When people ask me about my job, I lie—a little bit. When someone asks me what I do, I say, “I’m a family therapist.” More often than not, they then ask, “So, like a psychologist?” This is when I lie. I say, “Yes, like a psychologist.”
It’s not a total lie. Like many psychologists or counselors, I do psychotherapy. People come to me when issues or problems come up. They come into my office, we talk about these issues, and we work together to tackle their problems. But my training and way of thinking about their problems are different. My practice is rooted in family systems theory. This theory is what sets me apart from other psychologists and counselors. It’s what makes family therapists, family therapists.
What is Family Systems Theory?
But what is family systems theory? Though it has been widely discussed, it’s surprisingly hard to define. Murray Bowen has a family systems theory—he and Michael Kerr described it in their 1988 book, Family Evaluation. More recently, Alan Carr (2016) described what he saw as the 20 hypotheses of family systems theory. In a review of 275 family therapy research studies, 28 different theories of models were identified as used by family therapy researchers (Chen, Hughes & Austin, 2017). Some used “systems theory,” but poorly defined it; others used models or “mid-level theories” that are connected to family systems theory but failed to tie the two together. The authors of this review article noted that for family therapy researchers, “Simply stating that a study is guided by a systemic perspective or family systems theory overlooks an opportunity to enlighten the reader on the nuances of theory, as well as extend the theory itself” (Chen et al., 2017, p. 522). In other words, because family systems theory is often defined poorly or in different ways, it’s hard to evaluate based on the research.
Theory and research are supposed to have a reciprocal relationship. Theory drives research hypotheses. Research findings provide evidence for, or opposition to, the hypotheses. Based on the evidence, the theory is supported, adjusted, or discarded. But this hasn’t happened with family systems theory. Though the understanding of the science of family systems has grown exponentially, this evidence we have gained hasn’t been applied to the hypotheses of family systems theory.
Autonomy and adaptation
To empirically evaluate family systems theory, I think we need to ground systems theory in the hypotheses and research of other biological systems. Unlike family systems theory, general systems theory has been researched and updated since Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1969) first introduced it. Contemporary systems biologists ground their work in two main concepts: autonomy and adaptation.
The concept of biological autonomy is different than popular usage of the word. Autonomy usually is associated with the idea of independence. When defining autonomy, we think about pursuing our own goals, following our own directives, and having agency over what we do. This is an important type of autonomy, but this isn’t the kind of autonomy we are talking about here.
From a biological standpoint, systems are autonomous when they: 1) generate, maintain, and regulate a network of processes; 2) establish a boundary that regulates exchanges with the environment; 3) specify their own rules of behavior and react to stimuli in a self-determined way; 4) have interdependence between the system and parts that create the system; and 5) maintain stability in the face of environmental changes across time (Rosslenbroich, 2014).
Like autonomy, adaptation is often ambiguously defined. Frequently, it is intertwined with the ideas of “fitness” when talking about evolution. Sometimes it is just thought of as change. But when talking about adaptable systems, biologists have criteria. They argue for what they call “senses of adaptation.” These are: 1) a system cannot exist separate from its habitat—if a system is alive it is adapting; 2) a system adapts based on the intensity of the stimulus; 3) adaptation results in reversible and irreversible physiological changes; and 4) adaptations occur in responses to changes within the system, in the environment, or both (Mahner & Bunge, 1997).
Biologist Bernd Rosslenbroich (2014), has described the importance of both autonomy and adaptation in his book On the Origin of Autonomy in the following way:
[A]utonomy and adaption become a central pair of this system. Both are dependent on each other: On the one hand, there is the organism, and on the other hand is the environment. The organism—even in its simplest form—always establishes its life function together with the generation of a boundary and thus produces its “being different” from the surrounding environment. To maintain this state, the organism not only needs regulatory and stabilizing functions on the one hand but needs to react appropriately to cope successfully with the environmental influences . . . autonomy needs adaptations (p. 230–231).
Rosslenbroich is proposing that systems require both autonomy and adaptation and that the two depend on each other. Systems need the properties of autonomy, but these properties stand in relation to, and a property of, the adaptations necessary to survive in an environment. The presence of autonomy only exists by it being distinguished from its environment; yet the very process of distinguishing itself is an adaptation.
Family systems theory hypotheses
I think we can draw on the work of systems biologists to make family systems theory succinct and testable and synthesize the various family systems theory proposals and hypotheses that are out there. With this in mind, we can simplify family systems theory to just two hypotheses. The first is that the family is an autonomous system. Family systems have rule-based, boundary-making processes that generate and maintain the family. These processes are distinct to the family system, occur across time, and remain relatively stable. The second is that the family is an adaptable system. The family system responds to stress from inside and outside of the system by making changes to its rule-based, boundary-making processes. The goal of these adaptations is to help the family maintain autonomy.
But are these two hypotheses valid? If they are, then evidence should be available to support these assertions. This evidence should be able to explain how these interactions create boundaries and responses, and why these boundaries and responses are unique to the family system. In other words, do scientific findings support the proposal that a family is an autonomous and adaptable system?
Is the family an autonomous and adaptable system?
Autonomy, in the biological sense, is about the processes that create the system, not necessarily about the people in the system. But what are processes? Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1969) defined a system as “a set of elements standing in inter-relations” (p. 55). For elements to be interrelated, he argued, the interactions of elements within a system must be different from the interactions of elements outside of the system.
Processes are what create interrelatedness. They are what links the elements together. If there are no processes that tie elements together, then there is no system. But what are the processes of the family system? And, do these processes create interactions within the system that are different than those outside the system? Though there are likely more processes, the evidence points to three major processes of the family system—threat-response, individuality, and belongingness. The interconnection of these three processes is what makes interactions of the family system unique. Threat-response processes are concerned with survival. Individuality processes are those that promote agency and ownership of one’s behaviors. Belonging processes are those that promote connection to others.
There is ample empirical evidence of these processes. Genetic and evolutionary biologists have shown that threat-response, individuality, and belonging processes are coded in our genes and epigenome. These genetic and evolutionary processes gave rise to our nervous system—whose core role is to respond to threats, and to the social engagements system—that helps us regulate our threat-responses to provide space for belonging and individuality processes.
Our attachment relationships are grounded in the need for connection, but at the same time provide context for the activation of individuality and threat-response processes. Threat-response processes also give rise to triangles. If a couple is fighting and partners can’t reconnect, a partner may turn to their parents for comfort. This may allay the current fear of disconnection, but reinforce a process that has the couple turn to another member of the family during times of stress, potentially stabilizing or undermining the couple’s relationship. Threat-response processes, activated by belongingness, are central to the formation of triangulation.
These processes create boundaries—they determine who is in our family system and who is not. If we were to find out that our spouse cheated on us, the activation of the threat, belonging, and individuality processes would be unique from our response that would be activated if we found out that our neighbor’s spouse cheated on them. I would argue that the interactions in the family system are unique because members can activate each of these processes simultaneously, and in many cases with greater intensity than other social interactions. These processes create the autonomy of the family system.
These processes also allow the family to adapt to stressors within and outside the system. The racist, classist, sexist, and heteronormative polices and structures that exist in a family’s environment all work together to affect the family’s ability to adapt to stress and by extension maintain their autonomy. Some environments are so hostile to families that the processes that a family has won’t be enough to sustain them during stress. If the family is embedded in a sociocultural system that marginalizes, dehumanizes, or uses violence to oppress them, the resilience built into the processes would likely be overwhelmed.
Though the environment in which a family is embedded can have drastic effects on the autonomy of the family, the processes in the family and the adaptability of those processes are also important. During the great recession of 2007–2009, researchers explored how economic hardship affected families. They found that the processes that existed in the families were more indicative of the families’ outcomes than just the stress that resulted from economic hardship (Afifi et al., 2018; Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2016). Some families “uplifted each other, were unified in combating the recession, were present emotionally and communicatively, and blamed outside forces (e.g., government, banks, great recession)” (Afifi et al., 2018, p. 664). These families were more likely to bounce back following a large environmental stressor. Other families, “became stuck in intractable cycles of conflict where they perceived each other as a threat and communicated in ways (e.g., criticism, contempt) that preserved the self rather than the other person or the relationship” (Afifi et al., p. 664). These families were more likely to break up through divorce or conflict.
Are we there yet?
Though there is ample evidence for the two hypotheses of family systems theory (much more than I have space to describe here), I don’t think we are to the point where we can say that family systems theory is scientific fact. I think the evidence is sufficient to make a strong case for the processes of autonomy and adaptation in the family system and with further research, the evidence for these hypotheses could become quite compelling.
I also think these two organizing hypotheses can help move research away from “simply stating that a study is guided by a systemic perspective or family systems theory” and begin to build an even stronger base of support (Chen et al., 2017, p. 522). By refining family systems theory from more than 20 proposals, I believe that the theory can become more usable and testable. I think research can and will discover other processes in addition to the ones proposed here. By focusing our research through these two hypotheses of family systems theory, we may find robust and repeated evidence that the family is an autonomous and adaptable system. As we ground our research in family systems theory, I hope that the field and practice of family therapy will grow. I hope that in the decades to come, the evidence base for family systems theory can be used to improve our models and help provide better care to more couples and families. As we get better at what we do, my hope is the public will see the value that our practice brings, and that when families are struggling, they won’t hesitate to seek out a family therapist. That way, when someone asks me what I do, I can say, “I’m a family therapist,” and I’ll have no need to lie.
AAMFT thanks Jacob Priest for his efforts and leadership in producing this issue.
Only Connect: Systems Thinking for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Health by Jacob Priest
Some environments are so hostile to families that the processes that a family has won’t be enough to sustain them during stress.
Jacob B. Priest, PhD, LMFT (he/him/his), is an AAMFT Professional member holding the Clinical Fellow and Approved Supervisor designations, director of the LGBTQ Counseling Clinic, director of the Couple and Family Therapy Program at the University of Iowa, and has a private practice at the Counseling Center of Iowa City. His expertise is in family systems theory, couple and family therapy, and the family’s role in mental health. This article is adapted from Priest’s book, The Science of Family Systems Theory, Routledge, 2021. jacobpriest.com
REFERENCES
Afifi, T. D., Davis, S., Merrill, A. F., Coveleski, S., Denes, A., & Shahnazi, A. F. (2018). Couples’ communication about financial uncertainty following the great recession and its association with stress, mental health and divorce proneness. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 39(2), 205-219.
Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A. F., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23(4), 663–683.
Carr, A. (2016). The evolution of systems theory. In T. L. Sexton & J. Lebow (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy: The science and practice of working with families and couples. London: Routledge.
Chen, R., Hughes, A. C., & Austin, J. P. (2017). The use of theory in family therapy research: Content analysis and update. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(3), 514-525.
Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Rosslenbroich, B. (2014). On the origin of autonomy: A new look at the major transitions in evolution (Vol. 5). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.
Other articles
Historical Overview of Family Systems Theory
Beginning in the mid 20th century, the practice of family therapy began to coalesce around certain key theories and systems to form an approach by which future practitioners could base their observations and work for important changes for the health of individuals and relationships.
Tara Signs, PhD
Reimagining the Application of Systems Theory Via Teletherapy Interventions
In this interview, immigration experts discuss the conditions in many of the home countries of immigrants, their arduous travel, and the challenges faced at the border which have created complex layers of emotional issues, particularly for those children separated from their parents.
Rebecca Cobb, PhD
A Larger Systems Approach: Integrating Intersectionality into Family Systems Theory
“Power, privilege, oppression.” What was your reaction reading these words? For some, resiliency, for others vulnerability, but for all, critical. Now, how about “family systems theory?” For some comfortable, for others complexity, but for couple and family therapists (CFTs) and our work with families, critical.
Dumayi Gutierrez, PhD