Principles of Relationship Counselling - Research Paper Example

Principles of Relationship Counselling Introduction Relationships counselling is a very complex process. First and foremost, emotions are very volatile in relationships, and even more so when families are involved. There are no clear-cut rules in dealing with relationship issues and emotional problems. Oftentimes, no amount of expertise on the matter will ever truly resolve family relationship problems. This paper shall discuss the principles of relationship counselling in the hope of demonstrating an understanding of the relationship between systems family therapy and the constructive framework. It shall also discuss how this constructive framework can inform specific aspects of relationship counselling. Finally, this paper shall also assess one’s appreciation of the importance of cultural issues within this counselling setting. Discussion; Family Systems Therapy Goldenberg & Goldenberg (2002, p. 25) expressed that “from a systems perspective, every event within a family is determined by all the forces operating within that system. Disorder or symptomatic behaviour of any individual within the family is understood to be an expression or manifestation of the interactional process currently taking place within the family system as a whole”. Based on the above quote, the family is inextricably bound to the system operating within the family. The application of the family systems theory is seen when the family impacts heavily on the life of the individual. In essence, this theory also posits that the family can cure an individual’s ails, just as it can also worsen his malady. In the family systems theory, the individual is assessed or analysed as “a member of a family, a school, a community, and also the larger social system” (Atwood, 2001, p. 1). The therapy is focused on what role the individual plays in the larger scheme of things, and how the community he functions in affects his attitudes and his personality. The family systems theory was popularly laid out by Dr. Murray Bowen. According to Bowen, “the family is not a collection of autonomous entities but rather an interlocked emotional unit unto itself” (as quoted by Smart Recovery, n.d, p. 1). This premise binds the individual emotionally to the family unit. Bowen emphasized that the individual is part of a system, and the workings of this system is bound by the emotional elements of the family. Bowen observed that the members of the family have a reciprocal relationship; one member’s weakness is complemented or compensated by the strength of another. Various practitioners focusing on the family system theory point out that changes have to be made in the unit itself, not just on the individual; when a person then changes, this change will also overflow into the family as a whole. Family systems theorists point out that in order for this system to be effective, the ultimate goal for the member of the family is for each member to gain differentiation or individuality and still maintain unity as a family unit (Smart Recovery, n.d, p. 1). These theorists also emphasize that each person yearns to think, feel, and act for himself, and this yearning eventually helps to establish his individuality. But the unity and bond he is bound to seek in his family will eventually force him to operate as part of the family. The challenge in the individual now would be on how to seek and establish the balance between these two drives. In a family systems approach, an individual may be directed by his goals and his principles. This person is sure of his beliefs and he is focused on his thoughts. He can hear and evaluate the opinions and beliefs of other people, and he can ignore old ideas and consider new ones. He can also interact well with other people and he can communicate with others without antagonising other people. He also does not become overly responsible for other people. However, he is aware of his dependence on others, but is free to enjoy relationships (Corey, 2009, pp. 415-417). On the other hand, there are people who do not wish to give up togetherness in order to achieve more individuality. These people want to be individuals only to the extent that the relationship actually permits and approves. These people also perceive giving up their togetherness as equivalent to giving up emotional closeness. But this is not always the case. Disagreeing with another person does not mean emotionally distancing oneself from the other person (Smart Recovery, n.d, p. 1). And as a person often experiences rejection in some shape or form, he also prepares himself for changes in his life. But these changes are there to restore balance in the life of the person. Theorists emphasize that it is important for a person to navigate well through his intense feelings and through these changes. And as he manoeuvres through these changes, periods of anxiety may be felt by the individual (Corey, 2009, p. 433). During these times, he is likely to seek togetherness among members of his family and from the community he belongs to. This also often creates a fragmented individual who struggles to be his own person while still needing the emotional support that his family can give him. The family systems theory also presents a circularity of causality, “which defines each action and/or individual as influencing every other aspect of a system as part of a complex, reciprocal process of reinforcement” (Enns, 2004, p. 86). This theory relies heavily on family dynamics in order to explain a person’s behaviour. In some instances, this family dynamic is considered a strength in its analysis, however, in some instances, it is its weakness as well. The family dynamic takes too much credit for the individual. It does not however take into consideration other aspects of the individual and of the society which may affect the entire family systems and processes. Constructive Therapy The constructive theory focuses more on the individual members of the family or the community. It views the individual as independent of the system. “Constructive therapists are likely to focus their attention on the hopes and experiences of family members, whereas systemic therapists are more likely to speculate about the invisible workings of the family system” (Lowe, 2004, p. 26). In relation to Goldenberg’s views on the systemic theory, the constructive theory is more likely to analyse or assess the individual beyond the larger system that he is actually part of. The constructive theorists are more likely to consider the individual’s experiences from the perspective of his school, his community, and from the outside world. The systemic theorist would more likely find ways to help the members of the family get along with each other; and the constructive theorist would most likely ignore the family system altogether. By the very words of constructive therapy – construct – Hoyt points out that “constructive therapies are approaches that begin with the recognition that humans are meaning makers who construct, not simply uncover, their psychological realities...” (1998, p. 1, as quoted by Lowe, 2009, p. 9). For Hoyt, the constructive therapy emphasizes that man is capable of carving his own destiny, and that his life is not-predestined by expected psychoanalytic responses. Other authors echo Hoyt’s views when they explain that constructive therapy focuses more on socially constructed realities; it emphasizes on the reflexive nature of relationships with the client and the therapist construct meanings through dialogues; it avoids hierarchical distinctions; it maintains empathy and respect for client’s situation; it co-constructs goals for therapy; it searches for client’s competencies; it avoids vocabulary deficit and uses everyday language instead; it looks forward to the future; and it is sensitive to methods used in therapeutic conversations (Friedman, as quoted by Lowe, 2009, p. 9). And these points make the constructive approach more dynamic and client-centred. Critique: Feminist Perspective Some authors criticise the family systems therapy for ignoring the impact of gender on family relationships. Gender is an important factor in the family; however, in the analysis of the family systems and the behaviour of its members, it is all too often ignored. Enns (2004, p. 86) makes mention of the fact that although the system “appeared to offer an equal opportunity for understanding daily interactions, family systems models did not adequately address issues related to power differences, gendered family roles, or the pain associated with physical, sexual or emotional abuse”. Critics point out that power and gender differences have various effects on the members of the family. A paternal or maternal family environment can produce different coping mechanisms for its members. And yet, the foundations of family systems therapy is largely based on what males describe as healthy family functioning. This type of functioning is not always true from the female’s point of view. The female perspective is often lost in the midst of the male-dominated perspectives of the family and the community. Authors and psychoanalysts point out how the terms hierarchy, autonomy, and differentiation are often used to imply how ‘healthy’ the family is; but these terms are also largely associated with roles as defined by an authoritative structure. The terms fusion or symbiosis are hardly, if at all, used to present a coherent analysis of the family system (Braverman, 1988, pp. 19-21). The words used by Goldenberg and Goldenberg feature a cyclical relationship between family and the individual. The systems theory emphasized by the quote also credits the disorders that an individual may manifest as a product of the interactions which are going on in the system. This systems theory however does not take into individual consideration the details of the relationships in the family; nor does it take account a less co-dependent explanation for people’s behaviour and interactions. Feminists also point out that this systems approach often end up blaming the mother for a child’s disruptive behaviour, and so once again power and authority is shifted to the father (Braverman, 1988, p. 19). These feminists however emphasize that the sexist perspectives which are being advocated by the family systems approach can actually be reformulated in order to support a more non-sexist approach. They advocate a less-gender and hierarchical family systems approach which will not focus so much on the authorities emanating from the patriarch. Again in considering the quote from Goldenberg & Goldenberg, the criticisms set forth by the Feminists present strong and firm logic on the subject matter. The systems theory stems from a dominant precept about the family. And these dominant precepts place the father at the head of the rank, with the mother and the children occupying the lower rungs in the family system. Goldenberg & Goldenberg have failed to consider other aspects of the family and of society which also impact on the family dynamic. This makes the systems theory a limited perspective on family relationships and counselling (Corey, 2009, p. 434). The counselling process should not revolve on clichés and on family hierarchies alone; a wider, a more neutral, and a more comprehensive approach on relationships must be taken into account when counselling families. Racial/Ethnic The overall criticisms on family systems and constructive theory are based on the feminist perspective, the racial/ethnic perspective, and on the context of the systems. The feminist perspective was previously discussed. From a racial/ethnic perspective, the statement as quoted by Goldenberg & Goldenberg, is but a small part of the analysis of the individual. The quote does not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the family, and the cultural and ethnic nuances that make them different from other families. The social structures are often not taken into account in the family systems theory. Factors of race and ethnicity are also not taken into consideration before an analysis of the individual’s behaviour was made. The person’s interaction with the outside world may be addressed in this approach; however, “the overall structure of economic opportunity, racial/ethnic and gender stratification, and other features of the larger society are not analyzed” (Lamanna & Reid, 2009, p. 34). The responsibility of a person’s behaviour is always brought back to the family system – where a potential failure in the system is seen as a dysfunction. It is important for therapists and counsellors to note that the racial, ethnic, and cultural characteristics of an individual make his reaction to the world and to experiences different from other people. An American would have a different reaction to crisis or to emotional upheavals as compared to an Asian or an Arab. Some Asian cultures are very traditional, and they adhere to paternalistic patterns in the family. Some Americans are more inclined to sever their family ties the moment they leave their homes for college. The point being driven by this comparison is that an individual cannot always be assessed based on his family or his experiences with his family. And other factors need to be taken into account before the individual’s behaviour can be assessed and analysed. Larger System The context of the system is often ignored in the family systems theory. More particularly, the context of a larger system is not taken into consideration when assessing and analysing the individual’s behaviour. The larger system is important because it often involves the “cultural, political, and economic contexts, environment (social and physical), and any other contextual systems that impact the daily workings of the family, school, ethnicity, religion, culture, community, and so on” (Hecker & Wetchler, 2003, p. 44). The bigger system is where the individual gets to experience more profound experiences outside his family. Therefore the impact of this bigger system is something worth considering in achieving a more contextual analysis of the individual. Discussion: Constructive approach application The constructive approach can be applied well for children through family conferencing. First and foremost, the therapist or counsellor has to release his preconceived notions about the family system. The child has to be analysed and assessed as more than a part of the family system; he has to be assessed based on his actions and on the identity he seems to portray to the rest of the world. As was previously described, constructive therapists emphasize that the individual is capable of carving his own identity away from his family. The preconceived causes and effects do not have any place in this approach. The child can be assessed by ignoring details about family history and family trends. The usual patterns among family therapists often relies on seeing the child’s file and seeing a trend in the family history. They see an abusive father and immediately conceive the child to be a bully. They see a loving father and mother, and immediately expect a happy and well-adjusted child. And these expectations are often unfair burdens on the child. In order to establish a more balanced and fair assessment of the child, the constructive approach can ignore all these preconceived notions and assess the child’s behaviour based on what the therapist would establish during their sessions. The assessment is now based on the child as an individual, and not as a product of family issues. In children with ADHD, constructive therapy is an effective approach because it avoids prejudices. The child is not perceived, as is common among ADHD children, as ‘crazy’. Instead, these clichés about the hyperactive child will be assessed from a more objective social construct. Hoyt even cautions against these preconceptions because they “may have a disempowering effect; [and] one has to be careful not to create a ‘self-unfulfilling prophecy’...” (1996, p. 166). Through constructive therapy, we allow the child to construct his own image for us, based on his individual personality, not based on his family history and tendencies. Another alternative seen in the constructive therapy for the child is dialogue. This implies a healthy interaction between the child and his therapist. Through this interaction, the child is allowed to be more active in the therapeutic process. The family is also engaged as a more active participant in the determination of the child’s care. Questions are asked of the parents in order to determine their knowledge about the child’s condition. These questions “may also invite parents to explore restraining ideas that support the problem” (Hoyt, 1996, p. 167). Through this process, the ideas of the child and the parent about the disorder can be assessed and analysed. Some parents do not feel comfortable about problems in their child’s health. This is very much true for ADHD where parents are often reluctant to admit such a diagnosis for their child. And through a more interactive and less prejudicial interaction with the parents, the diagnosis of ADHD can become less of an alarming diagnosis. The constructive approach can also be used for the child in the family interactive process in order to challenge the concept that a child with ADHD has a biological affectation. This precept about the disorder is not grounded on firm theoretical concepts. In some instances, it is a social construct. The constructive therapeutic approach challenges the traditional precepts about ADHD, “which characterizes the young person as in pathological terms, privileges ‘expert’ knowledge, and restrains alternative discourses that may be more empowering” (Hoyt, 1996, p. 164). This type of therapy now deals with the child in terms of adjustments that can be made to accommodate his disorder. It does not treat the child by imposing restrictions on his person. Under the constructive theoretical approach, the therapy is focused on where the child is now, and on what his current needs are. In a child with ADHD, his needs are very much current. He may need to focus his attention in order for him to be more capable of participating in classroom activities. In addressing these needs, the constructive theorist would focus on constructing remedies based on the child’s current situation. The remedies and the therapy are focused on practical situations and on the child’s overall condition (Lowe, 2009, pp. 47-49). The constructive approach would still consider the child’s genealogy because they are ultimately relevant to the accurate assessment and analysis of the child’s condition. Information about genealogy, however, is only based on the nearest and most relevant relations. Including distant generations may sometimes be counterproductive. For children, vital information that may also be gathered may include their likes and dislikes, what they get enthusiastic about, what they are good at, what teachers say which is most impressive or likeable about them, and what they would like to do when they finish school (Lowe, 2009, p. 48). In the extraction of information from the child and his family, the exchange should be an interactive and collaborative process. This would ensure that the participants in the interaction are allowed freedom in their emotions and in their thoughts. A restrictive environment and interaction may cause the same problems and issues which the therapy is actually seeking to resolve. Hence, the constructive approach for the child allows narration, dialogue, and collaboration between and among the different parties involved. The challenge being faced by constructive therapists is the fact that, there are various social constructs and preconceived notions about illness and childhood diseases. ADHD especially is becoming an all too often diagnosed condition in children. Hyperactive children are oftentimes immediately diagnosed with ADHD; their natural rambunctiousness, which often frustrates stressed and harried parents, is labelled as an illness which needs a pharmaceutical remedy. Constructive therapists have been energetically rejecting notions about ADHD; their therapy sessions with hyperactive children and with various parents have been focused more on minimizing the impact of these labels. They emphasize on taking a “more understanding approach and to engage in a more respectful dialogue with the labelling ideologies” (Sharry, p. 80). They recommend that it is also more prudent to ask the parents and the children what their current situation is and to come up with a plan that fits the children’s needs and their situation. Works Cited Atwood, J., 2001, Family systems/family therapy: applications for clinical practice, New York: Haworth Press Braverman, L., 1988, Women, feminism, and family therapy, New York: Haworth Press Corey, G., 2009, Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, California: Cengage Learning Doherty, J., et.al., (n.d) Family Therapy Theory, Iowa State University, viewed 13 August 2009 from http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hd_fs.511/lecture/Sourcebook20.ppt Enns, C., 2004, Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: origins, themes, and diversity, New York: Haworth Press Family Systems, (n.d). Smart Recovery, viewed 13 August 2009 from http://www.smartrecovery.org/resources/library/Articles_and_Essays/Rational_Thinking/Family_Systems.pdf Family Therapy, 2007, Medical Library, viewed 13 August 2009 from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Family+systems+therapy Goldenberg, I. & Goldenberg, H., 2004, Family Therapy, An Overview, 6th Edition, California: Brooks/Cole Hecker, L. & Wetchler, J., 2003, An introduction to marriage and family therapy, New York: Haworth Press Hoyt, M., 1996, Constructive Therapies V2, New York: Guilford Press Lamanna, M. & Riedman, A., 2009, Marriages and Families: Making Choices in a Diverse Society, California: Cengage Learning Lowe, R., 2004, Family therapy: a constructive framework, California: Sage Publications Sharry, J., 2004, Counselling Children, Adolescents and Families, A Strength-based approach. London: Sage Publications Read More