Julián Naranjo.

Student of psychology of the National University of Colombia.

E-mail: J1naranjo@hotmail.com

Introduction

Before beginning in form with this essay, he/she wanted to point out that the indicated topic in their corresponding title, and that I will try at once, it can seem a so much daring and ambitious one. I am aware that an elaboration satisfactory on this topic it should be the objective from a monograph to very long term. Nevertheless I have decided to trust once but in the tentative that can offer in a essay, since, for the brevity that becomes necessary, this essay provides but very certain intuitions or answer premises, but that an exhaustive and detailed answer, before the topic that concerns to the I title of the essay. The present work doesn't seek to be an elaboration culminated and it heads, mainly, to argue the necessity to adopt the indispensable innovations that it contributes the thought of Habermas when thinking of a participative methodology. In this sense, the essay heads for the same path of Peter's essay, Parck titled: "What is the IAP?, technical and epistemological perspectives ", and especially, even the same one heading for the one carried out by Stephen Kemmis and that he is titled “Improving the education by means of the IAP". In this essay also try to show, the advantages that it presents the systemic clinic for the adoption of the “organization of the perception and the organization of the action", adoption that, statement is in passing, Stephen Kemmis already defended in the area of the education.

The matter that concerns me to develop in this work, to try I have decided to divide my essay in five parts. The three first point out some antecedents to consider here with regard to the topic outlined and the last two parts are the tentative of elaboration in front of the one mentioned topic.

1. Methodologies in the systemic clinic.

The different epistemologies or theories of the scientific knowledge possess generally several concerns to those that he/she wants to give answer. Here I consider pertinent to point out that the relationship that settles down with the object to know is dependent in the way like this object is perceived to know. From this perspective, we can observe two big epistemologies in the systemic focus, an inspired one for the theory of the systems and the other one inspired by the constructivism and also, in the theory of systems. For the case of the first epistemology, I will notice that their object of knowledge is perceived as an entity of relationships knitted by the presence of a feedback process and information (that is to say, of mutual influence and to circulate among the individuals), such it is the nature of the object that the fellow should know conceived as the other part of the dualism fellow-object. For the second epistemology, it points out that the object is perceived in a same way that in the case of the first epistemology, but with the fundamental difference that the fellow is considered part of the object that is to say in the measure that is related with the same object, in the measure in that the fellow part of the system of relationships is made knitted by the feedback process and information.

Also, the second epistemology gives the bases for the emergence of what is a third epistemology type that he/she receives the inspiration of the social constructionist in certain form. In this kind of third epistemology type, he/she stays the progressive unit fellow-object that characterizes to the second epistemology, but with the difference that this unit is not perceived so alone in feedback terms, but also, in terms of linguistic system, that is to say, the unit is perceived as a frame where linguistic meanings are generated. Since these epistemological frames has been deeply influenced by the cybernetics, especially in what refers to the feedback, the first epistemology here described it is a cybernetic epistemology of first order and the second and third epistemologies they are a cybernetic epistemology of second order, although it is necessary to write down that the third epistemology goes but he/she allies of the cybernetics of second order in the sense that it points to something but that the alone one feedback.

The clinical methods as long as orderly steps or procedures guided to solve the problem responsible for the suffering, are constituted according to the form like the object is perceived to know and to try, and to the form like the problem is perceived that presents this object. Keeping in mind this I link, I denominate methodology to the union among the form of perceiving the object and their problems in question and to the method referred to the problem of the perceived object. This way, he/she will be able to make the denominations “methodology of first order", methodology of second order and ' methodology of second recent order to refer to each one of the cybernetic epistemologies and the social constructionist, with their respective forms of considering the problem of their object and with their corresponding clinical methods.

The methodology of first order leaves of the study and the clinical intervention directed to a system configured by a feedback structure and of interactions, and that it is located in a built reality that doesn't include the therapist. One of the problems that are perceived in this methodology, is the presence of coalitions in the system or feedback relative's structure, that is to say, alliances between two members of the family to converse against a third member of the family, and one of their treatment methods that is qualified as strategic, consists on the introduction of tasks (that the members of the family should carry out jointly) on the part of the investigator, to undo the interact ional games or ways of relationship of the members of the family (among which the coalitions are counted) that maintain a certain problem to the interior of the family.

The methodology of second order begins with the therapist's consideration like part of the system of relationships and feedback. The therapist is conceived as belonging to the reality of the system to build. This methodology, sustains that certain problems arise, for a member of the system, starting from forms of to flow or to cohabit together in the language that you/they challenge the acceptation of the itself of the individual inside the relationships of the system. The therapeutic treatment goes guided to the construction of relationships between the therapist and the system that allow enlarging the reactions and the versions of the members in front of the problem.

The methodology of second recent order begins keeping in mind to the therapist like part of the system of relationships, feedback and generation of linguistic meanings. This methodology considers that the problems are compound for dominant narrative that configure them. The treatment method consists on co-creating narrative with the system that you/they contribute new meanings with regard to the problem that is presented.

In their group, the systemic clinical methodologies spread in smaller or bigger degree to use different question styles, so much for him diagnoses as for the intervention. They are used, for example, you ask strategic that consist in making the fellow to enter in confrontation with his patterns of relation so that these they are modified. Another question style is the circular one that has the purpose of exploring the relationship patterns that connect each one of the members of the family in the system.

In all the systemic methodologies it is used, preferably, a camera of Gessell, that is to say, a room divided in two by a unidirectional mirror. By means of the unidirectional mirror, a group observer (denominated reflexive group) it evaluates the therapeutic session that takes place to the other side of the mirror.

The reflexive group provides information to the therapist, by means of a small microphone, on the acting that this having in the therapeutic session.

To finish this first part, it is also necessary to mention that all the systemic methodologies, also in smaller or bigger degree, they keep in mind, mainly, two of the code levels or forms of expression of the language, contributed by Gregory Bateson. These coding or codification levels are the analogical one and the digital one. The analogical level, consists on models or expressive analogies of our feelings, I eat for example, the tone of the speaker's voice, its facial expression, or also a verbal metaphor. The digital level consists on the transformation of the information in discreet or different magnitudes, for example, the verbal language in form of common prose. In accordance with the systemic focus, when a message incurs in contradiction among its two communication levels (because each level is transmitting an opposed information with regard to the other level), problems or dysfunctions can take place in the fellows that receive the message.

2. Investigation methodologies and their relationship with the systemic clinical methodologies.

Diverse authors that have tried to offer classifications of the different methodologies to investigate the reality exist. Some of them distinguish two big types of methodologies and others distinguish three big types. I adhere to the authors that in general they detect three types of methodologies and for this essay I will use the classification of Stephen Kemmis to refer to this methodologies. Kemmis speaks of an investigation in third person, an investigation in second person and an investigation in first person.

The investigation in third person, refers to the individuals investigated in we have of them making allusion to the fact that one conceives the investigator completely as an individual that looks for to arrive to an objective reality, outside of the one. Inside this type of mvestigaci6n they are framed, for example, the positions positivists and with regard to the systemic focus, this type of investigation would correspond to the methodology of first order.

The investigation in second person refers to the individuals investigated in terms of “they”. Although the investigator is considered as belonging to the same reality of those investigated, the investigator's function consists on to understand and to interpret the actions of those investigated in a certain context. The interpretations achieved by the investigator (narrative) they are given to the individuals with the purpose of, in the bottom, to instruct them about the implications of their actions in the studied context. As it will already be supposed, in this investigation type the merely interpretive schools or hermeneutics are included, some tendencies postmodernists (in the reactionary and French sense of the I finish) and in the case of the systemic focus, it would correspond to the methodology of second recent order. The methodology of second order seemed to be in a level of transition among the investigation in third person and the investigation in second person, and with but inclination toward this it finishes.

The investigation in first person refers to the individuals to investigate in terms of us. The investigator is not only conceived like part of the reality of those investigated, but also like part of a reality that is possible to transform in short for the same fellows and for the fuzz, the investigator not only interprets the actions of the investigated individuals, but rather he commits to the realization of combined actions and participative with the individuals that expose a problem with the purpose of that this it can be overcome. The most important thing here is the actions participative for the transformation, but that the single interpretations with instructive ends. To this type of mvestigaci6n it doesn't seem to correspond any type of systemic methodology at the present time.

3. Some limitations of the merely interpretive methods

Considering that the topic of this essay points toward the possibility of a new turn epistemological in the systemic focus and ITS clinical implications, it will be understood that the topic makes allusion to the possibility of giving a new turn with regard to the methodology of second recent order. And that said turn heads for the possibility of a corresponding one, in the systemic focus, of the investigation in first person.

A task that I cannot leave as assumed in this essay, is the one of pointing out some limitations characteristic of the investigation in second person and therefore of the methodology of second recent order. This will help to also clarify, the differences that exist among the investigation in second person and the investigation in first person, since this last type of investigation that I point out the limitations of the interpretive investigation.

The interpretive investigation, grants participation to the investigated individuals and the investigator, when he/she affirms that they are them those that believe the linguistic and social constructs that constitute the reality, But when not recognizing the necessity to carry out a deliberate and explanatory consent of values and speeches, as it proposes it for example Habermas, this investigation is not participative as long as it lacks the consent. The necessity of the realization of consents in the investigations resides in two points. The first of them points out that the individuals participations carry out in the construction of the reality, in general are equal and therefore they indicate subordination relationships among the individuals. The second point makes reference to the fact that, although, each individual contributes in smaller or bigger degree to the construction of the reality, or hoist to say but well, it contributes in smaller or bigger degree to the construction of the reality, it contributes in way but or less active to this construction the individual can have a distorted perception from the reality to which the same one contributes to build. A narrative can be distorted independently of the fact that it is dominant or not, since the prevalent or common character in a particular context that Ie gives the status of dominant to a narrative, in general is due to the presence of subordination relationships (you relate that they should be considered in the serious and deep stricter sense of what can make the post-structuralism) and not to the equal consent of values. Considering the above-mentioned, it is palpable the fact that simply not putting in narrative evidence dominant that although they help to reconsider a certain problem although, it is not guaranteed that all the narratives participate in equal form in the resolution of the problem, since the reconsideration of the non dominant narratives can be carried out in such a way that you/they allow to solve a problem and at the same time subordination relationships are conserved among the individuals payees of narrative. The consequence is that the due problems to the subordination among individuals persist.

What grants to a narrative an adult or smaller degree of distortion, is the fact that he/she enters but it finds, this narrative, the result of an equal consent, fewer distorted will be.

4. Possibility of a turn epistemological in the systemic focus

Since in the systemic focus the cybernetics of second order reason, later on, the consideration dc the reality like co-built by linguistic meanings, I consider that the serious following step trying to make an effort guided to recognize the possibility and necessity of an equal and deliberate linguistic understanding that it allows to arrive to a coordination of actions, in a system, guided to the overcoming of a problem. This way, I am in favor of a possible imprint of the theory of the talkative action of Habermas in the systemic focus, with an eye toward developing one he/she practices clinical participative.

This proposal not this so far from the position of certain theoretical ones of systems that you/they are already working in a project of change epistemological with an eye toward a bigger approach to schools of investigation action. I refer to the works of the systemic Chekland and of the investigating participative Levin and Reason that were presented in the VIll world congress of convergence of investigation participative on the part of Robert Flood managing of the center of studies of systems of the university of Hull of the United Oar. These investigators propose a turn epistemological toward the extensive holistic epistemology of Reason, while me at the moment, for the case of the clinical systemic focus of the psychology, to proposes toward the theory of the talkative action, since this theory, is a linguistic model the same as the social constructionist and this would facilitate the turn epistemological. Between the extensive epistemology of Reason and the theory of the talkative action, many resemblance exist. This gives me the trust of going in oneself address. The likeness between the theory of the talkative action and the holistic epistemology, you lightly can notice, if we remember that the holistic epistemology of Reason proposes the integration of the worlds physique, biological and social, in our thoughts and actions, being recognized, the specificity of the physical world and the specificity of the social world. The specificity of the physical world consists mainly on the presence of simple relationships of cause-effect, while that of the social world consists on the presence of experiences and differences characteristic of this world. The physical specificity should not monopolize completely to the social world, m the social specificity should monopolize to the physical world. On the other hand, the theory of the talkative action, proposes the consent among an objective world, a world íntersubjective and a subjective world, being conserved, getting rich and being supplemented, the specificity characteristic of each one of these worlds.

5. Implications in he/she practices it clinic

The moment has been arrived of responding to the implications you practice that he/she would have the turn epistemological here proposed.

I will begin remembering that although, the interpretive methodologies, admit a resulting reality of a collective construction of meanings, the participative methodologies takes a step but when considering that also the car understandings of the fellows with regard to their reality can be distorted. This way, in the participative methodology, it is not of so alone to determine that narratives are dominant or not in the significance of a problem, but rather also, it is tried to determine that narratives are distorted and which not. Inside the group of dominant narrative, they can have distorted narratives and not distorted; the same thing cannot happen to the group of dominant narrative.

As I know he/she will see in what continues, the advantages at level I practice, of the systemic clinic, for the incorporation of contributions methodological Habermasians to this clinic, they are in the use of the camera of Gessell and in the work of an external group to the therapeutic situation. The first clinical implication that would have the recognition of the turn epistemological here proposed, serious the necessity to enhance what Habermas denominates organization of the perception that it would consist for the case of the systemic focus, in a process of collective analysis of the interpretations that would be carried out with the investigated fellows, the therapist and with external observers that in this serious case the reflexive group located behind the camera of Gessell in the first stages of the therapy. What is sought it is to carry out with all the participants a negotiation or consent of interpretations with the purpose of determining not distorted narratives.

Another step but that gives the participative methodology with regard to the interpretive one, it is the great importance that it grants to the fact that many problems arise for the frustration of actions due to social limitations given by relationships of oppression and not only for dominant narrative. This same it can happen in a group like it is the family. Therefore, once identified the distorted and not distorted narratives in the participative methodology, the following step is the realization of a strategic plan of actions participative (that is to say, with the inclusion and the same participation all the members mentioned in the “organization of the perception") with an eye toward the overcoming of the problems, this way, in the possible systemic participative methodology, it would not be treated, like it happens in the methodology of first order, of the fact that the therapist introduces a series of tasks in the family to overcome certain “interactional games” of alliances and coalitions, but rather would be the fact that the tasks are introduced by all the participants being fomented this way the conversion of vertical relationships in horizontal relationships to the inner of the same intervened Group.

The systemic participative methodology would drive, also, to the consideration of problems that not only arise for an ambiguity among a level of analogical and other digital language or for the prevalence of dominant narrative in the significance of a problem, but also, for the presence of distorted narratives, for the presence of vertical relationships in a group that you/they are not necessarily due to the presence of coalitions in a family and for the presence of social limitations that you/they frustrate the actions of the system. The systemic participative methodology as long as consensual and fruit of a journey for the different methodologies of investigation, would integrate the knowledge and the methodological experiences that he/she has acquired the systemic focus from their beginnings in the cybernetic epistemology of first order and in Gregory Bateson's formulations, until, in fact, their consolidation like participative methodology.

Bibliography

Arevalo, Liz. Epistemology systemic constructivista in the domain of the clinic, in: Debates in psychology N. 2. Point Exe editors, 1996.

Flood, Robert Investigation Action and the administration sciences and systems, in: Participaci6n popular challenges of the future. Comp - Orlando Fals Borda. ICFES, Iepri, Colciencias, 1998.

Habermas, Jurgen. Humans Knowledge and interests. Madrid, ed. Taurus, 1982.

Habermas, Jurgen. Talkative theory of Action in. Madrid, ed. Taurus, 1987.

Kemmis, Stephen. Improving the education thought the Investigation Action, in: The Investigation Participative Action; beginning and developments. Comp. María Cristina Salazar. Ed. Popular, 1992.

Wittezaele, J., Garcia T. Palo Alto's school. Barcelona, ed. Herde, 1994.