In Bowen and Bridges Part 1, I talked about ways in which science, Bowen Theory and Spiritual (contemplative and meditative) traditions seem to converge. While I believe there are points of convergence, I think a view that penetrates the surface also needs to “see” ways in which they diverge.
At the proverbial 30,000 foot level, one might say science attempts to answer the question, what is reality? Bowen Theory attempts to understand how that reality operates in an emotional system (as distinct from general systems theory) and spiritual traditions are more concerned with the nature of consciousness and its connection to a greater whole. Already, at this high level without detail, the difference in focus is visible. I will attend here more to the ways in which I believe Bowen Theory diverges from spiritual disciplines, as I do believe the theory and its methods are closer to science than spirituality.
While Bowen Theory promotes self-observation without judgement, I think there is an important distinction to be made between moral judgement and functional assessment. Moral judgement is more about one’s identity and worth. I believe this is what Swami Kripalu is referencing (see Bowen and Bridges Part 1). In an effort toward operationalizing Bowen Theory, there is in fact a move toward greater objectivity and a reduction of this type of judgement. However, Bowen Theory does promote a different kind of judgement: Functional Assessment. I do not believe that Bowen Theory promotes detached observers of self who never reach any kind of conclusions. But the functional assessments focus more on understanding patterns, processes, reciprocal effects and outcomes and adaptation.
Some important distinctions between moral judgement and functional assessment can be made as follows:
- Judgement is concerned with worth; assessment is concerned with adaptive function and impact on differentiation
- Judgement asks who is right; assessment asks what is happening and under what conditions does it change
- Judgement often seeks to assign blame; assessment seeks to understand
- Judgement focuses on individuals; assessment (in Bowen Theory) is focused on process and the system
- Judgement is usually emotionally reactive; assessment is intellectually and observationally curious
- Judgement puts people in categories; assessment (in Bowen Theory) describes patterns
Additionally, to move toward a mature (fully developed) application of Theory, I think one eventually must ask:
Which behaviors/patterns are more adaptive?
Which behaviors/patterns lead to greater freedom from automatic emotional functioning?
Which behaviors/patterns do I want to pass on to my children?
When one starts asking these types of questions, an evaluative process enters the picture. Without this kind of evaluation, how would one know who to marry, where to raise children, how to raise children, what school to send children to, where and with/for whom to work, what to eat, who to hang around with socially, and on and on? Life requires decision making. An effort to move toward differentiation of self requires curiosity about self, patterns and multi-generational emotional systems. It requires the capacity for self-observation with greater objectivity, without moral judgement. Yes, it includes all of these aspects of observation. It also includes defining of beliefs, values, principles and life goals. Once one has defined and continuously refines beliefs, values, principles and goals, assessment and evaluation must be part of the process toward differentiation of self. Without assessment and evaluation, beliefs, values, principles and goals are just conceptual notions that have no meaning in everyday life. It takes great effort (for me) to stay in the domain of functional assessment with objectivity and not slip into the reactive domain of moral judgement. But when I can do it, my life experience is just better.
– Stan Proffitt