Handbook of Bowen family systems

theory and research methods a

systems model for family research 1st
Edition Mignonette N. Keller
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-bowen-family-systems-theory-and-resea
rch-methods-a-systems-model-for-family-research-1st-edition-mignonette-n-keller/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Transitioning to Internal Family Systems Therapy A

Companion for Therapists and Practitioners 1st Edition
Redfern

https://textbookfull.com/product/transitioning-to-internal-
family-systems-therapy-a-companion-for-therapists-and-
practitioners-1st-edition-redfern/

Living Machines: A Handbook of Research in Biomimetics

and Biohybrid Systems 1st Edition Tony J. Prescott

https://textbookfull.com/product/living-machines-a-handbook-of-
research-in-biomimetics-and-biohybrid-systems-1st-edition-tony-j-
prescott/

Building Community and Family Resilience: Research,

Policy, and Programs Mike Stout

https://textbookfull.com/product/building-community-and-family-
resilience-research-policy-and-programs-mike-stout/

Intelligent Systems Theory Research and Innovation in

Applications 1st Edition Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves)

https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-systems-theory-
research-and-innovation-in-applications-1st-edition-ricardo-
jardim-goncalves/
Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems:
Volume 1 1st Edition Leslie P. Willcocks

https://textbookfull.com/product/enacting-research-methods-in-
information-systems-volume-1-1st-edition-leslie-p-willcocks/

Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems:

Volume 3 1st Edition Leslie P. Willcocks

https://textbookfull.com/product/enacting-research-methods-in-
information-systems-volume-3-1st-edition-leslie-p-willcocks/

Qualitative Research Methods in English Medium

Instruction for Emerging Researchers Theory and Case
Studies of Contemporary Research 1st Edition Curle

https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-in-
english-medium-instruction-for-emerging-researchers-theory-and-
case-studies-of-contemporary-research-1st-edition-curle/

Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information

Systems A Min Tjoa

https://textbookfull.com/product/research-and-practical-issues-
of-enterprise-information-systems-a-min-tjoa/

Psychosocial Skills and School Systems in the 21st

Century Theory Research and Practice 1st Edition
Anastasiya A Lipnevich

https://textbookfull.com/product/psychosocial-skills-and-school-
systems-in-the-21st-century-theory-research-and-practice-1st-
edition-anastasiya-a-lipnevich/
“One of the important contributions of Keller and Noone’s volume of collected studies from the
perspective of Bowen Theory is its focus on concepts in family systems theory and related con-
structs in the wider multidisciplinary research literature. The authors of these studies are deeply
conversant with Bowen theory and its potential as an integrative theory to guide research and
practice. This is a project that aims to carry forth Bowen’s most ambitious goal for his family
systems theory, that of moving towards a science of human behavior.”
Laura Havstad, Ph.D., director, Programs in Bowen Theory, Northern California.

“Diverse perspectives of empirical research are necessary to address the complexities of research
in family systems. Reciprocal influences of individuals and families, families and communities,
and communities and culture require a consistent theoretical grounding for approaching mean-
ingful questions. Launched from Bowen family systems theory, Keller and Noone have assembled
a knowledgeable group of scholars and practitioners to address important concerns of family
research for an invaluable resource for family systems researchers. It is an important text for those
seeking to design and interpret systems research.”
David S. Hargrove, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi,
Oxford, MS, where he served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology,
interim chair of the Department of Modern Languages and interim chair of the
Department of Exercise Science.

“The Bowen family systems theory field will advance as a natural science when the ideas are
applied and systematically researched by many professionals in varying fields of study. This book
has collected the research and explorations of seasoned experts in our field, investigating ways of
advancing the theory and its applications. The effort to research families as an emotional system
is daunting and complex. This collection of works documents how many authors and researchers
have undertaken the challenge. It will be a valued resource in my library.”
Walter Howard Smith, Jr., Ph.D., is a trustee of the Casey Family Programs Foundation
based in Seattle, WA. He is the retired Deputy Director and Clinical Director at the
Allegheny County Department of Human Services in Pittsburgh, PA, where he
served as Deputy Director of the Office of Children, Youth, and Family Services.
He is a licensed psychologist in private practice.
 Handbook of Bowen Family Systems
Theory and Research Methods

The Handbook of Bowen Family Systems Theory and Research Methods presents innovative approaches
on a range of issues inherent in family research and discusses the links between theory, data
collection, and data analysis based on Bowen family systems theory.
This multi-authored volume discusses core issues within family systems theory, including anx-
iety, stress, emotional cutoff, differentiation of self, multigenerational transmission process, and
nuclear family emotional process. Chapters also examine related constructs in the research litera-
ture such as adaptation, resilience, social support, social networks, and intergenerational family
relations. Readers will be able to view theoretical and methodological issues from the perspective
of Bowen theory and develop a clearer knowledge of ways to navigate the challenges faced when
studying individual, familial, and societal problems.
An essential resource for clinicians and researchers in the social and natural sciences, the Hand-
book of Bowen Family Systems Theory and Research Methods provides a comprehensive framework
for understanding the application of Bowen theory to family practice and family research.

Mignonette N. Keller, Ph.D., is faculty at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C., and former assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Howard
University, Washington, D.C. She received her doctorate from Howard University, Washington,
D.C., master’s from the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and postgraduate training at
Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C.

Robert J. Noone, Ph.D., is faculty at the Center for Family Consultation, Evanston, IL, and
the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in Washington, D.C. He is the editor of the
journal Family Systems and co-editor of The Family Emotional System (2015). He received his
doctorate from the University of Illinois at Chicago and postgraduate training at Georgetown
University Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
 Handbook of Bowen
Family Systems Theory
and Research Methods
A Systems Model for Family Research

Edited by Mignonette N. Keller and Robert J. Noone

First published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
The right of Mignonette N. Keller and Robert J. Noone to be identified as the authors of
the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-47811-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-47812-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-10328-2 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK
 Contents

Notes on Editors x
Notes on Contributors xi
Foreword xiv
Preface xxi
Acknowledgments xxviii

Introduction 1
Mignonette N. Keller and Robert J. Noone

PART I
Foundations of Family Research Introduction 13

1 The Role of Theory in Family Research 15

Mignonette N. Keller and C. Margaret Hall

2 The Origins of Family Research 24

John F. Butler

3 Developing a Systems Model for Family Assessment 36

Daniel V. Papero

PART II
Bowen Theory: A Systems Model for Family Research 47

4 Bowen Theory: A Systems Model for Family Research 49

Mignonette N. Keller

5 Data Collection and Family Research 62

Mignonette N. Keller

6 Data Analysis and Family Research 74

Carrie E. Collier

vii
Contents

PART III
Mechanisms Influencing Family Functioning: Stress/Anxiety,
Differentiation of Self and Emotional Cutoff Stress/Anxiety 91

7 Stress, Chronic Anxiety, and Symptom Development: A Family

Systems Perspective 93
Robert J. Noone

8 Bowen Theory in the Study of Physiology and Family Systems 105

Victoria Harrison

9 Human Stress Genomics and Bowen Theory: Potential for Future Research 120
Laurie Lassiter

10 Use of Differentiation of Self in Family Research 138

Randall T. Frost

11 Emotional Cutoff 157

Anne S. McKnight

12 Cutoff and Self-Functioning in Three Generations of Families with

Substance Abusing Teenagers 174
Anne S. McKnight

13 Within Family Variability: Intergenerational Cutoff and Family Projection

in an Adopted Family 188
Laura R. Brooks

PART IV
Mechanisms Influencing Multigenerational Family Functioning 201

14 Nuclear Family Emotional Process 203

Robert J. Noone

15 The Primary Triangle and Variation in Family Functioning 216

Phillip Klever

16 Family Emotional System and the African American Family 236

Mignonette N. Keller

17 Multigenerational Transmission Process 254

Robert J. Noone

18 The Multigenerational Transmission of Family Unit Functioning 265

Phillip Klever

viii
 Contents

19 The Multigenerational Transmission Process and Family Functioning 278

Mignonette N. Keller

PART V
Interdisciplinary Use of Bowen Family Systems Theory 299

20 Anthropological Contributions to the Study of the Human Family 301

Joanne Bowen

21 Bowen Theory Integrated into Nursing 321

Phyllis W. Sharps

22 The Family: A Public Health Approach 332

Yvonne Bronner, Paul Archibald, Ian Lindong, and Barbara Laymon

23 The Family and Academic Achievement 347

Clancie Mavello Wilson

PART VI
Implications for Future Directions in Family Research 363

24 Extension of Bowen Theory to Include Natural Systems of Human Societies

and Their Sustaining Environments 365
Patricia A. Comella

25 Future Directions of Family Research 389

C. Margaret Hall

Appendix A: Cutoff and Self-Functioning in Three Generations of Families and

Substance Abusing Teenagers 396
Anne S. McKnight

Appendix B: Standardized Questions for Annual Interviews 397

Laura R. Brooks

Appendix C: Multigenerational Family History Assessment Module 398

Mignonette N. Keller

Index 427

ix
 Editors

Mignonette N. Keller, Ph.D., is faculty at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C., and a former assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Howard
University, Washington, D.C. Her writing and research interests include theoretical and meth-
odological issues in family research related to factors influencing family functioning; a systems
model for family research; and the family diagram as a reliable assessment instrument for empirical
research. She received funding from the Center of Research on Minority Health at the National
Institutes of Health for her study of alcohol dependence and the family based in the Howard
University Alcohol Research Center. The Howard University Faculty Research Award Programs
provided funding for her multigenerational study of factors influencing family functioning.
Dr. Keller holds a doctorate in sociology from Howard University, Washington, D.C., a master’s
degree in social service administration from the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and she
completed postgraduate training at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington,
D.C., in family theory, family psychotherapy, and family research.

Robert J. Noone, Ph.D., is co-founder and faculty at the Center for Family Consultation in
Evanston, IL, where he maintains a practice in psychotherapy. He is the editor of the journal
Family Systems and a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in Wash-
ington, D.C. Along with Dr. Daniel V. Papero, Dr. Noone is editor and contributor to the
recently published book The Family Emotional System: An Integrative Concept for Theory, Science,
and Practice (2015) and author of published articles and book chapters on Bowen family systems
theory and psychotherapy. A practicing family therapist for more than 40 years, he received his
doctorate from the University of Illinois at Chicago and his postgraduate training in family sys-
tems therapy at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C.

x
 Contributors

Paul Archibald, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at the College
of Staten Island, City University of New York Staten Island, New York, and a former assistant
professor in the School of Social Work at Morgan State University. His research interests include
violence, trauma, depression, and substance abuse. He has several publications in professional
journals related to substance abuse, depression, and black males.

Joanne Bowen, Ph.D., is a research professor in the Department of Anthropology at the College
of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. She is also the Executive Director of the Murray
Bowen Archives Project in the History of Medicine Division of the National Library of Medi-
cine, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and dissemination of the Murray
Bowen Archives. Dr. Bowen is the author of numerous scientific publications in professional
journals and book chapters.

Yvonne Bronner, Sc.D., R.D., is a professor in the Department of Public Health in the School of
Community Health and Policy at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD. She has conducted
research on breast feeding, obesity, and healthy lifestyles and served as the principal investigator
of the Nutritional Assessment of the Maryland School Child Study. Dr. Bronner is the author of
numerous publications in professional journals and book chapters.

Laura R. Brooks, M.A., is a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C. She coordinates the Internship Program and Research Committee and serves
on the editorial board of the Family Systems Journal. She has a family therapy practice in Ellicott
City, MD. Her research interests include adoptive families, family projection process, within
family variability, emotional cutoff, and research from a systems perspective.

John F. Butler, Ph.D., is in private practice at Rose Street Mental Health Care in Wichita Falls,
TX. He is editor of the Origins of Family Psychotherapy: The National Institute Mental Health Family
Studies Project and the author of several professional articles on family theory and psychotherapy.

Carrie E. Collier, Ph.D., is a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C. She is the Director of the online program for studies in Bowen family systems
theory at the Bowen Center. She is also an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Coun-
seling and Human Development at George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Her
research interests include research methodology that captures family systems variables and devising
and testing a family unit functioning scale to be used in clinical and research studies. She main-
tains a clinical practice in Washington, D.C., at the Bowen Family Center.

xi
Contributors

Patricia A. Comella, J.D., is a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family
in Washington, D.C. She is currently a self-employed, independent consultant. Prior to her
retirement, she was employed as a Senior Foreign Affair Officer, Office of Nuclear Energy
Affairs, at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C. She has published numerous art-
icles related to Bowen theory.

Randall T. Frost, M.Div., is Director of Training and Research at Living Systems in Vancouver,
B.C., a pastoral counseling center that uses Bowen theory as its primary approach to counseling,
training, education, and research. He is a member of the faculty of the Bowen Center for the
Study of the Family in Washington, D.C., and author of professional articles and book chapters
on family theory and psychotherapy.

C. Margaret Hall, Ph.D., is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Georgetown University, Washing-

ton, D.C., where she was a member of the full-time faculty from 1970 to 2018. She chaired the
department of sociology in 1976–1980 and 1983–1989 and directed Women’s Studies from 1993
to 1996. Dr. Hall specialized in theory construction in clinical sociology, with particular attention
to social intelligence and social sources of personal and social identify. Her research interviews
address primarily family, religion, or belief systems, gender, the emotional bases of social intelli-
gence, and individual and social behavior. She used observations, life histories, and content ana-
lyses as research methodologies in her work on theory construction. Dr. Hall published
extensively including journal articles, book chapters, and books.

Victoria Harrison, M.A., is Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Natural Systems
and the Family in Houston, TX. She is also senior faculty at the Bowen Center for the Study of
the Family in Washington, D.C. She is in private practice based in Bowen theory and uses bio-
feedback and neurofeedback for the study of reactivity. She conducts research on physiological
reactivity in the family and its impact on health and reproduction. She is the author of several
journal articles and book chapters.

Michael Kerr, M.D., is the Director of the Bowen Academy in Islesboro, ME. He succeeded
Murray Bowen as Director of the Georgetown Family Center in 1990. He is the founding editor
of Family Systems: A Journal of Natural Systems Thinking in Psychiatry and the Sciences and served as
editor from 1994 to 2014. He is the co-author with Murray Bowen of Family Evaluation: An
Approach Based on Bowen Theory. He recently published Bowen Theory’s Secrets: Revealing the
Hidden Life of Families (2019). Dr. Kerr has written numerous journal articles and book chapters
related to Bowen theory.

Phillip Klever, M.S.W., has had a private practice in Kansas City, MO, since 1979. He has been
conducting a longitudinal, multigenerational family research study that began in 1994. This study
has explored how the following variables influence variation in nuclear family functioning: viable
emotional contact versus cutoff with the multigenerational family, stress in the multigenerational
family, symptomology in the multigenerational family, reactivity in the primary triangle, family
projection, and goal direction of the husband and wife. He has also examined nuclear family
emotional processes being passed on to the next generation. He has published numerous articles
in scientific journals and book chapters regarding his findings related to various aspects of Bowen
theory.

Laurie Lassiter, Ph.D., M.S.W., has a private practice in Leverett, MA. She presents at confer-
ences and webcasts on Bowen theory regularly. Her past mentors are Murray Bowen and the

xii
 Contributors

evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis, with whom she associated until the latter’s death in 2011.
She has written several articles and book chapters on Bowen theory, with particular interest in
the relationship of the triangle to differentiation of self. She applied Bowen theory to social
organisms representing early life and she has emphasized the evolutionary heritage of Homo sapi-
ens. Her current interest is in the research potential of discoveries in the social regulation of gen-
etic expression as it relates to Bowen theory.

Barbara Laymon, Ph.D., is a faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C. She is also the Lead Analyst for the National Association of County and City
Health Officials, the nonprofit representing local health departments across America. Her research
background includes an interest in long-term care policy, maternal and child health, managed care
organization, population health and epidemiology, community health assessment, and social deter-
minants of health. Dr. Laymon is interested in the ninth concept in Bowen theory, the supernatural
phenomenon, and plans to conduct research on systems thinking in religion and spirituality.

Ian Lindong, M.D., Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Community Health and
Policy at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD. He concurrently serves co-director and co-
investigator roles in federally sponsored programs in the university. His research interest include
technology in health care services delivery and program effectiveness evaluation. He has taught
biomedical courses in pathophysiology in the Nursing program, in addition to Epidemiology and
Biological Basis of Public Health in the Public Health graduate program.

Anne S. McKnight, Ed.D., is the Director of the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family in
Washington, D.C. She has been the Director since 2011 and served on the faculty since 1992.
Her clinical and research interests include death in the family, addiction, epigenetics, and ethics.
Dr. McKnight has numerous publications in professional journals and book chapters related to
Bowen theory. She maintains a clinical practice in Washington, D.C., and Arlington, VA.

Daniel V. Papero, Ph.D., is a senior faculty member at the Bowen Center for the Study of the
Family in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Bowen Family Systems Theory and the co-editor
of The Family Emotional System with Dr. Robert Noone, in addition to having written journal
articles and book chapters. He lectures both nationally and internationally on the Bowen theory
and maintains a clinical practice in Washington, D.C.

Phyllis W. Sharps, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Nursing at Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD., where she also serves as the Associate Dean of Community and Global Pro-
grams and holds the Elsie M. Lawler Chair. As Associate Dean for community programs and
initiatives, she directs three health and wellness centers operated by the Johns Hopkins School of
Nursing. Her scholarly expertise and interests include perinatal health, domestic violence, parent-
ing, women’s health, domestic violence, and infant mortality. Dr. Sharps has numerous scientific
publications in professional journals and has written book chapters.

Clancie Mavello Wilson, Ph.D., is the Director of the Joseph and Lauretta Freeman Foundation,
a nonprofit organization committed to addressing the needs of youth and families. Her research
interests include identifying more effective ways to educate and aggressively involve parents in
the process; better understanding of cultural differences and how these differences impact learn-
ing; as well as research to bridge the gap between home and school. Dr. Wilson is the author of
several articles in professional journals and book chapters.

xiii
 Foreword

This is a book about Bowen theory and research, so I will frame current research on Bowen theory
in the context of Murray Bowen’s key discoveries. Most readers are likely aware that Bowen is the
originator of Bowen family systems theory. He and his collaborators developed the theory based on
observational research in many settings over several decades. Early in Bowen’s research in the second
half of the 1940s at the Menninger Clinic, he concluded that Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was
plagued with enough subjectivity that it would never be accepted by the sciences. This realization
motivated Bowen to read extensively in the sciences and other disciplines to determine what would
be necessary to develop a theory of human behavior that would meet the criteria of the accepted
sciences. The background research convinced Bowen that such a theory could be developed.
Bowen’s observational research settings prior to the first publication of the new theory in 1966
included eight years at Menninger’s, five years at the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH), and five years at the Georgetown University School of Medicine’s Department of
Psychiatry. The theory that emerged from that research was an emphatic departure from psycho-
analytic theory. Its two most innovative aspects were applying systems thinking to describe
human behavior and grounding the theory in Homo sapiens being a product of evolution. Not
surprisingly, the major obstacle to applying systems thinking is cause-and-effect thinking. Cause-
and-effect thinking in the form of psychopathology existing within the patient causing neurotic
and psychotic disorders was at the core of Freudian theory.
Bowen was a maverick from the time he arrived in the fall of 1959 in the Georgetown Department
of Psychiatry, a psychoanalytically oriented program. Like other departments around the country, it
was easier for them to accept family therapy than it was to accept a family theory that was out of step
with psychoanalytic theory. Despite being out of step with other members of the department, Bowen
was able to establish family programs at Georgetown for the psychiatric residents and mental health
professionals in the community. The new method of therapy spawned by the new theory was built
around the process of differentiation of self. This concept both explained variation in human emo-
tional functioning and provided a blueprint for raising one’s level of differentiation.
A key piece of research at Menninger’s was facilitated by Bowen breaking from standard psy-
chiatric practice and meeting with members of his inpatients’ families. In doing so, he observed
how powerfully affected emotionally the patients were by their families, especially their mothers,
and vice versa. The traditional practice of insulating the doctor–patient transference relationship
from contamination by interaction with the family had allowed the intensity of family–patient
interactions to fly under the radar. This family–patient emotional intensity was evident no matter
what the patient’s diagnosis.
One particular study that Bowen conducted with a schizophrenic patient at Menninger’s
allowed an actively psychotic patient to regress. The key was allowing the patient to get worse
without nervously intervening. As expected, as the patient regressed, and his symptoms worsened,

xiv
 Foreword

but, after a period of time, his psychotic symptoms unexpectedly disappeared. The patient related
to the research staff much like a normal child.
This observation challenged a psychoanalytic theory contention that schizophrenic people had never
formed an attachment to their mothers during early development. However, Bowen and his team saw
that they were indeed capable of forming an attachment, but that ability had been buried under the
psychosis. This conclusion fit with the intense reactivity Bowen was observing between adult patients
and their family members at Menninger’s. I interpret these observations to indicate a high level of anx-
iety that schizophrenic patients experience in their social interactions, especially with family. This can
trigger a powerful impulse to withdraw, both behaviorally and into psychotic thinking.
The term symbiosis was in the psychiatric literature at that point in the early 1950s. Bowen
adopted the term to describe what he was observing between the inpatients and their family
members. It appeared that the normal early symbiotic mother–child attachment had never
resolved. He decided to study mother–adult offspring symbiosis and chose to conduct the study
with mothers and their adult schizophrenic offspring, but he could have studied symbiosis with
any severe dysfunction. He departed Menninger’s for the NIMH to set up the symbiosis study
on an inpatient research ward in 1954.
The study began with three mothers and their young adult schizophrenic offspring. One
mother–daughter pair agreed to live on the ward full-time; the other two pairs spent most of
their waking hours there. The research ward was located in the National Institutes of Health
Clinical Center. Despite his early observations at Menninger’s, Bowen was still using psychoana-
lytic thinking when the study began. This was reflected in his conceptualizing the unresolved
symbiosis as being the result of “interlocking psychopathologies.” As part of the study, he pro-
vided individual psychotherapy for the mother and the schizophrenic offspring. The purpose was
to define the specific psychopathologies of both people with the expectation that this therapeutic
process might enable them to separate into two people.
Two very important research observations had occurred by the end of the first year of the
study. The first was that the unresolved symbiosis was more intense than had been recognized at
Menninger’s, and neither mother nor offspring was motivated to change it. Bowen interpreted
the obstacle to change as “loss of each other equals death.” He described it as a fusion of feeling
states between the two people. The second observation was equally if not more important:
fathers were part of the problem. Fathers visited the research ward frequently enough for research
observations to be made about them, too.
Observing fathers led to the conceptualization that the mother–adult offspring symbiosis was
a fragment of the larger family group. Families function as emotional units. Family members are
linked by a powerful emotional interdependence that is associated with exceptionally high
reactivity to each other. Other family pioneers also conceptualized the family as an “organism,”
but Bowen was the only one to anchor the emotional process in a human emotional system that
had been shaped by billions of years of evolution.
At this juncture, the study morphed from a study of symbiosis to a study of the family. Family
groups that included a father, a mother, schizophrenic offspring, and “normal” sibling were now
admitted to the project. The patient’s symptoms were viewed as part of a dynamic process
involving the entire family.
What made the Family Study Project unique was that Bowen and the research team were
observing family interactions directly. Learning what was unfolding in the families was not
dependent on just listening to the subjective reports of family members. All of the staff made
careful notes of their observations. Despite being housed on a research ward, it was a reasonably
naturalistic setting in that the staff worked not to intrude into family tensions and conflicts. This
was not an easy task because family members often tried to get staff members involved. A study
of seven outpatient families paralleled Bowen’s research ward studies.

xv
Foreword

Bowen characterized the perspective the research team gained from the Family Study Project
as equivalent to moving from watching a football game from the vantage point of the sideline to
the very top row of the stadium. This allowed previously unobserved broad patterns of move-
ment of the players on the field to come into view. As Bowen and his team observed families
over a long period, he decided that the term “function” was preferable to “role” or even person-
ality trait. Function is a more flexible term in that it can accommodate family members’ function-
ing in a variety of ways that result from the nature of their reciprocal functioning with others.
For example, a schizophrenic patient may severely under-function when interacting with his
over-functioning parents, but under-function less when relating to a sibling or someone outside
the family. Marked contrasts in functioning were frequently observed in how family members
functioned in a work setting versus in the family setting. For example, a father might function
with more sureness and decisiveness in his work setting than in the family setting. A common
family pattern was a passive father, a more active mother, and helpless and immature schizo-
phrenic offspring. These patterns were not fixed in stone but could vary with changing
circumstances.
An extremely important observation concerned the “normal” siblings of the schizophrenic
patient. Bowen would later refer to this as varying levels of “differentiation of self” in the sib-
lings. The child with the most intense attachment to mother since early in life, and extending
into adult life as an unresolved symbiosis, inherits more of the parents’ immaturities or weak-
nesses than their strengths. The less involved sibling, growing up in a different and less anxious
“parental triangle,” inherits more of the parents’ maturities or strengths.
The association Bowen made with degree of unresolved attachment to family, such as the vari-
ation between siblings and overall life functioning, challenges the still commonly held view that
various types of abuse, physical and emotional neglect, having a mentally ill or substance-abusing
parent, parental separation and divorce, and domestic violence place children at risk for later life
problems such as heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancer, emphysema, and Alzheimer’s. Such
occurrences correlate with later life problems, but Bowen’s theory describes a “hidden” layer of
family system forces and patterns operating underneath abuse, trauma, and neglect that are more
influential on a child’s outcome. This underneath layer, which reflects a low level of family func-
tioning (undifferentiation), affects how much “self” a child develops. It can explain why two sib-
lings exposed to the same trauma and deprivation can turn out very differently. Trauma, abuse,
and neglect are not good things to happen to a child, but they are symptomatic of a more insidi-
ous process.
It was common in the family movement to refer to the identified patient, the most dysfunc-
tional of a sibling group, as a “scapegoat.” This term risks conveying that the child is a victim.
The child is not a victim if you apply systems thinking to recognize that the mother–child rela-
tionship is a reciprocal interaction. For example, a child acting like a baby can calm the mother’s
anxiety. The child does it automatically because he or she is rewarded with a calmer mother.
The mother is calmed by viewing the source of her anxiety as outside herself, in the child, and
ministering to the needy child also helps her feel competent. The focus of both parents on the
child’s functional helplessness can distract the parents from potential tensions between themselves
and thus stabilize their relationship. Bowen and the research team assessed the parents’ maturity
levels to be just a little higher than those in the child. Their problems are typically hidden by
their over-functioning, making them appear more mature than they really are.
This non-victim perspective on a child does not relieve parents of their responsibility in family
therapy to take the lead in changing family process. The child is an equal participant in the
family process but is in too dependent of a position to take responsibility for leading change in
the family. Parents benefit greatly from a therapist who can discern that whatever negative

xvi
 Foreword

experiences are playing out in the family, they do not result from a lack of love or involvement
but from too much anxiety-driven involvement.
Bowen viewed the family with a psychotic member as functionally helpless, an anxious organ-
ism, without a leader. Interestingly, he did not think the family members were truly helpless, but
functionally helpless in relationship to each other. A pervasive passivity exists in poorly differenti-
ated families, although it may be punctuated with overly controlling and aggressive behaviors.
The helplessness is also accentuated by years of seeking answers outside themselves and by the
mental health professionals consulted taking responsibility for diagnosing and fixing the patient.
A brief description of change in one family at NIMH will highlight the processes just
described. Bowen developed his first method of family therapy at the NIMH, a method he
referred to as family group therapy. All family members were present for the sessions. In this case
example, the mother and adult schizophrenic daughter’s relationship was often tense and conflict-
ual. The mother over-functioned, and the daughter under-functioned, in the reciprocity. The
father, highly reactive to his wife’s anxiety, tended to support her view that the basic problem
was in the daughter. With the help of therapy, the father began to see how anxious he was
about his wife’s anxiety and how it clouded his thinking about how things were playing out in
the family. As a result of his developing a little more objective view of the family dynamics, he
changed by no longer going along with his wife’s pleadings to support her anxiety-driven focus
on the child. In response, the wife had an emotional meltdown of her own, pleading desperately
with the husband to support her with the daughter. The mother was feeling angry, abandoned,
and especially helpless. The husband held his ground in face of her pressure. He was not angry at
his wife, just calmer and a little surer of himself. To his amazement, his stance eventually had
a calming effect on his wife, which then helped her resist her daughter’s anxious pleadings that
the mother do what was typical for her when the daughter was feeling helpless and distressed.
The mother would take over and fix the problem. Of course, this accomplished only a short-
term solution. Now, with the mother not doing her usual thing, the daughter put stronger pres-
sure on her mother to solve her problem by acting more psychotic. The mother held the line,
and the daughter picked up her functioning. What I have just described is one of the many ver-
sions of “family emotional process” that Bowen and the research team were observing. The pro-
cess flows through a family in predictable ways, with often-predictable results.
When the Family Study Project ended in 1959, Bowen moved to Georgetown University
School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. The inpatient studies were over, but his theoret-
ical thinking and numerous innovations of the therapy flourished there. An important observation
from outpatient studies at Georgetown was confirmation that the same patterns in families with
schizophrenia occurred in better differentiated or more maturely functioning families, but with
less intensity. Work at Georgetown also fleshed out an idea that began at NIMH. The idea was
that the high degree of intensity of unresolved emotional attachment between a mother and adult
dysfunctional child reflected the outcome of gradually increasing degrees of unresolved emotional
attachment over many generations. The idea eventually became a concept in Bowen theory: the
multigenerational transmission process.
Bowen considered another development at Georgetown one of the most important: differenti-
ation of self in one’s own family. As an alternative to lying on a couch for many years, with some
“coaching help,” people could apply Bowen theory to the real world of their own families to work
on whatever degrees of unresolved attachment they had with them. Bowen suggested that, for
family therapists to be effective in their work, they had a particular responsibility to do this.
Besides continuing developments in theory and therapy, family programs Bowen developed at
Georgetown enabled interested psychiatric residents and other mental health professionals in the
community to learn about Bowen theory and therapy. An annual symposium on family began in
1965, a postgraduate training program began in 1969, and the Georgetown University Family

xvii
Foreword

Center opened its doors in 1975. All those activities continue to this day. Bowen’s book of col-
lected papers was published in 1978.
In the late 1980s, a new psychiatry department chair was especially unaccepting of Bowen’s
ideas being so out of step with the still psychoanalytic base of the department. The chair’s atti-
tude, along with Bowen’s health having been in decline for several years, led to Georgetown
University severing ties with the Center in the summer of 1990. It could be that the department
thought the Family Center would fall apart without Bowen because it assumed the Center was
Bowen based, not theory based. Bowen was a strong leader, but the theory had been transmitted
successfully to many others who would continue to develop it. Bowen died in October 1990,
but the family faculty that been assembled over many decades continued the Center’s programs
as a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization in an off-campus location near the one it had occupied
for many years.
Bowen’s principal guidance in reference to the future of Bowen theory and its many applica-
tions (to non-family as well as family systems) for those that would follow him, both at the
Family Center, Inc. (a.k.a. Bowen Center for the Study of the Family as of the mid-1990s) and
at the myriad Bowen theory-oriented sites that had sprung up around the country and overseas,
was to keep Bowen theory an open system by maintaining viable contact with the sciences and
other relevant disciplines. The theory needed to be continuously exposed to new facts emerging
from other disciplines that would either support or contradict it. Failure to do so would render
the theory vulnerable to becoming a closed system, a dogma. A mantra of the Bowen network is
that theory can be changed by facts alone, not by personal opinion. Through the efforts of many
people in many places, the viable contact continues.
I have provided this background on the history of the development of Bowen theory to
emphasize the theory’s unique position in intellectual history. Using systems thinking to combine
facts about human behavior from many disciplines, especially family research, with facts about
human beings as a product of evolution is a genuinely new idea. The theory is not well estab-
lished in the public consciousness at present, but I believe history will treat it kindly. This book
is about research that attempts to support and extend this idea, but an obstacle exists to accept-
ance of the theory.
The recently emerging field of systems medicine highlights some of the obstacles Bowen
theory researchers face. Systems medicine is an interdisciplinary field that looks at the systems of
the body as an integrated whole. Like a family system, the components of a body system interact
to create something that could not be predicted by just studying its individual components.
In systems medicine, the research effort is to elucidate the pathways in a network that regulate
the components of that network, and how networks interact with other networks in the body as
a whole. The ultimate goal is a better understanding of states of wellness and disease. An import-
ant component of the work in systems biology and systems medicine is computational biology or
mathematical modeling.
In a family system, it is difficult to quantify the communication signals that regulate the func-
tioning of family members. When the Georgetown University Family Center was just getting
underway, Bowen invited the research chair of the medical school to a meeting that included
Bowen and his faculty. Prior to the meeting, the chair had been provided with two collections
of papers that had been presented at conferences related to Bowen theory. The first thing the
research chair said was, “I read these papers, but there are no numbers here. Where are the num-
bers?” This comment made quite an impression on me, and I think it highlights obstacles that
Bowen theory researchers face. A mathematical model is not reality; it is an attempt to match
natural phenomena with equations that can then be used to make predictions about natural phe-
nomena. Mathematical models can be honed to fit reality. If a mathematical structure is a good
model of whatever reality is being addressed, it lends a certain credibility to the research. No one

xviii
 Foreword

has yet developed mathematical modeling for a family relationship system, but that does not
mean it cannot be done.
An absence of mathematical models is not a reason for family researchers to get defensive.
A useful perspective on this issue has been provided by a young systems biologist, James Valcourt.
He compares the current state of systems medicine to the state of knowledge at the time
Johannes Kepler defined the laws of planetary motion. Kepler described what was happening,
even developing mathematical formulas about the phenomenon, but he could not account for it
being the way it is. Valcourt suggests it is necessary for systems medicine to get to the time of
Newton. Newton conceptualized gravitational forces that could predict everything Kepler
described. I interpret Valcourt’s point to be that systems medicine would benefit greatly from
a theory developed from all the factual information it is collecting. A theory would enhance
future research.
Bowen described myriad functional facts of family interactions gleaned from extensive observa-
tional research. Within a relatively short period of time he was able to construct a theory from
those facts. He did this without any numbers. I suggest that Bowen was like a Kepler-Newton.
This does not mean that computational biology does not have a place in Bowen theory research,
but the existence of family theory places Bowen theory research in a unique place that is different
from where systems medicine is today.
Observational research depends on overcoming what Bowen termed “observational blindness”
or what others refer to as “inattentional blindness.” Both phrases describe a psychological process
that results in an individual failing to perceive an unexpected stimulus that is in plain sight. It
took the application of systems thinking to get beyond the observational blindness generated by
individual psychopathological thinking and to see how patterns of interaction revealed by systems
thinking regulated the functioning and behaviors of individual family members.
Bowen made a quantum leap. Dysfunction in one family member is a symptom of
a disturbance in the family relationship system. The equivalent for systems medicine, if I am
interpreting the current state of that field correctly, would be shifting from the view that
a disease causes a disturbance in an organism’s homeostasis to the view that dysfunction in an
organ or tissue is symptomatic of a disturbance in the organism homeostasis. It would be
a quantum leap for systems medicine to view disease in this way.
All of us who became serious students of Bowen theory had to prove the theory to our-
selves. Bowen got us interested in the ideas, but everyone has his or her own research to do.
No mathematical formulas exist about families to provide credibility. Proving the theory to
oneself is part of the process of differentiation of self. It involves becoming acquainted with
systems thinking and having the motivation (and courage) to apply it in one’s own family. It
is observational research on one’s personal life, recognizing previously unseen patterns, then
taking actions based on this new way of seeing what is unfolding. The actions are aimed at
changing self, not others.
Next comes the problem of assessing any progress that has been made. How to assess, let alone
quantify, progress in oneself and progress in a complex family system is difficult at present.
People fall back on self-observation and observations of the relationship system. Both assessments
are vulnerable to contamination by subjectivity. It is easy to fool oneself into thinking one has
made more progress than one has actually made. The research systems biologists and systems
medicine people are using will likely be of help to Bowen theory researchers over time. For
example, systems biology may be able to quantify levels of chronic anxiety in individuals and
family units to a degree that is not currently possible. To do this, systems biology would have to
include the impact of stress on the networks being studied.
The authors of the chapters in this book are serious students of Bowen theory. Each comes up
with his or her own creative way of approaching research, either to document the accuracy of

xix
Foreword

Bowen theory’s predictions and/or to extend the theoretical concepts. I hope the background
I have described conveys something about the challenges they face in studying a complex system
such as the human family. I commend and admire their efforts. I suspect I will end my career by
saying what Bowen often said, “I know within me that the theory is accurate.” This, of course,
proves nothing.
Michael E. Kerr, MD
July 2019
Islesboro, Maine

xx
 Preface

This multi-authored volume provides a framework for examining principles of the research pro-
cess through the lens of Bowen family systems theory. This publication discusses the links
between theory, data collection, and data analysis from a systems perspective. The authors of the
chapters discuss the core concepts within family systems theory, developed from the study of
the human family, with emphasis on strategies for addressing theoretical and methodological
issues inherent in family research.
This book also provides a framework for acquiring new knowledge and expanding the under-
standing of both theory and research methods in family research. This is accomplished through
an in-depth discussion of recurring theoretical and methodological issues encountered in family
research. In addition, examples are provided that illustrate the application of Bowen family sys-
tems theory in empirical family studies.
The seminal work by Dr. Murray Bowen, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, published in
1978, provides an in-depth discussion of family systems theory and its early development.
Many have written notable publications based on Bowen family systems theory, which tend
to have a clinical focus. They significantly expanded the theoretical knowledge and an under-
standing of issues related to the clinical application of Bowen theory. However, a greater
focus on the expansion of family research to ensure its viability and contribution to future
generations of clinicians and researchers in the social and natural sciences involved in family
research is needed.
The purpose of each chapter is outlined below.

Chapter 1: The Role of Theory in Family Research

In the search for knowledge about human behavior and the human family, theory and
research methods are interdependent and complementary. Both are important in family
research because they are critical to the collaborative search for science. Science is
a systematic and logical approach for gaining knowledge and an increased understanding of
the predictability of human life in the universe through the testing and analysis of observable
and measurable facts. This chapter examines the role of Bowen theory in the research
process.

Chapter 2: The Origins of Family Research

We are fortunate today to have many sources related to Dr. Murray Bowen’s National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH) Family Study Project 1954–1959. This chapter has several purposes. First, as
other sources provide comprehensive details about Bowen’s project, the emphasis of this chapter is

xxi
Preface

on the research methodologies of the project, which have not been discussed consistently as much as
have other aspects of the project. This chapter also reviews some seminal results of the project.

Chapter 3: Developing a Systems Model for Family Assessment

Since the publication of Michael Kerr’s outline of a procedure for assessing family functioning,
several attempts have been made to use the outline to develop a model for family assessment.
Although these efforts have been informative, no clear model has emerged and been tested. In
2011–12, the NIMH began development of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a research
framework for studying the full range of human behavior from normal to abnormal based on
biology, behavior, and context. The RDoC moves away from the categorical classification model
of the DSM to a dimensional or continuum model.
The RDoC use of dimensions led the author to consider a new approach to family assessment that
differed from the Kerr model. Beginning with Bowen’s conceptualization of the family as a system and
his focus on the functioning of that system as it faced adaptive challenges and accompanying anxiety and
stress, it becomes possible to develop a dimensional model of family system functioning. That model
includes five dimensions, each ranging from optimal to dysfunctional: resourcefulness, tension manage-
ment, connectedness and integration, systems thinking, and goal structure. At present, the work remains
a proposed schema for evaluation, not a validated instrument, which will require further testing.

Chapter 4: Bowen Theory: A Systems Model for Family Research

A systems model for family research based on Bowen family systems theory is proposed. The purpose
of family systems theory is to observe the facts of functioning in human relationships. The facts can
be observed to repeat consistently across generations. The Bowen theory focuses on “what happened
and how, when, and where it happened.” The assumptions and theoretical principles within Bowen
theory provide the framework for further understanding family functioning and advancing knowledge
through empirical research. When using the scientific method, the replication and affirmation of find-
ings based on the theoretical formulations of Bowen theory will demonstrate the potential of the con-
ceptual framework as a viable approach for family research.

Chapter 5: Data Collection and Family Research

This chapter discusses the family diagram, a theory-driven assessment instrument, based on the
formulations of Bowen family systems theory. The assessment procedure is designed to systemat-
ically collect factual family data (who, what, when, and where) on all family members that pro-
vide a multigenerational diagrammatic description of the relationships and emotional patterns in
the nuclear and extended family system. The chapter provides strategies for making the family
diagram a reliable assessment instrument for empirical research.

Chapter 6: Data Analysis and Family Research

The family data used in family research, which is based on Bowen family systems theory,
differs from conventional clinical and social science family data. For example, Bowen theory
consistently focuses on assessing and measuring functioning differences in family dependencies
and relationships. Consequently, conventional ways of measuring family exchanges—through
gender, race, social class, or religious beliefs—are often essentially discounted. Furthermore,
reliability and validity are deliberately sought through use of innovative techniques such as
family diagrams and life histories. Thus, adequate primary and secondary family data are

xxii
 Preface

collected by quantitative and qualitative research methods that allow researchers to operation-
alize Bowen theory’s concepts.

Chapter 7: Stress, Chronic Anxiety, and Symptom Development:

A Family Systems Perspective
A wealth of research evidence over the past several decades supports the relationship
between stressful life events and health. This evidence has contributed to an understanding
of how stress and the response of individuals to stress are significant factors in the develop-
ment of physical, emotional, and behavioral symptoms. Knowledge about the neuroendo-
crine systems involved in the physiological stress response and their influence on various
other systems has shed light on how the response to stress can contribute to a wide range
of symptoms. Bowen theory describes how such processes within individuals are regulated
by family interactions.

Chapter 8: Bowen Theory in the Study of Physiology and Family

Systems
This chapter describes research projects using Bowen family systems theory, along with physio-
logical measures, cortisol assay, and brain wave information, to address questions about the regu-
lation of emotional reactivity in the family. The relevance of Bowen theory and the study of
physiology are discussed in relation to the literature of several fields. The challenges involved are
described, and future directions are proposed.

Chapter 9: Human Stress Genomics and Bowen Theory: Potential

for Future Research
Murray Bowen theorized that the human-interaction phenomena described in his theory could
eventually be identified and measured at the cellular level, as well as at the psychological/relation-
ship level. An emerging field of human social genomics, based in changes in genetic expression
in response to social stress, has the potential to offer evidence of Bowen theory on the level of
molecular physiology. There is broad congruence between Bowen theory and social genomics in
identifying three major factors that contribute to human functioning: (1) degree of sensitivity to
social regulation, which Bowen saw as an aspect of his concept of differentiation of self; (2) the
effects of one’s position in the social group in determining health, illness, and well-being; and (3)
the consequences of social stress, or anxiety, from intimate, family relationships to the level of
society.

Chapter 10: Use of Differentiation of Self in Family Research

This chapter describes the multifaceted concept of differentiation of self and reviews and evaluates
ways in which the concept has been operationalized for family research. Other concepts such as
resilience, coping, adaptation, and self-esteem will be examined for possible relevance to research
on differentiation of self.

Chapter 11: Emotional Cutoff

Emotional cutoff is one of the eight concepts of Bowen theory, a family systems theory devel-
oped by Murray Bowen based on viewing the family as an emotional unit. Emotional cutoff is

xxiii
Preface

the distancing of a relationship, physically or emotionally, in reaction to tension or anxiety. The

relationship might appear as distant or “not important,” but cutoff signifies that effort is being
expended to isolate oneself from someone with whom one has an intense bond and strong
reactivity. One reaction to intense fusion is to sever the relationship to gain more autonomy or
emotional breathing space. Bowen observed that cutting off only intensified the fusion in other
relationships, resulting in vulnerability to new symptoms. Concepts such as social support and
social network will be examined for their relevance to research on emotional cutoff.

Chapter 12: Cutoff and Self-Functioning in Three Generations of

Families with Substance Abusing Teenagers
Cutoff is one concept of Bowen family systems theory that addresses emotional cutoff or physical
distancing as a way of handling unresolved attachment between generations of a family. The pull-
ing away of the child from the parent or the extrusion of the child by the parents is a means to
resolve tension in the relationship. However, the cutoff also prevents a resolution of the difficul-
ties, which may impact on the child in their subsequent relationships, nuclear family, and parental
functioning. This chapter will describe the findings in a research study conducted with sixty fam-
ilies who were referred to a mental health center for a substance-abuse evaluation of a teenager.

Chapter 13: Within Family Variability: Intergenerational Cutoff and

Family Projection in an Adopted Family
Research on within family variability has provided an exhaustive exploration of the multiple fac-
tors that contribute to why children in the same family turn out differently. This chapter will
briefly review these research findings and describe a family systems view of the subject. Family
systems theory, specifically Bowen theory, offers a broad view of variability in human functioning
that includes family variables such as emotional cutoff between generations and family projection
process, where the parental anxiety is focused on the children to varying degrees. The aforemen-
tioned concepts will be elucidated in a long-term case study of a single parent family with two
children, one birth child and one child by adoption. The family emotional process has variable
long-term consequences for each child.

Chapter 14: Nuclear Family Emotional Process

The concept of the nuclear family system describes both the interdependent functioning of the
family unit and the interactional patterns involved as family members adapt to one another and
to the environment. Defined as an emotional system, family processes are viewed as largely auto-
matic and, for the most part, operating outside the awareness of the members. This chapter will
discuss the nuclear family system as an adaptive system and describe the mechanisms or processes
families utilize in the effort to maintain stability. Implications for research will also be discussed.

Chapter 15: The Primary Triangle and Variation in Family Functioning

The triangle, a concept in Bowen theory, is the emotional context in the family system that
shapes the human over the course of life. This longitudinal study explores the influence of the
family of origin primary triangle on fifty-one couples’ reproductive functioning over ten years.
The quantitative analysis identifies associations between reproduction and three variables: distance
versus openness in the family of origin, the degree of inside and outside positions in the primary
triangle, and the degree of projection as expressed in worry.

xxiv
 Preface

Chapter 16: Family Emotional System and the African American

Family
In the late 1970s, Dr. Murray Bowen asked, “How does a slave develop a self in an oppressive,
dehumanizing system forcing him into a no-self position?” This case study addresses that question
by following the life course of the progenitor of an African American family. The historical
information for the analysis was taken from a larger study of four black and white families with
a common heritage. In the original study, statistical and historical documents verified the accur-
acy of the data collected, using a semi-structured questionnaire as an adjunct to the family dia-
gram. Case study data are used to identify factors within the relationship system influencing the
functioning of slaves and their descendants.

Chapter 17: Multigenerational Transmission Process

Differences in how well individuals cope with their circumstances over their life course entail
genetic, epigenetic, physiological, psychological, relationship, and environmental variables, which
interact over the course of their development. One of the hypotheses derived from the five-year
NIMH study of the family by Murray Bowen was that family interactions and emotional process
in the family unit, which govern varying degrees of maturity attained by children, also shape
variation in the range of maturity levels attained in the next generation. With further study and
the development of the concept of differentiation of self, this observation was refined into the
formal concept of the multigenerational transmission process. This chapter discusses the concept
and some of the research in the neurosciences and epigenetics, which both provide support for
the concept.

Chapter 18: The Multigenerational Transmission of Family Unit

Functioning
Bowen theory hypothesizes that a nuclear family’s level of functioning is influenced by the stabil-
ity or functioning of previous generations. This longitudinal study tests this hypothesis with fifty-
one newly developing nuclear families and their multigenerational families. Family functioning
was measured using a composite of physical, emotional, social, and marital symptoms of the
family members of current and previous generations. The quantitative analysis supported the
hypothesis. In a correlation analysis of the first five years of this twenty-year study, multigener-
ational functioning, especially nuclear family of origin functioning, was associated with nuclear
family functioning.

Chapter 19: The Multigenerational Transmission Process and Family

Functioning
The multigenerational transmission process is a concept within Bowen family systems theory that
describes the variability in the functioning among family members ranging from the most favor-
able to the most dysfunctional. Some segments move toward a higher level of functioning, while
other segments move toward a lower level of functioning. Family members differ in functioning,
and multigenerational trends in functioning reflect an orderly, predictable process that connects
the functioning of family members within and across generations. This chapter explores the
extent to which family systems theory provides the most useful framework for identifying and
evaluating factors that influence the variability in functioning among family member in the
family study spanning nine generations.

xxv
Preface

Chapter 20: Anthropological Contributions to the Study of the

Human Family
This chapter extends Murray Bowen’s concept of societal emotional process by incorporating the
family–land relationship into his theory. Bowen understood that the forces driving emotional
regression in the family and society were resource-based, and he postulated overpopulation and
scarcity of resources could be sufficient to produce societal-level regression. At the same time, he
recognized that the forces were far more complex and he remarked that other disciplines had
a better knowledge base than he did. He hoped future generations would be able to expand his
concept.

Chapter 21: Bowen Theory Integrated into Nursing

This chapter describes the practice of, and scientific foundations for, nursing. Nursing family the-
ories are described, including how Bowen family systems theory has been integrated into the
nursing theories. The chapter also includes selected examples of integration and application of
Bowen theory concepts and strategies used to guide nursing practice and nursing research. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for Bowen family systems theory and nursing
research.

Chapter 22: The Family: A Public Health Approach

This chapter sets forth the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) vision of “Health for All” as the collective goal, while
recognizing the mental disease burden that families and communities will have to absorb as
our population ages and lives longer. Public health facilities and the mental health workforce
are not likely to be adequate to manage the level of dementia and Alzheimer’s they will face.
Therefore, the stigma that mental health has in the community, when public health evidence
about intervention and prevention strategies that use life course frameworks is examined, will
be discussed. Bowen family systems theory will be discussed as an alternative for expanding
the strategies for addressing the challenges in the public health arena.

Chapter 23: The Family and Academic Achievement

This chapter focuses on families’ support networks and their impact on children’s achieve-
ment. Research indicates that a social support network brings about improved academic per-
formance by children from families enduring prolonged or multiple stressors. Given such
support, parents more effectively focus on reinforcement of the child’s home-learning envir-
onment. More explicitly, Coleman indicates that social support provides strength for parents
and children to draw upon during difficult times: for example, when encountering emotional
or financial hardship, or problems with schoolwork, teachers, or peers. Edmunds points out
that social support is a useful community intervention strategy for African American and His-
panic American children living in poverty. This chapter explores reconnections between par-
ents’ social support networks and children’s academic achievement.

xxvi
 Preface

Chapter 24: Extension of Bowen Theory to Include Natural Systems

of Human Societies and Their Sustaining Environments
Murray Bowen’s odyssey toward a science of the human lasted nearly 50 years. He explored the
human as an instinctual animal with a “marvelous” brain until death claimed him on October 9,
1990. Although he did not reach his goal of constructing “a total human theory from scientific
facts alone,” he left a rich intellectual legacy to guide future explorers of the human condition in
their quests toward that science, fashioning a natural systems theory designed to fit precisely with
the principles of evolution and the human as an evolutionary being. This chapter presents the
author’s understanding of how to use his guide to extending The Bowen Theory to encompass
human societies and their sustaining environments.

Chapter 25: Future Directions of Family Research

Bowen family systems theory approaches research from many levels of analysis and interpretation.
The author considers micro- and macro-trends of family interdependence together, as well as
separately, and Bowen’s concept of emotional process in society helps us understand how families
are influenced by societies and vice versa. This makes us more aware of what we take for granted
about family and research challenges, so that we make new emphases, according to observed pre-
dictabilities in families. Bowen’s interest in biological sources of family reactivity may further our
quests to find linkages between science, nature, the environment, and families. Also, clearing our
minds of conventional thinking challenges some of us to try to solve the future massive global
problems.

xxvii
 Acknowledgments

Many individuals have made significant contributions that have enabled us to complete this research
handbook. However, foremost recognition is due to our families. Mignonette Keller wishes to acknow-
ledge the members of her nuclear and extended family system, including her husband, Royce, son,
Joseph, and extended family for a legacy of leadership, achievement, and courage. Robert Noone
would like to acknowledge the previous generations for all they have contributed to his life.
We are deeply indebted to the authors from the network of Bowen theory scholars and the
academicians in the social and natural sciences who graciously consented to lend their expertise
to writing chapters for the original research handbook based on Bowen family systems theory
and research methods. The cadre of scholars included in this publication will be among the
researchers providing leadership in the quest for a science of human behavior.
Expressions of deep gratitude are extended to Dr. Murray Bowen for his foresight in providing the
foundation and direction for future generations of family researchers. Through his groundbreaking
research, a new formal theory was developed based on the human family, with a goal of moving
toward a science of human behavior. The assumptions, theoretical principles, and constructs within
Bowen theory provide the framework for advancing the knowledge of human behavior through
empirical research. Research and the ongoing development of the theory will determine the viability
of Bowen family systems theory as an approach for the study of the family and human behavior.
Without a doubt, Bowen’s revolutionary vision of developing a science of human behavior will
influence the direction of family research for decades. The future of family research now depends on
serious students of Bowen theory to continue the course that he initiated through the conceptualiza-
tion of a science of human behavior using family systems theory as the springboard.

xxviii
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Ei luullut Pietari pitkää aikaa nukkuneensa, kun jo vielä aivan
pimeällä ahnaan isännän ääni kuului komentavan vieraitaan riihelle
ja Jeesus siihen vastaavan, että kyllä tullaan. Mutta kun ei Jeesus
kuitenkaan tuntunut nousevan, ei Pietarikaan pitänyt kiirettä, vaan
antoi väsymykselle vallan ja nukahti. Kotvan kuluttua saapui isäntä
vihastuneena komentamaan heitä uudelleen, ja nähtyään heidän
nukkuvan rauhallisesti tarttui keppiin ja suomi sillä hyväisesti laidalla
nukkuvaa Pietaria. Tämä hyppäsi säikähtyneenä ylös ja Jeesuskin
heräsi vakuutellen, että kyllä tullaan, kyllä, aivan heti. Mutta kun
isäntä taas meni pois, jäämättä heitä odottamaan, painautui Jeesus
sijalleen ruveten muka uudelleen nukkumaan. Pietari kuitenkin
hätäili, että nyt on mentävä, sillä muuten voi käydä huonosti.

Jeesus oli päättänyt, että Pietari parka saakoon vielä pienen

osoituksen takaamansa miehen sydämen hyvyydestä ja sanoi:

— Pianhan me riihen puimme. Väsyttää niin kovin, ettei vielä jaksa

nousta. Jos isäntää pelkäät, niin siirry tänne seinän puolelle, ettei
sinua enää lyö.

— Mutta jos lyö sinua? epäili Pietari.

— Ei hän minua lyö. Siirry vain tänne.

Ja Pietari totteli, vaipuen taas raskaaseen uneen.

Kun puimamiehiä ei nytkään ruvennut kuulumaan, suuttui isäntä

todenteolla, otti ruoskan ja lähti heitä hakemaan. Tultuaan pirttiin ja
nähtyään ukkojen huoletonna nukkuvan, äyhkäisi hän kiukuissaan:
"Vai nämä puimamiehet!" ja rupesi taas heitä pieksämään. Mutta
ennen lyömistään hän itsekseen sanoi: "Äsken sai tuo laidalla oleva
jo osansa, joten nyt olkoon seinän puolella olevan vuoro", ja hutki
niin Pietaria uudelleen oikein riittävästi. Nopeasti olivat nyt äijät
jalkeilla ja lupasivat viivyttelemättä saapua riihelle. Pietarin selkää
kivisti ja sydäntä karvasteli, sillä hän oli ymmärtänyt tämän kaiken
olleen hänelle rangaistusta sen johdosta, että oli vastoin luojan
kaikkitietoa mennyt ihmisen takuumieheksi. Hän katsahti arasti ja
pyytävästi Jeesukseen, mutta tämä laski lempeästi hymyillen
kätensä hänen olkapäälleen, ja samalla oli tuska ja huoli Pietarin
ruumiista ja sydämestä kadonnut. He lähtivät riihelle.

Ulkona pauhasi edelleen synkkä syysmyrsky. Pimeässä ja

sateessa haparoiden Jeesus ja Pietari vihdoin osuivat riihen ovelle ja
katsoivat sisään. Vähäisen, ovensuussa riippuvan sarvilyhdyn
valossa siellä isäntä heitä odotellessaan jo oli ruvennut
pudottelemaan lyhteitä parsilta ja komensi nyt heidät tylysti työhön.
Pietari ja Jeesus riisuivat nöyrästi takkikulunsa ja menivät riiheen,
mutta isäntä itse istahti kynnykselle katsomaan ja määräämään.

Siinä istuessaan isäntä vaipui ajattelemaan sitä matkaa, jonka jo

oli tässä maailmassa taivaltanut, ja muisteli kummastuksekseen
melkeinpä kuin kaiholla niitä aikoja, jolloin rikkauden enentämisen ja
vartioimisen huoli ei häntä ahdistanut. Ei ollut köyhyys keveä
kannettava, mutta yhtä vaikea oli toiselta puolen tämä liika
rikkauskin, kun ei mielestään voinut käyttää sitä niin, että olisi
tuntenut onnen ja rauhan siunausta. Mutta nämä ajatukset, jotka
useinkin pilkistelivät hänen sielunsa vanhoista sopukoista kuin
piilosta, hän aina päättäväisesti karkoitti, tehden siten nytkin. Hän
katsoi taas riiheen, miten siellä äijät saivat työtä valmiiksi, eikä ollut
hämmästyksestä uskoa omia silmiään.

Hän ei tiennyt, oliko hän unessa vai valveilla, mutta joka

tapauksessa hän oli näkevinään, että toinen äijistä, joka nyt hohti
niin kummallisen kirkkaasti ja liikkui keveästi kuin olisi ollut henki,
keskeytti työnsä, lähestyi ovea ja otti siitä vaisusti palavan lyhdyn.
Äkillinen pelko riipaisi isännän sydäntä. "Mitähän se tuolla
lyhdyllä…? Kunhan vain ei sytyttäisi riihtä…? No eihän vain…?"
Isäntä koetti huutaa ja rynnätä estämään, sillä hän näki selvästi,
kuinka toinen kuljetti lyhtyä parsien alla joka paikassa ja kuinka tuli
tarttui olkiin ruveten valtoimenaan hulmuamaan, mutta hän ei saanut
ääntäkään. Ja ihmeellisintä oli, että nuo äijät eivät ollenkaan tulta
pelänneet, vaan hääräsivät tuolla liekkien keskellä aivan iltikseen,
vaikka tuli ihan kuin valui heidän päälleen. Isännän aivoissa vilahti
tuskallinen ajatus, että siinä meni nyt kallis riihi viljoineen ja hyvässä
lykyssä vielä koko kartano, kun on tällainen myrskykin; ja saamatta
ääntä kurkustaan ja voimatta liikahtaakaan hän menetti tajuntansa ja
vaipui siihen riihen kynnykselle, missä oli istunut.

Kun hän heräsi, oli täysi päivä ja myrsky oli lakannut.

Kummastellen hän rupesi katsomaan ympärilleen odottaen
näkevänsä vain savuavia raunioita. Mutta eipäs. Kaikki oli
entisellään. Hän meni riiheen ja näki, että vilja oli puitu siististi ja
hyvin, oljet heitetty luukusta ulos, ruumenet kasattu omaan läjäänsä
ja vilja puhtaana omaansa. Ja kovin antava oli ollutkin tämä riihi:
kaksin verroin sai isäntä siitä mitä oli odottanut. Kaiken tämän
nähtyään hän päätyi hyvin kummallisiin ajatuksiin ja meni tupaan
emännältä tiedustamaan, oliko tämä nähnyt niitä kahta vanhaa
miestä, jotka olivat olleet riihellä. Ei ollut emäntä nähnyt, kun eivät
olleet tulleet syömään. "Miksi niin?" — "Ei olisi uskonut, että kaksi
niin vaivaista äijää voi niin pian ja hyvin puida suuren riihen".

Sen päivän perästä ei isäntä enää ollut entisellään, vaan mietiskeli

hartaasti ja kostein silmin ihmettä, jonka oli nähnyt, ja hänen
sydämessään heräsi polttava halu vielä kerran elämässään nuo
vanhukset tavata.

III

Mutta kaukana tältä seudulta istuivat Jeesus ja Pietari korkealla

vuorella ja katselivat ympärillänsä laajana avautuvaa, talvivaippaista
Suomenmaata. Pietari painoi päänsä käsiinsä ja itki. Vapahtaja sääli
häntä ja kysyi:

— Mitä itket, Pietari?

— Itken ihmisten pahuutta. Luulin tekeväni hyvän työn tuolle

köyhälle miehelle hankkimalla hänelle rikkautta, mutta teinkin pahan.
Onko rikkaus siis ihmisille kiroukseksi?

Jeesus katsoi kauas taivaan rannalle, johon syttyi palamaan suuri

ja loistava iltatähti, ja vastasi mietteissään:

— Ei kiroukseksi rikkaus eikä siunaukseksi köyhyys, eikä liioin

päinvastoin. Maallista onnea ja onnettomuutta saavat kumpaisenkin
haltijat maistaa, ja konsa haudassa lepäävät, ovat riisuutuneet yhtä
köyhiksi. Maallinen onni on hauras kuin kuiva korsi, jonka pienikin
kosketus voi murtaa. Ihmisen todellinen onni on hiljainen sydämen
rauha, joka liihoittelee yläpuolella maisen mataluuden tyynenä ja
kirkkaana kuin kesäinen päivä näiden uinuvien salojen yllä. Se on se
sielun auer, jonka kuolo muuttaa ikuiseksi autuudeksi.

Tässä Jeesus pysähtyi ja osoitti kaukana siintävän metsän päälle.

Pietari katsoi ja kauhistui, sillä hän näki selvästi, kuinka

sielunvihollinen laskeutui siellä maahan kuin synkkä pilvi. Sen
jättiläissiivet kuvastuivat kolkkoina himmenevää talvitaivasta vasten
ja niiden taakse sammui sädehtivä iltatähti, ihanan rauhan merkki.
Vavisten kysyi Pietari:

— Mitä hän siellä tekee?

— Tuon metsän takana olevassa kylässä asuu mies, jonka sielu

on suurempi kuin muiden. Jumala antoi hänelle hengen palon, joka
on kytenyt hänessä aina. Siksipä paholainen häntä ahdistaa.

— Käykö hän tässä maassa useinkin? kysyi nyt Pietari arasti.

— Ennen hän todellakin vain kävi, ja ihmiset elivät rauhassa luojan

huomassa, mutta nyt hän on täällä alituiseen, jopa melkein näiden
poloisten keskellä asuukin. Paha on ruvennut hyvin viihtymään
Suomessa. Katso itse!

Ja Jeesus antoi Pietarin nähdä koko sen pahuuden määrän, joka

tähän pieneen maahan mahtui, ja vanha apostoli peitti käsillään
kasvonsa. Hän nousi ja sanoi:

— Lähtekäämme pois! Meillä ei ole täällä mitään tehtävää. Mutta

Jeesus katsoi häneen surumielisesti ja vastasi:

— Kuinka voisimme jättää heidät yksin taisteluaan kestämään?

Etkö näe, että he tarvitsevat Jumalan apua? Etkö muista, että
olemme tulleet tänne kulkeaksemme ovelta ovelle, sydämeltä
sydämelle, ja kolkuttaaksemme, toivoen, että meille avattaisiin?
Katso koko rajattomaan kaikkeuteen, loputtomaan avaruuteen, jossa
lukemattomat maailmat kiitävät rataansa — ne horjahtaisivat niiltä
heti syrjään, ellei niiden ohjaajana olisi yhtä loputon hyvyys kuin
äärettömyys on todellakin ääretön. Vai etkö luule, että paha heti
antaisi niiden törmätä yhteen, jos sillä olisi valta?

— Varmastikin antaisi, vakuutti Pietari.

— Sillä sellainen tuho olisi sille suurimman toiveensa täyttymys.

Siispä usko, että kaiken pohjalla on olemassa jumalan hyvyyden laki,
joka alistaa pahankin aseeksensa. Lähtekäämme taas matkallemme.

He laskeutuivat alas vuorelta, istuivat rekeensä ja alkoivat

hiljalleen ajaa nytkytellä talvisen yön läpi kohti kaukaista kylää. Siinä
ohjaksissa istuessaan vanha Pietari tunsi taas sydämessään
omituista turvallista lohtua, joka laskeutui hänen mieleensä suloisena
hunajasateena, niinä kirkkaina pisaroina, jotka tiukkuvat kalliosta
Kristuksesta. Lämmin rakkauden aalto tulvahti hänen sieluunsa, halu
auttaa kaikkia niitä, jotka raskautetut ovat, ja hän jo hoputti
ruunariepua vähän ripeämpään hölkkään, että pian päästäisiin
tuonne kaukaiseen kylään, jonne paholainen oli äsken laskeutunut.

IV

Seppä seisoi pajassaan ja takoi, ja hehkuvasta raudasta sinkoilivat

kirkkaat tulitähdet. Hän tuijotti kulmat rypyssä tuliseen rautaan ja
nautti saadessaan lyödä koko raskaalla voimallaan. Hän nautti siitä,
että sai pakottaa tuon näköjään taipumattoman ja kylmän aineen
tahtonsa mukaan. Hänen sieluansa viehätti se salaperäinen tunne,
joka hänet aina valtasi työtä tehdessään ja jonka ytimenä oli
kysymys siitä, missä olisi ihmisen taidon raja, jos hän pääsisi
tunkemaan esteiden läpi niin kauas, että viimeinenkin olisi voitettu.
Silloin — silloin olisi ihminen maailman herra, jota kaikki tottelisi —
aineen herra, ehkä hengenkin?
 Takoessaan seppä usein muisteli menneitä aikoja. Oli kuin olisivat
ne häilyvinä kuvasarjoina vilahdelleet ahjon hiilien hehkussa ja
tulisen raudan hohteessa. Hän näki, kuinka hän nuorukaisena seisoi
tässä samassa pajassa avustaen päällelyöjänä vanhaa mestaria,
joka ei milloinkaan puhunut. Ammatti, alituinen vasaran kalke, teki
väkisinkin vaiteliaaksi. Hän näki itsensä nojaamassa moukarin
varteen ja tuijottamassa alasimeen, sitä kuitenkaan katsomatta.
Siinä seisoessaan nuori seppä katsoi omaan sydämeensä ja tutki
siellä versovan, oudon ajatuksen juuria, muotoa ja sisällystä —
päämäärää. Hän ei voinut tarkoin tuota ajatustaan itselleen tulkita,
mutta hän tunsi kuitenkin pääasiassa, mitä se sisälsi: kiivaan halun
päästä tietämään sitä, jota ei vielä tiennyt; nykyisyyden aiheuttaman
ahtauden ja tukahtumisen; salaperäisen himon kerran olla jotakin
muuta ja enemmän kuin nämä täällä, kuin tuo vanha seppä, joka oli
kivettynyt alasimensa ääreen; päästä kerran kuuluisaksi, saada
kunniaa, mainetta; päästä rikkaaksi, niin, hyvin rikkaaksi. Nuo
unelmat väikkyivät nuorukaisen sielussa sekavana, mutta tulisesti
kiihoittavana kuvasarjana, joka ei antanut hänelle yön eikä päivän
rauhaa. Niitä hän aina ajatteli ja kun niistä herätessään huomasi yhä
seisovansa vanhan sepän alasimen ääressä, raivostui ja iski
moukarinsa hurjalla voimalla pölkkyyn, niin että maan kansi kumahti.
Silloin vanha seppä aina keskeytti takomisensa, katsoi häneen
pitkään, tutkivasti, ja lopuksi hymähti surumielisesti. Vanha seppä oli
ollut nuori kerran hänkin, oli unelmoinut haaveensa, nähnyt niiden
täydellisen haaksirikon, huomannut kaiken maallisen turhuuden ja
ruvennut vaieten takomaan, odotellen, milloin Surma, ihmisen ainoa
uskollinen, milloinkaan pettämätön ystävä, hiihtäisi tuolta kaukaa
siintävän suon yli häntä hakemaan, silmät kuopalla ja jäähileet
parrassa hilisten.
 Ja tämän kaiken taas kerran katsottuaan hän pysähtyi ja seisoi
ajatuksissaan vasaransa varteen nojaten. Hän tuijotti ulos ovesta
kauas taivaanrannalle, jonne syttyi suuri ja rauhallisesti liekehtivä
iltatähti, kun talvinen hämärä rupesi hiljaa ja huomaamatta hiipimään
maisen vaelluksen ylle kuin äiti tyynnyttäen ja tuudittaen sitä lepoon.
Silloin hän näki jatkon äskeisiin kuviin, näki itsensä vanhan mestarin
paikalla, jonka entinen omistaja nyt lepäsi maan mullassa, nokiset
näpit koukussa ja kaikki arvoitukset ratkaistuina. Hän näki itsensä
päivin ja öin miettimässä ja askaroimassa, tunkemassa tuleen
mahtavia aineita, lietsomassa, takomassa ja rakentamassa, kunnes
kaikki taas särkyi epäonnistumisen ja epätoivon synkkyyteen, niin
ettei ollut jäljellä muuta kuin järjetöntä sekamelskaa ja naurettavia
tyhmyyksiä. Hän näki, kuinka hän silloin ryntäsi ylös toiveittensa
raunioiden äärestä, kohotti nyrkkinsä taivasta kohti ja kiristäen
hampaitansa kirosi sitä sulkua, jonka luoja oli asettanut ihmisen
tietämisen tielle, vaikka olikin antanut sieluun aavistuksen täydellisen
tiedon olemassaolosta. Yhä uudelleen hän päätti jättää kaikki,
vaipua siihen samaan tylsyyteen, jossa näki muiden ihmisten elävän,
ja takoa vain hevosenkenkiä ja viikatteita, mutta ei voinut.
Vastustamattomana nousi sielun sopukasta outo ja hillitön
uteliaisuus, joka kuumensi aivot, liehui mielikuvituksessa tuhansina
mahtavina terhenkuvina, pani näkemään ihmisen aineen, koko
maailman herrana, jolla oli kädessään ase, valta ja voima, ja ajoi
hänet taas huohottaen ja kädet kuumeesta vavisten koettamaan
uudemman kerran. Tämä suuri kaipaus tukahdutti hänen
sydämestään kaiken muun; ei edes ennen niin voimakas rikkauden
halu häntä enää viehättänyt, vaan hän halveksi tuota kerran niin
köyhää mökkiläistä, jota onni oli ruvennut suosimaan ja joka nyt eli
äveriäänä tuolla toisessa kylässä; ei viehättänyt häntä enää rakkaus,
ei mikään maallinen onni. Hänen sielussaan oli vain yksi paikka, ja
siihen hän tuijotti herkeämättä.

Ja sitten — niin, siitä rupesi nyt olemaan parikymmentä vuotta —

hän muisti erään talvisen illan, jolloin hän samalla tavalla taas oli
joutunut seisomaan rauenneiden toiveidensa raunioilla ja
katkeruudessaan kironnut syntymähetkensä ja luojansa, ja miettinyt,
miten voisi hänelle kostaa tekosensa epätäydellisyyden. Hän oli
puhjennut vihassaan kolkkoon nauruun, joka oli kajahdellut
kammottavasti yön hiljaisuudessa, kunnes olikin sen äkkiä
keskeyttänyt ja jäänyt kuuntelemaan: niin, naurua tuntui jatkuvan
hänen ympärillään. Se kajahteli karmeasti ja pilkallisesti kuin korpin
ääni, ja seppä tunsi samalla, ettei hän enää ollutkaan yksin. Hän
katsahti ympärilleen pimeässä pajassa, jota vain ahjon yhä
tummeneva hehku himmeästi valaisi, ja oli huomaavinaan, kuinka
tuolla pimeässä nurkassa häilähteli vielä pimeämpi varjo,
epäselvänä ja vailla ääriviivoja, mutta jollakin tavalla uhkaavana ja
peloittavana. Voimakas seppä tunsi värisevänsä kauhusta, mutta
miehisti itsensä ja katsoi uudelleen. Silloin tuossa pimeässä varjossa
leimahti palamaan kaksi tulista nastaa, jotka leimusivat vihreällä,
häilyvällä valolla; niistä tuntui sinkoilevan valkohehkuisen raudan
säkeniä, jotka karkeloivat sinne tänne oikullisessa epäjärjestyksessä,
poreillen tuhansina eri värivivahduksina kuin häilyvä tuli hiilen
kupeessa. Ja kuta kauemmin seppä niihin tuijotti, sitä selvemmin
hän tunsi, kuinka noista nastoista, noista suurista, palavista silmistä,
sillä silmiähän ne olivat, koko tuosta pimeyttäkin mustempana
keinuvasta haamusta, häntä kohti virtasi sellainen helvetillisen
ilkeyden ja rajattoman pahan tahdon voima, että se tuntui hiipivän
kuristavana ja tukahduttavana hänen elinlähteisiinsä. Nyt.. nyt tuo
haamu siirtyy tuolta nurkasta lähemmäksi… se ei kävele… se
ikäänkuin liukuu huomaamatta, ja kuta lähemmäksi se tulee, sitä
suuremmaksi se kasvaa, ja sen ympärillä tuulahtaa kuoleman kolkko
kylmyys kuin pistävin viima.

Seppä aivan kyyristyy kokoon tätä muistellessaan ja kädet

puristavat suonenvedon tapaisesti moukarin vartta. Hän tahtoisi
poistaa tuon kauhukuvan mielestään, mutta ei voi, vaan hänen
täytyy tuijottaa siihen yhä uudelleen, kuten on tuhansia kertoja
tehnyt. Hän näkee nostavansa kätensä suojakseen, näkee pimeyden
olennon tulevan yhä lähemmäksi, kunnes se on aivan hänen
edessään, kumartuvan, tuijottavan häntä silmiin kuolettavalla
katseellaan ja hengähtävän hänen päälleen manalan viimaansa.
Silloin hän kaatuu maahan kuin ruumis eikä tiedä, onko hän enää
elossa vai vainaja.

Mutta nyt kuva muuttuukin. Seppä näkee, kuinka maailma

avautuukin hänen edessään ihanana ja viettelevänä, kuinka kaikki,
mitä hän haluaa, on hänelle mahdollista. Ei tarvitse muuta kuin
kurottaa kätensä, ottaa, käskeä, ja kaikki annetaan. Tuo pimeyden
olento se välähdyttelee näitä kuvia hänen eteensä ja kuiskuttelee
hänen korvaansa ehtoa, millä se kaikki hänelle annettaisiin. Mutta
kiusaaja ei tunnekaan sepän sielua niin tarkkaan kuin luulee:
maailman nautinnot, kunnia ja loisto eivät häntä viettelekään, sillä
suurempi päämaali on ne hänelle himmentänyt; hän tahtoo
saavuttaa kaiken olevaisen perustiedon, elämän synnyn
salaisuuden, ja ellei hän sitä saa, jääköön kaikki muu. Kun hän
puolestaan esittää tämän vaatimuksensa, karkaa kiusaaja ylös
hänen äärestään ja peittyy kuin kauhistuneena omaan
läpinäkymättömään pimeyteensä; sitä ei hänkään saa ihmiselle
sanoa, sillä sen tiedon hankkimiseksi täytyy käydä kuoleman portin
lävitse.
 Sitten kiusaaja palaa ja kuiskuttaa hänen korvaansa: "Tietoa en
voi sinulle antaa, mutta taidon voin. Mitä tahansa haluat tehdä, se
sinulle myös onnistuu. Sehän on jo samaa kuin tieto, vai kuinka?
Kahdenkymmenen vuoden kuluttua palaan taas ja silloin perin
sinulta omani pois. Sovitaanko näin?"

"Olkoon menneeksi!" vahvisti seppä kaupan puolestaan, sillä

häntä viehätti ajatus voida tehdä kaikki, mitä halusi. Silloinhan hän
ehkä löytäisi tiedon ominpäin? Niin sai seppä kiusaajalta taidon,
ilman tietoa, kahdeksikymmeneksi vuodeksi, vaihtaen siihen
sielunsa autuuden.

Näitä asioita seppä aina muisteli seisoessaan pajassaan

alasimensa ääressä ja lepuuttaessaan kättänsä. Mitä kaikkea hän
olikaan taiten takonut näinä kuluneina parinakymmenenä vuotena! Ei
ollut sitä tarvekalua, sitä kojetta, sitä ihmeellisintä laitetta, joka ei olisi
sujuen tullut hänen vasaransa alta, jos hän niin tahtoi. Hänestä oli
tullut maan kuulu, jonka taitoon turvasivat viisaat ja tyhmät, ylhäiset
ja alhaiset silloin, kun kaikki viimeiset neuvot olivat pettäneet. Ja hän
oli auttanut, sillä häntä oli huvittanut ihmisten avuttomuus ja
taitamattomuus. Olipa hän ylpeillytkin taidostaan, jopa niin, että oli
pajansa oven päälle kirjoittanut: "Tässä asuu itse mestariseppä".
Korkeilla kirjaimilla se oli siihen pantu, niin korkeilla, että näkyi kauas
tielle saakka. Ihmiset yrittivät hänellä nauraa, mutta lakkasivat
huomatessaan, ettei se ollutkaan turhaa kehumista. He rupesivat
kunnioittamaan tuota synkkää seppää, jopa lopuksi häntä
pelkäämäänkin, mutta hän ei siitä välittänyt, vaan takoi takomistaan,
uupumatta, varhaisesta aamusta myöhäiseen iltaan saakka.

Mutta koko tämän ajan hän oli sydämen katkeruudella itsekseen

hymähdellyt ja tyhmyyttään pilkannut, sillä hän oli huomannut
paljaan taidon hengettömäksi, kun sen rinnalla ei kulkenut yhtä
täydellinen tieto. Elämän murhe laskeutui uudelleen pilvisenä
päivänä hänen mieleensä ja sai hänet unohtamaan, mitä hän
milloinkin takoi. Kun hänen lapsensa, pieni, kultakiharainen poika,
josta hän oli toivonut nousevan maailmaan vielä suuremman sepän
kuin mitä hän itse milloinkaan oli, ei ainoastaan taito-, vaan myös
uljaan tietoniekan, oli painanut silmänsä umpeen Surma-vanhuksen
sokeassa sylissä, oli hän rynnännyt pajaansa ja ruvennut
epätoivonsa ja surunsa vimmassa takomaan. "Taito", oli hän
huutanut, "nyt sinua tarvitaan", ja hän oli tunkenut ahjoonsa kultia ja
hopeita sekä takonut, takonut. Ja alasimelta oli valmistunut
kultakiharainen poikanen, niin ihmeen ihana, ettei luonnossa
milloinkaan parempaa, niin hänen pienen poikansa kaltainen, ettei
eroa voinut huomata, mutta kylmä ja kuollut. Henki oli poissa eikä
saapunut sepän taidosta ja rukouksista huolimatta, ja sillä hetkellä
seppä älysi taidon sokeuden ilman tietoa, sitä syvintä asiaa, josta
kaikki lähtee.

Seppä väsyi taitoonsa, sillä se ei riittänyt siihen, mitä hän eniten

halusi. Ja hän väsyi muuhunkin, takoi vähemmän, ja vietti pitkiä
aikoja nojaten alasimeensa ja tuijottaen ahjon hiilokseen tahi ovesta
ulos taivaanrannalle. Niinpä nytkin, tänä iltana, jolloin outo ja
selittämätön tunnelma oli hänet vallannut.

Hän oli muistanut, että näinä päivinä tuli kuluneeksi parikymmentä

vuotta siitä, jolloin tuo vihamielinen varjohenki oli sanonut tulevansa
noutamaan omaansa pois. Mitähän se sillä oikein tarkoitti?

V
Kuului reen jalasten kitinää ja pajan eteen ajoi huonolla ja väsyneellä
hevosella kaksi vanhaa miestä, joista toinen istui ajopenkillä.
Hevonen liukasteli kaljamalla ja miehet nousivat reestä. Seppä ei
ymmärtänyt, miksi tämä oli hänestä niin erikoisen mielenkiintoista,
sillä olihan satoja, tuhansiakin hevosia hänen pajansa eteen
pysähtynyt, upeita, maan valioitakin, ja hän oli tuskin silmiänsä
alasimesta nostanut. Mutta nyt täytyi uteliaana katsoa, ja
suuttuneena siitä seppä päätti kohdella ynseästi noita äijä-pahoja.
Äijät tulivat vihdoin epäröiden sisään, katsottuaan hetkisen, mitä
pajan oven päälle oli kirjoitettu. He vilkaisivat toisiinsa ja hymähtivät,
jonka jälkeen ajopenkillä istunut pyysi nöyrästi, että seppä kengittäisi
heidän hevosensa. Oli yksi kenkä aivan irti pääsemässä ja toisista
olivat hokat niin pahoin kuluneet, että hepo pakkasi kierällä pahasti
liukastelemaan. Mutta seppä ei vastannut mitään, eipä enää heihin
katsonutkaan, vaan rupesi tuikean näköisenä takomaan, niin että
säkenet sinkoilivat. Silloin sanoi toinen äijä, se, joka oli herrana
istunut:

— Pyytäisimme mestarisepältä hyvän työn apua. Tarvitsisi saada

hevonen parempaan kenkään.

— Eipä tässä nyt ole aikaa sellaiseen, kun on muita kiireitä,

murahti seppä ja takoi takomistaan.

— Mutta sallinet toki sen itsemme tehdä? jatkoi nyt kysyjä. Emme
muuta kuin hiukan työkalujasi lainaisimme.

Silloin seppä katsahti työstänsä vieraisiin, yritti sanoa jotakin,

mutta ei sanonutkaan. Puhe kuivui hänen kielelleen, sillä tuolla
samassa palkeen nurkassa näkyi selvästi se pimeyttä mustempi
haahmo, joka siellä silloinkin oli ollut, keinuen ja liikehtien. Ja sen
silmät kiiluivat sieltä taas vihreinä ja loistavina, tuijottaen seppään
rävähtämättä. Hän heitti pihdit ja vasaran, ja istahti oudosti
huumautuneena pajan takimmaiseen nurkkaan ruuvipenkilleen,
painaen pään käsiinsä ja hieroen otsaansa, jonka alla tuntui
hehkuvan sula rauta. Hän kysyi itseltään, oliko hän enää täydellä
järjellä, oliko hän terve vai sairas, ja näkikö hän tuossa kaksi vanhaa,
väsynyttä miestä? Oliko tuolla nurkassa mitään pimeyden haamua ja
loistivatko sieltä sammumattoman, pohjattoman ilkeyden silmät?

Silloin hän oli näkevinään, kuinka nuo kaksi vanhusta rupesivat

seppinä puuhailemaan. Toinen ukko tarttui palkeen vipuun ja
painalteli sitä totuttuun tapaan, toisen, joka näytti olevan niinkuin
isäntä itse, tarttuessa vasaraan ja pihteihin. Ihmeellisiä seppiä nämä
olivatkin. Ei ehtinyt nähdä, mistä rauta tuli pihteihin, mutta siinä se
vain oli samalla kuin ne alasimelle laskettiin. Eikä liioin tarvinnut
raudan paljon ahjossa käydä, ennenkuin se jo kiehui ja sädehti
valkohehkuvana. Nyt tarttuu ukko vasaraan ja lyö kerran. Ei kuulu
alasimen kilahdusta, mutta uusi ja kaunis hevosenkenkä putoaa
valmiina maahan.

Seppä hieroo silmiään ja katsoo tarkkaan. Nuo äskeiset vanhukset

ovat muuttuneet. Heidän vaatteensa ja koko ulkomuotonsa ovat
ikäänkuin kirkastuneet, niin, käyneet aivan kuin läpikuultaviksi.
Selvästi seppä näkee heidän lävitsensä tuonne pimeään palkeen
nurkkaan, jossa musta varjo nyt rauhattomasti keinahtelee, kuin
pelkäisi; näkeepä seppä senkin, että ilkeiden silmien käärmeellinen
loiste himmenee himmenemistään, vihdoin sammuen kokonaan.
Ihmeellistä! Seppä ei tahdo uskoa silmiään, mutta näkee kuitenkin,
kuinka koko pajan pimeys aivan nurkkia myöten ikäänkuin
kokoontuu yhteen, vyöryilee ja taistelee paikallaan, uhittelee ja
rynnistelee, mutta rupeaa kuin rupeaakin lopuksi vastustamattoman
voiman pakoittamana tunkeutumaan ovesta pihalle kuin paksu
savupatsas. Ahjosta tullutta savuahan se tietysti on, koettaa hän
itselleen vakuuttaa: äijät ovat taitamattomuudessaan tunkeneet
ahjon tupaten täyteen märkiä hiiliä… Mutta ei — ei täällä ole märkiä
hiiliä… "Ja kas, kuinka koko paja nyt on oudosti ja heleästi kirkas".
Äijät vain puuhailevat hevosensa kimpussa. Toinen nostaa jalkaa ja
toinen yrittää lyödä kenkää kiinni. Tottumattomia ovat, ei luonnista.
Mitä nyt?

Seppä haluaa karata ylös nurkastaan, mutta ei pääsekään. Hän

näkee kauhistuneena, kuinka toinen äijä hakee pajasta kirveen ja
sillä iskee hevosen jalat nilkasta poikki. Paikalleen siihen kaatuu
hevonen, mutta kummallista — jalkojen tyngestä ei vuodakaan verta.
Ukko tuo kaviot pajaan ja napsii mukavasti alasimen varassa kengät
kiinni. Entä nyt? Yhä kasvavalla jännityksellä seppä katsoo, kuinka
ukko sitten vain pistää kaviot paikalleen. Ne tarttuvat kiinni ja
hevonen nousee ylös niinkuin ei mitään olisi tapahtunut.

Nyt seppä ei enää jaksa. Mahtavana aaltona hulvahtaa hänen

aivoihinsa käsitys siitä, että tässä oli nyt se, jota hän oli koko
elämänsä ajan hakenut — täydellinen tieto, se, joka sai elämän
uudelleen syntymään siihenkin, josta se oli jo poistunut. Tarttuen
päähänsä molemmin käsin hän horjuen lähti pajastaan. Hän tahtoi
saada selville tuon salaisuuden, tuon taian, joka sai hevosen jalat
heti liittymään terveiksi; tahtoi perinpohjin kysellä asian ukolta.

Kylmä talven viima ja kirkas tähtitaivas tervehti häntä pajan

ulkopuolella. Mitään ei näkynyt. Oli kuin olisi maa niellyt nuo oudot
kulkijat. Seppä heittäytyi suksilleen ja läksi hurjaa vauhtia hiihtämään
sinne päin, jonne arveli matkamiesten kadonneen.

VI
Jeesus ja Pietari ajaa nytkyttelivät hiljalleen pitkin aavaa suon selkää
ja kinailivat keskenään, kuten heidän tapansa oli. Pietarihan se
taaskin oli väittelyn aloittanut, sanoen:

— Kuinka sinä nyt sen seppä-paran jätit aivan avuttomaksi

paholaisen valtaan? Näithän, että siellä se piileskeli nurkassa
valmiina viemään saalistaan?

Jeesus katseli vakaasti taivaan tuikkivaan avaruuteen ja vastasi:

— Kuinka lienee tullut jätetyksi — tiedä häntä. Mitäpä siellä oli

enää tekemistä, kun oli ruuna saatu kengitetyksi?

— Mutta näithän sinä, millä sielun hädällä seppä puuhiasi seurasi.

Etkö ymmärrä, että tällaisen ihmeen näkeminen pani hänen
mielensä lopullisestikin sekaisin, sillä tässähän nyt tapahtui se, jota
hän on koko ikänsä turhaan etsinyt, se, mikä on lihalliselle ihmiselle
mahdottomuus?

Mutta Jeesus vain katseli taivaan pohjattomuuteen ja kysyi:

— Kuuletko mitään?

Pietari pysäytti ruunan ja kuunteli. Kaukaa jäljestä päin rupesi yhä

selvemmin kuulumaan suksien suhinaa ja sauvan kireätä kitinää
pakkaslumessa. Hän kääntyi katsomaan ja näki, kuinka seppä sieltä
hiihti niin, että nietos savuna sihisi suksien tieltä, ja hänen mielensä
ilahtui, että seppä näin Jeesuksen jälkeen kiirehti. Mutta Jeesus
sanoi taas:

— Kuuntele vielä!
 Pietari kuunteli tarkkaan. Kaukaa edestäpäin kantautui hänen
korviinsa outo humina, kuin olisi tyynessä, tähtikirkkaassa talviyössä
kuoleman tuulenpuuska yksinään vyörynyt eteenpäin pitkin kylmää,
rannatonta, surullista suon selkää. Hän katsoi sinne ja näki pian,
kuinka sieltä hiihti mustilla suksillaan nopeasti ja viivasuorasti heitä
kohti Surma, tuo kolkko vanhus, jonka silmäkuopat olivat tyhjät ja
jonka parrassa jäähelmiä helisi. Hän vilkaisi Jeesukseen, mutta
tämän katse oli vaipunut tutkimattomaksi. Hän sanoi vain:

— Odotetaan ja katsotaan, kuinka tässä käy.

Pietari kyyristyi ajopenkilleen ja rupesi kovasti pelkäämään sepän

puolesta. Tuolta se nyt hiihtää, onneton, suoraan Surman tielle, eikä
tiedä mistään. Ihan varmasti ne pamahtavat yhteen tässä meidän
kohdallamme. Surmakin tuossa aina sokeana kulkea hojottaa, eikä
katso eteensä. Tiedetäänhän tuo — vielä se nyt eteensä, Surma,
joka on sokeaakin sokeampi — —. No nyt tuli turma sepälle!

Pietarin pelko osoittautui kuitenkin turhaksi. Juuri kun seppä

saapui heidän kohdalleen ja painalsi viimeisen kerran sauvoillaan,
suhahti Surma ohi. Vain sen kuolonviima hipaisi hiukan seppää, joka
vaipui tainnoksiin, kaatuen kuin honka maahan. Kaukana humisi jo
Surman onea viima.

Seppä tunsi makaavansa synkässä pimeydessä, jonne ei

kuultanut mistään pienintäkään valon pilkahdusta. Hän tuijotti
turhaan ympärilleen ja ajatteli: "Minä olen nyt siellä — jonne minun
piti joutuakin". Karmiva pelko ja tuska raastoi hänen sieluansa. Mutta
sitten rupesikin kuulumaan lempeätä ääntä, joka virtasi hänen
sydämeensä virkistävänä ja lohduttavana. Se kuului kysyvän
ystävällisesti:
 — Mitä hiihdit, seppä?

Silloin seppä taas muisti kaiken ja hänen sydämensä elämänhimo

tulvahti uudelleen valloilleen. Hän rupesi kertomaan kaikesta, mitä oli
kokenut ja mitä oli turhaan halannut. Hän purki koko sydämensä,
salaisemmatkin asiansa ja toiveensa, ja pyysi lopuksi palavasti sitä
tiedon voimaa, jonka ihmeen oli äsken pajassansa nähnyt. Mutta
lempeä ääni sanoi surumielisesti:

— Täydellinen tieto on elämän loppu. Tietämättömyys sisältää

pyrkimyksen syyn, jota tieto ei enää tarvitse. Siksi kuuluu tieto
Jumalalle ja pyrkimys ihmiselle. Älä siis pyydä sitä. Se on
kuolemaksi.

Mutta seppä ei tyytynyt. Hän pyysi ja rukoili edes tiedon murua. Ei

hän kuolemaa pelännyt. Jos tieto oli sillä ostettavissa, oli hän valmis
siihen heti. Lempeä ääni sanoi silloin:

— Hyvä! Saat tiedon murusen, joka sellaisenakin on suurempi

kuin kellään ihmisellä milloinkaan. Koska olet seppä, niin annan
sinulle voiman liittää yhteen mitä haluat. Sanot vain: 'Tartu kiinni!' ja
niin pitää käymän, oli kysymyksessä elävä tahi kuollut. Mutta älä
käytä voimaasi väärin, vaan muista, että sen on Jumala sinulle
lahjoittanut.

*****

Kun seppä tointui, huomasi hän makaavansa tiellä, autiolla suon

selällä; ketään ei näkynyt, eikä mitään kuulunut. Nuo salaperäiset
matkustajat olivat kadonneet jäljettömiin, eikä seppä oikein päässyt
selville, mitä oli tapahtunut. Oliko hänelle annettu tuollainen voima?
Ihmeellistä oli se, että häntä nyt peloitti tämä asia; hän tunsi, ettei
hän uskaltaisi edes sitä koettaa. Olisiko mitään niin arvokasta, että
siihen kannattaisi ja pitäisi tällaista pyhää valtaa käyttää? Jos
Jumala oli sen hänelle suonut, niin oli sitä käytettävä myös johonkin
Jumalan tarkoitukseen. Hän mietiskeli noita kahta outoa vanhusta ja
muisteli heidän ulkonäköään ja ääntään, ja vähitellen, kun hän siinä
väsyneenä hiihteli kotiansa kohti, rupesi toinen heistä tuntumaan
hänestä tutulta. Missä hän oli nähnyt sen miehen ennen?

Taas rupesivat sepän sielussa leijailemaan vanhat, jo ammoin

unohduksissa olleet kuvat. Kaukaa onnellisen lapsuuden päiviltä
kuului äidin kirkas ääni, kun se puheli pienelle pojalleen siitä
ainoasta, joka on rakkaus ja hyvyys, jonka lempeys loistaa koko
maailman yllä kesäpäivän rauhallisena, syvänä kirkkautena, ja joka
on ainoa tie, totuus ja elämä. Seppä tunsi äkkiä, kuinka kaikki
ongelmat hänelle selvisivät ja kuinka hänen sairaaseen ja
taistelleeseen sieluunsa vilahti valo, kuin aurinko synkän pilven
takaa. Hän vaipui polvilleen siihen tielle, lumisen ja surullisen
lakeuden keskelle, ja nostaen kätensä rukoili katkeran suloisen,
palavan, synnin syvimmästä loasta nousevan rukouksen, tunnustaen
nöyrästi Jumalan armon ja johdatuksen mittaamattoman syvyyden.
Jeesus oli ollut tuo ihmeellinen mies, joka oli käynyt etsimässä häntä
hänen suurimman hätänsä koittaessa ja antanut hänelle ansiotta,
aivan armostaan, aseen käteen.

Seppä nousi, ja onnellinen, salamyhkäinen hymy kirkasti hänen

parrakkaita kasvojaan. "Saadaanpa nähdä!" mutisi hän itsekseen
lähtiessään uudistuneilla voimilla painaltamaan kotiansa kohti.
Taivas rupesi jo hiukan vaalenemaan, ja varhaisen aamun tuntua
alkoi väikkyä ilmassa.
 Saapuessaan pimeään pajaansa seppä tunsi heti, että siellä oli
outo vieras häntä odottamassa. Hän ei kuitenkaan ollut
tietääkseenkään, vaan viritti tulen ahjoon, painalsi paljetta, kuumensi
raudan ja rupesi takomaan hyviä ja hyödyllisiä aseita. Hetken
taottuaan hän sitten kokosi rohkeutensa ja katsoi tuonne entiseen
pimeään nurkkaan.

Niin, siellä se oli. Sieltä tuijotti häneen kaksi vihertävää silmää,

kiinteästi, kertaakaan rävähtämättä, ja ruumiina oli pimeyttäkin
mustempi haamu, joka hiljalleen kuin mielihyvissään keinui
edestakaisin. Sepän tuijottaessa siihen kuin lumottuna se vähitellen
rupesi siirtymään häntä kohti kuin kylmä sumun suikale, kunnes oli
aivan hänen edessään. Vihreiden silmien polte kaivautui sepän
aivoihin kuin tulinen rauta lihaan, ja häntä rupesi ankarasti
värisyttämään. Mutta silloin hän muisti, mitä äsken oli tuolla kaukana
tapahtunut, ja hän sai takaisin rohkeutensa. Hän heitti vasaransa
pois, pyyhkäisi rahin päätä puhtaaksi ja sanoi kylmästi:

— Vieras käypi istumaan.

Silloin hän näki, kuinka paholainen vähitellen ikäänkuin tiivistyi

omaan oikeaan muotoonsa, koska oli saanut tavallaan siihen luvan.
Siinä se nyt istui rahilla, karvaisena ja hirveänä, vihreät silmät
leimuten ja hännänpäässä oleva käyrä kynsi ilkeästi kaivellen pajan
permantoa. Mutta seppä ei pelännyt, vaan kysyi suoraan:

— Mitä olisi asiaa?

Paholainen katsoi häneen pirullisesti hymyillen ja ilmoitti tulleensa

sopimuksen mukaan noutamaan antamansa taidon palkkaa. Ja kun
seppä tiedusti, mitä hän sitten mieluimmin siksi tahtoi, vastasi
paholainen: