Dimension VI: Target—Who receives it?

In this section, we briefly make explicit the point that has been implicitly stated numerous times so far: there is a need for marriage education to meet the needs of different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic populations. Marriage education until very recently has been fairly criticized as not actively reaching out to non-white, more disadvantaged couples (Ooms, 2002). The empirical verdict is still out on whether programs developed primarily for white, middle-class couples, and based on research subjects mostly of the same population, will be as effective for other racial, ethnic, and lower-income groups. Ironically, the value of marriage education mostly has been established on white, middle-class (and often religious) couples who have the lowest rates of divorce (and non-marriage), and who also have the most resources to deal with the consequences of marital problems. Perhaps it is also ironic that marriage education, which has labored for half a century to gain respect among social scientists skeptical of its value or need, may finally gain it by demonstrating the efficacy of marriage education in service to disadvantaged populations, whom marriage educators have been slow to reach. Marriage education must expand to include populations with lower rates of marital formation and higher rates of marital dissolution (Bramlett et al., 2003). A new form of social inequality is emerging (Horn, 2003); marriage is a source of economic well-being, but the most disadvantaged struggle the most to benefit from it. Marriage educators need to direct substantial attention to those who potentially can benefit the most from their efforts.

We have already suggested many ways that marriage education will need to be modified to serve more disadvantaged groups. One additional point is that marriage educators will need to understand that racial and ethnic minorities have as much within-group diversity as between-group diversity. Programs designed for first-generation Mexican Americans may not serve Cuban Americans any better than programs designed for European Americans (Gonzalez-Kruger et al., 2003); Americans of African descent are similarly dissimilar. The work of diversifying curricula is likely to be more fine-grained than many marriage educators anticipate.

An easily overlooked population is rural Americans whose lives are substantially different from urbanites (who are the typical targets of marriage education efforts) and who have less access to services urbanites take for granted. Also, marriage education need to think more creatively about reaching men. Anecdotal evidence from marriage educators indicates that men generally show less interest in participating in marriage education, and when they do participate, they are usually the “drag-ees,” just trying to be supportive of their wives interests (although they are often pleasantly surprised about how much they enjoy the experience). Marriage educators have speculated that cultural notions of masculinity discourage men from participating in educational offerings they perceive to be “touchy-feely” and requiring disclosure of intimate experiences and emotions. What seems lost in these speculations, however, is a lack of reflection on the part of marriage educators. Coming from its roots in clinical psychology, it’s not surprising that marriage education curricula stress psychological inquiry and insight. Does the practice of marriage education require a “touchy-feely” approach, however? Recently, some scholars are constructively questioning therapeutic practice, trying to understand better why it appeals less to men and how it can be redesigned to be more effective (Furrow, 2002). Marriage education could stand similar scrutiny. Creative marriage educators may actually find it liberating to design an educational experience that challenges the conventional boundaries of psycho-educational interventions. Many principles for building and sustaining marital relations could be recast and taught in less “touchy-feely” terms. Private exploration of intimate, personal issues might be stressed over public disclosure. Attention also could be given to educational settings and activities. Rather than conducting sessions in an indoor, classroom-like setting where participants sit passively in chairs, perhaps sessions could be offered in more “masculine” places, or even conducted outdoors, with a creative emphasis on physical or even athletic learning activities. If marriage educators see men’s lesser interest in relationship education as simply evidence of a character deficit rather than a curricular preference they will continue to struggle to engage men—and the women married to them—in potentially helpful intervention.

Discovering inductively over time what an array of diversified curricula serving different target groups share in common will be a fascinating learning process that will highlight principles of strong marriages and strong interventions that approach universal understanding and application. Ironically, the work of curricular diversification may be key to building universal principles common to all programs.

A related note is that marriage educators laboring to diversify their curricula to fit diverse groups will need the assistance of talented basic researchers who unearth the differences and similarities of healthy marriages in diverse populations (see Fein et al., 2003). Indeed, the efforts of dedicated practitioners will be, to some extent, guesswork without the help of basic researchers who can shine a light ahead on the processes of healthy marriage among these different populations.

Finally, some marriage educators should target legislators, judges, executive branch personnel, and their staff. These public policy makers can be strong supporters of government efforts to strengthen marriage, or alternatively, they can be powerful barriers. Marriage educators can help them see how strong marriages are a critical foundation for civil society, and help them gain a vision for how marriage education can be harnessed to serve the public good. Brief, well organized seminars that provide state and community policy makers with the research foundation for supporting stronger marriages and show them examples of innovative and effective educational policies, could till the soil for marriage education to take root. An excellent model for doing this is the Family Impact Seminar (see Bogenschneider et al., 2000).