Introduction

There has long been confusion as to which model is best for investigating and responding to drug issues. Contention has been on single reductionist approaches such as a moral model or a genetic model while other perspectives consider a range of models and way of thinking about drug issues and problems. For example, most areas of the Western world seem to have shifted from regarding alcoholism as a social problem to be punished (as in a moral model perspective) to viewing it as a health problem to be treated and cared for using a range of alternative approaches and avenues of investigation (Klingemann, Takala, & Hunt, 1993, p.221).

This essay considers machine-age thinking, which includes models such as the moral, disease or genetic model, and a systems approach, an alternative way of thinking to allow for various types of initiatives, policies and programs to be incorporated in viewing, understanding and responding to drug and alcohol issues.

First the general systems theory is described giving definitions of the general systems theory, including three main properties of systems theory proposed by Ackoff (cited in Salmon & Walker, 2002, p.23), and how it can be most effective in viewing, responding to, and understanding drug use and associated issues. Next, machine-age thinking is discussed in order to demonstrate what machine-age thinking is and how this style of thinking has been implemented in various types of drug models.

Last, a discussion on the strengths and criticisms of both systems theory and machine-age thinking is presented in order to highlight which approach is optimal.

Systems theory was proposed in the 1940's by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (cited in Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). Bertalanffy (n.d) emphasized that real systems are open to, and interact with, their environments, and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence, resulting in continual evolution. Rather than reducing an entity (e.g. the human body) to the properties of its parts or elements (e.g. organs or cells), systems theory focuses on the arrangement of and relations between the parts, which connect them into a whole (Heylighen, & Joslyn, 1992).

As Bertalanffy (cited in Heylighen, & Joslyn, 1992) noted, real systems interact with their environments. In the realms of alcohol and drug intervention Wilkinson & Coleman (1994, p. 61) discuss that a systems approach must include responses that target the individual, the drug used, and the environment which drug use occurs and that because these areas interrelate and connect any intervention strategies should impact these three areas (such as the public health model).

Holder (cited in Wilkinson & Coleman, 1994, p. 62) concedes that the "systems objective is to strive for consistency of purpose across all levels on which problems exist". This represents five major levels for adopting drug/alcohol approaches. The first is the legal and cultural environment, second, the community environment, the third level refers to family and workplace environments, the forth level is the immediate drinking environment and finally stage five represents individual or host factors. These five stages encompass an array of political, economic, social, environmental, and individual aspects, (Wilkinson & Coleman, 1994, p. 62,63) and is carried out by legislators, law enforcement officials, health professionals, educators and concerned citizens, therefore representing a good systems approach (Holder, 1989, p.339). An incorporated system such as this can help improve the overall psychosocial functioning (e.g., educational, vocational, family, and interpersonal functioning) of the person or persons targeted and maintain consistency across various levels of intervention (Burkstein, 1994, p. 296).

Further still, Ackoff (cited in Salmon & Walker, 2002, p.23), has suggested three main properties of a system. First, each part of the system affects the whole, second, each part of the system affects and is affected by every other part, and third, the system cannot be broken down into independent sub-systems.

Almost a decade ago, therapists treating those with substance use problems were trained in a "one true light" (this way is the best and only way) perspective, until the idea of an eclectic approach was adopted in the last few years (Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 1). Such it is also with machine-age thinking and systems theory. That is, up until fairly recently (before the public health model and systems approach) a reductionist, to account for a range of phenomena in terms of a single determining factor, (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 2000, p. 291) or mechanistic, single solutions that do not consider humans as complex systems, approach was taken in the treatment of alcohol and drug problems (Salmon & Walker, 2002, p. 21, 22).

Reductionist models include the moral model, disease model, characterlogical model, scare tactics and linking all drug problems to genetic factors (Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 2-4: Salmon & Walker, 2002, p 23). Machine-age thinking does not consider values, assumes the environment or context of a problem is insignificant and attempts to root out the problem by dissecting various parts. It is restrictive in that it will not consider wider contexts of drug use such as the environment in which a drug is used. To be more precise, machine-age thinking assumes the "one true light" approach. (Salmon & Walker, 2002, p 21).

A further example of machine-age thinking would be to take a morel model approach to the problem of alcohol and drugs. Many years ago, prior to 1849 and beyond, dangers from excessive alcohol use were considered unfortunate consequences for those who made personal decisions to drink excessively. Moral models emphasise personal choice as a primary casual factor (Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 2).

From this perspective, alcohol problems are viewed as wilful violations of societal rules and norms. In today's age, this is how drink driving is viewed. Yet from this moral perspective, social sanctions are imposed on drinking and the agents of change include legislators, law enforcement, and the courts (Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 2).

While machine-age thinking conducts a narrow analysis of alcohol and drug problems, a systems approach will intervene and conduct analysis from an array of perspectives and considerations. However, this does not mean that using a machine-age thinking perspective is totally futile. As already described, certain models that come under the machine-age thinking umbrella can shed light on alcohol and drug issues. Logic for this thinking stems from Miller & Hester (1995, p. 1, 2) where they discuss that there is no single approach which stands out as an Arian form of intervention, but neither are all treatments and intervention designs equally effective or ineffective.

This thinking can be highlighted when considering the various forms of intervention and analysis. For example, a biological model which considers genetic and physiological processes as indicators of drug problems and perhaps more specifically, alcoholism, will consider such things as pharmacology of alcohol, gender, weight, age, metabolism, genetic factors and so on. When considering such an array of components much information can be gathered and give very plausible knowledge and understanding of drug related problems and issues such as alcoholism. Therefore, an approach that could be restrictive and narrow (reductionist) in explaining the cause of alcoholism can in fact shed very useful insights for prevention and or intervention initiatives (Miller & Hester, 1995, pp. 6,7: Ryder, Salmon, & Walker, 2001, pp. 48-56).

To give an example, the genetic model can be used. In 1990, scientists examined the brains of 35 dead alcoholics and found that a gene, the A 1 allele had been identified in 69% of the alcoholics brains and 20% of the non-alcoholics. Blum and Noble (cited in Ryder, Salmon, & Walker, 2001, p. 55) believed the A 1 allele was associated with alcoholism. Though controversial and attempts to replicate such evidence failed, the study did highlight the possibility of a genetic factor to alcoholism and paves the way for more research in this area (Ryder et al, 2001, pp. 55, 56).

A holistic approach that strives to understand the properties of a system and introduce or implement strategies consistent with this understanding is powerful in its ability to be flexible and to expand so as to include consideration of a range of issues and complex aspects in the drug and alcohol field (Ryder, Salmon, & Walker, 2001, pp. 153, 154).

Such a holistic approach is that of the public health model, which in its essence is formulated and delivered using a systems approach. In considering three types of causal factors for alcohol and drug problems, the agent (the drug used), host (the individual) and environment (context in which a drug is used), integration is possible when responding to drug issues. This prevents a narrow "one true light" approach. The public health model gives hope of integration of previously rival, incompatible perspectives such as those under the machine-age thinking umbrella (Miller & Hester, 1995, pp. 7, 8). In the words of Moore & Gerstein (cited in Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 8), "This perspective moves away from the search of a single "correct" way to intervene".

While the public health model generates possible causes as to why people use drugs, it provides for a wide range of initiatives in responding to this question. It also provides for the implementation of a wide range of prevention programs on a local, national and international level under the auspice of harm reduction, harm minimisation, supply control, and demand reduction policies and programs. Allowing the system in systems theory to be applied (Miller & Hester, 1995, p. 8).

However, Wallack (cited in Cahalan, 1991, pp. 40, 41) has provided several barriers to the implementation of an effective systems approach. These include improper or inadequate application of the model, administration and coordination problems in implementation, a narrow conceptualisation of the problem, and unrealistic expectations. For example, Kumpfer (cited in Cahalan, 1991, p. 41) notes that supply reduction techniques, which come under a systems approach, have demonstrated little effect on actual drug use patterns and the billions of dollars allocated for prevention will go towards supply reduction, indicating a waste of valuable funding and a break down in the system.

Criticisms can be seen for machine-age thinking when this model has been applied to community programs. Though undertaken in good will, programs have often targeted individuals or individual groups, such as those determined to be at high risk of drug use. These types of programs fail to consider that the community is an evolving, complex adaptive system; it is a system that uses internal structures and interacts with its environment in order to survive. Programs of a reductionist type fail to deliver a program that will consider the wider environmental, social, cultural and economic dynamics because they are not structured in such a way to consider these variables. This results in the machine-age thinking approach often failing due to its own limitations giving good reason for a systems approach to be the most viable and optimal choice in dealing with drug and alcohol issues (Holder, 1998, pp. 1-5).

Drug and alcohol issues are varied and complex, the form of treatment will vary for each individual, interventions will differ in their service delivery and programs, policies are implemented on the best evidence for different drug and alcohol issues, and a whole conglomerate of complex variables need consideration when dealing with drug and alcohol issues and problems (Price & Young, cited in Wilkinson & Saunders, 1996, p. 118).

Certain models to deal with such considerations have been designed, some being more effective than others. Since World War II, many countries have experienced a dramatic expansion in their alcohol treatment models and systems (Klingemann, Takala, & Hunt, 1993, p.221). This essay presented an insight into two ways of thinking and responding to drug and alcohol issues, machine-age thinking and general systems theory.

Systems theory was considered first. This included a definition of systems theory and a brief analysis of how it can be most effective in viewing, responding to, and understanding drug use and associated issues. Machine-age thinking was presented next with consideration of the types of drug models that come under the machine-age thinking umbrella.

The following section then described some of the criticisms and limitations of the two models. This section was devoted to highlighting which approach is optimal by using examples such as the A1 allele for a genetic approach which comes under the machine-age thinking model, and the public health model for general systems theory.

Abercrombie, N. Hill, S. & Turner, B. (2000). The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (4th ed), Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Bukstein, O. (1994, Fall). Treatment of adolescent alcoholism abuse and dependence. Alcohol, Health and Research World, 18. n4, 296.

Cahalan, D. (1991). An Ounce of Prevention. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Heylighen, F & Joslyn, C. (1992). What is Systems Theory? [on-line] Available WWW:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html [21st August. 2002].

Holder, H. (1989). Prevention of alcohol related problems. Alcohol, Health and Research World, 13. (4), 339-342.

Klingemann, H. Takala, J.P & Hunt, G. (1993, Summer). The development of alcohol treatment systems: an international perspective. Alcohol, Health and Research World, 17. n3, 221.

Miller, W.M., & Hester, R.K. (1995). Treatment for alcohol problems: Toward an informed eclecticism. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilkinson, C. & Coleman, P. (1994, Spring). Systems bloody systems: A model for the prevention of drug related harm. Drugwise, 3-5.

Wilkinson, C & Saunders, B. (1996). Perspectives on addiction: Making sense of the issues. Perth, Western Australia: William Montgomery Pty Ltd.

Ryder, D. Salmon, A. & Walker, N. (2001). Drug Use and Drug-related Harm: A delicate balance. Melbourne, Victoria: IP Communications.

Salmon, A. & Walker, N. (2002). Addiction Studies: Social Action. Perth, WA: Edith Cowan University.