The Orientation and Focus of Marriage Counseling

It is contended that marriage counseling (MC) is in need of a sound theoretical framework if it is to be a genuinely separate discipline. It should be oriented more to soc psychol & sociol, rather than towards psychol or psychiatry. A distinction is made between personal counseling & MC. Whe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Marriage and Family Living 1959-02, Vol.21 (1), p.20-28
Hauptverfasser: Stroup, Atlee L., Glasser, Paul, Stokes, Walter R., Kargman, Marie W., Rutledge, Aaron L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:It is contended that marriage counseling (MC) is in need of a sound theoretical framework if it is to be a genuinely separate discipline. It should be oriented more to soc psychol & sociol, rather than towards psychol or psychiatry. A distinction is made between personal counseling & MC. Where the latter deals with the marital or premarital problems of a couple, focusing on the role relationships between spouses, the former focuses its attention on the psychol'al. An important problem is that of standards & safeguards against misrepresentation. The Amer Ass'n of Marriage Counselors is seen as the instrument through which such safeguards may be insured. The basic function of the marriage counselor is the helping of persons to effect a better relationship in marriage. The necessary basic res can only be stimulated by a practiceoriented profession which has more sharply defined boundaries. DISCUSSION by Walter R. Stokes (Washington DC) maintains that the major focus of MC should be on the persons involved in the relationship, not the relationship itself. Preoccupation with sociol'al frames of reference tends to lead to a view of the marital relationship as primary & to be preserved at all costs. The MC is a S of the human life cycle & a mental hygienist who seeks to apply a prophylactic approach to fam &personal emotional problems. DISCUSSION by Marie W. Kargman feels the above approaches are too abstract for use in clinical practice, particularly their reliance on the definitions of Parsons & Newcomb & their lack of emphasis on role-theory as a therapeutic tool. DISCUSSION by Aaron L. Rutledge (Merrill-Palmer Sch, Detroit, Mich) insists that while MC does deal with a troubled relationship, the maladjusted personalities of the persons in the relationship represent a factor to be considered. E. Riss.
ISSN:0885-7059
0022-2445
DOI:10.2307/348797