Renunciations
What we don't do
These renunciations are strategic, not decorative. They are set out in the statutes, and the steering committee cannot lift them on its own. We publish them because an organisation is judged as much by what it forbids itself as by what it promises.
- We train no oneCARPEA carries out no training activity and sells no teaching content. Without this clause, it would become a school in disguise and lose all the other schools.
- We favour no methodNo approach is promoted over another. The Framework describes competences, not proprietary techniques.
- We grant no right to practiseAffiliation to CARPEA neither authorises nor forbids anything. We produce legibility, not authorisation.
- We will not call for the title to be regulatedNor for the protection of new professional titles. We act where the law has chosen not to, and we stop where it begins.
- We do not rank our members against one anotherThe levels describe a path, not a hierarchy of worth. No league table, no ranking, no organised competition.
- We settle no scientific controversy by a voteA controversy is not resolved by a deliberation. We organise its examination and publish the state of the debate. We do not close it.
- We apply no turnover criterionNeither volume of business, nor proportion of paid hours. Such criteria, used elsewhere, would shut out voluntary mentoring and accompaniment in the community or institutional sector.
- We do not deliberate in secretAgendas, records of decisions, reasoned refusals, accounts and disagreements are published. An alliance that deliberates behind closed doors is worth no more than the disorder it claims to correct.
- No member owns CARPEANo type of actor can secure a majority on the committee, and those who earn income from training never secure one, the initiator of the project included.
- We will not go back on the commonsThe publication of the Framework under an open licence is irreversible. No later decision can undo it.
Why this page exists
In unregulated fields, a dozen or so "international" organisations coexist, each carrying a standard, each issuing a seal sold by subscription. No one needed to forbid anything for no label to mean anything any more.
The main risk to CARPEA is not that an organisation blocks its path: it is that it becomes one more seal.
Three markers, to be defended
- Transversality, a framework that cuts across the professions, where every existing seal is single-method and serves the method that created it.
- The commons, a reference anyone can use without joining. A seal cannot do that: its model rests on exclusivity.
- The plurality of the table, four profiles, no possible majority for any one. A seal belongs to someone.
If any one of these three markers falls, CARPEA has become a seal. That is what we should be judged on.