This paper adopts Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model to analyze Laura, as the presence of personal social networks and feelings of detachment are her presenting issues. The Ecological Systems Model perceives human development as influenced by various environmental systems in which the individual is held throughout ongoing interactions between individuals and these surroundings. This theory stresses the importance of five systems –mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. The case of Laura exemplifies dysfunctional interactions between her and their family, as well as social, cultural, and historical units that have probably contributed to developing issues with relationship-building. Conducting the ecological systems model will help clarify how ties and breaks between Laura’s most immediate settings, like family or work, her cultural surroundings, and broader historical events have maintained isolation. This multi-faceted approach can help form the basis of psychosocial interventions designed to improve Laura’s relationship with others and her sense of belonging.
Ecological Systems Model the microsystem.
One of the most significant theoretical frameworks for studying human development is The Ecological Systems Model developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s and 80s. As opposed to the overwhelming emphasis on internal characteristics in an isolated individual, Bronfenbrenner’s model reveals how evenly intricate dance between individuals and multidimensional environmental forces is influencing their development process over time. The Ecological Systems Model highlights the balanced relationship between individuals and their surroundings through mutually supportive relationships in a sophisticated ecology. This framework involves five layers contributing to the comprehensive understanding of human development.
The microsystem is the innermost layer of an individual’s direct settings and face-to-face relations(Flagstad et al., 2020). These include family, school, neighborhoods, church, and peers- agents that an individual encounters on a day-to-day personal interaction. The microsystem appears as the most immediate and decisive layer, the ruling power in shaping psychological development. In this layer, people make their first links and build a base for perceiving themselves and others. The mesosystem is concerned with the links between different components of an individual’s microsystem when one moves outwards. This layer acknowledges the relationship between home and school experiences or complex dynamics relationships between family members and friends. The mesosystem is essential in figuring out how the microsystems intersect and converge, determining the individual’s development direction (American Psychological Association, 2019).
The exosystem, which reaches further, encompasses settings that do not actually include the individual but impact them indirectly at a distance. The second layer consists of places such as parents’ workplaces, extended family networks, neighborhood settings, mass media social services, and local politics. Thus, Forces within the exosystem act like an invisible hand that guides and modifies an individual’s life in their microsystem, indirectly impacting development. The macrosystem, everything else included, takes care of the pervasive culture and belief structures under which societal norms, prejudices, beliefs, laws, customs, and material realities are then governed. This layer underlies the functioning of all subsequent levels, defining ideological landscapes in which people live. The macrosystem brings a more expansive sociological view in which the collective forces that shape human evolution are highlighted. Lastly, the chronosystem recognizes changes and trends over time, both in elements within a person and outside ecosystems. It identifies significant life passing, physical changes, socio-historical events, and massive-scale development. The chronosystem introduces a temporal component to the model, recognizing human existence’s dynamic and ongoing nature.
Application of the Ecological Systems Model to Laura’s case
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model allows a multidimensional analysis of the forces underlying Laura’s presenting problems, such as lack of close interpersonal relationships, social isolation, and depression. Applying the model demonstrates that Laura’s antagonistic interactions with her surrounding ecological systems across her life span contributed to dysfunctional relations in intimate bonding.
Starting from the microsystem layer, Laura’s first and direct settings are deficient in the facilitation of love and support as well as establishing healthy relationships. She talks about a traumatic upbringing that involved being severely beaten by her parents, which resulted in her having bruises for weeks. Laura’s mother made it clear with lies and coldness that she was a child destined to sin, evil – meant only to be punished. The normalization of cruelty and deprivation likely contributed much age- grievous difficulties establishing that she continues to keep a distance even with her long-term lover, being incapable of opening up or displaying vulnerabilities because he might judge her. Laura has no friends in her microsystem that could nurture the feeling of care and belonging.
There was disconnectedness at the mesosystem level because Laura’s family and peer microsystems were separated as she did not have a relationship outside the home that would have provided relief from abuse and shown good interpersonal interactions. The loss of her parents further weakened Laura’s family microsystem. Since both of them have died, this could be a potentially reparative setting that is no longer available anymore to counter earlier maladaptive parental influences. With regards to exosystem effects, Laura’s dynamic occupation as a lawyer lacks time for creating relationships or personal care and is conducive to reaching the social isolation of depression. According to Barth (2014), the long working hours reduce her opportunities to connect with new people or deepen the relationship between herself and her partner.
Within the macrosystem, societal belief systems provide further background on Laura’s presenting issues. Cultural narratives that prescribe emotional restraint, independence, privacy, and limiting their vulnerability have stalled Laura’s ability to express her unique needs or form intimate connections with other people. Macro-level gender ideals and ageism are the underlying cause of Laura’s concerns concerning menopause and loss of fertility. However, menopause does represent aging and the loss of conventional feminine attractiveness as well as shutting down reproductive ability appropriate to restricting patriarchal standards consciously not wished for children. Lastly, Laura’s chronosystem demonstrates remarkable differences and socio-historical factors such as the death of her parents and menopause decrepitude. With the death of her mother and father, all microsystem connections were lost entirely, erasing family social support. Menopause further accentuates the passage of time, loss of youth, and closure to the motherhood phase, making Laura feel she does not profoundly connect with others.
Ecological Systems Model’s implications for Laura’s case
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model is a helpful framework for understanding the factors that contribute to Laura not having close relationships, feeling lonely in her life, and struggling with depression. This multidimensional framework provides a complex overview of Laura’s experiences at the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem levels linked together by interwoven layers that have shaped her capacity for intimacy.
Starting with the microsystem, Laura’s interpersonal relationships, especially with her parents, are the core of her development. However, her microsystem had elements of abuse and emotional neglect that served as a stepping-stone toward severe problems in trust, vulnerability, and self-disclosure when she became an adult. To solve these problems, interventions must target the development of a healthier microsystem. Some aspects of high-quality friendships and marital counseling can be used as corrective experiences for Laura, allowing her to enhance their interpersonal skills. Establishing a secure treatment environment that facilitates active listening, empathic attunement, and progressive self-sharing can also help her develop an ability to have meaningful relationships (Obegi & Berant, 2009).
Moreover, teaching her partner about facilitating the sharing environment can help them heal. Laura’s family and peer microsystem connections were disjointed during childhood concerning the mesosystem. Meanwhile, developing mesosystem functioning implies interventions that connect these spheres. Inviting close friends into family activities helps people feel connection and harmony in different settings. Having lost her parents, Laura’s family microsystem is further disintegrated. By establishing surrogate parental figures through mentoring programs, mesosystem compensatory support can be provided to address the void left by her primary family support system(Hall, 2021).
Exosystem stressors, which can be seen as challenges at an environmental level, include Laura’s demanding legal career. It influences how she builds relationships, thus necessitating interventions at the exosystem level. Increasing flexibility at work or setting lower demands can lead to an enhanced balance between home and job, directly related to her social connectedness. According to Bowen (1993), using Employee Assistance Programs at the workplace to receive counseling or join social groups could also be another device that would help solve Laura’s problems caused by exosystem pressures. The macrosystem, which includes cultural and societal aspects, further complicates the struggles Laura experiences. Demanding sociocultural forces that promote emotional control, independence, invulnerability, and retaining confining gender roles directly impede Laura’s participation in intimacy. Macrosystem interventions such as media awareness programs are aimed at enhancing patriarchal relationship practices. While the risk of systemic resistance remains, slow evolutions in social discourse and media representations may be needed to steal restrictive norms over time.
In conclusion, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model applied to Laura’s case gives an integrative model regarding the systemic environmental factors and their role in shaping her primary problems, such as low social support, dysfunctional relationships, psychological symptoms of loneliness, and depression. This theory highlights the paths in which these demolitions of Laura’s microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macro-social system, and chronological course meet to wreck her canonical movements toward intimacy. Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should touch on all aspects because proper development requires the improvement of everything. When using a solution-focused treatment under the Ecological Systems Model, one would refer to Laura’s closest microsystem relationships by establishing trusting relationships and communication strategies. It also tries to enhance the mesosystem functioning by linking family and social microsystems. Therefore, shelter from her heavy occupation-related work stress should be introduced to minimize the burden in an exosystem. Lastly, encouraging greater slow transiting and large-scale emotional and gender stereotyping may be done through education, which might help with vulnerability. Though this approach is complex, it is essential to consider the multidimensional environmental basis of Laura’s disorder. This ecological systems model is the proposed conceptualization scheme for systemic interventions seeking to address her loneliness, depression, and maladapted patterns of relating.
Reference
American Psychological Association. (2019, October 1). ISBN: 9781433832178. American Psychological Association (APA).
Barth, F. (2014). integrative clinical social work practice . https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4939-0351-1.pdf
Bowen, M. (1993). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. In Google Books. Jason Aronson. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4g7PdF6oW6EC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=family+therapy+in+clinical+practices+Murray+&ots=OPhC5Hjntf&sig=H9yA30yOrIkVRLwKaKIKjb-9Mr8
Flagstad, I., Johnsen, S. Å. K., & Rydstedt, L. (2020). The Process of Establishing a Green Climate: Face-To-Face Interaction between Leaders and Employees in the Microsystem. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 14(1). https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol14/iss1/5/
Hall, J. (2021). Theoretical perspectives for direct social work practices, third edition (K. et al., Eds.).
Obegi, J. H., & Berant, E. (2009). Attachment Theory and Research in Clinical Work with Adults. In Google Books. Guilford Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eCiWkaJgzyMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA434&dq=McBride
write