Skip to main content
Log in

The limits of systems therapy: The problem of intimacy

  • Published:
Contemporary Family Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By placing so much emphasis on systemic thinking, marriage and family therapists have lost sight of the individual within the system. One of the limits of a systemic therapy is its capacity to deal with problems in intimacy, a central problem in marital therapy. A knowledge of individual development is crucial for family therapists. The two themes dealt with in this paper are 1) some concepts of self psychology which can be useful in understanding the fear of intimacy, and 2) at what point, in couples' therapy, it is advisable to shift to individual therapy for one or both partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bacal, H. A., & Newman, K. M. (1990).Theories of object relations: Bridges to self psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balint, M. (1968).The basic fault. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice.Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7, 345–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady, N. F. (1992). Rationale and directions for an increased emphasis on the therapeutic relationship in family therapy.Contemporary Family Therapy, 14, 467–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohler, B. (1980). Developmental perspectives on the psychology of the self in early childhood. In A. Goldberg (Ed.),Advances in self psychology (pp. 69–115). New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dare, C. (1986). Psychoanalytic marital therapy. In N. S. Jacobsen & A. S. Gurman (Eds.),Clinical handbook of marital therapy (pp. 13–28). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, H. (1963). Object relations theory and marital studies.British Journal of Medical Psychology, 36, 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, H. (1967).Marital tensions. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B. L., & Parks, B. M. (1988). Integrating individual and systems approaches: Strategic-behavioral therapy.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14, 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Object relationships and dynamic structure. In W. R. D. Fairbarn (Ed.),Psychoanalytic studies of the personality (pp. 137–151). London: Tavistock/Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, R. B., & Guttman, H. A. (1984). Families of borderline patients: Literalminded parents, borderline parents, and parental protectiveness.American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 1392–1396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, R., Weakland, J., & Segal, L. (1983).The tactics of change: Doing therapy briefly. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, L. (1990). The concept of the alliance and its role in psychotherapy: Theoretical and empirical considerations.Psychotherapy, 27, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovacchini, P. (1965). Treatment of marital disharmonies: The classical approach. In B. L. Greene (Ed.),The psychotherapies of marital disharmony (pp. 39–82). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. J., & Herget, M. (1991). Outcomes of systemic/strategic team consultation: III. The importance of therapist warmth and active structuring.Family Process, 30, 321–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guntrip, H. (1971).Psychoanalytic theory, therapy and the self. London: Hogarth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, H. A. (1991). Systems theory, cybernetics, and epistemology. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.),Handbook of family therapy, Volume II (pp. 41–62). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, J. (1976).Problem solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, J. (1981).Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (1981).Foundations of family therapy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israelstam, K. V. (1989). Interacting individual belief systems in marital therapy.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. D. (1957). The question of family homeostasis.The Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 31, 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, H. (1971).The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohut, H. (1977).The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansky, M. R. (1980). On blame.International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 8, 429–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lansky, M. R. (1985). Preoccupation as a mode of pathologic distance regulation.International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 11, 409–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mashal, M., Feldman, R. B., & Sigal, J. J. (1989). The unraveling of a treatment paradigm: A follow-up study of the Milan approach to family therapy.Family Process, 28, 457–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M. (1987).The self in the system. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharff, D. E., & Scharff, J. S. (1987).Object relations family therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharff, J. S. (1991).Foundations of object relations family therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cechin, G., & Prata, G. (1978).Paradox and counterparadox. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slipp, S. (1984).Object relations: A dynamic bridge between individual and family treatment. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slipp, S. (1989). A differing viewpoint for integrating psycho-dynamic and systems approaches.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 15, 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1980).The dynamics of psychological development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, T. C. (1986). Structural-strategic therapy. In N. Jacobson & A. Gurman (Eds.),Handbook of marital therapy (pp. 71–105). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtel, E. F. (1987). Family systems and individual child.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974).Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willi, J. (1984). The concept of collusion: A theoretical framework for marital and family therapy.Family Process, 23, 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1965).The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinner, J. (1976). The implications of projective identification for marital interaction. In H. Grunbaum & J. L. Christ (Eds.),Contemporary marriage: Structure, dynamics and therapy (pp. 293–308). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braverman, S. The limits of systems therapy: The problem of intimacy. Contemp Fam Ther 15, 285–297 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00897759

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00897759

Keywords

Navigation