Insight into who will respond better in a crisis
/A person’s capacity for healthy outcomes during difficulties is tied to their ability to define their life’s goals and values apart from the surrounding pressure to conform to a particular viewpoint.
In his book Generation to Generation, Edwin Friedman offers a way to test resistance to togetherness pressures, that is, possessing the power to say “I” when others are demanding “you” and “we.”
When presented with an issue that does not include “should” and “musts” some listeners will respond in a way that better defines themselves (such as “I agree” or “I disagree”). This person is likely to function well (emotionally) during a crisis. Other people may respond by attempting to define the speaker (comments like “How can you say that when…” or “After saying that I wonder if you are really one of us”). This indicates the person will likely resist progress toward healthy outcomes during crises and difficulties. People who more clearly define themselves are also more likely to take personal responsibility, whereas those who focus on the speaker are more likely to blame outside forces for their situations.
One of the founding fathers of family therapy, Murray Bowen, suggested the capacity to define one’s own life’s goals and values apart from surrounding pressure, that is, to be a “relatively nonanxious presence in the midst of anxious systems” is an indication of taking “maximum responsibility for one’s own destiny and emotional being.” It shows up in “the breadth of one’s repertoire of responses when confronted with crisis.” The concept shouldn’t be confused with narcissism. For Bowen, differentiation means the capacity to be an “I” while remaining connected.
Stephen Goforth