ADOLESCENTNOKRIZNO STANJEPORODICNI KONTEKST

Ljiljana Lazii

Kratak sadriaj: Rad obraduje porodice s klinicki ve­rifikovanim kriznim-adolescentnim stanjern. Ispitu­je se specificnost osnovnih dimenzija porodicnogfunkcionisanja, sagledavaju se dominantne strategi­je prevazilazenja stresa, krize porod ice, potom seuporeduju relevantne dimenzije funkcionisanja po­rodica adolescenta sa kriznim stanjem i bez kriznogstanja. Istrazivanje je obavljeno Skalom za procenuporodicne kohezivnosti i adaptabilnosti FACES III iSkalom odnosa porodice prema krizi i stresu F-Cops.

Kljuene reti: adolescentna kriza, porodica, stres.

Institut za neuropsihijatrijske bolesti»Dr Laza Lazarevic«, Beograd

Ovaj period je veliki izazov za porodicu. Uovom periodu roditelji i adolescenti mogu !jedni drugima mnogo da pomognu-rnladi §'svojom velikom energijom, a roditelji bo- ggatim zivotnim iskustvom.

37

njihov socijalni horizont i status nemajuneku narocito novu perspektivu.

Porodici sa adolescentom su potrebne no­ve granice. S obzirom da je ova faza obe­lezena postepenim osamostaljivanjem de­ce koja u porodicu unose novine, novaznanja, vestine, vrednosti, nove prijatelje,drustvene probleme, granice moraju bitidovoljno fleksibilne. Sa druge strane rodi­telji moraju zadrzati svoj autoritet.

Zadatak porodice je da kroz promenu svo­je strukture omoguci svim clanovima dalakse rastu, da nadu dovoljno licnog zado­voljstva, odnosno da spreci pojavu zapleta,da bude podrska.

Medutim, ako se roditelji ne snadu, ako se ~odbrambeno povlace, ako ih uplasi i zabri- ~ne sirok zivotni horizont adolescenta i u ~njima izazove netolerantnost, javice se pro­blemi.

U savremenoj literaturi preovladava stayda je faza adolescencije najstresnija od svihu razvojnom ciklusu porodice. To je vremekada adolescent definitivno formira sop­stveni identitet, uspostavlja odnose sa cla­novima sire porodice i drustva, otkriva irealizuje nove, ali i potvrduje stare vred­nosti.

Uvod

Ova faza se oznacava kao faza kumulativ­nog zivotnog stresa. Roditelji su u ovojfazi uglavnom, u »krizi« srednjeg zivotnogdoba (1). U zizi njihovog intersovanja suprofesionalni razvoj, medusobni odnosi iodnosi sa decom. Roditelji prethodne gene­racije (treca generacija) okupirana je pro­blemima oko penzionisanja, bolesti, gubit­ka moci pa cak i smrti (2).

»Pod istirn krovorn«, naci ce se tada adoles­cent, koji je u fazi punog fizickog procvata,sa beskonacno sirokim socijalnim hori­zontom pred sobom, i roditelji koji upravou to vreme pocinju intenzivnije da se bavepitanjima sopstvenog zdravlja, radnog i zi­votnog bilansa, suoceni sa cinjenicom da

Konflikt u adolescentnoj porodici moze pro­izaci na mnogim planovima: oko autoriteta,osamostaljivanja, odnosa, ponasan]a, vred­nosti, itd. Adolescent se emocionalno ulazeu kreiranje novih vrednosti i strategija kojice mu omoguciti zivotni stil po sopstve­nom izboru. Roditeljske investicije se ticuuglavnom validacije starih zivotnih vredno­sti. Borba izmedu ))ja« i »mi« na ovaj nacindobija jos jednu dimenziju. Na samom po­cetku adolescencije, adolescent pojacavasvoj uticaj i podize svoje mesto u porodic­noj hijerarhiji uglavnom na racun majki.Status oceva uglavnom ostaje nepromenjen(3).

cru I PREDMET ISTRAZIVANjA

Ciljevi istraiivanja

Ispitati specificnost osnovnih dimenzija po­rodicnog funkcionisanja porodicnih siste­ma sa adolescentom u krizi.

Sagledati dominantne strategije prevazila­zenja stresa i krize porodice sa adolescen­tom u kriznom stanju.

Uporediti relevantne dimenzije funkcioni­sanja porodica adolescenata sa verifikova­nim adolescentnim kriznim stanjem u od­nosu na aktuelna istrazivanja uslovno nor­malnih porodica.

Predmet istraiivanja

Predmet ovog istrazivanja su porodice ado­lescenata sa klinicki verifikovanim adoles­centnim kriznim stanjem.

""I('<') Za relevantne dimenzije porodicnog funk­S'g cionisanja uzete su adaptibilnost i koheziv-~ nost iz Olsonovog Circumplex modela bra-NN cnih i porodicnih odnosa. Analiza strate-~ gija prevazilazenja stresa i krize u porodici~ su pridodate kao znacajan pokazatelj funk­~ cionisanja porodice u akutnom zivotnom

stresu.

38

RADNA HIPOTEZA

Karakteristike porodicnog sistema, kao pri­marnog faktora socijalizacije, predstavljajudominantni cinilac u evoluciji formiranjasociopsiholoskog identiteta i samorazvojalicnosti. Nairne, ocekujemo da porodiceadolescenata sa krizom pokazuju odredenespecificnosti u odnosu na referentna psi­hosocijalna obelezja porodicnog sistema.

Adolescencija predstavlja najvulnerabilnijufazu u formiranju licnosti. U ovo vreme iiiu ovoj zivotnoj dobi jedinka je najvulnerbil­nija u odnosu na stresore proisiekle iz dis­funkcionalnih stanja porodicnog sistemaali i sireg drustvenog miljea kao psiholos­kog eksterijera koji se neminovuo indukujena psiholoski dizajn licnosti adolescenta.

METODOLOGI]A ISTRAZIVANjA

Uzorak istraiivanja

Ispitivanjem je obuhvaceno 188 ispitani­ka, 50 adolescenata sa dijagnostikovanimadolescentnim kriznim stanjern tretiranihu Institutu za neuropsihijatrijske bolesti»Dr Laza Lazarevic- u Beogradu, u perioduod oktobra 1997. do decembra 1998. godi­ne i clanovi njihovih porodica (uzorak sa­cinjava 50 porodica).

Adolescentno krizno stanje je definisanoprema kriterijumima ICD 10 klasifikacije.

Varijable u istraiivanju

I. Dimenzije porodiinog funkcionisanja

Indikatori

Porodicna kohezivnost - medusobna emo­cionalna vezanost clanova porodice.

Porodicna adaptibilnost (fleksibilnost)sposobnost porodicnog sistema da menjaodnose uloga, pravila i struktura rnoci ko­jima se regulise odnos sistema sa spolj­nom sredinom.

II. Strategije prevazilazenja stresa

Reakcija porodice, koja se desava kada jeporodica u situaciji da opservira, dozivi idefinise novu situaciju i da preduzme po­sebne akcije da bi mogla da se vrati u uo­bicajene rutine svakodnevnog zivota. To jeskup interakcija unutar porodice ali i tran­sakcija porodice sa spoljnom sredinom,uzirnajuci u obzir i razvojni aspekt poro­dice, a pri cernu sve to zajedno cini inte­gralni deo ukupnog repertoara adaptivnogponasanja.

Indikatori

Socijalna podrska (S. P.) - sposobnost po­rodice da se aktivno angazuje i obezbedipodrsku kroz odnos sa bliskim ljudima;

Duhovna podrska (D. P.) - prihvatanje du­hovnih vrednosti i religioznih uverenja;

Redefinisanje (R) - sposobnost porodiceda redefinise stresor u nameri da ga uciniprihvatljivim i smislenijim;

Institucionalna podrska (1. P.) - sposob­nost porodice u iznalazenju socijalnih re­sursa i prihvatanje pomoci od njih;

Pasivna procena (P. P.) - izbegavanje po­rodicnog sistema da reaguje na problem.

Operacionalne definicije varijabli

Varijable su pokrivene stavkama na upit­nicima. Zadatak ispitanika je bio da oda­bere na petostepenoj skali Likertovog tip aonaj stepen koji odgovara njegovom mi­sljenju, vezano za datu skalu na upitniku.

Tehnike istraiivanja

1. FACES III (Olson, Partner, Lavee, 1985)- skala za procenu porodicne koheziv­nosti i adaptibilnosti.

2. F - COPS - skala odnosa porodice pre­rna krizi i stresu (McCubbin, Patterson,1988) .

Rezultati

Kao sto se iz prikazanih rezultata vidi, sko­ro polovina (46%) nasih ispitanika ponceiz poradica koje se primenom FACES-IIIskale kategorisu kao isprepletane.

Tabela la. Porodicna kohezivnost I

KOHEZIVNOST SKOR %1---

razjedinjene porodice 10-31 10-- --

izdvojene porodice 32-37 20

povezane porodice 38-43 24 I

-1isprepletene porodice 44-50 46i

U odnosu na procenu porodicne adaptibil­nosti rnerene upitnikom FACES-III ubed­ljivo najveci broj nasih ispitanika (66%)potice iz porodica koje su po OCM modelusvrstane u kategoriju haoticnih.

-----------,Tabela 1b. Porodicna adaptibilnost

ADAPTIBILNOST SKOR-1-----~

I % I

rigidne porodice 10-19 8 I------i

strukturirane porodice 20-24 10 !

fleksibilne porodice 25-29 16-----r--------

haoticne porodice 30--50I

66I

"1r<")

SPosmatarajuci nase rezultate namece se za- gkljucak da su nase ispitivane porodice u ~najvecern broju slucajeva isprepletane u po- N

gledu kohezivnosti, i haoticne u pogledu ~adaptibilnosti. Prema OCM modelu ova ka- CJ

ztegorija porodica se smatra jednom vrstom u.J

ekstremnih porodica u pogledu obe osnovne dimenzije porodicnog funkcionisanja. 39

~

Raspodela porodica po tipovima Olsonovog circumplex modelaTabela 1e.

KOHEZIVNOST RAZjEDINjENE IZDVOjENE POVEZANE ISPREPLETENE UKUPNO

ADAPTIBILNOST % % % % %1---

21.9 38 67.9haoticne 2.2 5.8

fleksibilne 0.0 12.3 3.8 2.1 18.4

strukturisane 1.9 2.3 5.8 1.6 11.8

rigidne 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9

ukupno (%) 4.1 20.7 31.5 44 100.0

I

Tabela 2. Porodicna kohezivnostI

I SKOR crP1 crP2 tp NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

10-31 2.18 1.53 0.93 nema znacajnosti

32-37 2.92 2.09 1.28 nema znacajnosti

38-43 3.11 2.82 3.13 0.01 I

44-45 3.63 2.83 1.58 nema znacajnostiI

I

Tabela 3. Porodicna adaptibilnost

iSKOR crP1 crP2 tp NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

I

10-19 1.98 0.83 3.69 0.01i

20-24 2.18 1.85 0.52 nema znacajnosti

25-29 2.67 2.56 2.84 0.01

30-50 3.45 2.84 1.25 nema znacajnosti

Kao sto se iz prilozenih rezultata vidi zna­cajna razlika se pokazuje u pogledu kohe­zivnosti, na nivou 0,01, u smislu da su po­rodice uslovno normalnog statusa znacaj­no cesce povezane.

8oo~

40

U pogledu adaptibilnosti ispitivane poro­dice su znacajno cesce rigidne u odnosu nakontrolnu grupu, na nivou 0,01. Porodiceuslovno normalnog statusa su u poredenjusa ispitivanim porodicama znacajno cescefleksibilne (u pogledu adaptibilnosti).

i Tabela 4a. Rezultati dobijeni primenom skale F-COPES za ceo uzorak

VARI]ABLA Ml±SD1 M2±SD2 t NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

SP 17.09±4.09 18.13±4.27 0.73 nema znacajnosti

R 26.01 ±4.54 41.10±4.70 32.10 0-01

DP 7.09± 1.97 3.42±2.03 18.35 0.01

IP 11.88±2.01 4.49±2.79 32.10 0.01I-

P 15.16±2.97 15.40±3.10 0.77 nema znacajnosti-----

Tabela 4b. Rezultati dobijeni primenom skale F-COPES za oceve

VARIJABLA Ml±SD1 M2±SD2 t NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

SP (0-50) 18503±4.27 16.28±4.52 1.60 nema znacajnosti

R (0-55) 25.17±5.43 42.11±4.19 18.60 0-01f---

DP (0-15) 5.23±1.93 3.18±1.82 6.03 0.01

IP (0-20) 7.87±2.07 4.62±2.08 8.78 0.01

P (0-30) 16.27±2.97 17.01 ±2.99 1.39 nema znacajnosti~-

Tabela 4c. Rezultati dobijeni primenom skale F-COPES za majke- ._.

VARI]ABLA Ml±SD1 M2±SD2 t NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

SP (0-50) 16524±3.99 19.23±4.27 1.37 nema znacajnosti

R (0-55) 23.14±3.91 38.97±4.03 22.90 0-01

DP (0-15) 9.03±1.81 4.01±2.17 14.76 0.01

IP (0-20) 12.91 ±2.01 4.83±2.87 19.70 0.01

P (0-30) 14.21±2.99 14.27±3.13 0.11 nema znacajnosti

ITabela 4d. Rezultati dobijeni primenom skale F-COPES za decu

VARI]ABLA Ml±SD1 M2±SD2 t NIVO ZNACAjNOSTI

SP (0-50) 18.02±4.03 18.88±4.02 1.24 nema znacajnosti--

R (0-55) 30.10±4.27 42.22±5.88 14.37 0-01

DP (0-15) 7.01±2.17 3.08±2.12 10.62 0.01--~~-

IP (0-20) 14.87± 1.93 4.02±2.22 30.14 0.01

P (0-30) 15.01 ±2.97 14.92±3.18 1.69 nema znacajnosti~- 41

Primenom instrumenta F - COPS/r dobi­jeni su sledeii rezultati:

Institucionalna podrska je stretegija pre­vazilazenja stresa i krize, koju ispitanici unasern uzorku opazaju kao onu strategijukojom se najvise sluze pri resavanju prob­lema (prevazilazenju stresa i krize). Duho­vna podrska kao strategija u resavanjuproblema, je nesto manje, ali ipak u velikojmeri zastupljena (odmah posle instituci­onalne podrske) u funkcionisanju nasihporodica. Pasivnost, kao druga unutrasnjastrategija u resavanju problema je manjezastupljena, ali ipak iza institucionalnepodrske i drustvene podrske. Socijalna po­drska pri resavanju problema u vidu po­rnoci od kornsija, prijatelja i rodaka se nanasern uzorku ne pojavljuje kao znacajnastrategija resavanja problema. Redefinisa­nje je strategija za prevazilazenje stresa ikrize kojom se ispitanici u nasern uzorkunajmanje sluze pri resavanju problema.

Analiza porodica ispitivanih adolescenataprirnenom instrumenta FACES-III poka­zuje visik nivo kohezivnosti i adaptibilnos­ti (Tabela 1ail b). Posrnatrajuci rezultatedobijene nasim istrazivanjern i poredeci ihsa normama ustanovljenim ovim instru­mentom, tj. sa datim skorovima, ispitiva­ne porodice spadaju u katerogiju ispreple­tanih (u pogledu kohezivnosti) i haoticnihu pogledu adaptibilnosti. Prema OCM mo­delu ova kategorija porodica se smatra ek­stremnim u pogledu obe osnovne dimen­zije porodicncg funkcionisanja (Tabela 1c).

Visoka kohezivnost se manifestuje krozekstremnu emocionalnu bliskost medu

g clanovima porodice. Clanovi isprepletaniho~ porodica su medusobno veoma zavisni.

Aktivnosti i interesovanja clanova porodi­ce su zajednicka. Ovakve porodice ostav­Ijaju pojedinim clanovima malo prostoraza licni zivot. Nairne, pojedinac ima maloprostora za intimu i privatnost. Unutar

42

njih su potpuno srusene sve porodicnegranice koje normalno treba da postoje ka­ko izrnedu porodicnih subsistema tako iizmedu pojedinih clanova. Sa druge stra­ne, granice koje formiraju ovakve porodiceprema spoljnoj sredini su relativno cvrste.Njeni pojedini clanovi imaju vrlo malo spo­ljasnjih veza.

Ekstremno visok nivo adaptibilnosti unu­tar porodice se ogleda u postojanju haoti­cnih odnosa medu njenim clanovima. Onaistovremeno podrazumeva i nedostatakvodstva i discipline. U haoticnim porodi­cama pravila gotovo i da ne postoje. Odlu­ke se donose impulsivno i nepromisljcno,dogovori se ne postuju.

Isprepletano-haoticne porodice su disfun­kcionalne porodice i krajnje nekonstrukti­vne u resavanju problema. Visok nivo po··rodicne kohezivnosti i adaptibilnosti rnozebiti posledica razvojnog stresa ili je po­sledica delovanja hronicnog stresa. Ispre­pletano-haoticne porodice mogu da funk­cionisu kao takve kroz duzi vremenski pe­riod.

U nekoliko dosadasnjih istrazivanja poro­dica kod nas, bilo da se radi 0 normalnimporodicama, bilo 0 porodicma sa prob­lemima, u kojima je koristen FACES-IIInaden je generalno visi stepen koheziv­nosti, kao i visa adaptibilnost u odnosu nevrednosti dobijene istrazivanjern americ­kih porodica (7, 8). U najnovijirn istrazi­vanjima ovih karakteristika kod normalnihporodica (9) stepen kohezivnosti je pove·..can do nivoa isprepletanosti, a stepen ada­ptibilnosti do nivoa haoticnosti. U vee po­minjanom istrazivanju Srna (1995) takodenalazi da se porodice suicidalnih adoles­cenata prvenstveno grupisu u ekstremnimzonama, tj. u oblasti visoke i niske kohe­zivnosti.

Visok nivo obe ove osnovne dimenzije po­rodicnog funkcionisanja u odnosu na

americka istrazivanja moze se interpreti­rati na dva nacina. Sa jedne strane razlikese mogu objasniti socioekonomskim i kul­turoloskim razlikama u porodicnom funk­cionisanju izrnedu naseg i americkog drus­tva sto koristene norme i merne vrednosticini nedovoljno adekvatnim za mehanickuprimenu za istrazivanje karakteristika na­sih porodica. Medutim, sa druge strane,prema definiciji koju daje Olson (1993),(10), ekstremne porodice tipa ispreple­tano-haoticnih egzistiraju u specificnimdrustvenim kontekstima (ucestala drus­tvena previranja i promene). Po njemu,ovaj nacin funkcionisanja je oblik prilago­davanja porodice na ekstremne uslove ukojima se porodica nalazi kao celina. Akose prihvati ovaj Olsonov stay i uzmu uobzir drustveno-istorijske okolnosti kodnas u poslednjih nekoliko decenija, jasnoje da su brze i dramaticne drustvene pro­mene, a cesto i tragiena ratna dogadanja,pogodovali upravo formiranju ovakvog ti­pa porodica. Nairne II svetski rat sa mnogoelemenata gradanskog rata, brze socijalnepromene (industrijalizacija, raspad patri­jalnog porodicnog sistema, tehnoloska re­volucija), krah socijalistickog drustvenogsistema, gradanski rat na prostoru SFR] iraspad zemlje, medunarodne sankcije, eko­nomska kriza i dramatican pad zivotnogstandarda vecine stanovnistva, dubokepromene sistema drustvenih vrednosti iodnosa, predstavljaju krupne drustvenelomove koji su se neminovno dramaticnoreperkutovali i na porodicu, porodicne od­nose i nacine porodicnog funkcionisanja(11). Uzimajuci u obzir sve ove cinjinice,namece se zakljucak da je visoka porodi­cna kohezivnost i adaptibilnost u nasimokolnostima neminovna karakteristika po­rodicnog funkcionisanja i izraz adaptacijeporodice na brze drustvene promene i 10­move. Upravo u ovom kontekstu namecese neophodnost kriticke evaluacije mernih

instrumenata porodicnog funkcionisanja,ustanovljenih u nekim drugim drustveno­ekonomskim i istorijskim kontekstima,pri njihovoj aplikaciji kod nas. Neospornoje, medutim.. da ovakav vid porodicnogfunkcionisanja, iako u velikoj meri deter­minisan spoljnim uslovima i na neki nacinneminovan u odredenim drustveno-eko­nomskim i istorijskim okolnostima, isto­vremeno sadrzi i sve negativne faktore ko-je ovakvi porodicni odnosi nose na planuformiranja i razvoja licnosti adolescenta.

Rezultati prikazani na tabelama 2 i 3 poka­zuju da postoji znacajna razlika u pogledukohezivnosti, u smislu da su porodice us­lovno normalnog statusa znacajno cescepovezane od ispitivanih porodica. Iz ovogproizilazi da su i uslovno normalne po­rodice disfunkcionalne, tj. neuravnotezenekako ih definise model OCM i norme do­bijene na americkoj populaciji. Medutim,u pogledu adaptibilnosti uslovno normal-ne porodice su znacajno cesee fleksibilne.Prema Olsonu uslov da porodica budefunkcionalna je: da je u pogledu adaptibil­nosti fleksibilna a u pogledu kohezivnostiizdvojena. Razvojno posmatrano premaOCM modelu to su porodice sa starijimadolescentom, koji jos uvek zivi sa rodi­teljima, ali je u odnosu na njih stekao iz­vesnu autonomiju i zavrsio proces individ­uacije. Izmedu njih postoji podela uloga ipostovanje autoriteta rnoci. Ovo odstupa-nje nasih ispitivanih porodica i delimicnoodstupanje kontrolne grupe (u pogledu '<t'

kohezivnosti) od normalnosti kako je de- rJ.,

finise teorijski okvir koji smo odabrali vo- g-o

di zakljucku da se nase porodice unazad vi- ~N

se godina nalaze u stanju hronicnog stresa, N

da su ucilju odbrane od stalno fluktuira- ~jucih i ugrozavajucih uslova spoljasnje sre- <.:I

dine »zatvorene« u ekstremne obrasce po- ~nasanja i funkcionisanja, sto otezava nor-malan razvoj porodica. 43

NN

Pojavapatologije (disfunkcionalnosti) u po­rodici najcesce koincidira sa nekom stvar­nom iii anticipiranom prornenom, koja re­meti ravnotezu u porodicnom sistemu. An­ksioznost vezana za promenu stvara iiiaktivira vee postojeci konflikt. Ukoliko po­rodiea nije u mogucnosti da resi konflikt once se izraziti kroz simptom. Nairne, simp­tom nastaje u sadejstvu horizontalnih i ver­tikalnih stresora na porodicu i njene sub­sisteme i suprasisteme.

Horizontalni stresori mogu biti ocekivani ineocekivani. Ocekivani stresori su uglav­nom vezani za razvoj i unutrasnje su pri­rode. Oni su najintenzivniji kada se jave utranzitornirn tackama, odnosno, na pre­lazu iz jedne razvojne faze porodicnog cik­lusa u drugu. Ocekivani stresori su odgo­vorni za tzv. razvojne porernecaje. Neoce­kivani stresori su spoljasnje prirode. Onise uglavnom odnose na bolest, hendikep,smrt iii nesrece tipa rata odnosno elemen­tarnih nepogoda. Neocekivani stresori uporodiei kreiraju akutni iii hronicni stres.

Vertikalni stresori su nesvesno porodicnonaslede, koje je porodici dato transgenera­eijskim prenosom. To su uglavnom trans­generaeijski porodicni obrasci, porodicnirnitovi, legende, porodicne tajne. Ovi stre­sori u porodici su odgovorni za struktu­ralne porernecaje (12).

Horizontalni i vertikalni stresori imaju si­nergisticki efekat. Ukoliko u horizontalnojravni postoji veca kolicina stresa, porodicaje u riziku od disfunkcije. Porodici cija jevertikalna ravan intenzivno stresna, do­voljna je mala kolicina horizontalnog stre­sa pa da dode do poremecaja u njenom

a funkcionisanju (13). Znaci, porodice u ko-o§, jima su vertikalni stresori jako intenzivni i

posledicno tome postoje strukturalni po- .S1 rernecaji, bice podloznije negativnim uti­~ eajima horizontalnih stresora.CJ~ Dakle, intenzitet stresa nije ni jedini ni pre-

sudni faktor u nastanku disfunkcionalnosti.

44

Na stres porodica reaguje svojim adap­tivnim mehanizmima. Kako ce se porodicaadaptirati zavisi pored intenziteta i priro­de stresora i od nacina na koji je porodicafunkcionisala. Nairne, stres za porodicunije sarno rizik od disfunkcije vee i poten­cijalni izazov njenom daljem razvoju i sa­zrevanju.

Simptom se u porodici vidi kao odraz dis­funkcije porodice u pojedineu (identifi­kovanom pacijentu) iii kao pokusaj poje­dinea (identifikovanog pacijenta) da resiporodicnu disfunkciju iii, pak, kao individ­ualna disfunkcija pojedinea koju podrzavaporodica.

Simptom iii odrzava porodicu odnosnoporodicni sistem, ili je pak sam podrzavanod strane porodicnog sistema (14).

Na tabelama 4a, b, c, d prikazani su rezul­tati dobijeni primenom instrumenta F­COPS/r koji je usmeren na identifikovanjenacina na koji porodica resava problemodnosno reakciju porodice na teskoce ilikrizu. Institucionalna podrska je strategijaprevazilazenja stresa i krize, koju ispitani­ci u nasem uzorku opazaju kao onu strate­giju kojom se najvise sluze pri resavanjuproblema (prevazilazenju stresa i krize).Duhovna podrska kao strategija u resava­nju problema, je nesto rnanje, ali ipak uvelikoj meri zastupljena (odmah posle in­stitucionalne podrske) u funkcionisanjunasih porodica. Institucionalna i duhovnapodrska su dye spoljasnje strategije za pre­vazilazenje stresa i krize. Pri interpretacijiovih nalaza ne sme se prevideti cinjenicada se radi 0 ispitanicima koji su aktuelnobili na tretmanu u instutuciji, te stoga neiznenaduje cinjenica sto se veliki deo ispi­tanka opredeljuje za ovu vrstu strategije.Analizom primarnih strategija prema ulo­gama jasno se vidi da je ovom rezultatudoprinela privrzenost ovoj strategiji odstrane deteta koje je istovremeno nas

Socijalna podrska pri resavanju problemau vidu pomoci od komsija, prijatelja i ro­daka se na nasern uzorku ne pojavljuje kaoznacajna strategija resavanja problema.Ocevi je izbegavaju u potpunosti, majke susklonije (3 cak postizu maksimalni skor) , ~

dok kod dece nije zastupljena. 0-ooOvaj nalaz je veoma iznenadujuci i u su- ~

protnosti je sa nasim predstavama 0 nama N~.

kao komunikativnim ljudima otvorenim ~

ka blizoj okoIini i spremnim da sa bliz- oZnjima deIimo dobro i zlo. Prema nasirn uv- u.l

rezenim predstavama 0 nama i drugima,ovakav nalaz bi se pre mogao ocekivati u 45

se stresor eiliminise »sada i odmah«, bezautenticnog angazovanja postojecih licnihi porodicnih potencijala. Nasuprot ovome,istrazivanje sprovedeno na normalnimporodicama pokazuje da su obe ove spolja­snje strategije prevazilazenja stresa i krizegotovo jednako nekoriscene, Isto tako i me­du clanovima porodice ne postoje znacaj­7le razIike u pribegavanju ovim nacinimaresavanja problema (9).

Redefinisanje je strategija za prevazilaze­nje stresa i krize kojom se ispitanici u na­sern uzorku najmanje sluze pri resavanjuproblema. Ovo je nejrentabilnija odnosnonajkonstruktivnija strategija, ona aktiviraunutrasnje snage i kapacitete porodice ipokrece porodicu na aktivnost tacno ka ci­lju - ka adekvatnom resavanju problema.Ovo je strategija kojoj najcesce pribega­vaju normalne porodice i to narocito ocevii deca (9). Cinjenica da je ovo strategijanajmanje koriscena u nasem uzorku uka­zuje na nernogucnost promene okvira, izo­stajanje racionalnog i prihvatljivijeg naci­na da se problem ucini smislenijim i da seporodica aktivno suoci sa njim. Iz tih raz­loga se kriza produbljuje, duze perzistira,uslovljava narastanje napetosti i frustra­cije sto sve cini da problem izgleda gotovoneresiv,

aktuelni ispitanik. Ocevi i majke dalekorede pribegavaju ovom nacinu prevazila­zenja krize. Istovrerneno ne treba izgubitiiz vida da su svi ispitivani adolescenti ak­tuelno ukljuceni u tretman koji im obez­beduje podrsku, delimicnu relaksaciju,smanjenje napetosti, strukturisanje stavo­va i aktivnosti sto upravo doprinosi pov­erenju u institucionalnu podrsku kao na­cinu za razresenje problema. Izostanakprihvatanja ove strategije od strane oceva imajki moze se interpretirati na vise naci­na. Ukljucivanje profesionalca na isvestannacin anuIira moe roditelja sto ih dovodi ustanje zbunjenosti i konfuzije i cini ihskepticnim u mogucnost postizanja odgo­varajucih rezultata. Sa druge strane, u na­soj kulturi jos uvek postoji negativizam iotpor u odnosu na psihijatrijsko lecenje. Uskladu sa ovim rezultatom je i cinjcnica daje istrazivanje normalnih porodica pokaza­10 da je ovo strategija kojoj se najrede pri­begava (9).

Duhovna podrska kao strategija za preva­zilazenje stresa i krize je usmerena na tra­zenje pomoci od crkve, religije, neprofesi­onalaca (bioenergeticari, gatare) iii uklju­civanje u sekte. Medu clanovima porodicepostoje znacajne razIike u pribegavanjuovim nacinirna resavanja problema. Nalazda narocito ocevi izbegavaju ovu strategijumoze se smatrati ocekivanim. On je uskladu sa kulturoloskom i tradicionalnomulogom oceva u nasoj sredini, kao sto po­kazuju i rezultati ispitivanja normalne po­rodice (9). To je strategija kojom se koristemajke. Moze se opravdano pretpostavitida decu koja se nalaze u aktuelnom prob­lemu majke indukuju ka primeni ove stra­tegije. To sa jedne strane dovodi do konfu­zije i nernogucnosti celovitog sagledavanjaproblema. Sa druge strane na ovaj nacin seproblem minimizira, izbegava se suoca­vanje sa realnoscu i preuzimanje odgovor­nosti porodice uz istovremene potrebu da

zapadnoj kulturi u kojima »svako brinesvoju brigu«. Medutim, cinjenica da je sli­can rezultat dobijen i ispitivanjem uzorkanormalnih porodica jasno ukazuje na pri­sutan obicaj da se porodicni problemi za­drzavaju unutar porodice kao nesto »sarnonase«. Moguce je da je jedan od razloga zato bojazan da bi iznosenje problema preduze okruzenje (komsije, rodaci, prijatelji)moglo negativno uticati na ugled porodiceili pojedinca koji se suocava sa problemom.Sa druge strane, moguce je prisustvonepoverenja u to najblize okruzenje i stra­ha da ce problem, »porodicna tajna«, bitiprenosena dalje u okruzenju i negativnouticati na porodicni status. Iz ovog razlogapomoc se radije trazi od nepoznatih i ano­nimnih osoba, bilo da se radi 0 gatarama,sektama ili religiji, bilo 0 institucijama iprofesionalcima.

Ovakvo ponasanje se moze smatrati kul­turoloskom karakteristikom formiranomna visegeneracijskom iskustvu. Nairne, naprostoru gde su se cesto desavali velikidrustveno-socijalni potresi (ratovi, revolu­cije, okupacije, promene drzavnih i drus­tvenih sistema) za ocekivati je da izvestanstrah i nepoverenje u okolinu i nepoznato,koji uvek mogu doneti nesto neocekivanoi nepovoljno, postanu deo mentaliteta. Tonegativno iskustvo sa »spoljnim« upucujepojedinca na porodicu kao jedino pouz­dana pribeziste, ali mu istovremeno ote­zava uspostavljanje odnosa poverenja sablizim okruzenjern, a cesto i bliskom rod­binom. Porodica tako postaje institucija za

l' sebe, zasticena svojim zidom, odvojena odr<)

0' okoline, a problemi koji se jave ostaju sa-g mo njeni.~

~ Pasivnost, kao druga unutrasnja strategija~. u resavanju problema je manje zastuplje­~ na, ali ipak iza institucionalne podrske ia1 drustvene podrske. Ova strategija ne akti-

vir1 unutrasnje snage porodice i ne vodi

46

konstruktivnom resavanju problema, onaje usmerena ka izbegavanju odnosno be­zanju iz stresnih situacija. Majke i deca suskloniji ovakvom ponasanju nego ocevi.Kod normalnih porodica u velikoj meri jezastupljena, odmah iza redefinisanja i sviclanovi su skloni da podjednako izbegava­ju stresne situacije i probleme (9).

ZakljucakFACES-III skalom za procenu porodicneadaptibilnosti i kohezivnosti i F-COPS/r ­skalom odnosa porodice pre me krizi i stre-

. su, ispitivane su porodice adolescenata ustatusu verifikovanog adolescentnog kriz­nog stanja. Iz dobijenih i prikazanih rezul­tata proizilaze sledeci zakljucci:

Analiza porodica ispitivanih adolescenatapokazuje da su one disfunkcionalne (visoknivo kohezivnosti i adaptibilnosti). Pos­matrajuci rezultate dobijene nasim istrazi­vanjem i poredeci ih sa normama usta­novljenim ovim instrumentom, tj. sa da­tim skorovima, ispitivane porodice spada­ju u kategoriju isprepletanih u pogledu ko­hezivnosti i haoticnih u pogledu adaptibil­nosti.

Institucionalna i duhovna podrska su stra­tegije prevazilazenja stresa i krize kojim suse ispitanici u nasern istrazivanju najvisesluzili pri resavanju problema. Nasuprotovome, istrazivanje provedeno na porodi­cama uslovno normalnog statusa pokazujeda su obe ove spoljasnje strategije prevazi­lazenja stresa i krize gotovo jednako neko­riscene.

U odnosu na upotrebljeni teorijski model injime date norme, obe grupe porodica spa­daju u tzv. disfunkcionalne, tj. u ispreple­tano-haoticne, mada su porodice uslovnonormalnog statusa znacajno cesce u katego­riji povezanih. U pogledu adaptibilnosti is­pitivane porodice su znacajno cesce rigidne.

TEENAGERSTATE OF CRISISFAMILY CONTEXT

Ljilj'ana Lazic

Institute of neuropsychiatric diseases»Dr Laza Lazarevic«, Belgrade

Summary: The subjects of this research are familiesof adolescents with clinically verified states of ado­lescent crisis. Dimensions of basic characteristics offunctioning of a family were examined, by definingdominant satistics in overcoming stress and crisis ina family. Relevant dimensions were compared with ­families that had an adolescent that coped normallyduring this period.

Key words: adolescent crisis, family, stress.

Introduction

In the works of contemporary literaturethere is a prevailing opinion that the ado­lescent phase of one's life is the moststressful period in the developmental cy­cles of a family. It is a time when the ado­lescent forms hislher own identity, establi­shes relations with members of the familyand the society, and discovers and realizesnew, as well as reestablishes old values.

This phase is marked as a phase of accu­mulated life's stress. During this phasethe parents are most commonly goingthrough middle age crisis (1). In the focusof their interest are their professional de­velopment, their mutual relations, andtheir relations with the children.

The parents of the preceding generation(the third generation) are occupied withthe problems of retiring, becoming ill, lo­sing some physical abilities and even dy­ing (2).

The adolescent, who is in full physicalbloom, will thus find (him) herself »underthe same roof« with an infinitely wide

social horizon and parents who during thatphase become increasingly occupied withthe questions of their health, and their pro­fessional and private lives, facing the factthat their social horizon and status do nothave any new prospects for the future.

A family that includes an adolescent needsnew boundaries. Due to the fact that thisphase is marked with a gradually obtainedself-sufficiency by the children who bringnew skills, new findings, new values, newfriends, and new social problems into thefamily, the boundaries must be sufficient­ly flexible. On the other hand, the parentsmust also maintain their authority.

The task that the family faces is to makepossible, through the change of its struc- 'Tture, for its members to grow and find r<'l

0'enough personal satisfaction, in other gwords to produce support instead of being 2!­

a burden. ~

~This period is a great challenge for the fam- ~

ily. In this period the parents and the ado- ozlescents can be of great help to each other: UJ

the children with their immense energyand the parents with their life experience. 47

S@ The subjects of this research are the fami­~ lies of adolescents with clinically verified~ states of adolescent crisis.

Nevertheless, if the parents do not reactright and use defensive techniques to re­treat from these problems, if they becomeconfused and intimidated by the widehorizon of the adolescent's life, problemswill arise. Conflict in a family that in­cludes an adolescent can arise on manyissues: the issues of authority, self-suffi­ciency, relations, values, are just a fewexamples. The adolescent begins to investemotionally in creating new values thatwill enable him/her to live a lifestyle ofhis/her own choice. The parents' invest­ments mostly constitute the validation ofthe old values. The struggle between »me«and »us« thus gains a new dimension. Atthe sole beginning of adolescence, theadolescent reinforces his/her influenceand obtains a better position on the scaleof the family' hierarchy usually at the costof the mother's. The status of the fathersusually remains constant (3).

"'f'I

r<)

aoo~NN

THE GOAL AND SUBJECTOF THE RESEARCH

Goals of the research

1. To examine the dimensions of the basiccharacteristics of the functioning of afamily that includes an adolescent-fac­ing crisis.

2. To view the dominant strategies inovercoming stress and crisis of a familywith an adolescent in crisis.

3. To compare the relevant dimensions ofthe functioning of families with adoles­cents with diagnosed states of adoles­cent crisis with contemporary researchon normal families.

Subject of the research

For the relevant dimensions of a family'sfunctioning the adaptability and the cohe­sion of Olson's Circumplex model wereutilized. The analysis of strategies used toovercome stress and crisis in a family isadded as a significant indicator of a fami­ly's functioning in a state of acute lifestress.

THE HYPOTHESIS of a family systemthat we used as a reference point

The characteristics of a family system, as abasic socialization factor, represent a dom­inant factor in the evolution of the for­ming of socio-psychological identity andself-development of a personality. In fact,we expect that the families with adoles­cents in crisis show certain specific char­acteristics compared to the psycho-socialcharacteristics.

The adolescent period represents the mostvulnerable phase in the forming of a per­sonality. During this time the unit is mostvulnerable in the sense of stresses thatwere produced by a disfunctionning fami­ly system as well as more broad social sur­roundings, which constitute the psycholo­gical exterior, inevitably manifesting the­mselves through the psychological designof the adolescents's personality.

THE RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

The research sample

The examination included 188 questionna­ires, 50 adolescents with a diagnosed stateof adolescent crisis treated at the neuro­psychological institute »Dr, Laza Lazarevic«in Belgrade from October 1997 to Decem­ber 1998, and their respective family mem­bers (the sample included 50 families).

Adolescent crisis state is defined accordingto the criteria of ICD 10 classification.

48

The research variableI. The dimensions of the families'

functioning

Indicators

The cohesion of the family - emotional tiesbetween the family members

The adaptability (flexibility) of the family­ability of the family system to change therelations between the roles, rules, and po­wers structures which regulate the relationbetween the system and the outside sur­roundings.

naires were posed was to choose one of fivedegrees on the Licert scale, which best cor­responds to his/her opinion.

Research techniques:

1. FACES III (Olson, Partner, Lavee, 1985)- evaluation scale of the family's cohe­sion and adaptability.

2. F-COPS - scale of family's relations to­ward crisis and stress (McCubbin,Patterson, 1998).

49

Table la. Family's cohesion

COHESION SCORE %

disunited families 10-31 10

separated families 32-37 20

connected families 38-43 24

interlaced families 44-50 46

Table lb. Family's adaptability

ADAPTIBILITY SCORE %

rigid families 10-19 8

structured families 20-24 10

flexible families 25-29 16

chaotic families 30-50 66

~Compared to the results measured by the ~

FACES-III scale, the largest part of the ozpeople examined (66%) belongs to, jud- t.l.l

ging by the OCM model, families charac­terized as chaotic.

As we can see from the representedresults, nearly one half (46%) of the peo­ple questioned come from families thatcan be characterized, using the FACES-IIIscale, as interlaced.

The results

Indicators

Social support (SP) - the family's abilityto actively engage itself and produce sup­port through close personal contacts;

Spiritual support (DP) - the acceptance ofspiritual values and religious beliefs;

Redefining (R.) - the family's ability toredefine stress in an attempt to make itmore comprehensive and acceptable;

Institutional support (IP)- the family'sability to find social resources and accepthelp from them;

Passive evaluation (P.P.)- the family sys­tem's avoidance of the problem.

II. The strategies used to overcome stress

The reaction of the family that occurs whena family is able to observe, live, and definethe new situation, and to take specific acti­ons in order to return to the usual life rou­tines. That is a sum of interactions withinthe family, as well as transactions betweenthe family and the surroundings, taking in­to consideration the family's developmen­tally aspect, coming together to produce anintegral part of the overall array of adaptivebehaviors.

Operational definitions of the variables:

The variables are covered by different stan­ces in the polls. The task that the question-

Table 1e. Raspodela porodica po tipovima Olsonovog circumplex modela

COHESION DISUNITED SEPARATED CONNECTED INTERLACED TOGETHER

ADAPTIBILITY % % % % %

chaotic 2.2 5.8 21.9 38 67.9

flexible 0.0 12.3 3.8 2.1 18.4

structured 1.9 2.3 5.8 1.6 11.8

rigid 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9

all together (%) 4.1 20.7 31.5 44 100.0

Table 2. Family's cohesion

SCORE crPl crP2 tp LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE

10-31 2.18 1.53 0.93 no significance

32-37 2.92 2.09 1.28 no significance

38-43 3.11 2.82 3.13 0.01

44-45 3.63 2.83 1.58 no significance

t:

Table 3. Family's adaptability

SCORE crPl crP2 tp LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

10-19 1.98 0.83 3.69 0.01

20-24 2.18 1.85 0.52 no significancej

25-29 2.67 2.56 2.84 0.01 I

30-50 3.45 2.84 1.25 no significance i

i

Observing the results we obtained throughthese methods, we come across a conclu­sion that the families we examined for themost part belong to the interlaced types

'<t' with regard to cohesion, and chaotic typesI

r<) with regard to adaptability. According to8g the OeM model this type of family is con-~ sidered to be extreme in the sense of bothN

N fundamental dimensions of a family's func-~ tioning.~CJZu.J

50

As one can see from the preceding results,there is a significant difference in the levelof cohesion, at the level of 0.01, meaningthat the families of normal status are mostoften connected.

With the regard to adaptability, the fami­lies we examined are most often rigid com­pared to the control group, at the level of0.01. The families of normal status aremost often flexible when compared to thefamilies we examined.

i Table 4a. Results obtained by F-COPES scale for the whole sample

VARIABLE M1±SD} M2±SDz t LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE

SP 17.09±4.09 18.13±4.27 0.73 no significance

R 26.01±4.54 41.10±4.70 32.10 0-01

DP 7.09±1.97 3.42±2.03 18.35 0.01

IP 11.88±2.01 4.49±2.79 32.10 0.01

P 15.16±2.97 15.40±3.10 0.77 no significance

Tabela 4b. Results obtained by F-COPES scale for the fathers

VARIABLE M1±SD} M2±SDz t LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE

SP (0-50) 18503±4.27 16.28±4.52 1.60 no significance

R (0-55) 25.17±5.43 42.11±4.19 18.60 0-01

DP (0-15) 5.23±1.93 3.18± 1.82 6.03 0.01

IP (0-20) 7.87±2.07 4.62±2.08 8.78 0.01

P (0-30) 16.27±2.97 17.01±2.99 1.39 no significance

Table 4c. Results obtained by F-COPES scale for the mothers

VARIABLE M1±SD} M2±SDz t LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE

SP (0-50) 16524±3.99 19.23±4.27 1.37 no significance

R (0-55) 23.14±3.91 38.97±4.03 22.90 0-01

DP (0-15) 9.03±1.81 4.01 ±2.17 14.76 0.01

IP (0-20) 12.91 ±2.01 4.83±2.87 19.70 0.01

P (0-30) 14.21 ±2.99 14.27±3.13 0.11 no significance--.__._----'--.

Table 4d. Results obtained by F-COPES scale for the children

VARIABLE M1±SD1 M2±SDz t LEVELOF SIGNIFICANCE

SP (0-50) 18.02±4.03 18.88±4.02 1.24 no significance

R (0-55) 30.10±4.27 42.22±5.88 14.37 0-01

DP (0-15) 7.01±2.17 3.08±2.12 10.62 0.01

IP (0-20) 14.87± 1.93 4.02±2.22 30.14 0.01

P (0-30) 15.01 ±2.97 14.92±3.18 1.69 no significance

51

NN

The application of instrument F-COPS/rgave following results:

Institutional support is the strategy toovercome stress and crisis perceived bytest persons in our sample as the strategymostly used for resolving problems (resol­ving stress and crisis). Moral support as aproblem resolving strategy is to a lesserdegree but nevertheless to a huge extentrepresented (right after the institutionalsupport) in the functioning of our fami­lies. Passivity, as another internal prob­lems resolving strategy is represented in alesser degree and behind institutionalsupport and social support. Social supportfor resolving problems in the form of helpfrom neighbors, friends and relatives do­esn't show in our sample as an importantproblems resolving strategy. Redefining isthe stress and crisis resolving strategyleast used in our sample by test personsfor problems resolving.

An analysis of families of the tested ado­lescents applying FACES-III shows a highlevel of cohesion and adaptability (Table 1aand 1b). Observing the results from ourresearch and comparing them with thenorms established with this instrument,i.e. with the provided scores, the testedfamilies fall in the category of the inter­laced (with regards to cohesion) and thechaotic with regards to adaptability.According to the OCM model this catego­ry of families is regarded extreme in thesense of both basic dimensions of familyfunctioning (Table 1c).

'<t

rA The high cohesion is manifested through§' extreme emotional closeness between theo~ family members. The members of inter-

laced families are mutually very depen­~ dent. The activities and interests of the~ family members are common. Such fami­~ lies leave very little space to individual

family members for personal life. Namely,

52

an individual has little space for intimacyand privacy. Among them all family bor­ders are torn down, which normallyshould exist between family sub-systemsand between individual family membersas well. On the other hand, the borderserected by such families towards theexternal environment are relatively firm.Its individual members have very sparseexternal ties.

The extremely high level of adaptabilitywithin a family is reflected in the existenceof chaotic relations between its members.At the same time they comprise a lack ofleadership and discipline. In chaotic fami­lies rules virtually don't exist. Decisionsare taken impulsively and without secondthought, agreements are not kept.

Interlaced chaotic families are dysfunction­al families and ultimately unconstructive inproblems resolving. The high level of fam­ily cohesion and adaptability can be a con­sequence of development stress or a conse­quence of the effects of chaotic stress. In­terlaced chaotic families can function assuch over longer periods of time.

In some researches conducted on familieshere, both normal families and familieswith problems, in which FACES-III wasused, a generally high level of cohesion anda higher adaptability in relation to the val­ues obtained from researches conductedon American families (7, 8) was obtained.Newest researches on such characteristicsshow that the level of cohesion with nor­mal families (9) is increased up to the levelof interlacing and the level of adaptabilityup to the level of chaos. In the alreadymentioned researches Srna (1995) also fo­und that families of suicidal adolescentsprimarily group in the extreme zones, i.e.in the field of high and low cohesion.

The high level of both basic dimensions offamily functioning in relation to American

researches can be interpreted twofold. Onthe one side, the differences can be expla­ined by socioeconomic and cultural differ­ences in family functioning between ourand American societies, which makes theapplied norms and measured values insuf­ficiently adequate for the mechanicalapplication on research of the characteris­tics of our families. However, on the otherside, according to the definition providedby Olson (1993), (10) extreme families ofthe type interlaced chaotic exist in specif­ic social contexts (frequent social unrestsand changes). In his opinion, this form offunctioning is one form for the family toadapt to extreme circumstances in whichthe family as a whole found itself If weagree with Olson's position and take intoaccount the socio-historic circumstancesduring the last couple of decades here, it isclear that quick and dramatic social chan­ges, often even tragic war events, assistedthe forming of this family type. Namely,the II World War with many elements ofcivil war, fast social changes (industrial­ization, break-up of the patriarchal familysystem, technological revolution) disinte­gration of the socialist system of society,civil war on the territory of SFR Yugo­slavia and the disintegration of the coun­try, international sanctions, economic cri­sis and dramatic fall of living standard ofthe majority of population, deep changesin the system of social values and rela­tions, represent major social ruptureswith dramatic impact on the families, fam­ily relations and the way the family func­tions (11). Taking into account all above­mentioned facts, the conclusion imposesitself that the high family cohesion andadaptability in OUf circumstances is anunavoidable characteristic of family func­tioning and an expression of adaptation offamilies to the fastsocial changes and rup­tures. Particularly in this context the

necessity of critical evaluation of measu­ring instruments of family functioningestablished in other socio-economic andhistorical contexts is obvious, when theyare being applied here with us. However,there is no doubt that this form of familyfunctioning, nevertheless it is to a highdegree determined by external conditionsand in some way unavoidable in specificsocio-economic and historical circumstan­ces, contains at the same time all negativefactors which such family relations con­tain at the level of forming and develop­ment of the adolescent personality.

The results shown in Table 2 and 3 showthat there is a significant difference in thecohesion, in the sense that families of con­ditionally normal status are significantlymore often connected then the researchedfamilies. This leads to the conclusion thatconditionally normal families are dysfunc­tional, i.e. misbalanced, as defined by themodel OCM and the norms obtained fromthe American population. However, regar­ding adaptability, conditional normal fa­milies are significantly more often flexi­ble. According to Oslon, the condition fora family to be functional is the following:it has to be flexible regarding adaptabilityand separated regarding cohesion. Regar­ded according to development and theOCM model, these are families with olderadolescents, who are still living with theirparents, but who have created certainautonomy from them and completed theprocess of individualization. There is a di- "'"

I

vision of roles and regard for the authori- r()

S­ty of power between them. This distinc- gtion of our test families and partially the ~

distinction of the control group (regarding N

cohesion) from normality, as defined by ~the theoretical framework chosen by us, CJ

leads to the conclusion that our families ~have been since a number of years under astate of chronic stress, that they have with 53

NN

the objective of defense from permanentfluctuating and threatening effects of theexternal environment »locked« themselvesin extreme forms of behavior and func­tioning, which makes a normal develop­ment of families more difficult.

The occurrence of pathology (dysfunction­ality) within a family most often coincideswith some real or anticipated change dis­turbing the balance in the family system.The anxiety towards the change creates oractivates an already existing conflict. If thefamily is incapable of resolve the conflict,it shall express itself through symptom.Namely, symptom occurs in interactionbetween horizontal and vertical stressorsupon the family and its subsystems andsuprasystems.

Horizontal stressors can be expected andunexpected. Expected stressors are main­ly tied to the development and are of in­ternal nature. They are most intensivewhen occurring in transitory points, i.e. atthe transition from one stage of the devel­opment of the family cycle into another.Expected stressors are responsible for theso-called development disturbances. Une­xpected stressors are of external nature.They are mainly referring to sickness,handicap, death or disaster of the war ty­pe, i.e. natural disaster. Unexpected stres­sors in the family create acute or chronicstress.

Vertical stressors are unconscious familyheritage given to the family by transgene­rational transfer. These are mainly trans­generational family patterns, family myt-

a hs, legends, and family secrets. Theseo§, stressors in the family are responsible for

structural disturbances (12).

~ Horizontal and vertical stressors have a~ synergy effect. If there is at the horizontala1 level a bigger amount of stress, the family

is at risk to dysfunction. To families with

54

an intensive stress vertical level only asmall quantity of horizontal stress is suffi­cient to cause disturbances in its function(13). Therefore, families with very inten­sive vertical stressors and thus with struc­tural disturbances are more susceptible tonegative influences of horizontal stres­sors.

Thus, the intensity of stress is neither theonly nor the judgmental factor in theoccurrence of dysfunctionality. The familyreacts to stress with adaptive mechanisms.How the family shall adapt depends inaddition to the intensity and nature ofstressors, on how the family used to func­tion. Namely, stress for a family is not onlythe risk of dysfunctioning, but also apotential challenge for its further develop­ment and maturing.

The symptom in the family is perceived asreflection of dysfunction of family in theindividual (identified patient) or as an at­tempt of the individual (identified pati­ent) to resolve the family dysfunction, oras individual dysfunction of the individualsupported by the family.

The symptom either maintains the familyor the family system or it is itself support­ed by the family system (I4).

The table 4a, b, c, d show results obtainedwith the application of instrument F­COPS/r directed at the identification ofways how the family resolves problems,i.e. the reaction of the family on difficul­ties or crisis. Institutional support is thestress and crisis resolving strategy, whichis perceived by test persons in our sampleas the mostly used problem resolving stra­tegy (resolving stress and crisis). Moralsupport as problem resolving strategy is to

a lesser degree, but still to a large extentrepresented (immediately after the insti­tutional support) in the functioning of ourfamilies. Institutional and moral supports

(9). This is the strategy used by mothers.It is justly conceivable that children whofind themselves in actual problems inducetheir mothers to apply this strategy. Onthe one side this leads to confusion andimpossibility to perceive the problemfrom all aspects. On the other side, thusthe problem is minimized and the con­frontation with reality and the taking overof responsibility for the family simultane­ously eliminating the stressor »here andnow« is avoided, without authentic enga­gement of the existing personal and fami­ly potentials. Contrary to this, the rese­arch conducted on normal families showsthat both external strategies of stress andcrisis resolving are almost equally notused. At the same time and among thefamily members there are no significantdifferences in seeking those ways to re­solve problems (9).

Redefining is a stress and crisis-resolvingstrategy, which is the least, used one forproblem resolving in our sample. This isthe most profitable, i.e. most constructivestrategy. It is activating the internal fami­ly strength and capacities and leading thefamily directly towards the aim, towardsadequate problem resolution. Normal fa­milies and especially fathers and children(9) mostly use this strategy. The fact thatthis strategy is the least utilized one in oursample shows the impossibility to changethe framework, the lack of rational andacceptable ways to make the problem mo-re sensible and to have the family actively !confront it. Due to these reasons the crisis 8

odeepens, lasts longer, creating an increase gin the tension and frustration, which alto- ~

gether makes the problem seem almostimpossible to solve.

:E­~o

The social support in the resolving of ~problems in the form of help from neigh­bors, friends and relatives doesn't show in 55

are two external stress and crisis resolvingstrategies. It should be remarked for theinterpretation of such findings that thetest persons were actually being treated atthe institution, therefore the fact shouldnot surprise that a huge part of the testpersons spoke in favor of this kind ofstrategy. The analysis of primary strategiesaccording to roles clearly shows that thesupport for this strategy was enhanced bythe child that is actually our test person.Parents are rarely seeking this way to re­solve crisis. At the same time we shouldbear in mind that all tested adolescentswere actually included in treatmentswhich were giving them support, partialrelaxation, reduction of tension, structur­ing of opinions and activities, which byitself has contributed to the confidence ininstitutional support as a was to resolveproblems. The lack of acceptance of thisstrategy by the parents can be interpretedin several ways. The inclusion of profes­sionals to some extent annuls the powerof the parents, which confuses them andmakes them skeptical against the possibil­ity to attain certain results. On the otherhand, in our culture there is still a nega­tive attitude and resistance to psychiatrictreatment. In favor of this result speaksthe fact that the research of normal fami­lies has shown that this strategy was theleast resorted to (9).

Moral support as strategy for resolving ofstress and crisis is directed to seeking helpfrom church, religion, non-professionals(fortune-tellers, etc.) or membership insects. Among family members there aresignificant difficulties in the utilization ofthese problem-resolving forms. The find­ing that especially fathers avoid this strat­egy can be considered as expected. Theyare in line with the cultural and tradition­al father role in our midst, as shown byresults of the research of normal families

our sample as a significant problem resol­ving strategy. Fathers avoid it completely,mothers are more inclined towards it (3reached maximum points) and with chil­dren it was not represented.

This finding is very surprising and con­trary to our image on us as communica­tive people open to our environment andready to share good and bad with ournext. According to our deeply rooted ima­ge on ourselves and others, such findingscould be more expected in the Westerncultures in which »everyone looks afterhimself«. However, the fact that a similarresult was obtained from the research ofsamples of normal families clearly showsthe custom that family problems are keptwithin the family as clearly something»only ours«. It is possible that one of thereasons for that could be the fear that pre­senting of the problems to the closer sur­roundings (neighbors, relatives, friends)could detriment the family's reputation orthe individual facing the problem. On theother side, it is possible that a lack of con­fidence exists in the close surroundingsand the fear that the problem »family se­cret« could be passed on to the wider sur­roundings and detrimentally influence thefamily's standings. Thus, help is rathersought from strangers and anonymouspersons, either fortune-tellers, sects or re­ligion, then from institutions and profes­sionals.

Such behavior can be regarded as culturalcharacteristics formed on an experiencethrough many generations. Namely, in

g areas in which often huge social distur-o~ bances happen (wars, revolutions, occupa-

tions, change of state and social systems):g it can be expected that certain fear and~ suspicion and the environment and the~ unknown, which always can bring some-

thing unexpected and detrimental, beco-

56

me part of the mentality. This negative ex­perience with the »external« turns the in­dividual towards the family as the only sa­ve haven, which at the same time makes itmore difficult to create relations of confi­dence with close surroundings, and oftenwith the close relatives. The family beco­mes thus an institution for itself, protec­ted by its walls, separated from the surro­undings, and the family keeps the prob­lems that occur.

Passivity as second internal problem resol­ving strategy is less represented, but stillbehind institutional support and socialsupport. This strategy doesn't activate theinternal strength of the family and doesn'tlead to constructive resolution of prob­lems. It is aimed only at avoiding, i.e. flee­ing from stress situations. Mothers andchildren are more inclined to such beha­vior than fathers. It is to a large extent re­presented with normal families, right be­hind redefining and all members are equ­ally inclined to avoiding stress situationsand problems (9).

Instead of conclusion

The FACES-III scale for evaluation of fami­ly adaptability and cohesion and F-COPS/rscale of the relation of the family towardscrisis and stress examined families of ado­lescents in the status of verified adoles­cent crisis status. The results obtained andshown lead to following conclusions:

1. The analysis of the families of the exa­mined adolescents show that they aredysfunctional (high level of cohesionand adaptability). Considering the re­sults obtained by our research and com­paring them with norms establishedwith the given instrument, i.e. with thegiven score, the examined families fallin the category of interlaced families inview of cohesion and chaotic in view ofadaptability.

2. Institutional and moral support arestress and crisis resolving strategiesmost widely used by our test persons forproblem resolving during our research.Contrary to that, the research conduct­ed on families of conditionally normalstatus shows that both external stressand crisis resolving strategies are almostequally unexploited.

References

1. Prosen, H. et al (1981): The Life Cycle ofthe Family: Parentsl Midlife Crisis andAdolescent Rebbelion in Feinstein C. S. etal (Eds) Adolescent Psychiatry IX, Univer­sity Press str, 170-179.

2. Birdwood, G. (1991): Living with Loss ­Adolescence World Medical Journal 38:4-6.

3. Steinberg, L. D. (1981): Transformationsin Family Relations at Puberty, Develop­mental Psychology 17: 833-840.

4. Methods and Future Directions PlenumPress, New York (Ch. 2, 3, 4).

5. Olson, D., Partner, ]., Lavee Y. (1985): Fa­ces III Family Social Science, University ofMinesota.

6. Jacob, T., Tennenbaum, L. (1988): F-CO­PES, Family Assesment, Pleenum Press,New York and London.

7. Olson, D. , McCubbin, H. (1983): FamiliesWhat Makes Them Work, Sage Publika­tion, London.

8. Srna, ]. (1995): Pokusaj samoubistva uadolescenciji - porodicni kontekst, dok­torska disertacija, Filozofski fakultet, Beo­grad.

3. With regards to the used theory modeland the norms set by it, both groups offamilies fall in the so called dysfunction­al, i.e. interlaced-chaotic families, regar­dless of the fact that the families of con­ditionally normal status are significantlymore often in the category of the inter­laced. Regarding adaptability, the exam­ined families are significantly more oftenrigid.

9. Mitic, M. (1996): Porodica i stres - njegovesposobnosti i nacini prevladavanja, Filozof­ski fakultet, doktorska disertacija, Beograd.

10. Stankovic, O. (1997): Opazanje promena uporodicnom zivotu sa stanovista clanovaporodice, Filozofski fakultet, diplomskirad, Beograd.

11. Olson, D. H. (1993): Circumplex model ofmarital and family systems: Assessing fam­ily functioning, in Walsh F (Ed) Normalfamily Processes, Guilford Press, NewYork/London.

12. Markovic, P. (1995): Drustvo, roditeljstvo iadolescenti, Adolescentna kriza, urednikMarkovic P. , Beograd, str. 7-19.

13. Srna, ]. (1997): Normalno i patolosko uadolescentnoj porodici, AdolescencijaRevolucija i evolucija u razvoju, urednikCurcic, V. , IP »Zarko Albulj«, Beograd, str.89 -101.

14. Carter, B., Me. Goldrick, M. (Eds) (1988):The changing family life cycle: Frameworktor family therapy, Boston.

15. Minuchin, S. (1974): Families and familytherapy, Tavistok publ., London.

57