Cybernetics and Human Knowing , 3(3/4):41-6, 1995
THE EIGEN-VALUES OF STORIES[1]
In homage to Heinz von Foerster
Carlos E. Sluzki[2]
Abstract: The notion of eigen-value, contributed by von Foerster to the field of cybernetics, can be usefully applied to the understanding of the transformative process of narratives in therapy. When problem-sustaining stories are destabilized during therapy, they “seek” new steady states, they become more sensitive to, and craving for, the incorporation of new elements or logic provided throughout the therapeutic conversation. These fit-hungry, unstable, incompletely formatted stories end up gelling around new eigen-values. In a succesfull therapeutic encounter, the new configuration will replace the problem-sustaining story with equally viable stories that are problem-free or, at least, problem solving.
Prologue
I am honored and overjoyed by the opportunity to participate in this Festschrift in which we render homage to Heinz von Foerster and acknowledge his vast contribution to cybernetics and his influence in so many other fields. I wish to offer you, Heinz, a wild flower of an idea generated by your intellectual seed.
...But first, a disquisition on etymology
Some ten years ago, in Brussels, in the course of a keynote address delivered by Heinz in a Congress on Systems, Families, and all that jazz, I heard for the first time his erudite lucubration about the etymology of the words “epistemology”, “understanding” and “Verstehen” and their similar way of denoting the relationship to knowledge entailed in the position of the knower (v.Foerster 1985).
Epistemology, Heinz reminded us, derives from the Greek, and is composed by a prefix, epi, to mean “up” or “above”, and the word histamein, “to stand”. Therefore, it could well be translated as “standing above”, or “upper-standing”, an interesting position, as those proficient in the English language prefer to stand under, that is, to understand. In turn, he also noted, the German word for the operation of understanding, Verstehen, is composed by the prefix ver--change, loss, reversal-- and the word stehen, “to stand”. He proposes then that a literal translation of the German word could be un-standing. Upper-standing, under-standing, or un-standing, these words concur in placing the subject at a meta-, recursively observant position, removed from where he/she stands and thus acquiring a vantage point from which to grasp a view of the subject as a whole. (It is in that paper, mind you, that Heinz noted the usual rendition of epistemology as “theory of knowledge”, and swiftly re-translated that into “theory of understanding” and, as theories bring understanding, into understanding understanding, second-order understanding, U , one of his trademark logos.)
Inspired by that string of ideas, I went into my own ethnocentric etymological voyage and explored the word comprender, Spanish translation for understanding or Verstehen. It happens that the Latin root of comprender includes cum or com, a prefix that denotes the collective, expressing the relationship of two or more persons in company or in contact (think, for instance, in con-solidation, con-nection, con-cordance, con-versation) and prendere , to grasp or apprehend. So, to my own surprise, social constructionsm appears in the root of this Romance word. In fact, etymologically speaking at least, there seems to be a qualitative shift between the first group of words and the latter, as understanding, epistemology and Verstehen highlight the reflexive position of the observer observing him/herself, while comprender denotes the consensual nature of the process of grasping or apprehending reality and therefore makes explicit a second order of events, namely, the social nature of the process of grasping/organizing reality.
Heinz, allow me to add that Spanish utterance to your family of magic words, as a small token for the many magic words that you added to mine. I will also carry on the thrust of this passage to second order of analysis in what follows.
Main proposition: on the eigen-values of stories
I would like to turn our attention now to another magic word, eigen-value, a notion which took me a long time to stand under, to start with, and then to grasp its fit into my world. I first heard of it from Heinz in a presentation following the format of his paper titled “Objects: Token for (Eigen-) Behaviors”, a formidable bouquet originally delivered by Heinz some twenty years ago at a conference organized at the University of Geneva on the occasion of Jean Piaget’s 80th birthday (v.Foerster, 1978).
In that paper Heinz doesn’t attempt to define eigen-value, which seems to be a rather well known term (known, that is, to those who are familiarized with Recursive Function Theory, a collective that doesn’t include me among its members!). In that paper Heinz proposes the intriguing, destabilizing idea that “in an observer-included (circular, closed) epistemology, objects appear as ‘token for stable behaviors’ (or, if the terminology of Recursive Function Theory is used, as ‘token of Eigen-functions’)”. He also offers two examples of eigen-values. One is a rather obscure formalism about the recursive relation of coordinations of coordination or operators of operators. In spite of the fun of hearing Heinz presenting this as “Op, op, op, op”, I must confess that that example went over my head, immobilized as I was by my terror of mathematics for which I blame Mr. Calegari (like in “The Cabinet of Dr...”!), my high school burned-out mathematics teacher. The other example is more within my grasp, namely, the famous self-referential phrase "This sentence contains ... letters" which has, in the English language, two possible stable states--two eigen-values-- between its text and its denotation. Well, after I left my struggle with the notion of eigen-value in peace for quite a while, I noticed with curiosity that it materialized not in my cogitation about models but about practices. These seeds were somehow planted, and years later I find myself harvesting ideas I didn’t know were germinating to start with. In fact, the notion of eigen-value acquired meaning only when it established connection with my own ideas (that is probably the process of “com-prender”).
Let me share with you the way in which the notion of eigen-value applies, I believe, to that process of transformations of narratives that we call therapy. First of all, for purposes of assuring commonality of language, allow me to briefly summarize my own understanding of what is a narrative, more specifically, a story, from a systems perspective (for which I should give special credit to Heinz, to Anderson and Goolishian, to the Gergens, and to Sara Cobb).
A story (I am referring now to a local, isolated story with full awareness that it is as much a pragmatic fiction as an isolated family) can be described as a system composed by characters (who participates in the story, and, by implication, the universe of the excluded), plot (what is taking place), and scene (the when and the where that envelopes characters and plot), all woven together by an internal logic, from which emanate behavioral consequences (what do we do as a result of that description), moral/ethical consequences (in which locus the characters are placed in terms of good-bad, sane-insane, victimizer-victim, etc.) and, of course, interpersonal consequences (the relational effects of those guidelines). Needless to say, these consequences reconstitute the story, i.e., seal off alternatives, and therefore are part of the system "story" (see Figure 1).
When we expand our focus and contextualize the family, we see it embedded in larger networks of relations and of social and cultural ties. Likewise, when we contextualize a story we find it embedded in a myriad of intersecting stories, embedded sub-stories and inclusive meta-stories, some of them --such as cultural myths and paradigmatic plots--encompassing a multiplicity of discrete stories, some of them operating in orbits only indirectly tied to the story which was our focus , some of them not touching them at all (see Figure 2).
Now, there are some local stories that contain, maintain and stabilize personal and interpersonal problems, difficulties, or stalemates, while sealing off alternative stories that may embed non-problematic descriptions or solutions to those problems. These problematic stories appear in a clinical setting the moment people begin to answer the question “What can I do for you?”. Obviously, these stories cannot be transformed into non-problematic ones from within that story-maintaining systems, that is, by the people who agree on those descriptions and/or talk about the problems, difficulties, etc. in that way (otherwise they would have solved the problem instead of consulting us!). Those stories are maintained by the internal fit of all their components, by the harmony of their pieces (corollaries included), and by virtue of fitting a story-pattern of our culture. I would propose that those stories are stuck in, or have found, an eigen-value--in fact, that all stable stories, problematic or not, are lodged in one of their possible eigen-values (only that the ones we are discussing here contain consequences or traits that people ask us to change.)
Therapy, in turn, is the process by which we facilitate the transformation of those stories. What do we therapists do to favor that change? (and, please, let us not fall into the naive assumption that we "just converse"; we converse, but not "just", as we do follow specific and patterned styles of conversation, modes of intervention, that favor those transformations). Throughout the therapeutic conversation, we therapists
[I] position ourselves in ways that allow us to join the party, to con-verge, to become a member of the network of people who talk about that story in that fashion, to “com-prender” its current meanings. We thus become progressively credible co-holders, co-containers, co-maintainers of those stories. That position of co-container gives us eventually the membership necessary to propose alternative story configurations "from within", as part of the story-maintaining, and story-generated, system;
[II] follow a mode of inquiry that progressively de-stabilizes the original story--through posing actively ignorant questions and naive, good intentioned comments, we add or subtract characters or attributes of characters, propose alternative plots, suggest re-design stages, alter time lines, revise moral corollaries, propose different behavioral corollaries. At the same time, we
[III] suggest or favor specific alternative stories.- That is, by means of that inquiry mode of inquiry, that includes assumptions of good intent, positive connotations, reframes, we therapists not only destabilize the old story but influence the conversation toward possible alternative stories, stories that may favor autonomy and growth, agency and prospection, reciprocal respect and support, stories that will place all participants in more favorable positions in terms of responsibility and intent, and, last but not least, stories that will provide the story-maintaining system with a model about how to tell other stories. These new attributes are powerful attractors toward generating eigen-values around which new stories stabilize and remain. It is not that we therapists necessarily invest ourselves in one specific alternative combination--some therapist do, though--, but we open roads to alternative stories that may be adopted as alternative descriptions/explanations by the whole conversing system (Sluzki, 1992a).
If we succeed, at a given moment in the consultation--or perhaps several days or weeks later-- a new story about the reason for consultation acquires dominance for the consulting system and its surroundings, a story with perhaps some added or subtracted characters, with slightly or drastically different plots, with a new setting that allows for new moves for the characters, with a shift in its logic and/or the affects that tie story together, which leads to a shift in the relative position of the characters and of the moral corollary of the story. As a result, symptoms or conflicts fade away, previously counter-intuitive solutions become reasonable, things change.
Allow me to underline an important point: it is not that, thanks to our efforts, a story becomes unstable and stays unstable. Rather, when any story becomes unstable, it craves stability, seeks new configurations, new fits, and will incorporate much more easily new elements that will allow it to gel around a new eigen-value, where the story "naturally" falls and stays. The word “naturally” of course, hides the mechanics of narrative coherence or fit that lies at the core of the different possible eigen-values of a story, resonating with other specific micro-cultural, familial stories and with the slowly evolving dominant collective stories that circulate in (or constitute) the macro-culture within which the conversation takes place. I am proposing, further, that there is a very finite set of combinations of characters, plots, staging, logic, and behavioral and moral consequences that any given story can establish within each micro- and macro-culture--a rather finite set perhaps akin to a Rubik cube with multiple possible fitting combinations of faces.
Bow
Heinz paved the road for us to witness the consequences of reflexivity. The introduction of the self reflexive loop lodged within his Understanding Understanding led us to grasp how meaning emerges: understanding is a social process. My contribution attempts at deconstructing our own participation in the social process of emergence of new meaning in therapy, and highlights how the notion of eigen-value, originally proposed to formalize stable, fixed points in self-organizing processes, can be also utilized to analyze discursive systems and may be in fact at the core of the process of generation of consensus.
Heinz, you have sown multiple original ideas with generosity and flair. Each of us grabbed some and ran to our own little acre, planted them in our own soil, and watched them grow and bloom with amazement. This small wild flower, or perhaps only bud, which I contribute to your Festschrift may be a strange hybrid, but, well, what you see and hear is what you get, and I offer it to you with love and admiration.
-----ooooo-----
REFERENCES
Foerster, H. v.: “Objects: Tokens for (eigen-)behaviors.” Cybernetic Forum 8 (3 & 4), p.91-96, 1976. Also in H.v.Foerster: Observing Systems. Seaside, CA, Intersystems Publications, 1981. The original in French was included as a chapter in B.Inhelder, R.Garcia and J.Voneche, Eds.: Epistemologie Genetique et Equilibration. Neuchatel, Delachaux et Nistle, 1978.
Foerster, H:v.: “Apropos epistemologies.” Family Process, 24(4):517-521, 1985.
Sluzki, C.E.: ”Transformations: A blueprint for narrative change in therapy.” Family Process, 31(3):55-71, 1992a
Sluzki, C.E.: "The 'better-formed' story." Chapter (in Italian) in G. Cecchin and M. Mariotti, (eds.): L'Adolescente e i suoi Sistemi. Rome: Kappa , 1992b.
STAGE
SCRIPT
CHARACTERS
(INTERNAL ORDER OR LOGIC)
INTERPERSONAL
COROLARIES
ETHICAL
OROLARIES
BEHAVIORAL
COROLARIES
ETHICAL
COLOLARIES
Figure 1: THE (local) STORY AS A SYSTEM
Figure 2: SYSTEM OF NARRATIVES
1. A local story (e.g., the answer to the question “What is the reason for this consultation”) and its
reverberation in associated stories
2. One of the many stories that are activated in conversation and have the function of confirming or
concurring with some of the reverberations of 1, its own reverberation in associated stories
3. One of the many inclusive macro-stories that harmonize with and anchor 1, held by the macro-culture,
folklore, collective myths, etc.
4. One of the many stories (and their own reverberations) that are activated by 1 and are dissonant with
some of its reverberations, as they are based on other premises
5. One of the many stories (and their own reverberations) that “capture” and re-contextualize 1 on the basis
of different parameters or premises
6. One of the many stories (and their own reverberations) with different parameters and premises that are
irrelevant for the purpose of re-contextualizing story 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Presented at the conference “Cybernetics and Circularity: A Conference on the Seeds of Cybernetics in
the Work of Heinz von Foerster”, annual meeting of the American Society for Cybernetics, University of
Illinois, Chicago, May 17-21, 1995.
[2] Director of Psychiatric Services, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara CA 93102-689.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles.