Is Therapy Political? Better Yet, When Has Therapy Not Been Political?
Long before social media, political hashtags, or today's debates about whether therapists should acknowledge systemic issues, Freud was already questioning whether individual psychology could ever truly be separated from social life.
When we think about the “founding fathers” of modern psychology and psychotherapy (random fun fact- modern psychology as a distinct science started taking form around the late 1800s), Sigmund Freud is usually one of the first names that comes to mind. For decades, the idea of a therapist came hand-in-hand with the image of someone sitting in an armchair, clipboard in hand, while a patient lay on a long couch talking about their deepest thoughts. The psychoanalytic couch, or the Freudian couch, if you will (talk about being a heavy hitter in the field).
Up to the present day, Freud's theories have been studied, challenged, expanded upon, and sometimes straight up rejected. But as psychology continues to evolve, researchers have also returned to his work with fresh perspectives- revisiting ideas that may have been overlooked or understood differently than when they first debuted.
This includes examining the relationship between psychoanalysis and approaches such as liberation psychology and decolonial psychology, which ask us to consider not only what happens within an individual, but also how the world around them shapes their psychological experience.
And that brings us to a particularly interesting question:
When Has Therapy Not Been Political?
These days, conversations about politics and therapy can get heated pretty quickly. Some argue that therapy should remain a neutral space, free from political influence. Others question whether neutrality is even possible when people's lives are shaped by policies, institutions, social expectations, and the systems in power.
In an age when controversy generates clicks, likes, follows (sometimes even profit!)- it can be difficult to distinguish genuine intellectual debate from someone who calls therapy political because it’s trending and is the fastest way to get a seat at the table. After all, bad publicity is still publicity, right?
But here's where things start to get more interesting.
Long before social media, political hashtags, or today's debates about whether therapists should acknowledge systemic issues, Freud was already questioning whether individual psychology could ever truly be separated from social life.
In his 1921 work, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Freud explored the relationship between the individual and the people around them. His argument wasn't that therapists should endorse political positions. His stance was that understanding the individual also requires understanding their relationships with others.
What About Being Neutral?
Historically, psychoanalysis emphasized the therapist as a mirror or blank screen (sometimes loosely referred to as a blank slate), limiting personal disclosures so clients could explore their own thoughts and feelings without being overly influenced by the person sitting across from them. The idea goes back to Freud's early recommendations for psychoanalytic practice.
Interestingly enough, even Freud didn't consistently follow his own advice. And Carl Jung, another influential figure in psychology, emphasized the importance of therapists examining their own unconscious conflicts and assumptions.
After all, therapists are people too. We don't instantly become blank slates when we sit down across from a client (or log onto a telehealth session)- and we shouldn’t. A key component of the therapeutic alliance is formed and enriched by the human connection.
Our experiences, identities, assumptions, and even our unresolved issues can influence how we understand the people we work with. Recognizing that doesn't make someone a less effective therapist. It makes self-awareness, reflection, supervision, and our own therapeutic work all the more important.
We've explored this before in Do Therapists Need Therapy?, but it raises an equally important question here: If therapists can't entirely separate themselves from the world that shaped them, why would we expect clients to?
Perhaps the goal was never to become a person without beliefs or biases. Perhaps the more meaningful goal is to recognize those influences, remain accountable for them, and ensure they don't overshadow the client's experience.
The World Doesn't Stop When the Session Starts
There's another layer to this conversation.
If our relationships and experiences shape our psychological lives, what happens when those experiences are influenced by the larger systems we live within?
Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist, philosopher, and anticolonial thinker, explored this question through his work on colonialism, racism, and psychological experience. In Black Skin, White Masks (1952), Fanon examined how the social and political conditions surrounding a person can shape their sense of identity, their relationships, and their understanding of self.
His work challenged approaches that attempted to understand psychological suffering without sufficiently considering the historical and social conditions contributing to it.
We don't have to look very far to see why that matters today.
Think of someone experiencing anxiety because they're struggling to afford housing. Or someone navigating discrimination at work. A family worried about access to healthcare. A person whose safety or legal protections may be affected by changing policies.
These experiences can have very real psychological consequences.
Of course, therapy can help people develop coping skills, process emotions, and navigate difficult circumstances. But understanding someone's distress also means recognizing the circumstances causing and contributing to it.
After all, we can teach someone every grounding technique in the book, but that doesn't necessarily change the conditions making them feel unsafe in the first place (you can’t box breathe your way out of poverty).
Recognizing Politics Isn't the Same as Practicing Politics
There is a difference between recognizing where the systems impact someone’s life and livelihood- and imposing your own thoughts and beliefs onto that person. The latter is where things start to get misconstrued and why the conversation gets messy.
This is messy, it’s complicated, it’s hard- and that is why it matters.
Society tells us that religion and politics are two topics we should never broach, but when it comes to mental health, the usual social rules don't necessarily apply.
As therapists, the expectation is often for clients to come to us and share their most vulnerable thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes, and dreams- yet what are we doing to ensure they are comfortable opening up to someone like us?
At Guided Therapy we encourage people to ask a prospective therapist questions about themselves, about their thoughts, about their approach- and yes, that includes asking about political affiliations.
That doesn't mean a therapist is obligated to disclose their political beliefs. But it does mean they should be prepared to navigate the question thoughtfully and respond in a way that respects the client's autonomy.
Because sometimes, asking about a therapist's political views isn't really just about politics.
It’s about safety. It’s about trust. It’s about whether someone will have to explain or defend parts of their identity before they can begin addressing the reasons they came to therapy in the first place.
Sometimes, the therapist's reaction to the question may give more information than the answer itself.
So Again, When Has Therapy Not Been Political?
Psychology wasn’t developed in a vacuum- neither were the theories studied, the clinicians who practice, or the people who seek our help.
From Freud's exploration of the relationship between individual and social psychology to Fanon's examination of colonialism and psychological experience, the history of our field reminds us that understanding the individual has never been completely separate from understanding the world they’re in.
That doesn't mean every therapy session needs to become a political discussion. It doesn't mean therapists should impose their beliefs. And it certainly doesn't mean clients should be expected to share them.
It means acknowledging that the world outside of the therapy space doesn't suddenly disappear when the session begins.
We can disagree about politics. We can debate the role of neutrality. We can even disagree about what responsibility therapists have to address the systems affecting their clients.
But those conversations deserve more than a social media argument or a conveniently placed claim of neutrality.
They deserve curiosity, critical thinking, an openness and willingness to examine our own assumptions.
After all, if we're asking clients to do that work, shouldn't we be willing to do it ourselves?
The question was never only whether therapy should be political. It's whether therapy has ever existed outside the social and political world in the first place.
If you’re still wondering, the answer is no.
It hasn’t.
References
Fanon, F. (2008). Black skin, white masks (R. Philcox, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published 1952).
Freud, S. (1955). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 65–143). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1921).
Freud, S. (1958). Recommendations to physicians practising psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12, pp. 109–120). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1912).
Jung, C. G. (1966). Problems of modern psychotherapy (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung: Vol. 16. The practice of psychotherapy (2nd ed., pp. 53–75). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1931). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400851003.53
Kirkbride, J. B., Anglin, D. M., Colman, I., Dykxhoorn, J., Jones, P. B., Patalay, P., Pitman, A., Soneson, E., Steare, T., Wright, T., & Griffiths, S. L. (2024). The social determinants of mental health and disorder: Evidence, prevention and recommendations. World Psychiatry, 23(1), 58–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21160
Lynn, D. J., & Vaillant, G. E. (1998). Anonymity, neutrality, and confidentiality in the actual methods of Sigmund Freud: A review of 43 cases, 1907–1939. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(2), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.155.2.163
