His Politeness Is Her Powerlessness
Deborah Tannen
There are many different kinds of evidence that women and men are judged differently even if they talk the same way. This tendency makes mischief in discussions of women, men and power. If a linguistic strategy is used by a woman, it is seen as powerless; if it is used by a man, it is seen as powerful. Often, the labeling of “women?s language” as “powerless language” reflects the view of women?s behavior through the lens of men?s.
Because they are not struggling to be one-up, women often find themselves
framed
as
one-down.
Any
situation
is
ripe
for
misinterpretation. This ambiguity accounts for much misinterpretation by experts as well as nonexperts, by which women?s ways of thinking, uttered in a spirit of rapport, are branded powerless. Nowhere is this inherent ambiguity clearer than in a brief comment in a newspaper article in which a couple, both psychologists, were jointly interviewed. The journalist asked them the meaning of “being very polite.” The two experts responded simultaneously, giving different answers. The man said, “Subservience.” The woman said, “Sensitivity.”Both experts were right, but each was describing the view of a different gender.
Experts and nonexperts alike tend to see anything women do as evidence of powerlessness. The same newspaper article quotes another psychologist as saying, “A man might ask a woman, ?Will you please go to the
1
store?? where a woman might say, ?Gee, I really need a few things from the store, but I?m so tired.?” The woman?s style is called “covert,” a term suggesting negative qualities like being “sneaky” and “underhanded.” The reason offered for this is power. The woman doesn?t feel she has the right to ask directly.
Granted, women have lower status than men in our American society. But this is not necessarily why they prefer not to make outright demands. The explanation for a woman?s indirectness could just as well be her seeking connection. If you get your way as a result of having demanded it, the payoff is satisfying in terms of status: You?re one-up because others are doing as you told them. But if you get your way because others happened to want the same thing, or because they offered freely, the payoff is rapport. You?re neither one-up nor one-down by being happily connected to others whose wants are the same as yours. Furthermore, if indirectness is understood by both parties, then there is nothing covert about it: That a request is being made is clear. Calling an indirect communication covert reflects the view of someone for whom the direct style seems “natural” and “logical” － a view more common among men.
Indirectness itself does not reflect powerlessness. It?s easy to think of situations where indirectness is the prerogative of others in power. For example, a wealthy couple who knows that their servants will do their bidding need not give direct orders, but simply state wishes: The woman of
2
the house says, “It?s chilly in here,” and the servant sets about raising the temperature. The man of the house says, “It?s dinner time,” and the servant sees about having dinner served. Perhaps the ultimate indirectness is getting someone to do something without saying anything at all: The hostess rings a bell and a maid brings the next course; or a parent enters the room where children are misbehaving and stands with hands on hips, and the children immediately stop what they?re doing.
Entire cultures operate on elaborate systems of indirectness. For
example, I discovered in a small research project that most Greeks assumed a wife who asked, “Would you like to go to the party?” was hinting that she wanted to go. They felt that she wouldn?t bring it up if she didn?t want to go. Furthermore, they felt, she would not state here preference outright because that would sound like a demand. Indirectness was the appropriate means for communicating her preference.
Japanese culture has developed indirectness to a fine art. For
example, a Japanese anthropologist, Harumi Befu, explains the delicate exchange of tended the invitation, Befu first had to determine whether it was meant literally or just pro forma, much as an American might say, “We?ll have to have you over for dinner some time” but would not expect you to turn up at the door. Having decided the invitation was meant literally and having accepted, Befu was then asked what he would like to eat. Following custom, he said anything would do, but his friend, also
3
following custom, pressed him to specify. Host and guest repeated this exchange an appropriate number of times, until Befu deemed it polite to answer the question － politely － by saying tea over rice － as the last course of a sumptuous meal. Befu was not surprised by the feast because he knew that protocol required it. Had he been given what he asked for, he would have been insulted. But protocol also required that he make a great show of being surprised.
This account of mutual indirectness in a lunch invitation may strike
Americans as excessive. But far more cultures in the world use elaborate systems of indirectness than value directness. Only modern Western societies place a priority on direct communication, and even for us it is more a value than a practice.
Evidence from other cultures also makes it clear that indirectness does not itself reflect low status. Rather, our assumptions about the status of women compel us to interpret anything they do as reflecting low status. Anthropologist Elinor Keenan, for example, found that in a Malagasy-speaking village on the island of Madagascar, it is women who are direct and men who are indirect. And the villagers see the men?s indirect way of speaking, using metaphors and proverbs, as the better way. For them, indirectness, like the men who use it, has high status. They regard women?s direct style as clumsy and crude, debasing the beautiful subtlety of men?s language. Whether women or men are direct or indirect differs;
4
what remains constant is that women?s style is negatively valuated － seen as lower in status than the men?s.
5