Relationship Maintenance versus Relationship Change: A Dialectical Dilemma


by Brian Gittinger


Introduction

This article deals with relational maintenance with regards to relational change. Barbara M. Montgomery spent time looking at how the opposing forces of dialectical perspectives influenced relationships but the same relationships held maintenance as well. The dialectical perspective that I am talking about emphasizes that partners are constantly adjusting to the presence of oppositional, relational forces. These adjustments serve to transform the relationships from one moment to the next, resulting in continuous change. Dialectical opposing forces are things such as connection/autonomy, openess/closedness, and judgment/acceptance. They are two forces which totally, mutually negate themselves. This means the are both present in a relationship but work against eachother at all times. The article will discuss how these opposing forces work and how stability and maintenance work in a relationship.

Summary

Montgomery stresses in the article that relational dialectics are the basis of all social phenomena and change is constant is this phenomena. I think this is a heavy claim that relational dialects are the basis for all social phenomena. I believe that there are many other forces that affect social phenomena such as the agenda setting of those in the media. These opposing forces such as connection/autonomy can never be totally adapted to or transformed because they allow for a balance within the relationship. A point about this is illustrated in the article. The question is, how can people be open and accessible with one another and, at the same time, be closed and self-protective. For any relationship to work both partners need to have this connection and openess but also need the change of being on their own and having autonomy. These opposing forces work different if different relationships. A childhood friendship needs a lot of connection to work but an adult long distance friendship will always be there if the partners only connect two or three times a year. In a social context, how can the two people conform to social norms and still establish a special, unique relationship. Couples and friends need to be involved in the society but still have that connection between themselves that they share alone.

According to dialectics, dialectical oppositions are defined as the presence of two relational forces that are independent but jointly related. These forces cancell eachother out and negate what the other force builds. Both forces are always present and you cannot have one without the other. Sometimes one of the forces is stronger depending on the context and situation but the other opposing force is still there. A point that goes along with this idea is that neither pole or force is seen as positive or negative. You can't say that connection is bad and autonomy is good. Depending on the relationship and the context either one could be good or bad. So to be correct you just say they are existent. A very clear example from the article talks about connection and autonomy. Montgomery states without connection relationships have no identity and so cannot exist; but without autonomy, individuals have no identity and so cannot exist in a relationship. She makes a good point here. This clearly states that you need both forces for any relationship to work. But like I stated above these forces will vary in different relationships. Every married couple has to have connection for their marriage to work but if there is no autonomy for each partner then they have no individual identity. I have seen relationship and frienships go bad because there was a lacking of autonomy or connection

Montgomery wrote this article based on knowing that relational dialectics involves change and maintenance involves stability. To show the difference she brings up a point that contrasts the traditional view of social sciences and dialectics. Traditional approaches assumes that 'nothing will happen unless decisive motion is imported; that discrete entities tend fundamentally towared entropy and inertia unless an external force is applied'. Montgomery states that dialectics on the other hand, sees the natural state of relationships as change, fluctuation, evolution and movement. Stability is but a momentary transition in a stream of continuous change. I think the point about relationships going through continuous change is valid but I disagree that stability is only but a momentary transition. I think there is a lot of stability in relationships. The daily rituals and patterns that a relationship follows are stability. These things happen everyday to stabilize the relationship. This point is developed more by stating that a tension that comes about will die down but a new tension will arise because of this prior tension. From my own experience I have found that when you are the mediator of two people arguing you are in a situation that will bring about tension after tension . To make the one person happy you tell them what the other person said about them and that conflict is over with that person. A new conflict arises with the other person because you leaked information that was private to him or her. This also happens when you are in a relationship and you want a personal life as well as a commitment. Maybe you don't tell your partner everything that has happened to you are something you did that day to stay out of tension but later he or she finds out and this thing you have been hiding and tension arises because of earlier problems.

One interesting thing that I found out about relational dialectics is that there are really no means of solving these opposing forces. There is a reason for this. Relationships need these opposing forces to balance eachother to build a strong relationship. If one of the forces is not present the other will dominate and the relationship will be unbalanced. The phrase that best fits what I am talking about is, different adaptations, and transformations are viewed as appropriate for different times and places. The point Montgomery was trying to get across is that dialectical tensions cannot be consciously managed. There are strategies mentioned to cope with the opposing forces but most of the time you need to adapt and this can happen automatically, accidentally, and mindlessly. You may never even know that you are adapting to certain forces but you really are through your subconscious. Since there are no full proof methods of managing these forces Montgomery came up with some patterns of adjustment and transformation. There are five in which she says will help in the process of adaptation.

(1) Selection-is when the partners chose one opposing force over another through most of the interactions.

(2) Segmentation-is the process through which you would stress one pole for a certain situation and stress the opposite pole for a different situation.

(3) Neutralization-this is where partners try to achieve a balance by not favoring either side of the pole. There would be a midlevel between openess and closedness.

(4) Disqualification-this uses unclear words or statements to avoid involvement of either pole.

(5) Reframing-this happens when partners transcend a contradiction by redefining it so that the two opposing forces are no longer poles apart. An example of this is given using novelty/predictability. A reframing of this is when a couple says, "We have one steadfast rule that every Friday night we'll do something new that we've never done before.

The article is titled relationship maintenance versus relationship change: a dialectical dilemma. The maintenance versus change is a dilemma that needs to be discussed becuase the two are opposite. This sounds like another dual negating force. Up to this point the article has given some information about the forces and how they are ever changing. Now the topic of maintenance and change will be expressed. A question needs to be asked first, so if maintenance-as-stability contradicts the fundamental assumptions of dialectical change, how can the two be brought together in the study of personal relationships? The simple answer is that stability vs. change becomes a fundamental and primary tension to be understood about the process of relating. These opposing forces are treated like another pair of mutually negating forces. They are both are needed for one to exist and at some times and places one is used more than the other. That is, change occurs in some aspects of the relationships and stability occurs in others. Some other scholars that back this theory picked out a similiar transformation by arguing that in order for relationships to survive, some minimal stability is necessary in partners' role in relationships, agreements about relationship rules and general satisfaction levels; and some minimal change is necessary to adapt to different situations. A question can be asked about this bond between stability and change. Are there differences that can be generalized in the relative emphasis on stability and change depending on the nature of the relational aspect? Is there a lot of change about issues involving openess and closedness and less change(stability) involving issues of autonomy and connection? Answers to these question were not found in this article and might be too hard to answer. To answer questions of this sort there needs to be further analysis of how these opposing forces affect relationships.

Applying cycles to the stability/change dialectic gives scholars a chance to include such factors as the amplitude, the frequency, repetitiveness, and complexity of this dialectic. An approach has been used where crisis in relationships and milestones have been looked at to see if there are any reoccuring cycles between the partners. There could be an extent to which partners synchronize their behavior to produce relational cycles of stability and change. Change isn't always a bad thing and usually it turns out to be a good thing. But at the same time you need some stability in your life. Using cycles of relationships is a good way to determine how people incorporate change and stability into their lives. When dealing with ongoing relationships the very essence of stability resides in the basis for change, and vice versa. These are the points that argue relationship maintenance versus relationship change. This is a very tricky subject. It is obvious that maintenance and change are both prevelant in any relationship but to what extent do they actually affect the relationship.

Analysis

I did agree with a lot of the points that Montgomery stated but you have to keep in mind that the co-creator of the theory also wrote the article so she is a little biased. The article was a little cut and dry with a few real life examples thrown in to it. It was clearly written and the points she made stood out almost like a sore thumb. The thing about relational dialectics being the basis for all social phenomena was a little overboard. Montgomery does do a good job hitting the main points but really the article leaves a lot for the reader to pick up on. I think it was a little choppy in the organization. Some of the points and main topics could have been grouped together better. The article did spend ample time desribing what dialectical perspectives were and gave enough background to where someone could understand the point about stability/change dialectic. The article was a good reference overall but isn't something you could rely heavily on.

References

Montgomery, M. M., (1993). Relationship Maintenance Versus Relationship Change: A Dialectical Dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relaionships 10, 205-224.

This is a research page on Social Judgement Theory that relates to Relational Dialectics through communication helping in the development of relationships. The article used for this page in titled, "Communicator Discrepency, Source Credibility, and Opinion Change." If you want to see more click here.


title page


last updated on 2/28/00