Rules of Family Dynamics: (1) Emotional Distance

When family members use physical distance to solve problems of emotional interdependency, the result is always temporary, or includes a transference of the problem to another relationship system (Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue [New York: Guildford Press, 1985], 41).

A simpler version might be: when we use distance to alleviate our emotional enmeshment with other people, we will either find that the strategy brings only temporary relief or we will become emotionally enmeshed with someone else.

Our logic is normally something like this: that person is causing me pain, if I get away from that person, the pain will lessen. However, that logic fails with emotional enmeshment. Family System Theory (FST) would locate the problem in the refusal of each person involved to be a "self." Enmeshed relationships (called codependency in other models) are characterized by people being confused over where they end and the other person begins. Or, it is like having two toys trying to run on one battery. There just does not seem to be enough juice in the battery for two whole toys to function independently.

Humans, it appears, have two contradictory needs: the need to be a "self" (me) and the need to be connected with another (we). Thus, all relationships are about "managing" the space between theses two needs. We often use physical distance to manage the space between me and we. We are, in this way of thinking, a bit like porcupines trying to stay warm without poking each other. We want to be close to others, but sometimes this hurts, especially, when we feel the other person overwhelming our sense of self. We even call this experience suffocation.

In Friedman's first rule, he deals with how we use physical distance to regulate the anxiety we experience as we move between me and we. However sometimes the we experience is a bit too much. On the less extreme end, we will avoid people who make us uncomfortable, on the other end, we divorce them, move far away from them, or worse, remove them.

An extreme form of separation is called an emotional cutoff. Counter intuitively, people who use emotional cutoffs to solve issues of emotional interdependency (enmeshment) are actually very connected to the person they are trying to leave and they will replicate their need in another relationship.

This explains the person who divorces a spouse only to marry someone very much like the person they left. Or, think of the abused spouse who seems to find only another abuser. Another example of an emotional cutoff might be the son who runs away from his Dad to become his own man, only to find that he finds himself in the same kind of stifling relationship but now with, say, an uncle or boss.

There are a couple of biblical stories that illustrate this well. The story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 27) comes to mind. The story is very involved when you think about it. Isaac is fused to Esau; Rebekah to Jacob. Isaac and Rebekah are in a conflictual relationship that they project on their children. The children, with the help of Rebekah, will resolve the conflict between the boys by having Jacob run away to his uncle. Soon he will find that his unfinished business (the cheating of his brother and father) will continue in his relationship with his uncle Laban. In fact, in time, Jacob will find his new situation twice as bad as what he left. Distance only amplified family process.

Another example of this might be David and his son Absalom's relationship. The Bible records,

Then Joab went to Geshur and brought Absalom back to Jerusalem. But the king said, “He must go to his own house; he must not see my face.” So Absalom went to his own house and did not see the face of the king … Absalom lived two years in Jerusalem without seeing the king’s face. (2 Samuel 14:23–28 NIV; see text for larger story)

Again, physical distance (or time, as in the case of this story) could not resolve the emotional conflict that existed between father and son.

While both Abraham and David's families provide many examples illustrating the validity of FST, there are also plenty of examples arising from congregational life.

Any time in congregation life when we avoid another, we are using distance to manage an enmeshed or poorly defined relationship. Members who come to worship or meetings late, an elder avoiding members "who get to them," meetings that never get around to dealing with the elephant in the room are all examples of how people use distance to manage difficult or uncomfortable relationships.

Some of the more memorable examples in my ministry to date include the couple who would arrive late for worship each week and then when something would happen in the service they did not like, they would leave. What seems odd, when you think about it, is that the couple attended at all. But that is the way of enmeshed relationships: they form loops that get played out over and over again—and will until someone has the courage to call the game.

Church leaders who find themselves using emotional distance to resolves issues have an opportunity to do something different. They can dare to stand where it is uncomfortable. They can choose to reconnect to the person seemingly causing them pain. They can choose to confront what their guts (and the Spirit of God) tells them is the right thing to do.

Or they can choose leave well enough alone—but then they will have to deal with the issue over and over again. The key to managing emotional distance is to take a stand while staying connected to the other. Distance will solve nothing.

Rules of Family Dynamics: Intro

I have previously credited Edwin H. Friedman (Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue [NY: Guildford Press, 1985]) with helping me to understand congregational families and how they function. In previous posts I explored Friedman's conceptual ideas:

• Homeostasis 
• Extended Family Field 
• Identified Patient 
• Differentiation of Self 
• Emotional Triangles 

The two most important terms are homeostasis and differentiation of self. Family will seek to maintain equilibrium and will do what it is necessary to recover whatever previous balance has been lost. Families will often inflict more damage on themselves and others attempting to regain homeostasis and what is often lost by those observing this process, is that the attempt to regain is largely unconscious and automatic. When someone within the system can gain the vantage point to see what is going on in a family and then choose to act differently, this individual is differentiating himself from the system.

For example, husbands and wives often find themselves in the same argument over and over again. One spouse may say something, the other spouse understands the comment to be demeaning, an argument ensues over "semantics," Next one spouse shuts down and becomes sullen, the other spouse pursues, now trying to open the other up. The stalemate sets in. Some time goes by and the cycle starts over again and can go on for some time. The parts are predictable and we are usually willing to play our parts.

Husband: Where did you hide my socks?
Wife: I did not hide them anywhere. Have you looked in your sock drawer?
Husband: I wouldn't be asking you if I had not looked?
Wife: Why are you accusing me of hiding your socks?
Husband: I can't find them (but implying, "so you must have hid them").

Maybe you had this conversation this morning and it usually goes the same way. There are a couple of ways to get out of this cycle but it requires presence of mind. First, the husband who is really just looking for a pair of socks could asks ask, "Do you know if I have any clean socks? Do you know where I should look for them?" That alone, could end the cycle before it begins.

However, we usually don't know that we have said something that someone else could take wrong until they respond. So the wife could derail the normal cycle of what sounds accusatory to her with humor. "Yes, dear, I hid them in the clothes basket by the dryer."

The other three concepts involve realities that either challenge or support family homeostasis. The extended family field creates the larger context in which homeostasis is maintained. All families, including congregational ones, exist is in a larger world of other interconnected relationships. Thus, changes in the extended family field can have an impact on the balance of the various families that are connected to it. Thus, insights into what is going on in the extended family field can explain what might be happening in a particular family within that field.

Families will often create identified patients (black sheep, scapegoats, the one with the problem) to help maintain family balance and lessen the pressure on the other members of the family. At one end, a mother may project her anxiety on a child until the child begins to "act out" the mother's concern. This move can "stabilize" her relationship with her husband so for the time being they don't have to notice the deterioration of their relationship. When churches create identified patients, it is often so the congregation can reduce its sense of responsibility when something has gone wrong.

In each of the examples just given, we have emotional triangles at work. We form triangles in our attempt to stabilize the family or congregation under consideration. Triangles easily create the odd man out and so are places where "false" alliances can form between two people with a common enemy or who have allied together to solves a common problem (usually another person).

I have recapped these concepts to remind us that these concepts are interrelated and will be at work in any given family at all times. During times of anxiety these become more readily visible, but they are always operative.

Friedman goes beyond his original concepts by offering ten "rules" of how families work. These "rules" were not intended to be laws that were immutable but rather points at which one could observe how families work. What I would like to do in the next several posts is repeat Freidman's rules, which are often wordy, and then translate it through my experience of working with families and churches. I hope the church leaders among my readers will find that these ring true with their experience as leaders.

How Family Really Works (2)

In my last blog, I dealt with two of Friedman's Family Systems concepts: Homeostasis, or balance, and extended family field. In part two, I will deal with the remaining concepts: identified patient, differentiation of self, and emotional triangles.

The Identified Patient (IP) is the symptomatic person. In a family (or church) crisis, the member of the family that seems to be having the problem is the identified patient. However, in Family Systems Theory (FST), the identified patient is more accurately the symptom-bearer (or even the scapegoat) of the family's anxieties. Often, in a family, this will be the person with either the greatest responsibility or greatest vulnerability.

A couple of illustrations might help. Johnny is the youngest of three children. He recently starting acting out by hitting other children at school and his grades are suffering. Johnny easily becomes the IP in the family. The family begins to mobilize to "fix" Johnny who clearly has the problem. Oddly, the family counsellor wants to focus on what is going on between Johnny's parents. They are stressed because Dad can't get enough work to keep the family financially stable. Johnny has become concerned that his parents may be on the edge of a divorce. In response to financial stress Mom begins to focus on (project her anxieties on?) Johnny. Within a few weeks, Dad lands a sufficient job, the stress in the family decreases, and Johnny's symptoms disappear.

During intense times, families (and again churches) will create identified patients. One of the roles that the IP serves is  to reduce responsibility in the other members of the family. When a family is fixated on fixing one of their members, you can be sure that other members of the family are not accepting their full responsibility for the current state of things. Furthermore, families can perpetuate the myth that if we can fix another, we will somehow come to paradise. However, this is elusive and just as one IP is solved, another seems to pop up in his or her place.

Biblically, this is the old blame game. When paradise is disrupted it happens around creating IPs. The serpent blames God for the woman's lack of perfection; later the man blames God for giving him the woman in the first place. Every character in this story seeks to make another responsible for their plight.

In church life, ministers are particularly prone to becoming IPs. After all they are the most responsible members of the community as they will certainly receive blame if things don't go well. They are also the most vulnerable members as no one else will have to move if things don't go well. Ministers, therefore, need a strong sense of calling to weather these times. They also need strong resolve to be self-differentiated (next concept).

Let me see if I can illustrate this. Ted was a well-educated, seasoned minister. He had helped his congregation through a particularly difficult time and now things should have been getting better. Yet, he found himself not as engaged in the life of the church. He was tired and a bit listless. The stressful years had left the church more polarized than ever before. One of the polarized factions pressed on the elder board to remove Ted because he just wasn't getting it done as he had earlier. The truth was that entire church systems had not found a new homeostasis after the crisis and this left everyone a bit uneasy. The faction had turned Ted into the IP and the only way to fix it was for the scapegoat to go into the wilderness.

IPs always function so as to absolve communal guilt (responsibility?). One of the best questions to ask when you recognize that someone has become the IP is "Who is not taking responsibility for his role in this situation?"

Differentiation of Self. Friedman considers this concept to be the key to survival within any family system. Differentiation is not a sense of cool detachment; to be self-differentiated is to remain a self (yourself) in the midst of all of our families. Perhaps a good way to get to this idea is to deal with its reverse. Have you ever met a couple who finished each other’s statements, corrected the other, but you were certain that they were running on one battery. It was as if there was not enough "self" there to run both of them. Sometimes these marriages are touted for their harmony and the fact that they never ever argue. Of course, they don't; someone had to become brain dead for both of them to function in the relationship.

 A side note here: when God declared that a husband and wife should become one one, he did not mean either one should be absorbed in the other, but that the two make a new “oneness.” So when a husband and wife becomes one, they should enhance each other and not require the other to become less of a self.

Groupthink would be the opposite of being self-differentiated. A self-differentiated individual can hold to her believes regardless of the fact that everyone else in the room thinks the same thing except her. Being self-differentiated means that you are comfortable where you are though you know that others are in different places. That is, when you state your opinion, and someone states their opinion, you don't change your mind just to agree with them. Being self-differentiated will allow you to change your mind, if so persuaded, but not simply to keep peace at all cost.

Within a crisis, a self-differentiated person will be affected by the anxiety of others but not infected.

This is a difficult concept because it is paradoxical. A self-differentiated person will both take a stand and remain connected to those creating or generating the anxiety. As Friedman would remind us, no one is perfectly self-differentiated: we are always both an individual and a member of families. As humans, we have simultaneous needs to be "me" and "we," that is, the need to be separate and together at the same time.

Emotional Triangles are actually commonplace in human relationships. Our most satisfying relationships are those involving us and one other person; these relationships can be quite intense. However, they also have the tendency to  be quite unstable. When a relationship begins to destabilize, we will reinforce it by bringing in a third person or issue. We create issues to refocus the relationship so that the relationship is not so uncomfortable; we bring in a third person either as an ally to fix the other person and thus reduce the discomfort of the relationship. Triangles are fluid and shift rapidly within and between relationships. Triangles both serve to stabilize anxious one-on-one relationships as well as creating an ally should the one-on-one relationship fall apart or become imbalanced. Triangles are the social device we commonly use to restore homeostasis.

Here is an illustration I use often to illustrate triangles. A mother and daughter are interlocked in conflict since the daughter has taken up smoking. The mother had given up smoking years ago and so she has experience with the addictive side of smoking. However, the more she prevails upon her daughter to quit, the more the teen seems to smoke and the more public her smoking becomes. The mother has pleaded, warned, cajoled, and even belittled the daughter to get her to quit. Little does the mother know that her daughter's smoking is not the "problem.” In Family System thinking, there is really only one argument: "You don't look like me and I insist that you do."Smoking becomes a red herring here. What is really awry here is that the mother and daughter's relationship has deteriorated to the point that all they can now talk about is the daughter's smoking. So now every time they are together, the subject always comes up.

Imagine now, given what you know about the mother and daughter, that the daughter happens into a new relationship with a boy. The chances are great that the mother will not like the boyfriend, no matter how noble he is. Since the "real" issue is what is happening between the mother and daughter, nothing the daughter does will be appropriate to the mother. However, the conversation might shift from smoking to how much time she is spending with the boyfriend. If mother harangues on about the boyfriend, there is a greater than even chance that daughter will run off with the boyfriend.

The previous scenarios have used "issues" as the third point of the triangle. People are also triangled into unstable relationships. Just a guess, but I would bet the hypothetical mom above is in conflict with her mother and that the daughter gets along wonderfully with her grandmother.

If a church is in crisis, then triangles will be present and morphing throughout the congregation. Typical triangles you find in the church would be, say, leading members of the congregation not on the board against the board of elders with the minister mediating between the two. Another example might be an elder's wife against the minister with her husband as the go-between. 

For a good biblical example of triangles, remember Isaac and Rebekkah and their two sons. Isaac favored Esau against Rebekkah/Isaac while Rebekkah favored Isaac against Isaac/Esau. There are many more triangles at work in the children of Abraham and Sarah.

Summary. This blog and the previous covered the most important concept for understanding how families really work. These five concepts give you tools to begin to see congregational and family life in a new light.

In the next several posts, I will be exploring Friedman's ten "rules" of family process which I have found immensely helpful in understanding congregational dynamics.

---

Speical Thanks to Heath Vogel from Mandleville Christian Church for proofing this piece. All mistakes remaining are his! Just kidding. Thanks Heath.