Essay Grade

Head Office
30 Grosvenor Street,
Neutral Bay, NSW 2089
Ph: 02 9904 5600
Fax: 02 9904 5611
Coming to grips with family systems theory in a
collaborative, learning environment.
info@thefsi.com.au

Home

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Practice: Illustration
and Critique
By Jenny Brown
This paper will give an overview of Murray Bowen’s theory of family systems. It will describe the model’s
development and outline its core clinical components. The practice of therapy will be described as well as recent
developments within the model. Some key criticisms will be raised, followed by a case example which highlights
the therapeutic focus of Bowen’s approach.
This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Australian Academic Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The
definitive version was published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy (ANZJFT) Vol.20 No.2 1999 pp 94-103).
Introduction
Murray Bowen’s family systems theory (shortened to ‘Bowen theory’ from 1974) was one of the first
comprehensive theories of family systems functioning (Bowen, 1966, 1978, Kerr and Bowen, 1988). While it has
received sporadic attention in Australia and New Zealand, it continues to be a central influence in the practice of
family therapy in North America. It is possible that some local family therapists have been influenced by many of
Bowen’s ideas without the connection being articulated. For example, the writing of Guerin (1976, 1987), Carter
and McGoldrick (1980, 1988), Lerner (1986, 1988, 1990, 1993) and Schnarch (1991, 1997) all have Bowenian
Theory at the heart of their conceptualisations.
There is a pervasive view amongst many proponents of Bowen’s work that his theory needs to be experienced
rather than taught (Kerr, 1991). While this may be applicable if one can be immersed in the milieu of a Bowenian
training institute, such an option, to my knowledge, is not available in this country. Bowen’s own writings have
also been charged with being tedious and difficult to read (Carter, 1991). Hence it seems pertinent to present this
influential theory in an accessible format.
Development Of The Model
Murray Bowen was born in 1913 in Tennessee and died in 1990.
He trained as a psychiatrist and originally practised within the psychoanalytic model. At the Menninger Clinic in
the late 1940s, he had started to involve mothers in the investigation and treatment of schizophrenic patients. His
devotion to his own psychoanalytic training was set aside after his move to the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) in 1954, as he began to shift from an individual focus to an appreciation of the dimensions of families as
systems. At the NIMH, Bowen began to include more family members in his research and psychotherapy with
schizophrenic patients. In 1959 he moved to Georgetown University and established the Georgetown Family
Centre (where he was director until his death). It was here that his developing theory was extended to less
severe emotional problems. Between 1959 and 1962 he undertook detailed research into families across several
generations. Rather than developing a theory about pathology, Bowen focused on what he saw as the common
patterns of all ‘human emotional systems’. With such a focus on the qualitative similarities of all families, Bowen
was known to say frequently, ‘There is a little schizophrenia in all of us’ (Kerr and Bowen, 1988).
In 1966, Bowen published the first ‘orderly presentation’ of his developing ideas (Bowen, 1978: xiii). Around the
same time he used his concepts to guide his intervention in a minor emotional crisis in his own extended family,
an intervention which he describes as a spectacular breakthrough for him in theory and practice (Bowen, 1972 in
Bowen, 1978). In 1967, he surprised a national family therapy conference by talking about his own family
experience, rather than presenting the anticipated formal paper. Bowen proceeded to encourage students to
work on triangles and intergenerational patterns in their own families of origin rather than undertaking individual
psychotherapy. From this generation of trainees have come the current leaders of Bowenian Therapy, such as
Michael Kerr at the Georgetown Family Center, Philip Guerin at the Center for Family Learning, Betty Carter at
the Family Institute of Westchester, and Monica McGoldrick at the [Multicultural] Family Institute of New Jersey.
While the core concepts of Bowen’s theory have changed little over two decades, there have been significant
expansions: the focus on life cycle stages (Carter and McGoldrick, 1980, 1988) and the incorporation of a
feminist lens (Carter, Walters, Papp, Silverstein, 1988; Lerner, 1983; Bograd, 1987).
The Theory
Bowen’s focus was on patterns that develop in families in order to defuse anxiety. A key generator of anxiety in
families is the perception of either too much closeness or too great a distance in a relationship. The degree of
anxiety in any one family will be determined by the current levels of external stress and the sensitivities to
particular themes that have been transmitted down the generations. If family members do not have the capacity
to think through their responses to relationship dilemmas, but rather react anxiously to perceived emotional
demands, a state of chronic anxiety or reactivity may be set in place.
The main goal of Bowenian therapy is to reduce chronic anxiety by
1. facilitating awareness of how the emotional system functions; and
2. increasing levels of differentiation, where the focus is on making changes for the self rather than on
trying to change others.
Eight interlocking concepts make up Bowen’s theory. This paper will give an overview of seven of these. The
eighth attempts to link his theory to the evolution of society, and has little relevance to the practice of his therapy.
[However, Wylie (1991) points out in her biographical piece following Bowen’s death that this interest in
evolutionary process distinguishes Bowen from other family therapy pioneers. Bowen viewed himself as a
scientist, with the lofty aim of developing a theory that accounted for the entire range of human behaviour and its
origins.]
1 – Emotional Fusion and Differentiation of Self
2 – Triangles
3 – Nuclear Family Emotional System
3a. Couple Conflict
3b. Symptoms in a Spouse
3c. Symptoms in a Child
4 – Family Projection Process
5 – Emotional Cutoff
6 – Multi-generational Transmission Process
7 – Sibling Positions
1 – Emotional Fusion and Differentiation of Self
‘Fusion’ or ‘lack of differentiation’ is where individual choices are set aside in the service of achieving harmony
within the system.
Fusion can be expressed either as:
* a sense of intense responsibility for another’s reactions, or
* by emotional ‘cutoff’ from the tension within a relationship (Kerr and Bowen, 1988; Herz Brown, 1991).
Bowen’s research led him to suggest that varying degrees of fusion are discernible in all families. ‘Differentiation’,
by contrast, is described as the capacity of the individual to function autonomously by making self directed
choices, while remaining emotionally connected to the intensity of a significant relationship system (Kerr and
Bowen, 1988). Bowen’s notion of fusion has a different focus to Minuchin’s concept of enmeshment, which is
based on a lack of boundary between sub-systems (Minuchin, 1974). The structural terms ‘enmeshment’ and
‘disengagement’ are in fact the twin polarities of Bowen’s ‘fusion’. Fusion describes each person’s reactions within
a relationship, rather than the overall structure of family relationships. Hence, anxiously cutting off the relationship
is as much a sign of fusion as intense submissiveness. A person in a fused relationship reacts immediately (as if
with a reflex, knee jerk response) to the perceived demands of another person, without being able to think
through the choices or talk over relationship matters directly with the other person. Energy is invested in taking
things personally (ensuring the emotional comfort of another), or in distancing oneself (ensuring one’s own). The
greater a family’s tendency to fuse, the less flexibility it will have in adapting to stress.
Bowen developed the idea of a ‘differentiation of self scale’ to assist in teaching this concept. He points out that
this was not designed as an actual instrument for assigning people to particular levels (Kerr and Bowen, 1988:
97-98). Bowen maintains that the speculative nature of estimating a level of differentiation is compounded by
factors such as stress levels, individual differences in reactivity to different stressors, and the degree of contact
individuals have with their extended family. At one end of the scale, hypothetical ‘complete differentiation’ is said
to exist in a person who has resolved their emotional attachment to their family (ie. shifted out of their roles in
relationship triangles) and can therefore function as an individual within the family group.
Bowen did acknowledge that this was a lifelong process and that ‘total’ differentiation is not possible to attain.
2 – Triangles
Bowen described triangles as the smallest stable relationship unit (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 135). The process of
triangling is central to his theory. (Some people use the term ‘triangulation’, deriving from Minuchin (1974: 102),
but Bowen always spoke of ‘triangling’.) Triangling is said to occur when the inevitable anxiety in a dyad is
relieved by involving a vulnerable third party who either takes sides or provides a detour for the anxiety (Lerner,
1988; James, 1989; Guerin, Fogarty, Fay and Kautto, 1996). An example of this pattern would be when Person A
in a marriage begins feeling uncomfortable with too much closeness to Person B. S/he may begin withdrawing,
perhaps to another activity such as work (the third point of the triangle). Person B then pursues Person A, which
results in increased withdrawal to the initial triangled-in person or activity. Person B then feels neglected and
seeks out an ally who will sympathise with his/her sense of exclusion. This in turn leads to Person A feeling like
the odd one out and moving anxiously closer to Person B. Under stress, the triangling process feeds on itself and
interlocking triangles are formed throughout the system. This can spill over into the wider community, when family
members find allies, or enemies to unite against, such as doctors, teachers and therapists.
Under calm conditions it is difficult to identify triangles but they emerge clearly under stress. Triangles are linked
closely with Bowen’s concept of differentiation, in that the greater the degree of fusion in a relationship, the more
heightened is the pull to preserve emotional stability by forming a triangle. Bowen did not suggest that the
process of triangling was necessarily dysfunctional, but the concept is a useful way of grasping the notion that the
original tension gets acted out elsewhere. Triangling can become problematic when a third party’s involvement
distracts the members of a dyad from resolving their relationship impasse. If a third party is drawn in, the focus
shifts to criticising or worrying about the new outsider, which in turn prevents the original complainants from
resolving their tension. According to Bowen, triangles tend to repeat themselves across generations. When one
member of a relationship triangle departs or dies, another person can be drawn into the same role (eg. ‘villain’,
‘rescuer’, ‘victim’, ‘black sheep’, ‘martyr’). For example, in my own family of origin I found myself moving into the
role of peacemaker after the death of my mother, who had mediated the tension between my father and brother.
This ongoing triangle served to detour the anxiety that had been played out between fathers and sons in the
family over the generations.
3 – Nuclear Family Emotional System
In positing the ‘nuclear family emotional system’, Bowen focuses on the impact of ‘undifferentiation’ on the
emotional functioning of a single generation family. He asserts that relationship fusion, which leads to triangling,
is the fuel for symptom formation which is manifested in one of three categories. These are:
a. couple conflict;
b. illness in a spouse;
c. projection of a problem onto one or more children.
Each of these is expanded below.
3A. COUPLE CONFLICT
The single generation unit usually starts with a dyad – a couple who, according to Bowen, will be at approximately
equal levels of differentiation (ie. both have the same degree of need to be validated through the relationship).
Bowen believed that permission to disagree is one of the most important contracts between individuals in an
intimate relationship (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 188). In a fused relationship, partners interpret the emotional state
of the other as their responsibility, and the other’s stated disagreement as a personal affront to them. A typical
pattern in such emotionally intense relationships is a cycle of closeness followed by conflict to create distance,
which in turn is followed by the couple making up and resuming the intense closeness. This pattern is a
‘conflictual cocoon’ (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 192), where anxiety is bound within the conflict cycle without spilling
over to involve children. Bowen suggested the following three ways in which couple conflict can be functional for
a fused relationship, in which ‘each person is attempting to become more whole through the other’ (Lederer and
Lewis, 1991).
1. Conflict can provide a strong sense of emotional contact with the important other.
2. Conflict can justify people’s maintaining a comfortable distance from each other without feeling guilty about it.
3. Conflict can allow one person to project anxieties they have about themselves onto the other, thereby
preserving their positive view of self (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 192).
3B. SYMPTOMS IN A SPOUSE
In a fused relationship, where each partner looks to the other’s qualities to fit his / her learned manner of relating
to significant others, a pattern of reciprocity can be set in motion that pushes each spouse’s role to opposite
extremes. Drawing from his analytic background, Bowen described this fusion as ‘the reciprocal side of each
spouse’s transference’ (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 170). For example, what may start as an overly responsible
spouse feeling compatible with a more dependent partner, can escalate to an increasingly controlling spouse with
the other giving up any sense of contributing to the relationship. Both are equally undifferentiated in that they are
defining themselves according to the reactions of the other; however the spouse who makes the most
adjustments in the self in order to preserve relationship harmony is said by Bowen to be prone to developing
symptoms. The person who gets polarised in the under functioning position is most vulnerable to symptoms of
helplessness such as depression, substance abuse and chronic pain. The over functioning person might also be
the one to develop symptoms, as s/he becomes overburdened by attempts to make things ‘right’ for others.
3C. SYMPTOMS IN A CHILD
The third symptom of fusion in a family is when a child develops behavioural or emotional problems. This comes
under Bowen’s fourth theoretical concept, the Family Projection Process.
4 – Family Projection Process
In the previous two categories the couple relationship is the focus of anxiety without it significantly impacting on
the functioning of the next generation. By contrast, the family projection process describes how children develop
symptoms when they get caught up in the previous generation’s anxiety about relationships.
The child with the least emotional separation from his/her parents is said to be the most vulnerable to developing
symptoms. Bowen describes this as occurring when a child responds anxiously to the tension in the parents’
relationship, which in turn is mistaken for a problem in the child. A detouring triangle is thus set in motion, as
attention and protectiveness are shifted to the child. Within this cycle of reciprocal anxiety, a child becomes more
demanding or more impaired. An example would be when an illness in a child distracts one parent from the
pursuit of closeness in the marriage. As tension in the marriage is relieved, both spouses become invested in
treating their child’s condition, which may in turn become chronic or psychosomatic.
As in all of Bowen’s constructs, ‘intergenerational projection’ is said to occur in all families in varying degrees.
Many intergenerational influences may determine which child becomes the focus of family anxiety and at what
stage of the life cycle this occurs. The impact of crises and their timing also influences the vulnerability of certain
children. Bowen viewed traumatic events as significant in highlighting the family processes rather than as actually
‘causing’ them.
5 – Emotional Cutoff
Bowen describes ’emotional cutoff’ as the way people manage the intensity of fusion between the generations. A
‘cutoff’ can be achieved through physical distance or through forms of emotional withdrawal. Bowen distinguishes
between ‘breaking away’ from the family and ‘growing away’ from the family. ‘Growing away’ is viewed as part of
differentiation – adult family members follow independent goals while also recognising that they are part of their
family system. A ‘cutoff’ is more like an escape; people ‘decide’ to be completely different to their family of origin.
While immediate pressure might be relieved by cutoff, patterns of reactivity in intense relationships remain
unchanged and versions of the past, or its mirror image, are repeated. Bowen proposes that:
If one does not see himself as part of the system, his only options are either to get others to change or to
withdraw. If one sees himself as part of the system, he has a new option: to stay in contact with others and
change self (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 272-273).
‘Cutoffs’ are not always dramatic rifts. An example of a covert emotional cutoff would be one family member
maintaining an anxious silence in the face of another’s anger. The pull to restore harmony overwhelms the ability
to stay in contact with the issue that has been raised.
A central hypothesis of Bowen’s theory is that the more people maintain emotional contact with the previous
generation, the less reactive they will be in current relationships. Conversely, when there are emotional cutoffs,
the current family group can experience intense emotional pressure without effective escape valves. This family
tension is like ‘walking on eggshells’, as issues which remain unresolved from the cutoff are carefully avoided.
Triangling provides a detour, as family members enlist the support of others for their own position in relation to
the cutoff.
6 – Multi-generational Transmission Process
This concept of Bowen’s theory describes how patterns, themes and positions (roles) in a triangle are passed
down from generation to generation through the projection from parent to child which was described earlier. The
impact will be different for each child depending on the degree of triangling they have with their parents.
Bowen’s focus on at least three generations of a family when dealing with a presenting symptom is certainly a
trademark of his theory. The attention to family patterns over time is not just an evaluative tool, but an
intervention that helps family members get sufficient distance from their current struggle with symptoms to see
how they might change their own part in the transmission of anxiety over the generations. As Monica McGoldrick
(1995: 20) writes in applying Bowenian concepts:
By learning about your family and its history and getting to know what made family members tick, how they
related, and where they got stuck, you can consider your own role, not simply as victim or reactor to your
experiences but as an active player in interactions that repeat themselves.
7 – Sibling Positions
Employing Walter Toman’s (1976) sibling profiles, Bowen considered that sibling position could provide useful
information in understanding the roles individuals tend to take in relationships. For example, Toman’s profiles
describe eldest children as more likely to take on responsibility and leadership, with younger siblings more
comfortable being dependent and allowing others to make decisions. Middle children are described as having
more flexibility to shift between responsibility and dependence and ‘only’ children are seen as being responsible,
and having greater access to the adult world. Bowen noted that these generalised traits are not universally
applicable and that it is possible for a younger sibling to become the ‘functional eldest’. Bowen was especially
interested in which sibling position in a family is most vulnerable to triangling with parents. It may be that a parent
identifies strongly with a child in the same sibling position as their own, or that a previous cross generational
triangle (eg. an eldest child aligned with a grandparent against a parent) may be repeated. If one sibling in the
previous generation suffered a serious illness or died, it is more likely that the child of the present generation in
the same sibling position will be viewed as more vulnerable and therefore more likely to detour tensions from the
parental dyad.
Helping the client understand and think beyond the limitations of their own sibling position and role is a goal of
Bowenian family of origin work. Clients are encouraged to consider how assumptions about relationships are
fuelled by their sibling role experience. As with other aspects of Bowen’s theory, the impact of gender and
ethnicity on sibling role is not considered. For example, there is no exploration of how a family’s ethnicity
influences which birth order position and which gender is more valued, or how the gender of any sibling position
tends to influence whether the role is primarily relational (female), or task oriented (male).
The Model In Clinical Practice
Bowen’s is not a technique focused model which incorporates specific descriptions of how to structure therapy
sessions. The goal of therapy is to assist family members towards greater levels of differentiation, where there is
less blaming, decreased reactivity and increased responsibility for self in the emotional system. Perhaps the most
distinctive aspects of Bowen’s therapy are his emphasis on the therapist’s own family of origin work, the central
role of the therapist in directing conversation and his minimal focus on children in the process of therapy.
Bowen views therapy in three broad stages.
1.
Stage one aims to reduce clients’ anxiety about the symptom by encouraging them to learn how the
symptom is part of their pattern of relating.
2.
Stage two focuses adult clients on ‘self’ issues so as to increase their levels of differentiation. Clients are
helped to resist the pull of what Bowen termed the ‘togetherness force’ in the family (Bowen, 1971 in
Bowen, 1978: 218).
3.
In the latter phases of therapy, adult clients are coached in differentiating themselves from their family of
origin, the assumption being that gains in differentiation will automatically flow over into decreased anxiety
and greater self-responsibility within the nuclear family system.
Clinical Practice : The Role of the Therapist
The role of the therapist is to connect with a family without becoming emotionally reactive. Emphasis is given to
the therapist maintaining a ‘differentiated’ stance. This means that the therapist is not drawn into an over
responsible / under responsible reciprocity in attempts to be helpful. A therapist position of calm and interested
investigation is important, so that the family begins to learn about itself as an emotional system. Bowen instructs
therapists to move out of a healing or helping position, where families passively wait for a cure, ‘to getting the
family into position to accept responsibility for its own change’ (Bowen, 1971 in Bowen, 1978: 246).
Bowen warns of the problems of therapists losing sight of their part in the system of interactions, where they may
be inducted into a mediating role in a triangle with the family. Hence there is a high priority given to
understanding and making changes within the therapist’s own family of origin. In training, the emphasis is on the
trainees’ level of differentiation, and not on therapeutic technique. The therapist’s resolution of family of origin
issues is reflected in the:
…ability to be in emotional contact with a difficult, emotionally charged problem and not feel compelled to preach
about what others should do, not rush in to fix the problem and not pretend to be detached by emotionally
insulating oneself (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 108).
Clinical Practice : Therapist Activity
The therapist is active in directing the therapeutic conversation. Enactments are halted so as to prevent the
escalation of clients’ anxiety. Clients are asked to talk directly to the therapist so that other family members can
“listen and ‘really hear’ without reacting emotionally, for the first time in their lives together” (Bowen, 1971 in
Bowen, 1978: 248). Bowen himself would avoid couple interaction in the room and concentrate on interviewing
one spouse in the presence of the other. Bowen clearly avoided asking for emotional responses, which he saw
as less likely to lead to differentiation of self, preferring mostly to ask for ‘thoughts’, ‘reactions’ and ‘impressions’
(Bowen, 1971, in Bowen, 1978: 226). He called this activity ‘externalizing the thinking of each client in the
presence of the other’ (Bowen, 1975 in Bowen, 1978: 314).
Clinical Practice : Children in Bowen’s Therapy
A surprising feature of Bowen’s family therapy is his tendency to minimise the involvement of children. While
Bowen might include children in the beginning stage of therapy, he would soon dismiss them, focusing on the
adults as the most influential members of a family system (Bowen, 1975 in Bowen, 1978: 298). Excluding a child
from therapy responsibility is viewed as a detriangling manoeuvre. When parents cannot use the child as a
‘triangle person’ for issues between them, and the therapist resists taking the replacement role in the triangle,
parents can begin differentiating their respective selves from one other.
Clinical Practice : Family Evaluation
The beginning sessions in Bowenian therapy focus on information gathering in order to form ideas about the
family’s emotional processes, which concurrently provides information to family members about the presenting
problem in its systemic context. The presenting problem is tracked through the history of the nuclear family and
into the extended family system. A multigenerational genogram is a useful tool for recording this information
(McGoldrick and Gerson, 1985; Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 306-313). The therapist looks for clues about the
emotional process of the particular family, including: patterns of regulating closeness and distance, how anxiety is
dealt with in the system, what triangles get activated, the degree of adaptivity to changes and stressful events,
and any signs of emotional ‘cutoff’. Information collected is acknowledged to be extremely subjective, especially
when extended family are discussed; but stories about past generations are viewed as useful clues to the roles
people occupy in triangles and the tensions that remain unresolved from their families of origin. If for example, a
member of the extended family is described as ‘the rebel’, the therapist explores what events gave rise to this
label, who else has occupied this role across the generations and how triangles formed around family crises
involving ‘rebellion’. Calming family members’ anxiety in the early stages of therapy might involve helping them to
make connections between the development of symptoms and potent themes in a family’s history. Another aim
will be to loosen the central triangle that has formed around, and maintains, the presenting problem. Teaching
clients about systems concepts as they operate in their own family is part of therapy at this stage. This does not
mean attempting to convince people to do things differently but to encourage family members to see beyond their
biases so that it is possible for them to consider each person’s part in the family patterns.
Clinical Practice : Questions that Encourage Differentiation
The therapist asks questions that assume that the adult client can be responsible for his / her reactiveness to the
other. An example would be, “How do you understand the way you seem to take your child’s acting out so
personally?” In response to such questions, family members are encouraged to take an ‘I’ position where they
speak about how they view the problem, without attacking, or defending against, another family member (Bowen,
1971a in Bowen, 1978: 252; Goodnow and Lim, 1997). Clients are taught to make personal statements about
their thoughts and feelings in order to facilitate a greater sense of responsibility in a relationship. For example, an
accusatory statement such as, ‘You are so selfish to cause this much worry for your parents!’, is shifted to, ‘I am
really concerned that this might affect your school grades’. The parent is encouraged to ‘own’ their worries, rather
than to project their anxieties through blaming statements. Developing such a ‘self-focus’ is said to be crucial in
lowering anxiety and enabling ‘person to person’ relationships where each family member can think about the
part they play in problematic interactions.
Clinical Practice : Creating a Multigenerational Lens
Bowen’s multigenerational model goes beyond the view that the past influences the present, to the view that
patterns of relating in the past continue in the present family system (Herz Brown, 1991). Hence the therapist
uses questions to encourage clients to think about the connection between their present problem and the ways
previous generations have dealt with similar relationship issues. For example, if the onset of a symptom followed
a death in the family, the therapist asks about how grief has been dealt with in previous generations. Questions
seek to uncover family belief systems as well as the way relationships have shifted in response to loss. Tracking
symptoms and exploring related themes over at least three generations makes it more difficult for individuals to
blame one another for individual deficiencies. As therapist and family members see how patterns repeat over
generations, it is possible to identify the ‘automatic’ reactions of family members towards each other:
The ability to act on the basis of more awareness of relationship process (not blaming self or others, but seeing
the part each plays) can, if done repeatedly in important relationships, lead to some reduction in emotional
reactivity and chronic anxiety (Kerr and Bowen, 1988: 132).
Clinical Practice : Detriangling
This is probably the central technique in Bowenian therapy. The client is first helped to recognise both the subtle
and the more obvious ways that they are ‘triangled’ by others, and the ways in which they attempt to triangle
others in their turn. The therapist uses questions to facilitate the family members’ awareness of their roles in
family triangles. Simple open ended tracking questions, using what Herz Brown (1991) terms the four ‘Ws’ (who,
what, when and where) help clients to become ‘detectives’ in their own interpersonal systems. It is often very
difficult for family members to identify the triangles they participate in, and the sometimes covert ways in which
they detour anxiety. An example would be a client who was struggling to understand her negativity towards her
father. When questioning included her mother’s role in these emotions, the client began to see that her view of
her father was influenced by her position in a triangle. As her mother’s ally in this triangle, she viewed her father
as the inadequate husband who left her mother feeling needy.
Once triangles have been identified, family members are helped to plan ways of communicating a neutral position
to others, leaving the dyad to communicate directly with each other. The goal is for a family member to find a less
reactive position in the face of the other’s anxiety. This will require different stances in different systems, ranging
from refusing to discuss the deficiencies of another behind his/her back, to reversing one’s usual reaction in a
triangle. For example, when the predictable pattern in the family system is to keep distance between those who
haven’t been able to work out their problems, the therapist helps a family member to plan strategies that shift
their usual role in mai