Intrusiveness and Closeness‐Caregiving: Rethinking the Concept of Family “Enmeshment”

Abstract

This article analyzes the concepts of "enmeshment" and "cohesion" and their entanglement in the field of family therapy. Early theories in this area were concerned primarily with processes of self/other differentiation. More recent theories have favored spatial metaphors that emphasize closeness-distance. We contend that self/ other differentiation and closeness-distance are different classes of behavior and that their linkage in the literature has obscured useful distinctions. Our analysis reveals two separate dimensions that clinicians and researchers should consider: Intrusiveness (including coercive control, separation anxiety, possessiveness/jealousy, emotional reactivity, and projective mystification); and Closeness-Caregiving (including warmth, time together, nurturance, physical intimacy, and consistency). We give definitions of these constructs and briefly examine their clinical and gender-related implications.

The family and anorexia nervosa: examining parent–child boundary problems†

“…In line with previous research (Barber and Buehler, 1996) and theorizing (Green and Werner, 1996), results suggest that cohesion and enmeshment are best conceptualized as distinct constructs. Not only did reports of family cohesion and boundary problems differ in their ability to discriminate between eating disordered and control groups, but also correlations of the two measures revealed minimal concordance.…”

“…This method and conceptualization satisfy the structural component of boundary dissolution but perhaps not the true pathology of a family with boundary violations. This issue is re¯ected by confusion over Minuchin's (1974) original de®nition of enmeshment which, as Green and Werner (1996) point out, is sometimes discussed as problematic while at other times it is regarded as part of the normal developmental process.…”

“…A second problem is that some measures (e.g. the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales, FACES III; Olson et al, 1985) fail to distinguish between cohesion (closeness) and enmeshment (self±other differentiation) when, in fact, they represent two very different processes (Green and Werner, 1996). Indeed, Barber and Buehler (1996) found no association between child maladjustment and high levels of cohesion between parent and child, while child internalizing problems were positively related to measures of enmeshment.…”

“…Finally, boundary problems have mainly been described at the family level rather than at a dyadic level, between parent and child. It has been argued that much more powerful information can be gleaned by examining subsystems within the family because`dysfunctional' dyads can be present within à functional' family system (Green and Werner, 1996). Also, father± daughter dynamics, only assessed when examining the dyadic level of functioning, have shown strong links to the daughter's eating disorder status (Calam et al, 1990;Humphrey, 1986).…”

Predicting Bullying and Victimization, Based on School Connectedness and Family Cohesion in an Iranian Sample

“…When we talked about family cohesion, in fact, it refers to a situation in which the family members are close to each other and have an emotional bond, as well as a refers to a high degree of warmth, togetherness, harmony and physical intimacy (Green & Werner, 1996). It is known that students without family support are more likely to engage in violence common among peers (Laufer & Harel, 2003).…”