Ideas To Action

How Understanding Your Family System Can Change Your Life

The Spanish Edition of “Create Your Mindful Compass: Navigating through the Social Jungle for Success” or “Crea tu brújula interior; Un divertido recorrido por la jungla social para atraer el éxito”

Posted by ideastoaction on November 4, 2009

The book is born! And it is in Spanish!

On October 27th. 2009, Maria Bustos organized a welcoming book event at the Museum of the People’s Art in Mexico City. http://www.museoartepopularmexicano.org/ During this week the museum also displayed many of their larger pieces on the main street of Mexico City. Over one million people were fortunate to see this amazing art work. As you can see the book launching was surrounded by fantastic energy from the world of art.
man looking
Bug
guitar

map

Maria organized and did all the groundwork She asked people to donate the Museum space, the food, the flowers, chairs, wine, drinks etc. She is both a one-woman army and a midwife. It was five days of fun celebrating, being interviewed and interviewing five fantastic Mexican artists. Maria’s skills made it possible for me to relax and be present with many great people. Clearly I could enjoy the moments or worry about the usual junk: being late, the traffic etc. I deeply appreciate Maria and her deep motivation to bring the ideas of Bowen theory to Mexico.
bookselling
ruz,ams Maria

Heberto Ruz, the publisher deserves deep and special thanks for his complicated work in having the book translated and in making the decision two and half years ago to bring this book to life. One of the best moments was just to hold the book and look through the pages. The baby does not cry though the Mother may have. But the book is fantastic!!!
heberto ruz

I was very happy to see the ten people I had interviewed and meet their family and friends. About 125 people came to celebrate the publishing of the book. This newly formed network gathered to celebrate the voices from ten leaders in Mexico, courageous enough to tell how their family experiences enabled them to see and understand relationships and how that impacted their successes. By deeply understanding how relationships worked early on, these leaders could describe the broader forces impacting relationship systems.
interviewed and jim w

AMS, Marie Therese Arango, Anna Zarnecki, Francesco Piazzesi and Jim Walsh
the interviwed and maria
AMS, Marie Therese Arango, Anna Zarnecki, Francesco Piazzesi, Maria Bustos, Victor Lichtinger and Maria de los Angeles

In the book we read about how, in very different ways, each person describes the way their family experience helped them define themselves and learn to remain in contact with a large variety of people.

For any of us seeing systems and forces allows us to move towards a more objective and factual viewpoint. This can enable the formation of stronger relationships out of which we can better manage life’s great challenges and just the plain old differences that we encounter everyday.

My hope is that by hearing others tell of managing self in their family and work relationships, people will have a deeper understanding of family systems. This will enable greater mindfulness about how we have been and still are being influenced by those around us.

There is overwhelming evidence that we humans are always in danger of having our decisions overly influenced by the social group surrounding us. We are vulnerable to being trapped and tricked by others, reacting, getting emotional, being negative, blaming others, all without seeing the system.

It is the system and the multigenerational forces that impact us in ways that are often very hard to see. In an effort to “fit” with the relationships system, people can easily find him or her self slipping into an uncomfortable or way too comfortable position. Nothing is harder than to see oneself and the social system around us in an impersonal way.

The leaders I interviewed often talked about what it is like to be alone, to separate out a self from others in order to bring his or her vision to life. They describe the paradox in being a profound leader. It requires not popularity and charisma but rather the ability to see the long term, plan and maintain the courage to thoughtfully stand-alone rather than overreact to perceptions of the players around us.

If we can see the system we are not stuck in the social jungle.

A few curious people asked me “why” I would go this route (asking people to tell how their family experiences influenced their success) as a way to introduce Bowen Theory to Mexico? Why a party? Why interview the people? Why not highlight just the theory?

One answer is found in the questions Bowen use to ask the post graduates year after year, “How is it that people can not see what is right in front of their eyes?” I know that there is a power to stories that conceptual ideas do not possess. In psychiatry you see this in the telling of “clinical” stories. Stories fit with our brain, enabling the motivated among us to see theory as it is being lived out right before our eyes. People can see that triangles and side taking are everywhere.

Often relationship problems are not personal. Problems are simply systems in action. Those motivated to be mindful of their actions are looking for a useful theory to help us understand deeply what is going on.

By reflecting on the past, we can choose to become more mindful of the way people automatically function with one another. People are often asked to learn the seven principles or the eight concepts but alone they do not enable people to manage self with others. The basic challenge of seeing the overriding influence of relationships is the underlying message of this book.

All of us live in society and in our families. We are also a part of our changing families’ lives. They change us and we change them.

Now people can read these stories in which people are connecting the dots. Hopefully this will make a difference for a few. People can say I am doing it the wrong way and that could be true. But at least it is my way.

The Mindful Compass tells us how inevitable resistance is. First, you take an action that is really important to you. Then, the people in the emotionally connected system react, as they must. But by being mindful and using your knowledge of how systems function, you can stand-alone while the system rebalances. I am not saying any of this is easy but I am saying it’s the way to a bit more emotional freedom.

Words can never do justice to the efforts that so many made. I deeply appreciated and enjoyed my daughter, Michelle, making the effort to be there.
Michelle

Mara Lalia, Michelle Mauboussin, Alfredo Lalia

She and Jim Walsh were the only Americans to make the journey.
ams, jim walsh Maria
Andrea Schara, Jim Walsh, Maria Bustos

Jim was one of the ten people I interviewed for the English version of the book. He took the ideas to heart and has used them to make further progress. Jim also donated big boxes of chocolate for the ten people I interviewed. Each piece of chocolate is embedded with conscious intention and love for our health and happiness. If you want a taste of the best try it! – http://www.intentionalchocolate.com/

Another person who came to celebrate the book is Fernando Manzanilla who along with Jim Walsh is growing coca in the area of Mexico where it was originally gown. You can read his story http://ideastoaction.wordpress.com/2008/07/
Gabby, Fernando, Michelle

Gabby, Fernado and Michelle

Ada Luisa Trillo was also there. She has been in the post-graduate program at the Bowen Center in Washington, D.C. She came down from the Juarez/ El Paso boarder area. Ada has influenced many people in Mexico with her knowledge of Bowen Theory. She along with Louise Rausseo have developed programs serving the people of their area.
ada and Maria
Ada Luisa Trillo and Maria Bustos

Two of the ten people I interviewed could not attend the celebration at the museum. But I had the good fortune to catch up with them the following day and personally thank them for being involved in this important project. Sabina Berman has been busy with her weekly TV show and other projects. Her ability to be direct and ask hard questions is a central draw for the one million or so who watch her TV show. Sabina is very aware of the complex problems in Mexico and hopes that by bring issues out into the open, better solutions will be discovered. Her interview can be seen by clicking over to http://ideastoaction.wordpress.com/2009/01/

Sabina, ams, maria

The one person I met and asked if I could interview was Ulises Calatayud Catano. I met him while he was teaching at his Bikram Yoga studio in Mexico City. He is the kind of person who you just know is exceptional just by the way he walks into a room. His energy is warm and accepting, therefore his students are free to be the best they can be without getting all caught up in his personality. For anyone who wants to be a leader or to just do better managing self in any relationship the grounding with one’s body, that yoga offers, is essential to progress. I was so pleased to have a moment with Ulises. I was also happy to see his Mom at the 6:30 AM class practicing yoga too. We had a fun time sweating our way to health! You can read his interview by clicking over to http://ideastoaction.wordpress.com/2008/08/

ulises
I also wanted to give something back to the museum for sponsoring this event. The museum represents the heart and soul of the people of Mexico through art. The multigenerational history of Mexico can be seen in art whose roots are in the Mayans and the Aztecs cultures. These traditions were intermingled and at times interwoven with the ideas and needs of the Spanish people.

It was a privilege to meet with these five artists whose work has been highlighted by the museum. These individuals were willing to travel up to 14 hours from the southern part of Mexico to get an opportunity to tell their stories and display their art. I videotaped some of it and will write up their stories and put them on my web site as time permits.

father and son
painted squashes

ams weaving
Healer and ams
maria with traditional costume
weavers shawl
cecelia and the artists
Marie Theresa Arango appreciates the artist's work
Marie Theresa Arango appreciates the artist’s work……cecelia and maria

Cecelia Moctezuma, The President of MAP and Maria Bustos

Finally I would just say that the location of this event had great significance because The Museum of the People’s Art (MAP) represents the heart, soul and deep mutigenerational history of the Mexican people.

Now we will see what the people of Mexico think of this new book.
It will be fun to see just how readers perceive the book.

My warmest thanks to all….. Andrea
Many thanks also to Judith Ball for editing help.

Posted in 1 | 4 Comments »

Invitation to the Book Launching: The Mindful Compass:Navigating Through the Social Jungle for Success

Posted by ideastoaction on October 22, 2009

A special moments will be October 27th, when there will be a party at the Museo de Arte Popular, to celebrate the birth of my book in Spanish:

Create Your Mindful Compass: Navigating Through The Social Jungle for Success

A friendly colorful dragon invites us into the museum.

museum

It is a very happy moment to celebrate!

All of this is happening due to the hard work of Maria Bustos. Her Mom has been helping all the way and even tries to help me with my Spanish. She also really enjoys my daughter Michelle. Here they are all dressed up going to the book party.
P1030032

Maria recognized the importance of bring this version of Bowen’s Family System ideas to Mexico. She created the network to make it all possible and has coordinated this whole effort. Thankfully, after all the hard work there will now be a special time to enjoy the celebration of the book’s new life among Spanish speaking people.

I want to thank those I interviewed, Francesco Piazzesi, Mario Buzzolini, Victor Lichtinguer, Don Lorenzo Servitje, Ernesto Valenzuela, Fernando Manzanilla, Maria Terersa Arango, Sabina Berman. You can read their stories on this site.

Next the people behind the scenes who made this project possible:
Francisco Gonzales (Director General, Union Social de Empresarios Mexicanos)

paco

Heberto Ruz (Director General, Ediciones Ruz) and Andrea. Heberto is the publisher of this book and many others.
hruz and ams

I am deeply appreciative all the people, named and unnamed, who have made it possible for my book to be launched in Mexico City. In particular I am thinking of my family who have stood behind me and supported my effort to write through thick and thin.

Below is the invitation and I would be so very happy to see anyone who can come.
Invitation_to_the_lauch_of_the_book__Crea_tu_brujula_Interior_27th_October_2009-2

mindful compass book cover

Posted in 1 | 1 Comment »

The Wonders of Thinking Twice

Posted by ideastoaction on October 7, 2009

What does it take to change the way you think?isa playing chess

In the last blog I wrote about the observations of how people “trick” one another as a response to internal anxiety and or perhaps to maintain a habitual emotional state.

This month I will review a book, Think Twice: Harnessing the Power of Counter Intuition by my son-in-law Michael Mauboussin.  The goal: understanding the challenges in becoming more rational.

This book fits with how Bowen thought about becoming a more integrated individual by integrating the feeling and thinking system.  In addition learning about how we make decisions is crucial to anyone mental health.

Murray Bowen wrote: Man’s ability to think, his intellectual system, is a function of the newly added cerebral cortex, which has developed last in his evolution, and which is the main difference between man and the lower forms of life.  The emotional and the intellectual systems have different functions, but they are interconnected, each influencing the other.[1]

One example of the effort to integrate feelings and thinking is Bowen’s move from psychoanalytical thinking to seeing and describing the family as an interactive system.

Bowen was able to move away from his on going training in psychoanalysis, to focus on the patient, and broaden his observations to the relationships between family members.  He spent 12 years and over 10,00 hours observing families, in his version of family psychotherapy with two or more family members, before he considered he had developed a way of understanding the family and as an emotional system.[2]

purlple flowers consta rica_JPG

Of course Bowen was the first person to develop a theory about the family as a system. It should be easier for the rest of us.

By directly observing families as they relate to each other a whole new world of clinical data came into view.  This information did not fit with the still dominant medical/individual modal.  More fundamentally Bowen’s interest was not confined to the nuclear family.  He wanted to get beyond Freud’s use of Greek plays to explain internal dynamics. By emphasizing the interlocking nature of the family over the generations he saw how families were a part of evolution. As he noted any system is dependent on the functioning of the larger system of which it is a part.  This linked observations of a living system to the biological sciences.

The role of the psychotherapist also underwent enormous change. Bowen regarded himself as a “consultant” in family problems for the initial problems and then as a “supervisors“ of the family effort over the long-term process. This was along way from the method of provoking change through the well-described steps in the individually -focused transference.

You can imagine the difficult in training psychiatrists to become non-participant observers and to regard the family as a phenomenon. This was learning to think twice about the acceptable way of understanding psychotherapy.  This was a fundamental alteration in the way of thinking.

The overall goal became to “help family members become system experts who could know the family system so well that the family could readjust itself without the help of outside experts, if and when the family was again stressed.”[3]

Bowen spent years training people to move from thinking about the individual to thinking about the system of relationships and to mange self in the outside position.  His overview of the problem was that,  “the psychotherapist is trained to hear, understand and identify and to form a therapeutic relationship with the patient.” [4] The transference “cure” is very different from being a consultant to the family.

The challenge is for the “consultant” to learn from the family and to allow the family to learn from the consultant while still the consultant remain free enough to relate to any family member at any time.

This is a formidable task due both to the way our brains work and due to the predictable resistance. Family members can trip up the consultant, especially if he or she is trying to think with the family in a disciplined way, rather than agree with the blame game or heal the family, as in the transference.

Bowen highlighted the overall problem in understanding how we think or how the emotional system functions.  Man has done less well when his intellect is directed at himself. The main problem in learning the secrets of emotional illness lies more in the way man denies, rationalizes and thinks about emotional illness. [5]

Perhaps his words will offer solace to those who are willing, again and again to embrace the beginners mind.  After all being rational is often blocked by emotional system.  By understanding how to be more rational this will enable us to function emotionally. Being rational and seeing how to think well about the future is a skill well worth spending time to develop.

wood stacked

In his new book Think Twice, Michael Mauboussin aims to give investors and business people a clear exposé of how our brains can trick us. I give this useful book 5 stars as it enables any motivated person to be aware of mental traps giving us a bag full of tools to make better decisions. Of course the really big question is how long will it take for any of us to learn to Think Twice?

We all get in the habit of understanding decision making from our own perspective. I am Michael Mauboussin’s fan and his mother-in-law so take what I say as you will.  I have also spent the 34 years of my professional life working as a family therapist and in so doing have learned about the challenges of thinking rationally

Sherlock Holmes was a master of looking at the facts and calculating reasons leading him to solve all kinds of problems.  He could observe and make sense of many clues that most people missed. Emotions and preconceived ideas never hindered his judgment.  Sherlock was a fictional character. His author, Colon Doyle had his own issues with rational thinking.[6] Over the ups and downs of ones life it is harder for our rational thinking to remain clear.

Poor decisions can provide clues about significant hidden biases or hidden emotional pressures either of which can overpower our more rational side. Most of us know that stress contributes to poor decision-making. Of course if the people you love die, or if you get divorced, you might not be at the top of your rational game.  But now we know that it is just not stress or mental illness that creates the conditions for poor decision-making, it’s the way the brain has evolved from ancient humans and their environments which contributes to the way we make decisions.

Now, by pausing to Think Twice, it becomes possible for us to avoid many irrational “slippery slopes” that we simply couldn’t see before we stopped to think twice.

Mauboussin sweeps away worries about being neurotic or stressed-out as the only cause of poor decision-making, and notes that learning to be rational is a challenge for us individually and as a society. We do not value introspection, flexibility or the ability to properly calculate evidence sufficiently to test for these rational abilities in standard IQ tests. The pressure is on for individuals to understand the brain’s vulnerabilities and to see our mistakes without negative judgment.

After reading the book once, I read it twice. My goal: make this information work in my life. Chart the appearance of these mental traps with examples from my life and the news media.

If rational thinking is to increase we have to notice how our brain immediately responds to clues. By looking carefully at these clues and wondering about their impact on us we can often re-think any problem.  Pride goes before the fall if we tend to see each situation as unique and ignore the statistical similarities in problems.  Mauboussin asks what happens when companies merge.  A large percentage of mergers do not work but people still think, “My merger will be different”.

Our brain follows an old path without the practice of seeing our situation compared to many others, or the inside, outside views as Mauboussin calls them.

It requires less energy for the brain to reduce the number of alternatives, or for one’s behavior to be shaped by incentives, or to cling to the words of experts and/or to follow the crowd.  It is difficult for us to see the extraordinary influence of the crowd, family, colleagues and society on us. It is hard for us to see that to be wise we need to maintain our autonomy in the crowd.

Professional investors and business people will have an incentive to turn Mauboussin’s book into a disciplined course to increase anyone’s ability to recognize and apply these lessons.  But I would like to see a version of his ideas available for middle – school children. Learning how your brain functions early on would be a wise investment for young minds.

As easy as it is to read the book once, if you put the book down without making the ideas yours, the book will not have done its job.    Some may say, “I read the book now, of course, I will be more aware and rational.”  If only it were that simple.

Mauboussin observes how the wizards of the world have been led astray.  Of course anyone can allow his or her guard down. People can easily trust the wrong doctors, brokers or experts.  As he notes, even highly trained financial experts, the best people at NASA and psychologists like Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility, can be fooled by the brain’s easygoing, automatic ways.  Greenspan lost 30% of his money in the Madoff Ponzi scheme.

Word to the overconfident: both smart and ordinary people can be tricked by not thinking twice in a disciplined way.

It would be one thing if just one or two of us were irrational, but since we live in a highly interactive world a lot of people can join an irrational bandwagon.  Societal irrationality has a long history. Mark Twain noted: “History may not repeat itself but it rhymes a lot.” He would have enjoyed the examples in this book of how the brain tricks itself.

Most of us can find stories of not thinking twice in the news everyday.  In the chapter, “Unintended consequences: Feed an Elk, Starve an Ecosystem,” a decision made in 1886 led to complex problems for the entire Yellowstone national park.   Do you think this focus on fixing only a part a system might be a fluke?  Think again.

The New York Times, September 20, 2009, tells us how health officials in Egypt focused on getting rid of pigs to diminish the spread of swine flu. Brains were tricked. The complex system was ignored and this lead to a different health crisis for Egyptians.  Cairo now has tons of garbage in the streets that the pigs use to eat

Fixing one problem and not comprehending the system-wide affect reflects the kind of blindness, which led to the decision to let Lehman go. Those very smart decision makers awoke to finding the financial world about to topple over. By the time they realized how interconnected the system had become it was too late. Seeing the system rather than one or two bad guys is still a stretch for most of us.

Mauboussin, a synthesizing detective, gathers knowledge demonstrating how the brain works its short-cut thinking magic. As a system thinker he points out the difficulty in understanding complexity when one believes in such sacred cows such as:

(1) Seeing problems as unique and not seeking the statistical outside viewpoints.

(2) The way we are programmed by events to have tunnel vision and reduce options.

(3) The inconsistent performance of experts in predicting the future.

(4) The dominant role of cause and effect thinking even in complex systems.

(5) The inability to see the difference between cause and correlations. There are a lot of churches in high crime areas but churches do not cause crimes.

(6) The difference between skill and luck, and harder yet understanding the implications that what goes up will come down, or revision to the mean.

(7) One of my favorites is what Mauboussin calls “the grand Ah-Whooms” or the tipping point in non-linear systems. Water boiling is a phase transition as are traffic jams and stock market crashes.

All of these concepts are hard for people to understand, much less master, without practice.   As Mauboussin notes: “ Our brains are not wired for the process of moving from preparation to recognition. Indeed typical decision makers allocate only 25% of their time to thinking about the problem properly and learning from experience.”

People are more comfortable looking at the outcomes, which can be due to chance, rather than taking time to understand the process of decision-making.  It is more automatic for us to decrease the number of discrepant ideas and to limit the number of people to whom we listen.

The individual and the group march toward a quick consensus. This will remain a formidable intellectual/emotional stumbling block in solving complex issues.  But the bright side is that we will all be together in harmony and happy in the short term.

Mauboussin helps us understand, recognize and even appreciate our vulnerabilities with humorous explanations. He reassures us that we can become more rational by recognizing the traps and applying tools to better cope with the realities of life.  Many of his ideas about being more rational are not such hard medicine. Best of all, those who take his work seriously will become more autonomous in the maddening crowd.

Preparation offers us an early warning system. Mauboussin suggests: 1) keep a decision journal, 2) have a checklist and 3) be aware of the brain’s tendency to take clues from the environment leading us into back alleys.   He explains that there is a clear path through the tangled web of deceit the brain weaves as it tries to interpret how to quickly understand and respond well to its environment.  We may prefer short cuts to the more difficult, time and energy consuming, unfeeling calculations needed to see risk and properly access outcomes. However, now we have a well-written guide to being able engage the process of thinking Twice.

My take away is to understand the ancient roots of irrationality as they surface in my day-to-day life. Perhaps this will help retool my brain, reducing my deep need to feel good and to be right at the expense of long-term solutions to complex problems.

Many thanks to Judy Ball for again, excellent attention to details in her editing.

ocean


[1] M. Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, (1977) p. 197

[2] M. Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, (1977) p. 152

[3] M. Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, (1977) p. 157

[4] M. Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, (1977) p 157

[5] M. Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, (1977) p. 198

[6] After the death of his wife Louisa in 1906, and the death of his son Kingsley, his brother Innes, his two brothers-in-law (one of whom was E. W. Hornung, the creator of the literary character Raffles), and his two nephews shortly after World War I, Conan Doyle sank into depression. He found solace supporting Spiritualism and its alleged scientific proof of existence beyond the grave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle

Posted in 1 | 2 Comments »

The Erosion of the Self and the Beginners Mind

Posted by ideastoaction on August 14, 2009

forest path lightThe Erosion of the Self and the Beginners Mind

This blog begins with the theoretical and moves to the particular with an example of one person’s effort to understand options and alter her participation in a stuck marriage.

Bowen family systems theory, a theory of human behavior, views the family as a reasonably knowable, somewhat predictable emotional unit. The family is an emotionally connected system that is not easily changeable. Individuals who understand the broad system are more able to alter the direction of his or her participation in the system, with thoughtful effort.

Many people long for change, mostly in others (not themselves), and chafe at the effort one needs to understand complexity and mange self.

The multigenerational forces, that affect all families seems to have left most families with ancient problems resistant to easy solutions.  Yet people seem more and more eager to try easy sounding solutions for complex problems, or to write off the difficult people in their lives.

Although difficult to change, given the power of these ancient emotional processes, there is evidence to suggest that by understanding the forces around us a bit more, people can decrease their natural desire to fix others and change themselves (self).  In so doing, people can decrease the suffering they experience in important relationships.

Interpersonal problems are as old as humans’ lives on earth.  Bowen believed that the emotional systems that govern human relationships evolved over millions of years.  Animals may not tell stories and complain about others, but they have most all of the symptoms that we humans do, even suicide.[1]

If we can see that we humans are linked to all living species and that our very human emotional symptoms evolved alongside emotional symptoms in other species, we might be able to learn to be more objective about ourselves.  We may be able to pause or just slow down our rush to judgment about the WHY they did this or that and discover WHAT exactly it is that concerns us about other people and their behavior. A beginner’s mind is concerned with understanding deeply first.

trees

Many days I am confronted by people who are sad, hurt, mad and angry that others cannot or will not change and become more grown up, functional or mature or what ever it is the other wishes that person to be in order to make one’s life better.  Often they have good arguments. You know them all: the focused on person indulges in all kinds of problematic behavior, drinks, etc.

It always sounds rational, but the give away is the focus on making others change.  Is this evidence of the erosion of one’s own self?  After all what is the nature of this push for change?  Is it based in habit?  Is it due to the fact that our eyes face to the outside world therefore it is almost impossible to be mindful of what we are doing and saying?

Perhaps this focus on others is a necessary force that will in the end only keep the emotional nature of our relationships in equilibrium.  There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the effort to change others simply keeps the status quo intact and that it erodes our own selves to focus on making others change.

Take a family history and you will see that in almost any three-generational history, the levels of maturity among family members become progressively lower in certain lines or branches of the family.  In the branches of the family where one person is able to pull up, despite objections from others in the system, there is often some kind of anger that lingers in the larger family system.  You can hear that the person who focused on self and made an effort to alter the part he or she played in the interactions is called a jerk, weird, selfish, etc.

This same type of criticism is also aimed at the ones who are stuck and who are unable to alter their functioning.   Criticism is everywhere.  It is not a leading indicator that one is doing well or that one is stuck.

How does this focus on others come to be?   It arises out of our need to get along with others in marriages, with parents, and as participants in any group.

First let’s imagine that two people have left their families of origin and are mature enough to mate.  In the swirl of chemical happiness created by physical attraction, the woman agrees with most things the man suggests. He sees her as extraordinary and wishes to marry her.  She thinks she knows how to make him happy and accepts. In the bliss of romance both have become delusional about who the other is or how to manage self when there are disagreements. They can not see that the way they promised the other to be, will become more difficult over time.  Often both partners have agreed to  make the other happy.

At the extreme people get addicted to people who they believe can make them happy and they are willing to do a great many harmful things things to themselves and or others to maintain their happiness. Without this force soap operas would have no material to entertain us.

cactus close

This delusion, that the other makes me happy and always will, may be harmless at times. times. However often life intervenes.  There are the pressures of children or financial or other woes.  Life in its various forms makes it clear that any two people will have to cooperate and do far more difficult things than they originally imagined.  The perfectly balanced see saw that the relationship originaly created often begins to tilt.  Sometimes things can stay in balance until the children arrive.  The basic issue is that over time one has to invest more in other relationships than in the marriage itself.  In this continuing adjustment process one of the two people can easily become more “functional” or  more dominant, if you will.

No one really cares who is dominant as long as the relationship is calm and cooperative and no one pays too high a price for going along with the wishes of the other. Bowen used to say about 50% of marriages were female dominated, and 50% male dominated.  But under enough stress all bets are off and a dominance dance takes place. One person becomes the under functioning one and the other the over functioning one. The see saw has tilted and one person often becomes impinged and may become symptomatic.

This kind of one-up and one-down relationship process can also be easily seen in animals. The one-up and one-down interaction occurs when animals meet for the first time. One comes away doing better that the other.  This influences the animal’s next relationship and results in the formation of hierarchies.

All social groups establish hierarchies. This enables groups to function with less anxiety and/or continual fighting over positions in the group.  In research on rats, stress reduction has been identified as the major reason that the memory of the previous interactions establishes and maintains the dominance structure in the interactions.[2]

People can argue about the nature of hierarchies, but let’s assume that if you put two horses together to pull a cart, one of the horses will step out first.  No arguing needed. Unlike birds in a flock who often change positions, the rotation of leadership in a marriage is hard to maintain.

The reasons for this are theoretical. People speculate on the basic nature of the attachment process. Bowen referred to the fusion force in a marriage as the process in which the two people begin to operate as one.  The pressure to go along with the other can be tremendous and the anger or sickness that occurs if one does not capitulate can be enormous. It is as if when the other becomes more separate this challenges the status quo in a way that FEELS as if the world itself might disintegrate.

There seems to be an emotional see saw in which one person becomes dominant and strives to retain that dominance despite the casualities which occur: marital problems, conflict, distance, emotional or health symptoms in either partner, or various symptoms in the children.  Of course you can hear many other reasons for dominance behavior in a marriage. I hear people cite various cultural themes for dominance in a marriage such as “the man wears the pants” which reinforce the correctness of a dominance structure in a martial twosome.  The important part to see is that the basic need for dominance rises out of our animal nature; it is not a cultural edifice.

The dominance structure also unfolds as the mother-child relationship unfolds.  The mother early on is responsible for the care and nurturance of the infant. She may turn this job over to others for brief times but she is the responsible one.  How will this responsibility play out over the life of the child?  A few of the markers to understand functioning are: the over and under involvement with the child, the level of intensity in interactions, the emotional maturity that both parents have in managing self, and the quality of each of their relationships with the extended family.

Parents also invest differently in each child. We can see how families inadvertently create skewed outcomes in dominance patterns by looking at how well siblings do from research available in the book The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why by Dalton Conley.[3]

If the marriage is one where there is a working partnership between parents, the child’s chances of growing up with emotional maturity are greatly increased.  If the parents cannot work together with deep respect for differences then the anxiety in the marriage will drift down and settle on children in various ways.  A working partnership between parents has been well researched by John Gottman. http://www.gottman.com/research/ So far Gottman does not connect the nuclear family intensity with the impact of cut off from the extended family.

The best outcome for families is the work on self that involves having to define a self to one’s spouse, children and even friends as they try to retain or enforce the status quo. “Growth is an erratic forward movement: two steps forward, one step back. Remember that and be very gentle with yourself.” Julia Cameron

path and sky in the forest

The following is taken from a note I wrote to a woman who is seeking to manage herself following the news that her husband will seek a divorce.  The woman comes from a family where the multigenerational emotional forces pressured her to become the mother’s helper. Some might say she was “programmed” to remain single to help the family.  She altered her part in this very old family projection process, married and created a larger more complex family relationship system.

Just as for most of us, she still works on being a thoughtful, non-anxious person to manage the reactivity in the system at times when the pressures mount.  There is no easy path for any of us in the long term effort to separate out from emotional process by understanding relationships pressures as impersonal and to take thoughtful actions representing our best self.  She gave her permission to have this note included on the web site.

As you noted, you saw a future for you carved out clearly by your family.  Your acceptable pathway was to forego marriage. By looking at the forces in your family history you were able to say NO, I would rather take a chance on marriage than remain single. That was a big turn, and now many years later this possible divorce is another point, another moment, where you will decide how to deal with the events and the forces in your family.

Overall if I hear you clearly describe your situation, it seems your marriage led to your husband becoming more of an under-functioner who “used”  you as an antidepressant.  He was calmer as long as you were able to take his temper tantrums. He treated you disrespectfully, which you allowed, and this then promoted a habit of immature dominance oriented interactions with him.

Another way of saying it is that you coddled him and got your self pinned in a one up position as the witch. The marital see saw was tilting as both of you were compensating to manage the relationship, while you were raising your children.

Now the question becomes how to deal with him in a different way than you were able to deal with him during the time you were married.  This is a difficult task, but might be an opportunity for real growth, if you can separate out a self from him and not react to his taunts.

If I were you, which I am not, I would only write to him about paradoxical fun stuff.   Your relationship has become too serious.  He can defeat you at every turn with a loud voice and seriousness about what you did wrong. Therefore it’s time for some Zen-like approaches to the interactions you have with him.

Zen approaches use non-linear paradoxical statements to force the other to think.  There is nothing to argue about, nothing to win.

Since he has focused on your not noticing his taking off his wedding band, I would use that focus of his to provoke him to think differently.

He has already judged you disloyal and acted as thought he hates you when in fact he is probably overly attached and extremely sensitive to you not reacting to him, as you might have done in the past.

1) I would tell him you are looking for a wedding ring for him that intertwines at least 6 bands into one.  This 6-band wedding ring would represent a possible 6 marriages that he could have with various woman but still all the marriages would all be only one marriage.  After all, one woman is as good as another.

As long as he marries a woman this wedding band will always work in a way that guarantees he never has to take the ring off.  He will be constantly reminded that plenty of woman love him. It will give him total freedom to get married as many times as he wants to.

2) Then I would say I am not going to give you a divorce.  It is the least I can do to prove I love you.

3) Further I would tell him, I might like to divorce you for being disrespectful to me but not because you do not love me.  I know you love me.  I see how you treat me like a too-powerful woman that should be less powerful.

4) Maybe I should divorce you for being disrespectful to your children.   But because I love you and have great confidence that they too will see this time period as a needed adjustment for all of us.  I know that as our oldest leaves for college, the possibility of divorce may be that the only way a child can leave home. After all if Dad leaves home it cannot be that hard to do.

I would only do one of these Zen moves at a time and see what happens.  If he gets mad, that’s OK.  It means he heard something.  His mind is twisted by the past and untwisting takes time and courage. Let’s see what he and you make of this junk.

ams

Now I confess, I do reversals and stupid stuff untill people stop complaining and being confused. If they say one straight thing I am straight. If they are talking out of both sides of their mouthes, I take note and question then, and then if there is no chance for rational thought I too engage in the emotional junk.

I am better at thinking of these crazy things than most people.

It is a far superior way to engage in interaction compared to antidepressant treatment for chemical imbalances.  It is all about having a backbone and not trying to change others, but focusing on not participating in the stream of dysfunctions but creating loose associations to deeper themes.

I am always amazed that people, whose job it is to relate well to psychotic people, are not at all interested in the communication patterns of psychotic people when there is so much we can learn from them.

The whole area of indirect and symbolic communication is up for grabs.  I know that understanding and relating well to those who have some form of emotional illness is a big jump for people.  It easy to say they have a chemical imbalance and let the physicians treat them with drugs and wash our hands of the mess. It is hard to look at our part in relationships when we easily see the other is the problem.

It is natural to want to blame the sick one, the one who is not doing it right, and to talk high and mighty about the importance of being genuine and not manipulative.  This is how people talk to me if they know I am coaching people on reversals and Zen like interactions.  I have seen that being genuine in a twisted system ends up with people just going along with the craziness.

Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. People went along with the dominant belief rather than seeing for themselves.  They were afraid to speak up.[1] How individuals in a social group are pressured to go along with false perceptions are documented by Solomon Asch’s experiment where people give into the influence of the group.[2] People go along to get along no matter if the system is “crazy.”  People in groups are asked to play roles and it becomes hard to deviate from others in the social situation to see or say the facts.

We are connected to one another at a deep emotional level. The level of blindness about the influence of the social situation on human functioning is enormous. It is even difficult for people to understand simple feelings, for example how anger connects us as strongly as love.  E.O. Wilson notes that love and hate may be on the same gene.  Overall being driven to act on feelings leaves people with little understanding of the forces that are influencing behavior.

Bowen also called the force where two people function as one, fusion. The anti-fusion force gives us the ability to separate out a self (differentiation). This force to be a self in your own right requires each of us to stand alone.  It works if people have strong principles, important enough to take on the negative reactions from those who love us, but who at a moment of anger want us to behave in the “right” (or their) way.

Imagine a family where people are tied to one another by rubber bands.  If you go too far in thought, words or actions: snap, something happens. The relationship force pulls you back so that you will be in the correct emotional orbit for the system.

Diversity sounds good but it turns out to be very difficult to achieve in social systems.  It takes a beginners mind to expand thinking and make room for differences by inserting self into a tight system.

The beginner’s mind makes it is possible for the individual to look to the self for happiness, while taking responsibility for the roles that are inherited in any family.

The beginner is willing to think of the many ways of participate more thoughtfully in any multigenerational emotional system.

The beginner lives in the moment, managing self, aware of possibilities.

moss

Many thanks to Judy Ball for her editing patience and great questions.

Andrea


[1] In this review, evidence on suicidal behavior among animals is analyzed to discover analogies with human suicidal behavior. Literature was retrieved by exploring Medline/PubMed and PsychINFO databases (1967-2007) and through manual literature searches. Keyword terms were “suicide or suicidal behavior” and “animal or animal behavior.” Few empirical investigations have been carried out on this topic. Nevertheless, sparse evidence supports some resemblance between the self-endangering behavior observed in the animal kingdom, particularly in animals held in captivity or put under pressure by environmental challenges, and suicidal behavior among humans. Animal models have contributed to the study of both normal and pathological human behaviors: discovering some correlates of suicide among animals could be a valid contribution to the field.

PMID: 18232440 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[2]

Stress Amplifies Memory for Social Hierarchy,María Isabel Cordero1 and Carmen Sandi1*

1Laboratory of Behavioural Genetics, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

Review Editors: Benno Roozendaal, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California, USA; Alessandro Bartolomucci, Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale, University of Parma, Italy

*Correspondence: Carmen Sandi, Laboratory of Behavioural Genetics, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015, Switzerland. e-mail:carmen.sandi@epfl.ch

Received August 15, 2007; Accepted September 1, 2007.

Individuals differ in their social status and societies in the extent of social status differences among their members. There is great interest in understanding the key factors that contribute to the establishment of social dominance structures. Given that stress can affect behavior and cognition, we hypothesized that, given equal opportunities to become either dominant or submissive, stress experienced by one of the individuals during their first encounter would determine the long-term establishment of a social hierarchy by acting as a two-stage rocket: (1) by influencing the rank achieved after a social encounter and (2) by facilitating and/or promoting a long-term memory for the specific hierarchy. Using a novel model for the assessment of long-term dominance hierarchies in rats, we present here the first evidence supporting such hypothesis. In control conditions, the social rank established through a first interaction and food competition test between two male rats is not maintained when animals are confronted 1 week later. However, if one of the rats is stressed just before their first encounter, the dominance hierarchy developed on day 1 is still clearly observed 1 week later, with the stressed animal becoming submissive (i.e., looser in competition tests) in both social interactions. Our findings also allow us to propose that stress potentiates a hierarchy-linked recognition memory between “specific” individuals through mechanisms that involve de novo protein synthesis. These results implicate stress among the key mechanisms contributing to create social imbalance and highlight memory mechanisms as key mediators of stress-induced long-term establishment of social rank.

[3] Conley made an effort not to simplify the very complex familial data collected by both the United States Census, a long-term study conducted by the University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago’s General Social Survey. What he found was that the differences between siblings outweigh almost every other kind of difference between any two individuals in the United States. Every family has a pecking order independent of birth order, and the differences between siblings are magnified by poverty and disenfranchisement. In these situations, families invest in the sibling most likely to succeed, leading to stark divides, even class differences between family members. Oddly, the choice of successful sibling is made independent of birth order, parental attention, or innate talents, and becomes a tacit agreement among family members.


[1] “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Kejserens nye Klæder) is a fairy tale by Danish poet and author Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who unwittingly hires two swindlers to create a new suit of clothes for him. The tale was first published in 1837 as part of Eventyr, fortalte for Børn (Fairy Tales, Told for Children).

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »

Has Anyone Seen a Theory to Explain a Family?

Posted by ideastoaction on May 18, 2009

mts adn umbrallasJPG

I was compelled to write this blog after reading an editorial by David Brooks in the New York Times. I thought it is worthwhile to consider the way people generally understand or are mystified by human behavior, and what if anything Bowen Theory might have to offer. 
In an editorial, May 11, 2009, DAVID BROOKS writes about the Grant Study, which consists of following 268 men picked from those entering the Harvard Class of 1938.[1]

 

As you might predict they were the most promising of young men and were selected partially because they were the most “well adjusted.” John F. Kennedy was one of them. And yes, problems arose in their lives, despite their being the best of the best.

 

Some say these life stories highlight the life of promise and disappointments for mostly unknown reasons. What happed to these men, David Brooks claims, is beyond any theory to explain. 
“Their lives played out in ways that would defy any imagination save Dostoyevsky’s. A third of the men would suffer at least one bout of mental illness. Alcoholism would be a running plague. The most mundane personalities often produced the most solid success.” 
Freud also turned to literature to understand the twisted way that the lives of talented people often turned out. Generations of psychoanalysts have preferred the Greeks to the Russians for their way to highlight repeating dramatic patterns within the individual. 

 

Once anyone begins to look at how the individuals function in a social system, the way of thinking and theorizing is altered significantly. 

 

A new way of observing human behavior, or if you will, a new page was turned, when Murray Bowen placed the human’s vulnerability to emotional problems in biological process instead of in literature which focuses on what is wrong within an individual and often highlights a fatal flaw.  

 

Perhaps Brooks makes the claim that theory cannot explain what happens to people as they mature and develop because he has never heard of Family theory? If so, Brooks is not  alone in not knowing much about family theory or therapy. A focus on what is “wrong” with the individual still dominates heath care. 

 

There is much in our culture today that reverts back to psychoanalysis for explanations.  So Brooks may also have been influenced to give up on a theory because the man who ran the Grant Study for many years, George Vaillant, also gave up on psychoanalysis as a theory which could explain outcomes.[2] 
This search for the missing theory reminds me of the following joke highlighting people who are looking in all the wrong places.  In this story a very drunk man is hanging onto a light post for dear life. A policeman approaches him and asks, “What are you doing here?  The tipsy man answers, “Officer, I am looking for my car keys.”  “Where did you lose them?” “Over by my car.” “Then why are you looking here”  “Officer can’t you see, its dark over there, and the light is here.” 
The light in this case, only shines because a theory, provides a way of understanding.

 

Most of us have personal theories about how things come to be the way they are. A few take the search for a guiding theory seriously.

 

Bowen was so bugged by the holes in psychoanalytic theory that he developed a different way of understanding human behavior, anchoring his observations of the human family inside evolutionary theory.  
Most of us might acknowledge that there are mysteries about how people’s lives turn out while at the same time seeing how the repetitive interactions in a system work to make some more vulnerable than others. 

 

It is not by accident that people seem to make poor choices. There are subtle and blatant forces operating on sensitive people, almost “forcing” them, despite their intelligence to overreact and thereby make less optimal choices.  Over time, patterns of reacting to feel better under pressure can lead people into certain dysfunctional positions in life.

 

For those who are serious explorers of theories to inform us about human behavior, the great unknown, Bowen family theory has reasoned explanations for what happens in families.  We know that people who are more dependent on others are vulnerable to decomposition or dysfunction when the relationship system is stressed.

 

Another point is that even if Bowen family theory has been around for forty years perhaps those of us who know the theory do not know it well enough yet to explain the outcomes found in the Grant Study. Or we may not be able to write well enough to capture the public imagination. 
Those who can write well have an ability to communicate ideas to a broader audience, as in an essay Brooks mentions, “What Makes Us Happy?” by Joshua Wolf Shenk in the recent issue of The Atlantic. It is also available online. [3]


  Brooks notes: “Shenk’s treatment is superb because he weaves in the life of George Vaillant, the man who for 42 years has overseen this work. Vaillant’s overall conclusion is familiar and profound. Relationships are the key to happiness. “Happiness is love. Full Stop,” he says in a video.

In his professional life, Vaillant has lived out that creed. He has been an admired and beloved colleague and mentor. But the story is more problematic at home. When he was 10, his father, an apparently happy and accomplished man, went out by the pool of the Main Line home and shot himself. His mother shrouded the episode. They never attended a memorial service nor saw the house again.He has been through three marriages and returned to his second wife. His children tell Shenk of a “civil war” at home and describe long periods when they wouldn’t speak to him. His oldest friend says he has a problem with intimacy.” [4]


Clearly people, even those who have personal problems with intimacy, (a very common issue when 50% of first marriages end in divorce, and second marriages have an even higher failure rate) are still able to make great contributions to society.
I would like to write well enough about family systems so people could see what kinds of interactions produce what kinds of states in a family system.  But each family is so complex it’s very hard to hold all the variables in mind and to see the impacts each individual has on every other individual.  Family stories do make the system come alive and gives people a better understanding of what it is people are up against in dealing with problems in any family. 

 

After all people have a deep hunger to know and understand.  People will tell you their story and feel better about it as long as you are reasonably neutral.  Many people who want answers now follow various authority figures, watch gurus on TV or on the web and buy self-help books to figure out what to do.

 

However there are few if any short cuts to learn how to manage one’s self in intense social systems. There may be general ways of understanding what we are up against in being our best, but the point is it is always a risk to change. The risk increases anytime one takes meaningful action.  Almost every emotional system functions automatically even if there are negative consequences. This is just the way nature is. 

 

buddah

 
Accepting the way things are is a big deal in any kind of effort to organize self and not focus on altering others.  I suggested in my book, that people write up their own version of their family history to help him or her get out of the personal focus and think about broader patterns over generations.

 

  • Following are a few questions people have found useful in becoming better observers of any emotional system they live or work in?
    • What do you do first when you sense someone is having a problem?
    • Can you slow down to consider other possibilities? 
    • What is it that makes you want to change how you have been interacting with others?
    • Is there a principle involved or do you just want to feel better? 
    • Can you predict who will be upset if you change? 
    • What is the evidence that altering your part in an interaction makes a difference? 
    • How much are your worries and actions like those of the past generations in your family? 
    • How much are your worries, actions and reactions the opposite of the past generations in your family?
    • Do you stay in good contact with three generation of your family?
    • Who are the easy people to contact?
    • Are they easy to contact because they think like you do? 
    • What would it take for you to contact and stay in contact with someone in your family who doesn’t think at all like you do?
    • How do triangles alter your ability to relate one on one to people?  (If your mother/father/husband/wife/boss did not like them can you?)

 

Perhaps one is unable to even consider these types of questions unless one can somehow see that the mechanisms forming a system are impersonal.

 

One explanation of the nuclear family system
One of the main assumptions in Bowen theory is that people are born into a family with a relatively fixed level of emotional maturity.  Then they are subject to the anxiety generated both in relationships and by events. 

1) Every individual is shaped by a mixture of genetic influences, sensitivity to relationships and the importance of principles, which have evolved over the generations in his/her family.

 

2) The generational history of relationships leaves an impression of some kind on each developing person. When people leave home to start their own family/friendship systems, they form new relationships, which are highly influenced by the sensitivity to the old relationships in the family they were born into (their family of origin). 

 

3) Some individuals are freer of relationship sensitivity than others. This leads to diversity of functioning in the nuclear family. 
4) Much of one’s vulnerability to anxiety is determined by one’s position in the nuclear family, sibling position, the degree of cut off of the current generation from the past, and the degree of projection of worries and negativity onto others.

 

5) There are only four mechanisms to handle anxiety and most people in a family use all of them with a stronger preference for two.  The four are:

 

 (1) Distance:  whether geographical or  “psychological”

 (2) Conflict:  whether manifest in high sensitivity upsets or deadly anger. 
 (3) Physical:   emotional or social symptoms can occur as a function of reciprocal relationships in which one begins to function up or down in relationship to the other. This is difficult for people to see. One spouse can have an illness or a drinking problem and somehow that person may be carrying the symptom for the others.  Consider how a mother may feel needed if the child or husband is helpless.  

 

4) Projection:   parental problems are projected onto one or more children. 
 

Bowen used to say two individuals in a marriage fight for the ego strength and one becomes more dominant almost like if you hook up two horses, one steps out first and appears to be dominant. In the case of humans, one can pin the other one into a one- up position so they look dominant.  What’s really happening is that the person acts dominant while giving into to the other’s need to appear less dominant.

 

The back and forth movement results in compromises in order to form a common “we.”  You can think about this as a loss of one’s self to the common self.  (Page 110 in Family Therapy in Clinical Practice by Murray Bowen) 

 

Fighting for “rights” to be “happy,” to think for self, to have an extra treat, etc. creates conflicts.

 

Conflict goes away when one gives into the other and “loses self.” One gives in and becomes a slightly bigger “no -self” in relationship to the other. Over time the one who gives into to the verbal or non-verbal demands of the others is then vulnerable to physical, emotional or social symptoms. 

 

Outside relationships, especially those in the extended  family can help to stabilize a marriage and the mechanisms manifest less intensity. Those who are more invested in each other and have fewer stabilizing relationships in the extended family will have more conflicts or other symptoms.  If people have outside relationships they need fewer mechanisms to handle anxiety.

 

The use of mechanisms to handle anxiety results in people functioning at a less than real self level. It can happen so fast that it is hard to see all that goes into one giving in to the other/s.  It takes a disciplined approach for one to see the system that one is born into and to see the part one plays in the system. 
More objective observers can see people in an emotional system like chess pieces or ants in a colony or people in a Shakespearian drama. 

 

A see saw dynamic comes to live in marriages in which one spouse appears to be functioning better than the other. We often hear and see that one person becomes “done in” by the relationship’s dynamics. One is dominant and is often critical of the other.  Sometimes both are critical of each other and there is a race to the bottom. But when one person accepts the criticism and “gives in” to the other’s perception we can see the fusion between the two people.  People are “borrowing” energy from the other by positioning self as better that the other, or as the others care taker.  Think of two cells where one takes the other’s blood supply as in cancer.  In this case neither person is a well defined self they have simply been caught in an ongoing lending and borrowing of self making them more vulnerable to future stressors.

 

This process of giving up self to enable the other is easier to see in addiction problems. Often we see a dynamic emerge whereby one spouse “allows” the other to drink and “looks after them” in a pattern that has been called enabling behavior.

 

There are many explanations for alcoholism and or drug dependency. But if one is focused on the dynamic in the marriage or between an adolescent and parents then one can clearly see that there is tremendous denial or distance and/or cycles of negative blaming.

 

Anyone interested in breaking these kinds of patterns, “inherited” from the past,  can start just by breaking any cycle of thinking and talking negatively about or to the other.

 

Those who are ready to break past patterns have to (1) be prepared to let the other one fall and pick him or herself up and (2) at the same time deal with their own loss of the helping role. 

 

  1. Changing self is hard to do and hard to understand. It is also one thing to change your way of dealing with others and then another thing when your near and dear begin to change and challenge you. canalJPG

 

Coaching 101 
The following are a few ways I try to coach people who are caught in negative cycles on interaction.

 

The tone of family interactions is highly determined by the way one has “learned” to focus on the other. People are born into systems that have ways reinforcing certain  values and each emotional system has expectations for behaviors. If ones behaviors deviates from the norm then that person become a negative focus as attempts are made to get the person back into the fold. 

 

Christopher Buckley described this family emotional process in the last blog.  He understood that what was allowed to be talked about was not necessarily the truth. 

 

There in an automatic negativity which focus on others who do not behave in accepted ways. 

 

  1. Feelings that you should go along with the way things are do have a big part in maintaining a  habitual way of interacting.

 

People who can understand this are motivated to observe and take the time to alter automatic behavior with others by acting rather than reacting. 

 
When the issues get hot, try writing both in one’s own journal (to clarify ones feelings) and then to the other person.  In this way one begins to be more objective rather than communicate negative feelings around issues.

 

A few ideas that can guide more neutral interactions are:

1) Don’t put much pressure on others for anything.

2) Stay with “I” statements and throw away the YOU word.

  1. 3) Set limits by saying. IF – THEN statements: Like IF you want to do x, y or z   then I cannot stop you, but IF you do it THEN I will have to…

4) John Gottman http://www.gottman.com/research/  has identified a 5 to 1 positive ratio for marital interactions. This may also be needed in one’s own thinking process. 
5)  Can I weed my mental garden by not letting negative thoughts dominate? 

 

6) Can I be happy by to working on personal goals to balance out my need for relationship happiness? 
If any of this was useful to you, you will be ready to analyze the Grant Study families.  And you will even be able to think more clearly about the next story someone tells you about how a talented person fell into an unexpected abyss.  Perhaps Bowen Family Systems Theory can enable you to understand the natural forces operating on individuals.

Hope some of this was useful for you.  

I also wanted to thank Judy Ball for continuing to edit these blogs.

Judy helps me slow down and enlarge on my quick explanations and focus on the details.  

What a gift!  

And of course many thanks to all the grandchildren who are an inspiration for the future of the family.

 

A moment of happiness from Madeline and me!

Madeline and me

 

 


[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1

 

 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eman_Vaillant

[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/happiness

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1

Posted in 1 | 5 Comments »

Family Rules and the Social Atom

Posted by ideastoaction on May 4, 2009

flowers

Recognizing  Patterns in Social Systems

May 3, 2009 

Recently there were several stories highlighting relationship process in the families of well-known people.  Two individuals, Bill Gates and Christopher Buckley benefit from their family experiences and emerged as stronger individuals while the Astor family is described as repeating destructive family patterns. 

In addition to how family emotional process guides individual behavior we can also take a look at other ways of studying human behavior. Mark Buchanan, a theoretical physicist, in his book The Social Atom points to the many studies where behavior is being tested and modeled.  His thesis is that we are something like social atoms, acting on the basis of simple rules, while also being benefiting from our on-the-fly adaptability to changing circumstances.  Like family emotional processes many of these simple rules are operating out of awareness.

We can ask what differences will it make that we are more aware of how these simple rules and emotional forces operate on all of us?

I would answer that in a world of chaos and confusion it is amazing for any of us to discover a few steps towards clarity to see how we are constrained and what we might become. People can learn about the nature of emotional process from observing ones own story or even others’ family stories. Murray Bowen made many observation of the family but he described togetherness and individuality as the primary forces.

In families and in work systems, togetherness can be identified as the way in which family members are identified as being alike in terms of important beliefs, philosophies, life principles and feelings. [1]   

In considering how togetherness forces play out in a larger unrelated social field Buchanan in his chapter called “Together, Apart”, attempts to explain the larger social dynamic that can lead to ethnic cleansing.  “You are either with us or against us,” and unsaid is “we already know which side you are on and have taken steps to see that you pay or are paid.”  

After every individual had interacted with others for a thousand times the world was stopped.  What they saw was counter intuitive.  The third strategy was the one that almost three-quarters of the individuals had turned to. 

A natural segregation of the world by color emerged. By cooperating with only their color, individuals met with cooperation in almost all of their interactions.

“In a world of bigots only bigots survive.” Prejudice at the most basic level of human activity is effective at promoting protecting the in-group and at making the outsiders the enemies.

How different is this from togetherness pressure in the family?   People are pressuring important others to be the same or like me in behavior and/or values in order to enhance cooperation at a very basic level.  

Computer simulations can help us understand the simple rules that lead to counter intuitive outcomes for large groups.  Hopefully these simulations can also us to see that the pressure in families arise from some of these same basic, perhaps instinctual, rules. 

In families there are many ways to configure the system and to reorganize in order to have greater tolerance for both diversity and dealing with increasing anxiety.  Perhaps families have a specific set point for differences.  If people are too different from the family values these “outsiders” might need to drink in order to tolerate the negativity that can get focused on one individual’s differences.

Is it possible to increase a set point around the ability of a family to better deal with differences?

In order to alter a dynamic first one has to see it.  To be able to observe a set point we need to understand the level of “togetherness” in the family system.

One way is that in this ever more complex world you can just count or observe how people use pronouns: the “we,” the “ you should,” the “everyone believes or does it this way,” the “it is wrong” and the more intense versions as in “you must” and the “YOU are wrong.”

I use to say I did pronoun therapy! I explained it cost a lot to use the word “I” in a meaningful way that creates differences that people will eventually find useful.  

The ability to define a difference and remain in relationship with others is the force Bowen called differentiation.  In this state people try to separate out from the group or the family to state their principled differences as respectfully as possible.  People do this at some cost to self.  It is important to state a principle and leave the other free to make a decision for self from within self.  One example is to say, “This is what I stand for, and what I will do or not do based on “x” which is an important principle of mine.” 

By not putting pressure on others to conform one can assumes greater responsibility for one’s own happiness comfort and well-being.

Bowen defined a scale whereby more mature people could integrate thinking and feeling.  Those who were more emotionally maturity were able to avoid thinking that tends to blame others or make demands on others to make one’s self feel or function better.

In any family story highlighting differentiation or the emergence of the individual you can hear the predictable tension arise as individuals try to be more of a self in relationship to important others. 

One example of this process as it worked its way through the family set point for tolerating differences concerns the pre teenager Bill Gates. 

The future software mogul was a headstrong 12-year-old and was having a particularly nasty argument with his mother at the dinner table. Fed up, his father threw a glass of cold water in the boy’s face.

“Thanks for the shower,” the young Mr. Gates snapped. Bill Gates Sr., Bill Gates and their family shared many details of the family’s story for the first time, including Bill Gates Jr.’s experience in counseling and how his early interest in computers came about partly as a result of a family crisis. The sometimes colliding forces of discipline and freedom within the clan shaped the entrepreneur’s character. 

Ms. Gates encouraged her kids to study hard, play sports and take music lessons. (Bill Gates tried the trombone with little success.) And she imparted a discipline that reflected her upbringing in a well-to-do family. She expected her kids to dress neatly, be punctual and socialize with the many adults who visited their home. For the most part, young Bill dutifully abided.

“She was the most engaged parent and she had high expectations of all of us,” says Libby Armintrout, Bill’s younger sister. “Not just grades and that sort of thing, but how we behaved in public, how we would be socially.” Then, at age 11, Bill Sr. says, the son blossomed intellectually, peppering his parents with questions about international affairs, business and the nature of life.

“It was interesting and I thought it was great,” Mr. Gates Sr. says. “Now, I will say to you, his mother did not appreciate it. It bothered her.”

The son pushed against his mother’s instinct to control him, sparking a battle of wills. All those things that she had expected of him — a clean room, being at the dinner table on time, not biting his pencils — suddenly turned into a big source of friction. The two fell into explosive arguments.

Eventually the parents brought their son to a therapist. “I’m at war with my parents over who is in control,” Bill Gates recalls telling the counselor. Reporting back, the counselor told his parents that their son would ultimately win the battle for independence, and their best course of action was to ease up on him.[2]

 

The way in which family members are aligned with one another is generated by a system of automatic responses to verbal and non-verbal contact.  These mechanisms regulate relationships and are largely out of awareness.

Every family has minor emotional stimuli that can trigger an overly intense response from the other. People wonder, “how come that person got so mad at me, all I did was …”

There are both negative and positive stimuli. So we can innocently drive the other into an angry or distant state, while others are so positive that one family member may spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to elicit a special smile or a kind or interested word. 

In either of the following two stores you will read beautiful descriptions of how people react to one another and how the problems then escalates leaving the people far removed from real contact with one another.

One written by Christopher Buckley is about how his relationships with his parents played out as though it were a symphony just slightly off key. In the new book, Mum and Pup and Me he revisits childhood memories of his parents as he sought a balance of togetherness and individuality to maintain a relationship with his father.

Pup and I had engaged in our own Hundred Years’ War over the matter of faith. Our Sturmiest und Drangiest times were over religion. Pup had the most delicious, reliable, wicked, vibrant sense of humor of anyone I knew, yet his inner Savonarola was released at the merest hint of (to use his term) impiety. Finally exhausted, I adopted — whether hypocritically or cowardly or wisely — a Potemkin stance of being back in the fold. My agnosticism, once defiant, had gone underground. I no longer had the desire to nail my theses to his church door. By now I knew we didn’t have much time left, and I didn’t want to spend it locking theological horns, making him heartsick with my intransigence.

My only consolation now was that I had finally stopped lobbing feckless, well-worded catapult-balls over Mum’s parapets. I didn’t even say anything to her about the Incident of July 2006.

However when he did call to let his father know [know what?] you can watch how the triangle unfolded and see how loyalty (similar colors) influenced the cooperation between the two parents over the reality issues of the moment. 

I breathed into a paper bag for a few days and then called Pup. “Well,” I said, “that sounded like a fun dinner. Sorry to miss it.” He feigned ignorance of the Skakel episode; perhaps he had excused himself early and gone upstairs to short-sheet her ladyship’s bed. He was, anyway, past caring at this, my 500th howl about Mum’s behavior. He tried to wave it away with a spuriously subjunctive, “But why would she say something like that if she weren’t a juror at the trial?” (Pup would have made a superb defense attorney) and changed the subject back to what kind of explosives work best for dislodging aristocratic British houseguests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/magazine/26buckley-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=review

 

For another look at how the nuclear family emotional process continues to be played out over the generations just read: Fight for Astor Estate Mirrors Battle 50 Years Ago By John Eligon Published April 25, 2009 in The New York Times.

I will not spoil the fun by over interpreting this story. Please do let me know what you think about the emotional process and how togetherness and the “in” and “out” groups might function in this family. These kinds of examples may make it easier for you to identify relationship patters that live below people’s awareness.   

Many thanks to Judy Ball for her editing efforts.

Andrea

pond-and-tulipjpg1

 

 

 


[1] Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, by Murray Bowen, page 218

[2] Raising Bill Gates, by Robert A. Guth

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »

Posted by ideastoaction on April 11, 2009

My happy news – this Easter season, my long awaited book, The Mindful Compass: Navigating in the Social World, will be published in Mexico, May 21, 2009.

Anyone who would like to come to a book party in Mexico City will be welcomed to celebrate at the museum Museo de Arte Popular. http://www.museoartepopularmexicano.org/

butterfly-museum

I am deeply grateful to Maria Teresa Arnago, the founder of the museum, and Don Lorenzo Servitje who thought Maria Bustos’s idea, to welcome the book to Mexico at the museum, was worthy of support.  They are two of the ten leaders who have told their story of how family relationships enable learning and leading. 

Two years ago I began what I believed to be a very simple task – just interview ten people for the Spanish edition of the book. The book was written. Along the way I have met many wonderful and openhearted people. I deeply appreciate being given this opportunity.

None of it would have happened with out my families support, especially my daughter, Michelle Mauboussin, and of course the prime instigator, my friend Maria Bustos, who introduced me to Humberto Ruz, my publisher.

You can see more by clicking over to the interviews or to pieces of the book that are on this site. 

Thanks for all your support and a very special thanks to my editors, Judith Ball,  and Deborah Schwab.

Andrea

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »

Shaking the Globe: Leading with Courage

Posted by ideastoaction on April 8, 2009

Welcome to Spring were ever you are!

spring-time-for-a-pink-tree

Developing A Self in Your Organization

I met Blythe McGarvie in 2004. One of my friends, Laura Martin, told her about a meeting on developing leadership skills based on knowledge gathered in the far distant world of family therapy.  (Laura also  wrote up the one page outline of the concepts in Bowen Theory: http://ideastoaction.wordpress.com/dr-bowen/)

Being curious and brave Blythe left the comfort of the corporate world and came to visit the people in the relatively obscure world of family systems theory. She had published one book called Fit In, Stand Out when we met and continued her board work and public speaking, since then, she has published another book on the development of leadership skills. We have continued to have intellectually alive exchanges. 

leaders-meeting-20062

Left to right back row:  Blythe McGarvie, Laura Martin, Andrea Schara, Jan Whitener

Front row: Kathy Wiseman, Priscilla Friesen, John Engels, Kathleen Guinan, Frank Gregorsky

Photo taken after the Leaders for Tomorrow Meeting

I interviewed Blythe at this meeting in 2006.  In addition to being able to tell her own story I think her newestbook, Shaking the Globe: Courageous Decision-Making in a Changing World is important and I will tell you why and, I’ll share the insights gained from the interview with Blythe concerning her early leadership training in her family of origin.

In Shaking the Globe Blythe considers the unique challenges of leading in our global community.

 “ Success requires a new and different set of competencies, particularly the ability to coordinate, communicate, and cooperate across borders and cultures.

Executives must be able to transcend their biases to adapt to today’s economy, learn to establish opportunities for future growth, and lead multinational corporations with strategies unrestrained by culture or nationality.”

I would add family knowledge to that list of needed
competencies.   We form early on our basic skills in how to
relate.  No one seems to get away without some sensitivity to his or her
family of origin.  In addition, I would hypothesize that those with deeper
roots and knowledge of their multigenerational family would have greater
competencies in adjusting to different cultures and values.

Overall, your country of origin affects your ability to be a
participant in a global culture. Just think about the relative wealth, power,
and cultural norms of the U.S. that give Americans the competitive fuel to
travel to other countries. However, the challenges, no matter your particular
nationality, are similar.   In every culture people are trained to
manage relationships and to learn about their impact on others.  The
challenge is to keep building useful personal bridges, to others.  The
challenges individuals face can arise from and in one’s family and then show up
in our functioning in small groups or in large organizations. One can ask
oneself this basic question:  what are we up against in becoming our best
as a leader? Or, how have we built our skill set in our family of origin to
relate well to difficult others?

There is no greater challenge than to bring different people
into alignment to achieve common goals without threatening their individuality
and autonomy at the same time.  People want different things, they have
different objectives and therefore being a leader in a global world is
extremely challenging.  

Blythe’s book highlights evidence of the many ways social
system pressure individuals and how individuals can handle theses
pressures.  Some have deep personal values that sustain them; others
automatically give up, or dominate the work group.  She is focused more on
the facts of functioning and the results produced when people are courageous
enough to change the status quo. 

It is important to gather facts to understand how people
have and may function optimally in social/emotional systems.  There is so
much evidence now of failure to function well.  We see evidence of
confusion and regression in behavior all around us.  There were errors in
the understanding of the models that were believed to predict risk. There was a
belief that markets will “self-regulate.” Then there are the continuing headlines
related to Ponzi schemes and greed.    The result of these
changes in the global environment has provoked a greater awareness of how
dependent we are on experts.

Do we need any more clarification about the importance of
self-focus and responsibility? Do we need more reason to identify courageous
and ethical leaders, capable of communicating realistic ways through these
tangled webs?

As one of the first ten women to become a CFO of a Fortune
500 company, Blythe has first hand knowledge and the observational skill to
identify the traits of mature leaders who are effective in managing the culture
of corporate social worlds. In her first book she identified six key traits
enabling leaders to both fit in and stand out: (financial acumen; integrity; an
ability to envision, build, and maintain alliances; learn; offer perspective;
and practice global citizenship.)[1] 

While there are many questions about how we know people have
these traits and are not “pretenders,” there is an obvious link between Bowen’s
ideas of differentiation of self and the process Blythe describes in her
books.  Few people link one’s ability to fit in and/or stand out in an organizational
environment, to one’s family history. 

In 2006 I thought it useful to see if leaders like Blythe
could describe how they learned to be a leader by fitting in and standing out
in their family of origin.  I asked Blythe if she would participate
in an experiment interviewing leaders about what they learned in their own
families about how to be a leader, and do it in front of others who would
listen and ask questions.  The reason for this format was to encourage
more openness and learning for a larger group.  

In the late 60’s Dr. Bowen began a video series at Virginia
Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia.  This was the first time in
history that a psychiatrist, in real time, interviewed patients and the
interview was broadcast to other family therapists for training purposes. After
the interview the families would then be invited in to listen to the comments
of the audience. Dr. Bowen set up rules so that the audience could not have
direct contact with the families. 

Designing a Meeting to Consider the Links Between

                                        and

Being a Self in One’s Family of Origin and Functioning in Organizations


Building on these ideas I thought it might work to take
Bowen’s basic idea that people could learn from one another about what comprise
an emotional system by separating out a more thoughtful and effective self, and
combine it with ideas on mindfulness. 
Learning in the moment has been well researched in an academic
setting.  I found this research in
the book Leadership Can be Taught, (2005) by Sharon Dalz
Parks.  

Parks tells us about the work of Ronald Heifetz of the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His method is called, “case in point.”
Heifetz uses the moment-to-moment experience in the classroom as a
“studio-laboratory.”   This theory and experience model goes back to
the traditions of John Dewey, who saw that we humans learn best from reflecting
on our real life experiences. 

What I took away from the ideas of Heifetz’s experimental
method was that there was something to be gained from bringing people together
to work on a common goal and then giving up control over the group.  So, I
would start by asking questions of the person, in this case Blythe, and I would
not “control” the group.  Every one could ask questions.  Hopefully
each one would be thoughtful and aware of their impact on others. 
Everyone’s behavior in the group would be subject to questioning.  Even
“the leader” does not get a free pass.

In this kind of setting there is more uncertainty and risk
for anyone willing to participate in such a learning experience.  There
were positives and minuses that come out of the day.  There were not enough
positives to create an ongoing series of interviews and I returned to the old
fashioned way of interviewing people one on one. 

A couple of the participants said they learned a great deal
from telling their story. Others reported that they could see how hard it was
to tell their story when many people ask them questions. Some in the audience
said that it was difficult not to jump up and ask questions when the
others stories were unclear or made them anxious. 

The ability to tolerate differences and to see the impact
one has on others, were two of the major learning points people noted. On the
down side it was challenging for people to tell somewhat personal stories about
his or her life in a group.  It probably requires that one be practiced in
telling the story and then seeing what they themselves and the group gets out
of it.

We are all faced with very limited knowledge about the make
up and impact of social groups on our functioning. This is not for a lack of
effort, because professionals from social scientists to journalists offer
explanations of the social fabric that determines or at least influences the
behavior of individuals.  

Psychological Research on the Influence of Social System

To understand the extremes of functioning in social systems
after WWII, researchers like Stanley Migram began to look at the dynamics of
people in authority and the ability of individuals to resist being told to
participate in shocking events that they would ordinarily never do.[2] 
Later, Philip Zimbardo chronicled his Stanford prison research and questioned
our collective responsibility for the world’s ills.[3] 
Social systems have properties about which we know precious little compared to
what will eventually be known.   Part of the anxiety of this era is
seeing how our individual fate is tied up in our participation in the social
system.

In every newspaper and TV show on the subject, there are
various theories to account for the downfall of our economy.  The two main
camps are (1) that leaders of major companies were greedy people who captured
power  (see “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson in
the most recent issue of The Atlantic) or (2) the “stupidity hypothesis”, that
no one on Wall Street was smart enough to see the folly of the short-term gains
and the long-term growing imbalances (see David Brooks, NY Times, Opinions
4/3/09). There is no arguing that all of these factors and more collided to
bring a house of cards down.  Emotional systems are complex and non
linear. There is not one cause that can produce a regression like the one we
are living through today.

I am not sure how far this or any regression is enabled by
blame.  Some say more mature people only lightly blame self and look for
ways to improve his or her situation. 
This is far better than the less mature people who blame others and then
feel entitled to be revengeful. 

The main point is that there is a reciprocal relationship
between people. Research in game theory and economics has demonstrated that we
are nice to the people who are nice to us and motivated to hurt those who hurt
us.

It seems clear that the more people feel the lack of ability
to alter their situation and blame others for it, the more likely they are to
commit revengeful acts. Just in the last month we have seen four separate mass
murders resulting in the death of a record (38) innocent people.  Those who “feel” wronged by society can
also “feel” entitled to seek revenge and in the above cases killed innocent
people. 

More mature leaders are mindful of the dynamics creating
different levels of functioning within the group.  They are able to take positions to mange the emotions by
being more of a calm presence. This gives people the idea and the feeling that
there is an opportunity to be heard and respected. 

Shake the Globe: Thoughtful Courage and Actions in
Difficult Times

When people are deeply emotional they seek emotional
answers. This path results in more primitive behavior by the people most in
need of help and least able to accept help. Yet as noted, when the group is
confused there is also the opportunity for new courageous voices to
arise.  If the voice is one that inspires optimistic thinking then there
is genuine hope that the anxiety of confusion will be subdued.  As Blythe
notes throughout her book, to arise as a leader now requires that leaders be
willing to Shake the Globe.

 

Another of Blythe’s hypotheses is that market laws are
universal.  We know that both people and markets can undergo unexpected
changes. We also know there are paths to a brighter future. For example
she sees the opening of markets through free enterprise as promoting
opportunities for woman and other minorities. Change one significant factor in
the system and you see a tipping effect. Educate woman and you see lower
fertility, reduced maternal and child mortality and better heath. 

One way of seeing how social systems operate is to look at
the numbers and see what happens when change occurs. Her book contains many
examples of how one change influences other positive changes.  Another one
of my favorite examples from her book is that research shows that companies
that have several vs. one-woman board member, report better financial
results.  Clearly leaders need courage to risk doing something new based
on a deep value like equal opportunity. 

There is much to be gained in using relationship knowledge
in order to be a more effective and efficient leader in an
organization.   As the world changes ever more quickly, many people
become stressed and are unable to adapt well to the new conditions. 
Adapting often demands changes of habits, and assumptions. People are looking
for ways to think well and make better decisions.  Therefore a book like Shake
the Globe
offers us a broader view and reasons for courageous optimism for
those willing to both fit in and stand out. 

My belief is that it often helps people to comprehend the
future by learning about the past. So whenever one can take the time to learn
more about their personal history, strengths and sensitivities, it is possible
to deeply address and improve our ways of relating to others.

Dr. Bowen used to advise people to get to know all the
living members of their family. If they could do it there was no better way to
gain emotional maturity.  Due to
variations in functioning among family members one can easily gain broader
knowledge of human functioning and compassion for self and of course others.  

Another plus is that going to visit your family mindfully can
be a kind of free group therapy. They can and often do tell you stores of the
unresolved emotional issues and of course of what they and others really think
about you and your line of the family.   This kind of effort is only for
the courageous who would like to have a stronger emotional backbone. 
President Obama took seriously the idea of getting to know his extended family
and it served him well.  If you read his book you may laugh, as I did, at
the somehow recognizable misadventures in getting to know his extended family.

 

Interview with Blythe
McGarvie

 

Andrea: Sometimes it is hard to see what our early
life in our family has to do with our leadership skills.  But just
suppose you could go back in time and imagine coaching your parents to resolve
one of their conflicts that you might have been caught up in? 

I ask this because I wondered what it might be like to have
learned enough from the past, that you know what you would say to your Mom or
to your Dad today, to enable them to cooperate and be more understanding of the
other one’s position?

Blythe: Coach them to have been a more effective
team?

Andrea: Yes, to be a more effective team, because
conflict that undermines people’s functioning goes on all the time. People
often tell me they feel like a child with their boss and there seems little
they can do to alter the relationship with them.  But there are other
times when individuals do have the courage to step up and enter into a
different kind of conversation with the boss or the authority/parental figure.
Often this happens after they have made some kind of change in relationships
with their parents or other authority figures.

 Blythe: I think if I were coaching my mother
and father as if they were working with me in an organization I would have a
goal to enable a more effective team.  If they had this conflict dynamic
going on, and needed to work together I wouldn’t tell them anything at first.
But I would ask a lot of questions and listen.  After the questions would
be some kind of challenge to try and get them to look at the situation
differently.

I think with my father, I would say, “Can you try to speak
up instead of avoiding the situation.  If you just do what you want to do
and avoid it and go away for a day, the problem can get worse.” I might remind
him of how he would say, “I’m just going to go to the cleaners, hon,” and then
he’d take the kids with him, and we’d all go to different places with him and
we’d be gone for sever hours instead of one hour.  All this to just get out of the house, we’d go to the bank,
the cleaners, maybe the park, you know, everything. 

In the past I would have gone along. Now I would be more up
front, and I’d say, “Help manage the expectations of your teammate who knows
you’re not just going to the cleaners. 
Can you do more to manage expectations?  Go ahead, speak up, and
confront the situation.  If she (my Mother) says, “No, I don’t want you to
do that, I want you to stay home and repair the garage” then say “I’ll get to
that,” or “I understand your needs, but these are some things I need to do.” So
I would encourage my father to speak up, manage his teammate’s expectations,
and maybe just observe a little bit more if he wanted to achieve things a
little sooner in life rather than later in life.

On my mother’s side, and I know because she struggled with
the principals of her schools for years, it was hard for her not to react to
them and say things she wished she had not said.  Therefore she had a lot
of difficult relationships. So seeing that I’d say, “Mom, you were never cared
for as a child, you were shunted off to a boarding school in high school,”
which she always thought was the peak of her life.

On the one hand she thought that the best time of her life
was in high school at this Catholic boarding school because she had some
stability there. But there were a lot of difficult issues for her.  By
observing how she was caught reacting to her history I would say, “Mom,
work on yourself, go to therapy, recognize some of the issues that you’re
carrying forward, as you have a lot to give. Old stuff gets in your way. 
You are a brilliant storyteller. You have a way of teaching that people want to
learn from you. They want to hear your stories.” I know because I used to
listen to the stories that she told me in that double bed until I fell asleep.

So I would be positive and also alert her to the power of
her negative reactivity.  I would try to be wise in how I advised her to
try to change these reactions. I might say, “Just keep your temper out of it,
because you have so many sharp barbs, that people shrink away from you. 
If you can drop the barbs, and just show the sweetness and the passion in a
positive manner instead of a negative manner, it would be a lot more
productive, and you might even be happier.”

Andrea: She might not need therapy if you talk to her
like that.

Blythe: In fact at one point we did finally convince
her to go to therapy, and she trusted the Catholic priest.   However
this is a story with a sad ending. I still have hard time believing it. It took
us years to convince her to go therapy, and she finally went to the Catholic
priest, and she came home from her first session and she said, “He didn’t
listen to me.” And we said, “C’mon Ma, he must have listened to you, this is
his profession.” “He fell asleep!” He fell asleep and she never went back.

Andrea:  It is hard to convince people to do
something for you and have it work out in a positive way.   The
majority of successful women whose stories I’ve heard seem to have almost
always related well to their fathers and were not interested in their mothers’
professions. Most did not have early fantasies of wanting to stay home and have
children either.  Often career-oriented woman saw their mother as not
really being as happy as she might have if she could have been out in the world
doing her own thing.

Blythe: In my case my mother was out in the world.
She was working when I was age 3 – I got dropped off at the nursery school and
she went to teach the 3rd grade.  She was never a housekeeper.
We had clothes from the dryer in a big pile on the dining room table. She would
say when I was very young, “Blythe, let me tell you a secret.  Hang up clothes, the wrinkles fall out,
don’t leave them on the dining room table.” And when we lived in Virginia with
lots of humidity, she said. “You never have to iron clothes if you hang them
right up.”  So she was not a very good housekeeper.

My father was the one who was at home more.  He was a
college professor, and so he had more flexibility. I used to joke, “Dad, you only
have to be at college 7 hours for an entire week.” He said, “Oh, but I have
meetings and I have office hours.” I said, “Yes, but technically, if I
understand your class schedule, you only have to be there 7 hours a week,
that’s a pretty good job!”

Now he worked a couple of other side jobs when we were
young, to make more money, and they were able to save. They were thrifty, very
thrifty. My parents bought three apartment buildings at different times and
then sold them.  That was their retirement money.   My Dad would
shovel the coal at the first apartment building – so not only raising a family,
working 2 jobs, getting his master’s, but also shoveling the coal so the
tenants would have heat in that six-flat apartment house.

Both of them worked hard. I actually admired that Mother was
able to raise a family, work hard, and get her master’s in English. She went to
school at night. On Wednesday night, when she went to class, Dad would throw in
the chicken, boil it, and that’s when we ate boiled chicken. He’d throw out the
broth, and we’d eat an hour-boiled chicken, not knowing we should have been
drinking the broth too.

Andrea: So you learned early on from career-oriented
parents. How about your grandmother?

Blythe: My maternal grandmother did not work when I
was around but she married several times. She had worked for over 33
years at the Western Union until reaching retirement. My grandmother was such a
strong force in our life, and was around for us when mom was working. 

Andrea: It is worthwhile to see the social forces
operating differently on both your mom’s and your grandparents’ generations.
There were many different career paths taken by the women in your family. 
 How helpful were their experiences in your finding your path?

Blythe: I think it depends, like so many things – you
may say, “Oh I saw this parent work but I wish they had been home more” and
maybe then you rebel. Or you can decide to stay home because that is what you
want to do and that makes sense to you.

Andrea: Did you rebel or did you do what made sense
to you?

Blythe: I don’t think I had to be as rebellious. My
younger sister was the rebellious one. My mother doted on Brian, my older
brother. My father doted on me. And then Marge was kind of like,
whatever.  In fact, Mother used to say, “Brian, you’re going to be a
doctor. Blythe, you’re going to be a CPA because you’re very analytical, good
with numbers, you like to count things. You count all of your Halloween candy
and have it all organized. I can’t steal Snickers from you, I can steal from
Brian and Marge, but you always know exactly how much Halloween candies you
have.”

I remember that, I thought, “Yes, I know, metrics, this is
how you get things done.” And then Mom would say, “Marge, I don’t know what
you’re going to be.” Today Marge still does not have a satisfying life. 
She hasn’t worked consistently in many years.  She has floated around
different jobs the few times she decided to work. So I think it’s very
interesting when you think about that family dynamic.

When my parents first married, they lived on the North side
of the city, because my father lived on the North side.   My mother lived on the South
side. My maternal grandmother, who was very strong said, “You live on the North
side, but you should be near me.” So a year later they moved to the South side.

Another funny thing was how my mother and father made decisions:
“We want to have all of our children’s names start with the letter ‘B’.” Just
some kind of code – Brian – unusual names – Blythe, they wanted a more unusual
name than Brain as it turned out there were more Brians than my mother
realized.

My grandmother said, “You had a daughter and didn’t name her
after me?” So the third child, the second daughter Marjorie was named after my
grandmother.  She was a major matriarch in our whole family. She died at
age 73.  But even when I was in my 20s and I had a couple of weeks’
vacation, I would make sure I visited my grandmother. She had a condo in
Florida.

I went to see her a) because it was warm, and b) she was
fun! The only time in my life I took Prozac was one day I was depressed because
I had 4 days in Florida and I didn’t have much vacation. I said,
 “Grandma, it’s my 3rd day on vacation, it’s rained, I’m going
back without a tan. I’m so depressed.” “Take half of my pill,” she said. She
gave me half of her pill, and a half-hour later she said, “Why don’t you take
an umbrella and go walk in the rain?” So I felt like Gene Kelly walking in the
rain. And I came back and I thought, “Never take these drugs again.”  I
never want to walk in the rain! And I hate getting wet!

But my grandmother was fun! You know, she’d give us sips of
the foam on her beer. Every Friday night they used to have beer parties, all
the relatives and she said, “Here just take the foam, that’s not dangerous.”
She was just fun.

Andrea: I really appreciate, and I wish we could hear
more from you, but our time is running down.  In the spirit of openness, I
would say if you have someone in your family who can be fun even a bit
rebellious, I don’t think you take life so seriously, or rules so seriously, or
authority so seriously.

Blythe: Sometimes you’re forced to make up your own
rules. Grandmother was forced to make up her own rules, because her husbands
were not functioning well. So she had to support herself and her
daughter. 

Andrea: She may have influenced you to be a good
entrepreneur?

Blythe:  Three and a half years ago, I started
my own company, so I guess I am.

Andrea: Now you can make up your own rules.

Blythe: But then I have to follow them. But that’s a
very good point. I still do a monthly status report, even though I report to no
one.  I write down my monthly status report, and at the end of the month I
look at what I’ve done, check it off, and then I create the next monthly status
report.

Andrea: Like a budget?

Blythe: Like a budget – to me, it’s my rules, I have
to know:

Am I working toward the right things?

Am I using my time wisely?

Andrea: The main point that I get out of your story
is, that your quest to enable people to function better, may arise, partially
at least, from watching the dilemma that was unsolved between your parents.

Blythe: Absolutely, I think it’s grounded in that.

Andrea: Every person who is a leader has to deal with
their followers and has to enable them to function better.

Blythe: If you have people working for you, they
don’t work for you, you work for them. You have to figure out how to get them
to use their potential the best way– and hopefully efficiently, so that you
don’t lose the opportunity – because we’re only on this earth for a short time
and you have to focus on what you can do to bring out people’s potential today,
not tomorrow. 

Andrea: Thank you for this interview and for your
time and good thinking.


[1]
Fit
In, Stand Out: Mastering the FISO FACTOR -…
by Blythe McGarvie

[2]
Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View by Stanley
Milgram

[3]
The
Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil
by
Philip Zimbardo


Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and
Economics,
Matthew Rabio http://www.jstor.org/pss/2117561

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »

Transitions and Breaking Family Patterns

Posted by ideastoaction on March 11, 2009

Blog March 8th 2009

There are many transitions going on today affecting individuals all around the globe. The economy is provoking what some say is the end of the era of leveraging and unrestrained greed by some people. Global restructuring is underway. This is a time that requires a shift to a more realistic look at today’s problems. There is no hiding from the fact that we (and our leaders) are struggling to understand and solve these problems in order to make a thoughtful transition to the future.

Now that I have finished writing the interviews of leaders in Mexico, there are many topics I would like to consider from a Bowen theory viewpoint. There may be questions that each of you would like to see addressed and I encourage you to post your questions on the right column on this site. But for the time being, I will continue to interview accomplished people, noting how their family experience may have contributed to where they are today.

As more individuals clarify how they have found a new direction, the crowd itself can become wiser.

As fate would have it I was fortunate to be able to interview Sylvia Lafair whose book, Don’t Bring It to Work: Breaking the Family Patterns That Limit Success was published this month, March 3, 2009. I think you will enjoy her book and her interview. I found Sylvia’s effort to bring greater awareness of family patterns to motivated people, encouraging and useful. She offers a unique map of the way family and work systems mutually influence our ways of functioning.

At this same time I was also given two other books. Both authors are friends of mine. I read and enjoyed these books on my ski vacation. Since I know each of the authors I can include a bit about their family stories plus give you a quick look at their contributions. I’ll focus on those in the next blogs I write.

At the broadest level, Blythe McGarvie’s new book, Shaking the Globe: Courageous Decision-Making in a Changing World (Jan 27, 2009) is filled with interesting facts about her close up view of what it takes to be a central part in the changing world. Blythe is a special leader who allows us to learn from her first hand account of what it takes to be a responsible decision maker. You can get a lot of ideas from her book, whether or not you are not traveling the globe or working for international companies. Even if we stay at home, it is important to understand the forces operating on all of us as a part of the world community.

I met Bythe in 2004 when she came to the first leaders’ meeting that I had convened. She was curious about the ideas in Bowen theory. Some Bowen concepts seem to fit with what she has referred to as the FISO Factor. Differentiation, the concept about how people are able to separate out a self from their family of origin, was useful to her in developing a way of thinking about how people can maintain their ideas and still be a well functioning member of various groups. Her first book, Fit In, Stand Out: Mastering the FISO FACTOR – The Key to Leadership Effectiveness in Business and Life explores the numerous challenges one faces when one decides to be for self and for the organization.

Jeffrey Miller’s book looks at another level of functioning for people at work, the relationship system, the juice that runs the system. It’s often harder for people to see the relationship process and how anxiety functions in organizations, but Jeffery can see it. Most people find it easier by far to focus on individuals as saints or sinners. I have known Jeffrey for many years through the Family Center’s meetings. The Anxious Organization: Why Smart Companies Do Dumb Things, is now in its second edition. As the title suggests, it is for people looking for ways to be more aware of how relationships fall apart in a crazy system and the consequences of those relationship disruptions on the organization.

Jeff’s theme of staying calm, clear and collected while understanding the magic of process sheds another bit of light on interactions at work.

Each of these books focuses on the overall point that the more we can observe, the more knowledge we have, the greater the opportunity to make the world a better place. And, each of these books provides the reader with a “can do” approach to solving issues. Each one helps us look at a part of the system or part of the global elephant.

I first learned about or “met” Sylvia by reading the letters to the editors in The Harvard Business Review. The January 2009 issue was focused on Leadership. I was not expecting to see the word “family” much less “family as a system” mentioned. Much to my surprise, someone had written a letter encouraging people to see awareness of family patterns as a way of enabling profound change in work situations.

Hooray! I almost jumped up and clicked my heels but I was wearing boots. Being somewhat grounded I just paused and wondered who was this person shining a sliver of light on the basics of human behavior? HBR is a professional journal that seemed to me to stay away from family ideas. But perhaps no one had written a compelling piece for them? So I asked myself,, who is this person that can write such a concise note and get it printed?

Of course I wrote to say “WOW” and “thank you”. I thought, here is a woman, brave and clever enough to thread the needle between one’s personal life and one’s business roles. She wrote back immediately telling me about her training with Iván Böszörményi-Nagy and her great respect for Murray Bowen. She sent me a galley copy of her book. I thought it would be interesting to read her book and to interview her to see how her family life had impacted her professional focus.

It is long jump, for most people, to see relationships between the impact of family life and how he or she functions at work. Was it Descartes who said that one’s personal and family life are to be kept separate? No, it was not his doing. He simply rationalized the separation of mind and body, giving us all good reason to put subjective data into a pile that would be safe for scientists to ignore for centuries.

Needless to say there is long history of compartmentalized observations about human behavior that we all live with today. Human resource people are stuck trying to understand human behavior surrounded by all kinds of rules and regulations about privacy and family life that are barriers to understanding human functioning.

There are also many enterprising people, usually away from the workplace, who have found ways to bring up family dynamics, in seeking to understand human behavior. Many of them are my friends and colleagues.

I am pleased to have found a new voice who has been able to engage corporate leaders with the compelling message that family awareness and knowledge enables people to increase needed skills at work. In her book, Sylvia offers practical steps to enable anyone to be a more flexible individual. Her thesis is that the silent and heavy burden of family baggage can be lifted if one makes the commitment to learn to 1) observe, 2) understand and 3) transform repetitive patterns of behavior. She has seen that it is the automatic patterns that are out of our awareness that drive our reactions to one another. She does not wonder whether we have free will, but whether we are awake or willing to wake up and thereby be freer?

When I called Sylvia, I started by noting that both of our mentors, Bowen and Nagy, were probably up in heaven laughing about how we found one each other. She said she wondered if people ever really die? What a wonderful question about the shadows cast on future family members. In both families and organizations the roles people play are remembered and influence the future long after people have died.

Let’s take both Darwin and Lincoln who coincidently share the same birthday. They influence us in terms of our thinking but may not require us to play out a parent-child role with them. People die but their ideas and even their functional footprints linger on in these newly recreated systems of relationships. The closer people are, the greater the influence in some interdependent way. And to Sylvia’s point, we do take this family experience and reenact it, in some form, at work. If so, then the challenging question is how does one step off this family stage, which has been so artfully constructed?

First, as she notes, you have to see it. Being an observer takes practice. Sylvia’s book tells us about her ideas and how her solutions have been useful to people. Many people fail to see and deal with life patterns. If it is hard to see then you can understand how much harder the process is to change.

Sylvia’s hypothesis is that people are more motivated to work on understanding and observing their family patterns, because doing so has a beneficial outcome on their paycheck. Sylvia’s book is not about psychotherapy; it is about how to be more effective at work. She describes three patterns (gender, race and cultural background) to show how people are sensitized to understand the world around them.

You know the gender stereotypes: the strong silent type and the woman warrior, or the big shot and the modern goddess or perhaps the jock and the cheerleader. There is great deal of research about how our behavior is influenced by these kinds of stereotypes.

One compelling example of this is when older people heard the word “old person” whispered as they walked down a hallway, that whisper affected the speed of their walk. Our behavior can be affected by the social situation and the way we are seen or believe we are seen by others. The way we behave in social situations is vulnerable to social pressure and to very old rules of thumb that tell us how to react.

By looking closely at the influence of stress on individual’s behavior or clues activating an old program, Sylvia constructed her initial “types” or roles: the persecutor, the avoider, and the denier. Her thesis is that due to the pressure of survival and family loyalty, people have invisible parent child and sibling roles. Examples of these abound: the smart, pretty, weak, funny, bad, compliant, good, industrious, or even overly-social person.

These personality characteristics are short cut ways to understand who the other is and what impact their personality might have on us. We do, after all, react to the people we are with. Some of us are at ease with the funny person, and find the weak or “bad” person has the power to makes us crazy.

There it is, the parent-child dynamic being played out at work. People who participated in her program (The Total Leadership Connections) saw how they stepped into stereotypical roles and further, that there was something they could do to step outside those roles. She eventually developed thirteen descriptive roles to identify how patterns automatically play out. We are “given” or take a role and play it out in an old emotional play.

All this seems to go on without out our advice or consent. For those who would like all of this to stop or at least change a little, Sylvia offers a way to explore one’s family roots to see what might be influencing our functioning. She has developed a tool which she refers to as Sankofa Mapping. As she said, “this tool enables people to heal the past to free the present.” The map is her way of understanding three generations of family members and how they relate to one another over time.

One of my interests has been in emotional blindness. I wonder why people can’t see what they are doing? Family diagrams sometimes help and sometimes they are like so much dust before a steamroller of anxiety. I give a lot of credit to Sylvia’s ability to relate well to people so they feel comfortable seeing their map. Psychological information is not just information. It is information that can carry a charge. It is often hard for people to hear personal information.

Having a good coach who is able to stay with you while you learn makes a big difference in how well people can use the Sankofa Map. Sylvia has her way of reaching people with an explanation of how psychological blindness comes to be. She has a track record that people find useful. In addition she frames her ideas in ways that allow people to see how they have taken on a particular “role” in the family and how this role has come to dominate his or her response when working at a job.

Working still requires interacting and interacting can become a very automatic or old habit. Before one can develop a new sense of self, they have to be able to see where they are and the impact they are having on themselves and others. Some leaders are “born observers.” Often, I have noted in the history of leaders, that something happens early on that makes people better observers of relationships.

Always curious, I asked Sylvia how she thought her family life might have influenced her career and her leadership abilities.

 

Sylvia Lefair’s Interview

SL: I was fortunate to be raised in a family that knew how to encourage dialogue. Even as a child we were allowed to have a viewpoint and people did not move away from conflict.

Conflict was not seen as a bad thing. And so I think you could say I was a kind of gentle rebel as the youngest in my family. I have a brother who is five years older. He was slated to become a doctor from early on.

My mother, Rebecca, was born into the middle of a large family, the sixth of nine children. I see her as a gentle rebel. She was not a strict feminist but she was for women becoming aware of being free to choose a life. Since my mother wanted to explore, she did not marry until she was 24. She was a great influence on me until her death, when I was in my forties. I was also influenced by the social consciousness of both my parents.

I still recall as a child driving through some very poor areas and my parents saying things like, “We want to make a difference. We do not want to accept this kind of poverty.” This idea of making a difference stayed with me.

My father was the oldest of three brothers. His mother was having a lot of trouble getting pregnant and went to a spa in Baden-Baden Germany which she thought made the difference in her getting pregnant. A few years ago I went there and thought, “Oh my God this is part of my family heritage”. It is interesting how being there made me feel in better contact with my grandmother.

My grandfather started a family business named Lafair. It was a clothing accessories factory. His three sons worked there and there was always tension among the family in the business. I remember the conflict between my father and his brothers. Since I have a love of family business, perhaps you could speculate that in some ways I entered the area of family business to heal my own family experience.

Unfortunately my father died of a heart attack when I was fourteen. One day we were a family and the next day we were preparing for his funeral. My mother had the ability to carry on and keep us all going. Early on in my work with families I worked with one family that had a similar conflict between the brothers after the father’s death. I told them about my own experience in the hope that they could make a different choice.

AMS: Are you saying you look at what happens to us and see that often we learn from pain how to solve future issues? Do we think that we learn not to make the same mistakes that were made either early in our lives or in a previous generation?

SL: We are all standing on the past. We have to see the patterns so that we do not carry these disappointments forward into the current work situation. I saw my sensitivity in the family business and was able to use this to enable others to see. My motto is: Go back, learn and go forward. We learn to stay too much in the present. We are not learning well enough from the past.

With my husband I decided to change my work from therapy to strategic planning. I had to learn to change the language so people could understand the past. My first goal is to meet people where they are. It took years of trial and error to not let words in psychotherapy, like projection, slip out into the conversation. If I used one of these words, people would hold out mental garlic as though I were a vampire.

AMS: So you are saying that people tell us their story and we have to be able to relate to them so they can understand their story?

SL: I saw a situation today in which a woman’s family had adopted a foster child and when her son was ready to adopt she became fearful. It took her awhile to see how her old family situation was affecting her in the present. Of course she knew she had to make some sacrifices in her childhood when this foster child was in her family. But she was not at all aware that this might influence her NOW. She thought it would not bother her because that child was only in her family for a few years.

I encouraged her to think about it. Eventually she was able to share her early experience with her son. This also influenced the way she worked with people. She admitted that she was sensitive to people saying they might not be there forever. If she felt people were not loyal she would be more critical of them.

AMS: How are you brought in to work? Is it by individuals or by companies?

SL: Usually someone refers us to one person in a company, and then we begin to work long term with the company on how people are making decisions in the work place.

AMS: As you help them see their roles, it appears you clearly see people as being on a continuum. In other words, the roles people become stuck in can be and are transformed.

SL: People are so complicated. They are far beyond one role. I call it strength training to gain more flexibility. We also have about 12 professional trainers in our group. Very few come from the therapy world. The language is so different. The essence is that the way out is to become a better observer and to see how these patterns come to be. We have several programs to enable people to do their Sankofa map. We do not put people in the same group if they work together. Work colleagues do not need to hear personal information. I think it is important for people to feel safe when they tell their personal story to others.

AMS: Perhaps you might be more capable of leadership because you survived the loss of your father at an early age. SL: I know his death had an impact on me. For example, after 9/11 I wanted to go and help but it was impossible. I was upset and my husband reminded me that this could be due to the feelings I had when I was fourteen and not able to do much for my father. His comment made a difference. I also knew that during that time after my father’s death my mother was able to hold us together.

AMS: Perhaps I might think of your mother as a non-anxious presence.

SL: There are many stories in my book of how people discover the way real events in their lives have made them more vulnerable. But once they see it they can alter their responses.

AMS: I hear you saying that there is a great deal of hope in knowledge of how the past has influenced us. I also see my time with you is up. Thank you so much. I enjoyed being able to talk with you and hope we can continue in the future.

Posted in 1 | Leave a Comment »

Sabina Berman Interview

Posted by ideastoaction on January 28, 2009

Sabina Berman is Mexico’s most commercially successful and critically acclaimed playwright. She has won the Mexican National Theatre Prize an unprecedented four times.  She is also a journalist and has written film scripts, poetry and prose, in addition to her work for the stage. Her collection of interviews with Mexican women in positions of power, Mujeres y poder, won the 2000 National Journalism Award. She recently wrote director Jorge Fons’ new movie about the murders on the border of Juarez and the adaptation of “The History of Love” for director Alfonso Cuarón.

sabina-b-smiling

 

Maria Bustos was driving me through Mexico City on the way to see Sabina Berman.   My goal was to learn about Sabina Berman’s early family life and how her family might have influenced her decision to become a playwright. 

 

I was musing about the role of the artist to provoke and educate, considering the big picture and the role of playwrights in society.

 

The artist gives us a way to see the themes of our culture which most of us are not capable of seeing.  Deeper than the cultural influences of a specific time, a few artists penetrate deeply into the relationships process. Like Shakespeare, they can show us how people manipulate others , leading to confusion, polarities and paradoxes.    

 

 

In Hamlet, Shakespeare pulls back the curtain and shows us a grown child caught in the parental triangle. The audience can see and feel the bare bones of emotional confusion and the problems created in taking sides, leading to the essential question, to be or not to be?  After reading Hamlet, few will question the importance of being a well defined self.  Most of us can see the difficulty, in the throes of deep emotions, to know and declare who we are to important others. 

 

Who among us would not like to understand how to be free of these emotional quagmires? Yet we cannot free ourselves without understanding the deep and often unseen pull of relationship connections. It takes disciplined effort to be mindful of how our family history may be impacting our sensitivities and decisions.  We are tuned to react to important others, and when the pressure increases on us or them, our behavior can unfold in very automatic ways, often beyond our ability to control.  Do you ever wonder what made you say that or do this?

 

As to Shakespeare’s family life we cannot know what influenced him and how those influences may be reflected in his plays.  Did he just have the right genes for being creative? What about the influence of his parents or the social and political environment on his thinking and writing?  We will never know how he reacted to the expectations and pressures from his family or those around him.  We do not know if he liked his grandparents or used them to deal with his parents. 

 

But we can have a more complete picture of the lives and influences, and even genetic make up, of current leaders in many different fields.  As more people, like Sabina Berman, are willing to take the bold step of reflecting on their lives openly, more knowledge will be available about the process of managing one’s self in social networks.

 

I am grateful to Sabina Berman, a contemporary playwright, for her willingness to give us her impression of the influence of family relationships on her development.   I was curious about her life and how she developed her plays, which often combine both story-telling and ethical questioning.   Would Berman consider her plays mostly entertaining or did she purposely provoke with the intent to educate?  Would I remember to ask this kind of question when I met her?

 

Consider the predicament I was facing.  In one of her plays, Yankee, Berman focuses on interrogators and the interrogated.[1]  Now I had to ask her questions. What kind of an education would I get?  No doubt she would see my biases: my evolutionary take on the forces behind human behavior and my hope that knowledge of family emotional systems would enable people to see the importance of being a self. 

  

As an interviewer my task is to ask questions that will open doors to new ways of thinking.  These exchanges can also promote the ability of the interviewee to see his or her story differently.   Each of our stories changes depending on who is asking the questions and how those questions are posed.   If the interviewer asks more open-ended questions, the person interviewed has more freedom to clarify points or to deepen his or her understanding of the emotional forces that operate in his or her own life. 

 

David Slone Wilson, in his essay, “Evolutionary Social Construction”, notes that we constantly construct and reconstruct our selves to meet the needs of the situations we encounter.[2]  He believes we do this with the guidance of our memories of the past and our hopes and fears for the future.

 

With this big picture in mind I was ready to meet Sabina Berman. 

Maria Bustos and I arrived at Berman’s apartment building and took an elevator, which opened into her apartment.  A smiling Sabina Berman welcomed us.  Immediately I found her to be very open, disarming and delightful.  She is a very accomplished woman, and I hope you will enjoy how she tells her story and questions me.


 Interview with Sabina Berman

 

sabina-berman-and-amsjpg

 

AMS:  I have a couple of questions about the bridge between family life and one’s life direction but please feel free to go in any direction you choose.

 

I was wondering how early could you remember if and when you were just slightly different, thinking different, doing things a little bit different from others. Then I was wondering if or how did your family react to you?  I was also wondering if there were other people in your family who have been artists or who have stood out who have been leaders? 

 

SB:  As I remember, I did anything to be different and be noticed. I liked to see people react.  I was a very good student but at the same time, I was said to have behavioral problems.  I wanted to get the attention of my peers.  And I could sacrifice my teacher’s attention if I could get my peers to pay attention. 

 

I am not sure why but I am the third child in the family.

 

AMS: How many were there all together?

 

SB:  Four. There were two older brothers and a younger sister. 

 

AMS:  So you are the oldest daughter?

 

SB:  But I was really depressed by my brothers.

 

AMS: How much older are they?

 

SB:  One is four years older and the other one is seven years older. 

 

AMS:  And your mother didn’t rescue you or help you… 

 

SB: She was too busy.  There were too many children and she worked. 

 

My mother, always she told me the story of how I was born.  Said she wanted to have a girl.  Said she was going to take time off just to have a girl.  She didn’t work for a year.  This seemed very important to her in retrospect, because she worked all the time, and she liked working.

 

AMS:  What kind of work?

 

SB:  After I was born, she became a psychoanalyst.  Before that she was a

 Criminologist.  She’s really is very happy.  This brings me to your second question.  My father was an engineer. They were both born in Poland and met in Mexico.   My father was thirty and she was eighteen and they married.  They did not really tell me the story of how they met.

 

AMS:  Maybe romance wasn’t that important to your mother to tell you the story of how we fell in love?

 

SB:  Our family is very intense, very Polish.  My parents clashed and then they got divorced.  Perhaps that is maybe why I don’t remember.

 

AMS:  Sometimes the fighting creates enough distance to mange the perceived or real difference between the parents.  And then other times, no, it is too painful and the parents just drift apart.  Often married people continue the relationships and just find other women, other men, other relationships, or they just bury themselves in work. 

 

In trying to understand relationship dynamics often we see that if parents fight there is less focus on the child and the child can grow up without as much involvement in the life of the parents.

 

SB:  Absolutely…absolutely!  They gave me very attention but wanted me to work hard. The message in which they agreed was very simple and clear.  My father use to say, “The night is young”.

 

 Sometimes I wanted to complain that I was working too hard.  I might be playing tennis five hours every day because he wanted me to be a champ.

 

My brother was a champ.  And the expectation was there when I went home.  If I complained he would say, “the night is young”.  So I worked it out and I mean, I really, really worked. Overall it was very useful!

 

Being an immigrant, especially in a country like Mexico you have to fit in.  There is a very open door, but once in the society is closed to immigrants. That secret has to be erased.  So my parents were very clear, you have to work to earn your place in society, you have to earn it.  So I go back to work as being a central value in the family.

 

AMS:  Were your parents escaping from Poland during the war?

 

SB:  My father came here because there was a lot of opportunity to study and work. This was somewhat before the war. 

 

AMS: About what year would that have been?

 

SB:  I think it was nineteen forty or thirty-nine.

 

AMS:  Did he sense that Poland was becoming a very unfriendly environment?

 

SB:  Yes, and that he should get out.

 

AMS:  So he could anticipate the future.  Did he come with any of his family?

 

SB:  No one, nobody!

 

AMS:  So who stayed behind?

 

SB:  You want to look at photographs?

 

This is my father and this is his mother. As you see, he stands out. He’s like a self-made man.  He’s very talented and very determined.

 

AMS:  And this is your father and the siblings?  Is he the oldest in his family?

 

SB:   I am not sure. He was the oldest child, yes.  There were five of them.  This one is the uncle. He came later to Mexico but most of them died.

 

AMS:  Were they in the concentration camps?

 

SB:  My father does not know.   He never got to know where they were.  The only one who escaped that he knows of was this sister. She came to live in New York.  Even thought she went through the concentration camp, she is very cultured. 

 

AMS:  It seems your father anticipated the future and was saved from the fate that happened to most of his family.  Yet he did not keep in contact with anybody except his one sister and his uncle?

 

SB:  Yes, as a matter of fact, he used the expression, “nobody survived” which was not precise.

 

AMS:  Perhaps it was too painful for him to look for these people.  He just assumed because of the tragedy that they were gone.  It can be just too hard to look.

 

SB:  No, I think his greatest love were his mother and grandmother who were dead.  The sister was not very much in his conscience.

 

AMS:  It’s interesting how he could escape and come here and then just make that assumption no one survives.

 

SB:  He looked for them when I was very young.  I only remember he told me that he went through the UNESCO.  He tried all that stuff you know that the Jews did during and after the war.

 

AMS:  But his uncle came here and found him?  And his sister later found him?

 

SB:  Yes

 

AMS:  How did they do it?

 

SB:  The uncle went through the war in the Polish resistance. His sister somehow escaped Auschwitz.  What she told me is that she had a machine gun, as a twelve year old.  She tried to join the resistance and they said, “you’re too young” but she had no home, she didn’t want to go back to Auschwitz so she continued following the people in the resistance until they said OK, you have the machine gun so we’re going to train you. 

 

Nevertheless, when I met her, the war had been too much and you could see that her image of herself was disturbed. She was very tortured, very resentful and always angry.  After the war she became a governess. 

 

AMS: What year did you met her?

 

SB:  I met her in 1990 or so when my sister and my cousins decided the new generation should have reunite. Then we learned that she hated my father.

 

AMS:  O yes the rise of sibling rivalry, which comes to us from Adam and Eve’s children.

 

SB:  My aunt felt that she deserved something because she went through the war.  My father didn’t believe so. Therefore it was very complicated.

 

AMS:  Yes, even birds have this problem.  They squabble in the nest and probably they also blame each other.  We may never know if they think about what they do. More than once I have wonder if people think much about one what they do to one another.

 

Birds push each other out of the nest in an effort get more food or attention if you will. Each mother and father have to decide how much should I give to these guys and how much for me. 

 

It was Robert Trivers who gets the credit for observing this common theme in social species. He developed the idea of parental investment and is one of the great names in evolutionary biology because of this.

 

The primitive question in social groups is, how much for the others and how much for me? It all boils down to is: “Am I going to survive or not.” 

 

Every family has this problem to solve. But if you go through a war or something horrendous like that it can be even worse.  And if you have Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome the effects of the war can linger for a long time complicating matters. 

 

Your aunt sounds like she went through a difficult period where it becomes almost impossible to keep herself going in a “normal” way. 

 

I saw this with my father who was an Intelligence Officer in the Second World War.  He was the first intelligence officer to fly in a B29s and gathered intelligence.  After a bombing raid they would exam the photographs and decided what were the targets that had been hit. Perhaps they guessed as to how many women and children may have been innocent bystanders of the war or they may not have wanted to know.   My father did a great job.  He got commendations and medals, but then after the war, he became a…

 

SB:  …a communist terrorist? 

 

AMS:  Close, he was a terrorist of some kind.

 

SB:  I’ll try not to, you know, to make a story.

 

AMS:  I will have to write that one if you will not.  But of course it influenced my life and my choice of career.  I needed to understand human behavior. 

 

SB: I was going to be a psychoanalyst but then I taught literature and became a writer.  I studied psychology and literature.

 

AMS:  And your mother was a psychoanalyst?

 

SB:  Yes

 

AMS:  And still is…  Where is she living?

 

SB:  In Mexico

 

AMS:  And how old is she?

 

SB:  Her name is Raquel Berman, Rachel in English. She’s 80

 

AMS:  Eighty, and she’s still a psychoanalyst.  That is wonderful. 

 

And your father?

 

SB:  He died

 

AMS:  What year?

 

SB:  1995

 

AMS:  And what did he die from?

 

SB:  Stroke

 

AMS:  So, very quickly?

 

SB:  No

 

AMS:  A stroke and then he suffered?

 

SB:  He lasted for seven years.

 

AMS:  Seven years

 

SB:  On and off, he was in and out of conscious.

 

AMS:  Did your mother look after him?  

 

SB:  No, they were divorced.

 

AMS:  Yes, that’s right they had the conflict, which didn’t help them. Then they found other people or they separated?

 

SB:  They separated and then they found other people then they went back to each other.

 

AMS:  Ah, that’s interesting.

 

SB:  They were embarrassed to tell us about this.   But they were seeing each other. But they didn’t go to live together.  They decided they could be lovers.

 

AMS:  So they never married anyone else?

 

SB:  No

 

AMS:  They had different relationships with people but nothing that really mattered as much as the fighting that they could have.  The fighting and the loving they could have with each other.  So when your father got sick, who took care of him?

 

SB:  We cooperated.  But my mother, no, she’s not that type.  My brothers and I were taking turns. 

 

AMS:  Who emerged as the primary caretaker?

 

SB:  My older brother moved to my father’s house.

 

AMS:  That’s how families are, eventually someone emerges and does what needs to be done, or things fall apart.  In well functioning families someone comes up to do the job.  If you don’t want to do the job, it’s ok because someone will come up and take the job.  How about your younger sister?

 

SB:  My younger sister and I are very good friends.  She lives in New York.

She immigrated to America but we talk on the phone at least one hour every day.

About every month I go to New York or she comes here.

 

AMS:  What does she do in New York?

 

SB:  She is writing now about Mexican American artist.  She has her PhD in philosophy of art.

 

AMS:  She is married with children?

 

SB:  She has two children. 

 

AMS:  And do you have children?

 

SB:  No I don’t.  She has two boys. They are fifteen and ten.

 

I never married by the civil law.  I’ve had three important men, in my life, so far.

 

AMS:  How about your two brothers?

 

SB:  My eldest brother never married.  My other brother married and had two children. The younger one died from a car accident three years ago.

 

AMS:  That’s devastating

 

SB:  Yes, his son was nineteen. The oldest one is a girl. She is very much like me.  She just finished at Harvard.  But she’s going to go into business instead of psychology.

 

AMS:  What will she know of your family? Your father’s family may be hard to find now.   He was not sentimental about his family but he treasured these pictures of his family. It sounds like he became a tough man.

 

Perhaps, we can speculate, he had to leave home at a too early age. When this happens it easy for people to become falsely over adequate. 

 

I don’t know if that happened with your father. But he seems to say, “I don’t need my family.”  I have heard many men say, “I don’t need my family.” “I can do everything myself.”

 

SB:  I think so. I didn’t know what words to use to describe it but he was distant,

perhaps he was even arrogant.   He was distant and he was disenchanted from all human kindness. 

 

He was not the life of the party but when he spoke his words were powerful.  He was such an anarchist. I use to laugh till I cried when he told me his morals about life.

 

AMS:  So he was an anarchist because of what he saw with the Nazi’s, that human nature is evil much of the time.

          

SB:  He saw that human nature could be molded to accept cruelty very easily.

 

AMS:  I understand, under the proper circumstances.  A book that looks at how people can be easily molded is “The Lucifer Effect” by Phillip Zimbardo.  He organized the prison experiment at Stanford University to understand how the Nazi’s could do what they did to the population.  He recruited normal college students and half of them were guards and half were prisoners. Within three days the prisoners had forgotten their names.  The guards were mean and oppressive, humiliating them taking away every shred of identity that they had.  So in three days, they had even forgotten their names. 

 

Amazed at this change Phillip Zimbardo brings his girlfriend to show her this amazing reaction. It was a version of what the Nazi’s would do.  And his girlfriend said, look if you carry this experiment out one more day, I will never see you again.  Not one more day.  Not in the name of science nothing.  It’s so horrible.

 

SB:  These kinds of traumas can last for a long time.  I had a cousin who was compassionate but he seemed very disenchanted, even though he became rich.  I remember once I was eight and came and stayed in his house. I saw he had a small room where he slept. I was surprise as every night he was sleeping with the light on.  I asked my father, isn’t he crazy?  He said that this was a useless word. His behavior was probably because he must have been very afraid.

 

I was so moved to imagine this guy being by himself, there alone without family, and being scared.  Even with his gun he was scared.   

 

My father could go on and just say things like that with a lot of insight about the very basic necessities of life.

 

You know it was not social skills at all. I think it was a way of being able to see himself in the person, on the other side.  He opened doors like this all the time.  We are the same. I recall him saying about a black man that he was so handsome.  It was not social skills it was the way of seeing himself on the other side. 

 

AMS:  To see the humanity…both positive and negative and not linger in a morbid way but to move on.  How did he earn a living? 

 

SB:  He was an engineer and later he built a screw factory. 

 

AMS:  What got him into a screw factory? 

 

SB: My father was fascinated by how machines worked.  He was a wonderful genius, very inventive but not so great as an administrator.

 

AMS:  Did he learn engineering in Poland?   

 

SB:  No, he came expressly to study here at seventeen. He went to the National University.

 

 

He falls in love with Lázaro Cárdenas, the president of Mexico at that time. He was a socialist. The first time he saw him talking in the downtown area, he was saying, we need to put the lights on all over the country. So my father became a young socialist in Mexico, even though he was Jewish. My father was always telling me, I’m saved as in this country I have a future

 

In fact what made my father decide to stay in Mexico was hearing the leader of the socialist party youth speak, The party was ruling Mexico and this leader was Jewish, and that made my father fall in love with the country. This young man’s family built this building. Then many years later I came here and I bought this apartment.  And still today over half of the floors in this building are owned by this man’s family.

 

AMS:  That’s a funny connection, a bit of synchronicity?   There is a great deal of interest in the unusual ways that we are connected to those who were of interest to our families. 

 

It seems your father is a very highly intuitive man.  He notices changes in society.  One clue, he’s pretty sure, two clues, yes, that’s it, he leaves Poland and shows an interest in changing society through socialism. He seems to say in his actions: “I don’t have to worry about this decision. I am going to move on to the next thing.” He makes a judgment, leaves Poland, comes to Mexico, become an engineer, and builds a factory and around thirty years of age he meets your mother.

 

SB:  No, he met my mother before he became the owner of his factory.  He meets my mother and then he has two children.  He knows he has to make more money and my mother, the daughter of an exiled entrepreneur, talks him in to building his own factory. So he builds a factory and they become rich. Sounds easy, and they used to say it was easy. 

 

 

AMS:  So after the two children, the boys are born he has a factory and then your mother is able to take off work for a year because she wants to have a girl.  Your Dad works harder and your Mom has time off.  That is my funny interpretation.

 

SB: It is funny, yes. Only it is only half true. My father expected to be the sole provider in the family. My mother worked out of her necessity to have her autonomous identity. Her words: autonomous identity.

 

Do you think she put the big pressure on him to be successful in order to have a girl?  And then when you’re born, the boys pick on you because you’re a girl?  It would kind of explain their picking on you.

 

SB:  I’m not sure why they pick on me? 

 

AMS:  Well, my daughter has two boys and then two girls and then a boy.  I had two brothers, younger.  So I picked on my brothers. 

 

Perhaps the overall explanation is that it is almost automatic for the oldest to pick on the youngest.  Men pick on women, some say because they are bigger and then they can control them and thereby have reproductive security. 

 

These picking on or controlling behaviors are an advantage in adulthood in managing self in a group, at least from an evolutionary perspective therefore as children we need to practice. 

 

Among my grandchildren I see how the girl wants to keep up with her brothers.  Before her younger sister was born she fit in with the boys by being a bit of a tomboy because she wants to be like them and they reject her and push her around. 

Now if I am there things change.  I take on the boys and demand respect for the girl or threaten to turn them upside down. Often the mother is so busy she doesn’t have time to really pay attention to this ongoing conflict.

 

I can also see how triangles play out. The two boys are natural allies. The girl is on the outside.  Without somebody who is going to run interference, the girl is going to get hammered.  In her case, as in yours she had a sister and now she has an ally.  

 

I’m not sure how much younger your sister is?

 

AMS:  Ok, that’s interesting.  So you had to manage much longer than my granddaughter.  She only had to wait two years for an ally.  You had to wait until you were five.  So you had to develop a lot of strategies to deal with these powerful boys.  I guess your mother went back to work after you were born?

 

SB:  Yes, but first she took another year off to nurse me and then she went back.

 

AMS:  And who was there in the house for you as when you were young and growing up?  Did they have a caretaker?

 

SB:  Yes, but they changed.

 

AMS:  So you found books?

 

SB: Right, I love books!

 

AMS:  Books, that’s what you found because you were good in school.

 

SB:  Well in my household, there was no option…you had to have good grades.

 

AMS:  To survive you have to be good at something. I’m a good tennis player, which helped me in school, as my grades were spotty, because I’m dyslexic.  I failed Spanish and Latin, as I could not repeat the proper sounds or words.  But a few teachers saw I had potential and encouraged me despite my learning disability. Sometimes people fit into the regiment of being good at school and they don’t develop their creative side.

 

SB:  Right

 

AMS:  What about you?  Did you have to develop a creative side or it just came?

 

SB:  I think I was very much by myself. I remember thinking about things that did not make sense.  I remember thinking about the Bible.  Many nights I was asking myself and asking God, is this justice? Is this a correct to think about men and woman?

 

First, he created man then woman.   I felt that was a way to show prejudice against women.  And there are no heroes in the Bible.  

 

AMS:  Yes, and you noticed that you had this in your family. There is an inequality because of the age and size of your father who is the dominant man, and then you see this inequality sanctioned in the Bible.

 

SB:  In this questioning state there is the beginning of my creativity. Different truths were presented which were not really true.  There were all these inconsistencies. 

 

I have to really think things out.  And maybe I’m like my father in some ways, as I always doubted that the authorities, the teachers, knew the real truth.

 

AMS:  That’s a wonderful thing.  There’s neurobiologist from Chili named Humberto Maturano and he says, “Question authority.”  Always seek more than one answer.  His contention was with increasing choices one’s brain becomes more creative, filling in the idea gaps with an artistic self.  To the artist often there is no ultimate truth just the momentary aha!  You were very young when you figured all this out.

 

SB:  I was very much aware of inconsistencies.  Americans seem to search for information, very factual, while Mexicans are leery at heart.  Mexico is a mixture. We come from Polish roots in addition.   Therefore I want the attention on the untruth, of the so-called truth.

 

AMS:  How did you develop this skill? Were you a good writer early on?  Did you write at eight or ten?  Did you write your own stories?

 

SB:  I wrote poetry. I love the technology of writing. You draw letters that are sounds that become words that become imaginary things in your mind. I’m still fascinated everyday when I write with written language.

 

AMS:  I see this playfulness with sounds early on in my little grandchildren.  The sound of the word becomes a joke because of the twist in how it’s perceived initially and then in what it becomes.  Is this what you’re thinking about how there is a twist in the meaning of words?

 

SB:  Yes, but also the word and its sound signify something greater or more natural.

 

 If I found a word or story I liked I would want to tell my father or want to tell my mother and then they went, “ah.” They were very positive. 

 

I use to come from school and tell them stories. I use to talk to my mother for an hour about stories that were completely false.  Now I know that she knew I was making things up but still she went “Ah.”

 

For me the big challenge was to make my mother and my father laugh.  They were always separate.

 

AMS:  Did you wanted to make them laugh and perhaps love one another?  Or just to make them happy for the moment.

 

SB:  To laugh and to love.   I have to joke.  People cannot change that much but they can laugh.

 

AMS:  So what you did with your parents, entertain them; you could do the rest of the world?  You could transfer that ability once you learned it from your built in audience.  Your parents were your first critics.  Fortunately they had a predisposition to admire you and appreciate your work.

 

SB:  Absolutely, I have to thank God for that.  My two parents, even though they weren’t with each other could appreciate the work.  I was not feeling guilt for their separation. They didn’t fight for me. My parents and sister were integrated as good objects inside of me.  I learned to fend for myself and although I was popular, I knew I had to do the work. 

 

AMS:  You have the courage to perform and give others your truth. You seem to be saying this truth does not have to be the real truth, it’s just is your own truth.

 

SB:  You know something I am having an insight. I cannot tolerate when there is somebody who needs negative energy.  I’m not the person who can perform like that.  I’m going just be very frank about it and say I don’t want to work with you.  But I’ve been wondering for a couple of years, why I’m so mean to those who try to influence me in this way.

 

AMS:  Perhaps it is not easy to set a limit.  You set a limit with people who are critical because it’s not part of the way that you want to be or the way you learn. Perhaps you expect them to know that about you? 

 

SB: It’s not part of the way that I prosper and I have nothing to give to people who are critical because they shown me their mind is closed.  If the door is closed, I can’t bother to open it.  It is a war I don’t want to fight.

 

But as you know, there are some people who really are very sly and rule over other people.  I do not always see this happening at first. 

 

AMS: I try too hard and much of this is a waste of time.  You could easily divide people into two piles.  It might be fun as away to understand others.  There are always the people who like to complain and whine, and then there are the people who are going to do something positive. 

 

Some will take action, accept responsibility and make some kind of a difference.  You can see that almost immediately when you ask people to help out.  As soon as they open their mouth, the critical people are other focused people. Once something goes wrong they look not to “what can I do” but to blame others and focus on what you are not doing right.  This is sweet trap for people who are trying to make the world a better place or the shadow of the parents happy.  I understand the trap.

 

And for you, you start out as a youth entertaining your parents and then your peers.  So was school a positive experience for you?

 

SB:  I started in psychology but then I was not sure why I was there.  I had to study something, as I was eighteen year old.  And then I found theater.  There was a drama company.  I was there as a student but to work I had to sign an application to be a professional. So even though I had not been to a drama class in my life, so I signed to be a professional. I quit school to be an actress. 

 

AMS:  You were how old? 

 

SB:  I was eighteen

 

AMS:  You were eighteen and did your father and mother have a fit? 

 

SB:  Yes, my father was not very happy.  He told me it was a mistake. There I was working in the theater and then I started writing for the theater.

 

AMS:  What year was this when you began writing?  Did you have a muse?  Did you have a person who coached or inspired you?

 

SB:  No

 

AMS:  You just thought again?

 

SB:  Of course, that was the most important. I remember the director.  He gave me an exercise, an improvisation with a monologue.  I said I prefer to memorize my own work than somebody else.

 

AMS:  You were brave to say such a thing.

 

SB:  I wrote the monologue, which was inspired by the Bible. I was talking to God.  But it was very tragic.  Eventually I started writing for my own company. After a year I gathered my own company. We won a tournament and the prize was to the country for several months.  And I knew then that this was my life, my passion.

 

AMS:  What do you think the impact of your work on other people has been?

 

For me it’s important to communicate, so my texts are very clear. But for me theater has to be also much more than words. It has to capture the mind of the public –fascinate it with beauty—and they bodies to –that’s why I want them to laugh, to shake them in their seats.

 

First, I made very abstract theater, philosophical. But I couldn’t achieve too much. So I changed, and what I do is –you might call it: social comedy. The comedy is with social themes.

 

 

In one way it’s interesting, because in some ways nobody gets it.  What I write is about the theater of the absurd.  You write about one thing and they think it is another.  It’s about a door that opens to some place and when you perform it people hear it and the door they saw went to another place.  I wanted to stop this talk about what they think they saw.  In one way a writer can become what are they talking about.

 

So I changed my world completely.  I always wrote comedy but now I write about the social scene.

 

AMS:  What year about was this?  What was the social issue that you were having fun with?

 

SB:  It began in the 1980s when gender issues were beginning to be important. Perhaps the country was ready to be shocked. This country is fantastic for that we invented the word machismo.

 

AMS:  How did you do it?

 

SB:  I made a comedy about the admiration of the patriarch in a fundamentally humorous, paradoxical way.  Then we made a movie out of how they cut up woman. I made a company about Machismo. Between (Between Pancho Villa and a Naked Woma)

 

AMS:  I am interested in how society has changed.  I too saw a lot of change in the way people live their lives and what they value.   I saw amazing changes.  First, I was divorced in 1973 and I noticed almost half of my friends were also divorced. It was almost like herd behavior.  The relationship between men and woman was disturbed.

 

First, there were the sixties, woman began using birth control and working and then there was a large increase in divorce rates.  It appeared to be independent decision but in society as reflected in the arts, the relationship between men and women was disturbed.

 

The women’s movement began, as did the civil rights movement.  Some kind of tipping point occurred.  I wondered what was the impetus for social change now?

 

I happened upon, Jack Calhoun’s work.  He did the population studies for the U.N.  and said the population would increase until the year 2024.  If there were not changes in reproductive behavior, there would be great difficulty in keeping the population at a sustainable level. 

 

 Calhoun predicted that family life would change dramatically and that three quarters of women would be divorced from reproduction.   Women will have to become procreated instead of biologically created.  If this strategy is successful eventually the population will decrease to a sustainable level. 

 

Creative people produce additional social space.  We use to explore physical space but now we are exploring social space.

 

Based on the structure of the life of early humans Calhoun thought the family of the future would consist of loose networks of twelve adults and eighteen children.

 

I had an Aha!  Our instincts to survive and to adapt to changing conditions could be influencing the structure of the family.  At any point in time people can say the world is going to be like this forever.  This becomes crazy making.  So I became very interested in self-organizing systems.  I was interested in people who had a method to guess about the future plus enable the population to adapt to change.

 

SB:  You think there is a race for wisdom.  I think you were saying that the anthill was wise?

 

Andrea:  The wisdom of the hive shows us how self-organizing works. There is no top down plan.  The emergence of an adaptive response by the group demonstrates that the group can know without being told what to do.

 

 People put a lot of faith in reason, yet it is hard to prove that your thoughts occur before your brain fires. Libet’s research was a shock. He showed that our thinking is a half a second behind our readiness for action.  The talking, thinking brain is often autobiographical rather than leading the way.

 

The exceptions are when you say no to some habit. I’m going to quit this… I’m not going to do this instead. Then yes, the mind can lead the way through inhibition. 

 

I like to ask, if you have all the power, how are you going to change Mexico? How do you think you could influence the system as it is now?

 

SB:  You’re asking me?

 

Andrea:   Yeah, I’m asking you, but you don’t have to answer right now.  But this is what you’re doing in your writing. You use entertaining information to help people see.

 

I think that people who know more about their past see more about the future, as they understand history and their roots.  You’re using entertainment to help influence people?

 

 

SB:

 

I use erotic information. Information that is full of life. That tends towards life.  This is one of my life decisions.  If I am going to something I will move towards the erotic. Fiction is important but I also have a program and it transforms me too. Last week we had transsexual people on Mexican TV for a whole hour.  These were people who were going to get married.  For me that was entertainment and a big service. For this small minority people, that is a service as people get to know them as real. It opens the mind of people.

 

We are not yet with the values of New York or San Francisco but we have the Internet. The world is going to be more and more globalized, even here in Mexico. 

 

We are not using the ideas within our country. We are having the invasion of ideas from the outside. We are paralyzed. We have a bit of democracy but now that we have it we are paralyzed.  We are afraid of change. Mexico is more conservative now than it ws four years ago.  What about what it is that is happening here. I am trying to look at this.  

 

Poverty is our deepest problem. Rich people are very convinced that they can make a change but it is not happening

 

Because we come from a long tradition of political power, Mexicans are overly concerned with power.   Power seems more important than before and now we have elected a democracy. 

 

And yet we are still so afraid of change.  People are more conservative now than they were years ago.  And what about what happens all around us, the social stuff.  What about the people?  How can we speak to what is happening around us.

 

AMS:  Democracy at its best represents the wisdom of the crowd, but it is dependent on information, which is autonomous. When we are overly influenced we act like a non-thinking herd of cows. 

 

 If any democracy were cut off from the rest of the world, it would be similar to the nuclear family cut off from their extended family. The problems become more intense in smaller systems with no or little outside influence. 

 

Are you saying Mexico is more cut off from the rest of the world than the US?  Perhaps the lack of information is due to the large numbers of people living in poverty? But you are saying the intellectual, the ones who could know better, are afraid to see and to act? 

 

SB:  Because we come from a dictatorship, part of the dictatorship has a legacy of maintaining power, political power.  Everybody wants to be the president of Mexico. 

 

Americans wants to be many things, some want to be artists, or rock stars.  There are lots of place where one can excel, although there is still prejudice and social injustice.

 

AMS:  That’s true. 

 

SB:  Mexico is very much obsessed about power.  So that becomes the main discussion.

 

AMS:  And I come here as a stranger and I say Mexico is complicated, who could have a vision of how to make things better?

 

SB:  You think it possible?

 

AMS:  Perhaps a new way of being in this country will not come through powerful people but from the grass roots efforts to promote opportunity for ordinary people. 

 

Sometimes America is called the land of opportunity, as it is possible for poor people to rise up.  In a capitalistic way people are able to solve problems at the local level.  This is how I became interested in the entrepreneurs culture here in Mexico.  

 

So far the Mexican government has not been able to figure out how to solve the problems of transportation, the tendency of monopolies to dominate, the increasing levels of pollution and as you said the crushing poverty.  

 

Perhaps there is no one smart enough to create a better path and therefore I would come to the conclusion that power doesn’t matter.

 

What might make a difference is a practical approach to the problems that people can understand.  This is how leaders stand out from the crowd. They find the pulse of what people can accept, and then lead them forward into an unknown future. 

 

Abraham Lincoln did this incredibly well. People could not accept that slavery was evil so he framed it as the importance of preserving the union.  Now we see Obama and Hillary Clinton trying to attract followers through their ideas.   

 

SB:  Absolutely…  That’s wonderful all the problems that we have today we think are about power.  Instead you think it’s about ideas.  

 

AMS: Ideas have a very different kind of power. They are more like a virus. No one can control them. They are everywhere and nowhere. Ideas, if they are entertaining, like yours, open the mind in unknown ways.  Ideas also create a social space, which is now becoming more important than physical space.   

 

I see our time has run down.

 

I hope we can continue this conversation. We began to open many of Pandora’s boxes. Thanks you for giving us your time and insights. It has been fun to know a little more about you.    

 

SB: You are welcome and I will look at your website.

 

Sabina Berman’s Mindful Compass

 

(1) The ability to define a vision:

Sabina Berman was young when she discovered the fun of entertaining her peers.  Early on she discovered a love of poetry and her fascination with the written language.  She discovered how to bring love and laughter into the lives of her parents.  Often she would come home from school and tell stories that delighted and amused her family.  Perhaps it was only natural that when she had the opportunity to quit college and become a professional person in the theater she happily took the chance.

 

Of course many children can be entertaining and technically excellent in their writing but still lack a profound way of understanding and communicating well to the broader world. One of the differences is the ability for the artist to develop a penetrating insight into the nature of humans. With a “different” way of seeing one will never be great.  Sabina Berman has the gift of seeing deeply and wondering deeply plus the well tuned ability to use words to shock and stimulate.

 

How much did her family experiences enable the profound nature of her work? One can only guess where her talents spring from?  We do know she was exposed to great literature and surrounded by intellectual parents. Her ability to observe relationship dynamics all around her is still informing her vision. Added to this is that she has an overarching sense of curiosity and wonder plus a feeling of social responsibility to inform people of the pressures of “evil,” in its many forms.

 

 At a young age Sabina Berman was questioning all things that just did not make sense to her.  Her highly developed sense of justice was useful in question everything, even God’s fairness.  

 

It was this deep curiosity that she credits with beginning her sense about her own creativity.  Much of her work has been focused on the ”untruth” of the so-called truth.

 

For me it’s important to communicate, so my texts are very clear. But for me theater has to be also much more than words. It has to capture the mind of the public –fascinate it with beauty—and their bodies to –that’s why I want them to laugh, to shake them in their seats.

 

(2) The resistance to change in self and in any system:

As we hear in her story her first real encounter in relationship dynamic pressure was when her parents were resisting her efforts to having a more low-keyed life as student.  She was given a push to work hard from her parents. The night is young, her Dad would say.  Eventually she found her own middle road. She notes, I learned to fend for myself and although I was popular, I knew I had to do the work.

 

When she was eighteen she decided to quite college and work in the theater.  Her father was not very happy.  He told her it was a mistake.  Nevertheless she began to work and write for the theater and then a new life opened up for her.  She dared to dream and to act.  In addition there was no anger expressed at the resistance of her family, just a willingness to persist. 

 

Another insight she had about resistance is that when people are negative she cannot keep trying to win them over. Eventually she is able to draw a line and just say NO to such people.  


 I’m going just be very frank about it and say I don’t want to work with you.  But I’ve been wondering for a couple of years, why I’m so mean to those who try to influence me in this way.  It’s not part of the way that I prosper and I have nothing to give to people who are critical because they shown me their mind is closed.  If the door is closed, I can’t bother to open it.  It is a war I don’t want to fight.  But as you know, there are some people who really are very sly and rule over other people.  I do not always see this happening at first.  


Seeing the resistance and the seduction away from her principles clearly and then taking a stand to maintain her own direction is one of the skills that Sabina Berman continues to develop. 

 

(3) The ability to connect and use systems knowledge:

 

Having a mother who is an analyst no doubt gave Sabina Berman a foot up in understanding human nature.   She lived in the atmosphere that was oriented towards thinking about human nature.  In addition she had an eye out for observing the humor in relationship dynamics. Even her early fighting relationships with her brothers amused and puzzled her. 

You could say that writing for the theater is clear evidence of one’s current understanding of the connected nature of our relationships.  Since her gift has been to use words to paint a picture of the human, galvanizing people, to take corrective actions. Sabina Berman questions the kinds of pressures put on people in the different segments of society. 

In one way she shocks people into waking up and seeing their own connection to others.  Clearly she has been able to clarify and use her talents in taking on societies pretends.  

Many people close their eyes to what goes on in the underside of any group. Sabina Berman takes her understanding and couragiously reveals to the public what it is they are participating in through silence.  This does produce discomfort.  Yet, so far she has been able to craft her knowledge into a grain of sand creating pearls of deep value.

 

Over time Sabina Berman has become more integrated in her ability to act on knowledge and to take a stand in her social communities. By continuing to participate in altering injustice in the social arrangements within society she is living out her way of dealing with her profound understanding of human nature. 

 

Sabina Berman continues to provocatively communicate and perhaps even slightly intrude on people’s comfort level.  She enlightens people in the way she dramatizes the predicaments of all people.  She remains a provocative voice that we can recognize as being deep and still elusive.

 

In one way it is interesting, because in some ways nobody gets it.  What I write is about the theater of the absurd.  You write about one thing and they think it is another.  It’s about a door that opens to some place and when you perform it people hear it and the door they saw went to another place.  I wanted to stop this talk about what they think they saw.  

 

 

(4)The ability to be separate:  

As noted in the quote above Sabina Berman has had to be able to be separate from her critics.  She has a talent to describe a world which can be sad or even horrid, as in how people take advantage of one another, yet she remains detached from the “evils” in and of the world, which is basic to seeing and communicating about these tensions in a new way.  

Being an artist may always require a tolerance in one’s soul for being misunderstood. 

The true artist has the ability to separate and still deeply strike a cord with the audience.  She aptly describes the process: an artist must arise above the tendency to give into the audience, to being bought and sold by the local social truths and the need for approval. 

Sabina Berman’s North Star is her deep ability to be a part of the social system while being deeply separate from it.  She tells us is she is alone in the creative spirit and rejoices returning again and again to entertain and possibly educate us before withdrawing again to muse.

 In one way a writer can become what are they talking about. The country was ready to be shocked. This country is fantastic for that we invented the word machismo.

Books and Articles Mentioned

Social Evolution by Robert Trivers

 

The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo.

 

THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE : The Biological Roots of Human Understanding by Francisco R. Varela, Humberto Maturano

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1]  Theater in the Americas Robert A. Schanke, series editor

The Theatre of Sabina Berman: The Agony of Ecstasy It is evident that Sabina Berman’s theatrical acumen matches the depth of her dramatic design whether it is the sheer variety of techniques from song to staged tableau that appear in The Agony of Ecstasy; the physicalization of what it means to be interrogated and to interrogate in Yankee;  It is the combination of theatrical technique with universal themes of self-definition that cuts across cultures and ultimately makes these plays translatable.

 

[2] The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative, Edited by Johathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson

 

 


Lázaro Cárdenas was born into a lower-middle class family in the village of Jiquilpan, Michoacán. He supported his family (including his mother and seven younger siblings) from age 16 after the death of his father. By the age of 18 he had worked as a tax collector, a printer’s devil, and a jailkeeper. Although he left school at the age of eleven, he used every opportunity to educate himself and read widely throughout his life, especially works of history.

Cárdenas originally set his sights at becoming a teacher, but was drawn into politics and the military during the Mexican Revolution after Victoriano Huerta overthrew President Francisco Madero. He backed Plutarco Elías Calles, and after Calles became president, Cárdenas became governor of Michoacán in 1928. He became known for his progressive program of building roads and schools, promoting education, land reform and social security.

After establishing himself in the presidency, in 1936 Cárdenas had Calles and dozens of his corrupt associates arrested or deported to the United States, a decision that was greeted with great enthusiasm by the majority of the Mexican public.

Cárdenas subsequently decreed the end of the use of capital punishment (in Mexico, usually in the form of a firing squad). Capital punishment has been banned in Mexico since that time. The control of the republic by Cárdenas and the PRI predecessor Partido de la Revolución Mexicana without widespread bloodshed effectively signalled the end of rebellions that began with the 1910 Mexican Revolution.

Cárdenas is considered by many historians to be the creator of a political system that lasted in Mexico until the end of the 1980s. Central to this project was the organization of corporatist structures for trade unions, campesino (peasant) organizations, and middle-class professionals and office workers within the reorganized ruling party, now renamed the Party of the Mexican Revolution (PRM).

During Cárdenas’s presidency, the government expropriated and redistributed millions of acres of hacienda land to peasants, and urban and industrial workers gained unprecedented unionization rights and wage increases. The railway Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México was nationalized in 1938 and put under a “workers administration”. However, Cardenas and subsequent presidents also used the PRM and its successor, the Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI, to maintain political control; leaders of the worker and campesino organizations delivered votes and suppressed protests in exchange for personal favors and concessions to their constituencies. Also central to Cárdenas’s project were nationalistic economic policies involving Mexico’s vast oil production, which had soared following strikes in 1910 in the area known as the “Golden Lane,” near Tampico, and which made Mexico the world’s second-largest oil producer by 1921, supplying approximately 20 percent of domestic demand in the United States.

of March 18, 1938, Cárdenas nationalized Mexico’s petroleum reserves and expropriated the equipment of the foreign oil companies in Mexico. The announcement inspired a spontaneous six-hour parade in Mexico City; it was followed by a national fund-raising campaign to compensate the companies. The company that Cárdenas founded, Petróleos Mexicanos (or Pemex), would later be a model for other nations seeking greater control over their own oil and natural gas resources and is the most important source of income for the country, despite weakening finances. Seeing the need to assure the technical expertise needed to run it, Cárdenas founded the National Polytechnic Institute.

Lázaro Cárdenas was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize for the year of 1955.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1zaro_C%C3%A1rdenas

 

 

Libet, (2004)”Mind Time”

Murders in the “Backyard”: Sabina Berman Examines Juárez
By Marina T. Crouse

The first scene of Sabina Berman’s new screenplay, “Backyard,” is set in a strip of desert known as Las lomas del poleo outside the Mexican border city of Juárez. A woman’s body is found half buried in the sand. Although the mangled and decomposing corpse is unrecognizable, the uniform she wears reveals the name of the multinational corporation which owns the maquiladora or in-bond assembly plant where she worked. While photographers, reporters and investigators circle and pace around the body, the camera pulls away to gaze out at the incongruous backdrop of transnational corporate office buildings and juxtaposed shantytowns that make up a large part of Juárez, perched just below El Paso along the U.S.–Mexican border.

Since the early 1990s, Juárez has been under siege. Over the past decade roughly 385 women have been killed, often in sadistic and gruesome ways, and about 1,200 more have been reported missing. “Backyard” is a screenplay that explores the circumstances of these unresolved murders and the way in which they have been normalized in everyday life in Juárez. Berman’s text probes the reluctance and apparent refusal of both the Mexican and U.S. governments, as well as the multinational corporations that run the maquiladoras, to properly investigate the murders and bring those responsible to justice.

In the discussion that followed the reading of her screenplay, Berman stated that she wanted to situate Juárez as a cosmopolitan city, however contradictory and flawed. She also highlighted the fact that despite the status of Juárez as a border metropolis with a thriving drug trade and sex industry as well as a large internal migrant population that comes to work in the maquiladoras, Juárez remains a place of intense poverty and social injustice. The political instability and corruption that has come out of Juárez’s condition as a major industrial center is illustrated in Berman’s screenplay by the continuous struggle for power between the cronies of the multinational corporations and the local political bosses.

Also locked within this battle are those activists who, often against all odds, try to unravel the mysteries and inconsistencies surrounding these crimes and the identities of the perpetrators. This volatile situation reveals how deeply Juárez is affected by and involved in the politics of globalization. What is most interesting in this text is the way in which Berman pushes the audience to think about the way in which Juárez and its inhabitants are imagined from outside, as well as the way in which they imagine themselves.

Since the early 1980s, Berman has been one of Mexico’s most prolific and successful playwrights, and has significantly contributed to the rejuvenation and continued development of Mexican theater both nationally and internationally. The recipient of numerous awards, Berman has won the national playwright award from the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (National Institute of Fine Arts) four times in five years. In addition to being the best-known and most performed playwright in Mexico, Berman is also an accomplished director, producer, novelist, essayist and poet and has written and performed several plays for children.

Sabina Berman is UC Berkeley’s Writer in Residence for the spring 2005 semester. She presented a reading of her new screenplay Backyard in a talk titled ”Theater Crossing Borders“ on February 1, 2005, in Stephens Hall

http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/Events/spring2005/02-01-05-berman/index.html

 

 

Posted in Blogs | 1 Comment »