The Tension Between Activism and Therapeutic Open-Mindedness: A Balancing Act for the Socially Just Therapist
In a world increasingly polarised by political, social, and cultural divisions, many professionals find themselves navigating the delicate balance between their personal beliefs and professional responsibilities. This tension is particularly pronounced for those who identify as both activists and psychotherapists. Activism often demands a clear stance against injustice. Psychotherapy calls for an open-minded, non-judgmental approach rooted in principles like unconditional positive regard, where the therapist seeks to understand the underlying reasons behind a client’s beliefs. How can a socially just therapist, who is also politically informed, reconcile these seemingly contradictory roles? Employing a both/and rather than an either/or position feels useful. We can do this while acknowledging the tensions that naturally come up as a result of trying to hold both.
The Activist’s Dilemma: The Moral Imperative to Speak Out
For many activists, silence in the face of injustice is not an option. This moral imperative is grounded in the belief that neutrality in situations of oppression amounts to complicity. When faced with racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of systemic violence, the activist’s call to action is clear: one must speak out, take a stand, and, where possible, engage in efforts to dismantle these systems of oppression. The ethical stance here is straightforward — align yourself with the oppressed, or you risk being seen as an ally to the oppressor.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” - Desmond Tutu
This clarity of purpose is powerful and necessary in social movements. Activists drive change by challenging the status quo and demanding accountability from those in power. Their commitment to justice can inspire others to join the cause and create momentum for societal shifts. Being steadfast in your belief is positive. But what happens if someone disagrees? We know shame is rarely an effective way to shift oppressive views, as it often leads to defensiveness and entrenchment rather than the self-reflection and openness needed for genuine change.
The Therapist’s Responsibility: Unconditional Positive Regard and Empathy
Psychotherapy is built on foundational principles that emphasise the importance of understanding the individual in front of you, regardless of their beliefs or behaviours. One of the cornerstones of this practice is unconditional positive regard, a concept popularised by Carl Rogers. This principle requires therapists to offer acceptance and support to their clients, no matter what views they hold. The goal is to create a safe and non-judgmental space where clients can explore their thoughts and feelings without fear of condemnation.
As a psychotherapist, asking “why” a client holds certain beliefs is not an endorsement of those beliefs, but rather, a therapeutic strategy to uncover the underlying motivations, fears, or past experiences that shape their worldview. This approach can lead to deeper insights, help clients develop self-awareness, and, potentially, facilitate change. The therapeutic relationship is, therefore, one of exploration and understanding, rather than judgment and correction.
Extending Unconditional Positive Regard Beyond the Therapy Room
While unconditional positive regard (UPR) is a key therapeutic tool, it doesn’t have to be confined to the therapy room. In a world increasingly characterised by polarisation and divisive rhetoric, extending the principles of UPR — grace, curiosity, and empathy — into everyday life can be a radical act of compassion. However, doing so comes with its own set of challenges, particularly for those who are already deeply invested in social justice and activism.
Engaging with others outside the therapy room in the same spirit of curiosity and non-judgmental understanding can help bridge divides and foster more meaningful connections. When we ask “why” someone holds certain views, especially those that may seem harmful or oppressive, we often uncover layers of fear, pain, and confusion that have shaped their beliefs. Approaching such conversations with a mindset of empathy rather than confrontation can not only reduce conflict, but also open the door to genuine dialogue and potential change.
However, extending this grace beyond your professional life can be exhausting, especially in an environment where societal pressures constantly demand taking a clear stance. How can we make taking a therapeutic approach to dialogue outside of the therapy room more sustainable?
To sustain this approach, it’s crucial to know yourself and set boundaries. This might mean taking breaks from difficult conversations, surrounding yourself with supportive communities, or engaging in activities that replenish your energy. It’s important to note the privilege in “taking a break,” some don’t have that luxury. But many activist writers talk about the importance of rest. We are less effective when burnt out. Recognising that you cannot single-handedly change every mind or solve every problem is essential for maintaining your well-being in the long term. Extending UPR to yourself, too. Granting yourself the same grace and understanding that you offer to others can prevent burnout and help you remain effective both as a therapist and as an activist.
There is also risk that we are pedestaling the therapeutic way of relating, which feels important to name. Of course, as a therapist, I believe in it. But there are other ways of being in the world that aren’t considered in this blog post that may be more effective.
Who Does Polarisation Serve? Not Us
Who is polarisation serving? In our current socio-political climate, polarisation seems to be an ever-present force, driving wedges between individuals and communities. This polarisation keeps us preoccupied with the differences between “us” and “them,” often to the detriment of our collective well-being. While it may seem like this divide is simply a result of differing opinions or ideologies, there’s a deeper, more insidious aspect at play: the way polarisation perpetuates loneliness and isolation and, in turn, serves the neoliberal zeitgeist.
Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on individualism, competition, and market-driven solutions, thrives in environments where people are isolated and disconnected from one another. When individuals are divided, they are more easily controlled and less likely to band together to challenge systemic injustices. Polarisation distracts us from addressing the root causes of inequality by keeping us busy with infighting and defensiveness. This fragmentation of society leads to an erosion of community bonds and a growing sense of loneliness. Loneliness, often seen as a personal problem, is deeply political.
Fostering genuine curiosity in our interactions can counteract this polarisation. By focusing on understanding rather than defeating one another, we can begin to rebuild the social fabric that individualism seeks to unravel. Cultivating empathy and connection across divides not only strengthens our communities but also creates a foundation for more effective activism. It reminds us that, despite our differences, we are all part of a shared human experience. A reality that is crucial for resisting the forces that seek to divide and conquer us.
Ultimately, the tension between activism and therapeutic open-mindedness can be reconciled through an approach that values empathy and understanding both within and outside the therapy room. By recognising the larger forces at play and committing to extending compassion in all areas of life, socially just therapists can navigate this balance with grace and purpose.
The Tension of Criticising Polarisation in the Face of Dehumanising Views
As therapists and activists committed to social justice, we often find ourselves grappling with the tension between criticising polarisation and recognising the harm that certain views can cause. While polarisation can be destructive, there are times when the divide seems not just inevitable, but necessary. Especially when the opposing viewpoint dehumanises or further marginalises vulnerable groups. How do we, as socially conscious therapists, navigate the ethical complexities of this situation without compromising our commitment to empathy, understanding, and justice?
On the one hand, as advocates for social change, we understand that certain beliefs and ideologies actively harm marginalised communities. Whether it’s racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of oppression, these views perpetuate injustice and inflict real pain on individuals and groups who are already vulnerable. As such, there’s a strong moral impulse to take a firm stance against these dehumanising ideologies, to speak out against them, and to ensure that we are not inadvertently legitimising or normalising harmful rhetoric through our silence or inaction.
On the other hand, as therapists, we are trained to approach every individual with a stance of openness, even when their beliefs conflict with our own values. The therapeutic process calls for a deep curiosity about why a person holds certain views, seeking to understand the fears, insecurities, or life experiences that may have shaped their perspective. This approach does not mean endorsing or accepting harmful beliefs but rather creating a space where these beliefs can be explored and, potentially, transformed.
However, this is easier said than done. The tension arises when we encounter clients, colleagues, or individuals in our lives who express views that are not just different from our own, but are fundamentally dehumanising. In such cases, the natural inclination to criticise polarisation, recognising it as a barrier to understanding and connection, can feel like a betrayal of our commitment to justice. It can seem as though, by advocating for bridge-building or dialogue, we are asking those who are already marginalised to bear the burden of engaging with their oppressors, further exacerbating their trauma. Who suffers because we want to seek the middle ground?
This ethical dilemma requires a careful, nuanced approach. While it is essential to hold individuals accountable for the impact of their views and actions, it is also possible to maintain a compassionate stance toward the person, recognising their humanity even if their beliefs are harmful. This approach allows us to challenge dehumanising ideologies without dehumanising those who hold them, preserving the potential for change and growth.
Another strategy is to be clear about our boundaries and the context in which we engage with opposing views. In the therapy room, the primary goal is to support the client’s personal growth and well-being, which may involve gently challenging harmful beliefs in a way that fosters self-reflection and transformation. Outside of therapy, however, the context may shift, and there may be situations where taking a firm stand against dehumanising rhetoric is necessary, both for the sake of justice and to protect those who are most vulnerable.
It’s also important to recognise that not all dialogues are appropriate or productive. There are times when refusing to engage is the most ethical choice - when the potential harm of engaging with a dehumanising view outweighs the benefits of seeking understanding. In these cases, protecting the dignity and safety of marginalised individuals takes precedence over the desire to bridge divides.
Ultimately, the tension between criticising polarisation and addressing dehumanising views is one of the most challenging aspects of being a socially just therapist. It requires a careful balancing act, where empathy and compassion are extended to all, but not at the cost of compromising our commitment to justice. By navigating this tension with intentionality and integrity, we can strive to create a world where understanding and justice coexist, each reinforcing the other in the pursuit of a more equitable society.
Navigating the Intersection: The Socially Just Therapist
For a therapist who is also an activist, the challenge lies in integrating these two roles. This requires a nuanced understanding of both social justice and the therapeutic process.
First, it’s essential to acknowledge the tension. Trying to pretend that these roles are easily reconciled can lead to internal conflict and burnout. Instead, embrace the complexity of the dual identity. Recognise that both activism and therapy are both are rooted in a desire for positive change, whether at the societal level or within the individual. Maybe they aren’t so far apart. A pluralistic approach recognises that both activism and therapy offer valuable insights and methods for fostering change, and that blending these perspectives can create a more holistic and effective strategy for addressing oppression and healing individuals. By integrating the activist's commitment to justice with the therapist's focus on empathy and understanding, this approach allows for both compassionate engagement and principled stances against harmful beliefs. It encourages flexibility, acknowledging that different contexts and individuals may require different strategies, whether it's a firm stand against injustice or a patient, exploratory dialogue to facilitate deeper understanding.
Second, consider the context of your work. In the therapy room, the focus is on the client and their journey. Here, unconditional positive regard is not just a professional requirement but a powerful tool for healing. Even when confronted with beliefs that contradict your own values, maintaining an open-minded and empathetic stance can help clients feel seen and heard, which is essential for any therapeutic progress. This does not mean you have to abandon your social justice values. Instead, you can use your understanding of systemic issues to inform your approach, helping clients see how their beliefs may be shaped by larger societal forces.
Closing Thoughts
Balancing activism and therapy demands a bold approach that fuses empathy with unwavering justice, turning tension into transformative power. By harnessing the strengths of both, we can shatter the walls of oppression with compassion while refusing to compromise on our principles. In a polarised world, this fusion isn't just a path forward, it's the key to dismantling harm and igniting true, lasting change.