Dialectical Theory in Communication

Dialectical theory is commonly used in studies on communication, which focus on dialectical contradictions (Baxter & Montgomery 1996). Dialectical contradictions are defined as ‘the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions’ (Baxter & Montgomery 1996, p. 8). Unified oppositions are ‘two or more themes or forces that are interdependent with one another at the same time that they function to negate and

oppose one another’ (Baxter & Montgomery 1996, p. 548). This simultaneous ‘both– and’ dynamic produces an ongoing dialectical tension or interplay between opposites. To dialectical theorists, dialectical tensions keep the relating process vibrant and alive as parties navigate the unity of opposites in an ongoing manner. Therefore, contradictions are not a sign of trouble for a relationship, but are inherent in the process of relating.

According to Erbert (2000) and Putnam, Fairhurst and Banghart (2016), a conflict can be a dialectical or nondialectical contradiction. To consider a contradiction dialectical, a conflict needs to be based on a constant push–pull between its oppositions because it does not have a clear-cut boundary between oppositions such that they can be compatible with each other (Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart 2016). That dynamic interplay of oppositions becomes a source of energy (Bakhtin 1981) for an ongoing change process in which oppositions are mutually implicative and coproductive (Mumby 2005).

A nondialectical conflict in organisations can have two opposite poles, such as micro–macro or action–structure (Janssens & Steyaert 1999), but their relationships are not necessarily incompatible if they have clear-cut boundaries so that they are not mutually exclusive or opposite (Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart 2016). A dilemma in making a choice over scare resources is another example of nondialectical conflict because it is typically a one-shot encounter rather than an ongoing contradiction (Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart 2016). The encounter will end when the actor weighs pros and cons and makes trade-offs (Erbert 2000; Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart 2016).

In the current literature, dialectical theory is commonly used in communication to help explain how people manage oppositions in various life contexts (Erbert 2014). Three major types of contradictions in interpersonal relationships have been found. They are the dialectic of integration–separation, of expression–no expression and of stability–change prevalent in most studies (Baxter 1993; Baxter & Montgomery 1996; Lusk 2008; Werner & Baxter 1994).

The dialectic of integration–separation represents the union of two distinct individuals, such as marriages. Both oppositions of integration and separation are

required to maintain the relationship. Without integration, there is no relationship. Simultaneously, without separate individuals, there is nothing to integrate. The dialectic of expression–nonexpression refers to the ongoing negotiation of revelation and concealment between two partners in their relationship. Openness is necessary to maintain the relationship while it can hurt each party, thus leading to their concealment to protect the relationship. The dialectic of stability and change represents the parties’ need of certainty and consistency in opposition to wanting excitement and surprises. The stability opposition is required for their relationship constancy whereas the change keeps the relationship alive with creativity. The dialectic of integration–separation is a contradiction that represents the simultaneous needs to be independent and dependent. Stability and change involves the simultaneous needs for certainty and order versus novelty and change (Conville 1991).

According to (Baxter 1990), there are four basic types of partners’ responses to a dialectical contradiction in their relationship. They are selection, separation, neutralisation and reframing. Within a selection response, the parties in the relationship are aware of the co-existence of both oppositions but select one opposition which then dominates the other (Baxter 1990).

Under the separation style, each opposition is separated to be dominant temporarily for topicality. Temporary separation is a cyclic alternation between two oppositions in autonomy from one point in time to another, and topical separation is the separation of domains into those for which one opposition is dominant and those for which the other is dominant (Baxter 1990). Therefore, the separation response is not as extreme as the selection style in which the dominance of one opposition is determined once or for the whole domain of activities. However, the division of two oppositions under the separation response denies the interdependence between the two.

In the neutralisation response, a portion of each opposition is sacrificed to compromise their contradiction (Baxter 1990). Hence, each opposition is enacted in its full intensity at some time or in some domain under the separation response, while the intensity of both oppositions is diluted under the neutralisation response. However, the neutralisation response is similar to the separation response in

perceiving the presence of both oppositions but denying their interdependence. Baxter (1990) found two types of neutralisation responses—moderation and disqualification. Whereas the moderation neutralisation is undertaken with explicit evidence (e.g., a small talk), the disqualification neutralisation is handled indirectly, ambiguously or ‘off the record’ (Baxter 1990, p. 73).

Reframing a response is completely different from the first three types in the way that appreciates the interdependence between two oppositions. It is undertaken by transforming the perception of both oppositions along different dimensions of meaning such that the two oppositions are no longer contrasts (Baxter 1990).

Whereas those studies contributed to the classification of responses, they have not yet identified the factors determining the choice of response to a dialectical contradiction. Peng and Nisbett (1999) partly bridged that gap by studying the impact of culture factor on dealing with contradiction. Five empirical studies were conducted with both White American and Chinese participants. They were asked to classify proverbs as dialectical or nondialectical and offer solutions for contradictions in various topics. Peng and Nisbett (1999) found that Westerners and Easterners differed in terms of their responses to a conflict. When two apparently contradictory propositions were presented, Westerners polarised their views and Easterners were moderately accepting of both propositions (Peng & Nisbett 1999).

A dialectical approach may enable Eastern people to tolerate and even appreciate contradiction, consequently maintaining a view of the big picture (Peng & Nisbett 1999). It is also known as the holistic approach in which people would not ‘regard a social conflict as a contradiction’, and thus would be ‘less likely to take sides in a conflict’ (Peng & Nisbett 1999, p. 746).

However, Peng and Nisbett (1999) believed that Easterners with a dialectical approach may accept both contradictional viewpoints even though there is evidence supporting that one of these views is inferior. This trend is named naïve dialecticism that was suspected of being more common than a holistic approach among the Chinese (Peng & Nisbett 1999, p. 746). Several reasons can explain the claim. Chinese philosophy is more likely to assume that ‘there can be some truth to both of two opposing propositions and hence implies that no side should win in a debate’

(Peng & Nisbett 1999, p. 747). Chinese culture emphasises harmony rather than debate, which is represented by the lack of proper forums or institutions for debate (Peng & Nisbett 1999).

Although conflicts are mentioned pervasively in the organisational research (Putnam,

Fairhurst & Banghart 2016), few studies in dialectical contradictions have examined organisational conflicts (Erbert 2000, 2014). Tracy (2004) believed that the dialectical theory designed to explain contradictions in interpersonal relationships could be helpful to apply as a conceptual framework to enlighten reactions to contradictions in organisational interaction. Developing the studies of Baxter, a leading scholar of dialectical theory in personal relationship, Tracy (2004) analysed and theorised employee reactions to organisational contradictions in two correctional institutions. According to her, employees can react to contradictions in various ways depending on how they can frame the contradictions. Adopting the literature of dialectical theory in communication, Tracy (2004) identified three different ways of framing a contradiction. In particular, a contradiction can be framed as simple contradictions, complementary dialectics and pragmatic paradoxes or double binds (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Different responses to a contradiction

Frame Response Strength/weakness/consequence

Simple contradiction

Selection Ignore half of responsibilities Target, temporal or topic

vacillation

Inconsistent or haphazard

Source splitting Usually impossible and pressure Complementary dialectics Creative rule-following techniques Attending to multiple organisational expectation Layering and balancing of

goals Pragmatic

paradoxes or double binds

Withdrawal Avoid the confrontation

Source: Tracy (2004)

She explored the different responses corresponding with each frame of contradiction. Organisational members frame a contradiction as a simple contradiction based on the

assumption that they cannot perform two actions at once, but can alternate or choose one. Hence, they can respond to the contradiction by selecting one opposition dominant over the other. Selection is problematic because they ignore half of their responsibilities by just attending to one opposition of organisational contradiction, and essentially do not perform their job.

Alternatively, organisation members can also respond to the contradiction by separating the two oppositions of the contradiction and flexibly switching between opposing organisational norms depending on the time, person with whom they are working or the topic/context. Those responses are named target, temporal and topic vacillation. The target or topic vacillation is the reaction in which members topically segment varying activities to correspond with the two different poles. The temporal vacillation is the reaction in which the organisational members move back and forth between two oppositions, simply alternating the attention paid to them. According to Tracy (2004), all types of vacillation have problematic repercussions because it can cause inconsistent or haphazard behaviours by the organisational member.

Source splitting can be the other type of response by organisational members when they frame it as a simple contradiction. The source-splitting response in Tracy’s (2004) study is the reactions by different officers in which they consistently play ‘good cop’ or ‘bad cop’ in different domains. Although this reaction presents consistency in the organisational member’s behaviour, it is more likely impossible because officers usually work independently.

To avoid that weakness, the employees can frame a contradiction as a complementary dialectic by reframing the elements of the contradiction so that the two contrasts are no longer regarded as opposites. In that way, organisational members understand a contradiction as interrelated and nonmutually exclusive, viewing one pole of an organisational contradiction as a means for achieving the other pole. As the result, multiple organisational expectations can be attended by creative rule-following techniques or layering and balancing of goals. Framing a contradiction as complementary dialectic, therefore, has been found to be correlated with higher satisfaction than other ways of managing contradictions.

Some contradictions may be more difficult to reframe than others, such as a situation wherein a primary and a secondary injunction are present, as found by Tracy (2004). In that situation, the officers also cannot exit the contradiction by any reaction of selection, vacillation or source splitting. Hence, the contradiction is considered a pragmatic paradox or double bind in which two oppositions countermand each other or conflict directly with one another. Tracy (2004) found that organisational members reacted to that contradiction by withdrawing (e.g., ignoring the rules) to avoid confrontation.

In summary, Tracy (2004) provides a model with a wide range of different responses to these contradictions of organisational members. Most of these responses were developed from the research on communication by Baxter and colleagues to help explain how people manage opposition and contradictions in various life contexts. According to Baxter (1990), selection, separation, neutralisation and reframing are four common techniques to manage dialectical contradictions. Three of them were found by Tracy (2004), excluding neutralisation. This is evidence that the dialectical theory in communication can be applied in understanding communication within the organisational context. This belief is strengthened by Erbert (2014).

Erbert (2014) conducted research to decide whether the dialectical theory is a feasible framework for understanding organisational conflict within an organisation. Adopting the propositions in communication developed by Baxter and her colleagues, Erbert (2014) first examined the perceived importance of five dialectical contradictions in organisations: independence versus separation, stability and change, openness and closeness, judgement versus acceptance and ideal versus real. The first three are similar to the dialectic of integration–separation, of expression– nonexpression and of stability–change, which were common in dialectical communication as aforementioned. Judgement versus acceptance represents the contradiction about the acceptance of work experience and being evaluated or judged (Erbert 2014, p. 142). Ideal versus real refer to the concurrent desires of ‘doing it right’ versus ‘just getting by’ (Erbert 2014, p. 142). Within those contradictions, the social actors struggle with ‘if, when and how to communicate in organizational life’ (Erbert 2014, p. 142).

The study asked 40 organisational employees in-depth questions for over one year to rate the importance of those five contradictions for each conflict episode. The participants were also asked to determine whether those contradictions are dialectical in each conflict episode. Erbert (2014) found that all the five contradictions were perceived moderately important to organisations. In addition, 49% of the conflicts in the test were considered dialectical.

Thus, Erbert (2014) and Tracy (2004) together have implied that the dialectical theory is a viable framework for understanding the ongoing contradictions within organisations. However, the research does not mention how the dialectical theory is applied for understanding the way in which an organisation acts in communication within its society, although firms are considered dialectical beings within their environment as discussed in Section 3.2. The next section discusses communication between organisations from a dialectical view, in terms of loan loss recognition.