Which theory states that all human behavior is controlled by the physical environment?

Background theory—dynamical systems theory.

For Feldenkrais, learning was an organic process in which cognitive and somatic aspects were completely integrated. Presented first in 1949, this idea prefigured our current sense of dynamic systems functioning of the brain and body.42 The learning experience should proceed at its own pace in an individualized way following the learner’s intention and guided by the learner’s perception that the performance of the task, movements of the body, and interaction with the environment become easier.41 This interactive cycle of action and perception has been described well by the motor learning model proposed by Newell.43

Learning is a complex process with overlays from the intention of the learner, interference from environmental distraction, misperception of the task and the body, desire related to self-image, fear of injury,or incorrect performance. Thus it is possible to learn poorly, incorrectly, or in such a way as to interfere with performance and not improve it. This kind of process has been suggested by Byl and colleagues44 as the underlying cause of focal dystonia. One of the definitions Feldenkrais gave for learning took this process into account: “Learning is the acquisition of the skill to inhibit parasitic action (components of the action unrelated to the intention behind an action but resulting from a secondary intention) and the ability to direct clear motivations as a result of self-knowledge.”43 An adult engaged in learning to walk again after a stroke with a fear-related reluctance to bear weight on the involved limb would be an example of such a secondary intention.

The process of learning proposed by Feldenkrais is one of discovery. The outcome desired is one of increased awareness. Vereijken and Whiting45 have proposed that discovery learning, in which learners are free to explore any range of solutions in learning to perform a task in any way that they want, is as effective as or more effective than any formal approach to motor learning involving controlled schedules of practice or feedback. This process of discovery has the added dimension of allowing learners to focus on the perceptual understanding of the body/task/environment as a component of the learning process both within the human organism as well as participation within the external world. This suggests that a home exercise program should not be strictly proscribed, but patients should be encouraged to experiment with movement and be guided in that process by the therapist. In the Feldenkrais method, this discovery and perceptual learning process are explicit.

Our understanding of how experience and learning restructure almost all areas of the CNS is expanding rapidly.46 A large focus of current thinking in rehabilitation is how to translate neuroplasticity concepts into more effective techniques for rehabilitation.47–49 The method developed by Feldenkrais and practiced by people around the world who are trained in this method is clearly explained by these new principles, creating new approaches to rehabilitation.

Abstract

We examine developmental systems theory (DST) with two questions in mind: What does DST explain? How does DST explain it? To answer these questions, we start by reviewing major contributions to the origins of DST: the introduction of the idea of a “developmental system”, the idea of probabilistic epigenesis, the attention to the role of information in the developmental system, and finally the explicit identification of a DST. We then consider what DST is not, contrasting it with two approaches that have been foils for DST: behavioral genetics and nativist cognitive psychology. Third, we distill out two core concepts that have defined DST throughout its history: epigenesis and developmental dynamics. Finally, we turn to how DST explains, arguing that it explains by elucidating mechanisms.

Family/Systems Theory

The DSM-5 identifies mental disorders as occurring solely “in an individual.”5 Critics operating from a family therapy or systems orientation have questioned this fundamental assumption, particularly for children. The DSM-5 notes the clinical relevance of problematic relationship patterns but does not recognize them as mental disorders. This may result in the practical problem of difficulty receiving third-party reimbursement for treatment, no matter how impairing the relational difficulties may be for the individuals involved.4

Systems theory provides a powerful method for the description of homeostatic systems, that is, systems in which feedback-controlled regulation processes occur. Since human goal-directed behavior is regulated by such processes, systems theory is also very useful for psychological research. One of the most elaborated psychological models based on systems theory is the Zurich Model of Social Motivation by Bischof. This model postulates the existence of three basic motives or needs: the needs for security, arousal, and autonomy. Each of these is treated in a specific homeostatic subsystem, which is represented as a negative feedback loop. The model assumes that the attempt to maintain the appropriate amount of security, arousal, and autonomy for the respective need results in specific regulations of the distance to social partners. Furthermore, it is postulated that those three needs, and thus the way of distance regulation, take a specific developmental course. These assumptions are supported by several studies in which the distance regulation behavior of the participants was observed and simulated by means of a parameter estimation.

Motor Control

To best treat patients with upper extremity movement disorders, the therapist must have a basic understanding of the theory behind motor control. Motor control is the “ability to regulate or direct the mechanisms essential to movement.”52 Motor control is the result of the interconnected influences of the individual, the task required, and the external environment. As such, motor control is dependent on not only the neuromuscular system but also the somatosensory and cognitive systems in the body.

Motor control theories attempt to explain the mechanisms underlying control of movement. Thereflex theory is one of the more well-known motor control theories. It states that movement is a reflexive response to a peripheral sensory stimulus. In a sense, sensory afferents initiate movement in that they elicit a reflex, or motor response. Normal movement is considered a summation of multiple appropriate reflexes.53 When treating a patient using thereflex theory, improving motor performance is dependent on using the proper sensory stimuli to evoke the desired reflex.52,53 Thehierarchical theory states that the central nervous system (CNS), rather than peripheral afferents, drives movement. As the name implies, thehierarchical theory divides motor control into levels; the highest levels are commanded by the cerebral cortex, the intermediate levels by the brainstem, and the lowest levels by the spinal cord.53 Voluntary movement is the highest order of movement and is controlled by the cerebral cortex, whereas reflexive movements such as tonic reflexes and stretch reflexes are controlled by lower levels of the CNS.53 Using hierarchical theory in treatment, the progress of the patient is thought to follow the hierarchy of involuntary movement to greater cortical command and voluntary movement. Therapists would need to consider methods to “block” lower order movement mechanisms, such as stretch reflexes, for cortical control of movement to appear.53

In contrast to the previous two theories, which propose motor control as peripherally or centrally controlled, respectively, thesystems theory is rooted in the idea that motor control results from neither the peripheral nervous system (PNS) nor the CNS in entirety. Instead, thesystems theory proposes that motor control is a result of the PNS and CNS exerting control at the same level. The systems theory, sometimes called the dynamic systems theory,54 involves a complex relationship among the individual, the task, and the environment such that movement is a result of specific task goals and demands.53 In the systems theory of motor control, feedback from the internal and external environment drives revision of the movement model, resulting in the most efficient means to accomplish a behavioral goal, the ultimateendpoint.53 A therapist treating a patient using systems theory will need to facilitate the development of new movement models by the patient’s nervous system to achieve task goals.

General System Theory

General system theory originated in the 1940s in the work of the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy who initially sought to find a new approach to the study of life or living systems. More broadly, Von Bertalanffy envisioned general system theory as a way to address the increasing complexity of the world's problems. General system theory emerged as an alternative to the dominant form of inquiry and way of thinking, reductionist analysis, which was criticized for being unable to address wholes, interdependence, and complexity. Reductionism is based on the assumption that scientific explanation of complex phenomena should be in terms of component, simpler phenomena, and that the whole is explained from the knowledge of its parts. General system theorists argued that reductionism abstracts a subject from its environment, with the isolation of a variable in a laboratory being the classic example, and that by studying an element of a larger whole in isolation reductionism is unable to account for systemic and emergent properties, or the way relationships and interactions form the organization of the life. General system theory was presented as a new way of thinking that allows for the study of interconnections among systems and accounts for the nature of ‘open systems’ which interact with their environments.

General system theory introduced key concepts such as open and closed systems, stressing the role and importance of context and environment, equifinality, or the way systems can reach the same goal through different paths, and isomorphisms or structural, behavioral, and developmental features that are shared across systems.

General system theory positioned itself as transdisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary refers to interaction between disciplines, whereas transdisciplinarity refers to going beyond or across disciplines. General system theory would be the common language across diverse disciplines. Central to this language was the concept of ‘system,’ defined as a group of interacting, interdependent elements that form a complex whole. It also pointed toward a new world view that emphasizes such key concepts as every system's embeddedness in other, larger systems, and the dynamic, ever-changing processes of self-organization, growth, and adaptation. It is not surprising therefore that systems concepts have been central to the rise of ecology as a field of inquiry, with such concepts as ecosystem. In creativity research the systems approach has also at times been referred to as an ecological approach, because of the emphasis on the larger ecosystem in which creativity emerges.

General system theory was generally interpreted to be equilibrium-oriented, and fundamentally static, particularly as interpreted in mid-twentieth century functionalist sociology. This focus on order and equilibrium was also one of the main sources for the initial critiques of general system theory's application in the social sciences, most notably in the functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons. This was viewed as being fundamentally politically conservative and oriented toward maintaining the status quo, rather than open to creativity and change.

Systems Theory and Adult Sex Roles

Systems theory is a theory of interacting processes and the way they influence each other over time to permit the continuity of some larger whole. Systems act so as to continue. Systems change because their own balances are not optimal or because they are influenced by other systems. Some authors who provide excellent descriptions of these general ideas are van Bertalanffy and Miller. Miller's discussion of living systems is especially useful to consider for a discussion of sex roles. Individuals, societies, and cells all appear to use similar processes to create boundaries, to take in stimulation, to process information, to act, and to change. For example, for cells, information may be chemical and may be filtered by cell walls; for persons, information may be conceptual and may be filtered by perceptions; for societies, information may be news and may be filtered by censors. Cells, persons, and societies all exist in relation to each other, which further complicates matters. Within systems theory, roles are structures of the social system which are equivalent to organs in the physical/person system; they are organized ways of ensuring that some vital function is performed.

As living systems – be they cell, person, or society – develop and age, they appear to proceed through a regular set of stages. They begin in disorder, that is, with a few parts concrete and defined. They become more orderly, defined, and bounded over time. They become rigid before they disintegrate and die as systems. System changes may be further described in chaos theory and complexity theory.

How does this relate to sex role development over the life span? Consider the person and society as living systems, each seeking continuity and meeting survival needs. These needs include control of information and energy flow. Sex roles are ways in which persons and social systems can regulate the flow of information and energy (effort) while taking care of survival needs. The early stages of these systems are disordered with regard to roles, that is, no roles are apparent. For example, the newborn is sex roleless, and a group of strangers are roleless as a group. Later stages are associated with more concretized roles; in the person and in the group, masculinity and femininity may emerge. Final stages find the roles rigid and inflexible, so they would fail to respond to the pull of new needs. This failure of response leads to disorder and a search for new, more complex order. Systems theory suggests that this may be the kind of transition we are seeing in societies now, and in the individual after the reproductive period and parental imperative (Gutmann). The person having rigid roles (sex roles or other roles), faced with new demands, might adapt with new complex integrations of role-related behaviors, or might keep a dysfunctional system. Chaos theory and theories of self-constructing systems may also prove to be important sources of hypotheses.

World Systems Theory (WST) uses a holistic methodology to study the globe as an interdependent system; and it tries to overcome narrow disciplinary specialization in the social sciences. Its main goals are to explain unequal development and wealth between societies in the modern capitalist world since 1500, and to understand the cyclical patterns of expansion and contraction that characterize the world system. WST stresses that poorer, or ‘peripheral’ societies have been systematically underdeveloped by the rich and powerful ‘core,’ and they stand little chance of prospering without world revolution. Between peripheral and core countries are ‘semiperipheral’ ones that act as a kind of global middle class stabilizing the world capitalist system, but because they are subject to the greatest systemic strains, that is where revolutions are most likely. Because of its Marxist radicalism WST has been somewhat marginalized, but if divorced from its ideological bias, its systemic approach provides valuable tools for the analysis of social change. Its use has spread from sociology to other social sciences, especially political economy, geography, and anthropology, and it has been shown as well to be useful in the analysis of precapitalist societies that existed within systems of their own.

Ontogeny of species-typical behavior

DST holds that no behavior is naturally occurring or ‘innate.’ Furthermore, proponents argue against any structure or function being genetically predisposed, waiting only for specific environmental stimuli for activation. Instead, experience during embryonic development is necessary for animals to display species-typical behaviors. From this perspective, continuous and dynamic interactions between an organism and its environment are responsible for emergent structure and function. As stated by Bjorklund and colleagues, “genetic information is extensively scaffolded by species-typical features of the environment … the phenotypic outcome is a predictable, emergent property of the total developmental system” (emphasis added).

In terms of developmental timing of species-typical behavior, the sensory systems of all vertebrates mature in a common order. For example, neural areas associated with audition develop before those associated with vision. Given that an animal develops in a species-typical environment, this developmental pattern will always be the same, thus yielding species-typical behavior throughout ontogeny. Some theorists have argued that the brain develops in part via competition over neurons. Because different groups compete for the same cells, deviations from species-typical patterns of activation during development may result in changes in brain organization. A number of studies have reported alterations in species-typical behavior in precocial birds as a result of early species-atypical experiences. This is presumably because any species-atypical sensory experience (whether the experience is introduced earlier or with greater frequency than is normative) interferes with the animal's species-typical pattern of development, sometimes yielding deleterious patterns of functioning. We will revisit this concept when we discuss applications of EDP.

Dynamic Systems Theories