LESLIE A. BAXTER AND WILLIAM W. WILMOT Wilmot is professor of interpersonal communica- George Levinger, "Implicit Theories of Relationship. William W. Wilmot . Theory and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction. ` Relationship theory: an historical development in psychology leading to a teleological. of a close relationship between the theoretical and the pragmatic in the social Wilmot Horton's social and economic theories have been treated as merely a.
Waitresses and managers hold this power currency through their knowledge of how to work within and run a restaurant which is a valuable skill to the customers who dine there. Additionally, the expertise of the waitresses is beneficial to the manager and ownership of the restaurant in that good service will likely bring more customers to eat there.
Hocker and Wilmot define three distinctive types of power, all of which can be seen through the Paules article: In other words, your power is granted to you based upon the position to which you are assigned or hold. The waitresses hold designated power in that their job is to attend to the customers while they dine at the restaurant.
Likewise, the customers at the restaurant have designated power in that they are the ones paying and tipping to be served. When the waitresses sign up for the most lucrative shifts or for the busiest stations or pre-bus their tables, their designated power as waitresses does not change, as they are still waitresses, but they do place themselves in a position with more opportunity for larger tips.
This type of power is characterized in a very Party A versus Party B type of scenario, where you either allow yourself to be manipulated or forced into a lower power position or you dominate the other party involved in the relationship. From the work of previous studies that Paules references early on, the waitresses attempt to manipulate the dynamics so that they might receive a higher tip which is characteristic of distributive power.
The article and situations described by Paules support the relational theory of power and are examples of relational power between the waitresses, their managers, and the customers which come to be attended to by these employees. This is demonstrated throughout the article, but specifically through the pre-dynamics which determine who gets what shift and where and by how the more experienced waitresses influence the newer waitresses in order to gain the advantage.
Once the customer arrives the waitress and the customer are both dependent on each other, which might go against the common assumption that customers hold all the power over waitresses. As discussed by Paules, waitresses can refuse to serve which is a power currency itself an individual who has tipped or treated them or their coworkers poorly in the past or did not tip at all, or at the very least provide poor service to them a very fluid way to execute their power.
Within each specific relationship a balance of power can more likely be achieved through communication. Applied specifically to the restaurant world, communication could occur between all of the players: In other words, we only have Self because we have Others who support that view. Our very definition of Self is cast within a broader framework of family, friends, lovers, work, and the broader culture.Projecting Confidence & Keeping Your Word - Relationship Theory
Paradigm II views of relationships are more common in collectivistic cultures. Gudykunst and Kim note that groups i. In contrast to individualistic cultures, collectivistic cultures have fewer in-groups but these in-groups have a strong influence on individual behavior across situations. Thus, these collectivistic views are more in line with Paradigm II views of relationships that emphasize the Other and give the relationship itself pre-eminent status.
It has been clearly demonstrated that females do value and monitor their relationships more than males. Therefore, males might note the "suffocating" or "constricting" nature of a particular relationship and complain about the possibilities of making independent choices, while females might argue for more relationship rejuvenation work per se because they are more likely to hold a Paradigm II view of relationships.
That is, females are more likely to treat the relationship as having a definable essence of its own that transcends the two individuals.
The theoretical perspective of dialectics is reflective of Paradigm II views of relationships. The dialectical approach to relationships stresses that phenomena that appear to be opposites are actually bound together, and that there is a dynamic interplay between such opposites Baxter People raised in individualistic cultures are often not sensitized to thinking in terms of the dialectics of opposites.
An individualistic cultural frame promotes the view that elements are opposite and not connected, rather than seeing the dialectical interrelation of opposites. A dialectical perspective emphasizes process and contradiction and lets us focus on the swings now close, now far that are present in all relationships.
Figure 2A illustrates how the dialectic perspective aids our understanding of these relational swings within a Paradigm II view of relationships. A male who notes the "suffocating" or "constricting" nature of a particular relationship and complains about the possibilities of making independent choices is illustrating the most frequently cited set of opposites in personal relationships, autonomy-connection or independenceinterdependence.
Relational Theories of Power by Maral Cavner
As noted above, males are more likely to hold a Paradigm I view of relationships and thus stress independence, while females are more likely to hold a Paradigm II view of relationships and thus stress interdependence. A dialectical perspective would allow both males and females to recognize the transcendent function of the relationship and recognize that natural fluctuations in autonomy-connection are normal, useful, and temporary processes.
Furthermore, Paradigm II views of relationships recognize that each individual has a stake in self-interests, the Other's interests, and the relationship as the interplay between the two. Understanding of Paradigm II views of relationships has been greatly aided by postmodern thinking. Postmodern writers challenge the notions of independence and individualism that dominate individualistic cultures and Paradigm I views of relationships. While Paradigm II views of relationships move us from emphasis on Self to recognition of Others in context of Relationship, these views of relationships are still bound in individualistic cultures by dualistic thinking.
Note that even Figure 2A, while moving away from dualistic thinking and incorporating dialectical thoughts, still clearly separates Self, Other, and Relationship.
Our understanding of relationships often suffers from FIGURE 2A the exactitude of our factual language, our ability to speak from only one point of view at a time, and limitations inherent in two-dimensional models of the process!
The introduction of Paradigm III views of relationships is our attempt to stretch theorizing about, and understanding of, relationships. Figure 3 illustrates the Paradigm III: In this view, the individual is not taken as a separate, sacred entity, but rather it challenges the very notion of an identifiable Self.
Proponents of this paradigm would view Self, Other, and relationships as so inextricably tied that talking about one entity would necessitate talking about the other two. That is, any change in Self necessarily changes Other and relationship. In other words we are constructed in our transactions with others.
Relational Theories of Power by Maral Cavner – Maral Cavner's Blog
We are not something that exists before contact with others, we "come-into-being" in our transactions. A view of relationships from the Paradigm III perspective suggests we cannot separate Self, Other, and relationships and that duality itself is an illusion. For many, it is difficult not to default to "I" language and concerns about self-satisfaction in relationships.
Paradigm III adherents recognize that relationship work and relationships are work! In a very real sense, we don't "do" relationships, they "do" us! Given that people with individualistic tendencies and Paradigm I views of relationships have trouble not defaulting to thinking in terms of Self and self-interests, and that people with collectivistic tendencies and Paradigm II views of relationships are still limited by their language and conceptions of a separate Self and Other, it is not surprising that researchers have yet to investigate any variations on Paradigm III views of relationships.
We conclude by examining the potential improvement in our understanding of communication in personal relationships when relationships are viewed from a Paradigm III perspective. An individual's lay or implicit theory of relationships, where ever it falls along the continuum from Paradigm I to Paradigm III, dramatically impacts the role communication plays in a relationship. Paradigm I adherents often talk about the Self as if it were a relationless entity, moving through time and space as an independent unit.
Paradigm II adherents, with a large focus on Other, still mentally conceive of separate Self and Other entities, albeit bound in the context of a relationship. We argue that a shift to Paradigm III views of relationships and a conceptualization of communication as a conjoint reality created by two people in relation to each other is advantageous in relationships. Even though we have an impoverished language of relatedness, a shift to Paradigm III views allows us to see the real power of communication and uncovers blind spots in our relational realities.