Structural Versus Strategic Family Therapies

The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42:167–174, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2013.794046

The Intersection of Facebook and Structural Family Therapy Volume 1

NINA ANNE MÉNDEZ, MISBHA ENAM QURESHI, RENATA CARNERIO, and FLORINA HORT

Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Facebook has quickly been made into a household name with more than 700 million users worldwide (Carpenter, 2011). With the pop- ularity of Facebook continuously growing, it is important to analyze the influence of Facebook on relationships. This article examines the intersection of Facebook and family therapy. More specifically, Facebook is viewed through the lens of structural family therapy. Key concepts in structural family therapy are provided along with a case vignette to demonstrate how Facebook can be used as a tool to help heal struggling relationships. Suggestions for future recom- mendations related to treatment and research are discussed.

A TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD

The word “connection” has transformed to a different meaning due to the many technological advances that have occurred over the past few decades. In a world that once communicated through telegrams and standard letter mail, human communication is being completed simply by the click of a button. The culture of communication is focusing less on human-to-human connection and more on human-device-human connections. More and more people are communicating with one another through the use of social net- working sites, cell phones, face-to-face video streaming (i.e., Skype, Ovoo), and e-mail.

In 2010, the Nielsen Company reported that there are over 300 million cell phone users in the United States. In addition, within those 300+ million users, by 2009, 21% of United States households converted to cellphone- only homes, ditching the once popular land line telephone (Nielsen, 2010). Further statistics support the enormous amounts of communication being

Address correspondence to Nina Anne Méndez, 2056 East Arizona Street, Philadelphia, PA 19125. E-mail: nam36@drexel.edu

167

168 N. A. Méndez et al.

completed through the use of various technologies. The Wireless Association reported in 2009, American’s used 2.3 trillion cell phone use minutes and sent 152.7 trillion text messages (The Wireless Association, 2009). Beyond cell phone use, Skype is keeping over 37.5 million people connected through face to face streaming on the computer (Wolff, 2012).

The unprecedented popularity of social networking sites is prevalent in the world’s most popular internet site, Facebook.com. Facebook has become a household name that is reaching dominance in cultures beyond the United States. Facebook not only transformed the meaning of the word “friend” but due to the alarming growth and consistency of users, Facebook is the sole contributor to the word “unfriend” being added to the Oxford American Dictionary in 2009 (Gross, 2009).

Since the site’s launch in 2004, Facebook.com has expanded to over 700 million users today. In this article, authors will review key concepts in struc- tural family therapy. Using the key concepts of structural family therapy, the authors will compare ways Facebook use and the concepts intersect. The key components and concepts of structural family therapy will be described, fo- cusing on potential impacts Facebook use can bring to therapy. The authors will then provide a clinical case example to help demonstrate ways thera- pists can have an awareness of how Facebook is integrated into relationships today. Lastly, clinical implications, treatment, and future recommendations will be provided.

STRUCTURAL FAMILY THERAPY

In order to evaluate the intersection of Facebook and structural family ther- apy (SFT), one must first review the key concepts associated with the SFT model. Structural family therapy, developed by Salvador Minuchin, became one of the most influential and widely practiced approach to family ther- apy by the 1970s. Structural family therapy offers a framework from which to analyze the process of family interactions, such that it provides a basis for consistent strategies (Nichols & Schwartz, 2006). Based on the model, a functional family is able to cope and adapt to various stressors that main- tains family continuity while being able to restructure itself (Umbarger, 1983). Therefore, dysfunction occurs when the family is unable to cope or adapt to stressors resulting in a lack of growth in its family members or dysfunctional patterns of interaction.

The goal of the therapist using SFT as a model, is to assist the family in changing its structure or its organization; specifically, establishing a structure in which members and its subsystems are clearly differentiated from one another and hierarchically integrated (Navaree, 1998, p. 559; Silver, 1983). In doing so, it is important to grasp a clear understanding of some of the main concepts that are essential to SFT, which include: structure, subsystems,

Facebook and Structural Family Therapy 169

boundaries, alignments, and coalitions. There are several more concepts within SFT, however, for the purposes of this paper only these concepts will be discussed. For an in-depth understanding of SFT, we recommend Families and Family therapy by Salvador Minuchin.

Structure

As defined by Minuchin (1974, p. 51), “family structure is the invisible set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which family members interact. A family is a system that operates through transactional patterns and these repeated transactions establish patterns of how, when, and with whom to relate, and these patterns underpin the system.” Therefore, family structure refers to the organized patterns in which family members interact and it is reinforced by the expectations that establish rules in the family (Nichols & Schwartz, 2006).

Subsystems

According to Minuchin (1974), subsystems can contain an individual family member, dyad, or more and be formed according to generation, gender, common interests, and role within the family. Within the model of SFT, there are three main identified subsystems in each family system: spousal, parental and sibling. Each family member has his or her own role, skills, and power within each subsystem. It is these relationships between subsystems that help define the structure of the family and helps maintain functionality (Becvar & Becvar, 1995). Additionally, different members of the family hold different positions in each of these subsystems; one member can hold a position in more than one subsystem (i.e., a mother would be part of a spousal and parental subsystem).

Boundaries

Minuchin states that functional families possess well-organized boundaries. Boundaries are defined as rules regulating who participates, how someone participates, and serves to protect the differentiation of a system (Minuchin, 1974). Boundaries are based upon the ideal structure of the family, which should include essential functions, such as support, nurturance, and social- ization of each family member (Navaree, 1998). These functions are usually carried out by different family members within each subsystem (spousal, parental, sibling), therefore, what happens within each subsystem impacts the whole family. There are three different types of boundaries Minuchin

170 N. A. Méndez et al.

describes that are rigid, diffuse, and clear. Dysfunction occurs as a result of these boundaries being too weak or overly rigid.

A rigid boundary is exemplified by impermeable barriers between the subsystems. Family members will not or do not share and participate within the subsystems. This results in a disengaged family, where there is great interpersonal distance and little potential for connectedness. On the other hand, a diffuse boundary is easily permeable, blurred, and there is no clear distinction between subsystems. A diffuse boundary results in enmeshment, where there is little interpersonal distance between family members who are over involved and over concerned. Lastly, clear boundaries are firm yet flexible in that there is an allowance of new information between subsystems and the structure does not falter due to stress or struggles (Becvar & Becvar, 1995). Family members are able to grow, be nurtured, and be supported.

Alignments and Coalitions

The other concepts of structural family therapy are alignments and coalitions. As was previously described, boundaries regulate the amount of interactions between the subsystems. On the other hand, alignments are a way in which members can interact; in this case, an alignment is when at least two members of the system create an alliance. Even though an alliance can be neutral, the members can join and oppose another member of the family, which is called a coalition (Umbarger, 1983). There are certain types of alignment that Minuchin (1974) considers triangulation of which are detouring and cross- generational coalition. A cross-generational coalition is when a parent and a child are in a continual union against the other parent. A detouring coalition occurs when members hold a third member responsible for the conflicts or struggles in their coalition (Umbarger, 1983).

CASE VIGNETTE

Now that the key concepts in SFT have been described, the following case vignette will provide a detailed account of a common way an issue related to Facebook use is presented in a therapy session. An analysis of the case will be provided particularly looking at structure, subsystems, boundaries, and coalitions. For confidentiality purposes, clients’ name and identifiable information were changed to protect privacy.

Beatrice Kiamma was a 15-year-old Japanese-American young girl, who was referred to treatment by the principal of her high school. According to the principal, Beatrice once a good student, was skipping classes frequently and engaging in physical altercation with other students.

Facebook and Structural Family Therapy 171

Beatrice lived with her father and younger sister. Her mother had passed five years ago due to a tragic car accident. The family had immigrated to the United States when Beatrice was a baby. The principal, Mrs. Mor- rison, has always felt sorry for Beatrice and treated her as if she was her own daughter. They knew each other since elementary school. Mrs. Morrison could not understand how a sweet girl like Beatrice was acting so strange lately. According to Mr. Kiamma, Beatrice has always been the “good daughter” but, since three months ago everything has changed. Beatrice who was raised to obey her parents was very disrespectful towards her father. She was argumentative, refused to go to church and did not follow the house rules especially when came to terms of giving up her cell phone before bed time. Beatrice was “stealing” her younger sister cell phone to chat with her friends. Her father had monitored her Facebook account, and just found that Beatrice had created a new Facebook account for her “real” friends. According to father, Beatrice started communicating with this “boy” who claimed to be in prison. Her father had forbidden Beatrice to continue the relationship, so Beatrice created a new Facebook account just to be with her “boyfriend.” Beatrice’s father found out about the boyfriend through his youngest daughter, Bianca. According to Bianca, Beatrice was planning to run away with her allegedly boyfriend when he got out of prison. Fearing that her sister was at risk Bianca decided to tell her father what she knew. Mr. Kiamma confronted Beatrice. She was furious with her father and sister and tried to run away. However, Mr. Kiamma caught her trying to escape the house with a backpack. Feeling in a bind Mr. Kiamma, decided to ask the school principal Mrs. Morrison for help. Mrs. Morrison immediately alerted the school’s therapist to see Beatrice right away, as she was at a high risk to flee school. The therapist’s initial reaction was to refrain from discussing the context of what occurred on Facebook. The therapist worked toward removing the discussion of Facebook from therapy because there is much more beneath the relationship of this family that existed before the use of Facebook.

CASE ANALYSIS

Although the therapist was correct in identifying and sensing that there was an underlying issue within Kiamma family, the approach was problematic. It is correct that there are issues related to the systems, boundaries, and coalitions within this family but rather than attempting to remove Facebook from the discussion, the therapist could utilize it as a tool to gather more information. How the family has organized themselves around Facebook could be used as a way to better understand the way the family system is organized as well.

172 N. A. Méndez et al.

Facebook and Structural Family Therapy

The way in which the Kiamma family is organized can be seen through the apparent rules that were established around Beatrice’s Facebook use and her attempts to defy them. Her father allowed her to use Facebook with the understanding that he is able to monitor her use. The patterns that exist within the family demonstrate an unbalanced hierarchy between father and daughter. The father establishes rules and Beatrice has been defying the rules since the new relationship was introduced to the system. The therapist, rather than attempting to take Facebook out of discussion, should allow the family to engage in an enactment and join them in order to fully understand the dynamic of their relationships.

The father-daughter system is one that would be the main focus of the session. However, it would be important for the therapist to fully understand the relationship between Facebook and the family. The father has been using Facebook as a way to monitor his daughter’s behavior. Additionally, Beatrice has been building intimate relationships through Facebook. Therefore it is safe to say that Facebook is an integral part of understanding the dynamics between the systems and subsystems in the family.

As mentioned previously, boundaries as described through a structural family therapy model can be rigid, diffuse, or clear. In the case vignette the father was attempting to establish clear boundaries through Facebook. However, in looking at the pattern that existed in their relationship, the father-daughter relationship is currently at a rigid stance where little to no information is being exchanged. The daughter is creating her own rules and has been utilizing Facebook as a platform to do so.

Although Facebook is simply a social media website, some may ar- gue that children who engage in behaviors like Beatrice, have aligned with the site and use it as a way to engage in negative behaviors. It could be considered the equivalent to a husband disengaging from his wife and his wife therefore attempting to engage more. With the case vignette, Beatrice is struggling to align with the rules established by her father and changes are being seen through her school work and other rule breaking behaviors. As her father attempts to establish rules in the home, Beatrice rebels more on the site and finds ways to break the rules.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS AND TREATMENT

There is much more to learn about Beatrice and her family. The outcome of this case entailed the therapist learning to utilize Facebook as a way to reconnect father and daughter. The therapist worked to help reinforce the father’s rules and establish his role in the hierarchy. However, the therapist ensured to work with Beatrice on understanding what void the gentleman in jail was fulfilling for her.

Facebook and Structural Family Therapy 173

Therapeutic change is when the process of helping the family to out- grow its stere-otyped patterns of which the presenting problem is a part (Colapinto, 1982). In looking at this definition, the therapist implemented new patterns the family abided by to help re-establish the father daugh- ter relationship. The father was able to establish his role by implementing stricter rules on the use of Facebook in the house. However, the therapists cleverly encouraged the family to set up father-daughter events, a feature on Facebook, to add structure and consistency of time spent with one an- other. Beatrice and her father responded well to this as they share a common interest for their love of technology.

Creating an intervention in using Facebook was a way that the therapist stopped fighting against the intersection of relationships and technology and used it to help bridge connections within the system. This is one of many examples of how therapists can utilize Facebook to be an asset rather than a deterrent.

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Future recommendations start with the acceptance that technology is here to stay and rather than fighting against it, family therapists should accept it and learn to use it to meet therapeutic goals. It important that we accept people for where they are and with Facebook being involved in the lives of over 700 million people world wide, it is quite possible that Facebook is a huge part of day-to-day living and relationships. When clients reach out to therapists with a situation related to Facebook, we must accept this and learn to utilize responses to questions about Facebook use as another tool to get to know our clients more.

The couple and family therapy field should conduct more empirical research to help understand the impact that Facebook and other advances in social media have on human-to-human connections. We must understand its impact through research, in order to potentially use aspects of it for the greater good of therapeutic success and relationships. A child who spends all of their time on Facebook or a cell phone can give the therapists some insight to the type of connections and patterns that exist within a family. Similarly, a mother or father who spends hours on their cell phones or computers can give the therapist some insight as to what occurs in the home related to loving and nurturing relationships within the system.

Regardless of how technology and social media have caused the system to reorganize itself, until research is conducted on the topic, theories on how to use technology and social media in session remain just that, theories. Family therapists should overall accept that technology and social media is here to stay. We must learn it, research it, and rather than fight against its advances, use it for the benefit of our clients.

174 N. A. Méndez et al.

REFERENCES

Becvar, D. S., & Becvar, R. J. (1995). The structural approach. Family therapy: A systemic integration (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Carpenter, C. J. (2011). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482–486.

Colapinto, J. (1982). Structural family therapy. In A. M. Horne & M. M. Ohlsen (Eds.), Family counseling and therapy (pp. 112–140). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Gross, D. (2009). Dictionary word of the year: “Unfriend.” Retrieved on April 5, 2012, from http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-17/tech/unfriend.word_1_unfriend- defriend-facebook?_s=PM:TECH

Navarre, S. E. (1998). Salvador Minuchin’s structural family therapy and its application to multicultural family systems. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 19, 557–570.

Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (2006). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Nielsen Company, Inc. (2010). 2010 media industry fact sheet. Retrieved on April 1, 2012, from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/press/nielsen-fact- sheet-2010.pdf

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Silver, W. (1983). Techniques of structural family therapy. In P. A. Keller, & S. R. Heyman (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 2). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.

The Wireless Association. (2009). Cell phone usage statistics: United States. Re- trieved on April 2, 2012, from http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index. cfm/AID/10323

Umbarger, C. C. (1983). Structural family therapy. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. Wolff, P. (2012). Skype journal: Collaboration, communication, identity, and

plat forming. Retrieved on April 2, 2012, from http://skypejournal.com/blog/ category/statistics

Copyright of American Journal of Family Therapy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.