In the field of community psychology (yes, there is a field of community psychology), the theory of “logical types†and the concepts of first and second order change can help us understanding some aspects of addressing homeostasis in relationship systems.
The Theory of Groups says that any group is composed of members who are alike in one common characteristic, and their “actual nature†other than that characteristic is irrelevant when it comes to trying to bring about change. Groups are said to have four properties that support this contention:
1. The first property can be understood as a factor of homeostasis, or, more specifically, about the power of the emotional field of relationship systems. The first property is that the outcome of a combination of two or more members of a group is itself a member of the group. We can think of this as the first triangle: member—member—group. What this means is that it is impossible for a member who is part of a group to be outside of the group. For example, once you are a member of your family, you will always be a member of your family—no amount of distance, time, or cut-off posturing will change that.
Furthermore, any attempt to change a member of a given group so as to have him behave more like a member of a different group will create a change internal to the group, but the member will still not be outside of the group. For instance, just because you’ve gone to college, completed a graduate degree, and hold a white-collar job does not mean you are no longer a part of your redneck family system.
2. The second property is that while it is possible to combine members in a varying sequence within the group, the outcome of the combination remains the same. In other words, you can restructure, re-organize, create sub-groups, committees, alliances, teams, change the titles and jobs of the persons in the group, or promote and demote as much as you want, but the system will not change.
3. The third property is that a group contains an identity member such that the combination with this member maintains the member’s identity. In terms of congregations (as a specific type of group), for example, “clergy†is the identity member in congregations. And any combination of characteristics with “clergy†(gender, skin color, ethnicity, level of education, faith tradition, denomination, size of congregation, leadership ‘style’, etc.) will not change one’s identity in the group. In other words, a pastor is a pastor is a pastor regardless of context, behaviors, or characteristics. Which is why it is more helpful to focus on the function of the “L†position than it is on secondary characteristics.
4. Fourth, in any group every member has its reciprocal. For example, leader-follower; teacher-student; management-worker; administration-faculty, etc. In the dynamics of emotional process related to homeostasis, this reciprocal translates to overfunctioner-underfunctioner, pursuer-avoider, etc.
These group properties can help explain why change within a given group makes no difference to the group as a relationship system. For instance, a change in the level of education of the pastor of a congregation will not change the instance of the level of education of the members of the congregation. Or, the level of understanding of systems theory of the pastor as a result of study will not of itself correlated with change in the level of emotional functioning of the congregation. Or, put another way, changes in individual members of the clergy will not change the group “clergy†(or their congregations) so long as congregations are structured for chronic anxiety.
Add to the above properties of Group Theory the Theory of Logical Types and we add another layer related to the nature of systems and of change in systems. The Theory of Logical Types says that all components in a system are members but the totality itself comprises a “class.†This helps us make an important distinction in how systemic dynamics exist in layers—some emergent at certain levels while not in others.
An essential axiom is that whatever dynamic (force, principle, etc.) involves all of the members of the system must not be one of the system. For example, Mankind is all individuals, but mankind itself is not an individual. Therefore, some things that apply to individuals in the class, do not apply to the class itself—and vice-versa. The bottom line here is that we need to avoid confusing an individual member of a system with a class. Systems exist at various “levels†and systems “nest†one level within the other, and systemic principles vary from level to level. One way that systems thinking is helpful is to accept that in order to effect change at systemic level it is not helpful to apply the principles of, say, individual psychologies. Changing things at a systemic level requires systemic thinking, not individual thinking. There are any numbers of persons who seem not able to do the job of self-differentiation related to this. For example, those who cannot define themselves as an individual self apart from “class categories†like gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or profession. For some persons, it seems, the totality of their sense of self is tied to their “class.”
The connection here with systems theory includes the concept that in order for the leader to effect systemic change, he or she must stop thinking from an “individualized†level that focuses on personalities and the individuals that make up the system, and instead, think at the “systems†level.
Keeping these distinctions in mind also helps us distinguish between “first-order†change and “second-order†change. First order change is change within a system that results in the system itself remaining invariant. This happens, for example, when we help an individual in the system adapt to the system. Sometimes this happens by displacement—we switch one Identified Patient in the system for another. In this kind of change, the more things change the more they stay the same. One individual within the system changes his or her functioning or role, but the system, and its emotional process, remains the same.
Second-order change, in contrast, is change in which the occurrence of change changes the system itself. This kind of change requires moving from a focus on the individual-in-the-system to the system itself. In effect, what happens here is that we change the rules that govern the emotional process of the system at the system-level—and in that way, we change the emotional process of the individuals that make up the system (or the emotional process of two systems at the systems level).
What is so interesting and challenging about attempting second-order change is that the thinking required to make it happen, and the accompanying rules and principles for functioning at that level, are not the rules that most people ascribe to. Most people seem to want to solve systemic problems using the rules of individual-level thinking. Systems thinking often is counter-intuitive, paradoxical, and feels illogical. Indeed, they often seem to violate most of the “rules†that people use to govern their individual life—and often, they are.
“If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.”
