Couples therapy and the challenges of building trust, fairness, and justice

Abstract

The cornerstone of the contextual family therapy model is predicated on the belief that all family members benefit from trustworthy relationships, which result from (a) acknowledging the contributions of deserving family members, (b) engaging in responsible interactions, and (c) ensuring a fair distribution of relational burdens and benefits. Nonetheless, conflicts may arise when one partner asserts a claim to relational resources based on need, while the other believes they are entitled to such resources based on merit. Based on relational ethics and the development of trust, this paper focuses on the therapist's role in facilitating the conflict‐resolution process to assist couples in reestablishing individual responsibility and accountability within the systemic framework of couple therapy. It elucidates several clinical strategies, including (a) cultivating trust through fairness and focusing on the importance of reciprocity and equitable give‐and‐take, (b) detecting destructive entitlement, and (c) marital relationships and ethics of care. Several clinical examples are discussed, as well as common couple relational issues associated with horizontal and vertical relationships, partnership, and fusion, and the impact of gender and power dynamics and trustworthiness based on the feminist lens.

The evolution of psychology has seen a shift toward systemic and relational thinking, and this is particularly evident in the field of marriage and family therapy (Carr, ^{2014a, 2014b, 2016a, 2016b}; Lebow & Sexton, ²⁰¹⁶; Shaw, ^{2011, 2015, 2016}; Stratton, ²⁰¹⁶). Unlike the traditional psychologically based approaches to treating individuals in isolation, the hallmark of the relational orientation lies in bringing couples and families into the therapy room. While early systemic training emphasized treating the entire system, recent trends have shown a regression toward individualistic thinking; this is despite numerous academic programs and institutes offering marriage and family therapy training. Systemic thinkers must acknowledge that individuals' mental health symptoms are rooted in contextual circumstances and that empirical studies serve as only one indicator of long‐term effectiveness and improvement in symptom reduction and relational health. Moreover, while first‐order change has traditionally provided the basis for psychological theories and approaches, second‐ and third‐order changes yield enduring results as they address the core of emotional reactions to problems.

Within this context, the work of psychiatrist Ivan Boszormenyi‐Nagy stands out as a model that directly addresses the social, political, and economic realities that affect overburdened nuclear families (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). Developed decades ago, Boszormenyi‐Nagy's model responds to the challenges that families face in a society where viable relationships and intergenerational rootedness have eroded. Despite its origin in viewing families within their broader context, this approach is highly applicable to couples' therapy. This paper aims to adopt the foundational principles of this contextual model. In doing so, it focuses on relational ethics and trust‐building to guide couple therapists toward promoting personal accountability and fairness and fosters equitable give‐and‐take dynamics.

In contrast to other therapeutic models, contextual therapy maintains a keen interest in the individual's subjectivity, encompassing psychological aspects and ethical dimensions such as claims, obligations, rights, entitlements, and relational merit (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). This distinctive approach in contextual couple therapy aims to avoid the dehumanizing effects of simplistic applications of systems philosophy and avoids inadvertently assigning blame to the entire family system (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986).

A key objective of contextual therapy is to offer a conceptual framework that accommodates various significant elements from other psychotherapeutic approaches, given that they adhere to ethical and contractual responsibilities (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 2014). In this context, the term contextual signifies the comprehensive inclusion of all individuals who are potentially impacted by the therapeutic efforts; hence, it reflects the essence of a multilateral contract (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023), and offers fairness and justice in terms of balanced relational exchanges, recognition of contributions and needs, accountability, and efforts to maintain or restore equity within family relationships. These concepts are pivotal in fostering a healthy, trusting, and supportive family dynamic. Thus, ethical considerations regarding the repercussions of therapeutic interventions form the core of this approach (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 2014).

FIVE INTERLOCKING DIMENSIONS

Central to the contextual approach is the belief that the effectiveness of all psychotherapeutic interventions is rooted in relational determinants (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). This holistic approach addresses these determinants across five interlocking dimensions: (a) facts/biological factors, (b) individual psychology, (c) behavioral transactions, (d) relational ethics, and (e) the ontic dimension (Ducommun‐Nagy, 2002). Understanding these five dimensions within the framework of couples' relationships is crucial for a comprehensive contextual understanding of how to utilize them to provide effective couples therapy.

Facts/biological factors dimension

Contextual therapy recognizes the presence of contextual‐related injustices committed against one's family or group throughout history or culture as factual elements (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981; Grunebaum, ^{1987, 1990}). These injustices, if not appropriately processed and understood, become legacy imperatives for the partners within a couple. Failure to address these historical injustices at the couple level can extend their impact onto the entire family. For instance, unresolved marital conflicts between mistrustful parents may create a split‐loyalty situation for a child. A contextual couple therapist plays a crucial role in helping the couple acknowledge these factual elements and see them as inevitable facts that may not change but can be understood and addressed. This factual information can be as simple as living with an alcoholic parent who was not emotionally available, or a complex situation related to sexism and racism in society that impacted each individual in the couple unit differently as they grew up.

Psychology dimension

The second dimension, which is centered on individual experiences and psychological dynamics, significantly influences the dynamics of couple relationships. Referred to broadly as psychology (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981), this dimension encompasses each partner's subjective experiences, drives, and psychic development within the relational context. Symbolic meanings can be transferred between partners, impacting the relationship. This dimension includes cognitive and emotional development, fantasies, dreams, and other symbolic processes that shape the individual, and consequently, the relationship (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). Couple therapists must consistently pay attention to the individual psychology of each partner while concurrently addressing the dynamics of the couple's relationship.

Transactions dimension

The third contextual dimension revolves around transactions, emphasizing the patterns of organization between couples. It encompasses the relational structure, power alignments, roles, and communication sequences, providing insights into the observable aspects of couple interactions. These interactions influence the present dynamics and contribute to or impede change, stability, or adaptation. The objective for a couple therapist is to cultivate progressive interactions. Insufficient self‐delineation or differentiation of individuals at this level can lead to dysfunctional reciprocity, where each person in the couple shields the other from defining boundaries, making choices, and functioning as independent agents (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 2014; Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, ²⁰¹⁴). Couple therapists who use this approach must be able to detect such transactions, notice their residual impact on the relationship, and help couples notice, understand, and resolve unhealthy transactional patterns.

Relational ethics dimension

Relational ethics form the fundamental dynamic forces that bind couples and societal relationships through reliability and trustworthiness (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). According to multilateral logic, the balance of fairness in a couple's relationship is a profound and inclusive cluster of relationship phenomena. It is crucial to distinguish between ethics and moral perceptions within the contextual therapy framework. Within this framework, ethics does not imply a specific set of moral precepts but instead focuses on the uniquely human process of achieving an equitable balance of fairness between partners. Fairness, in this context, does not entail rigid behaviors but instead involves maintaining a long‐term, oscillating balance where the primary life interests of each partner are considered by the other. This healthy functioning criterion is not self‐denying but results in mutual benefits. One person's experience is not the sole criterion of fairness; fairness is a multilateral process that involves considering and reciprocating each person's interests in the couple's relationship. Relational ethics are grounded in the principle of equitability, where each partner is entitled to have their welfare interests considered by the other. This makes relational ethics a hallmark by which couple therapists promote trust and healthy connections in the relationship. The contextual couple therapist must promote the concept of relational ethics as being one of the most basic yet fundamental sources of a fair complementary relationship for couples.

Ontic dimension

Ducommun‐Nagy et al. (2023) call the ontic dimension the dimension of “mutual becoming” (p. 28). This dimension is based on the idea that the Self is intrinsically dependent on a relationship with a Not‐Self to exist as an autonomous Self and that this is also true for the Other. This is aligned with Buber's (1970) notion of the I‐It and I‐Thou dialogue. This notion promotes the idea that the Self only exists in reliance on its counterpart, the Other (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023), and only through understanding the Self can we gain autonomy from Others but also continue to be in a relationship with them.

The ontic dimension of contextual therapy delves into the fundamental nature of being and existence within the therapeutic context. While technically not included within this dimension, therapists could use this framework to explore the ontological aspects of the couple, each individual within the couple, and their interconnectedness with their environment, relationships, and broader systems. This includes having an understanding of the nature of reality and the inherent qualities that shape a couple's experiences. By examining these elements, contextual therapy seeks to uncover the deep‐seated patterns, values, and beliefs that influence a couple's perception of the world and their relationships. This exploration is essential for therapists practicing contextual therapy, as it allows for a comprehensive understanding of couples and paves the way for targeted interventions that resonate with the very essence of their being.

MULTIGENERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Understanding couples' relational dynamics requires a multigenerational perspective that goes beyond focusing solely on the parental relationship. It is essential to consider a framework spanning at least three generations, incorporating each generation's historical and social context (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986). The influence of grandparents exists, even in their absence, impacting the descendants. Factual, psychological, transactional, ethical, and ontic dynamics gain significant meaning and therapeutic utility when viewed from this broader perspective. The two central concepts of legacy and ledger make the impact of the multigenerational perspective more understandable.

Couples' relational legacy

The term legacy encompasses the universal obligation of parental accountability, emphasizing the human mandate to rectify past injustices for the benefit of the next generation (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). This concept, sometimes referred to as “the parental imperative” (Grunebaum, 1987, p. 648), establishes a chain of destiny that is rooted in every generative relationship. It determines the facts and quality of the survival of descendants, shaping personal entitlements and indebtedness in relationships. Each individual in a couple relationship brings these multigenerational legacies without the other partner's consent, so they are both destined to grapple with the consequences. Further, since the impact of these multigenerational legacies becomes unconscious over time, partners cannot detect and deal with them before becoming part of a committed relationship. Therefore, even though these legacies highly influence both partners, they are only recognized, understood, and dealt with within the context of a relationship.

Couple's relational ledger

In the contextual approach, the concept of a ledger in couple relationships pertains to an implicit accounting of what has been given and what is owed in return (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). Initial interviews with couples often touch upon issues of pain and disappointment that are related to a perceived lack of reciprocity. Ledger considerations extend beyond barter or power balancing; instead, they reflect the equilibrium between the two ethical components of fairness and merit. In this sense, the ledger becomes a statement about balancing personal entitlements and indebtedness, emphasizing fairness and merit in the couple's relationship (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1986/²⁰¹⁴). This approach goes beyond traditional and post‐modern theories that may overlook the language of fairness, merit, care, and connection in scientific theory‐building efforts. Indeed, most models deliberately, consistently, and consciously ignore these topics because it is much easier for the therapist to be symptom‐focused, and ignore the individuals' legacies, ledgers, and previous generations' influence so they can offer couples a linear model of healing based on symptom reduction and immediate relief. However, this does not promote long‐term relief and first‐order change.

TRUSTWORTHINESS IN COUPLES' RELATIONSHIP

The strength of a couple's relationship is directly tied to the movement toward trustworthiness and is weakened by any divergence from it. Contextual therapy categorizes movements toward trustworthy relatedness as rejunctive and movements away from it as disjunctive (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981, p. 211). In the context of a couple's relationship, deviation from merited trust does not enhance the relationship. For instance, attempting to undermine a partner's residual trust in their parents does not contribute to improving the marital relationship and may damage it. The term relational stagnation (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Spark, 1973/²⁰¹⁴) describes instances where couples disengage from concerns about fairness. In stagnating relationships, moves toward rejunction are hindered or nullified. Healthier relationships, on the other hand, embrace conflict, negotiation for mutual understanding, and the acknowledgment of mutual investments.

Significant damage to trustworthiness occurs through the concept of destructive entitlement, where entitlement is earned through past suffered injustices (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981, p. 212). Trustworthiness is shown through shared affection and sexuality, the sharing of valuable relationship resources, and rewards for risking intimacy. The pursuit of intimacy, a profound human motive, involves the desire to be known, understood, and confirmed as an individual on one's own terms—a relational entitlement. While contemporary perceptions may downplay the role of trustworthiness and fairness in sexuality and intimacy, clinical and human experiences consistently demonstrate that interpersonal injustice ultimately erodes closeness and sexual attraction (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981).

COUPLES' DESTRUCTIVE ENTITLEMENT

When children perceive their familial environment as being unsafe and untrustworthy, they often carry experiences of despair, loss of hope, and trust—known as ethical stagnation (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Spark, 1973/²⁰¹⁴)—into their adult relationships. Ethical stagnation is sustained destructive entitlement (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1987/²⁰¹⁴) and a form of ethical credit based on real past injustices. Destructive entitlement may lead individuals in intimate relationships to vindictively relate to innocent partners because they believe something is owed to them from the past. Destructive entitlement can also result in callousness concerning their partner's rights. It becomes a self‐sustaining, cumulative social process that, if enacted, results in unfairness in the couple's relationship. Destructive entitlement captures a self‐defeating spiral, leading to the depletion of the trust and reciprocity essential for healthy couple relationships amid personal, familial, social, and environmental changes. Destructive entitlement can also turn into self‐destructive behavior for one or both of the partners.

According to Boszormenyi‐Nagy and Ulrich (1981, p. 212), the revolving slate aspect of invisible filial loyalties reinforced by earned destructive entitlement is a key factor in marital dysfunction. It is crucial to note that while destructive entitlement is valid in its past context, it becomes unjust when individuals act on it. Therapy cannot erase the extent of earned destructive entitlement, but it aims to help individuals rely less on it. The partner who acts on destructive entitlement may disengage from the ongoing task of evaluating fairness in relationships, leading to symptomatic forms like contempt, hatred, avoidance, coldness, indifference, or cruelty. Liberation from this destructive cycle occurs by discovering direct loyalty and trustworthiness resources. Individuals who seek freedom must find rejunctive ways to preserve loyalty and exonerate past generations.

The example below illustrates the concept of destructive entitlement within the context of how a man's past experiences influence his present behavior in his marriage:

1. Background: The man's mother left his father when he was 5 years old, creating a profound emotional impact on the man.

2. Destructive Entitlement: The man, influenced by his past, develops a destructive entitlement, resulting in the belief that he has the right to force his wife to have an abortion. This is based on the fear that mothers may leave their children.

3. Impact on Marriage: He expects his wife to understand and share his fear, using his past experiences as a justification for his actions.

4. Unfair Relationship Dynamics: Destructive entitlement leads to an unfair relationship dynamic, as the man imposes his fears on his wife without considering her desires or feelings.

5. Therapeutic Consideration: In a therapeutic context, addressing this issue would involve exploring the roots of the man's fears, helping him to understand the impact of his past experiences on his present behavior, and working toward a more constructive and fair relationship dynamic.

Thus, contextual therapy, which focuses on exploring multigenerational influences and addressing destructive entitlement, provides a framework for understanding and resolving such complex relationship issues.

MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ETHICS OF CARE

Every relationship inherently entails an ethical dimension, and for couples, the ethics of care should be intertwined with a symmetry of rights and responsibilities. Depending on their integrity and complementary needs (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986), couples can foster trustworthy convergence and symmetry in the give‐and‐take dynamic. In cases where welfare interests clash, negotiation and compromise become essential and fair. While couples are typically members of the adult generation, who are capable of equality and reciprocity, various variables can intervene, including external events or social and political inequalities that can disrupt the couple's capacity for symmetrical interactions. Inherent asymmetries, such as differences in the relationship and different views on the accountability for biological reproduction between men and women, also play a role. However, equitable rebalancing can occur within the social domain (Crocker et al., 2017). Social ideology and practices that shape the allocation of responsibility for childcare, breadwinning, and the division of labor are ethical dynamics on the societal level that significantly influence the assignment of roles within families.

Thus, adaptive functioning largely depends on the partners' ability to negotiate role allocations and definitions and align them with their unique relationships and circumstances. When the couple's relationship is in a state of health, each party chooses their own set of relational ethics based on complementarities at the transactional level and continually negotiates and adapts. Couple relational ethics refer to the principles and values that govern interactions and behaviors within an intimate partnership. These ethics are rooted in fairness, mutual respect, accountability, and the equitable distribution of relational benefits and burdens. In practice, relational ethics involve each partner recognizing and valuing the other partner's contributions, needs, and rights, fostering an environment of trust and reciprocity. Each partner strives to balance giving and receiving, ensuring that neither feels overburdened or undervalued. This ethical framework is dynamic, requiring continuous dialogue and negotiation as each individual navigates the evolving complexities of their relationship. Couples can cultivate a more profound sense of connection and commitment by adhering to relational ethics, thus enhancing their overall relational health and resilience. This dynamic interplay involves individuals, relationships, ideas, values, and social practices within the larger societal context (Grunebaum, 1990). The example below highlights the significant impact of relational ethics on a couple's dynamics, particularly within the context of parenting responsibilities:

1. Complains about Perceived Inadequacy:

   • Wife Perspective: The wife expresses feeling overwhelmed with baby care responsibilities and complains that her husband is not helping.
   • Husband Perspective: The husband claims he is willing to help but experiences constant criticism from his wife whenever he attempts to care for the baby.
2. Criticism Feedback Loop:

   • The husband's attempts to participate in baby care are met with criticism, creating a negative feedback loop.
   • The wife's dissatisfaction and corrections make the husband feel inadequate and discourage him from helping.
3. Impact on Relational Ethics:

   • The relational ethics in this scenario are influenced by the dynamics of trust, fairness, and mutual acknowledgment.
   • The husband may perceive the wife's criticism as a breach of trust and fairness, impacting the overall relational well‐being.
4. Ethical Stagnation and Destructive Entitlement:

   • The constant criticism may lead to the husband's ethical stagnation, where he is unable to contribute meaningfully.
   • The husband's withdrawal from caregiving tasks could be a manifestation of destructive entitlement, where past experiences of criticism justify his disengagement.
5. Therapeutic Approach:

   • A contextual therapist might explore the underlying dynamics, addressing the impact of the wife's criticism on the husband's sense of adequacy.
   • Multidirected partiality could be employed to facilitate a more empathetic understanding between partners that acknowledges both perspectives.
6. Rebuilding Trust and Fairness:

   • The therapy process may involve rebuilding trust by fostering open communication and validating each partner's experience.
   • Establishing fairness in task distribution and acknowledging the husband's efforts can contribute to a more equitable and trusting dynamic.

In this example, the relational ethics surrounding trust, fairness, and acknowledgment play a crucial role in shaping the couple's interactions. The therapy process would aim to address these ethical dimensions, hence promoting a healthier and more supportive environment for both partners.

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

Clinical assessment utilizing contextual therapy must emphasize the qualitative aspects of couple relationships. From the initial moments of contact, the therapist must focus on gathering impressions regarding the trust climate within the couple's relationship. Key aspects include evaluating each partner's ability to listen to and hear each other and commit to statements about their needs, desires, and rights. The therapist should also assess whether partners feel free to make requests, state their grievances, and express gratitude. They will also pose specific questions about each partner's concrete availability and willingness to share life's benefits and existential problems.

Even blame and accusatory discourse are valued in contextual therapy (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 2014), as they reveal the couple's longing for acknowledgment and fairness. Complaints are seen as resources that indicate a continuing reservoir of hope in the context of the couple's relationship. In contrast, if either partner avoids issues of fairness, even in their discussions with the therapist, this is not considered a favorable prognostic sign.

Each partner's capacity to express their truths and convictions about fairness is crucial to the treatment prognosis. Initial resistance or honest disagreement is viewed more favorably than overcompliance with the therapist's ideas. This approach reflects the therapist's commitment to understanding the dynamics of the couple's relationship and each partner's willingness to engage in open and honest dialogue about fairness and related issues.

Self‐validation

The contextual approach asserts a dynamic link between the benefits for both the receiver and the giver when due consideration is extended. The term self‐validation encapsulates the universal principle of receiving through giving or caring, with its essence rooted in enhancing self‐worth through the give‐and‐take of relationships (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴). This concept represents a pivotal relational resource for couples, serving as the foundation for true individuation. It forms the core of an action‐oriented therapeutic design that aligns with the couple's desires for hope, trust, and commitment and offers bilateral benefits (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴).

The fundamental goal is rejunctive effort and seeking options for giving and receiving within the couple. This is facilitated by (a) encouraging the open negotiation of ledger issues, (b) exploring loyalty and legacy impasses, particularly sources of destructive entitlement, (c) acknowledging and addressing de‐parentification (Bernal, 1982; Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴), and (d) taking actions to rectify inequities. In addition, the ultimate rejunctive goal of (e) self‐validation serves as leverage for achieving intermediate goals (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴).

Each member of the couple is held accountable for their unique and specific relational position, with the therapist providing insistent encouragement and creative assistance. Intermediate goals involve action designs, trial actions, and shifts of attitude and intention. As the sources of the couple's destructive entitlement are uncovered, their capacity for dialogue and self‐validation increases, not primarily through insight, but in mutually crediting exchanges with the other partner.

Power, gender, and role structure

In contextual therapy with couples, similar to transactional approaches, the aim is to establish a fair power and role structure, promoting complementary contributions between each partner regardless of gender or generation. While gender and generation are recognized as primary organizing principles of family life, there is no inherent belief in natural or fixed social roles based on gender. Instead, historically determined role allocations of rights and responsibilities are considered, especially in the context of inherited legacy and loyalty configurations (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴). The overarching goal of couples' therapy is to achieve a balance of fairness in distributing the burdens and benefits of adult life, taking into account past injustices and working toward acknowledgment and redress. Identifying the sources of destructive entitlement helps couples overcome resistance, fosters a willingness to engage in problem‐solving, and improves communication skills.

Therapeutic skill and timing are crucial in guiding couples toward self‐delineation and self‐validation. Open discussions about these aspects are essential. Timing, which is inseparable from correctly assessing where couples are on the continuum from motivation to stagnation, determines the readiness to end the reliance on destructive entitlement and explore self‐validating modes.

Periodic discussions about goals with the couple are considered to be fruitful and ethically sound therapeutic practices. The responsibility for defining goals contributes to more efficient therapy utilization and greater control in couples' lives. Contextual therapy views couple treatment as integral to family therapy and emphasizes that when parenting is a significant aspect of marriage, the therapist expects to include the children in the treatment contract. Couple therapy is recognized to have direct consequences for children (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986). In cases where the couple does not yet have children, the therapy is conducted within the context of potential parenting responsibilities and consideration of each spouse's legacies of filial loyalty. Regardless of the couple's intent to have children, their responsibility toward their parents and those who invest trust in them remains an important issue.

The example below highlights a familiar pattern where individuals from families with histories of neglect and abuse may unconsciously replicate similar dynamics in their own relationships. The breakdown of such a situation may be as follows:

1. Background: Both partners come from families with histories of neglect and abuse.

2. Attraction Based on Familiarity: They are drawn to each other based on their shared backgrounds, assuming that their relationship will be healthier than their parents' due to the similarity in family dynamics.

3. Unconscious Replication: Without recognizing it, they bring the same unhealthy dynamics (such as gender and power dynamics) from their families of origin into their marriage.

4. Blame Dynamics: Each partner blames the other's pathological patterns without acknowledging their individual contributions to the unhealthy dynamics.

5. Unfair Treatment of Children: The unhealthy dynamics in the relationship extend to how the partners treat their children, hence perpetuating a cycle of unfairness.

6. Therapeutic Consideration: In a therapeutic context, contextual therapy would aim to explore the multigenerational influences on each partner's behavior, promote each partner's understanding and responsibility for their relational and destructive patterns, and address destructive entitlement. The therapist would work toward breaking the cycle of blame and fostering fair and constructive relationship dynamics.

Contextual therapy's emphasis on recognizing and addressing multigenerational legacies and promoting fairness provides a framework for helping couples navigate and transform their relationship dynamics (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986).

Multidirected partiality

Multidirected partiality involves a dialectical process of successive empathic siding by the therapist with each of the persons involved in the treatment, and a partiality based on acknowledging each partner's past experiences of injustices and their contributions while holding each individual accountable for being fair to the other (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). The fairness of a partner's action or viewpoint is rarely judged solely from one individual's perspective; instead, it emerges through dialogue and negotiation. Initially, the therapist actively structures this process, and later, their influence shifts to one of support, consultation, and tracking the coherence and consequential significance of the conversation. This requires courage, accountability, and considerable self‐reflection on the therapist's part. This approach evokes an intermember dialogue that intensifies spontaneously (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986).

By advocating for the principle of fairness, the therapist establishes trustworthiness. The couple learns that the therapist's partiality to one partner is followed by an attempt to elicit a different, often opposing position from the other partner. Each position represents the relevant partner's experience of reciprocity in the explored relational context, encompassing justified claims and indebtedness. Acknowledgment or reparative action becomes the trust‐building response. In this approach, the therapist can actively relate to each family member, offering partiality that is distinct from joining one partner for restructuring or strategic purposes (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986). The therapist balances siding with the demand for accountability from each partner, which includes responsibly defining their own point of view.

At times, the momentum created by multidirectional partiality may collapse. A spouse who has clearly expressed distress at the other spouse's coldness might exhibit a lack of trust by disqualifying or not recognizing it despite the genuine warmth shown. In such instances, the therapist intervenes by deepening their concern for what is happening between the partners, redirecting their attention to the sources of each spouse's destructive entitlement that led to the current impasse.

Another consideration involves the relational impact of distributive injustice, such as genetic diseases or intellectual developmental disorders (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981). Unlike retributive unfairness (in other words, relational injustices), distributive/situational injustices have no perpetrator; the unfairness lies between the person and their destiny. Nevertheless, it is humane for such individuals with distributive/situational injustices to seek redress and act destructively entitled toward others. Multidirected partiality should address both the person's contract with the justice of existence and the human justice of how burdens are distributed. Concepts like transgenerational solidarity (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1987/²⁰¹⁴) and the idea of an intrinsic relational tribunal are understood as part of a broader transgenerational framework, making them relevant for therapeutic planning (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986).

The case example below illustrates how contextual therapy, especially that delivered through the application of multidirected partiality, can be beneficial for couples, including those in same‐gender relationships:

1. Traumatic Background: One partner has a traumatic history, having lost his entire family in a fire accident during a summer camp and being raised in foster care, which has led to difficulties in bonding with adults.

2. Early Understanding and Emotional Availability: The other partner initially demonstrated understanding and emotional availability in the relationship.

3. Shift in Dynamics: Over time, the partner with the traumatic background becomes distant, emotionally unavailable, and cold, impacting the relationship dynamics.

4. Contextual Couple Therapy Intervention:

   • Exploring Traumatic Experience: The contextual couple therapist explores the details of the traumatized partner's childhood experiences, allowing him to share his feelings.
   • Validation and Listening: The therapist encourages the other partner to actively listen and validate the experiences of the traumatized partner, acknowledging the distrust and anticipation of disconnection.

5. Understanding Impact: The therapist then shifts the focus to the impact of the isolating behavior on the other partner, fostering a dialogue that helps both partners gain a better understanding of the destructive patterns in their relationship.

6. Multidirected Partiality: The therapist employs multidirected partiality by actively engaging with both partners, offering empathy and understanding, and encouraging open communication.

7. Therapeutic Outcome: The therapy session allows both partners to better understand each other's perspectives, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their relational dynamics. This can pave the way for addressing destructive patterns, fostering trust, and improving the overall quality of the relationship.

In this example, the contextual therapy approach facilitates a deeper exploration of individual experiences, encourages empathy and validation, and promotes a more balanced understanding between partners.

COUPLES' COMMON RELATIONAL ISSUES

Horizontal relationship

A couple's relationship embodies the interconnectedness of both vertical (with families of origin) and horizontal (between partners) family relationships. Loyalty conflict configurations often stem from unresolved conflicts between spouses and their families of origin, influencing the new family of procreation. The degree to which a couple achieves symmetry or parity in their relationship can have lasting consequences for future generations. In US society, which emphasizes the two‐generation nuclear family, the marital dyad plays a pivotal role in maintaining intergenerational continuity and transmitting the new culture of procreation (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Ulrich, 1981).

While contextual therapists do not view marital treatment as distinct from family therapy, marital relationships possess specific characteristics. The unique ethical principle for couples is equitable symmetry, where as part of the adult generation, each partner is capable of the equality and reciprocity essential for long‐term relationships. This criterion of fairness differs from parent–child relationships. Exploring relationship dynamics is crucial, especially in long‐term marriages, considering the importance of horizontal peer relationships, particularly for elderly couples.

Vertical relationships

Marriages face challenges due to horizontal imbalances in terms of fairness and justice between partners and vertical imbalances in terms of adequate emotional and material resources that are influenced by intergenerational conflicts. Contextual therapists recognize the impact of invisible loyalties on families of origin, which manifest in attitudes or behaviors that undermine the marriage (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). Punishing a partner for remaining loyal to their parents is a common phenomenon, and exploring invisible loyalties is essential in understanding early and ongoing marital difficulties.

Uncovering the dynamic source of abandonment in each partner's family of origin and addressing intergenerational cutoffs is therapeutically important (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). The goal is not just insight but identifying options to help a partner make direct loyalty payments to their parents. While a cutoff may be justified, it signifies a personal defeat in validating oneself through earning entitlement. Therapeutic exploration seeks to empower individuals to navigate these complex relational dynamics and strengthen their commitment to marital relationships.

Partnership and relational issues

Like other long‐term symmetrical relationships, marriage operates within expectations of equitable give‐and‐take, contrasting with the parent–offspring dynamic (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Krasner, 1986/²⁰¹⁴). In peer relationships, whether they are between mates, lovers, or friends, maintaining viability requires achieving a balance of relatively reciprocal contributions. The challenge lies in accommodating and delineating oneself while creating a fair balance that considers each other's past, future, and present.

The manifestations of marital and peer relationships can vary widely and include communication breakdowns, violent quarrels, sexual issues, and struggles with in‐laws. Couples often seek marital therapy after exhausting their resources, with efforts to save the relationship sometimes becoming perfunctory. The decision to mend a marriage ultimately belongs to the couple, and therapists should avoid assuming a primary responsibility for healing. Contextual therapists prioritize addressing spouses' complaints about their marriage and listening for signs of unfairness, exploitation, and patterns of interaction (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986). It is crucial to identify how feelings of guilt are used to control the relationship. Therapists use their skills to help couples face marital conflicts, and they elicit responsible concern and care through a multidirected approach. The goal is to shape a trustworthy atmosphere where caring can take root. Strengthening marriage requires an ongoing dialogue of fair concern, recognizing it as a vulnerable institution that goes beyond problem‐solving.

Fusion in couples' relationships

The dynamics in conflictual couple relationships are often described using terms such as fusion, enmeshment, symbiosis, pseudo‐mutuality, and undifferentiated ego mass. However, within contextual therapy, these descriptors fail to explain the underlying causal or sustaining factors (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1986). Interventions to address these issues range from restructuring prescriptions and behavioral interventions to promoting visible differentiation and individuation.

Fusion manifests as blurred partner identities, leading to isolation and alienation. The core issue is blurred individual responsibility rather than cognitive identity. Lack of trust in relational give‐and‐take can result in avoidance, manipulation, and withheld communications, which further undermine trustworthiness. Chronic untrustworthiness stems from a perceived lack of options for earning constructive entitlement, pushing couples toward destructive entitlement and enmeshment over time.

Therapeutic goals include promoting dialogue as the antithesis of enmeshment. Dialogue allows for assertion, differentiation, and separation in its self‐delineating phase. However, in its self‐validating state, dialogue offers opportunities to earn increased freedom through empathy, consideration, and care. Enmeshed couples may challenge therapists, responding to multidirected efforts with chaos, seeking substitute parenting, and resisting disclosure and accountability. The therapy process aims to plant seeds for intergenerational dialogue, fostering trust and family solidarity. Multidirected partiality, as a method, addresses various problems related to behavior and communication patterns, psychic configurations, expression of effect, trust needs, transference‐based displacements, mourning, projective identification, object‐relatedness, and defensive distortions (Ducommun‐Nagy et al., 2023). This approach channels family members' quests for trustworthiness away from stagnation and toward constructive actions, fostering a new basis for family solidarity and allowing space for individual growth.

RELATIONAL TRUSTWORTHINESS AND JUSTICE BASED ON FEMINISM

The concept of contextual orientation (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1987/²⁰¹⁴; Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Framo, 1965/²⁰¹⁵; Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Spark, 1973/²⁰¹⁴) anticipated the notion of the relational self being elaborated by feminists (Ellie et al., 2021; Giligan, ¹⁹⁸²) and many other researchers concerned with understanding prosocial behavior (Grunebaum, 1987, 1990). Bowen (1978) implies that the differentiation of the self can occur only in the context of engagement with and responsibility to others. The notion of health, which is basic to the contextual approach, is interdependence and differentiation based on consideration of each person's needs and rights. Synergistic with feminism, the multilateral perspective and goals of contextual therapy extend into the social realm and assert that the dynamics of the healing process are inseparable from recognizing social injustice, and thus, social responsibility and social change. Moreover, its concern about fairness makes contextual therapy part of a broad‐based concern for the survival of humankind. The multigenerational mandates and concern for the quality of human relationships, made explicit by contextual therapy, can be conceived of as an intrinsic transgenerational tribunal concerning the survival of humankind (Boszormenyi‐Nagy, 1987/²⁰¹⁴).

Furthermore, based on the basic premises of contextual therapy, the couple's relationship is the source of the most fundamental resources and relational options, even if there are seriously shocking inadequacies in the behavior of some members, and even if the family as a social institution has been the location of flagrant injustices inflicted upon women, children, and men. Inequitable allocation of responsibility and lack of acknowledgment of the parenting role of mothers (Grunebaum, 1987) do not diminish the value and crucial importance of caring relationships. Nevertheless, as feminists have pointed out, these very injustices must be implicated in any discussion of the causation of dysfunction. Contextual therapy has the resources to join with other critiques of contemporary couple therapies because it views long‐standing interpersonal injustice, especially that between couples, as pathogenic in and of itself. The history of social injustice must be given a central place in the review of debts and entitlements to overcome the implicit assumption that in couples' relationships, women can compensate for any form of societal injustice and other historical hardships (Grunebaum, 1987, 1988, ¹⁹⁹⁰).

While, like with all other classic family therapy models, contextual therapy has not explicitly addressed the axis of power and power dynamics in couple relationships, the contextual orientation aligns with the notion of the relational self that is emphasized by feminists and researchers concerned with understanding prosocial behavior. Differentiation of the self, a concept integrated into contextual therapy, occurs in the context of engagement with and responsibility to others. The contextual approach emphasizes interdependence and differentiation based on individual needs and rights, aligning with feminist perspectives.

SUMMARY

Contextual therapy emphasizes exploring the resources within abandoned and cutoff relationships and is driven by various motivations, with the social dynamic of justice at its core. This approach's commitment to all generations and diverse couples' needs, regardless of their differences, appeals to various couples, including those from different socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. The consideration of couples within their own contexts, without imposing the therapist's biases, is a crucial aspect of its appeal, even for those of minoritized status or victims of discrimination.

Couples may be drawn to contextual therapy because it emphasizes trust and justice. However, there is a cautionary note in that concepts such as fairness and trustworthiness can easily be misunderstood. The contextual therapy approach does not automatically guarantee justice but sets firm criteria for how it may work within the context of the relationship. It requires each individual in the couple to overcome unilateral considerations, acknowledging both merit and accountability for fairness. Demands for fairness are placed on all related partners, leading to the eventual reward of earned merit. The validation of contextual therapy comes from practical and concrete outcomes, aiming for couples to become freer, more autonomous, and more spontaneous while valuing strong commitment and mutual responsibility through successful therapy. The approach distinguishes itself from moralistic or value‐oriented concepts, focusing on real relational growth.

Daneshpour, M. (2025). Couples therapy and the challenges of building trust, fairness, and justice. Family Process, 64(1), e13072. 10.1111/famp.13072