A Systemic Approach to the Concept of Crisis

ISSN： 0711-5075

Source： Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, Vol.9, Iss.2, 1990-06, pp. : 43-54

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

The author first explains the difficulty of giving an univocal definition of the concepts of crisis, pointing out the dual significance habitually attributed to it in the history of medicine and psychiatry: one negative, which sees crisis as a dangerous deviation from a state of normality; the other positive, which interprets crisis as a painful but recognizable expression of a need for growth.Then, considering the systemic approach, the author finds such a dual sense of crisis in this perspective too: two systemic models are distinguished: a “homeostatic model” (influenced by first cybernetics) in which crisis is a pathological sign of a system dysfunction; and an “evolutionary model: (influenced by Prigogine's work and “second order cybernetics”) in which crisis is seen as an evolutionary moment which may produce unpredictable changes and a more mature equilibrium.Finally, the author examines the position of the therapist intervening on crisis in a systemic view: neither “external” nor “neutral” but, on the contrary, an integral and involved part of the therapeutic system (a “self-referring” system). The therapist becomes a “co-constructor” of the developments of the crisis and contributes through his theoretical models and pragmatic acts to shape the physiognomy and the destiny of crisis. A clinical example is presented in detail to give practical evidence of these theoretical concepts.