Systems Theory and Social Work

Introduction

One of the earliest references to social work and systems theory goes as far back as

1976 (Forder 1976). At the time the theory was being articulated most notably in

works seeking to provide social workers with a unitary model of practice by Goldstein

(1972) and Pincus & Minahan (1973), one that could offer a holistic framework within

which to place social work practice. Social work as a new profession was evolving

and experimenting with ideas from psychology, sociology and social policy to try to

find an identity and set of skills based on solid theories, so there was a lot of effort

being put into creating a professional identity, value base and intellectual framework

that could explain what social work was. This debate has continued ever since

mediated through changes in society, economic upheavals, population trends, legal

and educational developments. Because society is in constant flux it is inevitable that

social work should be unsettled, and theoretically promiscuous- it is not a problem

but a reflection of how social work must evolve to respond to new challenges, and

constant change.

Forder considered the philosophical implications of systems theory concluding that it

offered more than the prevailing reductionist psychological theories concerned with

behaviour and stimuli, and it could develop sociological theories that placed human

behaviour in the context of a desire for equilibrium and maintenance of the social

and economic status quo. It was argued that systems theory could happily

incorporate the concept of free will, self-determination and fit into Marxist-inspired

conflict theory. Goldstein observed that the process of social work using a unitary
model could be cyclical- rather than a linear start to finish. Together with Pincus &

Minahan the concept of a contract between social worker and client and what they

termed target systems for activity, was incorporated to emphasise the interactivity of

the whole. A kaleidoscope offers a useful metaphor to understand this abstraction.

When it is twisted (an action is implemented) the whole pattern being observed

changes shape and colour from the original, ad infinitum.

Modern systems theory and its link with family therapy and systemic ideas that have

developed from it is generally credited with emerging in the 1950’s as a result of a

number of developments in the fields of psychology, communication theory, and

psychiatry. At a broader level it is also important to acknowledge the socio-economic

context of post second world war economic expansion, population growth, and the

significance of cultural changes affecting people’s attitudes to sex, marriage, leisure

and intimate relationships. The 1950’s in the developed industrialised countries were

therefore a time of rapid sociological change and economic growth, when new ideas

were more easily articulated and received (Walker 2005). Thus there was a broad

cultural change and a focus on scientific ideas that sought improvements in the way

psychological problems were addressed from mainly medical and pharmacological

treatments towards in the 1960’s what we now refer to as ‘talking therapies’.

One of the important factors that stimulated the embryonic ideas that were to grow

into a new form of social work was the need to build upon the traditional

psychoanalytic model of individual therapy. This individual psychodynamic model

was constructed on the basis of theories of the unconscious, psycho-sexual

development, and defence mechanisms that offered elegant explanations for internal
conflicts leading to anxiety, depression and more serious problems resulting in

interpersonal difficulties (Yelloly 1980). New research that demonstrated

effectiveness when groups of people were brought together to talk about their

problems began to influence practice. Two key figures stand out as influential at this

time in moving forward the ideas that were to crystallise in the practice of systemic

practice. Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968) was a German biologist who devised a

general systems theory that could be used to explain how an organism worked by

studying the transactional processes happening between different parts. He

understood that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts and that we could

observe patterns and the way relationships were organised in any living system.

Gregory Bateson (1973) and others in the USA took this concept of a general

systems theory and combined it with the new science of cybernetics and applied it to

social systems such as the family. Cybernetics had introduced the idea of

information processing and the role of feedback mechanisms in regulating

mechanical systems. Bateson used this notion to argue that families were systems

involving rules of communication and the regulatory function of feedback that

influenced patterns of behaviour within them. In the UK, Ronald Laing (1969)

challenged the orthodoxy in psychiatric practice by arguing that schizophrenia was a

product of family dysfunction, while John Bowlby (1969) moved from treating

individuals to treating families where an individual was displaying mental health

problems.

The idea began to take root therefore that individual experiences within families were

continually being shaped and influenced by the evolving interaction patterns of

communication. Bowlby is more generally recognised as a key figure in the

development of attachment theory yet he was among the first of the new generation

to recognise the limitations of individual work and began to work with families rather

than individuals ( ). Individuals were not therefore determined by early traumatic

experiences or distorted developmental transitions, as the prevailing therapeutic

orthodoxy argued (Freud 1973, Segal 1975, Yelloly 1980). Systemic thinking

conceptualised that individual personality and identity could change along with

changes in family dynamics. From this common root theory-systems theory-a

number of models and methods of practice evolved through to the present day

(Walker & Akister 2004).

Systems Theory

Thinking of families as living systems with all the dynamics that this implies was quite

revolutionary in its time as it challenged the prevailing orthodoxies which perceived

emotional and psychological problems in individual terms.

“Family therapy… looks at problems within the systems of relationships in

which they occur, and aims to promote change by intervening in the broader

system rather than in the individual alone.”

(Burnham, 1984, p.2)

It enabled professionals to think about how the dynamics are constantly altering as

each family member deals with life both inside and outside the family. This also

introduced the ideas of family boundaries and the permeability of such boundaries. It
moved thinking away from linear causality and introduced the idea of circular

causality except where direct child abuse is being perpetrated by a powerful

individual exercising bullying, intimidating and financial and psychological power.

Crude interpretations of family therapy ideas saw this as absolving perpetrators of

responsibility, particularly where a ‘no blame’ culture was employed in family work.

Other critiques rightly pointed to some of the different methods and schools of family

therapy practice as manipulative and even combative (Howe 1989). However family

therapy as with systems theory is constantly evolving, learning from mistakes and

adapting to new circumstances as we shall see later. The important theoretical

concept to grasp is that change impacts and reverberates around the system in often

unpredictable ways- for example in child protection interventions or family support

measures. The systemic ideas were readily embraced by social workers as helping

to understand how the pieces of the family puzzle fit together. What do we mean by

unpredictable results of change?

This activity aims to illustrate the interconnectedness of families, groups,

organisations and interpofessional relationships, whereby one action can

invoke another reaction in these systems:

Activity 1.1

Mother, father and their two children, boys aged 9 and 4, live together. The

parents are having difficulty with the elder boys’ behaviour. Family work is

undertaken which results in clearer rules for the boys’ behaviour and with

father spending more time with the elder boy. The elder boys’ behaviour
improves and everyone is happy until they notice that the younger boys’

behaviour has deteriorated.

Commentary

What has happened? The improvement in one problem area has led to another

problem developing. This is not uncommon when working with families and the use

of systems theory helps us to consider and anticipate some of the possible dynamics

of change. The impact of change on all parts of the system needs to be considered.

In social work practice when a child is removed from a family it is not unusual to find

that another child takes on the role of the child who has been removed and the

problems begin again. In other words dealing directly, or only, with the problem

presented can lead to another issue developing and the use of systems theory can

help prevent ‘symptom replacement’.

The key points which we need to think about and incorporate into our practice are:

 The parts of the family are interrelated.

 One part of the family cannot be understood in isolation from the rest of

the system.

 Family functioning cannot be fully understood by simply understanding

each of the parts separately.

 A family’s structure and organization are important factors determining

the behaviour of family members.

In all practice there are times when there can be a preoccupation with one or two

family members and the others can be marginalised. In the above family the younger

childs’ needs were not given enough priority when designing an intervention targeted

to try and improve the elder childs’ behaviour. This can easily happen even with

experienced practitioners and so it is useful to revisit the interrelatedness of the

family members.

These four points make the case for considering families systemically. In relation to

social work practice the second and third are of particular note. It is still not

uncommon in social work to try to piece together the family’s story by accessing or

understanding separate parts of the family. The notion that this does not enable an

understanding of the whole, if true, throws into question much of social work practice

where family members are not seen together and some may not be involved at all.

So if we cannot understand, lets say, a child in isolation from their family (point 2)

and if we cannot understand the family by simply interviewing members separately

(point 3) then the task of convening the family members relevant to the system under

consideration needs to be undertaken.

It is easy to state this and even if apparently true many professionals working in the

human services feel more comfortable interviewing people individually and believe

that this enables people to speak more freely. The problem with this is that they are

not communicating with the relevant family members and the worker/therapist

becomes the holder of all information and the one who decides what it is relevant for

other family members to know. This is a very powerful position and not compatible
with the ideas of working in partnership with users and carers. Also as individuals we

all have our own slant, bias, preferences or interpretation of the facts and it is more

effective to share these in a family meeting with the relevant system which can also

provide a reality check (Walker & Akister 2004).

The family structure and organisation (point 4) determine to some degree what is

possible within a particular family. There is no ‘normal’ family structure. The question

is does this structure work for this family? Does it allow healthy growth for family

members? This is where issues such as permeability of boundaries can be explored.

Each system has a boundary and systems also contain subsystems and are located

within suprasystems. In family terms there are subsystems within the family which

have their own boundaries. Examples of the possible subsystems are parental,

marital or sibling. There can also be grandparent subsystems and the existence of a

suitable hierarchy between the generation is important (Hayley, 1991). The

suprasystems to which the family may belong concern the extended family,

community and other ecological groupings. If a family’s boundaries are relatively

impervious they may be isolated from their community and may be enmeshed in

their relationships within the family. If a family’s boundaries are too permeable the

individuals in the family may be disengaged from each other and overinvolved with

the wider community. Enmeshment and disengagement were first described by

Minuchin (1974).

Recent inspections and joint reviews following the death of Peter Connelly (DOH

2010) have illustrated the need for social workers to rediscover their core skills of
assessment, so that decision making and care planning are based on sound analysis

and understanding of the client’s unique personality, history and circumstances.

Munro confirms that a systems perspective offers the most holistic tool for

undertaking informed assessment work that takes into full account the wider

environmental factors combined with the inter-personal relationship patterns

influencing family experience. Government guidance is recognising the importance

of a therapeutic dimension to contemporary practice. It has long been established

that social workers own therapeutic skills need to be seen as a resource to be used

and offered in assessment work (DOH 2000a). This has been repeated since Munro

as recently as ( ).

Community care reforms, child care fiascos, and mental health panics have fuelled

the drive towards a managerialist culture in social work reducing the professional

autonomy of social workers. Munro evidenced this and underlined the critical

importance of freeing up social workers to spend more time in direct contact with

families, rather than repeatedly filling in paperwork and tickboxing narrow procedures

and timescales. The evidence from social work practitioners is of a strong demand

for the practical and theoretical resources to equip them to deal with modern family

life and rediscover the value of interpersonal relationship skills (BASW ). The

Department of Health has long conceded that assessment processes have become

de-skilling for social workers (DOH 2000) while others have shown how assessment

frameworks are impeding therapeutic communication between social workers and

service users (Crisp et al 2007).

System theory and intervention practices

Three broad schools of family therapy can be identified within the systems literature:

Structural, Strategic and Systemic, these will be elaborated, along with others in

Chapter 3 but briefly described in this context. First, the characteristics of structural

family therapy stem from the technique of observing the interactive patterns in a

family. Once this baseline of behaviour can be understood as contributing to the

problem a structural approach would seek to highlight these, interrupt them when

they are happening, and then get the family to re-enact them in different ways that

lead to different outcomes. The attraction to practitioners in this way of using family

therapy techniques is that it aspires to provide families with problem-solving practical

solutions while maintaining a strict structural hierarchy between children and

parent/carers. In direct family work therefore the task is to enable the family to try out

different ways of doing things- for example by coaching a parent on how to maintain

a boundary or limit the behaviour of their child.

Second, the strategic family therapy approach in contrast to the structural approach,

does not have a normative concept of the family that should exist according to set

hierarchies and sub-systems of parents/children etc.. Rather, the focus with strategic

family therapists is on the day to day interactions which have resulted in problems

and the cognitive thinking being applied to solve them. The perceptions people have

about these problems invariably influences how they try to tackle them. In this way a

culturally relevant approach will focus on the perceptions within the family system
rather than seek to impose one. Attempted solutions and behavioural responses that

actually maintain the problem require challenging and shifting with alternatives

promoted by the worker (Walker & Akister 2004).

Third, the development of the Milan systemic model began in Italy in the 1970’s

where a group of psychiatrists were experimenting with treating individuals

diagnosed as schizophrenic in a radically different way to the orthodox methods then

employed. This is an example of a challenge to the prevailing culture within Anglo-

American practices from a team influenced in their thinking by their particular cultural

context. They reported better outcomes when they worked with the whole family

rather than the individual patient. The central theoretical idea informing this approach

is that the symptomatic behaviour of a family individual is part of the transactional

pattern peculiar to the family system in which it occurs. Therefore the way to change

the symptom is to change the rules of the family (Walker & Akister 2004).

The goal of this work is to discover the current systemic rules and cultural myths

which sustain the present dysfunctional patterns of relating, and to use the assumed

resistance of the family towards outside help as a provocation to change. Change is

achieved by clarifying the ambiguity in relationships that occur at a nodal point in the

family’s evolution. Milan Systemic therapists do not work to a normative blueprint of

how an ideal family should function (Burnham 1986). This approach furthermore

emphasises the importance of the underlying cultural beliefs held by family members

about the problem which affected behaviour. It avoids being perceived as blaming

the non-symptomatic members of the family by working on the basis that the actions

of various family members are the best they can do (Dallos & Draper 2000).
Family lifecycle and transitional challenges

Why is the life cycle so important? It identifies the tasks that the family have to deal

with at the particular stage of life which they are at. Each stage has different

developmental tasks for the family members. Being a couple requires quite different

adaptations to being a couple with a baby. The needs and tasks faced by a family

with young children are very different to those faced by a family with older children

in the process of leaving home and so on. So looking at the family life cycle gives a

window into the developmental needs of the individuals within the family. If these

are not being met then they are likely to experience problems (Brown &

Christensen 1999, Dryden 1988).

Much is written about family development particularly the family life cycle and only

a brief summary is included here. Essentially then, the family life cycle tends to be

thought of as a series of stages each with its own developmental task. The stage of

the life cycle which the family are at will have relevance to understanding why they

are experiencing difficulties at that particular point in time. It has been widely

proposed that families may experience problems at transition points in the life cycle

(see Carter & McGoldrick, 1980, for full descriptions of the transition stages). It is

thus important to be aware of the main transitions and some of the disruptions to

these. A key factor in this view is that many families function well or at least do not

perceive themselves as having problems for long periods of time. There must

therefore be something specific which triggers the difficulties by creating

circumstances which produce stress that the family are unable to negotiate. Many
family workers believe that moving from one stage of the life cycle to another can

produce just such stress (Hoffman 1981, Madanes 1981). Examples of this are

adjusting to the arrival of another child or a child entering adolescence. Each of the

stages involves change for the family routines and there is also an emotional

process of transition required.

The main stages of a modern culturally-relevant life cycle which have been identified

are shown in Table 1.1. Within these stages are many substages and perhaps more

importantly families do not proceed neatly through the stages. We might expect

adolescents to be leaving home around the time that grandparents are requiring

more care when the family has spare capacity to deal with this. However, often

grandparents become ill when children are still dependent and there is a conflict of

interest and a heavy workload to negotiate. Similarly as the family enters the stage of

a family with adolescents another baby may arrive necessitating the family to

negotiate two developmental stages at once….(insert Table 1.1 here..)

Increasingly there are families where divorce and/or remarriage have taken place

and this also adds a different set of issues to the life-cycle stages that have to be

negotiated. These may involve the loss of a natural parent and/or gain of a step-

child/parent/grandparent. It will also involve negotiations between different family

systems. These extensive family arrangements inevitably involve complex family

life cycle stages. Often the new couple will want to have children together as well

as the children they already have. This increases the possibility of being a family
with young children and also older children who may live elsewhere for all or part of

the time requiring complex adaptations.

There are numerous possibilities concerning the life cycle which need the social

worker’s consideration and awareness and which may be key to the presenting

problem. In the example of the arrival of a new baby in a family with adolescents, it

is often expected that the adolescent is old enough to understand the intense

physical demands of a baby. This may be the case at one level but almost

invariably the adolescent experiences mixed emotions to the arrival of the baby and

may find the decrease in attention to themselves difficult to cope with. In families

presenting at this stage these issues should be appraised.

Changes in life cycle stage can be difficult for many reasons including for example,

anxiety about letting go in adolescence and adjusting to altered responsibilities with

new arrivals in the family. In the intensity of dealing with a whole family interview

we can lose sight of the life cycle issues which often offer simple explanations

which make sense to the family. Prior to the first meeting the social worker should

consider what the life cycle stage of the family is. They should consider what the

life cycle issues and transitions appear to be for the family and prepare to confirm

or moderate these during their assessment of the presenting problems and of

family functioning. Sometimes the life cycle transition can be key to the whole child

protection process so it is a very important feature of any preparation for an initial

assessment of a family.
Key elements in systems based work

Supervision- Family therapy has had a rare openness in relation to exposing

practice to wider scrutiny. Apart from the use of video recordings as a way of

analysing the complex family patterns of interaction that are impossible to track

during an interview, they can also be used as a training tool. Family therapy sessions

are usually supervised live involving at least another person observing the session

and offering feedback and suggestions during the work or at a planned mid-point

break. The person/s observing may be behind a screen or present in the room and

are able to gain a different perspective to the worker involved with the family and

spot important aspects that may benefit from a supportive suggestion. This notion

has been developed to include the use of reflecting teams whereby the people

behind the screen/mirror join the family and the worker in front to openly discuss

their perceptions. Individual-oriented therapists or counsellors who have usually

undergone intense personal analysis are also expected to open their practice to

scrutiny and supervision whether in public or private practice. Convergence is

occurring nowadays whereby family therapists are coming under pressure to

demonstrate a degree of personal therapeutic experience before qualifying as

registered therapists.

Context of problems- is more than anything perhaps the most defining

characteristic of social work practice. It means that whatever the problem being

presented to you as a practitioner using systems theory you will automatically begin

to ask a series of questions that are linked to the context of the presenting problem.
This relates to not just the family context but the wider professional, public, socio-

economic and cultural context of the problem. In other words it is an ecological

approach in that it posits not just individuals as inter-linked within families but

families as inter-linked in communities that are in turn inter-linked to class, ethnic

groups and cultures. It is a way of beginning the reframing process and looking at

the problem from a different angle so that the concept of blame begins to be eroded

and replaced with the concept of understanding the patterns that create and maintain

the current problem. For example, one question that is helpful to ask at some point to

each member of a family is ‘If this problem were to disappear what problem would be

left to concern you?’ This illustrates the different way of working compared to

approaches that can unwittingly reinforce the family’s dependence on a particular

problem. Understanding the overall context of the problem offers another way of

tackling it rather than seeking to change an individual or indeed trying to change a

family.

Circularity/patterns- is a characteristic of systems based work. It is a foundational

assumption of systems theory that problematic behaviour is conceived as forming

part of a reflexive, circular motion of events and behaviours without beginning or

end. Being able to spot the circular process and articulate it in a meaningful way with

the individual or family offers a positive way forward. This releases the social worker

and the family to think beyond linear causality and blaming or scapegoating

behaviour. The important distinction when using this conceptual framework is where

abusive adults use grooming behaviour and their power to abuse children and young

people. In these child protection cases and in domestic violence situations the
motivation and responsibility need to be firmly located with the perpetrator who may

need to be removed physically from the family system. The circular understanding of

problems offers an elegant explanatory tool for the reasons for the symptoms and

other dysfunctional behaviour. Within a family any action by one member affects all

other members and the family as a whole. Each member’s response in turn prompts

other responses that affect all other members, whose further reactions provoke still

further responses. Such a reverberating effect in turn affects the first person, in a

continuous series of chains of influence (Goldenberg & Goldenberg 2004).

It is important not to take theoretical concepts to a level of abstraction where they

cease to be useful. It is easy to be seduced into the technocratic skills and

mechanisms of systems-based working at the expense of missing individual human

responses in families or individuals members and yourself to what emerges during a

your work in safeguarding children and young people. You may become an efficient

social worker in terms of technical ability but may be experienced by the

family/individual as cold, distanced and emotionally unavailable. One way of

guarding against this is to do some preparation before embarking on the work by

reflecting on your own individual experiences within your family system. This

includes early childhood memories which you may want to prompt with the use of

photographs or familiar objects and places.

This practical activity will immediately enable you to visualise the concept of

systems and connectedness not just restricted to your own family system. The
experiential nature of this activity will arouse strong feelings and give you

some insight into the impact of your work with vulnerable families:

Activity 1.2

 Try constructing your own family geneogram using the symbols and

example in Figure 1.2. (..Insert figure 1.2) Draw connections between

other family members you feel close to or distanced from.

 Think about the family history and culture going back several

generations writing pen pictures of grandparent relationships and

characteristics/behaviours/mannerisms.

 By recalling those poignant stories or significant events that affected

you and your family you can begin to appreciate the impact of your own

interventions with families and individuals.

Commentary

This exercise should help you maintain contact with the real feelings and

experiences generated when working at a therapeutic level with client families or

individuals. Some of you will find this exercise too distressing or uncomfortable while

others will find it enlightening and empowering. You may find it helpful to conduct the

exercise jointly with a trusted colleague or friend, or even a family member. Be

prepared for a powerful experience and anticipate the need to talk it through with
someone afterwards- this might be a team leader or counsellor or a friend who is

good at listening in a non-judgemental way. Knowing yourself is a pre-requisite for

modern social work practice and is very much the case for working with families

where you are engaging them at a deeper level. Understanding your own family

culture and heritage and the events and issues that have shaped all the individuals

within it offers you some personal insight into the meaning of culture and the deep

feelings of identity it evokes.

Thinking about your own community and where you come from as well as the idea of

what it feels like to expose the past and explore its impact on the present is a

powerful experience. A thorough knowledge of your family process can help you

avoid over-identifying with a similar family or help avoid persecuting a different

family. Awareness of your own feelings of vulnerability and sensitive family issues

can prepare you for negotiating these in a more sympathetic and thoughtful way with

families and individuals you work with. A sophisticated understanding of culture will

enable you to consider the multifarious nature of the term culture and how it can

protect you against assuming knowledge and understanding of similar people when

in fact you are very different.

Decision making

Social work, with children and families, involves critical decisions about whether or

not children should remain in their parents’ care. The knowledge on which such

decisions are based is drawn from theories of child development, parenting

capacity and family functioning. Social work practice in this field is criticised for

failing children when tragedies occur. Inevitably tragedies will occur. However, it is

clear from inquiries into child deaths that social work practice can be improved see,

for example, the inquiries into the deaths of Maria Colwell (Department of Health

and Social Security, 1974) and Peter Connelly (Department of Health, 2010).

Whether the approach taken by an inquiry promotes changes that lead to better

outcomes for children is unclear. The inquiry into Maria Colwell’s death confined

itself to procedural conclusions, investigating the way in which care had or had not

been provided and the coordination of services. Unfortunately, the focus of the

inquiry and of the subsequent reforms was the existing system and how to improve

it. Nowhere did the inquiry suggest that the interests of the child could be better

served by interventions directed towards the systemic context on which that child is

dependent. In 1984, Minuchin wrote:

“Looking at the Maria Colwell case from the point of view of a family therapist, I see

a group of good people, including dedicated servants of social and legal services,

who couldn’t respond to Maria because they thought in fragmented ways. Their

cognitive models imposed a kind of acoustical screen so that Maria’s cries were

absorbed and blunted. If I am right, then the reforms introduced to improve those

legal and social service systems will only help to retain incorrect points of view”

(Minuchin, 1984: 144).

The Munro report has now energised a new generation of officials and government

ministers and provided a solid evidence base from which they can draw

conclusions and implement changes in child protection. It has taken twenty years
for systems ideas to become integrated into policy relating to working with children

and families. The government proposed a framework to try to improve practice

through more structured approaches to family assessment (Department of Health,

2000a; Bentovim and Bingley Miller, 2002). Improving both family assessment and

the understanding of attachment relationships were key to this initiative.

Most individuals have significant others with whom they relate. The skills of working

with two or more people are vital to all those in the caring professions. An

intervention with one person will affect their significant others and we need to be

cognisant of this. As social workers we need to work with people in their family and

community or ecological contexts. The skills of working with two or more people are

best described and developed in the introductory texts in social work and family

therapy literature (Barker, 1998; Dallos & Draper, 2000, Okitikpi & Aymer 2008,

O’Loughlin & O’Loughlin 2008,Trevithick 2005). Once these are incorporated into

our decision-making processes they can be utilised in many and varied situations.

The skills of systems theory are readily transferable and relevant to all age groups.

The popularity of systems theory and the practice of family therapy arose from its

apparent effectiveness in enabling rapid change for families experiencing problems.

One of the reasons for this appears to be the active inclusion of all family members

in the process of change (Barker 1998, Barnes 1998). Thereby avoiding situations

where people feel excluded from what is happening to those they are close to or

resentful of change. The experience of feeling excluded can occur in many settings.
However it is not easy to get families together and many workers do not feel

comfortable dealing with the complexities of working with the family system where

child abuse is suspected. And obviously this is contra-indicated where a family

member is actively abusing another. For all professionals working in the human

professions some of these skills are essential since the people who live together

and relate together are in the best position to alter the circumstances for each other

and to promote positive change. The reason that people come to need

interventions is that they have encountered difficulty in dealing with a particular set

of circumstances and need help to move on and to re-establish their family system

using the strengths within the family. So systems theory is quite consistent with the

strengths approach to social work practice, it seeks to focus on what the family can

do well rather than what they are failing to do.

There are many excellent introductory texts to family therapy (e.g. Barker, 1998;

Dallos & Draper,2000). Rather than try to repeat what is already written, the core

concepts and considerations for working with a family have been described and

then linked to social work and systems practice. All family therapy is predicated on

working with the family as a system and therefore we have looked briefly at the key

components of systems theory as relevant to social work. The importance of

convening and engaging with a family and the issues of the life cycle and

multicultural aspects are crucial to the setting up of work with a family. How the

process begins and the work done even before seeing a family are critical to the

potential success of any decision and subsequent intervention. People do not seek

the help of professionals lightly, or take kindly to unwanted intrusion into their lives.

So our preparation for working with a family is crucial and also easily rushed in
busy professional practice. Time spent in preparation will pay off in reaching the

best available decision and stands a good chance of sustaining change or

safeguarding children and young people in the long term.

Multicultural Systems

McGoldrick, Pearce & Giordano (1982) were among the first to draw attention to

culture and ethnicity as crucial influences on the interactional style and structure of

families. They also highlighted the importance of giving attention to ethnic groups

within what is typically referred to as the majority culture. In order to train

multiculturally sensitive therapists, the understanding of one's own ethnic and

cultural background enables us to have a context within which to understand the

culture of others as the exercise above sought to achieve. It is important to

appreciate that within the majority culture there is not a homogenous group (Preli &

Bernard, 1993, Muncie et al 1997). Social workers need to be aware of the

subtleties of their own ethnic and cultural make-up since multicultural practice

applies to both majority and minority cultures. The point here being that we cannot

make assumptions about the internal structure of a family from their known culture,

as defined by crude stereotypes or lazy generalisations, since there is always

individual interpretation in any culture or religion and we need to take the time to

reflect upon and understand this. This does not mean devouring texts seeking to

define ethnic minority characteristics or religious customs, rather it requires you to

shed stereotypes, challenge orthodox assumptions, and open your imagination to

any possibility. Or as Einstein eloquently put it: “ knowledge without imagination is

useless”.

Pursuing these cultural ideas further Berg and Jaya (1993) looked at Asian-

American families. They explored the concept of family uniqueness and started

from the understanding that Asian-American families are like all other families, like

some other families and like no other families. They believe that cultural sensitivity

can be learned and looked at some culturally important values for this group. What

follows are however, some generalizations for the sake of brevity but we must

always remember that each family is unique and requires an individual approach.

The need for careful, reflective assessment and high quality supervision before any

intervention is made is vital.

Family Culture A:

There is a long tradition in Asian culture of solving problems through mediation

rather than through head on confrontation. Berg and Jaya suggest social workers

are in a good position to mediate within a family's conflict because of their position

of authority, knowledge of family relationships and techniques that enhance face

saving with Asian families.

In this situation meeting with family members separately is suggested since airing

their difficulties together at the outset may be too confrontative. This is in contrast

to the suggestion above of the importance of beginning family work with whole
families. It highlights how every family situation needs individual appraisal by the

social workers on receiving referrals to assess whether standard procedures,

whatever they are in a particular agency, are appropriate for the particular family

referred. The task of convening and engaging with the family will therefore vary

though it will remain the case that simply understanding the parts of the family will

not enable an understanding of the whole family and the individual contact will need

to be preparing the family for a family meeting. Berg and Jaya also give a salutary

example of how the different cultures approach the same problem, using the

example of behaviour control.

Family Culture B:

With American and British children who misbehave they are often 'grounded'. Their

punishment is to be forced to be with their family and it seems that one of the

results of grounding is that children fight their way out of the family (a process

Americans call emancipation). With Asian children being excluded from the family

is extremely rare and is a severe punishment. Thus if children misbehave they are

threatened with banishment from the family and told to get out. The children have

to fight to stay in the family and the expectation is that children will remain within

the family bringing their spouses to join it.

The point here is that neither approach is better or worse, simply that they are

different and need to be understood before trying to intervene. An intervention

based on the wrong premise for ‘grounding’ would otherwise totally fail and the
social worker would be perplexed by this if they have assumed majority culture

norms. In fact with any family these expectations should be checked.

The systems model of careful, systematic assessment of how a family organises

itself in relation to the necessary tasks of family life is particularly appropriate for

understanding the uniqueness of any family. It enables the social worker to spend a

number of sessions with the family, in a structured way exploring their interaction

patterns before embarking on ideas and strategies aimed at change. It is also a

model which focuses on your role as a facilitator, working in partnership with the

family, enabling or empowering the family rather than instructing or directing them.

Messent (1992) working with Bangladeshi families in East London also points to the

appropriateness of systems theory with Asian families because of the importance of

interconnections between different family members, while urging caution on the

techniques used. Later in the book a variety of methods and techniques are

described, but in this context Messent advises that Structural techniques are

appropriate but unbalancing the family should be avoided as this approach may be

too confrontative.

Is it necessary or even desirable for social workers to come from the same religious

or cultural background? Different difficulties can arise in the situation of same

culture, particularly where this is not the majority culture and issues around

integration with the majority culture arise. There may be benefits to having the

same cultural/religious identity, but there may also be dis-benefits, Toledano (1996)

writes of an issue that may arise when the family and the therapist do come from
the same religion or culture (in this case Judaism) and when the culture is a

minority in society.

Commentary

"How can staff use their own experience and knowledge of their shared culture

without imposing it on the family?..... A position of 'not knowing' is helpful when the

therapist operates almost as a curious anthropologist studying an unfamiliar

culture. It is however problematic when the worker is known to share the client's

culture." (Toledano, 1996, p.293). This is helpful as it emphasises difference within

groups and the difficulties that can arise when the assumption is of shared values

and the expectation is that the social worker will support the same. It is not

necessary to have the answers to a cultural or religious dilemma within a family-

however it is necessary to facilitate the process of the family in coming to a

resolution of the dilemma. An awareness and preparedness by the social worker to

question their own and the families position with respect to cultural and religious

issues is essential. But it cannot be stressed strongly enough the need for

appreciation of uniqueness within any grouping.

Recent research and theoretical constructs are creating a context where systems

ideas can be understood and put into action. Chapter Nine examines some of these

in more detail. Ferguson for example (2008) examines the nature of social work

from the perspective of movement and mobilities. He argues that social work is at
all times ‘on the move’, yet theory and analyses of policy and practice largely depict

it as static, solid and sedentarist. This draws on the new mobilities paradigm

(Sheller and Urry, 2003), through which a concern with flows and movements of

people, objects, information, practices, speed and rhythm, with complexity, fluid

images and liquid metaphors, is moving to the centre of social theory. This is

consistent with a systems perspective of constant change of the Buddhist saying

that you cannot put your foot in the same river twice. An understanding of the liquid,

mobile character of social work means producing accounts which are much closer

to what its practices are, how and where they are performed and experienced by

service users and professionals, and the opportunities and risks inherent to them.