5-19).
Levang (1989, pp. 28-44) applied systems theory to explain father-daughter incest as a process of vacillating balance between fathers, mothers, and daughters within family structures. This approach, which rather typical of systems theorists, does not restrict blame for child sexual abuse to the perpetrator of such abuse, but also faults victims and other family members. Ribordy (1989, pp. 71-88) also assessed father-daughter incest within the perspective of a family as a dysfunctional system within which the perpetrator also is viewed as a victim. Barrett, Trapper, and Fish (1990, pp. 151-166), while recognizing that the systems theory approach to CSA is blind to the societal impact of the behavior, as well as being blind to the effects on individual family members, nevertheless argue that the systemic approach to the treatment of such malfunctioning families is the most effective model.
Babins (1991, pp. 103-128) analyzed child sexual abuse within a symbolic interactionist context, suggesting that such behavior fulfills different functions in different families. This approach to CSA also draws fire from critics who contend that the concept that CSA serves a functional purpose in families tends to legitimize such behavior. Within this context, Harwood and Weissberg (1992, pp. 85-113) argued that symbolic interactionism provides a framework for the development of preventive programming for psychopathology that can lead to reductions in the incidence of CSA.
Birns and Meyer (1993, pp. 127-135) cautioned against the tendency of both systems theorists and symbolic interactionists to emphasize the contributions of mothers to the occurrence of father-daughter incest. Freud's legacy of denying that incest occurs is seen in the approach of the systems theorists to CSA.
Applying a symbolic interactionist approach to the assessment of CSA, Sanders (1992, pp. 16-25) contends that such behavior represents a pattern of inter...