FEST Writing Group

(To readers:  Any ideas about where I need to further develop and explain this perspective?  Where is it unclear or vague?)

Murray Bowen modeled using the triangle in his effort in his own family to increase differentiation of self (DoS).  While this kind of effort, if done systematically, probably offers the most effective way to increase DoS, it is generally not applied in a systematic way by those who seek to increase DoS.  Why not?

First, what is the method?  Bowen himself described it as “doing the opposite” of the automatic way people engage the triangle.  The triangle, which Bowen defined as the basic molecule of the emotional system, is made up of two inside positions and one outside position.  Being in one of the two inside positions is associated with approval and affection.  Being in the outside position is associated with rejection and being left out of the warmth and companionship of the inside position.

The automatic, instinctive tendency in social Homo sapiens is to seek approval and affection from others and to avoid rejection.  This is what allows the triangle to function to direct individual behavior within a social group; people will modify their behavior in order to access or maintain the inside position of a triangle.

“Doing the opposite” involves more than passively not taking sides.  It involves actively picking up on the responsibility of each of the other two positions.   The first step is to observe the emotional process between two others who are important to oneself.  Then, one makes a comment to each one that highlights each’s part in the emotional process between them, leaving oneself out.

Let’s look at an example: Conflict emerged between my sister and my mother after my father died two years ago.  My low blood pressure, generally good mood, and sense of well being are not entirely dependent on, but are enhanced by approval and affection from my mother and sister.  Faced with a conflict between two, it is instinctive for the human to take sides with one, thereby forming the inside of a triangle and rejecting the other.

Using Bowen theory as a guide, I observed the following emotional process between them:  Suzanne became anxiously focused on what was wrong with Mother.  Mother began acting out by saying outrageous things that triggered Suzanne.  Both exaggerated, Suzanne focusing on what was wrong with Mother, and not on what was right about her, and Mother acting defiantly, complaining she was being treated like an irresponsible teenager but denying she was acting like one!  Both threatened to find an attorney and go to court, Suzanne to have a legal finding of Mother’s incompetence, and Mother to regain control of her finances (Since July I have been Power of Attorney for Mother and responsible for her finances after her doctor found her unable to manage her finances).

Next, I made comments about each one’s part, saying to Suzanne that in my view her perception was distorted by her upset, and saying to Mother that she was saying things to get to Suzanne.  I will note here that though I began with making some paradoxical and humorous comments, which function to communicate a lack of seriousness and intent to change others, I was able to be direct and open.  Though the family is experiencing stress and anxiety related to the death of my father and the decreases in my mother’s functioning, it is also flexible and resilient.

I received predictable change-back messages.  Suzanne, who pulled in our brother and her daughters to side with her, replied that I was in denial about Mother’s dementia.  Mother replied that I was siding with Suzanne to take away her independence.  So, while I wanted Suzanne to approve of me and not to think that I was in denial, and not to convince our brother and my nieces that I was in denial, I held my position without defending it.  This effort on my part has led to reduced conflict and greater cooperation in the family.

I believe that it is likely that a highly differentiated individual without knowledge of Bowen theory would not be threatened by Suzanne’s criticisms, nor by the likelihood of Mother and Suzanne ending up taking sides against her!  Free from the pressures of the triangle, free from the threat of rejection, such an individual would say what she sees and thinks without a need to convince the others.  Bowen theory offers a systematic way to act more differentiated than I am!

Why is an action, such as the one I took, which seems benign and unselfish (willing to take predictable criticism for a better outcome for the family) also controversial?

I believe that the basis for the controversy is twofold.  First and foremost is the intensity of reactivity that people can have to “putting the others together and self out.”  The emotional system will react to an individual’s effort not to be controlled by the triangle.  After all, the triangle exerting a network of local control over individuals within a family / social group has led to a stunning  level of survival and reproductive success for the species!

The second basis for the controversy is people’s belief, on principle, that I should not comment on other people’s relationships with each other, linked to the principle that if I  do, I should represent myself honestly, saying how I feel about the others; I should put myself into the emotional process.

The principle of minding one’s own business and not commenting on others’ relationships has been helpful to some families in an effort to avoid side taking and to reduce fanning the flames of conflict.

The discovery that Bowen made: that the family functions as an emotional unit and that I am already involved in the emotional process that goes on between the others opens up a new world of understanding and opportunity, inviting the possibility of a new level of responsibility as a family member.

Guided by Bowen theory, a new principle is to be in contact with the emotional process, but not part of it.