We employ Hegel's dialectical phenomenological method to conceptualize meritocracy logic (valuing performance through quantifiable metrics) and warmth logic (sustaining cohesion through emotional bonds) as interpretive paradigms for East Asian families. Analyzing regional crises through Hegelian dialectics, we reveal that the negation of warmth by meritocracy causes the dissolution of the ethical entity (the family's ethical foundation). To resolve this, we propose cognitive restructuring, rebuilding community, and establishing an ethical division of labor —a degendered concept reconceptualized from Hegel's ethical gender via Butler's theory. Our dialectical reconstruction aims to synthesize meritocracy and warmth, providing theoretical and practical pathways to reshape family ethics in East Asia.
{"title":"East Asian Family Ethics in Crisis: Hegelian Analysis of Meritocracy Versus Warmth Logics","authors":"Dan Zhu, Hao Zhao, Xueying Zhang","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70023","url":null,"abstract":"We employ Hegel's dialectical phenomenological method to conceptualize <jats:italic>meritocracy logic</jats:italic> (valuing performance through quantifiable metrics) and <jats:italic>warmth logic</jats:italic> (sustaining cohesion through emotional bonds) as interpretive paradigms for East Asian families. Analyzing regional crises through Hegelian dialectics, we reveal that the negation of warmth by meritocracy causes the dissolution of the <jats:italic>ethical entity</jats:italic> (the family's ethical foundation). To resolve this, we propose cognitive restructuring, rebuilding community, and establishing an <jats:italic>ethical division of labor</jats:italic> —a degendered concept reconceptualized from Hegel's <jats:italic>ethical gender</jats:italic> via Butler's theory. Our dialectical reconstruction aims to synthesize meritocracy and warmth, providing theoretical and practical pathways to reshape family ethics in East Asia.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"91 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145441130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Colleen K. Vesely, Bethany L. Letiecq, Jihyae Choe, Elizabeth DeMulder
Families who experience structural marginalization are experts on how oppression manifests in their everyday lives and how systems reproduce inequities. They are often most motivated to transform systems for their liberation and, we argue, should be empowered to drive systems change. Yet, frameworks to guide such transformative, family-led efforts remain nascent. This article details the development of the Critical Family Partnership Framework through a community-based, Family-Centered Participatory Action Research (FCPAR) approach. Informed by critical intersectional theory and the Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership, the framework was co-constructed over a yearlong project centering the voices of families from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, alongside practitioners and agency leaders in an early childhood system. Although developed in early childhood contexts, the framework holds broader relevance for those engaging in intersectional family science seeking to advance equity by transforming family-serving systems.
{"title":"Family-Led Systems Change for Equity in Early Care and Education: A Critical Family Partnership Framework","authors":"Colleen K. Vesely, Bethany L. Letiecq, Jihyae Choe, Elizabeth DeMulder","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70020","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Families who experience structural marginalization are experts on how oppression manifests in their everyday lives and how systems reproduce inequities. They are often most motivated to transform systems for their liberation and, we argue, should be empowered to drive systems change. Yet, frameworks to guide such transformative, family-led efforts remain nascent. This article details the development of the Critical Family Partnership Framework through a community-based, Family-Centered Participatory Action Research (FCPAR) approach. Informed by critical intersectional theory and the Spectrum of Community Engagement to Ownership, the framework was co-constructed over a yearlong project centering the voices of families from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, alongside practitioners and agency leaders in an early childhood system. Although developed in early childhood contexts, the framework holds broader relevance for those engaging in intersectional family science seeking to advance equity by transforming family-serving systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"17 4","pages":"834-850"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jftr.70020","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145652599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Intersectionality scholars, including myself, spent much of the past 15+ years in what Jennifer Nash (<span>2017</span>) called the “intersectionality wars” (17), or fierce and sometimes deeply personal debates on the appropriate uses and perceived abuses of intersectionality in academic scholarship. Whereas the intersectionality wars played out in the pages of books (Carastathis <span>2016</span>), paywalled academic journal articles (Bilge <span>2013</span>), professional conferences (Nash <span>2017</span>), blogs, symposia, and the like, we—the community of scholars and activists dedicated to advancing intersectional inquiry and social transformation—now find ourselves in a <i>war on intersectionality</i> (Bhatia <span>2025</span>), or sustained attacks on intersectionality and its proponents by right-wing activists intent on eliminating intersectionality from public, civic, and institutional life. In fact, the war on intersectionality is now being waged at the highest levels of government and public policy. It is indeed time to take very seriously the coordinated assault on intersectionality and its practitioners throughout higher education and American society.</p><p>Much of the post-2020 public discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in organizations, including higher education, has focused on the boogieman of “CRT.” CRT is distinct from actual Critical Race Theory (Delgado and Stefancic <span>2023</span>), the legal studies framework—of which intersectionality is an integral part (Cooper <span>2015</span>; Grzanka et al. <span>2019</span>)—that examines how the law and public policy buttress white supremacy across registers of social life, including those that appear to be race-neutral or nonracial (see Ray <span>2023</span> for an overview). CRT, on the other hand, was purposefully constructed by Christopher Rufo and his functionaries on the far-right to serve as a malleable, boundaryless catch-all for antiracist things they oppose, such as acknowledging that racism is real and has observable consequences (Wallace-Wells <span>2021</span>). Rufo and his allies used the signifier of CRT to drum up a moral panic about how elementary school teachers, high school social studies instructors, librarians, and college professors alike were systematically indoctrinating children across the United States into the idea that racism is “inherent”—a favorite word of theirs and the new Trump administration (Rufo <span>2023</span>)—to U.S. institutions. CRT, they argue, is about making white children feel personally responsible and guilty for past and present racial atrocities and is a moral pestilence to be rooted out of institutions, starting with schools (Rufo <span>2023</span>).</p><p>Curiously, little coverage of the anti-CRT crusades focused on the ways intersectionality specifically became a central target of conservative activists. But the vitriol directed toward intersectionality, Black feminists, womanists, and queer and tran
包括我在内的交叉性学者，在过去15年多的时间里，花了很多时间在Jennifer Nash（2017）所说的“交叉性战争”（17）中，或者在学术研究中对交叉性的适当使用和感知滥用进行激烈的、有时是深刻的个人辩论。尽管交叉性战争在书本（Carastathis 2016）、付费学术期刊文章（Bilge 2013）、专业会议（Nash 2017）、博客、专题讨论会等领域展开，但我们——致力于推进交叉性研究和社会转型的学者和活动家群体——现在发现自己处于一场关于交叉性的战争中（Bhatia 2025）。或者右翼激进分子对交叉性及其支持者的持续攻击，他们意图从公共、公民和机构生活中消除交叉性。事实上，在政府和公共政策的最高层面上，对交叉性的战争正在进行。现在确实是时候非常认真地对待对交叉性及其在高等教育和美国社会中的实践者的协同攻击了。2020年后，许多关于组织（包括高等教育）中多样性、公平和包容实践的公共话语，都集中在“CRT”这个妖怪身上。CRT不同于实际的批判种族理论（Delgado和stefansic 2023），法律研究框架——其中交叉性是一个组成部分（Cooper 2015; Grzanka et al. 2019）——研究法律和公共政策如何在社会生活的登记处支持白人至上，包括那些似乎是种族中立或非种族的（见Ray 2023的概述）。另一方面，CRT是由Christopher Rufo和他的极右翼官员有意构建的，作为他们反对的反种族主义事物的可伸缩、无边界的笼统说法，例如承认种族主义是真实存在的，并具有可观察到的后果（Wallace-Wells 2021）。Rufo和他的盟友们用CRT这个符号来煽动一种道德恐慌，即小学教师、高中社会研究教师、图书管理员和大学教授都在系统地向美国各地的孩子灌输种族主义是“固有的”——这是他们和特朗普新政府最喜欢用的词（Rufo 2023）。他们认为，CRT是为了让白人孩子对过去和现在的种族暴行感到个人责任和内疚，是一种需要从学校开始根除的道德瘟疫（Rufo 2023）。奇怪的是，关于反crt运动的报道很少关注交叉性如何成为保守派激进分子的主要目标。但是，针对交叉性、黑人女权主义者、女性主义者以及有色人种的酷儿和变性人的尖刻言辞却隐藏在人们的视线之中（Grzanka 2024）。尽管限制言论自由和教授和学习社会不平等的尝试已经对某些与社会正义、反种族主义和其他进步思想有关的术语、思想和人物做出了让步，但交叉性通常是被禁止的。例如，在佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯（Ron DeSantis）对拟议的大学先修课程（AP）非裔美国人研究课程提出异议，并威胁不允许佛罗里达州公立学校开设该课程之后，2023年修订的课程减少或取消了保守派反对的大量术语、人物和概念（Banks 2023）。根据《华盛顿邮报》（Anderson 2023）的综合分析，在拟议的课程中，没有一个词比“交集性”（intersectionality）消失得更多，从最初的19次减少到2023年的1次。第二大减幅来自“女性主义”一词，从最初的14个减少到2023年的0个。“十字路口”从八个变成了一个；黑人女权主义者发起的“争取黑人生命运动”（Movement for Black Lives）的名字从6个降为0个，“金伯利·洛伊尔·克伦肖”（kimberl<s:1> Crenshaw）的名字也从6个降为0个。尽管“酷儿”在两个版本中都完全没有出现，但在2023年的修订版中，“同性恋”的出现次数有所增加（从0次增加到2次），“科林·鲍威尔”（Colin Powell）也有所增加（从0次增加到3次）。虽然提到“黑豹”的次数减少了（从23次减少到18次），但“马尔科姆·艾克斯”的次数增加了2次，达到18次。只有“赔偿”和“系统”受到了类似的谴责；前者在修订中只被提及一次（从原来的15次减少），而后者从9次变为0次。对于反对AP非裔美国人研究课程的保守派人士来说，黑豹党和马尔科姆·艾克斯的反感程度不如克伦肖和交叉性，这是我们在当下集体追求清晰、策略和抵抗的宝贵数据。 我们必须认识到，保守派和极右翼政治机构认为，交叉性对白人至上主义的基督教民族主义构成了独特的威胁（Banks 2023），或者生殖正义运动联合创始人兼活动家洛丽塔·罗斯（Loretta Ross, 2017）所说的“美国化法西斯主义”（305）。在美国，跨文化和政治压迫和压迫的场所——博物馆（Ibssa 2025）、图书馆（Goncalves et al. 2024; Inouye 2025）、国家公园（Pineda 2025）、教学大纲（Hartocollis and Fawcett 2023; Shanley 2025）、媒体和新闻（Mullin et al. 2025）、视觉和表演艺术（Scherer and Parker 2025）以及大学（Blinder 2025）——交叉性无疑受到了攻击。交叉性的邪恶化是可以预测的（例如，《Banks 2023》）。一方面，在表现层面上，交叉性意味着黑人女性、有色人种的酷儿和变性人，以及其他非原型群体成员，他们的存在削弱了白人基督教霸权的脆弱霸权。在政治、教育和赋权的层面上，交叉性教授对权力的分析，阐明了统治、特权和从属制度之间的联系，否则这些联系可能会被单轴分析或围绕单一维度差异（例如，种族、移民身份和残疾）组织的行动主义所掩盖（Crenshaw 1991）。几代人以来，联盟一直是交叉性理论的基石（Cole 2008; Luna 2016），因为在联盟中共同致力于正义的方式可以将来自不同背景和社会地位的人团结起来。交叉性帮助全球的积极分子跨越差异走到一起抵制统治（Zinn and Dill 1996）。值得注意的是，尽管生殖正义运动是由一群美国黑人女权主义者发起的，但该运动从根本上也是多种族的（Luna 2020）。生殖正义组织者使用“有色人种女性”一词来突出多种族女权主义者联盟（参见批判性种族女权主义，Few- demo [Few 2007]），他们挑战了传统的生殖权利运动，因为它只关注堕胎机会（Luna 2016, 220）。生殖正义利用有色人种妇女的交叉和多样化的经历来推进一种生殖自由，包括生育和在安全和健康的环境中抚养孩子的权利，以及避孕和堕胎的权利（Ross 2017）。交叉性教育学是一种赋予权力的教育，它揭示了结构性权力的阴险运作，以及多种族、性别多样化、尤其是女权主义联盟抵制统治的创造性方式。鲁弗、德桑蒂斯和他们的盟友不希望高中生或大学生了解它，这并不奇怪。同样不足为奇的是，“交叉性”和“交叉性”是针对美国国家科学基金会（NSF）资助的政治动机调查的目标关键词，这成为取消NSF和美国国立卫生研究院向研究美国社会不平等的科学家提供的数十亿美元资助的基础，威胁到美国科学事业的基础（Cruz 2025）。Benson和heden - rootes（2025）在本期《家庭理论评论》杂志的特刊中提出这些和其他紧急/紧急问题是明智的。虽然跨学科交叉性的许多具有里程碑意义的特别问题已经提高了对这一概念及其应用的学术理解（Carbado等人，2013；Cho等人，2013；Grzanka等人，
{"title":"The War on Intersectionality","authors":"Patrick R. Grzanka","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70021","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jftr.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intersectionality scholars, including myself, spent much of the past 15+ years in what Jennifer Nash (<span>2017</span>) called the “intersectionality wars” (17), or fierce and sometimes deeply personal debates on the appropriate uses and perceived abuses of intersectionality in academic scholarship. Whereas the intersectionality wars played out in the pages of books (Carastathis <span>2016</span>), paywalled academic journal articles (Bilge <span>2013</span>), professional conferences (Nash <span>2017</span>), blogs, symposia, and the like, we—the community of scholars and activists dedicated to advancing intersectional inquiry and social transformation—now find ourselves in a <i>war on intersectionality</i> (Bhatia <span>2025</span>), or sustained attacks on intersectionality and its proponents by right-wing activists intent on eliminating intersectionality from public, civic, and institutional life. In fact, the war on intersectionality is now being waged at the highest levels of government and public policy. It is indeed time to take very seriously the coordinated assault on intersectionality and its practitioners throughout higher education and American society.</p><p>Much of the post-2020 public discourse on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in organizations, including higher education, has focused on the boogieman of “CRT.” CRT is distinct from actual Critical Race Theory (Delgado and Stefancic <span>2023</span>), the legal studies framework—of which intersectionality is an integral part (Cooper <span>2015</span>; Grzanka et al. <span>2019</span>)—that examines how the law and public policy buttress white supremacy across registers of social life, including those that appear to be race-neutral or nonracial (see Ray <span>2023</span> for an overview). CRT, on the other hand, was purposefully constructed by Christopher Rufo and his functionaries on the far-right to serve as a malleable, boundaryless catch-all for antiracist things they oppose, such as acknowledging that racism is real and has observable consequences (Wallace-Wells <span>2021</span>). Rufo and his allies used the signifier of CRT to drum up a moral panic about how elementary school teachers, high school social studies instructors, librarians, and college professors alike were systematically indoctrinating children across the United States into the idea that racism is “inherent”—a favorite word of theirs and the new Trump administration (Rufo <span>2023</span>)—to U.S. institutions. CRT, they argue, is about making white children feel personally responsible and guilty for past and present racial atrocities and is a moral pestilence to be rooted out of institutions, starting with schools (Rufo <span>2023</span>).</p><p>Curiously, little coverage of the anti-CRT crusades focused on the ways intersectionality specifically became a central target of conservative activists. But the vitriol directed toward intersectionality, Black feminists, womanists, and queer and tran","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"17 4","pages":"878-882"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jftr.70021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The theory of ambiguous loss is a psychosocial theory born out of my interdisciplinary interests and training in human development, family science, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry/family therapy. Historically, qualitative and mixed methods advanced this theory; today, an ambiguous loss scale is wanted. What can and cannot be measured? Why are perceptions of ambiguous loss quantifiable while the phenomenon itself is not? Recommendations and critical aspects are presented for new generations who hopefully will further theory development. Instead of the usual epistemological questions about truth and measurement, we ask, “How do people left behind perceive the agonizing stress of missing loved ones?” The goal of ambiguous loss intervention is not to cure or fix (because we cannot), but paradoxically, to build enough resilience in those left behind to move forward with life despite unanswered questions. Today, this theory is applied globally; novel applications are emerging.
{"title":"Quantify or Classify? Recommendations for Ambiguous Loss Versus Boundary Ambiguity","authors":"Pauline Boss","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70011","url":null,"abstract":"The theory of ambiguous loss is a psychosocial theory born out of my interdisciplinary interests and training in human development, family science, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry/family therapy. Historically, qualitative and mixed methods advanced this theory; today, an ambiguous loss scale is wanted. What can and cannot be measured? Why are perceptions of ambiguous loss quantifiable while the phenomenon itself is not? Recommendations and critical aspects are presented for new generations who hopefully will further theory development. Instead of the usual epistemological questions about truth and measurement, we ask, “How do people left behind perceive the agonizing stress of missing loved ones?” The goal of ambiguous loss intervention is not to cure or fix (because we cannot), but paradoxically, to build enough resilience in those left behind to move forward with life despite unanswered questions. Today, this theory is applied globally; novel applications are emerging.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"2677 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145382258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ronja F. Held, Aline Moore Lorusso, Ann L. M. P. Hogenhuis, Esther S. Kluwer, Ruud Hortensius
Individual family members impact each other and the family system at the physiological, brain, behavioral, phenomenological, and social level. Previous research used established methods, such as self‐report and behavioral observation, to provide thorough insights into family dynamics. Here, we complement existing methods and argue for a neurocognitive approach in family research. Neurocognitive tools can provide detailed insights into complex family dynamics by capturing behavioral and brain processes at the individual and family level. By measuring neural activity and the alignment of brain activity between family members, scholars can uncover complex recurrent and situation‐dependent interactions that so far have remained hidden. This approach can increase the scope of family research, especially when measuring family members across generations with different levels of verbal ability. The neurocognitive approach allows researchers to study interconnected family members across multiple generations. Measuring the behavior and brain activity of multiple family members simultaneously is a promising method to reveal additional factors contributing to family well‐being and inform theory and practice. As mobile neuroimaging advances, studying family interactions in natural settings, such as the home, becomes more feasible. The neurocognitive approach fosters understanding of known and unknown factors contributing to family dynamics, bringing it closer to home.
{"title":"Understanding Family Dynamics Through a Neurocognitive Lens","authors":"Ronja F. Held, Aline Moore Lorusso, Ann L. M. P. Hogenhuis, Esther S. Kluwer, Ruud Hortensius","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70018","url":null,"abstract":"Individual family members impact each other and the family system at the physiological, brain, behavioral, phenomenological, and social level. Previous research used established methods, such as self‐report and behavioral observation, to provide thorough insights into family dynamics. Here, we complement existing methods and argue for a neurocognitive approach in family research. Neurocognitive tools can provide detailed insights into complex family dynamics by capturing behavioral and brain processes at the individual and family level. By measuring neural activity and the alignment of brain activity between family members, scholars can uncover complex recurrent and situation‐dependent interactions that so far have remained hidden. This approach can increase the scope of family research, especially when measuring family members across generations with different levels of verbal ability. The neurocognitive approach allows researchers to study interconnected family members across multiple generations. Measuring the behavior and brain activity of multiple family members simultaneously is a promising method to reveal additional factors contributing to family well‐being and inform theory and practice. As mobile neuroimaging advances, studying family interactions in natural settings, such as the home, becomes more feasible. The neurocognitive approach fosters understanding of known and unknown factors contributing to family dynamics, bringing it closer to home.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145314512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eleanor J. Junkins, Jaime Derringer, Brian G. Ogolsky, Jennifer L. Hardesty, Yanna Weisberg
Power is central to understanding romantic relationship dynamics. Yet, the study of relationship power lacks consistent measurement or agreement on the latent construct. Valid measurement is essential to align theory and research and increase the likelihood of replicability and comparability between studies. We reviewed all power measures published in empirical articles (k = 319) before 2022. We categorized measures into nine categories based on operationalizations, theoretical considerations, and common themes. The most commonly studied aspects of power were sexual relationship power, structural power, and general relationship power. We also summarized the study topics and sample characteristics to investigate when different types of power measures were used. We discussed how the categories of power fit into existing theories to organize and motivate future research. To establish best measurement practices, further work should test the validity of power measures, establish correlates of power, and use these findings to refine existing theories.
{"title":"Measures of Relationship Power Dynamics in Romantic Relationships","authors":"Eleanor J. Junkins, Jaime Derringer, Brian G. Ogolsky, Jennifer L. Hardesty, Yanna Weisberg","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70019","url":null,"abstract":"Power is central to understanding romantic relationship dynamics. Yet, the study of relationship power lacks consistent measurement or agreement on the latent construct. Valid measurement is essential to align theory and research and increase the likelihood of replicability and comparability between studies. We reviewed all power measures published in empirical articles (<jats:italic>k</jats:italic> = 319) before 2022. We categorized measures into nine categories based on operationalizations, theoretical considerations, and common themes. The most commonly studied aspects of power were sexual relationship power, structural power, and general relationship power. We also summarized the study topics and sample characteristics to investigate when different types of power measures were used. We discussed how the categories of power fit into existing theories to organize and motivate future research. To establish best measurement practices, further work should test the validity of power measures, establish correlates of power, and use these findings to refine existing theories.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145311068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper expands existing family theories to better account for the experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people who become parents through pregnancy, often referred to as seahorse dads. Although queer family scholarship has challenged binary understandings of gender within families, existing theories have yet to focus on how TGNC people dynamically engage with gender through parenting across the life course. Drawing from queer, gender, and life course perspectives, we introduce theoretical expansions that center the reciprocal, time‐sensitive relationship between gender expression and parenthood. We explore how seahorse dads may navigate caregiving roles, disrupt cisnormative assumptions, and reshape family relationships through complex negotiations of identity, transition, and timing. By integrating these insights, we propose a more inclusive framework for understanding TGNC parenthood, emphasizing the importance of theorizing parenthood beyond binary constructs and recognizing the unique experiences of seahorse dads within family science.
{"title":"Seahorse Dads: Theorizing Gender and Parenting Beyond the Binary","authors":"Pond Ezra, Samuel H. Allen","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70015","url":null,"abstract":"This paper expands existing family theories to better account for the experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people who become parents through pregnancy, often referred to as <jats:italic>seahorse dads</jats:italic>. Although queer family scholarship has challenged binary understandings of gender within families, existing theories have yet to focus on how TGNC people dynamically engage with gender through parenting across the life course. Drawing from queer, gender, and life course perspectives, we introduce theoretical expansions that center the reciprocal, time‐sensitive relationship between gender expression and parenthood. We explore how seahorse dads may navigate caregiving roles, disrupt cisnormative assumptions, and reshape family relationships through complex negotiations of identity, transition, and timing. By integrating these insights, we propose a more inclusive framework for understanding TGNC parenthood, emphasizing the importance of theorizing parenthood beyond binary constructs and recognizing the unique experiences of seahorse dads within family science.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145289183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Latinx family ethnic‐racial socialization (ERS) practices vary based on unique contexts such as racial background, experiences with discrimination, and cultural values. However, researchers often group Latinx families without considering context. By clearly identifying a specific Latinx group of interest, researchers can situate family practices within the group's unique social and historical factors. This article outlines a three‐step approach for studying contextualized Latinx family ERS. Following this approach, researchers can identify a Latinx group to establish their social and historical factors. This will inform research practices: forming a representative research team, choosing culturally appropriate methodology, and analyzing and interpreting research findings through a contextualized lens. Using García Coll et al.'s Integrative Model and relying on Hughes et al.'s conceptualization of ERS, the context of one Latinx group (i.e., Dominicans) is defined and the application of the three‐step approach is explained. Recommendations are provided for future contextualized research with Latinx families.
{"title":"Context Matters: A Contextualized Approach to Studying Latinx Family Ethnic‐Racial Socialization","authors":"Sabrina A. Mendez‐Escobar","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70014","url":null,"abstract":"Latinx family ethnic‐racial socialization (ERS) practices vary based on unique contexts such as racial background, experiences with discrimination, and cultural values. However, researchers often group Latinx families without considering context. By clearly identifying a specific Latinx group of interest, researchers can situate family practices within the group's unique social and historical factors. This article outlines a three‐step approach for studying contextualized Latinx family ERS. Following this approach, researchers can identify a Latinx group to establish their social and historical factors. This will inform research practices: forming a representative research team, choosing culturally appropriate methodology, and analyzing and interpreting research findings through a contextualized lens. Using García Coll et al.'s Integrative Model and relying on Hughes et al.'s conceptualization of ERS, the context of one Latinx group (i.e., Dominicans) is defined and the application of the three‐step approach is explained. Recommendations are provided for future contextualized research with Latinx families.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145277418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wonyoung L. Cho, Renée Cascino, Hope Crombie, Claire Nichols, Victoria Solon, Atlas Briar Willow
In the evolving landscape of family therapy education, the need for effective teaching techniques for family therapy theory and practice in the current landscape of epistemological diversity has intensified. This article examines the use of a four‐corners active learning activity with first‐year master's students to help them critically analyze their personal and professional worldviews as they learn foundational family therapy theories. This activity aims to help students focus on process, identify their worldview, increase tolerance for uncertainty, and address the gap between espoused beliefs and reactions. By physically responding to epistemological prompts, students confront inconsistencies, fostering self‐awareness, and flexibility. Observations suggest this approach promotes critical self‐awareness and flexibility, which can support the development of their clinical theory. The article reflects on the effectiveness and limitations of this pedagogical strategy, suggesting its wider use in developing responsive and reflexive therapists in a changing sociocultural context.
{"title":"Exploring Therapist's Worldview in a Family Therapy Theory Course: A Four‐Corners Learning Activity","authors":"Wonyoung L. Cho, Renée Cascino, Hope Crombie, Claire Nichols, Victoria Solon, Atlas Briar Willow","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.70010","url":null,"abstract":"In the evolving landscape of family therapy education, the need for effective teaching techniques for family therapy theory and practice in the current landscape of epistemological diversity has intensified. This article examines the use of a four‐corners active learning activity with first‐year master's students to help them critically analyze their personal and professional worldviews as they learn foundational family therapy theories. This activity aims to help students focus on process, identify their worldview, increase tolerance for uncertainty, and address the gap between espoused beliefs and reactions. By physically responding to epistemological prompts, students confront inconsistencies, fostering self‐awareness, and flexibility. Observations suggest this approach promotes critical self‐awareness and flexibility, which can support the development of their clinical theory. The article reflects on the effectiveness and limitations of this pedagogical strategy, suggesting its wider use in developing responsive and reflexive therapists in a changing sociocultural context.","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145260606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditional clinical supervision models in Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) often reinforce hierarchical norms that marginalize Black clinicians' cultural knowledge and lived experience. This article presents the Bidirectional Intersectional Supervision (BIS) Model, an equity-centered framework grounded in Black feminist epistemologies. BIS reimagines supervision as a collaborative, relational process structured around three core commitments: epistemic justice, intersectional reflexivity, and relational accountability. Through practices such as reciprocal learning, collaborative decision-making, reciprocal feedback, and integration of new knowledge, BIS transforms supervision into a site of mutual growth, critical inquiry, and structural resistance. The model offers practical strategies for supervisors while addressing institutional and socio-political barriers to implementation. By embedding justice into the supervision pedagogy, BIS advances more inclusive and culturally responsive clinical training, affirming the knowledge contributions of marginalized supervisees as central, not supplemental, to therapeutic competence.
{"title":"Bidirectional Intersectional Supervision: Redefining Power and Equity for Black Clinicians","authors":"Lastenia Francis","doi":"10.1111/jftr.70008","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jftr.70008","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Traditional clinical supervision models in Marriage and Family Therapy (MFT) often reinforce hierarchical norms that marginalize Black clinicians' cultural knowledge and lived experience. This article presents the Bidirectional Intersectional Supervision (BIS) Model, an equity-centered framework grounded in Black feminist epistemologies. BIS reimagines supervision as a collaborative, relational process structured around three core commitments: epistemic justice, intersectional reflexivity, and relational accountability. Through practices such as reciprocal learning, collaborative decision-making, reciprocal feedback, and integration of new knowledge, BIS transforms supervision into a site of mutual growth, critical inquiry, and structural resistance. The model offers practical strategies for supervisors while addressing institutional and socio-political barriers to implementation. By embedding justice into the supervision pedagogy, BIS advances more inclusive and culturally responsive clinical training, affirming the knowledge contributions of marginalized supervisees as central, not supplemental, to therapeutic competence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Theory & Review","volume":"17 4","pages":"883-894"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jftr.70008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145255241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：