prepare a systems theory cheat sheet

Instructions

Clients come to MFTs because they want to change, whether the change is in cognitions, structure, insight, or something else. Therefore, it is important for you to understanding why, when, and how people change. This week, you will continue the exploration of core concepts related to systems theory and its application to MFT field concepts. You will review several concepts associated with change including homeostasis, first-order change, second-order change, continuous change, and discontinuous change. Complete the provided worksheet template located in this week’s resources. Note: You will use the worksheet you complete this week as part of your work in Week 4. For each item, be sure to address the following: · Record a direct quotation that defines the concept or describes the assumption. · Paraphrase the definition or description by explaining the information in your own words. As you are paraphrasing, keep in mind that concepts often involve several interrelated ideas. When you are paraphrasing, be sure to not oversimplify the concept. · Provide an original example (not one you read about in the course resources) of the concept or assumption. · Explain how your example reflects the definition. Refer to your paraphrased definition in order to compare the example to the concept. Should you have questions or need clarification on any items, please contact your professor to discuss it.  Length: 1-2 pages (completed template). Additional resources/reference page is not required. Your cheat sheet should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy. Upload your document, and then click the  Submit to Dropbox button.

Building Blocks to Conceptualizing Family: A Family System’s Perspective Valerie Q. Glass, PhD, LMFT

Background of Systemic Thinking

Systemic thinking, for some, means trying on a new and unique lens when considering “presenting problems” that arise in therapeutic settings. Most mental and emotional health backgrounds study individual cognitive and emotional processes, systemic thinking means a shift in looking at one person to looking at a whole system. Keeney (1983) calls this change in professional theory an epistemological shift. Epistemology, most basically, is the way one understands what is in front of them, and the root with which decisions are made. Helping fields all develop from different epistemologies. Psychiatry views medicine and biology as their epistemological construct of how or why people act the way they do. Much of the epistemological focus of social work fields embraces the necessity or connecting to resources and social support as a catalyst for change. Psychology explores the make-up of the individual’s mind and develops steps for change. Family systems, and the main focus of this paper, dive into the epistemology of looking at families through the constructs with which we might look at various systems. You are at the beginning of a new epistemological journey. As part of that journey, new concepts will be presented that allow you to consider the role of systems in presenting problems and in change. Mechanical and biological systemic terminology will be used to highlight how families work like systems to both maintain “presenting problems” as well as healing or changing these “presenting problems.” This epistemological stance might fit with your natural understanding of the world and how problems arise or are maintained or these ideas may deviate slightly from your perspectives on problems. Marriage and family therapy, as a profession, holds a foundational epistemological view that family systems play a major role in how we view clients, presenting problems, the maintenance of problems, and the keys to change and growth (Jackson & Weakland, 2016). Davey et al. (2012) states: “the practice of family therapy is based on the idea that individuals and their problems are best understood and treated within a relational context” (p. 75). 44 Biological and Mechanical Systems The major representation of the idea of family systems is in the construct of “system.” If you think about anything where a bunch of separate parts work together to generate a working system, this idea of a system can be visualized. Consider a natural ecosystem where you have plants bringing in air and growing from nutrients in the soil and sun. Then you have animals eating the plants and bigger animals preying on the smaller animals. Finally, you have dead animals decaying to provide nutrients to the soil. This is an example of an ecological system. If you view the one plant separate from the system, it does not make sense, you cannot break apart how the plant works and grows without including the other parts of the system. Additionally, if the plant does not survive, it does not do this alone; it is dependent on the system around it and their role in the plant’s survival. A second example of a system could be a mechanical system. Consider a car; it has a bunch of different systems working together to help it run properly. If you saw just a steering wheel by itself, that would not make sense and would not function without the rest of the mechanical system. Also, if one part of a car’s system does not work – let’s say the tire is low on air – the rest of the system compensates (the driver has to hold the steering wheel tighter in one direction, the engine works harder, the other tires wear because they are pushed in a different direction). We could name many different systems (e.g., a human body, an air conditioning system, a ship, a sports team, a traffic light, a computer) the list is endless. The commonality is that systems need all the parts to “function.” The parts can “function” independently. Using this background of mechanical or biological systems, apply these ideas to family functioning. A family works to maintain their “normal” (or homeostasis which we will talk about later). Each member in a family system has a job or a role in helping that family function in the way that is normal to them. To see a person independently, we cannot understand their role in that family system without seeing or learning about the family context. These systemic constructs help us view family dynamics from this systemic perspective. They lead us to consider how that system is working, what the system’s “normal” is, and the identification of the strengths and weaknesses in the entire system. Keeney (1982) shares that change, which from the systemic perspective, involves “facilitating alternative structures to maintain the family organization” (p. 87). In other words, therapy helps the system find a new (healthier) way of working. 45 Historical Backdrop of Systemic Theory The process of looking at family through a systemic lens is known as “systems theory,” “general systems theory,” or “family systems theory.” Minuchin (1985) describes a system as an “organized whole” (p. 289) or a group or parts that organize around one idea or function. Considering theory is important to your work as a family therapist, because your identity as an MFT, from this point forward, will take into account the very foundational idea that family is a whole system and functions much like mechanical and biological systems. There is not one major contributor to the idea of systemic thinking and the application to families; however, there seemed to be somewhat of a movement that began around 1950 and solidified as a specific theory within the next 20 or so years. We will only consider some of the names that were involved in developing the metaphor of systems as they are applied to thinking about family dynamics. Don Jackson. In the 1960s, Jackson developed what he coined an “Interactional Theory” where he explored the idea that families seem to want to maintain a normality, or their sense of normality (called homeostasis which will be defined later) (see Jackson, 1968a; Jackson, 1968b). In addition, Jackson identified that working with the family allowed clinicians to observe family systemic interactions and utilize them as part of treatment. Harry Stack Sullivan. Sullivan influenced some of Jackson’s ideas by stating that clinicians cannot look at mental health of one individual independently from the family context. He argued that mental health is a result of both internal and external forces (Stack Sullivan, 1939). Gregory Bateson. Bateson worked closely with two other familiar names in MFT history: John Weakland and Jay Haley (Ray & Brasher, 2010). Together, they solidified some of the foundational research in the field of systemic thinking by researching the role of homeostasis and communication patterns in families. Bateson opened the door to systemic thinking about how patterns were part of family systems (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Bateson also worked with other founders of systemic thinking, such as Watzawick (see below); they theorized the connection of cybernetics in family patterns. Watzlawick, Fisch, and Weakland. Weakland expanded on his work with Bateson and Haley to develop a theory of family therapy with Watzlawick and Fisch titled MRI Brief Therapy (Ray & Brasher, 2010). MRI Brief is often labelled as the foundational theory of family systems therapy. One of the major assumptions of the MRI group was that therapy should explore the interactional patterns between people. In addition, these therapists explored the roles of family members in maintaining problems. 46 Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. Von Bertalanffy was an Austrian biologist who eschewed the reductive view of systems that had previously existed and embraced the idea that scientific principles were bigger than the one object or idea. He stressed that context had to be considered to better understand the element (Bond, 2009). Von Bertalanffy’s ideas about systemic thinking were applicable to all areas of the world: ecology, biology, politics, or global systems, humankind, or groupings of any kind. He argued the global solutions could not be addressed without considering the larger systemic context. Alfred Adler. Adler predated family systems thinking; however, he did add to the construction of the systemic thinking in the mental health and psychology fields (Carich & Willingham, 1987). Adler argued that there was an individual that was examined from a psychological context; however, the psychologist should still remember their social environment and the role this might play in who they are. In addition, Adler discusses the role of causation in mental health. He labeled causation as “circular processes” (similar to circular causality that will be discussed later). This is the idea that psychologists cannot just hone in on one specific cause for mental health issues, he stated that there was a more complex process involved that included the client’s context and social interactions. The convergence of ideas or a shift in epistemology, brought on by great thinkers from many fields, led to the constructs of systemic thinking. The over-arching ideas presented the foundation for many concepts that help family systems theorists discuss and define family dynamics. In the next section, many concepts that have emerged will be presented, defined, and applied to families. Systemic Concepts In the next few pages, this paper will define and explain many constructs that are used in family systems theory. These constructs link to the idea of mechanical and biological systems, using metaphor to explain family functioning. Families work as a whole unit and function wholly rather than as individual members, according to family systems theory. Each of these constructs help us identify, define, and expand on family and how family interacts to as a systemic whole. Homeostasis One of the most common concepts that is utilized in the family therapy field is that of homeostasis. Homeostasis is a systems natural restructuring to maintain the intended function (Messer, 1971). In physics, the concept of equilibrium means a constant state; homeostasis is the system’s ability to return to that equilibrium. Consider an ocean and 47 the constant ebb and flow of the waters at high and low tide; this is the ocean’s homeostasis. If a powerful hurricane takes over the seafront, the ocean tides rise over the land; however, after the passing of the hurricane, the oceans will fall back into their regular flow, returning to homeostasis. Homeostasis can “move,” for example, if there were many hurricanes and the constant force of the high waters destroyed and overtook part of the land; that would be the “new” homeostasis. Homeostasis can be used to describe family dynamics; more importantly, homeostasis can be used to define healthy and unhealthy dynamics within family systems. Each family has a homeostasis. Sometimes these homeostatic states are working, are functional and “healthy,” and other times they are not (Messer, 1971). If a “healthy” family experiences stressful scenarios, then that family might adjust and develop a new “unhealthy” (or less functional) homeostasis. Consider for a moment that family that we have all met, the family that seems to remain in a constant chaotic state. The family may seem to resolve one issue, yet there seems to be another, just as serious, right behind it. This state of chaos is that family’s homeostasis, they seem to retreat to this place of functioning that is consistent and comfortable for the system. On the flip side of this example, consider what you might call a more functioning homeostasis in a family – a “healthy” family. Maybe this family experiences the sudden death of someone in their family system. The family experiences a great deal of grief and go through that process; however, somehow they are able to bounce back to their “healthy” functioning – their healthy homeostasis. Family systems theorists research and theorize about what makes for a more functional or dysfunctional homeostasis; however, as the root of family systems thinking is the idea that there is some systemic regularity going on in families. Systemic therapists understand that de-regulating this homeostasis can lead to change. Naïve Realism Naïve realism implies that people generally only see part of the whole (Keeney, 1983). Psychologists in the early 1900s, for example, viewed mental health in women as being linked to hormones or the uterus. As a result, many unnecessary hysterectomies and ovarian removals took place to “cure” women. These psychologists only viewed a small part of the picture, they understood mental health in women through this naïve realism. They did not take into account other elements of the woman’s life (i.e., family dynamics, social expectations, addiction, abuse, genetics, the list goes on). Early systemic thinkers embrace the idea that mental health is more than what we “see” and that there are systems involved in people’s lives that play a role in their emotional, mental, and physical health. 48 System As discussed earlier, a system is defined as separate parts that work together to create a whole (Hanson, 1995). Wholeness is an important part of the system because, even though there are parts in the system, the system is viewed as a whole. Every element within the system interconnects to create the larger system. Another important aspect of a system is the complexity around what happens when a part that is not interconnected enters the system. An example might be a fiancé of a family member whose context and role does not fit with the larger family unit. We have all seen this dynamic. There can be a shunning or fakeness that overtakes the family system. Eventually maybe the fiancé finds her way into the family rules, the “whole,” or maybe she leaves the system altogether. Either way, the system does seek to maintain homeostasis and return to “normality.” Subsystem. Up to now, the idea of systems, particularly family systems, as a united “whole” has started to build your own epistemological shift. Likely, you can guess what the concept of subsystem might mean. Subsystems are parts of the larger system that have a “distinct dynamic, but are nonetheless connected in hierarchical arrangements with systems that contain them” (Minuchin, 1999, p. 12). If you examine an extended family system, grandparents might be one subsystem, parents another, and siblings another sub-system. Some family therapists (e.g., structural family therapist Salvador Minuchin) felt that problems arose when these subsystems were off-balance, for example, when the parental subsystem was not clear (Cox & Paley, 1997). For example, maybe a grandmother and mother aligned against a husband’s behavior. Maybe a child and a father were an aligned subsystem and left the other child and parent disconnected. Some family therapists focus a great deal of therapeutic attention on the idea that subsystems should be both independent and dependent – for example, parents should be focused on parenting children; however, they should not be overly involved in sibling dynamics. These different subsystems “should have” specific rules to guide healthier family interactions. In the structural model, fixing family dynamics within the system can provide structure and lead to improving the presenting problem. Open system. An open system is a system that is not completely independent (Day, 2007). An open system interacts with systems around it and is influenced by systems around it. Consider a family that is having challenges and will be influenced by peers at work (their work systems), their extended family systems, their church community systems, their neighbors, their therapist, and so on. An open family system can build on elements of the systems around them and are open to these systems. They might incorporate some of their Rabbi’s teachings into their parenting challenges or seek advice from work friend. 49 Closed system. On the flip side of the open system, is a closed system. A closed system is a system that is not interacting or engaging with external systems (Day, 2007). The functioning of a closed family system is not influenced by external systems. An example of a closed system is a family that has deep secrets and challenges and these are only known within the family. They do not seek outside feedback or assistance for their challenges. Cox and Paley (1997) discuss the reciprocal relationships between family systems and their external systems independent of these being closed or open systems. Families undoubtedly are involved and connected to multiple systems at multiple levels. From a systemic perspective, the connections between all of these external systems could equate to a much larger defined system. For example, a neighborhood is a system, a school is a system, and so on; the family is just a “sub-system” of these larger systems. Through systemic metaphors, there could be influences from these systems on the family and vice versa that could lead to a need for either to re-balance their equilibrium. If a family is struggling with a dynamic at their child’s school, maybe the teacher and child have a difficult relationship in class; this challenge influences the family system and, conversely, the parent’s frustration and response to the school influences the school homeostasis. These interactions of systems play a role in family functioning; therefore, family systems clinicians should be aware of these multiple systems and the context (which will be described later) of families’ experiences. Complementary Systems. Bateson introduces three systems: complementary systems, symmetrical systems, and reciprocal systems (see below), These three types of systems identify how systems negotiate conflict (Smith-Acuna, 2011). A complementary system of communication is one that communicates differently; they “mirror” each other (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990; Watzlwavick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967). For example, one person is the authoritarian and the other is submissive; or, one person is the substance abuser, the other person is the enabler. These communication patterns are typically noted by external forces of understanding and hierarchies in social structures – for example, patriarchal messages that the “man of the house” should be in charge influences both a husband and wife’s sense of who they are in a married relationship. Another example would be an authoritative parent setting down specific rules for the child. Ultimately, the child will rebel and break the rules behind the parent’s back – this would be a complementary system. Symmetrical Systems. In a symmetrical system, there is contention for the same relational role (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990; Watzlwavick, et al., 1967). Bateson (1979) explains that symmetrical systems are when one part of a system does things one way, another part of the system will follow suit and do the same thing. A way to think of 50 symmetrical systems is that two or more members are competing for control. If you have a mother and child and an introduction of a stepparent, then the child and the new stepparent may attempt to work against each other in getting the mother’s attention. Reciprocal Systems. Converse to both complementary and symmetrical systems, reciprocal systems are more balanced (Heatherington & Friedlander,1990). Think of reciprocal systems as families that encourage healthy competition, where relationships are on equal playing fields, and there is a sense of both connection and independence within the system. Change Thinking about how systems work, how a family (or any other system) works to maintain homeostasis, it seems counterintuitive to even begin to have hope that changing systems is possible. First order change and second order change define what change can look like from a systemic perspective. In addition, the role of the therapist can be explained through these constructs. First order change. One important construct is first order change. First order change is defined as a small change or immediate change that is typically temporary and does not make major changes to the larger system and how it works (Chae, 2017). First order change typically focuses on the immediate situation at hand rather than looking at lasting impact (Davey et al., 2012). An example might be a therapy session where a couple starts to yell at one another; they are clearly agitated and are not calm enough to process. The therapists employ some techniques that allow for the couple to catch their breath and calm down to continue the session. This change occurs in the moment for the moment, but when the couple returns home, the agitation picks back up. There was a change, but overall, it did not lead to lasting or significant change. Most notably, there was not a lasting shift in the systemic homeostasis. First order change in therapy can be important during moments of crisis because stabilization for that moment can be essential. Second order change. Second order change is a restructuring of the system and its patterns of interaction (Chae, 2017). Second order change shifts homeostasis so that the family finds a “new” homeostasis (hopefully a healthier homeostasis). Second order change is more permanent and requires a system change. Consider that in a family homeostasis there are specific roles and rules for the family to function the way it does, second order change creates a shift in these roles and rules and ultimately the family equilibrium (Davey et al., 2012). Second order change is ultimately the goal of family systems therapy, family therapists want there to be a healthier shift in the family 51 homeostasis. Because of the systemic dynamics, there is an inability to actually define the specific “one change” in homeostasis, rather, second order change is about a shift within the system on many levels. Davey et al. (2012) pinpoint that second order change is a result of three elements: a change in some of the rules within the family, the introduction or rethinking of certain ways the system views their interactions, and a resetting of the new equilibrium around these new ideas and processes. Continuous Change. Continuous change is taking things step by step. Also known as incremental change, the idea is that change occurs progressively over time in smaller minor changes (Ford & Lerner, 1992). Consider someone who wants to quit smoking and goes from 12 cigarettes a day to 11, stays at 11 for a week, then, goes down to 10 for a week, and so on. This is continuous change because the addictive qualities (homeostasis) are decreasing gradually. In a family therapy dynamic continuous change may develop through the introduction of new skills or new communication that is practiced and contributes to the larger change eventually. Discontinuous Change. Opposite of continuous change is discontinuous change (Smith-Acuna, 2011). Discontinuous change is a sudden, more pronounced change. An example might be a family’s first baby, there is a sudden need to adapt to this change. In a homeostatic system, discontinuous change can add an interesting dynamic because the change is inevitable and homeostasis typically restructures to some degree after the system gets over the shock. Causality Consider for a moment how you feel “presenting problems” arise. Causality has been explored through systemic thinking. As stated before, if there is a difficult or stressful element in the family, this can cause homeostasis to shift into a more nonfunctional homeostasis. Causality in systemic thinking implies that one person is not the “cause” of the problem, rather there is a systemic response to specific challenges (Flaskas, 2010). As a family therapist, quite frequently, parents bring children in hoping for a quick fix. A systemic therapist would view the family as a system and not the child as the singular patient. Causality, therefor, is not as simple as exploring the risk factors or individual aspects of the presenting problem. Linear Causality. To better explain systemic causality, consider what it is not. Linear causality is when one aspect causes another aspect (Flaskas, 2010). Simply put, it is when A causes B. For example, a rock in your path “causes” you to trip or exposure to a virus causes you to get sick. Linear causality is limited to two things: the one thing that led to the event and the event. In the mental health fields, historically, the linear causality lens has been employed (Nichols, 2013). For example, depression is “caused 52 by” chemical imbalances in the brain. Systemic elements are not really considered in linear thinking and there is a sense of clarity and definitiveness in the understanding of that causality. Bateson (1979) argued that anytime one considers anything in a linear causality, they are doomed to find a mistake in the expectation because no causality exists without intervening sources. Circular Causality. Systemic thinkers refer more specifically to the idea of circular causality, which is a construct that has led to redefinition and debate (Bateson, 1979). Traditionally, circular causality embraces the idea that multiple factors “cause” results (Flaskas, 2010). Consider you are working with a family and their teenager , who has been sneaking out at night and drinking with friends. Using a linear thinking, someone might state, “oh, he is an adolescent and that is what they do.” Circular causality takes into account the many other elements of causation. Maybe the parents have been arguing, maybe he was bullied by peers, maybe his sister got a great deal of attention, maybe genetically he is predisposed to addiction, maybe he is rebelling, maybe his mother is pressuring him to play sports, or maybe all of these things at once are going on. The idea around circular causality is that there is no one at “fault”, rather it is the system as a whole that is “defective.” Alternatively, circular causality is related to the circular or reciprocal causation patterns. Rather than the A leads to B example of linear thinking, circular causality is more recursive, A leads to B, which leads back to A and so on (Watzlawick, Beavin, Bavels, & Jackson, 1967). In addition, in a systemic scenario there might be more than just “A” and “B,” but for simplification purposes, reflect on an example of this recursive process with just two people in a system. If there is a family of two, a mother and her teenaged son. The mother shares that she tries and tries to get her son to take some responsibility around the house. The son shares that he gets overwhelmed and depressed because his mother is always yelling at him, therefore, he does not feel like doing anything. The reciprocal relationship here is stuck in a pattern that has no origin (no “A”). The old adage “which comes first the chicken or the egg” explains this definition of circular causation. An evolution of the construct of circular causality has occurred. Some systemic thinkers have challenged the idea that cause and effect should be ignored and replaced with seeing the family systems dynamic only (Nichols, 2013). For some family systems clinicians, they embrace the idea that family members should be aware of their actions and the causes of their actions within the family system. The metaphor of circular causality as it is applied to families is not without debate in the family systems field. Some family dynamics and power dynamics within family systems lend themselves to look less at this construct of circular causality. For example, 53 consider a family violence scenario; to explore this within the construct of circular causality places the system at “fault” rather than the perpetrator (Murray, 2006). Some have noted that not holding individuals accountable can be both disrespectful to power imbalances and unproductive. The debate on this concept (and others) still continues to develop and refine among systemic thinkers and researchers. Nonsummativity Nonsummativity is the idea that the whole of the system is more than each piece of the system individually. Family systems therapists might say “the whole is more than and different from the mere sum of its parts” (Fraser, 2018, p. 70). Consider the car example; if you have a car and all the parts are on the lawn, there is not much to it. You might even be able to put together the carburetor and get it functioning; however, without putting it with the rest of the “car system” it does not do you much good. Taking a step back, if you look at a person without their system, it also does not make much sense. Putting it together defines the function of each part and how it contributes to the “whole.” Take a person out of the system, the whole will look completely different. The idea behind nonsummativity is that there is a functioning system that is a complete “whole” and the interactions between two members of that whole, or one person’s behavior does not account for the whole and, therefore, the whole family system and the context of the whole must be part of the change (Hanson, 1995). If your car gets into an accident where there is engine damage, frame damage, and axel damage and you only fix the frame or look at the problems in the frame, the car won’t work. You have to consider all the parts of that system – the whole. Equifinality The construct of equifinality also contributes to the understanding of causality. Equifinality describes how many possible variables could lead to one specific result (Fraser, 2018). Consider you were doing a research study on drug use in adolescents. You studied 100 teens who reported abusing substances and asked them “do you spend more than 20 hours a week on electronics – social media, TV, computer games, etc.?” For this example, assume 99 of them did. Your research result would be “the use of electronics leads to drug abuse among teens.” What was not figured in with the multitude of risk factors that you did not consider that might have also led to drug use (e.g., poverty, peer pressure, substance abuse in the home, family violence, mental health, etc.) The idea relates to family therapy in many ways, however, one way that commonly evolves in therapeutic environments is when a family reports “every time I mention the garbage, we have a fight.” The therapist can begin to explore the equifinality (the possible variables) that could lead to the fight besides the garbage. 54 Multifinality. Multifinality occurs when there are multiple possible “endings” from one action (Hanson, 1995). Consider a divorce, which can have multiple effects on the system: children have to adapt, the parents develop independence and identity, there can be a sense of grief in all parts of the system, as well as a variety of other “endings.” Double bind A double bind is an intense message that has contradictory content (Hanson, 1995). It is a difficult situation within a family systems context where there is a request or statement that has two meanings and there is not a way the person receiving the meaning can get out of the situation. Consider the old adage “between a rock and a hard place.” Using an example of a couple, Partner A yells to Partner B, “you never clear the dishes, I wish you would stop being so lazy and do this some time!” The next day, Partner B takes initiative and starts doing the dishes. Partner A comes over and looks at the dishes and yells “you just can’t do anything right, these look terribly done, just give them to me and let me do them!” Partner B did not have any choice in this dynamic and would get yelled at no matter what they did; they are in a double bind. One common example that I have seen often in couples’ therapy is when one partner wants or asks for something from the other partner (i.e., “romance”); however, they will also give the message that the partner is not able to “do” this correctly. This situation leaves the partner unclear about how to proceed. Double bind messages connect to the idea of basic communication between people and recognizing that in communication, words do not always represent the message being conveyed (Jackson & Weakland, 2016). Often in therapy, themes of double binds arise in family systems. Helping the family see these patterns and subsequent expectations that cannot be met can assist in correcting these double bind patterns. Don Jackson felt that double binds were typically part of the family homeostasis; for example, there was not typically one incident of a double bind (Ray, Stivers, & Brasher, 2011). Cybernetics Cybernetics is the way that any system will keep correcting itself as a way to maintain “normality” (Keeney, 1983). A major element of cybernetics is feedback and how feedback causes the family system to recalibrate to maintain their equilibrium – how the family roles adjust to the feedback to maintain homeostasis (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Hanson (1995) states that cybernetics is “…the observed ability of systems to steer themselves…” and the “process by which systems self-regulate” (p. 40). The system responds to fluctuations and ultimately will return to homeostasis. An important distinction in cybernetics and the resulting homeostasis (or equilibrium) is that these processes are natural and part of the human systems’ desire to maintain a place of comfort and familiarity (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). A commonly used example for 55 cybernetics is a heater/air conditioning system. If you place the temperature on 70 degrees, the heating system will shut on if it gets below 70 degrees, and the air will come on if it gets above 70 degrees. Seventy degrees represents the “normal” for the system and any fluctuation within the environment causes that system to adjust to maintain this “normal.” Consider how grief might be handled in some families. A person dies and there is a lot of grief present in the home. Sometimes, members will take on other roles or maybe new members step into the system. There might be expressions of emotion or grief. In the end, the system becomes whole again and the patterns that were part of the whole before the death of the family member remain intact. Second Order Cybernetics/Cybernetics of Cybernetics. Cybernetics identifies that there is some role that the “observer” of the system plays in the systemic processes (Keeney, 1983). If you were an animal behavior scientist studying wolf pack behavior, how would your observation and control of the environment play a role in that system? About 20 years ago, wolves were introduced back to Yellowstone National Park because they were an endangered species and scientists noted the ecological system at Yellowstone needed predators. In a controlled way, the environment was structured and wolves were bred for the area. What might happen if the humans that created this system and environment for wolves just disappeared? Consider the role of the humans in generating the system (i.e., making sure there were appropriate livable conditions and genetic differences in the wolf packs). The wolf pack system could not exist originally without this “intervention”— this is cybernetics of cybernetics. Removing human intervention could mean the wolf pack system’s “normal” would be threatened. They might die off, they might over-populate, or they might create a danger as they seek for the things the human intervention provided them. In therapy, this can happen in a similar way. In second order cybernetics, the therapist starts to become part of the family’s cybernetic processes. An example of cybernetics of cybernetics in the therapy room is when the therapist may feel anger toward the reactions of a father and despite her personal work on this outside of the therapy room; this puts the therapist on a side against the father, unintentionally. As a result, the family dynamics (the family homeostasis) shifts because of the therapist’s reactions and responses. Additionally, at times, the therapist comes into the family system and creates a healthier system; but this is dependent on the therapist’s weekly connection to the client. It is important for the therapist to be aware of their role in the system and what that might look like as they exit the system at the end of therapy. The idea of cybernetics of cybernetics also takes into account the power of the therapeutic relationship. Feedback. Feedback is an essential component to understanding cybernetics (Keeney, 1983). Feedback is when the system takes in information to “feed into” the whole and adjusts as needed to that feedback (Hanson, 1995). A family example might 56 be a family that is in the public eye and has an expected public image. One of the children misbehaves in public. The media sends the message that the family is not what it wants to present. This social feedback goes into the family as input and the family adjusts by teaching the child the expectations and putting a different punishment and reward expectation in place. If you consider a car, as a machine, we can take it apart and understand all the systemic components within the car and how it runs. What makes for a “better” car is if the car can adapt to the external environment. Think about the evolution of “shocks” as a way for tires to meet the uneven pavement, slick pavements, and bumps in the road. These elements within the car’s environment is considered “feedback” – these elements cause the “system” to change in order to maintain its’ speed, adjust to bumps in the road and still function, as well as create a comfortable, stable environment for the passengers. This feedback leads to the car (the system), adjusting to change in the environment. Positive Feedback. In general, positive feedback leads to some kind of change (Hanson, 1995). Using the car example, if the car hits a bigger rock, maybe the engine or the powertrain kicks in to help it get over the rock (the rest of the system comes in to maintain stability). Or, maybe after hitting the big rock, the car cannot maintain cybernetics and maybe a tire pops or the axel is ruined. Negative Feedback. Negative feedback is when whatever happens does not lead to any change in the system (Hanson, 1995). Car manufacturers spend millions of dollars researching ways to keep cars from being influenced by environmental factors of all kinds. They seek negative feedback so that cars run smoothly, maintaining the system’s integrity at all times. Putting all this together, how do these systemic concepts used to describe feedback and cybernetics as a science of machines apply to family systems? Let us explore a family example. Think of a scenario where there is a heterosexual couple (a mom and a dad), a teenage son, and an elementary-aged daughter. The mother has an addiction to alcohol and often finds herself drunk, not going to work, and leaving the kids to fend for themselves. For many years, the father works harder at work to bring in more money because she gets fired from her jobs, he cares for her when she is sick from drinking too much, and he over-indulges the children in response to feeling guilty toward their lack of connection to their mother. The son excels in school; it seems to take the attention of the dynamics at home. And the daughter frequently is in trouble, gets poor grades, and is seen as a jokester. This is the family’s “normal.” If the daughter starts to get good grades and behave, the natural system will want to adjust back to the family’s normal; this process is cybernetics. Almost machine-like and sub- 57 consciously, things adjust in the system to bring it back to the system’s normal. Maybe the mother ends up in the hospital one night, causing the daughter’s behavior to shift back and her grades to sink again. Consider what might happen if the mother spent 30 days in an inpatient alcoholic treatment center. She returns home and the family’s normal is askew. The mother could relapse, which naturally puts the dynamics back in place. Another possibility is that the son begins to develop an addiction. This keeps the family chaos in a place where the family understands the normality, even with the shift in people’s roles. In this example, positive feedback might occur if the entire family gets therapy and there is an understanding that their “normal” needs to shift and they are given the tools to adjust this through family therapy. Negative feedback would be a relapse because no change occurs in how the system is functioning. Context In looking at systems and how family systems in particular interact, context is essential (Smith-Acuna, 2011). Context is what is around the family system or even the individual, the extended systems that are part of the family’s experience (Cox & Paley, 1997). Bateson (1979) called context “a piece of the world of ideas limited and isolated by closing the door” (p. 14), meaning each system’s context is “isolated” and “different” than another system’s context. The system understands and develops related to how it perceives the meaning of the context around them. Consider if you entered the home of an Amish family. Understanding the context around their definition of family, their understanding of their roles within the family, and their “problem” identification would likely center around church and community. There would be clear gender roles and expectations within the family. In addition, children’s education and development would be viewed through religious context. This would be this family’s context and would lead to how the system develops within this larger community system. What can be a challenge, when considering context, is when family systems are created when the members come from different contexts. Having different rules, roles, and understandings can influence how the new system develops and the expectations of the individuals within that system. Context can lead to confusion and communication issues within families. A common presenting problem with couples is challenges with intimacy. One member of the couple shares they cannot feel sexual without romance and the other individual cannot get romantic without sex. This difference might have to do with their context and their understanding of intimacy, the messages of intimacy around them all their lives, and the role they feel their partner plays in this context. 58 Another aspect to focus on is the role of social inequities on the lives of the family system (Cox & Paley, 1997). Consider the system of family in a context that devalues that family system’s race, religion, culture, financial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other identity. The family system has developed within this context and this context has influenced their functioning and the resulting homeostasis. These interacting systems are complex, yet, essential to the understanding of how the system operates. Summary For systemic therapists, these foundational constructs become part of the understanding of how a presenting problem is maintained. Our role as systemic therapists is to help families find new equilibriums, to help families figure out what is reinforcing the unhealthy homeostasis, or to assist families in defining and developing second order change (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Since the origins of systemic thinking and the application to families in the mid-1900s, subsequent clinicians and theorists have added to these constructs to determine methodology and direction for making these homeostatic shifts. Some theorists feel that more directive and specific interventions can lead to systemic change, other theorist focus on collaborative relationships and their functioning in change dynamics. In addition, there was limited research on these constructs initially and more recently researchers have begun to build in research related to these constructs to continue to define them as a discipline (e.g., Davey et al., 2011). Regardless, MFTs, as a whole, work from and visualize families through these foundational constructs. References Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. Ray, W. A., & Brasher, C. (2010). Brief systemic therapy: Creating our future while embracing our past. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 29(4), 17. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2010.29.4.17 Carich, M. S., & Willingham, W. (1987). The roots of family systems theory in individual psychology. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 43(1), 71-78. Chae, K. B. (2017). Second-order change. In J. Carlson & S. B. Dermer (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of Marriage, Family, and Couples Counseling (1461-1462). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243- 267. 59 Drack, M., & Pouvreau, D. (2015). On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s “General Systemology” and on its relationship to cybernetics – part III: Convergences and divergences. International Journal of General Systems, 44, 523-571. Davey, M. P., Davey, A., Tubbs, C., Savla, J., & Anderson, S. (2012). Second order change and evidence-based practice. Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 72-90. doi 10.1111/j/1467-6427.2010.00499.x Davey, M., Duncan, T., Kissil, K., Davey, A., & Fish, L. S. (2011). Second-order change in marriage and family therapy: A web-based modified Delphi study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 39(2), 100-111. doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.530929 Day, S. X. (2007). Theory and design in counseling and psychotherapy. Belmont, CA: Wadesworth Publishing. Flaskas, C. (2010). Frameworks for practice in the systemic field: Part 1 -- Continuities and transitions in family therapy knowledge. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 232-247. Fraser, J. S. (2018). Unifying effective psychotherapies: Tracing the process of change. New, York: NY: American Psychological Association. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Hanson, B. G. (1995). General systems theory beginning with wholes. New York: Taylor & Francis. Jackson, D. (Ed.). (1968a). Communication, family and marriage (Human communication, volume 1). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990). Complementarity and symmetry in family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(3), 261-268. Jackson, D. (Ed.). (1968b). Therapy, communication and change (human communication, volume 2). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Jackson, D. D., & Weakland, J. H. (2016). Conjoint family therapy: Some considerations on theory, technique, and results. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(4), 33. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.4.33 Keeney, B. P. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: The Guilford Press. Keeney, B. P., & Thomas, F. N., (1986). Cybernetic foundations of family therapy. In F. P. Piercy and D. H. Sprenkle (Eds.), Family Therapy Sourcebook (pp. 262-287). New York: The Guilford Press. Messer, A. A. (1971). Mechanisms of family homeostasis. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 12, 380-388. doi:10.1016/0010-440X(71)90076-9 Minuchin, S. (1999). Retelling, reimagining, and re-searching: a continuing conversation. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. 1999, 25(1), 9-14. 60 Murray, C. E. (2006). Controversy, constraints, and context: Understanding family violence through family systems theory. Family Journal, 14(3), 234. doi:10.1177/1066480706287277 Nichols, M. P. (2013). Family Therapy: Pearson New International Edition: Concepts and Methods (Vol. 10th). Pearson. Rasheed, J. M., Rasheed, M. N., & Marley, J. A., (2011). Family therapy: Models and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. Ray, W. A., Stivers, R. J., & Brasher, C. (2011). Through the eyes of Don D. Jackson M.D. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 30(1), 38-58. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2011.30.1.38 Smith-Acuña, S. (2011). Systems theory in action: Applications to individual, couples, and family therapy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Stack Sullivan, H. (1939). A note on formulating the relationship of the individual and the group. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 932-937. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.