Jim Edd Jones
June 5, 2015
Nuclear Family Emotional Process, Beliefs, and Learned Nonuse
In nuclear family emotional process, beliefs about self and each other in the family are consistent with the pattern of the emotional process and become self-fulfilling. The phenomenon of learned nonuse is one important part of that self-fulfilling process which intensifies and solidifies the pattern, especially in family projection process and over/underfunctioning. In lower differentiated families, these beliefs about self and other are more fixed and closed. That is, facts contrary to the beliefs don’t change the beliefs. In higher differentiated systems, the beliefs are more flexible and open-ended. New facts contrary to the belief are considered and the belief changed accordingly.
Now, I’ll focus on learned nonuse and try to catch the rest later.
Edward Taub discovered learned nonuse and named it. He first saw it in his research with monkeys in the 1970s. Then he applied it to stroke survivors beginning in the 1980s.
In the basic experiment, he cut the afferent nerve from one arm of a monkey. That monkey gets no sensory feedback from the arm with the cut nerve. The monkey will react by not using the affected arm and relying on the unaffected arm for doing everyday tasks. And this will continue, one arm used and one arm not used.
Taub imagined that the monkey might be able to use the affected arm, since he had not cut the motor nerves to that arm. He tested that by immobilizing the good arm with a sling-cast. The monkey slowly began to use the affected arm for getting food and for other activities, and was able to recover most of the functioning of that arm.
Taub performed a number of variations on that basic experiment, which all confirmed the first result. The affected arm is still capable of functioning. For example, cut afferent nerves to both arms and the monkey never stops using either.
Taub interpreted the basic result as follows; that the monkey with one affected arm mistakenly learns to not use that arm. Learned nonuse, when actually the arm was capable of being used.
Taub suspected that human stroke survivors might similarly be capable of recovering more function than they realized, when the stroke had affected one side of their body. As with the monkeys he put the functioning arm into a sling and the good hand into a big clumsy mitten. They then worked long hours using the affected side in a variety of tasks. Make no mistake, this is hard, frustrating work for the stroke person. Taub says that they get pretty good recovery of function when the person is willing to put in the long hard work.
So it appears that both monkey and stroke survivor learn not to use the affected arm, and that gets solidified into a belief that the arm is unuseable.
Circling back to family, it appears to me that in projection process and reciprocal process, everybody has beliefs that some people in the family aren’t capable of certain functions. Very often the targeted person shares these beliefs. These beliefs teach the targeted person not to even try to use those functions. Belief and practice solidify that disability through learned nonuse. The beliefs about lack of an ability become self-fulfilling through learned nonuse.
Jim Edd, thank you for this interesting article. I like it very much.
1) As I read your thoughts about the tendency of family members, especially at lower levels of differentiation of self, to have fixed ideas about the functioning of self and other family members, I realized that I had been holding a somewhat fixed view of my sister’s older daughter. I was even using Bowen theory to concretize the fixed view. Letting go of that is freeing, for me and for her, I believe.
2) This article seems related to your exploration of learning, which I have also found freeing in the way you look at learning as open-ended. Do you see this article as related to that?
Yes, definitely.
‘Using Bowen theory to concretize the fixed view’. I see this as a big challenge, to avoid misusing Bowen theory to justify our own less differentiated functioning.
Dear Jim Edd,
Thank you so much for this interesting piece. It is very exciting to think of learned nonuse and turning it around. What potential that offers to humans and nonhumans alike.
The piece stimulated in me thoughts about my own dysfunctions and how they can lead to learned disuse and how the process of differentiation of self can assist in activating reuse!
Many thanks,
Pat
Yes. Differentiation of self can be huge in reversing the self-imposed delusions of learned nonuse.
Jim Edd,
Once again, you have found an area of research in another field that illuminates concepts in Bowen theory. I think your description of learned nonuse and how it creates a belief in the nonusability of a body part (or family member) and how that in turn reinforces the nonuse is a new and creative way to think about the family projection. What locks it into place is when both the afflicted person and the family (or society) believe in the nonuse, and mutually reforce the belief.
If you and I both believe that neither us has any artistic ability, that becomes a powerful force.
Hi Jim Edd:
Really appreciate your introducing this research and your thinking about it.
It is really interesting to think of the projection process and how one’s perception turns into a reality. You have given me much to think about.
I hope it is of use.
Jim Edd,
I wasn’t aware of this research. Thanks for introducing it and relating it to the patterns of undifferentiation, particularly projection and over/under functioning reciprocity. Like others who responded I tend to think of deficits in myself and family members as if they are fixed in the people when Bowen theory would suggest they are fixed by the relationship patterns. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about Bowen’s use of the idea that the patterns “absorb” undifferentiation? I wonder why he used the term absorb. Did he not also suggest that the patterns “bind” anxiety?
Bowen was there first. Everything I said in the language of beliefs and learned nonuse is a restatement of what Bowen had said first a long time ago. The idea that when systems manage anxiety by projection or some other emotional process implies that what we are ‘seeing’ is delusional; not real traits in the target person
Jim Edd, I had read of that research and was fascinated by it, but what a creative and clear way you have of connecting it to functioning within the emotional system of a family. I often think of all the unlocked potential in students labeled as “special needs” who are treated for their “disability.” Sadly, my son is among them. How much of that could be explained by nonuse. Thanks for this posting. It really has helped me think about family relationships.
You’re welcome.
Laura, I, too, struggle to focus on relationships rather than the individual, and emotional process rather than symptoms. My understanding of the idea of “binding” anxiety is that the anxiety is tied up in a symptom or symptoms and if that symptom were resolved, the anxiety would be free to manifest itself elsewhere. So, if an obese individual became skinny, another symptom could emerge because the weight wasn’t the underlying problem. It is a relationship problem within the system, which has gone unaddressed. Does that make sense? Absorb is an interesting word choice. Not sure how to think about that.