Implications Theodore Porter’s Thinking in Psychotherapy and Mental Health

Who is Theodore Porter?

In his seminal work “Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life,” historian of science Theodore Porter offers a compelling analysis of the rise and cultural authority of quantitative methods in modern society. Porter challenges the prevailing assumption that the power and prestige of numbers derive solely from their success in the natural sciences. Instead, he argues that to fully understand the ubiquity of quantification, we must examine its ascendancy in the social realms of business, government, and public policy.

Porter’s central thesis is that quantitative objectivity emerged not as an inherent feature of scientific progress, but as a “technology of distance” – a strategy for communicating across expanding social networks whose members could no longer rely on personal trust and reputation alone. The authority of numbers, he contends, is deeply entwined with the social contexts in which quantification is deployed, particularly when expert judgment is challenged and credibility is in doubt. Through a wide-ranging exploration of fields such as accounting, insurance, cost-benefit analysis, and engineering, Porter reveals how the ideal of mechanical objectivity often serves as a bulwark against accusations of arbitrariness or bias when decision-makers face external political pressures and a breakdown of trust.

The Facade of Neutrality

While Porter acknowledges the genuine achievements of quantitative methods, he cautions against the temptation to view them as a panacea for the messy realities of social and political life. The very ideal of a “view from nowhere,” purged of individual discretion and judgment, can easily become a smokescreen for the subtle manipulations of entrenched power. Under the guise of impartial, evidence-based reasoning, bureaucratic hierarchies and corporate interests can shape the epistemic assumptions, methodological conventions, and discursive constraints that govern the production of quantitative knowledge.

This illusion of neutrality is perhaps most apparent in the realm of public policy, where the language of numbers is routinely invoked to justify controversial decisions and foreclosure of alternatives. Porter points to the rise of cost-benefit analysis as a prime example of how the narrow logic of economic quantification can steamroll ethical and ideological differences in the name of an “optimal” solution. By translating complex trade-offs between incommensurable values into a common metric of dollars and cents, policy-makers can lend an air of objective validity to what are ultimately political judgments about the distribution of risks and rewards across society.

Similarly, the proliferation of quantitative benchmarks and performance metrics in domains such as education and healthcare can serve to reinforce status quo power relations while disavowing the role of human agency and responsibility. The seductive appeal of “letting the numbers speak for themselves” can discourage critical interrogation of the value-laden assumptions built into evaluative rubrics and data collection processes. In this way, the pursuit of standardization and algorithmic decision-making can end up marginalizing forms of knowledge and experience that resist easy quantification, such as narrative, affect, and embodied wisdom.

Medicine: Evidence-Based or Industry-Driven?

The field of medicine provides a cautionary case study in the limits and pitfalls of quantitative objectivity. In recent decades, the ideal of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained increasing traction as a corrective to the traditional reliance on individual clinical expertise. Proponents of EBM argue that medical decision-making should be guided by systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses rather than anecdotal experience or expert opinion. This shift towards quantitative empiricism was partly a response to growing public skepticism towards medical authority in the wake of scandals over industry influence and conflicts of interest.

However, as Porter’s analysis suggests, the rhetoric of EBM can also serve to mask the persistence of bias and the distortions of market forces in shaping medical knowledge and practice. The STAR*D study, a massive clinical trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of antidepressant medications, illustrates the ways in which the presumed objectivity of quantitative evidence can be undermined by methodological choices and reporting practices. Despite its rigorous statistical methodology, the study has been criticized for its reliance on industry funding, selective publication of favorable results, and failure to adequately control for placebo effects. The aura of scientific validity conferred by the study’s quantitative framework has been invoked to justify the widespread prescription of antidepressants, even as questions remain about their efficacy and safety, particularly for mild to moderate depression.

On a broader level, the EBM paradigm risks neglecting crucial contextual factors that shape health outcomes, such as patient preferences, social determinants, and the therapeutic alliance. The drive to eliminate variations in care through rigid adherence to standardized guidelines can undermine the flexibility and judgment needed to tailor treatments to individual needs. Moreover, the emphasis on quantifiable outcomes may marginalize forms of care that resist easy measurement, such as empathy, narrative understanding, and holistic consideration of patient well-being. In this way, the uncritical pursuit of quantitative objectivity in medicine can ironically lead to a reductionist and dehumanizing view of the healing process.

Politics: The Quantitative Rhetoric of the Center

In the political sphere, the ideal of quantitative objectivity has increasingly been mobilized to justify a narrow spectrum of centrist policy options while foreclosing more expansive visions of social transformation. In recent years, the Democratic Party in the United States has embraced a technocratic, data-driven approach to governance that purports to transcend ideological differences through pragmatic problem-solving. This quantitative centrism is epitomized by the rise of figures such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who have championed policies such as welfare reform, financial deregulation, and market-based healthcare on the grounds of economic efficiency and evidence-based policymaking.

However, as Porter’s analysis suggests, this fetishization of quantitative expertise can serve to mask the value judgments and power dynamics that shape political choices. By framing social issues in the technical language of cost-benefit analysis and statistical risk assessment, centrist Democrats have often shifted the Overton window to the right, legitimating the erosion of the welfare state and the marketization of public goods. The presumption that the correct policy must always lie somewhere in the middle of two extremes can have the effect of marginalizing more progressive or transformative ideas as unrealistic or utopian.

Conservative and libertarian think tanks have weaponized the rhetoric of quantitative objectivity to provide an epistemic gloss to their preferred policy agendas. Organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Manhattan Institute have produced a deluge of studies, reports, and policy briefs that use economic modeling, regression analysis, and other quantitative techniques to argue for tax cuts, deregulation, and the privatization of government services. By clothing their arguments in the garb of value-neutral science, these groups can lend an air of empirical legitimacy to what are ultimately contestable ideological positions.

Americas obsession with evidence based practice have allowed nefarious forces to turn our conception of economics into ideology plus math and our preference for evidence based practice into science flavored capitalism.

Psychology: The Violence of Pure Empiricism

Perhaps the most troubling misapplication of quantitative objectivity can be found in the field of psychology, where the demand for complete empirical verification of mental phenomena can end up doing epistemic violence to the very subject matter it purports to illuminate. As a discipline concerned with the intricacies of human subjectivity and the interpreted nature of personal experience, psychology has long struggled to reconcile its scientific aspirations with the irreducible complexity of the mind. While quantitative methods have yielded important insights in domains such as cognitive neuroscience and behavioral genetics, the drive to operationalize every aspect of mental life into measurable variables can lead to a flattening and fragmenting of the psyche.

The dark side of psychology’s quantitative turn is perhaps most evident in the history of psychological testing and assessment. From the early 20th century onwards, the proliferation of standardized instruments such as IQ tests, personality inventories, and diagnostic questionnaires has often served to reify cultural stereotypes and legitimate the ranking of human worth along a single quantitative dimension. The aura of scientific objectivity conferred by numerical scores and statistical norms can mask the value-laden assumptions and interpretive judgments that are baked into these tools from the start. In this way, the quantitative gaze of psychology can end up pathologizing difference, decontextualizing distress, and reducing the rich tapestry of human experience to a set of measurable deficits and abnormalities.

Moreover, as Porter argues, the ideal of quantitative objectivity as a “view from nowhere” emerged historically as a defensive response to the erosion of personal trust and the growth of impersonal bureaucracy. When this standpoint of detached, suspicious observation is turned reflexively back onto the self, it can lead to a profound alienation from one’s own inner life. The demand for complete third-person verification of every subjective claim can end up invalidating the epistemic authority of first-person experience, feeling, and intuition. By imposing the same norms of standardization and control on the mind that we apply to the natural world, we risk losing touch with the very qualities that make us human – our capacity for meaning-making, imagination, and empathic understanding.

This is not to suggest that psychology should abandon the pursuit of empirical rigor or eschew quantitative methods altogether. Rather, as Porter’s analysis implies, we need to cultivate a more reflexive and pluralistic understanding of what counts as valid psychological knowledge. This means recognizing the cultural and historical specificity of our methodological assumptions, the value-ladenness of our interpretive frameworks, and the ineradicable role of the human subject in the construction of psychological truth. It means acknowledging the epistemic limits of quantification and the importance of other modes of inquiry, such as qualitative interviews, focus groups, and first-person phenomenology. Above all, it means approaching the study of the mind with an attitude of humility, curiosity, and openness to the irreducible otherness of human experience.

Porter’s Ideas Compared to Other Critics of Rationalizism and Empericism

Theodore Porter’s critique of quantification and objectivity has intriguing parallels and contrasts with the ideas of several other prominent thinkers who have examined the impact of technology, media, and bureaucracy on modern society.

Adam Curtis and the Critique of Computer-Based Societal Modeling

British documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis has argued that the increasing use of computers and data analysis in the late 20th century gave rise to a misguided belief that society could be perfectly understood and modeled using mathematical and computational methods. In his 2011 series “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace,” Curtis suggests that this “cybernetic” view of the world, promoted by thinkers like Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan, led to a misplaced faith in the power of markets and technology to solve social problems.

Porter’s work resonates with Curtis’s critique in its skepticism towards the assumption that quantitative methods can provide a fully objective and comprehensive understanding of complex human realities. Both thinkers highlight the ways in which the appeal of numbers and data can obscure the subjective judgments and political interests that shape their application.

However, while Curtis emphasizes the role of computers and cybernetics in promoting a mechanistic view of society, Porter’s analysis focuses more on the institutional and professional contexts that drive the pursuit of quantification. Porter’s distinction between mechanical and disciplinary objectivity suggests that the rise of numerical methods cannot be attributed solely to technological developments, but also reflects the social and political imperatives of bureaucracies and expert communities.

Jean Baudrillard and the Simulacra

The French philosopher and cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard is known for his concept of “simulacra” – representations that have become detached from reality and taken on a life of their own. In his book “Simulacra and Simulation” (1981), Baudrillard argues that in the postmodern era, signs and images have lost their connection to real-world referents, creating a hyperreal world where simulation is more powerful than reality.

Baudrillard’s ideas have intriguing implications for Porter’s critique of quantification. From a Baudrillardian perspective, the proliferation of numerical indicators and statistical models could be seen as a form of simulacra – abstract representations that have become more “real” than the complex social phenomena they purport to describe. The use of quantitative measures in fields like economics, policy, and mental health could be seen as creating a hyperreal world where decisions are based on simplified numerical proxies rather than direct engagement with human realities.

However, while Baudrillard’s work often emphasizes the seductive power of simulation and the impossibility of accessing the “real,” Porter’s analysis suggests that quantification is always shaped by social and political contexts. Rather than seeing numbers as fully detached from reality, Porter emphasizes the ways in which quantitative methods are embedded in networks of expertise, accountability, and trust.

The Situationists and the Spectacle of Quantification

The Situationist International was a group of radical artists and theorists active in the 1950s and 60s, known for their critique of consumer capitalism and their advocacy of revolutionary social change. One of the key concepts developed by the Situationists was the idea of the “spectacle” – a term used to describe the way in which modern media and advertising create a false, alienated representation of reality that distracts from authentic human experience.

The Situationist critique of the spectacle has some intriguing parallels with Porter’s analysis of quantification. Just as the spectacle reduces human life to a series of commodified images, the proliferation of numerical indicators and statistical models could be seen as creating a kind of “spectacle of objectivity” – a seductive but ultimately alienating representation of social reality.

However, while the Situationists emphasized the need for radical social and political transformation to overcome the spectacle, Porter’s work suggests that the pursuit of quantification is deeply embedded in the structures and practices of modern institutions. Rather than advocating for a complete rejection of numerical methods, Porter’s analysis invites a more nuanced consideration of how quantitative tools can be used in ways that are transparent, accountable, and responsive to human contexts.

Nietzsche and the Rational

One important point of comparison is with the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose genealogical approach to the history of ideas shares with Porter a skepticism towards claims of pure objectivity. Nietzsche’s critique of scientific rationality as a form of asceticism and self-denial, driven by a “will to truth” that serves particular interests and values, anticipates Porter’s examination of the moral and political dimensions of quantification. Like Porter, Nietzsche emphasizes the historical and psychological contingency of knowledge practices, revealing the ways in which the pursuit of truth is always entangled with questions of power and desire.

However, Nietzsche’s critique is arguably more radical and far-reaching than Porter’s, calling into question the very value of objectivity and suggesting that all knowledge claims are ultimately expressions of a will to power. While Porter’s analysis is more focused on the specific contexts and practices of quantification, Nietzsche’s genealogical method aims to uncover the deeper moral and metaphysical roots of scientific thinking itself.

Michel Foucault and the Social Objective

Another key thinker whose work intersects with Porter’s is Michel Foucault, particularly in his analyses of the relationship between knowledge and power. Foucault’s concept of the “power/knowledge nexus” emphasizes the ways in which the production of knowledge is always intertwined with networks of power relations, shaping the possibilities for thought and action in a given historical moment. This perspective resonates with Porter’s examination of how quantitative methods have been employed in the service of bureaucratic administration and governance, from public health and education to criminal justice and social welfare.

Like Porter, Foucault is attentive to the role of quantification in the management of populations and the disciplining of individual subjectivities. He shows how statistical norms and standards, presented as objective and neutral, can function as instruments of power, shaping the ways in which people understand and govern themselves. At the same time, Foucault’s work encompasses a broader range of knowledge practices and power relations than Porter’s more specific focus on quantification, and his emphasis on the ontological and political effects of knowledge production differs from Porter’s more epistemological and professional concerns.

Michel Foucalt

Legacy of Porter’s Ideas

Theodore Porter’s critique of quantification offers a valuable perspective for examining the use of numerical methods in psychotherapy and mental health. His work challenges the assumption that quantification is inherently objective and neutral, highlighting the social, political, and institutional factors that shape the application of statistics and standardized procedures.

In the context of psychotherapy, Porter’s ideas invite a critical reflection on the evidence-based practice movement, diagnostic systems, and the therapeutic relationship. While quantitative methods can provide important insights and support accountability, an overreliance on these approaches can also constrain the understanding and treatment of psychological distress.

As the mental health field grapples with the challenges of providing effective, equitable, and humane care, engaging with Porter’s work can inform the development of more nuanced and contextually-sensitive approaches. This may involve balancing the use of standardized interventions with the cultivation of clinical judgment, attending to the social and cultural determinants of mental health, and prioritizing the therapeutic alliance as a key factor in outcomes.

Ultimately, a critical understanding of the role of quantification in psychotherapy can support the delivery of care that is both evidence-based and person-centered, and that honors the complexity and diversity of human experience.

References:

Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Porter, T. M. (1986). The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Porter, T. M. (2008). Thin description: Surface and depth in science and science studies. Osiris, 27-32.

Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. E. (2008). A developmental, constructivist model for ethical assessment. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 47(2), 202-216.

Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 7.

Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 98.

Cosgrove, L., & Wheeler, E. E. (2013). Industry’s colonization of psychiatry: Ethical and practical implications of financial conflicts of interest in the DSM-5. Feminism & Psychology, 23(1), 93-106.

Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116-136.

Hi I study behavior in intelligent agents (AI) and to be honest i despise psychiatry with every ounce of my being. I am currently writing papers using similar methods to invalidate the biomedical model of psychiatry. I was wondering if calling something "stigma" was in itself a form of transference because in the 1920's I see similar "guilty mothers about executing their autistic children" type of statements and it makes me wonder if the psychiatrists are themselves coping.

Thought I'd share this really good article by a friend of mine, Sasha Durakov:

https://ofunsoundmind.substack.com/p/how-to-live-in-prickly-conditions

Here's a snippet:

"I will return to these points at the end, but suffice it say here that expanding group opportunities for people experiencing psychosis is not presently likely given the general social fear of psychosis, the lack of interest and initiative to palliate the condition of those experiencing it, not to mention the paltry state of social cohabitation more generally in our atomized world. The most common group scenario designed specifically for psychosis in the past was a congregate prison-like hospital; it’s hard to imagine any grand unifying project would be substantially different in our current horizon. Here we can see, following Canguilhem’s observation, that the drivers’ question about why hedgehogs cross highways is wrong: hedgehogs don’t cross roads by any design of their own; it’s the roads that cross the paths of hedgehogs. People in psychosis are not simply withdrawn, antisocial, and fail to get along in the world because of their “natural” constitution; social conditions and the built world put innumerable obstacles in their way, forcing them into forms of group life that are dangerous, infantilizing, and anemic in jails, hospital wards, group homes, prisons, nursing homes, under bridges, in the close quarters of the publicly subsidized apartment complexes or the hyper-surveilled shelters.

That is why, in my view, any program oriented toward psychosis will by necessity be political in character. I will go further and say that psychoanalysis and the psy-disciplines more broadly open themselves to enormous risk when they avoid organizing themselves politically because to refuse political economic questions means to accept the typical class stratification of mental therapeutics: psychoanalysis or psychodynamic therapy plus material and occupational supports for the well-off and custodial care for the poor. Insofar as analysts generally work in the private sphere with few opportunities to take advantage of state subsidy, their clients have historically tended to be in the middle class or above. Since we know that the poor have higher rates of psychosis than their better-off contemporaries, it is a statistical certainty that the average analyst will have less interface with psychosis than their peers in psychiatry.

Freud and his colleagues in Red Vienna refused to accept this as inevitable and fought to establish free clinics, made 1/5 or more of their caseload gratis, and sought to increase their interface with the poor whenever possible. It was in this spirit that the Poliklinik was opened in Berlin and the Ambulatorium in Vienna. these projects led the early political analysts down two paths of development that were lost in depoliticized circles: 1) a tendency toward “social work” or interface with the public and children represented most clearly by Wilhelm Reich’s Sex-Pol, which combined materialist analysis and psychoanalytic insights at the theoretical level with individual therapy and social work and sex education at the practical level; and 2) an awareness of the need to develop techniques for working with psychosis exemplified by the work of analysts like Heinz Hartmann, Paul Schilder, and Ruth Mack Brunswick’s work at the Department for the Treatment of Borderline and Psychoses attached to the Ambulatorium."

He also has a book out called Storming Bedlam: Madness, Utopia, and Revolt. I haven't read it yet sadly but I want to eventually! Here he is talking about it for anyone curious:

https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/06/madness-utopia-and-revolt-an-interview-with-sasha-warren/

Can anyone share what the most helpful training has been that doesn’t cost an excessive amount? (To add- I am currently a student therapist)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0377919X.2024.2374657

“The book comes back, time and time again, to its central preoccupation: the ways in which perspicacious Palestinian clinicians are committed to making their lives and the lives of their patients livable in the face of white supremacist colonial narratives that seek to alienate and erase them. For the Palestinian clinician, technologies of occupation permeate every aspect of their professional and academic life …

Psychoanalysis under Occupation adopts a disruptive stance which is, arguably, at the center of psychoanalytic practice. One of the central critiques of mainstream institutions of psychoanalysis is that they reproduce settler-colonial violence, replacing native with settler, through mutual recognition dialogue initiatives underwritten by psychoanalytic theory that is misattuned to the material reality of power asymmetries in Palestine (121–51). “

hi all, im a clinical psychology grad student, about halfway through my program. i havent started working with clients yet but i am actively in ACA groups and i’ve been thinking recently … is anyone here involved in/know about a therapy/stepwork/etc group that centers class consciousness in its recovery framework? im considering starting something like this in the same image as an AA/ACA group, just a bunch of mentally ill ppl coming together to link their personal mental health struggles to capitalist oppression, with the aim of also fostering more class consciousness in fellow leftists, leftist-curious ppl or anyone who is exploited as a laborer.

id love to hear y’all’s thoughts and experiences!

I’m really excited to start my first job as a therapist, but I’ll admit I’m also feeling a bit nervous. Even though I’m confident in my knowledge of theory and modalities, and I trust my ability to connect with clients, there’s something about actually applying it in practice that feels a little intimidating, especially with the leftist beliefs I carry- I fear they will not always be received well in my community. It’s a big shift from learning about therapy to doing it, and I’m trying to be patient with myself as I navigate this new chapter. I am sure I will get more comfortable with time, but are there any suggestions or is it best to just jump in and adjust as I practice?

Feelings of alienation, ressentiment, oppression, etc. How does one manage these feelings as you live in a society that you don't fit into?

I got my degree in social work after working in the “fitness/wellness” field for a while (personal trainer, taught yoga classes, had a license to do massage therapist). It was interesting and fun, but it wasn’t financially sustainable when I moved out of my parents house at the age of 24/25.

When I was 26/27 I finished my bachelors degree (I had an associates in exercise science) in social work, then did an advanced standing MSW. I had a great experience in my program, loved the courses and topics, felt inspired to join the field and work in mental health as a therapist since I had been in my own therapy since I was in high school and saw how it positively impacted my life, plus I thought one day I could integrate what I had learned in the past about somatic practices (yoga, breathwork, other nervous system regulating body-based strategies) and start a private practice.

I worked for a small non-profit community mental health agency in a suburb in the NYC metro area for my field placement. I had a lovely experience with my small caseload of low risk clients to gain me some experience, plus I had a great supervisor. I was inspired to start my career as a therapist.

I moved to NYC as that’s where my partner was living and we were ready to take the next step in our relationship. I had many interviews and settled on a community mental health agency which offered $65k to start plus benefits. I was concerned about having 45 clients a week scheduled for me but I went ahead and accepted the position as it was getting time for us to move and I needed to start generating income.

I’m 4 months in and feel burnt out. I have some great clients and some days where I feel inspired and like this is the path I’m meant to be on but the other part of me feels like I made a mistake. It’ll be at least 3 more years until I get my LCSW, I looked into working for a group practice but all are fee-for-service (interviewed at several which were offering $40-50/session and explained it would take anywhere from 3-9 months to build up to a full time caseload.) I worked enough fee for service type positions when I was working in yoga and massage to recognize that kind of model wouldn’t be financially sustainable for me at that point.

I interviewed a private practice that was paying more ($80/session) but they didn’t accept insurance and feel insecurity about marketing myself and having clients pay over $200 for a session when I have barely any experience

I am taking the stress home with me and it is affecting my relationship. My partner works in another field and makes more money than me but he is not able to financially support both of us, which is understandable. I wish I could work part time as a therapist but it wouldn’t be financially feasible as I have accumulated credit card debt when I was in school ($7k currently which I am aggressively paying down, I had $12k when I first graduated). I have $53k student loan debt which I have to start paying soon but my partner helped me apply for an IBR/IDR plan (I forget which one it is - the one that wasn’t banned) and might request forbearance while it’s being processed.

I’m grateful I have a job and I have health insurance but I’m seeing too many clients, too many complex cases, and I only have 5 minutes in between sessions. I have 9 clients scheduled per day for 45 minutes and I know this isn’t forever but I’m not sure what to do. I had at least 10 interviews last month and felt myself burning out even more because of that because I was spending my free time outside of work applying for jobs and interviewing for positions that ultimately I found wouldn’t work for me.

My partner and I have in the past discussed marriage and children, but after the election I am saying I’m not sure if I want to have kids based on the way the world is going, feeling insecure about my earning potential and potential to maintain working full time. As I mentioned my partner is not able to support us with his income alone, he makes enough to support himself and me maybe temporarily but he has his own student loans to pay and in a HCOL it’s not going to be enough to support us permanently (especially not if we have a child. I fear that with the amount of stress I’m under my mental health will worsen and overtime I wont be able to work. I know I’m catastrophizing but I also know my concerns are valid. It’s going to be a dealbreaker for my partner if I say I don’t want kids so I have to decide (I’m 31, he’s 40).

I have a therapist, some good friends but not much of a support system or hobbies outside of work because I have no energy to socialize after listening to some of the most tragic stories imaginable from people living in poverty and living with trauma. I’m starting with a psychiatrist next week and hope that meds will help me manage this

I guess I am looking for advice and or some motivation to keep going or ideas for another career path. I’m new to the field so part of me thinks I should stick with it but the other part of me is telling me it’s early enough to pivot.

I'm going to be a little problematic. Holding space right now is really fucking hard - but not for the reasons I expected. I am bothered more by the folks who AREN'T talking about the election and the consequences more than I am the folks who are spiraling - is it apathy? Are you not affected by this seismic shift in our country? Do you care? Or worse, am I supporting folks who are actively voting against me and my most vulnerable clients? I know, I know, PROBLEMATIC. I need a day off.

We could be politically educating each other as therapists in this sub, and so political education could be "on topic." I really do think most people on this sub aren't therapists, and most who are therapists are liberals. Political education could be niiiice

*i accidentally posted this with an old username; deleted and reposted for anonymity*

hey y'all. associate clinical social worker here. i just started at a new private practice (last location was community mental health) and i've been enjoying it. we mostly work with clients from the VA and the bulk of my caseload is working with folks with active PTSD (a passion of mine!) it took forever to find new work and for the most part, i'm really enjoying it. however, it has come up in dyad supervision that both my coworker and my supervisor are MAGA voters (supervisor is libertarian). in general, my supervisor seems like a great guy who's been in the field since the early 80s. my coworker just came back from leave so i don't know them well yet but they seem like a generally pleasant person. they both know i'm NOT a republican to say the least.

i'm going to set boundaries in supervision next time politics come up, but in general, i'm just trying to reconcile with my feelings a bit. it's hard for me to justify in my heart why i should continue working here. at the same time, i am exhausted on the divide-and-conquer strategy so many of us have succumbed to and am shifting my political focus towards class solidarity and community organizing/strategizing for the years to come. i am feeling hypocritical at the same time and want to scream at them!

i dunno, i guess what i'm seeking out is some support / advice / folks in similar positions. i need to remain working here for the time being due to financial reasons and i'm eager to get my license (a little over halfway done with my hours). it's also very laid back and generally low stress.

Hi all,
I graduate soon, and I'm looking to gain my hours for licensure at a place that has phenomenal training, and that mostly, I really personally value and resonate with. I understand that an answer to this question depends on where I want to get licensed— so I'll throw that out too. I am from CA, and go to school in Il. I ideally want to get licensed in CA and Il. I love psychodynamic, humanistic, and relational psychotherapy, but also really want to explore training in integrative psychotherapies and especially, in somatic therapy/somatic experiencing. Did anyone have a great experience at a community clinic/organization/private practice in either of these states that they recommend?

How do I offer help to one of my clients in a predominant white liberal arts college that feels unsafe on campus because of her activism? She has been doxxed, is being cyberbullied, having rumors spread about her on campus, and lost all of her friends. She has become incredibly depressed, and feels extremely unsafe on campus. She's feeling extremely isolated right now and has given up on all forms of activism because of safety concerns.

The ACA Code of Ethics states, "Counselors refrain from referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors."

I want to be a therapist but I don't think I have the emotional capacity to counsel someone who's a genuinely awful person or to counsel someone toward a goal that may be legal but might harm someone. Does the Code of Ethics state that I HAVE to counsel such a person and HAVE to help them achieve whatever goals they are seeking as long as those goals don't directly harm another person?

For example, if I found out that a client abused someone else and feels no remorse, and I refer them because I'm so angry and disgusted with them that I cannot provide effective, nonjudgmental counseling, have I violated the ACA Code of Ethics?

Similarly, if I have a prospective client who disagrees with me politically and has disdain for my political beliefs, does the Code of Ethics obligate me to accept them as a client?

Or if I have a Christian client who has social anxiety, whose goal is to work up the courage to join a Christian club that I know does anti-LGBT ministry, do I have to counsel them towards that specific goal? Can I refer them to someone else?

If I can't do these things, should I give up on my goal of becoming a therapist?

I’ve been working on a file of resources for mutual aid work

I’m curious if there are any groups that are discussing these topics on platforms outside of social media?

How do I find them?

(Should have said some or many blue collar workers being Trumpy- look up the stats if you want, maybe don't worry about Catherine Liu too much but she polemically hits on it. Gabe Winnant has better non polemical analysis but it doesn't quite hit.)

Over the years in organizing I've done I've met a fair amount of blue collar workers who report to me that most blue collar workers are kind of reactionary. I have a few clients who say the same thing. Plenty of leftists share the standard take saying it's not that they're reactionary, it's that their instincts are correct that both parties suck etc etc.

One thing that's important to keep in mind for us as therapists is that being white collar workers, having a lot of education, being in generally 'blue' metro areas, we don't actually have a lot of relationships to blue collar workers. We don't care about them, we don't like them, we don't even think about them unless we need them to fix our broken thing or build a new thing. An organized left that focused on having a militant base of farmers, dock workers, warehouse workers, railroad workers, iron workers, oil workers, and other blue collar workers, would have an immense amount of strike and political power. You can shut down the railroads and demand xyz, shut down th

The US is still the #2 manufacturing country in the world second to China, and most of that happens in the south due to weaker labor laws. I want us to think about "as leftists" why we've chosen to get masters and doctoral degrees to "help people" instead of moving to where the most important and strategic labor sectors in the US are, salting, building militant and revolutionary strike power, and "being a leftist" in that way. Thinking in a multi decade horizon about how building up that worker base, linking shops into mass organizations into a mass class politics that can fight fascism through rank and file strategy.

If you look at any revolutionary left movement in the last 150 years, the focus was not on simply changing the minds within white collar workers, the educated population, the small business owners. "Supporting" people who are "harmed" by various social oppressions and interpersonal forms of invalidation. Care work is important, but from a strategic sectoral analytical perspective, it's absolutely not some top of the priority list of sectors to focus on organizing.

Social democratic parties in Europe always focused on blue and white collar work because there's a strategy to it, but in the US whether it was the CPUSA, SPUSA, IWW or whoever, the focus was always on the kinds of workers I just mentioned. I'm not here to do 'workerism' but it occurs to me this is an important consideration and one I doubt most therapists have thought about much.

It's not difficult to find resources on conflict resolution, or navigating tough political discussions, but has anyone written a guide or even journal, anything, on using these tools to actually organize and gain support instead of just for interpersonal conflict resolution?

I have family, friends, and community members more broadly experiencing a lot of fear, and expressing their election grief at this time. I care for them deeply, but I notice that they seem uncomforted by my lack of emotional investment & shared grief in the US’s bourgeois electoral process. I’m wondering if any of you Marxists or Anarchists are experiencing a similar dynamic with liberal family or friends at the moment.

I will say, I continue to experience a fair amount of anxiety, alienation, and disenchantment with the capitalist world system and the cultural structures it props up, along with the immense suffering created by systemic violence. So I certainly have a shared sense of political grief more generally with people, just not with the outcomes of capitalist electoral politics in specific.

TW: Politics. Mods, please remove if not allowed.

What now? I’ve never been a therapist during an awful election. How do I hold space when half of my country wants to take away my rights?

I so badly want to call in today. I’m not going to because the majority of my clients are also AFAB liberals and likely feeling very alone with these results.

It would be so lovely to sell my house and move to Finland at this point.

Sorry if this is not related to the sub. Are those who violate the law welcomed as potential clients of leftist psychotherapy? How would the psychotherapy go? Any related works on such issue?