First Order Cybernetic Case Study
PYC4808
Assignment 2: 588438
Student number: 50365916
5/29/2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number
1. Name and define the first order cybernetic principles as described in your prescribed book. 2
2. Name and define the second order principles as described in your prescribed book. 5
3. How is reality seen by each specific approach? 6
4. How is health and pathology addressed by each approach? 7 …show more content…
I think that it is inappropriate for the therapist to be perceived as the expert in the first order cybernetics approach. The reason for this is that no one knows a person’s reality better than themselves. The therapist shouldn’t take all the control and make all the goals for the clients. I think clients know what works best for them and what they feel most comfortable doing or trying. If the therapist doesn’t know what she/he is doing he/she might cause more problems for the family due to the risk of the therapist imposing their own set of values and believes on the family. This transformation process also encourages the family’s dependence on the therapist. First order approaches run the risk of assuming that they have access to the Truth. They also may initiate a treatment plan without an awareness of the ecology of which the symptoms are related to the system and to how the supposed cure may manifest in the system afterwards. Thus the therapist needs to consider carefully the nature of an intervention relative to the assumed good it can provide and whether it is potentially constructive or destructive.
• Second-order cybernetics
This approach, due to its idea of a multiverse of realities, never sees family systems as ‘wrong.’ I think there should be more guidance to what is acceptable or not. The lack of clarity and focus within the therapy process is also a problem. Without setting goals, there are no clear markers of progression. This is problematic for clients with limited resources who need a clear timeframe to work with.
Another issue I have with this approach is with regards to the idea of ‘no hidden agenda stance.’ Becvar and Becvar (2013), states
Assignment 2: 588438
Student number: 50365916
5/29/2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number
1. Name and define the first order cybernetic principles as described in your prescribed book. 2
2. Name and define the second order principles as described in your prescribed book. 5
3. How is reality seen by each specific approach? 6
4. How is health and pathology addressed by each approach? 7 …show more content…
I think that it is inappropriate for the therapist to be perceived as the expert in the first order cybernetics approach. The reason for this is that no one knows a person’s reality better than themselves. The therapist shouldn’t take all the control and make all the goals for the clients. I think clients know what works best for them and what they feel most comfortable doing or trying. If the therapist doesn’t know what she/he is doing he/she might cause more problems for the family due to the risk of the therapist imposing their own set of values and believes on the family. This transformation process also encourages the family’s dependence on the therapist. First order approaches run the risk of assuming that they have access to the Truth. They also may initiate a treatment plan without an awareness of the ecology of which the symptoms are related to the system and to how the supposed cure may manifest in the system afterwards. Thus the therapist needs to consider carefully the nature of an intervention relative to the assumed good it can provide and whether it is potentially constructive or destructive.
• Second-order cybernetics
This approach, due to its idea of a multiverse of realities, never sees family systems as ‘wrong.’ I think there should be more guidance to what is acceptable or not. The lack of clarity and focus within the therapy process is also a problem. Without setting goals, there are no clear markers of progression. This is problematic for clients with limited resources who need a clear timeframe to work with.
Another issue I have with this approach is with regards to the idea of ‘no hidden agenda stance.’ Becvar and Becvar (2013), states