the use of family myth as an aid to strategic therapy

Journal of Family Therapy (1983) 5: 145.- 154

The use of family myths as an aid to strategic therapy

Stephen A. Anderson* and Dennis A. Bagarozzi

The concept of family myth can be used by the therapist to help organize the wealth of information provided by a family in therapy. Rituals, symbols and metaphors can be viewed as structurallyrelated componentswithin the family myth system which enable the therapist to interpret non-literal, analogic communications as a coherent yet primarily symbolic, narrative about the family’s shared perceptions of its functioning. The concept of myth is explored in relation to mythology, the family therapy literature, and a case study. Several strategic intervention strategies are proposed which utilize the family’s own metaphors. symbols and rituals to re-edit the family myth. Re- editing the myth on a symbolic level should be associated with improved system functioning, including more concrete areas of the family’s life.

Introduction

Strategic family therapists stress the adoption of a family’s view of reality as an important prerequisite for determining an appropriate treatment strategy (Bandler and Grinder, 1975; Erickson and Rossi, 1975; Haley, 1976; Selvini-Palazzoli, Cecchin et al., 1978; Watzlawick, 1978; Watzlawick et al., 1974). Some clinicians believe that when the therapist has an empathic appreciation for the family’s characteristic mode of functioning and world view in the initial stages of treatment that the potential for positive therapeutic outcome is enhanced (Minuchin, 1974; Papp, 1980; Rabkin, 1977; Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1980), because in the initial phases of therapy the family’s resources are more easily mobilized and demoralization is more readily overcome (Rabkin, 1977). Minuchin (1974) stresses joining with the family and establishing a positive relationship with all members by allowing oneself to merge with the family’s unique culture.

Received 27 April 1982. * University of Connecticut, Human Development and Family Relations, U-l 17, Storrs,

t University of Georgia, School of Social Work, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A. Ct. 06268, U.S.A.

145 0163-4445/83/020145+20$03.00/0 0 1983 The Association for Family Therapy

146 S. A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

While it is widely accepted that the therapist’s assimilation of the family’s own language is a vital component of therapy, little has been done to understand how the therapist organizes, into a coherent whole, the voluminous bits of information presented by a family throughout the treatment process, and how he/she uses this coherent whole to intervene in a manner consistent with the family’s unique view of reality. In this paper, we will discuss how we have attempted to use the family’s own mythological system to organize the wealth of material generated by a family throughout the course of therapy, to monitor the treatment process, to assess the impact of a given clinical strategy, and to evaluate the overall effect of therapy once treatment has been terminated.

The approach described below is concerned with conceptualizing family process in a way which makes planned and systematic intervention possible. Several techniques derived from the ‘Strategic’ school (Stanton, 1981) of family therapy are discussed. However, the reader should understand that the concept of family myths and their clinical applications are not limited to any one ‘school’ of therapy or treatment approach. * Myths are a time-honoured way for people to organize and conceptualize their experiences and are believed to date back as far as the early beginnings of human consciousness (Campbell, 1949; Frazier, 1922; Newmann, 1954a, b) . Although myths and symbols have been used to understand the individual’s attempt to deal with intrapsychic conflicts by Freud and Jung and their followers, the utilization of myths to understand family behaviour introduced by Ferriera (1963) has remained undeveloped even though references to the family myth are common (Byng-Hall, 1973; Lewis et al., 1976; Minuchin, 1974; San Martin0 and Newman, 1975; Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1978; Solomon, 1976; Stierlin, 1973; Wolin et al., 1979). What we have been attempting to do in our work with distressed families is to identify key family myths and their interlocking patterns, to understand their homeostatic functions, and then to help the family evolve its own myths in ways which allow for individual change, growth, development, and systems’ viability.

As presented below, the approach is decidely left brain and analytic. In practice, however, the therapist must be able to use hidher intuition and sense of timing. He/she must be able to free associate, fantasize and use hidher right brain.

Before describing our work with families, a brief discussion of myths and related concepts is offered below to orient the reader.

* For a discussion of how behavioural approaches such as teaching conflict resolution strategies and contingency contracts can be used to work through family myths, the reader is referred to Bagarozzi and Anderson (1983).

Myths and strategic interventions 147

Myths and mythology

Early man, unlike modem man, did not dichotomize his world into an objective, law-abiding, physical universe on the one hand, and a subjective, internalized experience on the other. Nature and self, reality and fantasy, for him were interwoven and coalescent. The nearest he probably came to differentiating his world was to distinguish between the sacred and secular. But even this was undoubtedly largely fluid and unpredic- table except where it was stabilized by some definite ritual, taboo, story, or priestly authority (Wheelwright, 1962). What we call the literal and the figurative or symbolic could flow together for him to a greater extent than they can for us today. Wherever an aspect of life was problematic or fraught with emotional stress and hence found extraordinary, there it entered the domain of the sacred and became deified. This means that the powerfulness inherent in this extraordinary phenomenon was sensed as a living force and in some way personified (Perry, 1966). The stories of the gods were for him, not only dramatic representations of real aspects of man’s world, they also told how the world came to be. In other words, for early man they were myths.

Myth can be defined as a complex of stories, some no doubt fact and others fantasy, which human beings regard as demonstrations of the inner meaning of the universe and of human life (Watts, 1954). Myths not only express inner meanings, but they also accomplish this by telling a story. They attempt to explain a perception and to justify that perception. The justification also includes a sense of power beyond the control of the per- ceiver, and an attempt to account for the origin of this perception as an objective fact.

John Knox (1964) has outlined the following four characteristics of myths:

(1) Myths are stories, imaginative narratives, dealing with a cosmically significant act of gods (or some superhuman being). By a cosmically significant act is meant an act of decisive importance for the world, particularly the world of men, whose response to it may be an essential part of the story. This action may be represented as taking place in a prehistorical, or posthistorical epoch, but it is a particular action at a particular time.

(2) This narrative will have had its source in the common life of a human community, will bear the marks of its culture, and will persist over generations as a part of its traditions.


(3) The community will prize the story because it suggests or answers something distinctive and important in human existence, and particularly in the community’s existence.

(4) Because of the relation in which the story stands to the actual existence of the community, it will have become itself an inseparable and indispensable part of the community’s life and, for those sharing in that life, an irreplaceable symbol, an actual carrier of its power.

One way to conceptualize myth, therefore, is to see them as super- natural explanations which legitimize, justify, and preserve the norms and mores of a given group, community, or society. Myths serve the additional function of externalizing and objectifying those shared phenomena which are problematic and incomprehensible. They also foster group identity and cohesion. Conceptualizing myths as a type of discourse provides a point of overlap with the family therapy literature and enables us to integrate several fundamental aspects of myths with some common family process concepts such as ritual (Keith and Whitaker, 1981; Selvini- Palazzoli, 1974), symbol, and metaphor (Bandler and Grinder, 1975; Haley, 1976; Keith and Whitaker, 198l) , and the therapist as director of the family drama (Andolfi and Angelo, 1981). These concepts will be discussed in terms of mythology and then in terms of the family therapy literature.

Myths and the family drama

Knox (1964) has provided us with an excellent explanation for how myths serve a homeostatic function within a group or community. An example of a myth’s stabilizing function for the family and the community is seen in the Theban trilogy of Sophocles. In Oedipus Rex, the importance of maintaining a parental coalition and drawing generational boundaries which prohibit incest are underscored. The importance of maintaining these rules for the family and the community is self-evident. In Oedipus ut Colonus, the child’s responsibility for an ageing and infirmed parent is the central social theme that runs through this second tragic drama. Finally, in Antzgone, the pre-eminence of moral responsiblity and obedience to divine edict over political decree and civil law is dramatized.

Unfortunately, Knox (1964) does not provide us with any understanding of how mythology is used to usher in changes in rules, processes and structures, i.e., the morphogenetic functions of myth. An excellent example of how myths are used in this way can be seen in the Oresteia by


Aeschylus. In this trilogy, the Greeks are given a divine solution which enables them to assimilate and accommodate to the numerous political, social, legal, and religious changes that were taking place in Greece during the transition from the period of barbaric rule by Tyrants to the enlightened Hellenistic era of Democracy.

The Oresteiu also provides us with a clear example of how classical Greek drama used symbolism to help the audience deal with critical issues and problems which existed at different levels of awareness. For example, the first two plays of the trilogy, Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers, can be seen as a domestic tragedy dealing with universal intrapsychic conflicts (e.g., sex and aggression, filicide and human sacrifice, hubris and infidelity, and regicide and matricide). On another level, however, these dramas deal with the conflicts encountered during the evolution of the Hellenistic culture. For example, the Furies who symbolize the barbaric and tyrannical past with its archaic matriarchal beliefs and religious prac- tices, seek revenge and are bent on destroying Orestes for slaying his mother and her lover who have murdered his father, Agamemnon. The Furies symbolize the old law of vengeance and blood for blood. Orestes, symbol of the Greek people, is caught in a double bind, because obeying one archaic divine injunction (to avenge his father’s murder) requires him to disobey another (the taboo against killing one’s parents). The dilemma is resolved by the dramatist Aeschylus, who uses a number of strategic manoeuvres in the final play of the trilogy. In The Eumenides, Apollo and Athene, who symbolize the growth and intelligence of the Hellenistic enlightenment and the evolving Democratic order are elevated above the Furies in the Olympian hierarchy. The Furies’ subjugation to the new political and religious order is symbolized by their acceptance of Apollo and Athene’s exoneration of Orestes for his crimes against the Old Order. In a negotiated exchange (quid pro quo) for accepting a position of lesser power in the divine hierarchy, the Furies are offered more favourable status in the New Order by Apollo and Athene. Their names are changed to the Emenices (a re-labelling which symbolizes their benevolence), and their r6les are recast so that they then become the protectors of the New Order of Democracy and Justice (a positive reframing).

The Orestezit is the prototype which has guided us in our work with distressed families. Our goal is to help families work through their own myths in a way which permits them to change dysfunctional rules, envolve new structures, and modify faulty interaction patterns. We, like the dramatist Aeschylus, try to help the family rewrite its own script through the use of symbols and metaphors and by giving directives and ritualized prescriptions which allow new patterns to emerge and central conflicts to be resolved.

150 S. A. Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

In order to help the family evolve its own myth, it is important to understand the interdependence among symbols, metaphors, and rituals and how they function together to form a family myth.

Symbols and myths

A symbol is a relatively stable and repeatable element of perceptual experience, standing for some larger meaning or set of meanings which cannot be given or fully given in perceptual experience itself (Wheel- wright, 1962). The symbol cannot be entirely or explicitly stated since its essential quality draws life from a multiplicity of associations, subtly and, for the most part, unconsciously interrelated. The symbol, and something associated with it, has been joined in the past so that there is a stored up potential of shared meaning and significance available for elaboration when the symbol is explored. A symbol may be idiosyncratic to a particular family, it may develop ancestral significance by being shared over generations within a family, it may be shared by a current social network of families or groups of friends, it may have significance for an entire cultural group or an entire body of religious believers. Finally, it may be archetypal, in the sense that it has significance for all or a major portion of humankind regardless of specific periods of history. Examples of archetypal symbols include: heaven (associated with power and the father image), earth (associated with mother, fertility, or the nurse of all living things), blood (related to life, dignity of inheritance, death and violation of oaths), and light (symbolizing mental and spiritual qualities).

The relationship of symbols to myths has been described by Church (1975) who sees the symbol as an essential part of the myth:

It is not the literal contentsof the myth but its central symbols that in fact form the content of revelation. The specific contentsof myths and actual historical circumstances of the tradition change from age to age through time; only the symbols remain (p. 51).

Metaphor and myths

Many statements have to do with communicating what is immediately occurring in our actual, sensual, moral, or.emotiona1 experience. These experiences are subjective, having a reality only in terms of their relevance for an individual at a particular point in time in a particular context. If we move beyond simply being able to communicate the existence of subjective experiences and attempt to relate the quality of these experiences, we will frequently, perhaps always, use literal descriptions in a non-standard


way. When we talk about abstract concepts we will use language drawn from some concrete domain. Employing literal, digital language in a different context or a non-standard way is characteristic of metaphorical communication. If we say, ‘John is a cold fish, we are using a literal des- cription in a non-standard context to convey the quality of John’s emotional withdrawal.

Knox (1 964) has suggested:

We will always need figures, pictures, or images of some kind if we are to express the concrete reality of something in our experience, but we are not limited to any one figure, picture, or image (p. 23).

This multiplicity of images or pictures which we can use to describe the quality of an experience is the essential difference between symbols and metaphors. The symbol is more stable and enduring than metaphor and can be conceptualized as an extension of metaphorical activity. The essential movement in metaphor is from the digital to the analogic (Haley, 1976). While myths serve the function of externalizing and objectifying phenomena perceived as problematic and difficult to understand, metaphor conveys the quality of subjective experience, the imagery, the poetry which allows the subjective to be communicated by objective means.

Rituals and myths

Historically, rituals were behavioural dramas which enacted the myth or a portion of the myth. They were socially shared experiences common to a community or larger territory. Fontenrose (1966) discusses a number of relations between myths and rituals:

A ritual drama may clearly enact the events of a myth, or a myth may account for nearly every act in a rite, each ritual act in order; other myths, however, account for rites in a less systematic way; still others tell only how the rites were introduced. Moreover once ritual and myth become associated, one affects the other (p. 50).

As each affects the other, both may suggest additions to or revisions in the main text. Perry (1 966) has suggested that while myth was the outcome of primitive man’s attempt to account for his universe, ritual was then the expression of this. He has also suggested that ritual had the intent of preserving the social group and was the basic source of communal action. It becomes more obvious that myth and ritual were intimately related vehicles for the expression of man’s perceptions of his reality in both a spoken and an acted form.


Family interaction processes and myths

Ferreira (1 963) defines family myths as:

A series of fairly well integrated beliefs shared by all family members, concerning each other and their mutual positions in the family life, beliefs that go unchal- lenged by everyone involved in spite of the reality distortions which they may con- spicuously imply (p. 457).

The family myth describes the rbles and attributes of family members in interaction with one another and, while these interactions have a quality of falseness or incongruity, they are accepted by all family members as real and unquestionable.

The struggle to maintain the myth is a struggle to maintain the relationship- a relationship that is obviously experienced as vital and, for which, it seems, the child may have no choice in reality, while the parents have no choice in fantasy (p. 462).

The family myth becomes an inseparable part of the family’s shared perceptual experience.

Steinglass (1978) discusses family myth as each individual’s recollection of his or her family history passed on from one generation to another. The family myth is a blend of fact and fantasy preserving important events and notable personalities in the family’s history. Family myths are narratives which include information about rituals as they were enacted in previous generations, with current family members playing ‘time honoured’ rbles.

Byng-Hall(l973) describes three family rble images which he associates with family myths: (1) the ideal self-image to which each family member strives or expects others to achieve; (2) consensus rBle images are those rbles which all family members agree each individual family member should perform; (3) repudiated rBle images which are recognizable by the amount of anxiety generated when particular topics are discussed or specific interactions are initiated and the amount of emotional intensity or disgust present when certain r6les are denied or attributed to someone else. Repudiated images are projections of split-off or denied aspects of family members’ selves. Byng-Hall(l973) defines myth as those family rble images which are accepted by the whole family together as representing each member. The images are, however, either distortions of, or only portions of, the observable rble behaviour.

Family members rbles coalesce and reach a consensus to reinforce certain idealized rble images and to repudiate (project) mad or bad traits


inconsistent with those agreed upon idealized images on to another family member, or some outside, external person or object.

Stierlin (1973) sees family myths serving two related purposes. They serve as defensive mechanisms against an unpleasant reality. As such, they function to spare family members painful confrontations which they fear will release deep anxieties, disintegration, or chaos. They also serve to obscure or deny the painful and complex reality of what family members have done, or still do to one another, as well as what family members truly think of one another.

Interface between mythology and current family functioning

Myth now can be conceptualized as an explanation andjustqication of family members’ rbles, self-images, and shared consensual experience. The myth functions to support a family’s inner identity. The justification aspect seemingly contains a residue of the archaic quality of myth, namely, a consideration of a power or force beyond the control of the family. This force implies a sense of helplessness in the face of family problems and makes futile any attempts to change the indisputable objec- tified explanation of the current state of affairs. The myth may be understood as preserving the family homeostasis. This narrative has its source in the common life of the family, will bear the marks of its own idiosyncratic culture, and may persist over generations. The myth will be prized and protected because of its rble in preserving the family’s (present) organization. The experiences and perceptions incongruent with the family myth may be distorted or externalized when they are problematic or difficult to deal with. The myth protects family members from confrontations which somehow may seem powerful enough to release deep anxieties, disintegration, or chaos. The myth also clouds or obscures how family members inappropriately deal with one another and protects the idealized self- images from being destroyed.

While the emphasis in family therapy is often on their dysfunctional aspects, myths also serve adaptive functions. In some families, these myths may provide a shared reason to survive an external threat. For instance, a family whose house burned down may be able to mobilize its resources and maintain morale if the members share the belief that the family is blessed with good fortune and that no matter how life events unfold, the ending for them will always be happy and productive. Myths functional in one context at a particular time may, however, become debilitating if they become rigid and resistant to changing circumstances (Anderson and Russell, 1983). It is this functional value of myths that has led us to hold a

154 S . A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

deep respect for the use of myths as an aid to therapy. Their value to the family, once accepted and acknowledged, enables the therapist to side with the family’s need to survive and to encourage the adaptive and functional aspects of their myths while also re-editing perceptions (family scripts) and redirecting behaviours (family rituals) incongruent with adaptations to the current situation.

Rituals, or repetitive, shared family behaviour can be understood as the expression of all or a portion of the family myth and as a means of preserving it. Rituals may serve to further reinforce or solidify the family structure and identity (i.e., they serve as homeostatic devices).

The symbols which frequently recur during a family’s interaction are valuable clues or storehouses of affect-laden memories, images, or experiences. For example, a family who frequently makes reference to the basement which someone is often assigned to clean up yet remains neglected, may be referring to the family’s difficulty in organizing the members’ chaotic lives and may represent a wish for a solid structure upon which the family can rely. In like manner, the metaphorical communications between family members may be referring to particular unresolved relationship issues. A passing comment that ‘John never seems to be able to get up on the morning’ may be referring to sexual conflict between husband and wife. Of course, the most pragmatic meaning must be sur- mised by the therapist according to his therapeutic goals and the context of the situation. The use of metaphor, symbol, and ritual to uncover a family myth that might be therapeutically useful will become clearer with a case presentation and an elaboration of some strategies for re-editing the family drama.

Case example

The H. family entered family therapy with the initial complaint that Mrs H., age twenty-eight, had become frustrated and overwhelmed with the responsibility of child care for her two sons. Mrs H. had taken an ‘overdose’ of valium (seven pills) then referred herself to the local hospital emergency room.

During the initial session, it was discovered that J., the oldest of two sons at four and a half years old, suffered from delayed speech and attended a developmental centre daily to receive specialized speech training. He had also been diagnosed hyperactive by both the centre staff and his family physician and had been admitted to hospital several times for encopresis. Both J. and his mother had a history of repeated admissions to medical hospitals. One of J.’s admissions for a ‘complete physical checkup’ was precipitated by Mrs H. who insisted J. be admitted so that she would not do ‘anything drastic’. She was apparently, at the time, also quite frustrated with J. and had been able to convince their family


physician that J. needed medical attention for his hyperactivity. Mrs H. had been admitted to hospital repeatedly for chronic back pain, high blood pressure, and twice for heavy alcohol abuse. Mr H . , age twenty-nine, and their youngest son B . , age eighteen months, were described as ‘totally healthy’. Neither has been ‘sick a day in their lives’.

The issues in the family were identified as:

(1 ) An overinvolved relationship between Mrs H. and the oldest son, J., and an accompanying weak spousal system with Mr H. maintaining a passive r81e.

(2) Mrs H.’s frustration with childbearing, her perception that child discipline was beyond her control, and her depression which manifested itself through excessive drug or alcohol use.

(3) Oldest son J.’s hyperactivity and delayed speech development. He was diagnosed as functioning at the equivalent of a three-year-old when he was, in fact, four and a half.

(4) Mr H. was overinvolved in a relationship with his mother. This was a complaint registered by Mrs H. who perceived Mr H.’s mother to be more important to him than she.

(5) An overly dependent relationship between the H.’s and external sources of support such as physicians, hospitals, teachers, and therapists and concomitantly an inability to utilize the nuclear family as a source of support and nurturance.

The evolution of current family myths

In order to grasp the meaning of the family myth system, one must have an understanding of how three separate factors are blended together. These factors are: (1) the individual family histories of each spouse, (2) the individual personal myth that each spouse brings to the marriage, and (3) how these personal myths are integrated to produce a new mythological system. In the H. family the myth system included:

Spouses’ individual hBtories

Mrs H. was described as having been treated unfairly as a child, beaten severely, and not given any emotional support from her parents. Mrs H.’s parents were both married previously and each brought children from the first marriage into the family. Following their marriage, Mrs H.’s parents conceived another seven children bringing the total to fourteen in all. The family lived in a three- bedroom house and Mrs H. reported having no privacy throughout her childhood. While she perceived most of her siblings as being cared for and treated well, shegenerally felt ignored and ‘left out’.

156 S. A. Anderson and D. A. Bagarozzi

Mr H. was the youngest of three. While his brother married and moved away, his sister never married and continued to live with her mother. Mr H.’s father died when he was twelve years old. From that time on, Mr H. perceived himself as ‘spoiled’ by his sister and mother, receiving everything he ever wanted ‘except attention’. He believed that he had always been treated as a child by his mother and that he was conceived as an ‘afterthought’ because his father was forty-one and his mother thirty-nine years old when.he was born. While he recalled never having a relationship with his father even before his death, his relationship with his mother was extremely close, and he continued to call her almost daily.

Spouses’ personal myths

Mrs H. experienced a deep sense of injustice and deprivation in her relationship to her parents and yet she held to the myth that her parents would eventually change and provide her what she believed she was owed. Each trip home to visit her parents resulted in frustration and disappointment as her expectations remained unmet.

Mr H. held to the belief that he was conceived as an afterthought and not wanted by his parents. Despite the obvious evidence that he and his mother were bound to each other by an overly close and dependent tie, he held to the myth that to confront his mother or to assert independence would result in her rejection of him.

How these personal myths were integrated to produce a new myth system

The H.’s had developed a myth which if overtly stated translated into that which has been lost f rom the fami ly of origin can never be regained or sur- mounted. Both spouses longed for a lost idealized relationship with their parents. Mrs H. desired nurturance and acceptance from both parents, while Mr H. longed for a connection with his father and the feeling of being wanted. As a result, neither was able to nurture or support the other since this source of nurturance was apparently entirely overlooked in the search for that which was lost. Such a myth can also be viewed as obscuring the feelings of incompetence which accompanied their inability to maintain a supportive spousal relationship. As a further consequence of this myth, needs for support and nurturance were externalized to professional helpers (physicians, hospitals, etc.).

A second myth was inextricably interwoven with the first. The parents’ troubles in dealing with their children’s behaviour and in providing a home environment which was characterized by secure control and clear limits seemed to be associated with their own emotional deprivation. In an effort to spare their sons 0. in particular) the type of childhood they had


experienced, they gave them expensive toys and were reluctant to introduce clear rules for behaviour. While Mrs H. maintained this attitude the most, Mr H. bowed to his wife’s wishes and allowed her to be solely responsible for parental discipline. Even though their son’s behaviour problems were overt, they clung to the myth thatJ.2 problems were medical and could only be handled by medical professionals. This allowed them to deny their own shortcomings as parents.

Before proceeding to a discussion of some intervention strategies, we will summarize some of the key characteristics of family myths and how they manifested themselves in the H. family.

1. Family myths tend to develop around unresolved &sues of loss, separa- tion, abandonment, individuation, nurturance and deprivation. Mrs H.’s feelings of deprivation and Mr H.’s feeling of abandonment, and the in- complete individuation of both from their families of origin were perpetu- ated into the next generation in the form of emotional deprivation of their sons.

2 . Family myths are characterized by a sense of lqe circumstances being beyond the family> control. A sense of helplessness was evident in the H.’s inability to recover their idealized parental relationships and in their inability to manage the behaviour of their son.

3. Family myths include explanation andjust@ations. Those given by the H.s for their helplessness were that their present behaviours would forever be influenced by their earlier childhood experiences and that their son’s behaviour was a result of physical, medical problems which could only be cured by professional helpers.

4. Family myths are prired and protected. To give up the myths would have forced the H.s to come to terms with the possibility that their parents would never meet their expectations or that their son’s problems were, at least in part, related to their parenting. Such acknowledgements would have necessitated frightening realizations and threatening changes in the family system.

5. Perceptions incongruent with the famzly’s myths are distorted or projected. Responsibility for change in J.’s behaviour was+placed on external change agents and limitations in their own abilities to nurture were denied and projected onto their own parents.

158 S . A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

Strategies for evolving the family myth

The strategies for evolving the family myth which follow all rest heavily upon the notion of using the family’s own representations of reality in a manner which does not confront directly the family’s homeostasis or the defensive aspects of the family myth. They are consistent with Watzlawick et al. ’S (1974) notion, borrowed from Judo, of using the family’s own flow of interactional patterns and perceptions to redirect it towards new and different interactional sequences. Ritual prescription and reframing are two techniques consistent with these strategies. Ritual prescription and reframing can both attend to the nonliteral aspects of the family’s experience. Ritual prescriptions achieve their utility via the behavioural channel, by redirecting family members’ current behaviour patterns or creating new behavioural rules often without the need for verbal or literal understanding. Reframing attends to the family’s shared perceptions by suggesting alternative explanations to their current views which are equally valid yet less restrictive or debilitating.

Utilizing the family’s metaphors and symbols

During the flow of conversation in therapy sessions, family members make metaphorical-analogical comments which in the immediate here and now reflect upon their relationships. For instance, a mother spontaneously refers to herself as ‘chairman of the board of her family. These metaphors are really family members’ ways of communicating important images of themselves and how they function with others in the family. Elaborating on these metaphors, asking family members to specify in more detail what the metaphor means to each one personally, is a way to make the images more concrete and readily understandable to all. The therapist leads the discussion by expanding the metaphor, broadening it, identifying related elements and utilizing what is presented.

Sometimes the metaphors expressed represent aspects of more enduring images or family d e s . These symbols are often storehouses for latent feelings and are communications about other aspects of the family’s relationships which are more difficult to express openly. Once the therapist has been able to delineate these analogical connotations hidden within the symbol, he is able to communicate about these issues without ever con- sciously making a connection between the symbol and its parallel, more affect-laden meaning. This is different than the therapist relating a story of his own design which parallels the family’s experience. In the former,


the therapist uses exactly what is presented by the family, not something he constructs himself. An example will illustrate this more clearly. Mr H., while feeling a lack of connection with his father, vividly recalled one experience which occurred just prior to his father’s death when he was twelve years old. His father had taken him out to teach him tqshoot a rifle. Mr H.’s memories of his father were often associated with his father’s ‘gun collection’ which he continued to care for during his childhood. He would make sure that they were kept well polished and oiled. Following his marriage and the purchase of his own home, Mr H. wanted to display the gun collection in his living room. His mother, who had never shown any interest in the collection prior to this, refused to let Mr H. take it. While he longed to own this gun collection and believed it was actually his, he was never able to assert this to his mother and demand his right to owner- ship.

During therapy it became obvious that the gun collection could be used as a symbol for Mr H.’s lost relationship to his father and as a symbol of this struggle for individuation from his mother. It was assumed that small but definite changes in behaviour would instigate change of a more generalized nature (Watzlawick, 1978). Thus, the goal was to support Mr H.’s struggle to regain his lost gun collection as a means of facilitating his individuation from his mother as well as a means of internalizing the masculine, more assertive traits he associated with his father. Both he and his wife ambivalently desired Mr H. to become more assertive and expressive.

When the gun collection was brought up during subsequent sessions, Mr H.’s reluctance to regain the gun collection, the memories of his father teaching him to shoot, and other memories associated with the collection were explored in detail. Every opportunity was taken to reframe references to the collection or his father as ‘masculine’, ‘assertive’, or ‘man-to-man’ types of activities. The emphasis upon the lost gun collection, while using the family’s own symbols and associations, did not directly address more underlying dynamic issues yet it challenged the family myth of that which has been lost f rom one ’S family of origin can neuer be regained.

By addressing a concrete goal such as regaining a gun collection, it was possible to deal with a number of issues: (1) Mr H.’s individuation from his mother, (2) re-establishment of a connection between Mr H. and his father through the living symbol of his father’s nurturance toward him, and (3) increased respect from Mrs H. who could then view her husband as more masculine, assertive and competent.

Other frequently recurring symbols were ‘doctors’ and ‘bicycles’. We have already noted how doctors could be viewed as an external source of gratification. The frequency and the number of contexts in which bicycles were referred to was striking. For instance:


On one occasion Mrs H., with Mr H.’s passive approval, purchased J. two new bicycles. The first one proved to be too large so a second was purchased for his current use with the first saved for when he grew older. In spite of the financial strain these purchases placed upon the family, the decision was not challenged or reconsidered. In this context, the bicycle purchases were relabelled as a parental attempt to provide nurturance to their son. Several sessions after the above incident, Mr H. reported that he had started a new hobby. He had accumulated a workshop full of old bicycles which he planned to fix up in his spare time. Since mechanical aptitude was one trait that Mr H. had previously spoken of with pride, his new hobby was labelled as a self-directed move toward a more masculine identity and an active attempt to provide himself with a source of satisfaction (gratification and nurturance).

As in previous examples of the gun collection, these symbols were explored, elaborated and utilized by the therapist to address indirectly the therapeutic goal of helping this family to find sources of nurturance and gratification within their nuclear family. Such symbols also serve as con- venient content for ritual prescriptions.

Ritual prescrz$tions

Family rituals are shared behavioural dramas which portray important aspects of the family’s organization and mythology. Rituals can serve as stabilizing elements (Wolin et al., 1979), as homeostatic mechanisms to solidify the family system. This definition suggests three important therapeutic functions of myths. First, they provide important information about the family’s shared view of reality. All families, although some to a greater extent than others, exhibit ritualistic behaviours. Annual holiday family gatherings, a favourite weekly family television programme, or a weekly shared Saturday afternoon working in the backyard, are examples of such rituals. Once a family’s rituals have been identified, they can help highlight how the family maintains its internal boundaries. Second, rituals can also introduce a powerful motive to move toward a common goal or toward a ‘new normative system’ (Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1974). Selvini-Palazzoli et al. (1974) conceptualize therapeutic rituals as a computer-game, a replacement of ‘an unhealthy and epistemologically false rite’ (for example, the exclusive seeking of emotional nurturance from sources external to the nuclear family) with one that is ‘epistemologically sound and healthy’ (p. 239). In addition, rituals may enable family members to work through unresolved issues on the analogic level as opposed to the literal. If the ritual is constructed in a way which addresses unresolved issues, the family may be able to reach resolutions in a less affectively charged or anxiety producing context. Once behavioural


changes have been induced, insight may or may not follow. However, the emphasis is not on insight per se, but upon the formation of a new and more functional normative system based upon the context of the family’s own views of reality.

And finally, a ritual can be used to punctuate the end of therapy or the end of a particular phase of therapy. In these situations, the ritual can stabilize and preserve gains already made. For instance, a family who has resolved the loss of a young child and desires to continue in therapy to work on the spousal relationship may be instructed to visit the grave with their surviving children to say a ‘final goodbye’. Or a family who initially complained of a chaotic and disengaged family life may, upon completion of therapy, be instructed to use the regular therapy time as a forum to discuss family plans and to formulate goals for shared activities.

A series of ritual prescriptions were given to the H. family which used the bzcycle symbol’s potential as a storehouse of family perceptions and associations to help the family move toward the common goal of nurturance from within their own nuclear family. Mr H. was instructed to enlist the aid of his two sons and his wife in his efforts to repair old bicycles. It was suggested that since Mr and Mrs H. had invested some of the family’s financial resources to provide J. with a bicycle, it would be a further gesture of caring to teach him how to care for and repair his own bicycle. Furthermore, since both boys had shown a curiosity about their father’s tools, he could foster their interest by teaching them how to use them. This was explained to Mr H. as a way of relating to his sons ‘man to man’. And since it was generally Mrs H.’s responsibility to monitor the boys’ behaviour during the day when Mr H. was away, it was important that she observed that the boys could indeed handle their father’s tools safely and that she know how to supervise them with the tools during the day.

This approach achieved several goals. (1) It enabled the family members to work as a unit in a context where

(2) It allowed Mr H. to be viewed in the rBle of teacher and provider of

(3) It enabled both Mr H. and his sons to integrate actively a masculine

(4) It respected the family rule that Mrs H. was responsible for supervising

productive work would be rewarded.

information.

identity.

the children.

The family members responded to the ritual prescription and continued their interest in the bicycle repair activities. Several sessions later, Mr and Mrs H., who were to be seen without the boys, rode to the session on their bicycles. Mr H. had repaired a used bicycle specifically for Mrs H. so that they could ‘get in physical shape together’. Mr H. was at that time also speculating about

162 S. A. Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi how he could construct a four-seat, foot-pedalled surrey from used bicycle parts so that the entire family could ride together.

The new ritual had created an organized forum where family members could work together without the need to focus verbally on affect-laden, anxiety-producing, interpersonal issues. The bicycle symbol had generalized to include associations involving health and getting in physical shape. Mr and Mrs H. were also able to develop more consistent and mutually shared rules for parental discipline and to recognize that they had some responsibility and control over their sons’ behaviour. Other more concrete changes in family functioning included an end to Mrs H.’s use of anti-anxiety medication and a reduction in her alcohol use. J.’s encopresis stopped and there was a marked decline in his ‘hyperactivity’ as reported by both the school and the parents. The H.s were able eventually to relinquish the myth that_/. S behawour problems were medicaland only remedied by medical professionals and the myth of that which has been lost f r o m our families of origin can never be regained.

Conclusion

We do not wish to suggest that the changes in the H. family were exclusively a result of ritual prescriptions and an elaboration and re- editing of the family’s own symbols and metaphors. This method of conceptualizing the family process and content and the interventions illus- trated here were only a part of the overall therapy process. At other times, strategies such as paradoxical intervention, restructuring of subsystem boundaries, contract negotiation and communication skills training were all utilized. In addition, the therapist’s r d e as an impartial advisor and judge who respects individual differences, a facilitator of discussion, and a provider of positive acceptance and self-esteem, cannot be overlooked.

This paper has attempted to illustrate how family myths can be a useful conceptual tool by which the therapist can organize the tremendous amounts of information available to him. Such useful components of myths were defined in terms of their development in mythology, the family therapy literature, and through a case study. Examples were offered to illustrate how the use of the content of family myths is consistent with the principles and assumptions of strategic family therapy.

In particular, the use of family myths as an aid to therapy rests heavily on the assumption that the family’s own view of reality is essential to the effective choice of intervention strategies. Secondly, it is assumed that family myths are clung to as long as they serve a stabilizing function in the


family system. If family members begin to feel less defensive and guarded about their negative qualities or unresolved issues, they may be able to give up the myths which sustain their present family drama. If they are able to find alternatives to their current problem behaviours and still feel safe, they may then be able to develop more common goals which move them toward more effective functioning. Prescribing ritualized behaviour patterns and elaborating shared perceptions with subtle acceptable changes enables the family to change while not giving up that which is perceived as essential to survival.

References ANDERSON, S. A. and RUSSELL, C. S. (1983) Utilizing process and content in designing

paradoxical interventions. American Jounzal of Family Therapy 10 (2): 48- 60. ANDOLFI, M. and ANGELO, C. (1981). The therapist as director of the family drama.

Jounzal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7 (3): 243- 254. BAGAROZZI, D. A. and ANDERSON, S. A. (1983) The evolution of family mythological

systems: considerations for meaning, assessment and treatment. Journal of Psycho- analytic Anthropology 5 (1): 71 - 90.

BANDLER, R. and GRINDER, J. (1975) Pattern of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Enckson, M.D. Cupertino, CA. Meta.

CAMPBELL, J. (1949) The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York. Pantheon Books. ~ I C K S O N , M. H. and Rossr, E. L. (1975) Varieties of double bind. AmencanJounal of

Clinical Hypnoszi. 17: 143 ~ 187. BYNG-HALL, J. (1973) Family myths used as defense in conjoint family therapy. Bntish

Journal of Medical Psychology, 46: 239- 250. CHURCH, C. D. (1975) Myth and history as complementary modes of consciousness. In:

L. W. Gibbs & W. T. Stevenson (Eds), Myth and the C k t j of Htjtoncal Conscious- ness. Missoula, MT. Scholars Press.

FERREIRA, A. J. (1963) Family myth and homeostasis. Archives of General Psychiaty, 9:

FONTENROSE, J. (1966) The Rituul Theory of Myth. Berkeley. University of California

FRAZER, J. G. (1942) The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion. New York.

HALEY, J. (1973) Uncommon Therapy: the Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H. Enckson,

HALEY, J. (1976) F’roblem Solving Therapy. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. KEITH, D. V. and WHITAKER, C. A. (1981) Play therapy: a paradigm for work with

b o x , J. (1964) Myth and Truth. Charlottesville. University of Virginia. LEWIS, J. M,, BEAVERS, W. R., COSSETT, J. T. and PHILLIPS, V. A. (1976) No Single

Thread: Psychological Health in Family System. New York. Brunner/Mazel. MINUCHIN, S. (1974) Familiesand Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University

Press. NEUMANN, E. (1954~) The On&ns and Hzjtoy of Consciomess: the Psychological Stages

and the Evolution of Consciousness, Vol. 11. New York. Harper and Row.

457 - 463.

Press.

MacMillan.

M.D. New York. W. W. Norton.

families. Journal of Mantal and Family Therapy, 7 (3): 243- 254.


NEUMANN, E. (19546) The OnginsandHistoyof Consciousness, Vol. I. New York. Harper

PAPP, P. (1980) The Greek chorus and other techniques of family therapy. Family Process,

PERRY, J. W. (1966) Lord of the Four Quarters. New York. Gorge Braziller. RABKIN, R. (1977) Strategic Psychotherapy: Brief and Symptomatic Treatment. New

York. Basic Books. SAN MARTINO, M. and NEWMAN, M. S. (1975) Intrapsychic conflict, interpersonal rela-

tionship, and family mythology. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiaty, 14: 422-435.

SELVINI-PALAZZOLI, M., BOSCOLO, L., CECCHIN, G. and PRATA, G. (1980)Hypothesizing, circularity, neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19: 3- 12.

SELVINI-PALAZZOLI, M . CECCHIN, G., FRATA, G. and BOSCOLO, L. (1978) Paradox and Counter-paradox: a New Model in the Therapy of the Family in Schizophrenic Trans- action. New York. Jason Aronson.

SELVINI-PALAZZOLI, M. (1974). Self-starvation: f r o m Individual to Family Therapy in the Treatment of Anorexia Neruosa. New York. Jason Aronson.

SOLOMON, N. (1976) Homeostasis and family myth: An overview of the literature. Family Therapy, 3: 75 - 86.

STANTON, D. (1981) Strategic approaches to family therapy. In: A. S. Gurman and D. P. Kniskern (Eds), Handbook of Family Therapy. New York. Brunner/Mazel.

STEINGLASS, P. (1978) The conceptualization of marriage from a systems theory pers- pective. In: T. J. Paolino and B. S. McCrady (Eds), Mamizge and Marital Therapy, New York. Brunner/Mazel.

STEVENSON, W. T. (1975) Myth and the crisis of historical consciousneis. In: L. W. Gibb and W. T. Stevenson (Eds), Mythand the Cniis ofHistorica1 Consciousness, Missoula, MT. Scholars Press.

STIERLIN, H. (1973) Group fantasies and family myths: Some theoretical and practical aspects. Family Process, 12: 111- 125.

WATrS, A. (1954) Myth and Ritual in Chnitianity. New York. McMillan. WATZLAWICK, P. (1978) The Language of Change: Elements of Therapeutic Communica-

WATZLAWICK, P., WEAKLAND, J. and FISCH, R. (1974) Change: principles of Problem

WHEELWRIGHT, P: (1962) Metaphor and Reality. Bloomington. Indiana University Press. WOLIN, S. I . , BEN'NETT, L. A. and NOONAN, D. L. (1979) Family rituals and the recur-

and Row.

19: 45- 57.

tion. New York. Basic Books.

Formation and Problem Resolution. New York. W. W. Norton.

rence of alcoholism over generations. American Journal o i Psychiatry, 136 (43): . .

589 - 593.

the use of family myth as an aid to strategic therapy

Documents