Dialectic


 * Definition and Etymology **

The term “dialectic” has roots from the 14th century in Old French, Latin, and Greek languages (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.) and, in its original Latin, was synonymous with what we now call logic (Williams, 1985). The Oxford English Dictionary provides three primary definitions for this concept. The first focuses on the examination of truth through discourse and describes dialectic as “the art of critical examination into the truth of an opinion,”, while the second asserts the contradictory nature of scientific principles and claims “contradictions are seen to merge themselves in a higher truth,” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The final, and most general, description depicts dialectic as the “existence or working of opposing forces, tendencies, etc,” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). In sum, then, the concept of “dialectic” focuses on logic, discussion, contradiction, and the intersection of these three processes.


 * The Evolution of the Dialectic Concept **

The concept of dialectic is unique in that its meaning has evolved and changed over the course of multiple centuries. The dialectic method as a form of communication and philosophy was a cornerstone of Plato’s perspective, and is described in The Republic as having four crucial components:equal status and participation of those involved, opening dialogue with commonly held views, critical reflection of participants, and connection of ideas (Plato, 2008). In the middle ages, however, scholasticism molded the meaning of dialectic into a form of inquiry, where learning occurs by resolving contradiction through a point-counterpoint style of argumentation (c. f. Hyman & Walsh, 1973). Later, Hegel approached dialectics as the “continual unification of opposites” and made the “spirit primary and world secondary” (Williams, 1985, p. 107), and thus treated dialectic as a much more cognitive and metaphysical principle. Marxists, then, progressed dialectic into a historical process by essentially reversing Hegel’s conceptualization (Williams, 1985). Marx (1992) saw the dialectic contradictions through the notion that quantitative (physical) changes lead to qualitative (mental) changes.

In the social sciences the dialectic concept first garnered attention in the study of interpersonal relationships in the 1980s (e.g. Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Rawlins, 1983) and gained momentum as a valuable perspective in the 1990s (e.g. Baxter, 1990; Braithwaite & Baxter, 1995), culminating in the advancement of Relational Dialectics Theory (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).

Dialectic’s definition in the social sciences has been heavily influenced by language and culture philosopher Bakhtin (1981). Bakhtin described centripetal and centrifugal forces as being extremely relevant in our day-to-day lives. Centripetal forces aim to bring order to chaos, while centrifugal forces aim to disrupt that order. Bakhtin then discussed the integral role that dialogue plays in our management of these forces. He claimed that we use dialogue to negotiate these pulls and attempt to find a happy medium. Thus, Baxter and Erbert (1999) describe dialectical theorists as assuming a belief in the centrality of contradiction and the role of contradiction in the change process.


 * Dialectics in Interpersonal Communication Research **

A trend in communication research has been to consider dialectics as competing cognitive states that are manifest through dialogue. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) proposed six sets of tensions that individuals must manage within their relationships. Baxter and Erbert (1999) described these six as internal and external manifestations of three “supra dialectics” (p. 548), as illustrated in the table below. Internal contradictions are often felt within the dyadic relationship (romantic, parent-child, friendship, etc.) while external contradictions are salient when considering the relationship as a part of the social network. Research on contradictions has often focused on turning points, or times of transition for couples (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). For example, when a romantic couple moves in together, they may feel contradicting needs for autonomy and connection, and when they choose to start a family, they must negotiate how much information to reveal or conceal to members of their social network.


 * || ** Internal **  ||  ** External **  ||
 * ** Integeration-Separation ** ||  Autonomy-Connection  ||  Inclusion-Seclusion  ||
 * ** Stability-Change ** ||  Certainty-Uncertainty  ||  Conventionality-Uniqueness  ||
 * ** Expression-Nonexpression ** ||  Openness-Closedness  ||  Revelation-Concealment  ||

Other dialectic research in interpersonal communication research has examined specific contradictions that are salient in certain contexts. For example, Golish & Powell (2003) studied parents of children who were born prematurely and highlighted a **joy-grief** contradiction to describe the joy at a child’s birth, but experienced grief over the challenges associated with premature birth and the uncertainty of what lies ahead for their child. Cools (2006) interviewed heterosexual, intercultural couples living in Finland and identified (among Baxter and Montgomery’s original tensions) **privilege-disadvantage** and **belonging-exclusion** as salient dialectics for this population. Finally, Sahlstein (2006) examined individuals in long-distance relationships managing tension between **uncertainty-certainty** as they negotiate their relationships. Based on these studies, the value of a dialectical perspective is not necessarily in highlighting core sets of tensions that we can identify in all contexts, but rather in being open to understanding how unique tensions may be salient in certain social situations.


 * Current Perspectives on Dialectics in Interpersonal Communication **

Currently, the trends in dialectical research in interpersonal studies have returned to focusing on the discursive struggles faced by interactants. Baxter and Braithwaite (2008) propose three central propositions of Relational Dialectics Theory to guide future research. First, these theorists tell us that meanings emerge from the struggle of different, often opposing discourses. Indeed the focus of inquiry is not on the cognitive struggles between polar opposites, but instead on the way those struggles are manifest in conversation. This proposition focuses on the idea of praxis – we are both producers and products of these competing discourses. Additionally, Baxter and Braithwaite (2008) claim that discourses are both synchronic (momentary) and diachronic (occurring over time). This proposition tells us that meaning may emerge in an interactional moment, which can make it seem fixed and stable, but that meaning is also fluid and can change over the course of other interactional moments. Finally, Baxter and Braithwaite encourage scholars to consider that the interpenetration of competing discourses constitutes social reality. In other words, dialectics don’t describe our world, they are the reality of our world.

Perhaps the concept of dialectic in communication studies can be best summarized by Cornforth (1968), who highlights the role of //process// and //contradiction//. Indeed, although there are multiple philosophical and empirical conceptualizations of dialectic, each does contain the component of process (e.g. Plato’s view on the communication process and Baxter’s focus on dialectics as crucial to relational development) and contradiction (e.g. Hegel’s unification of opposites and Baxter and Montgomery’s core tensions).

Amy L. Delaney (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Dialectic" limit="10"


 * References **

Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) //Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: 14.// New York: Academic Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). //The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin// (M. Holquist, Ed.: C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,// 69-88.

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2008). Relational dialectics theory: Crafting meaning from competing discourses. In. L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), //Engaging theories in interpersonal communication// (pp. 349-361). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Erbert, L. A. (1999). Perceptions of dialectical tensions in turning points of development in heterosexual romantic relationships. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16,// 547-569.

Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). //Relating: Dialogues and dialectics.// New York: Guilford.

Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (1995). ‘I do’ again: The relational dialectics of renewing marriage vows. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,// 177-198.

Cornforth, M. (1968). //Materialism and the Dialectical Method.// New York: International Publishers.

Cools, C. (2006). Relational communication in intercultural couples. //Language and Intercultural Communication, 6,// 262-274.

Dialectic. (2012). In Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from __http://dictionary.oed.com__.

Golish, T. D., & Powell, K. A. (2003). “Ambiguous loss”: Managing the dialectics of grief associated with premature birth. //Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20,// 309-334.

Hyman, J. & Walsh, J. J., eds. (1973). //Philosophy in the Middle Ages//. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Marx, K. (1992). Capital: Volume 1. (B. Fowkes, Trans). Penguin Classics.

Plato. (2008). The Republic. (B. Jowett, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from [].

Rawlins, W. K. (1983). Openness as problematic in ongoing friendships: Two conversational dilemmas. //Communication Monographs, 50,// 1-13.

Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-distance relationships. //Western Journal of Communication, 70,// 147-165.

Williams, R. (1985). //Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition//. New York: Oxford University Press.