Contextualizing the Study of Marital Transformation: Points of Convergence

Key Words: commitment, conflict, marriage, relationship processes, religion, satisfaction. We are heartened that our effort to stimulate a broadly based discussion of future marital research has attracted such a distinguished response. Each of those writing a commentary joins us in welcoming an expanded focus for our field. The level of discourse in the commentaries indicates that the marital area is ready for a new level of integration that weaves together many disparate threads of inquiry into a brilliant, new tapestry. It is also clear mat there is a willingness to engage one another across many of the usual divides in our field. We thank each of the participants for their openness to our proposals and their constructive contributions to this emerging discussion. Despite clear differences in theoretical commitments and conceptual starting points, there is striking convergence on the desirability of moving beyond a unidimensional focus on salient, negative aspects of marital interaction as we attempt to better understand the determinants of strong, healthy marital relationships and the way they benefit husbands and wives. Below, we highlight points of convergence and difference between our position and those offered in the comments. Even when there are points of potential disagreement, there is much in the responses to stimulate our thinking and to suggest fruitful future directions for the field. One striking point of convergence is that social context is likely to influence transformative processes. The comments extend our analysis in three important ways. First, the comments (especially Amato, 2007; Hill, 2007; Kamey, 2007) suggest specific contextual domains, such as social disadvantage, race, and gender that may influence or constrain the transformative processes we highlight, and that connect our analysis outward to social structure. second, the comments (especially Kamey; Howe, 2007) highlight processes, such as situational or chronic priming effects, that may account for contextual effects on transformative processes, and that connect our analysis inward to intraindividual mechanisms. Third, the comments (especially Amato, 2007; Hill) highlight historical features, such as the growth of individualism, to explain why transformative processes are particularly important now. Together, the comments provide clues for a cross-culturally and cross-temporally relevant theory of successful marital relationships, a goal well beyond the one we set for ourselves but one we wholeheartedly endorse. SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE, RACE, AND GENDER Building on the existing literature and embedding a discussion of transformative processes in the context of social inequality and race is likely to have important conceptual ramifications, and is a welcomed and crucial challenge to the field. One important opportunity to respond to this challenge is offered by examples of resilience within the African American community. In finding ways to survive racism and nonsupportive governmental policy, married couples in the African American community may have developed strategies to sustain marriage that are, of necessity, stronger than those utilized by their counterparts in White America. In particular, marriage is held in very high regard in the African American community, and this community is eager for culturally sensitive approaches for strengthening marriage (Karney, Garven, & Thomas, 2003). Recognition of the value placed on marriage in social contexts where one might have anticipated apathy (based merely on demographic trends) suggests the potential for scholars in the marital area to learn important new lessons about resilience and the role of social context. The strong correlation between religious involvement and healthy marriage in the African American community (Brody & Flor, 1996; Taylor, Mattis, & Chatters, 1999) is remarkably understudied by sociologists and social psychologists, and is worthy of additional examination. …