Blog post #3

 1) Relational dialectics theory proposes several different tensions that may influence any given relationship. These tensions can be both culturally and gender specific. Also, these tensions can either be internal or external. Internal tensions are, "discursive struggles played out within a relationship," while external tensions are, "discursive struggles played out between a couple and their community (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2019, pg. 134). One tension that specifically caught my eye was the stability-change tension because I feel like I can relate to it on a personal level, and it is very culturally specific. According to our textbook stability-change is, "a set of discursive struggles regarding routine versus spontaneity (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 136)." This tension is internally culturally specific in regards to certainty-uncertainty. For example, within our society, certainty is heavily emphasized in that most of us abide by a strict daily routine. Generally speaking, we wake up, brush our teeth, eat a quick breakfast, head to work, come home and eat dinner, relax for an hour or two, and then head to bed. Being obedient and sticking to a strict daily routine is culturally rewarding in that it allows us to accomplish certain tasks and it gives us a sense of stability. Usually, most married couples coordinate some sort of daily routine. Sometimes, within any given marriage, each partners' daily routines' clash, which is why this example could be considered an internal tension. However, uncertainty can also be culturally specific. For example, society encourages most couples to incorporate spontaneity within their relationship, otherwise, the relationship will become bland and stagnant. Incorporating uncertainty within relationships can be healthy in order to "spice things up." However, too much uncertainty within a relationship can lead to feeling distant from each other, which would eventually cause internal tension. The external version of certainty-uncertainty is conventionality-uniqueness. Personally, I can relate to the conventionality-uniqueness external tension. For example, in the past, my girlfriend and I have compared the quality of our relationship to others. We have evaluated what we consider as "healthy" aspects of our relationship to others, in order to gauge how we are similar and unique compared to other couples. Because my girlfriend and I have compared our relationship to others, this would be considered a culturally specific external tension because we are comparing aspects of our relationship to that of others within our community. Below I have attached a link to an article that further breaks down relational dialectics.

Link to article: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/interpersonalcommunicationxmaster/chapter/relational-dialectics/

3) People become co-owners of information through different means. There are essentially two routs to becoming a co-owner of private information. One can either have the the private information willingly told to them by the original owner of the information, or one can take it upon themselves to seek out the private information (Griffin et al., 2019, pgs 149 and 150). Recipients who seek out the private information are known as deliberate confidants and individuals who are co-owners of private information who do not seek it nor want it are known as reluctant confidants (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 151). Deliberate confidants sometimes seek out the information in order to help others out, but sometimes, they are simply busybodies who like to know other peoples business (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 151). On the other hand, reluctant confidants do not want the disclosure, do not expect it, and find the confidential information to be a burden. For both deliberate and reluctant confidants, there is a felt level of responsibility on what to do with/how to deal with the confidential information that they received. According to our textbook, "co-owners of private information need to negotiate mutually agreeable privacy rules about telling others (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 150)." Once the confidential information is disclosed, a mutual privacy boundary must be established in order for co-owners to understand what they are allowed to do with the information. According to Sandra Petronio, boundary ownership and ones felt level of responsibility is dependent on how the recipient found the private information in the first place (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 151). For example, a doctor would be considered a deliberate confidant because they seek private health information from their patients. A doctor would have to assure the patient of their privacy policy, which would extremely limit their right to disclose the information to others. By assuring the patient of their privacy policy, a mutual privacy boundary and a felt level of responsibility would be established. On the other hand, when a reluctant confidant is told private information against their will, there is not a strong obligation to follow the privacy guidelines of the disclosure (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 151). However, if a reluctant confidant discovers confidential information by overhearing a private conversation, or by stumbling upon a personal note, there is a high level of felt-responsibility to keep that information private. Gaining confidential information is closely related to the openness-closedness internal tension of relational dialectics theory. For example, being open and sharing confidential information with others can lead to internal tensions within any given relationship as there is a potential for the receiver of the information to break the mutual privacy boundary, and disclose the information with other people. Gaining confidential information is related to the revelation-concealment external tension of relational dialectics theory in that the receiver of the private information faces choices about what information to conceal and reveal to third parties (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 137). 

4) Online privacy can be managed in several different ways. For example, various social media platforms allow users to set their profile to "private," which only allows people who follow them to view and interact with the content that they post. One can install anti-virus software on their computers, smartphones, and tablets in order to prevent confidential information from being stolen from the hard drive. Anti-virus software can help prevent identity theft, stolen credit card information, hackers, etc...Also, one could manage their privacy online by clearing their search history after using the internet. This would protect one from hackers trying to target their personal interests. Whenever there is a new update to be installed on your smartphone, tablet, or computer, it is generally a good idea to install the update immediately because these updates usually get rid of any "security holes" that could have previously allowed a virus or hacker to access your private information. One specific internal dialectical tension that can affect boundaries that are unique to online relationships is the openness-closedness tension. According to our textbook, "American discourses about relationships often prize openness as the rout to enduring intimacy (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 137)." This tension can be related to online privacy in that if you meet somebody new online, it is always a good idea to initially have your guard up, and to not disclose too much personal information because you never know if the person is catfishing. Before disclosing confidential personal information to the new person you met online, it is always a good idea to participate in some sort of video-chat with them in order to see if they really are who they claim to be. Below I have attached a link to a New York Times article that explains several useful tips for managing your online security!

Link to article: https://www.nytimes.com/guides/privacy-project/how-to-protect-your-digital-privacy

Sources:

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2019). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill         Education.