Every behavior has a systems context; there are no isolated behaviors.
Jim Edd Jones
The word ‘behavior’ has been a staple of psychology since early in the 20th century. How we think with that word has been imprinted by Pavlov’s classic experiments and then later by the John Watson and B.F. Skinner branches of behaviorism. These gentlemen taught us to isolate behavior and then consider it together with other isolated physiological events.
1) Pavlov showed that when dogs are repeatedly presented with a neutrally perceived isolated stimulus pattern followed by the triggering of an automatic physiological response, then the mere presentation of that perceived stimulus pattern will come to evoke that automatic physiological response.
2) A behavior that is repeatedly followed by a rewarding event will gradually come to occur more frequently.
Notice that the behavior is spoken of as if it stands alone, monolithic and unconnected to anything before the repeated trials of the experiment begin creating some connections.
We have been brainwashed by psychology and popular culture to think about behavior as isolated and unconnected, until figures in the environment, notably parents, begin to “nurture” this or that behavior. This is the fallacy of the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate.
There are no isolated behaviors. Any behavior always comes from a system with a history and its level of differentiation and also occurs in a system with a current level of differentiationand intensity of anxiety. To see behavior as isolated and unconnected is an ill-conceived notion that overlooks the massive reality impact of systems context and history.
For this reason the Pavlovian and Skinnerian approaches to training behavior have had limited success They succeed when system and history coincidentally are configured so as to support motivation for the change and not to oppose the desired change. But this is operating blind, just hoping that the system happens to be complementary to the change.
This same line of reasoning applies to any form of treatment which focuses on isolated segments of behavior. Behavior modification, exposure therapies, and cognitive behavior therapy are modern forms of the Skinner-Pavlov tradition. Psychiatric medications go after a narrow slice of human emotional functioning. Transcranial magnetic stimulation looks to change the activity level of one part of the brain. Diets focus on eating as an isolated behavior. Any kind of complex skill training tries to influence the learning of the skill(e.g. piano, golf, martial arts, painting) isolated from everything else about the person and his/her relationship system. Meditation and mindfulness practice focus on isolated states of consciousness to the exclusion of the whole person and system. Neurofeedback goes after specific patterns of the brain’s cycling electrical activity. Most often, various orthopedic surgeries and physical therapy zero in one isolated part of the person. Brain training programs use new sophisticated methods but still are operating with Skinnerian S-R change paradigms. Even placebo interventions and hypnosis focus on isolated behavior.
All of these have their usefulness, within limits, and we can learn something from each, provided we maintain a larger framework. They work some of the time, when system and circumstances happen to be fortunately configured. But none of them have good explanations for the times they don’t work, since they don’t see the parts of reality they are oblivious to. Parenthetically, when you are thinking with the individual perspective of any of these therapies, you are simultaneously practicing not seeing systems. Trust me, I know this from experience.
The bottom line is that human action cannot be divorced from person and system. Otherwise there is a price to pay.
I like this challenge to my compartmentalized mind, to consider how I fall into individual thinking, especially when I’m trying to solve a problem in functioning–and how that works against an optimal outcome . . . The studies of change point to the people you surround yourself with. I always thought I would go off on my own and change myself and then enter the stage with others, but that’s not how it works, is it? You change through those relationships, if at all. It makes sense that seeing systems takes practice . . . and not seeing is practiced, too.
Yes. The reciprocal dynamics between individual and relationship system is too easily missed when I get locked into either side.
Thanks, Jim Edd. I’ve been rather focussed on how change in symptoms follows change in the family system. I am hoping that I can see the system in real time better and better as time goes on. Are you writing on this for any particular project?
You’re welcome, Laura. This emerged as an offshoot of me exploring ways to make systems perception and thinking more of a routine habit.
This is a succinct but comprehensive overview of ways of thinking and attendant ways of solving problems that are now predominant. More than “brainwashing,” I think we get caught in narrow, single-variable, cause-and-effect thinking because it comes easier and faster than systems thinking, and also because anxiety drives the quick fix. I like your point that much of this knowledge has a useful place as long as we don’t lose sight of the larger context.
Clearly stated, and an interesting comment about meditation, which my experience does validate. The relationship system has effected my meditation practice from day one. Bowen widened the lens from individual psychological theory to include the systemic effect on all that we think and do and are. I think the lens can go wider, and we can get more precise in our ability to see the system. I enjoyed the brio in the writing.