I read the power point you emailed on defining a self in a regressing world. I hope there’s a way to post it. If you make a pdf of it – maybe?
It was good to read it in this time of so many reminders that we are in a regressing world – the presidential campaigns are so salient along with the acts of mass and terrorist shootings and the global conflicts and all the winners and losers. The route of differentiation of self as a way through as well as the reminder that the hypothesis Bowen had that it is the environmental crisis that underlies increasing chronic anxiety, increasing togetherness pressures and increasing polarizations and conflict and the development of a war mentality. I remember as a young adolescent longing for the clarity of a cause like a war – no doubt a response to the stickiness I felt in the family system of can’t live with them and can’t live without as the togetherness constrained the urge to be individual, and sure enough some rebellion helped with the feelings of the moment.
So I found your arguments easy to follow but the last point by Chomsky to quit being part of terrorism seems addressed to many people beyond those we typically hold accountable – all of us I guess. I’m not sure how he thinks about it but my way of understanding that is that by participating in togetherness patterns we are part of the regression that leads to fragmentation and polarization and conflict and aggression to resolve the conflict. Is that what the idea points to in your mind?
I hope you publish this.
Slide 26 – is the numbers in the scale of togetherness upside down?
Laura, yes we don’t have to look far to see regression. Would it be going too far to say that regression is there whenever individuals use force and coercion to control others? or whenever one compromises one’s principles for the sake of harmony? Chomsky has written and taught extensively on U. S. history, especially the use of force by the U. S., invasions of other countries, territorial wars. Yes, the implication is that all of us have participated. It leaves me very uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism and the pride taken in being a dominant society. Some of the ideas in this power point are in my article on Tribalism: Biological Roots and Emoptional Process which was published in Family Systems last year. Stephanie
Stephanie and All,
Thinking about the characteristics of DoS, Stephanie’s description of avoiding coercion of others, while at the same time not compromising one’s principles for the sake of harmony, is a good summary. It describes two of the 4 ways people manage lack of DoS (the other two being distance and the triangle). The basis for it seems to lie in the capacity to separate emotionally. Does anyone want to lay out in fuller detail how emotional separation leads to the kind of respect and integrity that Stephanie sees as the way out of regression? Would be interested in any thoughts on it.
Stephanie, it may be a little overgeneralizing to say that it’s a regression whenever individuals use force and coercion to control others. Here’s what I’m thinking. One can use force and coercion thoughtfully for the greater good. You don’t let a child or anyone step off the curb in front of a bus without grabbing and pulling them out of harms way. If that sets in motion a dominant relationship for the benefit of the dominant one then it’s a regression.
Stephanie this is a very thoughtful and well done presentation. It covers a lot of ground and speaks very clearly to the value of differentiation. I have always been impressed by your efforts to expand on societal process. Ann
Ann, The study of Bowen’s idea of regression has helped me understand differentiation of self as the way out of regression. There are many examples of individuals who recognized the regression in their societies, and refused to go along with group think. It seems that most social change starts with individuals who have the courage and conviction to stand against the status quo,
often at risk and cost to themselves. Stephanie
I like your way of thinking of social change starting with individuals. We all tend to look for leaders who will do what we, as individuals, are unwilling to do. I am so struck by the emotional pressure to maintain the status quo both within the individual and within the group. All of that comes under the force for togetherness. Thanks for your efforts in thinking this process through so clearly. It is very helpful to me.
Stephanie,
I read the power point you emailed on defining a self in a regressing world. I hope there’s a way to post it. If you make a pdf of it – maybe?
It was good to read it in this time of so many reminders that we are in a regressing world – the presidential campaigns are so salient along with the acts of mass and terrorist shootings and the global conflicts and all the winners and losers. The route of differentiation of self as a way through as well as the reminder that the hypothesis Bowen had that it is the environmental crisis that underlies increasing chronic anxiety, increasing togetherness pressures and increasing polarizations and conflict and the development of a war mentality. I remember as a young adolescent longing for the clarity of a cause like a war – no doubt a response to the stickiness I felt in the family system of can’t live with them and can’t live without as the togetherness constrained the urge to be individual, and sure enough some rebellion helped with the feelings of the moment.
So I found your arguments easy to follow but the last point by Chomsky to quit being part of terrorism seems addressed to many people beyond those we typically hold accountable – all of us I guess. I’m not sure how he thinks about it but my way of understanding that is that by participating in togetherness patterns we are part of the regression that leads to fragmentation and polarization and conflict and aggression to resolve the conflict. Is that what the idea points to in your mind?
I hope you publish this.
Slide 26 – is the numbers in the scale of togetherness upside down?
Laura, yes we don’t have to look far to see regression. Would it be going too far to say that regression is there whenever individuals use force and coercion to control others? or whenever one compromises one’s principles for the sake of harmony? Chomsky has written and taught extensively on U. S. history, especially the use of force by the U. S., invasions of other countries, territorial wars. Yes, the implication is that all of us have participated. It leaves me very uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism and the pride taken in being a dominant society. Some of the ideas in this power point are in my article on Tribalism: Biological Roots and Emoptional Process which was published in Family Systems last year. Stephanie
Stephanie and All,
Thinking about the characteristics of DoS, Stephanie’s description of avoiding coercion of others, while at the same time not compromising one’s principles for the sake of harmony, is a good summary. It describes two of the 4 ways people manage lack of DoS (the other two being distance and the triangle). The basis for it seems to lie in the capacity to separate emotionally. Does anyone want to lay out in fuller detail how emotional separation leads to the kind of respect and integrity that Stephanie sees as the way out of regression? Would be interested in any thoughts on it.
Stephanie, it may be a little overgeneralizing to say that it’s a regression whenever individuals use force and coercion to control others. Here’s what I’m thinking. One can use force and coercion thoughtfully for the greater good. You don’t let a child or anyone step off the curb in front of a bus without grabbing and pulling them out of harms way. If that sets in motion a dominant relationship for the benefit of the dominant one then it’s a regression.
Stephanie this is a very thoughtful and well done presentation. It covers a lot of ground and speaks very clearly to the value of differentiation. I have always been impressed by your efforts to expand on societal process. Ann
Ann, The study of Bowen’s idea of regression has helped me understand differentiation of self as the way out of regression. There are many examples of individuals who recognized the regression in their societies, and refused to go along with group think. It seems that most social change starts with individuals who have the courage and conviction to stand against the status quo,
often at risk and cost to themselves. Stephanie
I like your way of thinking of social change starting with individuals. We all tend to look for leaders who will do what we, as individuals, are unwilling to do. I am so struck by the emotional pressure to maintain the status quo both within the individual and within the group. All of that comes under the force for togetherness. Thanks for your efforts in thinking this process through so clearly. It is very helpful to me.