Dialectical process thinking adds a great deal to our explanatory framework for relational life. First, we can think specifically about issues around which relational partners construct meaning. Second, we can remove a static frame and put our emphasis on the interplay between change and stability. We do not have to choose between observing patterns and observing unpredictability because we recognize the presence of both within relationships. 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. This approach helps us focus on power issues and multicultural diversity.

In general, scholars have been excited about the promise generated by Relational Dialectics Theory, and their responses to it have been positive. The theory seems to measure up well against the criteria we discussed in Chapter 3.

Heurism and Testability

RDT 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. These studies also point to the fact that the theory is testable. 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. Most people experience their relationships in ebb-and-flow patterns, whether the issue is intimacy, self-disclosure, or something else. That is, relationships do not simply become more or less of something in a linear, straight-line pattern. Instead, they often seem to be both/and as we live through them. Dialectics offers a compelling explanation for this both/and feeling, making the theory score well on utility.

Parsimony

A few questions have been raised about the theory, however. One concerns parsimony. Some researchers question whether the dialectics of autonomy and connection, openness and protection, and novelty and predictability are the only dialectics in all relationships. In some ways, dialectics may be too parsimonious. For instance, many of the studies we have cited have generated additional dialectics, which raise questions about how well the theory does on the criterion of parsimony. Endless lists of new dialectic tensions would be problematic. Yet it’s possible that some of these newer tensions may be subsumed under a few categories, which would enable RDT to explain relational life in a relatively parsimonious fashion. Further, as Leslie Baxter 2006 observes, the most important criterion for a theory like RDT is heurism because the theory’s goal is to shed light on the “complex and indeterminate process of meaning-making” (p. 130). As such, we might not judge it so stringently on the criterion of parsimony.

Baxter and Montgomery (1996) observe that dialectics is not a traditional theory in that it offers no axioms or propositional arguments. Instead, it describes a set of conceptual assumptions. Thus, it does not offer us good predictions about, for example, what coping strategies people might use to deal with the major dialectic tensions in their relationships. This problem may be the result of the relative youth of dialectics as a theoretical frame for relational life, or it may result from differing goals: Traditional theory seeks prediction and final statements about communication phenomena; dialectics operates from an open-ended, ongoing viewpoint. Baxter and Montgomery end their 1996 book with a personal dialogue between themselves about the experience of writing about a theory that encourages conversation rather than provides axiomatic conclusions. They agree that in some ways it is difficult to shake the cultural need for consistency and closure. Yet they conclude that it is heuristic and valuable to write about emerging ideas.

Many researchers agree that the dialectic approach is an extremely exciting way to conceive of communication in relational life. Expect to see more refinements of this theory and more studies testing its premises.