Negative Explanation

Negative Explanation

• Also known as cybernetic explanation (see Gregory Bateson’s paper Cybernetic Explanation in Steps to an Ecology of Mind) 
• Negative explanation offers an alternative explanation for events and their occurrence in contrast to notions of linear causality 
• If we are accept for the moment that events ‘a to n’ have an equal probability of occurring but event ‘c’ actually occurs more often – then we might ask ourselves how come event ‘c’ has occurred more often and not events ‘a, b & d, e, f through to n’. 
• If the increased occurrence of event ‘c’ is not random then we would search for some other explanation for this increased occurrence – and that explanation may be something peculiar or eccentric or unusual about event ‘c’ and certain factors operating in or on ‘c’ that are not operating in or on events ‘a, b & d through to n’ – OR – conversely it may be about certain common factors operating in or on events ‘a, b & d through to n’ that are not operating for some reason in or on ‘c’. 

• There are two ways of understanding the eccentric behaviour of ‘c’ 
• Causation – either something in particular has impacted on event ‘c’ causing event ‘c’ to behave differently to events ‘a, b & d through to n’ – OR – something in particular is impacting on events ‘a, b & d through to n’ causing events ‘a, b & d through to n’ to behave differently to event ‘c’ – OR 
• Constraint – something in particular is restraining or constraining event ‘c’ from functioning or behaving in the way that it ordinarily would such that event ‘c’ now behaves differently to events ‘a, b & d through to n’ – OR – something in particular is restraining or constraining events ‘a, b & d through to n’ from functioning or behaving in the way that they ordinarily would such that event ‘c’ now behaves differently to events ‘a, b & d through to n’ 
• Broadly we would argue that ‘causation’ is a less likely or plausible explanation for this difference compared to ‘constraint’ – we need to understand how come this is so as it appears to fly in the face of ordinary human experience 
• The example Bateson gives is the analogy of billiard balls – that human beings are not like billiard balls – billiard ball ‘x’ hits billiard ball ‘y’ at a certain speed and angle such the billiard ball ‘y’ then moves in a particular direction at a particular speed and so on – the energy carried by  billiard ball ‘x’ is directly translated into the  movement on energy of billiard ball ‘y’ – a mathematical equation can be written for the physical and behavioural relationship between billiard balls ‘x’ and ‘y’ – and as such we can calculate the speed and angle of billiard wall ‘y’ based upon the speed and angle of billiard ball ‘x’ – and so on and so forth – the physics of forces and impacts. 

• Living organisms are not like this – the response of organism ‘q’ to an encounter with organism ‘p’ cannot be understood or explained through the physics of forces and impacts,  either in fact or in metaphor – the response of organism ‘q’ to an encounter with organism ‘p’ cannot be predicted in the same way as it can be in the billiard ball example – whilst we can write an algorithm for this, we cannot write a mathematical equation for it. 
• Organism ‘q’ responds to an encounter with organism ‘p’ not with the energy carried interview encounter by organism ‘p’ – organism ‘q’ responds in its own particular and eccentric way with its own energy and to some degree of its own volition. 
• Six similar but separate organisms ‘q to v’ may produce six entirely different responses to essentially similar encounters with organism ‘p’ and each of these differential responses is premised upon the internal differences between organisms ‘q to v’ – not upon the eccentricities of organism ‘p’ – the common encounter with organism ‘p’ is not the critical determinant – organisms ‘q to v’ are each constrained differently such that their responses to an encounter with organism ‘p’ are different based upon those differential constraints – those differential constraints in organisms ‘q to v’ produce different outcomes for organisms ‘q to v’  
• So why is this of such significance in the work that we do with complex comorbid matters? Because the way in which we understand the response people have to each other add to the events in their lives and to us and the therapeutic process is critical. 
• Constraint offers us a better explanation than simple causation and explains a great deal more than simple causation has to offer us 

• Constraints are internal and external to the person, neuro-biological and socio-relational. 
• In the world of the living, organisms and people, organism ‘q’ responds to the similarities and differences carried by organism ‘p’ in relation to organism ‘q’ – those similarities and differences are ‘information’ and ‘information’ is the lifeblood of the organism – ‘information’ is like energy but it is not – ‘information’ activates something else in organism ‘q’ – ‘information’ in relationship to organism ‘p’ disturbs or perturbs something in organism ‘q’ – so that organism ‘q’ then responds of its own volition, in his own way, and with its own energy, to take its own direction largely independent of organism ‘p’. 
• Perturb or perturbation comes from Humberto Maturana. 
• What this means is that our primary task in therapy is to ‘make a difference’ that actually perturbs the client – such differences are largely strategic – or to devise a therapeutic process that perturbs the client – and to do that we need to understand and know how the client is idiosyncratically constrained so that certain differences will make a difference and other differences will not be apprehended or perceived as being different – again that is largely strategic – or to develop a therapeutic process that address is the way in which human beings are characteristically constrained 

Negative Explanation & Bateson

Extracts from Bateson’s paper Cybernetic Explanation in Steps to an Ecology of Mind is the guts of negative explanation and essential reading for anyone working with the Bower Place Method.  

“Causal explanation is usually positive. We say that billiard ball B moved in such and such a direction because billiard ball A hit it at such and such an angle.”  

Cybernetic explanation is always negative. “We consider what alternative possibilities could conceivably have occurred and then ask why many of the alternatives were not followed, so that the particular event was one of those few which could, in fact, occur.”  

“…the course of events is said to be subject to restraints … it is assumed that, apart from such restraints, the pathways of change would be governed only by equality of probability.” 

 “…the “restraints” upon which cybernetic explanation depends can in all cases be regarded as factors which determine inequality of the probability.” 

“…. a word in a sentence, or a letter within the word, or the anatomy of some part within an organism, or the role of a species in an ecosystem, or the behaviour of a member within the family … are all … negatively explained by an analysis of restraints.”  

“…the subject matter of cybernetics is not events and objects, but the information “carried” by events and objects.” 

Objects or events propose “facts, propositions, messages, percepts” etc.  

“Of especial interest…is the relationship between context and its content.” 

“A phoneme exists as such only in combination with other phonemes which make up a word. The word is the context of the phoneme. But the word only exists as such, only has “meaning” in the larger context of the utterance, which again has meaning only in a relationship.”  

Energy – “In general in communicational systems, we deal with sequences which resemble stimulus–and-response rather than cause-and-effect.”  

“When one billiard ball strikes another there is an energy transfer such that the motion of the second ball is energized by the impact of the first.  

“In communicational systems…the energy of the response is usually provided by the respondent.” 

“If I kick a dog, his immediately sequential behaviour is energized by his metabolism, not by my kick. Similarly, when one neurone fires another, or an impulse from a microphone activates the circuit, the sequent event has his own energy sources.” 

Bateson sets out of three forms of restraint to information being recognized as information, being processed as information and not being rejected or disqualified as information in a communication system.  

1. Economics – the availability of alternative pathways through which information can be processed in a communication system 

1. Feedback – the existence causal circuits or feedback loops in that communicational system to process information, loops that negate or disqualify the value of that information 

1. Redundancy – the inability of that communication system to recognize that information as being different to other information it may recognize and as such not being able to encode that information as information  

The idea of restraint or constraint as it is referred to in the Bower Place Method is central to negative explanation.  

Bateson drew a clear distinction between living and non-living systems. 

Negative explanation offers an alternative explanation for events and their occurrence in contrast to notions of linear causality.  

If we are to accept that events ‘a to n’ have an equal probability of occurring but event ‘c’ occurs more often, then we might ask ourselves how come event ‘c’ has occurred more often and not events ‘a, b, d, e, f through to n’. If the increased occurrence of event ‘c’ is not random then we would search for some other explanation for this increased occurrence  and that explanation may be something peculiar or eccentric or unusual about event ‘c’ and certain factors operating in or on ‘c’ that are not operating in or on events ‘a, b & d through to n’  OR conversely it may be about certain common factors operating in or on events ‘a, b & d through to n’ that are not operating for some reason in or on ‘c’.  

There are two ways of understanding the eccentric behaviour of ‘c’  

Causation – either something has impacted on event ‘c’ causing event ‘c’ to behave differently to events ‘a, b & d through to n’ OR something is impacting on events ‘a, b & d through to n’ causing events ‘a, b & d through to n’ to behave differently to event ‘c’ 

Constraint – something is restraining or constraining event ‘c’ from functioning or behaving in the way that it ordinarily would such that event ‘c’ now behaves differently to events ‘a, b and d through to n’ OR  something is restraining or constraining events ‘a, b & d through to n’ from functioning or behaving in the way that they ordinarily would such that event ‘c’ now behaves differently to events ‘a, b & d through to n ‘.  

Broadly we would argue that ‘causation’ is a less likely or plausible explanation for this difference compared to ‘constraint’. We need to understand how come this is so as it appears to fly in the face of ordinary human experience as being different, or to develop a therapeutic process that address the way in which human beings are characteristically constrained. 

Humans are not billiard balls and are not like billiard balls. Billiard ball ‘B’ hits billiard ball ‘A’ at a certain speed and angle such the billiard ball ‘A’ then moves in a particular direction at a particular speed and so on. The energy carried by billiard ball ‘B’ is directly translated into the movement of energy of billiard ball ‘A’. A mathematical equation can be written for the physical and behavioural relationship between billiard balls ‘A’ and ‘B’ and as such we can calculate the speed and angle of billiard ball ‘B’ based upon the speed and angle of billiard ball ‘A’ and so on. This is the physics of forces and impacts.  

Living organisms are not like this. The response of organism ‘q’ to an encounter with organism ‘p’ cannot be understood or explained through the physics of forces and impacts, either in fact or in metaphor. The response of organism ‘q’ to an encounter with organism ‘p’ cannot be predicted in the same way as it can be in the billiard ball example, whilst we can write an algorithm for this, we cannot write a mathematical equation for it. 

Organism ‘q’ responds to an encounter with organism ‘p’ not with the energy carried into the encounter by organism ‘p’ – organism ‘q’ responds in its own particular and eccentric way with its own energy and to some degree of its own volition. 

Six similar but separate organisms ‘q to v’ may produce six entirely different responses to essentially similar encounters with organism ‘p’ and each of these differential responses is premised upon the internal differences between organisms ‘q to v’, not upon the eccentricities of organism ‘p’. The common encounter with organism ‘p’ is not the critical determinant. Organisms ‘q to v’ are each constrained differently such that their responses to an encounter with organism ‘p’ are different based upon those differential constraints. Those differential constraints in organisms ‘q to v’ produce different outcomes for organisms ‘q to v’  

So why is this of such significance in the work that we do with complex, comorbid matters?  

 The way in which we understand the response people have to each other, to the events in their lives, to us and the therapeutic process is critical. 

Constraint or restraint offers us a better explanation than simple causation and explains a great deal more than simple causation has to offer us.  

Constraints are internal and external to the person, neuro-biological and socio-relational. 

In the world of the living, organisms and people, organism ‘q’ responds to the similarities and differences carried by organism ‘p’ in relation to organism ‘q’. Those similarities and differences are information and information are the lifeblood of the organism. Information is like energy, but it is not. Information activates something in organism ‘q’. Information, in relationship to organism ‘p’ stimulates or disturbs or perturbs something in organism ‘q’ so that organism ‘q’ then responds of its own volition, in its own way, and with its own energy, to take its own direction to some degree independent of organism ‘p’. 

The idea of perturbation comes from Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana. 

Our primary task in therapeutic practice is to produce information, or create a process that produces information, that can and will make a difference to the client, the problem and their context or circumstances. It must be information of a sufficient difference that it perturbs the client notwithstanding the fact that the client and their world are subject to serious and systematic inside and outside constraints to the information our process has produced making it difficult to become information that can makes a difference.   

In Bateson’s terms for information to make a difference that information must be recognized by the client and/or their context/circumstances as actually being information in the first place. There must be available pathways inside and/or outside the client and their context/circumstances for this information to be processed as information and for this information not to be negated in the inexorable feedback loops specifically designed to maintain stability in that inside and outside client system. 

We pay close attention to the ways in which the client and their context and circumstances are not and will not be perturbed. Our task is largely strategic, to devise a therapeutic process that has maximum chance of perturbing the client and their context and circumstances. To do that we need to understand and know how the client is idiosyncratically restrained or constrained so that certain differences will make a difference and other differences will not be apprehended or perceived. 

The Bower Place Method privileges the complementary relationship between doing and making, between process and strategy. The Bower Place Method is: 

• A process and structure that makes it possible for the client and their context/circumstances to recognize information as information that may make a difference 
• A process that creates new communication pathways in the client/contextual/therapeutic system through which information can be processed for that information to become information that may make a difference 
• A process that allows the existing or available pathways in the client/contextual system through which information can be processed to be recognized or apprehended and exploited for information to make a difference 
• A process that produces information that has a better than even chance of being recognized by the client/contextual system and not disqualified through the feedback loops naturally occurring in the communication pathways in that client/contextual system through which that information is processed 

• A doing process that makes something and as such privileges making in the communication process for information to make a difference 

This is achieved through the word and image communication process used by the Bower Place Method. 

 

Bower Place Method & Bateson

The Bower Place Method addresses the primary questions of redundancy, processing, and negation in human systems.  

Living systems, human or other, are necessarily negentropic and organized. Redundancy in this context specifically refers to the way in which any living system, human or other, protects the integrity of its idiosyncratic organization from randomness of the world around it. Organized redundancy is integral to the structure and organization of every human system. Without redundancy there is no organization and no living system. All living systems, including human systems, are dialogic and interactional and driven by difference. Specifically, difference produces the information that drives such systems. Simply, redundancy means that the information coming from the interaction between that human system and the world around it is managed, controlled, or restrained so that some information will be recognized by that system as being of sufficient difference value to be admitted into the system and some information will not be recognized as carrying sufficient difference value to be admitted into the system and as such is redundant. It appears that there are thresholds through or over which such information must reach for it to be recognized as information of significance to that human system. In other words, not every difference that human system encounters in the world around it will carry sufficient difference value to actually ‘make a difference ‘. A difference can only make a difference if the information it carries is not redundant in or to that human system. This is central to early Narrative Therapy which focused on challenging and getting over the thresholds for the recognition of difference information and developing strategies for dealing with redundancy. An example of this was a well-known practitioner who responded to the client’s reporting positive change by literally falling off his chair. It is unknown at this time whether the client received this as information about his positive changes and this amplified his achievements or as information about his practitioner’s inability to remain upright.  

Information of difference that is recognized by the human system as sufficiently significant and not redundant must then be processed through the highly patterned, internal, conservative, dialogic and interactional organizational structure of that human system so that it is not negated or disqualified.  

For information to make a difference it must be recognized as not redundant and it must then be processed and preserved and usually amplified through internal dialogic loops of interaction in that human system. To do this the information must find its way into an available dialogic or interactional loop to be processed. There is some suggestion that in some living systems a paucity of such loops makes it difficult for information to find a pathway through which it can be processed. This is plausible. Some human systems are richer, more internally varied, complex, and flexible than others. This may be related to the sheer weight of numbers in a human system (Dunbar’s Number). This may also be related to the presence of fractures in the socio-relational system that block the passage of information. Such internal inflexibility may restrict the available pathways or internal interactional loops for the processing of difference information generated by the interaction between this human system and the world around it. Inflexibility may in fact be the absence of available interactional loops for the processing of information. This means that some information that is recognized as not redundant may not make a difference. The Bower Place Method strongly suggests that therapy and the therapeutic process can create new interactional pathways through which non-redundant information can be processed. This is achieved by substantially altering the process of interaction between people that is characteristic of therapy, by shifting from praxis to poesis, from doing to making. Making or production alters relationships and interaction between people. Production is a time honoured activity where people work alongside each other, shoulder to shoulder, in an endless repeating metaphor for life itself. People who produce together have a relationship and interaction reminiscent of the actions required for that which they produce. In short, the Bower Place Method produces something that changes interaction and invents new pathways.  

Negation or disqualification is a characteristic of all organization in human systems. Information recognized as not redundant and processed may be moderated or negated in that internal dialogic process of interaction. In this way a difference may not make a difference and information of value reduced to nothing. This idea is central to early family therapy which emphasised strategies for countering such negation.