by Professor Vishanthie Sewpaul (PhD)
Introduction
General systems theory is largely attributed to the seminal work of the biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, and is said to have its genesis in the 1930s and 1940s. Von Bertalanffy countered the view of the world as chaos and a product of chance, and proposed that the world be conceptualized as organization and inter-dependence. Nothing can be explained in isolation (Lilienfeld, 1978). Von Bertalanffy (1968) wrote about “systems of various orders not understandable by investigation of their respective parts is isolation”, unlike in the past where “science tried to explain observable phenomena by reducing them to an interplay of elementary units investigable independently of each other” (pp. 36-37).
Von Bertalanffy (1968) identified the following as the central aims of general systems theory:
- There is a general tendency towards integration in the various sciences, natural and social.
- Such integration seems to be centred in a general theory of systems.
- Such theory may be an important means for aiming at exact theory in the nonphysical fields of science.
- Developing unifying principles running ‘vertically’ through the universe of the individual sciences, this theory brings us nearer to the goal of unity in science.
- This can lead to a much-needed integration in scientific education (p. 38).
In elucidating the above aims, Von Bertalanffy (1968) raised the debate around scientific generalization and scientific specialization, with the latter viewing “the world and all that it contains (as) an assembly of small and distinct parts” while systems theory views the world as irreducible, integrated and inter-related (Laszlo and Krippner, 1998, p. 57). Laszlo and Krippner (1998) concluded that the systems approach is “not an alternative, but a complement, to the specialized way. It is more all-embracing and comprehensive, incorporating the specialized perspective as one aspect of a general conception” (p. 57). This has salience for social work, which often embraces various areas of specialization within a generalist systems theoretical framework, and it underscores the importance of inter-disciplinary and inter-sectoral collaboration.
One of the key thrusts of general systems theory was to challenge disciplinary parochialism, with Von Bertalanffy (1968) arguing that “the physicist, the biologist, the psychologist and the social scientist are, so to speak, encapsulated in their private universes, and it is difficult to get word from one cocoon to the other” (p. 23).
Interestingly, Von Bertalanffy (1968) acknowledged that the idea of systems was nothing new. Asian philosophies reflect that it has an over 2500-year history.
The Buddha, for example, was perhaps one of the first systems theorists, while he did not label his work and teachings as such. There is the Buddhist teaching on dependent or inter-dependent co-rising; the complex chains of inter-dependencies in all phenomena and in existence and non-existence (Nhat Hanh, 1999; 2018). Buddha told his followers, “When you look at a leaf or a raindrop, meditate on all the conditions, near and distant, that have contributed to the presence of that leaf and raindrop. Know that the world is woven of inter-connected threads. This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not”, and taught that we be able to see the whole of the universe in every phenomenon; in a single leaf and in the self (cited in Nhat Hanh, 2018, p. 409). This supports the view that “the natural and human-made universe do not come in neat disciplinary packages labelled scientific, humanistic, and transcendental; they invariably involve complex combinations of fields” (Laszlo and Krippner, 1997, p. 50).
While systems theory has its origins in organismic biology, it has come to influence many disciplines across the the natural sciences and the humanities and the social sciences, including social work and psychology.
Systems theory presumes that there are universal principles of organization, and has thus come to be known as a grand theory, which post-modern and post-structuralist thinkers such as Foucault (1972) and Leonard (1997) warn against. Laszlo and Krippner (1998) caution that “the line that separates the aspects of a system from those of its environment tends to blur as the unit of observation moves from natural and designed physical systems to human and conceptual social systems.
While the former are easier to define and have relatively clear-cut aims or purposes, the latter are more difficult to define; most often they do not have clear-cut and agreed upon aims or purpose, and even when agreed upon, these may change over time” (p. 48). The boundaries and the boundary maintaining functions of natural systems, are easier to identify and define than those of human and social systems, with the relationships and communication between human beings and their social contexts being characterized by complexity (Healy, 2014).
In the field of sociology, the genesis of systems theory is attributed to Talcott Parsons, who identified four universal functional aspects of systems: adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance (Parsons, 1977) and Niklas Luhmann, who conceived of systems in terms of complexity difference in relation to the environment; the system’s attribution of meaning to communication and thus the option to select among plural alternatives; and systems as specializing in fulfilling singular functional needs, e.g. functional systems in relation to economics, politics, religion, family (Luhmann, 1995).
Test yourself with the following question:
