BACP blues... (20.8.25)
BACP blues... (20.8.25)
My last post – BACP drama... (7.8.25) – seems to have hit the spot. The number of views is a lot higher than normal and I know the article has been shared quite widely. Although not all therapists have much interest in BACP politics (me included), it’s news we should pay attention to.
As I wrote, it’s worrying that both a 'removed' Chair and the BACP board agree there have been serious failures of oversight, governance and behaviours. That each accuses the other of this creates a sense the whole thing is a bloody mess.
I’ve received a number of supportive emails from other therapists, and thank them for the encouragement and kind words. It’s led to some interesting exchanges, some anecdotal experiences of working with Natalie Bailey and, far more importantly, hearing a chorus of concerns about the BACP direction of travel. Some that wrote asked that the conversation stay private, and for those that didn’t I think it was implicit. So, no names and no pack drill. If you are thinking of writing to me, please do – confidence is assured.
I am now interested in the future of the BACP. Along with many others, I'm concerned too that our association has been moving in the wrong direction in the last few years. This isn’t based on watching the BACP like a hawk, but on the totality of what I see and hear as just another member. I actually think it’s helpful to be considering this from a 'low-information' outside vantage point.
Maybe I was harsh on Lynne Gabriel– the President of the BACP – who released a video on 8.8.25 with the intention of addressing members about Natalie Bailey’s removal. Here it is again. I referred to it as “…so bad it is genuinely interesting to watch…” and so vague that “…you’d need a decoder ring to cut through the metaphors that seem better suited to soothing dysregulated toddlers than explaining the who, what, and why to members.”.
I hope my cynicism will prove unwarranted, and others I respect have suggested I should be more optimistic. In the video she talks of this being a moment where we (the association) are “turning a corner”. Perhaps, in a coded way, Lynne Gabriel is trying to say that the BACP has understood where it has moved into the wrong terrain in the last few years. Maybe, just maybe, she is trying to say to members “we get it…and we will turn this around” ahead of changes to follow? One person who wrote suggested that this is the BACP’s way of signifying they recognise that the ‘progressive political’ influences at the BACP have gone too far, and that steps will be taken to stop this. Well, I hope this is right! And if so I’d like to do all I can to encourage it.
Criticisms of the BACP range widely in terms of specifics, but it is fair to say a few themes emerge. Actually, there are quite a few therapists / larger online accounts that are vocal with criticism that I was unaware of until recently, but I sense many therapists worry about commiting to these concerns in public. There is a guarded feel to the content I’ve seen, despite having plenty of support and sympathy from members. A sign of the times.
From what I can see, the meta-theme (the thinking behind the concerns of moderate members) is in this ballpark:
- That the BACP has fallen under the increasing influence of activist-therapists in recent years. Influenced by social sciences theories, and through the application of pressure within the BACP, these activist-therapists have championed ever more emphasis on ‘intersectional’ ways of understanding the world and the process of therapy.
- That by embedding intersectional frameworks - particularly those rooted in Critical Social Justice Theory - (e.g. emphasizing interconnected group-identities and power-dynamics surrounding things such as race, gender, sexuality, and class), activist-therapists position their agenda as both morally and intellectually authoritative.
- This creates a narrative that frames their initiatives as essential for inclusivity and justice, as well as good practice with clients, making any dissent appear regressive and/or unethical.
- Opponents of this activism are always on the wrong side of the optics, as definitions of 'good practice' are broadened to include these intersectional paradigms (and who amongst us doesn't want justice and fairness, or wishes to argue against these things?!). Thus moderate members find themselves in a double-bind.
- This is practically realised by giving these progressive, intersectional theories ever more weighting in the BACP definitions of ‘working ethically’, the accreditation process, and ever more inclusion as part of BACP training course curriculums. Plus we've had senior leaders who have spoken about little else for years.
- Some members clearly feel that the strategic use of narrative and optics to champion progressive agendas has gradually redefined the organization’s values, a little at a time. There has been a chilling effect on free speech as a consequence. (See Gramsci's Theory of Hegemony - the marxist philosophical playbook from which these behaviours are drawn, whether or not the activists are aware of it.)
That’s as short as I can make it I’m afraid.
Many BACP members have felt browbeaten by this robust activism (however slickly and subtly deployed), and this has emboldened activist-therapists to march through the institution to the very top, no doubt feeling righteous while they do it. In such an atmosphere, moderate members have quickly learned to accept any excesses and over-reach as simply “the cost of doing business”, to shut up about it and telegraph the necessary degree of right-think, or run the risk of being considered right-wing (best case, but certainly a pejorative in therapy / academic circles) or unethical (worst case).
So… if the BACP has cottoned on to this at last, I say this is great news. And I’d like to embolden them if that is the case. Reality always wins in the end... If the emperor has no clothes someone will eventually spot it and say it. Institutional prestige, influence, credibility and legitimacy are not the product of controlling the “optics” and “narrative”, as activists tend to believe. Rather… prestige, credibility and legitimacy all rest on the foundational degree to which an institution is mission focused, truth focused, rigorous, even handed, competent - with well delineated powers and reach.
Nor do a great many therapists share the view that every single outcome is either the result of, or solely controlled by, 'social constructs'. Many feel this minimises personal responsibility as a factor in outcomes in ways that weaken the sovereignty of the individual, and provide a smokescreen, just occasionally, for really poor behaviour.
Perhaps a good place to start for the BACP would be to reach the widest point of agreement across the membership of what the BACP stands for, what it does, and - importantly - what it does not do. I'd hope this rests on being mission-focused, and truth-focused.
This is crucial for an association of therapists, as without standards of truth and rigour there are no guardrails. Some feel the BACP has pinwheeled off, focused only on fashionable theories (that always seem to mean 'whatever-the-hell-we-say-it-means-today'), that have less to do with our clients and more with the parading of our assumed virtue and enlightenment. At the expense of our client's time and on their dime.
Without change now (cf. BACP senior leadership), we risk being left with senior executives who either agree with all this activism, or others who lack the intestinal fortitude to say ‘no’, which I can appreciate takes courage and a willingness to be called names or fired. This is the main theme behind the feedback I’ve seen in emails and heard over a few years now. I appreciate it's not a research study, but there it is. Let's have the research study, I say...
I'd like to be a critical friend, not a pub bore looking to score cheap points. Before writing this I’d sketched out a briefing note (for my own benefit) – a kind of ‘starter for ten’ of things I’d like to see the BACP do to ‘turn the corner’. It’ll jumble things up to post it now, and I’m sure it deserves more thought than I’ve had time to give it. Again, as an outsider some of what I suggest may be redundant, and some impossible. But I will post it anyway when time allows.
My sense is that the BACP will prefer to limit reputational damage at this point, tinker around with roles and responsibilities after the recent fiasco, then send out a “Phew! All back to normal!” message and hope everyone forgets pretty sharpish.
But my wish… is that a wider consultation takes place involving all members – root and branch - to consult on the nature and role of the BACP (its purpose). I don’t think we can have Chairpeople being sacked, accusations of systemic collapse and malfeasance flying about and then insist this is a quiet H.R. tidying up exercise to resolve. So I’ve some ideas about board composition, revenue streams, drawing members into the heart of the decision making process, thoughts around both the size and scope of BACP, the use of technology as an aide to these changes etc.
So I guess this is …to be continued….
Comments
Post a Comment