Amanda Wilson #594648

Anthropology 1310 Paper #2

Symbolic Interaction or the “Interationist Perspective” explains social

interaction as a dynamic process in which people continually modify their behavior
as a result of the interaction itself. Herbert Blumer, who originated the term
symbolic interaction, asserted that people do not respond directly to the world
around them, but to the meaning they bring to it- people interact according to how
they perceive a situation, emphasizes the fluidity of behavior. To further
demonstrate this construct, the Arapesh and Mundugumor tribes of New Guinea do
not differentiate gender traits due to the ways in which their young are reared;
Arapesh fathers and mothers participate in the same activities demonstrating
equality. In the Mundugumor children are left to fend for themselves, learning
aggression is key to survival; and since females and males possess this trait there is
no real personality differentiation on the level of gender (Mead 1935/2001).
On a microlevel perspective social interaction is a process governed by norms
for role behavior, like gender, largely determined by culture. The context of the
interaction being the key to determining role performance; a process called social
construction of reality- the shaping of perception of reality by the subjective
meanings brought to any experience or social interaction.
Gender doesn’t exist objectively but emerges through socially constructed
processes, males and females are endowed with certain traits that therefore must
be found in the meanings people bring to them through their interactions with
others. Social interaction is to consider role performance as an enactment in a
theatrical performance, such as a script. We use strategies of impression
management to interpret situations as in the context of a bar. Both men and women
“stalk“ for partners, but they do it according to agreed-upon rules- a process of
unspoken negotiation and choice based primarily on gender roles. A guy can’t
openly say, “I’d like to buy you a drink and then copulate with you” nor can she do
the same; but rather the male must open with requesting a drink and then engage
in conversation with her and inquire why she is here- instrumental to seeing if she’s
available, and she may instead display nonverbal communication of openness to
invite such invitations as it isn’t culturally appropriate to outright verbally declare
so. In particular we routinely refer to those of the other gender as the opposite sex;
linguistically we tend to define ourselves by the opposite of what we are or what we
Amanda Wilson #594648

are not. Behavior then serves to separate rather than connect gender; in some
cultures custom becomes law and determines marital power, occupation, and family
hierarchy. This pattern exemplifies the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of culture affecting
language and language affecting culture; this makes it fundamental to
understanding gender. An example of this is how masculine imagery is implied to
neutral words like “person” or “it”; In American culture it is as if you are male until
proven female so specifying and using the ‘he/she’ marker is understood as
imperative to denote equality and inclusion of the female persona. Also
occupationally our culture has emphasized that being a doctor is more of a
masculine profession and being a nurse more of a female profession; in kind, we
incorporate linguistic markers such as ‘male’ nurse or ‘lady’ doctor (who hilariously,
often are mistaken for a gynecologist). Linguistic markers often involve affecting
appendages or suffixes, a phoneme affect, where words such as poetess or
usherette, exemplify such; conversely this seems to accentuate a cultural norm of
females being exception to the role. Critical to demonstrating this aspect also
involves discussion of what meta-message is seen in language use between gender;
identity is pivotal in language. For example, the loss of a maiden name and
adoption of a husband’s name has incensed feminists for years as an interpretation
of masculine possession imagery.
Now that gender as culture and the relationship of imagery through language
has been enumerated, the next step is to see the conversational style that
accentuates each gender. Sociolinguists use the term registers to indicate a variety
of language defined by its use in social situations, to exhibit distinctive styles of
communication. Julia Wood, as observed during an in class video, cites
communication problems as the number-one cause of marital strife. Communication
problems originate in the different innate conversational styles between men and
women.
Women communicate primarily to establish and maintain relationships, share
themselves, and learn about others and their speech patterns typically reflect this
through features that foster understanding, closeness, and connecting; girls are
stereotypically supposed to be nurturing individuals. Equity is also important as
empathy demonstrated through matching experiences which may in turn develop
complementary schizogenesis; where trying to tell a story in order to get more
information only leads to boredom in males as the content becomes muddled in the
Amanda Wilson #594648

context. Schizogenesis is a result of a conversational process where one speaker

engages in an act to promote the same in the partner speaker which in turn
promotes them to go to the extreme end of their speaking styles- a speaker speaks
louder to promote the other speaker to talk louder, the other speaker becomes
quieter to promote the other speaker to follow. Thusly they have a very interactive
and inclusive style prompting them to invite others into speak and elaborate, the
pausing and pacing allow for more moments of interjection. The use of qualifying
statements or tagging of statements is also a part of inclusivity; examples of
tentative tagging/qualifying statements include: “That was a beautiful ceremony,
wasn’t it?”, or “I may be wrong but-”. The style is very personal and often
cultivates a personal tone by including anecdotes, intimate personal disclosures in
uncertainty reduction techniques. Ways this socialization can be acquired may stem
from child’s play- girls often play games like house in small groups, where no pre-
set rules or goals are established. Hence, talking amongst each other is necessary,
as well as fosters a process of interaction where communication becomes the goal
itself (not content) and reflects normative communication patterns, while
attempting to interpret another’s message.
Conversely boys games are competitive with clear cut rules, like football,
status is emphasized as standing out or being better and emotional responses as
anything but anger are frowned upon. If you’ve ever seen a coach yelling loudly to
maintain attention, prove dominance or speak curtly, you know exactly what I’m
talking about. Negotiation then stands forward as a reason for conversational
discourse assertion, competition, and attracting, while maintaining an audience is
the style involved. This develops in masculine speech patterns through various
styles, most prominent of these is the need to defend or negotiate as a reason to
speak. Emotions are supported by respecting independence and avoiding
communication. They disclose personal information in order to prevent a one-down
position, and instead convey knowledge, skill or expertise as giving advice;
instances of females telling males about a bad day can lead to hurt feelings as
females feel emotionally neglected when given advice, where as males see
sympathy as condescending. This is critical because men are competitive and any
time they feel they are not on top they must assert themselves; this also serves to
reinforce the complementary schizogenesis developing. They are very blunt
because communication is to be about instrumentality of objectives; the point of
Amanda Wilson #594648

speaking is about accomplishing something. The point to command an audience

leads to faster pacing, fewer pauses, interruption and overlap; this frequently
makes females feel as though they are not being listened to or that their
contribution is not important hinging mainly on the fact that women are tentative
speakers but men are not. Males are also, often confused by the general
abstractness that women use to gain understanding as their assumption is that the
point should be clear.
Basically neither gender conversational style is deficient; both exemplify and
accentuate the nature they are taught to adopt culturally. Communication errors
are a lack of understanding the reason for style variances and meta-message
incomprehension by misperceived motives and meanings. Flexibility and
comprehension of communication is a great way to avoid problems and gain power.