This blog is authored by Mieke Snijder and Brigitte Rohwerder.
“Trauma lives in systems and in the individuals that provide services within those systems”
– Celina de Sola (Glasswing International).
We finished our last blog with the notion that participatory methods can reconfigure relationships and introduced the idea of system change towards non-traumatising systems. In this blogpost we will dive into systems, how they change and why we need to think about healing from a systems perspective. The reflections in this blogpost emerged from a creative writing activity: “dialogue with a system”, where we spoke with a system we’re trying to change in our work (e.g. ableist system, international development system, immigration systems). We shared our dialogues and reflected on what we have learnt about systems, healing and systems change.
Mieke Snijder’s dialogue with a system
Systems in context
A first reflection that emerged was that we need to be specific about what ‘systems’ we talk about. Systems need to be seen in their context. We need to specify what system and the geographical or conceptual location to understand the system we are trying to influence. As theorised by Donella Meadows, systems are in the eye of the beholder and there is an element of power in who describes the system and its boundaries.
Conditions of systems change
As we were writing and reflecting on our dialogues, we noticed that the ‘six conditions of systems change’ model was a useful model to help us organise our emerging thoughts. The model consists of three ‘layers of change’: structural change, relational changes and transformative change. Structural change includes changes in policies, practices and resource flows. Relational changes are about the connections between system actors and the power dynamics between them. Finally, transformative changes are when system actors’ mental models change. The model is illustrated as an upside-down pyramid, with mental models at the bottom, illustrating how mental models are underpinning the rest of the system conditions.
We acknowledge that different parts of the system can change at different paces, or some part of the system might change and others don’t. Overall, it feels like change in a system happens very slowly.
For some examples of how we have used this model to evaluate our participatory work: Item – Evaluating CLARISSA: Evidence, Learning, and Practice – The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations – Figshare . Or for some cool work by others using this model to analyse how collective healing initiatives lead to systems change see the stories of the Collective Change Lab.
Relationships and their power dynamics are key
Relationships and power dynamics seem to be a key part of how the system is functioning and shaped and remains in its current shape. Many systems thrive on dehumanisation of different actors in the system (e.g. labels such as ‘refugees’ and ‘authorities’ dehumanise the people behind these labels) and negatively influence the relationships that exists between the people involved, facilitating exploitive power dynamics. This process of dehumanised relationships between system actors influences and is influenced by the mental models of the actors.
Dehumanised relationships are also shaped by policies and practices in the system, but the policies and practices are also shaped in this way because of the dehumanising relationships that exist in the system. This especially happens when there is a lack of trust that underpins the relationships between system actors. When this is the case, we start focusing on accountability flows and create bureaucratic processes that are traumatising. Most of today’s systems start from a lack of trust due to the trauma that is held individually and collectively by the actors in the system, making us more distrustful towards others.
Therefore, it seems that the most powerful way to create systems change is to focus on changing the relationships between the system actors (Milligan, Zerda and Kania, 2022). It is here where we see a key link between healing and system change as we explored in our previous blogs. Trauma contributes to people struggling to connect and dehumanising others. Part of the collective process of healing is for people to process their trauma together, become part of collectives and reconfigure relationships across the system. When the burden of trauma lifts, reconnections become possible again.
Shifting mental models
As the model of conditions for system change indicates, we also see that mental models are at the basis for relationship between actors. Where we have seen changes in relationships between system actors, there have been changes in their mental models as well. For example, the shift towards understanding that disability results from the interaction between impairments and various barriers in society rather than being a problem located within individuals, changed peoples’ mental models about disability, contributing to improvements in disability equality and rights.
Feelings are strong mental models and are hard to shift and underpin the rest of the system. These feelings are shaped by the trauma that system actors carry with them. Here is another entry point for healing and systems change: where individuals are healing, they can heal systemic and societal wounds. But of course, this occurs within a relational context, as we heal most deeply through others and in community.
What if most system change efforts are focused on trying to change the wrong parts of the system? Is there too much focus on changing policies and practices, when in fact it is the feelings and mental models of the actors in the system that need to be changed to create sustainable change? Or is it in fact the relationships between the system actors? Of course, change is needed in all areas, but we must not forget that systems are made of people, who have relationships with each other and who have their mental models that shape their relationships, actions and power dynamics. And that these mental models and relationships are influenced by the individual and collective trauma we carry. Or in the words of the Australian folk band Boy & Bear:
“See bad people are people are
Just sad people now
And sad people are
Just the chance to realize
Everything that brings pain was born from it
…
So bad people are people are
Just sad people now
And sad people are, people are
Not bad people now
Just sad people now
So bad people are
Just the same as you or I
When pain is a chain that don’t break off”
– Boy and Bear: Bad People (2020)