ABSTRACT
The conventional pro-professionalization view is well expressed by C. Sills. Contrast Sills's view with that expressed by R. House and Nick Totton, that the institutional professionalization of the therapy field "would be a disaster"—a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion which is by no means reached merely, or even primarily, because of the many reasons so ably articulated by R. Mowbray. Within the therapy field there has in years been a quite passionate debate about the centrality or otherwise of what is called the "core theoretical model", particularly in relation to practitioner training. A close analysis of the exchange between C. Feltham and S. Wheeler provides a wonderful example of profession-centred therapy's regime of truth, and its seeming need to reproduce itself—not unlike Louis Althusser's "ideological state apparatus" Within the world-view of modernity, theory is typically clung on to as representing some kind of "objective truth", promoting methods which are, thereby, assumed to be pretty much infallible.
