Laura,
These are complex ideas to grasp, so I will try to respond separately to each section. In the first section, I think you are stating a main idea that Bowen theory, as a natural systems theory, could bring together in one coherent theory many areas of research in psychology. It is a very interesting idea, and I appreciate any inroads you can make in the field of psychology toward interest in and perhaps eventual acceptance of your thesis. I was unable to understand your first sentence–it could just be me, or it may need a few or several sentences to communicate an idea of so much complexity. More later on the other sections–
Laura,
This work represents years of study and reflection, now mastered to a level that you can put it into words, clear and well organized. It is tightly written, so if I would say anything about the writing it would be to break sentences down somewhat to make it easier to follow the complexity of the thought you are presenting. In reading, I recalled something from Thomas Kuhn about the continuum of science from prescientific to mature. I think of psychology as a young science, maybe at the less mature end, fragmented and in need of a more adequate, unifying paradigm. I believe Bowen theory holds the promise of becoming that paradigm, and your chapter would be a significant step toward it being recognized as such, and a gift to the field of psychology.
I printed it out to study it more easily and make notes. For now, I will just make a few points about the first eight pages, and comment on the rest later.
I found your first section a good summary of some of the perspective that have influenced psychology, and the difficulties in integrating various personality theories that have come out of focus on various aspects of human functioning. I was puzzled by this sentence: As a natural systems theory, Bowen theory accounts for aspects of mans function than natural selection theory can so far.” Did you mean to say “more than natural selection theory can so far.?” The word “more” gives it a different meaning.
It is really interesting, and much of it new to me, to read your summaries of different conceptualizations in the field, and your discernment of where there is congruence with Bowen theory. When I came to your reference to Calhoun “one evolutionary pathway will be the reversion to biological man,” I made a note: say more. That paragraph, introducing the reality of mounting population and environmental pressures, is a huge subject that I think calls for expanded treatment if you can do so without sidetracking from your main project.
The three continua that you outline–in evolution across species, in the individual, and between individuals–create a framework that is useful in seeing where pieces of the puzzle fit in, and in identifying pieces that do not fit in.
Laura, this has been a workout so far and I look forward to reading the rest of your chapter and sending comments.
Stephanie, thanks for your comments. I hope to move this to being less of a workout if I can, and I appreciate your thought about breaking down the sentences.
Your comment about Thomas Kuhn and the idea that Psychology is at the less mature end of the continuum of science is consistent, I think, with what EO Wilson has said, that the social sciences are at the stage of Natural History, purely descriptive and that mature science is characterized by theory that integrates different levels of phenomena.
So here’s a question I am wondering about…Is it Bowen theory that is the integrative theory, or is it Natural Systems Theory? Is Natural Systems Theory part of Bowen theory along with Bowen Family Systems theory? I always think of Natural Systems Theory being undeveloped as yet, but based in the assumptions that underlie Bowen’s family systems theory: that adaptiveness across life forms is related to what life forms have in common, and that there are two counterbalancing forces of individuality and togetherness with individuality in this usage referring to differentiation of individuals of the species that live in association.
Yes you got the right sense of that sentence, like a lot in this documentwhere words are left out. I was trying to say that as a natural systems theory, Bowen theory accounts for aspects of mans functioning that natural selection theory can’t.
The reference to Calhoun and the reality of mounting population and environmental presses I put in one time when I was presenting the idea of theoretical integration of psychology using Bowen theory out here in California. I was wondering then like I do now, is this just an academic exercise? As I considered Calhoun and the profound regression he projected as possible/probable, it made some sense that having a good theory to get through it might truly be more than academic..
Laura,
I would be interested to know the distinction. What is the difference between Bowen theory and Natural Systems theory?
Regarding your 2nd, Congruence section, 1) I liked the clear way you described the continuum of reflexive to deliberate, inventive. Nicely said and nicely written. 2) Some scientists (those who study other forms of life) are likely to object to a simple statement about the behavior of lower forms being bound to the automatic. There is more and more knowledge about learning that occurs in other species, even in bacteria!
Thanks, Laurie. So much of this I put together 10 to 15 years ago. So much has occurred and your feedback about learning about learning in the lower forms informs me about an area where I need to update my knowledge. If you have any references you’d recommend on this I’d be interested.
just noticed your question – maybe others have some ideas on this, the difference between Bowen theory and natural systems theory. a few thoughts are
1. Bowen theory is a theory of the family as a natural system and Bowen defined the idea of a natural systems theory of which his family systems theory is an example.
2. Natural systems theory is broader than Bowen family systems theory.
3. Bowen family systems theory is the first natural systems theory.
4. Pat Comella talks about a theory of society as an emotional system and I’m guessing she thinks of this as a natural systems theory
5. I talk about psychology as a natural system. maybe I am talking about a natural systems theory of psychology. I haven’t gone so far as to call it a theory though.
6. as I wrote in my question to Stephanie, the basic assumptions underlying Bowen family systems theory are the assumptions of a natural systems theory – and these are
(1) that adaptiveness in each species is related to the part of functioning all species have in common
(2) that there are two counterbalancing forces of individuality and togetherness in the sense of integration and separation of functional units within the larger system of which they are part
That’s my thinking. I don’t know that anyone has ever spelled this out or if anyone thinks that when knowledgeable people say Bowen theory, that mean both natural systems theory and Bowen family systems theory — or only Bowen family systems theory.
Back again, Laura, to give you my thoughts on the second part of your chapter (which now is looking more like a book).
The idea of consilience provides a good thread for introducing several authors and bodies of work and showing their relation to Bowen theory.
Bonner and LeDoux add knowledge that is consistent with
Bowen and, I find, helpful to a better understanding of Bowen. I find Damasio more difficult since he introduces a different vocabulary that is hard for me to translate into terms that fit with Bowen. Your review of the literature on fear conditioning, and your use of that language to describe the functioning of the family as an emotional system is especially clear and helpful. Since psychologists and others are at home with conditioning, it makes a strong bridge for introducing them to Bowen. As you noted regarding my effort to compare evolutionary theory and Bowen theory, one has to tread carefully not to prematurely try to integrate ideas that, on closer examination, are disparate. I see nothing premature in your thinking.
Your section on symptom development as a process of “giving up self” is excellent. I come away with a better appreciation of the “position of the symptomatic one having a compromised self up against the pressure in relationships to absorb the anxiety of the system.” Those are pretty tough odds.
This should be published, Laura. Soon, I hope.
Thanks for more feedback Stephanie.
I think Damassio’s latest book, Self comes to mind is more consilient with Bowen theory than the concept of Self he had in his older book A Feeling for What Happens which is what I was using when I wrote that. I look forward to rewriting that part. Damassio’s later thesis is in order for there to be conscious awareness, there has to be a self and that the self functions are traceable in the evolution of the brain structures that enable the individual’s ability to observe, with origins in early brain structures and which comes to full fruition with the evolution of the higher brain centers.
Ah, to publish this – thanks for the encouragement. I think there is a lot of work to do. Festwg is useful to get on with it.
Laura,
Thanks for your response to distinguish Bowen theory and Natural Systems theory and to define Natural Systems theory. I think the further definition and development of what is meant by Natural Systems theory could offer an important intellectual contribution. A few questions: 1) Have you clarified how you see Natural Systems theory that may be similar or different from how others think about it? 2) Though you say adaptiveness is in common with all life, in other sections you write about life with a nervous system being different? 3) Are the terms individuality and togetherness the most accurate and scientific way of referring to, for instance, individual cells that make up a multicellular organism? 4) Will you run into more resistance from Psychology if you attempt to use Bowen theory, as opposed to Natural Systems theory, as a way to organize the disparate parts of Psychology? I agree with you that the emotional system and differentiation of self would, in some form or terminology, be essential in understanding Natural Systems. 5) Do you think that you would have a greater likelihood of success if you approach Psychology with a Natural Systems Theory, rather than with Bowen theory? You would, of course, be able to draw on Bowen theory as a first Natural Systems theory. Your solid knowledge of both, Psychology and Bowen theory, put you in a unique position to offer a creative solution to Psychology’s lack of an integrative theory.
Laura,
These are complex ideas to grasp, so I will try to respond separately to each section. In the first section, I think you are stating a main idea that Bowen theory, as a natural systems theory, could bring together in one coherent theory many areas of research in psychology. It is a very interesting idea, and I appreciate any inroads you can make in the field of psychology toward interest in and perhaps eventual acceptance of your thesis. I was unable to understand your first sentence–it could just be me, or it may need a few or several sentences to communicate an idea of so much complexity. More later on the other sections–
Thanks Laurie, I’ll check out that first sentence.
Laura,
This work represents years of study and reflection, now mastered to a level that you can put it into words, clear and well organized. It is tightly written, so if I would say anything about the writing it would be to break sentences down somewhat to make it easier to follow the complexity of the thought you are presenting. In reading, I recalled something from Thomas Kuhn about the continuum of science from prescientific to mature. I think of psychology as a young science, maybe at the less mature end, fragmented and in need of a more adequate, unifying paradigm. I believe Bowen theory holds the promise of becoming that paradigm, and your chapter would be a significant step toward it being recognized as such, and a gift to the field of psychology.
I printed it out to study it more easily and make notes. For now, I will just make a few points about the first eight pages, and comment on the rest later.
I found your first section a good summary of some of the perspective that have influenced psychology, and the difficulties in integrating various personality theories that have come out of focus on various aspects of human functioning. I was puzzled by this sentence: As a natural systems theory, Bowen theory accounts for aspects of mans function than natural selection theory can so far.” Did you mean to say “more than natural selection theory can so far.?” The word “more” gives it a different meaning.
It is really interesting, and much of it new to me, to read your summaries of different conceptualizations in the field, and your discernment of where there is congruence with Bowen theory. When I came to your reference to Calhoun “one evolutionary pathway will be the reversion to biological man,” I made a note: say more. That paragraph, introducing the reality of mounting population and environmental pressures, is a huge subject that I think calls for expanded treatment if you can do so without sidetracking from your main project.
The three continua that you outline–in evolution across species, in the individual, and between individuals–create a framework that is useful in seeing where pieces of the puzzle fit in, and in identifying pieces that do not fit in.
Laura, this has been a workout so far and I look forward to reading the rest of your chapter and sending comments.
Stephanie, thanks for your comments. I hope to move this to being less of a workout if I can, and I appreciate your thought about breaking down the sentences.
Your comment about Thomas Kuhn and the idea that Psychology is at the less mature end of the continuum of science is consistent, I think, with what EO Wilson has said, that the social sciences are at the stage of Natural History, purely descriptive and that mature science is characterized by theory that integrates different levels of phenomena.
So here’s a question I am wondering about…Is it Bowen theory that is the integrative theory, or is it Natural Systems Theory? Is Natural Systems Theory part of Bowen theory along with Bowen Family Systems theory? I always think of Natural Systems Theory being undeveloped as yet, but based in the assumptions that underlie Bowen’s family systems theory: that adaptiveness across life forms is related to what life forms have in common, and that there are two counterbalancing forces of individuality and togetherness with individuality in this usage referring to differentiation of individuals of the species that live in association.
Yes you got the right sense of that sentence, like a lot in this documentwhere words are left out. I was trying to say that as a natural systems theory, Bowen theory accounts for aspects of mans functioning that natural selection theory can’t.
The reference to Calhoun and the reality of mounting population and environmental presses I put in one time when I was presenting the idea of theoretical integration of psychology using Bowen theory out here in California. I was wondering then like I do now, is this just an academic exercise? As I considered Calhoun and the profound regression he projected as possible/probable, it made some sense that having a good theory to get through it might truly be more than academic..
Laura,
I would be interested to know the distinction. What is the difference between Bowen theory and Natural Systems theory?
Regarding your 2nd, Congruence section, 1) I liked the clear way you described the continuum of reflexive to deliberate, inventive. Nicely said and nicely written. 2) Some scientists (those who study other forms of life) are likely to object to a simple statement about the behavior of lower forms being bound to the automatic. There is more and more knowledge about learning that occurs in other species, even in bacteria!
Thanks, Laurie. So much of this I put together 10 to 15 years ago. So much has occurred and your feedback about learning about learning in the lower forms informs me about an area where I need to update my knowledge. If you have any references you’d recommend on this I’d be interested.
just noticed your question – maybe others have some ideas on this, the difference between Bowen theory and natural systems theory. a few thoughts are
1. Bowen theory is a theory of the family as a natural system and Bowen defined the idea of a natural systems theory of which his family systems theory is an example.
2. Natural systems theory is broader than Bowen family systems theory.
3. Bowen family systems theory is the first natural systems theory.
4. Pat Comella talks about a theory of society as an emotional system and I’m guessing she thinks of this as a natural systems theory
5. I talk about psychology as a natural system. maybe I am talking about a natural systems theory of psychology. I haven’t gone so far as to call it a theory though.
6. as I wrote in my question to Stephanie, the basic assumptions underlying Bowen family systems theory are the assumptions of a natural systems theory – and these are
(1) that adaptiveness in each species is related to the part of functioning all species have in common
(2) that there are two counterbalancing forces of individuality and togetherness in the sense of integration and separation of functional units within the larger system of which they are part
That’s my thinking. I don’t know that anyone has ever spelled this out or if anyone thinks that when knowledgeable people say Bowen theory, that mean both natural systems theory and Bowen family systems theory — or only Bowen family systems theory.
Back again, Laura, to give you my thoughts on the second part of your chapter (which now is looking more like a book).
The idea of consilience provides a good thread for introducing several authors and bodies of work and showing their relation to Bowen theory.
Bonner and LeDoux add knowledge that is consistent with
Bowen and, I find, helpful to a better understanding of Bowen. I find Damasio more difficult since he introduces a different vocabulary that is hard for me to translate into terms that fit with Bowen. Your review of the literature on fear conditioning, and your use of that language to describe the functioning of the family as an emotional system is especially clear and helpful. Since psychologists and others are at home with conditioning, it makes a strong bridge for introducing them to Bowen. As you noted regarding my effort to compare evolutionary theory and Bowen theory, one has to tread carefully not to prematurely try to integrate ideas that, on closer examination, are disparate. I see nothing premature in your thinking.
Your section on symptom development as a process of “giving up self” is excellent. I come away with a better appreciation of the “position of the symptomatic one having a compromised self up against the pressure in relationships to absorb the anxiety of the system.” Those are pretty tough odds.
This should be published, Laura. Soon, I hope.
Thanks for more feedback Stephanie.
I think Damassio’s latest book, Self comes to mind is more consilient with Bowen theory than the concept of Self he had in his older book A Feeling for What Happens which is what I was using when I wrote that. I look forward to rewriting that part. Damassio’s later thesis is in order for there to be conscious awareness, there has to be a self and that the self functions are traceable in the evolution of the brain structures that enable the individual’s ability to observe, with origins in early brain structures and which comes to full fruition with the evolution of the higher brain centers.
Ah, to publish this – thanks for the encouragement. I think there is a lot of work to do. Festwg is useful to get on with it.
Laura,
Thanks for your response to distinguish Bowen theory and Natural Systems theory and to define Natural Systems theory. I think the further definition and development of what is meant by Natural Systems theory could offer an important intellectual contribution. A few questions: 1) Have you clarified how you see Natural Systems theory that may be similar or different from how others think about it? 2) Though you say adaptiveness is in common with all life, in other sections you write about life with a nervous system being different? 3) Are the terms individuality and togetherness the most accurate and scientific way of referring to, for instance, individual cells that make up a multicellular organism? 4) Will you run into more resistance from Psychology if you attempt to use Bowen theory, as opposed to Natural Systems theory, as a way to organize the disparate parts of Psychology? I agree with you that the emotional system and differentiation of self would, in some form or terminology, be essential in understanding Natural Systems. 5) Do you think that you would have a greater likelihood of success if you approach Psychology with a Natural Systems Theory, rather than with Bowen theory? You would, of course, be able to draw on Bowen theory as a first Natural Systems theory. Your solid knowledge of both, Psychology and Bowen theory, put you in a unique position to offer a creative solution to Psychology’s lack of an integrative theory.