2.1 Systems thinking and new paradigms

Systems thinker, Donella Meadows identifies the achingly difficult job of rethinking the present in terms of conceptualising system change through a series of intervention points. Although the paper was first published in 1999, it is still of great value in its ability to discuss the complex scope of systems change in ways that resonate with non-experts.

Meadows (1999) posits that there are several opportunities to intervene in a system but, society tends to only focus on ones that are familiar in terms of what is observed and understood and that resonate with known ways of evaluation and decision making. In broad terms this links to quantitative, visible stocks and resource flows and feedback that can be measured (in numerate ways), analysed and redistributed.

Figure 3 shows the points of intervention Meadows describes, with the current system on one side of the fulcrum, and points of system intervention reaching out on the other side. The nearer the intervention to the fulcrum, the less impact it has on changing system parameters (e.g. a force pushing down near the fulcrum has negligible impact on the system on the other side). Conversely, intervention opportunities far away from the fulcrum, once initiated, can make significant differences in system organisation where forces pushing down at the far end of the lever have greater impact (e.g. there is more leverage for pivoting the system to a different position (or paradigm)). Meadows shows that even small interventions can provide shifts in paradigms and many small changes at the right point in a system can have a big impact:

Figure 3  Leverage points – places to intervene in a system (adapted from Meadows, 1999)

Show description|Hide description

On the left of the image is the ‘System’ which is on the left-hand side of a balancing platform that rises up towards the right of the image. There is a fulcrum under the platform to the right of the ‘System’, then 12 leverage points to the right of the fulcrum. Underneath are four zones, which categorise the leverage points. From left to right, leverage point 12 is ‘Constants, parameters, numbers’. Leverage point 11 is ‘Buffer sizes’. Leverage point 10 is ‘Materials, stocks and flows’. Leverage points 12, 11 and 10 sit within the ‘Physical events’ category. Leverage point 9 is ‘Relative delays’. Leverage point 8 is ‘Negative feedback loops’. Leverage point 7 is ‘Positive feedback loops’. Leverage point 6 is ‘Information flows’. Points 9, 8, 7 and 6 sit within the ‘Informational / patterns of behaviour’ category. Leverage point 5 is ‘Rules of the system’. Leverage point 4 is ‘Structure of the system’. Leverage point 3 is ‘Goals of the system’. Leverage points 5, 4 and 3 sit within the ‘Social / system structure’ category. Leverage point 2 is ‘Mindset / paradigm’. Leverage point 1 is ‘Power to see the paradigm as such’. Leverage points 2 and 1 sit within the ‘Conscious / mental models’ category.

Figure 3  Leverage points – places to intervene in a system (adapted from Meadows, 1999)

A takeaway here is that change is impossible (or at least immeasurably difficult) if we try and make change in contexts where success, or not, is measured by existing ways of knowing and valuing.

Sterling’s call for a wisdom revolution is poignant in terms of creating new ways of seeing, being and doing, and in our case, of reframing education as sustainability (rather than just learning about it). So, the ‘how’ of change is going to require not only new knowledge but also the mechanisms, structures, organisation, policy, processes and communities to generate new curricula and learning practices that reflect the social system structures and conscious mental models of a new ecological paradigm.

This is a transition in practice.