Preparation

Imagine you had been born 100 years ago or 4000 miles from where you were born, how might your life have been different? In what sense would ‘you’ still be the ‘you’ you are now?

Think about the last time you got involved in an argument, a proper, inter-personal argument. Who caused it? What other factors led up to the argument? If you had been somewhere else, or with other people, how would the argument have been different?

Introduction

For the last 400 years much Western scientific thought has been based on the model of ‘linear causality’, A causes B, which causes C. This type of thinking was effective when getting the Industrial Revolution going, but it does not reflect the thinking in much of the world, nor does it reflect more recent Western thinking, in particular ideas like Bertalanffy’s ‘General Systems Theory’ and Bateson’s ‘cybernetics’.

Many Eastern philosophies have been much more comfortable with the idea of circular causality, that A causes B which causes A which causes B and so on. This type of thinking forms the basis of Ecological-Systemic theory.

The video below gives a good introduction to this topic, focusing on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological-Systems Theory.

The Idea in Summary

The world is made up of a practically infinite number of different things, from the smallest sub-atomic particle to entire universes. The different parts of the world fit together in a series of systems. Sub-atomic particles fit together in systems called atoms. Atoms fit together in the system called molecules. Molecules make up the system called matter. Matter arranges itself in many different forms. Some of these are inanimate systems, such as mountains, rivers, the atmosphere. Others form living systems. Living systems themselves can be broken down in sub-systems of organs; which in turn are made up of systems called tissues. These themselves are composed of cells. Cells are systems of organelles which allow the cells to function. Organelles are composed of molecules and atoms.

The key point here is that it is impossible to describe the behaviour of organelles based simply on what we know about atoms. Understanding cells cannot be explained purely in terms of how organelles function. So we cannot explain the behaviour of the whole system by explaining the behaviour of the sub-systems.

According to Ecological-Systemic theory societies, cultures, families and people are all sets of interrelated sub-systems. The types of explanation used at each level are different, and changes in any sub-system have the capacity to ripple through all the levels of the whole system.

The Idea in More Depth

From an Ecological-Systemic perspective what we think of as ‘a person’ is a complex set of systems that maintain a sense of being a whole system. There are biological systems. These include a person’s organs, their hormones, their brain, their body. A change in any of these will tend to affect the whole person. The person also has a complex psychological system. This includes their memories, their thoughts, and beliefs. These two sub-systems may compose a large part of what we mean by being a person, but they are not the whole story.

No person lives in isolation. People relate to those close to them. People have family systems, friendship systems, neighbourhood systems, school or work systems. You cannot understand a person without understanding how their personal biological and psychological sub-systems connect to all their social sub-systems. The behaviour of these groups cannot be explained purely in terms of the people who make them up. Shared meanings, shared signs and group norms tend to exert a more powerful influence on the social system than the beliefs of any one individual, or even the average of all the individuals in a group.

A person’s individual sub-cultures are themselves embedded in a wider set of cultural and social systems. For example, the way that individuals construct their sense of gender identity is linked to, but different from, the ways that families, sub-cultures or society construct gender.

It is possible to apply an Ecological System frame to consider any issue of human behaviour and social systems. The issue of depression will be considered as an example.

At an individual biological system level there is evidence that depression is correlated with low serotonin levels. Depression is also commonly found where people have had serious brain injuries. Depression affects sleep patterns. Depression rates increase if people have close relatives who are depressed, and the closer the person is related genetically the higher this increase. So the evidence for biological factors is high.

At an individual biological system level, there is evidence that depression is correlated with low serotonin levels. Depression is also commonly found where people have had serious brain injuries. Depression affects sleep patterns. Depression rates increase if people have close relatives who are depressed, and the closer the person is related genetically the higher this increase. So the evidence for biological factors is high.

At an individual psychological system level, there is evidence that certain patterns of thought increase the risk of depression. Those who engage in persistent negative thought patterns are more prone to depression, experience deeper depressions that last longer and are more likely to relapse.

However, none of this explains why depression rates can shift with changes in social environments around a person. Certain life events, such as bereavements, losing a job, major life transitions etc are all associated with an increased risk of depression. While individual factors may influence and be influenced by these factors, a different level of explanation is required. It is unethical to explain depression in a woman who is being abused by her partner in terms of the woman’s individual biology and psychology. An understanding of depression must also take into account the ways that oppressive social systems can and do impact on the lives of individuals.

Even this level of explanation only makes sense of an individual’s experience of depression in the light of their wider life experience. This by itself cannot make sense of wider changes in depression rates. For example between 1988 and 1992 the central-western United States had a male suicide rate that was roughly double that for the eastern United States.

In the same way, the evidence for a significant rise in depression rates over the past hundred years is strong. Changes in society at a wider level therefore also influence the likelihood that a person will experience depression.

This continues all the way up to National and International Systems. At a national level, things like laws, policies, and social and economic systems will affect and be affected by the community and neighbourhood systems. We can see this in countries where discrimination is institutionalised and in those where it is banned, and in countries where certain groups, such as sexual minorities, are persecuted and those that are actively working to ensure that sexual minorities are protected from persecution.

This continues up to a Global Systems level. No country can create its laws and policies without regard for the impact on those countries around it. Some issues, so as environmental protection, clearly stretch across national boundaries. Events in the Middle East show how what happens in one part of the world can have profound effects on others. Mass groups of people being forced out of one area by war or economic or environment destruction will have knock-on effects for neighbouring countries, which in turn will ripple out globally.

The important thing to note is that while each level of systems affects the levels above and below, explanations only work at one level. International Systems cannot be explained purely in terms of the behaviour of individual nations. Nations cannot be understood solely in terms of the cultures that make them up. People cannot be understood purely in terms of either their individual make-up or their social context. It is only when the complex web of relationships within and between levels is accounted for that any system can begin to be fully understood.

What It’s Not

Ecological-Systems theory is not the same as completing the assessment triangle or a genogram. Whilst both of these are compatible with systems thinking, it is possible to complete both of these in a very ‘non-systems’ way. It is only when the thinking uses different modes of thinking at different levels AND explores the relationship between levels that it is likely to be systemic.

Systems thinking is not simple, easy or superficial. To understand and apply the theory well requires a high degree of skill and knowledge. While in many ways it can be applied in a relatively simple and understandable way in reality this is only likely to be helpful when this is integrated with other theories and models.

Theory Checklist

Is the person seen in the context of a complex web of systems?

Are different explanatory frameworks used for different levels of systems?

Is influence seen as bi-directional (the large systems affect the smaller ones, but the smaller ones also affect the larger ones)?

Unless you can say ‘yes’ to all these questions you are not using Ecological-Systems theory, regardless of what other techniques and approaches you use.

Critique of the Theory

One of the biggest critiques of the model is that it was originally developed in the physical sciences to look at the way mechanical and biological systems work. There are serious dangers in uncritically applying models from this field into the field of human behaviour and social systems. People are more complex than machines. People also bring their own thoughts and theories to the mix. When using an Ecological-Systemic framework it is important for social workers to remember that the meaning of systems and the relationship between systems is not a fixed and absolute quality of the external world, but is something that service users and social workers construct together through their communication.

There is also a Feminist critique of Ecological-System theory (Myers-Avis, 2007). Whilst the model focuses on the inter-relationships between different parts of a system this often ignores the way that power may be used and abused. At one point a systemic understanding of child sexual abuse focused on the role of the adult sub-system of the family. The argument was put forward that one of the functions of the adult sub-system was to meet each other’s sexual ‘needs’. If one partner (usually a woman) did not meet the sexual ‘needs’ of the other (usually a man) then the second partner would seek an alternative source for their sexual ‘needs’ by abusing the children. In effect this shifted the blame from men as the main perpetrators of sexual abuse within a patriarchal power system, to women for ‘failing’ to meet men’s needs. This reading of sexual abuse served to perpetuate male power.

This can be seen as less of a criticism of the theory as a whole and more a criticism of how the theory is used in practice. There are many of ways of using systems thinking to open up debates about the way that different models of oppression operate at different levels of systems. The International and National structures that reinforce male privilege are supported by and support cultural practices that promote male privilege. These are supported by and support individual ways of thinking and relating that work to oppress women in a patriarchal society. Thompson’s PCS model shows how this systems level thinking can be applied to all forms of discrimination and oppression in societies where power is unequally distributed between different parts of the social system.

Another criticism sometimes made against the Ecological-Systems theory is that of a Euro-centric bias (Cook, 2020). This may relate to its more deterministic forms and that it originally developed in an American/Western European context. In many ways, this criticism does not do justice to the model. Systems thinking actively rejects the linear causal thinking that has characterised much of post-Enlightenment thinking in Europe. It is much closer to a Buddhist way of thinking, where cause and effect are seen as more illusions than a reality. It is also closer to the African concept of Ubuntu rather than something like Maslow’s concept of ‘self-actualisation’. So although care needs to be taken not to apply the theory in a Euro-centric way, for example by assuming that systems more common in Europe are better than those from other cultures, the model itself can be a powerful tool in Anti-Oppressive, Anti-Racist, and Anti-Sexist practice.

Although Systems thinking is widely claimed in social work practice, the reality is that the complete model has such a high degree of complexity that it is normally implemented in a relatively superficial way. As stated earlier this is why the model is most likely to be incorporated into a range of theories and models that help workers tailor an intervention to the unique circumstances of the service user.

Further Reading

Maclean, S. and Harrison, R. (2011) Theory and Practice: a straightforward guide for society work students. Lichfield: Kirwan Maclean Associates. Chapter 42 – “Systems theory” pp223-230

Smeeton, J. “Systems Approaches” in Davis. M. The Blackwell Companion to Social Work: Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Pp499-491

Trevithick, P. (2012) Social Work Skills and Knowledge: a practice handbook. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Appendix 4 – “Ecological approach in social work” pp323-328

Teater, B. (2010) Applying Social Work Theories and Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Chapter 2 – “Social Systems theory and the ecological perspective.” Pp16-37

Last updated 18.2.22