This paper critically evaluates the shift from first-order to second-order cybernetics within family and systemic therapies. Beginning with the historical roots of strategic family therapy — including the contributions of Milton Erickson, Gregory Bateson, and the Palo Alto Group — the paper examines how conceptions of reality, evidence-based practice, ethical conduct, and therapist neutrality differ between the two cybernetic orders. The author argues that both approaches carry inherent methodological limitations that produce subjective family descriptions, and proposes that a third level of classification, grounded in language and social conditioning, may be needed to support more objective assessment in family and systemic therapy research.
The strategic family therapy model emerged in the 1950s and was inspired by two primary bodies of work: the work of Milton Erickson, who developed revolutionary paradoxical interventions that used people's resistance to change to help alter psychiatric symptoms, and the work of Gregory Bateson and the Palo Alto Group, who applied cybernetics to the communication patterns of families. A therapist's style changes as he or she grows both personally and professionally, and also in response to prevailing trends in the field. An experienced practitioner has the opportunity to look back on what happened in their past and identify what worked and what did not — a perspective that is invaluable for understanding what may or may not be effective in a given situation. This reflective process is central to professional development (Minuchin et al., 2007).
Mara Selvini-Palazzoli, one of the great pioneers of the field, was courageous enough to share the mistakes she had made and the new projects she was undertaking. Each new project seemed to carry with it a necessary certainty, sufficient to drive her forward. Yet, to the amazement of her followers and students, another beginning would follow, carrying similar certainty. Circular questioning replaced paradoxes; invariant prescriptions superseded family games; and her colleagues Cecchin and Boscolo adopted a focus on the construction of meaning (Minuchin et al., 2007).
This paper argues that both first-order and second-order cybernetics have limitations that lead to subjective family descriptions. As therapy processes developed, objective classifications and deductions based on family research became increasingly challenging. This challenge has less to do with different researchers perceiving the family from diverse viewpoints and more to do with the methodological limitations inherent in both first-order and second-order cybernetics as applied to family and systemic therapies.
Drawing from a first-order cybernetic perspective, one might ask what reality really is. Such a question would not be consistent with the second-order cybernetic perspective, as it implies that there is only one value or construct for the idea of reality — a truth that can be obtained, discovered, and used as a reference point. The second-order perspective, by contrast, is opposed to the idea of a finite, objectively knowable world (Baron, 2007).
Our perception of reality was challenged by Maturana, who concluded from his research that there is no way to be certain that what we think we are seeing actually exists. He proposed the concept of a self-enclosed nervous system and spoke of structural coupling. As Hoffman (1985) explains, this is akin to skipping rope with one's eyes closed: the stimulus is not literally "received" or "touched," but rather invisible, mutually constrained trajectories are generated, and their connections present themselves on the observer's perceptual field. Reality, therefore, is a social construct. Our perception of reality is not a direct match of objects and events in our environment but is, fundamentally, observer-dependent (Boscolo et al., 1987; Baron, 2007).
Family therapists today face significant pressure from both private and public mental health funding bodies to demonstrate evidence of effectiveness. There is strong competition from cognitive and biological therapies, which benefit from the backing of influential voices in clinical psychology and psychiatry. In recent years, practitioners have been encouraged by a growing body of research demonstrating that family therapy is effective across several clinical problems and populations (Campbell, 1997; Carr, 2000a, 2000b; Pinsoff and Wynne, 2000; Sprenkle, 2003). For instance, Sprenkle (2003) edited a comprehensive "gold standard" outcome research volume demonstrating that family therapy as a discipline is increasingly evidence-based (Asen, 2004).
It was not long ago that a significant number of systemic therapists argued that the systemic paradigm, with its focus on circularity, was largely incompatible with the linear research methods of contemporary science. While it is important to recognize that different perspectives may legitimately clash within the field (Asen et al., 1991), many therapists have come to the conclusion that their methods must be shown to work — or they will not survive in the current evidence-based environment. In fact, research in systemic therapy has been ongoing for a considerable time. There are numerous studies of varying quality, and a substantial body of data exists along with good summaries of that research. Based on the criteria for evidence levels as outlined in the National Service Framework, Type I evidence is available for a good number of presentations and conditions. Significant Type II evidence, as well as a larger number of Type III, Type IV, and Type V studies, is also available (Asen, 2004).
Second-order approaches are known for advocating a stance of "no hidden agenda." Becvar and Becvar (2006) argue that while being transparent about one's intentions may represent sincerity and an attempt not to manipulate others, the approach still tries to influence, because the relationship is defined by the rule that there are no hidden agendas. Such a stance is itself a hidden agenda. Explicitly acknowledging one's purpose is only a revelation of another kind of hidden agenda. In truth, there are no relationships entirely free of hidden agendas or manipulative dynamics (p. 207).
"Hidden agendas and manipulation in second-order therapy"
"How each approach shapes therapist ethical responsibilities"
"Power, language, neutrality, and diagnosis in practice"
This paper critically evaluated the shift from first-order to second-order cybernetics in family and systemic therapies, presenting an informed position and structuring arguments that reflect original thought and an analytical approach. Critical awareness of both theory and methodological limitations was demonstrated through sustained scrutiny of key issues.
You’re 34% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.