Systems, Equity, Wellbeing

Most of us, including those who have not been formally introduced to systems thinking, have at least a vague awareness of the myriad systems of which we are a part.  We may not think specifically about the definition or qualities of a system (a collection of parts that influence each other and the whole towards a purpose, have subsystems and sit within larger systems, and require an input of energy in order to function) but we know they’re ‘there’.  

But given a moment to reflect and consider these properties, it becomes pretty clear that our families, schools, workplaces, communities, cities, countries, the globe, and everything in between, are socio-economic and geopolitical systems of which each one of us is a part.  If we expand our view, we can also see that we are necessarily part of naturally occurring systems, despite the best-efforts of some to separate us humans from everything else. Besides being natural systems ourselves, not much human activity could be conducted if the sun didn’t shine, plants didn’t photosynthesise, birds and insects didn’t pollinate and trees didn’t exhale oxygen, to name but a few systems upon which human life depends.  It is one of humanity’s great ironies that we believe we can dominate natural systems, rather than working with them and that human-created systems are ‘just the way it is’ and not subject to re-imagination or improvement. 

There are many expanding and contracting systems that comprise the world and beyond that the universe.  But always thinking at the scale of the universe doesn’t really work for making things better in our regions, in our communities, in our families or friend groups here on earth.  Applying boundaries can help make things more manageable although always with the awareness of the connections beyond and within those boundaries. An example of a boundary might be a local community or a specific ecosystem where we can identify the elements and their relationships to each other.   

Let’s use the simple systems tool of the connection circle to create a visual representation of an ecosystem.  To do this, draw a circle, write the elements of the system around the circle, and identify the relationships with lines of connection.  If we were to draw a woodland ecosystem connection circle, it might look something like this:

As you can see in this system designed by nature, there are many diverse, interconnected elements with lines that travel all over the circle creating a complex web of relationships. The ongoing complexity of these relationships requires that they be strong and inclusive. You might also notice some nodes of influence that have particular impact on the system. 

Imagine now that one of those elements were suddenly removed or excluded. How would it affect the rest of the system? We know that this is already happening and is setting in motion dangerous reinforcing feedback loops resulting in land, air and water degradation, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, wildfires, drought, floods.  When an element is removed or excluded from a system, the rest of the system suffers. 

In human systems, elements (human and more than human beings) are often excluded for what is claimed to be the greater good of the system but really only benefits a small minority of the system, usually those at the top of the hierarchy of what Elizabeth Sawin calls, in her book Multisolving, a Collection of Objects worldview. Western society at large operates from this worldview where domination of nature and other humans along with the collection of things both tangible and abstract are desired goals. The systems archetype of Success to the Successful is in full force here where reinforcing feedback loops cycle the accumulation of money and things in ever smaller circles while laying waste to the people and places from which they take. This worldview allows, as Elizabeth Sawin puts it, areas of sacrifice that benefit the very few at the expense of the majority, and even within that, some more than others. The result of this inequity are the oppressive systems like patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism, sexism and myriad others that sacrifice the wellbeing of some for the comfort and convenience of others. 

Sawin contrasts this with the Web of Relationships worldview (exemplified in the ecosystem we looked at above) which prioritises all elements of the system including all humans along with plants, animals, water, land, insects and other beings. Webs of strong relationships result in strong, resilient systems with improved collective and individual wellbeing. This worldview is distributive, shares knowledge, wealth and resources and values relationships over things. In human systems equity is a prerequisite when designing a system while at the same time, as relationships become stronger, equity emerges.  It is a reinforcing loop of equitable inputs and outputs. Where the Collection of Objects worldview highlights the systems archetype of Success to the Successful, the Web of Relationships worldview highlights Elinor Ostrom’s transformed version of the Tragedy of the Commons archetype, the Triumph of the Commons, which stresses the importance of including all stakeholders in community decisions and results in strong, diverse networks working together for collective and individual wellbeing.  

So, as Elizabeth Sawin encourages us to do, when thinking about how to improve equity within already-existing and to-be-designed human systems, consider what shapes how you see, experience and move through these systems.  Factors might include race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, beliefs, nationality, socioeconomic status, politics, cognition and so on.  The many intersecting and overlapping facets of who we are, how we see and are seen and how we make our way through the world as humans highlight that although we operate within the same system, we do not experience it the same way. Ask yourself what makes a system easier or more difficult for you to navigate?  What might make a system difficult or easier for others? Some are excluded from participating in the system, while others are only allowed to participate in certain ways that lead to expected, predetermined outcomes. These include historically oppressed and marginalised people as well as wildlife, water, air and land, and are not usually represented when setting policy yet decisions are made affecting them in their absence or despite their disapproval.   

To understand how others experience the system, traditional leadership and operational models must be disrupted and reimagined; listening to voices not often heard, valuing perspectives not often seen and centring experiences that are often dismissed.  In addition, the barriers, problems and challenges members face must become shared responsibilities that the group takes on together.  This kind of solidarity results in shared knowledge, resources and care, and results in greater collective intelligence and wellbeing.   

This can be difficult, complex work but that does not make it less necessary. Systems that prioritise efficiency and only include elements that are convenient or serve some interests at the expense of others, are brittle and in opposition to the understanding that a healthy, complex system prioritises diversity and strong relationships and is thus able to creatively respond to the demands placed on it and the challenges it may encounter together for collective wellbeing.  

Elizabeth Sawin puts all of this into much greater and complete context in her book Multisolving and offers an informed, thoughtful and hopeful way forward as we navigate the world in solidarity with all beings and the living earth herself.