Running head: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
Relational Dialectics Theory
Lauren Baker
Kent State University
Abstract:
1
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
2
The theory this literature review pertains to is the relational dialectics theory discovered
by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1996. An example of this theory is one that relates
to romantic relationships. Although it is only natural to desire a close bond in our interpersonal
relationships, no relationship can endure unless the involved individuals spend some time alone.
Too much connection results in the loss of individual identity. In this paper, I have used eight
different scholarly journal articles to help further explain the dynamics of the relational dialectics
theory. I open my paper my explaining the true definition of the theory as well as summarizing
the main concepts that it offers. It is after this that I expand upon the ideas by identifying eight
different studies that were conducted and how each study helped further develop the theory.
Once all eight studies were described, I offer a comparison of the relational dialectics theory and
the social penetration theory as well as a critique for each. From there, I go on to site an
interesting example that I had found on the internet that puts the theory and the concepts into an
everyday life situation. After this, I offer further research that could take place in order to further
develop the theory. Finally, I summarize my paper by putting all of the concepts and principles I
discovered by researching this theory.
Literature Review of Relational Dialectics Theory:
Throughout the duration of a relationship, people are constantly feeling the ups and
downs of the conflicting desires that go on. The research done by the theory’s authors, Leslie
Baxter and Barbara Montgomery, help to put together a descriptive summary of the relational
dialectics theory that put this theory into context. They state that the relational dialectics theory
pictures relational life as constant progress and motion. People in relationships continue to feel
the push and pull of conflicting desires throughout the life of the relationship. Basically, people
wish to have both/and, not either/or, when talking about opposing goals. For instance, people in
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
3
relationships want to be both connected and autonomous, open and self protective, and to have
both predictability and spontaneity in their interactions. As people communicate in relationships,
they attempt to reconcile these conflicting desires, but they never eliminate their need for both
parts of the opposition (West & Turner, 2010). In this paper, I further go on to explain the
relational dialectics theory by covering different articles that help to portray a better
understanding of how it works.
The first journal article related to relational dialectics theory was entitled, A Tale of Two
Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory by Leslie A. Baxter. Baxter (2004) starts off by comparing
the dialogue used in the novel written by Charles Dickens’s book, A Tale of Two Cities. She
uses her understanding of Charles Dickens’s dialogical view to create her own version using
relational dialectics. Based on the research of Russian theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin (1984), the
dialogic view she discovered is the center foundation for relational dialectics. Bakhtin’s
understanding of dialogue was one that does not come from a “univocal monologue” meaning
that conversations do not happen between a single voice. Rather, it comes from more of an open
dialogue where parties must bring together their ideas to some extent but still maintain their own
uniqueness.
Although Leslie Baxter’s “tale” she wrote had Dickens’s dialogic inspiration, it does not
contain, in Baxter’s words, the “Dickensian touch,” meaning that it does not have the vivid,
descriptive pictures and turning plots that were portrayed in his book. Her attempt to summarize
this theory is rather “a” tale, not “the” tale because relational dialects is not one that comes from
the ownership of one person, but rather one that is joined together by anyone who plays a role in
the development of understanding. The core concepts of relational dialectics contradicts
dialogues; therefore, her opposition to relationship formation came from a dualistic point of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
4
view, not a dialogic. Upon studying the contradictions to relationships, such as studying how
relationships end and not how they begin, she quickly came to realize that the center of
dialectical perspectives is really just a “unity of opposites” (Baxter, 2004).
The way Leslie Baxter described relational dialectics by using her understanding of the
book, A Tale of Two Cities, helped me to better understand how to use theories to better
understanding the intellectual side. It article helped see how theories must be heuristic (contain
research that backs them) in order to grow and develop. A good way to look at it was put into
terms by Baxter (2004) when she stated that relational dialectics is similar to plant growth. The
seeds that develop into the plant were always there, they just needed water and light to grow.
When you first read something, such as Dickens’s book, you may not understand it fully. It is
then after you put things into perspective that you begin to reveal the understanding of terms and
meanings using relational dialectics.
A second article pertaining to the relational dialectics theory was one entitled, Crying for
Me, Crying for Us: Relational Dialectics in a Korean Social Network Site (Kim and Yun, 2001).
The central focus of this article is on Social Networking Sites and the way people communicate
through them. The Korean social networking site, Cyworld, is one that is similar to Facebook and
Myspace. People blog and interact with others via social media. Kyung-Hee Kim and Haejin
Yun (2007) use Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery’s dialectical approach to dissect the
dialogue between people using social media.
Baxter and Montgomery’s dialectical approach to people’s personal relationships is one
that shows the process that is in constant change throughout the duration of the relationship and
the conflict and diversity that is needed to be managed in order to achieve mutual understanding.
Dialectics, or in other words, contradictions, have their ups and downs when it comes to
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
5
relational partners. How you work through the tensions that go on helps to define the nature of
your relationship. Relational dialects approach assumes no ideal end-state in relational
management (Kim and Yun, 2007).
The ways in which Cyworld is used as a social media site for communication with
personal relationships works out in a positive way through management of offline relational
dialectics (Kim and Yun, 2007). Users of Cyworld link their “real” lives with this social media
network by creating their true identities. Cyworld attempts to use new media to create
interdependent relationships with others. The way social interactions are now encountered
through this new media help to shape our own personal identities.
A third related to the relational dialectics theory was in the book titled, Close Romantic
Relationships: Maintenance and Enhancement. The chapter, called Improvising Commitment in
Close Relationships: A Relational Dialectics Perspective, emphasizes several key organizing
principles that help to form the basis of understanding close relationships, of which the most
central is the concept of contradiction (Sahlstein & Baxter, 2001). The other concepts touched on
are commitment and the communicative practices by which the flow of communication is
understood that takes place in relationships.
According to Sahlstein and Baxter (2001), relational contradictions can manifest
themselves in two basic ways; antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. Antagonistic
roles, for example, may be seen when one person wants a more stable relationship; however, the
other person wants novelty and change. Non-antagonistic contradictions are the opposite. An
example of this may take place when both people understand the relational need for change but
they cannot come together to meet the need for stability. The concept of commitment comes in to
play in a relationship when there is a desire for a combined relational future. However, Sahlstein
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
6
and Baxter (2001) state that the concept appears to be a multi-faced one that overlaps other
related variables such as satisfaction and love (Fehr, 1988).
Upon research, a fourth article that related to the Relational Dialectics Theory was one
that incorporated the TV show, Dawson’s Creek. Michaela D. E. Meyer uses the “coming out”
of the character Jack McPhee to illustrate how sexual identity is constructed and modified
through dialectical tensions (Meyer, 2003) in his relationship with close friend, Jen Lindley. By
examining this relationship, two relational dialectics surfaced: interdependence/independence
and informing/constituting identity formation. From this, it benefits the audience to better
understand how media and social enactment intersect. However, certain issues then arise from
the portrayal of Jack’s homosexuality in this show: the lack of attention to adolescent audiences,
the potential of ethnographic media studies, and observations about the use of the gay
male/straight female relationships (Meyer 2003). This scenario was beneficial in attracting the
adolescent, gay media audience because they were able to get information on how to “be” gay
when other sources were not out there; “queer” people were able to form a relationship with Jack
although he was a fictional character.
A fifth journal article related to relational dialectics was one pertaining to the perception
of stepchildren’s contradictions in communication with their stepparents. Baxter, Braithwaite,
Bryant, and Wagner (2004) have stated that the stepchild-stepparent relationship can be
characterized by a non-dialogic, either/or logic. This means that one party has more power over
the other. Contrasted, the Relational Dialectics Theory proposed by Baxter and Montgomery
bases the information from a both/and perspective; however, the complexity of the
stepparent/stepchild relationship forces the “dialogic project” to be approached from the
opposing perspective. The relationship formed by a stepparent and a stepchild is one that is of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
7
great difficulty. There is more so a power struggle that often occurs where in the communication
pattern, one party attempts to hold more power over the other. It is stated by Baxter et al (2004)
that in this complicated communication pattern, both closeness and distance occur, not just one
or the other.
The study that was done on the relationship of the stepparent and stepchild identified
three underlying contradictions: dialectics of emotional distance-closeness, stepparent status, and
expression. Often times during this study, the emotional distance-closeness contradiction became
intertwined. Some parties experience emotional distance from their stepparent; however, they
still wanted a sense of closeness to them. The stepparent status contradiction came about in this
study when some stepchildren only wanted authority to come from their biological parent
whereas others thought it to be beneficial to presume both parents as their biological ones. The
third contradiction pertaining to openness versus closeness was seen when stepchildren
explained how they sought to form a close bond with their stepparent, but at the same time felt
the need to keep their distance. This study was a good example of how to see the constant push
and pulls and tensions in relationships. It also offers a good way to see how people in
relationships desire to be both connected and autonomous.
A sixth journal about the relational dialectics theory was one that dealt with the
management of public-private dialectical contradictions of lesbian couples. The external
contradictions that lesbian couples face are at the forefront of this study, meaning the relational
border between themselves and society (Suter, 2006). Baxter and Montgomery’s (1996)
relational dialectics theory helped form the centralized question for this study on how lesbian
couples are able to deal with the relationship boundaries. This study is so prevalent in research
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
8
pertaining to the theory because it deals with the external boundaries where as most studies done
on relational dialectics theory offer only the dyadic relationship.
The interpersonal relationship seen in this study was the constant struggle lesbian couples
have within themselves on how they feel not being part of the norm in society. Their relationship
with each other challenged the status quo and often caused both positive and negative effects
among their interpersonal relationship. From this study, it was seen that certain rituals were
obtained in order to create strategies on how to deal with public-private contradictions in society.
A seventh journal article about relational dialectics was one written by Paige W. Toller
(2005) entitled, “Negotiation of Dialectical Contradictions by Parents who have Experienced the
Death of a Child.” This study was conducted in order to examine the behavior of those adults
that have lost a child and their experience in communicating with others in their environment.
Two dialectical contradictions were shown in this study: between the physical absence of their
child and the continuing presence and emotional bond with their deceased child and between
being open or closed when deciding whether to talk about the deceased child to others.
The authors of this theory’s openness-closedness contradiction was seen when this study
was conducted. When it came to talking about their deceased child to others, parents often saw
this as a “double-edged sword” (Toller, 2005). In one sense, parents felt the need to openly talk
about their loss and how they have suffered; however, in another sense, they did not want others,
particularly close friends and family, to intervene and express the fact that they need to move on.
Here, we see once again the pushes and pulls expressed in the relational dialectics theory.
The presence-absence dialect in the Relational Dialectics theory is another way in which
this article related. This was seen through the rituals in which parents of the deceased child held
in order to honor their memory. Symbols are also another way that parents showed ways of
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
9
communicating their child’s emotional and relational presence (Toller, 2005). After this study
was conducting, it was determined that communication played an important role in dealing with
the dialectical tensions of both openness-closedness and presence-absence.
After doing research, the eighth article relating to the relational dialectics theory was one
written by Donna R. Pawlowski (1998) dealing with the dialectical tensions in the accounts of
martial partners’ relationships. According to Pawlowski (1998), the negotiation of dialectical
tensions between relational partners is central to the conduct and interpretation of relational
development. The reasons why marriages tend to fail is due to the fact that it is often assumed
that marriage creates stability. From this study, it was shown that between married couples,
autonomy-connection was the most frequently experienced contradiction, but opennessclosedness was portrayed as the most important.
When it comes to taking a closer look at gender differences, the results showed that
internal tensions, meaning the privacy or intrapersonal relationship one has with himself or
herself, were of equal importance with the husbands and wives. On the other hand, external
tensions of inclusion-seclusion and revealment-concealment were more important to the wives.
This is consistent with further research due to the fact that females tend to be more emotionally
involved in the relationship. They also use more of the problem solving tactic. Males, on the
other hand, seek autonomy. They do not like to express their deep feelings, and they feel as
though it is a sign of weakness. This study was important due to the fact that it showed how
different stages of marital life experienced different dialectical tensions within the relationship.
Upon research on the relational dialectics theory, I came across a website that compared
the relational dialectics theory and the social penetration theory. It became my understanding that
these theories are often compared due to the fact that they both analyze factors that affect
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
10
relationships. According to MilitaryVeteranGamer (2012), the difference between the two is that
dialects deals with the tensions that exist in every relationship where as social penetration makes
predictions about relationship development based on levels of self disclosure which occurs at
specific stages of a relationship.
A reason why the article on this website was a good, informational read was due to the
fact that MilitaryVideoGamer (2012) offered critiques of each example. In order to produce data
when attempting to research the relational dialectics theory, the studies of multiple couples,
individuals, and internal and external factors in a relationship must be offered. This theory also
tends to be extremely hard to follow due to its complexity. Social penetration theory also has its
downfalls. Rather than being broad and complex, this theory is said to be to narrow in its
description of self-disclosure. It does not take in to account the different social stages that occur
in relationships between people and how communication effects each one differently.
Another website I encountered was posted by The Glaring Facts (2010). It provides an
example of the relational dialectics theory by incorporating three different tensions as well as
three different dialectics and how they are made present in the current relationship. This
example involves Jill and Josh, two college students who are romantically involved.
The tensions that are offered in this example are connectedness and separateness,
certainty and uncertainty, and openness and closedness. The connectedness and separateness
tension expressed in this relationship deals with the fact that because Josh and Jill are very close,
Josh insists that they spend all of their free time together. Jill is flattered however, she would also
like some free time to herself. According to The Glaring Facts (2010), it is natural to desire a
close and permanent bond in our interpersonal relationship; however, a relationship will not last
unless they find alone time. A second tension this example portrays is certainty and uncertainty.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
11
Jill and Josh’s relationship has become dull due to the fact that their activities have become
redundant. According to The Glaring Facts (2010), although comfort needs to be established in a
relationship, it is still important to have some novelty and unpredictability in a relationship.
Finally, the third tension offered is that of openness and closedness. Jill feels extremely
comfortable when it comes to self-disclosing. She has no problem sharing everything with Josh.
Josh, on the other hand, has become less and less open with Jill which begins to make her
comfort level diminish. The Glaring Facts (2010) states that this dynamic struggle that intimacy
proposes in this relationship is not a straight-line path. The three dialectics going on throughout
these tensions are autonomy-connection, expression-non-expression, and stability-change.
Further research is needed in order to expand this theory of communication. One aspect
of this theory that future research could go into is in relation to the dialectics. Often, this theory
is critiqued because it only offers three different dialectics: autonomy and connection, openness
and protection, and novelty and predictability. These studies often produce other dialectics in
relationships which causes people to wonder about the simplicity of the dialectics produced from
this theory. Further research could look into other contradictions that relationships find
themselves in when dealing with communication to help with the parsimony of the dialectics.
Also, I feel that further research could expand upon the gender roles when it comes to the
dialectics and tensions this theory describes. Although in this paper I did point out that one study
relating to the tensions in marital relationships and how the differ among genders, it was one of
the only articles I found relating to gender roles in the relational dialectics theory. Further
research should be conducted in order to further develop the different or similar roles males and
females have when it comes to relational dialectics.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
12
All in all, the Relational Dialectics Theory is a useful theory that offers in depth
explanations of mainly the both/and feelings in relationships. The interactional dialectical
tensions such as autonomy and connection, openness and protection, and novelty and
predictability all form within the relationship itself. This theory helps to acknowledge the
interdependence of people in a relationship and how not only is their a need to find a balance
with conflicting issues in a relationship, but also to maintain the relationship’s need to keep
opposition between relational partners.
References:
Baxter, L. A. (2004). A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. The Journal of
Family
Communication, 4(3&4),181-192. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130
Baxter, L.A., Braithwaite, D.O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of
the contradictions in communication with stepparents. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21(4), 447-467. doi: 10.1177/0265407504044841.
Harvey, J.H., & Wenzel, A. (2001). Improvising Commitment in Close Relationships: A
Relational Dialectics Perspective. Close Romantic Relationships: Maintenance and
Enhancement. (pp. 115-132). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
13
Kim, K.-H., & Yun, H. (2007). Cying for me, Cying for us: Relational dialectics in a Korean
social network site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1),15, 298-315.
doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00397.x
Meyer, M. D. 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
Military Veteran Gamer (2012, February 4). Relational Dialectics vs. Social Penetration: Theory
Comparison. IGN Blogs. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from
http://www.ign.com/blogs/militaryverangamer/2012/02/04/relational-dialectics-vs-socialpenetration-theory-comparison
Pawlowski, D. R. (1998). Dialectical tensions in marital partners’ accounts of their relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 46(4), 396-416. doi: 10.1080/01463379809370111
Suter, E. A. (2006). Lesbian couples' management of public-private dialectical contradictions.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(3), 349-365. doi:
10.1177/0265407506064201
The Glaring Facts (2010, October 28). The Glaring Facts
http://www.theglaringfacts.com/communications/comm-theories/relational-dialectics/
Toller, P. W. (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
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Introducing communication theory, analysis and application.
(4th ed. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.