I concluded my last blog series The Identified Patient by suggesting that we as a nation should embrace a systems worldview. That’s great hyperbole best suited for the sales floor of a car dealership. In this post I would like to take you to the finance office in back where you will be confronted with the true cost and complexity of buying that shiny systems car. Hopefully these insights will keep you away from buyer’s remorse.
Our Foundation is often asked Could you give us an example of systems theory and thinking, and how they are applied to a specific social problem? Sure. There are several examples I could point to, however, the one that I think clearly shows how best to frame a social problem using systems theory and thinking has to be our past association with the First Strike Campaign.
Back in the late 1990s, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) developed the First Strike Campaign. First Strike was designed to address research data, just starting to accumulate at that time, in support of the correlation between abuse toward animals and violence toward humans.[1] Not unlike the saying, “Where there is smoke, there’s fire,” First Strike put forward the idea, “Where there is abuse toward animals, there is violence toward humans.” During this timeframe I was just starting out as a psychotherapist. I worked primarily with troubled adolescents. I can honestly say that I was ill-prepared for the number of stories I heard from teens (almost exclusively males) that included abuse toward animals. Suffice it to say that my counseling training said nothing about such harrowing stories. Containing my emotions was certainly a big challenge as I am an avowed animal lover.
As fate would have it, our Foundation was contacted by All Faiths Receiving Home, an organization who works with young children and teens who had experienced or witnessed violence in the family. All Faiths was looking for a lead funder to provide funding to start a First Strike Campaign in the Albuquerque area. Once All Faiths explained to us that First Strike was about identifying and treating the connection between abuse toward animals and violence toward humans, our Foundation (in September 2001, and again in February 2003) provided the necessary funding to get First Strike off the ground in the Albuquerque area.
First Strike was designed to get a number of agencies to work together as a coherent system, especially in the area of reporting. First Strike attempted to coordinate activities between animal shelters, veterinarian clinics, therapy clinics working with families (like All Faiths), domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, police departments, medical clinics, CYFD (Children, Youth & Families Department), and even the judicial system. The idea was that if any of these departments encountered either abuse toward animals or violence toward humans, all of the other participating agencies would be notified and put on alert. Here’s a quote from First Strike materials from 2001:
If you are building a coalition from the ground up, identify all of the key players and decision-makers in your [area] who deal with violence issues. Use the information you gather on community resources to draw up a primary list. Additional individuals and organizations may be identified as you begin contacting those on the primary list. Try to include representatives from the following disciplines: law enforcement, courts, animal protection, health organizations, children and family services, community programs (e.g., Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts), emergency services (e.g., Red Cross, Salvation Army), education, legislation, churches and media.
I’m happy to report that First Strike in the Albuquerque area back in the early 2000s was successful. Families and animals were able to receive the services they needed. And, yes, “fires” were put out at the “smoke” stage, which was one of the systems goals of First Strike. The First Strike Campaign caught the attention of the local news paper, The Albuquerque Journal, which ran a story in October 2003 with the headline City To Target Domestic, Pet Violence.[2] Here’s a quote from that article:
Animal abuse not only can point to the likelihood of family violence, it is often used to perpetuate family violence. An abuser will threaten to hurt or kill a pet if a battered wife tries to leave, for example, or to force compliance and silence in an abused child.
Suffice it to say that the First Strike Campaign is a clear example of applying systems theory and thinking to the social problems of abuse toward animals and violence toward humans. I’m still very proud of that effort. Sadly, the First Strike Campaign in the Albuquerque area disbanded not long after that Journal piece was written. What happened? For the answer to that question, we need to turn to the work of cognitive and linguistic researcher turned political commentator, George Lakoff, and his 1996 book entitled Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
In the 1990s I discovered the work of George Lakoff by reading his 1980 book entitled Metaphors We Live By, written with his long time collaborator Mark Johnson. Lakoff and Johnson are considered to be two of the chief animators behind the theory known as embodied cognition. Embodied cognition holds that we use our bodies—and the metaphors our bodies make—to think about the world. As examples, our sense of up, down, in front, and behind all derive from our sense of our body moving through space. Lakoff and Johnson go so far as to suggest that the structure of a sentence follows from our experience of walking through the woods: a beginning, a verb or action, adjectives or descriptions, and an ending. Heck, Lakoff and Johnson argue that the sense of boundedness we encounter when we place numbers and operators within a set of parentheses comes from our sense of our bodies as discrete and bounded spaces.
In his later career, Lakoff moved into the area of political commentary. Lakoff wanted to understand what metaphors or frames liberals and conservatives use to navigate social as well political landscapes. Aided by an insight he gleaned from a graduate student attending one of his classes, Lakoff came up with the idea that liberals use a cognitive map or model he called The Nurturant Parent cognitive model. In contrast, conservatives use The Strict Father cognitive model. Both of these models are described at length in his book Moral Politics.
The best way to get a sense for each of these cultural cognitive models is to think about the Bible. The Old Testament, with its focus on “right and wrong” and Law & Order, largely captures the essence of the Strict model. In contrast, the New Testament, with its focus on “turning the other cheek” and Love & Forgiveness, largely captures the essence of the Nurturant model. Spoiler alert: Lakoff argues that here in the U.S. (and in other countries) liberal thinkers tend to use the Nurturant model to navigate social as well political landscapes whereas conservative thinkers tend to us the Strict model.
The Strict model is focused on Law & Order and hierarchically structured systems of power (i.e., vertically structured) like those often found in military and corporate worlds. The Nurturant model is focused on Love & Forgiveness and systemically structured systems of power (i.e., horizontally structured) like those that can often be found in certain religions and in certain schools of psychology. Yes, Lakoff does suggest that liberal thinkers tend to look at the world systemically or holistically while conservative thinkers tend to look at the world in linear terms or reductionistically, that is to say, reducing wholes to parts. At the risk of being overly simplistic, persons or groups who promote systems theory and thinking are not only promoting the Nurturant cognitive model but also a liberal view of the world. Similarly, persons or groups who promote reductionistic theory and thinking are not only promoting the Strict cognitive model but also a conservative view of the world.
Now, this is my take on Lakoff’s work, however, I would suggest that we can view Nurturant versus Strict by referring (once again) to MacLean’s triune model of the brain (shown below).
The mid-brain is dominated by black and white, right and wrong, here and now, reduced thinking. In contrast the upper brain is dominated by wholes, gestalts, perspective-taking, and mental time travel (past, present, and future). Yes, the upper brain is home to the Executive Functions that I talk about ad nauseam: appropriately focusing attention, perspective-taking, mental modeling, running as if scenarios, metacognition or thinking about thinking, emotion regulation, spatial abilities, and the list goes on. It’s also home to systems thinking. In contrast, the mid-brain is very concrete and focuses on right or wrong, black and white, here and now. It’s also home to reductionistic thinking, breaking wholes into parts and then looking for cause and effect relationships between those parts.
Again, this is my take but I would suggest that the Strict and Nurturant models are embodied as reflected by MacLean’s take on brain functioning. If what I’m saying is true then this has implications for how the Strict and Nuturant models should relate out in the social and political worlds: they should get along and work together as an overall coherent brain system.[3] I hope this comes as no surprise but, currently, Strict and Nurturant models are at loggerheads with no signs that the logjam will ever clear. Now, Lakoff makes one other observation that is important to keep in mind.
In Moral Politics, Lakoff suggests that Strict Fathers put societal problems within the individual. If the individual is having problems it’s because that individual has made bad choices for him or herself. Society is not to blame. In contrast, Nurturant Parents put societal problems in societal structures. If the individual is having problems it’s because societal structures are at fault and have let the individual down. The individual is not to blame. In any social analysis, where problems are placed is key. Allow me to give you an example.
As I have mentioned before, I worked for Charter Behavioral Health Systems back in the late 1990s as a psychotherapist. I worked with troubled teens, mostly males. As a student of John Bowlby’s attachment theory, I noticed that some of the teens were engaging in attachment related behaviors such as stealing trinkets like pens and pads of paper, and “shadowing,” following the staff around but at a safe distance. I brought these observations up to my supervisor and asked if I could conduct sand tray sessions with a few of the teen patients.[4] Briefly, sand tray (aka Sand Play) is a projective modality that is designed to engage a number of cognitive systems at the same time. It is psychodynamically informed. My supervisor looked at me sternly and said the following (and I paraphrase).
—oOo—
Rick, did you drive in this morning (I had)? Did you see the sign at the front of the building (I had)? It says, “Charter Behavioral Health Systems.” We do behavioral health here. We do not do psychodynamics here. This RTC (residential treatment center) is in effect “Purgatory.” The kids are in Purgatory. Being in Purgatory gives them a second chance to make the right choices to gain access to the general public. The general public is our client here, not the kids. Remember that. Guided by our instruction and behavioral exercises, they can either choose to reenter society or they can choose to go to Hell (which, in this case, was jail for these kids). They should be thankful that they have been given a second chance.
—oOo—
I can say that I was genuinely shocked at this response. I was ill-prepared to have such an encounter with a Strict Father (who, by the way was a woman) in a professional context. It quickly dawned on me that behaviorism (which forms the foundation of cognitive-behavioral therapy) espouses a Strict, reduced, and conservative model of the world. And it was equally clear that there was no place for a systems model of the world in the house of the Strict Father. I should point out that in my first book Bowlby’s Battle I spend time looking at the battles Bowlby engaged in trying to fight behaviorism. I was walking in Bowlby’s footsteps it would seem.
So, all this to say that the First Strike Campaign that our Foundation funded disintegrated because a new Strict Father police chief entered the picture. In discussions with my liaison at All Faiths, it became clear that the new police chief did not believe in engaging in “therapy” or working with other agencies as this put an extra unnecessary burden on his police officers. I should also point out that during this timeframe (the late 1990s), New Mexico was in the first stages of becoming a behavioral health state. It’s a long story, however, the then Governor of NM, Bill Richardson, met with Newt Gingrich, and Richardson agreed to go along with Gingrich’s plan (via Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation) to make behavioral health the law of the land. By spreading the word of behavioral health, Gingrich was spreading the word of the Conservative Party and the Strict Father cognitive model. And behavioral health quickly became the darling of health insurance companies because it specifically puts problems within the individual, and cognitive-behavioral therapy is quick, no more than six to ten sessions. The takeaway here is that all modalities are held by and advocate for a particular worldview, a point that Gerald Midgley makes in his 2000 book entitled Systemic Intervention:Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Margret Thatcher, echoing Strict Father sentiments, famously remarked, “[Y]ou know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”[5]
So, when David Peter Stroh writes in his 2015 book entitled Systems Thinking for Social Change, that we need to put aside such attitudes as “people want to be homeless,” and “the individual is the problem, not the system,” he is in fact saying that we need to get past the linear, conventional, reduced thinking of the Strict Father cultural cognitive model. If only it were that easy. As Lakoff makes abundantly clear, cognitive models, once set up, are exceedingly difficult to change. As Thom Hartmann points out in his 2024 book The Hidden History of the American Dream, we live in a country that is “50/50,” that is to say, fifty percent Strict Fathers and fifty percent Nuturant Parents. You simply cannot wish away fifty percent of the U.S. The irony here is that if a systems thinker wishes to overlook fifty percent of a system, they are not thinking systemically. I think bringing a biological or organismic perspective to systems thinking is critical (like the MacLean model above) because it points out that the whole system—lower, mid-, and upper brain—needs to be working well together. Let me end by providing an example of Strict thinking versus Nurturant thinking and the potential problems that can result. Hopefully this example will bring Strict vs Nurturant behavior further into the light illuminating potential conflicts between conventional, linear thinking, and systemic, holistic thinking.
For the last twelve or more years our Foundation has supported the research of Ken Corvo, professor of social work at Syracuse University. Dr. Corvo specializes in researching topics surrounding domestic violence.[6] Specifically, Corvo has tried to place domestic violence and DV behavior into a scientific framework. He has framed DV behavior using such frames as drug and alcohol abuse, attachment theory, and even Executive Function. Corvo, along with his mentor, Donald Dutton, have done much to place DV behavior within a scientific framework.[7] Suffice it to say that efforts to place DV behavior within a scientific framework have met with considerable resistance. Most of this resistance comes from what is known as “the Duluth camp.”
The Duluth model was in fact developed in Duluth, Minnesota back in the early 1980s. Today the Duluth model is used by almost all states as a guide to domestic violence treatment programs that receive state or federal funding. The Duluth model resonated with me because the way it frames DV behavior echoed how juvenile sex offender behavior was framed in the materials I had to use at Charter Behavioral Health Systems. Suffice it to say that the Duluth model espouses a Strict Father view of DV behavior. It specifically places the responsibility for DV behavior within the individual, who, almost without exception, is a male. Duluth also specifically prohibits the use of any psychodynamically informed therapy modality (which would prohibit the use of attachment theory or a modality like the above mentioned sand tray). In a 2016 blog post, I wrote the following:
Here’s a quote from the domestic violence treatment standards that New Mexico adopted back in the early 2000s, which are patterned on the Duluth model: “Circular Process, Family Systems Approach, or any approach that uses a systems theory model, which treats the violence as a mutually circular process, or any other model that minimizes the responsibility of the perpetrator and places responsibility for the violence upon the victim is prohibited.”
Yes, Duluth specifically prohibits the use of systems theory and thinking. Putting aside the Strict Father implications for a moment, what motivation could Duluth have for prohibiting a systems view of things? When you hear the answer, it will make perfect sense.
In his book Systems Thinking for Social Change (mentioned above), Stroh regularly talks about the circular nature of systems thinking. Duluth prohibits any circular process. Period. The key here is Stroh’s observation that if a group engages in systemic thinking and processes, they have to be ready to accept that they themselves are playing a role in the problem. Again, systems thinkers and Nurturant Parents place the cause of problems within the social milieu. Stroh writes, “Systems thinking enables people to see how they are part of the problem, which ironically increases their ability to develop effective [systems] solutions.”
Duluth pulled much of its inspiration from feminist theory, specifically, emancipation psychology. As such, the problem of DV behavior is put into the male while at the same time holding the female victim blameless. Duluth will not countenance any attempts to “minimize the responsibility of the perpetrator” (quoting the NM guidelines above). Duluth wishes to hold men solely responsible and solely accountable for DV behavior. A systems view would dilute this Law & Order view by spreading blame around to the point that the victim might be included. Duluth rejects this notion because they do not want any way for the DV perpetrator to dodge responsibility. The Duluth camp, like the Charter Behavioral Health campus I worked at, wish to put men into Purgatory. The DEI movement (diversity, equity, inclusion) is also informed by emancipation psychology. DEI wishes to put problems centered on lack of diversity, lack of equity, and lack of inclusion, squarely on the shoulders of white men, especially white men of privilege (the Patriarchy). I get it. People want justice. They want oppressors to pay. And they will not continuance an attempt to “spread blame” in any way that connects oppressors to those who have been oppressed. This is at the heart of the Strict model. There’s a big problem here, one that points out that a cultural cognitive model cannot be used wholesale to explain everything. There is no “one cognitive model fits all.”
Data shows that roughly an equal number of men and women are victims of domestic violence behavior.[8] By framing domestic violence as solely a matter of “male perpetrator” offending against a “female victim,” it covers over the very real problem of men who have been assaulted (a problem I saw firsthand when working as a rape crisis advocate). Similarly, in the case of DEI, placing the blame for lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion, on the Patriarchy covers over the fact that many people of color have become very successful. It also covers over the fact that so-called DEI consultants have become rich selling effectively DEI insurance policies as talked about in my last blog series.
I get it. Black and white, Law & Order thinking is very satisfying, especially to the mid-brain. But as Stroh points out in Systems Thinking for Social Change, mid-brain, linear thinking is often not effective as far as solving the problems that face us like homelessness, global warming, and gun violence. That being said, the Strict Father model is here to stay. Even Lakoff will admit that there’s no right or wrong cultural cognitive model; they just are (although at the end of Moral Politics, Lakoff defends the Nurturant position). I am suggesting that both the Strict mid-brain and the Nurturant upper brain must work together as they are both part of the same overall organic, embodied system. Trust me, you want a Strict Father in the foxhole with you; the last thing you’ll be thinking about as bullets fly over your head is opening a 529 college savings plan for your son or daughter. We must find a way to get Strict Fathers and Nuturant Parents—conventional and systemic thinking—to work together. Given how hugely divided we are right now, I see no clear way of making this happen. As a result, the upper brain will engage in a lot of wishful thinking while the mid-brain spins yarns of fabrication and fancy. Welcome to the world of a cultural brain divided against itself.[9]
In my next post I’ll write an appendix to this post that talks about political frames. In Moral Politics, Lakoff talks about how conservatives are very adept at framing issues. Conservative frames include “welfare queen,” and “death tax” (which refers to inheritance taxes). I would suggest that former President Trump’s battle cries of “drain the swamp,” and “drill baby drill” are very effective frames. As Lakoff points out, a frame tells an entire story. Here are the components that make up a frame story:
- indicate some form of pain or assault
- clearly identify who is causing the pain or assault
- clearly indicate what relief from pain or assault would look like
- clearly identify who has the ability to provide relief
- indicate how the pain or assault will be mitigated
It may be hard to believe but two words—death tax—can tell an entire story, stories we will look at in the next post. By the way, I would mention liberal frames but (and this is the problem) I cannot for the life of me think of any.
Postscript: As a psychotherapist, I see the value in both a reduced, behavioral perspective as well as a holistic, systemic perspective. Psychological issues may have components of both. Here’s a story from my sex therapy course that illustrates this point. When a man comes to a sex therapist reporting problems with ED (erectile dysfunction), the sex therapist may recommend the “roll of stamps” test. The man is instructed to wrap his penis with stamps from a roll just before going to bed. If the stamps are broken the next morning, then clearly there is not a physical reason for the ED. The sex therapist will then suggest to the patient that the underlying psychological problems that may be causing the ED be looked at. If no broken stamps, the sex therapist may suggest that the patient consult with a urologist to get at the mechanical problems underlying the ED. And even though there may be mechanical issues, these mechanical issues may then lead to psychological issues, which could be treated along with the mechanical issues. See, Strict and Nurturant can get along. All it takes is a roll of stamps.
NOTES:
[1] – I was not able to find any information on First Strike at the HSUS web site. Sadly, it would appear they abandoned such efforts. However, I was able to find a description of First Strike from 2001 at the web site for Humane Society International:
https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/First-strike.pdf
[2] – Contact the Foundation and I’ll send you a copy of this article.
[3] – I would point you to the work of Louis Cozolino and Elkhonon Goldberg for descriptions of how coherent mind/brain systems should operate together. Equally, these authors talk about how trauma or other developmental assaults have the potential to keep the mid-brain from cooperating with the upper brain. As an example, at a conference in Santa Fe in the mid-2000s, Louis Cozolino told us that it is entirely possible for the mid-brain to in effect “hijack” the upper brain and use it for its own purposes. Cutoff from the EF skill of reflection, the mid-brain has a hard time coming up with coherent stories to explain the reality going on around it. As a result, the mid-brain, having enlisted the upper brain as effectively an unwitting accomplice, spins yarns of fabrication and fancy. Looked at through the lens of a traumatized brain/mind system, this makes perfect sense. I would suggest that the sharp rise in such things as “fake news” and “conspiracy theories” points to this idea of the mid-brain hijacking the upper-brain. A friend of mine told me that there was a conspiracy theory floating around that Democrats created the Helene and Milton hurricanes to in effect disrupt the presidential election. Now, my upper brain is able to see that, at least for now, it is impossible for humans to create hurricanes on demand. However, these conspiracy theories bring a sense of coherence to a mid-brain trying to go it alone outside of the help of the upper brain. And, apparently, such conspiracy theories are making it hard for groups like FEMA to provide aid.
[4] – For the record, I was introduced to sand tray while studying for my counseling master’s. I was so enamored of this projective, psychodynamically informed modality that I went on to receive advanced training in sand tray. As a matter of fact, during one of my counseling practicums, I was part of a pilot program designed to bring group sand tray to Albuquerque public schools, which was ultimately shot down by Strict Father administrators. I mention this because sand tray may seem deceptively simple—kids and adults playing with miniature figures in a tray of sand—however, any projective, psychodynamically informed modality carries with it the potential of triggering unconscious traumatic memories. This is why any therapist wishing to use a projective, psychodynamically informed modality should get proper training, and practice within their realm of ability and expertise.
[5] – I found this Thatcher quote in Thom Hartmann’s 2022 book entitled The Hidden History of Neoliberalism. As Hartmann makes clear, there is a close association between Strict Father thinking and neoliberalism, which, apparently, has taken over large swaths of the American political, financial, and corporate landscapes. And, yes, both conservative and liberal presidents—since 1980 when President Reagan took office—have engaged in neoliberalism.
[6] – Contact the Foundation and we would be happy to send you copies of some of the articles by Dr. Corvo that were supported by our Foundation.
[7] – For an early example of this effort, see the 2006 article entitled Transforming a Flawed Policy: A Call to Revive Psychology and Science in Domestic Violence Research and Practice (Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. II, Issue 5, September–October 2006).
[8] – See the following article entitled Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1854883/
[9] – For a detailed look at how brain functioning at the societal level affects cultural patterns across time, see the 2009 book The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World by Iain McGilchrist. McGilchrist frames the “divided brain” in terms of left brain vs right brain. However, it is not a stretch to view the left brain as representing the mid-brain, and the right brain as representing the upper brain. I write the following in a 2019 blog post: “If I’m reading McGilchrist correctly, he advocates for right working well with left.” Left or right, mid- or upper brain, it all has to work together swimmingly. Healthy brain, healthy culture.
