1

Battle of the Sexes

How Men and Women Use Language in Conflict By Andrew Karanikolis

October 28th, 2009 Professor Bethea LIN 200

2 Whether its a heated debate on nuclear proliferation taking place in the United Nations General Assembly, or a fuss over the only toy fire-truck at the local preschool, nothing illustrates how men and women differ in their use of language better than conflict. But do men and women truly resolve conflicts in manners that are totally distinct from one another? Are there other considerations, aside from gender, that influence how we perceive and conduct conflict? If so, could certain circumstances work to blur, or even reverse the normal roles our culture prescribes to us? Before we can hope to answer these questions, we must examine these gender roles more closely. Language, as the means by which we communicate both the immediate and the intangible, is a cultural institution. As with any institution, language serves to perpetuate a specific system of values and beliefs, and so from a very young age we are indoctrinated with societys conceptions of appropriate masculine and feminine behavior (Sheldon 1990: 84). Over time, children learn to communicate in fashions that are consistent with these gender molds; this process is called language socialization (Schieffelin, Ochs 1986, Sheldon 1990: 84). Play helps to solidify language socialization by providing a forum for young children to practice conflict resolution techniques that they observe from adults (Sheldon 1990: 85). The effects of language socialization are especially apparent in conflicts between members of the same sex (Maccoby 1986, Sheldon 1990: 86). Some researchers have argued that the contrast between how men and women use language in conflict stems from the opposing purposes of conflict within same-sex groups. The presumably male perspective views conflict primarily as a contest, an opportunity to display ones persuasive skills or assert control over others (Miller, Donaher, Forbes 1986, Sheldon 1990: 86). As a result, male speech is typically ego-centric and adversarial in nature, and is used to attract, and ideally, dominate an audience (Maltz, Borker 1982, Sheldon 1990: 87). Conversely, the female perspective tends to focus on the emotional threat conflicts can pose, with the ultimate purpose being restoring

3 harmony and strengthening interpersonal ties (Miller, Donaher, Forbes 1986, Sheldon 1990: 86). Thus, female speech is by and large affiliative in nature, and serves to build relationships and trust, foster intimacy and equality, and to clarify or sometimes (delicately) criticize the positions of others (Maltz, Borker 1982, Sheldon 1990: 87). However, in the modern world it is unavoidable that many (if not all) women will participate in a conflict within the context of a hierarchy, and so there will inevitably be unequal levels of power and authority. Although the chain of command must be respected, pre-determined gender roles condition women to avoid appearing overtly assertive through the use of polite language during conflict (Camras 1984, Goodwin 1980, Sheldon 1990: 88). I was able to observe this behavior personally when I (acting in the capacity of Philanthropy Chairman of my fraternity) was invited to attend a portion of a sorority chapter meeting last year. My fraternity was paired with this sorority for what we call Philanthropy Week, which is a series of fund-raising, volunteer, and social functions during the second week of November. The Sorority held its regular weekly chapter meeting, and I was invited toward the end to discuss our pairings proposed philanthropy activities. The first topic of discussion was which sister would be elected (informally, as it is temporary position) as my counterpart. Candidates were nominated and those that accepted were asked to leave the room while the chapter deliberated their merits. The discussion began with sisters advocating their favorite candidates, I feel like Genine would do a great job. I know shes only been a sister for a semester but her heart is really in this, its all shes been talking about for the last two months. In addition to enthusiasm, other candidates were commended for their responsibility and organizational skills, their intelligence (as indicated by their G.P.A.s), and even their flexible class schedules (to assure participation in every event). After the numerous affirmations, the sisters began a process they referred to as the Pro Con Pro, in which the sister will make a positive, followed by a negative, followed by another positive remark relating to the candidate.

4 One of the Executive Board sisters began I love Genine to death, shes great to be around and I agree with what youre saying about her eagerness. But, I just dont support electing someone who has only been a sister for one semester. She hasnt even seen a Philanthropy Week, how can she be trusted with organizing and leading one? That being said, I would love to see her on the Philanthropy committee, which would make her a strong candidate for next year. At this, affirmations for Genine seemed to cease, and it became apparent to me that when an Executive Board member speaks, sisters listen. By expressing her affection for Genine at the onset, the Board member maintains the personal relationship between Genine and herself, and disarms any potential claims of personal bias that could arise. She also expresses agreement, and demonstrates accurate interpretation of the first speaker, thus maintaining that relationship. When she reaches the con portion of her evaluation, the Board member begins with I just dont support electing, which just as easily could have been phrased I dont think we should elect, but was carefully worded to convey that as a Board member, her support counts for more. She also draws attention to the fact that Genines junior status makes her less capable, perhaps even less of a sister. In perhaps her most divisive move, the Board member calls Genines trustworthiness into question, albeit qualified in the context of managing Philanthropy Week, an example of criticizing in an acceptable way. Finally the Board member masks the doubts she expressed earlier by professing support for Genine as next years Philanthropy Chairwoman, a disposition which can be easily reversed a year down the line, and more importantly implies that Genines loss is inevitable even before the votes were cast. The Executive Board members use of language in the conflict over Genines candidacy maintained interpersonal relationships, addressed emotional concerns, and as a bonus, won her point across to the other sisters. The linguistic tactics employed at this run of the mill sorority chapter meeting are consistent with the findings of Miller, Donaher, Forbes, Borker, and Sheldon (to the extent that Sheldon recognizes the influence of gender roles but

5 doesnt discount other situational factors). However, it also demonstrates the challenges of reconciling the natural feminine attitudes toward conflict with a super-imposed hierarchal structure, complete with elections, judicial hearings, and a chain of command. Although gender is clearly a prime determinant of the language we use to resolve conflicts, situational constraints can be equally influential, and can even overcome gender to produce a conflict where traditional gender roles are reversed, which would suggest that they are not opposing theories, but rather gender is simply one (albeit a powerful one) of the multitude of situational constraints that govern how we use language in conflict (Thorne 1980, 1986, Sheldon 1990: 86). I encountered just such a scenario as an intern for the Global Business Development department of GTECH Corporation. One morning during a particularly hectic week, one of my supervisors (well call her Maureen) called a meeting between herself, my other supervisor (well call him Nigel), me, and my fellow intern (well call her Amy). Soon afterwards we entered the designated conference room and sat down at the table. Maureen broke the silence Earlier this morning I had a meeting with the head of the department and when I went to hand him the Romanian gambling market report, I realized that the portion I assigned you two [interns] wasnt what I asked for. I need you to make the necessary changes immediately. Amy and I half-expected this, as we both felt Maureen was vague in her explanation of our task. We began to apologize but were cut off by Nigel Maureen, why are you blaming the interns for your mistake? My mistake? Maureen retorted, I did my part but I was still the one who caught flak from the boss. I know Nigel acknowledged, and Im sorry for that but in your concern for meeting the deadline you neglected to properly guide the interns. Investing a little more time early on in their instruction can go a long way, and in the end they will save you time by getting it right from the get-go. Amy and I didnt say anything, but more surprising was that Maureen wasnt saying anything either. We could tell that Maureen saw Nigels point, but was perhaps a little embarrassed that we were present for this epiphany.

6 Finally I found my voice I think what Nigel is saying is that as a department we would all benefit from more communication. Why dont we discuss the changes and how we can avoid this next time? I agree remarked Amy, rather than point fingers lets sit down and figure this out. Im sure we can fix the problem in a few hours if we work together. Maureen rallied, and began to outline what parts of the Romanian gambling market report needed amending. Within minutes we had returned to our cubicles and were diligently at work. The language used by the men and women in this conflict would seem to contradict the findings of Miller, Donaher, Forbes, and Borker. The scenario shows that traditional gender roles can be reversed under certain situational constraints, and therefore is compatible with the arguments made by Thorne as well as Goodwin and Goodwin. A number of factors such as: a notable age/work experience difference between participants, the presence of a mixed-gender hierarchal structure in the form of an office environment, and multiple figures of authority generated a scenario where use of language wasnt divided by gender lines but rather seniority lines. Right off the bat Maureen attempts to assert her dominance by using words like I assigned, what I asked for, I need, and immediately. By framing the conflict in terms of what she needs she is gaining control, control that perhaps she was missing when she was being chided her boss earlier. With his blunt declaration of Maureens guilt Nigel sparks a controversy and attracts attention to himself. He continues with a polite disclaimer (characteristic of female speech), and asserts himself while someone else had the floor (male speech). By including intern management and delegation in the criteria for free from blame Nigel succeeds in persuading (male speech) the room of Maureens folly. As an intern I was concerned with establishing a position for myself as part of the group. I sought to be useful in the capacity of a mediator by agreeing with and interpreting (characteristic of female speech) Nigel. Additionally my use of inclusive pronouns and asking questions geared toward Maureen (Why dont we discuss the changes..) promoted solidarity and collaboration. Amys optimistic

7 tone and dismissal of the notion of blame serve to strengthen individual ties and to restore harmony to the group as a whole. This conflict saw a man and woman using language that is characteristic of males, and a younger mixed-gender pair using conflict resolution techniques that are characteristic of females. If the language of conflict is as flexible as this scenario would indicate, then it is quite possible that the competitive tone of the meeting was due to the presence of the interns. Its not unreasonable to think that Maureen and Nigel would have used more affiliative language had the meeting been between the two of them, or included the head of the department. Although men and women can and do differ in their use of language during conflicts, especially in cases of same-sex interactions, other situational constraints can disrupt (or reinforce) these trends. A group of female college students may seem friendly and collaborative in the class room, but how long would that collaboration last if the girls were all invited to appear on a reality television show, where selfish behavior is rewarded with airtime and eventually a cash prize (or chance to be with a celebrity bachelor)? Then there are settings like the United Nations where men may outnumber women, but aggressive behavior is condemned and mediating skills count for a great deal. Believing in the concept of gendered language contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates those stereotypes, rather we should strive to grasp the bigger picture with all of its various situational constraints.

Works Cited
Sheldon, Amy 1990 Pickle Fights: Gendered Talk in Preschool Disputes. In Gender and Conversational Interaction. Deborah Tannen. Pp. 84-109. Oxford University Press.