Peer View

Han 1

Yunxiang Han

Professor Danilo Caputo

Writing 139W

July 16, 2020

The term Resilience, originating from Latin and introduced to English in the 17th century,

has a long history of utilization in both ecological sciences and social sciences. Specifically, in

the field of psychology, it started its application in the 1950s and gained its popularity in the

1980s (Alexander 2710). Later on, the research of resilience in psychology expanded from

individual to family. Similar to individual resilience, family resilience can be defined as the

ability of a family“withstand and rebound from disruptive life challenges, strengthened and

more resourceful” (Walsh 149). In this essay, two academic articles—Understanding Family

Resilience (Article 1) and Understanding and Fostering Family Resilience (Article 2) will be

compared. Both articles claim that family resilience as a positive characteristic is essential and

significant to cope with family-related challenges or crisis; However, while Article 1 believes

that family resilience is related to both the internal process of the family and the external risks or

opportunities in the society, Article 2 argues that the main purpose of resilience practice is to

explore the unique resources of each family and motivate them to exert the resources when in

trouble. In my view, the argumentation of Article 1 is more persuasive because it views family as

a social system in the ecological context when the relevant research has taken resilience into

consideration in a broad perspective, including resilience of individual, family and community.

On the one hand, Article 1 presents the relationship between family-level outcomes and

family core functions, discusses the risk and protective processes based on family stress and

coping theory, and provides practitioners and policy makers with implications to promote family

Han 2

resilience; on the other hand, Article 2 displays a concise literature review of family resilience,

such as its dimensions, models and traits, describes practical applications of resilience to

assessment and treatment of family, and advocates for more research and training in this field.

While some similarities are shared in the two articles, as indicated in their titles, many

differences are exposed as well.

In terms of ethos, both articles respectively employ their theoretical bases to support their

arguments, thereby resulting in different emphases regarding to family resilience. In Article 1, as

a reputable psychologist, the author Joan M Patterson presents her perspective based on family

stress and coping theory published by McCubbin and herself in the 1980s. The theory, as

demonstrated in their innovative and influential Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response

(FAAR) Model, “emphasizes the active processes families engage in to balance family demands

with family capabilities as these interact with family meanings to arrive at a level of family

adjustment or adaptation” (Patterson 236). To make the theory accessible, she provides the

readers with a figure, helping them get a better understanding of the overall family stress and

coping framework as well as the specific processes related to family risk and protection. In this

way, Patterson strongly defends her view that family resilience, instead of a stable characteristic,

Han 3

is a dynamic, ongoing, even emergent process with good outcomes especially after confronting

significant risk. On the other hand, in Article 2, Joan B. Simon et al also adopt FAAR Model

created by McCubbin and Patterson to explicate the concept of family resilience. Obviously, the

two articles have reached a consensus in terms of the theoretical model of family resilience.

However, unlike Patterson, linking her own FAAR model to the family stress theory, the three

authors combines the FAAR Model with the system theory of Froma Walsh, which “serves as a

conceptual map to identify and target key family processes that can reduce stress and

vulnerability in high-risk situations, foster healing and growth out of crisis, and empower

families to overcome prolonged adversity” (Simon et al. 428). Hence, the three key processes of

family resilience in Article 2, namely family belief system, organizational patterns, and

communication, are quite different with the primary processes, such as family cohesiveness,

family flexibility, or family meanings in Article 1. While Patterson, a master in family resilience,

applies her own theory to underpin her viewpoint, Simon et al borrow the theory of Walsh,

another giant in this domain, to endorse their perspective. Despite the divergences in theoretical

basis, the use of these theories has reinforced the ethos of both articles.

As for pathos, both articles utilize specific strategies to attract, involve and empathy readers.

For example, questions have been designed in Instruction as a hook to engage readers. While a

single question about people’s opposite responses to adversity is raised in Article 1, a series of

questions related to family resilience are exposed at the very beginning of Article 2, which seem

more comprehensive and profound than the former. In addition, examples aiming to explaining

and vitalizing the dry theories have been widely used in both articles to narrow the gap between

the professional scholars and common readers. On the one hand, to maintain the readers’ interest,

Article 1 provides numerous examples, especially converse ones to fully explicate the topic and

Han 4

critically enlighten the readers. For example, in regard to the nurturance and socialization

function of a family, “a high-quality parent–child relationship appropriate to a child’s

developmental needs is a prime example of success” while “child abuse or domestic violence

would be examples of failure to accomplish this function”. On the other hand, although the

examples of Article 2 are relatively fewer, the prominent case of the Smith family as a typical

example to illustrate the constructive intervention can easily resonate with readers because of its

authenticity and commonality. Moreover, the full use of paraphrasing has lowered the threshold

of the two academic articles and motivated the readers to complete the reading. The term “in

other words” appears frequently in both articles to accommodate ordinary readers. In spite of the

academic tone and intricate theories of the two articles, the strong pathos built on question

setting, example demonstration and key point paraphrasing has successfully served the readers.

With respect to logos, both articles attach importance to structure, argumentation and

coherence. Firstly, while both articles follow the conventional structure of academic articles,

including abstract, introduction and body, obviously Article 2 with a conclusion seems more

complete and friendlier to facilitate and impress the readers. Secondly, both articles adopt tables

to help make their argumentation more logical while placing on different emphasis. For example,

Article 2 uses a table to contrast the differences between traditional and resilience-oriented

approaches in practice, and encourages the practitioners to honor the resilience as well as

Han 5

potential of family as a unit, since it emphasizes the cultivation of family resilience during the

process of family assessment and treatment. However, when Article 1 uses a table to display the

family-level outcomes related to family’s core functions, it not only contrasts the examples of

positive and negative family-level outcomes but also compares the benefits that the family

functions provide for individual family members and society, since it focuses on the role of

family as a social system. Thirdly, besides the distinct transitions between paragraphs, both

articles pay attention to coherence within the context. For example, in Article 1, the reminders

like “again”, “once again” connect the examples or the points used in the previous analysis and

reinforce the coherence of the content. Also, in Article 2, the impressive case of the Smith family

is used in two sections: assessment and treatment. Analysis from different aspects of the same

case throughout the body of the article embodies the coherence. With strong logos, both articles

share their professional knowledge on family resilience with the readers.

Han 6

Despite the similarities and differences discussed above, Article 1 is more compelling

and convincing because of its broader perspective of family as a social system. Family should

fulfill their vital functions not only for their members but also for society. However, even Article

2 focuses on family resources, there is no doubt that many resources for family to fulfill their

functions depend on social programs and public policies, such as children’s education, health

insurance or employment opportunities.

During the ongoing pandemic, family resilience is supposed to play an important role.

According to both articles, crises may be the critical moments to acquire, adapt or apply family

resilience. Hopefully, in a world full of uncertainties, family resilience can serve as both driving

force and backup force, helping us go through this challenging time.

Han 7

Works Cited

Alexander, D. E. “Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey.” Natural

Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 13, November 2013, pp.2707-2716.

Patterson, Joan M. “Understanding Family Resilience.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 58,

issue 3, March 2002, pp. 233-246. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.10019.

Simon, Joan B., et al. “Understanding and Fostering Family Resilience.” The Family Journal:

Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, vol.13, issue 4, October 2005,

pp.427-436. www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1066480705278724.

Walsh, F. Family resilience: a collaborative approach in response to stressful life challenges.

Resilience and mental health: Challenges across the lifespan, September 2011, pp.149-

161. www.cambridge.org/core/books/resilience-and-mental-health/family-resilience-a-

collaborative-approach-in-response-to-stressful-life-

challenges/D1FEB555337EA3A9AEE19688CCDE970A.