Family Estrangement: Causes and Effects

Family Estrangement
Encyclopedia of Social Work
Family Estrangement
Kylie Agllias
Subject: Couples and Families, Aging and Older Adults, Children
and Adolescents
Online Publication Date: Sep DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.919
2013
Abstract and Keywords
Family estrangement—a concept similar to emotional cutoff in Bowen family systems theory—is the unsatisfactory
physical or emotional distancing between at least two family members. It is attributed to a number of biological,
psychological, social, and structural factors affecting the family, including attachment disorders, incompatible
values and beliefs, unfulfilled expectations, critical life events and transitions, parental alienation, and ineffective
communication patterns. Family estrangement is often experienced as a considerable loss; its ambiguous nature
and social disenfranchisement can contribute to significant grief responses, perceived stigma, and social isolation
in some cases. The social-work profession has a role to play in raising social and political awareness of the
prevalence of, contributors to, and effects of estrangement on the intergenerational family, with clinicians working
to assess and address the impact of estrangement on individuals and the family system.
Keywords: conflict, cutoff, emotional cutoff, estrangement, family breakdown, intergenerational family
Introduction
All members of society will experience mild experiences of rejection, ostracism, and exclusion at some point in
their lives, such as being overlooked in a queue, being ignored or unheard in a conversation, or not receiving an
invitation to an event. Rejection, ostracism, and exclusion might also be used as deterrents or punishments when
people have transgressed interpersonal and social rules (Agllias, 2011A). For example, children are sent to the
naughty corner, lovers give each other the silent treatment, military personnel are discharged, and church
members are excommunicated. However, intergenerational estrangement “deprives individuals of their strongest,
most permanent bonds, and the roots to which their existence is tied” (Williams, 2001, p. 253). It is often perceived
as a particularly severe punishment and experienced as a significant loss.
Themes of family conflict, breakdown, and estrangement are consistently woven throughout the history of
literature, theater, and media. Currently, newspapers and magazines regularly refer to family estrangement as a
modern conundrum created by individualism, selfishness, pathology, and dysfunction. At the same time they
dramatize high-profile cases of family estrangement in the political, celebrity, and business arenas (see Gordon,
2006 ; Roberts, 2006 ; Stewart, 2007 ). A number of web sites offer advice about reconciliation with estranged family
members (see Babbel, 2012; Casalena, 2006; Krakovsky, 2006; Sichel, 2007), some bring groups of estranged members
together to discuss their situation (AARP discussion board, 2012; Experience Project, 2012), and others offer
counseling and coaching (McColl, 2012). The issue of family estrangement is sometimes referred to in discussion
fora and clinical articles for human service workers (see Armstrong, 2004; Bowman, 2000; Colarusso, 2006). However,
there appears to be a reluctance to define or research the phenomenon in any more than a cursory manner in
academic circles.
Definition
Page 1 of 13
PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford
University Press USA, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the
Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal use,
only (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Carleton University; date: 16 June 2015
Family Estrangement
Family estrangement describes a reaction to intense emotion or conflict resulting in the distancing or loss of
affection between one or more members of a family, where at least one party is dissatisfied with the situation. Loss
of affection might result in a physical estrangement, where parties no longer have contact with each other, or
emotional estrangement, where parties have infrequent, perfunctory, and often uncomfortable contact. A person
might actively pursue estrangement from family members or become estranged because of the decision and
rejection of one or more members (Agllias, 2011A).
There are five key indicators of family estrangement (Agllias, 2001B ):
1. Physical distancing: the most common indication of family estrangement is a lack of contact or significant
physical distancing over periods of months or years. Face-to-face contact, letters, email, and phone calls are
absent or rare. In the case of infrequent contact, this is often perfunctory contact initiated and encouraged by
one primary party, such as a contact visit with a grandchild or brief meeting on Christmas day.
2. Lack of emotional intimacy: estrangement is often characterized by intense immovable animosity, which
results in declining warmth, trust, and intimacy (Sucov, 2006). This often leads to a complete breakdown of
communication, as mentioned above. If family members have some contact, they tend to relate to one
another in a stereotypical and perfunctory manner to avoid emotionally laden topics and conflict (Ackerman,
2003 ). The family might regard the absent member as a “stranger,” someone they no longer know or
understand. They might refer to a person who “used to be” their parent, sibling, or child or declare them
“dead” for all intents and purposes.
3. Relationship viewed as unsatisfactory: for an estrangement to exist, one or more parties must view the
arrangement as unsatisfactory. The estrangement might be experienced in a range of ways, from
disappointing to a significantly distressing and traumatic loss. Feelings of embarrassment, shame, guilt, anger,
loneliness, and failure might accompany the loss or movement away from a family member (Agllias, 2011A).
4. Intermittent conflict and avoidance: family estrangement rarely occurs after a single conflictual event
(Agllias, 2011A; Sichel, 2007). In many instances, estranged family members are unable to describe how or why
the estrangement was initiated or when it commenced (Agllias, 2011A; Carr, Holman, Stephenson-Abetz, Koenig
Kellas, and Vagnoni, manuscript submitted). Additionally, families often “vacillate between avoidance and
explosiveness: they hide, avoid, and ignore difficulties and deny real conflict until World War III breaks out”
(Sichel, 2004, p. 67). Some estrangements move back and forth between emotional and physical
estrangements across time.
5. A belief that there is no resolution: family estrangements are often maintained by “rigid,” “polarized,” and
“repetitive” feelings and thought patterns, which are bound in a situational stalemate (Benswanger, 1987;
Kelly, 2003). Communication and physical distancing prevent the estranged parties from gaining new
perspectives or resolving the estrangement (Kelly, 2003). Sometimes parties believe their differences are so
great that they are irreconcilable (LeBey, 2001), whereas others who are unsure of the estrangement’s origin
do not know where to begin a reconciliation process. Regardless, the associated animosity, hurt, and pain
seem to prevent the parties from coming together or being open to hearing a different point of view. In the
case where a family has lost all knowledge about an estranged member’s location, resolution might not be
possible.
Cutoff and emotional cutoff are concepts closely related to family estrangement. Cutoff is a term coined by Bowen
in 1975, which tends to include a wider range of behaviors than current definitions of family estrangement. It is
generally used to describe an adult child’s problematic separation from the parental family. It might be a covert
process of isolation or distancing while maintaining contact, or living, with parents. It might be an overt act such as
refusing all parental contact. When Bowen family systems theorists refer to cutoffs, they are describing a
continuum of covert to overt conditions of withdrawal from family, whereas family estrangement tends to involve
some form of physical distancing. Bowen’s theory of emotional cutoff relates primarily to the adult child’s
separation from his or her parents, but also acknowledges that secondary cutoffs develop between siblings and
extended family.
This entry incorporates literature and research about estrangement and cutoff resulting from the theoretical
overlap between them and the relevance of cutoff measurements and research to the understanding of family
estrangement. When the term estrangement is used, it primarily relates to an overt condition where some form of
physical distancing is apparent. When the term cutoff or emotional cutoff is referred to, this generally refers to an
Page 2 of 13
Family Estrangement
author, researcher who subscribes to, or literature that pertains to Bowen family systems theory.
Prevalence of Family Estrangement
The prevalence of family estrangement is captured primarily, and often incidentally, in studies of intergenerational
conflict, solidarity, and ambivalence. Studies generally show that levels of intergenerational solidarity are high,
levels of conflict are low, and estrangement, although variably defined and measured, is not a rarity (Bengston and
Oyama, 2007; Lowenstein, 2007; Pillemer et al., 2007; Szydlik, 2008; Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). For example,
Silverstein and Bengston (1997) surveyed a sample of American adult children and their parental relationship
including a measurement of children who were detached; that is, adult children were not engaged with a parent
across six key indicators of solidarity. They determined that 7% of the samples were detached from their mothers
and, more significantly, 27% of adult children reported detached relationships with their fathers (Silverstein and
Bengston, 1997). Szydlik (2008) analyzed longitudinal data from over 20,000 German adults (over 40 years old) who
were part of the German Ageing Study or the German Socio-Economic Panel Study. Over 10% of participants
reported intergenerational family conflict, and of these nearly half of participants said that they avoided the other
person or had ceased contact altogether (Szydlik, 2008). An Australian longitudinal study, the Dubbo Study of the
Health of the Elderly, followed a cohort of 2,805 noninstitutionalized participants over the age of 60 years.
Unpublished data from the initial 1988 collection showed that 122, or 4.3% of participants, had little or no contact
with their adult children (Simons, personal communication, October 9,2007).
Contributors to Family Estrangement
Family estrangement does not result from one conflict, one type of interaction, one type of relationship, one
parenting style, or one significant event. It is a complex and socially situated phenomenon that appears to be
associated with years, and maybe generations, of family stressors, critical events, and relationship breakdowns
that are initiated, supported, and exacerbated by biological, psychological, social, and structural conditions,
culminating in family estrangement (Agllias, 2011A; Bowen, 1982; Sucov, 2006). This complexity appears to have
resulted in commentary about the causes of family estrangement remaining in the popular and practice realm and
research that is fragmented and marginal. However, some common processes, associations, and pathways are
referred to in clinical and theoretical literature, as well as research about intergenerational and social relationships,
that illuminate some of the possible contributors to the development of family estrangement. It is within this complex
theoretical frame that this section refers to contributors to rather than causes of family estrangement.
Humans have retained an innate instinct to recognize and quickly respond to dangers in their environment,
including the potential for rejection and exclusion (Lakin and Chartrand, 2005; MacDonald, Kingsbury, and Shaw,
2005 ). Although the act of estranging or casting out poses dangers to the individual (as described later), it is also
regarded as a biological mechanism of survival for the species (Lakin and Chartrand, 2005). For example, Wilgus’s
(2003) review of animal behavior suggests that ecological and relationship variables, such as limited resources,
population density, stress around reproduction, and the immigration of new members, all contribute to the complex
processes of exclusionary behavior in the animal world.
Individuals who challenge or disregard family beliefs, values, and norms are more likely to be vulnerable to family
conflict and estrangement (Clarke, Preston, Raksin, & Bengston, 1999; Sichel, 2004; Sucov, 2006). Benswanger (1987)
suggests that estrangement “is a reaction to the articulated or implied conviction that ‘you killed my god’, whether
the ‘god’ is defined as material possessions, adequate care, or respect for a significant person, value or belief” (p.
193). This seems particularly salient when families are more rigid, inflexible, and heavily invested in their belief
system and when this challenge is a perceived or actual threat to solidarity, identity, and survival (Benswanger,
1987 ; Davis, 2002 ). Sichel (2007 ) conceptualizes this as the family “myth” that is perpetuated by “we” statements and
intolerance for individual difference. This myth is grounded in the “presumption that every family member is
compatible, possesses the same goals, and loves the others without question” (Sichel, 2007, p. 58) and is preserved
by banishing members who challenge it. Challenges could include political, moral, sexual, and religious diversity
(Davis, 2002; Sucov, 2006). For example, the disclosure of a positive HIV status led to family estrangement for some
participants in the study of Bogart et al. (2000).
Other significant contributors to family estrangement include unrealistic or unfulfilled expectations (Jerrome, 1994;
Page 3 of 13
Family Estrangement
LeBey, 2001). Estrangements might be fueled by unrealistic expectations about small things, such as remembering
birthdays, or larger issues such as unfulfilled role expectations (LeBey, 2001; Sucov, 2006). For example, many
authors cite estrangements related to inheritance expectations: in these cases inheritances are often regarded as
symbolic transactions of power, love, loyalty, and favor, rather than the simple transfer of wealth and property
(Agllias, 2011A; Davis, 2002; Peisah, Brodaty, and Quadrio, 2006). Family members expect to be treated well by their
relatives and research shows that controlling behaviors, deception, and self-centeredness are attributed as
contributors to estrangement (Agllias, 2011A; Carr et al., manuscript submitted). Indeed, any act that is perceived as
rejection by another might fuel conflict and estrangement (Agllias, 2011A).
Critical events and particular periods of the life cycle, such as childbirth, marriage, and divorce, might create or
unmask incompatible intergenerational needs and expectations (Carr et al., manuscript submitted; Hargrave and
Anderson, 1997; LeBey, 2001). When new marriage partners join a family they might bring new values and practices
that challenge family stability (Carr et al., manuscript submitted). When parental divorce and remarriage occur,
intergenerational alliances might develop between one parent and a child against the other parent or his or her
new partner. Shapiro’s (2003) longitudinal analysis concluded that divorced mothers and fathers were more likely to
become estranged from their adult children than their married counterparts. Death, too, is a life event with the
potential to ignite rivalry and challenge family unity. According to Davis (2002), “The death (or impending death) of a
parent can bring siblings together or split them apart” (p. 143), and this rivalry is often witnessed in the public-
health and protective systems through disputes related to end-of-life decision-making, capacity, and guardianship
(Peisah et al., 2006).
Other factors that might contribute to family estrangements might include ineffective communication (Clarke et al.,
1999 ; Sucov, 2006 ), the intergenerational transmission of estrangement, situations where family members worked
intensively in family businesses together (Ainsworth and Wolfram Cox, 2003; LeBey, 2001; Sichel, 2004), and situations
where members were affected by mental-health issues or problematic drug and alcohol use (Carr et al., manuscript
submitted; Rigler, 2000). Finally, it must be noted that in instances of abuse and betrayal, family estrangement could
be viewed as a healthy response to an unhealthy situation (Davis, 2002; Hargrave and Anderson, 1997). Childhood
abuse, including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as neglect, leaves adults vulnerable to further
intergenerational secrets, abuse, and betrayal. Adolescents and adults might make a conscious decision to
estrange when they believed the situation is unable to be broached or resolved and where the permanent or
temporary severing of family ties is necessary to promote healing (LeBey, 2001; Sucov, 2006). Finally, research
shows that some estranged parties are unaware of the exact reason for estrangement (Agllias, 2011A; Carr et al.,
manuscript submitted).
Theoretical explanations for estrangement.
Dr Murray Bowen’s (1913–1990) definitive work on family systems theory also locates estrangement in the
physiological realm. His concept of emotional cutoff stems from beliefs that the individual’s emotional system is
ruled by the biological forces of individuality and togetherness. Differentiation of self refers to the way a person
manages this interplay within the family system (Titelman, 2003). Individuals are situated along a continuum from
fusion to differentiation, where those who are least differentiated are regarded as more reactive to the emotional
system (or anxiety) to the exclusion of intellect (or logical reasoning and decision making). Titelman (2003) explains,
“cutoff, insofar as it is an emotional process, is rooted in evolutionary processes that are instinctive and automatic.
Cutoff functions to control and reduce anxiety generated by intense contact—stuck-together fusion—within the
family of origin” (p. 22). Fusion is characterized by the following:
(1) acting as if one can read the other’s mind; (2) speaking or acting for the other; (3) automatically
expressing emotional, social, or physical responses that are reactions to expressed or unexpressed
behaviour or feelings of another family member; and (4) adopting or living out, automatically, a family
belief, tradition, or lifestyle choice. (Titelman, 2003, p. 22)
When adolescents or adult children are unable to separate from fused parental relationships in a developmentally
appropriate manner, they are more likely to deny the importance of family through the enactment of distancing
mechanisms such as estrangement (Titelman, 2003).
Attachment theorists suggest that avoidant models of attachment, which are synonymous with a deactivation or
Page 4 of 13
Family Estrangement
flight response to distress, are most likely to indicate a person’s propensity to estrange from important relationships
in adolescence and adulthood. According to Shaver, Mikulincer, Lavy, and Cassidy (2009), “Deactivation involves
inhibition of proximity-seeking inclinations, actions and emotional expressions and the determination to handle
stress and distress alone” (p. 96). Despite the appearance of independence, Bowlby (1979) suggested that people
with this response were
deeply distrustful of close relationships and terrified of allowing themselves to rely on anyone else, in some
cases in order to avoid the pain of being rejected and in others to avoid being subjected to pressure to
become someone else’s caretaker. (p. 138)
Avoidant attachments are often attributed to persistent parental unresponsiveness; discontinuities of parenting;
threats to withdraw love as a method of disciplining the child; parental threats of suicide, telling a child his or her
bad behavior will contribute to the parent’s illness or death; requiring a child to suppress memories of incidents;
and requiring the child to become the parent’s caregiver (Bowlby, 1979). Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) suggest the
avoidant response is more likely when attachment figures “disapprove of and punish closeness and expressions of
need or vulnerability… [and] a person learns to expect better outcomes if signs of need and vulnerability are
hidden or suppressed” (p. 22).
Parental alienation is the concept that a parent might encourage his or her child to choose sides against, or
estrange from, the other parent. Gardner’s (2001) controversial concept, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), was
coined in the 1980s as a subtle but extreme form of child abuse arising
primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of
denigration against a good, loving parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the
combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to
the vilification of the target parent. (p. 192)
Critiques of Gardner’s work have resulted in the preferred term parental alienation, effectively shifting the
diagnostic focus from the child’s symptoms to the alienating parents’ behaviors (Mone and Biringen, 2006).
Professionals have recognized the cluster of concepts surrounding parental alienation, including tactics and
behaviors such as badmouthing the other parent; interfering with visitation, mail, and phone contact; emotional
manipulation; and distorting information about the other parent (Baker and Darnall, 2006). Current findings suggest
the degree of conflict in a marriage is a greater indicator of alienation tactics and has greater potential for
estrangement than separation and divorce (Mone and Biringen, 2006).
The Effects of Family Estrangement
In the animal kingdom, estrangement has been associated with benefits to the group or species, but with reduced
immune function, altered brain activity, lowered reproductive outcomes, reduced access to food, and increased
mortality and morbidity in the estranged animal (McGuire and Raleigh as cited in Wilgus, 2003). Proponents of Bowen
family system theory suggest that the immediate effect of human cutoff is relief from conflict and anxiety as well as
space to reflect on conflictual behaviors and review the dispute (Illick, Hilbert-McAllister, Jefferies, & White, 2003).
However, one might presume that a reduction in anxiety might be more likely for a party who chose to end the
relationship than for one who was rejected or estranged unexpectedly. Although the reported short-term effects of
estrangement (and cutoff) might vacillate between relief and traumatic responses, unresolved estrangement can
contribute to a number of negative long-term consequences including emotional disturbances, physiological
abnormalities, negative impacts on other interpersonal relationships, and restricted access to resources (Bowen,
1982 ; Harrison, 2003 ; Illick et al., 2003 ; Sichel, 2004).
Physiological responses to estrangement.
There is some evidence to suggest that estrangement contributes to physiological changes in the individual.
Friesen (2003) used biofeedback during clinical practice to measure the initial and changing physiological activity in
her patients, observing two patterns associated with emotional cutoff:
The first is a highly reactive behaviour pattern that corresponds with high amplitude brain wave patterns.
Page 5 of 13
Family Estrangement
This means the amplitude or strength of the wave is greater than typical for the brain wave, indicating
excessive activity… The second is a constricted, inwardly oriented behaviour pattern associated with low
amplitude in the brain wave patterns. It is as if the individual is constraining his energy to adapt. Both have
high levels of physiological activity—cold hands and high muscle tension… More emotional cutoff is
associated with more reliance on existing relationships, and increased relationship sensitivity producing
heightened physiological response patterns, and less ability to self-regulate. (pp. 96–97)
Harrison’s (2003) research investigated the possible connections among emotional reactivity, estrangement, and the
regulation of ovulation. In a clinical study of ovulation and reactivity, Harrison (2003) examined three groups of
women between 1992 and 1995: (i) women without medical or mental-health issues; (ii) women in treatment for
anxiety-related conditions; and (iii) women in treatment for infertility. Biofeedback from the first two groups of
women showed they had some level of reactivity when asked to speak about their family, but this dissipated when
they were asked to sit quietly afterward. The group undergoing infertility treatment “sustained high levels of stress
reactions while talking about their families and while sitting quietly” (Harrison, 2003, p. 261). Although the women in
this group had generally positive contact with their mothers, this contact was intense, and they had high levels of
intergenerational estrangement.
Emotional responses to estrangement.
Some of the immediate effects of estrangement include shock, anger, hurt, devastation, and numbness (Agllias,
2011A; Sichel, 2004). Sichel (2004) describes estrangement as a traumatic shock involving feelings of numbness,
detachment, depersonalization, compulsive rumination, and anhedonia within an acute stress disorder framework.
Additionally, he suggests that trauma originating from familial relationships and enacted by an attachment figure is
more difficult to overcome than trauma resulting from accidents or chance:
The trauma of a family member physically dying usually becomes less painful with time—it falls under the
heading of a natural catastrophe from which the human psyche ultimately learns to heal. However, on two
decades of evidence of the scores of my patients who’ve faced both kinds of trauma, the psychological
death of a family cutoff clearly tends to remain torturous—and very much more emotionally damaging.
(Sichel, 2004, p. 2)
The intensity of the trauma increases because it was inflicted by humans in one’s own family; notions of family are
intricately bound to the individual’s self-identity. Feelings of safety and security, as well as estrangement, affected
all of these conditions (LeBey, 2001; Sucov, 2006). When a family member attacks another, he or she might
effectively attack the identification with particular roles, such as being a good parent, sibling, or child (LeBey, 2001).
By-products of family estrangement include emotional reactivity (Bowen, 1982; Klever, 2003) and ongoing anxiety
and stress (Allen, 2003; Sichel, 2004). Many suggest that the psychological pain associated with estrangement could
not be left untended without negative consequences (Allen, 2003; Sichel, 2004; Sucov, 2006). Hurt and anger,
conflicted with love, might develop into long-term resentment, competition, and rivalry between the estranged
members and other members of the family (LeBey, 2001). Estranged parties can become obsessed with revisiting the
events leading to the estrangement and thinking about revenge or reconciliation. This can often be exacerbated
by events that trigger memories of the estranged party, such as birthdays, Mother’s Day, or sightings of someone
who looks likes the estranged family member (Agllias, 2011A). Recent research tracked the emotional well-being of
grandparents over 15 years, concluding that those who had lost contact with at least one set of their grandchildren
experienced higher levels of depressive symptoms than other grandparents (Drew and Silverstein, 2007).
Estrangement is a unique loss: the estranged member is frequently or entirely absent, but often remains
psychologically present or attached through previously experienced emotions, memories, social reminders, or
sightings. This is remarkable because the estranged party is often simultaneously viewed as psychologically
changed or unreachable in the present. Estrangement is often associated with lack of preparation and choice, two
factors shown to increase initial grief responses (Machin, 2009). Agllias’s (2011A) research with older people
estranged from their adult children revealed many were caught in the tension between two opposing ideas
simultaneously: their estranged adult child might or might not come back. Many participants from this study said
they found it difficult to adapt to the loss because of its ambiguous nature, leading to constant questioning: would
the adult child return or not, was the adult child absent or present, was the child dead or alive? Their experiences
Page 6 of 13
Family Estrangement
were highly consistent with Boss’s (2006) description of an ambiguous loss where the person’s physical absence but
psychological presence contributed to role confusion and an inability to attain closure.
Ambiguous loss also has the “potential to disturb and traumatise relational boundaries and systemic processes”
(Boss, 2006, p. 7). The uncertainty about the state of the relationship might lead to role ambiguity, where other family
members are unsure about who is “in” or “out” of the family system and what roles should be assumed or left
unattended. Outsiders might be “perplexed about whether to express sympathy or maintain a solid sense of
normalcy and/or hope” (Walter and McCoyd, 2009, p. 20). Ambiguity might also prevent the bereaved from fully
attending to restoration tasks, such as taking on new roles and identities, because he or she did not know whether
the child would return:
Without an overt death in the first case, it seems premature and even cruel to grieve in socially sanctioned
ways; in the second, to begin to grieve would remove the hope of return of the lost one to the social milieu.
(Walter and McCoyd, 2009, p. 20)
Some might be uncertain about what they are supposed to adjust to and for how long.
When intergenerational attachment relationships become estranged, the griever is likely to mourn the immediate
loss, the loss of the past, and the potential loss of a future with the family member. Familial bonds are likely to
create many more memories and much more memorabilia than a social relationship, and they cannot be easily
dismissed. For example, a mother cannot remove all photos that capture her estranged son because the photo will
often also capture nonestranged family members. Different types or classes of relationships evoke different mind
associations (Weiss, 2001):
For example, parental models would associate the self with being protective of the child, and parents
presumed this role would remain—in some form—throughout life. The grief following estrangement could be
associated with the obstruction of the protective role, as well as the actual loss. (Agllias, 2011A, pp. 269–
270)
Effects on relationships.
Family estrangement impacts familial and interpersonal relationships beyond the primary cutoff, and associated or
secondary estrangements are common. Sometimes a person might be estranged from a relative with a historically
attributed “problem status,” although they only have second-hand knowledge of the person and their problem
behaviors (Titelman, 2003). Older parents are often denied access to their grandchildren when they are estranged
from an adult child (Agllias, manuscript submitted). This type of familial isolation has implications for personal
understanding and self-knowledge and might result in the denial of important genetic and historical information
about family (Bowen, 1982; Illick et al., 2003; LeBey, 2001).
Bowen theorists claim a number of adverse conditions with the isolation from, and reduction of, familial networks.
They suggest marital functioning, child abuse, and domestic violence can all be associated with, or exacerbated
by, estrangement:
Lacking outlets for anxiety and support that extended family can provide, relationships in the present
generation become more unstable. This relationship instability and the mechanisms for handling it in the
present generation, coupled with the cutoff from the past, can pave the way for symptom development.
(Allen, 2003, p. 316)
McKnight’s (2003) study of 60 families used the Emotional Cutoff, Global Assessment of Functioning, and Adolescent
Functional Assessment scales to measure degrees of cutoff between the adults and their parents, the degree of
cutoff between the adults and their adolescent child, and connections to levels of parental functioning. Results
show a positive correlation (.38, p > .05) between mothers’ functioning and their level of cutoff from their parents:
the greater the cutoff, the lower the level of functioning. However, results shows no correlation with the impairment
of the adolescent; rather, the reverse occurs, where the more the mother is cut off, the less the impairment. The
study also shows that the greater the cutoff between the mother and her father, the more likely her child is to be
cut off from his father.
Page 7 of 13
Family Estrangement
Intergenerational estrangement might also have negative impacts on adult romantic attachments and marriage,
including the likelihood of divorce (Bowen, 1982; Ferrera, 2003; Murphy, 2003). Klever (2003) suggests that an adult
child’s pattern of fusion or cutoff would be reenacted in similar ways in romantic relationships. Dating, cohabitation,
or marriage might provide an avenue for the adult child to break away from the fused parental relationship or be
viewed as a remedy to the emptiness left by estrangement (Klever, 2003). However, Klever (2003) warns that “the
dating relationship [might be] guided more by the effort to sustain positive feelings and by reacting to the other
than internal principles. The reaction to the other may be overaccommodation, distance, conflict or domination” (p.
224). Additionally, estrangement from the intergenerational family reduces access to emotional support when
anxiety is experienced between the couple, which might create a greater focus and intensified dependence on the
other (Ferrera, 2003; Klever, 2003).
Murphy (2003) suggests that this heavy reliance on the marital union for support and satisfaction anxiety and
emotional reactivity might result in increased conflict and domestic violence. Smith (2003) says there is an
interrelationship between the presence of cutoff, intergenerational isolation, and child abuse. His theory suggests
that in the short term, aggression and abuse toward children serves to decrease anxiety and conflict between the
parents. If families are exposed to ongoing and sustained anxiety, this might increasingly and instinctually result in
higher levels of conflictual, aggressive, and violent behavior. Clinical observations of families where severe child
abuse was occurring commonly included family members with low differentiation, socially isolated families, and
families where there was extensive intergenerational cutoff and chronic conflict between the parents (Smith, 2003).
Estrangement from family members might also result in fewer people to turn to for practical support and resources
during times of need (Allen, 2003; Jerrome, 1994; Klever, 2003). For younger members of the family, this could mean
reduced support and advice about important decisions, such as purchasing a home, and fewer offers of practical
assistance, such as babysitting (Davis, 2002). In later life, this could mean reduced financial and social support for
an older person. Short’s (1996) in-depth interviews with 26 clients of emergency relief centers revealed kin
relationships characterized by conflict and estrangement, resulting in an absence of family members with
resources to share in times of crisis.
Additionally, the grief associated with estrangement is often disenfranchised (Agllias, 2011B ). The lack of rituals and
social recognition for estrangement make it a hidden loss, which might be difficult to speak about in public, resulting
in social isolation or superficial social relationships (Agllias, manuscript submitted; Jerrome, 1994). Although
estrangement appears to be a common experience for many families, theories and ideologies that locate the cause
of estrangement in individual defect and family dysfunction appear to add to its social undesirability. The theory of
disenfranchised grief relates to situations when a person experiences loss but their grief “is not openly
acknowledged, socially validated or publicly observed” (Doka, 2002, p. 5). In many cases, it “goes beyond a
situation of mere unawareness to suggest a more or less active process of disavowal, renunciation, and rejection”
(Corr, 2002, p. 40).
Agllias’s (2011A) research with older people estranged from their adult children suggests that some people are
particularly affected by the stigma associated with estrangement. The participant’s internalized understandings—or
stigmatized awareness—of good parenting and particularly the social expectations, roles, and obligations
associated with motherhood, when combined with strong ambitions and high expectations for parenting, often
contributed to shame and guilt born of perceived parental failure. This was particularly salient for women whose
personal identities and family narratives were closely tied to being a good mother and raising a close family.
Perceived or experienced stigma often results in social concealment, withdrawal, and isolation, indicating
estrangement might have health implications beyond the immediate loss response. These are important findings
when viewed alongside research that suggests family and social support remain key indicators of quality of later
life, so any reduction in family and social support would most likely have flow-on health effects (Bowling and
Gabriel, 2007; Gabriel and Bowling, 2004; MacDonald, 2007).
Implications for Social-Work Practice
Regardless of whether the person initiated estrangement or was cut off by another family member, attempting to
reconcile with family members or learning to live without them can be a lengthy processes involving commitment,
insight, and courage (Richards, 2008; Sucov, 2006). Initial pain, shock, and loss responses require a concentrated
Page 8 of 13
Family Estrangement
period of self-care (Sichel, 2004; Sucov, 2006). Clinicians suggest that some form of self-exploration and life review—
of family roles, myths, rituals, boundaries, and one’s own expectations and interactions with others—can assist in
developing new perspectives, letting go of resentment, and making a choice to move forward in some way (Bowen,
1982 ; Richards, 2008 ; Sucov, 2006 ). Reconnection might be achieved through respectful communication, compassion,
acknowledging one’s complicity in the estrangement, and possibly making amends, while avoiding dwelling on the
past and blame. Although many estrangements are not resolvable, there is some agreement that preparatory
processes for reconciliation are equally as useful in preparing to live peacefully without reconciliation (Davis, 2002;
Sichel, 2004).
When clients come into contact with health and welfare services, social-work assessment usually involves the
evaluation of family and social support. However, estranged clients may feel too embarrassed to disclose their
estrangement status, which can be problematic for the adequate provision of care and support. Shame, stigma,
and the capacity to conceal estrangement require the clinician to ask specific questions about estranged family
members when conducting assessments or completing genograms (Agllias, 2011A, manuscript submitted). Social
workers must ask questions about the following:
(i) contact and collegiality with, rather than simply the presence of, family members; (ii) the existence of
estranged family members; and (iii) the influence or impact of estranged family members on the family
system as well as the presenting issue. (Agllias, 2011A, p. 344)
Initial and ongoing normalization, in combination with validation of the client’s feelings about or way of relating to
the estrangement, creates a basis for the development of trust. Estrangement may or may not be experienced as
primarily negative, and feelings of relief must also be validated. Additionally, what might be considered socially
unacceptable responses, such as anger and revenge toward the estranged family member, may be difficult to
express in a therapeutic relationship and are more likely to emerge in a nonjudgmental environment. When clients
suggest estrangement has been experienced as a significant loss, the situation should be assessed in terms of
duration and impact. As Neimeyer and Currier’s (2008) work suggests, grief does not necessarily require
intervention, but persistent and problematic grief should be addressed. This includes grief reactions
characterized by intense and persistent yearning for the [estranged], intrusive and troubling thoughts
regarding the [estrangement], a sense of inner emptiness and hopelessness about the future, trouble
accepting the reality of the loss, and various other difficulties moving on with life. (Neimeyer and Currier,
2009 , p. 352)
Social-work practice—individual and group—that includes reflection and expressive tasks might assist people in
understanding their responses, increase insight, and assist in the regulation of emotion and in constructing or
reconstructing a coherent narrative related to estrangement and the events surrounding it (Lepore, Fernandez-
Berrocal, Ragan, & Ramos, 2004). A critical evaluation of the situation might be especially relevant in work with
clients experiencing family estrangement, where finding meaning in the experience—or making sense of it—is often
hindered by assumptions and stigma.
Finally, like any complex human interaction, family estrangement does not have one cause or one solution, and its
ripple effects can impact family members throughout the generations. Therefore, it is likely that interventions aimed
at improving the general well-being of, and support to, family are likely to be most useful in preventing
intergenerational conflict and estrangement. It is imperative that families have access to the resources they need
in times of normative and developmental stress and that critical stressors such as family violence and poverty are
minimized through policies and legislation. Social workers have the capacity to raise social and political
consciousness about family estrangement by drawing attention to, and normalizing, this phenomenon, as well as
challenging and deconstructing the “taken-for-granted” cultural beliefs of parenthood, families, and being an adult
child inherent in its construction. Family estrangement has broad implications for families and public or community-
service provision. It is important to raise awareness about the prevalence of family estrangement, encouraging
policy makers to revise normative welfare policies based on assumptions regarding unswerving family allegiance
and support (Agllias, 2011A).
References
Page 9 of 13
Family Estrangement
AARP discussion board. (2012). Estranged family members—How do you cope? Retrieved July 20, 2012, from
http://www.aarp.org/online-community/forums.action/relationships_friends-family_estranged-
family-members-cope
Ackerman, F. (2003). Israeli–Palestinian relations: A Bowen theory perspective. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional
cutoff: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 443–467). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Agllias, K. (2011a). Every family: Intergenerational estrangement between older parents and their adult-children.
(Doctoral dissertation, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan).
Agllias, K. (2011b). No longer on speaking terms: The losses associated with family estrangement at the end of life.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 92(1), 107–113.
Agllias, K. (2013). The gendered experience of family estrangement in later life. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Ainsworth, S., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2003). Families divided: Culture and control in small family business.
Organizational Studies, 24(9), 1463–1485.
Allen, P. R. (2003). Depression: A symptom of cutoff in relationship processes. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional
Armstrong, K. L. (2004). Family therapy theory applied in a group setting: The family issues group. The Family
Journal, 12(4), 392–395.
Babbel, S. (2012). Reconciliation after estrangement. Psychology Today. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201107/reconciliation-after-
estrangement
Baker, A. J. L., & Darnall, D. (2006). Behaviours and strategies employed in parental alienation: A survey of
parental experiences. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 45(1/2), 97–123.
Bengston, V. L., & Oyama, P. S. (2007). Intergenerational solidarity: Strengthening economic and social ties. New
York, NY: Division for Social Policy and Development Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations
Headquarters.
Benswanger, E. G. (1987). Strategies to explore cut-offs. In P. Titelman (Ed.), The therapist’s own family: Toward
the differentiation of self (pp. 191–208). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Bogart, L. M., Catz, S. L., Kelly, J. A., Gray-Bernhardt, M. L., Hartmann, B. R., Otto-Salaj, L. L., et al. (2000).
Psychosocial issues in the era of new AIDS treatments from the perspective of the person living with HIV. Journal of
Health Psychology, 5(4), 500–516.
Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New York, NY: W. W. Norton
& Company, Inc.
Bowen, M. (1982). Family therapy in clinical practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London, England: Tavistock.
Bowling, A., & Gabriel, Z. (2007). Lay theories of quality of life in older age. Ageing and Society, 27(6), 827–848.
Bowman, K. (2000). A daughter estranged from her dying father. American Family Physician, 62(11), 2543–2545.
Carr, K., Holman, A., Stephenson-Abetz, J. J., Koenig Kellas, J., & Vagnoni, E. (2013). Giving voice to the silence:
Attributional variations in parent-child estrangement. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Casalena, J. L. (2006, November 1). Lesson no. 24: How to reconnect with an estranged family member. Best Life,
36.
Clarke, E. J., Preston, M., Raksin, J., & Bengston, V. L. (1999). Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents
Page 10 of 13
Family Estrangement
and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39(3), 261–270.
Colarusso, C. A. (2006). The absence of a future: The effect of past experience and current developmental
conflicts on a midlife analysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54(3), 919–943.
Corr, C. A. (2002). Revisiting the concept of disenfranchised grief. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: New
directions, challenges, and strategies for practice (pp. 39–60). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Davis, L. (2002). I thought we’d never speak again: The road from estrangement to reconciliation. New York, NY:
Quill.
Doka, K. J. (2002). Introduction. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and
strategies for practice (pp. 5–12). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Drew, L. M., & Silverstein, M. (2007). Grandparents’ psychological well-being after loss of contact with their
grandchildren. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 372–379.
Experience project. (2012). I am estranged from family members. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from
http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Am-Estranged-From-Family-Members/67270
Ferrera, S. J. (2003). The continuum of emotional cutoff in divorce. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen
family systems theory perspectives (pp. 289–312). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Friesen, P. J. (2003). Emotional cutoff and the brain. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen family systems
theory perspectives (pp. 83–107). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing and Society, 24(5),
675–691.
Gardner, R. A. (2001). Denial of the parental alienation syndrome also harms women. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 30(3), 191–202.
Gordon, M. (2006). The family Astor: The Brooke Astor scandal may be a tale of elder abuse. But it’s also just
another sad chapter in the family’s history of parental estrangement. New York, 38–43.
Hargrave, T. D., & Anderson, W. T. (1997). Finishing well: A contextual family therapy approach to the aging family.
In T. D. Hargrave & S. M. Hanna (Eds.), The aging family: New visions in theory, practice, and reality (pp. 61–80).
New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Harrison, V. (2003). Reproduction and emotional cutoff. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen family
systems theory perspectives (pp. 245–269). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Illick, S. D., Hilbert-McAllister, G., Jefferies, S. E., & White, C. M. (2003). Toward understanding and measuring
emotional cutoff. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 199–215).
New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Jerrome, D. (1994). Family estrangement: Parents and children who “lose touch.” The Association for Family
Therapy, 16(3), 241–258.
Kelly, B. J. (2003). Toward undoing cutoff: A twenty-five-year perspective. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff:
Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 139–156). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Klever, P. (2003). Marital functioning and multigenerational fusion and cutoff. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff:
Krakovsky, M. (2006). The final cut. Psychology Today, 39(2), 48.
Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2005). Exclusion and nonconscious behavioural mimicry. In K. D. Williams, J. P.
Forgas, & W. Von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 279–
292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Page 11 of 13
Family Estrangement
LeBey, B. (2001). Family estrangements: How they begin, how to mend them, how to cope with them. Atlanta,
GA: Longstreet Press.
Lepore, S. J., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Ragan, J., & Ramos, N. (2004). It’s not that bad: Social challenges to
emotional disclosure enhance adjustment to stress. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 17(4), 341–361.
Lowenstein, A. (2007). Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: Testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on
quality of life for older family members. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62B(2), 100–107.
MacDonald, G., Kingsbury, R., & Shaw, S. (2005). Adding insult to injury: Social pain theory and response to social
exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. Von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,
rejection and bullying (pp. 77–85). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
MacDonald, M. (2007). “Social support for centenarians’ health, psychological well-being, and longevity. Annual
Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 27, 107–127.
Machin, D. (2009). Working with loss and grief: A new model for practitioners. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
McColl, F. (2012). E-stranged family coaching and counselling. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.e-
stranged.com/
McKnight, A. S. (2003). The impact of cutoff in families raising adolescents. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff:
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Mone, J. G., & Biringen, Z. (2006). Perceived parent–child alienation: Empirical assessment of parent–hild
relationships within divorced and intact families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 45(3/4), 131–156.
Murphy, D. C. (2003). Emotional cutoff and domestic violence. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen family
systems theory perspectives (pp. 337–349). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Currier, J. M. (2008). Bereavement interventions: Present status and future horizons. Grief
Matters: The Australian Journal of Grief and Bereavement, 11(1), 18–22.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Currier, J. M. (2009). Grief therapy: Evidence of efficacy and emerging directions. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 352–356.
Peisah, C., Brodaty, H., & Quadrio, C. (2006). Family conflict in dementia: Prodigal sons and black sheep.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(5), 485–492.
Pillemer, K., Suitor, J. J., Mock, S. E., Sabir, M., Pardo, T. B., & Sechrist, J. (2007). Capturing the complexity of
intergenerational relations: Exploring ambivalence within later life families. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 775–791.
Richards, N. (2008). Heal and forgive II: The journey from abuse and estrangement to reconciliation. Nevada
City, NV: Blue Dolphin Publishing.
Rigler, S. K. (2000). Alcoholism in the elderly. American Family Physician, 61(6), 1719–1724.
Roberts, J. L. (2006, July 30). Off with their heads! Sumner Redstone is feuding with his entire family. He fired Tom
Cruise and banished Tom Freston. Now all that’s left are his lawyers. Newsweek, 40–45.
Shapiro, A. (2003). Later-life divorce and parent–adult child contact and proximity: A longitudinal analysis. Journal
of Family Issues, 24(2), 264–285.
Shaver, P., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and altering hurt feelings: An attachment-
theoretical perspective on the generation and regulation of emotions. In J. P. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close
relationships (pp. 92–122). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Short, P. (1996). No one to turn to: Estrangement and need in kinship economies. Paper presented at the 5th
Page 12 of 13
Family Estrangement
Australian Families Research Conference, Brisbane.
Sichel, M. (2004). Healing from family rifts: Ten steps to finding peace after being cut off from a family member.
New York, NY: McGraw–Hill.
Sichel, M. (2007). Estranged family: Dealing with a family rift. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from
http://www.sideroad.com/Family_Life/estranged-family.html
Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent
relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460.
Smith, W. H. (2003). Emotional cutoff and family stability: Child abuse in family emotional process. In P. Titelman
(Ed.), Emotional cutoff: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 351–374). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical
Practice Press.
Stewart, C. (2007). The magnate, his wife, their kids, the will. The Australian, July 21. Retrieved December 11,
2008, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-magnate-his-wife-their-kids-the-will/story-
e6frg8go-1111114018083
Sucov, E. B. (2006). Fragmented families: Patterns of estrangement and reconciliation. Jerusalem, Israel:
Southern Hills Press.
Szydlik, M. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1), 97–118.
Titelman, P. (2003). Emotional cutoff in Bowen family systems theory: An overview. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Emotional
Van Gaalen, R. I., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class
analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 947–960.
Walter, C. A., & McCoyd, J. L. M. (2009). Grief and loss across the lifespan: A biopsychosocial perspective. New
York, NY: Springer.
Weiss, R. S. (2001). Grief, bonds, and relationships. In M. S. Stroebe (Ed.), Handbook of bereavement research:
Consequences, coping and care (pp. 47-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Society.
Wilgus, A. J. (2003). Lone wolves and rogue elephants: Emotional cutoff among animals. In P. Titelman (Ed.),
Emotional cutoff: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 67–76). New York, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice
Press.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kylie Agllias
Lecturer in Social Work, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
Page 13 of 13

Family Estrangement: Causes and Effects

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Family Estrangement: Causes and Effects

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Family Estrangement

Encyclopedia of Social Work

Abstract and Keywords

There are five key indicators of family estrangement (Agllias, 2001B ):

Prevalence of Family Estrangement

Contributors to Family Estrangement

Theoretical explanations for estrangement.

The Effects of Family Estrangement

Physiological responses to estrangement.

Emotional responses to estrangement.

Implications for Social-Work Practice

and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39(3), 261–270.

Krakovsky, M. (2006). The final cut. Psychology Today, 39(2), 48.

Australian Families Research Conference, Brisbane.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen