| 1 | Ethical Practice and Best Practice
|
| | Colin Lago and Barbara Smith |
Counselling and psychotherapy have often been criticized for focusing on the psychology of the individual and on the internal life of the client while ignoring the impact of the social, economic and cultural environment in which people live. (Feltham and Horton, 2000: 24)
Over recent years there has been a critically growing concern that the counselling and psychotherapy profession has been broadly dominated by middle-class values and has been accessed mostly by those from privileged groups in society. People from marginalized groups (for example, people with physical or learning disabilities, black people, unwaged people, etc.) are less likely to have had access to, been able to afford, or been referred to therapeutic services. Notwithstanding the above trends in the use of available services, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) has increasingly moved towards the adoption of counsellor accreditation and ethical criteria that are broadly socially inclusive and anti-discriminatory in intention, requiring members to have considered and sought training in this complex arena.
We come from the perspective that anti-oppressive/anti-discriminatory practice is both ethical practice and best practice (Thompson, 1993; Smith, 1999). We have used two different umbrella terms: ‘anti-discriminatory’ and ‘anti-oppressive’ practice. Burke and Dalrymple (1996) draw the general distinction between these two terms as that of acknowledging the legal underpinning of anti-discrimination, supported by a range of government acts, laws, policies and practices, and the humane concerns embodied in anti-oppressive practice. Thompson describes the link between discrimination (the unequal distribution of power, rights and resources) and oppression (the experience of hardship and injustice): ‘One of the main outcomes of discrimination is oppression’ (1998: 78).
This book, then, hails from a deeply held value base: that of seeking to explore and challenge oppressive and discriminatory practices in (and outside of) the field of therapy, and to advocate theories and modes of therapeutic and political interaction which respect the autonomy, capacities and the social position of the client.
That stated, we want to acknowledge the complexity and challenge that faces the professional field and the individual practitioner who takes up this often painful, confusing and isolating quest. Ironically, the challenge here is for the counsellor to change, rather than the client, and our invitation to readers is to dare to really feel the consequences of assuming this deeply philosophic stance in their personal and professional transactions with others. Taking on the ideas contained within this book will inevitably cause a shift in one’s comfort zones, the journey being one of moving from a position of safety to the unknown, where there are many more questions than answers, more uncertainties than certainties, and possibly more critics than supporters.
In an absorbing article on the values of independent thinking and radicalism, Christopher Hitchens quotes his grandmother who had given him a bible in which she had written her favourite texts, one being ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil’ (Hitchens, 2001). Independent thinking is a courageous stance needed for this journey. It is easy to become tired, demoralized and de-motivated, resorting to received modes of thinking and practice. A return to the comfortable old ways! Experience has taught us, however, that meeting these challenges brings rewards in terms of our relationships with other people, including our clients and students, and indeed with ourselves.
Historical learnings from a sister profession
The psychotherapeutic field is somewhat advantaged here in that the social work profession has for a long time been concerned with anti-discriminatory (ADP) and anti-oppressive (AOP) practice. We may therefore learn from these developments and indeed errors that have been tested, researched, taught and criticized whilst also recognizing the important differences between the two professions.
Thompson (1993) traces some of the historical roots underlying this rationale for social work. The 1960s were a significant period, he argues, in a number of ways. First, feminist thought made leaps forward, gaining recognition as a ‘liberation movement’. Issues of equal rights and equality of opportunity became firmly established on the political agenda. Also, during the 1960s, issues surrounding the oppression of ‘ethnic minorities’ and racial discrimination achieved more prominence politically, socially and in the mass media.
Thompson also notes the general popular tendency towards the raising of consciousness inspired by both the drug culture and political radicalism. The late 1960s saw the emergence of the student protest movement, a time, he notes, ‘of idealism and anti-establishment challenge of the status quo’ (1993: 3).
Within the field of mental health and illness, writers such as Thomas Szasz (1970) and R.D. Laing (1965, 1967) radically challenged the contemporary views of the time, forever influencing subsequent thought and practice in this field of human distress.
Formerly dominated by a psychoanalytic view, social work came under the newer influence of sociology, with its emphasis on social processes and institutions rather than the previous, tighter, individualized focus upon the person. A series of legislative developments by government supported these general tendencies of the time, including the Race Relations Acts (1965, 1968, 1976), the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Sex Discrimination Act (1975).
The broader field of therapeutic endeavour (counselling, psychotherapy, clinical psychology) has similarly and inevitably been influenced by the social trends, events, debates, academic discourses and government legislation in recent decades, though given its powerful underlying value base, geared towards the assistance of the individual (predominantly), the major focus of much training and professional practice has remained within the individualized, psychologized perspectives of personal change and transformation. Despite this, there has been a wide range of published voices within the field urging therapists to become familiar with the differing arenas of discrimination and oppression in society, drawing therapists’ attention to the socially, culturally and politically structured nature of human beings’ existence (see D’Ardenne and Mahtani, 1989; Eleftheriadou, 1994; Lago and Thompson, 1989, 1996, 1997; and Pedersen et al., 1981 on matters of race and culture; Chaplin, 1989 on counselling and gender; Corker, 1994; Makin, 1995 and Segal, 1997 on disability issues; Davies and Neal, 1996 on gay and lesbian issues; Carolin, 1995 on working with children; Craig, 1998 on attitudes to ageing; Kearney, 1996 and Bromley, 1994 on class; and Thorne, 1998 on spirituality).
Each of these social arenas has distinct characteristics and multiple discourses, in addition to their similarities and interconnections. This will become clearer as the following chapters are examined. Any simple attempt, therefore, to assemble these various facets into an apparently over-arching homogenous system of AOP and ADP in therapy will be doomed from the start (Wilson and Beresford, 2000). It seems to us that, for many therapists, the issues that they develop a ‘passion’ for and sensitivity to often reflect their own previous histories and experiences. It is helpful to broaden this out, however, to develop this knowledge-base and sensitivity to the many areas of social life in which oppression occurs. This is a major challenge, particularly as this knowledge itself is specifically determined by the biases of background, training, readings and experiences, both personal and professional.
The client and the therapist in the context of ‘society’
Civilization as we know it is based on the violation and domination of subordinates by elites. Violation, domination and hegemony are common to all oppression. All oppression is heinous, dehumanizing and confusing. (Burstow, 1992: 63)
A central tenet of this book is that the individual and the society within which they are raised are inextricably intertwined. The power of the ‘social context’ to shape a person’s sense of identity, esteem, values, beliefs, behaviours and perceptions is enormous, and some would argue total, as in the South African proverb ‘I am because we are’. How and where we are raised, what stories and experiences we are exposed to – all are ingredients of the interconnectedness between the growing child, the immediate carers (most frequently the family) and key agents of socialization such as education, religion, health, politics, law and communicated messages embodied in the media. All have an (often unconscious) influence on our views of ourselves, of others and of the world. At the Institute for the Healing of Racism, there is a view (and one to which we subscribe) that discrimination and oppression damage everyone. We damage our boy children by teaching them that they are superior to girl children; we damage our white children by teaching them, however unintentionally and subtly, that they are superior to black children. The confusion and pathology which follows really belongs to the oppressor, but is projected onto others. Nelson Mandela suggests ‘The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity’. The healing of this begins with awareness.
Given the above, we recommend an examination of the impact of ideology, hegemony and discourse, and a context of how they operate within society and upon individuals.
Ideology
Thompson defines ideology as ‘a set of ideas which are associated with a particular set of social arrangements’ (1993: 24). A review of the concept will reveal that, despite its relative youth as a concept, the analysis and definitions of ideology itself are a cauldron of competing ideas and hypotheses (McLellan, 1995: 2).
Continuing his appraisal of the term, Thompson says: ‘the ideas base safeguards the power base. In fact this is what characterises ideology: the power of ideas, operating in the interest of power relations’ (1993: 24). Hall notes: ‘ideology helps to sustain social order because it is part and parcel of the power relations in society – it influences how power works and how conflict is expressed and managed’ (1986: 6).
Both Althusser (1971) and Berger (1996) have noted the process of internalization, of the taking in, by people, of the dominant ideologies so that these ideologies become internalized and believed and the relationship between that which has been internalized and the external source(s) from which it emanated may often remain unknown and concealed. We are all therefore subject to the influences of many ideologies to the extent we fully believe they represent our own view of things. To dig beneath the surface of these simplified belief structures is so important, yet so difficult to the discerning therapeutic practitioner.
Hegemony
Hegemony, the second mechanism to be considered, is described as ‘political dominance of one power over others in a group in which all are supposedly equal’ (Hutchinson, 1993). An example of this would be where one group or social collectivity gained power, status and position at the expense of other, less favoured groups.
Hegemony is therefore closely linked to the notion of exploitation, although not necessarily in any deliberate or intentional sense. It is also closely linked to the notion of ideology, for it is often through the vehicle of ideology that hegemony operates (Thompson, 1993). Part of the ideological base of hegemony is the idea of an ‘out group’, a group of people defined in negative terms and assigned an inferior status. This tendency is quite clearly, therefore, part of the process of discrimination and oppression.
Hegemony is especially important in societies in which electoral politics and public opinion are significant factors, and in which social practice is seen to depend on consent to certain dominant ideas that in fact express the needs of a dominant class (Williams, 1983).
Discourse
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1974) describes discourse as a talk, conversation, dissertation, treatise or sermon – ‘to hold forth in speech or writing on a subject’, or ‘a serious conversation between people on a particular subject’ (Collins, 1991).
Discourse analysis has become a significant research area across the social sciences, in recognition of the fact that any interaction between two people is shaped and informed by the processes they both bring to it, these ...