2.6 General public and practitioner definitions
Clearly a variety of potentially competing definitions of infidelity have been proposed in the theoretical literature on infidelity; in trying to resolve which definition might be ‘best’ it is worth looking at the research on what people say about how they themselves define infidelity. There are not a lot of studies and some are reliant on hypothetical infidelity scenarios (e.g. Yarab et al., 1999) or begin with a pre-set list of behaviours rather than allowing respondents themselves to nominate what constitutes infidelity.
Only a handful of studies have utilised qualitative methodologies to explore definitions of infidelity (e.g. Hertlein and Piercy, 2008; Henline et al., 2007; Mileham, 2007; Whitty, 2005) and of these only one asked respondents about their own experiences of infidelity (versus asking about infidelity in general). For this reason, we decided to do a small-scale qualitative study exploring how seven couple counsellors define infidelity (Moller and Vossler, 2015).
We picked this group in part because we thought that they were likely to have experience through their work with lots of different types of definitions. A key suggestion in this paper was that the evidence of multiple contradictory definitions of infidelity provides evidence that the meaning/definition of infidelity is socially constructed. What this means for counsellors and psychotherapists working with infidelity is further explained in an extract from the paper below.
Activity 2.6 Reading an extract from Moller and Vossler, 2015
The presence of multiple conflicting definitions is consistent with the idea of infidelity as socially constructed (Carpenter, 2001), which in turns shifts consideration of infidelity from something that exists ‘out there’ (and can be charted/defined) to something that individuals construct rhetorically.
This view of infidelity would be congruent with the recognition that individuals flexibly use socially normative definitions of infidelity to present and understand their own and partner behaviour (Edwards, 1995). It also explains how one person is able to reject charges of infidelity by claiming that extra-dyadic activity was ‘just sex’ and another to deny infidelity on the grounds that there was no sex. This understanding suggests that partners use different definitions of infidelity in the context of couple counselling to negotiate blame and accountability and to assign or refute moral responsibility for solving the couple problem (Edwards, 1999).
A social constructionist view of infidelity supports the idea of eye-of-the-beholder definitions of infidelity, with the advantage that no one is excluded and no definition is privileged over another. A number of practitioner-theorists propound this relativist definition of infidelity for therapeutic work with couples (e.g., Hertlein and Weeks, 2007; Whisman and Wagers, 2005) and emphasise the importance of considering the idiosyncratic meanings of affairs (Levine, 1998). Such an approach appreciates all perspectives as valid within some particular context and can help counsellors to maintain a curious yet impartial and empathic position towards both partners (Reibstein,2013).
In contrast with researchers, for whom the issue of definitions has considerable relevance, this suggests that for practitioners the focus is not on the ultimate definition or ‘true’ meaning of infidelity but on the impact of different possible perspectives and their usefulness for the couple (Levine, 2005). A social constructionist systemic perspective (McNamee and Gergen, 1992) also implies that the counsellor in couple counselling is inevitably part of the rhetorical environment.
Practitioners should therefore accept the idea that they have a role in co-constructing definitions of infidelity with couples. Potentially this could involve challenging partner definitions as well as owning the influence of their own context (history, culture, training) on how they, as couple counsellors, think about infidelity.
From your understanding what might be the relevance of accepting the idea that infidelity is socially constructed for your work as a counsellor or psychotherapist?
Discussion
This understanding of infidelity potentially helps a counsellor/psychotherapist to move away from the idea that there is one understanding of infidelity and to more fully accept the varied ways that their clients define the term, including when these definitions are potentially contradictory. It potentially also helps them to understand that clients will use different definitions of infidelity in their relationships to defend themselves or accuse their partners.
2.5 Internet infidelity