Original manuscript & recording released:

January 23, 2026

Making the Invisible Visible: Implicit and Explicit Meaning, Bias, and Memory in Therapeutic Practice

Andrew DeGroat, N.D.

A large part of what shapes human behavior, perception, and healing happens outside of conscious awareness. In clinical and therapeutic settings, what gets said out loud (values, intentions, ethical commitments) often matters less than what is quietly built into the structure of the work itself. Pacing, authority, and expectation can shape outcomes far more than stated ideals. Because of this, the difference between implicit and explicit processes isn’t just a theoretical concern; it sits at the heart of ethical practice. This essay looks at implicit versus explicit meaning, extends that distinction to bias and memory, and argues that making implicit structures visible is essential for protecting bodily dignity in therapeutic work. 

🎧 Listen to the author read this article

Implicit and Explicit Meaning 

Explicit meaning is what is clearly stated and consciously agreed upon. It includes spoken values, informed consent, and clearly articulated goals. Because it is explicit, it can be questioned, renegotiated, or refused. Implicit meaning works differently. It is not announced; it is absorbed. It is communicated through tone, repetition, roles, routines, and unspoken expectations. People learn it through experience rather than instruction, often without realizing it (Polanyi 1966).

In therapy, explicit meaning shows up in consent forms, verbal reassurances, and statements like “you’re in control.” Implicit meaning shows up in subtler ways: who sets the pace, whose interpretation carries the most weight, which outcomes are praised, and which reactions quietly get discouraged. As I argue in The Body Worth Doctrine, these implicit structures determine how therapy actually functions, regardless of what is explicitly claimed. Making them visible is an ethical act because it clarifies consent, redistributes power, and protects bodily dignity (DeGroat 2025). Because implicit meaning does not require conscious agreement, it often has more influence than explicit belief (Kahneman 2011). That makes it especially powerful and especially dangerous when working with vulnerable populations.

Implicit and Explicit Bias

This same distinction is well established in research on bias. Explicit bias refers to attitudes and beliefs people consciously endorse and can report. These are shaped by social norms and personal reflection. Implicit bias, on the other hand, consists of automatic associations that operate outside awareness and may directly contradict a person’s stated values (Greenwald and Banaji 1995). Research shows that people who genuinely reject prejudice at an explicit level may still act on implicit biases absorbed through culture and institutions (Devine 1989). Because these biases are rarely named, they often go unexamined. In therapeutic settings, implicit bias can affect whose pain is taken seriously, whose resistance is labeled as pathology, and whose emotional expression is validated or dismissed. When these dynamics remain implicit, they operate without accountability. Making them explicit does not magically eliminate bias, but it does create the conditions for responsibility, reflection, and repair.

Implicit and Explicit Memory

The difference between implicit and explicit processes becomes especially important when applied to memory. Explicit memory, also called declarative memory, includes facts and autobiographical events that can be consciously recalled and put into words. This form of memory relies heavily on hippocampal functioning (Squire 2004).

Implicit memory works differently. It is stored and expressed without conscious recall and includes procedural memory, emotional conditioning, and bodily responses shaped by past experience. Traumatic experiences are often encoded this way, particularly when the nervous system is overwhelmed and unable to integrate what is happening at the time (Levine 2015; van der Kolk 2014).

Peter Levine notes that traumatic memory is often “fragmented, nonverbal, and organized around sensation and impulse rather than narrative” (Levine 2015, 34). This means people may have intense physical or emotional reactions in the present without knowing why. The body holds the memory even when the story is missing.

In therapy, focusing only on explicit insight while ignoring implicit memory risks overriding the body’s protective intelligence. A lack of narrative does not mean a lack of meaning.

Ethical Relevance and the Body Worth Doctrine

Together, these distinctions between implicit and explicit meaning, bias, and memory form the foundation of the Body Worth Doctrine. The doctrine holds that the body is not just something to work through or analyze, but a source of dignity, intelligence, and authority in its own right. When implicit structures are left unexamined, therapy can unintentionally recreate coercive dynamics, even while explicitly promoting autonomy. Clients may push past bodily limits, comply automatically, or interpret discomfort as personal failure rather than a response to structural pressure. In these situations, consent exists in name only, not in lived experience.

Making implicit structures explicit is therefore an ethical responsibility. It allows practitioners to notice how power is operating, how expectations shape behavior, and how bodily responses signal boundaries that words may not capture. Levine’s emphasis on pacing, titration, and respect for defensive responses fits closely with this view; safety and regulation must come before interpretation or catharsis (Levine 2015). The Body Worth Doctrine prioritizes dignity over insight. Healing does not require intensity, emotional excavation, or narrative coherence for their own sake. Sometimes the most ethical intervention is restraint, lowing down, reducing pressure, and allowing the body to remain partially unknowable.

Conclusion

Implicit processes shape meaning, bias, and memory in ways that explicit statements alone cannot control. In therapeutic work, what goes unspoken often has more impact than what is clearly stated. Ethical practice therefore requires ongoing attention to implicit structures, especially those involving power, authority, and bodily expectation. Making the implicit explicit does not weaken therapeutic depth or rigor. It grounds them in consent, accountability, and respect for bodily dignity. In this sense, explicitness is not just a technique but an ethical stance; one that affirms the body’s worth not for what it produces or reveals, but for what it already is.

References

DeGroat, Andrew. 2025. The Body Worth Doctrine. Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing.

Devine, Patricia G. 1989. “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (1): 5–18.

Greenwald, Anthony G., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1995. “Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes.” Psychological Review 102 (1): 4–27.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Levine, Peter A. 2015. Trauma and Memory: Brain and Body in a Search for the Living Past. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Squire, Larry R. 2004. “Memory Systems of the Brain: A Brief History and Current Perspective.” Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82 (3): 171–177.

van der Kolk, Bessel A. 2014. The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Viking.