Chapter 4: Postmodernism and Family Therapy
Introduction:
From the perspective of first-order cybernetics, therapists/theorists describe what is
going on inside the system from a position outside the system. Thus, consistent with
modernist stance, they assess and attempt to change behaviour relative to the normative
standards and criteria accepted within the larger social context. From such a perspective, one
defines problems as existing “out there” in a real, knowable reality.
At the level of second-order cybernetics, consistent with postmodernism, the
observer is understood to be part of that which is observed, and thus may describe only
observing systems. Reality can be understood to be constructed as a function of the belief
systems that one brings to bear on a particular situation and according to which one
operates. Further, there’s a concern with not only the problem but also the context in which
it’s embedded in terms of the meaning of each as described by both the client and the
therapist. Rather than discovering behaviour, we create it; believing is seeing and how we
“language,” or choose words to describe something, becomes crucial.
Such an awareness has led to an examination of the totalizing discourses that organize our
society, and this examination has revealed that these discourses tend to have a deficit focus
and, in normative social science and mental health practice, to be pathology based. Further,
an awareness of knowledge as framework-relative challenges the hierarchy of the so-called
expert with his/her privileged information, hence power. All people thus regain the right to
develop their personal expertise relative to their own lives. In therapy, for example, the client
is the expert on content and the therapist is the expert on the process
Therapy is thus understood as a dialogue whose goal is the creation of a context in which
accommodation of the needs and desires of all the participants is facilitated. Such therapy is
said to be consistent with a postmodern stance
Postmodernism in Historical Perspective:
Romanticism:
The late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are categorized as the period that saw
the flowering of romanticism, a perspective that gives primary emphasis to the
deepest aspects of persons.
In romanticism a focus on the deep interior, which lies under the façade of
conscious thought, replaced an emphasis on reason and observation
The language of passion, purpose, depth, and personal significance was used to speak
of heroism, genius, inspiration, and love
Moral values and a sense of ultimate purpose in life characterized a worldview
Modernism:
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century,
the romanticist perspective was upstaged by that of modernism
This was a more practical view, in which truth was ought to be sought through
“systematic observation and rigorous reasoning”
Continuous progress toward a greater goal achieved by scientific means characterized
the “grand narrative” of society, and the search for the essential, irreducible essence
permeated endeavors of all kinds
1
, It was during this period that the machine metaphor was invoked and human
behaviour was understood to be determined by environmental conditions
The independent, autonomous individual was valued as the ideal of maturity
Romanticism vs Modernism:
The modern person is far more knowable, reliable, and trustworthy than the
somewhat mysterious and quixotic romantic individual
Rather than responding to inspiration or passion, the actions of the modernist are
guided by reason and his voice is “clear and honest”
Democratic thought prevails in this orientation, and the answers to society’s
problems are found in the realm of science
In the modern era, we learned to rely on the power of science and the knowledge of
objective experts, who supposedly possess the truth about a reality that’s out there
and that can be represented accurately and understood by means of reliable research
data
Started trusting the greater good through the creation of significant technological
advances
Postmodernism:
The more recent perspective, postmodernism, is undermining the modernists
belief in the possibility of objective knowledge and absolute truth
The primary challenge to this belief is the notion that our “reality” is inevitably
subjective and that we dwell in a multiverse that’s constructed through the act of
observation
Facts are replaced by perspectives, and with this shift also comes a challenge to
the power and privileged previously attributed to the possessors of “knowledge” –
hence the issues of hierarchy and dominant authority that characterize much of the
debate regarding ethical therapist behaviour
That is, if we are to be consistent with the fundamental assumptions of the
postmodern worldview, clients must be understood as possessing
equally valid perspectives, and we must become aware that there’s no
“transcendent criterion of the correct”
Hence, also the discomfort of those grounded in the modernist paradigm,
which includes the assumption that absolute truth is attainable and is the
foundation of knowledge, which is defined as being external, or out there,
separate from the knower who thus assumes an objective stance
The most significant aspect of this shift from a belief in facts to an awareness of
perspectives is the degree to which our attention is now focused on discourse and the
role of language
Must take note of 2 important distinctions within postmodernism – constructivism
and social constructionism
Constructivism and Social Constructionism:
Constructivism:
The constructivist perspective is based on the assumption that in the process of
perceiving and describing an experience (whether to ourselves or to others) we
construct not only our personal knowledge base about reality but also our
reality itself.
Our discernment of the way things are is a function of our beliefs
2
