Ecosystemic Psychology: Second Order and First Order Cybernetics

Critically compare the epistemologies governing the first- and second order cybernetic

approaches in terms of the following:

Table of contents

1. How is reality seen by each specific approach?

2. How is health & pathology addressed by each approach?

3. How does each specific approach deal with therapy?

4. What is the role and function of the therapist in each specific approach?

5. Which critical ethical concerns could be raised about each specific perspective?

6. In keeping with a both-and, rather than an either-or position formulate ideas around how the first and second order cybernetic approaches can be integrated in a useful and complementary way.

References

1. How is reality seen by each specific approach?

First order cybernetics emphasizes reciprocity, recursion and shared responsibility rather than linear causality; they have a wholistic perspective and focus on context that gives meaning to events and focus on the present rather than the past; and we are all seen as at the same time subjects and objects and involved in each others lives: in essence reality is not seen as external but rather constructed by us as we experience it and give meaning and order to it (Becvar & Becvar, 2009). Von Foerster (cited in Hoffman, 1985) defines reality as stable frame of reference for two or more observers.

Second order cybernetics rather postulates a mulitverse (Boscolo, 1987; Becvar & Becvar, 2009) (as opposed to a universe). According to Becvar and Becvar (2009) in second order cybernetics, thousands of realities (each person has his own reality) exist alongside one another and the observer/therapist becomes part of what is observed/that reality. There is no absolute truth and there are many equally valid points of view (of the same happening etc.). Thus first order cybernetics is more removed and objective whilst second order cybernetics is involved and becomes part...