Family Functioning: The General Living Systems Research Model

295 Pages·2002·3.47 MB·English

by  John J. Schwab, Helen M. Gray-Ice, Florence R. Prentice (auth.)

Family Functioning
The General Living Systems
Research Model
CRITICAL ISSUES IN PSYCHIATRY
An Educational Series forResidents and Clinicians
Recent volumes in the series:
ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice
Yifrab Kaminer, M.D.
CASE STUDIES IN INSOMNIA
Edited by Peter J. Hauri, Ph.D.
CHILD AND ADULT DEVELOPMENT: A Psychoanalytic Introduction for Clinicians
Calvin A. Colarusso, M.D.
CLINICAL DISORDERS OF MEMORY
Aman U. Khan, M.D.
CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH LESBIANS AND
GAY MEN
Edited by Terry S. Stein, M.D., and Carol J. Cohen, M.D.
DECIPHERING MOTIVATION IN PSYCHOTHERAPY
David M. Allen, M.D.
ETHNIC PSYCHIATRY
Edited by Charles B. Wilkinson, M.D.
EVALUATING FAMILY MENTAL HEALTH: History, Epidemiology, and Treatment
Issues
John J. Schwab, M.D., Judith J. Stephenson, S.M., and John F. Ice, M.D.
EVALUATION OF THE PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT: A Primer
Seymour L. Hallek, M.D.
FAMILY FUNCTIONING: The General Living Systems Research Model
John J. Schwab, M.D., Helen Gray-Ice, M.D., and Florence R. Prentice, Ph.D.
THE FREEDOM OF THE SELF: The Bio-Existential Treatment of Character Problems
Eugene M. Abroms, M.D.
HANDBOOK OF BEHAVIOR THERAPY IN THE PSYCHIATRIC SETTING
Edited by Alan S. Bellack, Ph.D., and Michel Hersen, Ph.D.
RESEARCH IN PSYCHIATRY Issues, Strategies, and Methods
Edited by L. K. George Hsu, M.D., and Michel Hersen, Ph.D.
SEXUAL LIFE: A Clinician’s Guide
Stephen B. Levine, M.D.
STATES OF MIND: Configurational Analysis of Individual Psychology, Second Edition
Mardi J. Horowitz, M.D.
A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new
volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further informa-
tion please contact the publisher.
Family Functioning
The General Living Systems
Research Model
John J. Schwab
Helen M. Gray-Ice
Florence R. Prentice
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW
eBook ISBN: 0-306-47191-4
Print ISBN: 0-306-46396-2
©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers
New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow
All rights reserved
No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher
Created in the United States of America
Visit Kluwer Online at: http://www.kluweronline.com
and Kluwer's eBookstore at: http://www.ebooks.kluweronline.com
FOREWORD
The family, that most fundamentalof human groups, is currently perceived
to be changing in response to social, biological, cultural and technological
developments in our postmodernsociety. While the observed changes in
families have been considered by some sociologists to be evidence of
adaptation and, therefore, normal, the authors oft his volume, consider them
maladaptive. Viewing society from the point of view of clinical psychiatry,
they point to greatly increased numbers of children born to single mothers,
soaring rates of divorce, a statistically confirmed increase in mental
disorders, increase in reported incest, high rates of depression in younger
people and escalation of the amount of reported family violence as evidence
that the family, as a social institution, is in crisis and can either move toward
renewed vitality or continued deterioration.
Perceiving a need to obtain information about family functioning that
might lead to the increased stability and well-being of this critically
important type of system, Dr. John Schwab and his associates designed and
camed out a research program that began with a thorough review of relevant
literature beginning with LePlay’s study of 300 families in the 1850’s and
including important recent statistical studies. They found that although
these studies represent advances in understanding the family system, some
serious problems with the research remain, one of which is confounding
variables such as family function and mental or substance abuse disorders so
that if a family member has a problem, such as drug abuse, the family is
classifiedasdysfunctional.
The research program reported here began in the early 1980’s when so
many people with family problems were treated at the clinic that it aroused
concern about the well-being of the family as a social institution. Previous
studies, although they had supplied valuable data about the frequency,
distribution, and correlates of mental disorders, had focused upon individual
patients and had not evaluated dynamic group factors. The focus here is on
the family group; its mental health and well-being as its members interact in
everydaylife.
A variety of methodological approaches were used, including a model,
the general living systems (GLS) and Assessment Instrument, the Bell and
Schwab family functioning instrument (the GLS), which was developed for
use in this research. It is based upon our living systems theory, which
identifies 19 subsystems essential at each of seven levels of living systems.
v
vi
Living systems theory has been applied in research, therapy, or planning in
many different kinds of living systems including organizations like hospitals
and military units and in individual psychotherapy. In this research, the
GLS instrument was found to be effective in identifying patterns of family
interaction, helping family members to think about aspects of their
relationship that they had not considered pertinent and stimulating thoughts
about problem solving. It proved to be nonthreatening, to aid in identifying
strengths as well as problems in families and to be liked by family members.
It also avoided the circularity of the functioning-illness tautology that often
limits approaches to the serious problem of the association between family
functioning and mental illness or substance abuse.
This book should interest not only psychiatrists and other clinical
personnel working with families, but academic psychologists and
sociologists, social workers, systems theorists and researchers, and others
concerned with problems at the levels of the family, and the community, and
the society.
James GrierMiller and
Jessie LuthiMiller
PREFACE
About 2300 years ago, Aristotle (1952) defined the family as the basic social
unit and described its socialfunctions. Two millennia later Rousseau (1 763)
declared that it was the only natural institution, and through the ages, the
pivotal importance of the family in society has been confirmed by the
reciprocal effects of individual--family--community interactions. Those
interactions determine the soundness or malaise of each of the three levels
of biosocial organization and thus influence individuals’ character formation
and personality development, the integrity of the family unit and its
functioning, and societal well-being.
The major reasons for our studying the family stem from the need to
obtain information about its functioning that might lead to its increased
stability and well-being. For almost 75 years, from the time of Ogburn,
Burgess, Locke and their colleagues’ work in the 1920s-1940s to Skolnick’s
in 1991, the debilitating effects of the increasing marital and family
instability throughout this century have often been both discounted and
rationalized despite the cries of distress from family members in broken
homes, some schoolteachers, a few of the clergy, and a handful of family
scholars.
We cannot regard the changes occurring in the family as just being in
accord with the rapid rate of social change during the past century, as many
have argued. Instead of seeing the changes as adaptive, we think they are
maladaptive. For five reasons, we need to acknowledge that the family is
now in a crisis, at a turning point toward either vitality or debilitation.
The first is that the status and fate of the family are inextricably tied to
the health of the state and the well-being of its citizens. That fundamental
truth was observed by the philosophers of ancient Greece, confirmed by
political philosophers and other scholars many times since, and reaffirmed
since LePlay’s (Silver, 1982) pioneering investigations during the mid-19th
century (see Chapter 11). The record of history reveals that changes in the
family, such as those that have been taking place in the USA in this century,
are painfully analogous and, in many ways, similar to those that occurred in
classical Greece after the Peloponnesian War and continued during the two
centuries of its decline from about 400 BC to 200 BC. Also, before the
“Fall of Rome”, the centuries-old Roman family became increasingly
decadent. During the 2nd and 4th centuries AD, multiple divorces and
various forms of marriage (traditional marriage dignitas, the less binding
marriage concubinitas, etc.) became common, similar to what is now
vii
viii
occurring in the USA (conventional marriage, covenant marriages, domestic
partners, etc.). What do those parallel situations signify?
The second is the extent of suffering so often produced by divorce and
the pathologies associated with broken homes, especially the plight of the
children who receive inadequate parenting and care. Perhaps most
important, we do not know the long-term effects of the extensive family
disruption on character formation and personality development. Already,
the wide-scale blaming of others, litigation, and unwillingness to assume
responsibility that threaten to become national characteristics (“the nation of
cry-babies”) reflect changes in ideals and character in the 150 years since
Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” (18 44).
Third, the antifamilism of the past few decades has become extreme. On
June 1, 1999, newspapers reported that “US quits gathering marriage,
divorce stats” (Peterson, 1999). Budget cuts have led the National Center for
Health Statistics (NCHS)to discontinue gathering detailed data annually on
marriages and divorces. Moreover, the short form of the 2000 Census that
80% of Americans will receive will not even ask about marital status.
Family researchers, demographers, sociologists, and others are reacting
with alarm to this dramatic development. Although a selected 16 million
Americans will receive the long census form that requests detailed
information, projections from that 20% of the population are bound to be
inadequate, especially in view of the unprecedented extent of marital and
family flux. Diane Solles, a family therapist who emphasizes “smart
marriages, happy families,” responded: “the message is that nobody cares
anymore” (Peterson, 1999, “Defenders”, A4)
The demographer Andrew Cherlin at Johns Hopkins University stated
that this change “handicaps my ability to give useful information”, and
Theodora Ooms from the Resource Center on Couples and Marriage Policy
stated that “the feds are cutting back on what they tell us, and it is frustrationg
to those of us who are trying to understand what is happening.” A
University of Chicago sociologist asked how social scientists can tell “What
divorce means to kids if you don’t know how many kids (affected by
divorce) there are, the ages and education of their parents, income, the very
most fundamental pieces ofi nformation” (Peterson, 1999, A4).
David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values,
declared that the budgetary cutbacks “tell us something about the values in
our society.” Governor Frank Keating who has been trying to reduce the
Oklahoma divorce rate by one-third by 2010, stated: “In my state it is easier
to get out of a marriage contract with kids than a Tupperware contract”
(Peterson, 1999, “Defenders”, A4).
Although anti-government groups look at the reduction of data as a step
that helps to ensure “privacy” for families, the issues of values are obviously
paramount. At this time, limiting information about marriage and divorce
can only be harmful to families. Its consequences are bound to be
ix
antifamilistic, and “giving up” the need for the data appears to be sending a
“giving up” message about family stability and well-being. Columnist Mike
Manius responded: “There are federal employees counting the number of
California red-legged frogs, and coffin cave mold beetles--two endangered
species--but no one counts divorce.” (Peterson, 1999, A4)
The fourth is concern about the apparent increased frequency of mental
disorders, many of which, genetically and socially, are products of family
life. They need to be seen in a social psychiatric perspective. Will
borderline personality disorder become epidemic? What does the
efflorescence of multiple personality disorder and addictive disorders
represent? Portend? Is their prominence during the past few decades
reflecting our “borderline” society with the relative neglect of its children
and unwillingness to accept that ”the health of nations is more important
than the wealth of nations” (Durant, 1990)? Although the meaning and the
consequences of the prevalent marital and family disruption are being
variously interpreted, the harsh statistics about its related pathologies-
medical, psychiatric, and social--cannot be rationalized or dismissed.
Finally, ”the mental health function” of marriage and family life cannot
be ignored. Although the family is being subjected to immense stress,
especially the all-too-pressing financial problems, the weakening of supports
associated with the disintegration of the community, and the shifting ideals
and practices inherent to a consumer-driven society, as an institution the
family has had remarkable endurance. For most persons it gives life
meaning and purpose and has often sustained its members “for better or for
worse, in sickness and in health.” Its mental health functions have long
promoted well-being and hope and have been a refuge against despair.
Studies of family functioning, therefore, need to focus on family health and
well-being as well as dysfunctions and pathologies in order to learn more
about how the mental hygiene functions of marriage and family can be
enhanced.
In Chapter 1, we discuss the extreme instability of the family and
concern about the prevalence of pathologies and problems in our rapidly
changing society. Many family scholars and therapists and some social
critics blame them on our so-called dysfunctional families, but seldom
define function/dysfunction even while they castigate the “dysfunctional
family” of the mentally ill, the alcohol and drug abusers, and the delinquent
and criminal. Moreover, tautologies are commonplace; for example, one’s
having an “alcohol problem” is irrefutable evidence per se that his or her
family was dysfunctional. Therefore, we have focused our research on the
controversial concept of family function/dysfunction
In Chapter 2, we review the history of family function/dysfunction and
cite related research from the English studies of a century ago and the early
USA studies up to the present. We emphasize the need for definitions, if not
rigor, and then, in Chapter 3, we supply a summary of the theoretical
x
background for the development of our General Living Systems (GLS)
Family Functioning Model and theory-based assessment instrument.
In Chapter 4, after presenting a brief summary of our previous, but
related, epidemiologic research with families in the community, we describe
our current study. In Chapter 5, we discuss the results of our comprehensive
interviews in the homes of a systematically selected random sample of 19
families fiom the community (Study I). We look carefully at the
associations between family functioning and mental health/illness
symptomatology and behaviors. Our evaluations clarified some of the
associations between levels of family functioning and both
sociodemographic factors and family members’ symptomatic/asymptomatic
statuses. Also, we identified the critical subsystems involved with family
function/dysfunction
In Chapter 6, we report the extended use of the GLS Family Functioning
Assessment Instrument with two more groups of families: 7 families with a
child or adolescent in treatment at our Bingham Child Guidance Clinic and
8 matched neighborhood controls (Study 11). Then, we pool the pertinent
data on Study I and Study II and, in Chapter 7, summarize the results and
present an example of the clinical analysis of each subsystem’s functioning
as an independent variable and family health and well-being as the
dependentvariable.
Our evaluations of the families included data on stressful life events,
chronic stressors, and families’ scores on the Moos and Moos (1981) self-
report Family Environment Scale (FES). We were especially interested in
the comparisons of the self-report data on the FES with our observer-based
data gathered while rating the videotapes of the families as they were being
given the new GLS Family Functioning Assessment Instrument.
In Chapter 8, we conclude with a critique of the research, include notes
about the observers’ ratings, and offer some suggestions for shortening and,
we hope, improving the Assessment Instrument. We discuss the clinical
utility of the research, especially the use of the assessment instrument, and
add a few suggestions for future research.
We consider ourselves fortunate to have had valuable and, at times,
seemingly indefatigable assistance from a number of friends and colleagues.
Ms. Heddy Rubinand Ms. Anne Bickel devoted many “work and overwork”
hours to the numerous preliminary drafts of the manuscript. During the past
few years, Ms. Linda Johnson has helped us with both the tedious library
and reference work and the preparation of the final draft. We extend our
heartfelt gratitude to them.
Two of our colleagues were especially helpful. Professor Roger A. Bell
worked closely with us in the early phases of the research and is a co-
developer of the GLS Family Functioning Assessment Instrument.
Professor David Teller gave us important necessary methodological and
statistical advice and, at times, did a lot of the burdensome “hands-on”