Relational Dialectics Theory

Dialogue

RDT is framed around dialogue, which is the process of communicating multiple voices (or discourses) between speakers. Whereas dialogue often refers to communication between individuals, in RDT dialogue is specifically about how meaning is constructed between speakers using multiple “voices”—or discourses—in relational and cultural history. In dialogue, discourses include systems of meaning for a particular relationship or to broader culture in which a relationship is immersed. Discourses may also be viewpoints, beliefs, or general understandings of how the world works. Discourses fundamentally are created and recreated through communication. This idea of dialogue contrasts with monologue, which is singular voiced and focused only on one dominant point of view. An example of monologue in its pure form is the discourse of a totalitarian government that stifles dissent and where only one belief or viewpoint is speakable.

Dialectical Tensions

Dialectical tensions are opposing but irresolvable discourses in relational communication. Dialectics in RDT is different from classic Hegelian dialectics in that German philosopher Georg Hegel looked for synthesis (resolve or closure) for these opposing forces while in RDT, tensions simply flow and adjust over time. Baxter argued that instead of synthesis, speakers both privilege and minimize each side of the tension over the course of a relationship because tensions are ongoing rather than resolved. Baxter used the metaphor of salad dressing to highlight how dialectical tensions exist in relationships. When combining oil and vinegar to make salad dressing, the oil and vinegar combine yet retain their separate and conflicting properties.

When one side of the dialectical tension is centered, or privileged, in communication, that side of the tension is the centrifugal discourse. The aspect of the dialectical tension that is less centered in communication is said to be the centripetal discourse. Over the course of the relationship, both sides of the tension will emerge periodically as the centrifugal and centripetal discourse.

In the movie Date Night, a long-married couple, Claire and Phil, has a routine date night at a restaurant near their home. During these dinners, they play a game in which they watch people at another table and make up their conversations. This routine is comfortable for the couple as they manage their lives with kids and careers. However, Claire decides that she wants their next date night to be a romantic dinner at a new restaurant in the city. They dress up and head into the city for this novel date. In terms of RDT, this situation is an example of a dialectical tension many couples face. On the one hand, Claire and Phil find satisfaction in the routine comforts of their relationship. The predictable routine reminds them that they have a long-established relationship that makes sense to them. However, in opposition to that predictability, Claire and Phil also crave novelty in their relationship. This opposing need for both predictability and novelty creates a dialectical tension. For Claire and Phil, the centrifugal discourse is most often predictability. When Claire suggests a new date night, she moves novelty from a centripetal discourse to the centrifugal discourse at the center of their communication. It is not that novelty has been completely absent from their relational communication, but it had been less centered until Claire calls it up to the central discourse.

...