Power Dynamics in Relationships

“All couples long for mutuality in relationships” – Jessica ChenFeng

Power Dynamics and the Need for Mutuality

We all long for mutual relationships where we feel seen, understood and respected, and where the power dynamic between us is something we understand and agree to. Yet many of us go through life unaware of why we feel oppressed or misunderstood, much less understand the nature of the systems that contribute to our feeling that way. We often don’t have words for the sense that something feels one-sided or seems unfair until we take a step back from the systems that have formed and informed our beliefs about our roles in relationships. Systems affect our relationships, even if we don’t quite understand how. From marriage, to friendship, to siblings and parents, we all feel the influence of power in a multitude of ways.

Before we dive into mutuality, I want to name my own positionality to frame the contexts from which I am speaking. I’m a Christian, Latina woman, born and raised in Southern California. As a doctoral student in a clinical psychology program, dating brings with it many preconceived notions about gender and power. For example, a common narrative I have found challenging to contend with in dating Christian men is the belief that a faithful partnership requires the woman to be “subject to him,” to oversee the home, and to raise kids. I have even had a guy tell me on a first date that my role in marriage was to be submissive to him. This patriarchal notion can be traced throughout history and is present in many Christian traditions today, informing a power dynamic where men must be authoritative and women must submit. I have found myself questioning what in this dynamic feels loving, mutual or respectful when it seems to require men to demand and women to contend. We often lack the language to describe the dynamics we are in while we are in them because they are akin to the air we breathe. Gaining insight into the systems that have informed our preconceived notions of power and gender roles can help us better understand our identity and help guide us towards mutuality in our relationships.   

How does the Culture we were Raised in affect how we Engage?

Our beliefs about our roles can lead to power imbalances when they are not properly named and acknowledged. In the With & For podcast episode, Dr. Jessica ChenFeng discusses Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy (SERT) highlighting that this therapeutic orientation begins with a framework of mutual support and humility that challenges the effects of societal-based power processes (Knudson-Martin & Huenergardt, 2010, 2015; Knudson-Martin et al., 2015). 

Dr. ChenFeng highlights her experience as an Asian American female therapist. Although Dr. ChenFeng has studied relational mutuality in depth from a clinical perspective, she shares more personally in the podcast about her relationship with her father. She reflected how it’s not typical for a first-generation Asian American father to say, “I’m feeling “X, Y, Z.” She shares how it would not be relationally appropriate for her to say to her father, “my gosh, dad, why, why did you say that?” She highlights that she sometimes makes a choice in a specific situation or pertaining to a particular issue to avoid confronting her father directly— this is not a denial of herself, but rather a recognition of their particular relationship and the connection that is felt between them. In certain situations, it would not be meaningful to explicitly name the challenge or underlying tension because it would negate the cultural and relational ethics at play, which include generational differences, gender, and filial piety. Her decision to respond in such a way “is culturally congruent with East Asian values which “[…] which emphasize hierarchy, patriarchy, and collectivist values: filial piety, family loyalty, and interdependence” (Hofstede, 2001; Lee & Mock, 2005). Although there are times when speaking up and explicitly putting language to her experience is necessary, there is always a conscious consideration for the ways in which this direct communication occurs, grounded in upholding the dignity and relational ethics that have informed their particular relationship over time and through shared experience with the other.  Engaging the other with curiosity and intellectual humility always involves a willingness to acculturate ourselves to others’ multiple cultural worlds, while still retaining an awareness of our own multiple cultural worlds and challenging rigid internalizations of cultural discourses (ChenFeng, Kim, Wu, & Knudson, 2017).

From a Western worldview, it might seem counterintuitive not to share how you feel when someone offends you or invalidates how you feel. Gen Z, which curates most of the content for TikTok and Instagram, would likely push back on Dr. ChenFeng’s decision not to confront her father, saying something along the lines of “in order to be fully dignified, we have to be able to speak our truth.” Yet, there is perhaps a liminal space in which truth telling and courageous conversation can coexist. Perhaps, truth telling is about courageously entering into conversation with those who may not see mutuality the same way we do, but with whom we desire and need to be in a relationship. Dr. ChenFeng made that decision from a deep place of understanding her culture, the power dynamic in her Taiwanese American family, and her desire to live in mutuality with her father.  

In a society that is quick to cancel each other, what would it look like if instead we courageously conversed with one another? I’ve begun to explore these conversations in my own life. While sometimes we have to disengage, start over, or seek out relationships that offer safety, before we do so, we might want to examine the cultural context behind the comments and the importance of the person we are in a relationship with. We need to count the cost of walking away from the person in front of us. And if we do decide that it’s best to disengage, how do we do this well? To counteract cancel-culture, we have to be courageous enough to name the dynamic, understand our pain, lament what is lost, and affirm the humanity of the other, even when the best course of action may be to walk away.  Or sometimes we might take a deeper look at the cultural contexts that are driving the misunderstandings. We often misunderstand each other, and cultural differences can deepen those misunderstandings. 

How Curiosity and Courage Help us Connect

Dr. ChenFeng highlights that we can consume all the knowledge and have all the theories and frameworks, but if they’re not grounded in an encounter with a real human being, with real experiences with someone we share the I-thou connection with, we can’t actually know the embodied experience of moving towards mutuality. The I-Thou connection holds in tension that the person we are talking to is fully separate, unique and apart from us, and yet, we share a common humanity with them and desire to acknowledge the worth they hold as a human being. We cannot know the embodied experience of someone of a different race or gender, but we can take steps towards them. Trust develops through embodied experiences of mutuality, not in the theories or the frameworks or what mutuality is or isn’t. 

While there are times when conversations might not be culturally appropriate, I echo the sentiment of Dr. ChenFeng where she says, “my hope for all of us is that we keep leaning in the direction of courageous conversation with others.” Moving towards life to the fullest is the ability to live fully out of who we are– which includes all of the facets of our complex and evolving identities–and still courageously and vulnerably make space for others to live fully too. Truly knowing another person requires curiosity and humility, and a knowledge that each of us have been influenced by our cultural contexts – we are formed with the ideas, beliefs, and behaviors of our families and communities. If we come to see our life story as being embedded within the complexity of a larger story of humanity, it frees us to name more definitively who we are and who we are becoming. Being a part of a larger story releases us from needing to assert our humanity over and over, canceling others and denying parts of ourselves—to be embedded in the larger narrative of humanity is to own our dignity both with courage and humility, both with a high regard for self and a high regard for the other. Bridging generational and cultural norms does not require us to deny ourselves, but it does require us to have the courage to engage in conversations with curiosity instead of with the intent to cancel. 

I find myself engaging with these same questions—will I choose to have the courage to have a conversation when I feel my sense of self is being misunderstood by another? When we cultivate space for the other, our courage to come towards is not a denial of self. Rather, our courage is a witnessing of the other–it is a wholehearted embrace of our own self-worth and human dignity, which then invites the other person to do the same, even if they disagree with us. 

When it comes to mutuality in dating relationships, I have agency to define and decide what mutuality looks like for myself. For many Christians, traditional gender roles feel aligned with their understanding of mutuality in Scripture; yet for other believers, like myself, mutuality is seen as being more nuanced and less prescriptive. In naming that my understanding of mutuality is different from someone else’s, I have the agency to choose whether that relationship is one where my full personhood can be dignified in this partnership and where the other person’s dignity is upheld as well. Regardless of whether I choose to engage in that relationship or not, I always have a choice to honor the full humanity of the other person by engaging their story, culture, and beliefs with curiosity along the way.

A Practice for Courageous Conversations on Mutuality

Step 1: Reflect on your Why

Before the conversation, take a moment to reflect on your own perspective and acknowledge how your cultural, religious, and personal experiences are shaping your beliefs about mutuality.

• Consider your own Background: Are your views shaped by Christian theology (complementarian, egalitarian, liberation theology, etc.), Western individualism, Eastern collectivism, or another cultural framework?
• Clarify your intention: Are you seeking to understand or to persuade the other person? Approach the conversation with humility, not as a debate to be won.
• Pray, Meditate, or Reflect: If faith plays a role, pray for wisdom and grace to navigate differences well.

Step 2: Approach with Curiosity

Recognize that faith traditions, cultural upbringings, and generational perspectives shape how people understand gender roles.

• Ask Open-Ended Questions:
• • • “How has your culture or faith shaped your understanding of mutuality?”
    • “What does leadership and partnership look like in your tradition or community?”
    • How have your views evolved over time?

• Listen Without Interrupting: Instead of preparing a rebuttal, focus on truly hearing their perspective.

Step 3: Share Your Perspective with Humility

• Use “I” Statements: Instead of saying “That’s outdated” or “You’re wrong,” try:
  • • “For me, mutuality means…”
    • “I’ve come to understand this differently because…”
• Acknowledge differences without dismissing:
  • • “I see how this comes from a deep respect for Scripture/tradition, even though I interpret it differently.”

Step 4: Find Common Ground

Even when perspectives differ, shared values can often co exist.

• Identify Overlapping Beliefs:
  • • “I think we both care about honoring each other in this relationship.”
    • “We both want men and women to flourish, even if we see the roles differently.”

Step 5: Know when to pause or disengage

• If the conversation becomes tense:
  • • “I appreciate this discussion and want to keep learning from each other, but I need to take some space to process what we’ve talked about”
• If you need to set a boundary:
  • • “I value our relationship, and I don’t want this to create division.”

Step 6: Reflect Afterward

• What did I learn from their perspective?
• Did I listen well and communicate with respect?
• How might this conversation shape how I engage with others in the future?
• Can I continue to engage in a meaningful, reciprocal relationship with this person even if we hold different beliefs?

What if you don’t feel seen after the conversation?

Not every dialogue will leave you feeling heard or valued. If you leave the conversation feeling dismissed, unseen, or unheard, consider the following:

• Reflect on Your Expectations:
  • • Were you hoping for agreement, or simply mutual respect?
    • Did you feel shut down, or was the other person also struggling to process?
• Decide Whether to Re-engage or Step Away:
  • • If the person is open to dialogue but needs time, consider revisiting the conversation later.
    • If they are unwilling to see your full humanity, it may be best to set a boundary while holding space for their dignity.
    • If you need to maintain a relationship even though you feel unseen, reflect on what you need to be able to re- assert your value and consider finding other spaces where the fullness of your humanity is valued.
• Find Spaces Where You Are Seen:
  • • Seek out mentors, communities, or faith spaces that affirm your perspective and journey.
    • Remember that mutuality isn’t just a theory—it’s something that must be lived out in real, life-giving relationships.

Final Thoughts

Courageous conversations don’t require agreement or many times won’t result in two people seeing things eye to eye. The important takeaway is that we invite understanding across theological, cultural, and generational divides. By leading with curiosity, respect, and humility, we create space for deeper connection and growth.

References 

ChenFeng, J., Kim, L., Wu, Y., & Knudson, M. C. (2017). “Addressing Culture, Gender, and Power with Asian American Couples: Application of Socio-Emotional Relationship Therapy.” Family Process, 56(3), 558–573. https://doi-org.fuller.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/famp.1225.