How to Think Structurally

Thinking in terms of systems can be difficult. Here is a technique for how to do this.

If we really want to understand the world better, we have to learn how to think in terms of systems. This is very difficult. We want to break things down into easy-to-understand morsels. But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Analysis (breaking things down) only ever yields partial understanding. So, as you consider your set of paradigms, you also have to consider whether your paradigms are ones that encourage simplistic thinking or ones that enable structural thinking.

A common way that we tend to break things down too much is to only focus on the the actions of individual people without considering how each individual is caught up in a network of larger forces, and therefore may be enacting the consequences of these larger forces more than enacting their own will. This is not to say that we shouldn’t hold individuals responsible for what they do—we still do need to do this. But we also need to be aware that they—and we—are embedded in larger forces that influence us, pressure us, and limit us. Understanding individuals and the force-fields they are operating within gives us a better understanding than just considering the individuals alone.

How exactly can we learn to think structurally? There is a method for this that I learned from a professor and mentor of mine back when I was an undergraduate student at Earlham College. Howard Richards, author of Letters from Quebec, taught us this technique. It’s very simple to explain: instead of asking, “Why X?” we should be asking, “Why is the system such that X?”

Here are some examples:

Instead of asking, “Why are there so many school shootings in the U.S?” we should ask, “Why is the system such that there are so many school shootings in the U.S.?” That re-phrasing reminds us to look for larger systemic or structural factors that might be contributing to the problem. The first phrasing makes us wonder what motivates individuals to engage in school shootings; the second phrasing reminds us to consider larger structural factors such as the ready availability of guns in the U.S., the prominence of narratives of heroic violence in the media, and how usually it is young white men who do this. Considering these and other factors can help us understand the problem better than just considering what the individuals might have been thinking and feeling. After all, each individual didn’t just dream up this idea all on their own. And many people with similar grievances do not behave in this way. School shootings form a pattern of behavior that a number of individuals replicate, and patterns usually are at least partially caused by systemic structures.

Another example: instead of asking, “Why are we so divided against each other?” we should ask, “Why is the system such that we are divided against each other?” There are two important variations on this second way of asking the question: “Why is the system such that we are being divided against each other?” And, “Why is the system such that we are dividing against each other?”

In the first phrasing, “Why are we so divided against each other?” we blame ourselves. We assume that we are solely responsible, and that we did this intentionally. The next phrasing, “Why is the system such that we are divided against each other?” is neutral about who is responsible but does point to larger structural forces that might be at play.

The third phrasing, “...we are being divided against each other,” suggests that someone else might be intending to divide us, perhaps to “divide and conquer.” The fourth phrasing, “…we are dividing against each other,” assumes that we willingly participate in dividing ourselves but in the context of larger forces operating on us as well.

I am not myself sure who or what is dividing us against each other, except that I do believe that there are larger forces operating on us: I do not believe that we are solely responsible for doing this to ourselves. Part of the reason I don’t think we are solely responsible is that I’m old enough to remember a time when we were not so divided against each other. We had plenty of disagreements, but did not consider disagreement a reason to hate each other. I do not think we intentionally decided to start hating each other over our disagreements. I rather suspect that anyone who remembers what it was like to disagree without hatred wishes we could return to that state of being.

And so, if there are larger structural influences that have divided us against each other, what are they? Are they impersonal, or do they come from conscious intent? And once the process got started, did we then willingly participate, and if so, why? Some of the structural influences have played out through the political arena; others through the media and the internet. I’ve discussed this example further in my essay, “Divide and Conquer,” and so I will not repeat that discussion here.

In my next essay, I will discuss a third and very relevant and important example of how trying to think structurally is very illuminating.