COMPLIMENTARY SCHIZMOGENESIS and the I, You, and We Narratives

Image

 

Deborah Tannen, the foremost expert on male/female communication rituals refers to arguments between men and women as complimentary schizmogenesis.  She is referring to a pattern that is created between tribes and nations where in their relationships they keep on repeating their party lines.  I wanted to give credit to her but I want to be clear that much of my stuff is my understanding and my personal philosophic calculus, so don’t think that all of what I am about to say is coming from her.  I like her and I think we would have a very interesting and edifying conversation.  However we disagree on many aspects.  Scientific materials are descriptive, prescriptive and predictive.  Linguistics chooses to focus on the descriptive part of language, the patterns and processes that occur within living languages without making judgments as to what is good and what is bad.  My focus is on how to make relationship work, how to create the most value in a relationship for the most people, so I do judge and I do prescribe.  

What happens in complimentary schizmogenesis is that each person retreats behind their shibboleths and they start repeating the behavior they believe to be dominant.  Each thinks they deserve to win or deserve their way because of either the masculine solution or the feminine solution.  Each has retreated from the We narrative into the I and you narratives. (my personal philosophic calculus).  She communicates femininity to him and he communicates masculinity back to her.  They do not compromise and create a we narrative.  In my SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION there are 4 shared states, communication, understanding, agreement, participation.  Proximity could be a shared state too and it is necessary for the other 4 more or less but it has less to do with communication.  

I believe in “equality under reason” which means that the most reasonable person gets their way or the most reasonable solution is created.  Everybody hearing that agrees with it, but women think that I am talking about pleasantness, and moral authority and they nod their head in agreement and the go,  “MMMMMHMMMMMM!”  and men do the same but they think I am talking about pragmatism and the end result.  

Women consistently use moral authority to discount, judge, block, criticize, prevent, and not participate with the masculine solution or desires.  When women do not want to participate they will leave the we narrative.  When they require or desire participation they will say “we need to do this.”  and when they refuse to participate they will communicate tautologies of non relationship, “you need to use your own resources”  or, ” I think everybody should do what they are comfortable doing.” 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s