TREATI NG J EALOUS Y AS A SYSTEM

DYNAMI C I N RECOVERI NG ALCOHOLI C

FAMI LI ES: AN AP P LI CATI ON OF
THE SOCI AL NETWORK MODEL
OF RECOVERY
Mar y W. Hi cks
Thomas A. Corni l l e
ABSTRACT: Jealousy often interferes with the recovery process for
alcoholic families. Recovery for such families requires t hat external
boundaries shift from rigid and closed to open and more permeable.
Jealousy often erupts as families struggle with shifting boundaries.
When jealousy is recognized as a system dynamic, necessary to the
process of recovery, it is manageable. The key to the t reat ment of
jealousy in recovering families is recognizing the crucial role of
boundaries in both the development and recovery processes.
Jealousy is usually thought of as a negative emotional response
of an individual to a perceived t hreat of loss of love in a significant
relationship. It is viewed by most as an individual issue and most
frequently imbued with sexual overtones (Mathes, 1992). Others
focus attention on the efforts toward control or the anxious attach-
ment exhibited by jealous individuals. When we shift from viewing
jealousy viewed as an individual characteristic to viewing it as a sys-
tem characteristic regulating interaction with outsiders, it is possible
to see jealousy as neither good nor bad and to see that it may be
expressed in an infinite number of behaviors.
Mary W. Hicks, PhD, is professor and training director, Interdivisional Program in
Marriage and Family, Florida State University R86E, Tallahassee, FL 32306.
Thomas A. Cornille, PhD, is associate professor, Florida State University R86E,
Tallahassee, FL 32306.
Reprint requests should be addressed to the first author.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 15(5), October 1993
9 1993 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 381
382
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
The Social Net wor k Model of Recovery (Cornille & Hicks, 1993)
proposed t hat j eal ousy is a cent ral and predi ct abl e dynami c in t he
process of fami l i es recoveri ng from addictions. The j eal ous feelings
t hat emer ge for alcoholic fami l i es i n recovery or i gi nat e in t he bound-
ary reorgani zat i on necessi t at ed by t he process. Many t i mes, j eal ousy
is i nt er pr et ed as evidence t hat t he fami l y or at l east some of i t s mem-
bers cont i nue to be "dysfunct i onal " and, consequent l y, count erproduc-
t i ve to fami l y recovery from addiction. The more t hat out si ders and
fami l y member s bel i eve t he idea t hat j eal ousy reflects unheal t hy in-
di vi dual charact eri st i cs, t he more t he fragile st abi l i t y of t he syst em is
chal l enged, i ncr easi ng t he l i kel i hood t ha t old pat t er ns of coping will
be used. Ext er nal boundari es, defi ni ng who is in and who is out of t he
fami l y syst em, mus t move from bei ng ri gi d and inflexible to bei ng
more open and flexible as an essent i al par t of recovery. I n t hi s pro-
cess, handl i ng feel i ngs of j eal ousy may well become crucial to recov-
ery.
Thi s paper will briefly revi ew recent concept ual i zat i ons about
boundari es, t he Social Net wor k Model of Recovery and, finally, pre-
sent clinical i mpl i cat i ons to assi st fami l i es in movi ng t hr ough t he
st ages of recovery. When j eal ousy is seen as a predi ct abl e behavi or
t hat reflects t he under st andabl e t ensi on t hat fami l i es experi ence dur-
i ng t he process of recovery, it becomes easi er for t her api st s and fam-
ily member s to "reframe" t he fami l y' s guar dedness as a desi re to keep
t he fami l y i nt act in t he face of dr amat i c changes. It is t hi s perspect i ve
t ha t gui des t he Social Net wor k st rat egi es for i nt er veni ng wi t h t hese
families.
BOUNDARI ES
"The dr awi ng of boundar i es is our most pr i mi t i ve and f undamen-
t al operat i on. I t is t he operat i on t hat creat es a world of t hi ngs - - i n-
cl udi ng t he ' t hi ng' we call ourselves. " (Efran, Lukens, & Lukens,
1990, p. 35). Si mi l arl y, t he dr awi ng of boundari es, or "boundi ng"
(Kant or & Lehr, 1975), is an essent i al process in t he creat i on and
mai nt enance of a fami l y uni t .
In addi t i on to cr eat i ng a space t hat per mi t s a fami l y to i dent i fy
itself, boundar i es prot ect t he fami l y from i nt r usi on and possible
har m. Ar chi t ect ur al met aphor s are per haps t he best descriptors; t he
apar t ment , house, and backyar d fence est abl i sh and mai nt ai n t he
fami l y' s met aphor i c social per i met er . Ever y fami l y has a met aphor i -
383
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
cal out si de wa l l - - a wall t hat vari es in t hi ckness, s t r engt h and per-
meabi l i t y. Ever y fami l y develops, mai nt ai ns, and t r ans mi t s to i t s
member s spat i al gui del i nes for how traffic shoul d flow wi t hi n and
across i t s borders.
Inevi t abl y, boundar y i ssues are i ssues of safety, of provi di ng t he
fami l y prot ect i on from danger. If a fami l y syst em fails to develop a
t erri t ory, it vi r t ual l y ceases to exist, for it becomes i ndi st i ngui shabl e
from t he out er space. It is t hr ough t he est abl i shment of boundar i es
t hat t he fami l y operat i onal l y defi nes itself.
J us t as physi cal walls vary in t hei r const ruct i on, so do t he met a-
phori c fami l y walls. Some walls are t hi n and some walls are t hi ck;
some walls have ma ny doors and per mi t easy access; some walls have
few doors and pr ohi bi t access; and some walls are so poorly con-
st r uct ed t hat t hey appear very fragile.
Theori st s have i dent i fi ed t hese var i at i ons as ri gi d or diffuse, per-
meabl e or i mper meabl e, cl ear or uncl ear. Boss and Greenberg intro-
duced and operat i onal i zed boundar y ambi gui t y as "a st at e in whi ch
fami l y member s are uncer t ai n in t hei r percept i on of who is in and out
of t he fami l y and who is per f or mi ng what roles and t asks wi t hi n t he
fami l y syst em" (Boss & Greenberg, 1984, p. 536). Most simply, t here-
fore, boundar y ambi gui t y is defi ned as not knowi ng who is in and
who is out of t he syst em. Boss and Greenberg (1984) cont end t hat t he
consequence of boundar y ambi gui t y is hi gh fami l y st ress and hi gh
i ndi vi dual fami l y dysfunct i on. I f a hi gh degree of fami l y boundar y
ambi gui t y persi st s over t i me, t he fami l y syst em will become increas-
i ngl y st ressed and subsequent l y dysfunct i onal . They suggest t hat
hol di ng a fami l y syst em i n an ambi guousl y bounded st at e blocks cog-
ni t i ve as well as emot i onal and behavi oral responses.
The Social Net wor k Model of Recovery t heori zes t hat as bound-
aries become ambi guous t hey become st ret ched, t hi n, and brittle.
Bri t t l e boundar i es are easi l y snapped and r esul t in t hr eat ened fami l y
space. Thi s t hr eat , t he t hr eat of t he loss of somet hi ng val uabl e, often
r esul t s in feel i ngs of j eal ousy. It is t hi s t hesi s t hat under gi r ds t he
Social Net wor k Model of Recovery.
THE S OCI AL N E T WOR K MOD E L OF R E C O V E R Y
The Social Net wor k Model of Recovery (SNMR) specifically em-
phasi zes t hr ee pr i mar y aspect s of t he recovery process for fami l i es
affected by alcoholism: 1) The i ncr easi ng per meabi l i t y of t he bound-
384
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
aries of a fami l y as pot ent i al l y support i ve out si ders are encount ered;
2) t he di st ress t hat is associ at ed wi t h t he level of vul ner abi l i t y t he
fami l y experi ences i n bei ng more open to out si ders; and 3) t he pre-
di ct abl e feel i ngs of j eal ousy t ha t are f r equent l y engender ed i nt er nal l y
in response to t he fami l y' s openness and vul nerabi l i t y. I n order to
under s t and t he fit of t hese t hr ee aspects of t he recovery process, t he
model was devel oped to paral l el t he four st ages of recovery suggest ed
by Brown (1985) and St ei ngl ass (1987). Brown' s model of i ndi vi dual
recovery and St ei ngl ass' s model of fami l y recovery i dent i fi ed a pro-
cess evol vi ng from act i ve use of alcohol (Stage 1), to earl y recovery in
whi ch t he syst em (i ndi vi dual or family) t ri es out new behavi ors wi t h-
out changes in par adi gm (Stage 2), to a peri od of di st ress and confu-
sion (Stage 3) cul mi nat i ng i n an exi st ent i al decision and subsequent
changes i n act i ons t hat in St ei ngl ass' s words become ei t her "restabi-
lize or reorgani ze" (Steinglass, 1987, St age 4).
The Stages of Recovery
Wet phase (Rigid boundaries). Dur i ng t he wet phase t he fami l y is
under t he i nfl uence of alcohol. Fear seems to be an overri di ng emo-
t i onal mood of t he syst em and resul t s in t he fami l y vi ewi ng t he out-
side world as t hr eat eni ng to i t s st abi l i t y. Tensi on is creat ed when
fami l y member s i nt er act wi t h out si ders and can be provoked by con-
t act bet ween fami l y member s and formal i nst i t ut i ons (i.e., schools,
heal t h care providers, law enforcement officials, and employers). Ten-
sion also exists bet ween member s and personal contacts; out si ders are
shut out of t he family. Th e onl y associ at i ons t hat are per mi t t ed are
wi t h ot hers who are also i nvol ved wi t h al cohol i sm i n some way (e.g.,
t hose who are also t r yi ng to mai nt ai n an alcoholic fami l y i dent i t y).
Spouses and chi l dren mus t t ry to mai nt ai n t he secret or deny t he
i mpact al cohol i sm is havi ng on t he family.
Transition phase (Ambiguous Boundaries). A second phase of re-
covery is mar ked by t he t r ansi t i on to sobriety. Thi s can l ast from a
few mont hs to vi r t ual l y a year. Fami l y boundar i es usual l y become
more open t hr ough t he alcoholic member ' s i nvol vement in Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) or a t r eat ment program. Thus, fami l y boundar i es
become open and ambi guous as t he movement from i nsi de to out si de
becomes easi er and is encouraged bot h by new acquai nt ances (e.g.,
t her api st s, AA members) and by fami l y member s who are i n search of
help.
385
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
Early recovery phase (Brittle boundaries). The t hi r d st age of re-
covery involves a react i on to t he ambi gui t y of t he t r ansi t i on phase.
The fami l y cont i nues to t est t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he fami l y and
t he out si de world. Thi s r out e can l ead to fami l y member s l ear ni ng
new social ski l l s and bui l di ng new boundar i es t hat allow for move-
me nt bet ween i nsi de and outside. The fami l y can bui l d a new i dent i t y
t hat does not i ncl ude t he use of alcohol as par t of its i dent i t y. I n con-
t rast , an al t er nat i ve r out e is mar ked by j eal ousy and di st ress and a
desi re to recl ai m t he former i dent i t y.
Abandon sobriety or reorganize phase (Cross-roads). Dur i ng t he
f our t h stage, t he fami l y will ei t her reorgani ze ar ound a new fami l y
i dent i t y or abandon recovery and r et ur n to its i dent i t y as an "alco-
holic family. " Whi ch sol ut i on t he fami l y embraces is det er mi ned to a
l arge ext ent by i t s react i on to t he j eal ousy engender ed by t r ansf or ma-
t i on of fami l y boundari es.
J E AL OUS Y
Jeal ousy has been described as havi ng t hr ee component s: Per-
ceived t hr eat of loss, emot i onal response, and behavi oral expression.
Usual l y, j eal ousy is st udi ed in t he cont ext of sexual possessi veness
exi st i ng bet ween par t ner s. It is t ypi fi ed as possessive, exclusive, com-
pet i t i ve, egotistical, and fear based (McDonald & Osmond, 1980; Con-
st ant i ne, 1976).
Phase 1
Jeal ous feelings and behavi ors t hat emer ge in alcoholic fami l i es
come not from sexual j eal ousy, but from unr esol ved boundar y issues.
Dur i ng t he wet phase, alcoholic fami l y syst ems ma r k t hei r bound-
ari es wi t h an unmi s t akabl e level of i nt ensi t y. The fi gurat i ve bound-
aries i mposed by t hese fami l i es are t hi ck, rigid, and inflexible, serv-
i ng as a cent ral el ement in denyi ng t he role alcohol plays i n t he
fami l y i dent i t y. Much ener gy is devot ed to t he mai nt enance of exter-
nal boundar i es whi l e negl ect i ng i nt er nal hi erarchi es bet ween genera-
tions. As t he alcoholic becomes mor e "out of control," t he boundi ng
act i vi t y of ot her fami l y member s i nt ensi fi es and out si ders are regu-
l arl y excluded from t he fami l y' s space.
386
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
Phase 2
Event s l eadi ng up to t he alcoholic member ent er i ng t r eat ment
often are connect ed wi t h vi ol at i ons of bot h t he physi cal and met a-
phori c wal l s t he fami l y has worked so di l i gent l y to mai nt ai n. The
alcoholic may come to t he at t ent i on of r epr esent at i ves of l arger social
syst ems; l aw enforcement may i dent i fy t he person for hi s or her out-
of-control behavi or in publ i c (e.g., dr unk driving). Chi l dr en may br i ng
at t ent i on to t he fami l y, wi t h t he at t ent i on focused fi rst on t he child in
distress. The spouse may t respass t he est abl i shed boundar i es by t ur n-
i ng for assi st ance from self-help groups. As fami l y member s i nt erface
wi t h ot her uni t s in society, it becomes necessary for t he fami l y to
r eshape its space, i ncl udi ng t he t hi ckness of t he boundar y walls. Re-
shapi ng t hi s space t hr eat ens t he fami l y' s careful l y guar ded i dent i t y.
Thus, at t he t i me of recovery, an alcoholic fami l y syst em faces
t he same devel opment al t asks as a newl y formed family. The t asks of
fami l y f or mat i on (i.e., boundar y r egul at i on and i dent i t y formation),
face t he fami l y anew wi t h t he addi t i onal compl i cat i on t hat t he old
boundar i es and i dent i t y are now dysfunct i onal and mus t he modi fi ed
or discarded.
Phase 3
Fami l i es have t hei r own charact eri st i c ways of deal i ng wi t h bot h
t he physi cal and met aphor i c walls of t hei r syst em. Alcoholic fami l i es
r egul at e t he out si der' s approach by checki ng hi s cr edent i al s - - hi s le-
gi t i macy or fi t ness to negot i at e ent rance. Unt i l t he t i me of recovery,
vi r t ual l y all out si ders were r egar ded as t respassers. "Hold on. Back
up. Keep out." It is as i f t he fami l y had peepholes, cameras, and ot her
appar at us to screen out all unwel come visitors. The fami l y wal l s were
t hi ck, st rong, and i mpermeabl e.
Suddenl y, at t he t i me of recovery, t he wal l s t hi n out, become
t aut , bri t t l e, and f r equent l y break. Fami l y member s lose t hei r veto
power over who is i n and who is out. Out si ders are admi t t ed i nt o t he
fami l y uni t ' s space, and i nsi ders begi n to move out wi t h some i mpu-
ni t y. Fami l y rul es about boundar i es are ambi guous and in a st at e of
flux. These unr esol ved boundar y i ssues f r equent l y breed feelings of
j eal ousy t hat i nt erfere wi t h fami l y recovery.
Jeal ousy surfaces as r es ent ment when one fami l y member de-
pri ves t he fami l y by gi vi ng t i me and at t ent i on to others. Common
compl ai nt s from t he jealous, non-alcoholic par t ner include: "We used
387
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
to see more of you when you were dr i nki ng, " whi ch is to say, "You
used to st ay wi t hi n t he fami l y' s peri met er, " or "Somet hi ng' s happen-
i ng t hat t hr eat ens our safet y and i dent i t y. " When t he alcoholic part -
ner becomes j eal ous, he or she compl ai ns t hat si gni fi cant changes
made in hi s or her life are not recei vi ng t he deserved appreci at i on. In
ei t her case, t he level of t ensi on t hat develops t hr eat ens to dest roy t he
family.
As l ong as t he fami l y member s operat e wi t hi n t he rest ri ct i ons of
ri gi d fami l y boundari es, t ensi ons l eadi ng to quest i ons about t hr eat -
ened l oyal t y and pot ent i al j eal ousy do not arise. However, when
boundar i es become ambi guous, as t hey t ypi cal l y do in t he second
st age of recovery, a fami l y cannot reorganize, t he process of mor-
phogeni c r es t r uct ur i ng in t he syst em is blocked, and t he syst em is
hel d in limbo. The effect of al l owi ng out si ders i nt o t he syst em is to
cast t he fami l y i nt o a st at e of uncer t ai nt y.
Uncer t ai nt y about member s hi p f r equent l y leads to a percei ved
t hr eat of loss. A common response to t hi s percei ved t hr eat is j eal ousy.
Thi s j eal ousy is oft en pl ayed out in an i ncrease of vi gi l ance at t he
ext er nal boundary. For exampl e, when a fami l y member is physi cal l y
ill, fami l i es often become hyper - vi gi l ant about rel at i onshi ps wi t h
heal t h care officials. Si mi l arl y, t he non-alcoholic spouse may become
equal l y vi gi l ant about at t endance at AA.
Phase 4
Thi s is t he t ur ni ng point. The fami l y has to decide whet her to fall
back on old pat t er ns or reorganize. As Phase Three proceeds, fami l y
member s become i ncreasi ngl y uncomfort abl e as t hey cope wi t h t he
i nt r usi on of "out si ders" and t he percei ved t hr eat of loss. The t empt a-
t i on to r et ur n to old i sol at i oni st i c boundar i es is powerful l y st r ong as
t he fami l y st r uggl es wi t h t he choice bet ween t he securi t y of mi ser y or
t he mi ser y of i nsecuri t y.
Oft en t he fami l y finds t hi s choice mor e difficult t ha n t he choice
to stop dr i nki ng. At t he t i me t hat t he fami l y made t hat choice, t he
expect at i on was t hat t he cessat i on of dr i nki ng woul d dissolve all
probl ems. As it t ur ns out, ot her probl ems surface, probl ems t hat were
nonexi st ent when dr i nki ng was a par t of fami l y life. For i nst ance,
wi t h t he new boundar i es of Phase Three, member shi p becomes con-
fused and j eal ousy "rears its ugl y head. " Thus, t he fami l y may experi-
ence less fai t h i n a good out come t ha n it had at t he t i me t hat t he
dr i nki ng stopped. Because t he fami l y has l i t t l e experi ence wi t h any
388
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
fami l y life ot her t ha n t he closely bounded one, t he choice to reorga-
nize requi res a l eap of fai t h t hat sorely t est s t he l i mi t s of t hei r t r us t
and belief.
By at t endi ng to t he i ssues of boundar y r egul at i on and t he poten-
t i al probl em of j eal ousy dur i ng t he four phases of recovery, cl i ni ci ans
can develop a cl earer appreci at i on of fami l y dynami cs dur i ng t he re-
covery process and f or mul at e more focused i nt er vent i on st rat egi es.
CL I NI CAL I MP L I CAT I ONS
Case Example
George (age 32) and J ean (age 29) have been mar r i ed for 12 years
and are t he par ent s of two daught er s, Sally (age seven) and Corri ne
(age four). They were referred by t he child' s school to a mar r i age and
fami l y t her apy clinic to deal wi t h Sally' s school phobia. They report ed
t hat i n t he previ ous year Sally had refused to go to school and insis-
t ed t hat her mot her st ay wi t h her all day. When a fami l y hi st ory was
t aken, t he couple report ed t hat t hei r mar r i age began posi t i vel y aft er
a short court shi p. Bot h had grown up in alcoholic fami l i es and had
been surpri sed when alcohol became cent ral to t hei r mar r i age in t he
fi rst year. Recovery had begun appr oxi mat el y two years before t hey
came for t r eat ment , when George was told at work t hat he ei t her deal
wi t h hi s absent eei sm or fi nd a new job. The first year of recovery was
exci t i ng for t he family. J e a n became i nvol ved i n Al anon and George
cont i nued aft ercare and AA following resi dent i al t r eat ment .
Approxi mat el y ni ne mont hs before goi ng to t he mar i t al and fam-
ily t her apy clinic, George began to compl ai n t hat J ean was never at
home wi t h hi m. He became suspi ci ous about her fri ends and want ed
to know wher e she was at all t i mes. He felt t hat i f J e a n were home,
Sally woul d not be havi ng "t hese" probl ems at school. The couple re-
port ed t hat on one r ecent aft ernoon George came home from wor k to
fi nd t he house locked and no one home. Unt i l t hen, he had never
needed to carry a key, because J ean had al ways been t here. On t hat
occasion, she and t he girls had gone swi mmi ng aft er school wi t h some
fri ends from Al anon. George became verbal l y abusi ve and charged
t hat J e a n was not t aki ng care of her fami l y responsibilities: She mus t
be at home and have meal s pr epar ed in order to give t he chi l dren a
sense of st abi l i t y and predi ct abi l i t y, he said.
389
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
The t her api st was t empt ed to poi nt out t he i r r at i onal i t y of
George' s posi t i on and to focus t r e a t me nt on his j eal ousy. Inst ead, she
asked about ot her ways t hat t he fami l y was coping wi t h all t he
changes in t he family. Sally sai d t hat she was afrai d to go away from
home because she mi ght mi ss somet hi ng. Besides did t he t her api st
not know t hat t he world was dangerous? Corri ne chi med in and sai d
t hat t her e were monst er s t hat lived i n t he next block. She was gl ad
t ha t she di d not have to go to school. J e a n sat in t he corner l ooki ng
beat en. She woul d not i ni t i at e any conversat i on wi t h t he t her api st ,
but woul d answer quest i ons.
The fami l y agreed to work wi t h t he t her api st to manage all of t he
upset t hat it was experi enci ng in deal i ng wi t h schools, monst ers, and
ot her outsiders. The t her api st realized t hat even t hough fami l y mem-
bers were wi l l i ng to manage t hei r difficulties, she could not aut omat -
ically assume t hat t hey were goi ng to see her as fri endl y or poten-
t i al l y helpful. Aft er all, she was an "out si der" too.
In t he next several sessions whi l e expl ori ng t he vari ous mani -
fest at i ons of j eal ousy in t he fami l y, t he t her api st emphasi zed how
much t he fami l y val ued i t sel f as shown by t he member s' prot ect i ve
caut i ousness about out si ders, i ncl udi ng herself. At t he same t i me, she
normal i zed t hei r experi ences as par t of t he ongoi ng process of recov-
ery.
As t hey t al ked about George' s j eal ousy and Sally' s school phobia,
t he t her api st underscored t hei r react i ons as nor mal syst ems charac-
teristics, r at her t ha n as i ndi vi dual charact eri st i cs. Thus, George and
Sally' s experi ences were mer el y r epr esent at i ve of di fferent genera-
t i ons of fami l y member s' react i ons to exper i ment i ng wi t h new bound-
ary defi ni t i ons.
As t he fami l y came to under s t and t hat recovery, like al cohol i sm
itself, is a fami l y affair, t he member s' experi ences wi t h out si ders be-
came less t hr eat eni ng. Al t hough, j eal ousy er upt ed from t i me-t o-t i me,
t he feel i ngs became less i nt ense and became more focused on t he fam-
ily st r uggl es wi t h new r el at i onshi ps t ha n on i ndi vi dual short comi ngs.
Over t he next several mont hs, George and J ean had occasional out-
burst s, but st r uggl ed wi t h t he m as a couple. Corri ne and Sally began
to enjoy new fri endshi ps as t hei r mot her and f at her became less pro-
t ect i ve of fami l y boundari es.
The cessat i on of dr i nki ng by i t sel f is not suffi ci ent to ensur e
heal t hy fami l y reorgani zat i on and growt h. Wi t hout assi st ance, t he
level of di st ress and di scomfort fami l y member s experi ence in t hi s
3 9 0
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
process can be overwhel mi ng. Fami l i es will go t hr ough st ages of re-
covery i f hel p is secured so t hat obstacles to t hat gr owt h process can
be r emoved or managed.
Phas e 1. Alcoholic fami l i es t ypi cal l y have a di st i nct i ve i dent i t y
and st r uct ur e prot ect ed by rigid, i mper meabl e boundari es. As noted,
t hi s i dent i t y and st r uct ur e are still in place when t he alcoholic stops
dr i nki ng. Ther apeut i c st rat egi es dur i ng t he fi rst year of sobriety
bui l d on pat t er ns t ha t will support t he devel opment of clear, perme-
able boundari es. The t her apeut i c r el at i onshi p is st r uct ur ed so as to
provi de t he fami l y wi t h "live" experi ence in developing, recognizing,
and pr ot ect i ng boundar i es i n an effective manner .
Thi s process requi res provi di ng t he fami l y wi t h r el at i onshi p t hat
is support i ve and safe whi l e si mul t aneousl y encour agi ng member s to-
war d r i sk- t aki ng and change. Fami l y member s have l i t t l e or no expe-
ri ence in negot i at i ng boundari es, and negat i ve feel i ngs often emer ge
as a fami l y i nt er act s wi t h out si ders. Therefore, t he t her api st provi des
bal ance i n t he t her apeut i c rel at i onshi p, respect i ng and under st and-
i ng t he member s' appr ehensi on i n deal i ng wi t h out si ders whi l e en-
couragi ng and suppor t i ng t he fami l y in r est r uct ur i ng its boundari es.
I n t hi s phase, as George and J e a n st r uggl ed wi t h t hei r feel i ngs of
upset and fear, t he t her api st encour aged t he m to accept t hose feel i ngs
as an under st andabl e par t of recovery. The t her api st suppor t ed bot h
George and J ean as t hey exper i ment ed wi t h new boundar y rules. I n
t hi s way, t he j eal ous feelings became a nor mal accompani ment to t he
process of recovery and were t hus much less toxic to fami l y i nt erac-
tion.
Ti mi ng, i mpor t ant in all t her apy, is crucial when wor ki ng wi t h
alcoholic fami l i es in recovery. When fami l i es possess st rat egi es for
r espondi ng to t he new si t uat i ons t hey are facing, t he t her api st is ill-
advi sed to suggest t hat t hey abandon such st rat egi es, unl ess t her e is
i mmi ne nt danger to a fami l y member or outsider. General l y, to chal-
l enge a st r at egy in whi ch t he fami l y has some i nves t ment can jeopar-
dize t he t her apeut i c rel at i onshi p. If t he fami l y has devel oped a sense
t hat t he t her api st i nt ends to hel p t he fami l y i n distress, r at her t ha n
creat e mor e stress, t he t her api st will be allowed to i nt er vene whi l e
t he fami l y is i n crisis.
Phas e 2. The i ssue of j eal ousy is most l i kel y to surface i n t he
Tr ansi t i on Phase whi ch is charact eri zed by ambi guous boundari es.
Some fami l y member s are under st andabl y confused dur i ng t hi s phase
3 9 1
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
of recovery. I t is upset t i ng when t he st abl e pat t er ns of t he fami l y are
di srupt ed, ambi guous boundar i es emerge, and percept i ons of out-
si ders shi ft from uns ympat het i c and ant agoni st i c to possible re-
sources. Thi s uncer t ai nt y l eads to confusi ng conversat i ons about t he
fami l y member who is in t r eat ment , i ncl udi ng conversat i on r egar di ng
whet her or when t he alcoholic will r et ur n to t he family, and whet her
t he fami l y will allow t he alcoholic to r e- ent er t he syst em.
I nt er vent i ons need to encourage t he devel opment of out si de sup-
port s for all fami l y member s whi l e si mul t aneousl y pr omot i ng t he de-
vel opment of a new f oundat i on for st abi l i t y wi t hi n t he family.
Useful in t hi s process are fami l y t her apy sessions formal i zi ng
communi cat i on wi t hi n t he fami l y ar ound goals and val ues not con-
nect ed wi t h alcohol. The abi l i t y to be di rect and open in communi ca-
t i ons may be a skill t hat ei t her has been lost dur i ng t he wet phase or
never developed. Therefore, t he t her api st needs to model di rect com-
muni cat i ons bet ween fami l y member s and bet ween t he fami l y and
out si ders.
The t her api st encourages fami l y member s to develop or re-l earn
social ski l l s t hat promot e heal t hy personal boundar i es (Cornille & In-
ger, 1992). Because of t he "fresh air" t hat t he fami l y is experi enci ng,
member s may t end to become over-i nvol ved wi t h out si ders, i ncl udi ng
t herapi st s. It is t he t her api st ' s responsi bi l i t y to hel p fami l y member s
t est out new ways of set t i ng l i mi t s i n t he r el at i onshi ps t hey ent er.
Phase 3. Now t hat fami l y member s are set t i ng l i mi t s and st rug-
gl i ng wi t h more open boundari es, it is t i me for t he t her api st to en-
gage in some forecast i ng and predi ct i ng. As t he t her api st hel ps t he
fami l y t al k about changes t hat are occurri ng and discusses st rat egi es
for deal i ng wi t h t he predi ct abl e upset s t hat will occur, t he power of
t he di st ress seems to be reduced. At t he same t i me, it is i mpor t ant for
t he t her api st to hel p t he f ami l y- - af t er t he peri od of ambi gui t y- - de-
velop and mai nt ai n boundari es. Thi s may reduce t he discomfort of t he
br i t t l e boundar i es phase when it occurs.
Dur i ng t he sessions, t he t her api st support s t he fami l y' s caut i ous-
ness about out si ders. The fami l y is able to discuss t he sense of i nt r u-
sion t ha t develops at some poi nt dur i ng t her apy and, i n t hi s way,
become able to deal wi t h bri t t l e boundar y i ssues i n t he sessions
wher e such feel i ngs can be processed.
Phase 4. The t her api st needs to assi st t he fami l y dur i ng t he diffi-
cul t cross-roads peri od wi t hout t r yi ng to force a choice. Thi s enabl es
392
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY
each fami l y member to commi t vol unt ar i l y to t he recovery process.
Often fami l y member s need to r ecount t hei r recollection of t he "good
old days" so as not to romant i ci ze how st abl e t hei r life was dur i ng
t hat past peri od of t i me. The t her api st can hel p t he fami l y cont act
ot hers i n t he communi t y who have gone t hr ough t hei r own versi ons
of t hi s process.
For exampl e, George and J e a n had an oppor t uni t y to discuss t he
process wi t h a clinically t r ai ned r esear cher who clarified t he whol e
process of recovery for t hem. I n t he consul t at i on, t he fami l y was able
to i dent i fy par t s of t he old lifestyle t ha t worked and par t s of recovery
t hat were more at t ract i ve. I n t al ki ng wi t h t hi s knowl edgeabl e out-
sider, t he fami l y under went a visible shift. Each fami l y member de-
veloped a new conviction t ha t sobri et y was wor t h t he discomfort t hat
t hey associated wi t h change and uncer t ai nt y.
SUMMARY
Alcoholic fami l i es are st r i ngent l y bounded; t hi s is, t hey believe,
t he only safe way to live. Recoveri ng requi res t hat boundar i es change
from ri gi d and closed to more open and permeabl e. Fami l i es wi t h a
recoveri ng member t ypi cal l y do not know how to deal wi t h t hese
changes, and j eal ousy is often an out gr owt h of t hei r st ruggl es. When
j eal ousy is recognized as a syst em dynami c, necessary i n t he process
of recovery, it is manageabl e, and fami l i es can begi n to t hr i ve wi t h
out si de support . The key to t he t r eat ment of j eal ousy in recoveri ng
fami l i es is recogni zi ng t he cruci al role of boundar i es in t he develop-
me nt of alcoholism: and, consequent l y, in recovering.
REFERENCES
Boss, P., & Greenberg, J. (1984). Fami l y boundary ambiguity: A new vari abl e in family
stress theory, Family Process 23, 535-546.
Brown, S. (1985). Treating the alcoholic: A developmental model of recovery. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Constantine, L. (1976). Jeal ousy: Techniques for intervention. In D. H. Olson (Ed.),
Treating relationships (pp. 141-158). Lake Mills, IO: Graphic.
Cornille, T., & Hicks, M. (1993). A social network model of recovery: Issues in bound-
ar y reorganization. Alcoholism Treatment Ouarterly, 10 (in press).
Cornille, T., & Inger, C. (1992). The armor met aphor in marri age and fami l y t herapy.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy 3(4), 27-42.
Efran, J. , Lukens, M., & Lukens, R. (1990). Language, structure, and change. New
York: W. W. Norton.
393
MARY W. HICKS AND THOMAS A. CORNILLE
Kant or, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McDonald, G., & Osmond, M. (1980). Jealousy and trust: Unexplored dimensions of
social exchange dynamics. Paper present ed at Nat i onal Council on Fami l y Rela-
tions, Workshops on Theory Construction and Research Methodology.
Mathes, E. (1992). Jealousy: The psychological data. New York: Uni versi t y Press of
America.
Steinglass, P., wi t h Bennett, L., Wolin, S., & Reiss, D. (1987). The alcoholic family.
New York: Basic Books.