On ocassion I run into a skeptic that challenges the validity of Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST). I typically don’t spend a lot of energy trying to “convince” people of something or other. But when there’s evidence that a person is genuine in his or her critique or is genuinely interested in learning and dialogue I’ll invest the time.
My typical response is to argue that the issue is not whether BFST is “true” or not. We’re dealing with a theory and not a philosophy, in other words. Unlike philosophies, which seek to arrive at truth, theories are speculative but disciplined explorations of discovery that try to arrive at conclusions about the nature of things. And I tell them that what makes BFST “valid” is that it is characterized by all of the components that make any theory valid (those which make distinguish a theory from an ideology, for example):
1. It describes reality as it is perceived (does not comment on how things “should” be)
2. It is internally consistent (It does not contradict itself and is integrative)
3. It is comprehensive (explains all phenomena in its areas of concern)
4. It is universal in application in all areas of its concern (for example, all organic biological and relationship systems)
5. It is disprovable (open to new data; not akin to an ideology; open to having its assumptions, conclusions, and findings being tested).
I have found, however, that those persons most resistant (and reactive) to BFST tend to be those who are not willing to move toward doing family of origin work. Which means that in a sense, they “get it” in terms of what the theory is all about, but are just not willing to go there. I don’t think that BFST is the only theory worthy of subscribing to for any and all matters related to family counseling, therapy, or even leadership. No one theory can have the final word on everything that needs to be said about its area of focus. Most sound theories have some merit in that each tends to shine a light on a particular perspective on things. Each explains phenomena to a partial extent, and is accurate to an extent. And responsible theories tend to compliment, rather than contradict, each other. That said, to my thinking BFST remains the most satisfying theory related to relationship systems and their associated areas of interest, from pathology to leadership. Which is what makes is such a helpful resource to congregational leaders.
In case you’re interested, here are other theories with similar or overlapping areas of focus that may be of interest:
Goldman’s Emotional Intelligence Theory (See also the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations)
Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory
Ackerman’s Family Therapy
Vigotsky’s Social Development Theory
Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
Jean Piaget’s Genetic Epistemlogy
Functionalism
Levi-Strauss’ Structuralism
Transactional Theories
Interpersonal theory
Generalized Interpersonal Theory
Then there are various emerging behavior genetics theories, and evolutionary psychologies to choose from. So, as we can see, it’s helpful to be able to critically assess what constitutes a valid theory and which are most appropriate and applicable to the concern at hand.
“It is theory that decides what can be observed.” –Albert Einstein
