"Whiteness" and the BACP... (8.10.25)

 

"Whiteness" and the BACP... (8.10.25)

8 October 2025|2025 posts

On the BACP President's 'Whiteness' column, and what it tells us about ideological capture in therapy 

Illness has been a constant feature of the last two months. I’ve finally accepted the doctor’s advice: total rest for a few weeks to recover. I am sorry about it and am deeply grateful to my wonderful family, and to many clients for their understanding.   

I’d actually hoped for some peace and quiet. But then the latest THERAPY TODAY magazine flopped on to the doormat last week…. 

In recent blogs, I’ve criticised the BACP direction of travel - based on my own experiences, feedback from colleagues including BACP ‘insiders’, and from other sources. In August, I wrote about BACP President Lynne Gabriel’s odd update video to BACP members following the removal of the BACP chair. In a second blog, I wondered if I was being too harsh; maybe her strange metaphors signalled a real change (“turning the corner”, “new, possible futures” etc). One contact had suggested she was trying to say she understands where the BACP has gone off the rails in recent years.  This was typical of a fine mind to suggest, but the old derivatives trader in me didn’t really buy it… but I’d have very gladly been wrong.

Sadly, not wrong at all.

So here’s Lynne Gabriel, the BACP President, writing in THERAPY TODAY (Black History Month edition). I print in full to let it stand for itself:

--------------------

“On previous occasions in this column I’ve lamented humans dehumanising others for devious, bigoted or destructive purposes. Such actions can be soul-destroying and life-limiting. Yet we must hope, seek solutions and, importantly, act. Decolonising whiteness, addressing the invidious and toxic impacts of colonialism, and redressing the impacts of Westernised theories, concepts and discriminatory actions are an ongoing process. 

It requires unlearning colonial patterns of thought, dismantling systems of privilege and reimagining and co-producing relationships that are rooted in equity and justice. It’s not about eliciting shame or guilt but about responsibility, transformation and repair. Thoughtful and impactful approaches to removing colonial influences are growing through indigenous, anti-racist and justice-oriented frameworks. Countries from the Global South are working to build anti-oppressive therapeutic approaches and address injustices. Importantly there are key areas we can individually and collectively address: whiteness as a concept, dialogical relational power and embracing anti-oppressive ways of being. 

First, whiteness is a human construct that warrants our reflexive exploration in the context of the counselling professions. What does it mean to those who are white, to those who are not? Whiteness isn’t just skin colour – it’s a whole social, political and economic system, historically built on colonialism, in pursuit of domination. Moreover, with historical roots in slavery, land theft, cultural erasure and the creation of racial hierarchies, we must recognise how it shapes or distorts our institutions, norms, interpersonal dynamics and our contemporary theories, contexts and working practices. Second, we can reimagine relationships and power. Fundamental to working within the counselling, psychotherapy, mental health and wellbeing professions is a commitment to being, relating and working in anti-oppressive ways. 

Finally, we must develop anti-oppressive approaches in our work and lives. Increasingly, excellent resources are available to support this work. Myira Khan offers a clear framework for working within diversity and embedding antioppression throughout our lives. Dwight Turner’s approach to therapy  is rooted in commitment to social justice and exploration of the deeper unconscious experiences and encountered injustices of marginalised communities. Essentially my take is that we are better together, working respectfully, collaboratively and relationally.”

------------------------

I cannot convey to you how disheartening it was to read this. Not just the assault on "whiteness" (which may include you, your loved ones, many people you know and millions you do not), but the sheer certainty of it all. Not being aware at all of Lynne Gabriel until a few weeks ago, I had assumed in my ignorance that the President's role was like a monarch's: ceremonial, unifying, above politics or taking sides on contentious issues. Instead, here we are. My heart sank further with each line. Surely a President setting out these political views has a chilling effect on free speech within the BACP?

I respect the BACP, abide by the code of ethics which I believe are fundamentally sound, and I don't want to type any of what follows. It just brings stress that I don't need. It would be easier to say nothing. But that feels like a personal failing when these ideas, presented as facts, strike me as misguided and divisive. I also want other therapists who share this unease to feel less alone. This is not personal. I am critiquing the ideas and not people as much as possible. But those ideas deserve scrutiny, and we cannot dodge the fact that it is the President of the BACP setting them out.

Let me start with the structure of her article, as this matters. Gabriel uses several rhetorical devices to control the narrative and manage the reader. She sandwiches her political views on "whiteness" and "westernised theories" (I will refer to this throughout as her argument) in between statements at the start and end that are designed to be difficult to disagree with, and to make her argument harder to question or reject.

In sentence one, she laments "humans dehumanising others for devious, bigoted or destructive purposes", staking out ground as a kind, inclusive and reasonable person. The device is to link the content that immediately follows, her argument, with a sentiment all readers would agree with, in order to make her argument seem an obvious extension of her essential decency. If you disagree, you are indecent. You may, unless careful, dear reader, actually be one of the devious, bigoted people Gabriel warned you about at the start.

The same device is deployed again in the final sentence, weirdly pivoting from the commentary about "whiteness" to another kumbaya-style sentence that almost feels like a non-sequitur: "Essentially my take is that we are better together, working respectfully, collaboratively and relationally." The device is to retreat to a safer position, sidestepping accountability for the provocative argument about "whiteness", enabling a writer to provoke without fully owning the consequences. Saying all manner of things before creating an illusion of reasonableness, in the form of "Look, all I am really saying is it's good to be kind." In case any reader still has doubts, she crowbars four benign platitudes into that sentence (respectful, collaborative, relational, better together), which is a linguistic achievement of a kind.

I am surprised she did not go for five.

She makes appeals to obscure authority throughout, referencing "thoughtful and impactful" work being done in the "Global South" to build "anti-oppressive therapeutic approaches", and name-checking a couple of authors who most readers will not have heard of. These are devices to legitimise the claims she makes about "whiteness" by associating them with scholarly rigour. If others are writing about this, and working on it in the Global South, her argument cannot be that outlandish, can it?

Enough on that. Let me look at the meaningful content. The essential argument is that "whiteness" is a malignant construct. We could stop there and go home. That is basically it. But the logic is this. Colonialism is wrong. White people were the primary colonialists, uniquely predisposed to this behaviour, alone in the history of humanity. Ergo white people are flawed and should bear this unique guilt. But we will not use that mean old word because we are very kind people, so instead we will suggest white people should "decolonise" themselves through vague processes like "unlearning", "dismantling", and being "anti-oppressive". Splendid Orwellian stuff.

The article frames "whiteness" as not just a skin colour but a "social, political and economic system" bound to endless historical evils and always in "pursuit of domination", conjuring up images of a conscious and active malice. Sort of like Sauron's Ring from Tolkien, your "whiteness" has a malevolent mind of its own, tilting the world around you in self-serving ways at the expense of others. This framing obviously ignores any parallels in non-Western societies, the Ottoman empire being one obvious example. It gives no workable definitions of "whiteness" other than it-is-whatever-we-say-it-is. Nor does it assign a causal value that takes into account the millions of other socioeconomic currents that shape events we later call history. It is a column and not a book, but if you are going to tackle this topic, maybe do not do it with a word limit.

Gabriel writes that recognising the need to decolonise one's "whiteness" is "not about eliciting shame or guilt". But you should decide for yourself whether this feels true. To me, the content strongly suggests an intent to evoke feelings of guilt and shame. If a client in therapy expressed such conflicting sentiments, claiming one intention while conveying the opposite, I would gently address the cognitive dissonance.

It would not help to address it, though, as I have little hope that anyone who thinks this way would ever change their mind on any of it. There is more chance of me training my french bulldog Pig to be a commercial airline pilot than getting a committed activist to rethink. Such is the certainty that this is the morally authoritative final word on how we should understand human history, whiteness, and westernised theories.

Good therapy demands precision in understanding the individual human experience, yet the argument made by Gabriel could not be broader. The claims made only exist as true if they are simply accepted as articles of faith, sort of like a horoscope. Pointing out flaws feels like being drawn into a trap that positions dissenters as being regressive or bigoted, on the wrong side of the optics. "So you're saying you don't believe in justice and fairness, Steve?" "So what you are saying, Steve, is that white-skinned societies have never done anything dreadful or wrong?" No and no. This is why few speak up about this stuff (see my previous blog).

It is like a building surveyor going to a building site where all the bricks have been substituted for loaves of bread stuck together with peanut butter instead of mortar. The builders stand alongside the wobbly breaded structure, beaming with pride at their brilliant idea, expecting accolades and a glowing inspection for their work.

The surveyor is in a no-win situation. Obviously, it would not be ethical to sign off the bread-house for an easy life, which is the easiest option. But equally engaging with it at the technical level, asking "Erm, are the foundations six metres deep meeting regulatory requirements?", is as hilariously pointless as checking if the bread is gluten-free. Saying "this is an utterly deficient structure and I will not approve it" may well lead to problems and getting much less work. All options are bad.

But speak we must, with all the attendant risks. So in a hail-mary act of futility, let me engage with it for a minute before we all lose the will.

Some questions that occur:

• If we swapped "white" and "whiteness" for any other skin tone, would activists call this racist?
• Are all white people inherently complicit in systemic oppression simply due to their pale skin?
• Do struggling white working-class communities share this alleged "pursuit of domination"?
• If "whiteness" is a state-of-mind construct, can non-white people be "white"? If not, why not?
• Is it possible to identify and acknowledge positive contribution attributable to "white systems"?
• It is implied that "whiteness" requires "decolonisation" efforts, so should white therapists undergo specialised re-education to address this?
• Do all white therapists exhibit specific colonial influences and oppression in interpersonal dynamics during therapy? How, exactly? And how is this known?
• For example, did the President become aware of exhibiting oppression in her own practice? Or has her own whiteness not been a problem for her, personally? Not issues of difference arising in therapy, as this is a daily thing, but problems arising from difference due to white-colonial-mindset held by the therapist.
• Or is this white "oppression" a passive phenomenon? Does this distortion just emanate from white therapists at the cellular level, like The Force in Star Wars? Are there any studies, not qualitative, demonstrating this alarming feature of whiteness?
• Do other racial or ethnic groups exhibit similar proclivities to those assigned to "whiteness" in regions where white people are less prevalent? Has this been investigated, and would it pass ethics approval if someone sought to do so?
• How exactly should a therapist in a small town "decolonise" her practice, even if it were accepted that such phenomena are real and measurable? How would she know that this has been achieved?
• Should decolonisation outrank, say, learning to treat OCD, as a priority?
• If whiteness is an original sin we must neutralise forthwith, how does one atone? Is it by buying books written by the authors Gabriel cites to provide her comments with academic ballast?
• What is the evidence any of this improves client outcomes over time?
• What evidence is there that decolonising one's practice, or viewing therapy and clients through the lens of politicised theory, is a better approach to work than being genuine, bracketing your activism or politics, and focusing instead on the issues the client wishes to talk about in therapy?
• And is my questioning of these claims evidence of my own malignant "whiteness", or an attempt to perpetuate domination in my work? If the answer is yes, does this not make Gabriel's arguments unfalsifiable? Sort of like a witch-dunking double-bind? A lose-lose where any questioning of the premise just proves you are a heretic bigot?

And so on, more or less ad infinitum.

These questions are intended to explore the anti-white framing, the lack of reciprocal critique, and the assumptions of moral superiority that dismiss alternative views as bigoted.

Let me take stock. The language in the article is vague and ideological, chock-full of activist social justice ideas presented as facts. The structure is intended to box in the reader between the tight moral guardrails the author sets out, and the argument is a biblical oversimplification of human history. Activism of this type consistently emphasises systems and structures as the sole determinants of outcomes, usually overlooking the importance of individual agency and responsibility. Individual sovereignty is nowhere to be found.

We can all, even the activists if they tried, make wise, fair points about injustice, from which our societies can learn, as we must, without assigning hundreds of millions of people a collective guilt, or blood-debt. To do that will only deepen rifts rather than heal them.

Really, this is all about the integrity of therapy. I see little evidence in foundational psychology, philosophy, or talking therapy texts, those on which our profession rests, that justifies bringing charged political theories into the room as a framework for understanding a client. We have rich traditions for embracing difference without reducing people to categories, victims or villains, based on immutable characteristics. I see no mandate for judging white people, or any other group.

In fact, the same foundational texts guide us to embrace differences, to try and fully accept the client before us, while also acknowledging ourselves, either bracketing or bringing into the room these differences to explore our common humanity. This genuine interplay between therapist and client is a, or the, vital crucible of healing and change.

So I will call this what it is: divisive nonsense, and calling it anything less would be too kind. And, by the way, to attach any of this worldview to the individual before you in therapy, victim or villain, may be deeply unhelpful and, dare I say it, patronising and racist.

Therapy ought to be responsive to the needs of the individual in front of us, rather than be treated as a therapist's plaything, a sort of moral framework into which we squeeze our clients because we know best and are thoroughly enlightened. This may well lead to poor therapeutic experiences for clients.

Lamenting "humans dehumanising others" in sentence one, before branding "whiteness" uniquely malignant, is not just hypocritical. It is bizarre and stupid, and I do not think it is good enough. Tacking on "basically I think we should all get along and work relationally" to show you are a good egg does nothing to justify the offensive categorisations of white people and the western world either.

How about this. We respond to each and every client as an individual, and not a pigment on a political spectrum. Let us park the bloody activism. Let us be genuine in the therapy room, taking the bold risk of being real. We should encourage it by modelling it. Then we will make space for every experience, including exploration of marginalisation, otherness, and navigating a world that sometimes feels built for others. These are real issues, important ones. There is room for therapists to reflect on their own background and experience, exploring the differences and similarities between client and therapist. This may help deepen shared understandings and the therapeutic relationship. This is working with difference. This is where you will find transformation.

I will stop there. The bricks have been substituted for loaves of bread by the ideologue builders in charge. All of it is stuck together with peanut butter. It is a thoroughly deficient structure and I, for one, will not approve it. It makes no sense to spend any time talking about how we will achieve first fix plumbing and electric in such a house, because we just will not. In any case, what conversation is possible when the dipstick conclusions are all asserted as true before any real argument is made?

Enough of all this.

---

Update

Since writing this piece, I have become aware of the Commission for the Future of Counselling and Psychotherapy, which has been established to examine the current and future landscape of the counselling and psychotherapy professions, including key issues affecting the sector.

In recent writing I have argued for a root-and-branch consultation with BACP members following the political expulsions of the Chair and Deputy Chair, so that the association can clarify its scope, purpose, and responsibilities to all members. In that context, I initially welcomed the idea of a wider commission looking at the future of the profession.

However, I was struck to see that BACP’s nominated representative on the Commission is its President, Lynne Gabriel. Given the concerns raised in this article about the President’s published comments on “whiteness”, this seems highly relevant. If a commission is to help shape the future role and scope of counselling and psychotherapy, then the assumptions, language, and ideological commitments of those representing the major professional bodies matter.

This is not a personal point. It is a governance point. A profession cannot meaningfully consult on its future while treating concerns about political or ideological capture as marginal, reactionary, or already answered.

---

Steve Perkins is a Consultant Psychotherapist and Clinical Supervisor in private practice in Shoreham-by-Sea and the City of London. He is the author of Moral Singularity: Life Inside Closed Moral Worlds and Why Moral Conversation Breaks Down (2026), and writes on therapeutic enclosure, conviction cascades, the interpretive ratchet, and the structural dynamics of closed moral systems.

MBACP (Accred)
www.whitestonetherapy.com