|
Syracuse
|
Bowen
Theory: The Limitations of My Understanding
Kathryn Meitner 2/6/97 As I study Bowen Theory I get stuck between trying to understand it and deciding whether it is compatible with what I believe to be true of human relationships and change. Discerning that which I don’t yet fully understand is difficult as I often find my questions are not about understanding the theory but questioning the theory’s validity. So as I consider the limitations to my current understanding of the theory, I am consciously trying to focus on comprehending the theory and not questioning whether or not it fits with me. In addition I find that as I read and discuss the theory with those who know it I feel I understand the concepts of the theory but struggle with how to move this understanding of human relationships to practice. I wonder if this is due to the possibility that practice is simply showing individuals their family through the lens of the theory and allowing them to decide what to do with it. It would follow that I would not fully grasp the practice until I not only understand the theory but have a working knowledge of it. At this point I have a basic understanding of the main concepts of the theory. That is to say I could give a brief description of terms like triangle, differentiation, emotional reactivity, multigenerational transmission process. My limitation is primarily lack of depth to my understanding. In addition, I have many questions about how these concepts hold together. I understand that natural systems theory is that which Bowen theory is based on. Bowen’s hypotheses about human behavior came from observed similarities between human behavior and the behavior of other living species, especially in relationships. My understanding of natural systems theory is limited to the concept of inter-relatedness. All life is interconnected and that adaptation is not a linear process but a systemic one. I wonder to what degree I need to understand this theory to understand and practice Bowen Theory. I understand chronic anxiety to be a force present in all life forms. It is not its presence that is of concern but the response to its presence. I am unclear about the relationship between chronic anxiety and emotional reactivity. Are they interchangeable terms for the same concept? Or is emotional reactivity the response to chronic anxiety? I understand that binding of anxiety occurs in relationships in response t a high degree of chronic anxiety but [I] am yet unclear about how this occurs and to what degree it is adaptive and/or maladaptive. Differentiation is understood to exist on a continuum and, simplified, is the degree to which one thinks before responding to others. I am confused about the difference between being emotionally distant and having a low degree of emotional reactivity. I understand that they are different but [I am] unsure of how that actually fleshes out. One area where my understanding and knowledge are limited is that of defining the self. I understand that pseudo-self is that which one puts on for others in response to them and solid self is that which is thoughtfully adopted and not easily influenced by others. I have yet to fully grasp what goes into their development and how one determines one from the other. I struggle with the multigenerational transmission process as my understanding is limited to patterns of responses to chronic anxiety being transmitted over the generations. I am unclear about what determines this process and to what degree it can be altered by an individual. I am also unclear as to how Bowen Theory would view biochemical process[es] that contribute to mental illness. Would that fit with the theory or not? How would the use of psychopharmacology be viewed? I am somewhat confused about some aspects of triangles as I hear and read contradictory things. In a workshop and my theory class it seemed triangles were viewed as leading to problems. But I have heard elsewhere that they are a necessary component of all relationships and it is the degree of rigidity in the pattern of interaction that can lead to dysfunction. So I wonder if is possible or necessary to stay out of triangles. I also have yet to comprehend how the process of de-triangling occurs. This leads to questions about practice and the therapeutic triangle. Is this a necessary component of therapy? What if you are working with one person? I am also confused about the notion that Bowen therapy is not about helping but understanding? It seems a better way to say it is that one is helping by trying not to help. It also seems tricky when one considers the expectations of bigger systems involved and how one goes about practice in spite of the expectation that you will bring about change. I agree with the value in remaining objective and believe that people need to help themselves more than they need someone else’s help, but I have yet to incorporate these beliefs into my practice. My reflex is to figure out what I need to do, but in line with Bowen Theory, the more I understand and think through this response, the more I will be able to change this response. It seems that through increasing client’s awareness of how the concepts of the theory play out in their family, they have other options of how to respond. This makes sense until I think of specific cases and find I’m not sure how to take this approach considering their goals and that of other systems involved. Again I wonder to what degree my understanding of practice will improve as my understanding of the theory improves. |
|
Syracuse Family Center |