Warren Brodey

Interview with Warren Brodey Conducted by Catherine Rakow Tape 1

Narrator: This is a September 4th, 2002, interview by Catherine Rakow of Dr. Warren Brodey. In fact, this digital audio file is the first of four that are being used to circulate their discussion almost a decade after it took place. Dr. Brodey was a Co-Investigator on Dr. Murray Bowen’s 1954 to 59 NIMH research project. The papers from which are now housed at the National Library of Medicine.

Brodey’s recollections give us an inside look at the practices within that project. A project that, as you probably know, laid the groundwork for the formation of Bowen Family Systems Theory. This discussion took place at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family, again, on September 4th, 2002, and there are three additional audio files that complete the carryover of content from those original tapes.

Rakow: What I was interested in, you had said, that the Scher project complemented the project you were on in a way that they were both-they had their own way of thinking about what they were doing.

Brodey: Yeah, but, your name is again?

Hargrove: Scotty Hargrove.

Brodey: Scotty Hargrove was asking me, about Lyman. And I said, yes, they complemented, but the problem is that, here were these projects, which were- in some ways, had the similar goals, to try and find a understanding of schizophrenia, and also to move not just to understanding, but to do something about it. To find the, you know, the heart to doing something. And, so each of them chose a different way. Lyman and Scher and ourselves and actually, there was another man who was working with children.

Rakow: Reidl. Fritz Reidl.

Brodey: Fritz Reidl. And, then there were professional alliances in this too. We were much more medically-oriented. I don’t know about Lyman. But in any case, we were very- Murray’s thinking was much as a doctor.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: As I have given and he was an unusual doctor, but very much a doctor. And, so these three groups, (as I was saying), they, each had their own individuality. And there was some competition.

And, you know, who’s right and who’s wrong?

Rakow: Yeah, I wondered about that.

Go to Top

Brodey: And then- natural, natural enough, you know. But really as I see it, the problem was, that, if they’d cooperated, they could cooperate to some degree, but, cooperating very much, would mean they’d be exchanging ideas and at this point, everybody needed their own ego to be involved with their own ideas. Because we were so strongly invested in a particular idea, and that was necessary in order to keep going in a particular direction.

Rakow: Well, you’re actually, we’re kind of started off one place, I had a number of places to start with, I found this book, and, have you ever, you remember Perry Stanley?

Brodey: I remember him a little bit.

Rakow: Anyhow, it’s a so-so book. But it’s, it’s actually written about the time that you all were there.

And what he’s describing here, is this conflict. A conflict between research interests and therapy interests. That’s what the whole book is. He goes on and on and on and on about this. And- you know, I can’t speak for any other projects, but it certainly seems clear to me that the project that you worked on with Dr. Bowen, that they were well-integrated, that there was not a conflict in this particular project. And it’s interesting, I don’t think he brings this project up at all in this book. He talks about – it is some project with LSD, but- as an example, he gives a lot of excerpts from meetings with the head of the clinical investigations. And the discussion on and on and on about-

Brodey: Well, there was a conflict. It- not for Murray,

Rakow: It didn’t seem to be. Everybody (inaudible).

Brodey: No, there’s no conflict for Murray, but there’s a conflict for the National Institutes of Health, and the Mental Health Institute there of NIH.

Brodey: Because they wanted from us this statistical kind of analysis which we tried to get in to some degree, with, as you know, with some social charts and all the rest of it. The, you know, the charts of who spoke to who and all this. But by and large, we felt that that wasn’t, that comes later. This, again, we’d be talking about search and research.

Brodey: And, in the process of search, is what- what really is very close to therapy. And research is where you take the data and you analyze it in the manner in which is accountable according to science. In this way, we were not really so involved with, because we didn’t know any measures that would help us. Because we were so involved with the holistic approach to the family.

Rakow: And that- see that now that’s the question, because I think that’s the criticism that comes up about Bowen Theory. That, it seems to me, at least, and I’ve tried to be so careful not to speak about what was in Dr. Bowen’s head unless it’s in writing somewhere. But it does seem to me that the organization of what you’re calling research, existed in his head. In other words, he was incorporating what was being seen, observations that were being seen into a theory, eventually, that became a theory. But- and- but it was the kind of the foundations that built the theory. So he had a trajectory and it seems to me that that is different. If I listen- listen in the sense of reading as you listen to what he said, in, in this book, that- it was kind of a helter skelter, kind of people going this way, and going that way, and then changing gears and there, you know, I don’t know about the other parts in terms of the progression. Certainly Lyman Wynne went on, had some progress and went on to formulate ideas in an organized way. But it seems to me that part of the- what- what NIMH had to offer was that kind of freedom. On the other hand, you know, you have to have some way of thinking about what you’re doing. [laughter] So, it-

Brodey: Well, it was a way of thinking that was relatively clear what

Rakow: In the- in the broader- broader system? In the project. Okay.

Brodey: In the project.

Rakow: In the project. Okay.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And, but the gathering of measures. You see, my own career, has more to do with gathering measures that don’t exist. That’s what I’ve been working on all the time. The next thing after I left the project, I started for example, a project with blind people. Blind, quote “Autistic,” brain-damaged, you name it, they had it. Kids. And their families. To try and understand well, people say schizophrenia is affecting the family rather than family affecting schizophrenia. And just to explore, here’s another group of people that are blind: children born blind with retrolental fibroplasia. So, what kinds of families do they have? What’s the relationship? And, I find again, that as in the first group, that if the families had an object relationship, if, if they actually saw the child, the child did relatively well. Given the handicap. But many of the families we had didn’t see their blind child.

Rakow: So that would have been consistent, that with what you’d seen

Brodey: That would be consistent and I was surprised at the consistency. I was, like the story that, you know, the mother who has this intelligent child who really is quite capable of learning a lot, but doesn’t speak and not the-the mother is unable, really, and the father, to relate to the particular child. They’re not able to see that the child is blind, they’re treating the child as if it wasn’t blind. The child who isn’t- who’s blind and is treated as if it isn’t blind, is going to be in a mess. Because then it can’t use its extra- its own gestalt. Its personal gestalt about sensing and understanding and the like. So, this was my observation anyway. And that generally seemed to be true. So I was again involved with the fact that it’s obvious enough how families deal with their handicapped children relates very much to- there’s this, how the family handles the child is important and also how the child stresses the family is important. Cause here, here are two kinds of families, that are both stressed intensely by the child. And you can say, “What is the ultimate cause? And ultimate cause is another thing that I’m not interested in terribly because I don’t believe in that, I don’t believe in ultimate cause. You know, that’s the chicken and the egg question. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I became interested in the- what is this interaction that takes place. Ultimate cause is in the interaction not in A or B. And so then I started to work with, ah, gradually working over, I did the family work with children as the focus, and then I went on to working with cybernetics. Where the focus was, (inaudible). If you have a mother, and my last paper in official Psychiatry, was that (inaudible), information exchange (mulled) in a time delay And that paper was the fact that if a mother responds to the child and the child responds to the mother and the mother responds to the child like ping pong. Then the child would grow up like a vegetable. Because there’s no possibility of packing enough information in a ping pong relationship.

Rakow: It’s never just two, anyhow, there’s always more, more people getting involved! [laughter]

Brodey: Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with more. It has to do with the real relationships are going on simultaneously between people, interactions, simultaneous interaction, it’s not, it’s not A then B.

Rakow, right, yes I understand that.

Brodey: So that’s what I’ve continued to work on the rest of my life.

Rakow: Be nice if we could show that, and I think maybe someday, biofeedback can do that or neurofeedback can do that.

Brodey: Well, I’m- I think it has to do with something everybody knows about but nobody has language for. We have no way of measuring. And the best example is two people making love. You know, one waits for the other then there’s no real love affair. They have to be doing something together.

Rakow: I want to go back to the

Brodey: laughter]

Rakow: [laughter] get out of the bedroom, here, and go back, go back to the

Brodey: You’ve heard all this before, (inaudible).

Rakow: Yes, (I have). [laughter] You know, I’m- I’m forming my impressions, of the place. And,

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: I have a sense that there was a core group, who had a, kind of a fair amount of camaraderie, of groupyness, whatever you want to call it.

Brodey: Yeah

Rakow: corps d/esprit, whatever. And then you had someone like Jordan Scher, who got into this kind of head-butting, wanting to have his own way, pushing things. So that was going on, and then he got thrown out, and then you had, the Bowen group over here that seemed to be pretty quiet. That there- they weren’t- they were moving forward doing their work, but the emphasis wasn’t on the fellowship, and the relationship with colleagues. But it really was more focused on that. And that, in some ways what I hear described about Bowen, is that he didn’t let on what he was thinking. He didn’t put it into the group, that sort of thing. That this project, kind of went on gathering its information, and trying to make some sense of it, within this administrative system, that had more of a, you know, “We’re all in this together,” sort of thing. That’s the impressions I’m getting from reading books and talking to people. So, I don’t know how accurate that is. I don’t know how much people knew what you were doing – in the larger system.

Brodey: Well, you can’t expect them to know. Because what we were doing didn’t have a framework that was already present. They had to create their own frame- framework.

Rakow: Yes, well how do you talk about that then?

Brodey: Well, there were a lot of things we couldn’t talk about. We just did.

Rakow: You said, “Go ahead.” Take that a little further from me.”

Brodey: Well- the- Bowen was expert at not- not throwing his- there’s a statement you just made, which is- which I like very much, it actually comes from (Indians) in Guatemala, and the statement is, “No projection of expectation onto the outcome.” And this, of course, is what science is supposed be.

Rakow: Right, right.

Brodey: But it’s not the way science is. But science research is proving a hypothesis. But in the development of the hypothesis, it’s very important to be an observer to follow things rolling. To- let them roll. And not put in your hypothesis at every moment to prove that you’re right.

Rakow: Seems to me that that was the conflict that was going on.

Brodey: The conflict is an old conflict, it’s a conflict between Goethe science, which is the science of observation, and Goethe was a scientist He’s- his work on light was- you know, completely changed science. I mean, it was accepted as science at the same time he and Newton were these two schools. And Goethe was the one who said, “Well, okay, we watch things, we see them happen, we put our heart into them and try and know them. And then we come to our conclusions and we try and examine our conclusions without taking the conclusions and putting them first.” While Newton was making laws, and, and then he made hard proofs of his laws, and that was fine. But it doesn’t have to do with biological systems.

Rakow: And that, to me, seems to be the- I don’t know if conflict’s the word to use,

Brodey: Well, conflict is right, it-it it’s two different points of view.

Rakow: But that’s the work that you were doing, and then there’s this expectation within the system, that that’s going to be talked about, discussed, put out there. I mean it seems to me that you could waste a lot of time doing that. Or you could stay. There was so much to watch and so much to take in and pay attention to.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: And that you could stay with that or you could get into these discussions.

Brodey: Well, we did discuss- we went out to, when we felt more sure of what we were doing, then we had lots of discussion with each other. And the team of four met quite often.

Rakow: That’s what I wanted to talk- that’s on my list. I have my list of questions here.

Brodey: That’s fine.

Rakow: You’re- you’re getting them all, you’re getting them.

Brodey: Well, the list of four, there was a group of four, we met, a group of three met, and a group of four met.

Rakow: So, the-the three were you, Dysinger, and Bowen, and the four would be-

Brodey: The four would be and Betty.

Rakow: Betty. Would have been four? Okay.

Brodey: Four. And then Marge would come in as the head nurse. And then there was another head nurse, too, another woman under her.

Rakow: O’Flaherty?

Brodey: Yeah. So she’d come in too. And-

Rakow: And they were the research meetings, is that what they were called?

Brodey: Yeah, yeah.

Rakow: The research meetings? Okay.

Brodey: Then we, well, I think they were just the staff meetings, I mean there were staff meetings and there was, let me think, the meetings were the three of – the four of us, with Betty came together. And then, the three men, as it were, we also were very close. And then, O’Flaherty would come in, and Marge would come in. Marge was very close to us too. So Marge was really in close, she was not a theory person, her calling was how to deal with the situation. She’d bring in practical problems and we would discuss them and think about them.

Rakow: That’s what- that’s what I wanted to know. How- oh, I had a lot of questions, about, about these kinds of discussions. What actually were you bringing in to these discussions- what were you – It seems to me, I can read all these- there’s all kinds of observations. So,

Brodey: Well we weren’t- we weren’t- these were not structured.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: You didn’t have an agenda. They may have had an agenda, in that Murray had some questions and I had some questions, and, Marge was wondering how to do something.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And Bob was sort of, ah, on the sidelines, sort of trying to organize things.

Rakow: Hmm.

Brodey: That was his, his joy, was organizing, making charts and stuff like that. And, Betty, you know, was always being practical about, “Well, what can we do, given these situations in the practice.” She was also relating to the stuff outside, you know, the applications.

Rakow: Right, because she worked on another project.

Brodey: Yeah, she was- yeah. So, she was also in the outpatient business too. And they had an old relationship, (inaudible).

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And, and those- but those- these were not very personal kinds of meetings. Cause- Murray wasn’t a very personal guy.

Rakow: Well,

Brodey: In a sense- let me explain what I mean by that. It wasn’t that I talked – I could talk about something that was bothering me about, about myself, or the world- I could talk about myself alright. But he’s- he always sort of was a kind of psychiatrist. I mean, he, he had his focus on the business at hand. He was not telling us about his family troubles unless it had to do with as an example of something. He was not talking about this or that. He was- the whole thing was extraordinarily focused on this particular problem of these families, how do we understand schizophrenia, how do we- we were externally focused every minute.

Rakow: And that’s

Brodey: This is one of Murray’s great advantages, we didn’t get focused on, are we focused on sometimes on the people who were making difficulties because they didn’t agree with us-

Rakow: Well, I would think that- well, okay, that’s a different issue, but I was thinking that, when you had this family staff meeting, that really those

Brodey: Well, that’s another-

Rakow: those issues, a lot of things got talked about in that meeting, but

Brodey: They did.

Rakow: Okay, but in this, this meeting with you it would have been at a different level, of

Brodey: Oh yeah.

Rakow: trying to understand what it is you’re seeing, and how- how,

Brodey: Trying to make a theory out of it.

Rakow: Yes, exactly, and the question I had is- it was about functioning, and the interest in functioning rather than the inner, inner connections of functioning between the family members. And the observation of reciprocity, that you know it looked like a domineering mother with this helpless father and the acting out kid, and then over time you would see a shift – changes in that. And to begin to put that together. So that, the question to me was, how did the idea of the family unit, which was the word used in these papers, and the family as a single organism, how did you, how were you coming to that? Betty says that family unit idea was hers, but how, how did you come to it?

Brodey: We’ve probably all thought that at different times

Rakow: Well, it’s in there before she got on the project, But, there had to be something in the way this was set up, and people were talking and looking at it, that it came to her also, which to me seems to be a validation. Here it’s coming from someone who wasn’t programmed to see it. And seeing it!

Brodey: Oh well, I think again

Rakow: I think you ca- you had it, before you got it.

Brodey: I got it (inaudible).

Rakow: Right.

Brodey: and I, I had it, because I believed that in these you know, my- my approach is more biological. And the different groups of biological entities make up different units. There’s a whole theory of this for me. But, I-I consider a city an organism too

Rakow: But even those terms, I mean, just in terms of historical information. To begin using terms like the unit of study is the family, the family is a single organism.

Brodey: Well, this is, this is, Murray brought it with him from his work with the Menninger Clinic. And then and then, I came in, and I think Bob sort of, I think it was sort of a part of Murray. That’s the way he was. He- Murray was his hero and he worshiped Murray. And as far as I could see and so, he was sort of, Murray’s back man. And, Betty was, you know, she was trying to solve problems. Because, as a social worker, her problem was how do you deal with these people, how do you get them in, how do you deal with them so that things happen, as a social worker does. And me I’m basically a theorist. And a concepts format. And so I’m, I’m trying to look at what Murray’s thinking, and clarify it and set it into a framework, which he already had, and

Rakow: Well, certainly-

Brodey: and maybe I’ll add a little bit here and there, I don’t

Rakow: There certainly seemed to be room for people to be themselves on this project.

Brodey: Absolutely he insisted. He wasn’t pushing his ideas, he was all the way through, he was insisting

Rakow: Because There’s clear differences,

Brodey: that people think for themselves.

Rakow: There’s -there’s similarities in the observations but there’s clear differences in how those observations are put together in the theory. So, that comes out very clearly. Another one I wanted to know about was the use of the family diagram. How did that come about? Cause there’s a real nice- I’ve typed, xeroxed some things that I thought they could put on the wall, they could frame and put on the wall and show from this project, some of the work that was done, and one three generation diagram that was done in September/October ’57, when the “A” family was being discharged. So, obviously, it’s been in place already. Cause it’s well constructed, well-used here. But I was just wondering how that came to be, where that idea, that’s it, where’d these ideas come from?

Brodey: Well, I think the multi-generational idea in Murray, I mean, to me it was something I believed in also. And Murray- I

Rakow: But putting-putting the data into a diagram

Brodey: Well, Murray had his diagram. I had always used diagrams, cause that’s my- I would use, I had my (inaudible) way of diagramming families too.

Rakow: I’m going to get these out, let you have a look at them.

Brodey: Ah, Murray had his and I think Murray’s, Murray’s was the main, main

Rakow: I-I think this is, these were just some things that I thought they could- now, they need to be adjusted for names, take the names out.

Brodey: I had my way of doing a diagram,

Rakow: These are two- two sets of copies, this is

Brodey: Well, that’s a- that’s a standard diagram, but the numbers are different than I

Rakow: and then, let me see who this is.

Brodey: This is Murray’s type diagram

Rakow: Yes, this would be this fellow here, and then, I guess this, would be, yeah, these two people, this is them. So, it’s all, clearly, by 1957, these are being used. And I just was curious, this is just a copy, where’d, where’d these ideas come from. Now, this is earlier,

Brodey: I think they come from primarily from Murray,

Rakow: putting his,

Brodey: primarily from Murray, and from his previous work in, in the- See, when I draw diagrams, I use, I make these lines thicker and thinner, I make- I do like him and make the, you know, the squares bigger and smaller, (inaudible) lines, I used thick lines for those big relationships and thin lines for, not.

Rakow: Okay, yeah. Okay.

Brodey: But I used the- that’s- But, this is Murray’s way. And I think Murray-

Rakow: Yeah. But- but even the idea, of doing this, you know, where did it- I’m guessing, it came out of

Brodey: Yeah, but no, but this- these are the standard, – this type of diagram is a standard diagram.

Rakow: Now. Was it standard then?

Brodey: Course, yeah. It’s always been standard.

Rakow: So, you would have used these before you came to the project?

Brodey: Yeah, anybody who’s, who’s doing family, you know, family genealogy, uses these types of diagrams. There’s a circle, and a

Rakow: Because there’s one that uses a triangle for males.

Brodey: Okay.

Rakow: I think that’s Dysinger’s.

Brodey: But, you know, this this- Okay. But these are- These are not unusual diagrams for people who doing genealogies.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: So that’s not special. But when you start to- when you start writing down relationships over three generations and you’re looking at them, in the relations show- relational way, if you do it, if you do a family history, I think you, you, you just naturally do these genealogies, I always have. A lot of doctors do. It’s- or psychiatrists that do that. It’s sort of you know, write down, how else are you going to remember? You make a diagram, and here’s the father and mother and so on, so forth. And then, when you’re starting out to interview a family, as a psychiatrist, I always used to make these diagrams, because then while they’re telling you, I want the first interviews to be as neutral as possible, so they don’t keep the people from telling me too much. Because they don’t have a relationship with me. So, I’d ask them about it, they’d start telling me about their grandmother, and I’d ask them, this is part of family history, and you’d write down the family history. And then, you know, so then, as a psychiatrist I start to adjust the family history in terms of by the way people are talking I know, this was important, this was Grandma, here, she was very important. Uncle was very important, but that that was something, you know, I developed, and other-other psychiatrists develop other ways to do it. It’s not that diagram itself isn’t so unusual. But seeing-

Rakow: (Did-)

Brodey: When you start to see the relationships in terms of shadows from one generation, affecting the next and the next and the next, well that was something that I would say Murray was preoccupied with. This was very important to him. It was important to me, but I wasn’t this is, this is part of, Murray’s, was of major significance to Murray, you know, and he deserves all the credit for that.

Rakow: It’s one place, where there’s actually physical evidence of the development of that concept that’s part of theory, the multigenerational transmission process. You can look at these diagrams, you can look at the interview, you can see what information is contained in there, and you can see, see the, the flow, of decreased functioning, cutoff, dependence, intense dependence in the relationship. Cutoff from extended family. Lack of contact with- you can just watch that come down in these generations. So it’s one place where you can actually see where that the concept was all infor- what later became a concept, was getting worked out. And explored.

Brodey: Yeah, I think, I think Murray was, was holding close to that, but the concept of genealogy and genealogical tables, that’s- that’s not so unusual. But, when- and, you know, the idea is not so unusual, that the, you know, as is the father, so is-his son is the grandpa,

Rakow: All people know that. Like in folklore and a,

Brodey: Everybody knows that. It’s folklore. And also, any kind of psychic is- psychic kind of thinking you also are involved with, you know, the spirit of so-and-so is still active, just because he died doesn’t mean he’s gone away. But, you know, all that sort of stuff. But-but the-

Rakow: Now, I’ve only found one other diagram. On a family and I have to look at my notes whether they were an inpatient family or not. But I’ve only found one other. Now, you know a lot of these records got lost, because of termites.

Brodey: I didn’t know that

Rakow: So, but, I don’t know, 25, 30 percent of them. So, I wondered, if – if diagrams were done

Brodey: They were done regularly.

Rakow: They were. On- okay.

Brodey: Yeah. Yeah. And, this is Murray’s thinking, (inaudible).

Rakow: So were they being done when you came on the project already? Or did they begin after you started?

Brodey: No, no. They were- cause Murray,

Rakow: Okay. Cause they’re later – the ones I’ve found are later, you’re already on the project then.

Brodey: Well, I wouldn’t know the answer to that question,

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: cause I’m sure I-I certainly joined in this way of doing things because I’d been doing it right along myself. And,

Rakow: Just to, get interested in what, when was something done,

Brodey: (And), one of the reasons we got together,

Rakow: Yeah.

Brodey: we got together, is that we did share thinking.

Rakow: Can things be dated

Brodey: My assumption would be that, the multigenerational theory was there when I got there. I’m quite sure.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: So that didn’t rise out of it. It was, ah,

Rakow: You know, I was reading, there was a book called Should You Leave by Peter Kramer, who wrote that Listening to Prozac. Apparently he had some contact with Bowen. But he was talking about this project, and it’s always interesting to me what people write about the project, who know things that I have no knowledge of. He said that grandparents were hospitalized.

Brodey: I have no remembrance.

Rakow: I have no knowledge of that at all.

Brodey: I think he’s just taking a concept, extending it.

Rakow: I know that it was talked about,

Brodey: Yeah, we talked about it, because it would be beautiful. But getting it to happen is something else again.

Rakow: But I had no, there’s nothing in any of these records, that I found, that says that there were three generations living together, grandparents, parents, and offspring.

Brodey: I don’t remember, even, grandparents coming in.

Rakow: Well I thought you would know, I thought I’ll ask you! Yeah, cause you read this out there as if it’s fact,

Brodey: Well, let’s, when the fantasies start, every- everybody- even I extend as part of the American tradition.

Rakow: That’s a program. They’re doing a family database here, collecting peop-family, all the genealogy and everything. Apparently they’re going to have researchers look at this, look at the patterns across time. That’s- that’s the software book for it. Alright, well let me- let’s look at some of these things.

Rakow: This paper, I mentioned in my email, my email to you, there’s no author on this, it’s a- it’s a lengthy paper, it’s, you can probably get the ideas by the second page, he goes on and on, whoever did this. But I don’t know whose work it is. It’s mostly quotes from books. So I think if you just- like, the first two pages kind of give you the idea of what they’re trying to accomplish, and then go to the summary. It might help, I didn’t know whose work that was, and I thought maybe I’d show it to you and see what you think. If it’s yours, or [silence] [papers turning over] Doesn’t give a year on it. [silence]

Brodey: [long silence] Well, [long silence] [papers turning over] [long silence] Doesn’t sound like Murray here.

Rakow: No, it doesn’t! And it doesn’t sound like Bob Dysinger, either.

Brodey: No.

Rakow: It didn’t sound like anyone! [laughter] Unless it was someone’s exercise. You have to read the final paragraph, and it ends rather funny. You know, he’s saying that there has to be a new way to think about this. [Papers turning over] [Long silence} So, it made me-

Brodey: It’s a very fine misquote

Rakow: I know, isn’t it?! I thought well, maybe it was an exercise that someone was doing. I mean, the, the humor at the end makes me then think, well, maybe it is yours or Bowen’s or somebody’s work.

Brodey: Well, I- I think I’d remember something like that, I’m trying to remember.

Rakow: Probably I think you would.

Brodey: I think I- and all these people were (inaudible).

Rakow: And who’s, you know, whose, who would have been thinking like this? You know, when you read the summary, who is it would have been thinking like this? Usually, if a paper is in here belonging to somebody else, there’s a note on it.

Brodey: Well the only one I can think of is Dysinger.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: Um, [silence] Cause Murray wouldn’t bother himself to write such a long thing. I don’t think.

Rakow: I didn’t know, you know, if you, there’s only that one word on it that’s handwritten to know whose that is. It could be Dysinger, I think.

Brodey: Dysinger is more of this style of thinking. Because he’s sort of, he’s so much more, say, generously meticulous person.

Rakow: Would he have had that kind of humor, though? That it ends with?

Brodey: It’s conceivable, yeah. Cause he’s a very bright man, no question about that.

Rakow: Alright, okay. Okay, alright. Well, here was a- I just thought I’d show you this, cause it was in here. This was something you had written. It’s in here but you identified it, your name is on it, so we don’t have to, I just thought I’d show it to you.

Brodey: You know, I have a book at home, which I wrote after, I think most of it was after I’d left. And some of it, I told you about that, and never got-

Rakow: Which one is it? I- Cause we have The Family Dance.

Brodey: No, no, no, no, no, this is one that never got published.

Rakow: Not that one. Oh, okay, yeah.

Brodey: It’s short notes, which I wrote either at the time I was there, or just after, I guess I have to look at it myself. And the one thing I remember, is, is, (inaudible).

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: Is schizophrenia (and spinach). And, ah, it had to do with, you know, eat your spinach. Maybe. Ah, and, you know, and then the ridiculousness of it, the logic around ‘eat your spinach’ is completely crazy. But it- at the same time, it’s completely logical. You know, and, and the pressure on the child to ‘eat your spinach,’ ah, it’s just- it’s sort of it’s all nonsensical. At the same time, you- it’s- there’s an internal logic which is, which is a consistent logic, which is nonsense. Or in other words, you’re dealing with another reality. At least that’s what I remember, I haven’t looked at it, but I know it hangs around in one of my drawers somewhere. If you remind me I’ll pull it out, because I would only love to get something like that in, into somewhere where it might have some meaning, rather than seeing it in a drawer.

Rakow: Scott, you’re- you’re free to jump in here, and say something, if you want.

Hargrove: Thank you, I was going to ask if I could,

Rakow: [laughter] You don’t need my permission, go ahead.

Hargrove: You have very interesting ways of getting into non-linear thinking.

Rakow: I’m going to put this away, unless you want a copy.

Brodey: But I think non-linear thinking, is, is capable of being, of being organized in the manner in which is, I mean, using chaos theory and the like. There’s complex ways of looking at things, we just have avoided them up to now, because they don’t fit into the -the kind of, notational system we had to use. But now we have the computer, that asks to describe non-linear systems in a way that they are biological, we call them bio- logic systems. In [background noise] biologic and biological treatment developed. [Background noise] and I feel like I have had a part in developing it. But it’s not, you know, I’m not the one who’s the conceptualizer, so I don’t, I can’t very well, Ah, there’s lots of facts and figures and mathematize it is fine. Except that it needs to get out to public. Because if it isn’t, we don’t have a public language for non-linear systems then we are really doomed to disaster. Because we have such powerful tools. And we can’t control them with Newtonian logic. You can, you can say this is a finger, and this is fingers and this is the palm and the arm. But, you know, you’ve got a family, a family’s not just the five fingers. It’s an integration altogether. And, and, but then the question is at what point does the finger become the integration, this is just a semantic problem. Mere words and most people have a hard time thinking beyond words. Because it’s as if the words were the thing itself rather than the words represented something. So, words are representations of names of things is quite different than the word is the thing itself. This is maps and territories.

Rakow: Is-isn’t there that great quote from Einstein, that said, “I don’t need words to think.” or something like that? [laughter]

Brodey: Yeah, sure. It’s also the map and the territory because many people, I’ve just written a paper about this, which was called “The Game of Knowledge”. I have a copy, I could send you a copy. And so, “The Game of Knowledge” has to do with the people who use words as fetishes in a psychiatric way. So, they’re, you know, they make love to the shoe rather than to the lady. And, you know, the word becomes a fetish which is just something that you attach yourself to as if it was, the name was the thing itself.

Rakow: Yeah, well I think that’s, that’s, an issue with (inaudible), to, to, not get attached to the families in emotional , and what does that mean.

Brodey: Well, this is the problem. Because all of the time we were trying to, to relate, trying to name them, or trying to put numbers on them, we were trying to relate to human (inaudible). And, this is, the whole project is about relating to these people. As close as we could. And at the same time, showing them how we related to each other. That was a very active part of the therapy. And how do you describe that? And, we actually were involved with how we relate to each other as, as a team, was the most powerful means of expressing to them, that there are other means of relating to each other than they are aware of.

Rakow: Well, I-I think what you were describing earlier, would be you know, I had an idea, and I could talk about that idea, it’s a good idea, someone else could incorporate that idea, into their thinking, and vice versa. And within that project as I would see that as part of what the families could want to absorb. Going on. Because what I hear described in these families is, is a, is a, I don’t know if it’s a competition, but to me it comes over, in in that way, of their being one, not many. You know, that one person has the point of authority not many people, having it.

Brodey: Mmhmm.

Rakow: And that there wasn’t room for difference. That’s what I hear you saying. There was room for difference and room, also, to incorporate good ideas from others, without – it wasn’t an ownership, per se,

Brodey: No, it wasn’t an ownership per se, but no, it was, Murray was, he used his method of domination, which has to do with the way psychiatrists dominate, which is, you know, which is by your stillness. Get other people talking but he would not, psychoanalyst you know, he would not, sort of, express what he thought, he never told you, you know as we discussed, with his wife, he was not one to say, “Well, you know, you did a wonderful job at this,” and you, you were forced to feel what was going on in yourself. But you were forced to deal with your own conflict, much more than is normal, in a normal situation. So this camaraderie, was not a part of his, his way of life.

Rakow: And it seems to me that, that could work well in this project because all of you could be yourself and represent yourself but when you put that into the larger system, then it-it was- wasn’t a good fit.

Brodey: So much was personal, so much was, was, ah, the power of, of, of feelings and emotions and logic’s closely connected with emotions. These- so, we could call this a holistic project much more than most projects. But at this time there was no language for holism at all, so-

Rakow: But this- and those same characteristics,

Brodey: not even the concept was was popular. It hadn’t arrived.

Rakow: And those same characteristics, though, that weren’t well received in the other system, they were

Brodey: They were the things we were working on. They were the things that mattered.

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: So this- I– let me tell you, to make an illustration, Nathan Ackerman, was one of the, he was in on the group of what we call, what I used to call, multiple individual family therapy, and the multiple individual family therapy people were strong because after all, they were just taking the ordinary therapy, psychoanalytic therapy particularly, and then doing multiple individual therapy, and then trying to piece it all together in your heads. And so they weren’t really, and then they’d name it to the people, but they weren’t really working with the family as a unit. It’s quite different. So, Nathan was, you know, he had his ideas, and one time I was invited because there was a whole period, where I was going out, and Murray was going out some and I don’t remember how much Bob and Betty were, but anyway, they were too, I think. They were going to psycho-psychia- psychiatric meetings, and so on and so forth psychiatric meeting and talking about family.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And sometimes, the opposition was such it was just that way, being in the, in the boxing ring.

Rakow: Okay, go ahead, tell more – tell me more about that.

Brodey: And it was very- Well, I mean, people would say “But it’s silly. How could you ever have any confidentiality if everybody knows about everybody else, and your talking all together, how can you ever tell anything?” We said, well the important things are what you, not what you tell about sacred issues, what you what you experience together. And how much you’re able to sort of make a, a relational field, where people are able to put in the things because they have trust in each other. And if they don’t, it’s fine, who cares, it- we’re doing family therapy, not individual therapy. So different kinds of material come up in family therapy than in individual therapy.

Rakow: But-but it’s really addressing a real distinct difference, which is that it was understood that being able to say these things, one member to another, or in the presence of other members, added to the health of the family.

Brodey: Absolutely, hidden agendas were to be- the ideal was to get at the hidden agendas. And not, not to help people hide them. So this is all part of, part of the game. And, because hidden agendas, you know, they’re like the informal structures of business and everything else, this is where the real business goes on. And so, we were trying to get at hidden agendas but part of doing that was keeping this kind of neutral position in terms of the family not engaging ourselves with asking them questions so much as getting them to behave, and then trying by our own behavior to relate to that in whatever way we felt, again, in hypnosis, the power of this is enormous. In hypnosis, you don’t necessarily try and hypnotize somebody else, you take them along into a meditative state with you. As soon you get into a meditative state, they come in too, they can’t help it. If your, it’s just the way it is. So, if you get into a state where you’re sort of involved with a relationship between yourselves and the staff, and trying to think about how we relate in the best possible way to your people, then they have to think about how they relate to us.

Rakow: Well, I think about that as it led then to the reality of how they were related.

Brodey: We had to relate, our struggle to deal with how they relate then to each other, we made open.

Rakow: And-and the relationship with you didn’t obscure that.

Brodey: We tried to- we tried not to obscure it, by, by commenting on them which was forbidden, strictly, to say “You are this or this.” Make a diagnosis. No. We’re talking about process all the time. This is what we see happening. Do we understand it right? And so, you know, we’re always trying to engage in process with them.

Now, when I, when I gave, I did some family therapy for, for, two- two cameras going, and I did family therapy with one patient and then Nathan did it with another. Nathan Ackerman, to go back to that. And, Nathan was so upset with my family therapy, that here’s a whole audience, he said we can’t show this. Couldn’t show it. Because, you know, it was so different than his own, it opened up other territories. To him, this whole thing was inconceivable.

Hargrove: Did that have to do with the focus on the relationship between, say, Ackerman and a given person in the group, and in your group, you were focused on the process of what was going on in that

Brodey: Exactly, exactly. And I was saying things, that, to him, were in support of (inaudible) How could you possibly say that. But I was saying it in relation to family. So I was, I was always working in relation to the wholeness of it. And he’s relating to individual people. Well,

Rakow: I think that’s such a hard idea to think of. Hard to grasp

Brodey: Well, it’s hard because

Rakow: what the difference is

Brodey: That’s because nobody’s willing, to, to, because it’s so fundamental. That, you know, we have this dyadic world we live in. Dyadic until the non-linear world. And there’s A then B, and B then A.

Hargrove: So it’s back to the linear/nonlinear world.

Brodey: Really it is because,

Hargrove: It’s too complicated it seems, to- what I hear you say, is, it’s too complicated to try and engage a family in non-linear thinking you couldn’t- there’s no way you could keep up with it. It’s too much.

Brodey: It’s too much, it’s too, ah, you know, the words become meaningless, almost immediately. And then the words are only carrying their emotional value. But you’re not getting any descriptions, which you, which give any substance to the situation. Let’s say, the map is not really disciplined. It’s not relating to the territory. The map is sort of key words, which are relating to the emotional sort of garbage that’s there. And not the- not to the- to the intense relationa- relational field. (Inaudible). So here’s an intense relational field that’s going on, it can be a company, can be a family, it can be all sorts of things, in can be an ecological situation.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And this- Gregory Bateson and I had long discussion, we spent a weekend, just the two of us working at this problem. And I was disagreeing with him. Because Gregory was, was talking about levels, it was A and B and C and D. I said that isn’t the way it is in a complex system. If we are talking about ecology, it can’t be in levels. Because ecology doesn’t have levels. In families you can talk about levels but each level is integrated into the next. They’re all weaving together and they’re all affecting each other at once. So you, you say the causality as we know it goes out the window. But when it goes out the window and we accept that, the new causality enters. New methods of thinking of causality. Circular causality, complex causality, (inaudible) logic all these things come into it, (inaudible) and then we’ll open again. And this is- these are things I spend my life. Let’s go on, to, to your questions, cause otherwise we could spend all day here.

Rakow: Okay! Yeah. Um- I know [laugher] Okay. Now, this is-

Brodey: To me it gets too vague, you know.

Rakow: I don’t know if you remember, I’m just trying to identify who people were, is this one, because this is a quote from a letter, following it, do you remember that name?

1:02:48 Brodey: [long silence] [papers turning over] [silence] [silence]

Rakow: That ring a bell, with you? I mean, because all the records aren’t here it’s hard to identify who all the families are. Now, it seems like that would be one.

Brodey: I think that is one.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: Um, but, wasn’t one that was up in the

Rakow: An outpatient family?

Brodey: Oh, I didn’t see outpatient-

Rakow: You didn’t see outpatient families.

Brodey: No, and that’s, again, you know, that schism, I had nothing to do with outpatient families whatsoever.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And, and Murray kept the whole outpatient thing completely separate. Nobody else that I know of could keep things- I could never keep things that separate. But he could. Completely separate. So,

Rakow: But others did. Betty did, Dysinger did,

Brodey: Betty’s work- I guess so, but I didn’t.

Rakow: You did not, okay.

Brodey: And that was fine with me, I mean I didn’t, I wasn’t (inaudible).

Rakow: Okay, so, but you didn’t remember that being- so that may, have not been on the project at all.

Brodey: Maybe, before I came, that’s also a possibility.

Rakow: Well, that’s the date, what’s the date? Here’s the

Brodey: It does sound familiar.

Rakow: reference I think.

Brodey: Yeah, well you know- [silence] I think I don’t know the answer to the question.

Rakow: Okay. Well, there’s all- there’s a lot of mysteries in this, in these files, so it just one of them. Okay, so we’ll just [papers being moved] leave that a question. And this name came up here, too. This was just written on a handwritten on a piece of paper. Okay.

Brodey: There may be some consultations that, that Murray had that I don’t know about.

Rakow: Okay, but there- in, I think I have that file here, if you (wouldn’t mind) moving those- Yeah, right here. There’s, somewhere in here there’s -alright, so we don’t know about- I’m just trying to identify-

Brodey: What is your- What is your relationship to the (inaudible) project, you’re writing notes on this or (something else)?

Hargrove: [inaudible]

Rakow: Yeah, he’s just– he has no relationship

Hargrove: [inaudible]

Hargrove: small town) I appreciate you-

Brodey: Well that’s fine.

Rakow: He’s doing a sabbatical,

Brodey: Well that’s fine.

Rakow: sabbatical here

Brodey: I just need to check cause I, you know, part of me says, you know, (what’s going on and)

Hargrove: Well, I (wouldn’t) be here if I wasn’t intensely interested in what you all are talking about.

Brodey: Yeah, that’s fine.

Go to Top

Interview with Warren Brodey Conducted by Catherine Rakow (cmr1227@hughes.net)

September 4th, 2002 For the Murray Bowen Archives Project of Leaders for Tomorrow at History of Science Division of the National Library of Medicine Part 2

Narrator: Welcome to Part 2 of the September 2002 conversation between Catherine Rakow and Dr. Warren Brodey. To preserve the privacy of patient histories and references, you’ll notice certain pinpoint moments of silence. We hope these do not detract from the flow of the ideas. And in any case, don’t worry. It is not your audio playback system malfunctioning. However, for about seven or eight minutes, you will encounter a part of the original cassette recording that sounds “wobbly.” Various enhancements were made to add clarity, for this digital version, but that temporary speed irregularity on the original tape could not be solved. As noted at the start of Part 1, Dr. Warren Brodey was a co-investigator on Dr. Murray Bowen’s 1954 to 59 NIMH research project. At the start of this second part, Dr. Brodey is examining handwritten records from that research, for the purpose of identifying any materials that were his. This discussion offers you an inside look at the practices within that project, from someone who was there. It’s a project that laid the groundwork for the formation of Bowen Family Systems Theory. And the papers from that research are now housed at the National Library of Medicine.

Rakow: This is from, ah, family relationships. It’s schizophrenia, (which) has Dr. Bowen’s name on it. Um, another thing I’ve been finding was that whenever the therapists worked with one family, this is talking about in the group, anxiety would be kicked up among the other families. Then the focus would shift over to another family. We could never work through an issue with the original family. So he set up a format that said one therapist was in charge on a given day, and the focus would be on one family. So, rather than everyone coming together, apparently the, the family staff meeting started off, with talking someone started, then, and it- you could talk with any family, and then it changed, the structure changed. Or one therapist- and that’s what I’m wondering, if these are the notes.

Brodey: Or one therapist- and that’s what I’m wondering, if these are the notes. Well even, even with family (use) you know, I can’t remember. Almost- I’m fairly certain it took the questions. (inaudible). Um, [rustling microphone noises] I’m (not) certain I could answer the question now.

Rakow: It says, “And there was a working rule that the other families would not get involved in that one family’s problems. That was the format we developed during the last two years of the project.” Now, he’s saying this in 1979, it’s many years later.

Brodey: [rustling and silence] Well- I think that it (inaudible).

Rakow: Okay. Well that’s- that’s what I was thinking. These notes might have ben rela- because, they seem to be all they’re a different day, but they’re only one family. So this would seem to me to be consistent with, with that format. So,

Brodey: I-I just want to say, you’re very welcome (inaudible). And, ah, (there wasn’t this) (inaudible) (inaudible)

Hargrove: Now, as (inaudible)

Brodey: And, there was one (inaudible)

Hargrove: (Right).

Brodey: I (want) to keep focusing (what was) (inaudible).

Rakow: Oh, okay, don’t worry. I’ll get my agenda back. [laughter] This is a little different writing.

Brodey: Yeah, that’s fine.

Rakow: It’s similar to the last, but just a little bit different. Okay.

Brodey: No, (that’s not me).

Rakow: Yeah, people’s writing does change, from day to day, so.

Brodey: And mine changes (a lot).

Rakow: Well, this, this person seemed to be doing a lot of doodling.

Brodey: Yeah. (Well, I-I couldn’t-)

Rakow: So, I-I’m guessing it is (Disenger).

Brodey: What if- have you seen (Jack and) (inaudible) somewhere or other?

Rakow: Boy, that’s a new one.

Brodey: Somebody-

Rakow: (Go away)

Brodey: Somebody-somebody who doodles about

Rakow: Marge, well, I can’t ask, can I?

Brodey: – maybe it’s, it’s, it’s Marge. [tape cut]

Rakow: No way to find out from her.

Brodey: (inaudible)

Rakow: Okay. So, okay. Well, What’s the date on that one? I want to make a note of that.

Brodey: Looks to me like-

Rakow: 10/29.

Brodey: But, you probably (inaudible) (be left to read) (inaudible)

Rakow: You know, the project’s coming to an end. In December, they’re discharged. So, you know, this is October. (Now) does any of this look like your writing? (Any of these) on down? [silence]

Brodey: (Two’s) looks a little different than the earlier versions.

Rakow: No, (I don’t think so). This looks the same as that other one.

Brodey: (No.)

Rakow: I’m going to-

Brodey: No. No.

Rakow: Okay. And who’s this? Must’ve been somebody- And that (inaudible) [noise on tape] Okay. So, that took care of these. We know it’s not yours.

Brodey: Yes.

Rakow: [microphone rustling] [silence] [writing] The other thing – was there a family who had an autistic child, who was part of this research?

Brodey: [silence] (Not) that I know of. [tape cut] May have been other (inaudible).

Rakow: Okay, not that you remember. Inpatient. I think it was- a family with an autistic child. That was part of this, okay, which is this, okay, I think this is, well, here’s some (typed) with no author, there’s all kinds of [tape cut] -I’ll let you go through this – all kinds of handwritten notes. Somewhere in one of these, there’s a discussion of medical problems occurring. As change occurred in the family. That the mothers had a gynecological problems, that the fathers had prostate problems. And how was that getting talked about?

Brodey: Yeah. Well we took that as, ah, one of- one of the things we noticed. That there was a shift within the essentially, the- as, as a family changed, within the energies (that weren’t-) didn’t surrender, to becoming, ah, we’ll call it the sick energy, or the symptoms only. They’re often shifted from one place to another But the- so the- we- we assumed, then, that the fact that it was able to shift, was a progression.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: Because, about at the same time, that- we hadn’t- we hadn’t cured anything, we just sort of brought about this shift, which, ah, allowed them to go to another level of defense.

Rakow: Alright.

Brodey: So, ah, but- that- still, it was a progress, because things shifting are easier to deal with than not shifting.

Rakow: Right. Yes, it tells you there’s something happening.

Brodey: One, it tells you there’s something happening, but two, that something is happening. Is a- is a means of do- as it were, the knot is loosening up.

Rakow: But- can you go

Brodey: It was tied so tight that nothing- nothing would change. But we’ve actually saw, going from first A then moving over to B, and then going somewhere else. Or one symptom’s going to move between the family members, right? This is within-

Rakow: But it came up-

Brodey: the family body. Within the particular people’s body.

Rakow: But it came about in response to changes in how family members were related to each other. So,

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: how are you- how did that then (get out)? You-you’re saying something about energy, you’re talking about an energy in the group.

Brodey: But we didn’t think much in energy, in those days.

Rakow: I-I was thinking you probably didn’t

Brodey: No. But, ah, the transfer of symptoms from one to the other, was common. So that, we thought more in terms of anxiety. Instead of talking about energy. Talked about the anxiety would move from one person to the other.

Rakow: How-how is- how are you understanding it though? That as one family member, I don’t know how to say this, you know, would, would get a better-

Brodey: I think (the other) would get worse.

Rakow: Right. Ha- how- I know that you could see that, but-

Brodey: Well they maintain the family equilibrium. By, by shifting. From- symptom, from one place to another, but the anxiety just moves in the family. Now, the question is, did you think of it, at that time, as them getting better? Because it moved in the family. I think the answer’s no.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: That- we didn’t see it as being an improvement, that it moved from A to B.

Rakow: There’s a lot of talk in the papers, about family equilibrium, but you don’t hear that later. So I’m curious, how-how that idea was being thought about. Equilibrium. In the family.

Brodey: Well, the-the family sort of, ah, the family, you didn’t use the word container, in those days, but the family as a unit, ah, [silence]. As a creature, you could call it. It just- it sort of could shift, ah, it could, it could shift things between themselves. Without changing the family. So, the symptoms would, the symptoms if (you’re thinking) in the family, the symptom was the same. Except it just shifted from one person to another.

Rakow: Except it just shifted from one person to another. So, as you would have, say, the offspring grew, and you have a parent, with physical symptoms,

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: So. So, observing that’s one thing, but having a way, to conceptualize what’s happening?

Brodey: Well, I think, when we saw that sort of thing, we would, we would share it with the family. [silence] So we’d say- we would say something about, “The anxiety seems to have moved, today.”

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And, sort of, help them to become aware of their own dynamic.

Rakow: That goes- that goes to the next question, which is, “What were the markers, for change?” That- you could say something has changed in this family, so one marker would have been, the anxiety has moved.

Brodey: That hasn’t changed the family very much. It changes, it changes,

Rakow: the (inaudible)

Brodey: who- who is containing the symptom today.

Rakow: So what were the markers for what would be called change for the better, or chang- improvement? What-what were the markers?

Brodey: That’s a very good question. Um, [silence] well, frankly, the way we did it was more, um,

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: how well they managed (on) work. We didn’t have any sort of, ah, measures that we trusted, which were sort of a technicalized men- measures. We didn’t have those. Well, because they didn’t exist, as far as we were concerned. All the measures, you can di psychological tests and all that, they were irrelevant, because, after all, if a symptom can move from one to the other to the other family, so could be better in one, worse in the other. So, so our, our measures, more or less, was how does this family relate to its environment? And are they relating in a more, ah, honestly, a more- a less problematic method- way?

Rakow: And that would be within the family, as well as within the larger environments? Okay.

Brodey: Well, no, no, we’re relating to within the family.

Rakow: [laughter] Ok. Alright.

Brodey: We’re relating to the family, and its environment. So, if the family was more able to deal with the stresses in the environment, and had a- some sort of more insight into their own way of relating, to the environment, and used that insight, in a positive way, now, positive, of course, relates to us who are the environment. I mean, we can get easier to relate to and more difficult to relate to, so that

Rakow: Now, I-I,

Brodey: these instill in the subject a field.

Rakow: you know, I think the experience that you had, had there, or it came in with, and deepened there, you know, is still difficult to get this idea. That I would say, that you would look at, how the family members were relating to each other. But then you corrected that to say, “No, the family, and the environment.” And I- that-

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: Yes, the- it’s, um,

Brodey: This is the essence of what we’re looking at.

Rakow: you know, as much as I’ve looked at all this, and studied this, just grasping that, still, is- shows up that it’s not there in the way that you all were thinking about. So-

Brodey: No. We really had a very specific way of thinking. And I think, if in your mind’s eye, you would use- you would have the sense of an animal, the animal was a family. Here’s an animal that makes its home in this, you know, this-this anthill, or this, (say anything), chooses the way to arrange the timber and the bricks and the (wattle).

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: In the (inaudible) So on and so forth around itself. And relates to another beast, which is another- a neighbor family.

Rakow: Yes, yes, it’s-

Brodey: Then you come closer to it. So, you have to think of this as, a beast, as a creature, as- beast is not a nice word, so we should leave it out maybe. I usually think the word ‘beast,’ because

Rakow: [laughter] [distortion on tape] I can live with it.

Brodey: beasties are fun. It’s- it’s- or you (can think of) it as a paramecium, a one-celled organism. And it has its stomach, and it has its feet, and it has its ah, you know, its movement, it has its reproductive organization and stuff. And this family has the same.

Rakow: But then there-

Brodey: So, in, in, in, you see this this creature that is- is a family, which is you know, this is, this is the vision we had which is very different than anybody else.

Rakow: Yes, I-I-I’m hearing that. Yeah, each day you sat in these meetings, with parts of this beast, observing, the inner workings. Of that.

Brodey: Well we didn’t sit with the parts of the beast, we sat with the beast.

Rakow: [laughter] Yes, I know! But

Brodey: And those beasts- we had five beasts, or six beasts, you know, and they’re all relating to us, and we were another beast. It was-

Rakow: But the beast (had) many voices! [laughter]

Brodey: But we didn’t care about the voices. We were not listening to the voices, we were listening to the beast. The beast had many voices, but the beast -the beast is the (thing), we go back to use the hand. The voice are the fingers of the hand. The whole [handslap] hand functions as a- a you know, all, together, and the whole human race, and all the pictures of the Earth, function together. They have a common life, the Earth is alive, it’s a beast too. And these beasts are, you know, what you choose to call a beast has to do with what you want, what you can name. It’s much more a problem of that we have learned to name certain things and not other things. We learn to name family- when families were very strong, in the old days, (gain) think this way, the family in ancient times, was like a tribal family. And the tribal family was really a family. And again, they had people who did this and just did that. They were a- it was a family. Or, because, cause sometimes it- you know, all the uncles looked after the children, or the aunts looked after the then you have this family organization we have now, a very different organization. The women went (to the) marriage, the marriages, they went to the uncle’s family, or something like that, and then the men came, and, and, and impregnated them, on feast day, or something like that. So, this family that we know of as the family unit, is not the only kind of beast that is around.

Rakow: Okay. I’m trying to stay with the (inaudible), I’m trying to get

Brodey: I jumped from one thing to another, I know.

Rakow: I know you did, and I’m going back, to that. So you would be in these meetings, relating to the beast, watching the transfer of anxiety, or what’s referred to as reciprocal functioning. That, ah, s- (inaudible). So, in some ways, you were- it wasn’t only, and this is where I think I get tripped up- the beast in the environment but it was, the- the well, let me get this cause I might be off the track, but, the beast within itself.

Brodey: Right.

Rakow: And how it was functioning. As a unit. Itself.

Brodey: Yeah, that’s right.

Rakow: Okay. Now that-

Brodey: So you were involved with the beast, itself. And how it functioned within itself. But we weren’t- but that was only in order to understand how it was functioning, in as a unit. Now that we’re (inaudible) this-this

Rakow: See- there- you were not only learning how it worked.

Brodey: Yeah, go ahead.

Rakow: That this level of anxiety, for lack of a better- (inaudible).

Brodey: Mmm. We were talking about the fact that we’re trying, in the project, to relate ourselves to family as a creature. Rather than to people as individuals. We-we felt that the individuals were sort of just parts of the creature. And that was a very difficult concept to hold onto. Cause it (inaudible) was the only way of thinking. And, the- it was sometimes desperately difficult, to do that. But, we all supported each other, and, and working this way. Now, there were people in the group who were not engaged in this kind of theoretical or engaged in, in this family unit concept. They were there, in like some nurses, to do the best they could

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: to make everybody comfortable, each person comfortable. And when they saw us, for example, allowing families to operate in relations to each other, and we didn’t solve their problems, but it seemed that the mother would look after the fact that the father would look out for something, for the mother, the father, and so forth? [laughter] And it was a real problem. Ah, the nurses were extraordinarily anxious, because they didn’t see this as a family unit problem,

Rakow: And-and I-

Brodey: they saw it as an individual problem. And- knowing that the nursing staff and the head nurse at, at the NIH, would become very disturbed with us. Because of this.

Rakow: I don’t remember- don’t know who that was.

Brodey: Well, anyway, there was a lot of pressure on, on, on, the head nurse.

Rakow: On Marge. From, I guess, the day shift.

Brodey: On Marge. From, from- Yes. Because they felt that they were not behaving as good nurses.

Rakow: I’ll have to think that this got around, in- in the administrative system, that there- that this was a- a view, that, that issue about research and therapy, the conflict, is what he says, but whether it’s accurate or not, that this had to come up, you know, about “What all were you doing, or were you doing anything?”

Brodey: That’s right. And, and this is where- where Bob Cohen said, “Please, you know, you have to get these people to write.”

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And you have to get them to report. Because otherwise, it’s nothing going on there. As far as, the function of a research unit, and all this money going in. To, to, make all of us who were on the staff more skilled in understanding families. Was not enough, unless we reported out, and this is the old publish or perish.

Rakow: So, that implies to me, there would have been pressure on him, and-and that

Brodey: Huh? Oh, yes.

Rakow: if, if something could get published, then it would ease the pressure that was coming to him. He might have been impersonally, individually, and content to allow you to continue doing what you doing [sic]. That you were doing important work and might get somewhere with it, but- but the larger system was saying, “These families, they’re trouble.

Brodey: they’re upset- they’re upsetting the whole hospital. From one floor to another, anxiety breaks out on each floor. (It) goes up in the elevator, that’s who used to (talk to it).

Rakow: And the she laughed. What was- and this question’s never occurred to me before- but what was it like after they left? Did you learn any more?

Brodey: It was better. No, but we-we had learned what we know from them, and then we went on

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: and we kept on. But I think we were sort of more sure of our grounds. And we were sort of- we had really come to the stage of conceptualization more. I mean, we were capable of writing more. But, you know,

Rakow: What’s the question? Was that-

Brodey: I think what’s the, ah, Murray, really stubborn guy. I mean, he coulda written more. He was holding on to this “Let’s keep it open,” and not, not trying

Rakow: Mmhmm, mmhmm, mmhmm.

Brodey: to cut it all down into words right away. And so I’m- and I, you know, I, I wrote what I thought fairly soon after- I guess it was the paper in the, in the study, (Sankman) Study of the Child, (was the) one in psychiatry, all those papers, were my effort, to take responsibility for writing about the project. And the Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, I had

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: I had part two of (second) published, which went further into the analysis of how these families operate. But it was too much (of) the psychoanalytic community, and maybe wasn’t written well enough, I don’t know. And anyway, they didn’t publish it. [tape cut]

Rakow: Because they left in October ’57.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: And the project ran to December. ’58. So, things would have formed more at the conceptual level, if I’m following what you said- I’m just repeating what you said. Or do you wanna?

Brodey: I-I think this is true.

Rakow: Sure I have- do you wanna pen, or something?

Brodey: Yeah, yeah.

Rakow: I- here, I have a pencil, here’s a pen. Um, [noise of writing]

Brodey: M’kay.

Rakow: I- well it does seem to me, that, the disturbance they created, in some ways, generated the need for decisions to get made, that in the long run were useful. That they-they were kind of an irritation that produces

Brodey: Oh, yeah.

Rakow: some pearls.

Brodey: Yeah, I think so too. They were, sort of, our delegates to the outside world.

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: Terrible (inaudible). But, ah, yeah, and I think you’re right about the pressure on, is on, and I think this, this aspect of Murray, just sort of not submitting to pressure, not in any way compromising, had its good sides and its bad sides. The bad sides was, that you couldn’t he wasn’t really able to provide people with what they needed in order to support him.

Rakow: Well, yeah that was my question, what kind of compromises could have been made?

Brodey: Well, we could have written. Now, they gave us the last six months to write,

Rakow: Right. It doesn’t seem like much got done in that last six months.

Brodey: And a lot of- Well, because Murray was fighting it.

Rakow: It- did- (seem) that was churning-

Brodey: And they were fighting with Murray.

Rakow: that he was attempting to keep the project.

Brodey: I think he wanted to keep the project going, and at the same time, he-he- Til May.

Brodey: We were out reporting, you know we were out to the, um,

Rakow: Mmhmm, right, right.

Brodey: giving lectures and so on, so it wasn’t Murray was lecturing, I was doing my own things, and so we were busy at work. But somehow or other, he continued to-

Rakow: Well since the door was already closed,

Brodey: that fight went on. The door was closed.

Rakow: And he was attempting to do something that was impossible. Wasn’t going to get done, for whatever reasons. He- was motivated, to do that.

Brodey: Well, let’s think about the fact that he got- he got accepted over at- over at Georgetown University, started a unit there. If he hadn’t, there would have been a great loss.

Rakow: Well, I suppose it would have gone somewhere else.

Brodey: Maybe.

Rakow: You know there were some job offers, there were other job offers. Wisconsin, and So. Yeah, Les- I think (Leslie Osbourne),

Brodey: Okay. I didn’t (know).

Rakow: had attempted to find some place, but but it seems to me, thatHe was from Wisconsin’s,

Brodey: Leslie Osbourne, who’s he?

Rakow: State- head of the Department of Mental Health, in Wisconsin I think. Um, so, well this is what

Brodey: Okay.

Rakow: (that) if I look at the researchers, who were there, at the same time, they went on to other positions at universities, or in governmental positions. To some level of fame. Whereas, my- this is my sense, of this, that the researchers who were there made careers, for themselves, whereas the researchers on this project, Dr. Bowen, you could speak for yourself on this, created theory. From this? So the outcome, was very different. The outcome was the creation of theory,

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: not career. And, you know Dr. Bowen went on to a

Brodey: yeah.

Rakow: career at Georgetown, but really in a very not highly focused, or fame, or bringing accolades to the university, or really a- in some ways, an irritation there, too!

Brodey: No, no, no, no.

Rakow: [laughter] To continue, doing what he’s developing, this theory. Which would- didn’t seem to be well understood, and I think our conversation earlier, is- is a piece, at least, if not the kernel of it. This change in thinking.

Brodey: Yeah, well we were, we were sort of into this holistic thinking about the family. And, holistic thinking, by its nature, is- is accepting complexion.

Rakow: It seems there was some experimenting, though. I mean, I have- on some of these notes, I have here, um, this is from the paper called Family Relationships and Schizophrenia. It talks about “The parent who functions in the adequate position initiates treatment, so that parent who’s enthusiastic, the parent in the inadequate position opposes the idea. We’ve made it an operating rule to deal with the parent in the adequate position, that parent can accomplish things in the family not possible for outsiders to accomplish. Our first basic rule is that family works on its own problem in the hour, while the therapist tends to analyze. It is essentially impossible for these families to keep this structure. Their inability to do this becomes the subject of therapy.” [silence] So you were really talking with the beast about being a beast.

Brodey: Being?

Rakow: Being- its essence.

Brodey: We were just- yes, we were (inaudible) its essence.

Rakow: And,

Brodey: The essence that it could – that it could experience.

Rakow: But- but it was contributing to a theory.

Brodey: Not some theoretical essence.

Rakow: This all contributes, to a theory. Of how human behavior works. So, they- it was going on, there were many things going on. Now, oh, here, this is what I wanted to go back to. “The parent in the adequate position, that parent can accomplish things in the family not possible for outsiders to accomplish.” How do you understand that? That the- that the family, can self-correct.

Brodey: Yeah, because- Well, let’s put it this way. The [silence] the creature is stuck. In certain habits. In certain structures. Sometimes these structures, they really left behind. But the structures, well let me see,

Rakow: Wait- wait, you mean they were useful at some point? And continued when they’re no longer needed? Okay.

Brodey: Useful at some point. That’s right. And – but, they’re held onto. And the person who needs them least, as the adequate person, is able to, sort of, give up these structures. When he gives them up they’re no longer tenable. And no longer- their existence is reduced. And so the family can move to a higher level.

Rakow: [silence] But it’s- what I’m hearing, though, that there was something innate, in the organism. That when, when it operates, has much greater implications. Then, I mean, it would be possible for others to see what’s needed. But when the family figures out what’s needed, and does it, the outcome- it can be much greater.

Brodey: Much deeper, much stronger, much greater.

Rakow: And how do you understand that? And- in other words, what is that? What are we saying, that is? Just life itself? It’s just a force of life? No, it’s- It’s saying that [long silence] when an organism self-corrects, then all the pieces of the organism, shift. Because it’s all in, in what I call, it’s un, (intimately covered).

Brodey: The piece you’re (inaudible) connected. Ah, I use the word intraconnected. instead of interconnected. And when they’re intraconnected, or intimately connected, then when one thing moves, all the other things move too. And so one may make a real improvement, when there’s an adjustment in the family, it gives up some of the old behaviors. Which are really no longer supported. No longer necessary. Then, ah, then the whole the whole family moves up, and so it’s- it’s much more- it’s quite different than someone from outside, ah, the outside person can give it a knock. Give it a slap. Whatever. And then it may start to readjust itself, it may not. [silence] But it’s sort of saying, you know, it’s sort of saying, you know, “I can help you to change. But I can’t change you.”

Rakow: You know, I mean, I do think it says something about a life force, or something.

Brodey: Well, I-I agree with you, but- all what I’m saying, all these beasts have life force. And they are, they are- boundaries are not, are not

Rakow: But you know, the question is, what-

Brodey: by chance.

Rakow: And what makes it so hard, for that kind of change to occur within? I mean, I’m hearing that it wouldn’t- some of these families went months, I-I do get the impression that families in this project, did make gains. Important gains.

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: For themselves. But that it (took months). So my impression is what makes it so hard, for that to be initiated and have impact? That’s one piece. That-that would be one- what makes it so hard, for that to happen? And the other, question has to do with, how as a as someone outside of that family, but relating to them, who can see what’s needed. How do you not- not interfere with that process but can you assist it?

Brodey: Well,

Rakow: Which is what I think you all were attempting to do.

Brodey: That’s relatively (good). Not, if you take If you take the outcome from all this work that we did, and you look at family counseling, and it’s going on all over the, you know, marriage counseling, which is just another form of family counseling, and the family’s all coming together, sometimes the children are involved too, all of this grew out of our work, so it’s-it’s enormous result, that came. Now, the dynamic of the family, has to do with this is an organism, that is able to crea- recreate itself, and it’s, you know, has children, it’s- it’s an organism which has this intimacy, this dense interconnectedness. Within its boundaries. Not always,

Rakow: Yeah, I mean it varies.

Brodey: but sometimes. Sometimes. Yeah, but sometimes. And, it has vitality,

Rakow: Oh, I think it’s pretty dense for everybody, but, a few it’s less dense! [laughter]

Brodey: Yeah. Well, there’s some families which I’ve talked to, woman on the train yesterday, and she said she went to a convent when she was a child, as an orphan. An orphan, convent-orphanage. And people said, you know, isn’t it terrible you’re in an orphanage?” “No,” she says. I’ve got four meals a day, my father doesn’t come home drunk and beat me up. And,

Rakow: And probably had multiple figures,

Brodey: I’m happy as a clam here. (inaudible)

Rakow: not just two, [laughter] or one, had multiple figures to be, interact with. That were useful to her!

Brodey: Yeah, right. Yeah, so this is this is the other side. (In a) dysfunctional family, somebody who’s able gets out of it, it can be very help- healthy for them. Cause they don’t have the burden of (blah blah blah). Anyway. But,

Rakow: Yeah, right.

Brodey: that’s the exception. The fact is that the family is, as a unit, has its

Rakow: Yeah, it sure does.

Brodey: its organic power. (Descent), you know. Ah, I personally think that the part of the problem, is that the- a four-person family is has so much power, and so much intimacy, that it really can’t function. And a twelve person family, the old family, it’s an extended family, had so much more choice involved. How much, you know, if someone wasn’t functioning, (you still had) so Aunt Lily came in and looked after the kids, or

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: all of this was going on, the kids would, you know, I lived in a commune for awhile, and kids get bored with me, they went over to somebody else and watched them.

Rakow: Mmmhm. The exposure.

Brodey: And they learned from them. And, You know-

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: The exposure was enormous. And it’s- part of the problem with why we were so involved with sick families, is because it’s socially an impossible situation.

Rakow: Well, is that happening? I mean, I’m- I’m not in touch with the world as much as you are, we didn’t are you seeing that everywhere? (I know it’s) not

Brodey: Where-where, well, it’s in, mostly in America,

Rakow: in third world countries, probably.

Brodey: in America and Europe, then we have the breakdown, of the family to the individual family, you know, three or four people family. Four family unit. In other parts of the world, the extended family still exists, and in the European countries, it still exists. It still exists here as an exception. Rather than the rule.

Rakow: Do you- I (know) this is, you know, really off the topic of this project, but it’s a question, you know, my, my son’s neighbor, who’s a good friend is with- here in Maryland, her daughter had a severe head injury. She’s- an accident happened. And, they have no family here. Their family is, you know, in Florida, or whatever, but no family attended when this occurred in this family. There was no gathering. Of extended family. But, certainly the neighbors, had done that. Now, I think that’s useful. But do you think

Brodey: (inaudible)

Rakow: do you think there’s an inherent difference, does it make a difference, whether it’s (fam)

Brodey: I’ve thought a lot about this- this is one of the things, and act- the last– in the last chapter in my book, The Family Dance, it’s taken up, probably to the consternation of many psychiatrists and the like. Because I suggest that we need the family of friends, rather than blood relatives. That blood families have an advantage, because they have a biological (cherry). But we also, since we don’t have extended families with people are (moving), we need families of friends. And that’s, in some respects, is happening with people (inaudible).

Rakow: I remember that now. I-I- when I read your book I remember that.

Brodey: People get divorced, and people get divorced, and -and then the divorced couple is- becomes more a family of four adults. And kids are shared. And sometimes even more than that, you know, they get divorced again

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: so you get these big, new families. Which sometimes function very well. So, this is a question- I personally think that the biological -biological program, allows a family to function more easily than in these

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: in these friendship families. That when we’re biological

Rakow: That was really my question, I was won-

Brodey: Yeah, I think so. I think the biological- shared- to share the same genetic structure, makes it much easier to communicate. That’s-that’s my answer to the question. But at the same time, if you have a larger pool of people, that you share with, like in an extended family, that’s even better. And if you don’t have extended families, as we don’t now, because of the industrialization and moving people about, then at least we need families of friends.

Rakow: I mean, certainly the emotional connection can replicate the biological family. But, but it’s really a question I had, as to whether It makes a difference.

Brodey: Yeah. I don’t think it’s the same. I have two adopted kids. And three blood- my blood kids. The adopted kids are my wife’s,- were my wife’s. My relation to them is very different

Rakow: MMhmm.

Brodey: than to my blood kids. Very different. And I- you know, in some ways, just as good and in some ways better.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: Because I don’t see myself in everything they do.

Rakow: Mmhmm, right. [laughter] Yeah. [laughter]

Brodey: And you know- and you

Rakow: What a relief!

Brodey: I always remember, you know, you see the kids up on the stage, you know, and hearing someone make a tooting, they’re all in this orchestra, and one foul toot, you know, comes, and you think, “Oh my God, is it my child?” You know. Who’s making this terrible sound! And, and then, then you sort of, cause with adopted children, you don’t get into that so much. You know, so “S’alright, it doesn’t matter”, you don’t feel you don’t feel so connected. That everything they do is sort of part of your body.

Rakow: Depends on when you adopted them, I think. [laughter] (inaudible)

Brodey: (inaudible) I think that’s true too. Yeah, that’s true too. I agree. Yeah, cause they were 6 and 8. (No, ah, 6 and 10).

Rakow: You know, it’s-it’s really, I was just a question I had wondered and wondered and wondered about. I think I’m ready to take a break, I don’t know about you, I’m getting [tape cuts out] Okay, so, I was talking about third Thursday, and -and the patterns that I had seen in that (month). But there was a month in August, I don’t know- remember if I talked with you about this. where one- where there were three -three patients of other doctors admitted to Dr. Bowen’s ward. And you know, it just seemed so clear to me, And I always question, “Now are you reading something in, here?” But there was a dominance, there-there was a -a hierarchy forming, with this. And-and that the

Brodey: Mmhmm. Mmhmm.

Rakow: -the individual whose mother went AWOL would have been the lowest ranking in the group. You know, who- she didn’t have anybody, that’s when the quadruplets were on the unit too. So everybody had someone, but her, and she’s the one

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: where the new patient will wander into her room, the new patient will get into a fight, set a fire in there, and it seemed so clear to me that there was some adjustment that I recall, a hierarchical adjustment. Taking place. But, you know, how in the project,

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: there’s dominant, dominant, submissive, those terms get used. When -when those terms are used in the project, are you -were you using them- were they being used to describe anything hierarchical or just what was going on between two people? Dominant/Submissive. And did you think about hierarchy, at all? Because there’s some point, where, where there’s a note, that says, Dr. Bowen’s saying something about, he tried to give a little status to the impaired offspring, by saying such and such and such. That’s a hierarchical statement. [long silence]

Brodey: I don’t think I can answer that, cause I-I was never particularly interested in hierarchical, cause, you know, (I mean) there was the-the concept was used, [silence] it was much, much dominant in the sense of hierarchy, I think was victim and victim and, and predator.

Rakow: (See now) that doesn’t, that doesn’t get written! [laughter] Okay.

Brodey: No, No- But I- wasn’t used, this is my way of thinking, I’m saying, I don’t think it was the hierarchical in terms of the apes, was in there, and they- and, and Murray was involved with that to some degree, but I think he gradually got less involved with it.

Rakow: Well, I’m won- you know, I mean I see that taking place, it’s very clear to me, I have confidence that that is what was taking place.

Brodey: Well I’m not-not questioning-

Rakow: No no, I know you’re not, but I’m thinking that’s a group, that’s a group process.

Brodey: But what I’m trying to point out all along today is that, we’d be more interested in hierarchy in families. Which family was lording over the other ones.

Rakow: And it- and you’re, you’re going right where my thinking goes, which is, were you seeing (that)?

Brodey: Ah, I don’t remember discussing it really.

Rakow: I mean certainly the, the trouble making family, I mean, I don’t know what you’d say about the mother in the trouble-making family.

Brodey: Well what we did find, I think, was blaming. Within one- when there was anxiety in one family they would blame the others. You know, the anxiety would be prominent (when), if somebody was in, in, were, was more anxious-anxiety in one family, when they would blame the other one for not letting them sleep, or bothering them, or

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: Or, ah, you know, making noise, interfering, whatever. So this was-

Rakow: And what’s the difference between blaming and stating the fact? I mean, how is that different?

Brodey: [silence] Well- [silence]

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: stating a fact means that some such behavior did occur. But

Rakow: “And I couldn’t sleep because the behavior occurred.”

Brodey: blaming has to do that it was- Yeah, but blaming has to do with, ah, you take- you- you stop looking at your own behavior. And see what you’re doing. And you only project onto the other people. (What’s happening). It’s- you know, it’s like you’re blaming your mother for bad childhood. Ah, [silence]

Rakow: [sigh]

Brodey: well, you blame her, means that you tie your emotions to her as the cause. And you give up thinking about what-what in you, as a principle, I think we start out with “I can only change myself.” I’m going to have a hard time changing anybody else, really. Unless I change myself.

Rakow: Well, I think the- it seems to me, that the emotions that (get at that)- that go with that, go with it, are maybe the piece that gets considered (to it). [tape cut] And that, you know, here was this other family acting wild and crazy and nobody would put any restraints. On them. And that, part of that does come over in some of the notes, which is, who will who will do something here? In the family meetings, you know. Who will do something, about [tape cut] and their behavior. And it isn’t clear to me, you know, reading those notes, how -how that was being thought out. There seems to be a lot of discussion about responsibility, nurses, psychiatrists, families, who-whose to do what, and how will that get defined, and seems to be-

Brodey: Well what we tried to do, is take it up in family meetings. How we get them to talk then, and try and get them to talk to each other.

Rakow: Well, let’s say you had somebody causing a ruckus that others couldn’t sleep, then you would talk about that in the family meeting. And, where does that go? I see that in the notes, but then what?

Brodey: Well, ah, we didn’t really set any limits on them doing it. so if the- they continued, so it continued. So, they had to deal with it.

Rakow: So, if I said, “You know, Dr. Brodey, I’d really like it if you would do something so I could sleep,” and there was this ruckus disturbing it, then what?

Brodey: Well, I might say, “Well, you know, you, you can talk to [tape cut], see what you can do with her, and what she’s upset by, and you know, why’s – is there a reason why she (kept) disturbing you all the time? Maybe there’s some reason that she’s, something she’s upset about, you oughta think about that.”

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And not- you wouldn’t-

Rakow: How much would people do that? How much, then, would, let’s say this was what happened, and I then took something [tape cut] “and I’d really like it if you’d be quiet, cause I’m having a hard time sleeping. And then I’m grumpy, and I’d really appreciate it if you could be quiet.” How much would they actually do that? M’kay.

Brodey: Well, I think the answer’s I don’t know. Cause I wasn’t- I wasn’t on the intimate side of the work.

Rakow: Okay, but so they weren’t doing it in the meetings.

Brodey: Ah, [silence] they may have been, but I again, I think I’ll have to define my position as being a little bit distant.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And not getting involved with the details of that.

Rakow: Okay. So you wouldn’t- if it happened, it’s not something you’d remember? Okay.

Brodey: Cause it seemed- No, not really. Ah, no, strange situation cause, a lot of that was handled by Murray.

Rakow: Well, I’m suspecting that they could have done that they wouldn’t have been there. I-I’m suspecting that there’s something, that would have kept them from direct request of another. Something-

Brodey: Well, but they’re requesting- they’d make a request to another in such a way,

Rakow: Right. Right.

Brodey: that it would fuel the other person’s attacking again.

Rakow: So, making it in such a way as they would get what they’re requesting. That- so,

Brodey: That’s exactly (it). Exactly. They would be doing it in such a way, you know, let’s take some, some family in a neighborhood,

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: who becomes a target of everybody in the neighborhood.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And they tell other people you know, “Please, don’t walk across the lawn. It upsets me so much.” That’s (inaudible) one patient. “Don’t walk across the lawn.” So you put up a fence to prevent the children from walking across the lawn,

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: They put up a fence that’s this high, (these) children (inaudible) some flowers, so their children are trying to take flowers to, and, you know, they call the old crabs and everybody’s (going), you know, the parents don’t stop them from walking on the lawn, because so this is, this would be the kind of family we’re talking about. Or, to put it theoretically, cause that seems to be my territory, the symptom that means of reducing the symptom by the patient is exactly that which fires the symptom. As the effort to- the effort to-to get away from the, from the symptom, is the thing that gives energy back to the system. Otherwise it doesn’t persist. That’s true, that’s a generalization, (that) for instance, if the woman who’s lonely, gets her-her-her son-in-law, or her nephew, or niece comes and visits, and she sits there and all she does is tell him how terrible it is that nobody’s visiting.

Rakow: [laughter] She’s going to be even lonelier!

Brodey: You know.

Rakow: But isn’t that the way? Right? Honest to God, Warren, you have just- I mean, there must be seven million individuals who fit what you’re describing out there! [laughter]

Brodey: (Of) course, and course- and this is- this is the way with all symptoms. The woman-woman is, you know, I have these pictures in my again, pictures from patients mostly, the woman says, you know, in the store they never serve me, so she goes off when somebody’s being served, and she sort of stands post and sort of gets too close and bugs the guy, salesman, who’s trying to sell this other person, and he doesn’t do anything except with his body language says, you know, “I’m busy now,” And so she wanders away, she makes a circle around, and then she comes back again, and bugs him again. And he- picking exactly the wrong time, and then she wanders around and now, now she just watches him from a distance, and probably notices he’s watching – she’s watching him, and gets upset by it, picks up her anxiety, and really doesn’t want to see this woman. And then this goes on with her, you know, wandering around, having the same thing happen, and finally, she takes her arm and she goes over to the table, and she takes all the wares and throws them off the table. And then, you know, they all come a grab her. And she can’t understand why everybody’s so angry with her, and so hostile. And you know, why she lives in a hostile world. That’s the perfect description of the- what- so, she fuels in her effort to, sort of, be nice, she makes everything worse.

Rakow: This morning, you talked about you used the term defense, the symptom as a defense, that there’s this shifting of symptoms, and it could show up at some-

Brodey: We didn’t use the word defense, in the project, much.

Rakow: I know. I know that. But it’s used enough, for me to ask, a defense against what? Losing self, or what-what?

Brodey: Ah, it’s defense against

Rakow: it-it shows up a number of times, in the papers, but

Brodey: Yeah, well I think there’s- [silence] defense, against de- changing the equilibrium. You know, they’ve got the symptom, they have the symptom (cycling), so that it’s feeding itself, and they have the system sort of you know, stabilized, so that they don’t have to change much. Everything’s sort of- you don’t have to go through sort of, the creative newness. You’ve got everything stable and the same. That’s my way of thinking of it. The defense is sort of- could be a defense against anxiety, but you don’t get more anxious, could be defense against feeling your territory’s being invaded, ah, defense against your, you know, feeling your sense of ego’s being destroyed.

Rakow: Well-well then what you’re saying would be that there’s some potential, for harm. Imagined

Brodey: But those-but

Rakow: potential for harm. Or real potential for harm. Some, something.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: Cause I-I have read that, so many times,

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: and I keep wondering, what is it that’s- what is the-

Brodey: Well, it is the potential for harm, in the family, is that you have an equilibrium set up, (remember) that- I described in this-this narcissistic family relationship, this, these people are living their own theater,

Rakow: Right.

Brodey: and someone jumps onto the stage and starts to make it more difficult for them to live in their own theater, they have to see the reality of it. They have to see another reality. And their own reality is kind of artificial. That’s sustained with some effort, cause it’s not true. It’s-it’s-it’s- Their own reality’s not anchored in their bodies, in their being. It’s sort of a make a make believe reality they’re living in. And, and then like, again, when we confront Mr. [tape cut], that they’re following the boy. And you know, they deny that they’re (following the boy). But they have to follow him cause it’s necessary to maintain safety, cause he’s selling newspapers from door to door, magazines. He might get into trouble, you know. (Schizophrenic). Not very good at these kinds of relations. And then, they deny that, and then we say, “What- (but you were) you were, driving a car.” We won’t say that you shouldn’t have driven a car, we don’t say you shouldn’t have followed him, we just say, “Well, and you followed him in the car?” “Oh yes, we did. We thought it was necessary.” So then we were-

Rakow: And that that could be known by the son.

Brodey: That the son knows that, means that there’s (this new) reality appears, cause reality’s coming back. [tape cut]

Go to Top

Interview with Warren Brodey Conducted by Catherine Rakow (cmr1227@hughes.net)

September 4th, 2002 For the Murray Bowen Archives Project of Leaders for Tomorrow at History of Science Division of the National Library of Medicine Part 3

Rakow: Well, the other thing that’s written, and I don’t know if this fits here with our conversation, has to do with anxiety, I mean it’s in Betty’s paper, it’s in other papers, about the fear of anxiety. That these families had. That they would go to whatever length to avoid anxiety. Although it seems to me they lived in a well of it. But that- in addition to it,

Brodey: They live in a well of it, absolutely.

Rakow: in- and maybe this gets to the equilibrium question, which is “What’s so great about an equilibrium?” Ah, that they had- that there was a teaching that took place, that would say, “Anxiety isn’t going to harm you, there’s an anxiety that comes about with change, um, it-it’s not necessary to fear it at the level that you fear it. Awareness of it is helpful.” So this comes out, in Betty’s papers, and in other papers about these intense fear of upset. And I’m not sure if she’s- what’s she’s talking about there isn’t what we were just talking about, you know, in terms of

Brodey: I think so, but I’d like to go back to what I talked about in my paper, which was I started out with talking about this intense emotion, emotionalism.

Rakow: No closeness, or less, you know, closeness?

Brodey: Plus, no closeness.

Rakow: No closeness. Oh, okay.

Brodey: No closeness. Plus distance. Because they didn’t really know each other. (inaudible)

Rakow: Mmhmm. Mmhmm.

Brodey: So they were intensely attached, but if you think of objective relationship, there were

Rakow: (Ephemeral), I mean that’s how I think of it.

Brodey: extraordinarily distanced.

Rakow: That’s how I view it. To me, that’s always been a contrast.

Brodey: Yeah. Yeah.

Rakow: It’s- it’s ephemeral. Not-

Brodey: It’s ephemeral relationship, and intensely

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: intensely emotional ephemeral relationship. That’s where I started on this whole direction of the (image) on narcissistic relationship. [silence] Because each person’s not really relating to the other,

Rakow: Right, they (extend)- their image. They’re relating to themselves.

Brodey: Their own, distanced image. And they actually have an intense relationship too. But you don’t see the other person.

Rakow: Well, it occurs to me that we’ve had some experience with that today! [laughter] People relating to you [laughter]. With an image! [laughter] That doesn’t it isn’t you! [laughter]

Brodey: They don’t have any- they don’t have any-

Rakow: I know, but it’s, you know.

Brodey: We don’t have any, any-

Rakow: In the first second of meeting with Gary, but if it’s twenty years later, [laughter]

Brodey: Well, that’s right, if we really want someone (new)- still

Rakow: [laughter] (you’re in trouble)

Brodey: I have in my book about families, (inaudible), the family where there’s one child who’s young and healthy, kid who’s playing baseball, and football, and having a real athletic life, and (they all consider him) a sickly child, always (one) with families, and they need a sickly child, so here he is, you know. And they’re talking about how he mustn’t really do all these athletics, they’re the worst thing in the world for him, and so on and so forth, and trying to protect him all the time, and at the same time, he doesn’t fit the image. So he doesn’t really get caught, in the narcissistic relationship. But the projection is on him nonetheless. But it’s not externalized. As, he doesn’t- he doesn’t , ah, take the role of the projection but rejects it. As you say.

Rakow: And how- you know, what do you think are the conditions that make it (quote) go that way, rather than it being a participatory?

Brodey: I think it’s partly biological, in that if the child’s you know, child is born with (as we all know), a

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: certain kind of nature, and if the nature of the child can be nourished in the direction of fitting the image, then good.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: But if it’s a misfit, it can’t do it, one. Two, if there’s an uncle or a aunt or a cousin or a somebody else who’s relating to the child in a normal way, then, then a child gets nourishment from that person, rather than needing to fit the role in order to get nourishment from the from the family. That’s why I say, with in some respects, the extended family should, according to my theory anyway, have less schizophrenia than a- a nuclear family. Cause there’s less opportunity to find support,

Rakow: Well, but

Brodey: outside the family, in a nuclear family.

Rakow: when I have seen that, what I’ve seen is that it’s at a different generation. When I have seen that, and I’ve certainly seen what you’re describing, where the youngest child will say, “Well, if it weren’t for my sister, I would have been really screwed up.” And “Cause I always knew to check things out with her.”

Brodey: Or my grandmother.

Rakow: And where you have that, the mother’s the one who’s impaired. And it stays there, it doesn’t

Brodey: The mother- No, it doesn’t- it no- No.

Rakow: Hasn’t moved down. And, and that somehow

Brodey: That’s often the case.

Rakow: I’ve certainly not seen that.

Brodey: (inaudible) Yeah, and it could be, a new- had a girlfriend once, whose -her mother was quite a good person, her father was a psychopath. And, you know, terrible. And she couldn’t (go in the pool) at night, because they- he would beat her up. And so, her- (she would) stay with a women, who- up above (inaudible), you know, talk about things like that. And she’d stay (out of town) until her father went to sleep, and she’d go home. (Really mean). Her and (inaudible) kind of things either. The woman with the candy bar, was her guardian angel. Of course, she was scarred anyway, (but still)-

Rakow: But there has to be something, something about that individual form that (varies) and that- that that is consist- I mean,

Brodey: Well, I call it matching. If the person in their nature and in their development in, in their need cause again, if (May) comes along, (inaudible) you know, it can be- that can save a person. So, in their need and in their nature, in the absence of other nourishment, other source of nourishment, then, then the child if those three combine, they match the, the protection,

Rakow: (inaudible)

Brodey: then the (inaudible) externalizes. And it’s a continuous force to externalize it. To manipulate that child into that position. Into that role in the theater. But the theater is makeup. And you (inaudible) all of us, at some times, you know, (inaudible)

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: And we all feel that way sometimes. And when you, when you get older you say,

Rakow: But we don’t say, “And I kept it from her.” [laughter] [laughter]

Brodey: No, but that’s, that was (part of-), sure, and we don’t say,

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: you know, “She did the best she could.” Because, she’s- to understand I always think of my mother to understand me, would take- would’ve taken her a, a- a ton of corpses, because it was pretty damn difficult.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: But I didn’t realize that then.

Rakow: Well now here, let me go back to this, ah,

Brodey: Yeah, (inaudible)

Rakow: [sigh] this is again from that same paper, this is something that comes up over and over and over again. It goes back, to this discussion we’re having this morning, about what is it about, um, recognition of reality, or suggestions or whatever you want to call it, occurring within the family. And, its ability to bring about change. More rapidly and more effectively than any outsider. And what is that? So, this goes back to that discussion. So here’s, here’s the quote. “There have been some striking experiences in supporting the one who motivates the family action. They can do things that look traumatic, and things that we could call schizophrenogenic, but the patients can respond favorably to these things. In the early days of this study, we avoided suggesting ways for parents to proceed, but when they did something that looked traumatic, we would question it. This resulted in the family dropping the lead and doing nothing. Now we would say to support the one who motivates the situation, no matter how illogical it might seem.” [tape cut] Now, I mean I think this is really describing

Brodey: It’s a (beautiful) think.

Rakow: It- it’s- it’s really describing the beast. And,

Brodey: (Good). I think that’s- that’s a very powerful statement. Is this from one of Murray’s papers?

Rakow: Yeah. Family Relationships in Schizophrenia.

Brodey: Yeah. I think it’s very powerful.

Rakow: But I guess, you know what I’m asking about is how you- he’s describing an observation, a question of it what was learned from that, and then not interfere. [silence] I’m just, again, back to s it, is- do we just say, it’s biology, how something traumatic schizophrenogenic, can actually be- now this is taking place in an environment, I don’t think we should rule that out, environment in which this is taking place, but, you know, (we)

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: how could you relate, and maybe this is the way (I) ask, how could you relate this to others with (inaudible)? (What are you), crazy? I mean, we have to stop all those people doing those traumatic things, and (inaudible) schizophrenic, (giant) things that reveal. I mean, what’s the difference between those families that get put in jail, or kids get removed, or something like that, from, from this? And is it the environment in which it was occuring? I don’t know, there’s like, a number of questions in there.

Brodey: Mmm. [silence]

Rakow: That you support the one that motivates the situation,

Brodey: You support the one, who, who is who is

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: helping everyone to leave the status quo. Here is- here is a situation which is stuck. Right? You take a big- somebody takes a big stick,

Rakow: Mmhmm. and hits (her). It (becomes) more likely to get unstuck. Than somebody saying, you know, saying something that they’ve heard a thousand times. But how do you recognize that? As going in the right direction from that behavior maintaining the status quo?

Brodey: [long silence] Well, you know, I don’t know (the answer), number one. And number two, I do know the answer. That’s because we were talking about it at lunch. (Off my) head, I don’t know the answer. (This is) my heart, if I’m really relating to family as a whole, I can sense that this is unusual behavior. This doesn’t fit the pattern. And it can be positive or negative, doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t fit the pattern, then he-he’s shaking up a- situation’s stuck.

Rakow: Okay.

Brodey: And you could say, “Well, it’s going to make it worse.” But- changes are (of) making it worse, when somebody’s- when people are already that stuck, is, it’s not that important. Whether it makes it worse or better, it’s just the fact is that it shakes it up enough that- that in the looseness of things, there can be some movement. Because there maybe a lot of positive energy around too. Often there is, when there’s a lot of negative energy, there’s positive energy too, so you don’t find one without the other, as a rule.

Rakow: Oh (yeah). I know it the other way, when there’s positive energy you should look for the negative! [laughter]

Brodey: Well, when the negative-

Rakow: Cause it’s always there. [laughter] You know it’s going to come. So.

Brodey: Yeah. And the negative is, well that’s, you know, with- in all this adoration, of-of Murray, gets to its zenith, then-then, you know, there are a lot of people who are, sort of, get tired, I’m sure.

Rakow: Well, there-there’s been a, you know, I don’t know if it balances, but the negative/positive has been mighty, both sides.

Brodey: Good.

Rakow:So, you can get pa- you know, away from who he was, and just go with his ideas. Then perhaps, Then (it helps).

Brodey: Huh. Then his contribution comes-

Rakow: Stands on itself.

Brodey: forward. His contribution is not his ego, or

Rakow: Right. And,

Brodey: plus or minus. It’s, ah it’s a very brilliant expression.

Rakow: and I think, you know, becau- I really think the contribution, moving toward that, is people owning their part of it. You know, your part of it that is part of it. I think that’s a piece of it.

Brodey: Yeah. Oh, I think so.

Rakow: The thing I was thinking about, with this, when I first read, was I remember working, when I was at the Mental Health Center, and one woman in particular, who, you know, had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, that at some point something had occurred, in the family. And she was telling me, that at a very heightened emotional state, she finally said the thing to her mother that she’s wanted to say, and I said to her, “Did -did you need all emotion behind that, to be able to say that?” And she said, “Oh, yeah, I would never have done it otherwise.” But that’s what I was thinking about here. The one who motivates the action may -it may take a level of that emotional intensity to actually say something that should have been said and dealt with.

Brodey: Sure.

Rakow: And I was wondering if it wasn’t talking about that (same thing).

Brodey: Well, it sounds to me- it sounds li- it sounds like, you know, I was just thinking that okay, you’ve got all the actors on the stage, and they’re all going through the usual lines, and everything else, and they’re feeding the stage, with having the audience in the exact right position, everything’s positioned exactly right. But that positioning, is in a sense, hard to maintain, because it’s artificial. It doesn’t really relate to (other) people’s beings, it relates to [tape cut] Sometimes the actors, we push so hard, on the stage, that they just can’t utter the ordinary lines, they have to say who they are. They have to express themselves from their guts. From who they really are, and not just as, as, you know, puppets in the theater. You ask who’s the puppeteer and (inaudible). Ah, [silence] And then they express their lines and it breaks down the theater, and that’s what we’re trying to do. Course, then the theater breaks down, some people think. Cause it’s (been sick). And let’s ask them this question, “Who’s the puppet?”

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: “Who’s the puppeteer?” And, I would say it’s not any one of the individuals. I would say the family organism is the puppeteer. And that puppeteer may go, actually, you know, be related to another puppeteering from

Rakow: Yeah, I was thinking, it’s not a

Brodey: the previous family organism, and be in -in three generations (at least) a family organism is going back.

Rakow: It’s not two generations.

Brodey: Yeah, so. And, these puppeteers are sort of, partly inherited, when I was doing my work I used to call it the family (escutcheon). Because, you know, it’s-it’s like in the old days, the each of the families had their own emblem, with all its signals on it, it’s- and, you know there could be a murder, four years, four generations back to the murderer, could still be setting up the the stage, some dramatic happening. Can also set up the stage, murderer, or somebody steals all the family inheritance, and these are things which can go to become (other things) (inaudible).

Rakow: Um-

Brodey: Or you know, a wealthy family, and then the father drinks it all up, and the mother then squanders the rest, and

Rakow: I think it’s hard to know.

Brodey: (What do you think about that?) It’s hard to know what that’s doing.

Rakow: (inaudible)- Well, whatever, that’s not what I was going to say. I think it’s hard to know

Brodey: Okay, go ahead.

Rakow: how people participate in the perpetuation of that. And, I mean, I spent a long time looking at my son’s death and the connections back in the generations. And- just as the variables, as part of the step. And believe me, I didn’t even go into you know, my father’s side of the family, my husband, his sides of the family, I just did one, one piece of the family, one little branch. And looked at, at that. But, you know, I would say, in terms of my being part of something that had (inaudible) over generations,

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: it wasn’t until he was dead, that I began to put things together. That I was able to see an emotional process. From my grandmother, to my mother, to me, to my son. [silence] And how do you even get a sense of being part of it? A process like that. I mean, there were things that I pulled out from years, years ago, that I (plugged) in here. Because I track things. Like a

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: (inaudible) (hound or cat). [emotional?]

Brodey: Well, I’d say about that, the Indians, again, is my (inaudible), they asked me, “Well, who are your ancestors?” Ancestors? (Who’s going ahead) of the ancestors?

Rakow: [laughter] You’re the person who came from Mars, right? [laughter]

Brodey: (Inherit) the ancestors. And then, I talked to him and said, “Well, I guess I do. Everybody has ancestors.” So then, I started pulling up my you know, father, mother, (inaudible) going back in the family tree.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And I didn’t really feel much like they were my ancestors, but anyway, that’s what I did. But under normal circumstances, um, in many- from many different tribes and very many different (kinda) if we go around the earth, and try and you know, test as many people as we can, from Mars, we’ll find that most people have ancestors who know their ancestral heritage. And they know that there was a murder here, or (there is) somebody’s committed suicide there, or somebody who (got) and somebody (here). And then, also, the- the- the old woman in the community, would know all this. And she would transfer it in her own way, to -to people. So all this tradition, sort of the three, fourth generation tradition, has been there in the past. But it’s in the recent, um, distance between generations, because so much has happened. Cause we’re in a time of -of-of-of-of- shift. Time where things are not continuous, but they’re in a bulge of change.

Rakow: You know, I mean it’s helpful, to -to be close to know the information (to start woith). Because, you know, this would just be a blank to me, if I hadn’t listened and knew as much as I knew, I had to have no information.

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: To fit (in), put this together.

Brodey: You have to have the (inaudible) before you can put together history.

Rakow: That’s right. But I had to have the information of the history, to have gone with the event, also. I mean, the- I didn’t put it together, until two years after Dan died. But because I had the information, it then all came together. Because my question was, how is this (inaudible) and how did this happen? And it wasn’t until I could (put a leg up) together, and in- not in a causal way, but I can say, that there were -there was enough similarity to variables here, as there were to variables here. And-

Brodey: Mmm. Different generation-

Rakow: and-and then you put in the other factors, fog, whatever, to it. And they all play a part.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: So, you know, I can’t say that- how my grandmother was with her husband and her son, is any weightier than the fog, (I don’t know if he) was drunk, (inaudible) were there. S’like, you know, those times where every thing comes in to alignment, in some way. And-and,

Brodey: MMm.

Rakow: I think there was a vulnerability, (then). (And have) a repeat of factors, variables from the past. Anyhow, I’ll send you that. I’ll send you that paper sometime.

Brodey: Good, (good).

Rakow: But, I- Well,

Brodey: So you’re talking about tendencies now. Predispositions.

Rakow: and we’re-we’re also talking about the repetition of conditions, within a relationship system. (Ricard).

Brodey: Yeah. Right.

Rakow: And when, in his case, something that had occurred so many years earlier became active. At that time. And then the conditions became similar. And everything came together, at that point. And, what had been said about my uncle, was, ah, his life ended. When his wife left him. But, I have often said, what -wonder if his life had ended then, if you know, [laughter], if (Annie) would have ever been born! If (I) ever would have been born and died. You know, but it didn’t end then. So, that, whenever that would have absorbed ah, the upset. Was left, (to come down). But, by being able to track it, to find it, that would makes some sense (of it), but you had to hide the information, and I think what happens lots of times, this goes to the point you’re saying, how (can we) do the -this, because the facts what’s occurring then will get so far removed from that from this, that it’s a quantum leap. To connect it. The- everybody would knock you off your seat for saying there’s a connection. You have to have a way, to directly connect. Deep down, which is why they had that (inaudible). So, I think that’s what happens, is it-it gets either [loud hum on tape] too far removed or you lose the facts and have no way of connecting without it.

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: Other than if you tend to start to think this way, you begin to thing, there has to be some- ha- it has to be backwards, somewhere.

Brodey: And-then-then you’re already

Rakow: Right. Right.

Brodey: assuming. [yawn] It has to be there, [yawn] so it’s- this is you know, we come here to this (inaudible) quantum quantum leap that we’re that’s between generations, between histories, between that- this interconnectedness is so intense, But, what we’re saying in- is if- in these schizophrenic families, the interconnectedness gets so that it it’s-it’s much more intense. Because the people are, sort of, these roles are being vitalized, or, I wouldn’t say vitalized, but Is it- is it different? Is- is it different

Brodey: they’re externalized (inaudible).

Rakow: with schizophrenia, than cancers, or diabetes, or- Is it? I mean, I don’t know if cancer’s a good one, because cancer’s not (inaudible) chronic disease, but schizophrenia’s a chronic disease. Diabetes is a chronic disease. Alcoholism is a chronic disease.

Brodey: The tendency is there, I think, again, if you look at with this perspective that you find lots of transferral, symptoms down the generations.

Rakow: I think it’s (ecstatic?) and it’s intense. With other symptoms, we just don’t somehow people don’t associate physical illness with the relationship system much.

Brodey: Yeah. Then-Then that started with the beginning of somatic- psychosomatic medicine.

Rakow: Yeah, but, you know, (inaudible)

Brodey: Again, which was a long time ago. The Bowen people (don’t- also) but if you go- if you go to India, places where where people have extended families and if you (track their) (who were their) their forefathers, I think you’ll find, that these things are just ABCs. It’s just that we have, we have come into the mechanistic world where- where flesh and the spirit are-are separated, flesh and the (inaudible) are separated, flesh and tradition are separated, and you know, you’re sort of become pieces of skin and bones.

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: And all, all our sensitivities are being denied. (And this) is, this is the change which not has to somehow be modified and taken up a level, rather than reversed. You can’t go back, which we (had to change) (inaudible) go backwards and find something new.

Rakow: (There’s more-) I mean, this project began looking at (symbiosis) but in the later papers not- it’s not- it’s not written, and not in terms of symbiosis. So, (did that)

Brodey: No.

Rakow: go away, that wasn’t what was being investigated anymore, what happened to that idea?

Brodey: Well, I think it continued really. It just- we didn’t talk about it, it sort of moved into the background. It was just as important, the symbiosis means that you’ve got these people who are living off each other. And, ah-

Rakow: And there’s no talk about the symbiotic family.

Brodey: No, but that’s [silence] but the- we moved to interconnectedness. They’re- they’re all- the family unit, sort of, the idea of family unit in- absorbed the symbiosis, (inaudible) the symbiosis was again two people. Or three people, who were symbiotic relationship. (Then) removed from symbiotic people, to the family unit, in describing the family unit. Which included the symbiosis. In symbiosis was intensity. And the fact that they had no independent -independent life in the family.

Rakow: Would you, you know, when you talk about this

Brodey: That’s interesting.

Rakow: process of externalization, you didn’t use the term symbiosis in (inaudible)? So,

Brodey: No, I don’t. Well, we got a- the word symbiosis is again, to me, it’s a word which- which doesn’t really- it’s not it’s not a process word, it’s- it’s for describing a state. Externalization is describing a – a process. But, externalization is an action. Symbiosis is a, is a description of a state which is, state which is (firm).

Rakow: Dependency.

Brodey: Yeah, an extreme dependency. Ah, so we’ve got away from labelling. Things, people, and all that. That was one of the things we absolutely had a rule, no labelling.

Rakow: I wondered, if that, if that was considered too emotional a word, too (inaudible) or what happened to it, because it’s there in the beginning, I mean it’s not their (lair). Okay.

Brodey: Well, I think- I think it’s got absorbed. It got absorbed into this other family unit, that you were describing, the family unit, and the family unit you could say was a symbiotic family unit. But, you’re more in, you’re more describing the intensity of relationship among these people. And the relationship was was not a genuine relationship. It was something that where they were relating to parts of each other, but not the wholeness. But they know the wholeness.

Rakow: I was gonna ask you about outpatient groups but you didn’t know about-

Brodey: I really didn’t, and that was part of- also very strange to me. That you weren’t involved with em? Always. [tape cut] But, No, I could have been involved, I think I was invited to

Rakow: Mmhmm.

Brodey: be, but I said I’d got enough to do here. It seemed to me that- that Murray was able to keep

Rakow: I wondered if anything about the

Brodey: things separate in his unusual way.

Rakow: outpatient families – cause I don’t know who they are, I know some of them, I don’t know- but if that came into the research meetings at all. (I mean-) Cause Dr. Bowen was clear in saying,

Brodey: Occasionally, but very little.

Rakow: that his theory, ah, the concepts of the theory came from the direct research of the inpatient families. And that the outpatient families were supplemental to that. (I mean), he clearly separates them. MMhmm.

Brodey: He clearly separated. And I never understood why or wherefore. But, you know, cause I don’t- a relation- a setting of boundaries is not something that is a strong point in (our family). But, ah, but he was very clear about setting up his boundary.

Rakow: That’s-

Brodey: his inpatients, his outpatients. I want to work with inpatient, with outpatient I could, but there wasn’t outpatient as well as inpatient. (things were not like that). And this was his way, I think, of trying to keep a pure culture inside the -inside the family unit.

Rakow: I think so. I think it wasn’t a research structure. I think. Mmhmm.

Brodey: I think so too. And you know, he didn’t share much with us. So there’s a lot that we didn’t share.

Rakow: And the only thing that’s written about the outpatients, other than they were supplemental, is that they did a little better. That as much as the effort went, to not having a hospital take over that it’s inherent, with living on a ward in the hospital.

Brodey: Mmm.

Rakow: And the families who were outpatients had to depend on their own resources more. And they did a little better. S’really the only thing that’s written about it. The-the work (with) more patients. [silence] I don’t know. I would- I’m at the point now where I really could talk to some of his (field notes). [tape cut] But in terms of down the generations, you know would- my question of, “Did this project make any difference? How would you know it? Was any permanent change a result of being part of this project? And how would you know it?” And that’s- that becomes an interesting question for me. [tape ends]

Go to Top

Interview with Warren Brodey Conducted by Catherine Rakow (cmr1227@hughes.net)

September 4th, 2002 For the L. Murray Bowen Collection at History of Science Division of the National Library of Medicine

Part 4

Brodey: … let’s-let’s make some just for fun, you know, thinking experiment. Let us say that we had five hundred thousand dollars, and you were asked to evaluate the results of this project. How would you do it? It’s the same question.

Rakow: Yes it is. Well, it would

Brodey: That’s the thing, let’s evaluate it in terms of the success of- the success in therapy not in terms of its theoretical

Rakow: Well, I think I would look at life course and the independence of the life course. The kind of normalcy that I would call, birth, marriage, death, location all of those things I would look at that. And I would look at as many generations as exist. So, that’s what I’d look at.

Brodey: Okay. Well, what about the people? You could ask them.

Rakow: Yeah, well, yeah. I would ask them, if they’re still living, the ones who participated. What would they say?

Brodey: Yeah, and the children maybe would

Rakow: And what- what would they say or what could the people in the family living after them had been told. I would look at that.

Brodey: And you know the neighbors would be nice to know too.

Rakow: [laughter] Okay, I hadn’t thought about them. Okay. [silence]

Brodey: Let’s see what else. Had they written anything, had they [silence] – even the ones who are dead had they talked about being in the project to any close friends?

Rakow: But again, it would be more than- it would be more than the words.

Brodey: Well, you know, do the friends have any experiences of them. How did they change after? My son is working with these kinds of problems in the state of Washington. He’s evaluating psychiatric care in the state of Washington using questionnaires.

Rakow: And I would be interested in the stability down the generations.

Brodey: Well you could- that’s, let’s see what you can find out easily. That’s the next question. Do you have any way of investigating where they are?

Rakow: No, I have no way of doing it.

Brodey: Well, is there any way of tracing public records where they are.

Rakow: I wouldn’t even know how to begin to do that, I mean, that’s a common name. So, I mean I could look at where-

Brodey: Well, you know their address.

Rakow: What their address was. I don’t know all the addresses, I’m not even sure I know their address. I may know the state. I may know the referring physician. But I don’t always know.

Brodey: Well the question I have is what, how much about them is public knowledge? Now, did she go to a hospital? The mother?

Rakow: I don’t know-

Brodey: Well, are there hospital records?

Rakow: I haven’t found any that say where she went on discharge. [tape cut] I mean, my thinking is, if I really wanted to do this then I would begin to advertise.

Brodey: Okay, but my, my question is really behind it all lies… Could you get a student from one of the universities to take this as a project?

Rakow: That’s a nice thought. No one has stepped forward and said they’re interested! [laughter]

Brodey: That’s, what I mean, they don’t know it exists so how could they

Rakow: Oh, well I’ve had a lot of people say, “Boy, this is such an interesting project, you know, I’d like to help you” and they never come back. So I need someone who would stay with it, who could do this. So, I mean I’ve talked with, I have spent endless hours, discussing this project and its possibilities with people and they go away. Now, I have to say this, all the people that I have done that with personally knew Dr. Bowen. They were students here. So that -that may be what interferes with it.

Brodey: Yeah, well I think you-you know, he’s- Then let’s say that the student is looking for a project, and you find a student who you like.

Rakow: Okay. So, let’s say we- I have someone. Now, what are- what are we going to look for? (tape cut)

Brodey: When- what can you find on public record about this particular family? So, so the first part of the, the sort of not taking the project, but sort of,

Rakow: I think the family owned a department store in Florida.

Brodey: They did.

Rakow: Okay. So, there is a little bit of information.

Brodey: And- yeah, and we must- we must know where they came from, somehow or another. What town.

Rakow: Possibly.

Brodey: But- I’m sure some records have-

Rakow: Oh, it may be. I mean I-I don’t know right off the top of my head but it may be. But, but what’re- but what would we be looking for? Let’s say we get all what we need, to find them

Brodey: Well, you would start out, you’d start out with the public record, and see what you could find on the public record. And, that would be where did -did she go back to hospital? Did she stay out of hospital for a while? What was her recovery like?

Rakow: Well, I’d also like to know, because that father had depression, I think you could look, you could ask about the primary threesome and how their life went in the future.

Brodey: Yeah, you could.

Rakow: Because he came to the project from a hospital. He was hospitalized for depression.

Brodey: Maybe go through that father to get to the family. So here’s a project for a student, a student at first, maybe you get two levels in this project. One, a student who tries to locate the family, and two, another student together with you trying to evaluate

Rakow: trying what, what was the gain if any for this family? I know what their contribution is. They contributed to a whole body of knowledge that’s useful. to millions of people.

Brodey: Okay, but now, let’s think about what the project’s contribution to them was, and if we could

Rakow: That’s what I want to know.

Brodey: Well, then I’m trying to think of- the first student probably should be someone who just finds the family. And that needn’t be a student, it could be, just-just-just to play with it a little bit that could be a detective bureau.

Rakow: Good as any! [laughter]

Brodey: You know, cause they- they’re the ones who are very good at finding things like that.

Rakow: Right, right [laughter]

Brodey: Ah, it could be consultation with Salvation Army.

Rakow: Right.

Brodey: Cause they’re also- they have all these records, on, on- Ah, so for each of the family, sort of an exercise in finding people.

Rakow: And when I said advertise, I meant what it is possible to say, I’m a researcher looking to talk with families who were part of this project.

Brodey: Well it, you sort of have to advertise in particular places then.

Rakow: Right, I mean if I knew cities, [tape cut] but again, what are you using as the indicators of that? And that’s really, that’s the important piece.

Brodey: Okay, then- then we can talk about that, because, if what we’re saying is true, we’re really interested in does this extern- this-this theater go on in the next generation again? Or does it skip a generation?

Rakow: Yeah, did, did your work, did these years, did this in-depth work [silence] make any differen- in which these people participated and have contributed to a body of knowledge that’s useful. Certainly useful to me. It’s useful to everybody who comes through here. And it’s useful at all these centers around the world. The ideas are being applied everywhere. What about for them? Was it useful?

Brodey: There’s no way of getting any money to- to struggle with this question.

Rakow: Oh, I’m sure of that. I’m sure there’s not. I mean, who would fund that? [silence]

Brodey: Who’s funding it now?

Rakow: Nobody! [laughter] Me, I fund myself. [laughter]

Brodey: Would it be possible for you to get some funds now?

Rakow: Oh, Warren, I’ve looked. I’ve gone through the whole directory of foundations. Nobody funds an individual. Nobody funds an individual.

Brodey: But if you- if you were part of the Bowen [silence]

Rakow: Well,

Brodey: Or you, you can, you can, you don’t need to be an individual if you don’t want to be. You can always attach yourself to some institution.

Rakow: You know that then it gets- it gets into a whole lot of other things, where I’m putting my energy into things that are less interesting to me.

Brodey: I understand, I know, I mean, I have kept away from governmental things because I think it takes more energy to deal with the government than it does to do the

Rakow: I have managed to cover my expenses in doing this and I owe- I don’t have, I’m not obliged to anybody. If I want to stop tomorrow, I can.

Brodey: So then, ok, the next question comes, well there’s two questions in my mind, one question, have you set a date for writing a book or some report?

Rakow: No.

Brodey: Do you intend to do that?

Rakow: I do. And I should start.

Brodey: Well, the only way to start is to set a date. Quite arbitrary.

Rakow: Okay

Brodey: And then, you can put the date in the future, you know, a year or something if you want, or two, or whatever you like. But you must set a date. Mark it on a calendar and mark it in your head. And then at this time it will be done. The first one at least. The first- the first book will come out. Maybe there’ll be others.

Rakow: Okay. I’ve avoided it.

Brodey: I know, but it comes a time when you can’t avoid it anymore. You must, you must do that, because otherwise you won’t come to certain conclusions, which you need to come to. You know, it’s again, the openness is necessary for a period of time. And then you have to make closures. And then you can open again and make closures again. But if you just go open, then after a while it comes and goes, the information comes

Rakow: Probably, you’re right, yeah.

Brodey: Let me think about this. [silence] [tape noises] [silence] I guess you should do this in three years time.

Rakow: Three years, oh.

Brodey: Take yourself three years, and- and so then, then you have to adjust how long you figure you need for it. The writing, how much to pull it together, how much to finish your investigations and what you need to pull together. What direction do you want to write because you can’t write about everything, it’s not possible.

Rakow: No, and, and I realize that. You know, there are two things. One, I could chronicle the project because it’s not been written about. So there’s that possibility. Which is, you know, would be a labor to do that. The other piece which interests me, which is going to require, one that I finish this thing that I am doing here for, that I finish this inventory, that I’ve made a commitment to do because that’s

Brodey: Yeah. How long does that take you do you think?

Rakow: [sigh] I’ve been doing this eight years. I come here once a month.

Brodey: I know but how long

Rakow: Maybe, probably eighteen months to two more years of work to do here. But mining the material for what connect, what this can contribute. So I think, you know, just being in some way to do the chronicle which would include this idea of the family as a unit, if there were a way to convey that to people so they understood it the way you do on the inside. You know that. That would be tremendous. I’m interested in what was there that hasn’t yet been put, pulled together.

Brodey: Well then, this, now we have to distinguish between your sense of obligation and your sense of, of fascination.

Rakow: Right! [laughter] You know I will do this inventory as I have committed to do it. Then I want to make use of these materials for myself. I want to go through those nurses notes and see, you know, where I could lay out – I saw these patterns. Where I saw the group, in a contained environment, an established group, with new people coming in and people finding a place, now you could say, “It’s psychotic to go in somebody else’s room but I’m saying it was a hierarchy forming there. There’s a hierarchy existing on the wards.

Brodey: Sure.

Rakow: I want to talk about those things. Those are not

Brodey: Those are the things you want to talk about. (inaudible)

Rakow: Yeah. And whatever else. I can come up with.

Brodey: That’s what I think. I mean, I think in order to do this, in three years’ time you have to be doing the chronicling in such a way that you’re picking up those things. In other words what you have to focus on, in three years’ time I have to have this book finished. And that you’re, sort of, pulling out of the materials, trying to pull out of the material now, what it is you want to write about, making your own notes. And-and sort of feeling those notes, sort as, ah, what’s really important to you and what’s not important. Following your own fascination.

Rakow: Well, I’ve done a piece of that with the termination. I think I’m coming to the end of that. I think I understand pretty clearly this project within the broader system. I mean, not that I couldn’t talk to other people and fill it in more, but I think I’m pretty clear on it, what you were doing and how it looked were worlds apart. You know, and that’s just the nature of, I think, revolutions, perhaps. Call this a revolution in thinking, and that’s just the nature of it, that they’re not seen.

Brodey: Yeah.

Rakow: When-when it’s right in front of people. So, we’re pretty clear, on that, you know, Bowen’s personality, but also the work that he was doing, and the unformedness of it, conceptually, that didn’t come until the sixties is all part of that. And I’m pretty clear on that. I might go a little further with that, but- So that piece I-, in terms of the chronicling, I could probably write that chapter right now. I think I have a good understanding of that.

Brodey: Why don’t you do that?

Rakow: So I should, I really should do that. Simply, I mean, I keep bouncing these things off of you and there’s nothing that I’m hearing back that’s off-track. [laughter] You know. So I mean, I-I

Brodey: No. I don’t – I think you’re very much on-track.

Rakow: I’m pulling it together enough, that- I think I’m satisfied with my own sense of it. So that one I might- maybe that’s what I should do next.

Brodey: Write your chronicle.

Rakow: Right. And then, if I- I have not read all the nurses notes, but that’s where I’ve gotten these ideas of these patterns of the hierarchy, you know, if I would go through all the nurses notes maybe then something would come out. Then I could come back and ask you about it, or Betty, or something.

Brodey: Remember, we’re, we’re historians too, (cough) we’re no longer there. We make it up as we go along.

Rakow: [laughter]

Brodey: I’m serious, memory is that way.

Rakow: Yes, I know! I know! [laughter] I’m clear on that! [laughter] I mean, I could say to you is this is how the family meeting worked, where there was one therapist and one family, and you (could) [laughter] you know, [laughter] I know! [laughter]

Brodey: At least I’m willing to say I don’t know.

Rakow: And then I can say, well, if I look at these notes here, for, you know, October 10th, 1957, (tape cut) it’s one family. Then I can look for October 12 and it’s a different family. So, it seems to support what’s said here! [laughter]

Brodey: Okay, so I mean, now I think we have to ask another question. Which is always important for an author. That is, what do you think would be most valuable for your audience? And which audience are you addressing? Cause that, you know, it’s good to write for yourself but it also, it’s good if you can write for yourself and also keep in mind there are particular people who, who need the information and other people who’re fascinated by it and other people who -who will find that this applies and is meaningful to them. So, who

Rakow: Well the audience is really people who’ve been

Brodey: the readership?

Rakow: who will take the ideas and go further with them.

Brodey: And that’s people in these family centers?

Rakow: Yeah, I think that’s an audience but I also think anyone who’s interested in human behavior. The individual who wants to understand their own family. I mean, that’s the audience that I would see would be probably more academic than the general public, but you know, it would be those people in the general public who would be interested- be- plus, even more I have met so many people who would know, know exactly and could tell me what was going on in the family. But had no support or base of that. [background conversations] Didn’t know how to use that information. Didn’t know how to operate out of that information. They knew it clearly. You know I remember this woman came in, described, saw her one time only. She’d been discharged after two back-to-back psychiatric hospitalizations, a woman in her fifties. So it wasn’t – she wasn’t you know, hospitalized in her twenties, who said to me, “I never got enough unconditional love. And, it was always my brother – my brother – my brother. And my aunt lived there, but it was my mother, my aunt, my brother, It was almost as if I didn’t exist. And then my mother got sick, my aunt died, my mother needed me. And I moved in and I said, ‘Here’s my chance. Here’s my chance to get all that I didn’t get.” Moved in, took care of her, did all this, “and then mother died.” And this woman had two psychiatric hospitalizations. She said to me, “I know what’s wrong with me. I gave all of myself to my mother, I need to get it back now. There is nothing wrong with me. I just- I keep taking these drugs, they’re making me sick, I know what I did!” This woman knew it! I mean, she knew it! Absolutely knew it. You know, she had a husband who wouldn’t let her come by herself, who-who was so worried she was going to crack up again. She said, “My family’s hovering over me, my children are hovering over me, ‘Did you take your medicine, did you take your medicine?'” She said, “I can get over this. I know what it is, I just need some space.” And I said, “I think it works like that. I hear what you’re saying.” I said, “You need to work this out with a psychiatrist to get yourself off the medicine. And somehow, you know, go on and take what you know you need to do and do it.” This woman left my office like a different woman. And she went out she said to her husband, “Oh! I’m going shopping.” [laughter] I never saw her again. She was never hospitalized again because I used to get the daily admission records. She was never hospitalized again. She got herself off the meds. So this woman knew within herself but she didn’t have any body of knowledge or a way to operate out of that.

Brodey: Okay, so one thing you’re saying is that this might be -what you write could be of help to- to people.

Rakow: I think that there- there will be people will say, “Oh, yes, I can use this!”

Brodey: Well then, the question- the question I ask, is- it’s- if you’re going to write to the professionals, do you want to write it to professionals in professional language? Or do you want to write it in folksy language so people can read it.

Rakow: I-I want to bridge that somehow.

Brodey: Okay. Then-then you have to be disciplined, you have to have discipline but at the same time you want to make it fun to read.

Rakow: Right. But I-I

Brodey: And you also have- you want to account for things but you also want to make it so that it’s rich in personal content and stories.

Rakow: And I want the professionals to be able to know what they’re seeing. That what they see and what was here, I want them to make the connection and build on it. And then I want the people with no, they’re not professionally oriented, to be able to recognize it and make use of it. So, I don’t want it folksy but I don’t want it so academic that nobody else can, I want to bridge those two.

Brodey: I’m sure you can bridge it, it’s just cause you’re – you have this manner, which is I think, is quite communicative so that’s-that’s not a problem. So it’s just a matter of -of making up your mind you’re going to do it in three years’ time and-and organize it.

Rakow: And organize it. And put it-and find it, I think there’re new things here. You tell me, I mean, this is your work!

Brodey: And put it out.

Rakow: What-what didn’t get developed, that’s here? What-what did you think “Ah hah, look at that,” that you- but then didn’t go on? I mean, I can read in the Epilogue, of Bowen’s book and find unsupported statements. You know, such as, “It’s in the person’s ability to hear comes out of their early relationship with their caretaker.” That’s an unsupported statement. I know where that comes from. That comes from his work at Menninger’s when he engaged in this symbiotic relationship and what he could see when the relationship was not disturbed and when it got disturbed. To me, that’s research somebody could follow up on. But there has to be- there had to have been those things for you too,

Brodey: Well, for me, the peak thing I picked up on was the fact that there is no description of, of relationships other than mechanistic descriptions. So, I was always interested in the how.

Rakow: You mean like triangles, or- what do you mean mechanistic?

Brodey: No- Well I-I think I said it best in this paper on family operations and information exchange model and (inaudible)

Brodey: I mean, I’m interested in the simultaneous communication between people. And the fact that we have no language for that, but nonetheless exists as the most powerful force we have. It’s one of the most powerful things that exists- that-that several things are happening instant – simultaneously. We have no language for simultaneous events, complex simultaneous events. In which, you and I look in each other’s’ eyes, we look at each other, all this is going on at once. It’s not-it’s not, you know, I say something, click you say something, it’s- I’m changing what I’m saying according to how you receive it. And you’re doing the same back again. So this is to me, the fact that we lack language, we lack, we lack concepts. One of these things, you know, I mean you’ve seen- I don’t know if I showed you my card, my latest card you can have it. It’s somewhere in this box, I don’t know where it disappeared to. [silence] See if it’s [noise of boxes moving]

Rakow: [laughter] [silence] Oh that’s great.

Brodey: Telling fish about water. Because that’s the title of a movie that was made about me and my colleagues on the German television. So, I thought it was very appropriate, and [silence] it’s in a sense a task that I like to do, it isn’t necessarily something that you would like to do. Cause one has to invent language and somehow find a way to express it. Ah, but a lot of these, if you take the family unit, I think the task, a task that you could do would be to try and take the story and really express to people the difference between the idea of individual, multiple individual therapy and family unit therapy or family system therapy. The contrast between the two of them. And that’s a big one, a big task too.

Rakow: Yes, it is.

Brodey: And if you could even write- let’s say you wrote that you’re writing in such a way as you make it clear that Bowen was ahead of his time and that basically he was talking about a family organism as a unit. And that was, that was something that was difficult for people to conceptualize at the time he did it. And certainly difficult to express in a linear way. But that may be too difficult too. I mean not too typical, but too- but not in your, not in

Rakow: Well I’m not- I’m not ruling it out. I’m just

Brodey: So I mean, it’s a question of how

Rakow: The part- the difficulty for me, has always been, when things are said so well already, how do you then say them-

Brodey: Well they’re not getting to people, it’s-

Rakow: [laughter] now how do you say them, without quoting- I don’t want to quote, I want to [tape cut] I want to know it myself, so I can say it.

Brodey: I understand. I’m the same way, I don’t like to quote anyone.

Rakow: so that- and that’s, again,

Brodey: But look, if you were to combine your background as a historian with plucking out the stories which allow you to express this as related to the times. In other words, related to the conceptual epoch that it’s in. Here’s- here’s an effort to- to talk holistically about families in a time when holism is just beginning. And then, if you take- if you take it and you sort of, take threads from out there in the world history and this, this- they, beginnings, of, of the new way of thinking, a new, what do you call it, what’s the common word, anyway, the-the new-

Rakow: Paradigm.

Brodey: the new paradigm. Here’s the beginning of the new paradigm. And you can document that, you can quote other people for that if you want. And then you connect this up and in relation to a new paradigm. And then- try and tell your story in such a way that you’re connecting- you’re showing that this is the old paradigm and new paradigm, and – and here’s this project which is a link between the two. And the struggle of these people, to go from one place to – from the old paradigm to the new paradigm in relation to describing the human behavior of a family.

Rakow: I think how I could come to my own words, one would be to read all the nurses notes, there’s like 30 months of them. I haven’t read them all. But also, perhaps to talk to the families. And to – to see it for myself. To see the units myself. Not that I can’t use a lot of other families to do that with. [laughter] But to see these families, actually.

Brodey: That’s great.

Rakow: And to get the other side of it. I hear what you were attempting to do. It’s kind of like hearing what people outside of this project were looking at this project and what- what is it they were seeing. Somehow, it-it makes this clearer to me. So,

Brodey: Yeah. Well, that’s the great progress you’ve made since last year. You’ve detached,

Rakow: I don’t think the- I don’t have this sense that people knew, had a clue what you were doing.

Brodey: Yeah, well I think you’re right. I think you- they didn’t have a clue. And they still don’t.

Rakow: Right! [laughter] That’s right, they don’t! I’m clear on that!

Brodey: They don’t!

Rakow: [laughter] That’s right. [laughter]

Brodey: And- and they’re all – they’re all sort of, you know, muddling along trying to get there but taking their belief system so strongly that they don’t really see what’s in front of them. And you know what I said many times is that when you deal with schizophrenia, it’s contagious. You know,

Rakow: (laughter)

Brodey: it gets- you start to think this way yourself. Now, I’m going to take – go to the bathroom for a little minute, and then I hope to come back and work some more.

Rakow: That-that-that came from observations. You weren’t pulling that out of the air. That you were seeing anxiety show up. So what makes it take one form or another? [silence] How come it’s physical illness here and acting out there? Is there a way to understand that?

Brodey: The only way I know is that some people find it easier to be, to act out and some people find it easier to ah, -some- they have preferred mechanisms.

Go to Top