Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gendered Patterns of Interaction: A Foucauldian Discourse Analysis of Couple Therapy

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

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in attention to gender and gender-based inequalities in family therapy. Despite this, there is a dearth of empirical work that examines how gendered inequalities intersecting with other axes of privilege/oppression are maintained within families, including in the therapeutic context. In this study, we used Foucauldian discourse analysis to examine how gendered power is produced and reproduced circularly or through recurrent patterns of interaction in couple therapy. We identified gendered discourses and assumptions informing partners’ constructions of their gendered selves and relationships. We highlight the complexity and intersectionality of gendered subjectivities and relations in contemporary Canadian couples involved in heterosexual relationships. Although women in this study contest their oppression and exhibit agency to negotiate who they are in general and in relation to men, they simultaneously continue to occupy subordinate positions in a gender order that is culturally and interactionally allocated to them. We discuss implications for family therapy practice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almeida, R., Dolan-Del Vecchio, K., & Parker, L. (2008). Transformative family therapy: Just families in a just society. Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and level of analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1468796812463547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arribas-Ayllon, M., & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 91–109). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2007). Discourse analysis and psychotherapy: A critical review. European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 9(2), 157–176. doi:10.1080/13642530701363445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartkowski, J. P. (1999). One step forward, one step back: “Progressive traditionalism” and the negotiation of domestic labor in evangelical families. Gender Issues, 17(4), 37–61. doi:10.1007/s12147-998-0003-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.). (1991). Talk and social studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, C. (2015). Intersectionality in family therapy training: Inviting students to embrace the complexities of lived experience. Journal of Family Therapy, 37(4), 583–589. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.12090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, A., & Jensen, S. Q. (2012). Doing intersectional analysis: Methodological implications for qualitative research. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(2), 109–125. doi:10.1080/08038740.2012.673505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottone, R. R., & Greenwell, R. J. (1992). Beyond linearity and circularity: Deconstructing social systems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18(2), 167–177. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1992.tb00927.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In R. Harré & L. van Lagenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 32–52). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delphy, C., & Leonard, D. (1992). Familiar exploitation: A new analysis of marriage in contemporary western societies. Oxford: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, V. C. (2013). Patriarchy, power, and privilege: A narrative poststructural view of work with couples. Family Process, 52, 102–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D. (1998). The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 15–33). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 357–378). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

  • Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991a). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin.

  • Foucault, M. (1991b). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24, 31–47. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1985.00031.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1978). A feminist approach to family therapy. Family Process, 17(2), 181–194. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1978.00181.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy. Family Process, 33, 19–35. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1994.00019.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, P., Almeida, R., & Dolan-Del Vecchio, K. (2005). Critical consciousness, accountability, and empowerment: Key processes for helping families heal. Family Process, 44, 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00045.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang, L. A., & Yeoh, B. S. (2011). Breadwinning wives and “left-behind” husbands: Men and masculinities in Vietnamese transnational family. Gender and Society, 25(6), 717–739. doi:10.1177/0891243211430636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollway, W. (1998). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation, and subjectivity (2nd ed., pp. 227–263). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingraham, C. (2006). Thinking straight, acting bent: Heteronormativity and homosexuality. In K. Davis, M. Evans, & J. Lorber (Eds.), Handbook of gender and women’s studies (pp. 307–321). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (2001). Why a materialist feminism is (still) possible—and necessary. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(3/4), 283–293. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00187-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. K. (2007). Patterns of interaction. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 77(1), 69–88. doi:10.1300/J497v77n01_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Process, 52, 5–18. doi:10.1111/famp.12011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Knudson-Martin, C., et al. (2015). Competencies for addressing gender and power in couple therapy: A socio emotional approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 205–220. doi:10.1111/jmft.12068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, P. (2003). Maid or madam? Filipina migrant workers and the continuity of domestic labor. Gender and Society, 17(2), 187–208. doi:10.1177/0891243202250730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazar, M. M. (2005). Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as a political perspective and praxis. In M. M. Lazar (Ed.), Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power, ideology in discourse (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs Journal of Women, Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/426800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, T., & Hernández, P. (2010). Decolonizing academia: Intersectionality, participation, and accountability in family therapy and counseling. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 22(2), 93–111. doi:10.1080/08952831003787834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGeorge, C. R., Carlson, T. S., & Toomey, R. B. (2014). The intersection of spirituality, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity in family therapy training: An exploration of students’ beliefs and practices. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 36(4), 497–506. doi:10.1007/s10591-014-9312-8506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick, M., & Hardy, K. V. (Eds.). (2008). Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, A. (1999). Taking care of men: Sexual politics in the public mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McRuer, R. (2006). Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 88–99). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. (2008). Foucauldian constructionism. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 251–274). London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzoli Selvini, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19, 3–12. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1980.00003.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panzarino, C., & Clare, E. (2007). Sexual selves, community allegiance. In S. B. Mintz (Ed.), Unruly bodies: Life writing of women with disabilities (pp. 93–136). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheel, M. J., & Ivey, D. C. (1998). Neutrality and feminist perspective: Can they co-exist in family therapy? Contemporary Family Therapy, 20(3), 315–331. doi:10.1023/A:1022464812469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz Hall, J., & Sametband, I. (2014). His cave and her kitchen: Gendered PIPs and HIPs and societal discourses. In K. Tomm, S. St. George, D. Wulff, & T. Strong (Eds.), Patterns in interpersonal interactions: Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change (pp. 143–167). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity. Sexuality and Disability, 17(1), 53–64. doi:10.1177/1097184X12439879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, E. A., & Keyton, K. (2016). Caught in a bad romance? The negative effect of normative dating and marital ideologies on women’s bodies. Sex Roles. doi:10.1080/10911359.2012.647478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shildrick, M. (1997). Leaky bodies and boundaries. Feminism, post-modernism and (bio)ethics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. George, S., & Wulff, D. (2014). Braiding socio-cultural interpersonal patterns into therapy. In K. Tomm, S. St. George, D. Wulff, & T. Strong (Eds.), Patterns in interpersonal interactions: Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change (pp. 124–142). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. George, S., Wulff, D., & Tomm, K. (2015). Talking societal discourses into family therapy: A situational analysis of the relationships between societal expectations and parent-child conflict. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 15–30. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.2.15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, O. A., LaMarre, A., Rice, C., & Hardt, L. (2016). New sexism: Turning to ethnomethodology and membership categorization analysis for help (in preparation)

  • Terry, L. L. (1992). Gender and family therapy: Adding a bi-level belief systems component to assessment. Contemporary Family Therapy, 14(3), 199–210. doi:10.1007/BF00901504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thébaud, S. (2010). Masculinity, bargaining, and breadwinning: Understanding men’s housework in the cultural context of paid work. Gender and Society, 24(3), 330–354. doi:10.1177/0891243210369105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan systemic approach: Part I. Overview of development, theory and practice. Journal for Marital and Family Therapy, 10(2), 113–125. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1984.tb00001.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (1991). Beginnings of a ‘HIPs and PIPs’ approach to psychiatric assessment. The Calgary Participator, 1, 21–24. Retrieved from http://www.familytherapy.org/downloads.html.

  • Tomm, K. (2014a). Introduction: Origins of the PIPs and HIPs framework. In K. Tomm, S. St. George, D. Wulff, & T. Strong (Eds.), Patterns in interpersonal interactions: Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (2014b). Introducing the IPScope: A systemic assessment tool for distinguishing interpersonal patterns. In K. Tomm, S. St. George, D. Wulff, & T. Strong (Eds.), Patterns in interpersonal interactions: Inviting relational understandings for therapeutic change (pp. 13–35). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseliou, E. (2013). A critical methodological review of discourse and conversation analysis studies of family therapy. Family Process, 52, 653–679. doi:10.1111/famp.12043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Ideology and discourse. In M. Freeden & M. Stears (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political ideologies (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 803–810. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0281-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts-Jones, T. D. (2010). Location of self: Opening the door to dialogue on intersectionality in the therapy process. Family Process, 49, 405–420. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01330.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge: Balckwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Galick, A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2013). Toward mutual support: A task analysis of the relational justice approach to infidelity. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 285–298. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00324.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Willig, C. (2013). Foucauldian discourse analysis. In C. Willig (Ed.), Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed., pp. 129–142). New York, NY: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, E. J., & Piercy, F. P. (2010). Gender and diversity topics taught in commission on accreditation for marriage and family therapy education programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(4), 446–471. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2010.00220.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T. (2011). Which ruler do we use? Theorizing the division of domestic labor. Journal of Family Communication, 11(1), 39–49. doi:10.1080/15267431.2011.534339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulff, D., St. George, S., & Tomm, K. (2015). Societal discourses that help in family therapy: A modified situational analysis of the relationships between societal expectations and healing patterns in parent-child conflict. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 34(2), 31–44. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2015.34.2.15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2014). Is marriage individualized? What couples actually do? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6, 184–197. doi:10.1111/jftr.12038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 193–209. doi:10.1177/1350506806065752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank clients and therapists, and other individuals, who helped develop the archive of therapy sessions used in this article. This work was supported by funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Couple and Family Therapy Program, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Olga Sutherland, Andrea LaMarre, Carla Rice, Laura Hardt & Nicole Jeffrey

Authors
  1. Olga Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea LaMarre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carla Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Hardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicole Jeffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Sutherland.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sutherland, O., LaMarre, A., Rice, C. et al. Gendered Patterns of Interaction: A Foucauldian Discourse Analysis of Couple Therapy. Contemp Fam Ther 38, 385–399 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-016-9394-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-016-9394-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation