Theoretical frame: differentiation of self and the anxiety of the system

This article offers a reading of these dynamics through the systemic approach of Murray Bowen, founder of multigenerational family therapy. According to Bowen (1978), every human group functions as an interconnected emotional system. One of the foundations of his theory is an individual’s capacity to maintain psychic autonomy while remaining connected to others: what he calls differentiation of self (Bowen, 1984).

When anxiety rises in a system — during restructuring, for instance, or an internal crisis — the least differentiated members tend to cluster into collective emotional movements in an attempt to stabilise the group (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). This phenomenon activates four classic defensive mechanisms: fusion, scapegoating, splitting and rigidification.

Four collective defence mechanisms

1 — Group fusion, or the undifferentiated ego mass

Bowen (1978) introduced the concept of the “undifferentiated family ego mass” to describe emotional fusion in certain families: individuals function as a whole, with no room for difference. Applied to the institutional world, this idea has been transposed into an “undifferentiated institutional ego mass” (Benoit, 1992, cited in Meynckens-Fourez, 2010). In teams, one sometimes observes a uniform and rigid way of thinking, particularly when external pressure or uncertainty become too strong.

Fusion provides a reassuring sense of unity, but it prevents real tensions from being voiced and inhibits individual initiative. In hospital or educational services, it shows up as excessive attachment to routines or systematic resistance to change. The collective adopts a defensive posture: “that’s how it has always been done here”. A short-term strategy for reducing anxiety, it produces long-term stagnation of the system (Daveloose, 1994; Bowen, 1984).

2 — The scapegoat, or the externalising of anxiety

Designating a scapegoat rests on projecting collective tension onto one individual. In families, Bowen (1978) speaks of the “identified patient”: the child becomes the carrier of the parental couple’s unresolved conflicts. In institutions, one team member is often designated as responsible for collective dysfunctions, acting as a valve to reduce overall anxiety (Papero, 2014).

This mechanism temporarily strengthens internal cohesion around a shared rejection, but it prevents any systemic questioning. The designated person becomes the receptacle for all tensions, including when they voice criticism or attempt to introduce an innovation. This phenomenon of triangulation, theorised by Bowen (1978), allows a conflictual dyad to divert anxiety by involving a third party. The scapegoat then carries the overall relational suffering, with sometimes serious consequences: isolation, harassment, exclusion.

3 — Splitting, or the polarisation of the team

Splitting designates the division of a team into antagonistic subgroups, each defending an opposing position or value. Well known in psychoanalysis, this mechanism also operates in a systemic context: when the group’s anxiety becomes intolerable, ambivalence is erased in favour of a binary reading, “us against them”. Bowen (1978) evokes the tendency of human systems to polarise under stress, each person clinging to their camp as to an identity protection.

Dessoy (1997) describes a situation in which an educational team, caught in paradoxical injunctions around a child, splits by unwittingly reproducing that child’s internal parental conflicts. This kind of splitting prevents cooperation, blocks decision-making and diverts energy towards interpersonal conflict rather than the shared mission. It reflects a difficulty in thinking complexity, replaced by opposing and rigid certainties (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Meynckens-Fourez, 2010).

4 — Encysted subgroups

When the subgroups formed by splitting or affinity settle in for the long term, a process of “encystment” takes place: the closing of internal micro-systems (Meynckens-Fourez, 2010). These subgroups become impermeable to dialogue and feed an insider logic. The phenomenon often appears when the attempt at collective fusion fails: the defensive solution then becomes rigid segmentation.

Kerr and Bowen (1988) describe a comparable process in families, under the name of emotional cut-off: to escape tension, some members cut themselves off from one another, which brings short-term relief but impoverishes the system. In institutions, this way of working in silos compromises interdisciplinary collaboration, slows the flow of information and creates a climate of mutual distrust. The higher the collective anxiety, the stronger the temptation to withdraw into a subgroup where one feels protected, at the expense of the shared project.

Systemic avenues for intervention

Bowen’s approach proposes leaving these defensive logics through work on differentiation. This means supporting team members in recovering a thinking of their own while remaining connected to the collective (Bowen, 1984).

Settings such as team supervision, discussion groups or systemic consultation make it possible to create a reflective space. Identifying defensive patterns — recognising a triangulation, spotting a latent split — is in itself a lever of transformation. The practitioner can help the group “de-triangulate” its relationships (Bowen, 1978), restore direct dialogue and make room for a diversity of viewpoints without seeing it as a threat.

On the structural level, some actions are also useful:

• Cross-team projects, which oblige people separated by silos to produce something together.
• Joint meetings, where subgroups speak to each other instead of about each other.
• Internal mobility, which unfreezes positions and restarts relational circulation.

The aim is not to force change, but to restore the system’s capacity to regulate itself. Improving communication, trust and the sense of safety are essential conditions of that process.

In conclusion

Group defence mechanisms in institutions should be understood as the symptoms of a poorly contained systemic anxiety. Thanks to Bowen’s contributions, it becomes possible to read them otherwise than in terms of individual faults or interpersonal conflicts. These dynamics have a function, but they call for a deep transformation of the collective relational mode.

Differentiation of self remains a key notion for thinking about more resilient teams. Helping each professional maintain their integrity while contributing to the collective project means strengthening the health of the system as a whole. In an institutional world that is ever more constrained and uncertain, this reflective stance is a valuable lever for preventing exhaustion and relational drift.

Bibliography

Benoit, J.-C. (1992). Parents, familles et soignants. Érès.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. Tavistock.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.

Bowen, M. (1984). La différenciation du soi (French trans.). ESF.

Dessoy, E. (1997). Ambiance et double lien, une lecture auto-organisationnelle. Thérapie Familiale, 18(4), 405–418.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. Norton.

Meynckens-Fourez, M. (2010). Au-delà des pièges qui paralysent les équipes, comment construire un espace de confiance? Thérapie Familiale, 31(3), 195–214.

Papero, D. V. (2014). Bowen theory’s secrets: revealing the hidden life of families. Rowman & Littlefield.

The full analysis of these four mechanisms, with team examples, can be watched below — in French.