“Epistemology” as a Semantic Pollutant

Abstract

Some family therapists, following Bateson, use “epistemology” in a peculiar, non‐traditional way. Nothing is gained, and much appears to be lost, by this practice. Its main effect is to promote the idea that systemic and psychological modes of explanation are incompatible. In fact, a kind of cognitive psychology is implicit in what family therapists say about reframing. By appropriating the territory of psychology and calling it epistemology instead, family therapists merely pollute the semantic environment,1 muddying the very things that theoretical terms are supposed to clear up.

Personal constructs in systemic practice.

“…Because I consider this an epistemological constructivist position, as described earlier in this chapter, I hereinafter use constructiPrisrn and second-order Cybernetics as interchangeable terms. 'As Bogdan (1987) has noted, to elaborate how belief systems (constructs in Kelly's terms) are organized and change is not "to do" epistemology but, rather, to do psychological theory.…”

Some irreverent thoughts on the limits of family therapy: Toward a language-based explanation of human systems.

“…Keeney (1983) has criticized family therapists for not including themselves as observers in their descriptions of families and family processes. This has led to an ongoing debate within the family therapy field over the past decade about the inadequacies of the prevalent theoretical conceptualizations of families and family therapy (see Auerswald, 1987; Bogdan, 1987; Held & Pols, 1985; von Foerster, 1985). On the one hand, some have criticized family therapists for being too technique oriented, focusing on the pragmatics of change to the exclusion of broader aesthetic or epistemological concerns (Allman, 1982; Dell, 1982; Keeney, 1982; Keeney & Sprenkle, 1982).…”

Approaching the individual, approaching the system: A constructivist model for integrative psychotherapy.

“…2The adoption of a dichotomous model for understanding the nature of construct units provides an additional advantage for the FCS with respect to other “shared-ideas” models. As Bogdan (1987) has noted “typically, family members come in to therapy with very different ideas about the problem” (p. 32.).…”