I am interested in the interface between the concept of structural violence (from anthropology, I think) and Bowen’s concept of societal regression. Are these concepts congruent, or are there differences?
Here is a description of structural violence I wrote in a recent article in Family Systems
Forum:
Karen Armstrong locates the origin of structural violence at the point in history when humans became agrarian, created settlements, carved out territories and began to shift from the hunter-gatherer economy of subsistence to an economy of surplus made possible by agriculture and commerce.
“In societies that product more than they need, it is possible for a small group to exploit this surplus for its own enrichment, gain a monopoly of violence, and dominate the rest of its population.” (Armstrong, Fields of Blood, 14)
Structural violence became woven into our social systems through institutions and ideologies that support the control of resources and privilege for some at the expense of others. The violence may be overt–ongoing warfare, slavery, persecution of certain groups, suppression of dissent, harsh punishment for minor offenses; or it may be covert–discriminatory policies and practices that target certain individuals and groups, and barriers to equal access embedded in political and economic structures including finance, housing, education, law enforcement and the law itself. In these ways, violence becomes systemic, part of the social norm and lifestyle to which people adapt and into which the next generation is born. The degree to which the norm is entrenched is seen in the degree of opposition that arises when the norm is challenged by groups calling for change.
Stephanie, as a stab at this interesting question that I find challenging , I found this from Bowen on violence as a manifestation of a regression.
“Still another product of the regression is violence, which is an integral part of the anxiety-regression complex. An increase in violence, in all its myriad forms, predictably follows an increase in the togetherness forces. A regressed society cannot substantially reduce the crime which is part of the total complex, without first reducing the regression. In a regression, the “norm” of society in business, the professions, in government, and social institutions, gradually falls to levels that match the regression.”
Bowen, Murray (1993-12-01). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice (p. 280). Jason Aronson, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
One question would be how much of what Armstrong defines as structural violence is a “violent” manifestation of emotional regression as Bowen defined it and how much is adaptive based on realistic conditions. Is the implication we have to go back to pre-agrarian hunter- gathering?
One story from a niece who was in the Peace Corps in Africa maybe illustrates the other horn of the dilemma of egalitarianism/privilege – An individual in one village began stocking fish in a pond to sell and was making a business selling fish. The family wanted the fish though and took them or was given them and the business suffered and the fish raising could not be supported so no more fish. 🙁
Laura,
Thanks for calling attention to this part of Bowen’s writing. I have been focusing on pp. 276-282 of FTCP, a dense section in which many ideas are packed. I have questions about what Dr. Bowen meant on some of the issues. He is cautious about social causes, seems to regard the pursuit of rights as regressive. In the end, I think his ideas about balances–between the force for individuality and the force for togetherness, between the intellectual system and the emotional system, between responsibility and rights, are fundamental guidelines. It leaves us to take our positions on societal issues based on what we see as the best achievable balance. On your fish example, it looks like the outcome would have benefited both pond keeper and family more if the pond keeper had taken a stand to protect the business. But the family might have called that “selfish.”
In Pinker’s book on the history of violence he argues that social philosopher Hobbes was right, the “Leviathan” (a group within society that has a monopoly on violence) brings about a remarkable decrease in violence. Hunter/Gatherer societies, according to Pinker’s read on the fossil evidence, were unimaginably violent. The most violent nations now are those with chronic internal struggles for dominance between powerful factions, like Syria and Iraq. Pinker describes the same trajectory as Armstrong, but sees it as one step in the long pattern of decreased global violence that continues into the past 30 years. I see the real problems Stephanie addresses here in this context. Pinker’s book and others have me thinking that we may not be in a societal regression.
This is really interesting. I have heard Pinker speak on this and it was quite surprising to me. The idea that we were becoming less violent. I have also read how human behavior was influenced by the excess in food production and the ability to store it. That gave some folks a great advantage over others as everybody in the group was no longer employed in the production of food. Hence, certain members of the group were freed and their energy went to creativity. I would say that many forces are influencing human behavior but at the core would be Bowen’s concept of differentiation. More mature societies handle threat differently. I really appreciate the thought and efforts of others that has gone into this subject.
Erik and Ann,
Thanks to you both for the comments. I will put Pinker on my list to study. Melvin Konner was just in Chicago for the CFC symposium. He spent 2 years with the !Kung people of Africa as a young anthropologist and describes hunter-gatherers as the “ultimate communities” where people knew one another for life and made decisions collectively in a relatively egalitarian society. I assume there was a lot of variation between the h-g societies, since Pinker describes them as so violent. On the question of surplus, I assume not all societies followed the trajectory of dominance and violence. described by Armstrong. Surplus would have opened the door to trade, commerce, economic growth and the whole process that leaves us where we are today.
Jared Diamond has something to say about this in Guns, Germs and Steel. If I recall correctly, he writes about a phenomenon in which early anthropologists felt compelled to describe the societies they studied in romanticized terms – egalitarian, non-violent, communal. I believe it was to justify financial support for their work. That, he said, perpetrated a mistaken view of hunter-gatherer societies, which he describes as generally quite violent throughout history, with variations from society to society. He also wrote that societies with armies — the Leviathan? — are far less violent. And, as Pinker points out, he says that violence is markedly lower today and continues to point downward. The questions of whether we are in a regression and how violence plays out with differentiation of self are interesting. Thanks for this challenging piece.
Stephanie, How interesting that Melvin Konner was at the CFC symposium. I’m curious what his presentation was like. I did a literature study of the !Kung, based on the anthropologists from the 1960s, when the tribe had not yet changed in relation to the outside world. Some of the things I remember were: leaders (women or men) were chosen based on skill like hunting, but also mediating; leaders did not have more resources or leisure than others, in fact, often less resource and less leisure. There was a certain amount of violence, especially between men. From time to time a young man would emerge in the group who was very aggressive, and the group would convene and decide to kill him in order to avoid further violence. Sometimes the community would stay up all night as a group to solve a dispute. Another aspect I enjoyed was the way the group managed people’s egos. For instance, when a skilled hunter made an incredible animal kill that would feed all the people, his friends would comment about how small and pitiful the killed beast was and what a poor hunter the killer was. There was a lot of joking built in to the community that addressed the tendency of people to want to be better than others.
Laurie,
This description is consistent with Konner’s description of the !Kung. I think you would enjoy Women After All. He considers the hunter-gatherer societies the “ultimate communities.” People knew one another for life and made decisions collectively, with women’s voices heard. He argues that this was the way of life for most of human history, the 100,000 or more years before agriculture, settlements, and larger populations. I think there is quite a range of different view of hunter-gatherer societies, probably because there were many of them in so many different environments, some more peaceful than others. Konner has accepted the invitation of Victoria Harrison and Louise Rauseo to present at their conference in Camp Allen, TX on February 17-18, 2017. In Chicago, he did presentations based on his book on Childhood (900+ pages) and on Women After All. He had good comments on all the papers and helped make it one of the best Chicago symposiums.
Stephanie,
Just another thought: One of the things I remember from reading is that the !Kung had a word for people who were not in their tribe, which translated to “animals on two legs.” I wonder if there was an original evolutionary advantage in those hominid groups who did not recognize the humanness of other groups? Racism and ethnic wars seem rooted in an old evolutionary hominid characteristic, related to the triangle, that we as a species struggle to manage.
An interesting question as to regression and the part that the nature of unfairness and unkindness and intense fear brings into society and into the family.
I think you could develop criteria to claim that some groups are more ethical and responsible than others.
For example, “Revolution is needed.” This might be the answer that the group gives to injustice, unethical actions as in the French revolution.
Many revolutions or political leaders are chosen by the group to make it possible to right unfairness on the one hand and let someone else do the work on the other.
How do we know the difference?
Often leaders reflect what the group can understand and a few leaders one can claim are actually far ahead of the group and lead societies into greater actions.
In our close up relationships one person dominating or eroding others leads to greater troubles as the problems may not be solved, as others are absorbing the anxiety, and that apparently is all that needs to be done for the system to limp forward.
But who knows exactly how progress happens?
I think Bowen was trying to leap from what he saw in families to society. If it fits it might be useful but it might not fit.
There may be no right way to come to a plan of action to produce greater level of emotional maturity in families or in society. In families individuals have to figure out what they are willing to do to mange self in complex relationships.
As in a family, when the issues cannot be handled, the anxiety goes up and the weaker people absorb the anxiety and become symptomatic. The dominant people may become meaner and so it goes till greater awareness leads to change for the better or to an end point.
Perhaps there is a difference in this who kills for recourses and who kill for no reason? a gentle reminder that despite our best intentions in the Jack Calhoun world an end point was reached.
Families can say this is all about the struggle for recourses (which they do) and or they can say that the fight is all about differences in religious beliefs, as in the middle east, so there are some parallels.
The way a society is functioning provides feedback into the group and that overly determines what the individual can do or change.
If one person becomes more aware of their part in the problem they can do something about it, if they have courage be it in the family or the societal level.
But this is what your up against in trying to speak about how society is. You have to answer questions like:
Who can be fair in a regressive society?
Who can be rational in Hitler’s world?
Who can oppose/lead the group?
Who knows who is right?
Perhaps the more we know about the similarities in families and in society the greater awareness people might have of what is an emotional process that leads to the erosion of self and what leads to greater responsibility for the situations which challenge us all.
Perhaps revolutions to correct inadequate response to problems of old fashioned UNFAIR distributions of resources, intolerance for differences etc. are just provoking greater symptoms in families and in society?
Perhaps we can say people find ways to find solutions in imperfect ways. But for those willing to try there are still some ways that make more sense than other ways. When anyone finds a way to take a stand for self maybe that helps.
I changed my perception and had a different view of unfairness, to some small degree, when I saw the eagle swoop in, grab the rabbit and feed it to her babies.
Andrea,
You bring up great questions here. I especially like your comment:
“Many revolutions or political leaders are chosen by the group to make it possible to right unfairness on the one hand and let someone else do the work on the other.” That captures the current plethora of social movements that allow you to join with a click of the computer mouse. I wonder what all those signatures on petitions accomplish.
While I would probably disagree with some of Bowen’s positions on social causes, I think he really nailed a way to make that leap from family to society with the concept of the togetherness/individuality reciprocal balance. There is so much evidence in the world now of revolutionary/togetherness efforts breaking down into factions and chaos.
Opposing the various dimensions of the status quo without a careful, principled program to replace the status quo rarely if ever results in progress. I have admired Sanders for his consistent adherence to clear principles, and it looks now like he has actually engaged a previously disengaged voter population and will have influence on the Democratic Party platform.