You are here:   Civilisation >  Critique > How Marxists took over psychotherapy
“The psychiatrist”, by Carl Josef, c.1930 (WELLCOME IMAGES CC BY 4.0)

Psychotherapy, counselling and the talking therapies were commonly resisted in Britain until the 1980s, seen as American imports, self-indulgent, “touchy-feely” threats to the British stiff upper lip and social reserve. But that resistance melted as GPs experimented with having counsellors in their practices, the media promoted therapy as a friendly venture, and de-stigmatisation generally was challenged as part of the anti-psychiatric and other liberation movements. Universities added counselling services to their provision, recognising age-related problems of adjustment, homesickness, depression and drugs. Voluntary organisations provided relationship therapy, free drug and alcohol counselling, and agony aunts were trusted by many readers. Training programmes in therapy became a booming business and “perhaps you should see a therapist” could be heard as a common suggestion for many of life’s ills. This new confidence in therapists and therapy as “the answer” remains strong in many ways but cracks have begun to appear. One of these is where the assumption that therapists are scientists, or neutral professionals like lawyers or accountants, breaks down. Psychotherapy is an intensely personal, intimate and subjective undertaking in which clients are somewhat confused, vulnerable and often suggestible. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, recognising that some Christian counsellors were bringing their religious agenda into therapy, took steps to prevent this. Politically motivated therapists are probably not explicitly bringing their agenda into their work with vulnerable clients, but there is an unrecognised issue here that should be confronted.

Therapy trainees are zealous enthusiasts, paying a lot for their training, and often finding themselves in university departments or independent training institutions with one dominant school of therapy and trainers and tutors who may be dogmatic and charismatic. In my experience it is very common to witness fierce and uncritical commitment to therapy and moreover to one form of therapy. This kind of underlying certitude resembles that found in religious and political movements. Adherents become intolerant of or impatient with dissident views, and students who make challenges may be told they are resistant, they are using intellectual defences and are “stuck in their heads”. The onus on therapists to act ethically, perhaps hyper-ethically, leads to their presentation to the outside world as being above all prejudice, influence and abuse. But they can never be free from human nature, and the zealotry underpinning therapy theories is highly likely to leak out, however subtly and unintentionally, into their work with clients. This leakage includes political views, and particularly the leftist and culturally Marxist views with which the therapy world is unwittingly saturated.

To be fair, leftism among therapists isn’t completely concealed and a left-wing affiliation is no crime. However, the tradition in the professional bodies overseeing the talking therapies (clinical and counselling psychology, psychoanalysis, counselling, psychotherapy) has always been to encourage the free association and blank screen of psychoanalysis and unconditional regard of humanistic therapy. Freud himself was reputedly uninterested in politics but some, like the Tavistock sociologist Michael Rustin, have been unashamedly socialist, and no therapists writing about Freudo-Marxism or Red Therapy can conceal their political colours. Some consider therapy revolutionary, and the theorrhea of Lacanian-Marxist Slavoj žižek just keeps coming. But in many ways therapy arose as an alternative to the perceived stale politics and religion of the mid-20th century, indeed as part of the personal-is-political zeitgeist of the 1960s and 1970s. The quest for the real self, self-actualisation, and “psychosalvation” preoccupied many who abandoned organised religion and class politics.
View Full Article
neol maccarthy
February 17th, 2019
3:02 PM
Atkinson, a previous commentator doesnt get it. Moreover he presents the usual anti intellectual argument that those who dont pander to his ideology are inherently dispassionate. His pathetic diatribe highlights why the contents of the article are so pertinent. Imbeciles like Atkinson delineates the usual collection and litany of supposed "right wing" traits that are mere caricatures found in a radical feminist's article in the guardian. Those on the right are as diverse and eclectic as those on the left. The right is a compendium of fiscal conservatives and social libertarians to traditionalists. The traditional family structures, often considered "right of centre" were not units of competition, and alienation but a means of stability and human flourishing, which is why the nuclear family was so successful across many civilisations. In antithesis the fracturing of the nuclear family has resulted in the very claims simpletons like Atkinson rail against, alienation and lack of compassion. The problem with idiots like Atkinson is that they fail to read the contents and come to a conclusion based on premises never argued in the article.To ask what point is being made, given the point is very clear, suggests that comrade Atkinson is so committed, almost a priori like, to an ideology that a point would elude him even if it poked him in the face. He presents more strawmen in his imbecilic rant than a collective farm in the old USSR. Here's a tip Atkinson,read the contents, you may find the point there....with you, I DOUBT IT.

Tim Harvard
July 11th, 2018
10:07 AM
Great article. I've just completed an MA in person-centred therapy and have been appalled by the extent to which the 'person' has been lost, at the expense of tribalism. It often seemed more about Jeremy Corbyn than Carl Rogers. I am apparently in a minority when I see the irony: in therapy we seek to liberate the individual from social 'conditions of worth', yet many therapists are quite happy to impose such conditions on the same person via the politically correct control of word and thought, and the denials and distortions that arise with the mass psychosis of collectivist politics. We are sending new therapists out into the world with a warped sense of perspective: that there are no facts or shared values, that men are just itching to 'oppress' women, that white people are born racist, that gender is nothing more than a fashion choice, that it is more important to find the next trans maths professor than to discuss male suicide, all implying that the therapist's virtue-signalling is more important than the interests of the client. A professor even admitted to me that he considered psychotherapy to be a subset of radical left-wing politics! There it is: you can only care about others if you're a Marxist. As Jordan Peterson is helping to point out, this stuff is very, very dangerous. Was anything ever more dehumanizing than Marxism? Did any Marxist government ever get it right?

Jim buck
June 30th, 2018
6:06 PM
I met the author of the above article at a party last night. A nice enough man. We were born in the same year, and our brief conversation was indicative of similar outlook and interests--in our long-ago youth, at least. He seems to have made much more of himself since. Though, I did do a psychology BSc at SHU, as a mature student---following decades of heavy manual work. Coming from a job (British Rail) with a sturdy trade union presence, it was quite a shock to realise that one of my lecturers at SHU was a holocaust denier, and that psychology, as a subject, attracts those who would rigidly order estates. . Far from being a hot-bed of cultural marxism, there was a small glowing coterie of "critical psychologists" in the psychology department then (late 1990s)--and they provided me with a very useful introduction to the Continental thinkers. I agree with the writer that it is unethical to psychiatrically diagnose President Trump, from a distance. I recall that the Murdoch newspapers did an identical hatchet job on Tony Benn. On Brexit though, I diverge on patriotic grounds. My grandfather fought for England, and won the Military Medal. He would have hated the belittling of Britain that Farage has wrought.

Paul Atkinson
March 1st, 2018
1:03 PM
Your point is what? Of course a majority of therapists are more concerned with compassion, people’s capacity to relate, to support each other in the pain and difficulty of life than they are in a more “right-wing” empahasis on competition, self-sufficiency, economic success and other alienating life goals. You can call the former liberal or even Marxist if you like but Surely that’s you groaning some axe of your own against therapy. What’s your alternative approach to psychological distress? Why not come out and declare your own politics and prejudices.

Michael McManus
March 1st, 2018
10:03 AM
Excellent. I do wonder about how much influence tutors have on students: my experience has been that what is transmitted is seldom what is received. Perhaps it's more a case of birds of a feather. The major failure is the total lack of an evidence base, other than anecdotal. (Freud made number of colossally stupid diagnoses, and I believe the only people who thought being counselled after 9/11 was any help were the therapists.) Least said, soonest mended - not something you'll find in a counsellors office.

March 1st, 2018
5:03 AM
My therapist of nearly 2 decades severed all contact with me after I refused to vote for Obama. And to think I once blindly trusted her to guide me into becoming an adult. Sheesh!

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.