Therapy is political, and true neutrality doesn’t always exist.
First and foremost, when I say "therapy is political," I don't mean a therapist is going to sit and tell you who to vote for or spend the session debating politics. What I am saying is:
Politics are directly involved in therapy, including:
Higher education—who is able to access it, who is teaching the courses, what is being taught
Licensing boards and regulations; the licensure process as a whole
Every aspect of research—who, what, where, & especially funding
Diagnostic criteria
Healthcare & insurance
Mandated reporting
Power dynamics
Therapy doesn’t exist in a vacuum
The systems and environment influence mental health, including:
Economics/finances
Access to opportunities
Marginalization, discrimination, and systemic oppression
So again, therapy is political. Now for the neutrality piece.
As with everything else, there’s nuance. There is certainly neutrality to be found in the therapeutic space, especially in terms of a therapist being nonjudgmental and supporting and empowering therapy participants to reach their own goals and find their own resolutions. Not the therapist’s interests, not what the therapist would do, but decisions aligned with the goals, values, and ideas of the individual engaging in therapy. It's important for a therapy participant to have a safe environment to explore their experiences and different paths for moving forward, without feeling pushed or influenced in one direction or another.
That said, when it comes to moral/social justice and systems of oppression, there is no true neutrality. Ignoring how power and policy influence an individual’s mental health, ignoring the cultural context of the difficulties an individual is facing, not naming the systems, not recognizing the limits of therapeutic interventions, not normalizing valid human reactions to collective trauma or stress—none of that is “neutral.” It normalizes the status quo, and may leave individuals feeling like they are not doing enough for the impact of the systems.
When human rights are up for debate and painted as political issues, there is no neutral. Silence and avoidance mean siding with oppressive systems.
Social justice, as defined by Britannica, is
“the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”
I will not shy away from publicly advocating for social justice for some sort of expectation of neutrality, even if that means my “liberal” political stances become obvious. I’m not risking someone questioning whether or not I’m voting against their rights, including the supposed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If someone with opposing views decides they still want to be a client anyway, that’s their prerogative. Everyone I sit across from in the therapy room (or on the other side of the telehealth screen) has and will continue to receive nonjudgmental, supportive care. But I will not compromise my values—or go against the social work code of ethics—and hide my beliefs.
I can’t speak for any other social worker, and can’t speak for any other therapist. But I can say that from my vantage point, certain ‘political’ stances go directly against the NASW Code of Ethics, its core values, ethical principles, and ethical standards (even though NASW itself seems to forget this sometimes).
I will “challenge social injustice” and advocate for social change and “living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs.”
I will “promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice.”
I will not be silent. I will not be neutral.
Truthfully, I’m independent/unaffiliated. I think the two-party system should be dismantled, because the whole left-versus-right, red-versus-blue, conservative-versus-liberal, democrat-versus-republican concept/dynamic keeps progress stalled (or reversed) and leaves us all fighting for scraps while the wealthiest get wealthier, but that’s another post entirely.
While the political system continues as it is, and until human rights are no longer up for debate, I will vote blue (even if/when that feels more like harm reduction than anything else).
And to be extra clear, some aspects of social justice I believe in are:
Basic needs are human rights. Everyone deserves clean water, food security, and housing.
Anti-discrimination, inclusion, and equity are vital and don’t mean exclusion or neglect.
Healthcare should be affordable and accessible.
Abolish ICE.
Restorative justice.
Free Palestine. Free Sudan. Free DRC. Free PR.
Reproductive justice.
Climate/environmental justice.
Trans rights are human rights.
The need to dismantle white body supremacy and the patriarchy.
References:
Duignan, B. (2026, September 18). Social justice. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-justice
Kemtrup, K. (2023, November 10). A new therapeutic neutrality. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-sense-of-therapy/202311/a-new-therapeutic-neutrality.
Khurana, A. (2024, April 24). Therapy is political. Medium. https://medium.com/@akshatkhurana/therapy-is-political-98f0ec9ad3d1.
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). NASW code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English.