A Nightmare Before Christmas
Running head: A NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS
D. Nathan Jeffers
A Nightmare Before Christmas: Analysis of a family relationship
SPCH 4300: Senior Seminar
Department of Speech Communication
University of Arkansas @ Little Rock
dnjeffers@gmail.com
1
A Nightmare Before Christmas
2
A Nightmare Before Christmas: Analysis of a family relationship
Christmas is interpreted to many as a time for family. The trees, the lights, and even the
shopping can instill these thoughts. It is a time to be with those you care about and to slow down
the pace of a busy year. Many families have traditions during Christmas that they carry out
every year. From the lighting of the Advent or Hanukkah candles, to the opening of presents
under the tree, Christmas is a time that brings people together. Tradition is certainly nothing out
of the ordinary to my family at Christmas.
Any attempt to change existing traditions within a family can certainly cause conflict.
Attempting to change traditions that have been in place for quite a long time, without any prior
notice, can cause even more conflict. In this paper, I argue that family conflicts can potentially
be avoided through the understanding that tensions, as defined by Relational Dialectics, will
always be present. First, I introduce defining facets of Relational Dialectics. Second, I elaborate
on the background and communication details of my case. Third, I use key axioms of my theory
to analyze the communication that occurs within my case. Lastly, I give three practical
recommendations that could have improved our communication, yet are also applicable to
everyday life.
The purpose of this case is to explore the dynamics of a family relationship. The case is
particularly relevant to me because I am very frequently in contact with my family members and
show no signs of this communication diminishing. The majority of my immediate and extended
family live within a mile of my current residence. The ability for us to understand what makes
our communication either effective or ineffective would be invaluable to all of us. I will now
introduce the theoretical lens that I will use to analyze my case.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
3
Theory
Within relationships are tensions. What these tensions are, as well as where they stem
from, are both questions that Relational Dialectics (RD) seeks to understand. Authors Leslie
Baxter and Barbara Montgomery (1998) argue that their theory should not seek to solidify an
ultimate truth, but rather, be one of the “…descriptive/sensitizing theories. That is, loosely
assembled congeries [or random group] of concepts intended only to sensitize and orient
researchers to certain critical processes” (p. 2). The interpretive nature of this theory makes the
importance of opinions invaluable, as it does not seek a solitary truth. However, the loose
framework of the theory allows for a wide array of applications. Baxter and Montgomery
coauthored RD after many years of listening and categorizing the expressed needs of both male
and female clients they counseled. Though they did not work together during these years,
eventually their work brought them together to collaborate. They then found they had formulated
many of the same thoughts, and RD was given life (Griffin, 2008).
Griffin (2008) defines RD as “…a dynamic knot of contradictions in personal
relationships, an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (p. 155). Every
kind of personal relationship requires these tensions to be managed. The contradictions come in
both internal and external forms and are expressed in a limitless number of ways. The gravity of
each individual tension is influenced not only by the wants and needs of the relational
participants, but also by the situations that the participants are ongoingly engaged in (Toller &
Braithwaite, 2009). While each relationship is its own unique struggle; RD gives us three
specific tensions that internally occur more often than the rest. They are defined as:
Connectedness and Separateness, Certainty and Uncertainty, as well as Openness and Closedness
(Griffin, 2008). Each of these dialectics represents a need that is present in all relationships.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
4
However, it is important to understand that RD does not seek to make a “mold” per say for
relationship management. Baxter (2004) explains “…it was never my intent to claim that these
contradictions were exhaustive, and it also was not my intent that these contradictions should be
used as abstract categorical ‘cookie-cutters’” (p. 185). Within any relationship the ability of each
participant to attend to these needs is vital to the relationship’s overall health, though it may or
may not ever be specifically discussed.
One of the main influences in RD is the complexity and need for dialogue within
relationships. “To engage in dialogue, participants must fuse their perspectives to some extent
while sustaining the uniqueness of their individual perspectives” (Baxter, 2004, p. 181).
Baxter’s statement proposes that our likenesses, and our uniqueness, are both critical in allowing
us to dialogue effectively. Essentially, the very differences that set us apart as individuals
actually join together to combine us as one. Montgomery and Baxter’s (1998) research in this
area led to an even greater understanding of the individual. “Montgomery and Baxter also reject
traditional notions of an individual-relationship distinction, arguing from a dialogic perspective
that the individual does not exist as an autonomous entity, but instead becomes [an individual]
only in and through relating” (p. 5). Prentice (2009) points out that these tensions are
“…overlapping centripetal or centrifugal forces that are interrelated, rather than existing as
simple binary oppositions” (p. 70). Baxter’s (2004) writing concurs with Prentice’s , “…it is
important to recognize that contradictions are not located in individual heads, serving as
dilemmatic goals that direct individual’s communicative strategies. Rather, from a dialogic
perspective, contradictions are [actually] located in the communication between relationship
parties” (p. 184). The pushes and pulls of dialogue are exactly what make it effective and
challenging. Toller and Braithwaite (2008) contend, “due to the continual interplay of
A Nightmare Before Christmas
competing discourses, relationships exist in a state of dynamic flux. Rejecting the notion of
balance, [RD] contends that competing and rival discourses give relationships vitality and
energy, even as these discourses present challenges” (p. 259). The idea that two separates
become one, yet retain their separate identities within the communication, is the basis of the
dialogic argument within RD.
Dialogue and Bakhtinian Conceptions
One of the central facets of RD is the all encompassing “dialogic view.” Montgomery
and Baxter draw their original ideas from Mikhail Bakhtin’s understanding of dialogue (1998).
“Another way of thinking about contradictory themes is Bakhtin’s notion that social moments
are polyphonic, involving multiple, fully valid voices representing different perspectives, no
matter the issue” (p. 158). Montgomery and Baxter (1998) contend that, “As couples cocreate
their relational world in the dynamic context of a society, they are bound to realize differences,
oppositions, and contradictions” (p. 158). Baxter (2004) goes on to elaborate that her focus on
the “five Bakhtinian conceptions of ‘dialogue’” are. These conceptions she states have driven
much of her new understanding of RD (p. 2).
The first conception is dialogue as a Constitutive Process. This process Baxter (2004)
explains, “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.” Griffin details that in this dialogic view, similarities and differences are of equal
importance (2008).
The second conception is dialogue as a Dialectical Flux. Baxter (2004) presents that we
must maintain separate identities but become one through communication to truly dialogue in
5
A Nightmare Before Christmas
6
this way. She also writes, “To engage in dialogue, participants must fuse their perspectives to
some extent while sustaining the uniqueness of their individual perspectives. Participants thus
form a unity in conversation but only through two clearly differentiated voices, or perspectives”
(p. 7). Basically, here Baxter is trying to show that there is no rhyme or reason to why we do
what we do, and because life is a dialogue, it will forever be unpredictable.
The third conception is dialogue as an Aesthetic Moment. Here Baxter uses Bakhtin to
explain her point. She points out an excerpt that explores the feeling of being empathetic to
another. The excerpt of Bakhtin’s work shows that the projection of one’s self is a unique
communicative act that allows us to take the role of the other briefly then return to our own mind
(Baxter, 2004). These meaningful times create the “Aesthetic Moment.”
The fourth conception is that of dialogue as an Utterance. Baxter’s (2004) central theme
here is that it takes two people for life to exist. She exemplifies the many different kinds of
utterances from many different types of voices. Baxter points out specifically the way that a
single word utterance such as “but” can change the dynamics of a sentence. She uses the
example “I look forward to our time spent together, but it means I often fall behind in my work
obligations” saying that it “explicitly constructs a tension between integration and separation”
(p.15).
The fifth and final conception is dialogue as Critical Sensibility. Baxter (2004) contends
that, “Bakhtin’s carnivalesque—the carnival sense of the world—is characterized by “mockery
of all serious, ‘closed’ attitudes about the world, and it also celebrates ‘discrowning,’ that is,
inverting top and bottom in any given structure”” (p. 16). In this sense, Critical Sensibility is an
obligation to balance all voices that suppress. If they don’t allow for another opinion to be heard
they are nothing more than a tyrant that needs overthrown.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
Connectedness and Separateness
The ability of an individual to be able to be part of the group, yet also find time to be
alone is a tension that comes in many forms and fashions within all relationships. This is one of
the many forces that Baxter and Montgomery would say exist within the proverbial “knot” of
tensions in all relationships. This dialectic occurs at many different levels. Baxter (1998)
presents this understanding:
No relationship can exist by definition unless the parties sacrifice some individual
autonomy. However, too much connection paradoxically destroys the relationship
because the individual identities become lost. Simultaneously, an individual's autonomy
can be conceptualized only in terms of separation from others. But too much autonomy
paradoxically destroys the individual's identity, because connections with others are the
'stuff' of which identity is made. (p. 259)
A simplistic example might look something like this: An average newlywed couple sits
down to dinner together at the same time every night, and this unknowingly satisfies their need
for connectedness. However, on a particular night during the weekend, they go separate ways
with gender specific friends for their respective “girls” or “guys” nights out. This satisfies their
need for separateness. If either individual began spending every night out with their friends, it
can easily be seen how the need for connectedness would soon surface as an issue. Though the
couple might not specifically say “we need more connectedness,” the action that is causing the
shift in balance would likely be called into question. Certainly a more dilemmatic way to view
this dialectic would be to view it within a relationship that is already in the midst of trouble.
This is exactly what Toller and Braithwaite (2009) sought to do.
7
A Nightmare Before Christmas
8
Toller and Braithwaite (2009) studied how married couples coped with the loss of a child.
They noted the contradictions and implications this presented in the relationships. “Bereaved
parents expressed a desire to grieve with their spouse in order to provide each other with comfort
and support. [However,] parents indicated that they sometimes needed to grieve on their own as
their experience of grief was unique…” (p. 263). The study of how these parents physically
shared grieving time directly correlated to how the parents shared their grief with one another
emotionally. Thus brings us to the dialectic of Openness and Closedness.
Openness and Closedness
No two people have lived the exact same life. Therefore the need for disclosing
information to another participant in a relationship is vital to the relationship’s overall health.
Whether or not certain information is disclosed can often be a sticking point for many
relationships. Even the disclosure of the relationship itself is something that must be revealed or
concealed, and this Griffin states can have just as many advantages at it has disadvantages
(2008). For example: When you first introduce yourself to a new attractive co-worker, you
don’t go into detail with them about your sex life with your mate. Omitting this information
would be considered normal. However, if you omit from your mate that you introduced yourself
to a new attractive co-worker, and they somehow find this information out, this could certainly
cause a problem. These are the types of tensions that the dialectic of Openness and Closedness
encompasses.
Cools (2006) did a study on Relational Communication in Intercultural Couples and
found, unsurprisingly, the tension of disclosure was present just as it is in most relationships.
However, for intercultural couples, the barrier of language, and foreign traditions often
exacerbated the situation and caused the communication to suffer. Then, with one party
A Nightmare Before Christmas
9
becoming the powerless (due to communication barriers), disclosure of what is happening is not
present at all times and dissention generally ensued (p. 269).
The research of grieving parents by Toller and Braithwaite (2009) also explored the
tension of Openness-Closedness. “Parents experienced the contradiction of openness-closedness
in two ways: (a) Both partners needed to be open and closed; and (b) one parent wanted to be
open about the child’s death and the other parent wanted to be closed” (p. 268). The parents that
needed to be open and closed explained that they each coped with the grief at different times, in
different ways. “[That] talking about their child’s death with one another is supportive and
helpful whereas not talking about it and giving one another space is supportive as well” (p. 268).
The other group had much more difficulty with coping as a result of their disclosure problems.
When one parent was open and the other was closed at all times generally communication almost
ceased. As one participant stated, his wife did not handle the loss well, and therefore, when he
wished to talk about it with her he was certain it was actually only doing more harm than good
(Toller and Braithwaite, 2009).
Prentice (2009) presented a study on Relational Dialectics Among In-Laws in which the
theme of disclosure was also evident. The couples in this study “experienced the pull of being
expected to share their married life with their families, while also feeling the desire to keep
private some of the details of their life” (p. 79). One participant in the study had a daughter-inlaw who wanted disclosed to her details about their sex lives as newlyweds. This obviously
created tension in their relationship because of the awkwardness that was felt by the mother-in
law. Contrastingly, to some participants, the marriage of their sons or daughters opened up new
topics for conversation and therefore revelations (Prentice, 2009).
A Nightmare Before Christmas
10
Certainty and Uncertainty
Also known as “stability and change”, the important thing to understand when examining
Certainty and Uncertainty, just as is with all of the dialectics discussed in this case, is that there
will never be a perfect management system. Griffin (2008) states, “We seek the bit of mystery,
the touch of spontaneity, the occasional surprise that is necessary for having fun” (p. 159).
However, Montgomery and Baxter would argue that we seek both the predictable and the
unpredictable in an attempt to be happy (1998). Sahlstein (2006) studied long-distance dating
relationships and focused somewhat on this dialectic specifically. Due to the fact that there are
numerous gaps in the periods of times that people in long distance relationships physically
interact with one another, there is a large need for certainty. Yet, just the opposite is also valid as
well. “Long distance dating relationship partners also describe wanting opportunities for
uncertainty or spontaneity (i.e., ability to take action without plans, schedule, or prediction) that
they perceive as more available within proximal relationships” (p. 148). The overall jest of the
participants in the study is they really want a “…blend of routine with spontaneous interaction”
(p. 150) but that failure to fulfill these plans when they do get to spend time together creates
frustration when they are apart (p. 154).
Prentice’s (2009) study found that, “within this particular dialectic the married pair
experienced the pull of having to maintain and fit into their families’ routines, on one hand, and
wanting to create their own routines on the other” (p. 77). The in-laws wanted the couples to
make their own decisions, and they “…found that they were expected to find their own solutions
for the problems of living, as long as they also fit into acceptable social conventions from the
family” (p. 77). Essentially, the couples were left to fend for themselves, yet they had to still
maintain the cultural norm for the family.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
11
Management Strategies
Baxter (1988) gives us four basic management strategies to help us manage these
tensions found within our relationships: selection, separation, neutralization, and reframing (p.
272). These strategies all give different ways of reaching the same goal, which is to help to
resolve the tension.
Selection is possibly the simplest strategy to understand. Baxter (1988) explains that this
strategy involves choosing one side or the other in a specific dialectic. For example if a couple
doesn’t like spending time with each other at all, they might choose instead to separate and live
their own lives apart. Therefore, they are “selecting” the dialectic of separateness instead of the
dialectic of connectedness (p. 273).
Separation is the ability to manage the tension through either “cyclic alternation or
topical segmentation” (p. 273). Cyclic alternation is the ability to realize the need for the other
dialectic that is being ignored and then give a specific time to that dialectic (i.e. girls or guys
night out). Topical segmentation refers to splitting of activities into certain dialectics (i.e. the
guys go hunting, the girls go shopping, but both genders golf together).
Neutralization occurs when the thought that a particular dialectic is being ignored is
discounted. A couple that is experiencing turmoil because they are spending too much time apart
would actually need to spend more time together (connectedness). However, if a participant in
the couple told the other, or either thought to themselves “this is just a phase,” they would be
neutralizing the thought and therefore coping with the problem better.
Hoppe-Nagao and Ting-Toomey (2002) write that reframing is “…the process of not
looking at the dialectical tensions as opposites, but rather considering the concepts to be along
different dimensions (p. 149). If a couple can realize that their tensions are something that have
A Nightmare Before Christmas
12
and will always exist the management of their tensions becomes much easier. These couples can
then focus energy on making sure to incorporate each dialectical pair into their relationship
therefore reducing their overall tensions. I will now move to the description of the case.
Description of the Case
Husband and wife, mother and son, daughter and father-in-law; no matter who is
involved, no two individuals want exactly the same things. Therefore, situations that don’t
please everyone occur as a part of our daily lives. There are right and wrong ways to go about
dealing with the conflicts that arise from these wants and needs. Through further research I hope
to bring forth more effective means of dealing with these problems. If I am able to find a better
way to manage conflict within my family I will hopefully cause less pain for myself, and others,
potentially for as long as I live. As we are all more similar than different, if I am able to
understand my own families tensions I will also likely have a better grasp on the problems that
others face, and can provide them with better advice in times of need.
Background
The communication events that this case will explore occur between my father, mother,
sister, ex-girlfriend, and me. During the course of these events I choose to spend Christmas
away from home for the first time. I will now describe the settings for each interaction.
The first setting for this case occurs after Thanksgiving lunch at my parent’s house. My
ex-girlfriend had invited her mom and niece to come and spend Thanksgiving with our family.
We had much of a normal meal conversation, and after everyone went outside to play with the
younger kids in the family, my mother and I had our conversation as I helped her clean.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
13
The second setting for this case occurs Thanksgiving night as my father and I sat together
watching football. We had only a small table with a lamp separating us. He was reclined in his
chair, and I was sitting on the sofa. We spoke just above a whisper about how the day had gone
until my mother, sister and ex-girlfriend came into the room.
The next communication exchange occurred between my ex-girlfriend and me. At the
time we shared an apartment and our conversation occurred as we drove the approximately five
minute’s home. We discussed how the day had been before the topic of what our Christmas
plans were arose. Our conversation began very casual in the car, but ended in the slamming of
the front door, and her leaving to “get some air” for a while.
The next setting for this case is at my father’s office after I had decided to go to
Michigan. He had his head down working when I arrived and knocked lightly on his open door
to alert him to my presence. He was surprised to see me and came from around the desk to give
me a hug. He then sat on the edge of his desk in front of me as I sat down in a chair. I told him
very bluntly how I planned on leaving that day to go to Michigan with my ex-girlfriend. He said
he understood but he didn’t think my mother would.
The setting for my last interaction is at my parent’s house. I had just come from my
father’s work. I entered and hugged my grandmother, asked how she felt, then sat and talked
with her a minute or so. I explained that I was nervous to tell my mother I wouldn’t be there for
Christmas as it is a family holiday and I had never been away from my family on this day before.
I also knew there was a chance that the shock of me leaving that day wouldn’t be easy for my
mom to understand either. She agreed it would be tough for her to accept and wished me luck
before I proceeded upstairs and engaged with my mother and sister.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
14
Communication Details
My mother walked toward the table with a wet towel in hand to wipe away the remaining
crumbs. I rose from my seat, picking up mine and other’s plates and carrying them to the sink as
we began our conversation. It went something close to this:
Excerpt 1
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Well that went well.
Yeah, I thought so too. Thanks for letting them join us.
Well I hate to take them away from their family, but I enjoyed it.
Well, I know they did too. Ya know, they might have been away from
their family, but they were with their family by coming to see Tiff.
Well they can come here every year if they want, but you’re not allowed
to go there.
(laughing nervously) HAHA. Very funny.
Well I’m serious.
Well you know one day I’m going to have to. My sisters both do it.
Well when you’re married, you can. But till then you have to stay here for
holidays.
(laughs) Sure mom… sure… (I walk into the next room)
Thanksgiving is a holiday that my family can classify with three words: turkey, family,
and football. This particular afternoon, after satisfying our turkey and family need my father and
I were watching our annual Cowboys football game when we engaged in the following
exchange:
Excerpt 2
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
So that seemed to go well. (referring to our guests at lunch)
Did you not think it would?
Well it’s not that, I just didn’t know how everyone would act having
people other than family here.
Well you shouldn’t worry. Mom and I want you to be happy, and I think
it went pretty well too.
I just feel like it’s kinda tough trying to initiate change to the routine
we’ve been used to for so long, ya know?
I know. But we’re willing to change. You just have to give us a chance.
Cool. Well I appreciate the effort.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
15
That night after Tiff and I left my family’s house we drove the short drive home. It was
dark out and we never made eye contact. We had lots of conversation about how the day had
gone as I drove. During the last minute or so of our drive, and as we walked into our apartment
and removed our coats we had the following exchange:
Excerpt 3
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Wasn’t it nice to have our families together for a holiday?
Yeah. I think it was.
Well I’ve been thinking about what we can do for Christmas.
Christmas? We’re not even done with Thanksgiving yet!
God. So we can’t even talk about what we want to do for Christmas?!
Well I guess so… I just mean…
Look, you know I want you to come with me. But maybe I should just go
by myself. Doesn’t seem like you want to come with me. I mean, maybe
you don’t even want to be with me.
Tiff don’t start…
(puts her jacket back on) I don’t even care. You’re probably too scared to
tell your family anyway. I’m going to get some air. (slams the door)
Later that night I agreed to go with her. What she had said, however, was true. I was
terrified to tell my family as tradition was a large part of holidays and each member was
expected to participate. We initially set a departure date for one week before Christmas, but this
date seemingly moved up daily, until eventually we were slated to leave the next day and I had
still not informed my parents. The day finally came, and I knew I couldn’t just leave without
telling them so I went first to my father’s place of work.
My father’s office is very large but completely silent other than the sound of his pen
writing as quickly as he could push it. I knocked on the door lightly and smiled at him as he
lifted his head to see who it was. At the sight of me he rose from his chair and came around the
desk to hug me. After embracing he sat on the desk as I took a seat in front of him. We then had
the following conversation:
A Nightmare Before Christmas
16
Excerpt 4
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
Me:
Dad:
What are you doing here?
Well… I came to tell you something… and it’s not easy.
Well there’s no sense in beating around the bush, so let’s hear it.
I’m planning on leaving for Michigan today with Tiff.
Ok… (raises his eyebrows) Well when will you be back?
That’s the thing. I think I won’t be back for Christmas. I think mom is
going to kill me.
(crosses his arms) Well I defiantly don’t think she’s gonna be happy
about it.
So what do I do?
Well it’s a little late now. I understand where you’re coming from, but I
don’t think she will. You’d just better go tell her.
You’re probably right. Thank you. I love you.
I love you too son.
After my long drive home I sat for a minute with my grandmother before proceeding
upstairs to find my mother. My sister was blow-drying her hair and my mother was putting on
make-up as I stood in the doorway of the master bathroom. My presence prompted my sister to
turn off the blow-drier as its pervasive sound drowns out any voice below a shout. After silence
fell for a brief second our conversation went as follows:
Excerpt 5
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Me:
Sister:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Me:
Hey
Hey baby
I’m gonna be real transparent here so I can just get this out there.
(I take a deep breath)
I’m not going to be here for Christmas at all, I’m leaving today for
Michigan with Tiff.
I’m gonna be real transparent too, I’m really pissed off at you then.
(Both look at me with dissatisfaction)
I knew this would happen. Every time I try to be up front about something
it just gets thrown back in my face.
You’re damn right because you knew this all along!
What!?!
When are you leaving?
This afternoon. In a few hours.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
17
The argument then leaves the master bath as I walk away frustrated and they pursue me
into the guest bedroom a few paces from the doorway I was standing in. I am now the one
cornered in the room and they are standing in and in front of the doorway.
Excerpt 6
Me:
Mom:
Sister:
Me:
Sister:
Me:
Look you know I love her. And her mom and niece were just here for
Thanksgiving with our family, it’s selfish to have her here all year and
then say she can’t go spend holidays with her family either.
Well she can. You aren’t married yet.
Are you gonna propose to her while you’re up there too?
No. Not yet anyway. I still have a while before that. Give me a break here.
Well I wasn’t sure anymore.
Whatever…
This argument culminated with my mother frustrated but aware that I would be away for
Christmas and my sister quizzing me on what the status of my school, job, and relationship were.
Resolution did not come for some time after Christmas when finally I apologized to my family
for not giving them notice. I will now examine this case using my Relational Dialectics as a
theoretical lens.
Analysis
As RD has shown, ongoing tension is something that no relationship can exist without.
In my relationships these tensions can often be the underlying motivations for speech-acts within
conversations. Griffin (2008) defines RD as “…a dynamic knot of contradictions in personal
relationships, an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (p. 155).
Although I will analyze my case by separating the dialectics into three separate bodies, it should
be noted that no dialectic is wholly separate from another. That, at no time do the tensions found
in my relationships exemplify a singular dialectic. Instead they should be seen as a “knot of
contradictions” constantly pulling each participant in a limitless number of directions. Baxter
A Nightmare Before Christmas
18
(2008) concedes this in her own writing, “…it was never my intent to claim that these
contradictions were exhaustive, and it also was not my intent that these contradictions should be
used as abstract categorical ‘cookie-cutters’” (p. 185).
Connectedness and Separateness
The ability of an individual to be able to be part of the group, yet also find time to be
alone, is a tension that comes in many forms and fashions within all relationships. Baxter (1998)
reminds us that to be in a “relationship” time must be spent together, but paradoxically the
identity of the individual is lost if too much time is spent together (p. 259). Numerous times
within my case others and I produced lines of talk that exacerbated this tension. While I point
directly to lines of talk; it should be noted that the dialectic of connectedness and separateness
can be influenced simply by the action of being in or leaving the room the other is in. I have
only chosen to point out the way our speech-acts influenced our situation.
Within the first excerpt of dialogue this dialectic can be examined specifically:
Excerpt 1
Mom:
Me:
Mom:
Well I hate to take them away from their family, but I enjoyed it.
Well, I know they did too. Ya know, they might have been away from
their family, but they were with their family by coming to see Tiff.
Well they can come here every year if they want, but you’re not allowed
to go there.
When my mother said that she hated “…to take them away from their family…” she
implied that the action of having them present for our family meal was innately wrong because
they were not with their family. My following line of speech can be seen as an attempt to correct
her view of the other family’s dialectic with the way that I understood it. By saying “…they
might have been away from their family, but they were with their family by…” gives evidence
that I do not see their feeling as one of separateness but instead as togetherness as they were
A Nightmare Before Christmas
19
present with a member of their family who they had not previously been able to see. The
conversation then remains on the dialectic of connectedness and separateness. However, in lieu
of my correction, my mother makes a comment to differentiate their dialectical view from ours.
She does this by saying “Well they can come here every year if they want, but you’re not
allowed to go there.” Through this utterance she has redefined to me that connectedness is a
positive, and is any time that I spend with my biological family. Separateness, however, is any
time I spend with a mate’s family, and can only be viewed as negative. This same dialectic was
also referenced in the conversation with my father.
The excerpt of talk between my father and me immediately contradicts the view that my
mother demonstrated. When I said “I just feel like it’s kinda tough trying to initiate change to
the routine we’ve been used to for so long…” I was referring to the routine of connectedness
that had been my family’s way since as long as I could recall. The same connectedness
characteristic of my family that my mother had just reiterated to me was so important. However,
my father’s contradictory response that “I know. But we’re willing to change. You just have to
give us a chance.” shows that his view of the dialectic is that it is adaptable to change.
Specifically, that there will be times for exceptions; such as having the family of prospective
mates join ours for holidays, as was the case on this occasion.
In Excerpt 3 when I have a conversation with my ex-girlfriend she opens the talk with a
line that engages connectedness-separateness as it pertains to our relationship. Her comment of
“Wasn’t it nice to have our families together for a holiday” implied to me that all other holidays
past, and all holidays in the future when we couldn’t have all of our family together, would be
null compared to the day we’d just experienced. A response of “somewhat” or anything
A Nightmare Before Christmas
20
statement that disagreed would have likely resulted in conflict as I would have given reason to
believe that I viewed our family’s connectedness as negative.
Openness and Closedness
The need for disclosing information to another participant in a relationship is vital to any
relationship’s overall health. What, when, and how this information is or is not disclosed is
critical to how the relationship continues from that point forward. For example: when you first
introduce yourself to a new attractive co-worker, you don’t go into detail with them about your
sex life with your partner. In this case there are several excerpts of talk that exemplify the
dialectical tension of openness and closedness. While I recognize as in the last section that a
simple action such as being present in a room can influence a given dialectic, I again will instead
focus on particular speech-acts that highlight this dialectic.
During my exchange with my dad at his office the entire purpose of my visit was to
disclose to him that I would not be home for Christmas and to find out if he knew how I should
disclose the very same information to my mother. I indicate immediately that I have something
to disclose to him by saying “Well… I came to tell you something… and it’s not easy.” My
father signifies that he knows I am about to deliver unknown information by saying “Well
there’s no sense in beating around the bush, so let’s hear it. When I tell my father “I’m planning
on leaving for Michigan today with Tiff,” he immediately has questions that pertain to the
information I disclosed. I explain that “I won’t be back for Christmas,” and “I think my mother
is going to kill me.” Thus fully disclosing the true nature of my visit: to deliver him the
information and figure out the best way to disclose the same information to my mother. His next
disclosure answered my question, “You’d just better go tell her.”
A Nightmare Before Christmas
21
The same dialectic of disclosure was present when addressing my mother and sister.
During our segment of talk I disclose to my mother and sister that “I love her.” This leads my
sister to assume that since I have not disclosed the information about Christmas, I must not have
disclosed more information. Her next question “Are you gonna propose to her while you’re up
there too” brings on a defensive disclosure of “No. Not yet anyway. I still have a while before
that…”
The patterns of disclosure found in this case show in particular one reoccurring aspect
about Openness and Closedness in relationships. At certain times information is willingly
disclosed, however, occasionally information is brought forth through attempted persuasion,
anger, or any type of reaction to utterances in dialogue.
Certainty and Uncertainty
Griffin (2008) states, “We seek the bit of mystery, the touch of spontaneity, the
occasional surprise that is necessary for having fun” (p. 159). While Griffin may be correct, it is
certainly true that numerous people enjoy rigorous routine and certain predictability to their
lives. Such an example can be found in my case. My family, who is rooted in tradition, has a
very hard time grasping their routine being disrupted. While conversely I typically see
uncertainty as a means for trying something new.
In my segments of talk with my father as well as with my mother and sister, my
appearance brought the conversation immediately into the realm of the uncertain as I arrived
unexpectedly. “What are you doing here?” As my father asks is an example of this. My
unexpected appearance, coupled with the following line that “I came to tell you something”
implies immediately that I am introducing something novel into our relationship. That upon
disclosure things will be different. Upon presentation of the idea my father immediately
A Nightmare Before Christmas
22
searches for certainty by asking “Well when will you be back?” This is not something I answer
immediately and instead only give way to more uncertainty by telling him “I won’t be back for
Christmas.” His unhappiness by this novelty is signified by the closing of his body language by
crossing his arms and telling me that he doesn’t my mother is “gonna be happy about it.” We
end our conversation with “I love you” and “I love you too son,” a certainty we both know
although our talk has not been extremely positive.
In the excerpt with my ex-girlfriend she states “Well I’ve been thinking about what we
can do for Christmas.” We had never made Christmas plans before so any plans we made would
be new. As I was not ready to make plans, especially without consenting, I give a defensive
response to this statement. “Christmas? We’re not even done with Thanksgiving yet! Then, in
the same excerpt, when discussing a Christmas trip to Michigan she delivers a blow to my need
for sameness by saying “…But maybe I should go by myself. [It] doesn’t seem like you want to
come with me. I mean… maybe you don’t even want to be with me.” This causes tension
because to end the relationship or to simply not be with her for a period of time would both be
novel ideas. This exchange serves to belittle me into making a decision in her favor, which I
ultimately do.
The main novelty that in my case is the statement, “I’m not going to be here for
Christmas at all, I’m leaving today for Michigan with Tiff” I said to my mother and sister. This
statement introduced such startling change to them both that the reaction was immediately
negative. I argued that the certainty was because “…Every time I try to be up front about
something it just gets thrown back in my face.” However, I knew that it was only because I was
too inconsiderate to have said something to them before the actual day of. My sister, certain that
I had not proposed yet, had to check whether or not I had plans to, “Are you gonna propose to
A Nightmare Before Christmas
23
her while you’re up there too?” My answer of “No. Not yet anyway…” showed that although I
was introducing novelty I could still be trusted for at least basic certainty. I will now draw three
practical implications from this analysis.
Ethical Recommendations
In this section I draw three practical recommendations from my analysis. First, I must
learn to divide what time I spend with whom accordingly (cyclic alternation). Second, the case
shows the need for disclosing information before it is too late (time segmentation). Finally,
demonstrated wrongly within the case is unethical persuasion. Along with giving three practical
recommendations for the situation at hand, I will also relate how those recommendations will be
transferable to the workplace.
Cyclic Alternation
My entire case revolves around rather or not I would be physically present for Christmas.
There were several arguments and tears shed due to the thought of my absence. I feel this might
not have happened had I been able to alert my family prior that I was leaving, and then possibly
promise them that I would be present for the next holiday. My family is composed of reasonable
people. With the information that I might be absent for Christmas; though it wouldn’t be
pleasing, it might at least be comforting to have informed them that I would absolutely be
present for the next Christmas.
My family must understand that I will not forever be able to attend Christmas in the same
place. I would hopefully be able to convince them to accept the change in lieu that I would give
them an alternative. I would propose to them the option of either having me for that Christmas
A Nightmare Before Christmas
24
or not having me the next. This in my opinion would have lessened the blow by putting the
decision in their hands.
I recommend that I, in future circumstances, engage in cyclic alternation with my family
if the situation ever arises again. The dividing of holidays is something married couples often do
and would have been very effective if I would have applied it in my case.
In a real world application this might occur with a person that has a job and works with
another organization as well. The ability to give time to both is important but no one can be in
two places at the same time. Therefore, scheduling each in advance and rotating which place
gets priority would certainly be useful. Then no place of employment has a reason to feel they
are slighted.
Time Segmentation
My leaving for Michigan was certainly a surprise to my family. While understanding
that openness and closedness is an ever fluxing non linear area of relationships, it can certainly
be argued that actions within a relationship can cause shifts toward one or the other side of the
dialectic. This leads me to the second recommendation for this case: I propose, by planning a
certain time to disclose potentially harmful information as soon as possible, and in the gentlest
manner possible; conflict and emotional harm might possibly be avoided.
I had known for a considerable amount of time that I would not be attending our
Christmas before I actually disclosed it to my family. What I actually said to my mother and
sister was “I’m not going to be here for Christmas at all, I’m leaving today for Michigan with
Tiff.” However, due to the proximity to Christmas, and the bluntness of my words, I was met
with tears and anger. Had I instead, months earlier, reserved a specific time to take my mother,
sister, and possibly even father to lunch one at a time, I could have then said something different.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
25
I might have then said, “You know I love you very much, and it’s really not easy for me to tell
you this. But, as much as I would love to, I’ve decided to spend Christmas with Tiff and her
family.” I could’ve then given time for reactions or questions that they might have had and
listened to what they had to say. These words certainly aren’t perfect, and are sure to invoke
feelings of pain as well. However, the intimateness of eating directly across from one another,
the ability to give eye contact, and the ability to give (most importantly) time before Christmas to
cope with the thought that I wouldn’t be there, are sure to lessen the blow than that which was
actually received.
In a real world setting this makes sense as well. If you are picked to do a project for
work and will not complete it when you are supposed to, time segmentation is the only way to
possibly keep your job. By picking a specific time, speaking to your boss and letting him know
ahead of time you will not be able to complete your assigned task, you might be able to get help
with the project and potentially keep your job.
Unethical Persuastion
Trying to persuade those around us is something that we are all accustomed to. Whether
it is convincing someone to go to lunch, or perhaps persuading people to donate to a particular
cause, persuasion is something that we encounter on a daily, sometimes even minute-to-minute
basis. Within my case there are several periods of dialogue that could be viewed as persuasive
talk. In particular, the conversation between my girlfriend and I exemplifies this type of
conversation the most. She induces feelings of guilt to reach her goal and gets me to do what she
wants.
Our exchange went as follows:
Excerpt 3
A Nightmare Before Christmas
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
26
Wasn’t it nice to have our families together for a holiday?
Yeah. I think it was.
Well I’ve been thinking about what we can do for Christmas.
Christmas? We’re not even done with Thanksgiving yet!
God. So we can’t even talk about what we want to do for Christmas?!
Well I guess so… I just mean…
Look, you know I want you to come with me. But maybe I should just go
by myself. Doesn’t seem like you want to come with me. I mean, maybe
you don’t even want to be with me.
Tiff don’t start…
(puts her jacket back on) I don’t even care. You’re probably too scared to
tell your family anyway. I’m going to get some air. (slams the door)
When she began the conversation it sounded very innocent. However, seeing her next
line “Well I’ve been thinking about what we can do for Christmas” shows that she really
intended to take the conversation a certain direction. Even after I attest her initiation of the
conversation she repeatedly turns guilt back on me. “…But maybe I should just go by myself.
[It] doesn’t seem like you want to come with me. I mean… maybe you don’t even want to be
with me.” These two affronts serve to belittle me into making a decision in her favor, which I
ultimately do.
Had she truly valued my opinion in the situation, or wanted to have open, honest
conversation, our conversation might have gone along these lines.
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Tiff:
Me:
Wasn’t it nice to have our families together for a holiday?
Yeah, I think it was.
Well ya know, Christmas is coming soon. We might need to think about
the plans that we’re going to make.
I guess that’s true, but we’re not even done with Thanksgiving yet!
Well just whenever you are ready to talk about it, or have any ideas, just
let me know. I just feel like we hould make a decision about what we are
going to do fairly soon.
Well, you’re probably right. Let’s relax a while and then we’ll talk about
it before we go to bed.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
27
This potentially would have initiated a healthy conversation and debate about what plans
we would make for Christmas. If nothing else, it would allow for both opinions to be heard
without insulting one another.
In a practical application, possibly in a professional/work environment, this
recommendation can be used as well. Salesmen daily use things they can perceive about the
customer to make the sale. Things such as the consumer having expensive taste, or possibly love
of a certain model of car for example give vulnerability. Pretend, for instance, that a father of
three has gone to buy a minivan for his family. The salesman sees that the father is eyeing a new
four-door truck that is considerably more expensive and his family wouldn’t fit well in. What
the unethical thing to do would be to sell the truck to the man and take the profit. The ethical
thing to do would be to help the man pick the best and safest minivan the man could possibly
want. The ethical way doesn’t reap monetary rewards, but makes a difference in the life of an
entire family for some time to come. For a long time to come they will drive a better, safer
vehicle, and could potentially return because they were satisfied customers. I will now move to
close.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the purpose of this case study is to explore the dynamic of a family
relationship. By applying Relational Dialectics to the case I have gained a better understanding
of how to communicate with my family. Communicating effectively is something that we are all
responsible to do. First, I introduced defining facets of Relational Dialectics. Second, I
elaborated on the background and communication details of my case. Third, I used key axioms
of my theory to analyze the communication that occurs within my case. Lastly, I gave three
practical recommendations that could have improved our communication, yet are also applicable
A Nightmare Before Christmas
28
to everyday life. With experiences such as these behind me, and with the knowledge of
Relational Dialectics, I’ll hopefully spend countless more times with the wonderful mess that is:
my family.
A Nightmare Before Christmas
29
References
Montgomery, B., & Baxter, L. (1998). Dialectical Approaches to Studying Personal
Relationships. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cools, C. (2006). Relational Communication in Intercultural Couples. Language &
Intercultural Communication, 6(3/4), 262-274.
Toller, P., & Braithwaite, D. (2009). Grieving Together and Apart: Bereaved Parents'
Contradictions of Marital Interaction. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 37(3), 257-277.
Sahlstein, E. (2006). Making Plans: Praxis Strategies for Negotiating Uncertainty–
Certainty in Long-Distance Relationships. Western Journal of Communication,
70(2), 147-165.
Baxter, L. (2004). A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. Journal of
Family Communication, 4(3/4), 181-192.
Griffin, E., (2008). A First Look at Communication Theory. City: McGraw-Hill
Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
Randolph, T., & Holtzman, M. (2010). The Role of Heritage Camps in Identity
Development Among Korean Transnational Adoptees: A Relational Dialectics
Approach. Adoption Quarterly, 13(2), 75-99.
Prentice, C. (2009). Relational Dialectics Among In-Laws. Journal of Family
Communication, 9(2), 67-89.
Baxter, L. A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in
relationship development. Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory,
Research, and Interventions (pp. 257-273). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Baxter, L. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1-22.
Hoppe-Nagao, A., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2002). Relational dialectics and management
strategies in marital couples. Southern Communication Journal, 67(2), 142-159.