Running Head: AN ANALYSIS OF THE “C” FAMILY 1
An Analysis of the “C” Family
Iris Gonzalo-Sowle
NUR 531
State University of New York Institute of Technology
November 2012
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 2
Introduction
There are several definitions of family. One deals with the biological relationship such as
“any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins”
(dictionary.com, 2012). Another definition can be “a group of people who are generally not
blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live
together” (dictionary.com, 2012). There are many different types of families nowadays with the
increase in divorce and remarriage, foster parenting, kinship care, single parenthood, adoption,
and same-sex relationships.
A healthy family is a family “who live together, share with one another, work together,
care and support each other, keep each other safe and love each other” (Boys & Girls Clubs of
America, 2009, p.3). There should also be a level of mutual respect between family members.
According to the International Council of Nurses (2002), “Wherever nurses work, their
focus is on the family - its health, its ability to grow, care for itself, and contribute to the
community” (p. 5). If the patient has a positive and supportive relationship with the
family, other family members can provide support and assistance to the patient to meet the goals
set between the nurse and patient. “The health of the family has never been more important in
shaping a strong and vibrant society. As nurses help individuals and families to make healthy
choices, cope with illness and chronic disability, manage stress and work with them in their
homes, schools and workplaces, they are helping to ensure the strength of the most fundamental
building block of society” (International Council of Nurses, 2012, p.1).
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 3
The “C” Family
Introduction of the Family
The “C” family members are relatives of my husband. They are my brother-in-law and
his family. I have known my brother-in-law for fifteen years; his wife for nine years. We tend to
see each other numerous times throughout the year and during major holidays when able.
Richard. Richard is 43 years old and works at Curtis Lumber as a delivery truck driver.
He has spent most of his working life in materials management. Richard has a high school
education. He opted not to pursue higher education due to his grades and lack of motivation.
Both of his parents are still alive and live close by to Richard and his family. He has one younger
brother.
Marie. Marie is 44 years old and has been married to Richard for three years. She and
Richard have been together for a total of nine years. She was previously married for fifteen years
and did not have any children. She also works at Curtis Lumber but in the sales office. She has
some college education. Both of her parents are also still alive and live an hour away. She has
two sisters and two brothers. She is the second eldest child.
Ned. Ned is seven years old and the only son of Richard and Marie. He is an elementary
school student in the second grade.
The C Family
Name Age Race/Ethnicity Family Type Family
Role
Occupation Hobbies/
Interests
Richard 43 Caucasian;
Dutch/English
Nuclear/
Traditional
Father Delivery
truck driver
NASCAR,
Hunting
Marie 44 Caucasian; Nuclear/ Mother Sales office Crafting,
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 4
Irish Traditional/
Divorced/Dyad
worker Reading,
Shopping,
Herbs/Organic
Ned 7 Caucasian;
Dutch/English/Irish
Nuclear/
Traditional
Son Student Toys, Video
games
Systems Theory
Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy authored the general systems theory in the 1950’s.
This theory provided a framework that could be applied to all types of systems, including family
systems. Bertalanffy proposed that a “living organism is an open system in which information
flows both in and out of the system. As a result, continuous change is experienced by living
systems, as the information travels back and forth, and as the system moves toward higher levels
of organization and wholeness” (Tacker, 2007, pp. 11-12). Since then, the theory has evolved
into different theories, one being the systems theory.
Central Concepts
Systems and relationships. A family is composed of many subsystems, such as marital,
sibling, and parent-child. In each of these subsystems are the individual subsystems:
husband/father, wife/mother, and child/sibling. These individuals are their own subsystems,
comprised of physical and psychological systems.
The family system is just one system nested within another larger system, the
suprasystem. Examples of suprasystems include the neighborhood, the community, and other
organizations such as work and church.
Systems are “arbitrarily defined by their boundaries, which aid in specifying what is
inside or outside the system” (Wright & Leahey, 2005, p. 33). These boundaries can be physical
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 5
(such as the number of people in the family) or imaginary (such as the beliefs and behaviors the
family system uses to function). The systems’ boundaries can be seen as either open or closed in
its permeability to be able to interact with the other systems. Wright and Leahey (2005) mention
“hierarchy of systems and the boundaries that create systems are useful concepts to apply when
working with and attempting to conceptualize the uniqueness of each particular family” (p. 34).
This is important with working with certain ethnic groups where honoring a particular hierarchy
is important when interacting with the family.
One for all and all for one. Although made up of individual subsystems, the family is
an organic whole. It is an integrated system of “interdependent functions, structures, and
relationships that act as a single whole” (Rentfro, 2006, p. 154.) There are overall family images
and themes that are reflected in this holistic quality (Morgaine, 2001). The family needs to be
viewed as a whole to be understood.
The ripple effect . Within the family system, all members are interconnected with each
other. Hanson and Kaakinen (2001) use the analogy of a mobile representing the family. Mobiles
need to maintain a balance and equilibrium. Every family system “has features designed to
maintain stability or homeostasis, although these features may be adaptive or maladaptive”
(Hanson & Kaakinen, 2001, p. 79). When the equilibrium is disrupted, the family system needs
to adapt and change to reach their goal to return to homeostasis.
A living system in a constant state of change. According to Rentfro (2006), living
systems are open systems. Changes, either internally or externally, require the system to adapt
and take on a new form. The system cannot revert back to its former self because the change is
incorporated into the system.
Feedback. The family is considered an organic whole made up of different systems that
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 6
interact with each other. Circular causality is the fact that in these family systems, each family
member’s behavior is caused by and causes the other family members’ behaviors. They are each
impacting the other, in a circular and reciprocal manner.
Selection of Systems Theory
The systems theory was chosen for this paper because of the idea that the family is
considered a system that interacts with other systems, both internally and externally. The
relationships between family members and with other systems are important for the growth of
the family and to maintain its homeostasis. The systems theory resonates with this writer. The
writer interprets this particular family as a closed system when observing and interacting with the
family members.
Analysis of the Family
This family was created nine years ago when Richard and Marie started dating after being
set up on a blind date. Richard had been in several short-term relationships while Marie was
separated from her husband of fifteen years. Richard still lived at home with his parents, working
as a mechanic and in materials management, trying to resolve his issues with money and credit
card debt. Marie was living on her own during her separation. She had been told she would be
unable to have children due to her injuries stemming from two motor vehicle crashes. There were
no children with the first marriage.
Richard and Marie moved in together into Marie’s apartment shortly after a few months
of dating. Richard was content to let Marie dominate the relationship; letting her pursue her own
interests while pursuing his own. The surprise pregnancy and subsequent birth of Ned seven
years ago created several changes for the family.
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 7
Before the birth of Ned, Richard’s parents voiced their belief and wishes for Richard to
marry Marie. They valued and believed marriage was important. Marie had to seek a divorce
from her husband first; she was hesitant to pursue marriage again. After Richard’s grandmother
passed away, Richard’s parents gave her property to Richard and Marie to build a house to settle
in after Ned was born. Richard and Marie moved in with his parents after the birth of Ned up
until the assembly of a prefabricated house on the property.
Both Marie and Richard were surprised and unprepared for the arrival of Ned. Marie
always thought she would not be a mother. Richard has unrealistic ideals about how he would
raise his children, if the time came. Both sets of grandparents-to-be, especially Richard’s mother,
tried to explain to Richard and Marie how a baby would change their lives and their “ideals”
were going to be tested. Once Ned arrived, Richard took over most of the childcare, even though
both had careers outside the home. Both depended on the grandparents to assist with childcare
while they were at work. Marie’s interests in organic and unconventional ways raising Ned
caused some resistance with Richard’s parents. Richard and Marie still pursued their own
interests, leaving Ned with his grandparents; also causing friction with their parents.
Ned and Marie have several food allergies. This has caused a change in the diet that both
can eat; it can be expensive and difficult at times to deal with since Richard does not have any
food allergies. Ned has also been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, leading Marie to do a
lot of online research and trying different methods to treat the disorder. She has a dislike for
traditional medicine, opting for alternative therapies. However, she has taken Ned to different
specialists to get tested and Ned is currently in occupational therapy.
Systems and Relationships
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 8
Richard and Marie originally developed a system that worked for them. Morgaine (2001)
states, “each subsystem has its own rules, boundaries, and unique characteristics” (p. 2). Richard
and Marie bring in different values, beliefs, and experiences into their relationship. Richard was
content to let Marie dictate the relationship, which is a complementary relationship. The
relationship has not evolved or changed since the birth of Ned. Friedman, Bowden, and Jones
(2003) write that this type of relationship can become more rigid and stifling the growth of the
individuals. This was seen earlier this year where Richard voiced his displeasure over the lack of
equality in the relationship; he felt he was doing all the work.
The relationships between Richard and Marie and their parents affect the family.
Friedman et al. (2003) write that research done by Cherlin and Furstenberg in 1985 and 1986
identified that 45% of all grandparents take an active role in the family. While dependent on the
grandparents to help with Ned’s care, they are resistant to the advice given by their parents. For
example, Richard is quick to blame his parents if Ned starts having a temper tantrum while at his
grandparents’ home. He accuses his parents for giving Ned something to eat he is not allowed to
due to his allergies. His parents are careful in what they feed Ned while in their care.
Richard is not as close to his parents as Marie is to her parents. She spends a lot of time
with her mother, especially going shopping at the local stores. This causes disagreements
between Marie and Richard because of the money spent by Marie on her parents as opposed to
her own family. Both have had money issues in the past. Richard accumulated a lot of credit card
debt that he was able to resolve. Marie’s ex-husband destroyed her credit by maxing out their
credit cards and spending the money in their joint accounts. Orbuch (2012) states that “seven out
of 10 (married couples) reported that money causes tension in their relationship. One study found
that financial disagreements are often the most distressing for couples” (p. 1).
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 9
Richard’s parents don’t always agree with the methods Richard and Marie use to raise
Ned. When these methods are not always effective, Richard and Marie usually deny it is their
fault Ned is acting in a certain way. They are not very strict with Ned and often buy him toys
when out shopping. The parent-child relationship is not very positive because they do not spend
quality time with their son. They would rather spend time pursuing their own interests. Ned
spends a lot of time with his grandparents.
The family’s relationship with other systems is also lacking. Richard and Marie do not
have a large circle of friends for support. They tend to keep to themselves and do not always
attend family functions/get-togethers. Marie also has an untrusting relationship with traditional
medicine, possibly stemming from her motor vehicle crashes and being told she would not be
able to have children.
One for All and All for One
There is a lack of alliance between Richard and Marie in the family. There is little
cohesion due to the issues in the relationships between family members. Williams and Skirton
(2001) state “family members are said to be disengaged when the emotional communication
between them is sparse” (p. 441). Richard and Marie do not spend a lot of time together or with
their son Ned. They would prefer to go their own way and pursue their own interests. They
would rather buy things for Ned rather than develop bonds and traditions with him. This affects
the holism of the family system because the subsystems are not open systems to each other.
The Ripple Effect
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 10
There is interdependence between the marital relationship and the parent-child
relationship. Cox and Paley (2003), state “poor parent-child relationships often develop in the
context of distressed marriages” (p. 193). The issues between Richard and Marie are having an
effect on their relationship with Ned. Role changes taken on by Marie and Richard from the birth
of Ned have caused stress in the family. “Families often experience significant stress during role
transitions” (Friedman, Bowden, & James, 2003, p. 330). There was also hesitancy on Marie’s
part in embracing the role of mother. Research has shown that there is a difference in parenting
skills between mothers and fathers if there is unequal involvement in infant care (Friedman et al.,
2003).
A Living System in a Constant State of Change
The goal of the family is to maintain homeostasis and balance. “The family changes
constantly in response to stresses and strains from the external environment, as well as from the
internal environment” (Hanson & Kaakinen, 2001, p.79). The family should have open and
flexible boundaries to better deal with exchange of matter and energy. The system with closed
boundaries remains isolated.
This particular family has closed boundaries. Examples include reluctance to heed advice
from other systems (their parents), lack of other support systems in the form of friends, and the
preference to keep to themselves. This family cannot increase its ability to adapt or change if its
boundaries remain impermeable and inflexible.
Feedback
The challenges the family meet every day affects the family at different levels. One
example is the food allergies that Marie and Ned have that affect the diet that the family eats.
Because of their busy schedules, the family does not always eat together. Richard tends to fend
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 11
for himself because he can eat a regular diet. Marie and Ned eat a restricted diet, but mostly
depend on quick, semi-homemade meals. Marie also prefers certain foods, which hinder the
variety of food the family buys and eats. Marie will usually not eat at family gatherings because
the food is not to her preference. Richard complains Marie’s needs are not met even though she
will not mention her preferences to the hosts when asked beforehand.
This causes a type of feedback where the family further isolates themselves from family
gatherings because Marie feels she cannot eat the food being offered. Marie feels more
comfortable being with her family as opposed to being with Richard’s family. They tend to stay
to themselves while at gatherings with Richard’s family. This prevents socialization with other
family members, especially Ned with his cousins. They also do not invite family or friends to
their house, further detaching themselves from other systems. One of the important functions of
the family is to “enhance the development of individuals” (Beckett, 2000, p. 1). This circular
feedback prevents the family from achieving harmony with oneself, the family, and the
community.
Conclusion
Beckett (2000) writes a definition of health as “family resiliency or the ability of the
family to respond to and eventually adapt to the situations and crises encountered over the family
life cycle” (p. 1). The systems theory and its components go along with this notion in the fact
that the family, as a system, has to adjust to maintain balance and homeostasis as it encounters
internal and external forces that affect the family on a daily basis. The family system undergoes
continuous change as it deals with these influences.
Not all families undergo positive and productive changes to be healthy, as noted in the
family discussed for this paper. Richard and Marie believe their family system “mobile” is
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 12
interdependent and interactive. This is not the case. Throughout the analysis, this family is
shown as not meeting the basic purposes “to meet the needs of the society in which it is a part
and to meet the needs of the individuals in it” (Friedman et al., 2003, p. 4).
Healthcare professionals need to look at the family as a whole, not just as individuals.
These family members’ relationships with each other, even if maladaptive, greatly influence one
another. Developing a productive and positive relationship is paramount in promoting and
changing behaviors and beliefs that are beneficial not only to the family, but the other systems it
interacts with.
References
Beckett, C. (2000). Family theory as a framework for assessment. Retrieved from
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 13
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~nur350-c/2_family/theory/lesson2-1-3.html
Boys & Girls Clubs of America. (2009). What is a family?. Retrieved from http://familyplus.
bgca.org/YourFamily/EffectiveParenting/WhatisaFamily/Pages/default.aspx.
Cox, M. J. & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12 (5), 193-196. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20182875
Cultural/Systemic Approaches: Family Systems Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:L1Ugksa2GHYJ:www.bluffton.edu/cours
es/tlc/nathp/powerpoint/familysystems.ppt+circular+causality&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&sr
cid=ADGEESihhO31dk46PdofB0Zilrklfav0enuxuyQRNKsvO8WSpl9-
k8W5SbJxyVLV0JsdIzqx9503pzWlgmRD5smPyL7HKoWTR5ugeRe9JbblClb5Y218zS
SzaihYf0LCNC6GN9ytV5nB&sig=AHIEtbT3A4sYAKv5RXo09gm-JuDHOrLj3w
Family. (2012). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/family.
Friedman, M. M., Bowden, V. R., & Jones, E. G. (2003). Family nursing: Research, theory, and
Practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hanson, S. M. H. & Kaakinen, J. R. (2001). Theoretical foundations for nursing of families.
In S. M. H. Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, & J. R. Kaakinen (Eds.)., Family health nursing:
Theory, practice, and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 69-95). Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis.
International Council of Nurses. (2002). Nurses always there for you: Caring for families.
Retrieved from http://www.icn.ch/images/stories/documents/publications/
ind/indkit2002_part1.pdf.
International Council of Nurses. (2012). 2002 - Nurses always there for you: Caring for families.
Retrieved from http://www.icn.ch/publications/2002-nurses-always-there-
ANALYSIS OF THE FAMILY 14
for-you-caring-for-families.
Morgaine, C. (2001). Family systems theory. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Child
and Family Services, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.
Orbuch, T. (2012). Relationship rescue: Resolving money issues. Retrieved from
http://www.nextavenue.org/article/2012-09/relationship-rescue-resolving-money-issues
Rentfro, A. R. (2006). Health promotion and the family. In C. L. Edelman & C. L. Mandle
(Eds.), Health promotion: Throughout the life span (6th ed.) (pp. 152-177).
St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Tacker, M. K. (2007). Family experiences of the terminal illness and death of a family member
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://udini.proquest.com/view/family-
experiences-of-the-terminal-goid:304720970/
Williams, J. K. D. & Skirton, H. (2001). Genomics, family nursing, and families across the
life span. In S. M. H. Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, & J. R. Kaakinen (Eds.)., Family health
nursing: Theory, practice, and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 437-455). Philadelphia, PA: FA
Davis.
Wright, L. M. & Leahey, M. (2005). Theoretical foundations of the calgary family assessment
and intervention models. In L. M. Wright & M Leahey, Nurses and families: A guide
to family assessment and intervention (4th ed.). (pp. 29-55). Philadelphia, PA:
FA Davis.