Re-evaluating Some Things

For over 12 years I have studied Bowen Family Systems Theory.

I first delved into this train of thought on my internship by reading Ed Friedman's Generation to Generation and Friedman's Fables.   There are many concepts of this way of looking at life that I have found extremely helpful as I have fulfilled the role of pastor in the congregations I have served.

I believe being as non-axious as possible as a leader is important for the health of a congregation.

I believe in being well defined as a leader.

I believe one's family dynamics has a very strong role in how one interacts with others within a given system.

I believe in taking responsibility for one's self and not taking on the anxiety of another; although one can certainly strive to be helpful in dealing with another person's problems.

I believe it's important for a person to state what he or she believes without forcing someone else to believe the same thing.

These are just a few snippets of the way of thinking that have made life a lot easier in the role I function in.  Yet, there have been some disturbing criticisms I have come to see with the train of thought--criticisms which are making me re-evaluate whether or not I want to continue in the study of said theory.

Right and Wrong

Bowen family systems theory teaches a person to focus on the characteristics of the system and not on the behavior of individuals within the system.  A condensed version of this train of thought is found in Friedman's Fables under the title "The Friendly Forest."  In this short parable, a tiger moves into a forest full of other animals.  Most of the animals are happy because their forest didn't have a tiger; they are now more diverse.  However, the lamb has an issue.  The lamb isn't so happy about the tiger being there.  The lamb really gets nervous when the tiger comes by and growls and looks at her.  She complains to her friends about the tiger, but they tell her she's too sensitive.  After all, the tiger hasn't hurt her physically or anything.  Perhaps she needs to communicate with the tiger and work things out.  As the story winds through, Friedman ends with this:

Though one of the less subtle animals in the forest, more uncouth in expression and unconcerned about just who remained, was overheard to remark, "I never heard of anything so ridiculous.  If you want a lamb and a tiger to live in the same forest, you don't try to make them communicate.  You cage the bloody tiger.

In one of our classes, we discussed this parable and its implications.  One of the questions given to us was, "If the tiger eats the lamb, whose fault is it?"

Is it the tiger's fault for doing what he does?

Is it the lamb's fault for not leaving?

Is it the rest of the animals' fault because they refuse to do anything about it?

Of course, a tiger is a tiger.  He's eventually going to eat the lamb.  Is he right in doing such a thing?  Is he wrong for doing what he does? 

Extrapolate this thinking into society and onto an understanding of morals and values.  Can one hold to Bowen Family Systems Theory and be a proponent of morals, values, justice, truth, and so on?  I'm not sure--especially since Systems Theory tends toward self-definition and not societal definition.  This is problematic.

Homeostasis

One of the other tenets of Bowen Family Systems Theory that I have begun to find problematic is the idea of homeostasis. 

The definition of homeostasis for BFST is this:  The tendency of any set of relationships to strive perpetually, in self-corrective ways, to preserve the organizing principles of its existence

This understanding is rooted and grounded in the biological/ecological understanding of homeostasis.

As my teacher says, "Systems imitate life, and we need to be aware of this."

There is one problem with this train of thought: life doesn't do homeostasis.  It's always in flux.  As far as we know, it always has been.

Delving down to the quantum level, this becomes plain as day.  Nearly everything wants to stay at the lowest energy levels possible.  This is true even in the atom.  Within the atom, electrons stay at certain levels, but they can only maintain staying at those levels because protons shoot between them and the nucleus to keep them in "orbit."  If those photons didn't do what they do, the atoms would collapse.  At the quantum level, things cannot be static or else they collapse.  The fundamental organizing principle of the universe is to be moving and interacting. 

Now, how does this come into play with BFST?  I'm not sure.  I've got to think it through.  Some might not even care.  "Just use what you find helpful and don't worry about the rest."  I could approach things that way, but I personally like integrity throughout, and I'll have to work it through to see if such a thing can be had.

We'll see.  I think things can be tweaked to make things work out, but at this point, I haven't thought through it enough.  Stay tuned.