Critical Theorizing in Family Communication Studies: (Re)Reading Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0

Abstract

Despite modest growth in interpretive research, the study of family communication remains predominantly situated within postpositivism to the relative neglect of critical approaches. We argue that this inattention derives partly from the limited number of critically inflected family communication theories. In this article, we seek to encourage critical family communication theorizing. We do so by explicating the critical underpinnings of the recent rearticulation of relational dialectics theory, RDT version 2.0 (Baxter, 2011). We frame our (re)reading in terms of critical family communication considerations of power; connection of private familial spheres to larger public discourses and structures; and inherent openness to critique, resistance, and transformation of the status quo (Suter, 2016).

Relational Dialectics Theory: A New Approach for Military and Veteran‐Connected Family Research

“…Contrary to theories that view power as characteristic of individuals (e.g., family readiness group leaders have power over the members because of their position) and relationships (e.g., the commander and her wife are a powerful couple), the latest iteration of RDT places power in discourses, arguing that systems of meaning (re)construct and define social reality (Suter & Norwood, ). According to RDT, discourses (re)produced in relational talk are either centripetal or centrifugal.…”

“…A growing number of RDT‐informed scholars are focusing on nonnormative civilian family relationships and concerns such as adoptive families (Baxter, Norwood, Asbury, & Scharp, ; Norwood & Baxter, ) and queer motherhood (Suter, Seurer, Webb, Grewe, & Koenig Kellas, ), as well as the negotiation of transgender family member identities (Norwood, , ) and familial estrangement (Scharp & Thomas, ). These latter studies have centered their analyses on RDT's “critical underpinnings” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294) by exposing problematic cultural assumptions and master narratives, as well as “critiquing marginalization, by a wariness toward totalization and normalization, and by hope to open space for voices that are muted or dismissed” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294). RDT offers not only an avenue for identifying discourses present in family talk but also, more importantly, “a means for the critique of single‐voiced discourses constraining communication and family relationships, and also for theorizing resistance of these dominant discourses and calcified meanings” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 296).…”

“…These latter studies have centered their analyses on RDT's “critical underpinnings” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294) by exposing problematic cultural assumptions and master narratives, as well as “critiquing marginalization, by a wariness toward totalization and normalization, and by hope to open space for voices that are muted or dismissed” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 294). RDT offers not only an avenue for identifying discourses present in family talk but also, more importantly, “a means for the critique of single‐voiced discourses constraining communication and family relationships, and also for theorizing resistance of these dominant discourses and calcified meanings” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 296). Military and veteran‐connected researchers who arm themselves with RDT's theoretical tools will be able to point out how dominant discourses of military culture, for example, maintain their position in talk and produce oppressive outcomes for certain groups or voices as well as offer ways that these “regimes of truth” (Moore, ) are or can be resisted or remade.…”

“…The latest iteration of RDT (Baxter, ) serves as an apt social‐scientific theory for conducting critical research because it calls scholars to become attuned to the power of dominant discourses present in how partners talk to each other and about their relationships (Suter & Norwood, ). This attention to power is particularly relevant when studying family communication, as the discourse of the normative family structure (i.e., married, heterosexual husband‐and‐wife couples with biological children who cohabitate) is often privileged over nonnormative family types (Baxter, , ; Halliwell, ; Sahlstein Parcell, ; Suter & Norwood, ). We reiterate that this includes both nonnormative military families and normative military families, as all military families fall outside the traditional civilian family structure because of the demands of military life (Knobloch & Wehrman, ; Sahlstein Parcell, ).…”

“…One type of discourse that makes its way into relational talk is distal discourse, which focuses on “meanings that circulate in the larger culture that serve to define and discipline families” (Suter & Norwood, , p. 297). Previous RDT research has recognized how in the United States there are historically dominant discourses surrounding expectations for certain family structures and identities (e.g., “real” family are related biologically—Suter et al, ; families should reside together, and mothers should take care of the home and children—Bergen, , ).…”