Chapter 2

THE ECOLOGY OF FAMILIES

A Systems/Developmental Perspective

The 19th-century philosopher and psychologist William James (1890/1981) described the infant's perceptual world as "a great blooming, buzzing confusion." This particular metaphor is often used to describe one's initial encounter with the immediacy of a rather complex, daunting, and variegated experiential world. Such encounters can be overwhelming, thus compelling one to strive to attain some per­ ceptual, descriptive, and explanatory clarity of that world. Describing a family therapist's work with a family as an encounter with the "blooming, buzzing con­ fusion" of family life may represent a rather exaggerated application of this metaphor. Nonetheless it speaks to the therapist's sometimes frustrating efforts to understand the complex dynamics of family interactions. More important, it is often the family members' inability to understand and cope with the confusing complexities of their family life that brings them to the family therapist.

While this book presents a range of clinical models that render coherence and guidance to clinical interventions with families, this chapter will focus on a broader and more generic view of the family. In this chapter we will begin our discussion by posing the question "What is a family?" We will see that this ques­ tion defies a simple answer, as there is great variation among contemporary fami­ lies in terms oftheir structure, composition, and cultural and ideological lifestyles.

Though the focus of family therapy interventions is on the relational dynamics within a particular family, a family therapist cannot ignore the expectations society places on families as a social institution. In addition to fulfilling a variety of func­ tions for individual family members, the family, as a social institution, fulfills a variety of functions for society. As a family therapist understands societal expectations

45

46 I N T RO D U CT I O N A N D BA C K G RO U N D

for families then, she or he can better understand the possible stress experienced by the family as it attempts to fulfill those functions. The therapist can better understand and even witness the consequences when the family fails to perform those social expectations. These "consequences" may appear in the form of "pre­ senting problems" requiring family therapy intervention. We shall discuss later in this chapter that, when a family therapist sees families in trouble, the therapist must also give attention to the family's ecological context. By viewing the family from this broader perspective the therapist will be able to assess the extent to which there are sufficient social resources and supports needed by that family to fulfill its societal obligations.

We will then tum our attention to discussing the characteristics offamilies in terms of how they are structured and how they function. The family is not just a collection of individuals. Families are interactional systems involving a network of interrelated and interdependent relationships. This interactional system has a level of complexity that gives the family a particular organizational structure. It is this unique character­ istic of families that shapes how families function in performing their tasks.

The family as an interactional system is not a static entity. Families exist within the context of space and time and are impacted by the existential realities of birth, growth, and death. In addition, families can be profoundly impacted by other con­ tingencies of life including political, social, and economic events as well as nat­ ural disasters. Understanding the complexities of family life involves confronting the developmental and nondevelopmental changes that families experience as they navigate through their unique life cycle. It is these changes that can produce vary­ ing amounts of stress affecting both the family as an entity and all members. These stressors require that the family rely on an array ofpsychosocial resources to cope with and adapt to these developmental and nondevelopmental life events, while maintaining its responsibilities to its members and fulfilling its role and function as a social institution.

As we examine the above topics we will draw upon concepts derived from eco­ logical, systems, and life cycle theories. These theoretical perspectives represent key generic domains (Falicov, 1998) in which we can gain an understanding of the realities of family life. Many postmodern and feminist family therapy theorists question the adequacy of an ecological and systems perspective for addressing issues of social justice, sexism, and racism in family therapy practice (Franklin, Hopson, & Ten Barge, 2003). The empirical basis for systems-based theories has also been questioned (Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). We main­ tain the position that despite these critiques, ecological and systems theories remain as powerful theoretical frameworks for understanding the structure and functioning of the family and families' interaction with their broader social environment. Our stance is not to reject systems-based perspectives. We suggest

The Ecology of Families 47

that in practice, many family therapists use a combination of theories including traditional as well as postmodern. We would agree with Franklin and Jordan (2002) that a systems-informed integrative and technical eclectic perspective is the preferred approach in practicing family therapy. The application of a systems perspective can inform and guide assessment and intervention with families regardless of theoretical perspective.

From a broader ecological perspective the family as a system is nested in larger social, economic, and political systems. These systems may or may not support the family's efforts to discharge its social role as well as meet the needs of its members. These systems or environments may pose limitations and constraints as well as pos­ sibilities and opportunities for families (Bubotz & Sontag, 1993). It may be those limitations or constraints that bring a family to therapy, and it may be those possi­ bilities that can be mobilized to support the family in its problem-solving efforts.

An ecological, systems, and developmental perspective enables us to understand that families as systems are challenged to attend to several key tasks. In the first task the family must establish a clear identity for itself as a whole and for each indi­ vidual member. Second, a family must develop strategies for the execution of its social responsibilities. The third task is that a family must develop clearly defined boundaries between the family and the outside world and between individual members within the family. The fourth task is that a family must manage the family household (allocate chores, handle finances, solve problems, etc.). In the final task a family must create a warm and nurturing emotional environment, while respond­ ing to the developmental and nondevelopmental stresses encountered over time (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003). The extent to which a family is systemically capable in addressing these tasks indicates the family's level of functioning as a system.

THE CHANGING FAMILY

It is generally a well-accepted premise that the family is the most basic and endur­ ing ofhuman institutions. Families are found in some form or another in every cul­ ture and/or society, and most people begin their lives within families. The significance of the family is profound in its impact on human behavior. It is also generally accepted that our personality is profoundly shaped by our experiences in our family of origin (parents, siblings, and extended family). In our most forma­ tive experiences as humans, the family is the most unique of human groupings. Families give initial shape to our identity and place in the world.

Though we can agree on the general importance of families and its endurance as a social institution, the family as an institution has taken on different permutations throughout human history. For example, the large family of the early American

48 I N TR O D U CT I O N A N D BA C KG R O U N D

Western frontier is different from the family in today's urban and suburban com­ munities. The Western frontier family was likely a self-sufficient economic unit with each member contributing to production. By comparison the economic via­ bility ofthe contemporary (urban and suburban) family unit is more than likely sup­ ported by family members working outside the family unit. Even families in today's rural America differ from the (typically) large family ofthe early American Western frontier, in that today's rural American families may have members of the house­ hold working outside of the home. Another important difference in today's urban family (more so than rural and/or suburban families) is (especially in large metro­ politan areas) a diversity of cultural family life that is encased in rich and enduring ethnic and cultural traditions.

As we attempt to define what a family is we may likely find ourselves confronted with different images, different structures, and different cultural and ethnic practices. We might initially be prone to rely on the definition of a family given by the U.S. Census Bureau (2008): "A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such persons (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family." In spite of the "apparent" inclusiveness of this definition, a specific image or concept comes to mind. This image is that of the nuclear family in which a married heterosexual couple resides with its biological children. For many who grapple with the task ofdefining the family, one wonders if this definition of family life truly represents today's family structure. That is, do these definitions and images of the (nuclear) family capture the increasing complexities of contemporary American family life? Crawford (1999) gives us an answer to this question:

Society's definition of "family" is rapidly expanding and has come to include single parents, biracial couples, blended families, unrelated individuals liv­ ing cooperatively, and homosexual couples, among others. Unfortunately, family policy has been slow to catch up to changing trends in modern lifestyles. (p. 271)

Crawford's statement speaks to emerging trends in family life that challenge the notion of the traditional and/or nuclear family. There are increasing variations in contemporary family structures including single-parent families, stepfamilies, blended families, gay and lesbian families, foster and adoptive families, biracial families, reconstituted families, fictive kinship families, and nonlegal ( cohabita­ tion) relationships, all of which function as families. Data supporting these trends are reflected in the U.S. Census Bureau report America's Families and Living Arrangement (Fields & Casper, 2000):

The Ecology of Families 49

• In 2000 there was a decline in the proportion of households with biological children under the age of 18. This fact represents an overall decline in these types of households and family size from 1970.

• Households with biological children dropped from 45% in 1970 to 35% in 1990 and then to 33% in 2000. Such decline was attributed to changes in fer­ tility, marriage and divorce rates, and mortality.

• Other findings revealed that single mothers increased from 3 million in 1970 to 10 million in 2000.

• The number of single fathers grew from 393,000 to 2 million in the same period.

• In 2000 there were 3.8 million households classified as unmarried-partner households. This number, representing 3.7% of all households, may actually underrepresent the true number of cohabiting couples, primarily because of possible reluctance to identify themselves as such to interviewers. Rather than classifying a cohabitation relationship, terms such as roommates, housemates, or friends not related to each other might be used.

~-.,•.·…,…~.., ~l….~ ;,;…~,<M- ,, J

tUI

Photo 2.1 As the contemporary family has changed from the traditional nuclear family structure, single fathers have assumed greater child-rearing responsibilities

Source: ©Jochen Sand/Digital Vision/Thinkstock

50 I N T RO D U CT I O N A N D BA C KG RO U N D

Such data might suggest that there are possible changes in social attitudes toward what is considered to be a family. It may appear that what was once thought of as a deviant and controversial family form such as single parenthood is more acceptable and "tolerated" in today's society.

The diversity of family structures is presented by Goldenberg and Goldenberg (2002) as they describe a contemporary scenario of a person after leaving his family of origin. As we follow this person thorough the trajectory of his future relationships we might witness the following. This person may live alone or with a roommate of the same sex. Later he may cohabit with an adult of the opposite sex, perhaps marry, have children (in or out of wedlock), get divorced, live alone again or with a lover of the same or opposite sex, become a stepparent, perhaps become widowed or divorced a second time, marry for a third time, and so forth. Though this example is not the norm, it is not necessarily an exception for indi­ viduals in contemporary society. The fluidity of relationship arrangements repre­ sents a significant number of individuals who may move through different family forms and structures during their adult years.

Even considering these emerging and increasingly socially acceptable ( or at least "tolerated") family forms and structures, it is not uncommon to hear state­ ments about the status ofcontemporary family life and the seeming "decline ofthe family." Furthermore, some view this "decline" as a contributing factor (if not causally linked) to an array of social problems. Social concerns such as poverty, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and juvenile delinquency are often laid at the threshold of these emerging family forms.

These social problems are seen as indicators of contemporary social and moral decline and are attributed to the erosion and decline of the traditional family. What is often not stated, yet implicit in these concerns, is that the family as an institution is not declining but the traditional and/or nuclear family is not the prominent or the dominant family structure. Without question the traditional family is considered as the family structure in which there is clarity of purpose, values, and role expectations along gender and age. The traditional family struc­ ture is further viewed as congruent with prevailing social norms. Finally, and most important, to those who raise concerns about the status of contemporary family, the stable "traditional" family contributes to social cohesion, social sta­ bility, and social well-being.

The increase in single-parent families, the increase in divorce rates, and the call for the legalization of gay marriage are considered (by those who are ringing the death knell of the traditional family) as being the cause of the moral and social decline. Those who decry the disappearance of the traditional or nuclear family and those who cry for the emergence of family values as a basis for public policy

The Ecology of Families 51

and national politics tend to speak in one voice. According to them, the family is under a death watch, if not already buried.

The Myth of the Declining Family

Do we have reason to be concerned about the so-called demise of the family? Skolnick and Skolnick (2003) challenge the notion of the singular family struc­ ture. In other words, to speak of the demise of the family conceals the assumption that there is only one singular family form. Therefore if that particular family form is on the decline then all families are on the decline. This logic is called into ques­ tion in that the family as a social unit as found throughout human society varies in organization, membership, life cycles, emotional environments, ideologies, social and kinship networks, and economic and other functions. There is no one singular family structure to be found in human society.

Skolnick and Skolnick (2003) also point out that there are other assumptions about the history of the family. These assumptions imply that the family structure, in this case the traditional or nuclear image, of the past was more functional than contemporary families. As the family historian Demos (1976) points out in his studies, there is no historical "Golden Age" of the family and clearly no reason to justify that current trends indicate a decline or possible extinction of the family. For example, in previous historical periods people might have either stayed in loveless marriages or just left ("deserted") because divorce was highly stigma­ tized. Such desertions might have preserved the existence of a traditional family as a legal entity but rendered a family unable to give attention to the emotional well-being of its members. Stephanie Coontz (1991), another family historian, points out we may be victims ofa nostalgic and idealistic image of family in which there is a clear definition of gender roles and responsibilities.

Our sense ofnostalgia is further shattered as Skolnick (1991) questions whether the image of the traditional or nuclear family or the breadwinner-and-housewife form of family life is really a historical, viable, and realistic portrayal of the model family structure. This form, which emerged in the late 19th century and repro­ duced through the public media in the 1950s through such television programs as The Adventures ofOzzie and Harriet, The Donna Reed Show, Father Knows Best, and Leave It to Beaver, was far from traditional according to Heiner (2002) and Skolnick (1991). These television families usually consisted of a married couple with a clear division of roles and responsibilities based on gender. The father worked from 9 to 5, and the mother worked inside the home as the homemaker and nurturer. When the father came home he took charge of the family. It was this family structure that was projected as the normative family form.

52 I N T RO D U CT I O N A N D BA C KG RO U N D

According to Coontz (2003) this traditional family of the 1950s was a qualita­ tively new phenomenon as prior to the 1950s the historic trend had been rising divorce rates, falling birthrates, and a later age for marriage. To a great extent the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s resulted in increased incidents of domestic violence. Divorce rates fell, but informal separa­ tions soared, along with families that were being uprooted or torn apart. The imme­ diate post-World War II years, in many ways, further contributed to increased domestic strife as many women resented being fired from their wartime jobs when the soldiers returned. Men who in many cases had been away from their families for extended periods due to military duty found themselves on the margins of family life when they returned. Reintegration into their families was not always an easy task. With the beginning ofeconomic recovery following World War II, people were eager to create a family life that could truly be a haven from the tumultuous period ofthe Depression and World War II. The 1950s images of family life became this haven. What occurred was that this image of family of the 1950s represented in the minds of many a picture of how families were supposed to be rather than what families really were (Coontz, 2003). This image of family life became entrenched in the public consciousness as the normative family structure.

While the 1950s construction of the family represented the ideal, the reality was that this family model represented middle- and upper-middle-class White families who could afford such lifestyles. Working-class White, Native, African American, Latino, and Asian families were rendered invisible in the media. Families from Central and Eastern Europe were also ignored as representative images of family life. Furthermore, issues ofsocial inequality based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, along with family issues including marital strife, domestic violence, and child physical and sexual abuse, though present, had not emerged in the public conscious­ ness as social and family problems. Yet many still wax nostalgically for the families of the '50s, even though it was an idealized family form that was brought about by a unique set of historical conditions. It was a model that ignored the realities of the life of many families, and was a model inaccessible to millions ofpoor families (Heiner, 2002). From this discussion we might conclude that part of the problem in trying to prognosticate the future of the family is how we construct or define a family.

A Working Definition of the Family

What general understanding of family life might be important to a family thera­ pist? Returning to our earlier discussion on the definition of the family, Fitzpatrick and Wamboldt (1990) suggest that a family can be defined using three different cri­ teria either in combination or as singular definitions. For instance, when family membership is determined by a biological and legal kinship relationship the criterion

The Ecology of Families 53

is physical. When a family is defined by the tasks it is to perform for its members the criterion is functional. The third criterion is relational or more specifically the quality of the relationships within a particular unit called a "family."

Both the physical and functional criteria can be contested due to their inadequacy in capturing what can be considered by some as constituting family and family rela­ tionships. For example, in certain ethnic communities, such as the African American community, nonbiologically related persons may be considered as part of a given family system. Though the term fictive kin is used to describe this form of family relationship, the sociological origin of this term fails to describe the sense of emo­ tional bonding that may characterize kinship based on "fictive" family relationships. The functional criterion does address the fact that families have an array of social and intrafamilial expectations and obligations regarding care of members. Yet there are indicators that in some families these functions cannot be discharged because of a lack of resources and/or social supports. Can this family still be a family? Relying on this "functional" criterion alone then becomes problematic for determining whether a particular "family" unit is functioning as a family.

The relational criterion is what makes families distinct from other groups (Yerby, Buerkel-Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1995). Whereas other groups are based to some extent on voluntary associations, family membership is nonvolitional and cannot be dissolved regardless ofthe quality of interactions. The level ofcommitment and inti­ macy further distinguishes family groups from other groups. It is this criterion that is important for family therapists. It is this relational criterion that is the basis for understanding the family as an interactional system that covers a variety of relation­ ships within families. Such relationships include meaningful sexual relationships, the parent-child relationship, permanent and long-lasting relationships, intimate relationships, and legal and nonlegal relationships (Longress, 2000).

Anderson and Sabatelli (2003) offer a compelling definition of the family for an ecological and systems-oriented family therapist. They understand a family as a complex structure consisting of an interdependent group of individuals who have a shared sense of history, who have experienced some degree of emotional bond­ ing, and who have devised strategies for meeting the needs of the individual members and the group as a whole. This definition makes it clear that there is no monolithic or essentialist definition of a family as there is an array of structural variations. The family is structurally complex and is more than a singular legal definition or a given family composition, structure, or kinship relationship. From a clinical and what might be considered a pragmatic perspective, the focus for therapy is what a family does in terms offulfilling its tasks and how the family is systemically organized to accomplish its tasks. Searching for definitional clarity for "What is a family?" will be a challenge as the family continues to morph into different and diverse structures. It is these diverse family structures that present

54 I N TR O D U CT I O N A N D BA C KG RO U N D

themselves to the family therapist. It is these diverse family structures that strug­ gle to attain problem-free interactions among family members.

THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF FAMILIES

Regardless of the variety of family structures, the family is viewed as having the primary functions of socialization and the protection of the health and well-being of the child, if children are a part of the family composition. As the transmitter of culture, traditions, values, and language the family also assumes a mediating role between the individual family member and society. In carrying out these roles the family is seen as having the following four central functions: establishing family membership and family formation; providing economic resources for the family members; providing for the nurturance, education, and socialization of the depen­ dent family members; and protecting its vulnerable members. In this mediating role the family fulfills these important functions for the individual members and society (see Table 2.1 ). If families are successful in fulfilling these functions

NffinM■ Primary Function of the Family for Individual Members and for Society

F amity Function Individual Family Members Society

Membership and family formation

Provides a sense of belonging

Provides personal and social identity

Provides meaning and direction for life

Controls reproductive functions

Ensures continuance of the species

Economic Provides for basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing and other resources to enhance human development

Contributes to healthy development ofmembers who are becoming contributing members of society (and who need fewer public resources)

Nurturance, education, and socialization

Provides for the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual development of children and adults

Instills social values and norms

Prepares and socializes children for protective adult roles

Supports adults in being productive members of society

Controls antisocial behavior and protects society from harm

Protection of vulnerable members

Provides protective care and support for young, ill, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable members

Minimizes public responsibility for care of vulnerable, dependent individuals

Source: Adapted from Patterson (2002).

The Ecology of Families 55

society benefits. When families fail then society bears the cost of the family's fail- ure. Conversely when society fails the family becomes the cause. Families have an awesome responsibility, and society gives these responsibilities to the family. The issue becomes whether there is societal support for the family in carrying out these responsibilities.

We can see that as families carry out a broader social mandate, they are embed­ ded in a much broader social context and are inextricably interconnected with these larger, more expansive social systems. Families are not islands unto themselves but are involved in multiple transactions with other systems within their environment or niche (Auerswald, 1968; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Germain & Gitterman, 1996). As we discussed how the emergence of family therapy represented a paradigm shift from the autonomous self to the relational self, the ecological perspective shifts our understanding of families as being isolated, autonomous, and independent social units to being a relational system that is dynamically interconnected with other social systems. These systems constitute the social ecological context in which the family is embedded Within this context are institutions that specifically assist the family in performing its function. For example, medical services, day care centers, parent training programs, schools, law enforcement agencies, governmental income maintenance policies, and other institutions important to family functioning are located within the ecological space of families.

A family's social ecology includes four levels or systems, each of which is nested in a larger system. These four levels are known as the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979, 1986). The first system level or microsystem is the individual and those within his or her immediate life space. For children the microsystem includes family, peers, school, and neighborhood. The adult's microsystem context might include the significant other, the immediate family ( of origin and of procreation), work, and the neigh­ borhood. The mesosystem represents the relationships between the members within an individual's microsystem. The primary mesosystem relationship for children may

Related Tags