Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1988). Human Systems as Linguistic Systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-393. 

I admire this paper. because, it opened up a whole new way for me to look at my work as a family therapist. I especially like the idea of linguistic system, as oppossed to a cybernetic system. It was the first time that I read things as "The role of the therapist is that of a master conversational artist - an architect of dialogue - whose expertise is in creating a space for and facilitating a dialogical conversation. The therapist is a participant-observer and a participant-manager of the therapeutic conversation." 

The most interesting part of the paper for me was the final part (Implications for Clinical Theory) in which the authors refer to Gadamer's idea's of the unsaid, and talk about the not-yet-said as a resource for change. They speak of diagnosis as a collaborative problem definition, and they describe the role of the therapist in this process. In that final part of the paper they also summarize what they see as the difference between an ordinary conversation and a therapeutic conversation: 

1. The therapist keeps inquiry within the parameters of the problem as described by the clients. 

2. The therapist entertains multiple and contradictory ideas simultaneously. 

3. The therapist chooses cooperative rather than uncooperative language. 

4. The therapist learns, understands, and converses in the cIient's language because that language is the metaphor for the client's experiences. 

5. The therapist is a respectful listener who does not understand too quickly (if ever). 

6. The therapist asks questions, the answers to which require new questions. 

7. The therapist takes the responsibility for the creation of a conversational context that allows for mutual collaboration in the problem-defining process. 

8. The therapist maintains a dialogical conversation with himself or herself. 

These were all new ideas at the time. I remember when I first read the paper in 1988, that I didn't understand it. Still somehow I felt it was a new and exciting paper. I read it several times, and I discussed it with several colleagues, and more and more the paper began to make sense to me. 

Maybe it is important to sketch the historical context in which the paper was published. In 1988 cybernetics was still a kind of a holy cow in the family therapy world, and Gregory Bateson was a God for most family therapists. As you may notice when (re)reading the paper, Anderson & Goolishian still somewhat use cybernetic language (words like system, change, ...fit well in a cybernetic vocabulary, but much less in a CLS vocabulary). 

It was, however, only in 1990 that these authors published their other revolutionary paper "Beyond Cybernetics." This paper was a comment on Atkinson & Heath's article on Second Order Cybernetics. As many others had tried to do, Atkinson & Heath were looking for a way out of the power problem that haunted cybernetic family therapy from the beginning (think of the Bateson-Haley debate). 

As a way out, Atkinson & Heath (and many others) proposed a second order cybernetics, which embraced an aesthetic view, as opposed to a pragmatic view (remember the Keeney-Watzlawick debate), and advocated that the therapist would take a non-interventionist stance. In their 1990 paper A & G dared to say loud and clear that family therapist should leave the cybernetic epistemology and opt for new metaphors, namely language metaphors: "We believe that in order to avoid the black holes of many familiar family therapy concepts and to avoid the either/or dilemmas of their implications (power versus no power, intervention versus nonintervention), it is necessary to abandon the core concept of cybernetics itself in our attempts to inform and describe therapy. We believe that the issues of power and control, of intervention, and of curing (to use Bateson's term) are all implicit in cybernetic epistemology." 

They add: "that it is difficult, even impossible, to move beyond the issue of therapist power, direction, and control when our therapy is informed by the metaphor of cybernetic epistemology....Cybernetics, first- or second-order, is at its base a theory of ordered control. We can attempt to soften the control or to make it more gentle and kinder through a second-ordered cybernetics, but it is (...) still control." 

These are quotes from their 1990 paper. In their 1988 paper their criticism of cybernetics is not as explicit, but you can feel how they are allready moving away from cybernetics, even in the title: "Human Systems as Linguistic Systems". However, their moving away from Parsonian inspired social sciences, which "derives meaning and understanding from observing patterns of social organization such as structure and role," to a view that "systems can be described as existing only in language and communicative action." is more obvious. They state for instance: "Communication and discourse define social organization; that is, a sociocultural system is the product of social communication rather than communication being a product of organization." 

They also connect with Gergen's social constructionism, and they refer to the ideas of Wittgenstein and Rorty. They were not the first to do that in the family therapy literature (already in 1986 Paul Falzer wrote an article in which he abundantly refers to Wittgenstein as well as Rorty to state "that epistemology and cybernetics provide an insufficient understanding of families and family therapy and should be rejected as a foundation for the field."), but they were in any case one of the first. 

It is clear that for me "Human Systems as Linguistic Systems" is one of the classical family therapy papers. For me personally it opened up a whole new way of looking at family therapy. I think I will always be gratefull to A & G for that. 

Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1988). Human Systems as Linguistic Systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-393. 

Anderson, H. & Goolishian, H. (1990). Beyond Cybernetics. Family Process, 29, 157-163. 

Atkinson, B. & Heath, A. (1990). Further Thoughts on Second Order Family Therapy. Family Process, 29, 145-155. 

Falzer, P. (1986). The Cybernetic Metaphor: A Critical Examination of Ecosystemic Epistemology as a Foundation of Family Therapy. Family Process, 25