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.
[1]
P. Dell.
Researching the family theories of schizophrenia: an exercise in epistemological confusion.
,
1980,
Family process.
[2]
L. Boscolo,et al.
Hypothesizing--circularity--neutrality: three guidelines for the conductor of the session.
,
1980,
Family process.
[3]
H. Liddle,et al.
TEACHING FAMILY THERAPY AT THE INTRODUCTORY LEVEL: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL EMPHASIZING A PATTERN WHICH CONNECTS TRAINING AND THERAPY*
,
1982
.
[4]
H. Liddle.
On the problems of eclecticism: a call for epistemologic clarification and human-scale theories.
,
1982,
Family process.
[5]
A. Gurman.
FAMILY THERAPY RESEARCH AND THE “NEW EPISTEMOLOGY”*
,
1983
.
[6]
P. Dell,et al.
Beyond homeostasis: toward a concept of coherence.
,
1982,
Family process.