3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2.3 Development Background and Principles of General Systems Epistemology
64 In addition, open systems allow flexibility in the roles of its members, rich intersystem commerce; that is, their boundaries are permeable. On the other hand, closed systems are perceived to be rigid and allow little change in the roles and patterns in the system. Because the boundaries are rigid, that poses barriers to transition and therefore are especially vulnerable, chaotic and disruptive forces (L‟abate, 1998). There is no exchange with the environment and the environment does not influence the systems components. An appropriate balance between the two is desirable for a healthy functioning of the system.
In summary, the key concepts of the General Systems Theory can be described as the concepts that have to do with wholeness, organization and patterning. Events are studied within the context in which they are occurring and attention is focused on connections and relationships rather than on individual characteristics. This study will therefore utilize the General System Theory as a meta-perspective to understand and make sense of the trainees‟
experiences in the training context during their block.
65 associated concepts of interrelatedness, wholeness, circularity and patterned events. Hence, the concept of system is important in this paradigm.
The development of a systems theory relating to mental health is generally accredited to Gregory Bateson and his co-workers at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California.
Researchers at the Mental Research Institute were specifically concerned with the study of communication, its different levels and channels and how one message was modified or was significant in understanding another (Bosman, 2004). They further focused on the formulation and testing of a broad systemic view of the nature, etiology and therapy of schizophrenia. Names such as Haley, Watzlawick, Satir, Weakland and Jackson were associated with this work, all of whom shared the view of the family as an interactional social system (Bosman, 2004).
According to Vorster (2003) „the pattern which connects‟ seemed to be the central theme that ran through much of Bateson‟s life and much of his time and effort were spent on studying the first and second order patterns which according to him connected all living creatures.
Furthermore, Bateson‟s theoretical contributions seemed particularly useful regarding an understanding of interactions between human beings, much of which occurred eventually as communication. It could thus be stated that Bateson essentially mane an in-depth study of how human beings utilized rules to view and interpret the world around them and how this in turn influenced behaviour. This defined the introduction of systems theory into the behavioural sciences and the therapeutic arena (Bor in Bosman, 2004).
The term „cybernetics‟ also found widespread use in the systemic paradigm. Cybernetics refers to the science of self-correcting systems or self-governing systems. In addition, Keeney (1983) defines cybernetics as a science of communication and control in man and machine.
Cybernetics „identifies the patterns of organization that characterizes the mental and living
66 processes‟ (Keeney, 1982:155). It prescribes a way of knowing and identifying patterns that organizes events. In other words, cybernetics is used to describe the general principles of how systems operate. Since the concept of a system is also defined as consisting of a cybernetic network of communication, it is chiefly concerned with control, mechanisms and their associate communication systems, particularly those that involve feedback of information to the mechanisms about its activities. This cybernetic network of communication is viewed to be referring to the context of complexly intertwined and interpersonal relationships (Keeney, 1979). Since cybernetics belongs to the science of pattern and organizations in human systems, it calls for the undoing of materialistic abstractions and the constructing of distinctions that indicate patterns of relationships and recursive processes. From the beginning of the development of the systems perspective and thinking, the term „cybernetics‟
played a crucial role in assisting systems theories to conceptualize the phenomenon of recursiveness within systems (Vorster, 2003).
Therefore, the systemic approach instead of looking for linear causality, it highlights the interactional patterns that are formed though the relationships between parts. At the most basic level, a system view posits that objects, events, and experiences of them, are all part of a larger whole. It is thus a holistic approach. Where traditional psychology regarded an individual as the unit of observation and treatment, General Systems Theory was developed with the attention of shifting from the inside of the individual to between individuals. The individual is viewed as being a part of a larger whole, a system (Vorster, 2003).
In line with the above, Keeney (in Vorster, 2003) emphasizes that systemic diagnosis focuses on the interaction in the system and not on individuals in a system interacting. Focusing on the individuals within a system would constitute a linear epistemology. Focusing on the interaction emphasizes the pattern of relationships, process and the here and now, framing the data in terms of information and relationship. Thus, according to Clarke (in Ernst, 2008)
67 systems training implies a shift from the classical Cartesian-Newtonian worldview, which encompasses linear thought processes, towards a circular, systemic worldview. The classical Cartesian-Newtonian view has its roots in the western scientific tradition, which rests firmly on the foundation of certainty. According to this view, there is only one objective reality which is outside the observer. It is an either/or view where objects are mutually exclusive.
In contrast, the circular or systemic view encompasses an either/and view. Multiple realities are thus acknowledged. There is no absolute reality. This notion links up with the saying that the truth lies in the eyes of the beholder (Ernst, 2008). Reality is seen as co-created. Thus according to systems thinking, reality is a result of the observer‟s own constructed perceptions. The observer cannot be separated with that which is being observed. The aforementioned may have serious repercussions for trainees as it leads to a questioning of their foundation of what they know and has known their whole life. It ultimately leads to massive confusion, uncertainty and more inherently serious; self doubt. Consequently, the trainee‟s core assumptions about the world; the rules used to define reality are challenged during systems training (Clark in Ernst, 2008). The trainee‟s foundation is shaken, which ultimately leads to inner turmoil, conflict and uncertainty on cognitive, spiritual and emotional levels.
In addition, Harder (in Ernst, 2008) states that training within a General Systems Theory framework focuses on:
o the development of the human aspect of the therapist;
o fostering therapeutic spontaneity by using different aspects of the self of the therapist;
o training therapists to trust and make use of their inner symbols; and o engendering problem solving skills.
68 Therefore, General Systems Theory is an interactional approach to psychotherapy. The functioning of systems in terms of wholes, patterns, structure, organization and relationships is emphasized during training at the University of Limpopo (Medunsa Campus). The focus of training in clinical psychology is on assisting the trainee in becoming an effective therapist by using himself/herself as a tool in the therapeutic relationship.
According to Vorster ( 2003) General Systems Theory as a meta-perspective allows for the integration of various theories and one such theory is Person-Centered Theory which is central during the first block of training.
3.3 PERSON-CENTERED THEORY