Chang Change In Relational Dialectics

Relational Dialectics was originally proposed by Leslie A. Baxter and W.K. Rawlins but Leslie edited the theory with Barbara M. Montgomery. It is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles, and interaction between opposing tendencies (Baxter and Montgomery, 1998). Baxter and Montgomery elaborated on Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea that life is an open monologue and that individuals experience discourse between opposing desires and needs within relational communications (Baxter and Montgomery, 1998). According to Baxter (1998), relationships are constantly changing and require constant attention to become successful. In Relational Dialectics there are four elements that are acted upon.
Change is the process of addressing the contradictions that continually bring out changes within the relationship.
Baxter and Montgomery (1998) referenced Conville saying, “According to Conville, relationships spiral through four phases of relational transition based on these two metadialectics of change: security to disintegration, disintegration to alienation, alienation to resynthesis, and resynthesis to security” (pg. 7). Praxis is when a person is a member of a relationship and they are acted upon. Baxter and Montgomery (1998) further explain as “A focus on praxis obligate dialectical researchers to address temporality: past, present, and future are inextricably linked…” (pg. 9). Totality is referred to as “the inseparability of contradictions; one contradiction cannot be considered in isolation of other contradictions with which it is integrally linked” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1998, pg. 10-11). Contradictions are when two opposing poles exist and they allow dialectical tensions to exist. For example, connection and autonomy is the desire to be with one person and connect yet remain apart to have control over one’s own
life. Other scholars have used relational dialectics to further understand relationships in either real life or fiction. Dumlao and Janke (2012) wrote a paper called Using Relational Dialectics to Address Differences in Community-Campus Partnerships. “…relational dialectics as a framework to think about recurring tensions as natural and normal when partners span structural and cultural boundaries to work together” (Dumlao and Janke, 2012). Apker, Ptacek, Beach, and Wears (2016) used role dialectics to understand the contradictions that emerge from competing physician roles. In the Journal of Family Communication, Danielle Halliwell and Noah Franken (2016) took relational dialectics to describe the bereavement of siblings. Relational Dialectics could be used in a variety of ways and not only in Communications. It has been used in fashion, medicine, family, and education. William Rawlins examined Relational Dialectics in terms of Friendship. He implies that the dialectics of affection and instrumentality was found to be the most central in this type of relationship (1992). Affection is caring for others in a friendship, and instrumentality is using friends for personal gain. This interweaving of concepts is what distinguishes different types of friendships. While this remains true, the subjectivity of the friends in question ultimately determines the outcome of how heavily the dialectic of instrumentality and affection is applied (1992). Rawlins (1992) argues that friendships, at any stage in life, represent a complex set of challenges arising from dialectical contradictions innate in the very concept of being friends. Friendship relies on two individuals that collaborate to carefully construct a shared social reality (Rawlins, 1992). Thus further explains that it will be based on the two friends in question of how much affection and instrumentality is being used and the basis of the friendship. There are two different types of friendship: political and personal. Personal friendships express concern for each other. Political friendships only exist due to citizenship or public participation and are based on good will. Another dialectic that follows friendship is individuation and participation. Individuation is identifying an individually embodied self or social group as distinct entity separate from others. “Based on a specified set of attributes, I demarcate myself (and other individuals) as a particular being, a self-determining origin of human activity” (Rawlins, 2009). Participation is identifying one’s self or groups as relational entities necessarily connecting with others. “As such, it is not clear to me where my concerns and possibilities end and those of my family and friends begin” (Rawlins, 2009). It is the involvement of everyone around one person and they connect to them. Scholars have used friendship to better understand how one would define a friend. Doyle and Smith (2002) dissect the types of friendships and what each meaning of friendship would entail. They use Aristotle’s quote, “Friends must enjoy each other’s company, they must be useful to one another, and they must share a common commitment to the good.” Thus further explain the use of the dialectic affection and instrumentality.