We Need Psychologists Not Apologists

We need psychologists, not apologists. I recently spoke with a therapist who practices in Austin, Texas. While discussing the post-doctoral students who were applying to work at her practice, she noted a commonality amongst the applications she received, which she described as pervasive.

The essays accompanying the resumes were riddled with “privilege speak”. By this I mean, they were papers, which essentially functioned as confessionals, regarding the way these would-be doctors' privileges impact their clients.

Where did we go off course, I wonder? When did psychologists go from apolitical figures, attempting to mitigate bias, to the role of simultaneous healer and oppressor? I simply don’t see any logic in this.

As a therapist, your main goal should be to limit your personal biases, not to bring them to the forefront before any and all interactions with your clients.

Simply put, the constant recognition that one has benefitted in some way that another has not, feels more akin to a “privilege brag,” an apt description I heard only recently. It is as though individuals feel that by noting their privilege one can “lop off” a part of themselves, in a quasi-masochistic fashion, while at the same time inflating what’s left of themselves, like a martyr on a cross.

When I sit and think about the things I am afforded, I am not without a conscious understanding that others do not have access to the same resources. Recognition of this, in private moments of contemplation, is beneficial, maybe even worthy of praise at some personal level. However, to utilize this recognition as a foundational base from which to see another human being systematically lowers them hierarchically. And by way of contrast, raises the practitioner in some manner. Talk about ego inflation.

In therapy, the analyst is already engaged in a power disparity. The client comes to confide in the practitioner after all, not the other way around. And at times, it can feel like the psychologist sits upon a throne, like a grand judge, covertly wrangling you toward some sort of pre-established end goal.

As someone who has been on both sides of the couch, I can tell you, that the position is intoxicating. I doubt I am the first to admit this. A human being has come to you, to look to you, as though you know something about Being itself, that they themselves, cannot reconcile with. And it is for this reason, that I feel this perceived position of authority must not come with it any specific notions of hierarchical status between practitioner and client.

How can one be a simultaneous, guide, healer, judge, oppressor, and beneficiary? You simply cannot assume all these roles at the same time. You must choose whom you are going to be for your client, in this specific context, based upon what they have come seeking.

To be cognizant of another’s context is a worthwhile endeavor. It gives you a framework from which to interpret and engage. However, when the context becomes a factor which trumps all other variables, in the mind of the practitioner, then the therapist has set up an equation of nihilism. What is the point in working to improve one’s standing, if the limits for that improvement are set in advance? What gives anyone the right to decide that a triumph is not in the cards for another person?

What I am calling for is a return to a solid set of structured values and norms that all practitioners can adhere to. With so many branches in this field, all vying for time in the spotlight to some degree, it makes sense that our core set of tenets become bastardized, at times. And it absolutely makes sense that things that were initially instantiated with good intentions could go to illogical extremes. But we need to course correct here.

Our position in society is shamanic in nature, and the shaman does not apologize for the demons another must contend with. He does not apologize for the benefits of his status, which may play a role in any difficulties another is experiencing. No, his role is a simple one, guidance, and expulsion of said entities. We need psychologists, not apologists.