1.13: Family Systems Theories

Family Systems Theory

Some theories are focused on a specific agent of socialization such as family. Family Systems Theory does just that, focuses how how the family socialized children. Family Systems Theory (from the work of Ackerman, Jackson, Minuchin, and Bowen) comes under the Functional Theory umbrella and shares the functional approach of considering the dysfunctions and functions of complex groups and organizations.

Family Systems Theory claims that the family is understood best by conceptualizing it as a complex, dynamic, and changing collection of parts, subsystems and family members. Much like a mechanic would interface with the computer system of a broken-down car to diagnose which systems are broken (transmission, electric, fuel, etc.) to repair it, a therapist or researcher would interact with family members to diagnose how and where the systems of the family are working and where they are in need of repair or intervention.

In the article entitled, “Understanding Families: Applying Family Systems Theory to Early Childhood Practice” by Linda Garris Christian, she states that family systems theory can explain why members of a family behave the way they do in a given situation. She identifies the six characteristics that make up the theory collectively.

The six characteristics are:

1. Boundaries – relates to limit, togetherness and separateness—what or who is “in” or “out of” the family.
2. Roles – in all families individuals members have roles, those roles may include – peacemaker, clown, rescuer, victim, these roles can be carried over into work, school, and social settings.
3. Rules – a set of standards, laws, or traditions that tell us how-to live-in relation to each other, they are often embedded in a cultural context; therefore, they can contribute to the feeling of cultural discontinuity that some children experience at school.
4. Hierarchy – this refers to who holds the decision making, control, and power in the family, each time the family composition changes, there is a shift in where family members are in their hierarchy.
5. Climate – this is about the emotional and physical environment of the family.
6. Equilibrium – the refers to the balance or imbalance that exists in the family, consistency in families can be difficult to maintain, but it is critical to children’s development that they have a sense of security and trust to maintain healthy development

The information uses ideas and concepts from the article " Understanding Families: Applying Family Systems Theory". After reviewing the article, you may want to reflect on the questions below.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): A family enjoying the day together. (Public Domain; NARA)

Critical Reflection

1. How might you apply the six characteristics in this theory to your family of origin?
2. What more do you need to know about this theory to help you to support children and families in your early learning environment?

Functionalism

When considering the role of family in society, functionalists uphold the notion that families are an important social institution and that they play a key role in stabilizing society. They also note that family members take on status roles in a marriage or family. The family—and its members—perform certain functions that facilitate the prosperity and development of society.

Sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic (Murdock 1949). According to Murdock, the family (which for him includes the state of marriage) regulates sexual relations between individuals. He does not deny the existence or impact of premarital or extramarital sex, but states that the family offers a socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults (Murdock, 1949)). This outlet gives way to reproduction, which is a necessary part of ensuring the survival of society.

Once children are born, the family plays a vital role in training them for adult life. As the primary agent of socialization and enculturation, the family teaches young children the ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. For example, in some families, parents teach their children manners and civility believing a well-mannered child reflects a well-mannered parent.

Parents also teach children gender roles. Gender roles are an important part of the economic function of a family. In each family, there is a division of labor that consists of instrumental and expressive roles. Men tend to assume the instrumental roles in the family, which typically involve work outside of the family that provides financial support and establishes family status. Women tend to assume the expressive roles, which typically involve work inside of the family which provides emotional support and physical care for children (Crano and Aronoff 1978).

According to functionalists, the differentiation of the roles on the basis of sex ensures that families are well balanced and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, the family is thrown out of balance and must recalibrate in order to function properly. For example, if the father assumes an expressive role such as providing daytime care for the children, the mother must take on an instrumental role such as gaining paid employment outside of the home in order for the family to maintain balance and function.

Conflict Theory

The functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence.

Conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict. The family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Conflict theorists are quick to point out that U.S. families have been defined as private entities, the consequence of which has been to leave family matters to only those within the family. Many people in the United States are resistant to government intervention in the family: parents do not want the government to tell them how to raise their children or to become involved in domestic issues. Conflict theory highlights the role of power in family life and contends that the family is often not a haven but rather an arena where power struggles can occur. This exercise of power often entails the performance of family status roles. Conflict theorists may study conflicts as simple as the enforcement of rules from parent to child, or they may examine more serious issues such as domestic violence (spousal and child), sexual assault, marital rape, and incest.

The first study of marital power was performed in 1960. Researchers found that the person with the most access to value resources held the most power. As money is one of the most valuable resources, men who worked in paid labor outside of the home held more power than women who worked inside the home (Blood and Wolfe 1960). Even today, with more fluid family roles, conflict theorists find disputes over the division of household labor to be a common source of marital discord. Household labor offers no wages and, therefore, no power. Studies indicate that when men do more housework, women experience more satisfaction in their marriages, reducing the incidence of conflict (Coltrane 2000). In general, conflict theorists tend to study areas of marriage and life that involve inequalities or discrepancies in power and authority, as they are reflective of the larger social structure.

Check-in Time!

How does the division of chores impact or not impact your household?

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists view the world in terms of symbols and the meanings assigned to them (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). The family itself is a symbol. To some, it is a father, mother, and children; to others, it is any union that involves respect and compassion. Interactionists stress that family is not an objective, concrete reality. Like other social phenomena, it is a social construct that is subject to the ebb and flow of social norms and ever-changing meanings.

Consider the meaning of other elements of family: in the past, “parent” was a symbol of a biological and emotional connection to a child. With more parent-child relationships developing through adoption, remarriage, or change in guardianship, the word “parent” today is less likely to be associated with a biological connection than with whoever is socially recognized as having the responsibility for a child’s upbringing. Similarly, the terms “mother” and “father” are no longer rigidly associated with the meanings of caregiver and breadwinner. These meanings are more free-flowing through changing family roles.

Interactionists also recognize how the family status roles of each member are socially constructed, playing an important part in how people perceive and interpret social behavior. Interactionists view the family as a group of role players or “actors” that come together to act out their parts in an effort to construct a family. These roles are up for interpretation. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a “good father,” for example, was one who worked hard to provide financial security for his children. Today, for some, a “good father” is one who takes the time outside of work to promote his children’s emotional well-being, social skills, and intellectual growth—in some ways, a much more daunting task.

References

Blood, R. O., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of family living. Free Press Glencoe.

Christian, L. G. (2006). Understanding Families: Applying Family Systems Theory to Early Childhood Practice. National Association of the Education of Young Children Beyond the Journal

Coltrane, Scott. (2000). Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work. Journal of Marriage and The Family. Universty of California Riverside.

Crano, W. D., & Aronoff, J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of expressive and instrumental role complementarity in the family. American Sociological Review, 43(4), 463–471.

LaRossa, R. and Reitzes, D.C. (1993). Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies. In: Boss, P.G., Doherty, W.J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R. and Steinmetz, S.K., Eds., Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. Plenum, New York, 135-163.

Murdock, George. (1949). Social structure. NY: The MacMillan Company.

University of Minnisota Libraries Publishing. (n.d.). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World. University Libraries.

Attribution

Intimate Relationships and Families by Ron Hammond and Paul Cheney is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (pg. 5-11)