Advertisement

Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 385–399 | Cite as

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

  • Olga Sutherland
  • Andrea LaMarre
  • Carla Rice
  • Laura Hardt
  • Nicole Jeffrey
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Gender Power Patterns of interaction Foucauldian discourse analysis Intersectionality 

Notes

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).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Almeida, R., Dolan-Del Vecchio, K., & Parker, L. (2008). Transformative family therapy: Just families in a just society. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Anthias, F. (2012). Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and level of analysis. Ethnicities, 13(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1177/1468796812463547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  9. Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.). (1991). Talk and social studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, L. S. (1994). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. doi: 10.1037/a0014564.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Delphy, C., & Leonard, D. (1992). Familiar exploitation: A new analysis of marriage in contemporary western societies. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  23. Dickerson, V. C. (2013). Patriarchy, power, and privilege: A narrative poststructural view of work with couples. Family Process, 52, 102–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Foucault, M. (1991a). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldner, V. (1985). Feminism and family therapy. Family Process, 24, 31–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1985.00031.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keenan, E. K. (2007). Patterns of interaction. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 77(1), 69–88. doi: 10.1300/J497v77n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs Journal of Women, Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800. doi: 10.1086/426800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. McMahon, A. (1999). Taking care of men: Sexual politics in the public mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Miller, L. (2008). Foucauldian constructionism. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 251–274). London: Guilford.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity. Sexuality and Disability, 17(1), 53–64. doi: 10.1177/1097184X12439879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Shildrick, M. (1997). Leaky bodies and boundaries. Feminism, post-modernism and (bio)ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sutherland, O. A., LaMarre, A., Rice, C., & Hardt, L. (2016). New sexism: Turning to ethnomethodology and membership categorization analysis for help (in preparation)Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge: Balckwell.Google Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13, 193–209. doi: 10.1177/1350506806065752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Sutherland
    • 1
  • Andrea LaMarre
    • 1
  • Carla Rice
    • 1
  • Laura Hardt
    • 1
  • Nicole Jeffrey
    • 1
  1. 1.Couple and Family Therapy Program, Department of Family Relations and Applied NutritionUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations