I. The family as a system

From a systemic perspective (Eguiluz, 2003), the family is conceived as an open system, a reciprocal interactive unit, alive, formed in turn of well-differentiated units that influence one another and influence the outside of the system while being influenced by it; it should also be recalled that three subsystems operate within the family, namely the conjugal, the filial and the sibling subsystems, spaces of interaction in which the individual learns and develops skills of communication, negotiation and boundary management.

Moreover, the family is a system that operates within other, larger systems; it is therefore an open, adaptable sociocultural system, which develops through a series of stages marked by crises. This last notion of family development through critical stages is reinforced by the theoretical framework formalised by Hill and Duvall (in Gracia Fuster and Musitu Ochoa, 2000), who propose the concept of the family life cycle as the central axis of the theory of family development; it designates the systematic changes that the family undergoes as it moves through the various stages of its existence.

With regard to individual behaviour and the functioning of systems, it is worth noting what the authors propose about development when they write:

“Development occurs in an orderly and predictable way; it passes through a series of hierarchically ordered stages, characterised by a series of developmental tasks that must be fully resolved if the individual, the couple or the family is to move on unhindered to the next higher level. These tasks are constituted in four interdependent domains: biological or maturational, psychological, learning and cultural. Those that are not successfully mastered persist as unresolved problems and affect the resolution of all the successive tasks that arise throughout the life of the individual or the system. Development does not occur in a vacuum. It is the product of the dynamic interrelation between the system and its environment. Development consists of simultaneous and compatible processes of differentiation and integration. Every developing system uses morphogenetic and homeostatic processes in its progression towards maturity and greater complexity.” (Bagarozzi and Anderson, 1996: 25)

II. Family competence

In the matter of family competence, the frame of reference is the model proposed by Beavers and Hampson (1995), guided by a systemic view of the family and which analyses six parameters to determine this competence, a term that stands in opposition to that of family dysfunction. These authors thus assess the following parameters:

The sum of the preceding parameters is grouped into a global scale of family health, functionality or competence, ranging from the optimal adaptive family to the severely dysfunctional family. In other words, the authors group the families with the best level of competence or functionality into optimal families and adequate families. The former bring together qualities such as a great capacity for negotiation, clarity of expression, respect for different options, and are composed of members who generally achieve success and recognition, who find the confidence needed to express their feelings spontaneously and who enjoy one another’s company. It should also be stressed that the parents exercise clear leadership there and set themselves up as models for their children in matters of respect and intimacy.

Adequate families, on the other hand, where according to the authors most of these human groupings are found, encourage and respect individuality, clarity of expression and responsibility; some of their members are competent, while success there is the fruit of greater effort, and they have more difficulty with negotiation and spontaneity.

III. The family and macrosocial changes

It is also worth analysing the conceptual evolution and the structural changes that the family has undergone over time, since it has been observed that certain types of family are more frequently associated with various problems, such as drug dependence. It is therefore worth recalling how macrosocial changes influence family structure: the Middle Ages favoured the extended family, whether among the groups in power, in order to strengthen it, or in the lower social strata, for purposes more related to productivity. And if we recall more recent times, we cannot forget that the phenomena of war have as their immediate consequence a decrease in life expectancy, mainly among men, which, added to the high mortality rates of contagious diseases before the advent of antibiotics, caused, as some authors mention, an increase in the number of widows, widowers and orphans, and led, as a strategy to remedy this, to the founding of families that we would today call blended or reconstituted.

“From the 16th to the 19th century, family recomposition was very widespread. At that time, life expectancy was very short and economic difficulties forced widowers and widows to seek a new marriage quickly. It is estimated, for example, that in the 17th century one marriage in three was a remarriage.” (Saint-Jacques and Parent, 2002: 21)

Industrialisation, for its part, brought about a structural change in the family, in the direction of a strengthening of the nuclear family, since, with migration from the countryside to the city, the living spaces available to extended families shrank. Present-day life has been associated with significant changes in traditional family functions, such as: productive functions, among which the economic and administrative aspects and the provision of housing and clothing stand out; educational functions, such as the conception of family norms and roles, the internalisation of the family’s functions and the transmission of an ideology or a religion; and welfare functions, such as health care and education (Ripoll Millet, 2002). These functions, as was said, have changed as a result of greater specialisation, so that at present family functions fall into two categories: socialisation, which manifests itself in communication skills, self-esteem and academic and occupational performance; and the strengthening of the personality, through the construction of identity and the sense of belonging.

Ripoll Millet (2002) also points to another group of family changes, gathered under what he calls the democratisation of the family, which are reflected in: the increase in the number of divorces, the decrease in the duration of marriage and the postponement of its beginning, the fall in birth rates, the decrease in the number of children per family, women’s entry into the labour market, the increase in the number of common-law unions, the increase in births outside marriage, and the rise of an individualistic view of human life, which in turn increases autonomy.

All this means that the family’s protective role against the risks of the external environment is weakening, particularly in families from the lower socio-economic strata (Medina Mora et al., 2001). The number of single-parent households has thus increased practically all over the world; it has been estimated, for example, that in Latin America one household in five is headed by a woman (Maddaleno et al., 2003).

In Mexico, according to data from the National Population Council (Santos Preciado et al., 2003), it is calculated that 22% of the adolescent population lives in single-parent households where, once again, leadership by the mother prevails, who, in turn, finds fewer employment opportunities. This situation, as already mentioned, is similar to that observed in other regions of the planet, which means that this type of family lives in conditions of greater adversity and greater vulnerability, to the point that the European Parliament, referring to this type of family, speaks of the feminisation of poverty (Gracia Fuster and Musitu Ochoa, 2000).

IV. Types of family and drug dependence

The father figure takes on particular characteristics in Mexico, although this phenomenon, cultural variations aside, is probably fairly similar in other parts of the world; it is, in fact, the determining factor in the existence of the large number of single-parent families mentioned above, whose concrete causes include first of all the absence of a marital bond, that is, “single mothers”, and desertion of the home, whether or not it goes through a formal divorce procedure, followed by temporary absence from the family home for occupational, legal or medical reasons, and finally the possibility of living in a single-parent family through widowhood.

Data cited by UNICEF (Medina Mora et al., 2001) indicate that the rate of drug use was lower among working children and adolescents when their family was intact (they lived with both parents), and that it increased in the case of single-parent families, when the family had been reconstituted, when the minor had formed his family on the street, and that it reached its maximum when the minors did not live in a family.

In the case of families where the parental pair lives with their children, various authors have pointed out that, in those confronted with a problem of addiction on the part of the children, the father played a peripheral or absent role until the phenomenon was discovered, and that, once it was discovered, the father became more involved in the care of the children, but only as a reproach addressed to the supposed failure of the mother, with whom the role of caregiver is traditionally associated (Nuño Gutiérrez and González Corteza, 2004).

However, drug dependence is not the preserve of one particular type of family; the various studies on the phenomenon and on its relationship with the family have brought to light various relevant family aspects. Thus, Selvini Palazzoli points out (in Stefano Cirillo, 1999) that a certain type of family organisation must have obstructed, unconsciously and on someone’s part, the son’s attempts to achieve an authentic adolescent development and to “assume adult responsibility for himself”.

The socio-economic level of the family is a factor related to substance addiction, whatever that level may be: in other words, there is no family which, by virtue of its socio-economic level, is exempt from experiencing the phenomenon of addiction; rather, this level determines the type of substances used, according to purchasing power, the attitude of relatives in coping with this use, the social obstacles encountered in seeking help and the resources available for doing so (Stefano Cirillo, 1999; Medina Mora et al., 2001).

Thus, families from the lower economic strata are more frequently confronted with the use, by their members, of inhalants and alcohol, citing rebellion and escape from reality as the cause of this use, whereas in the upper socio-economic strata the substances most used are marijuana and cocaine, associated with the permissiveness of the parents and the weariness of the children.

V. Family functions and drug dependence

If we recall what was set out above about the current functions of the family, linked to socialisation and the strengthening of identity, the data gathered by Stefano Cirillo and his collaborators in 1999 take on their full relevance, concerning what he calls experimental research on the family of the drug addict. There he mentions authors such as Babst et al. (1978), who examined the degree of emotional closeness and trust between parents and children in relation to numerous variables, among others academic achievement, the presence of friendships with drug addicts, risk behaviours and drug use. This study showed that a high degree of family affinity is positively correlated with academic achievement and with the acquisition of autonomy at the appropriate time. The reverse, that is, a family climate characterised by distance and mistrust between the various family members, leads to a greater frequency of risk behaviours and drug addiction. In this case, it is peers who take the place of the parents as the reference for support needs in times of difficulty and for the resolution of personal problems. Another work mentioned by the same author is that of Selnow (1987), who found evidence that, in single-parent families, the incidence of substance abuse and dependence in the parent is more frequent (especially when the sole parent is the father), and that, in families where the relationship with the parents is experienced as intense and gratifying, the emergence of drug addictions is less likely, even in single-parent families.

Among other works mentioned by the same author are those carried out by Coombs and Landsverk (1988), who, also taking into account the quality of the relationship as decisive in preventing children’s involvement in drugs, found that, while young people who feel invested with feelings of mistrust on the part of their mother appear more exposed to risk, the mothers best able to protect their children from drugs seem to be those who are emotionally close and inclined to offer their trust. Simons and Robertson (in Stefano Cirillo, 1999) found a clear correlation between certain indicators of parental behaviour and children’s involvement in maladjusted peer groups and, consequently, in drug use; among these indicators stands out the parents’ rejection of their children, which produces aggressive children; this rejection undermines the credibility of the parental function as a point of reference for “long-term values” (studies, work, socialisation), so that the children learn to rely on the “short-term values” offered by their peers, who are also rejected.

Finally, both Stefano Cirillo et al. (1999) for Europe and De la Garza, Mendiola and Rábago (1992) for Mexico mention a three-generational aetiology of the phenomenon of drug dependence, evoking aspects such as unresolved emotional relationships between the first and second generations (the grandparents and the parents of the future drug-dependent person), the early adultisation of the drug user, or competition for his affection between the parents and the grandparents, specifically on the female side.

VI. Adolescence and present-day society

Likewise, adolescence was chosen because various authors agree that the stage of the family life cycle with adolescent children is the one that most tests the flexibility and adaptability of the family system (Estrada Inda, 1997). It is, for the individual, as already mentioned, the period of greatest exposure to health risk factors, including the onset of drug use; it has also been shown that the earlier the age of this initial use, the greater the probability of developing an addiction (Herrera Vázquez et al., 2004). The use of psychoactive substances is linked to poor academic performance, unwanted pregnancies, road accidents and other violent events, as well as to delinquent behaviour (Camarillo Santillán et al., 2002).

The World Health Organization calls an adolescent an individual aged between 10 and 19. Adolescence is precisely one of the most vulnerable stages for developing habits and behaviours that pose a risk to health, such as unprotected sexual intercourse, the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs, inadequate diet and a sedentary lifestyle, which determine problems at this age and the emergence of chronic and degenerative diseases in adulthood (De la Fuente, 2004; Celis de la Rosa, 2003).

This stage is characterised by a series of changes affecting every sphere of the human being, such as the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics, among which menarche and spermarche stand out, signs of the individual’s capacity for fertility. On the psychological level, changes stand out that include the search for identity, the questioning of family values, and the establishment of the first emotional bonds with a sexual connotation. On the social level, the adolescent goes through the educational experience of the various school levels, the coming of age and entry into the labour market. This set of phenomena should enrich adolescence rather than darken it; yet the adolescent, because of the search for identity and individuality mentioned above, finds himself exposed to experimentation with, use of and abuse of drugs, from those that are socially accepted to prohibited drugs.

To all this must be added the sociodemographic changes which, as mentioned at the beginning, have brought about a growth in the young population. Thus, 20% of households in Latin America and the Caribbean have children aged 13 to 18 (Maddaleno et al., 2003). In Mexico, the adolescent population increased in the second half of the 20th century. According to the 2000 census, 21.3% of the population living in our country is adolescent, representing nearly 21 million individuals between 10 and 19 years of age.

In Latin America, as regards geographical distribution, according to PAHO data (in Maddaleno et al., 2003), it is calculated that 80% of the young population aged 10 to 24 lives in urban areas. In Mexico, according to the National Population Council (in Santos Preciado et al., 2003), adolescents are concentrated in large and medium-sized cities; for example, 57% of them are found in the eight states of the Mexican Republic with the densest urban areas. More than 90% of the population lives in family households, of which 35 to 40% are households in extreme poverty. It is also considered that 86.8% of boys and 88.8% of girls aged 6 to 14 can read and write, while in the groups aged 15 and over this percentage stood above 92% in 2000 (INEGI). The National Youth Survey (in Santos Preciado et al., 2003) reports that between the ages of 12 and 14 more than 11% of adolescents do not attend school, that this percentage rises above 40% for the 15-to-19 age group, and that once past the age of 19 it is higher than 75%.

As regards economic activities, the rate of labour participation varies according to age and sex; it is nevertheless notable that 8% of adolescents aged 12 to 14 already take part in the labour market, a rate that rises to 35% in the 15-to-19 group, with a two-to-one predominance in favour of males.

Furthermore, concerning drug use, it has been found that about 10% of Mexican adolescents smoke and that 75% of students started smoking before the age of 15, while, for alcohol, about 70% of individuals in Mexico admit to having had at least one drink before the age of 18. For illegal drugs, the National Addiction Survey showed that 3.57% of boys aged 12 to 17 and 1.3% of girls in the same age bracket had used one or more drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is the most widely used drug (2.4% and 0.45% respectively), followed by inhalants (1.08% and 0.2%) and cocaine (0.99% and 0.22%).

In addition, the risk factors for drug use include being male, age, not studying, working young, attitude towards religious practices, considering it easy to obtain drugs, not frowning on drug use by friends, the fact that friends use them, use within the family, socio-economic stratum and being depressed (Medina Mora, 2003).

VII. Macrosocial factors associated with drug use

Alongside the risk factors mentioned above, constituent elements of the social substrate have also been invoked as causes of drug use (Stefano Cirillo et al., 1999) which, together with family characteristics, constitute the most important cofactors. The author cited calls these factors historico-social coincidences that contribute to the development of drug dependence; among them are mentioned:

VIII. Drug use

As regards drug use, Mexico, in the international context, is among the countries with low rates of use, but which at the same time report a worsening of the problem (Medina Mora, Cravioto et al., 2003). The current picture is one of use occurring at ever earlier ages, with a range of options made up of traditional drugs, such as inhalants or marijuana, swelled by the use of cocaine, which has shown the greatest percentage increase in users in recent years and which affects children and the poor sectors of the population, as well as by the emergence of new drugs such as methamphetamines or crack, in addition to the use of heroin, particularly notable on the country’s northern border.

As for patterns of initiation, it has been found that inhalants are the substances whose use begins earliest, followed by marijuana and cocaine, this initial use occurring between the ages of 11 and 12. Streets and parks are the places where marijuana and inhalants are most frequently obtained, whereas cocaine is more often obtained at parties or in nightclubs (Medina Mora et al., 2003), unlike alcohol and tobacco, whose initial use takes place at home (Amaya, 2004).

The reasons for using drugs generally include curiosity, pressure from the social environment, the search for tranquillity, and even having nothing else to do.

As mentioned above, drug use is more frequent among young people and adolescents of both sexes who are not in school or who have poor academic performance (Camarillo Santillán et al., 2002), as well as among those who earn an income.

On gender-related aspects, it is important to mention that the use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs has increased significantly among women in recent decades; it has even been found that patterns of use, of alcohol for example, tend to be more intense among women than among men (Medina Mora et al., 2001).

IX. Conclusions

The phenomenon of drug dependence has seen a significant increase in recent decades, a situation from which Mexico is not exempt. Likewise, the growth of the young population in our country has meant that the growth of the consumer market is also significant. Parallel to this percentage growth of the young population, Mexican society is witnessing an increase in the number of women who work and who, consequently, reduce the time devoted to their children. Adolescents thus have more time outside parental supervision, both physically and emotionally, which increases their exposure to mass media such as television and above all the Internet, which give them access to models of life often decontextualised from their immediate reality, that is, from their family.

To this is added the fact that the curiosity proper to the adolescent stage is exacerbated by the accumulation of messages that show models of life in which drug use features, implicitly or explicitly. The phenomenon is increasingly frequent, to the point that it is a daily occurrence for the developing individual to be in contact with aspects related to it; parents therefore cannot permanently avoid contact with drugs. Hence the need to educate the adolescent in developing skills to face reality positively, without being affected by the environment: this is resilience.

It should be recalled that this quality is in fact an intrinsic property of metals, which enables them not to deform when subjected to high temperatures; applied to individuals, it is formed and strengthened in the person’s first social relationships, which generally take place in the family. So that it is the family nucleus, whatever its structure, that is responsible for providing the tools and skills with which the adolescent and the young person will be able to get through their developmental process successfully, regardless of the environment in which they live. Of course, the environment, as an important element of the triangle that produces drug dependence, will have to be modified in a positive way.

Nevertheless, families are called upon to seek spaces of shared life, both physical and emotional, between each and every one of their members, trying to find a balance between active involvement in the growth and development of those who compose them and permission given to the youngest to progressively assume the autonomy proper to the adult.

Particular attention must be paid to working children and adolescents, as well as to the environment in which they move on a daily basis, that is, friends, school and the workplace. It is also necessary that fathers and mothers do not give up their role as educators, by word as by example, and that they develop skills for negotiating the conflicts proper to the family, setting themselves up as the main source of emotional support, from which the child can set out to develop new, deeper personal relationships, which will necessarily lead him to leave his family in order to found a new one, while always retaining the possibility of returning to his family of origin to find support there, and setting out once more.