Constructionist Perspective on Family Violence - Research Paper Example

 Family Violence, a Constructionist Perspective Violence among members of a family, whether initiated by the husband, wife or regarding deviant sibling behaviors is a complex and controversial issue. Its causes and therapeutic solutions have garnered the attention of medical and psychiatric professionals as well as advocacy groups, social counselors, lawmakers and those that enforce the law. Family violence is not only a problematical social dilemma; the myriad of issues involving therapy for persons that employ physical hostilities and emotional abuses towards those that should be among those closest to them, their family, remains largely uncertain and very controversial within the professional community. Experts in this therapeutic field are not of similar opinion regarding the most viable approach in treatment methods for those who seek-out assistance when their domestic problems involve issues of violence in the home. In addition, there are few guidelines with respect to the treatment of couples in a conjoined session environment when the issue is violence within that relationship. Because the objective of family therapy is for not only the therapist but the participants to acquire knowledge in an effort to attain understanding between all parties concerned, this paper recommends a constructionist viewpoint rather than a positive approach. First, a comprehensive explanation regarding the differences between these therapeutic methods must be examined to appreciate why the constructionist approach is more effective in gaining this universal understanding. The discussion then will observe the mechanics involved in the constructionist method of family therapy. Simply stated, positivism contends that violent behaviors are absolute and deterministic in nature while constructivism believes these adverse behaviors are voluntary, subjective and relative. “The positivist approach to research is based on empiricism and the belief that knowledge is derived from sensory experience and hypothesis testing… focusing on observable truths rather than reasoned deductions or metaphysical speculation” (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). The fundamental supposition of the positivist viewpoint is that systematic, scientific scrutinisation will ultimately realize an accurate and precise knowledge of the situation. Historically speaking, this empirical perception secured popularity and support when the metaphysical ideologies of reality, which had been largely adopted by church teachings, were being questioned. A sound basis by which to understand the fundamental differences between the constructionist viewpoint and the more traditional positivist view is, for the constructionist, knowledge cannot be defined by what an individual alone believes but instead by what the social community they are a part of believes. The constructionist perceptions do not mean to imply that individuals don’t formulate ideas on their own but that their perceptions and ideas are in due course given significance within their particular social perspective. The term constructionist “refers to the idea that learners construct knowledge for themselves; each learner individually (and socially) constructs meaning, as he or she learns” (Hein, 1991). For the therapist, to construct a meaning in the context of their patients’ own individual living conditions promotes learning and in many peoples’ opinion, there is not a better method by which to do so. Two basic premises of interaction between the counselor and subject must be understood so as to more clearly define the constructionist view. First, the focus is placed upon the learner in terms of the philosophy of learning itself and not simply on the lesson or subject being taught. Secondly, the realization that there exists no knowledge other than what is attributed to the construction (experience) of the subject, or the person(s) attempting to learn. According to the constructionist point of view, the counselor and the patient must realize that the conceptualization of knowledge, within the context of family and social situations, is not outside of the individual’s own perceptions. What is known is only what the individual constructs for themselves within the limits of their own understanding. Learning has little or nothing to do with understanding what resides within what is generally perceived as the preordained makeup of order and it is not effective when attempting to memorize vague, superficial and perfect ideas postulated by others. Learning is rather of a personal and social construct drawn from a personal meaning from a mystifying array of feelings which contain no structure or order outside of which is fabricated by the counselor to the individual. The constructivist model necessitates that counselors and theorists think in total opposition to the positivist approach. The positive approach postulates that learned knowledge is an all-inclusive cosmic mechanism which explains the nature of a generic, combined knowledge unlike constructionist thinkers who instead look upon and teach that the learners are individual entities each of whom creates, or constructs, their own explanation of being and actions based upon their own unique perceptions of life. “If we accept the constructivist position we are inevitably required to follow a pedagogy which argues that we must provide learners with the opportunity to interact with sensory data, and construct their own world” (Hein, 1991). The nature of reality within a positivist paradigm involves such features as a single, one-true discoverable knowledge to be understood. Human reality is divided into conditions of right or true and wrong or false. A Constructivist Paradigm involves multiple types of invented, co-constructed realities where there may lie various forms of ‘self.’ The human experience is ongoing, emotional and simultaneous with the whole experience and emotions are permanent supporting features that move all experiences. Since there are multiple interpretations, no one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong, true or false. (Hale-Haniff & Pasztor, 1999). Approaching family problems with an open mind and a willingness to delve into the individual situations rather than attempting to slot each case into a predetermined classification seems to be a much more pragmatic and sensible methodology. It is true that what individuals perceive to be true is, in fact, true for them and cannot be applied to any other. Attempting to instruct an abuser that their actions are wrong based upon a general perception can only be counter-productive because these perceptions may not apply in their particular case. On the other hand, having them learn that their actions are erroneous according to their own perceptions and ideals will have the desired affect as this makes more sense to them within their own perspectives and results in long-term healing. Family violence counseling therapeutic techniques are evolving and beginning to emerge from the constraints that, until recently, were placed on them by the more prevalent positivist viewpoint. The positivist perspective regarding family intervention and counseling was based upon a widely general ideological view of therapy which then gradually progressed by an increased use of more advanced procedures. The process was intended to apply the particular family’s dilemma to what worked for most cultural structures. The introduction of the constructivist methods generated instead a growing resolve to invoke specificity to family counseling with the desired outcome of appreciating and identifying the particular needs and situations of individual family units. When applying the precepts of constructivism, counselors do not assess a family’s unique situation by how they fit into generalized conceptions. Instead, they do the opposite by accessing how well theories fit, if at all, within the particular situation. Additionally, there may be several theories that, in part, may be considered useful when examining the unique nature of a situation. “Social constructionist-influenced counselors pay increasing attention to issues such as family violence and abuse, families in urban and rural poverty, families and addiction, and families and ethnicity, consistent with this emphasis on understanding multiple influences on families” (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998, p. 319). The family counselor who is of a constructivist partiality might begin the sessions with a sociological dialogue which consists of the family’s demography and social history (Stacy, 1991). Sociologists have conferred extensively regarding the development of the American family. The evolution that has taken place in the country’s history has radically changed from its beginnings as a Puritanical patriarchal social order followed by the changes occurring as a result of the integration of immigrants to the more modern and recognizable version of the family unit during the industrial era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This led finally to today’s more high-tech, fast-paced version of the family structure. The constructionist method advocates that families could be better understood by the exploration of historical accounts, such as letters, diaries, memoirs, letters and other such accounts (Gergen, 1985, p. 273). Constructivist investigations require an in-depth portrayal of a particular family in crisis. The methods are concerned with gender, traditions and perceptions of social class as primary coordinating dynamics within the context of counseling. Constructivist counselors are interested in the individual history of the family. “While the traditional, empirical approach adopted from the physical sciences can provide valuable insights about controlled events, understanding the lives of families within cultures and societies seems to demand a more narrative-based approach” (Bruner, 1990). A family’s values and belief system can be indicators of behavioral patterns which are told to the counselor by individual family members. These individuals also seem to come together as a unit while relating their unique history. This interaction between all concerned is a positive method through which to not only reflect upon but to construct an optimistic viewpoint upon which a more solid foundation can be expected. Simple conversation between family members is a primary means through which both counselors and family members can conduct beneficial therapy. In constructivist versions of family therapy and education, family members are encouraged to engage each other in an active practice of reflection and dialogue, in an effort to solve their own unique, ‘real life’ family matters. A constructivist therapy session is in essence an uncensored, democratic gathering place for families in which all members endeavor to connect with one other in an atmosphere of openness. It involves the use of analytical dialogues which question traditional practices, personal belief systems and family recognized institutions. This type of open setting is principally significant considering society’s present deliberations regarding the present condition and future of what the typical American family should be and how this relates to the present family members in crisis. “The dialectical journey is perhaps more important than the destination or arrival at a final objective” (McAuliffe & Lovellis, 2000). One of the characteristic traits of the constructionist method of thought is the use of narrative tactics in which the practice of externalizing is its most noticeable quality. Externalizing procedures establish a framework by which family issues are considered as separate from the family members themselves. The members of a family affected by violence within its unit are asked to openly talk about personal issues, hardships and limitations in a way that disconnects the person involved from particular issue. This course of action is rather exceptional in relation to the more traditional conceptions of family therapy which put importance on the positivist approach, a scientific means of examining family problems within an individuals’ character. Therapeutic issues are conceptualized from a narrative point of view “existing outside people as a linguistic device to reorganize our thinking in ways that counter shame and blame, minimize defensiveness and promote client agency or the capacity to act on behalf of themselves in relation to problems” (Madsen, 1999, p. 169). The practice of externalizing actively seeks to connect family members in dialogues which permit problems to be viewed as outside the context of the person and thus less emotionally driven. This form of life narration creates almost a fictional account of one’s life which opens the person to other choices they may not have considered. Traditional forms of therapy including the positivistic approach regularly look for empirical deductions and normally rely on the counselor’s expertise to collect, and interpret information. Conversely, “narrative-inspired research focuses on the subjective nature of experience and seeks to de-emphasize the therapist’s role as an expert” (Epston, 1999). The positivist methodology implements an empirical approach for examining family violence that depends upon complex scientific scrutiny. This method should be severely questioned regarding its effectiveness. Constructionist advocates believe that the definition of family issues in positivist terms contains two main faults. First, it ignores the sound reasoning that the identification of a family issue is a social problem requiring subjective judgment and, secondly, the labeling and slotting of problems unique to a particular family cannot achieve a basis for identifying solutions. Constructionists, by contrast, focus on individual characteristics which positivists largely ignore. From a positivist perspective, “a relational or ‘between persons’ diagnosis is no different from an individual or ‘within-the-person’ diagnosis. The inclusion of family therapy criteria for ‘behavioral health’ would simply place a new layer of labels upon an old one” (Gergen et al, 1996). In terms of being able to scientifically legitimize family violence therapy, the positivist point of view would be feasible. Yet if therapists seek to help individual families deal with their individual issues, this type of therapy is rarely effective and often counter-productive, except of course to the therapist’s bank account which is aided from the fact that families take much longer to heal, if they ever do, from this type of intervention technique. Family counselors should use the constructionist approach because it allows them to consider the uniqueness of individuals within a particular family setting instead of just viewing the overall picture of individual characteristics within a typical family grouping. Humans are complex creatures whose relationships cannot be simply categorized within norms of a society. Similar actions are not necessarily caused by similar reasons. Families in crisis situations should not be subject to such generalizations. The lack of in-depth, personalized attention by the therapist results in severe consequences for each family member. References Alvesson, M. & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publishing. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Epston, D. (1999). “Co-research: The Making of an Alternative Knowledge.” Narrative and Community Work: A Conference Collection. Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. Gergen, K. (1985). “The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology.” American Psychologist. Vol. 40, pp. 266-275. Gergen, Kenneth J.; Hoffman, Lynn & Anderson, Harlene. (1996). “Is Diagnosis a Disaster?: A Constructionist Trialogue.” Relational Diagnosis. Wiley. Hale-Haniff, Mary & Pasztor, Ana. (August 13, 1999). “Co-Constructing Subjective Experience: A Constructivist Approach.” Dialogues in Psychology. Vol. 16. Hein, George E. (October 15-22, 1991). “Constructivist Learning Theory.” The Museum and the Needs of People CECA [International Committee of Museum Educators] Confernece. Jerusalem, Israel. Madsen, W. (1999). Collaborative Therapy with Multi-Stressed Families: From Old Problems to New Futures. New York: Guilford Press. McAuliffe, G. & Lovell, C. (2000). “Encouraging Transformation: Guidelines for Constructivist and Developmental Instruction.” Preparing Counselors and Therapists: Creating Constructivist and Developmental Programs. G. McAuliffe & K. Eriksen (Eds.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. Nichols, M. P. & Schwartz, R. C. (1998). Family Therapy: Concepts and Methods. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stacy, J. (1991). Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval from Late Twentieth Century America. New York: Basic Books. Read More