traditional psychotherapists must hold their ground

we were here first and we paid good money

Traditional psychotherapists are not natural activists; we are trained to listen, reflect, and facilitate growth rather than push agendas. Our natural inclination toward neutrality and our contentment with therapy as it is (while being open to professional development in keeping with our practice choice) often makes us slower to rally against ideological pressures. However, we find ourselves now in a position where we urgently need to take action to preserve our way of practising.

Psychotherapy is a profession rooted in the exploration of human experience in all it’s depth and complexity. Over many decades, we have developed rigorous training, ethical standards, and a commitment to fostering meaningful therapeutic relationships. However, as I’ve often written about, this growing ideological movement now threatens to redefine our traditional work, prioritising political analysis and activism over a nuanced, individualised approach that has always been at the heart of effective therapy.

The social justice movement seeks to reshape our profession with its ideology and promotes itself as ‘the future’ of psychotherapy. It exploits the goodwill of therapists, particularly trainees, by appealing to their good nature and desire to care for people, by implying that any refusal to conform to this new orthodoxy makes one uncaring, unethical, or even harmful; and instilling a fear in us of not being up to date.

Traditional psychotherapy, is not a relic of the past or the domain of older practitioners. It includes therapists of all ages and experience levels who value clinical integrity and the autonomy of both therapists and clients and disagree with a radical left wing doctrine. Those who resist the ideological capture of our profession do so, not out of resistance to progress, but out of commitment to genuinely held values and an evidence-based practice supported by extensive research.

traditional psychotherapy is not a political project

Regardless of therapeutic orientation whether psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioural, existential, integrative or any other modality, traditional practitioners hold psychotherapy to be a fundamentally personal process, not a political one. We are well aware of social conditions and we take full account of them, but choose not to put them at the centre of our work. Our methods are not to impose a particular ideological lens, to invite clients to see how oppressed or oppressive they are, or to mould them into politically correct individuals or activists; instead we favour the individual narratives of our clients, and uphold that the essence of our work is to help clients to freely explore their inner worlds, navigate their challenges, process their trauma, grieve their losses, and further develop their unique identity, resources and greater self-awareness.

The increasing pressure to adopt politically driven frameworks such as mandatory affirmation of gender identity, assumptions of ‘unconscious bias,’ or the requirement that therapists see their work as a form of activism, represents a profound shift away from the principles that have long defined our field. It seeks to move us away from genuine, unhampered therapeutic exploration and introduces a political lens that makes assumptions about the sources of a client’s suffering (systemic oppression/discrimination), prioritises ideological narratives over individual experience and reduces complex psychological distress to predetermined social constructs.

the grandiosity of assuming knowledge of another’s unconscious

One of the most troubling developments in this ideological shift is the grandiose presumption that adherents of a social justice approach have, a belief that they can know better what resides in another person’s unconscious even though that person doesn’t know themselves. The rise of ‘unconscious bias’ training, where therapists are told they hold very particular hidden prejudices they are not aware of, is a striking example of this.

While it is true that much of human experience operates at an unconscious level, psychotherapy has always approached this with humility and curiosity. Our role is to help clients explore their own unconscious through such processes as dialogue and reflection on imagery, dreams and troubling patterns of behaviour, not to impose pre-determined conclusions onto them. When therapists or clients are told that they have very particular unconscious biases or prejudices based on identity categories, this is an imposition and we are abandoning that commitment to the mystery of self-exploration in favour of ideological certainty.

This mirrors the historical concept of ‘internalised homophobia’ where everyone was assumed to be homophobic and anyone who questioned this dominant narrative of the time was claimed to be exhibiting proof of the very bias they were being accused of. A pantomime-like exchange would ensue, “I’m not homophobic” / “oh yes you are” which prohibited any meaningful discussion of the subject. The same logic now applies to concepts such as ‘internalised transphobia’ or ‘internalised racism,’ where doubt or disagreement is used as evidence of guilt. This is not therapeutic thinking, it’s a form of coercion.

empathy and unconditional positive regard are not about affirming defence strategies

In humanistic therapy, particularly in the work of Carl Rogers, the concepts of empathy and unconditional positive regard have been hijacked and are being misrepresented by those advocating for ideological conformity. Some claim that Rogers’ approach necessitates unquestioningly affirming a client’s self-perception. Does this include affirming someone who is, painfully thin and believing themselves to be overweight; experiencing persecutory delusions that cause paranoia; thinking they are a famous figure; believing they are a prophet, the second coming of Christ, or that God is directing them to act in harmful ways; firmly believing they have an illness despite medical evidence; thinking everyday events, media, or strangers are sending them special messages? No! In the critical social justice frame unquestioning affirmation of self-concept only applies to gender identity, to those who identify as an animal, and any number of fetishes, including pedophilia (The Next Generation).

Traditional psychotherapists are extremely worried about this trend and would wish to explore with their client, if their client wished to do so, how they have come to their conclusion. Not in an effort to convert them but to discover if there are any underlying issues that have influenced such a belief that a client may benefit from addressing.

Rogers’ empathy is not about blindly affirming a client’s self-concept or defence mechanisms. Instead, it is about creating an environment where all aspects of our clients’ experiences, including their doubts, contradictions, and inner conflicts, can surface naturally and be safely explored (Rogers, 1957); and where therapists can be curious and encourage that self-exploration.

To affirm a false self without question is to bypass the very process of therapy. A psychodynamic therapist would never simply affirm a client’s defence mechanisms without deeper exploration. A cognitive therapist would not accept maladaptive beliefs at face value but would help clients challenge and interrogate those beliefs. Why, then, should therapists be required to affirm rather than explore when it comes to identity?

the therapeutic relationship is the most important factor in effective therapy

As all psychotherapists will or should know, regardless of orientation, research consistently shows that the therapeutic relationship is the single most important factor in positive therapy outcomes, far more significant than any particular technique or intervention. Studies have consistently demonstrated that the strength of the therapeutic alliance, therapist warmth, and genuine engagement are far more predictive of success than adherence to any specific model or ideology.

Meta-analyses in psychotherapy research support this: Norcross and Lambert (2019) found that the therapeutic relationship accounts for up to 40% of client improvement, while specific techniques or approaches contribute only 15% or less.

Yet, current ideological pressures risk undermining this relationship. If therapists feel forced to prioritise ideological affirmation over genuine therapeutic engagement, the trust and depth that define effective therapy may be compromised. Clients who wish to explore their experiences freely may feel stifled if they suspect their therapist has already reached conclusions about what they ‘should’ believe about themselves or the world or what they should express.

trainees deserve choice, not ideological indoctrination

The pressure to conform is particularly acute for trainees and early-career therapists, who may fear professional consequences if they question the dominant narrative. Many training programmes now present political ideology as settled fact rather than one perspective among many.

Trainees are often told:

• “if you don’t affirm, you are harming your client.”

• “If you question gender identity, you are contributing to suicide rates.”

• “If you do not acknowledge your unconscious bias, you are part of the problem.”

These claims, however, are not rooted in robust clinical evidence. They reflect activist rhetoric rather than psychotherapy research.

Practitioners and trainees should be offered a choice in how they develop their practice. They should not feel pressured to adopt a singular ideological framework in order to be considered competent. A profession that prides itself on diversity of thought and open exploration must not become an echo chamber.

legal protections for therapists who uphold professional integrity

As therapists who resist ideological coercion we are on firm legal ground. Recent cases in the UK establish that therapists cannot be penalised for holding or expressing beliefs that do not align with political orthodoxy.

• Forstater v. CGD Europe (2021) confirmed that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the UK Equality Act 2010.

• Higgs v. Farmor’s School (2023) reinforced that professionals do not have to believe in gender fluidity.

For more examples see my ‘psychotherapists must have their own modality’ Substack post

These rulings make it clear: Therapists are not legally required to affirm ideological positions, nor can they be sanctioned for prioritising therapeutic exploration over ideological compliance.

traditional psychotherapy: we are not going anywhere

Traditional psychotherapy has stood the test of time because it is built on depth, complexity, and a commitment to the individual’s journey. This is not a generational divide. It is not about old vs. young, or outdated vs. progressive. Traditional psychotherapy includes experienced professionals, newly qualified therapists, and trainees who refuse to let ideology override their integrity or clinical frame.

We hold our boundaries, not out of resistance to change, but out of commitment to the traditional ethical principles of our profession. We stand firm in our belief that therapy is a space for exploration, not political enforcement.

Connecting with like-minded colleagues and supervisors who share a commitment to our values is empowering. With the support of others, we can gain confidence in having open conversations about the importance of therapeutic neutrality, develop our pushback language and feel supported in rejecting the ideology. If we can shift from silent discomfort, to active discussion, and ringfence our psychotherapeutic approach, alongside a social justice approach, we can protect our practice from activism and maintain its foundation in genuine psychotherapeutic inquiry.

We were here first. We all paid for long, expensive trainings. We are not just the ‘old guard’, we can be the ‘new guard’, taking action to resist political indocrination and preserve decades old, tried and tested, evidence-based practice. Others are welcome to their social justice modality but we traditionalists are not going anywhere fast.

References

• Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103

• Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2019). Psychotherapy Relationships That Work. Oxford University Press

• Forstater v. CGD Europe [2021] UKET 2200909/2019

• Higgs v. Farmor’s School [2023] UKET 1401264/2019