Relational Dialectics Theory - final paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Summery of relational dialetics theory ...

Description

Relational Dialectics Theory Relational dialectics theory examines how meaning is constructed and penetrates through competing discourses (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). This theory is grounded in the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and examines the complex process of meaning-making in dialectical tensions. Relational dialectics theory focuses on the contradictions in relationships. Contradictions, or dialectical tensions, are interplays between forces that are interdependent but mutually negate each other (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). However, it is not just the contradictions this theory explores but rather the discursive interplays between contrary and opposing tendencies. For example, an individual’s response to constant pulls and pushes from their surrounding relationships. Relational partners are in a constant state of flux and must navigate the relational interplays through the use of discourse. Theory components There are four central components to relational dialectics theory (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The first is that relationships are not linear, but multidirectional. An individual’s social life is characterized by multimodality which are multiple voices from culture, family and relationships (Baxter, 2011). In other words as standard progression of a relationship, the relationship will get better, stay the same, or get worse as individuals get closer together or go farther apart. The second is that relational life is characterized by change. The way an individual was when he or she started the relationship will not be the same as the relationship progresses or ends. The third is that contradictions or dialectical tensions are inherent and fundamental in relationships. Individuals, circumstances and environments of relationships can continually change. And finally, the fourth is that communication is central to organizing and negotiating relational contradictions. Baxter &

Norwood (2015) found that communication is conceptualized in relational dialectics theory because experiences and phenomena are given meaning through communication. Without communication, there would be no way to explain occurrences. Theory concepts There are four concepts related to relational dialectics theory (Baxter & Montgomery, 1998). The first is contradictions. This highlights two elements that contradict each other, which is the basis for the dialectical approach. The second is totality meaning that individuals in relationships are interdependent. In regards to dialogue, totality examines how something that happens to one individual, affects the other in the relationship. The third is motion examining how the nature of relationships change over time. An individual is different from when they enter into a relationship to when they leave a relationship; or simply grow with the relationship as it progresses. The fourth is praxis, which highlights that individuals are the choice makers in relation to dialogue and communication. If an individual chooses to be with someone that individual is choosing conditions that come with that someone, including external family members or friends. Dialectical tensions Baxter and Montgomery (2009) further explained relational dialectics theory by separating dialectical tensions into internal and external oppositions. There are three primary internal dialectics that express ongoing tensions within relationships (Baxter & Montgomery, 2009; Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). The first is openness-closedness, which examines the tension between the desire of an individual to disclose intimate and personal feelings while also keeping somethings private only to them. The second internal dialectic is certainty-uncertainty. This dialectic examines the tension of how an individual in a relationship

wants spontaneity in a relationship to keep things from getting boring, but at the same time craves stability, reliability and dependability. The third internal dialectic is connectednessseparateness which examines the push and pull of sacrificing some individual autonomy without losing any individual identity. There are three primary external dialectics between individuals in a relationship and the community and culture surrounding them (Baxter & Montgomery, 2009; Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). The first external dialectic is inclusion-seclusion, also called autonomyconnection, showing the desire a couple has to withdraw from some while interacting with others at the same time. The second external dialectic is conventionality-uniqueness, also called predictability-novelty, which examines how individuals in a relationship can conform to some social norms, but oppose others and decide to create their own unique to their identity as a couple. The third external dialectic is revelation-concealment, also called openness-closeness, which examines the tension of what a couple wants to reveal about their relationship to some and what they choose to keep to themselves and not tell others. Constituted Dialogue Additional conceptions of dialogue grounded in relational dialectics theory include constitutive dialogue, utterances, dialectical flux, aesthetic moments, and critical sensibility (Baxter, 2004). Constitutive dialogue examines how communication is what creates and maintains a relationship (Baxter, 2004). That is, individuals and relationships cannot be separated from communication. Communication is actually what constitutes these happenings. Utterances Utterances are analytic units where individuals’ meaning is in talk (Baxter, 2011). Every utterance is part of a larger utterance chain (Abetz, 2016). This chain includes prior utterances

individuals have come into contact with from family, friendships, other interpersonal relationships and culture (Suter et al., 2015). The utterance chain contains language that already exist within a culture and are in use; as well as language that assists in forming expectations. Everything in an utterance chain is connected including what is currently happening in a relationship, how the relationship is currently perceived and how it will be perceived in the future. Bakhtin found that each utterance responds to preceding utterances through refutes, affirmations and supplements (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Utterances are formed in anticipation of how it will be perceived by the individual being addressed, as well as by others. There are four types of utterances in a chain (Abetz, 2016). The first is distal alreadyspoken, which includes messages that come from others around the individual through cultural norms, expectations, messages from family, media, religion, etc. (Abetz, 2016; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). This utterance helps to inform an individual on how the outside may perceive his or her discourse. The second utterance type is proximal already-spoken. Abetz (2016) explains this utterance as how past meanings created in previous relationships affect new utterances. In other words, an individual does not start each relational encounter by forgetting all previous utterances and perceptions. Rather, an individual carries previous interactions into present relationships. The third type of utterance is proximal not-yet-spoken, which focuses on predictions of what an individual thinks will happen when dialogue is spoken. It includes the anticipated reaction an individual, or relational partner, expects to receive. Abetz (2016) also points out that utterances are not only created by the individual speaking, but are actually coconstructed between the relational partners. The fourth type of utterance is distal not-yet-spoken. As distal means distance, this utterance examines the predictions and anticipation of how a third party, for example culture, will respond (Baxter & Norwood, 2015).

Dialectical flux Dialectical flux is the unpredictable nature of personal relationships highlighted through the centripetal-centrifugal tension (Baxter, 2004). The centripetal-centrifugal tension highlights where meaning is reproduced or new meanings are created (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). To take part in discourse, individuals must try to see the other’s perspective while still keeping their unique individual perspective (Baxter, 2004). Baxter (2004) explains this as there must be a unity in the conversation but through two very different perspectives. The actual power in relational dialectic theory is in the discourse itself and not the individuals. This struggle is important because it pays attention to consequences driven from unequal discourse power between relational partners (Abetz, 2016). Meaning in discourse is constructed through the struggle of different, opposing and contrasting language (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Centripetal discourse are forces meant to unite relational partners, gives discourse more importance and power and follows societal norms and expectations (Abetz, 2016; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Centrifugal discourse, on the other hand, is more dominant discourse, departs from society’s accepted standards and holds more power in the meaning-making process (Abetz, 2016; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Two additional dialectic tensions include spiraling inversion and segmentation. Spiraling inversion is the struggle between two different thought processes (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). In other words, relationships toggle back and forth through time quite frequently. Segmentation is when an individual has more than one role in a relationship and that role, including the dialogue associated, must be altered depending on the situation and environment (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Aesthetic moments

Baxter (2004) defined aesthetic moments as a “fleeting moment of wholeness in which fragments and disorder are temporarily united” (p. 12). These moments can create momentary wholeness for an individual in a life that can be quite messy at other times. The construction of aesthetic moments takes place when two formerly competing discourses are merged into one in a way that profoundly alters each one (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010). Aesthetic moments can occur in all different kinds of relationships including friendships, romantic relationships and even family relationships. There are two important notions to include about aesthetic moments. One, they are usually short-lived and fleeting. Two, these are not individual communicative acts but rather joint communication events by the individuals in the relationship. Critical sensibility Critical sensibility is an obligation to critique dominant voices (Baxter, 2004). In relational dialectics theory, both sides of a dialogue are equal to one another. In critical sensibility, both individuals in a relationship must understand how communication relates to life interactions. Managing Methods There are eight methods to manage relational dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery, 1997). The first method is denial or choosing to respond to one side of a tension and ignore the other side. The second method is disorientation where an individual can escape tension by simply ending a relationship and stopping discourse. The third method is alternation where each individual in a relationship takes a turn being the privileged one or the one in charge. This alternates over time, back and forth between individuals. The fourth method segmentation where an individual chooses to deal with one side of a tension in one aspect of their life (for example, professional life) and the other side of a tension in another part of their life (for example,

personal life). This way of compartmentalizing the tensions allows an individual to divide the tensions. The fifth method is balance which is compromise between individuals. The sixth method is integration or when individuals develop behaviors to satisfy both sides of tensions at the same time. For example, developing one behavior that can span across multiple tensions like finding new ways to multi-task to assist in an individual’s professional and personal life at the same time. The seventh method is recalibration, or reframing a tension so the individual no longer feels opposition. Finally, the eighth method is reaffirmation which is accepting the tension as a normal and healthy part of a relationship. Relational dialectics theory has evolved to emphasize both the interplay of competing discourses and contradictions; as well as, discursive and power inequality. This theory has recently moved into critical theorizing because it highlights issues of struggle and power (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Moving forward with this theory allows researchers to move from examining communication as a one-way process to a dialogical communication. Communication Privacy Management Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory examines how people manage their privacy boundaries and disclose private information. CPM begins with the premise that revealing information is risky (Afifi, 2003). This theory is rooted in Baxter and Montgomery’s dialectical framework and relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 1988; Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). CPM states that private disclosures are dialectical, people make choices about revealing or concealing information based on criteria that they deem important and all individuals believe they have a right to own and regulate access to their private information (Petronio, 2002). That is, each person is in charge of their privacy and can regulate access to their private information according to how they see fit. Privacy can also be thought of as a process of boundary management, as

individuals change their online behavior and decide what information to share with whom to help maintain their online identity (Strater & Lipford, 2008; Palen & Dourish, 2003). CPM assumptions There are three assumptions to communication privacy management theory (Petronio, 2002, 2012). The first assumption is that individuals are choice makers. Individuals develop criteria for specific conditions of when to allow people to access private information. Individuals believe they own their own personal information and they have the right to dictate other people’s access to their information (Petronio, 2002; Child, Pearson, & Petronio, 2009). The second assumption is that individuals are rule makers and rule followers. Individuals construct boundaries and develop privacy rules to show ownership of their own information (Child, Pearson, & Petronio, 2009). Petronio (1991, 2000) found that significant live events can trigger the need to change choices and create new privacy rules. The third assumption is that individual’s choices and rules are based on a consideration of the self and others. Afifi (2003) found that all rule development reflects how individuals manage discourse and rules created to reveal and conceal information. Theory components The key components to CPM theory including rule making, boundary management, boundary negotiation and boundary turbulence. Rule making There are three key components to this theory including rule making, boundary management and communication. The first component is rule making, which highlights how a negotiation of boundaries is necessary in a relationship. Privacy management depends on realizing that people have protection needs, for autonomy, and access needs, for social

connectedness (Child, Petronio, Agyeman-Budu & Westermann, 2011). Afifi (2003) found that a primary way that disclosure is negotiated is through redefining boundaries to allow for information ownership. Ultimately, CPM theory provides a framework for why individuals disclose information to others (Petronio, 2002). They are disclosing because they want to communicate and maintain or create new relationships and to do this they must share some level of private information and show a level of vulnerability. When choosing whether to disclose or keep certain information private there must be management of privacy boundaries, rule-making and decisions about whom to include in these boundaries (Christofides, E., et al. 2009). Privacy rules are obtained through rule acquisition meaning that people learn preexisting rules or negotiate new rules when creating a collective boundary. Rules will eventually become very routine and dependable for a person after they have used them for a long time (Petronio, 2002). An invasion of privacy will take ownership of the information away from an individual who previously may have been a co-owner (Petronio, 2000). In developing privacy rules, there are five decision criteria all individuals must consider including culture, gender, motivation, context and risk-benefit (Petronio, 2002). Cultural criteria examine the norms associated with an environment. There is an unwritten, agreed upon way of carrying out these actions that all individuals are aware of and follow. Gender criteria observe the way that men and women define privacy differently and create boundaries differently. Motivational criteria consider the different levels of motivation that each person uses when creating boundaries. Contextual criteria examine the context of the social environment and physical setting. Finally, risk-benefit ratio criteria are rules that are developed to take into

consideration the level of felt vulnerability by the user and the expected advantages from either revealing or concealing information (Petronio, 2002). Boundary management The second component is boundary management which examines the dividing line between private and public information. When individuals give others access to their private information that information becomes part of a collective ownership (Petronio, 2000; Child, Pearson, &Petronio, 2009). With this co-ownership, who has the control over the information may shift. People need to have control over their boundaries as private info can be owned by the person sharing it and also co-owned by others who now know this information. Having control is important, because revealing or concealing private information may lead to the feeling of vulnerability (Petronio, 2002). Christofides et al (2009) found that higher self-esteem predicted higher likelihood of controlling information. Therefore, the type of information that may be shared differ depending on the individual sharing and whom he or she is sharing with. There are three categories of boundaries in CPM including boundary linkage, boundary ownership and boundary permeability. Boundary linkages represent the connection formed between two or more people in creating a boundary alliance (Petronio, 2002). Boundary ownership includes the rights and privileges that people perceive they have about their information and decide whether or not to let other people co-own that information. Part of boundary management is creating structures that describe who is, and who is not, allowed to access and co-own private information (Petronio, 1991, 2000). When deciding on making someone a co-owner of information, boundary lines must be very clear between all involved parties and understood that these lines will grow and change over time. Petronio (2000) found four dimensions of boundary structures which include control, ownership, levels and

permeability. Boundary permeability is the degree to how open or closed one’s boundaries are. When boundaries are closed and protection rules are strong, the information is likely to be considered more secret. However, when boundaries are open, the information is more likely to be fully revealed (Petronio, 2002). By creating boundaries through CPM an individual is also creating self-disclosure, or the mechanism through which people adjust their privacy boundaries and develop privacy rules (Petronio, Martin & Littlefield, 1984). Self-disclosure may change and fluctuate depending each time on environment, target audience and situational contexts. Boundary negotiation The third component is the use of communication in how decisions are made about information disclosure and boundary negotiation. Information disclosure requires close monitoring by the individual doing the disclosing. Petronio (2000) found that boundary coordination reveals when an individual attempts to negotiate ownership of his or her information. From negotiating, an individual then creates rules for him or herself on when to reveal and conceal with others. Once information becomes co-ow...