The Interpretive Ratchet...(16.5.26)
How closed systems turn every challenge into proof Earlier this year I co-authored an open letter to the BACP , signed by many practitioners and academics, raising concerns about the embedding of anti-oppressive practice as a discrete principle in the profession's revised Ethical Framework. Please do read it if you haven’t. The letter made structural points. It warned of the risks of one interpretive tradition, rooted in critical social theory, being elevated from one valid perspective among many to a requirement of ethical competence. It asked what this would mean for practitioners who understood social harm through different frameworks. Crucially, it asked what it would mean for clients . The BACP’s response was revealing in ways I don’t think they intended. Our structural concern was reframed as a misunderstanding of what anti-oppressive practice involves, and the reply was handled by a “member experience manager” - as though these fundamental ethical questions were no different...