Modern Model Description and Case Analysis

1.0 History, Development, Founders, and Essential Assumptions

The selected modern model is Symbolic-Experiential Therapy, which was coined by Carl Whitaker in 1953. The main goal is to change patterns and interactions via growth processes. As documented by Roberto (1991), the model does not emphasize the use of medications towards the creation of change, with the latter associated with psychiatric approaches. It has also been documented that this model's focus is the client's family's growth, rather than narrow down to the resolution of a problem with which the client family presents. In most cases, Gehart and Tuttle (2003) documented that symbolic-experiential family therapy is conducted by two co-therapists in which one plays a confrontational role while the other is charged with support provision. Lindforss and Magnusson (1997) observed further that in most cases, the duration of therapeutic approaches that embrace symbolic family-experiential family therapy lasts from six months to two years.

It is also worth noting that this model involves the client of origin in its entirety, rather than focus on subsets of individual family members or family subsystems (De Shazer et al., 2007). From a stepwise perspective, the first stage involves providing a safe environment before joining client families to discuss the presenting problems. Mitten and Connell (2004) observed the therapist needs to encourage attendance and participation and use humor and spontaneity while inviting a co-therapist as deemed appropriate. The next step involves gaining information regarding empathy, coalitions, boundaries, roles, and conflict levels characterizing the family system. As concurred by Napier and Whitaker (1978), this stage paves the way for establishing goals before strengthening the family initiative via the decision to challenge members to design the agenda of the session.

From the description of the model's stages, this model's central objective is to steer a sense of cohesion with the family towards relieving symptoms with which it presents. In the late phase, the therapist is expected to promote individual growth by prompting members to achieve specific developmental goals. According to Roberto (1991), this framework holds several assumptions. These assumptions focus on attributes such as growth-development, life, marriage, and the formation of human potential. For instance, the model acknowledges that every family and individual exhibits the capacity of developing, yet some might not embrace hope in maintaining the capacity.

Additionally, it is assumed that each individual exhibits the capability to select the manner in which they could choose their life. Still, most of the perceived choices are determined by the individuals' interactions or experiences with their families. As Whitaker and Keith (1981) avowed, the model assumes further that all individuals exhibit the potentiality of growing and developing, implying that all humans are similar and that they are in a continuous quest to develop. Whitaker and Malone (1953) concurred that the model assumes further that the maintenance, guarding, and protection of the identity of self or own sensitivity while ensuring that individuals remain attached to the family is essential.

2.0 Model Characteristics

Carl Whitaker believed that experience needs to be prioritized at the expense of intellectual thought. The theorist stated further that there is a need to focus on the here-and-now while ensuring that the therapist emerges as a real person. According to Gehart and Tuttle (2003), it is expected further that families exhibit inherent abilities to heal themselves, with the therapist's and client's "craziness" playing a complementary role in achieving specific and general therapy goals. Alienation forms another concept that the modern model addresses. Particularly, the model states that an individual is likely to shut off from his true feelings when a dysfunctional family is present, compromising the achievement of family intimacy (Lindforss & Magnusson, 1997). The implication is that proponents of this framework require the family members to experiment in a similar manner as that in which they would be in the other's role, as long as the central understanding is that the role-play sessions are symbolic. Notably, the model can be perceived to belong to classical family therapy schools, whereby the majority of family problems are associated with emotional suppression. As Mitten and Connell (2004) avowed, it is expected that the family holds the responsibility to change, with all generations and family members expected to be present.

Overall, the model relies on real-life and “symbolic” experiences. Additionally, the framework is shaped by affective confrontation, play, and humor (Napier and Whitaker, 1978). The battles for initiative and battle for the structure are also evident in this approach. Regarding the battle for structure, it is expected that the session process and content produce change while the therapy is conducted frequently to achieve optimal outcomes or steer progress. Additionally, the battle for structure requires that the therapist ensures that all necessary parties attend the therapy sessions (Roberto, 1991). In relation to the initiative's battle, Whitaker and Keith (1981) documented that the model expects clients to work harder than the therapist. Hence, this battle needs to be won by the client. The eventuality is that in some instances, the therapist needs to allow crisis and tension to build to the point where the client embraces the incentive to change.

Several examples of intervention have also been documented in relation to the selected modern model. Regarding the first goal of establishing a safe environment, interventions include remaining open to families towards communication modeling, requiring that all family members attend therapy sessions, and involving spontaneity and humor in discussions. Regarding the second step of identifying family anxiety levels, roles, coalitions, and systemic boundaries, Whitaker and Malone (1953) documented several worth employing interventions. These interventions include involving the families in discussions, conducting assessment via affective confrontation, exploring the ideas of symptoms that each family member holds, exploring the role of some members as scapegoats, and identifying the aspect of role rigidity as evidenced by the families in question. Gehart and Tuttle (2003) observed that the goal of establishing therapy goals and requiring the initiative of client families attracts interventions such as the decision to challenge members towards deciding the subject of discussion, demanding that the members demonstrate initiative, and employing "what if…" fantasies with members of the family.

Indeed, it is worth inferring that Whitaker’s Symbolic-Experiential Therapy is a strength-based model. According to Lindforss and Magnusson (1997), strength-based models seek to emphasize people's strengths and self-determination, with client families viewed as resilient and resourceful parties in the face of perceived adversities. Indeed, Whitaker's framework is a client-led model whose focus is on the strengths that family members bring to a crisis or problem, as well as future outcomes. Hence, the approach fulfills the features associated with strength-based models.

3.0 Case Analysis

In the case presented, major family problems involve Alejandro's recent job layoff in the wake of Jane's persistent complaint about his drinking behavior. Furthermore, the Mexican immigrants' short stay in the U.S. poses a language problem because neither speaks English fluently; yielding a socio-cultural dilemma. The husband's guilt due to the perceived failure to fulfill his family role (following the job layoff) compounds the dilemma. Indeed, the husband's guilt is informed by predictions of a looming economic challenge in the family. In this case, Whitaker's modern model of Symbolic-Experiential Therapy is deemed appropriate and worth applying.

In this case, applying the model implies that Alejandro's family's first goal is to develop cohesion. Some of the practical interventions could include the use of effective confrontation to expand positive anxiety of the family members' symptoms and the decision to embrace positive confrontation to highlight the husband’s coalition of denial regarding drinking as a marital problem. Similarly, parental empathy would be increased towards meeting the children’s needs while assigning the son and the daughter assignments of playing roles of scapegoats. An application of the modern model to the selected case would imply that the second goal involves creating and maintaining parental and generational boundaries. According to Mitten and Connell (2004), this step aids in reducing marital conflicts. Specific interventions that are aligned to the model and could be applied to the designed case include the use of humor to expose the husband’s persistent avoidance of acknowledging alcoholism as a source of marital conflict, the use of effective confrontation to reveal role delegations and role rigidity, and the use of couples therapy towards addressing intimacy challenges.

As the therapy approaches the late phase, an additional goal, which remains linked to the Symbolic-Experiential Therapy, would be to promote all the family members’ growth while steering towards the realization of a new family structure that is marked by positive communication, couple intimacy, and the achievement of a supportive social environment that assures social support and remains free of anxiety among children. Indeed, specific interventions that are worth embracing towards the achievement of this goal include highlighting that the conflict between Jane and Alejandro does not necessarily have to escalate and touch on their children, defining stressors present in the family conflict, and encouraging growth and individualism with “what if…” fantasies. Another goal that could characterize the conclusive stage entails the therapist's engagement in highlighting the sessions' accomplishment of growth, goals, and relief of symptoms characterizing the family's conflict. Specifically, several practical interventions could be used to highlight these accomplishments. According to Napier and Whitaker (1978), some of these interventions include the sharing of the therapist's personal responses to the family, identification of potential barriers to the continued development of family goals, the reframing of Alejandro’s initial symptoms to steer change and growth, and the decision to allow each member of the family express themselves about the therapy sessions and their effects on their lives.

In summary, Whitaker's modern model is linked to the designed case in such a way that it aids in acknowledging the family members themselves and their capacity as problem solvers. Particularly, the model calls for the need to reinforce client capacity and allow them to play a leading role in shaping the therapy's direction, with the approach expected to achieve lasting outcomes. Given that the family conflict in Alejandro's case requires the active participation of the members to attract lasting effects, it remains inferable that it exhibits a direct relationship with Whitaker’s Symbolic-Experiential Therapy.