Violence and the systemic view: the problem of power

Violence is a strikingly lineal concept that is difficult to address from a systemic perspective. Bateson's epistemological disqualification of the concept of power is often understood to imply a corresponding systemic disqualification of the concept of violence. This position is examined in light of recent feminist criticism. It is argued that (a) violence and power belong essentially to the domain of human experience and (b) human experience cannot be invalidated by theory. Accordingly, it is suggested that the (appropriate) invalidation of power and violence in the domain of systemic explanation should probably be understood both as a deliberate choice that necessarily follows from adopting a systemic perspective, and as a fundamental limitation of that perspective. In neither case, however, should the systemic view be considered to be a valid disqualification of the human experience of violence and power.     

The confusion about epistemology and "epistemology"--and what to do about it

The epistemology debates within the field of family therapy have become relatively infrequent in the last year or so, perhaps as a consequence of the confusion they have generated for many family therapists. This article maintains that the primary reason for the confusion is a failure to distinguish clearly between the conventional meaning of the term epistemology, which concerns the nature of knowledge, and the unconventional meaning given the term in family therapy, which concerns the nature of what we know. It is proposed that the confusion can be diminished by understanding the relationship between the two meanings, which are here distinguished as epistemology (meaning 1) and epistemology (meaning 2) respectively. Particular attention is given to the logical consequences of adopting a position on epistemology (meaning 1)—e.g, is the knower capable of knowing an independent reality, or does the act of knowing make its own reality?—or on epistemology (meaning 2)—e.g., is causality linear or nonlinear?. The relevance and implications of these problems for the theory and practice of family therapy are discussed.     

Reflections under the lens: observations of a systemic therapist on the experience of participation and scrutiny in a research project

The London Depression Intervention Trial (LDIT) was set up in the early 1990s by Professor Julian Leff ( Leff et al., 2000 , and in this issue) to compare the relative efficacy and costs, in work with depressed adults, of systemic couple therapy, drug treatment and individual cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). The research found that systemic therapy compared favourably with the other modalities in respect of fewer drop‐outs, improvement in measured depression at the end of therapy and on follow‐up after a second year without therapy, and was not – contrary to the usual assumptions – more expensive. I was one of the two therapists, together with Eia Asen ( Jones and Asen, 2000 , and Asen in this issue) practising systemic therapy with diagnosed depressed patients and their partners. In this paper I will discuss the experience of being the object of research scrutiny, and the reflections that have come to me during and subsequent to the research period. To put it more challengingly: What are the consequences for systemic psychotherapists of co‐operation with researchers? Can a circular epistemology survive being scrutinized through a lineal grid?     

Paradox as Epistemological Jump

Recent articles on paradoxical interventions tend to view them as something given by a therapist to a patient, thus unintentionally adopting a unidirectional view of causality and an outmoded epistemology. It is postulated that change takes place in the context of a patient-therapist relationship and that when that relationship becomes paradoxical it becomes more difficult for the patient to view himself as a reified "thing." Paradox effects change, then, by altering the meaning of experience and modifying epistemological assumptions.     

Looking for reconciliations between anecdotes and causalities: The stoical model

Our bias in establishing causality ties which attribute to one consequence a unique cause make circular causality difficult as a way of thinking. Philosophy shows many theories about causality which all are ways to reduce anxiety. Our experiences sometimes require us to go farther than the instrumental (causal) level and to discover a place where disorder may be reestablished in the movement and contradiction. The Stoical model of expressive causality gives a different meaning to our work. In practice the anecdote becomes the essential element in a chair of expressive causalities. A clinical example shows how the anecdote can be the intersection between the family and therapist, offering a new dimension to circular causality and helps the therapist to understand and create another way of thinking about disorder and confusion.     

康德哲学与广松涉"交互主体的共同主观性"理论

广松涉认为,对近代认识论基础的问题式及其构成机制和局限进行反思,首先需要将着眼点放在康德哲学的问题式及其构成机制上。康德哲学的总的问题式就是在以先验逻辑学为基础的逻辑学、认识论和本体论“三位一体”的哲学构架中,探讨人的认识以及纯粹理性的先天综合判断及其能力何以可能。这一问题式潜含着一个意义非常重大的认识论问题——即“主体际共同主观性”问题．需要我们认真地加以研究。     

ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SCANDINAVIAN PSYCHOANALYTIC SOCIETIES

This article discusses some basic problems of the theory of science connected with understanding the psychoanalytic process. The epistemology of psychoanalysis is seen in relation to the specific status of time, space and causality. It is argued that in psychic life, time and space cannot be a priori categories in the Kantian sense because they are constituted in psychic development and in the dynamics of the psyche and can be abolished in psychopathological conditions as well as in the unconscious. Psychic causality is discussed in relation to Freud's concepts of Nachträglichkeit and overdetermination and remarks are made on the necessity to consider the complex nature of psychic causality when doing research.     

The Effect of Tomm's Therapeutic Questioning Styles on Therapeutic Alliance: A Clinical Analog Study

10 suggests that circular and reflexive questions tend to elicit feelings of freedom/acceptance whereas lineal and strategic questions usually trigger feelings of judgment/constraint. Employing an analog methodology, each of Tomm's four questioning styles was portrayed in the form of a 5-minute videotaped intake scenario. Forty family triads with a mother, father, and adolescent son were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions with ten families each. Each condition involved viewing one of four questioning style scenarios. All participants (N = 120 individuals — 40 mothers, 40 fathers, and 40 adolescent sons) completed the Family Therapy Alliance Scale (FTAS; 9 ) and a validity-check instrument. The results indicated that circular and reflexive questioning styles elicited significantly higher (p < .001 ) alliance scores on the FTAS than did either lineal or strategic questions. Implications for the use of different types of questions in family therapy are discussed.     

A Systems Approach to Ethical Problems

Codes of professional ethics and cases designed to teach ethical decision making are written for individual professionals and ignore the systems level of analysis. They typically employ a lineal view of causality and overvalue placement of blame as a component of ethical problem solving. This article takes a systems approach to ethical problems and identifies aspects of systems that promote or impede ethical decision making. Psychological abuse of children is used as an example of a problem requiring a coordinated, systemic response to ethical issues such as autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality.     

A systems approach to ethical problems

Codes of professional ethics and cases designed to teach ethical decision making are written for individual professionals and ignore the systems level of analysis. They typically employ a lineal view of causality and overvalue placement of blame as a component of ethical problem solving. This article takes a systems approach to ethical problems and identifies aspects of systems that promote or impede ethical decision making. Psychological abuse of children is used as an example of a problem requiring a coordinated, systemic response to ethical issues such as autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality.     

The limits of perceptual phenomenal content

Philosophical Studies - There is an ongoing debate in philosophy of mind and epistemology about whether perceptual experience only represents those “thin” features of our environment...     

Family therapy and anthropology: a case for emotions

The idea that emotions are socially constructed challenges traditional views in both family therapy and anthropology and also opens the possibility for further collaboration. This paper reviews the traditional position of orthodox family therapy theory with respect to motivation and emotions. It argues that a social constructionist position can build on original family therapy insights about the connectedness of family members and offer a view which transcends mind-body dualism. Bateson's concept of ethos is seen as a forerunner of this view and, with the increasing interest in meaning and cross-cultural issues, Bateson's ideas deserve renewed attention. Implications of a social constructionist view of emotions for family therapists are outlined.     

Respect: Response to shame in health care

Shame is a not uncommon experience of patients in health care settings. Religious assessments often confuse shame with guilt, and therefore respond in ways that may not be appropriate. Illustrated by a case study, this article distinguishes shame from guilt and examines systemic considerations. Then shame is explored in relation to traditional, negotiating, and individualistic belief paradigms, looking at epistemology, causality, response to shame, healing models, and tasks. It concludes with a discussion of the idea of respect as foundational for responding to people experiencing shame in health care.     

Naturalizing and Interpretive Turns in Epistemology

In this paper I want to suggest that causal and interpretive approaches to epistemology are in tension with one another. Drawing on the work of hermeneutic writers I suggest that epistemological justification is an interpretive process. The possibility of rational justification requires attention to our locatedness within the domain of reasons, into which we have been culturally initiated. The recognition that there is no transcendent processes of rational justification has to be addressed from within this framework and cannot be resolved in a naturalizing way. The turn to hermeneutics in the context of epistemology allows us to reassign a central role to experience within epistemological justification. Here the very features of experience which render problematic its role in empiricist accounts form the basis of its position in hermeneutic ones. This presents us with an immanent conception of rationality, in place of the transcendent conception which so many writers have problematized.     

Conceiving, Experiencing, and Conceiving Experiencing: Neo-Kantianism and the History of the Concept of Experience

It is often claimed that epistemological thought divides around the issue of the place of experience in knowledge: While empiricists argue that experience is the only legitimate source of knowledge, rationalists find other such sources. The trouble with such accounts is not that they are wrong, but that they are incomplete. On occasion, epistemological differences run deeper, raising the very notion of experience as an issue for epistemology. This paper looks at two epistemological debates which concerned not simply the place of experience in knowledge but also the appropriate account of experience itself. The first episode is the rise of Marburg Neo-Kantianism in the 1870s – in particular the seminal work of Hermann Cohen in his Kants Theorie der Erfahrung (1871). Cohen's principal point was that Kant's significance as an epistemologist was in providing a new theory of experience, one that tied experience to exact science and led to a new stress on the formal conditions of exact knowledge. The second episode is Carnap's rejection of epistemology in the 1930s in favour of a program of the logic of science. My focus in each case will be the interplay between an epistemology focused on exact science as the locus of knowledge and a concomitant call for logical methods in epistemology. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A study of the differential effects of Tomm's questioning styles on therapeutic alliance

To replicate and extend Dozier's (1992) test of Tomm's hypothesis about the differential effects of questioning styles on therapeutic alliance, an analogue study was conducted. Twenty-eight family triads, each including a son and his parents, viewed four videotaped, simulated family therapy scenarios in which Tomm's four questioning styles were separately portrayed. Participants were asked to identify with the client whose role corresponded to theirs (that is, father, mother, or son) and, on the basis of this, to rate the client's alliance with the therapist. They were also asked to rate the overall alliance between the family and the therapist. Finally, having viewed all four scenarios, they were invited to rate comparatively the quality of the therapeutic alliance across the four questioning styles. Compared with strategic and lineal questioning styles, circular and reflexive questions led to higher ratings of therapeutic alliance on all three measures. The results of this study support Tomm's hypothesis that questioning styles based on circular assumptions lead to a better therapeutic alliance at an individual and systemic level than do questions based on lineal assumptions.     

"LIKE CHEWING GRAVEL"

The researcher's role in creating knowledge and interpretations is of critical concern as new research methods are developed. Recent attention has been given to the "implications of difference" on the research process; however, the processes of analysis/interpretation and presentation of research remain to be illuminated. Seeking to address this, I present my experiences as a White researcher of middle socioeconomic status (SES) conducting qualitative research about childbearing with several pregnant Black American adolescents of lower SES. Although the research process was consistent with qualitative research methods, initial analyses of the data led to findings that seemed far afield from the participants' worlds. I subsequently reanalyzed the data with the principles of a feminist epistemology (Harding, 1991) in mind. The impact of using this epistemology on the processes of analysis and interpretation and my presentation of the data are presented. The results support the importance of developing feminist methodology and epistemology and provide new direction for further work.     

A critique of causality in Islamic philosophy

After the problems of epistemology, the most fundamental problem of Islamic philosophy is that of causality. Causality has been studied from various perspectives. This paper endeavors first to analyze the issues of causality in Islamic philosophy and then to critique them. A sketch is provided of the history of the development of theories of causality in Islamic philosophy, with particular attention to how religious considerations came to determine the shape of the philosophical theories that were accepted. It is suggested that outstanding philosophical and theological problems that have plagued the tradition of Islamic philosophy require a new approach to the issue of causality.