In a recent meeting of the web based “Bowen Theory and Meditation” study group, sponsored by the Center for Family Consultation in Chicago, a Bowen theory scholar presented the following passage from a letter by Murray Bowen. On February 10, 1976, Bowen wrote about Transcendental Meditation and Yoga, in response to a woman from a southern university town where he had recently made a clinical presentation. This passage was recently published by the Murray Bowen Archives Project (bold is mine).
“You asked what you could do on your own. There are two or three methods that go in a direction that is compatible with “differentiation of self”, which is the effort to be a “self” in relationship with the other, without holding the other responsible for one’s own self. One is Meditation, if one can be careful. TM has become a kind of spiritual movement which I think defeats some of the basic gains in it. Most of the basic TM stuff that goes on within one’s own head WITHOUT GETTING INVOLVED IN RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS, can be helpful. I am trying now to develop it as a kind of supplement for a differentiating effort within a family. It can lose its value when one gets “caught up” in the movement. Another method that is theoretically consistent is Yoga which involves a kind of physical and emotional discipline. Some people have done wonders with it. Depends more on the person.”
As a 25-year student of Bowen theory, with extensive contact with the network he founded, I had no idea until now that Bowen thought about meditation positively. His view, that the meditation itself (what “goes on within one’s own head”) has significant value, is not unique. It might surprise some with a bias against Indian spiritual teachers that this is exactly the viewpoint emphasized over and again by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Vedic scholar and founder of what is known in the west as TM. His message was “It’s not about me, it’s not about us, it’s about the meditation.” Though there are well developed ideas that underpin the practice of meditation, it cannot be understood without experiencing it, just as a strawberry cannot be understood without tasting it.
In the “Bowen network” (would he have opposed the term?), his concern about the togetherness of meditation groups, seen in his CAPS in the quote above, have been amplified and over-generalized to indict meditation itself. The baby seems to have been thrown out with the bath water. As is plain above, Bowen was fascinated by meditation as a means of growing basic self. Perhaps his strictures against erosion of theory have been emphasized over his openness to new approaches.
As my interest in the accepted science, and disciplined practice, of Transcendental Meditation has expanded over the past years, my ability to see emotional process in the Bowen network has grown too. With my moderate level of differentiation of self, it was hard to see the togetherness from inside this system. An “Us vs. Them” atmosphere can pervade thinking in any group. When the subject is raised in the network, I usually hear stories of meditators who don’t grow basic self. The stories are based on limited personal experience, and tiny sample sizes.
Meanwhile, my growing body of experience with Transcendental Meditation scholars suggests that the togetherness in the community surrounding TM is no stickier than that of the Bowen community. Both contain disciplined students of “what is”. (The NIH funded meditation researcher Dr. Fred Travis is one example.)
A tendency to brand meditation as “togetherness based” or “equivalent to exercise” by Bowen theory experts with an outsider’s knowledge of meditation is not good science. Dismissing evidence that disconfirms established opinions is not unique to Bowen theory. At the spring 2017 Bowen Center science meeting, keynote speaker Dr. Iain Couzin shared the cautionary tale of his friend and colleague, the Harvard researcher Dr. Marc Hauser. This distinguished scholar was recently fired from Harvard for falsifying research. Graduate students noticed he was misreading his data over and again.
“ The Chronicle of Higher Education reported the contents of allegations made by a former research assistant of Hauser. The former research assistant stated that Hauser falsely coded videotapes of monkey behavior, resisted research assistants and students’ requests to have them re-coded by another observer and pressured his students to accept his data analysis. When they re-coded the data without Hauser’s permission, they allegedly found Hauser’s coding bore little relation to what was on the tapes. According to the document, several other lab members had similar run-ins with Hauser.[28] (-from the web)
Couzin, close to the case, believes Hauser is guilty of profound unconscious confirmation bias, not nefarious scientific deception. According to Couzin, Hauser was seeing what he expected to see, and this is rampant in science even at the highest levels. (This possibility was lost, it seems, on the press.)
In the Bowen network, evidence that challenges the theory is often resisted. Any serious Bowen scholar seeking to explore a new pathway toward basic self must be prepared to be opposed both intellectually and emotionally.
I will conclude these observations regarding Bowen theory, confirmation bias, and meditation with a list of fundamentals pertaining to basic self, referred to here as “Self”. These are points shared by Bowen’s family systems theory and Vedic science, as elucidated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
1. Self is the primary influence on life course and symptom level.
2. Self-state correlates to body/mind/brain physiology.
3. Self is the primary influence on chronic anxiety
4. Self determines relationship functioning.
5. Self cannot be deeply understood outside of context.
6. The human is part of nature.
Excellent review about important issues regarding how any of us deal with new stuff, new thinking, new facts and the dangers of dichotomous thinking.
What would you regard as a healthier or more differentiated posture toward others around me holding the same beliefs that I do; like beliefs about meditation, mindfulness, neurofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoactive medication, attachment theory, religion, or Bowen Theory?
To be blunt, as I’ve said before to you, I think you are still short on integrating systems with self. Of the 6 points at the end, this would mean a systems elaboration of the “context” in point # 5. The 6 points are heavy on self and light on relationship system.
Thank you Jim Edd,
While I wasn’t meaning to point at you, your question is appreciated. I think truly curious questions go a long way in conveying openness to new ideas.
As for “Blunt”, it is welcome. For those who I don’t know well, I hope my articles in the journal establish my credibility with differentiation of self in this community. Beyond that…I need more time to write!
Cheers
I have been an undisciplined intermittent user of the Herbert Benson Relaxation Response style of meditation for 35 years. I have found it useful in a variety of situations. I use it to counter short—term manifestation of mind and body stress, but I don’t practice it everyday. I use it to keep myself relatively relaxed when I am trying to learn a new difficult skill. Initially back in the 1980s, I practiced it enough to get the idea and enough that I could call on it when needed. At that time, my more single-minded goal was learning and practicing Bowen theory, which is no longer a single-minded goal for me.
All of us have practical skills that don’t come from Bowen theory. They are useful in life, some would say adaptive. They also can have potential ill effects. I value being able to put them into the context of my larger life framework, which includes a heavy dose of Bowen family systems theory. This means situating my actions in the relationship systems in my life. That is, how my actions influence those systems and how those system relationships continually influence me.
I apply these same values to my beliefs and practices related to Bowen theory. What are the advantages of Bowen theory as a way of thinking? What are its gaps and errors? How can it be misused? This kind of perspective can and should be applied to any way of thinking and beliefs that one holds. Any way of thinking or belief has its blind spots. That’s no reason for tossing it out. It is however reason for learning to identify the strengths and weakness of the way of thinking and the strengths and weaknesses of the relationship systems practicing those beliefs.
Erik,
Thank you for continuing to work with this material, which I find compelling. In this short piece, you did not cover the question of what can be experienced, or known, through awareness beyond the thinking mind, and I look forward to more discussion of that question. Interesting quote from Bowen–I wonder the date? More later, but I have observed, as others have observed, that creativity can emerge from bridging more than one area of study. I think your efforts are worthwhile, as well as being personally engaging to me. I was intrigued by Jim Edd’s comment to you here as well, and I will study it to understand it more fully.
Questions about the practice of Bowen theory and practice of meditation:
Does the practice of Bowen theory eliminate or at least reduce the unresolved emotional reactivity that limits the mind’s ability to think broadly and clearly? Is it the case that the practice of meditation has been shown to reduce identification with stressful thoughts and events? Is most of human reactivity related to thoughts and feelings about other people? Does Bowen theory offer a way to resolve emotionally disturbing issues with important people in our lives, while meditation offers a way to let go of identification with events to be more free of them?
SOME RESPONSES TO YOUR QUESTIONS:
LL asked: Does the practice of Bowen theory eliminate or at least reduce the unresolved emotional reactivity that limits the mind’s ability to think broadly and clearly?
ET: BT has the potential to “reduce” it, as all in this group have experienced. “Eliminate” is another matter. Have you seen that result from Bowen theory? I am interested in such high peaks. Learning to differentiate a self when pressured to be the insider in an intense triangle is a practice that has brought me exceptional value, but it did not eliminate my unresolved reactivity.
LL asked: Is it the case that the practice of meditation has been shown to reduce identification with stressful thoughts and events?
ET: The question of identity and identification is explored in great depth by many meditation traditions, including TM. TM has been a vehicle for an expansion of my understanding of the nature of identification. There is relevance here for differentiation of self. A more man with a differentiated self has changed what he identifies with. One simple example is moving from “I am my reactions to my mother” toward “I am not my reactions to my mother.”
I began my disciplined effort with TM 35 years ago. Ten years later, I badly needed Bowen theory, both professionally and personally. It became my central focus for the next 20-25 years. It remains a central focus, but over the years, as many of the family problems I badly needed to solve were largely resolved (knock on wood), and as my need for an exceptional foundation for my work was also satisfied, I re-energized the TM, which I had maintained, but at a lesser, though steady level.
I believe I have expertise in Bowen theory, and assume Laurie agrees, or I would not have been invited into this discussion, which includes those who I have considered among the most interesting minds in BT. Now, after these many years, I can also claim expertise in TM. It is from that position that I assert that TM can grow basic self. I cannot prove this, just as Bowen could not ultimately prove his approach.
I don’t speak for other meditations which I am not an expert in. Nor am I talking about all TM meditators. Not all TM meditators grow basic self. Can we agree that the same is true for those who engage in BT?
Please understand that I am not operating from either/or here. BT offers value, even to the most advanced meditators I know.
LL asked: Is most of human reactivity related to thoughts and feelings about other people?
ET: It certainly seems to be the case in my experience. We humans are so deeply embedded in our family systems. And thus, BT has gained its precious usefulness. But perhaps there is a layer more fundamental than the family. What would that be? All biology is based in physics, but is there something to life that is beyond even the quantum mechanical level of biology?
LL asked: Does Bowen theory offer a way to resolve emotionally disturbing issues with important people in our lives, while meditation offers a way to let go of identification with events to be more free of them?
ET: BT certainly offers a unique, creative way to reduce emotional disturbance with important others. Disciplined, long-term practice of meditation can indeed foster dis-identification “with events”, but perhaps also to more than these events. It can produce dis-identification with all objects of perception, including thoughts, sensations, emotions, but also family members. Dis-identification does not mean emotional distance. In fact, dis-identification fosters presence with the other.
Is there an “either/or” in your question Laurie? “Either family or events.” I would see family as quite an event!
Jim Edd’s Questions:
“What are the advantages of a way of thinking?”, “What are its gaps and errors?”, “How can it be misused?”
Jim Edd asserts that these questions….”can and should be applied to any way of thinking, and beliefs that one holds. Any way of thinking or belief has its blind spots.”
Erik: When one asserts that their way of thinking “should” be applied by others, there is a certain emotional process in the air. I don’t disagree, but I find the emotional emphasis in the word “should” notable. Does it invite the reader into a one-down position?
LL asked: What can be experienced, or known, through awareness beyond the thinking mind?
Erik: My answer to this one of Laurie’s questions touches upon Jim Edd’s challenge, from an earlier post, to define the context or relationship system within which the Vedic view of Self resides.
Laurie’s question assumes an aspect of awareness beyond thinking. But I don’t think Laurie is referring to “the unconscious mind” as described in conventional theory, or the lower “autonomic system” discussed by Bowen theory. She seems to be pointing to something else, hardly discussed in BT.
The living Vedic tradition, like Buddhism that followed it, gives extensive attention to this question of something “beyond” the mind. It asserts that there is a perceptive faculty within the human that is higher than thinking, even higher than the mind. This faculty is asserted to be “Transcendental” to the mind. The mind, and intellect, are viewed as emerging from this higher aspect of Self. Here we have a major difference between Bowen theory and Vedic theory. This aspect of Self can be “thought about”, but it is essentially beyond thought. It is known both as “empty mind” and “full mind” (or mind-full-ness, which is not essentially a technique, as is commonly thought, but a state of awareness.)
The early meditation researcher Herbert Benson of Harvard took a small subset of TM, and taught it in his book “The Relaxation Response”. Dr. Benson behaved responsibly in naming his technique with the word “Relaxation”. The title correctly differentiates his method from TM. It will not reliably allow one to experience the pure silent Self beyond the mind. Benson took a small subset of TM, and taught it in this book. From ancient to modern, experts in meditation assert that it cannot be learned properly from a book. Perhaps an exceptionally open mind, which I have always considered Jim Edd to possess (especially after our discussion of art on a walk near Sidney Reed’s house in Chicago), can take it all the way there. But this transcendental aspect of mind is not reliably achieved by intellectual efforts, reading, etc. Tasting this aspect of Self is like tasting a strawberry for the first time, after seeing a picture of it for years. And that taste powerfully effects family relationships.
If one is willing to consider that such an aspect of the mind may exist, a door opens through which one could explore the possibility of a wider natural system that includes the biological family, but may encompass it.
Thanks for posting Erik. I remember Bowen saying people could use meditation as a way to calm down and get some emotional separating. I don’t think he thought the result was equivalent to the kind of differentiation that occurs when someone is active and a self in an intense emotional relationship network like an upset family. Would it be accurate from your point of view to think about meditation as a way to do the work within self one has to do to be able to be a self in the family emotional system?
Yes, Laura, meditation can function as a compliment, as in offering a taste of a surprisingly less reactive body/mind state, which nourished the higher thinking capacity, aiding one in gaining perspective on the nature of one’s reactivity to the family.
But meditation can do more than that.
Dr. Bowen was not an expert on meditation. He did not read deeply in the knowledge traditions that it emerges from, nor practice mediation in a disciplined fashion. He didn’t know the science of meditation well. Just as with Bowen theory, one can’t really know meditation without a disciplined effort. One can taste it, but does not become an expert on it without that. Bowen’s comments are probably accurate for the small sample of people he observed trying meditation. I’m sure he was an astute observer of the emotional process in meditation groups.
I hope to have more time to respond to this, and also Jim Edd’s interesting questions later. I flew in at midnight and have a Vermont Center for Family Studies conference today.
As I read through this stimulating discussion, Laura’s summary of meditation as a way to become calm and gain separation, and differentiation of self as the active management of self in intense emotional relationships is the way I have understood the relation between the two. Erik’s articulation of the principles and practice of TM opens my mind to how much more I have to learn from this tradition. Yesterday I got Thich Nhat Hanh’s Peace is Every Step off the shelf and started re-reading it. He is a genius about anxiety.
Erik et al,
Doesn’t “confirmation bias” pervade our emotional functioning and relationships? So often, we approach another person with a prediction of how he/she will respond. The other picks up our bias and responds defensively, just as we predicted. The back-and-forth in reciprocal exchanges might as well be described as “reciprocal confirmation bias.”
So well said Stephanie. “Been there”.
Differentiation, Transcendence, and Mindfulness are each both a state of awareness and a practice. The practices have little in common. But the states they are describing may have significant overlap.
Thanks for the conversation.
Erik,
I wonder if you have any thoughts about transcendence and Bowen’s ninth concept of supernatural phenomena?
Laura,
I have heard thoughtful presentations on the topic from Kerr and others for many years. It is viewed very differently by different parties. Bowen seems to have been interested in extraordinary experience, especially ESP. Did he think of it as real, or as a facade born of emotional fusion? Still not sure. He invited us to think about the subject by putting that concept on the table.