Emotional demands and expectations go together

For most organisms, including humans, the developmental trajectory involves an individual becoming more and more capable and responsible for taking care of their own needs. Maturation is associated with the ability to function independently. As a social species, humans needed to find a partner and have children in order to survive as an extended family unit. Single families would have had a very hard time surviving on their own. This creates the need and expectation that members of the group would care for each other. A mature understanding of this recognizes the benefits and costs of interdependence so the group can survive. An immature understanding of this has unrealistic expectations of others and makes demands of others. This is pretty clear when one is talking about physical needs like food, shelter and protection that protect our physical self.

We notice what’s expected of us

Being social species, we are wired to want to be “connected” and not be alone. We are wired to seek and notice attention and approval. We also pick up the indications from others when they have expectations of us or are in distress. Remember, evolutionarily, if the group leader was expecting something, you’d better be able to notice that if you didn’t want to get into trouble. And as a species, it just makes sense that those that noticed distress in others and attended to that were more likely to survive, thrive and pass on their genes. So caring for others is part of our evolutionary interdependency.

Learning to soothe discomfort

Emotional wellbeing falls along a continuum of discomfort to comfort. We are wired to notice discomfort so we can remove the source of the discomfort. Even before birth, the fetus is learning that the mother is soothing. Co-regulation of physiology to remove discomfort develops during pregnancy and continues after birth. Infants learn how to get their needs met and their discomfort soothed by their mother, father, and others. Over time children learn how others can do things for them that allow them to feel better physically and emotionally. But at the same time, the child should be learning how to soothe or regulate themselves. The goal is to develop a responsible self that can take care of oneself.

“A reasonably differentiated person is capable of genuine concern for others without expecting something in return, but the togetherness forces treat differentiation as selfish and hostile.”  Dr. Bowen (p. 495).

The responsible self does for self even if it’s hard, thankless, unpleasant, scary, boring, or whatever creates resistance. But the less responsible individuals don’t want to face these challenges, so they want and “expect” others to handle it for them. Most of us are not finished developing our responsible selves.

A responsible emotional self

Human relationships can be very soothing. They can help you feel less anxious and more safe and secure. You can depend on others and worry less about yourself. But it is not actually someone’s responsibility to make you feel better. Unfortunately, too many family systems fail to convey this idea to their children. It’s a multi-generation process of not conveying ideas about individual responsibility. In fact, many families convey the idea that you are expected to help others, no matter what, because “they are family.” There is so much that could be written about this, but I’ll jump to the main point. We have to learn to be responsible for our “emotional self” like we do for our physical self. Just as we learn to live independently physically, we need to develop emotional independence.

It’s a fact that emotional/social pain uses the same brain circuits as physical pain. Much substance use is related to individuals just trying to feel less emotional pain. Emotional discomfort is real. Wanting emotional discomfort soothed is valid. It’s just not others’ responsibility. In fact, it’s not their ability either. The best another might do is “soothe,” but this temporary fix doesn’t resolve the underlying issue – the need to learn how to be more emotionally self-sufficient. The need to be more differentiated.

Expectations are useful. Emotional demands are not.

One good thing about expectations is that they indicate how one thinks about the world and what others “owe” them. They can indicate what an individual really needs to work on in order to mature and become more differentiated. But this takes hard work and time. It would be so much easier if one would just meet our expectations so we could avoid the work. This is where emotional demands can come in – I can either demand, of myself, to work on myself, or I can demand from you to meet my needs for attention, approval, security, self-worth, etc. I’m faced with a choice, either I convince myself to live with the discomfort and work on myself, or I get YOU to solve my problem, i.e., fulfill my expectations for attention, approval, security, etc.

Expect to be differentiated

Expectations are often an impingement on others. They can represent an area where I’m borrowing self from others instead of relying on myself. It’s perfectly fine to make agreements about sharing responsibilities. That does set up an expectation that each will fulfill their part of the agreement. But what if other doesn’t live up to the agreement? What if they don’t live up to your expectations? Then it’s time to work on differentiation.

“A reasonably differentiated person is capable of genuine concern for others without expecting something in return, but the togetherness forces treat differentiation as selfish and hostile.” Dr. Bowen (p. 495).

What’s my part in missed expectations

When I get upset because I’m expecting more than I’m getting from someone, I think it’s time to reflect on where my expectation came from. Maybe I just “expected” that my partner would be more helpful in a certain area. Perhaps early in the relationship, this didn’t come up much, and it seemed to be just fine. But over time, it has become a real issue for me. I want to “blame” my partner because they aren’t “meeting my expectations.” First of all, they are my expectations, not theirs. I should recognize this. Second, have I ever really discussed the issue and gotten an agreement on this topic? Maybe what I want in this area is quite different than what they want – whose issue is that? This is where having clear principles and conviction for those principles is important. This is where defining self can come in. Personally, I believe that I’m allowed to want whatever I want, but nobody owes it to me. I can go for whatever I want, but the consequences are my own.

I don’t expect me to choose

The real issue is this: meeting expectations often makes somebody compromise to avoid conflict. I have to choose: work on myself, just give up the expectation, or risk conflict in the relationship. Without working on oneself, giving up is often pretending and results in some level of frustration or resentment. Often we don’t want to have to choose. We want our other *to* *fulfill* our expectations so we can avoid doing the work (just like our parents did actually). The child expects the parent to make things better, to make things okay, without any risk to the relationship. In fact, the child learned that this was the case. But most of us haven’t finished maturing in this area.

Interdependence not expectations

Interdependence recognizes the need for thoughtful cooperation and being responsible *to* each other but not *for* each other. Your success is not my responsibility. My success is not your responsibility. But we *can* agree to support each other on our separate journeys to be successful. I can be all for your success without having to compromise on my success.

I think this is best summed up by Dr. Bowen:

The differentiating force places emphasis on “I” in defining the foregoing characteristics. The “I position” defines principle and action in terms of “This is what I think or believe” and “This is what I will do or will not do,” without impinging one’s own values or beliefs on others. It is the “responsible I” which assumes responsibility for one’s own happiness and comfort, and it avoids thinking that tends to blame and hold others responsible for one’s own unhappiness or failures. The “responsible I” avoids the “irresponsible I” which makes demands on others with, “I want, or I deserve, or this is my right, my privilege”(p. 495).

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on Bowen Theory on selflessness here.

I took the above quotes from Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson, Inc. Kindle Edition.

Can one be selfishly wise?

Dr. Kerr has a phrase that is familiar to those in the Bowen community: “How does one be for self without being selfish and be for others without being selfless? ”

Most of us do not see selfishness as good behaviour. On the contrary, for a social species, it can threaten the group’s cohesion. Cooperative behaviour was required for groups of humans to survive, so being selfish could threaten the entire group.

We can misunderstand the concept of being more differentiated as being more selfish in the negative sense of the word selfish. However, we can also understand differentiation and selfISHness as being for self without being against or impinging on others.

ChatGPT defines selfishness as:

“Selfishness is the act of putting one’s interests, needs, and desires above those of others, without regard for their feelings or well-being. It often involves a lack of consideration or empathy for others and a focus on personal gain or achievement at the expense of others. Selfish behaviour can manifest in various ways, including hoarding resources, refusing to share or cooperate, manipulating others for personal gain, and disregarding the needs and feelings of others. Ultimately, selfishness can lead to conflicts and damage relationships with others.”

Notice that selfishness is based on emotion and relationships. Therefore, it is part of our relationship processes. The above definition also describes a lot of impinging on others as a quality of selfishness.

Wise selfishness is about balance.

I like to test ideas by going from one extreme to another along a continuum. For example, at one end of the continuum, I would do everything for others and nothing for myself. If this included eating, I would not be eating or eating poorly because I would be trying to feed everyone else. I would soon be so weak that I couldn’t help anyone. I would now be a burden on others. So let’s say I eat just enough to keep going, but otherwise, I ignore my needs. Eventually, I’ll wear out from tiredness or get sick, again becoming a burden on others. On the other end of the continuum, I would be completely selfish, putting my needs before others, sharing nothing, and always asking for or demanding things from others. Hmm… I wonder how long I would last in that group. So somewhere along this continuum, there is an appropriate balance of being for others and being for self.

When selfishness is out of balance.

How do things get out of balance and become unwise? From a family systems perspective, there are several influences to consider. These would include the number and intensity of stressors in one’s life, one’s and others’ level of differentiation, the situation’s significance, and the relationship’s significance. These things combine, and one can then believe they have to make a hard choice – be for others and go along or face potential conflict, rejection, and disapproval for being selfish. The other individual(s) could be acting in a more selfish manner, which pressures you to give up “self ” and comply with their requests or demands. The brain can work overtime to resolve the internal conflict of “I don’t want to go along” versus “I don’t want the consequences of not going along.” This is the fundamental dilemma – what I want versus what others want. The tendency to go along is high for a person who wants to avoid conflict, tension, or disapproval, especially in significant relationships. This is how things get out of balance. One person(s) is not fully mature and pressures others to follow their wishes. But the person who goes along is also acting less mature by complying and going along. This is where the concept of defining self comes in.

Defining self is wise selfishness.

Differentiation is too big of a topic to discuss in this post fully. But one way to think about defining self is being able to share what one will do and not do in a situation. It’s not about what is right or wrong or fair because these are too subjective. Each person has to decide how their responsible, mature self wants to be in any situation. They can ask themself, what would my non-anxious, confident, responsible self do? There are several key elements in defining the self. First, it is about self and not about others. In one sense, it is about what I will or won’t do from a mature perspective. For example, if my partner wants to go out for dinner, I could say I’m willing as long as I can get vegetarian. Otherwise, I’m not interested. This isn’t impinging on my partner – they have a choice where we go or even if we go. When defining self, I am making a personal choice based on my convictions and principles. I am not saying I’m right or better. I’m certainly not saying that the other(s) are wrong or less than me. My choice isn’t about fairness. It is simply my choice, period. In addition, I will bear the consequences of my choice. In this example, we might go to a steak house with limited vegetarian options. If I decide to go, I’ve made my choice of my own free will.

Choosing to be selfless.

Defining self is about making a choice based on my principles and convictions. It’s not about going along based on anxiety or some perceived threat. My principles can include being helpful to my family members or my community. I could make a choice to “go along” with helping a family member because it aligns with my principles. Thus, even though I’d rather not, I’m choosing to go along with a request. The key is that it was my choice based on my principles. It was NOT driven by anxiety and fear of what others would think or say. A good test can be whether I regret my decision. Or if I have any expectation that others will return the favour. No regret means no strings attached. After all, I freely chose to go along based on my principles.

Wise selfishness requires serious thinking about how one wants to show up in the world. It requires conviction about one’s beliefs and principles in order to overcome the perceived threats of conflict or rejection. It places no expectations on others. And it requires calm humbleness that arises from knowing one isn’t right or wrong; they are just defining self for themselves and willing to bear the consequences.

It’s difficult. But at least we get lots of opportunities to practice. And it is worth the effort.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

To learn more about Bowen Theory, click here.

To watch an interview on balancing care for self and others, click here

Function UP in 2023

It’s that time of year when I think about my intentions for functioning up in the coming year. A systems perspective has me thinking about how I’m functioning in my family and workplace systems. The concept of functioning is an important one in Bowen family systems theory. It came from Dr. Bowen’s goal to understand human behaviour by recording what he called functional facts. Function facts are what independent observers might record about an interaction between two or more people. For example, a parent, after having an argument with a child, then complaining to their partner is a function fact regarding triangles. The content of what they said might be a fact, but we can observe their behaviour of talking to a third person objectively. Dr. Bowen and his team did this over a period of five years during his NIMH research project with families.

Dr. Bowen wrote:

“Systems theory attempts to focus on the functional facts of relationships. It focuses on what happened, how it happened, and when and where it happened insofar as these observations are based on fact. It carefully avoids man’s automatic preoccupation with why it happened. This is one of the main differences between conventional and systems theory.” (1)

Another aspect of “functioning” is that problems are understood as a way of functioning in response to the system. A person’s functioning adapts to fit with the system’s overall functioning. In turn, this influences how the system functions. Several critical points follow from this. One is that my behaviour, how I’m functioning, is an adaptation in response to the systems and allows the system to function the way it is. Two, this is MY functioning. The system didn’t make me do it, even though it might not feel like that in certain situations. Thus, I can change my functioning. Three, my functioning is really the only thing I can change. Four, if I change my functioning by definition of how systems work, the system will change.

In whatever manner you want to function up, start with the premise that currently, you are merely functioning “as if” you are functioning down. You are not broken. Functioning can change. A person can function differently. But it takes reality-based conviction for the person that wants to change. For example, if an individual wants to have a more open connection with another family member, they must be prepared to be open themselves and attempt to connect consistently. They have to have the conviction that they want to behave differently (regardless of what the other person does).

Function Up Goals

To function up one’s goals must have two important qualities. As mentioned above, they must focus on the part I’m playing and how I want to be different. Goals are about MY functioning, my behavior, and no one else’s. I’m not trying to be different in order to change another person. My goals should not impinge on others. For example, one might want to reduce their drinking as a response to stressors in their life. That doesn’t mean there is no alcohol in the household. It SOLELY means the individual is going to cut down on THEIR drinking. They don’t get to impinge their goal on everyone else. If other’s agree, of their own free will, then fine. But my goals to change should not be contingent on others changing as well.

The concept is that I’m working to be a more responsible self. So functioning up is about how do I want to BE in the world. How do I want to show up each day or in certain situations? Regardless of how others show up. Functioning isn’t a ‘deal’ you make with the system. I function up because I want to be different.

Conviction is the Key.

One generally functions at a particular level because of the emotional forces at play in the system. So one needs emotional force to function differently. I believe this emotional force, this “umph!” comes from objective thinking about what I want to change and developing the conviction to do that. I believe people don’t change unless they really want to, which comes from conviction. One must be convinced (for themselves) that one needs to change to develop conviction. That conviction provides the emotional umph to continue despite how the system reacts.

Focus is on Self.

Function-up goals have a focus on self and not on others. They are “how to be for self without being selfish,” as Dr. Kerr would say. A responsible self doesn’t let others do for them what they can do for themselves. They also don’t do for others what others can do for themselves. The other half of Dr. Kerr’s quote is “how to be for other without being selfLESS.” A responsible, mature self recognizes the interdependence one has with others but isn’t selfish nor selfless. Yes, that takes some thoughtful conviction.

Self-oriented goals are not guilt-driven, and they aren’t about pleasing others. That involves an “other” focus. If I have guilt or regrets, I should use that to develop the conviction to be a different person because that’s how I want to be, not because of others want me to be. For example, would you steal something if you went into a store with no one around and clearly no cameras operating? No, because you, for yourself, don’t want to be that type of person. Even though no one else would know, YOU would know.

I believe we can all function up. Nothing is 100% fixed, even though systems function “as if” things are fixed. I always have a choice about how I will function in any situation. I have the response-ability to function in a more responsible manner. For example, there is always room to be less reactive and more thoughtful in my relationships.

It’s a new year; I invite you to think and decide for yourself how you can “be for self without being selfish” in 2023.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on variation to reacting to stressful events here.

1. Bowen, Murray; Bowen, Murray. Family Therapy in Clinical Practice (p. 261). Jason Aronson, Inc. Kindle Edition.

Defining a self – always do this.

Defining one’s self is a lot of work and a lifelong process. However, one can improve their functioning at any time. Here are some ideas, from a system’s perspective, that can increase one’s level of differentiation, albeit over time.

Avoid thinking that some simple technique is all it takes.

Blindly following a list of items like this might get you in trouble. These items are ‘guidelines’ that apply in the context of relationships. One can only really define the self in a relationship with other(s). This is because we can only lose self to others when we are in a relationship with them. It’s the emotional process of wanting to avoid discomfort in a relationship that gets one to give up self instead of holding on to self or defining a self with others.

Observe my body (level 1)

I can’t change if I don’t know what I want to change or when I want to change. So being a good observer is a critical first step. The first thing to notice is how reactive you are. This would include noticing your speech (words, volume, tone, pace), body language, and physical sensations. How worked up are you, or how “shut down” are you? These are both levels of reactivity. Get really curious about how you react in relationships and observe what creates different reactions in you.

Observe my feelings (level 2)

The next thing to notice, which might only happen after level 1, is what feelings are coming up. Feelings are things like mad, sad, glad, and frustrated. Thinking “that’s not right” isn’t a feeling; it’s a thought (an opinion), but it will have some kind of feeling associated with it. “That’s not fair” is a very common opinion, but the feelings can be quite varied – threatened, afraid, frustrated, sad, angry, and confused, for example.

Bonus Points – Observe my emotional process (level 3)

Often the reason we feel threatened and then get angry is that we believe something is threatening us. This frequently is NOT in our conscious awareness. This involves feelings such as not being liked, not being loved, being rejected, feeling isolated or thinking I’ll always be a failure, alone, etc. Everyone gets emotionally programmed in their family of origin. The brain is incredibly fast at processing incoming information. Thus, the tone in my partner’s voice gets instantly translated as ” a threat,” and I get reactive. Only by observing can I unpack the sequence to see and understand what’s going on. First, I notice the reactivity, then the feelings, and then the underlying threat. But usually a story that we make up can get in the way.

Check subjectivity – what’s my story?

When we get more reactive, we can easily get more subjective in our thinking. We create stories about what is going on and why it’s going on. Suppose my partner used a tone of voice that sounded, to me, like she was upset with me. But maybe that is just because of “my story.” Maybe my partner is upset with something else, and they have that in their tone of voice. Or maybe I did do something I shouldn’t have, and now I’m getting defensive because I don’t want to be wrong. The idea here is to check out my story about the situation and try to clarify the facts.

Understand my part in the situation.

Having a system perspective means that I understand how I contribute to whatever is going on in the system. This is both historical and in the moment. This is a very important idea in my opinion. Why? Because we can’t actually change how another person thinks or behaves. We each decide for ourselves how we are going to think and behave. (Granted, some individuals don’t seem to think consciously about this.) Thus, I can really only change myself. So knowing the part I play by being a better observer reveals the part that only I can change in the situation. This puts the responsibility to change on me, but only for my part and only if I choose. It also means that the other person is free to choose what they want to do. The benefit of systems is that if I really do change, then the system has to change as well in response.

Ask how I can function up.

Once I understand what I contribute to the system’s functioning, I can then decide what, how much, and how often I want to change my contribution. This is where defining a self starts. Each time I change my behaviour because I want to function better, I’m changing how I habitually behave. This is called functional differentiation. This can happen quickly if a person has the conviction to do so. If the change persists over time and across many situations involving different levels of intensity or significance, this might reflect an increase in the level of differentiation. But the main point I that I can change my part and I can improve my functioning should I choose.

Remember: “This is what is, so how do I want to show up?”

Part of defining a self is the development of more fact-based, objective thinking. This involves recognizing those things I can’t change (others) and those things I can change (my behaviour). So if I can’t change others, and this is what is, then I need to ask myself, “how do I want to show up?” What would my more mature self do in this situation? What’s the responsible thing to do in this situation? This isn’t about what I like or what’s fair. It’s about what my principles are and whether I have enough conviction to act on my principles.

Think for yourself.

The above requires that I do a lot of thinking for and about myself. In any situation, I have to decide, for myself, what I will and won’t do. Each person has to do their thinking and decide for themselves what they want to work on. Working on defining a self results in many improvements in one’s functioning. Overall, there is a shift in one’s life trajectory, affecting one’s family’s trajectory. I’ve decided the work is worth the effort.

I invite you to experiment and decide for yourself.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on variation to reacting to stressful events here.

The Immune System defines self

Nature has a way of defining the physical self for all organisms via the immune system. Evolution built our immune system to recognize non-self from self. Accordingly, mechanisms like the immune system are the root of the physical self defining itself to other organisms. What can we learn about defining self from our immune system?

Dr. Bowen borrowed the term “differentiation” from biology because he believed it represented what individuals need to do at an emotional and psychological level. The immune system’s function is to recognize behaviours of another organism that impinge upon the self. For this to occur, the “self” has to recognize what behaviour it considers impinging or not. It follows a model of “no bad actors in our house.”

Defining Self versus Other

The immune system has a process of recognizing self parts and non-self parts throughout the body. Basically, the immune system recognizes and destroys non-self items, like viruses and bacteria that impinge on self. This is where autoimmune diseases come into play – the stop-harm-to-self gets impaired. The normal level of functioning becomes dysfunctional. One could say that the body is under-functioning because it doesn’t stop the self-harming mechanism.

It is truly an under-functioning process whereby the body cannot exercise the normal process of recognizing self-harming elements and then destroy them. By not being able to recognize self from non-self, by not having clear boundaries, it works against itself.

Learning to Define a Self

The design of the immune system is to learn and remember what belongs in the house and what doesn’t. It can recognize strangers (and self-harming behaviour). Nature is often pretty brutal, and the immune system functions in a quite reactive manner. Anything in the house that doesn’t belong gets destroyed and eliminated. To be fair, these “guests” are basically trying to move in and take over everything, which will destroy the house. Like invasive plant species, they grow and destroy what’s there. Or an irresponsible friend that moves in and eats all your food, never cleans up and sells your stuff on eBay to buy stuff for themself. Eventually, it’s all them and none of you.

Defining a self at the immune system level is something that evolved. The better at defining a self the body is, the more healthy its host will remain. This optimizes the body’s function. If the immune system under functions, this could lead to chronic impairment or a shorter lifespan. But as we have learned, the immune can over-function and attack the body where it shouldn’t. It overreacts and loses sight of self versus non-self.

When the body gets a new virus, it can’t define itself at first, and the virus moves in and replicates by using your body’s molecules. Once the immune system recognizes what’s going on, it defines self by creating an antibody response and which allows the body to recognize self from non-self and act accordingly.

Defining a Self is an Active Process

Defining a self is an active process. A healthy body, a well-functioning immune system, only gets as reactive as it needs to. As we have seen with Covid, the body can overreact, which has led to serious aspects of Covid as a disease.

I believe that nature conserves effective processes and adapts them for new purposes. Even bacteria have an immune system to ward off infections from bacteria infecting phages. Nature has conserved this process across the tree of life over hundreds of millions of years. What are the principles to be learned from how the immune system defines self?

1. Self has to have a clear definition of what self is. A conviction for what it will tolerate and won’t tolerate.

2. Self has to recognize things it won’t tolerate from things it will tolerate.

3. Self has to have a consistent, effective response to things it won’t tolerate

4. Self might temporarily impair itself while dealing with non-self

5. Self can’t avoid the investment and effort required to maintain self.

What’s Good for the Self is Good for the Body

Finally, if defining self at a physical level is good for us, isn’t defining self at a nonphysical (aka psychological self) level also good for us? Don’t the two support each other? Do your immune system a favour – work on defining self!

Thank you for your interest in learning more about systems.

Dave Galloway

To learn more about Bowen Theory, click here.

For a video series by Dr. Bowen: Bowen Basic Series

The articles that inspired this post:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add2897

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-protein.

Systems view of problems.

A system view of a problem differs from how most people think of a problem. The common way of thinking stems from an individualistic cause-and-effect model. In our current culture, there is a quick-fix desire as well. Thus, the result of the cause and effect, quick fix approach is that the fix can be worse than the problem.

A system way of thinking understands a problem to be some kind of undesired functioning. The so-called “problem” is a sign that something in the system isn’t working the way we want it to. Systems are not a kind of linear sequence where A leads to B, which leads to C, etc. Systems have parts, and the parts are in relationship with each other. For example, in family systems, all the parts are in some kind of relationship with all the parts. These parts have a reciprocal (feedback) relationship with each other. Each relationship involves a process that defines that relationship. In families, we call this emotional process. There are emotional processes that define or influence each relationship that each person has with every other person in the system. Yes, that’s a lot to think about. From this perspective, it’s not useful to think about what caused a problem.

The individual model of cause and effect.

An individual model approach looks for a cause to fix the problem. An individual model often views the individual (“identified patient”) as symptomatic, dysfunctional, or broken and in need of being fixed. The terms symptom or dysfunctional can be used, but I think there is an automatic negative connotation with these terms. This is the framework of most of our medical systems. It works well in some situations but doesn’t address the underlying issue(s). For example, a teenager presents with a broken arm in the emergency room. This is a simple case of a broken individual needing a fix. However, what kind of thinking and behaviour contributed to the arm being broken? A systems perspective would seek to understand the process that led to the accident. (Of course, one always has to start with the immediate issues, e.g. get the arm in a cast).

The problem is there are multiple contributing factors.

With an individual model, one asks why did this problem occur? What caused it? Let’s say a teenager fell down some stairs and broke their arm. There’s the cause and the effect. However, they had been drinking. Maybe that’s the cause that created the effect. The teenager claims the problem was that the stairs didn’t have a proper railing to hold on to. Hmm, call the lawyers! Or maybe it was the friend that bumped into them that was the problem. Cause and effect thinking wants to find one cause to fix the problem. All Done. Move on. Families and relationships aren’t that simple.

Systems thinkers ask questions about processes, not problems.

Systems operate via processes; cause-and-effect doesn’t work with systems. The goal is to understand how the system functions by understanding the processes that define the relationships between the parts. Understanding processes, the contributors, and their contribution is how one understands the functioning of a system. This involves asking when, where, with whom, how often, and what happened before, and not “why” type questions. Natural systems don’t have a why. They have a function, so it makes sense to ask about functioning with “w” type questions.

Substance use – a process or a problem?

With substance use situations, understanding the process(es) that contributed to the substance use is very important to achieving a long-term resolution. A systems approach would understand substance use as an adaptive mechanism to deal with the discomfort in an individual’s life. How did substance use become the outcome of the individual’s functioning as part of the system? Gabor Mate wrote, “A hurt is at the centre of all addictive behaviours.” The individual isn’t ‘broken’ or weak. The undesired functional outcome, substance use, results from all the interactions of the system they are a part of. And those interactions result from all the interactions the system’s individuals were a part of (repeat for several generations).

Lack of self is a system’s way of functioning.

Bowen Theory is about differentiation of self. So undesired functional outcomes result from the process of differentiation being impaired. While the loss of self to the system may reduce discomfort in the short term, it usually does not in the long term. The goal is to define self in order to reduce the discomfort that arises from the loss of self. Each part of the system has contributed to an individual’s loss of self so that each part can contribute to the individual developing self. All parts of the system will have to function better to avoid shifting the dysfunction to another part of the system.

Change a part, change the system.

Bowen wrote: “The family is a system in that a change in one part of the system is followed by a compensatory change in other parts of the system.” I prefer to think of the family as a variety of systems and subsystems. Systems function at all levels of efficiency, from optimum functioning to total dysfunction and failure.” Another aspect of thinking systems is that system’s functioning is the sum of the parts’ functioning, and this functioning can change. Parts of the system can function as if they were broken. Substance use is an “as if” type of functioning. The individual is functioning “as if” they were “addicted,” but this is their way of adapting to the system that they are a part of and the discomfort they feel. Change the system AND their way of adapting, and the substance use goes away. It’s simple, but not easy.

Systems: How one thinks about a problem can be the problem.

A system way of thinking about a situation removes the concepts of blame, victim, and perpetrator. It does NOT remove the consequences of individuals’ behaviours. Substance use has consequences, which is why it is problematic. But if one is not a victim, the implication is that they have played a part in the process, so they have to play a part in changing how they respond. This approach puts the ability to effect change back into the hands of the individual. They can learn to adapt to what the system presents to them in a different, more functional manner. This involves defining oneself to their system in a manner that doesn’t impose on others. It involves the individual getting very clear about what is important and acting on that conviction.

The system’s functioning is the problem.

I believe that how one thinks about a “problem” can be part of the problem. A system way of thinking is very different and opens up alternative approaches for resolving undesired functional outcomes, aka problems. In short, there are dysfunctional ways and functional ways to adapt or respond to a system. Defining a self to the system, which can be hard in the short run, is likely to be the most functional and long-lasting approach. The sooner one starts, the better!

dave.galloway@livingsystems.ca

Bowen’s definition of a family can be found in Family Therapy in Clinical Practice pp. 154-155.

Read more about Bowen Theory here: https://livingsystems.ca/bowen-theory/

Gabor Mate’s book is called Hungry Ghosts. Listen to this Youtube with Gabor Mate:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQYwOlx0HY

Biology of Desire is an excellent book on substance use.  This is a good interview:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRTL88ZMPBA

Emotional pain does “hurt”.

There is a difference between pain and suffering, and sometimes individuals create more suffering than the initial pain warrants. Emotion pain literally hurts because it can fire the same brain areas that are activated for physical pain. This brain functioning shows the reality of emotional pain. This makes sense evolutionarily because physical pain came first, so the emotional parallel evolved to just use the same brain circuits.

Physical pain is a biological signal that something is damaging our physical wellbeing, the integrity of our physical self. Physical pain is real. It triggers nerve pain circuits and physiological responses and behaviours. The withdrawal from something hot or perceived to be dangerous is an example of the objective behavioural response. Likewise, emotional pain is a signal that something is damaged in our emotional wellbeing. How one feels about this after it occurs is where suffering comes in. It’s interesting to note that “withdrawal” is also a type of emotional response to emotional pain.

Emotional Suffering is a subjective experience.

Individuals define suffering in different ways, but they include the subjective feeling of pain or discomfort. People suffer from colds, disease, breakups, and hardships of all kinds. But suffering is different and separate from hardship. It’s secondary to an original discomfort, and it’s the result of how one perceives the discomfort. Muscle pain can result from an intense workout and a person could feel good about that. A relationship breakup could be a relief that something very challenging is over. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t any discomfort or challenge. Emotional pain is real, but it differs from the suffering that might follow.

Imagine being forced against your will to do physical labour for 6 hours a day for four years. Most people would “suffer” through this hardship. Now imagine that you are an Olympic athlete who loves the workouts, even if they are hard, and is excited about the challenge and the goal of winning a medal. What’s the difference? Perception.

Emotional pain happens. Then stories are created.

Emotional pain is the experience of some perceived threat or damage to our emotional self, the “sense” of who we are, and our psychological self. But then, like physical pain, we want to understand it, because want the pain to go away.

This is where suffering can start. We create a story about the meaning of the emotional pain. The story is inherently subjective. This story can easily be based on misunderstandings or misinformation. Suppose Chris insults Pat. Pat could make up a story about why this happened and create “meaning” about the event. For example, “Chris insulted me because I’m stupid, I’m different”. Now that story becomes the source of the suffering for Pat.

Don’t add insult to injury. Don’t add emotional suffering to emotional pain.

The insult above can’t create a true feeling of pain. Only the perception and the meaning we give it can. Unless you are up against a supervillain, the sound waves from speech can’t actually cause a pain sensation! A brain scan would show one’s pain circuits activating to the degree that they perceived it to be painful. Notice the word perceived.

Let’s say Jan stubbed their toe. It hurts a bit. Jan almost fell. But they don’t make up any stories about it. Maybe the fear of falling startled them. They have a fleeting thought to “watch my step” and maybe they cursed the uneven sidewalk. Then they forget about it. They have some pain, but not suffering. There was no story. One could make up the story that they are clumsy, need to be more careful and pay more attention. And why doesn’t “someone” fix the sidewalk? And get frustrated about the lack of concern people have. This subjective thinking, this story making, just adds suffering to the experience.

Emotional Pain happens. Emotional Suffering doesn’t have to.

How much do we get our emotional toes stubbed but then make up a story about what it means and add suffering to the pain? We subjectively perceive emotional pain, unlike physical pain, because there are no emotional pain nerve receptors. In our earlier example, Pat could easily make up the story that Chris is rude and forget about the insult and experience no suffering. A close friend of Chris could say, “Ouch! What’s up with you grouchy?” because they just made up a different story (something is going wrong with Chris). Again, no suffering, because of different perceptions about the event.

More differentiation, less emotional pain, less emotional suffering

One aspect of being more differentiated is the ability to recognize and differentiate subjective thinking from objective thinking. Stories from facts. Objective thinking is experienced as reporting on what one observed. For example, “Chris moved their lips into an arc shape” would be the objective observation of a smile. So, Pat, a co-worker, subjectively interprets Chris’ facial expression as a “smile”. We experience subjective thinking as “stories” with judgements, interpretations, and assignments of fault. In this example, Pat’s story could be “Chris is laughing at my mistake. I’m such an idiot.” This is a story, an interpretation and a judgement. But is there any objective truth in this story? Pat and Chris would have to discuss in order to find out. But the more Pat can recognize their own subjective thinking versus objective observations, the less likely they are to add suffering to pain.

I know a person who had constant headaches in their seventies. They lived fully and ignored the headaches. The headaches were an ongoing pain, but they chose to suffer less.

Fact versus Fiction. Differentiation in the Brain.

There are no perfect parents, partners, or children. There are no perfect families. Events happen. What stories do you make up, have you made up about your family? How objective are those stories? Working to differentiate the facts of an event separate from the stories about the event and the meaning created (the feelings, judgements, interpretations) trains the brain to be more differentiated. (This is one value of getting family history from multiple people. It can help to separate fact from fiction.) Thus, a more differentiated person works to understand the part they played in any situation. They learn from that. So then they can recognize how to not have it happen again. This does not negate feelings of regret about the past or anxiousness about the future. However, they don’t need to suffer based on subjective stories involving interpretation, judgement, and blame.

Chose to reduce emotional suffering.

Events happen. We create stories. Emotional pain happens, and we create feelings, judgements and interpretations. Work to separate the objective facts from the subjective opinions and stories. This can help one understand the difference between emotional pain and emotional suffering. And work to reduce emotional suffering. This is a benefit of working on being more differentiated in one’s thinking.

For an excellent review of pain circuits, see:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121522/

Read more about differentiation here: https://www.thebowencenter.org/differentiation-of-self

How does systems thinking impact society?

In Donella Meadows’ book “Thinking in Systems,” there is a list of things one can do to affect a system. It counts downwards from less impactful, possibly harmful actions, to the most impactful actions. One of the most impactful is “change your paradigm”. This is because how one thinks about a problem can often be the problem. It always allows one to think completely differently about the original problem. This different thinking leads to different approaches to solving the problem. Or maybe the problem just goes away. This is definitely true with a shift to systems thinking away from a cause-and-effect type of thinking.

Bowen theory is systems thinking.

Bowen theory is a natural systems theory. It developed from many observations about how families (versus individuals) functioned. Not how they said they function, but from observations of behaviour and interactions. What he observed was that changes in the functioning of one person affected the functioning of others, which then affected the functioning of the one person. If one person in a group is anxious about something, that usually affects others. The others can try to “solve the problem” or “calm the person down” or “pull back”. These behaviours are usually related to “your anxiety is making me uncomfortable, so I’m going to try and lower your anxiety so I feel less discomfort”. This happens because the family members (or system members) are connected via the emotional system of the family.

Anxiety in society. It’s contagious.

Because of the impact of emotional systems, levels of anxiety can rise and fall in societies or groups. This is because societies are systems of individuals and each individual is influencing other individuals. Leaders, in particular, can have an enormous influence on the level of anxiety in society and the world. Anxiety is contagious for a good reason. Historically, if a member of my group was anxious, that usually meant there was a threat of some kind. Historically, a threat to one member of a group is a threat to all members of a group. While one can get away with ignoring positive events (hey, I found berries) they best not ignore negative events (I found poison berries).

Anxiety antidote: focus on facts.

Bowen theory, as a natural systems theory, puts an emphasis on facts and objective thinking because this is the only way to understand how a system functions. Systems behave how they behave, regardless of how one thinks or feels. Emotionality can lead to more subjective thinking and ignoring facts. Not being fact-based can lead to poor decisions and poor outcomes, especially with systems. So working to be as objective as possible when thinking about an issue is useful in a family or society. Disinformation campaigns work on the principle that fear will make individuals think less objectively, so they will be easier to mislead.

Managing anxiety in society.

An important factor in family functioning is the level of anxiety in its members. One challenge with anxiety is that it can contribute to greater levels of reactive, subjective, and non-fact-based thinking. For valid reasons, individuals want anxiety to go away as quickly. But quick fixes to “just make it go away” can do more harm than good. Quick fixes can easily make a problem worse or allow it to persist. For example, the discomfort that comes up around Canada’s history with indigenous peoples is something that many people want to go away, by applying a quick fix or by ignoring the history. Neither is a solution. Collectively, individuals have to manage their anxiety in order to stay engaged with finding a solution. Managing and tolerating anxiety in order to stay engaged and solution-focused applies at the level of families and societies.

Systems thinking says problems are symptoms of a dysfunctional system

Another paradigm level shift that systems thinking provides is the understanding that a problem is actually a symptom of an underlying dysfunction in the system. In families, this manifests in the patterns of how individuals function in relationships. Changing the functioning of individuals will change the functioning of the system and reduce the “problem”. Systems thinking supports the idea that an improvement of any member’s individual functioning will reduce symptoms in the system. This is the paradigm-level shift systems thinking provides. It calls on each family member to think about how they are contributing to the family’s functioning which leads to the expression of the symptom. From this perspective, no one person is to blame and everyone can contribute to improvement by changing their part. Each changes their part by defining self (to others) in the system.

Define self – something we can all do individually.

The past six years have provided me with the opportunity to observe my process of dealing with societal issues. I realized I needed to stop just being reactive – getting frustrated, angry, complaining and feeling helpless – about issues and think about what I could do. What was I willing to do and not willing to do? For example, with the Ukrainian situation, there is a range of options. One could choose to volunteer to join the military effort or the NGO efforts. Or one could choose to ignore it. And there are many choices in between. It’s important to remember that defining self does NOT impinge on others. It allows others to make choices and doesn’t force change on them. The task is to think about what one is willing to do and not willing to do and then DO IT. Then get back to one’s life.

What would my most mature self do?

In business, there is the idea of scalability. Something might work on a small scale, but it won’t ‘scale up’ by 100 or 1000 times. Vaccine production is designed to be scaled up, but getting enough ventilators is hard to scale up. Individuals thinking and acting on the question “what would my most mature self do” is a very scalable idea. The more people that do this, using facts to support objective thinking while managing their own anxiety, the more society will function up. This is how systems work, change the functioning of the parts, and the functioning of the system changes. The pandemic has shown this.

The power of one. I can impact society.

One family member deciding, for themselves, to act in a more mature manner can start the process of other family members improving their functioning. This is the magic of systems. I change because I want to be different for me. It’s about me, not others. It’s about defining myself and not trying to define the self of others. The side benefit is that defining myself can be helpful to others because of the nature of systems.

Systems thinking supports the idea that one can only do their part. They can’t do someone else’s part. The challenge is to take the time to be clear on what one is willing to do and not willing to do and then execute on that. To live one’s conviction without impinging on others. This is how systems thinking can impact society.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsystems.ca

You can find the Thinking in Systems here: Thinking in Systems

You can find videos on emotional processes in society here: Kerr Interview #10 Emotional Process in Society and here: How does Bowen theory speak to today’s challenges?

Read more about differentiation here: https://www.thebowencenter.org/differentiation-of-self.

Don’t miss any posts.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Custom Captcha *

What 3 + 8

Click here to sign up.