Old Loyalties, New Ties

Therapeutic Strategies with Stepfamilies

Emily B. Visher, John S. Visher

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317772668
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

First published in 1989. This book on stepfamilies emphasises the positive aspects of remarriage for children and adults whilst demonstrating how to improve stepfamily situations where needed. Including a summary of relevant research along with practical clinical interventions, this is an essential read for people involved in the treatment and counselling of troubled stepfamilies.

CHAPTER 1

American Stepfamilies of the 1980s

Everybody goes through trauma and everybody survives. At the beginning I thought I wouldn’t get through. Now I think I’m stronger for it.

—Teenager living in a stepfamily

“Confusion,” “complexity,” “resentment,” “jealousy,” “guilt,” “chaos”—these are a few of the associations that therapists give in response to the word “stepfamily.” The pattern of their associations is consistent. There are also phrases like “hidden agendas,” “alienation,” “walking on eggs,” “never enough time,” “not as good.” Once in a while a timid voice mentions “love,” “challenge,” “humor,” “exciting,” and a phrase such as “parental happiness,” but usually the word “stepfamily” conjures up a negative image. While the word “family” may denote hearth and home, pictures of Cinderella shivering by the ashes of the fire tend to accompany “stepfamily.”

Therapists are not alone in their negative associations. In fact, they may be reflecting not only their own experience working with stepfamilies, but also the influence of cultural stereotypes. We do not know whether or not we would receive the same responses to descriptive synonyms such as “blended,” “remarriage,” “synergistic,” or “reconstituted” families. There are, however, no substitute designations for “stepparent,” and several studies have tested the image of “stepmother and stepfather” as compared to “mother and father” with the conclusion that “step” appears to be pejorative, signifying a more negative image (Ganong & Coleman, 1983).

In contrast to their more experienced colleagues, counselors who were inexperienced viewed stepfamilies less positively than nuclear families, seeing stepparents as less potent and less well-adjusted than adults they believed to be from nuclear families. Adolescents who were evaluated by the inexperienced counselors were also seen as less potent, less active, and less welladjusted if they were said to have been from a stepfamily (Bryan, Ganong, Coleman, & Bryan, 1985).

Over 700 college students were found to have utilized family structure as a cue to form stereotypes of a negative character (Bryan et al., 1986). In this study stepparents were seen more negatively than married or widowed parents, and stepchildren were ranked even more negatively than stepparents, falling below children of all other family types tested, including those living with a never-married parent or with a divorced parent who had not remarried. The authors comment, “Though the term wicked is readily associated with stepmother and abusive has recently been linked with stepfather, it may be that the frequent use of stepchild to mean poor, neglected, and ignored has had an insidious impact on attitudes over time” (p. 173). Indeed, this picture of stepchildren may affect stepfamilies in ways not generally recognized, the children at times gaining unproductive power in the suprafamily system as the adults attempt to “make up to them” for the disadvantaged position they are thought to be in.

Another instance comes to mind in which a group of stepfamilies met together shortly before Christmas, the children and the adults meeting in separate discussion groups at the beginning of the evening. They joined together for a holiday party later. The adults were surprised to learn that during the discussion time the children had expressed feelings of happiness and contentment, and had very few negative responses to their family status. It seems that the adults may have been reacting to an inner perception of the children that was stereotypically based.

Stepfamily stereotypes are formed early. A three-year-old expects her friend’s stepmother to make her sweep the house, and a seven-year-old says to her stepmother, “You can’t be my stepmother, you’re not mean enough.” No wonder many stepfamilies, wishing to receive the approval of society, conceal their “stepfamilyhood” and pretend that they are nuclear or biological families. Reversing or at least neutralizing this negative stereotype will not be easy since the stories of Cinderella, Snow White, and Hansel and Gretel have yet to be replaced by popular tales featuring benign stepparents.

It has been our impression that most reports from clinicians tend to emphasize the problems in stepfamilies, probably because they have contact with a population which has sought help because of its difficulties, while the empirical researchers who are looking at nonclinical populations tend to have a more positive view of stepfamily life. This impression has been verified by Ganong & Coleman (1986).

Thinking of this matter reminded us of a pediatrician we knew who said, “I’m never going to have any children of my own because they’re always sick.” Just as he had a biased view because of the restricted population he served, clinicians and researchers may be reacting to different subsamples of the total population—clinicians dealing with families who are talking about their difficulties and reseachers working with families who are willing to be interviewed and answer questionnaires (often because they feel proud of the progress they have made in integrating their stepfamily and want to share their experiences with others).

We believe it is extremely important for therapists to remain aware of the strengths and rewards in stepfamilies while helping them deal with their difficulties. Since the focus of this book is on the “roadblocks” to stepfamily integration, we will be discussing problem areas. In light of this, we consider that it is crucial to remain sensitive to the larger, more objective, stepfamily context. Only a few of the total number of stepfamilies will ever seek therapeutic help, while many will utilize generally available information to guide them along their way. Of those who seek a therapeutic contact, many will do so not because of personal weakness but because they have psychological awareness and strength. They turn to therapy as a valuable tool to help them create a rewarding family life for themselves and their children. This outlook is supported by a considerable body of research and clinical observation showing the stepfamily to be a viable and positive family type.

Among the older studies, Duberman (1975) found that 64% of her stepfamilies rated themselves as having excellent relationships, while only 18% said they were experiencing poor relationships. Bernard (1956) cautiously concluded that stepfamily relations may in many cases be mutually supportive and healthier than the problem-filled family involved in a disruptive first marriage. Burchinal (1964) studied 1500 Iowa high school students and concluded that there were no findings that divorce or remarriage had any long-term significant detrimental effects. Wilson et al. (1975) performed a statistical analysis of two national surveys and concluded that there were no measurable outcome differences between individuals who had experienced stepfather families as compared to other types of family arrangements. In summary, these older studies seem to indicate that children arrive at the same place, but get there by different routes.

More recent studies report similar findings. For example, Santrock, Warshak & Elliott (1982) found that there were few differences in social behavior between stepchildren and children (aged 6-11 years) in nuclear or single-parent households. They also found, as a result of direct observation in a controlled experimental situation, that the social development of boys from stepfamilies was more competent and mature, although girls tended to be more anxious. Furstenburg (1981) has studied remarriage and intergenerational relations. He says, “… remarriage has the consequence of distributing a diminishing pool of children among a larger circle of adults. For children it means being connected, albeit sometimes only weakly, to a great number of adults who are prepared to treat them as kin” (p. 136). Family networks are reinforced, and parenting can be shared by a larger kinship group. Bohannan & Yahraes (1979) reported the results of a random survey in San Diego, California. They found that stepchildren view themselves as being just as happy as biological children, as well as just as successful and achieving. These children reported getting along with their stepfathers as well as the biological children reported getting along with their fathers. However, the stepfathers tended to view themselves as less successful, and their stepchildren as less happy, a perception with which their wives did not agree. In fact, living in this type of family has been found to ameliorate many of the negative effects of divorce for children (Chapman, 1977; Peterson & Zill, 1986).

Another study examined remarried families’ perceptions of their strengths (Knaub, Hanna, & Stinnett, 1984), and while most of the families reported that there were changes they would like to have been able to make, their scores were high on family strength, marital satisfaction, and perception of family adjustment. Some clinical writers have also looked at stepfamily strengths, and Crohn et al. (1982), writing about the positive aspects of remarriage, say:

A successful (remarriage) family has a great deal to offer adults and children. It provides exposure to a variety of life styles, opinions, feelings, and enriching relationships. In (remarriage), an adult forms a new love relationship with a partner, which is often strengthened by maturity, life experience, and stability in identity and grows through the gaining of independence and free choice as opposed to desperation and fear. The previously divorced adult, wiser from hindsight, forms a new type of marital relationship, with the opportunity to parent and to benefit from a supportive suprasystem. In (remarriage), children can learn to appreciate and respect differences in people and ways of living, can receive affection and support from a new stepparent and the new suprasystem, and can observe the remarried parent in a good and loving marital relationship, using this as a model for their own future love relationships. If an only child, he or she may gain the experience of cooperation that a subsystem with other children offers (p. 162).

Sager et al. (1983) also write about the positive potential of remarriage from the viewpoint of the child, crediting Dicks (1967) with these points:

There are many positive aspects of the multiplicity of (remarriage) for the child. After seeing a destructive marital relationship between his bio-parents, he may gain positive models and a feeling of stability from the loving interaction of the (remarriage) couple. He may get care and attention from his stepparents, sibs, and grandparents that add to the bounty from bio-parents. The multiplicity of personalities, styles of living and values may give the child the rich mosaic of life in an extended family without its structural certitude and monolithicity. A stepparent offers the child opportunities for selective identification and may compensate for limitations in the bio-parents. A child whose mother is a stern, distant person may look to the warmth and gentleness of his stepmother as a way of getting some other needs gratified. His father may love him but have a limited education; the child may find intellectual stimulation in a brighter or more educated stepfather. His breadth of choice of a future mate is broadened insofar as he is influenced by parental introjects and projections, (pp. 237–238)

The chances of having a successful stepfamily experience are enhanced when the milieu surrounding the family is accepting and supportive (Knaub, Hanna, & Stinnett, 1984). With 30% of all marriages being the remarriage of at least one of the adults (Glick & Lin, 1986), a revision of the family life cycle seems in order. As Goldner (1982) states it, “If the first marriage is no longer the happy ending to childhood, but rather the first in a series of stages that characterize a more demanding adult life, family therapists need to recast their understanding of family structure and development with this in mind” (p. 190).

Morawetz (1984) goes a step further when she says that perhaps family therapists are contributing to, rather than ameliorating, problems of stepfamilies by not being “open to the view that couples and families may cope better if their expectations of marriage and family life include the idea of separation and divorce” (p. 572); we would add “remarriage.” Even the popular press is commenting on the issue: “The prevalence of a remarriage hardly suggests a demise of the institution of marriage. Rather, countless couples like those interviewed here indicate that the concept of marriage is being expanded to included divorce, cohabitation, and remarrying as parts of a whole life cycle of coupling. It is a concept that places high value on personal growth and fulfillment and permits individuals to strive for better relationships. It is a concept that reaffirms the ideas on which a successful marriage is built” (Dahl, 1984, p. 274).

The message seems clear. At the present time the tightly knit nuclear family is no longer meeting the needs of a great many people. There are a number of reasons for this: because of the increased life span, there is a potential for couples to be married longer, and this gives more opportunity for partners to change and drift apart; the women’s movement has altered women’s expectations of marriage; religious values have shifted; and the focus of many individuals has changed from concerns about survival to concerns about the quality of their lives. Perhaps the move from an agricultural to an urban society has also put a strain on families; no longer are there extended kin to help with the raising of the children. With the present mobility of American society, many families no longer have roots in one familiar community. The proliferation of stepfamilies may be an adaptation to these changes. While other adaptations may appear, this type of family is likely to be a prominent family form for the forseeable future and a more positive view seems desirable:

Stepfamilies and professionals who work with them need to know that their family complexity can bring richness and diversity to their members. Building new relationships makes stepfamily members sensitive to the importance of communication and emotional touching. (They) can experience the deep satisfaction and bonding that result from working together to meet difficult challenges. Learning to cope effectively with the pain of loss can produce an ability to deal creatively with the inevitable changes and losses that are a part of life itself. (Visher & Visher, 1982, p. 119)

Stress does not necessarily signal dysfunction, and pain does not necessarily lead to psychological damage. Both can facilitate growth and an appreciation of the importance of caring relationships.

CHAPTER 2

Theoretical Considerations

Recognition of transitional conflict is the key to helping families in cultural transition.

—Judith Landau-Stanton (1985, p. 369)

The basic goal of all families is to provide an atmosphere in which important needs of the adults and children are met, so that the adults find happiness in their lives and the children grow and develop into productive and mature adults. To provide this, stepfamily individuals first must move from diverse previous family cultures to an integrated stepfamily culture. Knowledge of what to expect and ways to make the transition go more smoothly can do much to reduce the transitional stresses and the time involved to accomplish the necessary changes. Even after integration has occurred, the complexity of the suprafamily system may lead to therapeutic contact at times of family transition. Individual problems can occur at any time.

This chapter is devoted to exploring the norms of stepfamilies, their tasks, and their basic therapeutic needs. The remainder of the book describes certain areas of distress and ways in which therapists can help with the delicate process of stepfamily integration and validation.

We define a stepfamily as a household in which there is an adult couple at least one of whom has a child from a previous relationship. We include in our definition households in which the children may reside for periods of time varying from none to full time. Because of basic similarities, we include couples who may not be legally married, but who do have a significant commitment to one another.

TRANSITIONAL FOCUS WITH STEPFAMILIES

Judith Landau-Stanton has written extensively about therapy with families in transition (Landau, 1982; Landau-Stanton, Griffiths, & Mason, 1982; Landau-Stanton, 1985). We find these concepts valuable since we see functioning stepfamilies as families which have made a successful transition from previous family cultures to a new stepfamily culture. We have found that the majority of stepfamilies which seek therapeutic help are asking for assistance with this transition, and “the conflicts arising from transitional factors must provide the initial focus for therapy” (Landau-Stanton, Griffiths & Mason, 1982, p. 368). According to these authors, transitional conflicts arise when individuals or family subsystems do not adapt to the new culture in a synchronous manner. Resulting conflicts may produce considerable stress and symptomatology which cannot be considered pathological per se, but can be viewed as behavior that is the result of the transitional difficulties.

As a rule, stepfamily individuals progress at different rates along the continuum of adaptation to the new family pattern. Bounded by the environmental characteristics outlined in Table 1, adults and children move towards integration and solidity, with typ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Prologue
• 1. American Stepfamilies of the 1980s
• 2. Theoretical Considerations
• 3. Intervention Strategies
• 4. Whom to See
• 5. Change and Loss
• 6. Unrealistic Beliefs
• 7. Insiders/Outsiders
• 8. Life Cycle Discrepancies
• 9. Loyalty Conflicts
• 10. Boundary Problems
• 11. Power Issues
• 12. Closeness and Distance
• 13. Overview
• References
• Appendix
• Index