From the author: Published in the scientific and practical portal of electronic publications of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Analysis of functional indicators of the family system Chapter from the book by N.I. Olifirovich, T.F. Velenty, T.A. Zinkevich-Kuzemkina “Family Systems Therapy”, which was published by the Rech publishing house in 2012 by N.I. Olifirovich Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Doctoral Student of the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology of BSPU named after. M. Tanka. Director for Organizational Development of the Belarusian Gestalt Institute. Head of the family psychotherapy section of the Belarusian Association of Psychotherapists. Full member of the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP), the European Association of Gestalt Therapy (EAGT). http://www.gestalt.by T.F. Velenta Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs of the Riga Gestalt Institute. Family psychologist. Member of the Latvian Association of Psychotherapy, European Association of Gestalt Therapy (EAGT). http://www.gestalt.lv Mobilis in mobile (from the Latin “mobile in a mobile environment”) Jules Verne This article presents the results of a theoretical analysis of systemic constructs used in family psychology and psychotherapy. The difficulties that arise both during diagnosis and when planning psychotherapeutic interventions in working with the family system are described. The views of various authors on the functioning of the family as a system are compared. The author's classification of family system parameters is proposed, including structural, procedural and historical parameters. Various indicators of these parameters were analyzed. The relationship between these parameters is considered in the article as a methodological basis for the development of strategies for psychotherapeutic interventions. INTRODUCTION The processes of industrialization and globalization characteristic of the modern stage of development of society, changes in systems of social roles, generally accepted norms, values ​​and attitudes have affected all social institutions, including the family. The current state of the family institution is categorized by a number of psychologists, sociologists, and demographers as a crisis. At the same time, according to sociological research, the family continues to occupy one of the priority places in the hierarchy of vital human values. Thus, the crisis processes occurring in the institution of the family did not affect its significance, but were evidence of changes in modern family functioning. Family relationships have been changing in recent decades under the influence of numerous intra-family, socio-demographic and other factors that determine the transformation of value orientations and views on marriage and family. Among the intrafamily factors, it should be noted: the strengthening of individualistic tendencies in the hierarchy of life values ​​of spouses (the process of replacing femilicentrism with egocentrism), that is, the increasing importance of individual needs, motives, values ​​of marriage partners; weakening differentiation of male and female roles, both in the family and outside it; increasing the value of partnerships in marriage; decreasing the importance of social norms and obligations as regulators of marital relations (T.V. Andreeva, 2004; A.I. Antonov, V.M. Medkov, 1996; M.G. Burnyashev, 2003, etc.) ;increasing the status of previously called nonspecific (A.I. Antonov, V.M. Medkov, 1996) family functions associated with caring for the emotional and psychological comfort of the individual; increasing the tendency towards a nuclear family and weakening family ties, etc. To the socio-demographic factors include: growth and strengthening of economic independence and social equality of women; liberalization of views on divorce; liberation from class, religious and national stereotypes; increase in life expectancy, etc. The aggravation of sociocultural contradictions between traditional and modern attitudes and stereotypes of marriage and family relations leads to strengthening intergenerational conflicts and the emergence of new forms of relationships between membersextended and nuclear family, and within the nuclear family itself. As a result, the number of so-called modern forms of marriage and family relations characteristic of the postmodern era is increasing (separate marriages, swinging, modern forms of polygamy, childfree marriages, etc.). These trends, together with a number of socio-economic reasons, have an impact on the reproductive attitudes of marriage partners, leading to an increase in the number of small children (1 - 2 children in a family) and childless families, the growth of single-parent families, and, as a consequence, to a decrease in parental authority and the emergence of family caused psychological problems. Along with the trends outlined above, which mark a crisis in the institution of the family, the issue of creating a system of measures that support it is growing, among which a significant place is given to qualified psychological assistance. This actualizes the problem of finding the most adequate theoretical and methodological basis for developing the foundations of psychological work with families. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASIS FOR ANALYSIS OF FAMILY SYSTEMS Analysis of scientific works on the psychology of family relationships indicates that there is no single generally accepted model of family functioning. Family relationships have been subjected to empirical analysis mainly within the framework of socio-psychological studies of the family as a small group. There are few works devoted to the study of the family as an integral phenomenon, as a system, the functioning of which is subject to supra-individual logic. This approach allows us to consider a wide range of family problems relating to both the characteristics of interaction between members of a nuclear family and the characteristics of intergenerational relationships and mutual influences within the extended family. At the same time, the complexity of studying the family as a system, as well as the lack of a generalized analysis and clear interpretation of the existing conceptual apparatus, necessitate the identification of adequate theoretical approaches to understanding and describing the phenomena of family relationships. Research congruent with this problem already exists. However, they are mainly devoted to the analysis of a number of family disorders (A.Ya. Varga, 2000; T.I. Dymnova, 1998, etc.), and the issues of methodology remain insufficiently conceptualized. The lack of a holistic, universal and formalized methodology for describing the family as a system is one of the key problems of family psychology. And there are adequate explanations for this fact. Firstly, the problem of family functioning lies at the intersection of various areas of human knowledge - medicine, biology, cultural studies, sociology, economics, etc. Today it is necessary to state the fact that there is no methodology capable of integrating various areas of knowledge in the field of family into the general meta-model of family functioning, that is, a model that would allow us to consider the family system in connection with other spheres of social life. The importance of such interdisciplinary family research increases in conditions of economic, social, political and other crises. In stable external conditions, the most pressing tasks are to describe the state of the family system and predict its further development. In a situation of external changes, established patterns in the state of the system are violated. And since this situation is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and chaos, the problems of choosing strategic guidelines and the ability to maintain them in the course of analyzing the systemic phenomena under study become actual. Secondly, the study of the family as a system inevitably leads to a collision with the following methodological difficulty: the need to take into account the fact that the parameters of the family system can change at different stages of its existence, which is both a consequence of normative temporary changes and the result of the impact on the family of various external and internal factors (illness or death of one of its members, job loss, relocation, family conflicts, birth of a child, etc.). Thisthe characteristics of the family system are described by the concept of “dynamic balance”, reflecting its ability to change while maintaining its integrity. This concept means that the system does not strive to achieve a state of absolute equilibrium (homeostasis1)). In order to maintain viability, the family system must, on the one hand, maintain its uniqueness and its boundaries, and on the other, be subject to the action of internal forces associated with trends of growth, change and development (D. Freeman). Thus, the basic contradiction in the study of the family system is that the focus of attention must be kept on its dynamic and static characteristics. In our opinion, it is advisable to seek a solution to this methodological problem, relying on the dialectical law of unity and struggle of opposites. In postmodern physics, there is already experience in dealing with such phenomena, for example, in the description of elementary particles, each of which has both the nature of both particles and waves. Thus, the study of the family system also involves identifying two plans for its parameters. Their analysis at a specific point in time reveals the static characteristics of the family system, while taking into account changes in parameter indicators over time gives an idea of ​​its dynamic properties. Thirdly, the difficulty of analyzing the family as a system lies in the need to take into account the fact that any system, being a functional whole, is part of other, larger systems and is in direct interaction and mutual influence with them. Thus, the nuclear family is part of a larger entity - the extended family, which in turn is part of an even larger system - society. Thus, we can talk about different levels of functioning of the family system, differing in the set and size of their constituent elements: individual (individual family member), microsystem (nuclear family), macrosystem (extended family), megasystem (family and social environment) (N.I. Olifirovich, T.A. Zinkevich-Kuzemkina, T.F. Despite the fact that the focus of our analysis is the nuclear family, to complete our understanding of its functioning it is important to take into account the variety of relationships that exist between these levels. Fourthly, it is necessary to remember the thesis according to which a system cannot be considered in isolation from its observer. It is the observer who makes the decision to divide the system into certain elements, such as, for example, “family”, “person”, “experience”, etc. Each researcher of the family system constructs his own ideas about it, based on the concepts he shares and his own experience. Despite the fact that “The map is not the territory” (A. Korzybski), there are serious difficulties in analyzing certain concepts designed to describe and understand such complex objects as family systems. The design of family reality reflects not only the characteristics of the family, but also the characteristics of the social matrix, ideas and theoretical constructs of the observer, etc. Thus, regarding the family system, which today is in a very unstable environment, and is also regularly exposed to internal crises associated with various kind of changes, the skills of identifying and describing the factors acting on it, their systematization, and analysis of existing patterns, mechanisms and relationships become especially relevant. If in stable conditions one can use one descriptive and explanatory model, then in a crisis it is important to be able to create a model that is most adequate to the current situation. The development of parameters for multisystem analysis of the family system is relevant to flexible, variable models of family functioning. That is why in this work we use different views and approaches that allow us to most adequately solve the task at hand - describing the model of family functioning in a crisis situation. Conceptualizationthe problem of the functioning of the family system through the identification of the most significant units of analysis is not only an important theoretical and methodological task, but also has serious applied significance. Different authors give different classifications of indicators of the functioning of the family system, and therefore both beginners and experienced family psychologists and psychotherapists often have the problem of determining the focus of work, both during primary diagnosis and when planning a psychotherapeutic strategy. For example, A.Ya. Varga identifies the following six informative parameters: features of relationships between family members; public and unspoken rules of family life; family myths; family boundaries; family system stabilizers; family history (A.Ya. Varga, 2000). A.V. Chernikov, in the integrative diagnostic model he developed, designates structure, communication, stages of development of the family life cycle, family history and the functions of problem behavior or symptoms in it as parameters of the family system (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). I.Yu. Khamitova, whose ideas are closest to us, describes the structural, dynamic and historical features of systems (I.Yu. Khamitova, 2004). There is no doubt that all parameters of the family system are interconnected and mutually influenced. A change in one of them entails certain changes in the others. However, despite the interdependence of the parameters of the family system, we propose to divide them into three separate clusters: structural, procedural and historical parameters. Each of the clusters allows us to describe important aspects of the functioning of the family system through a number of indicators, which are the units of family analysis. Note that, unlike the exact sciences, where it is possible to clearly define the unit of analysis through specifically measurable variables, in psychology (as in other social and philosophical sciences) this unit is rather declarative in nature and is a subjective value. Nevertheless, identifying such units of analysis allows us to solve the problem of describing the family system. Structural parameters are the most thoroughly described in the literature on family psychology and psychotherapy. Most researchers agree on their differentiation from a set of indicators that describe the functioning of the family system. These include cohesion, hierarchy, flexibility, external and internal boundaries, and family role structure. As for the procedural and historical parameters, we considered it possible to separate them according to the principle of “verticality - horizontality”. Thus, procedural parameters combine indicators of the family system, identified with a horizontal slice of the family (the life cycle of a nuclear family, communication, regulators of the family system), and historical ones - with a vertical slice (family history, family script, family myth, family legend). Summarizing the above, we note that in order to develop a methodology for studying family functioning, an initial epistemological connection is necessary, i.e. conceptualization of commonly used terms and their “translation” into the concepts and terminology of the analyzed problem area. STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS OF THE FAMILY The concept of family structure The term structure (from the Latin structura - structure) has a number of meanings. The most general definition is the following. Structure is the internal structure of any material or ideal object, described by the categories of the whole and its parts. The introduction of the term “structure” makes it possible to identify connections, study the interactions and subordination of the constituent parts of various objects, and highlight analogies in their organization. Family structure is one of the basic concepts used to describe family interaction. The structural approach to the family, the leading representative of which is S. Minukhin, is based on “... the idea that the family is something more than the individual biopsychodynamics of its members...” (S. Minukhin, Ch. Fishman, 1998 (cited from: A .V. Chernikov, 2001, p. 29)). According to the provisionsstructural approach, family relationships are subject to certain patterns that govern the interaction of family members. These patterns, often unconscious, form the whole - the structure of the family, the properties of which differ from the properties of its individual members (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). Thus, representatives of the structural direction (S. Minukhin, T. Goering, D. Olson, etc.) when studying the family, focus on the patterns of interaction existing in it and connect the symptomatic behavior of family members with dysfunctions of family relationships, described through violations of the family structure. Therefore, the condition for eliminating family problems is to change the family structure, and not to correct the symptom of a family member. Family structure is a set of elements of the family system and the relationships between them. The structural elements of the family as a system are subsystems2), which are local, differentiated sets of family roles that allow the family to perform certain functions and ensure its livelihoods (S. Minukhin, Ch. Fishman, 1998). The relationships between family members depend on the characteristics of the subsystems to which they belong. There are three main types of family subsystems: The individual subsystem is represented by an individual family member. Within the framework of family therapy, it is always considered in conjunction with other subsystems, that is, the functioning of an individual family member is analyzed in the context of his numerous family connections. Subsystems where family members belong to the same generation. Marital subsystem. This subsystem is the basis of the nuclear family, determining its functioning. It includes spouses, whose interaction is aimed at maintaining the main task of this subsystem - satisfying the personal needs of marriage partners (for love, intimacy, support, care, attention, as well as material and sexual needs). Consequently, the interaction of spouses within this subsystem is built according to the “adult - adult” type. Parental subsystem. This subsystem unites family members whose interaction is associated with the performance of parental functions, including caring for children, their upbringing, development, socialization, etc. Thus, the rules of behavior in this subsystem are determined by the nature of interactions of the “parent-parent” type. The parental subsystem does not always consist of a father and mother, as in the traditional family model, but may also include significant others who are involved in one way or another in raising children. In the case of a child born out of wedlock, adoption of a child by one parent, or in a single-parent family situation, the only parent may need an additional support system. Such a support system may include extended family members (grandparents), representatives of social systems (psychological assistance centers, social service centers, church), boyfriend (girlfriend), ex-spouse, etc. The parental subsystem in such a family may be variable, due to the specific needs of the only parent, as well as his ability to “share” parental functions with temporary members of the parent subsystem. Sibling subsystem. This subsystem consists of the siblings of the nuclear family. This also includes foster and adopted children. The rules of behavior in the sibling subsystem are determined by interactions of the “brother-sister” type (“brother-brother”, “sister-sister”). The main task of this subsystem is to promote the development of the child’s interaction skills with peers. This is a kind of experimental platform where the child has the opportunity to explore other people and build different types of relationships with them. The ability to defend one’s position, join a coalition, give in, negotiate – a child learns all this in a peer group. If there is only one child in a family, he usually establishes friendly relations with the children of neighbors and relatives whenprovided there are no obstacles to his communication outside the family system. These relationships make it possible to replace interaction in the sibling subsystem. The child-parent subsystem is represented by family members belonging to different generations, namely parents and their not yet adult children. The rules of behavior in this subsystem are determined by interactions of the “parent-child” type, aimed at implementing the task of developing self-regulation skills in children, assimilating norms, values ​​and patterns of relationships in a hierarchical social system. It is within the framework of these relationships that the child builds a system of life values, gains experience in observing rules and laws, fulfilling obligations, following traditions, etc. Family structure is a kind of family topography, or a quasi-spatial cross-section of the family system. The relationship between the structural elements of the family system can be described through the following parameters: cohesion, hierarchy, flexibility, external and internal boundaries, family role structure. Some authors (J. Birtchnell, 1987; M. Cierpka, 1988; M. Nichols, 1984; V.N. Druzhinin, 2006) name cohesion and hierarchy as key dimensions of structure. !!Cohesion!! Cohesion (connection, cohesion, emotional closeness, emotional distance) can be defined as the psychological distance between family members. The criterion for determining this parameter of the family structure is to a greater extent the intensity of subjective experiences by family members of the nature of their relationships than the modality of these experiences (for example, love, hatred, resentment, etc.). Example. At first glance, relations in a family consisting of a father, mother and 11-year-old daughter cannot be called very warm. Expressions of affection, tenderness, and declarations of love for each other are not very accepted in the family. However, family members tend to spend all their free time together: they go to the dacha, visit people, go to the movies, clean the apartment, and do shopping. Parents are reluctant to let their daughter go out with friends and classmates, worrying that something bad might happen. No one can sleep until the whole family is home. The separation of family members for some time due to the father's business trip always results in tears on the part of the mother and anxious expectations of his return... The type of relationship described above is one of the examples of a high level of cohesion between family members. D. Olson, within the framework of his circular or circumplex model, identifies four levels of cohesion (and, accordingly, four types of families), which can be represented as the following continuum (A.V. Chernikov, 2001): disunited, separated, connected, confused, disunited - low degree of cohesion among family members, relations of alienation. In such systems, family members are emotionally separated, have few attachments to each other, and demonstrate inconsistent behavior. They often spend their time separately, have different interests and different friends. It is difficult for them to support each other and solve life problems together. It was found that spouses in such families more often show depressive symptoms (N. Ackerman, 2000). According to M. Bowen, marriage partners, through isolation from each other and emphasized independence, often hide their inability to establish close relationships and an increase in anxiety when getting closer to each other (M. Bowen, 2005). This kind of phenomenon was described by P. Kutter as “emotional impotence.” It is most often based on two fundamental human fears - the fear of loneliness and the fear of being absorbed by others (P. Kutter, 1998). Divided – some emotional distance between family members. Families with a divided type of relationship are characterized by emotional separation of family members from each other, but it is not as pronounced as in a disjointed system. Despite the fact that for family members, especially spouses, time spent separately is more important, they are ableunite to discuss problems, provide support to each other and make joint decisions. Connected - emotional closeness of family members, loyalty in relationships. The connected type of family is characterized by emotional closeness and loyalty in relationships that does not reach the level of entanglement. Family members often spend time together, and this is more important than time devoted to friends and interests. Confused - the level of cohesion is too high, the degree of differentiation of family members is low. In such families, a lot of energy is spent on maintaining the unity of their members, and there is an extreme demand for emotional closeness and loyalty. Family members cannot act independently of each other, have little personal space for the development and expression of their individuality, and are characterized by excessive mutual emotional involvement. The reaction to emotional distance in such families may phenomenologically resemble the child’s reaction to the loss of an attachment figure. At the same time, ambivalent feelings of love and hatred become leading in relation to the distancing family member (J. Bowlby, 2006). There may also be feelings of emptiness, loneliness, anxiety, and a decrease in one’s own “I” (N. McWilliams, 2001). D. Olson believes that the central levels of cohesion (separated and connected) are balanced and ensure optimal family functioning, while extreme values ​​(disconnected, confused) are problematic and lead to the development of family dysfunction (A.V. Chernikov, 2001) . Thus, members of separated and connected types of families are able to combine their own independence with close emotional ties with other family members. This type of interaction, in which close, emotionally rich connections are established between family members and at the same time respect for individual boundaries is maintained, M. Worden calls “intimacy” (M. Worden, 2005). Just as in other aspects of family relationships, each family goes through the path of evolution, choosing the most acceptable emotional distance for its members, which allows satisfying both the need for fusion and the need for separation. The contradiction between these needs is one of the important phenomena of family functioning, explaining the instability of family relationships, especially marital ones, in terms of cohesion. The variability of the emotional connection in a married couple is associated with certain dynamics in the development of these relationships. In the life of spouses, periods of emotional closeness and distance, satisfaction and anger, and disappointment are quite natural. They can be both situationally determined and natural, associated with the development of marriage over time and the specificity of the tasks facing the family at different periods of its existence. Violation of marital relations in terms of cohesion is the result of the destruction of positive emotional ties between spouses. It is designated by the authors as “emotional gap”, “emotional divorce”, “isolation”, “emotional rejection” (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). Hierarchy Hierarchy characterizes the relationship of dominance-subordination in the family, and also includes characteristics of various aspects of family relationships: authority, supremacy, dominance, the degree of influence of one family member on others, the power to make decisions. The concept of “hierarchy” is also used in the study of changes in the structure of roles and rules within the family (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). Hierarchy exists in any social system. All families, including those, have a certain hierarchical structure, where adults are vested with a certain amount of power. At the same time, the idea of ​​hierarchy is always contextual. For example, in the same family, in matters of raising children, power may belong to the mother, while the father is in charge of distributing the family budget. The following types of families can be distinguished, according to the family hierarchy system established in them: Authoritarian family, hierarchy inwhich is based on the primacy of one of the partners. There is a patriarchal family, where the head is the father, and a matriarchal family, where power belongs to the mother. Thus, in an authoritarian family, the head is one of the spouses, who holds the main power and who bears the main responsibility for the family. The other spouse has less power than the first, but more than the children. The relationship of the head of the family with the other spouse and children is built on the principle of “dominance - submission.” An egalitarian family is a family based on the equality of spouses. As a rule, in families with this type of hierarchy, spouses can either distribute areas of responsibility, as in the example described above, or share responsibility within one area (for example, both spouses bear equal responsibility for maintaining the family budget, raising children, etc.). d.). It is this type of family that occupies a leading position in developed Western countries. It arose as a result of changes in social gender stereotypes that determine behavior and influence the development of gender role attitudes. Changing views on traditional women's and men's professions, economic instability in society, growing social and geographic mobility and distance from relatives are accompanied by a trend towards increasing egalitarian marriages. However, supporters of the biologization approach question the significance of this trend, pointing out, in particular, that the differentiation of male and female roles in the family and in social and production activities is irremovable, since it is based on the biological characteristics of representatives of different sexes and their natural complementarity. In different families, there are different bases on which the hierarchy is based: gender (for example, “in our family the main ones are women”); age (for example, “the power to make decisions belongs to the elders”); socio-psychological characteristics (for example, “who earns more , he is in charge”, “whoever is smarter has power”, etc.); traditions (for example, “in our family, power always belongs to men”), etc. In a normally functioning family, hierarchy is inextricably linked with responsibility. However, there are situations in which power and responsibility in the same area belong to different people. In this case we are talking about a dysfunctional family. Example. A family with two children and an alcoholic father has been living off their mother for many years. The father does not work, drinks chronically, and terrorizes the entire family. The eldest son is getting married. It would be more convenient for everyone to exchange the apartment, but this is impossible, since the father is against it. Formally, it is he who has the greatest power in the family, as he controls all processes. However, the mother is responsible for making daily decisions. The next and most typical type of family structure violation in terms of hierarchy is inversion of hierarchy (inverted hierarchy). With such family dysfunction, the child acquires a higher status and, accordingly, greater power, compared to at least one of the parents. This situation, as a rule, has support at the macrosystem level through recognition of the child’s special status by the grandparents and other members of the extended family. Inversion of the hierarchy is often observed in the presence of: intergenerational coalition; chemical dependence of one or both parents; illness or disability of one or both parents; illness or symptomatic behavior in the child, thanks to which he acquires excessive influence in the family and regulates intrafamily relationships. Violation of the “hierarchy” parameter is also diagnosed in the case of its extreme manifestations: excessive hierarchization of the family system and, conversely, the absence of a hierarchical structure in it. This applies to both the family as a whole and its individual subsystems. Example. There are two children in the family: the eldest son is 15, the youngest is 8. On the one hand, the parents demand that the eldest son look after and take care of the younger one: pick him up from school, do things with himhomework, fed him when his parents were at work. On the other hand, the older child does not have any preferences from the parents compared to the younger one. They both have to go to bed at the same time, receive the same amount of pocket money, and their parents demand from both of them an account of the time spent outside the home. Contradictory educational attitudes of parents in relation to the older child lead to the blurring of individual boundaries in the sibling subsystem and the absence of a hierarchical structure in it, as a result of which the younger child does not obey the older one, does not carry out his instructions, and complains about him to his parents. According to the principle “younger ones must yield,” the eldest son turns out to be unsupported by his parents. This feature of family functioning has led to the fact that the youngest child experiences difficulties at school in communicating with peers and teachers: he does not know how to give in, negotiate and does not recognize authorities. Family Boundaries The concept of “family boundaries” is used to describe the relationship between the family and the social environment (external boundaries), as well as between various subsystems within the family (internal boundaries). Family boundaries are symbolic emotional barriers that protect and maintain the sense of integrity of individuals, subsystems and entire families. Family psychotherapists consider boundaries as an important characteristic of the family structure during its comprehensive diagnosis. Boundaries are maintained, first of all, by a system of rules and agreements that exist between family members. These rules define who belongs to a given system or subsystem and what the nature of that membership is. In D. Olson’s model, the “family boundaries” parameter is described in the form of a continuum, at one pole of which there are hard, impenetrable boundaries, and at the other, blurred boundaries or their complete absence (A.V. Chernikov, 2001): hard - permeable - blurred. Thus, according to the degree of permeability, hard, permeable and blurred boundaries are distinguished. The optimal way for a family to function is to have clearly defined and permeable boundaries. Internal boundaries describe the differences between subsystems and are determined by the specific rules of interaction existing in them. In cases where the internal boundaries between the parent and child subsystems are very strict, the family may lack warmth and intimacy. If the boundaries, for example, between the marital and parental subsystems are blurred, then parents often cease to function as spouses, performing exclusively tasks related to caring for and raising children. Subsystems that do not have clear boundaries do not support the development of interpersonal skills within those subsystems. For example, if parents intervene in children's conflicts, the latter will never learn to defend themselves, and this will disrupt their relationships with peers. Features of internal boundaries determine the quantity and quality of family coalitions - associations that exist between family members. The concept of coalitions is one of the central ones in S. Minukhin’s structural approach. We can distinguish two types: functional (between members of the same subsystem) and dysfunctional (between members of different subsystems). For example, insufficiently clear internal boundaries lead to the emergence of intergenerational coalitions, which hinder the development of the family. Such associations between members of various subsystems, concluded on the basis of public or unspoken agreements, indicate the presence of problems in the family, as well as violations of the family structure. A.V. Chernikov (A.V. Chernikov, 2001) describes the following variants of intergenerational coalitions (all of them are signs of family dysfunction): Coalition of one parent with a child against another, distant parent. In such a situation, the parent who is not in the coalition loses his status and authority in the eyes of the child. A coalition of one parent with a child against another parent, also in a coalition with another child. In this situation, each parent justifies the behavior of “their own”child and condemns the behavior of the other. Coalition of the grandparent with the child against the parent. In a situation where representatives of three generations live together, grandparents often form such a coalition with the child, directed against the educational influences of one or both parents. Coalition of a parent with one of the children (favorite), causing envy and jealousy in others. Coalition of one of the spouses with their parents against the other spouse, etc. The presence of intergenerational coalitions indicates violations of boundaries and hierarchy in the family. J. Haley writes that “there is a fundamental rule of social organization: an organization fails when coalitions form across levels of hierarchy, especially when these coalitions are secret” (J. Haley, 1976). A coalition that arises from a shared secret involving certain family members attempting to hide certain information from others will destabilize the entire family system. Features of external boundaries reflect the degree of openness of the family system to contacts with the outside world. Too open family systems (with blurred external boundaries) are characterized by frequent, uncontrolled “intrusions” from the outside. Such a family does not provide the necessary level of security and comfort for its members. But no less dangerous is the excessive closedness of the system, which is a consequence of its rigid external boundaries. Family members with strong external boundaries tend to be more anxious, fearful of the outside world, and may have difficulty connecting with others. External boundaries also perform a protective function, protecting the family and its subsystems from dangerous information, contacts, etc., and also contribute to the preservation of family identity and the stabilization of intrafamily relationships. Example. A family of Muslim refugees, finding themselves in a big city with Christian traditions, strives to preserve their national and cultural values. To achieve this, the family has adopted a rule prohibiting children from having romantic relationships with peers from a non-Muslim culture. Parents carefully monitor their children’s contacts, preventing “dangerous” connections. The relationship between external and internal boundaries is usually described as inversely proportional: the more diffuse and permeable the external boundaries of a system, the more rigid and rigid the internal boundaries are, and vice versa. For example, in a family with blurred external boundaries, the interests of its members are usually located outside its boundaries, and there is no loyalty to family rules. Family members rarely and have little contact with each other, there is no closeness between them. Such a family can be described as a group of autonomous individuals whose independence is combined with a lack of mutual support (S. Minuchin, 1974). On the contrary, if a family establishes hard and rigid external boundaries, then its internal boundaries most often turn out to be diffuse and permeable. Such a system makes a small number of exchanges with the external environment, and the absence or hyper-permeability of internal boundaries causes the “fusion” of family members and their loss of autonomy (S. Minuchin, 1974). A number of authors (for example, H. Green, R. Verner) believe that the concept of “borders” needs clarification and additional differentiation and requires its consideration according to two independent criteria: “closeness - care” and “intrusiveness”. The “closeness – care” parameter is characterized by attention, care of family members for each other, and the desire to spend time together. Intrusiveness is expressed in the manifestation of a sense of ownership and jealousy, while the manifestation of individuality is seen as a threat to family relationships. These authors suggest that boundaries should not be viewed strictly as disconnected or as confused. Using the intimacy-caring and intrusiveness criteria, they consider four possible combinations: high intimacy-low intrusiveness, low intimacy-low intrusiveness, high intimacy-high intrusiveness, and low intimacy-low intrusiveness (M. Warden,2005, pp. 42 – 43). A particular type of external boundaries are intergenerational boundaries, which describe the relationship between spouses and their parent families. The concept of “intergenerational boundaries” includes characteristics of cohesion and hierarchy between family members belonging to different generations (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). Thus, we can talk about the emotional and functional characteristics of intergenerational boundaries. The emotional characteristics of intergenerational boundaries are determined through the parameter of cohesion. Emotional intergenerational boundaries are defined: as blurred, if the cohesion of members of a nuclear family with members of an extended family (for example, one of the spouses with his parents) corresponds to a high level; as rigid, if the level of cohesion or disunity between members of a nuclear and extended family is low; as permeable - when balance (moderate closeness) in terms of cohesion between members of the nuclear and extended family, combining separation with the preservation of emotional ties. The functional characteristics of intergenerational boundaries are determined through the hierarchy parameter between extended family members belonging to different generations (for example, between spouses and their parents). Functional intergenerational boundaries are characterized: as blurred, if extended family members have more power to make decisions regarding the functioning of the nuclear family; as permeable, if the hierarchical status of adult nuclear family members in solving the problems of their family life exceeds the status of extended family members. However, at the same time, the opportunity to consult and take into account the opinion of the latter remains, despite the fact that priority in decision-making belongs to members of the nuclear family; as strict, if the hierarchical status of adult members of the nuclear family in solving the problems of their family life exceeds the status of members of the extended family. At the same time, the opinion of the latter is not taken into account, and their involvement in the life of the nuclear family is minimal (T. Gehring, 1998). The indicator “intergenerational boundaries” is of particular interest in the psychotherapy of a young family, since it allows us to identify the characteristics of the relationship between spouses and their parents and determine the emotional and functional separation of marriage partners from their parent families. At the same time, it is advisable to study intergenerational boundaries through a differentiated analysis of their emotional and functional characteristics. Flexibility Flexibility is the ability of the family system to adapt to changes in the external and intrafamily situation. To function effectively, families need an optimal combination of intrafamily changes with the ability to maintain their characteristics stable. In R. Beavers' systemic model of family functioning, the family's ability to flexibly respond and adapt to changing conditions is designated by the “competence” parameter (R. Beavers, 1990). In D. Olson’s circular model, the flexibility of the family system reflects “the number of changes in family leadership, family roles and rules governing relationships” (A.V. Chernikov, 2001, p. 32). The author proposes that this parameter, like the previous ones, should also be considered as a continuum that describes four levels of flexibility (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). rigid - structured - flexible - chaotic Rigid (very low). A family system is called rigid if it is characterized by a low ability to adapt to changing living conditions, due to which it ceases to adequately fulfill the tasks that arise before it in connection with the passage of stages of the life cycle. That is, the family turns out to be unable to change and adapt to a new situation for it. There is a tendency to limit negotiations; most decisions are imposed by the highest status family member. According to D. Olson, a system often becomes rigid when it is overly hierarchical. According to a number of studies (Yu.B. Aleshina, 1989), the family becomes most rigid during the period of birth and care of a small child. At this time inmarried couples experience an increase in the importance of sex-role stereotypes in interpersonal relationships, which is expressed in strict sex-role differentiation. Strict distribution of functions is a way for the family system to achieve a certain level of homeostasis. When a child reaches the age of independence, it reduces the problem of distribution of roles in the family, becoming a source of increased flexibility of the family system. Structured (between low and moderate). When the flexibility parameter corresponds to the structured level in the family system, there is a certain degree of plasticity: for example, family members are able to discuss common problems and take into account the opinions of children. Roles and family rules are stable, but there is the possibility of their discussion. Flexible (moderate). A flexible type of family system is characterized by a democratic style of family leadership, open negotiations, and the ability to change family roles if necessary. For example, rules may be adjusted according to changes in age or the addition of new family members. Sometimes such a family may lack leadership based on a family member taking responsibility for change. However, this does not lead to a loss of system stability. Chaotic (very high). A system in a chaotic state has unstable or limited leadership. Decisions made in the family are often impulsive and ill-considered. Roles are unclear and often shift from one spouse to the other. According to D. Olson's model, central levels of flexibility (structured and flexible) are balanced and ensure optimal family functioning, while extreme values ​​on the flexibility scale (rigid and chaotic levels) lead to disruptions in family functioning. Role structure of the family Role is a concept that reflects both social and individual characteristics of the individual, the interaction of external and internal aspects of its development. According to E. Thomas and B. Biddle, “a role is a set of prescriptions that determine what the behavior of a person occupying a certain social position should be. In different contexts, a role defines prescription, description, evaluation, and action; the idea of ​​a role reflects hidden and overt processes, one's own behavior and the behavior of others, the behavior that the individual initiates and the behavior that is directed at him" (BJ Biddle, EJ Thomas, 1966, p. 29) Thus, roles are patterns behavior regulated by obligations and expectations that determine both a person’s own actions and the actions of the people around him. In addition to actual behavior, the concept of “role” includes desires, goals, beliefs, feelings, social attitudes, values ​​and actions that are attributed to a person. The nature of the distribution of roles in the family is greatly influenced by family values ​​and norms. Family role structure is one of the most studied indicators of family relationships. Its various aspects were studied: the relationship between sex-role differentiation and spouses’ satisfaction with marriage, the role of value-role consistency of spouses in the stabilization of marital and family relations, problems of spouses mastering roles, role conflict of career-successful spouses, etc. Family roles are sets of behavioral patterns assigned to each member of the family system patterns determined by both individual (a set of ideas about oneself as a role bearer) and micro-, macro- and megasystem levels of family functioning (N.I. Olifirovich, T.A. Zinkevich-Kuzemkina, T.F. Velenta, 2005) . The role structure of the family prescribes to its members what, how, when and in what sequence they should do when interacting with each other (S. Minukhin, Ch. Fishman, 1998). The following family roles are distinguished: Roles that characterize the interaction of family members at the individual level: roles-responsibilities that make it possible to determine the contribution of each family member to the organization of life together and are described through the functions performed: the one who prepares the food, earns money,cleans the apartment, etc. interaction roles reflecting typical behaviors in various situations of family communication. For example, in a family there may be such roles as scapegoat, universal comforter, eternal victim, favorite, etc. Roles that describe the interaction of family members at the microsystem level: marital roles: husband, wife; roles related to the child-parent subsystem : mother, father, son, daughter; roles related to the sibling subsystem: brother, sister. Roles describing the interaction of family members at the macrosystem level: roles determined by blood relationship: grandmother, grandfather, grandson, cousin, etc.; roles, the emergence of which is due to marital ties: father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, etc. Roles that describe the interaction of family members at the megasystem level reflect the role positions that the family as a whole and its individual members occupy in society. The role behavior of family members may be associated with the performance of certain responsibilities and with maintaining intrafamily interaction. Roles and responsibilities make it possible to determine the contribution of each family member to the organization of life together and are described through the functions performed: the one who prepares food, earns money, cleans the apartment, etc. Interaction roles make it possible to identify typical behavior patterns in various family communication situations. For example, in a family there may be such roles as scapegoat, universal comforter, eternal victim, etc. The role structure of family relationships varies between the “rigid - flexible” poles, from strictly distributed roles and strict family rules to a style of family leadership when roles between family members can change if necessary. For example, in a married couple, the manifestation of these polarities in the role structure are, respectively, traditional and egalitarian or equal marriages. In well-functioning families, the structure of family roles is holistic, dynamic, alternative in nature and meets the following requirements: consistency of the set of roles that form an integral system, both in relation to the roles performed by one person and the family as a whole; fulfillment of the role must ensure the satisfaction of the needs of all members families while maintaining a balance between individual needs and the needs of others; compliance of accepted roles with the capabilities of the individual; the ability of family members to flexibly function in several roles. An indicator of the dysfunctionality of the family system is the emergence of pathologizing roles that allow the family as a system to maintain stability, but due to its structure and content have a psychotraumatic effect on its members (E.G. Eidemiller, V.V. Justitskis, 1999). One example of role dysfunction is delegating the role of an adult to a child, which is very typical for families with the problem of alcoholism, where the mother saves the father and suffers, and the child faces the need to become his mother’s “support” - supports her, does not upset her, hiding his childhood difficulties. Often, the child is used (“triangulated”) by the mother to resolve marital conflicts: he acts as a shield during drunken scandals, participates in negotiations with the father the next morning, for example, trying to “reason” with him, etc. PROCEDURAL PARAMETERS Process parameters are a set of dynamic characteristics and properties of the family system that describe the entire cycle of its life activity. Procedural parameters are used: to characterize the processes occurring in the family; to describe the mechanisms and cause-and-effect relationships that explain the dynamics of the family system; to understand systemic phenomena that manifest themselves in the interaction of family members with each other and the social environment. The dynamic properties of the family system are ensured by the various processes that take place in it. Family processes can be subject to different logics: circular, spiral, intermittent, continuous. There are processes that lead to transformationsfamily system, for example, evolutionary/involutionary processes associated with the family’s passage through the life cycle, as well as processes that mediate temporary (oscillatory) changes in the state of the family system. A promising idea for describing the latter is the idea of ​​oscillations, or oscillations (A.V. Chernikov, 2001). The process of oscillation does not lead to transformations in the system; rather, there are periodic changes in some parameter in time and space. The idea of ​​oscillation formed the basis for describing the family as a maneuvering system. According to this concept, “it is convenient to think of the family not as a system with an absolutely unchanged structure, but to imagine it as a maneuvering system... moving from one state to another and back. As a result, the system oscillates between different, often opposite states (peace and war in the family; exacerbation of symptoms in a child and a period of some calm; a situation of alcoholic binge and the state of the family when the husband is relatively sober, etc.)” (A.V. Chernikov , 2001). The oscillations of a system between different states can be described as a spiral process, since due to constant development the system never returns to a completely identical state. However, to simplify the analysis of family systems, we can consider these states to be isomorphic and thus speak of a circulation process. For therapeutic purposes, it is enough to identify two or three states of the family system. For example, when diagnosing family processes, the technique proposed by Gehring is often used, which allows one to analyze changes in the main structural parameters of the family system in its three states: typical, conflict and ideal (T. Gehring, 1998). Thus, by procedural parameters we will understand such indicators of family functioning, the immanently given property of which is consistent dynamics that determine the movement, change or development of the family system. Procedural parameters relate to a horizontal section of the family system, that is, they characterize the processes occurring in a nuclear family. Understanding the complexity and diversity of these indicators, we will focus on describing the most significant for understanding the concept of “family dynamics”, namely the life cycle of a nuclear family, communication and regulators of the family system. Life cycle of a nuclear family Each family system in its existence goes through periods of evolution/involution, structural changes, for example, associated with an increase/decrease in the number of its elements, etc. These processes underlie the concept of “life cycle of a nuclear family.” It represents a sequence of stages that any average family goes through in its development. In other words, this concept describes natural family development due to changes occurring in the family over time (M. Nichols, R. Schwartz, 2004; A.V. Chernikov, 2001; E.G. Eidemiller, V.V. The concepts of “family development cycle” (Yu.B. Aleshina) and “developing stages of the family” (D.A. Rubinshtein, M.A. Solomon) are used synonymously with it. This indicator is of great importance for the analysis of family relationships, since it allows us to determine their context through a description of the normative tasks of the family in a certain period of its development. The idea of ​​the family life cycle also plays an important role in determining the strategy for therapeutic work with it. So, for example, at the stage when children become adults and begin their independent lives - the “empty nest” stage - therapeutic work is built taking into account the maintenance of the separation task corresponding to this period. Parents usually need to help them loosen their control, give their own lives new meaning, and give their children more responsibility, which would allow them, in turn, to gain greater autonomy. Slavic families, mostly child-centered, experience great difficulties at this stage due to the traditional weakness of the maritalsubsystems. As children grow older, spouses increasingly lose the meaning of living together, which can lead to family breakdown, infidelity, leaving for work, depression, etc. Inevitable difficulties associated with the transition to a new stage of the life cycle, the need of the family to maintain the usual style of relationships provoke resistance of the family system to necessary changes. At the same time, each family has greater or lesser resources for transformation. Communication Communication is a complex and multi-valued concept that broadly describes the process of transmitting information. When describing communication, a number of mathematical, biological, physical and other concepts are used, such as function, information exchange, feedback, etc. When studying the family system within the framework of communicative analysis (G. Bateson, J. Beavin, P. Watzlawick, D. Jackson etc.) the interchanges between family members and the features of their causal interpretation are considered. According to G. Bateson, in interaction with living systems there is always a process of information exchange behind any behavioral acts (G. Bateson, 2000). Therefore, in the works of the above authors, much attention is paid to the features of the metacommunicative level of interaction between family members and its role in the emergence of paradoxical interactions that have a negative impact on family relationships. P. Vaclavik (P. Vaclavik, 2000, pp. 21-22) identifies three aspects of communication: syntax describes the problems of transmitting information (coding, channels, volume and other characteristics of the communication language); semantics focuses on the meaning, its symbolic content, and also on agreements regarding the semantic content of messages; pragmatics focuses on how communication influences behavior, namely, what effect this or that information has on the recipient, and what reciprocal influence his reaction has on the sender. The basic property of communication is the absence of a process that is polar to it. In other words, a person, in principle, cannot help but engage in communication. “Activity or passivity, words or silence - all this transmits information: it influences other people, who, in turn, cannot help but respond to this communication and, therefore, enter into it themselves” (P. Vaclavik, 2000, p. 57). At the same time, a person’s involvement in various communication processes leads to the fact that even his “idea... of himself is actually an idea of ​​the functions, of the relationships in which he is included...” (P. Vaclavik, 2000, p. . thirty). Since it is fundamentally impossible not to communicate, in a situation where a person does not want to communicate, the following reactions are possible: “Refusal” to communicate, which does not comply with the “rules of politeness.” Example. My daughter came home from school upset about something. The mother tries to find out what is wrong and starts a conversation with her. However, she says “leave me alone” and goes into her room and closes the door. The mother feels offended. Inclusion in communication against one's will (forced communication). Example. The wife wants to talk to her husband about the arrival of his mother, with whom she has a long-standing and chronic conflict. The husband feels uncomfortable discussing this topic because he knows about his wife’s hostility towards his mother. However, he does not refuse the conversation in order to avoid marital conflict. Breakdown of communication, i.e. such behavior that destroys (distorts, levels) communication. This includes a wide range of communicative phenomena: contradictory statements, inconsistency, changes in topic, incomplete sentences, misunderstandings, unclear or mannered speech, literal interpretation of metaphors or metaphorical understanding of literal remarks, etc. (P. Vaclavik, 2000). The appearance of a symptom as a “mediator” of communication. In response to a message, another may “pretend to be asleep, deaf, drunk, pretend that he does not know ... a language, or pretend to have any othera defect that makes communication justifiably impossible” (P. Vaclavik, 2000, p. 94). Moreover, in all cases, communication contains the following message: I want to communicate with you, but I’m being hindered by... (my illness, my nerves, my poor eyesight, alcohol, my wife, etc.) Most often, this “interference” is any symptom - neurotic, psychosomatic or psychotic. Example. A young family with a child lives in a four-room apartment with the wife’s mother. Every time the daughter talks about an exchange, the mother's blood pressure rises. This is followed by a call for an ambulance, lamentations that she will soon die, and other ways of avoiding the topic. When describing various elements of communication, the following terms are used: message is a separate element of communication; interaction is a series of messages exchanged between people; interaction patterns (communication patterns) are stable elements of a higher level of communication, the invariable characteristic of which is variable, stereotypical repetitions sequences of behavior (P. Vaclavik, 2000, pp. 58-59). In other words, these are stable ways of behavior of family members and constantly repeated communication stereotypes, including certain messages (messages) or containing a certain meaning for family members. For example, ways of expressing dissatisfaction, ridicule, quarrels, resentment, support, etc. can be patterned. The stereotypical sequence of interaction patterns in some cases can take on a circular form. All communication processes can be divided into two categories: symmetrical and complementary. The healthy development of symmetrical relationships presupposes a respectful and trusting attitude of partners towards each other, which forms the basis for confirming their importance in the family. The Russian proverb “Two boots are a pair” reflects the essence of this particular type of relationship. However, with symmetrical communication there is a threat of inclusion in competition and increasing hostility in relationships. In broken relationships of this type, there is usually a rejection of the other's personality. The nature of complementary relationships is such that the self of one partner is supported by the other partner performing a complementary role. In this type of relationship, one is always the polarity of the other (“opposites attract”). For example, the “condition” for the active professional life of one of the partners is often the professional passivity of the other. A healthy version of a complementary relationship is characterized by positive confirmation by spouses of each other, while their pathology is manifested in a tendency to ignore the personality of the other. In the latter case, feelings of frustration, despair, self-alienation and depersonalization grow in the marital relationship. One or both partners may also develop abulia. At the same time, spouses can be quite adapted when they act alone. Both of these types of relationships (symmetrical and complementary) perform important functions and are present in various areas of family interaction. “...each pattern can stabilize the other when a failure occurs in one of them...” (P. Vaclavik, 2000, p. 129). Therefore, it is necessary that two partners interact symmetrically in some and complementarily in other areas of family life. Any communication can be analyzed at two levels: at the level of content (what is communicated) and at the level of relationships (how it is conveyed). At the level of message content (content aspect), information can be transmitted: in the form of direct and clear messages; in the form of indirect appeals and manipulative actions; in the form of double messages; with the involvement of third parties to transmit information. At the level of relationships between people (the incentive aspect), the emotional-evaluative part of the message is transmitted, the “decoding” of which allows you to understand how to perceive the information received (as a joke, as an accusation, as devaluation, as flirting, etc.). This aspectcommunication mediates its content, and, therefore, is metacommunication. It can be either conscious or unconscious; both verbal and non-verbal. The inconsistency of a message at the level of its content (for example, the wish “Be direct”), or the discrepancy between the content and incentive aspects of communication (for example, verbal and nonverbal components), takes the form of paradoxical communication. Its extreme version is the “double clamp” (G. Bateson, 2000; A.V. Chernikov, 2001). “Double bind” (“double bind”, “double trap”, “double message”) can be defined as a situation where an individual at different levels of communication receives two contradictory messages from the same person with whom he usually communicates. is in a close relationship. At the same time, he does not have the opportunity to adequately respond to any of the messages received. At the same time, he is not able to interrupt the interaction due to the significance of the relationship. All this makes the situation hopeless, since a reaction that is adequate to one part of the message will conflict with its other part. In addition to the “double bind,” signs of dysfunctional family communication are its fragmentation or the presence of “family secrets.” A number of authors, when describing family communication, highlight such a concept as the style of emotional communication in the family. It is characterized by the ratio of positive and negative emotions, criticism and praise addressed to each other, as well as the presence or absence of a ban on the open expression of feelings. The style of emotional communication in the family, in which negative emotions dominate, constant criticism, humiliation, intimidation, lack of faith in the abilities and capabilities of family members leads to a decrease in self-esteem and self-esteem, an increase in internal tension, anxiety, aggression and, as a result, to neurotic and psychosomatic disorders (E.G. Eidemiller, I.V. Dobryakov, I.M. Nikolskaya, 2006). Regulators of the family system Regulators of the family system include indicators of its functioning that ensure the maintenance of homeostatic/heterostatic processes. These include family norms and rules, family values, traditions and family rituals. A.B. Kholmogorova calls these indicators “the meaningful foundations of family life” (A.B. Kholmogorova, 2002). Other authors call them family stabilizers (E.G. Eidemiller, I.V. Dobryakov, I.M. Nikolskaya, 2006). In our opinion, the proposed definitions do not fully reveal the impact of these indicators on family functioning. Traditionally, they are attributed the function of maintaining balance in the family system. However, the same indicators at different periods of a family’s life can both stabilize it and destabilize it. Therefore, we propose to use the term “family system regulators” as a more accurate description of the role of these indicators in family functioning, and also to expand the proposed list to include the concept of balances between “give” and “take” in the family system. Example. It was customary for the family to celebrate New Year and birthdays together. As children entered adolescence and developed interests outside the home, particularly the need to celebrate holidays with friends, this tradition, which previously brought family members together and was a source of joy and maintenance of emotional intimacy, became a source of conflict and tension. Family norms and rules are a set of foundations and requirements on which family life is built. Rules play an important regulatory role in the relationships of family members. Family rules can relate to any aspect of family life - both the daily routine and the possibility of open expression of feelings. They can be divided into two groups - open and hidden. V. Satir, describing closed family systems, emphasized that they are characterized by hidden, outdated, rigid, unchanging rules of family life. Members of such families must adjust their needs to the established rules, oftencombined with a ban on their discussion. Hidden rules negatively affect the functioning of the family, especially in a situation where it is expanding due to the arrival of new members. In a family with such rules, it is impossible to obtain the necessary information about the reality on which the life of the family system is based, and you can learn about the rules only after breaking them, which is followed by punishment. P. Vaclavik characterizes this phenomenon as a pathology of communication. However, even in such situations, the function of the rules is to support the integrity of the family. Lack of rules and regulations leads to chaos in the family system and also poses a serious threat to the mental health of family members. Many children and adolescents with delinquent behavior grew up in chaotic families. The vagueness of rules and norms, their constant variability contribute to the growth of anxiety among family members and can lead to stress, as well as inhibit the development of both the entire family system and its individual members. Rules allow family members to navigate reality and give stability to the family as a whole. Often it is the lack of rules that becomes the main source of grievances and conflicts. The most common example is a mother who complains that her children and husband do not help her much and refuse to fulfill her requests. In such families there are always no clear rules accepted by all family members and regulating their responsibilities. Family values ​​are ideals, ideas about the family, its characteristics, which are approved and cultivated within the family, and also serve as an important factor in regulating relationships between its members. In addition to purely private values, a family may reflect national, cultural, and other values. It is the family that acts as a source of formation of life values ​​that contribute to the adaptation and socialization of young people. Rituals (from the Latin ritualis - ritual) are an ordered system of sustainable actions characteristic of a given family. This is a very important indicator of the functioning of the family system, promoting the creation of connections between family members, regulating the level of family anxiety, having a symbolic meaning, and also supporting family identity by transmitting certain patterns from generation to generation. Family ritual includes patterns of behavior that are shared by all or most family members and have symbolic meaning for them. Rituals reflect family traditions and are associated with cultural, religious and ethnic aspects of family functioning. Despite sociocultural differences, there are universal family rituals, which include: family holidays, family traditions and family habits. In multicultural marriages, problems often arise, since each spouse “brings” their own system of traditions, customs and significant holidays to the family. If the spouses have not agreed on the rules, different ideas about how and when to celebrate this or that holiday, how to organize the family routine, etc. can lead to serious conflicts. The role of rituals in family cohesion was studied at the Milan School of Systemic Family Psychotherapy. JD Friesen described the main characteristics of such family rituals as family holidays, family traditions and family habits: family holidays are ritualized intra-family events, determined by culture and supported by family members. These rituals can be divided into groups related to the family and social calendars. The first include the birthdays of family members, as well as rituals determined by the life cycle of the family (weddings, baptisms, funerals). The second includes religious and public holidays (Christmas, New Year, Independence Day, etc.). The “normativity” of the latter is achieved due to their wide coverage in the media, replication in films, support by the social environment and other family traditions - unique, regular family events specific to each family. They're not that biglike holidays. These may include, for example, meetings with extended family members, joint Sunday lunches, etc. Family traditions are based on intrafamily preferences, beliefs, values ​​and allow the family to express its identity; family habits, or rituals of everyday life, are a system of interactions among family members, determined by the structure of their roles and responsibilities. A habit is considered as an established way of behavior, the implementation of which in a certain situation acquires the character of a need for a family member. Rituals belonging to this group are not specially planned and are often not even realized due to their routineness (in English this phrase sounds like “family routines”). They can be defined by the phrase “It’s customary in our family.” Thus, this group of rituals includes: the nature of meals, the habit of taking a shower, brushing teeth, the usual bedtime for children, spending free time, wishing “Good night”, ways of maintaining discipline, etc. Family members sometimes do not even suspect that such actions of theirs are actually rituals. They consider them typical, habitual ways of behavior, although it is family habits that are the “litmus test” for identifying similarities and differences between them (JD Friesen, 1990). Research by neuroscientists has shown that rituals tend to stimulate both the left and right hemispheres, leading to the experience of ritual action as a deeply emotional event. Logical and verbal aspects of communication are combined with symbolic and nonverbal ones, which expands the field of their influence on family members and facilitates their integration (E. d'Aquili, C. Laughlin, J. McManus, 1979). We can distinguish different types of families depending on the nature of the rituals: Families with a small number of rituals. In such families, holidays and various types of transitional events in the life cycle are not celebrated. Families with ritual deficiencies tend to be fragmented, and family members suffer from isolation and anxiety. For example, the death of one family member can lead to serious consequences for the health of others in those families where rituals of shared grief, mourning and remembrance are absent. In these cases, the therapist has to, together with the family, create or re-build this most important indicator of the functioning of the system. Families with rigid rituals. In such families, rituals are rigidly followed and changes associated with the development of family members are not taken into account. Everything is clearly structured and defined, family norms and rules are very clear and practically unchanged. Family members firmly follow family customs and habits, for example: eating the same food, visiting the same people, celebrating in the same company, etc. Families with the determining effect of ritual. In such families, a certain ritual, usually of a religious nature, has a very strong, determining influence on the entire life process of the family and the formation of the worldview of its growing members. Families with formal rituals. In such families, people follow rituals out of a sense of duty. Ritual actions either lost their meaning for the family, becoming a burden and creating tension, or became devalued due to changes to which the family did not adapt in time. There are also families where only one person participates in rituals while other family members completely ignore them. Rituals are an important way to help families and individual members during transition periods between stages of the life cycle. Their use in therapeutic practice contributes to the effect of family integration. Give-take balances. In order to develop and function adequately, the family must make exchanges with the environment. “The family, being a living system, exchanges energy and information with the external environment” (S. Minukhin, Ch. Fishman, 1998, p. 28). In addition, similar exchanges exist within the family between subsystems. Exchanges are based on the needs of individualsindividuals, subsystems and the system as a whole and characterize the equilibrium processes occurring in the family system. They resemble a “swing”: input tends to be balanced by output, and the greater the volume of what is given and received, the “higher” they swing. Exchanges of feelings, information, and services are the cornerstone of the existence of a system where different individuals have different abilities to satisfy both their own and others’ needs. Problems in the system begin when the balance between “give” and “take” is disrupted. A.A. Schutzenberger, drawing on the work of I Boszormenyi-Nagy, writes about the concept of family justice. “When justice is not observed, it manifests itself in unbelief, exploitation of some family members by others (sometimes in flight, revenge, revenge), even in illness and repeated accidents. And vice versa, when justice is observed, there is affection, mutual respect among family members... We can talk about the “balance of family accounts” and the “family ledger,” where credit and debit, debts, responsibilities, and merits are visible. Otherwise, we have a number of problems that are repeated from generation to generation” (A.A. Schutzenberger, 2001, p. 31). The processes that maintain the balance of the family system can be clarified by analyzing the following aspects of the life of its members: What does each of them “bring” to the family system? What does he/she “get” in the family? What external factors support/destabilize the system? In family systems where one element receives benefits at the expense of someone else without subsequent compensation, feelings of guilt can accumulate, prompting one of the family members to try to make up for the injustice, most often through unconscious actions. This is one of the options for the development of dysfunction in the family system. The analysis of procedural parameters seems to us incomplete without mentioning the driving forces that mediate their action - the mechanisms of family functioning. Mechanisms of family functioning The vital activity of the family system is “served” through a number of mechanisms that determine its dynamic characteristics and the performance of basic functions. Mechanisms of family functioning, in the narrow sense, are means of regulating intra- and extra-family interaction. In a broad sense, it is a set of interconnected processes, both constantly occurring in the family and actualizing or arising in it at a certain period of its life in connection with the influence of both normative and non-normative intra- and extra-family events. These interconnected family processes act as elements of the mechanisms of family functioning under consideration. Difficulties in describing and studying the mechanisms of family functioning are due, first of all, to the complex and multi-level (“hypercomplex”) system of connections existing in the family. Therefore, with a certain degree of reductionism, we can talk about the mechanisms of family functioning as mechanisms with many degrees of freedom, that is, connections between the elements of the mechanism that determine their mutually agreed “movement.” The next difficulty in studying the mechanisms of family functioning, revealed by analyzing the literature, is that family phenomena are reflected using different languages ​​of description. For example, a number of studies analyzing the means of regulating family functioning are devoted to group phenomena that perform a protective function aimed at maintaining the stability of family relationships, the existing structure, i.e. to maintain the integrity and positive image of the family in the perception of its members. However, in our opinion, family functioning mechanisms are a broader concept that cannot be reduced to group defense mechanisms, coping strategies, etc. Mechanisms as driving forces of family functioning mainly determine the intensity and direction of family processes. Example. The mechanism of stabilization of the family system can mediate family processes in the following way. As the level increasesanxiety in the marital subsystem, it also increases in the child subsystem (intensity) and over time can lead to the emergence of symptoms in the latter; hyperfunctioning of one of the partners in a certain area of ​​family life is often accompanied by hypofunctioning of the other (direction), etc. As can be seen from the example, family processes are bipolar constructs that determine the nature and methods of its life, both internally and externally. Their study is of great importance for understanding the concept of “mechanism of family functioning.” The phenomenology of these constructs is one of the keys to understanding the complex system of connections that arise between them and develop into one or another mechanism. In our opinion, the main mechanisms serving the functioning of the family system include the mechanism of its stabilization and the mechanism of development. We can also talk about lower order mechanisms, such as “family support mechanism”, “family conflict resolution mechanism”, “family defense mechanism”, etc. As for the family processes that form this or that mechanism, among them as the most The following can be identified as important. Identification – disidentification. Identification is the process by which a family identifies itself with objects, ideas, and concepts based on characteristics that are significant to it. As an intrafamily process, identification allows family members to feel their unity and closeness. This phenomenon, in our opinion, is relevant to those described by E.G. Eidemiller and V.V. Justitskis concepts of “common fate” and “emotional identification with family”. At the individual level, identification serves as the basis for the formation of various aspects of the personal and social identity of individual family members. Example. In a family where for three generations (on the father’s side) men have chosen a military career, the eldest son also decides to become a military man. His whole family is very supportive and proud of him. Disidentification is a process that allows you to reject, discard “inappropriate” or “outdated” objects of identification. Thus, a grown-up child, leaving his family, must leave part of his family identifications in order to form a new identity and create his own family model. Changing stages of life requires the family as a system to disidentify with the image (idea, model, idea) that was important for the previous stage. This process should be distinguished from depreciation. The latter involves the rejection of past models by destroying their value and significance, while disidentification is characterized by the construction of new boundaries (new self-image, new values, etc.) with the opportunity to use previous experience. Disidentification also differs from devaluation in the amount of anxiety that accompanies these processes. In the first case, as a rule, the amount of anxiety is moderate and, with a sufficient degree of flexibility, the family can cope with it. In the second case, the amount of anxiety is much higher, which often acts as a factor blocking the movement of the family. Example. A family of four - a mother, father and two adult children aged 27 and 23 - continues to live together. The eldest daughter has little experience of living outside the parental home, associated with cohabitation with a young man. However, after the breakup, she returned home. The youngest son never left his parents. He has a long experience of a relationship with a girl whom he wants to marry, but continues to live in his parents' house, experiencing anxiety that he will not be able to cope with independent life. His relationship with his father is characterized by pity and the latter's loss of authority, disappointment in his status in the family. The inability to identify with the father, as a result of unexperienced deidealization, leads to difficulties in forming a male identity in the son and, as a consequence, problems of separation from the parental family and creating his own. Learning is repression. The process of a family acquiring new knowledge, skills and abilities is called learning.At each stage of development, the family needs new information, new ways to solve problems and perform necessary functions. A family that is not capable of learning stops in its development. At the individual level, learning allows a family member to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for his life not only in the family, but also in society. Repression is based on conscious forgetting or ignoring information, skills, ways of responding, etc. Often a family needs to “forget” some information that destabilizes it as a system. The family can also repress individual members by “forgetting” their existence. Example. The family consists of parents and an adult daughter, Katya. When Katya turned 17, she began to have suicidal thoughts. The parents brought the girl to a family psychologist. During the work with the genogram, it was revealed that the mother had an older sister who committed suicide at the age of 18. This sister was a “family disgrace”, since in Soviet times the father’s career could have stopped due to such an “unseemly” act by his daughter. The story of the suicide was “hushed up,” and the topic of the sister’s suicide was taboo. After a while they stopped mentioning her altogether. Thus, the mother never told Katya that she had an aunt. However, repressed family information tends to return through repetition, often unconsciously, in subsequent generations. Isolation - diffusion. Isolation is the process of avoiding contact in social situations, allowing one to replace or drain emerging tension and avoid unpleasant experiences. At the intrapersonal level, the process of isolation can manifest itself through fantasy, the use of chemicals to “disconnect” from the outside world, and the withdrawal of contacts. At the nuclear family level, the mechanism of isolation determines the characteristics of family boundaries, which become rigid and rigid. A family can isolate itself due to experiencing a crisis, the desire to preserve uniqueness and originality, in order to hide family secrets, etc. Diffusion3) is the process of family interaction with the environment, accompanied by active contact and exchange of ideas, views, and feelings. On an intrapersonal level, diffusion allows one to be open to new experiences and share with others. At the level of the nuclear family, the process of exchanges with the environment is described through diffuse or permeable boundaries. Regression is progress. Regression is the process of a family returning to the characteristics inherent in earlier stages of its functioning. For example, when faced with a crisis, a family may “lose” the communication skills or role balance characteristic of previous stages of family functioning. Example. The family consists of a husband, wife and two adult daughters, 22 and 19 years old. The family asked for help in connection with the death of their grandmother, the wife’s mother, who lived with them. After her death, the latter experienced deep depression. After treatment, the woman returned home, but family relationships did not improve. The wife conflicts with her husband, accusing him of callousness and misunderstanding. The role structure in the family has gone wrong, since the wife does not fulfill the responsibilities that she performed before her illness. All other family members look lost and disorganized, since the mother was always the head before the death of the grandmother. In the family, communication, role structure, hierarchy and other parameters that were stable before the crisis event are disrupted. The concept of “progress” is present in everyday consciousness almost without distortion. By progress we will understand the process that ensures the development of the family in the direction of optimal functioning, adequate to the tasks of a certain stage of the family life cycle. As a result, more complete satisfaction of the needs of its members is achieved, family relationships undergo a positive transformation, etc. Projection – introjection4) . Projection is a process that allows you to perceive the internal properties and states of a system as belonging to the external environment. At the individual level, projection allows a person to count his ownunacceptable feelings, desires, motives, ideas, etc. of others, and, as a result, do not take responsibility for them. At the family level, there is a non-acceptance of the characteristics inherent to it, and at the same time attributing them to other social systems. Example. The father comes home from work and brings paper and stationery that he “picked up” from the office. The teenager asks if this action is stealing. The mother enters the conversation, denies the fact of theft and discusses at length that “the state robbed us, and in general everyone around us steals, unlike our family.” Introjection is a process aimed at attributing to the system views, motives, attitudes and other so-called introjects perceived from the outside. At the individual level, introjection plays an important role in the process of forming personal qualities, primarily in children who “absorb” ideas, ideas, behavior patterns and emotional reactions of people significant to them long before they consciously decide to become (or not to become) ) similar to them (N. McWilliams). At the level of the family system, introjection is the process of “infecting” the family with ideas about family functioning that are uncritically accepted from the outside by its members. Example. In Soviet times, many families shared the belief that first you need to think about the Motherland, and then about yourself. This introject led to ignorance of marital and parental responsibilities, to various kinds of dysfunctions associated with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe secondary importance of family relationships compared to social ones. Differentiation/splitting – integration. Differentiation is a process that mediates the emergence of new rules, due to the need to change intra- or extra-family interaction. At the individual level, differentiation involves building personal boundaries, changing distance, the list of functions performed, etc. At the level of the family system, the process of differentiation can occur both within the family itself (and lead, for example, to differentiation of the family into subsystems or splitting into coalitions), and at the level of interaction with society, which leads to the designation of the external boundaries of the family. Example. The young family lived for several years in the apartment of the wife's parents. Constant interference from the older generation led to conflicts and problems. After consulting with a family psychologist, the young family took a number of steps to strengthen external boundaries. An agreement was reached that the families would eat separately, that the parents would take their belongings from the room in which the young couple lived, and that they would henceforth express all complaints not to their daughter, but to the married couple. Despite the difficulties, within six months the young family managed to achieve a higher level of differentiation from the wife's parental family. Integration is a process that serves the unification of elements of the family system and is aimed at mutual rapprochement and strengthening ties. As a non-specific example of the action of the integrative process, we can consider the “emotional triangle”. It is a system of relationships that includes three emotionally connected individuals. A dyad can remain stable as long as its tension level is low. When it rises, a third is brought in to reduce anxiety. At the same time, the participants of the pair emotionally distance themselves from each other, and one of them establishes a closer relationship with the third - triangulated object, thereby reducing tension in the original dyad. Thus, the relationship of any two participants in a triangle depends on its third side. The closer two people in a triangle are to each other, the greater the emotional distance between them and the third participant in this structure. The family system is characterized by constant oscillations between points of greater differentiation and greater integration of family members (the idea of ​​oscillation). Exclusion5) – inclusion. Exclusion is a process that describesexclusion of elements from the family system associated with the loss of the right to be a family member, to use intra-family resources, etc. Example. In the remarried family, consisting of a husband, wife and the wife's children from her first marriage - a 21-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter - a tense atmosphere reigned for several years. The drug addict stepfather systematically abused family members, sold things, and stole money from them. After he was sent to prison, his wife filed for divorce, and by joint decision, family members kicked him out of the apartment, sold their home and moved to another city, thus deciding to forget that they had such a husband and stepfather. Natural exclusion is associated with the death of family members. However, if the family remembers these members, they are present in a special way in the system - in memories, in photographs, in family histories, etc. It happens that someone is excluded unfairly - for example, because he was different from others, had the “wrong » sexual orientation, entered into an “wrong” marriage, etc. Often, the system subsequently strives to restore balance by “replacing” the rejected member with one of the descendants. Such a member of the system often behaves in the same way as an excluded relative, repeating his fate (A.A. Schutzenberger). Inclusion is the process of including new members into the family system. Inclusion can be due to both the emergence of a new system and the inclusion of adults in the extended family (daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law), and the birth or adoption of children. HISTORICAL PARAMETERS OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FAMILY SYSTEM As mentioned above, the historical parameters of the functioning of the family system relate to those aspects of it that have an eventful historical context, revealed by a vertical section of the family. Interest in psychological research of the family in a vertical (intergenerational) perspective, connecting the current family functioning of the family with family history and with the experience of relationships in extended families, arose in the 50s of the 20th century in Western psychology, primarily within the framework of psychotherapeutic practice. In the 1960-1970s of the last century, a large number of works were published devoted to the study of the problem of family history and intergenerational transmission of information in the family (N. Ackerman, M. Bowen, A.A. Schutzenberger, I. Boszormenyi-Nagy, J. Framo, G. Spark and others). The focus is on the phenomena of interpersonal interaction and the problem of transmitting these patterns through generations. F. Dolto, I. Boszormenyi-Nagy, G. Spark found that unresolved conflicts, secrets, choice of profession, etc. are passed on from generation to generation. When analyzing historical parameters, much attention is also paid to the consideration of protective mechanisms in the family (myths, beliefs, legends, etc.), the function of which is to maintain the integrity and stability of the family system by preventing its members from realizing rejected ideas about it (M. Nichols, R. Schwartz, 2004). To analyze the characteristics of the functioning of an individual within an extended family, psychodynamic categories are widely used, such as “transference”, “identification”, “projection”, etc., as well as categories that describe individual affective experience associated with life in the parental family, such as as the level of differentiation of the individual in M. Bowen’s theory of the family as an emotional system. The influence of the family in which each spouse grew up is assessed primarily taking into account its inherent atmosphere, the division of rights and responsibilities between parents, and reference to their experience of interaction. The psychological essence of marriage, the motivation for choosing a partner and the nature of the relationship with him are interpreted within the framework of “parental schemes” and sibling positions of spouses (N. Akkerman, 2000; S. Kratochvil, 1991). The connection between the quality of emotional relationships with significant loved ones (mainly with the mother) at an early age and the characteristics of a person that later manifest themselves in communication, family life, and professional activity is evidenced by studies carried out within the framework of attachment theory. Basicthe principles of attachment theory were formulated in the works of J. Bowlby and M. Ainsworth in the 70-80s. last century. Currently, there is an intensive expansion of this theory, including that expressed in its expansion beyond childhood and its extension to the entire ontogeny. According to the supporters of this theory (P. Crittenden and others), a person’s sensitivity to a certain type of information - cognitive (intellectual) or affective (emotional), as well as the ability to differentiate these two types of information and integrate them into a holistic model of behavior and relationships with other people depends on the quality of attachment between mother and child in early childhood. Moreover, in P. Crittenden’s interpretation, an important role is played not by attachment itself, but by the effectiveness of the interaction between mother and child, considered through the child’s adaptation strategies to maternal behavior (E.O. Smirnova, 1999). Thus, within the framework of attachment theory, differences in individual experiences of relationships with parents are the key to understanding the characteristics of adult behavior, including as a marital partner. Great importance is given to behavioral strategies that are developed by the child in relationships with parents and transferred to adulthood. The parental family is a significant factor determining the functioning of the children raised in it, however, compared to approaches focused on the study of family history, the emphasis here is on the individual properties of the spouses, and not on the patterns of interaction that are passed down from generation to generation and determine the nature of the marital relationship. Below we will consider the following historical parameters of the functioning of the family system: family history, family scenario, family myth, family legend. Family history Family history is a concept related to the historical context of the family and describes the chronology of significant events in the life of several generations of the family (at least three). The study of family history allows you to obtain information about the composition and significant life events of the extended family (surnames, given names, dates of marriages, births, deaths; illnesses, accidents, moves, the nature of relationships with each other, etc.) The following methods are used to study family history: as a genogram (M. Bowen) and a genosociogram (A.A. Schutzenberger). Analysis of family history allows us to identify those aspects of past family relationships (“emotional triangles,” unhappy destinies, exclusions of members of the system, etc.) that can be sources of current problems of the family and its individual members. E.G. To work with family history, Eidemiller introduces the term “theme,” by which he understands a specific, emotionally charged problem around which a periodically recurring conflict in the family is formed. The theme determines the way of organizing life events and is externally manifested in behavioral stereotypes that are reproduced from generation to generation (E.G. Eidemiller, I.V. Dobryakov, I.M. Nikolskaya, 2006). The study of the phenomenon of family history in the context of the drift of behavioral stereotypes was started by M. Bowen, who established that in a family from generation to generation there is an accumulation and transmission of dysfunctional patterns, which can cause individual difficulties among family members. These observations were developed and captured in his concept of transmission (M. Bowen, 2005). A.A. Schutzenberger explained this feature of families by the action of the mechanism of transgenerational information transfer (A.A. Schutzenberger, 2001). The essence of these concepts is that the patterns of relationships of previous generations can provide implicit patterns (models, schemes, programs) for the functioning of subsequent generations. Analysis of such repeating patterns in family history makes it possible to explain current family dysfunctions by the influence of the experiences of previous generations. For intergenerational transmission, the concept of hidden (invisible) loyalty to the family is important. It is key and meansloyalty to the ancestors that has become unconscious (I.Yu. Khamitova, 2004). Family script Family script – Family script is patterns of interaction between family members that are repeated from generation to generation, determined by events in family history. The family script implicitly contains ideas about with whom, how and why one should live in a family, how many children one should have, how to take care of them, how to build relationships with extended family, etc. The proverb “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” reflects the idea that various aspects of life between parents and children are similar. Example. The young man always dreamed of stable and warm relationships in his family. He characterizes the parental family as a “terrarium” where everyone is at war with each other. However, after two years of marriage, he came to the conclusion that his marital relationship was a mirror copy of his parents' relationship. A number of family researchers view it as a system whose members are connected by emotional relationships that determine their behavior (M. Bowen, M. Kerr, 2005). According to M. Bowen, the experience of living in the parental family and the assimilation of the behavioral patterns transmitted by it forms a certain level of differentiation of the individual’s “I,” which in turn affects his functioning in his own family. With a low level of differentiation, family members, as a rule, do not have their own separate selves, their desires, ideas, ideals, etc., but more or less consciously repeat the already “established” parental, grandparental and other intrafamily interaction models. Speaking about the process of intergenerational transmission, M. Bowen assumed that most children leave their families with approximately the same level of differentiation as their parents, and only a few move to higher or lower levels. The concept of scenarios was also developed in transactional analysis. E. Bern believed that life scenarios are based on parental programming. He deepened the understanding of scenarios by adding to their description the influence of a broader social context. At the same time, he focused on their fairly early emergence, associated with the children’s choice of a survival strategy in the world, as well as on the role of fairy tales and stories told in childhood as the basis for the hero’s preference for unconscious identification. E. Berne defined a life script as a life plan that is drawn up in childhood, reinforced by parents, justified by subsequent events and ends as it was predetermined from the very beginning. It is heuristic to use his idea of ​​script and counter-script. Family scenarios always contain repetitions and can relate to any aspect of family life: marital relations (in my family, all the women were unhappy in marriage because their husbands cheated on them); money (in our family, along with wealth, someone always became seriously ill or died) ;attachment of events to a certain age (I got married at 22, just like my mother, grandmother and sister); professional activity (all the women in our family worked in the education system and complained about low wages, but did not change anything) and etc. Emerging at the micro- and macrosystem levels of family functioning, family scenarios determine the actions, nature of relationships and experiences of family members related not to “here and now”, but to “there and then”. Analysis of such family prescriptions, as well as correlation of the current behavior of “problem” family members with the experience of the older generation allows us to identify unconscious destructive patterns received “inherited”. Family myth A family myth is an indicator of the functioning of a family system, formed over several generations and is a set of ideas of members of a given family about it. Close and sometimes synonymous with this indicator are “family image”, “we image”, “beliefs”, “convictions”, “family creed”, “coordinated expectations”, “naive family psychology”. Time required forthe formation of a family myth is approximately the period of life of three generations of a family (M. Selvini Palazzoli et al., 2002). The effect of the family myth is manifested through the reproduction by family members of a number of mutually agreed upon, but inadequate to the actual context of the family’s existence. The mythological family background is characterized by an uncritical attitude of family members towards it and serves as a vector for them that determines the construction of social contacts outside the family. The etiology of a family myth is associated, as a rule, with two factors: 1) the presence in the family history of a family secret, or some kind of non-normative crisis - divorce, betrayal, someone's death, the natural survival of which was impossible for certain reasons; 2) the family’s tendency to split and reject something unacceptable and traumatic. The interaction of these two factors leads to the “replacement” of true, but “unfavorable” information about a family event with some “favorable” phantom. Thus, the function of the family myth is to hide rejected information about family members and the family as a whole from consciousness. This fact allows us to consider the family myth as a kind of group protective mechanism of the family that helps maintain the integrity of the family system (E.G. Eidemiller, I.V. Dobryakov, I.M. Nikolskaya, 2006). Example. Family members - mother, father and son, 27 years old - run a joint family business. However, despite significant efforts, they fail to achieve the planned profit. Enough only to “make ends meet.” To the question “How would you describe your family?” after some discussion, family members agree that they are a kind and generous family... The family supports the idea that you need to share a lot and help people, which sometimes interferes with running a business and not losing money. A study of family history showed that the maternal great-grandfather lost all his money during the period of dispossession. To cope with this difficult crisis and “forget” this event, the family began to cultivate a myth about the generosity of the great-grandfather and all his descendants. A family whose functioning is “controlled” by a family myth resembles a system that is the carrier of a “virus”. The development of the “disease” begins when the myth collapses, i.e. turns out to be no longer able to maintain the homeostasis of intrafamily relationships. Mythology can concern any aspect of family functioning. Among the most famous family myths are the following: “We are a friendly family”, “We are a family of heroes”, “We can cope with any difficulties”, “We are a family of rescuers”, “Our family members are special people”, etc. In the collective consciousness, there are various myths about eternal love between spouses, about the ability to understand each other perfectly, about ideal, always obedient children, etc. Such social stereotypes, reinforced by the family myth that “this is exactly how it was in our family,” can have both a stabilizing and destructive effect on the system. The negative impact of family myths is expressed in the fact that they impede the family’s ability to adapt to changes in the internal or external conditions of its life, that is, they make the family system rigid. Example. K.’s family, consisting of parents and an adult son and daughter, always emphasized their “chosenness.” This myth of chosenness was based on information about the noble origin of the husband's great-grandmother. Their children were supposed to study better than anyone else, the relationship served as an example for neighbors. “We are a family of aristocrats” - this idea hovered in the family all the time. The daughter, at the age of 35, has not found a “worthy match.” Problems arose when the son, a musician with a conservatory education, decided to marry a girl who worked in a store. The parents threatened their son with abdication, since the “misalliance of a noble youth and a simple saleswoman” was destroying the myth. Any myth in the first generation can play the role of a compensatory or protective strategy. However, in subsequent generations this myth, more and more turning into one divorced from realitya central family value (for example, “We must be the best always and everywhere”) can lead to various disorders of the family member(s) and the complete unproductivity of their actions. Family legend A family legend is an interpretation of individual events that distorts the real facts of family history in the form of a “colorful” legend about them. A family legend contains glorious, admirable events from the life of a family, which help support the idea of ​​family well-being. Thus, the family legend also serves a protective function. However, unlike a family myth, it is perceived as untruth, a distortion of information (for example, the legend of swan marital fidelity in the presence of infidelity; the legend of the natural death of a suicide; the legend of a father who died heroically in the service when he abandoned his child, etc. ). The legend refers to the life of a nuclear family, but over time it can become part of the family myth. Analysis of its content allows us to identify family stressors, that is, factors that destabilize the family system. CONCLUSION All the indicators of family functioning discussed above are closely related to each other. Thus, the introduction of rules may be hampered by the lack of communication skills in the family, the establishment of internal boundaries of the family may be influenced by some family myth, the family hierarchy may be disrupted due to the blurring of the external boundaries of the nuclear family and the formation of coalitions with members of the extended family, etc. Therefore, when working with a family, a psychologist needs a comprehensive and comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of its life activity, identifying connections between the problem that has arisen and various aspects of family functioning. Taking into account the holistic principle in making a family diagnosis and planning measures to provide psychological assistance to the family brings the specialist closer to the mastery of subtle interventions that allow not just eliminating the “symptom”, but working with its cause, helping the family system to reorganize. !!Literature!! Ackerman, N. Family approach to marital disorders / N. Ackerman // Family psychotherapy / comp. E.G. Eidemiller, N.V. Alexandrova, V. Justitskis. – St. Petersburg. : Peter, 2000. – pp. 225–241. Aleshina, Yu.E. Gender-role differentiation as a complex indicator of interpersonal relationships between spouses / Yu.E. Aleshina, I.Yu. Borisov // Vestn. Moscow state un-ta. Ser. 14, Psychology. – 1989. – No. 2. – P. 44–53. Andreeva, T.V. Family psychology: textbook. allowance. – St. Petersburg: Rech, 2004. – 244 pp. Antonov, A.I. Sociology of the family: textbook. allowance / A.I. Antonov, V.M. Medkov – M.: Moscow State University, 1996. – 302 pp. Bateson, G. Ecology of the mind: selected articles on anthropology, psychiatry and epistemology / G. Bateson. – M.: Smysl, 2000. – 476 pp. Bern, E. Games that people play. Psychology of human relationships; People who play games. Psychology of human destiny: Trans. from English – M.: Progress, 1988. – 400 pp. Bowlby, J. Creation and destruction of emotional connections / J. Bowlby. – 2nd ed. – M.: Academic. project, 2006. – 232 pp. Bowen, M. On the processes of differentiation of one’s “I” in the parental family / M. Bowen // Murray Bowen’s Theory of Family Systems: basic concepts, methods and clinical practice / ed. K. Baker, A.Ya. Vargs. – M.: Kogito-Center, 2005. – P. 81–106. Burnyashev, M.G. Socio-psychological aspects of gender-role differentiation and systemic integration of the family: dis. ...cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.07 / M.G. Burnyashev. – Yaroslavl, 2003. – 204 sheets. Varga, A.Ya. Systemic family psychotherapy // A.Ya. Varga / Journal of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Quarterly scientific and practical journal of electronic publications. – 2000 – No. 2. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://psyjournal.ru/j3p/pap.php?id=20000209. Access date: 08/1/2010. Vaclavik, P. Psychology of interpersonal communications / P. Vaclavik, J. Beavin, D. Jackson. – St. Petersburg. : Speech, 2000. – 298 pp. Velenta, T.F. Marital relations in a young family with different levels of cohesion between spouses and parents: dissertation. ...cand. psychol. Sciences: 19.00.05 / T.F. Velenta. – Minsk, 2008. . –148 l.Druzhinin, V.N. Family psychology / V.N. Druzhinin. – St. Petersburg. : Peter, 2006. – 178 pp. Dymnova, T.I. Dependence of the characteristics of a married family on the parental family / T.I. Dymnova // Issue. psychology. – 1998. – No. 2. – pp. 46–56. Kerr, M. Emotional system / M. Kerr, M. Bowen // Murray Bowen’s Family Systems Theory: basic concepts, methods and clinical practice / ed. K. Baker, A.Ya. Vargs. – M., 2005. – pp. 37–80. Kratochvil, S. Psychotherapy of family and sexual disharmonies / S. Kratochvil. – M.: Medicine, 1991. – 336 pp. Kutter, P. Love, hatred, envy, jealousy. Psychoanalysis of passions / P. Kutter. – St. Petersburg. : B.S.K., 1998. – 115 pp. McWilliams, N. Psychoanalytic diagnostics: understanding the structure of personality in the clinical process / N. McWilliams. – M.: Independent company “Class”, 2001. – 474 pp. Minukhin, S. Family therapy techniques / S. Minukhin, Ch. Fishman. – M., 1998. – 304 pp. Nichols, M. Family therapy: concepts and methods / M. Nichols, R. Schwartz / trans. from English O. Ochkur, A. Shishko. – M.: Eksmo, 2004. – 960 pp. Olifirovich, N.I. Psychology of family crises / N.I. Olifirovich, T.A. Zinkevich-Kuzemkina, T.F. Velenta. – St. Petersburg: Rech, 2006. – 360 pp. Selvini Palazzoli, M. Paradox and counter-paradox / M. Selvini Palazzoli et al. – M.: “Cogito-Center”, 2002. – 204 pp. Smirnova, E.O. Development of attachment theory (based on the works of P. Crittenden) / E.O. Smirnova, R. Radeeva // Issues. psychology. – 1999. – No. 1. – P. 105–116. Worden, M. Fundamentals of family psychotherapy / M. Worden - 4th international. ed. – St. Petersburg. : Prime-EUROZNAK, 2005. – 256 pp. Freeman, D. Techniques of family psychotherapy / D. Freeman. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. – 384 pp. Khamitova, I.Yu. Family diagnostics. Instructions for use // I.Yu. Khamitova / Journal of practical psychology and psychoanalysis. Quarterly scientific and practical journal of electronic publications. – 2004 – No. 4. [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://psyjournal.ru/j3p/pap.php?id=20040406. Access date: 08/09/2010. Khamitova, I.Yu. Intergenerational connections: the influence of family history on a child’s personal history [Electronic resource] / I.Yu. Khamitova // Journal. practical psychology and psychoanalysis. – 2003. – No. 4 – Access mode: http://psyjournal.ru/j3p/pap.php?id=20030409. – Access date: 08/14/2010. Kholmogorova, A.B. Scientific foundations and practical tasks of family psychotherapy / A.B. Kholmogorov // Moscow Psychotherapeutic Journal. 2002. No. 1. P. 93–119. Chernikov, A.V. Systemic family therapy: Integrative diagnostic model / A.V. Chernikov. – M., 2001. – 208 pp. Schutzenberger, A.A. Ancestor syndrome / A.A. Schutzenberger. – M., 2001. – 240 pp. Eidemiller, E.G. Psychology and psychotherapy of the family / E.G. Eidemiller, V. Justitskis. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999. – 656 sEidemiller, E.G. Family diagnosis and family psychotherapy: textbook. manual for doctors and psychologists / E.G. Eidemiller, I.V. Dobryakov, I.M. Nikolskaya. – St. Petersburg. : Speech, 2006. – 336 pp. Beavers, R. Successful families: assessment and intervention / R. Beavers, R. Hampson. – New York: Norton, 1990. – 327 p. Biddle, BJ Role theory: Concepts and research / BJ Biddle, EJ Thomas. – NY, etc. : Wiley & Sons, 1966. – 453 p. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy / I Boszormenyi-Nagy, G. Spark. – New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1984. – 408 p. Crittenden, PM Quality of attachment in the preschool years / PM Crittenden // Devel. Psychopathol. – 1992. – V. 4. – P. 209–241. d'Aquili, E. (eds.). The Spectrum of Ritual: Biogenetic Structural Analysis/ E. d'Aquili, C. Laughlin, J. McManus. – New York: Columbia University Press, 1979. Dolto, F. La cause des adolescents / F. Dolto. – Paris: R. Laffont, 1988. – 276 rub. Friesen, John D. Rituals and Family Strength [Electronic resource] / John D. Friesen//Counceling, Marriage and the Family. – 1990. – Vol. 19. – No. 1. – P. 39-48. Access mode: http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?654. Access date: 11/17/20010. Gehring, T. Family System Test (FAST) : manual / T. Gehring. – Seattle: Hogreff & Huber Publishers, 1998. – 126 p. Haley, J.