It is a relatively new insight that there are levels of change, which can be described as first- and second-order change. The differences between these two - which can be compared to the difference between reform and revolution - are often is not considered. First-order change involves common-sense solutions - changing one thing into its opposite, such as putting on a coat when we are cold. At times, this is all that is necessary and successfully solves the problem.
At other times, this approach becomes dysfunctional. On other words, first-order change that takes place within the parameters of an existing structure and doesn't always correct the problem: (E.g., re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic).
In many instances first-order solutions often become the problem themselves, especially when doing more of the same seems to only solidify the problem. The Vietnam war would be a clear example of this syndrome.
The other form change occurs when the assumptions underlying the problem are questioned.
Second-order change transforms the rules of the game. Because we usually overlook this key difference, it is worthy of our careful attention.
**
Although some human problems continue at a steady level of severity, many difficulties tend to increase or escalate if no solution or a wrong solution is attempted - and especially, if more of a wrong solution is applied. This may seem obvious, yet, in daily life, we often miss this reality.
Many of the most serious difficulties we run into in life require second-order change; yet when we apply more of the same within a first-order change context, we end up chasing our tails as we deepen the hole we are in, trying to solve them with "commonsense" solutions that go nowhere - or worsen the predicament.
In the martial art of Aikido we do not apply a direct counterforce to our opponent. The thrust of his/her force is not opposed. but rather accepted and amplified by yielding to it and going with it, and in the process, we bring our opponent to the mat. The opponent is expecting the game of force against force (more of the same); yet instead of playing by the rules of his game we play a different game altogether.
In the realm of psychotherapy - paradoxical therapist stances such as "why should you change?" "go very slow," "prescribing the symptom," and becoming more pessimistic than the pessimist - can be useful in transforming intractable client positions. In this way resistance can be used as a vehicle of change
We can think of these issues in terms of systems theory. "First-order change" refers to change within a given system. Here - the system itself remains unchanged - while its elements or parts undergo some kind of change. "Second-order change" refers to change of the system itself, where the system is transformed in terms of its structure or communication patterns.
An example with which we are all familiar would be that of a person having a nightmare. He or she can do many things in the dream - run, scream, hide, fight - but no change from any one of these behaviors to another can itself end the nightmare. In such a predicament, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The one way out of a dream - obviously - involves waking up - a change from dreaming to a completely different state of awareness.
Given our earlier exploration (in Pt 13-1) as our "consensus trance", this metaphor is particularly relevant.
In this case (as in many others) first-order change is incapable of effecting the desired change, because here, the system's structure itself must undergo change, a change that can only be affected from the second-order change level.
We have all, at moments, had the experience of being caught in comparable binds or "boxes"; from "inside the box," a solution arising from a second-order perspective will appear as a surprising flash. But from a vantage-point "outside the box," it is simply a process of shifting our assumptions. (This can be called "re-framing".) Often, we do not do this. By insisting on pursuing first-order change, we instead create "vicious circles", which continually worsen the problem at hand.
When we do not attend to the difference between - and confuse the two levels - we often compound the problem to which the solution is applied; the solution becomes the greater of the two evils.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
