In a keynote address at the BACP Research Conference in Dundee (19th and 20th May 2022), David Weaver, President of BACP, made the remark that, “Counselling is too important to be left to counsellors.”
I practice and research as a pluralistic counsellor, so this remark struck a chord with me, and I tweeted it immediately, adding the conference hashtag #BACPresearch22. In my apparent naivety, it did not occur to me that the idea was controversial, but I nearly caused a minor diplomatic incident. Although 30 people ‘liked’ the tweet, suggesting that they ‘got’ the message, there were 15 tweets quoting the original, ranging from the mildly curious to the outright hostile. My favourite was the person who said it made no more sense than “Plumbing is too important to be left to plumbers.” Let’s think about that Lesley. If plumbing was left to plumbers, our water would still come through the wooden pipes the Romans pioneered. Thanks to advances in technology, we have metallurgists, designers, architects, and material scientists et al, for our pipes. We have bacteriologists and epidemiologists to thank for recognising the importance of clean water and sanitation. Yes, plumbing is way too important to be left to plumbers.
Not for a moment do I presume to speak for David Weaver nor defend his remark. I only know that his words spoke to me. It is the inspiration I received from this remark that I reflect on here. No counsellor is an island. In my view we care best for our clients if we consider all the social, biological, political, and cultural aspects affecting their lives. We do this best when we stop viewing our work in professional isolation, look outwards and educate ourselves across all the wider contexts in which we practice. Recently I had some minor (but potentially lifesaving) surgery under local anaesthetic. How refreshing it was to have the consultant discuss the pros and cons of the suture materials he could use and offer me informed choices. It was me who decided what stitched my skin back together. Even if we adopt an otherwise blinkered view of our profession, counselling is too important to exclude clients from our decision making. All of us who work in health and social care need to recognise the power we hold and be prepared to relinquish any that works against the best interests of those we serve.
So, who and what should be included in determining the process and practice of counselling, that are too important to be left out? This is not an exhaustive list, you may be able to think of others.
The client. Arguably, for too long we have adopted a practice in which, overtly or covertly we have seen ourselves as the expert in the room. Pluralistic practice shares that expertise with the client. It recognises that there are many different ways of working with different clients at different times, that no model or method is always the best, and that the client can be helped to make choices and be a mutual partner in deciding what they want from counselling. I see it as a respectful, attitudinal approach to each client, which results in a unique therapeutic journey.
Societal context. As feminist Carol Hanisch wrote in 1969, “The personal is political”. We do not counsel in a vacuum. Many of the issues our clients bring are not problems per se, they are due to society’s response including prejudice and indifference to race, disability, gender, sexuality, poverty, housing and many more factors in a long list. To what extent is much of our work a sticking plaster response? Should we as ethical professionals, be concerned with challenging the causes of mental ill health, and campaigning for change? Which brings me to,
Activists and pressure groups. As individuals, we cannot embrace in any practical way, with every injustice that needs to be addressed. But we can listen and learn from activists, as an ethical part of our practice.As a specialist in grief work, I have been heavily engaged with Covid support groups and campaigns for social justice.
Counselling and psychotherapy training. When I first became involved in training counsellors, it was in an FE college. It was affordable and accessible. I am proud that my colleagues and I were able to bring some excellent counsellors into the profession from diverse backgrounds, many of whom would never have been able to afford the fees that are charged now. In my view we need to find ways of training more practitioners who by virtue of their background, are currently excluded. Which brings me to,
Politicians. As a profession we must involve national and local politicians in making access to therapy and therapy training accessible. We need to end the ‘volunteer culture’ that plagues our profession. One way is to persuade those who hold the purse strings of the monetary value of our profession.
Researchers. Not all researchers are therapists. We depend on clinical and theoretical psychologists, as well as counselling and psychotherapy researchers. This includes neuroscientists who have much to offer our profession from a fast-growing field.
Publishers. Anyone who has ever tried to research a counselling topic through accessing journals, will have met a paywall. Anyone who has written an academic article will have had to jump through the appropriate hoops. Such is the power of the academic journals and their power to restrict information to those of privilege. Likewise text books. Publishers choose what they commission, based, I would argue, on commercial considerations over making knowledge available to a diverse audience. Authors are influenced by what will be commissioned. Self-publishing, once regarded as a poor relation, and dubbed ‘vanity publishing’, addresses the power imbalance. It transfers power to the author and reader. Thanks to print on demand technology, any author can publish an accessible book for a diverse audience, at an affordable price. Information is democratised.
If you doubted it before, I hope you can see now, why plumbing is too important to be left to plumbers, medicine to doctors, social work to social workers and counselling to counsellors. If we are to practice ethically, we must do more than pay lip service to inequality. This means developing our political understanding of power imbalance. If we are to meaningfully address diversity, we must educate ourselves by engaging with disenfranchised minorities beyond our own community. If we are to become an inclusive profession, we must find ways of listening to and engaging with those who feel excluded. I rest my case.