Family semantic polarities and positionings: A semantic analysis

Abstract

Inspired by Ugazio’s model of family semantic polarities (Storie permesse, storie proibite. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1998; 2012; Semantic polarities and psychopathologies in the family: Permitted and forbidden stories. New York: Routledge, 2013) and by Harré et al.‘s positioning theory (Harrè & Van Langenhove, Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Malden: Blackwell, 1999), this chapter explores Victoria and Alfonso’s conflicts and dilemmas through a semantic analysis. Two different versions of the Family Semantics Grid (FSG) were applied to Victoria and Alfonso’s four sessions. Verbal transcripts were coded to extract the narrated semantic polarities, i.e., the meaning of the "narrated stories," through the first version of FSG (Ugazio et al. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 16(4):165-192, 2009). The second version (Ugazio & Guarnieri, TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, in press) was applied to the video-recording of the sessions. It identifies the interactive polarities (the "lived experience") inferred by the way in which the couple and the therapist, often implicitly, reciprocally position themselves. Both the analyses show that the conversation with Victoria and Alfonso is dominated by two different semantics: "belonging" and "freedom." Being excluded, abandoned, forgotten or, on the contrary, belonging to, feeling the center of the partner’s world, welcomed, and accepted-polarities all peculiar to the semantic of belonging-dominate the whole consultation. Equally predominant is being free, independent, keeping the distance, or, on the contrary, feeling suffocated by limiting closeness or by exclusive bonds that constrain and condition you. Fear/disorientation and anger/desperation, the emotional polarities that characterize the above two semantics, are also dominant. These two semantics create typical misunderstood meanings and a difficult redundant pattern, which reveal a lack of semantic cohesion between the partners and bring exhaustion and frustration on both sides. The analysis reveals a difficult position for Victoria; it throws her into a dilemma, described in detail. Contextualized within the couple’s history, their cultural background, and the phase of the life cycle which each partner is in, these findings suggest some hypotheses about the couple’s conflict and the relational process that led Victoria into depression. The implications of the applied semantic analysis for qualitative research in couple and family therapy are illustrated. The limitations are also addressed.