Greetings festwg members,
I am attaching a word document that is the abstract of a presentation for the
Spring meeting of the Bowen Center on Differentiation of Self. Please consider
the questions at the end. Thanks.
Differentiation of self in regressing systems
Stephanie J. Ferrera, MSW
Murray Bowen observed that human systems, at times of increasing anxiety, become vulnerable to regression. He defined regression as a shift in the balance of togetherness and individuality: togetherness forces intensify while individuality reciprocally diminishes. Group pressure increasingly constrains individual autonomy. With each shift toward regression, the level of tension and norms of behavior within the family or society change. Bowen describes the endpoint of regression as marked by viable members leaving to join other groups; there is fear and alienation within the group and increasing likelihood of violence.
Regression begins to reverse as the force for individuality in the group increases. This shift begins with a single group/family member who begins to take responsibility for self, defines principles for action, and is able to stand firm against the pressures of the group to “change back.”
Bowen’s writings are rich with guidance on the disciplines needed for the effort toward differentiation, including: observing emotional process and its universal patterns, focus on the part self plays, emotional neutrality, de-triangling, the I-position, putting others together/self out, and, above all, managing one’s own reactivity. The difficulties and risks involved in such an effort are expected to increase as systems regress. With increasing pressure to think and act with the group, it becomes harder to do the observing and thinking needed to develop an independent view; at the extremes of regression, it becomes costly, and even life-threatening, to express or take action on an independent view.
Despite the difficulties, there have always been individuals in families and societies who recognized regression, with its costs and dangers, and had the motivation, conviction, and courage to summon principles and speak and act for more responsible courses of action. History, memoirs, biographies and current reporting offer many examples of such individuals.
Questions for Festwg:
While Bowen saw the same basic emotional process in the society as in the family, there are also differences. The differences are in scale—larger numbers, more variables and complexity—and in the nature of emotional attachment between kin and fellow citizens.
How important are the differences? Do the differences change the way one works on differentiation in the two arenas? Is it easier in some ways to define a self in the society than in the family?
I’m thinking about the link between the family system and the impact it has on the functioning of its members in the societal process. I think that individuals who can be well defined individuals around societal process can emerge out of varying levels of differentiation in the family. Maybe this has something in common with what Jim Edd is describing in his post about different levels of differentiation and the differences in whether learning (or defining oneself to society) is motivated by self or the need to bind anxiety originating in the family. Defining a self in society can be an issue around which one can become more of an individual in the family or part of the family process as when conflict in the family occurs around politics and religion.
Stephanie,
I don’t understand defining regression as shifts in the balance between togetherness and individuality.
I love the list of “disciplines needed for the effort toward differentiation”. I’ve not seen them all together in one place like that.
I’ve not thought about the differences between defining self in family versus in society. As you suggest, I think there are differences for individuals, depending on the type and intensity of their connection with others in family system and similarly on the type, intensity, and number of their networks in society.
Then there is the matter of the quality of their defining of self, wherever that is attempted. Some are brash, bold, and oblivious of the system when they define self. At the other end are those who define self with more nuance, with appreciation of the system in which they are doing it, with respect for the autonomy of the others in that system.
Jim Edd,
I had not thought about regression in terms of the shifts between individuality and togetherness until I discovered what Bowen wrote (p. 277-279). This clarified things for me as I realized that increasing anxiety always brings increasing intensity in togetherness with a corresponding lessening of the force for individuality. Togetherness is such an ever-present force of nature while individuality can be overridden. This seems consistent with observations of herd behavior in nature and the human response to threat: pull together for strength and protection.
I like your point about the quality of defining self and the way you describe the two very different ways of taking a position.
Stephanie,
That regression involves the increasing intensity of togetherness is interesting. You do a nice job of explaining what individuality as a counter to regression is: taking responsibility for self based on principle. How would you think about selfish actions that benefit self at the expense of others as a manifestation of togetherness?
Regarding your questions, it does seem that some of us are better in one of the two areas, and worse in the other. As I make an effort toward differentiation, though, it seems to involve a gradual letting go of the compartmentalizing.
Laurie,
I think that benefiting self at the expense of others is built into the laws of nature and that humans are in the same position as other living creatures in that regard. That said, with empathy, compassion, and the ability to think, we are able to pursue self-interest at the same time we recognize the impact we are having on other life, to take into account the costs, and to regulate the self-preservation instinct. I go back to Mike Kerr’s proposal that differentiation of self has to do with being for self without being selfish and being for others without being selfless. Bowen thought that humans went out of balance when we lost sight of our connection to nature and began to overtax the resources. That, I think, can be called selfishness and it leads to self-destruction.
Jim Edd,
Thanks for your comment about different ends of a continuum in defining a self. Nicely said. I was thinking about how Dr. Bowen could be very daring, but how he was ever-thinking about respect and the autonomy of the other family members. It’s probably not helpful to hold up Dr. Bowen and his efforts as the epitome, and I know he didn’t want that, but do you have thoughts about how he was able to embody both “bold” and “nuanced?” He was a lot more bold than most (and perhaps some of us learned the boldness too overly quickly and were delayed in the other!)
Stephanie:
In response to your question regarding the challenges of defining a self in a family vs society….
I often think of what world leaders are up against and how few are up for the task of dealing with the emotional pressures that come their way. Most are looking for allies to shore up their position….a togetherness move. Bowen talked of a well differentiated position as being neither offensive or defensive. It requires a lot to get to that position even in a small group of related individuals. I am intrigued by Pope Francis who seems to avoid open conflicts with church dogma and yet defines an openness and inclusiveness that was not there before. He will be one to watch and to learn from, I expect.
Stephanie:
I forgot to add my interest in hearing your presentation. I look forward to it.