Sociopolitical Activism or Conversational Partnership?

I know that Narrative and Collaborative Therapists share a lot in common as mentioned in my blog date September 20, 2004. I think that the following statement has put me into a situation in which the client may get oppressed.

Here is the paragraph that I am struggling with from the article http://foucault.info/weblog/000045.html:

"One of the critiques targeted at collaborative therapists is that while they state that they have no particular commitment to a therapeutic direction or intentional agenda, their practice in fact is both deliberate and purposeful. To the extent that collaborative therapists position themselves in a social constructionist epistemology and are dedicated to facilitating the production of multiple voices, they are inevitably motivated to follow one direction more than another in the therapeutic process. From some narrative therapists' points of view, the conversational partner is neither unintentional nor without purpose. Narrative therapists as social activists are also concerned by collaborative therapists' disinterest in acknowledging the sociopolitical discourses that impact and may systematically oppress individuals. Some are concerned that this disinterest invites the potential for therapists to collude with oppressive cultural practices. That is, at best, it restricts the therapist's option to assist the client, and at worst, it adds to the client's oppression. Collaborative therapists respond that, on the contrary, narrative therapists' directive approach and the sociopolitical stance that underpins it may inadvertently push clients toward "alternative stories" that clients feel compelled to agree with, thus potentially producing another form of oppression (C. Smith, personal communication, January 30, 2002). Perhaps these distinctions can provide a note of caution to those narrative therapists who become too pushy pursuing a storyline that is deemed "preferred," while at the same time notifying collaborative therapists to be sensitive to not collude with culturally oppressive practices."

Now that I am cautioned, I am wondering what the area of gray may look like. The dilemma for me is that I may be guilty of taking political activism in the room and at other times I am guilty of remaining a silent while letting the oppression occur.

In response to my thoughts, a colleague wrote:
"I think the scariest thing about what the article says about 'overcoming oppression' was not the call to arms for the soldiers fighting oppression, but the way it critiqued Collaborative Therapy, almost as if were evil for creating a form of therapy that honored the client's own quest to find his own path."

I feel best, as a therapist, about not developing a fight against oppression in which my voice could drown out the client's voice or path. I take an activist stance as a therapist by joining professional organizations but I do not think that it is very honorable to do such in therapy sessions with clients. I may express my thoughts but I would disengage if it does not fit in with the direction that the client wants to take the session.