CYBERNETIC SYMPHONY : PATTERNS OF ORGANIZATION IN INTERPERSONAL SYSTEMS

FJA Snyders Department of Psychology, University of South Africa

E du Preez Department of Psychology, University of Pretoria

Abstract. The cybernetic metaphor has inspired family therapists to devise novel ways of observing, describing and managing patterns of organization in human systems. An overview of the history of cybernetics in family therapy is presented, and the various movements in first as well as second order cybernetics in this discipline are described and illustrated. The possibility of a third order paradigm is envisaged, and this level of cybernetic thinking is described as a movement in process.

INTRODUCTION

During the third and fourth decades of the previous century a number of pioneers interested in the mental health field and human communication initiated a countermovement to the prevailing treatment culture of the time. One of the products of this new paradigm was to be the family therapy movement. Until then the individual patient was viewed as the locus of psychopathology, and the context of mental health endeavours was defined by an intrapsychic frame of reference which was informed by the medical model and psychoanalysis. This new movement represented an attempt to view problematic behaviour of individuals within the context of relational patterns and processes in family and hospital systems; research into deviant behaviour shifted from a “why” to a “how” focus.

Since this shift constituted a novel way of observing and interpreting individual behaviour in context, these less explicable and rather ambiguous phenomena in families with an identified patient needed to be modelled in some way. A model may be described as the product of the projection of less understood substance onto the structure of a more defined frame of reference. The systemic/cybernetic paradigm served as a readily available structure, and this modelling process heralded the birth of a new epistemology in the mental health domain.

SETTING THE STAGE

Auerswald (1985, p.2) formulated an operational definition of epistemology as “ a set of immanent rules used in thought by large groups of people to define reality”. Family therapy pioneers re-focussed from a Newtonian to a Cybernetic epistemology to observe and manage patters of organization in family systems. This new focus co-occurred with events of World War I, and the accompanying technological advances in weapon systems and communication networks. The new epistemology was informed by, among others, the work of the mathematicians Wiener and von Neumann, the physician Bigelow, the physiologist McCulloch, the psychologist Lewin, and anthropologists Bateson and Mead ( Becvar & Becvar, 2003).

If the concept “theory” is defined as sets of principles serving to explain a group of phenomena of interest to the researcher, or as a statement of relations believed to prevail in a body of observations, ready made theories were available to serve as a structure of the less understood multilateral and mutual causal patterns of behaviour in human systems. Bertalanffy (1968) provided General Systems Theory, and Wiener (1949) formulated his version of Cybernetics. Theorists and therapists like Haley (1963), Ackerman (1958), Bowen (1978), Whitaker (1975 ) and Wynne and Singer (1963) developed a number of important family therapy and psychotherapy models which were informed by cybernetic epistemology and systems thinking of the time.

The observation of individual difficulties in the context of relational redundancies was a novel endeavour, and attempts were made to project such vaguely understood interpersonal dynamics onto cybernetic and systems models. This development led to Structural, Strategic, Milan, Bowenian, Symbolic-experiential and Communication (MRI) models of family functioning. An era of intense experimentation, research and therapeutic novelty was introduced by these developments. An example of levels of thinking and observation in family therapy follows (Levels of epistemology) :

EPISTEMOLOGY Objectivist Cybernetic Newtonian Ecological THEORY Psychodynamic Systems Behaviourist MODEL Jung, Klein Structural Skinner Strategic Milan Bowen Symbolic-Experiential Communication

CYBERNETICS : OVERTUREThe field of cybernetics originated in 1942, with the mathematician Norbert Wiener (1949) as a main founder member of this science. “Kybernetes” means “steersman”, and was defined as the “science of pattern, organization, and feedback/feedforward”. The original processes of interest were feedback mechanisms, information processing, and patterns of communication ( as necessitated by the events of World Wars I and II). The focus was on principles and patterns of organization in complex systems, and how systems use information and control actions to steer towards and maintain their goals.

FIRST-ORDER CYBERNETICS

First-order cybernetics was also labelled “ the cybernetics of observed systems”, and the first movement of this development was a depiction of a focus on deviation-counteracting processes (negative feedback).

First Order CyberneticsFirst Order Cybernetics((Cybernetics of Cybernetics of ““observedobserved””

systems)systems)

First movementFirst movement : Deviation: Deviation--counteracting processes (Negative counteracting processes (Negative Feedback)Feedback)

-- Observed systemsObserved systems-- HomeostasisHomeostasis-- Negative feedbackNegative feedback-- Symptom as regulatorSymptom as regulator-- Rules and redundanciesRules and redundancies-- Health through orderHealth through order

Figure 2. First-order cybernetics : First movement

First-order cybernetics, or 1°C, was driven by assumptions of realism, and 1°C family therapy models were functionalist and normative, ignored systems of meaning, saw families as objectively observable systems (“how families work”), and therapists were schooled in power and control tactics. Views of anamnesis and catamnesis were just re-imposed on the family rather than on the individual, and the family therefore became the locus of pathology. Examples of these early models were the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, and the work of Bateson (1972), Haley (1963), and Minuchin (1974). These were the communication and strategic approaches to family functioning.

The second movement of 1°C was still characterized by the “cybernetics of observed systems”, but the leitmotiv here was deviation-amplifying processes (positive feedback). The new attempt was to push the family away from equilibrium by introducing challenges to the status quo, and by orchestrating therapeutic crises.

First Order CyberneticsFirst Order Cybernetics((Cybernetics of Cybernetics of ““observedobserved””

systems)systems)

Second movementSecond movement : Deviation amplifying : Deviation amplifying processes (Positive Feedback)processes (Positive Feedback)

-- Observed systemsObserved systems-- Crisis leads to growthCrisis leads to growth-- Challenge the systemChallenge the system-- Therapeutic ordealsTherapeutic ordeals-- DestabilizeDestabilize

Figure 3. First-order cybernetics : Second movement.

Examples of this movement were Haley’s Ordeal Therapy (1984), Minuchin’s restructuring techniques (1974), and the provocative and paradoxical models of Farrelly and Brandsma (1974) and Dell (1982). The main principles of 1°C, also named “simple cybernetics” are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Principles of first-order cybernetics

SIMPLE CYBERNETICSSIMPLE CYBERNETICS

Recursion Recursion

Feedback Feedback

MorphostasisMorphostasis//

morphogenesis morphogenesis

Rules(redundanciesRules(redundancies) )

Boundaries Boundaries

Open and closedOpen and closed

Entropy/Entropy/negentropynegentropy

EquifinalityEquifinality//

equipotentialityequipotentiality

Information Information

Wholeness Wholeness

Mutuality Mutuality

Purpose (goal)Purpose (goal)

The observer or therapist was viewed as apart from the family of observation, as depicted in Figure 4 below.

Observer System

SIMPLE CYBERNETICSSIMPLE CYBERNETICS

Figure 4. Position of the observer in 1°C.

SECOND-ORDER CYBERNETICS (2°C)In 1981 Von Foerster published his influential “Observing Systems”, and the discourse about the position of the observer was introduced. It was implied that the operations of distinction of the observer/family therapist brought forth the described family system, and that such distinctions were always informed by the observer’s epistemology (“how observers construct reality”). Observations were relative to the observer’s point of view. The first and second movements of 2°C explicitly addressed a theory of the observer, and introduced a shift from “what” was seen, to “how” observers see. Examples of first movement models in 2°C are : Early Milan, later Watzlawick (“The invented reality”), Virginia Goldner, and Tom Andersen (“The reflecting team”). The second movement in 2°C included Lyn Hoffman, Monica McGoldrick and later Milan developments. In this movement the assumption was that problems originate in the observer’s ways of punctuating events.

Second Order CyberneticsSecond Order Cybernetics((Cybernetics of Cybernetics of ““observingobserving””

systems)systems)

First MovementFirst MovementFocus on therapist/observer ( Neutrality, stance, Focus on therapist/observer ( Neutrality, stance,

circularity, positive connotation, reflecting team, circularity, positive connotation, reflecting team, transparency,curiositytransparency,curiosity).).Second MovementSecond Movement““Do not perturb the familyDo not perturb the family””((Minimalism,positiveMinimalism,positive connotation, connotation, respect, equidistance, optimism).respect, equidistance, optimism).

Figure 5. Second-order cybernetics : The three movements

The third movement was characterized by the following themes:“Human systems as linguistic systems” (Anderson & Goolishian,1988);“Narrative means to therapeutic ends” (White & Epston, 1990);“Improvisational therapy” (Keeney, 1990);“Conversation, language and possibilities” (Andersen, 1997).

The therapeutic reconstruction of world views were seen as based on collaborative explorations of different ways of viewing family contexts, stories, and circumstances. Second-order approaches, however, still focussed on a type of realist privileging position from which the therapist occupied a metaposition. The “observer” was seen as the source of reality and intentionality, and “objectivity-in-parentheses” was still a neglected concept. The main principles underlying second-order cybernetics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Principles of 2°C.

CYBERNETICS OF CYBERNETICSCYBERNETICS OF CYBERNETICS

Observer part of Observer part of observedobserved

SelfSelf--referentialityreferentiality

AutopoiesisAutopoiesis

Negative feedbackNegative feedback

AutonomyAutonomy

(Organizational closure)(Organizational closure)

Closed systemsClosed systems

Internal structureInternal structure

Interaction as recursive Interaction as recursive perturbationperturbation

New coNew co--ordinationsordinations

Epistemology of Epistemology of participationparticipation

Consensual domainsConsensual domains

Reality as multiReality as multi--verseverse

In Figure 6 the position of the observer, according to 2°C, is depicted:

Observer System

CYBERNETICS OF CYBERNETICSCYBERNETICS OF CYBERNETICS

Figure 6. The position of the observer in 2°C.

THIRD-ORDER CYBERNETICS

The necessity for a 3°C paradigm arises in response to the realist privileging process of the 2°C movements. In addition to this consideration, first and second order movements may be viewed as attending to systems at or near equilibrium, without considering the potentialities inherent in systems away from equilibrium. The 2°C views still present with a staccato image of discrete observers and their invented realities. A different class of description may be invented to depict the dynamic and emergent processes generated by family systems in constant transition. The question of how humans create and maintain social systems through ideas and language had to be addressed in some way.

Umpleby (2001) described two phases in the development of cybernetics : 1°C from the late 1940’s until 1975, and 2°C from the 1970’s until the present. Second-order cybernetics may be viewed as congruent with the philosophy of Constructivism, and while this paradigm is useful in the explanation of how individuals construe and communicate, the depiction of resultant changes in social systems remains unclear. There is a need for an understanding of the mutually influencing relationships between theories and models of social systems on the one hand, and the dynamics of the systems these blueprints address ((Umpleby,2001). Emergence of changes and jumps in and of social systems need to be charted, and in this respect, Umpleby (2001) advocates the introduction of “social cybernetics”, also labelled the “cybernetics of conceptual systems”, as a potential direction for 3°C thinking.

A language for describing the dance of family systems in context may exist in Edgar Auerswald’s ( 1990) ecological approach to presenting problems and complaints in human affairs. This model which assists in the description of ecological event-shapes and ecosystemic scenarios represents a first movement in 3°C, as can be seen from Figure 7 :  

Third Order CyberneticsThird Order Cybernetics((Cybernetics of Cybernetics of ““emergenceemergence””))

First movement (Cybernetics of relational First movement (Cybernetics of relational events)events)

Ecological eventEcological event--shapesshapes

EcosystemicEcosystemic modelsmodels

Figure 7. Third-order cybernetics : The first movement

Following from the introduction above, 3°C may also be defined as the “cybernetics of emergence”, and the first movement as the “cybernetics of relational events”. A number of principles underlying Auerswald’s (1990) ecological approach are listed below, and adherence to these guidelines clearly informs how interpersonal systems are viewed (theory and model). These different views lead to different classes of interventions, and the resultant different operations of the target systems then again inform theory and model:

Multiple evolving realitiesRelativismHeuristic truthIntersubjectivity, rather than objectivityUnderstanding by contextualizationDistance/closeness (rather than hierarchy)Multilateral mutual causalityBoth/and positionProbability rather than certaintyName as shorthand presentationFourdimensional timespaceEvent as informationPattern as related events, and as emergenceMonistic connectednessEventshape as ecosystemHuman participation.

The second movement in 3°C is depicted in Figure 8, and introduces the “cybernetics of knowledge”. Here theories of change and the design of intellectual movements are of interest.

Third Order CyberneticsThird Order Cybernetics((Cybernetics of Cybernetics of ““emergenceemergence””))

Second movement (Cybernetics of Second movement (Cybernetics of knowledge)knowledge)

Theories of changeTheories of change

Figure 8. Third-order cybernetics : The second movement(Kan ons hierbo, onder “Theories of change”, die woorde “Design of intellectual movements” invoeg?).

An example of a theory of change is depicted in Figures 9 and 10, where Prigogine’s (1977) Theory of Dissipative Structures is applied to the description of family systems as permanent instabilities.

Theory of Dissipative Structures Theory of Dissipative Structures (Prigogine,1977)(Prigogine,1977)

Families, as open systems, are permanent instabilitiesFamilies, as open systems, are permanent instabilities

Variables in the family system always fluctuateVariables in the family system always fluctuate

By chance or design any of these variables may be amplifiedBy chance or design any of these variables may be amplified

Amplifications serve as positive feedbackAmplifications serve as positive feedback

Discontinuous, nonDiscontinuous, non--linear transitions may occurlinear transitions may occur

Bifurcations are the result : This is the sudden appearance of aBifurcations are the result : This is the sudden appearance of anew solution for a critical value of a family parameternew solution for a critical value of a family parameter

Figure 9. The family as a dissipative structure.

Figure 10 serves as an example of the description of change of a therapeutic system as a result of the intensification of resonating themes in and between clients and therapist. The amplification of control parameters such as “resonance” may lead to bifurcations, systemic jumps, and new solutions and system characteristics.

Figure 10. Change in the therapeutic system.

According to Umpleby (2001), an important goal of 3°C should be a study of the design of intellectual movements, how these movements may transform societies, and how these transformations feed back into epistemological blueprints. Umpleby (2001) refers to the theories of Karl Marx and Milton Freedman as examples of incisive influences on large social systems. In the work of Auerswald (1990) as well as Umpleby (2001) observers are viewed as social participants who construe knowledge in the service of human aims, and the challenge for a 3°C exists in “transforming conceptual systems (through persuasion, not coercion), to change society” (Umpleby,2001,p.4).

REFERENCES

Ackerman, N.W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York : Basic Books.Anderson,H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities. New York : Basic Books.Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H.A. (1988) Human systems as linguistic systems : Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-393.Andersen,T. (1987). The reflecting team : Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26, 415-428.Auerswald, E.H. (1990). Toward epistemological transformation in the education and training of family therapists. In M.P. Mirkin (Ed.). The social and political contexts of family therapy (pp.19-50). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.Auerswald,E.H. (1985). Thinking about thinking in family therapy. Family Process, 1, 1-12. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York : Ballantine.Becvar, D.S. & Becvar, R.J. (2003). Family therapy : A systemic integration (5th Ed.). New York : Allyn & Bacon.Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General systems theory. New York : Braziller.Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York : Jason Aronson. Dell, P.F. (1982). Beyond homeostasis : Toward a concept of coherence. Family Process, 21, 21-41.Farrelly, F., & Brandsma, J. (1974). Provocative therapy. California: Meta Publications.Foerster, H. von (1981). Observing systems. Seaside,CA: Intersystems Publications.Goldner, V. (1993). Power and hierarchy : Let’s talk about it! Family Process, 32, 157-162.Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York : Grune & Stratton.Haley, J. (1984). Ordeal therapy. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundations of family therapy. New York : Basic Books.Keeney, B.P. (1990). Improvisational therapy. Minnesota : Systemic Therapy Press.McGoldrick, M. (1982). Ethnicity and family therapy : An overview. In M. McGoldrick, K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (Eds.). Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 3-30). New York : Guilford Press.Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University press.Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1985). Order out of chaos. London : Fontana.

Selvini, M. (1988). The work of Mara Selvini-Palazzoli. New Jersey : Jason Aronson.Umpleby, S.A. (2001). What comes after second-order cybernetics? Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 8(3), 87-89.Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York : Norton.Whitaker, C.A., & Malone, T.P. (1953). The roots of psychotherapy. New York : Blakiston.Whitaker, C.A. (1975). Psychotherapy of the absurd : With a special emphasis on the psychotherapy of aggression. Family Process, 14(1), 1-16.White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York : Norton.Wiener, N. (1949). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York:Wiley.Wynne, L., & Singer, M. (1963). Thought disorder and family relations of schizophrenics, I and II. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 191-206.