This short piece is an introduction to a topic I am trying to develop.
Years ago I heard from somebody that Murray Bowen had been asked, “What is the single best indicator of level of differentiation?” And that he answered, “occupational attainment”, or “educational attainment”.
I don’t know if he said any of this. I’ve never been able to track it down. My silent reaction to the answer to the question was that that doesn’t sound right. By that time, I was far enough along in my clinical career and had seen too many examples of highly educated individuals who struggled with the consequences of their low differentiation emotional functioning and, as well, individuals with successful occupational accomplishment who were low differentiation in emotional functioning. I was seeing them because they were dealing with the symptom consequences of their low differentiation.
Something was not adding up.
As a child growing up with parents without college education and struggling with finances, I developed the belief that educational accomplishment was the path to a good life, to becoming a good person.
So, my personal belief paralleled Bowen’s assertion that educational or occupational attainment was a good indicator of level of differentiation.
Well, I achieved fairly successful educational accomplishments. But guess what, that by itself didn’t necessarily lead to the good life.
Over the years, I came to believe that Bowen had been in error to even answer that question about the single best indicator of differentiation. Why? The nature of living systems is that no single variable by itself is a strong or decisive predictor of any important variable in a living system. In interconnected systems, any important variable will be predicted by a combination of variables working together, almost never by a single variable. Now, we call that systems thinking.
If this line of reasoning is correct, what are its implications for important phenomena of everyday systems we encounter? One implication is that you most of the time don’t really know all the important things about a person or a system from knowing just a few variables. e.g. level of differentiation is an important variable to know but by itself doesn’t tell you all that much about the person or system.
To me, another implication is that one is advised to be restrained or conservative about drawing big conclusions about a person or system while you are getting to know them. Just because you have learned 2 or 3 important things about them is not a sufficient basis for an interpretation or conclusion about them. This is just the nature of systems.
Back to the original point about educational or occupational accomplishment, I began to, in my own simplistic way, think that accomplishment in the social world should be considered a sufficiently separate and different part of human functioning from level of differentiation of emotional functioning in systems. Pay attention to both. Neglect of either has unfortunate consequences. Keep them mostly separate and don’t neglect either one.
Jim Edd,
Makes a lot of sense to me. Makes a stronger case the way you bring in your experiences and observations. I would like to hear more about your idea of “accomplishment in the social world.” It could imply achieving a higher socioeconomic status or perhaps something different, like being a steady member of a religious group, or an interest group. What is important there? One’s position in the group? Bowen also said that DoS is independent of social class, IQ, financial success, an independent characteristic that affects the others.
Thanks for your comment, Laurie.
As you imply, there are many things that are independent of differentiation. So, you can choose one or a few to focus on. For now, I am focusing on something I’ll call practical effectiveness, which is close to being how successfully an individual or a system is adapted to its ecological niche. I stress that one could choose to focus on additional variables. I am choosing practical effectiveness, which has no necessary priority over other choices.
So, yes, SES would be a part of practical effectiveness, and as you suggest, one’s place or position in social groups of which one is a member. One’s practical effectiveness in the workplace. How effective you are at the skills you choose to pursue. How effective you are at the evolutionary tasks of life. Those are the fundamentals that are minimal requirements necessary for surviving and reproducing successfully. Lodging, food, air, water, resources, parenting. The things necessary for surviving and reproducing.
So, for an individual or a system, identify the ecological niche that they occupy and determine what would be necessary for being practically effective in that niche.
I wonder if making a distinction between functional and basic level of differentiation would be another factor to consider here. Differentiation is so complex and there are many variables influencing it such as the family one is born into. Both my parents were the first in their families to attend college. They were also freer than their siblings in a lot of ways although far from free. They were the youngest male and the youngest female in their families. They each had a younger sibling of the opposite sex. All my grandparents were Irish immigrants with some elementary education. So one could say there were advantages my parents had that their siblings did not have. The youngest siblings in both of their families also had college or post high school education. Both of their youngest siblings were very special. More of the emotional intensity was absorbed by their other siblings and they had a little less of it. That may be good fortune more than formal education.
A beautiful example of the complexity influencing functioning in any one family.
Ann, I agree, a beautiful example, as Jim Edd notes, of the complexity of factors the influence functioning. In addition to differentiation, there is luck, too, and how external events unfold to support development. My family moved a lot during childhood which supported my father’s and the family’s increase in SES, but made it harder for the kids to learn social skills with peers.
Jim Edd, I would like to learn more about your thoughts on practical effectiveness! What do you see as the characteristics or behaviors that lead to an increase in p.e.?
I will add that since the reading I did about genetic expression I’ve become more aware of the importance of exercise, meditation, etc. as supplements to the effort toward DoS. As well as socializing locally, in book groups and other groups– I find all groups, especially if one has a friend or friends or family member participating, provide challenge for managing self.
Laurie
Laurie,
I don’t have a complete answer to your question, I am just beginning to think about and look for these things which are clearly separate from differentiation. To my mind, one has to address both the measures of practical effectiveness and also the factors leading to practical effectiveness.
Socioeconomic status(SES) for sure contributes to one’s practical effectiveness and is a partial measure of it. Like many things in a system, it is both a causal influence and a result of system influences. One’s SES is partially influenced by the SES of the family you came from, and your SES will be a partial contributor to your future SES.
All those variables you mentioned in your first comment are both partial indicators of practical effectiveness and partial contributors leading to level of practical effectiveness. Similar to SES, you mentioned IQ and financial success. I would add educational attainment, occupational attainment, level of accomplishment in skills you have worked at, amount of available resources.
Related to what you said about position in a social group, I would mention the practical contributions you make to the goals of any social group you are a part of.
As I said in my previous reply to your first comment, practical effectiveness depends on the specifics of the ecological niche you occupy. Then you can identify what will help effectiveness in that niche.
I am just starting on this topic but I do know a couple of things that partially contribute to practical effectiveness. One is goal effectiveness. Phil Klever’s work on goal effectiveness crystallized some of my thinking about the role of goals in practical effectiveness. How clearly and definitively have you identified goals? Are you putting in the work on them? Duckworth’s grit or perseverance and Carol Dweck’s growth mindset are factors that partially lead to goal and practical effectiveness.
Notice that one can have any of these characteristics without being particularly well-differentiated.
This is just a start on practical effectiveness. I would reiterate that you or any other person would probably have good reasons for focusing on other variables which are independent of differentiation. For example, you mentioned mentioned luck. That would be one.
Thank you, Jim Edd,
Looking forward to how you develop your thinking on practical effectiveness, and its relationship to differentiation–though I think I hear what you say, that it is a separate variable from DoS.
Laurie
Hello Jim Edd and everyone. I’m following along not as diligently as I would like but thought I’d register a thought for each of you posting before this session of FESTWG ends. My one thought is that differentiation of self as I think of it is a basic variable with specific features that are both unchanging across situations and extremely responsive and shifting with the demands and affordances of situations. I am used to thinking of competence as an outcome of this stability and flexibility that underlies differentiation of self. Not sure that this is different or the same from what you are saying Jim Edd. All the best and thanks for your thinking. Laura
Yes and no. Yes, your succinct characterization of DOS is similar to the way I think about it. But my point is that practical competence is not so closely tied to DOS. Certainly, stability and flexibility can help some people’s practical competence. But there are many people who have some practical competence, even though they are not very well differentiated.
Thanks Laura for your response.
For those interested in stretching the mind as to the downside of Social status see the movie Parasites. Think of the French revolution in one home but way more than that, The intensity that is often not noticed of the hate between classes. wow.. 50 thousand years ago about 25% of deaths were human to human. A big part of what drives us is to make sure who can you trust. What do you do with that? We have made incredible progress in not killing one another. We are lucky and some are disciplined but instincts are still there.
DOS to me has to do with being able to observe systems and then being able to be disciplined in getting out of the pressure to follow along with others in a negative way. Besides being able to separate your self from the group there seems to be a lot of luck as to when and were. you were born.
I think there is a large role for luck in how people come to have some level of emotional maturity.
I was born into a well off family with good principles and a lot of statuses, that I inherited, so I got to go to good schools, and hang out with influential people – and when not rebelling I knew how to get along with other high-status people and ask them questions adn not get paralyzed in dominance interactions. That made it easy for me to get along with others. Just dumb luck but it makes your life a bit easier if you inherit status and marry into that level of life. So there is luck and then hard work as the emotional process will come to get you. People die, the family gets messed up and now what can you do? I learned a lot playing sports But if I did not come from a well off family I would not have been able to play sports. Big lesson
Bowen did say many times that one could only increase DOS your solid self, by a fraction of a point. But that was not functional DOS.
So you might be able to move up further in how you function but your solid self is pretty stuck.
The way I see it is that people are pretty stuck with their reactivity.
Few can alter the emotional process around them.
The most intense relationships seem to become very predictable and hard to loosen up. But though some training and awareness of triangles people can alter the automatic way they respond and that is DOS to me,
Lucky for me, in a terrible way, both my siblings and parents were way worse off than I was. The brothers were male and subject to way more negative focus and high expectations and maybe bad genes. The parents got the war. So I got lucky and or high motivation not to fall apart. Motivation and goals led to the question – What do you want to do to pay back so that others do not suffer as much.
Many in the postgraduate program had awful and interesting problems. and that’s why they stayed . The family troubles were motivating.
When things go wrong speaking up takes a lot of courage. I think that’s an important part of DOS. That’s what I saw and read that Bowen did.
And three days before his death he said he would to all the way with DOS even though it might have cost him some few years off of his life.
Speak up, as to what you see and believe and relax if you’re dangerous to others. That’s what I learned from watching him. It is your life take it the way you will it.
I like the comment that “More of the emotional intensity was absorbed by their other siblings and they had a little less of it. That may be good fortune more than formal education.”
Thanks Andrea for your comment. Your writing is really skilled. And I always get something to chew on from your memories of Bowen. But I didn’t get what your were saying to me.
Keep up the good work on the blog.