Did I Hear You? What Are You Really Saying?
Denise Twohey and Antoinette L. James
University of North Dakota
Box 8255 University Station
Grand Forks, ND 58202-8255
701-777-2635
E-mail: ,
A paper presented as part of the symposium -- “Gender Issues and Actions”, Monday, August 27, 2001, 12:00 - 1:50 p.m., Moscone Center, South Building, Room 308, presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco, CA, August 24-28, 2001.
1
Did I Hear You? What Are You Really Saying?
Denise Twohey and Antoinette L. James
Sometimes men and women do not, cannot, or will not hear each other. This deafness often leads to misunderstandings or conflict between women and men. How can these conflicts be resolved?
Ronald Levant (1986) identified a phenomenon that he termed a “crisis of connection”. This crisis refers to “our current Zeitgeist in which people feel that it is difficult to develop and maintain an intimate emotional connection with a person of the opposite gender” (p. 2). Although Levant observed this crisis in the 1980's, a quick stroll down the self-help section of any bookstore will confirm that this crisis persists today.
Levant attributes the crisis of connection to the women’s movement and resulting changes in women’s roles. “Men have yet to make equivalent changes” (p. 2), he comments. In agreement with Levant, cultural feminists (Gilligan, l982; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Jordan, Miller, Surrey & Stiver, 1991) have described a popular paradigm in psychology, which applauds women’s relational strengths. According to this paradigm, relationship needs often take precedence over the needs of the individual. Women have traditionally been the “relationship makers” and the conduits through which all communication flows.
Men, on the other hand, frequently find themselves trapped into narrowly defined roles, which are often misunderstood. Additionally, men are stereotyped as underachievers in relationships. However, Levant comes to the rescue by identifying different ways men can achieve relationship. Please note our use of the word achieve. For men relationships literally are achievements. In his book Masculinity Reconstructed (1995), Levant points out the difference between what he calls action vs. emotional empathy; men doing extremely well at the prior, women surpassing them at the latter skill. Expressed another way, men see relationships as resulting from their actions, in contrast to women who see relationships as resulting from their experiences.
Twohey gives this example: I often have difficulty saying good-bye to my doctoral students. I anguish about how much I will miss them, often take them out for a farewell dinner, and sometimes even cry. Mike Ewing, a former doctoral student, offers to load their trucks; action empathy at its finest. Our presumed gender related differences are a perfect example of Levant’s theory.
Gender Related Impasse
In a study, conducted by a research group at the University of North Dakota, concerning ethical decision-making among counseling professionals (Twohey, Viler, Zimmer, Nienhuis, Dahlstrom, & Schoup, 1990) opinions and analyses frequently divided heatedly along gender lines. Inspired by our own inability to hear and understand each other, we sought to identify similar gender related communication problems in psychotherapy. Utilizing a method of reader response devised by Brown et al. (l988), which stresses the importance of gender in formulating interpretations, our research team from the University of North Dakota examined a transcript of an interview from a widely used film to train therapists (Twohey, 1993). The film featured a therapeutic dialog between a male therapist and a female client. Findings of the study showed significant areas of miscommunication within their interaction.
This project illustrated the importance of changing the lens on the client and clinician. In our early work we examined a transcript of a situation involving sexual harassment, at least that was how the women saw it. The men disagreed. Through this work the team identified the term “Gender-Related Impasse in Psychotherapy” (initially called a GRIP) to describe situations comparable to those our research group had experienced. Similar to an intellectual or emotional stalemate the impasse actually feels like a grip, a clench, or a vise. Persons engaged in a GRIP are hard pressed to find a way out.
Later the acronym was shortened to GRI (Gender Related Impasse), and the concept was operationalized, first for use in research on clinical supervision, and later for a project on heterosexual intimacy (Twohey, 1993; Twohey & Volker, l993; Twohey, Jorgensen, McFarland, Reid, James, Clow, & Formati, 1996). The research team defined GRI as “ineffectual communication in male/female relationships resulting from a mismatch in gender related perspectives, stereotypes or expectations” (Twohey, Ewing, Dohrenwend, Pauly, Smith, & Casazza, 1993).
Although seemingly a simple application of Tannen’s (1990) popularized sociolinguistic analysis to the counseling process, this research departed by attending to both conscious and unconscious processes. Many authors have addressed communication problems between women and men (Tannen, 1990; Gray, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982). They describe differences in communication style and make suggestions for overcoming communication problems. However, knowing the steps to solve a communication problem and actually solving it are completely different tasks. Tannen and Gray provide information that attempts to aid men and women in solving these difficulties, but they do not address the deep level of conflict, unconscious projections, stereotypes and heated affect that often surround gender-related impasses. Inattention to these processes prevents true communication and understanding.
3 Steps for Working Through GRI’s
(1) Make the impasse explicit.
(2) Deconstruct language.
(3) Identify gender-role stereotypes
Make The Impasse Explicit
The first step in dealing with a gender related impasse (GRI) is noticing that they occur, since they often transpire below our level of awareness. For example, a post-doctoral resident reported the following incident. The resident and her male supervisor often argued about the way she handled authority with clients and staff. He suggested (no, he doesn’t suggest, that’s what we would do) he repeatedly demands that she assume hierarchical positioning with patients. She prefers a non-authoritarian, equalitarian position. He tells her that she will be compromised as a professional if she is unable to assume an authoritarian position. She conveys to him that she will lose an important ingredient in establishing the relationship. Although words are being spoken, he is unable to “hear” or understand her. She thinks about authority differently than he does. She is unable to hear or understand why he cannot empathize with her. Only after consulting with Twohey was she was able to identify the situation as a GRI.
Deconstruct Language
An example of language deconstruction can be gleaned from the work of Lyn Mikel Brown and Carol Gilligan (1992), who have written extensively about the voice of justice and the voice of care. When one person speaks in justice terms while the other speaks the voice of care, communication often fails. Briefly, the voice of care expresses “concerns about loving and being loved, listening and being listened to, responding and being responded to”, whereas the justice voice reflects “a vision of equality, reciprocity and fairness between persons” (Brown & Gilligan, l990, p. 8).
A student in Twohey’s former research group while conducting a study on care and justice once commented: “I think that everyone, well at least for me anyway, that the word justice takes on a lot of negative connotations…. I equate justice with the police [to whom she had obvious negative associations].” To others the term "justice" conjures images of courtroom proceedings. Still others think of justice as equality and fairness. Thus, a seemingly innocent word such as justice can elicit different reactions in people depending on their individual interpretations of the word.
The same logic can be applied to the word care. Some people think of care as nurturing behavior while others think of it as coddling. Depending on the circumstances, care could have either negative or positive connotations.
Identify Gender-Role Stereotypes
Impasse can occur when other people do not meet our gender role expectations. Just as it is difficult to recognize and admit to prejudices, it is also difficult to acknowledge gender-related stereotypes. We all come to the table with individual sets of gender role expectations central to our identities. We may or may not be conscious of them. For example a woman may be unaware of her prejudice in expecting her male partner to excel at auto mechanics. She interprets his lack of mechanical ability as a personal fault. She may even decide “he does not care for me, if he can not repair my car”. Furthermore, she may stereotypically believe that her role as female prevents her from taking an active approach to car mechanics. Lyn Brown describes this phenomena as “dumbing down”(personal communication, 1993).
Consider another example: a man desires to stay at home stay home to care for the children, however his partner believes that by doing so he would be infringing upon her area of responsibility. She has long held the notion that a women’s role means staying home. The couple must decide which of these opposing behaviors best suits their relational needs. They also must examine their reasons for holding these views. Only then will they be free to decide how to structure gender roles within their unique relationship.
For the couple to get on with their relationship, they must first identify gender stereotypes. By identifying gender related stereotypes men and women can experience a freedom from rigid gender roles and begin to re-write the rules for their unique situations.
Conclusion
The path to better communication is often fraught with traps and sinkholes. Negotiating each area takes serious commitment from both parties. Our hope is that by identifying these 3 steps men and women can begin to understand each other, to actually hear what the other is saying.
References
Brown, L. M., Argyris, D., Attanucci, J., Bardige, B., Gilligan, C., Johnston, K., Miller, B., Osborne, D., Ward, J., Wiggins, & G., Wilcox, D. (1988). A guide to reading narratives of conflict and choice for self and moral voice. Harvard University: Center for the Study of Gender, Education, and Human Development.
Brown, L.M. & Gilligan, C. (1990, August). Listening for self and relational voice: A responsive/resisting readers guide. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Brown, L.M. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. New York: Harper Collins.
Levant, R.F. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity: Changing the rules of manhood at work, in relationships, and in family life. Dutton: New York, New York.
Levant, R. F. (1986). The crisis of connection between women and men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 5, 1-12
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Twohey, D. (1993). The importance of voice in supervision: A response to Ellis and Robbins (1993) and Bernstein (1993). Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 61-64.
Twohey, D., Ewing, M., Dohrenwend, A. Pauly, S. L., Smith, J. I.A., & Casazza, R. (1993, October). Gender Issues in Supervision, Regional Meeting of Minnesota Psychological Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
Twohey, D., Jorgensen, E., McFarland, M., Reid, J., James, A.L., Clow, R., & Formati, J. (1996, August). A new psychology of intimacy: Listening to men. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Twohey, D. & Volker, J. (1993). Listening for the voices of care and justice in counselor supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 32, 189-202.
Twohey, D., Volker, J., Ziemke, N., Nienhuis, N., Dahlstrom, C., & Schoup, F. (1990). Multiple interpretations of an interview regarding a suicidal student: Implications for teaching ethical decision making. Unpublished manuscript.