Understanding Family Dynamics & Theories

One thing about me: I love analogies and metaphors. Understanding and insight can be gained and deepened by examining and drawing parallels from these types of mental images. This week, I’ll start my blog with an analogy we used in class to illustrate and help us better understand family dynamics.

Imagine you are looking to buy a house and you’ve narrowed it down to a certain neighborhood. You browse the online advertisements, scrolling through the pictures of interiors and features, and find three similar houses within your price range. Eagerly, you set off to check out the houses.

Pulling up to the first house, you see that it is surrounded by an eight-foot-high cinderblock wall. The wall goes all the way around the yard, except for a thick iron gate located at the front of the house.

The second house has no fence at all, just a few leaning fenceposts here and there around the perimeter of the yard. Looking closer, you can see there are several paths worn through the grass, meandering in and out of yard, some leading to the front step from various directions.

At the third house, a white picket fence surrounds the yard, with a little gate in the front.

What are your feelings about each of the houses? What might we presume about the people who live in each one? The purpose of the analogy is to help us identify and examine basic structures of family boundaries.

The first house represents boundaries that are too rigid. Nothing goes through, there is a marked limitation of interaction, and the rigid boundaries reflect a feeling of insecurity.

The second house represents a lack of boundaries, or boundaries that are too open. There is little regard or regulation for what or who comes and goes, and rules are less- or un-defined.

The third house represents healthy boundaries. Rules and roles within the family are defined and clear, but they do not restrict healthy communication and interaction. The boundaries in this family have a sense of expectation and are set in place with the intention of helping family members feel secure. My teacher also pointed out how the metaphorical picket fence is white, indicating the clearness of the boundaries, and that the shape of the wood panels discourages people from stepping over them. It is not a high fence, as the intention is not to shut out others or eliminate contact and connection with others, but rather reflects an appreciation and care for what is being kept safe within the family.

What kind of an effect do unhealthy boundaries—whether too open or too rigid—have on the family and specifically on children?

Studies show that an executive sub-system is needed in order for a family to function most effectively. These studies point towards the divinely appointed roles of a father and a mother working together as tandem co-leaders. The two parents make up this executive sub-system within the family and have the responsibility of establishing boundaries for the entire family system. Like partners in a dance, when parents work together in fluid harmony and are clear on when each should take turns leading, this provides consistency and a sense of security for the children. In contrast, when parents are out of sync with one another, and this executive sub-system is absent, this puts pressure on children. If the executive role is not being appropriately filled by a parent, in some cases it falls to a child, even though they lack the maturity and experience to manage it. The insecurity caused by a lack of healthy boundaries and structure of family roles may contribute to the high levels of anxiety of children in the Western world. How insecure would a child be not knowing who they can count on to ‘make sure the world goes right’?

With the disintegration of divinely establish family roles (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World, paragraphs 6 and 7), is it any wonder we have seen an increase in anxiety, depression, and turmoil in the world today? How comforting and securing is it for a child to see their parents co-leading? How many of the world’s problems could we avoid by fortifying a child’s experience in the family with re-established stable executive sub-systems? Our future is our children—and we can brighten the future of the world by fostering a stable family system at home.

To my Roots: I have learned so much from you about what it means to co-lead. I know you aren’t perfect, but you are my heroes. I hope I can lead my family like you have led ours.

To my Branches: The more I learn about family structures, the more I realize the great responsibility I have to provide you with security and a bright future by establishing healthy boundaries and by fulfilling my role as a co-leader in our future home.

Trends in the Family

In the years after the “Baby Boom”, much of America was alarmed by population predictions which assumed impending mass starvation and depletion of the world’s resources. Popular media continually promotes this picture of a dystopian future on an overcrowded planet. These and other factors have contributed to the formation of a number of trends affecting the family today.

Such trends include rising rates of cohabitation, delayed marriage, employed mothers, adults living alone, sexual intimacy outside of marriage, children born out of wedlock, divorce, smaller household size, and more. As we studied and discussed these trends in class, we found connections and correlations between so many of these topics. We took an informal vote to determine which trends we thought were crucial, important, interesting, or ‘no big deal.’ But as we explored deeper into these topics, some trends which appeared to have little impact at first (such as delayed marriage) actually correlated with other more-obviously serious trends which are redefining the family in society’s eyes. Let’s look a little closer at these trends and how they relate.

Take delayed marriage, for example. The average ages of women and men at marriage are now about 28 and 30, respectively. Delayed marriage contributes to the rising number of adults living alone, which has correlation to cycles of isolation and depression, as well as two types of loneliness: lack of social interaction and lack of intimate connection.

Delayed marriage is also correlated to cohabitation. This trend is on the rise and it is now estimated that 60-80% of people cohabit. This trend has been researched profusely, in part because the social scientists who promoted it in the 1970s wanted to see the affect. Studies show that those who cohabit before marriage are actually more likely to divorce.

This rise of divorce may contribute to the increase of employed mothers who are working instead of raising children full-time. Another factor related to the rise of employed mothers can be traced back to delayed marriage, because women who delay marriage are more likely to become well-established in a career and be reluctant to leave their careers when (or if) they do have children.

As one can imagine, cohabitation also contributes to the rise of sexual intimacy outside of marriage. This, in turn, contributes to the rise in children being born out of wedlock. It is estimated that 40% of children are born to unmarried parents.

As we have seen, many of these trends affecting the family are interrelated and influence one another. Something that seems insignificant at first may actually be a large contributing factor to an issue we easily identify as critical. It could be argued that the root of the issues attacking the traditional family unit today are resultant of a change in society’s moral standards. Regardless of the way society views or misuses it, the family is ordained of God and His standards will not change.

Speaking of Heavenly Father’s standards, He has made it clear in The Family: A Proclamation to the World (link) that the “We declare ... that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” Additionally, “God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

How does this look in the context of predictions of overpopulation and starvation made after the “Baby Boom”?

During the “Baby Boom” the average number of children per mother was just 3.7. It is important to note that the replacement fertility rate (meaning, the rate needed to maintain a population) is about 2.13. So where are we today? Less than 2. In fact, most countries do not have a fertility rate high enough to maintain their population. The overpopulation scare has not been realized, and with the current downward population trend, perhaps we should concern ourselves with other issues—such as a shrinking young demographic insufficient to support the large elderly demographic, and the lack of extended family networks (which may contribute to loneliness, depression, and even suicide).

And what about mass starvation? In today’s world, overconsumption is a bigger issue. The world has the resources to support the population, if only we could work out the appropriate distribution of them. In Doctrine and Covenants 104:17 the Lord teaches us: “...The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.”

Living according to the unchanging standards of God is up to us—we are agents unto ourselves. He has prepared a way to provide for all of His children if we will choose to heed His counsel and live the way He has shown.

In conclusion, a note to my Roots:

I am forever grateful to you for making the decision to follow God’s divine plan and raise our family—and that you didn’t stop after the first two kids (I’m the baby—number 3).

And to my Branches:

You are as real now as you will be when—God willing—I get to help bring you into this world. I will do all I can to defend the family as God ordained it.