CHAPTER 11
RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Leslie Baxter’s theory of relational dialectics treats discourse as the essence of close
ties.
B. By focusing on talk, Baxter separates relational dialectics theory from many of the
other interpersonal theories in this book.
C. Relational dialectics is about the struggle between discourses, and these unceasing
II. Discourses that create meaning
A. The central concept of relational dialectics theory is the discourse, or “a set of
propositions that cohere around a given object of meaning.”
B. To help make sense of the world of discourse, Baxter draws heavily on the thinking of
20th century Russian intellectual Mikhail Bakhtin.
III. Caught in a chain of utterances
A. Talk reverberates with words spoken before, words yet to come, and words that
speakers may never dare to voice.
B. Baxter calls them utterances linked together in a chain.
C. Baxter insists we consider discourses on two dimensions.
1. The first dimension categorizes discourses by who speaks them: nearby (or
2. The second dimension categorizes dimensions by time: already-spoken discourses
in the past versus not-yet-spoken discourses anticipated in the future.
D. Together, these intersect to form four ‘links’ in the utterance chain that create the
utterance’s meaning.
E. Bakhtin and Baxter believe dialectical tension provides an opportunity to work out
IV. Three common dialectics that shape relationships
A. Across hundreds of interviews about close ties, Baxter heard people voice three
recurring themes: integration–separation, stability–change, and expression–
nonexpression.
B. In her first iteration of the theory, she called these contradictions. She no longer
prefers that word, since it may tempt people to think she’s talking about psychological
conflict between different desires.
V. Integration and separation.
A. Within any given relationship, Baxter regards the discursive struggle between
connection and autonomy as foundational.
B. If one side prevails, the relationship loses.
C. The discourses of integration and separation also address a pair’s inclusion with and
seclusion from other people in their social network
VI. Stability and change.
A. Without the spice of variety to season our time together, relationships become bland,
boring, and, ultimately, emotionally dead.
B. The external version of certainty/uncertainty is conventionality/uniqueness.
C. Discourses of conventionality consider how a relationship is similar to other
relationships, while discourses of uniqueness emphasize difference.
VII. Expression and nonexpression.
A. The discourse of expression clashes with the discourse of nonexpression.
B. Just as the openness-closedness dialectic is an ongoing discursive struggle within a
relationship,couples and families also face choices about what information to reveal
or conceal from third parties.
VIII. How meaning emerges from struggles between discourses
A. Not all discourses are equal: it’s common for some discourses to possess more
prominence than others.
B. Baxter and Bakhtin refer to powerful discourses as centrifugal or dominant (at the
center) and those at the margins as centripetal or marginalized.
1. In one pattern, competing discourses ebb and flow but never appear together,
called diachronic separation.
2. In contrast, synchronic interplay voices multiple discourses in the same time
and place.
IX. Diachronic Separation: Different discourses at different times.
A. According to Baxter, diachronic separation isn’t unusual.
B. Simultaneous expression of opposing voices is the exception rather than the rule.
C. Baxter has identified two typical patterns of diachronic separation:
2. Segmentation compartmentalizes different aspects of the relationship.
D. Compared to the monologue of one dominant discourse, Baxter thinks diachronic
separation is a step in the right direction.
X. Synchronic Interplay: Different Discourses at the Same Time
A. Baxter’s findings describe four forms of synchronic interplay, starting with those that
are more like a monologue and moving to those that are more dialogic.
1. Negating mentions a marginalized discourse in order to dismiss it as
unimportant.
3. Entertaining recognizes that every discourse has alternatives
4. Transforming combines two or more discourses, changing them into something
new.
B. Perhaps the highest form of transformation is the aesthetic moment: “a momentary
sense of unity through a profound respect for the disparate voices in dialogue.”
XI. Dialogue creates our relational worlds
A. Scholars of relational dialectics think communication creates and sustains
relationships—in other words, the relationship exists in communication.
B. Discursive struggles are what give interpersonal relationships their meaning.
C. If Baxter, Mead, Pearce and Cronen are right, if the discourses voiced by partners
change, so does their relationship.
D. The ubiquity of such struggling discourses means that developing and sustaining a
relationship is bound to be an unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate process.
XII. Ethical reflection: Sissela Bok’s Principle of Veracity.
A. Baxter argues for a critical sensibility that’s suspicious of dominant voices, especially
those that suppress marginalized discourses. She opposes any communication
practice that ignores or gags another’s voice.
B. Philosopher Sissela Bok believes lying can do that, but rejects an absolute prohibition
of lying.
C. Bok doesn’t view lies as neutral. She is convinced that all lies drag around an initial
negative weight that must be factored into any ethical equation.
D. Her principle of veracity asserts that, “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the
absence of special consideration.”
E. Bok contends that we need the principle of veracity because liars engage in a tragic
self-delusion.
XIII. Critique: Is relational dialectics theory just one discourse among many?
A. It’s hard to identify an interpersonal communication theory in this book that Baxter
doesn’t criticize.
2. It’s unclear how this marginalization of mathematical voices accords with her
call for the emergence of new meaning from discourses in interplay.
B. Relational dialectics theory stacks up quite well as an interpretative theory.
1. The theory offers a new way to make sense out of close relationships.
3. By encouraging a diverse group of people to talk about their relationships, and
4. Not only does Baxter listen to multiple voices, but her theory seeks to carve out
a space where marginalized voices can be heard.
6. Baxter holds out the promise of an aesthetic ideal to which all of us can aspire—
an image that could make slogging through the morass of struggling discourses
feel less frustrating.
Key Names and Terms
Leslie Baxter
Communication professor emeritus from the University of Iowa who champions the
relational dialectics approach to close relationships.
Mikhail Bakhtin
Relational Dialectics
The dynamic and unceasing struggle between discourses about interpersonal
relationships.
Discourse
Monologue
Dominant talk that silences competing voices.
Utterance chain
The central building blocks of meaning-making, where utterances are linked to
competing discourses near and far away, already spoken and not.
Superaddressee
An utterance’s future audience, whose moral authority is beyond question.
Discursive struggles
Two or more discourses compete for dominance over meaning.
Internal dialectics
A set of discursive struggles regarding independence versus interdependence; freedom
versus intimacy.
Stability/change
Expression/nonexpression
A set of discursive struggles regarding transparency versus secrecy; privacy versus
disclosure.
Dominant discourse
Talk that is central and prominent, with power to define meaning.
Marginalized discourse
Talk that is peripheral, lacking power to define meaning.
Dialectical flux
Voicing different discourses at the same time.
Spiraling inversion
Switching back and forth between two discursive struggles, voicing one and then the
other.
Segmentation
A compartmentalization tactic by which different discourses speak to different aspects
of the relationship.
Negating
Mentioning a marginalized discourse in order to dismiss it as unimportant.
Countering
Social construction; the belief that communication creates, sustains, and alters
relationships and the social world; social construction.
Dialectical flux
The unpredictable, unfinalizable, indeterminate nature of personal relationships.
Principal Changes
This chapter has been almost entirely rewritten. The new version builds from the second
version of Baxter’s relational dialectics theory, which is particularly popular with scholars doing
cutting-edge research using the theory. Accordingly, Bakhtin has been identified as a co-
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• Would you rather… have 99% openness or 1% openness? Privacy? Predictability?
• How do you respond to conflicting desires?
• Why do people want both sides of the tension? Do we just inherently want what we
don’t have or is it something else?
Suggestions for Discussion
Accepting the messiness of relationships
“Relationships are messy. And that’s ok.” That’s the tattoo I have half-heartedly
encouraged my students to get on their forearms. While I have not had any takers yet, I still
stand by it as one of the important mantras for any communication student. Baxter isn’t shy
about the point either; if they are looking for streamlined, simple decisions about relationship
choices, this won’t be a very comforting theory to them. It seems many college students come
to the communication major clinging stubbornly to the romantic notion that in the perfect
relationship that lies just around the corner, all contradictions and tensions will melt away in
an ocean of bliss. The secret to success is finding one’s spiritual double, or someone so close
to that mythic entity that differences can be “worked out” through a few late-night, heart-to–
Managing tensions without resolution
For those of your students familiar with Marxism and its derivatives, be sure to reiterate
the point that, unlike dialectical materialism, this theory does not emphasize synthesis or
ultimate resolution. For better or for worse, these competing dialogues are ongoing. For many
students, this is a troublesome part of the theory and one they are reluctant to accept. You
might find it useful to discuss the coping strategies highlighted at the end of the chapter and
push a bit further into the interpretive camp by asking students how these various responses
limits,” producing a metaphorical boundary in the relationship. Borrowing from persuasion
researchers, the concept of psychological reactance tells us that people don’t respond well
when their freedom is restricted.
If instead a person treats the situation utilizing a pattern of synchronic interplay
(negating, countering, entertaining, and transforming), both dialogues are present but often in
a rather intricate bond. Constructivists might suggest that a more cognitively complex person is
It’s not about biology or biography: Tensions present in all relationships
Competing discourses are not about biology or biography; everyone experiences them
and they occur across relationship types. But it is worth asking students if they think that the
tensions are equally felt across demographic divides. Most times, students are quick to assert
that this is a “girl thing,” implying that women may want one thing (usually they argue for
connection) and men want the other extreme (separation). Is this a fair conclusion? Baxter
suggests that each person feels this tension, but your students might suppose it is otherwise.
Likewise, the theory strikes some as having a particularly Western viewpoint. The culture issue,
not particularly addressed within the chapter’s treatment nor in Baxter’s work, may underscore
Genuine gender differences or perpetuating stereotypical assumptions?
As you discuss dialectical tensions with your class, you may wish to float the hypothesis
that gender may play some role in relational struggles over dichotomies such as connection-
autonomy and openness-closedness. As we’ll discover in the later chapter on Deborah
Tannen’s work, some scholars believe that there are typical masculine and feminine responses
to several basic relational tugs and pulls. Anticipating Tannen’s work, you can speculate about
the theoretical value of casting dialectics in terms of gender. Does it help us to explain the
A discipline-based perspective: Does a scholar’s training matter?
As the chapter emphasizes, Baxter argues that the tensions prevalent in relational
dialectics are not intrapersonal or intrinsic to people, but interpersonal, brought into being
through conversation. The point is driven home in the discussion of dialogue as constitutive.
This distinction is crucial, since it qualifies relational dialectics as a homespun theory of
communication, rather than imported from a field such as psychology. You might find it useful
to unpack the ideas that communication does not strictly manifest these cognitive tensions but
indeed is the place where these tensions exist.
While the academic department in which a scholar resides may seem a trivial fact to
your students, I would suggest exploring some discipline-based assumptions that become the
subtext of theories. In Baxter’s case, her identity as a communication scholar is obvious. She
postulates that communication is not merely an instrument or a vehicle to convey reality but
creates it. Hence, communication is constitutive. A scholar more closely aligned with
psychology (e.g., Altman and Taylor) might be more concerned with how we make appraisals
“behind the eyes” than how we discuss those choices. As you move through your study of the
various theories, you might choose to examine how the creator’s discipline informs the type of
theory they construct.
Juggling competing theories
I find that often my students can be a bit reductionistic: just tell me the right theory or
the best one. Even when it comes to theory, they have a hard time juggling competing
narratives. Perhaps there is no better time to take on that struggle than when covering RDT.
As I promoted in the preface of this manual, I believe in theoretical pluralism. When students
feel the need to rank order theories, I want to encourage them to think about how the theories
speak to the same and to different concerns. One isn’t inherently better than the other; they
can both be useful to unpack a communicative phenomenon. In keeping with Baxter’s position,
explain to your students the harmful consequences of negating and the comparative value of
countering, entertaining, and transforming as it relates to the competing narrative presented
by various theories too.
Relational dialectics takes a strong interpretive stance about the dynamic nature of
relationships especially when compared to the deterministic model present by Berger in URT.
You might want to spend some class time engaging in a debate of sorts: are we propelled to a
Sample Application Log
Glinda
In discussing the ways in which couples voice various discourses, Baxter overlooked one that
has come into play (dare I say) constantly in my romances. I will name it inverse response
cyclical alteration (Irca). Irca means that each partner switches from one discourse to its
opposite, and their position is inversely correlated to the discourse that the other is voicing at
that moment. This sounds like it would create unbearable tension, but actually has the effect
Exercises and Activities
Playing with the forms of discursive struggle
If you’d like the opportunity to test out the forms of discursive struggle with your
students in more concrete terms, consider something like the following scenario:
Shelley and Jim have been dating very seriously for about six months. From the
beginning of the relationship, Jim has known that Shelley has kept a private diary that
she has never shown anyone. At first, he wasn’t too interested in this activity, but as
they have drawn closer, he has become intrigued by her personal writings. Yet
The tensions of friendship and other relationships
For the 10th edition of the book, the authors have chosen to focus on family relationship
research. For most students, these examples will hit home; they have experiences that will
resonate with the research cited in the chapter. You might want to include other voices as well
and discuss the far-ranging scholarship of dialectics. I have found the work of Bill Rawlins, who
studies the communicative dialectics of friendship, particularly accessible for undergraduate
students. His book-length studies, Friendship Matters (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1992) and
The Compass of Friendship: Narratives, Identities, and Dialogues (Thousand Oaks: Sage,
2009), are eclectic, highly readable, and full of ideas and examples for class discussion. The
fundamental dialectical tensions featured by Rawlins augment those emphasized by Baxter.
Therefore, when I teach this chapter, I share with students a brief summary of Rawlins’s
findings in order to suggest that dialectical tensions are numerous and pervasive in all the
(#112). In it, George speaks of his struggle between ‘independent George’ and ‘relationship
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
George’ when, to his horror, Elaine invites his fiancée Susan to an art exposition, causing his
separate worlds “to collide.” The segment works exceptionally well as many students are
familiar with the television show and can relate to the discourse, voiced by George, that
For a darker side of relationship dialectics, you might use the film Gone Girl (2014). In
it, Nick and Amy’s relationship illustrates their lack of honest dialogue, leading each to go
insane. The point is well illustrated in Nick’s opening narration: “When I think of my wife, I
always think of her head. I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brains, trying to get
answers. The primal questions of any marriage: what are you thinking? How are you feeling?
What have we done to each other?” I warned you: this is a darker turn on RDT.
If you would prefer more classic than contemporary examples, you might consider
discussing the portrayal of the connectedness-separateness and certainty-uncertainty
dialectics in Neil Simon’s Barefoot in the Park.
The hit television show This Is Us features dialectic tensions on an almost episodic
basis. Centering on the lives of the three Pearson siblings (Kevin, Kate, and Randall), the show
cycles between their present-day lives as adults as well as their childhood and upbringing. The
episode “The Fifth Wheel” (Season 2, ep. 11) is particularly poignant. Each of the main
characters along with their mother (Rebecca) attend a therapy session as part of Kevin’s rehab
from drug addiction. Beautifully acted, it is rather hard to watch as the siblings unpack their
Further Resources
Other relevant essays by Baxter
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Leslie A. Baxter, Elizabeth A. Suter, Lindsey J. Thomas, and Leah M. Seurer, “The Dialogic
Construction of ‘Adoption’ in Online Foster Adoption Narratives,” Journal of Family
Communication, Vol. 15, 2015, pp. 193-213.
Leslie A. Baxter and Dawn O. Braithwaite, “Relational Dialectics Theory, Applied,” in New
Directions in Interpersonal Communication Research, Sandi W. Smith and Stephen R.
Wilson (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2010, pp. 48-66.
Leslie A. Baxter, Kristen M. Norwood, Bryan Asbury, and Kristina M. Scharp, “Narrating
Adoption: Resisting Adoption as ‘Second Best’ in Online Stories of Domestic Adoption
Told by Adoptive Parents,” Journal Of Family Communication, Vol. 14, pp. 253-269.
Dawn O. Braithwaite and Leslie A. Baxter, “‘You’re my parent but you’re not’: Dialectical
Tensions in Stepchildren’s Perceptions About Communicating with the Nonresidential
Parent,” Journal Of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 34, 2006, pp. 30-48.
doi:10.1080/00909880500420200
Applications of Relational Dialectics Theory in cross-cultural and/or marginalized communities
doi:10.1080/15267431.2017.1363045
Khaled Nasser, Yasmine Dabbous, and Dima Baba, “From Strangers to Spouses: Early
Relational Dialectics in Arranged Marriages Among Muslim Families in
Lebanon,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 44, 2013, pp. 387-406.
Kristen Norwood, “Grieving Gender: Trans-identities, Transition, and Ambiguous
Applied, state-of-the-art research
Rebecca Amati and Annegret F. Hannawa, “Relational Dialectics Theory: Disentangling
Physician-Perceived Tensions of End-of-Life Communication,” Health
Communication, Vol. 29, 2014, pp. 962-973.
Jesse Fox, Jeremy L. Osborn, and Katie M. Warber, “Relational Dialectics and Social
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Karyn Sporer and Paige W. Toller, “Family Identity Disrupted by Mental Illness and Violence: An
Application of Relational Dialectics Theory,” Southern Communication Journal, 82,
2017, pp. 85-101.
Elizabeth A. Suter and Kristen M. Norwood, “Critical Theorizing in Family Communication
Studies: (Re)reading Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0,” Communication Theory, Vol. 27,
2017, pp. 290-308.
Agnieszka Wozniak, Susan Lollis, and Sheila K. Marshall, “Competing Discourses Within
Parent–Adolescent Conversations,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol.
31, 2014, pp. 847–867.
Erin (Sahlstein) Parcell, a former graduate student of Baxter now at the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, has worked extensively in the area of the dialectical challenges in long-distance
relationships. Some articles of interest to review:
Literary examples
For your male students in particular, we recommend Patrick O’Brian’s extensive series of sea
novels, which features the extroverted, passionate, practical Captain Jack Aubrey and the
introverted, cerebral, scientifically-minded Stephen Maturin, naval surgeon, naturalist, and
secret agent. Aubrey and Maturin’s complex, often tense, always vibrant friendship, which is