Question 1:
First – order cybernetics adheres to a set of principles that we can name and define as follows: 1. Recursion: Recursion can be defined as “ relating to or constituting a procedure that can repeat itself indefinitely or “ one step of a procedure involves invoking the procedure itself “.( Wikipedia 2015).
If we translate this principle to simple cybernetics we can say that this theory does not seek a linear cause of a situation like in A occurs and then B occurs because of A. But sees, for example, people in a family influence each other and each other’s behaviours and this is a constant flow of influence. So the reciprocal relationship is important : “ …meaning is derived from the relationship between individuals …. as each defines the other “.(Becvar and Becvar 2014 8th ed , p 70 ). The use of this principle prohibits that we only see part of what is happening in a family but focus on the whole. 2. Feedback: When a process is in action we want to evaluate what is happening. In first-order cybernetics we do not look for a good or bad result. We talk about positive and negative feedback. If a family goes through life changes for example a baby is born the roles of the father and mother need to change . If the mother takes on her new role but the father does not this creates stress for the system. Something has to change to ease the stress. Father and mother influence each other so the behaviour of the father can stress the mother but the father can feel pressure form the mother. If now something changes in the relationship that eases the stress we talk about positive feedback. If nothing changes this is negative feedback. In some instances it can be a “good” result when nothing changes. I refer here to the example of the woman who goes for a pregnancy test and the test shows she is not pregnant. No change so a negative feedback in the jargon of first-order cybernetics. But the result is “good” for her because she does not want a baby now.( Becvar and Becvar, 2014, p 71).So if positive or negative feedback is good or bad can only be decided by the people involved. 3. Morphostasis and Morphogenesis: Morphostasis has to do with a form that stays the same and morphogenesis points to the origin and development of a form. According to first- order cybernetics both are needed in a system. In Becvar and Becvar ( 2014, p 72) the example is given from a family going through the life cycle .When children become teenagers the family has to change certain rules and boundaries. For example give the 15 year old more responsibilities and freedom. When this is done we talk about morphogenesis, When the 15 year old is still treated as a 5 yr old we talk about morphostasis. The morphostasis in this case causes stress for the family. But too much morphogenesis , letting all rules go and parents for example becoming friends with the teenager instead of parents also causes stress. Nobody knows his/her place anymore. 4. Rules and Boundaries: According to Becvar and Becvar ( 2014, p 72) “… rules express the values of the system as well as the roles appropriate to various behaviours within the system.” Different familes have different values and so different rules. So they are differentiated from other families. So the rules can be said to form the boundaries of a system. Rules and boundaries cannot be seen. But can be inferred from behaviour and talk within the system. For example when a family will not let their daughter sleep with her boyfriend , we can refer from this “action” that it is a family value not to sleep around, or not sleep with a boyfriend you just know or not sleep together before marriage. 5. Openness and Closedness: The degree to which a system lets new information, experiences or input from others into the system determines the openness or closedness of a system. “ An appropriate balance between the two is desirable for healthy functioning” ( Becvar and Becvar 2014, p73/74). Above we have talked about morphogenesis and morphostasis and rules and boundaries that are all features that we can use to distinguish a system. A system that is focused on morphostasis and has very strict boundaries is not very open. It will not let new information change their system easily. The family mentioned under 4 might not be very open to new input on the subject of teenagers sleeping together. Which can be a healthy stance for this family. But if this family subsequently does not let in any new information or does not let their teenagers have new experiences the situation can become unhealthy and the teenagers can rebel. 6. Entropy and negentropy: This openness and closedness brings us to another principle. When there is too much information coming into a system or too less a system might not survive. It is… “ tending to maximum disorder and disintegration…”. ( Becvar and Becvar 2014, p 74) This state is called entropy. A state of negentropy we get when the openness and closedness of a system is in balance. Letting too much new info, experiences and behaviours into the system can eliminate the system. Letting in too less can also do that. 7. Equifinality and Equipotentiality: Individual psychology , which has many schools, asks for the cause of a problem and certain behaviour. So they ask why happens what happens. Cybernetics do not ask why but ask what is going on. They look at the context and at what now happens for example look at the communication patterns of a system. People tend to always use the same patterns. This is called equifinality. Equipotentiality is the principle by which a different result in the pattern can be reached and so a different end. The focus is thus on the context of a problem. 8. Communication and Information processing : There is a lot to say about communication. Becvar and Becvar ( 2014, p 75/76) say First-order cybernetics says that we never not communicate. Just sitting still and quiet is a kind of behaviour. Every behaviour can send a message and can be interpreted when in company. The message that is sent can be interpreted different by different people. Moreover people can communicate in different ways : verbally and non-verbally and also the context influences the message. When what we say fits with the non-verbal behaviour of the speaker and the context a message can be received clearly , but when we say one thing and our facial expression says another thing the message is confusing. There are different ways to try to interpret a mixed message well. Listen only to the words and /or talk about the communication not being clear . AS people are in a relationship for a longer time as in a family sometimes you think you know what a person is going to say or means this is also a trap because you can have it all wrong. 9. Relationship and Wholeness : Gestalt theory came with the notion that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Becvar and Becvar ( 2014, p 77, 78)say that as soon as you have two persons together you have three components : the two persons and their communication. In cybernetic therapy the focus is not on one part but on the whole. So the persons and their context is important.
Question 2 :
Second-order cybernetics also adheres to a set of principles : 1. Wholeness and Self-Reference: Cybernetics of cybernetics states that we each create our own reality. So a system is real when people see it as real. But the system includes its own elements and so there is self-reference in the system. This falls back on recursion as discussed above. This continuous circle of thinking and action gives autonomy to a system as a whole. 2. Openness and Closedness: In simple cybernetics we said openness and closedness are determined by the degree a system lets in new information and other input from outside.The outsider can be the therapeut. In second-order cybernetics the therapeut is part of the system , participates in the processes in the system. So there is no question of input from outside from that side. The system is an autonomous system. Autonomous systems can be interactive. They can also differ in the make-up of their organisation or structure.Like with different families who are both a system called family but the relations can be made up differently. For example a family with only a mum and children or a family that includes grandparents that also look after the children. 3. Autopoiesis: This word means self creation or self production. ( Wikipedia 2015). In second-order cybernetics this term is used for a system that perpetuates itself. A family ( or system) can be defined as a family by the relationships there are between the members. At the same time those relationships form the family. They are a family because the parts are related. Both positive and negative feedback ( see above under 1. 2 ) can be needed to maintain the system. Change ( positive feedback )can be needed to maintain the system so that a family stays a family , in other words there is no change in being a family ( negative feedback). 4. Structural Determinism: “ ..the system itself determines the range of structural variations it can accept without loss of identity.” ( Becvar and Becvar 2014, p 84).The structure of a system is its parts and the relations between the parts. So in a family there are people who have specific relations and together they define the family. They also determine when the family is not a family anymore for example when people die and only one is left or when the parts and their relations change in such a way that they do not want to call it a family anymore . This can be the case after a divorce, the parent who stays with the kids can call this unit a ( new ) family. But the part that is now alone is not a family anymore. 5. Structural coupling and Nonpurposeful Drift : Systems do not exist on their own but exist in a broader context together with other systems. “ The degree to which systems are able to coexist is defined by the concept of structural coupling.” ( Becvar and Becvar 2014, p 84). Different systems need each other to survive. Together systems form the context they function in. They drift around in the context ( nonpurposeful drift) change can occur through contact with other systems who mutually influence each other. Change occurs in a context created by different systems .
Question 3 :
Ontology looks at the nature of reality ( Wagner, et al , 2012, p 51 )and what we believe about the nature of reality. About what a researcher thinks is real and exists ( Study guide UNISA p 20 ). Epistemology is about the nature of knowledge. “ How do we know what we know ?” (Wagner, et al , 2012, p 51).
The ontological and epistemological principles of first- and second- order cybernetics differ.
Reality is something that is real it is not imagined. So it can be observed. ( Baron, 2007, p 3 ). Indeed first-order cybernetics says that one can determine reality ( for example what goes on in a system) by observation.There is a reality that has to be determined and can be determined. Although every member can experience that reality differently.
But reality can also be seen as a subjective reality. “ …..referring to all that which forms an integral part of what an individual believes to be real.” ( Baron, 2007, p3) This is the stance from second-order cybernetics. There are different realities in a family , each member has its own reality and all are equally real and true.
This ontology has consequences for the epistemology of both approaches.The way in which we gather knowledge. In first order cybernetics the therapeut observes the family for example and can see what happens there and come to a conclusion about the reality in the family. This is an objective stance.This is the way to knowledge about the family. To find reality about what is happening in a family a second-order therapeut must become part of the system and experience him/herself the processes there.
Hence also the different principles from both approaches as described above. In first order cybernetic for example there is an openness to outside hence the therapeut can observe from outside. In 2nd order cybernetics the system is closed and and includes the therapeut. ( during the therapy). Both see that there is recursion but the one is also influenced by outside and the other is closed. The last is an autonomous system.
Question 4 :
How health and pathology is seen is also based on the ontology and epistemology of the approaches. In first-order cybernetics, where reality can be named , the health of a family can be assessed by an outside therapist. He/ she knows this through observation. The therapist needs a measure against which he or she can measure the health of a family . For example: ‘ In a healthy family communication channels are open ‘. Or “ For proper functioning families boundaries of subsystems must be clear” ( Baron, 2007, p5). So communication channels and boundaries between subsystems can be used as measures. When you can measure health then you can also measure pathology in a way. In individual psychology the pathology lies in the individual. And the individual is treated. In simple cybernetics “ The symptom manifested by the indentified patient may be an expression of the family dysfunction…” ( Baron ,2007, p5). The family can keep a symptom going. So here the pathology lies within the family. For example bad communication or no boundaries between subsystems.
In cybernetics of cybernetics health and the seat of pathology are not so easily identified. As reality and truth are different for every member of the system there can be no measuring of right and wrong. What is seen as healthy or pathological by the one is not necessarily seen so by another person. “ The second order approach says a problem is only valid if the client him/herself sees it as such” ( Baron , 2007, p6).
You can say that in the 1st approach there is a problem in the system that gives them or a person in the system problems. In the second approach “ The problem is seen as the system of meaning created by the distress …..”( Hoffman in Baron 2007, p 6).
So in the first approach something in the system has to change , in the second approach the system must change in case of pathology. Second-order approach looks at the process of the “ problem”, this must change. Becvar and Becvar discuss a case in which husband and wife do not progress to a solution, keep yelling or ignoring. ( 2014, p 327/328). They discuss the different approaches. And then come to the conclusion that “ what they need is a change in the rules ……for changing the context equals changing the rules “.
As it comes to health in second-order cybernetics one can then say that a healthy system in second –order cybernetics is a system that sees it self as healthy and all its parts experience it like that.
Question 5:
If we look at the position of the therapist and what therapy is and how it is done in the two approaches we also come back to their ontology and epistemology.
In first order approach the therapist stands outside the system and observes the system. His/her task is then to give a diagnosis. He or she is the expert. This is possible according to the epistemology of the first-order approach as observing is a way in which we can know the truth. The therapist can observe if there is a healthy balance between Morphostasis and Morphogenesis and between Rules and Boundaries for example. The therapist can then advise what must change.He or she oversees this change. Therapy is then bringing about change in these fields in the family by changing the roles in the family for example. Minuchin in Baron ( 2007, p 8) say that “ The individual’s subjective experience can be changed when the relationships between members or a member and another has been changed “. Then we have positive feedback as a change has occurred.
We have seen that in second-order cybernetics there is no fixed reality or truth. It is also not possible to get knowledge by observing. You get knowledge through experience. So the therapist must experience the dynamics, context, members of the family in order to know what is happening. The therapist becomes part of the system and the process in the system. Therapy can so take place: “ If… the way we view a problem changes and hence our perception is changed. New behavioural alternatives become possible in the process”. ( Becvar and Becvar in Baron 2007, p 8). This insight and change in view happens within the system when the parts and the therapist interact and create a new construct by exploring and seeking together. The therapist helps create a context in which healing can take place . Hoffman is on this path when she tells that she became uncomfortable with technocratic coldness in therapy and she showed a more symphatetic side to her clients , show her feelings and even weep. ( Hoffman, 1992, p15/16).
Question 6:
Becvar and Becvar say that a cybernetic epistemology brings a whole new set of ethical issues.( 2014, p 335/336). And in their book a whole list of ethical points to give attention to follow to which also the cybernetics therapist must adhere. But there are also ethical concerns specific icw cybernetics.
Baron names different aspects of ethics ( 2007,p14) icw First-order cybernetics. I see these as well. It can be that a therapist is approached by one family member who then already tells his/her story before the family therapy starts. The therapist must then be aware to also listen to the other stories. It can also be that a therapist recognises his or her own problems and so symphetises more with the subsystem that experiences the same as the therapist.
A first-order therapist uses criteria and values to measure the family against but are these criteria and values the same as the ones the family adheres to ? Or do some members have other values ? The same goes for labelling behaviour, it can be normal for parents to spank their children but by the therapist or the norms in society it can be seen as pathological. The therapist must also be sensitive for different cultures and have knowledge of these to be able to do therapy.
If a therapist is not aware of these point he or she can do more damage then good. And that is unethical.
In second order approach except the issues mentioned by Baron ( p 15) two matters are of concern to me.
The therapist must not be seen as the expert , he or she goes through the same processes as the family , together with them. I want to remark here that also in the person centered approach from Rogers it is said that the client is the expert. The therapist only creates the right environment for growth. But we then say to Rogers , the therapist is the expert because he or she knows how to create this and uses him or herself as a tool in the process. Second-order cybernetics say the therapist becomes part of the systems and its processes and the client(s) follow their own way. I think that as with The Person centered approach the therapist is still the expert here. Because he or she knows how to prod and probe and how to keep the process going. How to look for non-verbal “ clues and how to use language. Why would people need a therapist if not for the fact that he or she has knowledge and skills that the family does not have ?
Is it unethical not to disclose to your client(s) what method you are going to use . I do not know if it is needed to explain. Some times people choose a certain therapist because they know he or she adheres a certain theory of practice. Other times a client might ask how your method works. Then you can explain. But I do think it is unethical to give the impression that you are in the same position as your client while you are not.
Another concern of mine has to do with the fact that in second-order cybernetics there is no observable truth and everybody and system creates his/her/its own reality and truth. We sais above that in a system there is only pathology as the system sees it so. So there is only intervention /therapy when the system asks for it. What now to do in the case of for example a family where incest is seen as a normal practice and the children accept this so and nobody steps out and asks for intervention. According to norms and values in our society and constitution a child must not be harmed and we see incest as harmful ( even as a crime) . Must we now keep quiet and leave the system as it is because we cannot come in as the experts ? Is that not unethical ?
I find the approach of the first-order cybernetics more honest as far as the role of the therapist is concerned , I appreciate the fact that the therapist not only works with an individual but with the whole system in which individuals live .And that it is seen that people are influenced by and products of their environment.
But the second-order approach of the therapist becoming part of the system even give the therapist more insight . Also there is even more eye for the different worlds and realities the parts in the system experience . The therapist can use this to his/her work even better.
Question 7.
The second- ,and first order approaches can learn from each other and sometimes the one is needed and in other cases the other.
In the case form the family described above where incest takes place and people are harmed a first –order approach is needed for intervention. It uses values and norms to which to measure the family . A second-order approach would not intervene before the family or a part of the family sees a problem.
If there is intervened and the family maybe now sees the problem and is open to it a second-order approach might be best to continue with as here the therapist can be less of a threat ( or know all ) for certain members.
First-order approach can also learn from the second approach how important language and non-verbal communication is. Language and non-verbal communication from both the therapist and the members of the system can influence the therapy process.
A first –order therapist can be more focused on the needs of the different parts where a second –order one sees the system and its processes and can maybe “ loose” an individual or a subsystem.They can learn from each other.
Bibliography
Baron. P. 2007. Ecosystemic Psychology, First and SecondOrder Cybernetics, Johannesburg. www.ecosystemic-psychology.org.za/Attachments/ecosystemic 7 June_rev_1.3pdf.
Becvar D.S. &Becvar R.J. 2014. Family Therapy, A systemic Integration. ( 8th ed ).Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hoffman .L. 1992. A reflexive stance for family therapy. Therapy as social construction. Edited by S. McNamee and K.J. Gergen. London: Sage.
Research in the Social Sciences. 2000. A study guide for RSC 201-H. Pretoria: UNISA.
Wagner .C. , Kawulich .B. & Garner .M. 2012. Doing Social research . A global context. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education
Wikipedia dictionary. 2015. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis. And www.en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Recursion.
