Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Relational Dialetics Theory - Coggle Diagram
Relational Dialetics Theory
Assumptions of Relational Dialetics Theory
NON LINEAR PROGRESSION
RDT challenges the idea that relationships progress in a linear fashion. Instead, it posits that relationships involve oscillation between contradictory desires. The authors suggest rethinking language and metaphors related to relationships, noting that the term "relational development" implies linear movement, which may not accurately represent the reality of relationships.
EMPHASIS ON PROCESS OR CHANGE
The theory emphasizes the notion of process or change in relationships but does not necessarily frame this change as linear progress. Relationships undergo quantitative and qualitative movement through time, but this movement is not strictly towards linear intimacy. Jeff and Eleanor, for example, may be different now than they were a year ago, but this difference is not a straightforward move toward increased intimacy.
PERPETUAL PRESCENCE of CONTRADICTIONS or TENSIONS
RDT assumes that contradictions or tensions between opposites persist in relationships and never cease to provide tension. People manage these tensions in various ways, but the idea is that they are continuously present in relational life. The push and pull represented by dialectic tensions construct relational life, and managing these tensions is considered a primary communication task.
CENTRAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION
The final assumption of RDT focuses on the central role of communication in relationships. According to the theory, social actors (individuals in the relationship) give life to contradictions through their communicative practices. The social reality of contradictions is produced and reproduced through communication. Dialectical unity, or the way people make contradictions feel complete and satisfactory, is achieved through communication practices.
REJECTION OF HOMEOSTASIS
Unlike some other relational theories that may emphasize stability or equilibrium (homeostasis) as natural, RDT considers homeostasis to be unnatural. In this perspective, change and transformation are viewed as the norm in relational interaction. The theory suggests that relationships are inherently dynamic and subject to constant change.
Core Concepts
TOTALITY
This means that people in a relationship are connected and depend on each other.
CONTRADICTION
This is a central idea in the dialectical approach, and it refers to opposing elements or ideas.
MOTION
This refers to the changing nature of relationships over time, the process of how they evolve.
PRAXIS
While not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, praxis is often associated with putting theory into practice. In the context of relationships, it could mean applying these ideas about totality, contradiction, and motion in real-life situations.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT
Totality also includes the idea that the social and cultural context influences relationships
Basic Relational Dialetics
DIALETIC BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND CONNECTION
This dialectic reflects our conflicting desires to be both independent and connected with our significant others.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER THEORIES
RDT, unlike other theories such as Social Penetration Theory or Uncertainty Reduction Theory, sees closeness and autonomy as dynamic and coexisting rather than static. In other theories, partners are viewed as moving either closer or farther apart. RDT emphasizes that contradictions between autonomy and closeness are inherent in all relationships, and understanding the dynamic interplay between them is crucial.
DYNAMIC INTERPLAY BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND CLOSENESS
According to RDT, Jeff and Eleanor are seen as moving between closeness and distance throughout their relationship, not simply moving toward or away from one of these needs. The theory acknowledges that these conflicting needs coexist and play out in various ways over time.
COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS
Communication researchers find RDT interesting because it has implications for how couples communicate. For example, private communication codes, like nicknames, can illustrate the presence of both autonomy and connection in relationships.
NICKNAMES AS ILLUSTRATION
Nicknames, such as "Shorty," "Chief," or "Sweetness," celebrate individual traits but also indicate relational closeness. Using nicknames is a simple way of coding both individuality and connection in communication.
Responses To Dialetics
CYCLIC ALTERNATION
SEGEMNTATION
SELECTION
INTEGRATION
NEUTRALIZING
DISQUALIFYING
REFRAMING
INTEGRATION, CRTIQUE & CLOSING
INTEGRATION
COMMUNICATION TRADITION
COMMUNICATION CONTEXT
APPROACH TO KNOWING
CRITIQUE
EVALUATION CRITERIA
PARSIMONY :
Some researchers question if the theory is too simple (parsimonious) by suggesting only three basic dialectics (autonomy-connection, openness-protection, novelty-predictability).
On the other hand, the growing list of dialectics in various studies might make the theory seem overly complex.
UTILITY
The theory appears to explain the ups and downs in relationships better than linear theories.
It captures the back-and-forth nature of relationships, addressing issues like intimacy and self-disclosure.
While the expanding list of dialectics might raise concerns, it could also enhance the theory's ability to comprehensively explain relational life.
HEURISM
The primary criterion for judging this theory is its heuristic value, meaning how well it helps understand the complex process of making meaning in relationships.
Even if the theory is not extremely simple (parsimonious), its success is measured by how well it stimulates research and sheds light on the intricate nature of meaning-making.
Researchers have applied this theory successfully in various areas like parent-child relationships, romantic relationships, Alcoholics Anonymous members, cohabiting couples, adult students, and nonvoluntary family relationships.