Power and influence in the environment of family therapy*

Abstract

This paper explores some of the ways in which family therapy theory and practice limits an appreciation of the contexts of families and family therapists. It focuses particularly upon how the rules which underlie patterns of relationships in social systems are made and maintained more by one part of a system than by another, and considers this (a) within families, (b) within various aspects of the social environment of families, and (c) within the organizational contexts of family therapists. It then proposes that the systemic thinkingwhich family therapists apply to families is potentially applicable to wider contexts including international relationships.

Some reflections on the state of family therapy in the U.K.*

“…I do not worry about the way in which family therapy has been developing in this country. This is not because I have disagreed with Jordan's (1981) devastating critique of the smugness of family therapists, Kingston's (1982) concern about their neglect of power and the social environment, Walrond-Skinner's (1984) warning of the danger of emphasizing pragmatics over aesthetics, or, most recently, Treacher's ( 1986) warning of the replication of the worse excesses in psychiatry. What they had to say has, I believe, been immensely important and I think that people have listened.…”

Policies for life Contributions to family therapy—social policy

“…26). Kingston (1982, p. 2 1 7), pointing out that most clients of social workers are elderly people, was sharply critical of the dearth of family therapy literature concerned with the problems of elderly people. Added to this could be an accusation that family therapy has not yet appreciated or addressed the problems of informal care of dependants within families.…”

Beyond the family; using network meetings with statutory child care cases

“…As with other forms of therapy, there may be several ways of understanding how people change their perception of their circumstances and their behaviour towards each other. We would suggest that using the term 'holon', as Minuchin and Fishman (1981) have adapted it, provides a useful tool for examining the 'network effect' -Koestler's term is particularly valuable for family therapy, because the unit of intervention is always a holon. Every holon--the individual, the nuclear family, the extended family, and the communityis both a whole and a part, not more one than the other, not one rejecting or conflicting with the other.…”

“…It seems inescapable to us that social services departments have considerable coercive powers, backed up, ultimately, by force. We are aware that within family therapy literature there is a debate about the nature of power (see Kingston, 1982, for an excellent summary). We would welcome comments from those who do not find the use of these concepts useful, and hope that they can provide alternative explanations of the phenomena we have described.…”