Quote:

---

In a recent email from a fellow therapist, I noticed a section below the signature labeled “Social Location.” It identified the sender as “cis, queer, white, Euro-American, middle class, post-evangelical, spiritual but not religious.” In parts of the profession email signatures amount to political personal-identity statements. They also reflect a broader shift in the field toward reinterpreting ordinary human problems through a highly ideological vocabulary.

Psychotherapy should help people make sense of their lives. But in many training programs today, students are taught to interpret those lives through the lens of power, privilege and oppression.

An aspiring therapist recently told me he wondered whether he had chosen the wrong profession. He enjoyed working with patients. What unsettled him was graduate school. During a seminar on family conflict, he suggested that personal responsibility can shape how people respond to adversity. The room went quiet. A classmate then responded that such framing could “ignore systemic oppression.” After that, he spoke up less and began to ask whether someone with his outlook belonged in the field at all.

Therapy—the practice itself and the training of future clinicians—increasingly functions as a social and ideological monoculture. In many training environments, psychological problems are no longer viewed primarily through the lens of individual experience but through broader political and social frameworks. Over time, the profession risks becoming intellectually narrow and disconnected from the people it is meant to help.

In conversations with other therapists, I hear that the same ideological perspective is shaping continuing-education courses and supervision meetings, where senior clinicians advise younger therapists on how to understand patients and conduct treatment. Ideas that once circulated mainly in academic settings now influence how working therapists are taught to interpret patients’ lives. Therapists who question these frameworks learn to stay quiet in meetings rather than risk being seen as insensitive or out of step.

Counseling programs increasingly define their mission in political terms: “social-justice counseling,” “critical consciousness,” working as “agents of social change.” Students are encouraged to identify where patients fall within structures of privilege and oppression before examining personal dynamics. What began as one interpretive lens among many is gradually hardening into the expected way of understanding nearly every problem. In some corners of the profession, ideological conformity is more valued than psychological insight.

A colleague described a moment from her graduate training. While leading a group-therapy exercise, she invited a male student to comment on a discussion unfolding between two women. The professor stopped the exercise and asked why she felt the need to “insert a male voice,” adding that “men take up enough space in society.” In other classes, she said, discussions were routinely redirected toward the “violence of whiteness” or questioning her supposed instinct to “protect white men.” When she pushed back, she was told she might be “better suited for corporate America.”

Experiences like these can shape who remains in a field. Students who share the prevailing assumptions move comfortably through training, while those who view human problems through a different lens drift away. Over time, the profession begins to sort for ideological conformity.

Therapy comes to reflect only a narrow slice of the people it is meant to help. And what happens when the people providing therapy no longer resemble the people seeking it?

Psychotherapy depends on trust. Patients must believe the person sitting across from them understands their experiences and takes their concerns seriously. But when therapists approach ordinary struggles through a theoretical vocabulary unfamiliar to patients, that connection can become harder to establish.

I have seen the results firsthand. A patient told me he sought therapy for anxiety and stress but found the conversation always redirected toward racism and power dynamics, even though he insisted those issues weren’t the problem. Another sought therapy to talk about responsibility and career pressures, but the therapist kept encouraging him to explore his supposed shame about his sexual identity. Both patients stopped going.

When ordinary struggles are interpreted through the same ideological lens, patients can feel their lives are being translated into someone else’s language. A marital conflict becomes a lesson about “gender hierarchy.” Workplace tension becomes evidence of “systemic power.” A struggle with self-confidence is reframed as an “identity” issue. These interpretations may sometimes be relevant, but when they appear reflexively, patients stop feeling understood and start feeling categorized and analyzed. The result is rarely disagreement. More often, patients simply disengage and drop out of therapy.

Psychotherapy works best when therapists meet patients where they are, not where professional culture wants them to be. If the profession becomes intellectually uniform, therapy risks becoming a profession that talks only to itself. Without trust, even the most sophisticated psychological theories have little chance of helping anyone.

Mr. Alpert is a psychotherapist practicing in New York and Washington and author of “Therapy Nation.”

---