Overview of Satir’s Human Validation Process Model
Virginia Satir is a renowned American psychotherapist and author. Satir was born on June 26th, 1916 in a small Wisconsin town called Neillsville. Satir was the first of five children, was academically gifted cognitively, and had an incredible desire to gain knowledge (Virginia Satir Biography, 2015). Satir excelled through her childhood schooling and advanced education. Satir excelled despite the difficult economic times, which required her to work multiple jobs through high school, and college (Virginia Satir Biography, 2015). After graduating from college, Satir worked as a teacher, and shortly thereafter pursued and completed her master’s in social work at the University of Chicago (Virginia Satir Biography, 2015).
After earning her master’s Satir held various prestigious roles including, owning her own practice, working at the Illinois Psychiatric Institute, and the Mental Research Institute in California (Goldberg et al, 2017). Satir was well known for her straightforward, caring, good natured way of being (Bandler et al., 1976). These attributes, coupled with her relentless pursuit of helping build the self-esteem of her clients earned the nickname ‘Mother of Family Therapy’ (Goldberg et al., 2017; Tam, 2006; Woods & Martin 1984). Throughout her career, Satir wrote multiple books, earned several awards, and served as a pioneer in the field of family therapy (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012; Woods & Martin 1984). Her concepts, while broad, were simplistically and effectively communicated to the readers of her books and the families that she worked with.
Development of the Theory and Historical Events
The development of Satir’s theory and the underpinnings thereof can be seen through an existential look at Satir’s own life and career. In her early childhood, Satir suffered a serious health scare that stemmed in large part because of a disagreement between her parents on the best course of treatment for Satir (Virginia Satir Biography, 2015). While Satir ended up receiving the treatment she needed due to her father’s insistence, there is no doubt the troubled communication between her parents about her health, created a personal impact on Satir. Specifically addressing how and why Satir deemed congruent communication such an integral part to healthy family systems.
Satir’s brief work as a teacher, gave her exposure to understanding the importance of family system and the role it played in the development of children. Satir took the time to work with not only the children, but the families of the children as well, to help aid the academic success as well as the overall well being of her students (Baldwin & Walsh, 2013; Virginia Satir Biography, 2015). Satir opined that the family system ought to be like a gardening place, where the family system acts as a facilitator for each member of the family to grow, along with the family system itself (Whiteley, 2007). Soon after completing her masters as a social worker, Satir was able to put these beliefs into action and institute these underpinnings as the foundation of her work in her official capacity as a therapist. After just a few short years of developing her ideas and theories on what was necessary for a healthy family system, Satir began teaching underpinnings of her theory to other therapists. Her first training program was conducted during her work at Illinois psychiatric institute in 1955 (Banmen, 2011; Goldberg et al., 2017). This training program launched what would become Satir’s decades long, renown work in family therapy, a specialty of which she was a leading female pioneer (Baldwin & Walsh, 2013).
Basic Assumptions and Key Philosophy
The underpinnings of Satir’s therapy were deeply rooted in humanistic psychology (Banmen, 2011; Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). Satir believed that ‘wellness’ was not only a possibility but available to all individuals and family systems. (Bandler et al., 1976; Goldberg et al, 2017; Satir et al., 1991). Satir acknowledged that all individuals were unique and that this individuality, especially the differences should be acknowledged, worked through with congruent communication and ultimately embraced (Satir, 1978). Satir likened this to the cells of a body, in that while each cell is unique, they all make up part of one being (Banmen, 2011). Satir opined that the primary key to this cohesive and fruitful union of the family system is rooted in two main premises. The first, is clear and congruent communication. The second, is each member of the family have a positive self-esteem (Satir, 1978). The freedom for each family member to freely self-disclose their thoughts, feelings and emotions were critical to congruent communication (Goldberg et al, 2017). To this point, Satir (1976) opines that dysfunction in the family stems from incongruent and thus dysfunctional communication. Moreover, Satir (1976) defines maladaptive behavior patterns as attempts to survive inside the dysfunctional family system, which came across the wrong way, as opposed to being inherently malevolent. In other words, Satir’s profoundly distinguished the nuance of intention versus expression (Bandler et al., 1976; Satir, 1976). Satir believed that through healthy communication patterns within the family system, each family member was presented with an opportunity to build each other up, all while also building themselves up. This was accomplished by congruent communication and by not suppressing feelings and emotions that needed to be released (Satir, 1978).
Key Concepts
With congruent communication being a key concept in Satir’s work, she is well known for clearly defining the five types of communicators she believes exist within the family system. These are; Placater, Blamer, Super-reasonable, Irrelevant, and a Congruent communicator (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). The first four are dysfunctional communicators in their own unique way and the last, the congruent communicator, is the goal communicator type. The Placater is weak and always apologizing. It is through the placater being afraid to speak their feelings which acts as a catalyst for communication incongruency in this type. Next is the blamer. The blamer dominates conversation and is relentlessly putting the issue at hand back on another member of the family system. Satir opines that the blamer acts out because they feel ‘less than’ within the family system (Bandler et al, 1976). The super-reasonable communicator stays objective and does not allow subjective feelings to influence their communication (Goldberg & Goldberg; 2012). The super-reasonable communicator chooses to portray words and logic over feelings in an effort to protect themselves (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). An Irrelevant communicator does not hang tightly to any one position. The fear here is that by doing so they may alienate themselves from any one member of the family system (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012; Satir et al. 1991). Irrelevant communicators feel the best way to get love and acceptance in the family system is by not appearing to be a threat to anyone else in the family (Goldberg et al, 2017). Finally, Satir believes that the ultimate communicator is the congruent communicator. Satir (1985) defines this as being authentic, and having the message of their feelings, body language and tone, mirror the message of their words
Satir believed that healthy and congruent communication was crucial for the family system to stay balanced. Satir opined that this required consistent and ongoing time, effort, and energy from each member of the family (Bandler et al. 1976; Satir, 1976). Satir believed that pathology or dysfunction that members of the family expressed were a blockage in growth. Furthermore, Satir likened blocked feelings within an individual, to blocked spouts in a large water fountain. Satir’s uses this analogy to exemplify that a fountain with spout blockages will create a disruption in the expression of the water fountain, just as disruption in the flow of emotions, will create dysfunction in the expressions and communications of the individual (Whiteley, 2007). Thus, Satir believe the expressed symptom was the key to understanding root cause of family dysfunction (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012).
Satir’s humanistic psychology underpinnings can be seen clearly in her views of human growth potential. For Satir, every client was viewed with the potential and inherent resources to grow. Satir believed these resources were available to everyone, and her job as a therapist was to help her clients use these tools to grow and enhance their own development. Satir believed there were three aspects to any individual that impacted their growth potential. These are, genetics, what a child learns from their parents, their mind-body perception (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). Satir opined that the self-perceptions and learned beliefs in childhood stuck with the individual throughout their entire life. Moreover, the self-perceptions people had in their mind about each body part was critical to their self-esteem (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). Finally, Satir coined two other models titled the ‘Seed’ and ‘Threat Reward’ models. The ‘Threat Reward’ model is based on a hierarchy within the family system. In this model the lower members are made to feel ‘less than’ and unequal to higher members. They are forced to acquiesce or live with the guilt and shame of failing to do so. This can often lead to feelings of despair and indignation (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012; Satir, 1976). The ‘Seed’ model is relative to Satir’s gardening perspective that was mentioned earlier. To summarize, this model postulates that children are like seeds. A seed contains the inherent ability to grow into a beautiful plant or fruitful tree, in the same way a child can develop and grow into a healthy adult and be a positive contributing member to the family system and society (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012).
Techniques
Satir’s main premise as a therapist was to help individual family members feel good about themselves. Through her own abundance of optimism towards humanity and human potential, she encouraged families to provide a safe and mutually respectful environment in which to communicate effectively and grow. Unlike many therapists of her time, assessment techniques were less emphasized in Satir’s work. Satir’s enthusiasm and optimistic view for the height of each person’s potential, led her to focus on analyzing the communication occurring within the family unit (Bandler et al., 1976; Goldberg et al, 2017). She created an assessment of the family as a whole, through analyzing each family member’s communication. This analysis focused on the communication in the course of normal, everyday life for the family system. Moreover, she noted how these communications impacted the emotion of each family member Satir et al., 1991). Once this had been assessed, Satir went to work by working with each family member. Satir encouraged a somatic approach, helping the family members to realize, acknowledge and connect their feelings, emotions, thoughts (Whiteley, 2007). Thus, as a therapist, Satir took a more hands on role as teacher more so than statistical analyst proving out theories. Baldwin, M., & Walsh, F. (2013).
Satir used tools to aid in the process of her therapy. This included the Family Life Fact Chronology and Family Reconstruction (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). Family Life Fact Chronology presented an opportunity for the family to look back as far as the oldest grandparent to the youngest family member. Once this had been established, family patterns, ways of being, communication methods and the like could be analyzed and disseminated. From there families were encouraged to think about the patterns of communication in the present family and possible origins for their family system and how they were communicating in the present (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2012). Family Reconstruction which is a synthesis of a variety of modalities and theories combined into one technique. The main premise is that family members will quite literally act as other family members within the context of the present family problem. The goal here is to purposefully actin out past lineage family patterns in order for their dysfunction to be realized and ultimately released. From there new, serving, and individually authentic communication can break through and be maintained.
Similarities and Dissimilarities
There is an unmistakable overlap between humanistic psychological underpinnings in the theories of Carl Rogers and the aforementioned work of Virginia Satir. Rogers’s Encounter Group Therapy stresses the importance of being genuine and congruent as a state of being with others. In this same light, Satir stresses the importance of being congruent in communicating feelings and words. Also, Rogers speaks to unconditional positive regard in both his Person Centered Therapy and Encounter Group Therapy models (Murdock, 2016). Satir, a contemporary of Rogers, takes a very similar humanistic view in her theory and therapy. As has been mentioned, Satir believed that every individual already possessed the resources necessary to adapt and thrive in life. Both Rogers and Satir believed that the client was capable of becoming fully functional and it was the therapist’s obligation to create the environment for the client to connect with these resources inside of themselves (Murdock, 2016).
Satir also differed with her contemporaries, like Carl Whitaker. Satir differs from Whitaker in that Satir focused on the symptoms as important clues to uncovering the family dysfunction, while Whitaker saw them as mere distractions (Goldberg et al., 2017). Further distance is created between Satir and Whitaker around their views on symptoms at a deeper level as well. Whitaker viewed growth opportunity in the symptoms, pathology and pain of people. Satir viewed these symptoms as blockages which were stunting the individual’s growth. While Satir and Whitaker had similarities as well, the aforementioned are two distinct contrasts.
New Knowledge Acquired
Satir’s view of congruence is so simple to me, yet so profound. I have always thought of congruence on a macro level, such as various members of a team working in congruence towards a common goal. However, I have never thought of congruence on a microlevel. I see how important it is as Satir (2015) says for ‘the message to be congruent with the message.’ Also, I find Satir’s lack of use of instruments very interesting. I really admire Satir (2015) when she speaks to the dangers of what happens when the person who creates the label, also decides how the label gets treated. In other words, she disagrees with taking the approach that the focus of mental health should be on diagnosis and the clinical prognosis.
In my virtual counselling and online therapy I utilize humanistic therapy and existential humanistic therapy as a framework for the individuals I work with.
If you live in Washington State and you are looking for a humanistic therapist near me,
Call me today at 973-224-8171 for a free intro online counseling (also known as virtual counselling or virtual counselling ) session today! Counseling can help us to create the life we want!
Ryan Joseph Kopyar
