Plus ca change…

In moments of skepticism we often repeat that droll phrase, “Plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose” (the more things change, the more they stay the same). One of the perplexing questions that grow out of Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) is, “How can people change?” This is a legitimate question given what we interpret the theory to say about the power of homeostasis, the power of multigenerational transmission, and the tenacity of (learned or acquired) patterned ways of emotional process that leave us with, at the least, an automatic reactive way of dealing with life and relationships. Indeed, the seeming determinism of BFST related to human emotional systems, and their capacity to change, tends to be one of the things that puts off people when first introduced to the theory.

Upon appreciating the truth behind the concepts of homeostasis, multigenerational transmission, some throw up their hands and say, “Well, why bother?” And overfunctioning leaders who formerly saw themselves as “change agents” may now, after grasping an understanding of the typical response to change by the systems they lead (sabotage and resistance), may decide the only posture worth taking is that of defecting in place.

But three interrelated concepts may help move us away from an overly pessimistic perspective on the possibility of change. These concepts help us appreciate that while BFST described general universal principles about emotional relationship systems it does not, in my understanding, purport to offer “rules” meant to be taken as determinative or deterministic. The three concepts are: equipotentiality, developmental evolution, and differentiation.

The concept of equipotentiality says that things with a common origin can go in very different directions of development. This concept is the focus of those very interesting “twins studies” that follow identical twins who are raised apart in different environments. In some of those studies the question of discovery is, “Is it nurture or nature that determines the person?” But the concept is applicable to any sets of persons who share a common origin or formative experience(s) but whose destinies turn out differently. For example, of two abuse survivors, one heals and the other becomes a criminal. Or two families in oppressive socio-economic environments. One family disintegrates from a lack of resource and as each member fails tragically in individual ways, while the other seems able to find inner resources for staying intact, and fostering the best among each of them—the kids stay out of trouble, don’t do drugs, and go to college, dad is able to keep his job, mother functions well, the marriage not only survives, but thrives.

Equipotentiality offers hope to any who refuse to accept that the accident of their formative context and circumstances is determinative of one’s destiny. In fact, the second interrelated concept, differentiation offers not only support for the idea, but the means by which to achieve it. Differentiation is the idea that individuals have the capacity to be their own self while remaining a part of the systems they occupy. Given the nature of the togetherness-separateness forces in systems, differentiation is more of a process and a way of functioning than a state one achieves. It suggests that while we always are and will be a part of the system(s) that formed us, we have the capacity, as individuals to choose how we will live our lives, what values will guide us, and what paths we will take. We will always have part of our past with us, but it does not have to be an overwhelming determinant of our present or future. We can, for example, choose how to interpret the experiences of our past in ways that are more objective (“neutral”) than reactive or as defining of our nature, character, or self.

Finally, the concept of developmental evolution offers the hope for change. Living systems, by nature, are evolving. They need to if they are to survive. Evolution involves adaptation through resilience, by intention, or even by reactivity. Developmental evolution can come about as a result of crises, trauma, circumstances, or design. The problem for many of us is that developmental evolutionary change seems so slow. Indeed, the concept of multigenerational transmission seems to work against developmental change. But the fact is that systems do change, over time. They develop and evolve. Over time they become healthier (or at the least more resilient) through a growing repertoire of adaptation and through incorporating greater diversity within the system.

“To write with a broken pencil is pointless.