C. Raeff, A Framework for Thinking about Complexity

May 23, 2022 Introducing a systems framework for thinking about complexity in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics...

Hello It’s Complex Readers,

I hope all is well and that you are not too overwhelmed by complexity. This week’s newsletter is a crash course in systems theory. We will then use a systems perspective in future newsletters as a starting point to think about and deal with the world’s complexities in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics. Please don’t be scared off by a theory! Systems theory is very useful! We will not get technical and there will be concrete examples.

---

Introducing Systems Theory

When I first told a friend that I was thinking of starting a newsletter about how the world is a complex place, she responded by telling me that everyone knows that the world is a complex place, full of complex issues, problems, situations, and events. What we need to know is how to think about and deal with the complexity.

To deal with complex issues and problems, we need a way of understanding and seeing the world in terms of complexity. We need to start with a framework or perspective that defines the world complexly in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness, and dynamics. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch. We can start with systems theory which is my go-to framework for thinking about the world in a systematic (pun intended) and organized way. In this newsletter, I will introduce some basic systems premises, with the goal of providing tools for jumping into the fray of complexity.

A Little Background

“System” is a common word that you might use frequently. You may talk about and deal with varied systems on a daily basis, such as the healthcare system, the education system, the criminal just system, or the nervous system. And of course, there is “the system” that you just can’t beat. There is much discussion about systemic issues (e.g., systemic inequality, systemic racism) and how to bring about systemic change. But what is a system? How can a system be defined? In common usage, a system refers to something big and unwieldy with a lot of parts that are sometimes difficult to understand and keep track of. Systems theory provides a way of thinking about complex phenomena beyond saying that they involve a lot of parts and seem to have a life of their own.

I first learned about systems theory years ago when I was a graduate student in psychology at Clark University. We read some work by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), who was an early contributor to contemporary systems theory and whose seminal book, General System Theory, was published in 1968. My understanding of systems theory also stems from the work of developmental psychologists who conceptualize development from a systems perspective (e.g., Richard Lerner, Esther Thelen, Seymour Wapner). Contemporary systems approaches span varied disciplines (including biology, environmental studies, sociology, psychology), and are rooted in philosophical traditions that emphasize holism, connectedness, and dynamics.

A central premise of systems theory is that a system is a wider whole that is made up of multiple simultaneously-occurring, connected, and dynamic parts. Systems can also be subsytemic parts of other wider systems, making for systems, sub-systems, sub-sub-systems, and so on.

Multiple and Connected Parts

A system’s multiple parts can be connected in varied ways, depending on the system. But no part is an island. The parts are distinct, but they are not separate entities; they are inseparable. They do not occur independently. Some parts may be connected directly and some indirectly.

Systems theory emphasizes connections that involve interrelatedness, which means that the parts mutually affect each other and function in relation to each other. They feed off of each other. Interrelations among the parts affect the functioning of the whole system, which emerges through the functioning of its parts. And if something happens to one part of the system, other parts and their interrelations are affected, and all together that can affect the functioning of the wider whole. In addition, the parts are meaningful within a wider whole that affects the parts. As such, parts not only affect the whole, but the whole affects the parts as well. There are thus part ← → part interrelations and part ← → whole interrelations to consider. The bidirectional arrows mean that the influences go both ways, sometimes simultaneously. To understand a system, it is not enough to acknowledge and identify multiple parts. You have to go further and connect the dots between and among the parts, as well as between and among parts and wholes. Be prepared to draw a lot of bi-directional arrows! And depending on the system, some multi-directional arrows too.  

Take a family, for example. A family can be understood as a system that is made up of multiple and interrelated parts, namely the distinct people who comprise the family. (Each person can also be understood as a system, but more on that in the next newsletter.) With regard to part ← → part interrelations, the varied family members mutually influence each other and different family members may relate to each other in different ways. If something happens to one person in the family, it does not only affect that one person. It can affect other family members, how they interact with each other, and how they affect each other. In addition, the ways in which different family members behave as distinct individuals and how they relate to each other shape the functioning of the family as a whole. Maybe when the parents are arguing, a shadow is cast over the whole family and they do not function cohesively. At the same time, the functioning of the family as a whole can affect how individual family members behave, as well as how they relate to each other. When a family is functioning cohesively, individual family members may be cheerful and respectful, both at home and in other contexts. When a family is functioning cohesively, the children work hard in school and the parents are productive at work. The wider whole of the family is affecting its parts, at the same time that the parts are affecting each other and the whole family.

Dynamics

The dynamics premise of systems theory means that a system’s functioning is ongoing and not static. It is always in the process of emerging or coming into being. As such, system parts can be organized, or structured, or played out in different ways. When system parts are played out in different ways—including changing interrelations among the parts—different  modes of wider system functioning can always emerge. Variability is thus characteristic of dynamic system functioning. Variability means that a system can function in more than one way, depending on how its parts are organized at any fleeting moment of analysis. Dynamic variability further means that new modes of system functioning can emerge if a system’s parts are organized in new ways. Nothing is set in stone.

As it turns out, even stones are not set in stone. They are dynamic; they change. Maybe it takes them a long, long, long, time to change, but change they do because their parts involve dynamic processes. Years ago, my sister lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and we travelled a lot in the American southwest. I learned about how varied rock formations formed and changed over the course of millennia due to multiple factors, from sediment accumulation, to salt flow, to erosion. In the Arches National Park guidebook that I bought, there is a picture of a rock formation called Chip-Off-the-Old-Block. It shows several rocks perched one on top of the other, and it stands near a larger formation of rocks perched one on top of the other, called Balanced Rock. Below this picture is another picture of this scene, but without Chip-Off-the-Old-Block, which toppled over during the winter of 1975-1976. As the guidebook points out: “The land is changing continually; grains of sand tumble from a cliff face or an arch ceiling every day…The scenery at Arches may look immutable, but each time you return, if you look closely you can see the gradual metamorphosis of the landscape” (Johnson, 1985/1987, pp. 16-17).

In other words, nothing lasts forever. Sometimes that is very sad, but sometimes it is very good! It is good when you do not like current circumstances and want them to change. And so, thanks to the complexity of dynamic systemic processes, hope springs eternal. Throughout the Trump presidency, political and cultural analysts wondered and wrote about whether there will be permanent damage to American democracy. Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe and hopefully not because circumstances can change and human beings can make change happen. Sometimes we say that “it is what it is,” and this phrase apparently increased in usage in the 2000s. According to Dictionary.com, It is what it is is “an expression used to characterize a frustrating or challenging situation that a person believes cannot be changed and must just be accepted.” However, from a systems perspective, what it is can and does change.

Sometimes, new ways of system functioning cannot be predicted because you never know how dynamic system parts will be played out. Stuff happens during the ongoing course of system functioning. Have you ever found that sometimes the apparently same situation is different? I remember a gathering at my parents’ home years ago. They had invited some people for a delicious and plentiful meal. It was very nice and I thoroughly enjoyed it. A year later, the same people gathered again at my parents’ house. I looked forward to it, but it was not so nice. I was confused and disappointed. I kept trying to figure out what went wrong. A systems framework now enables me to understand that unpredictable variability is to be expected because the processes that comprise wider system functioning can always be played out in varied ways. As the saying goes, you can’t step into the same river twice, or in this case, you can’t go to the same dinner party twice. But even now that I know that a gathering of the same people will not always be the same, I cannot predict exactly will happen from one gathering to the next. I remember back in early 2020 when Joe Biden was losing primaries right and left. Who would have predicted that he would become the frontrunner and win the election? Anything is possible. So never say never. Expect the unexpected. One of my favorite lines from research in developmental psychology is that “sometimes attachment in infancy predicts later psychosocial functioning, and sometimes it does not” (Thompson, 1999, p. 274). And when I was anxious about the future and conjuring up all sorts of worst-case scenarios, my father was always quick to admonish me: “Don’t speculate.”

So much news analysis is so speculative about the future. Commentators and pundits discuss what they think will happen, how they think X will play out, what they think someone will do next, or how they think someone will respond. But sometimes, some refuse to speculate, saying that they cannot predict the future. Some analysts say that they cannot predict who will win an election because you never know what will happen between now and election day. Nevertheless, analysts are constantly called upon to speculate and predict. But within a few days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was talk about what had NOT been predicted or expected, including how resolutely the Ukrainians resisted, how effectively President Zelensky lead Ukraine, how Putin faltered militarily, how united Europe and NATO were, and how quickly economic sanctions on Russia were ratcheted up.

Fortunately, it is not all always totally unpredictable. Although dynamic variability characterizes systems, so too does stability. Thus, understanding any particular system includes discerning how it functions in both variable and stable ways. (Allow me to note at this point that I am not a fan of dichotomies and thus am drawn to systems theory partly because it eschews dichotomizing variability and stability and generally promotes non-dichotomous thinking. Stay tuned for more about problematic dichotomies another time.) Systems are stable when ongoing system processes are played out in some similar ways. Another way that system functioning is marked by stability is when some changes in a system’s functioning are stable and can be predicted. For example, the ocean tides change in stable and predictable ways, and systemic stability ensures that caterpillars predictably change into butterflies and that tadpoles predictably change into frogs. Geoscientists can predict some of the changes that the earth and its rocks will undergo. I could predict that my father would tell me not to speculate.

Going back to families as an example of a system, family functioning can be understood dynamically in terms of variability and stability. A family may function in some consistent or stable ways over time. Each family member behaves in their usual characteristic ways, and they engage with each other as they typically do. But family functioning also changes as people live their lives. Sometimes families change in unpredictable ways, as children grow up, as parents may separate, as parents age, as new people join the family, and as people die. Sometimes stuff happens and there can be a shock to the family. Families may go through some difficult times and function in varied ways. But then, as they navigate the tough times, they may end up functioning in new ways that are stable, at least for a while.

Using Systems Theory

Systems theory mitigates and can even prevent getting overwhelmed by complexity by providing tools for thinking about the world systemically in terms of multidimensionality, connectedness (especially interrelatedness) and dynamics. Another way of putting it is that thinking complexly about the world means thinking about it systemically. When you are trying to understand something complex about the world, see it holistically as a system and connect the dots among its multiple parts. Think about the multiple parts that are involved, think about how they are interrelated, and think about how they have been and currently are both variable and stable. If you are dissatisfied with how a system is functioning, think about how its parts are currently structured and functioning. How could the wider system and its parts be restructured to function differently—and hopefully better?

And yet, I must admit that systems thinking can itself sometimes be overwhelming because once you start seeing issues in terms of multiple, interrelated, and dynamic parts and wholes, it is hard to stop. Ultimately, you end up with the entire universe as the system to think about, along with every possible part of the universe as subsystems without end. However, it is neither practical nor necessary to go so wide to start thinking systemically about varied complex issues. You can think about small-scale world complexities, as well as large-scale world complexities. You also do not have to think about all the parts of a system or all the sub-systemic parts of the parts all the time. You can focus on a particular part of the world, while recognizing that it does not exist in isolation from other parts of the world. You can focus on a particular issue and some of its multiple parts.

Thus far, I have defined a system in terms of multiple, connected, and dynamic “parts.” Because I like linguistic variety, I will also use the terms constituents, dimensions, and aspects as interchangeable synonyms for parts. In the section above on system dynamics, I pointed out that system “processes” can be played out in varied ways. I think of processes as a kind of system part/constituent/dimension/aspect. In other words, systems are made up of multiple parts, including processes. I also wrote that system processes can be “played out,” “structured,” or “organized” in varied ways. Again for the sake of linguistic variety, I will use “played out,” “structured,” and “organized” interchangeably to refer to system functioning.

In the next two newsletters, there will be some more examples of how to start thinking systemically about our complex world. Next week will be about people as systems, and in two weeks, we will think systemically about the earth and climate change, the pandemic, and systemic racism. Then, stay tuned for a newsletter with some practical tips for how to use a systems perspective. We will then have a basic systems foundation for pondering and grappling with varied complex issues that comprise our complex world. I plan to start with why people do what they do—which is certainly a complex issue.

Some Questions to Think and Comment About

            What do you think? What interested you, what struck you, what surprised you?

            What are some systems that you deal with and how can a systems perspective help you to understand them? What are some of their multiple, connected, and dynamic parts?

            What questions do you have about any of this?

Reference

Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early attachment and later development. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 265-286). New York: Guilford Press.