Content | LEAF

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-model href="http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LEAF-VRE/code_snippets/refs/heads/main/CSS/leaf.css"?><TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<teiHeader>
		<fileDesc>
			<titleStmt>
				<title>Interactional Shitwork</title>
				<author>Pamela M. Fishman</author>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Eowyn Andres</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2024-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Haley Beardsley</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-2024)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Lyndon Beier</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2023-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Erica Delsandro</persName>
					<resp>Investigator, editor</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Lucy DiChristina</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2025-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Mia DeRoco</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2023-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Margaret Hunter</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-2024)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Diane Jakacki</persName>
					<resp>Invesigator, encoder</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Sophie McQuaide</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-2023)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Olivia Martin</persName>
					<resp>Editor, encoder (2021)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Zoha Nadeer</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2022-2023)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Bri Perea</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2022-2023)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Carrie Pirmann</persName>
					<resp>Editor, encoder (2023-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Valeria Riley</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2024-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Ricky Rodriguez</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2022-2023)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Roger Rothman</persName>
					<resp>Investigator, editor</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Valeria Riley</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2024-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Kaitlyn Segreti</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Blythe Senna</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2025-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Maggie Smith</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-2024)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Lily Stein</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2025-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Maya Wadhwa</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2021-2023)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Kelly Troop</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2023-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Lucy Wadswoth</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2022-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Anna Marie Wingard</persName>
					<resp>Editor (2023-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<respStmt>
					<persName>Olivia Wychock</persName>
					<resp>Graduate Editor (2024-Present)</resp>
				</respStmt>
				<funder>Bucknell University Humanities Center</funder>
				<funder>Bucknell University Office of Undergraduate Research</funder>
				<funder>The Mellon Foundation</funder>
				<funder>National Endowment for the Humanities</funder>
			</titleStmt>
			<publicationStmt>
				<distributor>
					<name>Bucknell University</name>
					<address>
						<street>One Dent Drive</street>
						<settlement>Lewisburg</settlement>
						<region>Pennsylvania</region>
						<postCode>17837</postCode>
					</address>
				</distributor>
				<availability>
					<licence>Bucknell Heresies Project: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
						4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)</licence>
					<licence>Heresies journal: © Heresies Collective</licence>
				</availability>
			</publicationStmt>
			<sourceDesc>
				<biblStruct>
					<analytic>
						<title>Patterns of Communicating and Space Among Women</title>
					</analytic>
					<monogr>
						<imprint>
							<publisher>HERESIES: A Feminist Publication on Art and
								Politics</publisher>
							<pubPlace>
								<address>
									<name>Heresies</name>
									<postBox>P.O. Boxx 766, Canal Street Station</postBox>
									<settlement>New York</settlement>
									<region>New York</region>
									<postCode>10013</postCode>
								</address>
							</pubPlace>
						</imprint>
					</monogr>
				</biblStruct>
			</sourceDesc>
		</fileDesc>
	<xenoData><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:as="http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#" xmlns:cwrc="http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:geo="http://www.geonames.org/ontology#" xmlns:oa="http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" xmlns:fabio="https://purl.org/spar/fabio#" xmlns:bf="http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#" xmlns:cito="https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#" xmlns:org="http://www.w3.org/ns/org#">
        <rdf:Description rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/">
          <![CDATA[{
	"@context": {
		"dcterms:created": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:created"
		},
		"dcterms:issued": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:issued"
		},
		"oa:motivatedBy": {
			"@type": "oa:Motivation"
		},
		"@language": "en",
		"rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
		"rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
		"as": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
		"cwrc": "http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#",
		"dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
		"dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
		"foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/",
		"geo": "http://www.geonames.org/ontology#",
		"oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#",
		"schema": "http://schema.org/",
		"xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
		"fabio": "https://purl.org/spar/fabio#",
		"bf": "http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#",
		"cito": "https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#",
		"org": "http://www.w3.org/ns/org#"
	},
	"id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133446791",
	"type": "oa:Annotation",
	"dcterms:created": "2025-12-04T18:34:46.791Z",
	"dcterms:modified": "2025-12-04T18:34:52.737Z",
	"dcterms:creator": {
		"@id": "9",
		"@type": [
			"cwrc:NaturalPerson",
			"schema:Person"
		],
		"cwrc:hasName": "Diane Jakacki"
	},
	"oa:motivatedBy": "oa:describing",
	"oa:hasTarget": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133446791#Target",
		"@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
		"oa:hasSource": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml",
			"@type": "dctypes:Text",
			"dc:format": "text/xml"
		},
		"oa:renderedVia": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
			"@type": "as:Application",
			"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
			"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
		},
		"oa:hasSelector": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133446791#Selector",
			"@type": "oa:XPathSelector",
			"rdf:value": "TEI/text/body/div/p[6]/note"
		}
	},
	"oa:hasBody": {
		"@type": "cwrc:NoteScholarly",
		"dc:format": "text/plain",
		"rdf:value": "1. This view is\n\t\t\t\t\t\tinfluenced by the work in con versational analysis done by Sacks, Scheg\n\t\t\t\t\t\tloff, Jefferson and others. See Harvey Sacks, Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Gail\n\t\t\t\t\t\tJefferson, \"A Simplest Systematics for the Organiza tion of Turn Taking for\n\t\t\t\t\t\tConversation, Language (Sept. 1974), pp. 696-735."
	},
	"as:generator": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
		"@type": "as:Application",
		"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
		"schema:url": "https://leaf-writer.lincsproject.ca/",
		"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
	}
}]]>
        </rdf:Description>
      
        <rdf:Description rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/">
          <![CDATA[{
	"@context": {
		"dcterms:created": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:created"
		},
		"dcterms:issued": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:issued"
		},
		"oa:motivatedBy": {
			"@type": "oa:Motivation"
		},
		"@language": "en",
		"rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
		"rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
		"as": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
		"cwrc": "http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#",
		"dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
		"dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
		"foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/",
		"geo": "http://www.geonames.org/ontology#",
		"oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#",
		"schema": "http://schema.org/",
		"xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
		"fabio": "https://purl.org/spar/fabio#",
		"bf": "http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#",
		"cito": "https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#",
		"org": "http://www.w3.org/ns/org#"
	},
	"id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133504766",
	"type": "oa:Annotation",
	"dcterms:created": "2025-12-04T18:35:04.766Z",
	"dcterms:modified": "2025-12-04T18:35:10.324Z",
	"dcterms:creator": {
		"@id": "9",
		"@type": [
			"cwrc:NaturalPerson",
			"schema:Person"
		],
		"cwrc:hasName": "Diane Jakacki"
	},
	"oa:motivatedBy": "oa:describing",
	"oa:hasTarget": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133504766#Target",
		"@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
		"oa:hasSource": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml",
			"@type": "dctypes:Text",
			"dc:format": "text/xml"
		},
		"oa:renderedVia": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
			"@type": "as:Application",
			"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
			"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
		},
		"oa:hasSelector": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133504766#Selector",
			"@type": "oa:XPathSelector",
			"rdf:value": "TEI/text/body/div/div[4]/p[2]/note"
		}
	},
	"oa:hasBody": {
		"@type": "cwrc:NoteScholarly",
		"dc:format": "text/plain",
		"rdf:value": "2.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHarvey Sacks, \"On the Analyzability of Stories by Children,\" in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDirections in Socio linguistics: The Ethnography of Communi cation, ed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1972), pp. 325-425."
	},
	"as:generator": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
		"@type": "as:Application",
		"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
		"schema:url": "https://leaf-writer.lincsproject.ca/",
		"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
	}
}]]>
        </rdf:Description>
      
        <rdf:Description rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/">
          <![CDATA[{
	"@context": {
		"dcterms:created": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:created"
		},
		"dcterms:issued": {
			"@type": "xsd:dateTime",
			"@id": "dcterms:issued"
		},
		"oa:motivatedBy": {
			"@type": "oa:Motivation"
		},
		"@language": "en",
		"rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
		"rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
		"as": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
		"cwrc": "http://sparql.cwrc.ca/ontologies/cwrc#",
		"dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
		"dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
		"foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/",
		"geo": "http://www.geonames.org/ontology#",
		"oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#",
		"schema": "http://schema.org/",
		"xsd": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
		"fabio": "https://purl.org/spar/fabio#",
		"bf": "http://www.openlinksw.com/schemas/bif#",
		"cito": "https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html#",
		"org": "http://www.w3.org/ns/org#"
	},
	"id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133514303",
	"type": "oa:Annotation",
	"dcterms:created": "2025-12-04T18:35:14.303Z",
	"dcterms:modified": "2025-12-04T18:35:17.350Z",
	"dcterms:creator": {
		"@id": "9",
		"@type": [
			"cwrc:NaturalPerson",
			"schema:Person"
		],
		"cwrc:hasName": "Diane Jakacki"
	},
	"oa:motivatedBy": "oa:describing",
	"oa:hasTarget": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133514303#Target",
		"@type": "oa:SpecificResource",
		"oa:hasSource": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml",
			"@type": "dctypes:Text",
			"dc:format": "text/xml"
		},
		"oa:renderedVia": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
			"@type": "as:Application",
			"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
			"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
		},
		"oa:hasSelector": {
			"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-12/fishman.xml?note_annotation_20251204133514303#Selector",
			"@type": "oa:XPathSelector",
			"rdf:value": "TEI/text/body/div/div[4]/p[4]/note"
		}
	},
	"oa:hasBody": {
		"@type": "cwrc:NoteScholarly",
		"dc:format": "text/plain",
		"rdf:value": "3. Six of the seven male usages occurred dur ing\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tone lengthy interaction, while the usages of other strategies discussed\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\twere randomly scattered throughout the transcripts. This long\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconversation was transcribed because it was one of the few where the man\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\thad trou ble maintaining the conversation. As it be came more difficult\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor him, he used more attention-getting devices. In contrast, four of\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe female uses were from one transcript, the other six scattered. My\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\timpression from listening to all 52 hours of the tapes was that a\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcomplete count would show a much larger proportion of female to male\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tusage than the ten to seven ratio indicates."
	},
	"as:generator": {
		"@id": "https://leaf.bucknell.edu",
		"@type": "as:Application",
		"rdfs:label": "LEAF-Writer",
		"schema:url": "https://leaf-writer.lincsproject.ca/",
		"schema:softwareVersion": "3.9.0"
	}
}]]>
        </rdf:Description>
      </rdf:RDF></xenoData></teiHeader>
	<text>
		<body>
			<div type="essay">
				<pb facs="https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/heresies02_099.jpg" n="99"/>

<head>Interactional Shitwork</head>
				<byline>Pamela M. Fishman</byline>
				<p> A rallying cry of the early women's movement was "The personal is political."
					This was not only a slogan, but a directive for analysis that would be a means
					for understanding and reinterpreting our private lives. I was a first year
					graduate student in sociology when I joined the women's movement. My specialty
					ethnomethodology, had already shown me the importance of everyday interactions,
					that they are not simply a reflection of reality but the means by which people
					construct and maintain their understanding of the world and of themselves.
					Through interactions, we constantly define reality, as well as the form and
					substance of our social relationships. </p>
				<p> However, this approach did not deal with power, which, as a feminist, I found
					was a central concern in everyday interactions. I wanted to know the ways in
					which interactions between men and women express power relations; I wanted to
					see exactly how our personal interactions are political. </p>
				<p> We know much more now about the social sources of our oppression than we did a
					few years ago. The relative positions of the sexes in the economy have been well
					documented. Analysis has shown the ways in which women's unpaid domestic labor
					contributes to our position of powerlessness. Still, we feel this powerlessness
					individually, and it is maintained concretely on an everyday basis. </p>
				<p> I began to research the ways in which the general social organization of
					male-female hierarchy exists in our daily activities. Specifically, I have
					analyzed male-female conversations between intimates in their homes. </p>
				<p> Initially, I hoped to tape record arguments, since these would be conversational
					power struggles. But as it turned out, I didn't get any arguments. Instead, I
					discovered that such overt power struggles were not necessary to illuminate
					women's oppression in everyday conversation. Rather, supposedly trivial daily
					talk reveals a division of labor between men and women in conversation which
					supports our more general positions of power and powerlessness. </p>
				<p> It is not simply two people talking that produces conversation, but their active
					agreement to mutually cooperate in talk. Interactions are always potentially
					problematic and are sustained only by the participants' continuing efforts, turn
					by turn. They must be begun, developed and ended jointly.<note type="scholarNote">1. This view is
						influenced by the work in con versational analysis done by Sacks, Scheg
						loff, Jefferson and others. See Harvey Sacks, Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Gail
						Jefferson, "A Simplest Systematics for the Organiza tion of Turn Taking for
						Conversation, Language (Sept. 1974), pp. 696-735.</note> Every remark or
					turn at speaking is an attempt at producing conversation. The question of
					whether the attempt is successful or not depends on the participants'
					willingness to do interactional work. When one person makes an attempt, the
					other participant has the power to turn it into a conversation or to stop it
					right there. </p>
				<p> How, then, is the work of interaction accomplished in conversations between male
					and female intimates? Who does what kind of work? To find out, I listened to 52
					hours of tape-recorded conversation between three couples who had agreed to have
					a Uher 4000 tape recorder set up in their apartments. The apartments were small
					enough for the recorder to pick up all conversation from the kitchen and living
					room as well as louder talk from the bedroom and bath. The tape recorder was in
					place from four to 14 days. The tapes could run for four hours without
					interruption. Though automatic timers could switch the tapes on and off, all
					three couples insisted on doing the switching manually. Uninterrupted recording
					varies from one to four hours. The talk did not seem self-conscious because of
					the recorder's presence and conversations seemed natural. </p>
				<p> The couples had lived together for varying amounts of time—from three months to
					two years. All were white and professionally oriented, and all but one woman (a
					social worker) were in graduate school They were between the ages of 25 and 35.
					Two women were declared feminists and all three men as well as the third woman
					described themselves as "sympathetic" to the women's movement. </p>
				<div>
					<head>The Preliminaries</head>
					<p> I made some interesting discoveries even before I began my analysis, through
						casual conversations with the people involved in the taping. First, in all
						three cases, the men set up the tape recorders and nearly always turned them
						on and off, sometimes without letting the women know. The reverse never
						occurred. Now, controlling a conversation is more than controlling the
						topic; it is controlling the situation in general—not only what wil be
						talked about, but whether there will be conversation, and under what terms
						it will occur. The tape recorder introduced a new element into the routine
						home situation. Controlling the tape recorder meant controlling part of the
						situation in which conversation took place. </p>
					<p> Second, there was the issue of normally private interactions being available
						to a third party, the researcher. In addition to the men doing most of the
						censoring of the tapes, they made other attempts to control what I heard.
						For instance, the clicks that are recorded when the machine is turned off
						(and my own sense of the conversations) helped me to separate time segments.
						One man carefully erased all clicks on his and his partner's tapes,
						confusing my attempts to identify different time segments. </p>
					<p> The second case was worse. I had made the mistake of asking one couple to
						help me transcribe a particularly difficult tape of theirs—a conversation
						about a book club selection. In fact, they couldn't hear themselves any
						better than I could, and the man wanted to know why I was interested in the
						conversation. He kept guessing what I was looking for, was annoyed that I
						wanted a literal transcription, kept saying that only the gist of the
						conversation (which he could tell me) was important, and repeatedly tried to
						tell me the meaning of the conversation, explain ing his motivations for
						saying things. </p>
					<p> These preliminaries already suggested that men are more likely than women to
						control conversation. The men made sure that they always knew when their
						interactions were available to me by their control of the recorder, but they
						were unconcerned, if not sneaky, about letting the women know this. When
						they had the chance, they attempted to control my interpretations of the
						conversations. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Conversational Work</head>
					<p> I listened to all 52 hours of tape and transcribed five hours of it for
						close analysis. Given the small amount of conversation analyzed, my findings
						from the transcripts are provisional. But the implications from such a small
						amount of material suggest this is only the tip of the iceberg. From
						listening to all the tapes, it appeared to me that the men controlled the
						subject much more than the women did and that the men were consistently <pb facs="https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/heresies02_100.jpg" n="100"/> successful in initiating interactions, while the women's attempts often
						failed. They did not fail because of anything inherent in their talk, but
						because the men did not respond, did not do any interactional work. The
						men's remarks succeeded be=cause of interactional work done by the women in
						response to them. </p>
					<p> When I analyzed specific transcripts, it appeared that the men did very
						little to gain such control, and by doing very little, they displayed power
						without specifically exercising it. A turn-by-turn analysis revealed the
						women's constant conversational work. They struggled to get responses to
						their own remarks or were busy responding to the men's remarks. In my
						analysis, I identified a number of strategies used in conversational work.
						These strategies reveal the differential work men and women do. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Asking Questions</head>
					<p> Questions are a powerful kind of utterance. They are half of a paired
						relation, with answers the second half. That is, Q-A is a unit, not two
						separate things. Questions demand answers, while statements do not demand
						other statements. If no answer is given, its absence is noticeable and can
						be complained about. A question in conversation works by beginning a
						two-part sequence; it ensures an interaction of at least one utterance by
						each of two participants. </p>
					<p> Counting the questions in about seven hours of tape, I found that the women
						asked two and a half times more questions than the men did—150 to 59. At
						times, it seemed that all the women did was ask questions. Then I began
						noticing my own speech and discovered the same pattern. I often made
						questions out of remarks that could have been statements: "Isn't it a lovely
						day?", "Shouldn't we go grocery shopping?" I then tried to break myself of
						the "habit" and found it was difficult. Many remarks came out as questions
						before I noticed. When I did succeed in making a statement, I usually did
						not get a response. It became clear that I wasn't asking so many questions
						out of habit, but because unless I did, my attempts at interaction would
						fail. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Attention-Getting Devices</head>
					<p> Attention-getting devices are remarks that, whether they give information or
						not, attempt to get the attention necessary to begin conversation. The women
						used these devices consistently while the men did not, indicating the
						women's difficulty in assuming that what they said would be treated
						seriously and would generate a response. l've identified three types of
						attention-getting devices. </p>
					<p> The first was originally discussed by Harvey Sacks when he explored
						children's restricted rights to speak in the presence of adults.<note type="scholarNote">2.
							Harvey Sacks, "On the Analyzability of Stories by Children," in
							Directions in Socio linguistics: The Ethnography of Communi cation, ed.
							John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
							1972), pp. 325-425.</note> Sacks noticed one type of question used
						extensively by children as a conversational opening: D'ya know what?" This
						type of question is answered by another question: "What?" The first speaker
						is then in the position of having obtained the attention needed to say what
						he or she wanted to say in the first place. This is a Q-Q-A sequence,
						setting off a three-part exchange. Sacks further pointed out that while the
						use of this device ensures children's rights to speak, at the same time it
						acknowledges their restricted rights. These three-part sequences in
						conversations tell us about the work of guaranteeing conversation as well as
						identifying differential rights of the participants. In the five hours of my
						transcripts, the women used this device twice as often as the men. </p>
					<p> Second, there were many instances of y know" in the transcripts. This phrase
						is an attempt to see if the other person is paying attention. It was used 34
						times by the women and three times by the men. The use of the phrase
						increased as the men's responses decreased. </p>
					<p> Third, "This is interesting," or a variation, was used throughout the tapes.
						By engaging in conversation people indicate that there is a mutual interest
						in what is being said. When one uses "This is interesting" as an
						introduction, it signals that the remark itself may not be seen as worthy of
						attention. The speaker is working to establish the interest of the remark.
						In the five hours of transcribed material, the women used this device ten
						times, the men seven.<note type="scholarNote">3. Six of the seven male usages occurred dur ing
							one lengthy interaction, while the usages of other strategies discussed
							were randomly scattered throughout the transcripts. This long
							conversation was transcribed because it was one of the few where the man
							had trou ble maintaining the conversation. As it be came more difficult
							for him, he used more attention-getting devices. In contrast, four of
							the female uses were from one transcript, the other six scattered. My
							impression from listening to all 52 hours of the tapes was that a
							complete count would show a much larger proportion of female to male
							usage than the ten to seven ratio indicates.</note> When interest is not
						in question, that work is done by both interactants. The first person makes
						a remark, the second person responds to it, and together they establish its
						joint interest. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Minimal Response</head>
					<p> A minimal response refers to a speaker saying "yeah," "umm," "huh," and
						little more. Both men and women used this but often in different ways. The
						men used the monosyllabic response as one step short of not responding at
						all. For example, the woman made a long remark, and the man responded with
						"yeah," which neither encouraged her to continue nor elaborated the topic.
						Minimal responses <pb facs="https://leaf.bucknell.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/heresies02_101_0.jpg" n="101"/> used in this way display lack of interest and attempt to discourage
						further interaction. </p>
					<p> The women also used this kind of minimal response at times, but mostly in a
						way that is best termed "support work. While the man talks, the woman
						skillfully inserts "mmm, "yeah, oh," throughout the stream of talk. By doing
						this, the woman signals that she is paying attention to what is being said,
						that she is fully participating, that she has a continuing interest in both
						interaction and interactant. This is done with agility during the speaker's
						pauses, seldom causing even slight overlaps. Nothing in either tone or
						structure suggests that the woman is trying to take over the talk. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Making Statements</head>
					<p> Finally, there are statements that do no specific conversational work. Of
						course, by its mere existence, a statement provides for a response, and
						thereby does some minimal work. However, it also shows the speaker's
						assumption that any attempt will be successful and interesting, that he or
						she will be responded to. It is as if the speaker assumes there are no
						problems, that success is naturally his or hers. In the transcribed
						material, the men made this kind of statement more than twice as many times
						as the women. The substance of their remarks was not more interesting than
						the women's, but took on that character because they generated interaction.
					</p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>An Example</head>
					<p>One segment of conversation from my transcripts is the beginning of an
						interaction. The woman is reading a book in her academic specialty and the
						man is making a salad. I originally transcribed it for analysis because
						conversation seemed difficult for the woman, and she used strategies to
						ensure some response. (I suggest reading the transcript before continuing
						with the text.)</p>
					<p>The woman (F) starts off in Set I with two "d'ya know" question sequences,
						signaling that she is not sure she can get the man's (M's) attention. It
						seems to be the right assumption, since M's response in Set 3 is minimal and
						both fall silent. F's next attempt, in Sets 5-6, uses more attention-getting
						devices. This time, F prefaces her remarks both with a "That's very
						interesting" and "Did you know ...? The double-barreled attempt is more
						successful and generates two exchanges, Sets 7-8. Fs success is short-lived,
						however; M fails to respond to her last contribution and thus ends the
						exchange. </p>
					<p> F's third attempt begins in Set 10 with "That's really interesting." As M
						makes no attempt to follow up on any of her statements, F continues talking
						for 30 seconds, using two "y'knows" and a question intonation. M finally
						responds with a "Yeah" after F repeats herself and says "y'know" a third
						time. Though there are further attempts made by F later in the interaction,
						a conversation on this topic never develops. </p>
					<p> The transcript shows some ways the strategies described earlier are used in
						actual conversation. It shows the woman working at interaction and the man
						exercising his power by refusing to participate fully. As the interaction
						develops and F becomes more aware of her difficulties, F brings more
						pressure on M by increasing her use of strategies. Even so, she only ensures
						immediate, localized responses, not a full conversational exchange. </p>
					<p> Immediately following this transcribed material, M begins and continues a
						conversation about a soft drink and Richard Nixon being a former lawyer for
						Pepsi Cola. F gives elaborating responses, with a series of exchanges
						between them that end when M opts not to continue. This Pepsi-Cola/Nixon
						exchange shows that the man was willing to engage in discussion, but
						apparently only on his own terms. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<head>Conclusions</head>
					<p> There is a division of labor in conversation. Though the women generally do
						more work, the men usually control the conversations couples have. Since the
						men's remarks develop into conversation more often than the women's, men end
						up defining what will be talked about and which aspects of reality are the
						most important. </p>
					<p> Women are required to do specific kinds of interactional work in
						conversations with men. More than that, we are generally required to be
						available. The conversational work expected of women differs according to
						the situation; some times we are supposed to be an audience, "good
						listeners," because we are not otherwise needed. We may have to fill
						silences and keep conversations moving. Sometimes we are supposed to develop
						other people's topics and other times to present and develop topics of our
						own. There are subtle demands on women to be available for interaction. If
						women do not answer these demands—if we are not "naturally" available, we
						get in trouble. Women who sit silently while a conversation flounders are
						seen as hostile or inept. Women who consistently and successfully control
						interactions are criticized, particularly by men who question the female's
						status as a woman. They are likely to be called "bitchy," "domineering," or
						"aggressive." When women attempt even temporarily to control conversation
						with men, it often starts an argument. </p>
					<p> Women who do not behave interactionally are punished; often it is implied
						that they are not "real women." One's sexual identity is crucial. It is the
						most "natural" differentiating characteristic there is. But it is not simply
						our bodies that define gender. We must constantly behave as male or female
						in order for our gender to be taken for granted in interaction. We must
						prove our gender continually. </p>
					<p> The active maintenance of gender requires women to be available to do what
						ever needs to be done in interactions. Since interactional work is tied up
						with female identity, with what a woman is, the fact that it is work is
						obscured. It is not seen as something we do, but as part of what we are,
						similar to caring for the house and children, which have also been seen as
						part and parcel of what women are. In both cases, the value and necessity of
						the work are hidden behind the screen of the sexual division of labor. </p>
				</div>
				<div>
					<epigraph>
						<p>I am grateful to Harvey Molotch, with whose guidance I began this
							research, and to Myrtha Chabran, Mark Fishman, Drew Humphries, Linda
							Marks, Morgan Sanders and Susan Wolf for their help or ideas and
							criticism on this and earlier drafts.</p>
					</epigraph>

</div>
			</div>
		</body>

<back>
			<p> Pam Fishman is 32, grew up in Arizona and lives in Brooklyn. Her Ph.D. thesis, from
				the University of California at Santa Barbara, is on power in everyday conversation.
				She and Linda Marks are writing up what they and their friends often talk
				about—using their daily experience to do feminist social analysis. </p>
		</back>
	</text>
</TEI>