:: Biblioteca Digital de Ecopsicologia (BDE)

The chaotic process of change

SUMMARY

The process of psychological change is complex, mirroring the complexity of life

(Mahoney, 1991). Such complexity is nonlinear. Essentially, people are nonlinear

dynamical systems and are characterised by an ever-changing, ever-adaptive

movement from one state of order to another. This movement is a sequential flux, a

turbulent ebb and flow of forces and form. Psychological change, too, follows this

chaotic process of change (Butz, 1997). This is in line with the ‘new science’ of

complexity. A postmodern vision, this is an ecological worldview that sees the world

in terms of wholeness, interconnectedness, context, and nonlinear process (Goerner,

1995a).

Three fields characterised by and concerned with complexity and which embrace the

postmodern, ecological worldview are constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory. Constructivism holds that people are meaning-making individuals who

construct their own versions of reality; people are proactive, self-organising, and ever

adapting to higher levels of complexity (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997; Neimeyer &

Mahoney, 1995). Ecopsychology is a synthesis of psychology and ecology; it is

inspired by a holistic version of reality and posits the mutual embeddedness of

humans and nature, the systemic connectedness of all that exists, and the evolutionary

flux of the universe (Goerner, 1995a; Metzner, 1999). Chaos theory is the face of

complexity; it is concerned with nonlinear dynamic systems as they evolve over time

and the patterns and processes underlying such change (Cambel, 1993; Kellert, 1993).

Although individually powerful and relevant for psychology, these fields are highly

fragmented and often impractical. Much potential lies in their integration.

Against this background, two goals were pursued in this study: 1) primarily, to simply

and clearly demonstrate the concepts and application of chaos theory in a therapeutic

situation; 2) to integrate the fields of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory

relevant to the main goal of the study. Constructivism served as a grounding

epistemology and, within this, ecopsychology served as a context within which chaos

theory was utilised as a therapeutic applicatory model.

The grounding epistemology, integration, and intervention are premised on the

notions that: a) nature and humans are mutually and crucially embedded in each other;

b) nature is characterised by nonlinear dynamical systems and the chaotic process of

change, and thus humans (ie: dynamical systems) are also necessarily subject to such

natural laws and principles; c) humans are proactive and may utilise the principles of

chaos theory – notably self-organisation – to consciously initiate their own chaotic

process of psychological change.

The fields of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory are characterised by

new and innovative forms of research and design methods. Such a pioneering spirit

underpinned this study. The emphasis was on simplicity and pragmatic utility, using

down-to-earth methods geared to producing practical and relevant data for use in

therapy. A prime consideration was to ground the study in real-life. An empirical,

descriptive field study was thus used, utilising an intensive single-case quantitative

(time-series) design for data collection and a qualitative analysis. The intervention

was aimed at initiating and facilitating psychological change, and was conducted with

three participants. A nature-based metaphor and related guided imagery were used as

a structure for the intervention. The intervention was conducted over three months.

Participants completed self-report scales four times daily for the duration of the

intervention, yielding time-series data. Analysis was by means of interpretation of

three-dimensional geometric phase portraits and time-series graphs. Interpretations

were used heuristically, triangulating them with clinical observations and verbal

feedback from participants.

Results showed that each of the three participants changed psychologically in

different ways in the intervention, with certain aspects of chaos theory more

applicable to one or the other. Considered together, the data pertaining to the three

participants were clearly related to the principles of chaotic change.

It was concluded that the concepts of chaos theory were shown to be relevant for

therapy and that their application could be demonstrated simply and clearly. Chaos

theory holds much potential as an applicatory model in psychology and would be well

served by the use of more simple and pragmatic research methods. The use of

triangulation in chaos theory analysis was found to be a particularly powerful

methodology. The integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory

proved to be a powerful framework for therapy and holds much potential for future

development as a framework for broader psychological investigation and application.

Much future research could be pursued from where this study leaves off. More studies

focusing on simple and clear applications of chaos theory in therapy could be

undertaken. Practical studies conducted in real-life therapeutic situations using

innovative methodology would be particularly useful. A more comprehensive

integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory could be undertaken.

This could be a rich synthesis, going beyond unification of the core fundamentals to

consider more widely related aspects of therapy and psychology.

CHAPTER ONE

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

“We are embedded in an ongoing evolutionary process that moves inexorably and

opportunistically toward increasing levels of ordered complexity. We are finding an

evolving ecological world. It is quite a change in vision.” (Goerner, 1995a, p. 37).

“Most of reality, instead of being orderly, stable, and equilibrial, is seething and

bubbling with change, disorder, and process.” (Toffler, 1984, p. xv).

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The process of psychological change is complex in the extreme, and a research

endeavour concerned with exploring change should ideally pay due regard to such

complexity (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990). This study attempts to do just that,

describing the process of psychological change from the perspective of chaos theory,

an approach that focuses on the seething and turbulent flux – a chaotic sequence of

pattern, process, and change – that characterises the movement from one state of order

to another in nonlinear dynamical systems (which includes human beings). The study

utilises constructivism as a grounding epistemology, ecopsychology as context, and

chaos theory as a therapeutic applicatory model. It further integrates these three fields

to create a working framework for intervention (and for psychological investigation

and application beyond this).

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In very broad terms, this study is postmodern in orientation and is rooted firmly in the

‘new science’ of complexity.

The postmodern vision is one that sees the world in terms of wholeness,

interconnectedness, inclusivity, and context. This is an evolutionary, ever-changing,

ever-adapting world of nonlinear dynamical systems characterised by relativity and

relatedness, process and context, ambiguity and paradox. The notion of a fixed and

objective reality is decried. Instead, realities are personally and socially constructed

and there are thus multiple invented realities. Realities are seen as dynamic and

ambiguous, constantly shifting, and constituted in terms of probabilities and

relationships. There is a multitude of possibilities within multiple contexts. Matter is

seen as energy, not just substance, and energy is in flux, transition, and process. There

is thus an essential interconnectedness and dynamic flux in the universe (Cox &

Lyddon, 1997) and with deeper inquiry the world may be seen as a unified,

dynamically ordered whole (Du Nann Winter, 1996).

The new science of complexity is a revolutionary, nonlinear form of science that

subsumes Newtonian linearity and Cartesian duality. It is a science of wholeness,

where the gap between mind and matter is bridged (Butz, 1997) and the

interconnectedness of things is made explicit (Goerner, 1995a). Scientists in this

paradigm seek to investigate the complexity of the world, as opposed to pursuing the

traditionally reductionist approach (Lotter, 1997). Complexity offers a new, exciting,

and potentially revolutionary leap forward in the evolution of scientific thinking. The

science of complexity challenges the established laws of order and predictability

(Butz, 1997). The new science shifts its focus to those aspects of reality concerned

with disorder, instability, diversity, disequilibrium, nonlinear relationships, and

temporality (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). At last, science can again encompass

surprise, transformation, unpredictability, and pattern (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998).

There is more inter-disciplinary openness, as science itself is taken to be an indivisible

whole (Lotter, 1997). In line with this new openness, the approach provides a unifying

language for psychology (Robertson, 1995).

Constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory, then, subscribe to the bold and

sweeping vision of postmodernism and complexity. Individually, they offer powerful

and relevant approaches to psychology. Integrated, they offer a working framework

that is strong and coherent, of considerable utility, and which can harness, channel,

and develop such power and relevance to their full potential.

The core of this study, the underpinning epistemology, is the notion of constructivism.

Essentially, constructivism is a philosophical stance that decries the notion of a fixed,

objective reality. Instead, reality is held to be a construction of the individual and

there are thus multiple realities (Lyddon, 1995). People live in their own, subjectively

unique worlds. However, reality is intersubjective and shared, and common consensus

operates to create socially constructed realities that necessarily interplay dialectically

with personal realities (Greenberg & Pascual-Leone, 1995). Constructivism posits a

postmodern self, an individual characterised by multiple selves, multiple experiences,

and multiple realities – a core-structured, multi-faceted, ever-adapting individual who

is in a constant state of becoming (Cox & Lyddon, 1997). Constructivism utilises a

wide diversity of approaches and is characterised by a mix of high-level abstraction,

eclecticism, and pragmatic utility (Neimeyer, 1995). The constructivist approach to

therapy favours deep-level change (Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995). The therapeutic

encounter is co-constructed between therapist and client, and a high level of

commitment and responsibility is required from both (Efran, Lukens & Lukens,

1992). Additionally, both bring their respective personal realities to the situation

(Ivey, Ivey & Simek-Morgan, 1997). In constructivist research, the key issue is

pragmatic utility (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995). Nonlinear processes are implied

in constructivist ontologies and thus time-series, qualitative, process-oriented research

methods are typically used. There is a commitment to idiographic, client-specific

research (Mahoney, 1991). Overall, while constructivism’s core fundamentals are

unified the field suffers from a lack of paradigmatic coherence (Neimeyer, 1997).

Ecopsychology, the contextual backdrop of the study, is a highly diversified field that

attempts to synthesise psychology and ecology (Fisher, 1996). Ecopsychology

champions an ecological worldview, a holistic version of reality concerned with the

nonduality of people and nature, the systemic connectedness of all that exists, and the

ever-evolving processual flux of the universe (Metzner, 1999). People and nature are

held to be largely alienated from each other, and healing the perceived split between

the two is considered a priority for both psychological and planetary well-being.

Widely diverse methods and approaches are used to pursue the aims of ecopsychology

(Clinebell, 1996). The ecopsychology approach to therapy focuses mainly on the

alienation between person and planet, and accordingly aims to help people reorient

themselves to nature. Context and connectedness are consequently paramount, and

there is a focus on both the inner and outer landscape and the interplay between them

(Conn, 1998; Segal, 1997). In ecopsychology research, philosophy and conjecture

abound. There is a dearth of scientific rigour, and the establishment of an empirical

research tradition is seen as an important future focus (Bragg, 1997). A pluralistic

epistemology is utilised (Keepin, 1995). Overall, ecopsychological approaches share

fundamental concepts and tenets, but it is nevertheless a highly fragmented field that

is characterised by abstraction and impracticality (Metzner, 1999).

Chaos theory, the applicatory model used in this study, falls under the banner of

nonlinear dynamical systems theory and can be seen as the face of complexity

(Cambel, 1993). It is focused on the dynamic, sequential flux of pattern, process, and

change that characterises nonlinear systems in nature (Chamberlain & McCown,

1998). It is concerned with the balance between stability and instability, the condition

of a system as it changes over time, and the underlying patterns of the evolving

system (Butz, 1997). Chaos theory is based on a concept of reality that is seething

with spontaneous change, irregularity, disorder, and chance. It also provides a

common language for science and psychology, and has the potential to unify

psychology (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998). Therapy from a chaos theory perspective

can be conceptualised as a process of order transition from one state-of-being to

another in an individual (Schiepek, Fricke & Kaimer, 1992). There is a commitment

by therapist and client to movement (Kruse, Stadler, Pavlekovic & Gheorghiou,

1992). Chaos is considered to be a necessary part of psychological change as it is only

when a system’s well-ordered pattern of functioning is disrupted that it is able to

move to a higher, more adaptive state-of-being (Guess & Sailor, 1993). In chaos

theory research, complex phenomena are observed over time. Descriptive designs,

single-subject studies, and time-series measurement are typically used (Williams,

1997). It is difficult to categorically discern chaos in real-life data, so heuristic

understanding and comparison are seen as more useful than literal interpretation of

results. Research is generally complicated and often impractical, but is characterised

by innovation (Johnson & Dooley, 1996). Overall, chaos theory is an inchoate field.

There is a unity of core concepts, but much diversity of opinion and disagreement

abounds (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997).

It can thus be argued that constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory –

individually and collectively – have great relevance for psychology. Despite this, they

are highly fragmented, inchoate fields characterised by a diverse, often confusing, and

impractical mix of approaches and methods. In particular, there is a conspicuous

dearth of simple, down-to-earth, pragmatic investigative and analytical approaches

and methods which can be used practically in therapy, are easy to use and understand,

and yield practical and relevant data – a lack which seriously constrains the potential

and applicability of these fields.

1.3 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

There are three motivations for the study:

• The main motivation is the conviction that chaos theory offers tremendous

power, potential, and usefulness as a practical approach to therapy. The

study’s demonstration of it in a real-life intervention serves to highlight such.

• A second motivation is the conviction that chaos theory research need not be

complicated, difficult, and impractical, as is very often the case. A simple

research design strategy and methodology, geared to pragmatic utility, can be

utilised to good effect in this approach.

• A third motivation is the belief that the integration of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory offers the potential for the development of a

particularly powerful framework for psychology. Although limited in scope,

this study’s integration can represent an important step in this direction.

1.4 GOALS OF THE STUDY

Very broadly, the study aims to shed light on the application of chaos theory in

therapy, increasing knowledge with regard to both chaos theory as an applied

therapeutic model and the process of psychological change relevant to it.

More specifically:

1) The main goal is to simply and clearly demonstrate the concepts and

application of chaos theory in a therapeutic situation. This entails: a) creating a

conceptually sound, relatively simple research design, procedure, and analysis,

and b) demonstrating aspects of the chaotic process of psychological change in

a real-life therapeutic intervention.

2) A second goal is to integrate the fields of constructivism, ecopsychology, and

chaos theory, relevant to the main goal of the study.

1.5 IMPLEMENTATION VALUE OF THE STUDY

Implementation value of the study is arguably very high. In particular:

• Chaos theory offers a powerful way of conceptualising the process of

psychological change. Demonstrating it practically in a real-life intervention

amplifies that power, and indeed highlights the potential of the approach. The

study may well stimulate more, similarly focused research endeavours.

• Investigating chaos theory is generally a complicated and difficult research

undertaking, making it notoriously impractical for use in real-life therapeutic

work. This study demonstrates that chaos theory can, in fact, be investigated

simply and innovatively, and that practical data relevant to real-life therapy

can be obtained from such studies. The study may well stimulate others to

conduct similarly simple and pragmatic research on chaos theory and therapy.

• The integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory offers an

arguably powerful framework for psychological investigation and application.

While the integration is necessarily limited to the context of the study, it may

nevertheless be used beyond its confines. Indeed, it lays the groundwork for a

more comprehensive integration of the three fields.

1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN

The new, postmodern sciences of complexity open the research door to an exciting

world of quantitative and qualitative exploration. This calls for new forms of research

methodology, innovative and pioneering approaches that utilise elegant research

designs and methods. Such a pioneering and adventurous research spirit serves as an

inspiration behind the design employed in this study.

The research design is a descriptive field study. The intensive single-case quantitative

(time-series) design is used for data collection. A qualitative, graphical analysis is

undertaken by means of three-dimensional phase space and linear time-series graphs

and this is triangulated with clinical observations and feedback from participants in

the intervention. The design is in line with the constructivist orientation of the study.

Specifically, the investigation is empirical in character, the focus is on participants’

subjective realities, and the emphasis is on yielding results that are of pragmatic

utility.

1.7 SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS

Chapter One essentially provided an overview of the study. Sections on background

information, motivation for the study, goals, significance, and research design were

presented with the aim being to clearly and concisely provide a contextual and

conceptual map of the project.

Chapter Two offers a review of the relevant literature. It is beyond the scope of the

study to fully explore the incredible diversity that characterises the fields of

constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory. Nevertheless, the review arguably

highlights the fundamental principles and tenets of the respective fields and seeks to

present a distilled essence that captures some of the subtleties and nuances that make

them such rich, vibrant, and exciting fields.

Chapter Three presents an integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory. It is argued that while these fields are highly diverse and inchoate, they

nevertheless share fundamental principles and tenets that make them highly

complementary. As such, they arguably offer formidable potential and power for

psychological investigation and explanation. It is beyond the scope of this study to

fully and comprehensively integrate the three fields, but the integration is offered

relevant to the main goal of the study.

Chapter Four deals with the methodology of this study. In its barest essence, this

study aims to demonstrate how useful the concepts of chaos theory are in real-life

therapy and it is argued that, despite the level of complexity inherent in the approach,

very simple methods may in fact be used to conduct associated research. The need for

pragmatic utility is argued, in concert with due regard to the need for scientific rigour

and empirically-grounded data. The chapter provides a succinct account of the

methods employed, aims to clearly delineate the logic of the design, procedures,

intervention, and analysis, and argues for the investigative strength thereof.

Chapter Five presents the results of this study and discussion thereof. The chapter

aims to clearly show the chaotic process of psychological change, as manifested in the

results of real-life therapy conducted with three participants. The graphical analysis of

each participant’s results showed particular aspects of the process of change. Taken

together, they arguably offer a rich demonstration of the chaotic change process.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback from participants in relation to the results

are also discussed, demonstrating the heuristic potential and related pragmatic utility

of the approach. It was concluded that the goals of the research were met: 1) the

chaotic process of change was simply and clearly demonstrated; 2) constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory were integrated in a meaningful way, relevant to the

study.

1.8 SUMMARY

An overview of this study was presented, with the aim being to provide a clear and

concise contextual and conceptual map of the project. The background information

section characterises the study as postmodernist and places it in the realm of the new

science of complexity. Brief sketches of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory were drawn, revealing widely diverse fields that have great relevance for

psychology but which are hampered by inchoateness, abstraction, and impracticality.

Motivation for the study was offered, with three points relating to the goals of the

study outlined: a) conviction of the power and utility of chaos theory as an approach

for therapy; b) conviction of the need for a simple approach to chaos theory research;

c) belief in the potential usefulness of the integration of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory as a framework for psychology. Two main goals of

the study were delineated: 1) demonstrate the application of chaos theory in a real-life

therapeutic intervention; 2) integrate constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory. The implementation value of the study was made explicit; i) the power and

utility of chaos theory as an approach to therapy is considerable; ii) simple and

pragmatic research methods and approaches can be utilised with chaos theory; iii) the

integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory has potential value

outside the confines of the study. The research design was outlined. It is a descriptive

field study, utilising the intensive single-case quantitative (time-series) approach for

data collection and a qualitative analysis by means of graphical modelling in

geometric phase space and time-series graphs triangulated with clinical observations

and participant feedback. The intervention was described as an applied

ecopsychological model, utilising guided imagery within nature as metaphor.

The following chapter presents a review of the relevant literature, expanding upon this

overview and providing a solid base for the subsequent integration and therapeutic

intervention.

CHAPTER TWO

CONSTRUCTIVISM, ECOPSYCHOLOGY, AND CHAOS THEORY

2.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The following is a review of the literature on constructivism, ecopsychology, and

chaos theory. The focus is on highlighting the main principles and practices of these

fields, drawing the essence from the three bodies of knowledge that, individually, tend

to be somewhat fragmented and inchoate. Indeed, it is this distillation of the essence

that will become critical in the later integration of the three fields into a unitary

conceptual and applied framework – a nonlinear dynamical systems integrative

framework – for therapeutic practice, at which time the essence will be expanded and

elaborated upon.

Constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory will each be discussed separately,

in turn. The order is not arbitrary, but is presented with the ensuing integration in

mind. Specifically, constructivism is an epistemological stance concerned with

knowledge of reality and which philosophically undergirds the integration,

ecopsychology is a particular way of constructing reality, and chaos theory is

concerned with the subtle patterns and processes that underlie that reality.

It is stressed that the distillation presented is a personal construction of reality, a

drawing together of a multitude of complex and diverse – and often contradictory –

threads that represents but one version of potentially many similar offerings.

2.2 CONSTRUCTIVISM

“Speaking of ‘constructivism’ as a singular noun is more rhetorical than realistic, in

that any close listening to the postmodern chorus reveals a polyphony of voices, not

all of which are singing in the same key.” (Neimeyer, 1997, p. 57).

2.2.1 Introduction to constructivism: Multiple meanings, multiple realities

Constructivism is a philosophical explanation about the nature of knowledge, an

epistemological perspective that holds that people actively create the realities of their

world (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Lyddon, 1995). Constructivism is a metatheory that

emphasises the proactive, core structured, and self-organising features of human

knowing and experience and their implications for human change (Mahoney, 1995;

Neimeyer, 1995a). It is postmodern in orientation and empirical in character (Ford &

Urban, 1998), and combines realism (objective reality exists independently of

people’s sense experience) and idealism (objective reality exists only in people’s

consciousness) (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996; Ford & Urban, 1998). Essentially, knowledge

is constructed by mental processes that utilise but go beyond direct experience (Ford

& Urban, 1998; Raskin, 1999). Constructivism is a form of evolutionary

epistemology, whereby a continuous interplay between experience and cognitive

construction produces a diversification of ideas and representations about reality and

humans’ relationship to it which are adopted or not depending on their adaptive utility

or viability (Ford & Urban, 1998). Essentially, constructivism holds that human

beings create their own version of reality, that experience of the world is not a one-to-

one correspondence with an objective reality but rather a filtered, subjective

experience that results in a personally constructed world.

The term constructivism derives from the Latin construere, which means ‘to interpret’

or ‘to analyse’, with emphasis on a person’s active construing of a particular meaning

or significance (Mahoney, 1991). Meaning is thus held to be a constructed product of

human activity rather than an innate characteristic of the mind or an inherent property

of objects or events in the world (Mascolo & Pollack, 1997). Crucially, it is not so

much the actual event that impacts upon a person but the subjective meaning that he

or she attributes to it. Associated to this is the notion of criticality of the observer:

whatever the individual attends to in the world becomes that person’s experience.

Essentially, people construct their personal reality in the process of observing the

world. However, in virtue of perceptual and conceptual filters that make reality

unknowable, observations are subjective experiences that take on the meaning that the

observer attributes to them (Meyer, Moore & Viljoen, 1997).

People thus construct their personal realities by linking observations and meanings

(Brower, 1996; Granvold, 1996). The resulting realities are edited, however, in that

existing beliefs about the world are confronted and what is perceived is always

limited (Bateson, 1972, 1979). The notion of one correct, objective reality is

consequently rejected. Instead, multiple meanings and thus multiple realities are

stressed (Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995). People’s constructed worlds and identities are

crucially shaped both internally (in virtue of their personal subjective filters) and

externally (in virtue of social forces and interaction with others) (Mascolo & Dalton,

1995). People collectively experience a shared world by the use of language and

symbol, and there is dialectic interdependence between the individual and social

forces (Marshall, 1996). The heart of constructivism, then, is the recognition that

people’s hypotheses about the world are not directly provable. ‘Utility’ as opposed to

‘truth’ is high on the constructivist psychologist’s agenda (Efran, Lukens & Lukens,

1992).

There are problems and limitations inherent in constructivism. Raskin (1999) broadly

encapsulates these as: 1) the choice of discriminate dimensions that are unable to

make sense of the complex articulation of the constructivist domain, 2) the fact that

many authors misunderstand the views of other scholars of constructivism, 3) a minor

source of confusion regarding the use of terms (eg: intention, representation,

construction) whose prevailing meaning is different from that given to them by some

authors. More specifically, Neimeyer (1997) outlines the problems as: a) the high

level of abstraction in which constructivist theory is framed, b) a lack of coherence

among competing versions of constructivism, c) the question of whether or not

constructivist therapists abdicate responsibility to clients when they adopt the

typically egalitarian co-constructive mode of therapy, d) the question of whether or

not constructivist therapy can generate or find support from a body of empirical

research, e) progress in constructivist therapy is tied to its capacity to organise itself

as a community of scholars and practitioners.

2.2.2 The history of constructivism: A process of becoming

Just as constructivism champions the notion of a self in process, of emergence, of

becoming, of dialectic interplay between proactive agency and response to the

environment, so does the rise of constructivism as a force in psychology parallel that

process. Essentially, constructivism grew out of disenchantment with the scientific

paradigm of logical positivism and is both philosophically and psychologically

inspired (Ford & Urban, 1998).

Constructivism’s philosophical roots can be traced back to Giambattista Vico in 1725

with his revolutionary concept of ‘imaginative universals’ (Lyddon, 1995). Vico

presented the first organised account of the role of powerfully constructive processes

in perception, imagination, and knowing. He emphasised that humans create order in

their experience by projecting familiar categories onto unfamiliar particulars.

Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1791, was the next milestone

and many believe this to be the true roots of constructivism. Kant argued that the

human mind imposes its own inherent structure on the particulars of thought and

experience (Mahoney, 1991). In doing so he synthesised rationalism and idealism,

postulating a ‘noumenal world’ beyond direct human knowing which could only be

approximated by human observation. Following on from this, Nietzche’s influential

‘perspectival approach’ in 1887 was a rejection of ultimate reality in favour of a kind

of human comprehension (Lyddon, 1995). The next major constructivist was Hans

Vaihinger, whose 1911 dissertation on ‘the philosophy of as if’ proposed that human

mentation serves a purposive, organic function, and that the psyche is an organic

formative force. The object of the world of ideas is not to portray reality but rather to

provide individuals with an instrument for negotiating the world (Mahoney, 1991).

Each of these theorists emphasised the proactive, form-giving, or fictional character

of human mentation and its role in configuring the very ‘realities’ to which people

respond (Neimeyer, 1995b).

Constructivism’s psychological roots can be traced back to the first half of the 20th

century, during which time constructivist views of mind and mentation are scattered

across many works (Lyddon, 1995; Mahoney, 1991). Wilhelm Wundt outlined an

essentially constructivist theory of human experience at the turn of the century.

Buhler and Brentano at Wurzburg were amiable to constructivist notions, as were

some of the early workers in Gestalt psychology. There was also a constructivist

thread in the work of pioneer neuroscientist Charles Sherrington and in the later

studies spawned by motor theories of mind. Jean Piaget produced his influential

genetic epistemology in 1926 and Frederic Bartlett’s assertions on abstractive

processes offered an explicit invitation to constructivist thinking in 1932. Friedrich

Hayek’s treatise, The Sensory Order, in 1952 stands out as perhaps the single most

elegant theoretical expression of constructivism, at least theoretically (Mahoney,

1991). The contributions of pragmatists William James and John Dewey were

influential, as was the work of social interactionists Charles Herbert Mead and

Charles Colley. It was George Kelly’s 1955 pioneering work on personal constructs

that heralded constructivism as a genuine approach to psychotherapy. Overall, the rise

of constructivist psychology paralleled the rise of postmodernism (Lyddon, 1995).

Over the past few decades, the progress of constructivist thinking in therapy has been

rapid, although often turbulent due to contradictory crosscurrents. In particular it has

been shaped by the influence of postmodernism with its penchant for celebrating the

multiplicity of belief systems, resisting methodological prescriptions, and

undermining faith in the ‘timeless truths’ embedded in society and even science itself

(Neimeyer, 1995b).

The postmodern paradigm in which constructivism is located underscores the

importance of context, interconnectedness, and evolutionary process (Cox & Lyddon,

1997) – aspects which become explicit in broader consideration of the constructivist

domain.

2.2.3 The constructivist domain: Unity within diversity

In spite of their common embeddedness in constructivist epistemology overall,

constructivist theories do not reflect a similarly consistent philosophical base

(Lyddon, 1995) and accordingly do not have a unitary viewpoint (Airasian & Walsh,

1997). A fundamental unifying factor, however, is the notion that psychological

constructivist theories share an attempt to overcome the traditional philosophical

opposition between realism and idealism (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996).

Indeed, a wide variety of constructivist approaches have been advanced, offering

diverse means of conceptualising the ways in which human functioning is predicated

on constructed systems of meaning (Mascolo & Pollack, 1997). Thus, speaking of

constructivism as a singular noun is more rhetorical than realistic (Neimeyer, 1997).

Essentially, there are multiple constructions of constructivism! Nevertheless,

constructivism can usefully be seen as a family of theories related to one another by

shared assumptions and assertions, a group of abstractions that allows great diversity

of practice within limits imposed by the conceptual features that define the

metatheory (Mahoney, 1991).

Fragmented and inchoate as the field is, three conceptual features are considered

central to constructivist metatheory: 1) humans are proactive participants in their own

experience; 2) there is a nuclear structure of human psychological organisation, with

the vast majority of ordering processes operating at tacit (unconscious) levels of

awareness; 3) humans have self-organising characteristics of psychological

development (Mahoney, 1995). More specifically, the proactive nature of cognitive

processes asserts that human knowing is an active, anticipatory, and constructive

process (Mahoney, 1991). The organism’s activity itself is held to be its basic

mediator and this activity is constantly expressed at a motor level (environmental

exploration), a sensory level (constructing perceptual regularities), and a cognitive

level (making and matching hypotheses) (Guidano, 1995). The nuclear morphogenic

structure refers to the assertion that humans are organised with a central/peripheral

structure such that their central (core, nuclear) processes are given special protection

from challenge (and hence change) and that these central processes constrain the

range of particulars that can emerge at a peripheral (surface structure) level. Self-

organising development holds that individual human systems organise themselves so

as to protect and perpetuate their integrity. Each person is literally the central

reference point for all of their experiences and survival efforts, and feed-forward

mechanisms serve to prepare the organism for some selective subset of possible

experiences (Mahoney, 1991).

Chiari and Nuzzo (1996) usefully encapsulate the diversity of approaches with a

metatheoretical perspective in which they utilise a continuum with the extreme forms

of idealism and realism at either pole. Focusing on the distinction between

epistemological constructivism (personal construction of reality) and hermeneutic

constructivism (social construction of reality), they place epistemological

constructivism in the centre of this continuum. They further compartmentalise

constructivism into various categories which highlight the essential differences: trivial

vs radical constructivism (relationship between knowledge and reality), exogenous vs

endogenous vs dialectical constructivism (relationship between external and internal

stimuli as sources of knowledge), weak vs strong constructivism (relationship

between personal and social construction of reality), and naïve or first-order

constructivism vs second-order or social constructionism (relationship of self-

reflexivity to other people’s reality).

Definitions and types of constructivism are legion, as are the ways of conceptualising

and categorising them. In essence, though, the two main forms of constructivism are

the radical and critical approaches and the various types are aligned toward either

ends of this philosophical spectrum to greater of lesser degree. The radical and critical

approaches are differentiated in terms of their stance regarding idealism and realism.

Radical constructivism is on the idealist end of the spectrum and holds that there is no

(even hypothetical) objective reality beyond personal experience, that people’s worlds

are purely active products of ideation. Critical constructivism – a more widely held

view – holds that an objective reality does exist but that, because of their personal

filters, humans cannot directly know it. At best, people can only approximate reality

through their constructions and through such try to discern meaning, order, and

predictability in their subjective experience (Ford & Urban, 1998; Mahoney, 1991).

This is a limited realism stance in which an individual’s reality may or may not

correspond with an external, objective reality (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996). Both forms of

constructivism decry the notion of a fixed, singular reality, stressing instead multiple

meanings and thus multiple realities – a stance known as constructive alternativism –

and assume that people’s reality is language-defined (Ford & Urban, 1998).

The various forms of constructivism give greater or lesser primacy to personal or

social agency in the construction of reality, reflected in constructivism and social

constructionism respectively. There is tension between the two stances and an uneasy

alliance between them (Neimeyer, 1997). Where constructivism and social

constructionism differ is that constructivism is person-focused, referring to the

constructions that the person makes as an individual and is concerned with the

internal process of constructing reality, whereas social constructionism is

interpersonal and focuses on the social institutions and language processes that shape

people’s lives (Shawver, 1998). Mascolo and Pollack (1997) are among several

influential theorists (eg: Burr 1995; Sarbin & Kitsuse 1994; Shotter 1994) who point

to a sensible middle path in suggesting that people function as self-organising systems

that co-act with other self-organising systems within larger organism-environment

relations. As a result, although self and other are inseparable as causal factors in the

development of action and meaning, individuals nevertheless have integrity as self-

organising systems and contribute directly to their own development. Importantly,

they voice the need to maintain a role for individual agents as constructors within a

constructivist model of human activity.

Relevant to these stances are the closely related and very important variants of

exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Simply stated, exogenous

constructivism accords primacy to influences from social forces and environment,

endogenous constructivism accords primacy to the individual in constructing reality,

and dialectical constructivism holds that the two exist in a relation of reciprocal

constraint and facilitation whereby there is a continuing interaction between self and

environment and neither can simply impose itself on the other (Moshman, 1982).

Each variant offers a valuable way of conceptualising human experience, but it is the

dialectical approach that allows for the fullest range of explanation as it pays

particular regard to the internal complexity of the individual and the pervasiveness of

external forces and their synthesis in the construction of subjective meaning. More

specifically, dialectical constructivism holds that the individual constructs his or her

version of the world by means of a constant interplay between person and

environment, that meaning-making is a constant flow resulting from this dynamic

interaction. Dialectical constructivism also posits an ongoing interplay between two

streams of consciousness, explanation and direct experience: respectively, the

individual consciously mediates conceptualisations while at the same time

automatically processes direct experience. Dialectical constructivism therefore

explains human functioning and development in terms of the relations between parts,

the whole being the dynamic system of the person’s psychological processes

(Greenberg & Pascual-Leone, 1995). This form of constructivism, then, contends that

psychological realities are inherently private, that the forum of significant

psychological change lies in the domain of the self, and that the self in turn is a

dynamic complexity originating in and modified by interpersonal relationships

(Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995).

Importantly, nowhere is the importance of the impact of the social more crucial than

in grounding the nature of reality in intersubjectivity. One of the most widespread and

mischievous misinterpretations of constructivist thinking is the notion that since

reality is ‘invented’ anyway, ‘anything goes’. This interpretation misses the fact that

people do not live alone and that their realities are subject to scrutiny and constraint

from others in the social world. Constructivism is thus not a licence to fabricate

realities indiscriminately (Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1992).

Paradigmatic coherence is thus lacking in the constructivist world and tensions are

inherent in the approach (Neimeyer, 1997). Notwithstanding the differing

philosophical bases, it is held that the integration of constructivist approaches is

possible. Importantly, each approach considered singly offers a unique and viable

conceptual lens for understanding experience and, taken together, they provide a full

rendering of the nature of phenomena and their inherent properties of stability and

change (Lyddon, 1995).

This study is explicitly aligned with the critical and dialectical variants of

constructivism. To summarise, this assumes an objective reality which is not fully

knowable by the individual and which pays due regard to the reciprocal interplay of

person and environment and of the tacit and explicit levels of consciousness. Thus,

although both personal and social forces are held to be crucially important, this study

nevertheless concentrates more on the personal construction of reality in the belief

that personal agency holds primacy over social forces in the construction of reality.

2.2.4 The constructivist self: Many selves, many possibilities

The constructivist self is not simply defined. There is much overlap between the

different conceptions of self, with the main differences being the respective emphasis

placed on the degree of agency accorded to the individual. They all, however, have a

strong common thread in that the self is seen as being constructed in a processual

manner and due regard is paid to the dynamic nature of construction (Cox & Lyddon,

1997). More specifically, the individual is seen as a meaning-making, proactive, goal-

directed, and purposive organism (Neimeyer, 1995a) that is constantly in process and

characterised by the principles of self-organisation, self-construction, and self-

reconstruction through disorganisation and subsequent reorganisation (Ford & Ford,

1987). This is a dynamic state of constant becoming (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984) in

which the self is active and dynamic, and is forever changing and adapting to the

demands of life (Wetherell, 1996). The individual develops multiple identities to cope

with multiple life roles and demands, and these change over time with personal

circumstances. The self is thus viewed as a multiplicity of possible selves and the

sense of self is formed, challenged, and reformed throughout the lifespan (Cox &

Lyddon, 1997). Constructivist approaches take a more teleonomic (self-directional)

than teleological (goal-directed) stance (Mahoney, 1991).

Cox and Lyddon (1997) usefully categorise the different conceptions of constructivist

self, delineating these as: self as self-theory, self as evolving process, transcendental

self, narrative self, and self as social/economic/political construction. The self as self-

theory is more process than substance, temporal and dynamic, in a state of continual

flux that constructs, maintains, and revises a coherent sense of self that is both

contemporary and continuous. The self as evolving process is more a developmental

process than entity; the self is a self-organising, dynamic process with an innate

tendency to adaptively evolve into more differentiated and complex ways of

functioning. The transcendental self is a dynamic process of becoming, a part of

nature’s fluctuating cycle of creation, destruction, and transformation whereby

traditional ego boundaries expand to include all creation in one’s sense of self. In

narrative self a person’s identity does not exist in any ultimate, empirical way, but is

rather a personal story – not just one story, but a collection of potential stories, many

of which actively impact upon the person’s overall sense of self. The self as a

social/economic/political construction is a socially constructed identity and cannot be

defined outside the larger context of the society in which he or she is embedded. The

first three of these conceptions of self accord the individual with a high degree of

agency, while the latter two accent the primacy of the social.

Importantly, the constructivist self is a postmodern self. Unlike the modernist self,

who assumed that there was only one reality to be observed, the postmodernist self is

an open system suspended in a milieu of multiple perspectives. In this view, persons

exist in a state of continuous construction and reconstruction. This postmodern self is

never solidified once and for all but is always in a state of becoming and thus

potentially sensitive to perturbations in context (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997).

In considering the constructivist self, then, there is a paradoxical, holistic view of self

as constancy through flux, of self defined by other, of self with a centre yet

intrinsically part of everything else (Barresi, 1999).

2.2.5 The constructivist approach to therapy: A co-constructed journey

The constructivist approach to therapy is not so much a technique as a philosophical

context within which therapy is done. The context is quintessentially postmodern and,

as such, the various constructivist theories are united in their rejection of the

assumption that any beliefs that fail to correspond to objective reality are, by

definition, dysfunctional. Rather, they hold that the viability of any given construction

is a function of its consequences for the individual or group that adopts it as well as its

coherence with the larger system of personally or socially held beliefs into which it is

incorporated (Neimeyer, 1995a). Constructivist therapies thus begin with the

recognition that humans are meaning-makers who construct, not simply uncover, their

psychological realities (Hoyt, 1998). Due regard is shown for the client’s personally

constructed world, and intervention aims to reconstruct or alter that world if necessary

(Ford & Urban, 1998).

There is much that constructivist therapists do that is exploratory, experimental, and

otherwise fundamentally existential (Mahoney, 1995). Thus, constructivist therapy is

an engaging, interactive vehicle for the negotiation of new meanings (Neimeyer,

1995). This entails active, creative, and inventive ways of facilitating new

understandings and representations of the individual’s world (Raskin, 1999).

Therapeutic possibilities open when there is an emphasis on the enhancement of

choice through respectful collaboration and the fuller utilisation of clients’

competencies and resources (Hoyt, 1998). The goal of constructivist therapy is thus

ultimately more creative than corrective. Accordingly, therapy is likely to be more

exploratory than directive and tends to target the family and systemic processes that

validate an individual client’s constructions (Neimeyer, 1995). Indeed, the person in

context is considered and people are understood in terms of embeddedness in their

socio-cultural experience (Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995).

A hallmark of the constructivist approach is its mix of high-level theory and

experientially-grounded practice (Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995). Intervention typically

takes place at the strategic rather than tactical level, and constructivism favours an

eclectic approach with a willingness to use what is perceived to be the most

appropriate technique in a given situation (Ford & Urban, 1998). Special value is

placed on variety of intervention techniques, in recognition of the view that there are

many ways to approach knowledge and clients’ concerns (Neimeyer, 1993). As

therapy is process-oriented and centred on meaning-making rather than dysfunction

and deficit, it tends to result in relatively deep levels of intervention (Neimeyer &

Mahoney, 1995). Indeed, because these therapies attempt to foster profound changes

in the client’s core ordering processes, they have been described as seeking ‘second-

order’ change in belief systems. The twin processes of exploration and elaboration

serve as the linchpins of the therapeutic process (Neimeyer, 1995a). The client can

feel free to experiment with changes without necessarily jeopardising or assaulting

existing meaning structures, thereby circumventing much of the threat and anxiety

associated with significant personal change (Neimeyer, 1995). Importantly, the

therapist can only try to set forth conditions capable of triggering the process of

change but cannot determine or control what the exact final outcome of reorganisation

will be (Guidano, 1995). Intervention can be short-term or long-term (Neimeyer,

1993).

One of the strong attractions of constructivism is its affinity with the major

psychological theories in one way or another (Woolfe & Dryden, 1996). This

commonality has major implications for therapy in that virtually any mainstream

approach can usefully incorporate constructivist elements or even be integrated with

it. This reflects constructivism’s openness to valuable contributions from a diversity

of sources (Ford & Urban, 1998).

A premium is placed on forging an intimate therapeutic bond between client and

therapist (Neimeyer, 1995). The therapeutic relationship must be a safe, secure, and

specific context for collaborative work (Guidano, 1995). The therapist typically

adopts an empathetic, collaborative, respectful stance toward the client and takes the

role of a co-constructor. Therapist style tends to be non-directive, non-

confrontational, explanatory, reflective, elaborative, and personal (Ford & Urban,

1998).

Against the prerequisite backdrop of a strong working alliance, there are three central

features of constructivist therapy: 1) the primacy of personal experience (the therapist

explores the client’s reality with particular regard for personal meanings), 2) the

importance of novel enactment (therapist and client participate jointly in conjuring a

variety of alternative worlds to be explored and elaborated), and 3) the role of

language in developing new patterns of personal meaning (it is the security associated

with the preservation of existing meanings that often enables the client to explore new

ones) (Neimeyer, 1995; Neimeyer, 1995a).

Four basic metaphors for therapy are explicit or implicit in constructivism: 1) therapy

as personal science (the client is considered to be a scientist, actively formulating

personal hypotheses and refining, revising, or elaborating these in the course of

ongoing experience), 2) therapy as selfhood development (the client is assisted in

facing the emotionally charged ‘personal rules of living’ or ‘early maladaptive

schemas’), 3) therapy as narrative reconstruction (the client is assisted in

‘rebiographing’ stories that have become constraining or incoherent, requiring

significant editing or elaboration), 4) therapy as conversational elaboration (therapy is

an exercise in co-creative ‘languaging’ within the client’s system) (Neimeyer, 1995b;

Raskin, 1999).

The issue of personal responsibility is of paramount importance, for both therapist and

client. Each must accept full responsibility for the consequences of their association

with one another, even though those consequences are not entirely predictable at the

outset. Therapy is a dialogue about the interlocking wants, desires and expectations of

all the participants including the therapist (Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1992). The onus

is on the therapist to construct a workable conception of what therapy is all about

(Ivey, Ivey & Simek-Morgan, 1997).

Commitment is seen as a vital element in therapy. A clear therapeutic contract that

spells out everyone’s obligations in no uncertain terms is needed. This serves as the

vehicle for monitoring progress, for establishing the criteria of success and failure,

and for keeping everyone honest. It is the contract, not objective authority, which

grounds the work of the constructivist therapist (Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1992).

Constructivists prefer to evaluate progress and outcomes in terms of ongoing

judgement during therapy, in line with the emphasis on collaboration. Significant

changes are taken to be a reconstruction of the client’s personal meanings, their

personal reality, their values, and their capabilities (Neimeyer, 1993).

Crucially, the therapist also lives in his or her own self-constructed reality (Ivey, Ivey

& Simek-Morgan, 1997) and, as such, must recognise and acknowledge the active

role he or she plays in creating a view of the world and interpreting observations in

terms of it. With this realisation the constructivist therapist has no trouble acting

unashamedly in accordance with the current dictates of his or her conscience, but at

the same time is left with a sobering but simultaneously freeing realisation – namely,

that ‘the buck stops here’. Constructivist therapy thus puts the therapist at risk. It is

designed to support enquiry and works best when conceptualised as hands-on

adventure rather than as a purely academic pursuit (Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1992).

2.2.6 Constructivist research: Exploring the subjective

Constructivism presents unique challenges (and resources) for psychological research

(Neimeyer, 1995a). Postmodern investigators work within a new worldview of

relativity and relatedness, of process and context, of ambiguity and paradox. They

speak of multiple, dynamic, invented realities and question the assumptions of truth

presumed inviolate by modernists. At the heart of this thinking is an essential

interconnectedness and dynamic flux of the universe (Cox & Lyddon, 1997).

The distinction between validity and viability is central to the constructivist approach

to research. Constructivism asserts that the function of data in knowledge

development is essentially one of selecting or winnowing enacted hypotheses. Thus,

data do not authoritatively justify or form the foundations of valid knowledge but

instead selectively eliminate less viable explorations and conjectures. The key issue is

pragmatic utility rather than bedrock validity, and constructivism is thus a complexly

commonsense approach to research (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995).

Language is very important in constructivist investigation. Units of analysis are

definitions in language and have an arbitrary quality in that they can be created,

selected, rearranged, and dissolved. Any unit of analysis selected for attention has an

impact on the direction a therapist’s thinking takes and the problem-solving pathways

that appear to open up. New units suggest new possibilities. Analysis may focus on

different levels, with each one opening up new possibilities for intervention. Given

that a construed system is a kind of interlocking jigsaw puzzle of arrangements among

the defined parts, the constructivist maintains an interest in the intersections of the

units that have been separately defined (Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1992).

There is a commitment to idiographic (client-specific) hypotheses regarding changes

in construing over treatment, which is essentially a focus on individuality.

Constructivist researchers are also more likely to study specific change processes that

occur across a range of therapies at an individual rather than a normative level

(Mahoney, 1991).

Constructivists face unique methodological requirements in virtue of their

epistemological commitments. Researchers typically have great ambivalence toward

the data collection methods and analytic procedures that characterise most social

science research. In particular, they are uncomfortable with the assumption of linear

relationships among variables that are presumed by the most commonly used

statistical procedures. Procedures such as stochastic modelling and time-series

analyses might be more useful for detecting the nonlinear processes implied in

constructivist ontologies. Qualitative, process-oriented research is also attractive to

constructivists (Mahoney, 1991).

2.3 ECOPSYCHOLOGY

“There is no field. It is still forming, waiting to be articulated, hardly used anywhere.

Perhaps you know of some missing pieces to the ecopsychological puzzle; perhaps

you will be the one to click a coherent ecopsychology into place.” (Greenway, 2000,

p. 1).

2.3.1 Introduction: The search for an identity

Ecopsychology is a rapidly developing field used by different practitioners and

researchers in many different ways and has no single definition as yet (Davis, 1999).

It is essentially an umbrella term for a wide range of activities and approaches that

describes the interface between ecology and psychology (Hill, 1999) and describes a

promising new field that seeks to synthesise the two disciplines (Fisher, 1996).

Ecology is the study of connection, of the interrelationships among all forms of life

and the physical environment while psychology is the study of the human psyche and

is concerned with how people perceive, feel, think, and act; ecopsychology brings the

two fields together, to study the human psyche within the larger systems of which it is

a part (Conn, 1998).

The practice of ecopsychology is based on the recognition that the needs of the earth

and the needs of people are interdependent and interconnected and that human well-

being must include sustainable and mutually-enhancing relations with the natural

world. The understanding of what constitutes healthy human-earth relationships is

thus at the heart of ecopsychology (Conn, 1998). As such, the concerns of

ecopsychology are the role of people’s actions in the global ecological crisis and the

effects of ecology (including planetary crisis) on the psychology of people (Scull,

1999). Ecopsychology, then, brings psychological principles and practices to

environmental work and ecological thinking and the values of the natural world to

psychotherapy, personal growth, and community development (Naropa University,

1998).

In pursuing these ends, ecopsychology is an approach which critically examines the

role of psychology in a world that is in crisis (Shaw-Jones, 1997). It has positioned

itself as an alternative to, or a revisioning and expanding of, mainstream psychology

to take the ecological context of human life into account (Hill, 1999; Metzner, 1999).

This is essential, as people’s relationship with nature is not a matter of choice –

people are inescapably in and of nature (Hill, 1999). In doing so, ecopsychology

brings together the sensitivity of therapists, the expertise of ecologists, and the ethical

energy of environmental activists (Brown, 1995).

Cutting through the many definitions and approaches, in very broad terms

ecopsychology is rooted in three insights: 1) there is a deeply bonded and reciprocal

relationship between humans and nature, 2) the illusion of separation of humans and

nature leads to suffering both for the environment (as ecological devastation) and for

humans (as grief, despair, and alienation), and 3) realising the connection between

humans and nature is healing for both (Davis, 1999).

Within these broad parameters, there exists a bewildering plethora of activities and

practices ranging from the fanciful and esoteric to determined attempts at scientific

rigour. Indeed, the diversity of approaches within ecopsychology is pronounced.

Ecopsychology has a very wide reach, endorsing individual and collective action for

change, from one-to-one contact in the therapy room to efforts to bring about global

conscientisation (Hill, 1999) Accordingly, ecopsychology tends to be interdisciplinary

and spans a range of issues and questions from ecology through such diverse areas as

religion, anthropology, sociology, and political economy to the psychology of

individuals.

Ecopsychology is an idea in progress (Shaw-Jones, 1997). Metzner (1999) highlights

the inchoateness of ecopsychology and stresses the difficulty of synthesising ecology

and psychology, in virtue of the fact that ecology can mean anything from talking

about nature to hard scientific ecology and psychology can mean any one of many

fields. Greenway (1999) makes the point that ecopsychological approaches are often

very vague or simplistic and tend toward a generalised form of pop-psychology. He

stresses the need for a strong, coherent, accurate language so that ecopsychologists

can at least communicate with each other in search of strategies and solutions.

2.3.2 The history of ecopsychology: Old seeds, new fruit

Ecopsychology has many roots. Its cultural and intellectual beginnings are to be found

in Buddhist philosophy, various mystical traditions within most religions, the

romantic movement in Europe, the transcendentalist movement in the United Sates of

America, and the organismic phenomenology of the Gestalt movement (Reser, 1995).

Aldo Leopold and philosopher Paul Shephard are probably the most direct intellectual

ancestors of ecopsychology (Scull, 1999). Many psychologists have considered

various aspects of the human-nature relationship through the years. In particular, the

work of James, Freud, Jung, and Skinner considered this connection and their writing

was infused by the general evolutionary spirit of their times (Reser, 1995; Scull,

1999).

The emergence of the field, however, can be traced to the 1960s when various

worldwide conflicts and upheavals and an increasing awareness of environmental

problems throughout the world came to the fore. The field is, in part, an

epiphenomenon of this socio-geo-political contest and part social movement that

arguably started with the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970 (Reser, 1995). It was in the

60s, too, that therapy and education began to be practised in a wilderness setting,

notably by Michael Cohen and Robert Greenway (Scull, 1999). According to

Greenway (in Scull, 1999), the foundations of ecopsychology were laid in a series of

meetings in San Francisco that included Robert Greenway, Ellen Shapiro, Allen,

Kanner, Mary Gomes and, later, Theodore Roszak. Ecopsychology as a proper field

may well have been started by philosopher Arne Naess in the mid 70s with the

introduction of deep ecology (Rathbun, 2000).

It wasn’t until the early 90s, however, that ecopsychology emerged with its own

identity. An important early pioneering effort was the work done by the

Ecopsychology Institute at California State University. Social historian Theodore

Roszak gave the first public definition of the field of ecopsychology in his book Voice

of the Earth in 1992, and further elaboration of the field took place with his co-edited

Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind in 1995, although many of the

central ideas of ecopsychology can be found in his earlier work and in the work of

Paul Shepard. The emerging field has blossomed since those early days with a host of

publications, organisations, and individuals flocking to the ecopsychology banner

(Scull, 1999).

Importantly, while the field has been slowly developing as an intellectual endeavour,

some psychologists have been practically addressing the concerns of the human-

nature relationship. In the 20 years before the appearance of Roszak’s ground-

breaking book which put the field on the map, behavioural researchers published

more than 100 experimental papers on how to change people’s environmental

behaviour. At the same time, sociologists and social psychologists were exploring the

human-nature relationship using the tools of social and behavioural science. Rather

than develop a new theoretical ecopsychology, these researchers applied existing

theory to problems of environmentally significant behaviour (Scull, 1999).

While the central idea of ecopsychology has a long history, what is new is that the

long experience of alienation from nature is being examined in the light of modern

knowledge of personal and evolutionary psychological development, motivation, and

behaviour (Hill, 1999).

2.3.3 Ecopsychology: Great diversity, but little unity

Although there is no clear-cut definition of ecopsychology, there is no shortage of

principles, perspectives, and practices falling under its banner. A limited excursion

into this highly fragmented field underlines the heterogeneity of viewpoints.

In very broad terms, four tasks are seen as paramount for ecopsychology: 1) ecologise

psychology (to rekindle the human bond with the earth and develop theoretical and

practical tools for awakening ecological identity); 2) psychologise ecology (to explore

the psychological roots of ecological destruction and assist the environmental

community in communicating effectively with the general public); 3) politicise

ecopsychology (to carry key insights and compassionate practices into political,

social, and institutional arenas, and broaden today’s environmental activism to

address causes as well as symptoms of ecological destruction); 4) articulate and model

the principles and practices of an earth-based spirituality (Shavano Institute, 1998).

Roszak (1992), the much-recognised pioneer of the field, outlines eight principles

which have provided a window and frame of reference for discussing ecopsychology:

1) the core of the mind is the ecological unconscious (repression of the ecological

unconscious is the deepest root of collusive madness in industrial society, while open

access to the ecological unconscious is the path to sanity); 2) the contents of the

ecological unconscious represent, in some degree, at some level of mentality, the

living record of cosmic evolution (ecopsychology draws upon the findings of the new

cosmology, striving to make them real to experience); 3) the goal of ecopsychology is

to awaken the inherent sense of environmental reciprocity that lies within the

ecological unconscious, and to heal the fundamental alienation between the person

and the natural environment; 4) the crucial stage of development is the life of the

child, for it is here that the ecological unconscious is regenerated in the newborn’s

enchanted sense of the world (ecopsychology seeks to recover the child’s innately

animistic quality of experience in functionally sane adults, and strives to create an

ecological ego); 5) the ecological ego matures toward a sense of ethics that is vividly

experienced as an ethical responsibility to other people, and seeks to weave that

responsibility into the fabric of social relations and political decisions; 6) among the

therapeutic projects most important to ecopsychology is the re-evaluation of certain

compulsively ‘masculine’ character traits that permeate the structures of political

power and which drives society to dominate nature (this draws upon ecofeminism and

feminist spirituality with a view to demystifying sexual stereotypes); 7) whatever

contributes to small scale social forms and personal empowerment nourishes the

ecological ego and, as such, ecopsychology deeply questions the essential sanity of

the prevailing gargantuan urban-industrial culture (recognising the genius of

technology, ecopsychology is post-industrial and not anti-industrial); 8)

ecopsychology holds that there is a synergistic interplay between planetary and

personal well-being (the needs of the planet are the needs of the person, the rights of

the person are the rights of the planet).

Although highly influential, Roszak’s overtly psychodynamic formulation has not

gone unchallenged. Nevertheless, several others in the field (eg: Ecopsychology

Institute, 2001; Keepin, 1995; Shavano Institute, 1998) have used these principles

among others as a basis for defining ecopsychology, elaborating and modifying them

to suit their particular purposes.

Other conceptualisations exist, which emphasise ecology or psychology to greater or

lesser degree. The integration of the two fields is particularly well captured by the

Ecopsychology Institute (2001): 1) the earth is a living system, part of the universe

which is also a living system (systems, from cells to organisms to ecosystems, are

each wholes consisting of interrelated and interdependent parts, which are at the same

time parts of larger wholes, all of which are continuously self-maintaining and self-

organising, becoming more complex and more differentiated over time); 2) human

beings, including their psychological experiences as well as their products and

cultures, are integral and crucial parts of this system; 3) healthy human development,

which includes physical and psychological dimensions, must include realisation of the

interconnectedness and interdependence of the human and non-human aspects of the

world; 4) the health of an entire system and any of its parts requires sustainable and

mutually nurturing relationships among the parts, and between the parts and the whole

(in terms of healthy human development, this means diversity in ways of knowing,

participation in community, embeddedness in place, and ecological identity); 5) the

ecological self develops an ethical responsibility based on identification with the

planet as a whole and all its parts which is as vivid as the ethical responsibility to

people (this responsibility is manifested in active participation in the world).

Greenway (2000) presents six core aspects of ecopsychology: 1) ecopsychology as an

umbrella container for discussions about nature; 2) ecopsychology as a basis for

healing, for a new therapy; 3) ecopsychology as field-oriented; 4) ecopsychology as

experiential, with a call for less talk and more walk; 5) spiritual practice as

ecopsychology, with the underlying assumption that nature is spirit; 6) core

ecopsychology language.

Couched within these fundamental principles are very diverse approaches including

environmental education and action, psychological work with ecological activists, the

promotion of sustainability, ecotherapy, encounters with wilderness, the use of nature

as healer, the sacred dimensions of human-nature relationships, spiritual practices and

philosophies, deep ecology, experiential modalities, gender healing, ecofeminism,

internet courses and workshops, habitat restoration, sensory-based educational and

counselling techniques, work on grief and despair about environmental destruction,

shamanic work, and psychotherapeutic practices (Davis, 1998; Keepin, 1995; Naropa,

University, 2001).There has also been an emphasis on small group, community, and

face-to-face contact as a way to change ecologically significant behaviour and

establish healthier relationships (Scull, 1999). While these approaches are highly

diverse, a common thread is attention to the human psyche’s disconnection from the

non-human world and to the ways this separation has truncated and deadened human

experience, both individually and collectively (Conn, 1998). A central assumption of

ecospychology is that people’s inner worlds and outer worlds are intimately

connected and, as such, the ‘violence’ people do to themselves and to the natural

world results from their psychological and spiritual separation from nature (Fisher,

1996).

Ecopsychology can be seen as a manifestation of the emerging new ecological

worldview, which is concerned with revisioning people’s understanding of human

identity in relationship to place, ecosystem, and nature. This is essentially a thrust to

heal the person-nature split and calls for a new kind of psychology. Ecopsychology

offers a critique of all existing schools of psychology for focusing their research on

the intrapsychic, interpersonal, and social dimensions of human life and ignoring the

ecological foundation. Ecopsychology parallels similar revisionings taking place in

other knowledge disciplines including philosophy, economics, religion and theology,

sociology, and history. The new worldview can be called ecological postmodernism.

Underlying these fundamental revisionings of systems of knowledge is a major

paradigm shift in the natural sciences, a shift from physics to ecology and evolution as

the foundational or model science (Metzner, 1999). Essentially, psychology needs to

extend its horizon and engage the world with a more pronounced psychological ear

and at the same time let the world enter the province of psychology admitting that air,

water, and place play as large a role in the problems psychology faces as do moods,

relationships, and memories (Hillman, 1995).

It will be useful to highlight some areas that have received particular attention in

ecopsychology. These are: caring for the planet, issues of relatedness, social justice,

ecological identity, spirituality, health and nature, inherent radicalness, and the

potential for the emergence of a new ecopsychological profession.

Caring for the planet is a fundamental and much-vaunted tenet of ecopsychology

(Harms, 1997). The sources of, consequences of, and solutions to environmental

destruction are deeply rooted in the psyche, in people’s images of self and nature and

their resulting behaviour (Davis, 1998). Perhaps the major contribution that

ecopsychology promises to make to environmentalism is the identification of the

‘irrational’ forces that tie people to their bad environmental habits (Harms, 1997).

Ecopsychologists consider the human psyche as an integral part of the web of nature

and assert that people cannot restore their own health and sense of well-being unless

they restore the health of the planet (Brown, 1995). In getting its environmental

message across, ecopsychology addresses the problem of effective communication

with the general public (Harms, 1997). In doing so, the ecopsychological paradigm

shifts the source of environmental action from shame, blame, coercion, and sacrifice

to devotion, love, joy, and invitation (Davis, 1999). Accordingly, a major thrust of

ecopsychology is to change the way environmentalists try to change the public. It is

more productive to focus on people’s common needs for the life support systems that

the earth provides as well as other species. However, the issues ecopsychology raises

amount to more than a matter of public relations and personal therapy: there is an

underlying philosophical issue that has to do with the understanding of human nature

(Harms, 1997). There are, of course, many ways of promoting environmental

responsibility and this can be seen as service to the earth (Scull, 1999).

Broadening the field within which interconnectedness and interdependence are

investigated and encouraged is another major contribution of ecopsychology (Conn,

1998). As such, ecopsychology raises many questions about the relationship of self to

society and of person to planet, and asks people to face the implications of these

relationships (Shaw-Jones, 1997). New models of health need to be developed which

articulate and promote sustainable and mutually-enhancing relationships, not just at

the intrapersonal or interpersonal levels (within and between people) but also at the

level of inter-being (between humans and the non-human world). This requires

methods which enable individuals to sense, think, feel, and act as interdependent

beings, interconnected within the whole community of life at all levels from the

individual psyche to the universe (Conn, 1998). In terms of human relationships,

people need to work together and reconsider the extremes of individualism (Shaw-

Jones, 1997). In terms of the relationship between humans and nature, people need to

see nature as home and its residents as family (eg: siblings, Mother Earth) as well as

nature as self whereby self-identifications are broadened to include non-human nature

and the planet itself (Davis, 1998). Ultimately, from this perspective, ecopsychology

is concerned with the transformation of hearts and minds essential to reawakening

people’s sacred connection with other living beings and their planetary home.

Ecopsychology thus offers a positive, inspired vision of how human beings can create

and live together in an ecologically sustainable society (Shavano Institute, 1998).

Essentially, ecopsychology is something very personal and intimate, a sense of

belonging – or not belonging – on the earth (Rathbun, 2000). It is about feeling one’s

place in the world. Human beings are a part of this planetary existence, not above it or

in charge of it but a part of the web of life (Greenway, 2000).

A concern for social justice is yet another core concern of ecopsychology.

Healing the split between planet and self cannot simply be a matter of personal

transformation, but must be undertaken as a project with political and economic

policy dimensions as well as spiritual and psychological ones (Du Nann Winter,

1996). Ecopsychology promotes social justice in its intent to create healthy, diverse,

and multifaceted communities, taking diversity as the basis of an enduring

environmental and social ethic. In this sense, inclusivity is the key to ecopsychology.

Ecopsychologists hold that psychological approaches to healing people’s relationship

with nature and repairing communities fractured by racism are parallel. A key

component to healing such rifts is developing the capacity to hear, respect, and

incorporate the stories and realities of another, be they human, plant, or animal.

Racism may be overwhelming, but viewing it from an ecopsychological perspective

gives rise to new information and possibilities of healing (Anthony & Soule, 1998).

The promotion of an ecological identity is yet another central theme in

ecopsychology. Ecological self is a wide, expansive, or field-like sense of self that

ultimately includes all life-forms, ecosystems and the earth itself. Experiences of

ecological self involve an emotional resonance with other life-forms, a perception of

being similar, related to, or identical with other life-forms, spontaneously behaving

towards the ecosphere as one would towards one’s small self (Bragg, 1996).

Ecological identity refers to all the different ways people construct themselves in

relationship to the earth as manifested in personality, values, actions, and sense of

self. Nature becomes an object of identification and as people cultivate ecological

identity they learn how to find nature everywhere (Thomashow, 1995). Experiences

of ecological self are a crucial step toward changing individual and collective

relationships with the natural world and behaving in an environmentally responsible

way (Bragg, 1996). Creating opportunities for experiencing an expanded sense of

identity can support the development of a more ecological sense of self, one that

ultimately includes all life-forms and ecosystems (Conn, 1995). This is essentially a

concept of the self that is relational and inclusive. Different writers have put forward

various concepts in this regard, notably the ecological self (Roszak, 1992), a psyche

the size of the earth (Hillman, 1995), and the more-than-human self (Conn, 1995).

References to spirituality, sacredness, and the transpersonal can be found in much of

ecopsychology. The key for ecopsychology is to grasp the nonduality of psyche and

nature, but this cannot come from idealising, sentimentalising, or romanticising

nature. Rather, it must be centred in spirit or the cosmos, the result of discovering and

developing awareness of the source of both psyche and nature. This calls for

development beyond the self (self-transcendence) to an identification with the spirit or

mystery which gives rise to all manifestations, human, nature, and otherwise (Davis,

1999). At their deepest, psyche and nature emerge as expressions of the same whole

and reveal themselves as essentially spiritual (Fox, 1990). This view recognises

humans and nature as two seamlessly connected forms. Humans and nature, looked at

beyond the surface, thus lead to a deeper and more fundamental level of being (Davis,

1999). At this deeper level the world becomes more authentic, beautiful, alive, and

whole (Davis, 1998). Ecopsychology can thus be a path to the spiritual (Berry, 1990).

One of the things that ecopsychology has the ability to examine closely is the

relationship between health and nature (Duncan, 1998). The healing effect of

wilderness is particularly well documented. The very experience of wilderness (direct

and meaningful contact with nature) is often the most profound and wisest of teachers

and the most powerful of spiritual mentors and allies (Eagle Mountain Institute,

2001). Wilderness experience increases self-actualisation by means of challenging

participants to learn new skills, face personal hardship, and get along with others. This

can lead to an improvement in personal development, physical health, spiritual well-

being, and self-sufficiency (Duncan, 1998). As such, wilderness is an ideal catalyst

for self-enrichment, rejuvenation, empowerment, and spiritual clarity (Eagle

Mountain Institute, 2001). Wilderness can thus facilitate meaningful changes in a

person’s psychological well-being (Duncan, 1998). Favourite places tend to promote

emotional and self-regulation processes, relaxation, and experiences of beauty,

control, freedom of expression, and escape from social pressures. Essentially,

favourite places enable therapeutic experiences (Korpela & Hartig, 1996). There is a

reduction of social and psychological problems when clients are in natural areas

(Cohen, 1995).

There is an inherent radicalness in ecopsychology. Psychology’s ignoring of the

nonhuman environment is held to be a staggering oversight, and ecopsychologists are

highly critical of a mainstream psychology that presently limits the relevance of

ecology and even makes it hostile to ecological concerns as well as promoting

adjustment and conformity to an ecocidal social order. Ecopsychologists need to offer

models of human psychology in which the earth is not a resource-filled background to

the human enterprise, but is rather the living matrix out of which people are born and

in relation to which self-understanding and well-being are found. They must also

illuminate the deep psychological conditions (including the socio-historical contexts)

that tend to contribute to, and result from, the ecological crisis (Fisher, 1996). On a

practical and positive level, ecopsychology is throwing out a challenge to psychology

as a discipline and profession to get involved with the real work of making the world

as real as it is and for people to find themselves as real as they are within it (Reser,

1995).

Roszak (1996) believes that a new profession can be born from the partnership of

ecology and psychology, an ecopsychology that combines the expertise of the

ecologist with the sensitivity of the therapist. The value of such a new body of

professionals reaches well beyond individual healing. Implicit in this project is the

need for a scientific paradigm that gives life and mind a new central status in the

universe. Building such a paradigm as part of an ecopsychology would make the

effort more than merely an academic exercise. It would become part of a practical

healing mission. Issuing a call for such a new profession is concrete, specific, timely,

and deeply imaginative. Its object is to heal both psyche and planet as a single,

continuous project. Ecology needs psychology, and psychology needs ecology.

2.3.4 Ecopsychology and therapy: A natural affinity

The essence of ecopsychology as a therapeutic approach lies in acknowledging the

importance of a meaningful personal relationship with the natural world. Recognising

that this psychological relationship is severely damaged for much of modern

humanity, ecopsychologists have developed theories and practices to help restore this

bond and the resulting sense of belonging to and being a part of the world (Segal,

1997).

An ecopsychological perspective on therapy invites people to rediscover themselves

as dwellers within the earth as a living system. Therapy becomes a place where

clients’ personal problems can be seen not only in their vivid particularities but also as

microcosms of the larger world. Then the goals of therapy become not just personal

release but also participation in and contribution to the healing of the world and the

Earth (Conn, 1998). This connectedness to self, others, earth, and spirit will go farther

in the process of healing than the view that a client is ‘broken’ and needs fixing

(Freeman, 1999).

Essentially, therapists need to expand their focus beyond the inner landscape (Conn,

1998). Nevertheless, deeper therapeutic work such as exploring individual ecology of

mind and state-of-being may be pursued. By encouraging clients to open themselves

to experience the healing power of nature they can be enabled to discover an

invaluable source of both healing and growth (Clinebell, 1996). Ecopsychology thus

expands the therapeutic context by attending to the interplay between the inner and

outer landscape (Conn, 1998).

Ecological principles (eg: inclusivity, interconnectedness, diversity, nourishment

patterns) can be used as a framework for psychologically exploring both the inner and

outer landscapes in which the client is embedded (Conn, 1998). Indeed, therapy is in

dire need of an ecological component (Freeman, 1999). Somehow, ecological

consciousness misses the devoted psychological attention it deserves. Therapists of all

persuasions rarely make ecological interpretations, despite there being a place in the

consulting room for an ecological sensitivity (Clinebell, 1996).

There needs to be vision that places therapy in a larger context (Freeman, 1999). The

problematic patterns that sabotage people and relationships are the very patterns that

on an ecological level endanger the world. To change these patterns is to change not

just people’s lives but their relationship to the planet (O’Connor, 1992). People’s

emotional ties to the earth are as important as their personal relationships (Harms,

1997). There is a human-nature split, and the psychological consequences of clients’

disconnection from the natural world show up in symptoms. These symptoms can be

seen as signals, feedback within a larger system that includes the more-than-human

world. The earth speaks through the client’s problems. A therapist needs to be a

naturalist of the psyche, exploring the landscape in both inner and outer dimensions

thoroughly. This involves learning to hear, see, and feel the earth speaking through

the client’s symptoms. Therapists can also learn to let the earth speak through them in

their practices and understandings to broaden the field in which they work (Conn,

1998).

While an ecopsychological perspective can be brought into the therapy session, how

this will happen will vary depending on the theoretical orientation of the therapist

(Segal, 1997). Practical techniques that therapists use include: identifying the nature-

based metaphorical images that the client uses; using illustrative examples from

nature (eg: growth from seeds, balance in life, mutual dependence); highlighting the

bountifulness of nature with its goodness, beauty and infinite variety; emphasising

nature’s thrust to heal what is broken; demonstrating relaxation and recreation;

expressing conviction of the healing power of nature; using nature metaphors;

highlighting the cycles of nature and the fact that things can, do, and will change

(Scull, 1999); experiential techniques; floratherapy (Freeman, 1999); horticulture

therapy (Lewis, 1996); greening and cleaning (Clinebell, 1996); animal-assisted

therapy (Nebbe, 2000). Therapists must use their therapeutic tools with awareness of a

rapidly and profoundly changing planet (O’Connor, 1992). The ecopsychological

therapeutic perspective can often be an important means of introducing clients to

aspects of their lives that may be undervalued or overlooked. How this will happen

will vary depending on the theoretical orientation of the therapist (Segal, 1997).

2.3.5 Ecopsychology and research: Unlimited potential

Ecopsychology is, in the minds of many, synonymous with new age pseudo-science

and the alternative environmental and therapeutic fringe (Reser, 1995). Accordingly,

ecopsychology runs the risk of alienating a large number of people simply through its

extensive use of ‘new paradigm’ language. Unless ecopsychologists take care the field

may remain in the realms of philosophy and conjecture, recycled from text to text

without being grounded or tested in the real world. The development of a research

tradition might keep ecopsychology from trapping itself in an ivory tower (Bragg,

1997).

It is possible and important to scientifically study many aspects of ecopsychology

(Davis, 1998), although the field utilises a much wider, pluralistic epistemology and

methodology drawing on mythological and archetypal understanding, spiritual

practices, and intuitive and emotional modalities (Keepin, 1995). Indeed, rigorous

empirical research is a keen tool for critically examining the theoretical assumptions

of ecopsychology (Bragg, 1997).

Empirical research can also give voice to ordinary people A love of nature is as

ordinary as a love of family, accessible to everyone, a sacred experience of the earth

not often expressed in academic discourse. There is in fact a tendency within

academia to shy away from matters of the sacred, the spirit or soul, within mainstream

psychology. By grounding the field in the experiences and language of ordinary

people, topics such as sacred places or spiritual connection with the earth become

academically appropriate while retaining their radical nature. This is particularly true

if a social constructionist or phenomenological approach is taken, where participants’

experiences are the focus of research rather than some objective truth. By remaining

in touch with the way which ordinary people articulate their relationships with nature,

ecopsychology can maximise its accessibility and relevance to the larger society of

which it is a part. Indeed, effectively conducted research in ecopsychology, whether

qualitative or quantitative, involves actively listening to the broader society and

giving voice to otherwise unheard sections of the community (Bragg, 1997).

An important ecopsychological research area is that of acquainting the environmental

movement with a subtler, more sensitive approach to the public it seeks to win over to

its cause, and this means asking searching questions about the values and motivations

that change human behaviour. It also means listening to the answers people give when

these questions are raised, and doing so with the sort of patience and respect that

therapists bring to their clients. By listening in such a way, empirical research can also

become an agent of profound personal transformation and a step toward broader

social change. The most dramatic potential for change which this type of interviewing

offers is within the researchers themselves, providing an opportunity to develop a

more self-reflexive routine (Bragg, 1997).

Research in ecopsychology is opening out into areas such as ecologically-oriented

child psychology, integrating the healing techniques of traditional cultures into

western therapy, ecopsychological impact statements for businesses, dreams, the

ecological unconscious (Harms, 1997), and the transpersonal characteristics and

consequences of nature experiences and the implications of transpersonal practices for

environmental attitudes and behaviours (Davis, 1998).

2.4 CHAOS THEORY

“It is a theory that focuses on change, process, and pattern rather than stability,

causality, and control.” (Chamberlain & McCown, 1998, p. 72).

2.4.1 Introduction to chaos theory: A dynamical vehicle for complexity

Chaos theory falls under the broad banner of nonlinear dynamical systems theory,

which in turn is embedded within complexity theory. There is a lack of clear-cut

agreement as regards what chaos theory actually is, with scientists often vehemently

disagreeing with each other (Butz, 1997). Indeed, there is no one standard starting

point to explain chaos theory. It is a heterogenous amalgam of different techniques of

mathematics and science (Cambel, 1993). The terms used to describe chaotic and

complex processes vary depending on the vantage point of the researcher or theorist –

an indefiniteness that is in line with the sciences of chaos and complexity themselves

being inchoate, as they are too young to be grasping for consensus (Masterpasqua &

Perna, 1997).

Yet despite the confusion and contradictions, there is agreement that nonlinearity is a

central concept in chaos theory and that complexity is involved (Marion, 1999).

Further, there is some sense of underlying continuity and unity in that the theme is the

process of change and of how to explain the inherent vagaries and complexities of

change (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997).

Chaotic change occurs only in nonlinear dynamical systems that are held to be

dynamic, nonequilibrium, randomly deterministic, extremely sensitive to initial

conditions, and characterised by strange attractors (Cambel, 1993). Chaos may

perhaps best be understood as a dynamic view of phenomena that represents systems

behaviour at a midpoint between strict determinism and total randomness. Its primary

point of application occurs when the condition of a system changes over time (Guess

& Sailor, 1993). The essence of chaos is a delicate balance between forces of stability

and instability, a powerful interplay of forces on atomic and everyday scales (Gleick,

1987). The fundamentals are change and time, and the concern is with how a system

evolves over time (Williams, 1997).

Essentially, chaos theory investigates complex behaviour and looks for the underlying

patterns in what appears to be random behaviour (Chamberlain & McCown, 1998).

Natural and human systems are complex nonlinear dynamical systems and contain

essential elements of uniqueness, randomness, and irreversibility, and are thus well

suited to the chaos science paradigm of pattern (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998). The

term ‘chaos’ is actually a misnomer in its semantic sense, then, as it implies random

disorder. In the scientific sense chaos refers to underlying, implicate order (Butz,

1997).

Chaos is thus an epistemology based on a concept of reality that, instead of being

intrinsically orderly, stable, and equilibrial, is seething with spontaneous change,

irregularity, disorder, and chance (Chamberlain & McCown, 1998). As such, chaos

theory offers an alternative model for psychology (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998). It

allows for the investigation of human functioning at many levels and enhances the

concepts of description, understanding, and influence (Chamberlain & McCown,

1998). Importantly, as it offers a common language that can be used by different

approaches, it also offers unique possibilities for unifying psychology (Chamberlain

& Butz, 1998).

In definitional terms, then, it can be said that the term chaos theory is a shorthand

description for nonlinear dynamics in general (Robertson, 1995). In an attempt to

standardise at least the core concept of chaos, an influential international conference

on the subject in 1986 defined chaos as ‘stochastic behaviour occurring in a

deterministic system’. The definition contains an implicit paradox: ‘stochastic’ means

random, lawless, and irregular while ‘deterministic’ means ruling by exact and

causally determined laws – so chaos is lawless behaviour governed by law. Very

simply put, chaos can be defined as ‘nonlinear deterministic behaviour’

(Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997).

2.4.2 History of chaos theory: Emergence from the theoretical mire

Chaos theory can be seen in both philosophical and scientific terms. The

philosophical concept of chaos goes back aeons in time, being a mythological

explanation that describes the unsettling experience of change (Butz, 1997). The

scientific concept can be traced to roughly 100 years ago when a number of scientists

began constructing a new epistemology of spontaneous change, irregularity, and

disorder that would call into question the classic laws of physics (Butz, Chamberlain

& McCown, 1997).

The philosophical roots of chaos can be traced as far back as 2500 BC with references

to chaos found notably in Asian, Egyptian, Chinese, and Mayan cultures (Butz, 1995).

Reference to chaos can also be found throughout the ages in fairy tales, myths,

religious belief, ritual, and superstition (Wieland-Burston, 1992). Essentially, ancient

people believed that chaos was something immense and creative and that the forces of

chaos and order were part of an uneasy tension, a harmony of sorts (Briggs & Peat,

1989). Despite this early tradition, it is the Greeks who are credited with introducing

chaos in philosophical form with Hesiod’s Theogeny, dated around 800 BC, popularly

taken to be the philosophical origin of the concept (Butz, 1997; Cambel, 1993). The

early Greek philosophers ‘improved’ on the mythical idea of disorder by injecting it

with a scientific attitude, and others later elaborated on their thinking (Briggs & Peat,

1989). Such elaboration can be seen clearly in religion, where it has had many

different and ambiguous meanings over many centuries (Williams, 1997). The Middle

Ages was a particularly volatile time, when the Greek scientific spirit contended with

the old mythologies. By the time of Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton, the

scientific spirit and its suppression of chaos had gained the upper hand. Science –

more specifically reductionist science – had cast a powerful spell that suppressed

chaos for centuries (Briggs & Peat, 1989).

Various snatches of what constitutes deterministic chaos appeared in scientific and

mathematical literature in the 19th century. James Clarke Maxwell and Jacques

Hadamard touched on the concept of sensitivity to initial conditions, while the notion

of entropy was tackled by Sadi Carnot, Rudolp Clausius, and Ludwig Boltzmann. The

Lyapunov exponent, a means of measuring chaos, was put forward by Aleksandr

Lyapunov and a major contributor was Sofya Kovalevskaya (Williams, 1997). Henri

Poincare, a turn-of-the-century scientist is generally considered the grandfather of the

concept, gaining this distinction for his work on the ‘three body problem’ that refuted

Newton’s clockwork-like laws of planetary motion. Edward Lorenz revived

Poincare’s work in the early 1960s and is generally credited with initiating the

modern emergence of chaos theory. Lorenz’s initial encounter with chaos theory was

inadvertent. In his attempt to predict the weather, he discovered nonlinear phenomena

and concluded that initial conditions, inputs, or variables are vitally important and

sensitive – a startling discovery then, because classical scientific theory had

historically disregarded the impact of very small units of information.

The term ‘chaos’ entered the scientific literature in 1975 when Li and Yorke

published a paper in which they characterised certain flows as being ‘chaotic’. Indeed,

it was James Yorke who properly coined the term ‘chaos’ in 1975, using the term as

the apparently random behaviour that he encountered looked like disorder. He

actually used the term in the mythological sense but it was not long before it assumed

contemporary scientific significance, and chaos theory had emerged (Butz, 1997). In

an important 1976 paper, Robert May referred to the Li-Yorke paper, and pointed out

that certain apparently simple equations may represent very complicated, nonlinear

dynamics. May’s paper was widely read and greatly contributed to the acceptance of

the term ‘chaos’ (Cambel, 1993). Thus the scattered bits and pieces of chaos began to

congeal into a recognisable whole in the early 1970s. It was about then that fast

computers (which could powerfully utilise chaos theory) started becoming more

available and affordable, and simultaneously the fundamental and crucial importance

of nonlinearity began to be appreciated (Williams, 1997).

The momentum of chaos theory has steadily increased over the years since the 1970s.

A great many books and articles have appeared (Williams, 1997) and there are even

societies and journals dedicated to chaos theory (Butz, 1997; Sulis & Combs, 1996).

Ten years ago chaos theory was thought of as at worst a fad, while others saw it as an

arcane set of pseudo-theories with limited applicability in the real world. Today,

however, ideas about chaos are more respectable and have become mainstream. Some

even argue that chaos theory represents the third great scientific revolution of the 20th

century, a scientific revolution of the same magnitude as relativity theory and

quantum mechanics (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

2.4.3 Chaos theory: Principles and practice

As has previously been stressed, chaos theory is deeply embedded in complexity and

nonlinear dynamical systems theories. To properly understand the concept and its

features, it is first necessary to understand complexity and nonlinear dynamical

systems.

Complexity is an inseparable part of the world of dynamical systems (Nicolis &

Prigogine, 1989). Complexity is ubiquitous, is in nature as well as artifice, occurs in

large and small systems, and can be tangible or intangible (Cambel, 1993). Very

simply, complex systems (including human beings) may be described as systems

composed of many parts, elements, or components that may be of the same or of

different kinds and which are connected in a more-or-less complicated fashion. The

resulting behaviour, too, is complex (Haken, 1988). Complex systems are

characterised by nonequilibrium, nonlinearity, and unpredictability. In short they are

nonequilibrium dissipative structures, processing systems that absorb and utilise

matter and energy to renew themselves, to adapt, and to change (Streufert & Satish,

1997). Chaos theory lends itself to the study of complexity because it, too, is

characterised by nonequilibrium, nonlinearity, and unpredictability (Cambel, 1993).

Complexity arises out of deep simplicity. Systems are built from basic elements that

obey simple rules and there is an emphasis on process (Streufert & Satish, 1997).

Complexity is not random but organised and purposive. The various parts of a

complex system come into being by the coordinated integration and differentiation of

its adaptive functions to increase its stability in the face of specific internal or

environmental conditions (Goldsmith, 1993). Simple systems give rise to complex

behaviour, complex systems give rise to simple behaviour and, most important, the

laws of complexity hold universally, caring not at all for the details of a system’s

constituent parts (Gleick, 1987).

The term ‘complexity’ has many meanings (Lorenz, 1993). Relevant to this study are

the meanings of complexity as a paradigm of science, as a framework for chaos, and

as a special edge-of-chaos system condition in the chaotic process of change (Butz,

1997; Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997; Goerner, 1995a; Lotter, 1997).

While the new science of complexity provides an overall scientific framework,

nonlinear dynamical systems theory – also known as nonlinear dynamics – stands at

the centre of the new paradigm and is emerging as the metalanguage, the

metaparadigm, of science. This is so because it provides a unified philosophic view, a

basic, core, unifying language and a metamodelling strategy for this kind of science.

As such, it is a world-view as well as an elegantly simple modelling strategy

(Abraham, 1992).

Nonlinear dynamical systems theory is an extension of general systems theory, which

was introduced by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1968 (Marion, 1999). The glaring

weakness in general systems theory was that it did not describe transformative states

very well. This is exactly where nonlinear dynamics comes in, for it explains the

process of transformation, its shape, and its evolutionary path (Chamberlain & Butz,

1998). General systems theory emphasises structural aspects of a system while chaos

theory is more comprehensive in that it explains the structure, process, and probability

under which certain processes lead to a certain structure (Iwakabe, 1999).

Nonlinear dynamical systems are a class of system that meet two criteria: complexity

(the elements that compose the system interact in nonlinear and nonhomogenous

ways) and dissipative dynamics (the system exists in a far-from-equilibrium state)

(Thelen & Smith, 1994). As such, nonlinear dynamical systems are complex systems

whose internal microscopic or external macroscopic patterns are affected by one or

more forces. They are classified as being deterministic, and a fundamental

characteristic is that they are self-organising. Crucially, nonlinear dynamical systems

are open systems; that is, they are systems with permeable walls so that matter,

energy, and information may cross them in either direction (Cambel, 1993). Such a

system displays remarkable properties of organisation and capabilities for change.

The system maintains a dynamic balance between the opposing processes of stability

and variability. Stabilising forces maintain the coherence or integrity of the system,

whereas variability provides the flexibility necessary for growth and change. Change

is viewed as movement through a series of states of stability, variability, and shifts

(Thelen & Smith, 1994). The history of a system can reveal its current dynamics and

likelihood for change (Hayes & Strauss, 1998). The main aspect is that such a system

changes continuously over time and the underlying patterns associated with change

take the form of an elaborate sequence, or process, between simplicity and complexity

that captures the essence of dynamical systems (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Importantly,

nonlinearity and chaos are not synonyms; even though chaos demands nonlinearity,

nonlinearity does not ensure chaos (Lorenz, 1993). Chaotic systems represent only a

portion of all of the conceivable types of nonlinear systems (Kincanon & Powel,

1995).

In sum, nonlinear dynamical systems are structured and display a self-organising

coherence, and within this are the unpredictable gyrations known as chaos. Chaos can

thus be seen as the process of complexity and nonlinear dynamical systems (Waldrop,

1992). More specifically, chaos is concerned with the underlying order and

unpredictability of nonlinear systems while complexity accounts for both the

paradigmatic framework and transformative self-organisation that emerges from such

unpredictable, chaotic order (Brack, Brack, & Zucker, 1995). Nonlinear dynamical

systems theory provides the structural, processual, conceptual, and applied framework

for this (Abraham, 1992; Iwakabe, 1999;).

Chaos is a science of pattern, not predictability (Chamberlain, 1995). People usually

assume that chaos means random disorder and that order means predictable stability.

Both notions are true, but order is not always ordered and symmetrical (especially in

nature, individuals, and society) and chaos need not be random. Chaos is the spice of

order (Marion, 1999). It is not chance or randomness (Peak & Frame, 1994) but an

unstable state that a system moves through in the process of transformation to a more

adaptive state. Chaotic behaviour is a system’s attempt to adapt. Greatly simplifying,

the system looks all over the place for the solution to new environmental demands. It

looks near and far because it does not have a solution in its repertoire for the given

problem, and in doing so deviates from its stable pattern or steady state – a search for

adaptation that merely looks random but which is, in fact, highly ordered (Butz,

Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

Chaos theory, then, is essentially about change and the potential for change and is

concerned with relative stability and instability. Chaos theory describes both equally

well and holds that systems are inherently stable and unstable. The consideration of

stability and instability lies at the core of the chaotic process of change. Stability and

instability are relative, depending when, and under what conditions, the system is

being observed. In either case, the observer must monitor the system long enough to

understand its intricate dynamics (Butz, 1997). All references to stability should thus

be prefaced with the world ‘relative’ (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Importantly, chaos

theory describes both stable and unstable systems equally well (Butz, 1997).

Coherence is a key, closely related factor to relative stability and instability.

Coherence is the rich integration of the whole organism that leads to subtle behaviour

and appropriate responses (Peat, 1995).

Possibly the most fundamental concept in chaos theory is that of the attractor, which

is a dynamical system’s set of states-of-being. Essentially, if a system is considered to

be in a certain state at a given time, attractors are points within that state toward

which the dynamics (trajectories) of the system gravitate. There are four types of

attractors: 1) fixed point (static), 2) limit cycle (periodic), 3) torus (quasi-periodic),

and 4) strange (chaotic). Strange attractors are so-called because of their unfamiliar,

unknown, unpredictable, and seemingly random – chaotic! – behaviour. Strange

attractors are extremely and critically sensitive to initial conditions, and are easily

perturbed (Williams, 1997). Chaotic attractors can further be divided into two types:

low-dimensional (some observable periodic movement or patterns) and high-

dimensional (no observable movement of patterns) (Abraham, 1995). Attractor states

come into being when a dynamic system self-organises and the components settle into

preferred patterns of behaviour. Attractors that have been approached repeatedly over

time are particularly stable, are activated over a variety of conditions, and require a

significant amount of energy – perturbation – to move from their preferred state.

Attractors with less of a history or less stability are most sensitive to perturbation and

thus have the greatest potential for change (Hayes & Strauss, 1998). Convergence and

divergence are important concepts associated with strange attractors. A chaotic

attractor exists because there is a mixture of forces being resolved, some of which are

convergent (ie: move trajectories toward the attractor) and some of which are

divergent (ie: tend to repel trajectories away from the attractor) (Abraham & Gilgen,

1995).

Bifurcation is another key concept. When a system is perturbed by either an internal

or external influence, it starts to evolve from its relatively stable or unstable attractor

state. As it moves from that ordered starting point it has greater difficulty returning to

its previous level of stability and eventually reaches a point where it is faced with

alternative possibilities for change. This is a bifurcation point (Butz, 1997), a

threshold of stability at which a system may either break down or break through to

one of several new states of order. What exactly happens at this critical point depends

on the system’s previous history. Depending on which path it has taken to reach the

point of instability, it will follow one or another of the available branches after the

bifurcation (Capra, 1997). The routes not taken, as well as those followed, remain as

possibilities in the behaviour of the system (Briggs & Peat, 1989). The farther from

equilibrium a system moves, the greater its potential for sudden change (Butz,

Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). At a bifurcation point, a system shows extraordinary

sensitivity to fluctuations in its environment and even a tiny, random fluctuation can

induce the choice of path (Capra, 1997). Bifurcations are of three main types: 1)

subtle (one kind of attractor changes to another), 2) catastrophic (an attractor appears

or disappears), and 3) plosive (a sudden shift in the magnitude of the attractor)

(Abraham, 1992). Once the bifurcation occurs and a new behaviour or form is

introduced, the system will magnify that difference and transform itself until some

more adaptive level is reached (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). Importantly,

in bifurcation the system changes in a major, qualitative way rather than just in a

small quantitative way. Nonlinear dynamical systems tend to evolve through a whole

sequence of bifurcations during the process of change (Abraham, 1995).

Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is a distinguishing characteristic of chaotic

behaviour (Kellert, 1993) and indeed can even be seen as the hallmark of chaotic

phenomena (Marks-Tarlow, 1995). The key feature about sensitivity to initial

conditions is that a seemingly tiny or insignificant difference in input conditions

becomes amplified or compounded over time and eventually can lead to a large

difference in outcome, ultimately to very different evolutionary paths (Williams,

1997). Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is also known as the ‘butterfly

effect’, whereby the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil today may make the

difference between calm weather and a tornado in Texas next month (Kellert, 1993).

The butterfly effect describes the importance of even infinitesimal elements of a

system in influencing and changing the structure of the entire system. It is important

to note that sensitive dependence on initial conditions pertains to the small differences

in initial conditions and not to their magnitude (Kincanon & Powel, 1995).

Unpredictability in terms of the system’s future state, condition, or behaviour is the

most common interpretation of sensitive dependence on initial conditions (Williams,

1997). Only short-term predictions about the system may be made in detailed terms,

but long-range predictions can be made at a more macro scale (Kellert, 1993).

Sensitive dependence on initial conditions accordingly places limits on predictability

(Abraham, 1995).

Complex systems somehow have the ability to bring the underlying patterns of order

and chaos into a special kind of balance. This is the edge-of-chaos condition where

the components of a system never quite lock into place and yet never quite dissolve

into turbulence either. This is the balance point between order and chaos, where a

system has enough stability to sustain itself and enough creativity to adapt to new

forms. The system is in a state of supreme complexity and a situation of perpetual

novelty, a particularly adaptive state in which it is able to creatively choose between

the alternatives that lie before it (Waldrop, 1992). Systems may teeter at the edge-of-

chaos to enliven enough diversity to adapt to environmental demands in a novel way

(Butz, 1997). From the increasing complexity, organisation can occur that maintains

an order with its own energy – a process of self-organisation in which the system

interacts in original ways either within itself or with the environment (Butz,

Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). Indeed, changes in a system at the edge of chaos

have as much to do with what systems adjacent to it are doing and the changes they

are undergoing, as with what it is doing within itself (Parry, 1996). The more complex

a system is, the more likely it is that a spontaneous, adaptive organisation will occur

(Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). At the edge of chaos, relative stability is

punctuated by periods of chaos in which the system shifts back and forth between

predictable behaviour and chaotic activity. It is in this processual flux that the system

may undergo important transformations that can produce growth (Combs, 1995).

These are self-organised transformations that allow for adaptation, creativity, and self-

renewal (Kossmann & Bullrich, 1997). It is thus at the edge-of-chaos and not amidst

order, predictability, and certainty that change most readily occurs and complex

systems self-organise (Parry, 1996).

A crucially important aspect of chaos theory is that of self-organisation (Peat, 1995).

Self-organisation is the process whereby a self-propagating system takes itself from

seeming irregularity into some sort of order (Williams, 1997), a newly-formed

stability that is not only a new order but also a more complex and adaptive one (Butz,

1997). The new order emerges as a result of the inherent nonlinear interactions among

the elements that compose the system, the constraints of the system, and the energy

flux (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Kauffman (1995) calls self-organisation ‘order for free’

– that is, self-organisation arises naturally. A fundamental principle of complex, self-

organising systems is that they are adaptive. They do not just passively respond to

events but actively try to turn whatever happens to their advantage (Waldrop, 1992).

Self-organisation serves to maintain and extend the dynamic equilibrium of the

system (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995). In self-organisation, the dimension of

stability and instability of system behaviour is of central importance. During

instability very subtle and far-reaching interactions between the elements of the

system occur which enable spontaneous order formation. In the phase of maximal

instability, little causes have great effects (Kruse et al, 1992).

The geometry of chaotic systems changing over time reveals a fractal structure

(Marks-Tarlow, 1995). A fractal is essentially a geometric structure that repeats the

same design and detail or definition over a broad range of scale and has no

characteristic size. The central theme is the preservation of detail upon magnification

(Williams, 1997). When fractals are magnified at different scales, pattern can be

found within pattern at various levels of the system and these are often incredibly

complex and beautiful structures (Gleick, 1987). Self-similarity (also known as scale

invariance) is apparent at different dimensions and levels of analysis (Cambel, 1993).

The fractal object lacks a preferred or characteristic size and looks much the same at

all sizes (Williams, 1997). Fractals are also characterised by bounded infinity. Within

the constraint of a bounded shape a fractal possesses infinite depth and complexity,

and the closer it is inspected the more there is to see (Marks-Tarlow, 1995).

Fractals are usually generated by many repetitions of a given trajectory in phase space

and in geometrical character tend to be rough, broken, disorganised, jagged, bumpy,

or shaggy. Fractals are of two types: deterministic – ordered or exact, whereby they

look exactly the same (even in minute detail) at all levels of magnification, and

natural – approximate, statistical, or stochastic as found in nature (Williams, 1997).

Fractals themselves go through a sequence of order to chaos to order (Butz, 1997).

Importantly, chaos theory is also holistic in that due regard is paid to the

inseparability of the system from the environment and the importance of constantly

changing and developing contextual factors. It is because of the notion of holism that

even small changes in the system can lead to large and widespread change (Butz,

1997).

2.4.4 Chaos theory and therapy: Implicate order reigns

Therapy can be conceptualised as a process of autonomous order transition (Schiepek,

Fricke & Kaimer, 1992). An individual’s state of order can be seen as a state of

dynamic equilibrium where the system’s attractor configuration consists of well-

organised patterns of cognitive, affective, behavioural, and somatic functioning. A

client in therapy is typically experiencing a pattern that is interfering with his or her

well-being and everyday functioning. Stabilising forces tend to maintain these

patterns even if the existing system does not function optimally, and the prevailing

attractor state (eg: state-of-mind, lifestyle, areas of concern) of the system will thus

perpetuate these patterns unless challenged and perturbed in some way, as in

therapeutic intervention (Guess & Sailor, 1993). Importantly, chaos is perfectly at

home in both stable and unstable systems. It is likely that all varieties of attractors can

represent both desirable and undesirable and both normal and abnormal conditions.

Knowing a psychological process is chaotic tells nothing about whether it is healthy

or not (Butz, 1997).

Therapy can follow two different courses, which will usually be combined: it may be

geared to decreasing the dominance of the individual’s present state of order, or it can

encourage more intensive fluctuations of the system to a new state. These two

approaches are complementary. Thus, it is the function of therapy not only to transfer

the system dynamics into the regime of a different attractor but also generally to

increase accessibility to alternative attractors (Schiepek, Fricke & Kaimer, 1992).

The therapeutic contract is committed to movement (Kruse et al, 1992). The aim in

therapy is to achieve a shift to a different state of order in the individual from one

state-of-being to another. The function of therapy is to establish boundary conditions

that are tailored as optimally as possible to the client and his or her development in

order to allow for the process of self-organisation to take place (Schiepek, Fricke &

Kaimer, 1992).

Importantly, self-organisation from one state-of-being to another can be planned to a

degree, empowering the growth potential of the individual (Abraham, 1992). The

implication is that the therapist can assist the individual to self-organise to a more

adaptive state. Control is gradually turned over to the client, facilitating a process

whereby he or she is effectively able to take responsibility for his or her own growth

(Butz, 1997). As new order formation is left to the self-organising process of the

system, therapeutic competence and responsibility have to be assumed in a more

process-oriented manner (Kruse et al, 1992).

In terms of intervention, old patterns must be destabilised and shaken loose to allow

for new configurations to emerge. If destabilisation occurs when the client is ready, it

can herald movement toward an attractor state that is more flexible and adaptive than

the one maintaining current problems (Guess & Sailor, 1993). Some well-defined

‘push’ (ie: perturbation) must be given to the system so that it can achieve a new state

(Haken, 1988). However, once the system begins to fluctuate and move away from

its existing state of order it is impossible to determine where it will settle

(Chamberlain & McCown, 1998). This has important ramifications in terms of

prediction of outcome in therapy. Prediction is limited to very short-term quantitative

prediction (Peak & Frame, 1994) and long-term qualitative prediction to a broad and

limited degree (Kellert, 1993).

Importantly, the therapeutic relationship is one of high connectedness, a complex

system of therapist and client in interaction with one another. Both therapist and client

demonstrate self as well as mutual regulatory functions within the relationship, which

then evolves as a system (Perna, 1997). Indeed, the therapeutic alliance self-organises

as a communicative system. A therapeutic social system is created (eg: boundaries,

identity, structure, environments, rules) and thus represents a self-constituting and

self-organising dynamical system, within which transition is similarly from order to

chaos to order (Schiepek, Fricke & Kaimer, 1992).

Importantly, chaos should not be seen as something undesirable but as a part of a

healing process (Francis, 1995). Only when there is sufficient unrest in a system is it

likely to be amenable to transformation, and it is during such periods of chaos, when

the old structure or approach to solving problems and coping with life no longer

works, that people are able to make significant leaps out of previous patterns into new

behaviours (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). It is further posited that the

healthiest state-of-being is that of the system poised at the edge-of-chaos, the state of

complexity where individuals are most capable of adaptation and growth

(Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997).

2.4.5 Chaos theory and research: Dynamical and daunting

The new science of complexity requires new methods of research. While traditional

approaches are still useful and are certainly retained, the emphasis has shifted to

methods that are able to deal with the seething and tumultuous pattern, process, and

change that so characterise human life. Theoretical advances in nonlinear dynamics

(ie: chaos theory) have caught the attention of researchers looking for an alternative to

the traditional linear modelling paradigm. Concepts from nonlinear dynamics promise

more realistic representations of a fundamentally nonlinear world and offer the

potential of detecting deterministic components in what was once explained away as

random variation (Johnson & Dooley, 1996).

Nonlinear dynamics essentially takes a complex set of interrelated phenomena,

observes the pattern of their behaviour over time, and attempts to model them. This is

a graphical process that measures variables representing the system and models the

changing state of the system over time. The component variables measured should

clearly represent the system but are nevertheless arbitrary and may even be

hypothetical. Variables are often chosen for explanatory convenience, and construct

reification should be guarded against. Crucially, the measures involve the dependency

of some or all of the variables on some or all of the others and thereby represent the

complex and mutually interactive features of the system. The difficulty of specifying

variables which best represent the system and of specifying the boundaries between

the measured variables and the processes they are embedded in, must be borne in

mind. Nevertheless, even an inadequate set of variables may reveal many important

properties about the behaviour of a given system (Abraham, 1992).

It is stressed that nonlinear dynamics research is notoriously difficult at the best of

times, and even more so when real-life data are involved. Quality of data has to be

good, and there has to be enough observations (minimum 300) (Johnson & Dooley,

1996). It takes hundreds – usually thousands! – of measured points to adequately

demonstrate the existence of chaos (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

Fortunately, there are several techniques available that require shorter time-series and

which are analytically simpler. What these techniques lose in terms of precision, they

make up for in usefulness (ie: the sophisticated procedures are able to quantitatively

detect chaos in the system, while the ‘rougher’ methods are very capable of

graphically identifying attractors and qualitatively showing the state of a system over

time). Quantitative ‘precision’ is, in any case, highly suspect. The principle of

sensitivity to initial conditions means that small error in measurement can lead to

huge error in analysis (Johnson & Dooley, 1996). The complicated nature of the

subject and the technical difficulties associated with it have thus limited research

(Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

Due to methodological and computational difficulties, then, results should not be

taken literally. They are arguably better used for comparison and for offering a

heuristic understanding of the system – the client – being studied. Theoretical caution

is thus necessary, but this should ideally be mixed with a willingness to experiment

(Johnson & Dooley, 1996).

Chaos theory offers some elegant and sophisticated mathematical and statistical

methods for examining chaos and the state of a system. It is prudent to triangulate

different statistical procedures, depending upon the extent and nature of the data

collected (Cambel, 1993). While psychology does have nonlinear tools available, they

are not utilised as much as they can be nor is the basis for using them well understood

(Butz, 1998). The tools available look attractive and enticing, but they were

developed for highly idealised conditions. One of the biggest problems is that, when

applied to ordinary data, the present methods often give plausible but misleading

results, suggesting chaos when in fact there isn’t any. Having said that, applying

chaos analysis to a set of data (even if these data aren’t ideal) can reveal many

important features that other, more traditional tools might not disclose. Description

and theory of chaos are far ahead of identifying chaos in real world data. However,

new and improved methods are emerging regularly (Williams, 1997). The pathway

from models and metaphors to methods is perhaps the hardest step in validating the

dynamical systems approach (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1999).

Data analysis may thus be both quantitative (ie: nonlinear statistical analysis) and

qualitative (ie: description of the chaotic process of change and graphic modelling of

the evolving system), and the two in combination offer a very powerful means of

analysis. Importantly, traditional linear methods may be used to complement the

nonlinear approach, potentially adding richness to the research. Indeed, the

combination of nonlinear and linear research methods holds much promise and should

become an important focus of future work (Johnson & Dooley, 1996).

Descriptive field designs are particularly powerful in nonlinear dynamics research, as

they are able to deal with the natural occurrence of the chaotic process of change.

These are most usefully conducted in terms of time-series measurement (ie: multiple

observations over time). The use of single-subject studies is particularly powerful in

counselling research, as it approximates the one-to-one situation encountered in

therapy. Indeed, it can be considered critically important in research that real clients

are used in real-life settings (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1999). One aspect of

science that chaos theory emphasises is the necessity for subjects to be studied in the

contextual situations in which they evolve (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

Other research perspectives may also be used. In particular, qualitative perspectives –

particularly at a metaphorical level – offer useful frameworks, if matched carefully to

theory. In this form of research, single case studies are typically analysed to look for

the structural characteristics of dynamical systems and the associated chaotic process

of change (eg: dominant attractors in the person’s life, bifurcational decision points)

(Butz, 1997).

2.5 SUMMARY

This literature review has aimed to give a concise overview of the very fragmented

and complex – yet highly complementary – fields of constructivism, ecopsychology,

and chaos theory. The fundamental tenets and principles of constructivism were

discussed. The core concept is that humans proactively construct their own versions

of reality. It was explicitly stated that this study is aligned with critical and dialectical

forms of constructivism. Critical constructivism holds that objective reality exists but

is not fully knowable by people in virtue of their personal filters, and dialectical

constructivism holds that reality is both personally and socially constructed. The

constructivist approaches to therapy and research were also discussed. Ecopsychology

was seen to be a particularly wide and diverse field, with little coherence. The

discussion cut a broad swathe through the field, aiming to draw some of the threads

together. The core issue, however, is essentially that there is a human-nature split and

that reconnection between the two is essential for the health and well-being of both

person and planet. Research and therapy considerations with respect to ecopsychology

were also discussed. The journey into the field of chaos theory necessitated

encompassing complexity and nonlinear dynamical systems theories, and delved into

the pattern, process, and change that so characterise chaos theory. It was shown that

while chaotic change appears to be random, there is in fact an implicate order.

Crucially, it was shown that a nonlinear system (eg: a human being) can orchestrate

its own change. Chaos theory was also considered in relation to therapy and research.

A distillation of the fundamental concepts and principles of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory was presented, and it is this essence that will be

utilised in Chapter Three to integrate the core fundamentals of the three fields.

CHAPTER THREE

INTEGRATION OF CONSTRUCTIVISM, ECOPSYCHOLOGY, AND

CHAOS THEORY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

As has been shown, the fields of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory

each hold considerable relevance for psychology but their potential is arguably not

fully exploited. A major drawback is that each field has no coherent base and is united

only in terms of a cluster of shared tenets and core principles, a nucleus of core

fundamentals around which the characteristic diversity is structured. While the

diversity of each field is staggering, the core nuclei are nevertheless strong and

inviolate and constitute vital pillars for the respective fields. Importantly, the core

fundamentals of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory are remarkably

complementary and lend themselves to synthesis. Integrated, the core fundamentals

offer a working framework that is arguably strong and coherent, of considerable

utility, and which can harness, channel, and develop the power and relevance of these

fields to their full potential.

In integrating the three fields a great many strategies could be employed, each of

which would, of course, be the personal construction of a given investigator and thus

reflect his or her version of reality with regard to these fields – differing personal

perspectives that would reflect the multiple possibilities and multiple realities inherent

in such integration. This particular integration is focused squarely on making the

essential links between the nuclei of core fundamentals of the fields. The graphical

representation in Figure 4.1 makes this explicit. This focus is not arbitrary, but a

deliberate attempt to go beyond the myriad surface parallels and likenesses and

concentrate on the distilled essence of each field and how they relate to each other. In

this way, the integration is deep-level and aims to seek and bind the unifying threads

that run through them; breadth is thus sacrificed for depth.

The integration is premised on the same strategy that underpins the study as a whole:

ecopsychology provides the context (ie: a broad conceptual backdrop), chaos theory

provides a working framework (ie: makes explicit how chaos physically manifests)

within this context, and constructivism provides an epistemological base and at the

same time allows for the personal use of these concepts for increased psychological

well-being (ie: personalises the principles concerned). This leads to the key points

upon which the integration is predicated:

• humans are necessarily and crucially embedded in nature, and nature is

embedded in humans;

• nature is evolutionary, systemic, and characterised by the chaotic process of

change, and humans, being mutually embedded in nature and subject to its

laws, are also necessarily subject to such a process;

• humans are proactive and may consciously utilise the principles of chaos

theory – notably self-organisation – to initiate their own chaotic process of

psychological change.

3.2 THE ECOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW: HOLISTIC AND DYNAMICAL

The ecological worldview is fundamental to constructivism, ecopsychology, and

chaos theory, and lies at the heart of this integration. A postmodern concept, the

ecological worldview is essentially one that stresses the holistic, unified character of

all existence (Lemkow, 1990). There is a shift in viewpoint from the part to the whole,

whereby the properties of the parts can be understood only from the dynamics of the

whole. Ultimately, there are no parts at all. What is called a part is merely a pattern in

an inseparable web of relationships. The whole is embedded in larger wholes, and the

concern is with the functional interrelatedness of all its parts (Capra, Steindl-Rast &

Matus, 1991).

This holistic view entails a fundamental embeddedness of all phenomena – living

(biotic) and non-living (abiotic) – in the cosmos. Humans are thus an intrinsic part of

nature and may be seen as a special strand in the fabric of life. The concern is with a

sense of belonging to the greater whole of the universe, of the earth, as a living system

(Capra, Steindl-Rast & Matus, 1991). The holistic theory in effect treats all nature as

alive (Sheldrake, 1990). Human embodiment is entirely internal to, and thus wholly

dependent upon, the vaster body of the earth (Macauley, 1996). This encompasses the

notion of anima mundi, the whole of the cosmos as a single great organism, an

intricately connected and balanced organic-inorganic system that can be considered a

living being (Du Nann Winter, 1996); the related concept of the earth as a living

organism is called Gaia (Gleick, 1987). Embeddedness necessarily entails a

nonduality between humans and nature: humans are in nature, and nature is in

humans. Nature’s ways are thus humans’ ways.

The notions of wholeness and nonduality necessarily entail a fundamental

interconnectedness and interdependence of all phenomena (Cox & Lyddon, 1997).

Humans are members of a larger community of being. There is an inseparability of all

elements that leads to a profoundly deep-level ecological vision (Goerner, 1995b). At

its deepest level, the ecological worldview is concerned with spiritual or religious

awareness and experience (Capra, Steindl-Rast & Matus, 1991).

At its core, the ecological worldview relies on fundamental concepts derived directly

from the scientific study of ecosystems and living organisms (Oates, 1989). These

ecosystemic concepts (eg: organisation, structure, dynamic equilibrium, cybernetics,

perturbation, pattern, cooperation, competition, symbiosis, ecological niche) are used

to describe human functioning in the world, and are natural laws (Meyer, Moore &

Viljoen, 1997; Smith, 1990).

These natural laws are characterised by complexity. Complex systems – including

human beings – are open systems and have complex interactions with the

environment and with themselves (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). Complex

systems are characterised by nonequilibrium, nonlinearity, and unpredictability

(Streufert & Satish, 1997). Nonlinearity is central. Complex, nonlinear dynamical

systems change continuously and produce patterns that evolve in time (Thelen &

Smith, 1994). They change by means of a process of chaotic flux, a sequential

movement from one state of systemic order to another, higher ordered state of

complexity (Butz, 1997).

The universe is directed toward the creation of increasingly ordered forms. There is an

evolutionary, self-organising process that moves inexorably and opportunistically

toward increasing levels of ordered complexity. Humans are embedded in this process

and live and evolve in concert with it (Goerner, 1995a). Crucially, complex systems

are adaptive and do not just passively respond to events. They actively try to turn

whatever happens to their advantage (Waldrop, 1992). Central to this is the concept of

self-organisation, which may be seen as the hallmark of life (Capra, Steindl-Rast &

Matus, 1991).

The eocological worldview also posits a postmodern self – an ecological self – who is

a self-organiser supreme. The self is stable and has a core structure but is nevertheless

always in a state of flux, a state of adaptive becoming, ever changing in the face of

internal and external environmental demands. Importantly, moves to new states-of-

being are self-organised (Cox & Lyddon, 1997). Crucially, the self is proactive – the

individual can consciously initiate a move toward a new state-of-being.

Worldviews are important psychological phenomena (Du Nann Winter, 1996). The

worldview lies at the centre of consciousness and is an organising power drawing all

phenomena into stable constellation in the life of an individual. The importance of the

ecological worldview thus cannot be overemphasised. The ecological revolution

challenges virtually every basic tenet of belief about human identity, the shape of

society, and the nature of the world – and it demands not just new conclusions but a

whole new style of thinking (Oates, 1989).

In sum, then, the ecological worldview holds that nature and humans are mutually

embedded. This nonduality is characterised by an inextricable interconnectedness and

interdependence, and a necessary subjection to natural, ecological principles and

processes (natural laws). Such processes are characterised by complexity, nonlinear

systems, chaotic flux, and an evolutionary process of change. A postmodern,

ecological self is postulated. This self is a meaning-making individual who is

proactive, core-structured, and self-organising. It is these fundamental principles

common to constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory that form the framework

of this integration and which will be expanded upon.

3.3 THE MUTUAL EMBEDDEDNESS OF HUMANS AND NATURE

The mutual embeddedness of humans and nature is an all-encompassing principle of

existence, yet it is little recognised and rarely made explicit either in psychology or

with people in general. Human embeddedness in nature is, in fact, profound. It is a

foundational factor that impacts and influences people’s overall well-being, yet it is so

basic that people usually do not examine this crucial aspect of their lives critically

(Clinebell, 1996). Essentially, embeddedness implies that humans and nature are

inextricably interlinked. This is a crucial relationship which necessarily results in

shared fundamental characteristics of existence and an all-encompassing, reciprocal

influence and impact upon each other.

Ecopsychology is central to the notion of embeddedness, making explicit the human-

nature connection and relationship. Chaos theory is the physical science that makes

embeddedness manifest and observable, serving as the crucial, bridging link between

concept and the real world. In constructivism, the essential points are that personally

constructed reality is necessarily created through nature-filtered conceptual and

perceptual lenses and that the dynamic, ever-changing state-of-being of humans is a

manifestation of the expression of nature.

In terms of this integration, three aspects of embeddedness are of particular

importance: a) nonduality, b) interconnectedness and interdependence, and c)

subjection to natural laws.

3.3.1 Nonduality

Ecopsychology makes the principle of embeddedness explicit, asserting an indivisible

link – an essential nonduality – between humans and nature. Indeed, the main thrust

of the field is concerned with the perceived human-nature split and the conviction that

the relationship between person and planet is so intertwined that the well-being of

each is dependent upon the well-being of the other. Nonduality is essentially a

continuity of humanity with nature (McDaniel, 1990). Common thinking tends to

dichotomise humans and nature, but the separation is artificial (Horesh, 1998; Shore,

1995).

People are part of a global life system, a beautiful, intelligent global life community

that exists within and around them. Lives and nature are intertwined (Cohen, 1993),

and people are thus intricately connected to the natural world (Feral, 1998). Humans

are holistic living organisms interacting with the world, which in turn must be

understood as a living organism (Clinebell, 1996). There is a great, interdependent

network of nature and humans are an integral aspect of it, a part of the total

expression of life (Lewis, 1996). All the variations and differentiations of existence

are inseparably and dynamically interwoven, and there is thus an all-embracing unity.

Nonduality is inescapable, and it exists at all levels of existence from the micro (eg:

atoms, cells) to the macro (eg: cities, societies, nations) (Lemkow, 1990). There is a

critical relationship between humans and nature (Lewis, 1996). Rather than being

housed by, in conflict with, or even tending nature, people should recognise that they

are co-evolving with it (Horesh, 1998). Nonduality, then, is crucial in that it firmly

binds humans and nature in an indivisible unity. It necessarily follows that nature’s

ways are humans’ ways.

Nature’s ways are made manifest in chaos theory. Chaos theory represents a physical

science branch of a deeper ecological vision, rendering the evolving ecological

metaphor a real model of the world. Nonduality is central to that model. It suggests

that humankind is embedded in, and is part of, a vast, interconnected process that

created, and is still creating, all the intricate order of the universe (Goerner, 1995a).

Indeed, nonduality is the key to chaos theory. Chaos theory is the science of

wholeness. It points to a world of seamlessness, the scientific fact that everything is

connected to everything else in unbroken wholeness. Each part is the whole (Gelatt,

1995). Chaos theory makes explicit the chaotic flux – the ongoing sequence of

pattern, process, and change – that undergirds nature and is characteristic of all

systems, living and non-living, from the micro to the macro. The chaotic flux is the

fundamental, underlying process common to both humans and nature. It is the

processual ‘glue’, so to speak, that physically cements their nonduality.

In terms of constructivism, nonduality manifests in the individual in two distinct

ways. Firstly, at a purely physical level, the individual is constrained and entrained by

the underlying physical processes of nature and thus subject to the ongoing, chaotic

flux of evolutionary change. These physical processes set very real limits for the

individual, yet at the same time offer the potential for highly adaptive change (Ford &

Ford, 1987). Secondly, the meaning-making so central to human experience and the

personal realities constructed by the individual are necessarily nature-filtered

expressions of existence (Horesh, 1998). Reality itself is thus an expression of nature

and is best characterised as a vast network of interdependent, interfusing events – an

essential nonduality of experience (McDaniel, 1990). In this view, nature and the

realities of human existence (eg: culture) may be seen as relative gestalts that

encompass both internal, subjective experiences as well as the natural backdrop in

which those experiences take place; they are no different (Horesh, 1998). This is also

true at the social level. Societies cannot divorce themselves from their mutual

embeddedness with nature (Young, 1995) and in the dialectical interplay with the

individual necessarily impart their nature-based reality. As an individual’s personal

constructs of reality are experienced at both conscious and tacit levels, the nature-

based character of reality may be experienced consciously or at a deep level.

Nonduality, then, is central to personally constructed reality.

3.3.2 Interconnectedness and interdependence

The embeddedness of human beings and nature and the nonduality thereof, implies an

inextricable interconnectedness and interdependence between all elements of the

world, both living and non-living (Greenway, 1999). Ecopsychology stresses such

interrelatedness, at both deep and surface levels. At its deepest level, this essential

interrelatedness is a spiritual notion, a view that recognises the wholeness of all life

(Anthony & Soule, 1998; Fox, 1990). On a different, but similarly deep level is the

notion that, because all of nature is composed of atoms, at the level of exchange of

matter and energy all are part of one inseparable web of connections. The parts are the

whole. As inhabitants of the universe people are part of this inseparable web of

connections (Feral, 1998). There is interconnectedness and interdependence with

others of the human species, with other species, and with ecosystems. Humans are

thus radically interrelated with everything else in the universe (Rockefeller & Elder,

1992). At a more surface level, humans are individuals-in-community. Communities

must be seen in relation to other communities, and their destinies are interdependent.

The web of life is thus best conceived as a collective ‘we’ (McDaniel, 1990) in which

each individual is important (Gomes, 1998). Crucially, nature is dynamic and deeply

systemic. Interconnectedness and interdependence are thus dynamic, systemic

relationships. Chaos theory makes explicit, conceptually and physically, the processes

that characterise the interconnectedness and interdependence of dynamic systems

(including humans) in nature. All dynamic systems interact with each other (Ainslie,

1995). Such interaction is purposive in that every single part of the planet serves life,

and thus dynamic systems serve the whole (Gomes, 1998). Dynamic systems are

interlinked at some level or other, either directly or indirectly and to greater or lesser

degree, and it is this essential connectedness that makes the chaotic flux of nature

possible (Ainslie, 1995). The chaotic flux is an inherent characteristic of a special

kind of connectedness, a shared global balancing mechanism that guides and

integrates people and all other entities of nature (Cohen, 1993).

Interconnectedness and interdependence are stressed in constructivism, with its

emphasis on the importance of human relationships and their role in both personal and

collective experiences (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). This dialectical interplay between

the personal and the collective is most evident in social constructionism, in its

explication of the crucial connection between individuals and social forces. This

essential interrelationship is particularly emphasised in dialectical constructivism –

the stance espoused in this study – with its strong emphasis on the reciprocal interplay

between individual and environment. At its highest, the notion of interconnectedness

and interdependence ideally leads to the individual living in connection, feeling the

connection, honouring it, and then acting from that place of being connected

(Anthony & Soule, 1998). Importantly, constructivism’s postmodern orientation

makes for an individual that can be seen as a community of personal selves. The self

is multiple, and the interconnectedness and interdependence of these multiple selves is

just as important for the individual’s well-being as connectedness with society

(Wetherell, 1996).

3.3.3 Human subjection to natural laws

Ecopsychology asserts that human beings, in virtue of embeddedness and nonduality,

are inherently subject to natural laws. This is so at all levels, from the micro to the

macro. Essentially, human beings are animals (ie: mammals) and exist alongside other

organisms in a physical environment. Although humans have managed to isolate

themselves from other organisms and the extremes of nature to a degree, they are still

subject to the principles of nature. Indeed, human life processes are similar to those of

most other animals (Storer, Usinger, Stebbins & Nybakken, 1979), and just like other

animals people inherently have internal needs and ways of meeting them (eg: hunger,

survival, hunting, finding shelter) (Goldsmith, 1993). At the most obvious level,

people are fundamentally affected by and dependent upon natural ecosystem basics

(eg: climate, moisture, temperature, light, nutrients, energy flow, ecological niche)

and ways of functioning and behaviour (eg: intraspecific and interspecific

competition, parasitism, disease, mutualism) in the world (Smith, 1990). Less obvious

levels (eg: genetics, cellular activity, organic functioning, evolutionary processes) are

staggering in their complexity.

It is the less obvious levels of system process that chaos theory is concerned with.

Essentially, chaos theory makes the deeper workings of natural laws physically

explicable (Goerner, 1995b). Chaos theory is concerned with the workings of natural

law, in terms of explicating the processes that characterise dynamical systems

(including the human animal). Chaos theory thus penetrates the face of nature and

reveals its hidden implicate order. The chaotic flux of pattern, process, and change is

intrinsic to nature’s order. It is the chaotic flux that is the means whereby nonlinear

dynamical systems exist and function in the world. Crucially, such interactions go

beyond a mere relationship with the natural environment; they are ecological

relationships (Willi, 1999).

The human animal is a supremely adaptive organism, maximising the potential of self

and environment to a large degree (Smith, 1990). Nevertheless, as constructivism

emphasises, the individual is constrained by personal and conceptual filters and by the

impact of environmental factors. The individual, then, cannot escape the contextual

backdrop of natural law. All of the core fundamentals applying to the individual, from

the constructivist perspective, are necessarily subject to natural law. The constraint of

natural law sets a limit on the potential of the individual, but at the same time it

provides principles that simultaneously allow for optimisation of the individual’s

development. The constructivist self is a proactive, ever-evolving self, and these

principles may be consciously used to good account for personal benefit.

3.4 PATTERN, PROCESS, AND CHANGE: THE EXPRESSION OF

NATURE

The lawfulness of nature that humans are subject to, in virtue of their embeddedness,

is manifest in a certain systemic manner that can be said to express the character,

structure, process, and driving force of nature. In ecopsychology, the crucial point is

that nature is incredibly complex, deeply systemic, and characterised by an

evolutionary, chaotic sequence of pattern, process, and change that masks an

underlying, implicate order. Chaos theory shows how these principles are expressed,

particularly with regard to the sequential chaotic flux. Constructivism personalises

nature in this regard; the individual is also a complex, nonlinear dynamical system

and thus expresses the same natural laws.

This is a deeply systemic view, in which there are four vital aspects to consider: a)

complexity (the character of nature), b) nonlinear dynamical systems (the structure of

complex systems), c) chaotic flux (the process inherent in complex, nonlinear

dynamical systems), d) evolutionary process (the driving force of existence).

3.4.1 Complexity

Ecopsychology provides a broad and sweeping conceptual backdrop for complexity,

asserting that nature as a whole and systems at all levels, from the immensity of the

universe to the minutest of elements, are characterised by complexity. Indeed, the

universe is seen as being infinitely complex, a creative unfolding of existence that is

co-created by its elements (Goerner 1995a). The universe evolves in the direction of

increasingly complex and cooperative interactions between systems, leading to the

formation of emergent, higher-order systems. Complexity is witnessed in the physical

universe as well as in the evolution of life. It also characterises the evolution of social

systems (eg: economic, political) (Combs, 1995). Complexity rests upon diversity,

both of the self and of nature as a whole (Anthony & Soule, 1998).

Chaos theory explains complexity, stressing the flexibility, dynamism, spontaneity,

disorder, and aliveness of systems that have the ability to change, evolve, adapt, learn,

and reorganise their own structures over time – a complexity that results from the

collective behaviour of the interacting components of such systems (Lotter, 1997).

The dynamic balance between the opposing processes of stability and variability is

stressed. Stabilising forces maintain the coherence or integrity of a system, whereas

variability provides the flexibility necessary for growth and change (Hayes & Strauss,

1998). The importance of the edge-of-chaos state-of-being is highlighted, in that it is

an especially adaptive kind of complexity (Waldrop, 1992). The more complex a

system is, the more likely it is that a spontaneous organisation will occur which

establishes a different, more adaptive order. Importantly, it is the interaction of the

elements in the system or their interaction with the environment that generates a

different structure (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). Complexity is organised

and purposive (Goldsmith, 1993), and emergence is its central feature (Lewin, 1993).

Crucially, in virtue of being dynamical systems, human beings are characterised by

complexity and are thus subject to the same pattern, process, and change that govern

such. In terms of constructivism, then, all that can be said about complex systems

pertains to the functioning of the individual. Living beings utilise energy available in

their environments to reorganise themselves to increasingly higher orders of

complexity (Combs, 1995). This is done at a physical, self-constructing level and at a

conceptual, meaning-making level.

Importantly, while evolutionary flux exhibits an inherent tendency for adaptation to

higher and higher forms of complexity, humans’ meaning-making capacity can

crucially thwart the drive to higher adaptation and manifest instead in a downward

spiral of self-destructive behaviour. Essentially, meaning-making has central

importance in the creation of people’s realities. Meaning-making results in the

creation of a worldview for the individual that necessarily colours experience in every

sphere of his or her existence (Wieland-Burston, 1992). This also happens at the

social level, with collectives such as groups and nations having particular worldviews

that manifest in strongly held beliefs and ideologies. Worldviews are so strong and so

central to the individual and the collective that conflict often manifests as a result of

differences of belief (Kiel & Elliot, 1996). Such conflict may be confined to a

relatively small scale (eg: neighbour versus neighbour, group versus group) or be

manifest at a global scale (eg: capitalism versus communism, Christians versus

Muslims). It can, of course, be speculated that when considered on a very long-term,

macro scale such conflict is part of a greater evolutionary, chaotic flux moving the

world as a whole to an ultimately more adaptive state-of-being. Notwithstanding, the

capacity for self-destruction – driven by meaning-making – is very predominant and

strong in the human condition. This capacity for a seemingly backward-moving form

of evolution is consistent with the lifespan development perspective – a theory central

to constructivist thought – which holds that development is not always for the better

(Hultsch & Deutsch, 1981).

The individual’s complexity can thus be seen structurally and conceptually. While

both aspects are important, it is the conceptual level that is seen as the driving force of

the system (Ford & Ford, 1987). It is the richness of the complex interactions of its

many parts that allows the system as whole to undergo adaptive self-organisation

(Lotter, 1997).

3.4.2 Nonlinearity

Ecopsychology asserts that nonlinearity is present throughout the physical and

biological universe (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Nonlinearity is integral to nature, is

completely common, and is utterly simple. All it means is that the relationship

between phenomena is not always proportional. Nonlinear interdependent dynamics

have a penchant for creating such things as patterns, coherence, stable dynamic

structures, networks, coupling, synchronisation, and synergy (Goerner, 1995b).

Nonlinear dynamical systems are essentially manifestations of nature’s complexity.

They serve as the ‘container’ for such dynamics and may usefully be seen as the

structure of complexity.

Indeed, chaos theory asserts that the incredible complexity of interrelating and

interdependent elements of a system are structured by nonlinearity – and it is a

dynamic, ever-changing structure. Chaos theory reveals the nonlinear world, where

order is not dominant but complementary (Ainslie, 1995). Understanding nonlinear

interdependence is the key to understanding how and why systems structure

themselves. Nonlinear interdependent dynamics have a penchant for creating wholes

out of parts. The spontaneous creation of assemblies of units through self-

coordination is quite natural. Nonlinear systems may exhibit qualitative

transformations of behaviour. A single system may exhibit many different forms of

behaviour, all the result of the same basic dynamic. Crucially, nonlinear dynamical

systems may be studied as a physical science. As such, it creates a profound form of

ecologism by making the evolving ecology metaphor – ecological thinking – fully

physical (Goerner, 1995a).

Humans are complex, nonlinear dynamical systems supreme (Butz, 1997).

Constructivism holds that the individual is an adaptively evolving, open, dissipative

system that self-organises and changes continuously over time (Kossmann & Bullrich,

1997). The individual is thus structurally linked to the world in a nonlinear manner,

and all that can be said about nonlinear systems in general can be said about the

individual.

3.4.3 Chaos

Ecopsychology posits that chaos is inherent in nature. The world is in a constant state

of movement, change, and growth – a chaotic flux – and within such a world, chaos is

an integral part of nature (Gleick, 1987). Implicate order is hidden in chaos. It is a

holistic order, resulting from the complex interactions of interdependent variables co-

effecting each other into a coherent pattern. It is order of the whole. This complex

mutual-effect system is subtle, omnipresent, and potent. Before chaos, ecology was

merely a metaphor for explaining how the world works. Now it is known that the

world is, in fact, ecological. Essentially, nonlinear interdependent ecological

dynamics generate ecologies everywhere from the molecular to the economic. These

ecological dynamics lead to new images of when, how, and why structures arise and

change. Chaos thus provides an ecological sense of how things work, providing the

foundations of an ecological physics. As such, it produces an altogether more

profound form of ecological thinking (Goerner, 1995b).

Chaos theory, then, is concerned with the process inherent in complex, nonlinear

dynamical systems. It focuses on the sequence of evolutionary change over time and

asks questions about order and disorder in nature (Gleick, 1987). The focus is on how

order gives way to chaos, how order is discovered within chaos, and how order is

again created out of chaos (Loye, 1995). The sequence of chaotic flux connects to

order-building and an ecological sense of how nature works, providing the

foundations of an ecological physics. The order in chaos provides a physical

explanation for mysterious hidden global ordering. The activity of the elements of a

mutual-effect system creates global order and this mutually created global order in

turn puts pressure on each individual element toward conformity to the global pattern.

The evolving ecological universe is thus lawful and physical. However, chaos is not

completely predictable, controllable, or knowable, and this makes the universe a bit

more illusive and endlessly mysterious (Goerner, 1995b). Indeed, chaos has a

penchant for openness, spontaneity, and freedom that provides the matrix for

evolutionary creativity (Sheldrake, 1990).

Constructivism personalises chaos. Humans, too, are subject to ongoing, adaptive,

chaotic change. It is a fundamental tenet of constructivism that the self is in a constant

state of becoming. There is a core-structured centre, but this is ever-changing in

response to internal and external circumstances (Cox & Lyddon, 1997). This constant

state of becoming is a constant state of chaotic flux, for being complex nonlinear

dynamical systems renders humans subject to the same chaotic process of change that

characterises nature from the micro to the macro.

3.4.4 Evolutionary process

Ecopsychology holds that evolutionary process drives existence (Goerner, 1995a). All

forms of being are part of one evolutionary flow, and all entities in existence are a

manifestation of this underlying process (Capra, Steindl-Rast & Matus, 1991). Nature

is in a continual state of flux and flow, sensing alterations in conditions and adapting

to them, seeking order for new circumstances (Wieland-Burston, 1992). Everything in

existence is part of an ongoing physical order-building process that has produced

everything from molecules, to life, to galaxies, to civilisation. Evolution is a general

process that proceeds inexorably and opportunistically to higher and higher levels of

ordered complexity (Goerner, 1995a). Purposefulness is seen as a feature of life

processes at all levels of organisation, and in particular that of the biosphere. It is the

dynamism of living things that makes evolution possible (Goldsmith, 1993). Above

all, such a universe is a vastly more integrated, holistically interconnected unity than

was previously realised (Goerner, 1995a). It can thus be said that the evolutionary

process is the driving force of all existence.

Chaos theory describes the evolutionary process as one of ongoing constancy and

change. The evolutionary process entails oscillations between stability and instability,

order and disorder, local constancy and global change – a turbulent sequence of

chaotic change, where absolute rest and permanence do not exist. Indeed, the only real

constant is the ongoing process of evolution. Order production is driven by the rules

of energy flow. An energy-driven, evolving universe moves toward higher and higher

levels of complexity. It is active, creative, goes in a direction, and is capable of

producing both order and disorder. It is not regular, but it is lawful and patterned.

Change is not gradual, but punctuated (Goerner, 1995a).

Constructivism embraces an evolutionary epistemology and is thus crucially

concerned with the chaotic process of change. This manifests physiologically and

conceptually. Physiologically, the individual is forever changing and adapting to the

demands of life (Wetherell, 1996), and is subject to continuous self-organisation, self-

construction, and self-reconstruction (Ford & Ford, 1987). Conceptually, life is active

in its relationship to the environment. The individual is transformed by what the

senses take in. The meaning-making so central to human experience is the result of

interdependent systems shaping one another’s organisational activity (Kossmann &

Bullrich, 1997). In both cases, feedback and feed-forward mechanisms are involved.

There is reciprocity between sensation and action and between individual and

environment (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995). Present events and experiences are

crucially connected to the past and crucially influence the future direction the

individual takes. Present events and experiences occurring within the depths of matter

and in the life of the individual are the result not only of physical influences from the

past but also of creative decisions made consciously or unconsciously by the

individual (McDaniel, 1990). As part of nature, the individual possesses the capability

to adapt physiologically and psychologically to the modifications in his or her life

circumstances (Wieland-Burston, 1992).

3.5 THE CONSCIOUS INITIATION OF THE CHAOTIC PROCESS OF

CHANGE

As has been shown, the individual is embedded in nature and is subject to the

processual laws of nature. These processes happen whether the individual is aware of

them or not. Crucially, however, the individual can consciously harness the forces of

nature – more specifically the chaotic process of change – for personal benefit.

Ecopsychology provides a contextual backdrop for this, promoting the notion of a

postmodern, ecological self that is pregnant with multiple possibilities of expression

in life. Chaos theory gives flesh to this notion, making explicit the mechanics of the

process of self-initiated change. Constructivism focuses on specific, crucial aspects of

that process in relation to the individual and in doing so provides a coherent account

of how self-initiated change is possible.

Four constructivist concepts allow for this: a) a postmodern conception of the self, b)

a proactive self, c) nuclear core structure, d) self-organisation.

3.5.1 The postmodern self

Ecopsychology embraces the notion of a postmodern self, but takes this further by

positing that the self is inherently ecological. The postmodern, ecological self is

rooted in context, interconnectedness, interdependence, and evolutionary process

(Cox & Lyddon, 1997; Stein & Markus, 1994). The self is essentially a construct co-

created by culture, society, and individuals at a particular time and place, constituted

in and through connections and relationships with others. It is an ecological self, in

the sense that it involves a wide, expansive, field-like construal of self. It embodies a

systems view of the individual in social and cultural context. Essentially, the self is

part of an ecological system that is a conjunction of other people, environments, and

objects. The self both shapes this ecological system and is a reflection of it (Fox,

1990). In this ecological construal, then, the self is not an isolated psychological entity

(Mahoney & Moes, 1997). As such, the focus is not on the inner self but rather on the

relationships of the person to the natural environment (including other human beings)

(Fox, 1990). There is thus not only an individual self but also a family self, a

community self, a human self, an earth self, and even a universe self (Berry, 1990).

Chaos theory takes the concept of the postmodern, ecological self out of the realm of

the abstract and concretises it. In physical terms, the individual is an active complex

of systems nested within systems that are seeking to preserve and elaborate their

viability and coherence in the face of lifelong internal and external challenges to their

integrity (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). The complex, nonlinear dynamical systems of the

individual are in a constant interplay with other systems in the environment and both

display the characteristics inherent in the chaotic flux of change. Importantly, systems

do not function in isolation. The development of any given system is constrained and

entrained by other systems involved in their own chaotic flux of change (Parry, 1996).

The postmodern, ecological self is thus deeply systemic at all levels and, crucially,

displays the physical, processual characteristics inherent in the chaotic process of

change.

In constructivism, the notion of a postmodern, ecological self is wholeheartedly

embraced and, indeed, is central to the approach. The individual is held to be a

historically and contextually situated construct (Cox & Lyddon, 1997). In this view

the self is a dynamic, highly diversified, and thoroughly connected complex of

ongoing, self-organising processes. The self is inextricably embedded in social

systems, which pervade the self so that developments in one necessarily influence the

other to greater or lesser degree (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). Realities are thus multiple

personal and social constructions. Crucially, the self is in a constant process of

becoming and should be viewed as a multiplicity of possibilities or possible selves

(Cox & Lyddon, 1997).

3.5.2 The proactive self

In terms of ecopsychology, the whole of nature is proactive (Goerner, 1995a; Oates,

1989). Nature is not passive. Entities that are complex nonlinear dynamical systems

constantly seek out opportunities for ever-higher complexity and adaptation, an

evolutionary process that is purposive (Neimeyer, 1995). This is linked to the notion

of the universe being an ever-adaptive, ever-changing, living organism that constantly

seeks higher levels of ordered complexity. This is true from the macro to the micro.

Complex systems at all levels proactively seek to maximise their existence.

Chaos theory makes it clear that proactivity is an important element of a dynamical

system’s evolutionary seeking for higher forms of complexity. A dynamical system

proactively attempts to adapt. Complex, nonlinear dynamical systems are far from

passive in terms of finding solutions to environmental demands (Butz, Chamberlain &

McCown, 1997). Such a system is a proactive agent and is capable of self-movement,

participating in its own dynamics of change (Mahoney & Moes, 1997).

Constructivism is central here. Above all, the individual is seen as proactive. Human

beings are active agents who, individually and collectively, co-constitute the meaning

of their experiential world (Neimeyer, 1995) and co-create the personal realities to

which they respond. They participate in a reciprocal manner between themselves and

their environment and within different levels of their own activities, creating a life

theme that is progressively and dynamically constructed moment by moment, day by

day, year by year – and the individual is the basic mediator in this process (Guidano,

1995). While there is a dialectical interplay between person and environment,

psychological realities are nevertheless inherently private and the forum of significant

psychological change lies in the domain of the self (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero,

1995) – crucially, a proactive self who has the capacity to initiate personal change.

3.5.3 Core structure

In terms of ecopsychology, core-structure is central to nature. While nature is in a

state of constant, evolutionary, chaotic flux there is nevertheless permanence to it

(Goerner, 1995a). Form is constant. Although ever-evolving and changing in the

striving for higher and higher states of adaptive complexity, the underlying core

structure remains true to its blueprint. Thus while there is a constant state of

evolutionary, chaotic flux in the universe, the core structure remains constant. This is

true on all scales, from the micro to the macro (Lemkow, 1990).

Chaos theory demonstrates the functioning of the core structure of complex, nonlinear

dynamical systems. The core structure displays a protective tendency that serves to

maintain system integrity and coherence in the face of internal or environmental

threat, and can clearly be seen in the observation of system dynamics of change (Butz,

1997). The initial state of a system, whether relatively stable or unstable, is often

remarkably resistant to change. The core structure is well formed and entrenched, and

often it takes a very firm perturbation to move the system toward another state of

order. Even then, the system may start to change but may subsequently revert to its

previously dominant state. At other times (ie: chaotic instability), even small changes

can initiate a huge, cascading sequence of chaotic change (Kruse et al, 1992). At a

purely physical level, then, chaos theory explains how and why a system resists

change and tries to maintain its core structure.

In terms of constructivism, human self-organising processes are functionally

structured so that the centre of the living system – its core ordering processes – is

given special protection against change. Such protection is most apparent when

demands for change are extensive and urgent, when the system experiences itself as

being pushed too quickly or too far beyond the boundaries of its familiar functioning

(Mahoney & Moes, 1997). The individual has both a physical and conceptual core

structure. The physical structure is well described by the aforementioned processes

inherent in dynamical systems, while the conceptual nucleus is the presence of deep-

seated, form-generating, abstract ordering rules that impose constraints on what may

be meaningfully expressed by the individual at any given time (Mahoney, Miller &

Arciero, 1995). The deep-structure ordering rules that organise ongoing experience

are tacit processes, well beyond conscious awareness (Guidano, 1995). The core

structure is there to protect the internal coherence and integrity of the individual

(Neimeyer, 1995). Importantly, the core structure is dynamic, developmental, and

dialectical (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995).

3.5.4 Self-organisation

Ecopsychology holds that the universe and all the complex, nonlinear dynamical

systems within it are self-organising. Nature’s systemic determinism and randomness,

order and disorder, stability and instability are allies, and combine to trigger

spontaneous pattern formation inherent in a given system. The system’s hidden

potential is unfolded and the implicit is made explicit. New structures emerge, and

these are co-determined by their boundaries in a kind of co-evolution. This is a

marked type of self-organisation (Kratky, 1992) and only occurs in open, dissipative

systems (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). Self-organisation is a principle of

individuation whereby intrinsic individuality is consistent with nature’s essential

interconnectedness and interdependence (Mathews, 1991).

Chaos theory, too, asserts that self-organisation is an inherent physical characteristic

of complex, nonlinear dynamical systems and makes explicit the process of such.

Self-organisation found in non-living systems provides both a metaphor and a

conceptual model for living systems and supra-living systems (eg: cities) (Goerner,

1995a). Self-organising development is a principled process of nonlinear dynamics. It

is a fundamentally dialectical process, in which order emerges out of a system’s

attempts to elaborate a dynamic balance in the face of interacting contrasts (eg:

instability and instability) (Francis, 1995). New forms of organisation emerge through

the process of order through fluctuation, and this only occurs when a system is in a

far-from-equilibrium state. Self-organisation is usually a result of a small fluctuation

in a system being amplified into a new form (Goerner, 1995a). Chaos theory thus

clearly explains the system’s attempts to adapt to perturbation: the system seeks

solutions beyond its previous parameters and, having found some sort of solution,

begins to self-organise toward a new, more complex, and adaptive state of order.

Essentially, new information found through chaotic behaviour allows the system to

become more complex and more adaptive in the face of novel situations or stimuli

(Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

This self-organising, evolutionary striving for higher complexity is a crucial, key

concept in constructivism. Individual human systems self-organise so at to protect and

perpetuate their integrity, and in doing so develop via structural differentiations

(Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995). The individual is essentially a system devoted to

its own realisation. To this end it satisfies its own energy requirements, grows, repairs

or renews its own tissues and reproduces itself (Mathews, 1991). Human beings are

waking self-organisations in need of energy to keep going, and the individual is

essentially directed by nature to satisfy this need (Goerner, 1995b). Human systems

maintain and elaborate themselves in the context of ongoing interactions with

themselves, their medium, and other systems (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). In doing so,

the individual is literally the central reference point for all of his or her experiences

and survival efforts (Mahoney, Miller & Arciero, 1995). Human self-organisation is

particularly complex in that the individual has the capacity for symbolic processes.

This is a necessary requirement, in that the individual’s self-organising processes are

embedded in social and symbolic contexts. Importantly, the process of active self-

organisation continues throughout the individual’s life-span in response to both

internal and external dynamics, and the order of experience becomes complex and

unique to each individual (Mahoney & Moes, 1997).

Crucially, while much of self-organisation occurs at a level beyond conscious

awareness, it is nevertheless the case that self-organisation can be consciously

initiated (Abraham, 1992). The crucial message of constructivism is that self-

organisation may be consciously initiated by the proactive self. The individual is not a

slave to the self-organising process of evolutionary unfolding. Each living moment

arises out of a simultaneous act of effecter and effected, and the individual co-creates

the unfolding self-organisation (Goerner, 1995a).

3.6 SUMMARY

This chapter aimed to integrate constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory. The

strategy employed was to focus on the core fundamentals of each field, integrating

them in a manner relevant to the needs of the study. It was stressed that a full and

comprehensive integration is beyond the scope of the study, but that the integration

could nevertheless be used beyond the confines of the paper and serve as a basis for

the development of a strong and coherent conceptual and applied framework for

psychology. This could help to counter the high fragmentation, inchoateness,

abstraction, and impracticality that characterises these fields and help fulfil their

potential in psychology. The integration was predicated upon the logic that humans

and nature are mutually embedded, and as such humans are necessarily subject to

nature’s laws. Humans are nevertheless proactive and may utilise such principles to

initiate their own chaotic process of psychological change. The foundation of the

integration was taken to be the ecological worldview, a holistic viewpoint that stresses

the unity of existence. This entails a fundamental embeddedness of all phenomena in

the cosmos. A systemic viewpoint, it sees all existence as a unified living whole.

Accordingly, humans and nature are necessarily mutually embedded and this entails

nonduality (inseparability of humans and nature), interconnectedness and

interdependence (ongoing interrelationships between all systems), and subjection to

natural law (inescapable constraints imposed on humans). Natural laws were

discussed: systemic complexity, nonlinearity, chaos, and evolutionary process were

conceptualised as the character, structure, process, and driving force of nature

respectively. Within this conceptualisation, the dialectical interplay between

individual and environment and the ever-changing, ever-adapting, sequential process

of chaotic flux – characterised by order and disorder, stability and instability – was

stressed. The notion of a postmodern, ecological self was discussed. The individual

was held to be proactive, core-structured, and self-organising – an individual with the

capacity to consciously initiate the chaotic process of psychological change.

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY

4.1 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

The review of the literature shows clearly that constructivism, ecopsychology, and

chaos theory are of great relevance for psychology and, individually and collectively,

hold great potential for psychological investigation and application. Despite this, they

are highly fragmented, inchoate fields characterised by a diverse, often confusing and

impractical mix of approaches and methods. In particular, there is a conspicuous

dearth of simple, down-to-earth, pragmatic investigative and analytical approaches

and methods which can be practically used in therapy, are easy to use and understand,

and yield practical and relevant data – a lack which seriously constrains the potential

of these fields.

4.2 GOALS OF THE RESEARCH

The aim of the research, in operational terms, is to demonstrate the psychological

process of change in terms of the principles of chaos theory. The process of

psychological change is demonstrated by analysis of graphical maps of the observed

variables and corresponding chaotic process of change in three-dimensional phase

space and time-series graphs. Graphical analysis is triangulated with clinical

observations and verbal feedback from participants.

In pursuing this overall aim, two goals emerge:

1) The main goal of the research is to simply and clearly demonstrate the

concepts and application of chaos theory in a therapeutic situation.

This goal entails: a) creating a conceptually sound, relatively simple research

design, procedure, intervention, and analysis, and b) demonstrating aspects of

the chaotic process of psychological change by means of conducting a real-life

therapeutic intervention.

As has been shown, a gap exists for the development of relatively simple and

practical explanatory and applicatory methods utilising chaos theory that can

yield pragmatically useful data. There is also an acknowledged need for

innovative research methods that can draw out the nuances of the approach

and advance its real-life applicability, and it is in this spirit that this research

goal is pursued.

2) The second goal is to integrate the fundamental concepts of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory, relevant to the study’s main goal.

Although fundamental to the main goal of the research, this goal nevertheless

constitutes an important aim in its own right. These fields have been variously

linked in the literature in different ways, but as yet have not yet been

integrated into a cohesive framework – a surprising omission, given that the

core concepts and principles are so highly complementary. It is argued that the

integration of these three fields, by means of drawing upon the distillation of

their fundamental principles and tenets, yields a potentially powerful

framework for psychological investigation and application. This framework

arguably has development potential for application far beyond the limits of

this study.

4.3 SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Three participants were chosen, by means of snowball sampling. Such a sampling

technique requires approaching a small number of people in the target population who

are asked to introduce the researcher to other people who, in turn, are invited to help

recruit others to assist. In this way, an initial small sample may ‘snowball’ into a

larger one (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1997). This is also called network,

chain referral, or reputational sampling and is based on the analogy of a snowball,

which begins small but becomes larger as it is rolled on wet snow (Neuman, 1997).

This technique was chosen, as a primary consideration in the selection of participants

was to make recruitment as near to real-life conditions as possible. Accordingly, it

would be the potential participant – the client – who would take the initiative in

coming forward as opposed to being directly asked to take part in the study.

Accordingly, news of the proposed study was spread by means of word-of-mouth to

colleagues, friends, and acquaintances with the request that they in turn announce the

proposed study to people within their respective social circles. This resulted in several

people expressing interest in the study. The deciding factor for acceptance of

candidates was the perceived willingness to commit to the study, as determined by the

researcher. One woman in particular expressed a great desire to participate. The

woman’s husband then asked to take part and, in turn, the woman’s daughter (from a

previous marriage) subsequently expressed interest in participating. Each individual

appeared to be seriously committed to the study and were thus deemed ideal

participants.

Before accepting the participants, it was stressed that the study would be quite time-

intensive and demanding. Essentially, it would entail an hour of therapy each week

and the completion of a self-report rating scale four times a day, seven days a week,

for three months. The ramifications and risks of psychological intervention with

respect to initiating a chaotic process of change were fully explained. It was further

made clear that participation was entirely voluntary and that any participant could

withdraw from the study at any stage.

4.4 THE RESEARCH DESIGN

The research design is a descriptive field study, utilising the intensive single-case

quantitative (time-series) design for data collection and a qualitative analysis by

means of graphical analysis, clinical observations, and verbal feedback from

participants. The design is in line with the constructivist orientation of the study, in

that the overall investigation is empirical in character and the focus of interest is on

the participants’ subjective realities.

The descriptive design is a research strategy that enables the investigator to define the

existence and delineate characteristics of a particular phenomenon (Heppner,

Kivlighan & Wampold, 1999). More specifically, it is an investigative focus that

seeks to carefully map out a situation or set of events in order to describe what is

happening behaviourally (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996).

The goals of descriptive research are all relevant to this study to greater or lesser

degree: describe a process, mechanism, or relationship; give a verbal or numerical

picture of data; find information to stimulate new explanations; present basic

background information or a context; create a set of categories or classify types;

clarify a sequence, set of stages, or steps; document information that contradicts prior

beliefs about a subject (Neuman, 1997).

In pursuing these goals, the researcher begins with a well-defined subject and

conducts research to describe it accurately (Neuman, 1997). Observation is at the core

of the descriptive strategy. As such, the utility of a descriptive study is directly

dependent on the quality of observations, instruments, or assessments. Descriptive

designs do not attempt to exercise experimental control but are rather conducted in a

real-life setting. This makes the descriptive field study generally high in external

validity but low in internal validity (Heppner, Kivlighan & Wampold, 1999).

Essentially, the outcome of a descriptive study is a detailed picture of the

phenomenon under investigation (Neuman, 1997). A descriptive design is used in this

study, then, as the aim is to clearly describe the natural occurrence of the chaotic

process of change.

In counselling psychology, single-subject studies are a common example of the

descriptive research strategy and have many advantages (Heppner, Kivlighan &

Wampold, 1999). The single-subject design is concerned with the systematic,

repeated, and multiple observation of an individual. This involves the intensive and

rigorous examination of relevant variables, which are typically planned before the

beginning of data collection. Repeated observation allows for a comparison of

variables over time, and the focus is on their temporal unfolding. Observations are

often made from multiple sources, allowing a multi-modal investigation (eg:

cognitive, behavioural, affective). Single subject designs are versatile and are

especially well suited to testing new research methodologies, allowing the

investigator to ‘experiment’ with a new methodology or procedure. The rich source of

data yielded can also spark ideas or hypotheses. The design also approximates the

one-to-one situation encountered in therapy – an important consideration, as in

counselling psychology research it can be critically important that real clients are used

in a real-life setting. The single subject design is particularly well suited to describing

the idiosyncrasies of individual clients. This is important as individuals differ from

each other in significant ways and process information about themselves and their

experiential worlds in idiographic ways. It is also one of the primary strategies used to

isolate and clarify the mechanisms of change within the therapeutic process – a

crucial aspect, given the overall aim of this study. The intensive single subject design

additionally provides strong empirical support and thus lends greater utility to the

research design.

The application of time-series measurement strategies and the utility of idiographic

assessment are particularly important considerations in nonlinear dynamical

modelling (Haynes, 1995). Although the time-series approach is amenable to tracking

dynamic dimensions of variables, it has seldom been used for this purpose (Haynes,

Blaine & Meyer, 1995). In general, there is a need for more temporally sensitive

measurement approaches and data analytic techniques in this line of investigation

(Heiby, 1995). The defining characteristic of time-series measurement is multiple

observations over time (Heppner, Kivlighan & Wampold, 1999). The sequence of

observations is examined for each individual participant, and data pooling across

participants is avoided (Levine & Fitzgerald, 1992). The threat to internal validity, as

a result of the effects of history, is a major drawback to this approach (Heppner,

Kivlighan & Wampold, 1999). The problem of history, however, is encountered in

real-life therapy on a day-to-day basis as many random factors influence progress

during therapy (Heath, 2000). As a prime consideration in the study is to ground it in

real-life, this must of necessity be a design shortcoming.

4.5 PROCEDURE

Once the research goals, design, intervention, and method of analysis had been

determined, the procedure was as follows:

• Three participants were recruited. They were briefed on the proposed

study with special emphasis being placed upon the purpose of the

research, the inherent risks associated with undertaking psychological

change, the time required for weekly therapy, and the level of

commitment necessary to complete self-report rating scales four times

daily for three months. Formal consent to take part in the study was

subsequently obtained.

• The therapeutic intervention was conducted, over a three-month period

(July 2, 2001 to September 30, 2001). The first week (July 02, 2001 to

July 7, 2001) of the intervention was a pilot period, during which time

participants were instructed to acquaint themselves with the self-report

rating scales and the routine of completing them, and were given the

opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns regarding the study.

The constructs and variables to be measured were co-constructed by

the participants and researcher, and the self-report scales were

specially designed for each individual.

• The psychological process of change was recorded over the entire

intervention period. Participants completed the (pen and paper) self-

report rating scales four times daily (morning, noon, afternoon, night)

at four-hour intervals (8am, 12 noon, 4pm, 8pm), yielding an overall

reflection of their state-of-being throughout the day with regard to their

three measured variables. A total of 364 observations per variable were

recorded for each participant.

• After the intervention, the participants were debriefed. This was in line

with the basic tenets of debriefing: providing the participants with any

required or requested information concerning the nature of the study,

discussing the participants’ experiences of the research process to

check for the presence of any unintended or unanticipated effects of

the research, and checking to see if any further intervention was

necessary to negate the effects of the investigation (Breakwell,

Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1997). Indeed, therapy continued beyond the

time-frame of the research programme in the form of closely

monitoring and further facilitating the participants’ continuing chaotic

process of change.

• At the end of the intervention the self-report measurements obtained

were collated and input into a desktop personal computer, utilising

SPSS 10 and SigmaPlot 2000 software. Both software programmes

generated graphs that reflected each participant’s system evolution

over the three months of the intervention as well as an overall system

state. The SPSS 10 programme yielded time-series graphs and the

SigmaPlot 2000 programme yielded three-dimensional phase space

plots.

• A qualitative analysis of the three-dimensional geometric phase space

and time-series data was then conducted, linking the concepts and

principles of the chaotic process of psychological change to the

graphical data resulting from the analysis. Clinical observations and

verbal feedback from participants were triangulated with results from

the graphical analysis.

4.6 PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERVENTION

A therapeutic intervention utilising the integrated principles of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory was conducted. This was an applied

ecopsychological intervention, following the recognised framework of therapy stages

(ie: exploration, goal-setting, action) (Egan, 1998). The intervention was individually

tailored for each participant, using specially designed self-rating scales unique to the

individual. The overriding aim was to construct a simple and practical intervention

that would yield useful data relevant to the chaotic process of psychological change.

The intervention was grounded upon certain basic principles:

1) The integrated concepts and principles of constructivism, ecopsychology, and

chaos theory served as a broad conceptual and theoretical framework for the

intervention. Within this, the use of metaphor and guided imagery provided a

narrower working structure.

The metaphor was nature-based (ecopsychology), likening the planting of a

seed in soil to that of planting the image of a desired state-of-being in mind.

The guided imagery rested on the notion that individuals have the capacity to

proactively initiate their own, self-organised process of psychological change

(constructivism). Individuals may choose and plant only those seeds in soil

that they wish, and similarly may choose and plant only those images in mind

they wish to see manifest in their life. The process of a seed’s growth was

likened to the chaotic process of psychological change (chaos theory).

2) In the nature-based metaphor, the recognised stages of therapy were

synchronised metaphorically with the stages of the chaotic process of change

and the stages of choosing, planting, and nourishing a seed to growth in soil.

Specifically:

• the initial stage of exploration (ie: eliciting, defining, clarifying, and

exploring themes of concern to the individual) in therapy was likened

to exploring the client’s attractor constellation (ie: the prevailing state

of the individual’s system), which in turn was likened to exploring

natural areas to find fertile ground where a seed may be planted;

• the goal-setting stage of therapy was likened to deciding what new

attractor constellation was desired by the participants, which in turn

was equated with deciding which kind of seed to plant;

• the action phase of therapy was linked to a change in one control

parameter of each participant’s system and resulting self-organisation,

which in turn was likened to the sequence of preparing the ground,

planting the seed, and nourishing it.

Essentially, then, by the use of metaphor each participant was led in therapy through a

process of exploring current life concerns, deciding which problem area to work in,

and taking action to reach agreed-upon goals.

The use of metaphor as a means of intervention was carefully considered. Metaphor

can usefully be defined as a figure-of-speech in which a word, phrase, or concept is

applied to something else that it does not literally denote in order to imply a

resemblance (Barker, 1985). Essentially, metaphor carries meaning over from one

domain to another (Kopp, 1995). At the same time, a metaphor can be developed and

extended beyond a brief statement of applicability or relevance (Rosenblatt, 1994),

effectively communicating in several dimensions (Combs & Freedman, 1990). In

doing so, metaphor can become a key that unlocks new possibilities for self-insight

and therapeutic change (Kopp, 1995), facilitating experiences that can bring forth

resources and provide new perceptions and possibilities (Combs & Freedman, 1990).

Above all, metaphor must make sense within the context of the therapy used. The use

of metaphor in psychology and therapy is widespread and very powerful in that

people easily relate to metaphor and tend to be receptive to it (Barker, 1985). The

nature metaphor used in the intervention was, arguably, a relatively easy-to-grasp

metaphor which nevertheless lent itself to rich exploration on multiple levels.

3) In terms of the use of guided imagery, participants were progressively

instructed how to visualise their desired state-of-being (ie: the desired therapy

outcome):

• in the first month, participants were instructed a) how to visualise

using all of their sensory modalities (ie: vision, hearing, touch, smell,

taste) and modes of functioning (ie: thoughts, emotions, behaviour,

physical sensations), b) how to experience visualisation as both a

participant (ie: experiencing the image from their own perspective) and

observer (ie: watching the chosen image from a distance, as in looking

at a video), c) how to control and manipulate objects in mind, and d)

how to interact with others a given image;

• In the second month, visualisation skills were focused on constructing

and sharpening a picture that would constitute the ‘image-seed’ to be

planted;

• in the third month, after planting the chosen image-seed (ie: getting a

rich and detailed image and experience of the image in mind, and then

keeping it fixed there), other scenes related to the successful growth of

the image-seed (ie: scenes that implied the successful outcome of

therapy) were visualised.

Guided imagery (also known as visualisation and mental rehearsal) can be

defined as a polysensory experience using all the senses to create or recreate

an experience in the mind, and is of demonstrated effectiveness in therapy

(Williams, 1998). Guided imagery entails the conscious creation and direction

of images by the individual (Peper & Holt, 1993). Importantly, guided

imagery can be used to create new experiences in the mind and envision

potential futures. Because imagery is embedded in a human nonlinear

dynamical system, even slight changes cognitively effected can have powerful

reorganising effects on all other parts of the self (ie: self-organisation). In this

manner, imagery becomes a creative force that can drive the emergence of a

more complex, more adaptive self (Abraham, 1992). Images are self-

programming devices (Nucho, 1995), which enable the individual’s future

actions to be more effectively targeted toward his or her goal (Marks, 1999).

Imagery for change is a powerful skill that works in harmony with other

agents for change in an individual’s life and is one of the most natural, gentle,

and safe means of psychological intervention (Fanning, 1994). Crucially, as

humans are proactive and construct their own versions of reality, they can

consciously choose to envision a desired future and proactively image their

way to a desired outcome.

4) The intervention followed a well-defined sequence and process:

• two extended sessions were held to explore the participants’ current

concerns and presenting problem, at the end of which an agreed-upon

goal for each participant was co-constructed by researcher and

participants;

• a hypothetical construct taken to represent the system of each

individual in relation to the presenting problem was modelled,

consisting of component variables (ie: the dominant thought, emotion,

and behaviour associated with the presenting problem) jointly decided

upon by participant and researcher;

• the intervention was then conducted, with the aim of effecting change

in a particular component variable (ie: control parameter), again co-

constructed by researcher and participants;

• constructivist-oriented therapy (eg: narrative, gestalt, artwork) was

then conducted over the three-month period, within the integrated

conceptual and theoretical framework as outlined.

4.7 MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

The specially designed measuring instruments used were numerical self-report rating

scales (see Appendices A, B, and C), measured at the interval level. The rating scales

pertained to each individual’s system and measured the modalities of thought,

emotion, and behaviour in relation to the person’s chosen area of concern targeted in

therapy. The scales were rated from 0 to10 in an attempt to capture optimum

variability of rating and allow for meaningful graphical mapping of the individual’s

evolving state-of-being.

The choice of self-report measurement is a crucial factor in the research design. The

constructivist underpinning of the study stresses the unique subjectivity of the

individual, and accordingly it was deemed imperative that the state-of-being measured

for change should reflect the uniquely constructed world of each participant. Self-

report methods are ways of data collection in which the research participants describe

their own behaviour or state-of-mind (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996). While they have

unknown psychometric properties, subjectively scored self-reports can be very rich in

that they may better reflect the construct being measured (Heppner, Kivlighan &

Wampold, 1999). The assumption is made that participants respond honestly and

accurately and that the measures accurately reflect the true state-of-being of the

individual (Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1997). Self-reports are particularly

advantageous in therapy, as the subjective quality of response is deemed more

important than indicators using a locus other than the self. Ad hoc rating scales

created by a researcher – as in this study – can be particularly useful, as they can be

tailored to measure just what the researcher has in mind (Heppner, Kivlighan &

Wampold, 1999).

The four-hourly measurement interval adhered to in the self-rating scales was a

carefully chosen strategy. Time series measurement can provide accurate information

about the evolution of a system only to the degree that the sampling rate is sufficient

to capture its time course. The sampling must occur at a rate that enables any single

measure to be placed in a dynamic time course context (Haynes, Blaine & Meyer,

1995). The four-hourly measurement interval ensured a morning, noon, afternoon, and

evening representation of the participants’ systems. This was a consistent interval, and

the representation would thus have coherent meaning (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998).

Rating scale is the common name for a variety of measuring instruments in which the

observer or judge gives a numerical value, either explicitly or implicitly, to certain

judgements or assessments (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996). Rating scales may be

nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio in character, reflecting progressively higher levels

of measurement (Neuman, 1997). Interval scales were used in this study. In this

method of rating, different numbers reflect more or less of some underlying

dimension and numerically equal distances on the scale represent equal distances on

the underlying dimension (Grimm, 1993). Using an interval scale assumes an

arbitrary, relative zero point in measurement. Essentially, there is no absolute or

meaningful zero point – the arbitrary zero is just there to help keep score (Neuman,

1997). The interval scale uses continuous variables, whereby an infinite number of

possible values fall between any two observed values and there is no gap between the

adjacent numbers (Grimm, 1993). Continuous variables can be divided up into an

infinite number of fractional parts. A single figure is recorded when measuring a

continuous variable, but this really represents an interval on the measurement scale

rather than a single value. It is therefore always an approximate value (Breakwell,

Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1997).

4.8 DATA ANALYSIS

A triangulation of methods was used. Three-dimensional geometric phase space plots,

linear time-series graphs, clinical observations, and verbal feedback from participants

were used in combination in an attempt to provide a rich and coherent picture of the

systems under investigation.

Chaos is measured by the characteristics of its dynamics. To study the chaotic process

of change, time-series analysis must be undertaken. Many of the techniques used for

this are extremely complex and sophisticated (Kellert, 1993) while others tend to be

simpler, both conceptually and methodologically (Abraham, 1992; Butz, 1997). As a

key factor in this study is that of pragmatic utility, the analysis is aligned with the

latter orientation and thus opts for a graphical, qualitative treatment of the data that is

relatively easy both to conduct and interpret. In this kind of analysis, so-called

statistical precision is arguably lost in favour of a ‘rougher’, more heuristic approach

(Johnson & Dooley, 1996). Accordingly, three-dimensional phase space plots have

been used to model the process of change in each of the participants. The phase space

plots map the evolving state of the system month-by-month and overall.

Traditional, linear time-series graphs were also used, as these are a useful adjunct to

nonlinear analytic techniques. Indeed, there is much scope for the integration of linear

and nonlinear methods of analysis (Johnson & Dooley, 1996). Time-series graphs add

a different dimension to the analysis. Essentially, graphical information yielded by

three-dimensional and time-series graphs are limited on their own. Taken together,

however, they provide a far richer and more nuanced picture of the system under

investigation.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback from participants were used in combination

with the graphical analysis. Again, these added further important dimensions to the

analysis. The analysis of chaos in the ‘rough’ (ie: heuristic) way it was used in this

study means that interpretation of the graphs was necessarily highly subjective. The

judicious use of clinical observations was thus used as a means of validating

interpretations of the graphical data. Verbal feedback enhanced this strategy, utilising

the participants’ comments regarding their process of change to further validate

interpretations.

4.9 SUMMARY

This chapter outlined a relatively simple, easy-to-use, conceptually sound

methodology designed to yield practical and relevant data in a real-life therapeutic

intervention based on the highly complex principles of chaos theory. The goals of the

research were outlined in detail: 1) simply and clearly demonstrate the concepts and

application of chaos theory in a therapeutic situation; 2) integrate the concepts of

constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory, relative to the main goal. The

snowball sampling technique used for the selection of participants was discussed. The

research design was delineated as a descriptive field study utilising the intensive

single-case quantitative design for data collection, and a qualitative analysis by means

of a triangulation of graphical modelling in geometric phase space, time-series graphs,

clinical observations, and verbal feedback from participants. The empirical character

of the study and focus on participants’ subjective realities were highlighted. The

procedure of the study was discussed, outlining the steps taken in detail from

recruitment of participants to debriefing. Basic principles of the intervention were

discussed. The intervention rested on the integration of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory, and utilised a nature-based metaphor and guided

imagery – essentially an applied ecopsychological intervention. Measuring

instruments were discussed; these were self-report rating scales, specially designed

for each participant. Data analysis was discussed; this was by means of studying the

pattern of the participants’ system behaviour in geometric phase space, time-series

graphs, clinical observations, and participants’ verbal feedback.

CHAPTER FIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

In presenting and discussing the results of this study, it is first and foremost important

to stress that references to chaos and principles of the chaotic process of change are

not to be taken literally in the analysis. No claim is made to having detected chaos in

the quantifiable, statistical sense in the systems under investigation. The aim is to

simply and clearly demonstrate the concepts and application of chaos theory in a

therapeutic situation. Accordingly, the terminology of chaos and its principles is used

in a heuristic manner to understand and describe the process of change in therapy

relevant to the participants.

This heuristic kind of application of chaos theory should not be underestimated. It is

considered to be a powerful method of analysis and explanation (Abraham, 1992;

Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). When used in conjunction with clinical

observations, the heuristic approach potentially yields penetrating insight and a good

understanding of clients. It is also a good starting point for further exploration with

clients and for generating hypotheses regarding intervention (Reiter, 1992). In this

vein, results were discussed with clients in debriefing and verbal feedback was thus

also used as an aid to understanding. Accordingly, clinical observations and verbal

feedback are discussed in conjunction with the graphical analysis. The graphical

analysis is conducted by reference to three-dimensional phase portraits and linear

time-series graphs.

The strategy for discussion is to consider each aspect of the chaotic process of change

with reference to the three cases taken together. Each individual changed in therapy to

greater or lesser degree, showing clear evidence of certain aspects of chaotic

movement in particular. As such, the full sequential process of chaotic change cannot

be demonstrated with reference to only one individual. Taken together, however, the

three cases offer a rich description of the chaotic process of change and indeed clearly

demonstrate the concepts and application of chaos theory in therapy.

An overview of each case study is presented first, in summarised form, to provide

background information and contextualise the results and discussion. A short section

on graphical analysis is presented, to aid understanding of the discussion. The chaotic

process of change is briefly summarised, to provide further context. Each relevant

principle of chaos theory is then presented separately. Very short introductory

comments on each principle are offered, to further contextualise the results and

discussion and aid understanding thereof. The results of the graphical analysis are

given first and discussion thereof follows with reference to clinical observations and

verbal feedback. The separate treatment of each aspect of chaos theory and the

integrated presentation of results and discussion is a strategy designed to yield a

particularly clear, coherent, and rich description of the concepts and application of

chaos theory in therapy. Importantly, the discussion of chaos theory concepts is

integrated with aspects concerning their therapeutic application as they are too

interwoven to be discussed separately.

5.2 CASE STUDIES

5.2.1 Case study 1: Darryl

Darryl (39) is a South African male educated to matric level. He has been married to

his present wife for two years. He has an 11-year-old daughter from his previous

marriage, but she does not live with him. Darryl is a fitter by trade, working for a

relatively small company. Darryl’s presenting problem was a general feeling of

dissatisfaction and distress due to what he perceived as a lack of fulfilment in life.

In the exploration phase of therapy, Darryl’s major areas of concern were revealed as:

work (underutilised), finances (a chronic shortage of money), friends (an inability to

maintain relationships), interests (not being pursued due to money problems), and

separation from his daughter (legal problems preclude their reunification). Darryl was

particularly distressed at the sense of underutilisation he experienced at work. He

reported that he had “lots of energy” which was not being used at work, and that this

was causing a great deal of frustration in his life.

Accordingly, in the goal-setting phase of therapy Darryl decided that he would like to

tackle the problem of underutilisation at work as it was his most pressing issue and

most strongly linked by him to his lack of fulfilment in life. Darryl felt that sorting out

his work problem would be the key to improvement in other areas of his life.

Specifically, he believed that an improvement in his work situation would likely

improve his financial situation, and that in turn would increase his motivation with

regard to pursuing interests, friendships, and reunification with his daughter. The

overall therapy goal, co-constructed by participant and researcher, was thus to

increase Darryl’s fulfilment in life.

Darryl and the researcher co-constructed the self-report scale (see Appendix A) for

the research, choosing three variables that would represent Darryl as a system. The

variables chosen were: degree of underutilisation at work (thoughts), level of

frustration (emotions), goal-orientation of actions (behaviour). The variable of

underutilisation at work was chosen as the system control parameter to target for

change (ie: the primary area of intervention).

In the action phase, therapy proceeded accordingly, utilising the nature-based

metaphor of planting a seed and nurturing its growth. Visualisation of the desired

outcome (ie: experiencing greater utilisation at work) was taken as a metaphorical

seed, which was nurtured by therapeutic work. The focus of therapy quickly shifted

toward a much broader and longer-term perspective when it became apparent that

enjoying greater utilisation at work meant that Darryl would perhaps have to find and

pursue a new line of work.

The outcome of therapy in terms of the initial aim of an increased experience of work

utilisation was met to a limited degree. It should be seen as change-in-progress,

however, as Darryl was looking at different fields of endeavour to pursue in the

future. Clear-cut progress in terms of bettering his work situation, in turn, led to a

reported sense of greater fulfilment in life for Darryl. He further reported that the

most valuable outcome of therapy was that of greatly heightened self-awareness.

100

5.2.2 Case study 2: Belinda

Belinda (33) is a South African female who is educated to matric level. She is married

to Darryl, and this is her third marriage. She has an 18-year-old daughter from her

first marriage, but they do not live together. Belinda is a housewife and self-employed

seamstress with her own home-based business. Finding and holding a job has always

been difficult for Belinda as she suffers from dyslexia. Belinda’s presenting problem

was a high level of frustration, due to what she perceived as the impact of numerous

life circumstances beyond her control.

In the exploration phase of therapy, Belinda’s current concerns emerged as the lack of

finances (a chronic shortage), the after-effects of a serious motor vehicle accident

(financial and physical problems), relationship problems (with various people

connected to the family), and lack of self-esteem (in particular, no assertiveness). The

lack of money was particularly distressing for Belinda. She saw no hope of

improvement in her financial situation whatsoever, and she believed that most of her

frustration emanated from this source.

In the therapy goal-setting phase, Belinda accordingly expressed a keen desire to

tackle the issue of lack of finances. Improving her financial standing, she believed,

would make a huge difference to her life both materially and in terms of increasing

her motivation to deal with the other negative life circumstances that she currently

believed to be beyond her control. Success in therapy would be measured by a

decreased level of frustration in Belinda’s life.

In co-constructing the self-report scale (see Appendix B) for the research, Belinda and

the researcher chose the variables of level of hope (thoughts), level of frustration

(emotions), and level of withdrawal (behaviour) as a meaningful representation of her

system. The level of frustration was chosen as the system control parameter to target

for change.

In the action phase, therapy proceeded accordingly, utilising the nature-based

metaphor of planting the seed of the desired outcome in visualisation and facilitating

its growth by means of therapeutic work. Belinda gradually came to the realisation

101

that improving her situation would require personal change. Specifically, earning

more money would be the end result of personal inner change and doing things

differently in her life and could not be seen as a goal in itself.

The outcome of therapy for Belinda was one of limited success in various areas.

Belinda successfully explored new ways of making money, she felt more positive

overall, became more assertive, was more open with people, was full of enthusiasm

over her proposed new income-producing work, was generating more practical ideas

for problem-solving, had learned to relax more, and had increased control over her

life. However, her level of frustration was still high. For Belinda, the most valuable

aspect of therapy was that her mind was now more open to new suggestions and input.

5.2.3 Case study 3: Carmen

Carmen (Belinda’s daughter) is an 18-year-old South African female (she turned 18

half-way through the intervention). Carmen lives with her grandparents, but stays

with her biological father on weekends. She was estranged from her mother for

several years, but was subsequently reunited with her and now visits her often.

Carmen is in Grade 11 and is currently doing fairly well academically. Carmen’s

presenting problem was a lack of motivation at school. This was particularly

distressing for her as, firstly, she realised the importance of getting good academic

results for the future and, secondly – and most important for her – she was keen to

prove a point to everyone around her that she could perform well academically.

Indeed, in the exploration phase of therapy the underlying need to prove a point to

others was very pronounced, surfacing to greater or lesser extent in all of Carmen’s

life issues. The main areas of concern were school (in particular, lack of motivation

and feeling left out), family (relationships, unresolved issues), relationship with

boyfriend (he’s much older), work (part-time job badly needed), future education

(great desire to attend college or university), and living overseas (great desire to

emigrate to the UK).

102

In goal-setting, Carmen expressed a strong desire to work on increasing her level of

motivation at school. If she could do this, she believed, her marks would dramatically

improve and the rest of her life would fall into place. In particular, she would show

others what she was capable of and thus prove the point that she so desperately

wished to make. Increased level of motivation was thus set as the goal of therapy, and

would also serve as the measurement of outcome.

In co-constructing the self-report scale (see Appendix C) for the research, Carmen and

the researcher chose the variables of level of motivation (thoughts), level of anger

(emotions), and level of withdrawal (behaviour). The system control parameter

chosen to target for change was level of motivation.

In the action phase, therapy proceeded accordingly, utilising the nature-based

metaphor of planting the seed of desired outcome in visualisation. Therapeutic work

was aimed at nourishing and facilitating growth toward the desired therapy outcome.

In terms of outcome, Carmen did not show any marked improvement in her level of

motivation. She did, however, report that her level of motivation increased

dramatically after every therapy session but that it gradually plummeted again in the

week to follow. The most useful aspect of therapy for Carmen was the focused use of

visualisation (she was already familiar with visualisation, in a different context and at

a different level).

5.3 THE GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF CHAOS

Before presenting and discussing the results of the study, it is prudent to take a brief

look at the relevant principles of the graphical analysis of chaos. This will aid and

enhance the understanding of the analysis.

The graphical analysis of chaos in this study is relatively simple and straightforward,

but it does presume a certain familiarity with the principles and terminology of chaos

theory and a working knowledge of how to read both three-dimensional phase

portraits and linear time-series graphs. In using graphs in chaos theory application in a

103

qualitative, heuristic manner as an aid to understanding clients, as in this study,

mathematical or statistical skills are not a prerequisite as there is no attempt made to

detect chaos in the quantitative sense. Far more valuable is an intuitive ‘feel’ for the

graphical pictures displayed and the ability to relate this to the principles and

dynamics of the chaotic process of change and the participants’ experiences. As chaos

is assessed and measured by and in relation to its dynamics (Abraham, 1992; Cambel,

1993), an intuitive understanding is arguably a prerequisite for this kind of analysis.

Important, too, is an ability to integrate the different kinds of information yielded by

the different graphical pictures.

Two graphical means of analysis were used in this study: three-dimensional phase

portraits and linear time-series graphs. Although these will be discussed separately,

they cannot be seen in isolation. No graph taken in isolation will yield comprehensive

information about chaotic change in a system. The information from different graphs

is best used in tandem to form an integrated picture of a given dynamical

phenomenon.

One of the best ways to analytically understand the principles of chaos theory and the

chaotic process of change is to make the dynamics of the system under investigation

visual, particularly be means of three-dimensional phase space (also known as state

space). Phase space is an abstract mathematical space in which coordinates (ie: a

composite vector of the system’s component variables) visually represent the state of

a given dynamical system (Williams, 1997). Each dimension (ie: graphical axis) of

the three-dimensional phase space plot corresponds to one variable of the system

(Kellert, 1993). The three axes of the graph thus represent three different variables

that are taken to represent the system being investigated, and are termed the system’s

control parameters (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990).

When the measures of each variable at a given time are plotted graphically as a

composite point (ie: measurements of the three variables are combined into one

measurement) in three-dimensional phase space, this point represents the state of the

system at that time. The plotted composite points of all the measurements represent

the system state over a specified period of time. The resulting array of composite

points is joined together on the graph by either straight or curved lines, and the

104

resulting continuous line – the trajectory – traced in graphical phase space represents

the system’s evolution over time. Essentially, every point in phase space represents a

full description of the system in one of its possible states and the evolution of the

system manifests itself as the tracing out of a trajectory (Kellert, 1993).

Phase space thus allows for the visualisation of many numbers simultaneously

(Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990), and is the graphic representation of all the

possible states the variables may take on (Abraham & Gilgen, 1995). This method

thus tracks a complex set of interrelated phenomena over time and shows the evolving

pattern of the system. The resulting shape, or pattern, displays the overall state of the

system (Cambel, 1993; Kellert, 1993). The graphic state of the system at any given

time in phase space is known as a phase portrait, and the movement of the system

from one state to another is known as a phase shift (Abraham, 1992; Kellert, 1993).

The shape traced by the trajectory is essentially the ‘signature’ of the system, and can

be subjected to analysis (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990).

Phase space plots may contain hundreds or even thousands of chronologically plotted

points (Williams, 1997). Analysis is focused on the qualitative features of a system’s

behaviour rather than precise, quantitative values of its variables at a particular time.

This kind of qualitative analysis essentially aims to describe what processes are

occurring and details differences in the character of those processes over time

(Breakwell, Hammond & Fife-Schaw, 1997). Essentially, the study of the phase

portrait gives a qualitative grasp of a system’s functioning, and the geometry is

idiosyncratic and recognisable for that system (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998). The main

value of this approach is to provide a quick, visual grasp of system change (Abraham,

Abraham & Shaw, 1990). Also, pattern and structure that might not be seen on a

conventional time-series graph often comes out in striking fashion on the phase space

plot (Williams, 1997).

Very simply, then, the phase portrait is essentially a graphical representation of the

state of a nonlinear dynamical system (including a person) in three-dimensional space.

In understanding phase portraits it is thus important to be able to properly read a

three-dimensional graph. This implies an understanding of how a composite point is

plotted. There are different ways of plotting such points, but all arrive at the same

105

result. Essentially, the three variables being measured in a three-dimensional phase

portrait are plotted systematically along the different axes, one after the other. This

study systematically plots the variables first on the X-axis (facing the graph, the axis

on the right), then on the Y-axis (the axis in the middle), and finally on the Z-axis (the

upright axis on the left). It is noted that the axes could have been labelled differently,

but this is the conventional format in three-dimensional phase portrait graphical

configuration (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990).

A composite point is plotted in the following manner. Say a given observation for

‘variable one’ is recorded as 5. It is measured along the X-axis (clearly labelled

‘variable one’) from 0 (the point of origin) until the point of 5 units is reached. From

that point, the recorded score for ‘variable two’, say 4, is counted parallel to the Y-axis

(clearly labelled ‘variable two’) until a point four units away is reached. From that

point ‘variable three’, say 6, is counted up parallel to the Z-axis (clearly labelled

‘variable three’) until a point six units away is reached. Very differently, and very

simply, first move along the X-axis, then move parallel to the Y-axis, and then parallel

to the Z-axis; the point at which measurement stops is the composite point for the

three variables (Wheeler, Neal & Hofmann, 1996). (Plotting a few hundred composite

points by hand is a good way of gaining an understanding of three-dimensional phase

space!).

It is, of course, possible to pinpoint specific points in the graph but as phase portraits

are concerned mainly with the overall state of the system, analysis is more usefully

focused on regions (eg: attractor areas) and patterns (eg: oscillations) traced by the

trajectory. Bearing in mind that the trajectory represents the evolution of the system

over time, it is useful in analysis to develop a ‘feel’ for the ‘motion’ of the trajectory

in ‘space’. Essentially the trajectory is graphed as if it were ‘hanging’ in mid-air,

tracing out a portrait of the system’s movement in space, and analysis is geared to

recognising and interpreting that pattern of movement and the overall state of the

system (Abraham, Abraham & Shaw, 1990).

Reading a phase portrait, then, is simply a matter of tracking measurements along the

graphical axes until the region of the system that the analyst is interested in is found.

106

Trial and error in negotiating phase space may be required at first, but the method is

essentially very simple.

Chaos is generally inferred when the trajectory of a system shows an apparently

random orbit (ie: pattern), with points scattered relatively far and wide in phase space.

Periodicity is generally inferred when there is clear oscillatory movement within a

given range of values as a result of the system moving between relatively high and

relatively low scores. It is unlikely that a fixed-point pattern (no system movement at

all) would be encountered in real-life chaos analysis.

Linear time-series graphs provide a lot of detail with regard to the state of a system

under investigation. They are particularly easy to read, understand, and interpret, and

powerfully complement phase portrait analysis. For example, inferences regarding

analysis of an area of phase space that shows a dense trajectory pattern (ie: a possible

attractor region) may be usefully amplified and clarified by analysis of a a time-series

graph depicting the same period of system evolution. Essentially, the linear time-

series graph takes a different kind of picture of a given system than the phase portrait

does. The three-dimensional phase portrait gives an overall view of the system while

the time-series gives a kind of ‘side-on’ view. The state of the system is inferred by

the pattern of the oscillations of measurements graphically displayed. Time-series

graphs in chaos theory application are particularly good at displaying change in

therapy, as the variation of scores depicting oscillations and sudden jumps in system

state that are characteristic of chaos theory are very easy to see.

It is stressed that offering these suggestions regarding system state identification are

generalisations. Crucially, chaos is relative. Apparently random behaviour is not

always indicative of chaos, and tightly ordered patterns are not necessarily indicative

of order. It is the subjective state of the individual being investigated that is the crucial

factor in determining the state of the system (Butz, 1997). It is for this reason that

graphical results and interpretations are usefully triangulated with clinical

observations and verbal feedback from participants.

Although based on empirical results, graphical analysis is nevertheless highly

subjective and the investigator needs to have a certain creativity in interpretation,

107

courage to stand by his or her convictions, flexibility to deal with the inevitable

ambiguities of interpretation that arise, and a willingness to forge ahead in spite of the

notorious and acknowledged difficulties of chaos theory analysis in real-life therapy.

In true constructivist tradition, the process is indeed hands-on adventure! (Efran,

Lukens & Lukens, 1992).

5.4 THE CHAOTIC PROCESS OF CHANGE

There are many theories and viewpoints concerned with the process of psychological

change. This study is concerned with the constructivist orientation to such and the

sequential, chaotic process of change that it necessarily entails.

In this view, the person is made up of multiple selves (Wetherell, 1996) that combine

to create an infinitely unique self (Mahoney, 1991). The individual can be seen as a

system (Neimeyer, 1995). This system is open, nonlinear, and dynamical and is

characterised by dialectical interplay with the world. Consistent with the lifespan

approach, the individual is ever-changing and adapting to internal and external

demands (Hultsch & Deutsch, 1981). In dealing with the demands of life the person as

a dynamical system is in a constant state of process (Butz, 1997). The self constantly

attempts to organise and reorganise its patterns of action and experience in relation to

engagements with the world, and this necessarily entails psychological change

(Mahoney, 1991). Change is thus endemic to human life, is ongoing, and occurs at

both surface and deeper levels of being (Neimeyer, 1995).

Essentially, the individual is in a constant state of becoming (Prigogine & Stengers,

1984). As a dynamical system, the individual is necessarily subject to the principles

that govern such a process of becoming. The process is characterised by a constantly

shifting flow of forces and form within which the system is ever-adaptive, moving

from one state of order to another in a turbulent, sequential flux of state-of-being

(Butz, 1997). This is the chaotic process of change.

It is stressed that while the chaotic process of change is sequential, it is also complex

and nonlinear. As such, the chaotic process is characterised by incredibly subtle and

108

illusive dynamics. The clear-cut delineation of chaos theory principles in analysis is

thus made for the purposes of explication only. In reality, the principles are

inextricably intertwined.

The sequence of the chaotic process of change is outlined as: change and the potential

for change; order and disorder; stability and instability; coherence; attractors;

bifurcation; sensitive dependence on initial conditions; unpredictability; edge-of-

chaos; self-organisation; fractal structure; holism. The results and discussion follow

this sequence.

The chaotic process of change will now be discussed in relation to the intervention

conducted and the results thereof. It is assumed that, by now, the reader is familiar

with chaos theory concepts and principles. Accordingly, explication of such is limited

to clarification where necessary.

5.4.1 Change and the potential for change

Chaos theory is concerned with change and the potential for change. This is seen in

terms of movement (ie: change in system state over time) from one state of system

order to another. Movement is essentially seen in terms of the direction of change.

The concern is with how existing order gives way to chaos and how new order

emerges out of chaos (Robertson & Combs, 1995). No matter what the direction of

change, the system necessarily moves away from a prevailing state of order, through

disorder, to a new state of order (Chamberlain & Butz, 1998).

5.4.1.1

Results and discussion

Darryl’s results can be found in Appendix D (Figures 5.1 to 5.8). There is evidence in

analysis of both the three-dimensional phase portraits and the linear time-series

graphs that Darryl’s system state showed a marked change over the three months of

the intervention. In the phase portrait for the first month (July) (Figure 5.1), Darryl’s

system can be said to be in a chaotic state. Chaos is evident in that the trajectory (ie:

the plotted lines within the graph representing the system state) appears to display a

109

zig-zag random movement over a wide range in phase space (ie: the space within the

graph delineated by the axes). In the graph for August (Figure 5.2) there is a

pronounced reduction of chaos. The system state is now predominantly periodic (ie:

the trajectory oscillates between certain areas), as evidenced by the zig-zag orbit

traced between the left and right extremes of the system’s shape. There is still some

chaos present as evidenced by the high-density area (ie: an attractor area, with a great

deal of random motion within it) and extremes of the trajectory. In September, the

phase portrait (Figure 5.3) arguably shows an edge-of-chaos (ie: between chaos and

order) system state. The graph (Figure 5.4) depicting the system state overall for the

three-month intervention clearly shows the chaos in the system (ie: the extremes and

zig-zag motion of the trajectory and the high density attractor area).

Darryl’s system state movement is similarly pronounced in linear time-series

graphical analysis. In the graph for July (Figure 5.5), it can clearly be seen that there

are oscillations between very high and very low values on all variables and that these

are interspersed with bursts of more limited oscillations – a characteristically chaotic

pattern. The graph for August (Figure 5.6) clearly shows the periodicity in the system

and a reduction in chaotic movement. The graph for September (Figure 5.7) clearly

shows the same range of periodicity as the previous month and a noticeable lack of

chaos. The composite picture displayed by the overall time-series graph (Figure 5.8)

clearly shows marked changes in system state around observations 121 and 241,

representing the shifts from month to month. At these points both the wider

oscillations and the interspersed bursts of narrow oscillations are markedly reduced.

In sum, it can be said that Darryl’s system changed markedly in the three-month

intervention from a state of chaos to one of periodicity and finally to an edge-of-chaos

state. The edge-of-chaos condition is interpreted in virtue of the progressively reduced

amount of chaos evident in the system’s trajectory over the three months, with a final

system state characterised by a fairly wide range of movement that is not tightly

ordered. The relatively wide-ranging movement is a ‘fluid’ type of motion, indicative

of a manner of functioning that is not tightly ordered yet is not fixed and rigid –

essentially a flexible style of functioning between chaos and order, and hence an

edge-of-chaos state.

110

Belinda’s results can be found in Appendix E (Figures 5.9 to 5.16). Graphically,

Belinda’s system state shows minimal change throughout. The phase portrait for July

(Figure 5.9) shows periodicity within an extremely limited range of values, as

evidenced by the very limited range of the system trajectory. There are clear

geometric patterns evident in the graph, suggesting a very fixed and rigid order to her

functioning. The August graph (Figure 5.10) shows an even more limited range of

periodic motion, while the graph for September (Figure 5.11) shows a similarly

restricted range of motion. The overall phase portrait (Figure 5.12) clearly indicates

the limited range of motion of the trajectory. It is notable that the range of motion is

so fixed and rigid that the scale of measurement representing ‘hope’ had to be scaled

from 1 to 5 (ie: effectively ‘stretching’ the phase space within which the trajectory

moves) just to allow for any pattern of trajectory movement to show at all. On a scale

from 1 to 10, movement is barely indicated! The time-series graphs show this even

more clearly. The three graphs (Figures 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15) representing the system

states over the three months of the intervention show very little difference from each

other. The composite time-series graph (Figure 5.16) gives a very clear picture of the

limited range of movement of the three variables (ie: the system) throughout the three

months.

Carmen’s results can be found in Appendix F (Figures 5.17 to 5.24). Carmen’s

graphical system state throughout is characteristic of low dimensional chaos (ie: a

pattern of movement is detectable within the chaos). Essentially, there is no graphical

evidence of change over the three months. The July phase portrait (Figure 5.17)

clearly shows the wide fluctuations to extremes on all variables, with the trajectory

tracing a clearly visible oscillating trajectory (ie: top left to bottom right of the graph).

The graph (Figure 5.18) depicting Carmen’s August system state shows very little

change, as does September’s graph (Figure 5.19). Taken together (Figure 5.20), the

measured variables fluctuated to extremes throughout, producing periodic oscillations

and the random-looking zig-zag trajectory characteristic of chaos. The time-series

graph for July (Figure 5.21) clearly shows the wide-ranging oscillations and bursts of

narrower fluctuations interspersed within this – a pattern that is highly characteristic

of chaos. The time-series graphs for August and September (Figures 5.22 and 5.23)

display a similar pattern. The overall time-series graph (Figure 5.24) gives a very

clear picture of the extent of Carmen’s low-dimensional chaotic system and of the

111

periodicity within it. High, low, and intermediate scores are mixed together to give a

picture of a system state that has no apparent order.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback support the graphical analysis of Darryl’s

direction of system movement from an initial state of chaos to a highly adaptive edge-

of-chaos condition – a system state movement from chaos to order. Darryl had been in

a state of distress and confusion at the start of therapy, regarding issues in his life. He

was still in a confused state at the end of the intervention, but it was arguably a more

adaptive state in that he was responding and behaving in a different manner to the

same circumstances that he faced before (eg: he was seeking ways to improve

relationships at work, trying to find new ways of being better utilised in his current

work, and even investigating the possibilities of changing his line of work altogether).

Essentially, he was more proactive and this could be construed as being more flexible

and adaptive in dealing with his pressing life situation. Darryl’s potential for further

change was good as he appeared to be committed to personal change. It was unlikely

that he would revert to his previous state of order as he had completed the chaotic

sequence of change and the new manner of functioning he displayed appeared to be

well established.

While graphical analysis suggests that Belinda’s change in therapy was minimal,

clinical observations and verbal feedback taken at face value suggest otherwise.

Belinda started to change in overt ways within two weeks of starting therapy. She

revamped her sewing room, became more assertive in dealing with customers,

charged higher fees consistent with her talent and experience, looked for new

business, and even started to look for new work fields to conquer. Indeed, at the close

of therapy she was enthusiastically working on ambitious plans to start a property

renovation business. While Belinda apparently did not recognise these changes in her

functioning, it could nevertheless be said that she certainly moved at least a bit from

her rigid order in the direction of chaos. As she had moved so quickly in observable

ways and was proactively shaping her future at the close of therapy, Belinda’s

potential for further change was arguably good if her new-found variability of

functioning could be maintained.

112

Clinical observations and verbal feedback support the graphical analysis that

Carmen’s system state barely moved. Observationally, Carmen’s lack of change

throughout therapy was pronounced, as she displayed no novel ways of functioning.

Verbal feedback similarly indicated that there was no marked change in her system

state, as she gave no indication of any particularly new way of dealing with her issues.

Having said that, Carmen did start to question things about herself and her issues in a

progressively deeper manner. Already an insightful young woman with a high degree

of self-awareness, she seemed set on a path that sought answers to the mysteries of

her life. While not enough to warrant the interpretation of marked system change, her

progressively deeper questioning was arguably indicative of imminent system change.

Indeed, it can be said that Carmen, with her extreme state of chaos, perhaps had the

most potential for change out of the three participants. This is so in virtue of the

volatility of the chaotic state and its inherent potential for rapid change when suitably

perturbed (Butz, 1997). If and when Carmen’s system was to move, it would be in the

direction of chaos to order.

Importantly, the relative change or lack thereof evidenced by each of the participants

must be seen in the broader context of their entire lifespan. General patterns of

personal experience can be described as lifelong spirals with recurrent phases.

Dynamic balance is periodically challenged by circumstances. If the challenge is

accommodated, life returns to a new dynamic balance but if not then cycles of

system-wide disorder and disequilibria emerge (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). Each of the

participants reported an increased state of confusion at different points in therapy, and

this was unanimously experienced as negative to greater or lesser extent. Yet, in terms

of the broader lifespan picture, the chaotic state is a healthy and necessary part of

system evolution. Chaos implies maximum probability and serves the dual purpose of

functional adaptation and system evolution (Perna, 1997). Consequently, the

discomfort that participants felt as their regular pattern of functioning unravelled and

changed can actually be seen as healthy and adaptive functioning. Chaos and disorder

are not to be feared. Indeed, the therapist’s stifling of this natural process may be

damaging to the client (Wieland-Burston, 1992).

113

5.4.2 Order and disorder

The movement of change in a given dynamical system gives it its characteristic

pattern (ie: structure). An important way to gauge the presence and state of chaos in a

system is thus to analyse the system’s pattern, and this is best considered in terms of

relative order or disorder (Chamberlain, 1995). The state of order or disorder may be

seen as the characteristic manner of functioning of the system. Crucially, the

prevailing system state is relative, and must be seen in context (Butz, 1997).

5.4.2.1

Results and discussion

In terms of graphical analysis, a system’s shape evidences a particular visual picture –

a pattern – of a given state of order. As such, the graphical results from the previous

section on change are pertinent here. All the graphs depicting Darryl’s system state

(Figures 5.1 to 5.8) show a chaotic and periodic pattern throughout his process of

change from chaos to edge-of-chaos. Graphs of Belinda’s system (Figures 5.9 to 5.16)

display a periodicity over time with trajectory oscillations displaying a fixed and rigid

pattern throughout. Graphs of Carmen’s system (Figures 5.17 to 5.24) display a

highly chaotic state with an underlying pattern of periodicity.

While pattern essentially displays the structure of a system, the state of order or

disorder refers to the characteristic way in which the pattern is functioning at any

given time. Order and disorder are subtle processes and must be seen in context

(Cambel, 1993). Graphical analysis can thus visually determine the characteristic

pattern of a given system but it cannot gauge the relative order or disorder that is

inherent in that pattern. It is, however, necessarily the case that each participant was

in a relative state of order (ie: chaotic or periodic) at the beginning of therapy. The

exploration phase of therapy revealed that each individual had been psychologically

functioning according to a certain pattern for a considerable period of time, and his or

her respective states of order were thus well established. The prevailing order in each

individual’s system subsequently gave way to a greater or lesser degree of disorder as

therapy proceeded. In this sense, disorder can be seen as destabilisation of the

prevailing state of system order.

114

Inferences about the state of order or disorder of a system can be made from a given

graphical pattern (eg: Belinda’s ongoing fixed and rigid pattern and Carmen’s

ongoing state of extreme chaos are arguably suggestive of distressing states-of-being).

Collateral information such as clinical observations and verbal feedback are needed to

either support or refute such inferences. Indeed, observation and feedback shed

important light on the relative states of order and disorder as inferred in the

participants’ graphs. Darryl’s relative state of order at the beginning of therapy was

that of chaos. He reported that he was quite confused about his life situation at the

beginning of therapy and that this state had markedly increased throughout. This can

be taken as clear evidence of a shift from relative order to disorder. Belinda’s relative

state of order at the beginning of therapy was that of rigidity. While this did not

change in terms of the graphical depiction of her system state, clinical observations

and feedback suggest a move toward disorder. Her outward behaviour of proactively

trying to increase her earning power is evidence of at least some destabilisation of her

prevailing state of order in the direction of disorder. Belinda also reported great

confusion at times. Given the initial rigid state of Belinda’s functioning, even mild

disorder might seem extremely threatening to her and so this was also arguably

evidence of at least some disorder. Carmen’s prevailing state of order at the beginning

of therapy was one of great chaos. Observationally, this state of order did not change.

She seemed to be in a state of considerable disarray throughout therapy. Feedback

confirmed that her ongoing state of chaos was indeed a continuation of her prevailing

state of order as opposed to a shift to disorder. It can be speculated that it was the

inflexibility of their prevailing, relative states of order that created difficulties for each

individual in the first place.

Importantly, the presence of chaos is not a problem in and of itself (Wieland-Burston,

1992). Although experiencing life difficulties, Darryl and Carmen were nevertheless

functioning fairly well in their chaos at the start of therapy. Belinda, on the other

hand, was not functioning well in the face of her difficulties despite her high state of

order. Order intuitively seems to be a more desirable system state than chaos, yet this

is not necessarily the case. Order tends to be dull, boring, and dysfunctional while

chaos tends to foster creativity and herald new possibilities. The type of order needed

must be flexible and have a high degree of chaos tolerance. Order and disorder, then,

115

are crucially relative and must be seen in context. Essentially, what constitutes chaos

for one person may not be chaos for another (Wieland-Burston, 1992).

5.4.3 Stability and instability

Stability and instability refer to the system’s susceptibility to perturbation and thus its

propensity for change. A stable system tends to be robust in the face of challenge to

its prevailing state, while an unstable system tends to change even if mildly perturbed.

Importantly, a chaotic state does not necessarily mean that the system is unstable and

an ordered state does not necessarily imply stability (Thelen & Smith, 1994). Stability

and instability are relative, and need to be seen in context (Butz, 1997).

5.4.3.1

Results and discussion

Given that stability and instability of a given system are relative, it is not possible to

determine the state of stability or instability of a given system from graphical analysis

alone. At best, intuitive inferences regarding such can be made, which can be

subsequently checked against collateral information.

Darryl’s graphs display a system state that is intuitively suggestive of a marked

degree of relative instability to begin with (Figures 5.1 and 5.5), moving progressively

toward more stability. The oscillations in each of his individual system parameters

clearly reduced as therapy proceeded (Figures 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, and 5.7), which further

suggests a shift from instability to stability. Belinda’s graphical results intuitively

suggest that a stable system state was maintained throughout therapy. The highly

limited trajectory in the three-dimensional phase portraits (Figures 5.9 to 5.12)

suggests remarkable system stability. Such stability is also suggested by the time-

series graphs (Figures 5.13 to 5.16), which show remarkably little fluctuation of

values. The widely oscillating parameter values evident in Carmen’s graphs

throughout (Figures 5.17 to 5.24) intuitively suggest great system instability

(particularly Figures 5.20 and 5.24, which show the overall system state).

116

Verbal feedback arguably gives credence to the inference that Darryl moved from a

system state of relative stability to one of instability. Darryl was quite confused about

his life at the beginning of therapy and had been that way for some time. He reported

that his confusion intensified in therapy and that it was quite a “difficult and scary”

experience for him at times. As the circumstances in his life had not appreciably

changed outside of therapy, this feedback could be construed as indicative of a

measure of system instability. Crucially, Darryl arguably moved to an edge-of-chaos

state and this necessarily entails going through a period of instability. In Belinda’s

case, observation and feedback give support to the inference of ongoing stability

throughout. In fact, Belinda was so fixed and rigid in her functioning that it could be

termed stasis, a condition of stability that occurs when change seems impossible and

an antiquated system order is held onto (Wieland-Burston, 1992). The discrepancy

between her graphical results indicating rigidity and the clinical observations and

feedback of her being proactive in terms of finding ways to earn more money

intuitively indicates a move toward instability, but this was arguably at best a very

slight shift in system state. In Carmen’s case, observation and feedback give support

to the inference that her system state did not become unstable. There were no

observational signs of a shift to instability. Also, any diminishment of her chaos

overall would likely be felt experientially as instability, but this was not reported.

Intuitively, stability appears to be a desirable state and instability seems to be

undesirable. Indeed, destabilisation and the resulting instability tend to provoke

distinct feelings of insecurity in the individual (Wieland-Burston, 1992). Regardless

of graphical results, this was certainly the case with the participants as each individual

evidenced insecurity in therapy (eg: wanting to know how long it would be before

results in therapy were evident, wanting to know if their experiences in therapy were

“normal”). In fact, negative feelings are common in therapy when the individual’s

system is destabilised. Destabilisation is essential in harnessing the beneficial

potential of instability. Destabilisation pushes the individual away from stagnant ways

of functioning, initiating a process that begins with instability and ends with adaptive

transformation (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). Instability necessarily

precedes change (Butz, 1997). The sequence of destabilisation and subsequent

instability is a necessary and natural process that allows for growth and change

(Hayes & Strauss, 1998).

117

Importantly, stability and instability need to be looked at in a broader, lifespan

perspective. People change constantly in the evolutionary process of change and it is

helpful to think of the initial starting point in therapy as a state of dynamic

equilibrium – either stable or unstable – that may be seen as an initial equilibrium-

dominated phase of a wider non-equilibrium evolutionary trajectory (Goldstein,

1995). Essentially, psychological growth is a lifelong process that is characterised by

periods of stability and instability (Hayes & Strauss, 1998). Further, an individual

may be unstable in a given situation yet be stable in other areas of life, and vice-versa.

The person may also be stable or unstable on a daily basis, but display a dominant

state over time. It was, of course, beyond the scope of the intervention to fully explore

these wider, lifespan dimensions with the participants. However, an attempt was made

to understand the participants’ lives from this broader perspective. This deeper

understanding arguably adds weight to the validity of the inferences made regarding

their system states.

5.4.4 Coherence

Coherence arises out of the openness of a system to its environment (Peat, 1995). A

certain, sustaining tension holds the system together and organises energy for

transformations of system state. Coherence (or lack thereof) thus crucially influences

the different change processes that a system goes through, making for differences in

the adaptation of the system (Butz, 1997). Coherence is essentially an ordering and

integrating principle that determines the inner order and outwardly directed behaviour

of a system. A coherent system is able to display appropriate responses in the face of

whatever perturbances and circumstances it encounters (Peat, 1995).

5.4.4.1

Results and discussion

It is not possible to accurately determine the extent of interior system coherence of the

participants from graphical analysis alone, as the concept is concerned with the

subtleties of the individual’s integrative functioning. Tentative inferences can be

made, however, which can be checked against clinical observations and feedback.

118

Darryl’s movement of change over the three months from chaos to a periodic pattern

is clearly evident in Figures 5.1 to 5.8. The transition from month to month shows a

progressively narrower range of system fluctuations, both in the phase portraits (ie: a

progressively less ‘wandering’ trajectory) and the time-series graphs (ie:

progressively narrow range of oscillations of measurement). This is indicative of

increased interior coherence, as the narrower pattern of movement suggests purposive,

focused functioning as opposed to highly fluctuating movement and random

functioning. Belinda’s rigid limit cycle pattern, indicative of very low interior

coherence, is evident in all graphs of her system functioning (Figures 5.9 to 5.16). The

graphs depicting her overall functioning (Figures 5.12 and 5.16) in particular show

her rigidity of functioning. The phase portrait (Figure 5.12) is almost geometric in its

rigidity and the time-series graph (Figure 5.16) evidences a pronounced flatness of

oscillations. Carmen’s state of low dimensional chaos, with its wide fluctuations of

system state, clearly evident in all of the graphs depicting her system state, is similarly

suggestive of a lack of integration and indicates a distinct lack of interior coherence.

The graphs depicting Carmen’s overall state (Figures 5.20 and 5.24) show the

fluctuation of movement characteristic of low coherence particularly well.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback support the interpretation that Darryl had

high coherence. An individual with coherence is characterised by openness to the

environment, a concern with long-range plans, purposeful behaviour, a strong sense of

identity, the ability to direct attention in meaningful ways, a rich sense of inner life, a

strong sense of meaning and direction, creativity in action, a deep sense of interior

integration, and the ability to tolerate a degree of chaos in virtue of having rich

responses (Peat, 1995). Darryl displayed all of the aforementioned hallmarks of the

phenomenon to a greater or lesser degree. In particular he progressively showed an

increasing concern with long-range planning, became very purposeful, and was very

concerned about issues of personal identity. Essentially, Darryl became very focused

on who he is and where is going in life, and was starting to take action to get there. He

also showed a great deal of flexibility of functioning toward the end of therapy,

reacting to negative circumstances in a more relaxed and creative way than he did

earlier on (eg: he was noticeably more relaxed about pressing financial issues).

119

Belinda, by contrast, appeared to have very low interior coherence. Notably, she did

not appear to be open to her environment. This was seen in two ways. Firstly, while

she did have friends and contact with the outside world, there was nevertheless

limited interaction with her environment and a consequent sense of isolation. This

was confirmed in discussion with her in therapy. Secondly, she was very closed to

outside influences and suggestions, as was evidenced in interaction with family

members (eg: she seemed to resent being given advice by those close to her). Indeed,

in debriefing, Belinda made the point that a main benefit of therapy for her had been

the opening of her mind to suggestions. Closure to the environment leads to the

experience of being overwhelmed by external events, which was very much the case

with Belinda. Time and again in therapy, Belinda was focused on whatever negative

life circumstances had occurred in the previous week. She also displayed little sense

of meaning in life, a negative view of the world, and a lack of sensitivity – all of

which are hallmarks of low coherence. Systems that are less sensitive and far from

chaos tend to settle into rigid, repetitive behaviour such as limit cycles (ie:

periodicity). In such cases, the individual tends to get locked into a repetitive cycle.

The more trapped in repetitive responses, the more the person’s life becomes

impoverished and meaningless. Indeed for an individual with such a state of mind

there may well appear to be no way of escaping from the predicament (Peat, 1995).

This was exactly the case with Belinda, as reported by her on several occasions.

Clinical observations (particularly the relatively good outcome of therapy in

behavioural terms) and feedback suggested that Belinda was, in fact, starting to break

out of her repetitive pattern but she was nevertheless a long way away from

displaying full and healthy interior coherence.

Carmen also displayed little interior coherence. Chaos can be either adaptive or

maladaptive. When the system is moving to a higher state of complexity it is pregnant

with possibility, being rich in information and highly sensitive to contents and

changes in the environment. This is the adaptive aspect of chaos. However, chaos that

is entrenched may also yield seemingly random system responses as a result of an

impoverishment of the individual in response to the environment. This reflects an

inability to process both interior and exterior information in appropriate ways. The

result is a lack of interior coherence, resulting in a breakdown of inner order and

outwardly directed behaviour. The boundaries between inner and outer tend to be very

120

loose, and interior integration is so weak that a person becomes overwhelmed by

external contingencies (Peat, 1995). This was particularly the case with Carmen. She

was constantly overwhelmed by external circumstances and these had a huge impact

upon her as evidenced by her frequent, obvious distress in therapy. Essentially, her

wildly fluctuating system state was more often than not in response to environmental

stimuli. So pronounced was her susceptibility to external contingencies, that Carmen

could be said to be ‘ruled’ to a large extent by the events and experiences that were

taking place in her life.

5.4.5 Attractors

When a given system settles into one or a few modes of functioning that it prefers

over all possible modes, this characteristic mode of functioning is called an attractor

state. Essentially, the system has an ‘affinity’ for that state-of-being. Attractors in a

system can be few or many, subtle or overt, and dominant or of lesser importance

(Thelen & Smith, 1994). Attractors describe a system’s evolution in time and space,

and are particularly important descriptively (Butz, 1997).

5.4.5.1

Results and discussion

The presence of internal attractors in the participants’ systems can be determined

clearly from the graphical results. Three-dimensional phase portraits are particularly

powerful at identifying attractors, which show up as dense areas traced by the

trajectory pattern in phase space.

Darryl’s overall phase portrait (Figure 5.4) shows a dominant attractor area in the

region of average-to-high level of work utilisation, low level of frustration, and

average goal-setting orientation. The attractor area is evident to a lesser extent in the

graphs for July and August (Figures 5.1 and 5.2), but it has largely dissipated in

September’s graphs (Figure 5.3). (This is consistent with the edge-of-chaos end-state

interpretation, being midway between chaos and order.) There is no clear dominant

system attractor in terms of individual variables (ie: system parameters).

121

Belinda’s limited periodic pattern is very clear in the overall graph (Figure 5.12) of

her end-state in therapy. The attractor area is the region of low hope, high frustration,

and average withdrawal. Her dominant attractor is overwhelmingly that of a low level

of hope, which critically influences the trajectory of her system in the phase portrait

(ie: it critically impacts the other two variables and thus constrains the trajectory).

Evidence displayed by the linear time-series graphs (Figures 5.13 to 5.16), showing

the continuous, low and barely fluctuating measurement of the system parameter of

hope, suggests that this is indeed a very dominant attractor in her system.

Carmen’s overall phase portrait (Figure 5.20) has a particularly dense area in the

region of low-to-average motivation, average-to-high anger, and average-to-high

withdrawal. The density and far-reaching extent of the trajectory in the graph suggests

the presence of a strange attractor, which is highly characteristic of chaos. As such,

there is a great deal of seemingly random movement in the system’s trajectory. There

is also no evidence of a dominant attractor, in terms of a single system parameter.

Carmen’s lack of a dominant attractor area is well supported by the time-series graphs

(Figures 5.21 to 5.24), which are pronounced by their seeming randomness.

While graphical analysis of attractors is powerfully able to identify attractor regions in

phase space, a much richer picture is obtained when the results are triangulated with

clinical observations and verbal feedback. The added perspective is necessary, as the

concept of attractors is a particularly subtle one. In terms of therapy, attractors refer to

areas of personal functioning and concerns in life where the individual’s energies are

focused and invested. Attractors are both internal (ie: psychological functioning) and

external (ie: areas of concern). Both internal and external attractors operate in an

individual’s life which, taken together, constitute the person’s world and experience.

Synthesis of interior and exterior attractors thus provides the clinical attractor

constellation, which is a kind of a map of the individual’s life at a given time (Reiter,

1992). It is, of course, impossible to completely understand let alone describe a

clinical constellation (Mahoney & Moes, 1997) but it nevertheless serves as a

powerful heuristic tool in therapy. The idea is to develop a focus out of the

complexity of client complaints (Reiter, 1992).

122

The attractor constellation was particularly obvious in Belinda’s case. She had clear-

cut concerns. They were highly ‘compartmentalised’ and were not linked (by her) in

any meaningful way beyond a very surface level. Essentially, Belinda’s rigidity of

psychological functioning and persistent low level of hope for improvement in her

circumstances dominated all aspects of her life. She did make the important link

between personal change (ie: doing things differently) and earning more money, but

there was nevertheless little complexity of relationship between her attractors.

Darryl’s attractor constellation was less obvious. It was quite diffuse, in that the links

between attractors were not clearly defined by him in therapy. He was nevertheless

quite aware of the links, and there was thus arguably a fair degree of complexity in his

constellation. Carmen’s internal and external attractors were very diffuse indeed. The

links between her psychological functioning and external concerns were not clear, as

were the links between attractors, and her attractor constellation was accordingly

difficult to clearly define and differentiate.

Importantly, the clinical constellation must be seen on different levels, internal and

external, broad and wide (Reiter, 1992). Indeed, it is only when considered in the

broader context that the subtlety of connections and interplay of attractors may be

properly appreciated. The subtlety is considerable. The intensity of any given attractor

may shift continuously from day to day and indeed from moment to moment with any

given attractor becoming dominant in a given situation. This was obvious with the

participants. Their states-of-being were sometimes very different from week to week,

and discussion in therapy revealed how their states had changed in that time.

Attractors may also have attractor states within them. In Belinda’s case, for example,

it could be inferred from clinical observations and feedback that her internal attractors

of rigid thinking and low hope were ‘overlaid’ upon all areas of her life. Indeed, the

interconnections and interrelationships between attractors were pronounced in the

intervention. As therapy proceeded, the attractors accordingly took on a vibrant

vitality, rich with subtlety and nuance. This was pronounced in Carmen’s case. The

convoluted and intricate relationship between the many concerns in her life and her

psychological functioning became increasingly apparent. Richness was compounded

by an acknowledgement and appreciation of the presence of ‘hidden’ attractors in the

participants’ clinical constellations. Hidden attractors are those that are beyond

awareness and those that the client chooses not to divulge in therapy. Recognising the

123

potential of hidden attractors to impact and influence the chaotic process of change is

a vital consideration in therapy (Reiter, 1992).

The subtlety of attractors is perhaps best seen in the relationship between the internal

self and the external world. They are mirror images of each other. The internal field

within the self is organised by the layout of psychological attractors. These attractors

constrain the system’s functioning, and the external attractor constellation embodies

the internal constraints on action (Abraham, 1992). Belinda’s interior and exterior

rigidity were extremely obvious in that she had very few concerns in both domains,

all of a very similar nature and all very clearly defined. Her outer world thus mirrored

her interior state. Darryl’s outer and inner worlds could also be said to match. As

therapy proceeded there was a certain broadening of his attractor constellation in

tandem with the internal, psychological expansion he was experiencing. Carmen’s

chaotic inner state and chaotic world could be said to be clear mirror images of each

other.

Therapeutically, attractors serve as an initial starting point for intervention. The goal

may be either to effect a change within an existing attractor or to move the system

state to a new attractor constellation (Butz, 1997). The therapeutic goal with all the

participants was both to make adjustments within each individual’s existing attractor

state (ie: find new ways of dealing with old problems) and facilitate a shift between

existing attractor states (ie: visualising the desired outcome of therapy and working

toward achieving it).

Importantly, the therapist may act as an attractor in stabilising the therapeutic

relationship (Reiter, 1992). This was certainly the case in the intervention. Verbal

feedback from the participants indicated that the Friday therapy sessions were an

important occasion for them. Therapeutically, the sessions provided a holding

container for each participant during the process of change. These were regular and

structured occasions that afforded needed stability in each individual’s process of

chaotic change toward an altered attractor constellation.

124

5.4.6 Bifurcation

Bifurcation is essentially a transformative state that follows destabilisation. Pressure

exerted on any element of a system or its environment may gradually force the system

into a far-from-equilibrium condition and threaten its structure (Thelen & Smith,

1994). At a critical point the system loses its ability to maintain its existing state and

reaches breaking point (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997). A bifurcation point is

reached. The system faces alternative possibilities for new states-of-being, and must

‘choose’ between them. It subsequently bifurcates to the new state in a spontaneous

‘leap’ (Butz, 1997).

5.4.6.1

Results and discussion

Three-dimensional phase portraits do not display clear evidence of bifurcational

jumps in a system. While phase portraits show the shape and evolution of a system

over time, it is not possible to identify the critical moments in the system’s evolution

when a bifurcational choice was made. Time-series graphs, on the other hand, with

their linear character do provide clear evidence of bifurcation. Darryl’s time-series

graphs show clear evidence of two bifurcations. His system movement made dynamic

shifts in pattern – bifurcations – at the end of the first month (Figures 5.5 and 5.6) and

at the end of the second month (Figures 5.6 and 5.7). The progressively narrower

range of oscillations in each of the measured variables is very clear. Belinda’s time-

series graphs (Figures 5.13 to 5.16) show no evidence of bifurcational jumps

whatsoever. There is no sudden change in any values of the parameters either

individually or overall that could be construed as sudden shifts in her system.

Carmen’s time-series graphs (Figures 5.21 to 5.24) similarly show no evidence of

bifurcation. There are no changes in the oscillations of variables that suggest any

sudden change in her system state.

The graphical evidence of Darryl’s successive bifurcations amply demonstrates an

important characteristic of chaotic change. A destabilised system is inevitably faced

with points where the evolving system must choose between alternative routes to take.

These are bifurcation points, places where the system is poised to make a clear

qualitative change. After the first bifurcation, more usually follow. Bifurcation may

125

usefully be seen as a critical decision point in the life of an individual. The individual

is faced with alternative choices for the future and must make a decision as regards

which route to take (Butz, 1997). In Darryl’s case, he was tentatively offered a new

job position after about a month of being in therapy. The offer fell through, but it was

nevertheless an important moment for him. It was a bifurcation point, in that he

realised that he was not limited to his present work but that he could take control of

his life and move into a new career if he so desired. In making this choice, Darryl

arguably negotiated a bifurcation point and made further bifurcation in his system

probable.

Darryl could well have slipped back into his old style of functioning at the first

bifurcation point. After bifurcation there is an ongoing process of ‘trial and error’ in

system functioning until the new attractor states stabilise with repeated ‘practice’

(Hayes & Strauss, 1998). The bifurcation point is very unstable and very critical, and

the individual may fall back into old patterns or move on to new ones (Abraham,

1992). However, Darryl made a conscious decision to change further and this was

reflected in his system’s second bifurcation. This occurred at the end of the second

month, when therapy required that Darryl take active steps toward his chosen goal.

This again seemed to be another critical life moment for him, and again his system

shifted accordingly. Darryl’s bifurcations were clear-cut and spontaneous jumps. This

is consistent with the tenet that chaotic change is not likely to be an orderly, step-by-

step, slow process (Chamberlain & McCown, 1998).

Systems negotiate bifurcation points beyond awareness as part of the natural process

of life, but it is the case that the individual can consciously negotiate bifurcation

points and steer himself or herself in a desired direction (Abraham, 1992;

Chamberlain & Butz, 1998). Essentially, the individual is proactive and may

consciously steer his or her life in a given direction – presumably toward a new, more

adaptive attractor constellation. This was very clear in Darryl’s case. He made a clear

and conscious choice to move forward in a new direction. Even though the job offer

fell through, the very act of mulling it over and considering new-found opportunities

was enough to set Darryl on a path to investigate new career paths. And when it came

to action in therapy, the second bifurcation point, he made a conscious and active

126

effort (eg: phoning prospective employers, garnering information about different

careers) to do something meaningful toward his desired change.

Clinical observations and experiential feedback support interpretation of Belinda’s

graphical results. While it is true that Belinda did change considerably in

observational terms during the three months, there was no indication of any sudden,

bifurcational jump to a new state. Belinda’s sudden jump into action near the start of

therapy, when she became very proactive in terms of finding new ways to earn

money, was not a bifurcation point. System destabilisation is a prerequisite for

bifurcation. Belinda’s system was not destabilised, so the sudden flurry of activity she

evidenced could not be construed as a bifurcation. Clinical observations and

experiential feedback similarly support Carmen’s graphical analysis. Throughout, she

neither displayed nor reported any jumps in functioning that could be construed as

bifurcational jumps.

The high connectedness of the therapeutic alliance required in applied chaos theory

means that the therapist simultaneously has great influence in helping clients to

choose from the alternatives at a critical moment – a bifurcation point – and great

responsibility to act as a holding container for them while they do so (Perna, 1997).

Essentially, it was important to make sure that the participants had a ‘safe place’ in

which to undergo therapy. This entailed fostering a high quality therapeutic

relationship within which they could feel safe and contained. Feedback confirmed that

although therapy had at times been difficult for them, the therapeutic alliance had

been a strong one and the necessary holding container was created.

5.4.7 Sensitive dependence on initial conditions

Sensitive dependence on initial conditions pertains to the notion that very small

influences impacting on a system are amplified over time and may lead to great

changes in the system’s future state that are out of all proportion to the input

(Williams, 1997). Crucially, sensitive dependence also refers to small differences in

the initial conditions and not just their magnitude (Kincanon & Powel, 1995). The

importance of sensitive dependence on initial conditions should not be

127

underestimated. Even infinitesimally small influences may have overwhelmingly far-

reaching effects on a system (Chamberlain & McCown, 1998).

5.4.7.1

Results and discussion

In terms of graphical analysis, it is not possible to clearly demonstrate sensitive

dependence on initial conditions in the intervention. In virtue of the potentially

infinitesimal amounts and differences of input in a system that the phenomenon

necessarily entails, sensitive dependence on initial conditions refers to a moment in

the evolution of a system that is essentially far too subtle to show up on a graph. All

that can be said with any degree of confidence about the graphical pictures is that the

systems they depict are a product of their history and thus are, necessarily, at least

partly a picture of the outcome of moments of sensitive dependence in their past.

At best, very tenuous speculations can be made from reading the graphs. It can be

speculated from analysis of Darryl’s graphs that his bifurcation from a state of

periodicity at the end of August (Figures 5.2 and 5.6) to the edge-of-chaos condition

in September (Figures 5.3 and 5.7) was a result of a critical moment experienced

during therapy in August. This is plausible. As discussed, Darryl’s system was

unstable during August and it is in times of instability that small influences crucially

impact upon the system and lead to potentially great change. Given that instability is a

necessary prerequisite for sensitive dependence to make its mark, it can be speculated

from analysis of the graphs of Belinda and Carmen that, as their systems were stable

throughout, sensitive dependence was not an overt factor in their system states in the

intervention. It is stressed that these are tenuous speculations indeed.

Such is the subtlety of sensitive dependence on initial conditions that even insightful

clinical observations and clear feedback do not yield much more than speculation. Yet

it can be reasonably speculated that important and dynamic processes of change

within the participants may well have been initiated as a result of the intervention.

Therapy shows time and again that seemingly innocuous gestures or comments on the

part of a therapist may spark terrific change in a client at a later date (Schiepek &

Tschacher, 1992). Certainly, the intervention was aimed at planting the seed of a

desired outcome in participants’ minds. These were seeds that, when they unfold, may

128

well have far-reaching effects on the lives of the participants in time. In fact, any

small gesture or influence during the intervention could have had huge effects on the

participants’ systems. For example, ideas that seemed to take root with all of the

participants were the almost trite observations that “life is a choice” and that “nothing

would change in their lives unless they change”! The import of such influences – if

any – in the lives of the participants will, of course, only be evident in time to come.

Small differences in functioning, in the way people do things, can herald great system

change later on. Each participant certainly made small changes in functioning, but it

was only Darryl who experienced a system state of disorder and instability and a

subsequent shift to a new system state. Darryl’s shift from being stuck in a job he

didn’t like to that of accepting the notion of a possible career change seemed to be a

very significant moment for him. As Darryl’s system appeared to destabilise the most,

he would have been most susceptible to the impact of small influences. Also, his

aforementioned interior coherence made for an adaptive type of chaos and thus

readiness for change. Belinda’s rigidity of functioning and lack of interior coherence

by contrast, reduced her susceptibility to small influences. Similarly, Carmen’s

prevailing chaotic pattern was not an adaptive type of chaos, and this reduced her

susceptibility to small influences.

In terms of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the quality of the therapeutic

alliance is crucial. Given the potentially life-changing impact of infinitesimally small

influences and small differences in the way of doing things, therapist competence and

responsibility become issues of critical importance (Butz, 1997). It was evident in

therapy that the participants were very eager to know more about themselves and find

solutions to their problems. Given their thirst for knowledge and insight, it was

particularly important to provide a safe and ‘neutral’ space from which the

participants could explore their issues. Thus, apart from facilitating the planting of a

seed of desired outcome that the participants chose, the alliance was geared for safety.

This latter aspect is of particular importance as the intervention aimed to facilitate

destabilisation of the participants’ existing states of order and assist them to move

toward a new state. This necessarily made each participant particularly susceptible to

small influences as such take root more easily in a disordered system.

129

Ideally, sensitive dependence needs to be seen in much broader context. The present

is essentially a product of the past and the future will be a product of the present. Past,

present, and future are thus linked in a seamless whole, and the potentially

tremendous effects of the multitudinous small influences occurring in daily life, past

and present, can only be guessed at. Given the complexity of life and the inherent

complexity of interconnectedness and functional relatedness, the strands that weave

the fabric of an individual’s life together are too interwoven to be so simply separated

and labelled. The full, epic sweep of the participants’ lives, then, could not be

explored fully within the confines of the intervention. Nevertheless, the impact of

small influences from the past on their current lives and the potentially huge impact of

small influences in the present on their future were nevertheless important

considerations that were borne in mind in therapy.

5.4.8 Unpredictability

In chaos theory, there are constraints on the limits of prediction. It is not possible to

precisely predict the future functioning or state of a given nonlinear dynamical

system. It is possible, however, to speak probabilistically of such (Butz, Chamberlain

& McCown, 1997). Useful predictions may be made about the qualitative features of

the systems involved, in terms of foreseeing the overall behaviour of that system both

in the short term and the long term (Kellert, 1993).

5.4.8.1

Results and discussion

From graphical analysis alone, it cannot be predicted with any definite certainty what

state the participants’ systems would gravitate to in the future. However, in line with

the notion that broad predictions can be made, tentative predictions about the

participants’ future system states can be made with some degree of confidence from

the graphical analysis.

It could be predicted that Darryl’s edge-of-chaos system state (Figures 5.3 and 5.7) at

the end of therapy would either remain in that highly adaptive region or bifurcate

further to a more ordered stability. Having gone through a process of change, it would

130

be unlikely that he would return to his previous system state. It could be predicted that

Belinda’s system state would continue its highly limited periodicity (Figures 5.11 and

5.15) in the foreseeable future. Belinda’s system was not destabilised to any marked

degree at the end of therapy and thus not yet in a condition conducive to marked

change. As such, she would likely stay in that system state in the absence of further

intervention or perturbation. It could be predicted that Carmen’s chaotic state (Figures

5.19 and 5.23) would continue for the foreseeable future without further intervention

or perturbation. Her system was not destabilised in therapy and thus not in a state

conducive to change.

Clinical observations and feedback lends support to these predictions. In Darryl’s

case, he appeared to be very committed to change. Observationally, this was reflected

in such actions as proactively seeking out new career information and asking many

questions about career-related issues. He verbally confirmed in feedback that he was

seeking a new course in life and that he would keep pursuing this in the future. It was

thus doubtful that he would revert to old ways of functioning. In Belinda’s case, it

was clear in observation that she had not changed at a deeper level. It was true that

she had taken important overt actions to improve her financial situation, and that this

had yielded a good therapy outcome for her in some ways, but there was still a

rigidity of functioning apparent that precluded marked system change. Essentially,

even in Belinda’s new actions there was still a paucity of response (eg: although

advertising her business was a new way of functioning, she had limited creativity of

ideas in doing so and found it hard to move beyond her initial ideas). Feedback

indicated that she was finding it very difficult to generate novel ideas and, although

she acknowledged that there were marked differences in her life, she could still not

see any hope for the future. In Carmen’s case, observation showed that she was not so

much ‘stuck’ as caught up in a wildly oscillating see-saw of extreme periodicity and

chaos. Although Carmen was very insightful and expressed a clear wish to break out

of the cycle, observation and feedback indicated that this wasn’t likely to happen on

its own as her system state was remarkably stable. The potential for change was

certainly high, in virtue of the inherent volatility of the chaotic state, but her system

would not be likely to change without further intervention or perturbation.

131

While the participants’ system states for the future could reasonably be predicted in

very general terms for the future, there remained a degree of unpredictability with

regard to the specific details of their functioning. This is wholly in accord with the

principles of chaos theory. The movement of chaotic states is far more difficult to

predict than that of more rigidly functioning states. Darryl’s and Carmen’s

functioning were accordingly harder to predict from week to week in therapy.

Belinda’s functioning, on the other hand, was fairly predictable throughout.

Importantly, unpredictability does not imply a lack of control over the future.

Unpredictability is inextricably interlinked with questions of personal agency. At the

heart of all situations calling for prediction is the perspective of the human not simply

as a passive observer but as an active agent in the creation of his or her own destiny

(Loye, 1995). Accordingly, the participants and researcher attempted to look ahead, to

try and predict the effects of personal change and co-create a desired system state to

move toward in therapy. It can be said that Darryl, Belinda, and Carmen carefully

chose the future direction of their lives while in therapy.

Therapeutically, unpredictability necessarily entails cautions. Happy endings in

therapy are not guaranteed. The future cannot be exactly predicted or controlled, nor

can the consequences of a particular course of action ever be completely known.

Well-reasoned plans of action often lead to consequences and later choice points that

were never anticipated. Indeed, the sought-after destabilisation is not always a prelude

to the emergence of a healthier and happier system (Mahoney & Moes, 1997).

Essentially, there was no guarantee that the participants would be satisfied with their

outcomes in therapy or that would indeed be in a better state at the end of the

intervention. Indeed, while the participants stated that therapy had benefited them in

different ways, each one also noted a certain degree of unexpected discomfort in

terms of heightened confusion at various stages of the process. While this was to be

expected, there was no way of telling beforehand who would be affected most by

therapy and how that would transpire. Importantly, a degree of unpredictability –

while often unsettling for both client and therapist – is generally an indicator of

optimal responsiveness to the ever-changing demands of life (Marks-Tarlow, 1995).

132

5.4.9 Edge-of-chaos

The edge-of-chaos system state can be seen as the balance point between the forces of

chaos and order, and is a supremely adaptive condition that harnesses the power and

potential of both (Waldrop, 1992). Systems on the edge of chaos shift back and forth

between predictable behaviour and chaotic activity and in so doing may undergo

important transformations that can produce growth to higher complexity (Combs,

1995). Greater complexity in turn opens up an abundance of choices to the system

that were not available before for higher and higher forms of adaptation and evolution

(Chamberlain & McCown, 1998).

5.4.9.1

Results and discussion

Graphical results pertaining to Darryl’s system state show a clear progression from

initial chaos to a more ordered and focused periodicity (Figures 5.1 to 5.4 and 5.5 to

5.8), and his system state at the end of therapy (Figures 5.3 and 5.7) is highly

indicative of an edge-of-chaos condition. The three-dimensional phase portrait (Figure

5.3) in particular is very informative in this regard. There is no clear chaos or order

evident. Rather, there is a range of trajectory movement that suggests a system state

poised between chaos and order. The limited (but not tight) range of movement is

suggestive of focused and purposive functioning as there is a relatively free range of

movement and a lack of rigidity. This is characteristic of the edge-of-chaos state.

Graphical results pertaining to Belinda and Carmen display no evidence of edge-of-

chaos characteristics. Belinda’s system state (Figures 5.11 and 5.15) at the end of

therapy is as tightly ordered (indeed, perhaps even more so!) as it was at the

beginning. This system state is very far away from edge-of-chaos. Carmen’s graphical

results (Figures 5.18 and 5.23) of her system state at the end of therapy do indicate a

lessening of chaotic movement from the previous two months (particularly evident in

Figures 5.17 and 5.18), but although the movement is clearly more focused it is still

very chaotic. Being already in chaos, however, she is arguably not far from an edge-

of-chaos condition.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback support the interpretation of Darryl’s edge-

of-chaos state-of-being. Darryl progressively displayed more focused and purposeful

133

responses and behaviour throughout therapy. In particular, his self-insight increased

and he coped in a far more adaptive way with the often negative circumstances he

experienced at work (eg: responding with much less anger than usual to an

argumentative workmate, standing up for himself in the face of unjust criticism from

his employer). He exhibited particularly flexible behaviour (eg: phoning different

companies regarding new work, obtaining information from education institutions,

buying career books) at the end of the intervention. All this was indicative of

increased personal integration – a key factor in the edge-of-chaos condition.

Essentially, Darryl displayed a new-found state-of-being that was characterised by

personal creativity and novelty of functioning. There is a natural tendency of systems

on the edge-of-chaos toward this kind of supple flexibility, and this is psychologically

healthy (Combs, 1995). Healthy individuals are those who respond to feedback from

the environment with a variety of responses, whereas unhealthy individuals are

unresponsive (Brack, Brack & Zucker, 1995). Darryl’s new-found flexibility of

functioning, then, could be seen as indicative of psychological health.

The confusion that Darryl reported experiencing several times in therapy, presumably

due to the increased instability of his system, is very characteristic of the edge-of-

chaos state. This is a desirable condition as it is this instability that allows the shifting

back and forth between predictable behaviour and chaotic activity, and which protects

the system from getting stuck in a rut. It allows for personal transformation that can

produce growth. Essentially, the system searches its way to new, more adaptive

attractors (Combs, 1995).

Darryl’s improved functioning can be related to energy usage. Chaos takes a

tremendous amount of energy to navigate, which perhaps accounts at least partly for

the distress he was experiencing when he came into therapy. The edge-of-chaos state

is much easier. Life evolves freely here. Energy requirements are more reasonable and

the complexity generated is sufficient to make ongoing ‘just good enough’

adaptations (Butz, Chamberlain & McCown, 1997).

Clinical observations and feedback support the interpretation of Belinda being far

away from an edge-of-chaos state. As previously discussed, Belinda was doing things

differently in terms of trying to better her financial position but there was nevertheless

134

still a paucity of functioning evident and an inability to see a positive outcome in her

life. Essentially, Belinda was very stuck. Her system would need to be destabilised

and move through a state of chaos before reaching an edge-of-chaos state. Having

said that, the move to edge-of-chaos would not necessarily take a long time. Systems

self-organise according to their adaptive requirements, and there is no set time for this

to happen (Kratky, 1992).

Clinical observations and feedback support the interpretation that Carmen was not far

from an edge-of-chaos state. In terms of the chaotic sequence of change, a system in

chaos is necessarily only a step away from the edge-of-chaos. The order of movement

in therapy for Carmen was from chaos to order. As such, destabilisation in her case

would lead to stabilisation and it would be this increasing order that would disrupt the

pattern of wide fluctuations and eventually lead to an edge of-chaos state.

Importantly, Darryl’s edge-of-chaos state could be kept in that condition by means of

small, timely interventions made both in therapy and by himself. The individual can

consciously keep his or her system in an ongoing adaptive state of complexity rather

than allowing it to gravitate to a fixed and more rigid style of functioning. This is

done by the conscious use of self-organisation (Kratky, 1992).

5.4.10 Self-organisation

A system that looks chaotic on a macro level actually has its own inherent order at the

micro level. Self-organisation can be seen as the process whereby that underlying,

inherent order in the system emerges out of chaos. Thus, out of chaos a new stability

and system state forms (Butz, 1997). All living systems are self-organising. That is,

they can control their own control parameters, giving them the capability to induce

bifurcations within their own systems (Abraham, 1995).

5.4.10.1

Results and discussion

Self-organisation cannot be pinpointed specifically in graphical analysis. It is,

however, implicit that the system state under investigation is constantly self-

135

organising. Although not graphically detectable the evidence is necessarily there,

‘hidden’ in the graphical pictures. It can be said, then, that evidence of self-

organisation is present in the participants’ graphs but is not detectable.

The distinctive, sequential change in Darryl’s system shown earlier in graphical

analysis (Figures 5.1 to 5.4 and 5.5 to 5.8) clearly displayed all the hallmarks of

chaotic change. If it is indeed a clear process of chaotic change, as has been strongly

argued, self-organisation is necessarily at work. Clinical observations and feedback

support this inference. Observations suggested that Darryl was very much in a ‘rut’ at

the beginning of therapy and this was confirmed by feedback. His system was

perturbed and went into instability. It was during this period of instability that Darryl

made a conscious decision to seek better work or to make more of the work he had.

Self-organisation occurs most dramatically in a state of change. When the system is

unstable and susceptible to influences, it may move in a given direction as a result of

such. Crucially, the individual can consciously influence self-organisation and evolve

in a desired direction in life. Individuals are proactive agents who organise their

worlds largely by organising their selves. In doing so, they literally co-create the

realities to which they respond (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). As such, people can use

their imagination and make choices that empower their future, shaping their

development in a preferred direction. Essentially, the individual can boldly go where

he or she has not previously ventured, exploring conjectured attractors, making

informed choices concerning potential trajectories, and making bifurcational leaps to

desired states (Abraham, 1992). This is exactly what Darryl did. He took control of

his life and moved forward in the direction of a perceived better life.

This is also what Belinda and Carmen did. Although they did not move so obviously

as Darryl, their commitment to change and to the therapy process was apparently just

as wholehearted and it can be speculated that their process of change and self-

organisation was just happening more slowly or even outside of awareness. Crucially,

the direction of self-organisation can be controlled but not the process itself. Like a

growing seed, self-organisation to a given state unfolds in it own time and way

according to the newly forming system state’s ‘inner blueprint’.

136

The assumption that self-organisation is an ongoing phenomenon inherent in all

dynamical systems is no trivial point. It essentially means that whatever the condition

of an individual’s system, it is nevertheless self-organising constantly to make the

best of that situation and to move to ever-higher levels of complexity (Wieland-

Burston, 1992). This view necessarily entails taking a broader, lifespan perspective.

People develop constantly throughout life. Self-organisation is necessarily an inherent

part of that development and must be seen in terms of process as opposed to event

(Thelen & Smith, 1994). Seen in this light, all of the participants could be seen to be

functioning in a manner that was appropriate for them during the intervention, even if

that manner of functioning was psychologically distressing for them.

The deliberate use of self-organisation is an empowering concept in therapy. The

therapist helps the individual to self-organise, at the same time empowering the

person to do this for himself or herself in the future. The implication is that the

therapist can assist the individual to self-organise to a more adaptive state. Control is

gradually turned over to the individual, facilitating a process whereby the person is

effectively able to take responsibility for his or her own growth (Masterpasqua &

Perna, 1997). There was a strong emphasis in the intervention on empowering the

participants. Essentially, while the participants were being guided to different attractor

constellations in the intervention they were also being empowered to take control over

their lives in the future. The notion of deliberately initiated self-organisation was

constantly stressed in the hope that each individual would learn how to change their

own control parameters and effect their own change in the future. Observationally, the

participants certainly appeared to be more in control of their lives to greater or lesser

degree at the end of therapy and this was confirmed in feedback.

It is, of course, possible for the therapist to take a more dominant role in guiding the

individual’s process of self-organisation. Essentially, the therapist establishes new

attractor points for functioning. This is typically done by providing the individual

with alternative possibilities of the world and of the self. Ideally, these new

alternatives coax the individual into turmoil or far-from-equilibrium conditions. The

person is then open to new information from the world or the therapist that can create

a new attractor or point of dynamic equilibrium (Brack, Brack & Zucker, 1995).

Variability in activity is a prerequisite to self-organised change, and often an integral

137

element in the creative solutions or expressions that may emerge. Homework

assignments are particularly powerful (Mahoney & Moes, 1997). Indeed, in the

intervention great stress was laid on homework and trying out novel ways of

functioning.

Self-organisation also occurs within the therapist and in the therapeutic alliance.

Essentially, there is a traversing of boundaries between therapist and client that

inevitably impacts both parties (Goldstein, 1995). This was the case in the

intervention. A particularly close alliance was forged between researcher and

participants, which would have inevitably affected each other’s self-organisation to

greater or lesser degree in ways that are not readily apparent.

5.4.10 Fractal structure

The structure of dynamical systems is fractal in character. A fractal is a pattern that

repeats the same design and detail or definition over a broad range of scale, from the

macro to the micro (Williams, 1997). As such, a given system’s geometry exhibits a

self-similarity at different dimensions and levels of analysis (Cambel, 1993). Fractal

geometry is the geometry of chaos (Marks-Tarlow, 1995). Essentially, the system and

its characteristic functioning looks the same at all levels and from all angles.

5.4.11.1

Results and discussion

Fractal self-similarity is clearly evident in the graphical results for each participant,

particularly so in the three-dimensional phase portraits with their highly graphic

depiction of system dynamics. Each person’s self-similar shape can be seen as a kind

of ‘signature’ that characterises his or her system.

Even though Darryl’s system state changed markedly over the three months of the

intervention, there is a pronounced self-similarity in each of his graphs. A kind of

‘pincer’ shape is evident throughout. In July (Figure 5.1), the chaotic motion shows a

wide range of functioning and the extremes of the trajectory at the front of the graph

form the ‘pincer’ shape. Figure 5.2, depicting August, is almost like a small copy of

138

the previous month’s system state. The chaotic movement is gone, but the ‘pincer’

shape is retained. In September (Figure 5.3), the range of motion is again reduced, but

the basic shape is retained. Belinda’s graphs (Figures 5.9 to 5.11) are remarkable in

terms of self-similarity. Not only is the basic overall shape retained, but also clearly

observable similarities of small geometric patterns in the three graphs. Carmen’s

graphs (Figures 5.17 to 5.19) are very self-similar over the three months, with the

extreme oscillations being the characteristic signature of her system. Chaos is reduced

somewhat after the first month, but the three graphs are essentially like copies of each

other.

Clinical observations and feedback support the graphical interpretations. Darryl did

change markedly and showed a great deal more flexibility, but there was still a

characteristic style of response to his functioning that was evident across all the areas

of concern that he brought to therapy (eg: he approached each situation in a very

logical and philosophical manner). Belinda’s functioning remained rigid throughout.

Even though she did display behavioural change, this was still characterised by a self-

similar paucity of functioning across all her areas of concern (eg: she displayed a

limited ability to generate novel ideas in each situation). Carmen evidenced a high

degree of self-similarity of functioning throughout (eg: the keen insight she showed

about herself in therapy extended to keen insight being shown with regard to all her

areas of concern). This is consistent with the notion that people tend to resemble

themselves in fundamental ways that are independent of spatial, temporal, or

situational scales of observation. When they possess a certain psychological

characteristic, they tend to exhibit that characteristic at many, if not all, levels (Marks-

Tarlow, 1995).

This, in fact, is a natural self-similarity. In nature, pattern is found within pattern

(Gleick, 1987). Humans and nature are mutually embedded, and thus the individual is

necessarily subject to fractal self-similarity. The world is a network of dynamic and

systemic webs of relationships and processes, and fractal self-similarity is important

because the individual must be seen in the larger context of such (Marks-Tarlow,

1995). Self-similarity of functioning thus ideally needs to be seen deep and wide and

over the long-term, a perspective that is very complex. Essentially, the processes and

structure at one level of observation reverberate throughout many levels of the system

139

within the individual’s psyche (Perna, 1997). This is bounded infinity, the notion that

attests to the infinite depth and variety that each individual possesses. The closer,

deeper, wider, and more expansively that a therapist looks at an individual, the more

the person’s characteristic functioning is seen to extend across the range of

functioning. There is essentially an infinite depth and complexity to the individual,

and this is coloured by characteristic ways of functioning (Marks-Tarlow, 1995).

In therapy, then, it is crucially important to examine the patterns that emerge in the

tapestry of the individual’s life, looking for the fractal self-similarities that yield clues

as to the person’s underlying dynamics. These similarities are manifest at all levels of

the psyche, in all areas of functioning, and in all spheres of life such as family, social,

and cultural situations (Hudgens, 1998). It was beyond the scope of the intervention to

explore the participants’ self-similarity to the extent that it warranted. Nevertheless, a

keen appreciation for the presence and influence of self-similarity was held by the

researcher throughout.

5.4.11 Holism

Life is incredibly complex, and chaos theory pays due regard to this. Chaos theory

holds that all of existence is interconnected and interrelated at deep and subtle levels.

As such, dynamical systems are necessarily embedded in and inseparable from their

environment. A given system must therefore be seen in context, and not in isolation.

Further, a given influence on any one part of a system or its environment necessarily

affects the entire system to greater or lesser extent (Butz, 1997).

5.4.11.1

Results and discussion

Holism can only be inferred in graphical analysis. Referring as holism does to the

embedded interconnectedness of the individual with all that exists at surface, deeper,

and subtler levels and the multitudinous interrelationships necessarily inherent in

such, the full complexity of a given system cannot possibly be captured in graphs.

Notwithstanding, system constructs intended for graphical analysis – if constructed

judiciously – are taken to be representative of a given system (Abraham, 1992). As

140

such, holistic complexity is implicit therein. In the three-dimensional phase portraits

utilised in the study, each composite point is taken to represent a full picture of a

participant’s system state at a given point in time. In the linear time-series graphs, the

three parameters depicting the individual’s system state are taken to be inextricably

intertwined. As the construct parameters of each individual’s system were co-

constructed by researcher and participant, and done so after extensive exploration of

the participants’ functioning and attractor constellation, it is thus reasonable to infer

that the graphs are holistically representative of the participants’ systems.

So complex are systems, however, that at best it may be said that the graphs depict a

‘snapshot’ of each participant’s system from a certain angle. Had other construct

parameters been chosen, different snapshots from different angles would have been

taken. This does not diminish the power of the graphical representation of the system.

Rather, it highlights the incredible holistic complexity surrounding people and life.

Essentially, Darryl, Belinda, and Carmen are incredibly complex individuals and their

graphical results can, at best, only give hints as to the full extent of such complexity.

Each individual is unique. Even though people may display similar patterns, each

expression reflects the individual history and unique parameters of that person’s life

(Mahoney & Moes, 1997). This is a holistic view that essentially takes cognisance of

all possible interconnections and interrelations in a person’s life. It considers all levels

of all possible influences, and links past, present, and future.

Clinical observations and verbal feedback made it clear that each participant was

crucially embedded in family, community, society, and indeed the planet. Further,

they were crucially affected by events in these domains, each of them in different

ways and to different degree. Mostly national and local events affected Darryl, mostly

family issues affected Belinda, and mostly family and school issues affected Carmen.

Both Belinda and Carmen were particularly influenced by both external (eg:

unexpected and undesirable life circumstances) and internal (eg: moods, tiredness,

aches and pains) stimuli.

Being a family unit, the participants also influenced each other to greater or lesser

extent. Although individual therapy was conducted it was evident both from clinical

observations and verbal feedback that the sessions were having an effect on the family

unit as a whole. The therapeutic goals being pursued inevitably impacted upon each

141

other in both positive and negative ways. Darryl’s increasing sense of self and his

search for a better way of life was ‘out of synch’ with Belinda’s stuck condition. At

the same time, Belinda’s burst of activity in terms of renovating her sewing room put

pressure on the family precarious finances. In turn, Darryl’s lack of positive response

to what she was doing irritated Belinda. Carmen’s therapy was having a positive

effect on her home life. In particular, her increased presence at her mother’s home

appeared to be having a beneficial effect on cementing the mother and daughter

relationship. However, Carmen’s presence seemed to cause Belinda considerable

distress in that she did not have the necessary finances to provide fully for her

daughter and exacerbated the bitterness she holds towards her former husband. Family

issues were not pursued as that was not the focus of the intervention, but the systemic

interconnectedness was nevertheless very obvious throughout therapy.

Therapy is also complex. The therapeutic process is characterised and influenced by

multiple levels. These levels exist within the intrapersonal sphere, the interpersonal

sphere, and the global sphere. Each could potentially be connected to or influence

another, thus contributing to system evolution and the process of change. Growth and

change of any one component has the potential to influence and be influenced by the

other components with which it interacts. It is therefore impossible to analyse a single

part or individual in isolation, and the therapist must seek to discover and describe the

embeddedness present among the various levels (Burlingame, Fuhriman & Barnum,

1995). While such holistic embeddedness could not be fully explored in the

intervention, the sense of the participants’ incredible complexity as individuals and

the complexity of their lives was nevertheless recognised, acknowledged, and

celebrated throughout. The therapeutic alliance must also be seen holistically. It is

also a complex system that evolves in a situation of high connectedness (Perna, 1997).

Darryl, Belinda, and Carmen all connected to the researcher in different ways and the

resulting therapeutic alliances were rich and rewarding.

142

5.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The limitations of the study pertain to constraints of scope.

Chaos theory is a complex and complicated field, and any discussion of its concepts

and application in therapy must necessarily take cognisance of such. The explanation

of the concepts given was highly simplified for the purposes of the study, but such a

summary treatment of an incredibly rich and fascinating field inevitably bypasses

some interesting territory. The distillation of these concepts was a carefully

considered and executed one, made in terms of the study’s goals of simplicity and

clarity, but the shortcoming of lack of complexity in this regard is nevertheless

acknowledged.

In demonstrating the concepts and application of chaos theory in therapy, a similar

constraint was inevitable. In its applied mode, chaos theory is wonderfully complex

and is subject to a depth of interpretation that is limited only by the therapist’s depth

of understanding and insight. Essentially, the subtleties and nuances of chaos theory

in therapy are boundless. Such have barely been scratched in the above interpretation

of the results and discussion thereof. The aim of the study was to simply and clearly

demonstrate chaos theory as applied in therapy. Within the constraints of the study

that goal necessarily entailed brevity, but it is acknowledged that much richness of

interpretation has been bypassed.

In terms of the integration of the fields of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory, a similar lack of complexity is acknowledged. The aim of the integration was

indeed to distill the essential concepts of these fields and synthesise the core

fundamentals into a closely woven, functional working framework relevant to the

main goal of the study. This was arguably done, but was achieved at the cost of

bypassing a great deal of the richness and diversity inherent in these three fields.

143

5.6 FUTURE RESEARCH

Many fruitful avenues of research could be pursued from where this study leaves off,

and these may usefully be explored in relation to the goals of the study. A broad

perspective is considered as opposed to making suggestions for particular studies, as

the scope of the subject matter is essentially epic in character and boundless in

potential.

More studies focusing on simple and clear applications of chaos theory in therapy

could be undertaken. The proliferation of complex and confusing studies in this field

almost demands a move toward applications that cut through the conceptual

denseness that characterises the field. If these can be conducted in real-life therapeutic

situations, so much the better. The chaotic process of change is all about living

systems evolving and adapting in response to circumstances, and there is arguably no

better way to investigate such than in dealing with the issues inherent in the daily cut-

and-thrust of people’s lives. Studies committed to pragmatic utility would be

particularly welcome – the field desperately needs this! Related to this, there is great

scope for innovation and creativity in research design and methodology. There is

room in particular for studies utilising triangulation of methods.

A more comprehensive integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos

theory could be undertaken. The fields are so highly complementary that their

synthesis could be very rich and deep indeed. A comprehensive integration has the

potential to not only fuse the core concepts of the three fields – as was done in a

limited way in this study – but to gather together their more diffuse and disparate

strands and seek to bind them into one. The potential of such an integrated framework

for psychology is considerable.

5.7 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the three case studies of the research participants were first presented,

to provide background information and contextualise the ensuing results and

discussion. A short section on the graphical analysis of chaos was presented, as an aid

144

to clarification and understanding of the results and discussion. The process of chaotic

change was very briefly summarised, to provide further context. Results of the

graphical analysis were presented, and these were followed by a discussion of the

results. The results from graphical analysis were triangulated with clinical

observations and verbal feedback from participants to simply and clearly demonstrate

the application of chaos theory in therapy. The limitations of the research were

outlined. These pertain to the constraints of the scope of the study and highlight the

complexity that was necessarily bypassed in the pursuit of conceptual distillation and

synthesis. Suggestions for future research were made. Rather than delineating

particular studies that may be undertaken, a broad perspective of potentially useful

research was considered.

5.8 CONCLUSION

This study’s main goal was to simply and clearly demonstrate the concepts and

application of chaos theory in a therapeutic situation. To this end, three fragmented

but highly complementary fields of psychology were integrated to support a real-life

therapeutic intervention and an innovative research design focused on pragmatic

utility was implemented. The results and discussion arguably show that, despite the

notorious difficulties inherent in utilising chaos theory in real-life applications, the

approach can be used simply and practically in therapy and that it is of pragmatic

utility. The complex nature of applied chaos theory and its analysis presupposes a

certain degree of technical language and complex explanation, but it is argued that the

approach is nevertheless simple and clear and that its pragmatic utility has been

demonstrated. It is thus concluded that the concepts of chaos theory can be

demonstrated in therapy and that their use can be demonstrated in a simple and clear

manner. It is further concluded that chaos theory holds much potential as an

applicatory model for psychology. This potential would be greatly enhanced by the

use of more simple and pragmatic research methods as an alternative to the generally

complicated methods associated with the approach. The triangulation of analytical

methods holds particular promise in chaos theory application.

145

The study’s second goal was to integrate the fundamental concepts of constructivism,

ecopsychology, and chaos theory, relative to the main goal. This was done to provide

a platform for the study’s intervention, which utilised the core fundamentals of these

fields as a working framework. The integration duly served its purpose, proving to be

a firm platform for therapeutic work and investigation. It is thus concluded that the

integration of constructivism, ecopsychology, and chaos theory offers a potentially

powerful framework for therapy and broader psychological investigation and

application.

146

147