The American Journal of Family Therapy, 32:155-172, 2004

Copyright © Taylor & Francis, Inc.

ISSN: 0192-6187 print / 1521-0383 online
DOI: 10.1080/01926180490255819

Therapy with Chinese American Families:

A Social Constructionist Perspective

JOAN D. ATWOOD and BARBARA YEE MAE CONWAY

Marriage and Family Therapy Program, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New
York

This article explores the assumptions made by therapists

adhering
to modernist positions regarding Chinese American
families. The
assumptions from different models of therapy are
presented, along
with the assumptions made from a social constructionist
point of
view that focuses on the client’s meaning system. A social
construc-
tionist therapeutic perspective is explored and applied to
the Chinese
American family.

According to the most recent U.S. Census report, Chinese Americans are
largest Asian American group residing in the United States. A total of 2.7

million people reported Chinese alone or in combination with one or more

other races in a single household (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Due

to the growing population of Chinese Americans in the United States, it

is imperative that mental health professionals be culturally competent in

working with Chinese American families. It is important for them also

to enter into a continual process of trying to understand the family’s
experiences, rather than adhering to their own preconceived assumptions.
This paper explores therapy with Chinese American families from a
social constructionist frame of reference, challenging the accepted
understandings arrived at through traditional methods of observation and
examination. It presents the modernist assumptions regarding Chinese
American families and invites clinicians to challenge the objectivity of
traditional knowledge. The notion of this culture is substituted by the
notion of multiple cultures for Chinese American families. In the later
sections of this paper, a model for social constructionist therapy is presented.

Address correspondence to the first author. Joan D. Atwood, Ph.D., Director of the
Graduate Programs in Marriage and Family Therapy, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New
York. E-mail: jatwood@optonline.net
155
156 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

TYPES OF CHINESE AMERICAN FAMILIES IN THE UNITED STATES

The first assumption challenged in this paper is that there is one type of

Chinese American family. Different members of Chinese American families

came to the United States at different times and exhibit varying degrees

of acculturation. They represent a wide range of cultural values, from very

traditional to very “Americanized” (Berg & Jaya, 1993; Fang & Wark,
1998;
Ho, 1987; Lee, 1997; Sue & Sue, 1999; Wang, 1994). Within the
perspective
of the social constructionist theory, the notion of multiple cultures within
the Chinese American families is considered rather than the idea of “one”
Chinese American culture (Wu, Enders, & Ham, 1997).
According to clinician, Lee (1997), there are five types of Asian
American
families: (1) the traditional family, (2) the cultural conflict family, (3) the
bi-
cultural family, (4) the “Americanized” family, and (5) the interracial
family.
These five types presented below have been used to describe Chinese Amer-
ican families.

The Traditional Family

All family members were born and raised in China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan.
These include families recently arrived with limited exposure to
Western
culture, unacculturated immigrants who are older at time of immigration,

and families living in Chinese communities, such as Chinatown, with

limited
contact with mainstream U.S. society. Family members hold strong beliefs in

traditional values and speak in their native languages and dialects. They may

direct most of their energy to adjusting to a completely new environment.

The Cultural Conflict Family

Family members usually hold different cultural values. China-born
parents
and their American-born children characterize the cultural conflict families.

A typical family consists of parents and grandparents with strong traditional

beliefs and a more acculturated and Westernized younger generation. This

family experiences a great deal of family stress caused by

intergenerational
conflicts caused by the disparity between the children’s and parents’
values
and expectations. Some children may not know or speak their parent’s native

language. These families usually seek help in resolving generational

conflicts,
communication problems, role clarification, and renegotiations. Cultural con-
flicts may be caused by differences in the degrees of acculturation rate of

family members, religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, and political

beliefs.

The Bicultural Family

A majority of these families consist of well-acculturated parents who came to

the United States and are familiar with the American culture. Many of these
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 157

parents grew up in major Chinese cities and were exposed to urbanization,

industrialization, and Western culture influences. Some are American-born,
but raised in traditional families. Such families typically live in the
suburbs and the nuclear family members usually visit their extended family
members on weekends and holidays. They are bilingual and bicultural and
are familiar with both Eastern and Western cultures.

The “Americanized” Family

Most of these families consist of parents and children who are both born and
raised in the United States. As generations pass, traditional Chinese culture
begins to disappear and individual members tend not to maintain their ethnic
identities. Family members communicate in English only and adopt a more
individualistic and egalitarian orientation.

The Interracial Family

As Westernized younger generations of Chinese Americans become more
“Americanized,” the likelihood of interracial and interethnic dating and inter-
marriages is likely to occur (Ho, 1987). In this type of family system,
some
interracial families are able to integrate both cultures with a high degree of

success. However, others may experience conflicts in values, religious

beliefs,
communication style, and child-rearing issues and in-law problems.

MODERNIST PERSPECTIVES

Historically, to understand an individual’s or a family’s psychological

prob-
lems, the focus was mainly on peoples’ experiences, their unique
histories,
or specific early child development. Early psychological approaches, for
ex-
ample, saw behavior as the external manifestation of internal characteristics,

traits, and conflicts, resulting from faulty interactions with early

caretakers.
These early theorists believed that family life influenced one’s
personality,
they also believed that the most influential and dominant forces control-
ling human behavior were the internal, subjective beliefs that one has about

his/her family. They gathered information as a basis for planning interven-

tions, for identifying deficits, weaknesses, or wounds. Therapy in this
view
attempted to change, remediate, or heal.
As the field of psychotherapy evolved to a problem-focused (behav-
ioral or systemic) or a problem-solving perspective, behavior was
explained
within a causal or functional system. The second approach, represented by
the structural family therapists (Minuchin, 1974), focused now on regulat-
ing internal and external boundaries and intergenerational ties, supporting
158 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

the parent’s position in hierarchy, and to structurally couple spouses and

parent-child subsystems within the family while holding onto the notion that
there was a template for “normal” family functioning (Atwood, 1995). Ther-
apy in this case involved work with parents to “help avoid extruding their

difficulties onto a child and pulling them into scapegoat or parentified roles”
(Volgy & Everett, 1985, p. 92). This approach also held the template up of
“normal” family functioning and to it compared the family in therapy, once

again focusing on the family deficits and/or how far this family was from the
“norm.”
The solution focused therapists represent the third approach (deShazer,
1991; Dolan, 1991; Lipchik & deShazer, 1986; O’Hanlon & Weiner-Davis,
1989;
and Walter & Peller, 1992). While adhering to post-modernist assumptions,

these theorists address and focus on the competencies and strengths of the
clients, thereby replacing the focus on dysfunction with a focus on success.
The goals of this brief therapy include helping clients change some of the
intentions or interpretations to new resolutions that can be found to prob-
lems with the family’s complaint. Characterized by finding exceptions
and
asking miracle questions, small steps are often generated to assist the client

in achieving their goals, as client’s commitment to therapy is concretized

by
using “deals” for periods of time and noting tasks on calendars. The premise
is that change in the way the client defines the problem will likely
encour-
age a change in the way the client defines attempts to solve the problem.
In this way, a fertile ground for solutions to grow is established (Furman
Ahola, 1992). This approach too is a deficit one in that instead of focus-
ing on wounds or dysfunctions, it focuses mainly on strengths, thereby also

leaving out half the picture.

Traditional models of therapy, based on modernist or deficit assump-
tions, emphasized absolute knowledge in that the therapist is the expert,
and problems in the family were a result of dysfunctional families or poor

problem-solving strategies, and change occurred as a result of therapeutic

intervention. This view assumes there is a singular truth and if we dig

deeply
enough we can discover it (Atwood, 1995). Bias on the part of the clinician

with respect to diagnosis and treatment was termed “expert opinion,” as no-
tions of normality-abnormality traditionally depended on what the mental

health practitioners said it was (Cheung & Snowden, 1990).

Therapists adhering to this tradition are considered rational, “objective”
experts who gather assessment information about the person or family as
a basis for planning interventions and for identifying deficits,
weaknesses,
and wounds, and if the client does not agree with the therapist’s view, the

client is in denial or resistant (Atwood, 1995). Using the modernist approach

to therapy, the task of the therapist is seen as helping the person or family
deal more effectively with their situation by providing insight, or promoting
differentiation, or clarifying boundaries, or prescribing tasks, or restructuring

cognitions (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000).

 Therapy with Chinese American Families 159

According to researchers and clinicians (Ho, 1987; Lee, 1997; Sue &
Sue,
1999), there are five major factors that contribute directly or indirectly to the
cultural transitional difficulties that lead to the dysfunction in Asian/Pacific

American families, including Chinese American families. These factors

in-
clude economic survival, racism from Americans, loss of extended family

and support system, many cultural conflicts, and cognitive reactive pattern

to a new environment.
The deficit model assumes the family is the “true” problem, and the role
of the “expert” therapist is to help the family fix the “real” problem. In the
expert role, the therapist is not a participant in the system, but an outsider
to the family system, who observes how the Chinese family interacts and

communicates. Based on the therapist’s training and assumptions about the

family’s reality, interventions are then made (Wu, Enders, & Ham, 1997).
Doherty (1991) argued that these prevailing theories of family therapy
reflect their biases and underlying assumptions regarding what constitutes
truth or reality and fails to deal with issues such as gender, ethnicity,
and
the impact of the larger social system, such as political and economic forces.

According to Wu, Enders, and Ham (1997), the notion of this perspective
does not take into account the diversity of cultural experiences, and instead
forces the experiences of Chinese American families into limited and often-
stereotyped categories.
In order to assist therapists in recognizing their biases, below are listed
common assumptions about the Chinese American Family from a modernist
or deficit frame of reference. They are categorized as follows: (1) Some Gen-
eral Assumptions, (2) Therapists’ Assumptions from a Traditional Psycholog-
ical View, (3) Therapists’ Assumptions from a Family System’s Point of
View,
and (4) Therapists’ Assumptions from a Solution Point of View. Next (5) a

social constructionist frame of reference is explored, including a model for

therapy with Chinese American families.

COMMON GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CHINESE AMERICAN

FAMILIES FROM A MODERNIST VIEW

Because of cultural orientation, English-language limitations,

separation from friends and extended kin, and other isolating
environmental factors, the family often provides the sole means of
interaction, socialization, validation, and stabilization.
The more Americanized the Chinese family becomes, the fewer problems
the family will experience, the fewer the family deficits (Wu, Enders,
&
Ham, 1997).
Younger family members are usually more acculturated and Americanized.
They are usually assertive, individualistic, and independent (Lee, 1982).
160 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

The individual goals of the children at times conflict with the family goals
set by the parents (Shon & Ja, 1982; Lee, 1982).
A common issue for Chinese Americans is their level of acculturation and
ethnic-identity status (Leong & Chou).
Lack of a common language may make communication among family
members very difficult (Lee, 1982).
Many of the problems facing Chinese Americans appear to be related to
culture conflicts (Sue & Sue, 1999).
Physical complaints are a common and culturally accepted means of ex-
pressing psychological and emotional stress (Sue & Sue, 1999).
Traditionally oriented Chinese parents still demand to have an active part
in the selection of dating and marriage partners of their children (Sue &

Sue, 1999).
There is a great deal of emphasis placed on academic achievement (Shon
& Ja, 1982; Sue & Sue, 1999).
Problems arise because the family is unable to negotiate or deal with
cultural differences between family members and/or the larger community
(Shon & Ja, 1982; Sue & Sue, 1999).

THERAPISTS’ ASSUMPTIONS FROM A TRADITIONAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW

In order to provide a culturally relevant clinical intervention for Chinese

American families, it is essential to understand the cultural aspects of

Chinese family systems, functions, and their unique life experiences

(Sue
& Sue, 1999).
The clinician should convey expertise and take a much more authoritative
attitude since Chinese family members expect it and view the clinician as
the “problem solver” (Sue & Sue, 1999).
Knowledge of cultural values can help generate hypotheses about the way
a Chinese American might view a disorder and his or her expectations of
treatment (Sue & Sue, 1999).
A family member’s failure to identify and to adhere to a metacommunica-
tive pattern is sure to cause role conflicts and family problems (Ho,
1987).

THERAPISTS’ ASSUMPTIONS FROM A FAMILY SYSTEM VIEW

Differentiation of self is inevitable if one expects to function adequately

in a rapidly changing bicultural environment (Bowen, 1978).
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 161

In joining with a family, the therapist lets himself or herself be organized

by the basic rules that regulate the transactional process in the specific
family system (Ho, 1987).
The Chinese American family is deeply immersed in a family system that
does not stress individuality (Ho, 1987).
Patterns of Chinese American family systems tend to be shaped by
economic, political, and sociocultural factors outside the family system,
rather than determined exclusively by emotional and psychological factors
within the family (Tseng & Hsu, 1991).
As a result of fusion, family members demand too much from each other
and at times fail to meet their own individual needs and to resolve family
problems (Ho, 1987).
The therapist should assist the family or the newly arrived members of the
family in establishing a social support network so that the family or family

member can reestablish a greater sense of “differentiation of self” and at

the same time fulfill the need for social belonging (Bowen, 1978).
It is common for the pain and unresolved conflict of one generation to
be suppressed or denied and then passed on and expressed in the next
generation (Lee, 1982).

THERAPISTS’ ASSUMPTIONS FROM A SOLUTION-FOCUSED VIEW

In response to the deficit model to problems based on modernist assump-

tions, the solution-focused therapies evolved (Atwood, 1995). Adhering to
post-modernist assumptions, solution-focused therapy is in many ways a
therapy of certainty because rather than focusing on problems and deficits,
it encourages the competencies, resources, and strengths of clients, thereby
replacing the deficit assumption with one of success (Atwood, 1995; Jung,

1998).
Solution-focused family therapy is built on the philosophy of social
constructionism (Gladding, 2002; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000; Jung,
1998). This approach to family therapy believes that dysfunctional families

get “stuck” in dealing with problems (deShazer, 1985). These families

ba-
sically are using unsatisfactory methods to solving difficulties (Bubenzer
&
West, 1993). Therefore, the aim of solution-focused therapy is to break such
repetitive, nonproductive behavioral patterns by deliberately setting up situ-
ations in which families take a more positive view of problematic situations

and actively participate in doing something different (Gladding, 2002).

Solution-focused therapists join with the family as the family describes

their situation and the conflict resolution they hope to achieve (Goldenberg
& Goldenberg, 2000). The solution-focused therapist assumes that the family
already knows what they need to do to solve their problems. Therefore,
the therapist’s task is to help the person or family construct a new use for
162 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

knowledge they already have (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000; Jung, 1998).

The focus is on solutions, not problems (Gladding, 2002).

Another premise of solution-focused therapy is that families really want
to change; they resist interpretations or other interventions from the therapist
because they do not seem to fit their reality (deShazer, 1985). More common
assumptions are:

Clients, not the therapists, are the experts on their problems (Jung, 1998).
Although clients may have lost sight of their abilities, they have the
resources and skills to solve their problems (Jung, 1998).
Clients already know what they need to do to solve their complaints
(Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000).
Small changes lead to bigger ones (Jung, 1998; Gladding, 2002).
Hypothetical solutions to their situations help clients move away from a
negative focus and toward a positive one (Gladding, 2002; Jung, 1998).
By exploring the times when a problem did not exist, clients discover what
they can do to expand such exceptions (Gladding, 2002; Jung, 1998).
If change does occur, it can be measured quantitatively on an imaginary

scale and the family members can experience movement (Gladding, 2002;
Jung, 1998).
By highlighting what clients have done on their own implies that small
changes may already have happened (Jung, 1998).

Applied to Chinese American families, these models—traditional models

of therapy and solution-focused therapies—either focus on the deficits or
compare boundaries, rules, and roles (or the lack thereof) against a norm for
healthy American family functioning in an attempt to replace the “problem”
definition with one of competency. The implication throughout though is that
something is wrong with the family if it is not Americanized (Wu, Enders, &

Ham, 1997).
Many Asian Americans have recently challenged this traditional
view.
They are increasingly challenging the concepts of normality and
abnormality
in that they believe that their values and lifestyles are often seen by
American
society as pathological and thus are unfairly discriminated against by
clini-
cians (Sue & Sue, 1999).
When applied to Chinese American families, traditional models of
therapy emphasize a deficit model that looks at problems without considering
the complexities of the many variations of Chinese families’ experiences
while living in the United States. As Kitano (1985) points out, there is no
typical Chinese family. Therapists who operate from the deficit model tend
to look at problems and how to resolve those problems for families.
According to Sue and Sue (1999) the deficit model is the model used
predominantly by clinicians in working with Chinese families.
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 163

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST FRAME OF REFERENCE

Social constructionists believe objectivity is impossible, and that the

thera-
pist who is presumably an outside observer of a family is actually
partaking
in constructing what is observed. Their view helped move the thinking of
many family therapists away from theoretical certainties toward a greater

respect for differences in worldviews between themselves and individuals

within families and between families with different gender, cultural,

ethnic,
or experiential backgrounds (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000).
Social constructionist inquiry emphasizes how the family uses language

in talking about a situation, the evolution of the family’s story, the therapist

as a collaborator, family strengths, and change occurring as a result of a

revision in the family’s story about its experience (Wu, Enders, & Ham,
1997).
According to Cushman (1995), we are “shaped in a fundamental way by
the
social framework in which we have been raised.” The family is not seen
as
being the problem, but how the family talks about a situation (Wu, Enders,
& Ham, 1997). Anderson and Goolishian (1992) believe that language and

dialogue are critical in constructing meaning.

The goal of the social constructionist point of view is to understand the
processes by which people describe, explain, or account for the world they
live (Gergen, 1985). The process of understanding is the result of interaction
in active, cooperative relationships, whereby those “facts” which have been

taken for granted are challenged. (Gergen, 1985). Beliefs about

normally
accepted understandings are arrived at through observation and examination
is deferred. Objectivity of traditional knowledge is challenged (Gergen,
1985).
Social constructionism attempts to break down what seems like fact and open
up the possibility for alternative meanings and understandings (Wu, Enders,
& Ham, 1997).
For clinicians using social constructionist perspective in working with a

family, there is the recognition of the diverse meanings that families attach

to their experiences and an emphasis on identifying resources and strengths

rather than deficits in the family (Wu, Enders, & Ham, 1997). An underlying

premise is that there are many meanings that can be given to a situation and
the therapist’s interpretation of a family’s story is not necessarily the “correct”
account. The role of the clinician, adopting a “not-knowing” position, is to
create a context encouraging exploration of a problem through conversation
and dialogue about the client’s reality and evolving life story (Anderson
&
Goolishian, 1992; Wu, Enders, & Ham, 1997).
Instead of searching for the “truth” about a family, social construction-
ists believe that each family member has his or her own view of “reality”

constructed by individual belief systems that interpret a particular problem.

Therefore, there is no absolute reality, only a set of subjective constructions

created by each family member (Maturana, 1978). The therapist does not
try to change the family’s structure or social conditions that help determine
164 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

family functioning (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000). Change occurs as a

result of a family reexamining their belief systems. As new meaning is
co-
constructed in conversation, new options and possibilities arise (Friedman,

1993).
Anderson and Goolishian (1992) emphasized how communication and
discourse can define social organization. The family is the central unit
of
social organization for the Chinese (Berg & Jaya, 1993; Fang & Wark,
1998;
Ho, 1987; Lee, 1997; Sue & Sue, 1999; Wang, 1994). Instead of attempting
to
change family members, the clinical effort is to engage families in
“conversa-
tions” about their problems so that they can feel empowered to change them-
selves by becoming aware of, and accommodating to, each other’s needs,
wishes, and belief systems (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988). Therefore, the

clinician views a Chinese American family culture as a collaborative

process
of exploration, understanding, and interpretation

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CHINESE AMERICANS BASED

ON A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST FRAME

“There is no one “typical” Chinese American family” (Lee, 1997, p.

255). There are many individual differences among Chinese American
families, and they represent a wide range of cultural values from very
traditional to very “Americanized” (Lee, 1997).
There are many meanings that can be given to any situation.
The family is the “expert” at revealing its story.

THERAPY FLOWING FROM A POSITION OF UNCERTAINTY

Therapy from a position of uncertainty assumes that the therapist adopts

a “not-knowing” position which entails an interest and curiosity about the
client’s reality and evolving life story (Wu, Enders, & Ham, 1997).
A family is viewed as having unique knowledge about itself, its
problems, and its ability to function in the world; and could therefore possess
the ability to make its own changes once it becomes re-acquainted with its
own knowledge through dialogue (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2000).
Any system in therapy (both the family and therapist) is one that has
coalesced around a “problem” and will be engaged in evolving language and

meaning specific to its organization and specific to its solution around the
“problem” (Anderson & Goolishian, 1998). For example, Anderson (1993)
identified several elements of a social constructionist therapeutic conversa-
tion that includes:
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 165

the therapist allowing the client to be center stage, leading with their story
as they want to tell it, without the therapist guiding the discussion by what
he/she thinks is important,
the therapist is a respectful listener who learns and understands the family’s

stories and frame of the situation and converses in the family’s language

and metaphors to join and create a comfortable environment,

the therapist asks questions, the answers to which require new questions
and open up other ways to talk about the familiar, and
the therapist takes the responsibility for the creation of a conversation
context that permits for mutual collaboration in the problem-defining and
-solving process.

CASE MATERIAL

Ashley is a 34-year-old Chinese American woman married to Michael,

a
38-year-old Caucasian man. Ashley and Michael have been married for
four
years. The couple has a four-year-old son named Joey. By listening and

learning the couple’s language and stories about the problem, the therapist
joined the couple in the first stage of therapy. The couple has not had an
intimate relationship for almost two years. Michael is a carpenter and Ashley

is a Guidance Counselor in a public school. Currently Ashley is attending

graduate school two nights a week. Because of their mutual emotional un-
happiness with their relationship and their concern for their son, the couple
came to therapy as a last resort to “save their marriage” before taking the

step toward filing for a divorce.

Prior to getting married, the couple had dated for a year. Along with her
brothers, Ashley was born and raised in the United States in a predominantly
White suburban community. Except for family friends, all of Ashley’s
close
friends are Caucasian. She has only been attracted to Caucasian men for

romantic partners, never dating anyone within the Chinese culture.

Ashley’s
parents objected to Ashley dating Michael because he was not Chinese. Her

parents were born and raised in China. Ashley’s father came to the United
States at the age of 12 and after her marriage to Ashley’s father,
Ashley’s
mother migrated to the United States at the age of 20.
Ashley was five months pregnant when she married Michael. Ashley re-
ports that she does not feel safe and secure in her relationship with Michael
saying that their relationship is “hard to deal with even while we dated.” She

explains how Michael’s angry outbursts and verbal insults toward her intim-
idate her when “he feels that I say or do something against him.” Ashley

recalled a recent moment when they were on a family vacation and Michael

yelled and cursed at her when she questioned him about the direction of
where he was driving when she thought he was driving in the wrong direc-
tion. When she brought it to his attention, Michael became extremely angry.
166 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

Michael also angrily yelled at others when he felt that they did something he

did not like or something “against him.” Ashley spoke about a time Michael
had angrily yelled at a gentleman at a gas station because Michael
thought
that “he was taking too long to pump his gas.” Two months prior to getting
pregnant, due to Ashley’s insecurities about their relationship, Ashley and

Michael had broken up, but reconciled after Michael started going to therapy

to work on “his issues.”

Ashley admits that she was considering ending their relationship before
learning she was pregnant. According to Ashley, during the first trimester

of her pregnancy, she was “miserable.” She vomited throughout the day
everyday throughout the first three months of her pregnancy, causing her
to be very tired and physically drained. Ashley admits that during that time

she was hoping that she “would have a miscarriage” because she “did not
want to be a mother.” Ashley had just started a new job a month before
learning she was pregnant and she was planning on continuing her studies
in graduate school. She believed that “having a baby would interfere with her

future plans.” Ashley reports that when she announced to her family that she
was having a baby, they were very “disappointed” in her. They felt that
she
“shamed” the family because she not only had sex before marriage, but also
was having a baby out of wedlock and the father of the child was not Chinese.
Her mother suggested that she have an abortion, but Ashley decided to have
the baby fearing that if she got an abortion she would regret her decision
later. Although “they had problems” in their relationship, Michael reports that
he was happy to hear that he was going to be a father because he “loved”
Ashley and wanted a child. He felt that before meeting Ashley, he “was never

going to have his own family.”

During her fourth month of pregnancy, to “save face” Ashley’s parents
told family relatives and friends that Ashley “was married a few
months
ago” and did not have a wedding so that she and Michael could save
money for a house. They also planned on announcing to everyone that
Ashley and Michael were expecting a child just before their son was
born.
Ashley did not learn of her parents’ scheme until her parents gave her gifts

and money from relatives and family friends that were sent to her for the
“wedding.” Interpersonal relationships in the traditional Chinese culture are
based on “shame” and “saving face.” Shame and saving face are motiva-
tors for individuals to conform to family and societal expectations (Berg &

Jaya, 1993; Chae, 2001/2002). Ashley’s parents “pressured” the couple to

get
married.
When asked what problems he saw in their relationship, Michael indi-
cated, “We weren’t getting along. Ashley was sick. We were in no position
to
get married then because we didn’t really have the money.” Ashley used
her
money to buy the house and the couple paid for the wedding themselves.
Michael said that he felt a lot of pressure from her parents. “They’re always

telling us what to do.”

 Therapy with Chinese American Families 167

Michael came from an abusive and alcoholic family. His

parents’
marriage fell apart just before he was born and his mother remarried when
he was eight years old. He has been “cut off” from his biological father

for over ten years, stating, “He was never there for me.” He describes
his relationship with his mother as being “very close,” but she “drank a

lot” during his childhood. He describes his relationship with his stepfather
as being “bad.” Up until he was sixteen, his stepfather emotionally and

physically abused him. Michael reports that “even now as a grown man,

he cringes around him sometimes and get scared when he asks him for
help.” Michael reasons that his angry outbursts toward Ashley are his
way
of gaining control since he didn’t have any around his stepfather. Michael

is seeing a therapist for individual therapy to work on his “anger” and

“family issues.”
In the second stage of therapy, Ashley and Michael were asked to
tell their story about their perception of the situation, their story about
their present family relationships, and their story about what they see

for their future so that the therapist can understand the couple’s frames
of the situation. This allows the opportunity for Ashley and Michael to
learn of the multiple perspectives existing in their relationship. Feeling

“family pressure” from Ashley’s parents, Michael and Ashley decided to

marry. Although Ashley “did not want to get married,” she explains that she
“had to do what was right for my family and pay for my mistake.” When
asked what “mistake” she had made, Ashley said, “Being with Michael

(a non-Chinese) against her parents’ wishes and getting pregnant with

his child.” Ashley and Michael had a very informal wedding. Although

Ashley’s parents, especially her mother wanted them to have a

traditional
Chinese wedding banquet, the couple were wed by a town judge and had
their reception at a small Italian restaurant attended by 50 close
family
and friends. It was learned that Ashley dreamed of “having a big, elegant

wedding.”
Ashley’s story about her present life is filled with disappointment, unhap-
piness, insecurity, and anger because she feels that Michael and her
family
caused this situation. Feeling “trapped” in a “hopeless” marriage because

Michael is “always yelling at me and putting me down,” Ashley wants to

get
a divorce. When asked to define “trapped,” Ashley says that she doesn’t see
Michael’s behavior changing for the better and she is afraid to “disappoint”

her family and is “afraid” to tell them how she feels about her marriage.

Within the traditional Chinese culture, if a family member has feelings that

might disrupt family harmony, s/he is expected to restrain those feelings

(Leong & Chou). When asked what she thinks will happen if she did tell
her family about how she feels, Ashley says that they would not want her

to do anything that would “shame” the family again, therefore they would
not want her to get a divorce. So that disappointment is a theme running
throughout Ashley’s story. When asked if she thinks that her family wants
168 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

her to continue being “yelled at and put down” by Michael, Ashley says that

if they knew he was doing that they would not want that for her.
Michael’s story about his present life is also filled with
disappointment, unhappiness, insecurity, and anger because he feels that
Ashley caused this situation. Michael acknowledged that he “gets very
angry and loses control” when he feels someone is “hurting” him or doing
something “against” him that he needs to “defend myself.” He wants to
make changes in how he handles those situations that make him
uncomfortable so that he “can be a good father and not frighten his son or
make him feel that he can’t come to me for anything.” Michael’s belief of
being a “good father” is questioned. When asked what he thinks a “good
father” is, Michael stated, “A father that is a “good role model” to his son.
A father who supports and encourages his son’s decisions, looks out for
him, and loves him no matter what.” When asked if he thinks he is a “good
father,” Michael responds, “I think I’m an okay father.” When asked what
makes him think he’s “an okay father,” Michael responds, “I think I’m
pretty good with Joey. I’m not as patient as Ashley, but I try to be good. I
know at times when I can’t handle him, I get angry and yell at him and
that bothers me. I want to change that. I love Joey and I don’t want to
ever treat him the way I was treated. I never want to hurt him. I spend a
lot of time with Joey, especially when Ashley goes to school. I’ll take him
to the park if it’s nice outside. I read to him, play with him. Things a
father should do with his kids. I would hate it if I couldn’t be with him.”
When asked if he thinks that when he “gets angry and loses control” is he
being a “good role model” to his son. Michael said, “No.” Michael feels
neglected in his marriage, believing that Ashley should be spending
more time with him and their son. He wants her to stop going to school,
feeling that since she recently received her Master’s degree she no longer
needs to continue with her graduate studies. He feels that it is interfering
with Ashley’s responsibilities to him and their son. Michael has contemplated
infidelity to resolve his feelings of neglect and loneliness. He believes
that it is “wrong,” but reasons that Ashley “does not care about me and
she is not a real wife anyway.” When asked to define “a real wife,”
Michael says that Ashley should be more “intimate and respectful” toward
him. He feels that he and their son should be Ashley’s “first priority,”
therefore she should forget about school. When asked if he feels “first
priority” to Ashley on the days she does not go to school, Michael said,
“Yeah. She is more “attentive.” When asked, “So it sounds to me like Ashley
is making you her “first priority” when she is not going to school because she
is “more attentive” toward you on the days she doesn’t have school. Is that
correct?” Michael agrees. When asked, “How is she “more attentive?”
Michael responds, “She is around. We do things as a family. We get
along.” When asked if he thinks Ashley is “intimate and respectful”
toward him when he “gets angry and loses control” at her because she is
“against him” by going to school. He said, “No, I guess she wouldn’t be, but
she always does what she wants. She never listens to
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 169

what I say.” When asked, “When Ashley does not go to school; does that
mean she is “respectful” toward you because she is listening to what you
want?” Michael agrees. When asked, “So Ashley is only “respectful” to
you
when she “listens to you.”” Michael said, “Yes. No. I don’t know. She has

“supported” me and “been there,” but when she goes to school she gets
stressed, especially toward the end of the semester. Always at the end of a
semester, we fight, because she takes out her stress out on me.” The whole
house is tense.” When asked, “So you don’t think she is “respectful” to you

when she is “stressed?” ” Michael said, “No, because she’ll say that I am not

helping her out and I’m not doing anything. Meanwhile I’m the one who is

with Joey all the time when she’s at school or working on a paper for school.

I clean the dishes, and tidy the house, but she thinks I don’t do anything. I’m
fed up. She has no respect for me. Ashley’s parents also feel that she should
stop going to school and devoting more time to “her marriage and being a
mother.”
Ashley’s beliefs about “marriage” and “being a mother” are questioned.
Ashley defined “marriage” as a partnership between two people with love,

support, encouragement, understanding, and respect between them. When

asked if she thinks her “marriage” has those ingredients. She stated, “No. I
feel as though Michael never likes anything I do unless it’s something
he
wants. Sometimes I feel manipulated by him because he tries to make me
feel bad about things because he’ll say that I just think he’s the “wrong one”

when that’s not true. I feel that’s his way of getting me to change my mind

and take blame for everything that goes wrong. He never seems to take
responsibility for things he does. I know that I am not perfect and that I’ve
made some bad decisions and done some bad things in our marriage, but
I’m trying. I have “been there” for him in many ways. I supported him when
he went back to school. I try to plan family vacations. I helped him get out
of debt. I don’t know. I tried, but I just don’t like being around him. He
has a lot of issues that he carries with him from his childhood and I feel
that I can’t handle them anymore. I don’t like the way he talks to me and
makes me feel.” Ashley admits that her attending graduate school
allows
her to “get away from Michael” and “avoid dealing with her problems,” but
she enjoys “learning and being in school.” However, she also feels guilty for

not spending as much time with her son as she “should.” Because of her
guilt feelings for not “being there” for her son, Ashley tends to shop for toys
and clothes for him on a frequent basis. She also spends a lot of “mommy
and Joey time” on the weekends doing things with her son and neglecting

her schoolwork and housework to do that. When asked how much time
she thinks she “should” be spending with her son, Ashley responded with,
“I don’t know. When I’m not in school or at work I am with him. On the
weekends I am with him. Most of the time I feel that I spend a lot of time with
him, but Michael and my parents think I don’t because I am going to school.
I feel that Joey and I have a close relationship. I love Joey. He’s everything
170 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

to me.” When asked, “So being a “devoted mother” means spending more
quantity of time with her son,” Ashley said, “No. The quality of time. I
play and read to Joey. I take him with me when I have to run errands.”
The next stage of therapy involves Ashley and Michael describing how
it could be for them in the future and how it is for them now if it is a “mar-
riage” and “family” they want—to re-state their complaints in terms of what

they want from each other. For example, Michael wants Ashley to be more

respectful to him; he wants to feel more important to her. He would like their
intimate relationship to be increase and be more substantive. Ashley wants
Michael to be more respectful and caring of her. She wants him to understand
her drive for education and wants him to be more supportive of her endeav-
ors. By doing this, restating their negative feelings into what they want from

each other, the couple can co-create a new, more positive, construction of
their relationship and family. Prior to this stage of therapy, the couple’s story

was entrenched in a negative view, with both blaming the other for the prob-
lems they were experiencing in the relationship. Neither of them was taking

responsibility for what they were adding to the negative story. Once the

couple began to verbalize what they “wanted in the relationship” rather than
what they did not want, the relationship began to improve. They both began
to see how they were contributing to the ongoing negative story as well as

how Ashley’s parents were adding to the stress and tension they both were
feeling. In addition they began to focus on how they had both decided to
marry and have their son in spite of the enormous pressure from Ashley’s par-
ents to do otherwise. They were beginning to focus on each other as a team.
By the last stage of therapy, the couple began to “get in touch” with
the reasons why they fell in love in the first place. Michael was learning
to
express himself in more positive ways, without utilizing his anger response.

Ashley was learning to disengage from her parental pressure. As this

occurred, the couple began bonding together and respecting each other in
a new way. Conversation during this last stage of therapy involved
assisting
the couple with the stabilization of these new meaning systems.

SUMMARY

The present article explored some of the difficulties involved in a Chinese

American marriage, along with the myths inherent in this type of system.

Different theoretical perspectives were presented and a social constructionist

perspective was utilized. Case material was presented that illustrated
this
perspective.
 REFERENCES

Anderson, H. D. (1993). Collaborative language systems therapy. Conference at

Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa. April 1993.
 Therapy with Chinese American Families 171

Anderson, H. D., & Goolishian, H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic

systems:
Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory.
Family
Process, 27, 371-393.
Anderson, H. D., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing

approach of therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social

construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Productions, Inc.

Atwood, J. D. (1995). A social constructionist approach to counseling the single

parent family. Journal of Psychotherapy, 6(3), 1-32.

Berg, I. K., & Jaya, A. (1993). Different and same: Family therapy with Asian-
American
families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(1), 31-38.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason
Aronson.
Bubenzer, D. L., & West, J. D. (1993). Counseling couples. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
Publications.
Chae, M. H. (2001/2002). Acculturation conflicts among Asian Americans: Implica-
tions for practice. The New Jersey Journal of Professional Counseling,
56, 24-30. Cheung, F. K., & Snowden, L. R. (1990). Community mental health
and ethnic mi-
nority populations. Community Mental Health Journal, 26, 277-291.
Cushman, P. (1995). The social construction of the therapeutic self: Constructing the
self, constructing America. [Online]. Available: http://www.fortda.org/fall 00/
socialconstruct.html.
deShazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
Doherty, W. J. (1991). Family therapy goes postmodern. Family Networker,
15(5),
36-42.
Everett, C., & Volgy, S. (1998). Healthy divorce: For parents and children
—an origi-
nal, clinically proven program for working through the fourteen
stages of sepa-
ration, divorce, and remarriage. NY: Jossey-Bass.
Fang, S-R. S., & Wark, L. (1998). Developing cross-cultural competence with
tradi-
tional Chinese Americans in family therapy: Background information and
the
initial therapeutic contact. Contemporary Family Therapy, 20(1), 59-77.
Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1993). The new language of change: Constructive
collaboration
in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Furman, B., & Aloha, T. (1992). Solution talk: Hosting therapeutic
conversations.
New York: Norton.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social construction movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.

Gladding, S. T. (2002). Family therapy: History, theory, and practice (3rd
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (2000). Family therapy: An overview (5th
ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with Asian/Pacific Americans. In M. K. Ho
(Series
Ed.), Family therapy with ethnic minorities (Vol. 5, pp. 24-68). Newbury
Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hong, G. K. (1989). Application of cultural and environmental issues in family ther-
apy with immigrant Chinese Americans. Journal of Strategic and
Systemic Ther-
apies, 8, 14-21.
Jung, M. (1998). Chinese American family therapy: A new model for
clinicians. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.
172 J. D. Atwood and B. Yee Mae Conway

Kitano, H. L. (1985). Race relations. Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lee, E. (1982). A social systems approach to assessment and treatment for Chinese

American families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, & J. Giordano (Eds.),

Ethnicity
and family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Lee, E. (1996a) Asian American families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick, J.
Giordano,
& J. K. Pearce (Eds.). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford
Press.
Lee, E. (1996b). Chinese families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & J. K.
Pearce
(Eds.). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Lee, E. (1997). Chinese American families. In E. Lee (Ed.), Working with
Asian
Americans: A guide for clinicians. New York: Guilford Press.
Leong, F. T. L., & Chou, E. L. (date unknown). Counseling Chinese Americans.
[On-
line]. Available: http://ericcass.uncg.edu/virtuallib/diversity/1061.html.
Lipchik, E., & deShazer, S. (1986). The purposeful interview. Journal of
Strategic and
Systemic Therapies, 5, 27-41.
Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G.
A.
Miller & E. Lennenberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought.

New York: Academic Press.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard
University
Press.
Shon, S. P., & Ja, D. Y. (1982). Asian families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, &
J.
Giordano (eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling Asian Americans. In D. W. Sue & D.
Sue,
Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3rd ed.).
New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tseng, G. W., & Hsu, J. (1991). Culture and family. New York: Haworth Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Asian population: 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race.html.
Wang, L. (1994). Marriage and family therapy with people from China.
Contemporary
Family Therapy, 16(1), 25-37.
Wu, S-J., Enders, L. E., & Ham, M. A. D-C. (1997). Social construction inquiry in
family
therapy with Chinese Americans. Journal of Family Social Work, 2(2), 111-128.