Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Structural Versus Strategic Family Therapies

Structural Versus Strategic Family Therapies

In a 2- to 3-page paper, address the following:
Summarize the key points of both structural family therapy and strategic family therapy.
Compare structural family therapy to strategic family therapy, noting the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Provide an example of a family in your practicum using a structural family map.

Both structural and tactical techniques originate from communication hypothesis as sophisticated by Bateson and colleagues—most particularly, Wear Jackson, John Weakland, and Gregory Bateson, in Palo Alto (Bateson & Jackson, 1968 Bateson, Jackson, Haley, And Weakland, 1956). This team began its work in the community of schizophrenia but placed the groundwork for loved ones therapy with a variety of signs. Connection idea features Wiener’s (1948) hypothesis of cybernetics, to stress partnerships as homeostatic solutions with selfcorrecting opinions functions, positing that human relationships are defined by the interchange of messages. Behavior is seen from the perspective of your device of a minimum of two individuals, a sender plus a receiver. Bateson suggested that connection might be explained regarding degrees, talking about how these degrees can conflict in paradoxical techniques. By 1962, the Palo Alto class experienced manufactured the move from describing intellectual disease as person phenomena to explaining it communicative conduct between individuals. They recognized processes that had become the foundations from the structural/ tactical approaches: the dual bind, the focus’ on dyadic connections, family members homeostasis, and complementarity compared to symmetry. Up coming therapies developing using this see highlighted transforming households by impacting family members to convey in new techniques. Wear Jackson was the first one to use telecommunications idea to family treatment method. Jackson accepted that household relationships consist of recurring designs of interaction. He specified three forms of habits that exist in all of the households: (1) covert norms, (2) overt loved ones principles, and (3) metarules for enforcing norms and ideals. Jackson planted the vegetation seeds for that tactical ideas through the function of the signal and the significance of hierarchical constructions and “quid pro quo” strategies in marriage life (Jackson, 1965). He recognized the Mental Analysis Institution (MRI) in 1959 and, as well as Haley, Watzlawick, Weakland, Virginia Satir, Jules Riskin, and also other fellow workers, started off certainly one of the first family treatment training plans (cf., Satir, 1964 Watzlawick, Beavin, And Jackson, 1967). The MRI class in Palo Alto has had a huge affect on the family therapy area. In addition to being the birthplace of Haley’s method, it directly and indirectly motivated numerous strategically driven models and therapists. Most prominent are the MRI version (cf. Fisch, Weakland, & Segal, 1982 Watzlawick, Weakland, & Species of fish, 1974), the Milan design (cf. Selvini Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1978) and solutionfocused therapies (cf. de Shazer, 1988). The strategically concentrated types are derived from telecommunications idea along with the job of Milton Erickson. The model most closely connected to Haley’s tactical family members therapy is the MRI version. They share a belief that symptoms are caused by repetitive sequences of behaviors that repre-sent the family’s faulty attempts to solve problems, resulting in the escalation of problems through positive feedback loops. They are both brief, pragmatic, and directive, focusing on identifying and resolving the presenting problem, rather than on offering interpretations or providing insight. Both use paradoxical directives and make strategic use of the family’s resistance to bring about change, placing responsibility on the therapist for making change happen in the family. Haley’s approach differs from that of MRI, in that it focuses on triadic and moderate-length sequences, rather than on dyadic and immediate sequences of behavior, and theorizes about the function of the symptom. However, the most fundamental difference between the approaches is that despite focusing on the presenting symptom, the ultimate goal in Haley’s model is to change family structure. It is this structural framework, particularly with regard to hierarchy, that links Haley’s strategic family therapy to the structural approach. In the sections that follow, we highlight the critical influence of Minuchin and Haley and include other important figures who have played a role in the refinement of these approaches. Most notable are Braulio Montalvo, on the structural side, and Cloe Madanes, the codeveloper of strategic family therapy. Minuchin came to family therapy in the 1950s, from a background in child psychiatry. While working with juvenile delinquents at the Wiltwyck School for Boys, Minuchin and colleagues (Auerswald, King, Montalvo, and Rabinowitz) were confronted by the impotence of the individual approach, given the social context to which the children would return. They were influenced by Jackson’s emphasis on interpersonal connections and recognized that the behavior of their patients was not only an action, but also a reaction. They started to conduct conjoint sessions, built a therapy room with a one-way mirror, and taught themselves family therapy by trial and error. Minuchin’s work is quite unique because, from the very beginning, he has primarily worked with poor, ethnic minority families (cf. Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, Families of the Slums, 1967). In 1965, Minuchin became professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania and director of both the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Department of Psychiatry. Upon his arrival, Minuchin began to rebel against the psychiatric establishment and was deemed “dangerous” for zealously insisting that child psychiatry was family psychiatry, even for middle-class families. At about this time, Minuchin also started to treat the families of diabetic children who had been unsuccessfully treated with individual therapy. He discovered that all of the families had a common view of themselves as normal families who would be happy except for the diabetes, and that parents detoured their conflict through the diabetic child. Minuchin conducted clinical research with families of diabetic, anorectic, and asthmatic children, as well as those with other psychosomatic complaints, demonstrating the effectiveness of family therapy for psychosomatic children (cf., Minuchin, Rosman, Baker, Liebman, Milman, & Todd, 1975; Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978). In the 1970s Minuchin and colleagues at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic (Aponte, Fishman, Greenstein, Haley, Madanes, Montalvo, Rosman, Umberger, and Walters) shaped the structural approach into the most influential family therapy approach and, due in large part to this work, family therapy was accepted in the mainstream of child psychiatry.