Principles of social systems

¶ … Social Systems

This work will develop perspectives and comprehension and understanding of how changes in the family system interact among part of the social system and will analyze, synthesize and compare and contrast information from classical literature related to the family as a system. The work of Fontaine (2005) states that there is a "growing tend in psychological science to conceptualize individual development according to a 'systems perspective'. This perspective advocates analysis across qualitatively distinct levels of functioning that are interrelated within the system of interest (e.g., individual development)." (Fontaine, 2005)

Systems Theory

The work of Greene (1994) states that systems theory "is a way of thinking in an organized, integrated way about the interactions among systems members." Fontaine states that system levels are hierarchically organized, providing a heuristics by which development is viewed as a continuum of ongoing interactive processes. Additionally stated is that systems theory "has long provided that real systems, such as biology, personality, and online cognitive processing are open to and constantly interacting with their surrounding contexts or environments. Through these ongoing exchanges, these open systems develop with new properties that are qualitatively meaningful and contribute to their overall evolutions. Systems are hypothesized to be constrained by certain parameters such as system-environment boundaries, the way that the system's hierarchy of levels is organized, and what information the system has at its disposal." (Fontaine, 2005)

Fontaine relates that systems theory, "in contrast with reductionist perspectives that aim to simplify naturally complex entities (the human being) systems theory has acknowledged that these entities are highly complicated, open systems that are undergoing constant and internal and external change and that an understanding of the organization of the entity's parts as well as the interrelations of these parts, is essential to scientific study of the entity as a whole." (2005)

The application of systems views have been on a broad basis and this is stated to be "for the purpose of strengthening macroscopic theories of individual development." (Fontaine, 2005) Fontaine states that "principles that are germane to systems theories may also be applied microscopically in order to focus on the functioning and development of a single level within a larger system. The selected level (or subsystem) of functioning may then be viewed as the comprising 'system' of interest whereby its qualitatively-distinct components and processes may, in turn be recast into an organized hierarchy of interactive levels of operating." (Fontaine, 2005)

The following figure illustrate the conception of the microscopic application of developmental systems principles to children's social-cognitive functioning adapted from the work of Fontaine (2005).

Figure 1

The Microscopic Application of Developmental Systems Principles to Children's Social-Cognitive Functioning

Source: Fontaine (2005)

Social Systems

Greene states in the work entitled: "Human Behavior Theory a Diversity Framework that a social system is "…a defined structure of interacting and interdependent persons that has the capacity for organized activity. As a social system develops over time, it takes on a unique character. Because of the high degree of interaction and interdependence among system members, systems theory proposes that a change in any one member of the system affects the social system as a whole." (1994) Greene additionally states that systems theory "suggests a number of concepts that may be applied to diverse family forms" and that the most important assumption of systems theory is that "each family has its own interlocking network of relationships with discernible structural and communication patterns." (1994)

The work of Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker (1995) entitled: "Social Systems" states that "systems theory is a catchall concept for very different denotations and very different levels of analysis. The word refers to no unambiguous meaning." The introduction of the concept of system into the making of analyses sociologically and doing so in lack of "further clarification" results in "an illusory precision" arising that is without any basis. (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995) Resulting are controversies "in which one can only suppose or infer from the argumentation that the participants have different ideas in mind when they speak of systems." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995) Systems theory is stated to be "a particularly impressive super theory." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995)

Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker state that 'Systems theory' "is particularly impressive supertheory. Disputed though it may be, one cannot deny it a certain process of maturation. We attribute this to the fact that it can look back upon a history characterized by supertheoretical ambitions, centralizations of difference and paradigm change." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995) the question that asks if and how much this development "can be designated as 'progress' or has led to the accumulation of knowledge is a question more difficult to determine." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995)

Two fundamental changes are noted by Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker in systems theory and they state that "in neither case can one simply declare the concepts that have been handed down to be wrong or useless; they are extended by deliberate changes, transferred into the new theory and thus 'subflated'…" resulting in the new theory becoming "richer in content than the previous one; it achieves greater complexity" and it is this which explains its ability to "gradually become more capable of dealing with social phenomenon." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995)

Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker states that systems are bound to meaning and therefore they can "never experience or act in a manner that is free from meaning." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995) This is because there can be no break from the meaning to which systems theory is "inescapably implicated." (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995)

Social Theory

Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker (1995) state that a social system (like all other temporalized systems, including life) exists as elements that are events, it is confronted at every moment with the alternative of ceasing or continuing. Its 'substance' continually vanishes, so to speak, and must be reproduced with the help of structural models. Action must follow on action -- or nothing will follow at all!" (Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker, 1995)

Structural changes are stated by Luhmann, Bednarz, Knodt, and Baecker to predispose self-changes. Just as structural changes take place in society and other social grouping so do structural changes occur in the family unit or group. Greene (1994) states that an assumption of systems theory is that "each family has a history of working together and maintaining homeostatis, its structure, energy exchange and organization -- or its system of relationships vary. Through repetitive change, each family develops distinctive patterns of roles, that is, differentiation of members by tasks. These patterns provide the family with cognitive maps about how to interact in reciprocal roles such as mother/daughter or husband/wife." (Greene, 1994) Over time, the family system, just as the social system results in the production of "subsystems, components of a system that are themselves systems." (Green, 1994)

Stated as basic assumptions of social systems are the assumptions as follows:

(1) a systems environment is an environment that is defined as outside the system's boundaries;

(2) Boundaries give the social system its identity and focus as a system;

(3) a Systems environment is more than just the sum of its participants' activities. Rather, a social system can be studied as a network of unique, interlocking relationships with discernible structural and communication patterns;

(4) There is a high degree of interdependence and internal organizational among members of a social system;

(5) All systems are subsystems of other (larger systems)

(6) There is an interdependency and mutual interaction between and among social systems;

(7) a social system is adaptive or goal oriented and purposive;

(8) a change in any one member of the social system affects the nature of the social system as a whole;

(9) Transactions or movements across a social system's boundaries influence the social systems' functional capacity and internal makeup; and (10) Change within and from outside the social system that moves the system to an imbalance in structure will result in an attempt by the system to reestablish that balance. (Greene, 1991d)

Family System & Development Theory

The work of Allen et al. (2007) states that there are several "basic assumptions" on which family

(1) Each family is unique, due to the infinite variations in personal characteristics and cultural and ideological styles;

(2) the family is an interactional system whose component parts have constantly shifting boundaries and varying degrees of resistance to change;

(3) Families must fulfill a variety of functions for each member, both collectively and individually, if each member is to grow and develop; and (4) Families pass through developmental and nondevelopmental changes that produce varying amounts of stress affecting all members. (Allen, et al., 2007)

The following diagram shows the components and the relationship of each to the entire system. This includes that:

(1) Family structure consists of the descriptive characteristics of the family. This includes the nature of its membership and its cultural and ideological style. These characteristics are the input into the interactional system. They are the resources and the perception of the world that shape the way in which the family interacts;

(2) Family interaction is the hub of the system. It is the process of interaction among family members that determines the rules by which the family is governed. This is the family's level of cohesion, its adaptability, and its communication style. Finally, these interactions work together to serve individual members and collective family needs;

(3) Family function is the output of the interactional system. Utilizing the resources available through its structure (input), the family interacts to produce responses that fulfill its needs; and (4) the family life cycle introduces the element of change into the family system. As the family moves through time, developmental and non-developmental changes alter the family structure and/or the family's needs. These, in turn, produce change in the way the family interacts." (Allen, et al., 2007)

Figure 1 -- the Family System

Source: Allen et al. (2007)

The family is stated by Allen et al. (2007) to have many "attitudes, rules and communication patterns which help to define its boundaries." Rules exist concerning 'who is included in or given access to the family, such as extended family, in-laws, friends and neighbors…" (Allen, et al., 2007) the work of Kantor and Lehr (1976) relates various structural arrangements within families and made identification of the following as characteristics of the 'closed' type of family:

Tightly controlled access to family space - likely to have locked doors, fences and unlisted phones. Strangers are not admitted easily;

Connections of family members to outside systems are rigidly controlled by rules and implemented by those in authority - many rules exist about permitted activities and who can associate with whom;

New and different links to outside are difficult for members to develop - they tend to have few connections, but they are usually stable;

Privacy is valued. Members tend to be self-protective and sometimes secretive;

Values regarding roles and rules tend to be rigid;

Communication is tightly channeled with little expression of conflict;

High priority given allegiance to the family;

Can be affectionate, but controlled in expression;

Discipline and traditions are valued. There is low tolerance of differences; and Change is difficult and threatening. (Allen et al., 2007)

Families with physical boundaries that are 'very open' are stated to have the following characteristics:

Family members, friends and strangers enter and exit with relative ease;

There is little privacy - space is not well regulated internally or externally;

Members develop individual connections to external environment, do their own thing;

Planning is not valued so much as spontaneity;

There is a great deal of energy flowing out of family;

There is no clear-cut decision making process - rules tend to be fluid;

Uniqueness is prized and often encouraged;

Emotion and affection is expressed, but not in a consistent fashion; and Change can lead to chaotic situations; family has a tendency to "fly apart." (Allen et al., 2007)

Stated to be situated in the middle of the previous two family types are those in which the family has well-defined and moderately open boundaries with the following characteristics:

There is easy access to family space, frequent guests, unlocked doors, freedom to exchange with outside;

Members can explore outside community and groups - tend to have numerous and strong connections;

Communication is relatively open, opinions and ideas exchanged openly, conflict can be openly expressed;

Rules are well-defined, but flexible;

Growth is encouraged, intimacy and nurturing patterns are adaptive, and uniqueness is tolerated within limits;

Closeness is encouraged. There is a balance between energy flow into and out of the system; and Change can be somewhat stressful but the family has resources to adapt. (Allen et al., 2007)

In addition to external boundaries the family system contains various subsystems that result in the creation of internal boundaries. Allen et al. (2007) states: "The subsystems could consist, for instance, of those members who belong to the same generation (such as the children) or the same sex (the men of the family) or those who have the same interests or functions. Obviously, one individual might belong to more than one subsystem. Over a period of time, rules develop about how the subsystems interact with each other, who is included in the subsystems, and how each member participates. In other words, a kind of boundary exists that defines the relationship between and among the subsystems.

The work of Morgaine (2001) entitled: "Family Systems Theory" states that family system theory emerged from 'general systems theory' by "scholars who had found it had many applications to families and other social systems. Any system is defined as a bounded set of interrelated elements exhibiting coherent behavior as a trait. Another definition is an assemblage of objects related to each other by some regular interaction or interdependence.

Families are considered systems because they are made up or interrelated elements or objectives, they exhibit coherent behaviors, they have regular interactions, and they are interdependent on one another." (Morgaine, 2001)

The components of family system theory are stated to be those as follows:

(1) Family Systems have interrelated elements and structure. The elements of a system are the members of the family. Each element has characteristics; there are relationships between the elements; the relationships function in an interdependent manner. All of these create a structure, or the sum total of the interrelationships among the elements, including membership in a system and the boundary between the system and its environment;

(2) Family systems interact in patterns. There are predictable patterns of interaction that emerge in a family system. These repetitive cycles help maintain the family's equilibrium and provide clues to the elements about how they should function;

(3) Family systems have boundaries and can be viewed on a continuum from open to closed. Every system has ways of including and excluding elements so that the line between those within the system and those outside of the system is clear to all. If a family is permeable and vague boundaries it is considered "open." Open boundary systems allows elements and situations outside the family to influence it. It may even welcome external influences. Closed boundary systems isolate its members from the environment and seems isolated and self-contained. No family system is completely closed or completely open;

(4) Family systems function by the Composition Law: the Whole is More than the Sum of Its Parts. Every family system, even though it is made up of individual elements, results in an organic whole. Overall family images and themes are reflected in this holistic quality. Unique behaviors may be ascribed to the entire system that do not appropriately describe individual elements;

(5) Family systems use messages and rules to shape members. Messages and rules are relationships agreements which prescribe and limit a family members' behavior over time. They are repetitive and redundant. They are rarely, if ever, explicit or written down. They give power; they induce guilt; they control or limit behaviors; and they perpetuate themselves and reproduce. Most messages and rules can be stated in one or a few words. For example, More is good, Be responsible, and Be Perfect are all examples of messages/rules;

(6) Family systems have subsystems. Every family systems contains a number of small groups usually made up of 2-3 people. The relationships between these people are known as subsystems, coalitions, or alliances. Each subsystem has its own rules, boundaries, and unique characteristics. Membership in subsystems can change over time. (Morgaine, 2001)

The work of Lidz (1963) as cited in the work of Anderson, Carter and Lowe entitled: "Human Behavior and the Social Environment" states findings after conducting study that there are three "sets of discrete but interrelated system functions performed by the family:

(1) the family provides physical care;

(2) the family provides nurturance; and (3) the family directs personality development. (1999)

It is suggested by Lidz that these functions "which are fundamental to human adaptation cannot be fulfilled separately at all and must be fused in the family." (1963:45 in: Anderson, Carter and Lowe, 1999)

The work of Maruyama is stated to have "found the extent of family function specialization alarming. (1966 in: Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999) the term monopolization was termed by Maruyama (1966) in describing the "state of affairs in which the child's relationship to parents is confined to mother or father, or more precisely to one set of parents. The totality of children's relationships to their parents sets narrow parameters for development and places excessive responsibility on the parents." (Anderson, Carter and Lowe, 1999) This exclusivity was assumed according to Maruyama (1966) "as the norm by theories of personality and of many Western philosophies. This was not viewed as optimal by Maruyama who suggested integration of other family and community members into the life of the child.

Maruyama (1966) refers to this as the 'family circuit' and this has come to be referred to as the 'social system' of families by most professionals in this field of study and practice. The family therapy is just one such professional. It is related that Jay Haley, a researcher and pioneer in family therapy stated as follows:

"What family therapists have in common they also share with a number of behavior scientists in the world today: There is an increasing awareness that psychiatric problems are social problems which involve the total ecological system." (Anderson, Carter and Lowe, 1999)

If the family organization is to achieve its goal the family must necessarily "secure and conserve energy from both internal and external sources. The members of the family must contribute energy for the family system as well as import energy for their individual purposes." (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999) Anderson, Carter and Lowe state that communication is both "complex and subtle" in the family and that this is because of "the number of functions served by the family. One energy can convey a number of meanings, not all of them congruent." (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999) When a family is unable to adapt to changes in the demands that the environment and family members place on the family system the family is considered to be "maladaptive'.

Anderson, Carter, and Lowe state that the 'steady state' is one aspect of the family system "which must simultaneously change and remain the same. Throughout its life cycle the family meets ever-changing requirements from its members and from society. The martial dyad for example, must modify its mode of functioning with the advent of the first child" and likewise the mode of functioning must change if the child is able to successfully "fly from the nest' so to speak or gain their independence at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner. The work of Sager and Kaplan (1972: 288-289) as cited in Anderson, Carter and Lowe is noted as having stated as follows:

"The steady state of the family is maintained in various ways…Family therapy observations have revealed…how the underlying system reciprocity is revealed by symptoms appearing in a previously asymptomatic member when the symptomatic one improves, and how a marriage may rupture when the symptoms which had been built into the relationship are no longer present." (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999)

In summary the work of Anderson, Carter and Lowe states that the family "is a critical human system" and one that "serves unique, yet constantly changing purposes for its subsystems…" (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999) Subsystems include:

(1) Family members; and (2) Combinations of family members. (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999)

The family further serves "constantly changing purpose for its suprasystems which include:

(1) Society; and (2) Parts of society. (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999)

Anderson, Carter and Lowe state that the family may be defined best "…from the viewpoint of the person within it. The definition should include those relationships that are 'family' to that person; those with whom the person interacts and performs family functions within that society. In many ways, the family is the crucial intersection between culture and the person within the culture, the point of most interaction and change." (Anderson, Carter, and Lowe, 1999)

The work entitled: "Family Developmental Theory" states that families, just as individuals "move over time through successive stages. Each stage has tasks critically important and somewhat unique to the stage." (nd) it is stated that appropriate development for the individuals within the family and the family is through accomplishing these stage related tasks and that "failure to achieve a task may stultify further individual and family development." (Family Developmental Theory, nd) These stages can be divided into those as follows:

A. Universal Stages;

1. Leaving home.

a. Task -Relinquishment of the family origin as the major emotional (and economic) resource. A greater sense of autonomy and independence.

b. Task -a broadening of support in peers (friends), more serious dating, education or training, and occupational/career development.