Systems Thinking and Soccer
A interesting course you can take on Coursera — Sustainability through Soccer: Systems-Thinking in Action;
No matter the specific application, systems-thinking is the map for our sustainability quests. Systems-thinking is a shift in perspective from the parts to the whole, from objects to relationships, and from structures to processes. The shift in perspective reveals connections we may otherwise overlook. The shift moves our focus from reducing unsustainability toward creating true sustainability.
Systems-thinking complements the more familiar reductionist approach, in which we take things apart and then study the pieces in more detail. Reductionism underpins most academic learning, for which we split reality into courses, majors, disciplines, and specializations. By narrowly defining perspectives, reductionism makes numerical measurement possible and provides an illusion of certainty. But pure reductionism fails us because even when we know all the parts, and even when we know their arrangement and movements, we still have gaps in our knowledge.
Full understanding doesn’t come from simply breaking systems into their smallest pieces. In fact, the most essential properties are often due to the relationships between parts. Our brain and eyes are amazing organs on their own, but without the integration between them you wouldn’t be reading this.
In the same way, sustainability challenges like climate change and human rights cannot be met with a reductionist approach alone. The systems approach shows us connections between the parts of these complex challenges, and between the challenges themselves.
Let’s bring in our first soccer analogy to emphasize how systems-thinking complements reductionism.
The reductionist view is sufficient to see the greatness of Eusébio da Silva Ferreira. Eusébio earned his nickname, “The Black Panther,” by combining catlike speed and agility with exceptional ball skills. Over his twenty-two-year career, the Black Panther averaged over a goal per game in a sport in which players who score once in every three games are exceptional. Eusébio scored more than six hundred times for Benfica, a Portuguese professional club team. Playing for Portugal’s national team at the 1966 World Cup, Eusébio scored nine goals, more than anyone else at that tournament. Goals are the currency of soccer, so we can simply count the ones the Black Panther scored to measure his influence. The reductionist approach works just fine here.
On the other hand, we need the systems perspective to fully appreciate players like Mário Coluna, and to understand how he earned one of the best nicknames ever: “The Sacred Monster.” Coluna possessed speed, agility, and skill — like Eusébio. But instead of dominating games by scoring goals, the Sacred Monster made his mark in other ways. He stifled other teams’ attacks and created countless scoring opportunities for his teammates, including Eusébio.
Like Eusébio, Coluna began his career in Maputo, the largest city in Mozambique. Coluna also starred for Portugal’s national team in 1966 and is a legend at Benfica, the club he led to two consecutive European club championships, the first without Eusébio. Coluna didn’t score as many goals as Eusébio. Instead, Coluna disrupted opponents. He made his teammates better — whether in games, in practice, or in the locker room. So, while the Sacred Monster’s contributions were less obvious than the Black Panther’s, they were just as vital.
Systems-thinking is a way to catch what reductionism can miss: connections, relationships, patterns, processes, and context. A reductionist approach shows us that the object under the microscope has carbon and oxygen elements. With a systems approach, we see whether these elements are arranged to form coal or a diamond. A reductionist view tells us about Eusébio, the Black Panther. A systems view reveals the beautiful contributions of Coluna, the Sacred Monster. Both approaches are needed, of course, but reductionism is engrained and has become intuitive while systems-thinking gets overlooked. Ambiguity about systems-thinking is a big reason for this oversight.
Systems include small ecosystems, like my dad’s algae-filled streams, and big ecosystems, like the disappearing Amazon rainforest. These natural systems are all connected to some degree. For example, when we clear the Amazon rainforest, the carbon released from the trees into the atmosphere contributes to climate change, with the result that people in Maputo, and coastal cities like it all over the world, face rising seas and damaging storms on top of droughts one year and floods the next.
Natural systems are linked to each other and to the systems humans create: everything from buildings, roads, and machines to social systems like governments, corporations, and communities. As with the natural systems, the behavior of these human-designed systems depends on the interconnected elements, flows, stocks, and purposes.
Related: