General Systems Theory: A Critique

Hudson (1999) understood the problems with GST are essentially "in many respects a reflection of a failure of social workers to move beyond the broad conceptual application of the theory, to use a range of practical techniques for investigating and simulating systems, such as those used in the field of system dynamics".

Hudson states that one of the most serious criticism of GST is the problem of "assumed equilibrium" which refers to the tendency to over-emphasise system maintenance functions and negative feedback loops (Leighninger, 1977). Although such an assumption is "by no means fundamental to GST" Hudson continues that "those that interpret theory to this extent have tended to look outside, rather than inside systems for the challenges and sources of change and growth".

For this reason Kahn stated that "proponents of decentralisation, community, and participatory control could find their activities in conflict with a systems emphasis" (1973). However, Hunter argues that one of the sources for this interpretation of GST, besides ideology, is a misunderstanding of positive feedback loops, those which amplify small changes for better or worse.

Another criticism of GST Hunter identified is that too much rationality is expected on the part of its users. For example, Drover and Schragge (1977) complained that in a relatively simple situation with 20 key systems, over a million possible relationships are created. Furthermore, "when each set of actors brings a different set of goals and values, the problem of optimising the common good becomes completely intractable". Others shared in the same concerns but point out that it becomes easier to consider subjective experiences, meanings and values within an eco-systems approach.

Hunter summarises that because most social work interpretations of GST are tainted with the problems of "assumed equilibrium" and a lack of operationalisation many complain of the limitations of the theory in dealing with change, growth as well as generating directions for practice.

Further, on the one hand some argue that GST promotes a technical practitioner role, depoliticising practice (thereby promoting conservative and individualistic tendencies). On the other hand, others see GST as reinforcing individual practice, promoting transactional, "goodness of fit" and equilibrium-based solutions between individuals and their social environments.

In the 1980s, Hunter argues that the above criticisms, from both the left and right, "undercut but failed to extinguish interest in the theory". In the mid 1980s a new version of systems theory emerged, which was an amalgamation of GST with concepts from human ecology. The establishment of ecosystems or ecological theory represents important advances for Hudson, especially as the problem of assumed equilibrium appears to have been improved. However, ecosystems focuses "not so much on change, but on individuals abilities to negotiate and compromise with their social environment" (DeHoyos and Jensen 1985).

In addition Hudson the theory has been "traced back by some to Social Darwinism". He explains this is because as long as "change is seen as external to the individual, the concept of social selection ("survival of the fittest")...will continue to underlie the thinking of some practitioners".

Further, GST and, to an extent ecosystems theory, has increasingly come to be seen as a way to expand the medical model to include social environment. The theories has been "co-opted by those whose primary interest is the stabilisation of individual dysfunction, rather than the facilitation of ongoing growth of individuals and communities" (Hunter, 1999).

Hunter concludes that despite these limitations the stage is set for important new theoretical developments in complexity and chaos theory which "have already been discovered in allied fields, but hardly in social work as of yet".