"It seems that cybernetics is many different things to many different people ... However, all of those perspectives arise from one central theme, and that is that of circularity. ... When, perhaps a half century ago, the fecundity of this concept was seen, it was sheer euphoria to philosophize, epistemologize, and theorize about its consequences, its ramification into various fields, and its unifying power."

- Heinz von Foerster

Prior to the rise of cybernetics, 'circularity' had become a suspicious notion in Western academic circles. Arguments, events, and processes which 'went nowhere' were described as 'vicious circles'. People incapable of constructive action or progress were characterized as 'going in circles'. In conventional logic, 'circular reasoning' was treated as a pathology to be avoided. More broadly, the Enlightenment engendered a paradigmatic motif of linear historical progress whose adoption effectively precluded consideration of circularity.

As a result, circularity was a 'bad word' in the parlance of science and even in philosophy. Its return as a viable and valuable construct would only occur once science (particularly biological and social sciences) began having problems explaining phenomena in terms of 'linearity'. This didn't occur until the mid-20th century, when the first cyberneticians accorded circularity its newfound and rightful respect.

This aspect of 'circularity' may seem trivial on first inspection. It certainly hasn't been emphasized much in the cybernetics literature. However, its criticality lies in its role as referential context for the aspect of 'circularity' more commonly cited in explaining cybernetics. Such circular form or constitution in systemic entities provides the basic road map for tracing the course of systems' functions and processes. This makes for descriptions and explanations which themselves emphasize 'circularity' in the second (and more historically important) sense described in the next subsection. It is also important to note that this connotative effect is reciprocal. The first step in analyzing a circular process or chain of causation is to circumscribe the 'system' manifesting it.

As was noted above with respect to circular organization, there is only scattered and allusive historical evidence for an appreciation of circularity in function or process. One assumes the builders of (e.g.) the early float regulator mechanisms had some conceptualization of the circular causality these artifacts exploited, but there are no written records to prove this. To be sure, various philosophers (e.g., Descartes) and natural scientists illustrated responsive behaviors (e.g., reflex) in terms of a circular path of stimulus and action as early as the 17th century. However, such allusions remained descriptive or illustrative, and no deeper analysis of their significance can be claimed to have been undertaken at that time. James Watt expended years of effort in perfecting his flyball governor during the mid-1700's, but he was more interested in making his steam engine practicable than devising any generalized theory. Both Airy (1840's) and Maxwell (1860's) applied mathematical techniques to analyze stability in mechanical 'feedback circuits', but neither seemed to have dwelt on the general issue of circularity.

Such circularity was implicit in the notion of self-maintained 'homeostasis' in living systems - a concept introduced by Bernard circa 1855 and more formally treated by Cannon in 1929. As was the case with the 19th century engineers, their description of the general outcome overshadowed any attentions to an explanation of the causation thus insinuated. In 1933, Korbzyski's description of language as a circular structure went on to address cirularity of function. He noted a given effect will become a causative element in determining future effects, and that the results of this recursive causation would necessarily be rich and complex.