COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE COMPOSED OF SUBSYSTEMS

Within a family system are also smaller, self- contained, but interrelated systems called
subsystems. For example, parents in a family constitute a parental subsystem that has its own set of
rules, boundaries, and goals. The same parents may also be married and from yet another subsystem
known as a spousal subsystem. Brothers and sisters, stepbrothers and stepsisters, half brothers and half
sisters all are different formations of the sibling subsystem. The concept of hierarchy (as you shall see in
the structural family therapy chapter) refers to the fact that any complex system is also a subsystem of a
higher- order system. For example, the local school district, religious community, medical community,
and business community are subsystems of the larger community for each town or city in the United
States. Just as cities have within themselves subsystems, so do families.

One other subsystem is the personal subsystem and its components. Each person has biological,
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that constitute the individual (Kantor and Lehr, 1976)
and impact the other subsystems and systems, and conversely these systems impact the individual’s
personal subsystem.

SYSTEMS HAVE HOMEOSTATIC MECHANISMS THAT MAINTAIN STABILITY OF THEIR PATTERNS

Family Patterns

All systems exhibit patterns that are recursive in nature. Patterns are habitual, redundant ways of
behaving and communicating in relationships. Systems are made up of interactional patterns that tend
to repeat themselves. All systems want to maintain equilibrium or a steady state. As a result, these
patterns lead to predictability that an interaction will end the same regardless of the way it began,
regardless of the topic or content (i.e., input) of the interaction. For example, most teens could predict
how their parents would react to them staying out all night without calling home. These teens
understand how their family system would show a pattern they are likely to be able to predict. Another
salient example is when a family member or partner just has to give you a “look” and it seems to start an
argument. The “look” itself is a predictor of an upcoming interactional pattern reflecting circular
causality. All systems have patterns of interaction that can become predictable over time. Homeostasis
in a family is the desire to maintain stability or the status quo. Humans tend to like predictability; this
predictability lends itself to homeostasis.

Rules and Roles

Family rules and roles help maintain stability. Family rules are understandings or agreements in
families that organize the family members’ interactions. Rules may be overt or covert. Examples of such
overt rules include “In our family we go to church every Sunday” or “Those who do not do their chores
do not get their allowance.” Covert rules are those that are implied but not overtly stated, such as
“Never challenge your mother,” or “Don’t have sex until you are married.”

Family roles are individually prescribed patterns of behavior reinforced by the expectations are
norms of the family. These roles may be defined by gender, or by talents, or abilities, and so on. A
father’s role may be to stay up late with sick children because he can manage on less sleep than his wife.
Roles can be about tangible tasks, or they can be more about ascribed traits such as the role of the
“black sheep,” the “clown” “the achiever,” and so on.

Boundaries

Boundaries are the defining parameters of both individuals and systems. A system boundary may be
thought of as the point at which data flow ( e.g., output) from one system into another (e.g., input). In
family systems theory, boundaries determine who is in and who is out of the system. Boundaries may
separate subsystems, generations, or the identity of families.

The degree to which data are free to flow from one system to another is known as the
permeability of the boundary. A permeable boundary allows data to flow freely, resulting in an open
system. An impermeable boundary is one that strictly controls (or oven refuses) the acceptance or
dispensing of data, resulting in a closed system.

In family systems it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between subsystems, which may point
to a lack of boundaries or diffuse boundaries. For example, it is not uncommon to see a child as part of a
parental subsystem. A child may have been “parentified” because he or she is the oldest and is expected
to take care of younger siblings with little consideration for his or her needs by the parents. Or perhaps
one parent is not functioning in the parental role, as may be the case if one parent is struggling with a
substance abuse problem. In such a case, a child may try to fill the role and become part of the parental
subsystem. In other instances, rigid boundaries exist and family members are so separate that it is
difficult to tell that members are part of the same family. For example, there may be little
communication between parents and children as depicted in the saying, “Children are to be seen and
not heard!” See Figure 2.5 for a continuum that demonstrates the range of family boundary variations.

EVOLUTION AND CHANGE ARE INHERENT IN OPEN SYSTEMS

Systems can be closed or open. Closed systems have no interchange with their environments.
For example, machines are closed systems. They do not exchange energy with the environment.
Consider a windup alarm clock. The system of this alarm clock is closed. The alarm clock does not
exchange energy with its environment. Without the help of a human hand to wind it, it will stop running.
Open systems exchange matter, energy, or information with their environment. Most biological and
social systems are open systems. Plants are an example of open systems. The environment provides the
plant with moisture and food, and the plant provides the environment with oxygen. Each influences the
other.

Family systems are open systems. “An open system is a set of objects with attributes that
interrelate in an environment. The system possesses qualities of wholeness, interdependence,
hierarchy, self- regulation, environmental interchange, equilibrium, adaptability, and equifinality”
(Littlejohn, 1983, p. 32). Families have constant interchange with their environment. Values encouraged
at school, work, or religious institutions influence values at home and vice versa. For example, a child
may come home from school one day making fun of a schoolmate for being different. The parents may
discuss tolerance and compassion for those who are different with the child, who in turn goes back to
school and shares these ideas with other children, who then filter this information to their families.
Families influence their environments and at the same time the environments influence families.
Adaptability is the ability of a family to change patterns in response to changing conditions, such as
developmental or situational crises or occurrences. For example, a family that makes curfew later for a
teenager who has been responsible but desires to stay out a little later is showing adaptability to the
child’s changing developmental needs. Families must change and restructure themselves in order to
survive and thrive. Equifinality is the ability of a family to achieve similar goals, but in different ways. For
example, not all parents parent alike. Yet families with different parenting styles may have children who
behave in an acceptable manner. This illustrates the ability of family systems to achieve the same goals,
but from various different routes. The opposite of equifinality is equipotentiality. Equipotentiality occurs
when the same cause can produce different results. Both equfinality and equipotentiality refer back to
the notion that there are no single causes or effects in systems theory.

Sometimes families minimize interchange with their environment, especially if that environment
is seen to threaten the integrity of the system. For example, the Amish have strong boundaries between
the outside world and their world in order to preserve cultural and religious ideals. On the negative side
of a closed system, some families may wish to protect a secret, such as physical or sexual abuse, and
thus avoid the outside world so that no one will know what is occurring in the family (see Figure 2.6).

A system at either extreme of openness/closedness is in maximum disorder and disintegration,

referred to as entropy. A system must find a balance of permeable boundaries so that it can be open to
receive the information it requires to survive and close out information that threatens the system’s
integrity. Such a balance is called negentropy; it indicates a system at maximum order. Typically, family
therapists encounter families in a state of entropy, and it is their job to help restore negentropy to the
family system.

Information Exchange

open system exchange information with their environment. Families exchange information
through behavior and communication. All behavior is communication, and it is impossible to not
communicate (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967). Even as you are sitting reading this book right
now, you are communicating to those around you- perhaps you are showing that you are studying (by
your silent reading), that you are bored (by yawning), or that you are interested (by the look on your
face as you read). Communication serves as input and output in the system.

There are two types of communication: digital and analogic. Digital communication is the verbal
mode of communication, the spoken word or content of the communication. Analogic communication is
the combination of nonverbal communication mode (e.g., voice tone, voice inflection, gestures, facial
expression, and body posture) and the context of the message. It is the analogic communication or
process of communication that is of most interest to family therapists because this communication tells
us about interpersonal relationships.

In family therapy, the therapist is typically focused much more on the analogic communication
in the family therapy session. He or she is looking at the process of communication and deciphering it in
terms of what it means regarding the relationship of the family members to each other. The content of
what is said is much less important than how it is said.

For example, consider that the digital communication (content) is the same in the following
messages, but the analogic communication is different in all three examples:
 If someone says, “Hey, we should get together some time,” in a cheery tone with a friendly
smile, you would probably consider that an invitation to do something fun with this person.
 If someone says, “Hey, we should get together sometime,” with little passion or interest in his or
her voice while looking away, you might think he or she is being polite but is uninterested in
truly getting together.
 Yet again, “Hey, we should get together sometime” might hold a very different message if the
context is that you are walking up a prison aisle and the person sending the message is an
inmate.

If the process and content of the message are not congruent, a double massage can occur. If
someone says, “You really look nice today,” but rolls his or her eyes sarcastically while saying it, you
are receiving a double message. Communication is key to any form of psychotherapy.

Family therapists look to communication to regulate the family system. Although content is
important for the family therapist to consider, he or she will be continually monitoring the
communication process of the family, since this is where input and output in the system occur.

FROM SYSTEMS THEORY TO FAMILY THERAPY THEORIES

Systems theory is the foundation for understanding the majority of family therapy theories
presented in the remainder of the book. This theory is provided as the starting point for you to begin
an important paradigm shift from linear to circular thinking, so that when you conceptualize a family
you will focus on interrelatedness of family members and their interactions rather than the
individual family members. In addition, systems theory helps us to understand the tremendous
balancing act families must perform to achieve being close and yet separate, stable yet adaptable,
open yet closed, and the same yet different- all at the same time. Finally, systems theory orients us
to discover the context of any family problem or symptom to give it meaning and understand its
function for the entire system.

Each model of family therapy presented in this book represents an emphasis on a different part
of systems theory, with the exception of the social constructionist theories presented in Chapter 6,
and to an lesser extent, the cognitive- behavioral theories discussed in Chapter 8. For example,
structural family therapy attends to the family structure by looking at its rules, boundaries, and
hierarchies. Strategic family therapy attends to interactional patterns and positive feedback
mechanisms. Because each theory has a different emphasis on a specific part of a family’s process
or structure, unique interventions from each theory are designed to impact various aspects of the
family system. Some models of family therapy emphasize the importance of having all family
members in the room; others believe that there is a ripple effect with the system, so having all
family members in therapy together is unimportant. The latter believe that changing one or more
family members will create change in the entire system. One may think of this emphasis on various
family therapy theories or models from the systemic viewpoint of equifinality. One can have similar
outcomes from different origins- family change can occur through many different types of family
therapy.
 Whatever the theoretical model of treatment chosen, family therapy typically has the following
hallmarks:

 No family member is singled out as the patient or “sick one.”

 Family therapists usually see families conjointly rather than individually.
 Diagnosis and goals are based on the family, not on individuals.

This chapter has introduced you to family systems theory, which was derived both from general
system theory and cybernetic theory. Systems theory was derived from a revolt against the
reductionist thinking that permeated science fifty-plus years ago. It provided science with a
more holistic way to look at complex phenomena. Gregory Bateson, basing his work on the
ideas of Norbert Wiener (1954) and Ludwing von Bertalanffy (1968), did much to bring these
theories to the forefront of families, and was a pioneer in beginning to understand mental
illness in the context of the family system.