Family and Systemic Therapies Shift From First-Order to Second Order

¶ … Shift From First-order to Second-Order Cybernetics in the Family and Systemic Therapies The strategic family therapy model came up in the 1950s and was inspired by two primary works: the works of Milton Erickson who came up with revolutionary paradoxical interventions which took advantage of people's resistance to change to help alter psychiatric symptoms first; and the works of Gregory Bateson and the Palo Alto Group that made use of cybernetics in communication patterns of the family.

The style of a therapist changes as he or she gets better as a person and as they develop professionally, and also as per what is in fashion at the time. An older person has the chance to look at what happened in their past and see what worked and what failed. This gives them a better perspective of what works and what might not work for a given situation. The path is important in growing as a professional (Minuchin et al., 2007).

Mara Selvini-Palazzoli, who was one of the great pioneers of the field, was courageous enough to share the mistakes she had made and the projects she was starting on. Every new project had with it the necessary certainty, seemingly, so as to give her the push to go on. But again, to the amazement of her followers and students, another beginning followed and it had similar certainty.

Circular questioning replaced paradoxes; invariable prescriptions superseded family games and her mates Cecchin and Boscolo adopted a focus on construction of meaning (Minuchin et al., 2007). The position assumed in this paper The paper argues that both first and second order cybernetics have limitations that lead to subjective family descriptions.

It is clear that as therapy-processes developed objective classifications and deductions of families-based research became challenging; this challenge has little to do with different researchers perceiving family from diverse viewpoints and more to do with the methodological limitations inherent in both first-order and second-order cybernetics in the family and systemic therapies. Perspective on Reality Drawing from the perspective of first order cybernetic someone could ask what reality really is.

The question would therefore not be in harmony with the perspective of the second order cybernetic as it implies that there is just but one value or construct for the idea of reality. It implies a truth which can be obtained and discovered and which can be made use of as a sample. The second order perspective is opposed to the idea of the existence of a finite truth and a real objective world (Baron, 2007). Our perception of reality was challenged by Maturana.

He concluded from his findings that there wasn't a way to be certain of the existence of what we are thinking we are seeing. His proposal was of a self-enclosed nervous system. He talks about structural coupling. This, as per Hoffman (1985), is like skipping a rope while your eyes are closed. The stimulus isn't actually "obtained" or "touched" but rather invisible mutually constrained trajectories are generated and their connections present themselves on your panel. Reality therefore is a construct of the society.

Our perception of reality isn't a match of the objects and events in our environment but is actually observer-dependent (Boscolo et al., 1987; Baron, 2007). Evidence Base Politics There is great pressure from private and public funding for mental health on family therapists today for them to demonstrate evidence. There is tough competition from cognitive and biological therapies that have the backing of powerful and notable voices that represent clinical psychology and psychiatry disciplines.

The recent past has seen practitioners being encouraged by a growing body of research that show family therapy to be effective in several clinical problems and populations (Campbell, 1997; Carr 2000a, 2000b; Pinsoff and Wynne, 2000; Sprenkle, 2003). For instance, Sprenkle (2003) edited an entire "gold standard" outcome research volume showing that family therapy as a discipline is becoming evidence-based (Asen, 2004).

It isn't long ago when a significant population of systematic therapists made the argument that systemic paradigm that focuses on circularity isn't very much compatible with the linear methods of research of the modern times. While people need to appreciate the possibility of various perspectives clashing in the field (Asen et al., 1991), a number of therapists have come to the realization that the methods they avail must prove to work or they won't survive in the current evidence-base environment.

Actually, research has been ongoing in systemic therapy for a long time now. There are several studies in the field having varying quality. There is a huge amount of data available and good summaries of these studies and data can be found easily. Based on the criteria for evidence levels, as National Service Outlined, Type I evidence for a good number of presentations and conditions is available. Significant Type II evidence and even a higher number of Type III are also available.

Also available is type IV and V evidence (Asen, 2004). Criticism of the Second-Order Approach Second order approaches are known for advocating the stance of "no hidden agenda." Becvar and Becvar (2006) opine that while being transparent about the intention one has may be a representation of sincerity and an attempt to not manipulate others, the approach still tries to influence as the relationship is bound by the rule that there are no hidden agenda.

Such a stance, to say the least, is a hidden agenda as well! Explicitly acknowledging the purpose you have is only a revelation of a hidden agenda. There aren't any relationships that do not have hidden agendas or manipulative antics (p. 207). Becvar and Becvar cite Gollan on his opinions about unconscious persuasion.

Golan says that that this kind of persuasion may be perceived as more offensive ethically when compared to an explicit transparent approach as it may be compounded by dishonesty and has a tendency to create a bigger power hierarchy that favors the therapist. So, Golan thinks that seduction is involved in second-order approaches just as much as they are in other approaches advocating the same stand on non-manipulation and respect (as cited in Baron, 2007). Ethical Conduct Enhancement Becvar and Becvar (2006) bring to light other concerns relating to second-order cybernetics.

One is bound to come across such questions when seeking answers on ethical concerns on both the first-order and second-order approaches. Being aware of these concerns allows the therapist to tackle ethical concerns in therapy consciously (Baron, 2007). The second-order approach attempts to moderate the stance of the first order approach. It raises questions on "facts" which therapists believe in and so lets them establish their own beliefs and values. It seems the two stances complement one another.

The contrast between the two approaches is similar to the way family/systemic therapy is contrasted with individual therapy. Nonetheless, in the course of family therapy, the therapist should know the individual as well as the needs specific to him or her. This is also applicable in first-order therapy as far as though patterns accounting for varying viewpoints are concerned (Baron, 2007). Becvar and Becvar (2006) discuss the varied hats worn by a therapist.

How can a person live according to the principles pushed by the second-order approach in the Westernized positivistic society? The only explanation is the varied hats worn by a therapist. Fortunately or unfortunately, the hats can be swapped to suit various contexts. What is important is being aware of the available alternatives. The person develops the awareness of the possibility of changing roles so that they meet the needs of that specific context. This dimensional approach to the two approaches allows for the integration of their polarities (Baron, 2007).

Second order approaches examine the behavior of therapists in the process of therapy. Central to the therapy process is the language used by the therapists and also the values and attitudes they have. In several second-order approaches, the therapist's stance is accounted for while this is not the case in several of the first-order approaches, at least not with the same weight. Being aware of the effect bodily state has on conversation is very important. The bodily states indicate how much you care, and also show sharing and trust.

Active listening promotes reflection as a way of reconstructing meaning (Griffith & Griffith, 1992). The therapist ought to know the family members' bodily states as well as his or her own state. Being aware of facial expressions, breathing, posture, voice tonality and eye contact gives a deeper understanding of what is transpiring during the therapy. The first order is therefore complemented by the second order here (Baron, 2007). The first-order fails to comprehensively take care of the relationship between the client and the therapist.

A therapeutic atmosphere is a co-creation of the people involved. Openness, respect and curiosity are manifested jointly by the individuals involved but the therapist has the responsibility to go into a therapy room having an emotional posture which encourages the evolution of factors like this (Griffith and Griffith, 1992; Baron, 2007). Critical Evaluation of Second Order Is there a possibility of co-creating a therapy process so that the power distribution is equal? The idea here attempts to lower the ethical concerns which may come up in using the first order approach.

Participation is encouraged and there is harmony with the second order stance. Participation lowers the therapist's status. There are certain dangers as the professional's mental health status is elevated, states Hoffman (1992, p.23). In a free society, men and women must be able to access their consultant's thinking so that a situation where "professionals who have disguised themselves as experts" makes a decision on their behalf (Baron, 2007).

Control has been made use of in first-order approaches while second order approaches take a different stance that someone can't really control a client and doing so or thinking so would be unethical. No person in a therapy process has the final word. This is critical. Such an idea gives the client room to take more responsibility for their life. The second order's approach on participation, in my view, is sounder ethically (Baron, 2007). Labeling and diagnosis has no place in the second order approach.

The problem is with medical professionals that seek diagnosis as requirement to be met before payment is made. The ability to negotiate such terrains is critical for the second-order therapist and so be able to explain to his/her client for them to make a decision together. This approach is heavily reliant on language as a therapy means. The therapists should be acutely aware of the words they choose and the stereotypes attached to them.

There should be awareness on the effect language has based on how things are said (Baron, 2007). Neutrality is considered a good stance in therapy. A person wouldn't be able to claim that the therapist has taken a position if he/she has achieved neutrality in the process. There is therefore need not to take a moral stance since doing so would indicate supporting another person (Boscolo et al., 1987).

The concept of neutrality can be shown through circular questioning that gives the therapist permission to wade through the conversation of various members of a family without being pinned to a route or view. This is an appreciation of the several ways in which one situation can be acknowledged or perceived - that no person has monopoly on truth (Baron, 2007).

Although honesty concerning a person's intention of not harboring any hidden agendas might represent a well intended attempt to not manipulate another person, the honesty can still be perceived as trying to influence another person as the relationship will still be defined by there being no hidden agendas. That too is a hidden agenda! Explicitly acknowledging someone's intention is only a revelation of a hidden agenda. Truthfully, there aren't any relationships that are not manipulative (Baron, 2007, p.207). Golan (Becvar & Becvar, 2006) did talk of unconscious persuasion.

He mentioned that this kind of persuasion may be perceived to be more offensive ethically when compared to intentional explicit persuasion as it may carry with it some level of dishonesty and create a bigger power hierarchy that favors the therapist. So, Golan concluded that seduction is also used in second order approaches (Baron, 2007). Conclusion This paper critically evaluated the shift from the first-order to second-order cybernetics in the family and systemic therapies. The paper presented a thorough evaluation in a polished, professional and clear manner.

The paper put forward an informed position and structures lucid arguments by showing original thought and assuming an analytical approach. Critical awareness of theory and methodological limitations was demonstrated with sophisticated scrutiny and critique of key issues. My personal position contends that it might be useful to classify another level of categorization within the family and systemic therapy given the inherent limitations in both first-order and second-order cybernetics. This level ought to stem from the notion that use of.