16 wnt. Book review (3), “Talking from 9 to 5, Deborah Tannen

Many of the women in our prolonged studies described themselves as mothers and teachers, whereas many of the men called themselves “coaches.”

[Please think about these posts: They are actionable precepts that you can see the use of, and put into practice “right now”. (If they make sense to you.) Our site objects to talking in the abstract, or proposing things that the-other must do to make any difference, or even flying high with the metaphysical or in mysticism.]

1.   Insofar as the coach has the ear of those who make decisions about promotion, or has a voice in those decisions, the helping aspect of the coaching role is complicated by gatekeeping overtones. Having the power to pass judgment on someone’s work and convey that judgment upward can become a filter through which all “helping utterances” are passed, so that suggestions for improvement can be heard as criticism. Moreover, taking the role of teacher in itself positions the coach as one-up.

2.   I began to wonder why women in authority are so concerned not to appear authoritarian—not to appear as if they think they are superior or are putting themselves in a one-up position, even though that is exactly the position they are in.  “But the minister who is forceful uses language which rings with reality. He is never vague, ethereal, or effeminate.... He has the power to stab-awake the conscience of men. He speaks like a man!”

If a woman talks in ways expected of women, she is more likely to be “liked” than respected. If she talks in ways expected of men, she is more likely to be “respected” than liked. It is particularly ironic that the risk of losing likability is greater for women in authority, since evidence indicates that so many women care so much about whether or not they are liked.

The images of the authority of Thatcher come drenched in gender and sexism. Even when describing situations that have nothing to do with gender—for example, shoring up Britain’s “posture in world affairs”—by choosing the verb, she “starched up” the British status in the world, the writer indirectly evoked a housewife doing the laundry, if not a head nurse stiff in a starched uniform. The image of Thatcher “clobbering them with her metaphorical handbag” undercuts the force of her actions, even as it gives her credit for attacking her opponents. A woman clobbering men with her handbag is an object of laughter, not fear or admiration.

3.   The term “demeanor” was used by sociologist Erving Goffman to describe the way we show the world the qualities we want others to believe we have. Those in positions of authority must speak in ways that create the proper demeanor for someone in their position.

It seems that women creating their demeanor in a position of “soft authority” is yet another conversational ritual growing out of the goal of keeping everyone on an equal footing, at least insofar as appearances are concerned. This doesn’t mean that women or men who speak this way really think everyone is equal; it means they have to do a certain amount of conversational work to make sure they maintain the proper demeanor—to fit THEIR sense of what makes a good person, which entails not seeming to parade their higher status.

I cannot emphasize enough that the appearance of equality I am referring to is ritual, not literal.  “I want my employees to feel independent, to maintain their self-esteem,” she is acknowledging that it is in her power to determine how independent they feel, since they are in fact dependent on her for their jobs. She simply feels it is appropriate not to rub their noses in their dependence.

Men’s characteristic rituals have grown out of the assumption that all relationships are inherently hierarchical, (it might be so), it is not surprising that many of them either see less reason to downplay their authority or even see more reason to call attention to it—to ward off inevitable challenges.  Male speakers are more likely to be confrontational by arguing, issuing commands, and taking opposing stands for the sake of argument, whereas females are more likely to avoid confrontation by agreeing, supporting, and making suggestions rather than commands.

Choices of ways of speaking that highlight or downplay authority are not deliberate decisions that are thought through with each utterance but are rather habitual phrasings learned over time that become automatic, seemingly self-evidently appropriate ways to say what you mean.

4.   Continuing to use Goffman’s terms, “demeanor”—behaving in a way that shows you have desired qualities—must be balanced by “deference”: other people’s behavior acknowledging that you do have those qualities.  Working for and with other people necessarily entails getting others to do what you want, and dealing with others’ efforts to get you to do what they want. This introduces a constant potential source of tension and battles of wills.  Many of the women in Statham’s study talked in terms of staying involved with their employees, whereas many of the men talked about allowing them autonomy and non-interference.  “A woman manager said: today was a really good day. Several people who had merely tolerated me before passed over the magic line into hatred today, but in not a single instance did it crush me. Or even faze me.” 

Other women in Statham’s study who were extremely capable on the job did not “interview” well. We would all like to believe that we judge others and are judged by competence, performance, and hard-and-fast results, not stereotypes. But there is overwhelming evidence from studies in many different fields that people’s judgments of others are influenced by appearance, and other characteristics that cause us to see them as members of groups about which we have preexisting assumptions.

When they were commenting on a certain style in a woman, I frequently heard, “She’s got a pseudo-masculine style.” Because this style was expected of and associated with men, women who adopted it were seen NOT as trying to be efficient, competent, and businesslike, but as trying to be like men.

5.   Conversational styles are not rigidly associated with gender.  The ways in which one particularly influential man spoke included hesitating, using rising intonation at the end of statements, mitigating statements with qualifiers, expressing feelings, and talking about himself. He also used “masculine traits” like swearing and joking. Whereas the particularly influential woman’s style in the study included using complex sentences, slang, resisting interruptions, and talking to the group as a whole. Her style also had many feminine aspects: She did not swear, did not talk “about competition, aggression, taking charge or one-upsmanship,” and her talk was often personal; the Case study found her to be the most supportive group member linguistically, and the only woman in the group who never said “Mmhmm.” Case further describes her style in this way:  Part of the reason that many women in positions of authority speak in ways that downplay rather than emphasize the power of their position is simply an expression of the ethics characteristic of many women’s conversational rituals.  Though it might seem that saving face is primarily something one does for oneself, saving face works especially well if two people do it for each other, as often occurs in ritual exchanges characteristic of women’s conversation.

Another man in the study whose speech exhibited what Case considered both extreme male and extreme female qualities was responsible for 75% of the swearing and one third of the interruptions but also had the highest pattern of building on others’ talk. His use of approximations and qualifiers was the highest for males in the study, as was his tendency to speak personally (using the pronoun “I”) and, accordingly, his “willingness to accept personal experience as proof, something the women did readily.” Yet he was not happy with the reaction he got from the group either: “I feel trapped,” he told Case. “I can’t be myself in this group.

If such men were to take assertiveness training and alter their styles, they would enhance not only their chances for success. Everything they did to enhance their assertiveness at work would also enhance their masculinity in others’ eyes. But a woman is in a double bind. Everything she does to enhance her assertiveness risks undercutting her femininity in the eyes of others. And everything she does to fit expectations of how a woman should talk, risks undercutting the impression of competence that she makes.

6.   Interruptions: ✓Overlapping talk can be a way of exerting status or establishing connection. (I prefer to use the term “overlap” to avoid the interpretation—and accusation—implicit in the term “interruption.”)  Some speakers consider talking along with another to be a show of enthusiastic participation in the conversation, creating connections; others assume that only one voice should be heard at a time, so for them any overlap is an interruption, an attempt to wrest the floor, a power play. The result of this difference is that enthusiastic listeners who talk along to establish rapport can be perceived by others as interrupting—and are furthermore blamed for bad intentions: trying to “dominate” the conversation.

To know whether an overlap is an interruption, you must consider the context (for example, cooperative overlapping is more likely to occur in casual conversation among friends than in a job interview), speakers’ habitual styles (overlaps are more likely NOT to be interruptions among those with a style I call “high-involvement”), and the interaction of their styles (an interruption is more likely to result between speakers whose styles differ with regard to pausing and overlap).

7.   Waiting for someone to arrive is associated with being one-down, making others wait not only reflects higher status, but can be a way to create higher status for oneself.  The tendency for more compliments to be given by those of higher rank remains, nonetheless hierarchies are reflected, reinforced, and created throughout a workday, in even the most automatic and casual conversation.

Another apparent sign of power is the question of who raises the topics that get discussed. This too can result from style differences, since whoever speaks first tends to set the topic. A speaker who thinks the other has no more to say on a given topic, may try to keep the conversation afloat by raising another topic.

8.  “Hypocrisy” is acting in a way that is not a sincere reflection of how you feel or what you said. In other words, the way it seems “natural” to talk and the way you see someone talking don’t match up. Though this could certainly be the result of true hypocrisy—putting on an act for some ulterior motive—it is also the unavoidable impression made when people have different ideas of how it is “natural” to talk, given a particular context and set of emotions.

In our last post #2 we said Indirectness is a fundamental element in human communication. It is also one of the elements that varies the most from one culture to another, and one that can cause confusion and misunderstanding when speakers have different habits with regard to using it. This can be interpreted as hypocrisy.

9.   Competition for alliances is a dynamic pervasive in girls’ friendships. There is a status-based power of first-naming, but also the rhetorical power of changing how you address someone. The double meaning of first names—lack of respect versus friendliness—status on one hand and connection on the other.  In other words, hierarchies and alliances, status and connection, are intertwined and inextricable. In trying to understand the dynamics of interaction, we must see these two forces as inseparable, each one implying the other.

The “true” intention or motive of any utterance cannot be determined merely by considering the linguistic strategy used. Intentions and effects are not identical. I myself was inclined to assume that hierarchy is distancing, so that taking a one-up position is synonymous with pushing someone away. But the Japanese perspective made me rethink that assumption. When people have differing conversational styles, the effect of what they say may be very different from their intention. And anything that happens between two people is the result of both the person’s actions. Sociolinguists talk about this by saying that all interaction is “a joint production.” The double meaning of status and connection makes every utterance potentially ambiguous and even polysemous (meaning many things at once)

Let’s do our interlude:  Anton Stamitz, 1750 - 1800 

.