Systems Thinking
This week, I was introduced to The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time by Karl Polanyi. Polanyi was an economic anthropologist and economic sociologist who lived through the collapse of a western society after the nineteenth century. He blames this collapse on the myth of the self-regulating market. While it might be argued that there are many benefits to an unregulated market, Polanyi pulls back the curtain on this widely accepted societal myth.
Polanyi was a systems thinker who sought to understand how society was affected by the idea a self-regulating market. He writes, “Our thesis is that the idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia. Such an institution could not exist for any length of time without annihilating the human and natural substance of society; it would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness.”[1] One of his primary concepts is that of “embeddedness”. This term means that the economy does not exist outside of society and human relationships but must be subordinated to the other main societal institutions.[2] If the economy is seen as being “disembedded” from society those things that have true worth, such as human beings and land, become commodified in the system. This ultimately degrades humans, destroys relationships, and devastates creation.[3] In essence the market no longer serves society for its well-being, but society ends up serving the market. When the market is unrestrained, it wreaks havoc in the system.
We are all affected by the environment that we live in and must be aware of how we are being impacted by the system. I was reminded of Thinking Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows that I had scanned earlier. She writes, “A system is a set of things—people, cells, molecules, or whatever—interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time.” [4] In any system, the interconnectedness of its components generates specific behaviors, with each part exerting influence on the others. A failure to comprehend this interconnectedness often leads to unintended consequences. The notion of a self-regulating market, which is “disembedded” from society, poses significant risks due to its potential to produce unforeseen consequences on the broader interconnected system. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to mitigating adverse outcomes and ensuring the stability and sustainability of the system.
The idea of living in an interconnected system led me to the work of Edwin Friedman. In the book A Failure of Nerve, Edwin Friedman discusses the influence of a self-differentiated leader on family systems. Friedman argues that leaders, who are self-differentiated while remaining connected to others, can significantly impact the dynamics within family systems. By not being overly reactive to the anxieties and anxious emotional processes of the group, self-differentiated leaders provide stability and clarity, fostering healthier relational patterns and promoting overall system resilience. This approach contrasts with leaders who succumb to the emotional processes of the system, often leading to less effective leadership and increased systemic dysfunction. A self-differentiated leader is, “someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals and, therefore someone, who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes whirling about.”[5] The presence of the self-differentiated leader is critical to the flourishing of the system. Friedman writes, “For it is the integrity of the leader that promotes the integrity or prevents the ‘dis-integration’ of the system he or she is leading.”[6] The leader can either influence the system or be influenced by it. Now that we have looked at this, we turn our attention to the church in an anxious capitalistic society.
Does the church feed into the anxiety or is it able to influence society toward peace? In examining the contemporary church’s relationship with the broader societal context, we must assess whether the church has self-differentiated from the prevailing cultural and ideological worldviews in a self-regulated market. Dr. Jason Clark suggests that the Evangelical church has, to a significant extent, surrendered to the anxieties intrinsic in a Darwinian worldview. This submission has seemingly led the church to align with a self-regulated market system, thereby compromising its mission to serve the well-being of the community.[7] Dr. Clark’s critique suggests that the church’s entanglement with market-driven ideologies has shifted its focus from spiritual and communal welfare to economic self-interest. I couldn’t help by think about my contribution as an evangelical pastor to this through a church growth mindset that measured growing attendance and budgets as a sign of God’s blessing. I confess that I, unwittingly, fed into the prevailing evangelical anxiety.
This shift raises important questions about the church’s role and identity in a society. He writes, “We can view Evangelical Christians as actors rationally responding to the challenges of new global capitalist markets, who then unintentionally give over their understanding and priority of social relationship to the ontology of the SRM”[8] This has given way to a reversal of influence. Where the church has been intended to be a “salt and light” influence in the world, it has lost its capacity to do so.[9] However, not all is loss. Let’s look at how the church might recover by looking at a key element within the system.
Another key observation that Polanyi had was that within the system there is “double movement”. A movement toward a self-regulated market and a resistance to that movement to protect people from its effects. In essence a built-in mechanism to fight back. Herein, I think, lies the opportunity of the church to be a “non-anxious” presence, in a world wracked with anxiety, so that it leads the world to flourishing. Clark writes, “Evangelicalism was once an initial countermovement par excellence to the dynamics described by Polanyi, but it remains to be seen if it can recover a mode of ongoing countermovement.”[10] While, Clark sounds unconvinced, we pray and work toward that end as leaders.
Regardless of our position as leaders, we invariably operate within interdependent systems, such as families, churches, workplaces, and ultimately, the broader society. Within these systems, we face a choice: we can either be passively shaped by external influences and lose our capacity to lead effectively, or we can engage in a countermovement by becoming self-differentiated. This systems approach not only enhances our leadership effectiveness but also contributes to the overall health and resilience of the systems in which we operate.
[1] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd Beacon Paperback ed (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2001). Kindle.3.
[2] Fred Block, “Introduction”, to Polanyi, Great Transformation. Kindle.
[3] Ibid. Kindle.
[4] Donella H. Meadows and Diana Wright, Thinking in Systems: A Primer, Nachdr. (White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub, 2011). Kindle.11.
[5] Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, ed. Margaret M. Treadwell and Edward W. Beal, 10th anniversary revised edition (New York: Church Publishing, 2017), 15.
[6] Friedman, 21.
[7] Jason Clark, Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogenesis in the Relationship (Newberg, n.d.), 135.
[8] Clark, Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogenesis in the Relationship.p.153.
[9] The Holy Bible: New International Version (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979). Matthew 5.14-16
[10] Clark, Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogenesis in the Relationship.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.10 responses to “Systems Thinking”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
wow stellar post Graham! Thank you for your reflection on systems thinking and the work of Friedman. You were speaking my language in a week where most of the terms and concepts have seemed foreign to me.
What are the practices churches and leaders need to cultivate to engage in this counter movement you suggest?
Hi Ryan, thanks for your comments. I struggled with this post for the same reason you stated. It has pushed me into new areas of thinking.
I believe that there are many ways in which the church can be a counter movement. Here are three:
1. Practicing sabbath proclaims that we are not slaves, created in in God’s image, and are made for more than producing.
2. Practicing sacrificial generosity as a means to bless others (not as a means to be blessed more) breaks the consuming spirit.
3. Caring for the poor, widows and orphans rather than exploiting them reminds us that people are not commodities.
These all require a non-anxious stance in an anxious culture.
Hi Graham,
In what ways does Karl Polanyi’s conceptualization of “embeddedness” apply to the contemporary economic and social landscape?
Hi Shela, that’s a great question. It probably depends on where you live. In Canada, I perceive that we have a more embedded economy with greater governmental regulation. This includes more social programs, higher taxes, universal health care, and business regulation.
Graham,
I too wonder about the effectiveness of a countermovement. I think about my Amish neighbors and how they historically lived and are still often portrayed in the same manner today. They seemed to be a poster child for countering the influences of the market and society. Yet the market and the larger society’s dependence on the market has impacted their lifestyle. Amish as a people group have been commodified. It appears that they can no longer live the way they used to and survive in our society. I smile every time I see my Amish neighbors go by my house on their e-bike while talking on their cell phone. I’m not sure I necessarily have a question for you, I’ll wait to see how you respond to Ryan.
Hi Jeff, you definitely have an interesting context. I wasn’t thinking about Amish people. I wonder about the effectiveness of countermovements that are separate from the system though. It seems Amish people have separated themselves to the degree that they don’t have influence over the larger society. I think of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” In order to influence the system, we too must be an integral part of it, not separate from it.
I know I’m not answering a question, but you’ve helped me to think more about what I was blogging on. Thanks.
Thanks for connecting these ideas to each other. It gives me a lot to think about.
In your view, what specific actions can the church take to resist the pressures of a self-regulated market and reclaim its role as a “salt and light” influence in the community?
Thanks, Debbie. I know I’m reaching for something by connecting these two.
I think the “salt and light” metaphor in the Sermon on the Mount implies an active engagement in the system. However, the engagement of the Christian community should have a preserving and illuminating effect on broader society.
Specific actions: Pretty much anything Jesus teaches in countercultural…
1. Making disciples who seek to embrace the Kingdom ethic in Matthew 5-7 – these are not viewed as attractive in a capitalistic society.
2. Caring for widows, orphans, poor – James 1.27
3. Loving enemies – building bridges and seeking to be peacemakers in a war torn, hate-filled and polarized world. This takes time.
4. Practicing disciplines of disengagement such as rest, prayer, solitude, silence. Bruggeman’s book “Sabbath as resistance: saying no to a culture of now” speaks to this.
5. Resisting “Numerical growth” as the main sign of success and measuring the fruit of our ministries. I’m not suggesting we don’t measure numerical growth but realizing that this is just one metric, perhaps not the most important one.
Thank you, Graham, for your post. Since I was struggling with the readings, I have learned a lot from your post. You mentioned that we live in a community where we as Christians need to contribute to the capitalistic system to influence it. If I am not misreading your post, what would be an example from a Christian, especially Christian leaderships?
Thank you, Noel. I was not suggesting that we should contribute to capitalism. However, since we are part of the larger system, could we become a countermovement that resists the negative impacts of capitalism? This is what Dr. Clark explores in his paper. My examples of this would be to care for the poor, practice generosity rather than accumulating more, practicing sabbath rather than over-production etc. Does that make sense? In practicing our faith, could we become a countermovement within a capitalistic society?