Family Systems Theory, Attachment Theory, and Culture^*

Abstract

Family systems theory and attachment theory have important similarities and complementarities. Here we consider two areas in which the theories converge: (a) in family system theorists' description of an overly close, or "enmeshed," mother-child dyad, which attachment theorists conceptualize as the interaction of children's ambivalent attachment and mothers' preoccupied attachment; (b) in family system theorists' description of the "pursuer-distance cycle" of marital conflict, which attachment theorists conceptualize as the interaction of preoccupied and dismissive partners. We briefly review family systems theory evidence, and more extensively review attachment theory evidence, pertaining to these points of convergence. We also review cross-cultural research, which leads us to conclude that the dynamics described in both theories reflect, in part, Western ways of thinking and Western patterns of relatedness. Evidence from Japan suggests that extremely close ties between mother and child are perceived as adaptive, and are more common, and that children experience less adverse effects from such relationships than do children in the West. Moreover, in Japan there is less emphasis on the importance of the exclusive spousal relationship, and less need for the mother and father to find time alone to rekindle romantic, intimate feelings and to resolve conflicts by openly communicating their differences. Thus, the "maladaptive" pattern frequently cited by Western theorists of an extremely close mother-child relationship, an unromantic, conflictual marriage characterized by little verbal communication and a peripheral, distant father, may function very differently in other cultures. While we believe that both theories will be greatly enriched by their integration, we caution against the application of either theory outside the cultures in which they were developed.

Daughters of Mothers With Multiple Sclerosis: Their Experiences of Play

“…Transferability of the findings to other cultures cannot be assumed. For example, close relationships between child and mother are more common and children experience less adverse effects from such relationships (Rothbaum et al, 2002). System theories have also been critiqued for being formulated at a time when taken-for-granted male value systems defined dysfunctional families and concerns about "mother blaming" arose (Yerby, 1995).…”

“…I do not want to construct a story that "blames mothers" for family problems or creates and "us versus them stance" to the meanings of the stories shared (Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujiie, & Uchida, 2002;Yerby, 1995). It may have been that the moms felt they were empowering their daughters to assume a significant participatory role in the family.…”

Toward an integration of family systems and developmental psychopathology approaches

“…; however, to date, empirical efforts to understand normal and abnormal development of individuals have focused predominantly on the first several decades of lifẽ Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000;Wakefield, 1997!. Conversely, because family systems theorists conceptualize the marital subsystem as the cornerstone of family functioning, a primary concern has been achieving an understanding of adult adaptation and maladaptation~Rossman, 1986!. Furthermore, whereas a developmental psychopathology perspective requires consideration of broad developmental periods~e.g., months, years, or decades!, family systems theorists are often more concerned with current family dynamics than the functioning of the family over relatively long periods of timẽ Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujie, & Uchida, 2002!. At a methodological level, developmental psychopathology and family systems approaches also are rooted in different methods of justification. Family systems scholars commonly utilize case studies and qualitative meth-ods for testing hypotheses derived from conceptual models~e.g., Byng-Hall, 1999;Minuchin, 1985;Rothbaum et al, 2002!.…”

“…Furthermore, whereas a developmental psychopathology perspective requires consideration of broad developmental periods~e.g., months, years, or decades!, family systems theorists are often more concerned with current family dynamics than the functioning of the family over relatively long periods of timẽ Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujie, & Uchida, 2002!. At a methodological level, developmental psychopathology and family systems approaches also are rooted in different methods of justification. Family systems scholars commonly utilize case studies and qualitative meth-ods for testing hypotheses derived from conceptual models~e.g., Byng-Hall, 1999;Minuchin, 1985;Rothbaum et al, 2002!. Parsimony achieved by limiting the sample size specifically allows for more thorough assessments of complex family dynamics.…”

“…Can we integrate these two approaches in mutually enriching ways? In expanding the boundaries of the family systems perspective, is it possible to complement the aim of achieving a rich understanding of complex family dynamics by examining its implications for understanding patterns of adjustment and maladjustment of individual family members Combrinck-Graham, 1990;Evans, 1978;Rothbaum et al, 2002;Wachtel, 1987!? Likewise, in challenging the conventional boundaries of developmental psychopathology, is it possible to examine individual patterns of adjustment and maladjustment in the context of richer, systems conceptualizations of family process~Cicchetti & Howes, 1991;Davies, 2002;Minuchin, 2002!…”