View source for Relational dialectics

'''Relational dialectics''' is a concept within communication theory. The theory, first proposed respectively by Baxter<ref>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.</ref> and W. K. Rawlins<ref>Rawlins, William K. (1988). "A Dialectical Analysis of the Tensions, Functions and Strategic Challenges of Communication in Young Adult Friendships,"Communication Yearbook 12, ed. James A. Anderson (Newbury, CA: Sage),157-189.</ref><ref name="Rawlins">Rawlins, William K. (1992). Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life Course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.</ref> in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic ''dialectical tensions''. In their description of Relational Dialectics, Leslie A. Baxter and  Barbara M. Montgomery simplify the concept by posing “opposites attract”, but “birds of a feather flock together”.  Also, “Two’s company; three’s a crowd” but “the more the merrier.” These contradictions experienced within common folk proverbs are similar to those we experience within our relationships as individuals.<ref name="Baxter">Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:Guilford.</ref>  When making decisions, we give voice to multiple viewpoints and desires that often contradict each other.<ref name="Cheney">Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E. and Ganesh, S. (2011) Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press),pp 147-151.</ref>

The Relational Dialectic is an elaboration on Mikhail Bahktin’s idea that life is an open monologue and  humans experience collisions between opposing desires and needs within relational communications.<ref>Baxter, L. A. (2204). A tale of two voices: relational dialectics theory. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 182-192.</ref>  Baxter includes a list of Dialectical Tensions that reminds us that  relationships are constantly changing  and successful and satisfying relationships require constant attention. Although Baxter’s description of Relational Dialectics is thorough, it by no means is exact or all inclusive since we all experience different tensions in different ways.

==History==
Relational Dialectics is the emotional and value-based version of the philosophical Dialectic.  It is rooted in the dynamisim of the Yin and Yang.  Like the classic Yin and Yang, the balance of emotional values in a relationship is always in motion, and any value pushed to its extreme contains the seed of its opposite.<ref name="Bax6">Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996) ''Relating: Dialogues and dialectics'' Guilford Press, New York, ISBN 1-57230-099-X ;</ref> 

In the Western world, these ideas hark back to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who held that the world was in constant flux (like fire), with creative and destructive forces on both sides of every process. Mikhail Bakhtin applied Marxist dialectic to literary and rhetorical theory and criticism.  He illustrated the tensions that exists in the deep structure of all human experience.<ref name="Griffin">Griffin, Emory A. (2003) A First Look at Communication Theory McGraw Hill, Boston, ISBN 0-07-248392-X.</ref> For example, he identified that the tension that exists between unity and difference. 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). Like the Yin and Yang, Bakhtin's forces have no ultimate resolution.<ref name="Griffin"/>

Baxter took the deep structural analysis of Bakhtin and applied it to communication theory.  She found a T-Bangha of axes where this dynamic tension operated.<ref name="Bax6"/>  Later authors have added other axes.<ref name="Sahl">Sahlstein, Erin M. (April 2006) "Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-distance relationships" Western Journal of Communication 70.(2): pp. 147-165</ref>

==Core Concepts==
There are four main concepts that form the backdrop of relational dialectics, they are: 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)" <ref name="Miller">Miller, Katherine (2002) ''Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts'' McGraw Hill, Boston, ISBN 0-7674-0500-5 ;</ref>. 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 interdependence cannot be separated from the tension between openness and privacy - both work to condition and define the other. 

Relational dialectics must be understood in terms of social '''processes'''. Movement, activity, and change are functional properties (Rawlins, 1989). For example, instances such as an individual fluctuating between disclosure and secretiveness. In addition, the individual may move between periods of honest and open communication (Miller, 2005). 

'''Praxis''' is a philosophical term for the concept of 'practical behavior' or sometimes 'the experience of practicing'.  In praxis the dialectic tensions are created and re-created through the active participation and interaction.  In other words, the practical experience of having a relationship exposes one to the imposition of the needs and value of another.  As the relationship endures ones own needs and values become apparent.  Praxis focuses on the practical choices individuals make in the midst of the 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 dialectical tensions themselves.

Research has recommended theories which further dialectical understanding in relationships, such as in the marriage, in the workplace, etc.

==Dialectics==
According to the original relational dialectic model, there were many core tensions (opposing values) in any relationship.<ref>Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E. and Ganesh, S. (2011) Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press),pp 147-151.</ref> These were:

'''Autonomy and Connectedness''': The desire to have ties and connections with others versus  the  need to separate yourself as a unique individual.

: ''Example'': As an athlete, wanting to feel a part of a team but also wanting to highlight your individual talents.

'''Favoritism and Impartiality''':  The desire to be treated fairly and impartially versus the               desire to be seen and known as “special”.  

: ''Example'': As a professor, creating an attendance policy but making exceptions for students who participate in class and have good grades.

'''Openness and Closedness''': The desire to be open and divulge information versus the desire to be exclusive and private.

: ''Example'': Chatting with your boss about your weekend, but being sure to leave out certain details.

'''Novelty and Predictability''': The desire for the relationship to be predictable versus the desire for it to be original and new.
: ''Example'': Relying on a fixed schedule for board meeting, but needing variations in the meeting itinerary to keep you interested and inspired.

'''Instrumentality and Affection''': The desire for affection to be genuine versus the desire for affection to be motivated by benefits and perceived advantages of the relationship.

: ''Example'': Being in a romantic relationship based on love and affection, but maintaining it for benefits such as financial security.

'''Equality and Inequality''': The desire to be considered as equals versus the desire to develop levels of superiority.

: ''Example'': As a female in the military, wanting treatment equivalent to that received by their male coworkers, but requiring special barracks and adjusted assignments<ref name="Cheney"/>

According to the theory, while most of us may embrace the ideals of closedness, certainty, and openness in our relationships, the communication is not a straight path towards these goals. Conflicts often produce the exact opposites.<ref name="Griffin"/>


==Dialectics in Relationships==
Extensive research has been done regarding the role dialectical tensions play in relationships. Through studies of romantic relationships, long distance relationships, and friendships, researchers have observed the existence and frequency of certain dialectical tensions within various types of  relationships.


'''Romantic Relationships'''

A study of 25 heterosexual married couples was designed to determine what types of dialectical tensions were most prevalent in antagonistic conflicts between spouses. Larry Erbert found that the Openess v. Closedness dialectic was most commonly referenced  through examples by participants<ref>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.</ref> Research conducted by Baxter and Montgomery confirmed this finding, and broke the dialectic down into four subcategories to further analyze its existence in romantic relationships.

: ''Openness With'':  Refers to an individual’s self-disclosure of information to another.  In this idea, three types of information are shared: information deemed to be personal, the individuals feelings or personal opinions, and information regarding one individuals relationship with the other.

: ''Openness To'': Often times this form of Openness is labeled as being attentive or responsive. People respond in cognitive, affective, and behavioral ways.

: ''Closedness With'': Describes the type of nondisclosive talk that occurs between individuals. It is most often identified as “small talk”, being primarily superficial. The talk is oriented around conversation that requires little or no self-disclosure, allowing for a controlled level 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 in order to discourage others from confiding in them.<ref name="Bax6"/>


'''Long Distance Relationships'''

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, balance, and denial. Segmentation refers to the partners’ ability to live separate, independent lives when they were not together. Balance involved the couple’s ability to plan conversations about the future of their relationship. Denial is the couple’s refusal to admit the role distance is having on the relationship.<ref name="Sahl"/> 


'''Friendships'''

William Rawlins has examined the role 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 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, as affection may be offered in order to receive instrumental aid from friends. This interweaving of concepts is what distinguishes different types of friendships. While this remains true, the subjectivity of the friends in question ultimately determines the outcome of how heavily instrumentality v. affection is applied.<ref name="Rawlins"/>


'''In the Workplace'''

“Blended Relationships” are 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 expects a level of confidentiality that places strain on friendships that value the sharing of information.<ref>Baxter, L. A., & Bridge, K. (Summer 1992). Blended relationships: friends as work associates.Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.</ref> ''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.<ref name="Cheney"/>


==References==

<references/>

==Additional References==

* Adler, Ronald B.; Proctor, Russell F.; and Towne, Neil (2006) ''Interpersonal communication: from Looking out, looking in'' Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA, ISBN 0-495-08346-1 ;
*Knapp, M.L., & Daly, J.A. (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication. USA: Sage
Publications ;
* Montgomery, Barbara M. and Baxter, Leslie A. (1998) ''Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships'' L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 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, 1213-30. Retrieved from International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text database ;
* Rawlins, William K. and Holl, Melissa (1988). "Adolescents' Interactions with Parents and Friends: Dialectics of Temporal Perspective and Evaluation," Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 27-46 ;
* 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.