Clinical Social Work Journal

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 224–229 | Cite as

Gender Perspective in Cross-Cultural Couples

  • Judith KellnerEmail author
Original Paper


This article explores gender perspective in clinical work with couples whose romantic choices fall across cultural, racial and religious lines. A conceptual framework is presented to track the dimensions of differences between the two partners in intercultural couples (collective vs. individualistic). The article illustrates how emotional expressiveness, continuum of autonomy, gender differentiation, and sexuality play out in intimate cross-cultural relationships. It also shows how the embedded, culturally assigned gender beliefs and roles are addressed in treatment. Examples from the author’s clinical work are presented throughout the article.


Cross-cultural couples Gender Immigration Interfaith Identity Autonomy 



The author gratefully acknowledges the “cross cultural” influence of Esther Perel.


  1. Cowan, P., & Cowan, R. (1988). Mixed blessings. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  2. Crohn, J. (1995). Mixed matches: How to create successful interracial, interethnic, and interfaith relationships. New York: Fawcett Columbine.Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, S. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce, J. (Eds.). (1982). Ethnicity and family therapy. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce, J. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Perel, E. (1990). Ethno cultural factors in marital communication among inter-married couples. Journal of Jewish Communal Services, 66, 244–253.Google Scholar
  7. Perel, E. (2000). A tourist’s view of marriage: Cross-cultural couples—challenges, choices, and implications for therapy. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New directions for therapists (pp. 178–202). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  8. Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Reconciling the erotic and the domestic. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  9. Scheinkman, M., & Fishbane, M. (2004). The vulnerability cycle: Working with impasses in couple therapy. Family Process, 43(3), 279–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00023.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, G. J. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Ting-Toomey, S., & Stewart, L. P. (1987). Communication, gender, and sex roles in diverse interaction contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  15. Walsh, F., & Scheinkman, M. (1991). (Fe)male: The hidden gender dimension in models of family therapy. In M. McGoldrick, C. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.), Women in families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 16–41). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations