I recently joined a casual, co-ed softball league. In one game, the opposing pitcher threw four balls, and my teammate walked onto base. Immediately, their team erupted in boos—not because of the walk itself, but because our teammate didn’t participate in a local custom: the “courtesy swing.”

In this league, when the count is 3-1, batters are expected to swing at a pitch—even if it’s clearly a ball—with the intention to miss. It’s not a rule, but a deeply ingrained norm meant to give the pitcher another chance to throw a hittable pitch. When our teammate chose not to engage in this ritual, the other team responded with loud, disapproving boos. I suspect their boos were a response to something more significant than gameplay—it was a reaction to difference. A pressure to conform. A moral signal: “This is how we do things here.”

Later, a player from the opposing team also walked without a courtesy swing, and their dugout roared with cheers. The contradiction was striking. What followed was a slow escalation—taunts, tension, and eventually one of our players walked off the field after being cursed at during the closing handshake.

The Loaded Language of Courtesy

The term “courtesy swing” implies politeness, respect, and thoughtfulness. Who wants to be the jerk who refuses to be courteous? But from my perspective, the courtesy swing can feel patronizing—dissolving the sense of equality in competition. At the same time, I imagine the other team saw our refusal to reciprocate their ritual as disrespectful, a rift in the customs they value. It seemed to heighten a sensed demarcation of tribalism between us.

As someone who pitched fast-pitch softball growing up, I remember the sting of throwing four balls. The frustration was internal—I didn’t blame the batter. I saw it as my own failure to execute (or every so often a questionable call from the ump). So it was jarring to see that frustration redirected toward the batter, moralized through the lens of “courtesy.”

Bowen Theory and Moral Entanglement

Bowen’s theory offers a lens here. A reciprocal process seemed to be playing out: the more morally righteous they appeared, the more our team wanted to rebel. In turn, the more we rebelled, the more righteous they became. This is the trap of moral entanglement—it heightens emotion, exaggerates value differences, and fosters black-and-white thinking.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of relationships is recognizing our own role in what transpires with others. Especially when emotions like rage are present, it’s instinctual to join forces to protect your group and launch counterattacks. But ultimately, this isn’t about the courtesy swing—it’s about what it represents: a conflict of values, and how we engage when encountering difference.

Fairness, Values, and Differentiation

Some believe fairness means equity—adjusting for differences. Others believe in equality—treating everyone the same. Both are valid, but they lead to different behaviors. The question becomes: Can we recognize that others value what they value, and still show up with our own principles?

Here’s one way to acknowledge difference without demanding agreement:

“We understand you value the courtesy swing tradition. We don’t follow it as a rule, but we respect that it’s important to you.”

That’s differentiation: acting in line with your values even when others don’t match you. Responding from principle, not from the heat of unfairness (anyone else guilty of this at times?).

A more personal version might sound like:

“I’ve heard what you’re saying, and I understand why it matters to you. I’ve thought about it, and I’m choosing to keep this part of myself because it’s important to me. I hope we can respect each other even if we see it differently.”

Emotional Systems and Group Identity

During the game, our team wasn’t seen as individuals—we were viewed as a collective, judged by the actions of one. The self blurred into the group. Differentiation—maintaining your identity while staying connected—is hard in moments like these. Groups often function as emotional systems, which operate differently than the individuals within them.



Courtesy, at its core, means showing respect. But respect isn’t appeasement. It’s honoring others’ boundaries while holding your own. It’s recognizing that difference doesn’t have to be divisive.

Culture in Unexpected Places

Bowen is often criticized for limited cultural understanding. But in sharing this experience, I hope to highlight how cultural differences can be heightened even in seemingly neutral spaces like a softball game. The terms “culture,” “ritual,” and “custom” help us have compassion for the intense emotions that arise when confronting difference—not to label cultures as good or bad, but to understand the pulls of connection, identity, and shared values.

Playing with Integrity

The challenge is to stay grounded. To recognize one’s role in reciprocal processes as they unfold whether it’s moral superiority reinforcing reactive defiance, or blaming reinforcing defending. To show respect in the face of difference—and to keep playing the game, not just with skill, but with integrity.

Moving forward, our team doesn’t need a unified view on courtesy swings. Others may react negatively to our choices, but we don’t need to take such judgments personally. We can calmly stand strong in acting in ways consistent with what’s important to us, while respecting that others have their own guiding principles—not better or worse, just different.

If these topics interest you and you’d like to engage further, I invite you to connect by contacting me at 720-383-8225.