AAFT CONFERENCECairns, October 20-21 October 2016

“My story, your story: The role of culture and language in emotion expression of cross-cultural couples”

Deisy Amorin-Woods

Family & Relationship Therapist

Director-Insight Counselling & Relationship Centre

Background

AUSTRALIAN STATISTICS

• Gradual increase in cultural diversity in Australia.

• 47 % of population are either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas (ABS, April 2013)

“Couples communicate in different paces, timing,

volumes, pitches

……and this becomes more complex when they come from

different cultures & speak different languages”

“They may speak more than two languages; the

language of the country where they live, the

language/s of the country where they were born & the

language used when communicating at home”.

60 to 70 % of couples are from cross-cultural backgrounds

INSIGHT COUNSELLING & RELATIONSHIP CENTRE

PERTH Western Australia

Insight Counselling & Relationship Centre (ICRC) Cross Cultural Couple

Representative Sample Composition & Breakdown

European/Asian: English/Chinese Italian/Malaysian French/Thai

European/South American: Swiss/Chilean

Pacific Islander/Asian New Zealander/Chinese

Australian/Asian: Australian/Indonesian Australian/Chinese Australian/Malaysian

Australian/South American: Australian/Colombian Australian/Chilean

Australian/Arabic Australian/Iraqi

INSIGHT COUNSELLING & RELATIONSHIP CENTRE (ICRC) CROSS CULTURAL COUPLE COMPOSITION

Of these couples:The majority comprises of men from Western (individualistic) cultures-predominantly Australian, and women from non-Western (collectivist) cultures -predominantly from Asian cultures.

Fewer couples comprise men from a more differing culture (CaLD eg Chinese male, partnered/married to Australian female)

5% of Asian men/Australia women2% of South American men/Australian/New Zealand women1 Iraqi man/Australian woman

INSIGHT COUNSELLING & RELATIONSHIP CENTRE (ICRC) CROSS CULTURAL COUPLE COMPOSITION

Language ratio spoken amongst these couples:For the partner not born in Australia, their primary language is their native tongue (language of their C.O.B)In 70% of couples, 1 partner speaks 2 languages; Their primary language & English.In 30% of couples, 1 partner speaks more than 2 languages; their primary language (where they were born), another native language (from their C.O.B), or a later acquired language & English Almost all couples speak English at home

Most problematic relationships found in couples where men come from more diverse cultures, For example; Chinese-male/New Zealand-femaleIraqi-male/Australian-female

KEY IMPACTING FACTORS:

Migration

• Age of arrival to Australia (As adult or child)• Type of migration Eg: independently; family reunion; professional;

study; partner/spousal;• Whether refugee or humanitarian entrant• Whether they migrated with parents as part of family migration• Whether they migrated independently (first member of FOO)• Whether 1st or 2nd generation

ISSUES ARISING WHEN WORKING WITH CROSS-CULTURAL COUPLES

Cultural Differences in terms of:ValuesBeliefsCustoms TraditionsPracticesFamily CommunityLanguage

Impacting on:Meaning UnderstandingStyles of communication

Leading to increased:AssumptionsMisunderstandingsConfusiondisconnection…‘Interpersonal Barriers’

ISSUES ARISING WHEN WORKING WITH CROSS-CULTURAL COUPLES

Differences in the perception and values held between individualist cultures (Anglo-Australian families) and collectivist cultures (CaLDfamilies.

Intercultural interactions linked to relationships and emotions (Sirota, 1998)

ISSUES ARISING WHEN WORKING WITH CROSS-CULTURAL COUPLES

Language is to CULTURE what DNA is to GENETICS

(de Zuleta, 1990)

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WHEN COMMUNICATING DIFFERENT LANGUAGES

World-view & identity shifts when communicating in different languagesDifferent affective content: depending on which language is used.• Experiencing ‘emotional detachment’ when speaking in 2nd language• Use language switching in order to improve connectedness• First/primary languages; language for intimacy, signifying & engendering closeness• Second language used as a defence mechanism.

Construction of LANGUAGE & construction of SELF: • Language interlinked with experience of self: Individuals construct their different languages based on

their experience of themselves.

Meaning making: • Language contain meaning in a number of areas and contexts. It encodes varying notions of

personhood including personal level, local level and socio-political levels which impact on their sense of self & self-identity and how they position themselves within their environment (Burck, 2004).

“LANGUAGE is a crucial aspect in the presentation of ‘SELF” .

It is through language a person:1-Expresses EMOTIONS

2-Shares FEELINGS

3-Tells their STORY

(Imberti, 2007)

LANGUAGE & EMOTIONS

Cultural environments differ on angle adopted regarding ‘Human Emotions’ emotional experiences & expressions’ (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

Connected to views of ‘SELF’:

1-Western cultures: ‘Self’ considered independent, self-contained & autonomous

2-East & South: ‘Self’ considered interdependent, connectedness, social context, relationships; eg: Asia, Latin-America, Africa (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

In Chinese Culture: love & affection embodied in care and concern.

Greater ‘EMOTIONAL AROUSAL’ associated with first language (Harris et al., 2006)

The expression ‘I LOVE YOU’=elicits varying degrees of ‘EMOTIONAL WEIGHT’

Majority of bi-linguals & multi-linguals=greater emotional weight in their L1 (Dewaele, 2008)

Associations by Spanish & English NS (native speakers) differed in

1) type of preferred associations &

2) specific words elicited (Grabois,1999)1-English NS displayed preference for indirect (metaphoric and symbolic) associations 2-Spanish NS exhibited preference for sensory & referential associations (Grabois,1999)

Eg: An equally fluent English/Spanish Speaker felt this phrase having more meaning in Spanish, her ‘Native Language’

LANGUAGE & EMOTIONS

• Implications of linguistic complexities from the risk of ‘primary language erosion’. Loss of ‘first language’ influences degree of connectedness.

• ‘Cross-lingual’ communication= when the hearer and the speaker do not have a language in common.

• ‘Emotional underlay’= when the conversation is being held in one language, but emotionally heavy in another. EG: An (equally fluent) Italian NS’s communication charged with Italian emotions, tones, and gestures

• Verbalization of feelings= L2 the person remains intellectualized & distant from feelings.

….’Failure’ to recognize difference=erroneous assumptions & conclusions, inappropriate assessment & misunderstanding of spousal or family dynamics (Ruzzene, 1998).

LANGUAGE & EMOTIONS

CASE STUDY

PAUL & YIN*English/Chinese

*names and other identifiable details have been changed to protect confidentiality

Yin & Paul (Chinese/English)

Yin (a p/time marketing coordinator at a gov. department) & Paul (an IT Engineer at a large company) met 16 years ago through a mutual friend (10 months after Yin migrated to Australia). After a short 3 month courtship, they decided to get married & had 2 daughters, Anna (now 15) and Rose (now, 13). Yin, the eldest of 2 daughters, from a hardworking family, was sent to Australia by her parents, to study (a combined accounting/marketing degree) in order to improve her future life prospects.

Paul, the youngest of 2 boys, migrated from the UK with his middle class family, at the age of 3. His father worked away and his mother was physically and emotionally distant. Yin’s parents moved to Australia 5 years after Yin and Paul’s wedding, after Yin’s dad sold his restaurant due to health issues. Paul was initially happy with the prospect of Yin’s parents moving to Australia, (particularly as he enjoyed their culture, a major point of attraction to Yin), as they were more involved with their children (than his own parents who had coincidently moved back to England).

After Yin’s dad presented with some health issues, Yin reduced work, and spent much of her time supporting them. A couple of years later, Yin’s dad died of a heart attack, so Yin decided to bring her mother to live with her and her family.

It was around this time when marital problems became more pronounced, and Anna started to display some

behavioural problems. While Yin was more at home, a major focus of her time and attention became her

mother and her needs. Given Yin’s parents spoke limited English, Yin would speak Mandarin with more

frequency. Yin’s parents would take an active role in the family and were influential as the family made decisions

and as they addressed problems including the challenges resulting from Anna’s behaviour.

When Yin & Paul came to therapy, they reported being disillusioned about their marriage. They described

increased differences in communication. Paul described Language increasingly becoming a barrier, due to

parents poor English command, which necessitated Yin speaking Mandarin more. This became so pronounced

that by the end, when Yin became tired she would revert to ‘speaking Mandarin’. They reported loss of identity,

conflict over differences in beliefs, in terms of finances, roles, responsibilities, and parental views and styles and

extended family involvement. Yin reported Paul being; selfish, always angry and constantly demanding of her

time & described herself as her husband’s “floor matt”. Paul described Yin being cold and unaffectionate and

neglecting her duties as wife and mother and blamed Yin for Anna’s problems.

Familial and parenting style differences that exist among CaLD/collectivist families highlighted by Singh and Clarke (2006) include:

Childrearing practices: methods of discipline, expectations of child behaviour, demonstration of affection, styles of communication and parent roles guided by values, highlighted by interdependence, autonomy, conformity, and obligation;

Family composition: extended family (including grandparents, great aunts, cousins) is regarded as ‘the family’, while the Western term ‘nuclear family’ is anathema to many CaLD cultures;

Roles and expectations of extended family members: All members are regarded as active participants in ensuring the optimum functioning of the family impacting greatly in attachment models and childrearing practices (Crippen & Brew, 2007).

For example; for many traditionally raised Chinese women their duty to parents is higher than with her husband and children.

Familial and parenting style differences that exist among CaLD/collectivist families highlighted by Singh and Clarke (2006) include:

Childrearing practices: methods of discipline, expectations of child behaviour, demonstration of affection, styles of communication and parent roles guided by values, highlighted by interdependence, autonomy, conformity, and obligation;

Family composition: extended family (including grandparents, great aunts, cousins) is regarded as ‘the family’, while the Western term ‘nuclear family’ is anathema to many CaLD cultures;

Roles and expectations of extended family members: All members are regarded as active participants in ensuring the optimum functioning of the family impacting greatly in attachment models and childrearing practices (Crippen & Brew, 2007).

For example; for many traditionally raised Chinese women their duty to parents is higher than with her husband and children.

‘LANGUAGE & CULTURE are intertwined’LANGUAGE is ‘CULTURE soaked’

(Burck, 2004)

Without effective communication:

• Couples are unable to express views and needs, explain & clarify issues, make decisions, & understand each other.

• Culture holds: Values, Beliefs, Customs, Rituals, Language, Ethnicity, Identity.• Language holds much meaning & it is the means by which culture can be

interpreted, explained, understood & expressed.• If the partner & therapist are unaware of the meaning making of language, if

they are un-attuned to LANGUAGE, then they are unable to understand the culture.

• Thus; The less the understanding of culture, the less attune-ment, the less joining-in can take place between therapist and couple and the less connection between partners.

Culturally sensitive strategies

The ecological ‘niche’ (Falicov, 1995)

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CULTURALLY-APPROPRIATE COUPLE THERAPY INTERVENTIONS

Acknowledgement of the therapist-client or client/client differences helps enable the creation of the therapeutic alliance.

Understanding the presenting problemsHow to address the problems

Assessment & treatment interventions need to explore, acknowledge & consider:The cultural backgroundsUsing culturally and ethnically sensitive questionsLanguage/s spokenEcology: Relationships & expectations & involvement of extended family members.

DAW’s MODEL‘MI CULTURE’

C ommunityV iewsL anguageT raditionsV aluesR oles, Rituals, ReligionE cology, Env.

M eaning I dentity

EM I C V L T V R

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CULTURALLY-APPROPRIATE COUPLE THERAPY INTERVENTIONS

DOUBLE DESCRIPTION OF CULTURE (Krause & Miller, 1995)

CULTURAL NAIVETE(Dyche & Zayas, 1995)

ASSESSMENT SAMPLE(Adapted from Altarriba, 1992)

• C.O.B• Ethnic background & identification• Length of time living in Australia• Other countries lived in other than Australia & country of origin• Number of languages the client understands, speaks, reads, and/or writes.

-The most fluent to least fluent languages the client knows.-The language(s) spoken at home with client’s family.-The language spoken as a child, and age range of when that

language was spoken.• Age at which language was spoken (native & new).• Age at which language was read (native & new).

USEFUL QUESTIONS:

• Family structure, dynamic & composition• Rules & roles/emphasis shared role & responsibility - extended family

members (grandparents, older siblings, uncles, aunts)• Parenting styles & childrearing practices• Varying styles of communication amongst members• Children’s development and socialisation

OUTCOMES FROM USING ‘MI CULTURE MODEL’

Increased understanding Increased empathyIncreased respect

As it relates to culture in terms of:

Values, beliefs, ecology, community needs, family(extended) expectation & involvementDecreased misunderstandings Reduced assumptionsDecreased personalisationReduced defensiveness & distanceImproved connectednessImproved understanding of roles & expected responsibilitiesImproved ability & openness in developing a more inclusive (which incorporates both cultures) family structure which acknowledges the different views and expectations.

THIS APPROACH:

• Develops trust earlier on• Decreases the power differential and privileged position between

therapist and clients• Decreases the sense of privileged position between partners• Allows for joining-in to take place• Allows for attunement with clients• Allows attunement to diverse couple needs (based on culture)• Highlights differences in ‘ecological niche’

Thank you!

Questions?