Dorman 1

Abby Dorman
Dr. Langan
Comm 211
Oct. 2, 2015

Relational Dialectics in Romantic Relationships

When scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery put

together their theory of relational dialectics, they were seeking to

provide a better explanation for the idea of dialectical tendencies in

relationships. They werent satisfied with the current work in the field

of communication, so they began to form their own theory that

included an explanation of communication as interplay of contradiction

between parties in relationship. These contradictions arent stagnant,

they say, but are defined in the interpenetration of united-yet-

competing values, orientations, perspectives, or ideas. (Baxter, 2004,

p. 185) Baxter and Montgomery emphasized that these contradictions

play out in the development of all kinds of relationships, but this paper

will investigate how romantic relationships in particular are shaped by

relational dialectics.

Baxter organized one study on a wide range of college students

in relationships to determine how they viewed the resolution of the

dialectics in their relationships. The dialectics were re-named from

integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-privacy to

me-we, novelty-predictability, and to talk or not to talk. (Baxter,

1990, p.76) Using terms that were more relatable to the college
 Dorman 2

students made them more comfortable using these contradictions to

describe their relationships. The study measured to what extent each

relational party felt that the dialect was present in their relationship

and how they coped with it. In general the amount each contradiction

was present varied on the relationship stage, or how long the couple

had been together.

On average, the autonomy-connectedness dialectic was reported

in 79 percent of relationships, openness-closedness in 72 percent, and

predictability-novelty in 69 percent. (Baxter, 1990, 77) The study also

found that the participants linked different dialectics together. For

example, the amount of autonomy was often associated with the

amount of predictability-novelty in the relationship. Finally, the

prominence of each dialectic shifted throughout various relationship

stages. In the beginning stages of a relationship, partners were more

likely to state the openness-closedness dialectic as a struggle than

they were later on.

Recognizing the influence that these contradictions had on their

romantic relationships helped the students search for solutions and

even understand conflict they had with their partner. They recognized

which areas of their relationships leaned too heavily towards one pole,

to an extent where they werent being pushed or pulled towards

growth. One student gave the example of him and his girlfriend who

seemed to be stuck in the rut of the school routine. We would get

 Dorman 3

up, go to classes, go to dinner together, study together, sleep

together, get up, go to classesIn the middle of the term we just

decided to bag the rut and do things on impulse that we felt like

doing. By recognizing his relationships tendency towards

predictability, the student and his girlfriend found refreshment in

shifting towards novelty in their relationship. (Baxter, 1990, p. 82)

While an understanding of relational dialectics can help couples

figure out how to strengthen their relationship, it can also help uncover

irreconcilable differences. Andrew Herrmann explained how his

relationship with his fianc disintegrated based on the contradictions in

their relational dialectics in the journal article, How did we get so far

apart? He was starting a PhD program at a university in Florida, while

she remained at her job in Saint Louis close to her family. Two months

before the date of the wedding, she came out to Florida to look for a

job. When she returned home, she called Herrmann and told him

suddenly that she wanted to call off the wedding. I have been

thinking about this for weeks and weeks. We changed somehow. I

dont know who we are anymore. When we got engaged, I thought

everything would change, that you would spend more time with me,

that you would want to be with me all the time, that you would give

heaven and earth to be with me. (Herrmann, 2007, p. 998) Nothing

Herrmann said would change her mind, and the relationship ended

with a phone hanging up. Herrmann was completely heartbroken and

 Dorman 4

blindsided, but in the months to follow he examined the forces that had

been pulling them apart for some time.

For one, they had different preferences in the inclusion-seclusion

dialectic. Their respective family situations shaped what they wanted

for their future and expected of each other. He had been living away

from home since college and only saw his family briefly every now and

then. She lived with her parents until age twenty-eight and only

eventually moved fifteen minutes away from her entire extended

family in her hometown. They both felt a pull towards the others

family dynamic at first, which is why the relationship worked for a

while. As time went on, their difference in background proved to be too

much. Herrmann explains (2007), Given my childhood background of

home foreclosure, economic uncertainty, and divorced parents, I was

drawn to the stability of her family. At first, the steadfastness was

comforting, like a generous hug. Sometimes, however, I began to feel

overwhelmed. We did everything with the familyWhen she wanted to

be close, I wanted to be separated; when I wanted to be close, she

wanted to be separated. The spiral of the closenessseparateness

continuum continued to swirl. (p. 1001)

Towards the end of the article, Herrmann recognizes how he

holds some responsibility in his failed relationship for not recognizing

the emotional needs of his fianc. My former fianc preferred

 Dorman 5

certainty rather than novelty in her relationships. Her desire for

stability conflicted with my desire for change. Our incommunicability

on these topics piloted the slow dissolution of our relationship. (2007,

p. 1004)Herrmann gives a rare personal look at the unfolding of

relational dialectics in romantic relationships. He shows a real-life

embodiment, including the good, the bad, and the ugly, of Baxters

theory.

Herrmann isnt the only one who experienced relational

dialectics. Ross and Rachel from the TV show Friends are another

(fictional) embodiment of Baxters theory in a romantic relationship.

They experience a constant pull between connection-autonomy. Rachel

desires freedom to pursue her career in fashion, while Ross wants to be

involved in every area of her life and gets jealous when she doesnt

want him in her workplace.

One of the reasons Friends is such a popular TV show is

because so many people relate to the characters. By including dialectic

elements that many people struggle with in Ross and Rachels

arguments, the writers of the show make it even more accessible to

viewers. Michaela Meyer wrote an article explaining how relational

dialectics can and should be applied to even fictional relationships. She

said that Montgomery and Baxters theory is relevant in building an

interactional approach to dialectics in media text (Meyer, 2009, p.

 Dorman 6

265), which is important because people build connections with

characters they see in television series as they watch their

relationships unfold.

Just as the relational dialectics theory can be applied to the

television side of media, it also comes into play in human interactions

on social media. A study by Jesse Fox, Jeremy L. Osborn, and Katie M.

Warber looks at how relational maintenance on social networking sites

like Facebook is still affected by the same tensions as offline

relationships. Namely, Romantic partners are able to connect with

each other and integrate their social networks on Facebook, but some

struggle to maintain privacy and independence. (Fox, 2014, p. 2)

Users constantly have to choose between integration-separation,

expression-privacy, and stability-change as they navigate social media.

For example, people choose whom to stay connected with by accepting

or denying friend requests. Those in romantic relationships must

decide how visibly they want to be connected to their partner on social

media. A high level of connection would involve updating their

relationship status on Facebook, posting lots of pictures together, and

posting on each others walls or commenting on their posts. A couple

seeking perhaps more privacy would make aspects of their relationship

less visible to their network of friends online.

However, navigating the dialectic of privacy-expression is

 Dorman 7

different on social media than in face-to-face interaction. Facebook

allows people to investigate the details of others lives without their

consent. While people control what they put up on their profiles, they

cant control which of their friends see the information they put up or

when they see it. In romantic relationships, this allows one partner to

gather information about the other without direct interaction. It also

allows people outside of the relationship to provide feedback on the

relationship, whether its wanted or not. Couples struggle to maintain

the levels of expression and privacy that they desire because so many

factors are out of their control. Social networking even involves the

stability-change dialectic as it relates to certainty. Not all information

posted on Facebook reflects people positively, so some people would

rather live with the uncertainty of not knowing than having these

details broadcasted to all of their friends.

Knowing all of this, the experts who ran the study gathered test

groups of male and female college students with Facebook accounts

who had romantic encounters. Their goal was to see how networking

sites like Facebook affected these romantic relationships. One thing

that they found was that all three of Baxter and Montgomerys

dialectics were inextricably interwoven together in this medium. An act

as simple as making a relationship Facebook official represents a

significant intersection of three dialectics: a change in the relationship

(stability-change) wherein partners publicly announce (privacy-

 Dorman 8

expression) their togetherness as a couple (integration-separation).

(Fox, 2014, p. 12) Students also said that putting a relationship status

on Facebook had lots of implications outside of the social networking

world. While some students personally felt a desire to keep their

relationship status to themselves, they knew that not posting it could

cause onlookers to question the validity of the relationship. Posting a

relationship status also confirms its validity in the minds of the two

parties involved. Many of the men and women said that they felt more

obligated to be faithful to their partner when they had the

accountability of being publicly committed to them online.

Finally, social networking sites not only create the dialectics in

relationships, they also influence how partners resolve their

contradictions. Different participants in the study had varying

perceptions on the appropriate level of communication that should go

on between a couple on Facebook. Affectionate posts on anothers wall

would signal a healthy relationship to some, while it signals insecurity

to others. When two partners have differing views about this, it can

cause tension in their offline relationship. The interviewers found that

perceptions of what is acceptable to the individual partner and what is

acceptable for couples in general to express on Facebook varies, and

romantic partners may grapple with contrasting discourses of

expression. (Fox, 2014, p. 17) Facebook influences the dialectical

stages of relationships all the way to their dissolution. When a romantic

 Dorman 9

relationship ends, the partners inevitably have to change their

relationship status, an act which does not go unnoticed by their social

network of friends. Even then, tagged pictures and previous statuses

linger as a constant reminder of the relationship. Social networking still

plays the game of relational dialectics, but it changes the rules.

Leslie Baxter recognized that social networking sites were using

and transforming her theory of relational dialectics, so she amended it

into a 2.0 version in 2011. In this version, she focuses more on the

different dialogues that occur across a variety of mediums. She says

that the meaning of dialogue is embedded in all the competing voices

around a couples relationship. These competing voices can be online,

family members, or real-life friends. All of these influence and

complicate a couples conflict resolution strategies.

Baxter and Montgomerys theory has achieved widespread

acceptance in the field of communication and has endured throughout

changes in online communication in the last twenty years. While some

criticize it for its lack of clarity and objectivism, its interpretive view is

necessary for an understanding of the messiness of relationships.

Romantic relationships particularly embody dialectical tensions.

Couples cant avoid the conflicts of integration-separation, stability-

change, and expression-privacy between themselves and in their

interactions with the outside world. Different studies have explored

 Dorman 10

how relational dialectics are essential to understanding relationships in

real-life, on television, and even online. The concept of relational

dialectics gives meaning to the constant interplay of human

relationships and directs the way that people solve the unavoidable

tensions of every day life.