Although this part of the theory may seem too technical and cause some to want to give up, I am hoping to illustrate the model with a variety of everyday situations which will make it much more understandable. What is presented here is a general model which can be applied to specific stressor situations. Whereas the specific variables will differ in different contexts, the system dynamics at play are the same.
The stress situation begins with a assumption or view of the world which we will call the status quo. In the stress model this is a variable which is called by other names, the normal variable or the first asymmetric variable, and will be designated here with the small case letter 'a'. This variable represents the thesis in Hegels dialectic model. Frustration arises when something arises to challenge the status quo. Because of the asymmetry or strong bias of the status quo, it leads to extremes that begin to break down. The realities or truths that are being excluded by the strong bias of the status quo emerge as a second variable which is referred to as the stressor or burden. More technical terms for this variable include the splitting variable or the first bifurcating variable, and it will be designated here with the small case letter 'b'. This variable represents the antithesis in Hegels dialectic model.
A classic example of this comes from the sociologists Robert Merton's study of social structure in American society. He pointed out how the ideal of free enterprise in U.S. maintains that anyone who works hard enough, has the opportunity in this country to become wealthy and successful. This idea is a part of our culture. The degree a person believes in this ideal could be measured as a variable called the status quo (a). Unfortunately this ideal is not a reality for most of the poor, non-Caucasian, and emigrant segments of our society. Although they may believe it and work towards it, they will inevitably become frustrated by the many blocks they encounter which prevent them from achieving their expectations. This ambiguity and its resulting frustration lead to a reactionary position of rebellion and reform. The stressor or burden (b) provides a challenge to the status quo.
Together the two variables create a system with two alternatives (either/or). The resulting stress dynamic model is called a cusp catastrophe model because it creates a discontinuity when a person jumps from one extreme position to the other. It is represented in our daily life as either/or, all/nothing, black/white, or absolutist mentality. I refer to this as Level 1 thinking. It is most typical of teenagers and people who are dealing with a new frustration. It takes time to evolve (i.e. mature) to a higher, more differentiated possibility.
The above 3D picture shows how this works. For those who are privileged [-a], the more individuals believe in the status quo, the less more they are likely to feel at peace (i.e. upper and middle class, Caucasian men). This is represented on the top surface, near the back of the model where a two headed arrow represents smooth change. Now consider a Mexican who dreams about coming to America since he has heard it is a place of opportunity and anyone who works hard can succeed [+a]. When he first arrives in this country he starts out in the front back of the model and as time moves on he moves closer and closer to position 'p'. He feels more and more tension and frustration as he works hard and does everything according to the rules, but is not successful due to impediments to his success. When he hits a threshold of his belief in the American dream, he makes a jump to the rebellion mode on the top of the cusp. Now he tries to work for reform of the system and either moves continuously toward reform or begins to have doubts and feel guilty in which case he approaches position 'q' and is vulnerable to believing in the American dream again.
For many people dealing with the frustration between two polarized positions is not sufficient. They need something that is a more moderate solution. This leads to the mergence (or unfolding in mathematical terms) of a more complex system with three variables (butterfly model) and eventually to a third system with four variables which allows for a transcendent possibility not available in the less differentiated systems.
Although this may start to sound very complex it is a very simple system in that there are only four control variables and one order variable. It is difficult to imagine graphically because it requires an ability to conceive of a picture in five dimensions. Even though there are only four variables, the possible interaction between these variables with only a high, medium, and low option leads to 81 different possible combinations of the variables. This is why one definition of chaos in Chaos Theory is that it deals with a simple system with complex outcomes. With time I am hoping to add several additional figures and examples to help make this transition from a three variable model (cusp) to the full five variable model (butterfly) easier for people to visualize.
In the meantime what is particularly important about the butterfly model is the structural relationship between variables and the asymmetry. Together the relationship between the variables and the asymmetry in the model lead to an autodynamic process of internal diversification. It is called autodynamic because the asymmetry leads to an attempt to correct the system which because of the structure between the variables leads to tensions in new areas. If an individual tries to make adjustments to deal with the stress, they will progressively moved through the process of internal diversification until they reach transcendence at which point the tensions and stresses of the system no longer have any effect on them. Most individuals resist the process and stick with imperfect solutions (trained incapacities). More about this will be given.
As tensions continue, a system will evolve to include a third variable (swallowtail). In this case either the thesis variable [a] or the antithesis variable [b] will begin to differentiate. In each case there is both a cognitive and an emotional aspect to each variable. In some cases this appears as a detached and an attached aspect or a inward and an outward aspect, respectively. The cognitive, detached, inward, or future oriented aspect usually involves and beliefs, ideas, expectations; while the emotional, attached, outward, or present oriented aspect usually are driven more by human needs. In the example of intimate relationships the cognitive attachment (i.e. feelings for partner) can contrast with the emotional commitment (i.e. need for intimacy). When problems in the relationship [+b] get bad, some focus more on their emotional commitment and needs for intimacy, and choose to stick with the problems much longer; whereas those who focus more on their compatibility and feelings may not be aware of the problems as intensely but may also be the first to give up if they feel it isn't working. I call this "the first (emotional focused) shall be last and the last (cognitive focused) shall be first".
For many people this stress leads to a distinction between the two aspects of the thesis such that the emotional commitment [c], often represented as duty, obligation, and obedience, emerges and becomes more stressed than the compatibility and feeling for the other individual. The 'c' variable has been referred to as the second asymmetrical variable or the bias variable and I often refer to it as the support-variable as it provides support in maintaining the status quo. In these cases it is possible to have a love-hate relationship because you love the intimacy and having your needs met [+c], but you hate things about this person that are irritating [-a]. This combination has a special term called ritualism, but that will be explained later.
As the stress increases, some people do not distinguish between their cognitive and emotional attachments and commitments, but instead begin to distinguish the meaning given to the problem from the stress caused by the problem itself. The cognitive meaning associated with the antithesis is called the second bifurcating factor or the butterfly factor [d], which I usually refer to as the meaning or salience variable referring to the meaning or salience of the stressor. This variable is a key component to creating the possibility for compromises and moderation which will eventually lead to transcendence. It also is fragile as it is first emerging. As it becomes stronger, it creates the possibility for a stable new middle ground so that instead of being only an either/or option, there are now other alternatives. Finding meaning is an important part of the therapeutic process involved in dealing with irresolvable stressor situations (Boss, 2006). Because the situations will not go away and are not in an individual's control, finding meaning provides a way of making the situation more manageable and turning what would otherwise be a no-win situation into a no-lose situation.
Although this explanation is not adequate, it is a beginning and with more refinement and examples it may become more clear to those who are trying to understand this. To conclude, I will include a diagram here which shows the structural relations between the four variables and the asymmetry which drives the autodynamic process of internal diversification. I believe it is this drive which is also found at the hear of evolutionary processes as other plants and animals try to overcome the irresolvable stressors in path to achieving their required needs. The asymmetry favors the thesis variables (status quo) and the needs driven (emotional based) variables. Because of this, the support variable (representing
Asymmetry is a technical work that refers to imbalance in a system. Because most people have a preference for left or right-handedness, you can say that shows some asymmetry. Since Blacks, Hispanics, women, or other minorities tend to be excluded and not given fair treatment, this is another example of asymmetry. Because of this the support variable [c] tends to hold the greatest weight in the model initially, whereas the meaning or salience variable [d] is the weakest (albeit the most important) variable in the model. Here is the diagram summarizing these relations:
The relationship between the two thesis (asymmetric) variables and between the two antithesis (bifurcation) variables are referred to as confederate relations because they tend to be highly correlated or to be in the same direction. The discrepancy between confederate variables is referred to as dissonance. The four relationships between opposing variables (shown by dotted lines above) are negatively correlated or tend to be at odds with each other. The discrepancy between this expectation is referred to as ambivalence. It is the dissonance and ambivalence as people change which creates the onward tensions which drive the process of internal diversification and lead towards transcendence.
Last Modified: 01 Oct 2006