Relational Dialectics Theory
The Theory
Relationships are complicated. Relationships are difficult whether that relationship is with your parents, your best friend, a coworker, or your romantic partner.
The communication theory of Relational Dialectics tries to explain some of the complications that arise in relationships by exploring the different discourses and problems that arise in interpersonal relationships. In this context, discourse means the communication and meaning surrounding something, personally or culturally.
To explain properly, we will go over the basics of the theory and then dive deeper with a look at the world around us.
Relational Dialectics theory focuses on a few key struggles that people face in relationships, which are most simply referred to as “competing discourses,” or “discursive struggles.” These competing discourses are opposing ideas about how the relationship should function, with both ideas trying to take precedence over the other.
There are three main types of discourses that relational dialectics theory covers. These discourses can be formed within the couple (an internal dialect), or they can be formed between the couple and their community (an external dialect).
The first discourse is integration-separation.
Integration-Separation has many different forms it may take. For example, connectedness vs. autonomy is an internal dialect. This might mean that Person A wants to be close and connected all the time while Person B wants more independence, or it could mean that Person A and Person B have different ideas of what autonomy and connectedness mean to them personally.
An external dialect version of integration-separation is the discourse of inclusion vs. seclusion. For example, Person A might want to involve their parents heavily in their relationship with Person B, whereas Person B might not want anyone else involved in their relationship.
The second discourse is stability-change.
An internal dialect might look at certainty vs. uncertainty, where Person A wants to be spontaneous and take risks, whereas Person B wants more stability.
An external dialect might mean looking at conventionality vs. uniqueness. Maybe Person A wants a stereotypical relationship like the one their parents had, with two kids and a white picket fence, whereas Person B might want to travel the world and live out a duffel bag.
The third and final main discourse is Expression-Nonexpression.
Expression-Nonexpression largely deals with how much self-disclosure you want in a relationship.
For example, an internal dialectic here might deal with openness vs. closedness, where Person A wants to talk about the minute details of their day every day but may feel hurt when Person B doesn’t want to reciprocate or doesn’t feel like they have anything to talk about.
An external dialect here might deal with Revelation vs. Concealment. For example, Person A goes on a wonderful date with Person B, and Person B proposes. Person A tells their parents about everything that happened on the date, down to the exact wording of Person B’s proposal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, but it leaves Person B feeling exposed, having thought that it was a special moment between just them and Person A.
In all of these situations, there is no one who is inherently right or wrong. These couples all just have different ways of looking at the world and expect different things out of their relationships. While I used romantic relationships as my basis, discourses are not just between romantic relationships, and these are not the only discourses either.
It’s also important to note that many of these examples were on the extreme side, and most people don’t fall solely on one side of a discourse or the other.
A Study on Relational Dialectics Theory
Lynne Kelly, Robert L. Durana, and Aimee E. Miller-Ott took a look at autonomy vs. connectedness in college students and their helicopter parents.
They found that with such a large portion of society having cell phones, it makes it easier for parents to continue to make decisions for their children and to exert their will over their children, even when they leave home for college. This can lead to a clash in autonomy vs. connectedness, with parents wanting more connectedness than their adult children, who are trying to become more autonomous.
When parents ignore their children's requests for autonomy, or when they try to connect with their children too much, it can have negative effects on the relationship. The study reported that “Helicopter parenting is…associated with lower quality parent-child communication and family satisfaction as reported by parents and young adult children…”(Kelly et al.)
Whether your relationship is familial, platonic, romantic, or professional, trying to find a compromise between discourses is better than one side of the relationship dominating the other side.
Some Pop Culture Examples
To further connect with relational dialectics, let’s take a look at some of pop culture's most beloved relationships.
In Disney’s The Lion King (1994), meerkat Timone and warthog Pumba raise Simba from a cub into a full-grown lion. When Simba remeets Nala, his childhood crush, he finds himself growing closer to her. Pumba and Timone realize that if Simba falls in love with Nala, that Simba won’t live with them anymore and set out to sabotage Simba and Nala’s relationship. This is an example of integration-separation, with Timone and Pumba wanting to maintain their connectedness with Simba, while Simba wants more autonomy.
One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s longest-lasting relationships is that of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. Despite Tony and Pepper’s love for each other, their relationship is rocky, with Pepper wanting Tony to stop going out and putting his life at risk as Iron Man, whereas Tony can’t stop himself from being Iron Man. This is an example of stability-change, with Pepper wanting more certainty and stability, whereas Tony feels a strong urge to continue saving lives and protecting the world.
In the CW’s hit tv show Supernatural (2005–2020), brothers Sam and Dean Winchester face various traumas while fighting monsters, ghosts, and other things that go bump in the night. After many of the traumas that they face, such as the death of their father, Sam needles Dean to talk to him about what happened. He insists that Dean can’t bottle everything up, but time and time again, Dean remains close-lipped. This is an example of expression-nonexpression, with Sam wanting Dean to open up, but Dean valuing his privacy and wanting to grieve alone.
Relational Dialectics and You
Take a look at your own life. What relationships do you have with the people around you? The chances are that you can apply relational dialectics theory to your life. If you’re having an argument with a loved one, look at it from the view of relational dialectics. Where is it that your opinions differ, and how can you get your own views across so you can compromise?
References:
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). A First Look at Communication Theory (10th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Kelly, L., Duran, R. L., & Miller-Ott, A. E. (2017). Helicopter Parenting and Cell-Phone Contact between Parents and Children in College. Southern Communication Journal, 82(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2017.1310286
