Deborah Tannen attempts to decode the male and female communication style in her article. Using various examples and anecdotes, she portrayed differences between how men and women interpret the same exchange in conflicting ways, thereby causing annoyance, anger and frustration for both. Her main aim of the article is to bring to the fore how seemingly senseless misunderstanding that arise in a relationship can be explained by the different conversational rules in which men and women adhere to. In all, she is pitching the article to a general audience using simple terms and expressions, and the numerous anecdotes would resound with the reader as those situations are indeed commonplace when males and females communicate.
I found the article rather interesting and persuasive in nature. Anecdotes were believably illustrated and explanations were given with regard to how men and women regard the exact same situation in their respective manners. However, Tannen failed to further elaborate on the various causes of differences. She did not provide reasons for the differences in perception between men and women, but merely described what she believes is typical of male and female response. There is no proper justification of whether the various behaviours were learnt, absorbed through enculturation, or actually innate in nature with respect to how males and females are different biologically. Those might indeed not be the main focus of her argument, but she should have factored in other causes and left it for the reader to make his/her own judgement on how important those other contributions might be. As a result, Tannen resorted to a couple of generalizations in the process and the use of anecdotes helped in persuading the reader to agree with her views and on her points raised, regardless of whether they were appropriately linked or not.
One such generalization was evident in “Status and Support”, where she stated “I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus”. The first point of contention is that Tannen “see” her husband as exhibiting behaviour “many men do”. She admitted herself that men and women view things differently, thus it is rather contradictory that she could suddenly “see” from an angle of a male (if one exists) on what the response meant, since she is a woman herself. It is not very possible for her to become enlightened in an instance and suddenly comprehend an issue from a male’s perspective merely from what her husband told her. Using her own limited views to theorize how other members of the women population interpret issues is also too much of a generalization. In addition, she stereotyped males as aggressors who try to outdo others and place high emphasis on status. Her views on females were also stereotypical as she described women as the fairer sex that seek support and consensus. It could be that her husband reacted the way he did because he wanted to reassure himself thorough rationality, that being in an atypical sort of relationship is in no way detrimental in quality or “inferior” to a “normal” relationship. “Inferior” here does not refer to the status he holds in society, but rather the nature of the relationship, as well as the bond between him and Tanner. This, to me, is more of seeking consensus and reassurance, if those were indeed the thoughts that went through his mind then. Thus, Tanner might have made a hasty conclusion to what she perceived (wrongly) as her husband exhibiting male behaviour, which she most probably did not know much about to start off with.
It could also be argued that in the liberalized societies of today, women work equally hard to compete with men on many fronts in the workplace and most would not hesitate to challenge males head on in traditionally male-dominated strongholds like in the political and legal arenas. It is therefore not exactly accurate to state that women are support-seeking and docile – rank and status most probably do appeal to women too, along with the prestige and other benefits that such statuses provide.
Another debatable issue arises in “Independence vs. Intimacy”. Tannen viewed Linda being upset as a woman’s reaction, where women are made to feel good to show that their lives are “intertwined” with their spouse when decisions are jointly made. However, it is possible that the root of why Linda felt upset was because Josh’s decision that was made without her consent was of the negative kind – something that brought inconvenience to her. Had Josh gave her a pleasant surprise or a gift instead without consulting her before taking the initiative to do so, it would be difficult to see how she would have felt upset when Josh made a decision without her initial agreement or approval. Therefore, the crux lies in the nature of the decision made, not in prior knowledge or understanding of the decision to be made.
Therefore, though Tannen’s article was an interesting read, there were a few issues which I believed were misdirected in a bid to reinforce her stand. Superficially, the anecdotes might seem to consolidate her views, but there were definitely many other reasons or perspectives that Tannen failed to consider. There was also no presence of scientific or empirical data to back up her claims, nor were there any citations or references. Tannen’s article is therefore mainly a personal comment and it is up to the reader to formulate his/her own views with regard to this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment