Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    1 Pages Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy PDF

    Uploaded by

    AriadniTralala

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    1 Pages Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy PDF

    Uploaded by

    AriadniTralala
    6 views85 pages

    Original Title

    1_Pages_Ivan_Boszormenyi-Nagy.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views85 pages

    1 Pages Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy PDF

    Uploaded by

    AriadniTralala

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 85
    Ivan (Boszormenyi_Nagy, m0. Director, Family Peyehintry Brim Easter Peonsyvania Pychianic ears Profesor of Pyehinteys Hahei Mestcal Coege Philadephia, Pennsevunis Geraldine M. Spark, m.s.w. Assoate Director Family Peyehiney Dison Eastern Pennsyhvanis Psyehiatic Inc Philelphis,Penaayvana Invisible Loyalties éprocity In Intergenerational Family Therapy Reciprocity In In D svar depose isso ay NSS Yor hn anes, London it tt et ‘eed sod in any meer wince ee {Usted Seat meres eto es yeas Eocene apt ae ROSH” sesvs — anr ISBN 06- 1405213, * nL Senk ernie nt Contents 1, CONCEPTS OF THE RELATIONAL SYSTEM. 1 ‘The Clinical Significance of the System Outlook 9 ‘The More It Changes the More IIs the Same Thing n Conservative Modernism: Eseape from Privacy 12 Ie There Room for Objective “Realty” in Close Relations? 4 What Is the Objective Reality of the Person? 15 2. THE DIALECTIC THEORY OF RELATIONSHIPS 18 Relational Bowndaies a Obligation Hierarchy and “Internalization of Objects” 95: Power Versus Obligation a Altemate Bases for “Accounting 26 Surface-Depts Anitesis 28 Retributive Dynamic Basis of Learning an Individoation or Separation? 3 Dovetuling between Systems of Mert Accounting 32 General Implications Mt 3. LOYALTY a ‘The Invisible Fabric of Lo a Needs ofthe Individual Versus Needs of the Multiperson System 8 of Contents Teansgenerational Accounting of Obligations and Mert Guilt and Ethical Implications Intergenerational Structuring of Loyalty Conflicts JUSTICE AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS Fairness and Reciprocity Personal Versus Structural Exploittion/Quantitative Aspects/System Levels of Bookkeeping, Systemic and Individual Considerations of Social Ethies Double Standards of fn-Croup Loyalty The Justice of the Human World and the Revolving Slate Ledgers of Justice and Psychological Theory From Talioni to Divine Justice Societal Implications of the Dynamic View of Justice dividual Versus Collective Accountability Tndividual and Multigenerati How Objective Can Merit Accou ‘The Special Poston of the Fasily Parent-Child Ledgers Children’s Inherent Rights Notes on Parana ‘Therapeutic Implications Further Implications 1 Accountability ing Be? 5. BALANCE AND IMBALANCE IN RELATIONSHIPS Rel nal Malfunction and Pathogenicity The Burden of Keeping the Accounts of Advuntages/ Patterns of Loyalty Conflict in Martiage/ Therapeutic Potent of the F Balance of Loyalty Obligations! The ‘Autonomy Redefined (Developmental Dimensions)/The Real Tutor: A Tragic Item of the Day/Filial Regard, Loyalty, and Fyo Strength? Loyalty Implications of the Death of an Adults Parent Flight from Facing the Ledger ‘Repudiation/Forms of Relational Stunation Overt Failure (Distoyalty to Self}/Sevual Failure as Cover Unresolved Loyalty Confict/Froesing of the Inner Self/Marital Loyalty Obtoined at the Bxpense of Vertical Disloyalty/Achievement at Relational 9 00 100 no Contente Stagnation: Money as o System Dimenston Substitute Forms of Indirect Mastery Negative Loualty/Sacrificed Social Development as Act of Latent Devetion/Splitting of Loyalty/Mantputation of Displaced Retrbution/Inoestuous Attempts at Resolution of Obligations /Cuilt against Guilt/On Repaying the Therapist in Transference/ Liberation of Siblings through Suicide Societal Myths and Loyalties Conelusions 6, PARENTIFICATION Possession and Loss of Loved Ones Parentifeation and Role Assignment ‘Manifest Caretaking Roles/Sacrificial Roles/Neutral Roles. Pareatifiation and Pathogenicity in Relationships Syatens of Commitments The Relational Foundations of Parentifeation “The Role of Choice in Commitment/ Commitment as 1 Symmetrical Process (Disloge)/Commitment to Society at Large and Parentification/ Commitment and “Symbiotie” Dediffeentintion (Fusion) Loyalty Commitment and Morality Implications for Therapy and Conclusions 7. PSYCHODYNAMIC VERSUS RELATIONAL DYNAMIC. RATIONALE. clational and Psychosnalytie Concepts: Convengences ‘and Diverstences "Needs Versus Mert as Motives/Substitutive Balancing Loyalty Implications of the Transference Model in Peychotherapy “Multiperson Versus One-Person Structuring of Motivations! Tndividuation: Differentiation or Extrangement/Tntersal Versus Contextual Confrontation/Symptom as Loyalty/ Transference tion 14 16 Mas 151 153, 159 158 159 163 165, 1st 167 179 190 it Contents 5 FORMATION OF A WORKING ALLIANCE BETWEEN ‘THE COTHERAPY SYSTEM AND THE Fant HE co "AMILY Referrals Description of the Families: Initial or Solutions Initial Steps in the Working Alliance Diagnosis and Prognosis ‘The Family's Capcity for Work/Consensual Agreement/Symptomatic Relief Initia! Reality and Transference Resstons to Catherapists and Treatment: Resistances, Family Expectations/ Ambivalent Atitudes/Superego Expectations/Current Relationships Used as Peery Substtates Cotherapy Team a5 a System ‘etetions toa Family System and Its Effcets/Case Presentation: The S Family (The Contract with the § Family) Case Presentation: The B Family / Discus Conclusions ‘The Individual and His Family Relationships ‘Nuclear and Extended Family Relationshipe In-Laws as 2 System of Balance Inclusion of Grandparents in Sessions ‘Techniques and Comments Regarding the Inclusion of ‘Aged Parents) ‘Clinical Excerts from Sessions Whi Include the Axed Parents and Their Children Family #1 Session # 1: Celia Land Her Mother (Ar K)/Session #2: Celia and Her Mother (Mrs KY/Session #3; Stove and Celia (Marital Paiy/Session #4 Sieve and Celia Family #2 Session # |. Sarah Ce Sara's Sister Molly, and Thelr Mother/Session #2 Sarah and Her Mother/Session #3: Jock G (Buxband of Sarah G), His Sister Lisa, and Their Mother/Seeion #4 Following Week): Jack ond Sarah G Family #3 Session # f Bose D aul Her Mather/Sesriom # 2 Projection of Problems 192 194 195 196 197 200 204 228 10. nL. Contents Albert and Rose D and Rose's Mother/Session # 3: ove and Her Mother/Seesion #4; Rose and her Mother/Session #5: Albert and Rose and Rose's Mother/Session #6: Rose and Her Mother Family #4 Session # I: Ruth S and Her Father and Mother/Sossion #2: Bob and Ruth §/Sestion #3 (Next Week): Ruth, Bob and His Father/Session #4 (fellowing seeek): Bob, His younger Brother Joe, and Their Father Conclusions CHILDREN AND THE INNER WORLD OF THE, ‘MILY INTERGENERATIONAL TREATMENT OF A FAMILY THAT BATTERED A CHILD Historical and Research Data intrapsychic to Relational Concepts ly System Point of View ‘Treatment Considerations Role of Children Therapy of the Children Clinical Mlustation ona 248 248 252 254 262 212 = Contente Referral Information/ Mother's History/ Father's History/Marital Relationships/ Initial Phase of ‘Treatment/Second Phase of Treatment/Thiel Phase of Treatment/Final Phase of Trestment/ Case Diseussion/ Therapeutic Relationship with the Family/Therapis’s Resetions/Trestment Goals Conclusions aor 12, 4 RECONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN 4 FAMILY AND A COTHERAPY TEAM 303 Family History 207 First Year 5309 Session #1: Four Circles: A Beginning/ Sesion #4 Current and Historical Relationships/ Session #6: Parental Nonresponsibiity/Sesion #7: Bexinnings of ‘Change in the System/Session #8; The Peace-naker Hole/Session #10; Challenge ofthe “Well Sibling Myth/Session # Ll: Confrontation Regarding Desteuctively Chaotie Respanses/Session # 14 ‘Transference Manifestatione/Session # 16: Amorphous Sexuality and Lack of Boundaries/Session #22. Transference Dimensions between Mrs. P ‘Therapsts/Sesson #26: Marital Iucom Revealed (Separate Sesion with the Couplel/Sesson #30; Regressive Behavior and More Inappropriate Responses/Session #32: Double Bind an Layally Issues/Session #39: Negative Aspects of ergenerational Loyalty are Reexpericnced/Sessi #44: Three Generational Dimensions of Mr. P. are Explored/Session #48: Four-Generational Kelational Exploration (Ms. P and MGM Present)/Session #49: The Process of Negative Identification and Layally Continue to be Explored/Session #50: Nexative Ldentifcation Shifts Year I: Grossrouds of Change 34 Session #53: System Changes inthe Marital Relationship/Session #54: Further ‘Transference Session #56: Systern Shi Separation Isues/Session #60: Children ws Safety Valves for Marital Dissatistaetion/Session # 61 Contents Despuir and Suicidal Thoughts ‘Therapists as Seanegonts/Session #62: Children Can Bo Dependently Age-Appropritte/Session #65: Children ss Sexual Insulators Session #68: Infantile Seductive More Despair and Changes (Mrs 8. Absent) Session '#88; Transference Dimensions/Sesson #96: Separation Issue and New Responses/Session #97: Ambivalent Response to Separation Continues (Two Paronts and Anne) Year Hl: Reconstruction and Termination a3 ‘Session. # 104: Multigenorational Conncetions/Session #105, Individual Session with Lucille/Session #123: ‘The Dying Grandparent/Session # 124: Combined Individual and Family Session/ Session # 129: Separation Steugales/ Session # 130: Thee Generations Inlerlocking/Session # 131: Relationships Redefined: ‘The Dislectic of Being Both Daughter and Mother/Session #132: Losses are Being Faced: urther Parallls in Mothering/Session #137; The Mourning Procest Continues/Session #138; A Shift in 1 Extended Family Member/Session #143: Further Clarification in the Marital Relationships/Session #144: Sexual Exploration Continues/Session #147: Strengthened Family Relationships/Session #157: Death of Maternal Grandmother/Session #159: Progress i Sustained/Session # 163: The Mourning Process Continues/Sersion #165: Termination rocess/Session #170: Last Session Summation of Fist Year of Treatment 343 Second Your of Treatment 345 ‘Third Your of Treatment 36 ‘The Funily’s Transference and Reality Relationship wit the Gotherapy Team 348 Conclusion 353 ‘Moltigenerationsl Reconstruction and the Dynamic Meaning of Family Loyalty and Indebtedness/The Main Mechanisn of Change/Grandmother’s Ines ‘Opens the Gate. sit Contents 13. BRIEF CONTEXTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE ‘CONDUCT OF INTERGENENATIONAL THERAPY Ethics of Individuals and Relational Systems Mapping of Ledgers. Definitions Goals Activity of the Therapist Taking Sides ‘The Therapist in His Own Family Loyalty and Trustability ‘Transference, Projection, and Extrusion of the Therapist ‘Treatment of Both Systems and Persons Rebalancing through Reversal Instead of Reviewing Past, ‘Relationships id's Symptom asa Signal the Systemic Roots of Paranoia Duration Progress and Change Indication and Justification: In Whose Behalf? EPILOGUE, Future Areas of Redefnition of Reciprocity, Merit and Justice [REFERENCES INDEXES Author Index Subject Index 69, 363 365 365 367 68 369 310 am 312 313 316 ar 37 378 378 380 388 pn 307 Preface We live in,an age of ansiety, fear of violence and questioning of foncamental values. Confidence in traditional values i being chal: Jeniged. Waves of prejudice seem to endanger our trust in one another and our loyalty to soetety. Television and other communieations media have pethaps too deeply affected the outlook of contemporary youth and young adults There is much talk about a "generation gap,” making fone wonder if formative family experience has became absolete and irrelevant. “The “strength” of family relations or their effoct on individuals is ‘extremely dificult to measure. The authors of this book believe that ‘observable changes inthe family do not necessarily alter the member- tormember impact of family relationships. The real forces of bondage or freedom are beyond observable power games or manipulative tac- ties. Invisible loyalty commitments to one's family follow paradoxical Tavis The martye who deesn't et ather family members “work of” the guilt isa far more powerfully contolling force than the oud, demand: ng"bully." The manifestly rebellious or delinquent child may actually 1¢ the most loyal momber of a family ‘We have learned that family relationships cannot be understood from the laws that apply to social or incidental relationships such as those between fellow workers. The meaning of relationships depends on the subjective impact emerging between You and I. The socalled “elose- nes," feared by many people, develops asa result of loyalty commit: ments which become evident ina prolonged period of living and work: ing together, whether the commitments are recognized or denied. We ‘ean terminate any relationship except the one based on parenting in reality, we cannot select our parents oF children. aa 26 Inclsible Loyalties Without a certain amount of projective idenifestion we eannot main- tain the boundary of eur own identity ‘No concept of health and pathology ean ignore the hierarchy of ‘expectations in any relationship system, The bookkeeping. of the fue- tuations of such hierarchy, on the other hand, has tonterlock with each ‘member's own personal definition ofa quasiquantitative scale of merits and of give-and-take between the self and the other. Real strength is consistent with openness to the investigation ofthe obligation hierarchy’ of one’s human world. Freedom from considering the basic merit book keeping of systems is deceptive and self-defeating. Physi! leaving oF separation without facing of the balance is at best a postponement oF srowth, Finally, without a dialectically exible opemoss we eannat fully ex: plore the immense untapped potenti] of human relationships for pre- vention of suffering and for an urgently needed revision of law, edaca tion, administration, news interpretation, eity-planning-—to name only a few. ty is an important one for the understanding of family relationships. It can have many meanings, ranging from an ind vidual, psychological sense of loyalty to national and societal codes of Civic allegiance. The concept must be defined according to the require: iments of our relationship theory ‘THE INVISIBLE FABRIC OF LOYALTY ‘The concep of loyalty can be defined in moral, philosophies, pol cal, and pryehoogial terms. Conventionally it es en deneibe a relable, postive attudeofinividals toward what has bec elled the “objet ffoyalty. The concep of multipersonalloylyfabseron te ater hand, implies the exitence of structured group expectations te Shih allmembersare committed. Inthissense opal poten eee hen Buber elle "the order ofthe human word ™ ls ams of reference str, mer commitment and action, rather than he" poyehlogted functions of “feeling” and “knowing. ee ‘Our testi ojaly es bath» group characterise and a personal attitude surpass the simple behavioral notion of law-abiding behaves, ‘We assume that inorder toe a loyal member of « group, one sto interelze the spit ofits expectations and to have-e ast e peciable tides to comply withthe internalized injunetions Ultnestsly te individual can thus be subject tothe njntins of both extend txpectationsund internalized obligation. Is interesting and pertinent in ths rogard that Froud conceived ofthe dyeamie bac of rouse felted fo soperg faction = The thie eigaton component in loyalty is fst He to the arous 38. Invisible Loyalties {nthe loyalty:bound members ofthe sense of duty, fairness, and justice, Failure to comply with obligations leads to guilt feelings which then constitute secondary regulatory system forces. The homeostasis of the obligation or loyalty system depends thus on a regulatory input of guilt, Naturally, various members have varying degrees of guilt thresholds, and a purely guit-regulated system is too painful to be maintained for Jong. Whereas the loyalty structuring is determined by the history of| the group, the justice of its human order, and its myths, each ine dividual’ extent of obligation and style of complying is codetermined by the particular member's emotional set and by his merit position im the multiperson system, ‘The issue of loyalty fabrics in families is closely connected with those of alignments spits alliances, and subgroup formations often discussed in the literature of family therapy and related studies wee Wynne, in particular), Wynne has defined alignment along functional lines: "the ppereeption or experience of two or more persons that they are joined together in a common endeavor, interest, attitude, or set of values, and that in this sector oftheir experience they have positive feelings toward ‘one another."** " ® Alignments on such functional oF emotional ‘experiential levels are significant in the changing scene of family life, ‘but more significant relational dimensions of femily alignment arg ‘based on guiltladen loyalty issues as they are affected by the balance: of reciprocal obligations and merits, NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS NEEDS OF THE. MULTIPERSON SYSTEM Aside from the silly heterosexual attraction, deeply rooted pers sonal needs for posive responses from the other have traditionally bbeen described in the psyehodynamie Iterature in dependent, on terms. The malfunctioning individuals seen as hungry for acceptance, attention love, and recognition rather than actualizing his eapeetty fap 4 more mature, independent goal orientation in lf. Consequenty dependent motivations nan adult are usally adjudged as infantile wc ‘Grtan aliative needs of a higher developmental nature are ate tributed to guilladen feeting of obligation, service, and self denying sacrificial altruism. Inthe ater case the seeking of recognition ir eae tionally perceived as partly transacted between the person andy internalized, censoring parent (superego), and, secondarily, the obligate self and the other. A more mature aati titude is Loyalty 39 ‘defined by Erikson®* under the term “generativity.” Generatvity also ‘encompasses the parenting of one's dependence on his own role va his ‘desire for establishing and concern for guiding the next generation, ‘While the evolving organization of the individuals needs into a por sonality structure ean be viewed ss passing through developmental stages, the concept of the multiperson system presupposes continuous accounting of events within a reciprocal, quasethical, or obigetion- hierarchy framework. We do not imply that the family therapist has to be concerned with the prevaling religioethical value orientations of the various individuals or of the family asa whole, Intend, we are {interested inthe ethics of personal fairness, explitation, and reciproc: ity. Although it seems tobe in keeping with current sophisticated par lance to ignore it, any social group mst rely on an ethical network oF cl face that aspect of dsintegration which Durkheim described under Soomes™ “The concept of loyalty is fundamental to the understanding of the ties, Le, the deeper relational structuring of families and other social groups. The special meaning ofthe term loyalty must be defined forthe purpose ofthis chapter. Dynamically, loyalty ean be defined aecording toits sustaining principles. Members ofa group may behave loyally out of external coercion, conscious recognition of interest in membership, consciously recognized feelings of obligation, and unconsciously bind: {ng obligation to belong. Whereas external coercion can be visible to outside observers and consciously felt interest oF obligation can be reported by members, unconscious commitments toa group can only be inferred from complex, indirect clues, often only after prolonged soqunintance with the person and the group concerned. Ultimately, loyalty ina fay wil depend on each individual's position within the Jastice of his human worl, which in turn consitites a part of the {ntergenerational family account of merits. Once alerted tothe signif cance of loyalty commitments, the family therapist isin an advanta 200s position for studying both the individual and the system manifes {ations of relational forces and structural determinants, ‘Loyalty commitment are like invisible but strong fibers which hold together complex pieces of relationship “behavior” in families as well asin larger society. To understand the functions of a group of people, nothing s more crucial than to know who ere bound together in loyalty and what loyalty means for them. Each person maintains a bookkeeping af bis perception ofthe balances of pst, present, and future give ance take. What hasbeen “invested” into the system through availability and what has been withdrawn in the form of support received or one's 10 Invisible Loyalties exploitative u of obligations, Pethaps no age has mass produced child ofthe others remains written into the invisible accounts tent for sna gain : “on anyones part When we tio "bond of get,” we {Gerounabl) commitments for mate viduals In ado, they owe shared ena [Bmbolcdenition ofthe group. The Velen ee uly loyalty consists of bonds of consanguit ity and | Teligow soups fates, profesional groups, cae he Noe "have ther owe sac oor | eva nd nea Ry eaten Sytner ey deen on wd Hiss by eoing accu of put ersecutionsead | 7 tices, reinforces intragroup loyalty. tvs “ete cing neg sehoron cca ramen the wou el We te Sorted incarnation eae | sehen tical crn W hat las such by the ily loyalty. For af one member towards another, may not Beer ee Participants, if the behavior conforma to's tee neg Instance, two siblings may owe it to thir parents Jealous rivalry so thatthe parents manta etka ot Fa cite Loyalty 41 sevua) involvement of the adolesoent daughter. Though it may delay individuation and separation, it may also balance excessive guilt over ingratitude in the emancipating adolescent. The parents implicit de- pendent demand on the daughter mey alo neutralize ther feelings of having been exploited through their devotion tothe parenting Fle. ‘The degree oftheir actual exploitation i, ofcourse, cadetermined by the extent oftheir unsettled accounts within their respective families of origin, The unconsciously parentified child may be used fora delayed rebalancing of the parents accounts with ther parents Tes not easy oases the adolescents or young adult’ true readiness for outside commitments. He may appear ready for physial separation and heterosexual involvement, bu at his core he may be very reluctant tocenterintoa loyalty bond with anyone outside the family Ie is diel. to define in any family which acts of seeming rejection serve, paradox cally, to avert the adolescent's premature individuation threst to family loyalty. Aggressive attacks insulting neglect, physical departure, withdrawal of respect, et. can all hurt the parents and yet not touch the base question of loyalty. Overt roles and verbal attitudes rarely ‘explain the status of underlying deep commitment. A "sick" or “bad” inember may effectively complement the role of an outstanding, so ally creative other member. Loyalty ethies often confict with th thi of self-control. A mother who says to er teenage daughter: "You ‘ean go out and have a good time as ong as you tell meal abou i,” may bbe prepared to retain her daughter's loyalty coraitment, atthe price of sexel permissiveness, perhaps forever. Loyalty systems can be based on both latent, cognitively unfor- mulated, preconscious collaboration among members and on formu lated"myths” of families, Their power ean be diguised most of the time, but their effects can emerge and become tangible under the threat of disengagement by a member or when the impact of the therapy process begins to disturb the homeatati balance ofthe sy team. By defnition, growth or maturation on any member’ part implies a degree of personal loss and relatonlinblance. = Layalty bonds may be considered as operationally implemented via relationship techniques, yet they themselves are ofthe nature of aims rather than means of relational existence. They are the substance of {group survival. Reliable ways of measuring the extent of loyalty com- Initments do not exist, as a result of our lack of understanding even of their main dimensions Existential involvement in quantifcaton of loyalty canbe illustrated by the common joke about the pig and the chicken. When these two found out that they are brought together only for the production of ham and eggs, the pig keenly felt the disparity of involvement: “You are being arked only for a contribution whereas they expect total commit- rent from me,” (Further attempts at quantifeation of commitments will be found in Chapter 4) Tnsight int the particular meaning ofits loyalty is fundamental to the: understanding of the deep structure or dynamics of any social group. ‘The loyal member will strive to align his own interest with that of the. group. Not only does he participate in the pursuits of his group and Share their point of view, but he will subscribe to or at least carefully ‘consider their ethical code of behavior. The relational criteria of loyalty © Sere ene Se Seg actor ae nar Seiten faster ae need senor ee Ss oe eee pease dial cee nn er eam a ae See eee eter ere el ee a oe ee rete ay oan woes Sent ep aa Ee ee eee ee ara een teak kn pea ermine errr Peat Ee ne te ee rece nn he a ec Fae a Bech nee Lh een ES Some aes aig eof ee ohh fe Se teresa ‘ut of internalized loyalty commitments. So eon Henan aly a nde een so a hnnee a oe re eae eer ene moe sea dart eng ee ae itn mete re ee Fo te hep wie Loyalty 43 ‘claim for their deeper loyalty commitment, no group can exert a high level of motivational pressure on ite membership. ‘As we suggest that understanding of loyalty commitments provides the clue to important, covert system determinants of human motive tion, we also realize that we depart from the concept of deeper motiva- tions as traditionally restricted to the psychology of the individual Consequently, any satisfactory relationship theory must succeed in con. necting individual motivationel with multipersonal or relational system, concepts ‘Phenomenological end existential studies have emphasized the ontic rather than functional dependence of man on his relationships. The writings of Martin Buber, Gabriel Marcel, and Jean Paul Sertre are ‘examples ofthis school of thinking. Man, suspended in ontologieal anx fety, experiences a groundless void if he cannot establish a meaningful personal dialogue with someone or something. Ontically meaningful relationships must be motivated by mutually interlocking patterns of past and present concern and caring, on the one hand, and of possible ‘exploitation, on the other. From this ontic dependence of all members ‘on thei relationship with one another arises a main component of the superordinate, muliperson level of relationship systems. The sura of al. contologically dependent mutual dyads within a family constitutes a ‘main source of group loyalty. The family therapist must be able to conceive of a socal group whose members all relate to one another according to Buber’sI-Thou dialogue. Ifthe therapist disregards such fan understanding, he wil fail to diferentiate between family and sec. dental group relationships, perhaps even in his own family. Dependency is usually defined by the needs of the individuals in. volved, After Freud we think about human motivations in terms of needs, drives, desires, wishful fantasies, and instinet-all of them in dividvally based concepts. The family therapist will have to keep in ‘mind, however, thatthe bridge between closely related persons is built ‘more by actions and intentions than by thought and feelings, The framework that holds a relationship together relies on an ethical fabric that pervades the members’ intentions and actions: Have you proven tome that you can hear me, consider me, and eae for me? your actions prove that you do, it isnatural forme to fel and ect lyel to You, ile, to consider you and your needs. You oblige me through your openseot Even though we may appear to an outsider bike two Sighting enemies, only wo ‘an judge whether, when, and how one of us might ave broken and betrayed ur uta oy bond Ou seeming Baht maybe our way of rebauslng the ecounts of reciproity. 4 Invisible Loyalties “The mplicationsof the above vignette fo family therapy are obvious. Poychoanalyts or psychotherapists tend to assume that intensity, depth, and relevance of treatment reach their utmost in the conden til privacy of the individual therapeutic relationship, and that any decrease in one-to-one privacy is bound to lead toa more superficial ‘supportive, educational, behavior medifcation) therapeutic tnvalve- ‘ment. Yet experience has shown that the main effect of the relational bor family treatment approach consists not only tn amplification but in tscalation of therapeutic involvement. Working with all partners in a {elationship network makes “depth” issues and connections unavoida- Ue, provided the therapist can empathize with people and is sui tently aware ofthe subjective meaning of reciprocal binds of indebted. pes made invisble through denial. “The family therapist must learn to distinguish between the elemen- tary fabric of loyalty commitment systems and their secondary manifes- {ations and elaborations For example, a symbiatlc overcommitment between a marred woman and her mother has tobe recognized and therapeutically explored even though it may consciously manifest telf ssa hostile rejecting pattern. The overt quality ofthe relationship (eg, {voidance, seapogoating, paslonate warfare) isles sgnicant in deter- Inining therapeutie outcome than the extent of investment and the ‘degree of unresolved and denied obligations within each partner. “The individeal’s dynamic intereelatedness with hs human environ- ‘ment a personal one, and it eannot be pertinent characterized by ‘concepts like" general cultural pattern,” “average expectable envion- tment," or “interpersonal techniques." in Chapters 4 and 8 we suggest that man’s relationship to his context is governed by a balance of fair. nes or justice. The fact that societies and families keep a bookkeeping ccount of merits underestimated in social science literature. Our age isaccustomed to renouncing isues of ethical consequence as dynam factors Having been ralsed with a postvitc and pragiatistic over. ‘alation of scence, we are inlined to doubt whether there are any ‘ald ethical sues left between hypocrisy onthe one hand and neurotic Full feetings onthe other. "Among paychoanalytc authors Erikson has emphasized the genetic cally social character of the human individual: "The phenomenon and the concept of social organization, ands bearing onthe individual ego was, thus Fr the longest ime, shunted off by patroniaing tributes to the Erste of socal factors’ "3+ Writing about the origins of basic Mothers create a sense of trst in their children by that ration which in is quality combines sensitive care of the baby’s individual needs anda frm sense of personal trustworthiness Loyalty 45 within the trusted framework of their community’s life style." 6 ‘Trustworthiness thus implies the concept of proven ment. Further: more, the phrase “trusted framework of their community” points at source of trust whichis located inthe socal background outside mother and child. As the parenting environment “earns” trustworthiness in the eyes of the child, the child becomes a debtor to his mother and to all those who have given him trust by the worthiness of their intentions and actions. The system itself begins to place structured ethieal de- ‘mands and expectations on the child long before this srt of obligation hhasa chance of becoming conscious. Furthermore, as long asthe child lives, he will never be really free ofthe existential indebtedness to his parents and family. The more one’s environment was worthy of trust, the more one gets indebted: the less one has been able to repay the benefits received, the higher will be the accumulating debt. "The reader may wish to interpret this point in a psychological rather than existential-relational framework, but we are not referring to “pathology” of neurotic guilt feelings. We simply refer to the fact of existential indebtedness which results from having been taken care of by the parenting others ina trustworthy manner. Erikson's expression, “the trusted framework of their community,” just like Buber's term, “justice of the hurman world,” imply that many personal relationships, spanning several generations, may be required to build up an atmos. phere of balance between trust and mistrust, In the coutse of marital therapy a young husband describes his lasting un- reslvabl indebtedness to his parents The reason fr this not only that they. tried to give him the best educational, ete, opportunities, but that he wa & ecorrent troublemaker and that his father wed to bal him out of many tight situations with courts, police, schools tc In respons, his wife exclaims "Do youthink that ou children wil also owe us tht much?” It should be noted that the problem of this couple revealed the kind of loyalty coniet whieh ether couples uncover only gradually: The husband was torn between his abligations to his parents and to his wife. In this family there was also un overt and actual fiction between the two families of rain. The wifes loyalty conic took more complex expressions. She seemed tobe eager to wage a war with her in lat, and he a ade afeling of frataton bot ae of setenes in ber oom, Family of origin. In most families itis possible to discover the ways in which members ‘have been victimized by unbalanced loyalty expectations and by being drawn into mutually vindictive, displaced balancing efforts. Iti up to the family therapist to begin, atleast in his own mind, to map out the confusing and destructive exchanges within their appropriate multi, 46 Invisible Loyoltiee generational perspective. Gradually as family members learn that an "Epparentvictimizer was once himself a vietim, « more balanced view ‘of merit reciprocity among members may develop. The bookkeeping ‘of merit and loyalty obligations helps to elucidate the interlocking bes ‘ween system expectations and each individuals “need templates.” ‘The system concept does not invalidate the motivational sgniGeance ‘of each member's internalized patterns, Le, his repetitions wishes for the replication of certain early relational experiences. Many of the various individuals’ actions and attitudes can be derived from knowl. ‘edge of ther respective internalized relational orientation bookkeeping of merit within the total syater has its own factual reality and corresponding, motivational structuring throughout the genera: tions. At each marrage iti not just bride and groom who are to be Joined but also two family systems of merit. Without an ability to int Lively perceive the prospective mate as nodal point in loyalty fabric, ‘one gets married to the wishfully improved recreation of one's own Fal of origin, Each mate may then struggle to unwittingly coerce the other to be accountable for his or her felt injustices and wecrued merits {rom the family of origin, ‘Viewed from the perspective of invisible loyalties, family relation. ships tend to obtain & more relevant, coherent meaning in the eyes of the therapist. Family myths gradually reveal their understructure as an indigenous merit bookkeeping which is overtly ot covertly shared by the members. The guilt feelings of individuals are seen to correspond, to the contours ofthe mert configuration, Pattern of visible “patholog- {cal” of “normal” behavior constitute the next s)stem level. For exam , eapegoating of individuals i often determined by shared loyalty Tote ment aterm as debned and described bythe fanfy mth Even tually, it bogs to make sense tothe family therapist why individuals let themselves be willingly sacrificed in order to honor the multigenera- tional chains of obligation and existential indebtedness. ‘TRANSGENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING OF OBLIGATIONS AND MERIT ‘The origins of loyalty commitments are typically dialectical in nature, ‘Their internalized pattern originates from something owed to a parent or to an internalized image ofa parent representation (superego). In a three generational system repayment for the instilling of norms and for care and concern given to us by our parents may g0 to our children, “unrelated others, orto the internalized parents. Loyalty commitments Loyalty 47 are restricted ordinarily to certain areas of funetion, usually connected with the raising or traning of children. As the adult is eager to impart his own normative value orientation to his child, he now becomes the “reditor” in a dialogue of commitments, in whieh his child becomes the “debtor.” The debtor will eventually have to settle his debt in the intergenerational feedback system by internalizing the enpected com. ‘mitments, by living up tothe expectations, and eventually by transmi ting them to his offspring. Each act of repayment of reciprocal obliga tion will raise the level of loyalty and trust within the relationship. ‘The criteria of the “health” of the family obligation system can be {defined as capacity for propagation of offspring, and compatibility with the eventual emotional individuation of the members. Individuation should be viewed as being balanced against the loyalty obligations of the maturing child toward the nuclear family. Its definition and mes- sure can be better expressed in terms of eapacity for balancing old and ‘new loyalty commitments rather than in functional or accomplishment terms. The potential or freedam for new involvements (e, engage. ‘ment, marriage, parenthood) has to be weighed against old obligations which pull toward lasting symbiotic togetherness. ‘The measure of symbiotic committedness to one's family of origin is dificult to assess ifthe commitments have become internalized and structuralized while what appears on the surface isa neglect of family, relationships. We see persons who are rigidly attached to self'destruc- tive patterns continue on in an unresolved or seemingly unresolvable loyalty impasse with their family of origin: A 16yearold boy was referred by the court because of what the worker

    You might also like