cepts and terms for detecting and describing such incompatibility. Equipped with such concepts and terms, he can ask questions that would lead him to the right track.
To be able to formulate even an oversimplified, relatively superficial analysis of Case 6 (such as the analysis offered on p. 42), a therapist would need to have most of the concepts and terms introduced in this chapter in his toolshed.
This chapter is devoted to the question of how the family as a cultural system interprets its human and nonhuman ecological environment and reacts to it. The first part of the chapter examines the family's beliefs and values with respect to its environment and with regard to general existential questions. These beliefs and values are said to constitute the concepts and principles by which the family interprets its environment and decides how to respond to it.
A list of ecologically relevant beliefs and values is proposed. The classification is based on the roles of the beliefs or values in question with respect to the family's proximity or control goals. Another list is offered, including beliefs and values related to general existential problems.
The next topic is the family's proximity and control goals in relation to its human and nonhuman ecological environment and various types of environmental constraints on the possibility of reaching these goals. The family's modes of coping with these constraints are partly determined by how the family interprets them. Various characteristic types of interpretation are listed. The relevance of the concepts introduced in this chapter to family diagnosis and therapy is discussed as illustrated by Case 6.