Why journal therapy is not culturally neutral and why that matters
There is a quiet assumption that journaling is universal. That putting pen to paper is inherently accessible, therapeutic, and neutral. But is that really true? The more I have worked in the journal therapy arena and the more I have searched the landscape of “journal therapy,” “journal therapist,” and “journaling”, I have come to realise that even though the field is presented publicly, the more I have had to sit with an uncomfortable truth:
Journaling, as it is currently positioned in mainstream therapeutic and wellness spaces, is not culturally neutral. It is shaped by both gendered and racialised narratives that often go unspoken.
And what is unspoken still shapes who feels seen.
The gendered framing of emotional expression
Journaling is often marketed as soft, reflective, emotional labour, a “self-care tool” primarily associated with women, and while emotional expression is essential to wellbeing, research consistently shows that emotional labour and care practices are historically and socially gendered, often expected of women while being devalued in broader cultural systems. Even within therapeutic writing practices, the framing often leans toward introspection, emotional processing, and relational reflection, and as you may have rightly guessed, all of which are frequently coded as feminine. I, however, would beg to differ, as this is not inherently negative.
When we take the time to look at it, this narrow and restrictive view becomes limiting when journaling is unconsciously positioned as:
- “exclusively for women”
- “for emotional processing types”
- “ideal for those already socialised into expressive vulnerability”
Rather than a human tool for meaning-making across identities, cultures, and lived experiences.
So how does this tie into racial invisibility?
The racial invisibility in journaling and therapy culture
It has become increasingly difficult to overlook the racial homogeneity in the representation of journaling and journal therapy across online platforms, training programs, and public therapeutic content. I have primarily facilitated sessions aimed at supporting Afro-Caribbean communities. Despite the high demand for services like mine, attendance rates have been disappointing. Particularly among Black men, there is often a reluctance to participate in these spaces due to societal stereotypes that discourage emotional expression, emphasising the role of being a provider rather than seeking support.
In psychological research more broadly, there is a well-documented pattern of underrepresentation and skewed sampling.
For example:
- A systematic review of psychotherapy research found that White participants are consistently overrepresented in clinical studies compared to population diversity, while minoritised groups are underrepresented or inconsistently reported
- More recent clinical trials continue to show significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic/Latino participants in mental health interventions, limiting generalisability and cultural applicability of findings
- Research across psychotherapy literature has also highlighted that diversity is often reported about clients, but not clinicians, reinforcing a one-directional framing of “otherness” in mental health spaces
This matters because representation does not just affect participation in studies. It affects who sees themselves as belonging in the therapeutic process at all; therefore, when you search terms like journal therapy or journal therapist, the visual and narrative landscape is still overwhelmingly whitewashed, thereby reinforcing a subtle message about what healing “looks like.”
Whiteness, visibility, and the silent standard
Research on mental health imagery and services indicates that whiteness often serves as the unmarked default in therapeutic spaces, while racialised identities are either highly visible or completely absent.
One study describing youth mental health services found that white imagery dominated representations of clients, while people of colour were significantly underrepresented, shaping who is implicitly seen as a “typical” service user. What this insight screamed to me was that;
This is not just about imagery. It is about narrative authority. About who is centred as the imagined “healed subject.”And who is not.
So, where does journaling sit within this?
Journal therapy (as it is widely presented) is often framed as:
- deeply introspective
- emotionally articulate
- individually focused
- written in dominant language patterns
But these assumptions quietly align with specific cultural, educational, and linguistic norms.
Which raises important questions:
- Who was journaling originally designed for in therapeutic contexts?
- Whose emotional expression styles are being centred?
- Whose silence is being misread as resistance or lack of engagement?
- And who is being asked to translate themselves into a therapeutic language that was never built with them in mind?
Reflecting on these questions has allowed me to take stock of the humble beginnings of my work, as well as the times when I attempted to cater to "everyone." This behaviour was influenced by the evidence I was shown through my online algorithms and interactions. As a Black, working-class single mother who has utilised counselling as part of my mental well-being toolkit, I have witnessed firsthand how journal therapy can help individuals heal, rediscover, and reclaim their identity and voice. It fosters nourishing and intimate connections with oneself and others. More than this, it fuelled my desire to share his accessible and transformative practice with those who look like me.
Reclaiming journaling as a decolonised reflective space
This is not a rejection of journaling. It is a call to expand it.
I hope that through this brief overview, you will be able to recognise journaling as:
- embodied, not just written
- multilingual in expression, not just English-centred
- culturally adaptive, not fixed in Western therapeutic norms
- relational, not only individualistic
And most importantly, to acknowledge that healing practices are never neutral; they are shaped by the histories and systems they emerge from.
Where New Pathway Narratives stands moving forward...
At New Pathway Narratives, I hold journal therapy as a living, evolving practice.
All that I ask of you, my co-journalers, is that you come into my sessions with an understanding that the journal therapy I provide is anchored in:
- reflective of diverse lived experiences
- conscious of systemic bias
- inclusive of different emotional languages
- and honest about its own positioning within mental health culture
Because healing work cannot fully serve people if it does not first recognise the lenses through which it was built.
If journaling is to remain a therapeutic tool for all, then we must be willing to ask uncomfortable questions about who it currently serves best and who it quietly excludes.
Not to abandon the practice.
But to widen it. To return it to something more honest, more human, and more reflective of the world it claims to support.
To return it to something more honest, more human, and more reflective of the world it claims to support.
If you would like to learn more about this topic, here are some sources you can review.
- Delgado-Romero et al. (2005) Race and Ethnicity in Empirical Counselling and Counselling Psychology Research
- Hawkins et al. (2022) Representation of Race and Ethnicity in Counselling Journals
- Psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy systematic review (2024) showing underrepresentation in trials
- Kurki & Rask (2025) Hyper(in)visibility of Blackness in mental health imagery
- Systematic review of diversity reporting in art therapy literature
- Sohal et al. (2021) Efficacy of journaling in mental illness
Comments ()