On Second‐Order Family Therapy

Abstract

If family therapists remain aware of the indivisible and recursive nature of their interactions with families, and if they use this awareness to form a collaborative rather than a hierarchical therapeutic system, and at the same time minimize their attempts to change persons or family structures in strategic or predetermined ways, then they may be said to be practicing a "second-order" family therapy. This article analyzes the development of the second-order position on therapist power and influence, concluding that it is inconsistent and possibly disingenuous.

The reflecting team as a reflection of second order therapeutic ideals

“…Golann (1988) sees the possibilities of the reflecting team method to realise the goals of second order cybernetics, depending on how it is used. The reflecting team would appear to be a flexible method of practice suited to experimentation with and perhaps realisation of some second order aspirations ... the extent to which the reflecting team is a "second-order" family therapy depends not on the reversal of light and sound but on the genuineness and wisdom of the team's commentary (page 62-63).…”

Personal constructs in systemic practice.

“…Actually, Kelly (1969) suggested, and other construct theorists have developed (Feixas & Villegas, 1990;Neimeyer, 1987), theoretically grounded "process" strategies for change. In summary, the basic distinction between process and content employed by PCT sheds a different light on the inconsistencies about the issue of power, intentionality, and strategizing pointed out by Golann (1988).…”

“…In an article that has initiated some discussion, Golann (1988) notes that Tomm's (e.g., 1987) emphasis on strategizing, intention, and deliberation "may have reintroduced therapist power and control into systemic work in a way that corrupts Hoffman's aspirations for a second-order practice" (Golann, 1988, p. 62). Despite this, both Hoffman and Tomm seem to be influenced by the same constructivist authors.…”

Loose ends

“…Of course one should also argue that first order is what first order does: that what happens in the session may be more relevant than what happens on the page. But this was the very point of Golann (1988), who could see the advantage of first-order power and control at least being out in the open compared with what he saw as the possibility of a more covert use of therapist power in the second-order therapies. Maturana's dictum that there can be 'no instructive interaction' was widely used to support the shift to second-order practice, but it could more logically have been used to exonerate first-order therapists from accusations of acting powerfully.…”