Bowenian Approach

     Despite the importance that Bowen’s theory had on establishing marriage and family therapy, there has been no evidence that supports the theory as true (Brown, 2015; Nichols, 2014).  Research involving the Bowen Family System theory tends to review the validity of the approach rather than its effectiveness (Brown, 2015).  There are several criticisms of the Bowen Family Systems theory.  First, by focusing on the extended family patterns and genograms, the therapy tools remove attention from the nuclear family (Nichols, 2014).  Another argument that questions the theory’s fundamental beliefs is that maturity and differentiation are linked, and therefore, it becomes difficult to say that differentiation is essential in reducing anxiety.  An extremely mature person may have high levels of anxiety.  Empirical research testing the clinical effectiveness of this theory is fairly rare (Murray, 2006; Nichols, 2014).

     Further, feminist theories believe that the Bowen Family Systems Theory encourages a gender disparity in which the therapist takes a neutral, non-blaming stance for violent behaviors.  This neutral stance implies that each individual is equally responsible for violent actions, sharing both responsibility and power (Murray, 2006).  Critics also suggest that the blame is shifted more towards the victim and less on the abuser because the theory forces the individual to be less anxious and reduce sensitivity (Murray, 2006).  These critics go even further to suggest that the open dialogue and use of I-statements in the therapy provides the abuser with additional information that he or she could use to further manipulate the victim.  Further, the lack of defining the abuser’s role in this therapy can provide a level of empowerment for the abuser.  As mentioned previously, it is important to note that the Bowen Family System Theory has been banned from several states in batterer’s intervention programs due to this shared responsibility outlook (Murray, 2006).

     Bowen’s theory further suggests that one should not think with emotions, but rather gain the ability to be a strong, differentiated-self that will allow one to have reduced anxiety (Knudson-Martin, 1994; Murray, 2006).  Therefore, critics suggest that Bowen disvalued any human who is in-tune with his or her emotions.  Females, in general, tend to be more emotionally-driven, and if Bowen is correct, then it is suggested that females cannot achieve a well differentiated self and therefore cannot have successful relationships (Knudson-Martin, 1994).  Relying on the two parallels suggested by Bowen, togetherness and differentiation does not allow for any middle ground and suggests that they will not be successful in developing relationships (Knudson-Martin, 1994; Murray, 2006; Nichols, 2014).  Therefore, critics see this the therapy suggesting that one should not rely on others for trust and growth (Knudson-Martin, 1994).  However, often this is how one develops his or her own voice and understanding of their own position.  In conclusion, although Bowen Family Systems Theory has solid fundamental ideas, practitioners and researchers have yet to decide whether or not the theory is “true” (Nichols, 2014, pp. 85).