To begin analyzing Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery's theory of relational dialectics, we first must decide which standards would be most applicable. The theory of relational dialectics seeks to explain the opposing forces believed to be inherent in any close relationship. The presumption that these forces exist is based on Baxter and Montgomery's observation of, and interviews with, couples in romantic relationships. This theory attempts to dissect the couple's communication, the mark of a critical theory. Critical theories of communication such as this have their basis in literary criticism, which evaluates literature humanistically. Because relational dialectics was developed through observation and qualitative description as opposed to quantitative studies and because it has it's basis in humanistic evaluations, we can determine that it would be applicable to critique it humanistically. When critiquing a humanistic theory, it would be appropriate to use the standards laid out in the textbook A First Look at Communication Theory by Em Griffin. Griffin explains that although there is not a universal set of standards for humanistic theory, most scholars agree on five criteria: understanding of people, clarification of values, aesthetic appeal, community of agreement and reform of society.
To begin a critique of relational dialectics, we are first going to look at the ways in which it accomplishes the goals of a humanistic theory. Then we are going to examine areas in which relational dialectics is lacking and needs to be expanded upon. We will finally synthesize the results to present an overview of the theory as a whole.
Relational dialectics is a solid humanistic theory in that it creates a new understanding of people, has a fairly significant community of agreement, and can generate societal reform.
Relational dialectics creates a new understanding of people by giving insight into the forces at work behind close interpersonal communication. It does not attempt to simplify these forces into a single direction, such as the desire to reduce uncertainty. By recognizing the opposite desire for mystery and spontaneity we are provided with a more complete outlook. This can help people learn how to get along more smoothly in a relationship because most actions can be explained by a pull towards one side of the dichotomy or the other. Instead of attempting to make communication unilateral in its goal, understanding is created through recognition of contradictions.
The recognition of these contradictions is also essential to producing a community of agreement. Most social scientists have recognized one set of the dichomies that Baxter and Montgomery have put forth, or have analyzed one side of the forces at work in communication. The large scope of their philosophy provides many possible starting points for researchers to begin to analyze the theory, utilizing the aspects that they are most familiar with. Though some scholars may not embrace the full theory, there is significant recognition of all parts to establish a community of agreement.
Though relational dialectics does not clearly provide the means for establishing efficient and rewarding conversation that would be able to generate social reform, it does show fully the intricacies of dyadic communication. This realization of contradictions is sufficient to establish social reform through enlightenment to the issues involved. Society can be said to be reformed ideologically when issues are discussed and understood that were previously ignored. Relational dialectics serves as this ideological reform of thought on interpersonal communication.
The theory of relational dialectics does not effectively clarify values, nor does it have aesthetic appeal. These two characteristics detract from it's value as a humanistic theory of communication.
The contradictions that were so important in verifying relational dialectics as a solid humanistic theory earlier also detract from the theory's ability to accomplish all of the humanistic goals. By fully recognizing such opposing forces without any way to establish value judgements, relational dialectics leaves us without a clarification of values. Baxter and Montgomery explain many different characteristics of communication but do not acknowledge their own ethical stance on any form of the communication process. They also do not provide a firm basis upon which to evaluate messages. These characteristics detract from the ability of relational dialectics to be effective.
Even though we are given new theoretical content in relational dialectics, the form and structure of the theory are lacking. In order for a theory to have aesthetic appeal it must be structured in an appealing way. By the nature of their research, Baxter and Montgomery admit that they may not have predicted all the possible dichotomies in communication - there may be holes yet to be filled. This lack of structural integrity detracts from the appeal of the theory. Secondly, by providing such a jumbled view of communication, relational dialectics does not provide a simple and aesthetically appealing viewpoint from which to investigate the nature of relationships.
Relational dialectics has many strengths and contains the possibility for being useful in communication analysis. Unfortunately, there are inherent flaws in the structure and content of the theory that must be considered. Overall, I believe that the uses of relational dialectics outweigh the problems with it and that it should be considered valid in research. However, any scholar who does investigate further must be aware of it's flaws.
Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.
Baxter and Montgomery attribute all of the tension in close relationships to the opposing forces that they have described. In the context of heterosexual relationships their theory might be lacking. It fails to take into account the differences in communication about those tensions that is the result of the difference in gender between the two individuals. Deborah Tannen's genderlect theory addresses those differences. This critique of genderlect explains that Tannen's theory is also applicable in understanding close heterosexual relationships. Utilizing the knowledge provided by both theories will provide a more complete view of interpersonal communication.
