systems theory

An overview of Bowen family systems theory – a different way of thinking

Jenny Brown Blog, Bowen theory, Family, Family of Origin, Family Systems Theory , , , , , , , , ,

Given how much my book is about applying Bowen’s theory to understanding the commonalities of the families we all grow up in, it’s timely to use this excerpt (from ch. 3) as a mini blog to provide a crash course in family systems concepts. You will recognise them, described in everyday language, all the way through this book. 

Bowen researched his own family over the generations and came to see similarities in coping patterns with those families with more severe psychiatric symptoms. He noticed that there were two forces at work in relationships that drive predictable patterns of behaviour: these are the togetherness force and the separateness force, which are both essential for individuals in their relationships. The core concepts of Bowen’s theory describe the ways that family members react to the threat of loss of togetherness and explain the variations in how different families and individuals manage life challenges. These core concepts are: triangles, which describe how tension between two people gets detoured to a third party, such as when a wife discusses marital grievances with a friend rather than their husband or when a parent discuss parental grievances with a child rather than their partner; differentiation of self, which describes the extent to which family members can stay in their own skin — maintain their individuality — while relating to each other and still being part of the family group; fusion, the opposite of differentiation of self, where boundaries are lost in the pull for family togetherness; the nuclear family emotional system, which outlines the three ways that one generation of a family can reduce individual relationship discomfort — these are the conflict-and-distance pattern, the over- and under-functioning exchange between spouses, and the anxious detour onto a child. The family projection process explains how insecurities in adults can be managed through shifting the focus to the next generation; the multigenerational transmission process describes how parents’ anxieties are not transmitted equally to each child as each gets varying degrees of a parent’s worry focus; emotional cut-off is a common way that family members use distance to reduce the sense of loss of individuality in relationships; sibling position was seen by Bowen as formative in an individual’s relationship sensitivities; and societal regression process showed how the same anxious patterns in families can be seen in institutions in the broader society. All of these ideas, linked together, help show how every individual is part of a much bigger stage of actors in the same improvised play, building a storyline through their interconnections.

To see things from a systems perspective requires getting out of a ‘cause and effect’ way of thinking to seeing how every person’s impulses are part of a circuit of reactions that flow like electric currents around relationships. It’s as if relationships are a kind of dance, with each person responding intuitively to the dance steps of another. These circuits of emotional and behavioural responses in relationships shape how each individual develops. Hence getting real about ourselves in our original families requires us to get honest about how our emotional responses and behaviours flow onto others and influence how they appear to us. The good news, from a systems way of thinking, is that changing our emotional reactions and behaviours eventually flows onto changing the entire circuit of the system. That is if we can hold onto the principles that drive our change efforts in the face of others’ anxiety. This is how we can make a positive difference over time, not just for ourselves but for everyone we’re connected to.

 

Photo with permission: A Schara

What makes for healthy disagreements?

Jenny Brown Family Systems Theory, Relationships , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s not always about compromise

I was asked if the outcome of a constructive disagreement always involves compromise. It’s interesting that many people assume that resolution requires a degree of compromise or giving up something. When disagreements are managed maturely with good contact, avoidance of triangles and people expressing their own experience and perspective, there are a range of possible outcomes.

I asked a group of community group leaders: What they think makes for a healthy disagreement? I frequently ask this question of couples in counselling who are usually a bit taken aback that I think this is a more useful exploration than what makes for harmony.

Responses at my talk included: being willing to listen well and creating trust. People found it much easier to answer the question: What things get in the way of constructive disagreements? Responses included: our pride, believing that we are right, a desire to not give in, pushing our point of view, anger and attack and talking over the other.

I suggested 3 guiding principles from Bowen family systems theory that may be helpful in dealing with conflict well. Of course with generalities it is wise to appreciate that specific conflict situations need to be thoughtfully examined to determine ways to manage self within it. This caveat aside, see what you think of these guidelines:

1: Stay in good contact with the person with whom tension or disagreement has arisen. In the face of relationship tension, we humans are primed to use distance as a quick way of reducing discomfort. While avoiding conflict can feel like an attractive option, distance predictably increases negative projections. The less contact with the other the more we tend to exaggerate differences and imagine negative motives. When 2 people avoid each other after a tense interaction it is highly likely that they each begin to escalate a negative emotion circuit.

It isn’t easy to stay in good contact in the face of tension but tolerating this discomfort is a key way of being able to work things out in a thoughtful way. Even the act of demonstrating a warm greeting after a tense encounter can calm things between people and lay the groundwork for talking out differences.

2: Resist detouring tension to a third party. As well as distancing in the face of relationship discord it is predictable that people go to another person and vent about the person they have had tension with. This triangling process seems so natural and yet it can reduce the chance of being able to resolve the difficulty in the original relationship. When we find a person who validates our experience of the “difficult” other we immediately calm down and are less inclined to go back to the upset relationship to hear each side of the situation.

Triangles also provide a mechanism for spreading the original relationship tension as the person who has been vented to is now more cautious and tense around the person they have heard complaints about. I am always asked about the value of seeking counsel from a third party which on the surface sounds like a reasonable strategy in the face of conflict. The key question to ask is:

Am I seeking someone to take my side and expecting them to validate me?

or am I wanting someone to help me get my emotions in check and to think objectively about how I am managing the relationship upset?

Gaining more of a factual view about how we contributed to the misunderstanding is valuable bit conversations directed at describing, analysing and diagnosing/blaming the other person is actually adding fuel to the intensity of the discord.

3: Stay responsible for representing yourself not changing the view of the other. When our energies go towards changing or blaming the other we are contributing to a defensive response that amplifies their own stance; However when we can express our own thinking and experience of the situation we are more likely to be heard by the other who will be equally listened to by us. Our listening is in order to learn about the other’s experience from where they sit in the relationship system that we share (family, workplace, community group etc.).

At the end of this presentation, I was asked if the outcome of a constructive disagreement always involves compromise. It’s interesting that many people assume that resolution requires a degree of compromise or giving up something. When disagreements are managed maturely with good contact, avoidance of triangles and people expressing their own experience and perspective, the outcome will be one of 3 possibilities:

  • Each person will maintain their own position with an appreciation and acceptance of the others different stance. This is not just agreeing to disagree but an informed choice to operate from different positions. Respect is maintained.
  • One person will discover and acknowledge that they did not have adequate information to make a judgement and that they were wrong in their position and will back down from it. And conversely one person will choose to maintain their position having explained it to the other and remaining convicted of their view.
  • One or both people will thoughtfully choses to adjust part of their position in light of what they learn from the discussion with the other. Compromise is not a kind of pretend harmony but something worked at through respectful dialogue.

All of this is quite easy to write about but in practice it is hard. It requires overriding the rush of strong emotions that are automatically activated in the face of relationship disruption. We can choose to move towards that tension and manage our selves maturely or to avoid it and potentially contribute to more layers in to the relationship tension. It’s hard to accept that being grown up means choosing to do what doesn’t come naturally!

A version of this blog fist appeared on the FSI web page in 2014. 

The bigger picture behind negative self-talk

Jenny Brown Family Systems Theory , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“I know that my ‘self-talk’ in relationships tends to be negative and full of doubts. I need to work on improving this self-talk.”

I wondered whether there was more to this than a case of negative self -talk.  Together we began exploring the effects of the relationship reciprocity and not Helen’s individual cognitions.

*Helen is a recently semi-retired, professional woman. She had enjoyed a successful work life but was ready for a reduction in work responsibilities now that she was in her 60s. It was a huge transition for Helen who had been with the same employer for over 25 years. She had taken on this full time career track following her divorce. Helen described the way her adult children were stepping up to support her following this significant job departure.  They were all hearing about her fears that she would struggle to manage her finances and have sufficient funds. While Helen had followed sound advice on her investments and had offers of secure part time work, these facts did little to allay her fears.

As Helen reflected on her shifting relationship with her 3 adult children she recognised how much she was venting her worries to each of them. They responded with reassurance, statements of respect for her ongoing achievements and advice about her transition decisions. Helen did appreciate the caring response from each of them but said that she felt unworthy of their praise and encouragement. When asked about the effects of their increased support she replied:

“The more support they give me the emptier I seem to feel about myself, and my money anxieties are not relieved.”

Such an interesting response! I deemed it was worthy of further investigation. I asked Helen how she accounted for her discomfort with her children’s gestures of encouragement and affirmation. She thought that distance had been her main way to manage herself in relationships to her own parents and that this had translated into a comfortable distance with her own children. Not a cut –off kind of distance, as she saw them all regularly. Rather it had been an emotional distance where she refrained from sharing at a deeper, more personal level. She had been concerned not to be an emotional burden for her children. This current transition had prompted a greater connection with her children. Her recent expressions of vulnerability however, were clearly unsettling the previous equilibrium for Helen.

Helen’s next reflection was especially intriguing. She said:

“I know that my ‘self-talk’ in relationships tends to be negative and full of doubts. I need to work on improving this self-talk.”

I wondered whether there was more to this than a case of negative self-talk.  Together we began exploring the effects of the relationship reciprocity and not Helen’s individual cognitions. I asked about the pattern of receiving praise from important others. We explored how the more she expressed her self- doubts, the more her children responded with assurances; and the more Helen received assurances the more she was felt inwardly depleted. This cycle did provide positive connection with her children but it was also setting up a pattern for Helen to under-function. The more she was reassured, the more she feared for her future; the more she was praised, her sense of confidence diminished. The self- talk was much more than an expression of individual doubts. Rather, it was an outworking of a relationship phenomenon.

To investigate the relationship influences further I asked about the specific patterns with each of her children. While the over-all pattern of Helen venting and her children encouraging was apparent, each relationship had some unique features. Helen became increasingly fascinated as she explored the nuances of her interactions with each adult child. This was expanding her lens well past individual introspection. She could see that her eldest son responded with lots of practical suggestions and offers to help her save money by having regular meals with their family. Helen’s response to him was to present as less capable than she was in terms of her budgeting and life management. With her only daughter, Helen experienced a good dose of emotional caretaking. She felt quite overwhelmed by her daughter’s rescuing gestures but could see that she was giving plenty of invitations to be rescued through her expressions of worry.  Her other son was somewhat less responsive to Helen’s worries. He was more laid back in listening to her concerns.  After listening and empathising he would shift the conversation away from her worries to an exchange of ideas. Helen had first thought that he was less caring than the other two. However on further reflection she saw that she felt more solid and less vulnerable in this interaction. Each of the varied patterns with her children reflected differences in the degrees of worry she had for them growing up. The son she worried least about was the son who was now relating more to her capacities. The children who she saw as having more struggles during their growing up and young adult years were the ones that were relating more to Helen’s expressions of incapacity.

Helen began to appreciate how much she was contributing to a depletion of her ‘self’ in her relating – in particular with her eldest son and her daughter. This ‘de-selfing’ in the relationship exchange contributes to a negative internal dialogue.  Helen determined to stay connected to each of her children during her current life transition. She was not going to revert to the previous distancing. She stated however that she wanted to work on connecting in a less fragile manner. She resolved to be open about the impact of the changes to her circumstances. She would share what she was learning about herself during this time. Helen wanted to share in a manner that conveyed she was responsible for managing her worries thoughtfully. She would welcome her children’s gestures of care but endeavour not to participate in unnecessary rescuing interactions. All of this would require consistent observation of herself in each relationship and continued practice at presenting her more open and capable self to the other. It would be a different effort to just endeavouring to correct negative self -talk about her deficiencies.

I think that Helen’s example demonstrates how ‘systems thinking’ is different to individual thinking. The key focus of attention is how is each person is effecting and shaping the other. Each individual’s ‘mind set’ and behaviours are inextricably linked to the back and forth responses in important relationships. The question that promotes maturity is not: How can I change my self -talk and the consequent behaviours? The more constructive growing up question is: How am I contributing to this pattern that is either depleting my confidence, or another’s sense of capacity? How is the relationship dance shaping my thinking, feeling and behaving? How can I alter my part of the dance in ways that promote mutual responsibility?

*Names and identifying details have been changed

Making room for distress in relationships

Jenny Brown Bowen theory, Family, Family Systems Theory, Relationships , , , , , , ,

 Reflections from a sisters weekend awaysisters weekend

“I could appreciate that our family has made some genuine progress. To be able to tolerate the stirred up emotions of another’s upset and not respond in ways that swiftly shut it down is very different to the way we grew up.”

It was jarring witnessing one of my 3 sisters’ breaking down in tears as we shared breakfast together. I felt my heart rate escalate in readiness to do my automatic smooth things over. On this occasion however, I managed to restrain my impulse and join my others sisters in acknowledging her hurt. I could then observe how this gave her space to be in charge of what she needed to do for herself at that moment.

Let me explain the context. I was away for a rare weekend break with my 3 sisters in a charming rural setting outside of Sydney. We had relished a relaxed time of walking, chatting, reminiscing, laughing, country store shopping, and cooking up some great food to match our wine selections. On the Sunday morning I’d suggested listening to a pod cast and had randomly chosen one from a site I follow that linked to the theme of mother’s day (which coincided with our weekend). I had thought it might be interesting to reflect on our own mother, who we’d lost some 30+ years earlier; and I also hoped that this post would add some helpful Sunday faith reflection. The message went straight to interviews of mother’s talking about their deep intimate experience of their baby’s expressed love and dependence. For my dear sister, who has lived the complex heartache of infertility, this touched on a raw and deep grief; and through tears she asked that we stop the tape saying it was too painful for her to continue listening.

I immediately felt foolish and insensitive at my contribution to her upset. It would have been easy for me to try to compensate for this by lots of apologising and quickly moving the conversation and activity to something cheery. (This would have been the kind of apologising that was driven by wanting to feel better about myself as opposed to genuinely taking responsibility for wrong doing toward another.)  On this occasion I just stayed quite, along with my other sisters, and we listened to an honest insightful description from our sister of her living through extraordinarily challenging times. She was able to describe so many aspects of her life at the time which added an understanding of our whole family system and the different ways we were each impacted by the death of each of our parents while trying to make our way in our adult lives. It revealed her personal journey of coming to faith in the aftermath of suffering, providing a gift of encouragement that no online pod cast could have delivered. After a period of listening and learning I walked over to my sister and gave her a quiet hug. It had been a moment of connecting that would have been missed if any of us had tried to relieve and distract from the expression of pain and loss.

Our family has certainly shifted from our previous ways of dealing with distress. As we were growing up, the jolts of suffering and loss were minimised in an effort to keep going and to survive. As a family we closed up expressing our hurts and fears to each other and took the path of ‘soldiering on’. This happened in the face of grandparents’ deaths, the trauma of our house burning down and of our mother’s excruciating battle with terminal cancer. This closing up conversation in the face of upset was entrenched in the coping patterns of previous generations. It has taken its toll on each of us and our relationships in different ways.

As the years have been on fast forward to this sister’s gathering, I could appreciate that our family has made some genuine progress. To be able to tolerate the stirred up emotions of another’s upset and not respond in ways that swiftly shut it down is very different to the way we grew up. There are many times I see my immaturities when I’m with my original family but on this occasion, each sister contributed to a precious mature space where no one got in another’s way. It was a moment of intimacy and appreciation for the different experiences each has dealt with. The younger sister was trail blazing courageous honesty to her elders (yes elders in sibling position even though in reality our ages are so close we are peers). It was an opportunity for getting to know, at a deeper level, one of our siblings and to show love for each other that would not have been possible with the old pattern of smoothing over another’s distress. Our brother, as the youngest after 4 sisters (tough gig right?!), was in many ways the most vulnerable to the isolation that came from our closed communication about grief. As part of my effort with ALL my siblings, I need to keep working at becoming more open and honest in the way I relate with him.

The growing up lesson for me is to be aware of the old stress reducing family impulses, while at the same time, slowing down the reactions so that conversation can open up. For me it is not making it all about my embarrassment for upsetting another by self-protective apologies; on this occasion it was about learning from another as they had the space to truly express themselves.

__________________

Note: I sent this blog to the sister I have written about to as a check that I had represented the situation factually and was not inappropriately crossing privacy boundaries. Her feedback provided a few extra ideas that I included.

Questions for reflection

  • How was distress responded to in the family I grew up in?
  • To what extent did my family system allow open communication from each person about their response to difficult circumstances?
  • What are the signs of closed communication (shutting down, avoiding, distracting, smoothing over, taking over…) in my relationships?
  • How can I practice tolerating the tension in myself when another is expressing strong feelings?
  • Are there ways I am unknowingly preventing others from having the room to speak their experience? Or am I accommodating to others smoothing over my own expression of difficult times?

Relevant Quotes from Bowen:

“An open relationship system is one in which an individual is free to communicate a high percentage of inner thoughts, feelings, and fantasies to another who can reciprocate. No one ever has a completely open relationship with another, but it is a healthy state when a person can have one relationship in which a reasonable of openness is possible.” FTCP p 322

“The closed communication system is an automatic reflex to protect self from the anxiety in the other person., though most people say they avoid the taboo subjects to keep form upsetting the other person. “ p 322

“From family research we have learned that the higher the level of anxiety and symptoms in a family, the more the family members are emotionally isolated from each other. The greater the isolation, the lower the level of responsible communication between family members and the higher the level of irresponsible underground gossip about each other in the family and the confiding of secrets to those outside of the family.” P 291

 

“Making room for distress in relationships:  Reflections from a sisters weekend away” – Jenny Brown

Managing my social stuff ups

Jenny Brown Bowen theory, Family Systems Theory, Relationships, Social interactions , , , , , , , , , ,

coffee stupid

It is a maturity “work out” to manage moments of thoughtlessness in social interactions -Being left feeling somewhat stupid! In such moments I pull myself up firstly by grounding myself in my principle to not define myself through needing other’s approval.

Recently I responded to an email without giving it much thought. I was asked if I wanted to sign up for a place at a conference lunch with the key note speakers.  I responded saying that, because my husband was traveling with me to this international conference, I wondered if there was a place at the lunch for him as well. This might all sound pretty reasonable but if I’d stopped and thought through the context of the invitation I would have appreciated it was only for those who were presenting papers at the meeting. After realising this later, and reminding myself that my husband is perfectly capable of looking after himself in the lunch break, I wrote back to correct my response. It was however too late as my earlier request had already gone before the conference organising committee and I received an email response declining my husband a lunch spot and laying out the logic of this decision.  My immediate reaction was embarrassment! And with that comes the niggling intrusive thought about what the others would think of my foolish request. I fleetingly allowed my immature thinking to imagine other’s judging me as having an overly dependent relationship with my spouse.

It is a maturity “work out” to manage moments of thoughtlessness in social interactions -Being left feeling somewhat stupid! In such moments I pull myself up firstly by grounding myself in my principle to not define myself through needing other’s approval. This isn’t easy for me as growing up in my family I functioned as a compliant, high achieving child, who was steadied by my parent’s approval. My next strategy to manage my potential escalation of anxious imaginings about what others thought of me, was to get proportion about the slip up. It was minor and not to be exaggerated. I could choose to let it go after taking a lesson from it. I could pray- acknowledging my self-interest driven elevation of other’s approval. I remind myself of my gaps in maturity and how they’ve been shaped in my family of origin. I also reflect on my tendency to fuse into my marriage and forget that when we travel together we can operate as individuals as well as “buddies”.

Wasting energy in ruminating about our social errors is not productive. In fact it’s counterproductive, in that the more we mull over things, the more we ‘blow up’ the imagined impact of our mistakes. At its worst, this kind of negative mind reading can become debilitating and interfere with getting on with every day functioning.  My own silly lapse of thoughtful judgement is just that; not a big deal. However these small awkward life moments are excellent opportunities for practicing a bit more principle driven maturity.

Questions for reflection:

  • How do I react to making mistakes socially?
  • Do I minimise or exaggerate them?
  • How did I deal with my mistakes in my family growing up?
  • Can I choose to learn from mistakes and also choose to let them go?

 

Bowen Quotes from Family Therapy in Clinical Practice

With lower levels of differentiation (emotional maturity) people are “sensitised to emotional disharmony, to the opinions of others, and to creating a good impression.” P 201-2.

The mature self “is not negotiable in the relationship system in that it is not changed…to gain approval, or enhance one’s stand with others.” P 473

Basic relationship patterns developed for adapting to the parental family in childhood are used in all other relationships throughout life. The basic patterns in social and work relationships are identical to relationships patterns in family except in intensity.” P 462.

Dr M Kerr, One family’s Story 2003 p 7:

“A person with a well-differentiated “self” recognizes his realistic dependence on others, but he can stay calm and clear headed enough in the face of conflict, criticism, and rejection to distinguish thinking rooted in a careful assessment of the facts from thinking clouded by emotionality.”

‘Managing my social stuff ups’ – Jenny Brown 

When an Acute Traumatic Event is Difficult to Shake Off

Jenny Brown Anxiety, Bowen theory , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Anxiety, getting it into perspective: The impact of the Germanwings crash – When hearing about a traumatic event is difficult to shake off.

plane in airIt’s nearly 2 weeks since the murder- suicide that brought down the Germanwings flight over the Alps. News bulletins continue to report on new findings and the grim reality of the terror and helplessness that would have gripped the crew and passengers as their plane accelerated towards the mountainside. The retrieval and revelation of the contents of the 2 black box recorders and reports of a phone video of the last moments for the 150 people are chilling to hear.

What is the vicarious traumatic effect of such a repeated story of horror? I’ve been aware of how much this story has raised my own anxiety. While the horror of the Kenyan university murders is similarly, if not more complex in its horror, there is something more familiar in the 1st world of a plane going down.  This is particularly the case when victims are from our own country- it brings it all closer to home.  I’m due to fly overseas this Saturday and am aware of carrying more apprehension than usual about this. I think it will be harder to detach from the inevitable turbulence of my plane flying across the Pacific compared to the last time I was on a long haul flight. Mind you, I’ve always had a degree of tension about the experience of flight, where the sense of lack of control and the vulnerability of being at such elevations is not comfortable. I over-ride this with a reminder of the frequency and statistical safety of air travel. Added to this logic is the imperative of travel to faraway places to see loved ones; and to attend conferences or enjoy a special vacation. When confronting an anxiety about dying (a universal human fear), I also remind myself of my spiritual faith bearings and let go of my tight hold on the illusion of control of my own life. But this latest plane crash has unsettled my usual strategies. It challenges me to work through my fears in a healthy, proportionate way.

As I have thought this through I’ve noticed that not everyone is impacted the way I have been by this traumatic plane crash. For example, my husband, who is flying with me, is easily able to compartmentalise the news story from his own life.  He has different triggers for anxiety.

This reflection reminds me that there are 2 types of anxiety (in individuals and relationship systems):

  1. Acute Anxiety: The anxiety of facing a real threat, where our brains trigger the chemical associated with fear (glutamate) that enables us to take swift automatic actions. Short periods of stress response activation are helpful for tackling problems and changes circumstances. This can be thought of as a “WHAT NOW?” anxiety.
  2. Chronic Anxiety: The anxiety of imagined threatening events that elicit the fear responses in our autonomic nervous system even when not facing a real threat or challenge. This kind of anticipatory anxiety is called CHRONIC ANXIETY. I have come to call it “WHAT IF?” anxiety. It can become a bottomless pit kind of agitation that spreads a sense of danger to many ordinary domains of life.  Many debilitating symptoms can stem from this contagion of anxiety: symptoms of burnout from the effects of an overworked adrenal system and/or symptoms of obsession as one tries to create the illusion of control in one area of life.

The “what if?” chronic anxiety is the kind of response that has been triggered in me by the germanwings crash…it is not happening to me, but has triggered an imagined fear of it happening. When chronic anxiety is evident, I remind myself that a time limited anxiety only belongs in real events that I am facing; not all the possible events that can be faced by humans. I remind myself of the importance of distinguishing between the “WHAT NOW?” and the “WHAT IF?”

Bowen family systems theory makes the important distinction between acute (factual) anxiety and chronic (imagined) anxiety. The degree of imagined or chronic anxiety is linked to the propensity to life difficulties and symptoms. This reminds me of a tape I have watched of Dr Murray Bowen interviewing a troubled family where the parents remained deeply disturbed by the assassination of US president JFK some years after it occurred. Chronic anxiety has a way of attaching to events that happen outside of our own life domain. It means that our stress response is easily triggered by any perceived uncertainty. Our hypothalamus co-opts the pituitary gland, and the adrenal medulla in keeping us in a prolonged state of stress, with our immune system compromised. This kind of anxiety is infectious in relationships and can be picked up by the most vulnerable members of the group or drag down the functioning of an entire group.

Acute, short lived anxiety, as opposed to infectious chronic anxiety, is a useful part of life. As Bowen has written, anxiety itself does not kill anyone. It is an inevitable part of making progress in life by taking on new pathways and working out challenges. This quote from Bowen’s original research is particularly helpful in an ever increasingly anxious world:

Anxiety is inevitable if you solve problems. When anxiety increases, one has to decide whether to give in and retreat or carry on in spite of it. Anxiety does not harm people. It only makes them uncomfortable. It can cause you to shake, or lose sleep, or become confused or develop physical symptoms, but it will not kill you and it will subside. People can even grow and become more mature by having to face and deal with anxiety situations. *[Bowen. OFP: 119].

I reflect on the factors that have gone into igniting my own chronic anxiety at this time. In my family of origin there have been premature deaths over a number of generations that clearly adds to the sensitivity to this tension. Additionally some close friends have lost their son in a motor bike accident late last year. This will have inevitably stirred up some existing chronic anxiety in me. I accept that this is part of the legacy of my family history and patterns of coping, but that I can make some wise choices about how I deal with imagined fears. I ground myself in prayer and handing over my anxieties (Philippians 4:6). I then commit to not investing my thinking energy in any imagined or unhelpful possibilities. I will briefly and firmly remind myself of the statistically proven, increasing safety of air travel, in spite of the disproportionate amount of TV and internet time that gets focussed on the details of crashes that do occur. I will focus on the privilege of air travel when I board my plane this Saturday and of the valuable opportunities it affords me in this increasingly reachable global community I’m part of. Once on my way, I will relish the unique vista of the sun drenched boundless carpet of clouds, while considering the important decisions of the moment: which movies I will catch up on?

Questions for reflection:

  • Can I distinguish the difference between a WHAT NOW anxiety and a WHAT IF anxiety? (a factual challenge Vs. an imagined one)
  • How prevalent was a sense of stress in my family system growing up – what issues triggered the greatest tensions?
  • When I sense tension about a real issue to be tackled, how can I use it as an opportunity to grow, rather than a trigger of regression – into ruminations and avoidance?
  • What principles do I have for responding to the infectious anxiety around me?

 

Relevant quotes from Bowen:

(From Family Therapy in Clinical practice)

“Families in which the parents handle anxiety well, and in which they are able to stay on a predetermined course in spite of anxiety, will turn out better than the families in which the parents are more reactive and shift life courses in response to anxiety.”  P 537

We have “built in mechanisms to deal with short bursts of anxiety….When anxiety increases and remains chronic for a certain period, the organism develops tension, either within itself or in the relationship system, and the tension results in symptoms or dysfunction or sickness. ..anxiety can spread rapidly through the family or through society.” P361-2

*OFP: Origins of Family Psychotherapy, Bowen, edited by Butler, 2013.

‘When an Acute Traumatic Event is Difficult to Shake Off’ – Jenny Brown