Actions, not words

One of the professional bodies for counsellors in the UK recently published motions that are being considered in the run up to their AGM. Actually, a part of the document was a resolution that they would tackle institutional racism, as highlighted by the Black Lives Matter movement.

Maybe most of us are familiar with the term "virtue signalling" by now. For those unfamiliar, it is about wanting to be seen to do do good things, but not really doing anything of value. In the worst case scenario, harm is being caused, but the person or organisation signalling virtue only cares that they have stated their intention to do good things. In short, it's a form of denial: an all too visible sign that an organisation or person is, in some way, out of touch with reality.

Unfortunately, virtue signalling seems to be a symptom of the modern age. Social media has made most of us aware of our "brand" - how we are perceived by others and the value they may assign to us, based on that perception. If, in our quest to be seen as virtuous, we make assumptions about the needs of others ("I know what's good for them"), without actually checking this with them, then I'd suggest that we are somewhat devoid of real virtue.

When an organisation makes a promise to "tackle institutional racism", I have to question whether they will make changes, or whether they believe making such a statement is enough. In terms of counselling, it was already written into our ethical guidelines that we treat clients and each other with equal respect, regardless of perceived race or other protected categorisation. If we are failing to meet our existing ethical standards, then there are deeper issues that a decree from on high is unlikely to fix.

Barriers to entry into the profession might be one place where we could do more to be inclusive. One of the motions passed, however, suggests that the work counsellors may be permitted to do should be limited. Unless the counsellor has trained at post-graduate level (therefore, a degree in counselling, psychology or a related subject is assumed), the work we are permitted to do may be limited.

When we qualify as counsellors, that is not the point where our training comes to an end. In fact, as long as we are practising, our training doesn't come to an end. Continuing professional development (CPD) is mandatory, and expensive in terms of time, money or both. Let's also not underestimate the value of the time we have spent doing the work, or the effect this has on our skills as practitioners.

Earning a degree is expensive, and beyond the reach of many. The counselling diploma itself represents a significant expenditure of time, money and energy. Essentially, the motion in question is proposing a barrier to entry. That barrier will mostly affect those from low income households. It's also an insult to many counsellors who have gained a lot of experience from CPD and the work they have done. An organisation that is supposedly tasked with working in the interests of their members seems to be doing the opposite.

The resolution to tackle institutional racism seems to be, amongst other things, an attempt to make the profession appear more representative of society. How can that happen when a motion with the effect of potentially limiting career progression and social mobility is contained within the same document? How many of those from ethnic minorities would be affected by the motion to exclude those without a degree from taking part in some types of therapeutic work? Well, maybe that is representative of our society, but do we really want to mirror and model prejudice or reinforce existing inequalities?

All too often those who talk about inclusivity actually mean "you're included, as long as you meet certain conditions". That's exclusivity; let's not get our clusivities mixed up.

Every one of us is unique. The various strands of our being determine the things of which we are capable, and the individual ways in which we show our capability. To judge any of us by one aspect of our knowledge and experience, and to make assumptions about our competence based on only that, seems to me somewhat contrary to the principles of counselling.

I'm not the expert on anyone else's condition. As a mentor once said, we have not lived one day of another person's life. I still maintain that listening, and checking our understanding, is the cornerstone of our work. Would a degree help me with that?