See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324863351
            The Cultural Lens Approach to Bowen Family Systems Theory: Contributions
            of Family Change Theory
            Article  in  Journal of Family Theory & Review · April 2018
            DOI: 10.1111/jftr.12258
            CITATIONS                                                              READS
            0                                                                      148
            2 authors:
                   Gizem Erdem                                                             Ommay Safi
                   Koc University                                                          Koc University
                   28 PUBLICATIONS   315 CITATIONS                                         3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
                     SEE PROFILE                                                             SEE PROFILE
             All content following this page was uploaded by Gizem Erdem on 02 May 2018.
             The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
                                            GizemErdem andOmmayAimanSafi                               KoçUniversity
                         TheCultural Lens Approach to Bowen Family
                    Systems Theory: Contributions of Family Change
                                                                          Theory
                 An accumulation of theoretical and empirical                         Bowen, 1972, 1978) has been a prominent
                 work focuses on expanding Bowen family sys-                          systemic perspective guiding research and
                 temstheory(BFST)tobemoreculturallyexpan-                             practice in the field. BFST has evolved in its
                 sive by including gender, ethnicity, race, social                    premises, concepts, and clinical applications
                 class, and sexual orientation, as well as fam-                       over the past 3 decades thanks to the critical
                 ily history, values, and rituals. In the current                     contributions of family scholars who brought in
                 article, we contribute to the discussion of cul-                     discussion of culture through ethnicity and race
                 ture in BFST and move the question of diver-                         (Boyd-Franklin, 1989), gender (Hare-Mustin,
                 sity from how family processes are different to                      1987), and social class as contexts of systemic
                 whytheyaredifferent. Utilizing Hardin and col-                       family processes (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980,
                 leagues cultural lens approach, we discuss the                      1988;Falicov,1995).Later,thedefinitionofcul-
                 cultural validity of BFST, more specifically the                     ture in family science was expanded to include
                 conceptofdifferentiationofselfanditspremises,                        sexual orientation and disability (Sherif Trask
                 in five steps. Further, we propose the integration                   & Hamon, 2007). Contextualizing systemic
                 ofKagıtçıbası¸ sfamilychangetheoryandCarter                         transactions, particularly BFST premises, with
                        ˘
                 andMcGoldricksmulticulturalperspectivewith                          a cultural lens called for a paradigm shift in
                 BFSTandofferculturalexamples.Potentialcon-                           family therapy research and practice, especially
                 tributions and limitations of the cultural lens                      in the ways we conceptualize and study human
                 approachinexpandingourunderstandingBFST                              development and family relationships (Carter &
                 are discussed, as are implications for research                      McGoldrick, 1980, 1988).
                 and clinical practice.                                                   While BFST research and practice became
                                                                                      moreculturallyinclusiveanddiverse,definitions
                                       Background                                     of culture and trends in the study of culturally
                                                                                      diverse families expanded greatly over the years
                 From the earliest development of family ther-                        (Sherif Trask & Hamon, 2007). For instance,
                 apy, Bowen family systems theory (BFST;                              Sue and Sue (2013) defined culture as shared
                                                                                      experiences and social influences of religion,
                                                                                      sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and
                 Department of Psychology, Koç University, Rumelifeneri               social class, whereas Gardiner and Kosmitzki
                                     ˙                                                (2005) defined culture as a “cluster of learned
                 Yolu Cad. Sariyer, Istanbul, 34450                                   and shared beliefs, practices, behaviors, sym-
                 (gizemerdem@ku.edu.tr).
                 Key Words: Autonomy–relatedness, Bowen family systems                bols, and attitudes that are characteristics of a
                 theory, cultural lens approach, differentiation of self, family      particular group of people” (p. 4). The differ-
                 change theory, self-construal.                                       ences between definitions are subtle but crucial.
                                                     Journal of Family Theory & Review (2018)                                                       1
                                                                   DOI:10.1111/jftr.12258
          2                                                                   Journal of Family Theory & Review
          The latter defines culture more broadly as the         Onefactor is chronic anxiety, which stems from
          shared way of life of a group of people (shared        the dilemma of maintaining self while making
          attitudes, beliefs, norms, roles, interpretations,     meaningful connections with significant others.
          self-definitions, and values) that is organized        The second key factor is differentiation of self,
          around a theme (Berry, Poortinga, Breugel-             defined as adaptive strategies to regulate chronic
          mans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011; Triandis, 2001).         anxiety.Onceindividualsareabletomanageand
          Such a broad definition of culture emphasizes          tolerate the dilemma of conflicting and recurring
          psychological processes that can affect indi-          forces to favor togetherness and separateness
          viduals behavior rather than contextualizing          in the family system, they have healthy levels
          culture  through solely externalized factors           of DoS. Only then can they engage in healthy
          through shared symbols, objects, and language.         intimate relationships, initially in their families
          Other definitions of culture also have included        of origin and later in their families of procre-
          intergenerational and historical processes that        ation. Achieving this balance of separateness
          preclude culture as a groups shared meaning           and connectedness is a lifelong and dynamic
          that is transmitted across generations (e.g.,          process that is universal to all human beings as a
          Matsumoto&Yoo,2006;McGoldrick,2011).                   fundamentaldilemma;itcutsacrossallfamilies.
             Given variations in definitions of culture, we         DoS is a central concept in BFST because
          use Hardin, Robitschek, Flores, Navarro, and           it determines how roles, rules, and boundaries
          Ashtons (2014) cultural lens approach (CLA)           are constructed in the family; how alliances and
          to enhance our understanding of BFST. CLA is           triangulations occur and are transmitted to fam-
          a stepwise approach to systematically analyze          ilies of procreation; and more important, how
          cultural validity of psychological theories, that      we define functional versus dysfunctional fam-
          is, “the extent to which premises and concepts         ily systems. In addition, DoS manifests itself in
          of a theory are generalizable across, equally rel-     both intra- and interpersonal levels. It simulta-
          evant to, or equally useful to diverse groups”         neously refers to how one makes a distinction
          (Hardin et al., 2014, p. 656). In the current arti-    between thought and emotional processes and
          cle, we apply Hardin et al.s (2014) guidelines        howonerelatestosignificantotherswhilemain-
          to discuss cultural validity of the BFST (1978)        taining coherent sense of self (Kerr & Bowen,
          and more specifically the concept of differentia-      1988).
          tion of self (DoS). To that end, we followed five         Anaccumulationofempiricalevidenceonthe
          steps, from operational definitions of theory to       validity and utility of Bowens (1978) concept of
          more sophisticated analysis of culture-specific        DoSanditsassociationwithindividualandfam-
          and universal aspects of its premises. Table 1         ily functioning exists. Indeed, empirical support
          presents goals of each step as adapted from            has been found for BFSTs major concepts and
          Hardin et al. (2014), paired with specific ques-       premises (i.e., differentiation of self, multigen-
          tions we generated regarding cultural validity of      erational transmission; see Miller, Anderson,
          the BFST.                                              & Keala, 2004, for a review). Further, several
                                                                 well-validated measures of DoS have been used
                Step 1: Definitions of BFSTs Central            to provide evidence for BFST premises and
                 Constructs in Theory and Research               constructs, such as the Adult Behavioral and
                                                                 Emotional Reactivity Index (Adult BERI) by
          Bowen(1978)definedfamilybothasarelation-               Bartle-Haring and Sabatelli (1995) and the Dif-
          ship system and an emotional system whereby            ferentiation of Self Inventory-Revised (DSI-R)
          family members influence and are influenced by         by Skowron and Schmitt (2003).
          one another at individual, dyadic, systemic, and          Additionally, research has shown that in
          intergenerational levels. Borrowing concepts           healthy families, individual family members
          fromgeneralsystemstheory(Bertalanffy,1969),            tend to develop differentiation and skills for
          Bowenproposedthatthefamily,asaunitofanal-              affectregulationthatareassociatedwithpsycho-
          ysis, is governed by similar rules of other “natu-     logical adjustment, well-being, and self-control
          ral systems,” and thus is quite similar to groups      (Sandage &Jankowski,2010;Skowron,Wester,
          of nonhuman animals and other species. He fur-         & Azen, 2004). Furthermore, high levels of
          ther argued that there are two principal factors       DoSpredictbetterinterpersonalfunctioningand
          that are uniquely human and are attributable to        higher marital satisfaction and quality (Gub-
          the family functioning (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).           bins, Perosa, & Bartle-Haring, 2010; Lampis,
                BowenFamilySystemsandFamilyChange                                                                                               3
                Table 1. The Cultural Lens Approach to Evaluating Cultural Validity of Psychological Theory
                StepGoal (Hardin et al., 2014)                              Relevant Questions for BFST and DoS
                1    Articulate how central constructs have been defined • How is DoS defined conceptually in BFST?
                        (implicitly or explicitly) and thus operationalized • What is the operational definition of DoS in empirical research?
                        in past research
                2    Identify the groups (a) from which these definitions • Who are the research participants in studies testing BFST
                        have been derived and (b) to which the constructs      premises and DoS?
                        have either not been applied or with which          •WhichBFSTconstructshavebeentestedandapplied, and which
                        surprising results have been found                     have not been tested?
                                                                            •Arethereanymixedfindings in BFST research?
                3    Identify relevant dimensions underlying cultural       •Whatdoweknowabouttheculturalcontextsofdifferent social
                        variability                                            groups?
                4    Evaluate the definitions/operationalizations of the    •HowcanweredefineDoSgivenourknowledgeofcultural
                        central constructs (from Step 1) in the context of     context of different groups?
                        broader cultural knowledge about those groups       •HowcanweexpandtheconceptofDoSinparticularandBFST
                        (from Step 3)                                          in general to expand its cultural validity?
                5    Derive research questions and specific hypotheses      •Whatarepotential contributions of integrating a cultural lens into
                        based on the questions and answers from Step 4         BFSTresearch and practice?
                                                                            •WhatnewBFSTrelatedresearchquestionsandhypotheses can
                                                                               wegenerate using this cultural lens?
                Busonera, Cataudella, Tommasi, & Skowron,                           supported the basic premise that high levels
                2016; Peleg, 2008; Timm & Keiley, 2011).                            of DoS were associated with better mental
                    Consistent with BFST, low levels of DoS are                     health, well-being, and relationship satisfac-
                closely linked to dysfunctional relational and                      tion and quality. Participants included couples
                personal processes. Individuals with low levels                     from university training clinics (e.g., Knerr
                of DoSexperiencehigherpsychological distress                        & Bartle-Haring, 2010) and community (e.g.,
                (Krycak, Murdock, & Marszalek, 2012), daily                         Gubbins, Perosa, & Bartle-Haring, 2010; Timm
                stress (Murdock & Gore, 2004), and mental                           & Keiley, 2011), as well as high school (e.g.,
                health issues such as anxiety, depression, som-                     Knauthet al., 2006), college (e.g., Krycak, Mur-
                atization, and obsessive–compulsive symptoms                        dock, & Marszalek, 2012; Skowron, Stanley, &
                (Jankowski & Hooper, 2012; Knauth, Skowron,                         Shapiro, 2009), and/or graduate students (e.g.,
                & Esobar, 2006). Moreover, individuals with                         Murdock & Gore, 2004; Sandage & Jankowski,
                higher emotional reactivity and emotional cut-                      2010). Samples were predominantly White,
                off (i.e., low DoS) report having greater inter-                    non-Hispanic,middletouppermiddleclass,and
                personal problems (Wei, Vogel, Ku, & Zakalik,                       highly educated. One exception is Gushue and
                2005).Takentogether,thereisempiricalsupport                         Constantines (2003) study, which questioned
                for the basic premises of BFST and DoS at indi-                     whetherBFSTconstructsare“simplyreflections
                vidual, relational, and family levels.                              of White cultural values” (p. 2) and examined
                                                                                    levels of DoS among African American female
                  Step 2. Identification of the Groups for Which                    college students.
                   BFSTConstructs Have Been Applied or Not                              Nevertheless,       few studies tested BFST
                Most of the aforementioned research testing                         premises in non-U.S. contexts. Those interna-
                BFST premises and its constructs was con-                           tional studies usually indicated either mixed
                ducted in the United States. The central BFST                       findings or findings in the unexpected direction
                constructs examined in those studies were emo-                      despite thoroughly replicating the measures
                tional reactivity, fusion with others, I-position,                  and sampling procedures in the original BFST
                andemotionalcutoffasindicatorsofDoS.Other                           studies. For instance, a study in South Korea
                constructs of interest included family system                       (Kim et al., 2014) investigated the association
                processes such as triangulation and multigener-                     between the BFST constructs (DoS, I-position,
                ational transmission of DoS. Overall, the studies                   fusion, emotional reactivity, and emotional