Despite consolidating efforts reflected in a number of recent literature reviews and meta-analyses, the field of relationship marketing remains in need of more elaborate theoretical foundations (Agariya and Singh 2011; Verma et al. 2015). Indeed, there is still considerable variety in conceptualizations of relationship marketing, with each accentuating different aspects. One feature shared by most definitions of relationship marketing is its conceptualization as a process. Somewhat counterintuitively, the process dimension is so prevalent in current relationship marketing discourse that it appears to be taken for granted and largely immune to explicit theorization. It is against this backdrop that we argue that the process of relationship marketing has emerged as an important conceptual blind spot that impedes further progress in the field. In particular, the lack of theorization of the relationship marketing process is likely to obstruct the much-needed scholarly effort to explicate the dynamics of relationship initiation and development over time (Palmatier et al. 2013). This conceptual paper seeks to address this theoretical void and draws on the process theory archetypes identified by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) to distinguish four perspectives on relationship marketing as a (1) life-cycle, (2) teleological, (3) evolutionary, or (4) dialectical process. This paper reveals that three of these process theories are strongly represented in relationship marketing literature, while one particularly promising perspective, the dialectical view, remains largely underexplored. Based on this classification, we illustrate two particularly promising opportunities for advancing relationship marketing theory, exploring a dialectical process model and building so-called dual-(or-more-) motor theories that combine two (or more) process theory archetypes. In our opinion, this process-centric framework constitutes a meaningful conceptual contribution in that it helps to systematize the relationship marketing literature and, even more importantly, identifies a rich and comprehensive set of opportunities for Brecombinatory^ theory building in relationship marketing. As such, it can serve as a meaningful conceptual toolbox for those interested in advancing theory in relationship marketing. Our paper answers the recurring calls for developing more elaborate and realistic frameworks for relationship marketing (Möller and Halinen 2000). Specifically, our focus on relationship marketing processes answers the call of Eiriz and Wilson (2006), who state that moving toward a better understanding of relationship processes is one of three priorities for future research in the field – along with uncovering the rationale for relationships and the structures for the management of these relationships. Not unlike the field of marketing as a whole (Yadav 2010), relationship marketing has much to benefit from a renewed focus on its intellectual and theoretical foundations. This paper is meant to contribute toward this broader agenda by advancing relationship marketing theory and enriching the conceptual landscape that informs the research of relationship marketing processes.