Human beings are relational by nature; as such, relationship-building is a central part of life. Communication plays a critical role in the establishment and maintenance of relationships. However, every individual is unique and has varying views, which tend to contradict the people they are in close relationships with, thus resulting in tensions. Seeking to maintain a long-term relationship can be challenging when the parties involved do not understand their differences, the tensions that arise as a result, and how they can best navigate them. The Relational Dialectic Theory, one of the central theories in interpersonal communication, focuses on these contradictions that arise when two significantly different people are trying to maintain a relationship. The theory is important to communication scholars as it provides a framework to understand the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and the challenges experienced. It is also important to researchers, relationship counselors, and mentors as it sheds insight into how people in interpersonal relationships can create positive, productive, and happy relationships (Drew, 2022). This paper aims to provide a discussion of the Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) and synthesize scholarly works on the paper focusing on themes of contradictions in romantic relationships, discursive struggles, and gender differences in relationships
Theoretical Discussion
Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) is a dominant theoretical perspective in the field of communication which was postulated in 1988 by theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery. The theory’s main concept is that parties engaged in communication often experience pulls that are internal and conflicting, which causes the relationship to continuously experience dialectical tension or a state of flux (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The theorists indicate that these tensions continue to occur over time and thus see people close together face conflict and try to pull them apart (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
As a communication theory, RDT postulates that the relationship between people constantly changes, causing normal tensions and part of the relationship. Through good communication, parties can build and maintain positive and productive interpersonal communication (Drew, 2022). The theory has four key features that seek insight into interpersonal relationships. The first is a contradiction, where relationships are marked with desires, needs, and contradictory wants. These contradictions, referred to as tensions, are considered natural, with the theory seeking to provide a way to navigate these tensions. The other key concept is a totality which refers to the need to look at all the tensions experienced in a relationship rather than focusing on one isolated issue, given that these tensions and contradictions tend to impact each other. The contradictions can be internal, about the two people in a relationship, or external, where they contradict those outside the relationship.
The process is another key concept that shows that relationships continually change. Thus even when people resolve contradictions, they will continue to rise over time as the parties’ needs change. Praxis, on the other hand, is a concept that denotes how people are supposed to behave in a relationship to deal with the tensions in existence by either ignoring them, easing them, or exacerbating them. Contradictions are also a key concept in the theory which exists in a relationship. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) identified three categories of contradiction ranging from connectedness and separateness, where while the parties desire closeness, the individuals also need time alone. The second is certainty and uncertainty, where relational partners need some level of predictability while also requiring mystery, novelty, and spontaneity to spice up the relationship. Finally, the third category of contradictions is openness and closedness, where these partners must reveal personal information and be transparent. At the same time, individuals desire privacy, thus bringing about a contrary pull.
The theory falls under the interpersonal communication tradition and seeks to show the existing dynamics and the contradictions that affect these relationships. The theory is instrumental in studying interpersonal relationships, with the contradictions employed to understand the partners’ behavioral changes. In terms of strengths, the theory is significantly effective in providing a framework to understand interpersonal relations and dynamics. However, the theory is weak. Although it’s humanistic and offers a practical hypothesis in people’s reactions to the pulls and tugs of issues in a relationship, each is a unique situation. As such, it is difficult to use its findings to make generalizations (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
RTD has been widely used in scholarly works investigating various forms of interpersonal relationships, such as romantic ones (Guthrie & Kunkel, 2013; Hall et al., 2010 &Pearson et al., 2010), parent-child relationships (Cronin-Fisher & Parcell, 2019) and so forth. The next segment aims to synthesize scholarly works that have relied on the theory as a framework.
Synthesis of Scholarship
A look at the scholarship on relational dialectics theory shows that numerous scholars have adopted this theory as the framework for their study or the lens which informs the analysis of various topics. Some topics that have emerged in assessing this literature include contradictions in romantic relationships, discursive struggles, and gender differences in relationships. This segment will take a topical approach to look at the emerging main themes, showing their relationship to RDT.
Contradictions in Romantic Relationships
Relational dialectics theory, in illustrating interpersonal relationships, shows that within these relationships, there are two sets of desires, needs, and wants, which tend to be contradictory and thus cause tension in the relationship. Many scholars have, therefore, endeavored to show the contradictions that exist in relationships and how people navigate them to maintain long-term relationships. One of the main contradictions is openness and closedness; these partners need to reveal personal information and be transparent, while individuals desire privacy, thus bringing a contrary pull. One of the main manifestations of this contradiction in romantic relationships is deception. Guthrie and Kunkel (2013) showed that partners in romantic relationships often use deception, which contradicts openness. In seeking to understand the motivation, the scholars established that deception in romantic relationships was driven by the need to maintain the relationship, negotiate dialectical tensions, manage face needs, and establish relational control. The scholars thus show that while partners could desire openness, sometimes they feel prompted to be deceptive to safeguard the relationship’s well-being.
Partners in romantic relationships also have to deal with the contradictions of desiring certainty and uncertainty as they strive to ensure a level of predictability to show stability in their relationship while also requiring mystery, novelty, and spontaneity to spice up the relationship. Pearson et al. (2010) established that rituals in a romantic relationship could be used as a predictive factor for alterations in perceived relational intimacy and perceived relational quality. The scholars show that while some relationship mystery is good, such rituals as having daily routines as a couple, couple time, and idiosyncrasies make the couple feel more intimate. The couple’s proximity in romantic relationships also determines the contradictions they experience and how they impact their relationships. Copeland (2021) shows that couples that have long-distance relationships experience diverse contradictions, such as predictability-novelty and connection-autonomy, which causes tension in the relationship.
Discursive Struggles
RTD also shows that people in a relationship also experience discursive struggles when they seek to address certain topics. Varying views and desires cause tension which, when not properly handled, could strain o the relationship and give rise to a relationship breakdown. Romo and Abetz (2016) capture these discursive struggles as they highlight the competing cultural discourses on finances among romantic partners. The scholars showed that money was a major source of tension in the relationship, with the main struggle being the view that “Money is everything” or “money isn’t everything.” It was only when the partners could negotiate the value they gave to money culturally and the impact it had on their relationship and financial well-being that they could establish a healthy long-term relationship.
Similar discursive tensions are also experienced among couples who cohabit before they become engaged and married. Moore et al. (2015) argue that the nontraditional living arrangements of these couples lead to discursive struggles on such topics as the pragmatism of cohabitation and the risks that come with it. While some partners see the logic in the decision, others see the risks of the choice. There are also tensions between partnership and romance when coming to the proposal ritual and revealing and privacy in preparation. However, there are different things that couples can use to trigger or address their discursive struggles and the tensions they experience as they seek to establish long-term relationships. In the current age of social media, Fox et al. (2014) show that couples use social networking sites such as Facebook as a forum to address discursive struggles in such matters as expression-privacy, integration-separation, and stability-change dialectics. These platforms can serve as a trigger for romantic conflict as a result of discursive struggles and tension.
Other than romantic relationships, discursive struggles also occur in other relationships, such as parent-child and family contexts. Cronin-Fisher and Parcell (2019) show the contradictions experienced by women who feel conflicted and dissatisfied with their motherhood transition. The scholars show that these women are divided among two contradictory discourses: the Discourse of Motherhood as Innately Desired (DMID) and the Discourse of Motherhood as Learned (DML). While the former was the dominant discourse on the subject, the latter was also making waves. Similarly, looking at discursive struggles from family communication and relationships, Suter and Norwood (2017) focus on the concept of power, which lies in the system of meaning-making where social reality is constructed that is within the dominant and marginalized discourses struggle. The scholars, however, show that placing the discourses about each other is critical in determining which gets reinforced. However, they point to RDT 2.0, which moves scholars to focus not only on identifying competing discourses on power relations between the different discourses and how their interplay implies families.
Gender differences
The relational dialectic theory shows that competing desires and needs between romantic partners lead to contradictions and tension. Scholars have, however, gone a step further to show that there is a distinction in the manifestation of these differences between males and females. Ubando (2016), in the contrasting male and female expression of relations, showed the two genders perceived relationships and emotional expression differently, which also implied their perceived relationship satisfaction. The gender difference that can be seen here is that when men had high emotional expression in their relationship, they had low satisfaction compared to women. There were also contradictions, with males having a more positive conception of their intimacy in relationships while females had a negative perception. There were also differences in emotional expressivity, in which women reported high supportiveness while men were more inclined to non-verbal and verbal affection. On the other hand, Hall et al. (2010) explored and confirmed the five styles of communicating romantic interest and established the existence of these communication styles, with women scoring higher on all styles except flirting. The scholars showed that men were more inclined to flirt than women when flirting and seeking to establish relationships.
Conclusion
The relational dialectics theory offers insight into interpersonal relations and their challenges in establishing long-term romantic relationships. RDT provides insights into the contradictions that are experienced in these relationships. As the synthesis shows, romantic partners struggle with contradictions such as openness-closedness, leading some to engage in deception to maintain the relational dynamics. However, it is important to note that healthy relationships continually change, and they must be continually navigated as such lies are unnecessary to maintain equilibrium. Discursive struggles also occur in these relationships, such as the divisive topic of money. Different genders also express certain differences when expressing interest in romantic relationships, with men being more inclined to flirt than women.
These studies have been instrumental in shading light on the different conceptions of RDT in romantic and interpersonal relations. However, despite their great insight, limitations still impact the findings of the different studies reviewed. For example, Cronin-Fisher and Parcell (2019) are limited since the study population only represented a segment of the mother population, limiting the view’s comprehensiveness. On the other hand, Guthrie and Kunkel (2013) showed that it was not often clear to determine why a partner deceives their partner, and at times, partners are not even aware that they are acting deceptively. The c same can be seen in Hall et al. (2010), who were limited in that they relied on data generated from self-reporting and cross-sectional.
A look at the research gap shows that, as a whole, the scholars sought to understand interpersonal relationships, the elements which inform them, and their struggles. However, the studies have not, as a whole, addressed ways that romantic partners have addressed the contradictions and discursive e struggles that they experience from competing desires and needs.
Further research can therefore focus on the following;
- Determining how couples address contractions and discursive struggles to determine the most effective strategies and the way they can be applied in different settings. Using the lived experiences of couples, insight can be drawn into unique and rich ways of addressing relationship tensions.
- Further, given the rise in relationship breakdown in society today, more research should be undertaken on the role of RTD in separation and divorce. Different concepts w and elements of the theory contributing to the breakdown should be identified and addressed.
References
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.
Communication Theory (n.d). Relational Dialectics Theory in Interpersonal Communication. https://www.communicationtheory.org/relational-dialectics-theory/
Copeland, K. (2021). “Relational Dialectics in College LDRs: Managing the Tensions of Long-Distance Dating in College” (2021). Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 346. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/honorstheses/346
Cronin-Fisher, V. & Parcell, E. S. (2019). Making Sense of Dissatisfaction during the Transition to Motherhood through Relational Dialectics Theory, Journal of Family Communication, DOI: 10.1080/15267431.2019.1590364 https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1590364
Drew, C. (2022). Relational Dialectics Theory – Examples, Pros & Cons. https://helpfulprofessor.com/relational-dialectics-theory/
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L.& Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior 35(2):527-534 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031
Guthrie, J. & Kunkel, A. (2013). Tell Me Sweet (And Not-So-Sweet) Little Lies: Deception in Romantic Relationships. Communication Studies Vol. 64, No. 2, April–June 2013, pp. 141–157 DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2012.755637
Hall, J. A.; Carter, S.; Cody, M. J. & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory Communication Quarterly 58(4):365-393 DOI:10.1080/01463373.2010.524874.
Moore, Ju.; Kienzle, J.; & Flood G., El. (2015). “Discursive Struggles of Tradition and Nontraditional in the Retrospective Accounts of Married Couples Who Cohabited Before Engagement” (2015). Papers in Communication Studies. 52. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/52
Pearson, J. C., Child, J. T. & Carmon, A. (2010). Rituals in Committed Romantic Relationships: The Creation and Validation of an Instrument. Communication Studies Vol. 61, No. 4, September–October 2010, pp. 464–483. DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2010.492339
Romo, J. K. & Abetz, J. S. (2016). Money as Relational Struggle: Communicatively Negotiating Cultural Discourses in Romantic Relationships, Communication Studies, 67:1, 94–110, DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2015.1121158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1121158
Suter, E. A. & Norwood, K. M. (2017). Critical Theorizing in Family Communication Studies: (Re)Reading Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0. Critical Theorizing in Family Communication Studies
Ubando, M. (2016). “Gender Differences in Intimacy, Emotional Expressivity, and Relationship Satisfaction,” Pepperdine Journal of Communication Research: Vol. 4, Article 13. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/pjcr/vol4/iss1/13
write