The world is divided into two categories: those who know how to use a computer and those who understand how and why it does what it does. While we rarely think about the ‘back end’ when it’s going smoothly, we rely on those who do, to solve problems that defy the ordinary solutions like ‘shut it down and start again’. Similarly, in our field we learn models and theory of schools of family therapy and how these are applied to effect change without thinking about their underpinning. This is the world of philosophy which asks deeper questions, including ontology, the theory or study of Being, focusing on what exists in the world and how it exists and epistemology, the theory or study of knowledge or how do we know what we know.
The Application to Family Therapy
Unpacking these questions in relation to the development of family therapy theory was undertaken by Travisanos (2026) in the paper Epistemology and Ontology in Family Therapy: A ‘Holding’ of Both. He argues that ‘family therapy must incorporate both epistemology and ontology into a coherent philosophy of therapeutic practice.’ The paper traces the evolution of theory from its origins in general systems theory and cybernetics which contributed a ‘wealth of therapeutic techniques’ but also incorporated practices characterised by ‘authoritarian manipulation of families’. Attention then shifted to the place of the therapist and second order cybernetics which includes the observer in that which is observed and contends that our own perceptions create reality. This supported the development of new models of family therapy based on social constructivism which focussed on language, meaning, and narratives. A greater sensitivity to the social and cultural milieu of families generated approaches which were less focussed on the therapist as authority figure to one which emphasised collaboration and ‘not knowing’. At its most extreme these approaches rejected all reference to an objective reality and called for the abandonment of systemic models. For these theorists family therapy was ontologically ’mute’.
Is This a Good Idea?
Travisanos argues that the exclusion of ontology from our philosophy of therapy is problematic and we require a coherent approach. He notes that social constructivism is not a single stream and includes practitioners who propose versions of realism including those ‘who argue that reality exists independently of language, and we can even know it to some extent, stating that our constructions of the world can conditionally be true to some extent’.
Bridging the Gap
To reconcile the extreme approaches of strong social constructivism and naïve realism, theorists have proposed the idea of co-construction, that the ‘map’ of the family is generated in collaboration with the family. ‘The therapist’s understanding is shaped, to an extent, by the structure and what family members articulate; however, it is also influenced by the therapist’s ideas about family dynamics. Within sessions, meaning and understanding are produced collaboratively, and through joint efforts, new knowledge is generated.’ In this process family and therapist evolve together and create the ‘therapeutic system’ with meaning and understanding constantly and jointly reshaped. This approach places the relationship central to the process. In doing so the treasure trove of past and present techniques become available that can be accessed by the practitioner through a lens of respect and awareness of the inequalities that burden a family’s life and have significantly contributed to their challenges and the difficulties they have encountered addressing them.
Travasaros, T (2026) Epistemology and Ontology in Family Therapy: A ‘Holding’ of Both Journal of Family Therapy, 2026; 48: e70029 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.70029
©Copyright Bower Place™ Pty. Ltd. 2026
