When thinking about the field of communication, it is important to conduct research to see which communication theory would best fit a particular case. For my final case study for this course, I chose to elaborate on the communications between families and their disagreements. Upon reviewing the five communication theories, I believe that the theory that would best be incorporated with my case would be Relational Dialectics Theory. Relational Dialectics Theory has three axioms. These three axioms are: Autonomy and Connection, Openness and Closedness, and Novelty and Predictability. This theory and its three axiom, I feel, would best be able to help me explain my case study. I will use Relational Dialectics Theory, and its three axioms, to elaborate on communications between families and disagreements.
I believe that, out of the five theories, Relational Dialectics Theory is the communication theory that could be interpreted and applied into family disagreements and other set situations best. “Relational Dialectics (RDT) is a theory of the meaning-making between relationship parties that emerges from the interplay of competing discourses.” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008). Within a family, especially, you make these meanings from the interplay of competing discourses. A discourse can be looked at as being: “a cultural system of meaning that circulates among a group’s members and which makes our talk sensical.” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008). So, when I think of discourse within a family, or any group for that matter, I think about how the communication that “circulates” will have different meanings based on your environment and culture.
Body
Now that I have broadly touched on Relational Dialectics Theory and its connections to the family, I would like to elaborate on its first axiom: Autonomy and Connection. Autonomy and Connection can play a substantial role in the communication of interpersonal relationships. According to a study in a 2009 publication of the Quantitative Report, Autonomy and Connection “associates needs for both partner independence and partner connection in the relationship.” (Werner & Baxter, 1994). When there isn’t a good balance of Autonomy and Connection within a relationship, there could be an added stress put onto one another.
When I think of giving an example of this axiom, I would think that an example could be found in communication from multiple types of interpersonal relationship. For instance, think about a couple that has been together for a few years. One person in the relationship wishes to have more independence in the relationship, but the other person does not. This could cause tension in that couple’s relationship. If they have different feelings about their autonomy then that would inevitably put a strain on their connection.
Now that I have touched on the first axiom of Relational Dialectics Theory, Autonomy and Connection, I would like to elaborate on its second axiom: Openness and Closedness. This axiom is also very important when discussing communication in interpersonal relationships. When thinking about Openness and Closedness, I find it helpful to think about the amounts of disclosure between one another in a particular relationship. According to a study in a 2009 publication of the Quantitative Report, Openness and Closedness can be “related to the struggle between being forthright and practicing discretion.” (Werner and Baxter, 1994).
Like with the first axiom of Relational Dialectics Theory, Autonomy and Connection, an example of Openness and Closedness could be found in communication from multiple types of interpersonal relationships. A general example could be one person in a relationship being closed off to the other. Perhaps that person had issues with sharing their negative feelings, or feeling in general, with the other. If that other person is being open, it would be frustrating to not have the same amount of disclosure from the open. If each person in a relationship has a more equal balance of Openness and Closedness, then there could be less stress and tension.
Now that I have touched on the first axiom of Relational Dialectics Theory, Autonomy and Connection, and the second axiom, Openness and Closedness, I would like to elaborate on its third axiom: Novelty and Predictability. Just like the first two axioms, Novelty and Predictability could also be important when discussing communication in interpersonal relationships. When thinking about Novelty and Predictability, it can be viewed as something that will most likely develop as a relationship progresses. It seems like it would be hard to have novelty and predictability in the beginning of a relationship.
Like with the first axiom of Relational Dialectics Theory, Autonomy and Connection, and the second axiom, Openness and Closedness, Novelty and Predictability could be found in communication from multiple types of interpersonal relationships. For example, to go back to a couple that has been together for a few years. As the relationship progressed, predictability most likely formed. The predictability could be potentially harmful in a relationship if there is no novelty. If one person wants to experience new things while the other is comfortable with the same, that could cause some stress/ tension in the relationships.
Background
For this case study, I chose to analyze the communication of families using Relational Dialectics theory. This is the theory I chose because it can help me best interpret family disagreements and the communication that takes place during.
For this paper, I thought to best to use my own family. I am the oldest of three girls, so plenty of disagreements obviously have taken place amongst us and my mother and step-father. Now that I am older and am living on my own, it is easier for me to look back and reflect on the communication and disagreements.
Analysis
For my case study topic, I will be doing my analysis based off of the three axioms of Relational Dialectics theory. As a refresher from earlier the theory section of this case study: “Relational Dialectics (RDT) is a theory of the meaning-making between relationship parties that emerges from the interplay of competing discourses.” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008). Relational Dialectics theory’s three axioms are: Autonomy and Connection, Openness and Closedness, and Novelty and Predictability.
Autonomy and Connection
For the first axiom of Relational Dialectics, Autonomy and Connection, I thought a good example to draw off of from my own personal experiences would be the interpersonal relationship of my step-father and I’s throughout the years. My mother and my step-father married when I was very young, the age of four. She had me from a previous marriage and my step-father had no children nor had he been married before.
When they first got married, we were all very close and connected nicely as a family. This stayed consistent for a while, but it started to change with the birth of my first younger sister. When my sister was born, the relationship between my step-father and I became strained. Since he know had a child of his own, he had a closer bond to her then me because I was not biologically his.
This isn’t to say that he was awful to me, but it became apparent to both my mother and I that I was now treated somewhat differently. Since there overall autonomy of the family had weakened and it has caused tension to our overall dynamic since. We were both my mother’s children biologically, so our connections with her were the same. This lead to more disagreements and impacted the overall communication within our family. Since the autonomy of the family was stressed this inevitably then put tension on the overall connection. I feel like this example can be relatable to many individuals and families because of the abundance of step-parent families.
Openness and Closedness
For the second axiom of Relational Dialectics theory, Openness and Closedness, I thought a good example to draw off of from my own personal family experiences would be the interpersonal relationship between my mother and me, particularly in my early teenage years. As I’m sure is the case with so many teenage girls, the amount of disclosure is probably at a minimum when it comes to communicating with their mothers.
When thinking about the axiom of Openness and Closedness, it is important to think about the idea of disclosure. When I was younger, I would self-disclose a lot of information to my mother, I mean she was basically my best friend when I was a young child. But when I grew up and started gaining a large group of friends and had a sudden emergence of a social life, I began to distance myself from my mother and self-disclosing less and less.
This put a strain in our interpersonal relationship and communication because there was an unbalance. My mother still kept the same amount of disclosure, or at least tried to. I interpreted her openness as being annoying at the time and unnecessary communication. I mean, I had my own life and problems outside of the household so why should I care? (My typical teenage mindset.) This affected our relationship for many years because while she was trying to be so open and share her feelings with me, I had closed myself off from her and didn’t disclose much. This lead to more disagreements and impacted the overall communication within our family.
Novelty and Predictability
For the third axiom of Relational Dialectics theory, Novelty and Predictability, I thought a good example to draw off of from my own personal family experiences would be the interpersonal relationship between my younger sister, Caroline, and me. When she was born I was ecstatic, being the oldest child meant that I had spent a lot of time being bored and playing alone. I finally had someone to play and spend my time with.
My sister and I were close for a long while, we played together, shared the same room, etc. However, when I started to get older, I wanted more independence and develop more interests outside of our household. This put a strain on our interpersonal relationship, especially when it came to the axiom of novelty and predictability.
Since Caroline was younger than I was, she didn’t understand why I wasn’t wanting to continue on with our routines. She wanted the relationship to stay predictable. I, on the other hand, being the older sister, wanted more novelty. I was getting bored with the same routine, I wanted more independence and to do other things. This caused a strain on our communication and relationship. This lead to more disagreements because my sister and I fighting aggravated our parents and impacted the overall communication within our family.
Recommendations
Now that I have analyzed the three axioms of Relational Dialectics theory and how they apply to my case study topic, I will now provide recommendations on how these examples of communications could have been handled more effectively.
Firstly, all those involved should have been better at addressing the issues at hand and been aware of it. If the issue had been addressed and those were aware of the interpersonal issues, then the autonomy would have been unstressed and the connection wouldn’t have been injured.
Secondly, both my mother and I should have been more understanding towards one another about the need for disclosure, or lack thereof. I should have understood that she was just trying to bond with her daughter. She should have reflected back to her teenage years and remembered the way she was. I should have been more open to her and that could have prevented the closedness.
Thirdly, I should have been more understanding of my sister’s point of view. It’s hard when your friend, sister, etc. grows somewhat apart from you even though you want it to stay the same. I should have made more of an effort to keep some type of novelty in our relationship.
Conclusion
In conclusion, when thinking about the field of communication, it is important to conduct research to see which communication theory would best fit a particular case. For my final case study for this course, I chose to elaborate on the communications between families and their disagreements. After I reviewed the five communication theories, I believed that the theory that would best be incorporated with my case would be Relational Dialectics Theory. Relational Dialectics Theory has three axioms. Those three axioms are: Autonomy and Connection, Openness and Closedness, and Novelty and Predictability. In this paper I have touched on Relational Dialectics Theory and its three axioms. I have provided a background to my case study topic. After providing background, I then analyzed my topic using the three axioms of Relational Dialectics theory. Then, after providing analysis of the three axioms, I offered recommendations on the communication mishaps could have been handled more effectively.
References
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. (p. 349) Sage Publications.
DeGreeff, B.L., & Burnett, A. (2009). Weekend Warriors: Autonomy-Connection, Openness-Closedness, and Coping Strategies of Marital Partners in Nonresidential Stepfamilies. The Quantitative Report, 14(4), 604-628.
youngscholar92
case_study_sample_1.docx
0
