Integrating Constructivist Sistemic

7/30/2019 Integrating Constructivist Sistemic

1/23

41

Journal ofConstructivist Psychology, 15:4163, 2002Copyright 2002Brunner-Routledge1072-0537/02 $12.00 + .00

INTEGRATING CONSTRUCTIVIST AND SYSTEMICMETATHEORY IN FAMILY THERAPY

KAREN D. FERGUS

York University,DepartmentofPsychology,Toronto,Ontario,Canada,andToronto-SunnybrookRegionalCancerCentre,SupportServices

Department,Toronto, Ontario, CanadaDAVID W. REID

York University,DepartmentofPsychology,Toronto,Ontario,Canada

In thisarticle,we critically review the epistemological transitionfrom amodernistorfirst-order cyberneticapproach inwhich subject-object dualism is implicitly as-sumed and enactedwithin the therapeutic relationship, to the currentpostmodern,second-order approach. Problems associated with both epistemological persuasionsare examined. Wepropose a theoreticalway out of the epistemological corner de-fined by aformernaive realism, on the one hand, and the currentpotentialfor anonfunctional relativism,ontheother.Thisroute iscreated throughan integrationof systemic and constructivist metatheorywhereby therapist knowledge, asfallibleas itmaybe, isaffordedarightfulplacewithin the therapyrelationship. Moreover,participant-observation is considered anecessary extension to thepostmodern em-phasisontherapistreflexivitybecauseitreinstatestheimportanceoftherapistknowledge(i.e., objectifications offamily dynamics and experiences). It is suggested that thewillingness toengage in theprocessof intersubjective meaningcreation,guidedbythe therapistandtheclient,butdrivenby theclientsownknowingandexperienc-ing, is central to the success of therapy.

Received6September2000; accepted 17April2001.Address correspondence to K. D. Fergus, TorontoSunnybrook Regional Cancer

Centre,2075BayviewAvenue,Toronto,Ontario,Canada,M4N3M5.E-mail:[email protected]

Itwasnottoolongagothatafatalisticshadowhadbeencastoverthefieldoffamilytherapy:Thesystemicparadigm[is]slowlydissolv[ing]intoincoherence(Erickson,1988,p.234);asthesystemseradisinte-grates (Goolishian and Anderson, 1992, p. 35). With proclamationssuchasthese,theveryfoundationoffamilytherapyhadbeenthrownintoquestion.Theeraofpostmodernismhadarrived,and,foratime,


2/23

42 K. D. Fergus and D. W. Reid

it seemed as though the system hadno place in it. However, it wasnotsystemstheoryperse,butthemodernistdistortionandreductionof it that threatened its demise. The systemic paradigm, in and ofitself,isnot incompatible withapostmodernsensibility.

Nevertheless, the transition from a modern to postmodern prac-ticehasnotcomeeasilyformanyfamilytherapists.Thesystemicmodelhassufferedinitspostmoderntranslationowingtoadialecticalswingaway from the certaintyofauthoritarianobjectivism, to theparalysisof nihilistic relativism. Alongside the recognition that knowledge isneverabsoluteorobjective,andthatwhatweknowissteeped inoursubjective experience, has come a denunciation of the objectificationprocess

itself.

This

rejection

of

the

object

has

proven

problematic

be-causetheabilitytoobjectifyisnecessaryinordertoguideouractions.

Simplystated,whattherapistsbelievetheyknowbasedon theircon-structionof theclientsreality,willdeterminewhat theydo.Thus, ifsystemic family therapy is to be a viable therapeutic modality in apostmodernworld,wesuggest itwillbenecessary toreclaimtheob-jective,notasanarrogantTruthbutasa fallibleyetoften functional(Agnew&Brown,1989a,1989b)meansof informingour therapeuticactivitywithfamiliesandtheindividualswhocomprise them.In this article, we describe the movement within family therapyfromamodernistorfirst-ordercyberneticpracticebasedonanartifi-cialseparationoftheobserverfromtheobserved,toapostmodernorsecond-ordercyberneticpracticeinwhichtherapistsareacutelyawareof their own hand in the familys interactional matrix. Problems in-herent in both epistemologies will be examined. Our intention is todemonstratethatneitheranuncriticaladherencetotheobjectifiedcom-ponentofourexperience,norareactionaryrejectionofitwillbenefitour work as psychotherapists. Rather, the disciplined and criticallyreflexive use of the systemic paradigm to frame our objectificationsandguideourinterventions,combinedwiththetherapistscapacitytoactasaparticipant-observerinthetherapeuticsituation,isconsideredintegraltotheintegrationofthesubjectiveandtheobjectifiedcompo-nentsofourownandourclientsexperiences.

HISTORIC ROOTS AND ADVANCEMENTSIN SYSTEMIC THEORY AND THERAPY

Personal Meaning Systems and Collective Family Constructs

With the emergence of postmodernism and a constructivist ideol-ogy,

we

are

at

apivotal

point

in

the

development

of

psychotherapy


3/23

Constructivist and Systemic Metatheory 43

practice in general and family therapy in particular. This relativelyrecent transformation in family therapywas similar inmagnitude tothat which took place roughly half a century ago when cybernetics(Wiener,1948)andgeneralsystemstheory(vonBertalanffy,1968)werefirstintroducedintothefieldofpsychotherapy.Withinthefamilysystemsparadigm,thefocusofthetherapistshiftedawayfromtheexperiencesof the individual to thepatterningandprocessingofcommunicationwithin the family inanattempt todiscernandmodify the repetitivestylesof interaction thatcharacterized interpersonaland familialdis-turbances.

Thesystemicmodelprovidedaframeworkwithwhichtocompre-hend

the

unfathomable

complexity

of

individuals

in

dynamic

interac-tionwithoneanother.Essentially,itactedasamoreexplicitheuristic

guidingthetherapiststacitconstruingprocesses,oraprofessional sub-system (Kelly, 1955). As such, it restricted the information that wasattendedtobutsimultaneously providedamoremanageableframeofreference(Agnew&Brown,1989a,p.154)makingitpossibleforthera-piststoorganizeclinicallyrelevanteventsandnavigatetheirwaythroughaninfinitelycomplextherapeuticencounter.Therefore,theapplicationofsystemstheorytoworkingwithfamilieshashelpedmakeapoten-tiallyoverwhelmingamountofinformationcognitivelydigestible.

Becauseofitsemphasisonprocessandpatterningatvariouslevelsoforganizationalcomplexity,thesystemsmodelbearsthepotentialofbeingahighlyflexibleandincorporativetool.Functioninginthisway,asametaperspectiveratherthanarigidmodel,thesystemicparadigmissimilartothatofconstructivism.Auniverseviewedthroughasys-temiclensiscomprisedofhierarchicallyorganizedsetsofreciprocallyinterconnectingelements.Theserangefromthesubatomic,tothebio-logical,tothepsychological,tothesocialandthepolitical.Eachmoreencompassinglevelbuildsupontheprioroneinever-far-reachingcom-plexity.Thewholeofone strataconstitutesapartof thenext,whichhasledcertaintheoriststofavorthetermholoarchyoverhierarchy(e.g.,Koestler,1976;Wilber,1995).

Systemsnotionshavebeenthesubjectofmuchrebukewithinthefieldof family therapybecauseof theways inwhich theyhavebeennarrowly interpreted and restrictively applied. However, systemstheory, being implicitly contextual, is inherently an inclusive model.One does not have to stretch very far to incorporate meaning andconstruingprocessesintothesystemicframework.Individualswillin-fluence and be influenced by one another, not only on the level ofbehavior, but also on the level of how they construct one anothersbehaviors,andhow theyconstructoneanothersconstructions (Bog-dan,

1984;

Kelly,

1955).

These

interpersonal

constructions,

in

turn,

have


4/23


consequencesforbehaviourandforthemaintenance andalterationofpersonalconstructs(Feixas,1990a,1990b).

Construingsystemsarethussystemswithinsystems.Anindividualsmeans of making meaning relies on language and other verbal andnonverbalsymbolsofthoughtandfeelingprovidedbythesocialsys-temwithinwhichtheindividualcommunicates. Inthiswaythewholeis within the part(s) insofar as the ways individuals construe theirexperiencesare influencedby the largersystemsofwhich theyareapart.Conversely,andconsistentwiththesystemicholoarchy,thewholeisalsoconstitutedby thepart(s).That is, inorder for the familysys-tem toexistasanentity itmustbeconstitutedbythe inputfromtheindividual

members.

In

other

words,

there

is

a

reciprocal

relationshipbetweenthecoconstructedinterpersonalmeaningbetweentwoormore

personsand the idiosyncratic intrapersonalconstruingofeachof theindividuals. The expression that the whole is greater than the sumof its parts iscentral to systemic thought and captures the idea thatlevelsandpartsarecontinuouslyoperatingsynergistically.

The supposition that construing systemsare systemswithin sys-tems issupportedbyanumberof investigatorswhohavehelpedex-pand the horizons of family therapy by introducing Kellys (1955)personal construct paradigm into the sphere of the family. Each hasdemonstrated that family constructs (Feixas, 1990a, 1990b, 1995;Procter,1985),orfamilyepistemologies(Alexander&G.J.Neimeyer,1989) are coconstructed through the mutual interaction of personalmeaning systems.Suchcollectiveactsofknowinghavebeendefinedas thoseevolvingnetworksofmeaningthatareforgedandaffirmedthrough intimate familial interaction (Alexander & G.J. Neimeyer,1989, p. 111). Feixas (1990a, 1995) contends that the two areas, per-sonalconstruct therapyand family systems therapy,wereartificiallyand unnecessarily separated for many years owing to the formersfocus on the individual and the latters focus on the group. In hisintegrationof the twomodels,he illustrateshowpersonalconstructsbearsystemicpropertiesandhowaconstructivistepistemologystronglyinfluenced thepracticeofmanyfamilytherapists.

The integrationofpersonalconstruct theorywith familysystemstheoryhasthevalueofidentifyinganessentialmotivationfortheex-istenceandpurposeofcollectivemembershipcommunicationamongindividuals soas toprovidemeaningandunderstanding.AccordingtoKelly(1955),meaningreliesoncomparisonofsimilaritiesandcon-trasts in order to construe experience and events. Each individual,functioning like a scientist to use Kellys metaphor, has a pervasiveinterest in comparing his or her constructions with those of others.Individuals

rely

on

communication

with

others

in

order

to

clarify

and


5/23


gain confidence in their understanding. This motivation to compareviews ispredicatedon thetacitawarenessthatonesexperiencesandsubsequentviewsarepotentiallydifferentfromthoseofothers.Thereis therefore,anessentialmotivating tensionbetween the individualsconstructionandthecommonviewofthe largersocialsystem.

Therecentexpansionoffamilytherapymodelstoincludeconstruc-tivistnotionsisveryconsistentwiththethinkingofGregoryBateson.ForBateson(1972),systemsarefoundedupontheconstructionofmean-ing. The act of communication is based on the transmittal of mes-sages of difference, and interactions between individuals and theirenvironmentaredefined intermsofmessagepathways,notconcretestructures

or

interpersonal

groupings.

Thus,

the

contexts

that

wecreateconceptuallyinordertodefinelevelswithinthesystemicholoarchy

assumetheirrelevanceonlyintermsoftheircommunicativeeffective-ness.Weshouldthereforeresistthetemptationtoregardeachsucces-sivewholeasaclearlydemarcatedentityas intheperson,thefamily,andsoon,although,descriptively,wemaybereliantuponsuchcat-egories.Byfocusingonthetransmission ofmessagesandnotthecat-egoriesthemselves,Batesoninvitesreaderstolookbetweenthecracksoftheirsystemicconstructs:

Thecontextshave communicational realityonly insofaras they areeffective as messages . . .and this system isnot the physical indi-vidualbutawidenetworkofpathwaysofmessages.Someof thesepathways happen to be located outside the physical individual,others inside, but the characteristics of the system are in no waydependent uponanyboundarylineswhichwemaysuperposeuponthecommunicational map. (1972,p.251,originalemphases)In light of Batesons original formulation of systems thinking as

foundeduponcommunicationand,thus,intrinsicallymeaningdriven,andinbuildingupontheaforementionedtheoreticalcontributions,weapproachthesystem-individualinterfacefromtheperspectivethattheconstructivistparadigmisinherentlysystemic,thatthesystemicpara-digm,whennotreduced,isinevitablyconstructivist,andthatthetwoareamplifyingcomplementary aspectsof the samephenomenon, so-ciallyembeddedhumanconsciousnessandaction.

The Demise of the System in Family Therapy Models

Mostmodelsoffamilytherapyinadvertentlyadoptedamodernistapproachtounderstanding families that enabled clinicians to capture theoreti-callytheredundantpathologicalstylesofinteractioninfamilies.From


6/23


this fundamental belief followedmany importantassumptions of farreachingconsequence.Firstand foremost, theclinicianwas thereforetheexpertwhopossessedtheGodseyeviewofthefamilyandcould,bywayofassumingthisprivilegedposition,posittoexistoutthereinthefamilysuchdysfunctionsas,enmeshedboundaries,schizophreno-genicmothers, triangulations,and undifferentiatedegomasses.Theseattributionswereseparatefromthetherapist,andthus,didnothaveanybearingonhimorherorviceversa.Therewasasoliddelin-eationbetween theobserver and the observed.However, the funda-mentalpremiseofsubject-objectdualismunderlyingfirst-ordercyber-neticapplications wasdeeplyflawedinthesensethatitwasnotatallsystemic.

Bateson

parted

company

with

his

colleagues

on

this

verypoint regarding their dualistic assumption as an epistemological

error (1972). The observer must be included within the focus ofobservation,andwhat can be studied is always a relationship or aninfiniteregressofrelationships. Neverathing(1972,p.246).Adis-cipline presumably founded upon systems theory and holistic prin-cipleswasbeingdefinedbypractitionerswhowere divorcing them-selves from their context, the families they were intending to help.DespiteallofBatesonsadmonitions tothecontrary,themaphad in-deed become confused with the territory, while the mapmaker haddisappeared,altogetherunnoticed.

Jacobson (1989) recounts a story of how he stumbled upon thisdualisticassumptioninhisownworkasaclinicianandcouplestherapyresearcher.For twoyears,heemployed thebestcognitive-behavioralstrategiestoassesscouplesandteachthemhowtocommunicate moreconstructively.However,regardlessofhowadeptthecouplesseemedduring the therapysessionatreframing their situation,paraphrasingtheother,orcontrollingtheirangryoutbursts,oncebackintheirhomeenvironments, thecouplesregressed intowhatJacobsondescribedashighlydestructive,quicklyescalatingnegativeinteractioncycles.Hesubsequently learned from his research interviews with the couples,thatwhenpartners were distressed andarguing, they either did notthinkoftheskillstheyhadbeentaught,ordeliberatelyrejectedthemintheheatof themoment.Inotherwords,maritalpartnerspersonalneedsandintentionsinthemomentsupersededJacobsonsbestthera-peutic intentions. This experience caused him to reconsider his ap-proachofapplyingrigidrulesrootedinbehavioraltheorytoworkingwithcouples,eventhoughthesesolutionsappearedplainlyvisibletohimself and his colleagues. His findings incited him to give up hisdistanced stance as the professional expert and sit down with eachcoupleto learnmoreaboutwhat theirfightingmeanttothem.

Thelimitations

of

the

modernist

approach

are

made

visible

in


7/23


Jacobsonsstorywherehecametounderstandthetruthofthesaying,if you cannot find the solution, you may be part of the problem(Jacobson,1989).The first-orderpractitioner lostsightof the fact thatthesystemwasonlyametaphortohelpguideunderstanding,notanindisputable, immutable truth. Onceametaphorhasdone itsjobofsensemaking,themetaphoricqualitytendstobecomesubmerged.Unlessconstantly reminded of the as if quality of the expression, users ofthe termmaytreatthefigureasaliteralexpression(Sarbin,1986,p.5).Notonlyhad thesystembecomearealobject,but italsobecameinvested with human qualities (Dell, 1982; Erickson, 1988; Guttman,1991). And as the system became real, the real person was lost ormarginalized.

When

individuals

were

acknowledged,

they

were

mostoften defined in systems terms, rather than on their own terms, the

termsofsubjectiveexperience.Theemphasisonbehaviorsandinter-actionswithin thesystemresulted inarolereversalofsortswherebyindividualsrecededintothebackgroundprovidingthecontextfortheanthropomorphizedsystem.Peoplebecamecogsinasystemicappara-tus.Meaningandpurposewereattributedtothesystembutextractedfromthe individualscomprisingit.

Theneglectoftheindividualwasapossiblepitfallintheapplica-tion of systems theory, one that von Bertalanffy (1968) was keenlyaware of: The dangers of this new development, alas, are obviousandhaveoftenbeenstated.Thenewcyberneticworld . . .isnotcon-cernedwithpeoplebutwith systems;manbecomesreplaceableandexpendable(p.10).Invariably,personalexperiencesandneedsofin-dividualscomprisingthesystemarediminishedorsquelched(Epstein&Loos,1989).AsHoffmancomments,20yearsagosheengagedinaproject to disappear the individual, (1992, p. 10) but more recentlyshehasbeguntosee thispracticeasa particularlyoffensivekindofecologicalfascismwherebytheindividualmaybesacrificedforsomegreater good of thewhole (1990, p. 6). Moreover, by extracting thehumanelement fromsystems, the therapistwasabletoviewhimselforherselfascapableofcontrolling or influencing the system inpre-dictableways.Thusthereificationofthesystemicmetaphorpavedtheway fortherapiststogainan illusorysenseoftheirownpower.

In light of the above, Ericksons (1988) charge that family thera-pists have adopted a model of family change that empowers thera-pistsbefore theirclients isnotaltogetherunfounded.Heasserts thatpowerdifferentialsarereinforcedbytechniquessuchastheuseoftheone-waymirror,stating narrativecontent isenactedononesideandthe meaningproducedon theother (1988,p.231).Hoffmanagrees,From its inception, family therapy hada one-way mirror built intoits

core.

The

professionals

were

the

observers,

the

families

were

the


8/23


observed (1992, p. 15). The popular use of the one-way mirror hasthuscometoconcretelysymbolizethedualisticthinkingsoprevalentin traditional familytherapypractice.

Inadditiontothesubjugationoftheindividualandthereificationofthesystem,broadercontextual issueswereoftenignored.Notonlyweretheneedsandintentionsofitsmembersdiscounted,butthesys-temcametoexistinavacuum,indecontextualizedisolation,failingtoaccount adequately for the sociopolitical factors impacting upon thefamily(Sheridan,1980;James&McIntyre,1983). Issuessuchasoppres-sion,roledefinition,normativefunctioning, anddistributionofwealth,havebeengenerallyoverlookedwithintheapplicationofthesystemicframework.

It

is

indeed

ironic

that

a

model

designed

to

encompass

allliving systems would be so restrictively employed. MacKinnon and

Miller (1987) highlight the danger of viewing the family as a closedsystem.Toseethefamilyasaself-governingsystem,orascapableoffindingitsownsolutions,

assumesthatfamilies...arefunctioningfortheultimategoodofallmembers. This does not take into consideration the fact that fami-lies have found their own solutions for centuries and that thesesolutions have been primarily at the expense of women and chil-dren. (p. 150).

SYSTEMS RESURFACING

Therecognitionofsubject-objectinterconnectednesshasspawnedthesecond-ordercyberneticmovementwithinthefieldoffamilytherapy.Moreover,modernistassumptions regarding therapistpowerand in-fluencehad ledsomefamily therapiststo feelanaggingsenseofun-easewith traditional systemsapproaches (e.g.,Hoffman,1985;1990).Theworkofconstructivistthinkers,MaturanaandVarela(1987),vonFoerster(1981),andvonGlasersfeld(1984)resonatedmoredeeplyformany therapists than did a general systems model that did not ad-equatelyaccountfortheinfluenceoftheobserverontheobservedandvice

versa.

Thus

began

the

postmodern

revolution

within

family

therapy,andthebeginningsofasecond-ordercybernetics(vonFoerster,1981).

According to Maturana and Varela (1987), perception is not theproductofaone-to-onemappingof theworldontoourselves,ratherwe dynamically construct theworld aswe interact with it,which inturnaltersourperceptions.Aspractitionersworkingwithfamilieswearetherefore,watchingasparticipantsoftheinteraction,frominsideit,notasobservers fromoutside it (Hayward,1996,p.222). Insteadofstandingabovethefamily,apprehending theirfaultystructuresand


9/23


dysfunctional patterns, and eliciting changes out there in them, thetherapistassumesamoreegalitarian,collaborativeposition,wherebyheorshehelpstocreateacontextforthecoconstructionandcoevolve-mentofhealingnarratives.Assumingasecond-orderstanceintherapyrequiresaholisticnondualisticapproachtoknowing(Keeney&Sprenkle,1982).

Theconstructivistmovementinfamilytherapyisremarkablysimi-lartoBatesonsoriginalvisionoftheapplicationofsystemsprinciples.Hisinfluencebroughtepistemologyandtheexaminationofourknow-ing to the fore for many family therapists (Feixas, 1995), andwouldaccountfortherelativelyearlyepistemologicaldebatesamongfamilytherapists

(see

for

example,

Family

Process,

1982,

vol.

21).

Batesonviewedallbiopsychosocialinteractionsasan intricatewebofcircular

causation. Individualswere always acting uponand being impactedbythegreaterecology.Itwassheergrandiositytoconceiveofoneselfas ever having unilateral control over anyone else in the system, afundamental errorofepistemology,becauseitwasbeyondthecapac-ity of human consciousness to ever possess the aesthetic wisdomnecessary to predict or conceiveof the total impact of ones actions.Nopartof suchan internally interactivesystemcanhaveunilateralcontrolovertheremainderoranyotherpart (Bateson,1972,p.315).Incontrast,whennotdistortedtosuittheindividualsagenda,acyber-neticorientationandtheperceptionofoneselfasonlyafragmentofafargreatersocialandecologicalwhole,wouldinstillasenseofhumil-ity intheperson (Atkinson&Heath,1990).

ThemorerecentinfluencesofMaturanaandVarela(1987) addanadditionaldimensiontothequestionofpowerandcontrolintherapy.According to theirviewweare self-determinedsystems in that in-ternalstructuresdeterminehowwereacttoenvironmentaloccurrences,nottheoccurrenceitself.Asaninformationallyclosedsystem,some-onecanneverdictateaspecificchangeoutsideofthesystem.Changeisself-ratherthanother-determinedmakingpredictablechangethroughmanipulation and instructive interactionofthefirst-ordervarietyim-possible.Therapistsareonlyinapositiontoperturbthesystem,nottoexercisepowerover it.Wemaythinkweknowwhereaninterven-tion will lead, but it is onlyevera probability of knowing,and thatprobabilitydecreasesexponentiallythebroaderonesviewofthesys-temandwiththepassageoftime.Thus,accordingtothecurrentsec-ond-orderview,aperspectivethatisnotatalldiscordantwithaBatesonianinterpretation of systems theory, control is essentially a first order,linearmyth(Bateson,1979;Keeney,1983).

Therapistsfollowingasecond-orderframeworkareacutelyawareof

the

proactive

role

they

assume

in

the

coconstruction

of

their

clients


10/23


narrativesandrealities.Withtherecognitionthatonesinfluenceuponanother individual or family is a far more complex and interactiveprocessthanoriginallyconceived,thefocushasquitenaturallyturnedfrom thatof theexpert lookingobjectivelyat the family (i.e., theob-served),toattemptingtolookatthefamilysepistemologyfromwithin(i.e., the familyasanobservingsystem),and tothetherapistsreflex-iveself-awareness duringtherapeuticencounters.

This redirectionhas placed subjectivization front and center, butat great cost to objectification. The second-order therapist is surelyinvolved inaprocessof lookingbothwithinandwithout, regardlessofhowtruetoformtheseviewsmaybe.Thesecond-ordertheoreticalemphasis

on

reflexivity

has

actually

steered

attention

away

from

theindividualsandthefamilyrelationshipsthatthetherapistisconstruing

(Golann,1987).Inalatersectionofthisarticle,wediscussparticipant-observation as a means of expanding the use of therapist reflexivitywithinthesecond-ordermodelsoastoincludeotherobjects(i.e.,fam-ilyinteractions,intrapsychicprocesses,experiences,etc.)inadditiontotheself-objectofthetherapist.Wealsoassertthat,asself-determinedsystems,clientswill inevitably interpretandapplyanycoconstructedunderstandingsintheirown,idiosyncraticways.Theideaofcoconstruc-tioncanthereforebesomewhatmisleadingifitismeanttoimplythattwopeopleareequalparticipants inthecreationofastoryaboutonlyoneofthem.Themoresubtlechallengefromasystemic-constructivistviewpoint is to participate collaboratively with the client, while re-maining observant that the collaboration is focused on helping theclient learn to author, edit, and produce his or her own liberatingnarratives.

WhiteandEpstons(1990)popularapproach tonarrative therapyisofrelevancehere.Itaroseoutofadisenchantment withmodernistapproaches, and was influenced by Batesons views on communica-tion and how people mapped their worlds through discourse. Theapproach seeks to facilitate the client seeing him or herself and theproblem in a new light, and to enhance the clients sense of agencyrelativetoothersbyaccountingforculturalbeliefsandsocial-politicalforcesthatpervadeinterpersonalrelationships. Techniqueslikeexter-nalizingtheproblemareappliedtohelpclients free themselves fromthedominantdiscoursesthatcontrolledordelimitedtheirexistence.Adepressedwoman,forexample,maybeaskedtoexternalizehercon-ditionbyarticulatingwhatthedepressiondoestoherandhermaritalrelationship.

The narrativemetaphor is powerful in its simplicityand ease ofcomprehensionbyclients.Howevertherearenotablelimitationstoitsapplication

(Nichols

&

Schwartz,

1998).

First,

the

narrative

approach


11/23


hastendedtoplaceinordinateemphasisonsingular,individualview-points and pays seemingly less attention to the fact that viewpointswithinthefamilyareinteractionallyderived,thatis,anourstoryinwhicheachparticipantplayshisorherpart.Iffamilymemberscouldcoconstruct an externalization of how the conflict is dividing them,thatcoordinationofauthorshipwouldbemoresystemic.Anotherriskis that once a client has reconstructed a story that the therapist hasseeminglycoauthored,thatstorycanthenbecomethenewdominantdiscoursethatmarginalizestheclientsinnervoice.Thisbecomesprob-lematic when clients encounter new developments at home or workthat do not fit with the story that client and therapist have cocon-structed.

New

narratives

produced

within

the

therapeutic

relationshipshouldbeecologicallysound in thesense that theybe coherentwith

theclientseverydayexperiencesandnotstrictlydependentupontherapistvalidation.

RECLAIMING THE OBJECT IN THERAPY

Family therapists have had a long-standing reputation for reachingoutside theboundariesof traditionalpsychologyandpsychotherapy,and looking towardotherdisciplines inaneffort tomoreadequatelydescribeandhelpfamilies.Whatmighthavebeencharacterizedasanopennesstointerdisciplinaryinfluences,hasinsteadbeencriticizedasadiscipline-wideproclivity toward fleetingcaptivationswith brightbaublesof theory . . .andprettynewmodels (Constantine, 1989,p.112). Critics view the current love of constructivism and social con-structionismasnoexception to family therapys long-standing listofinfatuations. Family therapists have once again adopted a new lan-guage,anepistemological-speak,or epistobabble,toarticulatetheirnewideas(Coyne,1982).Yet it isquestionablewhetheralltheepiste-mological hype and interdisciplinary shopping have led to any dra-maticimprovementsintherapeuticpractice(Golann,1988;Held,1995).

Somehavegonesofarastosuggestthattheadoptionofasecond-orderattitudemayactuallyimpedetherapeuticefforts.Certainsecond-order ideas are considered simply too relativistic and abstruse totranslatereadily intoconcretetherapeuticactivity.(Efran&Clarfield,1992;Hayward,1996;Nichols,1987). Asanexample,onemightagreeintheorythatthetherapistcannotengineerspecificoutcomesandthatenduringchangescanonlycomeaboutthroughanorganicevolutionfrom within the system itself. However, the promotion of systemicself-control via conditions that might facilitate the emergence ofa

consciously

pragmatic

strategy

informed

by

the

kind

of

systemic


12/23


wisdomthatdelicatelybalancesnaturalsystemswithoutthebenefitofhuman planning (Atkinson & Heath, 1990, p. 146), is hard to con-ceive,letaloneexecute,particularlywhenconfrontedwithafamilyincrisis.

Hayward (1996)maintainsweneed to takeagood,hard lookatthetheoriesundergirdingourpracticeifwearetosurviveinaresults-orientedworld.AlthoughthewritingsofMaturanaandVarela(1987)havecontributed substantiallyandmeaningfully to theparadigmaticshiftin thefieldoffamily therapy, theirpromotionofreflexivityasatoolwithwhichtobecomeconstantlyawareofthetenuousnessofourknowing,hasbeeninterpretedbysomeasanunfathomable undertak-ing.

According

to

Agnew

and

Brown

(1989c),

Maturana

and

Varelamaybeexpectingimpossiblefeatsofconsciousness:

Theyaskus torefrain from the temptationof certainty by the pro-cess of reflection. . . . Our best Neureyev cognitive leap lasts onlysecondsandMaturanaandVarelawantconstantlevitationsupportedby what? By the sky hook of reflection! . . . No we cannot dancewith Maturana and Varela, those epistemological magicians. Theirconstruing lieswellbeyond the farthest reachofour intuitions. . . .(p.194).Thisattraction for theetherealbegs thequestion,Howmightwe

structureaveryrealworldactivity, likehelpingpeople inpainwhilefloatinginsidetheblackholeofarelativisticabyss?Wouldwebeabletoretainashredofconfidenceinanything?Manyhaveimplicatedtheradical constructivist rejection of the real as the root of all appliedproblemswithinsecond-orderpractice.Ifnothingistrue,thereisnorealityandwecannot influencepeople tofunctionbetter,whatisthepoint of anything let alone therapy? (Hayward, 1996, p. 235). Theyadvocateadoptingacriticalrealistapproach thatrecognizes the sub-jectivenatureofknowledgebutassumesthereareexternalconstraintsthatinteractwithsocialandcultural influencestodeterminewhatweknow(Mahoney,1988).Althoughwecanapprehendtheworldaroundusonlyindirectly,asPlatoschainedprisonersobserved,theshadowscast upon the cave wall, there is nevertheless something real beingcast (Agnew&Brown,1989a).From thisperspective,descriptionsoffamily interactions are not arbitrary, there is a given (Pocock, 1996)that accounts for a range of consensus among observers (Golann,1987) which determines whether the description is relatively objectadequate(Speed,1991).Wearenotmerelyhallucinating, fantasizing,dreamingortrickingourselves.

In this vein, Golann (1987) persuasively urges us to reclaim thevalue

of

representational

description

in

family

therapy.

He

argues

that


13/23


the radical constructivistperspectiveadopted bymany second-orderpractitioners, a perspective that prizes the observing systems stanceto the exclusion of the observed, actually opposes the postmoderntenetofparticipatoryinteraction. Italsoundermines thesystemicno-tionofrecursive influence. In ironichindsight,Varela (1979) saw thepotentialforadialecticaldriftawayfromobjectivismtowardananti-realist(Held,1995)position.Accordingtohim,thenegationofobjec-tivity would not be an advance over the former modernist perspec-tive,andonlythroughafullappreciationofparticipationwouldwebeanybetteroff (p.276).Golannechoes thisview, Systemic familytherapy wouldappear ready to look both inwardand outward;but,when

embracing

constructivism,

it

looks

only

inward

and

therebymayhavelostnotonlytheinnocenteyebutallvisionaswell(1987,

p.337).TakingGolannspointonestepfurther,theabilitiestoobjectify,to

observeourselvesandinterpretothers,toassess,discernanddiscrimi-nate, are necessaryprecursors toaction.Without themwewouldbeblind,unabletoactand,ultimately,unabletosurvive.Theprocessofobjectification, a highly adaptive human capacity, has become con-fusedwithnaiveclaimstoobjectiveknowing.Becausesuchepistemo-logicalnaivetyopened the door to control,domination, exploitation,andthepotentialabuseofothers, itwouldappearthattheprocessofobjectificationhas,byassociation, beensaddledwithaverybadrepu-tation.However, this reputation isunwarranted. Ifweare topartici-patewithgreatereaseandmorefreedomintherapy,wewillneedtoreclaimourprofessionalvoicebystripping theobjectof itsencrustedstigma.

Ouropinions, interpretations, descriptionsand the like,asprod-uctsofourcapacitytoobjectify,areoftremendousvaluetoourclients.Thesedifferencesarewhatenableustointeractorthogonallywiththemandareessential totheprocessofchange(EfranandClarfield,1992).But rather than blindly forging ahead with our observations, whichwould likely render a collision of constructs, we run alongside ourclientsconstructsystemsinanefforttosubsumethem(Kelly,1955).Our sensitivity to variations in modes of construing allows for thepresentationofinformationthatisnovelenoughtomakeadifference,yet sufficiently familiar so as not to be immediately rejected by theclient (Mahoney, 1995). Wemay do this forexample, byelaboratingon a client utterance with an idea of our own but using phrases ormetaphors indigenous to theclient. Moreover,as postmodern thera-pistsweoperateunder theassumption thatalthoughourobjectifica-tionsareneverperfectorabsolute,theyarepotentiallyvaluable,andthus

we

are

able

to

act

purposefully

and

directly

without

becoming


14/23


tooattachedtooutcomes(Atkinson&Heath,1990).Wecarryourmodelsandopinionslightlywitharecognitionthattheyarealwaysinherentlylimited.Ourexpertisethen, liesnotinwhatweobserveandourabil-itytotransmitthat intoourclientsheads,somuchas inhowweusetheseobservations inourinteractionswithourclients.

FALLIBLE BUT FUNCTIONAL KNOWING IN THERAPY

Critics of the second-order movement have argued that we need tobelieve thatarealityactuallyexists inorder toapplyourknowledge(e.g.,

Pocock,

1996;

Speed,

1984,

1991).

However,

it

is

not

necessary

toadoptanontologicalpositioninordertorenderobservationsandde-

scriptionsthatarepragmaticallyuseful.Mahrer(1995),forexample,isabletosidesteptheontologicaldebatealtogetherbyrelyingonmodelsofhowclientsconstructtheirworlds.Hepicksupanddiscardsthesemodelsdependingontheirpresentstateusefulness,insteadofhavingtowedhimself toaparticularphilosophical stanceortherapeuticap-proach. In therapy, ontological truth, by necessity, is replaced withpragmatic truth. The test forpragmaticknowledge isnotwhetheritproducesapicture that corresponds to thereal . . . the test forprag-maticknowledgeiswhetheritfunctionssuccessfullyinguidinghumanaction tofulfill intendedpurposes(Polkinghorne,1992,p.151).Andwhat is true or real for our clients determines the usefulness of ouractionsas therapists.

Truth in the psychotherapeutic sense is neither etched in stone,nor completely arbitrary, but rather grounded in the subjectivity ofourclients.Correspondingly,ifourknowledgeleadstodesirableout-comes, itdoesnotnecessarilymean that thisknowledgewasrightortrue in a realist sense; the knowledge was right for the moment be-cause it was useful, because it was in accordance with the systemsowninternalcoherence(Dell,1982),andsomehowmadeanimportantdifference.Andalthoughsuchknowledgemaybefallible,surveysin-dicateitisstillquiteusefuldespiteprofessionaldifferences(Seligman,1995).

Butwhatexactlycananddotherapistsknowgiventhatthethera-peuticpresentationissimplytoovasttograsp initstotality,andthatwe have to rely on our compromised construction of it in order tohelp our clients? Despite the crudeness of our representations, itwouldbeimpossibletonavigateourwaythroughthisinfinitelycom-plexsurroundwithoutourconstructingmaps.Thesemapsanticipatewhatwesee,aswellasdeterminewhatwecome toknow,actingasfeedforward

mechanisms

...[that]

serve

as

hidden-hand

editors,


15/23


[selectingandtransforming]thedatatheydeliver(Agnew&Brown,1989b,p.168).Theviabilityofourconstructionsisdeterminedbysub-jectivelyconstruedgoodness-of-fitcriteriabetweenouranticipationsand the feedback we receive (Agnew & Brown, 1989a, 1989b). Thesystemicmap thatfamily therapistshaveusedoverthepast fourde-cades provided a heuristic to guide the therapists tacit construingprocesses. This map was functional, not because it was isomorphicwiththefamilysdysfunction,asmodernistpractitionersbelieved,butbecause itreducedthecomplexityofinterpersonaldynamicstoasizewhere the therapists bounded rationality [could] construct order(Agnew&Brown,1989b,p.170).Thisconstructedpictureofthefam-ily,

in

turn,

provided

the

basis

for

therapeutic

interventions.However,eventhoughconstructivistpsychotherapists mayknow

fullwellthatreality,writ largeorsmall,isalwaysbeyond theircom-pletegrasp,theybelievewholeheartedlyinoneparticularreality,thatof the client. And although we may never be able to get inside ourclientsskintoseizetheirrealityastheydo,wesuretryashardaswepossibly can to do preciselyjust that. In other words, our work inpsychotherapy is guided by our representation of the clients realitymaking, andwearealways tryingonewayoranother togetat thatrealityregardlessofourontologicaloutlook.Ourconstructionofourclientsassumedreality,inturn,providesthefoundationforourknow-ingandactions intherapy.

PARTICIPANT-OBSERVATION AS INTEGRALTO A SYSTEMIC-CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH

Second-ordertherapistsarecommittedtorecognizingthetenuousnessof the observations or truths underlying their therapeutic interven-tions.However,theyneverthelessneedtohavetheirtruths,andneedto believe in them wholeheartedly, in order to intervene from onemomenttothenext.Constructivistpsychotherapistsareverysensitiveto the consensual cues of their clients. They ask, Does my descrip-tion,statement,opinion,observationresonateformyclient?Andso,thedoor isopened forcollaborativecoconstruction,albeitonewheretheclientisconsideredtheauthor,editor,andarbiteroftheadequacyof the construction. But this activity does not negate the process ofobjectification; it depends on it. In this sense, the therapist is both aparticipantandanobserver,experientiallyengagedwhilebeingmeta-cognitively involved in sensitively facilitating the clients becomingawareofhisorherknowing.

Inthe

present

discussion,

the

second-order

position

is

furthered


16/23


byreinstatingthevalueofthetherapistasonewho functions tocon-structobservationsofpragmaticutilitywhilealsoactingasareflexiveagent.Theobject isnotjusttheclientorfamily,norjustthe therapisthimorherself,but ratherbothareaffordeda complementary stand-ing. Moreover, in the proposed systemic-constructivist framework,therapists use their capacity as participant-observers (Sullivan, 1954)toassistclientstoengageintheirownprocessofparticipant-observa-tion. When clients can begin to use their reflexive faculty to gain agreater perspective, viewing themselves in the context of their owninterpersonalenvironmentsratherthan intheblurofsubjectiveexpe-rience,thentheymaybegintoseealternativewaysofengagingwithintheir

own

systems

(Fergus

&

Reid,

in

press;

Reid

&

Dalton,

2001).AnexpansionofSullivans(1954)originalformulationofparticipant-

observation, and one which is critical to postmodern, systemic-con-structivistpractice, is that the therapist isnotmerelyparticipating inthe interaction on the basis of past experiences that color what theclinicianobserves,heorsheisalsoactivelyandintentionallyengagedin theprocessofconstructing therapeuticobservationsorobjectifica-tions. Thisprocess entails two modes of participation on thepart ofthe therapist: A bottom-up activity of intentional subjectivity or em-pathicrelatingwherebyweactivelyand intentionallyutilize thesub-jective self inorder to feelourway into theclientsexperience.Oratop-down activity of conscious witnessing whereby we take a standbacktoobserveclientsinactionandinteraction,bearinginmindthatwearenotseparatefromtheseobservations,thatoursisnottheonlyinterpretation.

Thesetwomodesoftherapeuticparticipationandengagementarecommondistinctions thatRennie(1998)haselaborateduponatlengthand constitute the information-gathering instrument of the therapist.Both renderobjectifications thatare of therapeutic utility. When thiscapacityisemployedwithinasystemicframework,therangeofappli-cationexpandstoincludethecollectiveaswellastheindividual.Thisacquiredknowledge is thenbrought forth for testing to determinethe object adequacy of the interpretation in a circle of consensualvalidationornegotiatedintelligibility(Gergen,1985).Thegoodness-of-fitcriteriaof the therapistsobservationsare thereforedeterminedthroughtheunfoldingofan intersubjective,dialogicalprocess.

In our view, it is the constructivist therapists willingness to en-gageinthisintersubjectivewinnowingprocessthatrendersthethera-pists fallibleknowledge functional.Thisattitudeentailsavaluingofourownandourclientsknowing,becauseweneedknowledgetogetby in the world. Yet we treat such knowing rather lightly with therecognition

that

all

knowledge,

including

that

of

ourselves

and

our


17/23


clients, is grossly finite and fundamentally, drastically limited. It isthisattitudeofrespectingourclientsuniqueconstruingprocesseswhileattemptingtodisciplineourownthatlaysthegroundworkforflexibleandcreativetherapeutic interaction.

Thefollowingisanexampleofasystemic-constructivistinterven-tionthatworkedwithmaritalpartnersimplicitknowingofeachotherandtherelationshipand,insodoing,containedecologicalvalidity.Acouplepresentedforsystemic-constructivisttherapyafteranumberofunsatisfying attemptsatfamilycounseling.ThehusbandwasalawyeranddevoutMuslim,and thewifewasaCatholic,elementary schoolteacher fromHolland.Over20years ago, thecouplemetandbegancourting

in

Canada.

They

were

married

a

few

years

later.

At

the

timeof assessment, the couple was in staunch disagreement over how to

accommodate their two teenage daughters desires to date in accor-dancewithNorthAmericancustoms.Thefatherinsistedthatthedaughtersrefrainfromdatingaltogether,aswascustomary inhisculture,whilethemotherdefendedherdaughtersdesiresbetreatednormallyliketheirhighschoolpeers.Althoughtheparentswerebothverycapableof articulating their problems on a rational level, their immensedistresswaspalpable to thecotherapists.Nevertheless, the therapistsunderstood that, although they could offer their perspectives on thecouples feelings and behavioral dynamics, they could not possiblyexperience thecomplexityanddepthofpain that thepartners them-selvesexperienced.Thus the imperative for the therapistswas tobe-comeparticipant-observerswithinthiscouplescontextinordertofa-cilitatethecouplesprocessingoftheirowndespair,andtohelpthemtap into the tacitunderstanding they sharedof themselvesand theirrelationship.

Afterthree two-hoursessionsofcarefully listening to thecouple,tentativelyreflectingthe therapistsobservations,having thepartnersdescribe their relationshipdynamicsand,on occasion,enact them insession, the therapists had learned of many intimate matters. Theseincludedtheparentscompellingstoryofwhatitwaslikeforthemtoovercome the pressures of their respective backgrounds in order todateoneanotherandeventuallyraiseafamilyinamannerconsistentwithNorthAmerican tradition.Duringthefourthsession, the inter-nalized partner procedure was applied (see Reid & Dalton, 2001).The therapist, calling the wife by her husbands name, interviewedherasherhusband.Thebeginningquestionsweredeliberatelymun-dane, and then gradually, as the wife became more inducted intobeing her husband, he was asked about more emotional issuessuchas,Whatwasitlikeforyouwhenyourdaughterdroveoffwiththat

man

without

your

meeting

him?

Subtly,

parallels

were

drawn


18/23


between the daughters behavior and the fathers behavior when hefirstbegandating ina foreignculture,andhowhehadhad to trans-gressMuslimculturalprescriptions.

The respondent is typically surprised at how well heor she cancommunicate theotherpersonsattitudesandfeelings,andtheother,in turn, often feels validated when his or her experiences are accu-ratelyportrayed.Thisprocedureisdonewitheveryoneineachotherspresence so that all participants begin sharing and appreciating notonly theknowledge they haveof theother,butalso, the knowledgethatotherfamilymembershaveofthem.Theprocedureisdesignedtoaccess familymembers mutually constructed identities, both sharedand

personal.

One

of

several

results

is

that

a

deeper

awareness

of

theothercreatesagreatersensitivityto theotherpersonsresponsesand

feelings,andmoreunderstanding andappreciationforwhytheotherperson acts as he or she does. The presenting problem of how theparents will deal with the daughters desires and maturation along-sidethefathersbeliefsandprideremains.Butnowthefamily isinaposition to negotiate their ownbehavioral prescriptionsand therebypragmaticallyadjusttheirfamilyculturetobeconsistentwiththelarger,NorthAmericancultureinwhichtheylive.Withtheassistanceofthetherapist who consciously shifts between modes of experiential en-gagementandself-disciplined,descriptiveobjectification,clientslearntoexercisetheirownexpertisewithintheirownsystems.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON EXPANDINGTHE SYSTEMIC PARADIGM

Thesystemicmodelhasenduredovertheyearsbecause,asaheuristicdevice, it has helped therapists restrict the search space of familydynamics to a manageable size, and, as a therapeutic model, it hashelped therapists renderdescriptions thatareofpragmaticutility.Anewinterpretationofsystemstheorythat improvesupon,ratherthannegatestheold,shouldbecomprehensiveenoughandholisticenoughto . . . include some of the advances produced by family therapysprior emphasis on behaviour . . . as well as meanings, and shouldallowthetherapisttoactonbothoftheselevelsofexperience(Feixas,1995, p. 321). A postmodern rendition of systemic practice requiresthe practitioner to assume the role of participant-observer, and tobe capable of working with both the implicit and explicit aspects ofhuman relational functioning, atdifferentpointsalong the relationalholoarchy(Alexander &Neimeyer,1989;Feixas,1995;Keeney&Ross,1985;

Proctor,

1985).

And

perhaps

it

is

not

the

attainment

of

the

goal


19/23


perse,butthewillingnesstoworktowardsitthatrendersthetherapistsfallibleknowledgefunctional:Theobjectofthedance,afterall,isnottofinish;theobjectofthedanceistodance(Mahoney,1989,p.188).

McConaghyandCottone (1998)seeconstructivismasanalterna-tivetosystemsthinking,claimingthatsystemictheorizingcanbehighlydamaging. We would suggest that systemic thinking, when not re-duced,iscomplementarytoconstructivismanddovetailssmoothlywithpostmodernepistemologyand therapeuticpractice.Reductionism, inthecurrent theorizingcontext, is theactof focusingonanyaspectofthesystemicholoarchytotheexclusionofanyother.AsWilber(1995)wenttogreatlengthstoillustrate,tofocusonthewholeattheexpenseof

the

individual

regardless

of

how

holistic

it

may

sound

or

seem,

isquite a reductionistic act,just as is focusing on the part to the dis-

avowalof thewhole.Moreover, to focusonlyon innerworldexperi-ences,withnocredencegiven to themoreobservablecomponentsofexperience,particularlythoseaspectsofourselvesthatothersseeandwe may not see, or those aspects of ourselves that others may seedifferentlythanwedo, isno lessreductionisticthanfocusingonlyonobservableexteriorsbe theyof thepartor thewhole.Andofcourse,reductionismcanbetakentoadepth,ashasbeentraditionallycharac-teristic of psychology, by externally dismantling the complexity ofhumanexperienceintotheAristoteliantripartofthinking,feeling,andbehaving,andthenbyfocusingononlyonecomponentofthetrilogyin isolation,oronlyonasliverofonecomponent inisolation,oronlyoninteractionsofsliversinrelationtoeachotherbutinisolationfromeverythingelseadnauseam.

Butlestweforgetourselvesandgetcaughtupinmodernitybash-ingitisimportanttorememberthatourconstructions,betheymodern-istoranyother,arethereforareason,andasinadequate astheymaybe, they do enable us toget by, however feebly, in the world. And,although it is not a very popular practice these days to reduce orexclude, our cognitive apparatus is structured in such a way thatwedoreduceorexclude,forweoperatewithjustenoughinformationtofunction(Fiske,1992).Reductionismbeginswiththesymbolizationprocess itself, and this is why we cannot even begin to languageabout a constructivist epistemology without inherently contradictingourselves(Held,1990).Whetherwearelookingatfingerspointingatmoons,orshadowsflickeringacrosscavewalls,wearealwaysreliantuponsignlanguagetoconveyourexperience.Inourexperience,sys-temstheoryhasservedasareminderthatthereisalwaysmoretothestorythanourpersonalconstructionscanconvey.

Thus, inagreementwithTaggart (1985),webelieve the systemicmodel,

as

it

has

traditionally

been

used,

has

not

been

systemic

enough.


20/23


Butjust because we have barricaded ourselves into one wing of amansion, does not mean we have to sell the estate in order to findmoreroomsomewhereelse.Nordoesitmeanwewouldbeanybetteroffrenouncingbricksandmortaraltogether.Whatmakesthesystemicmodelsousefulisthat,asamodel,itswallsarepermeable,expansive,andflexibleenough(1)toenableustodeterminethefocusofourgazein themoment-to-moment process of therapy from the individual tothecollectiveandbackagain(viaintentional subjectivityorconsciouswitnessing), and (2) toprovide uswitha structureormeans ofcon-struingmultipleinteractionalprocesses.Althoughwemayindeedchooseto specialize at one place or another along the systemic holoarchy(R.

A.

Neimeyer,

1995),

we

should

never

lose

sight

of

the

fact

thateach levelinvolvesbothmeaningandstructure,processandpattern-

ing(Wilber,1995).Family therapiesmayhavebeenslowerthan indi-vidualtherapiestodemonstratesuchintegrationbecausethesystemicmodel,asithasformerlybeendistortedandnarrowlyused,wastreatedasaneither/orproposition.

Fromapostmodernperspective,thedualisticthinkingofmodern-istorfirst-orderfamilytherapypracticewasflawedbecausetheindivid-ualsinfluencecanneverbeteasedapartfromthatwhichheorsheisobserving. From a systemic perspective such thinking is flawed be-causenopart(therapistorotherwise)iseverseparatefromthewhole,and thus no part can have unilateral control over the whole or anyotherpart.Constructivistandsystemicparadigmsarebothimplicitlycontextual and relativistic but with differing emphases. The formeremphasizes meaningandmutuallyderivedunderstanding; the latteremphasizes placementandcomponentialinteraction.Bothareflipsidesofthesamecoin,inextricable in their interconnectedness.

For the therapist, constructivism is an attitude toward knowing,whereas systems theory is a way of seeing. Systemic-constructivismincorporatesa respectfulattitude towarddoing therapy,andadisci-plinedapproachtowardobjectifyingourselves,ourclients,ourclientsin relation toeachother,andourselves in relation toourclientsandthegreaterecology.Inthisarticle,wehaveattemptedtocountersomeofthediversionarytacticsthathaveartificiallyseparatedthefacefromtheperson,and thesystem from thepeoplewhodwellwithin it, thesystemthat,throughthis indwelling, peoplecoconstructandthatwe,inturn,as therapistshaveinterpreted.

REFERENCES

Agnew, N. McK., & Brown,J. L. (1989a). Foundations for a model of knowing, I:Constructing reality. CanadianPsychology, 30, 152167.


21/23


Agnew, N. McK., & Brown,J. L. (1989b). Foundations for a model of knowing, II:Fallible but functionalknowledge.CanadianPsychology, 30, 168183.

Agnew,N.McK.,&Brown,J.L.(1989c). Therhythmsofreality:Entertainmenttheory.Canadian Psychology, 30, 193201.

Alexander,P.

C.,

&

Neimeyer,

G.

J.

(1989).

Constructivism

and

family

therapy.

Inter-nationalJournal ofPersonalConstructPsychology, 2, 111121.

Atkinson,B.J.,&Heath,A.W.(1990).Furtherthoughtsonsecond-orderfamilytherapy:This time itspersonal.FamilyProcess,29,145155.

Bateson,G. (1972). Steps to an ecology ofmind.NewYork:BallantineBooks.Bateson,G. (1979). Mind andnature.NewYork:E.P.Dutton.Bogdan,J.L. (1984). Familyorganizationasanecologyof ideas:Analternativeof the

reificationof family systems.FamilyProocess, 23, 375399.Cade, B. (1996). Comment: Towards a one-and-a-half order practice: Rehabilitating

pragmatics.Journal of FamilyTherapy, 19, 243248.Constantine,L.L.(1989). Furnitureforfirewood,blamingthesystemsparadigm.Jour-

nal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy, 15, 111113.Coyne,J. C. (1982). A brief introduction to epistobable. Family TherapyNetworker, 6,

2728.

Dell,P.F.(1982). Beyondhomeostasis:Towardaconceptofcoherence.FamilyProcess,21, 2141.

Efran,J. S., & Clarfield, L. E. (1992). Constructionist therapy: Sense and nonsense.InS. McNamee& K.J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 200217).London: Sage.

Epstein,E.S.,&Loos,V.E. (1989). Theethicsoflanguageand the languageofethics.Journal ofFamilyPsychology, 2, 426429.

Erickson,G.D. (1988).Against thegrain:Decentering family therapy.JournalofMari-tal andFamilyTherapy, 14, 225236.

Feixas, G. (1990a). Personal construct theory and systemic therapies: Parallel or con-vergent trends?Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy, 16, 120.

Feixas,G.(1990b).Approachingtheindividual,approachingthesystem:Aconstructivistmodel for integrativepsychotherapy.Journal ofFamilyPsychology,4,435.

Feixas,G. (1995).Personalconstructs in systemicpractice. InR.A.Neimeyer&M.J.Mahoney

(Eds.),

Constructivism

in

psychotherapy

(pp.

305338).

Washington,

DC:AmericanPsychological Association.

Fergus,K.D.,&Reid,D.W.(inpress).Thecouplesmutualidentityandreflexivity:Asystemic-constructivist approachto the integrationofpersonsandsystems.Journalof Psychotherapy Integration.

Fiske,S.T. (1992).Thinkingisfordoing:Portraitsofsocialcognition fromdaguerreo-type to laserphoto.JournalofPersonality andSocialPsychology, 63, 877889.

Gergen,K.J.(1985).Thesocialconstructionistmovementinmodernpsychology.AmericanPsychologist, 40, 266275.

Golann,S. (1987). On description in family therapy.FamilyProcess, 26, 331340.Goolishian,H.A.,&Anderson,H.(1992). SomeafterthoughtsonreadingDuncanand

Held.Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy, 18,3537.Guttman,H.A.(1991).Systemstheory,cyberneticsandepsitemology.InA.S.Gurman,

&D.P.Kniskern (Eds.),Handbook offamily therapy,Vol. II (pp.4162).NewYork:Brunner/Mazel.

Hayward, M. (1996). Is second order practice possible?Journal of Family Therapy, 19,219242.

Held,B.S. (1990). Whats inaname?Some confusionsandconcernsabout construc-tivism.Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy,16, 179186.

Held,B.S.(1995). Therealmeaningofconstructivism.JournalofConstructivist Psychol-ogy, 8, 305315.


22/23


Hoffman,L. (1985).Beyondpowerandcontrol:Towarda secondorder familysys-tems therapy. FamilySystemsMedicine,3, 381396.

Hoffman,L. (1990). Constructing realities:Anartof lenses. FamilyProcess, 29,112.Hoffman,L.(1992). Areflexivestanceforfamilytherapy.InS.McNamee&K.J.Gergen

(Eds.),Therapy

as

social

construction

(pp.

724).

London:

Sage.Jacobson, N. S. (Speaker). (1989). Cognitive innovations with couples andfamilies. (Cas-

sette Recording No. ACT89-7 Helping People Change). Berkley, CA: Institute forBehavioral HealthCare.

James, K., & McIntyre, D. (1983). The reproduction of families: The social role offamily therapy?Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy,9,1929.

Keeney,B.P. (1983). The aesthetics of change.NewYork:GuilfordPress.Keeney, B., & Ross,J. (1985).Mind in therapy: Constructing systemic family therapies .

NewYork:BasicBooks.Keeney, B. P., & Sprenkle, D. S. (1982). Ecosystemic epsitemology: Critical implica-

tions for theaestheticsandpragmaticsof family therapy.FamilyProcess,21,119.Kelly,G.A. (1955).Thepsychology ofpersonal constructs. NewYork:Norton.Koestler,A. (1976). Theghost in themachine.NewYork:RandomHouse.MacKinnon,L.K.,&Miller,D.(1987).ThenewepistemologyandtheMilanapproach:

Feministandsociopolitical considerations.Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy,9,119129.

Mahoney,M.J.(1988).Constructivistmetatheory:I.Basicfeaturesandhistoricalfoun-dations. InternationalJournal ofPersonalConstructPsychology,1,135.

Mahoney, M.J. (1989). Holy epistemology: Construing the constructions of the con-structivists. Canadian Psychology, 30, 187188.

Mahoney,M.J. (1995). The psychological demands of beinga constructivistpsycho-therapist. In R. A. Neimeyer & M.J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in psycho-therapy (pp. 385399). Washington,DC: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Mahrer,A.R.(1995).Asolutiontoanillusoryproblem:Clientsconstructtheirworldsversus there really isa reality.Journal ofConstructivistPsychology, 8, 327337.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F.J. (1987). The tree of knowledge. Boston: New ScienceLibrary.

McConaghy,J. S.,&Cottone, R. R. (1998).The systemicview ofviolence:An ethicalperspective.

Family

Process,

37,

5163.Neimeyer,R.A.(1995).Limitsandlessonsofconstructivism:Somecritical reflections.

Journal ofConstructivist Psychology, 8, 339361.Nichols,M.P. (1987).The self in thesystem:Expanding the limitsoffamily therapy.New

York: Brunner/Mazel.Nichols,M.P.,&Schwartz,R.C.(1998).Familytherapy:Conceptsandmethods(4thed.).

Toronto: Allyn andBacon.Pocock, D. (1996). Comment: Reconciling the given and the made.Journal of Family

Therapy, 19, 249254.Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). Postmodern epistemology of practice. In S. Kvale (Ed.),

Psychology andpostmodernism (pp. 146165). NewburyPark, CA:Sage.Procter, H. G. (1985). A personal construct approach to family therapy and systems

intervention.InE.Button (Ed.),Personalconstruct theoryandmentalhealth(pp.327350).London: Croom Helm.

Reid,D.W.,&Dalton,E.J.(2001). Therapeuticallyinducedchanges incouplemutualidentity:Theroleof we-ness inrelationshipsatisfaction.Manuscript inprepara-tion.Portionsofthispaperwerepresentedatanannualmeetingof the ISSPRandINPR,Brisbane,Australia,June,2000.

Rennie,D.L.(1998). Personcenteredcounseling: AnExperientialApproach.London:Sage.


23/23


Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct.NewYork:Praeger.

Seligman,M.E.P. (1995).Theeffectivenessofpsychotherapy:TheConsumerReportssurvey.AmericanPsychologist, 50, 965974,

Sheridan,A.

(1980).

Foucault:

The

will

to

truth.

London:

Tavistock.Speed,B. (1984).How really real isreal?FamilyProcess,23,511520.

Speed,B. (1991). RealityexistsO.K.?An argument against constructivism and social con-structionism, 13, 395309.

Sullivan,H.S. (1954).Thepsychiatric interview.NewYork:Norton.Taggart,M. (1985).The feministcritique inepistemologicalperspective:Questionsof

context in family therapy.Journal ofMarital andFamilyTherapy, 11, 113126.Varela,F.J.(1979).Principlesofbiologicalautonomy.NewYork:ElsevierNorthHolland.von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundation, development, application.

NewYork:GeorgeBraziller.vonFoerster,H. (1981). Observing systems.Seaside,CA: IntersystemsPublications.vonGlasersfeld,E.(1984). Anintroductiontoradicalconstructivism.InP.Watzlawick

(Ed.),The invented reality (pp.1740).NewYork:Norton.White,M.,&Epston,D. (1990).Narrativemeans to a therapeutic end.NewYork: W.W.

Norton.Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the ma-

chine.NewYork:Wiley.Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution.Boston:Shambhala.

Integrating Constructivist Sistemic

Documents

Transcript of Integrating Constructivist Sistemic