SELECT AN EDITION:
9th EDITION   10th EDITION   11th EDITION
A First Look at Communication Theory Reveal main menu
 

The screen on this device is not wide enough to display Theory Resources. Try rotating the device to landscape orientation to see if more options become available.

Resources available to all users:

  • Text Comparison—theories covered in A First Look and ten other textbooks
  • Theory Overview—abstract of each chapter
  • Self-Help Quizzes—for student preparation
  • Chapter Outlines
  • Key Names—important names and terms in each chapter
  • Conversation Videos—interviews with theorists
  • Application Logs—student application of theories
  • Essay Questions—for student prepatation
  • Suggested Movie Clips—tie-in movie scenese to theories
  • Links—web resources related to each chapter
  • Primary Sources—for each theory with full chapter coverage
  • Further Resources—bibliographic and other suggestions
  • Changes—for each theory, since the previous edition
  • Theory Archive—PDF copies from the last edition in which a theory appeared

Resources available only to registered instructors who are logged in:

  • Discussion Suggestions
  • Exercises & Activities
  • PowerPoint® presentations you can use
  • Short Answer Quizzes—suggested questions and answers

Information for Instructors. Read more


CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 VIEW BY THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARISON

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions are
available in Resources by
Type. See list

New to Theory Resources?
Find out more in this
short video overview (3:01).


Relational Dialectics
Leslie Baxter & Barbara Montgomery

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE

Chapter 11
 Relationship Maintenance
Communicaton Privacy... 
Chapter 11
 Relationship Maintenance
Communicaton Privacy... 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery study the intimate communication of close relationships.
    2. They quickly rejected the idea of discovering scientific laws that order the experience of friends and lovers.
    3. They were struck by the conflicting tensions people face in relationships.
    4. They believe that social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions.
      1. Their theory on romantic relationships parallels work on friendship and family systems. 
      2. The basic premise is that personal relationships are a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies.
      3. Relational dialectics highlight the tensions in close personal ties.
  2. The tug-a-war dialectics of close relationships.
    1. Contradiction is a core concept of relational dialectics.
      1. Contradiction refers to the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions.
      2. Every personal relationship faces the tension between intimacy and independence.
      3. Paradoxically, bonding occurs in both interdependence with and independence from the other.
    2. Baxter and Montgomery draw heavily on Mikhail Bakhtin.
      1. Bakhtin saw dialectical tension as the deep structure of all human experience.
      2. Unlike Hegelian or Marxist dialectical theory, Bakhtin's oppositions have no oltimate resolution.
      3. Dialectical tension provides opportunity for dialogue.
    3. To avoid the anxiety Westerners experience with paradox, Baxter used terms such as the tug-of-war in her research interviews.
    4. Relational dialectics, is not referring to being of two minds—the cognitive dilemma within the head of an individual who is grappling with conflicting desires. Instead she’s describing the contradictions that are located in the relationship between parties.
    5. Dialectical tension is the natural product of our conversations
    6. Baxter and Montgomery believe that these contradictions are inevitable and can be constructive.
  3. Three dialectics that affect relationships.
    1. Although other theories emphasize closeness, certainty, and openness, people also seek autonomy, novelty, and privacy.
      1. Conflicting forces in relationships aren't reducible to either/or decisions.
      2. Their research has focused on three overarching dialectics: integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-nonexpression.
      3. Dialectical tensions exist within a relationship (internal) and between a couple and their community (external).
      4. There is no finite list of relational dialectics.
    2. Integration and separation.
      1. This tension is a primary strain in all relationships.
      2. If one side prevails, the relationship loses.
      3. Within their social network, this tension is felt as inclusion pulling against seclusion.
    3. Stability and change.
      1. Baxter and Montgomery acknowledge the need for both interpersonal certainty and novelty.
      2. In the couple’s relationship with others, this dialectic takes the form of conventionality versus uniqueness.
    4. Expression and nonexpression.
      1. The pressures of openness and closedness wax and wane like phases of the moon.
      2. A couple also faces the revelation and concealment dilemma of what to tell others.
  4. RDT 2.0: Drilling down on Bakhtin’s concept of dialogue.
    1. Baxter’s early emphasis with Montgomery was on contradictory forces inherent in all relationships.
    2. She now refers to the second generation of the theory as RDT 2.0.
    3. Baxter has increasingly focused on the relational implications of Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of dialogue.
    4. Baxter highlights five dialogical strands within Bakhtin’s thought.  Without dialogue, there is no relationship.
      1. Dialogue as constitutive—relationships in communication
        1. This dialogical notion is akin to the core commitments of Symbolic Interactionism and Coordinated Management of Meaning in that communication creates and sustains the relationship.
        2. A constitutive approach suggests that communication creates and sustains a relationship.
        3. Differences are just as important as similarities and both are created and evaluated through dialogue. 
      2. Dialogue as utterance chain—building block of meaning
        1. An utterance is what a person says in one conversational turn.
        2. But, an utterance is embedded in an utterance chain of things heard in the past and responses anticipated in the future.
      3. Dialogue as dialectical flux.
        1. The contradictory forces are in an unpredictable, unfinalizable, and indeterminate process of flux.
        2. Rather than single binary contradictions, each relational force is in tension with every other pole.
        3. Two strategies to deal with the complexities include spiraling inversion and segmentation.
      4. Dialogue as an Aesthetic Moment.
        1. Dialogue can be “a momentary sense of unity through a profound respect for the disparate voices in dialogue.”
        2. A meaningful ritual can be an aesthetic moment for all participants because it’s a joint performance of normally competing and contradictory voices,
      5. Dialogue as a critical sensibility. 
        1. Dialogue is obligated to critique dominant, oppressive voices.
        2. Baxter opposes any communication practice that ignores or gags another’s voice.
  5. Ethical reflection: Sissela Bok’s Principle of Veracity.
    1. Bok rejects an absolute prohibition of lying
    2. But she also rejects consequentialist ethics, which judge acts on the basis of whether we think they will result in harm or benefit.
    3. Her principle of veracity asserts that, “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special consideration.”
  6. Critique: Meeting the criteria for a good interpretive theory?
    1. Some scholars question whether relational dialectics should be considered a theory at all as it lacks prediction and explanation, and does not offer any propositions.
    2. Baxter and Montgomery agree and offer dialectics as a sensitizing theory.
    3. Relational dialectics should be evaluated based on the interpretive standards, on which it stacks up well.

CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARE

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions
are available in
Resources by Type.
See list

New to Theory
Resources?
Find out more in this short
video overview (3:01).


Relational Dialectics
Leslie Baxter & Barbara Montgomery

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE

Chapter 11
 Relationship Maintenance
Communicaton Privacy... 
Chapter 11
 Relationship Maintenance
Communicaton Privacy... 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery study the intimate communication of close relationships.
    2. They quickly rejected the idea of discovering scientific laws that order the experience of friends and lovers.
    3. They were struck by the conflicting tensions people face in relationships.
    4. They believe that social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions.
      1. Their theory on romantic relationships parallels work on friendship and family systems. 
      2. The basic premise is that personal relationships are a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies.
      3. Relational dialectics highlight the tensions in close personal ties.
  2. The tug-a-war dialectics of close relationships.
    1. Contradiction is a core concept of relational dialectics.
      1. Contradiction refers to the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions.
      2. Every personal relationship faces the tension between intimacy and independence.
      3. Paradoxically, bonding occurs in both interdependence with and independence from the other.
    2. Baxter and Montgomery draw heavily on Mikhail Bakhtin.
      1. Bakhtin saw dialectical tension as the deep structure of all human experience.
      2. Unlike Hegelian or Marxist dialectical theory, Bakhtin's oppositions have no oltimate resolution.
      3. Dialectical tension provides opportunity for dialogue.
    3. To avoid the anxiety Westerners experience with paradox, Baxter used terms such as the tug-of-war in her research interviews.
    4. Relational dialectics, is not referring to being of two minds—the cognitive dilemma within the head of an individual who is grappling with conflicting desires. Instead she’s describing the contradictions that are located in the relationship between parties.
    5. Dialectical tension is the natural product of our conversations
    6. Baxter and Montgomery believe that these contradictions are inevitable and can be constructive.
  3. Three dialectics that affect relationships.
    1. Although other theories emphasize closeness, certainty, and openness, people also seek autonomy, novelty, and privacy.
      1. Conflicting forces in relationships aren't reducible to either/or decisions.
      2. Their research has focused on three overarching dialectics: integration-separation, stability-change, and expression-nonexpression.
      3. Dialectical tensions exist within a relationship (internal) and between a couple and their community (external).
      4. There is no finite list of relational dialectics.
    2. Integration and separation.
      1. This tension is a primary strain in all relationships.
      2. If one side prevails, the relationship loses.
      3. Within their social network, this tension is felt as inclusion pulling against seclusion.
    3. Stability and change.
      1. Baxter and Montgomery acknowledge the need for both interpersonal certainty and novelty.
      2. In the couple’s relationship with others, this dialectic takes the form of conventionality versus uniqueness.
    4. Expression and nonexpression.
      1. The pressures of openness and closedness wax and wane like phases of the moon.
      2. A couple also faces the revelation and concealment dilemma of what to tell others.
  4. RDT 2.0: Drilling down on Bakhtin’s concept of dialogue.
    1. Baxter’s early emphasis with Montgomery was on contradictory forces inherent in all relationships.
    2. She now refers to the second generation of the theory as RDT 2.0.
    3. Baxter has increasingly focused on the relational implications of Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of dialogue.
    4. Baxter highlights five dialogical strands within Bakhtin’s thought.  Without dialogue, there is no relationship.
      1. Dialogue as constitutive—relationships in communication
        1. This dialogical notion is akin to the core commitments of Symbolic Interactionism and Coordinated Management of Meaning in that communication creates and sustains the relationship.
        2. A constitutive approach suggests that communication creates and sustains a relationship.
        3. Differences are just as important as similarities and both are created and evaluated through dialogue. 
      2. Dialogue as utterance chain—building block of meaning
        1. An utterance is what a person says in one conversational turn.
        2. But, an utterance is embedded in an utterance chain of things heard in the past and responses anticipated in the future.
      3. Dialogue as dialectical flux.
        1. The contradictory forces are in an unpredictable, unfinalizable, and indeterminate process of flux.
        2. Rather than single binary contradictions, each relational force is in tension with every other pole.
        3. Two strategies to deal with the complexities include spiraling inversion and segmentation.
      4. Dialogue as an Aesthetic Moment.
        1. Dialogue can be “a momentary sense of unity through a profound respect for the disparate voices in dialogue.”
        2. A meaningful ritual can be an aesthetic moment for all participants because it’s a joint performance of normally competing and contradictory voices,
      5. Dialogue as a critical sensibility. 
        1. Dialogue is obligated to critique dominant, oppressive voices.
        2. Baxter opposes any communication practice that ignores or gags another’s voice.
  5. Ethical reflection: Sissela Bok’s Principle of Veracity.
    1. Bok rejects an absolute prohibition of lying
    2. But she also rejects consequentialist ethics, which judge acts on the basis of whether we think they will result in harm or benefit.
    3. Her principle of veracity asserts that, “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special consideration.”
  6. Critique: Meeting the criteria for a good interpretive theory?
    1. Some scholars question whether relational dialectics should be considered a theory at all as it lacks prediction and explanation, and does not offer any propositions.
    2. Baxter and Montgomery agree and offer dialectics as a sensitizing theory.
    3. Relational dialectics should be evaluated based on the interpretive standards, on which it stacks up well.

 
 
 
Home  McGraw-Hill—How to get copies of A First Look  Information for Instructors  Meet the Authors
Compare Comm Theory Texts  Viewing Hints & Troubleshooting 
Contact Us  Instructor Login 
 
 

Copyright © Em Griffin 2025 | Web design by Graphic Impact