3.2 Systems Theory

I referred to the term systemic a number of times already, and stated in one post that it can be defined simply as how everything affects everything else. In particular, I mentioned Systems Theory [1] in the last Chapter on Cause, Effect and Nurture and now I am giving it a Chapter all to itself.

The reason that I am devoting a full Chapter to it is that I believe it to be very important in respect of the paradigms that prevail in our helping practices – particularly in those that are aimed at helping people in deep distress.

This Chapter is divided into  11 Sub-Chapters:

3.2.1                SYSTEMS THEORY – INTRODUCTION

3.2.2                EMERGENCE

3.2.3                COMPLEXITY

3.2.4                OPENNESS, BOUNDEDNESS AND PATTERNS

3.2.5                SYSTEMS, SUB-SYSTEMS AND SUPER-SYSTEMS

3.2.6                SYSTEMS THEORY AND HUMAN SOCIETY

3.2.7                STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY – SELF-ORGANISATION, EMERGENCE AGAIN

3.2.8                BOUNDARIES, LIMITS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.2.9                CULTURAL DIMENSION

3.2.10              CHAOS IN SYSTEMS THEORY

3.2.11              SYSTEMS THEORY – CONCLUSION

[1]. For those interested in further exploration of this topic, there is ample information on systems theory available from many sources.  Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Anatol Rapoport would be authorities on same, to mention but two.

The reason that systems theory is of interest to us is that it describes systems in terms of relationships – and relationship has huge importance in our work with people in distress.

Scientists, sociologists and philosophers are all interested in systems theory and its applications are both widespread, and with the world shrinking, increasingly relevant to us all.

For example I mentioned in the Introduction that one of the things that influenced me to change my thinking on the world (and what I wanted to do with my life) was reading the magazine Resurgence in the mid 1980’s.  It was in this magazine that I first came across James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis which proposed that the Earth was a living organism, and every part of it influences, and is influenced by, every other part.  This, I found fascinating and even though it was quite novel at the time it is now widely accepted.

Of course, like many modern studies, an intuitive understanding of systems theory has been with us as long as mankind has been in existence.

It could actually be argued that ancient peoples, who seemed to have an appreciation of the inter-relatedness of all living things, were far more in tune with, and appreciated the importance of systems, than our current technological world.

So like many similar phenomena that are ‘discovered’, the Gaia type thinking has actually been with us in many different cultures for thousands of years but was largely forgotten about in our rush to modernise our world over the past 300 years or so. 

I will say a lot more about this in the Chapter on Research and Evaluation.

As I described more fully in the Chapter on Cause, Effect And Nurture, mostly, in our technological world, we are so used to breaking down (reducing) problems to solve them that the entirety, or the whole of the problem, i.e. its systemic dimension is often not treated as being all that important – if it’s thought about at all.

Systems theory challenges this, implying that the whole is indeed important – particularly in entities that are growing.

If we break a growing entity down into smaller bits, our understanding of its complicated-ness might be enhanced, but our understanding of its processes and even its nature, and indeed its complexity might be diminished.

Everything that is living and/or growing, from the smallest bacteria to the entire planet is a whole and therefore is a living system.  Since it is living, it is constantly changing.  These changes can be subtle and barely noticeable but are changes nonetheless.  When we think systemically we think in terms of process, our interactions with each other, the (above-mentioned) cause and effect, growth, and universal solutions (which will be explored in the next Chapter).

Just a quick little word of warning!

As we embrace the principles of systems theory (and holism, which will be described in the Chapter on Modalities of Helping) it is important that we don’t forget the great strides that the world has made by reducing problems to their component parts.  (That is, when we look in the bathwater before throwing it out – we may find some babies)! 

The babies that we find in the reductionist bathwater are the brilliant minds of the many scientists and mathematicians that brought us the great technological advances in the world over the past 400 years or so.

I believe that reductionism [1] and its attendant scientific rigour greatly complements systems theory, and, of course, vice versa.

Simply put, it might be helpful to think that reductionism helps us to understand the minutiae and the detail etc. of life, and systems theory gives us an appreciation of how life has potential and purpose.

[1]. This will be expanded once again in Sub-Chapter on Complexity.

Inter-relatedness and inter-connectedness are very relevant in how we view our mind, our body and our consciousness, (that is, our awareness of self and others).

They enable us to be aware of how the world as we experience it every day impacts on us, and, how, in turn, we impact on the world around us.

Relevant to this website, when we view ourselves systemically (that is, in respect of self, holistically, and in respect of the world, as part of a greater system, not an isolated individual) it has the potential to change how we view the steps we take to ensure that our emotional wellness, our mental and physical health, even our spirituality is affirming and enables us to enjoy life.

When I think of emergence, I often think of the popular expression – what is meant for you won’t pass you – indicating that there is something inside of me waiting to be discovered – by me!

Emergence also enables us to understand how we are continually self-organising – every hour of every day. And self-organisation implies growth – which implies emergence – the subject of this Sub-Chapter, the first in the Chapter on Systems Theory, and which will be described in the next post, and those following.

Emergence is a fundamental element of growth in the natural world. Indeed, it is what distinguishes the natural world from the mechanical world – the world that is constructed. But emergence, in its uncertainty, is a little bit more than simple, one-dimensional, growth.

I will give two examples here which might be helpful in explaining what I mean.

As a singer and musician I find that a helpful way of including the property of uncertainty (that is fundamental to emergence), in our description, is to think of what a song is.

A song consists of words and notes and rhythm/beat all of which can be written on a page.  (Constructed, as I said above). However in addition to those words/notes/beats it has an emergent property. That is, it can be sung.  And when it is sung, it takes on an entirely different flavour to what is written on the page.

So the whole is the sum of the notes, words and rhythm and the act of singing the song.  And it is the act of singing the song that induces in us a feeling.  While what is written down in notes and words is certain, and will not change, the singing of the song is uncertain, as it depends on the singer.

(And of course it must not be forgotten that the more emergent act – or art – of singing the song preceded the reductionist writing down of it by thousands of years).

Also, the song can be sung by different singers, in different ways, in different moods, all of which affect the song.  And the song is heard by different people.  Some will love it and find it uplifting, some will be bored by it, some will be indifferent to it, some will prefer one version over another, or even the same individual may love it one day and hate it the following day.

Or, consider an artist at work.

When we have a blank canvass and we take our brush in our hand, select a colour to put on our first brush stroke we have a general idea of what it’s going to turn out like – but – unless we paint by numbers – we don’t really know.

Our picture emerges from our imagination which is in turn fed by all our experiences, what mood we are in, how we are feeling, etc.  When the picture is finished one could say that that’s the end of it.

But maybe not, because the picture might be framed and hung, and (like a song) may have some impact on a viewer that was totally unintended by the person who once held her brush over a palette of paints with a blank canvas in front of her.

When Leonardo da Vinci held his brush in front of the blank canvas to paint the Mona Lisa he probably didn’t know that it would be hung in one of the most prestigious art galleries in the world and be viewed by millions of people, and (reportedly) altering people’s lives in different ways.

It is interesting for us to consider emergence when it applies to symbols – this is because the ability to use symbols to convey meaning is unique to humans.

In the previous post I used the example of a song to describe emergence. I stated that a song is far more than words, notes and beats written on a page. And these, of course, are symbols.

Still on the music theme, we can imagine a collection of shapes, such as horizontal lines in parallel, vertical thick lines, vertical thin lines, vertical double lines, a line and a dot, squiggles, triangles, circles, dashes, teardrops, and various others.  We then rearrange these into symbols, put them in different order and sequence, extend them into longer musical sentences so that they mean something to those who have learned to read them, and so on and so on with more and more complications until we have a symphony.

It is human interaction that transforms the shapes, all of which are found naturally in nature, into the symphony.  Reducing the symphony into a random collection of shapes would remove the meaning of the overall.

The same can be said for poetry, prose (the written word), art, architecture, engineering/science – virtually everything man-made. 

I invite you to have a look at the images on this website by the Japanese psychologist Akiyoshi Kitoaka.  These are optical illusions. Here, emergence is evident.  When we look at the images they appear to be moving, but when we fix our eyes on one point in any of the images, the apparent movement stops.  Actually, in reality, nothing is moving! The lines and dots in the images are arranged in a particular way and our eyes (or our brains) are fooled accordingly.

In respect of the written word, I don’t have anything against self-help books that offer us advice on different aspects of living – in fact, some are very helpful – but sometimes I get more out of a novel or film that is reflective, or contains indirect or implicit messages.

This may facilitate emergence, and/or allow something to unfold that may surprise, or reveal something unexpected. A story, like a song or a poem, has emergent properties – because we all interpret it through our own subjective experience.

And in Christianity, the New Testament, which gives billions throughout the world a blueprint for living is full of symbolism. It is written in such a way that suggests emergence is very important to humans. We interpret the messages, parables and little stories subjectively. As I have stated elsewhere, sometimes what has emerged has not been advantageous to much of humanity – but that is more due to our tendency to be ambivalent than it is to the messages themselves.

In the world of business we often hear of a merger between two companies to improve their competitiveness and get one up over their rivals.  The word merger, of course, is related to emergence, and very often the companies will find that joining together will bring something new that might have unintended consequences – for better or worse! 

Having offered some understanding of emergence in the last two posts, 3.2.2.2, and 3.2.2.3, I will now discuss the relevance of systems theory when it comes to the family – which – as I said earlier – has a central role to play in healing of hurt and distress.

Systems theory posits that all forms of life unfolds or emerges and that relationships involve self-organisation – that is, making decisions in respect of growth based on influences that come from within as much as are external.

For example, when two people meet, fall in love, live together and decide to start a family (as we used to say back in the day) their actions have potential beyond which they themselves imagine at that time.

Their family, even as yet not begun, will increase in complexity as it unfolds, emerges and organises itself, (that is, as it grows).  The decision of the two people has potential, capacity, and intention contained within the decision itself – independent of any external influence or pressures. Families that are good enough have a high level of self-organisation which enhances trust, at-ease relationships and both individual and collective responsibility.

The trust arises from the healthy acceptance of uncertainty.

I’m pretty sure that all parents will agree that the whole of their family cannot be reduced to individual parts.  (Once again, the ancients knew this; I believe that the expression the whole is more than the sum of their parts is attributed to Aristotle, the Greek philosopher).

Just to explain, let us say that a family consists of Mammy, Daddy and three children. Now let us say that someone wants to understand some element of the family’s growth, (for example, how relationships are forming). Their understanding will not be very complete if they meet only the youngest child and no-one else, or Daddy and no-one else.

The reason that the understanding and appreciation of the whole is diminished by being reduced (to its individual parts as I said above) is simply that life (and growth) is dependent on how each part interacts with the other in the system, in our case the family.

The act of reducing will diminish the appreciation of the importance of the constant interaction.

This is what makes the family dynamic (that is, constantly changing), and open, (that is, subject to internal and external influences) further implying that the family is constantly active and interactive within itself and its environment, rather than waiting passively to respond to an external stimulus.

So you will notice that most of the things that matter a lot to us are emergent.  (For example, life itself, love, growth, confidence, music, family, art, etc.).

And X-Factor notwithstanding, singing a song is not, I believe, something that can be measured using reductive measurement!

The similarity between the descriptions of the song, the painting, and story etc. and the description of the Sun in the paragraph on Cause and Effect is obvious.

On a final note on emergence and/or self organisation, it is evident that there are many mysterious phenomena in nature that are not explained by conventional scientific understanding as we know it.

Examples would be how termites make and repair their mounds, how pigeons home, how birds change direction in a murmuration with no apparent lead bird, even how dogs find their way home. 

Have a look at the video in the murmuration link. What, we wonder, is the purpose of the display? Is it for fun? Is it to practice avoiding predators? Whatever its purpose, it is certainly wonderful to behold! And why is it wonderful? Where does wonder come from?

Some scientists believe that there are forces, fields, phenomena as yet unexplained at work in such cases.

The scientist Rupert Sheldrake has called these forces morphic fields.  His theories speculate that the fields that enable self-organisation evolve in sympathy with the influence of like upon like through space and time.

Nobody has the plan, really, for an oak tree, an anthill or a family.  They simply grow, organise themselves and emerge!

Complexity is closely connected to systems theory but is considered to be a science on its own and while I will not dwell on it in great detail its relevance to our subject matter will be dealt with in the Chapter on Modalities of Helping when I discuss Complex Variables in respect of helping people in distress.

I will discuss it a little here before moving on to explore the family and society in the context of systems theory.

We are nowadays familiar with the term globalisation, which is used to describe how people, economies, cultures etc. all over the world are closely connected.  In the world of technology, compatibility and standardisation are very important elements in globalisation, and differences in manufactured goods – and their constituent parts – have diminished, and are diminishing more and more, as time goes on.

And in parallel with this standardisation among material goods there has been huge increase in contact among people, organisations and cultures through worldwide travel and other forms of communications, (e.g. TV, mobile phones, e-mail, social media) which has, in turn, led to far more social complexity than any time in human history. 

Also, technology, politics, the economy, fashion etc. are now far more influential in terms of their ability to cause change in society than in centuries past.   And the time it takes change to occur has shortened considerably.

Just to remind ourselves of how quickly the world has changed, it is only in the last few decades that we have been able to contact relatives, friends and acquaintances in far off places that we can both visit within hours by flying, and communicate with instantly using phone calls, Zoom, Skype, social media etc. For thousands of years before that, the vast majority of the population of the world knew only people in their own village, town or neighbouring towns.

Now, when we reduce the whole to its component parts to understand it better and then use it for our benefit (reductionism – as I described in some detail already) we also have to explore the relationships between the component parts, i.e. how one part affects the other.

In engineering, economics, business, even biology/chemistry, these relationships are usually expressed mathematically and are often complicated and difficult to understand for those not mathematically inclined. 

When we view something in its wholeness, and try to understand it from a systems perspective we do not usually express the relationships mathematically.

Wholeness implies constant change and complexity and it is important to remember this complex aspect of wholeness.

I believe that the increase in complexity (when we come to human/social type problems) means that we need to think about solving them in a different way than we did in the past. Towards the end I have a Sub-Chapter entitled Creativity And Uncertainty. There I propose that the tide is coming in in respect of looking at problem-solving in a different way!

We can see how awareness of complexity is helpful when we think of decision making in areas where humans often struggle. For example, how we structure society, what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what isn’t, or even determining whether or not science and art are value free. (What I mean by value free is whether or not I – a scientist – can invent something that will do harm to the world and then take no responsibility for the harm done because someone else uses my invention to do the harm. Or I as a writer can write and publish an article, song, book etc. – or, indeed, this website – that may influence others and absolve myself of any responsibility for the actions of others who have been influenced by what I have written).

Perhaps the complexity of wholeness and its implications for humanity (which is the most complex aspect of it) is difficult for left-brain reductionist mathematically inclined people – who lean towards complicated-ness – to grasp.

Just, as an exercise, let us consider this from the intelligence point of view.

Generally, in people’s thinking, if we understand the complicated mathematical equations that describe and underpin, say, the manufacture of a nuclear bomb or a surface-to-air missile we are thought to be intelligent. But, of course, this is only one kind of intelligence. Perhaps, while we are endowed with high mathematical and linguistic intelligence, we do not have the intelligence to truly grasp the implications for humanity of what we are doing – because that intelligence has a high emotional dimension, and it resides in the body and heart as much as in the brain and head.

But – as we know from neuroscience – constant exposure and awareness raising can always bring new learning and change our views! Worldwide communication brings both benefits and challenges but one undeniable reality is that as the world has become smaller [1], we have become far more aware of its systemic nature, and our responsibilities in respect of same.

More and more of us, nowadays, can see the bigger picture, and are intelligent enough to request that our pension funds or savings are ethically invested, lest we fund corporations that harm other humans, animals or the Earth in general. This will reduce the likelihood that we will – albeit indirectly – contribute to suffering, and/or destruction of our planet.

This is systemic thinking, and when I was young this kind of awareness was not at all as prevalent in society. Perhaps our body-heart intelligence is increasing gradually as time goes on.

Systems theory proposes that reality is as much relational as material.

That is, our real world is as dependent on our relationships as it is on what we can touch, taste, sense, hear, smell etc. While this thinking has emerged in the world we live in now, it is not really new, and has always been in our awareness to some extent or another. 

To sum up, our increasing awareness of complexity and systems theory influences society at large – and is doing so more and more.

It also deepens our understanding of how humans function and how society is ordered, and is of great assistance in designing effective responses to assist people in deep distress.

In the next Sub-Chapter I will look at on how an appreciation of such factors assists our understanding of how changes happen in the family.

(Further reading on the subject of complexity is available in a book entitled Observing Complexity by Rasch and Wolfe. Older concepts worth reading (but difficult) are those by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel on freedom, self-determination etc).

[1]. Now that’s very subjective – the world is the exact same size as it was before air travel, Skype, etc.  It just appears smaller because we can get around it faster!

We might like to think that the family is a bounded entity where members can be themselves, grow, blow off steam, display their eccentricities, their true emotions, that is, a haven of safety in the big harsh judgmental and uncertain world.

And indeed, the good enough family is probably just that!

Systems theory suggests that even though the family is indeed bounded, it still has a substantial degree of openness.

The boundary can define the family, that is, give it an identity.  But because it is also open, its identity is not fixed, as information, knowledge, feelings etc. flowing into and out of the family, and of course, growth itself, may cause changes in identity over time. 

Mostly these changes in identity cause changes in the relationships within the family, and with other families.

Other families (i.e. the extended family, or indeed the small community, wherein the changes occur), will, for the purposes of this discussion in the next few posts, be called a network.  (I use this term as it is the term often used in articles, books etc. about systems theory).

In the network, (extended families or small communities), open systems (families) will have relations with each other, and each system will determine to some extent how the network functions – even though changes might seem to be initially insignificant or barely noticeable.

You will probably see where I am going here, talking about relations, as relationships are in constant motion as I will discuss in the next post.