Authored by Kelly Matthews-Pluta, MSW
Aaron Beck, the founder of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, once said “Evolution favors an anxious gene”. The idea that we humans are biologically built for fight, flight or freeze is commonly known but little understood. Over the last hundred years’ human life has gotten safer. Over the last 500 years it has gotten much safer. However, human evolution has not caught up with our modern, safer world. Modern life and death can still hinge on how well we respond to an acute threat, which triggers the experience of anxiety in humans. A car coming at us on the street creates an automatic anxious response that prompts us to quickly get out of the way. This is clearly protective. Humans would not have survived as a species without this physiological response system.
However, emotional tensions in relationships can also be perceived as threatening to humans, setting off those ancient automatic responses. Even though social interactions with others are not typically life threatening, in the midst of relationship tension, we don’t often think “Wow, I am having a flight or fight reaction that is thousands of years old”. We just get into it with the other. Bowen’s concept of “differentiation of self” posits that being a separate self should allow one to distinguish between a real threat to survival (car speeding toward you) and an imagined threat to survival (argument with a spouse). However, unless one uses the thinking system in the brain, making this distinction is nearly impossible. Anxiety is the byproduct of both real and imagined threats. An automatic distancing response may effectively reduce acute anxiety in the short term, but does not necessarily lead to a more differentiated self or to greater emotional maturity that would enable one to better self-regulate anxiety in the midst of future stressful relationship situations. That is a complicated and longer term process.
According to Bowen theory, two common responses to emotional tension are conflict and distance. Both are automatic responses to the togetherness/separateness forces. Humans have unique complexity: they respond to the force to be a whole, complete individual and to the force to be together in relationship with others. Other mammals may exhibit these forces, but the intensity is unknown. Distance as an anxious response poses certain challenges because of its ability to mask itself in a calm appearance. Biologically we are not calm, though the outward appearance may seem calm. Additionally, when we reactively distance from another individual we can tell ourselves: “I am not reacting”, when in fact we are responding with the same amount of reactivity as if we were arguing. The intensity is the same, but it is expressed by a different behavior. The biology behind a distance response is the same as the biology behind a conflictual response.
In my experience, the vast majority of married people come into my office with complaints of either distance (“we’ve grown apart”) or conflict (“all we do is fight”). Distance has been the more difficult stance for couples to negotiate. The anxiety involved in distance can be masked in a seemingly calm exterior, thus allowing one to feel as though the relationship just isn’t important enough anymore. It must have lost its love, passion, zing… Discussion with such a couple about unresolved, likely long standing anxiety that is causing distance within the relationship, can lead to blank stares. One of the pair is convinced that they are past upset about their relationship and simply need to move on. The other is often desperate to cajole the other into investment and interest in the relationship. This is an example of the “distancer/pursurer” response. The struggle for a balance between togetherness and separateness can lead to fusion. As Ronald Richardson states in his book Couples in Conflict, “Distance does not end the fusion: it just helps us feel more comfortable”. Evolution may want us safe and comfortable but our brains are capable of much more.
Kelly Matthews-Pluta earned her MSW from Jane Addams School of Social Work at the University of Illinois Chicago in 1996. She completed the Post-Graduate Training Program at Center for Family Consultation in 2005, and she joined the CFC faculty in 2011. Kelly has worked in child welfare and in a residential program for adults with severe emotional illnesses. For the past 11 years she has been practicing family therapy.
Great article Kelly! I think your discussion about being fakely calm is of particular import. How often do we say to ourselves, “It’s not that important” or “I don’t care” when in reality we feel the opposite. A deeper awareness of our physiological processes as well as the strength of denial would help us all and contribute to the challenge of increasing our level of differentiation.
Kelly, your insights about distance remind me of something Dr. Bowen wrote: “Distance and silence do not fool the emotional system.” Underneath the facade, there is usually a longing to connect but fear of failure if we try. I like your thought about the brain being capable of much more…if we can just get past the anxiety.
That’s a great quote Stephanie.
Nice article. Anxiety is necessary to maintaining life. But too much of it clouds a person’s judgement and ability to prioritize. Although some individuals do better at thinking clearly in the face of anxiety, as a species we do not seem to do this very well.
I think humans overreact to many threats or perceived threats but humans also deny the real threats and react too little to those. So the problems get worse due to both over and under reacting. In other words, humans are reacting to the wrong things with the wrong degree of intensity most of the time, judging by the species’ inability to solve the most serious problems.
Such useful thinking, Kelly, and so succinctly put. I’m taking the liberty of copying this for clients as a way of moving from the “blank stare” to a broader view of how emotional process drives the interactions in a relationship.