The issue here is one of categories - which problems can realistically only be resolved by changing external factors & which require an individual to address an unhealthy psychological perspective & move forward more positively with more productive behaviours. https://twitter.com/money_behavior/status/1297628980359692300

We nearly all understand that some issues require external social changes. Slavery, for example, needed to be abolished by law. Possibly a slave could endure it better if s/he adopted a stoical attitude but no sane person would ever suggest this as the solution.

Most of us understand that some issues require internal psychological changes. Grief, for example, is something a person really has to work through personally with support if needed. The solution of preventing anyone from ever dying is neither possible nor reasonable.

Where the conflict currently arises is with the majority of issues right now where the solution could be argued to be individual or social. Then 'individual responsibility' & 'societal change' clash hard.

There is a problem with some people, mostly conservatives, advocating individual responsibility as the sole solution to a problem that can be shown convincingly and with data to have social inequalities as a major cause.

eg, some American conservatives (both black & white) will argue that individuals working harder is the solution to lower educational attainment among black kids while neglecting the difference in the schools they have access to.

However, there does not seem to be a problem with psychologists & psychotherapists & counsellors suggesting that CBT will solve the problem of school districts or economic deprivation so this cannot be what the individual was referring to.

The problem that a lot of psychologists etc are coming to me with at the moment is that they are being limited in being able to help clients take control of issues that are within their control by interpreting them via a need for social change.

This is a problem associated with an over-reliance on social constructionism & neglect of individualism. We see a lot of this. In case you are not sure what I mean, let me give you some examples you'll probably recognise.

eg, A young woman has an eating disorder that has left her dangerously underweight. A psychologist would want to work on the internal workings of her mind that are leading her to hurt herself. SocJus activists would want to focus on 'diet culture' & 'objectification of women."

This is a difference of 'individual change' and 'social change.' While social critique is always necessary, the young woman would probably be best helped by being treated as an individual & not as evidence of an oppressive, patriarchal & fatphobic society.

A young man could be fighting a lot & at risk of being seriously hurt, seriously hurting others or being arrested. A psychologist would want to look at what's going on in his head that makes him so angry & destructive. SocJus would claim a society that produces toxic masculinity.

Again, this is the conflict between "individual change" & "social change." The psychologist's job is to help the individual understand & deal with his anger & whatever is underlying it, not to slot him neatly into an ideological conception of socially constructed power dynamics.

I am increasingly hearing from people within psychology & psychotherapy who are concerned that some within their profession are using it for interpreting individuals' psychological problems in ideological terms & impressing this upon their client which doesn't help them.

Lukianoff & Haidt looked at how CSJ ideas can function 'reverse CBT.' This is because CBT gets you not to read a load of negative stuff into interactions but step back, breathe, get perspective, resist the urge to catastrophise & instead evaluate in a more balanced way

eg, If a woman interprets someone cancelling a plan because they are unwell as really being because they didn't like her, CBT would tell her to consider that they might really be unwell & reschedule for another time. CSJ would tell them it was probably due to racism or sexism.

It's possible that occasionally something like this is due to racism or sexism but the psychologist's job is not to assume this & get her client to. It's to look at the individual's thought processes & see if they are causing them problems & help them to see how to overcome this.

Psychologists can also help someone see when the problem isn't them but somebody else but this is also individual.
eg, There's nothing wrong with you. Your partner is being abusive due to problems of his/her own. We see this by his/her pattern of behaviour & yours.

However, if the psychologist is assuming the problem is always caused by a person being black, female, trans etc in a society that is white supremacist, patriarchal or transphobic because of their own ideological conception of the world, this is a problem.

I have been seeing a therapist for nearly a year to help me, among other things, process the amount of abuse I get as a result of addressing sensitive topics. She doesn't tell me I'm oppressed by this. We look at how I can stop letting it affect me so much. Because that's her job

I have absolutely no idea what her own politics & conception of the world are. This is how it should be.