Content area
Full Text
If a reasonable working definition of a system is a "set of units with relationships among them,"1 and if by set of units we imply that the units are bound together because of common shared properties, then it is easy to see why the family fits such a definition. It is not surprising, therefore, that family clinicians have found themselves drawn to general systems theory as a framework for understanding the behavior of families as a systemic group.
This marriage of systems theory and family therapy, which began its courtship in the 1950s, developed into a serious relationship in the 1960s, and by the 1980s had been wedded long enough to have already experienced and survived several developmental crises. The "second-generation" family systems therapists currently applying their techniques to an ever-growing variety of clinical conditions are therefore the beneficiaries of perhaps the most substantial and sustained application of systems theory to clinical issues to be found in the field of psychiatry. This article will provide a brief overview of this relationship, including some of the problems that have arisen over the years and the current challenges being experienced by clinicians and researchers utilizing systems approaches to family therapy.
FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORY
Family systems theory (the term we use for the application of general systems concepts to the family as a behavioral system) is not a theory in the traditional sense, but rather a conceptual model built around a set of core concepts.2 For our purposes, three concepts are particularly important:
The Family as a System
The most important conceptual premise of all versions of family systems theory is the notion that the family can be viewed as an operational system. Defining the family as a system not only implies that the family is comprised of a set of units or elements (individuals) standing in some consistent relationship or interactional stance with one another, but further that the behavior of the family system is best understood as a product of its organizational characteristics. Another way to say this is that individuals within the system are not entirely free to behave according to their individually-determined drives, motivations, personality attributes, etc., but rather are constrained and shaped in their behavior by the nature of the relationships they have...