Systems thinking could be conceived as the opposite of reductionism. In
systems thinking the whole is the object of inquiry, not the
parts. In her excellent book on the subject, General
Systems Theory beginning with Wholes, Barbara Gail Hanson
points out,
"When
we begin to see in terms of wholes rather than parts, patterns
appear that a classic model of simple linear cause and effect
cannot capture." 1 Systems
theory started with the advent of computers, which allowed the
management of multiple streams of data, and found applications
in business, industry, and government.2 However,
the idea that the whole is larger than the sum of its parts
goes back as far as Aristotle's
Principle of Non-Summativity.1(p 27 Biologist
Ludwig Von Bertalanffy originated the expression
"general
systems theory,"
while mathematician and psychologist A. Rapaport gave a broad
definition of a system: "A
system is a portion of the world that is perceived as a unit
and that is able to maintain its" identity "in spite of changes going on in it."
(Quoted in Stamps, p. 12) 3
Erno Laszlo was one of the first to articulate systems theory most
forcefully.4 What follows is a table based on his
listing of the distinctions between the classical view of the
world and the systems view of the world.
© 2003 by Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.
|
CLASSICAL
WORLDVIEW |
SYSTEMS
WORLDVIEW
|
|
NATURE: a
giant machine composed of intricate but replaceable
machine-like parts |
NATURE:
an organism endowed with irreplaceable elements and an
innate but non-deterministic purpose for choice, flow, and
spontaneity |
|
PEOPLE
are separate from each other and from their environment |
PEOPLE
are connected to and communicate with each other and their
environment |
|
MATERIALISTIC - all things are distinct and measurable
material entities |
WHOLISTIC
- matter is a configuration of energies that flow and
interact, and allows for probabilistic processes,
creativity, and unpredictability |
|
SUPPORTS
the accumulation of material goods, promotes a power-based
and competitive ethos |
SUPPORTS
the importance of information, and so of education,
communication, and human services |
|
Values
SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRESS via growth in the material sphere,
greater and greater use of energies, raw materials, and
other resources (with the attendant waste) |
Values
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT through flexibility and
accommodation among cooperative and interactive parts |
|
EUROCENTRIC, taking Western industrialized societies as
the paradigms of progress and development |
INCLUSIVE
and Based on DIVERSITY, taking all human cultures and
societies as equally valid, ranking them only in terms of
sustainability |
|
ANTHROPOCENTRIC - human beings can master and control
nature for their own ends |
EARTHCENTRIC - humans are organic parts within a
self-maintained and self-evolving whole planet |
|
SOCIAL
SCIENCE: the struggle for survival, the profit of the
individual, free markets |
SOCIAL
SCIENCE: cooperation, tolerance of diversity, institutions
and practices that foster adaptation and harmony |
|
MEDICAL
SCIENCE: the human body is a machine frequently in need of
repair by impersonal interventions and treatments. The
mind is separate from the body and is to be treated
separately. |
MEDICAL
SCIENCE: the human body is a system of interacting parts.
Body and mind are not separable. The health of the whole
system is to be maintained by attention to interpersonal,
psychic, physical, and psychological factors. |
(Table created from information in The Systems View
of the World, by Erno Laszlo)
The systems approach is particularly appropriate in any discipline that
studies human beings, which are very complex systems yet have
generally been studied mostly part by part, as any book on
anatomy and physiology will attest. As Hanson points out, by
promoting an epistemological shift to seeing the world in
terms of connectedness, relationships, and context, in other
words,
"of
relational wholes, (systems theory) is an alternative to more reductionistic or mechanical models that encourage study
through dissection, then reconstitution, as is traditional in
classical biology and medicine." 1(p27
In my book Food and Healing (1996) I suggested that in order to
understand the human body and the effects of nutrition and
health intervention, we need to go beyond the model of
Newtonian physics, which sees the body as a machine, with
pumps and pipes and pulleys and osmotic pressure and so on.
The machine is indeed a whole, one could argue, but the view
is that it is possible to tinker with the parts, or even
replace them, without affecting the whole very much. However,
that may be an over-simplification. As Rudolph Ballentine
points out,
"Newtonian
physics . . . may turn out to be a bit crude for dealing with
biological systems." 5(p30)
I suggested we look at systems theory for a more holistic model of living
beings. Systems theory says that wholes should be described
in terms of the relationships between their parts rather than
by the parts themselves. That means that when one part is
tinkered with, the entire system reacts; that when one part is
replaced, the reverberations travel everywhere and the system's
function will be affected, even if the new part is
"better"
or "healthier" than the old replaced part. I also argued that living systems
are best described as patterns of organization with
input, output, and purpose.6(Ch1)
Living systems, such as human beings, show four specific characteristics:
- wholeness and order
(the whole is more than the sum of its parts)
- adaptive
self-stabilization (environmental disturbances will
provoke reactions to return to normal)
- adaptive
self-organization (constant disturbances create
adaptations that minimize the disruption)
- intra and inter-systemic
hierarchies (the body is made up of systems of organs, and
is part of family and social systems)6(pp28-29).
In addition to the characteristics mentioned above, some thinkers
consider that living systems also exhibit purpose, or
intention. According to Russell Acoff and Fred Emery, a
purposeful individual or system is one that can produce
(1) the same type of outcome or behavior in different ways in
the same environment; and (2) can produce different outcomes
or behaviors in the same and different environments.7
(p31) These authors focused their inquiry on human
systems and on the role of purpose in psychology. Other
authors have studied the purposeful behavior of humans
as well as that of organizations.8 However, I
would argue that within a systems viewpoint any system with
goals could be considered purposeful, whether the goals/
purpose is conscious or automatic. I propose that maintaining
life is a purpose of living things. Therefore, whatever an
organism does to keep itself alive, both through directed
behavior towards an end (e.g., eating, seeking shelter) as
well as through its internal function, is in itself
purposeful.
In my view, systems theory must become a basic component of the modern
scientific view of nature.
REFERENCES
1 Barbara
Gail Hanson, General Systems Theory Beginning with Wholes
(Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis, 1995).
2 C.
West Churchman, The Systems Approach (New York: Laurel -
Dell, 1968).
3 Jeffrey
S. Stamps, Holonomy: A Human Systems Theory (Seaside,
CA: Intersystems Publications, 1980).
4 Ervin
Laszlo, The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for
Our TIme, ed. Alfonso Mortuori, Advances in Systems Theory,
Complexity, and the Human Sciences (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press, 1996).
5 Rudolph Ballentine, Radical Healing: Integrating the World's Great
Therapeutic Traditions to Create a New Transformative Medicine
(New York: Harmony Books - a division of Crown Publishers,
1999).
6 Annemarie Colbin, Food and Healing, Second ed. (New York:
Ballantine Books, 1996).
7 Russel
L Acoff and Fred E Emery, On Purposeful Systems, Systems
Inquiry Series (Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications, 1971).
8 Jeffrey
B Vancouver, "Living
systems theory as a paradigm for organizational behavior:
Understanding humans, organizations, and social processes,"
Behavioral Science 4, no. 3 (Jul 1996) (1996): 165-204.