1

Relational Dialectics Theory:

A Deeper Understanding of Adoption Narratives

Courtney Gunter

Wheaton College

COMM-301: Communication Theory

Dr. Langan

September 30, 2020

 2

Relational Dialectics Theory:

A Deeping Understanding of Adoption Narratives

The world is a complex place, full of confusing people with messy relationships.

Relational tension, hurt, or misunderstanding is inevitable. So, it is important to know how to

navigate these complexities well and with understanding. Leslie Baxter, a communication

scholar and teacher, offers an explanation of the messiness seen in relationships through her

Relational Dialectics Theory. The Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) of Leslie Baxter looks at

the ways in which relationships are created by competing discourses, and an exploration of

RDT’s concepts can provide understanding into the competing discourses found in adoption

narratives.

The central claim of RDT by Baxter is that meaning is created from competing discourses

in relationships. It is a theory of “how the meaning surrounding individual and relationship

identities are constructed through language use” (Baxter, 2011, p. 2). When we speak, we are

invoking discourses, either consciously or subconsciously.. Baxter and Braithwaite (2008) define

a discourse as “a cultural system of meaning that circulates among a group’s members and which

makes our talk sensical” (p. 349). However, these discourses are not expressed equally; they

incessantly struggle and compete with each other for dominance. Baxter (2011) claims that these

tensions are both necessary and inevitable for interpersonal relationships. In other words, they

create meaning.

Baxter draws upon ideas from Russian scholar Mikhail Bakhtin and his work on the

concept of “dialogue” in order to inform her theory. Baxter’s development of relational dialectics

was impacted by Bakhtin’s five conceptions of dialogue: constitutive process, dialectical flux,

aesthetic moment, utterance, and critical sensibility. First, Baxter believes that dialogue is a
 3

constitutive process (Baxter, 2004). A constitutive view of communication claims that

communication constructs the social world, including interpersonal relationships. RDT takes this

idea and furthers it: the tension of differences in discourses is “the mechanism by which such

construction [of the social world] takes place” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008, p. 355). Bakhtin’s

second concept of dialogue is that dialogue is a dialectical flux. Relationships are perpetually

changing; they are composed of contradictory emotions and expressions (Baxter, 2004). Third,

Baxter draws upon the idea of an aesthetic moment in dialogue. These aesthetic moments “create

momentary consummation, completion, or wholeness in what is otherwise a messy and

fragmented life experience” (Baxter, 2004, p. 12). They are moments of unity in the midst of

competing discourses. Fourth, Bakhtin discusses the idea of dialogue as an utterance. Discourses

do not exist in isolation. They are part of a larger chain of communication, including words

already spoken and words not yet spoken (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). A single

“utterance can be viewed as a link in a chain, a link bounded by both the preceding links and the

links that follow” (Baxter, 2004, p.14). More simply put, what two people say in the moment is

only part of the overarching story (Griffin et al., 2019). Lastly, Baxter was impacted by

Bakhtin’s fifth conception of dialogue as a critical sensibility. In other words, “dialogue is the

obligation to critique dominant voices” (Baxter, 2004, p. 16). Discourses do not exist in equal

power, and dialogue must seek to critique the dominant discourses. Each of these five

conceptions of dialogue influenced Baxter’s theory of relational dialectics and provide context

for her ideas of discursive struggles.

According to RDT, discourses exist in tension with each other, but do not have equal

influence on the social world. These tensions, also known as discursive struggles, are crucial to

the understanding of RDT. Two or more discourses struggle for dominance in meaning. Some
 4

discourses have power, while others do not. Centripetal discourses are centralized and standard,

occupying a position at the center. Contrastingly, centrifugal discourses occupy the margins

(Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These terms hold

significance for recognizing what stories are marginalized and silenced (Baxter, 2011). Baxter

and Braithwaite (2008) tell how, although centrifugal discourses are “removed from the

authoritative center, [they] are never completely eradicated” (p. 353). Centripetal and centrifugal

discourses exist simultaneously in tension, constantly in flux. With that in mind, centripetal

discourses occupy a position of privilege and power “because their systems of meaning are

centered or legitimated as social reality” (Baxter, 2011, p. 124). Oppositely, centrifugal

discourses are commonly seen as deviate from the standard. Differing discourses are perpetually

in competition with one another, and it is necessary to identify which ones occupy the central

position.

RDT provides practical insight into various types of interpersonal and familial

relationships. Families are a complex concept. According to RDT, communication constructs the

social world and reality of family. Families are created by tensions in discourse. More

specifically, “the dialogic move is one of recognizing that family life is a both/and experience—

families gain their meanings from the give-and-take interplay of multiple, competing themes of

perspectives. …No theme or perspective is better or worse than its opposites—their interplay is

what is important” (Baxter, 2006, p.131). For example, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) describe

how healthy families are those that are characterized by the common tension of navigating

individuation and connectedness of the family members. The tensions between competing

discourses are an important part of the family experience. Moreover, RDT offers a deeper

understanding into adoptive families by showing how adoption narratives by challenge dominant
 5

discourses, provide alternate options, and further the conversation of what constitutes a family.

Harrigan (2009) tells how adoptive families may be even more reliant on social interactions to

create their identity and establish a familial connection. In other words, according to RDT,

discursive tensions may be even more unavoidable and necessary for families created through

the adoption process.

All narrative stories, including those of adoption, have the potential to exist in a

discursive struggle “because of its capacity to place several viewpoints in play simultaneously”

(Baxter, 2011, p. 143). Adoption narratives fight the pervasive discourse that adoption is a

second-best alternative to a biological family (Baxter et al., 2014; Baxter et al., 2015; Thomas

and Scharp, 2017). The narrative that “biological families are best” dominates modern-day

culture in the United States. Around 2.4% of contemporary families in the United States are

created through adoption, and although adoption in the United States is not a veiled secret like it

was even a few decades ago, research shows that many Americans still believe that biological

parents should raise their own children (Baxter at al., 2014). Additionally, there is an increasing

number of “visibly adoptive families,” or those in which members’ physical racial characteristics

show evidence that there are no biological ties to each other” (Harrigan, 2009). These adoptive

families are impacted by the dominating discourse that their family is second-best. Thomas and

Scharp (2017) claim that the dominant discourse that says biological relationships should be

protected even when it is not practical, realistic, or safe for the child “speaks to a need to attune

to the effect that ideologies of family have on understanding who is, and who is not, allowed to

be family, at what times, and in which contexts” (p. 47). Clearly, adoption narrative must

struggle against louder narratives that prioritize biological families.

The discourse of biological family is a valid narrative, but it becomes problematic when
 6

it dominates others. The biological family, as a centripetal discourse, “is easily legitimated as

normative, typical, and natural, and thus it functions as a baseline against which all else is

somehow positioned as a deviation” (Baxter, 2011, p. 123). With that in mind, the adoption

narrative, as the centrifugal discourse in the margin, is seen as “nonnormative, off-center,

unnatural, and somehow deviant” (Baxter, 2011, p. 123). Adoption narratives must fight against

the common narrative that biological families are the preemptive option for family life.

RDT highlights how various adoption narratives have emerged to provide alternate

options to the common discourse that adoption is second-best. Narratives help make sense of

life; they are used to create legitimacy. Numerous studies of adoption have shown a variety of

discourses that have surfaced as a response to the discourse of biological family relationships. To

begin with, the entrance story is an example of an adoption narrative that seeks to establish the

legitimacy of adoption (Baxter et al., 2014). Entrance stories tell how the family and child come

to be a family. These stories are commonly marked by a discourse of adoption as a valuable

alternative to pregnancy (Baxter et al., 2014). This discourse does not deny the legitimacy of

pregnancy, but marks its limitations. It pushes back against the narrative that biological

pregnancy is always the most viable option. Next, scholars identify the discourse that “familiar is

forever.” This discourse focuses on the permanent nature of family, regardless of biology. It

struggles against the discourse of biological relationships (Thomas & Scharp, 2017). Lastly,

Baxter et al. (2014) find evidence for the discourse that constructs family as communal kinning:

“recognition that, in adoption, it takes a village of both biologically and nonbiologically related

persons to get and raise a child” (p. 264). Adoption and family are both inherently communal.

Notably, this discourse combines multiple other discourses, ones that emphasizes biological

relations and ones that fights against the dominant discourse. Baxter (2011) refers to this mixing
 7

of discourses as hybridization, “a process of mixing two or more distinct discourses to create a

new meaning” (p. 139). This discourse is unique, but it is influenced by two competing

discourses. The interplay surrounding discourses relating to adoption underscore the complexity

of family relationships.

These alternative options do not exist in isolation, however, but are part of a larger utterance

chain. Utterances exist in the context of what has already been spoken and what is yet to be

spoken (Baxter, 2011; Thomas & Scharp, 2017). For instance, entrance stories of adoption

narratives, including background information of adoptive parents, are a response to the prior

utterance that adoption is second-best to biological families (Baxter et al., 2014). They are also a

part of the chain of the not-yet-spokens of future words. The adoption narratives, with the

notable exception of adoption as communal kinning, respond to the dominant biological

discourse by negating and countering. Negating and countering are both methods of disclaiming,

rejecting a discourse or proclaiming it irrelevant (Baxter, 2011). These methods provide a way to

reframe the struggle of adoption by constructing an alternate narrative in order to create

legitimacy (Baxter, 2014; Thomas and Scharp, 2017). Each of these “narratives underscore the

complexity of dialogic interplay in constructing the meaning of adoption” (Baxter et al., 2014, p.

265). They often employ several discourses in order to resist the dominant one. Adoption

narratives exist in conversation with past and future utterances; they respond to, push back

against, and work with existing discourses.

Leslie Baxter’s Relational Dialects Theory provides an explanation for the ways in which

discursive tensions in relationships create meaning. These tensions are unavoidable yet beneficial

in the relational process. Various concepts from her theory, including dialogue, utterance chains,

and centripetal-centrifugal tensions, provide insight into real-world relationships and narratives,
 8

such as those surrounding adoption. Adoption narratives commonly push back against the

dominant narrative that biological families are preeminent by responding to already spoken

narratives, providing alternate options, and anticipating future responses. As seen through the

lens of adoption narratives, RDT underscores the reality that relationships are complex, and

narratives can become muddled. The messiness of relationships is unavoidable, but the resulting

tensions can lead to deeper relationship.

 9

References

Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x

Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relational dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family

communication. Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives, 130-

145.

Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: a dialogic perspective. Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O (Ed.). (2008). Engaging Theories in Interpersonal

Communication: Multiple Perspectives. (n.d.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Baxter, L. A, & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.

Baxter, L. A., Norwood, K. M., Asbury, B., & Scharp, K. M. (2014). Narrating adoption:

Resisting adoption as “second best” in online stories of domestic adoption told by

adoptive parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14(3), 253–269. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.wheaton.edu/10.1080/15267431.2014.908199

Baxter, L. A., Suter, E. A., Thomas, L. J., & Seurer, L. M. (2015). The dialogic construction of

“adoption” in online foster adoption narratives. Journal of Family Communication, 15(3),

193–213. https://doi-org.ezproxy.wheaton.edu/10.1080/15267431.2015.104343

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). A first look at communication theory (Tenth

edition.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Harrigan, M. M. (2009). The contradictions of identity-work for parents of visibly adopted

children. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(5), 634–658.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509353393

Thomas, L. J., & Scharp, K. M. (2017). “A family for every child”: Discursive constructions of
 10

“ideal” adoptive families in online foster adoption photolistings that promote adoption of

children from foster care. Adoption Quarterly, 20(1), 44–64.