Heute würde Lynn Hoffman (10.9.1924 – 21.12.2017) ihren 100. Geburtstag feiern, ein Grund, an diese wunderbare Pionierin der systemischen Therapie zu erinnern. Im systemagazin ist schon einiges zu ihr veröffentlicht worden, s. hier oder hier. In Heft 4/1985 der Zeitschrift Family Systems Medicine hat sie ihren eigenen therapeutischen Weg von der Begegnung mit der Palo Alto-Gruppe um Don Jackson über die Beschäftigung mit Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana und Francisco Varela, die Abgrenzung von strategischen Konzepten etwa von Jay Haley und den frühen Arbeiten der Mailänder Gruppe hin zur Kybernetik 2. Ordnung beschrieben, der Artikel ist auch heute noch sehr lesenswert.

So wie die Relativitäts- und Quantentheorie die Newton’sche Physik in ihrem unmittelbaren Geltungsbereich nicht aufgehoben hat, so plädiert Hoffman hier auch dafür, je nach Kontext zwischen Perspektiven einer Kybernetik erster wie auch zweiter Ordnung zu „switches”:

„What I am describing here is not a method of therapy but something more like a stance. The new paradigm—the one that Bateson set out in hauntingly eloquent terms—does not specify any particular way of working but contributes a set of guidelines for how we put the methods we do use into practice. From my point of view, then, any therapy that respects a cybernetic epistemology will tend to have the following characteristics:
1) An “observing system” stance and inclusion of the therapist’s own context. 2) A collaborative rather than a hierarchical structure.
3) Goals that emphasize setting a context for change, not specifying a change. 4) Ways to guard against too much instrumentality.
5) A “circular” assessment of the problem. 6) A nonpejorative, nonjudgmental view.

This does not mean, however, that we do not also live in what Bateson thought of as a Newtonian world of forces acting upon things. Although it is more correct to say that one is always acting within both a “second order” and a “first order” cybernetics, I prefer to simplify and say, “Render unto Newton the things that are Newton’s.” Nonneutral, “linear” attitudes and actions are often 1) necessary, 2) appropriate, 3) what you are being paid for. Coercion, bullying, seduction and force are time-honored ways of bringing about results, particularly when fragile bodies must be protected from harm. Of course, sending child molesters to jai or taking abused children out of the home does not alter the recipe for abuse handed down to the next generation and the next. However, the first order of priority is protecting human life and rights. The only rule is to be clear about which hat one is wearing, a social control hat or a systemic change hat.

Another point is that one cannot be neutral and be a parent, a teacher or a policeman. One has to be free in these roles to say, “This is right and wrong,” and to make moral judgments. The Milan group will, for this reason, not include persons in these roles behind the screen as part of the team, and will say, when necessary, “Call the police. Use the hospital. Set up a suicide watch” (…).

The same thinking applies to social or political reform. The Milan point of view has been objected to by feminists like McKinnon and Miller (…) on the grounds that you cannot attack social injustice without reference to power issues and without giving up “neutrality.” I agree. However, this brings up a question: Is there such a thing as a “second order” feminism, and if so, what would it be like? Feminism, like most activist movements, has yet to take advantage of the insights of cybernetics; in my view it would be immensely strengthened if it did.“

Letztere Hoffnung scheint sich angesichts der Zuspitzung gesellschaftlicher Diskurse und ihrer zunehmenden moralischen Aufladung nicht erfüllt zu haben.

Der vollständige Text ist hier zu lesen…