Call to Arms: it is time for Psychologists to become activists!
My personal story
As a forensic psychologist, I left the NHS when I realized I was complicit in a system that silenced the most vulnerable and marginalized people in our society. Weekly “equality group” meetings, supposedly created to challenge inequality and oppressive practices within the trust felt like hollow tokenistic gestures. Without meaningful action, they left me feeling hopeless and helpless. It became clear these were just another tick boxing exercise designed to pacify us and to prevent real change.
Frustrated by the lack of progress, I voiced my anger to supervisors and senior staff, who attempted to superficially “validate” and placate my anger. The head of service, in a self-congratulatory tone told me how he’d done “too much psychoanalysis to get angry over these matters”, as if detachment were a virtue. I wanted to swear, fight and argue all the way to the top as I felt being trapped inside the Matrix, expected to get on with my job, stay quiet while the system continued with the status quo. I was seen as the “difficult” psychologist, too challenging, as I was creating too much noise in the hegemony of the system that was designed exactly as it was intended to hold onto its power.
Exhausted, I chose to step away and build my private practice, believing I could make more meaningful change outside these structures.
Collective rage and choosing sides
Recently, I felt that same anger and helplessness on a much larger scale while witnessing the genocide of Palestinians. However, this time, it wasn’t just mine, it was collective. What I was experiencing was being echoed by many others. Many of my clients of colour and I shared the same trauma: the sense of being gaslit, betrayed, and abandoned by the world and by politically “moderate” or apolitical friends. The silence and indifference deepened the racial divide we had always felt but often muted in order to avoid making others feel uncomfortable and to fit in.
However, this time, the hypocrisy was too blatant to ignore; it was right in front of our eyes, live streamed, and there was no hiding from the truth. We couldn’t continue suppressing our pain, rage, and identities to make others feel comfortable. A line had been drawn. I had to choose: either embrace my clients' (and my own) heritage and rage, or continue the moderate, neutral stance modeled by my former supervisors.
I refused to repeat that harm. My clients needed solidarity. They needed me to join them in their fury. We’re angry—and we have the right to be. Their need to swear, scream, deviate, and express their rage was ancestral, systemic, and entirely justified. No amount of psychoanalytic detachment/”processing” will take that away—nor should it. I don’t want to analyze my anger away. I want my therapist to be angry with me.
Costly Comfort
These moments led me to reflect on how white-centric “neutrality,” the placation of anger, and “moderate” political views perpetuate injustice, marginalisation, trauma, and oppression. They function like avoidant psychological coping mechanisms—creating an illusion of comfort, a short-term mirage that shields us from having to confront real atrocities and suffering. But their usefulness is short-lived. Over time, they allow oppression to fester and prevent real change.
If one of the core aims of psychologists/therapists is to understand human behaviour, reduce suffering, and promote wellbeing—especially for the most vulnerable—then challenging neutrality must become a priority. And that is what this article aims to do: to make the case for why psychologists, in particular, must take a stand.
Problems with Neutrality
It wasn’t long ago that psychologists labeled homosexuality a mental illness, supported eugenics, and pathologized resistance to slavery with diagnoses like Drapetomania. Did neutrality cause change? Or was it activism—the refusal to stay neutral—that pushed psychology forward? What are our modern-day Drapetomanias? What biases and blind spots are we failing to confront? Are we humble enough to acknowledge our flaws? And how much suffering are we perpetuating by clinging onto neutrality?
Activists in mental health were the ones who fought to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Imagine the intergenerational impact we could’ve had if psychology had taken a stand against homophobia, colonialism, and racism sooner.
We’ve been conditioned to believe neutrality is ethical—that psychologists must avoid political expression, particularly where clients might see it. Institutions like the NHS and NOMS reinforce this belief, often sanctioning those who step outside of it. Neutrality is sanctified, equated often with ethical practice, and given further authority by being baked into many therapeutic modalities (like psychoanalysis and CBT), making it less likely for others to want to challenge them.
But we need to interrogate this. Who wrote these “ethical” codes? Who designed these therapy models? Whom do/did they serve and which social class system did it serve? When we insist on neutrality, whose lived experiences are ignored, invalidated or harmed? When we critically attempt to answer these questions, the results reveal structures that were designed for the elite, white, middle-class, Eurocentric populations—and not necessarily the most marginalized groups that need help and are overrepresented in mental health services.
The Role of Psychologists in a Polarized World
We’re living in an era where polarization and division dominate the discourse and have become the new norm. People’s lived experiences are denied or gaslit and Western hypocrisy is on full display. And neutrality—along with silence, “moderate” political views, and black-and-white thinking—has only fueled the fire.
As Psychologists, because of our unique skill set, we have the advantage to confront these problems by providing meaningful reflections that encourage critical thinking and introspection. We are uniquely skilled at pattern recognition, developing complex formulation, and offering nuanced perspectives. We are trained to make sense of the unseen, to connect dots across contexts. These skill sets are desperately needed now.
In the UK, Clinical Psychologists are required to train in systemic modalities as part of their core training (i.e. understanding how groups, systems and environments affect our wellbeing). Similarly, Forensic Psychologists are also adept at understanding the impact of systems such as prisons and secure hospital on offending and recovery. Given such expertise, one would think that psychologists should be in the frontier of professions to really understand the impact of intergenerational trauma, racism, oppression and colonialism from developmental, macro and micro levels. And yet, mainstream therapists/psychologists have often focused on individualist narratives—encouraging clients to change their thoughts, beliefs, or lifestyles, rather than changing the environments harming them.
Indeed almost none of our institutions (e.g. NHS, NOMS, private sector) and training programmes have adopted systemic modalities as their core ethos of interventions, and certainly not in anti-colonial or anti-oppressive frameworks. How could they since doing so means dismantling of the power structure that makes the organisation what it is. If racism, oppression, and colonial legacies are baked into our institutions and system we operate within, then surely political/social justice activism should be considered as the main systemic interventions. We don’t just need therapies. We need psychologists to champion and lead such movements.
What can psychologists do?
Identify as Anti Oppressive therapist / take a stance:
Why was it important/needed for psychologists to openly identify as feminists or LGBTQ therapists? I assume partly because it communicated allegiance, solidarity and the opportunity to offer a unique understanding and safe space to their clients. We need to see more practitioners explicitly identifying as anti-oppressive or anti-colonial to also communicate such safety and understanding.
Historically psychiatry and psychology has been used as means of control, punishment, manipulation and oppression against people of colour. If we want these communities to seek help, who are overly represented in our MH services, then we need to earn their trust. We must show we’re on their side—not indifferent, not neutral, and certainly not siding with their oppressors.
Taking such stance should be radical and bottom-up commitment, not in a tokenistic / CPD training way. We have to reject the hollow capitalistic diversity gestures coming from individuals or corporates as they perpetuate the problems.
Join in collective anger
Within Schema Therapy and Internal Family Systems (IFS), it’s widely recognized that every part of us needs to be heard, understood, and validated. There are no “bad” parts; in fact, much of our suffering arises from suppressing important parts that are trying to communicate unmet needs. While these therapies don’t explicitly address parts shaped by systemic oppression, colonialism, or ancestral trauma, their core ethos still holds value. For example, our collective grief during times of tragedy may signal a need for community connection and solidarity, rather than purely individualised coping.
Anger, similarly, arises when our rights, needs, or boundaries have been violated—something deeply familiar to those impacted by colonisation and systemic oppression. It exists to prompt change in our environments. But when systems are so entrenched in injustice and colonialism, that anger is often rendered powerless, leading to chronic helplessness and hopelessness.
Therapists and psychologists often try to just superficially validate, “manage,” or soothe this anger. Whilst soothing and regulating may offer short-term comfort, in the long run it risks disconnecting people from essential parts of themselves—from their bodies, spirits, heritage and ancestral rage—deepening the very helplessness they are trying to heal and therefore prevents systemic change. This is often done with good intention, and possible based on the theoretical underpinning that anger is often a secondary emotion and that it needs to be processed/validated to give us access to the vulnerabilities and sadness underneath it. However, I argue that anger in cases of oppression, injustice and structural racism is often the primary emotion and needs to be respected in its own right. As psychologists, we must instead help clients locate the source of their anger, honour its legitimacy, and channel it toward collective action and solidarity. For example: “Yes, hearing that also makes me angry. Let’s do something about it.”
Fight against the system by making others and the system “uncomfortable”
One of today’s “Drapetomanias” might be found in programmes like Prevent or mandated Anger Management. These models pathologize dissent, locating the problem in the individual rather than in the system that created their pain. Anger Management has been weaponized against Black people to control and pathologise their legitimate anger. Prevent has been used to silence protest by branding righteous dissent and fight against the system as “radicalization.”
Psychologists must take a stance by making such systems uncomfortable. We must confront and expose the structures that label resistance as pathology and rage as a threat. Who gets to decide who the “terrorist” is? Why is it the individual fighting back that’s demonised, while the state or group responsible for generations of rape, colonisation, theft, torture, and displacement not only walk free, but gets to play “masters” against these vicitms? Why do some countries invest heavily in “preventive” programmes like Prevent, while others do not? And why do those labeled as “radicalised” overwhelmingly come from nationalities historically oppressed and marginalised by their colonisers? If the root cause of so-called radicalisation or terrorist behaviour is systemic oppression and colonial violence, then surely the solution should lie in transforming those systems—not in pathologising the individuals who are reacting to them.
Final Thoughts
Neutrality is not harmless. It is a protective shield for the powerful. As psychologists, we can no longer afford to sit quietly, intellectualize injustice, or prioritize comfort over truth. Our ethics must evolve with the world we live in. We have the tools. We have the insight. What we need now is the courage. Let us be bold. Let us be loud. Let’s be angry together.
