Acta Sociologica

http://asj.sagepub.com/

Scripts for the 'good couple': Individualization and the reproduction of gender
inequality
Sara Eldn
Acta Sociologica 2012 55: 3
DOI: 10.1177/0001699311427745

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://asj.sagepub.com/content/55/1/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Nordic Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Acta Sociologica can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://asj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://asj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/55/1/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 3, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012

Article
Acta Sociologica
55(1) 318
Scripts for the good couple: The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Individualization and the DOI: 10.1177/0001699311427745
asj.sagepub.com
reproduction of gender
inequality

Sara Elden
Department of Sociology, Lund University, Sweden

Abstract
Theorists of late modernity discuss the effects of individualization on heterosexual couples.
Processes of individualization are understood in terms of the individualized framework of
thinking about self and others permeating Western societies. Sociological analyses of therapeutic
manuals appoint them as both a symptom and an effect of individualization processes. In popular
therapy, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim encounter evidence of individualism and the disappearance of
scripts for a life together (protecting me against us), while Anthony Giddens sees potentials for
a democratic, pure and gender-equal couple. Their dispute can be settled by analysing construc-
tions of the couple when the therapy manuals are put into action. The case in question is Swedish
popular therapy as it appears in TV programmes with real couples. Analyses of the ongoing
interactions demonstrate how new scripts for heterosexual couples are emerging, scripts
that hold elements of both traditional and late modern societies and relationships. In these,
a normal fantasy of the couple is (re)produced, not in the form of traditional authoritarian
scripts but in individualized notions of what is a good, normal and happy life, a fantasy that is
the responsibility of the individual/couple to complete. Individualized assumptions enable
(an indirect) reproduction of stereotypes and inequalities of the genders, e.g. regarding
unequal divisions of domestic work, with reference to what is best for a specific individual
or couple. The author argues for the necessity of revaluing both understandings of individua-
lization in sociological theories and the workings of individualized narratives on cultural and
individual levels.

Keywords
couple relationships, gender inequality, popular therapy, theories of individualization,
therapeutic culture

Corresponding Author:
Sara Elden, Department of Sociology, Box 114, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
Email: sara.elden@soc.lu.se

Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012

4 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

Introduction

The TV camera zooms in onto an armchair piled high with laundry. A man stands next to the armchair, fold-
ing clothes while looking straight at the camera:

Madeleine doesnt think I see what needs to be done here, he says.

The voice of a woman is heard in the background.
It feels like Im giving instructions to a child, the woman says.

An image appears of the same man and a woman at the kitchen table.
Im just trying to figure out what your expectations are, the man says.
Its not like youve never seen a washing machine before, the woman replies in a weary voice.

Back to the man folding and sorting the pile of laundry. The camera follows him as he walks from the washing
machine back to the armchair. More clean clothes are put on top of the pile thats already there.
How should I know what she wants? Im not blind, of course, I live here, too, and I can see what its like,
but . . . you cant tell me that I have to value things the same way she does.1

The phenomenon of real-life, ordinary couples doing battle and receiving therapy to solve their problems
on TV would have seemed bizarre just a few years ago, but forms part of the everyday TV experience
today. Therapists, life-coaches and other experts not only on TV, but also in magazines, self-help
books and other media are eager to share their analysis of what is wrong in peoples lives, and to offer
methods, tools and solutions to achieve a happy life. The above excerpt is from a Swedish TV programme
entitled Between You and Me (Mellan dig och mig), in which couples were filmed before, during and
after receiving therapy. The man and the woman, Markus and Madeleine, were as is obvious from the
excerpt quarrelling about housework. The experts analysis of the problem was that Madeleine had a
need to control and, after offering various tools for the couple to work with, the experts and the view-
ers leave them, harmoniously laughing over a romantic dinner.
Therapeutic thinking plays a significant role in todays cultural, individual and also sociological nar-
ratives. The terminology of therapy has entered into everyday language and gained the status of common
sense, making it almost impossible to avoid. Expressions such as increase your self-esteem, work on
yourself, find your inner self or talk it through have become taken-for-granted truths for the pursuit
of a happy life and happy relationships (Furedi, 2004; Johansson, 2006). Originally belonging to psycho-
logical science and practice, therapeutic ways of thinking have spread to other areas, both professional
(such as family counselling, social work and various coaching services) and, increasingly, to popular
culture (Gauntlett, 2002; Johansson, 2006; Rose, 1999; White, 1992). In popular culture, therapeutic nar-
ratives play a significant role in constructing and reproducing images of the good life, as well as meth-
ods of how to realize this. At the centre of therapeutic thinking is the autonomous individual: the
assumption that everyone has the potential to achieve happiness if he/she with the help of therapeutic
expertise overcomes the blockage of self-realization (Gill, 2007; Rose, 1999).
In sociological theories of individualization and the future of family and intimate relationships, pop-
ular therapeutic thinking and culture have come to play a significant role. Popular therapeutic manuals
for heterosexual couples have been declared a symptom and an effect of individualization processes,
both argued to be evidence of individualism and the end of scripts for a life together (Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim, 1995, 2002), and, on the contrary, to hold the potential for a more democratic,
gender-equal couple (Giddens, 1992).
In this article, popular therapeutic culture for couples is analysed. Taking my point of departure in
the somewhat divergent analyses provided by the theorists of individualization, I carry out a critical
4
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 5

analysis of the constructions of the good couple in popular therapy. In particular, I analyse the
paradoxical relation between, on the one hand, individualized gender-neutral assumptions about the cou-
ple, and, on the other, the reproduction of gender inequality. The empirical material for this investigation
is Swedish popular therapeutic culture for couples, a discourse that I argue is of great interest considering
the long-standing history of an ideology of gender equality in Sweden.

Individualization theories and the threat or promise of popular

therapy
Through the metaphor of individualization, Anthony Giddens (1992), Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth
Beck-Gernsheim (1995, 2002) draw a picture of changes in heterosexual relationships from a traditional
to a modern and late modern marriage and couple relationship. This historical narrative has a long
history in sociological theorizing on the family, e.g. in Parsons (1971) structural functionalist model of
the normal family (cf. Roman, 2004). As Gross (2005) argues, theories of modernization went out of
fashion in the 1960s and 1970s, but reappeared in the early 1990s in theories on post and late modernity
and focusing in particular on changes in the private sphere (cf. Bauman, 2003; Castells, 2000). In the-
ories of individualization, marriage is suggested as having shifted from an economic to an emotional
unit: feelings of love and satisfaction rather than economic necessity make a man and woman stay
together today, it is argued. Earlier scripts on how to run ones life and relationships have disappeared,
leaving the individual with (at least the impression of) endless choices and possibilities of constructing
ones self-biography. Individualization also brings the ideal of gender equality to the fore: since both
men and women enter the paid labour market, an equal sharing of housework and care of children is
assumed to follow.
Both Beck and Beck-Gernsheim and Giddens refer to popular therapeutic discourse as a symptom and
an expression of the effects of individualization. However, they interpret the discourse in different ways.
Beck and Beck-Gernsheim see evidence of radical individualism. The relationship work they see
promoted in their analysis of self-help books, where [c]ouples have to get involved in a continuing
dialogue to find compatible definitions of love and marriage, is indeed aimed at helping couples stay
together, but the actual message of the books is, according to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, not to give
advice for a life together but rather to stress the importance of protecting me against us (1995:
92, 97). There are no scripts for a life together anymore, they argue, and thus people are very much
on their own when entering the increasingly risky enterprise of couple relationships (Beck and Beck-
Gernsheim, 2002: 11). According to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, the future will therefore lead to more
conflicts between the genders and to relationship upheaval. Giddens, in contrast, sees potentials for new
ideals and ways of living. He suggests that when the self becomes a reflexive project for everyone
(1992: 30), ties to predestined traditions and patterns, such as old norms of marriage and love, diminish.
This reflexive project of the self is carried on amid a profusion of reflexive resources: therapy and
self-help manuals of all kinds, television programmes and magazine articles (Giddens, 1992: 30). These
reflexive resources especially therapy and self-help manuals, which he labels texts of our times are
expressions of processes of reflexivity within society, processes that they chart out and help shape
(1992: 64ff.). Furthermore, he argues, many of the reflexive resources are emancipatory and point
towards changes that might release individuals from influences which block their autonomous develop-
ment (1992: 64). For Giddens, the emancipated couple is captured in the term pure relationship, a rela-
tionship centred on individual satisfaction (maintained only as long as both individuals get something
out of it), constant self and couple reflections, democracy and gender equality (1992: 58ff.).
Critical of the image drawn by these theorists of late modernity, feminist research shows that hetero-
sexual couple relationships continue to be a significant ideal for organizing intimate life and, most
importantly, that gender inequality continues to prevail (e.g. Gross, 2005; Jamieson, 1998; Smart,
2007). Even in the Nordic context, with its strong gender equality ideal, practices of heterosexual
couples reveal a reproduction of gendered inequalities (Ahlberg et al., 2008; Ahrne and Roman,
5
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
6 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

1997; Gronlund and Hallerod, 2008; Haavind and Magnusson, 2005; Holmberg, 1995).2 However, apart
from acknowledging that late modern theorists, in particular Giddens, seem to avert from sociological
thinking and adopt both the language and solutions of popular therapy (Jamieson, 1999; Smart,
2007), there has been relatively little interest in examining critically the actual interpretation of popular
therapy made by these theorists. There is indeed a long tradition of feminist problematizition of thera-
peutic approaches (Miller, 1974; Mitchell, 1974), for example in relation to child abuse (Mellberg, 2011;
Nelson, 1987) and domestic violence (Lundgren, 1995), stressing the problematic consequences of
individualizing understandings of the situation of women within the discourse (see also Haavind and
Magnusson, 2005; Magnusson, 2002; Magnusson and Marecek, 2002). Given the tremendous growth
in therapeutic culture, especially within the domain of popular culture (Berlant and Warner, 2000;
Danielsen and Muhleisen, 2009; Engdahl, 2009; Furedi, 2004; Gauntlett, 2002; Johansson, 2006,
2007; Lasch, 1977; Rose, 1998; White, 1992), as well as the increased presence of therapeutic thinking
in individuals and couples narratives (Danielsen, 2008; Eriksson and Nyman, 2008; Haavind, 1984;
Johansson, 2007), and, not least, the recent affirmation of popular therapeutic methods for couples by
Nordic welfare state institutions (Danielsen, 2008; Danielsen and Muhleisen, 2009),3 I argue for the
necessity of continuing this critical investigation, as well as the need for an analysis of the underlying
assumptions, logics and effects of therapeutic culture. In line with the theorists of individualization, then,
I argue that popular therapy for couples is an important discourse to study when looking at intimate rela-
tionships and gender today. However, as the following analysis shows, and contrary to the conclusions
drawn by Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, there is neither a disappearance of scripts for a life together, nor,
and contrary to Giddens argument, a simple potential for democratic gender-equal couple relationships
in the discourse.

Empirical material and methods

Inspired by Giddens concept of reflexive resources, I collected an archive of texts on couples and rela-
tionships texts aimed at identifying and solving problems from which certain fields were chosen as
case studies the corpus (Fairclough, 1992). To be included in the corpus, as well as focusing on cou-
ples problems, the texts had to have a therapeutic emphasis, be directed at offering concrete help to
readers or viewers and be in a popular format (which excluded professional texts for, for example, coun-
sellors or therapists; cf. Hochschild, 1994; Starker, 2002). Because of a special interest in the Swedish
context, with its long-standing tradition of gender-equality politics and discourse, the field was limited to
texts in Swedish. However, considering the globalized reality of media, texts translated into Swedish
were included. The entire project consists of three case studies:4 self-help books for couples, therapeutic
TV programmes focusing on relationships and web discussion boards linked to the TV programmes.5 In
this article, the analysis of the TV programmes is in focus. This choice is motivated by the will to present
a form of popular therapy that is becoming more and more widespread (Gauntlett, 2002; Wood et al.,
2008), and also, I argue, represents a more complex cultural text than, for example, self-help books.
In self-help books, which is the primary empirical material referred to by Giddens and Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim, the experts voice can dominate almost entirely. In the TV programmes, the experts
voice is heard alongside, and in relation to other voices, both directly (through the presence of the
individuals receiving therapy) and indirectly (through the construction of the dramaturgy of the pro-
grammes).6 In the TV programmes, the discourse presented in the self-help books is played out in relation
to the narrative of a specific couple, thus simultaneously offering the potential to analyse the programmes
as representations of popular therapeutic discourse on couples, and also to see how this discourse works
in a specific case. This, as we shall see, opens up for a more thorough analysis of the discourse than the one
presented by the theorists of late modernity.
Two TV shows produced for Swedish television, where couples received therapy from experts, have
been transcribed and analysed. These were Together (Tillsammans) and Between You and Me (Mellan
dig och mig) in all, 22 episodes. The methodological tools used in the analysis are drawn from
6
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 7

post-Marxist discourse analysis (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985/2001) and narrative analysis (Riessman,
1993).7 Central nodes and subject positions (such as the good couple, couples work, coupleindivid-
ualexpert) as well as contradictions and silences (e.g. regarding the simultaneous presence and absence
of gender in popular therapy) have been identified. Since the aim of the analysis was not only to identify
the underlying contours of the popular therapeutic discourse on couples (which could be done more
easily in the self-help books), but also to see the workings of the discourse, a systematic analysis of
what was said and done, and by whom, on the shows, as well as what was presented in images, was
carried out. For example, through focusing on how the couples problem was defined throughout the
episodes, the complex constructions of agency, responsibilities (to oneself, to the other, to the expert and
to the process of change), dependencies and autonomy could be identified. Also, the dramaturgy and
the use of images could be contrasted to what was said and done on the shows. Together, this enabled an
analysis of conditions for change and implicit and explicit references to the ways in which gender seems
to matter for what comes out as viable solutions in the discourse.

Recognition and change: The dramaturgy of therapeutic

TV programmes
The outset of popular therapy in general is a wish to provide knowledge by an expert, knowledge thought
to be of practical use for a general audience (cf. Simonds, 1992; Starker, 2002; White, 1992).8 The
dimension of recognition is important in the discourse in that the expert needs to convince the viewer
that the experts particular analysis and method says and contributes something to the viewers own life.
An important enhancer of this feeling is the sharing of real-life stories stories that describe a contex-
tualized real-life experience of a particular individual or couple (e.g. the expert or a patient of the
expert). In self-help books, these stories which are usually plenty, and drawn from different contexts
and situations play a central part in bringing out the experts argument (cf. Hochschild, 1994: 4), while
in therapeutic TV programmes they assume even greater importance as the focal point around which a
whole episode is built. Capturing the real interactions of the couple and thus giving the impression of
authenticity is important in therapeutic TV programmes. Familiar tools from the reality TV genre are
used, such as the use of hand-held cameras or the camera placed in a fixed position in, for example, the
couples living room, giving the impression of fly-on-the-wall observation (cf. Hill, 2007). The dimen-
sion of recognition is paired with the most central dimension of the discourse: to enable change in peo-
ples lives. In the TV episodes, change is present in the dramaturgical makeover format of the shows: the
couple are filmed in sequences that are believed to highlight their problems (the before dimension); the
experts enter, give their analysis and offer tools to the couple (the intervention); and, finally, the changed
and improved relationship is displayed in new film sequences of the couple (the after dimension)
(cf. Wood et al., 2008). While self-help books for couples usually offer a generalized and complete pic-
ture of how to change and achieve a good relationship, TV programmes are more individualized, focus-
ing on a specific though generalized as a common problem (e.g. lack of family time, different views
on sex, finances, whether to have children, parenting). The tension between individualized and general-
ized aspirations in the discourse the real-life stories, on the one hand, and the assumption of general
truths about the life of a couple, on the other enables, I argue, a construction of responsible autonomous
couples (Rose, 1999), a construction with effects on how gender can be perceived in the discourse.

Normal fantasies and good couples: Constructing the responsible

autonomous couple
The characterizations of a good, healthy and mature relationship in popular therapeutic culture for
couples are, as is the argument of Giddens (1992), indeed very similar to the characterization of pure
relationships. The ideal constructed is a very attractive one indeed: the good couple consists of two
equal partners, constantly communicating about their selves and their relationship doing the
7
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
8 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

relationship work, as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995) put it always there for each other and
respecting each others individuality. However, what does not emerge in the analysis of the theorists
of individualization is how this ideal couple are closely connected with constructions of normality, con-
structions that are, in a complex way, related to the individualism of the discourse identified by Beck
and Beck-Gernsheim (1995). Together, I argue, this leads not to the erasure of scripts for a life together,
but, on the contrary, to reproduction of the ideal of the good couple.
The ideal couple are closely connected with ideas of normality in the discourse. As pointed out ear-
lier, there is a construction of general truths about the couple, e.g. the idea that all couples go through
the same phases and have normal problems, a construction that can be seen as a key justification of the
discourse as such (e.g., Von Sivers and Lindgren, 2006: 9 ff., 19). The stress of normality, however, is
accompanied by a strong emphasis in the discourse that being a good couple does not come easily: the
healthy relationship needs to be worked at (e.g., Bohm, 2006: 37, 225). Working on your relationship
means dedicating time to talk and reflect on your self and the relationship: where you are heading, what
feels good and not so good. In the TV programmes and on the programme websites, a number of differ-
ent methods, tools and solutions to facilitate the couples work are suggested; for example, in the form
of personality and relationship tests or five easy-to-follow steps. A successful couples work is demand-
ing, it is argued, but the rewards are great. The dramaturgy of the TV programmes displays this through
the makeover format: the problematic before and the enhanced after when the couple are presented as
happy and working on their process of change.
In charting out the contours of the good, normal and working couple, a complex relationship
between the individual and the couple emerges. On the one hand, it is argued that the individual alone
is responsible for creating a good relationship; it is stressed continuously that the individual should only
try to change him or herself, never his or her partner. In one episode of Together, the woman, Julia, is
angry and frustrated with her partner, Johan, who plays computer games all day and takes no responsi-
bility for their shared life. The expert gives Julia the advice not to try to change Johan.

Julia cant do anything about this, the expert says and turns to Julia. You cannot make other people do
things, you might think you can, but you cant, absolutely. You only have power over one person in the world
and that is yourself. So to solve problems together with your husband means going back to yourself, look at
yourself, and decide for yourself. (Together, episode 5)

On the other hand, the similarly continuous stress of the wonderful gains of living in a couple makes
the goal of defining the individuals needs and dealing with ones own faults rather fixed: the goal is to
create and sustain a good couple. Julia is told to grab a piece of paper and a pen and have a moment to
herself, writing down what she needs to make the relationship and the family work. The focus on the
individual detected is thus a focus that still assumes the direction of the individuals needs as being
towards creating the good couple. The unquestioned goal of the programmes is to get the tools from
the relationship-coaches to make your relationship into a good one, as is stated in the introduction of
the first episode of Between You and Me.
A successful realization of the good couple is also dependent on the willingness to change according
to the definitions and routes provided by the experts. The case of Tomas and Therese in one TV episode
of Between You and Me illustrates this. According to the experts, Tomas and Thereses problem is
that things are going too fast in their lives. Because of their demanding jobs, they do not have enough
family time together, that is, time to care for each other and their relationship. The suggested tools are
to focus on making the couple realize that they need to slow down and satisfy their needs better. Tomas
seems to accept the experts analysis at an early stage in the programme. Therese, on the other hand,
disagrees and is not sure whether a lack of family time is their real problem; in her view, their main prob-
lem is financial insecurity. The experts do not like Thereses analysis and argue that they need to focus
on their private life given the financial situation they are in. As the programme continues and Therese
insists that her definition is the right one and as she also refuses to perform one of the tools suggested
8
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 9

by the experts (painting a self-portrait in the woods) Therese herself is constructed as the major prob-
lem. One of the experts now talks about Therese as unwilling to change.

Tomas is concerned about life going too fast and wants more pauses in life. Therese is more reluctant and not
sure whether that is really possible. Do I believe what they [the experts] have to offer, and where is the
miracle solution they promised me? To achieve a change, you have to want to change, and to be willing
to scrutinize what can be changed. And in the end it is you [pointing her finger at the TV screen] and no one
else who makes the change. (Between you and me, episode 4)

Once again the focus on the individual is ambiguous: on the one hand, the individual should define
her or his needs, make up her or his mind about what she or he wants, and deal with her or his own prob-
lems (not those of her or his partner); on the other hand, however, she or he has to comply with the
experts analysis and solution to the problem. Otherwise she or he will limit the possibilities of achieving
the goal: the good couple.
What is constructed here is, to utilize Nikolas Roses term, an autonomous responsible couple (1999):
a couple that is simultaneously autonomous and dependent. On the one hand, the narrative builds on the
supposition of the individual as independent and responsible for working on his or her own change;
on the other hand, it constructs individual as dependent on the experts definition of the ideal of the good
couple as well as on guidelines of the way to get there. The dream of the good couple is often experi-
enced as very private a fantasy that gives pleasure and ambition as well as guilt and anxiety when real-
ity cannot live up to this dream. In the popular therapeutic narrative, this dream is given a generalized
form in what I term normal fantasies of the couple, where everyone is expected to go through the same
phases and face the same problems. The possibility of fulfilling the dream is always there if you can
just succeed in making the right relationship work.

Gender neutrality and the reproduction of gendered stereotypes

The construction of the responsible autonomous couple also enables the simultaneous disappearance and
reproduction of gender in Swedish popular therapy. This is made possible through the dominance of the
gender-neutral stance in the discourse.9 For example, women and men are rarely referred to in gendered
terms, but rather talked about as individuals or partners. The gender-neutral stance is, one could
imagine, close to the kind of reflexive resources Giddens had in mind when talking about emancipation
and autonomy. This, I argue, makes an analysis of the discourse of utmost interest: do gender-neutral (or
almost gender-neutral) texts on couples enable a more gender-equal and emancipated relationship?
In the popular therapeutic discourse, there seems to be an underlying agreement that the good cou-
ple is a gender-equal one (cf. Danielsen and Muhleisen, 2009). A good couple is a couple characterized
by accessibility, appreciation, belonging, independence, responsibility, equality and legibility as is
stated in a popular self-help book (Von Sivers and Lindgren, 2006: 117). But it is also a couple in which
gender is often assumed to have no significance at all. The ideal of gender equality becomes a taken-for-
granted point of departure in these popular therapeutic narratives, a point of departure that seems to make
it unnecessary to talk about gender at all. The normal couples problems come from differences
different personalities, different tempos, different goals in life but this difference is not related to
gender.The couple consists of two autonomous individuals, doing relationship work in a vacuum, free
and independent of cultural constructions and social structures of gender.
The absence of an explicit discussion of gender is, paradoxically, the very reason that gender can still
be reproduced in the narrative. When the gender-neutral language meets the actual practices of the
couple present in the real-life examples of the filmed sequences of the TV programmes gender
inevitably emerges. The tools and solutions offered by the experts often place the participants in nar-
row and traditionally gendered frameworks: men take action, set limits and decide the time and place
for relationship talk. Women connect with their feelings (preferably in nature or close to the children),
9
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
10 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

mirror the man and refrain from controlling by keeping quiet, to mention a few examples from the
programmes.
In one episode of Between You and Me, when Linus and Linnea express anxiety over their situation as
parents of a small child, the tools given to them put them in very different situations. Linus is told to start
paying more attention to his needs, to stop trying to be the perfect dad and to allow himself to be just
Linus and spend more time with his friends. Linnea, on the other hand, is instructed in speechless com-
munication the communication you have with the child sitting up a tree with one of the experts; she is
also asked to consider that the years with young children are indeed a short period in life, and soon after
there will be time for your own needs. Linus is seen as a person with needs, able to separate his role as
Linus and his role as father, while Linnea becomes only mother, inseparable from the maternal role.
Linus is further directed outwards, to friends and social relations, while Linnea is asked to turn inwards,
to find and be assured in her abilities as a mother. On the TV programmes website, the tools allocated to
Linus and Linnea are presented as neutral and useful for all despite gender. Put in context, however, the
reproduction of the traditional gender roles of the institution of hetero intimacy is rather striking.
The tools offered to Markus and Madeleine the couple in the introductory example quarrelling about
housework are also illustrative. Madeleine is given a tool by the experts called a stop button, a symbolic
button that she should place over her mouth every time she feels the need to control someone (that is, to
tell Markus about her dissatisfaction with the lack of work he does in the home). Markus gets a tool to hold
a meeting with Madeleine, in which they should discuss expectations and production.10 The outcome of
the couple working with these tools is discussed in a final meeting with the experts.

He [Markus] told me yesterday [in the meeting] that he is scared of me and my reactions, Madeleine says in
a sad voice. He is scared of disappointing me. He says this is the reason why he doesnt take the initiative at
home. And thats not good. It made me think, if Markus feels that way as a grown-up, what about my kids?
Focus on the things that work, the expert replies, and tell him you see those things. The things that do not
work, well, register them and put them right at the back of your mind. Because it wont make any difference if
you tell your other half that you didnt do very well there, you could have done better. Most of the time, the
other person already knows that anyway.

In Markus and Madeleines case, the tools offered to solve their problems result in Markus getting the
power to decide the contours of the couples communication, while Madeleine starts questioning her
own experience of what their problems really are (perhaps her attitude is the problem, not Markuss lack
of participation in housework). She is told to stop making demands on her husband and be happy with the
few things he does do at home. In the end, Madeleines role as responsible for housework is reinstated,
while Markus is given the possibility of retraction.
Reproduction of gendered stereotypes, such as those presented in the examples of Linus and Linnea
and Markus and Madeleiene, is made possible in the popular therapeutic narrative because of the gap
constructed between, on the one hand, the assumption of the autonomous individual as the starting point
of the therapy and, on the other, the normal fantasy of the couple (that is, the assumption of there being
generalized truths of life in a relationship). When the narrative of the autonomous individual is said to be
the point of departure of the therapy, it is considered irrelevant that for example it is primarily individ-
uals with a female gender who express dissatisfaction about an unequal sharing of housework. In the
same way, it is then irrelevant that the solution or tool that, according to the experts, works best in
a specific case a solution and tool that is formulated in general terms reproduces gendered stereotypes
in practice. In the episode of Linus and Linnea referred to above, the experts make a (very rare) reflection
upon the fact that the advice given to Linus might seem provocative.

The experts meet between the coaching and therapy sessions with the couple to discuss what solutions and
tools they should suggest. The expert who has been talking to Linus tells the other expert that he suggested
10
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 11

that Linus should spend more time with his friends, just hanging out, as Linus wants to be so good at every-
thing, at work and as a father and is losing the part of himself that he is when hes with his friends.

Hmm, the other expert replies, sounds like a good idea. But the question is, is it politically correct?
Well, it isnt, not at all, the first one replies emphatically. But it is so easy to put people into prescribed
categories. If youre a parent you should do like this, if you have small kids life is like this. And I think
that the whole point of coaching and therapy is to view individuals beyond the stereotype.

Interestingly, while arguing for the need to go beyond the stereotype in the case of Linus, the experts
offer the very stereotype they disapprove of above telling the story of what life with small children
is like when they want Linnea to accept that her needs have to be put to one side while she has a small
child. Thus, the argument for viewing individuals beyond the stereotype seems only applicable in some
cases. And, of course, seeing Linus beyond the stereotype of the responsible father seems to place him in
an even more familiar stereotype: the traditional man who needs to turn outwards to reassure his identity.
Thus, the responsible autonomous couple is constructed as an entity of two independent individuals
without gender who fulfil the fantasy of the good couple through the general and gender-neutral solu-
tions and tools offered by the experts the very solutions and tools that paradoxically place them in gen-
dered frameworks. By navigating between the individual and the general, the popular therapeutic
narrative manages to obscure gender as a social and cultural category, while simultaneously reproducing
traditional assumptions of gender by referring to what works for the individual.

The equal problem

The assumption of the responsible autonomous couple also hinders an understanding of the couple rela-
tionship as unequal. The two individuals in a couple may well be out of balance, apparent for instance
in talk about her being too fast and him being too slow when describing different attitudes and
amounts of work carried out in the household. But since the couple is assumed to be detached from social
structures and cultural norms of gender, this imbalance cannot be explained in terms of power or
inequality. The construction of an equal problem, that is, the assumption that both partners are respon-
sible for creating and reproducing the problem, as well as for carrying out couple work, makes
compromise the most common solution: he is wrong, she is wrong, and they both need to change. In the
case of unequal distribution of housework, the consequences of this become apparent. Interestingly, in
the TV programmes and self-help books, conflicts about housework and caring responsibilities are rarely
cited as a typical (general) couples problem. However, in some of the real-life stories, as well as in TV
episodes, an indirect presence of conflicts about these issues emerges; for example, in the episode of Ake
and Asa. The couples problem is introduced as having become friends rather than sexual partners, and
is seen as a consequence of Akes and Asas differences.

Ake and Asa have absolutely different tempos, the expert says. Ake is too slow and Asa is way too
fast. What they both need is to adjust their speed, so they can meet in the middle. (Between You and
Me, episode 7)

To the viewer it becomes apparent that the main area where Asa is too fast is housework and caring.
The solution which is presented to the couple in an exercise where they change roles for a couple of
days is compromise: he needs to care more about their shared life, and she needs to slow down and
let go of her control over the situation. In this way Akes and Asas main problem (according to the
experts) a lack of sex can be solved.
The unwillingness of the popular therapeutic discourse to cite conflicts about housework as a com-
mon problem in relationships is startling in the light of research identifying this as an area of great
importance to heterosexual couples, and especially for women (e.g., Ahrne and Roman, 1997; Elden,
11
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
12 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

2011; Gronlund and Hallerod, 2008; Magnusson, 2006). And when the issue appears, as in the case of
Ake and Asa, or as in the example of Markus and Madeleine above, there is an underlying notion of the
problem as being equal and shared: that she does too much is just as big a problem as his doing too little.
As Epstein and Steinberg (1995) argue, the assumption of an equal point of departure that is character-
istic of the therapy discourse usually ends up reproducing inequality:

[T]he therapy discourse serves to reinforce the notion of equal responsibility in any and all relationships.
Yet, to expect and demand equal responsibility by people who do not have equal power . . . effectively places
an unequal burden on the less powerful. (Epstein and Steinberg, 1995: 99ff.)

The construction of responsible, autonomous couples and equal problems seems to delegitimize
womens experiences of injustice and inequality regarding housework. Madeleines and Asas dissatis-
faction with the division of labour is defined in terms of having a problem of a need to control.
It becomes an individualized, gender-neutral and equal problem, to be solved through acknowledging
the equal responsibilities of change, regardless of gender.

Conclusion
The analysis of Swedish popular therapy suggests that individualizing processes primarily have the
effect, not of freeing people from constraining scripts, but of individualizing those scripts. In arguing
that scripts for a life together are disappearing in late modern society, and pointing to the individualism
of popular therapy as proof of this, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (1995, 2002) overlook how taking a point
of departure in the individual in itself enables the reproduction of scripts for the couple. The constant
assurance of the responsibility of the individual to do the relationship work and to complete the fantasy
of the good couple strengthens the idea of the institution of heterosexuality as desirable and possible.
Failure to fulfil the ideal lies with the individual or the couple, never the expert, leaving the ideal of the
good couple unproblematized (cf. Berlant and Warner, 2000; Epstein and Steinberg, 1995; Evans, 2003).
Rather than telling the story of how to protect me against us, as expressed by Beck and Beck-
Gernsheim (1995: 97), popular therapy for couples tells the story of the wonders of the good couple
if you could only manage to protect us through yourself, that is, by taking your responsibility and doing
your relationship work of reflection and communication.
The promise of the popular therapeutic narrative as an emancipatory tool for the democratic and
gender-equal couple, as suggested by Giddens (1992), must also be questioned. The analysis of Swedish
popular therapy a cultural product of a society and context where the ideals of gender equality are con-
sidered to be esteemed shows that the individualistic assumption of the discourse enables a reproduc-
tion of gender stereotypes and provides a legitimizing cultural narrative for the reproduction of gendered
inequality in heterosexual intimate relationships. A key element here is the presence of gender neutral-
ity. The Swedish popular therapy for couples reproduces a gender-neutral stance, talking about individ-
uals and different personalities, an approach that indeed appears more tolerant and fluid than for
example the archetypical talk of men from Mars and women from Venus (cf. Crawford, 2004). However,
a gender-neutral stance paints a picture of an ideal world beyond gender inequalities and thereby risks
obscuring and indirectly reproducing the gender stereotypes and inequalities that still very much
inform heterosexual couple relationships. Conflicts and inequalities, such as the one related to (a lack
of) shared responsibility for housework, are hard to discuss and even harder to change in a framework
that individualizes the problem and refuses to see that socially constructed but still very real men
and women gain differently (and unequally) from a change of the order of things.
The gender-neutral approach has been identified as a signature of Nordic gender equality discourse
(cf. Andens, 2005; Eduards, 2002). In research on couples and gender equality, some have argued for
the possibilities emerging in gender-neutral reflexivity (Aarseth, 2008), while others have pointed to the
problematic effect of gender-neutral assumptions in limiting the ways in which issues of gender can be
12
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 13

formulated (Danielsen and Muhleisen, 2009; Haavind, 2008; Magnusson, 2006). Gender-neutral and
individualizing understandings of couple relationships are indeed very common in individuals and cou-
ples narratives in the Nordic context, understandings that very often seem to, in practice and as in the
popular therapeutic narrative analysed here reproduce gendered stereotypes and legitimize gendered
inequalities (e.g., Eriksson and Nyman, 2008; Haavind, 1984; Holmberg, 1995; Magnusson, 2006). The
similarities between individual and cultural narratives call, I argue, for the necessity of taking seriously
how discourses and practices are mutually implicated in each other in studying family and relationships
in general (Morgan 2011), and also, especially, for the necessity of future analysis of the effects of the
expansion of therapeutic discourses on intimate relationships in the Nordic countries and elsewhere.
The problem of gender-neutrality identified in the discourse can also be argued to extend to other
forms of neutrality present in the general narrative of the good couple. In what ways are the ideal
that is being constructed also a reproduction of a classed and racialized ideal, of the white middle-
class couple? International research on popular therapy has argued that the ideals constructed are indeed
very closely connected with the subject position of the white middle-class (Illouz, 1997; Skeggs, 2006;
Wood et al., 2008).11 In a Nordic context, Hilde Danielsen (2008) has argued that popular therapeutic
discourse for couples constructs a certain kind of reflexivity and communication what I would call the
ability to perform the relationship work necessary for pursuing the good couple that is in itself a
classed skill. Although this was not the primary focus of the analysis of the TV programmes in this proj-
ect,12 differences in how the participating couples were treated by the experts could be seen, where the
middle-class couples were praised for their better (or rather right) skills in communication.13 The
construction of general truths about the couple, then, seems to become a construction of a very particular
couple: the autonomous, responsible, gender-neutral, respectable (middle-class) and white couple.
When, in addition, this narrative is taken into sociological theories as a legitimate picture of the state
of being for intimate relationships today as is the case in the theories of late modern intimacy we
run the risk of obscuring the ways in which the ideal in itself is reproducing inequalities and exclusions.

Acknowledgements
I thank Johanna Esseveld, Asa Lundqvist and Terese Anving for feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I also thank
the anonymous reviewers of ACTA for very helpful comments. Earlier drafts of the article were presented at the
Swedish Sociological Association meeting in Halmstad in March 2010 and at the International Sociological Asso-
ciation meeting in Gothenburg in July 2010. Many thanks to all participants for comments, and a special thanks to
Mats Franzen.

Funding
This research received funding from the Faculty of Social Science at Lund University, Sweden.

Notes
1. Between You and Me, episode 10. All quotes from the empirical material are translated from Swed-
ish by the author. All names in this article are pseudonyms.
2. Critique of theories of late modernity has been extensive in feminist research; see, for example, Jamieson,
1998, 1999; Roman, 2004; Sandell and Mulinari, 2006; Smart and Shipman, 2004.
3. Popular therapeutic resources for couples have recently been adopted by the Nordic welfare states in
the form of couples courses produced and organized by governmental institutions (see Danielsen
and Muhleisen (2009) for a discussion on the relationship between welfare state institutions and
popular therapy; see also the Swedish National Institute of Public Health (2011) and Sensus adult
education institute (2011).
4. The entire project, which is a PhD study carried out at the Department of Sociology, is presented in
Elden (2009).
13
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
14 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

5. I conducted an overview study of 129 self-help books for couples published in Swedish (mostly
since the 1980s) as well as an in-depth study of three recent popular books (Bohm, 2001/2002/
2006; Rusz, 2006/2007; von Sivers and Lindgren, 2006/2007; see Elden 2009). The two TV pro-
grammes analysed in this article had web discussion boards linked to the programme websites,
where viewers discussed not only the programmes but also (which turned out to be more common)
their own relationship issues. Both discussion boards were analysed in the project. An analysis of the
web discussion boards is presented in Elden (2011).
6. The producers intentions in creating the programmes and displaying the narratives the way they do
are, however, not up for analysis here. Rather, I analyse the programmes as public cultural texts dis-
playing what can be said and not said about the couple.
7. In the project as a whole, the methodological point of departure taken is in the tension field created,
on the one hand, the use of methodological concepts and tools of discourse analysis (above all
Laclau and Mouffe, 1985/2001) and, on the other, feminist ambitions of carrying out research in
emancipatory ways (Acker et al., 1991; see also Elden 2005, 2009 and 2011).
8. Like other forms of therapeutic culture, however, the audience is clearly gendered: the intended and
actual consumers are usually women (Shattuc, 1997; Skeggs et al., 2008; Squire, 1997). The effects
of this are discussed in greater detail in Elden (2009).
9. A variety of positions are indeed taken on gender by authors of self-help books. In the overview
study (Elden, 2009), I identified four different though sometimes interrelated stances: gender and
gender roles as problematic for/in the relationship, gender differences as a stated fact affecting the
couple, gender difference as positive and necessary for/in the relationship and, finally, gender neu-
trality. The most common position in the books by Swedish authors was the gender-neutral
approach. This is also the position dominating the TV programmes analysed here.
10. The experts transfer concepts from Markuss occupational role as a project leader, a common
strategy in coaching according to the experts. As the analysis shows, this use of language and
symbols of the clients reality is part of the reproduction of gender stereotypes, since men are
connected with their professional role, while women are placed in contexts connected with nature
and mothering.
11. Displaying peoples problems and faults in public, which is indeed the very purpose of makeover
and reality TV, is, as Skeggs (2006) argues, a way of reproducing the respectable middle-class
man/woman/family through evoking a feeling of repulsion and distancing in the viewer for that
which is not normal. Displaying of the wrongs and giving guidelines for the right way of rea-
lizing the good couple is, as I have argued, the focus of the Swedish programmes analysed here.
However, in contrast to the British TV programmes analysed by Skeggs et al. (2008) (see also Wood
et al., 2008), there is a presence of both working-class and middle-class subjects in the Swedish TV
programmes. Also, without exception, the couples taking part in the programmes are presented as
white.
12. Research on families and couple relationships in Nordic contexts has, as De los Reyes and Mulinari
(2005) argue, tended to focus on white middle-class subjects. This critique applies to the project
presented here as well.
13. For example, in three of the programmes, a similar behaviour of arrogance towards women emerges
from the male participants. Kalle (a low-skilled mechanic), Anders (a bus driver) and Lasse (an
engineering student; all appear in Together, episodes 3, 4 and 2) are all portrayed as treating their
girlfriends in a condescending way. However, while Kalles and Anderss behaviour, which is pre-
sented as a more outright aggressive and physical way of communicating, is openly condemned by
the experts and portrayed as utterly problematic, Lasse, despite his verbal insults of his girlfriend, is

14
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 15

praised by the experts for his straightforward and articulate way of communicating. The different
ways in which the three men are treated by the experts in the programmes point towards a connec-
tion between class and certain communication skills, as Danielsen (2008) and others have argued.
Also, it is interesting to see that this emerges in relation to gender relations: the skill of communi-
cating seems to be connected with knowing how to treat women in the right way.

References
Aarseth H (2008) Hjemskapningens modern magi [The Magic of Homemaking]. Dissertation, Institutt
for sosiologi og samfunnsgeografi. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Acker J, Barry K and Esseveld J (1991) Objectivity and truth. Problems in doing feminist research. In:
Fonow M and Cook J (eds) Beyond Methodology. Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Indiana-
polis, IN: Indiana University Press, 133153.
Ahlberg J, Roman C and Duncan S (2008) Actualizing the democratic family? Swedish policyrhetoric ver-
sus family practices. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 15(1):79100.
Ahrne G and Roman C (1997) Hemmet, barnen och makten [Home, Children and Power] SOU 1997:
139. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Andens A (2005) Neutral claims Gendered meanings: Parenthood and developmental psychology in
modern welfare states. Feminism and Psychology 15(2): 209226.
Bauman Z (2003) Liquid Love. On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. London: Polity Press.
Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization. Institutionalized Individualism and its Social
and Political Consequences. London: Sage.
Berlant L and Warner M (2000) Sex in public. In: Berlant L (ed.) Intimacy. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 311330.
Bohm T (2001/2002/2006) Karleksrelationen [The Love Relationship]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Castells M (2000) Informationsaldern. Ekonomi, samhalle och kultur. Band 2: Identitetens makt
[The Information Age]. Goteborg: Daidalos.
Crawford M (2004) Mars and Venus collide: A discursive analysis of marital self-help psychology.
Feminism and Psychology 14(1): 6379.
Danielsen H (2008) A fa eit forhold til a fungere er ganske hard jobbing. Komminikasjon, kjnn og
kjrleik i heteroseksuelle samliv [To get a relationship working is rather hard work. Communication,
gender and love in heterosexual relationships]. Tidssskrift for kulturforskning 7(2): 522.
Danielsen H and Muhleisen W (2009) Statens parkurs Godt samliv. Ideal og normer for samliv og
kommunikasjon [The government-driven couple-course Living well together: Ideals and norms for
relationships and communication]. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning 50(1): 326.
De los Reyes P and Mulinari D (2005) Intersektionalitet: kritiska reflektioner over (o)jamlikhetens land-
skap [Intersectional perspectives. Critical reflections on the landscape of (in)equality]. Malmo: Liber
Eduards M (2002) Forbjuden handling. Om kvinnors organisering och feministisk teori [Forbidden
Action. On Womens Organizing and Feminist Theory]. Malmo: Liber.
Elden S (2005) Att fanga eller bli fangad i diskursen? Om diskursanalys och emancipatorisk feministisk
metodologi [To capture or get caught in discourse? On discourse analysis and emancipatory feminist
methodology]. In: Lundqvist A, Davies K and Mulinari D (eds) Att utmana vetandets granser
[Challenging the Boundaries of Science]. Malmo: Liber, 6074.
Elden S (2009) Konsten att lyckas som par: Popularterapeutiska berattelser, individualisering och kon.
[The Art of Succeeding as a Couple: Popular Therapeutic Narratives, Individualization and Gender].
Lund: Lund Dissertations in Sociology.
15
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
16 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

Elden S (2011) The threat or promise of popular therapy? A feminist reading of narratives of the good
couple. NORA Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 19(3): 144162.
Engdahl E (2009) Konsten att vara sig sjalv [The Art of Being Oneself]. Malmo: Liber.
Epstein D and Steinberg DL (1995) Heterosensibilities on the Oprah Winfrey Show. In: Maynard M and
Purvis J (eds) Hetero(sexual) Politics. London: Taylor and Francis, 95107.
Eriksson K and Nyman C (2008) Weve solved it well by not solving it at all. Practices and processes-
supporting a traditional gender order in Swedish couples talk about housework. Unpublished paper
presented at theSwedish Sociological Association Annual Meeting in Ostersund.
Evans M (2003) Love. An Unromantic Discussion. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Furedi F (2004) Therapy Culture. Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age. London: Routledge.
Gauntlett D (2002) Self-help books and the pursuit of a happy identity, extended version of texts
from Media, Gender, Identity. An Introduction. Milton Park: Routledge. Available at: http: //
www.theoryhead.com/gender.
Giddens A (1992) Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gill R (2007) Postfeminist media culture. Elements of sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies
10(2): 14766.
Gronlund A and Hallerod B (2008) Den vackra visionen och den vranga vardagen [The beautiful vision
and the difficult everyday]. In: Gronlund A and Hallerod B (eds) Jamstalldhetens pris [The Price of
Gender Equality]. Umea: Borea, 1742.
Gross N (2005) The detraditionalization of intimacy reconsidered. Sociological Theory 23(3): 286311.
Haavind H (1984) Love and power in marriage. In: Holter H. (ed.) Patriarchy in a Welfare Society. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget,136167.
Haavind H (2008) Det tosidige likestillingsprojektet. Hva er det som skjer, og hvordan blir forstaelsen
formet? [The gender equality project. What is going on, and how are understandings formed?]
Tidsskrift for kjnnsforskning 8(4): 5979.
Haavind H and Magnusson E (2005) Feminism, psychology and identity transformations in the Nordic
countries. Feminism and Psychology 15(2): 236247.
Hill A (2007) Restyling Factual TV. Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres. London:
Routledge.
Hochschild AR (1994) The commercial spirit of intimate life and the abduction of feminism: Signs from
womens advice books. Theory, Culture and Society 11(2): 124.
Holmberg C (1995) Det kallas karlek [Its Called Love]. Stockholm: Manpocket.
Illouz E (1997) Consuming the Romantic Utopia: Love and the Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jamieson L (1998) Intimacy. Personal Relationships in Modern Society. Oxford: Polity.
Jamieson L (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the pure relationship. Sociology 33(3):
47794.
Johansson T (2006) Makeovermani. Om Dr Phil, plastkirurgi och illusionen om det perfekta jaget
[Makeovermania. On Dr. Phil, Plastic Surgery and the Illusion of the Perfect Self]. Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur.
Johansson T (2007) Experthysteri [Expert hysteria]. Stockholm: Atlas.
Laclau E and Mouffe C (1985/2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic
Politics. London: Verso.
Lasch C (1977) Haven in a Heartless World. The Family Besieged. New York: Basic Books.

16
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
Elden: Scripts for the good couple 17

Lundgren E (1995) Feminist Theory and Violent Empiricism. Aldershot: Avebury.

Magnusson E (2002) Psykologi och kon. Fran konsskillnader till genusperspektiv [Psychology and
Gender. From Sex Differences to Gender Perspective]. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Magnusson E (2006) Hon, han och hemmet. Genuspsykologiska perspektiv pa vardagslivet i nordiska
barnfamiljer [She, He and the Home. Gender Psychological Perspectives on Everyday Life in Nordic
Families with Children]. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Magnusson E and Marecek J (2002) Genus och kultur i psykologi. Teorier och tillampningar [Gender
and Culture in Psychology. Theroies and Uses]. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Mellberg N (2011) Nar det overkliga blir verklighet. Modrars situation nar deras barn utsatts for sex-
uella overgrepp av fader [When the Onreal Becomes Real. Mothers Situation When Their Children
are Sexually Abused by Their Fathers]. Umea: Borea.
Miller JB (1974) Psychoanalysis and Women. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mitchell J (1974) Psychoanalysis and feminism. London: Allen Lane.
Morgan D (2011) Rethinking Family Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nelson S (1987) Incest: Facts and Myths. Edinburgh: Stramullion.
Parsons T (1971) The normal American family. In: Skolnick A and Skolnick J (eds) Family in Transi-
tion. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 397402.
Riessman C (1993) Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roman C (2004) Familjen i det moderna. Sociologiska sanningar och feministisk kritik. [The Family in
Modernity. Sociological Truths and Feminist Critique]. Malmo: Liber.
Rose N (1998) Inventing our Selves. Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rose N (1999) Governing the Soul. The Shaping of the Private Self. New York: Free Association Books.
Rusz E (2006/2007) Varfor valjer jag alltid fel partner? Om man och kvinnors relationer. [Why Do
I Always Pick the Wrong Partner? On Mens and Womens Relationships]. Stockholm: Norstedts
pocket.
Sandell K and Mulinari D (2006) Teorier om senmodernitet och det besvarliga konet [Theories on Late
Modernity and Troublesome Gender]. In: Sandell K and Mulinari D (eds) Feministiska interventioner
[Feminist Interventions]. Stockholm: Atlas Akademi, 35993.
Shattuc JM (1997) The Talking Cure. TV Talk Shows and Women. London: Routledge.
Simonds W (1992) Women and Self-help Culture. Reading Between the Lines. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Skeggs B (2006) Dokuklassen som alltid gor fel [The docu-class who always get it wrong]. Bang
feministisk kulturtidskrift 4/2006: 336.
Skeggs B, Thumin N and Wood H (2008) Oh goodness, I am watching reality TV. How methods make
class in audience research. European Journal of Cultural Studies 11(1): 524.
Smart C (2007) Personal Life. New Directions in Sociological Thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smart C and Shipman B (2004) Visions in monochrome. Families, marriage and the individualization
thesis. British Journal of Sociology 55(4): 491509.
Squire C (1997) Empowering women? The Oprah Winfrey Show. In: Brunsdon C, DAcci J and Spigel L
(eds) Feminist Television Criticism. A Reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 98113.
Starker S (2002) Oracle at the Supermarket. The American Preoccupation with Self-Help Books.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Von Sivers M and Lindgren L (2006/2007) Konsten att halla ihop. En handbok i karlek [The Art of
Staying Together. A Handbook on Love]. Stockholm: Forum.

17
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012
18 Acta Sociologica 55(1)

Wood H, Skeggs B and Thumin N (2008) Its just sad. Affect, judgement and emotional labour in reality
television viewing. In: Gillis S and Hollows J (eds) Feminism, Domesticity and Popular Culture. London:
Routledge, 13550.
White M (1992) Tele-Advicing. Therapeutic Discourses in American Television. Chapel Hill, NC: Uni-
versity of North Carolina Press.

TV episodes
Tillsammans (Together), 12 episodes at TV3 (Commercial broadcasting channel, part of Viasat). Spring
2004.
Mellan dig och mig (Between You and Me), 10 episodes at SVT channel 2 (Swedish public service broad-
caster). Autumn of 2005.

Websites
Sensus adult education institute (2011) PREP. Available at: http://www.sensus.se/prep.
Swedish National Institute of Public Health (2011) Foraldrarelationen prevention av konflikter
[Parents relationships prevention of conflicts]. Available at: http://www.fhi.se/Handbocker/
Uppslagsverk-barn-och-unga/Foraldrarelationenprevention-av-konflikter/

Author Biography
Sara Elden obtained a PhD from the Department of Sociology, University of Lund, Sweden, in 2009.
She is currently a post-doctoral researcher in the same department, working on a research project on rela-
tions of care beyond the family, continuing her interest in exploring the sociology of personal life and
gender.

18
Downloaded from asj.sagepub.com at Faculty of Political Science on July 29, 2012