I began thinking about this topic several years ago when I realized that I had met many people in my practice and in my personal life who are considered successful in life, but appear to be lower in level of differentiation of emotional functioning.
Many people have the thinking, “If a person and his family have a nice house, good income, a nice car, kids succeeding in school, fabulous vacations, then they must be mature and doing something right.” But I would contend that these kinds of successes in life have little or nothing to do with the quality of one’s emotional functioning.
Currently, there is a range of opinions about this assertion. Agreement, disagreement, silence, and indifference. There are no authoritative pronouncements one way or the other. What do you observe? What do you think? I would suggest not taking what I or anybody else reasons about this topic as settled truth. It’s a topic that is far from settled. How would you reason about it?
Bowen developed a theory of individual and systems emotional functioning. I could be wrong, but the only thing I’ve found in Bowen’s writings that makes any claims about what differentiation influences is what he said about symptom development. An individual or system lower in level of differentiation will tend to develop more physical, social, and emotional symptoms and those symptoms will be more serious the lower the level of differentiation of the individual or system.
That’s a big assertion, but in over 49 years of practice and more years of living, I’ve never seen research nor clinical observations that conclusively contradict that assertion. It has turned out to be a good guide for clinical observation.
Some have reported that Bowen said that occupational and educational success were associated with level of differentiation, but I’ve never found it anywhere in his prolific writings.
I’ve been exploring the opposite. Yes, level of differentiation is inversely associated with symptom development but has little or no association with what many regard as success in life. High SES(socioeconomic status), education, occupation, wealth, IQ, competence at skills, accomplishments, where you live, generational wealth, social status. I assert that differentiation of emotional functioning is extremely important but that it does not guarantee what many regard as success in life. I’ll present one case of a man who was extremely successful in his accomplishments in his life and extremely high in SES and wealth, but was considerably lower in his individual level of differentiation and came from a family similarly lower in level of differentiation of emotional functioning.
Ludwig Wittgenstein(1889-1951)
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a noted philosopher, some say the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, making new contributions in logic, philosophy of language, and logical positivism. He certainly jogged philosophy out of its conventional ways of thinking. That alone seems to be an important contribution to the evolution of philosophy, a worthy accomplishment. At the same time, he was from the richest family in Austria; his father was a self-made owner of big steel-making companies.
Ludwig had the academic accomplishments. His brother Paul was a concert pianist of some note. Clearly the family was high SES with accomplishments and intelligence.
However, the family was a mess. Of the eight children, three were girls, five boys. Three of the boys committed suicide. Ludwig the philosopher did not commit suicide, nor did Paul the pianist. But Ludwig was plagued by suicidal thinking from his teens until into his thirties.
More to the point, Ludwig was a brilliant high IQ person who was emotionally abusive to others. Philosophers, friends, to wives of friends, to just people he’d run into in his daily life. He didn’t tolerate people who disagreed with what he regarded as the correct ideas about philosophy and didn’t tolerate others being imprecise in their use of language. He intimidated them into fear with his impulsive temper. In Vienna and later at Cambridge University, it appears that these very bright academics were so awed by his brilliance and his temper that they acted like puppies following a cult leader whose remarkable thinking they worshipped.
In conversation and group discussions, he continually interrupted others and claimed the floor. No one dared cross him(low differentiation). Most worshipped him.
Ludwig never had any long term relationships that we know of.
The father Karl was an angry tyrant reminiscent of Donald Trump’s father Fred. Cold and intolerant of any of the children, especially the males, pursuing anything other than following in his footsteps managing the family business and being as successful at making money as he was. Anything else was regarded as failure, freely told. Both Ludwig’s mother and Trump’s mother dared not cross these successful angry husbands.
Trump may have accomplished things and may have made money but it’s hard to know since he has lied so much. His older sister was a federal judge and his uncle John Trump(brother of the father) was a successful MIT professor of engineering and physics. But a sibling Fred Jr.(niece Mary’s father) died at age 42 after years of alcoholism. He had been fired from his job as a commercial airline pilot because of his drinking. Mary had depression and drug problems as well as being a successful clinical psychologist and author.
Wittgenstein was high in SES and accomplishments. The accomplishments seemed to have made genuine contributions to philosophy. However, his emotional abuse of others gives him a lower level of differentiation. His family was low in differentiation in spite of their wealth and accomplishments.
References
The House of Wittgenstein, Alexander Waugh, 2008.
Wittgenstein’s Poker, David Edmonds and John Eidinow, 2001. Take a look at the chapter titled ‘Poor Little Rich Boy’.
Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man, Mary L. Trump, 2020.
Further Reading on Social Success
Vanderbilt: the Rise and Fall of an American Dynasty, Anderson Cooper and Katherine Howe, 2021.
Quiet Street: On American Privilege, Nick McDonell, 2023.
Jim Edd, thank you for this fascinating and thought-provoking article. It raises many questions for me. Does high SES offer advantages in managing emotional process because the social position offers protection? What do you think is behind the tendency to over-value high SES? I recall Dr Bowen stating that differentiation or emotional maturity is a separate characteristic from SES or intelligence or beauty, etc. At the same time, low emotional maturity doesn’t take away from the contributions individuals make in art, philosophy, music, literature, and science. How do people low on the scale manage to create and contribute as they sometimes do? Laurie
Thanks, Laurie. I can’t answer most of your questions. The last one I do however have an argument which I believe, but have no data with which to support it. One way that low differentiation can “create and contribute” is to have an intense focus on an area of contribution as a way of binding or reducing one’s personal anxiety. I have seen this in operation in someone who uses a kind of driven discipline as a way to avoid the subjective chaos of intense anxiety.
This is one way for low differentiation to make real contributions. I’m sure there must be additional ways I haven’t thought of.
Does your Bowen assertion about differentiation being separate from SES etc. appear anywhere in Bowen’s writings or recorded talks?
With respect to overvaluing high SES, social hierarchies appear almost everywhere in nature. So much so that we might regard it as a fundamental automatic reaction in human beings and in nonhuman beings. It appears to be an automatic reaction to anxiety or insecurity.
I don’t have an answer to your question about high SES offering protections in mingling emotional process. I’ll have to think about that.
Jim Edd,
A hazard of having high social and economic status is the strong influence it has on how others treat you. It puts you in a category that insulates you from honest feedback from others, especially from those who depend on you for their own well being: spouse, children, employees, etc. Your study of Wittgenstein reveals that he had multiple disadvantages in this regard, from the example of his father as a ruthless pursuer of wealth, to the level of tension in his family of origin, to the intellectual achievements that may have put him in a lofty but isolated position of high SES. He also may have had frustration in having few peers at his intellectual level.
Trump has given us a case study in how this combination of factors can produce extreme impairment at the individual level combined with power at the societal level. Whatever intellectual gifts he may have appear to be completely harnessed to an infantile emotional agenda.
Thanks for your research and thinking on this, Jim Edd.
Thanks Stephanie. Your first sentence is a real systems way of thinking about SES. I’m going to chew on it. I’m sure there is more.
This is Victoria, logging on with Stephanie’s name for now. Jim Edd, I remember learning in the PGP that evaluating levels of differentiation involved all aspects of functioning for the individual and his/her family unit.
Bowen used to say. “How do you get out ahead of symptoms?” I coined “the five fingers of fitness” to include 1 Intellectual functioning, 2 Relationships with family of origin, 3 marriage(s) 4 reproduction and 5 physical/mental/social health. Which ones had Symptoms? Which ones excelled? Which ones were just absent? I remember talking about the very question you raise: How would you rank Mick Jagger? Trump? Darwin? I really like how you use Wittgenstein as an example! How do you account for the elevation he received in philosophy? What was the relationship process involved? Your thinking can take so many interesting directtions re: differentiation of self and factors at play.
Victoria,
Wittgenstein’s notable achievements in philosophy come from his single-minded focus on philosophy, not unlike his father’s single-minded focus on making money. Brother Paul did the same with his piano concert career. This idea is in the reply I gave to Laurie. Single-minded focus is one low differentiation way of managing anxiety, binding it in the narrow behaviors of the narrow focus. With single-minded focus, one can become very competent at a skill or vocation while remaining rooted in low differentiation.
Victoria, I like your five fingers of fitness. Where would you include financial fitness and position in a hierarchy? I was thinking how one can have symptoms in those areas, even with good income and social position. Thanks,
Laurie
Hi again, Jim Edd,
I can’t recall if it’s written down, or where, but Dr Bowen mentioned this more than once, saying that the very lowest in SES may be at low DoS, but otherwise no correlation, in his view. He joked about attending his medical school reunion and noticing all the big Cadilacs (sp?). He wasn’t a fan.
I just thought of another obvious factor in low DoS beng able to accomplish. It would also depend on whether they received attention, approval, etc. from others.
yes, approval for the accomplishments from somebody.
The proposal: “An individual or system lower in level of differentiation will tend to develop more physical, social, and emotional symptoms” is indeed a compelling one. It penetrates below the surface to a proposed essential Self.
The question of SES is an important one because it keeps us awake.
I’ve known many of the lowest SES and a few very high SES. In my non-scientific estimation I’d say there were a few high DOS among the lowest SES and a few low DOS among the highest SES. I suspect there is correlation between DOS and SES but with wide variation.
We currently have very fuzzy measures of DOS. This leaves us vulnerable to oversimplifying. If we could ever quantify DOS in a scientific manner we might find that the concept is complex, rather poorly defined, but still incredibly useful.
The Wittgenstein summary was fascinating to read, as well as the facts about Trump’s siblings. I’ve been near a few people who seemed to be geniuses of some sort, but never one like Wittgenstein. I’ve read deeply about one genius of a very different type (Willa Cather.). It is hard for a biographer to avoid imposing her values on the subject. There is a fine book about this phenomenon showing how Cather has been claimed by various groups over the past century. My opinion is that Cather was most likely not a closeted lesbian, as has become common knowledge in the 21st century, but something much harder for our times to conceive of- a person for whom sex was not particularly important!
I suspect a wide range of DOS among geniuses, the rich, the poor, the gay, the lovely, and even perhaps among scoundrels.
Is there a biography of Willa Cather you’d recommend? I love the novels of hers which I have read but I know nothing about her life.
Yes, “wide variation” found in different groups is the important point.
If any group actually has more people who are better differentiated than other groups, it is a small advantage hardly worth paying attention to. Wide variation is worth paying attention to.
This is another illustration of one piece of advice: “For any complex systems phenomenon, don’t pay much attention to any single variable by itself”.
My favorite bio is “Willa Cather Living” by a best friend and collaborator Edith Lewis. It’s brief and well written. Joan Acoccela of the New Yorker wrote “Will Cather and the Politics of Criticism” a fascinating book about biography and criticism and how distorting they can be.
Erik,
Thanks for the references. There is a 2023 biography I am waiting for from the library.