The Self in the System: How much autonomy is possible?

Each of us can raise our ‘periscope’ (capacity to observe self and others) a little above the murkiness of human subjectivity. There is always the possibility of the ‘self’ increasing his/her understanding of the part they are playing out in relation to others.

This was the topic of the family System’s Institute’s 14th annual conference; held June 15-16 2017. After listening to the range of informative presentations I asked myself how I would answer the question that our conference topic proposed.

Firstly, how would I define the ‘self’, the individual, from a family systems perspective? 

The ‘self’ is an individual organism who is part of the human species. The human ‘self’ has much in common with other species, as demonstrated by the mirroring of Professor Suomi’s rhesus macaque baby monkeys as they interacted with human researchers. The human ‘self’ is set apart from similar life forms by his/her cerebral cortex with its ability to think, reason and reflect. This enables a limited capacity to manage life in certain areas according to reason. The human ‘self’ struggles to see the presence of chronic anxiety which plays such a significant role in the development of symptoms and the transfer of symptom vulnerability within a group.  I like Dr Kerr’s suggestion that a possible new name for this species could be: ‘homo-dysrationalis.’ This is out of respect for the degree to which emotionality influences so much of what the human ‘self’ perceives and does.

The ‘self’ is born into a multigenerational family with multiple dynamic variables of emotional and relational process. Context is crucial to understanding the development and expression of each ‘self’.

Can the self ever be autonomous?

The ‘self’ is never autonomous among other selves. She/he is both an actor and a reactor in relationships. Such processes influence which of the person’s genes are expressed, over expressed, or under expressed. Each ‘self’ shares a drive to be attached: to be mutually attended to and supported, and to be separate: to operate independently in life tasks and creative expression. These 2 counter life forces guarantee a dance like pattern of movements fuelled by both seeking togetherness and seeking distance for autonomy. The relationship dynamics are always being powered by these pushes and pulls in the space in between different ‘selves’. Each ‘self’ is significantly influenced by the brains around him/her. As such the ‘self’ cannot be reduced to cause and effect thinking where external influences and biological makeup are lineally seen to shape the ‘self’. It is always an interaction.

All ‘selves’ sit on a continuum from almost ‘no selves’ who have become lost in the merging of anxious involvements with others; to selves who have a sense of where their responsibilities begin and end, while maintaining meaningful involvement with others. All ‘selves’ in their family systems are qualitatively similar but each ‘self’ and their family is quantitatively different in levels of merged boundaries with each other.

Can a person grow a bit more ‘self’ on this continuum?

There is a platform of hope for such progress where reversals of anxious interactions occur at both relational and biological levels. Each of us can raise our ‘periscope’ (capacity to observe self and others) a little above the murkiness of human subjectivity. There is always the possibility of the ‘self’ increasing his/her understanding of the part he/she is playing out in relation to others.

Those in a helping role can assist such small steps of growth of more ‘self’ by patiently asking non-judgemental and non-pushy questions about interactions – the “who, what, when, where and what next”? This may assist another ‘self’ to gain more awareness of the affect they have on others and other on them. As a result of this knowledge a ‘self’ may shift from instinctively controlling or being controlled by others, to better control of ‘self’. This will involve either less eclipsing others or giving way to being eclipsed. The progress of growing more ‘self’ will entail choosing to think in terms of years rather than just the day.

Autonomy is not possible given relationship interchange is always at play. The ‘self’ can slowly increase responsible autonomy but is wise to never underestimating the strength of human interdependence.

A thought I posted on Facebook prior to the conference:

Self in Bowen theory is NOT about self-actualization or selfishness autonomy. Rather it is all about the ways in which an individual is affected by the relationship environment and the way they affect others within their system. How much is each ‘self’ dependent on relationships to function?

Some relevant quotes from Dr M Kerr’s presentations:Self, Family Systems Institute

“Each person’s emotions not only reflect their internal states, but also function to change each other’s internal states and functions.”

“It is a nonsense to blame one another because they both help create changes in each other to which both react. Blaming the other amounts to blaming oneself.”

“Poorly differentiated people are not good at acting based on long term reward versus automatically opting for instant gratification….Reasonably well-differentiated people may feel like taking the easy way out, feel like acting to relive the anxiety of the moment, but can fall back on fact and principle to stay the course.”

“Awareness of chronic anxiety (subjective, persistent sensitivity to imagined threat [my definition of Chr. Anx. JB]) can be important because of its apparent role in supporting the chronic inflammation that plays an important role in many mental, bodily, and behavioural symptoms. Chronic inflammation is one of the potentially silent killers.”

A Dad putting the puzzle pieces together

Joe was beginning to see how his best efforts to help his daughter and family to have happy times together were actually contributing to a lowering of Chloe’s resilience.

This is the next instalment in the story of one parent, Joe, as he worked to figure out how he could be a resource to his defiant 13 year old daughter Chloe. Previously Joe described in detail the interactions of all the family at a recent outing to a pizza restaurant (see blog May 10). Having clearly laid out the different family responses during this typical problem interaction with Chloe, his next effort was to think back over his interactions to consider if:

  • His responses were contributing to his daughter building her capacity to manage her strong emotions OR were they feeding an expectation to be rescued by others?
  • Is Chloe just reacting to others OR is she getting practice at managing her reactions?
  • Is she learning skills of independence OR are the interactions increasing her dependence and expectation that others will make her feel better?

In looking back at the Pizza restaurant blow-up, Joe noted how much he tried to get Chloe to be pleasant and co-operative by appealing to her with his positive voice. He was putting his energy into trying to manage her mood and it was backfiring. The more he tried to convince Chloe to be co-operative the more she would retort with her complaints. Joe noticed that this would pull his wife into being tough with Chloe which he would respond to with even more effort to calm Chloe down to avoid a bigger outburst. Chloe was not learning to manage her reactions at all. Joe was trying to do it for her. As other family members (Mum and brother) started to give Chloe a piece of their mind about her behaviour, Chloe was being given even more emotional opposition to react to. Joe acknowledged that he then moved into more drastic efforts to calm Chloe down by giving into her (allowing her to only order gelato) and offering her incentives ( a phone upgrade). Joe saw that this was contributing to his daughter expecting that others would make her happy rather than learning to tolerate not getting her own way. Chloe was becoming increasingly dependent on others to remove her frustrations. On the surface her defiance sounded like a kind of rebellious independence from her family but Joe was coming to see that this was actually a picture of a very dependent child who hadn’t learned to calm herself down when she didn’t get her own way.

Joe was beginning to see how his best efforts to help his daughter and family to have happy times together were actually contributing to a lowering of Chloe’s resilience.

If the child/young person is beginning to calm themselves down and be more thoughtful and reasonable during or after the interaction, they are growing in resilience. If the child is agitated and either leaving the parent to work things out for them, or leaving the parent equally agitated, they are NOT growing in resilience and independence.

The pattern of both parents rushing in to smooth things over for Chloe had been happening for many years. Over this time her defiance gradually increased. This was now being amplified by the hormone charges of early adolescence alongside the stressful transition to high school (junior high). Joe couldn’t find anything in his pizza restaurant interaction with Chloe that was promoting her growth in responsible independence.  He accepted that changes for Chloe would be slow but that the first step he could make was to stop calming and bribing Chloe. He had some more work to do to figure out what to do instead but his stepping back was the beginning of him becoming a more hopeful parent. Joe was starting to shift his focus from trying to change Chloe to a focus on what he could change. He felt hopeful that he could make a contribution to his daughter growing in responsible relating.

What makes for healthy disagreements?

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. 

First Steps for a Worried Parent – A father learns to observe his interactions with his defiant 13yr old

It’s natural to want to fix and change a child/adolescent who is struggling to manage life. Hence it may be a surprise to hear that a first positive stage for a parent who is worried about their child/adolescent is to figure out the predicable steps in parent – child and family interactions. This requires close consideration of a recent interaction with the child/adolescent. The content of the interchange is less important to think about than the reactions of each person. The goal is to identify what the parent may be contributing to unhelpful repeated patterns in the back and forth interaction.

While it might initially seem somewhat tedious, examples of what are constructive questions to ask are:

Where did it take place? What started the interaction? What were the beginning behaviours (what was said and actioned)? What was the emotional tone? How stirred up were your emotions? How did other family members respond? What was the next response? (Behaviours and emotional tone)What happened next? How was that responded to? What happened next? How was that responded to? How did things finish up? What was the left over tone for each person?

Here is an example of a father working to observe the patterns he is a part of:

Joe reported a recent challenging interaction with 13 year old Chloe, his youngest daughter. The family were out for a pizza dinner to celebrate the birthday of eldest son Jake (16). Joe recalled that Chloe started complaining in a whining manner that she didn’t like any of the food choices and wanted to go home. He responded by reminding her that this was an important family dinner for Jake and she should make an effort to support him. He thought that his tone of voice was cheerful, appealing to Chloe to co-operate. Chloe responded irritably saying that they should have known that she hates Pizza. Her Mother Sue responded firmly saying she needs to stop being so selfish and not spoil her brother’s birthday. Jake joined his mother, saying “Chloe you always make everything about you! I get why your friends have had enough of you!” Chloe slams the table and respond to her brother with a cutting counterattack. Joe intervenes and says to Chloe that she doesn’t need to eat Pizza and can order whatever she wants. He uses his best peacemaking voice to suggest that if Chloe can calm down and help them all to have a pleasant family dinner he will upgrade her phone for her (this was something Chloe had been negotiating with him for a while). Chloe backs off and says that she just wants gelato for dinner. Joe orders it along with the family pizza and drink requests. Jake gives his dad a serious stare. Joe interprets it as a challenge to his generosity towards Chloe. Joe recalls that Sue is then mostly silent and sullen. She ignores Joe and focusses on talking to Jake about having his friends over for a birthday gathering. Joe feels very tense about the tenuous state of peace. About half an hour into the dinner, Chloe has finished her gelato and says she’s bored and had enough. Joe encourages her to stick it out for the birthday cake reminding her that the new phone is only going to happen if she does this. He rushes the birthday cake candle blowing and the family leave to go home early. Joe was left feeling highly stressed. He sensed his wife was frustrated and quietly disapproving of how he managed Chloe. Jake seemed withdrawn. Chloe seemed agitated and consumed with getting her new phone. He feels despondent that his efforts are not appreciated. He is deeply worried about his daughter distancing from the family at this vulnerable time in her life and is intent on trying to reverse this possibility.

Can you see the patterns that each family member is part of? Joe was able to begin his reflections by asking himself: WHAT WAS INEFFECTIVE IN HIS RESPONSES?  WHAT DIDN’T WORK WELL? WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE?  WHAT WORKED BETTER? Here are some of his thoughts:

Joe recognised that this was a common interaction, with him trying to be the peacemaker, leading to him trying to bribe or cajole Chloe into co-operating. He could see that Sue was becoming increasingly annoyed with Chloe; and that Jake was getting fed up with his sister and distancing from her. He recalls the earlier years when the 2 siblings got on so well and Sue and Chloe seemed so close. Chloe had seemed to be an anxious child who struggled to separate. Jake had been such a protective brother in her early school years. Since the start of secondary school this all seemed to change and Joe was stepping up to try to recreate a happy family dynamic.

Rather than talk about Chloe’s problems and symptoms (she was having increasing problems with defiance at school) Joe began to focus on himself in the interactions.  He could observe that his efforts were able to achieve some temporary peace in the family as Chloe would back down her loud complaints when he stepped into to offer an incentive.  Mostly he could see that his peacemaking was not effective, in the bigger picture of family relationships and his daughter’s wellbeing… He identified that he was rewarding Chloe’s demanding behaviour which was frustrating his wife and son. He did say that he sensed that Chloe felt that Jake was Mum’s favourite and he tried to reassure her that this wasn’t so. Deep down he sensed that Sue was negatively withdrawing from Chloe. He wondered how much his reinforcement of Chloe’s complaints played a part in fuelling this.  He didn’t know how to change his part in things but he could see that continuing to observe his patterns of interaction was useful. It certainly felt more constructive than working out how to change his daughter.

All family responses are like intuitive dance steps and often, over time, develop predictable patterns back and forth between people. The more that this can be conscious, the more a parent can make choices about continuing what is helpful and changing what isn’t. When a parent can learn to observe their part in responding to the child they are concerned about, they can create a pathway to working out how they can adjust themselves in order to improve the family environment. Small steps are required in working towards changed interactions that promote improved functioning for all – in particular for the most reactive and vulnerable child.

  • Stay tuned for a follow up blog next month on Joe’s next steps to observe and understand his part in his daughter’s increased reactive behaviours. Joe considers the effects of his responses on his daughter’s growth (or regression) of responsibility.

A Tale of Two Courtships

How reactions and relationship to parents has shaped 2 contrasting courtship experiences. 

Hayley and Dan met at a mutual friend’s wedding. They experienced an immediate spark and keenly saw each other several times the week following their introduction. They both sensed that they shared much in common and matched each other creatively.  It was easy to talk for hours, as if only minutes had transpired.  In the early weeks of their relationship Hayley and Dan relished setting up dates for each other at favourite restaurant’s and cultural events. They lost interest in other friendships and immersed themselves in the pleasures of their apparently perfect connection. After a passionate 2 months of romance and intertwining of lives, Dan proposed to Hayley on a surprise weekend luxury retreat. Hayley unquestionably accepted and they set about planning a wedding 4 months later. The first time they met each other’s parents and siblings was after their engagement was announced.

Pete and Trish were introduced by mutual friends 6 years ago. They had begun dating and seemed to get along well and have shared values. When they began courting they were both in their early 30s and established in their careers.  Their friends were all getting married at the time and Pete sensed that he should make an effort to connect with Trish or he might miss his chance to find a life partner. Trish was keen for the relationship to move towards commitment as she was ready to settle down and found Pete attractive and interesting. Both appreciated that they shared the same religious faith and moved ahead in their courtship with openness for romance and love to grow. Pete was slow to take initiative in the early days and Trish began to make suggestions for their get-togethers. As the months proceeded Pete became increasingly ambivalent about the relationship. He didn’t want to lose the friendship with Trish but he was reluctant to allow things to become too close. He used the busyness of his demanding work to slow the pace that he sensed Trish was angling for. They often gathered with friend’s and had frequent dinners with each of their parents. As the months and then years rolled by, friends increasingly encouraged Pete to step up and commit but the more he experienced other’s pressure the more he struggled to imagine a future with Trish. Rather he would find fault with her and become irritated easily when they were in their family and friendship groups. Trish lost patience a number of times and separated. She was however quite attached to Pete and felt drawn to helping him manage his life. Pete was lonely without Trish and would convey this when they were apart.

These two courtship stories appear to be an antithesis.  One is hastily and passionately committed to within 6 months. The other proceeds ambivalently over 6 years. What they share in common is a driving force of unresolved attachments in their families of origin.

Both Hayley and Dan had distanced from their parents in their late adolescence. They had experienced their parents as an imposition to their freedom as emerging adults. They each had been very close to one of their parents as children but this had become tense during their high school years. They had competitive, strained relationships with their siblings and were pleased to distance from this family intensity. They occasionally visited family on special occasions but things were kept quite superficial. Dan felt some guilt about distance from his mother as he knew she struggled in a tense marriage.  He was completely cut off from his father who he viewed negatively. Hayley experienced her parents as exceedingly proud of her during her growing up. She was a high achiever and she sensed that they admired her and were quite invested in her academic success.  Hayley had relished her father’s pride in her especially during her school years. She liked to be admired but could become reactive to the intensity of her parent’s expectations. She saw her mother as needy and her father as demanding.  Of course this was intensified as she increasingly pulled away from them. At the time she met Dan in her mid-twenties she was almost completely cut off from her family.

Pete and Trish also had quite intense relationships with their parents but instead of using distance or cut off to manage this they remained highly involved with their families. Pete was a youngest son who had always felt very close to his mother. He would tell her everything about his life and depended on her advice in making life decisions. His mother remained his closest confidante well into his 30s. Trish was very involved as an eldest daughter in caring for her aging parents. Her father had some chronic health problems and she remained central to organising health care and supporting her mother in the task of managing life with a dependent husband whose capacities were low. Trish was comfortable as an over-responsible daughter. For both Trish and Pete their families remained central to their life functioning. Much of their relationship energies went towards their parents – albeit in different ways. Pete was quite dependent, Trish was a responsible carer.

I wonder if you can see how reactions and relationship to parents has shaped these 2 courtships. The intensely fast tracked courtship of Hayley and Dan is driven by the degree of ‘cut off’ from their families. This had left them needy of replicating an admiring togetherness in a love relationship. The intensity gap they left in distancing from their parents had been waiting to be filled by someone who shares a similar need for being special. Rather than growing away from their parents in becoming independent adults they had each broken away. They ran away from quite fused relationships only to replicate a high expectation fusion in their relationship with each other.

Pete and Trish also experienced quite intense involvements with a parent as they moved into their adult years. They didn’t run away from this but instead were quite dependent on the roles they had in their families. Pete was so close to his mother that it was hard for him to invest in intimacy with another. Trish was so responsible for her parents that she equated closeness with being in charge.

For Hayley and Dan their cut-off from parents and siblings transmitted into an intense fusion with each other. For Pete and Trish their fusion with their parents translated into an ongoing distance with each other. Both relationships had many challenges ahead.  One of the keys to giving the relationship a chance to flourish was to build a more mature relationship back to each parent. To be connected in a genuine way without being overly sensitive or overly involved. Parents of course can have an important part to play in contributing to a better resolution of shifting attachments from one generation to the next. Parents can reduce the various ways they depend on their children and work on their marriages and peer relationships so that their relationships with their children are not primary. Distant parents can work on gradually increasing non-intense contact with adult children; Being interested in their lives, without imposing expectations.

There is an interesting directive in the Judaeo Christian scriptures (Genesis 2:24) about one generation leaving their parents to cleave to their spouse. The idea is that a ‘leaving and cleaving’ is necessary to establish a new generational family. The leaving however is not a running away just as the cleaving is not an over involvement.  I value Bowen’s idea of growing away from parents rather than breaking away.  A gradual shifting of attachment allegiance lays important groundwork for courtship and marriage. It can avoid the ‘hot housing’ of a relationship and all the pressures that unravel from this. It can also prevent excessive anxieties about commitment that contribute to either serial short relationships or long term ambivalent courtships.

CAVEAT – continuum not categoriesThese 2 examples are based on real scenarios with identifying details changed. Each represents a quite polarised position, from overly hasty to overly cautious. It is useful to remember that each serious dating relationship will fall somewhere on a continuum between these positions. In Bowen theory there are NOT neat categories but rather a CONTINUUM that represents the level of differentiation and tendencies to either cut off or fusion that we have inherited from our family emotional system. You may find it helpful to reflect:

Was/Is my courtship more a reflection of diving into the new relationship with some distance from my parent/s?

Or was/is my courtship more a reflection of a tension between my pull to past attachment to my parent/s/family and the investment in my future priority attachment?

Relationship boundaries in social media

As a pre digital revolution baby boomer, traversing the world of IT and social media has been challenging.  I was slow to venture into the realm of Facebook and was certainly naïve about how to use it helpfully. For my first 7 years I friended family only, ignoring all incoming friend requests. Then I did an about face and somewhat impulsively accepted all requests in one foul swoop, announcing that I had decided to come out of the ‘stone age.’

When my book publisher fed back that I needed a social media presence in order to gain entry into the US publishing market, I decided it was time to be better informed about this area. This prompted my seeking assistance to start up this blog site along with its attached Facebook page. I wasn’t aiming for a large reach, just a platform to gradually work out how to utilise this medium for sharing ideas. For the past 2 years I have been fumbling my way through navigating this strange boundary-less online world; and it hasn’t all been smooth sailing.

Like any new relational domain, my interactions with social media reveal much about myself. In particular it has revealed ways I’m inclined towards fusion in relationships. For example, I have written some personal blogs along the way, which have  included my intersections with broader family member’s lives. Often in ways that identify some of their circumstances – at times including photos. Importantly this has been done without fully asking permission. While I have consciously focussed on representing my own ‘growing up’ journey, I have come to see ways that I have inadvertently invaded other’s personal boundaries.  While it has been uncomfortable, I have been grateful to receive some honest feedback about other’s unwelcome experience of reading mentions about them in a blog or post. This feedback has helped me see the subtle ways I make assumptions on behalf of others.

In the realm of social media, I think us parents need to be especially respectful of the autonomy of our children (whatever their age). I recently came across a new word to describe social media boundary issues for parents: ‘Sharenting.’ It’s quite telling that such a word has emerged to describe how over-involvement with our children may spill onto a parent’s Facebook and Instagram pages. I remind myself that our children are not our property and hence their lives are not open slather material for our conversations and our social media. I have come to see more clearly that as my children have launched into their adulthood, their separate lives and boundaries are even more important to honour.  Mia Freidman, long time Mamamia blogger writes:

We are the first generation of parents who have to decide how much of our children’s lives are made public. We must choose how exposed they’re going to be. How much of their story we’re going to write through images of them and words about them before they’re old enough to decide how – and if – they want to be portrayed to the world. These are very big decisions.

For my adult children and for all of the people who are part of my systems of relationships, I have increasingly seen the importance of thoughtfully considering what I write and post. Given my blog is all about relationships, the appropriate lines of privacy can be easily blurred. Primarily I refrain from the fusion trap of assuming that any other person would approve of my referring to them in a public blog or post. I can mention the relationships I’m part of but if I refer to another’s life circumstance, then their permission needs to be requested. At the same time if I only write what I think others will approve, this can be another expression of togetherness fusion. I see that mindreading on others behalf is a form of ‘over-functioning’ in crossing boundaries while posting what we perceive will bring the most approval is an ‘under- functioning’ kind of fusion. If I’m honest I need to watch for both immature possibilities in my online relating.

What is this ‘fusion’ thing I keep referring to? Immature fusion (or undifferentiation) is when we fail to discriminate where our separate selves begin and end in relation to others. It is when the positive bonds of human relationships are amplified (usually unintentionally) to the detriment of respecting each person’s autonomy within the family/group. The more a person utilises the experience of togetherness with others to steady them self in life, the more vulnerable they are to ‘fused’ relationships. Additionally, the more a person avoids uncomfortable relationships and focusses on the validating harmony that can be found in a small nuclear family/ or ‘in’ group, the more likely they are to lose perspective regarding their boundaries with these people. I see that we all have degrees of such immature fusion in our lives and relationships.  My responsibility is to address indicators of my fusion, to the best of my capacity, when it is evident in my relationships.

Self- absorption and unhelpful togetherness is a challenge for us all in this anxious world. The realm of social media provides a new stage for this and hence calls for honest reflection and clarification of relationship principles. I have seen my own lapses in wisdom and maturity as I have engaged with this public, web based domain.  At those confronting times it would have been tempting to simply cut off my social media involvement to avoid the risk of future discomfort. However I consider that I’ll learn and grow more by continuing to work at managing myself online with clearer principles and awareness of my potential lapses.  For this work in progress, the following principles are emerging as helpful to me:

  • Is there any assumption made on behalf of another in posting this?
  • Am I conveying thinking about myself in my relationships and not crossing into giving a subjective commentary about another’s life?
  • Have I thought about the longer term implications for people’s privacy around what I post?
  • If I am conveying the thinking of others? Do I appropriately give them credit in my referencing?
  • Am I clear about the purpose of my site (which posts belong where)? Have I communicated this clearly to the potential readers? Do I keep within these parameters and not impulsively post about areas about which I have insufficient knowledge or permission?
  • Is my self-referencing in social media portraying an exaggerated picture of my accomplishments, my relationship strengths or the flip side = failures?
  • Equally is my other-referencing portraying an exaggerated picture of other’s accomplishments or failures?
  • Am I posting what conveys my own thinking or am I editing myself in an effort to garner the most online approval?

NOTES: Bowen conveys that = High Fusion People Live in a feeling dominated world. So much energy goes into seeking love and approval and keeping the relationship in some kind of harmony, there is little energy for life-directed goals.

Less fused people = have employed logical reasoning to develop principles and convictions that they use to over-rule the emotional system in situations of anxiety and panic. They are less relationship directed.

Summarised from: Family Therapy in Clinical Practice p 366- 370

Mia freedman blog and use of the term: ‘Sharenting’ 

The bigger picture behind negative self-talk

“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

How to help a friend when you think they are over protecting their child?

Talking to a friend or family member about concerns you have about their parenting (or indeed any relationship) is a fraught arena.

People are happy to hear their friend’s ideas about external things – professionals to go to, new family activities, and extracurricular offerings, holiday destinations – BUT none of us like to hear input that sounds like advice or criticism of how we are managing ourselves with people we care about. As a result we tend to approach such conversations awkwardly which adds to the probable angst. When we are tense we tend to listen less and speak with excessive intensity.

Often it’s best to pay attention to our own management of relationships before venturing into giving a friend feedback. There are however times when I think one can be a genuine resource to another in sharing a systems way of thinking about parenting. The following is a de-identified* discussion I had with someone grappling with whether to talk honestly with her friend about parenting concerns:

The situation she described for her long term friend was: a shy, teenage son who was especially close to his mother. He had always been a sensitive child and during his younger years had regularly come into his parent’s bed to settle night fears. Two other children appeared to be more confident. The pattern of parenting being observed was of doing what the children wanted and not holding boundaries on any things that resulted in a child’s distress. The parents were devoted and generous to their 3 children. They enabled them to do what extra curricula activities they wanted and to promptly give them up if they no longer enjoyed them. It was becoming evident that the son was increasingly struggling to cope with school and peer activities. The mother was progressively adjusting her schedule to attend events with him. Recently the boy was missing school and showing increased signs of anxiety. He was reporting problems with being teased by friends. The parents were looking at both medical intervention and a change of schools.

What is described above is such a tricky family scenario – what looks like loving, devoted parenting can so easily cross the line into an over focus on a child – in particular reacting in ways to reduce a child’s distress. The more a parent supports – the more the young person comes to depend on the support and acts in ways to invite more of it. The child’s development of resilience in the face of stress is impaired due to too much protective intervention – this renders a young person much more vulnerable to emotional symptoms because they have less internal stress management capacity. They struggle to steady them self in even ‘normal’ challenging moments and gradually become highly relationally dependent and sensitive.

The close friend of this mother knew a bit about ways that an increasing focus on a child can, over time, amplify a child’s dependence and impair their growth of internal resilience. The friend had addressed some of her own tendencies as a mother to put her children’s happiness ahead of their learning to tolerate and manage life’s stressors. She wanted to share her concerns and her own lessons with her friend but had previously experienced defensiveness when discussing parenting. She was fearful of offending her and sounding like she thought she was the ‘perfect’ parent.

How was she going to navigate being helpful to this close friend when it seemed to be a ‘no-go’ conversation zone? Many parents – especially conscientious ones – are very sensitive to criticism and blame. There is a pervasive view in society that generosity of parental love equates with happy, healthy children. Such a mindset isn’t easy to question.

The following are some principles (not directives) we discussed for raising such concerns in a friendship. These might provide helpful food for thought – This isn’t intended as a template to fit all situations:

1: Questions are so important – that show a care and concern and a desire to understand what each parent is going through- Creating a platform of coming alongside with curious empathy, not judgement.

2: It’s helpful to not get caught in the content of decision making – IE changing schools. While shifting schools may well reinforce a pattern of ‘over rescuing’ it may also provide a circuit breaker.

3. Questions about relationship patterns are more useful for generating possible insight than questions about the individual child and decisions about his life and possible treatment. What have you been trying to do to help? How has than gone? How has your son responded? What seems to be helping to build his resilience what doesn’t seem to help?

4. Ensure that questions aren’t used to disguise your opinion – this is always picked up on at some level – it is actually dishonest.

If you see a genuine opening for sharing your thinking and concern:

1: Show that you have been listening well and have heard some of the challenging detail of what they are up against as parents with an increasingly needy child.

2: Ask if it would be helpful to feed back some thoughts you have had from listening to them that may or may not be useful to them?

3: If they are open, share from your own experience and from the details they have shared with you. This shows you have listened attentively. From what you’ve been through and what you’ve heard, you wonder that there might be a pattern of loving their son in such a way that could be inadvertently reducing his resilience and increasing his dependency. Ask if that is something they have considered?

4: Rather than give direct advice, share a scenario from either your own struggle or from examples you have heard from another (or read about). This can provide food for thought without being directly challenging.

5: If they don’t want you to share, it probably indicates that there is some reactivity already present – this can enable an acknowledgement that perhaps past interactions on parenting have not been experienced as gracious – ask if this the case? Follow up asking: How can I help to repair this – given our friendship is so important to me?

It is part of healthy relationships to be a resource to our friends and family at challenging times. Avoiding topics because of fear of tension is not helpful. Nor is the converse of judging and attempting to direct their life. Listening well and being prepared to share our own experiences can be a gift to a relationship. At the same time it is useful to ask: Am I valuing the wisdom I can gain from my friend’s experiences and vantage points?   This ensures that the friendship is balanced with support going both ways. In this way neither feels superior or in a one down position.

* The facts of the above scenario have been changed for confidentiality

Grand-Parenting: beware of skipping a generation

The story of Helen who had put all of her focus on her relationship with her grandchild and had stopped working on having an adult relationship with her son

Helen had awaited the birth of her first grandchild with excited anticipation. She had begun shopping for baby items and imagining holding this little piece of her own genetic make-up in her arms. Life was going to change for Helen. She had reduced her work hours and looked forward to being an active grandmother who looked after her son’s child a few times a week. She wondered what the child would be called — would her name be in there somehow? Would this little one call her Nanna or Gran?

When I first met Helen she reported that her life was falling apart. Her grandson was nearly one and she barely got to see him. Her son, Aaron, would bring him for short visits but not leave him with her. Her daughter-in-law, Sarah, was not speaking with her and had given the impression that Helen wasn’t welcome to visit. What had gone so wrong at a life transition full of so many positive dreams?

I asked Helen about how she saw the problem that meant she wasn’t feeling like she could be a grandmother. ‘It’s all Sarah’s fault,’ she said. ‘She’s so possessive and controlling of Aaron and is taking away my rights as a grandmother. I tell Aaron that it’s just not acceptable. My life feels like it’s been ruined by this awful girl.’

As Helen sobbed in my office I wondered how to help her think her way out from this hurt and blaming position. I asked her about her relationship with her son since he had married. How often had they had contact and what kind of things had they shared with each other? ‘Aaron has seemed distant to me for years now,’ Helen answered. ‘He’s been very dutiful in visiting me but he doesn’t let me in on what’s happening in his life. He didn’t tell me about his relationship with Sarah until he’d already proposed to her.’

I asked what Helen’s response was to the news of his marriage. She replied, ‘I was thrilled about the marriage. I’d worried that he was leaving things too late to settle down and start a family of his own. My first thoughts were that finally my son was going to give me grandchildren. I’ve looked forward to this moment for all my life.’

Helen’s responses revealed that she had put all of her focus on her relationship with her grandchild and had stopped working on having an adult relationship with her son. Clearly Aaron had not made it easy for her by keeping a dutiful but distant relationship, but Helen had certainly played her part in this superficial relationship. Rather than working at being interested in Aaron’s life as opposed to pursuing him, Helen had put all of her relationship energy into planning for grandparenting. It isn’t surprising that the intensity of these expectations, combined with the distance between mother and son, led to an upset between Helen and her daughter-in-law Sarah.

Initially Helen wanted to get Sarah to come to counselling so that she could be ‘sorted out’. But as she began to see how Sarah had become caught in a triangle because of what had not been addressed between herself and her son, Helen decided to invite Aaron to come to a session to talk things through. Aaron was keen to get some help as he was feeling like the meat in the sandwich between his wife and his mother. He acknowledged that he had been more focused on keeping the peace with both these important women in his life than in defining his own views to them. Helen’s efforts went onto shifting her focus away from her grandson and back to her own son. She could see how much she’d assumed about her role as grandmother without asking Aaron what he thought. Helen also could see that she had put too many relationship eggs into one basket and needed to invest some energy in her broader network of friends and family. One of her biggest challenges was to stop using her friends as allies to take her side against her daughter-in-law. This triangle detour had helped her to temporarily feel better but had certainly not helped her to address her own part in the difficulties.

At any phase of life our immaturities can be assessed by asking ourselves how much we gain strength through being needed by others or through knowing ourselves and being steadied by our principles. How much do we use children, grandchildren or work to steady us instead of taking responsibility for our own growth?

*When I think about relating to grandchildren, do I override the importance of working on my relationship with my son or daughter?

* Adult children – if you are experiencing tension with your parents – ask yourself how well have you been making genuine contact with them?  Dr Bowen’s quote speaks well to this:

‘There are also those who kid themselves into believing they have “worked out” the relationship with parents and who make brief formal visits home without personal communication; they use as evidence of maturity that they do not see their parents.’

Bowen, M. 1978, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson, New York, p. 494.

This blog is an excerpt from Jenny’s book “Growing Yourself Up” Chap.  14. Ageing well Retirement, the empty nest, relating to a third generation

When worrying about a child gets out of hand


Sarah* was a competent health professional. She had years of experience assisting families with their children’s development. In her work life, Sarah was steady and confident. At home with her 3 young children it was a different picture. Sarah was gripped by anxiety about her 6 month old child. She was fearful that her son might have a disability and as a result was constantly monitoring, looking for indications of such a problem. Any number of things became evidence of her fear: when he didn’t sustain eye contact, when he was slow to smile, when he seemed to prefer rolling in one direction, when he was restless….and so the list of possible signs expanded. Sarah had begun to do particular therapy exercises with her son to address any possible delays in his development.

Chatting to Sarah revealed that she previously had similar anxieties with her other children during their first year of life but this current period of anxiety was much more intense and influencing her mood and capacity to maintain her life tasks. I asked Sarah what she could see were the effects of looking for signs of something wrong with her baby boy. She acknowledged that looking for problems wasn’t reassuring her; rather it was providing endless possible confirmations for her worries. As she asked herself “What if there is a disability that needs early intervention?” she was creating a kind of bottomless pit for her anxiety. Sarah had good insight that her monitoring and ‘therapising’ her son was preventing her engaging in simple play and enjoying getting to know her son’s particular preferences and emerging personality. She could also appreciate that. even in the unlikely situation that her child had a factual disability, her anxious parent- child interactions would not be helpful. We discussed how a parent can contribute to an escalating worry cycle where an infant responds reactively to the mother’s intrusive monitoring, which in turn confirms the mother’s worry and increases her fussing around her child, who in turn responds with restless behaviour…and on it goes.

I explored with Sarah what was going on in her important relationships and learned that she had withdrawn from her extended family supports and wasn’t keeping regular conversational connection with her husband. Her elderly father had died a couple of years ago. She had perceived that her mother’s grief meant that she wouldn’t want the load of assisting with her grandchildren. It was likely that this important loss and change in her extended family had added to Sarah’s anxieties with her third child. Certainly Sarah’s growing isolation appeared to be increasing the degree of her fears and her focus on her infant son.

Sarah knew it would be extremely challenging to reduce her worry for her child. There was something quite compelling and steadying for her when she perceived herself as helping her son. She felt stronger as a mother even though she was also frustrated by the effects of her increasing anxiety. Over time Sarah made a range of efforts to break this problematic worry cycle – making herself the priority project, not her child. This involved:

  • Noticing when her thinking was in the ‘WHAT IF?’ category instead of a ‘WHAT NOW?’  factual platform.
  • Noticing how much she was making a ‘fixing’ project out of her child – a project that could become something of a self-fulfilling projection.
  • Working to shift this project back to herself – her self-care, her relating to her husband, her initiating more contact and garnering support from her mother, siblings and friends.
  • Getting clearer about her personal job description as a mother. This was different to being led by every emotion and behaviour in her child.

Today’s parents swim in a sea of anxiety about any number of possible defects and dangers for their children. When I did a Google search on how parents can recognise problems in their child development, 4,960,000 results appeared! Added to this information over-load are the numerous categories where parents can look for problems: Language and Speech Developmental Delays, Vision Developmental Delays, Motor Skill Developmental Delays, Social and Emotional Developmental Delays, Cognitive Developmental Delays….. Such worry generating information can easily drive up the anxiety in many parents. Furthermore a worried parent will significantly influence the parent- child interactions in ways that are likely to confirm their imagined fear. The more a parent is distant in their marriage and/or from their extended family, the more such a worry cycle intensifies. Reversing such a pattern is immensely challenging – it can feel like a denial of the essence of maternal caretaking. Actually, the shift away from focussing anxiously on a child can build a pathway to a more confident expression of a parent’s caretaking instinct and wisdom. It also gives a child valuable enlarged breathing space for their natural growth and development.

*Names and details of this story have been changed