Relational dialectics theory[edit]

Old Lead Section:

Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles and interplay between contrary tendencies. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions.

Relationships are made in dialogue and they can be complicated and dialogue with similarities and differences are necessary. Relational communication theories allow for opposing views or forces to come together in a reasonable way. When making decisions, desires and viewpoints that often contradict one another are mentioned and lead to dialectical tensions. Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery exemplify these contradictory statements that arise from individuals experience dialectal tensions using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; as well as, "two's company; three's a crowd" but "the more the merrier". This does not mean these opposing tensions are fundamentally troublesome for the relationship; on the contrary, they simply bring forward a discussion of the connection between two parties.

The relational dialectic is an elaboration on Mikhail Bakhtin's idea that life is an open monologue and humans experience collisions between opposing desires and needs within relational communications. Baxter includes a list of dialectical tensions that reminds us that relationships are constantly changing, and that successful and satisfying relationships require constant attention. Although Baxter's description of relational dialectics is thorough, it is not exact or all inclusive since we all experience different tensions in different ways.

Revised Lead Section:

Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory concerning the close personal ties and relationships we have as individuals, and specifically highlights the struggle of competing, often contradictory, discourses that exist in relationships. In addition this theory seeks to explain how these competing discourses create meaning in relationships. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relational partners through the lens of various dialectical tensions.

Relational dialectics is an expansion of Mikhail Bakhtin's conception that life is an open dialogue, and humans establish meaning for their lives in concert with others by the way they engage in discourses with one another. These discourses exist on a range from monologic (single speaker) to dialogic (two or more speakers). He asserts that people do not exist as entities with closed-off borders, but rather as open entities with loose borders. In his conceptualization, there is no such thing as a monad, but rather we exist to be in dialogue with one another.

Relationships are made in dialogue and can be complicated because dialogue accentuates the similarities and differences that exist between us. Relational communication theories provide a way to re-conceptualize the contradictory meanings that arise between relational partners through talk. Inherently, in the process of making decisions, relational partners may have opposing viewpoints that must be worked out through talk. It is through talk that relational partners are able to address the different meanings or significance that they ascribe to certain situations. Dialectical tensions are thus negotiated in the context of these conversations, and individuals must learn how to communicate through and about the contradictory meanings that arise through talk between them and their relational partners. The theory of relational dialectics affirms the idea that although we are not always able to resolve contradictions that arise through talk, we can be comfortable having opposing viewpoints within relationships. ^[44] Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery provide examples of dialectical tensions, or opposing viewpoints, using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; or, "two's company; three's a crowd," but "the more the merrier." The existence of these contradictory meanings is not inherently problematic within the context of a relationship if they are thoughtfully communicated and engaged with. In fact, the negotiation of these contradictory meanings that arise through talk often serve as a means for the facilitation and creation of deeper and more thoughtful discourses between relational partners.

An important component of the relational dialectic theory constructed by Baxter are multiple dialectical tensions that remind us that relationships are constantly changing, and that successful and satisfying relationships require constant attention to and negotiation of the tensions that are bound to arise. Although Baxter's first manifestation of the theory of relational dialectics was thorough, it has been clarified and re-centered into RDT 2.0. RDT 2.0 and the clarifications it brought to relational dialectics exemplifies that relational dialectics is a theory. Communication theory is constantly being clarified and re-centered as greater understanding is gained regarding the ways individuals communicate. And more specifically, relational dialectics theory, is still being clarified and re-centered as greater knowledge is gained regarding how individuals experience the competing discourses and contradictory meanings that arise through talk with relational partners.

Contents[edit]

History[edit][edit]

Relational dialectics is the emotional and value-based version of the philosophical dialectic. It is rooted in the dynamism of the yin and yang. Like the classic yin and yang, the balance of emotional values in a relationship is constantly in motion, and any value pushed to its extreme, contains the seed of its opposite.

In the Western world, the ideas of yin and yang link back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who argued that the world was in constant flux (like fire), with creative and destructive forces on both sides of every process. Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian scholar and literary theorist most known for his work in dialogism, applied Marxist dialectic to literary and rhetorical theory and criticism. He illustrated the tensions that exist in the way that characters establish meaning for their lives in concert with others through the use of discourse. Bakhtin conceived the human dialectic as two forces analogous to the physical forces centripetal (emotional forces tending towards unity) and centrifugal (emotional forces tending towards divergence). Bakhtin's conceptualized discourses as existing on a range from monologic to dialogic.

Baxter took the conceptualization of dialogue that Bakhtin created and applied it to communication theory. She created a number of relational axes along which the contradictory meanings that arise through talk/discourse between relational partners exist. Later additions to relational dialectics have added additional axes.

Concepts[edit][edit]

There are three main approaches to relational dialectics: monologic, dualistic and dialectic.

A monologic approach frames contradictions as either/or, demonstrating that contradictions are mutually exclusive or opposite of each other. For example, an individual can like hot or cold weather, but they cannot like a mix of weather conditions. Taking a monologic approach means as we move closer to one concept, we move further away from the other.
A dualistic approach frames contradictions as two separate entities, showing that they are unrelated in nature. When one individual in a relationship is evaluated without regard to the interaction they have with their partner, then this is an example of how a relationship can be studied using a dualistic approach.
A dialectic approach contends that in every contradiction, multiple points of view play off one another (both/and). In the context of a relationship, one individual might desire to be open in the relationship, thus exposing details about their life to the other person, while the other individual in the relationship might have a sense of self-protection, and not want to share details about their life with their partner. Both of these feelings can also exist simultaneously within one individual at the same time. The beauty of dialectics is that it does not have to be one or the other, it can be both.

In addition to these three approaches to relational dialectics, there are four main concepts that form the foundation of relational dialectics.

The four core concepts of relational dialectics include: contradiction, totality, process, and praxis.

Contradictions are the core concept of relational dialectics. It is the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions. A contradiction is formed "whenever two tendencies or forces are interdependent (unity) yet mutually negate one another (negation)". For example, in a relationship one can simultaneously desire intimacy and distance.
Totality suggests that contradictions in a relationship are part of a unified whole and cannot be understood in isolation. In other words, the dialectics cannot be separated and are intrinsically related to each other. For example, the tension between dependence and independence cannot be separated from the tension between openness and privacy — each concept works to define the other.
Process Relational dialectics must be understood in terms of social processes. Movement and change are important aspects of relational dialectics (Rawlins,1989). An example of how this concept of process is experienced in real life might be an individual whose feelings and desire for disclosure and secretiveness are constantly fluctuating. In addition, another example might be an individual who vacillates between honest and open communication and privacy maintenance (Miller, 2002, 2005).
Praxis is a philosophical term for the concept of 'practical behavior' or 'the experience of practicing'. In praxis, the dialectic tensions are created and re-created through active participation and interaction. In other words, the practical experience of having a relationship exposes one to the needs and values of another, and how those work in tandem with or in contradiction to one’s own needs and values. As the relationship endures, one's own needs and values become apparent, and must be reconciled with the needs and values of the other individual in the relationship. Praxis focuses on the practical choices individuals make in the midst of these opposing needs and values (dialectical tensions). In turn, the choices and actions themselves create, re-create, and change the nature of the relationship and hence the nature of the dialectical tensions themselves.

In addition to these four core concepts of relational dialectics, there are four major assumptions that are made in the conceptualization of relational dialectics.

These four assumptions are that (1) relationships are not linear, (2) relational life is characterized by change, (3) contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life, and (4) communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational contradictions.^[41^]

Relationships are not linear. Many communication theories conceptualize relationships as being linear; however, researchers looking at dialectical tensions view relationships as constantly engaging in negotiation of contradictory discourses that arise in talk between relational partners, which creates relational progressions that tend to be nonlinear. ^[25^] According to Duck and Wood (1995), instead of relationships progressing in linear stages, relationships must address the daily management of conflicting stresses.^[41^] Management of these conflicting stresses often leads to nonlinearity because depending on the success of the management efforts, a relationship could experience fluctuations between progression and regression (i.e. like the saying "two steps forward one step back").^[41^] In addition, proponents of chaos theory, Weigel and Murray (2000), contend that relationships following a linear pattern are far from the rule, or norm, of relationships that occur in real life.^[46^] The trajectory of relationships change depending on the outcomes of certain situations that those relationships encounter, thus there is no guarantee of linear progression from one relational stage to the next because outcomes cannot always be predicted, and are not a guarantee, often resulting in nonlinearity.^[46^] Using this perspective of nonlinearity, Baxter and Montgomery disavow the term relational development because this concept re-emphasizes the idea that a relationship is a forward progression a process that is completed in a linear, step-by-step fashion like following an instruction manual of directions. This concept of progression delineates only two options: either moving forward (progressing) or staying stagnant (not progressing). The connotation of progress is that it is something desirable and good, which means alternatively that the connotation of not progressing is that it is not good and not desirable. In this situation, there is no in between. Using this type of “either/or thinking” in the context of relationships can detrimentally label a relationship as either intimate, open, certain or not without leaving room for an in between.^[25^] By accepting the premise that relationships are not linear, opportunities are created to see relationships in a nonlinear fashion, thus embracing rather than ignoring the duality that exists. This provides a farther reaching perspective, rather than constraining our understanding of relationships to a over-simplistic paradigm of linearity.
Relational life is characterized by change. This assumption sees relationships as dynamic and constantly changing rather than as stagnant and stable entities. However, this ties into the first assumption in that this change is not presumed to be linear but can also be nonlinear in nature. For example, you and your significant other are not the same people after being together for three years as you were when you first met. However, this change that characterizes relational life is not necessarily following a linear progression towards closeness, but rather is simply a recognition that the choices that relational partners make in how to portray the unity or independence that exists within their relationship changes over the course of time. ^[25]
Contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life. This assumption indicates that in the discourses/talk that occurs between relational partners about their relationship, competing discourses and the tensions they create are always going to exist. ^[25^] Because each person is inherently unique and different, there is going to be opposition and difference that exists in the talk between relational partners. It is through these differences that relational meaning is created. Thus, these differences do not prevent relationships from forming, they simply are something that must be negotiated and communicated about regularly because they are a natural part of all relationships. Relational dialectics is different from other relational theories in its emphasis on change over stability. Stability is a trait that is viewed by most relational theories to be notable and important to achieve; however, relational dialectics takes a different approach by viewing change and transformation as desirable traits, while stability is perceived to be abnormal.
Communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational contradictions. In this final assumption made by relational dialectics, communication is identified as a vital and necessary tool.^[25^] The communication strategies that are employed in relationships are used to structure the various dialectics that are a part of this theory. Communication serves as the central tool for negotiating these dialectics and being able to find common ground rather than existing on the extremes.

The theory of relational dialectics has been used by communication researchers to further the understanding of various relationships, including marriage, the workplace, family, and more. Relational dialectics also encompasses the concept of contextual dialectics, which is the idea that every relationship exists in a specific place within a specific culture. From there we also see the rise of public and private/real and ideal dialectics and the interplay between what is seen on television in public life, versus what is experienced in private lives. According to West and Turner, "the tension of the real and ideal dialectic is featured when we think of television shows like Leave It to Beaver: We receive an idealized message of what family life is like, and then when we look at the families we live in, we contend with the troublesome realities of family life. The tension between these two images forms this dialectic".

According to the original relational dialectic model, there were multiple core tensions (opposing values) that existed in any given relationship. These tensions included autonomy and connectedness, favoritism and impartiality, openness and closedness, novelty and predictability, instrumentality and affection, and finally, equality and inequality.

Autonomy and connectedness refer to the need to separate oneself as a unique individual versus the desire to have ties and connections with others. An example of autonomy and connectedness would be an athlete who wants to feel like he/she is a part of a team but also wanting to highlight his/her individual talents.
Favoritism and impartiality refer to the desire to be seen and known as unique and special versus the desire to be treated fairly and impartially. For instance, a professor may want to be impartial by creating an attendance policy that applies to everyone but makes exceptions for students who participate in class and have good grades, thereby demonstrating favoritism for certain students. Openness and closedness refers to the desire to be open and disclose information versus the desire to be private and closed off. When chatting with a boss about one's weekend, there is the desire to be open and share the details of your life and who you are as a person, however, closedness is also at play, as certain details are often left out, because of the need to maintain a standard of professionalism in a work environment.
Novelty and predictability suggest that there is a desire for new experiences or surprises in a relationship, but also a desire for consistency and routine within a relationship. When creating scheduled meetings for board members, the predictability may lie in determining a fixed time and date that these meetings occur, however novelty may be incorporated by scheduling these meetings to occur at different locations each time in order to provide new and inspiring environments in which to create ideas.
Instrumentality and affection are the desire for affection to be motivated by benefits and perceived advantages of the relationship versus the desire for affection to be genuine. For example, being in a romantic relationship based on love and affection but maintaining the relationship in order to continue gaining benefits such as financial security.
Finally, equality and inequality refer to the desire to be considered as equals versus the desire for there to be a division of power. For example, a female in the military may seek treatment equivalent to that received by her male colleagues, but requires special barracks and adjusted assignments.

Based on research done by Baxter and Montgomery, the table below shows two different ways in which atypical dialectical tensions are experienced by relational partners. The column that displays examples of Internal Dialect shows "ongoing tensions played out within a relationship". The column that displays examples of External Dialect shows "ongoing tensions between a couple and their community".

	Internal dialect (within the relationship)	External dialect (between couple and community)
Integration–Separation	Connection–Autonomy	Inclusion–Seclusion
Stability–Change	Certainty–Uncertainty	Conventionality–Uniqueness
Expression–Nonexpression	Openness–Closedness	Revelation–Concealment

Integration–separation is "a class of relational dialectics that includes connection–autonomy, inclusion–seclusion, and intimacy–independence." Some individual autonomy must be given up to connect to others.

Stability–change is "a class of relational dialectics that includes certainty–uncertainty, conventionally–uniqueness, predictability–surprise, and routine–novelty." Things must be consistent but not mundane. In order to maintain a healthy relationship, there must be a balance between the expected and unexpected.

Expression–nonexpression is "a class of relational dialectics that includes openness–closedness, revelation–concealment, candor–secrecy, and transparency–privacy". In a relationship, it is important to keep certain details exclusively between the two parties, while other details of the relationship can be disclosed to the public.

Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0[edit]

Like any theory, relational dialectics theory has been constantly adapting and changing based on the demands of the ever-changing sphere of research in communication. In 2011, Baxter introduced a clarification and re-centering of relational dialectics theory that has been labeled RDT 2.0. However, there are also portions of RDT 2.0 that reflect an evolution, rather than simply a clarification, of relational dialectics theory from its 1996 version, specifically in regards to extending the utterance chain and outlining the method of contrapuntal analysis as a means of analyzing discursive talk. ^[45] In addition, this update “analyzed actual communication among relational partners by identifying competing cultural, historical and personal discourses within utterances.”^[45] These discourses are broken into two categories: proximal-already-spokens and distal-already-spokens.^[45] Proximal-already-spokens are things said by family members or friends, while distal-already-spokens are discourses that come from channels like education, the media, or engaging with a culture in an immersive way.^[45] In addition, “communicators also direct their utterances to address the responses they expect in the future, termed distal and proximal yet-to-be-spokens.”^[45] Essentially, this is where individuals are predicting how the person they are talking with is going to respond, or even how a group, society, or culture will respond.^[45] In order to create this prediction, individuals can employ three different techniques: negating, countering, or entertaining.^[45] Negating recognizes that an alternative discourse exists; however, it is deemed to be lacking value, thus it is dismissed.^[45] Countering recognizes that alternative discourses may contain some value, however, the standard discourse is ultimately defaulted to as the superior option.^[45] Finally, entertaining proposes the value and importance of considering an alternative discourse; however, the speaker tends to feel ambivalent regarding the use of the alternative discourse.^[45] This update to relational dialectics theory provides the ability to take these discursive experiences and analyze them in greater detail to gain a greater understanding of the competing discourses that exist in talk between relational partners.

Further Research [edit][edit]

According to Michaela Meyer, "relational dialectics theory exposes tensions within interpersonal relationships while at the same time it assumes a continual maintenance and repair of these tensions. As a result, relational dialectics theory is incredibly useful for defining how tensions are managed within relationships." Extensive research has been done regarding the role dialectical tensions play in relationships, as well as the various factors that influence the tensions and the degree to which they affect a relationship. Through studies of romantic relationships, long distance relationships, friendships, and family relationships, researchers have been able to observe the existence and frequency of certain dialectical tensions within these contexts.

According to Marsha Linehan, creator of DBT or Dialectical Behavior Therapy, some people have great difficulty resolving the dialectic tensions that arise in relationships. Many people with personality disorders, potentially caused or made worse by dysfunctional upbringing, especially Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and some others, perpetually vacillate between the poles of dialectic tensions, with resulting instability causing problems that are not mediated by other therapy modalities. In DBT's biosocial theory, some people "have a biological predisposition for emotional dysregulation, and their social environment validates maladaptive behavior.

A study of 25 heterosexual married couples was conducted to determine what types of dialectical tensions were most prevalent in antagonistic conflicts between spouses. Larry Erbert found that the tension most highly referenced by participants in the study was the openness v. closedness dialectic. Baxter and Montgomery conducted similar research which confirmed this finding. Based on the results of their research, Baxter and Montgomery broke the openness v. closedness dialectic down into four subcategories in order to further understand how it operates within the context of romantic relationships.

· Openness with: Refers to an individual's self-disclosure of information to another. This self-disclosure encompasses three types of information: information deemed to be personal, an individual’s feelings or personal opinions, and information regarding one individual's relationship with the other.

· Openness To: Often this form of openness is labeled as attentiveness or responsiveness. People respond in cognitive, affective, and behavioral ways.

· Closedness with: Describes the type of nondisclosive talk that occurs between individuals. This type of talk is most often identified as "small talk" and it is primarily superficial in nature. This talk is oriented around conversation that requires little or no self-disclosure, which allows for a controlled level of informational privacy.

· Closedness to: Some people experience stress and discomfort when listening to others' problems. In response to this, some individuals attempt to distance themselves from others in order to discourage others from confiding in them.

Research has been conducted to examine the autonomy-connection dialectic when dealing with termination of romantic relationships. In Erin Sahlestein and Tim Dun's study they found that, "participants' joint conversations and their breakup accounts reflect the two basic forms of contradiction. Both antagonistic and non-antagonistic struggles were evident in these data". Furthermore, the study discovered that contrary to previous conceptions, the autonomy-connection dialectic is negotiated throughout the termination process of a relationship, as opposed to simply moving directly from connection to autonomy.

A study measuring the display of symbols by lesbian couples, revealed that while same-sex couples experience similar challenges that opposite-sex partners experience, there are unique challenges that arise to these same-sex couples. These unique problems in turn give rise to unique dialectical tensions within the relationship.

In a study that focused on dialectics in second marriages, six tensions unique to remarriages emerged.

Three tensions related to the remarried dyad:

· Old-new - Many participants found that within their new marriage, the individuals brought with them ideas and expectations based on their previous, or "old," marriages. However, participants recognized that they had since entered a "new" marriage, which previous old expectations or experiences might not be applicable or relevant to.

· Emotional closeness-distance - Participants expressed feelings of both emotional closeness and emotional distance with their new partners. While participants found that they experienced emotional closeness with their second spouse, they also found that either they or their new spouse had other close friends or family with whom they were not close.

· Past-present - Many participants found that they do not discuss prior relationships, or other things that relate to the past, with their new partners. Yet, the new couples remained open about issues and topics related to their present life.

The other three tensions that emerged from the remarried dyad related to their social networks:

· Their time frame-our time frame - Many participants expressed feeling tensions between adhering to a time frame that felt right to the individual, while acknowledging the expectations that they sensed from their friends and family members in regard to what an appropriate relationship and re-marriage time frame would be.

· Dyadic revelation-network revelation - Participants found that they desired to share information with their social network, however, sometimes their partner did not desire them to share such information with that particular network, resulting in tensions among participants trying to decide between revealing information to their partner and revealing information to their social network.

· Old-new - Participants identified the tension that was created through interactions with friends and family from the "old" marriage while being in the "new" marriage. Participants managed this tension primarily through recalibration and reaffirmation, where participants recognized that both sides had to be present in order for the relationship to exist.

Based on research by Sahlstein, the uncertainty v. certainty dialectic is the most prevailing dialectic found in long-distance relationships. Her work exposed uncertainty v. certainty as a competing yet complementary need. In interviews conducted with couples engaged in long distance relationships, contradictions emerged. For example, couples were found to plan interactions in order to obtain a level of spontaneity. Within this, three different forms of the praxis of relational dialectics emerged:

· Segmentation - referred to the partners' ability to live separate, independent lives when they were not together.

· Balance - referred to the couple's ability to plan conversations about the future of the relationship.

· Denial - referred to the couple's refusal to admit the effect that distance was having on the relationship.

William Rawlins has examined the role of relational dialectics in regard to friendships. The tension of instrumentality v. affection was found to be the most central to this type of relationship. Within friendships, importance is placed on the ability to discern the level of affection for "real" friendships as opposed to instrumentality for "fake" friendships. Aristotle's "friendship of virtue" notion of caring for friends without instrumental purposes exemplifies this point. The dichotomy of instrumentality v. affection cannot be ignored within friendships, for example, you may be in a friendship where affection is offered by an individual in order to receive instrumental aid.

In the workplace

Blended Relationships refer to close friends that are a part of the same work environment. Dialectical tensions occur in organizations as individuals attempt to balance their roles as employees while maintaining established friendships within their occupations. It is not necessary, however, to have a friend in organizations to experience dialectical contradictions. Stress occurs frequently on the individual level as human needs and desires oppose.

· Impartiality vs. Favoritism: Friends within organizations desire to provide each other with special support and assistance but organizations strive for equitable treatment and discourage bias.

· Openness vs. Closedness: It is a tendency of close friends to be open and honest with one another, but organizations often expect a level of confidentiality that places a strain on friendships that value the sharing of information.

· Novelty and Predictability: Feeling excited about a restructuring of your organization but anxious since it may interrupt your routine and put stress on your current relationships.

· Instrumentality and Affection: Inviting a coworker to lunch with the intention of asking for support on a project at work.

Sibling relationships

Relational dialectics can be applied when considering the significant change in family life that siblings experience when one sibling moves out of the family home for the first time as part of the transition into adulthood. As one sibling begins a new phase of life, this change is often accompanied by new friendships or romantic relationships that occur in his/her new lifestyle, along with a new geographic separation, both of which result in a change in communication. As the newly absent sibling begins a new lifestyle beyond his/her home, the pre-existing sibling relationship goes through various changes and transitions.

In a study conducted on discursive struggles among siblings experiencing transition, all participants acknowledged that moving away from their sibling(s) resulted in a discursive struggle between the old and new meanings in the sibling relationship. Two specific discursive struggles were identified:

· Old relationship-new relationship - For many siblings, family rituals were not continued upon moving out, resulting in a change in the relationship and a feeling of missing out, emphasizing the changes that occur during the transition from old relationships to new relationships.

· Certainty-uncertainty - Participants found that the change from seeing a sibling regularly to not seeing him/her as often resulted in feelings of uncertainty, resulting in an identity shift in the relationship and supporting the discursive struggle of certainty-uncertainty.

While participants addressed the varying tensions involved with lifestyle transitions, 8 of the 19 participants in the study expressed that moving away from their sibling strengthened their connection and appreciation for their brother(s) and/or sister(s).

Children and stepparents

In a study focusing on the adult stepchild perceptions of communication in the stepchild-stepparent relationship, three contradictions were found to be experienced by the stepchildren participants:

· Dialectics of emotional distance-closeness - While many stepchildren expressed feelings of emotional distance, the participants had varying reasons for keeping the distance. Some participants who still had a positive relationship with their nonresidential parent kept an emotional distance from their stepparent as an act of loyalty that they felt toward their nonresidential parent. Other participants equated emotional distance to the fact that they had little in common with their stepparent. However, many participants expressed feeling some closeness with a stepparent while maintaining some amount of emotional distance. Participants reported that they upheld a relationship with the stepparent that they deemed to be honest, respectful, and trustworthy, yet they kept an emotional distance by continuing to address the stepparent by his/her first name.

· Stepparent status - Many of the stepchildren in the study also experienced a dialectical tension between desiring for the family authority position to be designated to their one residential parent and desiring for both the residential parent and the stepparent to share parenting authority. Many participants felt that legitimating their stepparent as a parent would result in the formation of closeness.

· Expression - The participants expressed a desire for open communication with their stepparent, while at the same time, expressing resistance to openness and instead favoring a more careful form of communication due to the fact that the participants often sensed a lack of familiarity with their stepparent.

In another study, researchers aimed to identify the contradictions that were perceived by stepchildren when characterizing the ways that familial interactions caused them to feel caught in the middle between parents. The participants expressed that they wanted to be centered in the family while, at the same time, they hoped to avoid being caught in the middle of two opposing parents. The main contradiction identified in the study was similar to the autonomy-connection dialectic: stepchildren desired the freedom to communicate and enact the desired relationship with their parents. However, these stepchildren also felt the need to manage the constraints that resulted from parental communication, particularly when both parents did not cooperate with one another. While the stepchildren wanted to know what was happening, they also wanted to be protected, resulting in a second dialectic of control-restraint. Through this study, the researchers believe that openness-closeness dialectic between parents and their children is important to building functional stepfamily relationships.

One study, focused on the relationship and communication between college-aged stepchildren and their nonresidential parents, found two underlying contradictions: parenting and not parenting, and openness and closeness. Many participants expressed that they wanted their nonresidential parent to be actively involved in parenting them but did not desire it once they were completely independent. Participants also expressed that while they wanted open and intimate communication with their nonresidential parents, they felt that they could not closely communicate because of the nonresidential parent's lack of familiarity with the child's everyday life.

Theory applications[edit][edit]

Relational dialectics theory can be applied to the context of health care, specifically end-of-life care, providing a system for caregiver communication that contains tensions and challenges. The quality of the end-of-life journey is influenced by how these tensions are managed. Relational dialectics theory is an applicable framework for investigating the ongoing communication between physicians and their patients/family members during the process of end-of-life care.

When making choices about end-of-life medical care, family members, friends, or surrogate decision makers are often burdened and experience great ambivalence concerning the decisions they must make. Decision-makers must deal with the relational and moral tensions that come with such decisions. Family members in charge of making end-of-life decisions often face conflicting emotions between holding on and letting go; recognizing the need to let a loved one go while wanting to continue fighting to keep a loved one alive.

In a study that focused on the communication tensions perceived among the Maori culture during the end-of-life journey, it was found that despite the culture's focus on collectivism and its emphasis on harmony, four communication tensions existed between caregivers (family and friends) and patients: autonomy and connection, conflict and connection, isolation and connection, and balancing the needs of self and other.

The human grieving process is marked by relational dialectics. After the death of a child, bereaved parents often experience tension between presence and absence by grieving their child's permanent absence while still experiencing an emotional bond toward the deceased child. Bereaved parents may also experience tension between openness and closeness, where they desire to discuss their feelings with friends or family, yet they are hesitant to share because of the potentially negative reactions they could receive.

One study, aimed at focusing on how families make sense of contradictory discourses, found two discursive contradictions: family members' wishes vs. patient's wishes, and emotionality vs. rationality. Through interviews with participants who had experienced the loss of a loved one, researchers concluded that many of the end of life decisions made by family members, patients, and doctors were centered on making sense of the simultaneous desires to hold on and to let go. Participants recognized that they experienced tension between their own preferences and the preferences of a loved one, and with that, also experienced tension between making decisions based on emotions versus making decisions based on rationality.

Dialectical contradictions have also been found among parents who have lost a child. One study found that two primary dialectical contradictions occurred for parents who had experienced the death of a child: openness-closeness, and presence-absence. Parents experienced openness-closeness when they desired to talk about their child and their loss, yet they perceived the outcome as risky, especially if they sensed that friends and family desired for them to move on. Participants explained that they were able to manage this contradiction by being selective with their disclosure and taking control over the communicative situation. When dealing with the presence-absence dialectic, bereaved parents experienced tensions between the ongoing bond that they experienced with their child, and the physical absence of the child. Participants expressed that when people were not willing to remember their dead child, the physical absence of the child was deeply felt. However, when people chose to remember the deceased child, the parent experienced feelings of comfort and continual bonding with the child.

Relational dialectics theory can also be applied to the context of family communication. Relational dialectics theory has been heavily utilized as a lens to better understand an individual's identity and the processes of meaning making that exist when families face difficult or emotional situations.^[42] Examples of this include parental bereavement, communication with step-parents, contested lesbian co-mothering, the coming out process that parents experience, visible adoption, and estrangement of parents and their adult children.^[42] However, a recent study that expands the application of relational dialectics theory to family communication looked at family identity that was disrupted by mental illness.^[42] The purpose of this research was to identify in participants' talk concerning their family life the competing discourses that come into play, and determine the meaning, to family identity as well to relationships among family members dealing with mental illness, that these discourses provide to the family dynamic. ^[42] The discourses that emerged as most prevalent in these families’ coping processes were normality and closeness. These individuals understood that what they were going through was not considered ‘normal’ circumstances. Through various relationship rituals there were attempts to negotiate this clear divide between normal and abnormal, but without much success. For the purposes of this study, “participants’ attempts to normalize their family life through rituals, and the difficulties that ensued, further emphasized how the participants’ family lives were indeed different from other, ‘normal’ families.”^[42] In this study, relational dialectics theory serves as a way to understand how family members coping with the intrusion of mental illness into their family experienced the competing discourses that came with this challenge and how their identity and family life were affected as a result.

Another application of relational dialectics theory to the field of family communication is in regard to military deployment. Sahlstein, Maguire, and Timmerman (2009) conducted a study in which they interviewed the military wives to gain insight about how they coped in light of their husbands' recently being deployed.^[43] Relational dialectics theory was applied in this research as a mechanism for assessing the tensions these wives experienced over the course of their husbands’ deployment. The prominent tensions that were felt by these wives were uncertainty/certainty prior to their husband being deployed, autonomy/connection in their husbands’ absence, and openness/closedness upon reunification with their husbands.^[43] The way these wives opted to cope with these tensions was to prioritize one over the other. For example, in the absence of their husband, they privileged their autonomy as individuals over the connection they felt as a wife, in the context of their marriage.

~~Understanding Autistic Communication~~

As relational dialects’ aim is to analyse competence during interaction, it can suggest an approach to researching on communication competence among people which are with autism spectrum disorders. Applying relational dialects theory to studying interactions of autistic individuals starts from approaching autistic individual as an actor during the interaction and deeming competence a result of the interaction. This approach can delve into how social contexts, expectations, and roles contribute to the autistics’ competent communication. The investigation of dialects includes integration-separation, expression-privacy, and stability-change enhance the understanding of the communication between people with autism spectrum disorders. (I would delete this section because after doing my own research into this area there is not enough information to provide an in-depth understanding of how RDT is connected to communication between people with autism spectrum disorders. Also, I think this information would be better suited on a page concerning autism spectrum disorders).

Dialogue[edit][edit]

Dialogue is typically a conversation between two or more people. These conversations are what constitute relationships, as communication is the very foundation of any relationship. According to Cools, "the four important concepts that form the foundation of dialogism are 1) the self and the other situated in contradictory forces, 2) unfinalizability, 3) the chronotope and the carnivalesque, and 4) heteroglossia and utterance". The most important components in dialogue are: constitutive dialogue, utterance chains, dialectical flux, aesthetic moment, and critical sensibility.

'Constitutive dialogue'

While some theorists, along with Baxter, may argue that communication is simply a feature in a relationship, examining constitutive dialogue suggests that communication is actually what creates and maintains a relationship. According to Baxter, "a constitutive approach to communication asks how communication defines, or constructs, the social world, including ourselves and our personal relationships. From a constitutive perspective, then, persons and relationships are not analytically separable from communication; instead, communication constitutes these phenomena." In researchers initial studied of relationships, they found that similarities, backgrounds, and interests are usually what hold people together, and these components are all identified through self-disclosure. Dialogic researchers would argue that differences are just as important as similarities and they are both discovered through dialogue.

'Utterance chains'

To understand utterance chains, we must know that an utterance is what a person says in one turn of a conversation. When utterances are "linked to competing discourses", they are considered utterance chains. Baxter believes that there are "four links on the chain where the struggle of competing discourses can be heard." These are: cultural ideologies, relational history, a not-yet spoken response of a partner or utterance, and normative evaluation of a third party to utterance. Baxter also suggests that to understand an utterance, we must understand the discourse. She posits "in the broadest sense, a discourse is a cultural system of meaning that circulates among a group's members and which makes our talk sensical. For example in the United States the discourse of individualism helps us to understand and value an utterance such as, 'I need to find myself first before I commit to a serious relationship with another person.’”

'Dialectical flux'

A dialectical flux is "the unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate nature of personal relationships". Relationships are complicated and intertwined with dialectical tensions. Spiraling inversion and segmentation are two strategies that Baxter and Montgomery have established to respond to this complexity. Spiraling inversion is generally a no-win situation; a struggle between two different thought processes. For example, if you were to do something your parents did not approve of, you could lie about it, but your parents might yell at you for lying. And on the other hand, you could be upfront and tell them immediately, and they could be completely quiet in shock. Segmentation is pertaining to more than one role in a relationship that must be altered depending on the situation. For example, if you were working at your father's shop as a part-time job, he would be considered your father AND your boss. This could mean that he has different expectations of you in different circumstances and his attitude towards you might change depending on the role that is being played.

'Aesthetic moment'

Aesthetic moments are brief incidents in a relationship that bring participants together through the use of dialogue. There is a temporary feeling of wholeness felt between partners involved in this dialogue. It is easy to see examples of aesthetic moments in romantic relationships, such as a first kiss or a reciting of wedding vows, but these moments can be experienced by anyone.

'Critical sensibility'

According to Griffin, critical sensibility is "an obligation to critique dominant voices, especially those that suppress opposing viewpoints; a responsibility to advocate for those who are muted". This means that both sides of a dialogue are equal to one another. No one person is more powerful or dominant than the other, and they are able to communicate without these imbalances interfering. This does not mean that the dialogue is free of competing discourses as is the case in utterance chains.

Ethics[edit][edit]

When communicating, we must understand that morals do not apply for all people. Sometimes lying can be entirely minor in communication, but there are oftentimes that lying can majorly affect the perspective of those being lied to. There are several times where most people would justify a "white lie", or a lie that causes no harm. For instance, if your mother was in the hospital, you could tell her she still looked beautiful, even if her appearance was far from it because it would make her feel better. Other actions that are only followed through based on whether they have a positive or negative outcome are called "consequential ethics". According to Sissela Bok, "lies drag around an initial negative weight that must be factored into ethical equations". Bok believes in the "principle of veracity" which says that truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special circumstances that overcome the negative weight. Ethics plays a major role in the study of interpersonal communication, particularly relational dialectics. In an area where contradictions seem like the norm, it is even more important to share the truth. Incorporating varying and often times opposite view points is critical because communication is grounded in human nature which forces ethics. (I would delete this section as well, it just seems like a strange tangent that is not tied directly to relational dialectics. I also do not think it is entirely relevant to RDT, and therefore I am deleting it from my draft).

Critiques[edit][edit]

According to theorist Leslie Baxter, there are three major limitations in the work of relational dialectics theory. Baxter claims that her work has been too removed from the talk that occurs naturally between individuals who are relating to one another in some way, and claims that the theory needs a firmer empirical base when applied to talk between relating parties.^[44] Naturally occurring talk between relating parties could be qualitative work utilizing the observation method of relating parties or small groups. Non-participative or participative observation would be appropriate for continued study of relational dialectics theory. Baxter also believes that more future work needs to include multiple voices instead of focusing on the more popular research on the dialectics between two individuals.^[44] Baxter posits that the current understanding of relational dialectics assumes only the existence of opposite forces. This assumption infers binary opposites even though there can be multiple discourses in play at any given time that exist in competition with one another, it does not simply have to be two at a time.^[44] Lastly, Baxter shares that future research should focus on discourse through time, such as studying dialogue and how it transforms over a longer period of time. The latter would take significant time so it would be studies that incorporate earlier works compared to more recent work.

In addition, further critiques of relational dialectics theory include the fact that research needs to go further than the initial understanding that existed in the first iteration of the theory, to understanding how individuals constitute meaning from the existence and overlap of competing discourses. ^[41] The current understanding of relational dialectics theory does a good job of answering the important question of “So, what?,” by articulating the idea that through competing discourses having an effect on one another relational meaning is made possible. It is helpful to know that various competing discourses exist in our relationships with others, but in order to deepen this understanding, it is important to further articulate the how--how the existence of these competing discourses serves to create meaning.^[41] How we use these tensions to create new meaning and understanding in our relationships is an important next question that this theory can attempt to answer. The beauty of theories is that they are always adapting and changing, and it is important that this theory continues to go deeper because it concerns important and pertinent aspects of our relationships with one another.

References[edit][edit]

^ Griffin, E. (2011). Chapter 12: Relational Dialectics. In, First look at communication theory (pp. 153-167). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
^ Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective of communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257–273). New York: Wiley.
^ Montgomery, B. (1988). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions and strategic challenges of communication in young adult friendships. In, Communication Yearbook (pp. 157-189). Newbury, CA: Sage.
^ Littlejohn, S.W., & Foss, K.A. (2011). Chapter 7: The Relationship. In, Theories of human communication (pp. 243-246). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E. & Ganesh, S. (2011). Organizational communication in an age of globalization. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
^ Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.
^ Nasser, K., Dabbous, Y., & Baba, D. (2013). From strangers to spouses: Early relational dialectics in arranged marriages among muslim families in Lebanon. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 387–406.
^ Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 182–192.
^ ^a ^b ^c Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 70(2),147–165. doi:10.1080/10570310600710042
^ ^a ^b West, R., & Turner, L. (2010). Introducing communication theory analysis and application. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0073385077
^ Miller, K. (2002). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-7674-0500-5
^ Meyer, M. E. (2003). It's me. I'm it.: Defining adolescent sexual identity through relational dialectics in dawson's creek". Communication Quarterly, 51(3), 262–276. doi:10.1080/01463370309370156
^ Baxter, L. A. (2003). Dialectical theory. International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family.
^ Allen, J. P., Chango, J., & Szwedo, D. (2014). The adolescent relational dialectic and the peer roots of adult social functioning. Child Development, 85(1), 192–204. doi:10.1111/cdev.12106
^ Little, H., Tickle, A., & das Nair, R. (2017). Process and impact of dialectical behaviour therapy: A systematic review of perceptions of clients with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. doi:10.1111/papt.12156
^ Erbert, L. A. (2000). Conflict and dialectics: Perceptions of dialectic contradictions in marital conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4&5), 638–659. doi:10.1177/0265407500174009
^ Sahlstein, E., & Dun, T. (2008). I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time: Constructing breakups as managing autonomy-connection. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9(1), 37–45. doi:10.1080/17459430802400340
^ Suter, E. A., Daas, K. L. (2007). Negotiating heteronormativity dialectally: Lesbian couples' display of symbols in future. Western Journal of Communication, 71(3), 177. doi:10.1080/10570310701518443
^ Wilder, S. E. (2012). A dialectical examination of remarriage dyadic communication and communication with social networks. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 13(1), 63–70. doi:10.1080/17459435.2012.722163
^ Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
^ Johnson, B. W., Jensen, K. C., Hideko, S., & Cimbora, D. M. (2017). Ethics and relational dialectics in mentoring relationships. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 12, 14–21. doi:10.1037/tep0000166
^ Baxter, L. A., & Bridge, K. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates. Western Journal of Communication, 56(3), 200–225. doi:10.1080/10570319209374414
^ Conger, K.J., & Little, W.M. (2010). Sibling relationships during the transition to adulthood. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00123.x
^ ^a ^b Halliwell, D. (2016). I know you, but I don't know who you are: Siblings' discursive struggles surrounding experiences of transition. Western Journal of Communication, 80(3), 327–347. doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1091493
^ Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Bryant, L. (2004). Stepchildren's perceptions of the contradictions in communication with stepparents. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 21(4), 447–467. doi:10.1177/0265407504044841
^ Braithwaite, D. O., Toller, P. W., Daas, K. L., Durham, W. T., & Jones, A. C. (2008). Centered but not caught in the middle: Stepchildren's perceptions of dialectical contradictions in the communication of co-parents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(1), 33–55. doi:10.1080/00909880701799337
^ Braithwaite, D., & Baxter, L. (2006). You're my parent but you're not: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren's perceptions about communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 30–48. doi:10.1080/00909880500420200
^ ^a ^b Oetzel, J., & Simpson, M. (2015). Managing communication tensions and challenges during the end-of-life journey: Perspectives of māori kaumātua and their whānau". Health Communication, 30(4), 350–360. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.861306
^ Baxter, L.A. (2006), Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues in family communication. In Braithwaite, D.O. & Baxter L.A. (Eds), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
^ Braun, U.K., & Beyth, R.J. (2008). Voices of african american, caucasian, and hispanic surrogates on the burdens of end-of-life decision making. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(3), 267–274. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0487-7
^ ^a ^b ^c Toller, P. (2009). Grieving together and apart: Bereaved parents' contradictions of marital interaction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(3), 257–277. doi:10.1080/00909880903025887
^ ^a ^b Ohs, J. E., Trees, A. R., & Gibson, C. (2015). Holding on and letting go: Making sense of end-of-life care decisions in families. Southern Communication Journal, 80(5), 353–364. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1081979
^ Toller, P. (2005). Negotiation of dialectical contradictions by parents who have experienced the death of a child. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(1), 46–66. doi:10.1080/0090988042000318512
^ Best, S. A. (2012). Using relational dialectics theory to better understand autistic communication competence.
^ Cools, C. (2011). Relational dialectics in intercultural couples' relationships.
^ Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x
^ Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory. In, Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 349-362).
^ Moroco, L. (2008). Respect, relational dialectics, and dialogic civility as unconventional intersections between personal and public life". Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
^ Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 181–192. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0403&4_5
Duck, S. W., & Wood, J. T. (1995). Confronting relationship challenges (Understanding relationship processes). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sporer, K., & Toller, P. W. (2017). Family identity disrupted by mental illness and violence: An application of relational dialectics theory. Southern Communication Journal, 82(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2017.1302503
Parcell, E. S., & Baker, B. M. A. (2018). Relational dialectics theory: A new approach for military and veteran‐connected family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(3), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12279
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithewaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 349–361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329529.n26
Prentice, C. M. (2015). The romantic and the practical: Using RDT 2.0 to analyze competing cross-cultural discourses. Ohio Communication Journal, 53, 44–51.
Weigel, D., & Murray, C. (2000). The paradox of stability and change in relationships: What does chaos theory offer for the study of romantic relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(3), 425-449.

Adler, R. B., Proctor, R. F., & Towne, N. (2006). Interpersonal communication: From looking out, looking in. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0-495-08346-1
Knapp, M.L., & Daly, J.A. (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication. USA: Sage.
Montgomery, B. M. & Baxter, Leslie A. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-2112-0
Pahl, R. (2000). On friendship. Great Britain: Polity Press.
Pawlowski, D. (1999). Rubber bands and sectioned oranges: Dialectical tensions and metaphors used to describe interpersonal relationships. North Dakota Journal of Speech & Theatre, 1213–1230.
Rawlins, W. K., Holl, M. (1988). Adolescents' interactions with parents and friends: Dialectics of temporal perspective and evaluation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 27–46. doi:10.1177/0265407588051002
Sahlstein, E., Maguire, K. C., & Timmerman, L. (2009). Contradictions and praxis contextualized by wartime deployment: Wives' perspectives revealed through relational dialectics. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 421–442. doi:10.1080/03637750903300239
Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 106–170). New York: Academic Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Simon, E. P. (1993). Relationship maintenance strategies and dialectical contradictions in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 225–242. doi:10.1177/026540759301000204
Scarf, M. (1987). Intimate partners: Patterns in love and marriage. New York: Random House.
Rusbult, C. E. & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. doi:10.1177/026540759301000202
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x
Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 689–710. doi:10.1177/0265407504046115
O'Boyle, N. (2014). Front row friendships: Relational dialectics and identity negotiations by mature students at university. Communication Education, 63(3), 169–191. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.903333

***As a note, I edited the article as a whole grammatically, structurally, and other nuanced things, but it was hard to bold or highlight that, but I just wanted to indicate this in case some of the language seemed to have changed a little in parts that is why. There were some areas with really poor verbiage or grammar usage throughout the article that I felt like needed to be fine-tuned in order to make the article better.

User:Kewestbrook1/sandbox