学术英语原文4单元.doc

His Politeness Is Her PowerlessnessDeborah TannenThere 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 “womens language” as “powerless language” reflects the view of womens behavior through the lens of mens.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 womens 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 store? where a woman might say, Gee, I really need a few things from the store, but Im so tired.” The womans style is called “covert,” a term suggesting negative qualities like being “sneaky” and “underhanded.” The reason offered for this is power. The woman doesnt 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 womans 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: Youre 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. Youre 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. Its 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 the house says, “Its chilly in here,” and the servant sets about raising the temperature. The man of the house says, “Its 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 theyre 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 wouldnt bring it up if she didnt 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, “Well 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 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 mens 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 womens direct style as clumsy and crude, debasing the beautiful subtlety of mens language. Whether women or men are direct or indirect differs; what remains constant is that womens style is negatively valuated seen as lower in status than the mens.各种各样的证据表明：即使女性和男性说话方式相同，人们对他们的看法还是不同。这种倾向导致有关女性、男性和无能耐的讨论纷争不断。女性说话讲究方式方法被认为是低微无能，而换成男性则被认为是有能力的表现。视女性的语言为低微无能者的语言常常反映出男性看女性行为的视觉角度。 女性不为高人一等而拼搏，往往就被认为是低人一等。在任何情况下都极容易发生误会。这也说明了为什么专家和非专家常常把女性以友善语言表述出来的思维方式曲解成低微无能的表现。没有什么能比一家报社刊登的采访片段更能清楚地说明这种根深蒂固的歧义。采访对象是一对心理学家夫妇，当记者问他们“表现得非常有礼貌”的含义时，这两位专家同时给出不同的答案。男性回答说：“服从”。女性回答说：“敏感”。两位专家都是正确的，只不过每个人描述的是不同性别的观点。专家和非专家都习惯把女性的任何行为看为低微无能的表现。以上同一篇报刊文章援引另一位心理学家的话说：“一个男人会这样问一个女人：请你去一趟商店好吗？同样的情况下女人会说：哎，我真的需要从商店买点东西，但是我实在太累了。”女性的这种表达方式被称为“隐蔽的”，该词含有“鬼祟”和“秘密”等贬义，而这样表达的原因归咎于一个“权”字，女人觉得她没有权利直接提出要求。的确，在我们（美国）社会里，女性的地位比男性低，但这不等于说她们不愿意提出直截了当的要求。女性的这种间接方式很可能是因为她们在努力寻找某种关系。如果愿意在自己的要求下得到满足，结果就是社会地位的胜利：你高人一等，因为别人按你的意志行事。而如果你的愿望得到满足是因为他人的愿望恰好和你的一致，或者是因为对方心甘情愿，结果就是融洽和谐。当你和对方的需求一致而一拍即合时，你既不高人一等，也不低人一等。而且如果双方都了解这种间接方式，那就不存在什么隐蔽：提出的要求很明确。称间接的沟通方式为隐蔽反映出那些青睐直接沟通方式的人的观点，即直接的方式才是“自然的”、“合乎逻辑的”，这种观点在男性中更普遍。间接方式本身并不反映低微无能。我们不难想象出权势者中有特权的人是怎样使用间接方式的。例如，一位有钱的夫妇用不着直接向听命于他们的用人发号施令，而只须简单地说明其愿望，房子的女主人说：“这儿冷，”用人就会去调高室温；房子的男主人说：“是晚饭的时间，”用人就会摆桌上菜。或许终极的间接是什么都不用说就能使某人做某事：女主人按一下铃，女仆端上下一道菜；家长走进有孩子正在嬉闹的房间，双手叉腰一站，他们就会戛然而止。所有文化都靠以“间接”二字所形成的复杂而精巧的体制去运作。例如，我在做一个小规模的研究项目时发现：当妻子问“你想去参加那个聚会吗？”，大多数希腊人认为他们的妻子是在暗示她想去。他们认为如果妻子不想去，她就不会