Circular Causality, Symbolic Interactionism, and Perspectives

Have you ever felt misunderstood by a family member? Or maybe you could not believe why another family member would act a certain way! These are normal feelings. They happen to everyone. 

On a family vacation to Disney World, my sister was riding in the car looking out the window and casually says to my mom, "I feel like Rock (our 10 year old brother) hasn't been connecting with us lately. I feel like I haven't seen him much. He is quiet in the car and when we go on rides he's talking to the friends his age." It was silent for a second and I posed the question "Chloe, what if it's not just Rock not connecting with you? What if it's also you not connecting with Rock?" Whoa! She kind of laughed a little as I began to teach what I've been learning in school about "Circular Causality." 

Circular Causality is found and talked about in the Family Systems Theory. Yet we will also discuss the Symbolic Interaction Theory (as it has great application to this topic as well). 

Circular causality is the idea that "with human social interactions, there are a number of forces moving in many directions simultaneously."(Smith & Harmon, 2017.)   It looks at both people. It is unlike Linear causality. Linear causality is the idea that one interaction causes another. It focuses on the why something happens. For example, mom made Brittney mad. Rock is not connecting with Chloe. "Systems theory recognizes the futility of trying to assign cause and effect because there is a continuous series of circular feedback loops in which everyone influences everyone else in the family without any clear beginning or ending points."(Smith & Harmon, 2017.) When there is conflict in a family there circular causality says there are hopefully multiple people and factors causing it. The book goes on to give this example of a recently married couple "desiring to be autonomous, they resent and avoid their parents and in-laws for calling and visiting too often and giving unwanted advice. Form their viewpoint, they are running away from the parents because the parents are running after them. However, the parents see it differently---they would not have to call and visit so often if the adult children would just see them occasionally. Each sees themselves as reacting to the other and believes that the other one 'started it.'" (Smith & Harmon, 2017.) 

Symbolic Interactionism, in a sense, says that symbols mean different things to different people. In some countries, they greet each other with a kiss. In other countries, that would be offensive or mean that you are in-love with them. We also see this in marriages. The husband might think he is being helpful when he offers to carry luggage. The wife might see that as being controlling or dominating. Recognizing that we all see things differently can unlock the door to greater unity. Shaun Covey calls this a "paradigm shift." A misunderstood symbol could be as small as a facial expression. These things can add up overtime and lead to divorce and problems within the family. The goal is to catch ourselves doing this and allow our perspective to step inside the shoes of another. "Allowing ourselves to be influenced is not only the way we change; it is equally the way we can influence and help change others. By allowing ourselves to be changed by others' influence, we become different: far less defensive and accusing, and far more caring." (Warner, 1970.)

In Chloe's situation, she thought that Rock was not connecting with her. We then talked about what a connecting experience looks like and how it might be different for each of them. I asked her "when was the last time you jumped on the tramp with him? When was the last time you played toys together?" Her view of a good relationship was a good conversation. Rock's view of a good relationship was a fun activity or game together. This perception seems obvious when we point it out. But sometimes it is in the pointing out the obvious that we come to understand the problem. "A correct understanding of why we feel and think and act helps to set us free." (Warner, 1970.)

As I have come to recognize where I may be wrong in my perceptions of others, I have grown my relationships to deeper levels. The misunderstanding is replaced with love. The annoyance is replaced with peace. I grow to more truly appreciate them for who they are and see them as Christ does. 

Please comment below your thoughts on the subject so that we can all learn together from each other. 

References

Covey, Stephen R. The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. Print.

Smith, S. R., Hamon, R. R. (2017). Exploring family theories: Fourth edition. Oxford University Press.

Warner, T. C. (1970). Bonds that make us free: Healing our relationships, coming to ourselves. The Arbinger Institute, Incorporated. 

Other book: 

Anatomy of Peace Book