• DOI:10.1177/0002764201000808
• Corpus ID: 220678731

Cybernetic Explanation

@article{Bateson1967CyberneticE,
  title={Cybernetic Explanation},
  author={Gregory Bateson},
  journal={American Behavioral Scientist},
  year={1967},
  volume={10},
  pages={29 - 29}
}

• G. Bateson
• Published 1 April 1967
• Sociology
• American Behavioral Scientist

socia/ Forces, 43, No. 2 (December, 1964) 181-87; Robert Roxnthal, “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment,” American Scientist, 51 (June, 1963) 268-83; Omar K. hloore and Alan R. Anderson, “Some Puzzling Aspects of Social Interaction,” in Joan H. Crisswell et a/ . , Afathetnntica/ Afethods in Sn~all Group Processes (Palo Alto, Calif.; Stanford University Press, 1962); Aaron V. ‘Cicourel, Afethod arid Afensiirerile/~t in Sociology (Free Press, 1964). especially Chapter 7, “Experimental Designs in Sociology.” Interestingly enough, much of this work has been done by experimentalists who are interested in improving the quality of experiments. 2. John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley, The Social P&chology of Groicps (New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) p. 9. 3. Robert F. Bales, “Small-Group Theory and Research,” in blerton, Broom and Cottrell (eds.), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1959) p. 303. 4. L. Festinger, “The Role of Group Belongingness,” in J. G. Miller (ed.), Experiments on Social Process (New York: McGraw Hill, 1950) p. 34. 5. That behaviour is bound to contexts is a social science commonplace frequently ignored in the design of studies and the collec, tion of data. For a discussion of the relation of “analytical” categories to the social process which produces the “data,” in survey studies and content analysis, see chapters four and six of Cicourel, op. cit. 6. Robert F. Bales, litteraction Process Aiinlysis, pp. 35-6. We should note that Bales’ approach to the analysis of interaction is intended to be relevant to “natural” small groups, as well as those contrived by the sociologist. Nevertheless, Bales is not interested in disclosing those properties of social actors which allow them to produce and maintain the flow of “conversation.” 7. Harold Garfinkel, “The Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities.” Social Problems (Winter, 1964) 225-50. I am also indebted to unpublished MSS of Harvey Sacks for the perspective which informs this section of the paper. 8. Some anthropologists are now requiring that reports of field work include material on the “eliciting” of information. See, e.g. hiary Black and Duane Metzger, “Ethnographic Description and the Study of Law,” Ainericari Anthropoligist, 67, No. 6 (December, 1965) 141-65. See also Aaron V. Cicourel, “Fertility, Family Planning, and the Social Organization of Family Life: Some Methodological Issues,” (Forthcoming). 9. Students with an interest in the simulation of choice behavior are now finding that the reconstruction of rules employed by the subject is a worthwhile problem. See, e.g. Julian Feldman, “Computer Simulation of Cognitive Processes,” in Harold Borko (ed.) , Computer Applications in the Behavioirral Sciences (Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962) pp. 336-59, cf. Harold Garfinkel, “Common-Sense Knowledge of Social Structures,” in Jordan Scher (ed.), Theories of the Mind (Free Press, 1962) pp. 689-712. 10. Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places (Free Press, 1963). 11. Cf. Erving Goffman, “On Face-Work,’’ Psychiatry 18 (1955)