Dialectical Tensions

Page 155

Weighing costs against benefits and reducing uncertainty are not the only challenges we face in developing relationships. In any relationship, it is common to experience contradictions or opposing feelings about your relational partner and about the relationship itself (Baxter & Erbert, 1999; Pawlowski, 1998). When a love relationship becomes serious, for example, one or both partners might find themselves mourning their old, single lifestyle, despite the benefits of commitment.

Relational dialectics theory holds that dialectical tensions are contradictory feelings that tug at us in every relationship. These tensions can be external (between the partners and the people they interact with) or internal (within their relationship). Of the many possible types, we focus on three internal tensions that dominate research: autonomy versus connection, openness versus closedness, and predictability versus novelty (Baxter & Simon, 1993). Note that dialectics exist along a continuum; they are not all-or-nothing trade-offs but rather ranges of options that need to be continually negotiated and adjusted (Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, & Wagner, 2004). Also, these tensions are natural and normal—experiencing them does not indicate that your relationship is falling apart!

Autonomy Versus Connection. Identical twins Teresa and Marie have always done everything together—from their first breaths of air right on through their college educations. As they grew older, loosening these bonds was a real struggle. Marie remembers bursting into tears at her bridal shower and explaining, “It’s just that I’ve never had a party all to myself before” (Hazel, Wongprasert, & Ayres, 2006).

In all close personal relationships—family connections, romantic relationships, and friendships—there is a tension between independence (autonomy) and dependence (connection). In other words, we struggle because we want to be our own person while also being a part of something else: a couple, a family, or a group. This tension can result in hurt feelings. Attempts to express autonomy can be easily misunderstood—children’s attempts to express their own identities are often seen as acts of rebellion, while romantic partners risk alienating their loved ones when they pursue certain interests alone. On the other hand, we can be seen as nagging when we try to force connectedness on our relational partner: if we drag our partners off to yoga class or a sporting event in which they have no interest, we’re more likely to alienate them than to bring them closer.

Openness Versus Closedness. Every superhero from Batman to Superman knows about this tension. To become close, individuals must share information with their relational partners. However, by disclosing information, they reveal a part of their private selves that then becomes vulnerable. The tension comes as partners strive to find a balance between sharing information (openness) and a desire to keep some things private (closedness). This can be seen in superhero comics and movies, when a character like Bruce Wayne wants to maintain close relationships with various love interests but cannot tell any of them about his secret life as Batman. The tension between Batman’s duty to Gotham City and duty to his loved ones takes a toll on those relationships.

Without the excuses of double lives, most people need to disclose some private information to those with whom they have relationships in order to facilitate a perception of involvement and deep understanding. Even when we take into account cultural differences (see chapter 3), relational intimacy is consistently advanced by self-disclosure (as we develop more fully in the following section) (Chen & Nakazawa, 2009). But it is not always a good idea to reveal your every thought to your partner. Contrary to the notion that there should be “no secrets between us,” relational dialectics researchers argue that much information might be better left unsaid. The comparison you make in your mind between your current romantic partner and an attractive celebrity is a good example.

Predictability Versus Novelty. Which is more important to you, safety and security or excitement and novelty? This third dialectical tension assumes that most people have a simultaneous need for stability through predictable relational interaction as well as a need for new and exciting experiences in personal relationships. On the one hand, partners seek stable patterns of interaction: Colin and Casey, for example, enjoy the comfort of their evening routine of dinner and television, as well as their usual Friday night at the movies. At the same time, every relationship needs some degree of spontaneity and novelty. This is why Colin and Casey have made plans to travel to Japan next summer and why they find enjoyment in shaking up their routine with odd projects—such as building their own computer or learning to cook Thai food.