3 Systems

Structures are not things. Structures are the way we conceive of things, our perspectives on things. There can be an infinite variety of conceived structures. Taking perspectives and conceiving of structures with respect to any phenomena is an art. Typically, people see what is immediately present. It is possible to see the same entity or group of entities or parts from the perspective of history or histories. It is also possible to see the same group from the perspective of its place within encompassing structures, in the midst of coextensive or related groups or parts, or as a structure that itself encompasses substructures. One can choose the perspective on and components of the structure. One can also change perspectives on and components of any designated entities within a set of levels of structures and the systems within each level so as to study different conceptions of structures. Each conception could be viewed as something like a scaffolding, blueprint, or model of a multi-story building.

Each time a structure is conceived, it is then possible to observe and analyze the interrelations of its components. One can examine the structure of a poem, a game, a machine, a tree, a body of water, or anything. Deciding upon a unit of analysis and isolating particular units, one can then observe how it [or they] is effected by and effects other units. It may appear that one unit is the cause of the behavior or significance of another unit. However, when taking another structural perspective, it could become apparent that it is an historical pattern. Switching perspectives, it can be viewed in terms of its place within the arrangement of a more encompassing structure. Still another perspective can see it in terms of its place in relation to parallel structures. Each perspective can yield valuable information. By continuing to experiment with structural perspective taking, a more comprehensive understanding may emerge that yields more effective strategies for rearranging units and their relations. At the same time, it may become possible to see and understand why prior strategies for the design of a structure have not worked or worked only for a brief period and then became counterproductive or obsolete. In fact, it could become apparent that prior solutions were successful for the one component while, ironically, contributing to dysfunction with respect to other, psychologically or physically related, parallel, or adjoined components. The success for the short term may conceal the fact that it inevitably promoted dysfunction in the more distant future. What we are talking about here, in terms of effects of units within a structure and their effects upon one another is 'systems'. The dynamic and interdependent interaction of units within a structure constitutes a system.

When examining the way components are interrelated or effect one another, physically, temporally, or psychologically, we are examining the systems within structures. Once again, it is possible to take multiple perspectives on systems and examine their interrelations and interactions. The important point to weigh here is that it is the taking of multiple perspectives on structures containing, consisting of, and encompassing systems and then on the systems themselves that yields the most powerful results. When attempting to restructure structures and systems, the advance work done in taking different perspectives is likely to yield the most effective and enduring results.

•The institution exists within a community with its own systems that include the civic, social, and religious organizations, and businesses, and the geo-demographics of the parent city.

•The institution has a history and can be characterized as a whole or ‘Gestalt’.

•The institution has a vertical structure and system. Levels within the hierarchy interlock and interact as a system.

•The institution has a horizontal structure and system. There is a spatial layout for departments, classes, special functions, and routes to and from each. The horizontal system shapes other aspects of life within the institution. People and their functions within departments interact with one another as a system. Where people are physically located affects their relationships and their job performance and their feelings and emotional reactions.

•The institution has performance systems that shape the goals, evaluation measures, and the manner and quality of performance of the administration, teachers, ancillary staff, students as well as parents and related outside agencies. Performance systems can be official and unofficial. In different schools one or the other may predominate.

•The institution has communication systems that are shaped by the relations with the encompassing environment or city, the history and Gestalt of the institution, and its vertical, horizontal, and performance systems.

•The institution has longitudinal systems that affect both feelings and performance. Longitudinal systems have a beginning, middle, and end. People tend to relate singularly to a beginning or end without regard to the other external and internal systems.

•The institution has social systems that are shaped by the encompassing environment, history and Gestalt, vertical, horizontal, performance, communication, and longitudinal systems. Social systems, in turn, affect all other systems. When people within systems tend to explain why someone else within the system acts the way they do, they tend to say it is because of their personality.

•Characteristics of personalities, character, and minds are more a function of structures and systems than something intrinsic to the person. When we change the structures and systems, people within them tend to change.