1

Social Stratification, Cohesion and Conflict in Contemporary Couples

Jean Kellerhals,

Eric Widmer, René Levy

Pavie Institute

(Universities of Geneva and Lausanne)

Conference presented at the 2nd Congress of the European Society on Family Relations

(ESFR)

Fribourg, September 30-October 2, 2004

Address correspondance to Jean Kellerhals Dpt. of Sociology University of Geneva, Uni-Mail Bd. du Pont d'Arve, 40 1211 Genève 4 jean.kellerhals@socio.unige.ch

Draft. Please do no quote without written permission

2

….à Meinrad Perrez, en signe d'estime et d'amitié

I. INTRODUCTION

Despite the great demographic changes of the sixties (increases in the divorce rates, generalization of

cohabitation without marriage, development of reconstituted families, generalization of the two-

carriers family model), the crucial importance of conjugal and familial bond in the building of

contemporary social identities remains strong and gets even stronger. The loss of influence of the

primary groups, the mobility or transitory status of the professional situations, the residential mobility

or anonymous siutation converge in giving to the couple and the family a crucial role in adult's

identity construction and emotional stability maintenance (Singly, 1996).

Let’s make this point a bit more precise. Some Sociologists like J.Cl. Kaufmann, on the one hand,

showed that the Demographic Syndrom we just mentioned corresponded more to a redefining of the

first adult ages- an inevitably multishaped time of socialization to others, -- than to a radical break

with former institutional contexts1.. Now various surveys 2conducted during the l980 ‘ s suggest a

still classic family scheme - concern to form a monogamous long- last3ing couple, and bearing

children - even if there is a refusal to identify with the traditional marriage in insisting on un-

differentiated conjugal roles, and on the using of institutions by the spouses rather than their

subjecting to institutional requirements The changes that resulted from the l960’s certainly led to

vaguer definitions of the family, insisting, on the one hand, upon the opening of the group and, on

the other hand, upon the plurality of its structures and functionings. Nevertheless, sociologists like F.

de Singly4 nowadays see the main function of this group as a point centre of the elaboration of self-

identity, the key to the ‘self-revelation’ process. According to him, modern societies offer a quite

diversified structure of opportunities to people, and multifarious potential biographies. Besides,

group membership are numerous and sectorial , often cut off from each other. This is the setting for

the person to show his/her autonomy, which involves the selection of affiliation and projects and

their organization into a hierarchy; the person is also to elaborate her unity. Marriage and family

1 Kaufmann J.Cl. La chaleur du foyer. Analyse du repli domestique. Méridiens-Klinksieck, Paris, 1988 2 Finch J., Morgan D. "Marriage in the 80's: a new sense of Realism?" in Clark D. (ed) Marriage, Domestic Life andSocial Change, Routledge, London-New-York, 1991, pp. 55-82 3 cf. Fine A. Parrains, Marraines, Fayard, Paris, 1994 4 de Singly F. Le soi, le couple et la famille, Nathan, Paris, 1996

3

bonds thus represent the place for these various potential fates and these exploded membership to

find some unity, a principle of hierarchical organization, a meaningful direction. From this point of

view, The family’s part stands less as a normative organization than as a domestic space for

emotional/affective relationships. It generates ‘such an atmosphere for the self to propitiously achieve

its triple quest : the discovery of its hidden resources, unity, stability’5. Resuming Taylor’s argument,

de Singly estimates the family to own, more than previously, an identificational dimension, in other

words the vocation to give birth in a ‘certain way to be a human-being that is my own, not imitating

that of others’. 6The other becomes the ego’s Pygmalion. Here is another development of the nomical

construction idea, dear to Kellner & Berger7,and in fact already present in the compagnonship notion

of Burgess8. Expressed in another way - and these are my own words - there exist at least, from the

sociological point of view, three major sources of identity construction: one builds identity from

Membership ( I am what my Blood, my Homeland or my Faith describe/define), another from the Role

or Function (I am what my job, my children, my power or my properties tell about me). The third

builds identity from the affective Relation : I am what my intimate relationships say and want from

me. For de Singly, this latter source of identity appears nowadays crucial : the contemporary society

requires from the person an individualism held as a quest for authenticity or self reference, that is

built, for its main constituents, in the relationship with a few priviledged others. Thanks to the

relational work accomplished with one or several close ‘friends’ - were they relatives or not - the

constituents of the identity will ‘clot together’. This is a viewpoint close to Luhmann’s9, who

estimated that the progressive systemic differentiation had generated a great variety of specialized

structures. As people take part to a great number of them and are no longer pledged to any of them,

the results are very specific combinations of experiments that can’t be compared with those of others,

and that the person expresses through an acute sense of uniqueness and autonomy. It follows,

according to Cheal10, that the increasing indetermination of cultural codes within conditions of

social pluralism, the potential confrontation between the rights to individual autonomy and the

requirements of the social solidarity make family relationships form into a ‘moral individualism’,

that is to say a place where individual autonomy and social responsibility are set in a phase through

highly sentimentalized ties, themselves creating intersubjective consensuses upon the biographies of

5 de Singly, op.cit. p.14 6 de Singly, op.cit. p.15 7 Berger P., Kellner H. " Le mariage et la construction de la réalité", Dialogue, no 102 (first ed. 1960), Paris, 1988 8 Burgess E.W, Locke H.Y., Thomes M.M. The Family: from Institution to Companionship, American Book Company, New-York, 1963 9 Luhmann N. Love as Passion, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1986 10 Cheal D., The gift Economy, Routledge, London, New-York, 1988, p.133

4

the persons involved.

However, this does not prevent identity construction to be achieved through many different ways, as

well as the search for identity referentials by family to face painful failures (cf. Kellerhals, Widmer

and Levy, 2004). These two facts open the path to four interconnected issues in family research:

1. What are the main types of conjugal interactions characterising contemporary families ? Do they

depend on the social status of their members? 2. Are those types marked by different kinds and levels of problems and conflicts ? 3. What are the ways in which couples cope with their problems, and do these modes of coping

provide an explanation for the level of conjugal stress ? 4. How does the subjective evaluation of the conjugal quality vary according to types of conjugal

interaction and how the mode of coping influence this evaluation ?

I would like to examine briefly these questions on the basis of the literature and of a large empirical

survey recently led with 1500 couples - where both she and he were interviewed - in a highly post-

modern context, Switzerland (for more technical details, see Widmer, Kellerhals and Levy, 2003).

II. POSTMODERNITY AND TYPES OF CONJUGAL INTERACTIONS

Since the 60s, the search for the definition of THE modern family as a homogeneous entity has

largely given way to various analyses centered on the diversity of contemporary family

interactions, and their classification in several ideal-types ( see for instance Farber 1962, Kantor

and Lehr 1985; Roussel 1985, Donati 1985). The definition of those types of conjugal interactions

were meant to show that post-modernity is characterized by a variety of conjugal “logics” rather

than by a convergence towards a single model, those alternatives depending to a large extent on

economic, social and cultural resources available to the couples. Research on those interactions

types has progressively underlined the importance of five dimensions:

(Slide 1)

1) The degree of fusion - which designates the extent to which individual resources (such as

time, activities, money, ideas, feelings) are put in common – opposes to the extremes

couples and families basing their balance on similarity, resemblance and consensus to

5

others basing it on research of authenticity and autonomy;

2) The degree of openness - which designates the intensity of the exchanges between the

family group and its social environment – opposes to the extremes families who want to

keep their cohesion through a homebird attitude to others who only conceive their

cohesion through the processing of outside energies and information ;

3) The priority given to instrumental or expressive goals in the couple opposes to the

extremes families who insist on social integration and economic success of the group to

others who prefer relations based on tenderness, communication and psychological

comfort

4) The degree of differentiation of roles – which designates the extent to which specific tasks

are attributed differently to both genders – opposes an exchange based on pre-established

codes to a negotiation based on communication;

5) The level of ritualisation - that is the extent to which the daily family life is ruled by

precise and constraining norms – refers to the same analysis.

The first three variables refer to the dimension of cohesion, i.e., the way in which couples

construct their we-ness in defining the inner and external boundaries of the group. The two

last types are associated with regulation, i.e., the way actions are coordinated within the

group.

(Slide 2) Main Dimensions of types of conjugal interactions

Dimension Pole A Pole B

Internal borders Accent on : Fusion Consensus Similarity

Accent on : Autonomy Authenticity

Communication

External borders Closure Openness

Priority Goals Instrumental Expressive

Conjugal Roles Differenciation Indifferenciation

Ritualisation Routines Negociation

On this basis, what kind of ideal types of family interactions can we distinguish ? In our recent

6

research on 1500 couples, a cluster analysis based on 42 indicators pertaining to the five dimensions I

just mentioned allowed us to define five – not only one - contrasted types of couples interactions:

Couples of type Bastion are characterized by a strong tendency to fusion, closure and gender

differentiation. All individual resources are to be put in common, and the main value to be achieved is

consensus and similarity. A good couple is the one where differences are minimal. Openness, or

contacts with the external world are not valued much. Quite to the contrary some mistrust exists

toward external actors, where intimacy is much valued. The family as a group comes first compared

with individual interests or orientations. This rather close and warm world is sustained by a traditional

division of labor between genders, in relations with rigid norms. This strong differentiation also

strengthens goals priority, women being much more internally oriented in this type than men. Couples

of type Association are on the opposite. Associative couples are open and autonomous at the same

time. They also present a quite egalitarian power and role distribution, with no difference between

spouses on instrumentality and expressiveness. Their openness is associated with high scores of social

participation. The central values structuring this kind of functioning are at the same time the quest for

personal authenticity and the negotiation of individual rights. This gives a strategic importance to

communication. Couples of type Companionship are characterized by a strong tendency toward

fusion. At the same time, they show a very strong tendency to openness. The level of sexual

differentiation is close to the average. The companionship couples make a very frequent use of

environmental resources in order to reinforce internal solidarity. The central value is community, seen

as a common fate between couple and its belonging groups. Couples of the Cocoon type are

characterized by high levels of fusion and closure. But they do not present a high-level gender

division of domestic and relational roles. They mainly emphasize the internal goals of the union for

both spouses. Their functioning is at the same time warm, closed, and relatively free of gender biases.

The dominant value is comfort, both psychological and social. Couples of type Parallel are

characterized by a strong differentiation of domestic and relational roles between spouses. They are

strong on female expressiveness and on male instrumentality. Parallel couples have comparatively

low scores of fusion and high scores of closure. Those are couples who feel threatened by the external

world (to the family) without investing the internal relationships. The idea of separate worlds for

spouses seems to be at the center of the functioning of those couples. Here, a good couple is

characterized by order and regularity.

7

(Slide 3)

FIVE TYPES OF CONJUGAL INTERACTIONS

BASTION

Fusion, closeness, differenciation, routines, intrumental and expressive priority goals

ASSOCIATION

Autonomy, openness, indifferenciation, negociation

COMPANIONSHIP

Fusion, Openness, Negociation, Instrumental and Expressive Priority Goals

COCOON

Fusion, Closure, Indifferenciation, Routines, Expressive Priority Goals

PARALLEL

Autonomy, Closure, Differenciation, Routines, Instrumental and Expressive Priority Goals

These different types of interactions depend of course of the personality of the partners, but they also

depend on their position in the social stratification.

Indeed, the higher the level of economic and cultural resources of the partners, the more frequent is

the associative type of interaction. Conversely, weak economic and cultural resources are correlated

with a higher frequency of the Bastion and Cocoon styles of functioning, in other words, weak

resources are correlated with types of functioning which tend to close the borders between the family

and the outside world, and which value the consensus and the similarity rather than putting the accent

on the personal authenticity or specificity or autonomy of the spouses.

(Slide 5) Table 2

Types of Conjugal Interactions according to the Level of Education of Women and Men ( Male

percentages in brackets)

PARAL. COMPA. BASTION COCOON ASSOC.

8

Less than 40 years Elementary School 22 (30) 22 (7) 22 (15) 22 (26) 12 (22) High School 20 (25) 20 (21) 16 (15) 12 (12) 31 (27) University. 19 (14) 23 (23) 5 (16) 11 (7) 42 (40) More than 40 years Elementary School 17 (26) 31 (5) 37 (26) 14 (32) 0 (11) High School 17 (17) 25 (21) 14 (17) 10 (12) 35 (32) University 19 (16) 27 (21) 7 (8) 7 (11) 41 (43)

The same trends appear in comparable researches (cf. Kellerhals et al., 1994).

For instance, the discerning remarks of J.Cl. Kaufmann show how the identification through roles (or

identification to a model) is stronger in most cases of weak social power, whereas the identity

construction through negotiation/differentiation is more definite in cases of significant social assets.

We come across the same view with Commaille11, who doubts impoverished families to desire/have

the possibility to play the`contractual model`as well-off families do.

So, this analysis convinces us that modernity is characterized by the coexistence of some contrasted

types of family “projects” rather than by convergence towards only one pattern.

III. CULTURAL TENSIONS AND CONJUGAL PROBLEMS

But the question is then to know whether these types have similar levels and types of conflicts, or host

similar problems. The interest for the definition of various conjugal styles in post-modern societies is

linked with the ambition of responding in an informed manner to authors predicting either the coming

of a radical crisis of the family or the coming of a golden age of conjugal intimacy at last freed from

traditional and institutional constraints. This intention inspired several typologies, notably those of

Reiss ( 1981 ) and Olson (1988, 1989). Let’s address this issue in referring here to the difficulties

couples may encounter in achieving the main basic developmental tasks that every group has to

complete. That is:

(Slide 6)

1. Define the priority goals of the couple and achieve a consensus about their hierarchy and the

11 Commaille J., op.cit., pp. 177-178

9

investments they request;

2. Organize the family division of labour and learn the various roles which are associated to this

division

3. Define the inner borders between the couple or family members, in other words define the

geography of intimacy

4.Develop norms or routines about the allocation of time and space in the family

5. Organize the decision process in the family; in this respect, select the legitimate type of hierarchy

or equality between the group members

6. Elaborate codes of communication with adequate precision, emotional charge and redundancy

7. Define the nature and frequency of the contacts between the group and the outside world; in other

words reach a consensus on the external borders of the couple

8. Develop a family culture – knowledge(s), memories, rites, believes, etc – which the group can use

for motivating its members, legitimate decisions and keep a certain normative stability.

We can call conjugal stress the total amount of the tensions or feelings of inadequate solutions

associated with the (lack of) achievement of these various tasks.

From this point of view, one can hypothesize that thse problems in performing these basic

developmental tasks are associated with four major types of tensions, which characterize the conjugal

project in the Western culture. The first tension opposes the frequent “fusional” ideals of conjugal

happiness, in which "sharing" is considered as the key to happiness, to the rather individualistic ideas

of the "self", in which clearly establishing personal rights and autonomy is considered as a sign of

psychological maturity and an evidence of relational success. Creating and maintaining the ‘good

distance’, an essential element to the cohesion of the group, is often seen in that case as fragile.

Let’s be more precise about this point. Bellah12, for example stigmatizes negatively the evolution of

12 Bellah R., Madsen R., Sullivan W., Swidler A., Tipton S., Habits of the Heart, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985, p.90 13 Bellah R. et al., op. cit., p.275 14 Popenoe D., Disturbing the Nest., Aldine de ruyter, New-York, 1988, p.329 15 deSingly, op.cit. , pp.216 and 219 16 Finch j., morgan D., op.cit. p.66 17 Dandurand R., Le mariage en question, IQRC, Québec, 1991 18 Finch J., Morgan D., op.cit., p.70 19 cf. Morgan D. "Ideologies of Marriage and Family Life", in Clark D. (ed) Marriage, Domestic Life and Social Change, Routledge, London, New-York, 1991, pp.114-138 20 Bawin-Legros B. Sociologie de la famille, De Boeck Université, Bruxelles, 1996; Bawin-Legros B. "Relations intergénérationnelles: vers une typologie des grands-parents", in Pestieau P. (ed) Héritage et transfert entre générations, De Boeck Université, Bruxelles, 1994, pp. 129-143

10

the family sensibility that, after having been marked by the advent of individualism into the free

choice, made in the name of love, of a spouse, and hardens nowadays in the form of the research of

a personal ‘growth’, or of a personal opening out, to which the family isn’t but instrumental. This

plan, to him, seems a never ending quest that won’t necessarily stabilize in strong emetional

relationships, or in steady commitments,, these latters being only allowed as temporary stages

within a research for the itinerary of the self, that may last for a whole life. Then there is the danger

that’long-lasting relations that only stem from personal preferences, in fact hardly last for a long time

with the result of weakening engagements that go contradicting social solidarity and successful

identital construction.13Popenoe14 also assigns to the idea of progress (conceived as an individualist

will of self realization) a kind of deterioration of the family, put into evidence in and through the

disinstitutionalization of the family bond (lessening of economical interdependence and of the control

of the group upon its members), and in a lesser efficiency of the family as far as socialization is

concerned, and in the unsteadiness of the family bond, and last in a lesser valorization of the family

as set into opposition with the individual,. If this tendency does not take the reverse course, writes

Popenhoe, the function of the family as a mediator between the individual and the society will be

compromised. These pessimistic views offer both a common point and a big difference with the

parsonian type of functionalism. To Bellah. as to Parsons, the differentiation process is the key factor

that allowed the opening out of individualism. But, on the whole, Parsons considered the

disintegrative forces of differentiation to be (coud be) balanced by new forces of integration. It is this

view that Bellah and a few others don’t share; they doubt a ‘wide ,open, honest communication ’ to

be able to win over the disintegrating effects of individualism. F. de Singly, if I don’t err, is more

optimistic. He holds the contemporaneous quest for authenticity and self reference is not so much that

of a subject who values independance than of one who valorize /actualizes autonomy. Among the

modes of construction of the personal identity is the meaningful sense of family responsibilities15. I

think it is quite possible to admit such a view, even if the social conditions which favour

disintegration vs. integration are not clear yet, for both the pessimistic and the optimistic theories.

One can likewise consider, together with Ashkam (1984), that the concern for security and stability,

as much in social life than in conjugal relationships, often conflicts with the aspiration to identity,

perceived as the expression of some authenticity which valorizes innovation and change.

The second tension is constituted by an obvious gap between, on one hand, the representations and

ideals that insist on equality and the altruistic negotiation of power, and, on the other hand, the

persistence of quite unegalitarian practices, be it in matters of domestic activities or socialization roles

(Finch and Morgan, 1991).

11

The great change of the 80s, according to Finch, is the public valorization of fatherhood rather than

the actual rising importance of the “ new age fathers ”16. And a great number of analysts link this

apparent steadiness of family behaviours together with the persisting of socio-professional disparities

between the genders17, that affect the management of domestic power all the more so since the latter

has lost all legitimating discourse.

Thirdly, the gap existing between the social representations of the family bond (the “Myth”) and the

actual family experience in everyday life has often been brought to the fore. Denzin, for instance,

writes that a large amount of mediatic messages present ‘family myths’ that, being very far from the

intimates’ concrete life, are both unable to constitute a guidance for daily activities, and nevertheless

disqualify the everyday experience of family members (cf. also Gretillat et al., 1981) More generally,

the “privatization” thesis about the family states that the conjugal organization should mainly depend

on individual needs and desires, and that love should transcend all limits and disregard all opposing

norms. But the strength and rigidity of the norms of various institutions (schools, health care, child

care, professional, administrations, etc.) greatly constrains family realities, and the resources at the

couple’s disposal are often scarce. The tension complicates greatly the achievement of the eight

developmental tasks we mentioned above.

Eventually, a fourth tension opposes the high value that contemporary societies put on change and

mobility ( identified with progress) and the need for some permanence in the relationships (in order to

afford the stress generated by the ubiquitous changes). From this point of view, the durable conjugal

relationships are in the meantime seen as a remedy against the stresses and the fears of the modern

world and as a source of routine and boredom feelings, maybe associated with a certain guilt , with

the fear of missing the good opportunity.

From such a viewpoint, the building of identities through family relations can certainly be marked, to

some extent, by dependence, violence, or even total alienation. In other words, the construction of the

identity is not always, and by far, a positive, coherent or opening up process. Part of the

contemporaneous realism, according to Finch, consists for many women and children, in

acknowledging the family to be the most violent group they could belong to. And rather than to

account for family violence by individual pathologies, it seems more appropriate to see it18 as an

expression of the social structuring of gender relations. I think Morgan is right to insist on the

importance of analysing family life in terms of internal contradictions : dialectics of love and hate,

of individuation and fusion, of egalitarism and power; the whole of it is necessary to understand the

strategies of sense and to analyze family "unseemly" behaviours (violence, breaking off, silence ,

humdrum, lassitude) as a result of contemporaneous life that is as normal as success is in the

12

assertion of a positive identity19. In this respect, the relative de-codification of married or family

relations must not only be analysed as a possibility to discover an authentic self that is respectful of

others , but also-as underlined by DuQuai talking about newly established couples - as favouring, in

many cases, the transition to relationships that are physically and symbolically violent precisely

because there exist only few elaborated codes of exchange (see also, talking of “ good distance ”, or

violence and gender connections, the work of B Bawin20).

To summarize, functional problems that couples have may be associated with inequality of roles, with

tensions between needs of fusion and needs of autonomy, between needs of change and desire of

permanence. The strength of these tensions vary according to the social resources of the partners and

contribute to determine the way in which they define the territories of their intimacy and the rigidity

of their regulation ( cf. Olson,OLavee and McCubbin, 1987, Olson and DeFrain, 1997),

These cultural tensions relating to autonomy, equality and privatization have of course their echo in

the types of interaction of the couples and in the conflicts or problems they meet. Our study on 1500

couples with whom these themes were approached through some twenty indicators screened with a

MCA leads to group these problems in three main categories :

a) problems related with coordination of activities and projects of the family members ; b) relational

or interactional problems (problems of communication, affective disillusion, important difficulties

with the spouse's personality; and finally c) problems of social deviance (violence, sexual roughness,

addictive behavior, etc).

A first striking result is the high frequency of problems and open conflicts in the observed sample. In

other words a high level of stress. Indeed, at the time of the interview, 23% of the couples meet three

or more of the severe problems quoted above (38% two or more, 62% one or more). When

considering past and present problems, 25 % of the couples have met five or more severe types of

difficulties (61 % more than two). By category, we can observe that 29% of the couples have met

more than two important relational problems in their life course; 29% have met more than two

important coordination problems. Problems related with violence and drug abuse are much less

frequent but still more than one couple in four (27%) have met at least one such a problem in its life

course. 30% of the couples experience serious or severe open fights, this proportion reaching 20 % for

the open fights which are in the mean time serious and frequent. Apart of that, problems pertaining to

the performance of parental roles reach 47 % of the interviewed parents.

13

(Slide 7)

FREQUENCY OF PROBLEMS AND OPEN FIGHTS

1. Current problems

3 or more 23 % 2 or more 38 % 1 or more 62 %

2. Past or present problems 5 or more 25 % 3 or more 61 %

3. Past or present problems, by category « Relational » problems (3 or more) 29 % « Coordination » problems (3 or more) 29 % Problems of « Deviance » (1 or more) 27 %

4. Open Fights Serious and frequent current open fights 20 %

The second striking fact is that the frequency of the three categories of problems shows a similar

profile, depending on the types of interaction. From Table 4, it is rather clear that the

companionship style of interactions is associated with a lower level of problems than any other

interactional style. When open conflicts occur, they are much less serious and reconciliation is

much easier than for other couples. In contrast, Parallel and Associative couples score very high

on almost all indicators of conflict. Both males and females of those couples acknowledge a

higher level of tensions and more frequent open conflicts than the average. They show higher

rates of problems of any kinds. Cocoon and Bastion couples, on the other hand, are rather close to

companionship couples, with a slightly higher frequency of problems and open conflicts.

14

(Slide 9)

Table 4

Frequency of Conjugal Problems according to the type of interactions

(in %)

PARA COMP BASTIO COCO ASSO

3 or more current

problems

33 12 18 17 33

6 or more current and past

problems

35 14 17 21 35

1 or more current and past

problems of deviance

37 17 20 19 36

3 or more current and pas

relational problems

41 17 20 26 39

3 or more current and past

problems of coordination

38 21 25 24 37

Frequent open fights 23 13 15 15 35

Frequent serious fights 39 26 25 17 47

Now, although we focus here on conjugal problems, a word should be said about the correlation

between these problems and the performance of parental roles. a) A first important fact is the “domino

effect” which happens between conjugal and parental problems: the higher the first, the more frequent

the second. B) Problems in performing parental roles have the same correlation with the various types

of interactions as the one we observe for conjugal matters: in both cases, parallel and associative

couples experience more difficulties. These two facts mean that the hypothesis of a compensation

between the two areas of family functioning is not supported.

15

III. MODES OF COPING

This correlation between the types of interactions and the level of stress or problems leads us to

wonder whether certain types of interaction are by essence more conflictual (because they are

opposed to some elementary instincts) or if it is rather due to the coping modes used for managing the

problems which arise in the family. One can, on the basis of the literature, define three poles of the

coping strategies:

(Slide 10)

1. A cognitive pole, pertaining to the definition of the situation, the communication about it, the

search for information and expertises;

2. A relational pole, pertaining to the mutual support, to the expression of love, to the recall of family

myth in order to overcome anxiety and (désarroi)

3. An action pole, pertaining to taking decisions, making the necessary investments and controlling

their effects.

These various dimensions of coping – for instance agressivity, support and avoidance as far as the

relational aspects of coping are considered; rationality, communication, emotional control and activity

as far as actional aspects of coping are taken into consideration - can very well depend on the degree

of fusion, openness and differentiation characterizing conjugal interactions. Some types of interaction

can then by characterized by a lack in coping, or by an inadequate coping, leading in turn to a piling

up of problems. This assumption could explain the fact that we meet a difference in quantity - rather

than in quality - of problems between the various types of interaction considered hereafter. (e) A

cluster analysis of these various components of coping leads us to elicit five coping strategies, going

from Deficit – high agressivity, passivity, emotional imbalance, denial of information – to

Cooperation - strong mutual support, search for information and adequate decision making process.

(Slide 11)

FIVE MODES OF COPING

DEFICIT Agressivity, Lack of communication, Low information, Lack of action

FEMININE ASYMMETRY

Active woman, passive male ; low level of communication ; male desengagement

16

MASCULINE ASYMMETRY Active man ; female lack of support;agresivity ; high level of information

PASSIVITY

Low level of agressivity, but weak support ; good emotional control ; low level of communication and information ; low mean level of action

COOPERATION

Low level of agressivity and strong mutual support ; high level of information ; high level of action ; good emotional control

Table 6 shows that the Companionship type of functioning is the highest in Cooperation, while

Parallel and Association score highest on Deficit.

(Slide 13) Table 6

Modes of coping by conjugal types of interactions (in %)

Parallel Companion-ship

Bastion Cocoon Associative

Deficit 24 9 12 12 23 Male Asymmetry 23 13 16 15 24 Female symmetry 15 17 20 19 17 Passive coping 18 22 23 29 12 Cooperation 20 38 28 25 24 Total 100 100 100 100 100

Cramer’sV=.13**, N=1534

More precisely, when we relate the dimensions of coping I have mentioned with the types of

interactions, we can observe that, although companionship and cocoon couples show similarly low

levels of conflicts and tensions, they have quite different ways of solving the problems they face.

Companionship couples show high support and reject aggressiveness and avoidance, whereas cocoon

couples are comparatively low on support and do not reject avoidance strategies. Quite differently,

associative couples, who show frequent open conflicts, report high levels of aggressiveness and

communication (for women) at the same time. Quite differently, parallel couples, which also have

frequent disagreements and problems, are much less communicative and external.

17

(Slide 14)

Table 7 Dimensions of coping by conjugal interactional types (en %)

Parallel Compa-

nionshipBastion Cocoon Asso-

ciative

Cramer’

s V

Actional coping Rationality

M F

50 40

53 36

56 34

58 33

48 37

.07 (ns)

.07 (ns) Communication M

F 24 52

30 53

26 48

21 42

32 61

.09* .12**

Emotional control

M F

56 46

72 67

66 58

62 63

56 54

.13**

.15** Activity M

F 42 49

51 59

44 51

42 48

46 53

.07(ns) .08 (ns)

Externality M F

48 61

45 54

37 55

38 46

57 67

.15**

.14** Relational coping

Aggressiveness M F

43 52

26 36

31 41

25 35

43 59

.17**

.24** Support M

F 40 44

49 51

49 56

34 43

44 48

.10** .08*

Avoidance M F

47 48

32 25

45 35

41 36

42 33

.11**

.15**

To summarize, identical levels of conflict do not trigger identical coping strategies. Conjugal

interactional styles promote various modes of coping independently of their association with conjugal

conflict.

18

IV. ARE SOME TYPES BETTER THAN OTHERS? : THE EVALUATION OF THE

RELATIONSHIP’S QUALITY

Let’s turn now on to our fourth question: how is the subjective evaluation of the relationship affected

by the style of functioning and their correlates we just mentionned ( level of stress and mode of

coping) The literature envisages this evaluation of the conjugal quality from three very different

points of view :

a) the divorce proneness,

b) the subjective rating of satisfaction with the main aspects of conjugal life and

c) the degree of psychological well-being of the spouses as measured, for instance, by a scale of

symptoms of depression.

Table 8 shows that there is quite a strong correlation between types of conjugal interactions and a)

divorce proneness; b) conjugal satisfaction and c) depressive symptoms.

Parallel couples are associated with the highest conjugal dissatisfaction and the most frequent

thoughts of separation for both males and females. Companionship couples have the lowest scores on

both measures for both genders. Associative couples have a similar profile to parallel couples,

although less extreme. Cocoon and bastion couples lay in between. Correlation between signs of

depression and conjugal styles of interactions confirms those results. Again, parallel couples show the

highest scores on the scale of depression, whereas companionship couples show the lowest scores, the

other three types laying in between. Interestingly, scores of women are more sensitive to conjugal

styles of functioning than scores of men.

(Slide 15)

Table 8 Evaluation of conjugal quality and types of conjugal interactions

Parallel Companion-

ship Bastion Cocoon Associative Cramer

V

Divorce proneness Thoughts of separation

F M

44 29

23 14

22 14

21 15

49 33

.26**

.21**

19

Conjugal dissatisfaction

General dissatisfaction is high

F M

58 57

37 34

48 45

48 34

58 59

.17**

.22**

Lack of mutual consideration

F M C

37 35 31

22 17 14

29 25 16

29 26 21

36 36 26

.13**

.16**

.16** Poor conjugal mood

F M C

33 34 33

13 10 8

20 16 12

26 17 20

29 29 28

.18**

.22**

.24** Division of labor not satisfactory

F M C

21 19 30

10 12 15

9 16 18

11 14 15

20 23 31

.15**

.11**

.18** Coordination not satisfactory

F M C

24 17 41

10 9 18

12 7 20

17 8 26

22 24 42

.15**

.20**

.23**

Scales of depression

Female shows signs of depression

F 35 15 22 21 25 .15**

Male shows signs of depression

M

15

7

16

14

17

.11**

V. THE SPECIFIC ROLE OF COPING

But in order to define more completely the compared roles of social status, types of interactions,

level of stress and mode of coping in the dynamics of conjugal adjustment, it is useful to try a

single multivariate analysis based on a structural model with latent variables, which specify which

variable has an effect on which other variable. It happens clearly that the mediating role of coping

is confirmed by this structural model, as fusion, closure and differentiation of regulation mainly

influence coping, which in turn has an impact on conjugal problems and conjugal quality. In

consequence, this analysis confirms that the effect of the interactional structures is indirect, as it is

mediated by coping quality. Only one direct path exists between level of closure and symptoms of

depression of women. Let us underline that there is no direct relationship between types of

conjugal interactions and conjugal quality.

20

(Slide 16)

Figure 2

A structural model21

Quality

0.37

coordinationproblems

-0.08-0.17

(0.19)

-0.37Womenpoor conj.quality

Menpoor conj.quality

0.13

Differenciationof regulation

Fusion -0.10(0.01)

women depressive symptoms

Closure

(0.16)Men depr.symptoms

0.39

(0.38)(0.43)

(0.12)

addiction andviolence problems

-0.59 0.620.37

-0.78

relationalproblems

0.600.58

(0.39)

of coping

-0.62-0.09

-0.77

-0.73(0.60)

(0.54)

n=1209,

Chi2=3056, ddl=808, p <0.001, - GFI=0,881, TLI=0,740, RMSEA=0,048

21 - Values along the arcs are standardized regression coefficients (beta). Values in parentheses represent percentages of explained variance for each endogenous variable.

21

VI. CONCLUSION

I shall conclude. Our results show that a strong emphasis on autonomy, a strong tendency toward

closure of/on family life and a rigidly gendered organization of conjugal roles are associated with

increased conjugal problems and a deterioration of conjugal quality. In this sense, they are three “bad

points”. When those three variables are considered jointly, they make a very significant difference as

far as the various outcomes mentioned above are concerned. For instance, 41% of autonomous, closed

and rigidly gendered couples had severe conjugal problems at the time of the interview. This

proportion reaches only 8% in fusional, open and equal couples. 54% of the couples belonging to the

first category have thought to divorce, versus only 22 % of the second category. Marked depressive

attitudes appear in 41 % of the women in the first category, versus 15 % in the second.

(Slide 17)

Table 9 Frequency of negative conjugal evaluations according to the number of « bad points » (rigidity,

closure and strong accent au individual autonomy)

(in % )

Number of « bad points » 0

1

2

3

V de

Cramer

Poor conjugal mood 9 12 24 38 .23**

Thoughts of separation 22 29 47 54 .23**

General Dissatisfaction is high 8 23 36 49 .25**

Female shows signs of depression 15 17 24 41 .20**

Male shows signs of depression 10 11 15 20 .09**

These results are congruent with Olson’s and Reiss’s analysis, which show that some porosity of

family boundaries, some flexibility in rule making and a certain balance between autonomy and

community are essential for an adequate functioning. Our analysis precises the importance of the

22

mode of coping. Cooperative coping is associated with a Companionship mode of interactions,

whereas more extreme couples (in the sense of Olson) are correlated with poorer types of coping. A

strong emphasis on autonomy in conjugal relationships seems to make it extremely difficult for

couples to deal adequately with problems. And this poor coping appears in return to stimulate the

growth of unsolved and severe conflicts.

The question is then to know – and I will conclude with this – whether the quality of conjugal

relations depends exclusively on psychological and interactional factors or whether the level of socio-

economic resources of the couple influences this subjective evaluation. I already mentioned that the

poorer the social resources, the higher the frequency of Parallel, Bastion and Cocoon types of

interactions. The richer these resources – notably those of the women – the more frequent the

Association type. But our structural analysis doesn’t validate the hypothesis of a direct effect of the

social status on the subjective evaluation of conjugal quality. Of course, we must express here an

important caveat: very poor couples, cut from strong social affiliation, lacking basic communication

training, have a heavier burden in performing basic developmental tasks than others and do

experience more failures (Kellerhals, Widmer et Levy, 2004, chapter 5). But once the family has

reached a decent social status, the correlation between the level of this status and the conjugal quality

is not strong. This is probably due to the influence of two different kinds of difficulties for the couples

at the bottom and the top of the social hierarchy. At the bottom, the lack of power and resources

produces altogether a very strong investment in the couple and a kind of distrust towards

environment, which in turn often leads to dysfunctional behaviors, such as a) high value put on rigid

norms preventing a good adaptation to changing context, or b) the pointing out of a scapegoat which

provides the couple a kind of identity or sense in an uncontrolled world, or even c) the locking away

of the couple in an enmeshed relationship, which is a manner of eliminating the complexity of a world

felt as dangerous and unmastered. In addition, the existence of a large gap between, on the one hand,

the expectations and goals valued by the couple and, on the other, the resources it has at disposal, is

more probable than in the higher social statuses. This gap is a source of frustration and dissatisfaction.

But, at the top of the hierarchy, the importance of the resources at the partners disposal – which allow

various kinds of alternatives to the present relation – coupled with gender inequalities may encourage

a certain disengagement which prevents the search for coordinated and efficient modes of coping.

Another factor should be considered in the discussion of this correspondence between social status

and conjugal evaluation: the potential influence of the kin and friends network around the couple: Is

this network stronger in the higher social strata, and does it help in better coping with problems? In

fact, a network of a good density – that is shared by both partners, and having strong relational,

23

material and symbolic resources – is very positively correlated with the quality of coping – this is true

both for conjugal and parental problems - and, as a consequence, with a positive evaluation of the

relationship’s quality. I would nevertheless add, in brackets, that “too much is too much”: I mean that

intrusive networks, where parents and friends are almost a psychological burden, do produce negative

consequences on the conjugal relationship’s quality (Kellerhals, Widmer and Levy, 2004, chapter 5).

But to come back to the central question, the strength of these networks is not correlated to the main

parts of the social stratification. In consequence, lower social strata (with the exception mentioned

above) are not, from this point of view, disadvantaged.

In conclusion, let’s say that if it is true that couple and family life are of a central importance in the

building of contemporary identities in a constantly moving world with very complex opportunity

structures, it often happens that the structure of social context does not allow partners to conveniently

solve problems they have to face. As a result, this relation - supposedly meant to build the identity of

the partners - contributes in a lotof cases to destroy it. A valuable way of reducing this risk could be

found in strengthening the ability of the couple, and hence of the family, in the art of coping.

References Askham J. (1984) Identity and Stability in Marriage, Cambridge, Cambridge University Bawin-Legros B. (1996) Sociologie de la famille, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université, Bellah R., Madsen R., Sullivan W., Swidler A., Tipton S. (1985) Habits of the Heart , University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Berger P. et Kellner H. (1988) “ Le mariage et la construction de la réalité ”, Dialogue, no 102 Paris (1ère ed. 1960) Bouchard G, Sabourin S., Lussier Y., Wright J., and Richer Ch. (1997) Testing the theoretical models underlying the ways of coping questionnaire with couples, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 409-418 Cheal D. (1988) The Gift Economy , Routledge, London and New-York Cheal D. (1991) Family and the State of Theory, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New-York, London Clark D. (1991) “ Constituting the Marital World ”, in Clark D. (ed) Marriage, Domestic Life and Social Change, Routledge, London, New-York, pp. 139-166 Denzin N.K. (1987) Postmodern Children, Society, 24 de Singly F. (1996) Le soi, le couple et la famille, Essais et Recherches, Nathan , 1996 Donati P. (1985) Famiglia e politiche sociali, Milano, Franco Angeli Farber B. (1962) Types of Family Organization, in Rose A.M. (ed) Human Behaviour and Social Processes, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 285-306 Gretillat F., Keller J. P., Kellerhals J., Vonèche L. (1981). Une relation sans échange : rituels du couple dans un

genre de littérature populaire, Revue suisse de sociologie, 7, 1, 1-24

24

Johnson D.R., White L.K., Edwards J.N. and Booth A. (1986) Dimensions of marital quality. Towards methodological and conceptual refinement, Journal of Family Issues, 7(1), 31-49 Kantor D., Lehr W. (1975) Inside the Family: Toward a Theory of Family Process, San Francisco, Jossey Bass Kaufmann J.Cl.(1988) La chaleur du foyer. Analyse du repli domestique, Paris, Méridiens, Klinksieck Kaufmann J.Cl.(1993) Sociologie du couple, Paris Que Sais-je , PUF Kellerhals J. , Coenen-Huther J., Modak M. (1988) Figures de l’équité , Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, coll. Le Sociologue Kellerhals J., Perrin J-F., Steinauer-Cresson G., Vonèche L. and Wirth G. (1982) Mariages au Quotidien, Favre, Lausanne Kellerhals J., Troutot P-Y., Lazega E. (1993) Microsociologie de la famille, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France Kellerhals J., Widmer E. and Levy R.(2004) Mesure et démesure du couple. Cohésion, crises et résilience dans les couples contemporains. Payot, Paris Luhmann N. (1986) Love as Passion, Polity Press, Cambridge Morgan D. (1991) Ideologies of Marriage and Family Life, in Clark D. (ed) Marriage, Domestic Life and Social Change, Routledge, 1991, p.114-138 Olson D.H, McCubbin H.I, Barnes H.L., Larsen A.S., Muxen M.J. and Wilson M.A. (1989) Families: What make them work?, Beverly Hills, Sage Olson D.H., Lavee Y., and McCubbin H.I. (1988) Types of families and family response to stress across the family life cycle, in Klein D. and Aldous J. Social Stress and Family Development, New-York, London, Guilford Press, 16-43 Olson D.H. et DeFrain J. (1997) Marriage and the Family: Diversity and Strengths. Mountain View CA. Mayfield Publishing Company Olson D.H., Russell C.S. et Sprenkle D.H. (1989) Circumplex Model: Systemic assessment and treatment of families. New-York: Haworth Press Reiss D. (1971) Varieties of Consensual Experience, Family Process, 10, 1-35. Reiss D. (1985) Pragmatics in Measurement of Family Functionning : an Inrterpretative Framework for Methodology", in Family Process, vol.24 , no2 Reiss, D. (1981), The Family's Construction of Reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Roussel L. (1985) La famille incertaine, Paris, Odile Jacob Scanzoni J. (1987) “ Families in the 1980s:time to refocus our thinking ”, Journal of Family Issues, 8 Widmer E., Kellerhals J., Levy R. with the collaboration of Ernst M. and Hammer R. (2003) Couples contemporains: cohésion, régulation et conflits, Seismo, Zürich