Social Constraints and Cybernetic Explanations

Abstract

In 1972 Bateson introduced the concept of “cybernetic explanation” which he described as follows: “In contrast (to usual explanations, C.S. and J.K.) cybernetic explanation is always negative. We consider what alternative possibilities could conceivably have occurred and then ask why many alternatives were not followed, so that the particular event was one of those few which could, in fact, occur ... In cybernetic language, the course of events is said to be subject to restraints, and it is assumed that, apart from such restraints, the pathways of change would be governed only by equality of probability. In fact, the “restraints” upon which cybernetic explanation depends can in all cases be regarded as factors, which determine inequality of probability. If we find a monkey striking a typewriter apparently at random but in fact writing meaningful prose, we shall look for restraints, either inside the monkey or inside the typewriter. Perhaps the monkey could not strike inappropriate letters; perhaps the type bars could not move improperly struck; perhaps incorrect letters could not survive the paper. Somewhere there must have been a circuit which could identify error and eliminate it.” (Bateson 1972, pp. 399)