Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ

From the editor

Counsellors are such lovely people – so kind, so gentle, so understanding, so full ofÌýthe milk of human kindness… While this may – in part – be the popular perception of counsellors, as ‘insiders’ I’m sure that this description is likely to elicit a cynical raising of the eyebrows, at least. Counsellors are – first and foremost – human beings. Despite our training and our therapy, we are individuals and, in my experience, strong-minded people who areÌýnot afraid to express our opinions and beliefs.

As in any profession, counsellors come in all shapes and sizes and from all types of backgrounds.ÌýOur political views cover the whole spectrum of opinion. Some votedÌýfor Brexit; others see this as madness. Our experiences of spirituality vary enormously. Some have a strong spiritual belief system to guideÌýthem; others are atheists, eschewing any notion of religionÌýor the supernatural. Our counselling trainings and theoretical models can be very different. Some are invested in non-directive, humanistic models of therapy; others passionately believe that clients need directing and challenging, especially in short- term work. Put counsellors together in a team, and you are as likely to find tension, conflict and disagreement as in any other professional group.ÌýHow do we deal with and respondÌýto our differences? In my experience, differing theoretical and spiritual frameworks are often the catalysts for discontent in counselling teams,Ìýespecially if those teams are operatingÌýÌý– as we all do – within institutions which may have little time for, or understanding of, the features of our work which we believe to be pivotal.

In this issue, our contributors explore issues which are likely to raise the hackles of some, andÌýelicit cheers of support from others.ÌýDominic Davies challenges the concept of sex addiction, arguing that it is an unsubstantiated, values-driven diagnosis of behaviour which can be understood in other, non-pathologising ways. Colin Feltham questions psychodynamic theory (and by extension, other therapeutic theories), and asks us to reconsider what some may hold to be sacrosanct in their understanding of how therapy works. And, perhaps swimming against the cultural tide among many educators, Amy Beddows argues in favour of trigger warnings in universities, seeing them as a respectful way of fostering independence and self-empowerment, especially for students who have experienced trauma.

As you read these articles –Ìýwhich may present views diametrically opposed to your own – the invitation is simply to be aware of any tendency to dismiss or devalue the strongly held and sincere beliefs of someone who does not see eye to eye with you. Our clients come in all shapes and sizes too, and with some there will be a more natural fit than with others. Yet our training helps us to ‘bracket’ or ‘hold’ our differences with clients, and, hopefully, to work supportively with those who are very different from us. Perhaps this is something we can all emulate in our relations with colleagues who may also be very different.

At the start of a busy, demanding year, I hope these articles stimulate and challenge: if you feel strongly enough to write a response, do get in touch.ÌýOur journal exists to give voice to the whole range of opinion withoutÌýadvocating any particular bias: tin hats may be needed at times – respectful acknowledgement of difference isÌýkey to thriving in our work.

David Mair
Editor
david.mair@bacp.co.uk

Disclaimer and copyright