This special issue is dedicated to the life and work of Rosmarie Welter-Enderlin-my dear friend, collaborator and inspiration for a Family Therapy at once anchored in relevant personal and cultural history and capable of flight carrying us to a previously unimagined future.

My vision for this special issue of Family Process devoted to new ideas in Couple and Family Therapy theory and practice is that the nine invited and peer-reviewed papers stimulate our thinking and provoke fresh questions. This collection is not intended to give a set of directions or require new ideologies. This particular medley of papers is a slice of theory and practice today. And while I believe readers will find it to be a juicy slice, rich with creativity and commitment to more full lives for our clients, it is, of necessity, partial. I am hopeful that theorists and practitioners will view this issue as a statement of the journal’s desire to be at the forefront of clinical knowledge for our multi-disciplinary field.

When I began my tenure as editor in 2004, submissions were three-quarters research papers and one quarter theory and practice papers. In 2010, the ratio of research and theory and practice submissions remains the same. I have wanted greater numbers of papers containing sparkling and exciting family therapy theory and practice models, critiques of prevailing ideas, novel approaches and contemporary concepts capable of embracing changing demographics and relationship choices and dilemmas. And while evidence-based or evidence-informed practice is de rigueur, I believe there must remain opportunities for surprise capable of informing the next round of research.

Most of the papers in this collection contain rich and varied accounts of couples and families in therapy. I love reading stories of wonderful therapy, reflective of the struggles, courage and imagination of both therapists and families. The therapy represented here arises from complex thinking, careful reflection, questioning truisms and the audacity to step out of line.

On the eve of the 50th anniversary of Family Process in 2011, the papers comprising this special issue highlight fluid definitions of self and relationships that I more often hear from my students today. Rejecting binary splits, such as gay or straight (Iasenza, 2010; Lev, 2010), religious or non-religious (Walsh, 2010), new definitions reflect the rumpled edges of lived experience, where approximations replace absolutes, and meanings are negotiable without being solipsistic.

Several of the papers pay exquisite attention to the ways that we enter and take initial steps towards our part of shaping relationships with couples and families (Iasenza, 2010; Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt, 2010; Lev, 2010; Roberts, 2010; and Watts-Jones, 2010). A reprise of joining, so crucial in Family Therapy practice from the start, these particular papers bring us deep reflections on the myriad processes with which we identify ourselves in relationship to our clients, and the impact of how we enter on the process of therapy.

Such awareness of initial relationship building leads easily to a focus on developing a sense of self, and the experience of being known by others who matter to us. Watts-Jones (2010) calls our attention to intersectionality in the therapist-family system, and how, by speaking the previously unspeakable, the therapist may enable clients to do likewise. Redefining masculinity with Latino men, Falicov (2010) challenges us to re-think narrow and limiting conceptualizations of gender and culture, thereby freeing men from stereotypical definitions and allowing them to experience greater relational complexity. Iasenza (2010), Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt, (2010) and Walsh, (2010) all bring to our attention new ways for couples to live expansive relationships, removing the constraints of rigid roles and rules. Challenging the hetero-normative values that have underpinned research on lesbian parents, Lev (2010) demonstrates how the power of questioning our assumptions can enable families to embrace difference rather than seek to reduce it.

Several of the papers underscore the family therapist’s responsibility to intervene in broader social inequalities as part of the process of change (Dickerson, 2010;Falicov, 2010; Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt, 2010; Roberts, 2010; and Ungar, 2010). Highlighting family therapy as social intervention, these authors reflect commitments of our field that stretch back to the feminist critique, whose clarion call was originally published in this journal (Hare-Mustin, 1978 ). Knudson-Martin and Huenergardt (2010) offer us a new Couple Therapy model, Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy, designed to intervene and alter inequalities in couples. Their work effectively re-engages us with power and challenges outmoded notions of neutrality. Roberts (2010), eschewing hierarchy, offers us an approach for consultation with highly marginalized and abjectly poor families and their workers in Central and South America. Facilitating and participating, Roberts demonstrates the paradox of non-hierarchical expertise. Ungar’s (2010) Social Ecological model offers a research-informed approach to enable resilience in oppressed families.

Dickerson (2010) offers a carefully constructed critique of the concept of integration of theoretical models and methods of practice. Warning us away from the muddled thinking stirred in eclectic soup, Dickerson offers us new connections and disconnections of particular epistemologies with theory and practice. In asking us to think about our thinking, she leads the way to the next generation of models.

This issue of Family Process, coming as it does in a year that also marks a decade, makes me wonder what the next decade of theory and practice in our field will bring. What will families and communities require? How will we respond? As evidenced in our daily newspapers, magazines, television, the internet and this collection of papers, we live in a time of cultural and familial transitions. Many experience life less certain of previous seeming inevitabilities. Such uncertainty can all too easily lead to rigidity, backlash, and demands for conformity, whether to family and cultural rules or to a model of practice. Or it can enable the generative and humane responses that have underpinned an evolving Family Therapy.

References

Dickerson, V. (2010). Positioning oneself within an epistemology: Refining our thinking about integrative approaches. Family Process, 49 ,

Falicov, C. (2010). Changing constructions of machismo for Latino men in therapy: “The devil never sleeps”. Family Process, 49,

Hare-Mustin, R. (1978). A feminist approach to family therapy. Family Process, 17, 181-193.

Iasenza, S. (2010). What’s queer about sex?: Expanding sexual frames in theory and practice. Family Process, 49,

Knudson-Martin, C. and Huenergardt, D. (2010). A socio-emotional approach to couple therapy: Linking social context and couple interaction. Family Process, 49,

Lev, A. I. (2010). How queer – the development of gender identity and secual orientation in LGBTQ-headed families. Family Process, 49,

Roberts, J. (2010). Teaching and learning with therapists who work with street children and their families. Family Process, 49,

Ungar, M. (2010). Navigators and negotiators: Facilitating culturally and contextually specific expressions of resilience. Family Process, 49,

Walsh, F. (2010). Spiritual diversity: Multifaith perspectives in family therapy. Family Process, 49

Watts-Jones, t. D. (2010). Opening the door to dialogue on intersectionality in the therapy process. Family Process, 49,

CALL FOR PAPERS:

Now is the time to submit your best research, theory and practice manuscripts to Family Process for review and possible inclusion in the historic 50th anniversary volume of 2011.