Читать книгу Families & Change - Группа авторов - Страница 22

Resilience has its roots in family stress and is both an individual and family phenomena. It has been defined as “the capacity to rebound from adversity strengthened and more resourceful … an active process of endurance, self-righting, and growth in response to crisis and challenges” (Walsh, 2006, p. 4). In addition, resiliency is referred to as the ability to stretch (like elastic) or flex (like a suspension bridge) in response to the pressures and strains of life (Boss, Bryant, & Mancini, 2017). In general, resilient families possess coping strengths that enable them to benefit from the challenges of adversity. The ability to successfully deal with a stressor event actually results in outcomes as good or better than those that would have been obtained in the absence of the adversity (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; Henry et al., 2015).

While early research and theorizing about the impact of stress on families focused mainly on the adverse effects of stressor events of families, more recent scholarship and theorizing have emphasized family resilience (Distelberg & Taylor, 2015; Henry et al., 2015; Lavee, 2013; Martin et al., 2015). Scholars have moved beyond viewing resiliency as a characteristic of an individual to providing a framework for viewing resiliency as a quality of families (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; Henry et al., 2015). Following the family resilience model (FRM)—when family risk interacts with family protection and vulnerability in such ways that result in short-term and long-term family system adaptation, family resilience is present (Henry et al., 2015). Henry and colleagues (2015) describe the FRM as consisting of four key elements: (1) the presence of family risk, (2) family protection, (3) family vulnerability, and (4) short-term adjustment and long-term adaptation. Several key principles from individual resilience theories are applied, including variables that serve as protective or promotive functions in one circumstance, yet serve as risks or vulnerabilities in others (e.g., across cultural contexts).

Rather than a pathological view, or deficient model of families, the emphasis is on family wellness and strengths (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988, 2013; Walsh, 2006, 2013b). In contrast to Hill’s (l949) original model which hypothesized that, following a crisis, families would return to functioning at a level below or above their previous level, resilient families are expected to return to a level at or above their previous level (Henry et al., 2015). A valuable conceptual contribution from the family resilience literature has been the recognition of a family ethos (i.e., a schema, world view, or sense of coherence) which describes a shared set of values and attitudes held by a family unit that serves as the core of the family’s resilience (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; McCubbin, 2006; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013).