My favorite psychological theory
This blog post came from a title trade with Ava; she suggested the topic, I wrote about it. More info here.
The Berger family is going through a rough time. The parents had some troubles in their relationship and have been fighting a lot lately. On top of that, their teenage daughter has anorexia, which has been intensifying. It has gotten so bad that the parents had to rally together to support their daughter: they cook for her, motivate her to eat, drive her to her therapist, and so on.
One way a psychotherapist might look at the situation is to examine individual situation of the daughter, what might have caused the mental illness and what she could do to get better. A systemic therapist is likely to take a different perspective. Their hypothesis might be: the daughter's crisis has a non-obvious benefit – harmony between the parents. As long as her mental illness is severe, the parents aren't fighting. The family, a complex system, has problems and these manifest as a mental illness in the daughter. She is therefore the symptom carrier of this troubled system.
In my seven years of part time psychology studies I came across many interesting things. What probably fascinated me the most is systemic therapy. It is a form of therapy that always looks at humans in their social context – this is why it's prominently used in family and couples therapy. It has its theoretical roots in systems theory, a theory that looks at patterns that occur in all forms of systems, be they in nature, technology, culture or the social world.
When I discovered how systems theory can be applied to human relationships, it kind of blew my mind. And human systems are built and maintained through communication. With my background in journalism and communication, I felt right at home.
Circular causality
While there are different approaches to systems theory, they all agree that a system is comprised of different parts which are defined by their function in the system – especially in relation to the other parts. Explanations are therefore not causal (a causes b) but circular (a influences b, which then influences a, which then influences b, etc.).
Here's an example of why circular causality can provide more useful explanations in relationships. When a couple argues frequently, each partner typically offers a linear, blame-focused explanation: "He never helps with housework" versus "She's always nagging me." But a systemic view reveals the circular pattern underneath.
Consider this scenario: Sarah leaves dishes in the sink after dinner. Mike feels disrespected and says, "You never clean up after yourself." Sarah, already exhausted from work, feels attacked: "I do plenty around here!" Mike interprets her defensiveness as dismissiveness and raises his voice: "You're not even listening to me!" This triggers Sarah's anxiety (she grew up with screaming parents) so she shuts down and leaves the room. Mike now feels ignored and guilty, making him even more resentful.
The circular dynamic: neglect triggers criticism, which leads to defensiveness, which escalates into louder conflict, causing withdrawal, which builds resentment, making future reactions stronger. Each person's behavior makes sense from their perspective, but together they've created a self-reinforcing loop. Breaking this pattern requires understanding the entire cycle, not just fixing individual behaviors.
Non-trivial systems
Allow me to get a little nerdy. The theory differentiates between trivial and non-trivial systems. An example of a trivial system is a coffee machine: it gives me Cappuchino each time I press the Cappuchino button. The input-output is always the same, it's deterministic. Non-trivial systems are different; they have inner states – usually shaped by the past – that influence the output. If you push a person instead of a button, there are a myriad of ways they might react, and the same person won't react exactly the same each time.
Since we can't see (nor really understand) the inner workings of a system from the outside, systemic psychology is also an approach that is not moralistic and judgy – and that really appeals to me. Things aren't described as good or bad, but rather as viable or not viable for a system. Good and bad judgements get tricky really fast and this is an elegant way to focus on other things that are more important.
Practical implications
Now, what does that mean for me as a future therapist, working with non-trivial systems, be they individuals, couples or families? It means I have to be aware that I can't fix them like I would fix a coffee machine. The metaphor of people having "loose screws", implying those could be tightened and then everything's fine, is dead wrong. All I can do is give impulses and the system will react to them how it will – trying to plan for for a predictable outcome is pointless in these situations.
So how might a systemic therapist actually work with the Berger family? Rather than focusing solely on the daughter's eating disorder, they might give the system a gentle "irritation" – perhaps asking the parents to spend one evening per week together without discussing their daughter's health, or suggesting the family try a completely new routine that disrupts their current patterns. The therapist can't predict exactly how the family will respond to these interventions, but by understanding that the daughter's illness serves a function in maintaining parental harmony, they can work with the whole system rather than against it. The goal isn't to assign blame or fix individual "broken parts," but to help this non-trivial system find new ways to maintain stability; hopefully ones that don't require a family member to carry the symptoms of the family's stress.