A systemic approach to in-law dilemmas

This paper explores the origin of in-law problems through the lens of their cultural, developmental, and intergenerational contexts. In-law problems are viewed as attempted solutions to incompleted developmental tasks. The systemic approach described tackles the embedded relational and developmental issues through restructuring, coaching, intergenerational inquiry, loyalty probes, solution focus, and anticipating the consequences of change. Therapeutic steps in stages are identified: (a) entry; (b) contextualizing the problem; (c) mobilizing the system; (d) consolidating change, monitoring the consequences, and soft ending. Case vignettes are used to illustrate treatment possibilities in a variety of in-law situations.

The challenge of forming new family units of procreation while balancing loyalties to the family of origin forms the backdrop for the emergence of in-law relationship difficulties. Most therapists, at one time or another, have encountered the emotion-laden conflicts and covert feuds that can permeate in-law relationships. One might even speculate on how many divorces are the result of unresolvable in-law difficulties. At the same time, in-law relationships can be sources of enrichment in family life by providing alternative supportive resources and even substitute relations to compensate for missed or dysfunctional connections in one's own family.

Family therapists have long recognized the significance of extended family relationships and their impact on marital adjustment (Bell, 1962; Framo, 1977,1981; Haley, 1973; Lager, 1977; McGoldrick, 1988; Whitaker, 1976). Haley, for example, states:

the involvement with extended kin is more important in differentiating the human species from other animals than the opposable thumb, the consistent use of tools, or the large brain. In fact, man's large brain may have developed in order to deal with his more complex social network. It is also possible that multiple generation involvement has produced psychiatric problems among human beings not found among other animals. (1973, p. 45) It is commonly accepted that people use emotional radar in mate selection (Lederer &

Jackson, 1968). Carl Whitaker's priceless quote about the clash of cultures in each marriage underscores the phenomenon that mates select for themselves not only their spouse but also their in-laws, and perhaps even their conflicts as well. Whitaker states: "I don't believe in marriage either. . . it's really just two scapegoats sent out by two families to reproduce each other. . . the battle is which one will it be . . ."(1982, p. 368).

Whitaker's quote refers to the dynamics of the family system of a young couple forming a first marriage. Yet over 50% of first marriages end in divorce, and two thirds of these couples remarry. The context of remarriage is more complex since the extended family of the first marriage may influence the dynamics of the second marriage. Where third or serial marriages present, the coalitional structure of relationships can be even more intertwined. For example, in one family, the most stable couple was actually the son and his mother, who remained connected before, during, and after each marriage.

Different family shapes influence the unfolding of in-law relationships. Cultural differences (McGoldrick & Garcia-Preto, 1984; McGoldrick, Pearce, & Giordano, 1982) and factors such as migration, loss, and cohabitation changes influence intergenerational relationships over the life cycle. In our culture, for example, remaining close to one's mother after marriage is sanctioned more for a daughter than it is for a son, who often thinks he must distance himself from his mother in order to achieve autonomy (Silverstein & Rashbaum, 1994). A man may then expect his wife to serve as a bridge back to his own mother. Sociocultural and cross-cultural evidence (Sussman, 1965) attributes in-law tension to the fact that a daughter-in-law is a stranger to the son's family since courtship revolves around her family home. Furthermore, a daughter-in-law becomes a successor to mother's role with son.

Culture not only interacts with emotional process to generate tacit rules about family life but also prescribes styles of reactivity and perceptions of the other, particularly in cultural intermarriage, where partners' families may have different styles of emotional expression. One ethnic group may define a wife's behavior as "reserved and proper" while another may view the same behavior as "cold and aloof."

Culture also mediates gender roles, and within our culture women are held responsible for managing and expressing emotional relationships. It is thus not coincidental that motherin-law jokes abound or that the overworked conflictual pathway appears to be mother-inlaw/daughter-in-law conflict, with son, husband, father-in-law in the middle, background, or seemingly invisible. Women seem to take on the stress-absorbing role, moving in to handle emotional conflicts (Walters, Carter, Papp, Silverstein, 1988; Wasserman, 1990) while men respond more indirectly, often through avoidance, which creates a vacuum for the woman to fill. Although men can also demonstrate intense reactivity, they do it differently and perhaps put less stock in the value of resolving emotional differences through verbal communication.