​How well do you pay attention?  Remember the grade school report cards?  When I was in elementary school, we were graded on whether or not we made good use of our time, or how well we pay attention in class?  It's not just kids who have problems paying attention.  Adults struggle, too.
 
Our amazing brains process sensory inputs automatically.  Most of these inputs are processed without conscious awareness.  The human depends on the nervous system to react automatically to the environment, especially a threat.  If the human consciously processed all sensory inputs before it acted, our species would be extinct.  This is the human condition.  It’s more than just having awareness. 
 
Some clergy can get themselves into serious trouble.  When clergy behave inappropriately it’s a problem for supervisors, and it can have a lasting impact on a congregation.  I used to believe that clergy (who got into trouble) lacked awareness.  Awareness is what boards of ordained ministry look for in candidates.  Some people are oblivious to the impact they are having on others, and the impact others are having on them.  But, it is not simply an issue of having awareness.
 
It is possible to “watch” (aka: have an awareness of) what is happening around oneself and still do what is automatic.  In a congregational meeting, one can be clear about what one wants to say but struggle to bring themselves to say it.  It can also be the case that one struggles not to say something that will be counterproductive to the meeting.  They say it anyway.  It's as if they cant help themselves.  Paying attention and acting in a way that is consistent with one’s awareness is a challenge.
 
Paying attention includes activities like observing, researching and thinking.  There is a process of observing.  It includes intentionality, motivation and curiosity.  It’s not in our nature to walk around every moment of every day observing the universe around us.  But when one is intentional, motivated and curious it can lead to agency and action.  
 
The greatest obstacle to the process of paying attention is the fear response.  I’m sitting in a coffee shop trying to pay attention as I write this blog.  Around me are sounds of children laughing, music playing, people talking on their cell phones, and bursts of sounds from the espresso machine.  On some days, I can tune all of it out and focus on writing.  On other days, it’s almost impossible to . . . to . . . to . . . focus.  Then there are days when my attention is somewhere in the middle.  What makes the difference?  The activation and chronic level of the fear response, the levels of cortisol and other stress hormones released in the body and the bodies ability to down-regulate this process. 
 
What triggers the fear response, how sensitive the response is, how quickly the response is engaged, how intense the response is, how quickly the response returns to baseline (if at all) and how chronic the response remains are all variables that are influenced by one’s family of origin.  What we pay attention to and don’t pay attention to is a family systems process.  Not from the past but in the present!  It is happening now, in real time.
 
Attention is on a continuum of human functioning.  At one end of the continuum are those who pay little to no attention to the universe around them.  They are wrapped up in their own little world. At the other end are people who can get overly fixated on just about anything.  I lead a drum circle with children and youth in my congregation.  The key to playing in a drum circle is the ability to focus on playing a unique rhythm while at the same time playing in sync with the other drummers who are playing a different rhythm.  If one listens too much to everyone else, they lose track of their rhythm.  If one listens only to oneself, they will be out of sync with the group.  It’s a balance. 
 
Chronic anxiety can shift attention either away from others or towards others.  As anxiety goes up in the relationship system, some people automatically move their attention away from others.  Their level of discomfort moves them to disconnect and to shift their focus away to other things.  For some, an increase in anxiety moves their attention towards others to control the behavior of others.  In the former, we say “I’m out of here.  Get away from me.”  In the latter, we say, “Stop doing that.  Do this.”
 
Differentiation of self makes a difference for those who struggle with paying attention.  Differentiation of self is not about disengaging nor is it about becoming consumed with the behavior (irritating as it may seem) of others.  It is about being aware of the impulse to do either and then to catch oneself.  It’s a disruption of the automatic response in self.  At one level, it is watching one’s behavior knowing that it is the result of synaptic signaling in the brain.  At another level, it is watching the anxious "charge" that is passed between people in a relationship system and observing how it influences behavior.  It is separating feelings from thinking and knowing where one stops and others begin.
 
Learning to pay attention is about slowing down one’s internal reactivity to others and being more thoughtful in the interactions with others.  To this end, it may be useful to create a timeline of a specific interaction with someone important in the family.  The timeline consists of mapping out who says what, when, where and to whom while at the same time tracking behavior.  This exercise can be useful in understanding shifts in attention.  When one says “X,” the spouse does “Y.”  When the spouse does “Y,” one of the kids does “Z.”  And so on.  By slowing down the interactions and mapping them out, it is possible to observe how attention shifts away from and towards others.  It is a system, so X, Y and Z are influencing each other at the same time.  
 
For anyone willing to pay attention to how the family works, there is a treasure trove of understanding and opportunities available to even the most novice of voyagers.  The adventure awaits!

A member of the congregation is upset.  They are concerned about the finances of the congregation.  They go to the chair of the finance committee to request a detailed transaction report for the year.  You are the chair of the finance committee.  What do you do?
 
Transparency is a necessity.  Trust between a congregation and its leadership is essential.  Trust will quickly erode if there is a perception of secrecy or an accusation of mismanagement.  Even when a congregation is without conflict,  leaders can be reluctant to publish financial details.  So, what does transparency look like?
 
The first step in developing transparency is to adopt clear policies and procedures about the disclosure of financial details.  Having agreement on the following list is helpful:

1. What information will be available to the congregation?
2. How often will the information be provided to the congregation?
3. How will the information be distributed?
4. What information is considered confidential?
5. Who will have access to confidential information?
6. How will leadership respond to requests for information or general questions?
7. How will leadership keep the congregation informed of financial details?
8. How regularly will they be informed?

 
Without access to financial information, a congregation will fill in the gaps on their own.
​ 
Chronic anxiety is the perception of fear.  Without access to facts, we tend to worry about the “what ifs.”  Worry can feel real.  When people have access to facts they are in a better position to manage their worry.  To be transparent is to provide facts. 
 
Leaders may decide to withhold specific information to keep the congregation from worrying or because they fear the perceived response of the congregation.  But this assumes that the congregation doesn't have a clue about what's really going on.  In my experience, congregations are astute to perceiving anxiety in their leadership.  Humans have a way of communicating anxiety in subtle but detectable ways.  There is really no way to fool a relationship system.  People know when something is up. 

When members of a congregation sense the anxiety of leadership, it heightens their anxiety about the well-being of the congregation.  This back and forth, reciprocal process, results in an escalation of tension between leaders and members. The best way to address the problem is by communicating facts as they happen.  Prolonging bad news with the hope that people won’t know or find out is wishful thinking and it never ends well.
 
When leaders fear transparency, they often blame it on the congregation.  But it actually reveals the fear of the leaders.  Leaders are afraid to communicate details because they lack the capacity to confidently engage the anxiety of the congregation.  The fear response of the leader makes them more reluctant to be transparent which raises the level of fear of the congregation and increases the tension in the relationship system.  Leaders who are able to lean into the problems of an organization are able to find the solutions they need to move forward.  This is the work of differentiation of self. 
 
When leaders work on differentiation of self:

• Leaders manage their own anxiety.
• Leaders work with facts.
• Leaders declare their intention and commitment to resolve problems.
• Leaders think about the long-term goals of the organization.
• Leaders disrupt reactivity and a short-term focus.
• Leaders articulate a problem with facts, not emotional opinions.
• Leaders articulate what they are up against in solving a problem with facts, not feelings.
• Leaders anticipate the reactivity of others.
• Leaders listen to and respect the various opinions of others.
• Leaders step back to allow others to use their strengths and gifts.
• Leaders do not disengage or give up but continue to engage the congregation in conversations in order to solve a problem.
• Leaders readjust their thinking based on the responsible and fact-based feedback of others. 

Transparency is a relationship process.  It’s important for leaders, particularly clergy, to develop a one to one relationship with key members of the congregation.  A one to one relationship goes a long way in reducing tension in the relationship system.  
 
The best solutions for financial problems come not from leaders but from thinking congregations.  The test of any leader is the ability to share facts about a congregation’s finances without sharing their anxiety.  Problem-solving begins when leaders are willing to tone down their emotional intensity and reactivity to a problem.  When leaders lean into a problem, they discover that their congregation is a wealth of ideas and solutions.  When leaders give the congregation access to facts it goes a long way in helping a congregation solve whatever challenge they face.

 
I recently had a conversation with someone about self-regulation.  Self-regulation is the ability to control or adjust one’s functioning without depending on others.  One way to think about it is the capacity to regulate thoughts, feelings, and actions independent of others.  At infancy, bodily regulation is dependent on others, particularly the mother.  Fathers have some influence.  As we develop into adulthood, we decrease the dependency on others and increase the capacity to self-regulate.  No one ever makes it all the way!  We enter adulthood with a mix of both.  Dr. Murray Bowen developed this idea in his concept of differentiation of self.  You can read about it by clicking here.
 
The extent to which any one of us can self-regulate is connected to a couple of factors.  These factors include the capacity of the parents to self-regulate, the amount of tension in the family during a child’s development, the level of anxiety in the family, and the way previous generations managed tension and anxiety.  Adult children leave the family with more or less the same capacity to self-regulate as parents.  Some do a little bit better, some do a little bit worse.  But it’s roughly the same.
 
When adult children leave the family to start a new one, they hook up with someone who has a similar capacity to self-regulate.  Whatever dependency is leftover from the family of origin will be managed in this new relationship through a process of reciprocity.  For example, one spouse may be vulnerable to health problems while the other spouse is consistently healthy.  I had someone tell me, after the death of their spouse, that they were surprised to discover how their overall health had improved.  In the marriage, they were always sick, and the other was always healthy.  Now that the spouse was gone, their general health was improving. 
 
Individual models dominate most approaches to improving functioning.  People work at doing better as if it’s completely about them.  New Year’s is coming up.  Resolutions are usually about doing a better job of self-regulating.  “I’m going to lose weight.”  “I’m going to learn to play the cello.”  “I’m going to read more novels.”  These resolutions represent efforts to self-regulate behavior.  But without an understanding of the family emotional process, people generally fail in their individually focused efforts.  The challenges we face to regulate ourselves are remnants (the stuff leftover) from our childhood.  It represents our dependency on others to function.  The challenge is to finish the unfinished work of growing up. 
 
There is a natural developmental process of staying focused on what is important to self.  This process of staying focused is disrupted to a greater and lesser degree by the amount of tension and anxiety in the family.  As the level of anxiety in the family increases, the force of togetherness pulls individuals away from self-regulation towards the family which operates as one emotional unit.  It’s not unusually for people to miss this.  It’s automatic.  The phrase that best describes this process is learning to “catch yourself.”  It’s difficult to do, to be sure!  Most people can identify it happens after the fact.  So, how can we learn to catch ourselves earlier in the process?
 
Learning to catch oneself requires what I call the three C’s: clear, calm, and connected.  The first “C” is about being clear about how the family emotional process influences individual functioning.  Sometimes it’s simply an awareness that there is a process and then “seeing” it at work.  The second “C” is about staying calmer than everyone else in the family to observe the family emotional process and how it impacts each person in the family.  The third “C” is about getting connected with everyone in the family.  You can only observe this process if you are connected to everyone else.  
 
Beyond these three steps, there are no specific techniques.  It is a learn-as-you-go process.  A coach who is a good thinker can make a big difference.  Being curious, inquisitive, observational, interested, motivated, and organized can all contribute to this process of catching oneself, and lead one to doing a better job of self-regulating.  The effort to pay attention to one’s functioning while at the same time observing the functioning of others can lead to better self-regulation.  In my experience, as one works on observing the family emotional process, one can catch oneself sooner with practice.

There are several organizations I admire and respect.  One of them posted a prayer on Facebook written by a social justice advocate.  The prayer was published mid-June.  To be honest so much has happened nationally in the last eight months, I can’t remember the social context that prompted the post.  I find the prayer to be a good example of how institutions and social movements try to persuade people to be socially aware of the needs of others and less selfish.
 
Here is a sample of the prayer:
 
O God,
teach us what it means to live in grace — not just for ourselves,
but for the collective whole.
We have been individuals for far too long,
and in that individualism, we’ve forgotten how to hold each other.
 
I’ve said prayers like this in worship.  These words have a theological ring to them that many believers resonate with, regardless of their faith.  The individual is sinful.  The community is virtuous.  Selfish behavior is a challenge for covenant communities.  It’s one thing conservatives and progressives agree on.  For conservatives, selfish behavior leads to alcoholism, drug addiction, and a whole host of poor choices which harm the family.  Think seven deadly sins.  For progressives, selfish behavior leads to the pursuit of wealth and power which is always at the expense of the community which provides the labor force to make individuals wealthy and powerful.  Think capitalism.  These are generalizations, of course, but my point is that religious institutions promote the idea that selfish behavior is bad.
 
The challenge of selfish behavior is nothing new.  Think Eve and Adam.  The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament remind believers that they need God to be transformed into social beings.  But this too is problematic.  The notion that humans are inherently selfish and automatically individualistic is simply false.  There is a treasure trove of scientific research to suggest otherwise.  We are not independent creatures struggling to be social.  We are social creatures struggling to be social. 
 
What happens if our starting point is our need to be social, not an individual?  In this context, being critical of other humans for “being individuals for far too long” makes sense.  Why else would someone be sensitive to a perceived lack of caring, compassion, and being “held.”  It’s because we are already aware of what it is like to be held, especially if we are used to being held too closely.  Think the first day of preschool.  The challenge in the infant/parent relationship is not the inability to bound properly.  The challenge is in managing the intensity of the closeness.  People struggle to be in community not because they are selfish but because they don’t know how to manage being together. 
 
In my research on homelessness, I interviewed dozens of people.  I heard one story several times.  It began with mom or dad not doing well.  In most cases, one parent developed significant health problems after the death of their spouse.  One of their adult children (the one closest to the parent) volunteers to move in with the parent to provide full-time care.  Before moving in with the parent, this adult child (who was fully employed and paying for their housing) gives up their job and housing to move in with the parent.  For a time, the new arrangement goes well.  At some point, typically after the death of the parent being cared for, the siblings get into an intense conflict.  They battle over what to do with the house.  With no money and no place to go, the adult child, who was providing care (who also has not handled the conflict well), ends up homeless. 
 
At first glance, what looks like the sin of individualism (individuals behaving badly) is really the byproduct of too much togetherness.  When the relationship system gets too hot, some people take off (or are pushed out) to find relief from the intensity of the togetherness.  It’s not that people are selfish, they simply need an emotional break.  Distancing is a common way to find relief from feeling too close.  If the togetherness is too intense, the result will be a more permanent cutoff.  When people decry individualism, what they are observing is cutoff from an intense togetherness. 
 
What drives this force of togetherness is anxiety.  Families come together when they are afraid.  Think Irma! How many adult children who stuck it out this weekend in Florida have constantly been updating their worried parents?  How many parents have been reassuring their worried adult children?  When we are anxious, even worried, we try to tell each other what to do.  “You need to leave.  You need to find shelter.  You need to listen to what the authorities are telling you.  You need to do what I tell you!”  When we are afraid, anxious, and worried about the future, we automatically tell family members what to think, feel, and do.  It’s what we do. 
 
So, perhaps a better place for us to start is with fear.  Our perception of fear is what drives the process of an anxious togetherness.  Our brains treat the perception of fear as if it is real.  When we are afraid, the brain raises our anxiety, and activate the stress response system.  This automatic response to fear is developed in the context of your family of origin.  You are born into a way of responding to fear (an emotional process) that was developed over several generations.  You can step back and observe the patterns that the family has developed over hundred, if not millions, of years.  These patterns for responding to fear have a threshold which is determined by 1) the level of chronic anxiety in the family of origin, 2) the amount of stress the family is experiencing, and 3) how emotionally connected the family is to each other and the extended family. 
 
Dr. Murray Bowen theorizes that individuality is not a bad thing.  It’s difficult to explain in one paragraph so go to this link to read more about the concept of “differentiation of self”: [click here and then click on Differentiation of Self] Part of what goes into working on differentiation of self is: a) being responsible for one’s reactivity to anxiety in the relationship system (family, congregations, community, government, etc.).  b) seeing how one’s reactivity and functioning contributes to problems in the relationship system (family, congregation, community, government, etc.).  c) articulating and taking action steps towards life goals based on core principles and values, d) staying connected to important others through viable emotional contact. 
 
So, what does all of this have to do with the prayer above?  Perhaps a different way to think about a prayer would be useful.  Something like: 
 
O God,
 Teach me the ways of being a self that is connected.
I have been automatically reacting to anxiety for far too long.
Teach me to become objective about reality and fear not.
Challenge me to see the world as it is.
Help me find the motivation, the courage, and the resiliency to discover new ways of relating to the family, and by extension, everyone else.
Help me to remember that everyone is doing the best they can with what they have, and we can all do better, starting with me.
Teach me the ways of self-regulation so that I might be a better collaborate with my neighbor.
 
It’s not pretty or elegant.  Maybe you can come up with a better prayer.  I’d love to read it in the comment section. 
 
It has been reported that Dr. Bowen, at the end of his life, saw differentiation of self in the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi.  So, I’ll leave you with the prayer:
 
Lord make me an instrument of your peace
Where there is hatred,
Let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, Joy.
 
O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek
 to be consoled as to console;
To be understood, as to understand;
To be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Sailors used the Beaufort Scale to measure the force of the wind by observing its impact on water and land.  As the wind increased, a sailor could see changes in the behavior of the water and the trees.  The scale was from 0 (calm) to 12 (hurricane).
 
Joseph Liechty and Cecelia Clegg, recently wrote a book, Moving Beyond Sectarianism: Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland (2011).  Similar to the Beaufort Scale, Liechty and Clegg created a scale to predict the level of sectarian violence.  To assess the level of violence they created a scale based on the way separate sects talked about each other.  When sects of people are calm, and at peace, their words about other groups are different than when they are at war.   Here is their scale:
 
Scale of Sectarian Danger
Escalation by words and actions

1. We are different, we behave differently
2. We are right.
3. We are right and you are wrong
4. You are a less adequate version of what we are
5. You are not what you say you are
6. We are in fact what you say you are
7. What you are doing is evil
8. You are so wrong that you forfeit ordinary rights
9. You are less than human
10. You are evil
11. You are demonic

 

Whether the conflict is in a family around divorce, a congregation struggling with financial issues, or a community engaged in civil unrest the scale illuminates the process of escalation that occurs in relationship systems. 
 
It reminded me of Dr. Murray Bowen’s scale of differentiation . . . A scale of human behavior.  Dr. Bowen observed that human functioning could be placed on a theoretical scale between 0 and 100.  On this continuum of human functioning, there is wide variation in behavior based on some key variables. 
 
The first variable is chronic anxiety which is a sustained response to fear even when a real threat is not present.  Recently, researchers have discovered that during one’s lifetime, genes are turned on and off in response to environmental factors.  This process of regulating genes allows humans to be flexible and adaptable in response to their environment.  These changes in genetic markers are then passed on from one generation to the next.  This process is known as epigenetics. 
 
Changes to DNA that were necessary and advantages in one generation may no longer serve a purpose in the next, but the reactivity stirred in the first generation continues to the next.  The result is a heightened level of anxiety (chronic anxiety) in the next generation even though the danger is no longer present.  Over time, a higher level of chronic anxiety can lead to physical, emotional, and behavioral problems in subsequent generations.
 
I don’t know exactly how one would think about the passing of chronic anxiety from generation to generation in a congregation.  But I’ve been in enough congregations to know that the narrative the church tells is passed from one generation to the next.  Why doesn’t the congregation change the worship times?  Because 20 years ago, Mr. Thinksalotofhimself threatened to take half of the congregation with him if the 8:30 am traditional service was moved or canceled.  He’s been dead now for 10 years, but the memory and behavior of the congregation from that time (the fear of the threat) continues today in the narrative the congregation tells about itself. 
 
It turns out that relationship systems (whether they are families, congregations, or communities) who have higher levels of chronic anxiety end up lower on the scale of differentiation.  Chronic anxiety disrupts the brain's ability to think.  It keeps the body in a constant state of over sensitivity to a possible threat.  Over time, this raised level of sensitivity takes its toll on the system.
 
The second variable is stress.  It is the level of acute anxiety at a given moment.  A stressor could be external to the community or internal.  The lower a relationship system is on the scale of differentiation, the more reactive it will be to episodic stressors.  Relationship systems lower on the scale (with higher levels of chronic anxiety) only require a small amount of increased stress to create symptoms.  Systems that are higher on the scale (with lower levels of chronic anxiety) require a larger amount of stress to create symptoms.
 
This is why some congregations are able to weather change better than others.  In congregations where leaders are lower on the scale of differentiation, they tend to blame people in the congregation or institutional leaders who are outside the congregation.  Congregations with leaders that are higher on the scale take responsibility for their situation and work to find solutions to the challenges they face.
 
The third variable is the availability and use of resources.  As congregations are confronted with challenges, the availability and use of resources can make a difference in outcomes.  A lower functioning community that has a large number of resources available at its disposal can do better than a higher functioning community that has zero resources.  Systems that are cutoff from resources do not fair as well as those with access and use of them. 
 
For most congregations, resources come in three categories: money, volunteers, and leadership.  If congregations are good stewards of their money, engage volunteers to use their gifts, and have individuals who are responsible leaders they are well on their way to overcoming the challenges they face.  When congregations lack these resources or are not good stewards of them, then they are unlikely to move forward.
 
Why does this matter?  When communities (and here I'm not only talking about congregations but also town and cities, as well as families) face challenges, their level on the scale of differentiation and an analysis of these variables will determine how well a community will do overall and whether or not they will engage in words and actions that will escalate toward violence.  If a community typically functions at a higher level, has access to and uses resources, and is facing a very difficult challenge, there is a greater likelihood they will overcome the challenge without resorting to violence (verbal or physical) towards others. 
 
If, on the other hand, you have a community that has a lower level of functioning (a high level of chronic anxiety), has limited access to resources and does not make good use of them, even though the challenge they face may be small, there is a greater likelihood that they will engage in words and actions that have the potential to escalate towards violence.
 
Without an understanding of behavior on a continuum and an appreciation of the wide variation that exists in communal responses, we will always struggle to understand violence.  Once we begin to observe all communities from these various factors, we can better predict which communities are more likely to engage in violent behavior and which communities are more likely to resolve their challenges without resorting to violence.

In times of heightened anxiety and increased societal tension, it can be difficult to make objective and emotionally neutral claims about human behavior. Under such conditions, those who attempt to step back and take in a broader view of human behavior can be labeled as lacking empathy or cold. When societal problems escalate, people put pressure on one another to take sides. In the public discourse there is limited space for those who take a more complex, nuanced approach to the problems we face in society. In spite of the pressure, it’s important for system thinkers to persist.

A systems perspective moves away from the simple cause-effect model of understanding human behavior. The classic model of cause-effect thinking is A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D. In contrast, a systems model takes into account as many variables as possible at the same time. In this way, A, B, C, & D interact with each other in real time. In order to understand the behavior of A, one needs to study all the variable interactions. A is not only influenced by B, C, & D but also B, C & D are interacting and influencing the whole system.

So, when we are examining human behavior, it is not enough to look at one or two components. It is necessary to look at all possible variables. I once had a parishioner tell me he was divorcing his wife because she was bi-polar. He could no longer deal with her shifts in mood. He did not see how his interactions with her (or the interactions of other family members) played a part in her symptoms. He saw the problem inside her head. To him, her bi-polar behavior was the result of a neurological disorder. He is not alone in this way of thinking.

The diagnosis typically goes something like this: there is some abnormality that occurs to the brain in utero of someone who has a neurological disorder like bi-polar. It leads to an imbalance in brain chemicals. Because these chemical processes affect the way the brain fires, the faulty firing leads to swings in mood. Swings in mood lead to problematic behavior. That problematic behavior impacts other people in negative ways. In other words, A leads to B, B leads to C, and C leads to D. If a person is able to take medication to correct the original cause “A,” the end result will be positive behavior. This is a classic cause-effect model. This understanding of mental Illness is woefully inaccurate because it is not consistent with current research and because it limits the problem to being only in the other person’s brain.

Scientists are discovering that brain functioning is the result of multiple variables. Take DNA, for example. All of us have virtually the same DNA. Identical twins are two people who develop in utero from the same fertilized egg. At birth, their DNA is identical. Fast forward 60 years. Scientists have discovered that the DNA of identical twins no longer looks identical. How is this possible?

It turns out that our DNA has an outer layer called an epigenome. Epigenetics looks at the mechanisms surrounding the genome that functions to regulate gene expression. Whether a gene is up-regulated (turned on), or down-regulated (turned off) is determined by a methylation process on top of each gene. The epigenome is highly sensitive to our experiences of the world. These sensitivities allow us to be responsive to challenges in the environment. If the challenge is great, gene expression will more than likely change to meet the challenge. These changes make the human more adaptable over time and from one generation to the next.

Changes in gene expression occur at different stages of life. In the case of identical twins, life experiences alter their gene expressions. For others, it explains the onset of chronic symptoms as one gets older. It turns out that some of these changes are transmitted from one generation to the next. What was adaptive in one generation is passed on to offspring in the next.

In more recent years, it has been shown how relationships impact gene expression. The ways we perceive our relationship with other people, particularly in the family, impacts the expression of our genes. We know this happens in early years of development, but it can also happen as we age. In essence, over time, our genes are being regulated by our relationships, particularly our families.

Inflammation, a process regulated by gene expression, is involved with things like depression and chronic anxiety. States like depression and anxiety can impair the judgment of someone, making it more difficult to have an accurate perception of the world. Chronic inflammation is the result of the body perceiving a persistent threat which in reality is not there. The structure of the brain, an evolutionary development, favors a strong, automatic reaction to a threat making it more difficult for a thoughtful, factual observation of the world around us. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. In the case of a threat, a quicker automatic response saves lives. But what happens if chronic anxiety is high and the threat is perceived incorrectly?


Darren Wilson and the family emotional process.

The shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man from Ferguson, MO on August 9, 2014 by police officer Darren Wilson, sparked a national protest. It is one of many instances of a white police officer killing an unarmed black man. Wilson was not charged and was eventually exonerated by the Justice Department who determined that Wilson had followed protocols and had not willfully violated Brown’s civil rights. A wrongful death case is still pending.

The shooting of Brown has become a polarizing issue for many communities. For some, the actions of Wilson point to policies that encourage the excessive use of force which becomes tragic when coupled with racial profiling. For others, it highlights a lack of respect for policing which is the result of decades of lax policing policies in communities. These arguments are simplistic, cause-effect views of the problem. In reality, the situation is much more complex.

In August of 2015, The New Yorker Magazine ran an article on Darren Wilson. You can click here to read the full article. The article is useful because it explores Wilson’s relationships.

“Wilson, who is from Texas, is the son of a woman who repeatedly broke the law. His mother, Tonya Dean, stole money, largely by writing hot checks. After completing high school, she married Wilson’s father, John, who had been her English teacher. They soon had two children to support—Darren and his younger sister, Kara—but Dean spent wildly. She left John Wilson for another man, Tyler Harris, who ran a Y.M.C.A. They had a child, Jared, and Darren and Kara lived with them. ‘Tonya had me in debt—almost twenty thousand dollars—that first year,’ Harris told me. Dean, it seems, often repaid debts to one person by stealing money from someone else.”

Wilson notes that his mother never meant to hurt anyone. But she would continue to con people out of money even presenting herself as someone who was about to inherit millions of dollars. She never served jail time. She died shortly after being told by a judge that next time she would be jailed. Interestingly, Darren Wilson does not know how his own mother died. He believes it was suicide but does not know for sure, or isn’t saying.

Wilson, who was married and divorced shortly after arriving in Ferguson, eventually remarried his mentor from the Ferguson police department, Barb Spradling who is eight years his senior. In 2013, Barb’s ex-boyfriend assaulted her. Barb brought a son into the marriage with Wilson, and the couple also gave birth to a girl.

Each of us is responsible for our own behavior. Yet, rarely do we consider the challenges each person is up against in being more responsible for their actions. Self-regulation, something we assume is somehow easy for all of us to do, is often elusive for us and difficult to engage particularly when our level of stress is high. According to Dr. Dan Papero, we are a different person when we are stressed than when we are not stressed. While we like to believe it is possible for us to use our best judgment at all times, it is not realistic for the human to do so. Most of the time we are reactive, with some ability to alter our reactivity.

In the case of Darren Wilson, there is some evidence to suggest that his childhood was filled with higher levels of chronic anxiety. This would be evident in the mother’s inability to self regulate around her finances and in her apparent suicide. If there were facts available about his mother and father's childhood and their parents’ childhood it might offer clues to the patterns of reactivity and the development of chronic anxiety in this family. Individuals who are raised in highly anxious and stressful relationship systems are challenged in their ability to accurately process and filter sensory perceptions, something that is true for all of us to varying degrees. What accounts for the variation is our level of chronic anxiety, the amount of tension in the relationship system at any given time, and the level of environmental stress at the time.

In addition to one’s chronic level of anxiety, which comes out of one’s development in a nuclear family, there is the persistence of higher levels of tension in the family system which is influenced by the level of chronic anxiety. The challenges of relating to a difficult mother, going through a divorce, a spouse’s troubled relationship with an ex-boyfriend, and the intense realities of daily policing can all play a part in disturbing one’s ability accurately to assess a situation. It can make the difference between a split-second decision to de-escalate a situation or pull the trigger.

To be clear, again, we are all responsible for our actions. I’m not suggesting that Darren Wilson be excused for his actions. He is responsible for what he has done. What I am suggesting is that we have a long way to go in understanding how behavior is driven by a systems model of relationships.

There is wide variation in the way officers respond to a call. Some officers are better at assessing a situation and making appropriate responses that match the situation. What makes the difference? I think two things. The level of chronic anxiety that an officer carries with them from childhood into adulthood which is then sustained by the family system they create with a spouse. In the marriage, family patterns are replicated from one generation to the next. Efforts to lower one’s level of chronic anxiety requires what Dr. Murray Bowen called an effort towards differentiation of self.

The second is to consider the current stress of an officer. All of us make mistakes from time to time. Most of them are minor and easily corrected. What influences us to make mistakes may be the level of stress one is dealing with as it relates to one’s level of chronic anxiety. The higher the level of chronic anxiety, the less stress is needed to create a problem. The lower the level of chronic anxiety, the more stress is needed. So if you have an officer who has a relatively low level of chronic anxiety, and you stress them with massive problems at home (be it marital, parenting, or financial), under enough stress, their perceptions and behavior will be impaired. I have no doubt that when police officers are feeling stressed, they tell their boss and colleagues about their family problems. It’s what we all do.

While the scientific tools needed to evaluate one’s level of chronic anxiety or basic level of differentiation are not available, are there current ways to begin to assess it? Is there enough clinic evidence of the influence of chronic anxiety on the brain's ability to accurately perceive and assess reality to warrant a more in-depth study of policing? How might congregational leaders and those interested in Bowen Theory share these concepts and clinical evidence with law enforcement as an effort to improve the quality of community policing? Does Bowen Theory have something to offer those who work in stressful work environments? I think it does.

It's difficult to say if an evaluative tool based on Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self would significantly reduce the incident of white police officers shooting unarmed black men. But I do think the potential is there. Theoretically, those at higher levels of differentiation would do a better job of assessing a real threat from a perceived threat. And that’s the real difference.

Dr. Murray Bowen observed that someone pays the price when families have high levels of chronic anxiety. It is possible that young black men are paying a price for higher levels of chronic anxiety in society. The shooting of young, black men by white police officers is a symptom of a larger family emotional process that has spilled over into the general public. If we want to reduce the incident of gun violence, then we need to look more closely at the stress levels of families and understand better the role anxiety plays in affecting behavior.