In spite of enormous changes in its structure and functioning, the family is still the main context in which most people are brought up. The family provides safety and nurturance for young people with opportunities for development and growth. The family also provides continuity from one generation to the next, passing down family traditions and beliefs. Finally, the family provides a connection between individuals and the society in which they live. All of these functions are steeped in culture, and are made all the more complex because of culture.

Each family has its own culture, made up of ethnic, religious, historical, educational, socio-economical, and racial aspects. The complexity of family culture is strongly affected by the coming together of people with different cultural identities. When two people from different cultural, ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds form a family, there are significant issues to be addressed. For example, concepts of family may be narrower for Pakeha (involving primarily the nuclear family) than for Maori (where kinship ties are broader and more extended), impacting on the ways in which a multicultural family might operate. So the sharing of personal information might be widespread within an extended Maori family, while a traditional Pakeha family may consider that the nuclear family should be separate from extended family when it comes to sharing personal information.

Christians and Muslims believe in one god, while Hindus and Buddhists believe in many gods, creating the potential for significant conflict and disruption within families with mixed beliefs. Even within a single religious group, there may be powerful differences in beliefs and practices. Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have different ways of observing their Christian faith that have led to civil war, much less conflict within families!

In a country that is bicultural at its core, like New Zealand, there is an ongoing evolution of identity within individuals and families. Importantly, ethnic or racial stereotypes predict that any individual identifies with one particular culture, but as we have learned in the last fifty years from studies around the world, individuals’ cultural identity exists on a continuum – people relate to culture in a range of ways. There are some who relate strongly to a particular culture and its practices and beliefs, and there are others who relate weakly to, or even reject entirely, the idea of a particular culture for themselves. At the extreme, these people prefer to create a cultural identity that provides a good fit with their personality, life experiences, and goals.

The migration of families from one distinctive culture to another also puts enormous pressure on the family’s cultural beliefs and practices. While experiences differ between migrant families, they all have adjustment issues as they struggle with the loss of familiar country and culture, and the need to fit into the new environment, often with a language that is completely foreign to the migrants. Systems such as government agencies, legal structures, and educational institutions have a significant influence on the cultural practices of any family. For example, in a predominantly Judeo-Christian society, Muslim families may find practices and laws that are in direct conflict with those associated with their religion.

There is no doubt that migration is an extremely stressful process, and many families separate as a result of these stresses. In separation and divorce, religious and cultural differences between parents are highlighted once again, and can lead to protracted custody disputes. While the parents were together, they may have been tolerant of each another’s differences, and may have agreed on a particular cultural practice or combination of practices for the family. However, the anger and hurt caused by relationship breakdown and separation can make people return to their original beliefs and practices, and result in bitter arguments about parenting and childcare.

In some cases, a parent has walked away from a child forever because he or she could not tolerate the idea of the child being influenced by the other parent. It is also fairly common for children of immigrant families to want to fit in with their new cultural environment, and this can cause significant family distress as adolescents reject parental authority and belief systems and try to forge their own identities. While these processes occur in all cultures, they are exaggerated when the adolescent’s development is complicated by the differences between his or her parents’ culture and the culture of their adopted country.

It has been suggested that there are three qualities of family functioning that are common to all successful families, and that play a critical role in determining the ability of a family to cope with stress – irrespective of what that stress is.

The first quality is family flexibility – the ability of the family to adapt to changing demands from within the family and from the world outside the family.

The second quality is family communication. Open, straightforward discussion using positive communication strategies allows difficult issues to be resolved.

The third quality is family cohesion – the extent to which family members show their interest in each other, support each other, and enjoy each other’s company.

It is in the development of these three qualities that families are able to tolerate differences within their own systems and differences in the external world.

It is no wonder that with such tremendous change occurring at all levels that some distress is inevitable. As world expert on infant mental health, Bruce Perry, has suggested – we were designed to have babies in clans, in those days when there were more adults than children and there was a shared responsibility – in our modern society this idea has been turned on it’s head and mum is often at home with one, two or more children on her own, causing considerable stress. Some anxiety and worry about pregnancy and parenting a new baby is normal and research has shown that increased worries and intrusive thoughts (which for some people can even be quite bizarre or disturbing in nature) are normal at this time. However, if you find that you are worrying for a large part of the day, that you are losing sleep (in addition to waking for the baby) or experiencing physical symptoms of anxiety such as racing heart or muscle tension, then you may need some professional help to reduce anxiety. A visit to your GP is the first place to seek help and they can put you in touch with a number of support agencies or professionals if needed. You can also visit the website www.mothersmatter.co.nz for comprehensive information on adjustment to motherhood as well as anxiety and depression in this period. With everything in flux this is also a time of great opportunity – of greater awareness and new perspectives and a baby can provide the motivation to make changes in areas of our life that are not working well.

Publication Title:  Families as relationships.
Publication Author:  R. M. Milardo & S. Duck (Eds.) 
Publisher, year of publication: John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2000.

This volume provides a wide-ranging look at family functioning from the particular perspective of personal relationships. The approach taken emphasises the functional, or process, nature of families rather than the structural or systemic approaches that have typically dominated family therapy. The chapters cover a wide range of relationships including parent-child, spousal, and relationships with people outside the family. As well as individual relationships, the various authors address family life cycle transitions such as the early years of marriage with the introduction of children, children growing up, divorce, and the inclusion of elderly parents into families. In this review, I will describe some of the aspects that I liked and some of the aspects I didn’t like.
First – the things I liked.  Almost all authors argue for an approach to understanding relationship functioning that is dyadic and context dependent. For example, Crouter and Helms-Erikson point out that “much of the literature on child development has focused on the impact of maternal employment status on children’s psychological adjustment rather than on the connections between mothers’ and fathers’ ongoing daily experiences at work and their children’s ongoing daily experiences at home” (p 114). Cooney argues for a more dyadic approach to the study of adult-child relationships across the lifespan, rather than investigating individuals outside of the context of their relationships. Duck makes a plea for researchers to investigate relating rather then relationships, attending to the reciprocal processes operating within relationships rather than the apparent structure of the relationships. In the reality of clinical practice with families, context and reciprocal relationship processes are where interventions are often directed, making these approaches indispensable.
I found a number of research findings that will be helpful in my clinical work with families. For example, Cooney makes an important point in noting that the separation-individuation processes typically identified with adolescence are usually assumed to be a function of the adolescent’s drive for autonomy. However, this approach does not take into account of the parents’ role in this process and, in particular, the developmental challenges facing the adults at this time (approaching middle age), and the effect of this transition on their parenting.
It was encouraging to note that, in contrast to popular perception, most children whose parents have divorced are resilient, adapt well to parental divorce, and function in the normal range of adjustment. Fine and Demo did a good job of debunking some of the popular myths surrounding the effects of divorce on parents and children alike, for example, providing evidence that the altered authority structure in single-parent families facilitates closeness, autonomy, and mutual support in parent-child relationships.
An interesting approach was that taken by Klein and Johnson. In their chapter, marital conflict is analysed using a dual concern model – two orthogonal dimensions of other-concern and self-concern. What is helpful about this model is that motivations involved with conflict can be assessed on two dimensions – selfishness and selflessness are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This approach could be used to help couples understand that the apparently hostile partner is likely to have some degree of selflessness in their motivation.
Freud emphasised the roles of love and work in human functioning, and therefore, there is the appropriate inclusion of the impact of work on the family. Apart from the usual research on the division of housework, attention is paid to the nature of the work performed by the adults in the family. Crouter and Helms-Erikson addressed issues such as the nature of the work that men and women perform. For example, they reported findings suggesting that quitting work has the positive effect of reducing subsequent behaviour problems in children “only if the mother’s job had been characterised by low occupational complexity or very long hours”. It is suggested that complex jobs reinforce and strengthen mothers’ intellectual skills in ways that pay off for their children’s learning. Good news for working mothers who enjoy their jobs but feel guilty about not being at home full-time! However, when both parents are in particularly complex jobs, time and energy for children can be compromised.
Second, the things I didn’t like. I was irritated by the fact that the references are all put together at the end of the book rather than at the end of each chapter. This means that I cannot photocopy an individual chapter for teaching purposes. Attention to gender and cultural issues are also welcomed, but the view is predominantly North American, leaving us with the usual questions about the applicability of the findings to our culture.
All in all, this is a useful text that I will be dipping into from time to time to broaden my outlook on family relationships. It is a good example of a book written by academics that has plenty of potential for practical application – a scientist-practitioner’s dream.

Reviewer:     Fran Vertue
Review date: 2004

It’s 10am on a Saturday and the Jones family are very busy. Mike (the dad) is taking James (the 12-year old son) to soccer; Joan (the mum) is helping Brittany (the 10-year old daughter) make a puppet for her school project, while Nathan (the 6-year old son) is racing through the house chasing the dog in a hectic game of tag. This family went to see a psychologist yesterday because they are worried about James’s angry outbursts at school and at home. His teachers are concerned that he is disruptive in class, gets into fights, and is not learning much, and his parents are worried about the amount of fighting that goes on between James and his siblings at home. Last week, he became so angry while his mother was demanding an explanation for his aggression that he lashed out and hit her. Everyone was shocked. Mike and Joan are becoming increasingly concerned that Brittany is also becoming aggressive, defiant and oppositional.
The Jones family would describe themselves as a very close family. Their extended family would agree with this, and people outside of the family would say that that they really stick together. They spend most of their time together, being very involved in each other’s activities, seldom have visitors around, and don’t visit other people much, apart from family. Weekends revolve around family outings or activities. Mike and Jenny both say that they don’t have hobbies or recreational activities outside of the family, and depend on each other to talk about problems. They are very firm about the values they hold, and make sure that the children share them. These are values of absolute loyalty to the family, not disclosing their problems to people outside of the family, and shielding their children from outside influences in the form of videos, movies, and books they disapprove of. They also believe in including their children in decision-making. For example, everyone was included in the decision to move to a new neighbourhood, and James knows about the financial pressures his parents face due to an increased mortgage. In fact, Joan sometimes describes James as her “little helper” because Mike does a reasonable amount of travelling with his work, and she finds that James is good company in the evenings before he goes to bed.
On the face of it, there don’t seem to be many clues in this story that might point to an explanation forthe family’s current difficulties. However, an examination of how this family functions as a system (all members are connected together in a network that changes when one member of the family changes) may provide valuable information. As psychologists, we always look at the family system within which a child lives. No child operates as an island within a family, and all members play some part in the way the family, and its members, work. When we get to know a family, we are interested in at least three characteristics of the family, and we will look at these in this article.
The first characteristic we look at is how closed or open the boundary around the family is. That is, how much information is able to pass from the family members to the outside world, and how much influence the outside world has on the family members. When the boundary around the family is very closed, there is a benefit and a cost. On the one hand, the family feel very involved with each other and don’t ask others for help, preferring to work their problems out themselves. Children are not exposed to influences that might model inappropriate behavior and remain innocent of the negative aspects of the world. On the other hand, children may grow up not knowing how to be independent, how to get on with people who are different from themselves, and may remain dependent on their families into adulthood. Important world events and the changes in culture and society are not given time for discussion and  judgements. Members have no other families with which to compare the way they operate, so may be unaware of unhelpful patterns in their functioning. In contrast, when the boundary is completely open, there may be little sense of belonging or commitment to each other between members. This can mean that children grow up with an incomplete sense of who they are as people, as there is no family culture (with its birthday rituals, beliefs and standards) with which to identify, or against which to rebel! This makes it hard to know what to stand up for, or how to make a new family when their time comes. Additionally, children may be exposed to potentially dangerous external influences without parental guidance before they have the maturity to be able to evaluate them, such as violence, drugs and unsafe sexual practices.
Therefore, the optimal situation is one in which information is allowed into the family in a way that is appropriate for the less mature members, and allows family functioning to adjust to changes inside and outside the family. For example, without good information from the world, parents may find it difficult to adjust their parenting practices to allow for the developmental changes associated with their children becoming adolescents. Equally, family members are able to access people and information outside of the family that broadens their knowledge and experience of the world and enhances their development.
The second characteristic we look at is the particular style of communication and balance of intimacy and independence between family members. Members need to know enough about each other to be able to support and care for each other. On the other hand, privacy is respected, and members are free to develop independence and autonomy as they mature – able to survive without constant input from each other. Members spend enough time together to know each other, but have enough time for independent activities that enable them to develop friendships and activities outside of the home. Communication is direct so that members can let each other know, in unambiguous ways, what they need from each other. There is no need to use a third party to pass on messages, or to put pressure on another. For example, one parent can give an instruction to a child without needing to use the other parent as an enforcer, and members do not have to resort to manipulation by "emotional blackmail" to get their needs met. This kind of open and respectful communication is only possible if it is modelled by the more mature members of the family. Listening (without interrupting) and allowing differences of opinion are important when discussion is appropriate, but when serious decisions need to be made, the adult members of the family need to be in charge.
Our third important characteristic is the structure of the family, which helps members to know and perform their particular roles effectively. The family system contains subsystems within it. First, the adults run the family and make up the parental subsystem. They make and enforce the rules, identify and solve problems when they arise, and seek outside help when needed. The adults do not depend on the children to meet their needs for intimacy and emotional connection. Thus, there is a clear boundary between adults and children, ensuring that children are not drawn into adult problems, which are beyond their maturity to understand or solve. It is often the case that this kind of boundary-crossing leads to significant anxiety in children, and can also mean that the adult does not reach for a more appropriate adult confidante. This boundary has another function in that it allows siblings to support each other as they are at the same level. When one child has been drawn into the parental arena, another child is left without vital sibling support. Sometimes one adult joins forces with one of the children (particularly when the adult feels disconnected from other adult) and an alliance is established that pits one adult plus one child against another adult or child. In this case, the boundary between adults and children is violated as are the parental and the sibling subsystem boundaries.
Most importantly, a family that thrives is flexible enough to adapt to changing demands – both within the family and in the environment. This requires that members stay available to communicate with each other; that the adults are ultimately in charge of the family until the children are mature enough to take an active role in family decisions; that there is enough intimacy to ensure caring, and enough separateness to ensure independent development; that adults seek adult allies and not rely on their children for emotional support; that children are spared the anxiety of adult difficulties and are only given responsibilities that are age-appropriate; and that members seek out and heed appropriate information from the world around them to help make good decisions that ensure the positive development of all family members.
If we examine the Jones family in terms of the characteristics described here, we can see that their family boundary may be somewhat closed; that communication is becoming more and more aggressive; that there may be little opportunity for independent activities, causing frustration in a pre-adolescent; and that the parent-child boundary may be blurred between James and his mum, possibly causing him considerable anxiety. Importantly, there seems to be a lack of flexibility in terms of changing the way they work as a response to the changing developmental needs of all of the family members.