Syracuse
Family
Center

Home
Membership
Articles      
Newsletters
Listserv
Links
FAQ

Bowen Family Systems Theory: Implications For Policy

Randi Bregman, CSW
Coordinator of the Syracuse Area Domestic Violence Coalition
215 Palmer Drive
Fayetteville, New York 13066
(315) 637- 4645 or (315) 425-0818

September 4, 1990
Edited version August 30, 1995
James H. Amodio, MPS, Editor

Introduction

The Bowen Family Systems Theory has been part of a movement that has re-shaped the way we understand human behavior. Though the theory is relevant to human behavior at every level, most of those trained in Bowen's theory are doing clinical work with individuals and families. This paper seeks to explore implications of Bowen's theory for larger systems and policy making.

Nature-Nurture

One critical aspect of applying Bowen Theory to policy is a recognition of our ties to other living systems and the very powerful impact that nature has on the policy decisions we make. Rather than advocate for one side or the other in the nature-nurture debate, I would like to take the position that we can not begin to make intelligent policy choices without an appreciation of the roles of both instinct and learning on human behavior. Because the role of instinct is the one slighted by most contemporary policy theorists, I choose to focus on its relevance.

Before one can talk openly about the meaning of behavioral biology and/or natural systems, it is important to acknowledge the extensive abuses of the past. Racism based on supposed separate evolutionary origins of various races and Social Darwinism are prime examples of these abuses. Unfortunately, "knowing that some ideas in behavioral biology are true (and that) truth is essential to logical action...does not mean that these ideas cannot be easily distorted so that they still sound true but are false; nor does it mean that false and evil acts cannot arise from them even if they are left undistorted." (Konner, 1982, p. 439)

However, the risk of abuse is not a justification for ignoring the role of biology in human behavior. People with racist or elitist agendas will always find an avenue for making them public - the more we understand the language they speak and have access to the information necessary to challenge their assertions, the better prepared we will be to deal realistically with the challenges they pose.

Stephen Gould reinforces this point in his writings on natural history (1977) when he expresses concern about the potential for biological determinism to be used, as it has in the past, to blame the victim and eliminate society's responsibility to address social problems. On the contrary, it is my hope that increased knowledge about natural history will enable society to act more responsibly to address social problems by encouraging more informed policy decisions.

Recent writers on biology and natural history seem to be steering away from the nature-nurture dichotomy by focussing on the inter-relationship between genetics and environment (Konner, 1982; Gould, 1977; Masters, 1989). They focus on how non genetic adaptation can lead genetic evolution because initial conditions for genetic change can create behavioral change within individual life spans. Emphasis is on evolution as a process.

Konner responds to the work of learning theorists who espouse the view that nature is irrelevant by asserting that the categories of stimuli that will reinforce behavior are determined by the genes. He cites experiments which found that rats could not learn the avoidance response when a bad taste preceded a shock or a combination of light and sound preceded a feeling of nausea. The ability to learn the avoidance response was limited to some degree by genetics. Konner suggest that natural selection vary likely had no opportunity to favor rats who could associate lights and sounds with nausea. (1982).

The interaction of genes and environment is clear through observation of the range of social organization present among animals sharing a common genetic make-up but living in different environments. For example, on the savannah, baboons maintain a sophisticated coalition-based dominance structure while a disorderly hodgepodge is the norm in the forest (Konner, 1982). Roger Masters (1989) presents the example of the adaptations of marmots to varied environments. The Olympic marmot, living under harsh conditions, has developed an elaborate colony structure and lives a very "social" life while the woodchuck, of the marmot species, has lived in a favorable environment which has resulted in population dispersion and individualistic behavior (Masters, 1989).

The above examples of diversity among marmots and baboons under different environmental conditions have important implications for policy makers. If we can focus momentarily on our connections to other living systems, rather than on our distinctions from them, we must confront the question of where our society falls on the individualist-social continuum and how compatible that seems with present environmental circumstances. Raising the question does not mean that the answer will follow readily, but thinking about questions resulting from an increased understanding of other living systems is an important step in the process of integrating this knowledge into policy decisions. Of course, finding a range of reaction among species members does not mean ultimate freedom. I think this is also a critical lesson for policy makers - recognizing both the freedom and limitations imposed by nature and incorporating this understanding into planning for the future.

Some limitations believed to be imposed "by nature" may in fact be closely tied to environmental constraints. Studies have shown that environmental conditions can have an effect on everything from the development of brain structure to stress responsiveness. In one study rat pups were raised in either a rich environment or a poor environment (determined by the presence of toys and other pups), and these different environments resulted in differences in the brain. Brain cells were the same in terms of basic placement and structure, which is determined by genes, but finer aspects of [their] structure had changed. The rich environment resulted in more small branches far out along main trunks of dendrites. On these branches, more spines could be counted for each unit of length (spines being for the insertion of incoming messages) (Konner, 1982).

In another rat study cited by Konner, the possibility was raised that the stress-responsiveness of the adrenal gland stressed in infancy had been exhausted ("toughened") to some extent during those early experiences and thus expanded less during adult stress. The experimenters hypothesized that the response is dependent on the degree of stress: early-stressed rats may not mobilize hormonal responses fully until needed (1982). These experiments establish that experimental modification can pilot genetic change; this is an important concept for policy makers who may fear biological determinism will result from increased understanding of living systems. In fact, the studies cited above strengthen the case for policies with goals of improving environmental circumstances by indicating that such improvements may result in positive changes well beyond prior expectations.

Not only can environmental circumstances pilot genetic change, but the discovery of a genetic cause of a disorder may sometimes provide the best hope of an environmental treatment of it. Phenylketonuria (PKU), a severe form of mental retardation, is caused by a single gene mutation because of which phenylalanine (an amino acid) cannot be processed. An environmental change - keeping phenylalanine out of a baby's diet - can prevent mental retardation (Konner, 1982).

Biological Potentiality

In raising the issues of biology, genes and "lessons from nature", I have tried to make it clear that I reject the view that recognizing the role of biology in human behavior means that there is no point in working toward change. My point, in fact, is just the opposite: efforts at change will be more effective if they are based on the lessons nature offers. Stephen Gould suggests the term biological potentiality, as opposed to biological determinism, stressing that everything we do lies within our biological potential (1977).

Consistent with the concept of biological potentiality. Masters (1989) suggests the following implications of biology for the social sciences: 1) analyze each aspect of human life without a priori assumptions concerning cultural or natural status of processes involved and giving full consideration to interactive effects; 2) do not overestimate the importance of conscious intentions; 3) respect individual and cultural differences based on relativism and humility; and 4) recognize that standards of natural justice are probably most useful in identifying injustice (e.g. denial of bonding, voice or ability to exit).

Masters also responds specifically to the possibility of biology playing a role in potential bias by asserting that we "cannot know which genes will turn out, in future environments, to be essential for continued human life" and thus must value diversity because "variation is essential to every living species; homogeneous gene pools are peculiarly vulnerable to unanticipated disaster" (1989, p. 237)

Adding credence to Gould's concept of biopotentiality. Konner points out that "vast realms of behavior, thought and feeling are regularly outside of awareness, keeping in mind that 'outside of awareness' is not synonymous with 'out of control'" (1982, p. 183)

Here again is a critical point for policy makers. In order to take more control over what is happening currently, as well as what the future will bring, policy makers must confront how much decision making is currently based on factors outside of our awareness. Our potential for change is greatly increased by our accepting the degree of influence "out of awareness" factors have had to date and working hard to bring these factors into our awareness where we can confront them. This concept fits closely with Bowen's emphasis on using our capacity to think to move us beyond gut - level reactions.

To sum up, a simple nature-nurture dichotomy is no longer tenable as the interrelationship between the two has been well established. The more we understand how biological and other natural causes affect human behavior, the better able we will be to make conscious choices about our actions. Recognizing the role of natural forces also helps to explain why so much goes on in the world that does not make sense given human knowledge and intelligence. Lastly, a natural perspective provides a solid foundation for a respect of variation and diversity, critical components of a healthy gene pool.

Lessons from Nature

Once we accept that understanding other living systems will help us understand ourselves, we can pull lessons from nature in several areas. In this section, the author will focus on what we can learn in terms of the following: 1) our notion of politics; 2) the impact of crowding on behavior; 3) the need for physical contact demonstrated among an array of species; 4) Bowen's societal projection concept; 5) an appreciation of the complexity of the human condition; 6) an acceptance of change being part of nature; and 7) a deeper understanding of sexual orientation, sex differences and violence in terms of their natural components.

"Politics"

According to sociologist Guy Richards, "humanism implies naturalism, the belief that the world can be explained in natural ways...(including) the idea of a oneness and continuity of the universe and of all forms of matter from the simplest to the most complex..." (Richards, 1982, p. 27). It is this naturalist aspect of humanism that has contributed to the development of an entire field, termed "biopolitics", committed to incorporating variables from the life sciences into the study of political phenomena. Thomas C. Wiegle, author of Biopolitics: Search for a More Human Political Science, argues that political science has been antihumanistic by not taking into account biological aspects of political behavior (1979).

Frans de Waal's Chimpanzee Politics Power and Sex Among Apes goes a long way in debunking the myth that our political system is based primarily on human reason and intellect. De Waal describes observations of everything from coalition building to baby kissing among the chimps he has studied (1982).

Much of Chimpanzee Politics is devoted to tracing the history of power struggles among Luit, Nickie and Yeroen, the three dominant male chimps at Arnhem Zoo. For example, when Luit was looking to move ahead politically, he would be violent and obnoxious with the females only when they associated with his rival. On other occasions his behavior toward them was quite positive and included grooming them and playing with their children. De Waal reports that the "positive contacts sometimes took place at moments of tactical importance" (1982, p. 99). Once in power Luit was impartial in his interventions or supported losers which helped solidify his power base. The outcome of fights was determined in many ways by social relationship: the social climate affected self-confidence, and effectiveness seemed to depend on the attitude of the group (de Waal, 1982).

De Waal and his colleagues also noted the following behaviors which might have previously been thought to be exclusively human: an ability to contain aggression when politically necessary, as evidenced by restricted use of canines; "keeping up appearances" in front of the group before "throwing a temper tantrum" privately in response to losing a fight; mediation and separating interventions (1982).

The "political" behavior of chimps presented by de Waal clearly demonstrates that politics has ties to non-human systems. Bowen theory takes our understanding of politics even further by forcing us to acknowledge that human beings make up our political systems, and lessons about togetherness-individuality needs and emotional reactivity apply as well to politicians as they do to mental health clients. This point will be addressed more fully later in the paper, but I will note here that recognizing the need for togetherness provides a foundation for understanding political parties. The fact that such a wide range of belief systems can exist within one political party cannot be explained without considering the comfort provided by "being part of the group".

Crowding

The balance between individuality and togetherness is also relevant to the issue of how crowding affects our functioning. Given the fact that the population of the earth was 5.2 billion at the end of 1989, and another billion will have been added by the end of the century (Pike, 1989), crowding and lack of space are expected to become more and more pressing policy agenda items. If we can once again look to non-human systems to broaden our understanding, studies have demonstrated that reducing available space changes animal behavior. De Waal found, for example, that aggressive incidents were nearly two times as common during the winter, when chimps slept in a building 1/20 of the size of the open-air enclosure, as they were in summer (1982).

Need for Contact

While crowding may provide an illustration of problems resulting from too much togetherness, negative effects associated with lack of physical contact and/or nurturance indicate that the other end of the continuum, too little togetherness, is also problematic. Harlow's study of rhesus monkeys found that males who were raised motherless or without peers did not develop normally and did not seem to know how to initiate sexual activity (Konner, 1982). De Waal noted that the only thing that rapidly calms a frightened chimp is physical contact with another chimp (1982). Physical contact is so important that birds and monkeys studied both increased contact with their "maternal figure" if there were negative reinforcements even with the mother as the source of negative reinforcements (despite the clear violation of learning theory) (Konner, 1982).

Societal Projection Process

The need for policy to recognize both ends of the togetherness-individuality continuum, the impact of crowding and the requirement for physical contact, is indicated by the studies cited. This desire for togetherness is also directly relevant to Bowen's concept of the societal projection process. In the societal projection process, as in the family projection process, one person or group in the system is focused on as the cause of the problem. The group feels increased togetherness and increased strength as they focus on the weakness of the other, but they are then unable to deal with the basic issues confronting them (Kerr, K., 1982).

Bowen views the targeted person(s) as scapegoats and argues that the biggest group of societal scapegoats are the institutionalized mentally ill (Bowen, 1974). Of course this principle also applies to minority groups of all kinds who are scapegoated both by the majority and by other minority groups.

Complexity and Change

Beyond the togetherness-individuality continuum, lessons from other living systems also indicate the complexity policy makers must confront. Causal processes are operating simultaneously at the levels of ecosystem, species, group and individual (Masters, 1989). This complexity requires policy to be based on probability rather than causality because deterministic relationships are nearly impossible to establish in this context.

Appreciating complexity could lead to a passive acceptance of the status quo because change seems all the more difficult. Yet evolutionary biology teaches the importance of change as well as continuity (Masters, 1989). De Waal points out that respect for natural laws does not preclude humanity's exceeding them, as evidenced by the existence of airplanes (1982). Given current environmental conditions, coupled with the world's ever-increasing population, policy makers must appreciate the importance of change from an evolutionary perspective. Without change our survival as a species is in question.

Sex and Violence

Some areas in which policy makers regularly confront a desire for change are violence in its many forms and discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation. Before drafting policy, one should consider that writers on living systems have found evidence of homosexual contacts, differences between the sexes and some type of violence present in many of the forms of life studied (de Waal, 1982; Konner, 1982; Masters, 1989).

Researchers have discovered, among a variety of species, examples of sexual contact among members of the same sex as well as the possibility of same-sex coupling (Fossey, 1983; de Waal, 1982; Van Lawick-Goodall, 1971; Keoles, 1986; Wendt; 1965). Mutual stimulation has been found among female lizards, mountain sheep, pygmy chimps, macaques and gorillas (Fossey, 1983; Keoles, 1986; Wendt; 1965). Fossey found that nearly all of the females regularly observed before labor mounted other females and that the mounted nonpregnant females "appeared to respond actively to the attention, as shown by their copulatory vocalizations or thrusting responses" (1983, p. 191).

What appears to be same-sex coupling was discovered among western gulls (Keoles, 1986). Most gulls form heterosexual monogamous pairs and lay two or three eggs in a clutch. Interestingly, among clutches studied, up to 14% contained between four and six eggs, most of which never hatched. Further study revealed that the unhatched eggs belonged to paired gulls, of whom both were female, and the pairs remained together for consecutive seasons exhibiting "most of the courtship and territorial habits of heterosexual gulls" (Keoles, 1986, p. 203).

McBride and Hebb observed two male dolphins which were inseparable and "showed no interest at all in the females that had been placed with them, but instead tried to copulate with one another..." (Wendt, 1965, p. 299). De Waal (1982) described Pruist, an adult female chimp who refused to mate, as "behaving in a lesbian fashion...When another adult female shows a genital swelling, Pruist may invite her to have sexual intercourse. Sometimes the female accepts and then Pruist mounts her briefly, thrusting in the same way as males do when mating" (p. 64).

The presence of same-sex contact and coupling among non-human species places policy discussions on this issue in a different context than that in which they currently occur. It is the author's hope that information such as that presented in the preceding paragraphs will encourage an acceptance of difference based in natural systems.

On the subject of sex differences, De Waal noted that the female chimps at Arnhem were unable to lead effectively because they ended up being far more violent and aggressive than their male counterparts (1982). Interestingly, Konner (1982) agrees with de Waal about differences existing between the sexes, but he sees males as the aggressive, violent sex among the species he observed: humans. For Konner, the policy implication of the male propensity to violence is that serious disarmament may ultimately involve an increase in the proportion of women in government. Concerning women already in government, Konner argues that past women rulers "have invariably been embedded in and bound by an almost totally masculine power structure and have gotten where they were by being unrepresentative of their gender...we would all be safer if the world's weapons systems were controlled by average women instead of by average men" (1982, p. 126).

Konner's point about women rulers being unrepresentative of their gender and bound by masculine structures may be relevant to de Waal's observations of the female chimps at Arnhem. They were thrust into leadership due to unusual circumstances existing at Arnhem (i.e. sheer numbers coupled with arrival prior to the males) and were locked into trying to lead according to what they had observed among males in the wild without preparation or systematic support.

By reviewing Konner's discussion of implications of biological differences between the sexes, I hoped to establish that accepting differences having a biological component does not necessitate an acceptance of the status quo. Because there are many other factors, primarily learned and contextual, which enter into leadership potential, I am not sure that I even agree with

Konner's proposal that women leaders would result in a safer world. My point in raising this topic is to highlight that accepting that males and females have differences rooted in biology says nothing about capacity. Differences between sexes are of a statistical nature; there are always exceptions (de Wall, 1982). Understanding the natural components of these differences puts policy makers in a better position to: 1) build off of positive aspects of these differences (e.g. involve women more in policy making), and 2) create environmental circumstances that confront potential areas of concern about sex differences (e.g. encouraging fathers' involvement with children by offering more parental leave).

While pointing out sex-based differences in violent behavior, Konner is clear in his belief that there is a "basic core of capability of violence that is part of the makeup of human beings" (1982, p. 207). Differences in degree and form of violence among cultures exist, but no society has been found in which people are incapable of violence (Konner, 1982), and violence is not unique to the human species. Intraspecific (within species) homicide, formerly thought to be a human creation, exists in many species and extends to competitive infanticide, in which children of males outside a specified group are systematically killed as a prerequisite for their mothers joining the group (Konner, 1982).

As in the case of sex differences, recognizing a natural component of humans' propensity to violence does not require an acceptance of the status quo. It simply suggests that policy makers take into account an appreciation of this basic propensity and set goals that are preventive rather than reactive.

Implications for Policy

Appreciating the nature-nurture interrelationship and the lessons from nature discussed in the previous sections provides a good foundation for understanding policy implications of Bowen Theory. In this section, the following aspects of implications for policy will be considered: 1) recognizing and understanding the role of emotional reactions; 2) seeking balance by avoiding polarities; 3) appreciating patterns; 4) maintaining a differentiated position; 5) accepting one's own role and responsibility for self; and 6) recognizing that certain essentials are needed to provide an atmosphere in which people can realistically be expected to take responsibility for self.

Recognizing and Understanding Emotional Reactions

Bowen's theory challenges us to accept that much of what humans do is not guided by thinking. Human beings are often assumed to have unlimited freedom of choice because they think rationally (Aronfreed, 1980), but rational thinking is not the guiding force in human behavior. Emotional process is the key to all relationship systems including those of policy makers. Problems raise our anxiety level and lead to our moving in to "do something about a problem before we understand it. We try to fix it without knowing what it is" (Kerr, K., 1982, p. 1).

Examples of this "damage control" approach to policy making abound and range from building new prisons to expanding shelters for the homeless to maintaining low birth weight babies (Lappe, 1989). Our gut tells us to do something to make problems go away, and we often accept the first option that comes our way with a promise of "taking care" of the problem and thereby reducing our anxiety.

Bowen's concept of the emotional system can be likened to Paul MacLean's description of the reptilian brain component of the human brain. According to MacLean, the reptilian brain is the most ancient component of the modern human brain and consists of instinctive behavior: fixed action patterns and innate releasing mechanisms. MacLean and others maintain that it is the reptilian brain that regulates the rest (Konner, 1982).

To appreciate the role of the emotional system in policy development, one need not look far. On the local, state, national, and international level decisions are constantly made that are not based on rational thinking. We must confront the lack of thinking that goes into current policy. To begin to chart a different course, we must learn to recognize our emotional reactions, try to understand them, and work hard to make policy that can move beyond them. If we do accept the role of emotions, the road toward change will still be long and difficult. Avoiding acting on emotions will never be easy, no matter haw much we learn about them.

Polarities

One of the products of emotionality in human behavior is polarization. We get locked into a position so deeply that the natural response is for someone else to assume the opposite position. It becomes automatic for both poles to simply react to one another, leading to a maintenance of the status quo and little chance for thoughtful change.

Taking a polarized position relieves us of the uncomfortable feeling of ambivalence. With a polarized position, one can feel that he or she is "right" and others "wrong" and not face the complexity and turmoil inherent in addressing important issues.

The capitalism/communism polarity is an interesting example. Events in the last [few] year[s] indicate a lessening of polarization, but for many years policy decisions were based on an adherence to one viewpoint or the other - communist or capitalist - with no ability to think about strengths and weaknesses inherent in both systems. Martin Luther King pointed out that both economic systems have something valuable to offer if we can learn from both. He argued that "capitalism fails to see the truth in collectivism [and] communism fails to see the truth in individualism" (King, 1986g, p. 630).

The basic individuality-togetherness continuum discussed earlier is also relevant here: capitalism idealizes individuality while communism idealizes togetherness; yet firm adherence to either view without consideration of the validity of the other exemplifies the human need for togetherness. Frances Moore Lappe addresses the individuality-togetherness polarity in the context of making a commitment to work toward social change. She argues that meeting today's challenges requires that we "1) avoid resignation and retreat, trying to imbue private lives with more meaning; and 2) avoid tenaciously clinging to dogma" (Lappe, 1989, p. 5). According to this view, one should consider the well being of oneself in the context of society.

Martin Luther King advocated this view as well, expressing concern about polarized positions, and maintaining that a balance or creative synthesis of opposites should be a goal for all peoples (King, 1986d). Non-violent resistance was an example Martin Luther King cited of how opposites - acquiescence and violence - could be reconciled.

Marian Wright Edelman raises another aspect of polarization, and that is concern about its impact on maintaining poverty through an unbalanced view of who the poor are (1987). Wright Edelman believes that viewing poverty as a black problem blurs the complexity of the crisis, and she cites several statistics in defense of her position: 1) Although the black child poverty rate is much higher than the white child poverty rate, from 1969-1984 the black rate went up one-sixth, and the white rate about two-thirds; 2) although one-half of black children are poor and one-sixth of white children are poor, this results in 8.1 million poor white children and 4.3 million black children; and 3) of teen births in the United States, 69% are to whites (1987). In sharing these statistics, Wright Edelman hopes to bring balance to discussions about poverty and reduce the likelihood that polarized positions will result in ineffective policy proposals.

Patterns

To understand factors underlying both polarized positions and emotional reactivity it is important to learn about existing relationship patterns. With a family, we consider multi-generational patterns and processes in an effort to broaden our understanding of how the family "got stuck"in a place they want to get out of [sic]. This same broadening of perspective is necessary with larger systems, ranging from an organizational level to a societal level. Understanding who has been scapegoated in an agency and where the power has rested historically is critical to effective planning for policy. Individuals and groups of people have a functional position within the systems they are part of (Kerr, K., 1982). Awareness of this functional position helps policy makers formulate a more realistic evaluation of the tasks before them. On the other hand, failure to recognize organizational patterns and functional positions will doom almost any proposal.

Differentiation

Trying to do something differently after recognizing one's role in a longstanding pattern is one aspect of differentiation. Differentiation, a critical concept for policy makers, is indicated by taking "I" positions, sticking by principles and avoiding decisions based on emotionality. Just as taking a differentiated position in one's family has an impact on all members of the family system, taking a differentiated position in an organization or society affects the entire system (Bowen, 1982): "Any differentiation in any key person in society automatically rubs off on others" (Bowen, 1974, p. 212).

Although Frances Moore Lappe never mentions the term differentiation, her Rediscovering America's Values (1989) illustrates the concept well. The book's dialogue format presents two very different viewpoints and encourages the reader to understand the views of others. She does not have a need to convince anyone of her opinion; rather, her goal is to get people thinking about their opinions. Lappe sees the challenge posed by those with different viewpoints as necessary in helping us to define our own views and is concerned with how ready human beings have been to imbed values within particular political and economic institutions [to the extent that] we've stopped exploring, debating and defining the values underpinning and justifying those institutions" (1989, p. 4). Lappe's long-term goal is a "values-based politics...continually tested against reality, debated, refined and deepened" (1989, p. 4).

Lappe's writing on the need for more thinking as the basis for more effective, value-based policies is but one example of how the concept of differentiation can be applied. In this author's view, Martin Luther King's life and work provide one of the most clear cut illustrations on the effect a differentiated leader can have on the people around him or her. Despite all kinds of challenges, King was consistently able to make decisions based on thinking that avoided the emotional reactivity one would expect to see given the circumstances he had to endure.

Martin Luther King was a man who avoided becoming emotional even when confronted with name calling, imprisonment and violence. In discussing the importance of thinking in decision making, he said, "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking...[instead there is a ] quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions" (King, 1986d, p. 492).

Martin Luther King's preference for thinking responses over emotional reactivity was evidenced in several ways including his ability to avoid attacking those with different views in the civil rights movement. Although he viewed the Black Power Movement as emotion-based (King, 1986f), he found ways to work with its leaders toward shared goals. He argued against isolation/separatism as an emotional response, a view which seems parallel to Bowen's position concerning the advantages of avoiding cut-offs in families.

King also advocated considering every alliance on its own merits and a reasoned approach to finding good leaders, concerned that black leaders who promote and respond to emotional reactivity may offer little more than white leaders (King, 1986f). For King, avoiding emotional reactivity meant standing by one's principles. In this vein, he argued that he would not change his views on nonviolence even if he did not think he was representing the majority because he refused "to determine what is right by taking a Gallup poll [and] would rather be a man of conviction than a man of conformity" (King, 1986g, p. 595).

Certainly King's decision to take a position on the Vietnam War was evidence of a high level of differentiation. The fact that he studied the issue for some time before taking a stand indicates that it was not a decision based on emotion. In his words, it would be "...foolhardy for me to work for integrated schools or integrated lunch counters and not to be concerned about the survival of the world in which to be integrated...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And whenever I see injustice, I'm going to take a stand against it whether it's in Mississippi or whether it's in Vietnam" (King, 1986b, p. 408).

One's Own Role

Taking a differentiated position leads naturally to a recognition of the role each of us plays in perpetuating the status quo. Bowen maintains that a society with a higher level of differentiation would result in a higher percentage of people oriented to responsibility for self and others (1974).

Although Bowen"s theory is often criticized because differentiation is considered self focused, I believe differentiation provides a more effective way of meeting both our own needs and the needs of others. Lappe points out that we have the ultimate responsibility for society because we are society (1989), and I believe that this view follows naturally from a differentiated position.

In Lappe's discussion of responsibility, she draws attention to the fact that while our society focuses on the irresponsibility of the poor, the irresponsibility of the wealthy receives comparatively little attention (1989). In the regard, she advocates policies which address the need for accountability of all members of society - rich and poor alike. Given the reality that the government of a firm can impact people's lives more than the government of a town or state and that the market often does not link decision making and responsibility (Lappe, 1989), policy makers should seek to facilitate the taking of responsibility by all members of society including corporate officials.

Martin Luther King (King, 1986a-g) and Marian Wright Edelman (1987) both connect taking responsibility for self to efforts at improving quality of life in the black community. King wrote that blacks must plan to improve their own economic lot and "must not wait for the end of segregation that lies at the basis of economic deprivation; [they] must act now to lift [themselves] up by [their] own bootstraps...external resistance is not the only barrier to [black] voting...apathy is also a factor (King, 1986e, p. 488). In this regard, King also supported Operation Breadbasket which promoted the involvement of blacks in evaluating and negotiating with businesses in their communities.

Another aspect of taking responsibility for self is the willingness, on the personal level, to admit mistakes. Martin Luther King demonstrated this capacity more than most leaders. He spoke openly about perceived errors in judgement including a lack of focus in some of the campaigns and his decision to accept bail prematurely (King, 1986c).

Fundamental Conditions

In my view, taking responsibility for self requires the presence of certain fundamental conditions. Chief among these are opportunity and security (Lappe, 1989). In this sense, hope and fairness serve as incentives for taking responsibility with economic security as the basis for free choice (Lappe, 1989). Without freedom of choice, responsibility has a different meaning and becomes an added burden rather than an avenue for personal growth.

Studies of other living systems support the view that opportunity and security are necessary conditions for responsible behavior. Experiments with both dogs and rats given shocks they could not escape resulted in "learned helplessness". The animals seemed to "give up...convinced they could do nothing' (Konner, 1982, pp. 344-345).

Marian Wright Edelman writes about the connection between these fundamental conditions and efforts at encouraging responsibility for self. She notes, "As important as black self help is, and must continue to be, it is not enough...poverty and lack of economic opportunity flow from governmental policies or abdication of responsibility" (1987, p. 21). Wright Edelman presents, with alarm, statistics indicating that increasingly, working does not mean escaping poverty and then advocates for restoration of the concept of a family-supporting floor to wages (1987).

In considering the emotionally loaded issue of adolescent pregnancy and delinquency, Wright Edelman (1987) argues that teens must be offered real options so that they have a realistic chance to exercise responsibility. In this regard, she supports providing hope, opportunity, information and skills through many and varied opportunities for success and advocates programs that will build academic and work related skills, increase in exposure to work, educate in family life and life planning areas and provide comprehensive adolescent health services. In the area of employment, Wright Edelman (1987) favors direct job creation, voluntary programs that offer people vocational training, remedial education, supervised work experience and jobs above minimum wage.

In considering the role of "fundamental conditions", a balance must be maintained. Policy which promotes these fundamental conditions does not eliminate the need for individuals to take responsibility for themselves. Rather, the two are complementary and must be addressed in policy as such. As Lappe notes, "the development of each of us in part depends upon the development of all others" (1989, p. 15).

Guidelines

In this final section I would like to propose a set of guidelines for monitoring application of Bowen's theory to policy making, based on the preceding sections of this paper:

1) Before making a policy decision, consider lessons from other living systems and the respect for variation taught by nature.

2) Keeping in mind how much policy is not rational or logical, push oneself to consider the degree to which positions taken are emotion-based. Allow oneself enough time to process emotional reactions in order to move on to positions based on rational thinking.

3) Consistent with efforts to learn about inter generational patterns in families, seek to understand the history and patterns of organizations involved in policy making.

4) Consider the family projection process' relevance in terms of organizations and society as a whole.

5) Watch for polarities and resulting potential for "stuckness".

6) Construct policy with an appreciation of one's own role in perpetuating the status quo. Seek to encourage responsibility for self to the greatest extent possible.

7) Appreciate the need for fundamental conditions to exist in order to allow people the fullest possible opportunity to take responsibility for self.

8) Strive for a differentiated position. State a position without needing to convince everyone; accept others' views without abandoning one's own. Keep in mind the effect of one differentiated leader on others.

Conclusion

If we can accept our ties to other living systems as the basis for understanding human behavior and policy choices, we have taken a critical first step in applying Bowen's theory to policy making. From that point on, it is up to us to recognize the emotional forces in our lives and struggle to make decisions based on rational thinking despite the power of these emotional forces. Although the guidelines listed above are intended as helpful suggestions, each of us must bear ultimate responsibility for our own differentiation.

References

Aronfreed, J. (1980). Constraint and freedom in the evolution of human nature. Hastings Center Report, 10(6), 31-34.

Bowen, M. (1974). Family systems theory and society. In J.P. Lorio & L. McClenathan (Eds.) Georgetown Family Symposia Volume II (1973-74) a Collection of Selected Papers (pp. 182-216). Wash., D.C.: Georgetown U. Family Center.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. NY: Jason Aronson.

De Waal, F. (1982). Chimpanzee politics, power and sex among apes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press.

Fossey, D. (1983). Gorillas in the mist. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gould, S. (1977). Ever Since Darwin. NY: W.W. Norton.

Keoles, B. (1986). Females of the species. Cambridge: Howard U. Press.

Kerr, K. (1982). An overview of bowen theory and organizations. In R.R. Sager & K.K. Wiseman (Eds.), Understanding Organizations Applications of Family Systems Theory (pp. 1-8). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U. Family Center.

Konner, M. (1982). The tangled wing biological constraints on the human spirit. NY: Harper & Row.

Lappe, F.M. (1989). Rediscovering America's values. NY: Ballantine Books.

Masters, R.D. (1989). The nature of politics. New Haven: Yale U. Press.

Pike, O. (1989, December 31). Top story of year again is neglected. Syracuse Herald American, p. E3.

Richards, G. (1982). Sociobiology redefended. The Humanist, 42(1), 27-31.

Van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1971). In the shadow of man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Tiger, L. (1980). Sociobiology and politics. Hastings Center Report, 10(6), 35- 37.

Wendt, H. (1965). The sex life of animals. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Wiegele, T.C. (1979). Biopolitics: search for a more human political science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wilgus, A.J. (1989). Sex and the subhuman (Paper presented at the Twenty-sixth Georgetown University Symposium of Family Theory and Family Psychotherapy, Washington, D.C., November 4, 1989).

Wilson, E.O. (1980). The ethical implications of human sociobiology. Hastings Center Report, 10(6), 27-29.