Mystification & Exceptionalism as vectors of power in therapy
Clinical Work . Coloniality

Mystification & Exceptionalism as Vectors of Power in Therapy

On April 18, 2023 by

Featured photo credit: Chantel 

By: Lucia Sarmiento Verano

On my last piece I reflected on the violence that is enabled and reproduced in therapeutic spaces namely our trainings’ group process, through unnamed and unspoken gendered behaviours and expectations.

I mentioned very briefly that one of the factors that enables this to happen continuously is the sense of exceptionalism we tend to have about our profession and thus the spaces we hold as therapists, as well as mystification.

I will now attempt to briefly develop this idea to expose and describe how exceptionalism and mystification happen in the mental health professions, how they act as vectors of power, and why they enable and heighten the risk of harm to clients and our colleagues.

Preliminary thoughts and definitions

Exceptionalism:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines exceptionalism as “the condition of being different from the norm”.

Our therapeutic relationships are indeed seen as different from the rest and separated from the world. For humanistic or person-centred practitioners, the Core Conditions may be what provide this difference with other relationships. For more psychoanalytically-minded professionals it might the idea of neutrality. This, paired with the knowledge the practitioner brings to the table and the professional boundaries of the relationship, it is natural that we think of the therapeutic relationship as different and exceptional.

This perspective does not, however, completely consider the humanity of both client and therapist and the baggage both bring to the space which can have the same impact on the relationship and the work. It does not fully recognise that the relationship takes place within the social context as well, just like any other relationship, as we will see later.

This perspective is also held about our training spaces and the spaces held for therapists. More on that later, but I do think it is important to keep this in mind.

Let’s examine another definition of exceptionalism now. One a little more complete coming from Wikipedia:

Exceptionalism is the perception or belief that a species, country, society, institution, movement, individual, or time period is “exceptional”. The term carries the implication, whether or not specified, that the referent is superior in some way. (link to Wikipedia)

Often used as case studies for this mindset are American and British exceptionalism which of course entail a sense of superiority: the idea that their country or society is somewhat special and better than all others. We see this time and again when we hear people talk and in what drives bigger political shifts like Brexit for example.

So, exceptionalism is not just about difference but also superiority. Translating this into therapy work we can think of dynamics that place the therapist in a position of power or superiority and discount the client, for example:

  • the idea of providing the Core Condition as “giving the client what they’ve never had”
  • the wounded healer image, the white saviour or the tendency to be a rescuer

The latter run deeper than the dynamics illustrated by the Karpman Triangle. They speak of psychosocial processes and positionality. For example, White Saviourism is about maintaining an image of goodness and innocence while reproducing an oppressive system, disempowering others and retaining one’s own position and resources. Here we could deeply reflect on unconscious and transferential material, or on how the current therapeutic provision system and its objectives also participate in the current colonial capitalist system, but let’s not digress from the two terms we were set out on analysing today.

This is the problem. Therapeutic relationships might be differently boundaried and might carry a set of rules specific to them but this does not make them exceptional in the sense that they are not inherently better because of what they are. We tend to forget, perhaps because we are so focused on the Core Conditions of Empathy, UPR and Congruence we provide, that great harm happens in therapeutic relationships all the time.

Harm such as missing important parts of the client or their story, minimising or at times even denying them, unaddressed mistakes or counter-transferential material, therapist defensiveness and rigidity, misinterpretation, and even manipulation, gaslighting and harmful crossing of boundaries. These things can happen in a therapeutic relationship just as in any other, as well as therapists’ groups, despite our belief of the contrary.

In regards to therapist groups, I’ve discussed the issue of Group Process more in detail elsewhere. I would just state again:

“in the eyes of many group members and facilitators, everyone in group is equally safe emotionally, equally welcome and has the same opportunities to speak, being heard, and develop a sense of belonging. However, group environments are only a microcosm of broader society and the same dynamics tend to play up. And we know for a fact that in society, equality does not exist. Why do therapists and trainees then, believe their groups to be an exception to this?
[…] Let’s just say that when a sense of exceptionalism about our spaces as inherently good, open, empathetic and inclusive is established, then it becomes exceedingly easy to deny or minimise harm done in the same spaces.”

And the same is valid for the relationship we have with individual clients.

Mystification, as we will see in the next section, exceptionalism and the sense of superiority and power they tend to give us (often unconsciously) tend to minimise this and prevent us from truly engaging with the reality of harm in therapy and its consequences.

Mystification:

Just like for exceptionalism, let’s start by examining some definitions from a psychosocial perspective and how they relate to therapy.

Marx defined mystification to explain the naturalisation of class oppression like so: “an obscuring especially of capitalist or social dynamics (as by making them equivalent to natural laws) that is seen in Marxist thought as an impediment to critical consciousness.” (1990)

More precisely, the idea was that dominant classes create that myth and obscure reality in order to ‘mystify’ the working classes and avoid challenges to the social order.

R.D. Laing took inspiration from the Marxist definition of mystification to produce his own from a psychoanalytical perspective:

“both the act of mystification and the state of being mystified.” To mystify in the active sense is “to befuddle, cloud, obscure, mask whatever is going on, whether this experience, action, or process, or whatever is ‘the issue’. It induces confusion in the sense that there is failure to see what is “really” being experienced, or being done, or going on, and failure to distinguish or discriminate the actual issues. This entails the substitution of false for true constructions of what is being experienced, being done (praxis), or going on (process), and the substitution of false issues for the actual issues.” (1965, p. 344).

So, in both cases, the process of mystification is a negative one for the person or group that is the target of this dynamic. It obscures their reality and doesn’t let them make sense of their lived experience in a way that is meaningful and clear. It makes unjust, unequal situations and the accumulation of power seem to be a natural phenomenon, placing people in power as naturally superior, thus deserving of that power. By opposition, vulnerable people are seen as weak or inferior, so naturally deserving of their social position and the mistreatment they suffer.

This is an abusive dynamic that is visible at all levels of society: systemic, organisational and interpersonal, leaving the victims feeling self-blame, shame and a sense of powerlessness to change their situation.

We’ll examine how this applies to the therapy profession in the next section.

Vectors of power

Therapy as the new priesthood

Marx’s and Laing’s definitions already give us an idea of how and why mystification is a vector of power as they talk about exerting influence, defining a narrative for others, and confusing them which makes it hard for them to discover their own truths and meaning.

In my view there are two aspects of this. The first is pretty straightforward: the focus on individuals and interpersonal dynamics of therapy is a form of mystification because it explains whatever is going on with the client’s emotional process only within one specific framework. This framework excludes an important part of life which is the social context and social structures. This serves to obscure the reality of social dynamics just like in Marx’s definition of mystification. In this way therapy serves to maintain and reproduce the system’s power structure.

The second aspect relates to a phrase that is now widely known: “therapy is the new priesthood” or other similar ideas. The comparison between therapy and a confession is easy to make:

  • Confidentiality
  • Expectations of one-way vulnerability
  • Therapist can only ‘confess’ to another therapist
  • Knowledge, insight and ‘absolution’ lie with the priest/therapist (supported by “valid” sources of knowledge: the Bible, the DSM or other mental health theories)
  • Both engage in deeper questions of what it is like to be human

From these points of comparison alone it is easy to see how the power lies with the therapist in a therapeutic relationship. However, I’d like to focus on another comparable aspect of both professions. In traditional Christian dogma, the priest’s function is to be the shepherd of God’s sheep (us). An individual’s relationship with God (and thus their salvation) was not direct, but had to go through the church and the priest, who would act as a middle-man by interpreting God’s teachings for the laymen, and relaying their prayers to the Higher Power.

I’m sure you have also heard that “everyone should go to therapy, because everyone has issues to discuss” or other similar sentiments. Well, in this vision of the world, going through the prescribed path (therapy) with the correct middle-man (the therapist) is the way to achieve healing and well-being (reaching God). I will discuss more in detail the particular issue with this in regards to exceptionalism in the next section and explain why this is problematic.

If we focus here on the mystifying aspects of this perspective the we can see how this:

  • Makes the therapist the de-facto gatekeeper of important information that can help people heal, making it so it’s the exclusive resource of some and not others.

  • Creates an illusion of knowledge/position inaccessibility (putting the therapist on a powerful, irreplaceable position in front of the client) – an exceptional being that the client could not do without if they want to understand what’s going on and heal.

  • Much like a priest preaching in latin to people who do not speak that language it may also make the information mysterious, cryptic and unnecessarily hard to access or understand.

  • Gives the therapist the power to interpret the client’s experience from their own or their theories’ perspective.

Let’s just consider the obsession our profession has for creating modalities and new practices that use new frameworks and language to explain the same processes that have been explored and addressed many times before. This can be done in the particular interest of one person or a school, and over-complicate the field unnecessarily, thus creating barriers.

There is also the issue of using previously held ancestral knowledge to develop “new” theories without proper acknowledgment of the sources which are often Indigenous. Major theorists have been guilty of this, most notably Jung.

All of this serves a purpose: claiming and maintaining power by making the therapist their knowledge essential and inaccessible while disempowering clients and service users in their own process of healing.

Therapy as the new panacea

First, I’d like to finish exploring the idea that “everyone should go to therapy” but this time, thinking about exceptionalism.

The idea that therapy is the way for everyone to heal, or that everyone can benefit from it is astounding to me. First of all because so many have been and continue to be harmed by it rather than ‘healed’. Second, because this way of thinking is reductive of the human experience and potential, and of all the other healing and caring practices that have existed and continue to exist around the world that do not look like western mental health services.

It is thus a perspective that denies many people’s experiences. A deeply Eurocentric view that also negates or invalidates other practices, to make western therapy the absolute ‘cure’, appropriate to address any psychological or emotional ailment. I hope it is easier to see how ridiculous it sounds when expressed in this way.

Not only ridiculous, but oppressive and colonial at its core, as it strives through the destruction and invisibilisation of ‘Other’ practices and experiences. I am sad to say that it is a sentiment that I encounter very often in the mental health field. One that is repeated without much thought or consideration.

To further refute this idea let’s talk about one of the biggest limitations of therapeutic practice as we know it. It is painfully individualistic and lacks a community aspect, a collective aspect, and for many modalities, also embodied and spiritual aspects. People need different things to grow and strive, and I deeply believe that a key aspect of our human experience is to grow and learn in community.

The need for community brings me to my last point: Exceptionalism also expressed in this idea that therapy is the panacea to save the world and not only individuals. You might already be familiar with an idea which had been enthusiastically promoted in the past few months: therapy theory and practice will contribute to social change meaningfully through non-violent communication and emotional learning, empathy and compassion.

Let me be very clear. When thinking about actual material inequalities and colonial violence, from the perspective of someone born and raised in the Global South, this approach, especially coming from Europeans, is laughable and I will not be wasting my time on it.

I urge you to question the identities and positionality of the most prominent people promoting these ideas as well as examine the level of privilege they enjoy. Not only that, but the cynical part of me also wants me to urge you to pay attention to what they are promoting with this discourse. You’ll quickly see a number of buying options: books, webinars, workshops, CPDs. No doubt privileged individuals are making careers from this already.

Frankly, if believing Empathy, Congruence and UPR are going to solve social injustice and political struggle is not peak exceptionalism about our profession, theories and practices, I don’t know what is. The audacity is astounding.

I will only say this for now: Global inequality is a violent machine. Social hierarchies were put in place and maintained historically, they are not just psychological and interpersonal relational issues but a complex web of material realities and dynamics too. And materiality is something therapy and psychology are not equipped, and not enough, to address.

And going back to the notion of community. There are key things that these grand theories are missing due to being so Eurocentric and individualistic: notions of responsibility to one another and accountability, especially to the most marginalised, which can only be learned in community.

No amount of compassion, empathy and valuing of “differences” will change the fact that people go hungry in this system, or that the clothes we wear, the food we eat and the material of our houses have been sourced by giving others no choice but to live in conditions of extreme deprivation and violence.

I will not be participating in the collective delusion that our good intentions and our “skills” as helpers will make an impact on this reality. Not without real-life responsibilisation and accountability, and community work without self-congratulatory purposes.

Concluding thoughts

To conclude, I don’t believe there is much left to say other than reminding readers that therapy is not the ultimate solution to anything and that our working relationships are not exempt from being harmful only because of their nature.

Let’s stay humble and acknowledge without performativity the very serious limitations of our theories and practices and the influence our own shadow may bring onto the work.

Hubris being part of such shadow, let’s resist becoming once more the agents of this oppressive system by trying to ‘save the world’ from our privileged perspectives.

References

Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes. Vol. 1. New York: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review. (Orig. pub. 1867.)

Laing, R. D. (1965). Mystification, confusion, and conflict. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. L. Framo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy; theoretical and practical aspects. New York: Harper and Row.

%d bloggers like this: