IJSP Number 7, 2025

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 7, 2025 Page | 50 INTRODUCTION Why would Bowen’s theory be dangerous to such a hyper-complex system we call our personality or ourselves? Is it just because somebody comes forward with a theory, supposedly a new one, and pretends that his vision reaches deep into our very own ideas we foster about ourselves? And, all matters considered, should we admit such a theory and maybe even admire or adopt it? Is it a sufficient justification to tell us that this theory “ can be dangerous ” or is this just a provocative sort of advertising? Alternatively, is it probable or at least possible that in this theory we could encounter ideas, concepts or hints, which could raise intriguing question marks to our habitual belief systems? Although these kinds of questions seem to be contingent or, to say the least, uncomfortable, they are none the less worth asking. Being at least provocative they are also pro-vocative, which means that they are an implicit ‘call’ (lat. vocare ) for something that although is very present, we usually ignore it. The theory we want to present, analyse, and discuss is from the very beginning pro-vocative in its own nature and its possible connexions, implications, and developments as well. We will find ideas or insights we cannot easily ignore or rapidly sweep under the carpet of our day-by-day stressful involvement with life. Bowen’s theory is very ‘vocal’, and as such appealing, not in the common sense of course, but vocal and possibly upsetting none the less. And, as with so many things, what for one is appealing, can be appalling for others. In such a context, we just have to remember Piaget’s theory of ‘adaptation’ [2], which, although very modern and widely used by everyone, is not as simple and one- dimensional or one-directional as it seems to a superficial approach. Adaptation is, as Piaget wanted it understood, twofold: there is assimilation , on the one hand and accommodation , on the other. Assimilation, as the first step of that two-step procedure, is the easy part, everyone can do it without problems: you just have to take it (hear-saying, news, information, knowledge, etc.) from the world and incorporate it into one of your ‘mental drawers’ or ‘files’. This simple operation is possible because you already have the correspondent ‘labelled’ drawer where to put and register the new item or information. But, in case there is no correspondent ‘drawer’, ‘file’, or ‘folder’ in which to fit the news, you have to create one, and that is what Piaget labelled as accommodation – the second step of adaptation. In such a case, the new content has ‘to be accommodated’ or incorporated into a system that was not designed for it from the beginning. Consequently, the mental system has to enlarge itself in order to create a new ‘space’, or ‘drawer’, or ‘file’ for the information registered and to develop a network of connections, which will appropriate it to the information already existing in the system. As such, we will consider another of Michael Kerr’s observations concerning Bowen’s theory: “Making Bowen theory one’s own requires shifting completely from individually based, cause-and-effect thinking to system thinking and shifting from focusing mostly on human uniqueness to understanding human beings in the contest of nearly four billion years of evolution.” [3] The great difficulty inherent in every accommodation process is the implicit recognition of one’s own limited mental capacity, namely its lack of dept and extension.