Fun fact: there isnât anything wrong with you if you do what OP is describing.
Deborah Tannenâs work focuses on different conversational styles â the sets of behavioral norms and expectations that we bring with us to conversations. In one of her earlier articles, she describes two conflicting conversational styles that exist in the US.Â
One, which she (perhaps inaccurately) dubs âNew York Jewish conversational style,â is based on the principle of building camaraderie with oneâs interlocutor. The other, which she doesnât really name but which we could call âmainstream American conversational style,â is based on the principle of not imposing on oneâs interlocutor.
Each conversational style has its own behavioral norms. Mainstream American conversational style involves things like asking your interlocutor questions about him/herself and waiting until your interlocutor is clearly finished speaking until you say something. These demonstrate a focus on oneâs interlocutor and a clear resistance to imposing. NYJ conversational style involves things like conversational overlaps â speaking at the same time as oneâs interlocutor â and âswapping stories.â These demonstrate a high level of engagement with oneâs interlocutor. Conversationalists using the mainstream American style make space for each other; conversationalists using the New York Jewish style carve out their own space.
Each of these conversational styles works well when the two people conversing have the same style. Imagine two friends meeting for drinks after work:
âOh, hello! How was your trip here?â
âOh, it was awful. There was so much traffic on the turnpike.â
âThatâs terrible.â
âI know. How was your trip?â
âWell, there was an accident on the bridge.â
âOh no! Was there a big backup?â
âYeah, pretty big.â
âOh, hi!â
âHey! Ugh, sorry Iâm late, there was so much traffic on the turnpikeââ
âOh my god, I know, there was an accident on the bridge and the cars were backed up a MILEââ
âThat is the worst, I remember one time I sat in traffic for an HOUR waiting to get through that toll, they really shouldââ
âAdd more EZ-pass lanes, right?â
âAdd more lanes, yeah, exactly.â
Both of these conversations worked: the participants feel that theyâve had their say and that theyâve been understood. They feel connected to their interlocutor.
But when people with conflicting conversational styles converse, thatâs where things go wrong. Because we interpret other peopleâs contributions according to our own conversational style. So the person with mainstream American conversational style comes away thinking âWhy did they keep interrupting me? Why didnât they ask me any questions about me? Why were they so loud and emotional?â And the person with the New York Jewish conversational style comes away thinking âWhy were they so disengaged? They didnât seem involved in the conversation at all. They didnât even offer any personal information.â
Rather, they would come away thinking that, except that weâre taught growing up that the first example conversation up there is what conversations should look like. So the person with the New York Jewish conversational style actually comes away from the conversation thinking âoh my god, what was I doing? I kept talking about myself. I think I kept interrupting them. I am so rude, god, Iâm the worst.â When in fact: a) itâs about cultural difference, not individual moral qualities; and b) one conversational style isnât inherently âbetterâ than another.
Which isnât to say that we shouldnât attempt to bridge the gap between conversational styles, as suggested above. But we should be aware that:
TL;DR: Cultural difference is often mistaken for individual moral failings.
prguitarman
izzy806
discoholicmusic
annaxmalina
theartofmadeline
janainaart
2087
