more tensions...

i found more tensions...
they're amazing...=)

Dialectical Tensions

Donna R. Palowski


One hundred sixty dialectical tensions emerged from the transcripts to provide data in answering research question two: Do the tensions identified by individuals fit within Baxter's typology of dialectical contradictions: autonomy-connection, prediction-novelty, openness-closedness, inclusion-seclusion, conventionality-uniqueness, and revelation-concealment? Analysis shows that all six dialectical tensions were identified in the data. Table Two identifies a breakdown of numbers and percentages. As indicated by the percentages, internal tensions were more prevalent than external tensions in descriptions of the relationships.

Autonomy-Connection

According to dialectic research, the tension of autonomy-connection is a primary tension in relationships (Baxter, 1990; Montgomery, 1993; Pawlowski, in press). From the great number of responses, this tension also appears primary in this study. Individuals described autonomy-connection in a variety of ways. Individuals characterized this tension as being a struggle, an internal conflict, and contentment. The following are examples from respondents:

It was like a drama of trying to decide if you want to spend the rest of your life with someone or not. It was challenging--he didn't want to give up his bachelor-hood and all his stuff.
We just decided to call it off about 3 weeks ago--We're not going cold turkey because we are still best friends. We're trying to do things together, but it's tough; I'm not the one who broke it off.
A sectioned orange--deciding to pull each piece apart and look at each one or take the orange as a whole and deal with it all at once.

These examples indicate that some individuals saw autonomy and connection in competition with each other or a problem that needed to be solved.
In the beginning stages of relationships, most individuals were satisfied to give up their own autonomy so as not to jeopardize the relationship itself:

It was me and you [sic] against the world--had an ally in everything. We couldn't do anything without each other. Very enmeshed. Spent all our time together.
I wanted to physically be near him. To put my arm around him and try to hold his hand. This comes from wanting to be close to him and developing a bond.

When describing the relationship as it develops over time, individuals seemed content with not having to be at each other's side. The partners felt comfortable searching for their independence once again:

We are still dependent and close, but we are settling down now. We can spend more time apart now.
You reach a comfort stage. You don't need to be with them all the time. You can have independence.
You're confident that you don't need immersion. You can be in the same room and not talk to each other and still be together.


Predictability-Novelty

Most dialectic research identifies autonomy-connection and openness-closedness as the two largest categories (Baxter, 1990; Montgomery, 1992; Werner & Baxter, 1994). Though in this study predictability-novelty was much larger than openness-closedness. Some individuals described "newness" during the initial stages of the relationship:

In the beginning, we did a lot of things that were just exciting. Fun things like white water rafting, something I never pictured myself doing.
When you thought of him, you became twitterpated.
Like a Valentine's Day party when you were kids and everyone brought their packages valentines. The little bags we all made were different and you tried to find the cutest one for the guy you really liked.
It's new, innocent, cutesy.

Other individuals expressed the need to bring some excitement back into the relationship. These individuals appeared to be lacking spontaneity in their relationships. In these instances, individuals saw the tension as problematic. This frustration is demonstrated with the following:

Sometimes I think he should give me a little present or a note or call me and say something sweet - but it's not going to happen. I know it's not going to happen&emdash;so why force it. I don't want anything forced.
So the relationship is on hold. It's like 'put everything on hold and we will deal with each other when we have time--later--not right now.' But the more I wait, the more hostile I get. So I feel pathetic. I really want someone to be romantic and attentive to my needs. I need some spark.

In addition, others felt comfortable with the amount of predictability and novelty in their relationships. These incidents seem to occur after the relationship had been established:

There are different emotions at the same time&emdash;like an umbrella or a cloud with many raindrop emotions that go with it. Happy raindrops--don't wake me in the morning raindrops. You become attuned to the emotions. I know what angry is--I know what to expect from my emotions when a relationship develops.
It's early summer now. Things are more relaxed and you really enjoy the give and take. Flowers are on occasion--but not as much as in the springtime. But it may be the little comments. It's more relaxed--more secure. Not as many quick changes in the weather pattern.

Finally, individuals demonstrated this tension through negative feelings. They did not see the novelty as fun, rather the surprise element in the relationship was destructive:

Then it was like dropping the bomb. She told me she lost the spark--there wasn't anything there. It was complete news to me. I mean a week before we had actually gone and looked at engagement rings.
It was like she went overboard in thinking bad things.

This particular incident shows how both poles of the tensions were operating in the same instance where the novelty created a negative result.
Predictability-novelty seems to be an important tension in relationships. It appears to be a prevalent tension occurring equally in all stages of relational development.


Openness-Closedness

In regard to openness/closedness, no pattern existed as to when either pole dominated in the relationship. Individuals indicated both self-disclosure and non-disclosure during the beginning of relationships:
Apprehension of saying the wrong thing--fear my feelings won't be reciprocated.
During dinner, he spilled his beans about everything--about all his old girlfriends. You'd ask him anything and he'd answer it. I thought how odd for him to disclose so much on the first date.
You want to know everything about them and they want to know everything about me. It's heavy emotional time--take off the masks--risk level is high.

As the relationship developed, conflict emerged as a force in the openness-closedness tensions. This conflict was internal or external, and was expressed as follows:

I will tend to avoid conflict. I will avoid it--but that's not healthy. One thing I've learned is that maybe I should just blow up and let it run its course.
You can get pissed off at him now. You know you'll still love him but you can tell him you're really really mad and you're still glad he's your partner--but you can say you're depressed because he yelled at you.

The apparent association between conflict and openness-closedness may have implications for those interested in relational conflict.
Finally, this tension was characterized by the comfort and ease of openness in the relationship. Such instances were described as follows:

Now, I feel comfortable--100% comfortable. We can talk about anything. He wouldn't think gross or anything--I like that--I can say how I feel. He knows I'm just venting--he knows what I'm thinking--I like that.
We have total honesty. The desire to make it work. We talk and work out our problems.

A great deal of research argues that the intimacy and self-disclosure are important to relationships (Hoppe & Ting-Toomey, 1994; VanLear, 1991). The importance of openness-closedness is also evident in this study as several individuals expressed deep emotions when struggling with this tension.


Inclusion-Seclusion

The inclusion-seclusion tension, which is the first of the external contradictions seemed to be broken down into three parts--dominant pole of inclusion, dominant pole of seclusion and an identification of both poles. When individuals talked of others being included in their activities, inclusion was both voluntary and involuntary. For example, instances occurred where individuals wanted or included others:

We created a history--we shared the same friends--the same experiences.
At Christmas time--I was ready to break up with him. My sister said "You're right, you need to focus more on you a little more and not so much on what he's doing." She said, "Make a list of reasons why you should and should not break up with him." I was mad and made a list of all the bad things and I was ready to break up with him. I practiced with my sister.

This appreciation of others was not always the case. One individual indicates instances where others were not invited:

Engagements are a pain--that's the time when you should decide if this is really right. Once you're engaged--everyone else is planning the wedding and asking "What else needs to be discussed?"
I felt like no one was listening to me. I kept hearing, "This is your day." But it was not my day&emdash;--t ended up being everyone else's day.

The dominant pole of inclusion is important in relationships as it may indicate the inclusion of others is not always by choice but more of an imposition by others.
In opposition, this tension was characterized as seclusion being dominant in the relationship. It may not be a struggle between inclusion, rather a purposeful decision not to include others:

This was our screw-up stage. My family wanted us to come to dinner and if we both didn't want to come we would say "He doesn't want to...--She doesn't want to...." We used each other for excuses--we were so dependent on each other we'd make excuses to our families.
Then you reach immersion&emdash;immerse yourself in the other person. All you see is each other&emdash;all you do is each other&emdash;you ignore everyone else.

Individuals use seclusion from others as a means of strengthening their own connection to each other.
Finally, inclusion-seclusion can encompass both poles within the relationship. This tension can be seen as a transition from one pole to another where the change is perceived as comfortable. These descriptions identify the shift between both poles of the tension:

I never went to Dad's by myself--we always went together to the house. Then when we settled down, I could go by myself to Dad's for a couple of hours and he could go play baseball.
That's when I think you are in a good relationship. When you move from being so close no one else could penetrate the circle, to expanding that circle to involve each other's friends--family--and become part of a bigger community.

Again the perception of comfort emerged which demonstrated the flexibility individuals in the relationship yield to each other. Not all individuals felt a comfort level, but a real struggle between the poles:

At first I thought he was a loser--hanging out with his fraternity friends. I was insecure--it was my first real relationship. We realized we had to stop partying and drinking. You have to distance yourself from your friends. We had a lot of friends. They wanted to pull us apart&emdash;they wanted us to date--but also wanted girls/boys night out. We'd meet at midnight. We could meet each other later--but not at 8:00--we had to be with our friends then.
It was a tug-of-war--a rubber band. Friends tugging one way--or we were tugging each other too.
Friends said, "No, you don't need him." We were pulled and stretched--tugging between friends--between us.


Conventionality-Uniqueness

Conventionality-Uniqueness was the smallest category identified. Most of this dialectic was manifested in terms of what is expected from society--what is considered traditional in the American culture.

My mom was really cool about the wedding. But everyone else wanted everything to be what they envisioned a wedding should be like. I thought "You know, let's just get married in the meadow outside."
I fully expected to be married by 25 and thinking about kids. The all-American boy. That's not even nine months away and I'm not even close now.

The expected norm for relational events was specified in these quotations. Even though individuals talked of the "ideal" tradition, conventionality was not always desired. Thus couples may conform to the ideals to satisfy others and not themselves.


Revelation-Concealment

The last tension is revelation-concealment. This tension was exemplified with examples of one pole or another and the struggle of both poles operating at the same time. Description of this tension appeared throughout relational development. The beginning of the relationship related more to revealment of the relationship itself.

We'd go to the movies together--but we were just friends. That's what we told people. We were adamant we were just friends.
I was dating another guy when we first began--but we began as friends. Then I had to tell the other guy about us and break it off with him.

As the relationship became more involved, individuals provided examples to show how they dealt with changes in the relationship. The development of a relationship is something people may want to share with others; however, these two examples show a contrast between revealment and concealment:

Then I ended up living with him. My whole family knew we were living together&emdash;but his parents didn't know.
He slipped the ring on my finger and we started calling people from the bar saying, "We're engaged!"

Relationship break-up seemed to be a revealing process. Dissatisfaction of the relationship was shared with others in hopes of redefining and rejuvenating the relationship:

The last six to eight months we've been coasting along--but going nowhere. We've talked to different people to help us--her parents--other people--ministers.

Another individual explains how revealment was used as a sense of finality for the relationship:

Then it ended and everyone knew it. It may not have totally ended--but it ended legally and we were no longer together.

In summary, individuals identified all six tensions. Scholars argue that autonomy-connection and openness-closedness are the primary strains within relationships (Baxter, 1988, 1990; Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; VanLear, 1991). However, in this study, primary tensions were autonomy-connection and predictability-novelty. Given this analysis, it is evident that all three internal contradictions need consideration in dialectic research.
It is also apparent that different poles of the tensions may be operating at different times of the relationship. For example, in early relationship stages, connection was greatly favored over autonomy, and novelty was more predominant than predictability. The openness/closedness tension appeared somewhat equal across the relationship development as individuals expressed both high degrees of openness and closedness in the beginning of their relationships.