Always a Bridesmaid - Essay Example

Always a Bridesmaid One of the most personal documentaries around, Always a Bridesmaid tells of the life experience of one who is unable to receive a marriage commitment from her boyfriend. While they are both very much in love with one another, she yearns to marry but the boyfriend is fearful of the idea. For women, the idea of becoming a spinster can cause a great deal of anxiety. In the film, Nina Davenport's immediacy of getting hitched to Nick is greatly felt. She virtually forces her boyfriend to marry and this desperateness is felt by Nick and becomes another one his concerns.

As she endeavours to make sense of her life, Davenport interviews elderly women who never married and her own mother who once was much sought after. Their stories provide the hilarious part as well as the drudgery in the film. The topic is all about marriage. The documentary is told from the filmmaker's point of view. Growing 30, she is terrified of ending up alone. Working as a wedding videographer, Nina confronts her fears, all the while asking why in the first place she has complicated her life with a noncommittal boyfriend who is five years younger.

She cross-examines love interests that died down, interrogates fidgeting brides, including her increasingly nervous boyfriend and gathers advice from many quarters. Coming to terms with her deeply conflicted feeling towards weddings, she feels greatly that she is meant for spinsterhood, but has a burning lust for the opposite sex. Seeing weddings now and then as a videographer only reminds her of this internal battle.This film may be analyzed using the theory of Relational Dialectics. The theory of Relational Dialectics is that of intimate communication taking place in close relationships.

Baxter and Montgomery developed this theory in the late 1980's and the early 1990's. The dialectical perspective is that the partners are constantly adjusting to the presence of oppositional, relational forces (Montgomery, 1993).There are many different aspects of this theory such as the push-me-pull-you dialectics of close relationships. This is basically the idea that the closer you become with someone the more problems or conflicts that will come about that can pull you apart. Baxter and Montgomery say, "Contradiction is the central concept of relational dialectics.

" Three more relational dialectics involved in this theory are: Connectedness-Separateness, Certainty-Uncertainty, and Openness-Closedness (Relational Dialectics, 2001). As explained by the proponents of the theory, the following are described as follows:Connectedness and Separateness. In a relationship there needs to be balance between connectedness and separateness. You need your space but at the same time you have the urge to want to spend time together and be with each other. If there is an imbalance in the relationship between connectedness and separateness the relationship will eventually suffer.

Certainty and Uncertainty. There needs to be an element of spontaneity in all relationships. If everything is strictly predictable the parties will lose interest. At the same time, however, there has to be some predictability, otherwise the amount of uncertainty in the relationship will threaten such relationship. Openness and Closedness. Self-disclosure and privacy operate in a cyclical manner throughout all relationships. This is necessary so that the other party feels like he or she is involved, at the same time making sure that there are as little uncertainties as possible.

On the other hand, should you self-disclose too much information too early, you run the risk of scaring the other person or giving him or her the feeling that you are smothering the other. As always, there needs to be some sort of balance.References. "Relational Dialectics." Interpersonal Context. Honors: Communication Capstone. Spring 2001 Theory Workbook. 7 Dec. 2006. .Griffin, Em. 1997. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.Montgomery, M. M., (1993).

"Relationship Maintenance versus Relationship Change: A Dialectical Dilemma." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10, 205-224.Appendix ALook into this. It would help your paper much. If you cannot open to the link, just Google for "Relational dialectics."http://www.uky.edu/drlane/capstone/interpersonal/reldial.htmHONORS: COMMUNICATION CAPSTONE SPRING 2001 THEORY WORKBOOK INTERPERSONAL CONTEXT Click Here to Go Back to Interpersonal Context Page Relational Dialectics Graphical Representation of the TheoryExplanation of Theory: Communication parties experience internal, conflicting pulls causing relationships to be in a constant state of flux, known as dialectical tension.

The pressures of these tensions occur in a wavelike or cyclical fashion over time. Relational Dialectics introduces the concept that the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart. Theorist: Baxter and Montgomery Date: 1988 Primary Article: Baxter, L.A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships, 257-273. Individual Interpretations: There are three primary relational dialectics: *Connectedness and Separateness Although it is only natural to desire a close and permanent bond in our interpersonal relationships, no relationship can endure unless the involved individuals spend some time alone.

Too much connection results in the loss of individual identity. *Certainty and Uncertainty Relational partners need predictability along with a sense of assurance in their interpersonal relationships. However, without the spice of variety that comes from novelty, mystery, and spontaneity in relationships (featuring too much predictability), they become bland and monotonous. *Openness and Closedness In an interpersonal relationship, communication partners feel the pressure to be transparent and reveal extensive personal information.

However, this pull counters a natural individual desire for privacy. This dynamic struggle demonstrates that intimacy in relationships is not a straight-line path. Metatheoretical Assumptions: Ontological Assumption: In this sense, the theory is extremely humanistic. Relational Dialectics believes that there are many truths, dependent on the individual nature of each relationship. Epistemological Assumption: The theory is also quite humanistic in the relationship between the research being done and the researcher.

What is researched is dependent on the observer. Axiological Assumption: I feel that Relational Dialectics is humanistic in the values sense as well. Research being done is value-laden and biased because each dialectic is an opinion which must be made by the individual researcher. Critique: Relational Dialectics if a humanistic theory based on the idea that people are responding to the pulls and tugs that surround them in a relationship. It presents a practical hypothesis, but because it is unique to the situation, it becomes difficult to make generalizations.

However, it does do an excellent job of explaning specific instances. Ideas and Implications: Relational Dialectics is useful to apply in situations when trying to explain dramatic or sudden changes in human communication behavior. The pressures each pole (or dialectic) exerts is comparable to the waxing and waning periods of the moon. Relational partners are constantly fluctuating between the poles; each extreme behavior offsetting tendencies toward the other pole. In studying an maintaining interpersonal relationships it is essential to understand this phenomenon.

Example: An applicable example to help illustrate Relational Dialectics involves two college students in a romantic relationship, Jill and Josh. *Connectedness and Separateness Jill and Josh are very close and Josh insists on spending all their free time together. Jill enjoys Josh's company very much, but sometimes she feels like she needs her own space and personal space. She tries to help Josh understand they can still be very close without being together every second of the day. *Certainty and Uncertainty Jill and Josh also need a little more excitement in their relationship.

Their activities with each other have become somewhat redundant, and they desire some spice in their relationship. They rarely go out anymore and when they do, they always participate in the same activities with the same people. * Openness and Closedness Jill has a very high level of self-disclosure with Josh which helps maintain a sense of openness in their relationship. Josh has progressively gotten less and less open with Jill about stories from his past, how his day was, and his feelings toward Jill.

This change confuses Jill and makes her feel less comfortable opening up. Relevant Research: Montgomery, B.M. & Baxter, L.A. (1998). Dialectical Approaches to Studying Personal Relationships. Baxter, L.A.& Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialects. In Hirokawa, R.Y. & Poole, M.S. (1996). Communication and Group Decision Making. Location in Eight (8) Primary Communication Theory Textbooks: Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St.

Martin's Press. N/A Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 215-218. Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 163-174. Griffin, E. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 179-191. Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

N/A Littlejohn, S. W. (1999). Theories of human communication (6th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. N/A West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2000). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. 164-177. Wood, J. T. (1997). Communication theories in action: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 206-212.