Systems theory and its application to research on human sexuality.

General systems theory (GST) is a Transdiscipline field of study as well as a conceptual approach that has emerged most notably in the second half of the twentieth century. The term system refers to "a set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves and with the environment" (von Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 159). Researchers and theorists apply this concept to study systems in a variety of fields (e.g., families, biology, communication, and defense technology).

Not only has general systems theory been applied across fields, but it also has roots in many disciplines, such as the natural sciences, the social sciences, mathematics, and technology. Some of its main assumptions also were expressed thousands of years ago by philosophers (e.g., Aristotle and his dictum, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"). Several "founders" of GST, most notably von Bertalanffy, recognized this multidisciplinary quality and identified GST as a way to unify the sciences (Constantine, 1986; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).

One result of GST's multidisciplinary application is the creation and use of multiple names and labels. GST often simply is called systems theory, but it also is related to other labels such as information theory, cybernetics, family systems theory, and family process theory. In this article we use the label systems theory.

Level of Analysis

The general view is that the level or unit of analysis within systems theory is the system itself, focusing on relationships and interactions (Broderick, 1993). As stated by Jacob and Tennenbaum (1988):

The smallest appropriate unit of

analysis is not an individual's behavior

but an interactional sequence involving a

pattern of exchange that occurs between

individuals--in a word, the unit of

importance is the system of members in

mutual and interdependent 

relationships with one another, not

individual behavior in isolation of

context [emphasis added]. (p. 4)

However, because the notion of a system is broad and flexible, the definition of what is to be internal and external to a system largely depends on one's purpose and perspective (Broderick & Smith, 1979; Ruben, 1972).

This flexibility is explained by Brent Ruben (1972), who asserted that there is a hierarchy of encompassing systems. Systems are embedded in suprasystems and are comprised of subsystems. To illustrate this point, consider the human body as a system. It is comprised of many subsystems--circulatory, digestive, neurological, etc. These components are integrated to perform in a way that none could alone. Hence, these components comprise a system. However, one could also view the circulatory process as a system. From this perspective, the human body is seen as a suprasystem, and the heart is a subsystem.

This hierarchical and subjective nature of systems theory necessitates that multiple levels must be recognized, even though analysis often is restricted to a single level (Broderick & Smith, 1979). The level must be chosen based on its appropriateness for the interest of the analyst.

Historical Emergence and Use of Systems Theory

Ludwig von Bertalanffy is considered by most researchers to be the "founder" of systems theory. In the early 1920s (while he was in his early 20s), he became disenchanted with the mechanistic approach common to biology. He felt this approach "appeared to neglect or actively deny what is essential in the phenomenon of life. He advocated an organismic conception in biology which emphasizes consideration of the organism as a whole or system" (von Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 12). He began writing about the systems approach in the late 1930s; however, World War II intervened, and his works were not published until after the war concluded (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). His writings were not translated into English until the early 1950s (Broderick, 1993).

As von Bertalanffy refined the systems approach and worked with scholars from several disciplines, he developed as a major goal the unification of all sciences. This goal was shared by other scientists who recognized that a generalized theory could be built on the commonalties of the rules and relationships in their diverse fields (Constantine, 1986).

World War II had a major impact on the development of systems theory. It forced scientists who might have an impact on the war effort to focus on immediate, practical technological issues (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). As an example, airplanes increased in their speed and agility. This created the need to improve defensive weaponry. No longer could defenses merely point and shoot. Instead, a system of self-regulation was needed to allow an antiaircraft rocket to correct its path and improve its accuracy. This fostered the unification of theory from several disciplines (e.g., guidance systems and information flows). Norbert Wiener and his colleagues met this challenge. They developed new feedback systems and communication technology that they named cybernetics (Broderick, 1993).

Wiener and his colleagues perceived, as did von Bertalanffy, that systems theory had broad potential, because the concepts of feedback, self-regulating systems, and information processing were applicable to the human brain and electronics (Broderick, 1993). Therefore, Wiener and his colleagues established the Society for General Systems Research in 1954 as a forum for cross-disciplinary presentations and discussions. Participants in this group included several social scientists (i.e., Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, James Miller, Kurt Lewin).

Gregory Bateson, a social anthropologist, became one of the most influential figures in the application of systems theory to the social sciences (Bateson, 1972; Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987; Broderick, 1993; Klein & White, 1996). Bateson was trained as an anthropologist; however, he regularly corresponded with scholars from several other fields--Kurt Lewin, Harry Stack Sullivan, von Bertalanffy. In the early 1950s, Bateson formed a research team with Jay Haley (a scholar in communications), John Weakland (an anthropologist), and Don Jackson (a psychiatrist). They were interested in applying the concepts of cybernetics to living systems. They used this approach to theorize about the schizophrenic behavior of children, hypothesizing that the children's behavior was adaptive for them (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). They postulated that families seek to maintain homeostasis and, therefore, may even encourage or require symptomatic behavior to achieve equilibrium (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). The paper that resulted from this effort about the "double-bind theory" of schizophrenia (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956) proved to be very controversial and influential in the new family process movement (Broderick, 1990).

Even though the double-bind theory has received little empirical support, it encouraged the use of systems theory in the social sciences and eventually led to the creation of commonly used concepts and terms, such as boundaries and dysfunctional families. This group of scholars founded the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto in 1958 and, even though Bateson left, Jackson and his colleagues (later including Virginia Satir and Paul Watzlawick) produced much of the important early work applying systems theory to the social sciences, especially to the family (Broderick, 1993).

Following this early work, systems theory has been applied and influential in several family science areas (e.g., family therapy, communications, family psychology, family medicine, family resource management). Within the area of sexuality, systems theory has been used rarely. This is highlighted by Toni Schindler Zimmerman and Ellen Cough Darden (1991) in their decade review of systems theory in sex therapy (one area to which systems theory has been applied). Their review of five journals in search of articles describing a systems orientation in the treatment of sexual dysfunction identified only six published articles between 1980 and 1990. The results of our review are similar. Sex researchers have not often deliberately utilized systems theory.

Two emerging exceptions to the disuse of systems theory are the areas of sexual therapy/dysfunction and sexual abuse/incest. The field of sex therapy was pioneered by William Masters and Virginia Johnson's research in the 1960s and 1970s (Levine, 1995). They encouraged treating sexual problems by using "conjoint behavioral therapy" in which both the presenting partner and his or her spouse would be seen together (LoPiccolo, 1994). Masters and Johnson were not, directly influenced by systems theory, but by treating sexual dysfunction as a couple issue, they laid the groundwork for systemic applications to sex therapy.

Only in the late 1980s and the 1990s has systems theory been used deliberately in the area of sexual dysfunction (LoPiccolo, 1991), and many authors have called for an increase in its use (e.g., De Silva, 1994; LoPiccolo, 1991, 1994; Woody, 1989). Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) suggested that systems theory is particularly salient to sex therapy for several reasons. First, sexual dysfunctions often play a central role in maintaining the "norm" within a couple's relationship. Second, unresolved family issues may be at the heart of a sexual dysfunction. Third, the larger environment may play a role in reinforcing a sexual problem. In this area, the works of Jane DiVita Woody (1992) and David Schnarch (1991, 1995) are especially noteworthy. Woody's integration of four key aspects of systemic therapeutic approaches with traditional sex therapy goes beyond the piecemeal application of one or two systemic principles to offer a more comprehensive and synthetic model for the treatment of sexual distress. Schnarch examined how the dynamic interplay among sexual stimulation, intrapsychic processes (cognitive and emotional), and systemic processes create sexual dissatisfaction as well as sexual fulfillment. His model challenges many assumptions of traditional sex therapy and is, perhaps, the most innovative multisystemic approach to sex therapy today.

In the area of sexual abuse/incest, family systems thinking has been very influential (e.g., Alexander, 1985; Larson & Maddock, 1986; McCarthy & Byrne, 1988; Trepper & Barrett, 1989). According to David Finkelhor (1986, p. 53), systems theory "paved the road for professional recognition of a problem which had been apparently neglected and undetected for years." He asserted that systems theory was especially important in two ways: by encouraging practitioners to recognize that problem behavior of children may be related to other individuals within the family system and providing an alternative to the psychoanalytic view that sexually disturbed behavior in children was due to intrapsychic conflicts.

It is not surprising to us that systems theory has been applied in these areas of sexuality. Family systems theory is very influential in marriage and family therapy (Constantine, 1986; Klein & White, 1996; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Both sexual abuse/incest and sexual dysfunction/therapy are clinical disciplines related to family therapy. Therefore, systems theory often has been applied by therapists with training in marriage and family therapy (Woody, 1989). Other sexual topics to which systems theory has been applied minimally include sexuality and chronic illness, gay and lesbian relationships, nondysfunctional marital sexuality, positive aspects of sexuality, and sexual aggression in children. It is striking that systems theory typically has been used to enhance our understanding of problematic rather than non-problematic aspects of sexual functioning, as is characteristic of the sexuality literature in general. As noted by James Maddock (1989) and Catherine Chilman (1990), sexuality tends to be conceived as problematic for individuals and families rather than an intrinsic part of individual development and family process. Maddock (1983, 1989, 1990) and Chilman (1989, 1990) have taken the lead in filling this important gap from a systemic perspective.

Basic Assumptions of Systems Theory

Although rich descriptions of systems theory may be found in a variety of literatures, most scholars do not explicitly identify assumptions underlying the theory. In this section, we rely on authors who have given explicit attention to this issue (e.g., Broderick, 1990; Klein & White, 1996; Laszlo, 1975; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993), as well as our assessment of other writings to highlight the premises upon which the theory is constructed.

Holism 

A fundamental assumption of systems theory is that of holism (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987; Hanson, 1995; Klein & White, 1996; von Bertalanffy, 1968). According to Whitchurch & Constantine (1993, p. 328), "a system must be understood as a whole and cannot be comprehended by examining its individual parts in isolation from each other." Thus, the relationship among the individual parts rather than the characteristics of the parts alone becomes the focus of attention when using a systems framework, and the qualities of the whole emerge from this pattern among the parts. For example, the relationship among musical notes creates the melody of a song. If the order of the notes is changed, even if the same notes are used the same number of times, it becomes a different song (Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). Thus, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

This assumption reflects a causal scheme that is quite different from that of more traditional social science theories (Broderick, 1990; Buckley, 1967; Constantine, 1986; Fisher, 1982). Most traditional social science theories rely on what Aristotle called "efficient cause," in which an event is presumed to be the result of preceding events (Rychlak, 1977). To uncover the cause of a target event, preceding events are examined until the linear chain of events leading to the target has been discovered (A causes B, which, in turn, causes C, etc.). In contrast, systems theorists presume a "formal cause" structure. Formal cause refers to a pattern or an organization in the components comprising a whole or in the flow of events (Rychlak, 1977). Constantine (1986, p. 49) provided a useful example. Parents might hear the following when they ask who started a fight between siblings:

"He started it; he hit me!"

"She did; she took my truck!"

"Well, he spit at me first!"

"That's because you wouldn't give

me the pail."

"Well, I wouldn't give it to you because

you're so mean."

"I was only telling you what was

right."

"Well, you got up on the wrong side

of the bed."

"Oh, yeah? You were crabby when

you went to bed!"

And so on.

Analysis of this sequence from the perspective of efficient cause is problematic; it would be difficult to determine the ultimate cause of the fight. Instead, a systems theorist would locate cause in the form of the interaction in which the actors appear to provoke each other in a mutual or circular fashion.

Another implication of the assumption of holism is the importance of context. Just as a system must be understood by examining the relationship among the parts, a part can be understood only in the context of the whole (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987; Constantine, 1986; Galvin & Brommel, 1996; Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). A woman baring her breasts in a strip bar is likely to be viewed quite differently than a woman baring her breasts for examination by her gynecologist. Thus, the meaning of this behavior can be comprehended only by considering it in context.

Systems Are Hierarchically Organized

Systems are nested within systems (Fisher, 1982; Laszlo, 1975; von Bertalanffy, 1968). For example, individual family members may be thought of as components comprising a family system. Families may be thought of as components comprising a neighborhood system. Neighborhoods may be thought of as comprising a middle class community system, and so on. At each level, the encompassing system emerges from the mutual interactions among the components, with the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. In turn, the broader system provides the context within which the meaning of the components may be understood.

Living Systems Are Open, Non-determined, and Active

The openness of a system refers to the degree to which it exchanges energy and information with its environment (Boulding, 1975; Broderick, 1990; Buckley, 1967; Ruben, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1968). Open systems maintain themselves through such exchanges (e.g., a person taking in oxygen and discarding carbon dioxide; an employed spouse making money to support the family and offering expertise or labor to his or her employer). All living systems are open at least to some degree, whereas only nonliving systems can be closed.

Because a closed system exchanges no information or energy with its environment, it is self contained, and its evolution to a particular point can be determined from its initial conditions (Ruben, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1968). In contrast, because of the system-environment exchanges characteristic of open systems, it is not possible to project their evolution on the basis of initial conditions. Systems may evolve to the same point from different initial conditions and in different ways. von Bertalanffy referred to this as the principle of equifinality.

Further, von Bertalanffy emphasized that living systems do not just passively respond to inputs from their environment; they also initiate transactions with the environment (Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). Thus, living systems are active as well as reactive.

Human Systems Are Self-Reflexive

According to systems theory, humans are able to reflect on their behavior and interactions (Constantine, 1986; Hanson, 1995). As noted by Kenneth Boulding (1975), humans not only know, but they know that they know. This quality allows humans to examine their systems and consciously choose goals for guiding system processes. For example, reflecting on the dynamic of their sexual interaction, a couple might decide they would like to change their dominant-submissive pattern of sexual initiation to one of greater equality.

Reality Is Constructed

Logical positivism, the philosophy that has undergirded most of Western science since the nineteenth century, is based on the assertion that the world has an existence independent of the knower (Alexander, 1982; Klein & Jurich, 1993; Suppe, 1977). Given this independence, observations of the world are not influenced by our a priori ideas. Therefore, scientific knowledge is to be gained through empirical observations alone because it is possible to hold our beliefs and values in check when we gather these data. As data accumulate, it becomes possible to abstract a grand theory that comes closer and closer to mapping the regularities of the world.

In sharp contrast to this view, systems theorists assume that our knowledge of the world can never be fully objective because what we see is filtered through a particular perspective (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987; Hanson, 1995; Klein & White, 1996; Nichols & Schwartz, 1991; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). In other words, observations of the world are never independent of the knower, and reality is constructed rather than discovered. von Bertalanffy noted that

There are no facts flying around in

nature as if they are butterflies

that you put into a nice orderly collection.

Our cognition is not a mirroring

of ultimate reality but

rather is an active process, in

which we create models of the

world. These models direct what

we actually see, what we consider

as fact. (Nichols & Schwartz, 1991,

p. 105)

Thus, systems theory is not viewed as a map of reality, but rather a heuristic device for organizing and understanding the world.

An important implication of this assumption is that the validity of a theory cannot be determined solely on the basis of empirical observations (Klein & Jurich, 1993; Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). Other qualities reflecting its utility and value must be explored. For example, two theoretically-based interventions for low sexual desire may be supported equally well by outcome data, but it may be easier for therapists to enact one intervention. In this case, the theory providing the more accessible intervention might be considered "better" than the other.

Major Concepts

System

Scholars have offered a variety of definitions of the concept system. For example, Kathleen Galvin and Bernard Brommel (1996, p. 50) defined a system as a "set of components that interrelate with one another to form a whole." As noted earlier, von Bertalanffy (1975, p. 159) described a system as a "set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves and with the environment." Constantine (1986, p. 50) considered a system to be a "bounded set of interrelated elements exhibiting coherent behavior as a unit." The most widely cited definition of a system is that offered by Hall and Fagan (1975, p. 52): "A system is a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes." Although each definition has its own flavor, one is struck more by their similarities than differences. Each definition highlights relationships among parts, which is the cornerstone of the theory.

Interdependence 

Because the components of a system are interrelated, the behavior of each component affects all other components (Galvin & Brommel, 1996; Hanson, 1995; Littlejohn, 1989). This mutual influence is called interdependence. An important implication of interdependence is that the parts of a system constrain each other through their mutual influence (Littlejohn, 1989). This notion has been found to be especially useful in understanding couples' resistance to changing their problematic behavior in response to sex therapy. LoPiccolo (1991) suggested that a sexual dysfunction may serve an adaptive purpose in the couple's relationship when the interconnections among all aspects of the relationship are considered. For example, although erectile failure may be viewed as a problem for the couple, it also may help to maintain a balance of power between a husband and wife. The husband's impotence may make him feel less secure, and, as a result, he may be less assertive with his wife. Were the sexual dysfunction to be successfully treated, the husband might become more assertive, thereby changing the balance of power in the marital relationship. Unless the power issue is addressed and resolved explicitly, the couple may resist change. Thus, understanding the interdependence among different aspects of the couple's relationship will facilitate successful sex therapy.

Subsystems and Suprasystems

Systems are nested. Typically, the smaller units comprising a system are called subsystems or components, and the larger unit enclosing a system is called a suprasystem or environment (Becvar & Beevar, 1996; Constantine, 1986; Hall & Fagan, 1975; Klein & White, 1996; Ruben, 1972; Yerby, Buerkel-Ruthfuss, & Bochner, 1990).

The subsystems identified within a particular system depend on one's perspective (Broderick & Smith, 1979; Constantine, 1986; Ruben, 1972). For example, a family system may be viewed as containing a marital subsystem, a parent-child subsystem, and a sibling subsystem or a female subsystem and a male subsystem, depending on one's interest. Curtis Levang (1989) examined how disturbances in the marital and parent-child subsystems manifest themselves in the pattern of interaction among fathers, mothers, and daughters in father-daughter incest families. These subsystems were deemed important because the daughter becomes part of the marital as well as parent-child subsystem when father-daughter incest occurs.

Similarly, the targeted suprasystem of a family may be the church community or ethnic group to which it belongs. Although Levang (1989) did not explore how the suprasystem affects the pattern of interaction in incest families, he might have examined how religious and/or ethnic beliefs about male-female relationships set the stage for the form these relationships take in such families. Finally, each subsystem can itself be defined as a system with subsystems (e.g., a marital system may be comprised of husband and wife subsystems), and the suprasystem can be considered a system embedded within a higher suprasystem (e.g., a Methodist Church community may be thought of as embedded within the Christian suprasystem).

Boundaries

When components are identified as comprising a system, in essence, a boundary is being drawn. Boundaries define what is part of a system and what is excluded from the system (Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Broderick & Smith, 1979; Constantine, 1986; Klein & White, 1996). They mark the interface between the system and its subsystems and suprasystems.

Open Systems and Closed Systems

Boundaries are characterized by the degree to which they permit energy and information to flow between the system and its environment (Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Broderick & Smith, 1979; Fisher, 1982; Klein & White, 1996). At one extreme, boundaries do not permit any exchange with the environment; at the other extreme, there is no impediment to transactions of any kind. Because all living systems have at least some degree of interchange with the environment, no living systems would be found at the closed extreme. Further, a completely open system would be equivalent to having no boundaries, leading to the loss of its identity as a system. Thus, living systems may best be conceptualized as falling between these two extremes (Klein & White, 1996; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).

The importance of boundaries has been highlighted for parent-child incest families. Not only are sexual boundaries around the marital subsystem more open in that they allow the parent and child to engage in sexual behavior typically reserved for only the husband and wife (Levang, 1989), but the boundary between the family and environment may be more closed. Terry Trepper and Douglas Sprenkle (1988) described incest families as socially isolated, providing more opportunity for the incest to occur without detection.

Inputs, Outputs, and Rules of Transformation

Energy and information brought into the system from the environment are called input, and that which is exported from the system to the environment is called output (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993; Yerby et al., 1990). Rules of transformation refer to the process by which input is changed by the system into output. Input from the environment can shape the way a system functions. For example, a couple may establish their own pattern of sexual interactions based, in part, on images of appropriate sexual expression portrayed in the media. Similarly, system outputs may shape the environment and the system's place in it. Holding hands in public may cue the environment that two individuals are involved in a romantic relationship and that they are to be treated as such. In light of these important transactions, a full understanding of a system is not possible without considering its relationship to the context within which it is embedded.

Feedback

Feedback refers to a circular process in which input is transformed by the system into output, and the output is brought back to the system as input (Broderick, 1990; Constantine, 1986; Hanson, 1995; Littlejohn, 1989; Ruben, 1972; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Feedback allows a system to regulate its behavior. Feedback has been categorized as two types, negative and positive. Negative feedback loops serve to maintain the state of the system within certain limits. When the system is disturbed by internal or external sources, the system acts to bring itself back to its prior state. For example, imagine a young couple who have been dating for a year. The partners have established a comfortable sexual relationship with each other that does not include intercourse. During one sexual encounter the boyfriend decides that he would like to move toward intercourse and begins to communicate this nonverbally through his touch. His partner stiffens. The boyfriend backs off, resuming the type of sexual expression that has been typical of their relationship. Thus, the prior pattern of sexual interaction between the partners is reestablished.

In contrast, positive feedback serves to promote change in the system. Rather than stiffening when her boyfriend indicates his desire for sexual intercourse, the partner may respond in kind, leading to a change in their interaction pattern.

Equifinality

Systems with different initial conditions may evolve to the same point in a variety of ways (Fisher, 1982; Hanson, 1995; Littlejohn, 1989; von Bertalanffy, 1968). This is known as the principle of equifinality. For example, two sets of parents may want to establish a pattern of open communication about sexuality with their children. One set of parents may take the lead from their children, responding openly to their questions but not initiating sexual discussions. The other set may proactively engage their children in such discussions. Thus, two different approaches may reach the same goal of open communication.

Isomorphism 

Gail Whitchurch and Larry Constantine (1993, p. 328) described isomorphism as "an equivalence of form; to say that two systems are isomorphic means that the elements and relationships of one system can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the elements and relationships of the other." For example, Stephen Frosh (1988) and Nancy McConkey (1992) noted that the pattern of interaction between the family and larger systems is isomorphic to the pattern of interaction among family members surrounding the issue of sexual abuse. Professionals working with such families often feel pulled by family members to keep the abuse secret, which is similar to the pull toward secrecy experienced within the family itself.

Theoretical Explanations

Because systems theory is based on a formal cause structure that reflects the pattern or organization among components comprising a whole, a phenomenon must be viewed in terms of the interrelated components of which it is comprised and in relation to its broader context. Although systems theory offers this broad framework for conceptualizing phenomena, it does not provide a clear set of propositions (Broderick & Smith, 1979; Klein & White, 1996; Nichols & Schwartz, 1991). Indeed, the formal cause scheme underlying systems theory does not lend itself to the typical propositional structure based on a linear relationship between an antecedent ("cause") and a consequent ("effect"). In light of these considerations, we do not offer propositions. However, we believe it would be useful to elaborate more fully on the concept of feedback, because it links many major assumptions and concepts of systems theory. Although many scholars have discussed feedback (e.g., Buckley, 1967; Constantine, 1986; Galvin & Brommel, 1996; Klein & White, 1996; Littlejohn, 1989; Ruben, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993), we will recap Carlfred Broderick and James Smith's (1979) exceptionally clear overview of the concept.

Most generally, feedback refers to a circular process in which a system considers its output at one point as input at another point. A system's ability to regulate itself depends on the complexity of its feedback structure (Broderick & Smith, 1979). Broderick and Smith delineated four types of feedback representing increasing levels of complexity. The first is simple feedback. At this level, input is simply transformed into output according to the system's rules of transformation, without comparison to any standard or goal. When the rules of transformation bring the system back to its prior state, the loop is considered to be negative. In contrast, when the rules generate further change, the feedback loop is positive. The change generated by positive loops will continue to escalate because there is no standard of comparison to indicate when the process should halt.

For example, upon finding a recent letter from his wife's former husband, Tom becomes jealous and confronts his wife, Sara, about this ongoing relationship, which he believes she has hidden from him. Sara tries to reassure him, but seeing how distant he has become, she minimizes the relationship with her former husband and tries to hide any further contact with him. Sensing that she is hiding something, Tom confronts her again, even, more upset. Sara again expresses reassurance and becomes even more secretive to save her husband anguish. At a simple level of feedback, this process will escalate until the system is destroyed--through divorce, for example.

For a system to have stability, it must, at minimum, operate at the second level of feedback, which is known As cybernetic control. Here, the output from the system (Level 1 feedback) is compared to a criterion such as a relationship goal or an organizational policy. Based on this comparison, the system makes an adjustment to correct its departure from the criterion. Even though a negative feedback loop at Level 1 minimizes change, there is no way to ensure that a particular standard is met. This can occur only at Level 2. Suppose Sara and Tom have a relationship goal that specifies that they confide in each other about all significant relationships in their lives. The couple system is disturbed when Tom realizes that Sara has not told him about her continued contact with her former husband. In light of this relationship goal, increased secrecy on Sara's part would serve only to move the system further away from its goal in a positive feedback loop. However, if Sara instead responds by becoming less secretive, the system would move closer to its goal. Perhaps Sara begins to tell Tom whenever she receives a letter from her former husband. Tom reacts favorably to this information but becomes distressed when he realizes she is not revealing when she initiates the contact. In this case, the system has moved closer to its goal, but not close enough to stabilize the system. Sensing this discrepancy, Sara routinely informs Tom of all contact with her former husband. Tom's uniformly favorable reaction indicates that the system's operation is consistent with its goal, and stability is restored.

This type of stability is called homeostasis (Constantine, 1986; Littlejohn, 1989; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Homeostasis does not imply that the system is static or inactive. In the previous example, Tom and Sara change their behavior in mutual response. In other words, action must be taken to realign the system's operation with its goal, thereby maintaining the stability of the system.

Imagine that the distress Tom is feeling continues to escalate regardless of whether Sara becomes more secretive or more open about her relationship with her former husband. Both are at their wits' end. Sara has tried everything she knows to decrease Tom's upset and reinstate stability in their relationship, but nothing works. Tom's efforts to realign the system by signaling something is wrong are unsuccessful. They are stuck. The rules of transformation or strategies available for processing the system input are inadequate. At the level of cybernetic control, the system can use only the rules within its current repertoire to restore homeostasis. However, at the third level of feedback, morphogenesis, the system can learn or create new strategies.

Recognizing that their usual strategies for maintaining their relationship in this situation are not working, Tom and Sara may try to expand their repertoire by talking with friends, their rabbi, or a counselor about their dilemma. Perhaps through these conversations Tom begins to realize that his lack of openness is disturbing the relationship. He is feeling guilty because he has never told Sara about a close friendship he has developed with a female colleague at work. He was afraid it would upset her, and, more generally, he tends to be somewhat closed about his feelings. Even though Sara's increased openness about her relationship with her former husband is desirable given their relationship goal, Tom becomes increasingly uncomfortable with his omissions about his relationship, hence his increased distress despite her honesty. Once Tom begins to disclose his feelings about this relationship to Sara, with Sara clearly enjoying the conversations, his distress decreases, and the operation of the system is able to match its goal of openness. Thus, the ineffective, old rules of transformation that focused on change in Sara's behavior are altered to focus on change in Tom's behavior.

At the first level of feedback, input simply is transformed into output according to the system's rules of transformation. At the level of cybernetic control, the system assesses the degree to which it is meeting its goals and selects the strategy from its existing repertoire that seems most likely to enhance its progress toward these goals. With morphogenesis, new strategies or rules of transformation are created. At both the second and third levels, the goals of the system remain intact. At the fourth level of feedback, reorientation or conversion, the goals of the system are challenged. For example, through discussions about their relationships with other significant persons in their lives, Sara and Tom may discover that they do not feel comfortable sharing or hearing very intimate details about these other persons. They grow to realize that, although openness is important, some degree of privacy also is desirable. Based on this realization, they decide to change their goal of unrestricted openness to one of balance between openness and privacy.

In addition to explicitly incorporating concepts such as system, input, output, and rules of transformation, this elaborated discussion of feedback illustrates other assumptions and concepts such as holism (Sara and Tom's behavior can be understood only in the context of their circular pattern of interaction), interdependence (Sara and Tom mutually shape each other's behavior), self-reflexivity (Sara and Tom are able consciously to reflect on their behavior), subsystems (Tom and Sara each are components or subsystems within their relationship system), boundaries (the couple system is distinct from the relationships each partner has with other persons), and open systems (Tom and Sara consult with others outside their system to create new rules of transformation). Thus, the concept of feedback critically links the basic notions of systems theory.

Recent work in systems theory has elaborated and qualified these core concepts and explanatory principles. The contributions of Humberto Maturana have been especially influential (Becvar & Becvar, 1996). According to Maturana, the behavior of a system is not unilaterally determined by its interactions with its medium (i.e., other systems and context). Rather, the structure of the system determines its potentialities for behavior. The medium calls forth particular expressions of these potentialities. The dynamic process by which system and medium interact is called structural coupling. The implications of this process for interrelated issues such as system change, the relationship of observer (e.g., researcher, therapist) to system, and the construction of knowledge have been explored and debated in the literature (Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Dell, 1985; Maturana & Varela, 1980).

Foci of Study

Wholeness/Relationship

The focus of study using systems theory should be on the relationships within and between systems (Broderick, 1990, 1993; Buckley, 1967; Constantine, 1986; Fisher, 1982; Galvin & Brommel, 1996; Hall & Fagen, 1975; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). It is important clearly to differentiate this system level from the characteristics of individuals. One cannot attempt to explain a whole system by reducing it to smaller parts and simply adding them or averaging subsystem scores; this creates a meaningless score (Broderick, 1993; Constantine, 1986). For example, if one is interested in the overall well-being of an individual, averaging scores of emotional and physical health would be inappropriate. Also, if one is interested in the level of comfort in sexual discussions of teenaged couples, one could not merely obtain scores from each member of the dyad and average these scores to create a couple score. As Broderick (1993, p. 49) stated, "the average of two discrepant ... scores represents an opinion of the relationship that is held by neither participant and which is attributed to a social system that--like all social systems--is intrinsically incapable of any opinion at all."

Trepper and Sprenkle (1988) showed how the Circumplex Model (a model based on systemic concepts) can be used to assess and treat whole families experiencing child abuse. A measurement tool (FACES III) that collects scores from individuals can be used to learn about a family system by identifying patterns among the individual scores. This keeps the focus on the relationship and interactions, instead of concentrating on the individual scores.

Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) identified three other foci of study appropriate for systems theory: (a) understanding intrasystem processes, (b) examining relationships between systems, and (c) discovering how systems change. Each of these emphases keeps the focus on the whole system and relationships.

Understanding Intrasystem Processes

If one looks at transactions and interactions, systems theory can be used to understand processes within a system (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Unlike other theoretical models, systems theory discourages emphasizing a cause-and-effect approach in favor of ongoing system processes. Looking for patterns that occur consistently over time shifts the focus away from the individual to the relationships among members of a system.

Intrasystem processes have been examined in the area of incest (e.g., Cole, 1992; Fish & Faynik, 1989; Levang, 1989; Ribordy, 1989; Trepper & Barrett, 1986). Levang (1989) used systems theory to examine the notion that father-daughter incest serves as a homeostatic (balancing) function for a disturbed marital subsystem. He explained that the sexual contact between the father and daughter causes the daughter to become a member of the spousal subsystem and the mother to be removed. This allows the family to divert attention away from the troubled marital relationship between the father and mother and focus instead on the daughter.

Other researchers have concentrated on the interactional patterns within the marital dyad of a family experiencing incest. Wendy Cole (1992) and Sheila Ribordy (1989) applied three interactional types to these marital dyads: (a) possessive-passive--a domineering husband with strict control over a submissive wife and his children; (b) dependent, inadequate man-strong, domineering woman--a wife who is more of a mother than a wife to her husband and a husband who copes with his inadequacy through sexual dominance over a child and may use drugs or alcohol; and (c) dependent-dependent--neither parent is successful in meeting the requirements of spousal or parental roles. The emphasis of systems theory on wholeness and relationships encourages these authors to focus on the patterns within the marital dyad.

Victoria Lutzer (1983) also highlighted intrasystem processes in her study of modifying the inappropriate sexual behavior of a mildly developmentally delayed man. She focused on the process of feedback within the man's work environment (which is identified as the system in this study). Despite coworkers defining his sexual behavior as undesirable, the system tolerated, and thereby reinforced, these actions because of his disability until coworkers believed the behavior had reached "a far point of deviancy" (p. 177). It wasn't until the goal was identified to decrease the behavior and a negative feedback loop was established within the system that change occurred and the undesirable behavior decreased.

In each of these examples, the emphasis is on the patterns of interactions within a system. Interactions and patterns also emerge between systems.

Examining Relationships Between Systems

Because systems are composed of subsystems and exist within suprasystems, multiple systems may have an impact on an individual or a phenomenon. This approach encourages more in-depth exploration than would a cause-and-effect mechanistic approach (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).

Joan Atwood and Susan Kasindorf (1992) used a multisystemic approach to understand adolescent pregnancy. They reviewed the vast literature on teenage pregnancy to illustrate that there are multiple influences involved: A teen is a member of a school system, a peer group system, a family system, a community system, and also the larger social system. They examined how these systems interact to influence adolescents' sexual behavior and decisions. For example, the authors suggested that integrating parents into school sexuality education programs would increase the likelihood of changing adolescents' sexual behavior if parents and teachers worked together to offer the same message (e.g., use contraceptives if you are going to be sexually active). This emphasizes the interaction of two systems--school and family.

Atwood and Kasindorf (1992) also discussed how adolescents are confronted with varied and conflicting input regarding sexuality from multiple systems and presented several problem-solving strategies developed by adolescents to deal with these conflicts: (a) avoiding confrontation and denying conflict, (b) relying on one source to provide guidance in all situations, (c) assuming that the inconsistency and conflict mean that there are no standards, (d) listening to all sources to try to create a compromise, and (e) learning that sexual decisions and behavior are matters of individual choice.

Beverly Burch (1982) considered the interaction of systems to understand the "psychological merger in lesbian couples." The enmeshment often found within lesbian couples may be a reaction to the wider environment that does not recognize the relationship. If others do not recognize them as a couple, they may become closer to create a clearer boundary to define their coupleness. Emphasis is put on the interaction between the couple system and these other systems.

Ellen Berman and Larry Hof (1989) advocated the use of a sexual genogram to examine how patterns of behaviors and beliefs in each partner's family of origin may be influencing their sexual functioning as a couple. Understanding the relationship between these generational systems may provide a springboard for the treatment of sexual distress in the couple.

Examining the patterns of behavior within systems and the interactions between systems are two common foci of research using this theoretical perspective. However, systems--especially human systems--inevitably experience change.

Discovering How Systems Change

Systems theorists, researchers, and practitioners are interested in discovering and describing changes within systems (morphogenesis). These changes can occur in a variety of ways: learning, growth, significant change by one individual, or positive feedback loops. Systems theory emphasizes change as a process of an entire system, not by just an individual member (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).

Penny Roughan and Alan Jenkins (1990) suggested a systemic treatment strategy for couples with sexual problems. Couples are invited to use "cybernetic explanations" to understand their difficulty. This encourages the couple to recognize that they are caught in relationship patterns that may result in vicious cycles. Roughan and Jenkins suggested that therapists should help couples to recognize the pattern of interaction that led to the sexual problem and keep the focus away from blaming one member of the dyad. Next, they invited the couples to choose whether to continue to maintain this "old imbalance" or to change their behavior and move toward "a more balanced relationship." Couples choosing to move on are encouraged to suggest ways of challenging their old habits and reinventing ways of relating. In other words, they are using the third level of feedback, morphogenesis, by introducing new strategies into their marital system. The fourth level of feedback also is exhibited when Roughan and Jenkins suggested that couples should let go temporarily of the goal of successful sexual intercourse and instead focus on the goal of increasing nonsexual intimacy. The authors suggested this specific goal because they believe such a shift in focus will help couples break vicious cycles that occurred when they were intensely focused on successful sexual intercourse.

For patients diagnosed with genital cancer, van de Wiel, Schultz, and Thurkow (1991) discussed the process of system change as these persons and their partners achieve a new homeostatic balance within their sexual relationship. The authors suggested that the diagnosis and treatment of genital cancer often is met with negative feedback from inside the system as its members attempt to maintain its previous state. However, as they attempt to come to terms with the disease, the amount of positive feedback from outside the system must be matched with positive feedback from within the system. This positive feedback includes "congruent" communication--communication that is clear and explicit from both members of the system. The authors suggested that incorporating this kind of communication into the system needs to be encouraged by the involved health care provider to assist in the system change.

Research Outcomes

Although systems theory has been applied to a variety of sexual issues, including child sexual abuse (e.g., Barrett, Trepper, & Fish, 1990; Kreidler & Fluharty, 1994; McConkey, 1992; Trepper & Sprenkle, 1988), sexual dysfunction and sex therapy (e.g., Heiman, Epps, & Ellis, 1995; LoPiccolo, 1991; Talmadge & Talmadge, 1986), adolescent sexuality (e.g., Allen-Meares & Shore, 1986; Chilman, 1989; Leigh & Loewen, 1987), lesbian relationships (e.g., Burch, 1982), sexuality and chronic illness (e.g., van de Wiel et al., 1991), sexuality and disability (Stavros, 1991), and sex with former clients (e.g., Shopland & VandeCreek, 1991), few of these applications have involved empirical research. Indeed, a literature search using PsychLit, spanning 1974 through 1995, identified only seven research articles explicitly based on systems theory. Key words used in the search were sex/sexual/sexuality and systems theory/systems approach/systems model/systems perspective. A search on Medline revealed no studies of sexuality conducted from a systems perspective. A few other studies were located through an examination of the reference list in articles already found. This information alone tells us that we have little empirical basis for evaluating the utility of the theory for studying sexuality.

Although the number of studies is limited, overall, the findings appear to be consistent with systems theory. For example, the process of feedback has been examined in several studies. Investigating the marital relationships of 12 patients who received intestinal bypass surgery for obesity, John Marshall and John Neill (1977) found that removal of the symptom of obesity disrupted the homeostasis of the marital sexual relationship, with partners having opposite reactions. The majority of the patients reported feeling more interested in sex after surgery, whereas the majority of their partners indicated that they felt threatened as the patient began to lose weight. For example, one partner stated, "With legs as attractive as those, I suppose you'll find another man" (p. 276). Similarly, in a case study described previously, Lutzer (1983) proposed that the sexual behavior of a mildly mentally retarded man may have been sustained by an interactional pattern in which others expected and allowed his behavior to continue despite their discomfort with it. Because no feedback encouraging the man to alter his sexual expression was provided, the behavior escalated. When the staff at the day activity workshop in which the young man participated was helped to view his behavior as an effort to become an independent adult and asked to guide him to behaviors that they believed were more normative, the pattern in the young man's sexual expression was altered.

Finally, in another study reviewed earlier, Levang (1989) examined the pattern of interaction among fathers, mothers, and daughters in three groups: seven families experiencing father-daughter incest, seven families in which the daughter met the DSM-III criteria for Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Disorder, and seven nonclinical families. When wives and husbands were asked to discuss, in the presence of their daughter, attractive qualities about their spouse, incest couples tended to interact with each other in less positive ways than either the oppositional or nonclinical couples. Mothers from incest families rarely spoke with their daughters during the task, whereas incest fathers tended to be warmer and more open with their daughters in this situation than on other tasks the families were asked to complete. Levang interpreted this pattern of interaction as supporting the expected emotional distance among marital partners in incest families. Instead of using the task to create couple intimacy, both partners maintained their distance, with the husband deflecting his attention to his daughter. Thus, homeostasis was preserved.

In addition to investigating the process of feedback, several scholars have presented effectiveness data for systemic interventions with problems related to sexual abuse. For example, the family systems approach used in the Child Abuse Treatment Program of Santa Clara County with more than 4,000 cases reunited 90% of the child victims with their families and reported a recidivism rate less than 1% (Giarretto, 1982). Trepper and Traicoff (1985) described a 4% recidivism rate with their structural-strategic systemic treatment of more than 50 families. Barrett, Sykes, and Byrnes (1986) reported a recidivism rate of 2% on the basis of their structural-strategic systemic work with 250 incest families. Six young females who had experienced intrafamilial sexual abuse participated in a group therapy format in which therapists used a systems approach (Wolf, 1993). Although no formal measures of behavior change were obtained, caretakers and teachers indicated substantial improvement in the young girls' interactions with peers and adults both at school and at home. Finally, Borduin, Henggeler, Blaske, and Stein (1990) compared the effectiveness of individual therapy and multisystemic therapy for 16 adolescent sexual offenders. Offenders were randomly assigned to type of therapy. A three-year follow up indicated that significantly fewer participants in the multisystemic treatment than in the individual treatment were rearrested for sexual crimes. The frequency of rearrests also was significantly lower for the multisystemic than individual therapy group.

Three other systemic conceptualizations were evident in the research literature reviewed. Anthony Jurich (1979) found support for the notion of equifinality in his study of premarital sexual standards among 160 students from 8 colleges. Different configurations of demographic, environmental, and personality variables were associated with the same premarital sexual standard. For example, when comparing students espousing traditional sexual standards (total sexual abstinence prior to marriage for both men and women) to students espousing the double standard (sexual abstinence for women but not men prior to marriage), three different combinations of variables all were associated with students holding the double standard: (a) men attending colleges oriented toward "play" rather than "work," but who feel a lack of fit with this environment, (b) females attending colleges oriented toward narcissism, and (c) women attending colleges with little orientation toward narcissism but high orientation toward dominance.

Using a systems perspective, James Maddock, Pamela Larson, and Catherine Lally (1991) compared incest families prior to treatment, incest families after treatment, and non-incestuous families to determine whether patterns of attitudes and behaviors among family members differed among the three groups. Although the groups did not significantly vary in some areas of functioning (e.g., family cohesion and adaptability), significantly different patterns were revealed in other areas. For example, cross-generational and within-gender boundaries were found to be more diffuse for pre-treatment incest families than for either post-treatment incest families or non-incestuous families. The authors noted that this pattern is consistent with the parent-child role confusion that systemic clinicians report to be typical of incest families. Thus, some aspects of relationship patterns do appear to differ among pre-treatment incest families, post-treatment incest families, and non-incestuous families, demonstrating the utility of a systemic focus in understanding the experience of incest.

Finally, Sui-Ming Pan (1993) conceptualized sexuality as a system composed of three subsystems (biosexual, psychosexual, and sociosexual). Sexuality also is considered a part of five interrelated components (gender, reproduction, marriage, love, and life). Based primarily on data collected by Pan from 1985 to 1991, the article presents a description of the place of sexuality in current China, with a substantial focus on the relationship between sexuality and these five interrelated components. Although Pan used systems theory as a broad framework to introduce the purpose of the article, systems concepts are only loosely used throughout the analysis.

Although the research described previously shows some support for the applicability of systems theory to sexuality, several factors diminish the quality of these studies. For example, sample sizes often are small, limiting the generalizability of the findings (e.g., Borduin et al., 1990; Lutzer, 1983; Trepper & Traicoff, 1985; Wolf, 1993). Two of the three studies (Lutzer, 1983; Marshall & Neill, 1977) to examine circular feedback processes relied on less formal observation of patterns rather than statistically testing for their presence. Although Levang (1989) examined statistically significant differences among three groups of families (father-daughter incest families, families containing daughters with conduct or oppositional disorders, and nonclinical families), the pattern the author described is based on intragroup differences among the incest families, which were not statistically tested, as well as between-group differences.

Researchers exploring the effectiveness of systemic interventions tend to use a narrow range of outcome measures, typically recidivism rates (e.g., Barrett et al., 1986; Borduin et al., 1990; Giarretto, 1982; Trepper & Traicoff, 1985). Other assessments often are based on informal reports rather than or in addition to formal measures of change (e.g., Lutzer, 1983: Wolf, 1993). Further, the contribution of different components of treatment to the efficacy of the treatment as a whole has not been considered in these studies. Examining how treatment components coalesce to create change would enhance our understanding of what makes the program effective. Finally, these studies rarely use control or comparison groups to ensure that observed changes are due to the systemic treatment specifically rather than receiving any treatment at all or the mere passing of time. The study by Borduin and colleagues is a notable exception.

Although the studies that examine sexuality from a systems perspective do provide some support for the applicability of the theory to this area, the small number of studies as well as limitations in the quality of the research make it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Why has systemic research been so limited? Atwood and Kasindorf (1992) and Chilman (1989) suggested that, despite the familiarity many family social scientists and therapists have with systems theory, few psychological and sociological researchers have been exposed to the theory in much depth. These scholars also noted the difficulty of measuring, and we add analyzing, systems. Although some headway has been made in conceptualizing and developing methodological tools (e.g., Deal, 1995; Draper & Marcos, 1990; Fisher, Kokes, Ransom, Phillips, & Rudd, 1985; Gottman, 1982; Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990; Thompson & Walker, 1982), social scientists in general and specifically those in the area of sexuality have been slow to incorporate these advances into their research. Finally, some scholars argue that systems theory is a broad framework for sensitizing scholars to particular aspects of phenomena rather than a more specific theory capable of generating testable hypotheses (Littlejohn, 1989; Nichols & Schwartz, 1991).

Critique

Although systems theory offers a rich framework for understanding a variety of phenomena, several concerns have been raised about its potential to contribute meaningfully to the advancement of social scientific knowledge. One area of critical discussion centers on the theory's generality (Klein & White, 1996; L'Abate & Colondier, 1987; Littlejohn, 1989; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Supporters of systems theory claim that its generality is a strength; it provides a common set of concepts and logic for seeing connections among diverse aspects of the natural and social world, creating the possibility of meaningfully integrating the sciences. Such a theory would be considered quite parsimonious in that a relatively small number of concepts and principles may be applied to a wide range of phenomena (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993). In contrast, other scholars believe that the theory is too abstract to be useful. For example, Littlejohn (1989, p. 48) asserted that "if it is everything, it is really nothing. If all phenomena follow the same system principles, we have no basis for understanding anything apart from anything else." Thus, from this perspective, the generality of systems theory obscures important distinctions (Klein & White, 1996).

Further, there is concern that the principles of systems theory are so abstract that they are subject to disparate interpretations when the theory is applied to specific substantive areas (Littlejohn, 1989). For example, Peter Steinglass (1987) noted that the application of systems theory to family therapy has resulted in numerous therapeutic approaches that differ substantially in their conceptualization of family psychopathology as well as the focus and content of treatment. However, he argued that these discrepancies reflect different emphases placed on the various core concepts of systems theory rather than fundamental disagreements about the theory. Thus, although there tends to be a high degree of intersubjective agreement about the core concepts and principles of systems theory, there may be less agreement about its more specific applications.

Despite this substantial intersubjective agreement about the core of systems theory, it is important to note that some disagreements about the theory's foundations have occurred. For example, whereas Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980) conceived of living systems as being thermodynamically open to their environment but closed to information from their environment, Bateson (1972) claimed that living systems are both thermodynamically and informationally open. Even here, however, on the basis of his comparison of Maturana's and Bateson's work, Paul Dell (1985) concluded that the views of these two theorists are highly compatible and are derived from the same essential principle: Humans must be understood in light of our relation to a medium or context.

The generality of systems theory also has led critics to doubt its testability (L'Abate & Colondier, 1987; Littlejohn, 1989; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). They maintain that the concepts and principles of the theory are too distant from observable phenomena to generate substantive questions for research. Further, its degree of abstractness creates difficulty in the operationalization of its concepts for research purposes. In contrast, proponents suggest that systems theory offers new ways of conceptualizing old problems and, therefore, has much heuristic value. Indeed, Whitchurch and Constantine delineated several areas of research, including alcoholism and family violence, that have benefited from a systemic approach. As systems theory is applied to specific substantive areas, operationalization of concepts should pose less difficulty.

Some scholars question the explanatory power of systems theory (Littlejohn, 1989; Steinglass, 1987). Although systems theory provides a structure for conceptualizing phenomena, some believe it is unable to address why the world operates as it does, which limits its predictive usefulness. This criticism assumes that scientific explanation should be based on efficient causality (an antecedent event leads to a consequent event). As discussed earlier, systems theory presumes a formal cause scheme (the pattern or organization in the components comprising a whole). Therefore, if efficient cause is considered the only acceptable type of causal structure for scientific theory, systems theory would not qualify. However, if other types of causal schemes are viewed as holding promise for scientific explanation, systems theory provides a valuable perspective.

Although, overall, the concepts and principles of systems theory are clearly linked to provide an internally coherent framework, one area of inconsistency recently has been challenged (Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Maturana & Varela, 1980). Traditionally, systems have been described from the perspective of an outside observer. In other words, the observer has treated himself or herself as an entity independent of the system being observed. However, this stance is inconsistent with systems theory in that it fails to recognize that the observed and observer are part of a larger context or system within which they relate. Within this larger system, the observer is a participant. Thus, the observer's beliefs and values not only influence his or her view of the observed system, but the behavior of both the observed and observer are shaped by their mutual interaction. Becvar and Becvar (1996) referred to this level of analysis as the cybernetics of cybernetics. Although their ramifications of this conceptual development continue to be explored today, adding complexity to the theory, the internal consistency of the theory has been enhanced as a result of these efforts.

Although these objections are leveled at systems theory itself, critics also have targeted the way the theory has been applied to particular substantive areas related to sexuality. For example, some feminist theorists point out that the concepts of interdependence and circular causality remove responsibility for problems from the individual and locate it in the interaction among all members of the system (Avis, 1996; Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Libow, 1986; Rampage, 1995; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). They see this as problematic when victims or other members of the system are subtly blamed for acts committed against them and aggressors are subtly excused. Systemic work in the area of sexual abuse has received such criticism (Barrett et al., 1990; Finkelhor, 1986; Frosh, 1988; Grunebaum, 1987). For example, by locating the etiology of father-daughter incest in the interactional pattern of the family, children as well as mothers are made co-responsible along with the father for the incest. Such dispersion of responsibility has come to be seen as inappropriate.

General systems theory does not assume that all components of a system necessarily have equal influence in a pattern of interaction (Constantine, 1986; Fish, 1990; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Although a pattern of interaction cannot reoccur without the collaboration of all involved, some members may have more control over and, therefore, responsibility for the pattern than others. On this basis, Whitchurch and Constantine believe it is possible for systems theory to embrace the feminist critique.

In addition to the issue of interdependence and responsibility, applications of systems theory often have been criticized by feminists and others for narrowly focusing on interpersonal dynamics while ignoring context or suprasystems and the individuals comprising the system, despite their importance to systems thinking (Avis, 1996, Becvar & Becvar, 1996; Broderick, 1993; Goldner, 1985; Lerner, 1987; Libow, 1986). The absence of contextual considerations in the area of sexual abuse has been highlighted by a number of authors, with some beginning to fill this gap (Barrett et al., 1990; Frosh, 1988; Grunebaum, 1987; McConkey, 1992). For example, Mary Jo Barrett, Terry Trepper, and Linda Stone Fish (1990) discussed several cultural values that set the stage for incest to occur. One such value is that men should be powerful, and loss of power is equivalent to failure as a man. Therefore, some men who feel victimized and unable to act to change their situation may abuse their child as a means of feeling powerful and in control. Similar to work in sexual abuse, those using systemic treatments of sexual dysfunctions have tended to ignore the role of the broader social context in the etiology and treatment of dysfunctions.

With regard to individuals comprising a system, theorists conducting systemic discussions of sexual abuse typically neglect to consider how individual characteristics of family members contribute to the pattern of abuse (Barrett et al., 1990; Fish & Faynik, 1989). Further, examining the individual as a system comprised of behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and physiological subsystems has been rare. In contrast, the systemic literature in the area of sexual dysfunction is more likely to attend to the individual, perhaps because of the involvement of physiological processes in such dysfunctions. For example, Julia Heiman, Pamela Epps, and Beatrice Ellis (1995) stressed the importance of assessing individual patterns of physical, psychological, and behavioral functioning when conducting therapy with couples reporting sexual desire disorders.

Systems theory has not been free of pointed criticisms on many fronts. However, it is clear that innovative efforts have been initiated to address many of these complaints.

Although systems theory emerged as an identifiable analytical perspective early in the twentieth century, its most fundamental logic has been extant since Aristotle introduced the notion of formal cause. Over the years, it has been applied to an enormous variety of phenomena, as befits a framework that some (e.g., von Bertalanffy, 1968) believe to be capable of integrating all natural and social sciences. Notably, systems theory has provided valuable and distinctive insights into human sexual behavior, particularly in the areas of sexual dysfunction and abuse. Still, as we have seen, systems theory has been less useful than the social scientific ideal because of the very breadth of its vision. Of course, this is an inescapable tension in all theory; theoretical range is dialectically opposed to theoretical precision. With this unavoidable tension in mind, and especially in view of system theory's unique focus on formal cause, we believe that it is among the most valuable perspectives for the study of human sexuality. Hence, we look forward to future theoretical developments, research, and applications of systems theory.

References

Alexander, J. C. (1982). Theoretical logic in sociology (Vol. 1). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Alexander, P. C. (1985). A systems theory conceptualization of incest. Family Process, 24, 79-88.

Allen-Meares, P., & Shore, D. A. (1986). A transactional framework for working with adolescents and their sexualities. The Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 5, 71-80.

Atwood, J. D., & Kasindorf, S. (1992). A multisystemic approach to adolescent pregnancy The American Journal of Family Therapy, 20, 341-360.

Avis, J. M. (1996). Deconstructing gender in family therapy. In F. Piercy, D. Sprenkle, & J. Wetchler (Eds.), Family therapy sourcebook (pp. 220-255). New York: Guilford.

Barrett, M. J., Sykes, C., & Byrnes, W. (1986). A systemic model for the treatment of intrafamily child sexual abuse. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 2(2), 67-82.

Barrett, M. J., Trepper, T. S., & Fish, L. S. (1990): Feminist-informed family therapy for the treatment of intrafamily child sexual abuse. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 151-166.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York: Ballantine.

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251-264.

Becvar, D. S., & Becvar, R. J. (1996). Family therapy: A systems integration. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Berman, E. M., & Hof, L. (1989). The sexual genogram: Assessing family-of-origin factors in the treatment of sexual dysfunctions. In D. Kantor & B. F. Okun (Eds.), Intimate environments: Sex, intimacy, and gender in families (pp. 292-320). New York: Guilford.

Bochner, A. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Family process: System perspectives. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 540-563). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M., & Stein, R. J. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-113.

Boulding, K. E. (1975). General systems theory--The skeleton of science. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 21-32). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Broderick, C. B. (1990). Family process theory. In J. Sprey (Ed.), Fashioning family theory (pp. 171-206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Broderick, C. B., & Smith, J. (1979). The general systems approach to the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Vol. II (pp. 112-129). New York: Free Press.

Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Burch, B. (1982). Psychological merger in lesbian couples: A joint ego psychological and systems approach. Family Therapy, 9, 201-208.

Chilman, C. S. (1989). Some major issues regarding adolescent sexuality and childbearing in the United States. The Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 8, 3-25.

Chilman, C. S. (1990). Promoting healthy adolescent sexuality. Family Relations, 39, 123-131.

Cole, W. (1992). Incest perpetrators: Their assessment and treatment. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 689-701.

Constantine, L. L. (1986). Family paradigms: The practice of theory in family therapy. New York: Guilford.

Deal, J. E. (1995). Utilizing data from multiple family members: A within-family approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1009-1121.

Dell, P. F. (1985). Understanding Bateson and Maturana: Toward a biological foundation for the social sciences. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 1-20.

De Silva, P. (1994). Psychological treatment of sexual problems. International Review of Psychiatry, 6, 163-173.

Doherty, W. J., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 3-30). New York: Plenum.

Draper, T. W., & Marcos, A. C. (1990). Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Finkelhor, D. (1986). Sexual abuse: Beyond the family systems approach. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 2(2), 53-65.

Fish, V. (1990). Introducing causality and power into family therapy theory: A correction to the systemic paradigm. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 21-37.

Fish, V., & Faynik, C. (1989). Treatment of incest families with the father temporarily removed: A structural approach. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 8, 53-63.

Fisher, B. A. (1982). The pragmatic perspective of human communication: A view from system theory. In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory (pp. 192-219). New York: Harper & Row.

Fisher, L., Kokes, R., Ransom, D., Phillips, S., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family data. Family Process, 24, 213-224.

Frosh, S. (1988). No man's land?: The role of men working with sexually abused children. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 16, 1-10.

Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1996). Family communication: Cohesion and change. New York: Harper Collins.

Giarretto, H. (1982). A comprehensive child sexual abuse treatment program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 6, 263-278.

Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24, 31-47.

Gottman, J. M. (1982). Temporal form: Toward a new language for describing relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 943-962.

Grunebaum, J. (1987). Multidirected partiality and the "parental imperative." Psychotherapy, 24, 646-656.

Hall, A. D., & Fagan, R. E. (1975). Definition of system. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General system theory and human communication (pp. 52-65). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Hanson, B. G. (1995). General systems theory beginning with wholes. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Heiman, J. R., Epps, P. H., & Ellis, B. (1995). Treating sexual disorders in couples. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 471-495). New York: Guilford.

Jacob, T., & Tennenbaum, D. L. (1988). Family assessment: Rationale, methods, and future directions. New York: Plenum.

Jurich, A. P. (1979). Differential determinants of premarital sexual standards among college students. Adolescence, 14, 797-810.

Klein, D. M., & Jurich, J. A. (1993). Metatheory and family studies. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 31-67). New York: Plenum.

Klein, D. M., & White, J. M. (1996). Family theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kreidler, M. C., & Fluharty, L. B. (1994). The "new family" model: The evolution of group treatment for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 19, 175-181.

L'Abate, L., & Colondier, G. (1987). The emperor has no clothes! Long live the emperor! A critique of family systems thinking and a reductionistic proposal, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 19-33.

Larson, N. R., & Maddock, J. W. (1986). Structural and functional variables in incest family systems: Implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 2, 27-44.

Laszlo, E. (1975). Basic constructs of systems philosophy. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems theory and human communication (pp. 66-77). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Leigh, G. K., & Loewen, I. R. (1987). Utilizing developmental perspectives in the study of adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 303-320.

Lerner, H. G. (1987). Is family systems theory really systemic? A feminist communication. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 3(4), 47-63.

Levang, C. A. (1989). Father-daughter incest families: A theoretical perspective from balance theory and GST. Contemporary Family Therapy, 11, 28-44.

Levine, S. B. (1995). What is clinical sexuality? The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18, 1-6.

Libow, J. (1986). Training family therapists as feminists. In M. Ault-Riche (Ed.), Women and family therapy (pp. 16-24). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1989). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

LoPiccolo, J. (1991). Post-modern sex therapy for erectile failure. Nordisk Sexologi, 9, 205-225.

LoPiccolo, J. (1994). The evolution of sex therapy. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 9, 5-7.

Lutzer, V. D. (1983). Modification of inappropriate sexual behaviors in a mildly mentally retarded male. Sexuality and Disability, 6, 176-182.

Maddock, J. W. (1983). Sex in the family system. Marriage and Family Review, 6, 9-20.

Maddock, J. W. (1989). Healthy family sexuality: Positive principles for educators and clinicians. Family Relations, 38, 130-141.

Maddock, J. W. (1990). Promoting healthy family sexuality. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 1, 49-63.

Maddock, J. W., Larson, P. R., & Lally, C. F. (1991). An evaluation protocol for incest family functioning. In M. W. Patton (Ed.), Family sexual abuse: Frontline research and evaluation (pp. 162-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marshall, J. R., & Neill, J. (1977). The removal of a psychosomatic symptom: Effects on the marriage. Family Process, 16, 273-280.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.

McCarthy, I. C., & Byrne, N. O. (1988). Mistaken love: Conversations on the problem of incest in an Irish context. Family Process, 27, 181-199.

McConkey, N. (1992). Working with adults to overcome the effects of sexual abuse: Integrating solution-focused therapy, systems thinking and gender issues. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 11, 4-19.

Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 357-373.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1991). Family therapy concepts and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pan, S. (1993). A sex revolution in current China. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 6(2), 1-14.

Rampage, C. (1995). Gendered aspects of marital therapy. In N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 261-273). New York: Guilford.

Ribordy, S. C. (1989). Treating intrafamilial child sexual abuse from a systemic perspective. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 6(3-4), 71-88.

Roughan, P., & Jenkins, A. (1990). A systems-developmental approach to counseling couples with sexual problems II: Strategies for intervention. Journal of Family Therapy, 11, 193-201.

Ruben, B. D. (1972). General system theory: An approach to human communication. In R. W. Budd & B. D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to human communication (pp. 120-144). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Rychlak, J. F. (1977). The psychology of rigorous humanism. New York: Wiley.

Schnarch, D. M. (1991). Constructing the sexual crucible. New York: Norton.

Schnarch, D. M. (1995). A family systems approach to sex therapy and intimacy. In R. H. Mikesell, D. D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy: Handbook of family psychology and systems theory (pp. 239-257). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Shopland, S. N., & VandeCreek, L. (1991). Sex with ex-clients: Theoretical rationales for prohibition. Ethics & Behavior, 1, 35-44.

Stavros, M. K. (1991). Family systems approach to sexual dysfunction in neurologic disability. Sexuality and Disability, 9, 69-85.

Steinglass, P. (1987). A systems view of family interaction and psychopathology. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 25-65). New York: Plenum.

Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Talmadge, L. S., & Talmadge, W. C. (1986). Relational sexuality: An understanding of low sexual desire. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 12, 3-21.

Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 889-900.

Trepper, T. S., & Barrett, M. J. (1986). Treating incest: A multimodal systems perspective: Introduction. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 2(2), 5-12.

Trepper, T., & Barrett, M. J. (1989). Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Trepper, T. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1988). The clinical use of the circumplex model in the assessment and treatment of intrafamily child sexual abuse. Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 4(1-2), 93-111.

Trepper, T. S., & Traicoff, M. E. (1985). Treatment of intrafamily sexuality: Conceptual rationale and model for family therapy. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 11, 18-23.

van de Wiel, H. B. M., Schultz, W. C. M., & Thurkow, F. G. (1991). The system theory approach to the sexual consequences of genital cancer. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 6, 41-48.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1975). Perspectives on general systems theory: Scientific-philosophical studies. New York: Braziller.

Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-352). New York: Plenum.

Wolf, V. B. (1993). Group therapy of young latency age sexually abused girls. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, 3, 25-39.

Woody, J. D. (1989). The reality of an integrative sex therapy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 15, 62-73.

Woody, J. D. (1992). Treating sexual distress: Integrative systems therapy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. P. (1990). Understanding family communication. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Zimmerman, T. S., & Darden, E. C. (1991). In search of sex therapy with a systems orientation: A decade review. Family Therapy, 18, 269-276.

Manuscript accepted June 15, 1997

Address correspondence to Joan A. Jurich, Ph.D., Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1267. Fax: [phone]. Phone: [phone]. E-mail: [e-mail].