Table of Contents Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined. Question 1 3 1.1 First order cybernetic principles. 3 Question 2 5 2.1 Second order cybernetic principles. 5 Question 3 7 3.1 Reality as seen by each specific approach. 7 Question 4 8 4.1 Health and pathology as addressed by each specific approach. 8 Question 5 8 5.1 Each respective perspectives means of dealing with therapy. 8 Question 6 9 6.1 The role and function of the therapist in each of these approaches. 9 Question 7 9 7.1 Critical ethical concerns raised by each specific perspective. 9 Question 8 10 8.1 Ideas on how the first- and second order cybernetic approaches can be integrated in a complementary way. 10
Question 1 1.1 First order cybernetic principles.
First order cybernetics, also known as simple cybernetics, endeavours to place the individual outside of the system, to act as an observer. The individual is not seen as part of the system or in any way linked to the actions of the system. By doing this the individual tries to identify the members of the system, their characteristics, their interactional patterns as well as the boundaries which have been formed by the rules and roles within the system. Furthermore, simple cybernetics is based on the following basic principles:
Recursion refers to the assumption where the focus is not on the individual but on the events and interactions between individuals within the system, therefore referring to their relationships and the various issues around these relationships.
Feedback, which can be seen as a feature of recursion, and which according to Becvar & Becvar (2014) involves ‘self-correlation’. This refers to a process where information regarding past behaviour, as well as its impact on the system is reiterated back to the system. This leads to a response to the behaviour, from the system itself. When the system recognizes change and accepts it, positive feedback has occurred, whereas negative feedback refers to a situation where no change has been accepted.
Morphostasis/Morphogenesis are terms which serve as an indication of a systems ability to either change in a stable setting, or to remain stable in a changing setting. Morphostasis refers to when a system moves towards stability, within the context of change. Whereas morphogenesis delineates the system enhancing behaviour that permits growth, change, innovation and creativity, all of which characterise functional families.
Rules and Boundaries – the rules within a system refer to their distinctive relationship patterns, which are comprised of the systems values and assumption of behavioural roles. A system’s rules set it apart from other systems and form the basis of its boundaries. The boundary of a system refers to its separation from other systems, which fall into the same familial hierarchy, thus controlling where previously transformed information is then released to new systems.
The Openness and closedness of a system indicates the degree to which it embraces or rejects new information. In situations where a system opens itself up to new experiences and attempts to integrate into other contextual settings, it is seen as more open. Conversely, a system which closes itself off to different contexts and maintains its identity is ranged on the closedness end of the scale.
Entropy/ Negentropy refer to whether a system is too open or too closed and therefore relates to the above mentioned principle of openness and closedness. A system reaches a state of entropy when it either allows too much or too little information in, thereby threatening its identity and moving towards disorder and potential fragmentation. On the contrary, a system is in a state of negentropy when it strives for extreme order, by screening out information which threatens its identity and permitting information which enables appropriate change.
Equifinality/Equipotentiality – the term equifinality means equal ending and denotes that a system starts and ends in the same basic way. In other words, members of a specific system, over time develop habitual, patterned behaviours and means of interaction, which in turn govern the way in which they solve everyday problems, interact with each other and discuss matters, thus setting a distinctive and habitual interactional framework, which a system follows from its start to its end. Equipotentiality, on the other hand indicates that alternative end states may be reached regardless of the initial patterned variables.
Communication and information processing are central to systemic thinking and are based on three principles, the first states that one can never do nothing, so even though the therapist chooses not to act on a observed behaviour, the action of not reacting is still a conscious behaviour. The second principle states that one cannot not communicate; in other words, all nonverbal behaviour still transfers a message to the observer. The last principle specifies that the meaning which is attributed to another’s behaviour is not the true meaning of the observed behaviour; at that moment however it is the individual truth which that individual has attributed to the behaviour. In other words, because reality is subjective the personal meaning which the observer gives to another’s behaviour will be different to another observer’s personal meaning, these meanings are however equally valuable and valid to each of them.
There are two types of communication, namely, congruent and incongruent communication. These types broadly refer to the content and process levels of communication. When these two levels are similar for two individuals their communication will be congruent. When levels do not match, individuals will not attribute as much importance to the content/process of the conversation, therefore creating a communication trap and acting as an example of incongruent communication. Communication traps can be avoided in two ways; first, when an incongruent message is received, it is best to answer in relation to the content aspect of communication, so as to avoid negative responses and/or influence from the other party. The second method is to use metacommunication, which basically refers to the act of discussing your methods of communication, for this to work however this act must be seen as an acceptable act within the system.
Relationship and Wholeness are terms used in systems theory to refer to the notion that the individual cannot be considered in isolation; he/she must rather be seen and understood in relation to his/her relationships and interactions with others. These terms point to the essential rule which states that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Simply put, this means that whenever a system gains a member, the complexity of the interactions multiply. Specific relationship styles play an important role in this aspect, as they are determined by the noted interactive and behavioural patterns mentioned above and therefore govern future interactions (BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J., 2014).
Question 2
2.1 Second order cybernetic principles.
Second order cybernetics, popularly known as the cybernetics of cybernetics contains guidelines at a higher level of abstraction. Here role of the observer is valued and recognized, and thus reflects comprehensive observation, rather than exclusively observing systems. Here the observer is involved with the observed systems interactions and processes, the therapist/observer is no longer neutral and detached, he/she interprets all things observed from a self-referential position. The outside environment is not considered and the system is seen as closed, while a greater sense of wholeness is attempted. In the case of the cybernetics of cybernetics, the observer now focusses on the structures internal structure as well as his/her relationship in relation to the system. As with first order cybernetics, second order cybernetics is based on the following basic principles:
Wholeness and self-reference in this case refer to the fact that the observer must draw on a particular set of differences in order to recognise a specific cybernetic system, therefore the observer creates his/her own reality based upon his/her own insights and actions. This however means that the observer’s view of reality cannot ever be undeniably true as it will always differ from others experiences of the perceived reality.
The openness and closedness of a system in this regards must be looked at by investigating its organizational closure. At this level the system and the observer interact mutually with a closed-boundary, larger system, thus no mention is made to an outside environment. This means that they system is mainly defined by its patterned interactions and behaviours, which internally affects the system. In order to be able to define a system as a united family as such, the structure and organization must be considered, therefore the members relation to the system as a whole, as well as their social standing must be evaluated.
Autopoiesis of a system refers to the way in which the members relate to each other, in order to form unity. By way of explanation, the patterns of interaction and behaviour between family members help to differentiate a boundary, the boundary in turn is essential in order to differentiate the family from the greater context. Neither of these factors cause the other; they are however necessary to uphold the unitary development of autopoiesis, therefore the only product of such a system is itself. Thus, the rules of autopoiesis state that the system operates in order to maintain itself.
Cybernetics of cybernetics state that systems are structurally determined, in that they can be disturbed by autonomous events and that the effective changes that they undergo as a result, as well as their specific relations of autopoiesis, which are generated by the changes, occur regardless of the nature of the independent event experienced. In other words, the system, by its very nature, determines an accepted amount of structural variation, which will not compromise their collective identity.
Structural coupling and nonpurposeful drift are terms which go hand in hand with structural determinism. Structural coupling refers to the extent to which a system is able to subsist side-by-side, within a medium that includes other systems and observers. Accordingly, in order to survive, systems must cohabitate and get along with other systems and features within their setting. Nonpurposeful drift on the other hand, refers to a system’ constant change & adjustment to both internal and external disrupting interactions, which therefore indicates its undetermined nature. Strictly speaking, a systems means of interaction within a specific context is seen as a recursive process of common influence and modification, which is essentially predetermined by the makeup of their respective systems. Thus, change transpires as a result of a shift in the context, which was created by the contributing systems.
Epistemology of participation refers to the notion that conventional objectivity is unattainable in a setting where the observer and the observed are intimately connected within a certain therapeutic setting, therefore the observer cannot give more precise representations of the systems reality. With this said it is reasonably clear that an understanding of what is observed is once again self-referential and only exists from a personal perspective.
At the level of second order cybernetics reality must be seen as a multiverse. Because observers act as outside agents who then interact and influence the inside setting of a system, they collectively create a new reality. Every individual experiences and creates their own unique realities, based on different experiences, social influences, genetics and insights, which are all equally valid and significant. With this said it is clear that our world is made up of countless individual realities, which are all similarly valid and which influence the realities of others, thus indicating that true objectivity cannot be reached, therefore restricting subjectivity as well. At this level, it can be said that the perceptions of individuals contribute to the construction of the shared environment; therefore it is particularly important to investigate and understand the assumptions that create and created the reality that we perceive to be ours (BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J., 2014).
Question 3
3.1 Reality as seen by each specific approach.
In context, reality refers to what the observer perceives to be real. From a first order cybernetics perspective reality is considered to be completely separate from the observer, in the sense that the observer experiences all system interactions and behaviours as a detached outsider. This perspective encourages the therapist to discover and treat specific systems difficulties, through independent observation, therefore initiating change without influencing the systems development.
In contrast, the second order cybernetic approach views the observer as a part of the contextual reality. The therapist observes the system from the inside in order to gain an insider’s perspective on the inner workings of the system, because it is believed that it is not possible to understand another’s reality without being a part of it. Since this approach puts forth a belief in reciprocal causality & mutual influence, the observer’s therapeutic process is subjective to the realities of the individuals involved, therefore creating a sense of mutual connectedness between the observer and the observed (BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J., 2014).
Question 4
4.1 Health and pathology as addressed by each specific approach.
Both the first- and second order cybernetic approaches have dissimilar views on the definitions or frameworks for defining health and pathology, therefore varying the opinions on which behaviours and interactions are seen as healthy or dysfunctional. Pathology is usually identified and addressed with the use of a conceptual framework and its strategies (Minuchin, 1974).
From a first order perspective frameworks or reference models are used as the basis of determining whether observed behaviour/interaction is pathological, or to which degree pathology has developed. Within this context a system would usually seeks therapeutic intervention as a reaction to perceived problems or symptoms of dysfunction caused by a specific member(s) of the system. The therapist is therefore seen as an expert who can identify and treat these symptoms as an objective outside observer to the dysfunctional system.
The second order perspective, on the other hand does not agree with the need of a framework, from which to decide whether interactions and/or behaviours are right, wrong or in this case pathological. This view emphasises that a problem(s) are valid if the client sees it as such, therefore placing importance on the way the client communicates the problem to the therapist. In other words, the diagnosis of the problem by the client is seen as an attribution to its causality, thus creating a great context within to understand the identified problem. Lastly, a problem can only be perceived as negative if the client identifies it as negative (Hoffman, 1985).
Question 5
5.1 Each respective perspectives means of dealing with therapy.
When looking at first order cybernetics, the therapist begins by making objective observation’s, he/she generates theories about the system interactions and then creates logical solutions in order to facilitate change, within the specific context. The degree of openness, closedness, the relationship between stability & change, roles and boundaries are considered in order to create solutions which are consistent with the systems specific rules, thus creating first-order change.
The second order approach emphasises meaning and understanding which originates through the negotiations between the participants. Constructive interactions between the therapist and clients are used in the creation of new contexts, wherein problematic constructs are deconstructed and then replaced with solution driven narratives (Griffith, 1992). In other words, problem behaviour is addressed, by examining its impact, as well as the reactions to it, and it is then modified by the creation of new narrations of the systems current meanings, thus facilitating change (BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J., 2014).
Question 6
6.1 The role and function of the therapist in each of these approaches.
As mentioned above, first order therapist observes the system from an outside position, thus identifying problems as part of their actual reality. In other words, the therapist listens to the experienced realities of each of the members of the system, identifying the different relations to one another as well as the different reactions to incidents, thus enabling the therapist to form the structural diagnosis within the specific context. The therapist assumes the role of the expert, who interprets the systems interactions and behaviour, identifies areas of possible flexibility and then sets theoretically mandated goals for the family to achieve (BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J., 2014).
Question 7 7.1 Critical ethical concerns raised by each specific perspective.
All or most practicing professional groups are governed by a set of standards or ethical guidelines, in regards to the first and second order cybernetic principles; a few of the above mentioned ethical concerns may be raised. The categorisation of healthy/unhealthy and/or pathologizing families based on an assumed truth may be seen as unethical in specific situations. This first order practice could be seen as unethical, as the therapist may base his/her treatment of the system, on a framework which does not specifically display reference to the related ecology of thy symptoms as well as the effects of the treatment, on the system after the fact. In so doing labels may be formed, restricting the objective evaluation of the systems as well as their constructive evaluation strategies, therefore therapists must comprehensively evaluate their planned intervention strategies by evaluating their potential positive & negative outcomes.
Furthermore, another aspect of the first order cybernetic approach may be seen as unethical, that is their approach to the disequilibrium in transformation of systems (Minuchin, 1974). The prescribed need for a systems transformation may indicate a form of judgement from the therapist’s side, where his/her own personal perspective influences the perceived dysfunction. As mentioned above this intervention may affect the system negatively if the intervention connected to the transformation is not adequately suited to the system and is not monitored for any negative results.
From a second order perspective a therapist’s awareness of the interconnected nature of his/her profession and its attached ethical framework encourages ethical behaviour but still certain ethical concerns may arise in particular situations. One of these concerns is highlighted in Becvar & Becvar (2014), namely the act of unconscious persuasion by the therapist, which may result in the therapist assuming a higher position in the system, therapist hierarchy. A second concern may be created by medical-aid schemes’ requirement for diagnosis in order to fund interventions. In order to navigate such dilemmas, therapists must make use of proper and goal driven language in order to honestly explain any and all treatment/intervention strategies related to their clients.
Question 8
8.1 Ideas on how the first- and second order cybernetic approaches can be integrated in a complementary way.
I personally feel that these two approaches should be integrated in order to promote both an insiders and an outsider’s perspective, with regards to therapy. In doing so, the different roles of the therapist can be changed to suit different contexts, thus avoiding rigidity and acknowledging alternative approaches to therapy. The first order perspective does not effectively address the relationship between therapist and client, whilst the second order perspective comprehensively highlights the therapists own physical behaviour, posture, language and attitudes when dealing with systems. With that said, it would be beneficial to integrate the first order approaches with some of the second order directives, so that the therapist as well as the system can co-create an open, respectable and neutral relationship, in which to foster a constructive therapeutic environment.
Bibliography
BecvarD.S., & Becvar, R.J. (2014). Family Therapy: A systemic integration (8th ed). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Griffith, J. G. (1992). Owning one’s epistemological stance in. In Dulwich Centre Newsletter. No 1 (pp. 5 - 11).
Hoffman, L. (1985). Beyond Power and control: Towards a “Second order” family systems. In Family Systems Medicine. Vol 3 (pp. 381 - 396).
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapies. London, UK: Travistock.
