Expert answer:Promoting Change In your Community
Solved by verified expert:In Chapter 6 that I have provided and attached, the author describes how to promote change by working within the community. There are six steps listed for implementing community change. In 200 words try to describe each of those steps and then describe how you would apply those steps to the social problem of racial conflict. Please original work no Plagiarism.
chapter_6_for_unit_3_discussion_2.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Chapter 6 for unit 3 discussion 2
The concept of system thus treats people and events in terms of their interactions rather
than their intrinsic characteristics. The most basic principle underlying the systems
viewpoint has been understood for some time. An ancient astronomer once said, “Heaven is
more than the stars alone. It is the stars and their movements.” (Baruth & Huber, 1984, p.
19)
My sister is five years older than I, my brother five years younger. My father, who died
when I was 26 years old, was a hard-working, kind, thoughtful man, somewhat on the
quiet side and not particularly expressive of his feelings. My mom was a strong,
nurturing, sometimes opinionated, yet mostly supportive woman on whom we could
always rely in time of need. Both my parents were college-educated and first generation in
this country. Dinner was a very special time for my family. My mother (and sometimes
my sister) would prepare dinner while the rest of us would watch television in the den.
During dinner, we would often have lively discussions about politics or other
contemporary issues. As much as I loved these family interactions, I clearly remember
being both overwhelmed by, and particularly in awe of, my sister’s ability to argue her
point of view. Because I had struggled with a childhood illness and was overweight, my
self-esteem was not very high. Although I loved the family interactions, I had a sense that I
could not hold my own in the nightly discussions; I would often find myself going inward
to my feelings rather than relying on my intellectual ability. I remember arguing over
issues such as capital punishment and the war in Vietnam. My arguments often became
very passionate because I had become comfortable in the feeling world and less
comfortable presenting a factual argument. It seems as if we began to take on particular
roles in the family—my father being the strong yet quiet debater; my sister, the verbally
fluid family member; my mom, the mediator; me, the passionate member; and my
brother, being the youngest and perhaps because the feeling and verbal roles were already
taken, seemed on the quiet side. There was a kind of balance in the family. Things seemed
a little off if we suddenly were out of our family roles. Perhaps it’s not surprising that my
sister became a lawyer; I, a mental health professional; and my brother, an engineer—
professions that match the personality characteristics of the roles we lived in our family.
My first therapeutic experience was in a counseling group in college. It is not accidental
that I was the advocate for “expression of feelings,” for invariably the roles we took on as
children in our families are repeated in these groups. A woman of that same group, who
had always taken on what might be considered male qualities, wanted to experiment with
her feminine side. Therefore, she decided to try to act more feminine in the group. A third
member of the group was always considered the outcast in school. He quickly took on this
role in the group, and the group leader helped him examine why this continually happened
to him.
My first job as a mental health professional was at a storefront crisis and drop-in center.
There, we would often have homeless people seeking shelter. These people, many of whom
had abusive or deprived childhoods, were often unkempt and uneducated, and many had
emotional problems. Unfortunately, because of their inability to communicate effectively,
which many times was a function of early roles played out in their families of origin, they
would sabotage their attempts to receive aid from local social agencies. I remember how
effective Vanessa, a woman who had been on welfare herself, was in helping these
individuals work with the local social service systems.
When I accepted my current job at Old Dominion University, I discovered that a colleague
of mine, Garrett, had grown up in an Irish-American neighborhood a few miles from my
predominantly Jewish neighborhood in Queens. I had not even known that his
neighborhood existed. Despite the fact that we grew up close to each other, our
neighborhoods were so insulated that there was little shared between these cultures. These
closely knit neighborhoods had somewhat rigid boundaries that prevented a sharing of
cultural wealth.
What do all these vignettes have in common? They all are expressions of the complex
interactions in systems. From the family systems in which we grew up, to the groups in
which we now interact, to the organizational and community systems in which we live and
work, to the kinds of supervision we receive at our work, systems play an important role in
our lives. Thus, it is not surprising that “human systems” is one of the mandated curriculum
areas listed in the accreditation standards of the Council for Standards of Human
Service Education (CSHSE, 2010).
In this chapter, we will examine how human service professionals can use knowledge of
systems to enhance their work with clients. We will begin by reviewing general systems
theory and examining how this theory can help us understand all kinds of systems. Then, we
will take a look at a number of systems in which we have or will participate—families,
groups, communities, and work. We will examine how the human service professional can
affect change in each of these systems. In addition, we will discuss ethical and professional
issues related to working in systems. Finally, we will examine the importance of
understanding the complex interactions of systems for the effective human service
professional.
GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
Living systems are processes that maintain a persistent structure over relatively long periods
despite rapid exchange of their component parts with the surrounding world. (Skynner, 1976, pp.
4–5)
Although knowledge of the amoeba may seem like a far cry from our understanding of systems,
in actuality there is much we can learn from this one-celled animal. The amoeba
has semipermeable boundaries that allow it to take in nutrition from the environment. This
delicate animal can not survive if its boundaries are very rigid or extremely permeable.
Boundaries that are too rigid would prevent it from ingesting food, and boundaries that are too
permeable would not allow the amoeba to maintain and digest the food it has found.
General systems theory was developed to explain the complex interactions of all types of
systems, including living systems (e.g., the amoeba in its environment), family systems, and
community systems (von Bertalanffy, 1934, 1968). Each system has boundaries that define its
information flow and allow it to maintain its structure while the system interacts with other
systems around it. Thus, the action of the amoeba, a small living system, affects the surrounding
environment. Similarly, the action of a family unit will affect other families with which it
interacts, and the action of a community group will affect other aspects of the community.
Components in a system tend to maintain their typical ways of functioning, whether those
actions are functional or dysfunctional. A much-used analogy is that of the thermostat in the
house (Nichols & Schwartz, 2009; Turner & West, 2006). When the temperature drops in the
house, the thermostat, based on the temperature setting, switches on. If the thermostat is set for
70 degrees and the temperature drops below that, the heater turns on. However, if the thermostat
is set for 40 degrees, the heater will not turn on until the temperature drops below 40 degrees.
This tendency is called homeostasis.
In families, groups, and even social systems, members take on typical ways of behaving,
regardless of whether these typical patterns are dysfunctional. Because these systems become
comfortable with their typical ways of behaving, members of these systems will exert covert or
overt pressure to have atypical behaviors suppressed. For instance, it was unusual for any
member of my family to express anger. When I was a teenager, the few times I got very angry I
distinctly remember my mother saying, “I don’t understand why you’re so angry; maybe we
should take you to see a psychologist.” My anger was atypical (rather than wrong), and the
family system was attempting to deal with my “unusual” behavior. You may have experienced
something similar to what I experienced at school or in a work setting. For instance, in either of
these settings have you ever noticed someone who seemed “odd” or out of place? Did that person
get labeled as different in some fashion and eventually become an outsider to the system? In
actuality, the reaction to the “odd” or atypical behavior is an important statement about what the
system can tolerate. In fact, people’s response to the individual probably says more about the
system than about the behavior. From a systems perspective, sometimes individuals who exhibit
atypical behaviors are said to be the scapegoat of the system.
General systems theory views a healthy system as one that has semipermeable boundaries that
allows new information to enter the system and be processed and incorporated. When a system
has rigid boundaries, information cannot flow easily into or out of the system, and the system has
difficulty with the change process. Alternatively, a system that has extremely permeable
boundaries allows information to flow too easily into and out of the system, resulting in the
individual components of the system having difficulty maintaining a sense of identity. Although
American society allows for much variation in the permeability systems, systems that have
particularly rigid or very loose boundaries have a tendency toward dysfunction. Sometimes these
systems undergo disastrous results when breakdown occurs (see Box 6.1).
BOX 6.1: Jim Jones and the Death of a Rigid System
In the 1950s and early 1960s, Jim Jones was a respected minister in Indiana. However, Jones
became increasingly paranoid and grandiose, believing he was Jesus. He moved his family to
Brazil and later relocated to California where approximately 100 of his church followers from
Indiana joined him. In California, he headed the People’s Church, and he began to set more rigid
rules for church membership. Slowly, he became more dictatorial and continued to show
evidence of paranoid delusions. He insisted that church members prove their love for him, by
demanding sexual intercourse with female church members, having members sign over their
possessions, sometimes having them give their children to him, and having members inform on
those who broke his rules. In 1975, a reporter uncovered some of the tactics Jones was using and
was about to write a revealing article about the church. Jones learned about this and, just before
publication of the article, moved to Guyana, taking a few hundred of his followers with him. As
concerns about some of the church practices reached the United States, California Congressman
Leo Ryan and some of his aides went to Guyana to investigate the situation. Jones and his
supporters killed the congressman and some of the aides. Jones then ordered his followers to
commit suicide. Hundreds killed themselves. Those who did not do so were murdered.
Jones had developed a church with a rigid set of rules. The publication of a revealing article and
the congressman flying into Guyana were threats to the system. As in many rigid systems,
attempts at change from the outside were seen as potentially lethal blows to the system. Jones
dealt with the reporter’s threat to the system by moving his congregation to Guyana. Then, rather
than allowing new information into the system, Jones killed off the system, first killing the
congressman and then ordering church members to commit suicide. The members had become so
mired in the rules of the system that nearly 900 of them committed suicide or were murdered.
This is a tragic example of how dysfunctional a rigid system can become.
COUPLES AND FAMILIES
Today, about half as many people get divorced as get married (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2011). So great is the impact of divorce on the family that Wallerstein and Blakeslee
(2004) found that following a divorce, a great majority of the children were negatively affected
by it years later and many struggled with issues from the divorce well into adulthood. Divorce
affects everyone in the family and many outside of it. Couples and families are living systems,
and each unique system affects other systems around it. In this section, we will explore couples
and families, how they function, how they become dysfunctional, and the role of human service
professionals in their encounters with couples and families.
Key Rules That Govern the Functioning of Couples and
Families
Communication and general systems theorists have developed a number of rules or common
elements that can help professionals understand the basic functioning of couples and families.
These include the following (Barker, 2007; Turner & West, 2006):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. The interactional forces between couples and in families are complex and cannot be
explained in a simple, causal fashion.
2. Couples and families have overt and covert rules that govern their functioning.
3. Understanding the hierarchy in a family (e.g., who’s “in charge”; who makes the rules) can
help one understand how couples and families communicate.
4. Understanding the unique subsystems of couples or families (e.g., spousal, sibling) can
help one understand how couples and families communicate.
5. Understanding the effects on couples and families when boundaries are rigid,
semipermeable, or extremely permeable.
6. Understanding the language used by couples and family members can give insight into
how couples and families maintain their way of functioning.
7. Each couple and family has its own unique homeostasis that describes how its members
typically interact. This homeostasis is not “bad” or “good.” It simply is.
8. Change occurs by changing the homeostasis, or the usual patterns in the couple and in the
family.
Through the lens of the common elements just noted, we can begin to understand the
development of healthy and dysfunctional families.
•
Healthy Couples and Families
Healthy couples and families have semipermeable boundaries that allow information to flow in
and be evaluated, and through healthy communication channels, make change as needed. Such
couples and families have open and honest communication patterns. They are aware of their
feelings and go to lengths to take ownership of their feelings. They are aware of how negative
feelings can reverberate through a system, and they try not to let their negative feelings deeply
affect others in the couple and in the family. Healthy couples and families are largely successful
at not blaming others for their problems and tend to not scapegoat other members.
A healthy family has parents or guardians who are the main rule makers (a healthy family
system can also have a single parent or guardian). Although rules will differ from family to
family, healthy families have a clear sense of hierarchy, with the parents being in charge and the
children, although possibly consulted, being the recipients of those rules.
Dysfunctional Couples and Families
Virginia Satir (1967), a well-known family therapist, noted that when one member of the
family feels pain, the whole family is affected in some manner.
Dysfunctional couples and families do not take ownership for their feelings or actions and do
not take responsibility for problems in their relationship. They will easily scapegoat others. Some
dysfunctional couples and families will have a tendency to see problems as residing in other
people, not in themselves, and thus play the “blame game.” Others will only see the problem as
residing within themselves and reject the notion that the couple or the system shares the problem.
Dysfunctional couples and families have a tendency toward very rigid boundaries that hold in
secrets about the couple or family, or extremely permeable boundaries that do not allow for
adequate development of separate identities.
Since all husbands and wives bring unfinished business to their marriage, the more serious the
unfinished business, the greater the likelihood it will negatively impact the couple or family. For
instance, a wife who was sexually molested as a child and has not worked through her pain will
undoubtedly bring this unfinished business into the relationship. She might have developed
mistrust of men and therefore unconsciously have chosen a man who is distant (and safe).
Perhaps he is a workaholic. Alternatively, a man who has difficulty with intimacy might
unconsciously pick a wife who allows him to be distant (and safe). As the relationship unravels,
each spouse’s issues are played out on one another or on one or more children. The husband may
become stressed at work and take this out on his wife, children, or both. The wife may crave
more intimacy, become discontent with the marriage, and take this out on her husband or
children. Is it surprising that there are so many affairs and divorces?
When spouses are discontented with each other, they will sometimes unconsciously take out their
anger on a child. In such a case, the child is said to be the scapegoat (Nichols & Schwartz, 2008,
2009). Often, when an individual is scapegoated, he or she becomes the identified patient (IP),
or the member that is identified as the “one with the problem.” In actuality, it is the couple or the
family that has the problem. When a scapegoated child acts out in the family, in school, or in the
community, the child is often said to be the member carrying the pain for the family
(see Box 6.2).
BOX 6.2: An Example of a Dysfunctional Family
A school counselor referred a 12-year-old boy to me because the boy’s grades had dropped
considerably and he was acting out in school. I asked him and his parents to come in for family
counseling. For the first two months, the parents insisted that everything was fine in their
marriage. As I continued to explore the situation, I could not understand why this boy was doing
so poorly in school and was demonstrating such a dramatic personality shift. Then, during one
session, the father revealed to me that he was extremely depressed—in fact, suicidally depressed.
His depression stemmed from events that had occurred during his childhood. Soon, the mother
revealed that she was bulimic, and later I discovered she was having an affair. The secrecy of the
father’s depression and the mother’s bulimia and affair were symptoms of deep discontent in the
marriage, and all stemmed back to issues in the parents’ childhoods.
Rather than dealing with these very painful issues with each other, the couple had taken out their
discontent on their oldest child. They did this through the mother becoming overly protective, the
father becoming overly distant, and, whenever they would get angry at each other, both focusing
on their son’s problems. When the school tried to involve them in assisting the boy, they
sabotaged whatever they were asked to do, as if they had something at stake in keeping him the
identified patient. In essence, as long as he was seen as the one with the problem, they did not
have to deal with their own problems. As soon as they became aware of what they were doing,
the mother became less protective, the father became closer to his son, and the couple stopped
scapegoating their son and began to deal with their own issues. The son’s acting-out behaviors
immediately stopped, and his grades improved dramatically.
Situational and Developmental Stress in Couples and
Families
Salvador Minuchin (1974) believes that all couples and families are stressed
by situational (unexpected) problems and by problems that are
predictable developmental struggles as the couple or family passes through its life stag …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades