Another, somewhat less gloomy representative of this perspective (who was influenced like Guggenbuhl-Craig by the work of Carl Jung), Thomas Moore (1994, p. xiv) suggests that: “pain and difficulty can sometimes serve as the pathway to a new level of involvement. They do not necessarily mean that there is something inherently wrong with the relationship; on the contrary, relationship troubles may be a challenging initiation into intimacy.”
Other observers of the development of couples similarly suggest that neither the optimistic nor existential viewpoints are quite accurate, though each has a partial grasp on what seems to be a typical developmental pattern for couples. Carter and McGoldrick have found that couples (and families in general) move, as do individuals, through developmental “plateaus” and periods of “transition”. The plateaus are “extended periods of relative structural stability” — they typically involve some change, but this change is of a “first-order” variety, i.e. involving more or less of something, rather than something new and different. The Transformational periods involve “second-order” change, according to Carter and McGoldrick, in which some fundamental change occurs.
Sometimes, these changes involve “normative events”, such as marriage, birth of a child or retirement. These normative events are the “givens” in most relationships. Virtually all couples can expect them to occur, for they involve the basic issues of life and death, love and work. Other significant, transforming events are labeled by Carter and McGoldrick as “paranormative” — they include conflicts (marital separations or divorce), illnesses (e.g. miscarriages), relocations of the household, changes in socioeconomic status and external events, such as war, that can result in massive dislocation for the couple or family. At least one or more of the paranormative events are likely to occur in most relationships, and require that second-order transformation take place.
