We continue the series on basic concepts in Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST). Today’s question: Are there “healthy” and “unhealthy” triangles (or ways of being in key triangles)? If so, what’s the difference?
Like all of the concepts in BFST, the concept of triangles is more nuanced and dynamic than we first realize. I think it’s helpful to approach triangles as representative of “dynamics” in a system. Therefore, it helps to ask, “What dynamic is behind this triangle?”
A triangle spawned from acute reactivity in relationship to anxiety is different from a triangle that is structured as a corrective for the system. For example, a parent who triangles a child into issues related to the parent’s marital partner is qualitatively different from a triangle in an organization, say a church, intended to maintain a balance of power. One is an anxiety triangle and one is a structural triangle. Both types follow the same rules about how triangles work.
I suspect that even the terms “healthy” and “unhealthy” are not accurate to use for triangles. Triangles are a product of the dynamics at play in a system, therefore, they provide a function rather than directly provide content or quality. Triangles are patterns that form as a way to facilitate the dynamic of systemic, or personal, anxiety. In other words: triangles just “are” and they are neither good or bad, nor healthy or unhealthy.
I think it’s more accurate to approach triangles from the perspective of, “To the extent that triangles in a system facilitate ways for anxiety to work towards a resolution, triangles are helpful to the system. And, to the extent triangles in a system become patterns for binding anxiety or inhibiting change and maturity, then triangles are unhealthy.”
From, Perspectives on Congregational Leadership: Applying Systems Theory for Effective Leadership, by Israel Galindo. See the new Perspectives on Congregational Leadership blog site.
