The Two Hierarchies
Laurie Lassiter
Hi People, this is a topic about which many, or all, of you have done extensive thinking. It’s exploratory, meaning that I have mostly questions. It’s a start, and I would appreciate any comments, including those that challenge my thinking.
“The Two Hierarchies,” a broad exploratory paper, considers the variation in differentiation of self on the one hand and the variation in socioeconomic status on the other. As Murray Bowen posited, the natural process of variation in level of differentiation of self is independent of social status, beauty, intelligence, or talent. Roughly equivalent to emotional maturity, it is a separate characteristic that has to do with the degree that an individual can sustain a separate self while engaging in relationships with others.
Primates as a form of life are known for the complex social hierarchies that affect the health, reproductive success, and general well being of individual members. Research in chimpanzees and baboons show that higher social standing in general is associated with better health, greater opportunities for mating, and more resources for young. However, in both of these species there are studies that suggest that being in leadership during unstable periods may be hazardous.
There is also evidence for the survival and reproductive success of calmer animals with good social skills. Kathleen Kerr examined the variation in emotional maturity in mothers in Jane Goodall’s research of chimpanzees. Barbara Smut identified calm, emotionally stable male baboons who were not at the top of the hierarchy, but had more mating opportunities based on their capacity for friendship with females. Although differentiation of self is reserved as a characteristic in human beings, I believe there is evidence for variation in emotional maturity in these and other animals that could involve a multigenerational process.
While the hierarchies based on social status have been more researched, I propose that the natural process of variation in differentiation of self, especially as it can be observed in the human, is also a hierarchy of sorts. There is no doubt that level of differentiation of self is a determining factor in life outcome. Those with higher levels of self, all things being equal, are more likely to be invited to social events, to be hired and promoted in a job, and to receive romantic interest, marriage proposals, and success in any endeavor that involves the respect and admiration of other people. In addition to their social skills and appeal, these are people who tend to be effective in what they set out to do. One’s level of differentiation is automatically assessed and compared to others regardless of whether the observers have ever heard of Bowen’s concept.
While both kinds of hierarchy, variation in differentiation of self, and variation in social status, show up in the individual, they are the result of processes at the level of the group. What are these independent, automatic processes that take place at the level of the family in one case, and at the level of society in the other? How are they different, and what may they have in common? If there are similarities at the biological molecular level, at the level of physiological health, or at the level of relationship, could the study of one be enriched by the study of the other?
Laurie,
I think you are on to something important in recognizing that social stratification and levels of differentiation of self are both processes that create a hierarchy. Do they operate entirely independently, or is there some mutual influencing between the two processes? I would have said the former but more study has led me to see the latter. Good clues from Dr. Bowen are in his concepts of triangling and projection in both family and society, processes that involve pressure on an individual or a targeted group to be in the “one down” position. Also in his question to Dr. Keller: How does a slave develop a self in a system of oppression?
I think a good way to see the relationship between the two hierarchical processes is to study them at the extremes. Isabel Wilkerson’s Caste is a resource as she describes both the extremes of stratification as they become institutionalized, and the emotional process (reactivity to threat, tribalism) that undergirds and perpetuates the system, resulting in disparity in wealth and power across generations.
Hi Laurie, Good start. Do you recall where you read or heard that Bowen thought that level of differentiation and SES are independent of each other? I had heard that he said occupation/education was the single best indicator of level of differentiation.
Hi Jim Edd,
I don’t know where to find the reference for you off hand, but his view is in writing and talks. Level of differentiation is separate frWhat about om SES, intelligence, beauty, talent, etc., though in real life they do influence each other, as Stephanie and Erik suggest. I think the best way to understand Bowen’s comment about occupation (I don’t remember his mentioning education) is level of responsibility. As I understand it, the higher the level of DOS corresponds to a greater capacity for responsibility. In general, occupation can be a good measure, but there are certainly situations of low SES where people have a high capacity for responsibility. And think about the limited roles for women until recently, etc.
thanks,
Laurie
Thanks Laurie.
I believe MB states that DOS and SES and IQ are not correlated in one of the chapters in FTCP. I have the quote deep in my computer I think. Could search if that is helpful. Also, what I recall about occupation/education is that statement that “If I could have only one variable to estimate DOS” it would be that one (paraphrased). So not implying a precise correlation. My guess is that any correlations such as these would not be simple. Without a good way to quantify DOS we are making educated guesses, but still very interesting to me.
Since competition around social status has been fuel to the emotional process in my family of origin and extended family in my parents” generation, I would say they are interconnected. Certainly striving for social status and failures creates pressures on family relationships and produces drop outs as well. How one defines oneself to this can be pretty automatic and emotionally driven as well as thoughtful and considered. I’m speaking from a position where there’s some choice that doesn’t exist at the lowest levels of differentiation and social status.
A few thoughts for you, Laurie. The idea that DOS is independent of social status no longer makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you? When you say that it is another hierarchy, how does that differ from the idea of it being a scale? It seems that by using the word hierarchy, you may be blending it into the other hierarchy of social status? I know that it is fashionable to consider those at higher levels of social status to be pressing the others down. But in my experience, those at the higher levels of social status are often more generous. I think they get to higher levels of status, partly due to that generosity.
Laurie,
I agree with Erik that hierarchies can be understood on a scale, from those that are higher functioning (where rank is based on level of responsibility and contribution) to those lower functioning (most competition and reactivity between ranks). I tried to describe this in my article, The Social Hierarchy: Biology and Emotional Process.