Premium
The Science and Typology of Family Systems II. Further Theoretical and Practical Considerations
Author(s) -
WERTHEIM ELEANOR S.
Publication year - 1975
Publication title -
family process
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.011
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1545-5300
pISSN - 0014-7370
DOI - 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1975.00285.x
Subject(s) - typology , systems thinking , action (physics) , construct (python library) , process (computing) , psychology , systems theory , cognitive science , embodied cognition , unconscious mind , social system , cognition , social psychology , epistemology , computer science , artificial intelligence , sociology , neuroscience , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics , anthropology , psychoanalysis , programming language , operating system
Family systems are conceptualized as stable, but open, control systems characterized by: (a) formal organization, similar in principle to that of other complex, organic systems — physical, cognitive (11), or social; (b) freedom of action, reserved for human, “purposefu” systems (1). These characteristics are linked to auto‐regulatory processes mediated by morphostasis (16), which insures systemic stability, and morphogenesis (16), which enables the system to change in accordance with the demands of intra‐ and extra‐systemic reality. The latter two concepts, earlier used to construct a typology of family systems (19), are here further theoretically elaborated and operationally defined (1). Morphostasis is tied to the system's: (a) behavioral structure, embodied in a network of ground rules and meta‐rules, as defined, and organized according to a principle of hiearchical linkage; (b) behavioral functioning, regulated by rule circuits in accordance with a principle of functional linkage. Morphogenesis is conceptualized as a serial, decision‐making, change‐producing process, dependent on specified, necessary, and sufficient conditions for its occurrence. The role of pragmatic, perceptual meanings (1) and of biological/experiential and conscious/unconscious factors in the system's auto‐regulation are considered, as well as research approaches to some of these problems. The implications of the present theoretical rationale for the systematic testing and clinical use of the published family system typology (19) and for some more general issues concerning psychological theory, as well as the modern Western family and society, are discussed.