• 

  SYSTEMS THINKING

Some see a system as a group of two or more related parts. Others see the relationship between two or more entities as they form a system. Some see systems as a common language.

Systems can be broken down into:

• Simple – a single path and a single answer with clear boundaries and stable relationships. [one input and one output]

• Complicated – many interconnected parts that interact with clear boundaries or definitions. Which can be nested or hierarchical. Need an expert to define or fix the process. [a linear cause-and-effect relationship]

• Complex – many interconnected parts that interact with clear boundaries or definitions. This can lead to emergent behaviours that can’t be predicted from the individual components. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Some rules govern these parts or smaller groups to create an overall mechanism or system. A bottom up approach to organization.[a non-linear disproportionate relationship]
  • Adaptive – This system adapts to change.
    • Some simple parts interact through feedback loops.
    • The system or parts can organize themselves without a central authority. There is no hierarchy or plan.
    • Cycles are created by the influence of other parts, resulting in some cases of cause-and-effect sequences. Think of a flock of birds.
      • [ecosystems, global climate, social networks, stock markets, the internet.]

Some groups of people do not want to see a system at all. They value more than a cause-and-effect relationship or a self-organizing set of goals. These communities, people or groups align by doing, living and being.

Instead of the traditional system, Indigenous peoples speak the oral tradition, narratives, and use phenomenological techniques to explore lived experiences. Narrative inquiry focuses on individual stories and how people make sense of their lives through narrative. Phenomenological experiences are shared by a group. Gaudencia Mutema writes in the PHENOMENOLOGY, HERMENEUTICS AND THE STUDY OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS that:

“In fact, some departments of religious studies at African universities require their undergraduates to take phenomenology as a compulsory and preparatory course for studies in African Traditional Religions and Thought. Despite the criticism levelled against it, phenomenology seems to offer a better approach to the study of African Traditional Religions and Thought. This paper draws upon the strengths of phenomenology in the study of African Traditional Religions and applies these to the study of Indigenous Knowledge Systems.” (Mutema)

How sad. Spirituality is such a rich experience. Making it a rigid methodology based on Western ideology ruins it. This destroys the wonder and the feeling of being connected to something greater.

“Yet in Africa, where traditional religions and thought systems of the indigenous people of Africa were formerly rendered primitive and at worst, dismissed as non-existent, Western developed phenomenology has been exalted as a method of studying religion.” (Mutema)

As an important definition. Ideology is not just a belief. It is more. Ideology is a structured lens that shapes the way people understand, navigate and intervene in a system.

Suppose I have an out-of-body experience or connect to a group of people because of a shared phenomenon. You can not interpret this experience. In that case, an outsider interpreting that experience can be challenging. The use of hermeneutics (interpretation of the experience) is the antithesis of spirituality. This interpretation aims to defend the people or the practice. In fact, it legitimizes a point of view that is not authentic. How can the writer be so blind? Spirituality often involves a quest for understanding life’s purpose, values, and ultimate truths. Spirituality is a personal journey. What it means to one person can differ significantly from what it means to another. This is why interpretation destroys the experience.

Worse. The Western ideology that Mutema condemns is the same as her defense of “African Religion”. Mutema’s use of hermeneutics to describe a phenomenal practice and culture makes it a “religion” where it is not. Some Indigenous experiences and thought processes are phenomenal, not rigid and religious.

Distinguishing Spirituality from Religion:

“While spirituality and religion are often intertwined, they are not the same. Religion typically involves formalized beliefs, practices, and communities, while spirituality is more personal and can encompass various practices without a formal religious affiliation.” (google)

Again, this interpretation is wrong. Communities are brought together through a shared experience. The interpretation is why religion exists in our common Western ideological system or frame of reference. Yet, the above definition does offer a truth. “Religion typically involves formalized beliefs.” This key point highlights why interpretation and ideologies seek to make systems thinking valid, where there is no need. Overall, this sheds light on why we have problems in our societies. As we are unable to distinguish experience and culture from prescribed outcomes, and ideology. It is the difference between prayer and meditation. It is the difference between a community and a city. If we allow our thinking to be systemic, we miss out on a shared experience. We will not live or practice adaptive and non-hierarchical thinking, experiences that teach us.

Furthermore, Ideology is like a feedback loop filter. It allows us to define problems and rank goals. We can interpret relationships between the elements. Ideology wants to set up which interventions are seen as valid or necessary. In interpreting, ideology reinforces patterns, suppresses others and can reinforce loops if positive and balances loops if negative. Ideology has its own agenda. When we are ideological, we interpret beliefs and structures. These interpretations can be negative or positive. Ideologies can “nudge” interpretations in situations where manipulation is unnecessary or counterproductive. In some cases, even fake.

Ideology shapes system boundaries, needs and wants, what matters and what does not matter. For example, gay rights. Who is inside and who is outside? Capitalism is another example. Capitalism seeks to make money the tool to achieve wealth or prosperity. It prioritizes and makes boundaries between the rich and the poor. In all cases, ideology can be seen as negative or positive based on bias or position compared to the boundary. Sometimes, due to ideology, people ignore systemic problems. They focus instead on a positive or desired goal or feedback loop. An example of this is the environment. When faced with an inconvenient truth, we overlook our impact on the environment. We do this in favour of affluence or profit. On the other hand, environmental ideology seeks to undermine the network’s need to move resources. It favours protecting the environment over these actions. Yet, environmental ideology expands the framework to include the ecosystem. This is where problems emerge. We want to overcome the degradation of the environment, but we will not stop anthropogenic activities.

We can use systems thinking in areas where the process is well-defined. The process is repeatable and proven. When the process is rigid. But, when we want an authentic process, it is better to engage in a shared experience. When an unpredictable outcome is preferable, an adaptive approach is used. This applies in situations where we want an organized method. It is also true when a system has many parts working together to achieve a goal.

• 

  JOURNAL ENTRY FIVE

  Uncategorized