Journal of Family Therapy (1983) 5: 145.

-154

The use of family myths as an aid to strategic

therapy
Stephen A. Anderson* and Dennis A. Bagarozzi

The concept of family myth can beused by the therapist to help

organize the
wealth of information provided by a family in therapy. Rituals, symbols and
metaphors can be
viewed asstructurallyrelated componentswithin the
family
myth system which enable the therapist to interpret non-literal,
analogic
communications as a coherent yet primarily symbolic, narrative about the
familys sharedperceptions of its functioning. The concept of myth is
explored in relation to mythology, the family therapy literature, and acase
study. Several strategic intervention strategies are
proposed which utilize the
familys own metaphors. symbols and rituals to re-edit thefamily myth. Reediting the myth on a symbolic level should be associated with improved
system functioning, including more concrete areasof the familys life.

Introduction
Strategic family therapists
stress the adoptionof a familysview ofreality as
an important prerequisite for determining an appropriate treatment
strategy (Bandler and Grinder, 1975; Erickson and Rossi, 1975; Haley,
1976;
Selvini-Palazzoli,
Cecchin
et al., 1978;
Watzlawick,
1978;
Watzlawick et al., 1974). Some clinicians believe that when the therapist
has an empathic appreciation for the
familys characteristic mode of
functioning and world view in the initial stages of treatment that the
potential forpositive therapeutic outcome is enhanced (Minuchin, 1974;
Papp, 1980; Rabkin, 1977; Selvini-Palazzoli
et al., 1980), because in the
initial phases of therapy the familys resources are more easily mobilized
and demoralization is more readily overcome (Rabkin, 1977). Minuchin
(1974) stresses joining with the family and establishing positive
a
relationship with all members by allowing oneself to merge with the familys
unique culture.
Received 27 April 1982.
* University of Connecticut, Human Development and Family Relations, U-l 17, Storrs,
Ct. 06268, U.S.A.
t University of Georgia, School of Social Work, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.
145
0163-4445/83/020145+20$03.00/0

01983 The Association for Family Therapy

146

S. A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

While it is widely accepted that the therapists assimilation of the

familysown language is a vital component of therapy, little has
been done
to understand how the therapist organizes, into a coherent whole, the
voluminous bits of information presented by a family throughout the
treatment process, and how he/she uses this coherent whole to intervenein
a manner consistent with the familys unique view ofreality. In this paper,
we will discuss how we have attempted to use the familys own mythological system to organize the wealth of material generated by a family
throughout the course of therapy, to monitor the treatment process, to
assess the impact of a given clinical strategy, and to evaluate the overall
effect of therapy once treatment has been terminated.
Theapproach described below is concerned with conceptualizing
family process in a way which makes planned andsystematic intervention
possible. Several techniques derived from the Strategic school (Stanton,
1981) of family therapy arediscussed. However, the reader should understand that the conceptof family myths and their clinical applications are
not limited to any one schoolof therapy or treatment approach.
* Myths
are a time-honoured way for people to organize and conceptualize their
experiences and are believed to dateback as far as the early beginnings of
human consciousness (Campbell, 1949; Frazier, 1922; Newmann,
1954a, b ) . Although myths and symbols have been used to understand the
individuals attempt to deal
with intrapsychic conflicts by Freud and Jung
and their followers, the utilization of myths to understand family behaviour introduced by Ferriera (1963) has remained undeveloped even
though references to the family myth are common (Byng-Hall, 1973;
Lewis et al., 1976; Minuchin, 1974; San Martin0 and Newman, 1975;
Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1978; Solomon, 1976; Stierlin, 1973; Wolin et al.,
1979). What we have been attempting to do in our work with distressed
families is to identify key family myths and their interlocking patterns, to
understand their homeostatic functions, and then to help the
family
evolve its own myths in ways which allow for individual change, growth,
development, and systems viability.
As presented below, the approachis decidely left brain and analytic. In
practice, however, the therapist must be able to
use hidher intuition and
sense of timing. He/she must be able to free associate, fantasize and use
hidher right brain.
Before describing our work with families, a brief discussion of myths
and related concepts is offered below to orient the reader.

* For a discussion of how behavioural approaches such as teaching conflict resolution

strategies and contingency contracts can be usedto work through family myths, the reader
is referred to Bagarozzi and Anderson (1983).

Myths and strategic interventions

147

Myths and mythology

Early man, unlike modem man, did not dichotomize his world into an
objective, law-abiding,physical universe on the one hand, and a subjective, internalized experience on the other. Nature and self, reality and
fantasy, for him
were interwoven and coalescent. The nearest he probably
came to differentiating his world was to distinguish between the sacred
and secular. But even this was undoubtedly largely fluid and unpredicit was stabilized by some definite ritual, taboo, story, or
table except where
priestly authority (Wheelwright, 1962). What we call the literal and the
figurative orsymbolic could flow together for him to a greater extent than
they can for us today. Wherever an aspect of life was problematic or
fraught with emotional stress and hence found extraordinary, there it
entered the domain
of the sacred and became deified. This means that the
powerfulness inherent in this extraordinary phenomenonwas sensed as a
living forceand insome way personified (Perry, 1966). The stories of the
gods were for him, not only dramatic representations of real aspects of
mans world, they
also told how the world came to be. In other
words, for
early man they were myths.
Myth can be defined as a complex of stories, some no doubt fact and
others fantasy,which human beings regardas demonstrations of the inner
meaning of the universe and of human life (Watts, 1954). Myths not only
express inner meanings, but they also accomplish this by telling a story.
They attempt to explain a perception and
justify
to that perception. The
justification also includes asense of power beyond the controlof the perceiver, and an attempt to account for the originof this perception as an
objective fact.
John Knox (1964) has outlined the following four characteristics of
myths:
(1) Myths are stories, imaginative narratives, dealing
with a cosmically

significant actof gods (or some superhuman being).By a cosmically

significant actis meant an act
of decisive importance for the world,
particularly the world of men, whose response to it may be an
essential part of the story. This action may be represented
as taking
place in a prehistorical, or posthistorical epoch,
it is abut
particular
action at a particular time.
(2) This narrative will have had its source in the common life of a
human community, will bear the marks of its culture, and will
persist over generations as a partof its traditions.

148

S. A . Anderson and D . A . Bagarozzi

(3) The community will prize the story because it suggests or answers
something distinctive and important in human existence, and particularly in thecommunitys existence.
(4) Because of the relation in which the story stands to the actualexistence of the community, it will have become itself an inseparable
and indispensable part of the communitys life and, for those
sharing in that life, an irreplaceable symbol,an actual carrierof its
power.
One way to conceptualize myth, therefore, is to see them as supernatural explanations which legitimize, justify, and preserve the normsand
mores of a given group, community, or
society. Myths servethe additional
function of externalizing and objectifying those shared phenomenawhich
are problematic and incomprehensible. They also foster group identity
and cohesion. Conceptualizing myths as a type of discourse provides a
point of overlap with the family therapy literature and enables
us to integrate several fundamental aspects of myths with some common family
process conceptssuch as ritual(Keith andWhitaker, 1981; SelviniPalazzoli, 1974), symbol, and metaphor (Bandler and Grinder,
1975;
Haley, 1976; Keith and Whitaker,1 9 8 l ) , and the therapist as director of
the family drama (Andolfi and Angelo, 1981). These conceptswill be discussed in terms of mythology and then in terms of the family therapy
literature.

Myths and the family drama

Knox (1964) has providedus with an excellent explanation forhow myths
serve a homeostatic function
within a group or community.
An example of
a myths stabilizing function for thefamily and the community is seen in
the Theban trilogy of Sophocles. In Oedipus Rex, the importance of
maintaining a parental coalition and drawing generational boundaries
which prohibit incest are underscored. The importance of maintaining
these rules for the family and the communityis self-evident. In Oedipus ut
Colonus, the childs responsibility for an ageing and infirmed parentis the
central social theme that runs through
this second tragic drama. Finally,
in Antzgone, the pre-eminence of moral responsiblity and obedience to
divine edict over political decree and civil law is dramatized.
Unfortunately, Knox (1964) does not provide us with any understanding of how mythology is used to usher in changes in rules, processes
and structures, i.e., the morphogenetic functions of myth. An excellent
example of how myths are used in this way can beseen in the Oresteia by

Myths and strategic interventions

149

Aeschylus. In this trilogy, the Greeks are given a divine solution which
enables them to assimilate and accommodate to the numerous political,
social, legal, and religious changes that were taking place in Greece
during the transition from the period
of barbaric rule by Tyrants to the
enlightened Hellenisticera of Democracy.
The Oresteiu also provides us with a clear example of how classical
Greek drama used symbolism to help the audience deal
with critical issues
and problemswhich existed at differentlevels of awareness. For example,
the first two plays of the trilogy, Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers,
can beseen as a domestic tragedy dealing
with universal intrapsychic conflicts (e.g., sex and aggression, filicide and human sacrifice, hubris and
infidelity, and regicide and matricide). On anotherlevel, however, these
dramas deal with the conflicts encountered during the evolutionof the
Hellenistic culture. For example, the Furies who symbolize the barbaric
and tyrannicalpast with its archaic matriarchalbeliefs and religious practices, seek revenge and are bent on destroying Orestes for slaying his
mother and her lover who have murdered his father, Agamemnon. The
Furies symbolize the old law of vengeance and blood for blood. Orestes,
symbol of the Greek people, is caught in a double bind, because obeying
one archaic divine injunction avenge
(to
his fathers murder) requires him
to disobey another (the taboo
against killingones parents). The dilemma
is resolved by the dramatist Aeschylus, who uses a number of strategic
manoeuvres in the finalplay of the trilogy. In The Eumenides,Apollo and
Athene, who symbolize the growth and intelligence of the Hellenistic
enlightenment and theevolving Democratic order are elevated
above the
Furies in the Olympian hierarchy. The
Furies subjugation to the
new political andreligious order is symbolized by their acceptance of Apollo and
Athenes exonerationof Orestes forhis crimes againstthe Old Order. In a
negotiated exchange (quid pro quo) for accepting a position of lesser
power in the divine hierarchy, the Furies are offered more favourable
status in the
New Order by Apollo and Athene. Their names are changed
to theEmenices (a re-labelling which symbolizes their benevolence), and
their r6les are recast so that they then becomethe protectorsof the New
Order of Democracy and Justice positive
(a
reframing).
The Orestezit is the prototype which has guided us in ourwork with distressed families. Our goal is to helpfamilies work through theirown myths
in a way which permits them to change dysfunctionalrules, envolve new
structures, and modify faulty interaction patterns. We,like the dramatist
Aeschylus, try to help thefamily rewrite its own script through theuse of
symbols and metaphors and
by giving directivesand ritualized prescriptions
which allow new patterns to emerge and central
conflicts to be resolved.

150

S. A. Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

In orderto help the

family evolve its own myth, it is important to understand the interdependence among symbols, metaphors, and rituals and
how they function together to form family
a
myth.

Symbols and myths

A symbol is a relatively stable and repeatable element of perceptual
experience, standing for some larger meaning or set of meanings which
cannot be given or fully given in perceptual experience itself (Wheelwright, 1962). The symbol cannot be entirely or explicitly stated since its
essential quality drawslife from amultiplicity of associations, subtly and,
for the most part, unconsciously interrelated. The symbol, and something
associated with it, has been joined in the past so that there is a stored up
potential of shared meaning and significance available for elaboration
when the symbol is explored. A symbol may be idiosyncratic to a particular family, it may develop ancestral significance by being shared over
generations within a family, it may be sharedby a current social network
of families or groups of friends, it may have significance for an entire
cultural group or an entirebody of religious believers. Finally, it may be
archetypal, in the sense that it has significance for all or a major portion
of
humankind regardless of specific periods of history. Examples of archetypal symbols include: heaven (associated with power and the father
image), earth (associated with mother, fertility, or the nurse of all living
things), blood (related to life, dignity of inheritance, death andviolation
of oaths), andlight (symbolizing mental andspiritual qualities).
The relationship of symbols to myths has been described by Church
(1975) who sees the symbol as an essential part of the myth:
It is notthe literal contentsofthe myth butits central symbolsthat in fact form the
content of revelation.The specific contentsof myths and actual historical circumstances of the tradition change from ageto age through time; only thesymbols
remain (p. 51).

Metaphor and myths

Many statements have to do with communicating what is immediately
occurring in our actual,sensual, moral, or.emotiona1 experience. These
experiences are subjective, having areality only in terms of their relevance
for an individual at a particular point in time in a particular context.
If we
move beyond simply being able to communicatethe existence of subjective experiences and attemptto relate thequality of these experiences, we
will frequently, perhapsalways, use literal descriptions in a non-standard

Myths and strategic interventions

151

way. When we talk about abstractconcepts we will use language drawn

from some concrete domain. Employing literal, digital language
in a
different context or a non-standard
way is characteristic of metaphorical
communication. If we say, John is a cold fish, we are using a literal description in anon-standardcontextto
convey thequality of Johns
emotional withdrawal.
Knox (1 964)has suggested:
We will alwaysneed figures, pictures, or images of some kind if we areto express
the concrete reality of something in our experience, but we are notlimited to any
one figure, picture, or image (p. 23).

This multiplicityof images or pictureswhich we can use to describe the

quality of an experience is the essential differencebetween symbols and
metaphors. The symbol is more stable and enduring than metaphor and
can be conceptualized as an extension of metaphorical activity. The essential movement in metaphor is from the digital to the analogic (Haley,
1976). While myths serve the function of externalizing and objectifying
phenomenaperceived
as problematicanddifficulttounderstand,
metaphor conveys the quality of subjective experience, the imagery, the
poetry which allows the subjective to be communicated by objective
means.

Rituals and myths

Historically, ritualswere behavioural dramaswhich enacted themyth or a
portion of the myth. Theywere sociallyshared experiences common to
a
community or larger territory. Fontenrose(1966) discusses a number of
relations between myths and rituals:
A ritual drama may clearly enact the events of a myth, or a myth may account for
nearly every act ina rite, each ritual act inorder; other myths, however, account
for rites in
a less systematic way; still others tell only how the rites
introduced.
were
Moreover once ritual and myth become associated, one affects the other(p. 50).

As each affects the other, both

may suggest additions to or
revisions inthe
main text. Perry(1 966)has suggested that while myth was the outcomeof
primitive mans attempt to account for his universe, ritual was then the
expression of this. He has also suggested that ritual had the intent
of preserving the social group and was the basic source of communal action. It
becomes more obvious that myth andritual were intimatelyrelated
vehicles for the expression of mans perceptions of his reality in both a
spoken and an acted form.

152

S.A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

Family interactionprocesses a n d myths

Ferreira (1963) defines family myths as:
A series of fairly well integrated beliefs shared by all family members, concerning
each other and their mutual positions in the family life, beliefs that go unchallenged by everyone involved in
spite of the reality distortions which they conmay
spicuously imply (p. 457).

The family myth describes the rbles and attributesof family members in
interaction with one another and,while these interactions have a quality
of falsenessor incongruity, they are acceptedby all family members as real
and unquestionable.
The struggle to maintain the myth is a struggle to maintain the relationship- a
relationship that is obviously experienced as vital and, for which, it seems, the
child may have no choice in reality, while the parents haveno choice in fantasy
(p. 462).

The family myth becomes an inseparable part of the familysshared perceptual experience.
Steinglass (1978) discusses family myth as each individuals recollection
of his or herfamily history passed on from one generation to another.
The
family myth is a blendof fact andfantasy preserving important events and
notable personalities in the familys history. Family myths are narratives
which include information about ritualsas they were enacted in previous
generations, with current family members playing time honouredrbles.
Byng-Hall(l973) describes three family rble images which he associates
with family myths: (1) the ideal self-imageto which each family member
strives or expects others to achieve; (2) consensus rBle images are those
rbles which all family members agree each individual family member
should perform;(3) repudiated rBle images which are recognizable by the
amount of anxiety generated when particular topics are discussed or
specific interactions are initiatedand the amount
of emotional intensity or
disgust present when certain r6les are denied or attributed to someone
else. Repudiated images are projections of split-off or denied aspects of
family members selves. Byng-Hall(l973) defines myth as those family rble
images which are accepted by the whole family together as representing
each member. The images are, however, either distortions of, or only
portions of, the observable rble behaviour.
Family members rbles coalesce and reach a consensus to reinforce
certain idealized rble images and to repudiate (project) mad or bad traits

Myths and strategic interventions

153

inconsistent with those agreed upon

idealized images on to another
family
member, or some outside, externalperson or object.
Stierlin (1973) sees family myths serving two related purposes. They
serve as defensive mechanisms against an unpleasant reality.
As such, they
function to spare family members painful confrontationswhich they fear
will release deep anxieties, disintegration, or chaos. They also serve to
obscure or denythe painful and complexreality of what family members
have done, or still do to one another,
as well aswhat family members truly
think of one another.

Interface between mythologyand current family functioning

Myth now can be conceptualized as an explanation andjustqication of
family members rbles, self-images, and shared consensual experience.
The myth functions tosupport afamilys inner identity. The justification
aspect seemingly contains a residue of the archaicquality of myth,
namely, a consideration of a power or force beyond the control of the
family. This force implies a sense of helplessness in the face of family
problems andmakes futile any
attempts to change the indisputable objectified explanation of the current state
of affairs. The myth maybe understood as preserving the family homeostasis. This narrativehas its source in
the commonlife of the family, will bear the marksof its ownidiosyncratic
culture, and may persist over generations. The myth will be prized and
protected because of its rble in preserving the familys(present) organization. The experiences and perceptions incongruent with the family myth
may be distorted or externalizedwhen they are problematicor difficult to
deal with.The myth protectsfamily members from confrontationswhich
somehow mayseem powerful enough torelease deep anxieties, disintegration, or chaos. The myth also clouds or obscures how family members
inappropriately deal with one another and protects the idealized selfimages from being destroyed.
While the emphasis in family therapy is often on their dysfunctional
aspects, mythsalso serveadaptive functions.In some families,these myths
may providea sharedreason to survive an external threat. For instance, a
family whose house burned down may be able mobilize
to
its resources and
maintain moraleif the members share the
belief that thefamily is blessed
with good fortune and that no matter
how life events unfold, the ending
for them will always be happy and productive. Myths functional in one
context at a particular time may, however, become debilitating if they
become rigid and resistant to changing circumstances (Anderson and
Russell, 1983). It is this functionalvalue of myths thathas ledus to hold a

154

S . A . Anderson and D . A . Bagarozzi

deep respect for the use of myths as an aid to therapy. Theirvalue to the
family, once accepted and acknowledged, enables the therapist to side
with the familys need to survive and to encourage the adaptive and
functional aspects of their myths while alsore-editing perceptions(family
scripts) and redirecting behaviours (familyrituals)incongruent
with
adaptations to the current situation.
Rituals, or repetitive, sharedfamily behaviour can be understoodas the
expression of all or a portion of the family myth and as a means of preserving it. Rituals may serve to further reinforce or solidify the family
structure and identity (i.e., they serve ashomeostatic devices).
The symbols which frequently recur during a familys interaction are
valuable clues or storehouses of affect-laden memories, images, or experiences. For example, a family who frequently makes reference to the
basement which someone is often assigned to clean up yet remains
neglected, may be referring to the familys difficulty in organizing the
members chaoticlives and may represent a wish for a solid structure upon
which the family can rely. In like manner, the metaphorical communications between family members may be referring to particularunresolved
relationship issues. A passing comment that John never seems to be able to
get up onthemorning
may bereferringto sexual conflict between
husband and wife. Of course, the most pragmatic meaning must be surmised by the therapist according tohis therapeutic goals and thecontext
of the situation. The use of metaphor, symbol, and ritual to uncover a
family myth that might be therapeuticallyuseful will become clearer with
a case presentation and anelaboration of some strategies for re-editing the
family drama.
Case example
The H.family entered family therapy with the initial complaint that H.,
Mrs
age
twenty-eight, had become frustrated
and overwhelmed with the responsibility of
child care for her two sons. Mrs
H. had takenan overdose of valium (seven pills)
then referred herself to the local hospital emergency room.
During the initial session, it was discovered
that J., the oldest of twosons at four
and a half years
old, suffered from delayed speech
and attended a developmental
centre daily to receive specialized speech training.He had also been diagnosed
hyperactive by both the centre staff and his family physician
and had been
admitted to hospital several times for encopresis. BothJ. and his mother had a
history of repeated admissionsto medical hospitals. Oneof J.sadmissions for a
completephysicalcheckupwasprecipitatedby
Mrs H. whoinsisted J. be
admitted so that she would not do anything drastic. She wasapparently, at the
time, also quite frustrated with J. and had been able to convince their family

Myths and strategic interventions

155

physician that J. needed medical attention for

his hyperactivity. Mrs H. had been
admitted to hospital repeatedly for chronic back
pain, high blood pressure,and
twice for heavy alcohol abuse.
Mr H . , age twenty-nine,
and their youngest son B . ,
age eighteen months,
were described as totally healthy. Neither has been
sick a
day in their lives.
The issues in the family were identified as:

(1) An overinvolved relationship between Mrs H. and the oldest son, J.,
and anaccompanying weak spousal system with Mr H. maintaining
a passive r81e.
(2) Mrs H.s frustration with childbearing, her perception that child
discipline was beyond her control, and her
depression which manifested itself through excessive drug oralcohol use.
(3) Oldest son J.s hyperactivity and delayed speech development. He
was diagnosed as functioning at the equivalentof a three-year-old
when he was, in fact, four anda half.
(4) Mr H. was overinvolved in a relationship withhis mother. Thiswas
a complaintregistered by MrsH. who perceived Mr H.smother to
be more importantto him than she.
(5) An overly dependent relationship between the H.s and external
sources of supportsuch as physicians, hospitals,teachers, and
therapists and concomitantly an inability to utilize the nuclear
family as a source of support and nurturance.

The evolution of current family myths

In orderto grasp the meaning
of the family myth system, one musthave an
understanding of how three separate factors are blended together. These
factors are: (1) the individual family histories of each spouse,(2) the individual personal myth
that eachspouse brings to the marriage,
and (3) how
these personal myths areintegratedtoproducea
new mythological
system. In the H. family the myth system included:

Spouses individual hBtories

Mrs H. was described as having been treated unfairly
as a child, beaten severely,
and not given any emotional support from her parents. Mrs H.s parents were
both marriedpreviously and each brought children from the
first marriage into
the family. Following theirmarriage, Mrs H.s parents conceived another seven
children bringing the total
to fourteen in all. The family lived ina three- bedroom
house and Mrs H. reported having no privacy throughout her childhood. While
she perceived most
of her siblings as being cared
andfor
treated well, shegenerally
felt ignored and left out.

156

S. A . Anderson and D . A . Bagarozzi

Mr H. was the youngestof three. While hisbrother married andmoved away,

his sister never married and continued to live with hermother. Mr H.sfather died
when he was twelve years old. From that time on, Mr H. perceived himself as
spoiledby his sister and mother, receiving everythinghe ever wanted except
attention. He believed that he had always been treated as a child by his mother
and that he was conceived as an afterthoughtbecause his father was forty-one
and his mother thirty-nineyears old when.hewas born. While he recalled never
having a relationship with his father even before his death, his relationship with
his mother was extremely close, and he continued to call her almost daily.

Spouses personal myths

Mrs H. experienced a deep sense of injustice and deprivation in her relationship to her parents
and yet she held to the myth
that her parentswould
eventually change and provide her what shebelieved she was owed. Each
trip home tovisit her parents resulted in frustration and disappointment
as her expectations remained unmet.
Mr H. held to the belief that he was conceived as an afterthought and
not wanted by his parents. Despite the obvious evidence that he and his
mother were bound to each otherby an overly closeand dependent tie,
he
held to the myth that to confront his mother or to assert independence
would result in her rejection of him.

How these personal myths

were integrated to produce a new myth system
The H.s had developed a myth which if overtly stated translated intothat
which has been lost f r o m t h e f a m of
i l yorigin can neverbe regained or surmounted. Both spouses longed for a lost idealized relationship with their
parents. Mrs H. desired nurturance and acceptance from both parents,
while Mr H. longed for a connection with his father and the feeling of
being wanted.As a result, neither
was able tonurture or support the other
since this source of nurturance was apparently entirelyoverlooked in the
search for that which was lost. Such a myth
can also be viewed as obscuring
the feelings of incompetence which accompanied their inability to maintain a supportive spousal relationship. As a further consequence of this
myth, needs for support and nurturancewere externalized to professional
helpers (physicians, hospitals, etc.).
A second myth was inextricably interwoven with the first. The parents
troubles in dealing with their childrens behaviour and in providing a
home environment which was characterized by secure control and clear
limits seemed to be associated with their own emotional deprivation. Inan
effort to spare theirsons 0. in particular) the type of childhood they had

Myths and strategic interventions

157

experienced,they gave them expensive toys and were reluctantto

introduceclearrulesforbehaviour.While
Mrs H. maintained this
attitude the most,Mr H. bowed to his wifes wishesand allowed her tobe
solely responsible for parental discipline. Even though their sons behaviour problems were overt, they clung to the myth thatJ.2problems
were medical and could only be handled by medical professionals. This
allowed them to deny theirown shortcomings as parents.
Before proceeding to a discussion of some intervention strategies, we
will summarize some of the key characteristics of family myths and how
they manifested themselves in the H. family.
1. Family myths tend to develop around
unresolved &sues of loss, separation, abandonment, individuation, nurturance and deprivation.
Mrs H.s
feelings of deprivation and Mr H.s feeling of abandonment, and theincomplete individuationof both from their families
of origin were perpetuated into the
next generation in the form
of emotional deprivationof their
sons.

2 . Family myths are characterized by a sense of lqe circumstances being

beyond the family> control.
A sense of helplessnesswas evident in the H.s
inability to recover their idealized parental relationships and in their
inability to manage the behaviour
of their son.

3. Family myths include explanation andjust@ations. Those given by

the H.s for their helplessness were that their present behaviours would
forever be influenced
by their earlier childhood experiences and that their
sons behaviour was a result of physical, medical problems which could
only be cured by professional helpers.
4. Family myths are prired and protected. To give up the myths would
have forced the
H.s to come to terms
with the possibility that their parents
would never meet their expectations or that their
sons problems were,at
least in part, related to their parenting. Such acknowledgementswould
have necessitated frightening realizationsand threatening changes in the
family system.

5. Perceptions incongruent with thefamzlys myths are distorted or projected. Responsibility for changein J.s behaviour was+placed on external
change agents and limitations in own
their
abilities to nurturewere denied
and projected onto their
own parents.

158

S . A . Anderson and D . A . Bagarozzi

Strategies for evolving the family myth

The strategies for evolving the family myth which follow all rest heavily
upon the notion of using the familys own representations of reality in a
manner which does not confront directly the familys homeostasis or the
defensive aspects of the family myth. They are
consistent with Watzlawick
et al. S (1974) notion, borrowed from Judo, of using the familys own flow
of interactional patterns and perceptions to redirect it towards new and
different interactional sequences. Ritual prescription and reframing are
two techniques consistent with these strategies. Ritual prescription and
reframingcanbothattendtothenonliteral
aspects of the familys
experience. Ritual prescriptions achieve their utility via the behavioural
channel, by redirecting family members current behaviour patterns or
creating new behavioural rules often withoutthe needfor verbal or literal
understanding. Reframing attends to the familys shared perceptions by
suggesting alternativeexplanationstotheircurrent
views which are
equally valid yet less restrictive or debilitating.

Utilizing the familys metaphors and symbols

During theflow of conversation in therapy sessions, family members make
metaphorical-analogical commentswhich in the immediate here and
now
reflect upon their relationships. For instance, a mother spontaneously
refers to herself as chairman of the board of her family. These metaphors
are really family members ways of communicating important images of
themselves and how they function with others in the family. Elaborating
on these metaphors, asking family members tospecify in more detailwhat
the metaphor meansto each onepersonally, is a way to make theimages
more concreteand readily understandable to all.The therapist leads the
discussion by expanding the metaphor, broadening
it, identifying related
elements and utilizing what is presented.
Sometimes the metaphorsexpressed represent aspects of more enduring
images or family d e s . These symbols are often storehouses for latent
feelings and arecommunications about other aspects of the familys relationships which are more difficult to express openly. Once the therapist
has been able to delineate
these analogical connotations hidden
within the
symbol, he is able to communicate about these issues without ever consciously making a connection between the symbol and its parallel, more
affect-laden meaning. Thisis different than thetherapist relating astory
of his own design which parallels the familys experience. In the former,

Myths and strategic interventions

159

the therapist uses exactly what is presented by the family, not something
he constructs himself.An example will illustrate this more clearly.
Mr H., while feeling a lack of connection with his father, vividly recalled one
experience which occurred just prior to his fathers death when he was twelve
old. His father had taken him out to teach him tqshoot a Mr
rifle.
H.s memories
of his father were often associated with his fathers gun collection which he
continued to care for during his childhood. He would make sure
that they were
kept well polishedand oiled. Following his marriage and
the purchase of his own
home, Mr H . wanted to display the gun collection in his living room. His mother,
who had never shown any interest in
the collection prior to this, refused to let Mr
H. take it. While he longed
to own this gun collection
and believed it was actually
his, hewas never able to assert this to his mother
and demandhis right to ownership.
During therapyit became obvious that the gun
collection couldbe used as
a symbol for Mr H.s lost relationship tohis father andas a symbol of this
struggle for individuation from
his mother. It was assumed that small but
definitechangesinbehaviour
would instigatechange
of amore
generalized nature (Watzlawick,1978). Thus, thegoal was to support Mr
H.s struggle to regainhis lost gun collectionas a meansof facilitating his
individuation fromhis mother as well asa meansof internalizing the masculine, moreassertive traits he associatedwith his father. Both heand his
assertive and expressive.
wife ambivalently desiredMr H. to become more
When the gun collection was brought up during subsequent sessions, Mr H.s
reluctance to regain the gun collection,the memories of his father teaching him to
shoot, and other memories associated the
withcollection were explored in
detail.
Every opportunity was taken to reframe references
to the collection or his father as
masculine, assertive,or man-to-mantypes of activities. The emphasis upon
the lost gun collection, while using the familys own symbols and associations, did
not directly address more underlying dynamic issues yet it challenged
the family
myth ofthat which has been lostf r o m one S family of origin can neuer be regained.
By addressing a concrete goal suchas regaining a gun collection,it was
possible to dealwith a numberof issues: (1) Mr H.s individuation fromhis
mother, (2) re-establishment of a connection between Mr H. and his
father through the living symbol of his fathers nurturancetoward him,
and (3) increased respect from
Mrs H. who could thenview her husbandas
more masculine, assertive and competent.
Other frequently recurring symbols were doctors and bicycles. We
have already notedhow doctors could beviewed as an external sourceof
gratification. The frequency and the number
of contexts in which bicycles
were referred to was striking. For instance:

160

S. A . Anderson and D. A . Bagarozzi

On one occasion Mrs H., with Mr H.s passive approval, purchased J. two new
bicycles. The first one proved to be too large so a second was purchased for his
current use with the first saved for when he grew older. In spite of the financial
strain these purchases placed upon the family, the decision
was not challengedor
reconsidered. In thiscontext, the bicycle purchases were relabelled
as a parental
attempt to provide nurturance to their son. Several sessions after theabove
incident, Mr H. reported that he had starteda new hobby. He had accumulateda
workshop full of old bicycles which he planned to fix up in his spare time. Since
mechanical aptitude was one trait that Mr H. had previously spoken
of with pride,
his new hobby was labelled as a self-directed move toward a more masculine
identity and an active attempt to provide himself with a source of satisfaction
(gratification and nurturance).
As in previous examples of thegun collection, these symbolswere
explored, elaboratedand utilized by the therapistto address indirectly the
therapeutic goal of helping this family to findsources of nurturance and
gratification within their nuclear family. Such symbols also serve asconvenient content for ritual prescriptions.

Ritual prescrz$tions
Family rituals are shared behavioural dramas which portray important
aspects of the familys organization and mythology. Rituals can serve as
stabilizing elements (Wolin et al., 1979), as homeostatic mechanisms to
solidify the family system. This definition suggests three important therapeutic functions of myths. First, they provide important information
about the familys shared view of reality. All families, although some to a
greater extent than others,
exhibit ritualistic behaviours. Annual holiday
family gatherings, a favourite weekly family television programme, or a
weekly shared Saturday afternoonworking in the backyard, areexamples
of such rituals. Once afamilysrituals have been identified, they can help
highlight how the family maintains its internalboundaries.Second,
rituals can also introduce a powerful motive to move toward a common
goal or toward a new normative system (Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1974).
Selvini-Palazzoli et al. (1974) conceptualizetherapeuticrituals
as a
computer-game, a replacement of an unhealthy and epistemologically
false rite (for example, the exclusive seeking of emotional nurturance
from sources external to the nuclear
family) with one thatis epistemologically sound and healthy (p. 239). In addition, rituals may enable family
members to work through unresolved issues on the analogic level as
opposed tothe literal.If the ritualis constructed in a way which addresses
unresolved issues, the family may be able to reach resolutions in a less
affectively charged or anxiety producingcontext.Once
behavioural

Mythsandstrategicinterventions

161

changes have beeninduced, insight mayor may notfollow. However, the

emphasis is not on insight per se, but upon the formationof a new and
more functionalnormative system based upon the contextof the familys
own views of reality.
And finally, a ritual canbe used to punctuate the end
of therapy or the
end of a particular phase of therapy. In these situations, the ritual can
stabilize and preserve gains already made.
For instance, a family who has
to work
resolved the loss of a young childand desires to continue in therapy
on the spousal relationship maybe instructed tovisit the grave with their
surviving children to saya final goodbye. Or a family who initially
complained of achaotic anddisengaged family life may, uponcompletion
of therapy, be instructed to use the regular therapy time as a forum to
discuss family plans and to formulate
goals for sharedactivities.
A series of ritual prescriptionswere given to the
H. family which usedthe bzcycle
symbols potential asa storehouse of family perceptionsand associations to help
the familymove toward the common goalof nurturance from within theirown
and his wifein
nuclear family.Mr H. was instructed to enlist the ofaidhis two sons
his efforts to repair old bicycles. It was suggestedthat since Mr and Mrs H. had
invested some of the familys financial resources to provideJ. with a bicycle, it
would be a further gesture
of caring to teach himhow to care for and repair his
own bicycle. Furthermore, since both boys had shown a curiosity about their
fathers tools, he could foster their interestby teaching them how to use them.
This was explained to Mr H. as a way of relating to his sons man to man. And
since it was generally Mrs H.s responsibility to monitor the boys behaviour
during the day when
Mr H. was away,it was important thatshe observedthat the
boys could indeed handle their fathers tools safely and that she know how to
supervise them with the tools during the day.

This approachachieved several goals.

(1) It enabled thefamily members to work as a unit in a context where

productive work would be rewarded.

(2) It allowed Mr H. to be viewed in the rBle of teacher andprovider of

information.

(3) It enabledboth Mr H. and his sons to integrate actively a masculine

identity.
(4) It respected the family rule thatMrs H. was responsiblefor supervising

the children.
The familymembersresponded
to the ritual prescriptionandcontinued
their interest in the bicycle repair activities. Several sessions
later, Mr and Mrs
H., who were to be seen without the boys, rode to the session on their bicycles.
Mr H. had repaired a used bicycle specifically for Mrs H. so that they could
get in physical shape together. Mr H. was at that time also speculating about

162

S.A . Anderson and D . A . Bagarozzi

howhecould
construct a four-seat, foot-pedalledsurrey from used bicycle
parts so that the entire family could ride together.
The new ritual had created an organized forum where family members
could work together without the need to focus verbally on affect-laden,
anxiety-producing,
interpersonal
issues. The bicycle
symbol
had
generalized to includeassociations involving health and getting
in physical
shape. Mr and Mrs H. were also able to develop more consistent and
mutually shared rules for parental discipline and to recognize that they
had some responsibility and control over their sons behaviour. Other
more concrete changesin family functioning included an end Mrs
to H.s
use of anti-anxiety medication and a reduction in her alcohol use. J.s
encopresis stopped and therewas a marked decline
in hishyperactivityas
reported by both theschool and theparents. The H.s were able eventually
S behawour problemswere medicaland only
to relinquish the myth that_/.
remedied by medical professionals and the myth of that which has been
lost f r o m our families of origin can never be regained.

Conclusion
We do not
wish to suggest thatthe changes in the H. family were
exclusively a result of ritual prescriptions and an elaboration and reediting of the familys own symbolsand metaphors. This method
of conceptualizing the family process and content and the interventions illustrated herewere only a part of the overall therapy process. Atother times,
strategies such as paradoxical intervention, restructuring of subsystem
boundaries, contract negotiationand communication skills training were
all utilized. In addition, the therapists r d e as an impartial advisor and
judge who respects individual differences, a facilitatorof discussion, and a
provider of positive acceptance and self-esteem, cannot beoverlooked.
This paperhas attempted to illustratehow family myths can be auseful
conceptual tool by which the therapist can organize the tremendous
amounts of information available to him. Such useful components of
myths were defined in terms of their development in mythology, the
family therapy literature, and through
a case study. Examples were
offered to illustrate
how the use ofthe content of family myths is consistent
with the principles and assumptions of strategic family therapy.
In particular, theuse of family myths as an aid to therapyrests heavily
on the assumption that the familys own view of reality is essential to the
effective choice of intervention strategies. Secondly, it is assumed that
family myths are clung to
as long as they serve a stabilizing function in the

Myths and strategic interventions

163

family system. If family members begin to feel less defensiveand guarded

about their negative qualities unresolved
or
issues, they may be able togive
up the myths
which sustain their present
family drama. If they are able to
find alternatives to their current problem behaviours and still feel safe,
they may then be able to develop more commongoals which move them
towardmore effective functioning.Prescribingritualizedbehaviour
patternsandelaboratingshared
perceptions with subtleacceptable
changes enables the family to change while not giving up that which is
perceived as essential to survival.

References
ANDERSON,
S. A. and RUSSELL,C. S. (1983) Utilizing process and content in designing
paradoxical interventions.AmericanJounzal of Family Therapy 10 (2): 48-60.
ANDOLFI,M. and ANGELO,C. (1981). The therapist as director of the family drama.
Jounzal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7 (3): 243-254.
BAGAROZZI,
D. A. and ANDERSON,
S. A. (1983) The evolution of family mythological
systems: considerations for meaning, assessment and treatment.Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology 5 (1): 71 - 90.
BANDLER,
R. and GRINDER,
J. (1975) Pattern of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.
Enckson, M.D. Cupertino, CA. Meta.
CAMPBELL,
J. (1949) The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York. Pantheon Books.
~ I C K S O N ,M. H. and Rossr, E. L. (1975) Varieties of double bind. AmencanJounal of
Clinical Hypnoszi. 17: 143 187.
BYNG-HALL,
J. (1973) Family myths used as defense in conjoint family therapy. Bntish
Journal of Medical Psychology, 46: 239- 250.
CHURCH, C.D. (1975) Myth and history as complementary modes of consciousness. In:
L. W. Gibbs & W. T. Stevenson (Eds), Myth and the C k t j of Htjtoncal Consciousness. Missoula, MT. Scholars Press.
FERREIRA,
A. J. (1963) Family myth and homeostasis. Archives of General Psychiaty, 9:
457 - 463.
FONTENROSE,
J. (1966) The Rituul Theory of Myth. Berkeley. University of California
Press.
FRAZER, J. G. (1942) The Golden Bough: a Study in Magic and Religion. New York.
MacMillan.
HALEY, (1973)
J.
Uncommon Therapy:the Psychiatric Techniques of Milton H. Enckson,
M.D. New York. W. W. Norton.
HALEY,J. (1976) Froblem Solving Therapy. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
KEITH, D. V. and WHITAKER,C. A. (1981) Play therapy: a paradigm for
workwith
families. Journal of Mantal and Family Therapy, 7 (3): 243-254.
b o x , J. (1964) Myth and Truth. Charlottesville. University of Virginia.
LEWIS,J. M,, BEAVERS,
W. R., COSSETT, J. T. and PHILLIPS, V. A. (1976) No Single
Thread: Psychological Health in Family System. New York. Brunner/Mazel.
MINUCHIN,
S. (1974) Familiesand Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University
Press.
NEUMANN,
E. ( 1 9 5 4 ~ The
)
On&ns and Hzjtoy of Consciomess: thePsychological Stages
and the Evolution of Consciousness, Vol. 11. New York. Harper and Row.
~

164

S. A . Anderson and D.A . Bagarozzi

NEUMANN,
E. (19546) The OnginsandHistoyofConsciousness, Vol. I. New York.Harper
and Row.
PAPP, P. (1980)The Greek chorus and othertechniques of family therapy. Family Process,
19: 45- 57.
PERRY, J. W. (1966) Lord of the Four Quarters. New York. Gorge Braziller.
R A B K I N , R. (1977) Strategic Psychotherapy: Brief and Symptomatic Treatment.
New
York. Basic Books.
SAN MARTINO,
M. and NEWMAN,
M. S. (1975) Intrapsychic conflict, interpersonal relationship, and family mythology.Journal of American Academyof Child Psychiaty,
14:422-435.
SELVINI-PALAZZOLI,
BOSCOLO,
M.,
L., CECCHIN,
G. and PRATA, G. (1980)Hypothesizing,
circularity, neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
Process, 19: 3- 12.
SELVINI-PALAZZOLI,
M . CECCHIN, G.,
FRATA, G. and BOSCOLO,
L. (1978) Paradox and
Counter-paradox: a New Model
in the Therapyof the Familyin Schizophrenic Transaction. New York. Jason Aronson.
SELVINI-PALAZZOLI,
M. (1974). Self-starvation:f r o m Individual to Family Therapy
in the
Treatment of Anorexia Neruosa. New York. Jason Aronson.
SOLOMON,
N. (1976) Homeostasisand family myth: An overviewof the literature. Family
Therapy, 3: 75 - 86.
STANTON,D. (1981) Strategicapproaches to family therapy. In: A. S. Gurman and
D. P. Kniskern (Eds), Handbook of Family Therapy. New York. Brunner/Mazel.
STEINGLASS, P. (1978)The conceptualization of marriage from a systems theory perspective. In: T. J. Paolino and B. S. McCrady (Eds), Mamizge and Marital Therapy,
New York. Brunner/Mazel.
STEVENSON,
W. T. (1975) Myth and the crisis of historical consciousneis. In: L. W. Gibb
and W. T.
Stevenson (Eds), Mythand theCniis ofHistorica1 Consciousness,Missoula,
MT. Scholars Press.
STIERLIN,
H. (1973) Group fantasies and family myths: Some theoretical and practical
aspects. Family Process, 12: 111- 125.
WATrS, A. (1954) Myth and Ritualin Chnitianity. New York. McMillan.
WATZLAWICK,
P. (1978) The Languageof Change: Elementsof Therapeutic Communication. New York. Basic Books.
WATZLAWICK,
P., WEAKLAND, J. and
FISCH,R. (1974) Change: principles of Problem
Formation and Problem Resolution.New York. W. W. Norton.
WHEELWRIGHT,
P: (1962)Metaphor and Reality.Bloomington. Indiana University Press.
WOLIN,S. I., BEN'NETT,
L. A. and NOONAN,
D. L. (1979)
.
. Family rituals and the recurrence of alcoholism over generations. American Journal o i Psychiatry, 136 (43):
589 593.
-