The Debate: Attachment Theory vs. Differentiation & A Hopeful Glimpse of a Middle Way

By Jennifer Finch, LPC, SEPP

August 7, 2021

After reading a paper by Nathan R. Hardy & Adam R. Fisher in Family Practice x:1–15, 2018 “Attachment Versus Differentiation: Contemporary Couple Therapy Debate,” I was exhilarated. This is the exact debate that I have had twirling in my mind for decades. As a student of both attachment and differentiation, I have often wondered if there is a place for a symbiosis between them. As an integrated therapist, who tends to blend a lot of different modalities, it is always an ethical and moral question of mine, if we flip-flop between dialectally opposing theories do we risk fragmentation of our clients? Can we excuse away everything and all sense of responsibility and strip clients of their honorable self-stewardship in the process if we switch tactics midstream? It was hopeful to see the discussion in this paper on how we are moving more in a direction of integration and how we can ethically and morally do so without diminishing accountability on our client’s part. Here is my take on it.

You can read Hardy and Fisher’s full paper here:
https://www.psychnetworker.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_ce/Solomon_Reference1b.pdf

As a long-time student of Dr. Murray Bowen’s Theory (1978) and an avid follower of Dr. David Schnarch (RIP 2020), both strong proponents of differentiation, I have always to some extent struggled with the ever-so-popular and growing Dr. John Bowlby Attachment Theory (1969).

Taking this exploration in stride, I will first look at the differentiation model and point out the polarization of it to attachment theory, much how Hardy & Fisher (2018) have done, however much more casually, and less documented empirically. This is written more within the purview of my decades of experience working in the liminal space fluctuating between these two opposing modalities. I have a profound respect for both theories and approaches, however I have struggled with their divergent positions on adult development. In the conclusion, I will briefly discuss my new evolving path in this ever-changing landscape of therapy, and bring to the table a hopeful point of integration that I have recently discovered in Dr. Judith Blackstone’s work with the Realization Process.

____________________________________________________

DIFFERENTIATION:

In 1978, Dr. Murray Bowen introduced the concept of differentiation. Differentiation is a developmental process that constructs a fulcrum acting as a key decision maker in the balancing of the human drives for both deep connection and unique identity (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Much like the ancient Egyptians would weigh the deceased heart against a feather to personify order, truth and what is right. The balance of our authenticity relies heavily on self-possession while also needing to be in deep human connection. This balancing act tests us over and over again.

On one side of the spectrum is co-regulation, an existence within relationships whether these relationships contextually stand in individuals, couples, families, and societies. On the farthest end on the other side of the spectrum lies our independence, our autonomy, our Lone Ranger self that feels “Free to Be You and Me.” Nothing is required of us over here on this side. We can breathe, but we are alone.

As great as this adventurous traveler to the desert island of “Cast Away” might feel, how long does it take before we are gripping at “Wilson” the volleyball. We soon realize we cannot exist without others. Relationships promote our survival. But if we go back to relationships, we risk feeling engulfed, enmeshed, in fact, we feel EVERYTHING. Our stuff. Their stuff. And we collapse in overwhelm. No more room for “me, to be free.”

So, how do we remain a fully intact whole being with a “solid-sense of self” (Schnarch, 2009), and also exist in the fluctuating environment of others also trying to do the same thing, and somehow relate intimately in-between? Our heart, and in many ways, also the seat of our intelligence (according to Egyptian theorists at least), seems to get pinched, pulled and played when we extend outwardly to fulfill our fundamental need for connection and intimacy.

Herein lies the problem of gridlock in relationships. Two “self-centered” individuals trying to get our needs met in the context of a relationship.

Schnarch’s Crucible Therapy (CT; Schnarch, 1991), took Bowen’s theory a step further and applied it more specifically to couples work. It helps explain this common gridlock we feel in all relationships, however. It turns this stuck dilemma of feeling the pressure to conform to relationship needs and abandon our internalized core values and/or react to them and maintain and preserve our own beliefs and values. We either confront or withdraw. Both feel scary. It can feel fatal. But Crucible Theory presents this gridlock as a great moment that validates right here, in this conflictual icky-ness, that the relationship is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. When faced with this “two-choice dilemma” who caves first? A sure testament and aptly named, crucible.

I have always adored this approach, because right here, when the rubber meets the road, Crucible therapists use “collaborative confrontation” as a means to trigger an unveiling of our blind-sightedness and selfishness. The dilemma is seen as a celebration of sorts, a rites-of-passage, to now see within our own selves in the context of this relationship. In-To-Me-See. Intimacy. It is the fertilizer to cultivate a more nutrient rich ground where the relationship has more potential to grow. It is this ultimate push to self-inquiry that actually connects the relationship more deeply.

A therapist may ask “self-confrontation” questions that push us into a corner with our own selves. How do we deal with a limited selfhood like this: (taken from Hardy & Fisher, 2018 article — there are many examples that I could use here sparked from my own history, but this one, worded in this way, really nails the point):

Therapist: “The fact that your partner doesn’t want to have sex with you as much as you want to have with him puts you in a tough position in which you feel less desirable as a person. What will it take for you to feel good about yourself if your partner’s sexual desire doesn’t change?”

Bam! Individuals are faced with their limitations and inadequacies staring right back at them. The Crucible theory rests on the work that self-confrontation and awakening of self authentically leads to a greater capacity to be in the presence of another. Once we push past our own set-level of limited differentiation, instituted and patterned in by our families of origin, we stretch our capacity to self-soothe. We become a verified adult. And our sense of self not only becomes more solid, but also more flexible and expansive. A graduated student of “grand expectations of external sources to meet my needs.” Learning to self-soothe is the crux of becoming a differentiated adult. Needs met by others are considered a bonus. We no longer take them for granted, therefore they become luxurious moments of raw and pure connection when we sit in that spark of core-to-core contact. Both individuals connect together simultaneously meeting each other’s needs, willingly, and seemingly effortlessly. Two whole self-soothed individuals unified in a space that demanded to be stretched bigger. It is a natural evolvement when we reach out to intimately connect to others, knowing our needs are already met by us, our own selves. When we have learned to self-soothe, nothing is required from the other person.

When we reduce or even let go of our grip for our relationship partner to constantly meet our ever -growing list of needs and demands, the tightrope snaps, air fills the room, and relaxation floods the space like helium in a hot air balloon providing buoyancy so that intimacy and natural and authentic connection will rise and float in the atmosphere.

Higher levels of differentiation flourish and the relationship can thrive, until of course, when the next gridlock predictably occurs. So, relationships are a constantly moving body of the same organism. Just like the fascia within our body, wound and bound, around every organ, cell, muscle within us, it pulls apart, and rejoins, and pulls apart, and rejoins. An endless lifetime of fluid motion. As we grow, our relationship grows with us.

It takes a certain musculature to endure this unbridled anxiety and conflict to gain growth and expansion. Not only with our partners, but the willingness to confront our own limited selves. Differentiation is a willingness to see the best in people, to withhold the firm believe that we are born with an unthinkable human capacity that can tolerate the high levels of anxiety provoked through conflict. As they say, “No Pain, No Gain.” This crucible path is committed to long standing endurance of doing the hard, hard work and facing our own dark truths. We were all born into families that had limited degrees of differentiation. We arrived in our current relationships with that instilled and capped off limited level. We will only become as differentiated to the level of our partners. So, we hold onto each other as we push each other to the edges. If both partners are committed, it works. It really works. To really put yourself on trial with this approach, find a therapist with a huge capacity to endure anxiety and discomfort. You will rise to the occasion.

ATTACHMENT:

In 1958, John Bowlby & Mary Ainsworth, drew upon the concepts of ethology, cybernetics, and developmental psychology and formulated what is now known as the revolutionary and widely used, Attachment Theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).

Attachment theory is exhaustively covered in the empirical literature and has a leg up on its “proven” validity vs. differentiation. In a nut-shell, attachment theory posits that our survival is biologically wired to the emotional bond of a caregiver. This is not hard to believe, right? As human infants we are born completely vulnerable to the world. Other species within hours of birth have legs to stand on, and hard-wired survival instincts without the complexity of “over thinking it.”

Humans have one of the longest maturation processes, gradually, over time acquiring various skills that can aid in survival. Humans can remain dependent for years. This is explained by our neuro-biological attachment system. This attachment system, a.k.a. Social Engagement System (Porges, 2007), ensures that babies love their caregivers and that their caregivers love their babies. Pre-verbally, as infants, we are left with limited skills to make contact to get our needs met with our caregivers. Smiling, cooing sounds, eye-contact, are all ways newborns begin to develop “autonomy-within-relatedness and relatedness-within-autonomy” (origin of source Powell, Cooper, Hoffman & Marvin, 2014; p. 90; Hardy & Fisher, 2018). This context of resting within an environment that banks on the reciprocal relationship between a caregiver and a baby is crucial for the development of one’s longevity of emotional health, wellbeing and resiliency.

Caregivers, with their own attachment system, act as surrogate attachment systems to their young. If it promotes security and safety, then the child can explore freely, and as needed reach out to the caregiver for comfort. Without that crucial foundation of safety and “secure attachment” the child risks not getting basic survival needs, nor emotional needs met, and it could jeopardize survival. In other words, the child won’t thrive, the way he/she is intended to in this world.

As humans, we are often dependent on others, long after infancy and childhood. Attachment theorists see our adult relationships and struggles as displayed childhood attachment wiring, re-enacting predictable patterns. In fact, the way in which a caregiver responded, or didn’t respond, to an infant becomes the motivating force that drives our behaviors that is never-out-grown (Bowlby, 1979; Johnson, 2004).

This is psychologically stupefying. All those bad previous relationships were biologically pre-determined outcomes based on how our parents, and their parents, etc., were able to read and decipher our cooing sounds? If there wasn’t so much outstanding research, this might be where I would have walked away.

But, what keeps me engaged in this work is the very credible biological and physiological responses and defenses that researchers have observed in animals in the wild, and humans. The functions of our human fight/flight/freeze response to an active threat to our survival was marked by physical changes, including nervous system and endocrine changes that prepare a human to react or retreat. The functions of this response were first described in the early 1900s by American neurologist and physiologist Walter-Bradford Cannon (Definition from Encyclopedia Britannica). This largely predates Stephen Porges’ Polyvagal Theory.

So, if our needs were met, consistently, in the context of safety created by the caregiver’s alliance then we developed emotional regulation and a flouring sense of self. And if we struggled in our infant and childhood home-life and lacked receiving consistent and predictable emotional care, we organized ourselves in a way that promoted survival and we confusingly attached to our caregivers anyway. “This person can’t accurately read that I am hungry, so I am going to cry louder, etc.”

These insecurely attached children, were left regulating their own fears and distress, or not, in many cases, these children, who are now adults, are still crying louder when they are hungry. All of that fear and distress didn’t actually go anywhere or get dealt with and so it remained stuck, stagnant. Until, of course the next perceived caregiver comes along and it quite predictably gets played out all over again. Sue Johnson’s work, the creator of Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy (EFT), a derivative of Bowlby’s work, rests foundationally in the key hallmark that includes an assumption of dependence –that all adults are dependent on key others for soothing and safety (Johnson, 2008).

We cannot deny this, even in the context of differentiation, if you recall our desert island scenario clinging to Wilson. We don’t get very far without having to rely on others. Countless many others in fact. In EFT, therapists work deliberately and directionally in helping clients create more security within their relationships. When we feel secure, we relax. When we relax, in the presence of our partner, intimacy naturally arises.

EFT therapy sequentially starts in Stage 1, a de-escalation technique that helps gently and compassionately uncover the underlying attachment emotions and needs of both partners. It is assumed that these negative conflicts that arise in relationships are derived from previously disowned attachment needs and emotions. The antidote to the conflict is looking at our past, examining our patterned in attachment styles.

If relationship repair is promised, it is due to the underlying work of examining our own attachment styles from our caregivers. It also relies on acceptance of our partner’s experience with their own attachment styles from their caregivers.

And once both partners can see the other clearly in this whole perspective childhood view, they can now awaken to the negative cycles and see why and how they were inevitably triggering each other. With clear understanding of how one attachment system provokes the other’s attachment system, we can now help our partner with getting their underlying needs met. A hamster wheel of unconscious biological structuring. The scaffolding comes down and new positive cycles of interaction can be created in nondemanding expressions of needs and emotions.

Concern for our partners and how we can compassionately and empathetically see them as a small child not getting their needs met, can be the bonding experience to help the relationship grow more connected and flourish. Sue Johnson calls this, “relentless empathy.” Of course, it is based on the arena of trust and safety as a stabilized constant from our partner under our feet.

It sounds like a love story, I will hold and care for your unmet childhood needs, and I ask that you do the same for me. What if your partner is “a tragic expression of unmet needs?” How do we exist or even co-exist in a space when we move at a faster pace of self-discovery? Relationships are indeed never finished to a satisfactory level of contentment and happiness with quick maintenance.

THE REALIZATION PROCESS:

A not so new, but new to me, theory that integrates both differentiation, and attachment, and expands to an all-encompassing, almost spiritual, holding space for all of it to be true and useful.

Before I conclude, a quick examination of Dr. Judith Blackwell’s lifetime work called The Realization Process, and how I see it fitting in this paper’s themed debate. As I just mentioned, I am new to Judith’s work, and have a gut feeling that I will be staying here for a long time to come, but at this time, please forgive me for my announced naivete as I try to teach her work with great respect.

Judith is not scared to tackle the hard questions. The really, really hard, unexplainable questions. She delves in the teachings of nonduality and what she calls “fundamental consciousness.” She believes in it all, because there is naturally, room for it all. There is no either-or approach. Right or wrong. If you tap into nonduality, you will right out see this like a coconut just dropped on your head and woke you up. You will also, never quite get to the bottom of it, because the conclusion you grasp at, is of course opposing nonduality.

In the fledgling work that I have been doing with Dr. Blackstone, I have found profound changes within myself as well as with my students and clients. Judith holds a broad perspective that we were indeed organized biologically by our caregivers, i.e. attachment. She states that our bodies magnificently constricted when we bumped up against a perceived threat. If for example, our mother tried to force feed us at a time when we weren’t hungry, we would biologically and automatically constrict our throat, or mouth. We would even throw up on mom. A pharyngeal reflex, biologically wired in our own bodies great accomplishment to take care of itself.

But it is now up to us, and us alone, with the exception of a guided teacher initially, to unconstrict ourselves. To unbound our bodies from a collection of past constrictions we have endured through attachment or differentiation processes. Life. The constrictions of life. Sometimes we constricted and it wasn’t all bad, it was simply a way we conformed and connected.

One thing that Dr. Blackstone interestingly advances for me here is that she places self-regulation in the practice of embodiment at the beginning of treatment. Embodiment of self is a precursor to developing any stage of healthy coregulation within the context of relationships. She actually teaches us how to do it. How to get into our body and connect to ourselves. This is quite innovative and separates this process out from the two theories above.

Embodiment is a sophisticated practice, but once achieved, even in initial glimpses, the felt sense of safety is innately restored but not reliant on external stimuli. Thus, alleviating my concerns of staunch attachment beliefs that put our security in the hands of others restoring our inside safety with outside safety measures. Their eye contact, their prosody of voice, their facial expressions, etc. Nothing outside of me, has to disturb any part of the inside of me. It feels as if I can glide across the floor.

Also, through direct experience I, for example, can experience being in my own body, self-regulating, attuned to my core, first, and importantly first, then my value driven responses to feel empathy for my partner naturally accrues without Schnarch’s anxiety-driven conflict. Emotional bonding permutates through the space without any need to add anything or effort to it. In fact, everything moves freely through the enormous space. It is hard to articulate, and I am still working on it. But it feels liberating. And I have returned to my strong core sense of self, which sadly had become a domesticated skin on the floor for many years. My eyes are no longer darting to and fro trying to orient to something outside of myself, to something that I feel I can staple my safety to. It all rests within me. I rely on myself and everything else simply moves through the atmospheric space. Connection is made possible and even experienced more fully, because I am a whole person in my intelligence, compassion, love, voice, gender and sexuality, and power connecting to the full inhabited core of my partner. This is marriage and sex counseling on steroids.

IN CONCLUSION:

Ultimately, therapists find one way or another to make sense of their work. They adopt a theory, go deep, and indeed help a lot of individuals work through life’s suffering, which predominantly is initiated through relationships. One thing I have learned in the decades of doing this work — some of us out here, the real curious ones, the ones who keep asking the hard questions, like Dr. Blackstone, find more comprehensible ways to incorporate all of the integrative needs a whole human life and capacity encompasses. When we feel something is so authentically true, encapsulating the entirety and vast scope of our human experience, the catch is, we are left in the category of the unexplainable.

Science will follow. Dr. Blackstone has an enthusiastic team of inquisitive researchers on the job. But in the meantime we must live, and it is that leap of faith we take to advance our relationships and connect with true intimacy that feels worth it.