bowen family systems

What to do when two members of my family won’t talk to each other

Jenny Brown Blog, Family, Independence, Relationships , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What can one family member do to bring some maturity to a system where ‘cut off’ is occurring?

I received the following question via Facebook. I have changed some of the details in order to write up my reflections as a public blog.

“My question relates to my mum and my younger sister who have been in conflict. My mum is avoiding my sister because she doesn’t want to have a difficult conversation and also believes my sister is in the wrong. I’ve encouraged her to try and stay connected to my sister and to have another conversation with her to see if they can resolve things, but she isn’t willing. She still feels very hurt by things that were said in the past. Any ideas of how else to encourage her to resolve things with my sister? What’s a mature action I can take in this situation?”

It can be heartbreaking to witness ruptures within our families – to have 2 people that we love dearly not talking to each other. The more that they avoid each other the stronger the ill-will seems to grow. Both family members can triangle us into their complaints about the other and we can find ourselves impossibly sandwiched in the middle. We can try hard not to take sides and to encourage each family member to reconnect and talk through their misunderstandings but predictably this mediation effort hits dead ends. Neither party is willing to give up their position about the wrong they feel has been done to them.


What can a family member can do towards peacemaking?

Observations of such circumstances reveal that the effort to change others and convince them to make amends is rarely productive. Relationship hurt and the resultant anxious defensiveness is unlikely to shift in response to another’s pressure. If there have been intergenerational patterns of people cutting off in the face of disagreements it will be especially hard for such programming to change. Distance and avoidance has become the default in the face of tension.
A family is an emotional unit – like a single organism. This means that any change one person makes will affect other’s experience of the family. So what can one family member do to bring some maturity to a system where ‘cut off’ is occurring? The following are some examples of options. It must be remembered however that each family has some unique ways of playing out tensions and alliances. Hence each of us has to work out what particular adjustments are useful to make in how we respond to each family member in the strained side of the triangle (in this instance the sister and mother are the strained side of the triangle with both aligned with the person who asks the question about the dilemmas they face). None of this can be rolled out as a technique.

Rather any change effort needs to make sense to the person seeking to make adjustments; and it needs to connect with their inner convictions if they are to contribute to the wellbeing of the unit.

  •  Keep contact with each family member who is not talking to the third.
  • The effort is to relate from self not in an effort to change another.
  • Ensure the contact is person to person and not a vent about the third person. If venting begins it may help to say: “I know you are grappling with how to deal with your upset with X but I’m committed to our time together to be a catch up on each other.”
  •  If the push to complain about the other continues it may help to say something like: “Mum when you talk angrily about my sister it affects me quite negatively. I care deeply about you both. Your venting about X leaves a vacuum in our relationship. I find the focus on my sister is making it harder for me to really connect with you the way I want to.”
  •  If the protest comes again it may be helpful to speak from conviction saying: “I’m not willing to go there Mum. I don’t want to be part of creating frustration in our time together.”
  • In response to one family member not being invited to a family event it may be useful to say: “I understand you are making this call based on what you feel but I’m not OK about fully participating in a family gathering when my sister not invited. I will drop in briefly to acknowledge the event but won’t stay for meal time while ever this is the situation.”
  • Another option is to make transparent that each party in the tension is communicating with you about the other. Such openness about how each expresses their challenges to you can be a gesture of handing the issue back to the relationship where it has opportunity to be worked out. It’s a kind of reversal of the direction of communication. An example might sound like: “I heard from X last week that they are a bit stuck knowing how to move things forward after the fallout. I let them know how you are also sharing a similar impasse. I conveyed that I have no idea what it will take for the two of you to get unstuck but that I am interested to see what solutions you eventually come up with.”

Back to the original question: “What’s a mature action I can take in this situation with my mother and sister not speaking?”

The key is to remember is that ‘cut offs’ are a common way of relieving intense negative emotions in a relationship. A period of distance is just predictable in families with a tendency to handle offences with stonewalling. The distance provides substantial shorter term reduction in anxiety and over whelmed emotions. If you get caught in being the triangle ‘meat in the sandwich’ you contribute to fuelling the ‘cut off’. Similarly if you participate fully in events and conversations that exclude the other you are accommodating to it. Above all be patient – these patterns are embedded in the ways previous generations dealt with transitioning from family of origin to family of creation. There is no quick fix to a pattern that has helped (albeit not maturely) families to cope with relationship stress over centuries.

Note about Emotional Cut Off – 1 of Bowen theory’s 8 concepts

Emotionally cutting off to relieve internal discomfort has its roots in the way people leave home. If they distanced from their parents in establishing their adult life- not being real and open in negotiating this life transition with each parent- the foundations for future impulsive ‘cut offs’ are laid down. (We all have varying degrees of this with our parents – Bowen called this: unresolved emotional attachment) Working on meaningful relating back to parents can reduce the likelihood of this pattern being repeated in the current generations.

Dr Bowen writes: “The concept deals with the way people separate themselves from the past in order to start their lives in the present generation (FTCP : 382).”

Dr Kerr writes: “People reduce the tensions of family interactions by cutting off, but risk making their new relationships too important. For example, the more a man cuts off from his family of origin, the more he looks to his spouse, children, and friends to meet his needs.”

For a full description of this pattern read: Bowen Theory Eight Concepts or Kerr, Michael E. “One Family’s Story: A Primer on Bowen Theory.” The Bowen Center for the Study of the Family. 2000. 

The Family Research Behind Bowen’s Theory

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

This blog summarises key research of Dr Murray Bowen that shaped his theory. It was a key part of my PhD discussion of results. Hence it is timely to post it. I recommend that any who are interested in family and relationships have a read of the quotes from Bowen’s research (this article was originally posted March 2014 www.thefsi.com.au)

A feast of key quotes:

“Anxiety is inevitable if you solve the problem. When anxiety increases, one has to decide whether to give in and retreat or carry on in spite of it. People can even grow and become more mature by having to face and deal with anxiety situations.” p119

The Origins of Family Psychotherapy – Unique insights into the development of Bowen systems theory

Blog post by Jenny Brown

What a satisfying experience to read: The Origins of Family Psychotherapy, This book contains the key research papers from the NIMH* project led by Dr Murray Bowen in the latter 1950s. (Edited by Jack Butler PhD)

Family Systems Institute, Bowen

Why, you may well ask, was this high on my summer reading list? Don’t I know how to switch off with some good beachside appropriate fiction? Well I did manage to also enjoy a satisfying piece of fiction but I found Bowen and his team’s research papers totally engrossing.  They took me on an excursion into how a new paradigm emerged from carefully constructed observational data. It was such a unique vantage point to see how Bowen and his collaborators, over a 5 year period of observing 18 families who were in hospital (averaging a year) with their highly symptomatic young adult member, began to see and document clear evidence of how the family is an interdependent unit. (additionally data was gathered from a number of outpatient families)

I have written copious notes from this book but thought I would try, for this blog, to pick some highlights. It’s not easy to edit out any of my standout quotes but I have chosen some that I think best express the key themes that stood out for me:

Focussing on the family as a unit – more than a group of individuals and beyond the “sick” one:

The observations reveal how the symptomatic individual is wired to the responses of all family members.  In the same way each family member, whether responding with distance or with intense helping efforts, is continually shaped by each other. While this research involved people with severe forms of psychosis, the term schizophrenia could be replaced with the term “symptoms in offspring”.

There was “A shift from seeing schizophrenia as a process between mother and patient or as an illness with the patient influenced by the mother to an orientation of seeing schizophrenia as the manifestation of a distraught family that becomes focussed in one individual.” P25

“It was possible to see the broad patterns of form and movement that had been obscured by the close up view of the individual. ….The family view in no way detracts from the importance of the familiar individual orientation. …..the individual orientation can be more meaningful after it has been possible to see the family patterns.” P 158

“On one level each family member is an individual. But on a deeper level the central family group is as one. Our study was directed to the undifferentiated ego mass beneath the individuals.” P 109

Seeing how helpers can become part of the family’s helplessness or alternatively, facilitators of family’s problem solving efforts:

There are valuable insights in these papers about the way the workers can be inducted into being rescuers or experts and the effect of such postures. The worker’s self-awareness comes to be seen as of equal importance of the family’s problem solving efforts.

The therapist aims “to be helpful while staying detached from the other person’s immaturities…It is helping with a problem without becoming responsible for the problem….Our greatest philosophy I would say that our greatest help is in helping people to define their dilemmas. Our greatest energy goes into preventing staff from trying to solve dilemmas.” P 54

“When I feel myself inwardly cheering the hero, of hating the villain in the family drama, or pulling for the family victim to assert him/herself, I consider it time to work on my own functioning.” P 116

The senior social worker/case worker on the research project Ms B Basamania writes:

Anxious family members “didn’t deal with each other but turned to therapist as ‘expert’. The higher the anxiety and tension, the greater they turn to the outside as though the tension decreased with distance.” P141

“The philosophy on the project was based upon a regard for the family and its capacity to nurture human growth…. Therapeutically a guiding principle was to respond to the families in a way that would promote growth.” P143

Seeing how growth comes about from within the family:

The research papers describe the detail of the ‘action dialogue’ of the family member’s reactions to each other (both psychologically and physiologically). The emerging theory is seen in descriptions of repeating patterns such as “the interdependent triad” of parents and “patient” (it was a number of years before Bowen clarified his concept of the triangle), the circuitry of the “over adequate/ strong one and under adequate/helpless one”.  There are some clear descriptions of how growth occurs “in-situ” of the family and not in the restorative (healing) relationship with the therapist. This paradigm shift in therapy approach was a direct outworking of the paradigm shift from individual thinking to seeing the family as an interdependent unit.

“The families present a group picture of helplessness and inadequacy. They deal with many life problems as burdens to be endured rather than problems to be solved. Therapeutic emphasis is directed at this helplessness. When either parent is able to become active in solving such a problem, the emotional adjustment of the entire family changes.”P39

“Families are not really helpless. They are functionally helpless. When the family is able to become a contained unit, and there is a family leader with motivation to define the problem and to back his(her) own convictions in taking appropriate action, the family can change from a directionless, anxiety-ridden floundering unit, to a more resourceful organism with a problem to be solved.” P118-9

“The parent’s sureness of themselves may be almost more important than what they do. If they are filled with doubts and apologies, the patient resets adversely; whereas, if they feel sure of themselves, they can behave in bizarre ways without alarming or disturbing the patient, or without upsetting the patient.” pP97

At the heart of systems change is finding a way to tolerate anxiety: If I had to summarise this important research project and its findings it would be:Managing self in relationships in the midst of arousal. (The concept of Differentiation of Self) Or : How families and workers strive to find a way to operate thoughtfully  in the presence of the inevitable anxiety generated in close proximity to other human beings; especially when some are reacting out of helplessness (and equally out of anxious helpfulness). This finishing quote I have selected from Bowen is a valuable encouragement in this effort:

“Anxiety is inevitable if you solve the problem. 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. Do you have to go on treating each other as fragile people who are about to fall apart?” p119

Reference

The Origins of Family Psychotherapy: The NIMH Family Study Project.  Murray Bowen, MD. Ed Jack Butler PhD. With contributions by Michael Kerr, MD, and Joanne Bowen, PhD. New York,: Jason Aronson, 2013.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Family-Psychotherapy-Project/dp/0765709740

Note: the proceeds of this fine book are being donated to the work of the Bowen Archives.

*National Institute of Mental Health

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. 

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

Jenny Brown Family, Habits, Parenting , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Jenny Brown Family, Family of Origin, Relationships , , , , , , ,

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 categories: These 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?

Getting to Know You

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

Continuing to grow in knowledge of the familiar otherIMG_1281

…when a person never has a posture of curiosity towards another about certain issues there is a shutting down of dynamic conversation and growth in the relationship.

It’s hard for me to fathom but I’ve been married for almost 35 years. Having shared my adult life with my husband David it’s easy to assume that there’s little we don’t know about each other. We have traversed so much common life ground I can easily become a bit blasé about getting to know him better. Indeed I’m confident I know him better than any other human being.

This week I’m spending a precious week away with David and it’s interesting to reflect on what takes up our conversation with all this extra time together. With so much familiarity, will there be anything new to share?

One thing David has always seemed to love is listening to music – especially jazz and folk.  He’d prefer it any day to watching TV, which has been a point of difference between us at times. He relishes the opportunity Spotify gives him to try new albums and has determined already this week that he’ll be purchasing the new James Taylor and Tommy Emmanuel CDs. Over lunch today I asked him when he first remembers having this appetite for listening to music. After all these years I had never thought to ask this question. What I learned is that in his first year of high school (junior high for the Americans), he joined a record club recommended by fellow students. I wonder if any of you remember those mail out record clubs offering amazing bargains. In response to more of my questions I learned that he commenced listening to the likes of Uriah Heap, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath in the boarder’s common room. I wondered how he managed to afford this and learned that his pocket money didn’t go far enough for him to continue after the first year (an early lesson in economics); however this predilection for relaxing to music had been firmly established. I must say I’m pleased his tastes have evolved since those early days!

This is one example amongst many of ongoing ways to keep getting to know another and to not fall into a type of detached over- familiarity. I’ve appreciated the shared conversations about viewpoints on current affairs. What is David’s unique vantage point on matters of business, politics, theology, sport…..? In earlier times my immaturity meant I could be over- attached to my viewpoints on some of these areas. This would mean that I was closed off from being interested to learn from others – including my husband. I’ve come to see how this closes down a relationship system – when a person never has a posture of curiosity towards another about certain issues there is a shutting down of dynamic conversation and growth in the relationship. This can happen so easily in a marriage – including a shutting down of interest in the other’s perspective about important shared issues such as finances and parenting. I reflect that David and I have often had differences of opinion on politics; and as I make some progress towards more maturity I have shifted from debating such differences (which can result in shutting him down) to seeking to learn from his distinct perspective. This helps move us from fusion to a notch more differentiation – distinct individuals who are simultaneously connected.

Every stage of life presents a new opportunity to get to know a spouse (or any family member). What are their thoughts about this stage of life? About future retirement?  About what’s important to them in our marriage at this time?  About later life issues?  About responding to aging parents? About relating to adult children? About dreams for the future – including outrageous ones? And of course an equal reciprocal exchange of sharing and learning opens up. This builds layer upon layer of intimacy as new knowledge of the other in their evolving life circumstances deepens.

Dr Murray Bowen observed that the less mature relationships tend to close up the exploration of new information – particularly if it was perceived as a threat to harmony. As people become more anxiously fixed in their perspectives they tend to shut down an interest in other’s vantage points. A focus ON the other – often in the form of blaming – rather than an interest IN the other can emerge. As criticism, or more subtle dismissiveness, emerges spouses can live increasingly parallel lives with a focus on others (children or work) and little openness to what their mate has to contribute to their growth and learning. A path to maturity in a relationship is the effort to open up an exchange of information.

For myself on my week’s holday I don’t plan to have a constant exchange of questions and conversation. Of course there’s time for precious quiet and time to do our own thing. For me to plan a how to cook up the local market produce; and David to aim for increased kilometres on his morning runs.  It is however a brilliant opportunity to cultivate curiosity about each other. And as I write I’m hearing some ‘interesting’ new background music playing. What is this music I ask? I’m informed it’s an artist called Morrissey and the song is a pretty obscure title: ‘Suedehead’?….never heard of it! There is always something to discover that I would never stumble upon if left to my solo efforts.

__________________

Questions for reflection

  • How open am I in important relationships to hearing the other’s vantage point and perspective?
  • If I’ve shut down this communication what have I replaced it with? Distance? Triangling by talking about others rather than person to person conversation?
  • Are there issues that I hold too much reactive certainty? How does this prevent me being open to learning about what goes into different standpoints?
  • Has a focus on third parties- children, friends, work assignments- replaced the effort to get to know my spouse?
  • If distance has crept in, what are some non- intense ways I can open up curiosity again in this relationship?

Bowen Theory relevant quotes

“ In broad terms, a person to person relationship is one in which two people can relate personally to each other about each other, without talking about others (triangling), and without talking about impersonal things.” Bowen, FTCP, p 340.

“If you can get a person to person relationship with each living person in your extended family, it will help you ‘grow up’ more than anything else you can do in life.”  Bowen, FTCP, p.540.

“Relationships that can be open and productive when calm become tense and non-productive when anxiety rises. Anxious partners display a range of reactive behaviours. They become more argumentative, less thoughtful, more critical and judgmental, more distant from one another and less able to maintain the complex behaviours of self-regulation that mark effective functioning in relationships.” From Dan Papero- Assisting the Two Person System, ANZJFT, 2014.

Getting to Know You – Continuing to grow in knowledge of the familiar other – Jenny Brown 

Stress Tiredness and Irritability in Marriage

Jenny Brown Bowen theory, Relationships, Social interactions , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

marriage jenny brown blogThis past week has been more stressful than most. I’m working to get back into a demanding routine after a lovely break away and at the same time dealing with jetlag and the effects of a travel tummy bug. Having enjoyed a delightful time with my husband as a travelling companion I noticed that I was quite irritable with him as we were back into our ‘normal’ lives. Little things, such as his forgetting to put an event in his diary, were getting to me more than usual. I could see my pattern of negative affect escalation that tends to occur when I’m stressed. It doesn’t come out as full blown conflict but as a low grade bubbling brew of a critical spirit.

This kind of negative feeling process can really distort a picture of a relationship if we let it continue. Marriage researcher John Gottman notes that the wife’s low grade negative affect, that is not responded to by the husband (with either negative challenge or positive neutralising), or repaired by the wife, is one of the patterns that can predict divorce.  I knew I needed to deal with my own tiredness and health and not allow it to be projected onto critical thinking about my intimate partner. This reminded me of a previous blog I wrote about marriage. I wonder if you can identify any familiar experiences in any of your important relationships?

 

Marriage and Committed Relationships: a maturity workout par excellence

“If marriage blog picyou want a better marriage, you will need to give up making a project out of changing the relationship or your partner and instead make a project out of expressing your own maturity within it.” ( P 95 Growing Yourself Up).

I reflected on the context in my own marriage when it’s easy for me to me my shiny mature best.  It’s when I’m well slept, on top of my tasks, having a few wins with my personal projects and getting plenty of positive validation from my spouse and others. Surprise, surprise – If these conditions are in place I find it easy to feel content, have few expectations of my mate, be attentive, open, generous, approving and undemanding.  And isn’t it uncanny how these conditions seem to bring out the same kind of demeanour in my husband.

You can easily see the problem of course, that many of my days are tinged with tiredness, feeling swamped, facing some disappointing results and not getting much acknowledgment from others.  This is when my lack of resilience in solid maturity shows through: I become increasingly agitated, more intolerant and increasingly critical. My expectations of everyone go up as does my sensitivity to disapproval.  Before you know it I’ve stopped being responsible for myself and I’m reacting to my husband with either withdrawal or lecturing.  Not a pretty picture! And that’s just my side of the circular dance in the marriage.

The alert sign that my maturity is slipping in any relationship is when I put more energy into thinking about how the other can shape up than into sorting myself out. “When we’re finding fault with others we stop working on ourselves. Our growing gets stuck in the blame rut.” J Brown GYU P49.   Author Tim Keller speaks directly to my spiral down the maturity scale:

“Only you have complete access to your own selfishness, and only you have complete responsibility for it.” T Keller,(The meaning of Marriage p 64)

The most useful question I know for pulling myself up in this backwards cycle is: “What is my spouse up against having to relate to me at the moment?”  The good news is that when the focus is taken away from the other and the relationship and placed on being a responsible, distinctive self, the greater the options for deep togetherness.

Building maturity in marriage (in any relationship) can’t be dependent on creating calm contexts where tensions is low…that’s just not reality!  A maturity workout requires regular practice at managing myself in the face of tensions and not needing a positive relationship experience to set me straight.  It requires me to move towards and not away from stressful situations and to deliberately choose to work on flexing my maturity muscles.  Here are some examples of a good maturity work out:

  • When I’m stressed, I can practice staying in touch with myself and not finding fault with the other.
  • When my spouse is tense I can practice not personalising it or being derailed from my self- management.
  • I can try using my principles for being in contact as a spouse, even when my husband appears to be in a negative space.
  • And I mustn’t forget the maturity work out I get when I’m in contact with members of my family of origin – This is where I can best practice containing old reactions and sensitivities. Dan Papero has written: ‘A person’s level of differentiation [maturity] can best be observed in an anxious family setting.’

These efforts to practice tolerating stress in relationships without losing our clarity about how we want to express ourselves is something that grows gradually.  Just as one trip to the gym won’t do much for muscle tone.  I often think about these efforts to work on maturity while in the anxious atmosphere of important relationships as a kind of exposure therapy for our areas of immaturity.  Just as people learn to overcome phobias through gradually increasing exposure to the feared object or situation so it is with learning not to run away from bringing more steadiness to our marriages and all our relationships.

Dr Murray Bowen describes so eloquently what goes into one person bringing the best to relationships: having “the courage to define self, who is as invested in the welfare of the family as in self, who is neither angry nor dogmatic, whose energy goes to changing self rather than telling others what they should do.”  P 305—M Bowen

This involves a good dose of courage, energy investment, self-regulation and self-responsibility.  Sometimes this can all sound a bit too hard and we can be forgiven for searching around for a quicker less personally taxing formula for improving relationships.  Yet I do think there is something deeply compelling in asking ourselves:

“Are you willing to take a fresh look at your own maturity gaps, instead of declaring that another needs to ‘grow up’? This might all sound too much like hard work in your already hectic life; yet if there’s the chance that this effort can unveil a very different picture of yourself in your relationships, it might just be worth giving this journey a go.”

J Brown GYU p8

Here’s cheers to the long haul of relational maturity workouts!

blog marriage pic2

Questions for refection:

  • What do I notice changes in my relationships when I’m stressed or tired?
  • In what ways do negative emotions that are stirred up by stress distort the picture I have of my spouse or a significant other?
  • What happens when I divert the focus of fault finding to managing my own stress levels?

Some Relevant Quotes:

The effort aims “To help one or more family members to become aware of the part self plays in the automatic emotional responsiveness, to control the part that self plays, and to avoid participation in the triangle moves.” (Bowen, 1978, p. 307)

“Undifferentiation manifests itself in numerous ways.  An important manifestation surfaces in the web of expectations each has for the other to “be there” for oneself. It is as if the undifferentiated side of the person demands of the other “Be the way I want you to be, not the way your are, so that I can be stable, comfortable and happy.”  Often these expectations lie dormant until somehow the other violates the expectation, leading to intense emotional reactivity expressed in conflict or distance or both.” Dan Papero, Understanding the Two Person System, 2014.

“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.” Michael Kerr, One Family’s Story. 2004

‘Stress Tiredness and Irritability in Marriage‘ – Jenny Brown