Theoretical Perspectives

Theoretical
Perspectives
C. Margaret Hall
e-Book 2016 International Psychotherapy Institute
From The Bowen Family Theory and Its Uses by C. Margaret Hall
All Rights Reserved
Created in the United States of America
Copyright © 2013 C. Margaret Hall

Table of Contents
Historical Background
Data Sources
Theoretical assumptions
Basic Concepts
Sociological Contributions
Family Systems and Cross-Cultural Studies
REFERENCES
www.freepsychotherapybooks.org 4
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Historical Background
Bowen has been developing his family theory for more than
twenty-five years. In the United States in the early 1950s, Murray
Bowen, Nathan Ackerman, Virginia Satir, Don Jackson, and other
pioneer family clinicians used a family perspective to examine and
understand individual behavior. Bowen’s early family research at the
National Institutes of Mental Health focused on mother-child
relationships in families with a schizophrenic child. To work more
effectively with these families and to describe other family
relationships and other patterns of behavior, Bowen articulated a
series of concepts that represent the family as an emotional system,
and schizophrenia as a family problem. Bowen postulates that these

concepts describe emotional processes in all families rather than
emotional processes peculiar to families in clinical populations.
Data Sources
Large clinical populations have been used for the development
and substantiation of these family concepts by both Bowen and myself,
and additional data have been collected from the families of mental
health professionals and of undergraduate, graduate, and medical

students. Genealogical records have been used for longitudinal
research on family interaction with smaller populations.
Theoretical assumptions
1. Bowen’s concepts describe emotional processes thought to

have a strong influence on both human and animal behavior. Human
beings are perceived as having an evolutionary heritage of primitive
levels of functioning, which influence all kinds of behavior. important
examples of primitive behavior are the reflexive and reactive

emotional responses between human beings, which are most visible in
families and intimate relationships. The Bowen theory conceptualizes

human behavior in a broad evolutionary context and assumes the
existence of certain universals in human and animal behavior.
2. Bowen suggests that the intense emotional interdependency in
families contributes toward making family interaction more
predictable than behavior in other groups or settings. Family
interaction tends to crystallize in particular patterns through time, and
these patterns are frequently repeated in several subsequent
generations. When sufficient intergenerational data about a family are
available, the degree of persistence in certain patterns of behavior or

the intensity of system reactions to a disruption of established
patterns of behavior and dependency can be estimated fairly
accurately.
3. Families appear to exert a strong and compelling influence for
the conformity of each member’s behavior, but Bowen’s theory
suggests several benefits in resisting this pressure by changing
functioning positions in the relationship systems.
Basic Concepts
Eight major concepts have been developed from Bowen’s initial

conceptualization of a family unit as an “undifferentiated family ego
mass.” Bowen no longer uses the concept of undifferentiated family
ego mass.
1. Differentiation of self Self may be thought of as both solid self,
which is nonnegotiable with others, and pseudo-self, which is
negotiable with others. A more differentiated person behaves from a
basis of a more fully integrated solid self and less pseudo-self than
does a less differentiated person. It is extremely difficult for anyone to
move up or down from a given level of differentiation. A lifetime of
efforts to differentiate self may culminate in only slight changes in
solid self. At the higher levels of differentiation, behavior is influenced

by thinking and self-selected goals. At the lower levels of
differentiation, behavior is more automatic and is largely controlled by
emotions and the anxiety of the moment.
2. Triangles. The smallest relationship system in families and
other social settings has three members rather than two. A triangle is
the basic unit of interdependence and interaction in a family emotional
system. When anxiety in a two-person relationship reaches a certain

level, a third person is predictably drawn into the emotional field of
the twosome. Where triangles in a family are not readily apparent,

they remain dormant and can be activated at any time, particularly in a
period of stress.
3. Nuclear Family Emotional System. The most intensely
interdependent part of a family is the nuclear group. Three
mechanisms are used in most families to deal with the overload of
anxiety that frequently amasses in the nuclear system. The adaptive
mechanisms are marital conflict, dysfunction of a spouse, and
projection to a child. Most families use a combination of all three

mechanisms to dilute the unlivable intensity resulting from an
overload of anxiety.
4. Family Projection Process. Parents stabilize their relationship

with each other and lower the anxiety in their undifferentiated
twosome by viewing a child as their shared “problem.” This
overinvestment of feeling in a child frequently impairs the child’s
capacity to function effectively in the family and other social settings.
5. Emotional Cut-off. In an attempt to deal with the fusion or lack

of differentiation in their intimate relationships, family members or
segments of the extended system may distance themselves from each

other and become emotionally divorced. Cut-offs are particularly
frequent between the parent and grandparent generations of a family.
One direct consequence of emotional cut-off is the burdening of the
nuclear system with an equivalent overinvestment of feelings and
expectations.
6. multigenerational Transmission Process. The strong tendency to
repeat impairing patterns of emotional behavior in successive
generations culminates in lowered levels of differentiation of self for

certain members of the younger generations. Unless conscious efforts
to modify these impaired patterns are made, such behavior is usually
repeated automatically.
7. Sibling Position. Seniority and sex distribution among siblings
in the same and related generations has a strong influence on
behavior. A more differentiated individual is able to neutralize some of

the programming for the typical expectations of that person’s sibling
position.
8. Emotional Process in Society. The strength of the emotional
forces in society may make differentiation difficult or impossible.

When togetherness forces in society are strong, anxiety is high and
problem behavior is pervasive. Extreme behavior sequences, such as
violence and destructive political leadership, are more likely to occur

when the anxiety level of the emotional process in society is high than
when less anxiety exists in society.
Sociological Contributions
1. Bowen’s concepts suggest universals in human behavior that
extend beyond the descriptive studies of family cultural variations
characteristic of the field of sociology. His work is an attempt to show
that human nature and human behavior are components of

evolutionary processes rather than products of historical or cultural
contingency.
2. Bowen’s family concepts have a broader scope than role
analyses. According to Bowen, behavior emanates from a self which is
only partly influenced by wider cultural forces.
3. As any group can be considered an emotional system, Bowen’s

family theory can be applied to behavior in other social settings. It may
be thought of as a middle-range theory, as the empirical context of this
family paradigm is a limited social setting, which can be documented
more easily and accurately than other concepts.
4. Bowen’s concepts suggest prediction as well as description.
Although many of these predictions may remain substantively
unverified for generations to come, some limited predictions can be
made in individual families from accumulated case histories.
5. The Bowen theory indicates the possibility of viewing family
dependency and patterns of family interaction as independent
variables in research on human behavior. Although a division between
independent and dependent variables may be artificial and overly
simplistic, Bowen’s concepts postulate that family dependency and
patterns of family interaction play a more significant role in

influencing all kinds of human behavior than is reflected in current
sociological family research.
6. Bowen’s view of the family as an emotionally interdependent
unit suggests that change in one part of the system will bring about
changes in related parts and ultimately of the whole. This sequence of
changes does not necessarily culminate in a return to the original
position of homeostasis. Under optimal conditions, a new level of
functioning or differentiation for the entire family is created. Bowen’s
concepts articulate a specific theory of family change and imply a
broader theory of social change.
7. The analogies and theoretical models Bowen uses to describe
emotional processes are draw n from biology. Sociologists may
criticize this orientation as “reductionist,” but a view of family as an
ecological unit specifies the interrelatedness of all living phenomena

more adequately than sociological models.
8. Bowen’s family theory extends and modifies Freud’s emphasis
on instinctive behavior. Bowen attempts to describe systematically
more socially expressed rudimentary behaviors, such as a human need

for togetherness, than Freud did. Bowen also suggests the existence of
collective automatic strivings for the survival of the human species
rather than individual struggles.
9. Bowen defines some of the limits to changing individual

behavior and patterns of family interaction. He is more concerned with
possibilities and probabilities than with modes or norms of behavior; a

preoccupation with the latter is typical of much of the sociological
literature on family.
10. Bowen consistently maintains a view of a family as a
multigenerational system. Longitudinal genealogical research on past
generations enhances his view and neutralizes the apparent
sociological overemphasis on the importance of interaction in nuclear
families.
Family Systems and Cross-Cultural Studies
The Bowen family systems theory is sufficiently versatile to be
particularly useful for international cross-cultural research. Its

emphasis on universals in human behavior, biological analogies, and
an evolutionary context allows for a wider variety of cultural
applications and international comparisons than family theories based

on cultural differentials and normative descriptions.
International research in family behavior has proliferated in

recent years, and systematic syntheses of the different findings
(Aldous and Hill 1967) are much needed. A large part of the existing
family research describes cultural variations of family behavior
without reference to explicitly articulated theory. The family systems
theory may be viewed as a middle-range sociological theory. The
systems concepts could be used to interpret or reinterpret family data
already collected, as well as to provide an alternative orientation for
future international comparative studies.
Family systems theory is a beginning formulation of a general
theory of emotional systems. A family system consists of human
dependencies and emotional needs present in all societies at all times.

Although it is extremely difficult to substantiate hypotheses that link
specific family data to accurate indicators of evolutionary change,
measurement problems do not nullify the significance and usefulness

of these ideas for viewing family behavior. The emotional systems
extension of the Bowen theory also suggests that it is possible to
pinpoint common denominators of behavior in families and other
social settings, as these characteristics are also present in all societies
at all times.
History
Bowen’s family systems theory was developed within the
discipline of psychiatry (1960, 1966, 1971a). As Bowen’s theoretical
orientation has relieved symptoms in families and has precipitated
changes in functioning in families and in the wider society, however,
his propositions might be utilized successfully in a variety of research
settings.
Some disadvantages of the family systems conceptualization may
limit its general applicability to comparative international studies. The
theory evolved in the post-World War II era in the United States from
data largely drawn from white middle-class families. Such a sampling
introduced a certain amount of bias and error into its formulations;
however, the theory has since been operationalized in a large variety

of clinical settings with a broad spectrum of different types of families.
Many of the families in these clinical samples had international and
intercultural backgrounds, as well as low socioeconomic status.
Clinical findings indicate that there are distinct similarities in behavior
and patterns of interdependency within and between the different
national, cultural, and socioeconomic groups.
Theory
Bowen’s family systems theory consists of eight basic
interlocking concepts. No single concept can be fully understood
except in relation to the other seven concepts, and each has evolved in
complex and distinct ways. The following discussion describes
selected meaning elements of concepts to pinpoint their applicability
to international comparative studies. I will not discuss the difficulties
involved in operationalizing the ideas, although this problem is
inevitably a significant limiting influence in any overall evaluation of
the usefulness of a family systems perspective.
Differentiation of Self a variety of behavior is described to
represent degrees of emotional strength of self. These characteristic

patterns can be delineated in any cultural setting. Functioning can
indicate lower or higher levels of differentiation of self. When a self is
less differentiated, behavior is largely emotionally responsive or
reactive and shows little or no indication of being thought directed.
When a self is more differentiated, behavior is goal directed, with a
clear awareness of distinctions between thinking and feeling activities.
Triangles. Following the tradition of Georg Simmers “triadic”
conceptualization of human behavior (Wolff 1950) and extending

some of Theodore Caplow ’s findings (1968), Bowen has defined the
smallest relationship unit in a family as a triangle, or a three-person
system. This relationship unit can be found in any family in any
society. A triangle is a relatively stable group with shifting emotional
forces. The most uncomfortable participant in a dyad, or two-person
system, predictably draws a third person into the twosome when
sufficient stress occurs in the two-person relationship. This process
creates a triangle in any family in any society.
Nuclear Family Emotional System. The inner core of a family, the
two-generation group of parents and children, is the most intense
emotionally interdependent part of a family. This degree of intensity

exists in any nuclear family in any society. One family system has
several nuclear families in its broader network. In nuclear systems
where there is no clear differentiation of self between spouses, surplus
anxiety must be absorbed. Mechanisms of adaptation that resolve
these tensions include marital conflict, dysfunction of a spouse, and
projection to one or more of the children. The surplus anxiety and
mechanisms of adaptation are characteristic of all families in all
societies. Many families use all three mechanisms to deal with an

overload of tension.
Family Projection Process. The undifferentiation or fusion of
parents can be projected to the most dependent child in a family. In
some families there may be a projection to a dependent older person
in the family. This projection generally has less impairing
consequences than projection to a child, as the latter’s ability to
function may gradually be affected. These impairing consequences can
occur in any society. A family projection can be considered a
scapegoating process in which one person is singled out as a family

“problem.” In reality, the problem is not localized in that person as
much as in the entire relationship system of the family, especially in
key members such as the parents.
Emotional Cut-Off. emotional divorces or estrangements in
families reflect a high level of intensity. Emotional cut-offs also
precipitate increased anxiety in surrounding relationships. These
relationship tendencies exist in all families in all societies.
Symptomatic behavior is most prevalent in families where there are
many emotional cut-offs. Parents who have eliminated cutoffs with
their parents are less likely to experience cut-offs with their children.
Although much effort and courage is needed to contact a person who
has cut off or has been cut off in a family, self can be strengthened by
reestablishing such cut-off relationships.
Multigenerational Transmission Process. Repeated projection
processes through several generations in a family create an extended
powerful emotional force, which eventually raises or lowers levels of
differentiation in members of succeeding generations. This repetition
and powerful influence exist between different generations of families
in all societies. Genealogical data and observations of families over

several generations provide evidence of a variety of repeated patterns
of dependent behavior.
Sibling Position. Walter Toman (1972) generalized profiles of

expected behavior from observations of different sibling positions.
These expectations cross cultural boundaries and apply to all societies
at all times. The probability of this typical sibling behavior occurring
appears to depend largely on the level of anxiety in the family. Bowen
emphasizes that sibling position behavior can also be greatly
influenced by family projection.
Emotional Process in Society. emotional process in society

represents a combination of the forces of togetherness (fusion) and
individuation (differentiation). Any society manifests emotional
process as a combination of these two forces. The level of anxiety in
society influences how the emotional process is expressed. Emotional
process in society has an impact on each family member’s behavior.
The pervasiveness of particular patterns of family dependency also
intensify or deintensify the general level of emotional process in
society. Emotional process in society may be progressively adaptive or
regressively maladaptive within the context of evolutionary change.
International Comparative Studies
The following observations and propositions illustrate some of
the implications of family systems for a synthesis of international
comparative data from cross-cultural family research.
1. Families in any society can be conceptualized as emotional
systems with a range of degrees of dependency. Family systems can be

classified as relatively open or closed.
2. The degree of predictability of individual behavior in a family
and in the wider society is greater if the family is relatively closed.
Symptomatic and antisocial behavior is more characteristic of families

with a closed relationship system.
3. Emotional processes perpetuated over several generations are
influential determinants of present behavior in a family. Specific
patterns of behavior in a family tend to be repeated in different
generations regardless of the extent of that family’s exposure to

different cultural influences through time.
4. The timing of major events such as deaths, births, migrations,
or job changes has a significant impact on family behavior. Much
human behavior can be described as responses to the timing of shifts
in dependency in family emotional systems.
5. Individuals tend to behave according to the specific
expectations for the sex and rank ascribed to them in their families of
origin. Some of the observed variations in the behavior of members of
a particular sex in the wider society are associated with the range of
behavior patterns generated by the different distributions of sex and
seniority in families. In general, males appear as emotionally
dependent on females as females are on males.
6. Triangles have more predictable characteristics than other
relationship systems. When triangles in a family are delineated, more
accurate predictions of behavior can be made about behavior in that
family. Behavior in the wider society can also be predicted, to some
extent, by examining the ways in which individuals participate in
triangles in their own families, particularly in their families of origin.
7. An individual can be a self to the extent that he or she is aware
of togetherness and individuating forces in the family and other social
groups. Togetherness forces are more automatic and easier to

delineate than differentiating forces. Differentiation of self is only
possible when sustained conscious efforts are made. Efforts to
differentiate self are more effective within the context of an

individual’s own family than in other social settings.
8. Most people have a moderate or mid-range level of

differentiation. Each specific level of differentiation is a balancing
point of togetherness and differentiation forces. Considerable changes

in a person’s level of differentiation are impossible. A significant move
in a direction toward differentiation or toward togetherness is
counteracted by the pull of the force not currently activated. Because

of the intensity of the interdependence of these counterbalancing
forces, it is extremely difficult to change an individual level of

differentiation.
The family systems perspective implies that research on families
is more useful if longitudinal data is used. Where multigenerational
data has already been collected, interpretative analyses could pinpoint
the frequency of transmission processes or other repeated patterns of

emotionally dependent behavior. Although Bowen does not emphasize
the influence of the broader social network on family behavior as

much as do some other family researchers (Bott 1957), family systems
concepts suggest some social policy directives and alternatives that
could improve family functioning.
The systems perspective provides a new view of family problems
currently described in conventional culture-based diagnostic or social-
problem terms. Systems thinking crosses national boundaries in its

specific applications by highlighting the emotional processes that
enter into different varieties of traditional labeling.
A family is a prototype of emotional and social systems.
International comparative research on families is epistemologically
significant because of its potential for contributing to a fuller
understanding of broader macrosociological forces within and
between societies. Such research also provides more reliable empirical
indicators of evolutionary processes than research based on
conventional concepts.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, N. W. (1971). The growing edge of family therapy. Family Process
10:143-156.
Adams, B. N. (1968). Kinship in an Urban Setting. New York: Markham.
_____(1970). Isolation, function, and beyond: American kinship in the 1960s.

Journal of Marriage and the Family 32:575-591.
Aldous, J. (1970). Strategies for developing family theory. Journal o f Marriage

and the Family 32:250-257.
Aldous, J., and Hill, R. (1967). International Bibliography o f Research.

Marriage and the Family, 1960-1964. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communications in family

systems. Journal of Marriage and the Family 35:613-617.
Anderson, M. (1971). Family structure in nineteenth century Lancashire.

Cambridge Studies in Sociology, no. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Andres, F.D., and Lorio, J.P., ed. (1974). Georgetown Family Symposia, Vol. 1
(1971-1972). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Medical
Center.
Ardrey, R. (1966). The Territorial Imperative: a Personal Inquiry into the
animal Origins of Property and Nations. New York: Atheneum.
_____(1968). African Genesis. New York: Atheneum.
Argyle, M. (1958). Religious Behavior. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Athos, A., and Coffey, R. (1968). Behavior in Organizations, a Multidimensional

View. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction Process analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
Barakat, H. (1969). Alienation: a process of encounter between utopia and

reality. British Journal of Sociology 20:1-10.
Bartell, G. D. (1971). Group Sex. New York: Peter H. Wyden.
Barzun, J. (1941). Darwin, Marx, Wagner— Critique of a Heritage. Boston:

Little, Brown.
Beard, B. B. (1949). Are the aged ex-family? Social Forces 27:274-279.
Bell, C. R. (1968). Middle Class Families. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bennis, W. G., and Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development.

Human Relations 9:415-437.
Bernard, J. (1971). Women and the Public Interest. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
_____(1973). My four revolutions: an autobiographical history of the ASA.

American Journal of Sociology 78:773-791.
Berne, E. (1967). Games People Play. New York: Random House.
Bertalanffy, L. von (1967). Robots, Men, and Minds. New York: George
Braziller.
_____(1968). General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller.
Bezdek, W., and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1970). Sex-role identity and pragmatic

action. American Sociological Review 36:491-502.
Bion, W. R (1948). Experience in groups. Human Relations 1:314-320.
Bittner, E. (1963). Radicalism and the organization of radical movements.

American Sociological Review 28:928-940.
Blood, R.O., and Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and Wives. New York: Free
Press.
Bobcock, R.J. (1970). Ritual: civic and religious. British Journal o f Sociology
21:285-297.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., and Spark, G. M. (1973). Invisible Loyalties. New York:

Harper.
Bott, E. (1957). Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of a science.

Management Science 2:197-208.
Bowen, M. (1959). Family relationships in schizophrenia. In Schizophrenia—

an Integrated approach, ed. A. Auerback, pp. 147-178. New York:
Ronald Press.
_____(1960). A family concept of schizophrenia. In The Etiology o f

Schizophrenia, ed. D. Jackson, pp. 346-372. New York: Basic Books.
_____(1961). Family psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

31:40-60. (1965a). Intra family dynamics in emotional illness. In
Family, Church, and Community, ed. A. D’Agostino, pp. 81-97. New
York: P. J. Kennedy and Sons.
_____(1965b). Family psychotherapy with schizophrenia in the hospital and in

private practice. In Intensive Family Therapy, ed. I. Boszormenyi-
Nagy and J. L. Framo, pp. 213-243. New York: Harper.
_____(1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive

Psychiatry 7:345-374.
_____(1971a). Family and family group therapy. In Comprehensive Group

Psychotherapy, ed. H.T. Kaplan and B.J. Sadock, pp. 384-421.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
_____(1971b). Principles and techniques of multiple family therapy. In Systems

Therapy, ed. J.D . Bradt and C. J. Moynihan, pp. 388-404.
Washington, D.C.: Groome Child Guidance Center.
_____(1972). On the differentiation of self. In M. Bowen, Family Therapy in

Clinical Practice, pp. 467-528. New York: Jason Aronson, 1978.
_____(1973). Cultural myths and realities of problem solving. Paper presented

at Environmental Protection Research Symposium on alternative
Futures and Environmental Quality, March. 280
_____(1974). Societal regression: viewed through family systems theory. In
Energy: Today’s Choices, Tomorrow’s Opportunities, ed. A.B.
Schmalz. Washington, D.C.: World Future Society.
Bowen, M., Dysinger, R.H., and Basamania, B. (1959). The role of the father in
families with a schizophrenic patient. American Journal of
Psychiatry 115:117-120.
Bradt, J.O ., and Moynihan, C.J., ed. (1971). Systems Therapy. Washington, D.C.:
Groome Child Guidance Center.
Britton, J. H., and Britton, J.O. (1971). Children’s perceptions of their parents:
a comparison of Finnish and American children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 33:214-218.
Broderick, C. B. (1971). Beyond the five conceptual frameworks: a decade of

development in family theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family
33:139-159.
Broom, L., and Selznick, P. (1963). Sociology. 3rd ed. New York: Harper.
Bry, A. (1972). Inside Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
_____(1968). Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist—a

Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Bultena, G. L. (1969). Rural-urban differences in the familial interaction of the

aged. Rural Sociology 34:5-15.
Burger, R. E. (1969). Who cares for the aged? Saturday Review 52:14-17.
Burgess, E. W., Locke, H. J., and Thornes, M. M. (1971). The Family: from
Traditional to Companionship. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London:

Tavistock.
Caplow, T. (1968). Two against One: Conditions in Triads. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Christensen, H.T. (1964). Development of the family field of study. In

Handbook of Marriage and the Family, ed. H.T. Christensen.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cohen, M.G. (1973). Proceedings and debates of the Ninety-third Congress, first
session, 119 (174). Washington, D.C.
Congressional Research Service (1975). Publication HJ2005 U.S., 75-60E,

February 24.
Cooper, D. (1970). The Death of the Family. New York: Pantheon.
Cotgrove, S. (1967). The Science of Society. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Croog, S., Lipson, a., and Levine, S. (1972). Help patterns in severe illness.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man and on Selection in Relation to Sex.

London: John Murray.
_____(1896). The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. New York:
Appleton.
DeJong, P.Y., Brawer, M.J., and Robin, S.S. (1971). Patterns of female
intergenerational occupational mobility: a comparison with male
patterns of intergenerational occupational mobility. American
Sociological Review 36:1033-1042.
Demerath, N.J., III (1965). Social Class in American Protestantism. Chicago:

Rand McNally.
Demerath, N.J., III, and Hammond, P.E. (1969). Religion in Social Context. New
York: Random House.
Demerath, N.J., III, and Peterson, R.A., ed. (1967). System, Change, and Conflict
— a Reader on Contemporary Sociological Theory and the Debate
over Functionalism. New York: Free Press.
Dennis, N. (1962). Secondary group relationships and the preeminence of the

family. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 3:80-90.
Dinkel, R. (1944). Attitudes of children toward supporting aged parents.

Dohrenwend, B., and Chin-Shong, E. (1967). Social status and attitudes

toward psychological disorder: the problem of tolerance of
deviance. American Sociological Review 32:417-433.
Durkheim, E. (1947). The Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, Illinois: Free

Press.
Dysinger, R. H., and Bowen, M. (1959). Problems for medical practice
presented by families with a schizophrenic member. American
Journal of Psychiatry 116:514-517.
Eckhardt, a. R. (1954). The new look at American piety. In Religion, Society,

and the Individual, ed. J. M. Yingar. New York: Macmillan.
Edgell, S. (1972). Marriage and the concept of companionship. British Journal

of Sociology 23:432-461.
Elliott, K., ed. (1970). The Family and Its Future. London: J. And a. Churchill.
Ellwood, C. (1972). Preparation for the year 2000. Adult Education 45:27-31.
Epstein, C. F. (1973). Positive effects of the multiple negative: explaining the

success of Black professional women. American Journal of
Sociology 78:912-935.
Etzioni, A. (1975). Alternatives to nursing homes. Human Behavior 4:10-11.
Farber, B. (1964). Family: Organization and Interaction. San Francisco:

Chandler Publishing Company.
Ferm, D. W.(1971). Responsible Sexuality— Now. New York: Seaburg Press.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human

Relations 7:117-140.
Fichter, J. H. (1972). The concept of man in social science: freedom, values,

and second nature. Journal for the Scientific Study o f Religion
11:109-121.
Finnegan, R. (1970). The kinship of ascription of primitive societies: actuality
or myth? International Journal of Comparative Sociology 11:171
-194.
Fletcher, R. (1962). The Family and Marriage. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:

Penguin.
Freilich, M. (1964). The natural triad in kinship and complex systems.

Gibson, G. (1972). Kin family network: overheralded structure in past

conceptualizations of family. Journal of Marriage and the Family
34:13-23.
Glock, C. Y. (1960). Religion and the integration of society. Review o f Religious

Research 2:49-61.
_____(1962). On the study of religious commitment. Review of Recent Research

Bearing on Religious and Character Formation, research
supplement to Religious Education, S98-S110.
Goode, E. (1968). Class styles of religious sociation. British Journal of Sociology

19:1-16.
Goode, W. J. (1963a). The process of role bargaining in the impact of

urbanization and industrialization on family systems. Current
Sociology 12:1-13.
_____(1963b). World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Macmillan.
_____(1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 33:624-636.
Goody, J. (1973). Evolution and communication: the domestication of the

savage mind. British Journal of Sociology 24:1-12.
Gouldner, A.W. (1970). The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. New York:
Basic Books.
Gove: W.R., and Howell, P. (1974). Individual resources and mental

hospitalization: a comparison and evaluation of the societal
reaction and psychiatric perspectives. American Sociological
Review 39:86-100.
Gray, R. M., and Kasteler, J.m. (1967). Foster grandparents and retarded
children. Research Report, Utah Foster Grandparent Project, Salt
Lake City.
Gurman, a. S. (1973a). The effects and effectiveness of marital therapy: a

review of outcome research. Family Process 12:145-170.
_____(1973b). Marital therapy: emerging trends in research and practice.

Family Process 12:45-54.
Gursch, W.E. (1967). Quarterly Narrative Report: Foster Grandparent Project.

Denton State School.
Hall, C.M. (1971). The Sociology of Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-65). New
York: Philosophical Library.
_____(1972). The aged and the multigenerational cut-off phenomenon. Paper

presented at Georgetown University PreSymposium on Family
Psychiatry, Washington, D.C., November.
_____1973). Vital Life: Questions in Social Thought. North Quincy,

Massachusetts: The Christopher Publishing House.
_____(1974). Efforts to differentiate a self in my family of origin. In Georgetown

Family Symposia, vol. 1 (1971-1972), ed. F. D. Andres and J. P.
Lorio. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Medical Center.
_____(1976). Aging and family processes. Journal of Family Counseling 4:28-42.
Hall, C. M., and Sussman, M. B. (1975). Aging and the family: alternatives to
institutional care. American Sociological association annual
Meeting, report and recommendations of Committee on Public
Issues and the Family.
Hammond, M.A. (1963). Effects of the foster grandparent project upon the
Oral Language Development of Institutionalized Mental
Retardates. Ph.D. Dissertation, North Texas State University.
Hammond, P. E. (1963). Religion and the “informing of culture.” Journal for

the Scientific Study of Religion 3:97-106.
Hare, P. (1962). Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: The Free Press
of Glencoe.
Harper, R. A. (1974). Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy—36 Systems. New

York: Jason Aronson.
Harris, C.C. (1969). The Family. London: Allen and Unwin.
HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) (1972). AOA
projects to test alternatives to institutionalization of aged. Aging,
No. 215-216. Administration on aging.
_____(1972b). Cost Benefit Profile of the Foster Grandparent Program. Booz,

Allen Public administration Service.
Heidensohn, F. (1968). The deviance of women: a critique and an enquiry.

British Journal of Sociology 19:160-175.
Henderson, L. J. (1935). Pareto’s General Speiology. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Herberg, W. (1960). Protestant-Catholic-Jew. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday.
Hochschild, A. R. (1973). Communal life-styles for the old. Society 10:50-57.
Hollingshead, A., and Redlich, F. (1958). Social Class and Mental Illness. New
York: Wiley.
Homans, G. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace.
_____(1964). Bringing men back in. American Sociological Review 29:809-818.
Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places.

Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Huxley, J. S. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: Allen and

Unwin.
Ibsen, C.A., and Klobus, P. (1972). Fictive kin term use and social
relationships: alternative interpretations. Journal of Marriage and
the Family 34:615-620.
Jaco, E.G. (1957). Attitudes toward an incidence of mental disorder: a

research note. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 38:27-38.
Jacobs, J. (1971). from sacred to secular: the rationalization of Christian

theology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 10:1-9.
Johnson, W.T. (1971). The religious crusade: revival or ritual? American

Journal of Sociology 76:873-890.
Jones, N.F., and Kahn, M.W. (1964). Patient attitudes as related to social class
and other variables concerned with hospitalization. Journal of
Consulting Psychology 18:403-408.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: a study of

commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American
Kanter, R. M., ed. (1973). Communes: Creating and Managing the Collective
Life. New York: Harper.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing

Company.
Kaplan, H.I., and Sadock, B.J., ed. (1971). Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
Kaplan, J. (1972). An editorial: alternatives to nursing home care, fact or
fiction? The Gerontologist 12:114.
Keller, a. G. (1931). Societal Evolution— a Study of the Evolutionary Basis of

the Science of Society. New York: Macmillan.
Kelman, H. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly 25:57-

78.
Kenkel, W. F. (1966). The Family in Perspective. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.
Kent, D. P., and Matson, M. B. (1972). The impact of health on the aged family.
The Family Coordinator 21:29-36.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.
Ketcham, W., Sack, a., and Shore, H. (1974). Annotated bibliography on

alternatives to institutional care. The Gerontologist 14:34-36.
Kirkendall, L. A., and Whitehurst, R. N. (1971). The New Sexual Revolution.

New York: Donald W. Brown.
Kistin, H., and Morris, R. (1972). Alternatives to institutional care for the
elderly and disabled. The Gerontologist 12:139-142.
Lacey, W. K. (1968). The Family in Classical Greece. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Laumann, E. O. (1969). The social structure of religious and ethnoreligious

groups in a metropolitan community. American Sociological
Review 34:182-197.
Lawrence, P. R., and Seiler, J. A. (1965). Organizational Behavior and

Administration. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. and The
Dorsey Press.
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and environment:

managing differentiation and integration. Cambridge: Division of
Research, Harvard Business School.
Lee, G. R. (1974). Marriage and anomie: a causal argument. Journal of

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations 1:5-41.
_____(1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper.
Lindenthal, J.J. et al. (1970). Mental states and religious behavior. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 9:143-149.
Litwak, E. (1960a). Geographical mobility and extended family cohesion.

_____(1960b). Occupational mobility and extended family cohesion. American

Litwak, E., and Szelenyi, I. (1969). Primary group structures and their
functions: kin, neighbors, and friends. American Sociological
Review 34:465 481.
Litwak, E., Hollister, D., and Meyer, H.J. (1974). Linkage theory between
bureaucracies and community primary groups—education, health,
political action as empirical cases in point. Paper presented at the
annual Meeting of the American Sociological association, Montreal.
Litwin, G., and Stringer, R.A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.
Cambridge: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Lorenz, K. (1954). Man Meets Dog. London: Methuen.
_____(1963). On aggression. Trans. M. K. Wilson. New York: Harcourt Brace.
_____(1965). Evolution and Modification of Behavior. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
_____(1971). Studies in animal and Human Behavior, vol. 3, Trans. Robert

Martin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Loudon, J. B. (1961). Kinship and crisis in South Wales. British Journal of

Lowenthal, M.F., and Boler, D. (1965). Voluntary versus involuntary social

withdrawal. Journal of Gerontology 20:363-371.
Luckman, T. (1967). The Invisible Religion. New York: Macmillan.
Lundberg, G. A. (1947). Can Science Save Us? New York: David McKay.
Lynd, R.S. (1939). Knowledge for What? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lyness, J. L., and Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Living together: an alternative to

marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 34:305-311.
Marciano, T. D. (1975). Variant family forms in a world perspective. The
Family Coordinator 24:407-420.
Martin, R.J. (1974). Cultic aspects of sociology: a speculative essay. British

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Mawson, A. R. (1970). Durkheim and contemporary social pathology. British

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University

Press.
Mills, T. M. (1954). Coalition pattern in three-person groups. American

Mishler, E.G., and Wazler, N.E. (1968). Interaction in Families. New York:
Wiley.
Moberg, D. (1962). The Church as a Social Institution. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Muncy, R. L. (1973). Sex and Marriage in Utopian Communities—19th Century

America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Musil, J. (1971). Some aspects of social organization of the contemporary

Czechoslovak family. Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:196-
206.
Myers, J., and Bean, L. (1968). A Decade Later: a Follow-up of Social Class and
Mental Illness. New York: Wiley.
Nelson, H. M., and Allen, H.D. (1974). Ethnicity, Americanization, and religious
attendance. American Journal of Sociology 79:906-922.
Nelson, H. M., Yokley, R. L., and Madron, T. W. (1973). Ministerial roles and
societal actionist stance: Protestant clergy and protest in the
sixties. American Sociological Review 38:375-386.
Neugarten, B. L. (1973). Patterns of aging: past, present, and future. Social

Service Review 47:571-572.
Nimkoff, M. F., ed. (1965). Comparative Family Systems. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Noble, T. (1970). Family breakdown and social networks. British Journal of

Noelker, L. (1975). Intimate relationships in a residential home for the

elderly. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.
Olson, D. H. (1972). Marriage of the future: revolutionary or evolutionary

change? The Family Coordinator 21:383-393.
O’Neill, N., and O’Neill, G. (1972). Open marriage: a synergic model. The
Orden, S.R., and Bradburn, N.M. (1968). Dimensions of marriage happiness.

American Journal of Sociology 73:715-731.
_____(1969). Working wives and marriage happiness. American Journal of
Osofsky, J. D., and Osofsky, H .J. (1972). Androgyny as a life style. The Family
Coordinator 21:411-418.
Paden-Eisenstark, D. (1973). Are Israeli women really equal? Trends and

patterns of Israeli women’s labor force participation: a
comparative analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 35:538-
545.
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary U.S. American

anthropologist 45:22-38.
_____(1966). Societies—Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
_____(1967). Christianity and modern industrial society. In Sociological Theory,

Values, and Sociocultural Change, ed. E. Tiryakian. New York:
Harper.
_____(1971). The System of Modern Societies. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, T., and Bales, R.F., eds. (1955). Family, Socialization, and Interaction
Process. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Payne, G. (1973). Comparative sociology: some programs of theory and

method. British Journal of Sociology 24:13-29.
Pechman, J.A., and Timpane, P.M., ed. (1975). Work Incentives and Income
Guarantees. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Petroni, F. (1969). Significant others and illness behavior: a much neglected

sick role contingency. Sociological Quarterly 10:32-41.
Queen, S., and Habenstein, R. (1967). The Family in Various Cultures. New
York: Lippincott.
Ramey, J.W. (1972). Communes, group marriage, and the upper middle class.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N., and Denney, R. (1950). Lonely Crowd: a Study of the
Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Riley, M. W. (1968). Aging and Society, Vol. One: an Inventory o f Research

Findings. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Roberts, B. S. (1968). Protestant groups and coping with urban life in

Guatemala City. American Journal of Sociology 73:753-767.
Roethlisberger, F.J. (1953). Administrators skill: communication. Harvard

Business Review 31:55-62.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rose, A.M. (1968). The subculture of aging: a topic for sociological research. In
Middle age and aging, ed. B. L. Neugarten. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Rose, A. M., and Peterson, W. A., ed. (1965). Older People and Their Social
World. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Co.
Rosenberg, G.S. (1967). Poverty, aging, and Social Isolation. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Social Research.
Rosow, I. (1967). Social Integration of the aged. New York: The Free Press.
Rosser, C., and Harris, C. C. (1965). The Family and Social Change. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rubin, Z. (1968). Do American women marry up? American Sociological

Review 33:750-760.
Ruitenbeek, H.M., ed. (1963). Varieties of Classic Social Theory. New York:
Dutton.
Schlesinger, B. (1970). Family life in the kibbutz of Israel: utopia gained or

paradise lost? International Journal of Comparative Sociology
11:251-271.
Schneider, D. M., and Smith, R.T. (1973). Class Differences and Sex Roles in
American Kinship and Family Structure. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Schorr, A. (1960). Filial Responsibility in the Modern American Family.

Washington, D.C.: Social Security administration Report.
Schutz, W.C. (1958). FIRO: a Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal

Behavior. New York: Rinehart.
Scott, W. G., and Mitchell, T. R. (1972). Organization Theory: A Structural and

Behavioral analysis. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. And
The Dorsey Press.
Shanas, E. (1961). Family Relationships of Older People: Living Arrangements,
Health Status, and Family Ties. New York: Health Information
Foundation.
Shanas, E., and Streib, G.F., ed. (1963). Social Structure and the Family:
Generational Relations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
Shanas, E., and Sussman, M. B. (1975). Older People, Family and Bureaucracy.
Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Shands, H.C. (1969). Integration, discipline and the concept of shape. Annals of
the New York academy of Sciences 174:578-589.
Sheper, J. (1969). Familism and social structure: the case of the kibbutz.
Shepherd, C. R. (1964). Small Groups: Some Sociological Perspectives. San

Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
Sherif, M., and Sherif, C. (1953). Groups in Harmony and Tension. New York:
Harper.
Shore, H. (1974). What’s new about alternatives? The Gerontologist 14:6-11.
Simpson, G. G. (1949). The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University

Press.
Simpson, I.H., and McKinney, J.C ., ed. (1966). Social aspects o f Aging. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Slater, P. E. (1963). On societal regression. American Sociological Review
28:339-364.
Solomon, B. (1967). Social functioning of economically dependent aged. The

Gerontologist 7:213-217.
Speck, R., and Attneave, C. (1973). Family Networks. New York: Pantheon.
Sprey, J. (1969). The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 31:699-706.
Streib, G. (1958). Family patterns in retirement. Journal of Social Issues 14:46-

60.
_____(1965). Intergenerational relations: perspectives of the two generations

of the older parent. Journal of Marriage and the Family 27:469-
476.
Stryker, S., and Psathas, G. (1960). Research on coalitions in the triad:

findings, problems, and strategy. Sociometry 23:217-230.
Sussman, M.B. (1953). The help pattern in the middle class family. American
_____(1955). Activity patterns of post-parental couples and their relationship

to family continuity. Marriage and Family Living 17:338-341.
Sussman, M. B., and Burchinal, L. (1962). Kin family network: unheralded

structure in current conceptualizations of family functioning.
Marriage and Family Living 24:320-332. Also in Kinship and Family
Organization, ed. B. Farber. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Sussman, M.B., and Cogswell, B. E. (1972). The meaning of variant and
experimental marriage styles and family forms in the 1970s.
Szasz, T. S. (1963). Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry. New York: Macmillan.
Taietz, P., and Larson, O. F. (1956). Social participation and old age. Rural
Talmon, Y. (1959). The case of Israel. Human Relations 12:121-146.
_____(1972). Family and Community in the Kibbutz. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Tarnowiesky, D. (1973). The changing success ethic. American Management

association Survey Report.
Taylor, I., and Walton, P. (1970). Values in deviancy theory and society. British
Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1970). Let Me Explain. Trans. R. Hague et al. London:

Collins.
Thompson, G. (1961). The Inspiration of Science. London: Oxford University

Press.
Tolman, E.C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in animals and Men. New York:
Appleton-Century.
Toman, W. (1972). Family Constellation. New York: Springer.
Townsend, P. (1957). The Family Life of Old People. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press.
Tremmel, W.C. (1971). The converting choice. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion 10:17-25.
Troll, L. E. (1971). The family of later life: a decade review. Journal of

Turner, R.H. (1969). The theme of contemporary social movements. British

_____(1970). Family Interaction. New York: Wiley.
United States Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (1975). Nurse
Training and Health Revenue Sharing and Health Services Act.
Calendar no. 29, report no. 94-29. Washington, D.C.
Weintraub, D., and Shapiro, M. (1968). The traditional family in Israel in the
process of change—crisis and continuity. British Journal of
Weitzman, L.J. (1972). Sex-role socialization in picture books for pre-school

children. American Journal of Sociology 77:1125-1150.
Wells, R. A. et al. (1972). The results of family therapy: a critical review of the
literature. Family Process 11:189-207.
White House Conference on aging (1971). Toward a National Policy on aging.

Final Report, vol. 2, Washington, D.C.
Whitehurst, R. N. (1972). Some comparisons of conventional and counter-
culture families. The Family Coordinator 21:395-401.
Williams, W. (1957). Class differences in the attitudes of psychiatric patients.

Social Problems 4:240-244.
Wilson, B. (1969). Religion in Secular Society: a Sociological Commentary.

Baltimore: Penguin.
Winer, L.R. (1971). The qualified pronoun count as a measure of change in

family psychotherapy. Family Process 10:243-247.
Winter, G. (1961). The Suburban Captivity of the Churches. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday.
Woof, W. B. (1959). Organizational constructs: an approach to understanding

organization. Journal of the academy o f Management, April.
Wolff, K.H., ed. And trans. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York:
The Free Press.
Work in America (1972). A report of a special task force to the Secretary of

Health, Education, and Welfare. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Young, M., and Willmott, P. (1962). Family and Kinship in East London.
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican.
Zelditch, M., Jr. (1955). Role differentiation in the nuclear family: a

comparative study. In Family, Socialization, and Interaction
Process, ed. T. Parsons and R. F. Bales. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe.
Zetterberg, H.L. (1965). On Theory and Verification in Sociology. Totowa, New
Jersey: The Bedminster Press.
Zimmerman, C. C. (1972). The future of the family in America, Journal o f

Zinberg, N. (1970). The mirage of mental health. British Journal o f Sociology

21:262-272.

Theoretical Perspectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical Perspectives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical Perspectives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theoretical

All Rights Reserved

Created in the United States of America

Copyright © 2013 C. Margaret Hall

Family Systems and Cross-Cultural Studies

twenty-five years. In the United States in the early 1950s, Murray

Bowen, Nathan Ackerman, Virginia Satir, Don Jackson, and other

pioneer family clinicians used a family perspective to examine and

understand individual behavior. Bowen’s early family research at the

National Institutes of Mental Health focused on mother-child

relationships in families with a schizophrenic child. To work more

effectively with these families and to describe other family

relationships and other patterns of behavior, Bowen articulated a

series of concepts that represent the family as an emotional system,

and schizophrenia as a family problem. Bowen postulates that these

emotional processes peculiar to families in clinical populations.

and substantiation of these family concepts by both Bowen and myself,

health professionals and of undergraduate, graduate, and medical

research on family interaction with smaller populations.

1. Bowen’s concepts describe emotional processes thought to

beings are perceived as having an evolutionary heritage of primitive

levels of functioning, which influence all kinds of behavior. important

examples of primitive behavior are the reflexive and reactive

families and intimate relationships. The Bowen theory conceptualizes

existence of certain universals in human and animal behavior.

2. Bowen suggests that the intense emotional interdependency in

families contributes toward making family interaction more

these patterns are frequently repeated in several subsequent

generations. When sufficient intergenerational data about a family are

available, the degree of persistence in certain patterns of behavior or

3. Families appear to exert a strong and compelling influence for

the conformity of each member’s behavior, but Bowen’s theory

suggests several benefits in resisting this pressure by changing

functioning positions in the relationship systems.

Eight major concepts have been developed from Bowen’s initial

mass.” Bowen no longer uses the concept of undifferentiated family

1. Differentiation of self Self may be thought of as both solid self,

move up or down from a given level of differentiation. A lifetime of

efforts to differentiate self may culminate in only slight changes in

solid self. At the higher levels of differentiation, behavior is influenced

differentiation, behavior is more automatic and is largely controlled by

emotions and the anxiety of the moment.

2. Triangles. The smallest relationship system in families and

system. When anxiety in a two-person relationship reaches a certain

the twosome. Where triangles in a family are not readily apparent,

3. Nuclear Family Emotional System. The most intensely

anxiety that frequently amasses in the nuclear system. The adaptive

mechanisms are marital conflict, dysfunction of a spouse, and

projection to a child. Most families use a combination of all three

4. Family Projection Process. Parents stabilize their relationship

twosome by viewing a child as their shared “problem.” This

overinvestment of feeling in a child frequently impairs the child’s

capacity to function effectively in the family and other social settings.

5. Emotional Cut-off. In an attempt to deal with the fusion or lack

segments of the extended system may distance themselves from each

frequent between the parent and grandparent generations of a family.

One direct consequence of emotional cut-off is the burdening of the

nuclear system with an equivalent overinvestment of feelings and

6. multigenerational Transmission Process. The strong tendency to