![]() ![]() Instead, it describes a set of conceptual assumptions. This does not seem to be a serious flaw in the theory, however, and more study will probably delineate a finite number of dialectics that may vary by context.īaxter and Montgomery (1996) observe that dialectics is not a traditional theory in that it offers no axioms or propositional arguments. In studying friendships in the workplace, Ted Zorn (1995) finds the three main dialectics, but he also finds some additional tensions that were specific to the workplace context. This dialectic emerges in the tension between judging a friend's behaviors and simply accepting them. Instead, he finds a different dialectic, focusing on tensions of judgment and acceptance. For example, Rawlins (1992) does not see the novelty/certainty dialectic in his study of friendship. Some question whether the dialectics of autonomy and connection, openness and protection, and novelty and predictability are the only dialectics of all relationships. One concerns the number and limit of dialectical tensions that exist in relational life. Dialectics offers a compelling explanation for this both/and feeling.Ī few questions have been raised about the theory, however. ![]() Instead, they often seem to be both/and as we live through them. That is, relationships do not simply become more or less of something in a linear, straight-line pattern. ![]() Most people experience their relationships in ebb-and-flow patterns, whether the issue is intimacy, self-disclosure, or something else. Perhaps the most positive appeal of the theory is that it seems to explain the push and pull people experience in relationships much better than some of the other, more linear, theories of relational life. These studies also point to the fact that the theory is testable. It offers an expansive view of relationships and has generated several studies even in the short time that Baxter has been delineating the theory therefore, it is a heuristic theory. The theory seems to measure up well against the criteria we discussed in Chapter 3. In general, scholars have been excited about the promise generated by Relational Dialectics Theory, and their responses to it have been positive. This approach helps us focus on power issues and multicultural diversity. Likewise, dialectical thinking directs people to observe the interactions within a relationship, among its individual members, as well as outside a relationship, as its members interact with the larger social and cultural systems in which they are embedded. We do not have to choose between observing patterns and observing unpredictability because we recognize the presence of both within relationships. Second, we can remove the static frame and put our emphasis on the interplay between change and stability. First, we can think specifically about issues around which relational partners construct meaning. Please change your browser preferences to enable javascript, and reload this page.ĭialectical process thinking adds a great deal to our conceptual frameworks about relational life. You must have javascript enabled to view this website. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |