It is interesting from the ethical point of view to briefly examine the impact of influencing the behaviour of a system – the system, in this case, being the family.
Let us say that parents bring a child to a therapist because he is misbehaving, having tantrums, is very unhappy, and/or over-the-top oppositional etc. Many parents – at least after some time – accept that they will have to change if they want their child to change. So the family system changes. Any good therapist will know that s/he is there to encourage, invite and facilitate change, not force it or demand it. This is because change is more enduring if it is from within.
Now it is not uncommon that parents want the child to change but are reluctant to embrace change themselves. These two aims (wanting a child to change but wanting the rest of the family to stay the same) are contradictory stances under systems theory. This example, on its own, displays the power of systems theory when it is applied in human relationships.
It requires very good relationship-building skills on the part of the therapist, in such a case, to get the parents on board and be allies in their child’s healing. The therapist is influencing the system because she deems that the child has more of a right to a safe, secure childhood than the system has to remain the same. In this case, the therapist is a kind of proxy influencer.
Now let us say that the person who is being influenced is a parent – someone with a lot of power and influence.
Is it right to enable, facilitate, or encourage change in a person that we know will influence the system of which s/he is a constituent part? And knowing all we do about systems, how changes occur in humans, and emergence, is it ethically okay to proactively enable change – or should all change be allowed evolve from within?
Which has higher priority, the right of the individual or the right of the system?
This appears self-evident if the person within whom we are enabling change is a destructive alcoholic, a drug addict, or an abusive or violent person. Because his well-being or even his life may be in danger, and he is placing other people’s well-being in danger too, it is relatively easy, ethically, for most people to determine whether or not we will enable (or even encourage) what would be commonly understood to be change for the better in his behaviour.
It is well known that there are particular reasons why, for example, people fall in love with alcoholics. If the alcoholic changes and is empowered, his/her partner might not be attracted to the new person who has changed for the better, and the marriage or partnership might break up. This might have a distressing effect on children in the family. It could be argued that it might have been, in retrospect, less traumatic for all if the alcoholic had stayed drinking.
Or maybe not!
If we dig a bit deeper, we might find other ethical considerations.
While it might be obvious to state that all family members will be happier if one member who is an alcoholic gives up drink, it might not always be thus. Every situation is different – there is no right or wrong answer – I’m just mentioning it to firstly posit the benefits of looking beyond the obvious, and secondly, on a very practical level, to raise awareness that, for optimum results, support work needs to be inclusive of everyone impacted, i.e. systemic.
More about this when we come to the root foundations later in the blog.