Bowen Family Systems Theory and Practice Illustration and Critique Revisited

DOI: 10.1002/anzf.
1589
ORIGINA L ARTICLE
Bowen family systems theory and practice:

Illustration and critique revisited
Jenny Brown1 | Lauren Errington2
Abstract
1
The Family Systems Practice, The Parent Hope
Project, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
2
This paper overviews Bowen family systems theory and its ap-
The Family Systems Institute, The Family
Systems Practice, Sydney, New South Wales,
proach to family therapy. It aims to introduce this influential
Australia approach and a sample of developments in theory and practice
since Bowen's first publications of his research and theory. This
Correspondence
Jenny Brown, The Family Systems Practice, The
paper is the second edition of a 1999 article with the same title
Parent Hope Project, Sydney, NSW, Australia. (Brown, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 20,
Email: [email protected] 94 and 1999) and, 25 years later, offers new insights from the
Lauren Errington, The Family Systems Institute, original author's ongoing research into the theory. This new
The Family Systems Practice, Sydney, NSW, edition is in collaboration with a second author and Bowen
Australia.
Email: [email protected] theory scholar, bringing fresh perspectives on the theory's ap-
plicability to family therapy practice. The core concepts are
presented briefly, and a case example with a parent and symp-
tomatic adolescent demonstrates how theory informs the role
of the therapist and the therapeutic work. Examples of criti-
cisms of Bowen theory are also discussed, including the misin-
terpretation around the idea of emotion in Bowen theory that is
communicated in Gottman's training. Differentiation of self is
clarified as the integration of emotion and intellect rather than
privileging one over another, which affords the opportunity for
individuals to avoid being governed by the invisible strings of
sensitivities in relationships and instead be themselves in good
emotional contact with the other person.
K EY WOR DS
Bowen theory, case example, clinical practice, critique, differentiation of
self, family systems, family therapy, family violence, feminist, Gottman,
innovations, theory concepts, triangles
I N T RODUC T ION
Murray Bowen's family systems theory, or ‘Bowen theory’, was one of the first comprehensive theo-
ries that described how family systems functioned (Bowen, 1978; Bowen in Bowen & Butler, 2013;
Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Over the past two decades, it has received increasing attention in Australia and
New Zealand, with a dedicated training centre in the theory started in 2004 and culminating in the
© 2024 Australian Association of Family Therapy (AAFT).
Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 2024;45:135–155. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/anzf | 135

14678438, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anzf.1589 by Athabasca Universitaet Library, Wiley Online Library on [24/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
136 | BROWN and ERRINGTON
Key points
• Dr Murray Bowen developed one of the foundational family therapy theories.

• Bowen family systems theory continues to be a dynamic, open theory engaging with science.
• Families have resources for natural adaptation to life's challenges that are explored in therapy
and are a foundational part of the family's understanding of itself and its capacity to make
change.
• The eight concepts of theory shape clinical work that tracks emotional processes in relation-
ships and creates the opportunity for recovery and growth.
• Important criticisms of the theory about culture and gender relevance, the dangers of neu-
tralising family violence and the use of emotion in therapy are discussed.
• Seeing the theory applied to a case with symptoms in a child reveals the centrality of observ-
ing emotional process.
development of an Australian AAFT-accredited training program specialising in this approach (the

Family Systems Institute, Sydney). Additionally, many articles on Bowen's theory have been published
in this journal during this time by local and international authors1 (see Brown, 2023a, 2023b; Collier &
Villareal III, 2022; Cooper et al., 2023; MacKay, 2012, 2017; Mackay & Brown, 2013; Palombi, 2018;
Papero, 2014, 2017; Wilt, 2023).
As Brown (1999, p. 94) stated in the first version of this paper, the approach ‘continues to have sus-
tained influence in the practice of family therapy in North America with several training centres that
have defied the trend of closing down family systems training centres following the fields' 1970s–80s
heyday’.2 Many influential family therapists have elements of Bowen theory at the heart of their con-
ceptualisations, for example Carter and McGoldrick (1988), Lerner (1988, 1990, 1993), Friedman (1985)
and Schnarch (1991, 1997).
The more Bowen theory is studied and applied in practice, the more understanding and appreciation
of it is refined. This revised edition of the article uses the structure of the original article. It builds on
it to offer a clear presentation of the theory in a contemporary context that is accessible to those inter-
ested in Bowen's approach and its application to family therapy. The effort is heightened by each of the
author's own work in the theory, as well as the engagement and curiosity of students of Bowen theory
at the Family Systems Institute3 in Sydney, Australia.
DE V E L OPM E N T OF T H E T H EORY
Murray Bowen was born in 1913 in Tennessee and died in 1990. He trained as a psychiatrist and origi-
nally 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 psychoanalytic training was set aside by the time he moved to the National Institute of Mental
Health (NIMH) in 1954. He was committed to psychiatry becoming an accepted science and found
fodder for this in natural systems and evolution. His groundbreaking research with NIMH enabled
him and his research team to observe whole families in a residential treatment setting, where he began
to include more family members in his research and psychotherapy with schizophrenic patients. This
consolidated the shift from an individual and mother–child dyad focus to an appreciation of the dimen-
sions of families as emotional4 systems.
In 1959, he moved to Georgetown University and established the Georgetown Family Centre
(where he was director until his death). Here, his developing theory was extended to less severe
emotional problems. Between 1959 and 1962, he undertook detailed research into families across
BOWEN THEORY: ILLUSTRATION & CRITIQUE REVISITED | 137
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 & Bowen, 1988, p. 40). In recent times, Bowen's early research, including his work at
Menninger's, has been published to enhance the understanding of how this unique theory emerged
(e.g. Bowen & Butler, 2013; Rakow, 2023).
In 1966, Bowen published the first ‘orderly presentation’ of his developing ideas (Bowen, 1978, p.
xiii). In 1967, he surprised a national family therapy conference by discussing his family experience
rather than presenting the anticipated formal paper. Bowen proceeded to encourage students to work
on researching facts from their own multigenerational families of origin rather than undertaking in-
dividual psychoanalytic psychotherapy (a prominent training method of that time). The effort in one's
own family is to better understand the individual self in the context of previous generational challenges,
adaptations and variations in family members' functioning. From this generation of trainees has come
the next generation of leaders of Bowen therapy, including Bowen's first successor, Michael Kerr, MD,
at the Georgetown Family Center. There are now in-depth Bowen training programs networked with
the Bowen Center in several countries, including the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Chile, Sweden and
Australia.5
In a biographical piece following Bowen's death in 1990, Wylie (1991) points out that the interest in
evolutionary process distinguishes Bowen from other family therapy pioneers. He replaced his earlier
study of Freudian theory with ‘a study of the rich body of facts that can be proven and validated’ (Bowen
in Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 360) in evolution and the natural sciences. Bowen writes:
I support the view that the human is as scientific as the other forms of life on the planet,
that it will finally be possible to construct a total human theory from scientific facts alone.
(Bowen, in Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 360)
Bowen was committed to his research and theory being embedded in science with the aim of developing
a theory that accounted for the entire range of human behaviour and its origins. His foundational efforts
to test theory against emerging science in various relevant fields have led to significant theory expansions,
which continue today.
T H E T H EORY
Bowen focused on mechanisms/patterns that develop in families to adapt to challenges and defuse anx-
iety. Anxiety is presented as either acute, in that it is a response to an actual adverse event, or chronic, in
that the stress response is sustained beyond factual threats. A key generator of anxiety in families is the
alertness to either too much closeness (togetherness force) or too great a distance (separateness force)
in a relationship:
The theory postulates two opposing elemental life forces. One is a built-in life growth
force toward individuality and the differentiation of a separate ‘self,’ and the other an
equally intense emotional closeness.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 424)
While essential for human family survival, both forces are the source of tensions in relationships with family
members, always shifting their pull for more connection or increased space and autonomy. The degree of
tension in any one family will be determined by the current levels of external stress and the sensitivities to
particular themes transmitted down the generations and heightened or lowered levels of sensitivity related
to levels of family emotional maturity or the degree of differentiation of self (Bowen, 1978). If family mem-
bers do not have the capacity to think through their responses to relationship dilemmas but instead continue
to react anxiously to perceived emotional demands, a state of chronic anxiety or sustained reactivity may
be set in place.
From his observations and subsequent research, Bowen defined eight interlocking concepts that
make up his theory, which will be briefly outlined in the following section.
1. Differentiation of self
2. Triangles
3. Nuclear family emotional system
a. Couple conflict
b. Symptoms in a spouse
c. Symptoms in a child
4. Family projection process
5. Emotional cut-off
6. Multigenerational transmission process
7. Sibling positions
8. Societal emotional process
Differentiation of self
Differentiation of self is the capacity to stay connected while also holding onto autonomous thinking and
goal direction. It is twofold in that it has an intrapsychic expression in integrating both thinking and feel-
ings and an interpersonal component of maintaining a separate self while connected to a relationship. It is
a cornerstone concept in Bowen theory viewed as a continuum from low to high. Bowen articulates that ‘a
person with a high level of “differentiation of self,” or “identity,” or “individuality,” is one who can be emo-
tionally close to others without emotional fusions or loss of self, or loss of identity’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 109).
In the same way that differentiation has both an intrapsychic and interpersonal component, fusion
can be expressed either as a merging of feelings and thinking for an individual or a relational intense
sensitivity to another's reactions, which leads to people giving up on their own ideas or values for the
sake of the relationship going smoothly (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).
Bowen's research led him to suggest that varying degrees of fusion are discernible in all families. 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 emo-
tional 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 hypothetical ‘differentiation of self scale’ to assist in conveying the
continuum aspect of this concept. He points out that this was not designed as an instrument to assign
people to particular levels (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). 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 ex-
tended family. Bowen acknowledged that an effort to increase differentiation is a lifelong process. The
goal is to observe the self on the spectrum to enhance awareness and improve functioning in small
steps. One example of gradual steps is the effort to establish a more neutral personal relationship with
each parent:
Achieving a person-to-person relationship with either parent is a major undertaking, but,

if the differentiating person is aware that the result is highly desirable and of great potential
benefit to self, [they have] a long-term assignment at which they can work constantly in
their own way.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 236)
The scale of differentiation conveys that the theory is about a continuum of levels of functioning and not
a theory that categorises or pathologises people. The goal is to observe self on this spectrum and increase
functioning just a bit, leading to a similar lift in the functioning of the whole family.
Triangles
Bowen described triangles as the smallest stable relationship unit (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 135) because
it is difficult to contain the emotional forces in a two-person relationship. The process of triangling6 is
central to his theory. Triangling is said to occur when the inevitable discomfort in a dyad is relieved by
involving a third party who either takes sides or provides a detour for the anxiety.
Under calm conditions, it is difficult to identify triangles, but like all mechanisms to manage anxiety,
they emerge more frequently and more intensely 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
the pull to preserve emotional stability by forming a triangle. Bowen observed that triangling in oth-
ers was part of the natural processes in relationships when things got uncomfortable, and the original
tension played out in another set of relationships. The processes of conflict, distance and over-and
underfunctioning also feature as part of the triangling patterns in relationships. This process is not
dysfunctional but 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, preventing the original complainants from resolving their tension.
This detouring helps people steady themselves without working on growing their maturity.
Nuclear family emotional system
In positing the ‘nuclear family emotional system’, Bowen ‘describes the patterns of emotional function-
ing in a family in a single generation’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 376). He goes on to explain observable patterns in
families for managing the anxieties inherent in a family's undifferentiation. These patterns are repeated
over the generations:
Certain basic patterns between the father, mother, and children are replicas of the past
generations and will be repeated in the generations to follow.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 376)
Fusion that both preserves harmony and generates tension is present in varying degrees in all families, who
will predictably utilise the following patterns to manage the levels of discomfort. These tension manage-
ment mechanisms are:
I couple conflict and distance;

II distance;
III symptoms/illness in a spouse (over and underfunctioning reciprocity);
IV projection of a problem onto one or more children.
Each of these is expanded below.
Couple conflict and distance
The single-generation unit usually starts with a dyad – a couple who, according to Bowen, will be at
approximately equal levels of differentiation (i.e., both have the same degree of need to be stabilised
and validated through the relationship). Bowen noted that permission to disagree is one of the most
important contracts between individuals in an intimate relationship (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 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. Conflict only becomes problematic
when it is chronically sustained by emotional reactivity. A typical pattern in 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 termed a ‘conflictual
cocoon’ (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 192), where anxiety is bound within the conflict cycle without
spilling over to involve children.
Distance
Bowen later clarifies that distancing is not just inherent in patterns of marital conflict but a broader
way of avoiding emotional tension that is part of triangling a child and over-and underfunctioning of
spouses. It is one of the most instinctive ways humans reduce discomfort in a relationship by withdraw-
ing emotionally or physically. Kerr describes, ‘An example of emotional distancing is people being in
physical proximity but avoiding potentially emotionally charged topics. The anxiety is bound in the
avoiding of such topics' (Kerr, 2019, p. 26).
Symptoms in a spouse – over-and underfunctioning
In a fused relationship, where each partner looks to the other's qualities to fit their own learned manner
of relating to significant others, a pattern of reciprocity can be set in motion that pushes each spouse's
functioning to opposite extremes. 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 define 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. Bowen (1978) writes:
The one who functions for long periods in the adaptive [underfunctioning] position gradually
loses the ability to function and make decisions for self. At that point, it requires no more
than a moderate increase in stress to trigger the adaptive one into dysfunction.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 378)
The person who gets polarised in the underfunctioning position is most vulnerable to symptoms
of helplessness, such as depression, substance abuse and chronic pain. However, the overfunctioning
person might also be the one to develop symptoms, as they become overburdened by attempts to make
things ‘right’ for others. This exchange of functioning between spouses has been further described as
the dominant – adaptive deferential (Kerr, 2019, p. 57).
Symptoms in a child
The fourth outworking of fusion in a family is when a child develops behavioural or emotional
problems. This comes under Bowen's separate theoretical concept, the ‘family projection process’
(Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988), where the anxious focus on a child impacts their emotional
development. As with all these patterns, the triangle with a child serves to absorb and manage anxi-
ety for family members.
Family projection process
The family projection process describes how children develop symptoms when they get caught up in the
previous generation's insecurities in relationships. Bowen asserts that ‘this concept describes the most
important way family emotional process is transmitted from one generation to the next’ (Bowen, 1978,
p. 425) and hence deserves to be a distinct concept. The child with the least emotional separation from
their parents is said to be the most vulnerable to developing symptoms. Any stress in the parents' rela-
tionship can be diverted by focusing on a child perceived as vulnerable or special. A detouring triangle
is thus set in motion as attention and protectiveness are shifted to the child. Within this cycle of worry,
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:
The anxious focus on a child (either positive or negative) can create or amplify symptoms
in children by crowding the developmental breathing space required to grow in thinking,
feeling, and acting for themselves.
(Brown, 2008, p. 61)
Many intergenerational influences 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 intensifying the family processes rather
than as actually ‘causing’ them.
Emotional cut-off
Bowen describes ‘emotional cut-off’ as the way people manage the intensity of fusion between the gen-
erations and is at the extreme end of distancing in these relationships:
The concept deals with the way people separate themselves from the past in order to start
their lives in the present generation … [by a] process of separation, isolation, withdrawal,
running away, or denying the importance of the parental family.
(Bowen, 1978. p. 382)
A ‘cut-off’ can be set through physical distance or through forms of emotional withdrawal. Bowen distin-
guishes between cutting off or breaking away from the family and ‘growing away’ from the family. There is
a benefit to leaving home through forging an honest connection with parents rather than anxiously breaking
away (Brown, 2017, p. 62). Bowen (1978) challenges the commonly accepted view that considers ‘emotional
turmoil to be “normal” during adolescence’. He goes on to say:
A better differentiated young person who began an orderly process of growing away from
his parents in early childhood will continue a smooth and orderly growth process through
the adolescent years.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 536)
Growing away can be viewed as part of differentiation, where adult family members follow independent
goals while also honouring that they are part of their family system. A ‘cut-off’ is more like an escape where
people deny their attachments to their family of origin. While immediate pressure might be relieved by cut-
off, patterns of reactivity in intense relationships remain unchanged, and versions of the past, or its mirror
image, are likely to be repeated.
A central hypothesis of Bowen's theory is that the more people maintain genuine contact with the
previous generation, the less reactive they will be in current relationships. Conversely, when there are
emotional cut-offs, the current family group can experience intense emotional pressure without effec-
tive escape valves. This family tension is like ‘walking on eggshells’, as issues that remain unresolved
from the cut-off are carefully avoided. Triangling provides a detour, as family members enlist the sup-
port of others for their own position in relation to the cut-off.
Multigenerational transmission process
This concept of Bowen's theory describes how levels of maturity/differentiation are passed down
from generation to generation through the projection from parent to child, described earlier
(Bowen, 1978). The impact will differ for each child depending on the degree of triangling and
projection 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
facts, patterns and symptoms over time is not just an evaluative tool nor an exercise in genealogy but
an intervention that helps family members get sufficient distance from their current struggle with
symptoms to see how they might consider their own part in the transmission of anxiety over the
generations. This concept assists people in making sense of the variation of life functioning that dif-
ferent siblings bring from one generation to the next. Some members leave their families with either
similar, lessor increased differentiation to their parents depending on how much they were involved
in the family projection intensity.
As Bowen (1978, p. 492) asserts, the effort to learn about previous generations of our family and its
history enables one to ‘get a sense of continuity, history and identity that is not otherwise possible’. It
shows us ways that previous generations still live in us in the patterns of adaptation that continue to
operate in the present. Kerr describes this as a ‘perspective-promoting concept’ (Kerr, 2019, p. 120) in
that broader knowledge of the functioning of preceding generations enables more neutrality about self
and other family members.
Sibling position
Employing Walter Toman's (Toman, 1976a, 1976b) sibling profiles, Bowen considered that sibling posi-
tion could provide helpful information in understanding the positions individuals tend to adopt in re-
lationships (Bowen, 1978). 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 responsible and having greater access to
the adult world. However, Bowen suggested that the generalised traits may not be universally applicable
and that a younger sibling can become the ‘functional eldest’ if an older sibling becomes symptomatic,
for example.
An aspect of Toman's work that Bowen adopted was descriptions of the effect on a marriage of dif-
ferent sibling configurations. For example, a younger brother of a sister may find an easier adjustment
partnering an older sister of a brother. Two eldest siblings may clash over who takes the lead, while two
youngest may struggle with decision-making.
Helping the client understand and think beyond the limitations of their own sibling position is an
aspect of family-of-origin work. Clients are encouraged to consider how their sibling experience fuelled
assumptions about relationships.
Societal emotional process
This was the final concept that Bowen included in his theory (Bowen, 1978). It describes how the very
same processes generated by anxiety in the family can be seen to play out in the broader society. Similar
to families, anxiety can drive automatic reactivity, evidenced in quick-f ix responses to symptoms rather
than thoughtful problem-solving. Like parents, institutions can anxiously focus on children or groups,
accommodate their insecurities, and be symptom-focused rather than demonstrate principled leadership
and maintain a thoughtful position. Triangles can easily form around controversial social issues, with
people polarising into ‘us against them’ alliances.
There are also signs of progress towards maturity in social systems, reflecting the efforts of fam-
ilies and groups towards more responsible efforts to function responsibly rather than over or under-
responsibly. Bowen recognised that anxious families contribute to anxious social groups, and equally, an
uptight society contributes to sustained stress and uncertainty in many families.
T H E T H EORY I N C L I N IC A L PR AC T IC E
Bowen's is not a technique-focused model that incorporates specific descriptions of how to structure
therapy sessions. Instead, thinking systems shape the model of practice and techniques used. The fore-
most technique Bowen describes is the therapist's effort to manage themselves in the clinical space:
The most important aspect of the therapy depends on the therapist's emotional function-
ing, his ability to stay neutral in an emotional field …
(Bowen, 1978, pp. 312–13)
The goal of therapy is to assist family members towards a bit more differentiation (and reduced fusion),
where there is less blaming, decreased reactivity and increased responsibility for self in the emotional sys-
tem. 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 away from in-session family enactments and his
working with the most motivated member of a family system as opposed to the ‘symptom bearer’ (hence
minimal involvement of children in therapy). No matter how many people are in sessions, the therapy is
considered to treat the whole family. Bowen (1978) explains that:
With this theoretical-t herapeutic system, the term family therapy is derived from the way
the therapist thinks about the family. It refers to the effort to modify the family relation-
ship system, whether the effort is with multiple family members, the two spouses together,
or only one family member.
(Bowen, 1978. p. 310)
The clinical process in Bowen theory can be viewed in three broad stages
Bowen does not articulate his therapeutic process in these three discrete stages; however, he does refer
to calming the anxiety in the initial work and including more teaching about systems thinking in later
stages of therapy. Bowen writes that when a family is sufficiently calm, teaching systems ideas ‘provides
the family with a way of understanding the problem, an awareness they are responsible for progress, and
a framework in which they can direct their energy on their behalf’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 316).
1. In the early stages, the therapist/coach endeavours to reduce clients' anxiety about the symp-
tom by encouraging them to learn how the symptom is part of their pattern of relating and
broadening the lens of the presenting dilemma. Clients are encouraged to be curious about
the problem as part of a present and past system of relationships.
2. When anxiety levels enable more thoughtfulness, the therapist focuses adult clients on ‘self’ issues so as
to lift out of fusion and work on their differentiation. Clients are helped to resist the pull of what Bowen
termed the ‘togetherness force’ [or fusion] in the family (Bowen, 1978, p. 218). The client begins to shift
from the futile effort to change or blame another and moves to consider their part in their problem.
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.
The role of the therapist/coach – staying out of family emotional process/

triangles
Bowen moved away from the word ‘therapist’ and preferred the term ‘coach’ when moving from a medi-
cal model framework. His effort was ‘to replace the concepts of “treatment,” “therapy,” and “therapist”
and to modify the omnipotent position of the therapist to the patient’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 309).
The role of the therapist or coach is to connect with a family without becoming emotionally re-
active. Emphasis is given to the therapist, maintaining a differentiated stance. This means that the
therapist is not drawn into a position of being over-responsible in their attempts to be helpful, which
inadvertently fosters an under-responsibility by the family in reciprocity. A therapist's position of calm
and interested investigation is important so that the family members begin to learn about themselves
as an interdependent emotional system, where each person is constantly impacting the others. 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, 1978, p. 246).
The therapist observes their pulls to take sides (triangle) with family members and works to maintain a
curious research posture, exploring how family members respond to the problem:
The therapist's awareness of their sensitivities is reflected in the ‘… ability to be in emo-

tional 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 & Bowen, 1988, p. 108)
Therapist/coach activity in exploring the relationship process
The therapist/coach is active in directing the investigative conversation. In-session enactments are re-
directed to prevent the escalation of clients' subjectivity and other-focused anxiety. Clients are instead
asked to talk directly to the clinician so that other family members can ‘listen and really hear’ without re-
acting emotionally, often for the first time in their lives together (Bowen, 1978, p. 248). Bowen himself
would avoid couple interaction in the room and concentrate on interviewing one spouse in the presence
of the other. Bowen avoided asking for emotional responses, which he saw as less likely to lead to dif-
ferentiation of self, mainly preferring to ask for ‘thoughts’, ‘reactions’ and ‘impressions’ (Bowen, 1978, p.
226). His questioning in therapy shows interest in people's thinking about the emotional reactivity they
observed in the relationship or problems being discussed.
He called this activity ‘externalising the thinking of each client in the presence of the other’
(Bowen, 1978, p. 314). In service of the goal of differentiation of self, Bowen was interested in people's
thinking about the emotional reactivity they observed in the relationship or problems being discussed.
The central activity (skill) that emanates from the theory's focus on emotional process is tracing
the ‘who, what, when, how and what next’ with family members in an effort to tease out observable
facts rather than subjective opinions (Bowen, 1978, p. 360). This enables the client and therapist
to think together about their repeated responses to symptoms and issues that are not helpful and
to consider what they can adjust to serve the progress of the family (Bowen, 1978; Brown, 2020;
Errington, 2022).
Learning about triangles
The client is assisted through curious questions to recognise the subtle and more obvious ways they
participate in alliances and detouring triangles. Tracking questions helps clients become ‘detectives’ in
their interpersonal systems. Bowen highlighted that clinical work fosters a joint research attitude for
both coach and client (Bowen, 1978).
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. Unlike a strategic inter-
vention, the goal of any detriangling stance is not to change the other's relationship but to express one's
neutrality about it. A calm and thoughtful neutral stance prevents one from anxiously reacting to the
tension of another relationship by ‘taking sides’.
Questions that invite differentiation
The therapist asks questions that assume the client can be a notch more responsible for their reactive-
ness to the other. The therapist is relating to the most mature version of a person who can be engaged
in their own problem-solving. Family members are encouraged to formulate an ‘I’ position where they
speak about how they view the problem without attacking or defending against another family mem-
ber and take action on the basis of their conviction (Bowen, 1978, p. 252). Clients are invited to make
personal statements about their thoughts and feelings to facilitate a greater sense of responsibility in
a relationship. 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 prob-
lematic interactions. The therapist stays clear about what they are, and are not, responsible for, and may
express their ‘I’ position to convey this to clients. For example, when a parent asks them to assess and
diagnose their child, the therapist responds with, ‘I am willing to support you in finding ways to re-
spond helpfully to your child. However, I am clear that adding more focus on your child does not align
with how I think I can best assist you’.
Working with the most motivated family member – minimised

involvement of children
A core family systems feature of Bowen's family therapy is to work with whoever in the family is moti-
vated and has the capacity to engage in the work. This means the symptom bearer does not need to be
engaged in therapy. The view is that it only takes one person working on their part in anxious reactivity
and changes in the entire system will follow. The effort is to reduce a fixing effort and ‘sickness’ theme
that can maintain the family member who is in the ‘problem’ position.
In line with the goal of reducing the projection onto vulnerable family members, Bowen theory mi-
nimises the involvement of children. Bowen saw how important it was to detriangle children from the
parent relationship and saw that this was best achieved ‘by excluding the child and limiting the therapy
to the two parents and the therapist’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 375).
While Bowen noted the value of learning about the family when a child was present with parents, he
came to see that highly child-focused parents found it hard to shift when the child was present. He writes:
My own approach is to defocus the child as quickly as possible, to remove the child from the
therapy sessions as early as possible, and to give technical priority to getting the focus on the
relationship between the parents, at the risk of a temporary increase in the child's symptoms.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 298)
Family evaluation – keeping a broad generational lens
The beginning sessions in Bowen therapy focus on information gathering to form ideas about the
family's emotional processes, which concurrently provides information to family members about the
presenting problem in its systems context. The presenting problem is tracked through the history of
the nuclear family and into the extended family system (timeline). A multigenerational ‘family diagram’
(commonly labelled a genogram – see McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985) is a core tool for recording this
information. It is described as an outgrowth of family systems theory reflecting ‘the ebb and flow of
emotional process through the generations’ (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 306). The therapist looks for clues
about the emotional process of the particular family, including patterns of regulating closeness and
distance, how tension/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 cut-off.
The effort is to explore the objective facts of the family over time rather than subjective stories.
However, stories about past generations are viewed as useful clues to triangles and the tensions that
remain emotionally alive from their families of origin. Calming family members' anxiety in the early
stages of therapy might involve helping them to make connections between the development of symp-
toms and acute events in a family's history.
Bowen's multigenerational focus goes beyond the linear view that the past influences the present to
the view that sensitivities and adaptive patterns of relating in the past continue in the present family
system (Harrison, 2018). As therapists and family members explore the details of past generations' func-
tioning, it is possible to gain awareness of, and neutrality about, ‘automatic’ reactions of family members
towards each other. Bowen famously wrote about the journey towards such neutrality:
More knowledge of one's distant families of origin can help one become aware that there
are no angels or devils in a family; they were human beings, each with his own strengths
and weaknesses, each reacting predictably to the emotional issue of the moment, and each
reacting predictably to the emotional issue of the moment, and each doing the best he
could with his life course.
(Bowen, 1978, p. 492)
Coaching: family therapy with an individual
Another distinguishing feature of Bowen's model is its validity when working with one person. Clients
remain in charge of their own change efforts, with the therapist acting as a systems consultant. Bowen
thought that a person's efforts to be more differentiated would be more productive when the focus
shifted away from the intensity of the nuclear family to the previous generation. The emphasis is on self-
directed efforts to detriangle from family-of-origin relationships and to work on developing a person-
to-person relationship with as many extended family members as possible. An individual's efforts can
modify a triangle, which gradually ripples through to change in the extended family.
Bowen described coaching as ‘family psychotherapy with one family member’ (Bowen, 1978, p.
233). This therapy takes on the flavour of consulting as clients learn about the predictable patterns of
triangles and other processes for managing inevitable tensions. The therapist supports their efforts in
returning to their families to observe and learn about these relational patterns between sessions and is
interested in hearing their observations in the next session. In this way, clients practise controlling their
emotional reactivity in situ with their own family and report their struggles and progress in following
sessions where the therapist is a resource for thinking and observation. During family-of-origin coach-
ing, clients use letters, telephone calls, visits and research about previous generations to gain a systems
perspective on their family's emotional processes and a sense of their own inheritance of these patterns.
The therapist prepares clients for the anxiety they will encounter if they shift from their customary
positions in their families of origin. Any such changes will inevitably disturb the predictable balance
of family patterns and, therefore, heighten anxiety and resistance. Bowen speaks to the importance of
being prepared for such predictable ‘change back’ responses, writing, ‘If the differentiating one can stay
on course without defending self or counterattacking, the emotional reaction is usually brief and the
other then expresses appreciation’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 495).
Case example
Chloe (15) was referred for therapy following being discharged from the local hospital after an episode
of deliberate self-harm. Chloe was not interested in therapy and refused to attend the service, so with the
appropriate safety protocols in place, sessions commenced with Chloe's mother, Sandra, alone. Sandra
described Chloe as a clever and sparky young girl, but whose mental health struggles continued to put
her health and wellbeing at risk, putting them in a perpetual cycle of hospital admissions and in and out
of services over the years.
Stage 1: calming the system
Sandra was relieved to be able to access therapy even without Chloe after what she described as being
sidelined by previous services. A goal in meeting with Sandra was to hear her experience over the years
in parenting Chloe amidst the medical and mental health stressors and to take the focus away from
Chloe's symptoms to think about the broader picture of each person's contribution to the intensity of
the family and relationships. This is based on Bowen's idea that a reduced intensity helps healthy at-
tachment in a relationship, where each person can work on being themselves and relating to the other
person with less sensitivity or reactivity getting in the way. Part of this effort with Sandra was to gather
some understanding of the facts of their journey, using a family diagram and timeline, to begin to open
up her thinking about the accompanying dynamics and processes along the way.
Stage 2: the nuclear family system
Understanding Chloe's symptoms in the context of the broader family relationships revealed the
stress the family had been under for many years. A conflictual marriage and subsequent separation,
then divorce 7 years prior, had brought significant changes to the immediate family. Chloe's father
had left and had little contact with Sandra outside of formalities and only sporadic periods of contact
with Chloe.
A key relationship to explore was the primary triangle of Sandra, her ex-husband and Chloe, with
a hypothesis from theory that the intensity of the parental relationship and breakdown had relocated
Sandra's focus on Chloe. Sandra identified that she harboured much anger against her ex-husband and
resented him not being there to help with parenting Chloe in her teenage years amidst the stressors of
the mental health challenges and had subsequently devoted herself to caring for Chloe.
Sandra expressed her thinking that perhaps she was trying to prove to her ex-husband that she could
manage as a single parent, which in turn had led to an increased focus on Chloe. This fits with a view
from the theory that the child focus can act to fill the breach in the parental relationship, in this case,
exacerbated by the divorce.
Sessions focused on what the attention on Chloe looked like and the typical patterns that emerged
time and again in their relationship.
• Chloe would come up against challenges in her own life, and either her medical or mental health (or
both) would spiral, and she would become distressed.
• Sandra was very attuned to Chloe's moods and picked up signs of upset quickly and would drop ev-
erything to try and help Chloe.
• Amidst the stresses, Sandra described feeling helpful at these times and close to Chloe while they
worked through the presenting dilemma.
• Chloe would often recover quite quickly after this and then distance herself from Sandra.
• Sandra was left feeling exhausted and annoyed at Chloe and would spend days recovering her own
energy and functioning back.
• Sandra would not say anything about this to Chloe because she did not want Chloe to distance herself
from her any further, so they did not talk about it.
• Sandra would continue to monitor Chloe's mood and do everything she could to try and stay con-
nected with her.
Tracking these patterns, each session created the opportunity for Sandra to observe the emotional
process that continued to play out in their relationship. While the content varied (e.g. stressors being
schoolwork, a mental health episode and problems with friends), Sandra became so familiar with her
own responses that over time, she was able to take her thinking about this into situations and try and
alter her own responses in an attempt to help things go differently.
Stage 3: expanding the view to previous generations
During the course of sessions, effort was made to learn more about Sandra's own extended family, which
included following up mentions of family members to inquire about their whereabouts and Sandra's rela-
tionship with them. The purpose of this was to consider the resources and challenges in the broader family
system, as well as a context to think with Sandra about the emergence of her own patterns of what appeared
to be over-responsibility for others. It emerged that Sandra's own mother had required extra care in recent
years, and Sandra, the oldest child, was the only sibling in her family in proximity to meet these demands.
Most of the time, she just got on with this, but she also reflected that she was sometimes bitter at being the
only one helping in this way. It also emerged that Sandra's mother, who was also separated, had distanced
herself from her own family, which raised further thinking about the fusion in this family, which was seem-
ingly expressed with distance in some relationships and intense closeness in others.
In sessions over time, Sandra began to identify her role as a ‘helper’ more broadly, which had led to
taking positions of over-responsibility in her family relationships, as well as in her roles and responsibil-
ities at work, where she saw similar patterns of taking over from other people and becoming increasingly
overworked. This process was not always smooth, but over the course of a couple of months, Sandra
made efforts to slow down her automatic rescuing response to Chloe and interrupt the recurring cycles,
which she was frustrated by. Instead, she began to increasingly think about how to foster Chloe's inde-
pendence as an older teen. She worked to be interested in Chloe's own ideas about what she needed to
cope but not take over or offer herself unconditionally.
Innovative developments and applications of Bowen theory
Bowen encouraged people to test his theory against emerging science so as not just to join a tribe
of adherents to a model. He writes: ‘I have been concerned about people who become disciples
and who accept the theory without thinking for themselves’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 390). In this spirit,
many have taken on the challenge of testing the theory alongside new evidence and researching
elements of the theory in a range of domains. Bowen family systems theory remains dynamic, with
continued publications applied across a vast spectrum. Some examples are application to clinical
practice (Brown, 2023a; McKnight, 2023; Titelman, 2014), the role of the therapist's own fam-
ily (Harrison, 2018), culture (Lam & Chan-S o, 2015; Lampis et al., 2019) and links to science and
research (Papero, 2015; Keller & Noone, 2019). The theory has also been applied to systems be-
yond the family, such as work (Fox & Baker, 2009; Miller, 2019) and faith communities (Brown
& Errington, 2019; Creech, 2019). The theory has also been published in formats accessible to the
general public (Brown, 2017; Lerner, 1988; Gilbert, 1992; Smith, 2019). A journal dedicated to ap-
plications of Bowen theory has been in continued publication since 1994.7
As Bowen scholars have continuously engaged with the latest developments in biology, psychology
and sociology, many innovations have been added to the application of Bowen family systems theory.
Some of the recent contributions have already been noted; however, it is worth highlighting some key
examples of research that have enhanced the validity of Bowen's theory and original findings.
Elizabeth Skowron (Skowron & Van Epps, 2014) has contributed to the efforts to measure levels of
differentiation of self, which have resulted in substantial research into the validity of this concept. Her
research has tested the concepts in various domains, including marital satisfaction (Skowron, 2000) and
young adulthood wellbeing (Skowron et al., 2009).
Phillip Klever (2003, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2019, 2023) has published numerous papers on a longi-
tudinal study of marital couples. Additionally, he has tested and validated a tool for assessing family
functioning (Klever, 2001). Robert Noone has applied himself to furthering the efforts of understand-
ing Bowen theory in light of scientific developments, including the interplay of emotion and intellect
(Noone, 2016), epigenetics and neuroscience (Crews & Noone, 2015) and evolutionary science and
family adaptation (Flinn et al., 2015).
Additionally, Dan Papero (2019) has offered a family systems assessment framework that has gen-
erated a range of new tools for clinical practice, research and assessing the functioning of teams and
congregations, and Victoria Harrison has contributed pioneering research related to Bowen theory and
reproduction (Harrison, 2015; Harrison et al., 2005), physiology and the family system (Harrison, 2019)
and has consolidated the relevance of Bowen theory as a natural science with evolution at its core
(Harrison, 2022).
Numerous others deserve to be added to the list. Bowen encouraged people to engage with theory
and investigate human and other systems in ways that made the theory their own. This is in the spirit
of the goal of working on differentiation of self, where people move past blind followership towards
patient observations, curiosity and thoughtful problem-solving.
Critique of Bowen's approach
This section will briefly describe some key critiques of Bowen family systems theory that have emerged
over the past few decades. These critiques raise valuable questions about the application of the theory
in different contexts and highlight what Dr Bowen perceived as the challenge of communicating this
complex theory.
Feminist critique and the role of feelings
The original version of this article (Brown, 1999) described feminist concerns about gender stereotyping in
Bowen theory and a particular concern that the natural symbiotic relationship between mothers and chil-
dren was pathologised. Knudson-Martin (1994) attempted to address what she perceived as shortcomings
of the theory and its representation of women by reconceptualising aspects of the model, an approach that
was later critiqued as misrepresenting key aspects of the theory by Horne and Hicks (2002).
Still present in this repertoire of feminist critique is the idea that learning about feeling responses,
rather than encouraging a full expression of feelings in the safety of transference, is often critiqued
as being too intellectual and lacking in empathy, subverted privileging of male rationality over female
expressiveness (Knudson-Martin, 2002; Luepnitz, 1988). Throughout its development, leading feminist
practitioners, including Betty Carter and others, still found ways to define their own principles and work
from a family systems theory approach. Writing about this particular criticism, McGoldrick and Carter
posit that ‘Bowen was addressing the need to train one's mind to control emotional reactivity so that we
can control our behaviour and think about how we want to respond rather than be at the mercy of our
fears compulsions, instincts and impulses. This does not mean suppressing authentic and appropriate
emotional expressiveness’ (McGoldrick & Carter, 2001, p. 285).
In reflecting on common objections to Bowen's approach, Michael Kerr comments that the ‘idea that
a person can be helped in “talking therapy” without forming an intense, feeling-based attachment to a
therapist strongly conflicts with what is generally held about a therapeutic relationship’ (Kerr, 1991, p.
120). Brown (2007) highlights that Kerr does acknowledge the gains for clients in being more aware of
feelings and developing the ability to express them, but that he also emphasises the importance of the
therapist managing their own boundaries as a coach and not exerting emotional pressure on clients to
conform to their notions of what is ‘good’ for people. McGoldrick and Carter, in commenting on the
criticism levelled at Bowen for elevating the male attributes of rationality over female expressiveness,
write that ‘Bowen was addressing the need to train one's mind to control emotional reactivity so that we
can control our behaviour and think about how we want to respond rather than be at the mercy of our
fears compulsions, instincts and impulses. This does not mean suppressing authentic and appropriate
emotional expressiveness’ (McGoldrick & Carter, 2001, p. 285).
Further to these critiques, increasing attention and understanding of the dynamics in relationship
violence over the past few decades raise important questions about a systems approach in this field. Can
emphasising responsibility for self lead to victim blaming? Does talking about reciprocity negate the re-
sponsibility of a perpetrator? What does it mean to be neutral? There is a long history of concerns about
the idea of working with power imbalance in family therapy, especially the idea of holding neutrality,
exemplified by this being a significant reason the post-M ilan group separated from their predecessors
in the 1980s. One of the advantages of working from a Bowen theory-informed approach in this field is
that family therapy is about holding the multigenerational relationship system in mind rather than who is
actually in the room (Kerr, 2019), which may create flexibility for practitioners in their work addressing
relationship violence.
Those working in the field of relationship violence with a family systems lens describe the usefulness
of the theory to better understand the intense fusion and distancing within the relationship system
that proceeds violence before them, which can be expressed in violence (Smith, 2001). Some contem-
porary practitioners are using a family systems lens to consider how defining self may be beneficial
from both ends of the spectrum of violence: for perpetrators to take responsibility for self and victims
to increasingly develop agency based on their own determined course of life goals and action (Burke
& Post, 2024). It is a complex field that will benefit from more research and robust engagement in the
coming years.
Culture
Over the past two decades, important questions have also been raised about the place of Bowen family
systems theory in the context of different cultures. Those leading the way on these questions high-
light the importance of understanding the approach as being grounded in a natural systems theory, which
emphasises the adaptability of members of a relationship unit in drawing on how much individuality
(separateness) and how much togetherness (group) is needed for managing dilemmas before them. From
an evolutionary perspective, this balance is being navigated constantly by all living creatures, humans
included, and how this emotional process plays out manifests differently in all families.
As Michael Kerr (in Kerr & Bowen, 1988) and, subsequently, Peggy Chan (2024) describe, culture
is best understood as the content of how the emotional process is played out in a given family, in a
given place and at a given time. Such understanding promotes significant curiosity about the unique
resources each family brings to managing life and its challenges. It further highlights the importance
of the therapist as a researcher with their clients who are interested in the person's own thinking and
grappling over what principles and values are important to them as they work to define the self in their
own significant relationships and their own evaluation of appropriate cultural expression of their efforts
in emotional maturity.
Criticisms of the concept of differentiation of self
The most misunderstood component of Bowen's theory is also arguably the most important. From its
outset, the concept of differentiation of self has attracted criticisms over the years and attracted polar-
ised reactions, from those who reject it, to those who over-accept it – a blind acceptance that Bowen
himself expressed concern about (Bowen, 1978).
Most recently, criticism about the concept of differentiation of self has been expressed by John
Gottman, couple therapist and founder of the Gottman Institute, who argued that the concept was
fundamentally flawed (Gottman, 2004). In his training manual for couple therapists, Gottman de-
scribed the idea of differentiation as ‘misguided’ and ‘wrong’, suggesting that the concept denied
couples the opportunity for emotional connection and intimacy due to what he described as a privi-
leging of the intellect over emotions (Gottman & Gottman, 2000–2016). Gottman has also criticised
Bowen's theory as being based on primitive understandings of the triune brain based on McClean's
evolutionary theory (MacLean, 1990) and subsequently out of touch with contemporary neuroscience
(Gottman, 2004).
Gottman is right to urge close examination of a more than half a century-old theory in light of
contemporary scientific developments. Bowen invited rigorous engagement with his theory, as he
was sceptical of the alternative, which was the risk of people treating it as a ‘closed system’ of ideas
or beliefs (Bowen, 1978, p. 390). Bowen theory scholars taking up the work of examining the theory
alongside contemporary neuroscience include Harrison (2023) and Noone (2021) along with Dan
Papero (Noone & Papero, 2015), amongst others. Their own research and efforts to collaborate with
others in understanding the adaptive nature of the brain have led each to consider that neuroscien-
tific developments are not, as yet, contrary to the principles of Bowen theory but that such research
enhances what Bowen primarily hypothesised about in his understanding of what the human species
was capable of.
John Gottman's criticisms highlight how easily the concept of differentiation of self can be misun-
derstood. One aspect of this is that concept appears to have elicited confusion between the family ther-
apy concept of enmeshment and the Bowen theory idea of fusion. Another particular misinterpretation
includes perceiving efforts towards differentiation of self as privileging reason over emotion, which
Gottman criticised as being to the detriment of emotional intimacy in the couple relationship (Gottman
& Gottman, 2000–2016). Such readings suggest a failure to adequately convey the expression of high
emotional maturity in a relationship, which in Bowen theory is described as the integration of emotion
and intellect rather than privileging one over another and the freedom for each person to be a ‘self’ in
the relationship and relate unbound by the sensitivities that often govern relationship interactions.
From its inception, the concept of differentiation of self has been difficult to convey or appreciate
accurately. In the 1970s, Dr Bowen described his own difficulty in accurately communicating the the-
ory, describing his early efforts led to people seeing the ideas as too ‘static’ (Bowen, 1978, p. 402). He
described placing the idea of differentiation of self on a scale as his attempt to ‘communicate that people
are definably different to each other in the way they handle the mix between emotional and cognitive
functioning and that the difference was on a continuum from its most intense to its least intense form’
(Bowen, 1978, pp. 210–211).
C ONC LUSION
In giving an overview of Bowen's theory and its approach to family therapy, this paper risks oversimplifying
its in-depth formulation of family emotional process. Each section of this paper could be an article unto
itself. Without a doubt, this paper does not do justice to the interlocking nature of the concepts and the prin-
ciples that underlie the theory. In addition, while there are theoretical principles that guide its application to
family therapy practice and the position of the therapist, this article presents the authors' own versions of
this and recognises the variation of practice each Bowen-informed therapist might bring.
We have aimed to summarise Bowen's core concepts and to give a flavour of how these concepts
influence the focus of family therapy in clinical practice. Those who adhere to a Bowen family systems
lens speak of the appeal of its attention to complex family patterns in both vertical and horizontal time.
The coach is curious about the intricacies of how a nuclear family unit functions and how it is both a
challenge and a resource to itself and its members as it adapts to life. Broadening the lens allows the
family to explore multigenerational emotional processes that live in the present and shape a family's
adaptive capacity. As Anne McKnight aptly describes this:
When the coach is freed up from fixing the family, the human condition becomes a fas-
cinating parade of both the strengths and symptoms that emerge as families address the
challenges they face.
(McKnight, 2023, p. 21)
Notably, this theory goes well beyond the practice of therapy to making sense of the human in relation-
ships and hence offers many applications beyond the clinician's office. Perhaps what is most distinctive
about Bowen's theory is its place amongst natural sciences and evolution, with the human viewed as part
of broader life, making adaptations in response to challenges in the environment. The unique efforts of
a Bowen theory coach to consider their position in their own family of origin brings a uniquely personal
experience of systems thinking and considers the adaptations their own family has made over time. In turn,
this promotes the humility and respect of families who function on a continuum of which they are also a
part. Additionally, the student of Bowen theory learns to observe patterns in all their significant relationship
systems and continues the patient effort to differentiate themselves as a contribution to the wellbeing of the
collective.
C ON F L IC T OF I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T
There is no conflict of interest to declare in submitting this manuscript for publication with the Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy.
ORC I D
Lauren Errington https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5286-2610
E N DNO T E S
1
This selection of articles are the ones that are not referenced elsewhere in this paper.
2
Brown's (1999) original paper forms the basic structure of this revision. Elements of the 1999 paper have been included in this
second edition.
3
www.thefsi.com.au.
4
The use of ‘emotional’ in Bowen theory refers to more than feelings that are the conscious part of emotions. Emotions are phys-
iologically embedded activations to the environment.
5
https://www.thebowencenter.org/network-programs.
6
Some people use the term ‘triangulation’, deriving from Minuchin (1974, p. 102); however, Bowen always spoke of ‘triangling’.
7
Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry and the Sciences https://www.thebowencenter.org/journal.
R EF ER ENCES
Bowen, M. (1978) Family therapy in clinical practice. New Jersey: Jason Aronson.
Bowen, M. & Butler, J. (Eds.) (2013) The origins of family psychotherapy: the NIMH family study project. New York: Jason Aronson.
Brown, J. (1999) Bowen family systems theory and practice. Illustration and critique. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 20(2), 94–103.
Brown, J. (2007) Going home again: a family of origin approach to individual therapy. Psychotherapy in Australia, 14(1), 12–18.
Brown, J. (2008) We don't need your help, but will you please fix our children? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
29(2), 61–69.
Brown, J. (2017) Growing yourself up: how to bring your best to all of life's relationships, 2nd edition. Chatswood: Exisle Publishing.
Brown, J. (2020) Engaging with parents in adolescent mental health services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
41, 145–160.
Brown, J. (2023a) Facilitating parents' agency in child and adolescent mental health: helplessness to hope. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars.
Brown, J. (2023b) Making sense of the parenting ‘soft/hard split’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 44,
225–236.
Brown, J. & Errington, L. (Eds.) (2019) Bowen family systems theory in Christian ministry: grappling with theory and its application through a
biblical lens. Neutral Bay: Family Systems Practice & Institute.
Burke, K. & Post, A. (2024) Intimate partner violence and Bowen family systems theory: promoting safety and expanding ca-
pacity of families. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 45(2), 190–208.
Carter, E. & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.) (1988) The changing family life cycle, 2nd edition. New York: Gardner Press.
Chan, P. (2024) Bowen theory, culture, and therapeutic applications to Asian families. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 45(2), 244–256.
Collier, C.E. & Villareal, P., III. (2022) Family unit functioning questionnaire: development and initial validation. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 43(2), 223–242.
Cooper, J., Yu, M.L., MacKay, L. & Brown, T. (2023) Exploring changes in family functioning when a child participates in a
school-based filial therapy program. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 44(3), 328–351. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1002/a nzf.1548
Creech, R.R. (2019) Family systems and congregational life: a map for ministry. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Crews, D. & Noone, R.J. (2015) Early context-dependent epigenetic modifications and the shaping of brain and behavior. In:
Noone, R. (Ed.) The family emotional system: an integrative concept for theory, science and practice. Maryland: Lexington Books, pp.
87–101.
Errington, L. (2022) Tracking emotional process in relationship interactions using sequences. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Family Therapy, 43, 92–103.
Flinn, M.V., Ward, C.V. & Noone, R.J. (2015) Hormones and the human family. In: Buss, D.M. (Ed.) The handbook of evolutionary
psycholog y. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, pp. 552–580.
Fox, L.A. & Baker, K.G. (2009) Leading a business in anxious times: a systems-based approach to becoming more effective in the workplace.
Chicago: Care Communications Press.
Friedman, E.H. (1985) Generation to generation: family process in church and synagogue. New York: Guilford Publications.
Gilbert, R.M. (1992) Extraordinary relationships: a new way of thinking about human interactions. Virginia: Leading Systems Press.
Gottman, J. (2004) Basic research on relationships: assessment and intervention [conference presentation]. Living systems counsel-
ling conference: the important of research for family theory and therapy. Vancouver, Canada.
Gottman, J. & Gottman, J. (2000–2016) Level 1 clinical training: Gottman method couples therapy – bridging the couple chasm. Washington:
The Gottman Institute Inc.
Harrison, V. (2015) Emotional systems and the regulation of reproduction with ovulation as an illustration (Ch.13). In: Noone,
R. & Papero, D. (Eds.) The family emotional system: an integrative concept for theory, science, and practice. New York: Lexington
Books, pp. 201–218.
Harrinson, V. (2019) Bowen theory in the study of physiology and family systems (Ch.8). In: Keller, M. & Noone, R. (Eds.)
Handbook of Bowen family systems theory and research methods: a systems model for family research. New York: Routledge, pp.
105–119.
Harrison, V. (2022) Understanding and managing the impact of climate changes on anxiety: Bowen theory and an evolutionary
perspective. Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry & the Sciences, 16(1), 7–41.
Harrison, V. (2023) Observations of change while working on differentiation of self. Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems
Thinking in Psychiatry and the Sciences, 17(2), 105–138.
Harrison, V., Rowan, K. & Mathias, J. (2005) Stress reactivity and family relationships in the development and treatment of
endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility, 83(4), 857–864.
Harrison, V.A. (2018) The family diagram & family research: an illustrated guide to tools for working on differentiation of self in one's family.
Houston: Center for the Study of Natural Systems and the Family.
Horne, K. & Hicks, M. (2002) All in the family: a belated response to Knudson-M artin's feminist revision of Bowen theory.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(1), 103–113.
Keller, M.N. & Noone, R.J. (Eds.) (2019) Handbook of Bowen family systems theory and research methods: a systems model for family research.
New York: Routledge.
Kerr, M. (1991) Living the theory. The Family Therapy Networker, 77, 39–40.
Kerr, M. (2019) Bowen theory's secrets: revealing the hidden life of families. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988) Family evaluation: an approach based on Bowen theory. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Klever, P. (2001) The nuclear family functioning scale: initial development and preliminary validation. Families, Systems & Health,
19(4), 397–410.
Klever, P. (2003) Intergenerational fusion and nuclear family functioning. Contemporary Family Therapy, 25(4), 431–451.
Klever, P. (2005) Multigenerational stress and nuclear family functioning. Contemporary Family Therapy, 27, 233–250.
Klever, P. (2009) Goal direction and effectiveness, emotional maturity, and nuclear family functioning. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 35(3), 308–324.
Klever, P. (2015) Multigenerational relationships and nuclear family functioning. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(4),
339–351.
Klever, P. (2019) The multigenerational transmission of family unit functioning (Ch.18). In: Keller, M. & Noone, R. (Eds.)
Handbook of Bowen family systems theory and research methods: a systems model for family research. New York: Routledge, pp.
265–277.
Klever, P. (2023) Similarity in spouse functioning. Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry & the Sciences,
17(2), 139.
Knudson-Martin, C. (1994) The female voice: applications to Bowen's family systems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
20(1), 35–46.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2002) Expanding Bowen's legacy to family therapy: a response to Horne and Hicks. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 28(1), 115–118.
Lam, C.M. & Chan-So, P.C. (2015) Validation of the Chinese version of differentiation of self inventory (C-DSI). Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 41(1), 86–101.
Lampis, J., Rodríguez-González, M., Cataudella, S., Relvas, A.P., Neophytou, K. & Agus, M. (2019) Cross-cultural validity of
Bowen theory in southern European countries. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 40(4), 457–482.
Lerner, H. (1988) The dance of anger. New York: Harper & Row.
Lerner, H. (1990) The dance of intimacy. New York: Harper & Row.
Lerner, H. (1993) The dance of deception. New York: Harper & Row.
Luepnitz, D. (1988) The family interpreted: psychoanalysis, feminism and family therapy. New York: Basic Books.
MacKay, L. (2012) Trauma and Bowen family systems theory: working with adults who were abused as children. Australian and
MacKay, L. & Brown, J. (2013) Collaborative approaches to family systems supervision: differentiation of self. Australian and
MacKay, L.M. (2017) Differentiation of self: enhancing therapist resilience when working with relational trauma. Australian and
MacLean, P. (1990) The triune brain in evolution: role in paleocerebral functions. New York: Springer.
McGoldrick, M. & Carter, B. (2001) Advanced in coaching: family therapy with one person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
27(3), 281–300.
McGoldrick, M. & Gerson, R. (1985) Genograms in family assessment. New York: Norton.
McKnight, A. (2023) Thinking systems: applying Bowen theory in clinical practice. Washington: Bowen Center for the Study of the
Family.
Miller, J.A. (2019) The anxious organization: why smart companies do dumb things. New York: Vinculum Press.
Minuchin, S. (1974) Families & family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Noone, R. (2021) Family and self: Bowen theory and the shaping of adaptive capacity. New York: Lexington Books.
Noone, R. & Papero, D. (2015) The family emotional system: an integrative concept for theory, science and practice. New York: Lexington
Books.
Noone, R.J. (2016) Family, self, and the intermix of emotional and intellectual functioning. Family Systems, 12(1), 29–52.
Palombi, M. (2018) From gestalt therapy to family systems: how theoretical frameworks inform clinical applications. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 39(4), 514–527.
Papero, D.V. (2014) Assisting the two-person system: an approach based on the Bowen theory. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Family Therapy, 35(4), 386–397.
Papero, D.V. (2015) The family emotional system (Ch.2). In: Noone, R. & Papero, D. (Eds.) The family emotional system: an integrative
concept for theory, science, and practice. New York: Lexington Books, pp. 15–28.
Papero, D.V. (2017) Trauma and the family: a systems-oriented approach. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
38(4), 582–594.
Papero, D.V. (2019) Developing a systems model for family assessment (Ch.3). In: Keller, M. & Noone, R. (Eds.) Handbook of
Bowen family systems theory and research methods: a systems model for family research. New York: Routledge, pp. 36–46.
Rakow, C.M. (2023) Making sense of human life: Murray Bowen's determined effort toward family systems theory. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Schnarch, D. (1991) Constructing the sexual crucible. New York: W.W. Norton.
Schnarch, D. (1997) A passionate marriage. New York: W.W. Norton.
Skowron, E.A. (2000) The role of differentiation of self in marital adjustment. Journal of Counselling Psycholog y, 47(2), 229.
Skowron, E.A., Stanley, K. & Shapiro, M. (2009) A longitudinal perspective on differentiation of self, interpersonal, and psy-
chological wellbeing in young adulthood. Contemporary Family Therapy, 31, 3–18.
Skowron, E.A. & Van Epps, J.J. (2014) Toward a greater understanding of differentiation of self in Bowen family systems theory:
empirical developments and future directions. In: Differentiation of self. New York: Routledge, pp. 385–412.
Smith, K. (2019) Everything isn't terrible: conquer your insecurities, interrupt your anxiety and finally calm down. Family Systems
Journal, 5(2), 101–126.
Smith, W.H. (2001) Child abuse in family emotional process. Family Systems, 5(2), 101–126.
Titelman, P. (2014) Clinical applications of Bowen family systems theory. New York: Routledge.
Toman, W. (1976a) Family therapy and sibling position; translated by Walter Toman. Northvale, N.J.: Aronson.
Toman, W. (1976b) Family constellation, 3rd edition. New York: Springer.
Wilt, M.J. (2023) Differentiation of family system inventory (DoFSI): development and content validation of a new qualitative
family intervention and evaluation tool. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 44(2), 179–200.
Wylie, M.S. (1991) Family therapy's neglected prophet. Family Therapy Networker, 77, 24–37.
How to cite this article: Brown, J. & Errington, L. (2024) Bowen family systems theory and
practice: Illustration and critique revisited. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 45,
135–155. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1589

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Practice Illustration and Critique Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Practice Illustration and Critique Revisited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Practice Illustration and Critique Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI: 10.1002/anzf.

Bowen family systems theory and practice:

Jenny Brown1 | Lauren Errington2

© 2024 Australian Association of Family Therapy (AAFT).

Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 2024;45:135–155. ﻿ wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/anzf | 135

• Dr Murray Bowen developed one of the foundational family therapy theories.

development of an Australian AAFT-­accredited training program specialising in this approach (the

Achieving a person-­to-­person relationship with either parent is a major undertaking, but,

Nuclear family emotional system

I couple conflict and distance;

Each of these is expanded below.

Couple conflict and distance

Symptoms in a spouse – over-­and underfunctioning

Family projection process

Multigenerational transmission process

Societal emotional process

The role of the therapist/coach – staying out of family emotional process/

The therapist's awareness of their sensitivities is reflected in the ‘… ability to be in emo-

Therapist/coach activity in exploring the relationship process

Learning about triangles

Questions that invite differentiation

Working with the most motivated family member – minimised

Family evaluation – keeping a broad generational lens

Coaching: family therapy with an individual

Stage 1: calming the system

Stage 2: the nuclear family system

Stage 3: expanding the view to previous generations

Innovative developments and applications of Bowen theory

Critique of Bowen's approach

Feminist critique and the role of feelings

Criticisms of the concept of differentiation of self

You might also like

Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 2024;45:135–155. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/anzf | 135

development of an Australian AAFT-accredited training program specialising in this approach (the

Achieving a person-to-person relationship with either parent is a major undertaking, but,

Symptoms in a spouse – over-and underfunctioning