My first FESTWG post was about my effort to refine a reliable method for clinical research to observe and document shifts in the family emotional process that impact clinical disorders for better and for worse. Sometime in the last year or so as I’ve worked at this project I began to focus on the phenomena of “shift” itself which has led me to wonder about how a focus on shift itself might facilitate systems thinking and optimize the number of significant opportunities to see and communicate about the family emotional system for ourselves and especially for the theoretically naïve.
Bowen observed that an individual’s level of functioning is usually determined more by their position in their family than by intrinsic characteristics of their own. This is so in the levels of fusion of average family systems as well as in the intensely fused families of the NIMH study where he first glimpsed the phenomenon. The observation of the interdependence of individual functioning and the family emotional system was made when it was possible to see the shift in emotional process that led to a shift in who acted out the family anxiety when it transferred between family members.
“The psychopathology fluctuated in a way to suggest “first the schizophrenia is in the patient and now it is in the mother” and the area of the problem shifted in a way to suggest first the problem is between mother and patient and now it is between mother and the rest of the family
“. …Families tended to “spray” their anxiety onto the staff resulting in the families becoming calmer but the staff getting upset.”
“…. There were examples of the patient’s symptoms decreasing in response to an increase in emotionality of their sibling.” ” (Bowen 1956 a, P.2. from From Butler /Bowen, The Origins of Family Psychotherapy: The NIMH Family Study Project, Kindle, loc. 404 of 3575)
Observations of shift in the family were in large part the basis of the concept of the family as an emotional unit — the concept itself constituting a major shift in perception as it brought a whole new order of relationship functioning into view. (Bowen/Butler)
The emotional shift in the family system is not usually recognized when the focus is on the symptomatic family member. Both the forces of the emotional system and of conventional cause and effect thinking direct the attention of families and clinicians to the symptomatic family member as the context and cause of the impairment and the family anxiety. The conventional view is that the family is in reaction to the symptomatic one. It is a figure ground shift to see the family system driving and determining who becomes most reactive and most symptomatic and to see symptoms fluctuate as a function of the relationship system. It is another degree of shift to see shifts in symptoms as an opportunity to see family systems in action.
As part of communicating about the project of having a reliable method to document shifts in the family emotional system, I will want to address the prediction that whenever a change is observed in the individual’s symptom or level of functioning the odds are it is part of the family systems phenomenon. Without a focus on the family system we cannot say that we can fully account for the change.
Laura, I find this a useful lens to apply to shifts in functioning in my family. If I assume that observable shifts (those that are large enough to be observed, that I can see) in an individual’s functioning are related to the emotional system context, it’s good reminder. Shifts occur, and I’m thinking of some that occurred over the weekend and have already shifted back, and others that are longer lasting. This is a good tool because shifts are visible, I mean concrete, they can be seen, and there is the opportunity each time a shift occurs, to remember, it’s not the individual, it’s the whole group. I plan to play with this, keep it in mind, and maybe be a better observer.
Tracking shifts in functioning as a way of observing the emotional system. What a great idea! I believe that Bowen was able to see shifts first in the research families because of the intensity of emotional process and the level of symptoms and acting out of anxiety. It raises the question of how to observe shifts in better differentiated families.
Laura, in addition to obvious symptoms, are there specific indicators you look for to see shifts in functioning? I know weight loss was one that you worked with, and it is a measurable change. The ability to sustain a focus on a personal goal would be another one. You have gotten me thinking about how useful this can be in clinical practice, as well as personally.
Stephanie, The idea would be to take any change you see – a pull up or a little regression in functioning which is reflected in mood, in sleep, in energy level, in procrastination, in self reliance, in a relationship such as more or less conflict or taking a stand as well as in symptoms like better regulation of blood sugar, or weight or drinking, or directness with others, problem solving, etc. We tend to see all these as the person, and it can be. Given the modest level of differentiation of most people, chances are that shifts in functioning in the individual reflects a shift in their primary triangles and the mechanisms for binding anxiety in the family system.
This concept forces one to look for changes and get away from thinking of the family and individual as sets of unchanging innate characteristics.