Despite our current state of social decay, a systems approach could help rebuild habits, manners, and morals that have fallen into disrepair. Because it takes a comprehensive view of social problems, such an approach would entail a multi-step process.
First, it would bring together a wide range of concerned actors from government, philanthropies, religious institutions, NGOs, the private sector, and local communities to build a common picture of the current reality. Second, these stakeholders would be given an opportunity to lay out their competing explanations for why the complex problems persist and even grow despite decades of attempts to improve conditions. Third, these different perspectives would be integrated into a much more comprehensive picture of the whole system, including underlying drivers of the problems. Fourth, with this comprehensive picture, stakeholders would see how various well-intended efforts to solve the problems in the past often made things worse. Finally, they could use this knowledge to forge a new vision of how the future might unfold through a wide range of complementary initiatives that can combine to produce sustainable, system-wide change.
Borrowing from David Peter Stroh, Kaplan contrasts conventional thinking with systems thinking.
Note that the first point highlights the oversimplification bias that is embedded in conventional thinking.
Unfortunately, most systems thinking approaches to solving problems like this embed the same difficulties and the conventional approaches. A systems approach which puts society in the chaotic regime, rather than complex or complicated (Cynefin), would note that point #1 makes #2 largely incorrect. We do not have significant ability to solve the problems despite having the theoretical capability to push the right buttons easily. We can’t find the buttons. This explains #3. The real question is whether there are any not-quick fixes we can find. #4 is just silly, but it helps make a claim to self-evident superiority.
Seemingly, the solution to creating unintended consequence problems is a kind of conservatism. You may not know why it was working, but you can go back to it. But there is path dependence, if you will. History matters. Thus, only the kind of conservatism that prevents change can protect the status quo – and its flaws – from unknown future flaws. The only option then, is to create gaming situations – safe to fail – and play out what impact a change might have before rolling it out. Creating the games is very difficult, especially when they are scale-dependent, involve biology, and one needs centuries or millenia of foresight.
… The machinery of moral causes, which forms a political society, is too complex for any finite mind to foresee, by its a priori speculations, what wheels will be moved by the spring which he touches. His only safe guide is the experience of previous results under similar conditions. If he attempts to act beyond; this his action is, in the worst sense, experiment; a blind guess, leading him by haphazard to unforeseen results. In the sciences of material things, these experiments have been useful and are legitimate. The philosopher may properly deal thus with his metallic ore; he may venture his unproved hypothesis concerning it; he may submit it to new solvents, or acids, or fires; oftentimes he will find that his hypothesis is false and leads to nothing; but sometimes he will find that it is the occasion of stumbling upon the key to one of nature’s precious secrets. Now, his justification is that the ore which he eats with corrosive acids, or melts in his furnace, suffers nothing in this blundering process of questioning after new truth. It has no nerves to be fretted under his handling; no heart to be wrung; no sentient or intellectual destiny to be perverted or destroyed under his mistakes, and, above all, no immortal soul to be lost in his hands. But, in social science, mere experiments are crimes; for the subjects of them are immortal intelligences, endowed by God with a moral destiny, with hearts to bleed under errors, and never-dying souls to be lost.
Fearful, then, is the responsibility of him who handles a social revolution new in the history of man. He must march; yet he cannot know whether or not the path which he selects will lead him over the bleeding hearts and ruined destinies of his own charge. For such, the only adequate director is the Spirit of God; and his best resort is prayer. To that resort I sincerely and solemnly commend you; and close by subscribing myself,
Your very obedient servant,
ROBERT L. DABNEY
Sept. 12, 1865. Prince Edward County, Va.
” First, it would bring together … sustainable, system-wide change.”
Point 1. Does it really seem to you that this process resembles American government? That this is the way Donald Trump’s White House, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell’s Congress, John Roberts’ Supreme Court and a variety of regulatory agencies actually work? Or even wish to work?
Point 2. Do these concerned “stakeholders” contain individuals or groups such as Steve Bannon, the Koch brothers, the National Rifle Association, Peter Thiel, George Soros, and several hundred “K Street lobbyists”? Why or why not?
Point 3. Do internet bloggers, Facebook users, and Fox News viewers count as stakeholders? If not, should “stakeholders” involved in this “system analysis” make some effort to learn their views and incorporate them?
Point 4. It strikes me as reasonable and plausible if a gaggle of cops and concerned citizens tell a city council “we need more STOP signs on Lowell Avenue to cut down on accidents and also it’d be nice to fill in some pot holes.” Suppose you have a nice big Presidential commission apply systems analysis to The Optoid Menace and conclude the American Midwest is troubled by unemployment, lack of opportunity, and memes in popular culture that stress short-term hedonism — which seems to be just the sort of conclusion economists and social scientists and the sort of people who get on Presidential commissions generally come to. Is this actually useful?
TL;DR — System analysis won’t solve social problems without social change, and most of the people who govern modern societies don’t want such changes.
1) There’s no free lunch. 2) Incentives matter.
This is not “oversimplification”, because each of these 2 economic truths include many subtleties.
The gov’t/social problems include the fact that somebody has to pay — and whoever has to pay, or pay more, will be against the program, or the the change. Systems thinking doesn’t change this, altho it might try to obfuscate it more than honest conventional thinking — tho current politicians seem to do a lot of hiding now.
There really is a “moral hazard” problem, where free people make questionable decisions about their lifestyle, and too often have a very undesirable result, like an unexpected child of an unmarried woman. If the gov’t tries to make that family’s poverty less terrible, it’s unintended but obvious consequent is to incentivize more of that questionable lifestyle choice, in this case promiscuity.
No different type of thinking changes this simple, clear, but unwanted truth.
I don’t think a systems approach will work to solve large social issues/problems. HOWEVER, having an understanding of the systems approach to issues will provide a better framework for managing these issues and problems.
To be clear, I don’t think we “solve” social issues. They tend to “solve” themselves over time. We can’t bring people together and say “OK, here’s where we all agree, so let’s set a policy and drag everyone to the table” and expect everything to work or be fine. In fact, that’s been tried before and it tends to fail.
However, what we can do is seek to engage point 4 – improve relationships, regardless of POV. The tough part here is the belief of most people that “if you’re not in agreement with how I want to do things, you’re wrong and we can’t work together.” I had a boss who once said “It’s not enough to have everyone on the bus. We need the RIGHT PEOPLE on the bus.” About as exclusive a statement as I’ve ever heard. That might be fine for a management team, but not for the team trying to accomplish the goal.
I know from experience that you can disagree with people on the ‘how’ and still agree on the goal. It’s not easy, but you can. I keep pointing out to my Progressive friends that their solutions REQUIRE me to adhere to THEIR moral values, whereas my solutions allow them to voluntarily work together on shared moral values, but also allow others who disagree with them to manage on their own, or form their own voluntary groups in opposition. Since Progressive values are built upon a presumed (although I’d say they are lying to themselves) bedrock of diversity, a Libertarian approach expands diversity and extends opportunity – whereas their government-centric approaches tend to break us into identity driven groups, thereby destroying diversity.
Improved relationships is the critical part of any process-driven solution, and most issues I’ve run into really require process-driven solutions. So the key, to me, is always going to be starting with relationships.
As an introvert, this has been a very, very, very hard road for me to travel. But it’s completely necessary.