Msft6001 Reading4

The Invisible Web Gender Patterns in Family Relationships MARIANNE WALTERS Fomily Tieropy Proctice Center, Wdshington,D.C.

BETTY CARTER Fomily lnstitule of Westcheste., Mounl Vernon, New York

PEGGY PAPP The Ackermon Institute, Nev/ York

OLGA SILVERSTEIN TheAckermonInslitute,New York THE WOMEN'SPROJECT IN FAMILY THERAPY

The Guilford Press Nt,w Y{)rk London

Acknowledgments AS ALWAYS IN an efforl such as this' there am so many peoplewhose lives and work and words have touched our own and made a differerce. Our earliesrdfafts werc read and critiqued bv Evan Imber-Black' Halcy Bohen,and Rich Sinon, whose feedbacksave us the encourasewe are indebted to our editor, Sheila Fri€dling. who not anlv did mosl comDelenlaod sensiliveediriog bul also raiscdqueslionstbal oushed us to a level we wouldn't have reachedwilhout her. we give special thanks to Fred Silverstein, who hosted, cooked, researched,and cared for us durins our endlessme€tinss' Morionne, Betiy, P€ggy,and Olgo

Familv and triecds and colleasues-l can name onll a tew of Lhosewho matrer in the spaceallottPdm€ here Dear lri'nds wirh whom I have processedevery si8nificant life event, including this one' for the past nearly forty years-Zirel Sweezv Gerrv Brittain, and Nonny Maichrzyk.My first supe.visor,DorothvHankins.whoJirmlv anchoiedme to socialwork values Raewiener'who introduc€dme to tamily therapyand helpedme to inte8rateit into mv own frame oI awakened whosefeministconsciousness My sisttr. U,rrhara, .eferenr:e. Halcv Center: Practice My rrrll,:r'rr,,s{t lh', lamily The.apv "'ino whosclh(x,r'li,nl ,,lltiry and clinicaljudsmenthaveprovideda ln,hrn, ,r'tr$tdnts,)utccof intelleclualr€n€wal;Lau e L€itch,a gilt€d and (:ortlt)d$si,'ol|to lhorrrpist,whoseideasboth challengedand expanded nrv own lhinkinlr Lrrry Levner,whoseenduringcommitmentto basic who l€nt hri,rrn valus kt)t)rm{, sfounded;Phyllis lacobson-Kram, Kittv Ed Mumma' dranas. clinical so many difiicult to tr.r'$txxrtive Brewster, Fred M,)nlic,Roec'ti,npkins,Otha WriSht,RoseMccab€, R,,z tlr,.oza.lon winter. Carol Sieset,Rich Simon. Matthew Sullivan, uavid Ca8e,Rob€rlAtkins, Kris Halst€ad,CarolvnKrol' and Debbie Shore-to name only a few of the faculty. tfainees, and associatesot the Ceoter whose inquiring minds, and commitment to leafning and

ACKNOwLEDCIvIENTS

in my own work. My discovery,inspifed me to seekne14'directions for th€ ny great appreciation gratitude.And to BlancaFuertes de€pesr p.ovided me she administraiivehelp and suppori Mo.ionneWolters

ai Family lnstitule of westchesterwho Mv thanks to colleasues read va;ious chaptersand save most helpful f€edback:Monica McCold dck. Evan Imber Black, Ron Taffel, ludy Siern Peck, and FreddaHerz SppLialrhanls lo Lisdline. who uheerfull 5'ypPdand word-processcd marerialoverard o!Fr a8din.And lhdnls ro m! husband.Sam.fnr his willinsnessto join me in puiting theseideasjnto pra€ticein our own marrias€ and famiLy. Betty Cotrel

Contents Prologue:Ou. Experi€nce Moridnne wdlte.s PART ONE SOMS REDEFIN]TIONS 1 Toward a Feminist Perspectivein Family Therapy PART TWO FAM]LY RELATIONSHIPS 2 MotheE and Daughtels Moriode

I wish to thank my colleaguesin the specialproiecr at the Acker' man FamilyInstitute,with whom I spentmany hoursexplori.gSender issuesin the ireatmentof familiesand couples:ValerieClain' Arlene Genatt. Sandra Mann. and Susan Shimmerlik. Their challen8in8comments and questionsstimulated my thinking and shapedrnv ideas A speciat thanks coes to Richard Simon for his insighiful critique and valuableleedbackon my coupleschaPter.And, last but noi least,I am grat€ful for ihe supporr and encouragementextendedto me throughoui ihe long working hours by my mat€, Slarrctt Kennedv.

Caughtin the Muddle Mdrionnelvdltefs "I Can'rBelieveYou ThoughtMy Coingto SeeUncle s Meant I Didn't Lov€You" Belty Corte. "Go fo. It, Mom!" PecgyPopp The Bad Mothe. Oigo Silverstein 3 Fathers and DauShre$ Betty Csrter

PegeyPopp { My special thanks to my colleaguesai Ackerman who read rnv material and gave me invaluable feedback: Bob Simon, Virsinia GDldn€.,PesgyPenn,and Marcia Sheinb€rs.Donald Bloch provided the leadershipand freedomto experimentwilh new clinical models as we struggl€dto put new paradigms into our work with families. Mv hus band, Fred,endlesslylyped and retyped and supportedmv efforts wilh patienceas well as enlhDsiasm Ol gd S i l ve.stei n

Wolrers

31 33 52 66 75

a2 90

ThreeGen€ralionsof Daddys Girls Betly Code. The Godfather Peqgy Papp DauShter Ojgo Silve.slein The "Independent" The DifferentFacesof Close MorionneWollefs

't11

Molherc and Sons Olga Silve.slein

154

Ifs Atl Rishr to LoveYour Son Olgo Silverslein ''TooMuch Mothering' PeggyPopp The GoodSon B€lly Corler "Oedipal,Shrnedipal-AsLong As You Love You. Mother" MorionneWdlte.s

166 774 181

5 Couples Peagy PaPP The "Frigid" wife Peeey Popp The ProtectivePair Olgo Silve.stein The Personwho Has the Gold Makes the Rules Belty Cdrle. "DoesStrongHave to Mean Sileni?" MorionneWolters

727 133 144

787

2to 222 230 211

CONTENTS

PART THREE FA]VlILYTRANSITIONS 6 Divorce:His and Hers Eelly Co.ter "sonethingHas to Chanse" BettyCorter On CoidenPondRevisiled PeggvPopp RescueOperation Olso Siiverslein "For YDurSake" Mo.idnnewolie.s

253 244 27l 277 242

Sinsle-Parerl, Female-Headed Households MoridnreWolrers Moving10the Front of rhe Bus Morio..e ''They Need a Strong Man iIr Their Lives" Betty Corler The Right to Be a Moiher PeggyPoPP Is It My Fault? OlSoSilverstein

249

RemarriedFamili$: Creatins a New Paradigm Befiy Carler "I Don t Know Which of Thes€Mothers Is Worsel" BeltYCdrler ". . . To Love Her Like a Mother" Pe88vPdpp CindefellaRevisit€d Olgo Silve.stein ls Whai You N"€edWhat You Want? Morionne Wdllers

333

PART FOUR SINCLE WOMEN 9 SinSlewomen: Early and Middle Yearc Pegav PopP "scaling the Heights of Life" PeggvPopp Drowningit a Seaof Success MorionneWollers 10 SingleWonen: Larer Years Olgo SilverElein The FadedFlower Olso silverstein "I May NeverFind AnotherMan" Berly Cdrte. f,pilogue MdridnneWoltels

Prologue: Our Experience

306 314 321 325

343 344 352 35S 369 371 379 384 390 397 401 407

409

Index

Mcrionne Walters

414

The Context h the beginningit seemedso clear. lt was the sprins of 1977De Beauvoir'sThe SecondSex had beenout almost fifieen years;Frie' dan'sThe FeminineMystiquehadcreatedthe climatefor a new aware ness of wonen's conce.nswithin our sharedsociety.All over the country,womenin everycornerof public and privatelife were chal and attemptingto revisetheh statusin familengingold assumptions lies,in their churches,on th€ir jobs, in their professions. Consciousnessraising had beengoing on for ten years.lournals and popular masazines devotedto women'sissuesw€re becomingalmostas popular as lhosedevotedto how to g€t a man.The EqualRightsAmendment was an activeissueand a popularcause.Women'spoliticalorsanizaDivorcelaws as well as reSutionsclaimedburseoningmembe.ships. lations concerningchild custodyand child supportwere becDming moreesalitarian. Womencouldfinally oblainlegalabortionsand€xercis€choiceresardinstheir own reproductivelunctions.Womenwere entering the world oI work in increasins numbers, often choosing careerfields previously deniedthen. They were chansing rhe demography of the nation by postponingmarriage and having children later in lile, or nol al all. Somewomenwere choosinsto be singteparents. Otherswefe enteringpolitics.Wonen could evenget credit on their Womens wdtios, and own,purchasea house,or starta smallbusiness. creating n€w cultural images and doliterature aboul mains. Feminist theory had becomea field of seriousscholarship.And lhe wom€n'smovementwas on the public policy agenda. within lhe mentalh€althfield therewas a beginlingawareness, th€ory had been albeit sometimesbegrudsins,ihat developm€ntal

PROLOcUE: OUR EXPERIENCE

grand hav e not incl u d e d c h a p te rs s p e c i fi c a l l v devol ed to si sters or i ssues some of l he ra i s e s o me of the m oiher s . W e h a v e a tte mp te d to gender rh P of soci al i za o r L o -s cquenLP s s o me dnd . " . I nr " " *" , .1 " ' . i 5 no quetri on l hal l h " i d mi l ) There s i l h .n i' on t or r ela .i o n s l -i p s rdi sF manj i ssuFs and ha!e l h F ta ri l ) tri rh i n s qF n. ler " d ' on s l ru c " . " . , . onr " q t" n " " . fo r m " n b u t Ih d r. s no' hF ror rrsnf l hi \ hnnk i nd *ir ' . " r " lu " d d r" s rh o s F i s s J c \ Yo ! w i l l nore i n our cases how " " er . r h. pos i ri v p o l .l e m i .ni sl i nl P r!enl rons tor men i n e\ ' n o \e q u e n ,P c L c ...a n d e d L h rel ari onshi p w F P xpl orP has w " d i s , Lm , t ies . E a" h r" ,u p l u r o u r m aLes and for our mal e col l e \Pl s o mp a l i^ ,h c ' . pr ' . " ' i" n , to , u s o f o u r hnnr n o t rh p s e L. " r " , . er ' " ,p ' I he m a , d l o f rh i r b o o l i s d " s i g n F d Io hd!F .l i ni cdl appl i , arron. pro!i dP a T bp inr r odL c .o rl " s " r i n e " .h .,h a p L " . hi l l rl i s hopcd p ro b l e ms c l ;enr i nl crdcri ons. and cl rni cdl v c onr " r r I or t o o h i n g .r Ia m i process thi s we p e rs p e c l i v e .-TD fa' i l i tate a fe mi n i s t inler v ent ion sfro m p d e a ' h ri me rve r hapter. A I no drd ,rc F .o d hdv p eac h c o n L l b u r o a n rre a r ' o n c F n s u s rg d l d i n g nur i ndi vi dudl ' IcorP Ii cal " r Lem pr from rhc bcgi nni ng dnd a n d c l i n i c d l s 1 l " s . rh i c h . ' , " . t u, ion. h a \e b P' n di vP r5e dnd di sti ncl : B el rv r h] ouqhou o J f c o l l d b o ra ri o n tami l v l herapv w rl l roors o n a l mo d P l o{ c ar Leior ' , en ts a ra o s 8 " n ' ra l pracl i ces dn evol ved i nl er g a S i l !e rtl e i n rh e o ry : O i" nonen s vs e m s .y s e m.c me l h o d s rl h ro o ls i n the Mi l an B ow P n. and t "on ""'t '"t"r*r . lrr lr E r ic l s o r s c h o o l t: Pe 8 8 ) Pd p p p r acl i Les d s)' rP mi c strarpgi L m pr hoo wir h ro o rs i n M R l , Mi l a n a n d M i l ron E ri (tson: and Iotter a nodpl ot lhe rd p ! rh d r h a s ' \ o i v e d l ro m " tr uctural thcorv ro concepl sot cont€xt and conpetence as parameters of chaDse None of u s w o u td a p p ro a c h a n v o n e case i n the same w av as the aulhor o{ t ha t p a rti c u l a r c a s e T h e re a re m anv casesi n thi s book E ach l e m i l i s l i nl P rvP nrrnl A nd c" ' h i l l us r ppr ps ent sa h o d o l o s v " n d s tvl e ot hF reporl i ns l !P rapi sl pa rrr.u l a r mP t h" ir - r es I t r s one oJ rh " te n p rso l o J r $ o rl ro s e r hcr nol to l P l our di tterenLes inr er l, r " $. l h o u r L o mmi l m" n l l o a p p l y a femi nrsl petspecl i ve l o l he r eoc r Loir eof ra ,h n i q rF . c n d i n te rv Pn ri o n srl pi .dl oJ l he vari ous.l i ni rh d r Ih c i o L r o f u c rc p re sP nl D uri ng rhP mroy aofl ,,] " . r cr ha " . u, ' o nc. F d e dl h P w ri r, n g o I l h i \ b o ol se rool sp' ci dl cdre nor ro I p.p s hoo. allo' v our t h e o .e ti c a ld i ff€ re n c e sto g e t i n rhe w av of our devel opi nga nps bas r sf o r c o n s e n s u sa n d c o n n e c ri o n A s v ou rp d d L h i , b o o l v o u w i rl f i rd onc or rhe othP r of l he theoretic;l orientations nore laniliar and rnore congenial to vour own wa\ o. r hink rg a n d ro c k i n S WP .rs k v o u ro l rv l o drsrrngui shbFl w cen r heiem inis l p o rn rs $ ' a re m d k i n S o r s h i chw edC reF.and l hprl corP ri c al or ient at i o n so r m e th o d o l o g i c a dl i ffe re nces'on w hi ch w e di verge l n ot her wor ds , tfy n o i to th ro w o u t a l e mi n i st poi nt l hat has been made hecauEeii is presented within a method with which vou afe not faniliar or wit h w h i c h Y o u d o n o t a s re e

poIt one

SomeRedefinitions

Toward a Feminist Perspectivein Family Therapy THE PRESENTPARADIGMS of fanily therapy are basedon the value system of the American family of the fo.lies and fifties and lag sadly behindthe socialchangesalreadyin full swio8. Major chalses ir fanily structure and functionins are now wellestablisheditr our society. Wom€n in ever larger numbers not only work outsid€ the home bul can no lotrgerchooseto stay at home as the two-paych€ck fanily has b€cornean economicnecessityi[ workinsclassfanilies and an expectationin the upwardly nohile niddle class. The increasein divofte and rcmarriase has resulted in an enormous ircrease io new family forms, with moth€rs raising children aloneand remani€d couplesstrugglins to intesrat€ his children and her children wirh €x-spousesand complicat€dnetworks of extendedkin. Th€re is increashgincidence of serial,liv€ in relationships, with postponement of marriase and childbearin8 into lh€ rniddle years.There has beenan indeasedawareness by womenof th€irown sexualityand iheir power overtheir own bodi€s,as well as a fevisionof sexualexpectations on the part ol both s€xes.Of centralsiBnilicance in all of thesechanges is the recognitionof a woman's.i8ht to controlreproduction. With regardto lh€s€chanSes in the family,and in women'sroles in thefamily,family therapytheorylagsbehindthe cultureas a whol€. Il is now impefalivelhat therebe new approaches in family th€rapy built on new assumplionsaboutwhal constilutesa viablefamily. The.ew€re lhreephasesin the evolutionof our feministperspeclive on family therapy.PhoseI was our processof defininga common feministframeof relerence while pr€servingour clinicaldiversityand difterences.PftoselI could be d€scribedas the DhaseoI €xElorationand

I

16

SOME REDEFIN]TIONS

c r it ique in whi c h w e e x a m i n e d s ,\rs te msl heory and l he absence of gender in it s f o rm u l a ti o n s , a n d i n th e p ro c essbecame aw are of sexi st s oc ial c ons t r uc i s , s e x -ro l e fu n c ri o n i n fa m i l i es, and sexi st atti tudes i n our own f ield. l n th i s p h a s e ,w e fo c u s € d c l i ni cal l y on w hat to avoi d i n our pr ac t ic e. P h o s e i l l i s c u rre n t a n d o n goi ng. It i s the process of developing nonsexist and feminist s-vstemic interventions and revising and adaplins t ra d i ti o n a l s y s te mi c i rte rv e nti ons to take gender i nto ac c ount . T hes e a h e rn a ti v e i n te rv e n ti o n s i ncorporate a sensi ti vi ry to the experietrce of women as dilferefli fron that of men.

PhaseI: Defining a Feminist Framework In the very beginning of our work togeiher, we mad€ no attempt to discuss th€ theo.y and methods of family therapy. We knew that there were lheo.eiical and methodological diflerences among us, and we were concerned, in ihe beginning, that direct debare about our four different nethods would divide us. We had no terminology or jarson thar was mutually acceptable, so we couldn't couch our discussions in terms of triangles, cybernetic cycles, hierarchies andboundaries, Ianily of origin, or any of lhe othef comfortable terms of famil], iherapy discourse. whal we had in common was our friendship, our respect for each other's work, and oDr commitmeni to focus attenlion on the experience ol wonen, which we feli had been neglected or distorted in ihe family therapy field. Without thinkiDg or talking about il, we automatically adopt ed a nonh i e ra fth i c a l s tru c tu re a n d a col l ecti ve,consensus-se€king pr oc es s in o u r d i s c u s s i o n s .A n d s i n c e w e coul dn' t comnuni cate fruitfully from witirjn our various methods, we starled tryins to talk and t o t hink be y o n d th e s e m e th o d s . O ur dis c u s s i o n th e n fo c u s e d o n th e s oci al , cul rural . or pol i i i cal im plic at ions an d o ri g i n s o f a n y € i i n i c a l i n terventi on or concepi ual i za' lion. We asked ourselves: Would this technique or this formulatioD simply reflect gender stereolypes, or would it challenge or counteract s uc h s i€r eot y p e s ?Wh a i a re th e s o c i a l o r c u l tural roots of a parti cul ar concept? What is the metamessa8e conveyed to each gender by a spe cific intervention? How does the metamessage of a technique vary with the gender of t h e l h e ra p i s t? Wi l l th i s i n tervenri o. supporl a E exi st situalior, or will it offer an alt€rnative? I n our disc u s s i o n s ,th e n , w e b e s a n w i th a cl i ni cal si tuati on, or with our own personal life situations, and then took the discussion up two lev els t o t h e s o c i a l s y s te m, b y p a s s i n s t he l evel of fami l y therapy theory and method with its consl.aints oD our thirkiry- We were d€f ining a s ha re d v i e w p o i n t, a v a l u € s y s t em, thai w oul d be strong €nought o per n i t u s l o b re a k th ro u g h o u r c ommi tments !o our vari ous m et hodalogies i.t w a s q u i i e a b i t l a te r i n o ur processthat w e came to

IN FAMILYTHERAPY PERSFECTIVE TOIVARDA FEVINTST

17

of clinical choices and dir ecval ue our dilf er ences f or t he wide r anse r o d\ oid dir cLt dr s' Ls\ ions se r r iPd La r h" be8innins. i " ..,r," " plr cF I U st dnd t oBPr hcc "r r ". . or I , " Be woclPd whil' iit i. *"*" " i i r' .."l n Phase l, t hpn se agr epdon a wor linC dPr r nir ionor "t em innm oL' lur r hFr r r r r r quFor r np and ourl rned r so C. n'r dl Pr inciple5r o Suid' *e"gr eed iqa hun dni\ r 'L ham e\ ^or r or t i"id. r "- 'ns. i " .ri yi L" ' "pl r ions r hat or s"niTe * " ai ri "w cinc"'n"d hih r hP r olPs r ul"s and lun'

of Feminismseeksio includethe experi€nce

-,i"+"-"i"-i'i""""i1""s. formulations ol hunan experience and to eliminate the *"In* i" "l mdleass.mptron5reninism doPsnor blamFindiridual ;;;i":"";;' solial slsrpm rhdl e\'sLs bul \pel'slo undFr prlridrch-l f"r,f'" -"" ,]'" socializarionprocessrhat keepsmen and sol"en "r",.e" "i""i ""J wirh'n a s.xrs' maredomind'Fdr'amewocr ;i;;i,;;;;;;;;,"' 'ir'i ' prin'iptesof out rPvrsons of fdmilv rhFr *"|l"t o-pera',ng tjstems tormuld' d;;i"" i;". rt''i"t".'ni'' perspP''i\P rirsr' ro tobes"nder'hePor ".' rhar prrporr 1orm'iarions r*" ii.f i.. i. rhe socialp'etens€ rhev reproduce """J". because it t""t '*"t*i' ""xisi in racr'"re womcn "* eq,dlir\ bFrhe'n mpn ard wompn '" acknowledsF ro 'i',iit'"." li,. \oLr'rv "nd d IdilurF 'hic ta"' at'"a"""i"t"i'i" to r'rke nePd in'ervenlions arr rh"m. second ;;";;;';;;',;';c". ptosocidr'za(ion rhc dirte-nr .";; "."""":, bv recognrzins ;;;;;l ro in l^hich arrenrron rne wrv ."n. i".*".i*""'"" ""a "p'iiut -,it' women we needia recogdisadvantage p-cesses ii""i in rhe same clinical """r.ri,"ir"' .r""ii"i'"""i c";i* I'ears a dirferent ;eaning or supporredbv an bramed accordingrvr€erseither ;;;;;it;;;".a stance identicaltheraPeutic Phase ll: An Exadination

ol Systems Theory

women ."a tlo* tt 16Usedto Disadvantage an e\dminarronof ldmilv svslem\lhe DLnnq lh:s phas. w€ PUrsued to disad\an"sF tomen ln ir is i'ais Lh"r rhe .''r5Pd assump;'J. ""i ;;;;;"""."i".;a we outlined th€ concepts rhat were shared hcntrrPd.todFt'rmine *,'". *n".ls ot ldmilj therapJ we i."" '":r'"a si!en conLeplwds rrserfse\i\' $h'ther I'lenr rrsPrIro whplher was widelv abusedbv familv therapiststo ."-l"i Ihis direL ".iror ""*,io,;"*, women.As oL'.rh'nkins prosrPss"d"in ;;;i";;;;i"r. "i ol Lerldrn' r'nrr,on. and q. b.i"m'atdrF ot rhe 5"tisr ramificdlioa5 we stoppedusinglhem cal "- ioterleniions, oI us bFsdnro-qlestionher own po'ni ,i;r'i" ii'*"" 'n"L """r li'r"n morecarelJllv ro edcnotner' !lrnicalccrl.ludPdnd ro tralch and we arewomen we wer€automalrIt is an errorto assumerhat because s posirionin.rhFsoLrdls'ruc womPn s hich in ,t'" * r* ""s ", "" Ls to unporrhrhc !\avs Inal ""ij" for drflicLl' lr h.s r,.e rs main'.in*d

SOI\1! REDEFINITIONS

s ex is m had " n a i u ra l l y " b e c o m ep a .i o f th e l amj ty l herap], fi el d, and of our own pr ole s s i o n a lp ra c ti c e .T h e fa c t rhat the four of us are success_ ill in t his f iel d , a n d th a t w e h a v e g o o d c a reerssoi ng despi te any se)(i sr dis adv ant as e sth a t m i s h l h a v e b e e n i n fo r ce, di d trot make i t easi er for us t o s €et he se x i s m i n o u . w o rk . It i s tru e t hat w e w ere not putri ns i obs ai r is k by t ak i n s a D e w p o s i ti o n . Bu t w h a r made i r especi al tyha;d fo. ma n y y e a rs o f l i fe e x p e ri e nce,as w el l as professi onal e\ per i. n, e. ' r d o j n g l n i n g \ a c e rta i n s a y. of feeti np co;fi denl and c om pa er l dr h h " l x p d i d . a n d rF l L .td n t to de.sti l t or Lnserrl eoLr s elv esioo m u c h . Il i s q u i te p o s s i b l e i h a t h ad w e real i zed at the outset t he degr ee ol c h a n g e -p e rs o n a l l y a n d p rofessi onal ty_that w e w ere s et t ing int o m o ti o n to r o u rs e l v e s , w e m i ght never have bequn. C er_ ainl1. il r } a d re a l rz e dth " o t d n C erand personat Lri l rci sm to ' -n o u n , whic h we wou l d b e s u b j e c te db y c o l l e a s u e s,w e mi sht have had second t hought s abo u t s e tti n g fo rth o n th i s n e w course. B ut these stormv r eac lions were i n i h e fu i u re , a n d i t w a s chi efl ], our ow n.,resi srance;, t hal w€ s t r ug g l e d w i th a s w e b e g a n to c ri ti que the assumpti ons of family theory and therapy. We agresd that unless the underlyin8 pairiarchal assumDrioDs dbou idm il! a r" F rp l .c i ri , a d d re s s e dd n d o r trl Fn i nto aLcounli n i ari l \, iherapy formulations and interventions, th€y will be understood bv c lr ent sr o bF , n p l i c r,l l d c c p p re dT. h i s i s s b y w p bcti p!p,hat ,nere i s n; such thing as "g€nder neutratity." "Neuifality means leavins the D.e_ \ aili1C p" u idr L h a l d s c u rn p ' .o n bi m p l rc i r. u ncha pnsed.dnd i ; ptac;.

The PalriarchalAssumptions T he pr ev ailing p a tri a rc h a l mo d e l o f Ia m i ty i s grounded i n a nunber of as s um piions w e h a v e l o n g ta k e n fo r s ranted. B asi c 10 patri archai f am ily or B ani z a ti o ni s th e c o n c e p r o f.o l e compl emenl orj rv. w i th i n . t f um enr al t " q k s 5 u , h a s e d rn i n c m o l c ! rhroLsh trort rhe;rovi nce ol t he m ale, and e mo l i o n a l ta s k s s u c h a s n u rl uri ns, bui l di ns, and mai n r dinins r pldr : o n s h rp ..a n d c h rl d rF a ri n s rh e provi ncc ot rtr" t" .ate. rn lhis m odel, t he o rs a n i z a ti o n o f p o w e r i s b ased on mal e hi eral chv. r n c unr r a s l l o l h i a u rs rn rz a l i o n i . o rr l em,ri sr mooe. or tami h. s hic h i5 r hdr " L rF ri z F db ] fo l p s v m rp rry i n w hi , h eath ser engagesi n bot h ins t r um e n ta l a n d e x p re s s i v eta s k s , i n both w ork and nu;r;ri ns. t hi< m odF ' r F tl e c s a F g " l i a r," n a p p ro a, h o porcr Lpree" n mrt a nd f em ale,an d a n o .e d e mo c ra ti . a n d c o n sensualapproach ro paren tal manasement of children. A lt hough m a n y p e o p l e a c k n o w l e d s e that the feni ni sr model of family would be mof€ humanistically fulfillin8 for borh sexes, it is ctear t hai nen would h a v e to g i v e u p p o w € r, w h i ch i nvol ves srarusand ofren monelr, io gain less tangible rewards, and rhal rhey are often unwi jna to

iN FAMII-YTHERAPY PERSPECTIVE TOWARDA FElvlIN_IS'f

19

do so. lt is also diflicull for some women to give up the idea thal thev should b€ financially supporred bv men and that rhev need a man to sociallv' and emotionaUv tt'"i. ri""" """i""sful-economicaltv, int er gener at ionalr elat ionand m alef em ale -.r." Th e svst em ic view of m at ur it v in t his coniext ldeallv, ar e int er dependent shi ps i s t hat t hey wiih connect ednessThis ideal is in out onom v as a"t i""a * ni ' ta O" at t r ibut es assigning au of t hese split t ing pat . iar chal lhe t o coni rast conneL'edi " " ..u r *L. , lt v separ ar enesslt o m dles d. d assisnins pllecr ' splir lins ledds such ln L", ", lf v a"p"naencyl o hm alet " " " r" a valued lor aut onom v' or disconn€ct edness i"p"i", *ess t" a "si" qn of dep€ndencv' wit h is equat ed connect edness while -1", 1"ur it y, m.at devaiued' t hus and si ;n of ir nnat ur it y, " A najor coniept ual er r or is t o assum Pt hat t r ails such as "aut on' omv or 'dependFn'v dr e inlr insic t o lhe ppAon ot m en. or , wom en bj a pdr r iaf r har soc'ct y on r ne Ddqr sor " " rhcr rhdn acsie""l lo r hcm dnd send" r. Thus m 'n a'. "ss: encd - ur onom v wit l- bor h t he po! r Fr while wir h i . hdr soes Imoti on. l d, sconn. cr "dnFss sir h bor h t h" Pm ot ional LonnFcr edncssdnd r hc ri " " ' a - a"p. "a"". v t hai soes siLh ir Alr housh beins di'connc' r Pd dnd "Lerned"penden " :' " ' r" ", i*' boLFhavedr awbackc ir i' clear l, a I or m or cser ious lhreat io survival to be dependent. iurrentlv, we are livins in a period of social transition in which the ri q dir v oi r he r adilional p"r t idr chr l f dm r l, st r ucr ur e hds beFn .hal l p" nqed,an, l changes har " bFen I nlr oduc'd wir hr n t har svcr Pm l .l ost oit hese chanees,however ' ar e behavior al and have been in t he per nadi rectl on of wom en ent er ing lhe wor k f or ce and shoulder ing bean has lhe Ther c f am ilv Pt or om ic of bLr den neotl v a Dor r ion ot lhc anv r eal lr f e nor r osar d f am ilv locus m ens in sh, t r "chan; " " i i ^irini. ""t t he basic ar t it udes ol m ost m en and wom e! about t he or sanizaiioi or Ia- v lir"-althoush there are morc isolated cases of shated rol es th an t her e used t o be. Econonic, soclal and l€gal ir sliiut ions in wor k our soc iet y do not suppor t changest hat wouid enabl€ wom en t o pr oviding bv inside. wor k nor e nen t o and hom e, more out side of t he pracl i L al , hild udr e dr r qnsPm ens dnd 8i\ r ng eLonor r ic pr iof i v and socrdl st a us t o lhe wor l oi child r e"r ing --of unequal oppor t unit v and un€qual pav' and t he lack i" "pit " of social supports, wonen are working more outsid€ the hone' sone ot her s t or t he f r eedom of choice and f uuillm ent it oI ""ceiiit y, 1"! er r h" r Fdsons noh som cn hdve sdin€d t or t hem " " t!es r hem qi . Wh; i el ve' t he f r e'dom r o wor l f ull- t , m P dL lwo iobs ' ar eer and t dm ilvt""t the legal and social exPectation that thev, and their tr* ""J chi i dre n, would be linancialt y suppor t ed bv m en The shif t t hat . is needed ia complete rhis change in a direction that would benelit the enli.e family is lor men to assume co-responsibilitv fof- child care' sharing financiatly and by participation, and to Sive up the idea that

I i

'20

SOME REDEFINITIONS

th€ main focus of their en€rgymust be devotedto outsidework. Sucha shift, of cours€,would entail a loss of status, noney, and power for

Family Sy6temsConcepts When we analyzehow lamily therapy interventions emery€dfrom the patriarchal assumptionsabout male-femalerole8 and family orgadzation. we nust considerthe impact of the leading fanily systemscon cepls.FollowinSis a mview of the field's nain conceptsand how they are widely abusedto the disadvartage of women. we start with the basic conceptof fusion. Fusionond DisisnceAre OppositeSides of the SdrneCoin

l I i :

l

Our feminist view of the concept of fusion or "€nmeshment"-the mergins and reactiv€ distancingthal occursin couplesand throughout family relationships-acknowledges that the roles traditionally as signed to the sexes color the way in which €ach sex manilests its "immaturity." Thus it is often the femal€who shows the symptomsof dependency:seekingapproval,avoiding conflict, placatinS,leaninStoo nuch on olhers, and acting incompetert- Males manifest exactly lhe samedegreeof immaturity in a different way: th.ough enotional isolation, unavailability, se€ning irdifference, withdrawing, withholding fmrn others, and fear of vulnerability. when eith€t of these sets of symptoms show in the oppostie sex {that is, men with dependemy symptomsor distant behaviorin wornen).it is doubly pathologizedby therapists. Thereare severalways in which the conceptof fusion is misused in the practiceof family therapy. rirst aDdforemost,fusion is misunderstoodto apply only to the closerelationshipsin the family, which invariably include lemales,while the related function of the distant nale is ignored or overlooked.In effect, the t€rms "close" ard "overclose" are often used to discredit the genuineintimacy and pos ive ensasementoI morhels and childr€n. Ceflainly, our jarson could provide a better word to designateemotional entanglementor negalive Becauseof the c€ntralmle assignedto womenin marriagemaintenance and child rearins, women are usually lhe ones who raise the important €motional issuesin the family. ln therapy, instead oI vali dating wom€n'sconcerns,therapists freq-u€ntlylabel lhem automatically as "overconcerns"or emotional"pursuing,"as if mising the issue, or rhe monnerof raising the issue,were the issue.In this way, thera

I i

TOWARD A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVEIN FAMILY THERAPY

27

Dists devalue the aclive, connectinarole of wonen in farnilies.Thera;ists also tend 10 focus first or the part of th€ problem invotving the wife or mother, becausewonen will tolerate being blaned or h€]d responsiblein this way. Thus, therc is often an initial and nesaiive focus on relationships perceivedas "enmeshed,"as w€I] as a courting of the distant male in a positive or placating fashion that leavesthe impressionthat the wife/ mother is to bldlne for a dyslunctional relationship, or she alone is responsiblefor bdnging about chang€.This bias is treat€d as a neutrol principle of good practice, and is reflectedin training sloganssuch as the {ollowins: 1. Never pursue a distancerin treatm€nt. 2. Always intervene firsl wilh th€ overfunctionero. ths overresponsibleone. 3. Th€ enmeshedftlalionship has to be loosenedbeforethe distucer can move rn. 4. Begin wirh the one who is most available to change. Such teachin8slosansignore or deny the fact that t€rms such as "disrancer,""overfunctioner,""enmeshed,'and the like almost always refer to specilic, prcdictable genderscarryinS out socially mandated tals, and ar€ not neulral ierms describing dyslunctional positions. This termirolosy is link€d with th€ clinical assumptionthat ifonly th€ wife/nolher will "back off'or "l€t go," then th€ "disranc€r"will move in, wbich rcally does imply that the engagingpartner is blocking th€ distant otre.and so is to blarnefor problemsin rhe family. In fact, th€ "dislancer" does not move in automatically, and n€eds attention and assistancelo do so. And the close-in pa ner (usually the woman) is correctin fearinga vacuumif she"lets go" or "backs off." Suchpractice techniquesalso disrespectmen sincethey sugeestthat men are unable to be available for emotional engagemenrin therapy or in the family, and should not be challensedor conlronled lest th€y flee or collapse. Above all. it should be noted that althouSh thes€ techiiques were developedbecausethey "work," they generally "work" to r€store an unbalancedsystem to its previous patriarchal balance,with the old hierarthies and boundariesin place. Thus it is not really these techniques lhat are lh€ problem, but the outmodedand sexist paradigm of family to which they refer. Recip.ociry The conceptof reciprocity states that everyoneinvolved in a problem plays a part in the maintenanceof that prcblem by .einforcins the behaviorofthe other-Commonexamplesgiven are the nagsingmother

ft, SOME REDEFINITIONS

and the dawdlins child, or the baitering husbandand ihebatreredwife However.this c;nceptas it is taughtfails ro explainthat "plavinga p6rl doesnol mean plaling dn FquoJparl A rwo monlh old babv ,an b' *aid ,o pl") d part in bcing abucedby crvinS lor inslance sinceit canbe areuedthii child abusewould Dotoccurif the child were not there, or diJnot cry. Bul ii is clear that the parts plaved bv the child and the abuslng parsnt are not equal in lorce The child is not ror rheabuiP doPcnor hd!c Fqual po$er' or responsibililv responsiblp or ioual oprions.or equdlabrlrr] ro chan8"rhe cvcl" Neitherdoeslbc battired wtfe, the incest viclim' the dawdlin8 child, or anvore who is of Sreaiersize,strength,age'or positionoi bv someone overpowered Cl€a.ty the two examples given above of reciprocal behaviors r*o siludr,onsar opposrre€nds of anv speclrirmol signifiiance. -""""' Naeginemorhersand barrFrinshu\bdndshd!F lirlle in common them within a closedbelief svstem exceptwhen we are cDnsidering as equallv reciprocal Unforinleractions all inlerpersonal that;iews iunaLelv, eren puttinCrhescIwo 5rluarionssidebv sideas eramplesot rtresanieprcccss aq till otten be tDUndin our tamilv lherapvlircrsis irre-lenas itselfto ablurringof anv clinicalevaluationReciprocitv think us to organize thai can one but also tool a useful conceptual ctinicallv as il;I behaviorsale not onlv similarlv constructed but arc of the s;ne order of sicnificance b! the theraprslthdl purlnrrs lo be neLlral circu Quesrioning lar. or'bysremic in tacr often impliesone-sidedrcsponsrbililvor btame-for exanple: what do vou do to get voul husband ancrv? ; 'iHo* doesrour moth"r get you" farhergorng?i or'How do vou h€lp hu"banaro drint r" A s av ot tocusingon I he s! slemicldclorsthar "our mav conlribute to the maintenanceof the problemalicpatlern, without ienLrinsind,ridual responsrbililjfor bchdvioror lhe soLialconlexr' r"ould 5c to ast quesrionssuchas: Whar do vou do lvhPnvour hus i; bdndsels anqrv: Whdrdo you do when voul pdrenlsare fightins?i or "whar do vou do then vour husbanddnnls? Such queslionin3 acknowledeesboth ihe inte.actional features of anv familial inlerch."ge. a"d the individual responsibilitv of each familv memberfor his or her own behavior. Compl€mentdritY Balanceis dn strributeol d sysl"m requiringthdl lhe ditlerentroles behaviors, ard emotions of individuals within the svstem exist iD dvnamic eauilibrium A balancedsvstem mav tvpicallv include polarwotket-nur i*d roles iuch as eoodkid-bad kid; distanc€r-pursueri However,our perspectivewould regardpoiarizalionas a poor wav

IN FAMILY THERAPY TOW,IRD A FENONISTPERSPECTIVE

23

to achieve balance. requiling, as it does, lop sided individuals io mainlain eauilibrium wilhin the system. Polafized roles reflect the priorilv of a bJanced system over the needs of the individuals in it. Instead, it is potentially more liberating for each individual within the system to achieve sone inter.dl balance of complemenlary traits and functions C o m plem ent ar it y has t o do wit h t he induct ive nat ur e of it r ier acti onal palt er ns: t hat is, how t he behavior s of one per son induce ihe other i nto behavior s t hat com plem €t r it hem , and vice ver sa This conceD t,i n a ddit ion t o r oles and f un. t ions, r ef er s t o em ot ionalchar act e'is ti cs such as upser and calm , €f f usive and wit hdr awn. volat ile and stabl e, t alkat ive and quiet , Bener ousand wit hholding, and so f or t h The ne€d to mainiain compl€nentarity or balance in ihe famiLy is used as a r eason t o assisn r oles t o wom en t hat com piem entt he r oles chosen by r nen. ln t his way, wom en per f or m t hose t asks t hai m en prefer not t o do, I or exanple, houselvor k and child car e, and do not compel e in ihose ar €as t hai nen seleci as t heir dom ains, nam ely achi evem ent .wor k, f inances, and t he like. S ys iem s t her apy discr im inales against wom en by seeking balance and equilibriuIn for lhe famity system as a dnit, without address i ns the unequal accessof each individual io choiceof r ole. The Pr eiense that men and wom en ar e gender lesscogs in t he syst em pr event s us from no t icins t hai wom en ar e held m or e r €sponsible r han m en f or making it work, in the family and in fanily therapy, and that the ' ' compl e m €nt ar y" r oles, t asks, and r ewar ds of t he st able syst em ar e al l ocal ed by gender , unequally, t o it s r nale and f em ale I nem ber s.But the social cont ext lends m eaninss and im ages t o t hose com plem er t ar y behavi or s and r oles. So, I or exanple, t he t alkat ive wom an "chat t er s, " the si l ent m an r uns deep"i t he anxious m ot her "hover s, " t he dist ant father i s "pr eoccupied. "And so on. These ! ocially const r uciedim ases and associat ionscar r y wit h r hem posit ive and negat ive connoiat ions N one of us, cli€nt or r her apist , can escapet hem . Th€ iheo. y of com plem ent ar it y includes bot h cont ingent r espoffes iin t hal one behavjor induces anot het l and de vat ive r esponses( in t hat it is r eact ive and r esponsivet o anoiher 'sbehavior ) . A certain parity is implied in that d€finition-but with different implica tions for men and wonen. For wonen, wha are d€fined culturally as contincent on male behavior, such ideas act to keep them in the same psychotogical place. Men, lvho see themselves as self-defined, will have their cont ext f or n€w behavior expanded by callins at ient ion io l he i mp dcr ol I elat ionships on t hFr r behdvior . Th e concept of com plem ent ar iiy is a usef ul t her apy const r uct , a practical way of creating change. The problen is that practitioners usi ng such concept scan begin t o believe t hat t hey r ef lecl r ealit y For the idea of complementa.ity in human inleraction to b€ other than a hvD ol he t ical const r uct , it would need t o r ef lect t he social. €conom ic,

a 24

SOME RXDEFINITIONS

and political structures within which rhe family system exists. Therc can be no trre complementadtyin human relationships iI the antecedents of lhose relationships are skewed in terms of accessro social, legal,political, and €conomicopportunity aDd power. Thus. to beli€ve in circularity and complementadty in human relations, w€ must assume somebasis of parity. If such a basis does not in fact exist, then we are dealing with a hypothetical abstraction that does not tal<einto account the social origins of those relatioNhips. We are in fact responding to a relational system at a point in time {when "it" enters therapyl as though it had no pEcedents in larger social constructs. This victimizes the memberof that system who enteredlhe r€Iatianship in the less powefful position; that is, we must recognizethat alrhoughit takes two to rango,if oDeis to lead and the other to follow, then their st€ps are not equally interdependent. Hie.orchy Hierarchyis a structuralconcept.ankingth€ relative powerand authority of the individuals and subsystemsin the family, and indicating the boundariesb€tw€enth€m. WheDapplied rigidly, ot in a sexist manner, the conceptof hi€rarchy disadvantageswomen and children who will always end up on the bottom of any aulhoritariaDraniing As taught and practicedin family therapy,the conceptof heirarchyoften doesnot leaveroon for the fenale style of decisionmaking in a mo.e consensual or collectiveway. or Ior exenins authodty [with children,for exanple) more through relationshipthan thrcugh explicit use of power. Boundo.ies Linked to th€ structuml concept of hierarchy, the concept of boundaries prescribes appropriate separat€nessbetween individual fanily members,and between g€nerations.It also draws a tiDe around tbe nuclear lamily as a whole. In this view, a well-orsanized family has clearly delineatedboutrdariesthat define "appropriate" closenessand distancein relationships. This conc€ptis most olten abused through clinical applications that fail to recognizea different fenale understarding of mlatedness. Fo. exampl€,in th€ therapy room, when mother speaksfor otherswhen atlempting to explain lamily problemsto th€ therapist, her behavior is ofren defined as "intrusive" or "controllins," and she may be blocked by the th€rapist in someway. The implication is thal mother'slalking is €ausingthe others to be sil€nt, and that it is an intrusion into their space;on the other hand, sil€nceis seldom defined as "controllin8" or as creating a vacuum that the mother tries to fill.

TOWARD A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVEIN IAMILY THERAPY

25

Triongles Unlike a rhre€some.which nay be a functional Sroup" triancle" is a rern uEedto describedysfunction, as in the detouringof the conflict of a twosomethrough a third party As tension ris€s, the three members move toward and away lron eachother in predictablemovesdesicn€d to *duce tension and avoid direct exposur€ofth€ basic conflict' which mieht divide the o ginal twosome. It is commotrto conceptualizefamily emotionalrelationshipsas a triangle n'hose interactions are ther predictabl€ Therc are several Ditfalls in this abstract way of thinking about hunan relationships. iriangles provide no differ€ntial explanationof sender-relatedbehavior, sucL as an explanationo{ why mothers are most ofter found on th€ so-called"overclose"or "fused" les of the triansle and fathers in the distant posilion. Furthermore,describing emotional problemsprima.ily in terms of l angles defines the problems as insid€ the family system alone and ignores their dir€ct conn€.tion to th€ larger social system.For exampl€.a triangl€ that conceptualizesa husband in th€ distant position,with his morher andhis wile on the coDflictual,"overclose"end, would require the conventionalintervention of moving th€ wife closer to her husband, and putting the husband in charse of sertingboundari€swith his mother.Ifthe therapist underslandssuch a iriangle as a caseof a "controlling" or "over-responsible"wif€ fighting herhusband'snother for primacy with him, and/or a moiher who can't "let go" of her son, interventions will probably not be delivered in a way lhat will preservethe seu-este€mof either wif€ or moth€r-in-law. The feminisl therapist will 3e€this triangle as a case of two women bumping into eacholher as eacht es to calry oul her family responsi biliti€s in the face ofihe man'swithdrawal Th€ irtenentions will then be delivered in a way that €xplicitly respectsthe women's views of their roles,and then challensesthe husbandto engacemore fully in his relationship with each ot lhem. Function of lhe Symptom Systems rheory focuses on how families {unction within th€ closed systemsthey have organized.within theseself-contain€dlamily units. all behaviors,includine symploms,have a stabilizing function; that is, they maintain lhose patt€rns of personal interactlon that €stablish equilibrium. ln rhis view, the symptom may be seen as a necessary meansof r€gulaling the larg€r system.This conceptualizationof how the family is organized puryorts to be valu€ free, genderless,and egalitarian. In irs concernwith maintaining th€ overall system as the balancedsum of its parts, it focuses on patter$ need€dto provide

26

SOME REDgFINITIONS

intefnalstability,and ignoresthe broadersocialand culturalcont€xl in which the family iiself €xists A feminisi view of the role of the svmptom in stabilizing the svstemwould considerthe impaci of senderwhen formulatinsinterventions.The Daradoxicalprescriptionof the svnptom often Iends ilself to mother-blaming-for example,"If Johnnv were to leavehome' mother would be loneiy, since father is awav at work Although father's distancins is included in this formulation, the imPlication is that nothe!'s hotding on to her son is ihe primarv problem lt is not that it is inlrinsicallyharmful to prescribea svmplom but that the theraDist'swordins of the pr€scriptionirseUshould not reinforcea n"grrire view of rh. rorbFr's role or bchd\io'

PhaseIII: Devising Feminist InlerventioEs P hos e lI l is i h e c u rr€ n t a n d o n g o i n g p h ase of our w ork-the revi si on dnd " ddpr d ' i o n o f c o n v c n ri o n a l s l s l Pmi , i nl er!enri ons to ' al P gender This is ihe most challenging phase since it involves creating puidelinps to r D U l ri n s o J r te m i n rs r p F rspe(ri !e i nl o Ll i n;cdl pra" ri cP " what t ollow ' i : rr" d ;r ro b e o n l v d b e B i nni nc and ceftai nl v does nol c ov er all of th e p o s s i b i l i ti e s T h e p ro c e ssof seu-exami nati oDenrai l ed in look ins s o c ri l i c a l l y a t o n e ' s o w n w o r k. as rael l as that of esteemed c olleas ues ,i s p a i n fu l a n d d i ffi c u l t. It i s easi er to recosni zeerrors than r o dev ; lop n e w te c h n i q u e s w e a re s u re thai other exampl esand i nter ventions t{ill occu to You T he w o rk o f th i s p h a s e fo c u s e so n: t1l arti cul ati ns femi ni st for nlulaiions a n d t€ c h n i q u e s ,a n d (2 1s u g g esti ngfemi ni sl adaptati onsand revisians of traditional interventions. Please keep in mind that we are not f or m ula ti n g a n e w me th o d b u t rai her preseni i ng atr outl i ne of clinical suidelines informed by the feminist p€rspectiv€ in which 8en der is an orsanizing principle. The basis ol a feminist inte.veDtion is a feminist conceplualization ol the problem

Toward a Feminist FamilY TheraPY: SomeGuidelines {11 identificotionaf the sendetmessogeand sociol consrructs tlot conditionbehoviorond sex roles Genderthemesarenot merely"content,which mav or mav not be oroblpmalicin a siven famil! RarhPr'gend'r is sPPnas an essenlial scllsDritr eol all behd!ior,"nd onPof rhPchiel connF'linglinls bF this in lour different tweena cultureandits nembers We d€monstrale

PERSPECTIVElN FAMIIY THERAPY TowARD A FEIVI1NIST

27

mcthod olosr es.unbr "idr ns r h€ gPndpr . i\ sr r Fsf r nm llr c m o'e ab\ r acl sysrcms r hcor ips Lhdr 14e usP "s t h€_b"sr s of our wor l Lden ilving .i ' nmon abu'es , nd ovPr sichr , r e86rd ins cFnder ' ar d t hen r '- br aiding an appr eciat ion of gender int o t h€ wor k, wit h int er vent ions t hat ad dress gender ,explicit lv and im plicit lv (21 Recognit ionof t he r eal lir nit oiions of f em ole occesslo socioi eco nom icr esour ces. ond w o m en's aclual lim iled social and €conom icopt ions and sociallv dandated sham € a. e always f aclo. s in he. handling of sit uat ions. For example, a woman may stay with or return to an abusins husband becaus e,econom ically,she nay not have ot her opt ions A m ot her m av deny knowledge of f at her - daught er or sibling inc€st because ol t he sha'neful consequences of disclosure for herself and he! familv A woman ma-\, k€ep a rape seffet rathe. than subj€ci he.self ro ihe humi l i at ion t hat com €s wit h public disclosur e O ! a wom an m ay r emai n i n an unsat islact or y m ar r iage becauseh€r oplions out side ol t he marriage, emotionally and financially, are so limired. A lherapist who undersr andslhe posit ion oI wom en in such siiuat ions will r e{r ain f f om ''blamins the victim" fo. causina or staying in lhem, and will not push w onen pr ecipit ously int o act ions t har would Leavet hem alon€ and In situalions of incest and other violetrce, svslemic formulations that do not t ake t hese f act or s int o account lend t hem selvest o a "blam i ns of t he vict im " by t he pr esum pt ion of neut r alit y E ver y et hicai t her apist m ust ask her - or him self how it is possible ro conduct lherapy with a divorcing wonan without addressillg ihe faci that her income may well plunge to poverty level Sh€ nay have di ffi cult y in act ually collect ing what ever child- suppor t paym ent s she i s srant ed. Sh€ will cer t ainly nol be awar ded half of t he couple'sact ual assets,and she m ay well lose her childr en if she ans€r s her hnsband t o the point wher e he goes t o cour t t o r equest cust ody of t hem l 3 l An dwor en€ssof sexjst liinking t hot conslr icls t he opt t ons of w omen t o di. ect t heir ot {n lives S exisl t hinking, which is pe. vasive in f am ilies and in f am ily therap y, em bodies ideas such asr t he belief t hai wom en need m en t o suppoft , dir ect , and validat e t hem ; t h€ d€nial of wom en's r ight lo control over t heir own bodiesi ihe belief lhat wom en ar e illogical and overl y em ot ional, and t hat conpet ent and self deier m ined behavior is unattractive and "unfeminine." Th€s€ ar e univer sal belief s t hat shape individual consciousness and self definition. The consciousness and identity of wonlen, regardless oI race, class. or individual differences, is condiiioned by such al ti tudes aDd cir cum st ances.This f r ane of r ef er encewill enablet her a-

SOIUEREDDFINIIIONS

condj ri ons o. s r s o c onn e c tl h e b c h d v i o rs o f * o m c n lo e\peri encesand as l P ss pal ho cdn bP sP en rh F i r b P h a v j ors w h c fe r h e ta n rl v , or Ls ide ot rogrcal. Tl. ilifferences between the wav in which men and women have is be€n s oc iali z e d i o e x p e ri e n c ed a n g e r i n attachment and autonomv

d o n eb v P o lla c t s ru d e n rs in d srud);f 'olte 8 " to respondto i mdscs and 'rrr"r-'"i ".""t",r i r " a sked ! e re L d e n rs T h P s ; ; J Cillir an l Ie s 2 l oi t i .f" n " . l h c l d p p Pd re d o n d Themrri c A pperccpri on Tesl "U" r o." .i"*o" " . i" " . " a d " n g e r a c a ri s i n g Iro m cl osP persoD al a(l i l i di i ons m or e r han h o m Ih F s l ru e e l e l o r d (h i P v ' m P nl and success W omen on situathe other hand. perceived danger in impersonal' achievement dansFr descri bed MFn o f w ottr rh P w D rl d i n c o .p " ri ri o n iions " " c t r . " i n ri rn a c y . e n l (d Pme n L .a n d betraval - bei ng caught i n d i. i. ' *. "t W omen s m ot her ingr e l a ti o n s h i p o r h u mi l i a te d b v E j ecti on and decei t personal of saw dang"" in isolation and alienation-beins deprived r€lationsiips or set apart by success The authors concluded that netr sepex oe' ienc c d a n e e r i n .o n n F , t' o n a n d w o mP n e\pP ri erLe ddnger i n rhc l ays d i c h o tom) S mundw ork.l ol ar " r ion. T hi . s o c i a l l y C " n e ra re d rel al ronsnrps mal P _temal e i n l h a l a ri s P p ro b l Pms r o m p l e r r he m any

to ossume lal A c k n o w l e d g me n l th o t w o m e n hove been soci ol i zed pr im or y r es p o n s j b i l i ty fo r fo rn i l v .e l o ti o nshi ps in lt is not nnusual to expeci a woman ro facilitale the 'elationships mav be do so thd' shc h e d e mand. i n d e p d a I am ily . T h e e \p P c td l i o n as c ov er r .ihar s h e ' o mp ti " c ro th e e \l e n l l h a r she doesi q l hen otrenseen ll is not central tr"" puUaogi"ul n""i ro serve, or contrcl, or io remain ir'"", tt'.t *hen rhinss are noi goins well she will trv harder wrons "r.J"l"i.n, to make ihincs 'risht," and will accept blame for whaiever soes of chl i dbeori ngond J 51 Re c o s n i ti o no f i h e d i l e mmo s o n d confl i cts c'---;;;-i"8 hild. eor ing i n o u r s o c i e l Y . a morh€r immediatelv sets up conflict {or wonen between the restonsibilitles ol child rearing' for which thev a'e assisned Lhooseur or im ar v r eq p n n s i b i l i rt d rd a n y o l h e r a c l i !rl i Fs w omen may soLi dl rravel a career' h a vrng w o rl ' i n s a s p. i to .^ s u i h l" " a r o a v o c a ti o n s -T h e ra p i sts need to l ake thi s unavoi d* * ti t" "able " " " , "r.ot e" ic o n fl i c t a n d o v e rl o a d i n to a c c ount w hen assessi nga mol her' s funcrioning wlth her children o" l6l A n o w o l e n ' s q o f p o l re rn s th o r spl i l th" w omen rn Iomi l ' ' s nen' w i l h re i oi i onshi ps th ro u g } p o w e . ro o c q d i re t iev s eek and ln a r n a te -d o mi n a te ds o c i e tv a w o n an' s pow er i s deri vati ve' parrcrns C ommon ro i l dcqui re s ne m us t r_ h l ;d l * s i l h m F n i n o rd e t thc r har em er s p i n trmi l i e t a s w o me n s e P l l o achi cvP' hi s drm rncl udp i r' s ei therbecause m€n from a wav c o n l l i c t a e to u r i" t i" *ir g, f tl w " -*

TOWARD A FEMINIST P€RSPECTIVEIN FAMILY THERAPY

29

too dan ger oust o conf r ont t hem dir ect ly, or in or de. t o pr ot ecl m en. ( 21 W omen in f am ili€s com pet e wit h each ot hef f or t he "best " nay t o rnaintain emotional well-b€ing in the family. since lhis is designated as their primary province. (31 Since women are accuhurated to move row o.d em ot ional pr oblens and Dot away f r om t hem , ihe legendar y confl i ct bet w€en m ot her and daught er and st epm ot herand slepdaushler, wife atrd molher-inlaw, and ever much of the tension between si sters , can be under st ood in t his way. 17) Affit'dotion af volles ord behaviors chorac|eristic of women, such os connect edness,nur lur ing, ond em ot iondlit y. W hile in our societ y int im acy and ait achm ent ar e consider ed posi ti ve aspect sof p€r sonal r elat ionships.at t he sam e t im € our cult ur e boobards us ! ! it h ot her m essagest hat cont r adicl t his view, and t her api sts oft en char act er izet heseat t achm ent t r ait s in t er m s such as "inlr usi ve," "cont r olling, " "over involved, " or "hyst er ical. " [8 ] Recognilion ond suppo|t f or possibiliiies f or won1enout side ol nortioEe ind the fonily. S o m e t her apist s believe t hat t her e is som et hing wr ot r g wit h a w oman if she has not been able t o f or m a sat isf acr or yr elat ionship wit h a man, and will pr oceed t o analyze her "f ear of com m it m ent , " exam ine her " unr eal expect at ions, "explor € ihe or igins of her "host ilit y t owar d men," o r pr obe her "pr oblen wit h inlinacy. " This conveys t o t he w oman t hat once she over com esher "neur ot ic pr oblen" she will f ind a sui tabl e m an and live happily ever af t er , and t hat ihis is pr oper ly her W om en n€€d t o m aint ain a net wo. k of r elat ionships in which t hey feel usef ul and app. eciar ed. whet her t he f or r n t hat such a n€t wor k l akes i s convent ional or exper im €nt al is of t ilile im por t ance. A wom an s rel at ional skills can f lour ish in t he wor kplace,t he f am ily, or in any type of lr iendly or r om ant ic r elat ionship. (9 ) Recognilion of ihe bost c pf inciple t hot no int er vent ion is gendet-fre e ond t hot evet y int e. venlion will f iove o dif ler ent ond speciol meoni ns f o. eoch sex. Th ele m usi be com m it m eni t o t he pr inciple ihat t her apy is a pol i ti cal act and cannot be s€par at edf r om t he social issues in which rl ,- I.-,1. i" - - 1, - . 1, 1", 1

Conclusion The essence of leminist clinical work lies itr the therapisi's attitud€s tow ard genderand her or his sensiiivit y t o t he dit ler eniial im pact of all

SOME REDEFTNITIONS

interventiors. The changeswrought in our work from "thinkitrg 8€nder"havebeenprofoundTbis is lhe edgeI hat cutsacrossall melhodoloqv and schoolsand is adaplablewftbin a broad rangeoI clidicaland theorericalframeworks.Of course,a feministspproachdoesnol include lecturing, scolding,blaminS.haranguiDs,or proselvtizing' Good clinical work must include a recognitionoI the central fact of a cli€nt'sg€ndersocialization.Surelv, as vou read our clinical cases. vou will sDot{eninist interventionsihat we have failed to lisl h€re' or ;€xist interveniions that we weren't aware of. we hope our guidelircs will be helpful as you put your owD clinical work utrder scruiirv and begin to formulate your own Suidelines. Morionne wolte.s Belty Cottel PeEAyPapp olsa Siiverstein

pafi two

Family Relationships