II General Systems Theory: Model or Muddle

GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY IS A DOCTRINE of genuine theoretical and practical merit. By virtue of its being a 'theory of theories' it profers a twofold vantage to psychotherapists; first, it brings psychotherapy into a systematic relationship with other sciences, not just social sciences, and second, it offers a specific model, metaphor, or if you prefer 'paradigm' for conceptualizing the process of therapy. Its somewhat immodest promise is that of the philosopher's stone; a theory that explains everything and shows the inherent connection and transformational calculus of everything. Yet, this heady brew has lead to more intoxication than solid results. As has been the fate of many doctrines in their passage from the mouths of the innovators to the hands of the acolytes, it has undergone lip service, banalization, cooptation and downright misunderstanding. "Homeostasis", "open system", "closed loop", "feedback" are used in a fashion that is more modish than original. Often, the underlying theoretical paradigm seems more related to W.B. Cannon's physiological homeostatis or Kurt Lewin's field theory: both admirable concepts, but neither entirely current, and certainly not general systems theory.

To be both vital and relevant, a new model must meet several criteria. First, it must offer a coherent model for phenomena not completely or adequately subsumed under the old model. That is, the accumulated discordant data precede the theory and the theory emerges under the pressure of the need for a new explanatory system. If this is not so, then one is simply fitting a new terminology to old data and the rule of parsimony applies, the new theory is simply superfluous. Second, the theory must re-organize the way its practitioners perceive the data, so that new data emerge or the old data shift their emphases. Third, the new model must have a certain aesthetic harmoniousness for the theorist. Kuhn has said that scientific paradigms change when the old theorists die or