Antiquated Criticisms of CBT Treated as Novel and with a New Twist: The Dangerous Politicization of Psychological Interventions

A recent article by Rowland (2024) was given broad attention when showcased on a widely read blog, Mad In America. Rowland’s article caricatures CBT as monolithic; suggests it is premised on excessive scientism and medicalization; that it is based on flawed data; that CBT relies excessively on protocols; and lacks a coherent underlying philosophical framework. These are all criticisms that have served to divide the profession and lack merit on grounds we lay out in this article. The novel element in Rowland’s article is a call for politicizing therapy, part of a recent movement in the mental health professions that has not been adequately examined for its putative risks, nor has it been suggested with sufficient humility for the political competencies that are undefined in professional training. This article addresses these serious challenges and offers a cautionary note about the hazards of assuming no harm for unproven additions to established therapy models.