I think I have some understanding of how the Athenians felt towards Socrates: he, like Smail, was quick to find faults but rather reticent about offering solutions. Infuriating!

Sometimes this made me feel disheartened about the prospects of ever achieving meaningful change, whether on a personal/individual level or on a societal/global level. The overwhelming forces of power and interest outlined by Smail are so monumental and seemingly impervious to challenge that his exhortation that It is incumbent upon us to do what we can, even if we cannot do much, seems woefully inadequate. Such light that breaks through is in the call for solidarity amongst the weak against the strong, in the face of forces that understand the strength of numbers and which accordingly seek to atomise society into self-interested individuals preoccupied, and so distracted, with personal gratification.

Smail's stance on clinical psychology and therapy is damning, positing that professional vested interest gives rise to the view that the causes and cures of distress are personal and internal, and so amenable to change in a therapeutic setting, whereas he sees the actual causes of distress to be mainly environmental and cultural, with roots far beyond the horizon visible to most, and thus amenable only to political solutions. The best a therapist can do is to be a companion in this existential theatre and hope that some degree of clarity in respect of the bounds of personal agency arises, freeing people from the burden of assuming responsibility for the causes of their own misery.

Whilst I have felt a certain bleakness in the picture Smail has painted, I find myself largely persuaded by him. Quite how this will influence my own practice as a therapist, I'm not yet sure. ( )