Relational Dialectics Theory: Understanding Contradictions in Relationships, Lecture notes of Relativity Theory

Download Relational Dialectics Theory: Understanding Contradictions in Relationships and more Lecture notes Relativity Theory in PDF only on Docsity! Running head: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 1 Relational Dialectics Theory Lauren Baker Kent State University Abstract: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 2 The theory this literature review pertains to is the relational dialectics theory discovered by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1996. An example of this theory is one that relates to romantic relationships. Although it is only natural to desire a close bond in our interpersonal relationships, no relationship can endure unless the involved individuals spend some time alone. Too much connection results in the loss of individual identity. In this paper, I have used eight different scholarly journal articles to help further explain the dynamics of the relational dialectics theory. I open my paper my explaining the true definition of the theory as well as summarizing the main concepts that it offers. It is after this that I expand upon the ideas by identifying eight different studies that were conducted and how each study helped further develop the theory. Once all eight studies were described, I offer a comparison of the relational dialectics theory and the social penetration theory as well as a critique for each. From there, I go on to site an interesting example that I had found on the internet that puts the theory and the concepts into an everyday life situation. After this, I offer further research that could take place in order to further develop the theory. Finally, I summarize my paper by putting all of the concepts and principles I discovered by researching this theory. Literature Review of Relational Dialectics Theory: Throughout the duration of a relationship, people are constantly feeling the ups and downs of the conflicting desires that go on. The research done by the theory’s authors, Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery, help to put together a descriptive summary of the relational dialectics theory that put this theory into context. They state that the relational dialectics theory pictures relational life as constant progress and motion. People in relationships continue to feel the push and pull of conflicting desires throughout the life of the relationship. Basically, people wish to have both/and, not either/or, when talking about opposing goals. For instance, people in RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 5 relational partners. How you work through the tensions that go on helps to define the nature of your relationship. Relational dialects approach assumes no ideal end-state in relational management (Kim and Yun, 2007). The ways in which Cyworld is used as a social media site for communication with personal relationships works out in a positive way through management of offline relational dialectics (Kim and Yun, 2007). Users of Cyworld link their “real” lives with this social media network by creating their true identities. Cyworld attempts to use new media to create interdependent relationships with others. The way social interactions are now encountered through this new media help to shape our own personal identities. A third related to the relational dialectics theory was in the book titled, Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement. The chapter, called Improvising Commitment in Close Relationships: A Relational Dialectics Perspective, emphasizes several key organizing principles that help to form the basis of understanding close relationships, of which the most central is the concept of contradiction (Sahlstein & Baxter, 2001). The other concepts touched on are commitment and the communicative practices by which the flow of communication is understood that takes place in relationships. According to Sahlstein and Baxter (2001), relational contradictions can manifest themselves in two basic ways; antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. Antagonistic roles, for example, may be seen when one person wants a more stable relationship; however, the other person wants novelty and change. Non-antagonistic contradictions are the opposite. An example of this may take place when both people understand the relational need for change but they cannot come together to meet the need for stability. The concept of commitment comes in to play in a relationship when there is a desire for a combined relational future. However, Sahlstein RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 6 and Baxter (2001) state that the concept appears to be a multi-faced one that overlaps other related variables such as satisfaction and love (Fehr, 1988). Upon research, a fourth article that related to the Relational Dialectics Theory was one that incorporated the TV show, Dawson’s Creek. Michaela D. E. Meyer uses the “coming out” of the character Jack McPhee to illustrate how sexual identity is constructed and modified through dialectical tensions (Meyer, 2003) in his relationship with close friend, Jen Lindley. By examining this relationship, two relational dialectics surfaced: interdependence/independence and informing/constituting identity formation. From this, it benefits the audience to better understand how media and social enactment intersect. However, certain issues then arise from the portrayal of Jack’s homosexuality in this show: the lack of attention to adolescent audiences, the potential of ethnographic media studies, and observations about the use of the gay male/straight female relationships (Meyer 2003). This scenario was beneficial in attracting the adolescent, gay media audience because they were able to get information on how to “be” gay when other sources were not out there; “queer” people were able to form a relationship with Jack although he was a fictional character. A fifth journal article related to relational dialectics was one pertaining to the perception of stepchildren’s contradictions in communication with their stepparents. Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, and Wagner (2004) have stated that the stepchild-stepparent relationship can be characterized by a non-dialogic, either/or logic. This means that one party has more power over the other. Contrasted, the Relational Dialectics Theory proposed by Baxter and Montgomery bases the information from a both/and perspective; however, the complexity of the stepparent/stepchild relationship forces the “dialogic project” to be approached from the opposing perspective. The relationship formed by a stepparent and a stepchild is one that is of RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 7 great difficulty. There is more so a power struggle that often occurs where in the communication pattern, one party attempts to hold more power over the other. It is stated by Baxter et al (2004) that in this complicated communication pattern, both closeness and distance occur, not just one or the other. The study that was done on the relationship of the stepparent and stepchild identified three underlying contradictions: dialectics of emotional distance-closeness, stepparent status, and expression. Often times during this study, the emotional distance-closeness contradiction became intertwined. Some parties experience emotional distance from their stepparent; however, they still wanted a sense of closeness to them. The stepparent status contradiction came about in this study when some stepchildren only wanted authority to come from their biological parent whereas others thought it to be beneficial to presume both parents as their biological ones. The third contradiction pertaining to openness versus closeness was seen when stepchildren explained how they sought to form a close bond with their stepparent, but at the same time felt the need to keep their distance. This study was a good example of how to see the constant push and pulls and tensions in relationships. It also offers a good way to see how people in relationships desire to be both connected and autonomous. A sixth journal about the relational dialectics theory was one that dealt with the management of public-private dialectical contradictions of lesbian couples. The external contradictions that lesbian couples face are at the forefront of this study, meaning the relational border between themselves and society (Suter, 2006). Baxter and Montgomery’s (1996) relational dialectics theory helped form the centralized question for this study on how lesbian couples are able to deal with the relationship boundaries. This study is so prevalent in research RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 10 relationships. According to MilitaryVeteranGamer (2012), the difference between the two is that dialects deals with the tensions that exist in every relationship where as social penetration makes predictions about relationship development based on levels of self disclosure which occurs at specific stages of a relationship. A reason why the article on this website was a good, informational read was due to the fact that MilitaryVideoGamer (2012) offered critiques of each example. In order to produce data when attempting to research the relational dialectics theory, the studies of multiple couples, individuals, and internal and external factors in a relationship must be offered. This theory also tends to be extremely hard to follow due to its complexity. Social penetration theory also has its downfalls. Rather than being broad and complex, this theory is said to be to narrow in its description of self-disclosure. It does not take in to account the different social stages that occur in relationships between people and how communication effects each one differently. Another website I encountered was posted by The Glaring Facts (2010). It provides an example of the relational dialectics theory by incorporating three different tensions as well as three different dialectics and how they are made present in the current relationship. This example involves Jill and Josh, two college students who are romantically involved. The tensions that are offered in this example are connectedness and separateness, certainty and uncertainty, and openness and closedness. The connectedness and separateness tension expressed in this relationship deals with the fact that because Josh and Jill are very close, Josh insists that they spend all of their free time together. Jill is flattered however, she would also like some free time to herself. According to The Glaring Facts (2010), it is natural to desire a close and permanent bond in our interpersonal relationship; however, a relationship will not last unless they find alone time. A second tension this example portrays is certainty and uncertainty. RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 11 Jill and Josh’s relationship has become dull due to the fact that their activities have become redundant. According to The Glaring Facts (2010), although comfort needs to be established in a relationship, it is still important to have some novelty and unpredictability in a relationship. Finally, the third tension offered is that of openness and closedness. Jill feels extremely comfortable when it comes to self-disclosing. She has no problem sharing everything with Josh. Josh, on the other hand, has become less and less open with Jill which begins to make her comfort level diminish. The Glaring Facts (2010) states that this dynamic struggle that intimacy proposes in this relationship is not a straight-line path. The three dialectics going on throughout these tensions are autonomy-connection, expression-non-expression, and stability-change. Further research is needed in order to expand this theory of communication. One aspect of this theory that future research could go into is in relation to the dialectics. Often, this theory is critiqued because it only offers three different dialectics: autonomy and connection, openness and protection, and novelty and predictability. These studies often produce other dialectics in relationships which causes people to wonder about the simplicity of the dialectics produced from this theory. Further research could look into other contradictions that relationships find themselves in when dealing with communication to help with the parsimony of the dialectics. Also, I feel that further research could expand upon the gender roles when it comes to the dialectics and tensions this theory describes. Although in this paper I did point out that one study relating to the tensions in marital relationships and how the differ among genders, it was one of the only articles I found relating to gender roles in the relational dialectics theory. Further research should be conducted in order to further develop the different or similar roles males and females have when it comes to relational dialectics. RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY 12 All in all, the Relational Dialectics Theory is a useful theory that offers in depth explanations of mainly the both/and feelings in relationships. The interactional dialectical tensions such as autonomy and connection, openness and protection, and novelty and predictability all form within the relationship itself. This theory helps to acknowledge the interdependence of people in a relationship and how not only is their a need to find a balance with conflicting issues in a relationship, but also to maintain the relationship’s need to keep opposition between relational partners. References: Baxter, L. A. (2004). A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4),181-192. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130 Baxter, L.A., Braithwaite, D.O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of the contradictions in communication with stepparents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(4), 447-467. doi: 10.1177/0265407504044841. Harvey, J.H., & Wenzel, A. (2001). Improvising Commitment in Close Relationships: A Relational Dialectics Perspective. Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement. (pp. 115-132). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.