关于心理咨询师证书被取消的思考

国家决定取消心理咨询师这个国家职业资格，一石激起千层浪，于是众说纷纭。

关于这个事情，我有一些想法在这里说说：

1，自改革开放以来，个体和机构逐渐从国家或者国有的机制中脱嵌出来，这是国家进行体制改革的进程，一直在进行着。

2，政府职能部门不在直接管理“心理咨询师”这个“职业资格”，交与专业协会、行业协会来管理，这种模式也有很多好处，比如说：专业人士管理专业人士，这是有利于发展的，专业人士自己聚在一起商讨如何发展，形成专业协会的政策。当然这种政策的力度，比不上国家行政力量的强制力。也就是管理权力降级了，相关人员作为公民，仍然接受一般法的调整（或称没有什么变化），我们还是要做守法公民。

这里面最核心的东西是，无论有没有这个执业资格，都无法和医师执业资格相比较，保险是否支持，其他的并不重要。而这些重要的东西，并没有因为这个证书的监管权力移交，而发生变化。

活跃在专业培训领域的专家和大学里面教授心理咨询和治疗的专家，也还继续做他们的工作，也就是说，群体的专业素养还是靠这些人，具体工作也还是这些人来做。这一点也没有变化。。。

3，很多人针对国家的行政决议，跳出来叫好，说这个群体太差劲了，要严管！诸如此类的。。。对于这些声音，我们专业人士和公众要怎么看呢？

首先这是一种社会批评，在这个时代最不缺的就是批评。其实网络上充斥着各种批评，不仅仅是针对这个领域了，比如教育、医疗、房地产等，这个根本就是什么重点和热点。我想说的是，就是这个专业人士不要随便跳出来批评，因为你的批评，将会带来社会对专业人士和公共机构的不信任，这是很明确的！这样的传播结果是一定存在的。。。然后，批评、取缔了一批人，剩下的就是好的吗？然后每个人好像都要去表达一下，我是不一样的。大大的提高了专业人士工作成本。

而专业人士要表达自己的专业性，除了接受过训练之外，就是有自己的工作成绩，工作成绩大概就是专业文章和科普工作，以及咨询实践的结果，以恰当形式表达出来。无论这些专业人士是持有“心理咨询师证书”还是其它什么证书，这些都是必要的。。。

所以，我就不明白，为什么不去谈论，国家把这个权力移交给行业协会、专业协会，协会要做什么，面对那些工作，如何更好 的促进发展，出来谈一谈，而是那么多“个人”跳出来“批评”！！！

4，一些人类学的视角

基于全球化，全球流行文化的特征，比如“自助”、自助大师、企业设立的培训系统等等，已经开始变得势不可挡，这一点中国比德国更加明显---以上观点来自于《KNOWLEDGE WARS》Eric C. Hendriks

基于后现代性或个人主义的崛起，越来越多的人愿意采取“自助”，或者跟从“自助大师”、“自助系统”学习，当前国内的心理学畅销书，心理学网红就是证据。

这种非官方的，非权力机构的，流行的助人系统将会持续的旺盛很长时间。

说这些是想要把这样的一种非官方，和心理咨询师不再是官方的证书，两个事情放在一起，来促进一些思考。。。

附一小段《KNOWLEDGE WARS》Eric C. Hendriks的文字

Twenty Chinese university professors dressed in ill-fitting black and grey suits, a pile of burning books, and a host of overeager journalists. On April 13, 2010 twenty professors of the South China University of Technology engage in a book burning, setting aflame 560 books which they deem “spiritual rubbish” ( 心 灵 垃 圾 ). Through this unusual act of symbolic belligerence, the professors protest against what they consider the cultural dominance of superficiality and commercialism. Among the books selected to be set on fire, self-help bestsellers feature prominently. A Mandarin translation of Spencer Johnson’s international self-help blockbuster Who Moved My Cheese? is thrown into the fire for being “misleading.” Likewise, fifteen Chinese self-help books imitating Will Bowen’s A Complaint Free World are thrown in for being “cheap fakes.”

The protesting professors achieved their most immediate goal: attracting plenty of media attention. Much of that media attention was negative, however, because even journalists who are generally sympathetic toward the idea of challenging “spiritual rubbish” still consider burning books a counter-productive and nonsensical practice. One television news program commented that the job of a professor is to teach from books, not to burn them.1

All in all, the book burning of April 13, 2010 had a brief period of fame within the Chinese media and immediately thereafter disappeared into obscurity. The book burning was certainly a trivial event in that it failed to demonstrate the power of the intellect over “spiritual rubbish.” If anything, it demonstrated the opposite by foregrounding the intellectual’s powerlessness vis-à-vis the dynamics of the mass media and the global market. After all, the simple fact that the professors had to resort to a desperate gesture of aggression indicates that they lack the power to actually change the cultural status quo.

n all its apparent triviality, however, the book burning nevertheless reveals something significant, albeit unintentionally: it reveals that the self-help field, the self-help guru as a figure of public controversy, and even the intellectual criticisms of self-help, have all grown collectively to the dimensions of a globalizing phenomenon. It was only a couple of decades ago that both self-help and criticism of self-help were strictly Anglo-American affairs. Today, however, they have become increasingly global, so that even in China the mainstream literature that provokes intellectuals is that of the international self-help movement.

With playful sarcasm, you could therefore claim that the protesting professors had in fact, without themselves knowing it, celebrated the globalization of the self-help controversy. At the same time, however, their protest also reflected Chinese idiosyncrasies: among them, China’s relatively undeveloped culture of public criticism; the marginalized position of scholars and intellectuals; post-Dengian commercialism; and perhaps even the historical legacy of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) with its trail of anti-capitalist riots.

That tension between global homogeneity and national idiosyncrasy is in fact what defines self-help’s spread across the globe in general. This book will show that self-help and the controversy around it have come to constitute a global phenomenon, but that the exact way in which self-help relates to other fields in each national locale depends on the specific structures of national regimes and national public spheres. That local conditions matter is hardly surprising. The surprising part is that, in spite of those divergent local conditions, the self-help guru sprouts up around the globe as a public figure, one that attracts admiration and controversy while representing a stirring challenge to official knowledge elites.

也许当前对于这个国家改革的舆论，可以从这位人类学者的视角下来理解。。。意思是说，这个时代已经具备了一个基础，就是个人力量的崛起，不需要冠之以官方、医学这样的名号，一样可以开展工作。也不知道哪一方的力量更大！？

5，科学实践哲学和语言学的视角

福柯说知识就是权力！我想很多人都知道，我们用什么名字，类似于我是医生，对应的人就会想我可以找他看病。这就是名字的力量，很强大。

于是呢，有些人就害怕失去自己的名字，失去了力量。

如果我的证书不是国家颁发的了，我是不是就不那么值得信任了，有些人开始慌乱。这个其实不必要，本文第4部分，已经介绍了全球化的趋势，其实还有很多其他情况，都是有利的。

另一个重要的视角，无论是心理学还是精神医学，都是科学。然后作为科学知识，对于社会文化而言，是一种地方性知识，科学工作者应该明确知识就是权力，自己的科学知识对自己有权利，但是不可以对社会公众有权力，这是科学工作者的伦理，或者说实践哲学。

所以呢，心理学、精神医学工作者，本身就应该对社会文化有足够的尊重，来开展自己的工作，而不是轻易的、偷懒的使用“自己名字的权力”和“知识的权力”

6.总结

我认为，这些社会变革和进程，都预示着新的契机，建立在对当前社会情况恰当描述基础上的契机。要淡定从容，认真工作。既不要跳出来胡乱批评，也不要惊慌失措。把注意力聚焦在社会需求和如何更好的做工作上就好了。

文章转载自心理学空间，如有侵权，请告知删除，谢谢！