The Christian discourse on marriage

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE AND THEORY

Introduction

This Chapter discusses the theoretical background for the research investigation and provides a review of the literature on the topic. The first part of the Chapter presents the theoretical background to the study, namely social constructionism. Social constructionism as a framework was deemed relevant to this study because it parallels the aim of the study and the research methodology. In accordance with social constructionist theory, this study did not aim to come to a conclusion of some final generalizable truth. Instead it aimed to identify, describe and understand how a group of women in a particular social context construct discourses about the phenomena under investigation. The study then aimed to relate these constructions to public discourses on the topic.
As will be reflected in the findings and discussion Chapter autonomy in the marital relationship and marital satisfaction are the results of diverse processes taking place in the context of marriage. These constructions are, however, embedded in the broader social environment, which contributes to the way in which women and society in general interpret and experience autonomy and marital satisfaction. These broader social and individual constructions are context bound and may vary from individual to individual and from community to community.
In  discussing  social  constructionism  reference  is  made  to  the  history  of  social constructionist theory. As a result the theoretical discussion of social constructionism is preceded by a discussion of modernism, post-modernism, cybernetics and constructivism.
In addition, feminist theory is discussed as this study explored issues relating to women. The Chapter focuses particularly on post-modern feminism, which argues that gender is a social construct. This study touches on identity development and it was therefore also necessary to refer to the construct of identity and discuss various dialogues around identity formation.
The second part of the Chapter addresses the literature concerning marriage, autonomy and marital satisfaction. The literature illustrates that social constructs such as autonomy and marital satisfaction come about through interaction between people and through the use of language. It can be concluded that through social interaction we construct our behaviour and define what is acceptable in different social contexts.

From modernism to post-modernism

Lyell (1998) indicates that during the last two decades of the twentieth century (1980s and 1990s) there was a transition in social research procedures and in psychotherapy from a modernistic framework to a post-modernistic framework. While modernistic theories adopted a linear causal explanation of human behaviour, the post-modernistic theories introduced the idea of the possibility of describing behaviour in multiple ways. Modernism as a paradigm painted a picture of a world in which a single voice could prevail; the voice of objective truth. This paradigm placed certain individuals in the position of the ‘expert’ in explaining and „curing‟ human behaviour (Gergen, 1992). The knowable world and the belief in universal properties lie at the core of modernism, which believes that the study of single instances can be generalized to other instances (Lyell, 1998). Modernism has been criticized for ignoring the impact of the larger social context on individuals and for believing in the microcosm of the individual rather than in the macrocosm of society (Anderson & O‟Hara, 1991).
Post-modern theory emerged in reaction to the modernist ideas regarding the use of a language of objectivity, quantitative measurement, generalization and truth as facts and knowledge and argues for multiplicity, multiple realities and the plurality of voices (Kotze, 1994). McHale (1992) argues that the post-modern individual finds himself or herself in a society in which there are no universally constructed norms or values. Gergen (1992) argues that people are exposed to countless contradictory opinions from multiple forces and this makes it challenging for one to believe that objective conclusions can be reached about anything. From a post-modern perspective knowledge is viewed as a social construction constituted in language (Kotze, 1994).
Post-modernism introduced a shift from the belief in linear causality to a view of the universe as consisting of interrelated parts (Lyell, 1998). This new way of understanding behaviour was referred to in therapy as systemic thinking and behaviour was seen in terms of reciprocal and circular patterns of behaviour resulting from interaction (Rapmund, 2002). In systemic thinking the emphasis shifted from understanding objects to understanding events and patterns (Keeney, 1983). Within therapy the post-modern framework, as viewed by systemic thinking, sees individuals as telling own stories with multiple meanings. This implies that there is not one universal version of a problem, but that there are multiple ways in which a problem can be perceived. For example, in a family of five each individual would provide a different account or construction of a situation or problem. Within the research context this implies that there are multiple constructions of a situation and that no single construction is inherently better than other constructions
Systemic thinking in psychotherapy influenced the development of cybernetics, which in turn influenced the development of the constructivist and social constructionist paradigms. These constructs are outlined in the subsequent sections.

Cybernetics

Cybernetics has been defined as the science of communication and focuses on changing our views from the object to the wholeness of interaction (Keeney, 1983). Augustine (2002) defines cybernetics as a theory of interaction between open systems and subsystems. He further states that cybernetics can be first order or second order. In first order cybernetics the system is viewed in terms of inputs and outputs (Keeney, 1983). This way of viewing system is linear and examines causes and effects. In first order cybernetics the observer is seen as someone observing from the outside, analyzing inputs and outputs from the system and relating a system‟s interdependence with other systems. The role or interaction of the observer with the observed is therefore excluded or ignored. In research that uses first order cybernetics the researcher is regarded as an expert who analyses the problem and comes to a conclusive account of the situation.
In second order cybernetics the system is seen as a whole. The observer is no longer seen as detached but as part of the system being observed (Keeney, 1983). Second order cybernetics is a result of the realization that it is impossible for a researcher to maintain objectivity when conducting research and analyzing a system. From the viewpoint of second order cybernetics data is co-constructed by the researcher and the participant. This means that factors such as the researcher‟s opinions, theoretical framework and historical background are all considered in the overall interpretation of the data (Rapmund, 2002). This is referred to as reflexivity in research. The concept of reflexivity is discussed in detail in the methodology Chapter.
The above discussion also applies to social constructionism, which argues that both the researcher and the participants contribute reciprocally and collectively to defining the data (Anderson & Goolishian, 1993). In the interview method of qualitative research, particularly the one used in this study, the participants‟ responses guide the researcher‟s questions. The researcher and the participants are therefore both actively involved in constructing discourse or text. The researcher is not seen as an expert. Rapmund (2002) argues that everything that occurs during the research process is entirely self-referential. This implies that the researcher uses his or her own experiences and refers to his or her own understandings during the investigation.
Dell (1986) states that the move to second order cybernetics implied a simultaneous existence of multiple truths drawn by the observer. Keeney (1983) argues that second order cybernetics allows the researcher to see that your interpretation is one among several possible versions. When viewed from the second order lens the problem no longer has an objective existence but is created through language and conversations (Anderson & Goolishian, 1993). The shift from first order to second order cybernetics and the ideas presented above parallel the move towards constructivism, which argues that the world we live in is created by us and according to what makes sense to us (Becvar & Becvar, 2000). Constructivism is a central component of second order cybernetics and is discussed in the next section.

Constructivism

Constructivism developed from cybernetics in the 1980s as is based on the work of biologists Maturana and Varela (1980), who began asking questions about knowledge and how it is that we come to know certain things. This thinking was developed in relation to biology and the neurology of cognition. These researchers came to the conclusion that all knowledge is a construction or a subjective reflection of reality rather than a representation of an objective reality. Constructivism was developed further by Dell (1986) and Keeney (1983).
Constructivists state that human beings operate on the basis of symbolic or linguistic constructs that help them to navigate the world. Constructivism is a move from the position of having an objective view of the world to the understanding that we have an internal and subjective construction of the objective world (Kotze, 1994). Watzlawick (1984) states that reality is seen as a construction developed by those who believe that they have discovered and investigated this reality.
According to Hoffman (1990), although constructivism allows for alternative views of reality it has been criticized for not being comprehensive and for not taking into account the fact that there is a dominant social reality that constructs meaning. Critiques of constructivism argue that meaning is not developed independently within individuals, but socially through interaction (Lyell, 1998). These criticisms resulted in the development of social constructionism, which is presented in the following paragraphs.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Context of the study
1.3. Rationale and objectives for the study.
1.4. Research questions
1.5. Theoretical framework
1.6. Research approach
1.7. Definition of terms/key constructs/concepts
1.8. Outline of Chapters
1.9. Conclusion
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE AND THEORY 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 From modernism to post-modernism
2.2.1 Cybernetics
2.2.2 Constructivism
2.2.3 Social constructionism
2.2.4 Language as discourse
2.3 Discussions on culture
2.4 Gender and power
2.4.1 A feminist framework
2.5 Formation of an identity
2.6 Literature review on marriage, autonomy and marital satisfaction
2.6.2.4 The Christian discourse on marriage
2.7 The social construction of autonomy
2.7.3 The gender discourse and autonomy
2.7.4 The legal discourse and autonomy
2.7.5 Christian discourse and autonomy
2.7.6 The marital discourse and autonomy
2.7.7 Summary and conclusion
2.8 Marital satisfaction
2.8.1 Overview of marital satisfaction ..
2.8.2 Autonomy and marital satisfaction
2.8.3 Dual career marriage and marital satisfaction
2.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research methodology
3.3 Justification for using qualitative research
3.4 Data collection process.
3.5 Reflexivity in qualitative research
3.6 Data analysis
3.7 Discourse analysis.
3.8 The process of analysis
3.9 Validity and reliability in qualitative research
3.10 Summary and conclusion
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 Description of participants
4.3 Presentation of findings
4.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The participants’ constructions of marriage
5.3 Autonomy, independence and freedom discourses
5.4 The discourse of power
5.5 Fear and helplessness discourses
5.6 The discourse of satisfaction
5.7 The construction of the participants’ identity in dual-career marriages
5.8 Answering the research questions
5.9 Reflections on the study
5.10 Limitations of the study
5.11 Recommendations for future research
5.12 Concluding remarks.
REFERENCE LIST 
APPENDIX
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT