Structural Family Therapy Essays

Structural Family Therapy Essays Structural Family Therapy Essay Structural Family Therapy Essay Institution Structural Family Therapy Name Instructors Name Course Number 31, May 2014 Abstract This research paper discusses Structural Family Therapy in relation to its development, tenets, application, and comparison to other methods. It was established that Munich was at the forefront of developing the approach due to the realization that human problems cannot be solved individualistically. Instead, they should be solved in the context of family structure since it affects behavior profoundly. Some of the critical tenets of SIFT included the family and the presentation of the problems as an issue of he system rather than the affected party. In regard to the process of application, it was noted that a family does not need to meet given requirement in order to enable the application of SIFT. Identification and Overview of the Approach Development of Structural Approach Components of SET Family Problem Presentation Process of Therapeutic Change Application of the Approach during Family Therapy Similarities, Differences and New Lessons Learnt Identification and Overview of the Approach Structural Family Therapy (SET) is found as a model of family treatment that s based on systematic theories conceived by Salvador Munich with the help of other psychologists at the Child Guidance Clinic of Philadelphia (Carr, 2000). In essence, the approach is found on the premises that effective therapy is fostered by the change of structure within the family setting. It stipulates that the treatment process must focus on the details Of personal change so that individuals restructure to attain a healthy pattern of relations. It seeks to address the afflictions experienced in the functioning of the family by helping the members to understand the informally stipulated rules that over its relationships and roles. This implies that the essence of family therapy does not rest on the individual prospects, but the ideologies of the family system in entirety. One of the most crucial aspects of SET is the fact that therapist, in their attempt to bring positive change, integrate with the family, become temporal members, and start learning the ways of the system in order to transform it (Dallas Draper, 2010). Development of Structural Approach In essence, the conception of SIFT was necessitated by the need to provide a ay of treating family problems based on the system rather than using individualistic approaches. The history of this approach dates back to 1 960 when the Munich conducted therapy in one of the schools in New York known as Williwaw (Dilatation Jonas, 2010). Whereas the conception of this approach cannot be necessarily situated at that point, its development is attributed strongly to the Munchkins effort to establish it in this school. In other words, his application of the approach in Wilt. Yuck School is considered as a critical undertaking that catcalled the entire development Of SIFT. In this regard, the boys from Willingly School originated from disorganized families that had multiple problems occasioned by poverty. The psychologist noted that the society relied on psychotherapeutic methods that required verbal articulations and targeted the middle class. As a result, the techniques resulted to very negligible transformational impacts on the students. In fact, it was discovered that most of the students lost the insight once they returned home (Doherty McDaniel, 2010). Consequently, it called for psychologists to develop alternative approaches for the counseling. Munich started developing the method by seeking to change transform families into therapeutic entities. The focus shifted from the individualistic perspective to the use of techniques that manipulate family Structures when solving delinquency problems (Gerhardt, 2012). Having focused on the problem as a family matter, Munich developed techniques that were suitable for the diagnosis of poor socioeconomic families in the community (Donahue Czarina, 2012). This diverted the attention of psychologists from the common individualistic approach to the use of the family system. At this point, Munich helped to create concepts that formed the foundation of a model that was exposed after one decade. Since the model was used on a fairly small population, Munich and his colleagues decided to test its validity by using a bigger cross-sectional population. After the test, the results evoked critical connotations between the perspectives of Munich and Haley. The two authors differed essentially, but their controversies formed the basis of improving their respective models of counseling. Having applied the approach to the boys at Willowy School successfully, one Of the clinical enters in Philadelphia invited Munich to their premises in order to help youthful diabetic children. It was noted that the children had inbuilt problems that did not have medical explanations (Gerhardt, 2012). In addition, it was established that those problems did not respond to classical personal treatments. Munich collected and analyzed medical data from the clinical facility to determine the cause of these unexplainable problems. Along with his colleagues, he established that there was a close connection between the psychological afflictions and the family characteristics. It was established that most of these children came from families that exhibited similar characteristics, including extreme protectiveness, conservativeness of behaviors, and lack of conflict resolution among other critical features. Having succeeded in the diagnosis of these patients, Munich pushed for the creation of clear stipulations that could increase the flexibility of families in light of their undertakings and resolution of family conflicts. This triggered the establishment of the Philadelphia Training Center, in 1970, where Munich educated therapists about the ideologies of SIFT. In 1972, Munich developed and published a systematic stipulation of SIFT that contained distinct theories and concepts. The formulation was based on the concept of helping a family to develop from One level into another (Simi, 2010). It was focused on the realignment of family relationships so that the family could maximize its potential holistically rather than transforming the individual members. Components of SIFT Among the various tenets of this approach, family is the most critical aspects that define the essence of this model of counseling. It is defined as living pen system where the components are independent of each other, but they are governed by unformulated ruled to maintain patterns of relationships. In essence, those set of rules that govern these relationships make up the structure (Goldenberg Goldenberg, 2013). The family is subject to essential influences from the external aspects so that its structure is not only shaped by the members, but also the environment within which it lives (Rivet, 2010). This implies that the family rules can be conceived by the member or enforced by the culture of the people surrounding it. In addition, the family is transformational entity because the mentioned rules keep on changing continuously according to the negotiations that take place. These rules change naturally to coincide with the broad life circles and become more effective in relation to the system. The change is considered as the tool of re- accommodating the arising circumstances in the environment and adapt to them (German, 2010). For example, if one of the family members is incapacitated, then the rest should come up with ways of tackling his or her roles to avoid any gaps in the family. However, in some instances, the moon setting of continuous change and readjustment can be halted. In this case, a family can refute responding to some circumstances occasioned by the internal and external environment (Lowe, 2004). Problem Presentation The other critical tenet of SIFT is the presentation of the problem and the way in which it is viewed by the psychologists (Rumba, 2010). In this regard, it is evident that the problem is considered as part of the family structure rather than an issue of the individual. This implies that, when answering the question of whether a child is disciplined or not, one must consider the Truckee of the family before making a decision. Further, it means that the actions of indiscipline must be put into context with the underlying ideologies, rules, and beliefs of the family system. For example, it must be established whether the child is more undisciplined towards the mother or a father. In addition, the therapist could establish when the child turns aggressive in order to understand the circumstances that trigger the actions of indiscipline (Myrrh Whims, 2012). Importantly, it is critical when determining how other members of the family respond to the aggressiveness in order to measure he extent to which reactions accelerate of reduce the rate of misbehaver. In regard to this model, the issues raised by the patients are viewed as critical components of the family system so that the solution can originate from the structure Only (Wine, 2010). In essence, the restructuring involves the changing of relative positions of the family members. The process calls for the redefinition of critical relations in relation to the hierarchical and coalition interactions (Nichols Schwartz, 2005). This implies that the therapeutic change facilitates transformation of sustained patterns comprising of the robber. Since SIFT requires the therapists to act as a member of the family, they have the capability to request different behaviors and change the perceptions. By influencing the behaviors and perceptions, the therapist is cap blew of changing the interaction of the family embracements to coincide with the prevailing environmental conditions (Rumba, 2013). Application of the Approach during Family Therapy In the light of the application of this approach, it is important to understand that the model is not a mere collection of techniques applied to the problem. Instead, it is a practical and systematic model based on the premises that problems can be conceptualized and diagnosed in the context of their relationships (Pock, 2010). Further, the application must be based on the fact that the family is an existing entity that has a past and future. These two aspects influence the behaviors, beliefs, and ideologies of the family members. In essence, there are no particular specifications that the problem should envisage in order to apply SET. Whereas it is unthinkable that that the model cannot be applied in some situations, it is critically important to notice hat some situations impede the effectiveness of the approach (Wine, 2010). For example, if a child is hospitalized for diagnosis, it is difficult to trigger the change of the family structure. This implies that the efforts to change the family structure are essentially ineffective due to the separation Of the child from the members whose relationships should be changed (Lange, 2010). While considering psychoanalytical approach, it was noted that the two methods focus on the rules and relationships of the family in light of interacting with each other. However, it was noted that diagnosis is not based n changing the structure of the family.