A View of Neutrality

Roberta M. Gilbert M. D.

During our recent visit to Switzerland, while attending the ‘Mut zur Ethik’—conference, we learned that Switzerland’s neutrality is being attacked. Though I am not a student of Swiss history, I would guess that this attack is nothing new, for neutrality is always difficult to maintain. No doubt there have continually been forces ready and willing to weaken or destroy the precious neutral stance that Switzerland has traditionally maintained in the world.

I call it ‘precious’ because I believe any neutral country in today’s world has the possibility of performing unique and heroic functions at a time when civilized order itself is under attack.

We learned of pressures to assimilate Switzerland into the UN and NATO. But one of the ways Switzerland has maintained her neutrality is by staying out of alliances. If she joined these organizations, would she lose her neutrality, and her important world role of peacemaker and host of peacemaking negotiations? In order to answer that question, let us look at neutrality itself to see if we can get a clearer picture of just what it is.

The pertinent dictionary definitions of neutrality are: ‘Not allied with, supporting, or favoring either side in a dispute, war, or contest. Belonging to neither side nor party (on neutral land). Non-participation in war.’(*)

In working with troubled, conflicted marriages, family theorists have learned something about neutrality in that most basic of human social systems, the family. The more we learned about neutrality, the better our work with the families. As a group we have learned that the better we get at emotional neutrality, the better the families have done. In this way, we have seen our results surpass anything we saw before.

Recently many of us have begun to apply what we have learned in families to larger social groups, such as church congregations, businesses and other organizations. Those efforts have been encouraging. We are beginning to see the same positive results in these settings.

Could the same principles we are using with families and organizations be useful in assisting nations to develop better relationships, one with the other? I believe so. And what is Switzerland’s role in such an effort today? I want to try to address these and other questions, but first, let us look at neutrality in more depth. Let us see it in its simplest setting, the place where we learned most about it, the human family. If we can understand it there, we may be able to see what it might mean in larger social groups such as, perhaps, the community of nations.

Neutrality in the family emotional field

When emotional intensity in troubled families becomes high enough, it produces illogical thoughts and communications, endless repetitions of what they have always done to try to get out of the bad feelings and often, destruction of relationships. Emotional intensity in relationships takes the form of one or several of four patterns or postures. They are: conflict, distance, reciprocal over-/under-functioning and triangling. These patterns or postures are attempts to relieve the anxiety of the troubled relationship. And they can actually be effective at that for brief periods. Unfortunately, over time, the postures generate their own anxiety, adding to the original problem. So, the patterns only increase the intensity, which tends to increase the postures, on and on in a vicious circle.

Murray Bowen, a family theory pioneer, early understood the value of putting a conflicted couple in touch with an emotionally neutral therapist. He, and those of us who followed him, learned that calm can be as infectious as the anxiety that leads to the problems. So the first task, in work with a troubled family, is simply to decrease the anxiety as much as possible.

When the anxiety is reduced (and only then) several interesting changes take place. People are now able to think in a more logical, productive fashion. The relationship can be attended to instead of all the spurious issues people have been focusing on. People can begin to see their own part in producing the emotional patterns in the relationship. They are then in a position to interrupt their repetitive, nonproductive behaviors. At this point the family can then be seen setting about solving its own problems. Sometimes these solutions are not the ones the therapist would have ‘prescribed’. Often the outcomes are far better than anything the therapist could have foreseen.

But in this whole process the neutrality of the therapist is key. The therapist has the difficult task of making emotional contact with the family, while at the same time staying out of several traps that are automatically lurking . For example, the therapist must not take sides with one or the other. If that happens, the family instantly knows it and usually leaves. Also, the therapist must stay out of the relationship patterns in his/her own relationship with the family. Thus, several guidelines apply: for example, he/she must relate to them from a position of equality as a human (not overfunctioning by telling them what to do, nor underfunctioning by not taking an active part in the process.) At the same time, emotional boundaries have to be maintained so that a calmer, more thoughtful atmosphere can prevail. Thus, the family’s anxiety does not pass to the therapist. This is the core idea of neutrality. Further, open communication has to be maintained. If these guidelines are not observed, the whole process can collapse.

The process of assisting families through to a calm, thoughtful resolution of their emotional snags is guided by principles that Bowen laid down in a theory that has come to be called Bowen family systems theory. The therapist must have a clear grasp of these principles or he/she will become confused and lose the way. It is, in fact the principles (about how people react in relationships with one another) that can guide one out of the emotional intensities that are so troubling to us all at one time or another.

It is extremely gratifying to watch as people begin to look at their own contribution to their relationship difficulties. An individual’s own contribution is the only part he or she has the power to change. But that shift will improve the relationship as the other moves in response to the positive change of the first. The relationship begins to function on a better level.

What about neutrality in geopolitics?

Neutrality, in work with families, refers to emotional neutrality. We know that for therapists, it is absolutely indispensable. Can the emotional neutrality that is so useful in the therapeutic or organizational consulting setting be compared in any way to political neutrality, now coming up for discussion in Switzerland? I believe that if they are not the same, they are very similar. How can we draw a parallel in the two situations? One way to see geo-politics is as relationships among nations. More specifically, politics is relationships among the leaders of nations. Seen in this way, political neutrality and the emotional neutrality of consulting to smaller human groups such as the family or organizations become perfectly homologous.

Breakdowns in negotiations between conflicted countries are then seen as emotional intensity, increased to the point that the people involved are literally unable to think their way through to solutions. Drawing from our experience with other conflicted groups, one emotionally neutral, thinking person in the room, given some authority, can make a positive difference.

The task, at base, in each, is one of managing the emotional intensities of human social groups. Though the study of the family informs us about the likely behavior of humans in groups, it also reminds us that the individual, (depending on his/her emotional maturity, to different degrees,) has choices. How people usually behave in groups is not necessarily how they must behave. Learning about a spectrum of choices available in emotionally intense situations enhances the individual’s ability to make better choices, ones that will stand over the long term.

Considering the entire spectrum of emotional maturity, political neutrality is an extremely high level behavior. It speaks well for Switzerland that she has always sought it. George Washington, founding father of the United States, advised us early on of the need to avoid entangling alliances. We have not listened to him.

How could we postulate that a neutral country such as Switzerland could be useful to the geopolitical ( relationship) ‘hot spots’ of the world? Potentially, Switzerland has an absolutely indispensable part to play in supporting the safety of the world at this time. There are four functions that I can quickly see. Others may emerge with time and thought.

1. As in the past, the world needs neutral ground where leaders can meet to get the anxiety down and begin to think logically towards solutions. If Switzerland is a part of alliances that are not neutral, the ‘neutral ground’ function would be lost. If neutrality is preserved, Switzerland could be the place to assist countries emotionally toward solutions as we in family theory now do for families.
   
2. This could be an ongoing process, whenever needed, with leaders all over the world.
   
3. Switzerland could grow a cadre of people trained in these principles that have proved so useful to families, and make them available to world leaders involved in disputes.
   
4. Switzerland could become a teaching/educational center for the principles where people could come from all over the world to learn them and take the benefits of them to their own local situations.
   

Should Switzerland surrender its neutrality by becoming a part of polarized, biased organizations whose point of view in most instances is based on anything but neutrality? As a member of these alliances Switzerland would have to take up arms in various conflicts. Where is the neutrality in that? Many Americans believe the serious problems in which we find ourselves presently derive from the recent tendencies of our leaders to ignore the guidance of our founding fathers, to avoid entangling alliances.

Again, it seems to me that Switzerland’s neutrality in a biased, polarized world is essential and precious. If she is to assist in the difficult task of reducing hostilities between nations, it would seem absolutely necessary to not join organizations that she knows will force her to take sides. On the other hand, one way to maintain political neutrality would be to turn neutrality into an active instrument to help avoid and resolve crises between and among nations. In this way the value of a neutral country would become highly valued and unmistakable to all, in and out of the country.

The world, in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, needs more than ever, at least one truly neutral country to help bring calm to its intensities, to stay objective and to inject rationality into the insane wars that now appear to threaten civilization itself.

* Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, Riverside Publishing Company, Boston, 1984