Introduction

The purpose of this essay paper is to critically compare the epistemology governing the first and second order cybernetic approaches. (Epistemology is defined by Becvar and Becvar (2013), as the study of how we know what we know, and how we can make valid knowledge claims based on a particular theoretical framework. It focuses on the assumption that underline a particular framework and whether the knowledge claim made by that theory is logically consistent with its own assumption). In doing so, the student will answer the following questions:

1. Name and define the first-order cybernetic principles as described in the book
The first order cybernetic is also known as simple cybernetic. Becvar and Becvar (2013), describe the first order cybernetic metaphorically by using the black box. They stated that it is a system whose operation we attempt to understand by observing what goes into and what comes out of it, analysis of inputs and outputs. In addition, we place ourselves outside the system as observers of what is going on inside the system. We are more interested in understanding the interaction and relationships within the system. The observer stays outside of the system being observed and views him/herself as being in a position to facilitate adjustment in the system without taking into consideration his/her participation. The following are the principles of this approach as stated in Becvar and Becvar (2013): * Recursion: this principle states that the observed have an influence on each other. The reason of “A” to behave in a certain manner is due to the influence of “B”, and also “B” influences “A” (linear causation). Becvar and Becvar (2013) reiterated that in recursive perspective we see every system influencing and being influenced by every other system and every individual influencing and being influence by every other individual in the system. * Feedback: Becvar and Becvar (2013) refer to feedback as a process whereby information about the past behavior is fed back into the system in a circular manner. Feedback can be negative or positive, and in this approach both are taken into consideration. In addition, positive feedback acknowledges that change has occurred and has been accepted by the system, while negative feedback indicates that the status quo is being maintained, (Becvar and Becvar, 2013: 64). The goodness and the badness of the feedback in first order cybernetic are evaluated in relation to the context, for example what is positive may be good in other context and bad in others. Becvar and Becvar (2013) stipulated that feedback processes are self-corrective mechanisms; they indicate variations and fluctuations that serve to increase the probability of the survival of the system. * Morphostasis and Morphogenesis: According to Becvar and Becvar (2013) morphostasis is the tendency of the system towards stability, a state of dynamic equilibrium and morphogenesis refer to the system enhancing behavior that allows for growth, creativity, innovation and change all which are characteristics of functional system. Both principles are needed to be balanced for a healthy functioning of the system. * Rules and boundaries: rules and boundaries are those attributes that differentiate a system from other systems. It is highlighted by Becvar and Becvar (2013) that rules continue to form boundaries of the system, and both principles acts as gate keeper for the flow of information in and out of the system. In addition, not all information is allowed to the system. * Openess and closedness: “The extent to which a system screens out or permits the input of new information is what we refer to as openness and closeness of the system” (Becvar and Becvar, 2013: 67). The presence of both are important in first order cybernetic, yet, the two must balance in that it does not have to be too little or too much. * Entropy and negetropy: Entropy refers to when an extreme of both is encountered. Negetropy is said to be a well balance of openness and closeness of the system (Becvar and Becvar, 2013) * Equifinality and equipontentiality: Bertalanffy (1968) as quoted in Becvar and Becvar (2013) stated that Equifinality is a tendency towards a characteristic final state from different initial states and in different ways based upon dynamic interaction in an open system attaining a steady state. Equipontentiality is said to be the notion that different end state may be arrived at from the same initial condition (Becvar and Becvar, 2013: 69). * Communication and information processing: In the first order cybernetic, communication is said to be based upon three principles which are, Principle 1, 2 and 3. The student will only talk about Principle 3. This principle is defined by Becvar and Becvar (2013) as referring to fact that a particular massage or behavior may be interpreted in many different ways and no one interpretation is necessary more correct than any other. All the other principles of this approach (first order cybernetic) make a reference to communication and information processing. * Relationship and wholeness: from its definition, first order cybernetic is interested in understanding the interaction within the system. The influence that A and B have on each other. * Goal and purpose: first order cybernetic is purpose driven. The therapist states the goals that need to be achieved from the perspective of the observer.

2. Name and define the second-order cybernetic principles as described in the book
The second order cybernetic is also called the cybernetics of cybernetics. In Becvar and Becvar (2013) it is noted that in this approach the observer is also seen as being part of the observed in their participation, unlike in the first order cybernetic. Valera (1979) as cited in Becvar and Becvar (2013) reiterated that the second order cybernetic has shift it focus from behavioral analysis based on the inputs and outputs with an emphasis on the environment to an recursive analysis that emphasizes the internal structure of the system and mutual connectedness of the observed and the observer. . * Wholeness and self-reference: Second order cybernetics self-referential states that our own interpretation of events or behavior makes it the way we sees it and validate its. In other words we create reality based on our epistemological premises. The system is closed with no reference to the outside (autonomy). * Openness and closedness: At the second order cybernetic the system plus the observer are understood to be mutually interacting within a larger system whose boundary are closed, and this no reference is made to an external environment. * Autopoiesis: Maturana in an article by Hoffman in Family System Medicine. Vol. 3, no 4 (1985) describe Autopoiesis as a biological unit not as a material entity exchanging matter and energy with its environment (which it also is) but as an information system which is operationally closed and folds recursively back upon itself. The focus is only on positive feedback. * Structural determism: In this principle the control lies with the system on how much it can allow/ accept without it losing it identity * Structural coupling and Nonpurpose drift: Structural coupling refers to the degree to which the systems are able to coexist. * Epistemology of participation: In this principle subjective and objective do not exist. Both the observed and the observer form part in creating meaning of the world in Becvar and Becvar(2013) it is stated that the observer and the observed are inextricably bound up with each other and the objectivism, as we normally understand it, is impossible. * Reality as multiverse: According to Becvar and Becvar (2013) we no longer talk about the universe, instead we concede that we live in a multiverse of many equally valid observer dependent realities. There is no single told truth or reality that is out there that were can point. We create our reality, our world by assimilation and accommodating inputs via our conceptual structures of personal world view. 3. How is reality seen by each specific approach
In first order cybernetics reality is said to be subjective. The truth about the world is said to be out there external to the observer. Becvar and Becavar (2013) reiterated that in this approach reality is subjective rather than being objective, and how one create reality will be a function of the set of assumption and frame of reference one bring to bear on an event or experience. In second order cybernetic reality is described as either objective or subjective. However, reality is self-referential in that it does not refer to the outside environment as in this approach systems are closed, and multiverse. Maturana (1978) as cited in Becvar and Becvar (2013) noted that we literally create the world we live in by living in it. Each of us lives and creates reality in a slightly different manner based on our own unique combinatory of heredity, experience, presuppositions, and perception. It is again added by Becvar and Becvar (2013) that we live in a multiverse of many equally valid observer-dependent realities. in that In second order cybernetics it is believe that we create reality, our world by assimilating and accommodating inputs via or conceptual structures or personal world view, (Becvar and Becvar 2013:80). Furthermore reality is constructed as a function of the belief system that one brings to bear on a particular situation and according to which one operate. Reality is not universal, but multiverse. Baron (2007) as found at http://ecosystemic-psychology.org.za cited Becvar and Becvar (2006) saying that first and second order cybernetics are consistent with each other in the assumption that reality is understood as perceptually constructed or created. They also both of them promote the focus on a context and the important of communication.

4. How is health and pathology addressed by each approach?
From the first order cybernetic, a system can be described as health or unhealthy. It can be pathological and be given a label for whatever the state of behavior. This is because this approach tends to believe that there is only one correct and valid way of living one’s life. The system can be labeled as dysfunctional that it has pathology that has been diagnosed from the outside that need to be treated by the expert. First order cybernetic is pejorative and judgmental as it put on blame on the system for behavior that is seen as bad. The family is seen as well functioning when its rules and boundaries are set up clearly and the openness and closeness are in balanced. Unlike in first order cybernetic ideas that psychiatric symptom was on medical notion of curing a part of the body .The illness is in some spatially defined, out there unit. We no longer say it is in the family nor it is in the unit. But it is in the head or nervous system of everyone who has part in specifying it. The old epistemology implies that the system create the problem, and new epistemology says that the problem create the system, (Article by Hoffman in Family System Medicine. Vol.3, no 4, 1985). Becvar and Becvar (2013), states that the second order cybernetic is inconsistence with the definition of the system as being good or bad. But in first order cybernetic the observer may look at the system and decide about it health and pathology. The two authors continue to talk about structural determination in second order cybernetic as defined by Maturana (1978) that we recognize that a system respond to various perturbations in a manner determined by or consistent its structure. Thus, all system do what they do and what they do is not pathological unless we so define it.

5. What is the role and function of the therapist, and the approach to therapy, in each specific approach
In the first order cybernetic approach, the therapist is referred to as an expert. He/she is an observer who is more informed about the system from the outside. Since they can diagnose the system they are in a position to also define the kind of cure the system require without having to be part of the system. According to Anderson and Goolishian in Therapy as Social Construction. Edited by McNamme and Gergen (1992) in first order cybernetic the therapist explains (diagnose) and intervenes (treats) the phenomenon or behavior from this prior knowledge base, from generalized theory. In doing so the therapists emphasizes their own narrative coherence rather than the client’s. The therapists are experts in a knowing position. The kinds of questions that are asked to the clients are pedagogical that they imply direction (correct reality) and leave the client a hint in order to reach the correct answer. The therapist has a power to set up goals that the therapeutic process must achieve. It tends to modify the behavior within the system that is not in line with what the reality as universal says. The system depends on the observer knowledge.

However, in second order cybernetic approach a not knowing approach to therapy is applied. Anderson and Goolishian in Therapy as Social Construction. Edited by McNamme and Gergen (1992) noted that a not knowing requires that our understanding, explanations, and interpretations in therapy not be limited by prior experiences or theoretical formed truths and knowledge. Therapy is seen as an interactive process between the observer and the observed. The therapist moves away from designing specific strategies for change away from giving direct interpretation or suggestion regarding behavioral interaction changes. In this approach the client and therapist are seen as mutually affecting each other’s meaning and meaning becomes byproduct of mutuality. Anderson and Goolishian in Therapy as Social Construction. Edited by McNamme and Gergen (1992) continue to say that the therapist does not dominate the client with expert psychology knowledge so much as he or she is led by and learn from, the expertise of the client. Hoffman in Family System Medicine. Vol.3, no 4, (1985). stated that any therapy that respects cybernetic epistemology will tend to have the following characteristics: a observing system stance and inclusion of the therapist‘s own context, a collaborative rather that a hierarchical structure, goals that emphasize setting a context for change, not specifying a change, ways to guard against too much instrumentality, a circular assessment of the problem, and a nonperorative, nonjudgmental view.

6. What critical ethical concerns could be raised by each specific perspective
According to Minuchin (1974) cited in Baron (2007) found in http://ecosystemic-psychology.org.za stated in first order cybernetic there is a risk of joining and supporting only one subsystem. Maintain one’s position in a way that solidifies a dysfunctional organization is an act of blindness. This is because the therapy can diagnosed one member of the family and try to come with cure for diagnosis which means that more time might be spend with only one member of the system while others are being neglected. The therapist tends to be judgement in first order cybernetic and label the clients. Clients have a need to be respected and be treated as unique individuals who are filled with possibilities to participate effectively in all activities that affect their life. The student feels that it is unethical to fail to place the ability of the client at the forefront as they know more about their circumstances that the helper. In addition, if the therapist dominates the helping process this might make the client to feel more vulnerable. By understanding the manner in which the first order cybernetics views therapy, it can be said that many ethical aspect that need attention as to give both the client and the therapist power over the context in which they are at.

Moving to second order cybernetic the student about the manner in which the therapist will ensure that together with the client participate in the helping process and still ensure professionalism. Some client when they consult the therapist they already have an idea in their head that the helper is an expert and less is expected from them. The therapist has a challenge to remain professional and still ensure that the idea of the being regarded as an expert is dominant, but the non-expert approach remain. The student is of the opinion that since the idea of narrative dialogue much emphasizes the use of proper questioning. The manner in which the questions are asked to the clients must be carefully selected.

7. How the first and second-order cybernetic approach can be integrated in useful and complementary way
The student is of the opinion that both approaches can be integrated in a usefully manner and complement each other. Yet, it is not going to be an easy process to adjust to the use of both of if one is already familiar with one than the other. Since the two approaches are consistent with each other in the assumption that reality is understood as perceptually constructed or created. In addition, they both contextually focus. With these two similarities the first order and second order cybernetic have a relationship that need to be strengthened so as to ensure that they serve the client right without placing them at a disadvantage. Atkinson and Heath as stated in Family Process, Vol.29, June (1990) noted that rather than seeing the second order family therapy as a departure from existing family therapy model which draw primarily from first order cybernetic premises, we view first and second order family therapists as complementary. A second order cybernetic is seen by the two authors as more encompassing, building upon the insight and strategies gleaned from first order model

8. Conclusion
It is possible to conclude that first order and second order cybernetic differ in principles. Though they both pay attention the social context and the manner in which reality come about, yet, reality to them is interpreted differently. First order cybernetics in which the observer is seen as an observer of the black box say that the truth is out there and can be pointed out. Reality is seen as can be touched and is universal. However, second order cybernetic does not see reality as stated by first order approach as it believes that reality is multiverse and self-referential. There is no single interpretation of the truth or reality. Instead of the black box and the observer, the observed and the observer interact. First order approach pathologies, this makes also the manner in which the therapist render the helping process to be based on their expertise. The helping process is guided by what has been assessed through observation. In second order approach the therapist and the client are both in participation. The therapist is no expert, uses narrative dialogues to guide the helping processes. The student has found it unethical of first order approach to be judgmental towards the client by diagnosing and putting on labels. The fact that no self-determination of the client is more valued, but the goals of the therapist makes the client to be vulnerable and expect to be cured. Though second order says no expert approach, but the improper participation of both parties can compromise professionalism. Yet, both approaches can be use complementary as they both has some qualities that can contribute dearly in therapy.

Reference List

Becvar D.S & Becvar R.J (2013). Family Therapy: A systemic integration (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited, UK.
Hoffman L (1985). Beyond power and control: towards a “second order” fairly system therapy. Family System Medicine. Vol.3, no4, P. 381-396 Atkinson. B.J and Heath A.W (1990) Further thoughts on second-order family therapy-This time it’s personal. Family Process, Vol.29, June P.157-167
Anderson H and Goolishian H(1992) The client is an expert: a not knowing approach to therapy. In McNemee S and Gergen K.G (ed), Therapy as social construction. London: Sage, P 25-39
Baron. P. ((2007) Ecosystemic psychology: first and second order cybernetics. Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://ecosystemic-psychology.org.za