Culture and Family

Problems and Therapy

Wen-Shing Tseng, Jing Hsu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317283683
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Psychotherapy
• Index: Psychology

Originally published in 1991, this landmark guide gave brilliant insights on dealing with the cultural aspects of family mental health. It systematically reviews various dimensions of the family from a cross-cultural perspective, including system, development, behaviour, and functioning. It then thoroughly examines the problems and dysfunctions that can occur in families of different cultural backgrounds, and finally proposes culturally appropriate assessments and treatments for resolving these family problems.Family counsellors, therapists, and researchers who study the family will find practical suggestions on how to assess and evaluate the family with cultural considerations; clinical suggestions on providing culturally relevant, effective care of the family; and theoretical elaboration on the cultural implications of family therapy. Instead of focusing on families of a particular ethnic or cultural background, the book gives comprehensive coverage to subjects that related to cultural aspects of the family function, problems, and therapy. The authors' unique backgrounds, which include analysis of the cross-cultural aspects of human behaviour, knowledge in family research, and clinical experience in family therapy, add immeasurably to this book's important contribution.

Chapter 1

Culture and the Family System

Dimensions of the Family

The family is the basic sociocultural unit. It is the nest for the growth of an individual, the resource for social support, and the institution through which culture is transmitted. The universal basic functions of the family have been defined by anthropologist Hoebel (1972) as:

The institutionalization of mating and the channeling of sexual outlets; the nurture and basic enculturation of the young in an atmosphere of intimacy; the organization of a complementary division of labor between spouses; and the linkage of each spouse and the offspring within the wider network of kinsmen for the establishment of relations of descent and affinity, (p. 422)

It is very important to notice that cross-culturally the term “family” has been used with varied concept and meaning, and furthermore it is hard to retain the exact meaning of the English word “family” when translating it into other languages. For example, Japanese synonyms include ie (building of house), uchi (inside of the house— in contrast to the outside world), kazoku (members of family, which may include only nuclear family or all the family clan), and katei (the structure and life of family). For these reasons, anthropologists usually avoid the term “family” because it simultaneously implies the concepts of “residence,” “household,” and “kinship” (Yanagisako, 1979). In this book, for the sake of convenience, the term “family” will be used in a conventional way to refer to a group of people who are brought together and live together through marriage and as the product of mating.

Marriage refers to the customs, rules, and obligations that establish a special relationship between a sexually cohabiting adult male and female, between them and any children they produce, and between the kin groups of husband and wife (Nanda, 1980). From a sociological point of view, marriage is considered to be a socially approved formal sexual union with the intent of permanence of one or more men and one or more women, which is conducted within a set of designated rights and duties expected of them by society and certain rights and duties they expect of each other in their roles. The specific rights and duties that comprise the roles of husband and wife may change from time to time within any one society, may differ from grouping to grouping in the same society, and may also differ from one society to another (Lantz and Snyder, 1969).

The family is a complex institution which can be investigated and understood from various dimensions (Howells, 1971). Methodologically, researchers have studied the family from five perspectives — by examining (1) individual members of the family, (2) the subsystem of the family, (3) the life cycle of the family, (4) the interaction patterns of the family as a group, and (5) the family as a system.

By examining individual family members focus is placed on the personality, psychology, and behavior of each with the conviction that the family is an accumulated result of the individual family members’ behavior. It is assumed that a set of well-functioning individuals—father, mother and children —will compose a well-functioning family and vice versa.

The family has also been explored from the viewpoint of a family subsystem. By analyzing the interpersonal relationships that exist in each subsystem of the family, such as husband-wife, parent-child, and sibling-sibling, an attempt has been made to understand the behavior of the family by closely assessing and analyzing the relations, affections, roles, and conflicts that may exist within each subsystem.

By focusing on the chronological aspects, family development has also been reviewed by considering the family as an organization which goes through the vicissitudes of life in various stages (Lidz, 1970; Duvall, 1971; Carter and McGoldrick, 1980). The growth, development, and contraction of the family have been evaluated by stages of family life which are usually in connection with the growth of children —how spouses marry, bear and raise children, and how children leave parents.

Recently, by viewing the family as a group of people, many investigators and therapists have focused on the study of the family group. In such cases, the matters of hierarchy, leadership, communication, role patterns, interaction patterns, affectivity, boundaries, and task performance of the family as a “group” are usually the parameters examined (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett, and Phillips, 1976). Along the same lines, stress encountered by the family, and resources and coping patterns utilized by the family as a group, can be examined.

Finally, based on systems theory, an approach is taken that views the family as existing in a system which is broadly comprised of intrapsychic, interpersonal, intra-family, and extra-family perspectives, which interact and are interrelated as a whole system. The family is examined and understood within the network of each system inwardly and outwardly in ecological and dynamic ways.

Although marriage and the formation of families rest on the biological complementarity of male and female and on the biological process of reproduction, both marriage and family are cultural patterns. As such, they differ in form and function among human societies (Nanda, 1980). As pointed out by Haviland (1978), historical and cross-cultural studies of the family offer as many different family patterns as the human imagination can create. These different family patterns are not just interesting products of human investigation; they are solutions to the different sorts of problems with which people must cope. At the same time, different family forms present certain sets of problems which must somehow be dealt with. By studying families of diverse types that exist among humankind, we are able to construct theoretical concepts which have more universal applications.

In order to provide a culturally-relevant assessment and treatment for families of different cultural backgrounds, it is essential to understand the cultural aspects of family systems and function. When we are dealing clinically with families with ethnic and cultural backgrounds that are different from ours, it is essential to extend our orientation and understanding of family dimensions by considering cultural aspects of the family system. Otherwise, we may suffer from “cultural myopia” — being shortsighted in terms of our views and orientation towards the cultural dimension of the family.

Cultural Variations of Family Systems

Based on unique cultural patterns, anthropologists have recognized and described nearly one thousand units of societies that exist around the world. Such descriptions have been recorded and collected as the Ethnographic Atlas for the systematic scientific comparison and study of human life patterns, as well as family systems (Murdock, 1967). Cultural anthropologists also describe and distinguish between various family systems by referring to parameters such as marriage forms, descent system, post-marital residence choice, or household structure.

Marriage Forms

Marriage forms concern the number of spouses in a marriage. All societies have rules concerning the number of spouses a person may have at one time. Monogamy permits a person to have only one spouse at any given time, while polygamy permits more than one spouse in the marriage. If a man has several wives it is called polgyny, and if a woman is married to more than one man it is known as polyandry. Monogamy is the rule in most contemporary, developed societies, although it is by no means the most common rule among the world’s cultures. According to anthropologist Hoebel (1972), who adopted data from Bourguignon and Greenbaum’s (1968) study, among 854 societies described in the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, 1967), only 16 percent consider monogamy exclusively as an expected marriage form, 39 percent prefer monogamy with polygyny, and 44 percent opt for polygyny. Polyandry is found in only 4 of the 854 cultures listed. Thus, more than 80 percent of the world’s societies prefer plural marriage. However, as pointed out by Nanda (1980), this preference does not mean that most people in these societies actually have more than one spouse. Even where polygyny is preferred, the ratio of males to females may be such that few men would be able to acquire more than one wife. Furthermore, where men must exchange wealth for wives, many men cannot afford more than one wife and therefore are limited to monogamy.

It needs to be pointed out that the figures presented here deal with percentages of “social units” as identified by anthropologists, and do not reflect population percentages. One social unit may have a small population of at most a few hundred or thousand people, while others may have a large number of people —such as the Chinese society which contains nearly one-fifth of the world’s population. Therefore, if social units are considered in terms of number of members, it would be fair to say that the majority of the world population considers monogamy the expected marriage form.

In societies where monogamy is preferred and marriage is considered closely and exclusively tied to sex and emotion, it is hard to understand how polygynous marriages can exist without conflict and jealousy between wives. Actually, much evidence indicates that when a man has many wives, problems usually occur between the wives. However, as explained by anthropologist Nanda (1980), sexual jealousy among wives might not be a great problem in societies which do not idealize romantic love and exclusive sexual rights in marriage. Furthermore, in societies where women are economically important, polygyny can increase a man’s wealth and therefore his social position. By having several spouses, an individual may also extend his alliances with different groups. Thus, in some societies, polygyny has important economic and political functions.

Polyandry is basically different in nature from polygyny. It is not brought about by super women having many men-husbands as might be speculated (Berreman, 1980). As observed among the Tibetans, the Todas, and other tribes of India where the practice of polyandry is well-known, several brothers usually marry the same woman (Hoebel, 1972). In societies where land and property are scarce, the division of assets between siblings can be avoided if brothers form a family by marrying a common wife. Thus, polyandry is frequently practiced as a way to cope with an economic situation (Levine and Sangree, 1980).

Choice of Mates

Every society has certain rules pertaining to the choice of a candidate for marriage. Often marriage partners must be chosen from outside one’s own kin group or community —this “outside” choice is known as exogamy. In contrast, at times one is obligated to marry a person within his or her own culturally defined group; this “inside” choice is called endogamy. An example of caste-related endogamy is the social rule in India which requires a person to marry within his/her caste group, so as to avoid becoming “polluted” through marriage to someone outside of the caste.

The prohibition of sex relations between culturally identified relatives is known as the incest taboo (Nanda, 1980). It automatically follows that marriage between persons subject to this rule is also forbidden. Incest taboos are universal among all peoples. With rare exceptions, all societies forbid cross-sex relationships within the nuclear family, namely between parents and children and between brother and sister. Yet, no society stops the incest taboo there; additional kin also fall into the incest taboo category. Interestingly, however, in most societies there is no single class of kin outside the nuclear family from which it is not acceptable to choose a sex partner. First cousins, aunts, nephews, and so on, are taboo in some societies but not in others. In most societies, intercourse is permitted with some fairly close blood relatives and prohibited with more distant ones. For instance, within the Chinese culture, cousins and nephews on the maternal side are permitted to marry but those from the paternal side, who have the same family name, are not. The restriction is so extended that a person is not permitted to marry any person who happens to have the same family name, even though they are not blood-related at all; theoretically, they are considered to be members of the same patrilineal family. As Chinese have a relatively limited number of family names, caution needs to be exercised to avoid falling in love with someone who has the same family name. As explained by cultural anthropologists, the key to this extension of sex and marital taboos is that the family is perceived as a social group rather than as a biological one. Thus, the extension of incest and marriage taboos tends to be rooted more in sociology than in biology.

Associated with the rule of marital choice is the process of how the marital partner is chosen. Arranged marriage refers to a situation in which marriage partners are selected and decided upon primarily by someone other than the partners themselves — usually by parents or other kin. Marriages may also be arranged through a matchmaker. The marriage partners may or may not be consulted. In extreme circumstances the partners might not even see each other until the wedding ceremony.

The main concerns in arranging a marriage are the compatibility of the family backgrounds and of the prospective partners as well as the partners’ physical condition, health, moral character, working patterns, and ability to produce the next generation. In other words, the major considerations stem from the perspectives of the family. Anthropologists remind us that, for many cultural groups, marriage constitutes an alliance between two kinship groups in which the couple concerned is merely the most conspicuous link.

In contrast, the choice of a marriage partner may occur by self-selection or through free love, the method preferred by young members of most contemporary societies. In free love, affection and love are the major concerns, even though other factors such as the character and personal background of the partner may be taken into consideration. The background of the partner’s family may also be considered; generally, however, these concerns are superficial ones.

Different modes of acquiring a wife exist around the world. As described by Hoebel (1972), in many societies the prevalent method of obtaining a wife is through the formal exchange of goods considered equal in value to the offspring the woman is expected to produce—progeny price. Progeny price was found to prevail in virtually all tribes in Africa, where 214 out of 238 (90 percent) listed in the Ethnographic Atlas practice it. Taking the world as a whole, well over half (58 percent) of all societies in the Atlas expect progeny price to be paid to the family of the bride by the kin of the groom. Progeny price may partly represent compensation for the loss of the girl by her kinship group, but it is much more an act of compensation to that group for its loss of a legal claim to the children that she will bear. The social prestige of a married woman is directly influenced by the amount of the progeny price that has been paid on her account.

Another way to obtain a wife and the rights to her future children is to work for the bride’s family — suitor service. Scattered tribes in all parts of the world (77 out of 565 cultures) have been found to require service in the bride’s household as the price the groom must pay.

The opposite of progeny and suitor service is the custom requiring the bride to bring a dowry to the groom’s family. This custom is based on the conception that the woman is going to be taken care of her entire life by the man’s family, and relates to the patrilineal system in which lineage is traced only through the male’s kinship system. In cultures in which descent is not vested exclusively in either line of kin, but rather through bilateral descent, an equivalent exchange of gifts between the families is an alternative possibility.

When familial or social disapproval blocks a fervently desired marriage, or when a marriage is planned with a distasteful partner, elopement (the act of running away secretly to get married) is a way out. Although elopement is a safety valve of escape from the dictates of formal customs, the status of elopement varies in different societies. In some societies a couples’ elopement is ultimately recognized as a marriage, while in others there is never full acceptance by the family or the society. In such cases, couples in love may choose the only way left open for them — to commit double suicide, known in the past as “love suicide” in Japan, Korea, and China.

Post-Marital Residence

In societies in which newly married couples customarily live with or near kin, several residence patterns may be established. If the married couple lives with or near the husband’s parents (67 percent of the total World Ethnographic Sample), it is described as patrilocal residence; if the married couple lives with or near the wife’s parents (15 percent of the sample societies), it is called mattilocal residence; if the married couple can live with or near the parents of cither side (7 percent) it is addressed as bilocal; and if the newly married couple lives apart from the relatives of both spouses, choosing a new place of their own (5 percent of the world sample), it is described as neolocal residence — the most common practice of our present industrialized and urbanized society.

The significance of post-marital residential choice is obvious, as it affects the pattern of kinship relations as well as the power distribution and respective roles of the spouses. For example, if the wife stays and the husband leaves the natal family after marriag...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About the Authors
• Senior Editor’s Comments
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Culture and the Family System
• Chapter 2: Culture and Family Development
• Chapter 3: Culture and Family Subsystems
• Chapter 4: Culture and Family-Group
• Chapter 5: Culture and Family Adjustment
• Chapter 6: Marital Problems and Conflict
• Chapter 7: Parent-Child Problems
• Chapter 8: Families with Specific Problems
• Chapter 9: Culture and Family Assessment
• Chapter 10: Culture and Family Therapy
• References
• Subject Index
• Author Index