Which method of dealing with relational dialectics is the most complex?

An Evaluation of Relational Dialectics Theory

The following is a final paper written in December 2016 for Interpersonal Communication at TCU. The paper can be downloaded as a word document here: IPC Final Paper - Relational Dialectics Theory.docx

Introduction

Decisiveness is not exactly one of my strong suits. If you’ve ever met me, you know that I’m the worst at making up my mind. Every once in a while, I get a strong, insatiable craving for a giant cheesy pizza—because every pizza is a personal pizza if you try hard enough—but then I look in the mirror and think that maybe my waistline could do without the carbs. Sometimes I find myself a couple of clicks away from buying something online that I’ve convinced myself I need, until I realize how particularly few digits are displayed in my checking account balance. However, I’m not the only one who experiences these problems. Everybody has moments in which they can’t figure out what they want. Imagine how this indecisiveness plays out in the context of a personal relationship, be it romantic, platonic, or professional. Conflicts arise. In fact, they occur all the time, and there is a communication theory that attempts to explain these phenomena. Relational Dialectics theory is incredibly useful for interpreting and understanding real-life situations that involve two opposite desires. By explaining the basics of the theory, applying it to a relevant case study, critiquing the case study participants’ behavior, and then evaluating the theory itself, I hope to demonstrate the practicality and value of Relational Dialectics theory in our everyday relationships.

I. Summarize the Theory

In order to understand Relational Dialectics Theory, one must first understand the dialectics in play. Relational dialectics can be defined as “conflicts between two important but opposing needs or desires” (Floyd, 2016, p. 282). These conflicts are considered normal, natural, and even unavoidable in our personal relationships (Schrodt, 2016, Lecture X). There are three prominent conflicts, or tensions, in Relational Dialectics Theory: autonomy vs. connection, novelty vs. predictability, and openness vs. closedness.

To begin, autonomy versus connection occurs when one desires to be independent while also feeling closeness by spending time with another person. For instance, I was involved in a dating relationship two years ago, and I spent nearly all of my time with my partner. Although I loved seeing and spending time with him, I concurrently wanted time and space to myself, and I know he too felt smothered at times. This internal struggle we experienced exemplifies the struggle between autonomy and connection.

The next tension, novelty versus predictability, deals with routines and states that in relationships, we simultaneously want both new experiences and a sense of stability, which gives a sense of safety and reassurance. (Floyd, 2016, p. 283). It’s all about being comfortable in a relationship and knowing what to expect, while also keeping things fresh, fun, exciting. A great example of this tension would be a pair of best friends that go to get ice cream every Friday afternoon after school. It’s their thing! While the stability of their routine is comforting, it can at times feel monotonous, and one or both friends will want to change things up by getting a different treat or even by including new people in the outing. This shows the opposing desires of novelty and predictability.

The last dialectical tension is openness versus closedness. This conflict describes when one desires to “be open and expressive, on the one hand, and to be closed and private on the other” (Wood, 1997, p. 208). For instance, if my mom were to ask me about a boyfriend, part of me might confide in her because we are extremely close and open. At the same time, I might want to keep certain details private, maybe because they’re too personal or I am not comfortable sharing. This example depicts the common conflict between openness and closedness.

With these three dialectical tensions in mind, we can better understand the basis of dialectical theory. The theory, introduced by Baxter and Montgomery in 1996, states that with each tension, we struggle with trying to achieve both desires, not just selecting one on which to focus (Schrodt, 2016, Lecture X). In our personal relationships, the real conflict arises from our attempts to satisfy both needs simultaneously, which are opposing and contrasting. Considering that dialectal tensions are ongoing and constant, with relationships developing over time, addressing these tensions and learning how to handle them provides opportunities to grow and make progress in our relationships (Lusk, 2008). People generally respond to dialectics using one of four different methods: selection, separation, neutralization, and reframing.

“Selection” is the easiest yet unhealthiest way to manage dialectics. It is a matter of choosing one extreme or the other, by “satisfying one need and ignoring or denying the contradictory one” (Schrodt, 2016, Lecture X). “Separation” is when individuals try to meet both opposing needs, but in different areas of relational life. “Neutralization” is simply a compromise that only partially fulfills both desires. The fourth and most sophisticated response is “reframing”, in which partners in a relationship recalibrate an issue so the dialectical tensions are no longer considered contradictory. According to Lusk, a couple could reframe “autonomy as meaning an enhancement of time spent together instead of as the opposite of togetherness” (Lusk, 2008, pg. 14). Reframing is the most difficult as it involves completely transforming paradoxical desires to make them work together and even complement each other.

A plethora of research has been performed since Relational Dialectic theory’s introduction in 1996, much of which analyzes the theory’s application to romantic, personal relationships. In one such study by Holly Lusk at the University of Tennessee (2008), 180 participants were surveyed to explore the dialectical tensions experienced in their relationships. The study tested whether age, sex, and relationship status were correlated to specific dialectical desires. Lusk found that in romantic relationships, women seek more predictability than men, age is a poor predictor of all three dialectical tensions, and people who are married or engaged seek more autonomy and closedness than single people. However, the most profound result is that each pair of dialectics had a negative correlation, showing that the tensions are undoubtedly opposing and that ultimately, dialectical tensions do indeed exist. Although this study primarily related to romantic relationships, dialectical tensions exist in all relationships: dating couples, family members, coworkers, classmates, platonic friendships, and more. Relational Dialectics theory can therefore be applied to all of these, and in the following pages, I will analyze how it applies to one friendship in particular: two best friends experiencing college together.

II. Application of Theory and Analysis of Case Study

I chose the case study titled “I Need Some Space: Friends Through Good Times and Bad Times”, written by Kathryn Dindia, Stephanie Hsu, and Page Garber. In this case study, there are two main characters: Ashley and Jennifer. The two girls were best friends for four years, and were now starting college together as roommates. While at first it was comforting to have a built-in friend in a new place, after a couple of months Ashley began to want time to herself to meet new people without Jennifer constantly tagging along. She didn’t tell Jennifer her feelings for a while because she was afraid she would hurt her. This delay caused Jennifer to worry about why Ashley had been so distant, and after a couple of weeks, Ashley exploded in frustration. They argued for a bit, but soon worked it out. The second year, they decided to room with other people, but still spent time together weekly, thus strengthening their friendship. One day, Jennifer saw Ashley’s new boyfriend, Steve, kissing another girl. After considering whether or not she should, she told Ashley what she’d witnessed. At first Ashley wouldn’t accept it, but Steve admitted to the infidelity when she confronted him. This resulted in Ashley’s appreciation of Jennifer’s honesty, and they grew closer. During their third year, Ashley and Jennifer roomed together again. Jennifer was dating a new boy, but was very secretive about him with Ashley. However, one day Ashley saw Jennifer holding hands with none other than Steve, which infuriated her. Time passed and the girls barely spoke to each other, and Ashley admitted she needed time to trust Jennifer again. During the spring semester of that third year, Ashley went abroad to France. While they wrote letters to each other, they were unsure about where their relationship stood. Upon Ashley’s return, Jennifer apologized about how she handled things before, and Ashley forgave her. They agreed to be best friends again and decided to live together their final year of college. Their last year passed without any major problems. At graduation, they promised to keep in touch and to stay friends forever, even though they were heading separate ways.

During college, Ashley and Jennifer’s first three years were difficult and they faced many dialectical tensions that threatened their friendship. In their first year together, the first dialectical tension they experience is autonomy vs. connection. Although they’d been best friends for a long time and had probably spent a lot of time together in the past, Ashley wanted more autonomy and freedom to do her own thing. She probably started to embrace the new freedom and independence of living away from home and with this started making new friends, yet Jennifer was always imposing and tagging along uninvited.

She also faced a novelty vs. predictability tension. These new friends provided the novelty she craved instead of the predictability of her long term best friend Jennifer. Ashley yearned for new experiences instead of the long established, even boring, friendship with Jennifer. While Jennifer was comfortable with connection and close attachment to Ashley, and didn’t seem to need new novel experiences herself, Ashley likely started to feel suffocated and restricted in pursuing her need for both autonomy and new novel experiences and friends.  This disparity generated tension between the two girls. Ashley seemed to respond to this tension using separation: she became totally autonomous from Jennifer and snuck out of their room, avoiding her, but most likely met her connection needs with the other, new friends she was meeting. This unhealthy tactic caused Jennifer distress and pain, and she felt isolated from Ashley since they were not spending time together.

The third tension they experienced in this situation was the tension of openness vs. closedness. Ashley debated on being honest with her roommate about her desires, but she also thought it better to keep her feelings to herself out of fear of hurting Jennifer or their friendship. She managed this dialectic using selection: She ignored the desire to talk to Jennifer about the problem and chose to remain silent instead. Had Ashley been open with her roommate, Jen too might have been encouraged to develop her own new friendships leading to more contentment for both girls. When Jen finally confronted her, Ashley found that her friend was unaware of how her actions were annoying Ashley. She learned that being up front would have been much less hurtful. By managing this tension with openness and transparency, their relationship developed and grew as they vowed to talk through any future problems.

When their second school year started, the girls managed their original tension of autonomy vs. connection by reframing: They chose to live with different people because they believed “more time apart would ease some of the strains in their friendship” (Dindia, 2000, pg. 77). This was an incredibly mature and sophisticated approach. Transforming the tension so that they viewed being apart as actually making them closer took much thought and skill, and it worked. Sure enough, they began to enjoy and value their time together more than they used to, because it now happened less frequently.

Later that same year, on the night that Jennifer saw Ashley’s boyfriend Steve kissing another girl, Jennifer wrestled with openness versus closedness. She was torn between telling her best friend what she saw, or not telling her, possibly because it “wasn’t her business”, or she thought that Ashley wouldn’t believe her. At first, Ashley denied it and had a halo-effect with her boyfriend, believing it wasn’t him and claiming he’d never do that to her. But once Steve admitted it, Ashley thanked Jen for her honesty and for protecting her from Steve. Jennifer’s openness with her friend caused their relationship to grow further, building the trust they had in each other.

The third year, the two best friends opted to live together again. When Jennifer started dating Steve, Ashley’s ex, she again struggled with openness versus closedness. Even though she told Ashley nearly everything, she knew the news would not likely be taken well and could possibly break Ashley’s heart. Jennifer responded by solely selecting closedness, remaining secretive and replying with short, vague answers when Ashley asked about her new man. Once Ashley caught them together, Jennifer had to deal with the damage caused by her lack of openness. By choosing the least healthy response to her tension, their relationship suffered, greatly damaging the trust they had built over the years. As a result of Jennifer’s betrayal, their originally stabilized friendship started waning as Ashley reduced her investment in their friendship.

A couple months later when Ashley went abroad to France, they chose to reframe an autonomy/connection tension once again. This time, instead of viewing living apart as a way to get closer, they saw this time apart as an opportunity to reflect on their fragile friendship and think of ways to heal it. This is reframing because their physical distance could be seen as a factor weakening their friendship, yet they chose to view it in the opposite light, as a way to stabilize their friendship. Upon arriving in France, Ashley experienced the autonomy vs. connection struggle, when she felt tremendous relief in being away from her rocky friendship but also acknowledged that the time away would cause her to miss Jennifer and her family.

Once Ashley returned home, there was initially a lot of uncertainty and awkwardness surrounding the status of her and Jennifer’s friendship, just as there had been while Ashley was in France. They both had anxiety due to the ambiguity of their relationship, and they spoke much about what had transpired since Ashley left. They eventually apologized and forgave each other, agreeing to return to their original best friend status. The quality and quantity of communication increased as they chose to live together for their last year of college, and their waning friendship became stabilized once again.

During the end of their last year in college, the final dialectical tension that the two best friends experience is novelty vs. predictability. Their old routine of living in the same place and seeing each other regularly was ending, as Jennifer landed a teaching job in Arizona and Ashley was off to France again to live with her boyfriend, Jerome. While they both were excited to start their new lives and have fresh experiences, it was bittersweet because it meant leaving each other. They were incredibly sad to part ways and they welled up with tears at the mention of how weird and different life would be without each other. They loved the stability of the friendship they shared over the last eight years, but simultaneously couldn’t wait for the changes that graduation would bring. Although the story ends there and I don’t know for sure how they responded to this dialectic, I can only hope that they reframed it. I hope that they started new, stable routines in their new, novel lives, and remained friends forever, just like Ashley said (Dindia, 2000).

III. Critique the Case Study Participants Using the Theory

If Ashley and Jennifer had been familiar with Relational Dialectics Theory, or had known what I know about interpersonal communication, I believe they would’ve made a couple of better-informed choices about their relationship and communication. When they first started college together, being aware of the autonomy/connection tension, they could’ve taken steps to be more independent from the start. The case study says that they “made the same friends, joined the same clubs, ate dinner together almost every night, and went out to the same places” (Dindia, 2000, pg. 75). As a preventative measure, they could have mixed it up and mingled separately every once in a while. While it’s great to have the security of a guaranteed friend in a new place, too much of a good thing can turn sour, and starting out the year doing some things separately could have avoided a suffocating relationship. Also, this could have added excitement and diversity, giving them more to talk about at the end of each day by sharing different experiences.

Even if they didn’t start out their first year doing different things, if they’d known about the responses to dialectical tensions, Ashley could have chosen a healthier one from the start. Instead of withholding connection from Jennifer entirely by using separation, she could have at least allowed Jennifer to join her in some activities with Ashley’s new friends, but not every time. She could have communicated her feelings about needing some space. This would allow her to bond with Jennifer, but still have her independence and the discretion to decide which events she’d like to go to solo. Also, this tactic would require a better and quicker response to the openness/closedness tension. If Ashley was allowing Jennifer to join her once in a while, she’d be more likely to explain that there were certain times that she’d like to do her own thing, but that it didn’t mean she doesn’t love having Jennifer around. Regardless of whether Ashley had chosen to compromise on that autonomy/connection tension, she could have handled the openness/closedness one better. If she’d been aware that selecting only closedness and ignoring openness would hurt and confuse Jennifer, she would have likely been honest with her sooner. She could have reframed the tension so she’d see that her openness about her feelings would allow her to have the space, privacy, and closedness that she desperately wanted.

While they didn’t know about this theory, they handled their second year of college together rather well. Their reframing response in which they lived separately in order to get closer was mature, even without knowledge of the reframing concept. Jennifer also handled her openness/closedness tension well by telling Ashley about Steve, even though she had concerns about doing so. However, it paid off when Ashley ended her relationship with him and thanked Jennifer from saving her from staying with a cheater. Although, with my knowledge of interpersonal communication, my only critique of the participants is for Ashley to check her bias and rid herself of the halo-effect she has for Steve and trust her friend’s intentions instead because reason not to.           

Their third year, I believe Jennifer would have made some very different decisions with Ashley, had she known about relational dialectics. I think that if Jennifer knew the consequences of responding to the openness/closedness tension by using selection, she would have managed things differently with Ashley regarding Steve. Rather than keeping it a secret, she could have had an open conversation when the relationship first started budding. In my opinion, she should have never pursued a relationship with him in the first place because it is a betrayal of her best friend. Regardless, she could have made sure it was okay with Ashley before things progressed. Being suspicious and secretive about it until Ashley found out was arguably the worst way to handle it: Jennifer then lost control of how the news was presented; she likely hurt her friend even more by being secretive; and when she said sorry, she appeared to do so because she got caught, not because she was sorry for dating him.

When Ashley was abroad in France, there was little correspondence between her and Jennifer. But when she first arrived in France and felt the relief of being far away from her problems yet missed her family, she could have recognized the tension between autonomy and connection. With this knowledge, she might’ve made more of an effort to connect with Jennifer and her family to balance out these conflicting desires.

My knowledge of Relational Dialectics theory enhanced my understanding of the case by allowing me to see an everyday, familiar friendship and situation in a communication-centered perspective that I’d never had before. I understood possible causes behind certain behaviors, such as Ashley sneaking out because she sought more autonomy due to an overload of connection, whereas without the theory, I would have assumed Jennifer was simply annoying. I realize how intertwined and interdependent the different tensions are, like how Ashley’s struggle with autonomy and connection led to an inevitable struggle between openness and closedness: Should she tell Jennifer her desire for independence or not? Knowing these tensions occur when one wants to fulfill both contradictory needs at the same time, I notice how common these tensions really are: Almost every time I read things like “but at the same time”, “she also wanted”, etc., I realized that a dialectical tension was possibly being introduced. These phrases occurred relatively often, which made sense, because I know that dialectics are natural and normal parts of interpersonal relationships. The case study helped enhance my understanding of the theory as well, because I now better understand why some of the responses are considered healthy vs. unhealthy. This case study provided real life examples of the consequences of one’s responses: I saw the hurt, pain and confusion experienced by the other person when the responder chose selection or separation, like when Ashley snuck out to see her new friends and didn’t tell Jennifer, or when Jennifer opted against telling Ashley about her relationship with Steve. I recognized growth in the friendship when they chose to reframe, such as the year when they chose to live apart and actually enjoyed their time together more than they had before.

IV. Critique the Theory

Upon evaluating Relational Dialectics theory using the five criteria, I’ve concluded that it satisfies most of the criteria and is a valuable theory. I first examined the scope of the theory, which discusses how much the theory describes and explains. I believe that Relational Dialectics theory has a good scope, because it explains many different types of relationships. It also gives a name and an understanding of something that we experience all the time, which is the push-pull we often feel between contradictory desires. I’m doubtful, however, about the testability of the theory. While I think it is verifiable based on the fact that we can attest to having these tensions in our everyday lives, I’m not sure how well one could measure each tension and our responses to it quantifiably. Since these occur trying to satisfy two conflicting needs, I feel that if there was a survey performed to mathematically or scientifically test it, the numbers would be rather neutral and not statistically significant. Next, Relational Dialectics theory absolutely meets the parsimony criterion, meaning it is appropriately simple. Considering the theory does not identify a certain relationship that dialectical tensions occur in, its simplicity allows it to apply to a broad spectrum of relationships. This also leads to the theory’s utility. Relational Dialectics theory is useful because it is fundamentally practical and seeks to describe such a common phenomenon, and effectively does so. Due to the theory’s untraditional and unrestricted perspective, it has high heuristic value. Because it is so open-ended rather than a meticulous theory describing every aspect of communication, it raises questions about just how many relationships and situations it could be applied to. It provokes new ideas and may spark research about how versatile Relational Dialectics theory can be. Since its introduction, the theory has generated vast research, including interreligious relationships, LGBTQ relationships, end-of-life care decisions, and more.

Relational Dialectics theory moderately explained the interpersonal communication dynamics in my case study. I understood that Ashley and Jennifer’s original issue of spending too much time together arose from turbulence between Ashley’s desire for autonomy and Jennifer’s desire for connection. The theory also furthered my understanding of the consequences of each response to dialectics. Although it was a good basis to provide insight into the tensions Ashley and Jennifer were experiencing, it may have oversimplified their issues at times. Interpersonal communication dynamics don’t always happen in a vacuum; there could be certain reasons behind their behaviors that the case study didn’t explicitly state, rather than simply because the theory demands it. Our relational problems are multifaceted and they don’t always fit neatly into a box just because of a theory. At times, it was far-reaching to figure out what tension they were facing. For instance, Ashley was probably not going to Europe to seek novelty or autonomy, the autonomy was simply a result of her studying abroad. But because she and Jennifer “reframed” a bad situation and made the most out of the distance, it was a stretch trying to find a “tension” that they were responding to.

While Relational Dialectics theory is definitely valuable and useful, I believe it could be expanded to better explain interpersonal communication. Although it introduces three main tensions between contradictory impulses, it does not address possible motivations behind each impulse. The reasons that an individual may attempt to satisfy each need could be completely unique from one situation to the next. For example, you could seek autonomy because you are introverted, you are annoyed with the other person in a certain relationship, you are in a bad mood, etc. Likewise, you could want connection because you are extroverted, you miss the other person, or you are deprived of affection in another sphere of relational life. You could seek closedness because you’re afraid of hurting someone, being judged, or having your information spread to people for whom it wasn’t intended. The motivation behind each desire makes a difference in how strongly one seeks to satisfy that desire and how one chooses to respond to the dialectical tension, so adding this point would enhance the theory. Another way that this theory could be expanded is to make it somehow more predictive. While many other theories aim to predict outcomes in communication situations, Relational Dialectics theory merely describes what is animating communication in relationships. It would be helpful to know, for example, what would make someone favor one desire more than its opposite, or what the possible consequences of each response to dialectics are. This would allow us to be more educated in how we handle opposing desires in order to achieve the best possible outcome.

Conclusion

The usefulness of Relational Dialectics theory is undeniable, both in the communication studies field and in everyday life. After describing its basic tenets about seeking two opposing needs, relating it to a story of two best friends in college, discussing how the characters’ decisions might have differed with knowledge of the theory, and critiquing it with five different gauges, this theory’s value and applicability is obvious. Communication scholars and students will continue to utilize and teach Relational Dialectics theory years from now, especially because it is associated with conflicts that occur nearly everyday in our interpersonal relationships. While it can’t explain everything, it’s still an extremely useful tool.  In my case, I’m still waiting on a theory that explains and teaches me about my own lack of decisiveness. Until then, though, you can find me somewhere scratching my head, still trying to choose between Papa John’s and my pant size.

References

Lusk, H. M. (2008). A Study of Dialectical Theory and its Relation to Interpersonal Relationships (Honors Thesis, University of Tennessee).

Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in Action. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Floyd, K. (2016). Interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Schrodt, P. (2016). LECTURE X: COMMUNICATION & FRIENDSHIP [PowerPoint slides, printed notes].

Schrodt, P. (2016). LECTURE IIa – UNDERSTANDING COMMUNICATION THEORY [PowerPoint slides, printed notes].