VI Nordic Family Therapy Congress - Fire and Ice



Sigrun Juliusdottir PhD, professor

Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social Sciences

University of Iceland

Systemic Family Work and Postmodernity

- the concepts of change, flexibility and globalization

Introduction

The article[1] focuses on a changed concept of family therapy and the role of family workers in a global perspective. Social change of the last decades is reconsidered in an attempt to explore its profound reflexive consequences for the lifestyle and interactional modes in smaller and larger units. The question of how to understand what is happening in our postmodernistic times is adressed with reference to the writings of contemporary social theorists. The extensive knowledge, professional experience and human understanding of family workers is claimed to be quite fruitful for management of some critical phenomena in postmodernity. In this context the neccessity of working with connectivity as a global effort to mend the broken world(s) of individuals, families and groups is discussed. Thus, new challenges of the family workers´ role in present times are dealt with in the perspective of a revised ethical social responsibility. This relates to issues like fragmentation, isolation, inclusion/exclusion and ambivalence towards traditions and diversity. Special attention is given to the critically correlated concepts of solidarity and flexibility as they emerge at the macro and the micro level in a world characterised by turbulence to a higher degree than ever.

Key words: social change, family relations, role of family worker, obligations, individualization, fragmentation, globalisation.

Family therapists - what kind of a profession?

Family therapists come from the most different directions and have different roots coming from the various behavioral sciences e.g. social work, psychology and psychiatry. Someone might say that we are not a homogeneous profession but an artificial construct from diverse sources. This diversity is, however, primarily our strength. We see the flora in the field radiate or spread out in the health system, in the social system, in schools, in the court system and in private and public institutions of various kinds. This flora is growing at various levels, in the clinics, in training, teaching, and research, - often with close connection to policy making.

We do not, either, insist on being heard as one voice. On the contrary, our voice is polyphonic but as in the good choir there is a concordance in always referring to the central theme: the health and welfare of children and families, with a strong ethical connection to the social context and development. That is our common denominator in spite of the global spectrum of positions and locations.

In spite of the different roots there is a “blood relationship” as we have been mixing with each other for nearly a century, or since the multidisciplinary team of pioneers in Palo Alto started their research-based clinical work with families in the first part of the last century. The youngest generation of family therapists is not only the offspring of diversities, but as in parallel process they are representatives of the diversities of modern time.

The professional title, family therapist, carries associations in our minds with caring and responsibility or even obligations. Thus, we are usually thought of as “good soldiers” rather than guerillas, and as a companion or ally rather than an enemy or someone who can be expected to intrude, damage or hurt. We are however acting in a very fragile domain when activating inherent creative forces to promote health and well-being in the family system, and we then often work in the field of tension between help and guiding control. This is of cource most striking in social work when children need to be protected from parents´ misbehaviour or abuse. Our diversities and the contextual understanding coming from the systemic approach make us “farsighted”, reaching out from the family core to the broader, social environment. It was the consciousness of this which united the American family therapists who 1977 founded the AFTA, The American Family Therapy Association - now American Family Therapy Academy, since 1995. It was brought together by people who were on the cutting edge, a small group of mental health professionals who had been active during the early years when the field of family therapy was emerging. They took pride in living on the margin, and the margin is always changing. The identity of such an organization is therefore never set, - and so is with the profession. Family workers are now as ever supposed to monitor how we can increase acceptance and respect for each other and from others in times of global conflicts and fissures. Although “we may not all have family therapy in common - but we all share the ecosystemic view of social change” (Roberto-Forman 2001/2002).

Being sure of our main goal and rather secure in our role we have traveled through the developmental stages of society over a century now: The industrial society, the modern society of new communication and the postmodern times of high-tech revolution and now the risk society. By risk we are referring to endless choices and changes - and risky activities - as well as riskful passivity. Our postmodernity is all about uncertainity ( Beck, 1992). Each period has developed a special prerequisite for means and methods for the helping professions. The ideas of social welfare and solidarity, interventions and control have obtained a new relevance which actualizes badly a critical reconsideration of our role. Already ten years ago it was stated that “family therapy has become further and further removed from the changing economic and political realities of professional practice as well as to the worsening everyday social realities of the many millions of potential clients that the field purports to serve” (Epstein 1993). The message in this article is similar and the ambition is to throw further light on the challenges of today. During the last ten years our understanding of the reflexive social processis has become clearer, although not enough. The development of the new methodological tools/vocabulary from the systemic, constructivist thinking have made us better furnished to deal with our clients´ needs in their postmodern chaotic existence.

Changed family concept - from obligations to individualization

The concept of family is changing and we can ask to what extent it is a realistic unit for treatment any more? Ten or fifteen years ago we talked appropriately about the family. We are beyond that stage now. In the 21st century structures, forms and order of things are on the retreat while content and continuous transformations within and around families are gaining importance. We see people’s life and the whole world in fragmented parts at the same time as globalization is increasing. I will come back to that below.

The original meaning of the term for family in Icelandic, fjölskylda, comes from the root fjöl (as fler –feolu- in the Nordic language) which refers to diverse, multi- or many in English. The other part of the word skylda which means obligation. Thus the composite word fjölskylda can be read as referring to multiple obligations. The family institution was supposed to consist of a team, a group of individuals, who had reciprocal obligations towards each other. This relates closely to the idea of solidarity and altruism rather than egoism or individualism. People who cared were supposed to interfere and not leave others alone when in need or trouble. It was the primary group of obligated significant others (Juliusdottir, 1993).

This is still quite applicable in Iceland as we have considerable palpable obligations to other family members in a way somewhat different from the other Nordic countries. I will not delve deep into statistics here, but just give an idea of some demographics in Nordic context (European Com. & Eurostat, 2001): We have close to two (1,9) children per woman, in rather young age. The average household is the biggest in Scandinavia and the percentage of elderly is high (life expectancy is at the highest in the world). The educational level of women is high and working hours are long for both men and women. On the other hand, the social support and institutional care – both for children and elderly - are the least developed. Instead the informal family support is strong and it is specially demanding for people in the (most) active age of 25-45 (Hagstofa Islands, 2001). They are the generation carrying the collar, pulling the load. Today we sometimes hear them jokingly refer to the original meaning of family in Icelandic: “I am now going home to my “multi-obligation””.

The family was for centuries looked upon as a small social structure in a stable society, like Aristotle described it, supposed to secure political stability. In the middle of last century the family was defined, in Nathan Ackerman’s terms, as a psycho-social unit in a dynamic interaction with the social forces. The family bloomed as an acknowledged unit for treatment for some decades which - in historical terms – is a very short time. Twenty years ago a family therapy team would refrain from starting a family session if all the members were not there. We were working with the whole family as a system, as a manifest unit, with a definite number of members. This stable structure is not there – as such- any more! Families are having trouble defining who is who, in what roles. Children are confused about the content as well as the boundaries of their primary group. We see pre-school teachers and child therapists busy helping them make family-maps with drawings and nametags to identify persons, relations and roles. They are trying to help children clarify and organize their chaotic relationships with people in endless connections of systems in the private and the social arena.

Instead of the family we may now rather refer to various dynamic shapes of family forms or life styles, but, above all, family relations. Moving away from the structures but emphazising the content our target of treatment is no longer the whole system. Our frame of reference is systemic but the focus is on the emergent relations. The dyads, triads or other pairs of relations as an ad hoc or operationally defined subsystem is the client. In a new book on “parent therapy”, the authors are in this same sense presenting a modern treatment paradigm claiming that “there is no identified patient, only a parent-child relationship to which both parent and child are continuously contributing. The relationship itself becomes the focus of the treatment and the deconstruction of its multiple meanings the primary goal” (Jacobs and Wachs, 2002).

In spite of all the changes in the micro as well as the macro niveau the basic assumption in family work is our ethical and ideological belief in the value of helping people to join each other and relate through their emotional obligations towards each other. The increasing individualism in postmodern society is however strongly affecting human relationships, life styles and personal interaction. This implies that the question of solidarity in family relations is no longer a matter of course and might therefore imply some reconsideration in our practice as will be further developed later on in this paper.

A changed meaning of change and interventions

The concept of change is changing. In last century family workers looked at themselves as change agents. Our role was to promote a previously defined change. There was no question that this change was supposed to bring about some corrections within the psycho-social unit towards adaptation and thereby enhance stability in society. In that sense the change was aimed at a certain solution. It was oriented towards helping people to better handle their family obligations and roles; reach stability in work and personal life; feel harmonious in their primary group; be part of the social environment, and thus be included in society.

Due to the transformation of society and new mentality our role is no longer that of promoting change in the same sense as before. As mentioned in the beginning the helping professions and their roles have been changing in an interactional process in accordance with the waves of the social processes during the last century. Epstein (1995) has penetrated how the different societal phases “the romantic period”, “the modernist period” “the postmodern period” shaped different ideas of “(mal) adjustment”, “identity themes” and now “narrative themes and constructivism”. Only when we are working with clear definations of what is true/right or false/wrong can we use concrete measurements and classifications of mental health and social functioning attainable by the usage of psychological tests or DSM IV/ICD-10. In postmodernity our thinking is moving away from the idea of objective reality towards what Epstein phrases as “a shift from a vocabulary that describes an object called self to a vocabulary of self that describes the self as a product of changing social intercource”. This releases therapeutic work from the vocabularies of the earlier periods as they are replaced by perspective, evolving context and meanings which are products of the context of (narrative) conversations. The changed meaning of change in therapy is thus the dialogical creation of new narrative. With other words, through the systemic narrative appproach it is possible to relate life events and situations of clients into the narrative context from which they derive their meaning (Goolishian & Anderson, 1990). Through such fruitful dialogical exchange we can co-create a new understanding resulting in “postmodern puzzles in almost limitless number of ways” (Epstein, 1995). The self-identity as well as the defination of the problem and its solution is always changing and actually “taylormade” in each case.

A part of the radical social changes is changed attitude towards interventions and concepts of responsibility and involvement in other people’s lives as well as the idea of human rights. The idea that the individual is responsible for himself and his destiny is related to what Rose (1996) discusses as the increasing effects of the centrifugal forces in society (a concept also well known from Helm Stierlin's (1981) theorizing about family dynamics), meaning that people have a tendency not to worry about other people’s eccentricities, distress, or even criminality as long as it does not touch their own terrain: “It does not bother me”, ”We don’t mind”. This centrifugal force is a phenomenon opposite to the centripetal force. That refers to the urge to interfere and wanting people to adjust, belong to the community and be included in the society.

The changed attitude – and sometimes- rejection- towards the maxim of being “your brother’s keeper” actually comes close to the tendency of ignorance and exclusion of individuals and groups which might in some way be troubling or threatening to own interests. People are considered to be responsible for themselves and have the right to destroy their lives if they “choose” to do so. The idea of public intervention, (paternalism) is rejected.

Theorizing about social modernity in similar vein is found in Young’s (1999) writings about the acceptance of disorganization, or what he calls (neg)entropi, a concept originating in physics, well known from the theoretical contributions about family interaction of the Milan group. In the social context it implies that people neglect the unusual, bizarre or deviant behavior, seeing variances and anomie in society as quite exciting or even thrilling, e.g. when seen on TV. It makes life more colorful and may be tickling. This acknowledgement of deviance is simultaneously an exclusion and rejection of it as a natural object of concern in human society. In this connection Young talks about bulimistic (throwing out) society as opposite, and almost contrast, to the earlier cannibalistic society (taking in). In this connection it is thoughtprovoking to think about how young people´s increasing eating disorders may be seen as parallell process to the transformation of these conflicting social forces.

That swallowing kind of a society was characterized by formal rules, and social legislation about people’s lives tended to control and guide them, often far beyond their human right to self-determination, as e.g. when the poor, criminals and other outsiders of society were objects of control and corrections. The forces of (neg)entrophy towards stability were implemented by public - and sometimes professional- authority. Today society seems to be more prone to accept human misery as something people have the right to keep. Legislation is moving towards less and less control and less interferance into people´s life thus widening their free space as individuals- for good and for bad.

This changed attitude to social responsibility and interference into personal matters is certainly making the role of social-, health-, and family workers debatable. One of the consequences it that the idea of helping or taking initiative to interfere becomes quite controversial as long as different approaches are not fully developed and acknowledged.

At the same time - as always - changed conditions enhance development and shape new solutions. Instead of seeing our situation in this impossible either-or / then and now context we may define it like being in the wake of a ship (Phillipson, 1989), where the conflicting forces and heavy ground-swell are full of new provocative and urgent issues to handle. In his discussion about the crisis of our rapid progress from modernity to post-modernity, Zygmunt Bauman (1995) also points out that we are not bound to be crushed or drowned by thees waves. On the contrary, we are confronted by challenging tasks as people need help and guidance to handle their anxiety and the disorganization which accompanies the turbulence of the wake. The new approaches build on the more democratic subject-subject ideology where the earlier theories of J. Habermas (1973) have been efficient as well as the revolting influence of constructivism developed from philosophy in accordance with the systemic approach in family work already descriebed, now increasingly streaching out to the broader environment, the working places, organisations and cultural work. I want to couple this discussion to another aspect of modernity, the effect of globalization.

Globalization - for better or for worse

The progress of the new economy is favored by the globalization of the market. It is based on the principle of maximal expansion, wiping out boundaries, erasing constraints and restrictions and destroying obstacles deriving from human relations. Many a myth is being created about the great possibilities and alternatives which the dissolution of boundaries brings about for people. These forces are hazardous and threatening for human fragile bonds. People think they have free choice in their lives. They are quite unsuspecting of how the principles of the market are guiding them into a certain track in the name of the positively connoted flexibility. An individualistic receptiveness towards changes and constant innovations is the main prerequisite for the modern man’s willingness to move, to accept new proposals and “choose” to live where the opportunities are.

A striking example was on TV resently: The international company ALCOA was quitting some of its aluminium plants in USA implying profound changes for the life conditions of its employees, e.g. unemployment. In some cases they may “choose” to move to another company at another place, sometimes away from their children and spouses, sometimes moving the whole family to another part of the country. They may even have to cut off relations. Simultaneously the very same ALCOA now prepares a new aluminium plant – at this time in Iceland. Again common people – now in another part of the world - will happily move from their local community to another, maybe only leaving home for some days or weeks.

Through scenarios like these people perceive the appealing message that “we” live in a world without boundaries, as a thrill, “we are all in the same boat”, in a world which is getting smaller and smaller through the adventurous development of technology and communication. To quote Froma Walsh: “It is a paradox that the notion of a “global village” coexists with increased regional fragmentation and growing distance between the rich and the poor. The nostalgia for the (illusion of) simplicity of the past – and that social construct, “normality” - clashes with the challenges of complexity. Change, rather than an exception, seems an ever-present reality in our lives, and families need help coping with this process” (Sluzki, 2001/2002).

People sometimes react to the social changes that are concomitant to the increasing globalization, by desperate attempts to secure their interests. Among other things we see it in a voting behavior which is reflecting defensive reactions such as crying after more restrictions towards immigrants and poor people, and demanding reinforced police power. Zygmunt Bauman (2002) has commented upon the appearance of the Frenchman Le Pen and similar politicians (Italy, Austria, Portugal and Denmark) on the European stage, in an interview, where he claims that “there is no rational solution in closing the borders for immigration and increasing the penalties for criminals or depriving them of human rights, as has been done in the USA and in Great Britain”.

This may, however, be understood as a reasonable reaction when we think of the chaos the new world is making for ordinary people. The globalization has been both one-sided and uncontrolled which makes people afraid and skeptical about their own daily bread, life habits and social status. It is a question of an overwhelming feeling of helplessness and defeat by the new and threatening waves of hidden origin. In this process the immigrants become the scapegoats for people’s common worries and the cumulative personal insecurity. People try to quiet down the ghosts of globalization as they deny their desperation by projecting it towards immigrants and other weak social groups (Bauman, 2002). The increased acting out of hatred and prejudices in some groups is a great social problem – although the more educated are simultaneously expressing, at least in surveys, their tolerance and political understanding. It can not be isolated or written off since the youngest generation and teenagers are mixing with each other – in different public settings, schools and colleges without regard to color, race or ethnicity. Thus, we are to a still greater extent having cross-national companies as well as cross-cultural and cross-religion marriages - now even also in Iceland, where also immigration is increasing. Thus the individuals are taking on the emotional cost arising from the benefit of the global transformations.

We are confronted by the contrasts of being stable or mobile. Sometimes it requires individual strength to move to another city, country or even continent to get the best career or educational opportunity. Sometimes it demands a strong conviction to prefer the security and stability of staying at home. In this connection it is funny that the original meaning of the word heimskur (stupid) in Icelandic is related to home, i.e. “home-ish”, which means that the one who stays at home will become ignorant. Studying in other countries or fulfilling personal career goals away from home is an unquestionable positive aspect of modern opportunities and lifestyle.

Emigration to another country with foreign culture and alien religion with consequential mixing and social adaptation may however sometimes turn into a horror. Family workers know much about the problems the families in these cases are dealing with. We know their anger and shame, the rejection and pain of the (grand)parents, the losses of the grandchildren, the sorrows of the siblings, - and the awful consequences when it comes to the real fanaticism with revenge and even death. A recent example is a terrible murder of the young girl, Fatima, in Sweden 2001 by her Kurdish father.

There is, however, no way back to the secure harbors of the national state. Bauman (2002) points out that the most rational reactions for the politicians would be to work against the global power by taming and controlling these forces which are reinforced through different global institutions and legislations. An important task for politicians and the helping professions – although not easy - is therefore to contribute to shape a contextual understanding of the real problem, thus influencing the voters to support those who dare to work for human welfare.

I have now touched on the changed family concept and its implications for family work, also the changed idea of change and social responsibility and how it relates to increasing globalization. This brings us to some further deliberations on the concept of individualization.

Individualization

From newspapers, magazines and public debate people get the message that the dream of freedom of choice is now a reality. Modern man has been liberated from old traditions and binding obligations. The erasure of boundaries is bringing freedom, new opportunities and alternative lifestyles. Make decisions for yourself! Be independent, be flex !

It is not a coincidence that Melody Beatties´s Co-dependent No More has been bought by more than five million Americans since it was published in 1987. It brings the message not to make yourself crazy by getting involved in other persons’ business, but “stick to your own affairs if you want to stay sane” (Bauman, 2001). We hear also people say in marital sessions: “I want to realize myself and my needs”, “I need more space, more privacy - a time for myself”. Simultaneously the same person cries over emptiness inside, lack of understanding and a persistent desire for a close, caring relationship with another person. In this connection Anthony Gidden talks about pure relationships as something feasable in our time. He writes that “in contrast to close personal ties in traditional contexts, the pure relationship is not anchored in external conditions of social or economic life- it is, as it were, free-floating”, and it “ is sought only for what the relationship can bring the partners involved” (Giddens 1991, 89-90).

Although the stage may be changed in order to resolve the conflict between the individual and the family, the play performed, as Ulrich Beck claims, tends to remain the same, “the family is only the setting, not the cause of the events” (Beck, 1992).

The general definition of individualization refers to a two-sided coin (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, 13-19). On the one side is the dissolution of the earlier given social life-styles. This weakens the categories of traditional values such as class, gender roles, family and neighborhood. Without the support from them the officially or bureaucratically determined structures and the so called normal biographies break down. The new processes produce inevitably new, alternative life-styles which make up the other side of the coin created by the globally, however not always, visible (reminding us of the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith) institutionalized demands, controls and (regulating) obstacles - just working on another level.

Thus, through the labor market with its “invisible” principles the individual is integrated in a global network of restrictions. All of these are aimed at the individual and do not take family interests or human relations into account. Personal relationships and obligations, in this context, might cause complications. In this sense the individualization is a socially dynamic phenomenon which has nothing to do with free decision by the individual. Paradoxically, the individualization – although purportedly linked to the idea of freedom – forces the person to create his existence alone and single. Or, with the words of Jean-Paul Sartre: “The human being is condemned to individualization”.

Instead of following known paths the individual is bound to exchange the normal biography for a self-selected one, that is a reflexive “do-it-yourself” biography which implies taking risks - in other words: shaping his own “risk biography”. The facades of wealth, consumption and various tempting proposals guide him into risky activities like an acrobat in rope dancing in a circus - but without security net below. In a similar discussion Lars Dencik (2002) refers to the sociological concepts Gemeinshaft so labelled by Ferdinand Tönnies in 1887 when referring to people living in togetherness with few and integrated but complex neighbour relationsship, and Gesellsshaft which developed out of industrualization referring to a more alienated human relations as characterized in urbanization and increasing specialization. “The processes of post-modernisation accelerate and augment these tendencies so that what has been the setting for individual choice and freedom turns out also to be the staging of experiences of emptiness and threatening existentional lonliness. We might call this stage Alleinshaft” (Dencik, 2002)

The goal of the risk-taker in modernity is always a short-term one as he might otherwise lose sight of it and fall down. In spite of the thrilling risk the being alone gives him a feeling of gnawing anxiety and inner doubt, although he is rarely aware of that connection. One way to calm down his inner voice of confusion and disappointment about his harvest is to seek a new goal, hoping he will get a different hold, or get something better - next time. This idea of the pending improvement is, by the way, probably one of the keys to the secrets of the long-lived American dream.

The seeking of the new in the changed position paradoxically gives a certain - although alien - feeling of security and even of a “time-limited stability”. It gives the imagination that you are steering yourself.

Lacking the security net or a sustaining hand, we see people seeking stability in the most various ways supposed to give a feeling of some kind of an integrity in a chaotic world. The symbolic value of following the latest fashion for clothes, other things, and even life-styles, or being “up-to-date” may serve as calming in this connection.

Collecting things, or keeping animals, symbolizes being an owner of something and even loving it without reciprocal demands. Collecting things through buying more also suits the market very well. People’s, specially young people’s interest for old, even used things, preferably clothes which someone has used before, symbolizes a (banned) relation to another human being, although a disappeared user. It shapes a connection to a forbidden link to the past. All of a sudden the market starts to produce (new) “used” clothes!

The double purposes of our culture of change may also be seen in that people are encouraged to change what they buy if they don’t like it. Usually this reinforces a positive association to the store-centeres. People are more easily caught and may even buy more if they feel free to change.

Changing a present is something that today is supposed to add something to its value: “You just change if you don’t like it” or “you can choose something else”! Earlier a present was symbolic for the message, it was a gift. The giver was conveying his mind and characterizing his relationship to the receiver through it.

Our culture of change and changeability not only concerns palpable things. You also change relationships, partners, marriages and families - even your own sex is rather easily changeable. This kind of changeability is one aspect of the flexibility which is reflected in the modern character. His capacity and readiness to be independent, mobile and changeable is a desirable quality for the global forces of modernity. Fragmented life styles and short-term goals are loosely grounded and easy to redefine and transform.

We shall now penetrate somewhat how the concepts of flexibility, fragmentet lifestyle and the evolving multiple selv-constructions are linked to induvidualization

Flexibility and fragmentations

The fragmentation, cut-offs and short-cuts of our time have been an object for research by several social critics as they are helpful concepts to understand the modern social (dis)order (Beck et al., 1994). In this context Richard Sennett (1998) discusses the concept of character in his book The Corrosion of Character arguing that a character is formed through lasting relations with others and expressed through loyalty and reciprocal obligation or the pursuit of a long term goal. The violation of this, for instance by manipulating people to adjust to the opposite conditions, results in corrosion of the personal integrity. Sennett argues that the so called “flexible capitalism” refers to the flexibility of the human being as the essential feature for the new economy as already descriebed. People are increasingly willing to move and adjust to different new places etc., believing that “being flex” will bring them a more happy life in the new place and new conditions. Flexibility and being changeble and unpredictable are necessessary qualities to identify with. Epstein (1995) referring to the change from modernity to postmodernity claims that “today the problem is no longer being out of true touch with our inner identies. Problems today are now fictions that describe a loss of flexibility”, and “In this rapidly advancing postmodern era we are challenged to become masters of the art of multiple self-constructions”. Many other social theorists have discussed this phenomenon with other words as e.g. “multiphrenia” in The Saturated Self (Gergen, 1991).

The question of the changed self is a big issue or as W. Truett Anderson 1997 wrote: “not only a new model of mental health...but also questioning some major assumptions about human morality and social behavior. We are considering a drastically different way of evaluating your life and mine...We are participating in a mental revolution as the one that took place when the Greeks ceased to believe that their personal lives were directed from Mount Olympus” (Truett Anderson 1997, p. 40). The dilemma of the individual in postmodern wake is probably keeping his balance on the fragile line of “good enough” flexibility to be able to change himself in an always changing environment and perspectives at the same time as he preserves enough of his relational capacity to be able to invest in his own family capital not to get lost in disorientation.

As mentioned above we are witnessing a strong aversion against formally established structures, routines and even traditions that are supposed to hamper individual freedom and quick choices, in private live as well as in the career. Long-term goals are not feasible in times of constant changes and reorganizations. At the same time, there must be a choice of selected goals that are stable for some time, i.e. kind of a relative stability. The companies and the global organizations have an answer to that. The idea of free-lance work, part-time or short-term obligations, and changeable localizations, in the name of loyalty to the company, fits quite well. People seem to like it as it gives the permission to feel positively about something as old fashioned as loyalty.

This loyalty is, however, one-sided. The “we-ideology” means that the employee is favored through salary and working or hiring conditions for staying, serving and being faithful to the company while it is there. After that there are no obligations - nor rights. You are free to choose something else. The commitment to the work rather than home, now for both sexes, and its implications for family life, is interestingly revealed in Hochschilds´s research (1997). The part this commitment to working life plays in divorces and dispersive effects for marriages and other human relations is also critical (Aberg, 2002). Even divorces and reconstructed families suit the new economy very well as they imply more selling and buying. They increase the number of households and they yield more turnover when, e.g., parents are buying double sets of things, children and parents are traveling between places to visit each other to keep their relationship although the family structure is broken.

Regarding family, marriage and love relationships the commitments are also focused on the short term. Anthony Giddens, referred to above, talks about “confluent love” meaning that the togetherness lasts only as long as the satisfaction of one of the partners. The emotional investment is limited to “so far”. It suits well as a short-term, superficial relationship is less likely to cause severe disappointments. An intensive and personal commitment to another person may only make deeper pain out of the frustrations of tomorrow (Beck et al., 2002). The idea of making a traditional commitment such as a marital contract “until death them part” is an anachronism in this context (Sennett, 1998, 20-30). This well known phrase might be replaced by “untill their souls apart”. In this perspective it is understandable that more and more people decide not to have children at all, as we see in European statistics. It is hampering for the personal freedom and it requires flexibility and adjustment to another persons needs. It is an obligation that takes too many years.

The short-term orientation is not only reflected in people’s lifestyles; we see it also in the therapeutic field and elsewhere: People ask for short-term therapy and quick solutions. We see its mirroring also in the arts, theater and in novels where we are introduced to sketches or fragments of persons or types more than creation of whole personalities. Collections of shortcuts, 15 minutes films, are increasingly appearing, sometimes as fragmented parts, possibly linked through a theme. Modern conferences have loose structures and mainly short-cut panels or seminars. Listening to a full-length lecture of an hour is too demanding. Therapy sessions and university classes are being cut down to 30-40 minutes. People can’t keep the concentration so long any more, they are tired, in lack of time and overwhelmed by various social stimuli. Another related feature of post-modernity is the praise of variability. In architecture and design the “no-one-special” style is dominating. Instead of formulas or aesthetic principles “everything is allowed” in postmodernity. Transgressing old boundaries is coveted and considered to be laudable in itself.

The concept of detraditionalization refers to traditions existing in two frameworks. One is related to fundamentalism, the other related to (a suitably fitted) modern reconstruction of the past, new ritualization of social relations. An example of this is people who reject the church but have huge church weddings (Beck et al. 1994). Traditions may appear ridiculous to others if you take them seriously but playing them as a comedy makes them acceptable and even popular. People’s ways of seeking camouflaged stability in a chaotic post-modern world are innumerable.

Implications of the changes for family work – the question of solidarity

As described above the influence of globalization is making people confused and insecure about their existence, and we might ask if the idea of solidarity is a paradox in times of short-term relationships and fragmented life styles. I argue that human (family)solidarity is a core issue concerning human future. This thinking is basically related to Hegels static model of the family as a unit of reciprocal emotional, social and economic interests although mainly linking to his idea regarding the meaning of family value as an investment. It is a question of valuable qualities which develop as a product of continous cooperative interactions through the generations thus making up a human family capital (Honneth, 1997). A crucial issue for shaping this value or building up this capital is the caring and cultivation of relations through which solidarity can emerge. In postmodern time it not a question of structure, quantity, form or order of things. It is the content, the kind and dynamic quality of relations between family members which is possible - and neccessary - to obtain, independent of institutional frames or structures. The multiple forms for family life and its various relational combinations are shaping new channels for endless constructs out of the family members social context and contingencies. Therefore, an urgent and valid task of family workers and the only way for politicians in post-modernity is to minimize the effect of the global forces referring to the ethics and political importance of human solidarity.

In this connection the question of human relations and modern families´ welfare is twofold. On the one side couples/cohabitants, parents, children, the small family unit and grandparents etc. have to deal with defining new ways of interacting, communicating and making negotiations. Therapeutic help is facilitating in this when implemented in a democratic co-creation as a narrative construct where concepts like justice, responsibility, roles and expectations are central. The other side regards the public (family) policy which is neccessary to shape sensible economic and social conditions for the maintainance of family relationships (Björnberg, 1992).

In the first part of this paper the question of how increased individualism in postmodern society might weaken solidarity in family relations was raised. In the Nordic welfare societies interesting studies have been made resently on people’s behaviors and attitudes regarding solidarity. It is worthwhile to look at what some of these have revealed about e.g. intergenerational support, divorce issues and volunteering.

A Finnish study (Salmi 2002) shows that family members assist each other according to different needs related to the different life cycle tasks and different working places. This help is greater, both in quantity and frequency, when the public health service is lacking or not available.

A new Norwegian survey on family solidarity reveals that middle age and older people who have managed to build up some funds are still saving money and using it more for their children than for themselves, e.g. as gifts and support for housing. The majority is using little or nothing of the savings for themselves. The young people’s attitudes are opposite. They say they will use their savings for themselves. Although this could be interpreted as a sign of generational change it is confuted in other surveys where a systematic tendency is found in all age cohorts towards a decrease in the percentage of those using their savings mainly for themselves, i.e. with increasing age it is more likely that people leave own savings to the children (Gulbrandsen og Langsether, 2002). Although it has for a long time been a natural thing that people get more stable economy with increasing age it is not a natural thing any more to expect them to use it for the benefit of the children instead of using it for themselves, e.g. in traveling, consumption and in general for enjoying the goods of life. It is in this perspective the recent results are omewhat unexpected.

A Swedish study (Sand, 2002) shows that the contribution of relatives when someone in the family is handicapped or needs long time health care, is strongly related to the availability of official help and the economy of the family. The caring by relatives is supposed to be more extensive than ever in the Swedish society in spite of relatively strong public resources.

A recent Danish study (Juul, 2002) shows that people are willing to give a helping hand to their neighbors and even support friends economically and emotionally. The interest in assissting own parents is also present and not less than 87% say they are willing to take their parents into their home if necessary. These are the general attitudes but the young and well educated are more critical of backing up the idea of the welfare system. When it comes to practice it seems, however, that solidarity is limited and does not reach beyond the own group.

The earlier message of previous generations “do your duty and claim your right” also meant solidarity with the weakest. Young people today do not get the same message as their parents and the traditional class segregation seems to be disappearing. Today the young people choose friends and networks independent of own family background. The segregation is of another kind. It is more dynamic than structural.

The relatively strong family relations and extensive informal family support in Iceland has already been mentioned. It has been confirmed in both earlier and resent surveys (Olafsson, 1990; Juliusdottir, 1993; Gunnar Helgi Kristinson. 2001)

According to research on divorce in the western world the general trend seems to be that divorce is developing from being a conflict issue towards an issue of reconciliation and parental cooperation. Also here the broader social, cultural and legal conditions are important, as well as the availability of counseling and education (Juliusdottir 1997; Juliusdottir and Sigurdardottir, 2000; Wallerstein 2000;). What counts and is promising are the signs of positively changed attitude in favor of family relations post-divorce (Hyden & Hyden, 2002).

Not only in family research do we find promising results in this regard but also in studies on volunteering. The general belief that economic and social welfare as we see in Scandinavia would make people more egoistic and less prone to good deeds or organized charity work, is not confirmed. International studies on volunteering show that the better-off societies and persons are contributing most generously to such activities (Juliusdottir & Sigurdardottir, 1997; SOU 1993; Gaskin & Smith, 1995; Haberman, 2003).

New challenges of postmodern family workers

The delightful results of studies on human solidarity referred to above give a more realistic basis for my earlier point, that the core task of family workers should be that of minimizing the dispersive effects of the global forces for human relations through advocating a different kind of changes in the private sphere as well as in working places and in even broader context. With reference to solidarity the ethical task to help individuals to build up an inner strength, create his/her own keel and ballast in order to meet the constantly new waves of the wake of changes and transformations in life is most desirable and should be attainable. This is actualized when working with the ethics of love relationships, parental tasks related to boundaries and risks, or with loyalty between generations and in work with larger systems. This in turn will give new meaning to the concept of stability, at a higher level, somewhat in the same way as the large-scale and long-term level of the sea stays stable and unaffected by the turbulent waves of the wake (Phillipson, 1989).

We may be reminded of the fact that the basis for family work is not - and really has never been – value-free. When arguing for this and simultaneously working objectively in the professional meaning, the fruitful concepts of partial objectivity (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark, 1973; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Grunebaum, 1996) and objectivity in parentheses (Maturana, 1978) are appropriate as they imply the inevitable socio-cultural and even ethical qualities of systemic approach.

Our work at different levels, linking the micro, clinical knowledge to the macro, social-policy level, give family therapists a special position to mend a broken world (Kliman, 2001/2002) with the creation of a more holistic existence in midst of our general social fragmentations. This may for instance refer to the broken world of the children of divorce as well as the fragmented life of young people. It includes making relatives visible as important and valuable cooperators as well as activating other system workers, e.g. in school, health and social services (Piltz og Gustavsdottir, 1992). It may also refer to the segregated existence of people of different origin or the broken world of people from war or famine, as well as the disorganized life style of families in conflictive marriages in the more affluent parts of the world.

Mass media people are certainly also important in their efforts to convey different values and to stimulate social debate, but their responsibility is different as they mainly act for the day but not for the long-term well-being or welfare of a special individual or group in the same way as family workers do. Therefore one ethical part of the family workers role is to make their voices heard in mass media. This regards e.g disseminating their knowledge from research and clinical experience of different medias, “the other parent´s” and the “digital culture´s” effect on children and family life (Holm Sörensen & Olesen, 2000). Even teachers who work for the best interest of the school child with increasing emphasis on “teaching the whole child” are not directly working for changes on different levels in the same way as family workers. Family workers have a role in the schools to cooperate with teachers thus reaching the common parent.

Regarding not only the clinical, micro level but also the political macro level we have to look at our own prejudices, our own privilege of how we value and judge difference (Sutton, 2000). Referring to a dialogue between Elaine Pinderhughes and Lyman Wynne the creation of a foundation for the healing of cultural divisions from the past and unfolding pioneering work in the area of diversity is a necessity. This means that family workers have to have an inner dialogue asking themselves questions that deepen our own understanding of privilege and oppression.

In relation to the Sept 11th event an American family therapist discussed “in what ways we can make further commitments to diversity, identifying ways to reach out to Arab and Muslim colleagues” (Roberto-Forman, 2001/2002). She points out that we can back them up by conveying our understanding of the universal importance of meeting children’s basic needs for security and reliable relationships - the ethics of life – in favor of the future of mankind.

In this connection it is consoling news that “because of the deepening understanding of the complexity and importance of contextual issues AFTA is now reaffirming the larger system work being done by members”. The organization is thus also reevaluating its membership criteria stating that systemic work with larger systems is as important and valued as clinical work with families in the office. This way of applying the (larger) systemic approach is not simply a question of technique, but of attitude (Whiteside, 2000). Many American family workers are now welcoming the opportunities to diversify their practices according to this encouragement.

Working with larger systems includes work on behalf of individual clients through intervening with specific larger systems (e.g. social services, agencies, schools, health clinics) by training, empowering activities and consultation services to organizations, corporations and communities. This can mean strengthening (oppressed or excluded) specific (client)subsystems within organizations or working at the interface of two or more systems with different aims where multiple tensions of change and reistance countervail each other. In this work there is more focus on issues of class, race and cultural context, thus recognizing the powerful impact of larger systems on the lives of our clients.

Maintaining a passion to empower other people, bringing them the hope and belief that they can influence and control their circumstances themselves requires a “politics of optimism” based on a sustainable sense of hopefulness in ourselves. Trainers must encourage students to think and act with “benevolent opportunism”, a perspective which emphasizes taking advantage of opportunities to use one’s knowledge and skill in real situations (Weiss, 2001).

Although we are thus emphasizing the ethical and political standpoint in working with larger systems, almost following Paulo Freire´s ideology, we are now – half a century later - basing our approach on rather different assumptions. We are not reacting to manifest oppression, material shortage or lack of education per se. Often our clients may be rather well off economically, have education, work and home, but simultaneously they may feel underpowered, depressed, tired and sometimes burned-out or they feel intolerant, irritated and generally decompensated without being able to link it to their life conditions in a broader meaning or see it in a social context.

A conjoint plenary telephone session of American and European family workers (AFTA in Florida/USA and EFTA in Hungary/Europe) under the title of “Bridging Two Continents” (Sluzki, 2001/2002), is one of many examples of how family workers are making use of the new electronic information technologies and the potential of this media for building bridges in our work, both when developing our field and when practicing change work with clients.

In these dialogues across continents some ethical and global issues were highlighted:

• understanding the parallel of the increasing variety of shapes that families display as they evolve resiliently in an ever-changing world

• enhancing the ethical value and emotional quality of family life

• enhancing new trends in our field, e.g. home-based family work for poor clients which empowers families and reconnects workers to the social context.

• avoiding medicalization or biological management of human pain

• observing that the boundaries between clinical practice and human rights practices begin to blur as we see ourselves as a part of the expanded social fabric of the human family

• training ourselves to keep a flexible mind and maintaining our personal and political awareness as well as awareness of own prejudices

• working against (the parallel of) exclusion, fragmentation and classification when it happens in our own professional groups

• promoting the scientific status of family work.

Final note

In this article I have tried to show at a glance the changed view of society facing modern man and challenging the helping professions such as family workers. I have connected the influence of globalization – with its concomitants of individualism, turbulent and incoherent life-styles, lack of time and general confusion – on people’s daily life with the new ethical demands this places upon family workers. Our new role is beyond the limits of structures. It is primarily aimed at relations, i.e. the linking, curing, strengthening and mending their broken or bent links.

Never before has there been such need for contextual understanding of the psycho-social processes. Family workers trained with the systemic approach are often in a unique position as their substantial theoretical knowledge is so closely linked to insight into people’s lifestyles and their problems of daily life. By processing this experience in research and active participation in the social debate and keeping a never broken dialogue between practitioners and researchers, school and home, men and women, parents and children, it is possible to contribute to deeper insights among politicians and decision-makers concerning the realities of family conditions in modern times.

This implies that family workers of today are challenged to participate in promoting the fruitful alternatives and innovations. Conveying such understanding is the most efficient prevention against prejudices, exclusion and mobbing in our postmodern society.

Literature -

Aberg Y.(2002). “Are Divorces Contagious? The marital Status of Coworkers and the Risk of Divorce. Reykjavik: Nordic Sociological Conference. Paper.

Bauman Z. (1995). Modernity and Ambivalence. Oxford: Polity Press.

Bauman Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman, Z.(2001). “Helping the Other or What Chances of Social Work. in our Liquid-modern Society? Konferenspaper. FORSA Oslo.

Bauman Z. (2002). Interview: Politiken 25 April 2002. p. 5.

Beck U. (1992). Risk Society. Towards New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. Pp. 91- 139.

Beck U., Giddens A. and Lash S. (1994). “Living in the Post-Traditional Society” Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in The Modern Order.. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 56-110.

Beck U. & Beck-Gernsheim E. ( 2002). “Individualisering i det moderne samfund- en subjektorienteret sociologis perspektiver og kontroverser”. Slagmark.Tidskrift for idéhistorie. Forar, nr 34. pp13-38.

Björnberg U. (1992). “Parenting in Transition:An introduction and Summary”. In Björnberg U (ed) European Parents in the 1990s. Contradictions and Comparisons. London: Transactions Publishers.

Boszormenyi-Nagy I. & Spark. G (1973). Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity of Intergenerational Family Therapy. London: Harper and Row.

Boszormenyi-Nagy I. & Grunebaum J. (1996). From System to Dialog. Intergenerational Processes. A Clinical Analysis. Videotape.

Dencik L. (2002). Living in Modern Times. Implications for the Lives of Children and their Families. Report nr. 4. Roskilde Universitet:Center for Childhood & Family Research.

Epstein E. (1993). “From Irreverence to Irrelavance? The growing disjuncture of family therapy theories from social realities”. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 12, 3. Pp. 15-27.

Epstein E. (1995). “The Narrative Turn: Postmodern Theory and Systemic Therapy”. Gestalt Theory, 12, 3. Pp. 171-183.

European Commission and Eurostat, (2001).

Gulbrandsen, L og Langsether, A. (2002) “Svekkes familjesolidariteten”? Reykjavik: Nordic Sociological Conference. Paper.

Gaskin K. & Smith, J.D. (1995). A New Civic Europe? A Study of the Extent and Role of Volunteering. UK: Volunteer Centre.

Gergen K. (1991). The Saturated Self. New York: Basic Books.

Giddens A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. London: Polity Press.

Goolishian H. & Anderson H. (1990). “Understanding the therapeutic system: From individuals and families to systems in language”. In F. Kaslow (Ed), Voices in family psychology. Newbury Park: sage Publications.

Haberman U. (ed) (2003). Motives for volunteering: The scandinavian way...In print.

Habermas J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston:Beacon Press.

Hagstofa Islands, 2001. Landshagir. Reykjavik:Hagstofa Islands.

Hochschild A. (1997). The Time bind. When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work.

Holm Sörensen B. & Olesen B. R. (eds)( 2000). Börn i en digital kultur. Köbenhavn: Gads Forlag.

Honneth A. 1997. “Milli réttlætis og tilfinningabanda”. In (ed) Kalmansson J.Á. (ed) 1997. Fjölskyldan og réttlætið. Reykjavík:Siðfræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands. pp. 19-43.

Hyden M. & Hyden L-Ch. (2002). Samtal om den nya familjen och det eviga föreldraskapet. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.

Jacobs L. and Wachs. C. (2002). Parent Therapy: A Relational Alternative to Working with Children N.Y: Jason Aronson.

Juliusdottir S. (1993). Den kapabla familjen i det islandska samhallet. En studie om lojalitet, aktenskapsdynamik och psykosocial anpassning. Göteborg/Reykjavík: Göteborgs universitet. Doctoral theses.

Juliusdottir S. (1997). “An Icelandic Study of Five Parental Lifestyles: Conditions of Fathers without Custody and Mothers with Custody.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. Vol 26, No3/4. Pp. 87-105.

Juliusdottir S. & Sigurdardottir S. (1997). Hvers vegna sjálfboðastörf? Um sjálfboðastarf, félagsmálastefnu og félagsráðgjöf. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.

Juliusdottir S. and Sigurdardottir N. (2000). Áfram foreldrar. Rannsókn um sameiginlega forsjá og velferð barna við skilnað foreldra. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.

Juul S. (2002). “Modernitet, velfærd og solidaritet. En studie om moderne danskers solidaritet i tanke og i handling”. - Politiken 29. Apr.

Kliman J. (2001/2002). “In Search of Tikkun Olam. After September 11”. AFTA Newsletter Winter. Pp. 35-36.

Leadbeater C. (1999). Living on thin air. The New Economy. London: Viking/Penguin Books, pp. 109-114.

Maturana H. R. (1978). “Biology of Language. Epistemology of reality. In Miller, G.A. & Lenneberg E. (Eds) Pychology and Biology of Language and Thought. N.y:Academic Press.

Olafsson S. (1990). Lífskjör og lífshættir á Norðurlöndum. Samanburður þjóðfélagi Íslendinga, Dana, Finna, Norðmanna og Svía. Reykjavík:Iðunn.

Olafsson S. (1999) Íslenska leiðin. Almanntryggi og velferð í fjölþjóðlegum samanburði. Reykjavík:Tryggingastofnun Ríkisins. Pp. 143-173

Roberto-Forman L. (2001/2002). ”Thinking globally”. AFTA Newsletter Winter. Pp 43-45.

Phillipson M. (1989). In Modernity’s Wake. London; Routledge.

Piltz KG. & Gustavsdottir K. (1992). Den Osynliga Familjen. Samarbetspartner eller Syndabock. Göteborg:Ask og Embla.

Rose N. (1996). “The Death of the Social” . Economy and Society, 25, 327-356.

Salmi M. (2002). “Arbete, familj och ömsesidig hjalp mellan generationer”. Stakes project 1996-200: Att kombinera arbetsliv och familjeliv. Reykjavik: Nordic Sociological Conference. Paper.

Sand A.B. (2002). “Vard av hjalpbehövande familjemedlemmar- ett socialt natverk som fjattrar?” Reykjavik: Nordic Sociological Conference. Paper.

Sennett R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character. W.W Norton & Compan. Pp. 50-51.

SOU (1993). Frivilligt Socialt Arbete. Kartlaggning och Kunskapsöversikt. Rapport av socialtjanstkomitén. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet.

Sutton C. (2000) “Diversity Forum: The Complexities of Compassion”. AFTA Newsletter Fall. Pp. 21-24.

Stierlin H. (1981). Separating Parents and Adolescents: Individuation in the Family. N.Y: Jason Aronson. Pp 55-75.

Truett Anderson W. (1997). The Future of teh Self. Exploring the Post-Identity Society. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc.

Wallerstein J.S, Lewis J.M & Blakeslee S. (2000). The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. New York: Hyperion.

Weiss H. (2001). “Large Systems Forum”. AFTA Newsletter Fall. Pp. 23-25.

Whiteside M. (2000) “Large Systems Forum”. AFTA Newsletter Fall. Pp. 24-26.

Young J. (1999). The Exclusive Society; social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. Thousand Oaks, California/London: Sage.

-----------------------

[1] The article is based on an opning plenum lecture at the VI Nordic Family Therapy Congress, in Reykjavik August 2002.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download