The Ambiguity of Boundaries in a System
A system is defined as a group of interdependent and congruent elements working together towards a common goal. Often, Systems Thinking becomes conclusive of the non-linearity of these multiple elements, which means, that at one given point, a number of technical, political, social, cultural and many other forces are generating a supposed action. In an instance like this, the ‘boundaries’ that help us differ one element from another become quite indeterminable, thus making one contest the very idea that each department in a given system is functioning in isolation from the others.
Taking the example of the human body and it’s boundaries, one mental model of western study of the body defines clear functions of each organ and the sub-system these organs are a part of, of course with exception of some organs performing multiple functions in multiple sub-systems. A rendition of this, put together in an illustration can very well show us how western study of the body lays out the disintegration of its components. However, the question comes down to the fact that beyond physical boundaries within and outside the human body, there are various psycho-social, spiritual, technological and behavioural aspects that define the actual multiplicity of this ‘boundary’ that is much spoken of. How do we, then, map these external forces in our system of sub-systems?
This requires a keen understanding of the inflows and outflows of undefinable complexities affecting a system. For instance, a person’s early childhood, behavioural patterns, emotional graph and relationships in the social world are also creating an impact in the functioning of organ systems, unfortunately currently studied purely through a physiological lens that eliminates these nuances. While other mental models like ‘acupressure’, ‘reiki’, ‘yin and yang’ explain the composition of the human body as mainly structured upon life energies, auras, chakras and spiritual guides, the boundaries defined in an allopathic medical perspective are very clear, concise, exhaustive and exclusionary of the other forces that could possibly be at play. In the same light, one can trace back the emergence of the dualism of ‘mind and body’ in French philosopher Descartes’ work which heavily influenced the western understanding of the separation of mind and body, at some point possibly also penetrating into the study of it in medical schools.
Another example would be that of a prevalent mental health issue, called ‘traumatic stress’. In this case, the body is met with an external situation associated with extreme trauma that registers in the memory of the mind. This trauma could be caused by a social phenomenon like a harsh model of political governance or a social movement (say war), by personal loss, or even by social oppression of a minority. The limits of the causes as well as the effects of it are enormously undefined. The body will experience the effects in multiple forms, not central to any one sub-system or organ. This could in turn lead to escalated forms of ailments in the context of mental and physical health issues combined. If even one of these ailments becomes chronic, the system tends to fail, in which case, external aid would have to be provided to face this new challenge, as in the case of problems of sight, remedied by using a pair of glasses or other corrective eye solutions. The argument can be extended to other forms of disabilities and prosthetics that then become a part of the very system.
This perspective paves way for a system designer to have a robust analytical lens always on, to take into consideration the subtle complexities, contingencies and possibilities with a clear imagination of pros and cons of any intended change-inducing action because if the issue becomes chronic in nature, the remedy is even tougher to procure. The other idea is that every action will have a consequence that disturbs the current chain of actions and this happens as the boundaries are often overlapping yet comprehensive.
