sg_chpt4 - Chapter 4 Strategic Systemic Chapter 4 STRATEGIC...

Chapter 4: Strategic & Systemic
Chapter 4: S
TRATEGIC
& S
YSTEMIC
S
TRATEGIC
F
AMILY
T
HERAPY
Overview
The strategic family therapy models were developed in the 1950s. They arose
from two primarily sources: first, Gregory Bateson and the Palo Alto Group
who had applied the science of cybernetics to family communication patterns,
and second, Milton Erickson who developed revolutionary paradoxical
interventions that capitalized on people’s natural reluctance to change to bring
about rapid changes in psychiatric symptoms.
The Palo Alto Group . Gregory Bateson was joined in 1953, first by Jay Haley and
John Weakland and later by William Fry . In 1954, Bateson received a grant from
the Macy Foundation to study schizophrenia and was then joined by Don
Jackson . The group studied the family communication patterns of people
diagnosed with schizophrenia to try to determine the origin of the symptoms.
Guiding their work were concepts derived from cybernetics , the study of how
information-processing systems are controlled by feedback loops. They viewed
families as information processing systems and applied the cybernetics concepts
to patterns of interaction. They “assumed that psychotic behavior in one member
of a family might make sense in the context of pathological family
communication” (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998, p.28). They hypothesized that a
complex communication pattern, called the “double bind,” (see below) might
account for psychotic symptoms in a family member. The proposed explanation
was intriguing but controversial since it challenged the prevailing biological
“disease” theory. Although the researchers did find disordered communication
patterns in these families, there is no definitive evidence that demonstrates that
schizophrenic symptoms are the result, and the biological model dominates
today.
Double Bind . The term double bind has been commonly misused to simply
describe a contradictory message, but the Palo Alto group was referring to
interactions that are more complex. There are six characteristics of a double bind
(Nichols & Schwartz, 1998).
1. The communication involves two or more people who have an important
emotional relationship.
2. The pattern of communication is repeated.

Chapter 4: Strategic & Systemic
3. The communication involves a “primary negative injunction,” (Nichols &
Schwartz, p. 28) or a command not to do something on threat of punishment.
4. The communication also involves a second abstract injunction also under
threat of punishment that contradicts the primary injunction.
5. A third negative injunction both demands a response and prevents escape,
effectively binding the recipient of the demand.
6. The recipient becomes conditioned to respond, and as a result, the entire
sequence is no longer necessary to maintain the symptom.