A perspective that revolves around how relational partners manage tensions is called

PAGE

1

Rules and Relationships

Running Head: LAUNDRY RULES

Laundry Rules: Examinations of Aunt-Niece Relationship

XXXXX

We have all experienced conflicts with our parents, some more than others. It can be really hard to understand the reasons for some of the things they do. In my case I never understood why ii always had to do laundry on Sundays. It was my laundry, why couldn’t I do it whenever I wanted. As teenagers we tend to get this attitude of “I do what I want.” This is the basis for this case study. Interpersonal relationships are conflicted with tensions. In the relationship between a guardian and a child, the tensions are particularly seen just as in a mother-daughter relationship. The contrasting tensions that exist in these relationships can often be the cause of disagreements between the two relational partners, such as my aunt and me. Successfully managing these tensions helps ensure the relationship satisfaction. This study uses relational dialectics to examine a pattern of conflicting pulls between my aunt and me.

It is through the analysis of this case between my aunt and me; I argue that ineffective negotiation of these dialectical tensions can lead to dissatisfaction in the relationship. By analyzing the communication patterns present in our relationship, I expect to gain a better understanding of managing these tensions. It is important to examine how close family members react to conflicting tensions. Family members hold close ties to tensions of openness, closedness, and stability. For this reason, the interacting tensions should be managed more efficiently. This analysis shows that by gaining knowledge of these dialectic tensions and management strategies, people can affect a more positive outcome. This paper includes a description of relational dialectics theory, a background to the communicative partners studied, a case analysis, and recommendations for the partners involved.

Relational Dialectics

“No relationship can exist by definition unless the parties sacrifice some individual autonomy. However, too much connection paradoxically destroys the relationship because the individual identities become lost” (Griffin, 2000).

Relational Dialectics was developed in 1988 by Baxter and Montgomery. The theory is explained as “Communication parties experience internal, conflicting pulls causing relationships to be in a constant state of flux, known as dialectical tension. The pressures of these tensions occur in a wavelike or cyclical fashion over time. Relational Dialectics introduces the concept that the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart” (Griffin, 2000). All relationships experience this dialectical tension. The focus is not on the actual relationship desires but actually on the struggles that the relationship experiences. The theory attempts to describe these experiences that occur (Baxter, 2004).

Relational Parties are constantly involved in dialogue, crating meaning and responding to natural tensions. It is because of this ongoing dialogue that relationships are constantly in a state of flux. Because of this flux, the theory is concerned with the partners’ acts of relating and not the status of the relationship. The theory explains that this change is normal and necessary for relationships to exist. Therefore, the theory focuses on the communicative actions that relational parties are involved in. Relational dialectics theory views these changes as uncontrollable. Relationships undergo these changes in order to satisfy both relational parties’ needs’. These needs include openness-closedness, autonomy-connection, and inclusion-seclusion.

Openness-Closedness

In every interpersonal relationship there is a pull between openness and closedness. Desires exist in both parties to be highly self-disclosing, while desires also exist to maintain personal boundaries. Relational parties want to connect with their partner through intimate disclosures. This is often more complicated due to the risk of vulnerability. Due to this risk it also makes the information that is disclosed more meaningful. It is by being open with others that we expect reciprocity (Rawlins, 1983). This means that if one partner self-discloses they expect the other partner to reciprocate by self-disclosing. This form of penetration helps establish and maintain the relationship. “By being open to another person, one is willing to listen to him or her from that person’s perspective, to display receptivity to what that person has to say, to be open to change in one’s own beliefs and attitudes” (Baxter, 2004). This shows us that to truly meet the desires of the openness factor, we must be open to beliefs and attitudes that are not always our own. We should be able to see things from a different perspective or at least be comfortable enough to listen to it.

Each relational partner in each interpersonal relationship will struggle to find the right amount of self-disclosure. Individuals “confront the contrasting urges to protect other[s] by exercising discretion and to be candid with other[s]” (Rawlins, 1983). It is by communication with the other partner that we set boundaries on levels of disclosure. According to Rawlins (1983), “openness often solicits restraint, thereby creating conditions for closedness”. We feel the need to create great intimacy with partners. This intimacy is created by self-disclosure and reciprocity. It is through these aspects that partners also realize whether to reveal information or conceal it. It is very easy to see the constraints of this dialect. If you look at the relationship between Parker and Mary Jane in the movie Spider Man, you can clearly see the boundaries. Parker wants to tell Mary Jane that he is Spiderman, but he has to stay closed off because no one can know. He is obviously fighting the urges of openness and closedness. This is common in most drama films. One of the partners always struggles with telling their secret.

Autonomy-Connection

Autonomy is the “desire and ability to be self-sufficient, self-contained, self-defined, and accountable only to one-s self” (Goldsmith, 1990). Connection is “the desire and ability to be reliant on others, to be relied on, to be connected with others, and to be defined in relation to others” (Goldsmith, 1990). Autonomy and Connection are the most prominent tensions in all interpersonal relationships. The perceptions of these dialectics can “be constructed by relationship parties in terms of their negotiation surrounding how much time to spend with one another versus time spent apart to meet other obligations” (Baxter, 2004). Each relational partner needs interdependence as well as the support of companionship. During this stage partners can feel that they have lost their individual identity. We each have needs to be viewed as a unique individual.

Partners in interpersonal relationships will attempt to satisfy their own needs of connection and autonomy as well as considering the needs of their partner. Time measurement is also a big factor in measuring the independence or dependence of individuals in the relationship. Another factor is how obligations and rights are determined “a discourse of rights versus obligations, as, for example, the individual’s right to have his/her own needs fulfilled versus the obligation to fulfill the partner’s needs” (Baxter, 2004).

An example of autonomy and connection can be seen in the movie “Say Anything”. The movie is based around a young girl that is valedictorian and has sacrificed her social life for school. There is also a particularly social boy that wants to take her out. Eventually she decides to give him a chance, but he wants to be with her every waking minute. The couple deals with this tension by her letting him know that she has to have time to herself and so does he.

Inclusion-Seclusion

Inclusion and seclusion are unlike the previous dialectics in one particular way. These dialectics exist externally out of the relationship. In the external dialectic of relationships, the struggles exist with how much the parties want to be integrated into a larger group. “The external form of the integration/separation dialectic involves the tension between wanting a relationship to be included in larger systems and wanting to keep the relationship private” (Wood, 2004).

The partners in the relationship are also faced with the decision on to what extent they will enact with others outside of the relationship. They also decide how much of their relationship they will reveal to others. “Relationship parties are immersed in ongoing communication with outsiders to the relationship as they all go about the business of crafting an identity for that relationship” (Baxter, 2004). We create our relationships uniqueness by legitimizing our relationship through social groups. Griffin (2003) explains;

The more [partners] assert their autonomy from society, the more they establish a unique subculture. Yet even for the most devoted partners, tolerance for isolation wears thin after a while. Other people can be a source of stimulation to overcome the ho-hum predictability that settles in on a secluded pair. Third parties can also provide the social support that legitimizes the relationship of friends or lovers.

We seek out social groups in order to understand our relationships as well as prove its importance. When relational partners interact with a social network, they are subject to external judgment that could potentially damage the relationship. This damage can force the parties to seek protection through seclusion. This is why individuals might separate themselves from external partners. In helps ensure a safe and stable environment for the relationship to prosper (Baxter, 2004). On the other hand, relational parties naturally seek social approval. “Relationships are defined as close to the extent that they are nonreplaceable or unique” (Baxter, 2004). When dealing with external dialects such as inclusion and seclusion it is important for both relational parties to communicate their personal and social boundaries.

Management Strategies

The theory of relational dialectics does more than describe the tensions involved in relational parties; it also outlines strategies that are used to negotiate needs. Successful negotiation of dialectical tensions increases relation harmony as relationship satisfaction “[correlates] significantly with the strategies used to manage dialectical contradictions’ (Penington, 2004). There are several common strategies that relational dialectics discusses including; selection, spiraling inversion, segmentation, recalibration.

Selection. Usually selection tends to be the least satisfying negotiation strategies. The process of selection “occurs when one pole of the dialectical contradiction is enacted to the exclusion of the other” (Penington, 2004). Selection chooses which need to meet as well as ignoring the other needs. It is a pick and chooses relational strategy. Selection can be seen very easily in a students study habits. We choose which assignment is most important when we are overloaded. For example, this class is more important than my other classes. That means that when it comes to next semester’s classes, I will pick and choose classes around this time frame. This is because I selected to take this class and ignore the others in this time frame.

Spiraling inversion. Spiraling inversion can be explained as “[tacking] back and forth through time, alternating an emphasis on one dialectical voice with an emphasis on another dialectical voice” (Baxter, 2004). This is generally the most common response to present tensions. Individuals cycle through their existing conflicts in order to satisfy silent needs. Spiraling inversion is so commonly seen in relationship practices. Each partner cycles through stages of openness-closedness, autonomy-connection, and inclusion-seclusion. I cycle most commonly through the tensions of openness and closedness in my relationships. I just recently formed a friendship with a girl named Candice, I find it very hard to figure out how open I should be with her. Because of this I use spiraling inversion to jump from being really open to then being really closed.

Segmentation. Segmentation allows relational parties to assign needs to specific areas of conflict. “On topic A, for example, a couple might privilege openness and candor, yet topic B would be defined as a taboo topic in which openness was disallowed” (Baxter, 2004).By separating and identifying the individual needs, relational parties attempt to satisfy each dialectical tension. The most common experience I can think of is when parents are in denial about their child. When a child tries to talk about something such as homosexuality, which is a very sensitive subject, the parents might just completely ignore the topic. This is segmenting the issues, the parents might change the subject to school, which is something they are very open about.