Journal of Family Therapy (1986) 8: 99-114

Feminism and family therapy-a possible meeting

point
Jennie Pilalis” and Joy Anderton?

This paper centres on the question ‘Is it possible to be a feminist and to

practise family therapy?’ We explore the essence of feminism and family
therapy and conclude that a style of feminist family therapy is possible.
Feministfamily
therapy
has
particular
a theoretical base and is
characterized by a particular combination of practice principles. It also
raises general issues for the training and practiceof all family therapists.

Introduction
This paper has emerged from our daily struggle as feminists who work
with familiesand teachsocial workers to use family therapy models. Our
struggle has focused on the central question ‘Is it possible to bea feminist
and to practise family therapy?’or, as Betty Carter putsit, ‘Can you be a
familytherapistwithoutbecomingaguardian of thepatriarchal,
conservativevalues thatthetraditional familyrepresents?’ (Carter,
quoted by Simon, 1984). We explored this question by facilitating a
series of workshops** onfeminism and family therapyandthen
reflectingon the reflections of workshop participantsandonour
practice. From this action-reflection process it has emerged for us that
we can be feminists and family therapists, thatfeminist family therapy
has a particular theoreticalbase (whichit shares with systemic feminist
therapy(RichC,
1984)),
and is characterized by particular
a
combination of practice principles.

Revised version accepted June1985.

* Department of Sociology and Social Work, Victoria University of Wellington, New
Zealand.
?Wellington City Council, Wellington, New Zealand.
Paper presented at theNew Zealand Family Therapy Conference, Christchurch, New
Zealand (May 1985).
**These workshops were facilitated with groups of feminists, family therapists and
feminist social workers, allof whom were family members. For the general formatof the
workshops see Anderton and Pilalis (1982).
99
0163-4445/86/020099+15$03.00/0 @ 1986 The Association for Family
Therapy
100 J . Pzlalis andJ. Anderton
Our aim writing
in this paper
is to share our journey along roadsthe of
feminism and family therapy and to show how we have found these two
roadstoconvergeintoaparticularmeetingpoint,feminist family
therapy. We begin this account of our journey by summarizing the
essence of both feminist therapy and family therapy. This leads us to
identify the differences between feminist therapy and family therapy
and to explore the underlying basis of these differences.By asking whatis
the dzyference that makes the dqference, we clarify the relationship
between the two and thus how they can meet to form a new ‘road’,
feminist family therapy. We then start to explore the directions, scenes
and particular nature of this new road and its implications for us as
practitioners and teachers.Wehopethatreaders will join us in
continuing to explore feministfamily therapy further.

Feminism-its essential arguments

Before we examine thedifferences between feministand family therapy
we need to be clear about the meaning of both feminism and family
systems theory and the way they view family and work systems in our
society.
Feminism, like family therapy, is composed of differing ‘schools of
thought’.Thesecanbegroupedinto two broadstreams,* socialist
feminism and radical feminism (Coote and Campbell, 1982). Radical
feminists are united by the view that the fightfor women’s liberation is
primarily against men, and that genderissues and patriarchy override
all other struggles. In contrast, socialist feminists see feminism as the
‘human face of socialism’. They are convinced that it is crucialto
understandtherelationship betweeneconomic forces (including a
Marxist analysis of class conflict) andthe injustices women suffer
because of their sex.

In theirview men oppress women, not by virtue of their biological maleness but
by virtue of their social and economic relations with women. It is these relations
which need to be transformed. Reproduction and family relations are placed at
the heart of economic theory and strategy (Coote and Campbell, 1982, p33).

Some feminists inboth streamsadd thatracism in society is also a crucial

factor in our understandingof the injustices suffered by black women.
Each of these streams represent different ways to ‘punctuate’ social
*Both streams are characterized by complex political analysis and contain diverse
views within their ranks.
 Feminism and family therapy 101
interactions and thus explain our particular social structure and its
relationship to family and worksystems.
Underlying all streamsof feminism, however,is a commonbelief that
‘women suffer systematic social injustice because of their sex’. Feminism
is therefore essentially concerned with a ‘type of injustice it wants to
eliminate’ rather than ‘with a group of people it wishes tobenefit’
(Radcliffe-Richards, 1982). Feminists aim toequalize the opportunities
of males and femalesto gain personal,political,institutional and
economic power.
The family is perceived by feminists to be a primary arena in which
women suffer systematic social injustice because of their sex. If the
familyoffers members a wide range of emotional and experiential
satisfactions legitimately unobtainable outside its structure, feminists
ask why such massive social, psychological and religious reinforcements
are required to supportits continued existence.
While the family remains a powerful metaphor for the ideals of
intimacy, commitment, nurturance and collectivity, feminism argues
that the benefits of the traditional family are reaped primarily by men
and children. They claim that these benefits actually depend on the
oppression of women within families- economically, socially, sexually
and psychologically.
Forexample, feministshavecriticallyanalysed theinstitution of
motherhood (distinguished fromthepractice of mothering) and
demonstrated that a woman is often put into a double-bind. The mother
is ‘good’, but her sexuality is kept under the controlof men. Everything
from the myth of vaginal orgasm to the continuing debates over abortion
provide feminists with evidence of a patriarchal society, unwilling to
permit women control of their own bodies. Furthermore, motherhoodis
work but is not financially rewarded. Thus, in a society where income
generates status, motherhood is accorded low status (Badinter, 1981).
Feminism also identifies a close relationship between women’sr61e in
the family and in the workplace. Writing from a British perspective,
Coote and Campbell say
nothing has happened to disturb the patterns of paid and unpaid work that have
prevailed for more than a century-in which women have been designated a
particular function in the house (as unpaid child-minder, housekeeper, cook,
nurse and cleaner) and a corresponding function in the labour market (Coote
and Campbell, 1982, p.49).

Women’s positions aslow paid, part time, intermittent, secondary

wage
earners have contributed to their
r61e in the home
since the beginningof
102 J . Pilalis and J . Anderton
the industrial revolution. Correspondingly, their position in the home
has contributed to their position in the labour market. Both of these
intertwined patterns were set in train by the efforts of male workers to
defend themselves against anew breed of employers inthe early stages of
capitalism. The evidence is even stronger today. Women have entered
the labour force in increasing numbers, or rather been like pushed
putty
in and out of the workforce. They serve asa reserve labourforce,
recruitedwhenthe economy expandsand dismissed backtotheir
customary dependent state within the family when the economy con-
tracts. When women are employed the unspoken expectation of the
family is that the work they perform at home will not suffer because of
their paid employment and conversely that their paid employmentwill
not be adversely affected by the demandsof their work at home.
In their rble, whether at home or in the workplace,women are seen
primarily in relation to those they serve. Their skills are negated when
specialized professionals take over such rbles as teacher, nurse and
midwife. In many capitalist countries welfare
the state, no longer able to
manage financially, hands back the social casualties to what politicians
call ‘communityor family care’. This often means thewomen who care
without payment.
In this and otherways, feminism links women’s rble in familyand work
systems to the power structures evident within and betweensocial,
economic and political institutions. Uames and McIntyre, 1983; James
1984; Layton, 1984). Associated withthisfeministexplanation of
women’s special problems in society, is a particular theory regarding
mechanisms for change. Feminists define the goal of change as indi-
viduals and society, the mechanism for achieving these changes being
consciousness-raising and collective action. Feminist therapists thus view
therapy as political action. This process of therapy is influenced by
feminist values which emphasize the equalization of power between
therapist and client as a model for other social relationships. This, in
turn, requires the feminist therapist todemystify the process of therapy
and reject manipulation. To date,most feminist therapists have focused
on group, individual and communitywork to achieve these goals. They
have failed tofully incorporate the crucialposition of the family system
in social change.
Early feminist writersdid not ignore thefamily system- they argued
that family life must be destroyedif women are to be freed. Families were
thus seen to be inherently ‘bad’ for women. However, some current
feminists are seeing the short-sightedness of this argument. They are
identifying the positive aspects of the family (if modified) for women,
 Feminism and family therapy 103
menandchildrenalike. For example, Betty Friedan (1981), has
responded to the reluctance of many women to fully reject family life
when seeking their ‘liberation’. She argues that the next frontier for the
women’s movement is to adapt traditonal family structures ideology and
so that women (and men and children) do not suffer systematic social
injustice because of their sex (or age.)
This represents a significant shift in feminist thinking, a shift from
‘blaming’familystructuresfor‘victimizing’women,toa view that
families are not inherently ‘bad’ or ‘good’. Rather, families are seen to
have potential forrelative goodness or badness.This leadsus to reframe
the question feminists ask about families to ‘what are the differences
between different families which make the difference between women
(and men) experiencing morelessorinjustice becauseof their sex?’ What
emerges is the degree to which family members are free and able to
negotiate with each other so that their needs are met, equally. This
requires an abilitytocontinuallyengageinnegotiation, as each
member’s needs change. Feminists also ask what restrains the family
from being able to function in this way, which immediately refocuses
attention on the relationship between family andsocial otherinstitutions
which embody the power structures of our society. In the family,women
and men can find it difficult to negotiate with each other because of
different messages they have receivedregarding their right to have their
emotional, intellectual and physical needs met. These restraints are
reinforced in the organizationof work places, which inhibits men and
women from considering shared work.
Here the dooris opening for feminists to meet family therapists. The
shiftinfeministthinkingrepresentsashiftfromlinealtocircular
thinking and thus away from moralisticand judgmental attitudes to the
family system. It also representsa shift from a focus on the individual’s
relationship to society, tofocus
a whichincorporates the family systems’
dynamicsintheprocess of change.Thus, feminists’
goals and
mechanisms for change are altered and the wayis clear for family
therapyandfeminismtomeet. Family therapycanprovidethe
understanding required to develop these goals and the mechanisms for
change.
Before fully outlining how feminism and family therapy can meet at
this point,we need to be clear about the essence of family therapy* and
how it differs from feminism.

*As this paper is addressed to family therapists this summary

will be brief, compared
with the summary of feminism.
104 J . Pilalis andJ. Anderton

Family therapy-Its essential arguments

Family therapy is also characterized by different ‘schools of thought’.
Some ‘schools’ emphasize the structure of the family as the focus and
locus of problem development, others the here-and-now interaction
process, and yet others transgenerational processes. Some schools also
focus on the interactionbetween the family and wider social systems as
the locus of problem development. Each school punctuates cycles of
interaction at a particular point within the family system, in order to
explainproblemformation andthus possible problemresolution
processes. At the base of all family therapyschools, however, is the view
that problems are manifestations of family systems functioning. This
results in a circular view of causality. The goal of therapy is to change
family interaction and relationships, often through therapist directives.

Differences between feminist and family

systems therapy
Libow et al. (1982) identifieddifferences and similaritiesbetween
feminist and family systems therapy. These are summarized on Tables 1
and 2.
T h e key difference between these two approaches to problem ex-
planation and problem resolution is their level of analysis and view of
causality. Feminism arguesthat theweight of causality is situated in the
unequal power distributionin our social structure.This causes a
particular pattern of individual psychology and interactions in family
and work systems (see Figure 1). The clarity of this social analysis is
feminism’s strength. Its weakness is its lack of full understanding of the
process of change in human situations.
In contrast, family systems theory focuses on a different level of the
overall system. Its strength is the development of a circular viewof
causalityin human situations, andtheresultantunderstanding of
processes of change. Family systems therapy’s weakness is its failure to
address thelinks between the family system (and thus interactionwithin
it) andthe social structureinanysubstantial way (see Figure 2).
Therefore

a supplementary analysis is necessary, one that draws on psychodynamic and

sociopolitical perspectives. Inthis way, we can bring into focus a range of
structuring forces which fundamentally affect the family and sowhich far, seem
to have been neglected in the family therapy literature(James and McIntyre,
1983).
 Feminism and family therapy 105
TABLE 1 Dzfferences between feminist and family systems therapy
( S u m m a r y of Libow et al., 1982)

Feminist
therapy
Family
systems
therapy

View of Causality Linear (i.e. problems are Circular (i.e. problems are
manifestations of manifestations
family
of
oppression in sexist society) system functioning)

Information Socio-historical Here-and-now

sought to explain
problem

Boundary of Therapy is political. Therapy is apolitical. Takes

therapy Openly challenges sex role, gender, class and racial
class and racial issues issues into account, but does
not openly confront them

Goal of change Individual and society

Family interaction and
relationships

Process of change Via insight and Insight unnecessary. Via

consciousness-raising therapist directives

Therapist role Facilitator of change. Use Orchestrator of change. Use

of referent power of expert power
Therapist-client Aims to equalize power. Therapist retains power.
relationship Demystification. Reject Mystification sometimes
manipulation retained

Feminismprovides thesupplementary analysis requiredinfamily

systems theory, and familysystems theory provides feminism with a more
developed understanding of the processes of problem formation and
resolution in the family system. Henceour two ‘roads’ merge into basis
a
for feminist family therapy(and systemic feminist therapy). This merger
in a sense, represents a mergerof figure and ground (see Figure 3).
Feminist family therapy (systemic feminist therapy)-the meeting
point
What type of practice develops from this
meeting of feminism and family
therapy? As Figure 3 depicts, the meeting point is actually between
106 J . Pilalis a n d J . A n d e r t o n
TABLE 2 Common features of feminist and family systems therapy
( S u m m a r y of Libow et al., 1982)

Both feminist and family systems therapy

View of causality 1. Social

context is the primary
determinant of
behaviour
2. Power issues acknowledged as important

ProblemexplanationReject‘medicalmodel’ and moveawayfrom the

‘blame the victim’ stance which locates
pathology in the individual

Goal
of change
Observable, concrete, verifiable,
behaviourally
defined change

Process
of change 1. Modelling
is important therapeutic tool
2. Encourage reframing problem

socialist feminism and family therapy. The barrier betweenradical

feminism and family therapy is the ‘blaming’ and ‘victim’ stance of
radical feminist thinking. The views of causality differ.
There are two fundamentalfeatures of feministfamily therapy.
Firstly, feminist family therapy acknowledges that therapy is political. In
doing so it confronts the paradoxical position of family therapy in
society. Society, via ‘helping’ agencies, asks family therapists to change
families withoutchangingsociety, justas families ask family therapiststo
helpchangetheproblemwithoutchangingthe family. Systemic
thinking is necessary if the family therapist is tomaintain
manoeuverability and help the family understand therelationship of its
problem to its internal functioning, which is, in turn, related to the
family’s interactionwiththe social structure.Thus,problemsare
reframed incorporating bothlevels of analysis.
Secondly, feminist family therapy perceives males and females to be
caught in amutual ‘dance’.The steps of the dance are choreographed by
the dominant norms and values emanating from the social structure,
unless the dancers are aware thatthey have the power and potential to
choose to change the steps to meet the needs of their particular family
configuration. The overallgoal of therapy is toempowerfamily
members in relation to each other and to empower family the in relation
 Feminism and f a m i l y t h e r a p y 107

Soctol s t r u c t u r e

C aP
ppa
l totarw
lilasertrc h a l economic values

Polltlcal system

Unequal power d l s t r l b u t l o n

/Family and work systems\

Figure 1 . Feminist therapist’s view of causality and focus

to society. This goal is achieved by showing the families that they can
choose to assume more or less of the choreographer’s power. In choosing
which path totake, theyneedtoidentify the current restraintsto
assuming this power. The following excerpts from a family session*
illustrate,inmicrocosm, how thesefeaturesinfluencepractice. Key
practice principles to emerge from afeminist family therapy stancewill
then be identified.
Ben’sparents (especially his mother who sought
the referral) are concerned that
he is mixing with the wrong company and under police suspicion for drug-
*This is an adaptationof an interview conducted by one of the authors. Adaptations
are made to preserve anonymity and illustrate points.
108 J. Pilalzi andJ. Anderton

Figure 2 . Family systems therapist's view of causality and focus

Figure 3 . Feminist family therapist/systemic feminist's view of causality and focus

 Feminism and family therapy 109
taking and theft. Ben is the youngest of five children and the only son. He has
recently left school and is unemployed. Father is of Italian origin and a self-
employedbusinessman whose product is notin demand because of the
economic downturn. He is not averse to ‘making the fast buck’and betting at
card games. Mother is active in voluntary community work. Ben’s three older
sistershavebecomeindependent and ‘successful’intheirown right. The
youngest is recently unemployedand has returned home to live until she getsa
job. At thefamilysessionare Ben(sixteen), Sophie(eighteen), Judy(forty-eight)
and George (fifty).The older sisters live too far away to attend.

The following is an accountof a short sequence in thefirst interview.

Early on in the interview Ben announcesthat he has found a job today
and is to starttomorrow. After some exchangesabout how he got the job
the therapist comments that Ben’s working will mean changes for the
family . . .

JUDY: I’m goingto get wornout getting Ben out of bed in the morningso he’s not
late for work.
THERAPIST: Is Ben ready to get himself out of bed and to work?
JUDY AND GEORGE: YeS.
JUDY:-but only if he goes to bed early.
THERAPIST: So you’re less sure than George . . . [bantering exchange ensues
between Sophie and Ben as to whostays up latest and whois worseat getting
up in the rnorningl.
JUDY:Everyoneinourfamily are nightpeople,butespeciallyGeorge and
Ben . . . I’vegot to get everyone up in the morningand I hate it, I feel such a
nag allthe time.
THERAPIST: What do you hate? What do you want to change?
JUDY: Just having to be responsible for everyone . . . [Therapist asks circular
questions to establish degrees of responsibility each person holdsf o r others.
Judy holds themost by a long way].
THERAPIST: [toJudyl How was it decided that you have to get everyoneup?
GEORGE: It’ll be different when we go on holiday next week- Benand Sophie
face the acid test- they’ll have to get themselvesup . . .

This sets off another roundof banter. The therapist intervenes to get
Sophie andBen to negotiate with each other inthe session, the ground
rules and expectations of each other whilst their parents are away.
George comments how amazed he is that they found it so difficult to
negotiate.Therapistcommentsthatmenandwomengetlittle
opportunity to practise negotiating from equal positions because of the
stereotyped positions each hold insociety. W e all need such practice-it
is possible as Ben and Sophie haveshown us, if the space canbe made.
110 J . Pilalis a n d J . A n d e r t o n
THERAPIST: [toJudy]I’m still not clearabout whether you think Ben is ready
to get himself up tomorrow morning . . . whether you can pass some ofthe
responsibility you assume for him, over to him now?
[Ben interruptsby giving an account of the gettingup routines, and everyone
joins in].
THERAPIST: [to Sophie] What’s keeping your Mother feeling she has to get
you all up?
SOPHIE:I don’tknow;I’dgetmyself up if Mum didn’t bother or wasn’t
around . . .
THERAPIST: Why do you wait for her then?
SOPHIE: Well, she wants to . . .
THERAPIST: But she just said she hates it-it makes her feela nag.
[Sophie comments that she can understand that. Therapist comments that
women oftenfind themselvesin such positionsinfamilies].
JUDY: I keep hearingabout all these wonderful women who go to work, laythe
ground rules and are obeyed. Howdo you do that? I’d love a job - in factI’ve
got one if I want it, but I can’t takeit . . .
THERAPIST: [to Sophie] What makes your Mum feel she can’t take the job?
It’s interesting isn’t it - your Mother feels unable to let you get yourselves up an
unable to accept the job she wants . . .
SOPHIE. She couldn’t work while she’s got Ben to worry - she
about
sitsup nights
waiting for him (or the police to call).
GEORGE: [ A t the same time]She couldn’tcope, there is enough on her plate with
the worry about Ben and everything . . .

In feminist family therapy the therapist’s reframe of the presenting

problem includes a description of the currentunresolved power issues in
the family (especially those between males and females). These power
issues are reframedas being a mirror of the power issues in society, giving
the message that no oneof either sex is inherently bad or malicious in
intent.
For example, we reframe Ben’s behaviour as helping to keep the
family power structure and life style as it has been during the child-
rearing years. He is ‘protecting’ his parents from renegotiating their
ground rules and expectations so that their changing needs (especially
Judy’s) are met. Ben’s behaviour is keeping Judy as a full-time mother.
This‘protects’ Georgefromgiving up some ‘power’ over finances,
especially at a time when business is bad. Ben ‘protects’Judy from her
mixed feelings about losing her familiar rble and protects Judy and
George from struggling to negotiate. If Ben was ‘more responsible’ for
himself and ‘trustworthy’,hisparentswould be facedwiththeir
dilemma- how to both get theirneeds met in this new life cycle stage?
George is caught by social expectations of his r d e as ‘provider’and Judy
 Feminzim and family therapy 111
by expectations of her rbleas ‘mother’. Do they want torenegotiate how
they will define these r6les for themselves? Thiswill mean a change in
power relationships and in the way they interact with other people’s
expectations of them.
A circular interviewing style (Palazzoli et al., 1980) is used to elicit
information regardingpower relationshipsand the connections between
these and the presenting problem. As the information emerges, the
therapist (and their team) describepower the relationships,and the link
between these and thepresented problem, back to the family. Thus the
family is helped to reflect on their own action.
At thesametime,thetherapist raiseswith thefamilythe costs
(emotional and material)which the family pays in its r61e as producer
and consumer in society. This includes an analysis of the different nature
of the costs borne by male and female family members. Such a process of
systemic consciousness-raising increases men’s and women’s sensitivities
to each other’s stereotyped position and the unequal distribution of
power between these positions. The therapist thus assumes the rble of
facilitator-educator.
The therapist’s feedback to the family poses for them the dilemma
with which they are grappling at this point in their family cycle. The
general dilemma underlying each family system’s specific dilemma is
whether to choose to continue in the dance as defined for them or to
choose to take control of their destinies, renegotiate their rbles and
interaction patterns, and to continually monitor these patterns. The
consequences of each choice can be discussed, so that the choice is an
informed one. At the same time, restraints experienced by each person
when considering either choice are identified and the focus for work
becomes self-evident (as with anysystemic therapy process), e.g. if one
member wants change and others do not, then maybe the therapist
needs to linkthe member wanting change to a group outsidefamily the
who are working towards similar changes for themselves.
Feminists negotiate contractswith families in a particular way (Hare-
Mustin, 1978). In negotiating thegoal of therapy with the therapist, the
family members renegotiate with each other a common perception of the
problem and thus a solution emerges.
The family develops their own negotiating, interpreting and self-
monitoring skills as therapy proceeds. The therapist modelsthese skills
in his or her relationship with the familyand with the team with which
they work. Both expert and referent power are used. Expert power is
derivedfrominterpersonaldominance,whereasreferent power is
derived from interpersonal identification (Libow et al., 1982). Use ofthe
112 J . Pilalzs a n d J . A n d e r t o n
former decreases and the latter increases as time goes on. Therapists
increasingly share their knowledge, demystifying their perception of the
problem and theprocess of change. The power between therapists and
family is equalized as each acknowledges that we are all caught in the
same dance and shareexperiences of our responses to the dance.
Feminist values therefore avoid the dangers (as identifiedby Whan,
1983). of the use of family therapy‘techniques’. Feminist family
therapists see themselves as primarilyaccountable to the family,
recognize the political nature of theirtherapy (and thus its value
component) and face the responsibility that goes with their power. They
respect the family as persons and do not see them as ‘objects’, fit for
‘technocratic manipulation’. (Whan, 1983).
The recognition that their therapyis political requires the therapist to
be clear and explicit about their own values, and to share and discuss
these with the family without imposing them.
Feminist family therapists also need to be non-sexist in their use of
language. Sexist language implies an alliance with males against females
and reinforces male power over females. (For example, theuse of ‘man
and wife’ or addressing the woman as ‘mother’ and the man as ‘Mr
Jones’).
Thisapproach tofamilytherapyhas manyimplicationsforthe
training of family therapists. Training must include an analysis of the
relationship between family systems and the formal contexts of the
particular society in which the therapists will operate. This emerges
when trainees analyse the sexism, classism and racism in theirown family
and social context. Trainees needto become aware of the value base to
their work. In theprocess they need to be made acutely awareof the issue
of power in families and in the therapy process itself. Following from
this, skills need tobe developed which can beused to empower families to
perceive choices, encourage them to choose, then help them to reach
their goals. Suchskills will include common family therapyskills as well
as skills in consciousness-raising, education, negotiation and advocacy.

Conclusion
Thispaper has arguedthat feminism and family therapycanbe
integrated, to the enhancement of both perspectives. The results show
potential for liberating changes to occur in the relationships between
women, men and children. So pervasive, however, are the predominant
patriarchial myths out of which most theories of human change and
developmenthavebeenbuilt,thatanytravellerjourneyingtothe
 Feminism and family therapy 113
junction of feminist familytherapy needs to positively
be paranoid about
the resistance to realchange in thepower relations between womenand
meninthe familycontext.Feministfamilytherapistsrefusingthe
relative comfort of opting exclusively for one perspective or the other,
needtobemorerigorousintheireffortstoidentify and eliminate
oppressive strategies within therapeutic processes. To do this we need to
recognize that therapy is never value-free.
We have presented one possible conceptual framework which we
believe facilitates this process. It relies on the use of a dynamic holistic
approach, whichsees patterns of individual andfamily interactionsand
those operating within society at large, reflecting back and forth like
figure and ground, supporting and reinforcing each other. Without the
breadth of analysis we outline, we suggest the therapistunwittingly joins
society utilizing strategies whichsupport theoppressive statusquo for all
family members. Alternatively, the opportunity exists to enable struc-
tures and relationships, shakenby trouble or threatened destruction, to
be reshaped into more creative liberating ones. We believe that the
choice and the challengeis ours.

Acknowledgement
We wish to thank all workshop participants, friends, colleagues and
families who have helped us explore these roads.

References
ANDERTON, J. andPILALIS,J. (1982)Feminism and Families: Contradictions or?
Women’s Studies Conference Report, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
BADINTER, E. (1981) T h e M y t hof Motherhood. London. Souvenir Press.
COOTE,A . and CAMPBELL,B. (1982) SweetFreedom:TheStruggle for Women?
Liberation. London. Picador.
FRIEDAN, B. (1981) T h e Second Stage. New York. Summit.
HARE-MUSTIN, R. (1978) A feminist approach to family therapy. Family Process, 17:
181-194.
JAMFS, K. (1984) Breaking the chains of gender: family therapy’s position? Plenary
Session paper, fifth Australian Family Therapy Conference, Canberra.
JAMFS, K. and MCINTYRE, D. (1983) The reproduction of families: the social role of
family therapy?Journal of Marital and Fa7ndy Therapy, 9: 119-129.
LAYTON, M. (1984) Tipping the therapeutic balance- Masculine, feminine or neuter?
Family Therapy Networker, May-June: 21 -27.
LIBOW, J., RASKIN, P. and CAUST, B. (1982) Feminist and family systems therapy: are
they irreconcilable? AmericanJournal of Family Therapy, 10: 3-12.
PAI.OZZOLISEL.VINI, M , , BOSCOLO,L., CECCHIN, G . , and PRATA, G . (1980) Hypothesis-
ing- circularity- neutrality: three guidelines for the conductor of the session.
Family Process, 19: 3-12.
114 J . Pilalis andJ. Anderton
RADCLIFFE-RICHARDS, J . (1982) TheScepticalFeminist: A PhilosophicalEnquiry.
Harmondsworth: Pelican.
RICHE,M.(1984)The systemic feminist. FamilyTherapyNetworker, May-June:
43-44.
SIMON,R. (1984) From ideology to practice: the women’s project in family therapy.
Family Therapy Networker, May-June, 29--40.
WHAN,M.(1983) Tricks of the trade: questionable theory andpractice in family
therapy. British Journalof Social Work 13: 321-337.