Ackerman, Nathan W. (1970): A Time of Change. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. i–ii.
Meissner, W. W. (1970): Sibling Relations in the Schizophrenic Family. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 1–25.
Abstract: The literature on studies of family dynamics has been dominated by an interest in the role of family interactions as they influence the course and development of one or other member of the family. While the literature in this area has been abundant, only passing attention seems to have been paid to relations between siblings and to the place of the pathologically affected child in the family constellation. It is our purpose in the present study to review studies on sibling involvement in schizogenic families and to present clinical findings from a family in which the pattern of sibling involvement had striking impact on the development of schizophrenic illness within the family.
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Beavin, Linda Sikorski & Betty Mecia (1970): Protection and Scapegoating in Pathological Families. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 27–39.
Abstract: IN 1966 the principal investigator reported on the development of a structured family interview technique, composed of several tasks and designed to elicit specific family interaction patterns for the purpose of diagnosis and the planning of the most appropriate therapeutic interventions (4). The present paper reports on further research done on one of the tasks, the so-called “blame” part, which aims to uncover patterns of scapegoating and defense. Originally, this task was designed for work with families of schizophrenics. Since in these families the mothers are hardly ever blamed for anything (and at best blame themselves for something they could not possibly be held responsible for), it seemed worthwhile to devise a communications context in which the mothers had perforce to be blamed. Only subsequently did we find that this task was useful also with other kinds of families as an instrument to elicit complementary patterns of protection and scapegoating.
Gill, H. S. (1970): The Influence of Parental Attitudes on Child’s Reaction to Sexual Stimuli. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 41–50.
Abstract: During the past few decades, our concern with the family of the psychiatric patient has increased as a result of the influence of psychoanalysis, sociology, social psychology, child guidance, and social work. Psychoanalytic theory, in particular, has had a powerful, though inconsistent, impact. On the one hand, it draws attention to the importance of early family experiences. On the other, it asserts that the mind of the child, instead of providing an accurate picture of the family, distorts it by unconscious instinctual forces and fantasies. Thus, the typical psychoanalyst tends to study the unconscious fantasy life of the individual as an alternative to (rather than in addition to) studying the actual reality of his family environment.
The psychoanalytic method is essentially a historical, retrospective one. It works backward from an end product and attempts to reconstruct events which have already passed. From the associations obtained and observations made during the analytic session, it involves an inference about what may have preceded an hour before, a day, a month, a year or a decade before. While it has to its credit some remarkable contributions, its major limitation is its inability to be precise about the role of reality events in child development. The classic example of this limitation is provided by Freud himself. In 1896, citing 18 fully analysed cases, he described the cause in hysteria to be a passive sexual experience before puberty, i.e., a traumatic seduction. He dispelled any doubt about the real occurrence of the seductions by referring to the behaviour of his patients during the analytic sessions. Their extreme reluctance to reproduce the picture of the scenes and their attempt to withhold belief convinced him of his theory: “Why should patients assure me so emphatically of their unbelief, if from any motive they had invented the very things that they wish to discredit?” (6, pp. 263-264). In 1897, Freud changed his mind and believed that most of the seductions in childhood which his patients had revealed had in fact never occurred. His later formulations, referring to the hysteric’s need to create such scenes of seduction in fantasy, emphasized the role of psychical reality alongside that of actual reality (6, pp. 265-267). The psychoanalytic work which followed, however, has tended to ignore the actual events in the patient’s life and has made the role of fantasy more and more prominent.
In contrast to such an overemphasis on fantasy stands the work of Bowlby (2) who demonstrated the role of maternal deprivation in delinquency, of Fromm-Reichmann (5) who suggested the concept of the schizophrenogenic mother, of Bateson, et al. (1) who formulated the concept of the double bind, and of many others (e.g., 7, 8, 9, 11). In all this work, the central concern is the relationship between the child’s personality development and the actual reality of his family situation.
The question seems to be, does the child provide an accurate picture of the family, or does he distort it by unconscious instinctual forces and fantasies? The study to be reported below attempts to tackle this question. The over-all project is rather ambitious and complex. I shall report here only that segment of it which looks into the child’s perception of sexual stimuli in relation to the child-parent interaction around sexual issues.
Ryder, Robert G. (1970): Dimensions of Early Marriage. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 51–68.
Abstract: Marriage research has by and large taken a narrow view of variation among marriages. One major orientation has focused on an evaluative dimension, contrasting “successful” marriages or “happy” marriages with less desirable alternatives (c.f. the review by Tharp, 1963). The various dimension labels resulting from this orientation have shared the view that marriages can be ordered on some continuum with one clearly positive extreme and one clearly negative extreme. While it might be noted that an evaluative dimension is too gross and ill defined for usefully describing the complexity of differences among marriages (Ryder, 1967), a more basic criticism is that such research tends to pretend that evaluations are descriptive facts, i.e., such research “factualizes” (Ryder, 1966).
The second major research orientation to individual differences among marriages has focused on power (see for example Herbst, 1952; Heer, 1963a, 1963b; Blood, 1963; Hoffman, 1960). Husband dominance has been contrasted with wife dominance, and authoritarian families have been contrasted with egalitarian or democratic families. Authority patterns have been studied in relationship to social class (Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Rollins, 1963), stages of the family life cycle (Schlesinger, 1962; Rollins, 1963; Hill, 1964), working status of the wife (Axelson, 1963; Rollins, 1963), and cultural differences (Michel, 1967; Safilios-Rothschild, 1967; Buric and Zecevic, 1967). The power orientation is however weakened by arbitrary definition and by abstractness. Careful attention to actual conversations between husbands and wives quickly reveals the arbitrary nature of a dominance ranking. For example, does power reside in the person who wins in a disagreement, or in the person who decides who wins, or in the person who decides who decides? In dyadic (or higher order) interaction, power does not necessarily reside with anyone; the interactional system may just operate as a system. On the other hand, a marriage interactional system may, or may not, include attributions or assumptions about power that are salient characteristics of the marriage.
While important differences between groups have been demonstrated from family interaction using the “who wins” characterization of dominance, notably by Strodtbeck (1951, 1954, 1958), there is little evidence of such a variable having the internal consistency reliability one would desire for individual difference studies. In Goodrich and Boomer’s (1963) Color Matching Test (CMT), the split-half reliability of who wins has been found to be .12 (Ryder and Goodrich, 1966). There seems also to be little basis for assuming that observed family interaction is related to self-reports of interaction (Olson, 1969; Hill, 1965; Kenkel, 1963).
Raush, Harold L., Karol A. Marshall & Jo-Anna M. Featherman (1970): Relations at Three Early Stages of Marriage as Reflected by the Use of Personal Pronouns. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 69–82.
Abstract: In an attempt to explore connections between communication and role relationships for young couples at early stages of marriage, the present study compares the use of the pronouns “I-me-my-mine” to “we-us-our-ours” as these occurred in a series of interviews.1 The rationale was simple. The general notion was that couples at the beginning of marriage, at least in present-day, middle-class, urban American society, are heavily involved in the issue of intimacy (Erikson, 1950, 1959). Bernard (1964), for example, suggests that, contrary to former times, married couples now must adjust primarily to one another, and only secondarily to roles; Blood and Wolfe (1960) find little evidence for clear-cut traditional domestic role performance; Bott’s studies (1957) in England suggest an increasing cultural shift from segregated to joint functioning; Raush, Goodrich, and Campbell (1963) describe the increased interpersonal emphasis required by an “open” structure in marriage; other studies (Hurvitz, 1960; Tharp, 1963) find that traditional division of roles no longer holds. Rossi (1968), in a recent review, suggests a broad scope of cultural changes with respect to role conceptions.
Where cultural norms are fluid and change rapidly, where traditions have become attenuated, young couples must work out their own solutions to the opportunities and problems which marriage presents. One would expect then that couples’ transactions (Goodrich, 1961; Goodrich, Ryder, & Raush, 1968) at the start of marriage would be characterized by relative emphasis on jointness; as husbands and wives become familiar with one another and with the tasks they face, stable, more segregated roles would develop. The studies described below deal with three early stages of marriagenewlywed, late-pregnancy, and early postnatal periods. In describing aspects of their marital functioning, couples might generally be expected to shift in the direction from speaking in terms of “We” to speaking in terms of “I”.
Kardener, Sheldon H. (1970): Convergent Internal Security Systems – A Rationale for Marital Therapy. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 83–91.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to emphasize a theoretical frame of reference within which interventions may be made in the treatment of couples. The purpose of any such system is to facilitate active participation on the part of the patients in the process of understanding what their behavior or symptom means, what purpose it is designed to serve, why it was once important, and how it may no longer be adaptive. With such an understanding, choices can be conceived and options exercised by the couple which previously had not been considered possible.
Wynne, Lyman C. (1970): Family Affairs. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 93–94.
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Book Reviews. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 95–97.
Abstract: It has come to pass that on the way to a conference one wonders whether it will be taken over by a guerrilla band of one’s colleagues. One recent book has attempted to gently and -sympathetically scold us on our confrontation techniques both in terms of our conferences and our therapy. Erikson’s Gandhi’s Truth (1) or, at least, one of the subjects it brings upopposition to social systemsis vitally important in our direct clinical work as family therapists where we oppose certain family systems; our consultation within social agencies where we frequently oppose anti-therapeutic bureaucratic processes; and our efforts as change agents within the community.
Gandhi’s personal and family life figure prominently in the book as Erikson makes an effort to show us in this psychoanalytic biography the connection between Gandhi’s psycho-sexual and family development and his political development. I do not intend to discuss this aspect of the book. Erikson’s other concern is to speak about the possibilities for new kinds of change agentry, for new kinds of revolutions which may do better than the old kinds in important ways. In this column I shall explore at length an option that is not advocated by Erikson, Gandhi or myselfguerrilla tactics (or what I call The Game of Police Brutality)in order to more clearly place Gandhi’s contribution in perspective and to draw the analogy between his political techniques and theory and that of family therapy.
Szalita, Alberta B. (1970): The Family in Literature and Drama. An essay on its use in training family therapists. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 97–100.
Abstract: During my training and in the early years of my work both as a therapist and seminar leader, I noticed that I had to supplement professional reading with clinical or personal experiences in order to make generalizations intelligible. Invariably, my associations ran to passages from great world literature, characters described in novels and plays, thoughts expressed by the various authors, and clear formulations, sayings or phrases I had stored in my memory. I did this while reading as well as when listening to a patient and found myself scanning my inner perceptive field looking for an analogy with the experience the patient happened to report or express.
As I proceeded in teaching principles of psychotherapy which were centered around discussion of specific clinical problems, I noticed, over and over again, that psychological and psychiatric training rarely equipped the participants to present a problem comprehensively, vividly, with emphasis on its inner drama, conflict, relevance and impact. Rarely was a candidate able to separate the significant from the insignificant; rarely was he able to give a tidy, concise presentation of a problem in a way that would make it easy for the participants to respond. The habit of dragging in the whole history of the patient, often irrelevantly, didn’t help the matter, it tended to obscure rather than clarify the issue. The participants tended to bombard the presenter with questions instead of dealing with the various alternatives or options for a resolution of a given conflict; the presenter would “throw in” more and more data, further obscuring the initial topicall this in order to avoid destructive criticism. Our training does not provide enough experience in constructive criticism. In this respect, we are not alone. As a matter of fact, the theatre suffers from the same difficulty, as Eric Bentley points out: “We believe in freedom of discussion but do we believe in discussion? In the theatre, the phenomenon is almost unheard of…. Yet criticism is discussion before it is either praise or condemnation” (1). In our field, the habit of criticism is mostly negative. The challenge is to develop habits of constructive criticism which is, let us repeat, genuine exchange of views.
Boszormenyi-Nagy, Ivan (1970): Review – Helm Stierlin’s Conflict and Reconciliation, (Doubleday, 1969). In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 100–101.
Abstract: David Rapaport (1) wrote at the end of his The Structure of Psychoanalytic Theory “… Those who try to reunite the field
of psychology so fragmented by a few methods, are regarded as ‘philosophers’ in the pejorative sense of the word. ‘Theoretician’ has become a term of opprobrium: this is the particular form of anti-intellectualism which is endemic in present day psychology” (p. 144). Theoretical synthesis is rare and true progress is slow. Conflict and Reconciliation is a major contribution to a new synthesis of the fundamental psychology of man. It attempts to introduce Hegelian dialectic thinking into Freudian theory.
Hegelian dialectic is a very exacting method of inquiry. It regards contradiction as an essential element of life processes and psychic functions. Walter Kaufmann (2) quotes Hegel, defining the “subject”, i.e. the living self, as that which is “actual only insofar as it is the movement of positing itself, or the mediation between a self and its development into something different” (p. 389). (From the Preface to Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind.) Contradiction becomes the essence of a live process, not a part aspect of it, like ambivalence in Freud’s psychology. Hegelian antithesis has to be resolved but only to give rise to new antithetical relationships. Static entities are fictitious except for a momentary existence as reference points for the pulsating process of continuous dialectical synthesis.
Helm Stierlin is a psychoanalyst with a doctorate in philosophy. In this book he takes the attitude of a Hegelian analyst toward the general psychoanalytic theory, exploring its implications for psychosis and a general theory of relatedness and psychotherapy. In this reviewer’s opinion the dialectical method of logical analysis is the major contribution of this book. It is likely to be followed by other studies aimed at closing the gap between the anthropomorphic language of Freudian clinical psychology and the underlying dialectical principles of psychic dynamics.
Glick, Ira D. (1970): Abstracts Of Literature. In: Family Process, 9 (1), S. 109–115.
Ackerman, Nathan W. (1970): The Don D. Jackson Memorial Conference. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 117–121.
Abstract: On the 29th of January, 1968 Don De Avila Jackson died at the age of 48. His death was both expected and unexpected. For some time rumors of his ill health had been circulating among concerned colleagues; his incredible vitality and enduring youthfulness made the rumors seem incredible. One year after his death a Memorial Conference honoring him was held at the Conference Center in Asilomar, California. The Conference was sponsored by the Mental Research Institute and organized by Jay Haley, then the Editor of FAMILY PROCESS, with the collaboration of the MRI staff. It was attended by the Advisory Editors of this Journal, co-founded in 1961 by Jackson and Nathan W. Ackerman. The Conference lasted four days; there were only two prepared addresses which are printed here. Ackerman’s Eulogy and Review opened the meeting; Bell’s Prospectus closed it.
Ackerman, Nathan W. (1970): Family Psychotherapy Today. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 123–126.
Abstract: We are gathered here to attempt an assay of family treatment process. We want to know where we are and where we are going. This evening I shall talk about where we are now; I shall present a rough framework within which we may try to understand some of the issues that face us in family psychotherapy today. At the close of the convention, John Bell will talk about where we are going; he will offer his views on family psychotherapy tomorrow. Sandwiched between us is the real meat of the meeting, the panel discussions so thoughtfully designed by Jay Haley and his committee. Without doubt, these panels will bring forth other perspectives within which the issues of family psychotherapy may be weighed.
The most striking feature of our field today is the emergence of a bewildering array of diverse forms of family treatment. Each therapist seems to be doing “his own thing”. We are faced squarely with the challenge to evaluate this diversity. Which of the differences are real? Which more apparent than real? Does the dramatic quality of these differences, in effect, obscure some basic samenesses?
Let us call to mind at the outset, the intriguing experiment of Van Vlack, Birdwhistell and Scheflen in making moving picture records of four therapists interviewing separately, and at different appointed times, the same family. For those of us who have viewed these films, the differences of approach are remarkable. What does it all mean? Are there, in fact, as many forms of family therapy today as there are therapists? Does this make sense? Is this multiplicity of approach natural and necessary? Or is it an expression of our field in a state of transition? How far are these differences the manifestations of the uniqueness of personal therapeutic style? How far, on the other hand, are they a product of limited knowledge, limited training, and a limited repertoire of therapeutic techniques? How far do some clinicians tend to take one or two favored therapeutic devices and aggrandize them into a whole method of treatment? How far do these varying versions of treatment accommodate to a specific family problem? How far do they force the family problem to accommodate to a particular technique, congenial to the needs, comfort and idiosyncratic talents or limitations of a given therapist’s personality? Are we today building a problem-oriented or a technique-oriented method of family treatment? Behind and beneath the many differences, can we trace the rudiments of a common foundation? With increased understanding and better professional training, can we expect to progress toward a unitary conception of family treatment?
Bell, John Elderkin (1970): The Future of Family Therapy. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 127–141.
Abstract: Don Jackson’s career reminds us to center thoughts and actions on the development of the family. Thus it had especial meaning to call you together for this memorial. To me it seems even more characteristic of Don that he invested himself in the future. He cared so much about what was still to be, that he dared to speak dangerous ideas in the present.
One can scarcely emulate Don, then, without choosing vital and risky options for the years ahead. For this reason your program committee chose to end our deliberations with a look to the future. On me has fallen the task of being the prophet in Don’s own country, an unearned honor I would willingly have yielded to any of you.
We, who remain, face options of roads that branch off in many directions. Some of these roads are attractive to nearly all of us, and we could stride down them eagerly, talking all the way. Some beckon individuals rather than all of us together. Some are so poorly marked that only a few will even recognize them as tracks toward such unpredictable destinations as Don sought. It is particularly in regard to these last that one runs risks in attempting to be a seer. Recollections of my beginnings with family therapy serve to remind me how one moves into the future without depth of conscious planning on many occasions in his life, even though his moves set personal directions for decades.
Family therapy has been for me such a track. I am proud that I ventured on it so many years ago. I am still excited by the expanding prospects it opens up. My approach to talking about the future, then, will be to speak very personally with you tonight, to share with you my speculations about what is ahead in this core area of my thought, work, and values.
Pittman, Frank S. & Kalman Flomenhaft (1970): Treating the Doll’s House Marriage. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 143–155.
Abstract: The Doll’s House, a common pitfall for family therapists, is an extremely unequal relationship in which one spouse’s incompetence is required or encouraged by the other. This pattern of marriage is common in a sick population and is chosen by people with clear individual pathology. It may be stable and satisfying, but it is crisis prone. Doll’s Houses are likely to be disrupted by the arrival of children, financial reverses, and, most important, the intrusion of another person upon whom the Doll is dependent and who sets out to equalize the marital relationship. A well-intentioned therapist with an intolerance for pathology can destroy the marriage. Therapy seems more successful when the therapist respects the basically unequal framework the couple has chosen and works toward greater understanding and respect for unique individual needs within that framework.
Novak, Arthur L. & Der Veen Van (1970): Family Concepts and Emotional Disturbance in the Families of Disturbed Adolescents with Normal Siblings. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 157–171.
Abstract: MANY STUDIES HAVE found that persons with emotional disorders have early family backgrounds filled with emotional difficulties, such as rejection, Vogel, et al. (22), child-parent conflict, McKeown (12); Vogel and Bell (21), inter-parental conflict, Fisher (4), broken homes, Madow and Hardy (11), absence of one parent, Ingham (10), weak father figures, Millar (13), “smothering” mothers, Sperling (17); Glauber (6), and prolonged sibling conflict, Ingham (10). These findings have led many investigators to refer to these early family environments as “pathogenic,” and as central causative factors in emotional disorders.
Nevertheless, controlled and systematic investigations have rarely found a direct relationship between family background and psychopathology. Stevenson (18) states that “if the experiences of childhood importantly influence the later personality, we should expect to find some correlation between such experiences and the later occurrence of mental disorder. In fact, no such correlations have ever been shown (p. 153).” Renaud and Estess (16) report that extensive interviews with 100 military men revealed a great deal of material regarding family background of a supposedly “pathogenic” nature, yet these men were rated high on emotional adjustment. Similarly, after an extensive review of the literature on the etiology of psychopathology, Frank (5) concludes that there are no evident factors which distinguish the backgrounds of families of schizophrenics, neurotics and behavioral disorders from the families of normal controls, or from each other. In spite of the lack of corroboration, it is still generally accepted that family background strongly influences later emotional adjustment.
Bing, Elizabeth (1970): The Conjoint Family Drawing. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 173–194.
Abstract: A new technique, the Conjoint Family Drawing, is described as a means of assessing family functioning. The method is projective as well as interactive, reflecting individual feelings and group interaction. Fourteen randomly chosen families, whose children had been referred to a Child Psychiatry Clinic, were studied. They were observed in a structured, performance-task-oriented session where they collaborated on drawing a picture of their family, which was discussed with them on its completion. Analyzing the data on all of the family portraits, six relevant dimensions were identified: 1) organizing role, 2) sequence, 3) size, 4) choice of person, 5) isolation, and 6) content. Clinical material is presented to demonstrate the value of the Conjoint Family Drawing as a potential research instrument, a diagnostic tool and a therapeutic device.
Spark, Geraldine M. & Elaine M. Brody (1970): The Aged Are Family Members. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 195–210.
Abstract: Research reveals that the notion of the aged being abandoned or dumped by families is a myth. In general close ties and mutually responsible behavior continue. For those engaged in family treatment, older families and intergenerational relationships are a clinical frontier. Practitioners have the opportunity to experience and observe, in depth, the emotional quality and meaning of intergenerational relations. Older family members may play important roles in the family dynamics. It is hypothesized that their inclusion when appropriate in the treatment of younger families can be a preventive measure to forestall cyclical repetition of pathological relationship patterns. Just as family therapists are committed to the premise that many nuclear families are capable of psychological growth and change, they must become aware that aged family members have similar capacities. If intergenerational relationships are modified then family members in all the generations could be benefited.
Waxler, Nancy E. & Elliot G. Mishler (1970): Sequential Patterning in Family Interaction: A Methodological Note. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 211–220.
Abstract: Participation rates have traditionally been used to indicate certain aspects of family and group structure. A recently reported indicator is the predictability of sequences of speakers in ongoing interaction; investigators have assumed that the greater the predictability the greater the rigidity, organization or structure of the group. We have examined one method, reported by Haley, for analyzing participation sequences and have shown that findings from the sequential analysis mix the effects of aggregate participation rates with the clustering of participation in time. We suggest an alternate method for measuring the predictability of sequences of speeches that can be more clearly interpreted and that, in combination with other measures, can provide findings which are more complex and more directly relevant to theories of family organization.
Taylor, William R. (1970): Research on Family Interaction I: Static and Dynamic Models. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 221–232.
Abstract: A static and dynamic model of family structure are presented and illustrated in clinical application to a pilot study. The basic measure is a content-free assessment of the sequence of states of interaction in family sessions. Using Markov process concepts, certain parallels between the behavioral variables (state transitions) and the more abstract clinical concepts of family structure can be identified. By subsuming the latter structural concepts under a framework of ‘balance theory’ (Heider; Cartwright and Harary) considerable reduction in complexity is achieved without sacrificing clinical relevance. Still to be explored are the applications to the study of therapist-family interaction and of treatment-related changes in structural and behavioral measures.
Family Affairs. (1970): In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 233–240.
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Rabkin On Books. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 243–244.
Abstract: What becoming psychoanalyzed was to the first half of the twentieth century becoming radicalized appears to be to the second. The foremost radicalizing agent in the country is none other than the police. As I discussed in the last column, The Game of Police Brutality can be played in such a fashion as to achieve certain political effects on people. At this point the parallel with psychoanalysis does not become as blurred as it seems. The earliest impact of psychoanalysis was felt through the tabloid papers and the theatrethey, rather than the psychoanalysts or even Freud’s writings, were the most effective psychoanalytic force. In both cases the mass media is involved, and in both cases a most unfortunate simplification and distortion are introduced. In the case of psychoanalysis this occurred with regard to the psychology of sex. In the case of radical politics the distortion involves aggression. This has prompted Erikson (1) to suggest that Gandhi might be profitably studied as the man who could do for aggression what Freud did for sex.
Pearce, John K. (1970): Review – Inner and Outer Space: An introduction to a Theory of Social Psychiatry, by Richard Rabkin, New York, W.W. Norton, 1970. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 244–245.
Ferrer, Andrew (1970): Review – Family Therapy and Disturbed Families, Gerald H. Zuk and Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Editors Science and Behavior Books, Inc. California, Palo Alto, 1967. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 245–246.
Liebowitz, Bernard (1970): Review – The Silent Majority: Families of Emotionally Healthy College Students, by William A. Westley and Nathan B. Epstein, Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 246–247.
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Review – Get Off My Back!, Edited by Sondra Touster, Dell Publishing Company, New York, 1969. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 247–248.
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Review – Family Measurement Techniques, Abstracts of Published Instruments, 1935-1965, by Murray A. Straus, University of Minnesota, Press, Minneapolis 1969. In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 248–248.
Abstracts Of Literature. (1970): In: Family Process, 9 (2), S. 255–258.
Speer, David C. (1970): Family systems: Morphostasis and morphogenesis, or ›is homeostasis enough?‹. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 259–278.
Abstract: The role of family homeostasis in Conjoint Family Therapy is reviewed and examined from the standpoint of the Sociocultural Systems framework as presented by Buckley. Sociocultural Systems concepts are presented, and an attempt is made to relate them to a view of the family. It is concluded that the concept of homeostasis by itself is insufficient as a basic explanatory principle for family systems and that it may limit both our expectations for families and our approaches to helping families. The concepts viability, positive feedback processes, morphogenesis, and ‘variety’ are presented and emphasized as important for a more tenable conceptualization of the family system in our society today. An attempt is made to relate these concepts to some of the clinical family literature and to examine the implications of these concepts for mental health and educational approaches to the family.
Sander, Fred M. (1970): Family Therapy or Religion: A Rereading of T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 279–296.
Abstract: From the framework of analytic sociology the author discusses areas of overlap between family psychotherapy and religion. This is done through the analysis of T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party, a play written in 1949 which anticipated the innovation of family therapy. The emergence of the Family Therapy Movement is viewed in part as a response to changes in the structure of the modern family.
Ravich, Robert A. (1970): A System of Notation of Dyadic Interaction. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 297–300.
Abstract: The necessity of organizing the large quantity of data derived from the use of the Ravich Interpersonal Game-Test (RIG/T) (1) has led to the development of a system of notation of two-person interaction.
Gardner, Richard A. (1970): A Four-Day Diagnostic-Therapeutic Home Visit in Turkey. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 301–331.
Abstract: The author has presented his experiences during a four-day home visit in Istanbul, where he was invited for the purpose of making a diagnosis and recommendations for the care of a 20-year-old English-speaking Turkish patient. His preparations are described, as are the details of his conduct of the evaluation. His findings and recommendations have been presented. Emphasis is placed throughout on the importance of the examiner acquainting himself in detail with his patient’s cultural, social, and ethnic milieu. The way in which such information contributed to a clearer understanding of the patient’s psychological difficulties is demonstrated. A Greek and a Turkish psychiatrists’ comments on the article are published together with a final note by the author.
Friedman, C. Jack & Alfred S. Friedman (1970): Characteristics of Schizogenic Families During a Joint Story-Telling Task. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 333–353.
Abstract: For a joint family story-telling task, families with a schizophrenic offspring were compared to normal families on the completeness and clarity of the final composite stories and on their interactional behavior. The composite stories from schizogenic families were more ‘vague and confused’, fragmented, and less complete as to the five components required to satisfy the task instructions. Schizogenic families displayed more conflict, failure, and confusion during the interactional task than control families, and, fathers and mothers of schizophrenic offspring displayed more ‘anxiety and tension’, ‘depressive mood’, ‘evasiveness’ and ‘lack of interest’ than fathers and mothers of normal families. Mothers of schizophrenic offspring were also described as more ‘hostile’ than control mothers. Comparing schizogenic families from which the patient was absent during the task with schizogenic families with the patient present, and with control families, indicated that the central findings were not attributable to the immediate presence and participation of the schizophrenic member.
Bloch, Donald A. (1970): Editorial. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 355–355.
Glenn, Michael (1970): Correspondence. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 357–359.
Abstract: To the Editor: I appreciate your mentioning THE RADICAL THERAPIST in your Books section. People in family therapy have been early supporters of the journal, and we appreciate your passing the word on. I can’t agree though with your hope that we’ll pursue a “middle-ground” position. Our raison d’etre is to provide a thoroughgoing radical viewpoint; there are enough middle-ground periodicals already. These are severe times, and every action has political significance. Therapists need to consider the sociopolitical nexus in which they live. Not challenging it is supporting it. Liberal approaches are failing today, as Kent State, Cambodia, Augusta, and Jackson State provide proof of the system’s racism and repression. People are getting radicalized en masse.
Family Affairs. (1970): In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 361–363.
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Rabkin On Books. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 371–373.
Abstract: When the War On Poverty was declared, the behavioral sciences, particularly social psychiatry, rallied to the call. Poverty, however, is not a concept particularly relevant to psychiatry, and the last time it found itself speaking about economics, libido not money was the subject. That did not stop us. Family therapists, particularly, became involved with poor families. Poverty is one of those issues about which laymen, and everyone from every profession somehow feel competent (unfortunately) to advise othersmuch as people are always willing to advise psychiatric patients. Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality by Louis O. Kelso and Patricia Hetter (Vintage Books, N.Y. 1967) may be able to set us straight. The major problem with the behavioral sciences’ involvement in The War On Poverty was not directly related to the concept of poverty as much as to its opposite, with consequent unclarity as to the goal of such programs on the part of well-meaning mental health professionals. That such programs were called “poverty programs” is illustrative of Kelso’s major thesis. This term avoids the necessity of stating in a clearly conceptualized fashion the goal to be sought. As time passed, however, we have become increasingly suspicious of such programs. This has led in two directions, one unfortunate (the so-called radicalization of many young behavioral scientists) and the other a happy one (the recognition of more psychiatrically sound economic theory).
Rabkin, Richard (1970): Review – Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry: The Field of Family Therapy, (Volume VII, Report No. 78, March, 1970). In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 373–374.
Simon, Leonard (1970): Review – Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969. In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 374–375.
Abstracts. (1970): In: Family Process, 9 (3), S. 379–384.
Ryder, Robert G. (1970): A Topography of Early Marriage. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 385–402.
Abstract: Twenty-one patterns of marriage were derived on the basis of interview reports of 200 young nonclinic couples. The patterns themselves were then organized along five conceptual dimensions: husband ‘potency’ or effectiveness, husband impulse control, wife dependency (vs. counter-dependency), wife attitude toward sex, and wife orientation toward the marriage.
Ackerman, Nathan W. (1970): Child Participation in Family Therapy. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 403–410.
Abstract: The full involvement of children, particularly those of younger ages, in family therapy presents a personal and professional challenge to the therapist. Out of his own needs he may favor involvement with one or another generation rather than with the complete three generation family. This issue is discussed and suggestions for therapeutic use of younger children are presented.
Sander, Fred M. & C. Christian Beels (1970): A Didactic Course for Family Therapy Trainees. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 411–423.
Abstract: This paper describes the rationale, procedures, and reading materials used in a didactic course included in a training program for family therapists.
Wellisch, David K., George R. Gay & Roseann Mcentee (1970): The Easy Rider Syndrome: A Pattern of Hetero- and Homosexual Relationships in a Heroin Addict Population. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 425–430.
Abstract: A pattern of dyadic relationship in the addict subculture is described in terms of its familial antecedents, current dynamics, and treatment implications. The chief feature of this pattern is that the male member of the dyad is an ‘Easy Rider,’ supported and cared for by the female partner.
Cheek, Frances E. & Richard Anthony (1970): Personal Pronoun Usage in Families of Schizophrenics And Social Space Utilization. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 431–447.
Abstract: Personal pronoun usage of individuals in interaction is proposed as an index of the social functioning of both the individuals and the groups. The interaction of schizophrenic young adults, male and female, with their mothers and fathers, is compared with that of normal young adults with their parents in these terms. Previous findings regarding disproportionate use of the first person singular by schizophrenics are confirmed, and it would appear that this behavior is not learned tom their parents who are low in usage of these pronouns. Findings of other studies regarding male-female differences in schizophrenics and coalition patterns and social control mechanisms in their family interactions are also suggested by the data.
Kahn, Malcolm (1970): Non-Verbal Communication and Marital Satisfaction. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 449–456.
Abstract: Twenty-one college couples were identified as maritally satisfied and 21 couples as maritally dissatisfied by the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale. The Marital Communication Scale (MCS), a new behavioral measure of accuracy of marital non-verbal communication, and the Primary Communication Inventory (PCI), a self-report measure, were administered to each couple. The results indicate a relationship between marital satisfaction and accuracy of non-verbal communication as assessed by both measures. The commonality of the two measures was found to be limited, however.
Scheflen, Albert E. (1970): Communicational Arrangements Which Further Specify a Meaning. In: Family Process, 9 (4), S. 457–472.
Abstract: At the lowest level of integration one participant assumes a position which he orients to the others. In this position he speaks and gestures to form a point unit or a sequence of point units.
In the simplest case a single utterance may suffice to exactly depict a context. One can say “Statue of Liberty”, for instance, or “U.S. Senate” and depict a non-ambiguous referent. And old friends may be able to share the cognitive recall of a very complex experience by mentioning a name. But ordinarily, a speaker must use a much more complicated behavioral presentation. He has to say why he is calling up a referent, and he may have to use a complicated communicative presentation to specify a more ambiguous representation.