Intimacies: An Integrative Multicultural Framework for Couple Therapy

• Published date: 01 September 2019
• Author: Michele Scheinkman
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12444
• Date: 01 September 2019

Intimacies: An Integrative Multicultural Framework

for Couple Therapy

MICHELE SCHEINKMAN*

Implicitly or explicitly, our ideas about intimacy are the most fundamental notions giv-

ing direction to the process of couple therapy. Yet, as a field, we have spent little time con-

ceptualizing intimacy and even less time considering the diversity of priorities and

meanings couples bring to our offices. In Part One, Varieties of Intimacy, I describe a kalei-

doscope of contexts—socio-historical, cultural, gender, life cycle, and developmental—that

inform our ideas and expectations for intimacy in couples’ relationships. I highlight differ-

ent spheres in which intimacy may take place such as the emotional, sexual, intellectual,

or familial. I propose a starting point in which the therapist, in a collaborative manner,

helps the partners articulate their yearnings and priorities in order to negotiate a share d

vision. In Part Two, Conceptualizing Intimacy, I suggest an experiential definition tha t

gives room for each partner’s subjective meanings, yet consider diverse relational processe s

that may need to be addressed for a resilient ebb and flow of intimate experiences. In Part

Three,Sexual Intimacy, I outline conditions in which sex is more likely to be experienced

as intimate rather than nonintimate. Finally, in Part Four, I describe Therapeutic Princi-

ples to guide the therapist in taking couples from reactivity to dialogue to negotiations of

intimacy. The integrative framework proposed here discourages monolithic a priori notions

of intimacy and highlights instead: nuanced meanings, relational processes to be con sid-

ered differentially, present and past emotional blocks, and a flexible clinical approach to

foster conditions for the creation and resilience of intimate experiences.

Keywords: Couple Therapy; Intimacy; Integrative; Multicultural; Theoretical and Clinical

Framework

Fam Proc 58:550–568, 2019

“Intimacy stubbornly resists simple definition. Ephemeral and often elusive in daily life, it

becomes even more so as the object of intellectual analysis. But if the concept of intimacy is blurry

and indistinct, our longings for it are powerful, at times overwhelming. The pleasures of intimacy

are so deeply satisfying, its failure so painful, its vicissitudes so central to the concerns of couples

who seek therapy together, that it demands an effort to wrestle conceptually and clinically with

its ambiguity.” (Karpel, 1999, p. 84)

PART ONE: VARIETIES OF INTIMACY: A MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

We have come to accept that our needs for human connection are neuro-biologically

wired, primal and intense, and that we suffer whenever our bonds are threatened or

To read this article in Spanish, please see the article’s Supporting Information on Wiley Online Library

(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15455300).

*The Ackerman Institute for the Family, New York City, NY.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Michele Scheinkman, 400 Park Avenue

South, apt 32B, New York, NY, 10016. E-mail: michelescheinkman@gmail.com

The author thanks Froma Walsh, Mona Fishbane, Suzanne Iasenza, Lois Braverman, and Peggy Papp

for their suggestions and encouragement, and the Ackerman Institute for its ongoing support of the Cou-

ples and Intimacy Project.

550

Family Process, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2019 ©2019 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12444

severed (Fishbane, 2013; Fisher, 2004; Siegel, 2012). Yet, it seems equally incontrovertible

that what we refer to as “intimacy” varies from person to person and from culture to cul-

ture. Our expectations are socially constructed and shaped by many different contexts—

such as the zeitgeist of our times, cultural and generational norms and values, gender

training, class, race, sexual orientation, and life stage—as well as by developmental mark-

ers in a person’s life. In addition, we can experience intimacy through many different

kinds of activities such as sex, conversation, sharing experiences and routines, and also

through diverse relational processes such as collaboration, caretaking, exposing feelings

and vulnerabilities, listening, and more. It is also the case that the experience of intimacy

can happen in different spheres of a couple’s life such as in the parental, physical, aes-

thetic, religious, or intellectual, to mention a few. Moreover, priorities tend to change in

the course of the life cycle so that yearnings for sexual connection in the initial phase of

the relationship may be surpassed by wishes for effective collaboration during child rear-

ing years, or by dependability in situations of illness, disability (Rolland, 2018), and aging.

Defining intimacy gets even more tricky when we consider that our expectations are

infused with longings and fears that spring from our early attachments, previous lov e

relationships, traumas, and from gender and cultural legacies that tend to operate below

awareness. Above all else, intimacy is contingent on the interplay of the partners’ vulnera -

bilities and their reciprocal defensive strategies (Scheinkman & Fishbane, 2004).

So, What Is Intimacy?

Even linguistically speaking intimacy has many different meanings. The Merriam-

Webster defines intimacy as “something of a personal or private nature.” The Oxford dic-

tionary defines it as “close familiarity and friendship” and it lists togetherness, affinity,

rapport, attachment, companionship, affection, warmth, understanding and also sexual

relations, intercourse, and lovemaking as synonyms.

In the professional literature, many theorists have acknowledged that, as concept,

intimacy is indeed very slippery and difficult to define (Karpel, 1999; Weingarten,

1991; Wynne & Wynne, 1986). In The Intimate Couple Carlson and Sperry (1999a)

preface their edited volume saying: “... there seem to be as many definitions of inti-

macy as there are individuals writing about it” (p. xix). They point out there is not

only a lack of consensus about what intimacy means but also how to approach it clini-

cally. In my view, this is a problem. Without an explicit conceptualization of intimacy,

therapists can only work by default on the basis of personal biases. Without a teach-

able framework to guide the therapist we run the risk of shoehorning couples into

dominant cultural discourses instead of helping them to reflect and decide about their

priorities and yearnings.

In this paper, I use the term intimacy broadly to encompass a range of experiences that

include a sense of connection, feeling known, sharing, togetherness, or belonging. I start

from the assumption that intimacy, in all its variations and turns, is a fundamental

human need and a quality of relationship that couples today expect to have in their lasting

bonds. My focus is not merely on one single moment of intimacy but on the ebb and flow of

connection, disconnection, and reconnection over time. In the following pages I suggest for

the therapist to remain curious about the diversity of intimacies he may encounter, and to

keep in mind the many different situations and contexts through which the partners’

expectations are being sifted, filtered, and experienced.

The Filter of History, and Challenges of the Evolving Paradigm

In Marriage, a History, Coontz (2005) observes that couples relationships have

changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 5,000 years. She reminds

Fam. Proc., Vol. 58, September, 2019

SCHEINKMAN

/

551