Everyday Bowen

Category: Theory

  • Togetherness is not Fusion

    I often hear people using terms in an interchangeable way when the terms correct meaning is different and distinct.


    One example of this is the interchangeable use of togetherness and fusion. Interestingly, when it comes to fusion, there seems to be a lot of confusion.

    In Bowen Family Systems Theory, fusion and togetherness are not the same, though people often talk about them as if they are. I have often heard togetherness talked about as if it is the opposite of Differentiation of Self.


    When one views togetherness as the opposite of differentiation, one is then vulnerable to adopting an “anti-togetherness” mindset. But human beings would not have survived without togetherness. It (togetherness) is an emotional force that helps regulate behavior and temper the stress response. I have witnessed work groups that function out of a healthy, thoughtful togetherness. The synergy that emerges from people coordinating their individual work toward a shared vision makes a level of effectiveness possible that individuals working in isolation cannot achieve.


    I have also witnessed what happens when a work group functions out of an “anti-togetherness” mindset. Synergy is reduced, people become functionally isolated and the emergent properties of team effectiveness are lost. A marriage without togetherness is reduced to a roommate arrangement. A sports team without togetherness becomes a floundering group of high performing individuals who cannot coordinate with each other enough to win.


    The balancing act is not between togetherness and differentiation. The balancing act is between togetherness and individuality. Differentiation of self inherently includes both togetherness and individuality. At a higher level of differentiation, the characteristics and features of togetherness are more thoughtful, intentional and goal or purpose driven than at lower levels. At a lower level of differentiation, the form togetherness takes on is more emotionally reactive and driven by the need for anxiety reduction. But make no mistake, there can be no differentiation unless it exists in the “midst of togetherness.”

    Differentiation of self, as expressed in a relationship, (individuality amid togetherness), is foundational to deeper, more meaningful connection. Meaningful connection between two individuals simply requires the presence of two distinct individuals.


    Fusion, on the other hand, literally means that one loses individual identity and is absorbed into the identity of another. In a relationship that is rooted in emotional fusion, one appears to gain strength of self, and one appears to lose strength of self. This is deceptive, because both participants in a fusion are roughly equally lacking in a solid form of self; roughly equally lacking in differentiation. One gives up his/her individuality, and one borrows individuality, but neither is a self that can stand apart from the other.

    A cult is a good example of fusion. Cults cannot exist without members who forfeit their individuality for the sake of acceptance and approval within the cult. The structure of the cult tells them what to think, feel and do, and the cult only exists if members cooperate with the process. Many partnerships and marriages bear the same emotional process as a cult.

    Differentiation of self, then, is a state of being and something one does, moment by moment; context by context. It is an ebb and flow; a conscious dance. The dance partners are individuality and togetherness, and each requires the other in order to engage the dance. Togetherness without individuality is fusion. Individuality without togetherness is emotional and/or functional isolation.

    To define myself, I embrace opportunities to lean into togetherness, and then amid the togetherness, define my own thinking. When I do this, it is interesting to observe who then wants to join me in my thinking… more togetherness.

    Stan Proffitt

  • Operationalizing Differentiation of Self Part 1: From “I Statements” to “I Positions” to “My Positions”

    Over the years, I have found that experiencing life through the lens of Bowen Theory has added tremendous value in terms of the quality of my life experience.  It is not necessary to be perfectly differentiated.  If one can be less reactive to what goes on than others, one already has a leg up on having a different experience.

    However, some of the common language used to describe theoretical concepts seems lacking in precision.  The concept of “I” Positions is an example of this.  I have often heard the terms I Position and I Statement used interchangeably, though conceptually they point to very different aspects of functioning.  And for that matter, what is an I Position?  I have commonly heard the phrase, “Take an I Position.”  Am I taking something that conceptually resides out there somewhere, external to myself?  And to where am I to take this I Position?

    Following is an excerpt from Dr. Murray Bowen on I Positions:

    “This is the responsible “I”, which assumes responsibility for one’s own happiness and comfort and well-being. It avoids thinking that tends to blame one’s own unhappiness, discomfort, or failure on the other. The responsible “I” also avoids the posture of the irresponsible or narcissistic “I”, which makes demands on others with “I want or deserve” or “This is my right or my privilege.”

    Murray Bowen MD “Family Therapy in Clinical Practice.”  (Chapter 10)

    In my own effort to gain clarity and precision for myself, prompted by Dr. Bowen’s descriptions, I have come to a specific way of thinking about I Positions.  I define “I Position” in my own thinking as: 

    One’s internal clarity regarding his/her own path forward in response to any given context or situation.

    Further, I Positions must be affirmed through action (actualized).  I seek to clarify what my own I Positions mean in behavioral terms.  The primary method for communicating an I Position, then, is through action.  This brings me to a couple of important distinctions between I Statements and I Positions:

    I PositionI Statement
    Focuses on internal clarityFocuses on the words
    Communicated through action, whether spoken or notCommunicated through words, whether acted upon or not

    Additionally, there are key aspects of a solid I Position, as follows:

    • An I Position is not just a technique designed to get someone else to change or elicit a particular response from others.
    • One internally clarifies for oneself a path forward in alignment with one’s own beliefs, values, principles, goals and defined purpose, all in response to a particular context. It is a contextual application of beliefs, values, principles, goals and purpose.
    • One communicates one’s positions through actions, and maybe words also.
    • There is discernment regarding whether to verbalize one’s position or simply act on it without explanation.
    • Others are afforded the same latitude to decide for themselves how they will respond in turn.  No coercion or emotional ambush.
    • Many I Positions are provisional and subject to change in the face of new information and perspective, but not subject to change simply because of reactivity from others.

    With these distinctions and operational points clarified, I want to return to my original point regarding precision of language.  A true I Position resides within me; within my capacity for thoughtful discernment based on a principled assessment.  Yet, the phrase “take an I Position”, for me, places the I Position somewhere “out there.”  The very simple language shift I use is: My Position. In situations that require a clear path forward, I simply ask myself:  What is my position?

    In Part 2 of this two-part article, I will take on the topics of discernment regarding whether to verbalize my positions, more depth on the provisional nature of many or most positions and responding to the predictable reactivity to clarity in action that comes from others.

    -Stan Proffitt

  • Bowen and Bridges Part 2 – Defining Differences

    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