Family Theory and Systems Theory

      The term “family theory” consists of two very broad conceptual terms, “family” and “theory.”  Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, and Steinmetz (1993) have defined the process of theorizing as “formulating and organizing ideas to understand a particular phenomenon.  A theory is the set of interconnected ideas that emerge from this process” (p. 20).  The concept of family is a bit more difficult to define and can include elements of shared genealogy, close proximity, emotional intimacy, and cultural definitions.  This section will look at one of the most influential family theories known as systems theory.  In viewing the family as a system, this section will explain how the three dimensions of loneliness can be explained via this family systems theory.

Systems Theory

Systems theory involves the basic idea that objects in the world are interrelated to one another (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993).  The theory was derived from General System Theory (GST), which was in part a response to positivist thinking about applying the principles of natural sciences models to social science.  Human beings are qualitative different from the inanimate subject matter of the natural sciences, and therefore theorizing and research about humans may require a different perspective than that taken by natural science and later positivists.  Several such differences include the linear cause and effect model of natural sciences, and the lack of self-reflective ability by the subject matter of natural sciences.  For a systems theory perspective therefore the interest is in a collection of interacting objects linked together making up a system.

Systems as a unit.  Systems theorists argue that the system needs to be looked at as a whole rather than as individual components, which can then be put together.  According to Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) GST’s Composition Law states that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which in application to the family implies that the family as a whole is greater than simply adding individual family member characteristics together.  The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts because the whole includes elements, which cannot be broken down and applied to individual members.  These elements are the interactions between different subsystems within the main system.  These interactional elements add characteristics to the whole that make it to some degree qualitatively different from each individual member.  It is possible then for the system to have characteristics which no one individual element possesses except when they are put together in an interactional context.  This systems model breaks down the linear cause and effect model of the natural sciences because how individual elements react within a family is due to a variety of interacting factors rather than a simple linear fashion.  Systems theory then is much less concerned with the cause and effect of various systems as opposed to how different subsystems interact to make up the whole system.

Systems as self-reflective.  Human systems are also self-reflective, which means, that unlike mindless machines or unconscious matter humans can look at themselves as though they were outside observers.  Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) state that this self-reflectivity allows human systems to establish and work towards goals, construct social realities containing collective definitions upon which to communicate with others.

System boundaries and feedback loops.  Systems theory has the useful concepts of system boundary and feedback loops as well.  According to Whitchurch and Constantine (1993), a system boundary helps to determine what is considered to be part of the system and what is not part of the system.  A related concept is the idea of an open versus a closed system or boundary permeability.  The more open the system is, the more matter, energy, or information will be allowed into and out of the system (Whitchurch and Constantine, 1993, p. 333).  Another useful concept is the feedback loop.  Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) define the feedback loop as a “path along which information can be traced from one point in a system, through one or more other parts of the system or its environment, and back to the point of origin” (p. 334).  Feedback loops are of two types: positive and negative.  A negative feedback loop has been likened to a homeostatic system, in which the feedback loop provides information that returns the system to some preset level and reduce deviation causes to the system.  A positive feedback loop tends to amply deviations.

Olson’s Circumplex Model.  Olson (1993) has developed a model of the family based on systems theory.  This model describes families in terms of three main dimensions, family cohesion, flexibility and communication.  Olson (1993) defines each of the dimensions:  “family cohesion is defined as the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another” (Olson, 1993, p. 105), “family flexibility is the amount of change in its leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules” (Olson, 1993, p. 107) and “family communication is measured by focusing on the family as a group with regards to their listening skills, speaking skills, self-disclosure, clarity, continuity-tracking, and respect and regard” (Olson, 1993, p. 108).  Family cohesion has four separate levels, disengaged, separated, connected, and enmeshed.  Similarly, family flexibility has four levels, chaotic, flexible, structured, and rigid.  Olson (1993) makes less definitive distinctions in family communication, considering communication to be either good or poor. 

The model combines the flexibility and cohesion dimensions to form 16 different family system types.  Olson (1993) arranges these family types from balanced family types to unbalanced family types.  There are four main balanced types, which revolve around the middle ranges of each of the two dimensions.  Therefore the four balanced types are: flexibly separated, flexibly connected, structurally separated and structurally connected.  The there are four unbalanced extreme types, which revolve around the extremes of the two dimensions:  chaotically disengaged, chaotically enmeshed, rigidly disengaged and rigidly enmeshed (See Table 1).

Table 1.  
            Family Map of balanced and unbalanced family types.

Note.  Italicized items represent unbalanced types.  Empty cells represent the eight other mid-range family types (not shown).

Within these unbalanced and balanced types are eight other mid-range family types.  Olson (1993) perceives that families that are more balanced will have greater functionality and competence than unbalanced families, in particular, through more positive communication skills.

For Olson (1993) each one of these family types do not represent a convenient nomenclature for a particular family, but rather each family type describes the way the family system operates within each type.  The family type is determined not by an individual member but rather as an interactive whole.  In assessing family types, Olson (1993) uses a multisystem assessment, which includes looking at different subsystems within the family, such as the martial system, parent-child system, and the family as a whole.  Family types then describe not so much the collective additive contributions of each member of the family to the whole, but rather the family system as a whole, something that is greater than the sum of its members.  In this way, each family type can very much be thought of as separate family cultures, in which underlying group norms, role, behaviors and expectations appear in a relatively consistent fashion.  The family system would operate to reinforce the norms and expectations of the family with appropriate sanctions if these norms or expectations are violated.

In this section, two unbalanced family types seem to be the most conducive to adolescent loneliness research, the rigidly enmeshed type and the chaotically disengaged type.  Each of these family types will be discussed in turn.

Families that are rigidly enmeshed measure highly on enmeshment for the cohesion dimension and highly on rigid in the flexibility dimension.  Rigid families strictly enforce set rules.  Leadership is authoritarian and parents are highly controlling.  Negotiations are very limited, rules are unchanging and roles are clearly defined (Olson, 1993).  Added to this is the idea of enmeshment.  In enmeshed families, there is very little separateness, time together is emphasized, private space is de-emphasized, family friends are preferred over individual friends, and personal decisions are subjugated to those of the group (Olson, 1993).  In this case, the family system boundary would be clearly defined, occurrences within the family would be seen as private affairs, and outside influences would be limited to those approved by the group.  The culture of this family type therefore suggests that these families are not only closely knit together, but also reinforce this enmeshment in an unwavering and disciplined fashion.  Even if the adolescent desired to, activities and experiences outside of the family would be severely limited.

In a similar fashion, chaotically disengaged families measure highly on disengagement on the cohesion dimension and high on chaotic in the flexibility dimension.  Olson (1993) describes chaotic families as having little discipline, limited leadership, making impulsive decisions, having little role clarity and frequently changing rules.  If we add on disengagement, emotional separateness, low interaction, separate and needed private spaces, and individual friendships occur as well.  The boundaries within this system is very open, adolescents are not monitored and are at liberty to perform delinquent acts without fear of reprisal.  The family culture here very much suggests that adolescents feel little commitment or closeness to their family and clearly this commitment or closeness is not reinforced or probably even desired.  Unlike their counterparts in the rigidly enmeshed families who are highly monitored and closely attached to their families, adolescents in chaotically disengaged families are monitored only very slightly and remain for the most part unattached to their families.

Conclusion.  Systems theory is concerned with systems or elements that interact with each other.  Systems are units, something that is qualitatively different from each individual interacting element and cannot be explained in simple cause and effects models.  Systems usually have boundaries that are either clearly defined or loosely defined, and are either open or closed.  Within systems, there may also be interactional elements of feedback loops, which can be either positive or negative.  Olson (1993) applies systems theory to the family in his Circumplex Model.  The Circumplex Model views families as varying along three main dimensions, cohesion, flexibility and communication to form 16 different family types.  Each family type can be considered as a family system embodied by a general family culture in which certain norms and expectations are present.  For this section two main family types of interest, the rigidly enmeshed family type and the chaotically disengaged family type.