Notes on Schmid's “Psychotherapy is Political or it is not Psychotherapy: The Person-Centred Approach as an Essentially Political Venture”

Abstract

This article makes – and strikes – four notes in response to Schmid's (2012/2014) paper. Taking Schmid's definition of politics as encompassing policy, politics, and polity, and adding a fourth element, that of the personal, the author discusses: (1) policy – by addressing Schmid's central question “Psychotherapy is political or it is not psychotherapy”; (2) politics – by asking “How should psychotherapists act politically?” (3) polity – in which the author discusses the estimation of the World Association of Person‐Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies and Counseling and its journal, Person‐Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies; and (4) (the) personal – in which the author reflects personally on the concept that “The most personal is the most political”. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Psychotherapy and Politics - “Either … or?” or “Both … and”? A Brief Response to the Discussant Papers

“…Therefore, I fully agree with Hayes () and Muramoto () that the question is whether a psychotherapist is conscious of being a political being or not (see also Kearny, ). I also agree with Muramoto when she stresses the political fields of helping and related professions outside psychotherapy – and, yes, psychotherapy as such does need to go beyond its traditional framework.…”

“…The same goes for institutions, including those explicitly dedicated to psychotherapy and counselling and their education and training. I do not think that “the person‐centred approach is the most promising field for raised voices, challenge and dispute” (Muramoto, , p. 60), but, together with other emancipatory orientations, like many psychodynamic, experiental and existential and also some systemic ones, I think there is more to be done than what has already has been achieved.…”