The Systems Metaphor in Therapy Discourse: Introducing Systems Intelligence

Abstract

Following the relational turn in psychoanalytic theorizing, the systems metaphor has increasingly become a part of the therapeutic vocabulary. This has led to a view of therapy as an ongoing process in which the mutual interplay between the analyst and the patient cocreates a systemic higher level dimension that is based on bidirectional and jointly coordinated, simultaneous forms of interaction that influence the mental processes and regulatory patterns of both of the participants thus creating possibilities for creative therapeutic interventions. However, the objectivistic overtones of the systems metaphor can lead to reifying interpretations of the therapeutic encounter and to a failure to acknowledge its intrinsically subtle context-bound nuances and often idiosyncratic possibilities. This pitfall is avoided by introducing into therapeutic discourse the concept of systems intelligence, which integrates systems thinking with subjectivistic and intersubjectivistic parameters. By emphasizing the analyst's embeddedness within the systemic wholeness of the therapeutic situation and her sensibilities-based abilities to act intelligently in it, systems intelligence provides a humanly tuned meta-understanding for the systemic aspects of the therapist in action.

Analytic therapists tolerate uncertainty, find meaning in apparently disordered communication, and embrace the unexpected twists and turns that emerge from intimate attention to the ordinary complexities of everyday life. These are hallmarks of a psychoanalytic sensibility that spans various theoretical persuasions. Non-linear dynamic systems embodies the same sensibilities: It emphasizes such descriptions as pattern, complexity, flux and flow, the interplay of ambiguity and order, stability and instability, and the natural value of uncertainty and generative chaos. — Seligman (2005, p. 285)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Alfred Colliander, Raimo P. Hämäläinen, Peter Kenttä, Jukka Luoma, Mike Manning, Ian Marson, Jeremy Nahum, Robert Seligman, Robert Stolorow, James Wilk, and the anonymous referees of Psychoanalytic Dialogues for encouragement and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

¹For an overview of the development of the field see Galatzer-Levy (2009a).

²Similarly, Stolorow et al. (2002) stated that “most contemporary psychoanalytic schools emphasize relatedness, dialogue, and even systems theory” (p. 33).

³It must be noted that the way Piers (2005) applied these concept to the analysis of the fundamental nature of the self is metaphoric and sensitive to the richness of the therapeutic situation.

⁴Elsewhere, Beebe et al. (2000) spoke of symbolic representational level and perception-action level (p. 104).

⁵Elaborated in great detail by the vast bulk of research on systems thinking (see Ackoff, 1999; Checkland, 1981; Hammond, 2003).

⁶In the systems language we could speak of the plurality of different dynamic systems operating in the analytic situation.

⁷ Buirski's (2007, pp. 19–38) reinterpretation of a previously documented analysis provides a good illustration of the problems that come up when the analyst doesn't seem to show systems intelligence or intersubjective systems sensitivity. The analyst seems to be ignorant of the unique nature of the patient at hand, their relationship and his own influence on the patient. Instead he is imposing his own theory-driven interpretations without sensitivity to the reality experienced by the patient.