1. As Theodore L. Dorpat says, primary process thinking deals with the relational aspect of the communication. To use my own words, people are always thinking, "How does this other person relate to me? Am I someone they want to dominate, someone they want to submit to, or am I considered equal?" We can attempt to communicate to others by disregarding this side of communication, but that is unrealistic, because you cannot have a relationship with someone based purely on the exchange of facts.
Despite this, it seems that many people have been taught that an ideal relationship is based purely on factual exchange, and this method is the best for avoiding emotional complications. However, the very same people who believe this also quickly become paranoid if the other party also goes into stealth mode by avoiding signalling his intent.
This indicates that they expect to experience the emotional side of the relationship, but they don't want to have to pay attention to it or to work on it. They reap their twisted harvest.
2. Attempting to communicate without relating, many American men fall into a mode of paranoia. Often this does not take long. The subtext goes like this:
I am not mistaken at all, because those who start from that position also go on to condemn those who do not relate to them for being "a female stereotype" who have perhaps also brought the condemnation on themselves..
A demand that one side of the equation should "relate" whilst the other side should avoid relating is, therefore, a demand that others play a gendered role in the communication process.
Despite this, it seems that many people have been taught that an ideal relationship is based purely on factual exchange, and this method is the best for avoiding emotional complications. However, the very same people who believe this also quickly become paranoid if the other party also goes into stealth mode by avoiding signalling his intent.
This indicates that they expect to experience the emotional side of the relationship, but they don't want to have to pay attention to it or to work on it. They reap their twisted harvest.
2. Attempting to communicate without relating, many American men fall into a mode of paranoia. Often this does not take long. The subtext goes like this:
I was just trying to regale you with "the facts", but I see you are not trying to relate to me as a human being after all. I can't stand it. "You're a mess".Am I wrong in suggesting that a demand that only one party should express themselves in a relational manner (and will be penalized for not doing so) is a gender issue?
I am not mistaken at all, because those who start from that position also go on to condemn those who do not relate to them for being "a female stereotype" who have perhaps also brought the condemnation on themselves..
A demand that one side of the equation should "relate" whilst the other side should avoid relating is, therefore, a demand that others play a gendered role in the communication process.
7 comments:
Thanks for your reply.
So am I to take it that I've failed to observe a passive-aggression dimension in the behavior of American males? I didn't write this down as an extra point, which means I'm out of the loop? Consequently, this is a strong indicator that I'm stuck in a female way of relating?
Yet then you also go on to say that your wife is using the same method of communication -- i.e. not direct communication, but with a passive-aggressive subtext.
So, perhaps she's in the loop after all, and quite capable of understanding subtext.
Of course she only uses subtext to make you feel guilty about something, not to assert she is greater than you, for that would never do.
She is certainly being passive aggressive in the above example. This is the standard "You're not paying attention/I'm not a mind reader" dynamic familiar to legions of married heterosexuals.
My point is that "standard" is exactly what it is. There are general gender differences in our communication styles, and they extend across culture and time.
You argue that men want emotional communication from women but don't want to return it. I don't think that's the case. Just today she said something about how I did so and so and it bugged her. I said "OK, I'll stop. Sorry." She said "Really? That makes you feel BETTER? If you said that to me I'd be pissed!"
She passed on facts, she was polite, I determined whether I thought she was correct or not, I appologized, we were done. It was fantastic. It was NOT the way she would want to be treated.
I've met men who seem to want emotional smothering from the women they love but who refuse to return it. They come off a little effeminate. Selfish mamma's boys, really.
Among me and my fellow men communication is loaded with emotion, but it's a form which may be unfamiliar to you. It's mostly anxiety about status. We tease each other recreationally; even among close friends. We're constantly aware of status.
It seems like what you're looking for is what I would term a more feminine style of communication, where feelings rather than facts are exchanged. Feelings are overt in this case; facts are mere vehicles for feelings. In the male case, facts mask feelings of anxiety or superiority.
You seem to think that these differences are not hard-wired into the brain but rather result from societal pressure. I don't think that's the case.
When I insert more empathy into my interactions with my wife, she's much happier. This conversation made me extra aware today and she's like a rabbit in a carrot patch. She told me to thank you.
YOU would have me believe that society drove all the empathy out of me at a young age. I don't think so. I think I'm just a man.
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply, by the way. This is fun!
That certainly isn't my default setting, though, and I think it's genetic. Men and women are different.
Posted the wrong edit! It gets garbled at the end. Sorry.
Since you seem very interested in logic, I can recommend a book I studied quite a long time ago, when I did a course in formal logic.
http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Logic-J-Lemmon/dp/0915144506
"This indicates that they expect to experience the emotional side of the relationship, but they don't want to have to pay attention to it or to work on it. They reap their twisted harvest."
I think it's a fair summary.
Let me make is clearer. "The relationship", as such, is only made possible by the emotional side of your brain. A lot of men expect to be able to relate without having to.
That's a good point. I can agree with that. But doesn't that point to differences in male and female communication styles?
Post a Comment