by Matthew Henson

Can we have a conversation please?
I often don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the speed with which complex socio-political issues get polarised and reduced into their lowest common denominators, and the rapidity in which dialogue and debate gets replaced with vitriol and rhetoric. To our West we have controversies such as the US president’s foreign policy; to the East we have Brexit; and at home in Ireland we have, amongst other divisive issues, the 8th amendment. In these respective chasms, many – on both ‘sides’ – resort to soundbites and slogans, with little by way of listening on either part. In our adversarial political and legal systems, there is often little room for complexity, paradox and doubt. This is perpetuated in the media and mirrored in homes and communities. I am ‘right’ and you are ‘wrong’. It’s that simple.

Thank goodness then, that we have the ‘talking therapies’, in particular psychotherapy, where dialogue is supported perhaps more than in any other professional process. When socio-political issues enter our consulting rooms, we quickly understand that one ‘side’ is never all ‘good’, just as the other ‘side’ is never all ‘bad’. We understand that processes which integrate are generally much more helpful than processes which divide and split. We understand complexity and we can sit with tension. We understand that a well-thought-out preference for devolved government is not necessarily also a preference for racial hatred, just as a preference for Europe-wide legislation is not necessarily also a preference for unrestricted globalisation. We understand that arguments in favour of reforming pregnancy law are not necessarily anti-life or a failure to ‘love both’, just as arguments to keep the 8th are not necessarily misogynist.

Thank goodness then for the talking therapies, well used to holding complexity across all domains; intellectual, physical, emotional and spiritual. We understand ambiguity and ambivalence. We support the changing of minds when new information comes to light or when a change of heart occurs for no easily identifiable reason. In our consulting rooms, we empower the (sometimes very quiet) voices of our clients and delight when their voices strengthen to challenge our own. We tolerate and withstand levels of uncertainty, anxiety and grief that would debilitate other professional processes. In the nebulousness of a reality where there are no universal ‘correct answers’, we understand that the decision-making process is more important than the decision itself. We hold all of this, arguably, better than (or at least as good as) any other profession and we achieve this primarily through dialogue. We are the ones willing and able to listen and respond, when nobody else can or will.

Thank goodness then for us talking therapists, well able to dialogue and converse about complex and emotionally evocative socio-political issues. Except, it seems, when the socio- political issue in question is our own professional future. Then the ability to dialogue appears to elude us. I am staggered by the silence that surrounds state regulation of psychotherapy and counselling. It has proved a very difficult subject to debate.