When we want to find out more about something – that is, acquire knowledge – we usually have a purpose, i.e. a reason why. And often it is because we want to do something with the information we seek. Looking at it from the systems point of view, we can see that the reason why we are acquiring the knowledge will influence what we will discover as a result of our enquiries.
That is, enquiry is always goal-influenced.
Now in the goal of fixing an engine, ten different people will probably have the same goal, so remaining objective in seeking the knowledge is easy. The engine is not part of a living system that experiences upward and downward causation. Of course if I have a relationship with the engine – say it is a vintage engine that I lovingly restored – I might find something that an uninterested enquirer might not find – but that reflects the importance-of-the-goal-to-me rather than the goal itself.
However if the knowledge that I seek concerns living things, relationships, our emotions, human behaviour etc. it is far more difficult (if not impossible) to have objectivity.
In such cases, different gatherers of knowledge will experience the same reality in a different way. This has implications for what is right and what is wrong, what will be helpful or unhelpful, what we do with the knowledge and, if we intend responding, the design of our response.
(For example, in this website, my goal is to protect vulnerable people in a context of compassion, love, relationship, invitation, creativity and such human traits. If my goal was to protect them in a context of rigidity, coercion, hierarchy and distance I would have found different things).
I mentioned elsewhere that if a teenager is dropping out of school and getting involved in anti-social behaviour, different people who are seeking knowledge (Mammy, Daddy, the teacher, the youth club leader, the local Garda) will all – probably – have different goals.
Mammy may have a goal that her son will open up to her and acknowledge his hurt and pain and she’ll have the connection with him that she had when he was a younger boy. Daddy’s goal may be that his son, who is a talented footballer, will rejoin the football team and in that way steer clear of trouble. (I am being very stereotypical here just to make the point). Because of their different goals they may discover different things – and may also be blind to other things.
(Mammy, Daddy, Garda etc. can be considered to be part of the teenager’s super-system – his sub-system comprises his personality, his cognitive and emotional capacity, his physical health, his emergent properties).
We always have, whether we like it or not, subjectivity in our enquiry and subsequent decision making. Because of this, full awareness and wholehearted acknowledgment of systems theory is far more helpful in understanding relationships and life than purely objective methods.
Systems theory includes consideration of root foundations that are fundamental to growth. It also acknowledges the resilience of the system to change – part of the stability mentioned in the previous post – and, of course, the importance of self-organisation.
In systems theory the structure of life isn’t given like a computer programme – it develops itself, or emerges in response to its need to survive by adapting to its changing environment.
Our life is constantly changing, sometimes influencing, and at other times being influenced by our environment. We can be independent and dependent at the same time, making the prediction of behaviour (of, for example, a family, or the teenager within the family mentioned above) to be as much intuitive as logical. This is very relevant in respect of design of strategies in healing distress.
I will call this intuitive prediction – it is important in Person Centred Modality described in Chapter Four in this Section.