The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does

Understanding systems thinking.

“The purpose of a system is what it does” is a phrase used to emphasize that the true purpose of any system is understood by observing its outcomes, not its stated intentions. This phrase cuts through the lies used to hide outcomes. If the purpose of a system is harmful, public understanding of this purpose would lead to opposition to the system. Intended or stated purpose acts as a mass psychological defense against seeing harmful outcomes as the true purpose of systems.

As an example, the stated intention of a company might be to produce food products, but if the system is designed to maximize profit and reduce costs more than health, the real purpose of the system might be to poison consumers with chemical additives. If we were to say “The purpose of the food industry is to poison consumers,” executives in those companies would object that they don’t intend to poison anyone, despite their actions regularly producing this outcome.

Outcomes can be produced whether or not anyone in the system consciously intends them. When those in a system say that they don’t intend to produce an outcome, they are being honest. However, their intention is irrelevant. When we describe the purpose of a system, we are not describing the intentions of anyone in that system, but the outcomes that system produces. An evil villain trying to poison America’s food supply would be less effective at harming the health of consumers than a harmful system in which no one has bad intentions, but in which everyone participates.

A system might have multiple outcomes. The stated purpose of schools is to teach students, yet compulsory schooling produces many other outcomes. It uses force to coerce students. It segregates them from society. It ensures children have somewhere to go so parents can earn capital during the day. Children are regularly abused physically, emotionally, and sexually in the school system. All of these could be described as the purpose of the school system more than “teaching.”

The stated purpose is the least accurate description of the system. If the stated purpose of the school system is “teaching,” but teaching is measured through standardized tests, then it is possible that no real learning is occurring. The purpose of the school system would be better described as generating test scores. If those test scores secure funding for the school which pays administrators six-figure salaries, then we could say that the purpose of the school system is to use child labor to produce funding for school administrators.

All of these descriptions produce significant fragility and defensiveness on the part of those who participate in these systems. If you were to tell a school employee that they were benefiting from child labor and participating in a system that harms children, they would react negatively. They might scream at you, laugh at you, or say you are making a bad “argument.” However, this framing is not an “argument.” It’s a description. The purpose of this framing is not to persuade anyone, but to better understand the system.

One of the mistakes some make when applying systems thinking is to attempt to convince those in the system of this framing. Even if you were to persuade those in the system of your perspective, the intentions of those in the system do not matter. A person who participates in the system will produce its outcome whether or not they believe that the system is good or bad. The only choice is whether or not to participate in the system in the first place. If one person quits, the system can replace them. The only way to create real change is to dismantle the system or produce a new one.

Systems understanding produces a new focus for change. If your goal is to change a system, persuading individuals might not be the path to success. One can achieve change faster through direct focus on the system itself, rather than individual participants. Systems already produce outcomes the majority of Americans oppose. If public opinion is irrelevant to systems that produce bad outcomes, why should it matter if the same method is used to produce good outcomes? The opinions of those in the system are irrelevant. They will go along with the system whether or not the outcomes are those they support. It’s what they’ve always done.

The reason I use the phrase systemic pedophilia to describe systems that harm children is that this phrase describes what the system does rather than its stated intention. Those who participate in this system do not intend to harm children. Many might even be pleasant people. However, the outcome of their actions and participation in this system is harm. Their intention is irrelevant because the purpose of a system is what it does — not what they “intend” to do.

Using the term “systemic pedophilia” removes the gaslighting of claimed intention. If someone knows a system produces a particular outcome and they choose to participate in that system, that is their purpose, whether or not it matches their stated intention. The fragility they respond to this truth with is a psychological defense to avoid accountability. Acknowledging the system would remove the story they have about themselves and their intentions.

Directly attacking someone’s psychological defenses triggers them and often causes them to become defensive. It is not a persuasion strategy, but persuading those in the system doesn’t matter, because their opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the outcome of the system. I have spoken to teachers who acknowledge the school system causes harm, doctors who acknowledge the medical system causes harm, and police who acknowledge the criminal justice system causes harm. They still did their job. Staying in the system was comfortable.

Talking about how “the purpose of a system is what it does” makes those in the system uncomfortable. That’s the point. Only when the pain of participating in the system is greater than the pain of change will they behave differently. I continue my work even when challenged because I believe in it. Those in the system don’t believe in anything. They’re just doing a job. When participation in the system becomes uncomfortable, they will leave. If the purpose of a system is what it does, then only a change in outcomes matters.