Carving Up…the Triangles

Rev. Mark Stringer and Jo Fitz

First Unitarian Church of Des Moines

11/17/02

 

 

Introducing the Theme         What Are Emotional Triangles?

 

The foundation of this morning’s service is Dr. Murray Bowen’s Family Systems theory. I was first exposed to Bowen theory while I was preparing for the ministry and quickly found its concepts and principles helpful for my work and my life.  As a result, I participate in Bowen theory workshops and study groups as often as my schedule allows. 

 

Last week, in fact, I served as a discussion panelist at a Bowen conference at Des Moines University.  At the conference it was revealed that I planned to devote a Sunday service to one of the foundational concepts of Bowen theory: the triangle.  The conference attendees—mostly therapists and social workers—seemed both excited and perplexed by my plan:  excited because they know how helpful it can be for people to begin to see their relationships…particularly the relationships of their family… as a series of interlocking triangles; perplexed because they know how difficult it might be to successfully explain triangles in the twenty minutes or so usually reserved for a sermon.

 

Recognizing the limitations of the Sunday service and fully aware that the best we can do this morning is to scratch the surface of Bowen theory, I have rather humble goals for our time together.  If some of you leave today able to identify and think about some of the triangles in your own life, and, maybe, with an interest in learning more about triangles, the attempt to introduce you to Bowen theory will have been worth it.

 

I’ll begin with a little background.  Murray Bowen was a psychiatrist who, before he died in 1990, spent over forty years developing a theory of human behavior that sought to objectively describe human interaction not as it should or could be, but as it is. Bowen saw that the predominant way people tried to understand human behavior was based in human subjectivity—one person’s experience interpreted by that person…and sometimes by the person’s therapist--an approach based in the belief that the basic unit of emotional functioning is the individual.  If an individual has a problem, the traditional belief says, there is undoubtedly an individual to blame: one’s mother, or father, or sibling, or self.  Bowen sought to escape this inherently subjective, cause-and-effect, symptom-based approach, believing that it was too centered on blame and guilt and that it obscured the inherent strength and resilience of the human animal.  The theory he developed, then, took the emphasis off the individual, and focused instead on the entire family as an emotional unit, as a system where each individual member holds a functioning position and contributes to the working of the whole.
Another doctor…Dr. Suess…may have put it best when he wrote:

"A father, a mother, two sisters, a brother

Whose horns are connected from one to the other,

Whose horns are so mixed they can't tell them apart

Can't tell where they end…can't tell where they start."

 

Bowen believed that even if a problem or symptom is evident in only one person, an emphasis on that person alone would always be misguided, for the whole system—meaning the family itself and not just a single individual—contributes to and enables any symptom.  Our multi-generational family connections, those symbolic horns that link us together whether we want to be or not, make it so.

 

As Bowen worked to describe and understand family systems, he made a breakthrough discovery that he said changed his life.[1]  This breakthrough was his observation of “emotional triangles” as the glue that holds the family system together. He identified the triangle as “the basic molecule of an emotional system” because it is the “smallest stable relationship unit”…stable being the key word.[2]  While a two-person system may seem to be stable when things are calm, any increase in anxiety will lead to the automatic inclusion of a third person, who is then effectively triangled in.  [See chart #1]

 

Take for example the following simple scenario:
Window 1) A is married to B.  As long as things are calm, everything is ok and the relationship seems stable. 

Window 2)

Eventually, though, a stressor will emerge from within or outside the relationship that will create an emotional disturbance: B might be having a health problem or a rough time at work and so is being surly with her husband. 

Window 3) A then begins to feel anxious and less connected to his wife and so seeks a third person, his sister C, to share his discomfort, and to whom he can transfer some of his anxiety. 

Window 4) A and C then create a bond around how “awful” B is being, which while actually helping to relieve the tension between A and B, creates a new disturbance between B and C. Interestingly, A may now be able to connect with both B and C, while B and C are no longer speaking.  The key element in this scenario is side-taking.  A invited his sister to take his side…to take on his anxiety…and C accepted. 

 

However, invitations are not always offered when triangles are formed or activated.  For example, as symbolized in window #5, a two-person system can create a triangle just by making sure that a third is merely observing their conflict…kind of like two people sneezing their anxiety onto another who may be simply passing through.  This third person then gets triangled without their consent.  And sometimes a third person may actively insert himself into the middle of a problem…consider, for example, the child who habitually acts out whenever tension between his parents becomes heightened, as symbolized in window 6.[3]

 

The formation of a triangle enables the participants to share anxiety so that no one relationship becomes overloaded.  In any given triangle the tension may shift from time to time, but the triangle will remain.

 

In families of more than three, the anxiety is typically spread throughout a network of interlocking triangles.  For example, in a family of four, there are four triangles.  (See Chart 2)

 

A)   Here we have a father, a mother, an older daughter and younger son.

B)   Tension develops between mother and son over his schoolwork. 

C)   Mom complains to Dad, who then becomes triangled into the tension between the mother and son.

D)  Tension now shifts to the father and son relationship as Dad tries to “fix it”

E)   The mother, having successfully handed off her anxiety, now withdraws and the original triangle becomes inactive.  Meanwhile, Dad complains to the daughter about the son, perhaps expecting her to see that he does his schoolwork, effectively triangling her into the father-son tension.

F)   The daughter, now saddled with this tension, takes out her frustration on her brother and conflict now erupts between them.  So tension originally present in one triangle (window D) is acted out in another (window F).[4]

 

Though every family has its own unique circumstances and anxieties, Bowen theory says that all families will inevitably experience a similar process of tension exchange, no matter how well-functioning they might be. Furthermore, the greater the number of family members, the greater the number of triangles that may be active at any given time.   It is important to note, here, that triangles are not pathology, something to be fixed or cured or removed.  On the contrary, triangles are a fact of life: they serve an important biological purpose of managing the anxiety of the system, and they exist forever.  That’s why, in Bowen theory, knowledge of the relationships in one’s extended family can be helpful in understanding one’s current triangles and conflicts in other settings.  In other words, how your parents’ families of origin were able to manage their emotional system decades ago has a lot to do with how you and your current family unit manages anxiety today.

 

And because triangles are the building blocks of any system of people, attempts to eliminate them are doomed from the start.  The goal, Bowen theory says, is not to get out of triangles, but to do one’s best to manage oneself in and through them.

 

This can be very difficult to do in periods of stress…when anxiety is running high…when, by the way, triangles are more likely to be active and ironically less likely to be seen. No doubt the coming holiday season will offer many of us opportunities to experience some good old-fashioned family triangles.  What can we do when these triangles begin to flare up?  Perhaps the most helpful thing to do in these circumstances is just to identify the triangles… simply to attempt to see them there.  The theory says that when we can acknowledge the existence of triangles, and do our best to see the ways in which they connect us to others, we have a better chance of managing ourselves in them.  When we feel a triangle having its way with us, we can then ask ourselves, “What am I doing to contribute to this triangle?”; “How can I limit my own reactivity to this pattern?”; and, perhaps most importantly, “What can I do that will help me be more emotionally neutral while remaining in contact with the other members of the triangle?”

 

Attempting to be emotionally neutral does not mean withdrawing from the system or becoming a zombie without feeling.  We approach emotional neutrality when we can think about our feelings…when we don’t have to be governed by them…and when we can learn to adapt to our circumstances and define ourselves as separate from, yet connected to, whatever is happening in the family or the system.

 

Remaining in contact with the system while working to limit our own reactivity to the system is the key.  As Bowen theorist Michael Kerr has written: “If any family member can change his or her emotional functioning, provided he or she is present and accounted for within the family, the whole family will improve its functioning in response to that change.” [5]  The system is used to family members playing predictable roles.  If one family member chooses to veer from what is expected, while taking responsibility for that choice and remaining connected to the others, the functioning of the others will also inevitably change.  Sometimes this can happen very quickly, but more typically it happens over a long period of time…in tiny increments.  I will have more to say about this in a few minutes.  But for now, I invite Jo Fitz, who served as a collaborator on this service, to come forward to share some of her recent experience with triangles.

 

Reflection         Using Triangles in My Family            Jo Fitz

                                                            

I began learning Bowen Theory in 1984 when I was working on my degree in social work, and for the past 11 years I have attended training sessions in this theory, spending 4 weekends a year for 10 hours a weekend in a small group with a Bowen therapist. This has been important to me both personally and professionally and has provided me with a framework for living my life.

When Mark asked me to help with this sermon, I was excited that he was interested and knowledgeable about Bowen's work. I reflected on my own personal life during the past several months of this year in terms of triangles and decided to try to write about it.

Triangles are not always easy to recognize. When a student of Murray Bowen's returned from visiting his family, he reported to Bowen, "I couldn't see any triangles!" Bowen replied, "Well, perhaps they weren't biting that week."

Since my mother's death in January of this year, the triangles in my family have been biting big time. As is often the case after a death, my family's anxiety has been extremely high. We have all scrambled to make sense of our loss and get ourselves settled into some kind of normalcy-to realign ourselves in the face of Mom's not being here. 

My mother is survived by my father and 5 children, most of whom who live in California. Oldest to youngest of the children is: me, Kay, John, Julie and Steve. When I include my dad and the kids, plus my mother who is present in all of our heads, I conclude there is a total of something like 18 interlocking triangles operating in our family. And this year, the triangles have been out in plain view, splashing and writhing and creating all kinds of activity.

The focus in the last few months has centered around a 240 acre piece of Iowa farm land that my grandmother had willed to her 5 grand children. The gift became ours following my mother's death. One would think that such a gift would be received with gratitude and joy, but instead it has been the vehicle through which we have acted out our anxiety, which broken down includes, at the least, sadness, grief, anger, fear, and suspicion.

Brother Steve is the executor, and previous to Mom's death, had acted as part time farmer and manager of the farm. He began sending many emails to me and sister Julie, leaving out sister Kay and brother John. Kay is seen by some family members as "too greedy" and an attempt was made to "make hay" while she was vacationing in Africa. John was excluded as he is considered "not all there" by the family.

As the numerous emails began arriving, with information and questions, and web sites on farming and on the law, and demands for opinions about our new business association,
I decided little brother Steve must be getting pretty anxious.

And then the phone calls began coming from Julie to me, fast and furious. Her tone stated, "God, Jo Ann, what the hell is wrong with Steve? I can't understand a thing he's talking about." I found my own tension building, and I thought to myself, "You probably need to do something here, and not just sit around reading Steve's emails and scratching your head. And, you're doing no good by talking to Julie and siding with her against Steve, and talking to Steve and siding with him against Julie."

Finally, I responded to Steve with my thoughts and questions. Julie is known for her inability to make decisions and she avoided talking to Steve, though they are in close proximity in Santa Barbara. She obsessed about how much money would be available to her, and fretted that she would some day become destitute. She used Kay's absence from the country as a reason to hold off on making any decisions.

I attempted to become more aware of the triangles, the anxiety and the bigger picture of what was happening. I knew if I could stay on the outside of the process, rather than be pulled into it and moved from one side to another, it would be better for me and for the family. I tried to think about the following three questions and come up with their answers:

   1. What is the problem? The problem was that there was high anxiety in the family; and we were amok in chaos and confusion and indecision.
   2. What needs to happen? What needed to happen was that we needed to decrease the anxiety and establish a workable business plan for our farm.
   3. How can I assist in making it happen? I could assist by focusing less on feelings and more on facts. I could think through what needs to be said and say it. I could attempt to stay out of being triangled, but make use of the available triangles to accomplish the goal.

I began to talk to Steve often, 2 to 3 times a day, about the business. We discussed each sibling and their needs and interests as best we could determine them, being as objective as possible. This was a challenge for me, especially when it comes to the sibling toward whom I'm most emotionally vulnerable. Instead of acting on my temptation to triangle in other siblings by blaming them or undermining them to reduce my tension, I worked to contain my emotion, keeping my sights on the goal. Steve and I noted that our dad was moving from spot to spot depending on which kid he was talking to, and was unable to present a solid view. That let us know he would not be of much help.

Ultimately, Steve settled in on what he thought was the most reasonable business plan, with some help from me. We predicted that Kay, upon her return, would be opposed and we prepared ourselves to be ready. And, as expected, she did send an angry response to Steve's proposal, outlining many objections. Also as we had expected, she was quick to get Julie to move toward her side. Steve and I had determined that a way to counter such a move would be to engage John and/or dad to support the plans underway. That turned out to be a successful move.

I began editing Steve's emails, at his request, now to all family members. He scaled down his emotion, primarily sarcasm, and communicated as clearly and factually as possible. I wrote an email to Kay, stating my thoughts as objectively as I could, of my vision for the direction of our business venture. I sent a copy of this letter to the others, including Dad. Steve wrote an extensive response and explanation to Kay, addressing her concerns, but he did not waiver from the chosen plan. After a few days, Kay wrote back, saying she now understood the thinking behind his decision, and she offered Steve her "blessings" for moving ahead. Julie also came around. Presently, all siblings are in agreement about where we go from here with our farmland. Even our dad is in concurrence.

The content of what has occurred is one piece of what has happened in our family since Mom's death, but the underlying emotional process, with the triangles biting big time, is another important piece that was noted and made use of, to help us reach our goal.

 

Reflection          Working with Triangles             Rev. Stringer

I am grateful to Jo for sharing her story with us this morning…not only because she has highlighted so well the kinds of tensions we can face in the midst of family crisis and stress, but because she has provided a fine example of how one can work not against existing triangles, but with and through them.

 

As Jo and I have spoken today, I hope you have been able to think of triangles in your own life, and the roles you play in them.  Of course, triangles in our family systems often interlock with and influence triangles outside of our families, and sometimes these triangles are more easily seen.  Some of the countless examples of these triangles include relationships that are impacted when we, or those around us, might:

--speak against a boss, employee, co-worker, or fellow church member to someone other than the boss, employee, co-worker, or fellow church member.

--participate in gossip

--have an affair

--become too focused on the problems of others

--give more attention to a child or a job than to a partner or oneself.

 

When we find ourselves in these triangles, Bowen theory tells us we are not well served by trying to change the other two parts of the triangle directly, as though we even could.  As Bowen theorist and rabbi Ed Friedman rightly said, “It well may be that, in the history of our species, no family member upon trying to correct the perception of another family member about a third has ever received the response, ‘You’re right honey.  I don’t know why I didn’t see it that way myself.’”[6]  In fact, the attempt of a third party to change the relationship of the other two sides of an emotional triangle always results in the opposite effect, and the third party usually ends up holding most of the anxiety.

 

The reward of being familiar with Bowen theory, then, is not that we will change the behavior of others, but that we may begin to change the ways in which we react to others’ behavior, and that we may begin to objectively observe the emotional process of our families—nuclear and extended, workplace and social…even here at church—so that we can be part of these families without being part of their problems.

Again, the goal is not to change the behavior of others.  The goal is to change our reactions to the behavior of others, which will inevitably change the system itself.

 

The goal to monitor one’s own behavior in the relationship system—to try to remain adequately connected to all members of the system while avoiding the urge to be responsible for members’ connections to each other—is not an easily achieved objective. In fact, simply being able to observe our own family process can seem close to impossible, especially when the triangles are “biting hard.” But the good news is that our effort to see our families—and our lives in them—differently will pay off. 

 

Each step that we take…each little piece of perspective that we gain along the way…will bring us that much closer to better understanding ourselves and the emotional systems we inhabit.

Each step we take will bring us closer to our own inherent resilience.

 

And each step we take will bring us closer to more thoughtfully choosing to determine the direction of our lives. 

 

As Murray Bowen has written, “Systems…[thinking]…cannot remake what nature has created, but through learning how the organism operates, controlling anxiety, and learning to better adapt to the fortunes and misfortunes of life, it can give nature a better chance.”[7]

 

Giving nature a better chance sounds pretty good to me.