On BFST Orthodoxy

by Israel Galindo

A colleague invited some of us to a discussion on the phenomenon of BFST orthodoxy. This is the tendency we’ve seen among some “Bowenians” to guard the orthodoxy of the theory. At times it manifests itself as:

* A focus on the exclusively “correct” use of terms, concepts, and vocabulary
* The creation of a list of verbotem words, phrases, or references
* A dismissal of certain concepts that are considered “outside” the original theory’s schema
* The identification of “camps” (e.g., Bowen vs. Friedman) and the self-identification with the original conceptualizer with an accompanying dismissal of those not deemed disciples of direct succession.
* The manifestation of the affects of hubris and exclusivity.

I think it is acurate to identify these as reactivity (a curious and ironic dynamic given the theory’s emphasis on differention of self). What I most appreciate, and endorse to others, about BFST theory is that it is THEORY. In certain introductory presentations I enumerate the components of what constitutes a “valid theory.” I use the list in presentations, and in my introductory systems course to get past latent “resistance” on the part of skeptical and cynical students.

The list includes the following:

Theories describe phenomenon as they are perceived (the are descriptive, not prescriptive)
Theories are grounded in a discipline (in the case of BFST, in clinical psychology)
Theories are universally applicable to the focus of their concern (in the case of BFST all “relationship systems” regardless of their context)
Theories are internally consistent and their component and derivative concepts do not contradict themselves
Theories are open to development (being disproved, refined, modified).

The point being that BFST is a “theory” and not “doctrine” or “ideology.”

Theories of necessity are “applied in context,” and it is in those context that theories are supported (never “proven” as per popular lingo), modified, and refined. The application of theories over time in context is also what moves them forward through new discoveries, nuances, and correctives.

For example, my own work with Bowen theory (sorry, “The Bowen Theory”, but maybe not), is informed not only by the theoretical work of Bowen, but also Menuchin and Satir and other family therapists from the clinical context. But it is more informed by Friedman’s works, and that of others, who have applied the theory to the congregational relationhip system with a focus on the function and nature of leadership. As such, not everything from the original theory applies with equal weight. The clinical therapeutic aspects and applications of the theory are of less interest to me than the social-emotional aspects. As I’ve worked in the field of leadership in the congregational context concepts of the theory have taken on new and different nuances than from the biological family relationship system in which the theory finds its origin. Simply put, there are certain dynamics of the congregational emotional-relationship system that are “systemic” to which Bowen theory does not address or speak to.

In my field of education, the emerging research into the organic brain and cognition continues to bring new interpretations and nuanced understandings of how people perceive and experience, how they related to others and the world, and how anxiety disorders work and affect the above. In fact, former concepts about what constitutes “anxiety” and an “anxiety disorder” are being challenged. Inevitably, Bowen theory will need to modify its understanding of the concept of anxiety based on these new revelations.

Further, even in the original theory’s foundational concepts I read a certain emergence of thinking from the founder. This in no way detracts from Bowen’s genius (in fact seeing the development of his thinking just reinforces for me his genius). For example, the concept of birth order was incorporated from another theorist, but it authentically addresses concepts in the theory. The concept of societal regression, while interesting, seems to me a bit outside the scope of the clinical therapeutic application of the theory, but an expression of an attempt to expand the theory to a more global level. And the “unfinished” concept of supernatural phenomenon (which some people desire to name “spirituality,” wrongly, I think) may ultimately be a leap of faith beyond the capacity of working with “observable facts.”

When I read or hear “Bowenian Purists” go on about parsing terms or being the self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy by listing what is “verboten” then in my view they have ceased to be theorists and have become ideologists––with the accompanying characteristics
of willfulness, exclusivity, and cutoffs. Understand that I think using terms accurately is important, and, it is important to “stay grounded” in the theory and its field (I created a presenation titled “Systems Misunderstandings” to address the issue of the missuse and misunderstanding of basic terms of the theory).

However, the search for a “pure” Bowenian theory is, I think misguided, and dismisses the richness of Bowen’s genius in positing a theory. Theories are not set in stone, and are not meant to be. Theories by their nature develop, grow in their nuance, are open to scrutiny, incorporate new information and adapt to new truths as they are revealed or discovered.

Because theories eventually lead to application they are shaped by the contexts in which they are applied, and, by the contributions of the innovators who carry the theory forward over time. Of greater danger is the potential of making a religion out of the theory. This happens when the dynamic of inclusion and exclusion comes into the picture. Religion is about “membership,” about determining who is “in” and who is “out”; who belongs and who does not. That tendency creates the necessity of self-appointed or ordained priests to guard belief (orthodoxy) and to make the declarations about who belongs and who does not. Ultimately, the harm is taking a dynamic theory and fossilzing it into rigid, unimaginative dogma.

The pattern is all too, shall we say, “systemic”? The biblical example that comes to mind is those who disciples of Jesus who claimed the priviledge of direct succession–calling themselves Apostles. These gave the Johnnie-come-lately Paul (formerly Saul the persecutor) fits. Paul, in his own differentiation of self move had little trouble calling himself an Apostle much to others’ consternation. Later on we have the situation of those who, lacking substantive capacity of Self, would identify with “camps”: those who claimed to be of Paul and those who claimed to be of Apollos. Move ahead a few years and, predictably, we have the Church Councils gathering to define Orthodoxy, determine who is “in” and who is “out” and to exclude those deemed unworthy of belinging.

But, this is par for the course in professions and guilds also–one can trace such a dynamic with Freud and his psychoanalysts, for example (the most dramatic being Freud’s relationship with Jung). Friedman has that great story and getting called on the carpet by the psychoanalytic guild for dariong to put the term “diagnosis” in his brochure. The claim there was that only those who were “in” psychoanalytic guild were privileged, certified, and capable of doing “diagnosis.” Friedman’s characteristically droll response was that the guild should go after Sears’ auto service due to their service of diagnosing engine problems.

Advocates of any field or theory serve the cause best by encouraging imaGination, innovation, and advancement rather than guarding orthodoxy or preserving orthopraxy.

Copyright (c) 2011, Israel Galindo