Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Co-Authoring “We-ness” and Stories of Intimacy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Contemporary Family Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing from narrative ideas and practices, we consider how individuals, couples, and couples with therapists co-author and co-edit stories of “we-ness,” a kind of relational consciousness, and intimacy in the context of research interviews. Adapting the “small story” narrative approach of Michael Bamberg, and recognizing researcher reflexivity, we present details from two separate studies into: (1) how cohabitating couples co-authored stories of “we-ness” in and beyond a research interview; and (2) how young married couples co-authored stories of “we-ness” by describing how they made significant decisions together through difficult yet successful conversations. Inviting such stories of “we-ness” can talk this intimacy into being. We relate the processes and outcomes of these studies to using a narrative approach to help individuals and couples with concerns about intimacy within the context of therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angus, L. E., & McLeod, J. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy: Practice, theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnett, J. J. (2011). Emerging adulthood(s): The cultural psychology of a new life stage. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy (pp. 255–275). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, M. (2004). Narrative discourse and identities. In J. C. Meister, T. Kindt, W. Schernus, & M. Stein (Eds.), Narratology beyond literary criticism (pp. 213–237). Berlin, Germany and New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139–147. doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.18bam.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, M. (2011). Narrative practice and identity navigation. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Varieties of narrative analysis (pp. 99–124). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28, 377–396. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2008.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnston, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 941–952. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, J. (2000). The heart’s narrative: Therapy and navigating life’s contradictions. Auckland, New Zealand: Edge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., & Johnson, D. (1988). Premarital cohabitation and marital success. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 255–272. doi:10.1177/019251388009002007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., Badger, S., Willoughby, B. J., Nelson, L. J., Madsen, S. D., & Barry, C. M. (2009). Ready or not? Criteria for marriage readiness among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 349–375. doi:10.1177/0743558409334253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clandinin, J. (Ed.). (2006). The handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • CNN U.S. (2002, July 24). Study: Living together may lead to break-ups. CNN. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-24/us/cdc.marriagereport_1_cohabitation-marriage-divorce-within-five-years?_s=PM:US.

  • Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 180–192. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00180.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, M., Wickrama, K. A. S., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2011). Linking parental divorce and marital discord to the timing of emerging adults’ marriage and cohabitation. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 123–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A., & Rao, K. V. (1992). Premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital stability in the United States: A reassessment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 178–190. doi:10.2307/353285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denker, K. J. (2009). Co-constructing work-life concerns: An examination of couples’ discourse (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3458971).

  • Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskin, M. (2000). Ethics and dialogue in the works of Levinas, Bakhtin, Mandel’shtam, and Celan. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, L., & Evans, K. (Eds.). (2009). Relational-centred research for psychotherapists: Exploring meanings and experience. Malden, MA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. W. (2010). Letting stories breathe: A socio-narratology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). The interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York, NY: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 883–903. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90045-F.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2009). Analyzing narrative reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. R., & Zhao, J. Z. (1995). Cohabitation and divorce in Canada: Testing the selectivity hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 421–427. doi:10.2307/353695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Active interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzman, L., & Newman, F. (1999). Beyond narrative to performed conversation (‘In the beginning’ comes much later). In L. Holzman (Ed.), Performing psychology: A postmodern culture of mind (pp. 87–110). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. (2008). Saving the soul: Therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. (2012). Why love hurts. Malden, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. (1991). The meaning of mutuality. In J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women’s growth in connection (pp. 81–96). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jose, A., O’Leary, K. D., & Moyer, A. (2010). Does premarital cohabitation predict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 105–116. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., & Amato, P. R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation and marital quality and marital stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 539–549. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00539.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkegaard, S. (2006). Papers and journals: A selection (A. Hannay, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Classics.

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, W. (2012, April 15). Maybe it’s time to say ‘I don’t’ to living together before marriage? The Globe and Mail, The Hot Button. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/maybe-its-time-to-say-i-dont-to-living-together-before-marriage/article2403319/.

  • Lindemann Nelson, H. (2001). Damaged identities, narrative repair. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00392.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. (2005). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1998). The healing connection: How women form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston, MA: Beacon Hill Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, O., & Strong, T. (2014). Relational consciousness and the conversational practices of Johnella Bird. Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 81–102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00567.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1997). The end of knowing. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanlon, W. H. (1994, November/December). The third wave. Family Therapy Networker, 18(6), 19–29.

  • Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2009). Couples’ reasons for cohabitation: Associations with individual well-being and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 233–258. doi:10.1177/0192513X08324388.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and narrative (Vol. 3; K. Blaney & D. Pellauer, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, C. (2006, December 10). Cohabitation is bad for women’s health. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section1B.t-1.html?_r=1.

  • Sassler, S. (2004). The process of entering into cohabiting unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 491–505. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00033.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1987). The social construction of an “us”: Problems of accountability and narratology. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for personal relationships: Social representations of interpersonal links (pp. 225–247). London, UK: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1997). The social construction of our ‘inner’ lives. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10(1), 7–24. doi:10.1080/10720539708404609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2001). The construction of ‘delicate’ objects in counselling. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 119–137). London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, D. K., Heyman, R. E., & Haynes, S. N. (2005). Evidence-based approaches to assessing couple distress. Psychological Assessment, 17, 288–307. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, T. (2005). Understanding in counselling: A preliminary social constructionist and conversation analytic examination. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 33, 513–533. doi:10.1080/03069880500327538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, T. (2006). Wordsmithing in counselling? European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 8, 251–268. doi:10.1080/13642530600878212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, T., & Knight, S. (2012). Agency and dialogic tension in co-editing more preferred narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 22(1), 181–185. doi:10.1075/ni.22.1.13str.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, T., & Schultz, L. (2010). Asking and answering deconstruction questions from within counselling dialogues. In J. Raskin, S. Bridges, & R. Neimeyer (Eds.), Studies in meaning 4: Constructivist perspectives on theory, practice, and social justice (pp. 123–150). New York: Pace University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (2007). Narrative as construction and discursive resource. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative—State of the art (pp. 113–122). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., & Colella, U. (1992). Cohabitation and marital stability: Quality or commitment? Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 259–267. doi:10.2307/353057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27(1), 1–15. doi:10.1111/j.15455300.1988.00001.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, K. (2011). Narrative inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, L. N., & Emery, R. E. (2002). The cohabitation effect on divorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 37, 101–122. doi:10.1300/J087v37n03_06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. W., Simmons, L. A., & Campbell, K. (2007). Does a marriage ideal exist? Using Q-sort methodology to compare young adults’ and professional educators’ views on healthy marriages. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 223–236. doi:10.1007/s10591-007-9044-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zvonkovic, A. M., Schmiege, C. J., & Hall, L. D. (1994). Influence strategies used when couples make work-family decisions and their importance for marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 43, 182–188. doi:10.2307/585321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Education Tower, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T4N 1N2, Canada

    Tom Strong, Marnie Rogers-de Jong & Samantha Merritt

Authors
  1. Tom Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marnie Rogers-de Jong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samantha Merritt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Strong.

Appendix

Appendix

Transcript notation

[

Indicates overlapping talk between two speakers

]

Indicates the end of the overlapping talk

=

At the end of one line and the beginning of the next, these indicate no gap between the two speakers’ talk

(.)

A brief pause of less than one second in length

…

Indicates a longer pause, usually at least a couple seconds in length

(())

Transcriber descriptions of non-verbal activity or verbal activity other than talk (e.g., laughing)

[…]

Indicates part of the transcript was removed for brevity

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strong, T., Rogers-de Jong, M. & Merritt, S. Co-Authoring “We-ness” and Stories of Intimacy. Contemp Fam Ther 36, 398–408 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-014-9304-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-014-9304-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation