BOWEN’S THEORY

Introduction to the Eight Concepts

Bowen family systems theory is a theory of human behavior that views the family as an emotional unit
and uses systems thinking to describe the unit’s complex interactions. It is the nature of a family that
its members are intensely connected emotionally. Often people feel distant or disconnected from their
families, but this is more feeling than fact. Families so profoundly affect their members’ thoughts,
feelings, and actions that it often seems as if people are living under the same “emotional skin.” People
solicit each other’s attention, approval, and support, and they react to each other’s needs, expectations,
and upsets. This connectedness and reactivity make the functioning of family members interdependent.
A change in one person’s functioning is predictably followed by reciprocal changes in the functioning
of others. Families differ somewhat in their degree of interdependence, but it is always present to some
degree.

This emotional interdependence presumably evolved to promote the cohesiveness and cooperation
families require to protect, shelter, and feed their members. Heightened tension, however, can intensify
these processes that promote unity and teamwork, and this can lead to problems. When family members
get anxious, their anxiety can escalate by spreading infectiously among them. As anxiety goes up, the
emotional connectedness of family members becomes more stressful than comforting. Eventually, one
or more members feel overwhelmed, isolated, or out of control. These members are the people who
accommodate the most to reduce tension in others. It is a reciprocal interaction. For example, a person
takes too much responsibility for the distress of others in relation to their unrealistic expectations of
him, or a person gives up too much control of her thinking and decision-making in relationship to
others’ anxiously telling her what to do. The one who does the most accommodating literally “absorbs”
the system’s anxiety and thus is the family member most vulnerable to problems such as depression,
alcoholism, affairs, or physical illness.

Dr. Murray Bowen, a psychiatrist, originated this theory and its eight interlocking concepts. He
formulated the theory by using systems thinking to integrate knowledge of the human as a product of
evolution with knowledge from family research. A core assumption is that an emotional system that
evolved over several billion years governs human relationship systems. People have a “thinking brain,”
language, a complex psychology and culture, but they still do all the ordinary things that other forms of
life do. The emotional system affects most human activity and is the principal driving force in the
development of clinical problems. Knowledge of how the emotional system operates in one’s family,
work, and social systems offers new, more effective options for solving problems in each of these
areas.

1. Triangles

A triangle is a three-person relationship system. It is considered the building block or “molecule” of

larger emotional systems because a triangle is the smallest stable relationship system. A two-person
system is unstable because it tolerates little tension before involving a third person. A triangle can
contain much more tension without involving another person because the tension can shift around three
relationships. If the tension is too high for one triangle to contain, it spreads to a series of
“interlocking” triangles. Spreading the tension can stabilize a system, but nothing is resolved.

People’s actions in a triangle reflect their efforts to assure their emotional attachments to important
others, their reactions to too much intensity in the attachments, and their taking sides in others’
conflicts. Paradoxically, while a triangle is more stable than a dyad, a triangle creates an odd person
out, which is a difficult position for individuals to tolerate. Anxiety generated by being or anticipating
being the odd person out is a potent force in triangles.

The patterns in a triangle change with increasing tension. In calm periods, two people are comfortably
close “insiders” and the third person is an uncomfortable “outsider.” The insiders actively exclude the
outsider, and the outsider may feel rejected and work to get closer to one of them. Someone is always
uncomfortable in a triangle and pushing for change. The insiders solidify their bond by choosing each
other in preference to the less desirable outsider.

If mild to moderate tension develops between the insiders, the most uncomfortable one will move
closer to the outsider. One of the original insiders now becomes the new outsider, and the original
outsider is now an insider. The new outsider will make predictable moves to restore closeness with one
of the insiders. At moderate tension levels, triangles usually have one side in conflict and two
harmonious sides. Conflict is not inherent in the relationship in which it exists, but reflects the overall
functioning of the triangle.

At a high level of tension, the outside position becomes the most desirable. If severe conflict erupts
between the insiders, one insider opts for the outside position by getting the current outsider fighting
with the other insider. If the maneuvering insider is successful, he gains the more comfortable position
of watching the other two people fight. When the tension and conflict subside, the outsider will try to
regain an inside position.

Triangles contribute significantly to the development of clinical problems. For example, getting pushed
from an inside to an outside position can trigger a depression or perhaps even a physical illness, or two
parents intensely focusing on what is wrong with a child can trigger serious rebellion in the child.

Example

Michael and Martha were extremely happy during the first two years of their marriage. Michael liked
making major decisions, and Martha felt comforted by Michael’s “strength.” After some difficulty
getting pregnant, Martha conceived during the third year of the marriage, but it was a difficult
pregnancy. She was quite nauseous during the first trimester and developed high blood pressure and
weight gain as the pregnancy progressed. She talked frequently to Michael of her insecurities about
being a mother. Michael was patient and reassuring, but also began to feel critical of Martha for being
“childlike.”

ANALYSIS

The pregnancy places more pressure on Martha and on the marital relationship. Michael is outwardly
supportive of Martha, but is reactive to hearing about her anxieties. He views her as having a problem.

A female infant was born after a long labor. They named her Amy. Martha was exhausted and not ready
to leave the hospital when her doctor discharged her. Over the next few months, she felt increasingly
overwhelmed and extremely anxious about the wellbeing of the young baby. She looked to Michael for
support, but he was getting home from the office later. Martha felt he was critical of her difficulty
coping and that he dismissed her worries about the child. There was much less time together for just
Michael and Martha. When there was time, Michael ruminated about work problems. Martha became
increasingly preoccupied with making sure her growing child did not develop the insecurities she had
had growing up. She tried to do this by being as attentive as she could to Amy and consistently
reinforcing her accomplishments. It was easier for Martha to focus on Amy than to talk with Michael.
She reacted intensely to his real and imagined criticisms of her. Michael and Martha spent more and
more of their time together discussing Amy rather than talking about their marriage.

ANALYSIS

Martha is the most uncomfortable with the increased tension in the marriage. The growing emotional
distance with Michael is balanced by Martha’s over-involvement with Amy and Michael’s getting
overly involved with his work. Michael is in the outside position in the parental triangle, and Martha
and Amy are in the inside positions.

As Amy grew, she made increasing demands on her mother’s time. Martha felt she could not give Amy
enough time and that Amy would never be satisfied. Michael agreed with Martha that Amy was too
selfish and resented Amy’s temper tantrums when she did not get her way. However, if Michael got too
critical of Amy, Martha would defend her, telling Michael he was exaggerating. Yet whenever tensions
developed between Martha and Amy, Martha would press Michael to spend more time with Amy to
reassure her that she was loved. He gave into Martha’s pleas but inwardly felt that their appeasing Amy
was making her more demanding. Michael felt that if Martha had his maturity, Amy would be less of a
problem, but, despite this attitude, Michael usually followed Martha’s lead in relationship to Amy.

ANALYSIS

When tension builds between Martha and Amy, Michael sides with Martha by agreeing that Amy is the
problem. The conflictual side of the triangle then shifts from from between Martha and Amy to between
Michael and Amy. If the conflict gets too intense between Michael and Amy, Martha sides with Amy.
The conflict then shifts into the marriage, and Amy gains the more comfortable outside

2. DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF

Families and other social groups greatly affect how people think, feel, and act, but individuals vary in
their susceptibility to “groupthink,” and groups vary in the amount of pressure they exert for
conformity. These differences between individuals and between groups reflect differences in people’s
levels of differentiation of self. The less developed a person’s “self,” the more impact others have on
his functioning and the more he tries to control, actively or passively, the functioning of others. The
basic building blocks of a “self” are inborn, but an individual’s family relationships during childhood
and adolescence primarily determine how much “self” he develops. Once established, the level of
“self” rarely changes unless a person makes a structured, long-term effort to change it.

People with a poorly differentiated “self” depend so heavily on the acceptance and approval of others
that they either quickly adjust what they think, say, and do to please others or they dogmatically
proclaim what others should be like and pressure them to conform. Bullies depend on approval and
acceptance as much as chameleons, but bullies push others to agree with them instead of with others.
Disagreement threatens a bully as much as it threatens a chameleon. An extreme rebel is a poorly
differentiated person too, but she pretends to be a “self” by routinely opposing the positions of others.

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. Thoughtfully
acquired principles help guide decision-making about important family and social issues, making her
less at the mercy of the feelings of the moment. What she decides and what she says match what she
does. He can act selflessly, but his acting in the best interests of the group is a thoughtful choice, not a
response to relationship pressures. Confident in his thinking, he can support others’ views without
being a disciple or reject others’ views without polarizing the differences. He defines himself without
being pushy and deals with pressure to yield without being wishy-washy.

Every human society has its well-differentiated people, poorly differentiated people, and people at
many gradations between these extremes. Consequently, families and other groups in a society differ in
the intensity of their emotional interdependence depending on the differentiation levels of their
members. The more intense the interdependence, the less a group has capacity to adapt to potentially
stressful events without a marked escalation of chronic anxiety. Everyone is subject to problems in
work and personal life, but less differentiated people and families have greater vulnerability to periods
of heightened chronic anxiety, which contributes to their having a disproportionate share of society’s
more serious problems.

Example

The example of the Michael, Martha, Amy triangle reflects how a lack of differentiation of self plays
out in a family unit. In their case, it is a moderately differentiated unit. What follows describes how
this triangle would play out if Michael, Martha, and Amy were more differentiated people.

Michael and Martha were quite happy during the first two years of their marriage. He liked making the
major decisions, but did not assume he knew “best.” He always told Martha what he was thinking, and
he listened carefully to her ideas. Their exchanges were usually thoughtful and led to decisions that
respected the vital interests of both people. Martha had always been attracted to Michael’s sense of
responsibility and willingness to make decisions, but she also lived by a principle that she was
responsible for thinking things through for herself and telling Michael what she thought. She did not
assume Michael usually knew “best.”

Analysis: Because the level of stress on a marriage is often less during the early years, particularly
before the births of children and the addition of other responsibilities, the less adaptive moderately
differentiated marriage and the more adaptive well-differentiated marriage can look similar because
the tension level is low. Stress is necessary to expose the limits of a family’s adaptive capacity.

Martha conceived during the third year of the marriage and had a fairly smooth pregnancy. She had a
few physical problems, but dealt with them with equanimity. She was somewhat anxious about being an
adequate mother but felt she could manage these fears.

When she talked to Michael about her fears, she did not expect him to resolve them for her, but she
thought more clearly about her fears when she talked them out with him. He listened but was not
patronizing. He recognized his own fears about the coming changes in their lives and acknowledged
them to Martha.

ANALYSIS

The stresses associated with the real and anticipated changes of the pregnancy trigger some anxiety in
both Michael and Martha, but their interaction does not escalate the anxiety and make it chronic.
Martha has somewhat heightened needs and expectations of Michael but takes responsibility for
managing her anxiety. She has realistic expectations about what he can do for her. Michael does not
get particularly reactive to Martha’s expectations and recognizes he is anxious too. Each remains a
resource to the other.

A female infant was born after a fairly smooth labor. They named her Amy. Martha weathered the
delivery fairly well and was ready to go home when her doctor discharged her. The infant care over the
next few months was physically exhausting for Martha, but she was not heavily burdened by anxieties
about the baby or about her adequacy as a mother. She continued to talk to Michael about her thoughts
and feelings and still did not feel he was supposed to do something to make her feel better. Michael had
increasing work pressures but remained emotionally available to her, even if only by phone at times. He
worried about work issues but did not ruminate about them to Martha. When she asked how it was
going, he responded fairly factually and appreciated her interest. He occasionally wished Martha would
not get anxious about things but realized she could manage. He was not compelled to “fix” things for
her.

ANALYSIS

Sure of herself as a person, Martha is able to relate to Amy without feeling overwhelmed by
responsibilities and demands and without unfounded fears about the child’s wellbeing. Sure of himself,
Michael can meet the real demands of his job without feeling guilty that he is neglecting Martha. Each
spouse recognizes the pressure the other is under, and neither makes a “federal case” about being
neglected. Each is sufficiently confident in the other’s loyalty and commitment that neither needs much
reassurance about it. By the parents relating comfortably to each other, Amy is not triangled into
marital tensions. She does not have a void to fill in her mother’s life related to distance between her
parents.

After a few months, Michael and Martha were able to find time to do some things by themselves.
Martha found that her anxieties about being a mother toned down. She did not worry much about Amy.
As Amy grew, Martha did not perceive her as an insecure child that needed special attention. She was
positive about Amy but not constantly praising her in the name of reinforcing Amy’s self-image.
Michael and Martha discussed their thoughts and feelings about Amy, but they were not preoccupied
with her. They were pleased to have her and took pleasure in watching her develop. Amy grew to be a
responsible young child. She sensed the limits of what was realistic for her parents to do for her and
respected those limits. She made few demands and offered no tantrums. Michael did not feel critical of
Amy very often, and Martha did not defend Amy to him when he did. Martha figured Michael and Amy
could manage their relationship. Amy seemed equally comfortable with both of her parents and relished
exploring her environment.

ANALYSIS

Michael and Martha can see Amy as a separate and distinct person. The beginning differentiation
between Amy and her parents is evident when Amy is a young child. The parents have adapted quite
successfully to the anxieties each experienced associated with the addition of a child and the increased
demands in Michael’s work. Their high levels of differentiation allow the three of them to be in close
contact with little triangling.
 3. NUCLEAR FAMILY EMOTIONAL PROCESS

The concept of nuclear family emotional process describes four basic relationship patterns that govern
where problems develop in a family. People’s attitudes and beliefs about relationships play a role in the
patterns, but the forces primarily driving them are part of the emotional system. The patterns operate in
intact, single-parent, stepparent, and other nuclear family configurations.

Clinical problems or symptoms usually develop during periods of heightened and prolonged family
tension. The tension level depends on the stress a family encounters, how a family adapts to stress, and
on a family’s connection with extended family and social networks. Tension increases the activity of
one or more of four relationship patterns. Where symptoms develop depends on which patterns are
most active. The higher the tension, the more chance that symptoms will be severe and that several
people will be symptomatic.

The four basic relationship patterns are:

Marital conflict – As family tension increases and spouses get more anxious, each spouse externalizes
his or her anxiety into the marital relationship. Each focuses on what is wrong with the other, tries to
control the other, and resists the other’s efforts at control.

Dysfunction in a spouse – One spouse pressures the other to think and act in certain ways, and the
other yields to the pressure. Both spouses accommodate to preserve harmony, but one does more of it.
The interaction is comfortable for both people up to a point, but if family tension rises further, the
subordinate spouse may yield so much self-control that his or her anxiety increases significantly. If
other necessary factors are present, the anxiety fuels the development of a psychiatric, medical, or
social dysfunction.

Impairment of one or more children – The spouses focus their anxieties on one or more of their
children. They worry excessively and usually have an idealized or negative view of the child. The more
the parents focus on the child, the more the child focuses on them. He is more reactive than his siblings
to the parents’ attitudes, needs, and expectations. The process undercuts the child’s differentiation from
the family and makes him vulnerable to act out or internalize family tensions. The child’s anxiety can
impair his school performance, social relationships, and even his health.

Emotional distance – This pattern is consistently associated with the others. People distance from each
other to reduce the relationship intensity but risk becoming too isolated.

The basic relationship patterns result in family tensions coming to rest in certain parts of the family.
The more anxiety one person or one relationship absorbs, the less other people must absorb. This means
that some family members maintain their functioning at the expense of others. People do not want to
hurt each other, but when anxiety chronically dictates behavior, someone usually suffers for it.

Example

The tensions generated by Michael and Martha’s interactions lead to emotional distance between them
and to an anxious focus on Amy. Amy reacts to her parents’ emotional overinvolvement with her by
making immature demands on them, particularly on her mother.
ANALYSIS

A parent’s emotional overinvolvement with a child programs the child to be as emotionally focused on
the parent as the parent is on the child and to react intensely to real or imagined signs of withdrawal
by the parent.

When Amy was four years old, Martha got pregnant again. She wanted another child but soon began to
worry about whether she could meet the emotional needs of two children. Would Amy be harmed by
feeling left out? Martha worried about telling Amy that she would soon have a little brother or sister,
wanting to put off dealing with her anticipated reaction as long as possible. Michael thought that was
silly but went along with Martha. He was outwardly supportive about the pregnancy. He, too, wanted
another child, but he worried about Martha’s coping abilities.

ANALYSIS

Martha externalizes her anxiety onto Amy rather than onto her husband and rather than internalizing
it. Michael avoids conflict with Martha by supporting the focus on Amy. He avoids dealing with his
own anxieties by focusing on Martha’s coping abilities.

Apart from her fairly intense anxieties about Amy, Martha’s second pregnancy was easier than the first.
A daughter, Marie, was born without complications. This time Michael took more time away from work
to help at home, feeling and seeing that Martha seemed “on the edge.” He took over many household
duties and was even more directive of Martha. Martha was obsessed with Amy’s feeling displaced by
Marie and gave in even more to Amy’s demands for attention. Martha and Amy began to get into
struggles over how available Martha could be to her. When Michael would get home at night, he would
take Amy off her mother’s hands and entertain her. He also began feeling neglected himself and
disappointed in Martha’s lack of coping skills.

Martha had done some drinking before she married Michael and after Amy was born, but she stopped
completely during the pregnancy with Marie. When Marie was a few months old, however, Martha
began drinking again, mostly wine during the evenings, and much more than in the past. She tried
somewhat to cover up her amount of drinking, feeling Michael would be critical of it. He was, accusing
her of not trying, not caring, and being selfish. Martha felt he was right. She was less and less able to
make decisions and more and more dependent on Michael. She felt he deserved better but also resented
his criticism and patronizing. She drank more, even during the day. Michael began calling her an
alcoholic.

ANALYSIS

The pattern of dysfunction in a spouse has emerged, with Martha making the most adjustments in her
functioning to preserve harmony in the marriage. It is easier for Martha to be the problem than to
stand up to Michael’s diagnosing her. Besides, she feels she really is the problem. As the pattern
unfolds, Michael increasingly overfunctions and Martha increasingly underfunctions. Michael is as
allergic to conflict as Martha is, opting to function for her rather than risk the disharmony he would
trigger by expecting her to function more responsibly.

By the time Amy and Marie were both in school, Martha reached a serious low point. She felt worthless
and out of control. She felt Michael did everything, but that she could not talk to him. Her doctor was
concerned about her physical health. Finally, Martha confided in him about the extent of her drinking.
Michael had been pushing her to get help, but Martha had reached a point of resisting almost all
Michael’s directives. However, her doctor scared her, and she decided to go to Alcoholics Anonymous.

Martha felt completely accepted by the AA group and greatly relieved to tell her story. She stopped
drinking almost immediately and developed a very close connection to her sponsor, an older woman.
She felt she could be herself with the people at AA in a way she could not with Michael. She began to
function much better at home and began a part-time job, but she also attended AA meetings frequently.
Michael had complained bitterly about her drinking, but now he complained about her preoccupation
with her newfound AA friends. Martha gained a certain strength from her new friends and was
encouraged by them to “stand up” to Michael. She did. They began fighting frequently. Martha felt
more like herself again. Michael was bitter.

ANALYSIS

Martha’s involvement with AA helped her stop drinking, but it did not solve the family problem. The
level of family tension has not changed, and the emotional distance in the marriage has not changed.
Because of “borrowing strength” from her AA group, Martha is more inclined to fight with Michael
than to go along and internalize the anxiety. This means the marital pattern has shifted somewhat from
dysfunction in a spouse to marital conflict, but the family has not changed in a basic way. In other
words, Martha’s level of differentiation of self has not changed through her AA involvement, but her
functioning has improved.

4. FAMILY PROJECTION PROCESS

The family projection process describes the primary way parents transmit their emotional problems to a
child. The projection process can impair the functioning of one or more children and increase their
vulnerability to clinical symptoms. Children inherit many types of problems (as well as strengths)
through their relationships with their parents, but the problems they inherit that most affect their lives
are relationship sensitivities such as heightened needs for attention and approval, difficulty dealing
with expectations, the tendency to blame oneself or others, feeling responsible for the happiness of
others or that others are responsible for one’s own happiness, and acting impulsively to relieve the
anxiety of the moment rather than tolerating anxiety and acting thoughtfully. If the projection process
is fairly intense, the child develops stronger relationship sensitivities than his parents. The sensitivities
increase the person’s vulnerability to symptoms by fostering behaviors that escalate chronic anxiety in
a relationship system.

The projection process follows three steps:

(1) the parent focuses on a child out of fear that something is wrong with the child;
(2) the parent interprets the child’s behavior as confirming the fear; and
(3) the parent treats the child as if something is really wrong with child.

These steps of scanning, diagnosing, and treating begin early in the child’s life and continue. The
parents’ fears and perceptions so shape the child’s development and behavior that she grows to embody
their fears and perceptions. One reason the projection process is a self-fulfilling prophecy is that
parents try to “fix” the problem they have diagnosed in the child. For example, perceiving a child to
have low self-esteem, parents repeatedly try to affirm the child, and the child’s self-esteem grows
dependent on their affirmation.
Parents often feel they have not given enough love, attention, or support to a child manifesting
problems. Rather, they have invested more time, energy, and worry in this child than in her siblings.
The siblings less involved in the family projection process have a more mature and reality-based
relationship with their parents. This fosters the siblings’ developing into less needy, less reactive, and
more goal-directed people. Both parents participate equally in the family projection process, but in
different ways. If the mother is the primary caregiver, she is more prone than the father to excessive
emotional involvement with one or more of the children. The father typically occupies the outside
position in the parental triangle, except during periods of heightened tension in the mother-child
relationship. Both parents are unsure of themselves in relationship to the child, but commonly one
parent acts sure of himself or herself and the other parent goes along. The intensity of the projection
process is unrelated to the amount of time the parents spend with a child.

Example

Michael, Martha, and Amy illustrate the family projection process. Martha’s anxiety about Amy began
before Amy was born. Martha feared she would transfer inadequacies she had felt as a child, and still
felt, to her child. This was one reason Martha had mixed feelings about being a mother. Like many
parents, Martha felt a mother’s most important task was to make her child feel loved. In the name of
showing love, she was acutely responsive to Amy’s desires for attention. If Amy seemed bored and out
of sorts, Martha was there with an idea or plan. She believed a child’s road to confidence and
independence was in the child’s feeling secure about herself. Martha did not recognize how sensitive
she was to any sign Amy might be upset or troubled, and how quickly she would move in to fix the
problem.

Martha loved Amy deeply. She and Amy often seemed like one person in the way they were attuned to
each other. As a very small toddler, Amy was as sensitive to her mother’s moods and wants as Martha
was to Amy’s.

ANALYSIS

Martha’s excessive involvement programed Amy to want much of her mother’s attention and to be
highly sensitive to her mother’s emotional state. Both mother and child acted to reinforce the intense
connection between them.

At some point, Martha became irritated at times by what Martha regarded as Amy’s “insatiable need”
for attention. Martha would try to distance from Amy’s neediness. She was unsuccessful because Amy
had ways to involve her mother with her. Martha flip-flopped between pleading with and cajoling Amy.
One minute she was angry; the next, she was directive of her. This seemed to lock them together even
more tightly. Martha looked to Michael to take over at such times. Despite calling Amy’s need for
attention insatiable, Martha felt Amy needed more of her time, and she faulted herself for not being
able to give enough. She wanted Michael’s help with the task. When Amy seemed upset with Martha,
Martha felt guilty and feared that they were no longer close companions. She wanted to soothe Amy
and feel close to her.

ANALYSIS

Martha blames Amy for the demands she makes on her, but at the same time feels she is failing Amy.
Martha tries to “fix” Amy’s problem by doing more of what she has been doing and solicits Michael’s
help in it. Martha is meeting many of her own needs for emotional closeness and companionship
through Amy. Thus she is distressed if Amy seems unhappy with her. Distance in the marriage
accentuates Martha’s need for Amy.

Martha’s second pregnancy made a reasonably manageable situation into an unmanageable one.
Meeting the needs of both children seemed impossible to Martha. She felt Amy already showed signs of
“inheriting” her insecurities. How had she failed her?

When it was time for Amy to start school, Martha sought long conferences with the kindergarten
teacher to plan the transition. If Amy balked at going to school, Martha became frightened, angry,
exasperated, and guilty. The kindergarten teacher felt she understood children like Amy and took great
interest in her. Amy was bright, thrived on the teacher’s attention, and performed well in school.
Martha had none of these fears when Marie started school and, not surprisingly, Marie had no school
transition problems. She did not seem to require as much of the teacher’s attention; she just pursued her
interests.

As Amy progressed through grade school, her adjustment to school seemed to depend heavily on the
teacher. If her teacher appeared to take an unusual interest in her, she performed well, If the teacher
treated her as one of the group, Amy would lose interest. Martha focused on making sure Amy got the
“right” teacher whenever possible. Marie’s performance did not depend on a particular teacher.

ANALYSIS

Martha’s feeling of inordinate responsibility for both children’s happiness reflects her difficulty being
a “self” with her children. This makes it extremely difficult for her to interact comfortably with two
children. Amy transfers the relationship intensity she has with her mother to her teachers. When a
teacher makes her feel special, she performs well. Without such a relationship, Amy performs less well.
Marie is not as involved with her mother, and her performance is less dependent on the relationship
environment at school and at home.

When Amy complained about how other kids treated her in school, Martha and Michael would talk to
her about not being so sensitive and tell her she should not care so much about what other people think.
If Amy had a special friend, she was extremely sensitive to that friend’s paying attention to another
little girl. Martha lectured Amy about being less sensitive but also planned outings and parties designed
to help Amy with her friendships. Michael criticized Martha for this, saying Amy should work out
these problems herself, but he basically went along with all Martha’s efforts.

ANALYSIS

The parents’ words do not match their actions. They lecture Amy about being less sensitive, but the
lectures belie their own anxieties about such issues and their doubts about Amy’s ability to cope.
Amy’s sensitivity to being in the outside position in a triangle with her playmates reflects her
programming for such relationship sensitivities in the parental triangle.

The turmoil in Martha and Amy’s relationship worsened in middle school. Amy began having academic
problems and complained about feeling lost in the larger school. She seemed unhappy to Martha.
Martha talked to Michael and to the pediatrician about getting therapy for Amy. They hired tutors in
two of her subjects, even though they knew that part of the problem was that Amy did not work hard in
those subjects. When Amy’s grades did not improve, Michael criticized her for not taking advantage of
the help they were giving and not appreciating them as parents. Martha scolded Michael for being too
hard on Amy, but inwardly she felt more critical of her than Michael. She had worked hard to prevent
these very problems. How could Amy disappoint her so? In summers, with no academic pressures,
Martha and Amy got along better.

ANALYSIS

Commonly parents get critical of a child with whom they have been excessively involved if the child’s
performance drops. They push for the child to have therapy or tutors rather than think about changes
they themselves need to make. Medicine, psychiatry, and the larger society usually reinforce the child
focus by defining the problem as in the child, often implying that the parents are not attentive and
caring enough.

Big changes occurred when Amy started high school. Martha felt Amy was telling her less of what was
happening in her life and that she was more sullen and withdrawn. Amy had a new group of girlfriends
that seemed less desirable to Martha. Amy had also found boys. Martha and Amy got into more
frequent conflicts. Amy felt controlled by her parents, not given the freedom to make her own decisions
and pick her own friends. She resented her mother’s obvious intrusions into her room when she was
out. She began lying to her mother to evade the rules. Martha was no longer drinking herself but
worried that Amy was using drugs and alcohol. When she challenged Amy about it, her challenges were
met with denials.

When Martha felt particularly overwhelmed by the situation, Michael would step in and try to lay down
the law to Amy. He accused Amy of not appreciating all they had done for her and of deliberately
trying to hurt them. He wanted to know “why” she disobeyed them. Amy would lash back at her father,
at which point Martha would intervene. Amy stayed away from the house more, told her parents less
and less, and got in with a fairly wild crowd. She acted out some of her parents’ worst fears but did not
feel particularly good about herself and what she was doing. Amy felt alienated from her parents. They
focused on her deteriorating grades with lectures and groundings, but Amy easily evaded these efforts
to control and change her.

ANALYSIS

The more intense the family projection process has been, the more intense the adolescent rebellion.
Parents typically blame the rebellion on adolescence, but the parents reactivity to the child fuels the
rebellion as much as the child’s reactivity. When the parents demand to know “why” Amy acts as she
does, they place the problem in Amy. Similarly, parents often blame the influence of peers, which also
places the problem outside themselves. Peers are an important influence, but a child’s vulnerability to
peer pressure is related to the intensity of the family process. An intense family process closes down
communication and isolates Amy from the family. Thus a child who is very intensely connected to his
parents can feel distant from them. The siblings who are less involved in the family problem navigate
adolescence more smoothly.

Michael and Martha became increasingly critical of Amy but also latched onto any signs she might be
doing a little better. They gave her her own phone, bought the clothes she “just had to have,” and gave
her a car for her sixteenth birthday. Many of these things were done in the name of making Amy feel
special and important, hoping that would motivate her to do better. Throughout all the turmoil
surrounding Amy, Marie presented few problems.
ANALYSIS

The parents’ permissiveness is just as important in perpetuating the problems in Amy as the critical
focus on her. As a teenager, Amy is as critical of her parents as they are of her. Marie is a more
mature person than Amy, but she is not free of the family problem. For example, she sides with her
parents in blaming Amy for the family turmoil.

5. MULTIGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION PROCESS

The concept of multigenerational transmission process describes how small differences in the levels of
differentiation between parents and their offspring lead over many generations to marked differences in
differentiation among the members of an extended family. The information creating these differences is
transmitted across generations through relationships. The transmission occurs on several interconnected
levels, ranging from the conscious teaching and learning of information to the automatic and
unconscious programming of emotional reactions and behaviors. Relationally and genetically
transmitted information interact to shape an individual’s “self.”

The combination of parents actively shaping the development of their offspring, offspring innately
responding to their parents’ moods, attitudes, and actions, and the long dependency period of human
offspring results in people’s developing levels of differentiation of self similar to their parents’.
However, the relationship patterns of nuclear family emotional systems often result in at least one
member of a sibling group developing a little more “self” and another member developing a little less
“self” than the parents.

People predictably select mates with levels of differentiation of self that match their own. Therefore, if
one offspring’s level of “self” is higher than the parents’ and another’s is lower, one offspring’s
marriage is more differentiated and the other’s marriage is less differentiated than the parents’
marriage. If each offspring then has a child who is more differentiated and a child who is less
differentiated than himself, one three generational line becomes progressively more differentiated (the
most differentiated child of the most differentiated offspring) and one line becomes progressively less
differentiated (the least differentiated child of the least differentiated offspring). As these processes
repeat over multiple generations, the differences between family lines grow increasingly marked.

Level of differentiation of self can affect longevity, marital stability, reproduction, health, educational
accomplishments, and occupational successes. This impact of differentiation on overall life functioning
explains the marked variation that typically exists in the lives of the members of a multigenerational
family. The highly differentiated people have unusually stable nuclear families and contribute much to
society. The poorly differentiated people have chaotic personal lives and depend heavily on others to
sustain them. A key implication of the multigenerational concept is that the roots of the most severe
human problems, as well as of the highest levels of human adaptation, are generations deep. The
multigenerational transmission process not only programs the levels of “self” people develop but also
how people interact with others. Both types of programming affect the selection of a spouse. For
example, if a family programs someone to attach intensely to others and to function in a helpless and
indecisive way, he will likely select a mate who not only attaches to him with equal intensity but who
also directs others and makes decisions for them.
Example

The multigenerational transmission process helps explain the particular patterns that have played out in
the nuclear family of Michael, Martha, Amy, and Marie. Martha is the youngest of three daughters from
an intact Midwestern family. From her teen years on, Martha did not feel close to either of her parents
but especially not to her mother. She experienced her mother as competent and caring but often
intrusive and critical. Martha felt she could not please her mother.

Her sisters seemed to feel more secure and competent than Martha. She asked herself how she could
grow up in a seemingly “normal” family and have so many problems. She answered herself that there
must be something wrong with her. When she faced important dilemmas and had to make decisions, her
mother got involved and strongly influenced Martha’s choices. Her mother said Martha should make
her own decisions, but her mother’s actions did not match her words. One of her mother’s biggest fears
was that Martha would make a wrong decision. In time, Martha’s sisters viewed her much like her
mother did and treated her as the baby of the family, who needed special guidance. Martha’s father was
sympathetic with her one-down position in the family but distanced from family tensions.

Martha detested herself for needing the acceptance and approval of others to function effectively and
for not acting more independently. She worried about making wrong decisions and turned frequently to
her mother for help.

ANALYSIS

The primary relationship pattern in Martha’s family of origin was impairment of one or more children,
and the projection process focused primarily on Martha. The mother’s overfunctioning promoted
Martha’s underfunctioning, but Martha largely blamed herself for her difficulties making decisions and
functioning independently. Martha’s intense need for approval and acceptance reflected the high level
of involvement with her mother. She managed the intensity with her mother with emotional distance.
These basic patterns were later replicated in her marriage and with Amy.

Martha’s mother is the oldest child in her family, whose own mother became a chronic invalid after her
last child was born. As a child, Martha’s mother functioned as a second mother in her family and, with
the encouragement of her father, did much of the caretaking of her invalid mother. Martha’s mother
basked in the approval she gained from both her parents, especially from her father. Her father was
often critical of his wife, insisting she could do more for herself. Martha’s grandmother responded by
taking to bed, often for days at a time. Martha’s mother learned to thrive on taking care of others and
being needed.

ANALYSIS

Martha’s mother probably had almost as intense an involvement with her parents as she subsequently
had with Martha, but the styles of the involvements were different. Two relationship patterns
dominated Martha’s mother’s nuclear family: dysfunction in one spouse and overinvolvement with a
child. Martha’s mother was intensely involved in the triangles with her parents and younger siblings
and in the position of overfunctioning for others. In other words, she learned to meet her needs for
emotional closeness by taking care of others, a pattern that played out with Martha.
Michael grew up as an only child in an intact family from the Pacific Northwest. He met Martha at
college in the Midwest. Michael’s mother began having frequent bouts of serious depression about the
time he started grade school. She was twice hospitalized psychiatrically, once after an overdose of
tranquilizers. Michael felt “allergic” to his mother’s many problems and kept his distance from her,
especially during adolescence. He cared about her and felt she would help him in any way she could,
but he viewed her as helpless and incompetent. He resented her “not trying harder.” He had a
reasonably comfortable relationship with his father but felt his father made the family situation worse
by opting for “peace at any price.” It was easier for his father to give in to his wife’s sometimes
childish demands than to draw a line with her. Michael related to his mother almost exactly as his
father did. His mother expressed resentment about her husband’s passivity. She accused him of not
really caring about her and only doing things for her because she demanded them. Michael’s mother
worshiped Michael and was jealous of interests and people that took him away from her.

ANALYSIS

Interestingly, Michael’s parental triangle was similar to Martha’s mother’s parental triangle. His
mother was intensely involved with him. This programmed Michael both to need this level of emotional
support from the important female in his life, but also to react critically to the female’s neediness.
Michael’s parental triangle also fostered a belief that he knew best.

Michael’s mother had been a “star” in her family when she was growing up. She was an excellent
student and athlete. She had a conflictual relationship with her mother and an idealized view of her
father. She met Michael’s father when they were both in college. He was two years older than she, and,
when he graduated, she quit school to marry him. The decision upset her parents. Michael’s father had
been at loose ends when he met his future wife, but she was what he needed. He built a very successful
business career with her emotional support. His functioning was higher in his work than in his family
life.

ANALYSIS

Michael’s father functioned on a higher level in his business life than in his family life, a discrepancy
that is commonly present in people with mid-range levels of differentiation of self.

6. EMOTIONAL CUTOFF

The concept of emotional cutoff describes how people manage their unresolved emotional issues with
parents, siblings, and other family members by reducing or totally cutting off emotional contact with
them. Emotional contact can be reduced by moving away from family and rarely going home, or it can
be reduced by staying in physical contact with family but avoiding sensitive issues. Relationships may
look “better” if people cutoff to manage them, but the problems are dormant, not resolved.

When people reduce the tensions of family interactions by cutting off, they 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. This makes him vulnerable to pressuring
them to be certain ways for him or accommodating their expectations of him out of fear of jeopardizing
the relationships. New relationships are typically smooth in the beginning, but the patterns people have
tried to escape eventually emerge and generate tensions. People who are cut off may try to stabilize
their intimate relationships by creating substitute “families” in social and work relationships.

Everyone has some degree of unresolved attachment to his or her original family, but well-
differentiated people have much more resolution than less differentiated people. An unresolved
attachment can take many forms. For example, (1) a person feels more like a child when he is home and
looks to his parents to make decisions for him that he can make for himself, or (2) a person feels guilty
when he is in more contact with his parents and feels he must solve their conflicts or distresses, or (3) a
person feels enraged that his parents do not seem to understand or approve of him. An unresolved
attachment relates to the immaturity of both the parents and the adult child, but people typically blame
themselves or others for the problems.

People often look forward to going home, hoping things will be different, but old interactions usually
surface within hours. This may take the form of surface harmony with powerful emotional
undercurrents, or it may deteriorate into shouting matches and hysterics. Both the person and his family
may feel exhausted after even a brief visit. It may be easier for parents if an adult child keeps her
distance. They get so anxious and reactive when she is home that they are relieved when she leaves.
The siblings of a highly cut off member often get furious when he is home, blaming him for upsetting
the parents. People do not want it to be this way, but the sensitivities of all parties preclude comfortable
contact.

Example

Neither Michael nor Martha wanted to live near their families. When Michael got a good job offer on
the East Coast, both were eager to move there. They told their families they were moving away because
of Michael’s job, but they welcomed physical distance from their families. Michael felt guilty about
living far away from his parents. His parents, especially his mother, were upset about it. Michael called
home every weekend and managed to combine business trips with brief stays with them. He did not
look forward to the phone calls and usually felt depressed afterward. He felt his mother deliberately put
him on “guilt trips” by emphasizing how poorly she was doing and how much she missed him. She
never failed to ask if his company could transfer him closer to home. It was less depressing for Michael
to talk to his father, but they talked mostly about Michael’s job and what his Dad was doing in
retirement.

ANALYSIS

Michael blamed his mother for the problems in their relationship and, despite his guilt, felt justified
distancing from her. People commonly have a “stickier” unresolved emotional attachment with their
mothers than their fathers because of the way the parental triangle usually operates, with the mother
too involved with the child and the father in the outside position.

In the early years, Martha would sometimes participate in Michael’s phone calls home but, as her
problems mounted, she usually left the calls to Michael. Michael did not say much to his parents about
Martha’s drinking or the tensions in their marriage. He would report how the kids were doing. Michael,
Martha, and the kids usually made one visit to Michael’s parents each year. They did not look forward
to those four days, but Michael’s mother thrived on having them. Martha never spoke to Michael’s
parents about her drinking or the marital tensions, but she talked at length about Amy to Michael’s
mother. Amy often developed middle ear infections during or soon after these trips.
ANALYSIS

Frequently one or more family members get sick leading up to, during, or soon after trips home. Amy
was more vulnerable because of the anxious focus on her.

Martha followed a pattern similar to Michael’s in dealing with her family. One difference was that her
parents came east fairly often. When they came, Martha’s mother would get more worried about Martha
and critical of both her drinking and how she was raising Amy. Martha dreaded these exchanges with
her mother and complained to Michael for days after her parents returned home. Deep down, however,
Martha felt her mother was right about her deficiencies. Martha’s mother pumped Michael for
information about her daughter when Martha was reluctant to talk. Michael was all too willing to
discuss Martha’s perceived shortcomings with her mother.

ANALYSIS

Given the striking parallels between the unresolved issues in Michael’s relationship with his family,
Martha’s relationship with her family, and the issues in their marriage, emotional cutoff clearly did
not solve any problems. It simply shifted the problems to their marital relationship and to Amy.
Sibling Position

Bowen theory incorporates the research of psychologist Walter Toman as a foundation for its concept
of sibling position. Bowen observed the impact of sibling position on development and behavior in his
family research. However, he found Toman’s work so thorough and consistent with his ideas that he
incorporated it into his theory. The basic idea is that people who grow up in the same sibling position
predictably have important common characteristics. For example, oldest children tend to gravitate to
leadership positions and youngest children often prefer to be followers. The characteristics of one
position are not “better” than those of another position but are complementary. For example, a boss
who is an oldest child may work unusually well with a first assistant who is a youngest child. Youngest
children may like to be in charge, but their leadership style typically differs from an oldest’s style.

Toman’s research showed that spouses’ sibling positions affect the chance of their divorcing. For
example, if an older brother of a younger sister marries a younger sister of an older brother, less chance
of a divorce exists than if an older brother of a brother marries an older sister of a sister. The sibling or
rank positions are complementary in the first case, and each spouse is familiar with living with
someone of the opposite sex. In the second case, however, the rank positions are not complementary
and neither spouse grew up with a member of the opposite sex. An older brother of a brother and an
older sister of a sister are prone to battle over who is in charge; two youngest children are prone to
struggle over who gets to lean on whom.

People in the same sibling position, of course, exhibit marked differences in functioning. The concept
of differentiation can explain some of the differences. For example, rather than being comfortable with
responsibility and leadership, an oldest child who is anxiously focused on may grow up to be markedly
indecisive and highly reactive to expectations. Consequently, his younger brother may become a
“functional oldest,” filling a void in the family system. He is the chronologically younger child but
develops more characteristics of an oldest child than his older brother. A youngest child who is
anxiously focused on may become an unusually helpless and demanding person. In contrast, two mature
youngest children may cooperate extremely effectively in a marriage and be at very low risk for a
divorce.
Middle children exhibit the functional characteristics of two sibling positions. For example, if a girl has
an older brother and a younger sister, she usually has some of the characteristics of both a younger
sister of a brother and an older sister of a sister. The sibling positions of a person’s parents are also
important to consider. An oldest child whose parents are both youngests encounters a different set of
parental expectations than an oldest child whose parents are both oldests.

Example

Knowledge of Michael and Martha’s sibling positions and those of their parents increases
understanding of how things played out in their lives. Martha is the youngest of three girls and the most
focused on child in her family. Furthermore, Martha’s mother is the oldest of four siblings, with a
mother who was a chronic invalid. Martha’s mother was a not very well differentiated oldest daughter.
Her life energy focused on taking care of and directing others to the point that she unwittingly
undermined the functioning of her youngest daughter. Martha played out the opposite side of the
problem by becoming an indecisive, helpless, and mostly self-blaming person. Martha’s father was the
youngest brother in a family of five children.

ANALYSIS

Martha, by virtue of her mother’s focus on her, has the moderately exaggerated traits of a youngest
child. Furthermore, her father’s being a youngest and her mother an oldest favored her mother’s
functioning setting the tone in the family. In other words, her mother was quicker to act than her father
in the face of problems.

Michael is an only child who, like Martha’s mother, was raised in a family with a mother who had
many problems. Michael’s father is the younger brother of a sister and his mother is the older sister of a
brother. Michael’s mother was the child more focused on when she was growing up, a focus that took
the form of high performance expectations coupled with family anxiety about her ability to meet those
expectations. In many ways, Michael’s father was quite dependent on his wife for affirmation and
direction, even when she was depressed and overwhelmed. As an only child, the pattern of functioning
in the triangle with his parents was the major influence on Michael’s development. His emotional
programming in that triangle made him a perfect fit with Martha.

ANALYSIS

Michael’s only child position makes him a somewhat reluctant leader in his nuclear family. He wants
Martha to function better and to take more responsibility. He is unhappy feeling the pressure himself.
Despite being in the one-up position in the marriage, he is as dependent on Martha as his father was
dependent on his wife.

7. SIBLING POSITION

Bowen theory incorporates the research of psychologist Walter Toman as a foundation for its concept
of sibling position. Bowen observed the impact of sibling position on development and behavior in his
family research. However, he found Toman’s work so thorough and consistent with his ideas that he
incorporated it into his theory. The basic idea is that people who grow up in the same sibling position
predictably have important common characteristics. For example, oldest children tend to gravitate to
leadership positions and youngest children often prefer to be followers. The characteristics of one
position are not “better” than those of another position but are complementary. For example, a boss
who is an oldest child may work unusually well with a first assistant who is a youngest child. Youngest
children may like to be in charge, but their leadership style typically differs from an oldest’s style.

Toman’s research showed that spouses’ sibling positions affect the chance of their divorcing. For
example, if an older brother of a younger sister marries a younger sister of an older brother, less chance
of a divorce exists than if an older brother of a brother marries an older sister of a sister. The sibling or
rank positions are complementary in the first case, and each spouse is familiar with living with
someone of the opposite sex. In the second case, however, the rank positions are not complementary
and neither spouse grew up with a member of the opposite sex. An older brother of a brother and an
older sister of a sister are prone to battle over who is in charge; two youngest children are prone to
struggle over who gets to lean on whom.

People in the same sibling position, of course, exhibit marked differences in functioning. The concept
of differentiation can explain some of the differences. For example, rather than being comfortable with
responsibility and leadership, an oldest child who is anxiously focused on may grow up to be markedly
indecisive and highly reactive to expectations. Consequently, his younger brother may become a
“functional oldest,” filling a void in the family system. He is the chronologically younger child but
develops more characteristics of an oldest child than his older brother. A youngest child who is
anxiously focused on may become an unusually helpless and demanding person. In contrast, two mature
youngest children may cooperate extremely effectively in a marriage and be at very low risk for a
divorce.

Middle children exhibit the functional characteristics of two sibling positions. For example, if a girl has
an older brother and a younger sister, she usually has some of the characteristics of both a younger
sister of a brother and an older sister of a sister. The sibling positions of a person’s parents are also
important to consider. An oldest child whose parents are both youngests encounters a different set of
parental expectations than an oldest child whose parents are both oldests.

Example

Knowledge of Michael and Martha’s sibling positions and those of their parents increases
understanding of how things played out in their lives. Martha is the youngest of three girls and the most
focused on child in her family. Furthermore, Martha’s mother is the oldest of four siblings, with a
mother who was a chronic invalid. Martha’s mother was a not very well differentiated oldest daughter.
Her life energy focused on taking care of and directing others to the point that she unwittingly
undermined the functioning of her youngest daughter. Martha played out the opposite side of the
problem by becoming an indecisive, helpless, and mostly self-blaming person. Martha’s father was the
youngest brother in a family of five children.

ANALYSIS

Martha, by virtue of her mother’s focus on her, has the moderately exaggerated traits of a youngest
child. Furthermore, her father’s being a youngest and her mother an oldest favored her mother’s
functioning setting the tone in the family. In other words, her mother was quicker to act than her father
in the face of problems.
Michael is an only child who, like Martha’s mother, was raised in a family with a mother who had
many problems. Michael’s father is the younger brother of a sister and his mother is the older sister of a
brother. Michael’s mother was the child more focused on when she was growing up, a focus that took
the form of high performance expectations coupled with family anxiety about her ability to meet those
expectations. In many ways, Michael’s father was quite dependent on his wife for affirmation and
direction, even when she was depressed and overwhelmed. As an only child, the pattern of functioning
in the triangle with his parents was the major influence on Michael’s development. His emotional
programming in that triangle made him a perfect fit with Martha.

ANALYSIS

Michael’s only child position makes him a somewhat reluctant leader in his nuclear family. He wants
Martha to function better and to take more responsibility. He is unhappy feeling the pressure himself.
Despite being in the one-up position in the marriage, he is as dependent on Martha as his father was
dependent on his wife.

8. SOCIETAL EMOTIONAL PROCESS

Each concept in Bowen theory applies to such nonfamily groups as work and social organizations. The
concept of societal emotional process describes how the emotional system governs behavior in whole
societies. Cultural forces are important in how a society functions but are insufficient to explain the ebb
and flow in how well societies adapt to the challenges they face. Bowen’s first clue about parallels
between familial and societal emotional functioning came from observing families with juvenile
delinquents. The parents in such families give children the message, “We love you no matter what you
do.” Despite impassioned lectures about responsibility and sometimes harsh punishments, parents give
in to the child more than they hold the line. The child rebels against the parents and adeptly senses their
uncertainty in their positions. The child feels controlled and lies to get around the parents. He is
indifferent to their punishments. The parents are largely ineffectual in controlling the child.

Bowen saw that during the 1960s courts became more like the parents of delinquents. Many in the
juvenile court system considered the delinquent a victim of bad parents. They tried to understand him
and often reduced the consequences of his actions, hoping to effect change in his behavior. If the
delinquent became a frequent offender, the legal system, much like the parents, expressed its
disappointment and imposed harsh penalties. Recognition of a change in this societal institution led
Bowen to notice similar changes in others, such as schools and governments. The downward spiral in
families dealing with delinquency is an anxiety-driven regression in functioning. In a regression,
people act to relieve the anxiety of the moment rather than acting on principle and taking a long-term
view. A regressive pattern began unfolding in society after World War II. It worsened during the 1950s
and rapidly intensified in the 1960s. The “symptoms” of societal regression include a growth of crime
and violence, an increasing divorce rate, a more litigious attitude, a greater polarization between racial
groups, less principled decision-making by leaders, increased drug abuse and bankruptcies, and a focus
on rights over responsibilities.

Human societies undergo periods of regression and progression over their histories. The current
regression seems to be fueled by anxiety related to such factors as exploding population, a sense of
diminishing frontiers, and the depletion of natural resources. Bowen predicted humans would deal
symptomatically with crises growing out of the regression until forced to address the anxiety feeding it.
He predicted that a final major crisis would come as soon as the middle of the twenty-first century and
that the type of human who survived would be one who could live in better harmony with nature.

Example

It is more difficult for families to raise children in a period of societal regression than in a calmer
period. A loosening of standards in society increases the difficulty of less differentiated parents like
Michael and Martha in holding a line with their children. Grade inflation in many schools makes it
easier for students to maintain grades with less work. In the litigious climate, schools that try to hold to
standards for their students often face lawsuits from irate parents. The prevalence of drug and alcohol
abuse adds to parents’ worry about about their adolescents. The current societal regression is
characterized by an increased child focus in the culture. Much anxiety exists about the future
generation. Parents are criticized for being too busy with their own pursuits to be adequately available
to their children, both for support and to monitor their activities. When children like Amy report feeling
alienated from parents and their values, parents’ critics fail to appreciate the emotional intensity that
generates such alienation.

Some people advocate for more focus on children by citing the many problems young people have.
Using children’s problems to justify increased focus on them is precisely what many parents already
have been doing. Young people’s increased problems are part of an emotional process in society as a
whole. A more constructive direction would be for people to examine their own contributions to
societal regression and work on themselves rather than focusing on the future generation.