We recently drew attention to Lynne Gabriel, the president of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) when she appeared in a short video to reassure everyone by saying very little about how an internal organisational crisis was being managed. We are returning now to look at her Therapy Today October column where she has an awful lot to say about the dangers of ‘whiteness’. To us at CTA, her writing bears all the hallmarks of the recently converted, being full of righteous zeal and lacking any critical perspective or intellectual rigour. Perhaps she was influenced by the psychoanalyst, Donald Moss’s, notorious academic paper on ‘parasitic whiteness’ ? Or maybe, she feels under pressure by activists at BACP and she just prompted ChatGPT to produce an assertive ideological statement. Who knows? We reproduce Gabriel’s column in full below (italicised) for our readers to judge. It is followed by an abridged blogpost by Steve Perkins who deconstructs its rhetoric and contents.
“On previous occasions in this column I’ve lamented humans dehumanising others for devious, bigoted or destructive purposes. Such actions can be soul-destroying and life-limiting. Yet we must hope, seek solutions and, importantly, act. Decolonising whiteness, addressing the invidious and toxic impacts of colonialism, and redressing the impacts of Westernised theories, concepts and discriminatory actions are an ongoing process.
It requires unlearning colonial patterns of thought, dismantling systems of privilege and reimagining and co-producing relationships that are rooted in equity and justice. It’s not about eliciting shame or guilt but about responsibility, transformation and repair. Thoughtful and impactful approaches to removing colonial influences are growing through indigenous, anti-racist and justice-oriented frameworks. Countries from the Global South are working to build anti-oppressive therapeutic approaches and address injustices. Importantly there are key areas we can individually and collectively address: whiteness as a concept, dialogical relational power and embracing anti-oppressive ways of being.
First, whiteness is a human construct that warrants our reflexive exploration in the context of the counselling professions. What does it mean to those who are white, to those who are not? Whiteness isn’t just skin colour – it’s a whole social, political and economic system, historically built on colonialism, in pursuit of domination. Moreover, with historical roots in slavery, land theft, cultural erasure and the creation of racial hierarchies, we must recognise how it shapes or distorts our institutions, norms, interpersonal dynamics and our contemporary theories, contexts and working practices. Second, we can reimagine relationships and power. Fundamental to working within the counselling, psychotherapy, mental health and wellbeing professions is a commitment to being, relating and working in anti-oppressive ways.
Finally, we must develop anti-oppressive approaches in our work and lives. Increasingly, excellent resources are available to support this work. Myira Khan offers a clear framework for working within diversity and embedding antioppression throughout our lives. Dwight Turner’s approach to therapy is rooted in commitment to social justice and exploration of the deeper unconscious experiences and encountered injustices of marginalised communities. Essentially my take is that we are better together, working respectfully, collaboratively and relationally.”
Steve Perkins’ Reflections
I can’t convey how disheartening it was to read this statement. Not just the assault on ‘whiteness’ (which may include you, your loved ones, many people you know and millions you don’t), but the sheer certainty of it all. Surely a president setting out these political views has a chilling effect on free speech within the BACP?
Deconstructing the rhetoric
Let’s start with the structure of her article, as this matters. Gabriel uses several rhetorical devices to ‘control the narrative’ (manage the reader). She sandwiches her political views on ‘whiteness’ and westernised theories (I will refer to this throughout as her ‘argument’) in between statements at the start and end that are designed to be difficult to disagree with, and to make her argument harder to question or reject.
In sentence one, she laments “humans dehumanising others for devious, bigoted or destructive purposes”, staking out ground as a ‘kind, inclusive and reasonable person’ – the device is to link the content that immediately follows (her argument) with a sentiment all readers would agree with, in order to make her argument seem an obvious extension of her ‘essential decency’. If you disagree, you are indecent. You may, unless careful, dear reader, actually be one of the devious, bigoted people Gabriel warned you about at the start.
The same device is deployed again in the final sentence, weirdly pivoting from the commentary about ‘whiteness’ to another kumbaya-style sentence that almost feels like a non-sequitur: “Essentially my take is that we are better together, working respectfully, collaboratively and relationally”. The device is to retreat to a safer position, sidestepping accountability for the provocative argument about ‘whiteness’, enabling a writer to provoke without fully owning the consequences—saying all manner of things before creating an illusion of reasonableness (e.g. “Look, all I am really saying is it’s good to be kind.”). In case any reader still has doubts, she crowbars four benign platitudes into that sentence (“respectful”, “collaborative”, “relational”, “better together”), which is a linguistic achievement of a kind. I’m surprised she didn’t go for five.
She makes appeals to obscure authority throughout, referencing “thoughtful and impactful” work being done in the “Global South” to build “anti-oppressive therapeutic approaches”, and name-checking a couple of authors (who most readers will not have heard of). These are devices to legitimise the claims she makes about ‘whiteness’ by associating them with scholarly rigour. If others are writing about this, and working on it in the Global South, her argument can’t be that outlandish, can it?!
What about the content?
Let’s look at the meaningful content. The essential argument is that ‘whiteness’ is a malignant construct. We could stop there and go home. That’s basically it.
But the logic is this: Colonialism is wrong. White people were the primary colonialists, uniquely predisposed to this behaviour (alone in the history of humanity). Ergo white people are flawed and should bear this unique guilt. But we won’t use that mean old word because we are very kind people, so instead we’ll suggest white people should ‘decolonize’ themselves through vague processes like ‘unlearning’, ‘dismantling’, and being ‘anti-oppressive’. Splendid Orwellian stuff.
The article frames ‘whiteness’ as not just a skin colour but a “social, political and economic system” bound to endless historical evils and always in “pursuit of domination” — conjuring up images of a conscious and active malice. Like Sauron’s Ring from Tolkien, your ‘whiteness’ has a malevolent mind of its own, tilting the world around you in self-serving ways at the expense of others. This framing obviously ignores any parallels in non-Western societies (Ottoman empire, for one), gives no workable definitions of ‘whiteness’ other than ‘it-is-whatever-we-say-it-is’, nor assigns it a causal value that takes into account the millions of other socioeconomic currents that shape events we later call ‘history’.
Good therapy demands precision in understanding the individual human experience, yet the argument made by Gabriel could not be broader. The claims made only exist as ‘true’ if they are simply accepted as articles of faith. Pointing out flaws feels like being drawn into a trap that positions dissenters as being regressive or bigoted—on the ‘wrong side of history’.
Some questions that occur:
- If ‘whiteness’ is a state-of-mind construct, can non-white people be ‘white’? If not, why not?
- Is it possible to identify and acknowledge positive contributions attributable to ‘white systems’?
- Do all white therapists exhibit specific colonial influences / ‘oppression’ in interpersonal dynamics during therapy? How, exactly? And how is this known?
- For example, did the president become aware of exhibiting oppression in her own practice? Or has her own whiteness not been a problem for her, personally?
- Is this white ‘oppression’ just a passive phenomenon? Does this distortion just emanate from white therapists at the cellular level, like The Force in Star Wars? Are there any studies (not qualitative) demonstrating this alarming feature of ‘whiteness’?
- Should decolonization outrank, say, learning to treat OCD, as a priority?
- What evidence is there that ‘decolonizing one’s practice’ or viewing therapy (and clients) through the lens of politicized theory, is a better approach to work than being genuine, bracketing your activism or politics, and focusing instead on the issues the client wishes to talk about in therapy?
And so on (more or less ad infinitum).
To conclude
The language in her column is vague and ideological, choc-full of activist social justice ideas presented as facts. The structure is intended to ‘box in’ the reader between the tight moral guardrails the author sets out, and the argument is a biblical oversimplification of human history. Activism of this type consistently emphasizes systems and structures as the sole determinants of outcomes, usually overlooking the importance of individual agency and responsibility—individual sovereignty is nowhere to be found.
Really, this is all about the integrity of therapy. I see little evidence in foundational psychology, philosophy, or talking therapy texts—those on which our profession rests—that justifies bringing charged political theories into the room as a framework for understanding a client. We have rich traditions for embracing difference without reducing people to categories— victims or villains—based on immutable characteristics. I see no mandate for judging white people, or any other group.
In fact, the same foundational texts guide us to embrace differences, to try and fully accept the client before us, while also acknowledging ourselves, either bracketing or bringing ‘into the room’ these differences to explore our common humanity. This genuine interplay between therapist and client is a (or the) vital crucible of healing and change.
How about this—we respond to each and every client as an individual. Let’s be genuine in the therapy room, taking the bold risk of being real. We should encourage it by modelling it. Then we’ll make space for every experience, including exploration of marginalisation, otherness, and navigating a world that sometimes feels built for others (and these are real issues—important ones). There is room for therapists to reflect on their own background and experience, exploring the differences and similarities between client/therapist. This may help deepen shared understandings and the therapeutic relationship. This is ‘working with difference’. This is where you’ll find transformation.
So, finally, this is my message to the BACP. Park the bloody activism, and return to your proper mission—protecting the integrity of the therapy professions!
Read the full unabridged version here.
By Steve Perkins, a therapist and supervisor in private practice, based in the Brighton area. With over a decade of experience helping clients, he delivers integrative, person-centred therapy that prioritises client sovereignty and evidence-informed practice—free from external agendas.
Leave a Reply