Systemic Model

Presented by:

Carol Andrea Medina

Karen Lilibeth Medina

Psychologist in Training

Presented to:

Lesli Paola Pena Rodríguez

Teacher

Minuto De Dios University Corporation–UNIMINUTO

Psychology Sixth Semester

Structures and Psychopathology

La Dorada Caldas

2019
 ACTIVITY OF THE SYSTEMIC MODEL.

1. CONCEPT OF THE SYSTEMIC MODEL

This concept has been distorted from its original idea and conceptualization, the aspect

the distinctive feature is that a system is defined by its opposition to reductionism and posits

emphasis on the properties of the whole or on the metasummative properties the whole is

more than the sum of the parts that result from the interaction of the different

elements of the system. Its main characteristics are that it focuses

in their therapeutic objectives specifically in the modification of interaction

among the people.

Elmodelo Sistémicocomprende al individuo en su contexto y expresa que la

the relationship between people and their environment is subject to a circular dynamic of

reciprocal influences. The most significant context is the family, which

understand as a system.

2. MAIN THEORETICAL REPRESENTATIVES

Bertalanffy

Jay Douglas Haley

Palo Alto Model: Don D. Jackson, Jhon Weakland, Paul Watzlawick.

Structural Model: Salvador Minuchin, Montalvo, Fishman.

Milan School: Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Prada, Boscolo, Cecchin.

3. WHAT ARE THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

One of the pillars on which the Systemic School relies and from where it received

major contributions are from the field of family psychotherapy. The systemic approach
relational is developed through a complex series of studies, experiences and

investigations, initially conducted in the U.S. and Great Britain and then in

other countries including Italy, taking the generic name of Family Therapy.

The study of families from a systemic perspective begins to

to articulate with clinical practice and research only in the 1950s, if

Well, there were earlier studies that can be pointed out as precursors, the

The movement gains strength only in those years.

It was not until the 1960s that Family Therapy clearly emerged.

systemic, with a certain systematization of the fundamental concepts, and there

we can see the three great traditional schools within Systemic Therapy,

What is the Palo Alto School, with Watzlawick and Bateson among the most prominent?

recognized, the Structural School whose main representative is Minuchin and the

Milan school with Selvini Palazzoli as its leading figure (Feixas & Miró,)

1993).

Undoubtedly, the emergence of the double bind theory (Bateson et al., 1956), the result of

the communicational analysis of the families of schizophrenics marked a milestone

fundamental in the emergence of the systemic model of family therapy.

The 1960s represented an important development for the systemic model, in

In 1962, Jackson and Ackerman founded the magazine Family Process, which has since ...

it has been a fundamental channel of scientific communication for the movement

systemic. Jackson himself creates the MRI, Mental Research Institute of Palo Alto,

together with Satir and Riskin, in the same building where the group worked
 original led by Bateson. The MRI was the first center that presented programs

of training in family therapy, shortly thereafter authors joined this project

like Watzlawick, Weakland, and Sluski

During the 1960s, this center maintained regular contacts with

Erickson, creator of modern hypnotherapy and whose approach popularized

fundamentally Haley (1973). Minuchin during those years, driven by

Ackerman starts a research project with families of low social status, in

mostly Puerto Rican immigrants who were in the U.S. and had

crime problems (Minuchin, 1974). This allows for the emergence of a

particular model that is known as Structural Model.

The greatest contribution made to the field of systemic family therapy from Europe,

corresponds to Italy, in the year 1967, Selvini Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin and Prata,

worldwide known as the Milan Group, they are launching a center for

research in family therapy, with wide repercussions for the movement

systemic. Years later, Cancrini and Andolfi will develop their respective schools of

systemic family therapy in Rome. In the following decades, the movement

systemic expands and new approaches and questions begin to emerge

primarily epistemological

4. WHAT ARE THE POSTULATES

a. The General Theory of Systems: the General Theory of Systems is a

interdisciplinary approach and therefore applicable to any system both natural

discover the similarities or isomorphisms in the theoretical constructions of the

different disciplines (Johansen Bertoglio, 1997).

b. Cybernetics: The word cybernetics, etymologically derives from a word

Greek 'κυβερνάω' (kibernao) which means to direct, to lead, to guide, to pilot, to govern

and from there it was taken to refer to the science of communication and control

both in machines and in human beings, therefore Cybernetics dealt with

firstly of the communication and control processes in natural systems and

artificial (Wiener, 1948).

c. The developments of the communication pragmatics: The authors

mainly encompassed under this designation were psychologists, biologists and

anthropologists, who focused on the topic of communication in its pragmatic aspects,

Trying to describe and understand the circuits, patterns, and effects that communication generates.

in different systems (Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, 1967; Bateson, 1972). The studies

they developed and focused on the relationship between the sender and the receiver, in which the

communication acts as a mediator.

d. Family psychotherapy: the contributions of family psychotherapy to have been

developed specifically in the field of clinical.

5. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTERVENTION

In the systemic model, symptoms are generally understood as

dysfunctional expressions of the family system, so that the focus of analysis does not
it will not only fall on the patient who has the symptom or problem, but will encompass

to the whole system. To the patient who has the symptomatic manifestations or the

the concrete problem is referred to as an identified patient. All schools put

special interest in behaviors and in the patterns of exchange between the

members that make up the system, that is, the members of the family. They

focuses generally on the interactions and repeated patterns that set a style of

linkage between the members. The solution to the problems or symptoms, is

they are closely linked to the relationships and patterns established by the

members of the system with each other, that's why we fundamentally work with the patterns

dysfunctional family interactions (Feixas & Miró, 1993).

From a technical point of view, these models have designed a series of

specific interventions that allowed these schools to develop and

they will gain much traction among psychotherapists; since they provided

creative, innovative, and challenging techniques that provided them with tools

specific to mental health professionals, for working with patients

individuals and families. Systemic models represent the framework

conceptually more provocative and technologically more innovative than the

current psychotherapy (Feixas & Miró, 1993).

The treatment times are considerably shorter compared.

with analytical therapies, the therapist's attitude is active proposing

interventions and tasks to be carried out outside of the session. Usually the language

analog, non-verbal, occupies an important place in the treatment.

the system involved, but currently there are individual modalities, of

couples and group. The focus is primarily on the present and

there was a tradition of not using classic psychiatric diagnoses, since these

tended to turn into self-fulfilling prophecies (Watzlawick, Weakland &

Fish, 1974

6. WHAT ARE THE MAIN SCHOOLS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE

CHARACTERISTICS

a. The interactional school of the MRI -Mental Research Institute- or School of

Palo Alto: This school is primarily identified with the second generation.

from Palo Alto researchers (Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch, 1974; Fisch,

Weakland & Segal, 1982.

They start from the idea that therapeutic changes are no different from the

continuous transformations that the different systems undergo in evolutions

natural. For them, the attempted solutions are the ones that maintain the

problem, the people who arrive with issues at the psychotherapy consultation

they bring a difficulty, defined by one of the members as a problem and a

series of applications of certain attempted failed solutions, which have not

they not only managed to solve that problem, but on the contrary, they achieved

mantenerlo, tuvieron el efecto pragmático de sostenerlo, obstaculizando el

normal change process (Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch, 1974).

interveners and the different attempted solutions, then be able to block those

failed attempted solutions to cut the cyber feedback process

negative that maintains the problem. The goal is to modify the structures or the

interactional guidelines that govern the system, what is known as Change 2, already

that all attempted failed solutions are considered mere

Changes 1, which are understood as 'more of the same' (Fisch, Weakland &

Segal, 1982).

The attempted solutions are usually guided by common sense,

but to achieve Changes 2, interactional therapists propose 20

paradoxical interventions that sometimes contradict common sense. They propose

to give this type of prescriptions with a rationality in accordance with the referential framework

from the family, following the semantic parameters of the system. This school

it uses two elements, which are conceptualized as 'speaking the language

of the patient' and 'load the prescription with suggestion' (Watzlawick, Weakland &

Fish, 1974).

They usually propose relatively short resolution times, of ten

sessions generally, regardless of the type of problem presented and

the main techniques used by this school are prescriptions,

suggestions and redefinitions (Feixas & Miró, 1993).

this school is Haley and Minuchin, who take especially into account the

jerarquías y los roles familiares que conforman la estructura del sistema.

They suggest that families are organized around alliances and coalitions, in

the first one shows a certain closeness or connection between two members because of

for any reason, in the second ones, however, an alliance is also formed but the

the same is directed against a third party. The concept of a perverse triangle is raised.

(Haley, 1973) in cases where there is a coalition among members of

different generations against each other. These coalitions are usually

denied in family therapy, unlike alliances that tend to be more

recognized.

They understand the family as a system that has limits and boundaries,

They consider that the members of it differentiate themselves from each other and others.

subsystems by boundaries and at the same time the family system differs from others

systems by their borders. These limits can be diffuse, rigid, or clear.

depending on this we can conceptualize families as aggregated and

dispersed or disconnected (Minuchin, 1974).

The blended families have diffuse limits and rigid boundaries, such that

It is difficult to maintain individuality, interaction with the environment, and others.

families are restricted, usually one person's problems are everyone's problems

of all. In contrast, detached or dispersed families have 21 rigid limits

and very marked and rather lax borders, their members tend to be more
 individualists. Based on these concepts, in addition to the roles, hierarchies,

alliances and coalitions are constructed a structural map of the family

(Minuchin, 1974).

Among the clinical considerations, joining stands out, which

allows the therapist to create a pleasant atmosphere enabling both

systems -family and therapist- adjust to each other, achieving trust

sufficient to be able to propose specific interventions.

Among the most commonly used techniques, restructuring stands out as it seeks to

breaking with the coalitions, achieving a new restructuring of powers and

hierarchies. Techniques for destabilizing would also be used for this same purpose.

where the therapist allies with a member or subsystem to force a

new family map of alliances and coalitions.

They also use positive redefinings of the symptom, the prescriptions.

of tasks and paradoxical interventions (Haley, 1963, 1973; Madanes, 1981).

c. The Milan school: Its main exponent is Selvini Pallazoli, this school

It is a little later than the other two, they primarily worked with families.

with serious dysfunctions and a very rigid organization, which they call

families with 'psychotic transaction' (Selvini Pallazoli et al., 1975). They worked

mainly with families with a member who is psychotic or has disorders of the

feeding.

They pay special attention to the data collected from the very moment of

the referral and the first contact, usually by telephone, with the family. A
Based on that data, they build an initial working hypothesis and then they go

contrasting it during the first session. They work

mainly with the meanings that the family has regarding the symptom and

of the identified patient, trying to find agreements and disagreements

related to the attribution of such meanings (Selvini Pallazoli et al., 1975,

1988).

One of the specific interventions created by this school was the

invariable prescription, which they understood as a specific program for

working with families of psychotic transaction, where they are given the same task

to all families, generally trying to ally with parents, through a

secret, which favors the separation of subsystems, in particular that of the

children (Selvini Pallazoli et al., 1975).

This is one of the schools that created the most provocative interventions and

novelties of systemic, among the main techniques it uses are highlighted

the positive connotation, the circular question, the rituals and the interventions

paradoxical. They typically work with a format of ten sessions, but with

long intervals between sessions, ranging from 2 to 4 weeks (Selvini Pallazoli et al.,

1975, 1988.
Bibliographic References:

[Link]

Systemic Therapy and Schools.