Talk:Relational dialectics

Content which needs converted to prose and worked into the article

Copy of proposed content for article

"Social life is an ongoing dynamic tension between forces of unity and difference, order and disorder. This interplay cannot be reduced to a single, static binary opposition - centripetal and centrifugal focres are multiple, varied, and ever-changing in the immediate context of the moment. The tension between centripetal and centrifugal themes, beliefs, ideologies, and values take concrete form in the everyday interaction practices of social life" (Baxter and Montogomery, 1996) RELATIONAL DIALECTICS The Interpersonal Communication theory proposed by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery (1996), highlight the tensions, struggles, and general messiness of close personal ties and relationships. The basic premise of this perspective is that personal relationships are a ceasless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies (Griffin, 2006) Contradication (or tug-of-war) is the core concept of Relational Dialectics In other words, it is the abstract process of "the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions" (Miller, 2005) - such as a man and a woman both feel the contradiction toward intimacy and independence. These contradictions are inevitable and can be constructive for relationships. ROOTS AND HISTORY Ancient East A backdrop concept can be rooted to the Yin and Yang (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996). Thus, "the dark Yin and the light Yang of the universe are in constant interplay and motion...when either the yin force or the yang force reaches an extreme, it contains the seed of it's opposite" (p. 20) Western Philosophy Greek philosopher Heraclitus "The deepest reality was change that comes from opposing forces; reality was like the simultaneousley desruptive and creative power of fire." (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, p. 21) The ancient seeds of dialectic approachs are apparent from Eastern and Western philosophy. Social Theorist Mikhail Bakhtin - one of the most influentual intellects in the 1920's-1930's was the dialectic tension as the deep structure of all human experience (Griffin, 2005). He identified that the tension between unity and difference is in all aspects of social life. He saw dialogue consisting of at least two different voices with distinct tendencies: Centripetal (forces of unity) and Centrifugal (forces of difference). His ideals clearly illustrate oppositions have no ultimate resoluation. The only certainty is uncertainty. Relationships are always in flux (Griffin, 2005). CORE CONCEPTS Contradiction This is the core concept of Relational Dialectics It is the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions A Contradiction is formed "whenever two tendencies or forces are interdependent (unity) yet mutually negate one another (negation)" (Miller, 2005). For example, in a relationship one can simultaneaously desire intimacy and distance. Or may want a close relationship with the significant other and also seek to be their own person. Totality Totality suggests that contradictions in a relationship are part of a unified whole and cannot be understood in isolation. In other words, the dialectics cannot be separated and are intrinsically related to each other. For example, the tension between dependence and interdependence cannot be separted from the tension between openness and privacy - both work to condition and define the other. Process Dialectics must be understood through social processes Movement, activity, and change are fuctional properties (Rawlins, 1989). For example, Instances such as an individual fluctuating between disclosure and secretiveness; while some couples may move between periods of honest and open communication (Miller, 2005). PRAXIS The Dialectic tensions are created and re-created through the active participation and interaction. This considers the choices individuals make in the midst of dialectical tensions. In turn, the choices and actions create, re-create, and change the nature of dialectical tensions. For example, relationships are never constant, the only constant is CHANGE. THREE MAJOR DIALECTICS THAT AFFECT RELATIONSHIPS Baxter observed three main contradictions that challenge/affect almost every close relationship (1998). According to Griffin, as most of us embrace the ideals of closeness, certainty, and openness in relationships, the communication is NOT a straight path towards these goals - we are drawn to the exact opposites (autonomy, novelty, and privacy) (2005). The Communication scholars outline tensions that exist within a relationship. It is important to note there is NO finite list of Relational Dialectics. Integration and Separation This is the primary strain in all relationships. If one side wins this me-we tug-of-war, the relationships loses! No relationship can exist unless the individuals sacrifice some individual autonomy. Too much connection can destroy the relationship due to the individual indentities become lost. For example, one women may want expect to be with her significant other every night during the week; while the other other may only want to spend three nights a week together. How will they manage this tension? Stability and Change Baxter and Montgomery acknowledge the need for both Interpersonal certainty and novelty (1996). Relationals and individuals need a touch of spontenaity, a bit of mystery, and the occasional surprise. Without these, relationships can become bland, boring, and emotionally dead. In addition, a couple's relationships with others takes the form of Conventionality vs. Uniqueness. For example, a traditional family the wife cooks almost every evening, by surprise; the man learns to cook and helps his wife in the kitchen four times a week for a hobby. Expression and Non-Expression Relationships aren't on a straight line to intimacy. Couples see pressures for openness and closedness waxing and waning like phases of the moon (Griffin, 2005). For example, Jill keeps her personal goals to herself, but Jack feels sharing his goals is something to keep a relationship strong and open. A couple can also face Revelation and Concealment of what to tell others or the public. For example, Brittany Spears and her first husband chose to 'go public' and announce their mistaken elopement in Las Vegas. REFERENCES Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts.(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Griffin, Em. (2006). A First Look at Communication Theory. (6th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Baxter, L., Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford. Montgomery, B.M., Baxter, L. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erachima (talk • contribs) 05:42, October 31, 2006 (UTC)

CCTP 752 Wikipedia Project Edits

Hello everyone! I've made a few edits to the page. I began a new section titled "Relational Dialectics in End-of-Life Care," and I've included some information from studies on RDT and EOL care, as well as some studies that relate to RDT and the human grieving process.

Here are a few questions I have for you as I continue to edit and add to the page:

1. Are the points clearly made? In other words, do you understand what the content means when you read it?

2. Where do you see room for elaboration? After reading it, do you have more questions or wish that the section would go into more detail on a certain topic relating to end-of-life care or the grieving process? Should I elaborate on the communication tensions? I simply listed the tensions because I wondered, if I were to describe them in detail, if it would be as understandable/too much. What do you think? It seems a little brief, but I also don't want too much information to bore people. Please let me know what you'd be interested in hearing more about.

3. How does this new section look and fit in with the others? Do you think it should be a separate section, or do you think it would tie in better if it was placed under an already-existing section? I want to make sure that the information flows, and that it is easy to read.

Thank you! - amm564

Peer Review from Katherine Chow

Hey Amanda! I think you did a great job adding the relational dialectics in end of life care section. The description was concise and easy to understand. Below are my replies to your qs:

1. Are the points clearly made? In other words, do you understand what the content means when you read it? Yes, your points are clear and I appreciate the short, to the point way of your description. I definitely understand how relational dialectics plays into end of life care.

2. Where do you see room for elaboration? After reading it, do you have more questions or wish that the section would go into more detail on a certain topic relating to end-of-life care or the grieving process? Should I elaborate on the communication tensions? I simply listed the tensions because I wondered, if I were to describe them in detail, if it would be as understandable/too much. What do you think? It seems a little brief, but I also don't want too much information to bore people. Please let me know what you'd be interested in hearing more about. Maybe give one more example of a real life study conducted on this subject. I think you can enhance the communication tensions by giving and 1-2 sentence example of how that played out in the Maori culture (if provided in the original article).

3. How does this new section look and fit in with the others? Do you think it should be a separate section, or do you think it would tie in better if it was placed under an already-existing section? I want to make sure that the information flows, and that it is easy to read.' I think the location fits well. It's right after the description of relationships within the theory and adds a nice example-giving summary of relational dialectics applied in real life.

All in all, great job! I usually learn by example, so having this study/description added helped me understand the content more.

-Katherine, kc1015