Ethical Writing & Representation

​

 

When it comes to my capacity for coverage, I doubt that I can be a source of knowledge for all matters of therapy, despite my attempts to poke its parts. I concoct many conclusions about being a trader of therapy and suffer from the intolerable arrogance of believing I'm right each time. I chuckle at how dense I am, realising how important it would be for me to work on both evidence-based AND representational content. Often, these two don’t go hand-in-hand. 

​

What few stories, given the singlehood in my endeavour here, deserve to be highlighted? In creating publications for The Trade of Therapy, I grapple with these questions:

 

• How are my choices of topics, words and people telling of what I subconsciously value?

• How are my avoidances of topics telling of what I subconsciously fear, repel or exclude?

• How well do contexts and research findings uphold and challenge my personal hunches?

• Is there another person, who, by virtue of their experience or qualification, becomes a more appropriate storyteller than I, for certain content?

 

These questions follow the tenets of The Politics of Representation; the inherent values, biases and cultural beliefs that result in certain discussions being platformed, silently exiled or explicitly censored. These are some inquiries I explore that would help you understand the representation and diversity of this publishing space.

​

I am building The Trade of Therapy from the comforts of my room. Even still, I want this to be as far from armchair commentary as possible. TOT will only be as good as it is real (I'm looking at you, AI-LinkedIn. You desensitize me, even to my biggest passions).

​

 

The Scandal of it All!

​

Cultures are strange in their abilities to oust a practice like therapy to a position of taboo, shame and secrecy and yet simultaneously assign it a decree of intrigue and sensationalism. This natural paradox creates concerns about the responsibilities I possess as a writer for the profession. I am painfully aware of how non-practitioners can hold inaccurate, clickbait-y and hurtful ideas about therapy. While I do wish to explore what’s not being written about therapy and demystify some concepts, these will never come at the cost of making a spectacle of someone's struggles. 

 

There's an ethical debate around whether the therapist can talk about their clients’ stories. Sourcing stories from the therapy room requires me to far outweigh any risks with tangible benefits.

​

• Does the story sufficiently conceal people's identities and any identifiable life experiences?

• Does my representation of them serve to democratise the practice of therapy?

• What are the possible impacts of having one's narrative written about? What amount of safety and respect in my writings will cushion the vulnerability that occurs to readers who relate to the injury they read about?

• Do subaltern practices, thoughts and systems with which I may disagree still receive a level of respect and understanding in my writings?

• Is my writing creating an unconsented sensation of a community’s struggle?

• To what degree can I anticipate that social media will safely hold the vulnerable narratives of others?

 

In my attempts to defuse the alarms raised by these questions, I am setting certain precedents for my writing. Most anecdotes that refer to client experiences in my writings are thematic replications (and not direct transpositions) of single or collective occurrences from my professional experience. I am dedicated to prioritising clients’ security over any content value. If my narrations closely represent a lived experience of any particular individual, it is done after seeking their documented consent to reproduce their stories, making all efforts to continue to conceal their identities. 

​

I am first and foremost a therapist. I consider the therapy space to be sacred, and I am indebted to my clients for trusting me to be their co-traveller. No content that is believed to impede this sacrality will be published.

​

I actively believe in holding space for different sentiments. Readers reserve the right to offer their feedback, and I reserve my right to remove any publication which may have, in retrospect, hurt the sentiments of any community. In such an occurrence, republishing writings that are no longer openly available on TOT will not be permitted. 

​

In any stage of producing content, the scales of ethics are always shifting.  A heavy weight sitting on the side of collective benefit is the hope that people will be more open and exposed to therapeutic insights. It is this weight that I carry as the foundation stone of The Trade of Therapy.