We have become a technological people and like to think
in terms of systems. Early in my social work career the idea of Family Systems
Theory was fashionable and lots of therapy was geared around looking at families
that way. The idea that if Dad changed
his behavior it would change everyone else’s had appeal. It’s not crazy. How Mom and Dad treat each other has an
effect on how Junior and Sissy act. Yet there is a problem with the theory, in
that sometimes it doesn’t work, which is a bad thing in a theory. In extreme circumstances there would usually
be some change, as in “when Dad stopped beating everyone else the whole place
calmed down.” But lots of times change in one person or one set of interactions
didn’t seem to have much effect on anyone else.
Mom would stop her secret drinking but everyone was still arguing and
unhappy as before.
It also rapidly lost usefulness when one tried to extend
it out further in the family. An adult daughter would be brought into the mix
and everyone would talk about what had happened growing up and something
or other might be changed about how they were going to interact now that she
was out of the house, or the oppressive influence of some tyrannical
grandparents might be mitigated by a decision supported by the nuclear family
to not visit anymore or someone standing up to them – but then nothing. Sometimes you’d get a little bit of effect, and
once in great while there would be a big effect, just like in the movies, but
more usually it was nothing. Most of the
system turned out to be just the individual actions of one person on
another with some spillover effect, often unpredictable.
But we love thinking in terms of systems, so
anytime there is any cause-and-effect we start seeing a whole system in place
there. We can talk about a circulatory system, because events in one place in
the system do have effects, often predictable, in other parts of the
system. But when we talk about an
educational system this is much less true.
When a locality opts for mandatory kindergarten, it does so with the
idea that this is going to have positive effects throughout the system. Yet this does not prove to be the case. There may or may not be positive effects on
the individual (separate topic – remember selection bias), but we can barely
see downstream advantages in first grade, let alone highschool. People try to
make the argument that “system-wide” interventions such as teaching to the
tests or changing the discipline policies have far-reaching effects, but those
are not system interventions
simply because they are universal. They
are just top-down rules, and the dynamic effects are limited. Discipline policy affects the amount of classroom
disruption, and that has some effect on some students. Nothing else is
affected. Colleges do what they do in
response to forces, largely financial ones, not as a result of what teachers
teach in fifth grade or whether your high school at a good band or a bad one.
It’s not a system.
There is not a capitalist system in America. There
is the force of the free market, which operates everywhere on earth,
like gravity. Governments interfere with
that force in varying ways and degrees. Socialist
and communist economies are more like systems, but even they can only defy
gravity by focused application of other forces like taxation and
redistribution. So too we can defy
gravity by building engines and airplanes, and we might decide those are very
good things, but they come at a cost. In America we modify the force of the
free market by focused intervention, largely in a redistributive direction. (Redistribution
and socialism are not synonymous, though they overlap, and that is a whole
different discussion.) Monarchies and tyrannies are systems of government, but
they are not especially economic systems. Feudalism is more like socialism,
mercantilism, or communism in that it is partially an economic system. America has a system of government to redistribute
power and to mitigate abuses of such, and this does bleed over into economic
power. But that system is largely
in place to limit the power of the strong over the weak for moral reasons.
What happens in government provides us with evidence for
my point that what happens in America is not “the system,” requiring some sort
of systemic intervention. John
McCain and others wanted to limit the power of lobbyists over legislation and
so passed a bill limiting the ways they could act and do business. That was an attempt to change the system. Everyone just got good lawyers and developed
workarounds and “the system” remained largely unchanged, because the force of
money overwhelmed it. Individual industries were affected, so that how money was
lent or how goods were moved about the country was modified, but like Mom’s stopping
secret drinking, the further effects were usually negligible.
Historians and social scientists, both professional and
amateur, like to identify those small changes that actually did have large
effects throughout a society. It’s load
of fun, and it’s like the butterfly effect, creating the illusion that some
small thing we do will have cascading effects through the centuries. It’s part
of our myth that we live in a system, but it’s mostly crap. Sometimes you kick out the Tsar and get
communists, and when you finally kick them out you just get Vlad Putin. Forces
overwhelmed whatever the systems tried to do.
To be fair, professional historians are also interested in continuities,
which is useful, and there are sometimes spiritual effects from our small
actions that have downstream practical effects.
I will address the latter eventually, God knows when, as this already
has too many threads.
3 comments:
AVI - Me thinks you are taking these distinctions a too far - like out on a limb here. Your family and education examples focus on good effects vs bad effects. Systems are characterized first and foremost by interactions, usually multiple and often complex, but not necessarily guaranteed outcomes. I think of "force" as more commonly a singular element affecting or influencing the "system," but it maybe be counteracted by competing forces. So Uncle Louie intervenes to stop Dad from punching out Mom, but Dad whips out his gun and shoots Uncle Louie dead. There's still a family system in place. But maybe I'm getting hung up too much on semantics. Help me out here.
Yes, I overvalued the predictability of systems the way I put it the first time. The more complicated the system, the less predictable it's going to be. And even a simple system qualifies as a real system of some sort.
But there has to be some effect somewhere eventually, or you have to declare that whatever it is you are doing as an intervention isn't really part of a "system." Granted, we can allow that some things have to be changed a great deal before they have an effect elsewhere, but in those cases we have to treat them as near-constants, not one of the moving parts. I suppose there are things that are legitimately part of a system but just have small effect, like NH's part of the national economy compared to California or New York. That's not the same as being decoupled from the national economy. Long-term cumulative effects also count, even if they aren't noticed at first. Yet if you take something out or add it in and the rest of the system barely notices, it can usually be ignored.
Emergent Order is a force. The free market, indeed the system of capitalism, is a force of Emergent Order.
We see Emergent Order everywhere and often confuse it with 'systems'. I often compare life, in general, to people walking down a busy street in NYC (which you don't see much today). There aren't really many rules, aside from avoid hitting people, try to stay on the sidewalk and avoid walking in traffic, don't twist your ankle, etc. Walking down the street isn't a system...so how DOES it work? Emergent Order. We define what basic orders need to happen as we walk - and engage them. They are pretty much the same for everyone, and occasionally people have slightly different rules (I really need to make the train, so covering 10 blocks in 10 minutes will require me running and potentially hitting people). But by and large we all walk down the same street and avoid problems.
Free Markets operate similarly. We're mostly operating on trust - and the belief that any exchange will be mutually beneficial. Sometimes less beneficial for one than another, for a variety of reasons (need, exposure, speed of transaction, poor decision making, etc) but generally MOST transactions are mutually beneficial, or we'd never do them!
Post a Comment