Relational Dialectics

A piece from "Friends" to illustrate Relational Dialectics Theory.



The relational dialectics theory refers to intimate conversation that takes place in close relationships. The closer two people become, the more problems, controversies or conflicts normally arise. In a relationship it therefore becomes important to find a ‘happy medium’ between one’s own desires and those desires of the other person.
Oftentimes, an additional problem is the different communication styles of men and women and the inability to relate to the partner’s way of thinking or expressing him- or herself. According to the theory, relationships do normally not follow a linear pattern, but rather consists of conflicts and therefore communication does oftentimes not follow a straight path. Conflicting values in relationships that the theory points out are privacy vs. transparency, novelty vs. predictability, and autonomy vs. connectedness.

An example that illustrates the relational dialectics theory pretty well is the American TV show ‘Friends’, throughout which the (mis-) communication between people, especially in the context of relationships between men and women plays an important role. The clip I have chosen for this post displays a conversation between Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) and Paul (Bruce Willis).
The clip starts with Paul coming home and telling Rachel that he has made a reservation at a restaurant. While Rachel seems satisfied with this, she however wants Paul to tell her something about his day. “It was fine” is all Paul has to say, without disclosing any more information to Rachel. In comparison to Paul, who seems to have a higher need for privacy, Rachel wants to know flat out what he is thinking and “what’s behind this strong silent exterior”. It becomes evident that Rachel and Paul’s needs are at odds with each other at this point, as Paul obviously does not want to make himself vulnerable by disclosing his feelings and thoughts. Rachel experiences that the conversation even though she just wants him to give her “something – anything!”, is not going anywhere. Paul finally agrees to tell her something about his youth, but the content of the story is at odds with what Rachel expected – however, Rachel does not openly tell Paul her thoughts, but rather remains silent and moves on, trying to convince him that they should now go out to dinner. However, now Paul has arrived at a point that he wants Rachel to listen to him.

While it is questionable why they did not have this conversation earlier during their relationship, because as Rachel says she “doesn’t know anything” about him, it is clear that Rachel has the desire for novelty at this point in order to avoid the apparent monotony of their relationship in which they do not know much about the other person. Paul responds to Rachel’s request by writing down his thoughts, a method that Rachel can not relate to. It becomes clear that they are communicating on two different levels. They both have a need for attachment to the other person, but also want to keep their need for independence.
The clip ends with both of them being close to tears, realizing that they are very attached to each other besides different ways of communication. While the content of the scene displays the theory of relational dialectics in a fairly exaggerated way that tends to be over the top, it however explicitly shows that the communication is not straight-forward and the relationship does not follow an obvious linear paths.