I will attach a 10-page Word document. This is an unfinished paper being prepared for the Chicago symposium in May.Evolution and Bowen Theory 2
I will attach a 10-page Word document. This is an unfinished paper being prepared for the Chicago symposium in May.Evolution and Bowen Theory 2
Stephanie, I think the effort you have made on this subject over time is an important contribution. Have you published other versions of it? If so, what is different in this article? Following are some chronological questions/comments that, it goes without saying may or may not be useful!
Bowen was very wise to base the theory in an evolutionary perspective, as opposed to evolutionary theory, since evolutionary theory changes!
I am interested in the exchange between you and Dr. Kerr. Could you give an example of how you think that you, as you put it, “squished” together Bowen theory and evolutionary theory? Even a brief example? And a brief example of his useful comment? That sounds like an exchange that could benefit others. I think it would be more useful to others if you presented the differences between your and Dr. Kerr’s thinking, and left out “in my haste . . . the two theories together.”
A real strength is the background you have gained on your own to read biologists that are relevant to Bowen theory. I really like Ernst Mayr, too. I liked the way you stated the survival of some at the expense of others, including your phrase “It is a profoundly social process yet it is not an equal opportunity system.”
Why did Mayr say that the predominant view now is essentialism? Can you give an example that explains more what is meant by it. It’s a complex idea . . .
I really like your discussion of altruism, and that Darwin saw if as an “insuperable difficulty” for his theory.
I might make a distinction between what seems like a universal tendency in life to favor kin and the kin selection theories like inclusive fitness, which may not be accurate (according to EO Wilson).
I was fascinated by the hen experiment.
By introducing the concept of differentiation of self, I think Bowen has moved beyond the dichotomy of individual vs. group selection, or selfish vs. altruistic. He did use the terms individuality and togetherness, but it seems to me that the concept of differentiation adds something new, and something beyond individuality and togetherness balance.
Laurie,
Your comments are helpful. I have wondered why Bowen didn’t put more evolutionary theory into his writing, so your point that evolution as a fact doesn’t change but evol. theory does, is well taken.
Regarding my exchange with Dr. Kerr, I presented this at the 2012 Chicago symposium, and I suggested that the behaviors that follow from evol. theory (competition, cooperation, preference for kin, sensitivity to fairness, sacrifice for the group, etc.) are all part of the emotional system. I think that was the part of my presentation that led to his question: Why did you put these two theories together? He has done considerable work on the connections and differences between the two theories. His question has pushed me to do more thinking and I am seeing the differences more clearly now, I think, but have more work to do.
Regarding essentialism, I found Mayr’s distinction between essentialism (typological thinking) and “population thinking” important.
Quote: “Population thinkers stress the uniqueness of everything in the organic world. What is important is the individual, not the type. …he who does not understand the uniqueness of individuals is unable to understand the working of natural selection.” (in Growth of Biological Thought, 46-47. He sees Western thinking for 2000 years since Plato dominated by essentialism, beginning to change in the 19th century. I think we see it currently and commonly in the typing and categorizing we tend to do, i. e. personality types, ethnic steroetypes, “dysfunctional family” etc. I think Bowen had quite an appreciation for the uniqueness of the individual.I’ve wondered why he put 100 points on the scale of differentiation. Small differences in dos make a significant different in the life courses of individuals. Darwin wrote that slight differences could make a big difference in who survived.
Regarding altruism, I think it is only one facet of social behavior. It seems to be a primary focus in evol theory.
Regarding kin selection, it seems to be stirring quite a controversy in evol. bio. now since E. O. Wilson and D. S.Wilson have proposed new thinking on group selection. Early human societies were extended kin groups. How much difference is there between kin group and non-kin? It seems to me that emotional attachment and empathy to the distress of others need to be considered in explaining altruism.
Finally, thanks for your point on the dichotomizing of ind vs group, selfish vs altruistic. That’s exactly where I think evol theory gets into some trouble, and Bowen wisely saw counterbalance and reciprocity.
Stephanie,
Some thoughts:
There was a teaching session I remember in the postgraduate course in which Bowen expressed his view that comparison, compare and contrast type evaluation of different theories is not productive. I have found that, for instance, that efforts to compare and contrast Attachment theory and Bowen theory do not increase my clarity about either one. I enjoyed reading your description of evolutionary theory as a review as I have enjoyed Dr. Kerr’s efforts. But I am in agreement with Bowen, if I understood him, that comparing Bowen theory and evolutionary theory is not the best path to increased clarity.
I would go with what you said in October’s festwg session, “Where I hope to go with this project is to use data from the natural sciences without getting entangled in evolutionary theory and see how it looks from the perspective of Bowen theory”.
I do believe that Bowen theory illuminates the family as an evolutionary unit that imposes selective forces on its members and is subject to selective forces itself. I hypothesize that using Bowen theory to look at the phenomena of evolution will further thinking about evolution and the family. You can remind me that this is the methodology I am trying to use looking at psychology in evolution and the family.
Maybe this is an example in looking at altruism and competition. I think Bowen used individuality and togetherness life forces two ways.:
1. Individuality as being for self and togetherness as being for the group. I think this is how its used by evolutionary biologists as well. 2. individuality as being regulated by self and togetherness as being regulated by the group is when individuality is synonymous with differentiation level and this usage is an innovation by Bowen. Thus altruism (for the group) can be a product of individuality (a product of self regulation) when it is synonymous with differentiation, or competition (for self) can be a product of togetherness (and lead to conflict) when it is in reaction to/ regulated by the group.
How the balance of individuality and togetherness produces individual variation and impacts individual and group fitness, when individuality is synonymous with differentiation, can be observed as a pathway of evolution impacting our ability to leverage group living in the struggle for survival.
Stephanie and all,
I mis -stated in next to last paragraph above. The evolutionary theorists don’t use the individuality and togetherness balance concept. What I mean is the use of individuality meaning selfish and togetherness as altruistic is more similar to Bowen’s use of the terms when he says that optimal is a 50-50 balance of individuality and togetherness which I interpret as meaning 50%for self, 50% for the group. When he uses it saying that the more the system is balanced toward individuality the better I think he is using individuality as self-regulation and togetherness as automatic functioning regulated by the group.
Sorry if I am perseverating on this. I spent a year in webcasts where MEKerr was trying to figure this out.
Laura,
You put your finger on one of the main sticking points in contrasting evolutionary theory (individual selection/group selection) with Bowen theory (individuality/togetherness as counterbalancing forces, both operating within the emotional system within and between individuals)
The more I think it through, the more I see that there is similar language but significantly different conceptualizations. As Laurie pointed out,
the Ind/Group selection thinking tends to dichotomize the two: one associated with selfishness, the other with altruism and cooperation.
Multilevel selection describes a balance of the two. However, confusingly, E. O. Wilson goes so far as to associate individual selection with “sin”
and group selection with “virtue.” Bowen, I think, comes to the opposite conclusion. As togetherness increases, the group increasingly constrains it members with an end result of “doing in” some. When individuality is stronger, individuals hold their own and at the same time contribute responsibly to the well-being of the group. You just can’t get too much individuality. In his writing, especially the chapters on society, Bowen notes that we would not have
the problems we do (environment, crime, poverty, etc.) if the overall level of differentiation were higher.
Group selection, as so well described by Darwin, creates the huge dilemma of in-group unity/out-group hostility. When two groups come into competition, they would
both need to be pretty highly differentiated to avoid one wiping out the other. Societies provides rules and regulation to deal with this (sports teams, competing businesses, etc). Interestingly, E. O. Wilson has a chapter on tribalism in Social Conquest of Earth, but still sees group selection as the road to
human survival. At least that’s my current understanding, but I need to do more study. I just received the new issue of Family Systems and will read Anne
McKnight’s review and Mike Kerr’s comments on Wilson’s book and will probably find help there in sorting this out. I’m with you in the “perseverating”, Laura.
I have enjoyed and benefited from this discussion. To paraphrase Bowen, both he and the evolutionary theorists were looking at some of the same puzzles–it’s just that he and they conceptualized, made sense of, what they saw in different ways.
Thanks so much for this post and the subsequent discussion. Although I have been out of the interaction this time, I plan to be more active in June.My thanks to all for some very stimulating work. I will be in touch. ann