Expanding the Therapy Paradigm with Queer Couples: A Relational Intersectional Lens

North American and global cultures in general—and the field of Couple and Family Therapy in particular—have made significant strides toward recognizing and validating LGBTQ identities and relationships. However, clinical assessment and conceptualization of queer couples still lack the complexity needed to encompass the issues involved in treatment. Existing literature provides clinicians a basic understanding of queer couples and the dynamics that make them unique from nonqueer couples. However, much of this knowledge has been normed on White middle‐class couples and has rarely included couples with transgender or bisexual members. This article invites clinicians and researchers to apply a feminist model of intersectionality to understand queer couples. Our proposed intersectional lens considers multiple axes of identity and power and their interrelationships (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). We argue that intersectionality is important for understanding all identities, whether privileged or marginalized (Falicov, 2003). This application of the concept of intersectionality is unique in its relational focus, emphasizing how partners’ complex individual identities overlap with and intersect with one another. Additionally, this lens considers how the therapists’ and clients’ multidimensional identities intersect. Three case studies are presented to illustrate application of the intersectional lens. In each case, exploring the partners’ multiple social locations, their influences on one another, and the therapist's intersections of identity all proved critical to the direction of therapy.     

Fight,Flight, or Remain Silent? Juggling Multiple Accountabilities throughout the Formative Stage of a Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative

This paper describes the experiences of a research team as they navigated uncertain ethical and political terrain throughout the formative stage of a public housing redevelopment project. Specifically, we discuss the challenges related to balancing multiple accountabilities and the tensions among the various roles and responsibilities that emanated from different accountabilities. Due to contractual obligations to our funding source, established relations with community partners, and an ethical imperative to align with those holding the least power, we grappled with embodying multiple and often conflicting roles. Without oversight provided by our university institutional review board or a clear ethical framework for community psychology research and action, our team was left to negotiate the challenges that emerged through critical reflection and financial considerations. Throughout the case example presented in this paper, we highlight our difficulty in ethical decision‐making with respect to the principles of obligation, disclosure, consent, commitment, and professionalism. Community psychologists often straddle the realms of academia, community partnerships, and conscious engagement with little guidance in navigating often conflicting roles and value systems. We present our narrative to highlight the complexity of scholar‐activism in the context of community psychology and the necessity for developing ethical standards and guidelines tailored to meet the unique needs of community psychologists.