CHAPTER 14
Systems Theory
Gail G. Whitchurch and Larry L. Constantine
Introduction
Modern systems theories about families are de-
rived from General System Theory (GST), which
is both a transdisciplinary field of study and a the-
oretical framework in which various microlevel
approaches are k n o w n as "systems theories." Sys-
tems theorists seek to explain the behavior of
complex, organized systems of all s o r t s - - f r o m
thermostats to missile guidance computers, from
amoebas to families. C o m m o n l y referred to as
"systems theory," GST is also a program of theory
construction aimed at building concepts, postu-
lates, principles, and derived theorems that apply
universally across all domains of application.
Hence, GST is a theory of systems in general. Al-
though n u m e r o u s bodies of special knowledge
have b e e n labeled as systems models or theories,
the body Of theory that may be thought of as em-
bracing them all is that of GST. Indeed, some
scholars consider GST to be broader than a theo-
ry, but rather an alternative W e l t a n s c h a u u n g - - a
u n i q u e worldview ( R u b e n & Kim, 1975) that re-
quires adopting "systems thinking." In other
words, systems thinking is a way of looking at the
Gaff G. Whitchurch 9 FamilyResearch Institute, Indi-
ana University, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. Larry L.
Constantine 9 Acton,Massachusetts 01720
Sourcebook o f Family Theories and Methods.. A Contextual
Approach. Edited by P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa,
W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum Press,
New York, 1993.
325
world in which objects are interrelated with one
another.
In this chapter, we draw o n all of these defini-
tions of GST in tracing the origins and historical
development of GST, its core assumptions, some
of the main questions addressed by GST, and ma-
jor c o n t e m p o r a r y systems concepts, which we
then integrate in a model linking family systems
concepts with one another. We discuss examples
of research emerging from GST and some limita-
tions of GST and identify future directions of sys-
tems theories and families. Because the broad
scope of this chapter requires such conciseness in
our discussion, w e have provided the reader with
n u m e r o u s citations. We encourage readers to use
this chapter as an overview, consulting additional
sources o n topics of particular interest.
Origins and Sociocultural Milieu
The emergence of m o d e r n GST must be un-
derstood within the landscape of this century's
general b o o m in scientific explanation. Before the
development of GST, classical physics had pre-
dominated in scientific inquiry for several cen-
turies, developing mathematical and scientific
models that were drawn from two broad domains:
mechanics and statistics. Mechanistic (i.e., linear,
causal) explanations serve well for situations in-
volving relatively few parts with strong connec-
tions or interactions, such as models for relatively
simple mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical sys-
326 PART VI 9 FAMILYTHEORIES AND METHODS EMERGING DURING 1960-1980
tems. Statistical models work well for situations
involving large n u m b e r s of parts, provided these
are not highly structured or strongly intercon-
nected, such as behavior of gas molecules u n d e r
ideal conditions (Weinberg, 1975).
Physics, with its mechanistic models and
compact, precise mathematical formulations, was
long regarded as the ideal to be imitated by all
other disciplines claiming to be scientific. Earlier
thinking about h u m a n social behavior had b e e n
marked by theological or metaphysical explana-
tions which held that humans are externally con-
trolled by e x t r a - h u m a n forces. But even in phys-
ics, mechanistic explanations were o n the decline
by the early decades of the twentieth century
(Laszlo, 1972). Mechanistic models were proving
inadequate for increasingly complex experimen-
tal results and insufficient u n d e r the growing influ-
ence of relativistic and q u a n t u m physics. Ein-
stein's special and general theories of relativity
killed long-cherished notions of an absolute or ob-
jective point of reference; q u a n t u m mechanics, by
introducing indeterminacy and subjectivity into
measurement, wrote the epitaph. Yet another
crisis in explanation that simple mechanism could
not s u r m o u n t occurred w h e n Driesch ( 1 9 0 8 ) dis-
covered that sea urchin embryos obligingly devel-
oped into two whole organisms w h e n sliced in
two, even though mechanism would predict that
cutting the embryo should cause it to die. Thus, in
biology, mechanism warred with an early explana-
tion for the sea urchin p h e n o m e n o n : vitalism, the
doctrine that living organisms cannot be ex-
plained through natural science because they
function according to principles distinct from
physical laws (yon Bertalanffy, 1968).
General System Theory represented a major
departure from limitations of both mechanistic
and vitalistic models. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an
Austrian biologist, believed that Driesch's discov-
ery and other seeming contradictions could be
explained by applying universal principles to all
kinds of groupings of p h e n o m e n a he called
systems, or "set[s] of elements standing in interre-
lation among themselves and with the environ-
ment" (von Bertalanffy, 1975a, p. 159). Later in
this chapter, we discuss the assumptions inherent
in this definition, as well as the universal principles
of GST. However, first we will "set the stage" by
tracing the ways in which von Bertalanffy and oth-
ers came to m o u n t such a sweeping challenge to
prevailing explanations and how systems explana-
tions entered family social science.
Historical Development of General
System Theory
The Pre-World War H Era
The foundations of m o d e r n GST were laid by
von Bertalanffy and a few early supporters in pre-
World War II Vienna, with Naziism swelling just
over the border in Germany. Although yon Ber-
talanffy himself was educated in the neopositivism
of what came to be called the "Vienna Circle" of
philosophers of science, he acknowledged in-
terests that conflict with positivism, such as
Spengler's ( 1 9 2 2 ) historical rclativism (von Ber-
talanffy, 1968, 1975a). Spengler and a few other
historians challenged the linear portrayal of histo-
ry as a progression of events from antiquity until
m o d e r n civilization, arguing for viewing history as
a cycle of the rise and decline of major cultures
( v o n Bertalanffy, 1975a). Historical relativist
thinkers clearly influenced von Bertalanffy early in
his career: He began formulating his ideas about
systems in the 1920s, while he was in his twenties.
Although he wrote a paper that used the term
"system" and presented the basic principles of
GST in 1937, World War II intervened, and the
paper was not published until after the war.
Wartime Necessity
World War II was among the major forces
that shaped the field of GST and its early develop-
ment, forcing a focus o n immediate, practical
technological successes in disciplines with impact
on the war effort. What might, u n d e r other cir-
cumstances, be matters of elegance or mathe-
matical curiosity became issues of survival under
pressure of w i d e n i n g armed combat. For example,
extensive use of airplanes in warfare during World
War II necessitated intensive research on anti-
aircraft g u n n e r y to improve accuracy of aiming
at moving targets from ships rolling on ocean
waves. Therefore, mathematical theory of predic-
tion was developed to calculate the positions of
e n e m y aircraft ahead of their current positions to