Within the family therapy field these days one tends to talk more about systemic thinking and less about systems theory. This could be an important shift for those social workers who are interested in developing a more systemic practice. Systems theory originated in the physical sciences, and claimed that systems could be measured accurately, and that the parts of any system behaved in a predictable, and rather mechanistic way. At that time (1950s to 1970s) this was a useful development in that it helped us think of how the behaviour of one part of a system (like the family) influenced that of others, and allowed us to move away from over-focusing on the isolated individual.

However, by the end of the 1970s it was becoming clearer that what might work in physics with inanimate objects might not apply so neatly to the complex situations facing human beings (Hoffman, 1990). Systemic thinking, by contrast, has come to emphasise how the thoughts, beliefs and meanings held by individuals and shared by important others within a system may form a pattern, but are often quite unpredictable, especially within complex systems such as many of the families with whom social workers are working.

This puts us less in the position of being experts, and more of being explorers. We may even become co-explorers with our clients, if we play our cards right and our clients and agencies permit.

The consequences of this shift in thinking can be immense. How can we, as agents of the state, any longer be as confident as we used to be in assessing people and difficult situations, if we are no longer expert outside observers? This was a dilemma faced in most of the case examples described. Although the authors were careful not to claim expert powers, they were grappling with the fact that we are all often required to act as if we are experts at how people should conduct their lives, and we therefore run the risk of overstepping the mark. Systemic thinking suggests that we take the trouble from time to time to challenge anything that passes for expertise, especially when this ends up being simplistic and dogmatic.