1/ Are you suggested we do away with secondary positioned approaches like cultural competence, study of identity or normativity, difference and diversity?
A: No. We will always have multitude of disciplines, specialisms and additional topics. The WS is asking for a essential inclusion across mainstream ground knowledge ( self dev, theory, relationship, skills, practice) of mainstream helping including access/ibility as self context and lived context is part understand and exploring experiences for all clients.
2/ is there a risk that therapists will have an agenda if embeddjng contextual awareness?
I often hear people say that by accounting for clients’ context or having a socio-political viewpoint (e.g., environment, social position, normativity/difference, material conditions, discrimination, culture, beliefs, political policies) therapists might have an agenda and/or take away clients autonomy.
Yes, it is true over identification with any matter whether own trauma, lived experience, particular expertise, social issues, or personal (e.g. political) beliefs can take away from autonomy. But this is baked into ethical practices.
We always stay client directed but empathically attuning to context is (mostly) a missing part of conceptualisation, relationality, and support.
3/ Surely the individual person to person matters the most?
Yes and client directed. But we also recognise inner experience, interpersonal AND contextual interplay in forming experience. Ignoring context gives a more complete scopenof understanding. Material and environmental conditions are important lens of understanding.
The Wholeness Solution for Training, Curricula & Practice 