A COMPARISON OF THE EPISTEMOLOGIES GOVERNING THE 1ST AND 2ND ORDER CYBERNETIC APPROACHES 1. VIEW OF REALITY: In first order cybernetics, reality is seen to be external to the individual. Therapists and theorists examine events from a position outside of the system. They evaluate and try to change behaviour according to the accepted standards within society. Problems are defined as existing “out there” in a real, knowable reality. Second order cybernetics, on the other hand, understands reality to be formed as a function of the belief system according to which individuals operate. Problems are not viewed alone, but within the context that they occur. Furthermore, behaviour is not discovered, it is created by us, how we view and describe something is crucial. In other words, there is no single correct way to live one’s life, and therefore, reality is not a given. Both approaches agree that reality is created perceptually. But in first order cybernetics, it is possible to explain reality from an isolated remote position, and in second order it is not possible to understand another person’s reality without being a part of it. Both also focus on context and communication, in order to gain an understanding of the situation. 2. HOW EACH APPROACH ADDRESSES HEALTH AND PATHOLOGY: First order cybernetics treats the symptoms, the pathology is seen to exist in the organism. whereas second order cybernetics takes into consideration the context within which the symptoms take place. The view of second order cybernetics is more holistic, as opposed to first order which is focused on the problem itself. In first order cybernetics, the system is observed and then a decision is made about how healthy or pathological it is. Second order, however, doesn’t accept any definition about the system, good or bad. its approach is that nothing is seen as being negative in itself, and it only becomes negative when the system discerns it to be so. 3. HOW EACH APPROACH DEALS WITH THERAPY: In first order cybernetics, the approach to therapy emphasises the degree of openness and closedness of the boundaries. A definition is made about the relationship between stability and change. both view change as a change in context, but second order cybernetics puts an emphasis on meaning and understanding. The participants in therapy use language and conversation to conceptualise memories and what they signify. Lastly, in second order cybernetics, a change is not specified, rather a new context is set in order to facilitate the change.
In the first order approach, the use of Mnuchin’s structural approach is used when facilitating
change. The organisation of the family is changed. This structure change is believed to have an effect on the behaviour and internal psychic processes of the members in the system, and thereby changing the relationships between the members as well as their perspectives of themselves and one another. in the second order, change comes about through therapist and client co-creating a new context in which old, problem-saturated constructs are demolished and new, solution-focused stories are written through mutual interaction and feedback. Therapists incorporating this approach know that one does not change systems or treat families, but rather changes behaviour, examines the reactions to this behaviour, and then reacts to those reactions. Its a process of continuous change, and as the client changes the therapist must adjust his/her understanding of the client. 4.THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE THERAPIST IN EACH APPROACH: First order therapists view the system from an outsider’s perspective. They assess and endeavor to change behaviour according to normative standards and societal approval. The therapist is regarded as the expert, and sets goals according to his/her theory. The “real” problem is treated and is seen to be the underlying structural flow built into the system. These approaches make objective observations in order to discover facts. The facts are then used to form a theory that explains the facts. The theory leads to a prediction and the prediction is tested by making another isolated objective observation. In the second order approach, the therapist is part of that which is observed, and therefore can describe the combination of observing systems. Therapy is a collaborative process, the therapist and client construct a new story that solves the problems of the current story. The context in which the client’s problem exists is a major concern, as well as the meaning of the problem given by the client and therapist. The client is the main focus, and the goal is not to impose some normative way accepted by society. 5. ETHICAL CONCERNS THAT COULD BE RAISED ABOUT EACH APPROACH: First order approach: When dealing with a family, not taking into account the developmental process of family subsystems is a risk. Therefore a therapist may join a subsystem to view how it functions and this risks the therapist joining and supporting only one subsystem. Disequilibrium, where the therapist intervenes in the family system in order to imbalance it, and thereby transform the family, is possibly unethical. Furthermore, transformation refers to the fact that the family needs to change according to how the therapist has judged them against his/her own values. The second order approach, in contrast, does not consider the therapist as all knowing, and family
transformation does not rely on the therapist as it does in the first order approach. The therapist causes distress in the family in order to help them, but if the therapist doesn’t know what he/she is doing, bigger problems can arise.
First order approaches make use of pathology, and use categorisations of healthy and unhealthy. Treatment is initiated without being aware of the ecology of which the symptoms are related to the system and how the assumed cure will manifest in the system. Careful consideration is necessary about the nature of an intervention compared to the assumed good it can provide, and if it is constructive or destructive. First order approaches have an idealised definition of health that’s not always attainable by most systems. The approach may not be functional for a particular system in a particular context. Second order approach: Since diagnosing and labelling do not occur in therapy, clients may have trouble with medical aids who want to know the diagnosis in order to agree to pay. Therapist and client should negotiate this and find a solution. Since second order approaches mostly make use of language as a means for therapy, awareness of word choice and gender stereotypes is necessary. Neutrality is viewed as a favourable attitude during therapy, thus allowing the members of the system to say that the therapist hasn’t taken any sides. However, this exempts the ides of taking moral stance as this means taking one’s side. Remaining neutral comes as a result of the therapist engaging in circular questioning, allowing the therapist to engage in conversation with different members of the system. The same situation may be viewed in different ways, and through circular questioning the therapist acknowledges this as well as the fact that no one has access to the truth. 6.INTEGRATING BOTH THE FIRST AND SECOND ORDER APPROACHES IN A USEFUL AND COMPLEMENTARY WAY: Both approaches have valuable contributions in a therapeutic context. First order approaches don’t adequately address the connecting relationship between client and therapist, whereas second order approaches do. They stress the therapist’s behaviour during sessions, language, posture, attitude, and values. Therefore, if a therapist takes the first order approach to therapy and views the system from an outsider’s vantage, he/she should not let his/her values blind his/her judgements about the situation. An open and accepting frame of mind should be kept.
REFERENCES Becvar, D. S. & Becvar, R. J. (2009). Family therapy, a systemic integration. U.S.A: Pearson
