Illness, Family Theory, and Family Therapy: I.Conceptual Issues

This article examines and clarifies controversies about the concept of illness in the field of family therapy. We contend that illness, as traditionally understood in all cultures, is a relational, transactional concept that is highly congruent with core principles of present-day family theories. Family therapists need not buy into a biotechnical, reductionistic reframing of illness as disease. Rather, it is more appropriate to conceptualize and work with illness as a narrative placed in a biopsychosocial context. Such a narrative includes how shared responsibility for coping and for finding solutions can take place, without becoming involved in disputes about causal models.     

Professional Politics and the Concepts of Family Therapy, Family Consultation, and Systems Consultation

At a time when an increasing number of professionals are calling themselves "family therapists," many teachers and theorists in this field are troubled that the term "family therapy" no longer adequately characterizes the concepts or activities of the field. Recently, clinical, political, and economic circumstances have emerged that suggest the need for alternatives to the role of "family therapist." By adding the roles of family consultant and systems consultant, we can open up new options for ourselves and our clients. During initial contacts with families, agencies, and other professionals, we can heighten our therapeutic potential by proceeding with consultative stocktaking, not starting with therapy. Family consultation also can assist in redirecting therapy when a new problem or an impasse develops, in focusing on competency rather than on pathology, and in engaging constructively with families that have a physically or mentally ill member.     

Parental Communication Deviance as a Predictor of Competence in Children at Risk for Adult Psychiatric Disorder

Measures of communication deviance derived from three different Rorschach situations were obtained from parents of 62 children vulnerable to future psychiatric disturbance. The families were maritally intact, with one parent having a history of previous psychiatric hospitalization and a male index child, 7 or 10 years of age. Amount of parental communication deviance in one situation was not significantly related to amount of communication deviance observed in another setting. However, mothers who exhibited high levels of communication deviance in both the Individual and Family Consensus situations tended to have offspring who were judged as low functioning in multiple settings, based on teacher ratings, peer ratings, and parental report. Conversely, children judged as high functioning in multiple settings had mothers who were free of high levels of communication deviance in both Rorschach situations.     

The Livingness of God; or,the Place of Substance and Dynamism in a Theology of the Divine Perfections

Theological reflection on the divine character is serviceable to the extent that it prevents the livingness of the triune God – and so the subject matter of theology – from disappearing behind rigorous consideration of the perfections themselves. The topic of God's livingness, in other words, informs the locus de Deo as a whole. The present article begins with a biblical‐dogmatic proposal for the form and content of this livingness: God's life in and for the world, it is proposed, is at every point rooted in the life which God has from himself as Father, Son and Spirit. Two clarifications are subsequently offered. An appeal to the livingness of God should be distinguished both from an abstract rejection of ‘substance’ language and from a conceptualization of reality under a general theory of the forward advancement of the world process.     

Whose personality is better,mine or my partner's? Self‐enhancement bias in relationships

Previous research has documented self‐enhancement and relationship partner‐enhancement motivations, but not examined whether individuals view themselves or their partners more favorably, overall. The authors conducted three studies that revealed a general tendency to favor oneself over one's partner in direct self–partner personality comparisons. This illustrated a motivational precedence of self‐enhancement over partner‐enhancement goals. In Study 1, participants rated self‐only traits more favorably than partner‐only traits. In Studies 2 and 3, participants rated desirable traits as more characteristic of themselves than their partner, particularly when traits were more relevant to personal than relationship success. The authors also found that this self‐favoring bias was weaker (typically nonexistent) among those with higher relationship satisfaction, lower self‐esteem, or lower self‐deceptive tendencies. The authors discuss practical, theoretical, and methodological implications.