All In the Family: The Triangle
Have you ever seen a genogram? I find them fascinating, but they may look like chicken scratch to the uninformed.
And, as you may notice if you ever see one, family systems therapists, or therapists who view a dysfunction in terms of the family rather than the individual, are into shapes.
A line, a squiggle, a square with an 'X' through it--these make our days.
But the fundamental unit of relationship is that beautiful, potentially-pythogorean shape: the triangle.
Of course, you might argue, isn't the fundamental unit of relationship the line? I mean, you put two people together and bang--there's a relationship.
However, Murray Bowen, one of the pioneers of family therapy and founders of family systems theory, maintained that the two-person system was unstable, and thus, under stress, it will draw in a third to stabilize, either so that two can help one, or--in that classic triple-dorm-room-horror dynamic--so that there can be two against one.
It's not really that shocking, if you think about it.
How many times have you fought with your spouse, and, within minutes of the argument ending, been on the phone to your friend or mother, drawing them into your dyadic difficulties? This, says Bowen, is an attempt to alleviate discomfort--but usually works out poorly.
More common, and more relevant for my purposes here, is that a family itself usually creates its own triangle, which is an effort, often, to avoid dealing with matters that would be best dealt with between two people.
If you ever see a partial genogram of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt's family, you'll see the shape clearly--it doesn't take a trained set of eyes.
There's a squiggly line in between Eleanor and her mother-in-law, and three lines connecting Franklin to his mother.
If you know anything about the Roosevelt's family dynamics, before you read on, see if you can guess what that triangle indicates.
Well, three lines indicate a very close or fused relationship, and a squiggle shows the relationship to be poor or conflictual.
[See Monica McGoldrick's and Randy Gerson's Genogram's in Family Assessment for an explanation of all genogram symbols.
] So it's clear that Franklin was extremely close, borderline enmeshed, with his mother, Sara.
Not too surprisingly, Sara and Eleanor had a distant and conflictual relationship.
This is a classic in-law triangle; one with which many of you might be familiar.
Beyond that, if you continue the connections to the next generation, as McGoldrick and Gerson do, you will find that Franklin had an enmeshed relationship with his own eldest daughter, Anna, much as he had with his mother--nd Eleanor had a distant and conflicted one with that same daughter.
It is at this point that genograms begin to really earn their keep, for, while, without interviewing the players, it is difficult to know for sure, it does seem clear that Eleanor struggled with the very same women with whom Franklin most connected, a pattern that most likely contributed to their somewhat distant marriage.
McGoldrick mentions a couple of classic triangles in families, and one is that age-old triangulation that occurs between a son, his wife, and his mother.
For of course, hasn't the wife (if we penetrate some mothers' subconsciousnesses) really stolen her son, from right out of her clutches? McGoldrick and Gerson do fascinating analyses of famous families in their book--and it's an interesting read.
But I'd like to pose a challenge for you.
True, we all like to see ourselves in famous people, I suppose--but isn't it just a touch easier to relate to the mundane? If you go through several generations of your own family history, where do you see triangles? And how have those helped shape the relationships you have today, perhaps not always in the most positive ways? I'm certain the triangle, that fundamental unit of connection, is there for you-and might explain your own relationships in an illuminating way.
Good luck connecting those lines!
And, as you may notice if you ever see one, family systems therapists, or therapists who view a dysfunction in terms of the family rather than the individual, are into shapes.
A line, a squiggle, a square with an 'X' through it--these make our days.
But the fundamental unit of relationship is that beautiful, potentially-pythogorean shape: the triangle.
Of course, you might argue, isn't the fundamental unit of relationship the line? I mean, you put two people together and bang--there's a relationship.
However, Murray Bowen, one of the pioneers of family therapy and founders of family systems theory, maintained that the two-person system was unstable, and thus, under stress, it will draw in a third to stabilize, either so that two can help one, or--in that classic triple-dorm-room-horror dynamic--so that there can be two against one.
It's not really that shocking, if you think about it.
How many times have you fought with your spouse, and, within minutes of the argument ending, been on the phone to your friend or mother, drawing them into your dyadic difficulties? This, says Bowen, is an attempt to alleviate discomfort--but usually works out poorly.
More common, and more relevant for my purposes here, is that a family itself usually creates its own triangle, which is an effort, often, to avoid dealing with matters that would be best dealt with between two people.
If you ever see a partial genogram of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt's family, you'll see the shape clearly--it doesn't take a trained set of eyes.
There's a squiggly line in between Eleanor and her mother-in-law, and three lines connecting Franklin to his mother.
If you know anything about the Roosevelt's family dynamics, before you read on, see if you can guess what that triangle indicates.
Well, three lines indicate a very close or fused relationship, and a squiggle shows the relationship to be poor or conflictual.
[See Monica McGoldrick's and Randy Gerson's Genogram's in Family Assessment for an explanation of all genogram symbols.
] So it's clear that Franklin was extremely close, borderline enmeshed, with his mother, Sara.
Not too surprisingly, Sara and Eleanor had a distant and conflictual relationship.
This is a classic in-law triangle; one with which many of you might be familiar.
Beyond that, if you continue the connections to the next generation, as McGoldrick and Gerson do, you will find that Franklin had an enmeshed relationship with his own eldest daughter, Anna, much as he had with his mother--nd Eleanor had a distant and conflicted one with that same daughter.
It is at this point that genograms begin to really earn their keep, for, while, without interviewing the players, it is difficult to know for sure, it does seem clear that Eleanor struggled with the very same women with whom Franklin most connected, a pattern that most likely contributed to their somewhat distant marriage.
McGoldrick mentions a couple of classic triangles in families, and one is that age-old triangulation that occurs between a son, his wife, and his mother.
For of course, hasn't the wife (if we penetrate some mothers' subconsciousnesses) really stolen her son, from right out of her clutches? McGoldrick and Gerson do fascinating analyses of famous families in their book--and it's an interesting read.
But I'd like to pose a challenge for you.
True, we all like to see ourselves in famous people, I suppose--but isn't it just a touch easier to relate to the mundane? If you go through several generations of your own family history, where do you see triangles? And how have those helped shape the relationships you have today, perhaps not always in the most positive ways? I'm certain the triangle, that fundamental unit of connection, is there for you-and might explain your own relationships in an illuminating way.
Good luck connecting those lines!
