InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docx

Instructions
Clients come to MFTs because they want to change, whether the
change is in cognitions, structure, insight, or something else.
Therefore, it is important for you to understanding why, when,
and how people change. This week, you will continue the
exploration of core concepts related to systems theory and its
application to MFT field concepts. You will review several
concepts associated with change including homeostasis, first-
order change, second-order change, continuous change, and
discontinuous change.
Complete the provided worksheet template located in this
week’s resources. Note: You will use the worksheet you
complete this week as part of your work in Week 4.
For each item, be sure to address the following:
· Record a direct quotation that defines the concept or describes
the assumption.
· Paraphrase the definition or description by explaining the
information in your own words. As you are paraphrasing, keep
in mind that concepts often involve several interrelated ideas.
When you are paraphrasing, be sure to not oversimplify the
concept.
· Provide an original example (not one you read about in the
course resources) of the concept or assumption.
· Explain how your example reflects the definition. Refer to
your paraphrased definition in order to compare the example to
the concept.
Should you have questions or need clarification on any items,
please contact your professor to discuss it.
Length: 1-2 pages (completed template). Additional
resources/reference page is not required.
Your cheat sheet should demonstrate thoughtful consideration
of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing
new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Be sure

to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity
Policy.
Upload your document, and then click the
Submit to Dropbox button.
Building Blocks to Conceptualizing Family: A Family System’s
Perspective Valerie Q. Glass, PhD, LMFT
Background of Systemic Thinking
Systemic thinking, for some, means trying on a new and unique
lens when considering “presenting problems” that arise in
therapeutic settings. Most mental and emotional health
backgrounds study individual cognitive and emotional
processes, systemic thinking means a shift in looking at one
person to looking at a whole system. Keeney (1983) calls this
change in professional theory an epistemological shift.
Epistemology, most basically, is the way one understands what
is in front of them, and the root with which decisions are made.
Helping fields all develop from different epistemologies.
Psychiatry views medicine and biology as their epistemological
construct of how or why people act the way they do. Much of
the epistemological focus of social work fields embraces the
necessity or connecting to resources and social support as a
catalyst for change. Psychology explores the make-up of the
individual’s mind and develops steps for change. Family
systems, and the main focus of this paper, dive into the
epistemology of looking at families through the constructs with
which we might look at various systems. You are at the
beginning of a new epistemological journey. As part of that
journey, new concepts will be presented that allow you to
consider the role of systems in presenting problems and in
change. Mechanical and biological systemic terminology will be
used to highlight how families work like systems to both
maintain “presenting problems” as well as healing or changing
these “presenting problems.” This epistemological stance might
fit with your natural understanding of the world and how

problems arise or are maintained or these ideas may deviate
slightly from your perspectives on problems. Marriage and
family therapy, as a profession, holds a foundational
epistemological view that family systems play a major role in
how we view clients, presenting problems, the maintenance of
problems, and the keys to change and growth (Jackson &
Weakland, 2016). Davey et al. (2012) states: “the practice of
family therapy is based on the idea that individuals and their
problems are best understood and treated within a relational
context” (p. 75). 44 Biological and Mechanical Systems The
major representation of the idea of family systems is in the
construct of “system.” If you think about anything where a
bunch of separate parts work together to generate a working
system, this idea of a system can be visualized. Consider a
natural ecosystem where you have plants bringing in air and
growing from nutrients in the soil and sun. Then you have
animals eating the plants and bigger animals preying on the
smaller animals. Finally, you have dead animals decaying to
provide nutrients to the soil. This is an example of an ecological
system. If you view the one plant separate from the system, it
does not make sense, you cannot break apart how the plant
works and grows without including the other parts of the
system. Additionally, if the plant does not survive, it does not
do this alone; it is dependent on the system around it and their
role in the plant’s survival. A second example of a system could
be a mechanical system. Consider a car; it has a bunch of
different systems working together to help it run properly. If
you saw just a steering wheel by itself, that would not make
sense and would not function without the rest of the mechanical
system. Also, if one part of a car’s system does not work – let’s
say the tire is low on air – the rest of the system compensates
(the driver has to hold the steering wheel tighter in one
direction, the engine works harder, the other tires wear because
they are pushed in a different direction). We could name many
different systems (e.g., a human body, an air conditioning
system, a ship, a sports team, a traffic light, a computer) the list

is endless. The commonality is that systems need all the parts to
“function.” The parts can “function” independently. Using this
background of mechanical or biological systems, apply these
ideas to family functioning. A family works to maintain their
“normal” (or homeostasis which we will talk about later). Each
member in a family system has a job or a role in helping that
family function in the way that is normal to them. To see a
person independently, we cannot understand their role in that
family system without seeing or learning about the family
context. These systemic constructs help us view family
dynamics from this systemic perspective. They lead us to
consider how that system is working, what the system’s
“normal” is, and the identification of the strengths and
weaknesses in the entire system. Keeney (1982) shares that
change, which from the systemic perspective, involves
“facilitating alternative structures to maintain the family
organization” (p. 87). In other words, therapy helps the system
find a new (healthier) way of working. 45 Historical Backdrop
of Systemic Theory The process of looking at family through a
systemic lens is known as “systems theory,” “general systems
theory,” or “family systems theory.” Minuchin (1985) describes
a system as an “organized whole” (p. 289) or a group or parts
that organize around one idea or function. Considering theory is
important to your work as a family therapist, because your
identity as an MFT, from this point forward, will take into
account the very foundational idea that family is a whole system
and functions much like mechanical and biological systems.
There is not one major contributor to the idea of systemic
thinking and the application to families; however, there seemed
to be somewhat of a movement that began around 1950 and
solidified as a specific theory within the next 20 or so years.
We will only consider some of the names that were involved in
developing the metaphor of systems as they are applied to
thinking about family dynamics. Don Jackson. In the 1960s,
Jackson developed what he coined an “Interactional Theory”
where he explored the idea that families seem to want to

maintain a normality, or their sense of normality (called
homeostasis which will be defined later) (see Jackson, 1968a;
Jackson, 1968b). In addition, Jackson identified that working
with the family allowed clinicians to observe family systemic
interactions and utilize them as part of treatment. Harry Stack
Sullivan. Sullivan influenced some of Jackson’s ideas by stating
that clinicians cannot look at mental health of one individual
independently from the family context. He argued that mental
health is a result of both internal and external forces (Stack
Sullivan, 1939). Gregory Bateson. Bateson worked closely with
two other familiar names in MFT history: John Weakland and
Jay Haley (Ray & Brasher, 2010). Together, they solidified
some of the foundational research in the field of systemic
thinking by researching the role of homeostasis and
communication patterns in families. Bateson opened the door to
systemic thinking about how patterns were part of family
systems (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Bateson also worked with
other founders of systemic thinking, such as Watzawick (see
below); they theorized the connection of cybernetics in family
patterns. Watzlawick, Fisch, and Weakland. Weakland expanded
on his work with Bateson and Haley to develop a theory of
family therapy with Watzlawick and Fisch titled MRI Brief
Therapy (Ray & Brasher, 2010). MRI Brief is often labelled as
the foundational theory of family systems therapy. One of the
major assumptions of the MRI group was that therapy should
explore the interactional patterns between people. In addition,
these therapists explored the roles of family members in
maintaining problems. 46 Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. Von
Bertalanffy was an Austrian biologist who eschewed the
reductive view of systems that had previously existed and
embraced the idea that scientific principles were bigger than the
one object or idea. He stressed that context had to be considered
to better understand the element (Bond, 2009). Von
Bertalanffy’s ideas about systemic thinking were applicable to
all areas of the world: ecology, biology, politics, or global
systems, humankind, or groupings of any kind. He argued the

global solutions could not be addressed without considering the
larger systemic context. Alfred Adler. Adler predated family
systems thinking; however, he did add to the construction of the
systemic thinking in the mental health and psychology fields
(Carich & Willingham, 1987). Adler argued that there was an
individual that was examined from a psychological context;
however, the psychologist should still remember their social
environment and the role this might play in who they are. In
addition, Adler discusses the role of causation in mental health.
He labeled causation as “circular processes” (similar to circular
causality that will be discussed later). This is the idea that
psychologists cannot just hone in on one specific cause for
mental health issues, he stated that there was a more complex
process involved that included the client’s context and social
interactions. The convergence of ideas or a shift in
epistemology, brought on by great thinkers from many fields,
led to the constructs of systemic thinking. The over-arching
ideas presented the foundation for many concepts that help
family systems theorists discuss and define family dynamics. In
the next section, many concepts that have emerged will be
presented, defined, and applied to families. Systemic Concepts
In the next few pages, this paper will define and explain many
constructs that are used in family systems theory. These
constructs link to the idea of mechanical and biological
systems, using metaphor to explain family functioning. Families
work as a whole unit and function wholly rather than as
individual members, according to family systems theory. Each
of these constructs help us identify, define, and expand on
family and how family interacts to as a systemic whole.
Homeostasis One of the most common concepts that is utilized
in the family therapy field is that of homeostasis. Homeostasis
is a systems natural restructuring to maintain the intended
function (Messer, 1971). In physics, the concept of equilibrium
means a constant state; homeostasis is the system’s ability to
return to that equilibrium. Consider an ocean and 47 the
constant ebb and flow of the waters at high and low tide; this is

the ocean’s homeostasis. If a powerful hurricane takes over the
seafront, the ocean tides rise over the land; however, after the
passing of the hurricane, the oceans will fall back into their
regular flow, returning to homeostasis. Homeostasis can
“move,” for example, if there were many hurricanes and the
constant force of the high waters destroyed and overtook part of
the land; that would be the “new” homeostasis. Homeostasis can
be used to describe family dynamics; more importantly,
homeostasis can be used to define healthy and unhealthy
dynamics within family systems. Each family has a homeostasis.
Sometimes these homeostatic states are working, are functional
and “healthy,” and other times they are not (Messer, 1971). If a
“healthy” family experiences stressful scenarios, then that
family might adjust and develop a new “unhealthy” (or less
functional) homeostasis. Consider for a moment that family that
we have all met, the family that seems to remain in a constant
chaotic state. The family may seem to resolve one issue, yet
there seems to be another, just as serious, right behind it. This
state of chaos is that family’s homeostasis, they seem to retreat
to this place of functioning that is consistent and comfortable
for the system. On the flip side of this example, consider what
you might call a more functioning homeostasis in a family – a
“healthy” family. Maybe this family experiences the sudden
death of someone in their family system. The family
experiences a great deal of grief and go through that process;
however, somehow they are able to bounce back to their
“healthy” functioning – their healthy homeostasis. Family
systems theorists research and theorize about what makes for a
more functional or dysfunctional homeostasis; however, as the
root of family systems thinking is the idea that there is some
systemic regularity going on in families. Systemic therapists
understand that de-regulating this homeostasis can lead to
change. Naïve Realism Naïve realism implies that people
generally only see part of the whole (Keeney, 1983).
Psychologists in the early 1900s, for example, viewed mental
health in women as being linked to hormones or the uterus. As a

result, many unnecessary hysterectomies and ovarian removals
took place to “cure” women. These psychologists only viewed a
small part of the picture, they understood mental health in
women through this naïve realism. They did not take into
account other elements of the woman’s life (i.e., family
dynamics, social expectations, addiction, abuse, genetics, the
list goes on). Early systemic thinkers embrace the idea that
mental health is more than what we “see” and that there are
systems involved in people’s lives that play a role in their
emotional, mental, and physical health. 48 System As discussed
earlier, a system is defined as separate parts that work together
to create a whole (Hanson, 1995). Wholeness is an important
part of the system because, even though there are parts in the
system, the system is viewed as a whole. Every element within
the system interconnects to create the larger system. Another
important aspect of a system is the complexity around what
happens when a part that is not interconnected enters the
system. An example might be a fiancé of a family member
whose context and role does not fit with the larger family unit.
We have all seen this dynamic. There can be a shunning or
fakeness that overtakes the family system. Eventually maybe the
fiancé finds her way into the family rules, the “whole,” or
maybe she leaves the system altogether. Either way, the system
does seek to maintain homeostasis and return to “normality.”
Subsystem. Up to now, the idea of systems, particularly family
systems, as a united “whole” has started to build your own
epistemological shift. Likely, you can guess what the concept of
subsystem might mean. Subsystems are parts of the larger
system that have a “distinct dynamic, but are nonetheless
connected in hierarchical arrangements with systems that
contain them” (Minuchin, 1999, p. 12). If you examine an
extended family system, grandparents might be one subsystem,
parents another, and siblings another sub-system. Some family
therapists (e.g., structural family therapist Salvador Minuchin)
felt that problems arose when these subsystems were off-
balance, for example, when the parental subsystem was not

clear (Cox & Paley, 1997). For example, maybe a grandmother
and mother aligned against a husband’s behavior. Maybe a child
and a father were an aligned subsystem and left the other child
and parent disconnected. Some family therapists focus a great
deal of therapeutic attention on the idea that subsystems should
be both independent and dependent – for example, parents
should be focused on parenting children; however, they should
not be overly involved in sibling dynamics. These different
subsystems “should have” specific rules to guide healthier
family interactions. In the structural model, fixing family
dynamics within the system can provide structure and lead to
improving the presenting problem. Open system. An open
system is a system that is not completely independent (Day,
2007). An open system interacts with systems around it and is
influenced by systems around it. Consider a family that is
having challenges and will be influenced by peers at work (their
work systems), their extended family systems, their church
community systems, their neighbors, their therapist, and so on.
An open family system can build on elements of the systems
around them and are open to these systems. They might
incorporate some of their Rabbi’s teachings into their parenting
challenges or seek advice from work friend. 49 Closed system.
On the flip side of the open system, is a closed system. A closed
system is a system that is not interacting or engaging with
external systems (Day, 2007). The functioning of a closed
family system is not influenced by external systems. An
example of a closed system is a family that has deep secrets and
challenges and these are only known within the family. They do
not seek outside feedback or assistance for their challenges.
Cox and Paley (1997) discuss the reciprocal relationships
between family systems and their external systems independent
of these being closed or open systems. Families undoubtedly are
involved and connected to multiple systems at multiple levels.
From a systemic perspective, the connections between all of
these external systems could equate to a much larger defined
system. For example, a neighborhood is a system, a school is a

system, and so on; the family is just a “sub-system” of these
larger systems. Through systemic metaphors, there could be
influences from these systems on the family and vice versa that
could lead to a need for either to re-balance their equilibrium. If
a family is struggling with a dynamic at their child’s school,
maybe the teacher and child have a difficult relationship in
class; this challenge influences the family system and,
conversely, the parent’s frustration and response to the school
influences the school homeostasis. These interactions of
systems play a role in family functioning; therefore, family
systems clinicians should be aware of these multiple systems
and the context (which will be described later) of families’
experiences. Complementary Systems. Bateson introduces three
systems: complementary systems, symmetrical systems, and
reciprocal systems (see below), These three types of systems
identify how systems negotiate conflict (Smith-Acuna, 2011). A
complementary system of communication is one that
communicates differently; they “mirror” each other
(Heatherington & Friedlander, 1990; Watzlwavick, Bavelas, &
Jackson, 1967). For example, one person is the authoritarian
and the other is submissive; or, one person is the substance
abuser, the other person is the enabler. These communication
patterns are typically noted by external forces of understanding
and hierarchies in social structures – for example, patriarchal
messages that the “man of the house” should be in charge
influences both a husband and wife’s sense of who they are in a
married relationship. Another example would be an
authoritative parent setting down specific rules for the child.
Ultimately, the child will rebel and break the rules behind the
parent’s back – this would be a complementary system.
Symmetrical Systems. In a symmetrical system, there is
contention for the same relational role (Heatherington &
Friedlander, 1990; Watzlwavick, et al., 1967). Bateson (1979)
explains that symmetrical systems are when one part of a system
does things one way, another part of the system will follow suit
and do the same thing. A way to think of 50 symmetrical

systems is that two or more members are competing for control.
If you have a mother and child and an introduction of a
stepparent, then the child and the new stepparent may attempt to
work against each other in getting the mother’s attention.
Reciprocal Systems. Converse to both complementary and
symmetrical systems, reciprocal systems are more balanced
(Heatherington & Friedlander,1990). Think of reciprocal
systems as families that encourage healthy competition, where
relationships are on equal playing fields, and there is a sense of
both connection and independence within the system. Change
Thinking about how systems work, how a family (or any other
system) works to maintain homeostasis, it seems
counterintuitive to even begin to have hope that changing
systems is possible. First order change and second order change
define what change can look like from a systemic perspective.
In addition, the role of the therapist can be explained through
these constructs. First order change. One important construct is
first order change. First order change is defined as a small
change or immediate change that is typically temporary and
does not make major changes to the larger system and how it
works (Chae, 2017). First order change typically focuses on the
immediate situation at hand rather than looking at lasting
impact (Davey et al., 2012). An example might be a therapy
session where a couple starts to yell at one another; they are
clearly agitated and are not calm enough to process. The
therapists employ some techniques that allow for the couple to
catch their breath and calm down to continue the session. This
change occurs in the moment for the moment, but when the
couple returns home, the agitation picks back up. There was a
change, but overall, it did not lead to lasting or significant
change. Most notably, there was not a lasting shift in the
systemic homeostasis. First order change in therapy can be
important during moments of crisis because stabilization for
that moment can be essential. Second order change. Second
order change is a restructuring of the system and its patterns of
interaction (Chae, 2017). Second order change shifts

homeostasis so that the family finds a “new” homeostasis
(hopefully a healthier homeostasis). Second order change is
more permanent and requires a system change. Consider that in
a family homeostasis there are specific roles and rules for the
family to function the way it does, second order change creates
a shift in these roles and rules and ultimately the family
equilibrium (Davey et al., 2012). Second order change is
ultimately the goal of family systems therapy, family therapists
want there to be a healthier shift in the family 51 homeostasis.
Because of the systemic dynamics, there is an inability to
actually define the specific “one change” in homeostasis, rather,
second order change is about a shift within the system on many
levels. Davey et al. (2012) pinpoint that second order change is
a result of three elements: a change in some of the rules within
the family, the introduction or rethinking of certain ways the
system views their interactions, and a resetting of the new
equilibrium around these new ideas and processes. Continuous
Change. Continuous change is taking things step by step. Also
known as incremental change, the idea is that change occurs
progressively over time in smaller minor changes (Ford &
Lerner, 1992). Consider someone who wants to quit smoking
and goes from 12 cigarettes a day to 11, stays at 11 for a week,
then, goes down to 10 for a week, and so on. This is continuous
change because the addictive qualities (homeostasis) are
decreasing gradually. In a family therapy dynamic continuous
change may develop through the introduction of new skills or
new communication that is practiced and contributes to the
larger change eventually. Discontinuous Change. Opposite of
continuous change is discontinuous change (Smith-Acuna,
2011). Discontinuous change is a sudden, more pronounced
change. An example might be a family’s first baby, there is a
sudden need to adapt to this change. In a homeostatic system,
discontinuous change can add an interesting dynamic because
the change is inevitable and homeostasis typically restructures
to some degree after the system gets over the shock. Causality
Consider for a moment how you feel “presenting problems”

arise. Causality has been explored through systemic thinking.
As stated before, if there is a difficult or stressful element in
the family, this can cause homeostasis to shift into a more
nonfunctional homeostasis. Causality in systemic thinking
implies that one person is not the “cause” of the problem, rather
there is a systemic response to specific challenges (Flaskas,
2010). As a family therapist, quite frequently, parents bring
children in hoping for a quick fix. A systemic therapist would
view the family as a system and not the child as the singular
patient. Causality, therefor, is not as simple as exploring the
risk factors or individual aspects of the presenting problem.
Linear Causality. To better explain systemic causality, consider
what it is not. Linear causality is when one aspect causes
another aspect (Flaskas, 2010). Simply put, it is when A causes
B. For example, a rock in your path “causes” you to trip or
exposure to a virus causes you to get sick. Linear causality is
limited to two things: the one thing that led to the event and the
event. In the mental health fields, historically, the linear
causality lens has been employed (Nichols, 2013). For example,
depression is “caused 52 by” chemical imbalances in the brain.
Systemic elements are not really considered in linear thinking
and there is a sense of clarity and definitiveness in the
understanding of that causality. Bateson (1979) argued that
anytime one considers anything in a linear causality, they are
doomed to find a mistake in the expectation because no
causality exists without intervening sources. Circular Causality.
Systemic thinkers refer more specifically to the idea of circular
causality, which is a construct that has led to redefinition and
debate (Bateson, 1979). Traditionally, circular causality
embraces the idea that multiple factors “cause” results (Flaskas,
2010). Consider you are working with a family and their
teenager , who has been sneaking out at night and drinking with
friends. Using a linear thinking, someone might state, “oh, he is
an adolescent and that is what they do.” Circular causality takes
into account the many other elements of causation. Maybe the
parents have been arguing, maybe he was bullied by peers,

maybe his sister got a great deal of attention, maybe genetically
he is predisposed to addiction, maybe he is rebelling, maybe his
mother is pressuring him to play sports, or maybe all of these
things at once are going on. The idea around circular causality
is that there is no one at “fault”, rather it is the system as a
whole that is “defective.” Alternatively, circular causality is
related to the circular or reciprocal causation patterns. Rather
than the A leads to B example of linear thinking, circular
causality is more recursive, A leads to B, which leads back to A
and so on (Watzlawick, Beavin, Bavels, & Jackson, 1967). In
addition, in a systemic scenario there might be more than just
“A” and “B,” but for simplification purposes, reflect on an
example of this recursive process with just two people in a
system. If there is a family of two, a mother and her teenaged
son. The mother shares that she tries and tries to get her son to
take some responsibility around the house. The son shares that
he gets overwhelmed and depressed because his mother is
always yelling at him, therefore, he does not feel like doing
anything. The reciprocal relationship here is stuck in a pattern
that has no origin (no “A”). The old adage “which comes first
the chicken or the egg” explains this definition of circular
causation. An evolution of the construct of circular causality
has occurred. Some systemic thinkers have challenged the idea
that cause and effect should be ignored and replaced with seeing
the family systems dynamic only (Nichols, 2013). For some
family systems clinicians, they embrace the idea that family
members should be aware of their actions and the causes of
their actions within the family system. The metaphor of circular
causality as it is applied to families is not without debate in the
family systems field. Some family dynamics and power
dynamics within family systems lend themselves to look less at
this construct of circular causality. For example, 53 consider a
family violence scenario; to explore this within the construct of
circular causality places the system at “fault” rather than the
perpetrator (Murray, 2006). Some have noted that not holding
individuals accountable can be both disrespectful to power

imbalances and unproductive. The debate on this concept (and
others) still continues to develop and refine among systemic
thinkers and researchers. Nonsummativity Nonsummativity is
the idea that the whole of the system is more than each piece of
the system individually. Family systems therapists might say
“the whole is more than and different from the mere sum of its
parts” (Fraser, 2018, p. 70). Consider the car example; if you
have a car and all the parts are on the lawn, there is not much to
it. You might even be able to put together the carburetor and get
it functioning; however, without putting it with the rest of the
“car system” it does not do you much good. Taking a step back,
if you look at a person without their system, it also does not
make much sense. Putting it together defines the function of
each part and how it contributes to the “whole.” Take a person
out of the system, the whole will look completely different. The
idea behind nonsummativity is that there is a functioning system
that is a complete “whole” and the interactions between two
members of that whole, or one person’s behavior does not
account for the whole and, therefore, the whole family system
and the context of the whole must be part of the change
(Hanson, 1995). If your car gets into an accident where there is
engine damage, frame damage, and axel damage and you only
fix the frame or look at the problems in the frame, the car won’t
work. You have to consider all the parts of that system – the
whole. Equifinality The construct of equifinality also
contributes to the understanding of causality. Equifinality
describes how many possible variables could lead to one
specific result (Fraser, 2018). Consider you were doing a
research study on drug use in adolescents. You studied 100
teens who reported abusing substances and asked them “do you
spend more than 20 hours a week on electronics – social media,
TV, computer games, etc.?” For this example, assume 99 of
them did. Your research result would be “the use of electronics
leads to drug abuse among teens.” What was not figured in with
the multitude of risk factors that you did not consider that might
have also led to drug use (e.g., poverty, peer pressure, substance

abuse in the home, family violence, mental health, etc.) The
idea relates to family therapy in many ways, however, one way
that commonly evolves in therapeutic environments is when a
family reports “every time I mention the garbage, we have a
fight.” The therapist can begin to explore the equifinality (the
possible variables) that could lead to the fight besides the
garbage. 54 Multifinality. Multifinality occurs when there are
multiple possible “endings” from one action (Hanson, 1995).
Consider a divorce, which can have multiple effects on the
system: children have to adapt, the parents develop
independence and identity, there can be a sense of grief in all
parts of the system, as well as a variety of other “endings.”
Double bind A double bind is an intense message that has
contradictory content (Hanson, 1995). It is a difficult situation
within a family systems context where there is a request or
statement that has two meanings and there is not a way the
person receiving the meaning can get out of the situation.
Consider the old adage “between a rock and a hard place.”
Using an example of a couple, Partner A yells to Partner B,
“you never clear the dishes, I wish you would stop being so lazy
and do this some time!” The next day, Partner B takes initiative
and starts doing the dishes. Partner A comes over and looks at
the dishes and yells “you just can’t do anything right, these look
terribly done, just give them to me and let me do them!” Partner
B did not have any choice in this dynamic and would get yelled
at no matter what they did; they are in a double bind. One
common example that I have seen often in couples’ therapy is
when one partner wants or asks for something from the other
partner (i.e., “romance”); however, they will also give the
message that the partner is not able to “do” this correctly. This
situation leaves the partner unclear about how to proceed.
Double bind messages connect to the idea of basic
communication between people and recognizing that in
communication, words do not always represent the message
being conveyed (Jackson & Weakland, 2016). Often in therapy,
themes of double binds arise in family systems. Helping the

family see these patterns and subsequent expectations that
cannot be met can assist in correcting these double bind
patterns. Don Jackson felt that double binds were typically part
of the family homeostasis; for example, there was not typically
one incident of a double bind (Ray, Stivers, & Brasher, 2011).
Cybernetics Cybernetics is the way that any system will keep
correcting itself as a way to maintain “normality” (Keeney,
1983). A major element of cybernetics is feedback and how
feedback causes the family system to recalibrate to maintain
their equilibrium – how the family roles adjust to the feedback
to maintain homeostasis (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). Hanson
(1995) states that cybernetics is “…the observed ability of
systems to steer themselves…” and the “process by which
systems self-regulate” (p. 40). The system responds to
fluctuations and ultimately will return to homeostasis. An
important distinction in cybernetics and the resulting
homeostasis (or equilibrium) is that these processes are natural
and part of the human systems’ desire to maintain a place of
comfort and familiarity (Keeney & Thomas, 1986). A commonly
used example for 55 cybernetics is a heater/air conditioning
system. If you place the temperature on 70 degrees, the heating
system will shut on if it gets below 70 degrees, and the air will
come on if it gets above 70 degrees. Seventy degrees represents
the “normal” for the system and any fluctuation within the
environment causes that system to adjust to maintain this
“normal.” Consider how grief might be handled in some
families. A person dies and there is a lot of grief present in the
home. Sometimes, members will take on other roles or maybe
new members step into the system. There might be expressions
of emotion or grief. In the end, the system becomes whole again
and the patterns that were part of the whole before the death of
the family member remain intact. Second Order
Cybernetics/Cybernetics of Cybernetics. Cybernetics identifies
that there is some role that the “observer” of the system plays in
the systemic processes (Keeney, 1983). If you were an animal
behavior scientist studying wolf pack behavior, how would your

observation and control of the environment play a role in that
system? About 20 years ago, wolves were introduced back to
Yellowstone National Park because they were an endangered
species and scientists noted the ecological system at
Yellowstone needed predators. In a controlled way, the
environment was structured and wolves were bred for the area.
What might happen if the humans that created this system and
environment for wolves just disappeared? Consider the role of
the humans in generating the system (i.e., making sure there
were appropriate livable conditions and genetic differences in
the wolf packs). The wolf pack system could not exist originally
without this “intervention”— this is cybernetics of cybernetics.
Removing human intervention could mean the wolf pack
system’s “normal” would be threatened. They might die off,
they might over-populate, or they might create a danger as they
seek for the things the human intervention provided them. In
therapy, this can happen in a similar way. In second order
cybernetics, the therapist starts to become part of the family’s
cybernetic processes. An example of cybernetics of cybernetics
in the therapy room is when the therapist may feel anger toward
the reactions of a father and despite her personal work on this
outside of the therapy room; this puts the therapist on a side
against the father, unintentionally. As a result, the family
dynamics (the family homeostasis) shifts because of the
therapist’s reactions and responses. Additionally, at times, the
therapist comes into the family system and creates a healthier
system; but this is dependent on the therapist’s weekly
connection to the client. It is important for the therapist to be
aware of their role in the system and what that might look like
as they exit the system at the end of therapy. The idea of
cybernetics of cybernetics also takes into account the power of
the therapeutic relationship. Feedback. Feedback is an essential
component to understanding cybernetics (Keeney, 1983).
Feedback is when the system takes in information to “feed into”
the whole and adjusts as needed to that feedback (Hanson,
1995). A family example might 56 be a family that is in the

public eye and has an expected public image. One of the
children misbehaves in public. The media sends the message
that the family is not what it wants to present. This social
feedback goes into the family as input and the family adjusts by
teaching the child the expectations and putting a different
punishment and reward expectation in place. If you consider a
car, as a machine, we can take it apart and understand all the
systemic components within the car and how it runs. What
makes for a “better” car is if the car can adapt to the external
environment. Think about the evolution of “shocks” as a way
for tires to meet the uneven pavement, slick pavements, and
bumps in the road. These elements within the car’s environment
is considered “feedback” – these elements cause the “system” to
change in order to maintain its’ speed, adjust to bumps in the
road and still function, as well as create a comfortable, stable
environment for the passengers. This feedback leads to the car
(the system), adjusting to change in the environment. Positive
Feedback. In general, positive feedback leads to some kind of
change (Hanson, 1995). Using the car example, if the car hits a
bigger rock, maybe the engine or the powertrain kicks in to help
it get over the rock (the rest of the system comes in to maintain
stability). Or, maybe after hitting the big rock, the car cannot
maintain cybernetics and maybe a tire pops or the axel is
ruined. Negative Feedback. Negative feedback is when whatever
happens does not lead to any change in the system (Hanson,
1995). Car manufacturers spend millions of dollars researching
ways to keep cars from being influenced by environmental
factors of all kinds. They seek negative feedback so that cars
run smoothly, maintaining the system’s integrity at all times.
Putting all this together, how do these systemic concepts used to
describe feedback and cybernetics as a science of machines
apply to family systems? Let us explore a family example.
Think of a scenario where there is a heterosexual couple (a mom
and a dad), a teenage son, and an elementary-aged daughter.
The mother has an addiction to alcohol and often finds herself
drunk, not going to work, and leaving the kids to fend for

themselves. For many years, the father works harder at work to
bring in more money because she gets fired from her jobs, he
cares for her when she is sick from drinking too much, and he
over-indulges the children in response to feeling guilty toward
their lack of connection to their mother. The son excels in
school; it seems to take the attention of the dynamics at home.
And the daughter frequently is in trouble, gets poor grades, and
is seen as a jokester. This is the family’s “normal.” If the
daughter starts to get good grades and behave, the natural
system will want to adjust back to the family’s normal; this
process is cybernetics. Almost machine-like and sub- 57
consciously, things adjust in the system to bring it back to the
system’s normal. Maybe the mother ends up in the hospital one
night, causing the daughter’s behavior to shift back and her
grades to sink again. Consider what might happen if the mother
spent 30 days in an inpatient alcoholic treatment center. She
returns home and the family’s normal is askew. The mother
could relapse, which naturally puts the dynamics back in place.
Another possibility is that the son begins to develop an
addiction. This keeps the family chaos in a place where the
family understands the normality, even with the shift in
people’s roles. In this example, positive feedback might occur if
the entire family gets therapy and there is an understanding that
their “normal” needs to shift and they are given the tools to
adjust this through family therapy. Negative feedback would be
a relapse because no change occurs in how the system is
functioning. Context In looking at systems and how family
systems in particular interact, context is essential (Smith-
Acuna, 2011). Context is what is around the family system or
even the individual, the extended systems that are part of the
family’s experience (Cox & Paley, 1997). Bateson (1979) called
context “a piece of the world of ideas limited and isolated by
closing the door” (p. 14), meaning each system’s context is
“isolated” and “different” than another system’s context. The
system understands and develops related to how it perceives the
meaning of the context around them. Consider if you entered the

home of an Amish family. Understanding the context around
their definition of family, their understanding of their roles
within the family, and their “problem” identification would
likely center around church and community. There would be
clear gender roles and expectations within the family. In
addition, children’s education and development would be
viewed through religious context. This would be this family’s
context and would lead to how the system develops within this
larger community system. What can be a challenge, when
considering context, is when family systems are created when
the members come from different contexts. Having different
rules, roles, and understandings can influence how the new
system develops and the expectations of the individuals within
that system. Context can lead to confusion and communication
issues within families. A common presenting problem with
couples is challenges with intimacy. One member of the couple
shares they cannot feel sexual without romance and the other
individual cannot get romantic without sex. This difference
might have to do with their context and their understanding of
intimacy, the messages of intimacy around them all their lives,
and the role they feel their partner plays in this context. 58
Another aspect to focus on is the role of social inequities on the
lives of the family system (Cox & Paley, 1997). Consider the
system of family in a context that devalues that family system’s
race, religion, culture, financial status, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or any other identity. The family system has
developed within this context and this context has influenced
their functioning and the resulting homeostasis. These
interacting systems are complex, yet, essential to the
understanding of how the system operates. Summary For
systemic therapists, these foundational constructs become part
of the understanding of how a presenting problem is maintained.
Our role as systemic therapists is to help families find new
equilibriums, to help families figure out what is reinforcing the
unhealthy homeostasis, or to assist families in defining and
developing second order change (Keeney & Thomas, 1986).

Since the origins of systemic thinking and the application to
families in the mid-1900s, subsequent clinicians and theorists
have added to these constructs to determine methodology and
direction for making these homeostatic shifts. Some theorists
feel that more directive and specific interventions can lead to
systemic change, other theorist focus on collaborative
relationships and their functioning in change dynamics. In
addition, there was limited research on these constructs initially
and more recently researchers have begun to build in research
related to these constructs to continue to define them as a
discipline (e.g., Davey et al., 2011). Regardless, MFTs, as a
whole, work from and visualize families through these
foundational constructs. References Bateson, G. (1979). Mind
and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.
Ray, W. A., & Brasher, C. (2010). Brief systemic therapy:
Creating our future while embracing our past. Journal of
Systemic Therapies, 29(4), 17. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2010.29.4.17
Carich, M. S., & Willingham, W. (1987). The roots of family
systems theory in individual psychology. Individual
Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research &
Practice, 43(1), 71-78. Chae, K. B. (2017). Second-order
change. In J. Carlson & S. B. Dermer (Eds.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of Marriage, Family, and Couples Counseling
(1461-1462). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual
Review of Psychology, 48, 243- 267. 59 Drack, M., &
Pouvreau, D. (2015). On the history of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy’s “General Systemology” and on its relationship to
cybernetics – part III: Convergences and divergences.
International Journal of General Systems, 44, 523-571. Davey,
M. P., Davey, A., Tubbs, C., Savla, J., & Anderson, S. (2012).
Second order change and evidence-based practice. Journal of
Family Therapy, 34, 72-90. doi 10.1111/j/1467-
6427.2010.00499.x Davey, M., Duncan, T., Kissil, K., Davey,
A., & Fish, L. S. (2011). Second-order change in marriage and
family therapy: A web-based modified Delphi study. American

Journal of Family Therapy, 39(2), 100-111.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.530929 Day, S. X. (2007). Theory
and design in counseling and psychotherapy. Belmont, CA:
Wadesworth Publishing. Flaskas, C. (2010). Frameworks for
practice in the systemic field: Part 1 -- Continuities and
transitions in family therapy knowledge. Australian & New
Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 232-247. Fraser, J.
S. (2018). Unifying effective psychotherapies: Tracing the
process of change. New, York: NY: American Psychological
Association. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992).
Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Hanson, B. G. (1995).
General systems theory beginning with wholes. New York:
Taylor & Francis. Jackson, D. (Ed.). (1968a). Communication,
family and marriage (Human communication, volume 1). Palo
Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Heatherington, L., &
Friedlander, M. L. (1990). Complementarity and symmetry in
family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 37(3), 261-268. Jackson, D. (Ed.). (1968b).
Therapy, communication and change (human communication,
volume 2). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books. Jackson,
D. D., & Weakland, J. H. (2016). Conjoint family therapy:
Some considerations on theory, technique, and results. Journal
of Systemic Therapies, 34(4), 33. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.4.33
Keeney, B. P. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: The
Guilford Press. Keeney, B. P., & Thomas, F. N., (1986).
Cybernetic foundations of family therapy. In F. P. Piercy and D.
H. Sprenkle (Eds.), Family Therapy Sourcebook (pp. 262-287).
New York: The Guilford Press. Messer, A. A. (1971).
Mechanisms of family homeostasis. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
12, 380-388. doi:10.1016/0010-440X(71)90076-9 Minuchin, S.
(1999). Retelling, reimagining, and re-searching: a continuing
conversation. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy. 1999,
25(1), 9-14. 60 Murray, C. E. (2006). Controversy, constraints,
and context: Understanding family violence through family
systems theory. Family Journal, 14(3), 234.

doi:10.1177/1066480706287277 Nichols, M. P. (2013). Family
Therapy: Pearson New International Edition: Concepts and
Methods (Vol. 10th). Pearson. Rasheed, J. M., Rasheed, M. N.,
& Marley, J. A., (2011). Family therapy: Models and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. Ray, W.
A., Stivers, R. J., & Brasher, C. (2011). Through the eyes of
Don D. Jackson M.D. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 30(1), 38-
58. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2011.30.1.38 Smith-Acuña, S. (2011).
Systems theory in action: Applications to individual, couples,
and family therapy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stack Sullivan, H. (1939). A note on formulating the
relationship of the individual and the group. American Journal
of Sociology, 44(6), 932-937. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., &
Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A
study of interactional patterns. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.

InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docx

Ähnlich wie InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docx (19)

Mehr von pauline234567

Mehr von pauline234567 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

InstructionsClients come to MFTs because they want to change, .docx