Demographics and Diversity of the American Family

By Mike Micoliczyk LP#1

I was amazed to find how the definition of family related to its general definition and legal definition has changed drastically within the last 20 years. Coming from a small midwestern city, predominately white with most family units consisting of a married couple; man and woman and a child or children. Our neighborhoods and community then 1970’s –1990’s marked a time when the outside world was as much as what we seen, experienced, related to and understood from school, neighborhood interactions, church, family activities and community events. Our exposure to most the outside world was gathered from TV news and programing. Internet was not as mainstream as today and my perception, beliefs and attitude of family was a mirror to other families in the community. I suppose through the years of raising my own children with my wife I’ve broadened my horizons and accepted change but was ignorant or naïve to the great transitional change of family units vs what they have evolved into today in the early 21st century. This is a brief analysis of the married or unmarried family dynamic with children and its demographic change over the past 50 years.

A monumental decision by the Supreme Court in June of 2015 recognized the marriages of same-sex couples as the equal to marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Todays family now consists of gay or lesbian families, extended families, foster families, single parent families, interracial families, extended families and blended families. A sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race (Pew Research Center, 2010). That same survey finds that the young are much more inclined than their elders to view cohabitation without marriage and other new family forms — such as same sex marriage and interracial marriage — in a positive light. My own children; Matthew-18 years old and his sister-Monica 21 years old, continually remind me to get with the times and view same sex marriage with a child or children as a more common form of a family unit. They are aware of several kids in high school or college that are members of this type of family unit.

A grabbing statistic I found while expanding my knowledge through this learning plan is that the share of births to unmarried women has risen dramatically over the past half century, from 5% in 1960 to 41% in 2008. There are notable differences by race: Among black women giving birth in 2008, 72% were unmarried. This compares with 53% of Hispanic women giving birth and 29% of white women (Pew Research Center, 2010). Marriage is no longer considered a prerequisite for parenthood as it once was when I was growing up. The number of parents who are unmarried has climbed as well as children living with a unmarried parent. In 1968, 13% of children – 9 million in all – were living in this type of arrangement, and by 2017, that share had increased to about one-third (32%) of U.S. children, or 24 million (Pew Research Center, 2018). There are many different demographic trends that have driven the trend for unmarried parenthood but most likely the most important trend has been the decline of people overall who are married. In 1970, about seven-in-ten U.S. adults ages 18 and older were married; in 2016, that share stood at 50%. Both delays in marriage and long-term increases in divorce have fueled this trend (Pew Research Center, 2018). We are shifting and transitioning away from what used to represent a family unit and the public seems to acknowledge that. For example, four-in-ten adults said that the growing number of children who have parents who are gay or lesbian was bad for society, and a similar share (39%) said the same about more couples living together without being married (Pew Research Center, 2018). I personally respond with the same belief and view. I too found myself in the 11% of Americans that felt parents of different races and more interracial marriages were not bad for society.

Left out of this short analysis was the composition of the ethnic results for various nationalities or races and how they are represented specifically against the general composition of these findings. A general sense and understanding was what I was looking to capture and represent. Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development; OECD, projects that by the year 2030 the United States will have a 12% increase in the number of single parents with children, which would put that number a little short of 27 million, currently it is 24 million and the United States population is presently 327 million.

I wish and hope for our tomorrows to exist with a stabilized family structure no matter what ethnicity that may represent. As time pushes forward the dynamic of the family unit continues to change. I concernedly contemplate what the structure of the family will look like to society 10-20 years from now. I don’t know if my concerns lie within fear of what I knew as a child having a married old fashioned stabilized opposite sex union of a mom & dad diminish or the continued perception by society to let the timeless biblical standard of marriage change to fit our lifestyles. I am sensitive to abnormal conditions or circumstances that alter or delay legal marriage unions. But even now our legal definition of that has changed. As we continue to transition away from what once was a established norm we evolve into something that will alter generations to come either in a negative realm or bring us to a greater awareness of how we as a civilization and society continue to adapt well to shifting transitional norms of forgotten previous generations.

Works Cited

Pew Research Center (2010, November). The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/

Pew Research Center (2018). The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/

Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development; OECD (2011). The Future of Families to 2030, A Synthesis Report.

Family Life Cycles & Development

By Mike Micoliczyk

LP#3

A basic systematic visual layout in understanding family development amongst most theorists and learning students works off of the classic eight stages of “family life cycle stages” which were formulated by Evelyn Duvall (1957).

1. Beginning families (married couple without children)

2. Childbearing families (oldest child, birth to 30 months)

3. Families with preschool children (oldest child 2½–6 years

4. Families with school children (oldest child 6–13)

5. Families with teenagers (oldest child 13–20)

6. Families as launching centers (first child gone to last child’s leaving home)

7. Families in the middle years (empty nest to retirement)

8. Aging...(retirement till the death of the surviving marriage partner)

Other theories shorten the stages down to four or five. Out text adds the first stage of Unattached Adult. Some theorist believe Duvall’s theory uses a assumption of universality or that her theory is based heavily on single generational focus. Duvall’s theory seems to be a good working systematic theory to start from or with. Either way, each of these stages has its own emotional issues of development that must be worked through. Along with the emotional issues of challenge, attached to each stage, there exists specific stage critical tasks. For example, Stage 2 has the emotional issues of accepting new members into the family. While the stage critical tasks would include; adjusting marriage to make room; adjusting to increased family size; caring for an infant; taking on parenting roles; making room for grandparents. By using a conceptualization above, Dorthy and Raphael Becvar state “we are able to understand the individual in terms of the process of growth and development, to see him or her in the context of his or her family at any given point in its developmental process, and to anticipate the normal kinds of issues with which families in general may be faced as all grow and evolve” (Becvar & Becvar, 1998).

For illustration purposes I will establish the demonstrative example with elaboration and specifics through my personal reference to my wife and our first child-Monica. The landscape of the particulars includes me being 27 years of age and my wife Denise is 26. We have already bought a house in our mutually agreed upon community of choice-Sheboygan Falls. We have been married 6 months but have been dating the past 8 years. So, our stage 2 experiences includes individual adult development within adulthood and then also the task of procreation, socialization & balance while also sustaining satisfaction in our chosen fields of work.

Being in our house about 1 year before Monica is born is exciting. We are unsure about our ability to be a capable, able minded couple with the new challenges of our starting family. We are both working full time and we have decided that Denise will use maternity leave with her employer so that she can remain close to our child, recover from the caesarian delivery of Monica and start our family journey with solid time of mother with child. We agree that Denise will wake up at night for bottle feedings which occur every 2 hours. We are both excited, fearful and apprehensive in agreement to a lot of the tasks and responsibilities associated with our new family. We discover Monica is a colic child. Many sleepless nights and additional strain are put on both of us. My parents and the in laws are so thrilled to be first time grandparents. My grandparents now become great grandparents for the first time. They adore Monica tremendously. Both sets of our parents try to accommodate, assist and give us relief and a break from our fussy emotional little girl. We feel responsible and obligated to handle most of the strain, responsibility and effort ourselves. To maintain our emotional balance, we occasionally allow Denise’s parents to watch Monica while we go out for socialization and to enjoy our time as a couple apart from the needs of our daughter. I do not trust my mother’s ability to make wise choices in caring for our daughter as a babysitter or care provider. We choose to not let my mother be alone with my daughter. My father doesn’t understand our choice. Strain is felt between myself and my wife on how to address this deep concern tactfully with my parents. Denise and me work opposite shifts to provide care round the clock for Monica. We are unable to financially pay for daycare and we want to raise our daughter exclusively without daycare. There is a strong belief: that come hell or high water we will always make the right choice for what’s best for the emotional and developmental needs of our daughter vs what is easier and convenient for uncommitted short sighted negligent parents-which we vow not to become (right choices made for a child’s well being often require greater sacrifices). Prior to Monica’s birth, we have previously discussed and come to agreement that we will have two children. Successfully moving through the initial first stages of a infant’s life, Denise gives birth to our son Matthew. I always wanted a boy but would gladly embrace another healthy girl. Monica is eighteen months old when her brother is born.

We are a family unit that consists of a structure of people who dwell together and share life daily. Our interaction and interdependent relationships within the unit are important. Within that unit, and aside from all the challenges external to the family, members are challenged to balance their basic needs for belonging as an integral part of the family with that of striving for individuality (Curtis, 1999). In addition, there are struggles to be a part of the family system yet to be separate. To be protected yet remain free. To be alike but also remain different. Be supported while also being independent. In forming the identity of our family there was great optimism about what the future would hold for us and we knew we could get through whatever came our way. In order to do that successively we had to establish some boundaries. These boundaries surrounded the family system, its subsystems and each individual member. Boundaries that would include our emotions, physical, sexual, and relational interactions within and outside the family.

Family Identity is just as important as one’s sense of self. Being aware of who one is and what you share with others. As such, family identity is an underlying cognitive structure, a set of fundamental beliefs, attitudes, and attributions the family shares about itself (Curtis, 1999). Within our family, exist rules that support our identity as a family system. These rules often determine how our family members relate to each other and to outsiders. Contained with our identity is the premium trait of family growth through any given stage. The general purpose of the family unit is to create an environment or a framework within which mature, fully functioning individuals can develop (Curtis, 1999). Stated simply, a family unit is either in a “growth” or and “arrested” framework. A great example of this could illustrate speaking to a teenager to eat all the vegtables on her plate as you would lead a growing child to do in a family life cycle stage for preschool children. That’s “arrested” development.

In conclusion it is paramount to understand that each family system can be defined by various situations and experiences and its responses to those events. Some form of internal regulation must be present with mechanisms to organize structure and remain stable. Yet the family unit needs to be characterized with a degree of flexibility and capacity for change while also achieving morphostasis. My family, while in stage 2 (child bearing family) would be unable to move to the next stage of development (stage 3; families with preschool children) if we were unable to achieve the emotional issues and the stage 2 critical tasks. Our maturity and growth individually and possibly collectively would assume a “arrested” state. Additionally, a death in the family, sickness, physical impairment, cancer or other family crisis could halt or alter the family’s ability to emotionally, intellectually and cognitively transition into the next stage. Paradoxically, family cohesion is probably best achieved by allowing individuality and variation commensurate to the developmental stages of individual members and thus of the family as a whole (Becvar & Becvar, 1998). Another impacting or altering challenge to optimal family functioning is the generational beliefs, attitudes, roles and values that each parent brings to the newly formed family. So many factors, events and variables are thrown into the mix which impact the overall continued health and wellbeing of the family system at each cycle. I remain amazed at how well my family system just seemed to naturally attain, sustain or develop the correct balance and form of equilibrium to remain whole and functioning effectively during each cycle. Blessed and grateful for the fortunate upbringing and experiences present throughout my personal development was continually reflected back to this learning plan material. I am better equipped to objectively and subjectively apply this subject material to comparatively understand more of the family life cycle dynamics for experiences which were not part of my personal development. My parents did a great job of presenting me with a cognitive road map to institute with my created family.

References

Becvar, R. J., & Becvar, D. S. (1998). Systems Theory and Family Therapy: A Primer (2nd ed.). Unity Press of America Inc.

Curtis, O. (1999). Chemical Dependency A Family Affair. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Virginia Satir’s Family Counseling Theory

By Mike Micoliczyk LP#5

I must confess, that at the start of the learning plan the material and topic had my total engaged interest. Still does but, my mind began to swirl with all the various theories, tenets, goals of treatment, view of the family positions and each Therapist’s different style. My continued learning displaces a previous assumption that current behavior to each individual personality is a byproduct solely influenced by past distinct events. Rather than ‘family therapy recognizes instead that the dominant forces in personality development lie within interactions in the family system, therefore attempts to understand people must be made within the context of their families’ (Curtis, 1999). Fascinated by the material, and each different therapeutic model, I began to form some personal biases based on my own personality traits, interests, experiences and leanings. The therapist that incorporates a therapeutic style and theory strongest to my liking is Virginia Satir. Our text calls it “The Process Model,” but it is known as the “Satir Method” or also “Satir Transformational Systemic Therapy” (STST).

Virginia Satir is one of the primary pioneers of family therapy and also referred to as the mother of family therapy. She treated her first family in therapy in 1951. Attended school at Northwestern University, University of Chicago School of Social Services , Practiced at Illinois Psychiatric Institute, established the Mental Research Institute, and led the training program at Esalen Institute, founded the International Human Learning Resources Network, wrote 9 books, ran her own private practice while also providing hundreds of workshops with training and last but not least, for the icing on the cake- she’s a home grown Wisconsin girl from Neillsville and also attended what was the Milwaukee State Teachers College, now the University of Wisconsin. She taught other therapists the significance of addressing the whole family during treatment, not just only the individual client. Her therapy is designed to improve relationships and communication within the family structure by addressing a person’s actions, emotions, and perceptions as they relate to that person’s dynamic within the family unit (Good Therapy, 2016).

Satir believed that the family system remains in balance by the involvement of each family member. That the family rules are acquired from the parents and their maintenance of self-esteem decides how the family structure functions. Manifested symptoms signal a blockage in an individual’s growth and that, however distorted the system may be, family members adapt to the symptom to maintain balance (Curtis, 1999). This feeds to the framework where children develop their self-esteem. Satir was a big proponent to the belief that self-esteem is a central position of communication. Often enough, the communication within the family system is patterned in faulty relationship which hinders healthy functioning.

In “The Process Model” from our text, it is highlighted with four examples of individual types with dysfunctional communication styles.

The Placater-minimizes sense of self and behaves in a way to avoid conflict and confrontation from others. Their worth is built by being accepted by others. They choose to remain in dysfunctional relationships because the have no options or choice to leave.

The Blamer-They choose to take a dominant position over others. They do this to avoid facing their own issues. Their unhappiness is blamed on others. Often they are rigid, shaming and critical of others.

The Intellectualizers -disregard their own feelings. Often feel uncomfortable if their feelings are visible. To avoid feelings, they solve problems and fix them. Use logic to focus on making sense for themselves.

Distracters-to avoid conflict they divert attention away from themselves. They turn focus away onto others. Said to be charming and elusive so that they and others will not experience hurtful feelings.

To bring harmony and balance back to the individual and the family system, Satir joins forces with the family by being engaged, caring, genuine and fused to the position and dynamics within the family. She promotes wellness and assumes a role of teacher, leader and instructor. Her methods involve individuals taking charge of their lives by using techniques of modification, discovery and sculpting. Sculpting is the process by which she allows people to view themselves objectively within the experience related to previous events of involvement. Through these processes the family members visibly acknowledge patterned communication and relational issues or faults. Using family reconstruction Satir therapy can lay out a arrangement of events which can help identify the origin of differing symptoms.

Transformational Systemic Therapy change is possible in the therapeutic process by also using Experiential process or ‘presenting therapy in such a way that those in treatment are able to experience the effects of past events in the present while simultaneously experiencing their Life Energy. As an individual experiences both the negative energy from the past and the positive energy from the Life Force, an energetic shift may take place’ (Good Therapy, 2016). This process position of hers along with her spiritual approach and belief system is why I was drawn to her theory and therapy techniques. As a form of treatment for abuse disorders spirituality is a predominant reference sought and encouraged, as cited in AA or NA 12 steps. None of the other theories presented or analyzed in this learning plan involved a strong position of spirituality. Alcoholism and addiction are diseases of isolation. Satir’s family system theory and application are grounded in a deep connecting human approach. A holistic, simple relational application with the clients. She believes it is the therapist’s task to help them gain access to and use their “nourishing potentials.” (Curtis, 1999). The deeper humanistic, spiritual related therapies have repeatedly proven themselves successful in addressing and alternating isolation and substance abuse. It is possible for people to learn to work from a paradigm in which the spiritual essence of the therapist and of the client join together to find new possibilities and where transformational change is a result of a positively directional, systemic, experiential process (Banmen & Banmen).

The link below is a brief clip of Virginia Satir.

https://youtu.be/hiOG6qsf8BU

References

Banmen, J., & Banmen, M. K. (n.d.). Satir transformational systemic therapy (in brief). Retrieved from http://www.satirpacific.org/uploads/documents/Satir%20Transformational%20Systemic%20Therapy%20in%20Brief.pdf

Curtis, O. (1999). Chemical Dependency A Family Affair. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Good Therapy. (2016, May 12). Retrieved from https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/satir-transformational-systemic-therapy

Families and Substance Use Disorders: Survivor Roles

By Mike Micoliczyk

LP#6

Alcoholism or any type of addiction is a disease that affects the entire family system. The family unit is a system and that system is a collection of parts that create a body that is more than the sum of its parts. The system seeks to maintain balance and maintain itself-even if that state of function is unhealthy. Each part of the system affects every other part and each part affects the system. The distorted regulatory structure of the chemically dependent family has an emotional impact, to some extent, on all its members (Curtis, 1999). As dependency increases with the chemically dependent family member, the entire family grows more out of touch with the reality of their emotions while the dysfunction increases in the dependent’s unpredictable behavior. The reaction to the dependent person comes from response of each family members own perspective and interpretation of the family’s condition or necessities. In order to cope with the malady of the disease, individual members assume survival roles. These roles assist to develop defensive walls for protection against painful feelings they are experiencing individually and collectively as a whole within the family structure. Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse outlined family systems concepts and identified these roles through extensive dynamic work in the fields of addiction, codependency and with alcoholic families. Family members develop these survival roles to depress feelings which neutralize personal pain and stress, often without their awareness.

As the addict progresses in delusion and denial of reality the ‘person internalizes tremendous feelings of shame, guilt, inadequacy, fear, and loneliness’ (Curtis, 1999). Associated with the disease the dependent exhibits behaviors and defense mechanisms like: denial, rationalization, minimizing, anger, social withdrawal, depression, rigidity, threats and perfectionism. As the family adapts to the dependency behaviors, the addict looks to assign responsibility for the dependency of using by projecting responsibility back to the origin of the problems being the family’s fault. This will relieve some of the dependents internal stress but they are not aware of increasing dysfunction and its impact on the family. Ironically, the dependent becomes more aware of increasing problems with the family and its specific members. This minimizes the dependents own sense of responsibility and thus provides further justification to continue using. Because this protective mentality lacks personal insight, the dependent continues to feel more pain, which in response, produces more unconscious projection back on the family. The family then develops the roles below to cope.

The first identifiable, commonplace survival role of the Codependent is usually the person closest to the addict. The codependent can be an adult child enabling the parent, spouse, the parent enabling a child, sibling or an adolescent. Usually the codependent is the first family member to react dysfunctionally. Both the dependent and the codependent are engaged in a successful self-deception that allows the disease to remain hidden and to progress toward more serious stages (Curtis, 1999). Because the codependent shields the dependent from feeling the deep impact of the disease, the dependent loses the ability to gain insight related to the severity of the dependency. The codependent becomes very vulnerable, reactive and protective of the dependents developing defenses. Due to the excuse making measures of the codependent, the dependent is unable to recognize or comprehend the increasing consequences of their use. Very interestingly, their justified behaviors block the understanding and severity of the problem. Enabling is anything that is done to protect the dependent from suffering consequences whereas codependency, in contrast, is displayed in a relationship with an addict or dysfunctional person.

The Hero in the family is generally, but not exclusively the oldest child in the family. The hero tends to feel most responsible for the family pain. The family hero has feelings of pain and confusion that are masked by overachieving, super responsible, hardworking, perfectionist characteristics. Through his or her own achievements, the hero tries to bring the family together and create a sense of normalcy (Natalie, 2017). The hero is your typical type A personality. This individual is often anticipatory with interpreting the needs and wishes of others in the family. The hero is serious and likes to feel in control. Hero’s put a lot of pressure on themselves and are highly stressed. Unfortunately, the price to be paid in this role is excessive activity, exhaustion, perfectionism and the lonely search for some appreciation and approval.

The Scapegoat is the person who gets blamed for the family’s problems. The scapegoat tends to feel helpless because the hero and codependent’s attempts to fix the problem have been unsuccessful. The scapegoat is typically the problem child. Their disruptive behavior demands urgent, fast attention which often provides a distraction for the stress put on the family system by the dependent. It may be negative and belittling but at least they are receiving direct communication. The scapegoat feels some power and importance assigned to the attention they receive in this role. The scapegoat offers the family a sense of purpose by providing someone else to blame rather than the dependent. Unable to “get in,” the scapegoat learns early that defiance is a good cover for internalized feelings of hurt and inadequacy (Curtis, 1999). Their jealousy towards the hero and being thought of as disloyal to the family compound there internalized hurt. Their silent anger turned inward creates incredible intensity that seeks release or relief, and that relief seems to be accomplished by continued acting out. Scapegoats feel rejected and commonly withdraw from the family. Observable behaviors in adulthood include self-pity, defiance, hostility and strong peer values. Alcohol and drug use along with delinquent or criminal behavior are noted traits at an early stage of life. Males often act out in violence and females run away or participate in promiscuous sex.

The Mascot role is known to bring humor, distract and relieve tension in the family system. They are always trying to deflect stress of the situation by supplying humor. The role is often assumed by the youngest child. The mascot learned at an early age that the best way to lessen tension is with laughter. The actions of the hero and their achievements and the disruptive behavior of the scapegoat require a lot of attention from the family, so in order to grab some focus or be noticed, the mascot will clown around, use humor or switch subjects. Commanding the center of attention provides some sense of personal control, offers more order in the chaotic environment, and creates good feelings inside (Curtis, 1999). The mascot accepts the laughter as approval, thus deflecting any critical judgement by family onto themselves. Humor is a successful shield at masking inner painful feelings. No one sees the hurt or tears behind the clown mask and because of this they are often lonely, misunderstood and lack intimacy in their relationships. Often, they grow up with immaturity and insecurity without the ability to recognize and express feelings.

The Lost Child, along with the scapegoat have much in common. They feel irrelevant and unimportant within the family. The lost child appears to avoid the dependency problem and family discord completely. This role is usually taken on by the youngest or middle child. They are loners, shy and withdrawn. They are a relief to the family because they don’t create a need to worry. Because they create no problems, they have been rewarded unintentionally by the family. Their isolation is appreciated because it brings no tension or stress to add to family dysfunction. Typically, the lost child is liked by everyone in the family but through their isolation they often become ignored. The family perceives them as the “good” child because time is spent alone with TV, books, listening to music or involved in isolated activities. While the lost child will not be successful at drawing attention away from the family problem, he or she is able to avoid stress personally (Roles in the Addicted Family System). Some lost children relate better to their imaginary friends or stuffed animals then to the family. In trying to form relationships they feel inadequate because of their inability to communicate. In adulthood these early learned behaviors manifest themselves in confusion about friendships, sexual involvement, disagreements, arguments, possessions and materialism.

Through this learning process of the various survival roles I was the identified chemically dependent family member. It startled me to discover that in addition to be the dependent that altered the homeostasis of our family system and caused others in my family to adapt these survival roles in order to cope with the dysfunction, many of the characteristics of each role have carried over into the adult life of my siblings. My dependency costed the family system incredible maladjusted behaviors and practices of coping at the time of my dependency. The specific identification of each member playing a specific role is very evident to me now. My understanding now also lends my awareness to how these roles can persist beyond the addicted family system. Survival roles can be passed down to additional generations, through the modeling and learning experience they encountered. My family members along with so many more families must steer and endure the chaotic world of addiction, ultimately adopting coping strategies that can create lasting negative effects if untreated. The ramifications and severity of the disease never lied solely with the dependent, it took its great ill impact to the entire family.

References

Curtis, O. (1999). Chemical Dependency A Family Affair. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

MARR Addiction Treatment Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.marrinc.org/roles-in-the-addicted-family-system/

Natalie. (2017, June 23). Rehabs.com. Retrieved from An American Addiction Centers Resource: https://www.rehabs.com/blog/6-common-family-roles-in-an-addicted-household/

Family of Origin Assessment

By Mike Micoliczyk

LP#7

In my family of origin, the hierarchy was me being the oldest of 3 children. My brother Mark is 18 months younger than me and my sister Mandy is 8 years younger than me. We were raised by two loving married heterosexual parents; Diane and Richard Micoliczyk. The family structure I grew up in was very structured, solid, leaning a little more to rigid, and expecting. It was definable and boundary laced. Roles and expectations were clear. Stability was strong but cohesiveness sometimes felt strange and awkward, at least with regard of me and my siblings in open dialogue to our parents. Traditions, rituals, safety, needs, day to day activities, expectations, support, interest of wellbeing, behaviors and interdependence were consistent and predictable. We were connected and plugged into the extended families of both my father and mother. We were allowed to discover independence apart and away from the family. We could each individually discover ourselves and the world around us with age appropriate choices and consequences.

Traveling back through our learning plans of the course and all related activities and resources, I’ve looked upon my family system with openness and willingness to have an open embracing attitude of where the material would take me. Family systems contain an incredible fabric of related interactional beliefs, roles, subsystems, alliances, communication types and interacting generational forces at work. I appreciatively embraced where the material would take me and how I was going to gain incredible knowledge to support that ‘family therapy recognizes instead that the dominant forces in personality development lie within interactions in the family system, therefore attempts to understand people must be made within the context of their families’ (Curtis, 1999). The knowledge is incredibly important, but I was made to look behind that and disseminate my personal experience related to my family of origin. Henry Ford once made a wise remark to the effect that “experience is the thing of supreme value in life. That is true only if one is willing to turn the past to good account. We grow by our willingness to face and rectify errors and convert them into assets”. This class has blessed me with an incredible understanding to relate growth assistive intentions for the chemically dependent client or family members. I needed to grasp our learning material from my own personal observational experience related to my own family of origin. I’ve reflected with acute feelings of pride, anger, disbelief, startlement, disgust, appreciation and thankful interdependence of understanding.

My conceptual understanding of family systems is indeed framed within many ideas, dyads, subsystems, concepts, theories and foundations presented to help me better disseminate effective use and understanding. With this learning and knowledge, I have a foundational point of reference for its application. What better place to start from than one’s own family of origin? Its like the material exposure was this great wave of delightful insight. Then to relate the assessment material of myself into my own family system brought bright vivid deep colors of intense awareness. Re-reading my papers, turning to the chapters in our text, discussion points or revisiting my body of work in my Wiki site, revealed my dysfunctional behaviors as well as collectively rigid structures within the family that were not assistive development mechanisms in striving to attain homeostatic balance. Whether this related to strong individualistic attitudes stemming from generational extended family beliefs or immature interdependent interactions, I can’t say exclusively. I know a fear of disproval or rejection were strong undercurrents within myself. I must believe they existed within my sister and brother also.

I found this examination of my family of origin to be more than just an assignment to submit. It became an extensive thought gathering, reflective exercise of my family’s functioning capacity and my reactive tendencies to the system. It took me through my family’s structure and my ability or inability of healthy functioning related to Life Style Assessment, Reflections on Family Structure, Childhood Experiences, Separation and Belonging and finally, Family Boundaries and Rules. I continually discovered that my family system, much like most systems, was continually seeking to maintain a balance or return to a position of homeostasis. That we as a family system, and our sub systems, did not know how to achieve morphogenesis. I was not equipped to reach or achieve healthy change on my own because ‘internalized feelings of pain and confusion were disguised by overachievement, super responsibility, working hard for approval and perfectionism’ (Curtis, 1999). Yet the system continually tried to regulate itself and without my awareness the system was strong, healthy and self-sustaining in its preservation. The system sustained me better than I could have planned or intended for myself. I existed, flourished and found myself through the years tied in very loosely or tightly, clinging to the system and its members for assurance, development, encouragement, support, love, contribution and direction. The system was faulty and sometimes broke, but it was always seemed to self-correct itself to a state of morphostasis.

I did not publish our second learning plan “Family Systems Matrix” to my Wiki site. Out of respect for family members and its sensitive material I will seek their approval first. In seeking their approval, I will need to open up dialog which will be possibly painful and delicate to address. Put in the proper context by myself, I believe it will bring incredible healing, awareness and great discoveries to our family. The process and format of how to do this is not blatantly clear yet but, I know it is going to have to be about their individual and collective wellbeing not sacrificed by my own self-worth insecurities. What I do know, is that I must lead from a position of resilient, positive appreciation and admiration of our family system. My family members need to know there is no shame, disgust or regret for this discovery. I only hope that I can properly frame this in a proper context that minimizes adverse reactions. I want to create an open receptive environment where the byproducts produced are growth, healing and willingness. I want them to understand that some of our subconscious beliefs, boundaries, rules, and sense of belonging were generational identity formations at work also. I have to moderate my desire to fix and protect them. Being the family hero, I feel responsible for their pain and I need to separate personal recognition and performance with humble acceptance of my insecurities and vulnerabilities along with theirs.

References

Curtis, O. (1999). Chemical Dependency A Family Affair. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.