spontaneity (associated with creativity and freedom) and their immediacy (being direct and engaging, without any barrier or distance). This environment may seriously undermine a therapist’s ability to fearlessly relate, and consequently inhibit their capacity to be real, authentic and genuine with their clients.
Conclusion
The proposal to revise the EF in alignment with CSJ is a pivotal moment for counselling and psychotherapy standards. Advocacy for social justice and relational ethics is commendable, yet the approach suggested by Morahan & Reeves raises the spectre of polarisation within the profession, potentially eroding the EF’s core principles. The vagueness regarding the EF’s current limitations and the ideologically charged rhetoric underscore a shift from consensus-driven, evidence-based enhancement to the promotion of a singular viewpoint. Engaging the BACP community in robust, transparent dialogues is essential, ensuring that any modifications to the EF reflect a broad spectrum of professional insights and uphold the tenets of inclusivity, evidence, and autonomy.
Incorporating CSJ into therapeutic practices presents complex challenges, touching on deeply held values and the profession’s direction. While striving to confront societal inequalities, the nuanced understanding required in therapy risks being overshadowed by a reductive view of identity and experience. This critical juncture calls for a nuanced engagement with these theories, aiming to enrich therapeutic practices without compromising the foundational client-therapist relationship.
Acknowledgement
My thanks to Peter Jenkins for his delicate editing and suggestions.
References
By Sue Parker Hall, a Certified Transactional Analyst psychotherapist, an MBACP (Snr Accred) and UKCP registered therapist and independent researcher. She is author of Anger, Rage and Relationship 2009), Routledge, she trains in her anger, rage, shame and grief, trauma based models; she founded an online support group for ‘Differently Aware Psychological Therapists’ in July 2021 and her writing includes the undue psychological influence of Covid-19, drag queen story time and the assaults on our young (with Sarah Waters)
Leave a Reply