2011 - Danica Aniciete - TheSocialConstructionofMarriageandaNarrativeApproa[Retrieved-2014!02!28]

Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23:103126, 2011Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0895-2833 print/1540-4099 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08952833.2011.576233

The Social Construction of Marriageand a Narrative Approach to Treatment

of Intra-Relationship Diversity

DANICA ANICIETE and KRISTY LEE SOLOSKIMarriage and Family Therapy Program, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond,

Indiana, USA

Simultaneously with societal policies and values, marital arrange-ments have changed in terms of intrarelationship diversity andlongevity. This occurrence leads to the ability to conceptualizemarriage as a socially constructed entity. Cultural identificationinfluences the expectations surrounding marriage, encompass-ing multiple dimensions: collectivism/individualism, race, gender,and religion, among others. Many relationship conflicts are relatedto an individuals dreams, which are likely to be influenced byinternalized expectations stemming from ones cultural upbring-ing. The authors propose a narrative treatment model for a couple,which includes a variation of a cultural genogram, and uti-lizesexternalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, andre-membering conversations.

KEYWORDS narrative therapy, social construction, marriage,intervention, marriage and family therapy

INTRODUCTION

The union between a man and a woman is evolutionarily useful to the sur-vival of ones offspring (Geary & Flinn, 2001). Prior to the rise of a maritalcontract, varying cultural rituals signified the union between a man and awoman, some included the capturing and raping of a woman signifying

Received March 15, 2010; accepted March 25, 2011.Authors contributed to this publication equally and are listed alphabetically.Address correspondence to Kristy Lee Soloski, Marriage and Family Therapy Program,

Purdue University Calumet, 1247 E. 169th Street, Hammond, IN 46324. E-mail: [email protected]

103

104 D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

ownership (Howard, 1964). Later, the acquisition of a wife involved a mone-tary transaction where families provided compensation for a bride (Howard,1964).

During the 17th century, strict divorce laws in Western Europe made itdifficult to end a marriage (Coontz, 2005). By the end of the 17th century,personal choice in partners emerged as the social ideal over arranged mar-riages. As choice became an option in marriage, marrying for love becameencouraged by society (Coontz, 2005).

Divorce became a more common occurrence within Western societybeginning in the 1960s (Coontz, 2005), and although there was an influx indivorce rates around the same time as the feminist movement and the rise inwomens prominence in the workforce, it cannot be implied that the feministmovement is the contributing cause. Instead, as love, or emotion and choice,became a driving force for entering a marriage, it may have encouragedpeople to apply a similar, albeit reciprocal notion to their ability to leavethe marriage (Coontz, 2005). Societys changes as a whole influenced thearrangement within a marital union, and additionally the durability of it. Ittook more than 150 years to establish the love-based, male breadwinnermarriage as the dominant model in North America and Western Europe. Ittook less than 25 years to dismantle it (Coontz, 2005, p. 247).

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THEORY

The theory of social construction posits that meaning is created throughcountless interactions with the environment. Knowledge is not a fixed entity,but an evolving process that occurs through conversations with anyone andeveryone a person comes into contact with (Hoffman, 1990). Dominantbeliefs within society, and also within ourselves, influence each individualsperception of what is real (White, 1995). Therefore, constructs, such as amarriage, are not exclusive across a society. Each individuals experiencesand influences from their societal authority create a distinctive understand-ing. What is acceptable or expected conduct within a marriage will varyacross partners, as neither has had identical experiences.

Socially Constructed Aspects of a Marriage

Parallel with the changes in policies, values, and beliefs within the UnitedStates, there were evident changes within matrimonial institutions. In theUnited States, the divorce to marriage rate in 2008 was approximately half.There were approximately 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in the populationin 2008, and there were 3.5 divorces per 1,000 (Centers for Disease Controland Prevention, 2008). Societys stated expectations surrounding roles, andthe change in assumptions regarding the permanence of marriage, indicate

The Social Construction of Marriage 105

that a marriage cannot be described as a static state. Instead, marriage canbe viewed as a socially constructed entity. Marriage is a product of socialexperience, and understanding its present state requires looking at its devel-opment (Howard, 1964, p. 8). Various aspects generally associated witha marital union have been specified as socially constructed experiences,including love (Coontz, 1995; Howard, 1964; Beall & Sternberg, 1995) andcommitment (Byrd, 2009).

Limitations of Marriage

The continuation of a marital relationship is not always the best option forboth parties. In cases of severe abuse, the woman may be physically saferoutside of the relationship. In many cases, a therapist will not see a coupleconjointly if there is a high level of abuse occurring (OLeary, 2008). In thisway, the view of marriage as a priority or a covenant that must be protectedat all costs may be ignorant. However, marriage has been a large influenceon society, and vice versa (Coontz, 2005), and may be implied to be the endresult of a relationship. This macrosystemic variable holds much influenceover views of long-term relationships.

Currently, the partnering of individuals is continuing to alter andchange. Marriage rates within the United States are decreasing each year(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), and the United States is engaging in a politicalargument as to whether gay marriage should be supported (Somashekhar,2010). Without considering marriage as the goal, alternatives are commonand seeking governmental rights as well (e.g., polygamy and co-habitation)(Lamarme, 2010). Choice as a whole is increasing within partnering relation-ships. Considering this revolution is still occurring, we focus primarily on theentity of marriage, which in the past has been more defined within society(Coontz, 2005). However, any cultural values that may impact an individualwould be relevant within any person or relationship.

In the United States, a country where cultures are constantly mixing tocomprise its identity, and where interracial marriages are becoming morecommon (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), it seemsadvantageous to consider the inherent thoughts and requirements that areencompassed within this union. Regardless of whether a partnership isdiverse within its race or culture, there is likely to be difference betweenindividual ascription to values. The standards within a marriage continue tobe diverse, and it remains likely that there may be discrepancies surround-ing what is acceptable or required within a couple. Within the United States,two prominent sources for diversity are culture and religion. In this articlethe authors review the cultural and religious influences within a relationshipand propose a therapeutic model for intervention within the marital context.As marriage and partnership changes, these factors will become more preva-lent and more influencing of couple relationships. Therefore it is important


for a therapist to be knowledgeable of the issues of diversity, no matter howminute or insignificant they may seem, and how they may affect the view acouple has of their relationship and their roles within it.

CULTURE

Various aspects affect ones expectations for a marriage. Culture encom-passes several aspects that are taken into consideration especially becausesatisfaction with ones spouse may largely depend on the degree to whichmarriage fulfills culturally determined expectations and obligations (Lucaset al., 2008, p. 109). Lucas and colleagues (2008) assert that ones culturemay be one component responsible for setting the norms and values anindividual maintains.

Collectivism Versus Individualism

Collectivistic and individualistic ideals dictate the varying levels of inter-dependence and concern for others (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Primarily withinindividualistic cultures, it is imperative to have a sense of individuality withina relationship (Byrd, 2009). Marital satisfaction and opinions of marriagemay also be dictated by the individuals identification with an individualis-tic or collectivistic culture. In Western cultures, it would not be uncommonfor a husband or a wife to be self-indulgent or pursue their own pleasurebefore their partners needs (Lucas et al., 2008). Conversely, in a collec-tivistic culture (e.g., Hispanic or Filipino cultures), the needs and desiresof the other spouse and/or family members are given a higher priority(UmanaTaylor & Fine, 2003). Issues may arise when partners do not iden-tify with the same type of culture, especially when one partner is adamantabout keeping and maintaining their own familial expectations and beliefs.Although collectivism/individualism are often associated with specific cul-tures (Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2003), it is possible that a persons ascriptionto these ideals is not solely due to their race. It is, however, likely that theywill intersect.

Race

In 2001, 4.9% of marriages were interracial (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000),and those numbers have been growing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Thoseminorities in interracial relationships are commonly forced to reexaminetheir sense of identity (Forry, Leslie, & Letiecq, 2007). Additionally, ingrainedfamily views surrounding same-race marriages influence the types of stres-sors that a couple may face and may alter ones opinion of what a marriage


should look like. Statistically, interracial marriages are more likely to end indivorce in comparison to same-race marriages (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002).It has been noted that a failed marriage is often seen as a consequencefor violating norms of racial homogamy (Bratter & King, 2008, p. 161).Additionally, ones racial background may emphasize pro-nuptial values(Bulanda & Brown, 2007) that may sway an individual to feel that marriageis a necessity.

Gender

Gender, as compared to ones biological sex, is socially constructed (Lorber& Farrell, 1991), and how it is interpreted is influenced by ones family com-position and cultural background (Quek & KnudsenMartin, 2006; Crawford,2006). The assignment of gender roles is related to racial identification.Generally, white families assign more gender specific roles to their chil-dren than do black families (Hill, 2002; Cunningham, 2001). Early values arecarried on throughout ones life and often within ones family of choice.

Children are often socialized to follow scripts (Crawford, 2006), whichcan include directions for how they should behave and interact withinromantic relationships. These scripts can include the restriction of roman-tic relationships for women, but for males often involves the promotion ofmultiple relationships as a way to define their masculinity. However, as gen-der norms continually break down within society (Diekman & Goodfriend,2006), differences in expectations within a couple are more likely.

Religion

Levels of religiosity in the United States seem to be changing, as 67% ofthe American public reported in 2008 that religiosity was losing its influence(Saad, 2008). As religious ideation changes, it becomes more likely therewill be discrepancies within a relationship, whether in the level of religiosityor the denomination. A religious identity dictates what is anticipated froma marriage, and within these expectations, the dynamics for the marriageare established. Three very prominent religions, Judaism, Christianity, andIslam, were born within a patriarchal society, and maintain these influencesembedded within their teachings (Moghadam, 2004).

Within the traditional standpoint of many religions (Asamarai, Solberg,& Solon, 2008; Baker, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2009), it is believed thateach individual is held accountable to God for upholding the traditional rolefor a man and a woman. A possible benefit of this position is the reductionin the amount of negative implications of dominant and submissive roles(Baker et al., 2009).

The choice to marry someone with similar beliefs is a relatively commonoccurrence and has been associated with satisfaction subsequent to marriage


(Asamarai et al., 2008; Ahmadi & Hossein-Abadi, 2009; Myers, 2006). Thespecific religious affiliation seems to be less a determinant of marital satis-faction, as is the degree to which couple shares their values and religiouspractices, which may influence the effort one is willing to give to the rela-tionship or the type of communication that they have with their partner as aresult (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). Additionally, intrinsic and extrinsic religiousmotivations are associated with changes in marital satisfaction (Brimhall &Butler, 2007).

Level of religious affiliation is predictive of ones attitudes regardingdivorce as an option and marriage as permanent (Schovanec & Lee, 2001).Additionally, religiositys negative attitudes towards divorce are related tocommitment to the relationship and willingness to seek help with conflict(Sullivan, 2001).

Religious ascription determines the sexuality of an individual enteringa relationship. There are varying views on sexual practices prior to a mar-riage, and the observation of those ideologies differs across religious groups(Uecker, 2008). Religion has outlined that premarital sexual activities areimmoral and may possibly create a stigma to this intimate encounter. A linkhas been established between religiosity and sexual adjustment problemsamong first-married and remarried couples (Orathinkal & Vansteenwegen,2006). However, for numerous religious groups, marital infidelity was lesslikely as an outcome (Atkins & Kessel, 2008). An individuals ascription toa conservative religious doctrine influences the values that they incorporatewithin their own marriage.

In many cases, the relationship found between cultural diversity factorsand relationship satisfaction is simply correlational, and not explanatory.Therefore, the explanations for these relationships will vary across couples,and so will the likelihood for these variations to be a positive or negativeinfluence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS

The utilization of cultural and religious values within the therapeutic con-text has been a rising issue within the field of marriage and family therapy(Marterella & Brock, 2008; McGoldrick, Giordano, & GarciaPreto, 2005).When working with individuals from various ethnic backgrounds and/orcultures, marriage and family therapists should be cognizant of the differ-ences between cultures and refrain from making assumptions about theparticular values that are held (McGoldrick & Hardy, 2008). Some culturesmay take offense to the traditions held in the dominant culture, and ther-apists should be cognizant of these differences and inquire about clientsvalues. Involving discussions regarding religion has been identified as thetherapists responsibility, especially when it is of high importance to the


client (Hoogestrat & Trammel, 2003). Utilizing this topic has been a usefultool in discussions regarding issues of sexuality and power (Duba & Watts,2009).

It seems that cultural and religious influences have constructed viewson and implications for what is expected, what is acceptable, and what prob-lems that may occur within a marriage. Conflicts within a marriage could beresulting from the constructed view that each partner has formed regardingthe type of marriage that they hoped to have, or because of the ideals theyhave adopted throughout their exposure to these influences. The authorspropose a model that combines social construction, feminist family therapy,and narrative therapy for an intervention for couples. By addressing howsociety has created the ideals that couples may hold regarding their marriage,this approach can reduce the power differentials by focusing on relationshipstrengths rather than relationship ideals. This model seeks to increase under-standing of each partners background, and additionally works to externalizethe problem and help the couple to identify unique outcomes.

FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

The feminist family therapy movement began in order to address issues ofpower within the therapy room (Silverstein & Goodrich, 2003). This includedaddressing issues of race, gender, sexuality, and others.Instead of a focus onthe individual or a family unit, this approach shifts to the focus on sociocul-tural context, particularly on how society has shaped ideals and constructedrole constraint. This theory does not seek to simply benefit minorities ofany kind, but instead is meant to benefit all persons by shifting focusfrom power differentials. Within a marriage, there are many -isms thatare likely to be influencing roles scripts or power differentials surround-ing marriage standards, and these scripts are not limited simply to cultureor race or religion or gender. Instead all of these social influences shouldbe addressed simultaneously to avoid treatment gaps. Many feminist familytherapy approaches have sought to address one aspect of social construc-tion (e.g., gender; Freedman & Combs, 2002; and race; Hall & Greene, 2003;Falicov, 1995).This treatment approach seeks to maximize understanding ofthe socially constructed view of marriage by including gender, race, religion,and collectivism/individualism within the framework. The use of narrativetherapy within this proposed model seeks to continue to change the storythat couples adhere to and allow them to create their own view on whattheir marriage should look like rather than focusing on the larger societalview. Power within the couple is not focused on, instead this interventionseeks to create understanding of where those ideals manifested and focuson what works within this relationship rather than on what should bewithin the relationship.


PROPOSED NARRATIVE MODEL

Narrative therapy is a postmodern therapeutic theory that capitalizes on aclients strengths. Each person maintains a dominant story that identifies whohe or she is and what contributes to their problem. Stories often becomeproblem-saturated, and solutions and positives become difficult to identify(White & Epston, 1990). Therapy attempts to identify events that are counterto the dominant story and can provide instances when the problem was notas influential.

White (2007) conducts narrative therapy utilizing maps, or guidingideas, in order to assist a client in acknowledging and exploring parts oftheir life story that they had not previously been able to recognize. Threeaspects of Whites (2007) practice include externalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, and re-membering conversations. Through the useof these interventions, White (2007) is able to help clients see a problemas separate from their individual identity and help them realize that it is anentity that can be changed. Additionally, the interventions allow clients torealize occasions when their problem was not present, and when they wereable to act or respond differently. Through this process, the client is able toconceptualize their life narrative in another way and is able to make theiralternative story more prominent. A four-part model of therapeutic inter-vention that combines these three aspects of Whites narrative therapy andutilizes a variation of the popular genogram for work with couples focus-ing on the socially constructed aspects influencing their marriage is beingproposed in this article.

Narrative practice focuses mainly on the specific experiences andactions of the person throughout their lifetime. It attempts to alter the indi-viduals view of their behaviors and their experiences so that they may havea different and more positive view of their life story and that they will bebetter able to recognize their strengths. Cultural ideals can change the way aperson thinks about and interprets various situations. Narrative work with afocus on cultural difficulties is different in that it focuses on how values haveimpacted a persons life story in various ways. A narrative intervention withthis type of problem does not seek to change the values an individual holds,nor does it seek to challenge those cultural ascriptions; instead it seeks tohelp individuals and couples understand and recognize the positive influ-ences resulting from their cultural differences. Narrative therapy has beenutilized to help couples explore their gender stories and their choices withinthem (Freedman & Combs, 2002). This model will focus on the personalexperiences, behaviors, and cultural values of the individual and the couplein order to re-author the life story and the couples story.

Narrative approaches have been utilized in the context of couples ther-apy (Freedman, 2008). This approach will further externalize a problem,that is in fact already external to the actual relationship. Values can become


part of a persons self overtime, but the discourse itself can change through-out this type of therapy and the couple can recognize that the problem isnot a part of them, but that it can be influenced.

Narrative therapy does not focus on changing behaviors, but simplyon recognizing strengths that are already present. Through this therapeuticintervention, the client is not expected to change their behaviors entirely,but they are aided in recognizing more productive behaviors and increasingthe positive actions and thoughts that are already part of their life. This is notsolely in regards to their actions as a person, but their subscription to societalbeliefs. This therapeutic approach is more applicable to many clients as theyare not expected to make vast changes, but only to utilize their strengths ona more regular basis. This approach is likely to be seen as less threateningto power differentials. When working with hierarchical boundaries it canbe useful to employ an egalitarian relationship within the therapeutic room,so as not to evoke defensive reactions from either party within the unit(Rabin, 1996). Much of the work related to relationship equality involvesuniversalizing couple complaints within the context of the social transitionto gender equality . . . Couples need to be introduced to these matters ina gradual, simple and nonthreatening manner (p. 154). For some couples,change may be too overwhelming and threatening, and for some it maynot be a feasible goal as stated in that way. However, with the focus onunderstanding how their backgrounds have shaped their ideology it maybe empowering enough to allow them to re-author their story and begin torecognize more of the positives, or actions within the relationship that areproductive, rather than the negative behaviors within their relationship thatare damaging. A focus on negative aspects may create defensiveness thatwould block the therapeutic progress. This approach can be more helpfulto equality in the therapy room as it creates less defensiveness and thereforeallows each individual to focus more on the relationship as they like it ratherthan on issues of power and through the lens of their socially constructedview.

Cultural Genogram

The genogram is traditionally a transgenerational intervention that is uti-lized in order to help a family understand the system that they are currentlyembedded within (Bowen, 1978). Deviations of the traditional genogramhave emerged to focus on more specific aspects of ones family unit(DeMaria, Weeks, & Hof, 1999) and on ones culture (Hardy & Laszloffy,1995; Estrada & Haney, 1998; Thomas, 1998). Other genograms have focusedon socially constructed aspects of life (MilewskiHertlein, 2001; Iversen,Gergen, & Fairbanks, 2005). The authors are proposing the use of a vari-ation of the popular cultural genogram, entitle the intrarelationship DiversityIdentifying Genogram (IDIG; See Figure 1), and that focuses on more


Collectivism/ Collectivism/Religion Race Gender Individualism Religion Race Gender Individualism

FIGURE 1 The Intrarelationship Diversity Identifying Genogram (IDIG) for the assessmentand externalization of relationship discrepancies.

expansive aspects of ones culture. The authors are proposing that this toolcan be utilized in the assessment of a couple for differences in marital expec-tations that arise as the result of the various dimensions of their diversity.This genogram can be used with either straight or gay couples, a simple vari-ation in the gender symbol would allow for this application. Additionally, ifthere are multiple religious ascriptions, racial identifications, or so on, thetherapist can simply discuss that within the intervention, or if a diagram isnecessary, they can add additional extensions onto the genogram.

The construction of this cultural model would entail asking questionsto ascertain information about each partners history and background, verymuch like a traditional genogram. Here the therapist would ask culture (e.g.,race, religion, gender, etc.) specific questions and have each partner elab-orate on what it was about their culture that they feel shaped or stronglyinfluenced their opinions of marriage. Utilizing the genogram in this wayallows the therapist to help the couple narrate their influences and visualizetheir differences as constructed by various influences in their life. In thisway, the genogram itself is allowing the couple to externalize the conflictsthat are arising from these differences. The following case study and exam-ples are provided to facilitate the conversation and to guide the client to thenext stage of the model.

Case Study

Joseph is a Caucasian male and has been in a relationship with Danielle,who is Filipino-American, for three years. They met while in college throughmutual friends. They are both the same age, share several interests, andare deeply committed to each other. Joseph and Danielle are seeking cou-ples counseling to discuss issues that are perpetually affecting the dynamics


of their relationship. Both identify as family oriented individuals, however,Joseph does not seem to understand why Danielles mother needs to beinformed of all her decisions, as well as decisions that they as a cou-ple have made. Danielle has been working additional hours at the officefor the last six months, which limits the time the couple has to spendtogether. Additionally, Joseph continues to be perplexed by Danielles con-stant need to financially support her family, even though her family reportsthat they are financially stable. Danielle argues that she understands thather family is financially well off but she insists that she feels indebted tocontribute to her family in this manner since she now has a respectablejob and makes more than enough. Lastly, both Danielle and Joseph haveindicated that their communication style is affecting their dynamic thuscausing more arguments. Danielle reports that she feels that getting intoarguments is not worth it and just agrees with what Joseph says. Josephstated that he feels a lack of effort on Danielles part because nothing evergets solved if Danielle agrees to something and then brings it up again at alater time.

Race. Race is an overt characteristic that an individual cannot modify.Although some people appear to be distinctly one race, some people maylook like a hybrid between two backgrounds or are able to pass for a raceother than their own. The definition of race varies from person-to-person;however, one partner may feel that race is not an important factor in theirrelationship. As discussed earlier, research has shown that race has an effecton romantic relationships (Bratter & King, 2008) and therapists can begin toask the client questions, including the following examples.

What are a few things about your race that you would like for yourpartner to know that you think would help him/her understand you andyour relationship better?

How has your race influenced your thoughts or expectations about whata marriage is?

The previous suggestions can be applied to both same-race and interracialcouples considering that although people are of the same race, it does notnecessarily mean that they share the same values. Further, the followingquestions can be used specifically with in interracial relationships:

What would/do you think are the best parts of being in an interracialrelationship?

How has being in an interracial relationship been of a greater advantagefor you as a couple, and an individual?

In the case study involving Joseph and Danielle, race was not anovert characteristic that affected their relationship. Inquiring about this issue


brought attention to a salient characteristic that neither party was awareof. In simply asking about their race, the therapist aided in understandingtheir background and in helping the couple view their differences in a waythat was conducive to accepting differences. Additionally, in this case, thecouple foundthrough discussing their differences and similarities that theyhad patience with each other and openness to unconventional ideas out-side of their own background. In this way it highlighteda strength in theirrelationship (e.g., patience with each other or openness to unconventionalideas).

Collectivistic and individualism. Similarly to how race was addressed,issues regarding collectivistic/individualistic cultures can also be imple-mented in a similar manner. Therapists can inquire about the benefitsof their identity or influences on their view of marriage. For exam-ple, therapists can ask clients how they have benefited from being in acollectivistic/individualistic culture. This concept may not be easily con-ceived by clients, but the therapist can delineate the differences between thesignificance of making decisions based on ones desires (i.e., individualism)or with a predominant consideration of the needs of others (i.e., collectivism)(Hui & Triandis, 1986). One partner may feel the need to always make deci-sions based on what their partner wants and put their needs aside, whichmay in turn affect their views on marriage. Further, a partner who iden-tifies with an individualist culture may not deliberately attempt to offendtheir partner by putting their individual desire first; however, it may causediscrepancies on what is appropriate in their relationship.

When taking the collectivist/individualist culture that a person identifieswith into consideration, it is imperative to understand that men and womenare equally as capable to give to their partners; however, it is necessaryto account for gender roles that may hinder a person to reach the samelevel of equality in giving. The notion of giving can be an ambiguous termfor those who may not ascribe to the Western culture. Giving can be seenin the form of sacrificing something for their partner, giving their time tofulfill or complete a task, or simply, giving their love and affection towardtheir partner. For example, some gender narratives in certain Asian culturesnote that women are stereotypically docile and submissive (Shibusawa,2008). Given that there can be several connotations behind giving, it is notuncommon for this notion to be misconstrued and possibly intersect withgender narratives.

If a woman were to ascribe to these collectivist ideals, it is imperativeto consider whether she is following the scripts of being a woman, beingcollectivist, or possibly both. Shibusawa (2008) asserts that family therapistsworking with non-Westernized clients often have difficulty discussing theseissues as it may not be something that this client is familiar with becauseit may be the norm for them. Further, Shibusawa indicates that there maybe a barrier in training especially since it does not change the fact that the


therapist is trained in North American while the clients perceptions can stillpossibly revolve around those from their dominant culture.

Conversely, when working with men who follow traditionally collec-tivist gender roles, there may also be a disconnect between what they feelthey should do as a man versus what their behavior should look like becauseof their collectivist ideals (Shibusawa, 2008). In short, these gender roles aremore than likely to conflict and intersect with cultural values and detailedexploration and continued empathy would be helpful for therapists.

Therapists can ask how being a part of a collectivistic or individualisticculture has shaped their views and expectations of what a marriage shouldbe. Finally, the therapist can highlight their strengths as individuals, and asa couple, thus normalizing their differences.

How have you benefited from being in a collectivistic/individualisticculture?

What has being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture taught you abouthow you should attend to your partner?

How does being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture influence yourexpectations for your marriage?

What has being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture taught you abouthow you should take care of, or value, yourself?

There appeared to be some underlying traits in Danielle that mir-rored collectivist ideals, such as wanting to financially support her familyand putting her feelings aside for the sake of avoiding arguments. Thetherapist further elaborated on her perception and reality of this char-acteristic. Between race and collectivism in this case study, the therapistencouraged clients to think about how race and their own mentality(individualism/collectivism) are connected to each other. By doing this, theclients realized how these differences could be positive and beneficial intheir relationship. Further, the therapist stated that although some conflictshave occurred in the past because of this difference, the couples individualmentality was not necessarily bad but just different. The therapist began toencourage the clients to discuss their mentalities and thoughts in a way thatwas warm, and in a way where both couples felt open to further discusshow they have solved things despite their differences.

Gender. Gender is constructed from the minute that a child is born,and the parents and/or caregivers possibly have created these norms fortheir child. Hill (2002) and Cunningham (2001) indicate that parents havedifferent expectations for their child, since some cultures enforce more tradi-tional roles (e.g., assigning less labor intensive chores for girls) while someexpect that their child exemplify more androgynous roles (e.g., allowingtheir daughter to partake in the same activities as they would their son, or


other boys around the same age). The gender roles that people adopt cancertainly progress within the individual throughout their life. How much theperson defines gender roles in their life is contingent upon which roles theyhave adopted and relinquished. Therapists can appreciate what the client hasto offer when they begin to discuss how gender has impacted their own per-sonal views and beliefs about marriage. Additionally, the same questions assuggested prior could be tailored to learn more about the clients perceptionsof gender and the role it plays in their relationship.In order for therapists tolearn more about the clients perception of their masculinity or femininity, itis imperative that the therapist allow the client(s) to freely discuss their real-ity and the construction of gender in their lives and relationship. Possiblediscussions could surround the following questions.

What gender roles are you expected to emboss within your relationship? What has influenced your view of your own gender and its roles? What roles do you expect your partner to hold because of his/hergender?

What roles did your parents hold because of their gender? What roles have you chosen or discarded as part of your gender identity? How would your family react if you no longer held that view in regardsto your gender?

Religion. Religious backgrounds are also highly influential in peopleslives. Much of a persons religious upbringings help dictate which coursethey will follow in their life. Therapists should take into consideration theclients religious affiliations and ask the client to explain what it is like tobe a member of that religion and what their religion has stated is expectedfrom a husband or wife.

As is influenced by your religious views, what role does sex play withinyour relationship?

What would be the ideal relationship in your religion? What role should each partner play within your religion? How does your religion influence your opinion of the permanence ofmarriage?

By allowing the client to educate the therapist, the therapist is suggestingthat the client is the expert of their life (White, 2007). Race and religion aretwo separate entities but similar questions can be asked in respect to religionas it was to race, as previously indicated. In the case study while discussingreligion, Danielle and Joseph found that they had very similar ideas andvalues surrounding religion and that their ascription to religion was strength


of theirs. They felt comforted and bonded in knowing that they shared sucha strong value and ideal.

In the same way that a traditional genogram aids in the conceptualiza-tion of problem formation and the areas in which change can occur (Bowen,1978), this variation facilitates the perception of impacting differences withinthe relationship. Also, it is similar to the multicultural context genogram thatis utilized to assess for culture with a family (Estrada & Haney, 1998), but itis specifically for use with couples and also allows the therapist to identifymore specific aspects of ones cultural background.

The IDIG functions within the therapeutic process as much morethan simply an assessment device. By allowing the couple to recount theinfluences on their ideals, it is aiding in the externalization of problemformation. This intervention prequels later externalization conversationsthat will follow. Additionally, questions pertaining to the choices that aclient has made in regards to their ideals associated with their culturehelp them re-author their own story and realize the control that theyhave had over their identity and their problem. Finally, the genogramallows the therapist to help the client begin to decide which ideals thatthey find helpful or valuable within their life and relationship, and thosewhich they no longer wish to maintain. In this way, they begin re-membering conversations. The IDIG works parallel to the narrative processand within this context functions more as a narrative practice rather than atransgenerational one.

Externalizing Conversations

The perceptions that clients hold about their problems often misguide themto feel that their problems are inseparable from their self and their life. White(2007) asserts that by objectifying the problem, clients are able to realize thatthe problem becomes the problem, not the person (p. 9). People also claimto believe that the problem is a part of their identity and they are the causeof the problem (White, 2007). The first step is to learn about these problemsand be respectful of the clients reality, which begins while conducting theIDIG. When working with couples that have attributed a certain trait to bethe problem, it would be helpful to ask what the problem has done wronginstead of asking what they have done incorrectly. This way, the couple, orindividual, then begins to recognize that it is not them causing the problem,it is the problem that is causing the problem. The clients identities are notproblematic, but some differences that have become a socialized part oftheir identity have become so. The cultural genogram works along withthis process by allowing each partner to see the differences that have risenfrom their individual backgrounds. By understanding where this differenceextends from, the couple may soften and become more accepting, or at leastunderstanding, of their differences.


An individuals race or biological sex is not necessarily a characteristicthat they requested to be assigned, but the associated ideals or conflicts arenot requirements of that identity. By discussing their cultural identities interms of characteristics that have been influenced by others, and that theyhave and can influence, it should allow the client to see that these are notstatic entities. Instead, the associated ideals can be manipulated to work withtheir specific needs. Although a person is currently more individualistic ortraditional in their gender and religion, it does not mean that they have tomaintain that tendency. Possible questions that can be utilized during theexternalization of these influencing factors include the following.

How has gender made you view your partner? How has individualism taken you away from your partner? What does race think about your partner? What does religion think about your sexuality?

Although these characteristics have been present throughout each partnerslife, they can alter the way that they allow them to control and influence theirlives. These characteristics can be externalized similarly to other disorderedbehaviors including panic disorder (Wetchler, 1999).

Since issues regarding race and collectivism were the most impactingon Danielle and Joseph, the therapist began to talk about how these issuesaffected them. The therapist used language that made both race and col-lectivism a noun rather than an adjective, thus externalizing them from thecouple. The couple began to state how these parts of them affected theirmarriage rather than stating that their marriage was the problem.

Re-Authoring Conversations

Re-authoring conversations allow a client to discuss their story surround-ing their lives. This dominant story is frequently saturated with accounts ofnegative experiences and problematic occurrences. Throughout this narra-tion, the therapist should aid the client in noticing events that are counterto their dominant story, or unique outcomes (White, 2007). For a couplewhose problem surrounds the roles they are expected to maintain withintheir marriage, their dominant story may surround having failed at balancingthose responsibilities. Over time, as the problem becomes more prevalent, itis common that each partner utilizes an availability heuristic and recalls onlytimes when a specific factor is prevalent. The couple becomes fixed on thisoutcome and allows it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once a personbelieves that something can only be negative, they begin to act and reactin a way that will only make this outcome more likely. In this way, uniqueoutcomes are ignored and not utilized when attempting to solve a problemor conceptualize a difference.


Utilizing re-authoring conversations can allow a couple to see timeswhen their presenting problem was not the dominant story, or again tonotice these unique outcomes. While the couple discusses their problems,the therapist should be present and responsive for opportunities to identifyunique outcomes and redefine the dominant story. It is plausible that mostcouples would not marry if the very permanent aspects of their identity wereinstigating problems from the beginning of their relationship. In many cases,family values dictate the importance of marrying someone of the same cul-ture (Forry et al., 2007), but in spite of these messages the couple remainedintact. Therefore, the therapist can seek to determine what strengths thishad during the beginning stages of their relationship or that helped themmaintain strength throughout the course of their relationship.

The narratives within a story are composed of different landscapes:landscapes of action and landscapes of consciousness. Landscape of actionis the material of the story and is composed of the sequence of eventsthat make up the plot (sjuzet) and the underlying theme (fibula) (White,2007, p. 78). On the other hand, landscape of consciousness is composedof the thoughts, feelings, and actions of those that are involved in the story(White, 2007). Landscape of action questions can be utilized throughoutthe re-authoring conversation to determine how these characteristics havebeen strengths throughout different times in their relationship. The questionspertaining to these separate landscapes will likely be more specific to eachparticular story. The therapist must seek out these landscapes and help thecouple elaborate upon them and create their own new meaning.

What did your partners actions on that day say to you about her/hisvalues pertaining to your gender identity?

When you saw your partner being involved with her/his cultural tradition,what did this suggest to you about her/him as a person?

Landscape of consciousness questions can also be utilized to determinehow each partner, and other important characters to the story, have createdmeaning through different events. The focus here should be on the meaningthat was elicited from their alternative story, and from when they were ableto see their differences as strengths.

When you saw your partner act in that way, what did you think abouther/him as a woman/man?

When your partner acted that way, what did this suggest to you abouther/his feelings for you and her/his willingness to care of you?

Strength within a couple often surrounds the balance that they are ableto provide one another because of their individual differences. A couplewho consistently has misunderstandings as a result of their cultural differ-ences may begin to notice only when their diversity creates a problem.


It is very probable that there are times when this characteristic proves tobe an asset. For example, if both partners in a couple were individual-istic, they may not connect as strongly with one another because of thefocus on their own individual needs. Additionally, if both partners werecollectivistic it may be overwhelming to consistently be giving to the otherand not tending to ones own needs. Therefore, a couple who is diversein this characteristic will provide a balance of nurturing the other andallowing time for individual care that may be necessary for the relation-ships health. Additionally, with racial differences there often comes newand exciting traditions to be shared with ones partner. These traditionscan be a source of excitement and attraction in the beginning of the rela-tionship. Through rediscovering these times when the differences were astrength, it can help the couple remember their original attraction and allowthem to again see that quality in terms of a positive. To help identifythese unique outcomes, the therapist could utilize the following questions.

When was a time where your racial differences were a strength in yourrelationship?

How have your differences in individualism provided a balance for yourrelationship?

What initially attracted you about your partners gender identification? How have your religious differences or similarities been exciting withinyour relationship?

As the couple engages these conversations regarding the strengths in theirdifferences, they will begin re-authoring their stories and altering their dom-inant narrative. After acknowledging different outcomes, the embeddednessof this negative connection will diminish and the couple will be more ableto access their strengths to combat their problems.

Through these conversations, Joseph was able to indicate that Daniellescollectivistic influences had allowed them to be giving to one another.Joseph also stated that when she acted that way, he also wanted to giveback to her. Danielle was able to recognize times when Josephs individu-alistic influences proved to make him motivated to work hard at work, andtherefore provide well for the family.

Re-Membering Conversations

Re-membering conversations allow a client to reexamine those influencesthat they have allowed to shape their identity. This process of re-memberingconversations can begin through granting authority to some voices in regardto matters of ones personal identity, and to disqualify other voices withregard to this (White, 2007, p. 129). For a couple whose problem arisesfrom the discrepancy in their culture or their definition of marriage, as a


result of socially constructed experiences, re-membering conversations canaid in the cooperative redefinition of what hopes the couple has for thisrelationship. As multiple previous conversations have allowed this portionof their identity to become problematic, a purposeful process of determiningwhat conversations and what authors are useful in their identity can redirectthem to a more positive route. Completing these conversations with bothpartners present can be powerful in that it allows them to decide as a unitwhat aspects are important to them and why. Additionally, this approachallows them to co-create a relationship identity that is meaningful for bothpartners, and empowers them to re-identify the strengths they once saw intheir differences. Some suggested questions adopted from White (2007)sexamples are provided in order to honor the couples strengths include:

How were you able to hold onto this relationship despite the controversyit has created in both your families?

Of all the people in both of your lives, who would be the least surprisedto know that you have been able to survive as a couple?

What do you think that these people saw in the both of you that allowedthem to predict this outcome (p. 143)?

How have you been able to combat stereotypes regarding interracialcouples?

What benefits have you seen from being open to your partnersuntraditional view of gender?

How has being exposed to such a nurturing partner made you morecompassionate with other people in your life?

The utilization of this intervention should allow a couple to recognizethat their problematic areas are not a result of their identity as a cou-ple, but has been constructed and influenced by the external environment.After externalizing the problem and having conversations regarding theirunique outcomes, the couple should be able to re-author their story and co-construct a new dominant discourse accentuating any diversity as a strengthin their relationship. Through having these conversations in the case study,Joseph and Danielle were motivated to find the positives within their rela-tionship and to begin to create their own unified values. They felt morecomfortable and less combative with each other.

CONCLUSION

The institution of marriage has vastly evolved over time. Society has atremendous influence on ones views and expectations of marriage. Eachculture holds its own traditional values that a person must either acceptor relinquish when deciding to get married. Influencing cultural factorsinclude ones race, gender, religion, and whether their cultural backgroundis individualistic or collectivistic. Each of these variables determine the types


of values or barriers that a specific couple will be forced to confront withintheir relationship.

In many cases, marital conflict that arises is the result of expectationsand dreams that one has identified as important to their life. Gottman (1999)has identified that unsolvable problems within a relationship are linked tothose hopes and dreams that an individual has. Culture and religion createvery prominent influences that often dictate specific values and expectationsthat are appropriate within a marriage. As interracial marriages become morecommon, and a strict adherence to a marriage weakens, it becomes morelikely that there will be difference in values within a marriage.

We have proposed a model of treatment that includes narrative therapy,along with a cultural genogram, to identify these discrepancies. Throughoutthe use of externalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, and re-membering conversations a couple would be able to normalize their feelingsand gain insight into their partners values and expectations. Along withnarrative therapy, the specific strengths and unique outcomes can be identi-fied so that the couple can maintain them in the future and reduce presentgridlock (Gottman, 1999).

This model of therapy can be utilized to treat or reveal any differenceswithin a couple. Disparities in backgrounds often serve as strengths withina relationship, but the couple may not always be able to recognize this.Additionally, conflicts related to these factors are often difficult to identify,but may be linked to ones cultural and religious backgrounds.

Although this model can be applied to a vast number of cultural andreligious backgrounds, it is imperative that the therapist be cognizant ofthe cultures that each individual identifies with prior to its use. If the clientis not prepared, or open to acknowledging differences and their possibleweaknesses, then it may not be appropriate to utilize this intervention as ofyet in the therapeutic setting. Therapy should first foster understanding andacceptance to soften the clients stances prior to the use of this intervention,which will continue to increase knowledge and aid in re-writing the clientsstory as a couple (Jacobson & Christensen, 1996). We have not appliedthis model to therapy for specific populations; therefore its specific utilityhas yet to be identified. Future research should recognize the strengths ofthis model and determine specific outcomes, especially pertaining to thepopulations that this model has particular use with.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, K., & HosseinAbadi, F. H. (2009). Religiosity, marital satisfaction and childrearing. Pastoral Psychology, 57 , 211221.

Asamarai, L. A., Solberg, K. B., & Solon, P. C. (2008). The role of religiosity inMuslim spouse selection and its influence on marital satisfaction. Journal ofMuslim Mental Health, 3, 3752.


Atkins, D. C., & Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and infidelity: Attendance, butnot faith and prayer, predict marital fidelity. Journal of Marriage and Family,70, 407418.

Baker, E. H., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriageand the sanctification of gendered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30,147178.

Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 12, 417438.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: JasonAronson.

Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, andremarriage in the United States.Vital and Health Statistics (Series 23, No. 22).Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Bratter, J. L., & King, R. B. (2008) But will it last?: Marital instability amonginterracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57 , 160171.

Brimhall, A. S., & Butler, M. H. (2007). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic religious motivation andthe marital relationship. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 235249.

Bulanda, J. R., & Brown, S. L. (2007). Race-ethnic differences in marital quality anddivorce. Social Science Research, 36 , 945967.

Byrd, S. E. (2009). The social construction of marital commitment. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 71, 318336.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HealthStatistics. (2008). FastStats: Marriage and divorce. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how loveconquered marriage. London, UK: Viking Penguin.

Crawford, M. H. (2006). Transformations: Women, gender and psychology. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cunningham, M. (2001). Parental influences on the gendered division of housework.American Sociological Review, 66 , 184203.

DeMaria, R., Weeks, G., & Hof, L. (1999). Focused genograms: Intergenerationalassessment of individuals, couples, and families. Philadelphia, PA:Brunner/Mazel.

Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruityperspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369383.

Duba, J. D., & Watts, R. E. (2009). Therapy with religious couples. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 65, 210223.

Estrada, A. U., & Haney, P. (1998). Genograms in a multicultural perspective. InT. S. Nelson & T. S. Trepper (Eds.), 101 more interventions in family therapy.(pp. 269274). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Falicov, C. J. (1995). Training to think culturally: A multidimensional comparativeframework. Family Process, 34, 373388.

Forry, N. D., Leslie, L. A., & Letiecq, B. L. (2007). Marital quality in interracial rela-tionships: The role of sex ideology and perceived fairness. Journal of FamilyIssues, 28, 15381552.


Freedman, J. (2008). Narrative couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical hand-book of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 478498). New York, NY: The GuilfordPress.

Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (2002). Narrative therapy with couples. . .and a whole lotmore! Adelade, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior and thehuman family. Parenting: Science and Practice, 1(1&2), 561.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York,NY: Three Rivers Press.

Hall, R. L., & Greene, B. (2003). Contemporary African American families. InL. B. Silverstein & T. J. Goodrich (Eds.), Feminist family therapy: Empowermentin social context (pp. 107120). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Hardy, K. V., & Laszloffy, T. A. (1995). The cultural genogram: Key to trainingculturally competent family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,21, 227237.

Hill, S. A. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African-American families. Sex Roles,47 , 493506.

Hoffman, L. (1990). Constructing realities: An art of lenses. Family Process, 29(1),112.

Hoogestraat, T., & Trammel, J. (2003). Spiritual and religious discussions in fam-ily therapy: Activities to promote dialogue. The American Journal of FamilyTherapy, 31, 413426.

Howard, G. E. (1964). A history of matrimonial institutions. New York, NY:Humanities Press.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17 , 225248.

Iversen, R. R., Gergen, K. J., & Fairbanks, R. P. (2005). Assessment and socialconstruction: Conflict or co-creation? British Journal of Social Work, 35,689708.

Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1996). Acceptance and change in couple therapy.New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Lamarme, M. (2010). Alternatives to Marriage Project: Fighting for fairness andequality since 1998! Retrieved from http://www.unmarried.org/

Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38, 168187.

Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (1991). The social construction of gender. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Lucas, T., Parkhill, M. R., Wendorf, C. A., Imamoglu, E .O., Weisfeld, C. C., Weisfeld,G. E., & Shen, J. (2008). Cultural and evolutionary components of marital satis-faction: A multidimensional assessment of measurement invariance. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1),109123.

Marterella, M. K., & Brock, L. J. (2008). Religion and spirituality as a resource inmarital and family therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 19, 330344.

McGoldrick, M., & Hardy, K.V. (Eds.). (2008) Re-visioning family therapy: Race,culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 289310). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.


McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & GarciaPreto, N. (Eds.). (2005). Ethnicity and familytherapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Milewski-Hertlein, K. A. (2001). The use of a socially constructed genogram inclinical practice. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 2338.

Moghadam, V. M. (2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing familyin the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(1), 137162.

Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical andgenerational patterns, 19801997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 292304.

OLeary, K. D. (2008). Couple therapy and physical aggression. In A. S. Gurman(Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 478498). New York,NY: The Guilford Press.

Orathinkal, J., & Vansteenwegen, A. (2006). Religiosity and marital satisfaction.Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 497504.

Quek, K. M. T., & KnudsonMartin, C. (2006). A push toward equality: Processesamong dual-career newlywed couples in collectivist culture. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 68, 5669.

Rabin, C. (1996). Equal partners - Good friends. New York, NY: Routledge.Saad, L. (2008, December 23). Americans believe religion is losing clout: Percentage

saying influence of religion is slipping at 14-year high. Gallup Poll. Retrievedfrom http://www.gallup.com/poll/113533/Americans-Believe-Religion-Losing-Clout.aspx

Shibusawa, T. (2008). Interracial Asian couples beyond black and white. InM. McGoldrick & K. V. Hardy (Eds.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, cul-ture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 378388). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Shovanec, B., & Lee, C. (2001). Culture and divorce: The relationship of valuesand attitudes in a Protestant sample. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36(12),159177.

Silverstein, L. B., & Goodrich, T. J. (Eds.). (2003). Feminist family therapy:Empowerment in social context. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Somashekhar, S. (2010, August 17). Federal appeals court puts California gaymarriages on hold. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081603188.html

Sullivan, K. T. (2001). Understanding the relationship between religiosity and mar-riage: An investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosityon newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 610626.

Thomas, A. J. (1998). Understanding culture and worldview in family systems: Useof the multicultural genogram. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy forCouples and Families, 6(1), 2432.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Hispanic origin and race of coupled households: 2000.Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t19/tab01.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Americas families and living arrangements:2006 . Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html


Uecker, J. E. (2008). Religion, pledging, and the premarital sexual behavior ofmarried young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 728744.

UmanaTaylor, A. J., & Fine, M. R. (2003). Predicting commitment to wed amongHispanic and Anglo partners. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 117139.

Wetchler, J. (1999). Narrative treatment of a woman with panic disorder. Journal ofFamily Psychotherapy, 10(2), 1730.

White, M. (1995). Re-authoring lives: Interviews and essays. Adelaide, SouthAustralia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY:Norton.

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &Company, Inc.

2011 - Danica Aniciete - TheSocialConstructionofMarriageandaNarrativeApproa[Retrieved-2014!02!28]

Documents

Transcript of 2011 - Danica Aniciete - TheSocialConstructionofMarriageandaNarrativeApproa[Retrieved-2014!02!28]