“I want to be alone” was Greta Garbo’s famous line from the 1932 film Grand Hotel, though through her reclusive lifestyle it was often thought that she said it herself, though she denied it. In this series I have looked at the various ways that we react when anxiety levels rise in emotional systems. I have examined triangles, fusion and overfunctioning. It may not be a surprise, in the face of all these competing pressures, if sometimes we feel like simply walking away when situations get too intense for us to handle. Murray Bowen, in developing his Family Systems Theory, described this process as cutoff.
Opposites attract
At first sight, cutoff is the opposite of the fusion described in an earlier insight. If fusion is the joining together of two identities so that a person is no longer able to regulate their own anxiety, cutting someone off may feel like the better alternative. We might be tempted to think “If I cut off then I won’t have to deal with them anymore – problem solved!” Yet life is rarely that simple. Often we can find that the person we have cut off from is more inside our heads than they were before. There may be times when cutoff is an appropriate response, particularly when dealing with the trauma of abuse. People in this situation need appropriate care and support, cutting off by itself does not make the emotional attachment disappear. In many ways it seems as if fusion and cutoff are opposite sides of the same process, neither will automatically address the anxiety that has surfaced in the relationship.
Many ways to make a cutoff
In her book All the Families of the Earth Barbara Laymon, a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family, describes the many emotional cutoffs that occur in the book of Genesis. In my previous insight I reflected on the overfunctioning of Sarah in giving her slave Hagar to Abraham to have a son. It does not take long for the process to move to cutoff, as on two occasions Sarah prevails on Abraham to send Hagar away. Physical distance may promote cutoff, or it may happen between a husband and wife living under the same roof, as Isaac and Rebekah demonstrate so well. Joseph’s brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt, which may remove the irritating dreamer, but they live with the guilt both before they know he is alive (Genesis 42:21) and afterwards (Genesis 50:15). In her book Laymon imagines a series of family counsellors observing the patterns of triangles, fusion and cutoff throughout the generations. One of her imaginary counsellors raises this crucial question:
“What I’ve noticed is how stuck a family can get … How does a family get out of their own historical patterns?”
Of all the families – why this one?
The writer of Genesis didn’t know about Family Systems Theory, but as I have been reading Laymon I have found myself wondering why the biblical author thought it was so important to use this family’s story to teach us how to live. Perhaps it was because amid all the chaos and repeating patterns, we also see those who begin to define themselves in the midst of what Bowen and Laymon later recognised as the triangles, fusions, over/underfunctioning and cutoffs of this family’s life.
We see it in Abraham trusting that the promise of a child will be fulfilled and in pleading with God for Sodom. We see it in Jacob returning from his exile to face his brother and wrestling with the mysterious stranger on the way – “I will not let you go until you bless me”. Perhaps above all we see it in Joseph reflecting on his tumultuous life when his brothers are still trying to come to terms with the consequences of cutting themselves off from the family. Joseph finds the way to stay connected yet distinct:
“But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today. So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones.”
After all, as God said to the man at the beginning – it’s not good to be alone.
Hi Mark
I have just read addicted to anxiety by Owen O Kane which offers an individual recovery program for addiction to anxiety. I am wondering if the Church of England needs to develop a program for its own addiction to anxiety on a collective basis rather than individual. I was struck by ++Sarah saying she wants to be a non-anxious presence!!
Any thoughts would be welcomed?
Best wishes
Peter Turnbull
Thanks Peter for your comment. I was also encourged to hear ++Sarah using the language of ‘non-anxious presence’. It would be interesting to think about what a collective program for recovery for anxiety addiction would look like. I think the example of Genesis shows that it is about us all taking a more differentiated non-anxious stance wherever we find ourselves in the system. I know that Synod recenlty received a paper about trust – its on my reading list!
This is a really thought provoking reflection and how you’ve used Bowen Theory applied to Genesis. It’s fascinating how such ancient narratives mirror these modern psychological patterns.
Looking closer at these multigenerational cycles, it’s clear to see how the tension in the family was so often driven by the passive underfunctioning or compliance of the patriarchs, which forced the matriarchs into high-anxiety positions. For instance, Abraham’s passivity and failure to protect Hagar—effectively passing the emotional buck to Sarah—heavily contributed to that painful cutoff.
It’s also worth noting how beautifully some of these women actually broke the mold of cutoff. Hagar, when cast out, doesn’t just disappear into emotional or physical cutoff; she encounters God, names Him (‘The God Who Sees Me’), and courageously returns to the family dynamic for a time. Likewise, Tamar later uses radical, risky differentiation to force Judah to face his own systemic failures and hypocrisy.
The great thing in Genesis, and God in general is how He works through the messy, shared failures of both genders, and that the path out of these historical patterns needs everyone to take responsibility.
Of course, things are different today since marriage is based on personal choice rather than financial contracts. In a modern world, healthy relationships rely on each person managing their own boundaries and owning their choices, rather than focusing on outside factors to avoid facing our own inner challenges.