Understanding and Changing Social Systems
B. EILEEN ALTMAN, AND STEPHEN P. STELZNER
INTRODUCTION:
THE ECOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
A preventive orientation affirms how social systems can be organized to have a positi ve impact on the development of those individuals who make it up. Here, the authors affirm that an ecological approach to social systems is useful to build a community-based community psychology, a psychology that is attentive to the promotion of competent individuals in responsive social systems.
The essence of the ecological perspective is to construct an understanding of the interrela- tionships of social structures and social processes of the groups, organizations, and commu- nities in which we live and work. The concept of interdependence is the basic axiom of the ecological perspective (Kelly, 1966, 1968, 1979a, 1979b; Kelly & Hess, 1987; Kelly, Dassoff, Levin, Schreckengost, Stelzner & Altman, 1988; Munoz, Snowden, & Kelly, 1979; Kingry- Westergaard & Kelly, 1990; Trickett, 1984, 1987, 1996). Designing change processes, creating new organizations and services, or reducing the noxious impacts of environmental and social factors, requires a working sense of not only the current interdependencies of people and structures, but the potential of creating, and facilitating new interdependencies.
The axiom of interdependence has been affirmed by R. A. Rappaport: "the ecosystem concept itself is a vital element in the construction, maintenance and reconstruction of the
JAMES G. KELLY • Department of Psychology, University of California. Davis. Davis, California 95616. ANN
MAR1E RYAN· Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan 48824. B. E1LEEN ALTMAN • 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064. STEPHEN P. STELZNER • Department of Psychology, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374.
Handbook of Community Psychology, edited by Julian Rappaport and Edward Seidman. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.
133
webs of life upon which, by whatever name we call them, we are absolutely dependent"
(Rappaport, p. 69, 1990).
This chapter has been prepared in the spirit of Rappaport's assertion. The authors have also drawn on the writings and research of Barker (1968, 1987); Bateson (1972, 1979); Bron- fenbrenner (1979, 1986); Kahn (1968), Katz & Kahn (1978); Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain (1974); Raush (1977,1979); Sarason (1972); Scott (1981); Stokols (1987, 1988); Trickett (1984, 1996); and Wicker (1987).
To create a resourceful social system requires that the initiator have a view of how people and social systems affect each other. The ecological perspective is proposed as a point of view that can elaborate structures and processes for both people and social systems.
Scott (1981) has summed up the concept of social system in the following statement:
Organizations are first and foremost, systems of elements, each of which affects and is affected by the others. Goals are not the key to understanding the nature and functioning of organizations, no more than are the participants, the technology, or social structure. And no organization can be understood in isolation from the larger environment. We will miss the essence of organization if we insist on focusing on any single feature to the exclusion of all others (Scott, 1981, pp. 18-19).
The larger environment, within which an organization exists, also becomes a focus from an ecological perspective. As Scott expresses it:
The interdependence of the organization and its environment receives primary attention in the open systems perspective. Rather than overlooking the environment ... the open systems model stresses the reciprocal ties that bind and interrelate the organization with those elements that surround and penetrate it. The environment is perceived to be the ultimate source of materials, energy, and information, all of which are vital to the continuation of the system (Scott, 1981, pp. 119-120).
Here the term "environment" refers to those factors, forces, and events that are outside the immediate social system. If the focus for prevention, for example, is an elementary school classroom, the classroom is considered to be the social system, and includes the various structures and events within it (Weinstein, 1991; Gump, 1987). The term environment refers to those parts of the school beyond the particular classroom and includes the surrounding community. Events, concerns, and themes in the larger community, as environmental factors, are considered to affect the classroom.
An ecological approach to social systems has at least two distinguishing features. First, it places the focus of analysis upon the transactions between persons and systems, and not only on the independent qualities of persons or systems. An ecological analysis focuses on the social system as a unified whole, as well as on the analysis of persons and their interrelation- ships within the system. An ecological analysis also attempts to understand the system's relationships with other systems (Aldridge, 1979; Aldwin & Stokols, 1988; Allen, Stelzner, &
Wielkiewicz, 1998; Capra, 1996; Katz & Kahn, 1978; von Bertalanffy, 1968, 1975; Buckley, 1968; McKelvey, 1982; Miller, 1978; Sameroff, 1980; Scott, 1981).
Second, the balance of social structures and social processes, rather than either of these in isolation, is seen as the source of effective system functioning. Structures are those elements of a social system that provide the opportunities or settings in which a member of the system interacts with other participants in the system-a framework in which to interact; while processes are the actions in the system that allow structures to be created, changed, or simply acted upon-how persons relate within the structure. Each structure and each process is treated in terms of its relationship with all other social structures and social processes. In any social system, structures and processes are developed in response to constraints and oppor- tunities that inevitably arise for persons within that system.
Structures may be policies, procedures, events and the settings for those events, or organizational elements and characteristics that provide access to meaningful resources within the social system. The structures within a social system indicate "what" makes up the characteristic elements of the system.
Processes are a series of social actions that make use of the structures of the system, and the interpersonal exchanges that take place within and between the various structures. The processes indicate "how" interactions take place within the social system. Processes consist of linked behavioral exchanges (Umbarger, 1983). The understanding of process has long been of interest to community psychologists (Kelly, 1979b; Klein, 1968), and a particular focus of consultation literature (cf., Kelly & Hess, 1987; Smith & Corse, 1986; Juras, Mackin, Curtis, &
Foster-Fishman, 1997; Thomas, Gatz, & Luczak, 1997). Process is a major topic that organiza- tional and clinical psychologists consider when working on organizational and personal change. The proponents of an ecological view observe how the various structures and various processes are, in fact, linked and woven together, affecting each other and creating a dynamic and unique expression of the particular system at a particular time (Capra, 1996).
In real life, social systems can be stifling. A common understanding of the term "social system" may suggest that a person's sense of self is subsumed under the needs of the system.
Accordingly, meeting the needs of a person is seen as secondary to meeting the needs of the system. This common view of a social system means that an individual not only is subordinate to the system, but also that he or she is given few of the tools necessary to maintain a balance between satisfying personal needs and satisfying the needs of the particular social system.
An ecological perspective encourages the design of preventive interventions that pro- mote the creation of social structures that better connect persons with the system in a positive manner, and encourage processes within that system that will allow persons to have a meaningful influence on the system itself. The goal of this type of intervention is to stimulate a social system so that individuals have opportunities to develop personal and social re- sources.
This chapter will elaborate a conceptual framework for putting the ecological perspective into practice. This will be done by first introducing eight concepts about the structures and process of social systems, which will be helpful in understanding how structures and processes interact. The latter part of the chapter will discuss concepts from two other perspectives, open- systems theory and developmental theory. This is done to illustrate connections between ecological concepts with which readers may be more familiar. It is hoped that this elaboration of the ecological perspective will enhance the work of community psychologists to generate lasting, growth-promoting, systemic changes.
EIGHT CONCEPTS ABOUT STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
In the following section, eight concepts are presented that provide an ecological frame- work for the analysis of social systems. They are divided into two main categories, four concepts defining structure and four concepts defining processes. These two concepts are considered basic and interdependent components of a social system. Together these eight concepts constitute an ecological approach to social systems, and represent the continued elaboration of an ecological perspective (Kelly, 1987; Kelly & Hess, 1987; Kelly et aI., 1988;
Kingry-Westergaard & Kelly, 1990; Trickett, 1987). The concepts are also presented as heuristic ideas to help design preventive interventions for social systems. Accompanying each
of the eight concepts is an illustration of how an elementary school can be viewed as an ecological system.
Structure
The four defining concepts of structure are: personal resource potentials, social system resources, social settings, and system boundaries. Each concept is estimated to make a unique and essential contribution to the quality of life within the social system.
Personal resource potentials refer to the opportunity for people within a social system to offer particular qualities, skills, or information that help promote the social competence of other participants in the system (e.g., recognizing participants for accomplishments that might otherwise go unnoticed). The concept of personal resource potential as a structural variable refers to the potential of environmental pathways that can make it easy for the competencies of persons to be expressed. For example, there may be an individual within the system who has a knack for creating spontaneous occasions for celebration, or initiating friendships, or encour- aging emotional release. It is necessary for the system to have in operation norms, values, and roles that can facilitate the expression of such behavior. In contrast, there may be norms, values, or roles that prevent this person from expressing these qualities. Personal resource potentials may be low in an organization lacking a history of expressing spontaneity, impro- vised occasions, or a commitment to informally recognize participants.
A basic notion of personal resource potential is that there does exist the potential for social ties to develop between and among participants in social systems, and that "resource opportunities" can be created as a result of those ties. The concept is similar to Granovetter's (1973) discussion of "weak ties" in personal social networks, or to the notion of personal communities articulated by Wellman, Carrington, and Hall (1988). The concept of personal resource potential is, however, not a reference to social networks often described in the social support literature (Gottleib, 1981; Naparstek, Biesel, & Spiro, 1982; Pilisuk & Parks, 1986;
Maguire, 1983; Vaux, 1988). The term personal resources refers to an "open" social system in which participants are able to express useful personal qualities that have an impact on other participants in the system. Often these qualities will not be recognized as valuable, or may even appear to be slightly unconventional (Chaleff, 1995).
When personal resource potentials are present in a system, or when social norms to support the development of personal resources are present, other persons can seek out informal ties. A low level of personal resource potential may indicate that environmental constraints are restricting the development of personal resources. For example, work overload within a
"closed" organization can limit the opportunities for participants of that organization to engage in the type of behaviors described above (e.g., traditions to support the maintenance of friendship). In the same way, environmental constraints can also limit the expression of social norms that promote the development of persons as resources (e.g., prohibiting conversation between assembly-line workers). Some persons who serve as resources often are not imme- diately recognized or acknowledged by others in the system. This can be a result of these persons occupying a lower social position, such as custodian or secretary.
In an elementary school, for example, the secretary may deal with a student's problem before it reaches crisis proportions. One diagnostic clue to whether a system is "open" is the extent to which persons serve as personal resources for each other, independent of their social position. The custodian may have established trust and rapport with students, but may not have access to certain information that could be useful in alleviating a problem, such as the
availability of tutoring. Persons who serve as personal resources can have a larger impact when social system resources are made available to them. Ultimately, those who serve as personal resources contribute to the quality of life of the participants in a social system (Allen, Stelzner, & Wielkiewicz, 1998).
The personal resources for the elementary school are potentially all persons in the school who can be a part of any program designed to improve the functioning of the system. This includes school secretaries, the building engineer, custodians, school bus drivers, street- crossing guards, other children, and parents, as well as the principal and teachers. All partici- pants and persons directly related to the system serving the children become possible resources for an intervention, independent of their social or economic position, their primary or second- ary affiliation, or their explicit or implicit roles.
Social system resources are groups, procedures, or events that influence the development of social systems. Social system resources, like personal resources, are available to promote the social competence of individuals within the system. In this case, however, the resource might be a specific occasion (e.g., a student or an "apprentice" given the opportunity to put new skills into practice) or a sympathetic group of people (e.g., a corporate board that con- tributes informational, financial, or political resources to a school or community service organization). Social system resources not only include information, money, and influence, but also traditions, customs, and observances that facilitate feelings of integration and of being a part of a social system. It is telling of a social system whether persons can access resources beyond those of individuals. Social system resources can make it possible to enhance the development of persons within the system, as well as to activate social relationships with other social systems. Once again, it is critical that there are norms and values that encourage the creation of such occasions or relationships.
Social system resources might also include a state or municipal law that helps to achieve the aims of a particular organization, such as laws guaranteeing equal access to resources (e.g., education for the handicapped or school athletic programs for women). Social system re- sources might also be influential persons who can sanction the work of the group, such as local celebrities, politicians, or business leaders. Some social system resources, like personal resources, can be hidden or unacknowledged, such as anonymous benefactors to community organizations or precedent-setting laws or policies.
As with personal resources, there will be constraints within the system that prevent the development of social system resources, such as norms and values that are at odds with the pursuit of a particular resource (e.g., a social action group that does not trust the political process). Social system resources are sometimes expected to increase or decrease with changes in the accessibility of personal resources. For example, not having a person with the time for, or understanding of, lobbying, greatly decreases the opportunity for influencing the legislative process. The reverse is also true, of course, in that increases or decreases in social system resources may result in increases or decreases in personal resources. Finally, social system resources can reflect the system's values and norms regarding the use of current resources and the creation of new resources.
The way in which resources are defined and appreciated informs the community psychol- ogist about just how much difficulty there is in perceiving and drawing upon the potential latent sources within a social system. An ecological perspective assumes that there are many more resources within a social system than are perceived to be available. The community psychologist, in using an ecological approach, focuses upon social system resources in order to determine how unidentified resources can be identified and tapped.
The social system resources of a specific elementary school are the commitments and the
social norms that make it possible for all of the participants in the system to express support, to spontaneously create solutions for the management of the school, and so on. Resources that can be brought to bear on the problem can be inside or outside the elementary school. Such resources can be community volunteer organizations, such as Big Sisters or Big Brothers, community recreational programs, or specially trained teachers in subject areas not already offered in the school. The concept of social system resources also refers to surplus energy in the form of untapped commitment and affiliation on the part of the participants in the system, as well as other community resources that the school can employ to carry out its activities and to cope with external demands.
Social settings are specific places or sites, both informal and formal, that provide an opportunity for the creation of both personal and social system resources (Sarason, 1972).
Social settings are expected to enhance a sense of identity and integration; they provide an opportunity for participants to share experiences, and to develop personal affiliations and a sense of community. Social settings are specific places in which significant social interaction occurs, such as the local high school athletic contest, the employee lounge, city council chambers, a local restaurant, the board room, the area around a photocopier, a park, and so on (Barker, 1968). Such places host social interactions or events that may develop new resources, or may maintain resources already established. Subsequently, each of these settings has the potential to be a place in which the individual may come into contact with potentially valuable personal and social system resources, which in tum may be useful to the individual and the entire social system.
Some social settings, like some personal and social system resources, are not expected to be well-known or acknowledged by participants (e.g., restrooms). Whether acknowledged or not, social settings are expected to affect the transmission of cultural values, social norms, and rules of conduct that govern the social system; they make it possible for persons to be interdependent with the larger social system. They represent concrete expressions of the system's way of life, and illustrate how structure and process within the system are balanced. It is within these social settings that participants in the social system learn how the structures and processes of the system come together.
In an elementary school, social settings denote those places within or outside the school that can become sites for creating a milieu for informal help and support. These can be places such as the school cafeteria, the playground, sports facilities, the teachers' lounge, the gymnasium, a local candy store, the secretaries' office, the neighborhood library, as well as hallways and classrooms (Newman, 1979). Social settings can also be occasions created by the participants to informally acknowledge each other, to celebrate holidays or birthdays, and to take time out to have fun after an arduous period of work. These can be locations where the competencies of all the participants in the system can be developed and where social support and guidance can be provided. A natural social setting can serve as an indigenous "interven- tion." A social setting provides the personal and social system resources for social support while the participants learn new skills. The social support generated can help a child or teacher in social settings become integrated within the system, so that they then can more easily create personal meaning for their roles within the social system.
Social settings are expected to be affected by the quality of system boundaries. System boundaries refer to the relationships between social systems (e.g., one organization and another; one neighborhood and another), and specifically refer to the formal and informal interaction and communication that exists between two or more systems. System boundaries represent the degree to which a particular system makes it easy or difficult for persons inside one social system to establish reciprocal relationships with persons outside the system.