Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23:103126, 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0895-2833 print/1540-4099

9 online DOI: 10.1080/08952833.2011.576233

The Social Construction of Marriage and a Narrative Approach to Treatment of Intra-Relationship Diversity
DANICA ANICIETE and KRISTY LEE SOLOSKI
Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, USA

Simultaneously with societal policies and values, marital arrangements have changed in terms of intrarelationship diversity and longevity. This occurrence leads to the ability to conceptualize marriage as a socially constructed entity. Cultural identication inuences the expectations surrounding marriage, encompassing multiple dimensions: collectivism/individualism, race, gender, and religion, among others. Many relationship conicts are related to an individuals dreams, which are likely to be inuenced by internalized expectations stemming from ones cultural upbringing. The authors propose a narrative treatment model for a couple, which includes a variation of a cultural genogram, and utilizesexternalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, and re-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 survival of ones offspring (Geary & Flinn, 2001). Prior to the rise of a marital contract, varying cultural rituals signied the union between a man and a woman, 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: ksolosk1@ kent.edu 103

104

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

ownership (Howard, 1964). Later, the acquisition of a wife involved a monetary transaction where families provided compensation for a bride (Howard, 1964). During the 17th century, strict divorce laws in Western Europe made it difcult to end a marriage (Coontz, 2005). By the end of the 17th century, personal choice in partners emerged as the social ideal over arranged marriages. As choice became an option in marriage, marrying for love became encouraged by society (Coontz, 2005). Divorce became a more common occurrence within Western society beginning in the 1960s (Coontz, 2005), and although there was an inux in divorce rates around the same time as the feminist movement and the rise in womens prominence in the workforce, it cannot be implied that the feminist movement is the contributing cause. Instead, as love, or emotion and choice, became a driving force for entering a marriage, it may have encouraged people to apply a similar, albeit reciprocal notion to their ability to leave the marriage (Coontz, 2005). Societys changes as a whole inuenced the arrangement within a marital union, and additionally the durability of it. It took more than 150 years to establish the love-based, male breadwinner marriage as the dominant model in North America and Western Europe. It took less than 25 years to dismantle it (Coontz, 2005, p. 247).

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THEORY

The theory of social construction posits that meaning is created through countless interactions with the environment. Knowledge is not a xed entity, but an evolving process that occurs through conversations with anyone and everyone a person comes into contact with (Hoffman, 1990). Dominant beliefs within society, and also within ourselves, inuence each individuals perception of what is real (White, 1995). Therefore, constructs, such as a marriage, are not exclusive across a society. Each individuals experiences and inuences from their societal authority create a distinctive understanding. What is acceptable or expected conduct within a marriage will vary across partners, as neither has had identical experiences.

Socially Constructed Aspects of a Marriage

Parallel with the changes in policies, values, and beliefs within the United States, there were evident changes within matrimonial institutions. In the United States, the divorce to marriage rate in 2008 was approximately half. There were approximately 7.1 marriages per 1,000 people in the population in 2008, and there were 3.5 divorces per 1,000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Societys stated expectations surrounding roles, and the 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 can be viewed as a socially constructed entity. Marriage is a product of social experience, and understanding its present state requires looking at its development (Howard, 1964, p. 8). Various aspects generally associated with a marital union have been specied as socially constructed experiences, including love (Coontz, 1995; Howard, 1964; Beall & Sternberg, 1995) and commitment (Byrd, 2009).

Limitations of Marriage
The continuation of a marital relationship is not always the best option for both parties. In cases of severe abuse, the woman may be physically safer outside of the relationship. In many cases, a therapist will not see a couple conjointly if there is a high level of abuse occurring (OLeary, 2008). In this way, the view of marriage as a priority or a covenant that must be protected at all costs may be ignorant. However, marriage has been a large inuence on society, and vice versa (Coontz, 2005), and may be implied to be the end result of a relationship. This macrosystemic variable holds much inuence over views of long-term relationships. Currently, the partnering of individuals is continuing to alter and change. Marriage rates within the United States are decreasing each year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), and the United States is engaging in a political argument as to whether gay marriage should be supported (Somashekhar, 2010). Without considering marriage as the goal, alternatives are common and seeking governmental rights as well (e.g., polygamy and co-habitation) (Lamarme, 2010). Choice as a whole is increasing within partnering relationships. Considering this revolution is still occurring, we focus primarily on the entity of marriage, which in the past has been more dened within society (Coontz, 2005). However, any cultural values that may impact an individual would be relevant within any person or relationship. In the United States, a country where cultures are constantly mixing to comprise its identity, and where interracial marriages are becoming more common (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), it seems advantageous to consider the inherent thoughts and requirements that are encompassed within this union. Regardless of whether a partnership is diverse within its race or culture, there is likely to be difference between individual ascription to values. The standards within a marriage continue to be diverse, and it remains likely that there may be discrepancies surrounding what is acceptable or required within a couple. Within the United States, two prominent sources for diversity are culture and religion. In this article the authors review the cultural and religious inuences within a relationship and propose a therapeutic model for intervention within the marital context. As marriage and partnership changes, these factors will become more prevalent and more inuencing of couple relationships. Therefore it is important

106

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

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

CULTURE
Various aspects affect ones expectations for a marriage. Culture encompasses several aspects that are taken into consideration especially because satisfaction with ones spouse may largely depend on the degree to which marriage fullls culturally determined expectations and obligations (Lucas et al., 2008, p. 109). Lucas and colleagues (2008) assert that ones culture may be one component responsible for setting the norms and values an individual maintains.

Collectivism Versus Individualism

Collectivistic and individualistic ideals dictate the varying levels of interdependence and concern for others (Hui & Triandis, 1986). Primarily within individualistic cultures, it is imperative to have a sense of individuality within a relationship (Byrd, 2009). Marital satisfaction and opinions of marriage may also be dictated by the individuals identication with an individualistic or collectivistic culture. In Western cultures, it would not be uncommon for a husband or a wife to be self-indulgent or pursue their own pleasure before their partners needs (Lucas et al., 2008). Conversely, in a collectivistic culture (e.g., Hispanic or Filipino cultures), the needs and desires of the other spouse and/or family members are given a higher priority (UmanaTaylor & Fine, 2003). Issues may arise when partners do not identify with the same type of culture, especially when one partner is adamant about keeping and maintaining their own familial expectations and beliefs. Although collectivism/individualism are often associated with specic cultures (Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2003), it is possible that a persons ascription to these ideals is not solely due to their race. It is, however, likely that they will 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). Those minorities in interracial relationships are commonly forced to reexamine their sense of identity (Forry, Leslie, & Letiecq, 2007). Additionally, ingrained family views surrounding same-race marriages inuence the types of stressors that a couple may face and may alter ones opinion of what a marriage

The Social Construction of Marriage

107

should look like. Statistically, interracial marriages are more likely to end in divorce in comparison to same-race marriages (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). It has been noted that a failed marriage is often seen as a consequence for 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 marriage is a necessity.

Gender
Gender, as compared to ones biological sex, is socially constructed (Lorber & Farrell, 1991), and how it is interpreted is inuenced by ones family composition and cultural background (Quek & KnudsenMartin, 2006; Crawford, 2006). The assignment of gender roles is related to racial identication. Generally, white families assign more gender specic roles to their children than do black families (Hill, 2002; Cunningham, 2001). Early values are carried on throughout ones life and often within ones family of choice. Children are often socialized to follow scripts (Crawford, 2006), which can include directions for how they should behave and interact within romantic relationships. These scripts can include the restriction of romantic relationships for women, but for males often involves the promotion of multiple relationships as a way to dene their masculinity. However, as gender 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% of the American public reported in 2008 that religiosity was losing its inuence (Saad, 2008). As religious ideation changes, it becomes more likely there will be discrepancies within a relationship, whether in the level of religiosity or the denomination. A religious identity dictates what is anticipated from a marriage, and within these expectations, the dynamics for the marriage are established. Three very prominent religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were born within a patriarchal society, and maintain these inuences embedded within their teachings (Moghadam, 2004). Within the traditional standpoint of many religions (Asamarai, Solberg, & Solon, 2008; Baker, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2009), it is believed that each individual is held accountable to God for upholding the traditional role for a man and a woman. A possible benet of this position is the reduction in 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 common occurrence and has been associated with satisfaction subsequent to marriage

108

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

(Asamarai et al., 2008; Ahmadi & Hossein-Abadi, 2009; Myers, 2006). The specic religious afliation seems to be less a determinant of marital satisfaction, as is the degree to which couple shares their values and religious practices, which may inuence the effort one is willing to give to the relationship or the type of communication that they have with their partner as a result (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). Additionally, intrinsic and extrinsic religious motivations are associated with changes in marital satisfaction (Brimhall & Butler, 2007). Level of religious afliation is predictive of ones attitudes regarding divorce as an option and marriage as permanent (Schovanec & Lee, 2001). Additionally, religiositys negative attitudes towards divorce are related to commitment to the relationship and willingness to seek help with conict (Sullivan, 2001). Religious ascription determines the sexuality of an individual entering a relationship. There are varying views on sexual practices prior to a marriage, and the observation of those ideologies differs across religious groups (Uecker, 2008). Religion has outlined that premarital sexual activities are immoral and may possibly create a stigma to this intimate encounter. A link has been established between religiosity and sexual adjustment problems among rst-married and remarried couples (Orathinkal & Vansteenwegen, 2006). However, for numerous religious groups, marital indelity was less likely as an outcome (Atkins & Kessel, 2008). An individuals ascription to a conservative religious doctrine inuences the values that they incorporate within their own marriage. In many cases, the relationship found between cultural diversity factors and 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 negative inuence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS

The utilization of cultural and religious values within the therapeutic context has been a rising issue within the eld of marriage and family therapy (Marterella & Brock, 2008; McGoldrick, Giordano, & GarciaPreto, 2005). When working with individuals from various ethnic backgrounds and/or cultures, marriage and family therapists should be cognizant of the differences between cultures and refrain from making assumptions about the particular values that are held (McGoldrick & Hardy, 2008). Some cultures may take offense to the traditions held in the dominant culture, and therapists should be cognizant of these differences and inquire about clients values. Involving discussions regarding religion has been identied as the therapists responsibility, especially when it is of high importance to the

The Social Construction of Marriage

109

client (Hoogestrat & Trammel, 2003). Utilizing this topic has been a useful tool in discussions regarding issues of sexuality and power (Duba & Watts, 2009). It seems that cultural and religious inuences have constructed views on and implications for what is expected, what is acceptable, and what problems that may occur within a marriage. Conicts within a marriage could be resulting from the constructed view that each partner has formed regarding the type of marriage that they hoped to have, or because of the ideals they have adopted throughout their exposure to these inuences. The authors propose a model that combines social construction, feminist family therapy, and narrative therapy for an intervention for couples. By addressing how society has created the ideals that couples may hold regarding their marriage, this approach can reduce the power differentials by focusing on relationship strengths rather than relationship ideals. This model seeks to increase understanding of each partners background, and additionally works to externalize the problem and help the couple to identify unique outcomes.

FEMINIST FAMILY THERAPY

The feminist family therapy movement began in order to address issues of power within the therapy room (Silverstein & Goodrich, 2003). This included addressing issues of race, gender, sexuality, and others.Instead of a focus on the individual or a family unit, this approach shifts to the focus on sociocultural context, particularly on how society has shaped ideals and constructed role constraint. This theory does not seek to simply benet minorities of any kind, but instead is meant to benet all persons by shifting focus from power differentials. Within a marriage, there are many -isms that are likely to be inuencing roles scripts or power differentials surrounding marriage standards, and these scripts are not limited simply to culture or race or religion or gender. Instead all of these social inuences should be addressed simultaneously to avoid treatment gaps. Many feminist family therapy approaches have sought to address one aspect of social construction (e.g., gender; Freedman & Combs, 2002; and race; Hall & Greene, 2003; Falicov, 1995).This treatment approach seeks to maximize understanding of the socially constructed view of marriage by including gender, race, religion, and collectivism/individualism within the framework. The use of narrative therapy within this proposed model seeks to continue to change the story that couples adhere to and allow them to create their own view on what their marriage should look like rather than focusing on the larger societal view. Power within the couple is not focused on, instead this intervention seeks to create understanding of where those ideals manifested and focus on what works within this relationship rather than on what should be within the relationship.

110

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

PROPOSED NARRATIVE MODEL

Narrative therapy is a postmodern therapeutic theory that capitalizes on a clients strengths. Each person maintains a dominant story that identies who he or she is and what contributes to their problem. Stories often become problem-saturated, and solutions and positives become difcult to identify (White & Epston, 1990). Therapy attempts to identify events that are counter to the dominant story and can provide instances when the problem was not as inuential. White (2007) conducts narrative therapy utilizing maps, or guiding ideas, in order to assist a client in acknowledging and exploring parts of their life story that they had not previously been able to recognize. Three aspects of Whites (2007) practice include externalizing conversations, reauthoring conversations, and re-membering conversations. Through the use of these interventions, White (2007) is able to help clients see a problem as separate from their individual identity and help them realize that it is an entity that can be changed. Additionally, the interventions allow clients to realize occasions when their problem was not present, and when they were able to act or respond differently. Through this process, the client is able to conceptualize their life narrative in another way and is able to make their alternative story more prominent. A four-part model of therapeutic intervention that combines these three aspects of Whites narrative therapy and utilizes a variation of the popular genogram for work with couples focusing on the socially constructed aspects inuencing their marriage is being proposed in this article. Narrative practice focuses mainly on the specic experiences and actions of the person throughout their lifetime. It attempts to alter the individuals view of their behaviors and their experiences so that they may have a different and more positive view of their life story and that they will be better able to recognize their strengths. Cultural ideals can change the way a person thinks about and interprets various situations. Narrative work with a focus on cultural difculties is different in that it focuses on how values have impacted a persons life story in various ways. A narrative intervention with this 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 to help individuals and couples understand and recognize the positive inuences resulting from their cultural differences. Narrative therapy has been utilized to help couples explore their gender stories and their choices within them (Freedman & Combs, 2002). This model will focus on the personal experiences, behaviors, and cultural values of the individual and the couple in order to re-author the life story and the couples story. Narrative approaches have been utilized in the context of couples therapy (Freedman, 2008). This approach will further externalize a problem, that is in fact already external to the actual relationship. Values can become

The Social Construction of Marriage

111

part of a persons self overtime, but the discourse itself can change throughout this type of therapy and the couple can recognize that the problem is not a part of them, but that it can be inuenced. Narrative therapy does not focus on changing behaviors, but simply on recognizing strengths that are already present. Through this therapeutic intervention, the client is not expected to change their behaviors entirely, but they are aided in recognizing more productive behaviors and increasing the positive actions and thoughts that are already part of their life. This is not solely in regards to their actions as a person, but their subscription to societal beliefs. This therapeutic approach is more applicable to many clients as they are not expected to make vast changes, but only to utilize their strengths on a more regular basis. This approach is likely to be seen as less threatening to power differentials. When working with hierarchical boundaries it can be 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 involves universalizing couple complaints within the context of the social transition to gender equality . . . Couples need to be introduced to these matters in a gradual, simple and nonthreatening manner (p. 154). For some couples, change may be too overwhelming and threatening, and for some it may not be a feasible goal as stated in that way. However, with the focus on understanding how their backgrounds have shaped their ideology it may be empowering enough to allow them to re-author their story and begin to recognize more of the positives, or actions within the relationship that are productive, rather than the negative behaviors within their relationship that are damaging. A focus on negative aspects may create defensiveness that would block the therapeutic progress. This approach can be more helpful to equality in the therapy room as it creates less defensiveness and therefore allows each individual to focus more on the relationship as they like it rather than on issues of power and through the lens of their socially constructed view.

Cultural Genogram
The genogram is traditionally a transgenerational intervention that is utilized in order to help a family understand the system that they are currently embedded within (Bowen, 1978). Deviations of the traditional genogram have emerged to focus on more specic aspects of ones family unit (DeMaria, Weeks, & Hof, 1999) and on ones culture (Hardy & Laszloffy, 1995; Estrada & Haney, 1998; Thomas, 1998). Other genograms have focused on socially constructed aspects of life (MilewskiHertlein, 2001; Iversen, Gergen, & Fairbanks, 2005). The authors are proposing the use of a variation of the popular cultural genogram, entitle the intrarelationship Diversity Identifying Genogram (IDIG; See Figure 1), and that focuses on more

112
Collectivism/ Race Gender

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

Collectivism/ Individualism Religion Race Gender Individualism

Religion

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

expansive aspects of ones culture. The authors are proposing that this tool can be utilized in the assessment of a couple for differences in marital expectations 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 variation in the gender symbol would allow for this application. Additionally, if there are multiple religious ascriptions, racial identications, or so on, the therapist can simply discuss that within the intervention, or if a diagram is necessary, they can add additional extensions onto the genogram. The construction of this cultural model would entail asking questions to ascertain information about each partners history and background, very much like a traditional genogram. Here the therapist would ask culture (e.g., race, religion, gender, etc.) specic questions and have each partner elaborate on what it was about their culture that they feel shaped or strongly inuenced their opinions of marriage. Utilizing the genogram in this way allows the therapist to help the couple narrate their inuences and visualize their differences as constructed by various inuences in their life. In this way, the genogram itself is allowing the couple to externalize the conicts that are arising from these differences. The following case study and examples are provided to facilitate the conversation and to guide the client to the next 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 through mutual friends. They are both the same age, share several interests, and are deeply committed to each other. Joseph and Danielle are seeking couples counseling to discuss issues that are perpetually affecting the dynamics

The Social Construction of Marriage

113

of their relationship. Both identify as family oriented individuals, however, Joseph does not seem to understand why Danielles mother needs to be informed of all her decisions, as well as decisions that they as a couple have made. Danielle has been working additional hours at the ofce for the last six months, which limits the time the couple has to spend together. Additionally, Joseph continues to be perplexed by Danielles constant need to nancially support her family, even though her family reports that they are nancially stable. Danielle argues that she understands that her family is nancially well off but she insists that she feels indebted to contribute to her family in this manner since she now has a respectable job and makes more than enough. Lastly, both Danielle and Joseph have indicated that their communication style is affecting their dynamic thus causing more arguments. Danielle reports that she feels that getting into arguments is not worth it and just agrees with what Joseph says. Joseph stated that he feels a lack of effort on Danielles part because nothing ever gets solved if Danielle agrees to something and then brings it up again at a later time. Race. Race is an overt characteristic that an individual cannot modify. Although some people appear to be distinctly one race, some people may look like a hybrid between two backgrounds or are able to pass for a race other than their own. The denition of race varies from person-to-person; however, one partner may feel that race is not an important factor in their relationship. As discussed earlier, research has shown that race has an effect on romantic relationships (Bratter & King, 2008) and therapists can begin to ask the client questions, including the following examples.

What are a few things about your race that you would like for your partner to know that you think would help him/her understand you and your relationship better? How has your race inuenced your thoughts or expectations about what a marriage is?

The previous suggestions can be applied to both same-race and interracial couples considering that although people are of the same race, it does not necessarily mean that they share the same values. Further, the following questions can be used specically with in interracial relationships:

What would/do you think are the best parts of being in an interracial relationship? How has being in an interracial relationship been of a greater advantage for you as a couple, and an individual?

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

114

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

brought attention to a salient characteristic that neither party was aware of. In simply asking about their race, the therapist aided in understanding their background and in helping the couple view their differences in a way that was conducive to accepting differences. Additionally, in this case, the couple foundthrough discussing their differences and similarities that they had patience with each other and openness to unconventional ideas outside of their own background. In this way it highlighteda strength in their relationship (e.g., patience with each other or openness to unconventional ideas). Collectivistic and individualism. Similarly to how race was addressed, issues regarding collectivistic/individualistic cultures can also be implemented in a similar manner. Therapists can inquire about the benets of their identity or inuences on their view of marriage. For example, therapists can ask clients how they have beneted from being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture. This concept may not be easily conceived by clients, but the therapist can delineate the differences between the signicance 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 decisions based on what their partner wants and put their needs aside, which may in turn affect their views on marriage. Further, a partner who identies with an individualist culture may not deliberately attempt to offend their partner by putting their individual desire rst; however, it may cause discrepancies on what is appropriate in their relationship. When taking the collectivist/individualist culture that a person identies with into consideration, it is imperative to understand that men and women are equally as capable to give to their partners; however, it is necessary to account for gender roles that may hinder a person to reach the same level of equality in giving. The notion of giving can be an ambiguous term for those who may not ascribe to the Western culture. Giving can be seen in the form of sacricing something for their partner, giving their time to fulll or complete a task, or simply, giving their love and affection toward their partner. For example, some gender narratives in certain Asian cultures note that women are stereotypically docile and submissive (Shibusawa, 2008). Given that there can be several connotations behind giving, it is not uncommon for this notion to be misconstrued and possibly intersect with gender narratives. If a woman were to ascribe to these collectivist ideals, it is imperative to consider whether she is following the scripts of being a woman, being collectivist, or possibly both. Shibusawa (2008) asserts that family therapists working with non-Westernized clients often have difculty discussing these issues as it may not be something that this client is familiar with because it may be the norm for them. Further, Shibusawa indicates that there may be a barrier in training especially since it does not change the fact that the

The Social Construction of Marriage

115

therapist is trained in North American while the clients perceptions can still possibly revolve around those from their dominant culture. Conversely, when working with men who follow traditionally collectivist gender roles, there may also be a disconnect between what they feel they should do as a man versus what their behavior should look like because of their collectivist ideals (Shibusawa, 2008). In short, these gender roles are more than likely to conict and intersect with cultural values and detailed exploration and continued empathy would be helpful for therapists. Therapists can ask how being a part of a collectivistic or individualistic culture has shaped their views and expectations of what a marriage should be. Finally, the therapist can highlight their strengths as individuals, and as a couple, thus normalizing their differences.

How have you beneted from being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture? What has being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture taught you about how you should attend to your partner? How does being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture inuence your expectations for your marriage? What has being in a collectivistic/individualistic culture taught you about how you should take care of, or value, yourself?

There appeared to be some underlying traits in Danielle that mirrored collectivist ideals, such as wanting to nancially support her family and putting her feelings aside for the sake of avoiding arguments. The therapist further elaborated on her perception and reality of this characteristic. Between race and collectivism in this case study, the therapist encouraged clients to think about how race and their own mentality (individualism/collectivism) are connected to each other. By doing this, the clients realized how these differences could be positive and benecial in their relationship. Further, the therapist stated that although some conicts have occurred in the past because of this difference, the couples individual mentality was not necessarily bad but just different. The therapist began to encourage the clients to discuss their mentalities and thoughts in a way that was warm, and in a way where both couples felt open to further discuss how 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 for their child. Hill (2002) and Cunningham (2001) indicate that parents have different expectations for their child, since some cultures enforce more traditional roles (e.g., assigning less labor intensive chores for girls) while some expect that their child exemplify more androgynous roles (e.g., allowing their daughter to partake in the same activities as they would their son, or

116

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

other boys around the same age). The gender roles that people adopt can certainly progress within the individual throughout their life. How much the person denes gender roles in their life is contingent upon which roles they have adopted and relinquished. Therapists can appreciate what the client has to offer when they begin to discuss how gender has impacted their own personal views and beliefs about marriage. Additionally, the same questions as suggested prior could be tailored to learn more about the clients perceptions of gender and the role it plays in their relationship.In order for therapists to learn more about the clients perception of their masculinity or femininity, it is imperative that the therapist allow the client(s) to freely discuss their reality and the construction of gender in their lives and relationship. Possible discussions could surround the following questions.

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

Religion. Religious backgrounds are also highly inuential in peoples lives. Much of a persons religious upbringings help dictate which course they will follow in their life. Therapists should take into consideration the clients religious afliations and ask the client to explain what it is like to be a member of that religion and what their religion has stated is expected from a husband or wife.

As is inuenced by your religious views, what role does sex play within your relationship? What would be the ideal relationship in your religion? What role should each partner play within your religion? How does your religion inuence your opinion of the permanence of marriage?

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

The Social Construction of Marriage

117

of theirs. They felt comforted and bonded in knowing that they shared such a strong value and ideal. In the same way that a traditional genogram aids in the conceptualization of problem formation and the areas in which change can occur (Bowen, 1978), this variation facilitates the perception of impacting differences within the relationship. Also, it is similar to the multicultural context genogram that is utilized to assess for culture with a family (Estrada & Haney, 1998), but it is specically for use with couples and also allows the therapist to identify more specic aspects of ones cultural background. The IDIG functions within the therapeutic process as much more than simply an assessment device. By allowing the couple to recount the inuences on their ideals, it is aiding in the externalization of problem formation. This intervention prequels later externalization conversations that will follow. Additionally, questions pertaining to the choices that a client has made in regards to their ideals associated with their culture help them re-author their own story and realize the control that they have had over their identity and their problem. Finally, the genogram allows the therapist to help the client begin to decide which ideals that they nd helpful or valuable within their life and relationship, and those which they no longer wish to maintain. In this way, they begin remembering conversations. The IDIG works parallel to the narrative process and within this context functions more as a narrative practice rather than a transgenerational one.

Externalizing Conversations
The perceptions that clients hold about their problems often misguide them to 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 that the problem becomes the problem, not the person (p. 9). People also claim to believe that the problem is a part of their identity and they are the cause of the problem (White, 2007). The rst step is to learn about these problems and be respectful of the clients reality, which begins while conducting the IDIG. When working with couples that have attributed a certain trait to be the problem, it would be helpful to ask what the problem has done wrong instead of asking what they have done incorrectly. This way, the couple, or individual, 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 not problematic, but some differences that have become a socialized part of their identity have become so. The cultural genogram works along with this process by allowing each partner to see the differences that have risen from their individual backgrounds. By understanding where this difference extends from, the couple may soften and become more accepting, or at least understanding, of their differences.

118

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

An individuals race or biological sex is not necessarily a characteristic that they requested to be assigned, but the associated ideals or conicts are not requirements of that identity. By discussing their cultural identities in terms of characteristics that have been inuenced by others, and that they have and can inuence, it should allow the client to see that these are not static entities. Instead, the associated ideals can be manipulated to work with their specic needs. Although a person is currently more individualistic or traditional in their gender and religion, it does not mean that they have to maintain that tendency. Possible questions that can be utilized during the externalization of these inuencing 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 partners life, they can alter the way that they allow them to control and inuence their lives. These characteristics can be externalized similarly to other disordered behaviors including panic disorder (Wetchler, 1999). Since issues regarding race and collectivism were the most impacting on Danielle and Joseph, the therapist began to talk about how these issues affected them. The therapist used language that made both race and collectivism a noun rather than an adjective, thus externalizing them from the couple. The couple began to state how these parts of them affected their marriage rather than stating that their marriage was the problem.

Re-Authoring Conversations
Re-authoring conversations allow a client to discuss their story surrounding their lives. This dominant story is frequently saturated with accounts of negative experiences and problematic occurrences. Throughout this narration, the therapist should aid the client in noticing events that are counter to their dominant story, or unique outcomes (White, 2007). For a couple whose problem surrounds the roles they are expected to maintain within their marriage, their dominant story may surround having failed at balancing those responsibilities. Over time, as the problem becomes more prevalent, it is common that each partner utilizes an availability heuristic and recalls only times when a specic factor is prevalent. The couple becomes xed on this outcome and allows it to become a self-fullling prophecy. Once a person believes that something can only be negative, they begin to act and react in a way that will only make this outcome more likely. In this way, unique outcomes are ignored and not utilized when attempting to solve a problem or conceptualize a difference.

The Social Construction of Marriage

119

Utilizing re-authoring conversations can allow a couple to see times when their presenting problem was not the dominant story, or again to notice these unique outcomes. While the couple discusses their problems, the therapist should be present and responsive for opportunities to identify unique outcomes and redene the dominant story. It is plausible that most couples would not marry if the very permanent aspects of their identity were instigating problems from the beginning of their relationship. In many cases, family values dictate the importance of marrying someone of the same culture (Forry et al., 2007), but in spite of these messages the couple remained intact. Therefore, the therapist can seek to determine what strengths this had during the beginning stages of their relationship or that helped them maintain 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 action is the material of the story and is composed of the sequence of events that make up the plot (sjuzet ) and the underlying theme (bula) (White, 2007, p. 78). On the other hand, landscape of consciousness is composed of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of those that are involved in the story (White, 2007). Landscape of action questions can be utilized throughout the re-authoring conversation to determine how these characteristics have been strengths throughout different times in their relationship. The questions pertaining to these separate landscapes will likely be more specic to each particular story. The therapist must seek out these landscapes and help the couple elaborate upon them and create their own new meaning.

What did your partners actions on that day say to you about her/his values 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 determine how each partner, and other important characters to the story, have created meaning through different events. The focus here should be on the meaning that was elicited from their alternative story, and from when they were able to see their differences as strengths.

When you saw your partner act in that way, what did you think about her/him as a woman/man? When your partner acted that way, what did this suggest to you about her/his feelings for you and her/his willingness to care of you?

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

120

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

It is very probable that there are times when this characteristic proves to be an asset. For example, if both partners in a couple were individualistic, they may not connect as strongly with one another because of the focus on their own individual needs. Additionally, if both partners were collectivistic it may be overwhelming to consistently be giving to the other and not tending to ones own needs. Therefore, a couple who is diverse in this characteristic will provide a balance of nurturing the other and allowing time for individual care that may be necessary for the relationships health. Additionally, with racial differences there often comes new and exciting traditions to be shared with ones partner. These traditions can be a source of excitement and attraction in the beginning of the relationship. Through rediscovering these times when the differences were a strength, it can help the couple remember their original attraction and allow them to again see that quality in terms of a positive. To help identify these unique outcomes, the therapist could utilize the following questions.

When was a time where your racial differences were a strength in your relationship? How have your differences in individualism provided a balance for your relationship? What initially attracted you about your partners gender identication? How have your religious differences or similarities been exciting within your relationship?

As the couple engages these conversations regarding the strengths in their differences, they will begin re-authoring their stories and altering their dominant narrative. After acknowledging different outcomes, the embeddedness of this negative connection will diminish and the couple will be more able to access their strengths to combat their problems. Through these conversations, Joseph was able to indicate that Danielles collectivistic inuences had allowed them to be giving to one another. Joseph also stated that when she acted that way, he also wanted to give back to her. Danielle was able to recognize times when Josephs individualistic inuences proved to make him motivated to work hard at work, and therefore provide well for the family.

Re-Membering Conversations
Re-membering conversations allow a client to reexamine those inuences that they have allowed to shape their identity. This process of re-membering conversations can begin through granting authority to some voices in regard to matters of ones personal identity, and to disqualify other voices with regard to this (White, 2007, p. 129). For a couple whose problem arises from the discrepancy in their culture or their denition of marriage, as a

The Social Construction of Marriage

121

result of socially constructed experiences, re-membering conversations can aid in the cooperative redenition of what hopes the couple has for this relationship. As multiple previous conversations have allowed this portion of their identity to become problematic, a purposeful process of determining what conversations and what authors are useful in their identity can redirect them to a more positive route. Completing these conversations with both partners present can be powerful in that it allows them to decide as a unit what aspects are important to them and why. Additionally, this approach allows them to co-create a relationship identity that is meaningful for both partners, and empowers them to re-identify the strengths they once saw in their differences. Some suggested questions adopted from White (2007)s examples are provided in order to honor the couples strengths include:

How were you able to hold onto this relationship despite the controversy it has created in both your families? Of all the people in both of your lives, who would be the least surprised to 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 allowed them to predict this outcome (p. 143)? How have you been able to combat stereotypes regarding interracial couples? What benets have you seen from being open to your partners untraditional view of gender? How has being exposed to such a nurturing partner made you more compassionate with other people in your life?

The utilization of this intervention should allow a couple to recognize that their problematic areas are not a result of their identity as a couple, but has been constructed and inuenced by the external environment. After externalizing the problem and having conversations regarding their unique outcomes, the couple should be able to re-author their story and coconstruct a new dominant discourse accentuating any diversity as a strength in their relationship. Through having these conversations in the case study, Joseph and Danielle were motivated to nd the positives within their relationship and to begin to create their own unied values. They felt more comfortable and less combative with each other.

CONCLUSION
The institution of marriage has vastly evolved over time. Society has a tremendous inuence on ones views and expectations of marriage. Each culture holds its own traditional values that a person must either accept or relinquish when deciding to get married. Inuencing cultural factors include ones race, gender, religion, and whether their cultural background is individualistic or collectivistic. Each of these variables determine the types

122

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

of values or barriers that a specic couple will be forced to confront within their relationship. In many cases, marital conict that arises is the result of expectations and dreams that one has identied as important to their life. Gottman (1999) has identied that unsolvable problems within a relationship are linked to those hopes and dreams that an individual has. Culture and religion create very prominent inuences that often dictate specic values and expectations that are appropriate within a marriage. As interracial marriages become more common, and a strict adherence to a marriage weakens, it becomes more likely 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. Throughout the use of externalizing conversations, re-authoring conversations, and remembering conversations a couple would be able to normalize their feelings and gain insight into their partners values and expectations. Along with narrative therapy, the specic strengths and unique outcomes can be identied so that the couple can maintain them in the future and reduce present gridlock (Gottman, 1999). This model of therapy can be utilized to treat or reveal any differences within a couple. Disparities in backgrounds often serve as strengths within a relationship, but the couple may not always be able to recognize this. Additionally, conicts related to these factors are often difcult to identify, but may be linked to ones cultural and religious backgrounds. Although this model can be applied to a vast number of cultural and religious backgrounds, it is imperative that the therapist be cognizant of the cultures that each individual identies with prior to its use. If the client is not prepared, or open to acknowledging differences and their possible weaknesses, then it may not be appropriate to utilize this intervention as of yet in the therapeutic setting. Therapy should rst foster understanding and acceptance to soften the clients stances prior to the use of this intervention, which will continue to increase knowledge and aid in re-writing the clients story as a couple (Jacobson & Christensen, 1996). We have not applied this model to therapy for specic populations; therefore its specic utility has yet to be identied. Future research should recognize the strengths of this model and determine specic outcomes, especially pertaining to the populations that this model has particular use with.

REFERENCES
Ahmadi, K., & HosseinAbadi, F. H. (2009). Religiosity, marital satisfaction and child rearing. Pastoral Psychology, 57 , 211221. Asamarai, L. A., Solberg, K. B., & Solon, P. C. (2008). The role of religiosity in Muslim spouse selection and its inuence on marital satisfaction. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 3, 3752.

The Social Construction of Marriage

123

Atkins, D. C., & Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and indelity: Attendance, but not faith and prayer, predict marital delity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 407418. Baker, E. H., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and the sanctication of gendered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 147178. Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 417438. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Bramlett, M. D., & Mosher, W. D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage 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 among interracial and same-race couples. Family Relations, 57 , 160171. Brimhall, A. S., & Butler, M. H. (2007). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic religious motivation and the marital relationship. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35 , 235249. Bulanda, J. R., & Brown, S. L. (2007). Race-ethnic differences in marital quality and divorce. Social Science Research, 36 , 945967. Byrd, S. E. (2009). The social construction of marital commitment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 318336. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. (2008). FastStats: Marriage and divorce. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy or how love conquered marriage. London, UK: Viking Penguin. Crawford, M. H. (2006). Transformations: Women, gender and psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Cunningham, M. (2001). Parental inuences on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review, 66 , 184203. DeMaria, R., Weeks, G., & Hof, L. (1999). Focused genograms: Intergenerational assessment of individuals, couples, and families. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369383. Duba, J. D., & Watts, R. E. (2009). Therapy with religious couples. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65 , 210223. Estrada, A. U., & Haney, P. (1998). Genograms in a multicultural perspective. In T. 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 comparative framework. Family Process, 34, 373388. Forry, N. D., Leslie, L. A., & Letiecq, B. L. (2007). Marital quality in interracial relationships: The role of sex ideology and perceived fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 28 , 15381552.

124

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

Freedman, J. (2008). Narrative couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman (Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (4th ed., pp. 478498). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (2002). Narrative therapy with couples. . .and a whole lot more! Adelade, SA: Dulwich Centre Publications. Geary, D. C., & Flinn, M. V. (2001). Evolution of human parental behavior and the human 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. In L. B. Silverstein & T. J. Goodrich (Eds.), Feminist family therapy: Empowerment in social context (pp. 107120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hardy, K. V., & Laszloffy, T. A. (1995). The cultural genogram: Key to training culturally 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 family therapy: Activities to promote dialogue. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 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 crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17 , 225248. Iversen, R. R., Gergen, K. J., & Fairbanks, R. P. (2005). Assessment and social construction: Conict 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 and equality since 1998! Retrieved from http://www.unmarried.org/ Lichter, D. T., & Carmalt, J. H. (2009). Religion and marital quality among lowincome 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 satisfaction: A multidimensional assessment of measurement invariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1),109123. Marterella, M. K., & Brock, L. J. (2008). Religion and spirituality as a resource in marital 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: Guilford Press.

The Social Construction of Marriage

125

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & GarciaPreto, N. (Eds.). (2005). Ethnicity and family therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Milewski-Hertlein, K. A. (2001). The use of a socially constructed genogram in clinical practice. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 2338. Moghadam, V. M. (2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing family in the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35 (1), 137162. Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational 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: Processes among dual-career newlywed couples in collectivist culture. Journal of Marriage 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 inuence of religion is slipping at 14-year high. Gallup Poll. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/113533/Americans-Believe-Religion-LosingClout.aspx Shibusawa, T. (2008). Interracial Asian couples beyond black and white. In M. McGoldrick & K. V. Hardy (Eds.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 378388). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Shovanec, B., & Lee, C. (2001). Culture and divorce: The relationship of values and 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 Psychological Association. Somashekhar, S. (2010, August 17). Federal appeals court puts California gay marriages 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 marriage: An investigation of the immediate and longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 , 610626. Thomas, A. J. (1998). Understanding culture and worldview in family systems: Use of the multicultural genogram. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples 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/hhfam/cps2006.html

126

D. Aniciete and K. L. Soloski

Uecker, J. E. (2008). Religion, pledging, and the premarital sexual behavior of married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 728744. UmanaTaylor, A. J., & Fine, M. R. (2003). Predicting commitment to wed among Hispanic and Anglo partners. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 , 117139. Wetchler, J. (1999). Narrative treatment of a woman with panic disorder. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 10(2), 1730. White, M. (1995). Re-authoring lives: Interviews and essays. Adelaide, South Australia: 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.