Development in the family

Kazimierz W ielki University Bydgoszcz, Poland

Development in the family

In trod u ction

A ccording to contem porary psychology, h u m an developm ent is always set in a certain life context and that o f the m ain im pact is family (Bronfenbrenner 1976, 1981, Tyszkowa, Przetacznik-Gierowska 2009a). The m utual interactions between developm ental changes o f a person and the family he or she belongs to has been noted by m any authors (Tyszkowa 1990c, Birch 2007). O f greatest significance are the interpersonal interactions in which the m odes of realisation o f family roles are manifested, through which they are shaped and transform ed. Family interactions are closely related to the positions held by the family m em bers and in m ultigenerational families these interactions are particularly complex (Farnicka, 2009).

The conditions shaping family interactions include the systems o f values of the family mem bers, the needs of the family m em bers, the level of their psycho­ social maturity, individual features such as e.g. artistic talent, social competence, forms of support, sex and age structure o f the family, and the external conditions such as its economical situation, social standards and norm s assum ed in a given culture in a given tim e (Sęk 1990, Tyszkowa 1990c, Plopa 2010).

For the above reasons m uch attention is paid to m ulti-aspect analysis of the family, relations am ong the family m em bers and social roles related to the family life (Plopa 2004, Rostowska 2009). The hitherto results have confirm ed the influence o f the family on developm ental changes o f its m em bers and indicated that individual developm ent o f the m em bers affects the functioning o f the whole family (Tyszkowa 1990a, Flarwas-Napierala 2003).

The m ain thesis o f this w ork is the presence of dynam ic interrelations between the developm ent o f the family m em bers and a relation between the developmental changes in individual family m em bers and the changes in the whole family. This idea has won general acceptance by psychologists, pedagogists and sociologists and their clients, but it seems that not all of them are really aware of the range and consequences in the area of the study on the family and developm ent in the family. The knowledge on the parents role in developm ent o f their child and its education is vast and w ell-docum ented (Ziemska 1986, Przetacznik-Gierowska, W łodarski 1994, Zeanah 2000). O n this background there is apparently some insufficient recognition o f the effects of developm ental interactions betw een generations - parents-children, grandparents -parents, g randparents- grandchildren and interactions betw een parents on the individual developm ent of the family m em bers and on the transform ations o f subsystems m ade by the m em bers involved in the above interactions and the whole family (p. Tyszkowa 1990b, Bakiera 2008, Farnicka 2009, Trempala 2011). A nother interesting problem is that of the relations between the family m em bers (having a status o f family subsystems) and the external family systems and in particular their influence on individual developm ent and developm ental changes in the family. An exception is the area of relations between the family and professional life whose exploration is a source o f knowledge o f the im pact o f professional life on the individual developm ent and changes in the family system (p. Rostowska, Rostowski 2002, Rostowska 2009).

A nother aspect of developm ental changes in the family system not sufficiently covered by psychological studies, is the tem poral dim ension, the transition from one developm ental period to another, related with resignation from certain activities while taking up other ones, studied against the transform ations of external systems. Unfortunately, at the present stage of psychological studies the possibilities of gaining insight into developm ental changes in the m utually dependent systems taking into regard the historical aspect seem lim ited (p. Fenstermaker, 1996, Feeney, 2006). In spite o f the objective difficulties, the psychologists working on family systems have not resigned from investigation o f developm ental changes in the family system and have tried to grasp their complexity and dynamics.

The aim o f the author o f this chapter was to present the complexity o f hum an developm ent in the family system. According to the thesis o f M aria Tyszkowa (1990), the pioneer in Polish psychology, “...development of an individual in the family refers not only to children and young people but also to adults, that is parents and grandparents” (Tyszkowa 1990c, p. 239). Individual experience, accum ulated through activities in the relations and contacts with the other family m em bers and during the subjective activity, m ediates betw een the

developm ental changes o f the individuals (m em bers of the family system). The interest is first o f all focused on the aspects o f psychological functioning of the family which is the fundam ental source of a diversity of individual experience throughout the whole life.

In this chapter the family is presented in the systemic approach, currently accepted as the m ost appropriate from the viewpoint of the family structure and functioning. The systemic approach to the family perm its fuller and m ore dynam ic explanation of the role of family in the developm ent o f psyche and behaviour o f its m em bers, both inside the family and outside it. O f key im portance in this approach is the analysis o f interpersonal and intersystemic relations, which perm its explanation of genesis and character of developm ental changes in the family m em bers by analysis o f their interrelations.

According to the systemic approach, the family m em bers make subsystems and each family m em ber can belong to a few subsystems, depending on the family structure, e.g. a m an can belong to the subsystem husband and wife and to the subsystem father-child (children). The processes taking place in each subsystem influence the other subsystems and are subject to the processes taking place in the system m ade of the subsystems. These entanglem ents determ ine the dynamics o f the whole system and its coherence and integrity. From the point of view of the individual, the processes taking place in the subsystems and between them affect his or her behaviour and its changes in time. It should be emphasised that the relations between the family m em bers depend not only on the stage of their individual developm ent but also on the phase of the family life (Liberska, Matuszewska, 2001).

The considerations will begin with the problem of changes in the significance of family for the individual in the post-m odernistic tim es and indication of the m ain threats to the family functioning. The next section will present the concept of family in the systemic approach, describe its m ain features as a system and relations w ith other systems (M inuchin 1975, H inde 1988, van G eert 1990, Braun-Galkowska 1992, de Barbaro 1994). The next issues covered include the m ain dim ensions o f developm ent related to the family system and a m odel of developm ent in the family.

Recognised threats to contemporary family and its basic functions In psychology and pedagogy the family is considered as the m ain educational and developmental environm ent o f an individual (Przetacznik-Gierowska, W łodarski 1994, Birch 2007, Tyszkowa 2009, Plopa 2010), however, the approach to the family has evolved for the last few decades (Tyszka 2002). Analysis o f literature reveals a gradual departure from viewing a family as the

environm ent for education of children and dom inated by the one-directional com m unication from the parents to the child (children) (Nowak 2005, Harwas- Napierala, 2009). At present the family is treated as a developm ental environm ent o f all family m em bers (children, parents, grandparents) characterised by two- directional com m unication between the parents and the children and assum ing m utual interactions o f all family m em bers affecting the family functioning. The changes in the approach to the family and its role in shaping the behaviour and personality of individuals stem, am ong others, from transform ations taking place on higher levels o f socialisation. Thus, the role of the family in developm ent of all its m em bers should be considered in the context of contem porary civilisation transform ations.

O n the one hand, transform ation o f political system and globalisation are indicated as offering a chance for im provem ent of the standard of living, but on the other these changes bring serious threats for the family functioning in post-m odernistic society (Tyszka 2002, Rostowska 2009). Social and economical changes resulting in creation of workplaces for w om en and dem anding increasing engagem ent of parents in professional life have substantial effect on changes in the family functioning. Their consequence is restricted involvement of parents in the life of their children, transform ation of realisation of parental functions and role of children and transform ations in the hierarchy of values often leading to the increasing im portance o f comm ercial goods. The lack of clear rules for the playing effective roles of parents and children, characteristic o f entangled families, leads to the educational insufficiency o f the family and to little satisfaction o f adults from the family life.

At the present state of psychological knowledge it cannot be excluded that the problem s in realisation of family roles are to a substantial degree as result o f restricted balance between the psychological structures and external systems caused by a delay of the form er with respect o f the latter. An interesting and probable explanation of the above problem s is provided by the theory o f the cognitive dissonance. According to the thesis of Festinger (2007), perception of the inconsistence between the com ponents of attitudes leads to psychological discom fort whose pressure coerces the individual into its removal. However, for attitudes of small force or when the perception protection has been blocked, the individual does not perceive the inconsistence and does not feel the discomfort. W hen parents have weak attitudes they m ay not perceive the inconsistence between them and this inconsistence leads to low effectiveness of educational interactions or the inform ation about the parent low effectiveness in realisation of the parental role is blocked already at the input to the cognitive structures. Such an interpretation brings about new questions concerning the origins o f the weakness of parental attitudes and they can hardly be answered. Disturbances

in the family socialisation can be a derivative of problem s in the interactions between the family systems and the external systems. At the present stage of study it cannot be excluded that the dom inant effect o f external systems can block transm ission o f the ways o f realisation of spousal and parental roles in the systems of m ultigenerational families that are consequently n ot m astered in a sufficient degree.

O ne of the m ost im portant threats is the loosening of close em otional ties considered so far as the indispensable and basic chain connecting the family (Bauman, 2006 Gałkowski, 2007). In extreme form the atomised family approaches the m odel of independent relations in which the process of socialisation is drastically restricted (Kagitcibasi 1996), and the role of the family as a developm ental and educational context is underm ined. In such conditions the appearance of disturbances in correct developm ent of attachm ent ties essential from the viewpoint o f individual developm ent in the lifetime becomes highly likely (Bowlby 2007).

O ther threats to the family role and functioning include the activities bordering on m anipulations and aim ed at weakening of family, underm ining the w orth of the stable formal structure o f family, questioning of the parents authority or propagation of values alternative to family life (Harwas-Napierała 2008). Disorganisation in the family system often reaches the extreme o f family disintegration. This form of the family pathology is related to the lack o f abilities to play family roles or the lack o f knowledge o f the family roles following -am o n g others - from the changes in the intergenerational transm ission induced by deep cultural changes including the crisis in values. Disturbances to the fundam ental values in a given culture are manifested in the products of this culture and in hum an experiences and behaviour (cf. Km ita 1975). Culture as a generator of experiences (not only their contents but also the tools of their reception and transform ation) shapes the hum an psyche (Tyszkowa 2009b). If the culture message is not understood, is incom plete and does not include the tools necessary for structuration and restructuration of experiences related to its content, the developm ent o f psyche is restricted or distorted. Negative consequences of the turbulences in the im pact of culture on developm ent o f the individual also spread to the family relations. However, irrespective o f the quality of the family system its significance for the developm ent of individuals belonging to it is unquestionable (cf. Braun-Gałkowska 2011). W hen pathological family relations prevail the developm ental changes can be disturbed, w hich m ay result in pathological developm ent o f all family m em bers, both adults and children.

1ВДШШ Ш Ж М Ж К Ю

Biblioteka Główna

The family as a system

According to the d om inant systemic approach to family, it is considered as a complex and integrated unit, characterised by the organised patterns of interaction, which take circular rather then linear form (M inuchin 1985). This definition is a good starting point to describe a wide gam ut of events contributing to family life, both norm ative and non-norm ative, to follow individual developm ental changes in the family context and grasp the dynamics of family relations and transform ations of the whole family system. As m entioned above, in the systemic approach to family the m ost im portant is the netw ork of ties and interactions between all family m em bers and the diads (e.g. diad of siblings) triads (e.g. m other-daughter and father), tetriads (e.g. husband-w ife-father- in-law - m other-in-law ) etc. make basis for identification of different family subsystems.

Interactions o f subsystems can reveal different degrees of complexity of dual nature. The dual nature is a derivative o f two factors: the num ber o f subsystems and specific type o f their interrelations regarding the duration and direction of the interactions. As far as duration is concerned the interactions.the long lasting ones are referred to as relations, while as far as direction is concerned, they are divided into one-directional and tw o-directional (or m utual). Analysing the family system in term s of particular m em bers it is helpful to distinguish four fundam ental types of interactions. They take place between:

• Spouses

• A parent and a child • Siblings

• Between subsystems distinguished in a m ultigenerational family or extended family.

According to Tyszkowa (1990a, p. 15), the notion of interaction refers to the processes o f com m unication of individuals w ith one another and acts of behaviour directed towards one another in a given time. Interaction lasts for a specific tim e and involves at least two persons, each of which is sim ultaneously a receiver and em itter of stim uli affecting changes in the behaviour of the other persons involved. Each interaction betw een given persons can influence further interactions and then it is said that the persons are in a certain interpersonal relation, so consequently only the long-term interactions can be called relations.

The interactions betw een family m em bers can be characterised by the content, quality, frequency, m utuality and intimacy. They depend on m any factors, including e.g. the age but first of all the level of individual developm ent of persons involved, and - because of the substantial fundam ents of the family that is the em otional relation between the couple starting a family - they are perm eated with intimacy. Closeness, frequency and intim acy o f interactions

m ake the conditions favourable for accum ulation of com m on experience and sharing the experience by family m em bers often representing different generations, or sometim es for learning from each other experience.

The m utual interactions that are the integral and necessary com ponent of the system, undergo transform ations with developm ents into subsequent phases o f the family life. They have quantitative or qualitative attributes and a certain tem poral localisation.

The systemic approach is characterised by the three m ain notions: wholeness, circularity and equifinalism (Braun-Galkowska 1992, Liberska, M atuszewska 2001). The wholeness of a system m eans that is som ething m ore than a simple sum o f com ponents and any attempts to analyse the system through its com ponents only is unsuccessful (brings incomplete or erroneous results). The second notion - circularity - refers to the m ode o f interactions in the system describing it in term s o f feedback categories. The third notion - equifinalism - refers to the possibility o f different causes of the same final effect.

To sum up, the family in the systemic approach is m ade of a set o f elements in dynamic interactions and each elem ent is influenced by each o f the other elements. Therefore, according to the principle of co-dependence, a change in one subsystem affects the other ones as well as the wholeness m ade by them (Von Bertalanffy 1975, Ludewig 1995, Plopa 2005).

It should be emphasised that the family is an open system as its m em bers are sim ultaneously m em bers of other systems. Thus, changes in the relations and contacts in the systems external to the family are through the family m em bers brought to the family system and vice versa - changes in the behaviour following from the functioning of a family m em ber in the family is reflected on the contacts and relations in the external systems they belong to (Plopa 2005).

Moreover, the family system functions as a subsystem of some greater systems (Tyszka 1997, Plopa 2005). The structure and dynamics of the family functioning is regulated by greater social systems such as the church, local society, group of neighbours and others.

The family against other systems

A ccording to Bronfenbrenner (1981) the family system belongs to a category o f m icrosystems in w hich hum an developm ent takes place. The notion of m icrosystem refers to the standard o f activity, social roles and interpersonal relations the individual encounters in a given environm ent. This category includes the prim ary environm ent, i.e. the family. The family m icrosystem entering into relations with the other m icrosystems such as the school, peer group, work place, social group, etc., makes a larger system called a mezosystem. However,

an individual not always is an active participant o f a given system, often a person is just subjected to the system influence or this system is influenced by another system in which this person is actively involved. Such environm ents make an egzosystem. The above m entioned systems function as subsystems of the largest system, referred to as a m acrosystem, with w hich they have com m on contents,

consistent, actual and potential. The consistence refers to the wholeness of culture, together with the systems o f belief and ideologies m aking the grounds for this consistence. The relations between the systems are illustrated in Fig. 1.

D im ensions o f changes in social and cultural systems

The interactions between the systems in which a given individual is m ore or less actively involved lead to the following consequences.

• Changes in behaviour and psyche o f the individual (individual dim ension) • Transform ations of the individual relations to the environm ent (relational

dim ension)

• Changes in the system or systems (systemic dim ension)

These changes bring about favourable conditions for form ation of “(...) qualitatively new systems that can lead to such developmental changes of the individual that cannot be explained only be the interactions and control of the environment” considered in the environmental approach (Tyszkowa 2009a, p. 96).

Family as the environment and context o f development

It is easy to note that the system individual- environm ent (here restricted to the family), according to the systemic approach, creates the conditions for developm ental changes in all the above-m entioned dimensions. The developm ental changes in the psyche o f an individual (individual dim ension) are revealed in his/her behaviour (relational dim ension) in all systems this individual is involved in as an elem ent or subsystem, and first of all in the family system, initiating developm ental transform ations of this fundam ental ecological context (systemic dim ension).

In consistence w ith the assum ptions o f ecopsychology, the developm ental environm ent is each event or situation existing beyond the psychological reality o f the individual th at can directly or indirectly affect this individual. The term developm ental context refers to the content o f psyche of the individual related to the external events and including interpretations and em otions concerning the interactions betw een th e environm ent and the individual taking place at a given tim e. As follows from the above, the developm ental environm ents are sim ilar for some groups o f people, while th eir environm ental contexts are unique.

Family system includes three persons (m an, w om an, child) and three subsystems*:

HUSBAND - WITH FATHER C H ILD 1 MATHER - C H ILI) 1

Changes in the family structure caused by the appearance o f a new

child (birth or adoption) Family system includes four persons (m an,

w om an, child 1, child 2) and six subsystems: HUSBAND - W IFE FATHER - CH ILD 1 FATHER - C H ILD 2 M ATHER - CHILD 1 M ATHER - CHILD 2 CHILD 1 - C H ILD 2

* person has also a status o f subsystem Figure 2. Changes in the family system structure

Changes in the structure o f the family system and developmental possibilities

D epending on the phase of the family life cycle, the transform ations occur m ainly in the structure and organisation of the intrasystem relations. Changes in the family structure involve quantitative and qualitative changes in the whole system. The quantitative changes take place e.g. with the appearance o f a new family member, Fig. 2. They lead to qualitative changes m anifested by a decrease or increase in the num ber o f interactions and establishm ent of interactions with new contents, establishm ent o f new relations, dying out o f some relations or withdrawal from some relations (e.g. as a consequence of a divorce).

The complexity and extent o f the family influence on the developmental changes o f its m em bers increase with increasing num ber o f these members. Besides increasing the num ber o f interactions w ithin the family system, this fact also brings enrichm ent o f the contents and form o f interactions, etc. (Rembowski, 1980). For instance in a four -p erso n family the num ber of m utual interactions is 6, while in a five-person family this num ber increases to 10 (Table 1).

Table 1. The num ber o f interactions in a family system and the num ber its m em bers

Number of family members (family system

subsystems) Family members (family system subsystems) Interactions taking place between: Number of interactions Father F F-M 3 Mother M Child Ch Father F F-Ch M-Ch F-M F-Ch 3 A Mother M F-T c . ft Mother-in-law T Child Ch M-T M-Ch T-Ch F-M F-Ch I О Father F F-Ch II F-T M-T M-Ch I M-Ch II T-ChI T-Ch II Ch I-Ch II Mother M 5 Mother-in-law 10 Child I Ch I Child II Ch II

Individual development in the fam ily context

To understand the significance o f family as a context of developmental changes, the following fundam ental aspects of hum an individual developm ent m ust be considered: emotional, cognitive and social, in which essential changes take place over the lifetime of the individual and in the cycle o f family life. As m entioned earlier, changes in the subsystems (family m em bers) entail structural and functional transform ations in the while system (in relations between spouses, child-child relations or in relations between the family generations. In a m ultigenerational family the pattern of changes can be even m ore complex, not only as regards the individual developments of family m em bers representing particular generations but also regarding the whole extended family system ((W rzesień 2003, Liberska, Matuszewska 2006).

The type o f contacts an d p attern s o f relation and positions in the fam ily system d epen d on the individual features of family m em bers, the phase of th eir life and the system’s position in the fam ily life cycle. D evelopm ental changes o f fam ily m em bers (subsystem s) affect the developm ental changes in the whole fam ily system. The p attern o f relations is m ore com plex as the relations betw een the individual developm ent o f the parents and individual developm ent o f the child/children dep en d on the phase o f the fam ily system cycle. Thus, in analysis o f developm ent o f fam ily system s and th eir subsystems, it is necessary to take into regard the events, roles and norm ative tasks in the lifetim es o f individuals (subsystem s) and in the fam ily cycle, so the tem poral aspects o f developm ental changes. A very im p o rta n t aspect o f relations in each system is th e quality o f interperso n al com m unication. C orrect com m unication in the fam ily system perm its its m em bers to pass from the phase of dependence th ro u g h independence to co-dependence (Frydrychow icz 2007). At this p o in t the significance of m ultilateral com m unication for developm ent o f both, the individual fam ily m em ber and the fam ily as a system should be m entioned. A ccording to Tyszkowa (2009), studies o f developm ent o f the individual in the fam ily context should be p erfo rm ed analysing the influence of fam ily system on individual developm ent th ro u g h the p rism o f (1) family roles o f the individual, (2) the individual position in the fam ily system , (3) acts and activities o f the individual and com petence gained in the fam ily and (4) contacts and relations w hich the individual initiates o r in w hich he/she participates.

A ccording to the life-span developmental psychology, the fam ily should be considered as the context o f developm ent o f all its m em bers, n o t only children and parents b ut also o th er adults m aking the fam ily system (Baltes, Reese, Lippsitt 1980). Analysis o f the roles o f p articu lar fam ily m em bers reveals the changes in the roles played in the lifetim e o f the individual and

changes in th e roles the individual plays in the family cycle. D epending on the cu rren t phase of individual developm ent and on individual characteristics (level o f com petence, abilities, level o f fitness and health status) each m em ber o f the fam ily system takes up and plays certain roles and hence enters into different contacts and relations and has a different position in the system o f interperso n al interactions in th e fam ily systems. D ifferent roles im ply specific types o f behaviour, expectations, responsibilities and privileges. Effective p erform ance o f a certain role needs m eeting its dem ands so a certain level o f developm ent o f different psychological functions and physical abilities. The responsibilities associated w ith the role and expectations o f a p erson playing this role change w ith individual developm ent all fam ily m em bers interested (the individual playing this role and all persons affected by his/ h er behaviour). D evelopm ental changes o f th e fam ily system m em bers also d eterm in e changes o f the roles in th e lifetim e o f the individual an d in the system ’s cycle. Insufficient abilities an d com petence needed by the role or the lack o f m otivation for diligent perform ance o f a given role or th e lack o f willingness to learn it can lead to d eterio ration o f the quality of fam ily relations and little satisfaction from fam ily roles perfo rm ance and thus can th re a t the socialisation o f all m em bers o f the fam ily system. For example, if th e grand p aren ts can not accept th e fact th at th e role o f a g ran dfather or a g ran d m o th er defined in a given culture is different th an the roles of a father or a m other, this m iscom prehension can be a source o f conflicts an d the consequences will be suffered n o t only by th e grandparents and parents but also by children. A n o th er exem plary situation is w hen parents cannot accept the grow ing need for autonom y of a teenage son or daughter, w hich leads to increasing tensions and conflicts betw een parents and children, despite the fact th at earlier th eir relations were correct.

The family roles, contacts an relations dem and activity from the family m em bers and this activity brings about a variety o f experience. According to the concept of structuration and restructuration, this experience is subjected to evaluation, cognitive and em otional analysis in the structures of the psyche and is then accum ulated as the m aterial for developm ental processes.

An original m odel of interdependence between the family system, its functioning and individual developm ent o f its m em bers has been proposed by M. Tyszkowa (1990, 2009), (Fig. 3).

The m odel is concerned with two large blocks of variables: the family functioning as a context o f development and developmental changes o f the individual. The first block includes the family roles, contacts and relations in the family system related to the processes o f comm unication. The second block is m ade o f changes in the psyche subsystems and qualitative transform ations

in the psyche structures. The two blocks are determ ined by the activity of the individual and by superior systems m entioned earlier in the texts: mezo-, exo- and macrosystems. Introduction into the model o f the category of experience permits the treatm ent o f the family as a developmental context as in consistence with the earlier considerations, the context refers to the individual understanding of events

External systems: egzosystem, m ezosystem i m acrosystem

♦

Family and its m em bers - initial stage o f developm ental changes (tim e t-1)

FAMILY SYSTEM STRUCTURES OF

EXPERIENCE OF TH E

M A IN SPHERES AND FAMILY MEMBERS

FORMS OF FAMILY ACTIVITY:

4

—

►

4

❖ relations in the

fam ily system ❖ fam ily roles ❖ activity at home; dom estic affairs etc.

I: Changes in the family functioning II: T ransition to a n e t^ " phase in family life cycle

t

DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES OF AN INDIVIDUAL: I PHASE: CHANGES IN THE PSYCHE OF AN INDIVIDUAL II PHASE: RESTRUCTURATION OF T H E PSYCHE - TRANSITION TO A NEW DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE OF AN INDIVIDUAL

J

Family developm ent and its m em bers developm ent - subsequent stage (tim e t-2)

Figure 3. Model o f developmental changes in the family and its individual members (after: M. Tyszkowa, 2009, p. 143)

and situations related to the family activity of a given individual, and after analysis in the psyche of an individual an experience gets this status. The influence of the family system is processed by the structures of experience of the individuals. The influence o f family on the developmental changes of its m em bers is realised through the structures of experience accumulated in the course o f the family activity. The experience already structured in the psyche undergoes restructuration to accept new experience. In the constructivistic approach a developmental change involves structural transform ation, and of particular significance are the qualitative changes in the structures treated as criteria of reaching a new developmental stage. The transform ations of psychological activities, attitudes, values and behaviour as well as structures of the individual personality make a basis for the changes in the individual functioning in the family. Hence, the individual change is brought into the whole system and forces the systems transformation.

Analysis of developm ental changes in the family m em bers (family system subsystems) discloses a m utual determ ination of synchrony and asynchrony. In the developing family system a process of synchronisation o f developmental changes in some family m em bers with individual changes of some other family m em bers, which from the perspective o f each individual seem asynchronous but in fact these processes are deeply synchronised (cf. Trempała 2000). However, as em phasised earlier, the individual treated as a system is subm erged in the ...’’m atrix o f variables originating from different levels of organisation” and his/ h er developm ent can be treated as a derivative of the dynam ic and complex relations taking place in this “m ultidim ensional m atrix o f variables” (Lerner 1998, p. 2).

Sum m ary

In the above-described way the family system initiates the incessant sequence of processes leading to developm ental changes in the family m em bers and in the very family system. In other words it can be said that the imperative of developm ent is inherent in the family system.

In conclusion, the family makes an environm ent particularly favouring individual developm ent at each state o f hum an life. It should be emphasised, however, that the conditions determ ining or affecting individual developm ent o f family m em bers are very complex and also undergo changes im posed by the relation o f the family m em bers with persons being subsystems of other social systems and by current transform ations o f these other systems. These latter

transform ations often have a serious cultural dim ensions (Tyszka 2002, Bauman, 2002, Giddens 2008, Szlendak 2010). In this perspective the apprehension of m any researchers working on family o f an increasing num ber o f factors threatening the idea of family life in our flexible reality is fully understandable. In the light of the above considerations, the necessity of undertaking systemic actions aim ed at restoration o f the family authority seems a reasonable conclusion.

B ibliography

Bakiera L. (2008). Rozwojowe współoddziaływanie pokoleń w rodzinie. Rodzice w wieku średnim i dorastające dzieci. Psychologia Rozwojowa: 13(1): 25-37.

Baltes R B., Reese, H. W., Lipsitt, L. P. (1980). Life-span developmental psychology. Annual Review o f Psychology: 31: 65-110.

Bauman Z. (2006). Płynna nowoczesność. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.

Birch A. (2007). Psychologia rozwojowa w zarysie (przeł. J. Łuczyński, M. Olejnik). W ar­ szawa: W ydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Bowlby J. (2007). Przywiązanie (przekł. M. Polaszewska-Nicke). Warszawa: Wydawnic­ two Naukowe PWN.

Braun-Gałkowska M. (1992). Psychologiczna analiza systemów rodzinnych osób zadowolo­ nych i niezadowolonych z małżeństwa. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL.

Braun-Gałkowska M. (2011). Projekcyjny obraz siebie w różnych grupach osób starych. Wykład przedstawiony podczas III Ogólnopolskiej Konferencji Naukowej Psycholo­ gia w Służbie Rodziny n. t. Zdrowotne aspekty życia rodzinnego, Gdańsk 18-19 maja 2011 r.

Bronfenbrenner U. (1976). Ekologia rozwoju człowieka: historia i perspektywy. Psycholo­ gia Wychowawcza: 5.

Bronfenbrenner U. (1981). The ecology o f human development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, London: H arvard University Press.

de Barbaro M. (1994). Struktura rodziny [in:] В. de Barbaro (ed.). Wprowadzenie do syste­ mowego rozumienia rodziny (pp. 45-58). Kraków: Collegium M edicum UJ.

Farnicka M. (2009). Transmisja międzypokoleniowa w rodzinie w zakresie realizacji zadań rozwojowych okresu wczesnej dorosłości. Praca doktorska przygotowana pod kierun­ kiem H. Liberskiej w Instytucie Psychologii UKW.

Feeney J. (2006). Studying Close Relationships. M ethodological Challenges and Advan­ ces. [in:] P. Noller, J. Feeney (eds.), Close Relationships. Functions, Forms, and Proces­ ses (pp. 49-63). New York: Psychology Press.

Fenstermaker S. (1996). The Dynamics of Time Use: Context and Meaning. J ournal o f Family and Economic Issues: 17: 231-243.

Festinger L. (2007). Teoria dysonansu poznawczego (przetł. J. Rydlewska). Warszawa: W ydawnictwo Naukowe PW N.

Frydrychowicz S. (2007). Komunikacja interpersonalna a rozwój człowieka w cyklu życia. Psychologia Rozwojowa: 12(2): 9-15.

Gałkowski S. (2007). Koniec polityki. Referat wygłoszony podczas Konferencji „Polityka i politycy. Diagnozy, oceny, doświadczenia”. Poznań, 26-27.10.2007.

Giddens A. (2008). Konsekwencje nowoczesności. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

G eert (van) P. (1990). The structure o f family interaction. Roczniki Socjologii Rodziny: 1: 165-190.

Harwas-Napierała B. (2003). Zm iany w funkcjonowaniu rodziny i ich konsekwencje dla rozwoju rodziców, [in:] В. Harwas-Napierała (ed.). Rodzina a rozwój człowieka doro­ słego. Poznań: W ydawnictwo Naukowe UAM: 11-23.

H arwas-Napierała B. (2008). Znaczenie przem ian współczesnej rodziny dla rozwoju czło­ wieka. Psychologia Rozwojowa: 13(3): 21-27.

H arwas-Napierała B. (2009). Rodzina jako wartość a współczesność, [in:] B. Harwas- -Napierała (ed.). Rodzina jako wartość w rozwoju człowieka. Poznań: W ydawnictwo Naukowe UAM: 11-23.

H inde R., Stevwnson-Hinde J. (ed.). (1988). Relationships within families. M utual influen­ ces. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kagitcibasi C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures. Mahwah, New Jer­ sey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assiociates.

Kmita J. (ed.) (1975). Wartość, dzieło, sens. Szkice zfilozofii kultury artystyczne. Warszawa: KiW. Lerner R. M. (1998). Theories of hum an development: contem porary perspectives, [in:] W. D am on (ed.), Handbook o f child psychology. New York, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 1-24.

Liberska H., Matuszewska M. (2001). Wprowadzenie, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska (ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość-kobiecość, miłość, konflikt. Poznań: W ydawnictwo Fun­ dacji Hum aniora: 7-13.

Liberska H„ Matuszewska M. (2001a). Wybrane psychologiczno-społeczne mechanizm y funkcjonowania małżeństwa, [in:] H. Liberska, M. Matuszewska (ed.), Małżeństwo: męskość-kobiecość, miłość, konflikt. Poznań: W ydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora: 13-46.

Liberska H., Matuszewska M. (2006). Role małżeńskie w procesie rozwoju dorosłych. Psy­ chologia Rozwojowa: 11(4): 25-34.

Ludewig K. (1995). Terapia systemowa. Gdańsk: Gdańskie W ydawnictwo Psychologiczne. M inuchin S. (1975). Family and fam ily therapy. H arvard University Press.

M inuchin S. (1985). Families and Individual Development: Provocations from the Fieldof Family Therapy. Child Development: 56: 289-302.

Nowak M. (2005). Komunikacyjny i relacyjny wymiar wychowania w rodzinie, [in:] H. Cuda, H. Holka (ed.), Współczesna rodzina polska - jej stan i perspektywy. Mysło­ wice: G órnośląska Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Kardynała Augusta Hlonda: 2: 9-22.

Plopa M. (2004). Psychologia rodziny. Teoria i badania. Elbląg: W ydawnictwo Elbląskiej Uczelni Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej.

Plopa M. (2010). Wykład przedstawiony podczas I Interdyscyplinarnej Konferencji D ok­ torantów Województwa Kujawsko-Pomorskiego Rodzina wobec wyzwań współcze­ sności, Bydgoszcz 19-20.11.2010.

Przetacznik-Gierowska M., W łodarski Z. (1994). Psychologia wychowawcza. Warszawa: W ydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Rembowski J. (1980). Rodzina jako system powiązań, [in:] M. Ziemska (ed.). Rodzina i dziecko. Warszawa: PWN: 127-142.

Rostowska T. (2009). Małżeństwo, rodzina, praca a jakość życia. Kraków: Impuls.

Rostowska T., Rostowski J. (ed.) ( 2002). Rodzina - rozwój - praca. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WSI.

Sęk H. (1990). Kryzys wieku średniego a funkcjonowanie w społecznych rolach rodzin­ nych. [in:] Tyszkowa (ed.), Rodzina a rozwój jednostki. Poznań: G rant CPBP: 89-112. Trempała J. (2000). Czas i zmiana. Bydgoszcz: W ydawnictwo Akademii Bydgoskiej. Trempała J. (2011). Obsesyjna miłość rodziców do dziecka. Wykład przedstawiony podczas

śródrocznego sem inarium Sekcji Psychologii Rozwojowej PTP, Żywotne problemy współczesnych małżeństw i rodzin, Bydgoszcz, 14-15.02.2011.

Tyszka Z. (1997). System metodologiczny poznańskiej szkoły socjologicznych badań nad rodziną. Poznań: W ydawnicwto Naukowe UAM.

Tyszka Z. (2002). Rodzina we współczesnym świecie. Poznań: W ydawnicwto Naukowe UAM.

Tyszkowa (ed.) (1990a). Rodzina a rozwój jednostki. Poznań: G rant CPBP.

Tyszkowa M. (1990b). Dziadkowie i wnuki: charakterystyka stosunków wzajemnych, [in:] Tyszkowa (ed.), Rodzina a rozwój jednostki. Poznań: G rant CPBP: 113-132.

Tyszkowa M. (1990c). Zakończenie, [in:] M. Tyszkowa (ed.), Rodzina a rozwój jednostki. Poznań: G rant CPBP: 235-247.

Tyszkowa M. (2009). Jednostka a rodzina: interakcje, stosunki, rozwój, [in:] M. Prze­ tacznik-Gierowska, M. Tyszkowa (ed.), Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Warszawa: W ydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: 124-150.

Tyszkowa M., Przetacznik-Gierowska M. (2009a). Ekologiczne uwarunkowania rozwoju psychicznego człowieka, [in:] M. Przetacznik-Gierowska, M. Tyszkowa (ed.), Psycho­ logia rozwoju człowieka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: 85-101.

Tyszkowa M. (2009b). Rola kultury w rozwoju psychicznym jednostki, [in:] M. Prze­ tacznik-Gierowska, M. Tyszkowa (ed.), Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: 102-123.

von Bertalanffy L. (1975). Perspectives on General Systems Theory: Scientific-philosophical Studies. New York: George Braziller.

Wrzesień W. (2003). Jednostka, rodzina, pokolenie. Studium relacji międzypokoleniowych w rodzinie. Poznań: W ydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Zeanah C. (ed.), (2000). Handbook o f infant mental healh. New York: The Guilford Press. Ziemska M. (ed.) (1986). Rodzina i dziecko. Warszawa: PWN.