“The highest form of spiritual practice is self-observation without judgement,”
– Swami Kripalu
The word science has its origin in the Latin Scientia, which literally means knowledge or knowing. Historically, it did not refer to what we interpret as science today. Today, the term science conjures up thoughts of laboratory research in vitro, experiments that test hypotheses or seek to answer questions using technology-based methods of data collection and analysis, or field research studying some non-human species in vivo. But in its original sense, science referred more simply to an organized system of knowledge acquired by experimentation through direct experience and observation. Today, if the method of inquiry does not include controlled experimentation designed to isolate certain variables and control for others, we consider it non-science, or at best, ascientific.
Is Bowen Theory a science of human functioning? Based on the original understanding of science, I conclude that it is, given that the deeper meaning of science from an etymological perspective refers to a disciplined method of acquiring knowledge. The processes and methods that led to the development of Bowen Family Systems Theory surely meet that criteria.
Spiritual disciplines (Not religious doctrines) have arisen out of experimentation and observation, testing conceptual notions and direct experience wherein the laboratory was the practitioner. As such, these “experiments” are repeatable. What is particularly striking about Swami Kripalu’s statement, “The highest form of spiritual practice is self-observation without judgement,” is that it bears a striking similarity to what Bowen Theory advocates. A key difference I see is that Dr. Bowen embedded the observation of self in a multi-generational emotional system as opposed to looking at oneself as an individual in relationship with the rest of nature. Bowen Theory views the family as an emotional unit.
Bowen Theory also offers a framework that more precisely grounds observation of self. That said, the questions one might ask oneself through the lens of Bowen Theory closely mirror questions for self that might arise out of meditative and contemplative disciplines.
• What am I feeling?
• What am I thinking?
• How do I distinguish between thoughts and feelings?
• What part of my functioning is emotionally-driven and automatic?
• What part of my functioning is conscious and principle-based?
• What do I stand for?
• What part do I play in the relationship processes that I criticize?
• Where and with whom in the emotional system am I fused? Reactive? Distant or cut-off? (Spiritual/contemplative traditions would say, To what am I attached? To what do I have an aversion?)
• How does my physical body metabolize emotions?
I could go on with examples of questions. The main distinction I see is that contemplative frameworks for self inquiry are typically inquiring about the nature of self and the relationship between self and the rest of nature. Bowen Theory focuses that inquiry on the nature of the relationship between self and the multi-generational emotional system, and by extension, one’s level of differentiation arising out of the family of origin and its impact on functioning across a range of life dimensions.
Bowen Theory and Spiritual inquiry are not the same, but they are not entirely different either. Dr. Bowen talked about the potential for the development of a ninth concept dealing with spirituality. I believe the development of a conceptual framework addressing spirituality is a viable direction for the development of theory. Would it focus on bridging the gap more precisely between the multi-generational emotional system, self and the rest of nature?
What the biological sciences, including evolutionary biology, primatology, neuroscience, epigenetics, to mention a few, lend to the scrutiny and testing of Bowen Theory has been invaluable. These disciplines provide a connection between Bowen Theory and the broader scientific community. That connection has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of how multi-generational processes influence human functioning, strengthening the validity of Dr. Bowen’s observation of what happens.
To bridge the gap between science and spirituality, the effort, in my opinion, will have to distance itself from the typical overly-emotional selling of spiritual or contemplative frameworks for self-inquiry. By overly-emotionally sold, I mean the propagation of benefits such as:
• Find your bliss
• Manifest abundance in your life
• Live your life from your highest self
Bowen Theory would argue that emotional comfort (anxiety reduction) is not a reliable marker of growth. You could put your head in the sand and find your bliss while everything else around you is falling apart. That said, Bowen Theory and contemplative/meditative traditions share a common theme; that growth begins when one can become less governed by emotional reactivity. Dr. Bowen called this differentiation.
There are methods to work on one’s capacity to down-regulate reactivity. Meditation and breath work, biofeedback, neurofeedback, being in contact with the multi-generational emotional field in one’s family and observing one’s own reactivity to that field. These are all viable ways to work toward advancing differentiation, as defined in the previous paragraph. They are all anchored in self-observation without judgement. I think the important, and very personal task, is to engage multiple methods and find your own path. To be stuck on any one method as “the only way” to work toward differentiation seems suspect to me. To rule out every other possibility, one would have to have a direct experience with practice and observation with every other possibility.
I leave you with a question:
Given that whether one’s effort is anchored in science and Theory or a spiritual discipline, both paths are concerned with developing a clearer perceptual lens, greater self-responsibility and greater freedom from automatic emotional processes, can working toward differentiation of self be understood as both, a science-backed endeavor AND a spiritual endeavor?
– Stan Proffitt