Introduction
Communication is a basic concept in keeping a relationship alive and thriving, but unfortunately many relationships fail to last. The ability to relate while communicating contributes to this problem. One relates when they understand and listen to the other person’s perspective. The more intimate one is with another person, the more problems or conflicts they could have that pull them apart. Marriage is another level of intimacy, as couples learn to relate and love the uniqueness of one another. Leslie Baxter (2004b), the primary founder of the theory known as relational dialectics, believes relational communication can be understood by examining the oppositions in a relationship, the core concept being that within contradictions there is “a unity of opposites” (p.183). There are three main relational dialectics or contradictions within this theory. The first dialectic is the connectedness versus separateness, which can also be described as independence versus dependence. The second dialectic is openness versus closedness, which can also be described as the amount of information one wishes to keep private versus the amount one wishes to disclose. Lastly, the certainty versus uncertainty is deals with the spontaneity of the activities in the relationship.
It is important to communicate dialogically about these tensions, knowing that there can be contradictions, but with the willingness to relate and continue dialogue knowing there will be dialogic flux. Marriage is the classic venue for tensions (or the interplay) which dialectics utilizes. Braithwaite (2006) agrees stating:
For example, marital couples in the United States appear to make sense of marriage as a
relationship framed into two competing discourses: a traditional ideology in which obligation, responsibility, and institution feature prominently; and an ideology of individualism in which individual wants and needs are privileged. The particular dialogic dance of these discourses organizes a given couple’s meaning of their unique marriage. (p.133)
So, these discourses or contradictions are not negative. They are competing discourses that change over time and are unique for different couples. What this theory establishes is that this interplay is essential for individuals to be happy in the relationship.
Marriage is a context that has not been looked at much exclusively within relational dialectics. However, one study, Relational dialectics and management strategies in married couples by Hoppe-Nagao (2002) is a primary and reliable source. In the research of this article they look at two dialectics, and do not discuss the certainty and uncertainty dialectic with the couples interviewed. Also, they interview couples that have been married five years or less. Overall, “Themes of the autonomy-- connection dialectic included contradiction, togetherness, independence, and comfort. Themes of the openness-closedness dialectic included were perception of shared intimacy, fear of vulnerability, and desire for increased interaction” (Hoppe-Nagao, 2002, p.142). These findings are important, but they do not answer an overall question about marriage. Meaning, marriage usually last longer than five years, so I looked at the changes of dialectics over time in my research.
This theory proposes that change, contradiction, praxis, and totality are normal functions of relational interactions that are sometimes overlooked. Until this theory, contradiction had a negative connotation, but in relational dialectics, “contradictions are inherent in social life and not evidence of failure or inadequacy in a person or in a social system. In fact, contradictions are the basic ‘drivers’ of change, according to a dialectically perspective” (Baxter, 1996, p.7).
Relational dialectics theory is within the paradigm of the interpretive theories, so the evidence provided by these theories is from lived experience. One comes to the conclusions or truths of this theory by constructivism. Dialogue is very essential in this stage because it symbolizes two or more perspectives fused together. Within a marriage if a couple is unable to fuse or relate with one another they could fail in their marriage. Dialogue can be “characterized by the simultaneous fusion and differentiation of voices. To engage in dialogue, participants must fuse their perspectives to some extent while sustaining the uniqueness of their individual perspectives” (Baxter, 2004b, p.181). Notice the example of “unity of oppositions” (Baxter, 2004b, p.183) within the quote. In a marriage this may be the most important quality to continue the marriage. Through my view of my generation, uniqueness is not yet fully appreciated. In my research, the longer people are married, the more tend they appreciate one another’s differences or uniqueness, but they still fuse together on issues such as finances. The three dialectics in this theory will be evaluated through married couples that I interviewed, personally. Interviewing is a primary way that scholars and researchers use to gather information about this theory. How do relational dialectics manifest within the relationship of husbands and wives?
Theoretical Application
Relational dialectics are a part of any human relationship that exists, so these dialectics are present within several types of relationships including roommates, siblings, parent/child, or married couples. Married couples are an interesting way to learn about dialectics, dialogue, and the ongoing tensions in relationships because two people have chosen to be together and may very well be in the most intimate type of relationship that exists. Since the context of my research is based on married couples, interviews were the technique used to research and understand, by lived experience. Therefore, interviews were the most appropriate data collection method. I interviewed five couples at different stages of their marriages: The Smiths married 1 ½ years, The Sandersons married 10 years, The Rogers married 25 years, The Wrights married 30 years, and the Roberts married for 49 years. In my interviews, I discussed the three main dialectical fluxes: connectedness/separateness, openness/closedness, and certainty/uncertainty. I asked the couples where they felt they fell within the spectrum of dialectics and how the dialectic fluxes have changed over their marriages. Then we discussed how they negotiated these tensions.
Within the separateness/connectedness dialectic, it seems that the one bench marker in typical couples is the arrival and release of children into the world. All couples except the newlywed couple (because they do not have children) felt children changed this dialectic, significantly. First of all, it means the couple is unable to do as many activities independently. It is more obvious that the couple will not have as much time alone together. Independent activities are somewhat diminished, as well, and one example that Mrs. Sanderson posed is that she had always wanted a screened in porch, so she could sit outside and read a book. She claims that she has finally got one but is unable to utilize the porch because her daughter keeps her occupied. She is not claiming this is a bad thing, but that it is something most individuals do not think about when your child is born or prior to the child. Most couples do spend time together with the child at this point, but also spend time apart, mostly, at work. This is another example of this dialectic. I have found in my research that too much work can contribute to dialectic fluxes and tension. Work is often something that takes away from the togetherness of a relationship. Two couples that I interviewed claimed that they worked too much at the beginning of their relationship, and that they were separated too much from their families, and one even said he would take that back now. So, the independence dialectic is greatly affected by children in a good way and increases the “we-ness” of the couple. It changes the amount of independence one can have, but a child is a blessing. So it brings the couple into a deeper understanding of one another in a familial sense.
Within the openness and closed ness dialectic most couples claim they are more open, but there is still must be a level of privacy within some domains of the relationship. However, most couples agreed that most women tend to be more detail-oriented, not leaving out very many details in their dialogue. It was also agreed that if a spouse knows that the other one does not care about a specific topic, it was either not discussed, or details were not included. Details are often the private or closed part of the dialectic, and this how most married couples keep the happy medium between what they disclose and what is kept private. However, it was agreed that finances, health conditions, work, and any serious issue was a very open dialectic. Upon interviewing the Rogers, they explained how trust is interwoven within this dialectic. Trust is essential to a marriage, and these partners do not keep anything important from one another. In this dialectic togetherness was more prevalent than individualism, so the interplay was not as present in my interviews because the couples are together on the important issues, but know that details are not always necessary for the smaller issues. Just think about what could happen if it were the opposite, now that would create interplay on the continuum. So, trust is underlines this dialectic, meaning, there must trust in order to be happy in the amount a partner decides to disclose.
The last dialectic of the theory is known as certainty versus uncertainty. Most couples are certain about their daily routine during the week, but as they get older they retire and this tends to change, somewhat. A routine is an example of certainty within the relationship. The uncertainty or spontaneity is the wow factor a relationship exhibits. Most couples claimed to be more spontaneous at the beginning, but as the relationship progresses there was less spontaneity. I would say that the level of uncertainty is higher at the beginning of most marriages, and then again once they hit retirement because this enables them to have the freedom to be spontaneous.
The last topic discussed with the couples was how they negotiated tension and what method was used most regularly. I explained the term dialogue, and most couples agreed that dialogue generally was secondary to an argument when used. When a disagreement occurs, tempers flare, conflicts arise, and most of the time these couples tend to separate if this happens. Then when they have cooled off, dialogue can occur. They dialogue by respecting and listening to one another and relating to the perspectives of each other. But, most of these couples strategically respond through all methods of selection and compromise. In my research only one couple reframed, “the process of not looking at the dialectical tensions as opposites, but rather considering the concepts to be along different dimensions” (Hoppe-Nagao, 2002, p.148). This is the most productive and beneficial way to negotiate because the relationship will become more balance, and the couple will show togetherness.
Most agreed that they select one or the other or neutralize and compromise with one other. All couples interviewed seemed to not have a high degree of tension or change, but they agreed that it does exist. Also, tension is not necessarily a bad state of being. Disagreements will happen when living with someone, and this is known as conflict. In relational dialectics, tension is the interplay between the two contradictions. Yes, it sounds quite negative, but it is not, it is normal and healthy and part of what makes the relationship grow. The negotiation of tension or conflict can result change or stagnation. It depends on the method or technique used to negotiate. Selection is often used because there is not a way to compromise. For example, one spouse wants to the children to celebrate Halloween and one does not. Either, one celebrates or they do not. This is probably why selection is the most popular method of negotiation. Compromise is always great too because the couple can fuse the ideas of one another, but keep there own individual uniqueness. Lastly, dialogue should always be interwoven within any technique used. The relating of dialogue should be foundational for a married couple.
Theory Evaluation
The functions of a theory are generally to predict, explain, and to control and sometimes even transform. Upon researching the theory, I feel like I could predict benchmarks of tension, of a typical couple and be able to predict major changes within dialectics in married couples, so I definitely believe that the theory has this ability. The theory also controls and explains by, “(a) its ability to be heuristic, enabling us to see relating in a new light; and (b) its ability to render intelligible the set of practices known as relating” (Baxter, 2004a, p.17). So, it is different type of predictability than the scientist might imagine. They might say, well it is not concrete, but to an interpretivist it is very useful and gives people the ability to make propositions, most importantly.
Scholars have debated relational dialectics as to whether or not it is really even a theory. Baxter (2004a) is often asked this very question, and she claims, “Relational dialectics is a theory in that it is a set of propositional assumptions and core concepts whose purpose is to render intelligible relational communications” (p.17). Thus, a theory can only be categorized as a theory if it is an inter-related set of laws or general principles or propositions of some aspect of communication behavior. Baxter clearly states how she believes that it is indeed a solid theory according to these qualifications. Even though there is some debate over relational dialectics being a theory, it is a theory because it has a set of propositions that relate to communication behavior. From my research I can make propositions and some predictions, but it would difficult to say that every couple, for instance, uses dialogue secondarily.
I feel that relational dialectics theory is very useful in life. So, it has utility especially within my context of married couples. It is useful because I feel like I have much more knowledge of dialectics. Any person that learns about the theory can utilize it by applying to their marriage or other relationship. The theory is something I did not know existed until this project, and I believe the knowledge I have acquired will benefit me in my future marriage. Also, it is useful to know that contradictions are normal and should not always be taken as a negative problem.
The theory also provides utility by learning about the tensions. I think it is fun and interesting to think about the dialectical tensions of a relationship. Some of the people interviewed did not think about how dialectics existed. When I discuss the interplay it seems on a surface level like conflict. However, the tension described is not of a negative intent. Sometimes couples do not realize the dialectics are fluctuating, so that is why this type of contradiction is not negative. Tensions are normal but are controllable, for “intimate couples face a common set of contradictions in their relationship that must be negotiated” (Hoope-Nagao, 2002, p.142).
It is also useful to know how to negotiate these tensions. It is important to know how dialogue is essential to settle these ongoing fluxes within dialectics, and that dialogue can even be used second after the disagreement to come to some form of agreement even if it is to agree to disagree. It can also be used to prevent the argument. Let me be clear on the fact that contradictions or tensions can lead to conflict, for tensions or contradictions are not conflict. Now, within dialogue, relating to one another and respecting one another’s opinions are also characteristics of dialogue. Dialogue is important and useful in relationships. Tensions exist, and it is useful to know how to negotiate these tensions. Relational dialectics have been an educational experience in teaching my couples and me how to dialogue and how to understand the tensions that coexist. These tensions can coexist and be positive. In this theory, dialogue is very useful in many relational situations, so it is important to understand the dialogic process.
The theory teaches how openness and trust are essential, but that privacy and independence are, as well. Some couples are open and some are not, but I might propose that openness in important issues such as health or finances must be discussed. However, in some couples, finances are specifically the man or woman’s domains. Baxter (1996) poses, “Relational dialectics is not a formal theory of prediction and causal explanation. But it is a theory in the sense of a coherent vocabulary and a set of questions to bring to the understanding of communication” (p.236). With my knowledge of the different types of theories I believe relational dialectics is an interpretive theory that uses lived experience as evidence, and the goal is a have general understanding of how communication patterns within the contradictions, praxis, and totality of relationships, generally.
Conclusion
In relational dialectics, it is sometimes hard to make predictions, and that is why I had rather make propositions about dialectics. Most couples tend to be more open about the important issues that concern the both of them. This was typical in my research, however in Hoppe-Nagao (2002) they discuss the term vulnerability. I feel these couples might feel more vulnerable because the couples have been married for only five years. I did find any of my couples to feel vulnerable about any subjects. They are closed about details and tend to not discuss ideas that do not interest the other individual, but this has nothing to do with vulnerability. Also, children are a vital part of a marriage most marriages. From interviewing at different stages of marriages I learned what it was like before children, while having children, and after the children left. The tension of independence versus autonomy is greatly affected by children. In my opinion, people need to be aware that when they bring children into their lives it is not about them anymore. Independence is scarce and usually work related, whether is going out to grocery store or Christmas shopping or an occupation. Children also create a schedule. It is very important that children have a schedule and structure, so certainty is highly present when children enter the picture. Spontaneity is more common at the beginning of a marriage and when the kids leave the nest. It may hard to include spontaneity in with kids, but it is important for the marriage to maintain some level of uncertainty. I have learned that I should make time in my marriage for these types of activities.
These dialectics are different for every couple and it is important to know how to work through and negotiate these tensions. In the research study of Hoppe-Nagao (2002) they found, “the results of this study suggest that some of these couples in which the end justifies the means. For example, these spouses may use potentially anti-social behaviors in an attempt to achieve a desired outcome” (p.158). I did not find this selfishness as much in my research. Most of the couples I interviewed, when they disagree they use the selection, separation, or reframing strategies, and then they talk and relate through dialogue. So, dialogue is usually secondary, but it is essential in order to produce any “we-ness.” Bakhtin (1981) states,
A unitary language is not something that is given, but is in its very essence
something that must be posited—at every moment in the life of a language it opposes the realities of heteroglossia, but at the same time the ideal of a single, holistic language makes the actuality of its presence felt as a force resisting an absolute heteroglot state; it posits definite boundaries for limiting the potential chaos of variety, thus guaranteeing a more of less maximal mutual understanding. (p.xix)
It is important to be an individual and maintain uniqueness, but couples need togetherness as well through a holistic not atomistic language.
It is said that if one has a hand full of good friends then one is doing well. Friends are the family we choose, and relationships are essential in our happiness. Humans need interaction with others. That is why older people die rapidly when no one visits them, because they need that conversation of dialogue, relating with another. Humans need attention and affection. We are compassionate creatures that need intimacy. Married couples are best friends that have chosen to spend their lives together forever. Most girls dream of the day that they will find the man of their dreams to spend forever with, so knowing how to make the best of that one day, is something that I cherish. Relational dialectics has given me the ability to be prepared for tension, but to know that it is normal. Tension does not have to be fighting or yelling. Tension should be negotiated through dialogue. This is the only healthy way. I have learned how important dialogue is to make a marriage last. Communication is one of the most important concepts of a marriage and so many adults do not know how or refuse to talk about it. Divorces are more common now than people staying married. I do feel like I have a toolbox of propositions that I will be able to utilize in my future marriage.
References
Baktin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M.
