Family Theory and the Scientific Method

Abstract

The evolution of family interactional research reveals a transformation from the theoretical concerns of a novel cybernetic paradigm to methodological problems of a prior mechanistic one. This change can be understood, within a cybernetic perspective, as an example of the characteristic functioning of adaptive systems attempting to maintain themselves unchanged under changed circumstances. A turn to a focus on method results in theoretical self-correction and the implicit retention of a mechanistic paradigm. This eliminates those most novel aspects of family interactional research that suggested the beginning of a cybernetic paradigm. A mechanistic methodology for family interaction research can be understood as an analogue to ritual in social systems. A primary attribute of ritual, sanctity, self-reflexively defines certain basic premises as unquestionable. By this, it regulates the beliefs of those who act it out, and eliminates the most radial novelty that confronts these beliefs. The evolution of family interactional research and its changing relationship to its methodology is an example of this process, the introduction and rejection of novelty by self-regulating systems. In this case, a challenge to the basic premises of a mechanistic paradigm is subverted, using its method as the arbitrator of validity in family interactional research.

Family therapy and the glamour of science

“…The process is often seen as a fight between Kuhnian paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) as noted by Minuchin and others who wrote in 1978: 'Psychotherapy is now in a period of scientific revolution or paradigm shift ' (p. 76). Neutral objectivity is seen as intrinsic to the old-fashioned mechanistic philosophy of Descartes and is seen to be in conflict with the 'subjectivist view' where the observer is part of the process under observation (Keeney, 1979;Schwartzman, 1984). Conventional scientists are parodied by being portrayed as absolute or naive realists.…”

“…In this turbulent period, some prominent family therapists have allied themselves with New Science, and have appropriated the languages of mathematics (cybernetics and now chaos theory) (Cronen and Pearce, 1985;Bogdan, 1987;Chubb, 1989), physics (quantum theory and relativity against Newtonian mechanics) (Schwartzman, 1984), as well as chemistry (Progogine) (see McLeod, 1988), biology (Maturana) (Keeney and Sprenkle, 1982;Dell, 1985) and palaeontology (Romer) (Schwartzman, 1984). All these are allied with revolutionary theories which successfully challenge the existing order in their subject.…”

“…A well known example of this is the double bind theory (Bateson et al, 1956), which provided great impetus to the family therapists of its day and became a widespread non-technical concept and part of popular discourse. As this took place, so family therapists appeared to abandon the concept and replace it with an heir, such as paradox and counterparadox (Selvini Palazzoli et al, 1978), and subsequently, the invariant prescription (Simon, 1987). Could this be explained by waning prestige rather than the failure to confirm the hypothesis in certain limited contexts (Schuham, 1967)?…”

“…All these sciences offer explanations or representations of the nature of the world. Family therapy, in offering such representations, acts like science (Schwartzman, 1984;Dell, 1985). The 'science' of family therapy uses its models in two related ways, both of which are essential for the healthy development of the subject.…”

On change, catastrophe and therapy

“…Firstly, references to catastrophe theory, the most productive area concerned with the concept, may be found in Bateson (1980), Cooklin (1982), de Shazer (1982, Dell (1982) and Schwartzman (1984), but only en passant.…”