Relational Dialectics Theory: Why Your Marriage Feels Like a Tug-of-War (and Why That’s a Good Thing)
Sunday, June 22, 2025
Imagine two people building a house together. One wants open windows and a cozy fire. The other wants triple-lock security and solar panels.
Neither is wrong. But the house starts to creak.
This is not a metaphor. This is Tuesday night in your kitchen.
And also: this is Relational Dialectics Theory. A mouthful, yes.
But a useful one—sorta like “emotional eczema,” or “family group text.”
Coined by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery way back in the late ’80s, Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) says this: every intimate relationship is a negotiation of tensions between opposing needs.
Not once. Not twice. But constantly.
Which means if your relationship feels like a tug-of-war between “I want closeness” and “I need some damn space,”congratulations: you're normal.
Although Relational Dialectics Theory officially entered the academic chat in the late 1980s, but the theory's DNA traces back to the 1960s—an era when Americans were splitting atoms, burning draft cards, and moving into open-marriages with closed-off feelings.
RDT is the lovechild of Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogism and the American cultural suspicion that maybe life isn’t a clean narrative arc, but rather a playground for personal re-invention.
The theory doesn’t buy into the fantasy that relationships are linear, predictable, or anything less than gloriously chaotic (Baxter, 2004).
It rose from the ashes of the postwar domestic fantasy: Father Knows Best, Mom smiles a lot, and no one talks about wanting to scream into a casserole.
Then came the 1970s, disco, Open Marriage, Nixon, and people realizing that their nuclear family felt more like fallout than fusion.
Long before Esther Perel wandered into that fray, and made us think these ideas were new, RDT arrived to say, “Yes, of course it’s a mess. And that mess is the entire point.”
The Core Tensions: The Eternal Marital Ping-Pong
Autonomy vs. Connection: You want space and a shared calendar. Welcome to hell.
Openness vs. Closedness: You want the truth, but not about that ex. Never about that ex.
Predictability vs. Novelty: Esther’s Perel’s favorite fetish. You crave routine, but not eternal meatloaf. You want surprises, but not in your tax refund.
These aren’t Puzzles to Solve. They’re weather systems you learn to live in (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998). Settle in. Bring a coat, snacks, and sometimes an umbrella.
An American Contradiction
Here in the U.S., we like to believe we invented romance—and also the personal brand. We tell ourselves we should be both soulmates and sovereign nations. Our national anthem is basically: "I Did It My Way... With You Holding My Hand."
RDT called that bluff.
It says: of course you want closeness and freedom.
Of course you want predictability and excitement.
These aren’t signs your relationship is broken. They’re signs you’re both still showing up, human and hungry for contradiction.
RDT calls that bluff.
How the Dialectics Show Up in Different Sorts of Couples
Neurodiverse Couples
One partner wants connection but needs to stim alone in a dark room for 90 minutes. The other interprets that as ghosting. Neither is wrong.
In ND-NT relationships, tension isn't about incompatibility. It's about different operating systems. The fix isn’t reprogramming. It’s learning to translate.
Grace Myhill (2020) notes that asynchronous expression—journaling, texting, diagrams—often outperforms face-to-face discussion. Novelty, for neurodivergent folks, is best served on schedule. Like surprise sushi on the third Thursday of every month.
Long-Distance Couples
You love each other, but you’re also grateful for the timezone buffer. Intimacy is ritualized. Spontaneity is manufactured. Connection happens through apps designed for teenagers.
Sahlstein (2006) found that these couples live dialectics in high relief: distance intensifies both longing and fatigue. The healthiest LDRs don’t fight that paradox. They name it and work it like jazz musicians with patchy Wi-Fi.
High-Conflict Couples
These two don't dance the dialectic. They sword-fight with it. Every tension is a duel:
Autonomy: "You always leave."
Connection: "You never let me breathe."
Openness: "You’re sneaky. You hide things."
Closedness: "You overshare."
RDT doesn’t promise peace. But it does offer a scalpel: the ability to name the contradiction before it names you. (Baxter, 2004)
A Long, Loving Critique (or: The Problem with Beautiful Chaos)
Here’s the problem. RDT is gorgeous in theory.
But In practice, it can feel like a couples therapist handing you a weather map during a hurricane and shouting, "Look, the wind!"
Not every couple wants to spend date night "sitting with the tension."
Some want a damn punchlist. RDT refuses to provide that.
And sometimes that refusal feels too academic, too American, too allergic to resolution.
In other cultures where interdependence is the norm, dialectical contradiction might feel less like nuance and more like indulgence.
Not everyone has time to ponder whether their emotional needs are in healthy tension. Some are busy making the mortgage and scrambling for childcare, bless your heart.
Still, RDT does something rare: it lets you live in the murky middle without shame.
It validates the awkwardness, the contradiction, the days when love feels like both a warm bath and a cold interrogation.
Why This Theory Matters
Relational Dialectics Theory doesn’t offer closure. It recommends a practice of ambient curiosity.
It doesn’t promise harmony. It promises reliably ongoing meaningful discomfort.
In a world that keeps asking couples to be more certain, more compatible, more neatly Instagrammable, RDT says: what if your contradictions are the most intimate thing you have?
Have you read this far?
Bless you, gentle reader! If you drop me a line, I’ll send you my free workbook: “We: Mapping the Tensions That Make Us”
What it is:
A guided, printable companion to this blog post: Relational Dialectics Theory: Why Your Marriage Feels Like a Tug-of-War (and Why That’s a Good Thing). Designed for couples who want more than phoned-in Instagram advice—and who are brave enough to squat happily in a mudbath of interlocking, mutual contradictions.
Who it's for:
ND/NT Couples seeking clarity without blame
Long-Distance Couples craving connection without over-scripting
High-Conflict Couples looking to name patterns without shame
Anyone in love and confused (so… everyone)
What’s inside:
Tension Mapping exercise for the three core dialectics
Couple Type Inventory with prompts tailored to your dynamic
“We Statements” to build shared language (with a touch of humor)
Custom Dialectical Playlist builder
A final love letter to “The Future Us”—because tension can still be tender
Because we don’t fix the mess.
We name it. Together.
Be Well, Stay Calm, and Godspeed.
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., & Montgomery, B. M. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257–273). John Wiley & Sons.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.
Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In B. M. Montgomery & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 1–15). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Müller, E., Schuler, A., & Yates, G. B. (2008). Social challenges and supports from the perspective of individuals with Asperger syndrome and other autism spectrum disabilities. Autism, 12(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307086664
Myhill, G. (2020). Working with neurodiverse couples in therapy. The Asperger/Autism Network (AANE).
Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans and making do: Examining the dialectical tensions of long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506065985
Sahlstein, E. M., & Dun, T. (2007). "I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time": Constructing autonomy–connection through boundary work. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 8(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459430701617808