THE FAMILY PSYCHE OVER THREE GENERATIONS:

THE GENOGRAM REVISITED*

Ellen F. Wachtel
St. Luke$-Roosevelt Medical Center
New York City

The genogram is a structured method of taking a three-generational family

history. This paper describes a variety of ways the clinician can use the geno-
gram in addition to the standard uses described i n the literature. I t also demon-
strates using the genogram as a quasi-projective technique which reveals unar-
ticulated fears, wishes and values of the individuals comprising the family unit.
Practical suggestions as to technique i n creating genograms are offered, as well
as a discussion of when, with whom and under what circumstances genograms
should be undertaken.

The genogram is a much used but little written about vehicle of family therapists.
Moreover, what has been written on it is written exclusively from the theoretical
orientation of Bowen (Carter & Orfanidis, 1976; Guerin & Pendagast, 1976; Pendagast
& Sherman, 1977). Although the genogram did develop out of that approach, family
therapists of widely divergent theoretical orientations can and do use this structure.
In itself, the genogram is nothing more than a technique for gathering information
about family relationships over a t least three generations. It is merely a diagram-a
skeleton without flesh. In taking a genogram one inquires systematically into family
patterns among aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc., in a n attempt to gather
information about patterns of closeness, distance and conflict. Carter and Orfanidis
(1976) describe a concern with such questions as whether there are similarities “be-
tween the central triangles over three generations” and whether there are “patterns of
reciprocity in the marriages in the family: who overfunctions and who underfunctions;
who tends to move in and who tends to move out” (p. 206). Such questions are of concern
in the present approach as well.
All users of the genogram share a common interest in the transmittal of multigen-
erational patterns and influences, that is, in the history of the presenting family’s
difficulties. This may a t first seem a t odds with the strong tendency of most family
therapists to be oriented towards current interactions and immediate problems. The
apparent contradictions can readily be reconciled, however, by recognizing that previ-
ous patterns are stored, transformed and manifested in the present.
The present approach to the genogram differs from that previously described by
Bowen theorists in that the latter place considerably greater emphasis on intellectual
understanding as their primary focus. Recently, for example, in response to a query as
to how much the genogram is supposed to get at unspoken feelings and how much it is

*This paper, particularly the introductory section on the theoretical rationale, benefited
greatly from discussion with my husband, Paul L. Wachtel.
Ellen F. Wachtel, JD, PhD, is a Supervising Psychologist, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Medical Center
and in private practice, 30 Christopher St., New York, NY 10014.

July 1982 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 335

Close Next
really geared toward more intellectual understanding, Orfanidis (1979) stated that the
“genogram is designed for intellectual understanding which will help people begin to
rethink their family relationships and perhaps motivate them to begin changing them”
(p. 75). Within the Bowen orientation, the descriptions of family patterns are regarded
as “facts.” Guerin and Pendagast state that once the basic data are gathered, “other
pertinent facts about the relationship process can be gathered” (1976, p. 452). Although
Guerin and Pendagast (1976) talk about helping the family deal more openly with toxic
issues revealed through the use of the genogram, and Orfanidis (1979) states that the
factual questioning opens up many emotional issues, they do not set out to do a
genogram primarily to make emotional contact.
In contrast, the present approach is very much concerned with feelings and
idiosyncratic interpretations of reality, as well as with the “hard data” that are the focus
of Carter and Orfanidis and of Guerin and Pendagast. The approach to the genogram
described here is based on theoretical assumptions similar to those which, in a different
theoretical tradition, are referred to as the “projective hypothesis,” an assumption that
“every reaction of a subject is a reflection, or projection, of his private world” (Rapaport,
Gill & Schafer, 1968, p. 52). When the projective hypothesis is utilized within the
context of family therapy it is modified in accordance with a systems perspective. The
projective hypothesis is generally regarded as assuming a kind of a-contextual person-
ality consistency, A systems theory projective hypothesis assumes instead that people
will reveal different aspects of themselves in different contexts. Thus the genogram will
not reveal the personality of the individual but may bring to light significant, non-
obvious structures which determine the person’s response to different contexts.
Using the genogram to obtain a more differentiated view of the individual is not
antithetical to a systems perspective. The individual may be viewed as the nodal point
of various interactional patterns both in the past and in the present. Interactional
patterns and individual dynamics are not mutually exclusive perspectives. A thorough
underst,anding of each requires a n understanding of the other (Gurman, 1981; Wachtel,
P. L., 1977).

GETTING AT EMOTIONS
An important, potential use of the genogram is as a way of helping family members
become more in touch with their emotions. It is often quite helpful to use the genogram,
particularly with rigidly defensive people who have trouble knowing and opening up
about their feelings. Reassured by the structured questioning and by the illusion that
they are merely telling the “facts,”these guarded and controlled individuals gradually
begin to loosen up. Impressions of interest and sympathy on the therapist’s part as the
“facts” are gathered, helps further emotional expressiveness. Since they are dealing
with “past history” and supposedly “distant” relatives, they often do not feel the need to
defend as much as when talking about what seems more obviously personally relevant.

COOLING OFF
Whether one uses the genogram to enhance cognitive understanding, to rapidly
elucidate toxic issues, or as a key to unlocking emotions, the mere process of getting the
spouses to focus on family history can be of therapeutic value. Probably all family
therapists have encountered couples whose anger a t one another is venomous. Seething
with rage, this kind of couple brings to the therapy session years of accumulated
grievances. They have kept accounts and attack each other from a n arsenal of ammuni-
tion consisting of comments made and transgressions committed many years past.
Matching story for story, these couples seem locked in a no-win contest. They enter
therapy when the gains for each of them of this way of relating no longer outweigh the

336 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1982

Previous First Next

pain of such constant hostility. Seeking relief, they come for help, but years of this way
of behaving towards one another are terribly difficult to shake, both for the couple and
the therapist. No real work can be done with such a couple until they have cooled off a
bit.
There are of course many ways of “cooling down” heated interactions ranging from
getting the couple to concretize their complaints to paradoxically prescribing the prob-
lematic interaction. When working with a couple whose “core,”like that of a nuclear
reactor, is red-hot, I find cooling down can often best be accomplished by engaging them
in doing genograms. Listening to and participating in the elaboration of each other’s
family history often provides a neutral meeting ground for the couple. It is sometimes
astounding to see how readily these marital enemies can join together and even laugh
with each other when describing their respective “crazy” or “ b a d family members.
Although ultimately effective treatment must address the core issues of conflict, it is
counterproductive to do so in the midst of destructive antagonism. This joining and
cooling off is a technically valuable therapeutic wedge which enables later confronta-
tion of key issues to be therapeutic and not merely cathartic.
In a sense, then, the genogram encourages the drawing in of their families. B m -
porarily allowing the family of origin to become an object of triangulation can be a
useful transition to working on the issues between the couple, in that i t seems to “soften
up” the rigidity of their hostile interaction. When using the genogram this way, the
therapist can foster their joining by making comments which underline how much they
know about (and perhaps have jointly suffered) each other’s family. By strategic com-
ments, the therapist helps the couple realize how much of each other’s life they have
shared. Rather than having each spouse describe only his or her own family, they are
both encouraged to help each other out in describing relatives. In working together on
each other’s genogram, they often declare a temporary truce and put aside the inexora-
ble accusations, attacks and counterattacks. Of course, some couples are unable to put
aside their rage even for this task, and use the gathering of family history as one more
occasion for recriminations and accusations. In my experience, this degree of hostility is
relatively rare, and when present, bodes ill for the prospect of real progress being made.
In addition to encouraging joining together vis-a-vis each other’s family and laugh-
ing about the tangled webs they have encountered, the genogram provides each with an
opportunity to see their spouse from a new perspective. The therapist, by commenting
on the family patterns, by reframing, by using positive connotations, and by speculat-
ing on the effect of this family history on the individual and his or her current
relationships, helps the couple see their problems from a new angle. A system can be
changed not only by changing behavior, but by altering the meaning and interpretation
attributed to occurrences. Thus, for example, during the course of charting a genogram,
a wife may discover that “love”was shown in her husband‘s family through correcting
and improving the loved one. Though she may still be greatly irked by her husband’s
“harping” on her, the insight gained from the therapist’s reframing often diminishes
anger enough to get a therapeutic edge from which t o continue working.

JOINING
In families in which the presenting problem is concern about a troubled child, one
parent is often a passive and perhaps reluctant participant in the session. This parent’s
attitude toward treatment can be of central importance in determining whether or not
the family continues to come or how fully they will cooperate in the work. The geno-
gram can be useful in this situation, because even the most guarded individual will
generally discuss his family when it is part of a structured format. People who would be
quite unresponsive t o the more open-ended request for a family history often open up

July 1982 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 337

Previous First Next

fairly readily when constructing a genogram. The genogram allows the therapist to
connect and ally with this parent on neutral territory rather than around explicit
discussion of the present family conflict. In addition, the desire to know more about the
parents’ backgrounds before working on the immediate problem reassures the ap-
prehensive party that change won’t be too rapid. The wish to understand more fully the
parents, where they come from, their values and beliefs, before “butting in” with
suggestions and solutions, is often experienced by the allegedly disengaged parent as
quite respectful and lays the groundwork for his or her cooperation later on.
For example, the Fords consulted me because the school was concerned about their
G%-year-old son who seemed withdrawn, tense and “tuned out.” Mr. Ford seemed
irritated with the school for its overreaction t o their son’s behavior. During our first
meeting, he sat expressionless, arms folded tightly in front of his chest, while Mrs. Ford
described her concern for their son. In order to engage Mr. Ford in therapy, a genogram
on his family was begun in the second session. Though initially reluctant to give more
than terse descriptions, Mr. Ford slowly began to respond to the therapist’s expression of
interest. Encouraged to elaborate, Mr. Ford described his parents as having been
completely controlled and dominated by his demanding older sister. He felt that his
parents’ submissiveness had resulted in his sister being quite troubled and unable to
cope with the ordinary stresses of life. By empathically underlining Mr. Ford’s concern
that being too accommodating to his child would be detrimental, the therapist gained
leverage and laid a groundwork for future work. Feeling understood and less fearful of
being criticized, Mr. Ford slowly began to open up about the issues in his current family
regarding his son and wife.

A RATIONALE FOR TASKS

Putting directives in a context which makes sense to the parents is often the
critical variable in determining whether or not a task will be attempted rather than
resisted. The genogram can be of great service in finding the key words and ideas which
will “work for each parent in making the task acceptable or the paradoxical prescrip-
tion credible.
For example, in the case of Mr. Ford just described, tasks were put in the context of
the importance of being “firm.” Mr. and Mrs. Ford were extremely uncomfortable with
direct expressions of anger. Their G%-year-old son had learned to fight his battles
covertly and “tuned out” rather than fight directly for autonomy. Both parents had to be
helped to better tolerate their son’s willfulness. Since we learned from the genogram
that being “firm” was of particular importance to Mr. Ford, he was told that it was
important for him to be “firm”not only when his son was making it easy, but also when
his son made it difficult by being angry and resentful. The boy was told that it was
important to make his objections loud and clear so that his father could demonstrate his
loving firmness. The father was told that he was not really being firm since his son, by
objecting covertly and tuning out, did not give him anything to stand firm against. By
putting this task under the label of “firmness,” Mr. Ford’s basic principles were not
directly challenged. Instead, he became a n ally in the therapist’s plan to help this little
boy more directly express his feelings. The mother, too, had to be motivated to tolerate
tasks aimed a t getting the boy to be more openly oppositional. For her, putting direc-
tives under the rubric of “sensitivity to his needs,” was most persuasive. (Both parents,
of course, had to begin to acknowledge and tolerate their own aggressive feelings.
Exposure to their son’s feelings helped them become more tolerant of such feelings in
themselves.)
In another case, the Whites, information gained from the genogram was used t o
justify a paradoxical prescription. Both Mr. and Mrs. White were almost to the point of

338 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1982

Previous First Next

tearing their hair out in frustration over the demandingness of their 3-year-old daugh-
ter. They were extremely resistant to tasks which involved the exercising of their
authority. Their commitment to being absolutely responsive and nurturant to their
children was central to their relationship. Though they complained about being “tyran-
nized by their daughter, they suffered jointly and, like soldiers under siege, a special
bond developed between them. Neither direct tasks nor paradoxical prescriptions based
on the immediate system seemed to make an impact. Only when genograms revealed
the extent to which both Mr. and Mrs. White felt that their parents and grandparents
had completely disregarded the needs of their children in favor of breaking their wills,
could progress be made. The Whites were told that their family histories revealed how
badly they would feel if they made the mistakes of their parents and grandparents.
They were given the paradoxical prescription that they should give their all to their
child no matter how difficult this might seem. It was explained that this was better than
chancing the guilt they would feel if they in any way resembled their families in
child-rearing practices. This directive produced the necessary recoil and “but we can’t
go on like this . . .”
The genogram is not, of course, the only way to get to know a family well enough to
find a good rubric under which a task can be put. One could simply inquire about family
history, and it is often possible to learn what is important to people by focusing
exclusively on the current interactions. The genogram has the advantage, however, of
eliciting a broad range of information which would probably not otherwise be volun-
teered. By asking for information about many people (aunts, uncles and even cousins, in
addition to parents and grandparents) repetitive themes become more apparent.
Moreover, since the data consists of descriptions of transactions in addition to the
individual characteristics of family members, the inferences which can be drawn are
particularly relevant to a perspective which focuses on the interaction between the
individual and the system.
The genogram also has the advantage that it possesses a certain mystique. Infer-
ences made from such a large body of information obtained in this rather structured
procedure, seem to carry more weight with people than the same statements based on
observations of current interactions. Thus, in the case of the Whites, described above,
saying to them paradoxically that the genogram made it clear that it was important for
them to be nurturant no matter what the cost to themselves, had a greater impact than
a statement based on the observation that they were both highly invested in being
sensitive parents.

A MAP TO THE UNCONSCIOUS

Gathering family history by means of a genogram is often regarded as something
akin to a fact-finding expedition. One need not, however, limit the genogram to an
explication of “facts”or even to hypothesis about family patterns. As implied earlier, the
genogram has the potential to be used as something on the order of a projective
technique. It is a map to the unconscious as much as it is a map of manifest family
patterns. Like some projective tests (e.g., the TAT) the genogram requires a certain
amount of attention to reality considerations, while at the same time leaving a good
deal of room for the expression of the individual’s idiosyncratic concerns.
An interest in the unconscious fears, wishes and values of the individuals compris-
ing the family unit is in no way inconsistent with a family systems approach. Although
the system is “more than the sum of its parts,” a thorough understanding of the parts
helps make clearer the workings of the whole. ‘Ib use the genogram for such a purpose,
the clinician must listen carefully to what might otherwise be thought of as little more
than “incidental” information; almost everything that is said is looked a t as potentially

July 1982 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 339

Previous First Next

revealing of some central theme for the individual and the current family system. The
stories told have both a latent and a manifest meaning.
Mrs. Green, for instance, when asked to describe her mother, recounted that her
mother had lost her father when she was only seven, and that it had been extremely
difficult for her mother to have lost a parent a t such a young age. Using this description
of her mother as a “clue,” the therapist soon elicited a discussion of Mrs. Green’s guilt
over her desire t o “abandon” her child by returning to work.
Similarly, in the case of Mrs. Smith, one of the first things she described about her
mother is that she grew up a “stepchild,” since her natural mother died when she was
13. This fact led to a discussion of how Mrs. Smith felt that she needed to “mother” her
mother and couldn’t herself be needy or dependent. This, of course, had ramifications in
her current family where she was the overly responsible parent who needed only to be
left alone, not comforted, when upset.
Along the same line, some people, when asked their mother’s name will give the
maiden name as well as the first name. This too can be a useful clinical clue. In such
instances one can make a mental note to attend to issues such as maintaining one’s
identity, differentiating from one’s spouse, or failure to separate from one’s family of
origin.
In using the genogram projectively the therapist attends carefully to the words and
phrases which carry emotional weight (both negative and positive) for the patient. An
awareness of the emotional meaning of particular words helps the therapist couch his
statements in the language that has the most impact and is least likely to mobilize
resistance. Furthermore, the therapist gains insight about the words which act as “red
flags” in the relationship.
Such a focus enables the therapist to learn more about what the patient values
than he could disclose consciously. Mr. Jones, for instance, described all the women in
his family (on both sides) in terms of how competent or incompetent they were. “Aunt
Sarah never learned how to drive a car,” or “Lucy was quick with numbers,” are the
kinds of statements he would make. On the other hand, the men in the family were
described in terms of whether they were kind or good-hearted. Mr. Jones was surprised
when the therapist pointed out what he seemed to value in each sex, and upon reflection
agreed that although he had not been conscious of this, it was a valid description of his
feelings.
The “special” meaning that particular words may have can be seen in Mrs. Reed’s
description of numerous family members as ‘krazy.” Mrs. Reed had unthinkably
adopted her mother’s description of relatives as her own. Her mother described as
“insane,” “demented,” or “crazy” anyone she intensely disliked, and Mrs. Reed con-
tinued this tradition. Saying someone was “crazy” was meant in that family as venom-
ous cursing. This was an important bit of information in that her husband would often
say things like, “it’s crazy the way she depends on me to discipline the children.” ‘Ib her
this was a severe criticism, while to him it was little more than a manner of speech.
But it is not just the words which convey unrecognized implicit meanings. The
affective tone can also reveal unconscious longings which, with the therapist’s help, can
be used to establish new goals and directions. For example, Mr. Stevens described a
number of uncles in terms of how much or how little fun they had in life. By noticing his
smile and animated expression when describing one fun-loving uncle in particular, it
was possible to point out to him that he seemed to long to be a bit more that way
himself. In his immediate situation, Mr. Stevens would get extremely angry a t his wife’s
“irresponsible” and “frivolous” behavior. By talking about distant relatives, however,
rather than his wife, he was able to get in touch with longings which heretofore he had
renounced. His anger a t his wife served as a defense against his own unacceptable
wishes. She colluded in this by acting so outrageously that he could easily dissociate

340 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMIL,Y THERAPY July 1982

Previous First Next

himself from such behavior, while at the same time, receiving vicarious gratification of
his impulses. The recognition of his own longings and self-dissatisfactions that the
genogram facilitated enabled him to shift away from simply complaining about his
wife. It is frequently the case with families and couples that getting the individuals to
focus on what they would like to change about themselves rather than other family
members is a key step in altering rigidified family patterns. For this the genogram is
often quite useful.
Just as family stories help uncover unarticulated wishes, so, too, do they reveal
fears, taboos and family “object lessons.” Unexamined family stories can have a power-
ful influence on the individual because they have been swallowed whole and incorpo-
rated into a world view a t an age when the individual was not capable of judging for
himself. Mr. King, for instance, in mentioning that his father died a t the age of 39 from
a stroke, said matter-of-factly that it had been caused by his “having worked too hard to
support his ailing mother, wife and three children.” This was a family myth which Mr.
King first learned when he was nine years of age. Though Mr. King, as an adult, had a
highly critical mind (he was a n attorney, well used to examining assumptions) he had
never questioned the assumption that his father’s stroke was directly caused by over-
work. It was believed as wholeheartedly as it had been in his childhood. As he, himself,
now approached age 39, the lesson learned (and never examined) in childhood that
“domestic responsibilities can kill you” became a n increasingly important factor in
determining his attitude towards having children. Part of what he brought to the
marital system was the unconscious belief that too much responsibility might literally
mean chancing death.

FINDING SOLUTIONS
Descriptions of individuals and relationships provide clues not only to problems,
but to solutions as well. If we listen closely to family stories, we often hear not only
unexpressed longings about how the individual would like to change, but some unar-
ticulated fantasies about how the spouse could help with that change. For instance, Mr.
Wright, who acknowledged that he was often quite domineering, described an aunt and
uncle of whom he was particularly fond in the following way: “My uncle is stubborn and
difficult, but he is married to a warm woman who knows how to handle him. When he is
angry and brooding, she just tells him to ‘cut it out’ in a forceful way and he relaxes. She
doesn’t let him push her around and really brings him out of his moods.” It is possible, of
course, that his wife is too angry to behave in this way and that even if she did, he would
not let it be effective. The material obtained in doing a genogram does not give
infallible solutions, but does open up some new avenues for exploration. When indi-
viduals have identified something within themselves that they view as a problem, it is
often helpful to ask them how their spouse can help them to change. People often do not
know just what kind of help they would like. Sometimes they know, but are too
embarrassed to ask directly. Sometimes they have but a vague feeling about what they
would like from their spouses. Sensitivity to the latent meanings imbedded in genog-
ram material can be used to help the individual clarify what he hopes for in the way of
help.

TECHNIQUES IN OBTAINING GENOGRAMS

When charting genograms, I first obtain basic factual data about the family mem-
bers upon whom we are focusing. This includes the kind of data extensively outlined by
Pendagast & Sherman (1977) in their guide to the genogram, such as birth order, age,
place of residence, occupation, illness, etc. Next, I ask for a list of adjectives that would
describe that person. In doing this, I am beginning to elicit the kind of projective

July 1982 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 341

Previous First Next

material which enables one to use the genogram in the variety of ways described above.
By looking at similarities in the lists of adjectives obtained for various relations, I begin
to get some sense of the dimensions which are of central importance to the patient. This
systematic inquiry complements the more open-ended material obtained later in the
genogram procedure. By asking for elaborations on these adjectives (e.g., what do you
mean by “timid) I begin to see the world through the patient’s perspective. Examples
and stories are often volunteered by one of the spouses a t this point and help clarify
meanings.
If the patient didn’t personally know, or knew only slightly, the relative being
described, he is encouraged to report what he has heard about that person. It is here
that family values often become most apparent. At times, I will urge the patient to
guess what a family member might have been like. This further opens the door t o
projections and fantasies. When working on central figures in the family, I ask the
patient to tell me some stories he has heard about that person. What matters is not just
what the person was “really” like but how he was conceived of in the family and how
that conception was passed down from one generation to another.
Of equal importance to descriptions of individuals, are descriptions of relation-
ships. I ask in regard to married couples, such questions as the following: What was
their relationship like? How close were they? Who was the boss in the family? What
kinds of things did they get from one another? How did helshe deal with the spouse’s
personality traits (i.e., bossiness, hypochondriasis)? Similar questions are asked regard-
ing parent-child and sibling relationships.
Charting a genogram in this way is, of course, quite time consuming. I do not start
it until I have obtained a clear picture of the immediate problem (usually by the third
session). It generally takes four, one-hour sessions to complete a genogram on both
spouses. Often, I will do it in bits and pieces so that there is time in each session to
discuss pressing current issues. When working on genograms it is important to com-
ment throughout on emerging family issues, patterns and assumptions and their
possible relevance to the current situation. This stimulates a lively give and take in the
family and prevents the session from becoming sterile history-taking. Couples often are
quite intrigued and excited by the genogram procedure.
l b further engage the spouse and other family members it is important to ask for
their impressions of the people being described. Differences in perceptions become
further grist for the mill. Although the genogram is charted during the sessions, family
members are encouraged to use the time between meetings to find out missing informa-
tion.
It is important to construct programs on both members of the marital pair. I start
with the person whom I most need to establish a therapeutic alliance. Working on one
side of the family (the side best known, first) and then doing one side of the spouse’s
family before completing the initially begun genogram, seems to be the best way of
balancing the needs of both parties and seems worth the loss of continuity.
In my experience the genogram has proved more useful with couples than when
working with entire families. The reasons for this are not yet clear. Perhaps it is
because with families the first order of business must be to shift the focus away from the
symptomatic child and onto the system as a whole, and the charting of genograms has
not proved to be the most efficacious way of accomplishing this goal.
There are, however, circumstances when the genogram does seem particularly
useful with whole families. We have already noted, for example, its values when one
needs to make a special effort to join with a resistant family member, or in determining
a meaningful rubric under which to assign tasks. It is also useful a t times in aiding
children to learn more about their parents. Often they know surprisingly little. Even
when problems have been resolved, families often need help in learning to relate to each

342 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY July 1982

Previous First Next

other more meaningfully. Although constructing genograms does not change years of
one-dimensional relationships, i t can serve as a n important first step in adding depth to
a shallow relationship. The genogram should also be used with families when one or
both parents are having a particularly difficult time dealing with what seems to be
age-appropriate behavior in a child. Genograms provide clues to what is making this
developmental stage difficult and also serve as an empathic bridge between genera-
tions.
Using the technique of charting genograms is not without its difficulties. Some-
times one spouse makes it known that he is extremely bored by listening to his
partner's history and resists all attempts by the therapist to engage him in the process.
With some couples the competition for attention may be so great that one partner will
attempt to interrupt and shift the focus into himself. Attitudes and behavior evoked
during the charting of genograms may need to be worked on before this technique can
be used. The therapist must also be careful not to get so engrossed in the individual
perspective that he forgets about the interactional aspect of the problem. Often one
family member is more than willing to take the blame for all the difficulties and the
therapist must resist this seductive individualistic perspective (Wachtel, E. F., 1979).
The most common difficulty one faces in using this technique is the desire on the
part of some couples to deal with the immediate issues a t hand and their feeling that
family history is irrelevant. With most couples, explaining why this will be helpful
suffices in overcoming their reluctance. If a couple still feels a n intense need to deal
with immediate issues one must put the genogram aside until a more appropriate time.
I will, however, take a firm stand on doing a genogram on those occasions when I feel
that I simply can be of no further help without the perspective provided by this
technique.

REFERENCES
Carter, E. & Orfanidis, M. Family therapy with one person. In I? J. Guerin, Jr. (Ed.), Family
therapy: Theory and practice. New York Gardner Press, 1976.
Guerin, €? J. & Pendagast, E. G. Evaluation of family system and genogram. In I? J. Guerin, Jr.
(Ed.),Family therapy: Theory and practice. New York Gardner Press, 1976.
Gurman, A. S. Integrative marital therapy: l'bward the development of an interpersonal approach.
In S.Budman (Ed.),Forms of brief therapy. New York: Guilford Press, 1981.
Orfanidis, M. Problems with family genograms. American Journal of Family Therapy, 1980, 7,
74-76.
Pendagast, E. G. & Sherman, C. 0. A guide to the genogram. The Family, 1977,5, 3-14.
Rapaport, D., Gill, M. M. & Schafer, R. Diagnostic psychological testing. New York: International
Universities Press, 1968.
Wachtel, E. F. Learning family therapy: The dilemmas of an individual therapist. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 1979,10, 122-123.
Wachtel, F! L. Psychoanalysis and behavior therapy: lbward an integration. New York: Basic
Books, 1977.

July 1982 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 343

Previous First