3.2.5 Systems, Sub-Systems And Super-Systems

If you read articles, books etc. on systems theory you will come across terms like sub-systems and super-systems and in this Sub-Chapter I will describe them as to how they pertain to family life. I have stated already that the family has a central role in healing, and that is why we are considering systems theory in respect of the family at all.

The theory proposes that relationships are very powerful in networks. In our case we can consider a network to be family, extended family, community etc. It also proposes that society is akin to a living organism, and cannot be broken down into individual entities that exist in isolation.

Every system contains a sub-system, and here I will explain how this applies to the family.

My family (the system) contains a number of sub-systems (me and my siblings), all of which, in turn, contain further sub-systems, (our individual personalities, physical make up, ages, etc. – personality and physical make-up being a system of sorts).

We can say that my family exercises a downward influence on me an individual, and I, an individual, exercise a downward influence on my physical make up, personality etc.

That is, my family’s norms and values are influential in respect of what my norms and values are, and my norms and values affect what I portray to the world, and my physical make up. In systems theory this is known as downward causation.

Of course, all the time this is going on, my personality traits or physical make up will influence my behaviour, which will, in turn, influence my family – like knowledge flow, the influence is two-way. This is upward causation.

My family’s influence also extends upwards to my larger extended family, (we will call this a super-system), which in turn extends upwards towards my community.  Similarly my community extends upwards towards my town, locality, city, etc., which in turn extends upward towards the region I live in, then my country and so on.

Now while the downward direction is suggestive of the older method of reductionism and analysis of ever smaller components, the upward direction implies holism and emergence.

So – and importantly – the reductionist methods are not ignored, but are complemented by the more systemic relationships within the networks.

The state of our relationships determines the characteristic (or characteristics) that are growing, or developing, that define(s) who we are, how we are identified, how we relate to others. 

This quality of emergence is at least as powerful, if not more powerful in identifying us, than the properties of the original parts.

To recap on the last post, my behaviour is determined by my personality, level of intellectual ability, physical prowess, ability and willingness to manage my emotional state etc., and equally by the (usually unwritten) rules, or norms of the family that I live in. My family’s behaviour is determined by the collective behaviours of members, and also by the rules/norms of our extended family. And so on.

So systems (and what we have called super-systems, such as a family in respect of an individual, or a community in respect of an extended family) do not really act independently.

The whole of the system (i.e. the community) is determined by the traits, or characteristics – what we call the properties – of the parts (the families) but also, the parts are influenced by the properties of the whole.

Getting back to me as an individual, there is an upward causation and downward causation operating on me all the time.  My neurophysiology causes me to be who I am, (upward causation), and the rules/norms of my extended family also cause me to be who I am, (downward causation). (Remember – causation means simply the action of causing something to happen).

Let me give a practical example of downward causation here – in respect of my family in my life at age, say, 22, when the last of my grandparents died. Of course, there were other elements of downward causation, e.g. school, friends, employment etc. but family is probably the most influential.

I would say that since I lived with both my parents until I was almost an adult, I estimate that both had virtually equal influence, though in different ways, on me.  It is also interesting to ponder on the downward causation of my four grandparents.  I estimate that my mother’s father had the biggest influence on me because he died when I was about 22 whereas my father’s father died when I was only 12.  My father’s mother died before I was born and my mother’s mother died when I was 6.  In other words, the norms and values of my mother’s father probably caused more effects in me than any of my other grandparents.  In addition to the fact that he didn’t die until I was an adult, he had what I would describe as a strong personality, and I felt liked by him, thereby amplifying the downward causation.

My eight great-grandparents have an indirect – sometimes conscious and sometimes unconscious – influence on me.

Even though I never met any of them, stories of some of their lives have been passed down through just three generations. Others are hidden and not known to me. The ones whose stories I have heard probably have a conscious influence and the influence of the hidden ones is unconscious. (When I say influence I am talking about norms, interests, habits, values etc.)

In general, it probably follows that the farther back we go – say, for example, our 32 great-great-great grandparents – the less will be the influence of their individual personalities, and the more will be the influence of a kind of collective personality, (that is, a synthesis of all the individual ones) in respect of downward causation because it will be filtered through many generations and impacted by far more influences. (These influences feed into the Atlantic Ocean of emotions that I referred to already).

Another aspect of downward causation and upward causation is manifest in one of the many paradoxes of being human.  That is, the phenomenon of wanting to be the same as everyone else, have a history, fit into our family and society in general (downward causation) yet retain our individuality and be true to ourselves (upward causation).

Both desires (being part of the greater human family while at the same time ensuring our uniqueness within that family) which at first sight appear to oppose each other, seem to be of great importance to us.

Perhaps getting the balance of these opposing forces is our life project!

Not everyone is the same, of course.  Apologies to younger readers here – but showing my sixties bias – we are all on a spectrum ranging from the Dedicated Follower of Fashion immortalised in the satirical song by The Kinks to The Beatles’ Eleanor Rigby, i.e. someone who appears to be completely at one with alone-ness.

It might be interesting to look at downward causation in a global sense – and observe how some people are remembered and some are forgotten.

For example Julius Caesar, who lived over 2,000 years ago, is remembered by (probably) most people in the Western World.  Because he was an emperor of what was at that time the world’s greatest empire he was revered by many who wanted to be powerful and saw themselves as emperors. Perhaps someone has some global downward causation until their influence in the world (however little that influence might be) is no more. In the case of Julius Caesar, I believe that his name lived on into the 20th Century in the titles of Czar and Kaiser!

Contrast that to my great grandfather who only died in 1913, 12 years before my father was born. He is only remembered by individuals within our extended family that have the interest to find out.

An interesting aspect of a family is that it tends to sustain or maintain its own properties, or the characteristics which it is known by.  Sometimes those properties are of benefit, i.e. bring some reward, and sometimes they are not, but, curiously, they are still maintained.

A family will almost always discourage departures from a preferred stability, to maintain a particular characteristic, like a spinning wheel, which through its own momentum maintains its direction.

There are similarities here to the termite colony which I mentioned in the post on emergence.  The colony possesses a kind of super-intelligence that seems to be greater than each individual termite’s intelligence.  This ensures stability in respect of temperature, size, amount of oxygen, and any other factors that are necessary for the colony to survive and thrive. Any sudden change in any of the factors would be harmful to the colony’s survival.

It is important to remember this tendency-to-maintain-stability when we are supporting a family with the goal of changing patterns that we deem to be harmful. Sudden change forced from the outside can sometimes do more harm than good – whereas slow change initiated from within is likely to be a lot more enduring.

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.