Scribd
Upload
213 views16 pages

Goldenberg Family Systems Theory

Family systems

Uploaded by

daniwladis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
213 views16 pages

Goldenberg Family Systems Theory

Family systems

Uploaded by

daniwladis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16
FAMILM THERAPY: Awey eRe Wy stEA, aooe TPE Aten H. Geldinbon i - fate Chapter i The Family as a System Chapter Overview Focusing om family patter of interaction requires a bese understanding of shat is iment by the term jail. This chapter begins the process of dening the family and roids an overecs ofthe central assumptions and core concep that are bac 10 an liners ofthe family when considered as assem. Family systems are defined by Structural en cional enue, with structure refering tothe eompsition and organ 2ation ofthe fay. Fama structure 1s examined using the concepts of whales, organizational complerity, aud interdependence. Functian refers 0 the ass the foi st perform to achieve is goals. The fly's primary goals are to secure its own uric and contribute tothe growth, development, and well-being of its members. ‘Therefore, st adopt sriegis and ales for exeuting the ass related to these oa Family fnctoning com be eumined in terms of whether the flys unique structure enables ito execute its tasks fective. The degree of openness, stress, and adaplaility found within the system hls determine he familys ee of faction. ‘The Family as a System This book focuses on the family and the interactional pattems and dynamics found within families. It further focuses on the developmental ask that families {encounter ove the life course, This book's goals ar simple: to provide an under Standing of what a faziy is and how afar operates. Accomplishing these goals requires an ability to conceive ofthe family ae a complex aystem and an In-depth analysis of the many forces that shape the pattems of interaction found ‘within the family. Accomplishing these gals also requires an understanding of how the experiences of individuals within thei families establish a legacy, = legacy that infuencas Value and orientations, ectabliches trategce for desing with people and events, and, ulmately, serves asthe foundation for many’ of he ‘hoices individuals make sbout thei lve, Ancotal este Toman banrngs 2208" ord 3197 Toke year 490. Part One / Defiring the Fait ‘iting book about something with which everyone i familiar sa dificult chalenge in that personal experiences, as well a exposure to family issues throagh books, television, and film, result in persons feling that they know all they need to know about the family: This can obscure ane’s objectivity and recetivity to new thinking (Aldous, 1991; Baca Zinn & Eitzen, 1983; Skolick, 1987). Concequenty a the outset of this book, readers are encouraged tobe open to both the “fact and fictions” of family life Ii hoped that readers of this book wllbecome more sensitive tothe diversity found within and among families, nd thatrenders wil gen insight into their own family experiences—insight that will “undsecore the Importance of the study of famuly dynamics and reinforce the ‘ie thatthe family touches on all aspects of our lives. ‘The Difficulty of Defining the Family “Thetask of defining the family is not a simple one, and the difcuty is derived from the mythology tht surrounds the concep of family: When asked to define the family mest of us think of the family ag being comprised of sable and Iharnonious group of people, monolithic inform, operating onthe principles of Iharmony and love (Baca Zinn & Fitzen, 199; Ferre, 1991). We think, in other ‘ors, ofthe family as comprised of a marsied couple and their biological cil three. This couple # harmoniously and happily married: the children all fel ‘nuresed and supported by thir parents; and each family member's experience Ofte family isthe sume—all share the perception ofthe family as safe haven providing fer each member's physical and emotional needs. ‘Although we think of the family as monolithic in form and orgeization itis Jmportant to consider that, while the typical famly just a generation ago was ‘ompored ofa working fther, a homemaker mother, and thelr children, now only Sbott 10% of families meet this description. Furthermore recent census data Insate that households comprzed of a marred couple residing With thelr own chilren account for only 263% of all households in the United States (US, ‘Burst of the Census 1991). The single paren-headed family i as common asthe twoparentheaded household, with one of every four children in the United States living in a single-parent family; among blacks, the number is one child of {every to (Nalional Center for Children in Poverty, 1990). Currently, ever 40% of the marniges that take place each year are remarriage, which results in approx- Imotly 20% of all households with children present being comprised of one bolagcal patent and a stepparent (Otto, 1988, Riche, 1988 U.S. Bureau ofthe Cereus, 1988, 1989, 1950). sadn, the typical image ofthe family distorts the wide range of iter~ pperonal dynamics found within contemporary families, Our tendency i 1 a= ure that family Ife is characterized by harmeny and bls, a view that shields ts Foun the darker sides of family fe. For example, Gelles and Straus (1988) in {study of 6/02 houscholds representative of the general population in 1985, ound that 30 wonten pe 1,000 reported incidents of severe wife beating. Further- Chapter 1/The Fey ase Sytem 3 :mor,ithas been estimated that between 2 and 4 million children each year are bused or neglected (Rohner, 1986; American Humane Assocation, 1989). Data such as these led Gelles and Straus to conclude that". you are more likey to be physically asoulted, beaten, and killed in your own hme atthe hands of = loved one than anyplace else, or by anyone else in our society” (p18). “The typical view ofthe fam, nother words, is accompanied by a composite of several closely related but distinct myths about the famuly, myths bound up \withnostagic memory.selective perception, and cultural values concerning what ‘ie correct ‘ypieal, and true about the family (aca Zinn & Litem, 1999), This typical view makes it eificlt or us to consider the diversity inform thats found among families and the complexity of dynamics found within families, When ‘defining the family therefor, we must move beyond the mythological image of the family and address the base or core festes that comprice ll families while not losing sight ofthe diverse structures and dynamics that are found within families ‘The Characteristics of Family Systems In recent years, in an effort to discuss the common features of families while ‘embracing the complenty and diversity found within them, family social scien: lists have come to view the family a: & system. When viewed as 3 system, the family can be defined as complex structure comprised of an interdependent ‘group of individuals who have (1)a shared sense of history, 2) experience sot {degre of emotional bonding, and (3) devised strategies for mesting the needs of individual family members and the group as a whole. Implicit in the use of the ‘system metaphor to define the family ie the view thatthe family i structurally complex, comprised of multiple subsystems; s goal dreted; has commen pur- poses and tasks that mest be fulfilled; and devises strategies for the exection of hese asks "When viewed asa system, the family is defined by two central dimensions its strocture and its fanetions Structure includes both the familys composition and its organization. Composition refers tothe family’s membership, oe simply, the persons who make up the family. The family’s strctarel organization i defined principally by collection of interdependent relationships and subsy= tems that operate by esablished rules of interaction. A familys functions refers primarily to the tasks thatthe family must execute, that i, tasks thatthe family Falls for society and family members alike Structural Properties of Families ‘rom a systems perspective its assumed thet ench family has an orgenizational structure that influences the pattems of interaction found within the family (Minuchin, 1974). Thats, sis assumed thatthe members ofa family system relate ‘art One Defining he Fi to ore another in some consistent fashion and that the system as a whole, is ‘trucured by these felationships. Therefore, structural properties refer to "rules of rebting” and the patterns of iteration within the family, Consider the follow- fing iusteation: ‘Musiration: Judy is @38year-old mater of ree children wh has ben divorced tor nearly 3 years. uy hay Jo a8 a exeatice assistant in @ downtown ounce fir: Her Ores children angen agejrom 7101. Mise, the les iba int grr Im onder for fy to manage her ob, Melisa i responsible or tc ofthe are of hr sister Molly, age, end her brother Tedd ge 7. "Atte star of eh day, Judy oats wpa preperes or her workday While Mom showering and dressing, Meliss was her brother and ss, ges tem resed, prepares relat fr the family, and mks hunch forthe “Ris” to take ‘school. Meliss, Maly nd Todd ea together while Judy hs a cup of fee ‘adios her clothes, pus on her mals-upand ges dressed et. Molly and Tedd (ak with Melisa about the day ahend Thy ask Melisa for hip with the Tamer they di ot fish the ight fore. Only after Jy, Molly, and Td laced does Melisa ethers rudy for shoo. “Tisiusration makes it lear that any effort to understand family dynamics must consider the “rules of relating,” of the unigue pattems of interaction found voit te family In this particular family ystem, parental authority and respon Sibility have been delegated to Melissa by her mother. This arrangement is deter ‘mined, in par by the unique composition of the family and the demands placed {upon it. Because Juda single parent, cannot manage the demands ofthe mom- Jing rsh hour on her own the younger children inthis particular single-parent heeded household interact with Melsea during breakfast as though she were their parent. They know swhom to go to during this time with questions and Concemns. Melissa, in tum, knovrs the boundries of her role and responblites, Sn uy is fee to get here ready for work without worrying about whether her dildren are being properly cared for As «result of the family’s composition and unigue organizational structure, family members relate to, and interact with ‘one nother ins predicable way. Wholeness amy systems ae characterized bythe property of wholeness, thats the family system iv made up of group of individuals who together form a complex and ‘itary whole (Buckley 1967; Whitcharch & Constantine, 19%). The whole is Gistncly different from the simple sum of the contributions of individual mem= bers becuase eat (autly syste i characterized by structural rules of relating that determine how foily members interact with one another. To understand these patterns of interaction, we must go beyond an analysis of the individuals ‘who comprise the system In the above example, we would not be able to under i the uniqueness of ths particular family system simply by knowing @ Chap /The Family asa Sytem {s comprised of a single parent and her thee children or by knowing the individ- ‘ual prsonaltes of each amily member. The uniqueness of his particular family canon be understood through an analysis ofthe structural rules that determine how family members interact with each other. "The property of whdlenes, in other words, suggests that there fs @unique- ness to each family that ean be understood enly by understanding the interac tional ries tha siracture the system. Knowing who iin the eystonn important because the composition ofthe family places demands upon the system and influences interactional pattems. At the same time an analysis ofthe uniqueness of each system requires that we consider what joins the individuals within the system together. It isthe rules of relating that join the members ofthe sytem together When these rules become ur focus, it becomes apparent thatthe system fs greater than the eum oie parts Organizational Complexity ‘The teen organizational complexity refer to the fact that family systems ae ompried of varius smaller aor subeystems which together comprise te Inge fom ystem (vinci 197). Each indivi fry ember ean be thought of a4 subsystem, Siar abet canbe opased by gender srt he males inthe aly comprising oe sbeysem end te females comps Ing another or eich generation can Be thovght of ss subsystem wii he ‘whole: When conidcng submystene in feof generation, tne primary ‘ys ar generally emphasized. These nude te mare, prea "Sling sbspsea: Exch of thw suber i dstingunhed by te omy ‘ember who comprise tem swells by the pray he peor by enc ‘The mark subsystem fr example teaches chin abou he ate tate ‘stonshpe and provides mel of wansecons been men ad women The Parental syste is involved with ld ee and serves uch uncon ‘ourng gstdanceeoieston and conto Wives and hasbende tay come Pith pret! sey, oct, sucha grandparents or elder ckcen Tiny be involved. The sling sbsyte is pcly te c's fst peer group {nd fers opportunities for lesming patterns negation cooperation conpe- ‘ton and personal iseure “The tasks performed by each of these diferent subst wil be covered in reser dtl in ner chupers For now its portent fo emphasise tat the foncept of ongizatonlcomplosty adres the ergniaton ofthe amy syste as ale and therestncp between he whole and its vatousbeye tee. The operation and sectvees ofthe whole spe ivuencd by te putin at eflecivenes ef each the eubeetone Interdependence Implicit in th discussion of the structural dimension of a system isthe ie that individuals and subsystems that comprise the whole system are matvally de- 6 Port One Denia the Fi pendent and mutually ifiuenced by one another (Von Bertlanty 1975; Whiteuzch& Constantine, 19), This mal dependence and influence speaks tothe iferdependencs among thesysen's member Inthe context of the family "stem, even factors tat appear to nfence only ane person within the fay Ihave an impact on everyone, Similaya change in ome part of the fal system reverbratestronghout he rst ofthe sytem “Tce, for example, the developmental changes that accompany’ adolescence. Adolescente ned 6 etablish that own identity they prepare to ake coms” Inents to edult roles and responses, While these developmental demands Inay appear to have consequences ony forthe adolescent they affect the ene family system. The incressed autonomy required by adolescents, for example ecestites changes inthe patent subsystem. Parents or other caretakers will have to adjust how they control ther adolescents ust as the adolescents will have to hange how much they depend on thls patents and sigpificant others At the ‘me tine the poten or coeakers changing relationship with hee adolescent {ay have an effect on the marital elatonship snd other relationships within the Family Therefore, what appears se change fr ane fly member in real has { reveberating eect on te entre system “Te concepts of wholeness, organizational complet, and interdependence encourage us o be aware of he many factors that potenally affect how a system pert Inthe conten ii important to note thatthe family system is simply he ubsystem within broader comumuniy and societal systems The soc, o- lial economic educational, and ethical agendas ofthese brosder soca systems sho havea reverberating impect on the fail sytem and he inaviduls within the family, n olher wor, bot amily ysterm dynam and functioning wil be ‘fected by the characterises and functioning of these larger socal syste 1al Properties of Systems “The functional properties of systems all relate to how the famuly performs the tasks raceseary to achieve its goals. For example, the family functions for society by taking responsibilty for the socialization of family member. The family also function for ite members by helping to provide for their physical, socal and ‘ematienal needs. Goals All sytems are goal-directed (Von Bertalanty, 1975; Whitchurch & Constantine, 4983) that i, they have a purpose for which they were designed. The primary {goal 0 the family system isto insure is own survival A secondary goal of the {amily system isto promote the growth and development of the family and its individual members. Ite assumed that all systems are designed to operate in ‘ways that maximize the potential to accomplish these goals. Ofcourse, some Famlie are more successful than others in accomplishing these goals. One way ape 1 ne vy pte to determine the family’s sucess at accomplishing its primary goals is to examine the extent to which the family is able to carey ut is base tasks saccesfly. Tasks One ofthe key defining features ofthe family system is the tasks that st must ‘sccomplish (Hess Handel, 1985; Kantor & Leh, 1973). These tasks are generic {the sense that all amulae can be thought of as having to exec these take regards oftheir partculr structure, While these taske are quite diverse, they can be placed into four major categories: (1) identity tasks, 2) boundary tasks, {@) maintenance tasks, and () nurturing tasks. “Hdntty Tasks. families must facilitate the development ofa sense ofdentty ‘both for individual family members and the femily at a whole. In this regard, there are thre interrelated identity tasks that family systems must execte, Spe.

You might also like