Abstract
Heterosexual women have intersecting identities that are privileged (i.e., sexuality) and marginalized (i.e., gender), suggesting a complicated site to examine power in the process of dating where meaning has become taken-for-granted over time. In this study, we utilized relational dialectics theory’s (RDT’s) corresponding method, contrapuntal analysis, to examine a group that holds fluctuating societal power in the context of heterosexuality and dating. Findings from the responses of women (n = 104) revealed two discourses that competed to illuminate the meaning of heterosexual dating from the perspective of women: the dominant Discourse that Dating is Romantic and Necessary (DDRN) and the marginal Discourse that Dating is Restrictive and Unrealistic (DDRU). These discourses interplayed through contractive practices (i.e., disqualification and naturalization), diachronic separation, synchronic interplay (i.e., entertaining, countering, and negating), and dialogic transformation (i.e., discursive hybridization and aesthetic moment), illuminating a discursive struggle that both reified and resisted the DDRN.
Even though every culture has some form of courting ritual, the contemporary term “dating” did not emerge until 1896 when a columnist for the Chicago Record told the story of a man who confronted his partner about the prospect of another man filling all of her dates in her date book (Weigel, 2017). Although planning dates in a calendar is a rather simplistic act, dating has become more complex with a myriad of cultural influences and expectations around sexual activity and partner compatibility (e.g., political views, physical distance; Brown, 2020). In addition to these societal factors, women who are single and looking to date have reported that they increasingly consider the physical and emotional risk that comes with dating (Brown, 2020). A Pew Research Center study found that a majority of women have experienced some form of harassment from a person they had been on a date with and/or had been dating, including being touched by their date in a way that made them feel uncomfortable (Brown, 2020). Even with increasing numbers of women reporting physical or emotional harassment while dating, 95% of Americans are married or desire to get married at some point (Newport & Wilke, 2013), creating a bind for women between choosing to participate in a dating process that many women perceive as risky but necessary or giving up the prospect of getting married altogether (Brown, 2020).
Despite the ambivalence women might experience about whether to date, the act of dating remains an integral and expected ritual in the life course (Fisher & Garcia, 2019; Manning et al., 2007). Yet, the majority of what we know about the dating process emerged from research conducted in the 1950s (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Sullivan, 1953). New romantic scripts (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010), online tools for meeting potential partners (Essig, 2018), and a society that is progressively aware of the violence experienced by women have ultimately changed the landscape of what dating might mean in contemporary society. As Baxter (2011) argues, meaning is unfinalizable. Indeed, Baxter (2011) contends that the more a meaning becomes taken-for-granted, the more oppressive power it holds. Thus, revisiting the meaning of dating, a taken-for-granted step in the life course from the perspective of heterosexual women who exist with both “unmarked” (i.e., sexuality) and “marked” (i.e., gender) identities (Yep, 2010; 2016), could expose the hegemonic ideologies that can create a no-win scenario for women.
Given the conflicted experiences of women and the potential to disrupt a calcified meaning, we turned to relational dialectics theory (RDT; Baxter, 2011). RDT is a dialogic theory of meaning making that attunes researchers to competing ideologies that renders a semantic object (SO) intelligible in the social world with connotational significance. A SO is the phenomenon “whose meaning construction is the focus of investigation” (Baxter et al., 2021, p. 16). RDT scholars have most often studied the SO of the meaning of a family although researchers have also studied topics ranging from misinformation (Malhotra et al., 2021) to hearing loss (Scharp & Barker, 2021). Of most importance, the SO must be clearly defined before analysis (see Baxter et al., 2021). Utilizing RDT, our goal is to illuminate how cultural ideologies that circulate about heterosexual dating from the perspective of women battle for influence (i.e., power; Baxter et al., 2021). Toward realizing this goal, we begin by historicizing the evolving meaning of dating before detailing RDT and its corresponding method.
Historicizing the evolving meaning of heterosexual dating
Although modern critical orientations to scholarship deductively target structures and institutions of oppression as their foci, scholars examining power within discourse from a critical perspective tend to take a more inductive approach to understanding hegemony (Baxter et al., 2021). Gramsci (1971) defines hegemony as “the ‘spontaneous’ consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group” (p. 12). Expanding on this definition, scholars have applied the term to social movements including feminism to analyze how aspects of daily life often considered private (i.e., dating) are politically important sites for the operation of power within a society (i.e., the investment in citizens getting married) (Ives, 2004; Denker, 2021). Although the vast majority of scholars applying RDT have looked at one marginalized group such as alienated parents (Scharp et al., 2021) or disenfranchised experiences such as having a stigmatized health diagnosis (e.g., Scharp & Barker, 2021), we took an alternative approach in this study by looking at a meaning that has become taken-for-granted, as evidenced by the fact that women believe they have no viable alternative to dating if they want to get married, despite cultural shifts and perceived risk (see Brown, 2020). Thus, in this section, we historicize the meaning of dating to argue that it is not only important to understand how meaning becomes and remains calcified, but also how it could be changing.
Romantic scripts and heteronormativity in everyday life
Romantic scripts are normalized through the stories people share about relationships (Check & Malamuth, 1983), which ultimately then inform people’s expectations (Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). In other words, these scripts often set the foundation for what people think dating is. In American culture, successful dating accounts are often connected to fairytale-like stories of marriage and a predictable ending of finding the perfect partner (Nickel & Vale, 1988). People become exposed to these scripts as children, which works to calcify both meaning and expectations surrounding dating (Nickel & Vale, 1988). Through early and repetitive exposure, dating has become a process perceived as a normal and necessary investment to select a long-term romantic partner (Fisher & Garcia, 2019; Manning et al., 2007). As such, participating in the dating process is encouraged as a routine operation with a clear goal of the couple getting married (Wilding, 2003). With governmental, religious, and societal investment in marriage, heteronormativity is the overarching recognition that heterosexuality is the gold standard for legitimate social and sexual arrangements (Yep, 2003).
Although scripts can be a helpful how-to guide for daters to navigate meeting-to-marriage, the heteronormative process of dating operates within patriarchal power structures that have historically limited “women’s choices, voices, and visibility” (Denker, 2021). The marginalized position of women in heterosexual relationships has routinely centered the relational and sexual needs of men (Hintz, 2019). With reliance on heteronormative and sexist scripts, the meaning of dating has become reified, meaning that the normative ways of thinking and talking about intimacy become a part of anticipated social norms (Denker, 2021).
Online dating
Despite dating scripts, the process of dating is still subject to cultural shifts and new technologies. The widespread introduction of online applications to meet potential partners and a societal context attuned to the dangers of gendered violence have changed dating expectations (Essig, 2018). The process of partner selection has become increasingly digitized as men and women transition to mobile applications such as Tinder, Bumble, and Match to search for romantic companions (Rosenfeld et al., 2019). In an extension of in-person dating, heteronormativity is central to the process of online connection (Chevrette, 2013). The prominence of online dating has facilitated the rise of the hook-up culture that adds more complications for women having sex with men who already struggle with issues of consent, infidelity, and sexual violence (Black et al., 2011; Clodfelter et al., 2010). The introduction of the hook-up culture also reflects an additional change in the timeline of relationships and ambiguity around behavior including sex outside the institution of marriage for pleasure rather than procreation (Chevrette, 2013). Thus, it is likely that daters must develop new scripts for digital tools, which opens up the potential to challenge the status quo surrounding relational power, sexual agency, and gendered oppression in the performance of heterosexual dating (Hintz, 2019; Yep, 2003).
#MeToo
In addition to the utilization of online dating platforms to meet potential partners, daters are also operating within a context of the contemporary feminist movement, most prominently centered around #MeToo (Burke, 2018). The #MeToo movement, founded by Tarana Burke, became a pivotal social movement with the rise of women speaking out about experiencing sexual aggression, violence, and assault (Burke, 2018). The media spotlight on prominent cases (i.e., Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and Brett Kavanaugh) shed light on the abuse of power and expectation of servitude that has long been embedded in heterosexual relationships but was now more publicly problematized. Overall, the #MeToo movement reinforced the dangers many women face from not only strangers and acquaintances but also intimate partners (Burke, 2018).
Furthermore, despite the fact that daters themselves might not have experienced moments like those described in the #MeToo movement, searching for intimacy during this time of heightened awareness of gendered inequality and violence can impact the way daters, especially women, are present in relationships (Denker, 2021; O’Connor et al., 2021). Given the enigmatic foundation of the dating process, the addition of supplemental scripts for online applications, and the prominence of an ongoing gender equality movement, (re)examining the communication of daters to understand the meaning of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women is necessary as the discourse, and resistance practices, has likely changed.
Relational dialectics theory
Relational dialectics theory is a dialogic theory of meaning-making built on the work of Makhail Bakhtin (1981, 1984). Within the framework of the theory, language constitutes the meaning of a SO through the competing interplay of emergent discourses (Baxter, 2011). In RDT scholarship, a discourse is a system of meaning or ideology that circulates within a culture at large. Competition, and consequently power, is central to the meaning-making process as discourses struggle for dominance. Centripetal discourses represent the dominant ideology of society, whereas centrifugal discourses represent more marginal views (Baxter, 2011). These discourses struggle to become central to a given meaning. Since struggle is ongoing, meanings are always subject to change and thus are unfinalizable. During this ongoing struggle, new possibilities for resistance arise to challenge foundation assumptions, alter fixed meanings, and reimagine the SO (Deetz, 1992).
The utterance is a primary site where discourses struggle. Utterances are turns in talk and serve as the unit of analysis of RDT studies (Baxter et al., 2021; Baxter, 2011). Baxter (2011) argues that there is “nothing autonomous about a speaker’s utterance,” as it has already been “embedded in the larger utterance chain” of the topic (p. 12). Simply put, utterances are linked in a larger conversation (i.e., the utterance chain). There are four primary links of the utterance chain; there are two distal links and two proximal links. Distal links refer to the general culture, whereas proximal links refer to idiosyncratic relationships. Both the distal and proximal links reflect what has been said before (i.e., already spoken) and anticipate future responses (i.e., not-yet-spoken). In this regard, RDT acknowledges the ways that communication is inherently intertextual.
The continuum of discursive interplay
Although identifying discourses is an important endeavor, meaning is ultimately dependent on “the interplay of competing discourses that are circulating” at that time (Baxter, 2011, p. 3). Discursive interplay occurs across a spectrum from monologue to dialogic transformation, although there are multiple forms of interplay along this continuum. Monologue exists when one discourse has silenced all other alternatives (i.e., discursive closure) (Deetz, 1992). Contractive practices are those that shut down alternatives and reflect a calcification of meaning. There are many types of contractive practices such as naturalization, neutralization, and topic avoidance (see Baxter, 2011). Next, diachronic separation marks how dominance changes over time. Synchronic interplay illustrates greater competition and is often marked through instances of entertaining, countering, and negating. Where diachronic separation emerges across utterances, synchronic interplay manifests within utterances. Finally, the most robust form of interplay is dialogic transformation (i.e., hybrids and aesthetic moments), which gives rise to new meanings. Hybrid meanings are an integration of competing discourses, whereas aesthetic moments are an affective overhaul of an existing meaning to create a new one. Within RDT scholarship, these practices comprehensively depict the meaning-making process (Baxter et al., 2021).
To illuminate the meaning of our SO, heterosexual dating from the perspective of women, we forward the following research questions:
Method
Statement of positionality
Researchers who engage in critical communication scholarship should assess how their own positions and experiences contribute to their interpretations (Scharp & Thomas, 2019). With this in mind, both authors are women who have dated men in the United States, one of whom is White and the other of whom is a person of color. Living and dating in the United States helped the authors understand meaning from the dominant discourse that is privileged and widely shared in the country, and the marginal discourse constructed in resistance.
Procedures and participant demographics
With Institutional Review Board approval, participants were recruited through introductory communication courses at a large southwest university to complete a qualitative survey, an underutilized method for qualitative research (Braun et al., 2020). Of the 161 participants who completed the questionnaire, 104 identified as women and 40 identified as men. For the scope of this research project, the responses of men (n = 40) and non-heterosexual women (n = 17) were removed from the data set before analysis. To qualify for the survey, participants had to be 18 years or older (M = 20, Mdn = 19, SD = 4.01, R = 18–44). Self-identified race reports indicated that the majority of participants were Asian (n = 36), with other participants identifying as White (n = 29), Latino/a/Hispanic (n = 19), multiracial (n = 12), Black/African American (n = 6), and Pacific Islander (n = 2). The majority of participants reported that they were actively dating (n = 55) or sometimes dating (n = 10). Only 33 participants indicated that they were not currently dating.
Data analysis
We engaged in a contrapuntal analysis, which is the corresponding method of RDT (Baxter, 2011). Contrapuntal analysis begins with the identification of discourses within a text that revolve around a particular SO and ends with an examination of their interplay (Baxter, 2011). To begin, we read and re-read the data. We then engaged in an adapted version of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis which included (a) generating codes, (b) identifying themes, (c) collating them into discourses, (d) naming the themes and discourses, and (e) selecting evocative exemplars.
Following the discourse identification, the next step in contrapuntal analysis is to identify the discursive interplay. Although this step is often overlooked by researchers conducting contrapuntal analyses, we started by examining the response for instances of discursive closure. Elaborating on Deetz’s (1992) practices, Baxter (2011) offers multiple forms of dialogic contraction including (a) disqualification, (b) naturalization, (c) neutralization, (d) topic avoidance, (e) subjectification, and/or (f) pacification. Disqualification occurs when an utterance is disregarded or discounted because the person voicing the utterance lacks expertise or the right of expression. Naturalization occurs when an utterance is voiced as the way things are; with this in mind, we also examined the text for ideal violation (Scharp et al., 2018), which occurs when a speaker laments that something is not the way it should be. Neutralization occurs when an utterance is voiced as if it was value-free or objective. Topic avoidance is a move that suggests a specific topic is off the table for discussion. Subjectification occurs when a marginalized discourse is positioned as “just an option.” Finally, pacification occurs when differences are trivialized or positioned as futile to resolve.
Subsequently, we explored the corpus for interplay via diachronic separation and synchronic interplay. Researchers typically identify synchronic interplay through three discourse markers: (a) entertaining, (b) countering, and (c) negating. Entertaining occurs when one discourse acknowledges the possibility of another despite the authority of the dominant discourse (Baxter et al., 2021). Countering occurs when “one discourse replaces another discourse, often marked by words like ‘but’ or ‘even’” (Baxter et al., 2021). Negating occurs when the centrifugal discourse outright rejects the centripetal discourse (Baxter et al., 2021). Finally, we examined the text for any instances of dialogic transformation.
Data verification
To verify the data analysis, we engaged in the following five procedures: (a) referential adequacy, (b) peer debriefing, (c) negative case analysis, (d) audit trail, and (e) exemplar identification. First, we divided the data in half to analyze. We redefined themes and discourses in four peer debriefing meetings to discuss the data after coding independently. By refining themes to account for 100% of the data, we met the standard of negative case analysis. We then compared the findings from the first half of the data to a separate analysis of the second half of the data and since no new themes or discourses emerged, meeting the standard for referential adequacy. During the data verification process, we kept detailed record of notes and decisions to create an audit trail that supported the selection of evocative exemplars.
Results
The contrapuntal analysis process illuminated two competing discourses that constructed the meaning of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women: the Discourse that Dating is Romantic and Necessary (DDRN) and the Discourse that Dating is Restrictive and Unrealistic (DDRU). The dominant discourse of DDRN coalesced from five themes, including one theme that was unfolded. The marginal discourse of DDRU was comprised of three themes.
Discourse that Dating is Romantic and Necessary
The centripetal discourse of DDRN constructs the dating process as an experience through which individuals must find a partner that will bring happiness and contentment to their life through romantic commitment. The five themes of DDRN were that (a) dating is predictable, (b) dating is permanent, (c) dating is monogamous, (d) dating pleases others, and (e) dating is unequal. These themes interconnect to construct the dominant discourse of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women.
Dating is predictable
In the DDRN, participants spoke about the predictability of the dating process. Daters described that when they were ready to begin looking for a partner, the process women had learned was so well explained that they had distinct expectations for how the interactions should unfold. Brielle said she knew that “he should initiate the approach and ask the women out on a date. It is polite for him to pay for the date but not always necessary. Especially when a woman wants to pay for herself.” In her account, Brielle explained that men should organize the date and be the first person to show interest in a romantic relationship. The reliance on culturally expected behaviors in the dating process supports the predictable nature of the dating process, as both daters know the gendered expectations to perform when starting a relationship.
Dating is permanent
In the second DDRN theme of permanency, women frequently talked about dating as a process that assisted them in finding a long-term romantic partner. The rituals involved in dating were conceptualized as steps in a timeline that concluded with securing a permanent companion. For example, Brooklyn explained, “I think the purpose of dating is to marry and to look for someone that you're willing to settle down with for the rest of your life.” Brooklyn explained her understanding of dating as a task that involves searching for a person to whom she would be interested in being romantically connected to indefinitely. Brooklyn’s utterance informs a larger conversation involving the privileging of romantic partners who remain committed for life.
Dating is monogamous
The next theme supported the cultural assumption that monogamous romantic relationships are a positive and productive structure for romantic partners. Monogamous relationships are centered on partner exclusivity which, although originating in the practice of marriage, is now more broadly used to describe relationships that exist outside of the institution (Overall, 1998). Often, monogamy is defined as a “unique social relationship between one adult female and one adult male for the purpose of reproduction” (Reichard & Boesch, 2003, p. 29). Lacie conveyed, “There should be [intimacy] rules because you should save yourself for the person you are going to marry. There should not be intimacy until you get married to that person.” Lacie’s response constrained sexual acts to the institution of marriage as she denied the existence of physical intimacy without a monogamous partnership. For Lacie, dating is a process that does not include physical experimentation; instead, dating assists in finding a marital partner, and fostering intimacy is a privilege of marriage.
Additionally, the dating process further facilitates monogamy as participants’ involvement in the process was affected by their current relationship status. When asked if dating was important to her, Nora replied, “Dating isn’t important to me right now because I’m in a serious relationship with someone, so we are past the dating stage, and I no longer see myself being with anybody else.” Nora’s response highlighted two cultural assumptions about dating: (a) that dating takes place at the beginning of the relationship and (b) that when the couple becomes more committed the partners moves into a different stage of the process. In this stage, the couple is not searching for other potential partners as each has selected the person they hope to continue being with for the foreseeable future.
Dating pleases others
Women outlined that dating and finding a romantic partner pleased other people in their lives as friends and parents felt secure knowing that they were taken care of. Expectations for having a relationship were frequently communicated through members of their social network, almost exclusively from parents. Freya reflected: I know my father would want a man to essentially obsess over me and my every need. He is very old-school in that he wants me to be spoiled. He wants me to be in a romantic relationship where I am prioritized over everything else in my man’s life, which I find unrealistic and unreasonable. But I just take it as my dad saying he loves me.
In this example, Freya indicated that her father would be pleased to know she is someone’s upmost priority. This expectation of extreme time allocation was communicated to Freya as a signal of a partner’s love and commitment to their relationship. Although Freya indicated she thinks that those expectations are unrealistic for a relationship, a member of her social network still emphasized the importance of partner dedication as a condition for illustrating relationship commitment. Even if the expectation is later eased by women in a relationship, there is still a foundational assumption that romantic partners must prioritize their relationship above all else.
Dating is unequal
The final theme constituting the DDRN was that dating is unequal. This theme was unfolded through the women’s preemptive description of desiring equal partnerships with the romantic companion, responding to a distal-already-spoken that partners are usually not equal in responsibility and status. Madeline shared that a woman’s role is to: To support your partner but to also be equal with them. If a couple has children, then the woman should take on a motherly role like cleaning or cooking but that doesn’t mean the man shouldn’t have that responsibility too. Overall, I think in a romantic relationship, both a man’s role and a woman’s role should be equal.
Madeline’s response enmeshes the predictability of long-term relationships from the DDRN with adding that both men and women should share responsibilities like cooking and cleaning in the house. The process of unfolding allows researchers to analyze what the participant is acknowledging in their utterance, which, in Madeline’s response, is a recognition of the historically unequal household obligations of men and women.
Discourse of Dating is Restrictive and Unrealistic
In contrast to the DDRN, the centrifugal discourse of DDRU was comprised of the three themes that (a) dating restricts independence, (b) dating is unsafe, and (c) dating requires relationship sacrifice. The DDRU included alterations to the dating process, signaling that the DDRN could be challenged and updated in a context of resistance.
Dating restricts independence
In the DDRU, the theme of restricting independence was described when women shared that dating would interfere with their self-sufficiency desired in emerging adulthood. Nora explained: I’ve decided that it’s important to focus on myself to become the best version of myself. I don’t wanna rely on someone else to make me happy if I can do that myself.
Nora’s aspiration for independence challenges the assumption that falling in love brings women true happiness. Rather, Nora’s response suggests that self-development can be more important than relying on a romantic partner as a source of personal contentment. Within this theme, the DDRU includes alternatives for autonomy like the promotion of self-development as an option for emotional fulfillment. Prioritizing independence positioned dating and personal growth as activities that cannot coexist at the same time: either the individual needs to focus on making herself happy, which delays her involvement in the dating process, or the dater has already experienced personal development and is ready to date.
Dating is unsafe
The second theme in the DDRU incorporated discussion of the dangerous dating norms that can exist when the DDRN goes unchallenged. Women described unsafe dating practices when talking about consent and their previous experience with violence in romantic relationships. Emma explained whether dating was important her, sharing: Not as much as it used to be. I am divorced and have a child. So, I already got the things I wanted when I was younger. My marriage was very violent. My peace and quiet is worth more to me now than trying to date and possibly inviting drama back into my life.
Emma’s utterance included recognition that she has previously accomplished relational milestones like getting married and having a child, and spoke to her evaluation that the risk to her personal safety is not currently worth dating to find a partner. By removing herself from the dating process, Emma reduced her risk of experiencing unsafe behaviors that are intertwined in process of finding a romantic partner. The frequent review of unsafe dating experiences interjects women’s concern for their safety into the dominant discourse of DDRN.
Dating requires relationship sacrifice
In the DDRU, women perceived that their involvement in a romantic relationship would require making a sacrifice for their partner at some point in the relationship. The discussed sacrifice pertained to different aspects of a relationship, ranging from the allocation of time to the decision to have children. Leah described how her current goals helped shape her views of dating at present: No, I don’t want to date right now because I think getting my degree and a good job is more important. And having to focus on school, work, and other people in my life, I would not be able to give my significant other the attention and love they deserve.
For Leah, her academic and professional goals were her focus, so her personal priorities did not include looking for a partner because she would not be able to sacrifice time in her schedule to ensure the relationship was successful at this time. In this example, Leah acknowledged the sacrifice of time a relationship would require and subsequently removed herself from the dating pool given that she would rather prioritize other aspects of her life. Leah concluded that a significant other deserves attention and love, which she shared is not worth the sacrifice of time.
Discursive interplay
From the data corpus, contractive processes of (a) disqualification, and (b) naturalization, as well as (c) diachronic separation, (d) synchronic interplay, and dialogic transformation through a (e) discursive hybridization, and an (f) aesthetic moment, emerged. The DDRN reinforced dominant values and beliefs about the meaning of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women and the DDRU restructured the dating process to meet the independence and safety needs of women. We will now discuss each form of interplay that emerged.
Disqualification
Disqualification occurs when the dominant discourse disregards an alternative because it positions a speaker as lacking expertise or authority (Baxter, 2011). The DDRN was strengthened when women shared that their parents did not think they were qualified to participate in the dating process yet, a form of disqualification. Grace reflected: My family was always quick to push abstinence when I talked about dating boys because they didn’t want me to “give people the wrong impression” or get pregnant. My parents didn’t want me to date because they thought I would make a bad decision with a boyfriend.
This exemplar illustrates an instance of disqualification as Grace’s parents communicated their belief that she was not ready to date because she would be nefarious with a romantic partner. Women also discussed their partners providing parameters and expectations for when to start dating. Leticia declared: My parents believe in me waiting until I have a master’s degree and I am financially stable before having a romantic relationship. They want me to wait until I am ready to date but once I start dating, they think I should have a long-term romantic relationship that quickly leads to marriage and children.
These utterances restrict the participation of women in the process of dating until they are prepared for the romantic, necessary, and permanent outcome of dating. Thus, the DDRN constructed experts of dating as participants who had successfully made it through the process by getting married and having children (i.e., parents), who then could evaluate women’s aptitude to enter and succeed in the process of dating.
Naturalization
Naturalization occurred when the DDRN asserted itself as just the “way things are” (Baxter, 2011, p. 171). Naturalization reinforced the DDRN by centering the importance of dating for the general happiness and accomplishment of life tasks for women. Victoria shared: Dating is important to me, especially now. In fact, experiencing love is really important because that’s how humans feel the most wanted and share an unexplainable feeling. I think we all need a companion and dating is another way to express long term companionship by dating and experiencing things with another person.
In this response, Victoria constructs dating as a necessary process for experiencing companionship. Victoria’s claim that dating is how humans feel most wanted is a form of naturalization because she is speaking on behalf of everyone everywhere without any acknowledgment of alternative forms of companionship. Likewise, naturalization occurred when women proclaimed that dating was a prerequisite for other domestic accomplishments. For instance, Scarlett explained: Dating is important to me because I think dating is a steppingstone on the way to a happy marriage. I want more than anything to marry and have a family one day so of course dating is important to me.
Scarlett’s response situates dating as an essential and unavoidable step for marriage and procreation. The centering of the DDRN as necessary for happiness, love, and the well-being of women substantiated the dominant discourse as standard practice.
Diachronic separation
Diachronic separation happened when an utterance transitioned between the dominant to the marginal discourse over time (Baxter, 2011). Diachronic separation occurred in this data set when the discourse of DDRN gradually decreased in importance. An example of diachronic separation is when Brooklyn shared: Dating is not important to me now because it is something that I have already experienced in the past. Since I have already dated before, dating is not a priority at the moment. But at the same time if it weren’t for my past relationship, I wouldn’t have learned to be able to live independently. So, in a sense, my dating experience was important.
Brooklyn’s utterance details how the importance of dating has changed over time for her. Although Brooklyn used to think dating was important, participating in the process is no longer a priority since she has already been in a romantic relationship. Instead of reaffirming that dating is always important, Brooklyn’s utterance suggests that daters can realize an alternative to happiness from their dating experience by valuing independence after the end of a relationship.
Synchronic interplay
Synchronic interplay emerged through the ascending processes of entertaining, countering, and negating.
Entertaining
Entertaining occurs when “one discourse acknowledges the possibility of another” (Baxter et al., 2021). In the women’s responses, entertaining took place when women acknowledged that the traditional process of dating is unrealistic for having personal independence, even though they still hoped to participate in partner selection soon after successfully completing their goals. An example of entertaining is when Veronica stated: [Dating is] important because I hope to find a husband one day, so it is crucial to date to see where things could go with people. On the other hand, I’m in college so I’m just living life and taking things day by day.
Although Veronica includes the DDRN in her contribution about the possibility of ultimately finding love through dating, the response entertains DDRU by acknowledging that dating is an option that does not need to be a priority right now since she has educational goals to focus on.
Countering
Countering takes place when one discourse replaces another discourse, often marked by the words like “but” or “even” (Baxter et al., 2021). Countering occurred in the data set when the DDRN was challenged with alternatives to happiness that women found in the DDRU. Rebecca detailed: I think dating is less important than engaging in connections. I think in today’s day and age people get caught up in “needing a partner” when in reality, some of the most real and engaging connections are through friends that assist us and guide us or are simply sunshines to our days.
In Rebecca’s response, she states the DDRN only to oppose the necessity of needing a partner. Like Rebecca, women countered the DDRN by offering alternatives to happiness and personal fulfillment outside of finding a husband including the joy of friendships in the lives of women.
Negating
The third form of discursive interplay is when the utterance directly rejects the centripetal discourse (Baxter et al., 2021). In this study, negating took place when the women denied any involvement with the expectations of dating or relationship behavior that was outlined in the discourse of DDRN. Savina said: Dating is not important to me. I am not looking to have another person distracting me from my achievements. A partner is not a goal of mine so I will be spending my time on the goals I do have.
In this example, Savina’s utterance denies the validity of the DDRN, shutting down the value and importance of the DDRN. Savina clarified that finding a partner is not an ambition she has, allowing her to instead reallocate her time from dating to other personal development goals.
Dialogic transformation
Discursive hybridization
Discursive hybridity emerges from the data set when two competing discourses combine to create a new meaning (Baxter et al., 2021). When the DDRN and DDRU combined to make a new meaning, the women saw the benefit of participating in the dating process and maintaining their independence and safety. Trinity articulated: I would say, yes, dating is important to you, but shouldn’t take over your life. It is important to feel an affection and be able to feel comfort and love because it is essential to our emotions. It is important to us feeling sane, but there is also so much more to life than dating. Very happy and successful people can get far without needing an ounce of love and the time spent being in a relationship.
In this example, Trinity creates a new meaning of the importance for women to find happiness in life through dating, and to explore other options for happiness. The combination of DDRN and DDRU create a new meaning of women creating a balance between the necessity of love and the sacrifice (not) needed to invest in love.
Aesthetic moment
Dialogic transformation through an aesthetic moment is present when two of the existing discourses, in this data set DDRN and DDRU, transform into a new meaning that is different than each of the independent discourses (Baxter et al., 2021). An aesthetic moment took place when Freya shared that dating was important to her, stating: My current partner is somewhat opposite to me. I am introverted, and he is outgoing. But this helps me, as he teaches me new things about the world, and gives me courage to try new experiences. Furthermore, I do suffer from depression, and as my mind wanders in a dark place, having someone be there for me, even if it is as simple as just being in the same space as me, is comforting. I understand to fight my depression, which stems from self-loathing, I need to find a way to love myself, and some people believe being in a relationship hinders that as one becomes dependent on someone else. But for me, I do not see it as dependency. I see it as someone helping to teach me more about myself, focusing on the good in me. Some people may be able to pull themselves up from the ground on their own, others such as myself sometimes needs a helping hand.
Although the DDRN constructs dating as romantic and necessary, Freya’s response builds on these components of the dominant discourse with the addition that participating in the dating process also makes her a more independent, safe, and capable person. Freya’s participation in the dating process is not a sacrifice but is instead an opportunity to have a partner that can help her develop self-love and care. Freya details how her partner positively impacts her ability to take care of herself since he taught her how to improve her mental and emotional well-being, which were health improvements that Freya states she could not have bettered without her partner’s assistance. This new meaning of the DDRN incorporates components of DDRU, although ultimately creating a new discursive meaning that finding a partner can also help women better love themselves and their life in a way that is not possible while single.
Discussion
From examining the meaning of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women, two discourses emerged: the centripetal Discourse that Dating is Romantic and Necessary (DDRN) and the centrifugal Discourse that Dating is Restrictive and Unrealistic (DDRU). Five themes constituted the dominant discourse of DDRN: (a) dating is predictable, (b) dating is permanent, (c) dating is monogamous, (d) dating pleases others, and (e) dating is unequal. In response to the DDRN, three themes coalesced as the marginal discourse of DDRU: (a) dating restricts independence, (b) dating is unsafe, and (c) dating requires relationship sacrifice. The findings of the study situate dating as a process that remains dominant through early socialization and the communication of gendered expectations from members of the social network. Although sometimes resisted, the dominant discourse of DDRN remains omnipresent in the utterances of heterosexual women. In this regard, the DDRU is only able to hold off the DDRN for a time (i.e., by delaying when women start dating, instead of supplanting it all together). Put differently, women still discuss dating as an eventuality necessary for marriage. We will now discuss the theoretical implications and practical applications of these findings.
Theoretical implications
Although RDT scholarship generally illustrates how discursive resistance takes place, the results of this study illustrate how hegemony formulates and perseveres over centuries. Whereas a simplistic reading of the marginal discourse shows potential for defiance of the DDRN, our analysis provides a nuanced investigation into the lackluster resistance of the dating process. This lack of resistance preserves the hegemonic dating process as a foundational aspect of a power structure that normalizes gendered oppression through access to life accomplishments including marriage and family. Despite broad cultural shifts around dating, our analysis uncovered that the meaning of dating from the perspective of heterosexual women has not changed dramatically and perpetuates heteronormative sacrifices of self (i.e., DDRU) for partner (i.e., DDRN) (Chevrette, 2013; Hintz, 2019). The reliance on the dominant discourse in spite of the restrictions on independence, risk of interpersonal violence, and necessity for relationship sacrifice illustrates how necessary the DDRN is for everyday life and the reproduction of family units through marriage. This necessity of the DDRN is historically substantiated, reflecting the critique of feminist scholars whose work has sought to disrupt the tether of women to their husbands and their households (Friedman, 1963; Rubin, 1975; Wittig, 1992). Ultimately, the DDRU attempted to resist the dominant discourse as not reflecting women’s priorities, but the marginal discourse remained too weak to overcome the DDRN, which offered a predictable, permanent, monogamous, and unequal dating process that pleases others. Although the DDRU provides an option for women to temporarily delay their involvement in the dating process in order to prioritize their education or safety during emerging adulthood, the marginal discourse fails to provide any long-term alternatives to finding a life partner.
The most important contribution of this study is that the DDRU illuminated the fact that the marginal discourse is still not powerful enough to defeat the women’s ultimate goal of marriage. Presently, the process of dating remains important to women because of the larger utterance chain the act(s) are embedded within. Rather than dating being understood as isolated occurrences scheduled with a possible partner, the process represents one’s larger investment in finding a husband to make a commitment to and start a family with. In this sense, being a good woman remains connected to wanting to ultimately get married and perform femininity through heterosexuality (Chevrette, 2013; Friedman, 1963; Hintz, 2019). The imbedded nature of dating is culturally normalized through the prospect of marriage, financial stability, and the ability to have and raise children within a dyad (Friedman, 1963). Without viable alternatives to marriage, the traditional romantic script found in the DDRN persists.
In addition to highlighting the treacherous nature of the DDRU failing to overcome the DDRN, this study contributes to the RDT literature by examining a process of interpersonal development as compared to an established relationship. This contribution advances the theoretical potential to analyze not only existing connections (i.e., parent–child relationships; Scharp et al., 2021) but also the ways in which relationships form as discursively impacted by dominant ideology and, more specifically, as influenced by hegemonic ideals that are foundational to the reproduction of gendered injustice. Since heterosexual women exist at the intersection of a marked and unmarked identity, constructing short-term resistance practices might be the most feasible option given the breadth of hegemonic constraints circulating (Friedman, 1963; Rubin, 1975).
Further, the contrapuntal analysis in this study utilized discursive competition as expansive (i.e., diachronic separation, synchronic interplay, and dialogic transformation) and as contractive (Baxter, 2011; Baxter et al., 2021). Of theoretical importance, responding to Scharp et al.’s (2022) call to engage with the closure practices of disqualification and naturalization, this study provides examples for the way in which the dominant discourse maintains power even while the marginal discourse attempts to resist. These closure practices are foundational to the prevalence of the dominant discourse when the resistance from the marginal discourse is unsuccessful in interrupting hegemonic supremacy.
Practical applications
In addition to the theoretical implications of the study, there are multiple practical implications of these findings. Before women reach adulthood, conversations about the possibilities of fulfillment outside of marriage can be guided by parents. Parents can encourage skill-building in this area by highlighting the hegemonic nature of the dating process in age-appropriate ways and providing space for children to begin imagining life accomplishments that include personal dreams besides marriage. Although some girls might still choose to seek marriage through dating, the opportunity to envision options for the future at such a young age could support a more persuasive DDRU in the future generation of women.
For women in adulthood, promoting stories and advice for and from women who have reimagined the dating process to prioritize their independence and personal safety in the long-term could help provide other options for women feeling weary of modern dating (see Brown, 2020). The romantic and financial choices for women could be understood as a spectrum in which marriage is at one end, living single and independently is another, and a variety of other choices exist in between both options. This spectrum could support the planning of women who are interested in alternatives to dating by providing examples of other routes to financial stability and children. For example, substitutes for life-long achievements outside of marriage could include communal living arrangements with platonic others and/or planning for children without procreation (e.g., adoption). Exploring other options for familial fulfillment could help interrupt dating hegemony by disconnecting the institutions of marriage and the family from dating.
Limitations and directions for future research
Like all research, this study had limitations. Considering we collected close-ended survey data, we were unable to ask follow-up questions to the participants that we would have been able to in an interview. Asking the women follow-up questions would have been helpful in interpreting the results of the study and expanding on the practical applications that might adequately challenge the dominant discourse. For example, additional questions about how the women’s views on relationships have changed throughout their life and in what ways they advocate for their independence and safety in relationships would have aided analysis.
In future RDT studies, scholars could examine the meaning of dating with different SOs from the perspective of women from other identity intersections. A limitation of the survey is that we did not ask participants their disability and socio-economic status, which could be fruitful intersections to explore for future research. Critical RDT research is especially productive when highlighting marginalized voices whose positionality is not represented in the dominant discourse around any given topic. Although this study highlights how heterosexual women are marginalized in the dating process, researchers could examine the meaning-making process from the intersections of identity and additional theoretical lenses like critical race theory (see Minniear & Cardwell, 2021) to examine resistance strategies that could challenge dominant patterns of communication.
Conclusion
This study examined a hegemonic process from the perspective of heterosexual women. The analysis illuminated how women resisted the historically take-for-granted process of dating through the DDRU but were ultimately unable to overcome the embedded nature of the DDRN in the conceptualization of lifespan achievements including marriage and family. Importantly, this study uncovers a possible link between the viability of discursive resistance as connected to the ability to make sense of alternatives. In the case of women who are dating, the lack of other options to achieve personal goals helps maintain the oppressive nature of the DDRN.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank Dr Jennifer Guthrie, Dr Tara McManus, Dr Tara Emmers-Sommer, and Dr Emily Troshynski for their support, feedback, and guidance on the thesis project at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which was an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open research statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.
The data used in the research are not available given sensitive data concerns and the absence of notification for public data sharing in the consent process.
