.................................................................................................................................................................
“Nothing is perfect. Life is messy. Relationships are complex. Outcomes are uncertain. People are irrational.” The preceding quote by Hugh Mackay is perhaps an excellent explanation of the dynamism of all types of relationships. Consider the third simple statement which embraces a multitude of meaning: Relationships are complex. Never are they a static entity, but rather they shift, they turn, and they progress back and forth by way of dialogic interactions. As one of the most important, yet perhaps most difficult aspect of our lives, relationships are a fascinating phenomenon because of the unique role communication plays in their creation and development. As a highly relevant matter in every aspect of our lives, relationships have earned a great deal of attention from communication scholars. Everywhere we go, we encounter one relationship to the next, from the moment we wake up and to the moment we lie back down. Every day, our communication dictates the degree and the directional shift of each relationship. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) write that “these contexts [relationships] are more than containers in which conversation happens” (p. 229). Rather, communication creates, maintains, and develops each relationship. “Relationships don’t just happen; they are created and maintained through communication…How you communicate with others, then, really does matter” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 255). The success of each type of relationship, then, is determined by the way we communicate. Because every human is unique with his or her own identity and desires, relationships of all kinds require constant attention and mutual endeavors to reach a happy medium. Based upon these communicative behaviors and mutual efforts to develop relationships, Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) is an excellent theory in the communication discipline in understanding the constant flux and flow of relationships and the active, purposeful management of natural and emergent tensions within each relationship—whether in familial, organizational, friendship, or romantic realms.
If we reflect upon the important—and
even trivial—relationships in our lives, we may come to the realizations that,
as relationships continually develop, the potential to encounter conflict and tension
escalates concurrently. Consider a
romantic relationship: While the beginning is full of the wide-eyed infatuation
and honeymoon phase, over time, partners learn more about each other while
coming to realize their differences, and thus conflict ultimately emerges. No one person is equally the same, so
relational differences is something to be embraced. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) support this notion
in their explanation that life is full of contradiction and cannot be
escaped. “We should not ask whether
there is something wrong with contradiction; rather, we should communicate to
manage it well” (p. 257). Relational
Dialectics Theory explicates this notion of communication as the means for
managing differences, and thus creating meaning between individuals (Baxter
& Braithwaite, 2008). Because
relationships and the differences that emerge among them are such an integral
part of life, Relational Dialectics is a pragmatic theory for understanding
relationships from one context to another.
Extending on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin’s Theory of Dialogics
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2011), and with historical roots based on the Yin and
Yang (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996), the theory is characterized based on the
inherent power of dialogue in not only creating
relationships but also managing the
differences that emerge. After all, it
is through dialogue that similarities and differences are revealed, and thus
through further dialogue in which they are managed. Such dialogue—often opposing discourses—is the process by which meaning-making takes
place, which is a major proposition of RDT (Baxter & Braithewaite, 2008).
The theory then can be thought of as a concept explaining relationships in a
constant state of motion via dialogic interactions, and the term dialectic refers to the natural tensions
or contradictions which are managed through such dialogue.
The theory is further explained by
Littlejohn and Foss (2011) whom elucidate four vantage points posited by
Baxter. Aside from the basic idea that
relationships are literally made through
dialogue, perhaps an important concept of relationships is that, even in light
of individual differences, unity can be achieved “through the dynamic interplay
between centrifugal and centripetal forces—those that push us apart and those
that pull us together, those that create a sense of chaos and those that
provide a feeling of coherence” (Littlejohn & Foss, p. 246)”. The precise
definition of the words centripetal
and centrifugal does not matter as
much as the basic concept behind dialectical tensions: relationships will
experience multiple contradictions because of the individual differences among
partners, and through dialogue, partners will manage such tensions to create
convergence even among diversity. Parallel
to this notion is the proposition asserted by Baxter and Braithewaite (2008)
that meanings emerge from different discourses: “To engage in everyday
dialogue, participants must fuse their perspectives to some extent while
sustaining the uniqueness of their individual perspectives” (p. 351). Thus,
amidst the struggles of opposing perspectives and discourses, individuals can
come to an understanding, or convergence, in a process of meaning-making via
dialogue—the ongoing back-and-forth conversations. Consider, for example, two best friends who
each hold opposing perspectives or values, but have mutually reached a middle
ground by way of discussing their differences.
Rather than being pitted against one another, the two friends still
maintain their own differences while simultaneously creating convergence in
their relationship. The concepts posed
in RDT, then, significantly help individuals understand how their individuality
and diversity work in tandem within their relationships.
Relational Dialectics Theory
outlines several contradictions often experienced in relationships. There are multiple
major dialectics or contradictions, which in the theory are called clusters
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2011), but some common ones are generally found within
relationships. One commonly known cluster is the tension between autonomy and
connectedness—also known as integration and separation—where individuals desire
to be connected to others but still have a need to maintain their
individuality. In some friendships or
romantic relationships, one partner may have a higher desire for connection,
while another may desire more autonomy, and they must manage these differences
for the relationship to be successful. The
integration/separation dialectic is a primary strain in all relationships
(Griffin, 2003). Another cluster is
openness and closedness (or expression and non-expression), which deals with
the desire to disclose information versus the need to keep it private. Relationships may experience some turbulence
if one partner desires high levels of information sharing while the other is
closed off. On the contrary, even if
both partners are similar in their disclosure behaviors, they must manage which
information is shared and which information is private (Griffin, 2003). Each type of relationship encounters these
contradictions and many more, and partners must decide how to manage them which
ultimately determines the directional shift of the relationship.
Regarding
the theory’s postulations on the flux and flow of relationships, Relational Dialectics
opposes other theoretical views on the linear development (also known as the
serial view) of relationships. In an
article titled “Relational progression as dialectic:
Examining turning points in communication among friends,” Johnson, Wittenberg,
Villagran, Mazur, and Villagran (2003) challenge the serial view of
relationship development by positing that, based on the degree of particular
relationships, relational development is not just a progressive or linear
process where individuals strive to reach a high level of development as
suggested by early theoretical perspectives.
The authors also argue that many theories regarding stages of
relationship development apply mostly to romantic relationships, but do not
necessarily explain the varying degrees of friendships where intimacy levels
may be lower than others. Relational
Dialectics Theory, however, holds a non-serial view of relationship development
and examines the constant shifts and turns in relationships, positing that they
are not always balanced. Regarding the
dynamic and ever-evolving nature of relationships, the non-serial view of
relational development is a breath of fresh air. Johnson et al. (2003) write that “Baxter and
Montgomery (1996) call for a redefinition of the term relational development,
which they claim suggests a serial view of growth to greater levels of such
variables as interdependence, loving, and openness, to relational change
process, which recognizes that relationships are continually being modified”
(231), and suggest that relational development itself can be dialectic. There are indeed many turning points in
relationships, either for the better or the worse, and individuals must manage their
engrained differences. West and Turner (2004)
explain this non-serial view in their 12th chapter of Introducing
Communication Theory: Analysis and Application on the theory relational
dialectics:
Perhaps
the most positive appeal of the theory is that it seems to explain the push and
pull people experience in relationships much better than some of the other,
more linear, theories of relational life. Most people experience their
relationships in ebb-and-flow patterns, whether the issue is intimacy,
self-disclosure, or something else. That is, relationships do not simply become
more or less of something in a linear, straight-line pattern. Instead, they
often seem to be both/and as we live through them. Dialectics offers a
compelling explanation for this both/and feeling. (par. 2)
While Relational Dialectics is a significant theory in the realm of interpersonal communication, some criticisms come with any theory along with its credits. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) outline certain criteria for evaluating theory. The first principle involves examining a theory’s scope, which is its comprehensiveness or generality. This means that the explanations of a theory are covered over a broad spectrum or at least cover a narrow range of events but can be applied to a large number of situations. It would seem plausible to assert that RDT has a sufficient theoretical scope regarding the fact that it applies to all types of interpersonal relationships. Indeed, the theory “can be applied to richly different situations [i.e. different types of relationships and unique circumstances] and still be helpful” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 34). However, because relational dialectics are so unique to each relationship and specific situations, making universal generalizations creates challenges. While it does illuminate some insights based on specific instances or among specific types of relationships, such discernments cannot necessarily be applied across varying relational situations. For example, a friendship is much different than romantic relationships, so dialectical tensions such as autonomy and connection may be completely different across situations, the type of the relationships, and the unique individuals involved. Even if scholars were to examine two romantic relationships of similar length or status, individual needs for autonomy and connection would vary because of the uniqueness of each individual and the dynamism of the relationship. While we can assume that each relationship essentially experiences the same—or at least most of the same—contradictions, the experiences will still vary from one relationship or context to the next.
Nonetheless, this notion regarding the challenge with generalizations should not be taken to assume that RDT does not have a significant theoretical scope. Although generalizations across varying relationships are not always probable when applying this theory, it is interpretive in nature and alludes to a search for understanding. Baxter and Braithewaite (2008) write that “the goal of RDT is to show how particular meanings are socially constructed and sustained through every day communicative activities” (p. 350). Specific circumstances within specific relationships can then be examined and individuals can reach an understanding of how opposing discourses—dialogic processes—allow individuals to create meaning with one another. Therefore, the theory also holds heuristic value, which is based on its ability to aid in learning and discovery, or to specifically “generate new ideas for research and additional theory” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 35). Being that it applies to all types of unique relationships, West and Turner (2004) write that “it offers an expansive view of relationships and has generated several studies even in the short time that Baxter has been delineating the theory” (par. 2). Just a simple electronic search for scholarly articles on relational dialectics generates a multitude of results exploring the differences experienced among a large number of contextual circumstances and diverse relationships, which is further testimony to the heuristic nature of RDT. Therefore, an understanding of the theory’s concepts may enlighten individuals on the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of their multiple relationships, in which they can apply the concepts to cognitively understand the why and the how behind the variability of their relationships.
Because RDT examines the constant flux and flow of relationships, and while it may help individuals understand the evolving nature of their relationships, the theory does not offer predictions for how to actually handle their relational dialectics like other theories may often propose. Therefore, there may be some disagreement regarding its validity, which is another major criterion for evaluating theory. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) write that “validity is the truth value of a theory” which “is not intended to mean absolute unchanging fact; rather, there may be a variety of ‘truth values’ in an experience” (p. 35). As previously discussed, generalizability— which is one of the three types of validity—is not something that can necessarily be grasped from Relational Dialectics Theory. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) write that this type of validity “applies almost exclusively to traditional, discovery-oriented, law-like theories” (p. 35). Rather, RDT is a non-traditional theory. Therefore, this non-traditional theory may create challenges if individuals are seeking strategies for improving the tensions in their relationships. West and Turner (2004) explain this notion based on two possibilities: “This problem may be the result of the relative youth of dialectics as a theoretical frame for relational life, or it may result from differing goals: Traditional theory seeks prediction and final statements about communication phenomena; Dialectics operates from an open-ended, ongoing viewpoint” (par. 4). Perhaps the limitation to make predictions should not be negatively appraised, but rather, the pragmatic and interpretive nature of the theory should be embraced. Such a heuristic value enables individuals to reflect upon their own relationships and to approach each circumstance with an open mind and a yearning to create understanding through ongoing discourse, rather than seeking a step-by-step guide-book for reaching an ultimate level of high-development. After all, relationships can never reach an end of development as long as the relationship is still alive. The constant variability, and the mutual effort by both parties to manage their differences, help create an appreciation among partners and is what may make relationships so exciting.
While RDT may not meet the standards for generalizability, it can be argued that it is still valid regarding another form of validity: value. Littlejohn and Foss write that value “refers to the importance or utility of the theory” and that value “is the primary form of validity in practical theories” (p. 35). Therefore, RDT holds inherent value because of the practicality of the theory—despite the fact that it embraces non-traditional theoretical concepts. The tensions we experience in our relationships are an integral part of daily life, and RDT therefore effectively explains such intricate relational elements. As a pragmatic theory, then, RDT meets another major criterion of openness. Because it is a youthful theory and operates from an open-ended viewpoint—as previously pointed out by West and Turner (2004)—it meets the evaluative standard of openness. Littlejohn and Foss (2011) write that a practical theory “is open to other possibilities…the construction is a way of looking rather than a reproduction of reality. It admits to diversity and invites dialogue with other perspectives” (p. 36). Thus, because RDT captures the diversity of each type of relationship and is seen through an interpretive lens, one can argue that it successfully meets the criteria for openness. If Baxter’s primary and intrinsic goal was to elucidate how relational differences can be managed through dialogue, and how unity can be achieved even among diversity, the theory itself then can surely be modified or at least open to other possibilities. Otherwise, any rejection of openness would essentially debunk the very elements posited by the theory.
Circling back to the opening quote, we know from our relational experiences that nothing is perfect, life is messy, relationships are complex, and outcomes are uncertain. Baxter and Montgomery’s Relational Dialectics Theory elucidates this notion rather well. We learn from the theory’s elements that each relationship experiences ongoing contradictions, and it is through dialogic processes in which relationships are created and differences are managed, which ultimately influences the degree of each relationship. Although it is a non-traditional theory, and while some scholars may question its merit as a theory because it is absent of prediction (Griffin 2003), Relational Dialectics is a significant theory for offering specific insights on the challenges people face regarding the individual differences in relationships and is a further testimony to the very importance and power of dialogue in creating and maintaining relationships. Griffin (2003) suggests that RDT should be evaluated based on its interpretive standards rather than the traditional approach to other theories. From an interpretive perspective, then, RDT offers a great deal of enlightenment regarding the inherent conflict that any and all relationships are bound to face, and how dialogue works to create unity even among diversity. And that, I suppose, is something to be embraced.
References
Baxter,
L. A. & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational Dialectics Theory. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite
(Eds.), Engaging theories in
interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 349-361). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter,
L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996) Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.
Griffin,
E. (2003). A First Look at Communication
Theory. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Retrieved
from http://www.afirstlook.com/edition_7/theory_resources/Relational
_Dialectics
Johnson, A. J., Wittenberg, E., Villagran, M. M., Mazur, M.,
& Villagran, P. (2003). Relational progression as dialectic: Examining
turning points in communication among friends.
Communication Monographs, 70(3), 230-249.
Littlejohn, S.
W. & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of
human communication. (10th ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland
Press, Inc.
West,
R. & Turner, L. H. (2004). Introducing
Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. (2nd. Ed). Retrieved
from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430344 /student_view0/chapter12/
