Much like the general lenses of function and emotion,I’d like to add a third lens to our toolbelt—er… camera bag—the lens of systems. This has been a difficult one for me to write, partly because I’ve been nervous about doing justice to the joy I felt reading Donella Meadows’ Thinking in Systems for the first time. I doubt I’ve accomplished that, especially because this way of thinking has already pervaded the discussion so far—we’ve been exploring each concept in the relational context, so much of it will feel familiar. Beyond that, the language of Systems Theory has become so commonplace in the broader culture, that it barely seems worth defining the core terms. So I’ll try to be quick:
In abstract terms, the idea of a “system” refers to multiple parts in meaningful relationship to one another, which form a coherent whole that collectively does something. More specifically, in contrast to more familiar “reductive” or “mechanistic” ways of understanding (where you try to break it down or take it apart in order to understand it) “Systems Thinking” turns our attention to the connections between things, rather than those individual pieces themselves. Thinking systemically means trying to understand something by understanding the “bigger picture” of which that thing is a part.
Though I’ll return to this later, one central insight of systems theory is the relationship between a system’s structure (how the parts are connected to each other, and how they affect one another) and its function (how the system as a whole behaves, both within itself, and in relation to the broader environment). Looking at the system of a car engine, each “part” has a specific “place” in relation to the other parts it is connected to, such that if we randomly rearranged the connections, (so that now the windshield wiper fluid drains into the fuel injector, for example) the engine would obviously cease to “function” (at least in the way we expect of car engines.)
So to apply the “systems lens” to our relationships, means understanding the causes and effects of our behavior in a relationship in reference to that relationship rather than trying to understand that behavior on its own, in isolation. Much like the lenses of function and emotion, the systems lens has a tendency to insult our sense of self-determination, but much like them, if we dare to look through it, it can really help with figuring out whats going on, and what might be necessary to do about it.
Feedback Loops
When we talk about the “connections” or “meaningful relationships” between parts of a system, we are often talking about “feedback loops” between those parts. A classic example of a feedback loop is the system of a thermostat and a heater. When the thermometer senses an air temperature lower than the thermostat’s setting, the heater is turned on, and when it senses a temperature above that setting, the heater is turned off. The “cause” of the sensor-reading is the room’s air temperature and the effect of that sensor reading—through the turning on or off of the heater—is also on the room’s air temperature, in a sort of “loop” of causality.
Though without giving them this name until now, we’ve already been discussing feedback loops extensively, in the forms of the “reciprocal influence” of partner’s behavior shaping each other, or the effects of two partners’ emotional states on each other. When my emotions are a response to your emotions which are a response to mine, we form an emotional system. Even without another person present, I form a system with my environment, in the “loop” of perception and action (discussed here and here)—in the sense that my actions depend on my perceptions of the shape of my environment, while also functioning to re-shape that environment, and thus influencing future perception of that environment.
These loops can have various “functions” within the system depending on the system’s structure (how the parts influence one another) and are broken down into a few basic categories based on their function.
In “reinforcing” or amplifying loops, a change in one part causes a similar change in another part, which then “feeds back” to the first, functioning to “amplify” that change over time. This describes the phenomenon where your interpersonal warmth prompts an increase in my warmth which in turn prompts a further increase in your warmth resulting in an overall increase in collective system warmth. In a “balancing” (or homeostatic) loop, a change in you might instead prompt an opposite or counterbalancing change in me, as when I stop initiating contact as you as soon as you start initiating, resulting in a constant, or “equilibrium” level of system-wide initiation.
Connecting to our previous discussion of attachment in relationships, the “attachment behavior” of partners represents a centrally important feedback loop where one partner’s behavior of withdrawing from emotional connection prompts the other partner’s behavior of pursuing, in turn prompting further withdrawal, and so on.
Homeostasis
The idea of a homeostatic system is almost as foundational to systems theory as the idea of a system itself. Abstractly composed of a sensor, controller, and actuator, a homeostat maintains its internal state within certain parameters, by “resisting” the fluctuations of the outside environment. To return to the example of the thermostat, if we add an air conditioner to the system, we see that the system maintains the temperature of the room within comfortable parameters by “resisting” fluctuations from outside the system.
On almost every level of analysis we care to look at when it comes to relationships, we see things trying to stay the same. Any “attached” interpersonal relationship is by definition homeostatic so long as it maintains its “attached” state. In other words, that relationship must be structured in such a way that it maintains its partners practical proximity and ongoing behavioral interchange. The partners emotional states, proximity, communication frequency, life conditions, etc. must be kept within a range consistent with the “survival conditions” of that relationship—i.e. without a “breakup.” Each partner is also their own homeostatic “subsystem” which is trying to keep itself within surviving-thriving parameters.
Homeostasis is at the root of the broad observation that systems tend to resist change, which is a frustrating reality to confront when attempting the task of improving oneself or ones relationships. Even when one person attempts to change, the system may push back, pulling things back to their previous state. Similarly, efforts to change one’s own mind and behavior often encounter this kind of resistance, within the system of oneself.
Ironic Processes
Most of the problems in individual and relational psychology can be described by a systems concept called an ironic process, which roughly describes the situation of systematically getting the opposite outcome from what you’re intending as a result of a behavioral feedback loop between partners. This connects to the idea of there being a difference between a behavior’s intended goal and its function, within a relational system. So, not to oversell it, but I think one of the most effective and directly applicable use-cases for the systems lens is in identifying these sorts of “ironic” feedback loops in your relationships (to yourself or others) and then engineering interventions (ironic or not, but more on that later) to address them.
- Addiction: An addictive process, or feedback loop, is one where the “problem” one’s behavior intended to solve is—over time at least—made worse by the behavior employed to solve it. The sadness that alcohol solves temporarily is made worse over time by the alcohol. Characteristically, the addictive behavior is less and less effective over time, so that more and more of the behavior is necessary to effect the same solution. Interpersonally, this process underlies many of the behavioral shapes we call “codependent” where one’s controlling “solution” to the other’s behavior makes their behavior harder to control over time.
- Treating addiction is about abstinence or moderation of the “fix,” behavior, necessitating alternative ways to solve the same problem.
- Tragedy of the Commons: When more than one participant draw from the same shared resource, each of their utilization of their resource necessarily affect the other partner’s ability to utilize that same resource. If both have unrestricted access to the resource, both are strategically incentivized (to the degree of their selfishness) to utilize the resource as fast as possible. This may be a more complex question in the consideration of human relationships due to the prevalence of things like “altruism” “love,” and “mutual benefit” but it’s worth noticing places where both partners may reasonably be expected to want a resource for themselves.
- The tragedy of the commons is treated by wisely governing the shared resource through means like quotas, or shared decision-making about resource-utilization.
- Rich Get Richer: In relationships, as in economics, those with initial advantages may inadvertently reinforce their dominance to the marginalization of others. This underlies the commonly-observed (in couple therapy world) phenomenon of partners “polarizing” or “delegating” responsibilities outside of an intention or desire to do so. Often, the parent with more contact with the kids possesses more information, more experience, and more familiarity with the children, and it is thus “most efficient” for them to take on even more of the parenting responsibilities. From the perspective of the system, it likewise makes financially-optimal sense for the higher-earning partner to take on yet more work to support the system, making it necessary to address actively if the couple wants to avoid the systemic drift toward one being a parent, and one being an earner.
- The rich get richer process can be addressed with intentional limiting of “reinvestment” of effort into a certain domain (childcare or work, to use the previous example) despite the system-wide incentive to do so.
- Arms Race In conflict, my “defensive” responses to your attacks often function to increase the force of your attacks. Our respective “self-defense” functions to escalate the destructive force of the conflict over time, to mutual loss. Each of us increases our use of force.
- To intervene in an arms race, the partners may agree to “take a time out” or otherwise agree to simultaneously disarm. One partner’s unilateral disarmament may also function to de-escalate the conflict, although this may involve risking increased injury, depending on the shape of the conflict.
Strategic Relating
In the field of psychology and family therapy in particular, the concepts of strategy and system go hand in hand. Thinking systemically is often indistinguishable from thinking strategically, and the field of systems management is often thought of as a strategic discipline. A “strategic” intervention is one employed in an attempt to disrupt a problematic feedback loop, to effectively knock the system out of homeostasis in a way sufficient for it to settle into a new, “healthier” structure. An effective strategic intervention depends on an understanding the structure of the system, and the function of the feedback loop it is intended to disrupt.
A common feedback loop I’ve already discussed is the “pursuer-withdrawer” attachment dynamic that often develops in intimate relationships. A strategic intervention here might be a shared commitment to consistent contact with consistent boundaries, which could function to disrupt the downward-spiral of pursuit and withdrawal. Similarly, a close conceptual relative of the aforementioned “ironic process” is what’s described in systems and strategic therapy is the paradoxical intervention, in which one often “prescribes the symptom” (e.g. instructing the fighting couple to intentionally fight even more) may “release” the pressures keeping the pattern in place, and presenting the experiential alternative of approaching the old familiar conflict intentionally, may give space for new interactive shapes to emerge.
Internal Systems in Relationship
The school of “object relations” from psychoanalysis, and the younger therapeutic modality called “Internal Family Systems.” These modalities imagine behavioral processes like what I’ve described as “modeling,” : wherein other perspectives copied from the outside world, or ones innate or invented within the self. In the terms we’ve been using so far, this would equate to saying that we fashion functioning “sub-personalities” that, like any other behavior, model, or program, are shaped by contact with the world. From there, it may be useful to think of the mind as a society of virtualized “perspectives,” the ongoing simulation of which comprises much of our thinking and feeling process, which displays many of the characteristics of a society, and other dynamic systems. To borrow a potentially useful metaphor from Richard Schwartz, you can look at your relationship as a society populated by the collective of “parts” that live in you and your partner’s minds. They all have a role in the society—they serve functions—and they get into all the trouble of power, conflict, and marginalization that inevitably beset societies and other human “organizations.” It is up to you and your partner to govern and lead that society effectively. Here, it’s useful to think both systemically, and functionally: Assume every part of you has a purpose, as does every part of your partner’s—and look for opportunities to structure that society in a way that functions the way you want.
Sources
Gregory Bateson (1979) Mind and Nature: a necessary unity
Ludwig von Bertelanffy (1968) General System Theory: foundations, development, applications
Jay Haley (1973) Uncommon Therapy: the psychiatric techniques of Milton H. Erikson
Cloé Madanes (1981) Strategic Family Therapy
Donella Meadows (2008) Thinking in Systems
Salvador Minuchin (1978) Families and Family Therapy
Richard Schwartz (2020) Internal Family Systems Therapy
Norbert Wiener (1948) Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
