PA RT I

Defining Families

Historically, family was defined as “married partners and children residing in a

household.” Over time there is no doubt that there has been a shift in the societal
definition of families to include single parents, biracial couples, blended families,
biologically unrelated individuals living cooperatively, and gay and lesbian cou-
ples, among others. The perspective taken with this book is that in spite of this di-
versity of family forms found in contemporary society, families share common
tasks that they must execute. They must also develop unique interaction patterns
and dynamics to manage these tasks. These common tasks and the patterns re-
lated to them are the primary focus of this text.
This book is guided by the assumptions that all families are unique and that
this uniqueness is reflected in the patterns of interaction found within them.
Aided by family researchers, theorists, and clinicians, the book focuses on a num-
ber of core concepts that help us to understand the unique interactional patterns
found inside the family. To accomplish this objective, families are examined from
a multigenerational developmental perspective. The book introduces relevant
data on the changing character of contemporary families, presents research find-
ings on how families cope with the stress of developmental transitions, and incor-
porates what is currently known about functional and dysfunctional families.
Finally, the book touches upon some of the most common problems faced by fam-
ilies as they manage developmental transitions.
We begin this discourse by detailing the defining features of families when
they are conceived of as a system. Despite the dramatic changes that families un-
dergo over their life span, there are a number of predictable and identifiable tasks
that all family systems must contend with regardless of the specific form that a
family takes. That is, all family systems, regardless of who comprises the family,
must (1) establish a clear identity for the family as a whole and for each individual
member; (2) develop clearly defined boundaries between the family and the out-
side world and between individual members within the family; (3) manage the
family household (allocate chores, handle finances, solve problems, etc.); and
(4) manage the emotional demands of family life. In addition, families must adapt
how they execute their tasks in response to the normative and non-normative
stresses encountered over time.

1
2 Part I/Defining Families

It is the patterns of interaction that the family establishes for managing

these basic tasks in the face of inevitable change that is the centerpiece of this
book. In our view, family members establish routine, habitual patterns of interac-
tion with one another over time that are then continually altered over the course
of family development. These patterns give the family its distinctive identity,
define the family’s boundaries, determine how the household is managed, and
prescribe the quality of the family’s emotional environment. In sum, the explo-
ration of the uniqueness of each of our families requires that we have at our dis-
posal a conceptualization of the family that addresses the tasks that are common
to all family systems and simultaneously embraces the diversity and distinctive-
ness of the patterns of interaction found within each family system. What makes
each family unique are the distinct strategies it employs for executing a core of
fundamental family system tasks. These unique strategies influence the trajectory
of each family member’s development—that is, the strategies determine how our
lives unfold by influencing the patterns of nurturance and support we experience
within our families, the values and attitudes that we come to embrace, and the
developmental legacy that affects how we approach and sustain intimate rela-
tionships over our lifetime.
 CHAPTER 1
The Family as a System

Chapter Overview
Focusing on family patterns of interaction requires a basic understanding of what is meant
by the term “family.” This chapter will define the concept of family, and provide an
overview of the central assumptions and core concepts that are basic to an understanding
of families when considered as a system. Within a family-systems framework, families are
defined as complex structures consisting of an interdependent group of individuals who
(1) have a shared sense of history; (2) share emotional ties to one another; and (3) devise
strategies for meeting the needs of individual family members and the group as a whole.
Implicit in the use of the system metaphor to define families is the premise that they are
structurally complex. Families are comprised of multiple subsystems, have common pur-
poses and tasks that must be fulfilled, and must devise strategies for the execution of these
tasks. Within this systems perspective, the assessment of family functioning revolves
around a theoretical consideration of the common tasks that a family must fulfill and the
effectiveness of the strategies devised for executing these tasks.

The Family as a System

This book focuses on families and the interactional patterns and dynamics found
within them. It further focuses on the developmental tasks that all families may
encounter over their life course. This book’s goal is simple: to provide an under-
standing of what a family is and how a family operates. Accomplishing this goal
requires an ability to conceive of the family as a complex system and to conduct an
in-depth analysis of the many forces that shape the patterns of interaction found
within the family. Accomplishing this goal also requires an understanding of how
the experiences of individuals within their families establish a legacy that influ-
ences their values and orientations, determines their strategies for dealing with
people and events, and, ultimately, serves as the foundation for many of the
choices those individuals make about their lives.
Writing a book about something with which everyone is familiar is a difficult
challenge in that personal experiences, as well as exposure to family issues
through books, television, and film, lead people to feel that they know all they
3
4 Part I/Defining Families

need to know about the family. This can obscure one’s objectivity and receptivity
to new thinking. Consequently, at the outset of this book, readers are encouraged
to be open to the diversity found within and among families. It is hoped that as a
result of this openness readers will gain insight into their own family experi-
ences—insight that will underscore the importance of the study of family dynam-
ics and reinforce the view that the family touches on all aspects of our lives.

The Difficulty of Defining the Family

The task of defining the family is not a simple one, and the difficulty is derived
from the mythology that surrounds the concept of family. When asked to define
the family, most of us think of it as being comprised of a stable and harmonious
group of people, monolithic in form, operating on the principles of harmony and
love. We think of the family as comprised of a married couple and their biological
children. This couple is happily married; the children all feel nurtured and sup-
ported by their parents; and each family member’s experience of the family is the
same—all share the perception of the family as a safe haven providing for each
member’s physical and emotional needs.
This idealized image of the intact, multigenerational family household dis-
torts the diversity and instability that has always characterized American families
(Hareven, 2000). The 1950s model of the white, middle-class, intact nuclear family,
headed by a breadwinner father and supported by a homemaker mother, is only a
narrow band on the broad spectrum of contemporary families (Teachman,
Tedrow, & Crowder, 2000). In its place, the “postmodern family” has emerged
(Stacey, 1996), characterized by a multitude of family structures—working moth-
ers and two-earner households; divorced, single-parent, remarried and adoptive
families; and domestic partners, both gay and straight.
For example, currently, married couples residing with their biological chil-
dren account for only 24 percent of all households in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2005a). Not surprisingly, single-parent households have become
increasingly common, making up 26 percent of all American families with chil-
dren under the age of eighteen, a dramatic 58 percent increase since 1970. There
are now more than 12 million single-parent households, approximately 10 million
of which are maintained by mothers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a). In an expanded
look at the structure of the American family the U.S. Census Bureau reports that in
2007, of the nearly 74 million children under the age of eighteen living in the
United States, 67.8 percent lived with married parents, 2.9 percent with two un-
married parents, 25.8 percent with one parent, and 3.5 percent with no parent
present.
Consider as well the fact that a century ago, only 5 percent of married
women participated in the labor market. In 1940, fewer than one married woman
in seven worked outside the home. Since 1995, the dual-income family has be-
come more common than the formerly more traditional one-income married
household. Now over 60 percent of wives work outside the home (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2006).
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 5

In addition, over the past thirty years, divorce replaced death as the most
common end point of a marriage as the rates of divorce dramatically increased
(Sabatelli & Ripoll, 2003). In the United States, the proportion of marriages begun
each year that ended in divorce steadily increased from less than 10 percent in
1867 to over 55 percent in 1985 (Cherlin, 1992). Recent data suggest that since the
mid-1980s the divorce rate in the United States has decreased slightly (Bramlett &
Mosher, 2001). Even so, demographers expect that 25 percent of contemporary
marriages will dissolve by their seventh year, and approximately half will end be-
fore their twentieth year as a result of divorce (Bramlett & Mosher, 2001; Pinsoff,
2002). Not surprisingly, these shifts in divorce rates have generated social and po-
litical discourse on the problems of divorce. With few exceptions (Ahrons, 2004),
divorce has been defined as an undesirable end to marriage. Many studies have
been devoted to the documentation of the deleterious short- and long-term effects
of divorce on children and adults, and divorce has been viewed as a social disor-
der whose frequency approaches epidemic proportions and urgently needs to be
reduced (Gallagher, 1996; Popenoe, 1996). The ending of marriages presumably
threatens social order, disrupts kinship ties, creates economic instability, and
potentially disrupts the lives of children. There is a lot at stake, in other words,
when marriages fail to function as the pivotal and key subsystem within the
family system.
In addition, the typical image of the family distorts the wide range of inter-
personal dynamics found within the contemporary family. Certainly, most of us
would be reluctant to label U.S. families as violent. “Violence” and “family” are
not words that go together. Yet, research tells a different tale. The home is the sin-
gle most violent location in U.S. society (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Statistics on
intimate partner violence indicate that it is a widespread problem. For example,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (Catalano, 2006), more than
625,000 substantiated non-lethal violent acts were committed by current spouses,
former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends in 2004 (the most recent year for which
such figures are available). Other studies place the rates for intimate partner vio-
lence higher. Specifically, the National Violence Against Women Survey found
that of the over 16,000 men and women surveyed, nearly 25% of the women and
7.6% of the men said that they have been raped or physically assaulted by a spouse,
partner, or date at some point in their lifetimes. Within the previous 12 months,
1.5% of women and 0.9% of men reported incidences of violence. And if relatively
minor acts of violence such as pushing, grabbing, shoving, and slapping were
taken into consideration, the incidence of intimate violence would rise to more
than 3 million for men and 5 million for women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), there were about
900,000 substantiated cases of child abuse and/or neglect in 2005. Because the vast
majority of child abuse incidents involve victims who cannot protect themselves
and remain hidden from police and social service agencies, many researchers
think that the actual figures are much higher. What is known for sure is that
slightly over 1,500 children died of abuse or neglect in 2004, and 90% of the vic-
tims were killed by parents or other family members (Administration for Children
and Families, 2006).
6 Part I/Defining Families

In summary, the typical view of the family includes several closely related
but distinct myths about the family, myths bound up with nostalgic memory, se-
lective perception, and cultural values concerning what is correct, typical, and
true about the family. This typical view makes it difficult for us to consider the di-
versity in form found among families and the complexity of dynamics found
within families. When defining the family, therefore, we must move beyond the
mythological image of the family and address the basic or core features that com-
prise all families, while not losing sight of the diverse structures and dynamics
within families.

The Characteristics of Family Systems

In recent years, in an effort to discuss the common features of families while em-
bracing the complexity and diversity found within them, family social scientists
have come to view the family as a system. When viewed as a system, the family
can be defined as a complex structure comprised of an interdependent group of
individuals who (1) have a shared sense of history; (2) experience some degree of
emotional bonding; and (3) devise strategies for meeting the needs of individual
family members and the group as a whole. Implicit in the use of the system
metaphor to define the family is the premise that the family is structurally com-
plex, is comprised of multiple subsystems, has common purposes and tasks that
must be fulfilled, and devises strategies for the execution of these tasks.
When viewed as a system, the family is defined by two central dimensions:
its structure and its tasks. Structure includes both the family’s composition and its
organization. Composition refers to the family’s membership, or simply, the per-
sons who make up the family. The family’s structural organization refers to the
unique set of rules governing the patterns of interaction found within the ex-
tended family system. Tasks refer primarily to the “business” of the family—its
common and essential responsibilities. All families have tasks that they fulfill for
society and family members alike.

Structural Properties of Families

Over the past thirty years, family systems perspectives have been widely accepted
in the family sciences because they offer insight into the unique patterns and
processes found within and between families (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).
System thinking is grounded in the simple but elegant notion that what makes a
system are the relationships among its parts and not the parts themselves. To sim-
ply illustrate this point, it should be evident that what makes an engineered sys-
tem like a bridge unique is the relationships among the various components, or
parts, of the bridge. That is, knowing the components that go into building a
bridge can never provide sufficient insight into what makes a particular bridge a
unique system. To understand the bridge as a system requires an understanding
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 7

of how all of the component parts and subsystems—cement foundation, steel

supports, and paved roadways—are connected to one another.
While of course the family is not an engineered system, the application of the
systems metaphor to the family truly transforms our thinking about what con-
tributes to the uniqueness of each family. When conceived of as a system, it be-
comes clear that the interrelationships among family members, more so than the
individuals who comprise the family, are central to our understanding of the
uniqueness of each family. Knowing that a single mother heads a family, for exam-
ple, does not tell us anything about what goes on inside the family. To know what
truly makes this single-mother-headed family unique (unique from all other
single-parent-headed families and unique from all other types of families), we
must understand how the members of this family interact with one another. That
is, the unit of analysis is the relationships that occur among the members of the
family. Consider the following illustration:

Judy is a thirty-eight-year-old mother of three children who has been divorced

for nearly three years. Judy has a job as an executive assistant in a downtown
insurance firm. Her three children range in age from seven to fourteen. Melissa,
the oldest, is a ninth-grader. In order for Judy to manage her job, Melissa is re-
sponsible for much of the care of her sister, Molly, age nine, and her brother,
Todd, age seven.
At the start of each day, Judy wakes up and prepares for her workday.
While Mom is showering and dressing, Melissa wakes her brother and sister,
gets them dressed, prepares breakfast for the family, and makes lunch for the
“kids” to take to school. Melissa, Molly, and Todd eat together while Judy has a
cup of coffee and irons her clothes, puts on her makeup, gets dressed, etc. Molly
and Todd talk with Melissa about the day ahead. They ask Melissa for help with
the homework they did not finish the night before. Only after Judy, Molly, and
Todd are settled does Melissa get herself ready for school.

This illustration makes it clear that any effort to understand family dynamics
must consider the rules of relating, or the unique patterns of interaction found
within the family. In this particular family system, parental authority and respon-
sibility have been delegated to Melissa by her mother. This arrangement is deter-
mined, in part, by the unique composition of the family and the demands placed
upon it. Because Judy, a single parent, cannot manage the demands of the morn-
ing rush hour on her own, the younger children in this household interact with
Melissa during breakfast as though she were their parent. They know whom to go
to during this time with questions and concerns. Melissa, in turn, knows the
boundaries of her roles and responsibilities, and Judy is free to get herself ready
for work without worrying about whether her children are being cared for prop-
erly. This illustration makes it clear that any effort to understand the uniqueness of
a family must consider its structural properties—both the people who make up
the family AND the rules of relating that direct the unique patterns of interaction
found within the family.
8 Part I/Defining Families

Wholeness
Family systems are characterized by the property of wholeness, that is, the family
system is made up of a group of individuals who together form a complex and
unitary whole (Buckley, 1967; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). The whole is dis-
tinctly different from the simple sum of the contributions of individual members,
because each family system is characterized by structural rules of relating that de-
termine how family members interact with one another. To understand the
uniqueness of the family system, we must go beyond an analysis of the individu-
als who comprise the system. In the above example, we would not be able to un-
derstand the uniqueness of this particular family system simply by knowing that
it is comprised of a single parent and her three children or by knowing the indi-
vidual personalities of each family member. The uniqueness of this particular fam-
ily can only be understood through an analysis of the rules that structure how
family members interact with each other.
The property of wholeness suggests that there is a uniqueness to each family
that can be understood only by understanding the interactional rules that struc-
ture the system. Knowing who is in the system is important because the composi-
tion of the family places demands upon the system and influences interactional
patterns. At the same time, to analyze the uniqueness of each system we must con-
sider what joins the individuals within the system together—in other words, the
rules of relating within the system. When these rules become our focus, it becomes
apparent that the system is greater than the sum of its parts.

Organizational Complexity
The term organizational complexity refers to the fact that family systems are com-
prised of various smaller units or subsystems that together compose the larger
family system (Minuchin, 1974). Each individual family member can be thought
of as a subsystem. Similarly, subsystems can be organized by gender, with the
males in the family comprising one subsystem and the females comprising an-
other, or each generation can be thought of as a subsystem within the whole.
When considering subsystems in terms of generations, three primary subsystems
are generally emphasized: marital, parental, and sibling. Each is distinguished by
the family members who comprise them as well as by the primary tasks per-
formed by each. The marital subsystem, for example, teaches children about the
nature of intimate relationships and provides a model of transactions between
men and women. The parental subsystem is involved with child rearing and
serves such functions as nurturing, guidance, socialization, and control. Wives
and husbands may comprise the parental subsystem; or others, such as grandpar-
ents or older children, may be involved. The sibling subsystem is typically the
child’s first peer group and offers opportunities for learning patterns of negotia-
tion, cooperation, competition, and personal disclosure.
The tasks performed by each of these subsystems will be covered in greater
detail in later chapters. For now, it is important to emphasize that the concept of
organizational complexity addresses the organization of the family system as a
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 9

whole and the relationship between the whole and its various subsystems. The
operation and effectiveness of the whole system is influenced by the operation
and effectiveness of each of the subsystems.

Interdependence
Implicit in the discussion of the structural dimension of a system is the idea that
individuals and subsystems that comprise the whole system are mutually de-
pendent and mutually influenced by one another (Von Bertalanffy, 1975;
Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). This mutual dependence and influence speaks
to the interdependence among the system’s members. In the context of the family
system, even factors that appear to influence only one person have an impact on
everyone. Similarly, a change in one part of the family system reverberates
throughout the rest of the system.
Take, for example, the developmental changes that accompany adolescence.
Adolescents need to establish their own identity as they prepare to make commit-
ments to adult roles and responsibilities. While these developmental demands
may appear to have consequences only for the adolescent, they affect the entire
family system. The increased autonomy required by adolescents necessitates
changes in the parental subsystem. Parents or other caretakers will have to adjust
how they control their adolescents, just as the adolescents will have to change
how much they depend on their parents and other caretakers. At the same time,
the parents’ or caretakers’ changing relationship with their adolescent may have
an effect on the marital relationship and other relationships within the family.
Therefore, what appears as a change for one family member, in reality has a rever-
berating effect on the entire system.
The concepts of wholeness, organizational complexity, and interdependence
encourage us to be aware of the many factors that potentially affect how a system
operates. In this context, it is important to note that the family system is simply one
subsystem within broader community and societal systems. The social, political,
economic, educational, and ethical agendas of these broader social systems also
have a reverberating impact on the family system and on the individuals within
the family. In other words, both family system dynamics and functioning will be af-
fected by the characteristics and functioning of these larger social systems.

Strategies and Rules

The patterns of interaction found within a given family system are structured in
large part by the strategies that the family adopts for the execution of its tasks. In
the above example of the single-parent family, it is clear that the family has
evolved a set of strategies for dealing with the morning rush hour. The strategies
involve having the older daughter, Melissa, take on parenting tasks to enable the
mother, Judy, to get ready to go to work. This suggests that one way to make sense
of the unique patterns of interaction observed within a family is to conceive of
them as strategies that have been developed for managing its demands or tasks.
10 Part I/Defining Families

Consequently, all families are unique not only because they are comprised of a
unique collection of individuals but because they evolve unique strategies and
rules in an effort to execute their essential tasks.
The structure of the family is reflected in the unique strategies and rules that
a family adopts for managing its demands or tasks. The strategies become the pat-
terns of interaction observed within the family. As another example, consider the
fact that all families have as one of their tasks the socialization of children. To ac-
complish this task, parents evolve socialization strategies and rules that determine
how they purposively interact with their children. If the parents believe that boys
should be masculine and girls feminine, they will interact differently with their
sons and daughters. Daughters and sons will be encouraged to engage in different
activities. The patterns of communication and interaction between the parents and
their sons and daughters will be different as well. The strategies and rules em-
ployed by the parents create a unique interactional context that has a profound
impact on the trajectory of each child’s development.
Strategies are the specific methods and procedures used within a family to
accomplish its tasks. These strategies are influenced by such factors as the histori-
cal era and the family’s generational legacy, class, race, and ethnicity. Within each
system, particular strategies become well established and routine over time. They
recur with regularity and become the governing principles of family life.
These well-established strategies are called rules. Rules are recurring pat-
terns of interaction that define the limits of acceptable and appropriate behavior in
the family. By reflecting the values of the family system and defining the roles of
individual family members, rules further contribute to the maintenance and sta-
bility of the family system.
Rules, in other words, can be thought of as the customs found within the
family that govern the patterns of interaction found within it and, hence, define
the family as unique. Each family, as an example, has a unique set of rules that are
reflected in how meals are customarily managed. Who is responsible for different
meal-time tasks, where individuals sit at the dinner table, what family members
do during the consumption of the meal (e.g., talk, read, watch TV), and who is re-
sponsible for cleaning up after the meal (e.g., mom cleans up while dad watches
the nightly news on TV) are a reflection of the unique rules that have come to be
adopted within the family.
Rules may be overt or covert. Overt rules are explicit and openly stated.
Covert rules are implicit, meaning that everyone knows the rules although no
one has explicitly stated them. It appears as if most of the rules within a family
system are covert or implicit. Referring to the meal-time example, in most fami-
lies everyone has an assigned seat at the dinner table, even though the assign-
ment of the seats has not been explicitly discussed. The existence of these seating
rules becomes overt only when someone breaks the rule (i.e., think about what
would happen in your family if you all of a sudden decided not to sit in your
customary seat).
Families also develop metarules, or “rules about the rules” (Laing, 1971).
There are always limits and exceptions to rules. There are circumstances in which
they always apply and circumstances in which they can be violated. Some rules, in
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 11

addition, are more important than others. All of this information about the rules—
about the importance of different rules and about how and when the rules
apply—is contained within the metarules. Metarules are the rules that apply to the
family’s rules.
Here are some examples of family rules: “You kids can always come to us
and talk about anything and everything.” “We always treat our children, all our
children, equally.” Each of these rules, however, could be qualified by a
metarule. In the first instance, a metarule might specify what, in reality, can and
cannot be discussed with the parents (e.g., sex and drugs). In the latter instance,
the metarule might allow a particular child to be treated “more equally” than
the others.
While it may appear as if the discussion of metarules introduces some un-
necessary complexity to the analysis of family rules, an understanding of the ways
in which metarules operate within systems contributes to an understanding of
one of the more subtle, but nonetheless powerful, forces that direct the patterns of
interaction observed within families. Metarules operate to modify and qualify
family rules. These metarules, as do all family rules, delineate acceptable and ap-
propriate behavior. They differ from overt and covert rules, however, in the sense
that we are usually prohibited from having any insight into them (Laing, 1971).
Although we can usually list the rules that apply to our family, it is much more
difficult to arrive at an understanding of the metarules that apply to these rules.
In sum, each family is structurally complex. The family is comprised of indi-
viduals who are interdependently connected to one another. Together this interde-
pendent constellation of individuals evolves a system of rules that shapes the
patterns of interaction found within the family system. This system of rules is pur-
posive (Kantor & Lehr, 1975) in the sense that the family has tasks that it must
execute and therefore must evolve strategies for the execution of these tasks.

The Tasks That Families Must Execute

Implicit in the use of the system’s metaphor to define the family is the view that
the family is structurally complex. It is comprised of multiple subsystems, and the
relationships among the members of the system and the subsystems are governed
by a system of rules. This system of rules is reflected in how family members inter-
act with one another, and is organized around the common purposes or tasks that
all families must execute (Broderick, 1993). What makes a family unique, in other
words, is the unique system of rules found within the family. These rules are
organized around the tasks that all families must manage.
The tasks that the family must manage are a key defining feature of family
life (Hess & Handel, 1985; Kantor & Lehr, 1975). Within this text we divide tasks
into two broad categories—first-order and second-order tasks. First-order tasks
can be thought of as the essential business of the family—the objectives that the
family is charged with fulfilling regardless of its particular composition, socioeco-
nomic status, and cultural, ethnic, or racial heritage. These first-order tasks are
common to all families. Among family-systems theorists, there appears to be a
12 Part I/Defining Families

consensus that all family systems must manage a constellation of identity tasks,
regulate boundaries, regulate the emotional climate of the family, and devise
strategies for the maintenance of the household. The strategies and rules that the
family employs in its efforts to manage these tasks are in large part what deter-
mines the uniqueness of each family. And, it is these unique strategies that are
evaluated whenever judgments of family functioning are made.
At the same time, all families must make adjustments in these strategies and
rules in response to new information and the changes that occur within families
over time. In this regard, systems theorists refer to adaptability as a property of all
systems. Adaptability, as a system’s concept, focuses attention on how the family
customarily responds to stress or the demands for changes in its existing customs.
Thus, families are not only charged with the responsibility for devising strategies
for the execution of their basic tasks, but are charged with the responsibility of
adapting the strategies and rules found within the family in response to new in-
formation and change. This sets adaptability off as a different kind of a task—a
second-order task—in that it refers to the customs that exist within a family sys-
tem for modifying existing strategies and rules (Bartle-Haring & Sabatelli, 1998).
Effective families recalibrate or fine tune the ways in which they manage their
first-order tasks in response to the changing developmental and contextual reali-
ties of the family system.

First-Order Tasks

Identity Tasks
All families must facilitate the development of a sense of identity for both individ-
ual family members and the family as a whole. In this regard, there are three inter-
related identity tasks that family systems must execute: (1) constructing family
themes; (2) socializing family members with respect to biological and social issues
such as sexuality and gender; and (3) establishing a satisfactory congruence of im-
ages for the individuals within the family (Hess & Handel, 1985).
Family themes are those elements of the family experience that become or-
ganizing principles for family life (Bagarozzi & Anderson, 1989). They include
both conscious and unconscious elements as well as intellectual (attitudes, beliefs,
values) and emotional aspects. The family’s themes become the threads that help
organize the family’s identity. These themes provide the individuals within the
family with a framework of meaning influencing how family members interact
with others and expect others to interact with them. Such themes also contribute
to family members’ personal identities by influencing how they orient themselves
to others within and outside the family.
Family themes may also be related to ethnic and cultural heritage. For exam-
ple, being Italian, Irish Catholic, or Jewish can become a family theme and influ-
ence the orientations and behaviors of family members. Other themes reflect the
predominant values of a particular system. For example, the members of a family
may share a view of themselves as competitors, survivors, winners, or losers, and
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 13

these views may be accompanied by feelings of potency, elation, or despair. Each

of these orientations or values translates into actions as individuals act in accor-
dance with the themes.
In a related manner, family systems function to provide individuals with so-
cialization experiences, which in turn further contribute to the development of
each member’s personal identity by providing additional information about the
self. Through our ongoing interactions with significant others, we obtain informa-
tion about how we are supposed to act as males or females. We also learn about
our personal qualities, our physical and sexual attributes, our strengths and weak-
nesses, and the differences between right and wrong. These attributes likewise
contribute to our framework of meaning in that they influence how we interact
with others and how we expect others to interact with us.
Finally, each family strives to achieve a congruence of images (Hess &
Handel, 1985) that reflects the shared views that family members have of one an-
other. When the family holds an image of an individual that is consistent with the
image the individual holds of himself or herself, this congruence facilitates social
interaction. This congruence, furthermore, fosters one’s personal identity by
defining, in part, one’s role and position within the family. Such critical identity
images often endure for many years. Being the smart one, the athletic one, or the
baby are family images that can have enduring influence upon how family mem-
bers interact with one another over the years (Kantor, 1980).
It bears mentioning, in the context of discussing the identity tasks executed
by the family system, that families can create family myths (Bagarozzi &
Anderson, 1989; Ferreira, 1966). These myths can take the form of a family holding
an image of itself that is incongruent with that held by outsiders. In this instance,
the family themes may be inconsistent with the capabilities of the family and cre-
ate tension between the family and other, outside systems. An example would be
the situation in which a school system’s effort to provide a child with remedial
help conflicts with the family’s theme of self-sufficiency. Such a myth can result in
a family resisting the school system’s intervention, with unfortunate conse-
quences for the child.
In addition, a myth can take the form of an incongruence of family images;
that is, the family may hold an image of a family member that is inconsistent with
the abilities of the individual or the image the individual holds of himself or her-
self. For example, the family may hold an image of one member as being dumb
when, in fact, the person is quite smart. Concomitantly, the family may hold to the
belief that the women within the family need to be protected and are incapable of
taking care of themselves. In each of these instances, the myth may serve to limit
the behavior and potential of individuals and can create considerable family stress
if individuals attempt to alter the image that others have of them.

Boundary Tasks
All families have as one of their tasks the establishment and maintenance of
boundaries (Kantor & Lehr, 1975). A boundary marks the limits of a system,
and boundaries delineate one system from other systems. Similarly, boundaries
14 Part I/Defining Families

delineate one subsystem from other subsystems within a larger system. The
concept of boundaries as applied to the family system is largely a metaphorical
one (Steinglass, 1987), which suggests that information about family bound-
aries is not directly observable but rather is derived from the observer’s subjec-
tive impressions of how the systems and subsystems relate to one another. In
essence, the flow of information between and within systems provides insight
into how systems and subsystems are delineated.
Two types of family boundaries exist: external boundaries and internal
boundaries. External boundaries delineate the family from other systems. They
determine family membership by delineating who is in, and out, of the family.
External boundaries also regulate the flow of information between the family and
other social systems. Internal boundaries regulate the flow of information be-
tween and within family subsystems. In addition, they influence the degree of au-
tonomy and individuality permitted within the family.

Maintenance Tasks
All families strive to maintain the physical environment of the family in a way
that promotes the health and well-being of the family and its members (Epstein,
Ryan, Bishop, Miller, & Keitner, 2003). We readily recognize that families are
responsible for providing basic necessities such as food, shelter, and education. To
accomplish these tasks, families establish priorities and make decisions about the
use of resources. Therefore, while maintenance tasks can be described in a direct
and straightforward manner, the various decision-making strategies families de-
velop to execute these tasks contribute substantially to the complexity of the fam-
ily organization. Furthermore, the fact that the health and effectiveness of a family
may be judged, to a large extent, according to how well these maintenance tasks
are executed, attests to their importance.

Managing the Family’s Emotional Climate

Family systems are responsible for managing the emotional climate of the family
in a way that promotes the emotional and psychological well-being of its mem-
bers (Epstein et al., 2003). Family systems function in this regard by providing for
members’ needs for closeness, involvement, acceptance, and nurturance.
Management of its emotional climate requires the family to establish methods of
dealing with conflict and distributing power within the family. Conflict is in-
evitable in all ongoing systems, and yet it has the potential to disrupt a system’s
functioning seriously. For these reasons, all systems must develop strategies for
the management of conflict. In addition, patterns of authority, control, and power
have the ability to promote or inhibit the experience of cohesion and cooperation
within a system. The promotion of cohesion and cooperation is among those fac-
tors that contribute to the experience of intimacy and the emotional and psycho-
logical health of family members.
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 15

Second-Order Tasks

Adaptability and Managing System Stress

Quite clearly, events occur over time within families that require adaptations. All
family systems must manage the need for change in their established structure.
The concepts of openness, stress, and adaptability are linked within a system’s
perspective to the second-order task of managing the demands for change that
occur within family systems over time.
The family system is conceived of as an open system in that it must adapt to
changes from both within and outside the family. An open system is an informa-
tion-processing system (Von Bertalanffy, 1975). Information is used by the system
to determine whether the strategies employed by the system to execute its first-
order task are operating effectively. In a sense, then, information-processing systems
use information as a form of feedback. The feedback informs the system as to
whether change or reorganization is required.
As an open system, the strategies employed by the family will need to be
readjusted periodically in response to new information, such as family members’
developmental changes. This information is often experienced within the system
as stress. Stress is neither good nor bad in this instance. It simply tells the system
whether established system interactional patterns require alteration (Von
Bertalanffy, 1975; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). For example, over the life
course of a family, individual and family circumstances change. These changes
place stress upon established strategies and rules, and this stress can ultimately
lead to a reorganization of strategies and rules such that a better fit is achieved
within the family’s present circumstances. Such reorganization is a form of system
adaptability.
To understand the relationship between stress and adaptability, system theo-
rists introduced the concepts of morphostasis and morphogenesis (Von
Bertalanffy, 1975). Morphostasis refers to those processes operating within sys-
tems that resist changes in existing strategies. Morphogenesis, on the other hand,
refers to those processes operating within systems that foster systemic growth and
development. At all times, there exists within a system a dynamic tension between
morphostasis (stability) and morphogenesis (change). Unless the need for reor-
ganization within a system goes beyond some critical threshold, the system resists
changing its existing strategies. This tendency to maintain constancy is referred to
as morphostasis. When the need for reorganization exceeds some critical thresh-
old, an adaptation or reorganization of system will occur, and this reorganization
is referred to as morphogenesis. Both morphogenesis and morphostasis are essen-
tial for successful family functioning.
The changes that occur over time in the parent–child relationship help to il-
luminate the dynamic tension between stress and morphostatic and morphogenic
processes. The toddler’s growing need for more autonomy and personal control
over the environment can place stress on the parents’ current strategies for ensur-
ing their daughter’s physical safety and fostering her sense of competence and
mastery. This stress results from two sources. First, parents may recognize that
16 Part I/Defining Families

they need to change their strategies for managing their daughter’s behavior.
Second, their daughter’s insistence that she be allowed greater autonomy will fur-
ther increase their awareness that they need to change their parenting strategies.
As this stress reaches a critical level, the parents will begin to alter the amount of
autonomy and control they permit her to have. They may encourage her to dress
herself and allow her to ride her bike down the street. This is an ongoing and dy-
namic process in the sense that the parents will not alter their existing parenting
strategies (morphostasis) unless the demand for change goes beyond a critical
threshold, thereby making change (morphogenesis) more rewarding than
constancy.
The tension between the need to maintain constancy and the need to make
changes exists in all family systems. Due to the open nature of the family system,
the strategies it employs to execute its first-order tasks will periodically require
readjustment. But these readjustments will not occur unless the need for their re-
organization is sufficiently great. Stress and information are important concepts in
this regard because it is the stress generated by the pressure to alter existing strate-
gies that informs the system when a change is required.
Some systems, however, fail to make adaptations when they are required.
These systems are often referred to as closed or rigid. Other systems make adapta-
tions when none are required. They are often referred to as chaotic, random, or
disorganized (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1989). In both instances, families, as
open systems, are reacting to information and making adaptations. However,
the adaptations made by these systems are not optimal, meaning that they may
place the physical, emotional, and/or psychological health of family members
at risk.

The Politics of the Family

Over the past couple of decades, our nation has become more concerned with the
health and viability of the family, and the debate about the family has moved to
the center of national politics. Much of this debate has focused on the problems of
contemporary families and the prospects for the family’s future. Views clearly dif-
fer about what form the family should take and about what factors contribute to
the well-being of families. In the United States we debate the degree to which di-
vorce and single parenthood undermine the quality of family life. We argue about
the extent to which a mother’s employment outside the home undermines the
health and well-being of her children. Views clash whenever the question is raised
as to whether gay and lesbian couples should be able to parent children or con-
sider themselves a family.
At the heart of much of this debate are differences in opinion about the defi-
nition of (1) the family and (2) a functional family. From a systems perspective, a
family exists whenever a group of individuals regularly interact with one another
over time, experience some degree of emotional bonding, share a common history
and legacy, and together devise strategies for the accomplishment of family goals
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 17

and tasks. Typically, this type of structure results when individuals become
related to one another, over time, by blood or marriage. It is clear, however, that
blood and marriage ties are not the only ways in which family groups form.
Rather, in the broadest possible sense, any group of individuals who share these
properties and thus provide for the physical, social, and emotional needs of the
individual members can be thought of as a family.
Central to this broad definition of the family is an emphasis on the first- and
second-order tasks that the family must fulfill. What defines a family as unique is
its structure, which is reflected in large part by the strategies the family employs to
execute its first-order tasks. This is not meant to undermine the importance of the
family’s composition, because that composition influences the family’s choice of
strategies. The single-parent-headed family often evolves strategies different from
those of the two-parent-headed household. The dual-worker system evolves
strategies different from those of the traditional family system. The lesbian family
system may evolve strategies different from those of the heterosexual family sys-
tem. The composition of the family affects family dynamics by shaping the strate-
gies employed in the system’s effort to accomplish its tasks.
While the composition of the family shapes the strategies the family em-
ploys, it is not by itself an indicator of family functioning. Judgments about a fam-
ily system’s functioning must take into account the organizational structure of the
family and, in particular, whether the family is able to execute its tasks effectively.
Regardless of the particular composition of a family, family functioning is tied to
family dynamics. When the structure and strategies of the family support the
physical, social, emotional, and psychological well-being of family members, it is
reasonable to conclude that the family is functional.
It should be clear as well that each society determines the appropriateness of
essential family strategies; that is, prevailing cultural value orientations both di-
rect how tasks should be executed and determine the appropriateness of each
family’s strategies. When the strategies a family employs are consistent with those
endorsed within the society, the family is judged to be effective. When the strate-
gies employed by a particular family deviate sufficiently from the cultural norms,
the family is more likely to be judged ineffective. There is no way to divorce the is-
sue of family functioning from the prevailing cultural value orientations of a
given society. Within the United States, the cultural heterogeneity of the society
contributes to a certain degree of debate as to the appropriate ways of executing
family system tasks. The disciplining of children is a case in point. As a society we
agree that children are expected to behave in socially appropriate ways, and par-
ents are charged with the task of regulating the behavior of their children. We do
not as a society agree, however, on whether physical force and punishment should
be employed to control children. Some believe that hitting children should be
against the law, whereas others believe that corporal punishment is essential to
mold the character of our children.
The confusion that results from these two competing cultural value orienta-
tions makes it difficult to determine when a particular parent’s discipline strate-
gies have crossed the line from acceptable to dysfunctional. This illustration is
used to point out how a determination of family functioning is culturally
18 Part I/Defining Families

grounded. The strategies we approve of as a society become the standard by

which effectiveness is judged. Therefore, the politics of the family are such that
there is considerable disagreement about not only how a family should be com-
prised, but also how a family should operate. While a consensus has emerged
over the years that the family is responsible for ensuring the physical, social, emo-
tional, and psychological well-being of its members, there remains considerable
debate as to what is, and what is not, an appropriate strategy.

Conclusions

A systems perspective focuses our attention upon the family’s structural and func-
tional features rather than on the family’s particular composition. Specifically, it
encourages us to be aware of the organizational complexity of the family and the
reciprocal and interdependent relationships that exist between the family and
broader social systems. Furthermore, a systems perspective encourages us to at-
tend to the wide array of tasks that the family and each of its subsystems must ex-
ecute in order for the family to function adequately. The family must devise
strategies for executing these tasks. The family’s choice of strategies is also at the
heart of any judgment made regarding a family’s effectiveness. The family’s struc-
tural organization and its unique strategies only become apparent in examining
the family’s patterns of interaction. That is, only by observing the family’s unique
rules and patterns of interaction do we gain insight into how the family is struc-
tured and how it goes about fulfilling its basic tasks.
Finally, when the family is conceived of as an open system, we are encour-
aged to be aware of the dynamic and evolving nature of the family. Families, as
open systems, develop in response to internal and external stresses that challenge
the system to modify its way of executing its tasks. Each family system faces an
ongoing challenge to accommodate the ordinary and extraordinary demands that
are encountered over its life cycle.

Key Terms
Adaptability The capacity of the system to strategies for meeting the needs of individual
change its rules and strategies in response to members and the group as a whole.
situational or developmental stress. Family themes Those elements of the family
Boundaries The concept used to delineate one experience that become organizing principles
system or subsystem from other systems for family life, including both conscious and
or subsystems, or from the surrounding unconscious elements as well as intellectual
environment. (attitudes, beliefs, values) and emotional
Covert rules Rules that are implicit rather than aspects.
openly stated but are nonetheless under- First-order tasks The tasks that are common to
stood by all family members. all families regardless of their particular
Family An interdependent group of individuals composition, socioeconomic status, and cul-
who have a shared sense of history, experience tural, ethnic, or racial heritage. Examples of
some degree of emotional bonding, and devise first-order tasks include the formation of
 Chapter 1/The Family as a System 19

family themes, the regulation of boundaries, Second-order tasks The responsibility that all
and the management of the household. families have for adapting their strategies
Interdependence The idea that individuals and and rules in response to stress, information,
subsystems that compose the whole system and change.
are mutually dependent and mutually influ- Strategies The specific policies and procedures
enced by one another. the family adopts to accomplish its tasks.
Metarules Rules about rules. Also the unique patterns of interaction that
Morphogenesis Those processes operating each family establishes to execute its basic
within systems that foster systemic growth tasks.
and development. Stress Information transmitted to the system
Morphostasis Those processes operating about whether established interactional pat-
within systems that resist changes in terns require alteration.
existing strategies. Structure Both the family’s composition and its
Openness The ease with which members and organization. Composition refers to the fam-
information cross the boundary from one ily’s membership, that is, the persons who
system or subsystem to another. make up the family. Organization is the col-
Organizational complexity The organizational lection of interdependent relationships and
structure whereby family systems are com- subsystems that operate by established rules
prised of various smaller units or subsys- of interaction.
tems that together comprise the larger family Wholeness The idea that systems must be un-
system. derstood in their entirety, which is distinctly
Overt rules Explicit and openly stated rules. different from the simple sum of the contri-
Rules Recurring patterns of interaction that de- butions of the individual parts.
fine the limits of acceptable and appropriate
behavior in the family.