Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [87]
[The writer moves next to another of Tannen’s theories, which reformulate the binaries in the Rudd and O’Brien example:] Tannen suggests that while women look for understanding for their problems, men look for solutions: “Yet another man commented that women seem to wallow in their problems, wanting to talk about them forever, whereas he and other men want to get them out and be done with them, either by finding a solution or by laughing them off” (Understand 52). The men in these examples did not want sympathy for their problems, nor did they want their problems dismissed—they sought validation. But, unlike the women Tannen described, such validation does not come from sympathy or identification, but from laughter and reinforcement. The self-deprecator is laughing at a problem of his own, and needs the other man to acknowledge that his problem is funny, and is, indeed, a problem, for the two men to achieve equal status within the conversation.
[The writer then moves on to another pattern in her data, instances where two men in a conversation both use selfdeprecation:] Self-deprecation is not always used by only one party; it is also sometimes used by both parties to negotiate footing within a conversation. The following excerpt comes from a conversation between ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel and comedian Artie Lange in which the two men discuss a celebrity wedding both men attended.
Kimmel: I know, right. Well you said something—
Lange: Wasn’t that a great event though?
Kimmel: It was great and you did a great job with the toast. What was it you said with the toast about—
Lange: Well it’s a, it’s an older guy marrying a model way too young for him…
Notice how Lange attempts to avoid accepting Kimmel’s assertion that Lange said something funny at the wedding, drawing attention instead to the event as a whole when he senses that Kimmel is about to be complimentary. Later in the same conversation, Lange retaliates and attempts to reframe the conversation.
Lange: But you upstaged me because you—when—I didn’t know—I didn’t know any other funny people were gonna talk. And then you went up and killed it before they married each other and—
Kimmel: Well you should have known about that. They asked me to do a little thing at the ceremony—
Lange: Right.
Kimmel: Like the day before so I did a little prayer for them.
Lange: That was nice—it was—you were funny.
Kimmel: I didn’t mean to, uh, step on your toes there, I didn’t want to ruin it. But you do owe me and I’ll tell you why…
Lange attempts to reframe the conversation by saying that Kimmel upstaged him. Kimmel, like Lange, dismisses the praise, saying that the prayer that Lange labeled “very funny” was really a “little thing” that he had put together the “day before.” Kimmel then clumsily changes the subject in order to draw attention away from himself. This presents a case in which a compliment comes across more as an accusation than a statement of praise. [The writer has offered an alternative explanation for a possible contradiction with her lens:] One possible explanation for the desire to dismiss and minimize praise is that compliment-giving is not the selfless act in may appear to be, but is, in fact, pure one-upmanship. [The writer locates a theory in her lens that would support the explanation:] According to Tannen, “Giving praise, like giving information is also inherently asymmetrical. It too frames the speaker as one-up, in a position to judge someone else’s performance” (Understand 69). Thus, accepting praise may force the man on the receiving end of the praise to surrender supremacy to the praise-giver. By negating