igonzalosowle.weebly.comigonzalosowle.weebly.com/.../family_theory_paper--final.docx · web view......

Running Head: AN ANALYSIS OF THE “C” FAMILY 1

An Analysis of the “C” Family

Iris Gonzalo-Sowle

NUR 531

State University of New York Institute of Technology

November 2012

ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 2

Introduction

There are several definitions of family. One deals with the biological relationship such as

“any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins”

(dictionary.com, 2012). Another definition can be “a group of people who are generally not

blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live

together” (dictionary.com, 2012). There are many different types of families nowadays with the

increase in divorce and remarriage, foster parenting, kinship care, single parenthood, adoption,

and same-sex relationships.

A healthy family is a family “who live together, share with one another, work together,

care and support each other, keep each other safe and love each other” (Boys & Girls Clubs of

America, 2009, p.3). There should also be a level of mutual respect between family members.

According to the International Council of Nurses (2002), “Wherever nurses work, their

focus is on the family - its health, its ability to grow, care for itself, and contribute to the

community” (p. 5). If the patient has a positive and supportive relationship with the

family, other family members can provide support and assistance to the patient to meet the goals

set between the nurse and patient. “The health of the family has never been more important in

shaping a strong and vibrant society. As nurses help individuals and families to make healthy

choices, cope with illness and chronic disability, manage stress and work with them in their

homes, schools and workplaces, they are helping to ensure the strength of the most fundamental

building block of society” (International Council of Nurses, 2012, p.1).


The “C” Family

Introduction of the Family

The “C” family members are relatives of my husband. They are my brother-in-law and

his family. I have known my brother-in-law for fifteen years; his wife for nine years. We tend to

see each other numerous times throughout the year and during major holidays when able.

Richard. Richard is 43 years old and works at Curtis Lumber as a delivery truck driver.

He has spent most of his working life in materials management. Richard has a high school

education. He opted not to pursue higher education due to his grades and lack of motivation.

Both of his parents are still alive and live close by to Richard and his family. He has one younger

brother.

Marie. Marie is 44 years old and has been married to Richard for three years. She and

Richard have been together for a total of nine years. She was previously married for fifteen years

and did not have any children. She also works at Curtis Lumber but in the sales office. She has

some college education. Both of her parents are also still alive and live an hour away. She has

two sisters and two brothers. She is the second eldest child.

Ned. Ned is seven years old and the only son of Richard and Marie. He is an elementary

school student in the second grade.

The C Family

Name Age Race/Ethnicity Family Type Family

Role

Occupation Hobbies/

Interests

Richard 43 Caucasian;

Dutch/English

Nuclear/

Traditional

Father Delivery

truck driver

NASCAR,

Hunting

Marie 44 Caucasian; Nuclear/ Mother Sales office Crafting,


Irish Traditional/

Divorced/Dyad

worker Reading,

Shopping,

Herbs/Organic

Ned 7 Caucasian;

Dutch/English/Irish

Nuclear/

Traditional

Son Student Toys, Video

games

Systems Theory

Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy authored the general systems theory in the 1950’s.

This theory provided a framework that could be applied to all types of systems, including family

systems. Bertalanffy proposed that a “living organism is an open system in which information

flows both in and out of the system. As a result, continuous change is experienced by living

systems, as the information travels back and forth, and as the system moves toward higher levels

of organization and wholeness” (Tacker, 2007, pp. 11-12). Since then, the theory has evolved

into different theories, one being the systems theory.

Central Concepts

Systems and relationships. A family is composed of many subsystems, such as marital,

sibling, and parent-child. In each of these subsystems are the individual subsystems:

husband/father, wife/mother, and child/sibling. These individuals are their own subsystems,

comprised of physical and psychological systems.

The family system is just one system nested within another larger system, the

suprasystem. Examples of suprasystems include the neighborhood, the community, and other

organizations such as work and church.

Systems are “arbitrarily defined by their boundaries, which aid in specifying what is

inside or outside the system” (Wright & Leahey, 2005, p. 33). These boundaries can be physical


(such as the number of people in the family) or imaginary (such as the beliefs and behaviors the

family system uses to function). The systems’ boundaries can be seen as either open or closed in

its permeability to be able to interact with the other systems. Wright and Leahey (2005) mention

“hierarchy of systems and the boundaries that create systems are useful concepts to apply when

working with and attempting to conceptualize the uniqueness of each particular family” (p. 34).

This is important with working with certain ethnic groups where honoring a particular hierarchy

is important when interacting with the family.

One for all and all for one. Although made up of individual subsystems, the family is

an organic whole. It is an integrated system of “interdependent functions, structures, and

relationships that act as a single whole” (Rentfro, 2006, p. 154.) There are overall family images

and themes that are reflected in this holistic quality (Morgaine, 2001). The family needs to be

viewed as a whole to be understood.

The ripple effect . Within the family system, all members are interconnected with each

other. Hanson and Kaakinen (2001) use the analogy of a mobile representing the family. Mobiles

need to maintain a balance and equilibrium. Every family system “has features designed to

maintain stability or homeostasis, although these features may be adaptive or maladaptive”

(Hanson & Kaakinen, 2001, p. 79). When the equilibrium is disrupted, the family system needs

to adapt and change to reach their goal to return to homeostasis.

A living system in a constant state of change. According to Rentfro (2006), living

systems are open systems. Changes, either internally or externally, require the system to adapt

and take on a new form. The system cannot revert back to its former self because the change is

incorporated into the system.

Feedback. The family is considered an organic whole made up of different systems that


interact with each other. Circular causality is the fact that in these family systems, each family

member’s behavior is caused by and causes the other family members’ behaviors. They are each

impacting the other, in a circular and reciprocal manner.

Selection of Systems Theory

The systems theory was chosen for this paper because of the idea that the family is

considered a system that interacts with other systems, both internally and externally. The

relationships between family members and with other systems are important for the growth of

the family and to maintain its homeostasis. The systems theory resonates with this writer. The

writer interprets this particular family as a closed system when observing and interacting with the

family members.

Analysis of the Family

This family was created nine years ago when Richard and Marie started dating after being

set up on a blind date. Richard had been in several short-term relationships while Marie was

separated from her husband of fifteen years. Richard still lived at home with his parents, working

as a mechanic and in materials management, trying to resolve his issues with money and credit

card debt. Marie was living on her own during her separation. She had been told she would be

unable to have children due to her injuries stemming from two motor vehicle crashes. There were

no children with the first marriage.

Richard and Marie moved in together into Marie’s apartment shortly after a few months

of dating. Richard was content to let Marie dominate the relationship; letting her pursue her own

interests while pursuing his own. The surprise pregnancy and subsequent birth of Ned seven

years ago created several changes for the family.


Before the birth of Ned, Richard’s parents voiced their belief and wishes for Richard to

marry Marie. They valued and believed marriage was important. Marie had to seek a divorce

from her husband first; she was hesitant to pursue marriage again. After Richard’s grandmother

passed away, Richard’s parents gave her property to Richard and Marie to build a house to settle

in after Ned was born. Richard and Marie moved in with his parents after the birth of Ned up

until the assembly of a prefabricated house on the property.

Both Marie and Richard were surprised and unprepared for the arrival of Ned. Marie

always thought she would not be a mother. Richard has unrealistic ideals about how he would

raise his children, if the time came. Both sets of grandparents-to-be, especially Richard’s mother,

tried to explain to Richard and Marie how a baby would change their lives and their “ideals”

were going to be tested. Once Ned arrived, Richard took over most of the childcare, even though

both had careers outside the home. Both depended on the grandparents to assist with childcare

while they were at work. Marie’s interests in organic and unconventional ways raising Ned

caused some resistance with Richard’s parents. Richard and Marie still pursued their own

interests, leaving Ned with his grandparents; also causing friction with their parents.

Ned and Marie have several food allergies. This has caused a change in the diet that both

can eat; it can be expensive and difficult at times to deal with since Richard does not have any

food allergies. Ned has also been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, leading Marie to do a

lot of online research and trying different methods to treat the disorder. She has a dislike for

traditional medicine, opting for alternative therapies. However, she has taken Ned to different

specialists to get tested and Ned is currently in occupational therapy.

Systems and Relationships


Richard and Marie originally developed a system that worked for them. Morgaine (2001)

states, “each subsystem has its own rules, boundaries, and unique characteristics” (p. 2). Richard

and Marie bring in different values, beliefs, and experiences into their relationship. Richard was

content to let Marie dictate the relationship, which is a complementary relationship. The

relationship has not evolved or changed since the birth of Ned. Friedman, Bowden, and Jones

(2003) write that this type of relationship can become more rigid and stifling the growth of the

individuals. This was seen earlier this year where Richard voiced his displeasure over the lack of

equality in the relationship; he felt he was doing all the work.

The relationships between Richard and Marie and their parents affect the family.

Friedman et al. (2003) write that research done by Cherlin and Furstenberg in 1985 and 1986

identified that 45% of all grandparents take an active role in the family. While dependent on the

grandparents to help with Ned’s care, they are resistant to the advice given by their parents. For

example, Richard is quick to blame his parents if Ned starts having a temper tantrum while at his

grandparents’ home. He accuses his parents for giving Ned something to eat he is not allowed to

due to his allergies. His parents are careful in what they feed Ned while in their care.

Richard is not as close to his parents as Marie is to her parents. She spends a lot of time

with her mother, especially going shopping at the local stores. This causes disagreements

between Marie and Richard because of the money spent by Marie on her parents as opposed to

her own family. Both have had money issues in the past. Richard accumulated a lot of credit card

debt that he was able to resolve. Marie’s ex-husband destroyed her credit by maxing out their

credit cards and spending the money in their joint accounts. Orbuch (2012) states that “seven out

of 10 (married couples) reported that money causes tension in their relationship. One study found

that financial disagreements are often the most distressing for couples” (p. 1).


Richard’s parents don’t always agree with the methods Richard and Marie use to raise

Ned. When these methods are not always effective, Richard and Marie usually deny it is their

fault Ned is acting in a certain way. They are not very strict with Ned and often buy him toys

when out shopping. The parent-child relationship is not very positive because they do not spend

quality time with their son. They would rather spend time pursuing their own interests. Ned

spends a lot of time with his grandparents.

The family’s relationship with other systems is also lacking. Richard and Marie do not

have a large circle of friends for support. They tend to keep to themselves and do not always

attend family functions/get-togethers. Marie also has an untrusting relationship with traditional

medicine, possibly stemming from her motor vehicle crashes and being told she would not be

able to have children.

One for All and All for One

There is a lack of alliance between Richard and Marie in the family. There is little

cohesion due to the issues in the relationships between family members. Williams and Skirton

(2001) state “family members are said to be disengaged when the emotional communication

between them is sparse” (p. 441). Richard and Marie do not spend a lot of time together or with

their son Ned. They would prefer to go their own way and pursue their own interests. They

would rather buy things for Ned rather than develop bonds and traditions with him. This affects

the holism of the family system because the subsystems are not open systems to each other.

The Ripple Effect


There is interdependence between the marital relationship and the parent-child

relationship. Cox and Paley (2003), state “poor parent-child relationships often develop in the

context of distressed marriages” (p. 193). The issues between Richard and Marie are having an

effect on their relationship with Ned. Role changes taken on by Marie and Richard from the birth

of Ned have caused stress in the family. “Families often experience significant stress during role

transitions” (Friedman, Bowden, & James, 2003, p. 330). There was also hesitancy on Marie’s

part in embracing the role of mother. Research has shown that there is a difference in parenting

skills between mothers and fathers if there is unequal involvement in infant care (Friedman et al.,

2003).

A Living System in a Constant State of Change

The goal of the family is to maintain homeostasis and balance. “The family changes

constantly in response to stresses and strains from the external environment, as well as from the

internal environment” (Hanson & Kaakinen, 2001, p.79). The family should have open and

flexible boundaries to better deal with exchange of matter and energy. The system with closed

boundaries remains isolated.

This particular family has closed boundaries. Examples include reluctance to heed advice

from other systems (their parents), lack of other support systems in the form of friends, and the

preference to keep to themselves. This family cannot increase its ability to adapt or change if its

boundaries remain impermeable and inflexible.

Feedback

The challenges the family meet every day affects the family at different levels. One

example is the food allergies that Marie and Ned have that affect the diet that the family eats.

Because of their busy schedules, the family does not always eat together. Richard tends to fend


for himself because he can eat a regular diet. Marie and Ned eat a restricted diet, but mostly

depend on quick, semi-homemade meals. Marie also prefers certain foods, which hinder the

variety of food the family buys and eats. Marie will usually not eat at family gatherings because

the food is not to her preference. Richard complains Marie’s needs are not met even though she

will not mention her preferences to the hosts when asked beforehand.

This causes a type of feedback where the family further isolates themselves from family

gatherings because Marie feels she cannot eat the food being offered. Marie feels more

comfortable being with her family as opposed to being with Richard’s family. They tend to stay

to themselves while at gatherings with Richard’s family. This prevents socialization with other

family members, especially Ned with his cousins. They also do not invite family or friends to

their house, further detaching themselves from other systems. One of the important functions of

the family is to “enhance the development of individuals” (Beckett, 2000, p. 1). This circular

feedback prevents the family from achieving harmony with oneself, the family, and the

community.

Conclusion

Beckett (2000) writes a definition of health as “family resiliency or the ability of the

family to respond to and eventually adapt to the situations and crises encountered over the family

life cycle” (p. 1). The systems theory and its components go along with this notion in the fact

that the family, as a system, has to adjust to maintain balance and homeostasis as it encounters

internal and external forces that affect the family on a daily basis. The family system undergoes

continuous change as it deals with these influences.

Not all families undergo positive and productive changes to be healthy, as noted in the

family discussed for this paper. Richard and Marie believe their family system “mobile” is


interdependent and interactive. This is not the case. Throughout the analysis, this family is

shown as not meeting the basic purposes “to meet the needs of the society in which it is a part

and to meet the needs of the individuals in it” (Friedman et al., 2003, p. 4).

Healthcare professionals need to look at the family as a whole, not just as individuals.

These family members’ relationships with each other, even if maladaptive, greatly influence one

another. Developing a productive and positive relationship is paramount in promoting and

changing behaviors and beliefs that are beneficial not only to the family, but the other systems it

interacts with.

References

Beckett, C. (2000). Family theory as a framework for assessment. Retrieved from


http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~nur350-c/2_family/theory/lesson2-1-3.html

Boys & Girls Clubs of America. (2009). What is a family?. Retrieved from http://familyplus.

bgca.org/YourFamily/EffectiveParenting/WhatisaFamily/Pages/default.aspx.

Cox, M. J. & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12 (5), 193-196. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/

stable/20182875

Cultural/Systemic Approaches: Family Systems Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:L1Ugksa2GHYJ:www.bluffton.edu/cours

es/tlc/nathp/powerpoint/familysystems.ppt+circular+causality&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&sr

cid=ADGEESihhO31dk46PdofB0Zilrklfav0enuxuyQRNKsvO8WSpl9-

k8W5SbJxyVLV0JsdIzqx9503pzWlgmRD5smPyL7HKoWTR5ugeRe9JbblClb5Y218zS

SzaihYf0LCNC6GN9ytV5nB&sig=AHIEtbT3A4sYAKv5RXo09gm-JuDHOrLj3w

Family. (2012). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family.

Friedman, M. M., Bowden, V. R., & Jones, E. G. (2003). Family nursing: Research, theory, and

Practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hanson, S. M. H. & Kaakinen, J. R. (2001). Theoretical foundations for nursing of families.

In S. M. H. Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, & J. R. Kaakinen (Eds.)., Family health nursing:

Theory, practice, and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 69-95). Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis.

International Council of Nurses. (2002). Nurses always there for you: Caring for families.

Retrieved from http://www.icn.ch/images/stories/documents/publications/

ind/indkit2002_part1.pdf.

International Council of Nurses. (2012). 2002 - Nurses always there for you: Caring for families.

Retrieved from http://www.icn.ch/publications/2002-nurses-always-there-


for-you-caring-for-families.

Morgaine, C. (2001). Family systems theory. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Child

and Family Services, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

Orbuch, T. (2012). Relationship rescue: Resolving money issues. Retrieved from

http://www.nextavenue.org/article/2012-09/relationship-rescue-resolving-money-issues

Rentfro, A. R. (2006). Health promotion and the family. In C. L. Edelman & C. L. Mandle

(Eds.), Health promotion: Throughout the life span (6th ed.) (pp. 152-177).

St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.

Tacker, M. K. (2007). Family experiences of the terminal illness and death of a family member

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://udini.proquest.com/view/family-

experiences-of-the-terminal-goid:304720970/

Williams, J. K. D. & Skirton, H. (2001). Genomics, family nursing, and families across the

life span. In S. M. H. Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, & J. R. Kaakinen (Eds.)., Family health

nursing: Theory, practice, and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 437-455). Philadelphia, PA: FA

Davis.

Wright, L. M. & Leahey, M. (2005). Theoretical foundations of the calgary family assessment

and intervention models. In L. M. Wright & M Leahey, Nurses and families: A guide

to family assessment and intervention (4th ed.). (pp. 29-55). Philadelphia, PA:

FA Davis.

igonzalosowle.weebly.comigonzalosowle.weebly.com/.../family_theory_paper--final.docx · web view......

Documents