Schizmogenesis: literally "creation of division"; the term derives from the Greek words skhisma "cleft" (borrowed into English as schism, "division into opposing factions"), and genesis "generation, creation" (deriving in turn from gignesthai "be born or produced, creation, a coming into being") [from Reference.com]

I like words, especially words new to me that express an interesting thought or portray an action or thing in a new way. I remember being delighted when I first encountered “schizmogenesis” while studying the fundamental principles of systems theory. I don’t often use it when I talk, because it is technical jargon, but I use it in my mind when I am thinking about dynamics I find in families.

My recollection is that this word was developed as anthropologists and historians tried to explain phenomena in the natural world and in human history. For example, there are animals that are completely adapted to living on grassy prairies. These animals live on land areas that are grassy prairies, but could also have been forest. The question was how this situation occurred. Did the prairies develop, and animals learned how to live there? Did the animals develop and behave in ways that resulted in the prairies?

Both of these questions assume that causation is linear, with one thing acting on another to produce a result. This kind of linear thinking is relatively simple, and much of life works that way, so it is frequently the way we understand events. The cue ball collides with the 8-ball, and it goes into the pocket of the pool table. I drive my car recklessly, so the police stop me and give me a ticket.

But schizmogenesis describes the concept that causation is often better understood as reciprocal, or mutual. In the prairie example, the behavior of the animals influences the terrain and the plants that grow on the land. The developing prairie influences the animals that live there. Over time, their mutual influence results in a situation that they both caused, together. On the pool table, the 8-ball causes the cue ball to stop, or to bounce in a new direction, so the new arrangement of balls on the table is mutually caused. This idea of mutual influence and causation is one of the most important ideas of family systems theory.

So, in families, systems theory proposes that whatever happens is mutually caused by all of the participants, with each person playing a part in the events that unfold, and being influenced by what others do. This perspective uses the behavior of all the individuals and the relationships between them to explain a family event. It is even more useful in understanding a series of events that together result in changed relationships.

An illustration of this concept: Teenagers are passing through a developmental process that furthers their maturity and individuation. They often want to do things their way, rather than following the guidance of their parents. If the parents enforce rules, teenage sons and daughters seem compelled to challenge them, or at least protest that their parents are unreasonable and controlling. This often results in a schizmogenetic process.

Parents Sam and Sue declare that their son Bill has a curfew, which they regard as reasonable parenting, helping him to make good social decisions and get enough sleep. Bill protests, and before long he arrives home after his curfew, giving the excuse that the friend who was driving took some other people home first. Sam and Sue are unhappy about the curfew violation and the fact that Bill didn’t call on the cell phone they pay for. They ground him for the next weekend, which results in an argument. When the weekend comes, Bill spends the whole time on his computer, IM’ing his friends and playing a video game his parents don’t approve. He refuses to do homework or have anything to do with the family.

Sam and Sue tell Bill that his behavior is unacceptable and has reduced their trust in him. When they threaten to extend his grounding and restrict his computer time, Bill gets angry and uses nasty language as he tells them they are insane parents. His name-calling offends Sam and Sue, and they put a password on his computer so he can use it only with their permission. The next weekend, Bill violates the curfew again, staying out intentionally and refusing to answer his phone when they call. His parents are waiting up when he gets home, and they tell him how disappointed and worried they are. He responds sullenly that they are stupid and goes to his room, where his parents hear him talking angrily on the phone to a friend. The next morning he gets up at the last possible minute, gives his parents the silent treatment, refuses breakfast, and slams the door as he leaves.

I get a phone call from Sue later that morning, asking for a counseling appointment for Bill as soon as possible. Their normal son has become a rebellious, disrespectful, rule-breaking, angry teen. She wants me to diagnose Bill and provide treatment for whatever is wrong with him. She wonders if he would benefit from medication.

This oversimplified story of escalating family stress is an illustration of schizmogenesis. In real life, there could be many possible explanations for the story Sue, Sam, and Bill tell me in their first session. For the purposes of this article, I am presuming that no one is seriously ill, mentally or physically, no one is involved in substance abuse, and no one is living with unbearable stress outside the home. They are all okay, but their interaction has mutually caused a situation that is unpleasant for all of them. As Bill challenged his parents’ authority, they became anxious and responded with stronger efforts to control him. Fighting for his maturity and independence, Bill escalated his behavior, and a cycle of increasing conflict developed.

The benefit of my understanding this family’s problem as schizmogenesis is that I can work with any or all of them, depending on who is willing and capable of change. If Bill refuses to consent to counseling, I ask Sue and Sam to come without him. If the parents just want me to fix their son, I can work with Bill alone. Ideally, they would all have a part in cooperating to develop more harmonious ways of dealing with each other.

This perspective on family problems gives me many, flexible interventions as a therapist. Treatment can be rapidly successful, because any person in the family system can change his/her role and influence all the other people and the outcome of their interactions.

It can be challenging to work in this way with families who want to pathologize one member, clearly asking me to diagnose and arrange medication for the person who is being blamed for the family distress. Then I must be very quiet about my thoughts about schizmogenesis, providing treatment that they regard as competent, but also seeking ways to use my position in the family system to address the unacknowledged schizmogenetic issues.
Copyright Gregg Dana 2007