Self-examination in a quiet room is no longer the only aspect of therapy. It increasingly reflects the continuous changes in society, where sociopolitical realities are reflected in the language used in therapy sessions, access to mental health care, and even the therapeutic approaches themselves. Many therapists and clients view that as a necessary evolution that helps ground emotional healing in the everyday reality that people experience, even though it may seem radical to some.
Professionals at Kindman & Co. are among those who fully embrace this change. They characterize therapy as a political act that upholds the identities and dignity of marginalized clients, in addition to being a means of personal development. This entails acknowledging that racism, homophobia, immigration policy, economic instability, and systemic oppression are actual causes of distress rather than merely theoretical concepts. Therapy “can’t (and shouldn’t) be separated from what’s happening outside the office,” according to Kaitlin Kindman. Others in her practice share her conviction that neglecting the political environment compromises the efficacy and safety of care.
Contextual Overview of “When Therapy Becomes a Political Statement”
| Topic Area | Key Insights |
|---|---|
| Core Idea | Therapy increasingly intersects with political identities and power systems |
| Two Interpretations | Systemic awareness vs. ideological activism |
| Ethical Foundations | APA/ACA emphasize neutrality and client-first focus |
| Practical Risks | Trust erosion, ethical boundary issues, alienation |
| Progressive Voices | Kindman & Co., Caitlin Harrison, Dr. Travis Heath |
| Concerns Raised By Critics | Sally Satel, Yascha Mounk, APA Ethics experts |
| Impact on Client Access | Conservative clients may feel excluded or judged |
| Cultural Shifts Reflected | Polarization in families, relationships, and friendships |
| Historical Influences | Feminist theory, liberation psychology, trauma-informed practice |
However, detractors contend that this strategy runs the risk of transforming therapy into an ideological exercise. Clients may feel subtly guided toward a particular worldview when therapists bring personal politics into the session, especially if they don’t share the therapist’s values. One of the pillars of therapy, neutrality, may be jeopardized by this expanding trend, according to Dr. Sally Satel and other APA Ethics Committee members. Once lost, trust is hard to regain. Politically charged therapy may feel more like a test than a haven for clients looking for a judgment-free environment.
Conservative clients have expressed concerns about what they believe to be bias in the field in a remarkably similar manner. Many say they are hesitant to ask for assistance at all because they worry that their opinions will be deemed “problematic” before they have had a chance to be heard. Once perceived as a sanctuary, the therapy room now carries a subliminal message of caution for them. Ironically, a place that should be for vulnerability starts to feel more like a place where people have to act politically correct in order to fit in.
The American Counseling Association and the American Psychological Association offer very explicit ethical guidelines. It is expected of therapists to put their clients’ welfare first, remain impartial, and refrain from making self-serving disclosures. If the client is experiencing political stress, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss it; however, the client’s needs, not the therapist’s beliefs, should always drive the discussion. This distinction is particularly crucial when a client is experiencing grief, anxiety, or trauma. In addition to being ineffective, forcing a political framework onto such experiences can be emotionally damaging.
Therapists like Caitlin Harrison of Kindman & Co., however, contend that neutrality is a myth in and of itself. She asserts that therapists always bring their lived experience into the room, citing fundamental feminist theory, and that acting otherwise only serves to support the prevailing ideology. Her approach, which is based on trauma-informed care, seeks to provide clients with a sense of security by acknowledging their realities rather than ignoring the sociopolitical causes of their pain. For clients navigating overlapping marginalizations, like queer identity, disability, or systemic poverty, she believes this is especially helpful.
Liberation psychology, which is promoted by Salvadoran psychologist Ignacio Martín-Baró, has a significant influence on this viewpoint. His conviction was straightforward but impactful: psychologists shouldn’t stand by and watch as society suffers. Rather, they ought to utilize their position to draw attention to and destroy oppressive systems. According to this perspective, therapists have an ethical obligation to participate in politics; it is not a choice.
However, this presents a challenging situation. Without enforcing ideology, how can a therapist strike a balance between systemic awareness? The subtle approach of guided dialogue might hold the solution. For example, when a patient expresses distress about being passed over for a promotion because of their gender or race, it is appropriate to assist them in processing those feelings in the context of more general trends. However, making these connections too soon could undermine autonomy or trust if the client doesn’t bring them up.
The last ten years have seen a notable widening of cultural divides. These days, clients usually share tales of broken families, strained friendships, and disbanded marriages—often as a result of political differences. In these situations, therapy turns into a place for navigating the emotional suffering brought on by ideological conflict in addition to helping people understand themselves. A therapist can be incredibly successful in assisting clients in gaining clarity if they acknowledge this complexity without making sessions into arguments.
The stakes are very high. Following the 2016 election, almost two-thirds of therapists and clients reported having political conversations during sessions, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Mismatches frequently weakened the therapeutic bond, but those with similar beliefs found this empowering. It’s possible that these mismatches will become more prevalent and challenging to handle as society struggles with divisive politics.
In order to address this, some therapists choose to use what has been called “value-neutral vocabulary,” which expressly avoids using politically charged language. This leaves room for the client’s interpretation by avoiding phrases like “systemic racism” or “reproductive justice” unless they are introduced. Without imposing political narratives, others, especially those who work with trauma or illness, explore meaning and identity through structured modalities like ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy). When appropriate, political stress is processed within these frameworks, but it is never coerced.
Individual experiences highlight the general pattern. One therapist described how a client with a terminal illness became more and more upset when her access to medication was restricted because of restrictive policies. Instead of pathologizing her anger, the therapist assisted her in placing it within the context of a system that had let her down. This strategy, which was notably based on both empathy and realism, allowed the client to accept her circumstances while acknowledging the injustice that caused them.
Another therapist, on the other hand, talked about working with a family in which the father frequently spread conspiracy theories, causing a great deal of friction with his grown children. In that instance, the therapist opened the discussion without passing judgment by asking emotionally charged questions like, “How did you feel saying that in front of your son?” This method challenged harmful behavior while maintaining the therapeutic alliance.
It is anticipated that mental health services will continue to advance into this area in the years to come. In order to stay in line with their clients’ best interests, therapists will need to become more self-aware and reflect on their language, biases, and techniques. Modules on political identity and emotional safety may soon need to be incorporated into training programs as everyday clinical tools rather than as theoretical ethical exercises.
The people who first defined therapy—white, male, and Eurocentric thinkers—have always influenced it. Informed by lived reality and collective history, a new generation of practitioners is currently advocating for definitions that are more inclusive. This change, though not without its drawbacks, is part of a broader trend toward therapy that transforms rather than merely heals.
