Stationhill.com

Non-Fiction

 |  Next  |  Back  |  Home  |Fiction | Non-Fiction | Poems | Book Excerpts |

The History & Psychology of a Family

Chapter 1

The Many Definitions and Directions of Family

Family, a word that can evoke a myriad of visual photos and memories that are frames for those images. Smiling faces and loving gestures abound in the framed mementos that can be found in almost every living room across the United States. The focused participants are huddled together possibly sharing haircolor or stance, high cheekbones or double chins, identical smiles or freckled noses. Their characteristics may be strikingly similar or strangely unrecognizable, but they are family none the less. These photos will be passed from generation to generation and, through their journey, they will gradually lose their ability to provoke a memory. Many will be lovingly labeled and dated but the people that kept them alive with the memories of their creation will be gone. The photos will be all that are left of the person or persons who are and were a part of the family at one time.

This final product is an attempt to keep the faces among my ancestry alive through the stories and history that I want remembered. To know where we are from is the springboard for where we are going. With the past as our walking stick, we can choose to follow its lead or strike out on another course. Without the past to guide us, we have no direction, no compass to keep us from getting lost. Many of us may be repeating the mistakes made by those who preceded us. Follow me on my journey through the stories and history that have evolved over several generations and formed my family.

What is “family?” I feel that there is no definition that completely defines this word. Different books give us different definitions. Some people have an altered vision of what family entails. Many of us remember scenes from our childhood or perhaps our parenthood. We may envision the playful scenes of siblings, the disappointments of teenage years, the caress of a parent or grandparent, illness, death, marriage, birth, divorce, or any variety of images that are prevalent in the mere mention of the word family. Throughout our lives, certain visions may fade or become skewed. Some may remember good times and many will remember the challenges or changes that altered our lives. Each of us will draw upon the memories that have guided us toward the people we are today. Tomorrow may hold a different set of challenges or joys that will change us again, turning and pivoting across the roller coaster tracks that we call our lifetime. Throughout that lifetime, our families will change. Adulthood, marriage, divorce, and death may cast its shadow upon the tracks of the roller coaster. Before we disembark the cars that transport us through life, we will have changed seats many times through force or necessity.

In William Stephens’ (1963) book The Family in Cross-Cultural Perspective, family is defined by Stephens in these terms: “I will define the family as a social arrangement based on marriage and the marriage contract including recognition of the rights and duties of parenthood, common residence for husband, wife, and children, and reciprocal economic obligations between husband and wife” (p. 8). How cut and dry this definition is. It lends itself to a legal contract. Nowhere does Stephens mention love, devotion, or commitment, only rights and duties, economic obligations, and a common residence. Where is the romance, the tender family scenes that are vivid in those photos on our bookshelves? The notion that all arrangements that involve family also imply love and nurturing is not an uncommon assumption.

In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz (1992) gives us examples of what many of her students think when asked to describe the “traditional family,”

Their lists always include several images. One is of extended families in which all members worked together, grandparents were an integral part of family life, children learned responsibility and the work ethic from their elders, and there were clear lines of authority based on respect for age. Another is of nuclear families in which nurturing mothers sheltered children from premature exposure to sex, financial worries, or other adult concerns, while fathers taught adolescents not to sacrifice their education by going to work too early. Still another image gives pride of place to the couple relationship. (p. 8)

Coontz argues that these are examples of the misconceptions most have when they envision what a family truly is and was. She believes our memories have been shaded by the media’s portrayal of the family. We tend to romanticize the aspects of past family life that we admire, and we choose to forget that there were many aspects that were not wonderful, nurturing, or even loving. Coontz (1992) puts it this way, “Whenever people propose that we go back to the traditional family, I always suggest that they pick a ballpark date for the family they have in mind. Once pinned down they are invariably unwilling to accept the package deal that comes with their chosen model” (p. 10).

When we hold a certain image of family or strive to stay within the boundaries of Stephens’ definition, we are continuing to promote “family” in images that are unrealistic. If all families were as simply defined as these images suggest they are, then we would have little reason to leave these idealistic situations through divorce, and everyone would choose to marry instead of remaining single. In The Shelter of Each Other, Mary Pipher (1996) contends that, “Family is a collection of people who pool resources and help each other over the long haul. Families love one another even when that requires sacrifice. Family means that if you disagree you still stay together” (p. 21). She also tells us that family does not have to be related by marriage or common ancestry. Many people consider their family to consist of people other than their relatives.

Reviewing these three definitions, we can see how different people view “the family.” Families are people, husband and wife, who are bound together by a social arrangement based on marriage. They are images of media and nostalgia that are historically nonexistent. They are any group of people who band together and will never leave each other. If these are all definitions of family, then perhaps, we should look into why we can define family in so many ways.

Stephens’ definition seems to fit the societal expectations for defining family in the early 1960’s and Pipher’s definition incorporates those who deal with foster care, gangs, or the ever-increasing number of diverse households present in today’s society. Coontz just wants to say that whatever way we remember family, we have to consider the idealistic representation that we have been blitzed with through the media in its portrayal of the ideal family. All three definitions describe family in the societal expectations and norms of their era. Is this how family should be defined? Within each of us, there seems to be a certain image of family that we cannot erase or choose not to eradicate. Stephanie Coontz (1992) describes it this way,

When schoolchildren return from vacation and are asked to list the good things and the bad things about their summer, their lists tend to be equally long. Over the year, however, if the exercise is repeated, the good list grows longer and the bad shorter until by the end of the year the children are describing not actual vacations but idealized images of Vacation. So it is with families. The actual complexity of our history--even of our own personal experience--gets buried under the weight of an idealized image. (p. 1)

Yet, as we look into the history of the family in the areas of childhood, economic influences, societal pressures, sibling placement, and the many problems that surround the “families” of today and yesterday, can we hold on to those images and still emotionally distance ourselves in order to see the family in the light of day? Perhaps this can be done through the use of genograms. In Genograms in Family Assessment, Monica McGoldrick and Randy Gerson define genograms,

A genogram is a format for drawing a family tree that records information about family members and their relationship over at least three generations. Genograms display family information graphically in a way that provides a quick gestalt of complex family patterns and a rich source of hypotheses about how a clinical problem may be connected to the family context and the evolution of both problem and context over time. (p. 1)

Genograms are used in Bowen Family System Theory. “In family therapy, genogram applications range from multigenerational mapping of the family emotional system using a Bowen framework...The genogram can highlight both current and historical family patterns to illustrate these and other dysfunctional family structures” (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 4). Genograms include the names and dates that we associate with the mapping of a family tree, but further define a family’s dynamics by simply identifying the threads that are common among a family’s emotional interactions, medical histories, and/or relationships.

Using these preceding sources, I will look at the internal and external forces that surround many families and how these forces affect them, independently and as a whole. I will include the history of my own childhood and the family of the 1950s I was raised in. Throughout these themes, I will examine the ways in which genealogy and the theory of Bowen Family Systems can enhance our lives by allowing us to understand our family dynamics and the events that change the relationships within our family structure.

Through historical information, we are able to retrace the normal childhood in the era of our father and mother, their fathers and mothers, and so on. Through this information we will inevitably realize that the traditional family of parents taking care of their offspring in a loving and nurturing environment is a relatively new phenomenon. Neil Postman (1982) uses a quote by Lloyd deMause in his book The Disappearance of Childhood to help his reader understand what childhood was like prior to the eighteenth century.

“The evidence which I have collected on methods of disciplining children leads me to believe that a very large percentage of the children prior to the eighteenth century were what would today be termed ‘battered children.’ A hundred generations of mothers impassively watched their infants and children suffer from one source of discomfort or another because the mothers (and, emphatically, the fathers) lacked the mechanism necessary to empathize with their children.” (Postman, 1982, p.16)

Postman believes that earlier generations lacked the cognitive ability to discern what their children needed. Through family stories we can decipher that the childhood common today was preceded by children who were forced to grow up and be productive members of their families at very early ages. Large families, economic depression, educational expectations, disease, and societal norms are only a few of the many variables that contributed to how children were raised before the 1950s.

I want to discuss the family of the 1950s because it seems to be considered the traditional family, and it happens to be the era in which I was born. Society seems to strive to attain the family lifestyle and values of this decade, but where did that traditional family evolve from? Coontz (1992) gives us this information:

...[T]he “traditional” family of the 1950s was a qualitatively new phenomenon. At the end of the 1940s, all the trends characterizing the rest of twentieth century suddenly reversed themselves: For the first time in more than one hundred years, the age for marriage and motherhood fell, fertility increased, divorce rates declined, and women’s degree of educational parity with men dropped sharply. In a period of less than ten years, the proportion of never-married persons declined by as much as it had during the entire previous half century. (p. 25)

During this era people also saw an increase in the standard of living that they enjoyed. “Between 1945 and 1960, the gross national product grew by almost 250 percent and per capita income by 35 percent” (Coontz, 1992, p. 24). It seems that this was a time of economic prosperity that contributed to the feeling that there was a possibility of financial security and a chance that almost everyone could improve their standard of living over the generation that preceded them. Mary Pipher (1996) describes the “idealized family” version of the 1950s,

The idealized version portrays families as wellsprings of love and happiness, loyal, wholesome and true. This is the version we see in Leave it to Beaver or Father Knows Best....In the 1950s the idealized version was at its zenith. Extolling family was in response to the Depression and war which separated familles. People who had been wrenched away from home missed their families and thought of them with great longing. They idealized how close and warm they had been. (p. 24)

Economic prosperity, family separations, the media’s portrayal of family, and the prospect of a secure future were all catalyst for this era of family harmony and happiness. While examining the 1950s, it seems only right that we intertwine the preceding decades and consider the changes that occurred in families and deflated the “idealistic family” image.

Born in 1954, I have a “traditional family” image of my own family. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. My father worked for the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company better known as the A&P grocery chain. Our meals and outings revolved around his free time. I was the youngest until 1959 when my brother, Paul, was born. My older sisters Louise and Janet were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively. In McGoldrick and Gerson’s (1985) book Genograms in Family Assessment, the authors include two powerful statements about family, “The family is the primary and, except in rare instances, the most powerful system to which a person ever belongs” (p. 5), and “...for most of us sibling relationships are the longest relationships we have in life” (p. 46). How true these statements are. They give new meaning to those family photos and explain why the family takes on such an important role in who we are and will become. I will probably never have a relationship with any other person that is of a longer duration than the one I have with most of my siblings. My youngest brother, who was born when I was seventeen, could be the exception.

In reality, the relationships that exist between siblings are relationships that are similar to those we may have with others, but they take on a certain kinship that is not prevalent in close friendships or sometimes even spouses. Louise and I are good friends. We share many of the same interests. Because our lives are busy and our children are not close in age, we do not regularly see one another, but we are always able to start a conversation and pick up where we left off before. Janet is 11 months older than I am. We are completely different and see each other only at family gatherings. We can converse when we see each other, but it is a polite and distant relationship. Why? Wouldn’t you think that the sibling closest in age to me would be the one that I interact with the most? When discussing sibling order and each person’s place within that order there seems to be a certain set of ideals that go with birthorder. Kevin Leman (1985) defines the norms of first, middle, and last borns:

It is always a bit rash to saddle any birth order with a blanket label, but for first borns, and their close cousins, the only children, have one. It’s perfectionism.... First borns and only children get a lot of attention, a lot of glory--and a lot of pressure. (p. 57)

The middle child is “iffy”--the product of many pressures coming from different directions. You must always look at the entire family to understand the plight of the middle child. How he finally turns out is about as predictable as a Chicago weather report. In many ways, the middle child remains a mystery. (p. 118) Beneath our independent veneer is that inner rebel who got away with murder. We last borns are impetuous and brash. We go ahead and do and worry about repercussions later. We vow that we will get attention, we will make our mark. We will show our older brothers and sisters, our parents, and the world that we are to be reckoned with. (p. 149)

Though Leman is unable to tell me why my sister and I are distant because he cannot define the middle child, which we both are, I consider our different lifestyles the explanation for our relationship. Janet has not married or had children. Our lifestyles took different directions and interests. This does not mean that our paths will not reconnect in later years.

In Genograms and Family Assessment and The Birth Order Book, the focus is drawn to marriage and the problems that can be encountered when spouses are ensconced in birth orders that are incompatible and likely to cause relationship problems. McGoldrick and Gerson (1985) tell us that “Walter Toman (1976) has emphasized the importance of sex and birth order in shaping sibling relationships and characteristics” (p. 5). It seems that the fact that you are of a certain birth order does not reasonably conclude that you can marry someone else of the same birth order and live happily ever after. Personalities are formed and lifelong patterns instilled within the nuclear family. Your sibling placement and interactions are the playground for future relationships. The way you deal with your family members is directly related to the way you will deal with others, including your spouse.

“People are organized within family systems according to generation, age, and sex, to name a few of the most common factors. Where you fit in the family structure can influence your functioning, relational patterns, and the type of family you form for the next generation” (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 5). Are the co-workers you are compatible with and those you are not influenced by their birth order and sibling interactions? I would assume they are. Lifelong sibling relationships are our first real struggle for position. The way we interact with each other is first explored within the nuclear family. It stands to reason that we are influenced by the way in which we handled our first jobs within the family with our first co-workers, our siblings.

My sisters and I were required to wipe the dishes every night after supper. We would line up and take one dish to wipe and go to the back of the line. My mother was the washer. Why she consciously put herself in a position to be tortured by our bickering and rule-making is beyond me. The rules were simply that you wiped dishes until the last dish was wiped. If you happened to be the one to wipe the last dish, you were free to go after you had done so. The other two wipers would be required to wash the dinner table and put away the dishes that had been wiped. When we were down to the last few dishes, we would take two at a time and sometimes more. Each of us was gambling on getting the last dish and our strategies would decide who had guessed the number of dishes left and figured out how to maneuver this dish to end up in our grasp. The rules caused considerable irritation to participants as we bent each rule in order to position ourselves with the last dish.

If my mother had instructed us to do the dishes alone, she would have had one washer and two wipers. Each wiper would have had a job after the last dish was wiped and this positioning eliminated, maybe. As a parent, I tend to think that we would have arranged the rules in order to have some confrontation and positioning in order to have a winner, but at least my mother would have been spared these often nasty eruptions.

When it became too much for her, my mother would send us to our prospective corners to cool off. This was her usual course of punishment. We each had our own corner in the kitchen. No one went to anyone else’s corner when being punished. Territories and boundaries were respected. After a few minutes of facing the wall, we would start to peak and giggle. My sister, Janet, would begin to beg my mother to let us out. This went on for about 10 minutes, and then we would be instructed to apologize and would come back to the dishes. Sometimes if one of us was feeling particularly hateful and this too was often Janet, we would snap each other with the rolled up wet dish towels. This would not end until my mother could take no more or until one of us was slapped rather hard and reduced to tears.

In just one instance of daily dishwiping, I have shown a number of relationship issues. These are issues that can be prominent in working relationships. The formation of personalities within our nuclear families help us deal with the consequences of positioning, feelings, hate, hurt, and the act of forgiveness. Mary Pipher (1996) is disappointed with the way in which our society honors the sibling relationship,

Sibling relationships need much more support and celebration than they receive in our culture. Often as adults, we find that our siblings are the people who have known us the longest, know the most about us and share the most life events with us. Particularly in our mobile society, sibling relationships offer us a shelter that few other relationships can provide. If we are lucky, our siblings are our built-in lifelong friends. (p. 237)

We learn to play and work together within our nuclear families or to deal with the sometimes unpleasant outcomes relationships cause. We also learn how to interact and side with one another forming what Emily Marlin’s (1989) book titled Genograms refers to as a “triangle.” Marlin quotes therapist Murray Bowen, in describing what a triangle is,

the smallest stable relationship system. A two-party system may be stable as long as it is calm, but when anxiety increases, it immediately involves the most vulnerable other person to become a triangle. When tension in the triangle is too great for the threesome, it involves others to become a series of interlocking triangles ( p. 75).

In my dishwashing narrative, I gave an example of how a triangle is formed. The tension revolved around who would get the last dish. Many times, not wanting to see one of my sisters get the last dish, I would conspire with one of my sisters to make sure that the last dish would end up in one of our hands. When the strain became too great, our mother was drawn into the triangle, making it an interlocking triangle. She dispersed the tension by sending us to our corners. This is a very simplistic example of a triangle. Genograms are useful tools when assessing larger, more focused triangles that continually disrupt family relationships.

In Bowen’s conceptual framework, healthy development involves differentiating to the point where one can function independently in each relationship and not automatically fall into a certain pattern of relating to one person because of the person’s relationship with another person. (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 98)

Ideally, through the help of a genogram, we would be able to recognize and restrain ourselves from falling into family patterns and interactions that continue these tense triangular relationships. Though my sisters and I were able to outgrow our tension when doing dishes, it is not always easy for an individual to detach themselves from patterns that have existed for long periods of time. In many cases, we are unaware of the triangle or even the pattern until it is pointed out or discovered through the help of a genogram.

Many times there are stresses within the family, changes that cause an upheaval and force children to take on roles that are new and sometimes difficult to accept. I believe that every family has at least one time that is marred by changes and interactions that ultimately define new roles and new relationships. These changes are often viewed in a negative fashion and may cause problems in later relationships. Mary Pipher (1996) tells us that later problems from disruptions in the family do not have to be negative. By continuing to believe that there should not exist any changes that might produce a challenge or upheaval in the family, we are shortchanging ourselves and our children.

We have overestimated the benefits of stress-free lives and oversold the positive effects of smooth, non-challenging childhood. Too much pampering leaves children without incentive to grow. Painful experiences, if dealt with properly, can sometimes be good lessons. It’s not the stress people experience, it’s what they do with stress that matters. Some people give up, others work harder. (p. 121)

I have described to you my personal “idyllic family.” When remembering my early childhood, I instinctively remember a life filled with few worries or wants. In 1967, my family life underwent a tremendous “about face.” Its memory casts a fog over the vision of the “idealic family” I enjoy remembering and allows me to contemplate my family as in Coontz’s (1992) observation that many of us are trapped in the nostalgia of “the way we never were.” Yet, I believe I have grown past that narrow focus. I am able to remember that time without feeling that I was denied a better outcome. I prefer Pipher’s (1996) examination of nostalgia and her acceptance of its benefits, “To accuse all who speak well of the past of being nostalgic is to deny that environments can be discussed rationally. If we don’t compare, then we can’t make sense of difficult times. If we claim that all eras are essentially the same, we have established a rationale for passivity” (p. 70-71). The benefits I received from this upheaval far outweigh anything I might have relinquished.

In October of 1967, my parents bought a small convenience store in the town that I was born and raised in. My father was faced with a transfer by the A&P Company. As a salaried employee, he was called upon, in those years, to increase his work time and duties. Many Sundays, our family would help him stock shelves or finish jobs that had not been completed. These issues along with the disruption a move would cause for the family, and the opportunity to purchase a convenience store in town, helped him make his decision. I think he felt that if he didn’t grasp the moment it might never resurface. His capacity as an employee and manager of the local A&P for well over twenty years gave him the knowledge and confidence to undertake such a venture, but he could not do it alone. He needed my mother’s commitment too. Their decision would not only change the daily routine of my family and the roles that each of us would need to assume, but would also be a gamble with their security and retirement. They would invest their entire life savings on the chance to succeed. As in many instances when a woman is expected to work full-time and raise her family, there is often a tremendous amount of burden placed upon her shoulders. While many men help around the house, many more do not. Their day ends when they finish their “job” and the sanctuary of home is their haven for rest and relaxation. My mother had been home doing her part for many years, but this transition to a working mom caused a great amount of tension within our family structure and my parents’ relationship.

My siblings and I were also faced with a great change in our environment. The apartment over the store became our new home. Compared to the house my parents had spent years renovating and the only home I had ever known, the apartment was small cramped, and dreary. All of the walls, in every room, were painted with an institutional green found in many hospitals at this time. This color was continued down the stairs and into the store. I can only guess that the previous owners were rewarded with a great bargain when they purchased that paint. There was no money to redecorate at this time, so we were forced to accept what could not be changed.

There had been four bedrooms in our previous home. We were reduced to two in the apartment. Louise and I would share part of the living room curtained off from the other part. I had always shared a room with my other sister, and it was not a problem for me. However, my 17 year-old sister had always had a room to herself and she was not particularly fond of her lack of privacy. I was relegated to a corner of the room. Her bed was placed in the center and there was no question as to whose room you were entering. My other sister opted for the hallway instead of the other alternative which was to be in the same room with us. My brother and parents took occupancy of the bedrooms. The kitchen and bathroom were the only other rooms included in our living quarters.

Before my parents bought the store, we would do many things as a family on the weekends. Picnics, daytrips, and drive-in movies were normal recreational activities that we would indulge in as a family. The proprietorship of a business required my parents to work seven days a week, six of those days from 7 am to 9 pm. There were no more spontaneous family outings. My mother could no longer keep up with the household tasks.

My oldest sister was unhappy with these changes. She was a senior in high school and unable to embrace the stress that these changes put on the family. She never became involved with the business. My sister Janet and I were able to shoulder some of the responsibilities in order to ease my parents’ workload. I was the one who accepted the household responsibilities and Janet managed to do as much as she could in the store. At fifteen and fourteen years of age, we were limited in our capacity to work in the store. We could not legally handle or sell alcoholic beverages. Therefore, we were not allowed to wait on customers or help with the manual duty of filling a walk-in cooler with cases of beer for customers who wanted their beer cold. I watched my petite mother struggle with many cases as she attempted to do what was necessary.

As I reflect on this time, I remember many triangles that were associated with the stress such an undertaking has upon a family. That first winter was particularly anxious because my parents had not foreseen the problems of purchasing a business in the fall of the year. This was the least busiest time in sales and the cash flow was very poor. The furnace blew up in November, and it was not hard to see the lines of stress exhibited on my parents’ facial features. In fact, it was during this time that I witnessed my father cry for the first time in my life. My parents were able to hold on and survive that winter, but the stress and upheaval would continue for several more years.

In 1970, my father suffered a heart attack. To make matters worse, my mother had just discovered that she was pregnant with my youngest brother. My oldest sister had married and left the house. My other sister and I would take on more of the responsibility at this point. We would learn all the “ins and outs” of the business and would within a few years become capable of handling most of the business on our own. Though my parents still had major responsibility for the business, my sister and I were able to give them breaks from their long hours. My brother was born two weeks after Janet’s graduation from high school. Janet worked for my parents after her graduation and allowed my mother more time with the baby. I followed her lead, after my graduation, and we both remained employees in this family business for many years. I married and left the business with the birth of my first child in 1980. My sister, Janet, would later purchase the business from my parents in 1981 and remains its proprietor to this day.

Through this narrative, you have an idea as to how the challenges we faced as a family were successful in giving me skills I might never have acquired in the “idyllic family.” I witnessed my parents’ ultimate acceptance of circumstances beyond their control, and became part of the sacrifices that family members make in order to ease the burdens others may be facing within the family.

Like Pipher (1996), I believe that every situation has a positive note to it. Sometimes we are not able to see the benefits of a situation for many years or really appreciate the values and commitments that surface during times of upheaval and stress. Though external forces of living the “American dream” of independence and financial security was the catalyst for my parents’ decision to purchase their business, the internal forces were the ones that enabled them to fulfill that dream. The internal and external forces that govern how families react to each other and the outside world are the forces that ultimately decide the morals and values a family will have.

As I write this, I am the same age my mother was when she gave birth to my youngest brother. Both of my parents faced a tremendous renewal of their commitment to values and vows during that time. My father’s heart attack must have cast a shadow of doubt upon the birth of that child. Society might frown upon a similar situation today and even consider it a selfish act or an unnecessary burden. The internal forces that governed my parents’ lives and allowed this child to be born might be overshadowed by the external forces that many families are swayed by when making their decisions on how families should be.

There is a lesson for modern families in this business of external vs. internal enemies. Families fail when they attack each other from within. Families do better if they can unite against outside forces. We are all immigrants today living in a culture whose stories are not our stories and whose values are not our values. Families are stronger when they acknowledge this and unite to resist the messages and influences that would harm them. (Pipher, 1996, p. 81)

Identifying these external enemies is not always easy. As we assimilate the culture we live in, we may be caught up in its web of acceptance. “Everybody’s doing it,” is a strong motive to join in. Coontz (1992) talks about the societal pivot that she feels was prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s,

For many observers, the social irresponsibility, political alienation, and “me-first” hedonism of the period could be traced to the collapse of a traditional family morality that once held economic self-interest in check and imbued the young with the values of “responsible citizenship.” (p. 94)

Pipher (1996) uses the external forces when comparing two families from different generations. One is a family of the 1990s and the other her own family ancestors from the 1930s. She argues that the 1930s family, “knew what the enemy was--tornadoes, droughts, locusts, blizzards. Their worst enemies were external to the family and they could fight against them together” (p. 7). In contrast, she tells her reader that the 1990s family was “relatively protected from the natural elements, but they had new hostile elements--crime, isolation and a continuous flow of information that was impossible to process” ( p. 8). The 1930s family worked together on the family farm. The 1990s family was busy with their careers, school, and extra-curricular activities. Pipher continues to describe her reaction to the modern family’s problems,

They were more prosperous and had more choices, but they were thirsty in the rain. They were stressed as individuals and as a unit. They didn’t know each other very well and rarely had time together....They were less clear about who the enemy was and sometimes they blamed each other for their pain. (p. 8)

It seems that Pipher is describing external forces that cause internal turmoil, and if Coontz is right, this is the kind of turmoil that left unchecked can cause a myriad of complications to the family unit. “Of course, family events do not occur in a vacuum. Family development must always be viewed against the background of its historical context, that is, the social, economic, and political events that have influenced the well-being of the family” (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 94). When looking at a genogram, the observer must keep in mind these external forces.

When constructing a genogram, many people confine their genogram to three generations and I will also follow those guidelines when I construct mine. I must, however, consider the threads of history and tradition that were spun from the generations that came before me. Many of those threads are still connected to me and have the ability to move me like a marionette in directions that I might not have gone without their tug.

Contact: mary_gd@yahoo.com
Copyright 2007 Mary Snowman
Reviews and comments requested

Posted 5/29/2007
 

 |  Next  |  Back  |  Home  |Fiction | Non-Fiction | Poems | Book Excerpts |