Family Therapy Model Essay

Family treatment models of psychotherapy can be isolated into three classificationsâ€ahistorical, recorded, and experiential (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). The ahistorical grouping incorporates auxiliary family treatment, key family treatment, social family treatment, psychoeducational family treatment, and correspondence models (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). The verifiable characterization incorporates object relations hypothesis and Bowen frameworks hypothesis (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). The experiential characterization contains only one modelâ€the experiential family treatment model (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). While the chronicled models center around changing the family’s examples of association as a methods for expelling the introducing issues, the recorded models are established in analysis, with a more drawn out treatment mediation in which the specialist is less required than in different arrangements (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). Experiential models, then again, are progressively worried about the patient’s development, a procedure of both encountering and observing interior issues, and the patient’s self-character advancement inside the family setting (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3). The historical backdrop of the models and the therapist’s job in each varies, so given the size constraints of this paper, a different history on each isn't possible. Every hypothesis has its own significant donors. Among the ahistorical models, basic family hypothesis, for instance, was impacted by Gregory Bateson, who concentrated on verbal and nonverbal correspondence; the Palo Alto Team, which built up the idea of â€Å"family homeostasis;† and Salvador Minuchin, who considered families to be working to mingle kids and encourage the shared help of wedded couples, enduring issues when limits were either excessively permeable or excessively unbending (Werner-Wilson, n.d., pp. 2-4). Of the chronicled models, object relations hypothesis was impacted by Melanie Klein and later by Otto Kernberg, who concentrated on drives and the union of Freudian and non-Freudian objectâ relations hypothesis, separately (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 3; Tribich, 1981, p. 27). In the experiential model, Whitaker reclassified manifestations as â€Å"attempts at growth† and utilized demonstrating to offer â€Å"fantasy options in contrast to genuine stressors† (Griffin and Greene, 1998, p. 12). Three of the five key ideas of family treatment models are epitomized in Schutz’s Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation, or FIRO modelâ€inclusion, control, and warmth (Hafner and Ross, 1989, p. 974). Parr (2000, p. 256) alludes to the fondness idea as â€Å"intimacy† when she states, â€Å"The family FIRO model theorizes a paradigmatic perspective on the family’s relationship association around the three interrelated center needs of consideration, control, and intimacy.† Inclusion includes a sentiment of having a place inside the family setting, and it requires a feeling of connectedness, a mutual conviction framework, and a composed structure that the family consolidates to deal with issues of jobs and limits (Parr, 2000, p. 255). The idea of control includes the manner in which the family cooperates regarding force and impact, as when these are utilized to determine struggle in the regions of â€Å"discipline, job exchanges, and issue solving† (Parr, 2000, p. 256). The love or closeness idea shows the family members’ requirements for collaborations that permit them to open up to one another about their emotions and territories of defenselessness (Parr, 2000, p. 256). Another key idea is correspondence hypothesis. There are differed sorts of correspondence hypothesis, yet the one that is generally fitting to family treatment is family correspondence designs hypothesis, which fills in as a model of family correspondence dependent on social associations among correspondence practices (Fitzpatrick, 2004, p. 175). At long last, the idea of systems is a fundamental piece of the family treatment approach. Systems offer help during family treatment when the family itself is under pressure. As Goldenberg and Goldenberg (p. 12) call attention to, â€Å"The backing of a system of companions, more distant family, ministry, neighbors, managers, and individual representatives and the accessibility of network assets regularly add to family recovery,† and â€Å"even riotous, complicated, oppressive, and multi-issue families have resources.† An assessment of family treatment from the Christian point of view uncovers that it is good with Christian standards. Since it is a method of treatment predicated essentially on understanding the elements of family life and assisting relatives with changing their broken conduct, there is little in family treatment thatâ runs experiencing some miscommunication with Christian reasoning. Consideration, control, and friendship are largely Christian ideas also. Everybody is remembered for the gathering of those qualified to be Christians, and one just needs to decide to have a place. Control of one’s activities is basic to the Christian point of view, with signs of an absence of control being viewed as issues. Warmth is a sign of Christianity, and Jesus showed certified friendship to individuals, asking his followers to do likewise. Correspondence hypothesis is more than applicable to Christianity, as confirm by the huge measure of correspondence that happens in the Bible and the numerous associations that are recorded there to assist adherents with understanding both attractive and unfortunate types of correspondence. In addition, Christianity is a network situated religion from various perspectives, encouraging adherents to help those out of luck and to cherish others, so its statutes fit perfectly into the idea of the encouraging group of people, also. Jesus went about the open country, as did His followers, taking assistance to individuals in different towns en route, and there is an unmistakable feeling of network in the Christian lifestyle, which considers different people’s emotions, government assistance, and interests just as one’s own. At long last, there is in Christianity a solid family model, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are basically an awesome nuclear family, and therefore family treatment models are characteristically organized to identify with the Christian model. References Fitzpatrick, M.A. (2004). Family Communication Patterns Theory: Observations on its Development and Application. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3/4), 167-179. EBSCO Host. Goldenberg, H., Goldenberg, I. (2007). Family Therapy: An Overview. Florence, KY: Brooks Cole. Griffin, W.A., Greene, S.M. (1998). Models of Family Therapy: The Essential Guide. New York: Routledge. Hafner, R.J., Ross, M.W. (1989). The FIRO Model of Family Therapy: Implications of Factor Analysis. Diary of Clinical Psychology, 45(6), 974-979. Klein, M., Tribich, D. (1981). Kernberg’s Object-Relations Theory: A Critical Evaluation. Worldwide Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 62, 27-43. Recovered on March 25, 2010 from: http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=IJP.062.0027A Werner-Wilson, R.J. (n.d.). Family Therapy Theory. Recovered on March 25, 2010 from: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hd_fs.511/address/Sourcebook20.ppt