Gender Differences in Dialogue
By Frances Forde Plude
“We haven’t really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have engaged in thoughts, but we have only paid attention to the content, not to the process.” – David Bohm
Along with many women, I have noticed there is often a significant difference between men and women in the way they process conversation. One scholar in sociolinguistics, Deborah Tannen, has spent years doing research in this area; she tapes many conversations for analysis as part of this research.
Tannen has written numerous popular books, in addition to her scholarly journal articles. Some of these titles indicate the locale of her analysis: Talking From 9 to 5 (about conversation in the workplace); how sisters communicate (You Were Always Mom’s Favorite); and America’s ‘war on words’ (The Argument Culture).
One of my favorites, You Just Don’t Understand, about men and women in conversation, spent four years on The New York Times best-seller list, eight months as #1. I have used this book in classes with women and its contents ring true with the experience of these women. I will list here some of the major concepts in the book and then focus, more specifically, on several.
There are difficulties for women when the male is seen as normative.
Men often have a need for independence and a unique way of defining freedom.
Men consider themselves as fixers and often explain things when they talk.
Men mostly deal with facts, sharing information in conversation rather than connecting.
Women often find themselves in a listening role as men share factual talk.
Women may respond to the need for a peacemaker, covering over difficulties.
Tannen continually reminds us that not all men can be described by these concepts, but that many of these do apply to most men.
In attempting to understand how authentic dialogue in communication can be understood and practiced – especially between men and women – I find two of Tannen’s research results particularly interesting. One relates to how boys and girls are socialized, even from an early age. Her studies, and others, note that boys tend to socialize in relatively large groups that are hierarchically structured. These groups often have a leader who commands; thus, a boy learns early that he can gain status among his peers if he learns how to assume a leadership position. Girls, on the other hand, tend to socialize in smaller groups or in pairs; the center of a girl’s social life often is her best friend. If disputes arise a girl will change the game or the subject rather than have confrontations or have her friends disperse.
It is somewhat logical, therefore, for these social communication styles to transfer into what happens in the dialogue between men and women. This is visible, Tannen notes, in most personal conversations between the genders and in most business meetings. Males, in the leadership role, tend to focus on problem-solving, often jousting in groups with other males for the favorable position. Females, wanting to get along, usually just listen. Often, if a woman wants her idea to be accepted, she will hand it over to a male in advance of a meeting, knowing that if it comes from him it is apt to be received more readily. Sometimes a woman will offer a suggestion and it will be passed by; later in the meeting a male might bring up the idea again and because he is now suggesting it the idea is accepted.
As a result, it is not difficult to see that the concept of hierarchy is deeply ingrained in the way most communication between the sexes takes place. In the Catholic Church, for example, with leadership almost entirely dominated by males, the hierarchical culture is deeply ingrained.
Another concept explored by Tannen is of special interest in terms of differences in approach as men and women try to dialogue. As opposed to the one-up or one-down dynamic in male conversations, most women see themselves engaged in “a network of connections. In this world, conversations are negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus… Life, then, is a community, a struggle to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation” (p 25). In her earlier work Tannen contrasts these two different approaches as intimacy/solidarity v. independence/power.
As I mentioned earlier these Tannen concepts are based upon much research – recording conversations and meetings for in-depth analysis.
Now, how do these differences tend to subvert dialogue? Many experts have studied the writings of the late David Bohm, a noted physicist whose study of matter led him to reflect on the ‘atoms’ of the thinking and conversation process. Bohm differentiates between dialogue and discussion or debate. The latter groups are usually working towards a goal or reaching a decision. Bohm uses the term dialogue to describe a meeting without an agenda or fixed objective – allowing free space for something new to happen.
In the ‘free space’ dialogue situation both males and females are tripped up by their assumptions. Men and women may tend to have different assumptions, based on their cultural differences, but both will enter the dialogue with assumptions. This is the most difficult hurdle in trying to have the free flow of meaning between people in communication. As all participants in such a group struggle to be totally open to others, men need to overcome their assumptions and also their somewhat-ingrained tendency to manage the conversation. Women should overcome assumptions and their tendency to appease or avoid any conflict as the conversation proceeds.
This free flowing ‘river’ of conversation can indeed be rich and can lead to brand new ideas and rich creative thinking. But it is difficult to achieve due to the tendency within both genders to come to the dialogue with pre-conceived ideas or assumptions. I propose, however, that if women are socialized to seek closeness, to see life in terms of community and intimacy, as Tannen’s research suggests, then they are apt to be open to authentic dialogue.
A corollary thought: if a globalized intercultural humanity should struggle to achieve authentic dialogue – being totally open to all participants – for the enrichment of all (and to achieve peace more often), perhaps we are limiting humanity, policies, and dialogue if we do not recognize that more women’s participative voices will enrich the dialogue and allow new solutions to emerge.
It’s a thought.