Relying upon Carter and McGoldrick, Chapter 14, and other scholarly materials you have
encountered, discuss how your proposed definition for family (from Family Development
Discussion: An Initial Working Definition of Family) agrees or disagrees with Carter and
McGoldrick’s presentation of “Becoming a Family.” Highlight areas addressed by Carter
and McGoldrick that were not addressed in your previous discussion.
My proposed working definition of family was defined as “a group of 2 or more
individuals bound together by values, beliefs, morals, and is supported by a structure of
connectedness, nurturing, a sense of belonging, sharing resources and purpose, and
communication”. As compared to Carter and McGoldrick’s presentation about family, my
definition aligns with certain aspects discussed in the text. Carter and McGoldrick define family
in the boundaries and context of emotional and structural systems stretching across generations
who are bonded together by biological, legal, cultural, and historical ties (Carter & McGoldrick,
2016). A major concept in the presentation of family from Carter and McGoldrick that finds
congruence with my working definition includes the inclusion of non-traditional models of
family, such as those family units those no longer represent the nuclear family. As the authors
have stressed, the family has changed and development of the family cycle looks different today
than it did in the past (Carter & McGoldrick, 2016). What used to be considered the normative
basis for defining family is no longer the model which we should base our understanding off of.
As I worked to build a definition of family, one of the main points that stuck with me is the
changing model of the husband and wife with children to other forms of family. I do see
marriage as a covenant and a proper basis for the family, but think it breeds healthy conversation
regarding the influence of societal and economic forces. Other concepts of my working
definition that align well with the authors beliefs would include the emphasis on meeting needs
and sharing resources. Carter and McGoldrick emphasize that that the provision of basic needs
being met is both foundational to the family and a driving point for growth and sustainability.
In contrast, the area in which my working definition of family differed from the authors
presented meaning was primarily in the understanding of coupling. While my definition did not
include a definitive scope on marriage, my ideas regarding the role of marriage do contrast with
the authors. Carter and McGoldrick (2016) seem to emphasize heterosexual marriage as
patriarchal and a problem for both men and women (p. 261). There seemed to be an underlying
desire to push for acceptance and normalization for other forms of coupling outside of the
biblical framework for marriage such as homosexuality and cohabitation. While I agree that
other forms of family are present and still developing, and that we should be mindful of the
different contexts in which family development looks different, I do not agree with a
stigmatization on the traditional marriage.
What have you learned about the important institution of marriage and the context of
family as a place to foster child development?
The importance of the institution of marriage and the context of family is that it offers a
dominant framework for meeting basic needs that foster trust and safety, specifically for children
(Carter and McGoldrick, 2016).As therapists and counselors, we should be interested in the
relationship between marriage and the family because as historically, marriage is what created
family and family was the basic social unit upon which society is built (Little, 2016). Balswick
(2014) offers a model by which the context of family serves as a driving force for fostering child
development; Balswick (2016) discusses the important role of families in helping children move
to an autonomous, differentiated state of maturity and independence. According to research,
families are thought to influence child health and development through what are identified as 3
primary mechanisms including, biological and genetic endowments, financial investments, and
behavioral investments (Berger & Font, 2015). Referencing the text of Carter and McGoldrick,
the institution of marriage offers a domain to help children develop expressed in the tasks of
discipline, respect, guidance, rules, and supports (Carter & McGoldrick, 2016). While any family
can offer biological, financial, and behavioral investments, it seems to be implied throughout the
reading that the quantity and quality of investments in each of the 3 mechanisms listed
previously tend to be greater among more stable and better-off families as opposed to more fluid,
complex and poorer families (Berger & Font, 2015). Though it is important to note that modern
families come in a range of diverse and fluid forms, thus the nuclear family should not be the
only model by which we define family. A large proportion of families will experience one or
more transitions in family structure. While these transitions can provide opportunities to enhance
investments in to child development, they can also breed a variety of issues. When looking at the
institution of marriage, I believe it is important to consider each family as a structural component
that has been influenced by a number of factors that are directly related to the development of
children throughout the family life cycle.
How does what you are learning about family from a scholarly perspective fit with your
understanding of a biblical view of family?
From a scholarly perspective, most of what we are learning can fit into an understanding
of a biblical view of family. Most of what we have learned thus far focuses largely on what
makes families different, factors that can contribute to change of family structure, how those
changes influence the family cycle, and the importance of understanding family objectively. I
agree with Carter and McGoldrick (2016) in their assertation regarding the changes family has
undergone over the years. While I would ascertain that a biblical view of family incorporates
different elements for family life than most secular models do, there are many aspects discussed
thus far that do fit into a robust understanding of family complexity.
However, there are a few notable differences that should be discussed. The institution of
marriage is one of the biggest differences I see between scholarly and biblical views of family.
Today marriage is viewed as a contract rather than a covenant; individuals enter into marriage
with a different attitude regarding longevity and commitment. When things get hard, boring, or
trying couples are more likely to divorce (Carter and McGoldrick, 2016). However, biblical view
of family asserts a model of love, grace, and mercy (Garland, 2012). The model for the family is
primarily based off the tenants of a covenantal union (Köstenberger, 2010). The biblical
emphasis on family as I understand it reflects an understanding of the scholarly perspectives
presented thus far, but differ in the ability to understand families from a spiritual viewpoint.
How might your personal views and values impact your ability to effectively work with the
full range of families you are likely to encounter?
My personal views and values have the ability to impact my work with a full range of
families in a number of ways if careful and thoughtful steps to avoid that are not taken. Thus, my
goal is to seek the Lord in every conversation but to also be engrossed in a vigorous study of
family as it continues to change and modify. As someone who resonates with a biblical view of
humanity, my job is to not judge a family but rather offer a biblical framework of understanding,
guidance, and care. I love that this class has broadened my ability to think of family outside of
the bounds of marriage. Garland (2012) offers a challenge for the church to find ways to minister
families who may not represent the nuclear model. As I have sat with the material, I have thought
on ways to better minster to those families who do not represent the biblical model for family. As
I work to counsel and minister to families, I hope to maintain internal awareness of my own
biases, views, and beliefs regarding family and staying open to the client(s) and focusing on their
struggles.
References:
Balswick, J. O., & Balswick, J. K. (2014). The family: A Christian perspective on the
contemporary home. (4th ed.). Baker Academic.
Berger, L. M., & Font, S. A. (2015). The Role of the Family and Family-Centered Programs and
Policies. The Future of children, 25(1), 155–176.
Garland, D. R. (2012). Family ministry: A comprehensive guide. (2nd ed.). Inter Varsity Press.
Kostenberger, A. J. (2010). God, marriage, and family: Rebuilding the biblical foundation. (2nd
ed.). Crossway.
Little, W. (2016). Introduction to sociology (1st ed.). Victoria, B.C.: BC Campus.
McGoldrick, M., Preto, N. G., & Carter, B. (2016). The expanding family life cycle: Individual,
family, and social perspectives. (5th ed.). Pearson.
Reply:
Courtney,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding this weeks discussion. I resonated with many of
your points and I believe you offered an interesting point of view on family and marriage. I
specifically wanted to focus on the last two paragraphs of your post within this reply. Your point
asserting the openness to change within family structures is a critical aspect in counseling that I
believe Carter and McGoldrick (2016), along with other authors we have been introduced to,
have stressed. As you alluded to, there should be a unique emphasis placed on family therapy. As
Carter and McGoldrick (2016) explain, until now there has been little emphasis on the family life
cycle and its impact on human development. As therapist who wish to counsel wisely, we must
first begin with a foundational understanding of the impacts of both society and the economy that
will continue to influence, change, and shape the family unit. The changing patterns of the family
life cycle show us how a universal understanding and definition of family will be hard to obtain.
All clinical assessments should involved taking into account the individual, family, and societal
contexts in which people are living and have previously lived in. Conceptualizing the
complexities of the family life cycle is something I think you did well with explaining in this
discussion. As this relates to your discussion, I believe counselors to should maintain internal
awareness and remain open to the modern changes of family that oppose our own biases, beliefs,
and understanding of family. Again, great discussion!
References:
Carter & McGoldrick. (2016). The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social
perspectives, (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Allyn and Bacon.
Karen,
Thank you for your timely, informative discussion regarding this weeks topics. You did an
excellent job and I think you summed it up best when you stated the term family by choice. Your
post covered the questions with depth and effectively attended to the issues of marriage and
family. Overall, I think your emphasis on the choice of family and the influences such as society
and economics on family development added insight to framework of the family and its
everchanging structure. As you emphasized, the ideas and concepts surrounding marriage family
such as traditional roles, changes in the nuclear family, and biblical standards for the family, have
undergone many changes as a direct result of the role of choice (Carter & McGoldrick, 2016).
Our conceptualization of family, specifically human development, should broaden the focus from
tasks and stages to identity and the different contexts in which identity evolves through several
dimensions. Personally, as these changes have effected the ability to foster child development, I
think a cycle of complex intergenerational influences will continue to broaden the complexity of
understanding family. What would be your thoughts regarding intergenerational effects of family
as it relates to marriage and family as well as family development? Over the course of this class I
have become keenly aware of the importance in understanding individuals in the context of work
within their families. Because each family represents different structural components, the
development of each individual is pressed by different influences that will determine a number of
things (Carter & McGoldrick, 2016). I think your discussion reflects this sentiment well and I
thank you for adding your thoughts! Blessings!
references:
McGoldrick, M., Preto, N. G., & Carter, B. (2016). The expanding family life cycle: Individual,
family, and social perspectives. (5th ed.). Pearson.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
