3.2.6 Systems Theory and Society

Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabantu is a Zulu saying which, loosely translated, means that a person is a person through other persons.  (Once again, the ancients were a step ahead of the modern technologists here)! An interpretation (and I am indebted to an article I read by psychotherapist Loreno Sánchez Blanco for this one) is I am who I am because of who we all are.

Let us now consider how Systems Theory applies to society, acknowledging that the basic components of society are humans!

We are continually influencing our surroundings.  We can observe changes brought about by others’ influence on the environment but we may not know why they do what they do.

And in our most unaware state, we can be considered to be ignorant of the long term influence of our actions. (That is, what others might do due to our behaviour).

Even when we think we are aware, we generally use trial and error in our efforts to achieve different goals. If we think about it, it is not true that the more trial we do the less errors we will make. This might be true in the mechanical/technological world, but is not true in human interaction and relationships that form society.

History is full of examples of people doing the same things over and over again – particularly as a group – leading to events that are very destructive for humanity. There is an old saying that if we don’t learn from history we are bound to repeat it. But do we really learn? And if we examine our personal lives this may also be true. (This will be explored more fully when I describe fractals and circular development).

This – seemingly – blind adherence to patterns might be because we are driven (almost always) to prioritise our own needs, and while we may get to acknowledge the needs of those with whom we cooperate, and have intention in our cooperation, we are largely uncertain about the long-term effects of that cooperation.

(That is, what will emerge)!

In our cooperation, we almost always get to know people in our own sphere of interest or geographic location first.

However even though our actions are local they may have global consequences.  This is further discussed later. The fact that global consequences cannot really be predicted from local actions implies, once again, the property of emergence.  And the global consequences will, in turn, (and in keeping with the Zulu proverb quoted above) affect us as individuals.

I could have picked many different examples to illustrate what this means but just for simplicity I will dip into the world of music.  A local action might be making a recording of a song I write.  The emergent factor is the extent to which the buying public like the song, how much radio play, TV exposure or Youtube hits it attracts.  The global consequence is a hit record.

And perhaps some hit records might change the way people view the world!

Following on from the previous post, it is clear to see that our goals are very often in conflict.

What I mean is that your goal may hinder me in achieving my goal, so your efforts to achieve your goal may be resisted by me.  For example my desire to get a job may be hindered by your ability (and ambition, i.e desire) to get the same job.  In society, (just like in the animal or plant world) there is really no state of peace or equilibrium where we are all happy all the time.  (Remember I mentioned in the Chapter on Cause and Effect that learning new skills has an effect on our environment as much as having an effect on ourselves). 

We are in a constant state of adaptation to changes made by others, and we modify others’ environments, urging them to change too.  (For example, as parents we adapt to our child learning to cycle and then put pressure on her to modify her behaviour e.g. cycle safely).

All living things, from the single cell creature to the human are in a kind of ongoing continual mutual adaptation without which we would not have evolved from primitive single-cell life to what we are today.

As practitioners supporting families in the Focus Group the continual conflict described above seems to be in opposition to what our goal is with families, that is, pursuit of a win-win situation.

If we say that we are in a constant state of adaptation because of changes by others, what about Dad that is released from prison coming back into the family where Mam has changed norms and practices of the family to the extent that she now doesn’t want Dad’s influence – which she regards as destructive?

After all, in situations where, for example, two parents are in deep conflict and this is having a harmful effect on the children, surely a win-win situation is what is most desired?  No one really wants to lose yet this is what seems inevitable if one person’s wishes, (which, from our point of view, might be more beneficial to the children), will prevail.  (That is, in the example above, Mam will win and the Dad will lose).

In struggling with situations like this in the real world it is worth remembering that most of us are programmed to believe that if we don’t achieve our goal, or impose our will on others, we lose.

This is where a well-trained and self-aware practitioner can reframe losing, or not getting my way as reaching a limit situation [1], or a boundary, which is not the same, qualitatively, as losing though indeed it sometimes feels the same!

It is the level of skill in re-framing – that is, looking at the situation from a different perspective – that can make the difference.

[1]. Further reading on limit situations may be worthwhile.  The term is mostly attributed to the theologian and philosopher Paul Tillich to describe the angst at not getting one’s own way in the world.  The ability to accept a limit situation is a crucial developmental stage of growth in childhood.  In my experience, many people who go to prison struggle with limit situations.

Local actions have potential to become global because of the property of emergence.

Since actions are local, their effects take time to influence those that are not nearby.  Like the stones thrown into the pond mentioned in a previous post, a kind of propagation goes on from person to person, each person influencing a neighbouring person or people, and so on, through connections formed by all of us and our relationships.

As we are all different, and have different motives, the same action will have different effects on us and therefore different parts of society.  We can either put energy into the propagation or take energy out of it.  This would be akin to some action amplifying or attenuating the propagated wave in our pond. (Remember Dad in the example where the child dropped the corn-flakes).

This makes society intrinsically non-linear, meaning that an individual has limited ability to predict long term cause and effect.  Small local changes may cause large global effects by positive feedback. When there is feedback, those of us who might not be local will feed back into the conditions that started it all.

An example of this feedback from the world of politics might be when an idea promoted by someone reaches the ear of a person of influence and he sees some advantage for himself in it – thereby reinforcing the popularity of the idea until it becomes flavour of the month.  And we are all familiar with the world of marketing, where a product becomes something that everyone must have not because of necessity – like food – but because of fashion.  

Edward Lorenz, a scientist in the 1970’s, called this the butterfly effect.  He used the analogy of the harmless flap of a butterfly’s wings causing a tiny disturbance in the atmosphere which causes another disturbance nearby.  This disturbance is amplified by other disturbances and the size and extent of the disturbances grow and grow until half a world away, there is a destructive storm.

Equally, feedback can be negative, so that large changes are made smaller, possibly resulting in stabilisation of something going out of control.  (Once again, remember Dad being sympathetic and understanding of the situation of the unexpected event).

As a human, societal example of the butterfly effect, I have already mentioned the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 as the initial flap which set in train the sequence of events that led to the destructive storm of the First World War and thereafter the Second.

In this example it is worth noting that (as I stated in the third paragraph above) humans can put energy into a disturbance or take it out. Unfortunately, in 1914 the belligerent countries that participated in the First World War put energy into the crisis that arose after the assassination of the Archduke. We will never know what might have happened if energy had been taken out of it by meaningful negotiation, respect for human rights or even genuine democratic dialogue.