Body Politics

Henley, Nancy M. 1977. Body Politics: power, sex and nonverbal communication. Drawings by D. Patrick. Englewood Cliggs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lingid: Esteri märksõnad: kehakeel, keha, võim, sugupooled, mitteverbaalne kommunikatsioon, seksuaalsus, sotsiaalne käitumine, feminism;
Subjects on Google Books: Psychology › General; Body language; Nonverbal communication; Nonverbal communication (Psychology); Psychology / Cognitive Psychology; Psychology / General;
A feminist analysis of body language as a major means of nonverbal communication used by persons in power, primarily men, to maintain a social hierarchy.

Sissejuhatuses soovitab järgida Albert Schefleni töid ja nimetab eeskujudena Erving Goffmani, Ray Birdwhistelli ja USA sotsiaalpsühholoogi Roger Browni. Henley kasutas ka Albert Mehrabiani , Edward Tichenell Halli, Desmond Morrise, Adam Kendoni, Mary R. Key ja Michael Argylei töid (rääkimata kohustuslikust Charles Darwini mainimisest).
Ka neid, kes on minu järjekorras: Robert Sommer (Personal Space, 1969), Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (Love and Hate: The Natural history of Behavior Patterns, 1970), Ashley Montagu (Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin, 1971), David Efron (Gesture, Race and Culture, 1972) ja Robert Rosenthal (The PONS Test, 1974). Naljakas on see, et pärast radikaalse ökoloogia (Murray Bookchin) ja radikaalse geograafia (anarhistlik geograafia!) vaatan imestusega, et Nancy Henley on ise avaldanud artikli "The Politics of Touch" kogumikus nimega Radical Psychology (1973). Mainitudd on ka Gerald I. Nierenbergi ja Henry H. Calero raamatut How to Read a Person Like a Book (1973), millel põhines Tuurandi Ülekuulatava kehakeele järgimine. Henley mainib, et Nierenberg ja Calero kogusid mahukaid andmeid nii, et kaasasid oma publiku uurimisse, hinnates tähenduslikke ja tähendusetuid liigutusi lootuses avastada "kehakeelekogukonnad" (Morrise language-family). See paneb nende tööd küll teise pilguga vaatama (ja kui selleni jõuan, siis ka lugema), aga ka Henley leiab, et nende andmed ei ole karvaväärtki usaldusväärsed. Siis kui kolm neljandikku raamatust on juba läbi, astuvad mängu Tomkins, Izard, Ellsworth ja Exline.
Kasulikud viited:
This book is concerned not with sex or gender, but power. It attempts to demonstrate that the observed "sex differences," "race differences," and "class differences" in nonverbal behavior may be traced to differences in power; and that these are learned differences which serve to strenghten the system of power and privilege that exists. (Henley 1977: 2)
Ehk Henleyt huvitas samuti mitteverbaalse suhtlemise suhe võimusuhetesse (nonverbal communication in relation with social power).
But there is another side to interpersonal relationship, one that affects us greatly but which we're encouraged to pay little attention to. This is the element of status, power, dominance, superiority - the vertical dimension of human relations, signalled by our spatial metaphor of "higher-ups," "underlings," "being over," and "looking up to" others. Friendship relations make up the horizonal dimension, and the corresponding spatial metaphor refers to closeness, "being near" and "being distant." The power relation is the "other" dimension in the study of nonverbal communication: important as it is in ordering human interaction, it has received little study from investigators of nonverbal behavior. (Henley 1977: 2)
This "trivia" of everyday life - touching others, moving closer or father away, dropping the eyes, smiling, interrupting - are commonly interpreted as facilitating social intercourse, but not recognized in their position as micropolitical gesture, degenders of the status quo - of the state, of the wealthy, of authority, of all those whose power may be challenged. Nevertheless these minutiae find their place on a continuum of social control which extends from internalized socialization at one end to sheer physical force at the other.
In front of, and defending, the political-economic structure that determines our lives and defines the context of human relationships, there is the micropolitical structure that helps maintain it. This micropolitical structure is the substance of our everyday experience. The humiliation of being a subordinate is often felt most painfully when one is ignored or interrupted while speaking, towered over or forced to move by another's bodily presence, or cowed unknowingly into dropping the eyes, the head, the shoulders. Conversely, the power to manipulate others' lives, to take graft, price gouge, or plan the bombing of far-off peasants is conferred in part by others' snapping to attention in one's presence, their smiling, fearing to touch or approach, their following one around for information and favors. These are the trivia that make up the batter for that great stratified waffle that we call our society. (Henley 1977: 3)
Mikropoliitilised žestid? Milline võrratu nimetus! Mikropoliitilise struktuuri asemel saab kõneleda mikropoliitilisest süsteemist või sfäärist, kihistusest; mikropoliitilistest protsessidest vms.
Nonverbal cues, as Haley and Goffman have illustrated, play an extremely important and complex role in the maintenance of the social order: as signs and symbols of dominance, as subtle messages of threat, as gestures of submission. (Henley 1977: 5)
Minul signs of authority. Subtle võib siin olla metonymical.
Järgmisel leheküljel nöögib kehakeeleõpikuid, vihjab sellele, et verbaalset keelt õpitakse koolis, aga mitteverbaalset suhtlemist peab õppima informaalselt eluujäämise nimel (minul through self-communication).
How important is power in our daily lives? We may think of power as orders, threats, and coercion, and see little evidence of its use on or by us. But as sociologist George Homans has pointed out, the noncoercive form of power is probably far more common than the coercive. These noncoercions of everyday life are often, as we shall see, in the form of gestures which signal power and assert dominance. (Henley 1977: 19)
Signs of power and power of signs.
In most cases in our experience, power and status are confounded, i.e., a person who has one is likely to have the other. Power is the concern fo this book, and a more interesting topic of study in general, but it's harder for social scientists to assess than its outward and visible sign, status. (Henley 1977: 21)
Enne seda defineeris ka domineerimise ja autoriteedi.
These findings differ somewhat from findings in similar studies, and the authors discuss the possible reasons for these differences. In a particularily interesting theoretical contribution, they point out that the loss of individuality (deindividuation) that comes with anonymity in group situations can release not only inhibited negative behaviors, but positive ones as well. (Henley 1977: 40)
Negatiivne - Konrad Lorenz karjakäitumisest; positiivne - Massid ja Võim.
Intimate Time is the most extensive (as Intimate Space is the least extensive). When longer appointments are kept, such as the typical 50 minutes for therapy, marriage counseling, and other forms of consultation, the encounter clearly takes on an intimate aspect, evidenced by the personal nature of the information passed. This is the "far" zone for Intimate Time; the "close" zone, the amount of time spent with true intimates, is limited only by our tolerance for each other. Though couples and families on vacation, or retired, may find themselves spending 24 hours a day together, I believe there is still a preferred limit, which may be no more than a few hours (even on honeymoons!). One or the other may invoke the limit kindly or violently, but it will be invoked.
For all these time zones, as with space zones, violations are perceived when the boundaries are exceeded. We grow irritated with loved ones we've been with for too long, and we grow irritated with the stranger who takes up more than a minute of our time (this is like coming too close). To spend an hour in impersonal business is an imposition also. on the other hand, we are hurt when a loved one gives us too little time, or offended when a business contact does the same. (Henley 1977: 45)
Esimest korda kohtan seda, et keegi on territoriaalset imperatiivi tõlgendanud temporaalseks imperatiiviks. Äge on küll! Põhjalikumaks lugemiseks:
Self-disclosures were ofeered upward even when First Name was not, suggesting to the researchers an exception to Brown and Ford's observation that the higher-status individual of a dyad initiates all acts that increase intimacy. What they say may be true; subordinates probably do seek a (false) sense of intimacy through disclosing personal inforamtion to superiors. But there is another interpretation of this informational relationship. It is that personal information flows opposite to the flow of authority; just as tactual, visual, and emotional information of subordinates is more available to those in power, so is personal history. Or, in the spatial metaphor of our language of disclosure, you can "get closer to," "intrude in the life of," "encroach on the privacy of," "touch on personal aspects of," someone of lower status or less power. (Henley 1977: 73)
Tundub tõene tähelepanek - õppejõud teavad õppurite eraelu kohta rohkem.
There is another set of gestures that further clarify this point, gestures used in everyday sitautions by males or females which resemble those of courtship, but which are not. These gestures, which Scheflen has described so insightfully as quasi-courting, carry some sort of disclaimer so they won't be mistaken for real courting. They signify lively engagement in an interaction, and thus (in systems theory terms) serve a system-maintaining function. Examples of these courtship-like behaviors are high muscle tonus, bright eyes, preening, direct body orientation (vis-a-vis), soft speech quality, flirtatious glances, gaze-holding, "demure gesture," head-cocking, and pelvis rolling. In addition, Scheflen cites invitational gestures specific to women (though none for men): these are crossing the legs, exposing the thigh, placing a hand on the hip, exhibiting the wrist or palm, protruding the breast, and stroking the thigh or wrist. (Henley 1977: 139-140)
Quasi-courtship märgid.
Faces are the means by which we attempt to create an impression, and they will therefore be a major focus for displaying the impression of status, power, or authority. We all have a mental image of "the stern face of authority," the jutting chin, overhanging eyebrows, the frown, the drawn muscles, the unwavering stare. These together make a formidable challenge. It may be in fact that the face is particularly implicated in hierarchical relationships. (Henley 1977: 169)
...to laugh long and hard at the boss's jokes is a clicé, but at the same time a painful reality. Both smiling and laughing are ostensibly expressions of pleasure and relaxation which, when coming from subordinates, belie the true nature of the situation. It is as if they are exhibited for the purpose of maintaining the myth of pleasant relations and equality between superior and subordinate. Those powerful and successful persons surrounded by a thousand suns are likely to see serious faces only in their peers: it's no wonder that they think of their subordinates - be they "contented darkies," "beer-loving workers," "brawling hardhats," or "flighty dames" - as happy-go-lucky and carefree. (Henley 1977: 172)
In less hierarchical situations too, we often try to keep some of our personal power by not disclosing personal information. "Cool" is nothing more than the withholding of information, that is, refusing to disclose one's thoughts and emotions. The value it gives to street people, poker players, and psychaitrists is of the same sort. Smart ones, those in power, those who manipulate others, always keep their cool, maintaining an unruffled exterior. (Henley 1977: 173)
Kokkuvõtvad punktid:
  1. Nonverbal behavior is a major medium of communication in our everyday life.
  2. Power (status, dominance) is a major topic of nonverbal communication; and nonverbal behavior is a major avenue for social control on a large scale, and interpersonal dominance on a smaller scale.
  3. Nonverbal power gestures provide the micropolitical structure, the thousands of daily acts through which nonverbal influence takes place, which underlies and supports the macropolitical structure.
  4. Because our culture considers trivial, ignores, and doesn't educat eits members to nonverbal behavior, it constitutes a vague stimulus situation. Its interpretation is then highly susceptible to social influence (e.g. explanations utilizing sex stereotypes) which further maintain the status quo. (Henley 1977: 179)
  5. Nonverbal control is of particular importance to women, who are more sensitive to its cues and probably more the targets of such control.
  6. Many nonverbal behaviors have the dual function of expressing either dominance or intimacy, according to whether they are asymmetrically or symmetrically used by the partners in a relationship.
  7. The behaviors expressing dominance and subordination between nonequals parallel those used by males and females in the unequal relation of the sexes. (Henley 1977: 180)
  8. The overwhelming bulk of sex-differentiated behavior is learned and is developed to display otherwise unobtrusive differences. (Henley 1977: 184)
  9. Many nonverbal behaviors that seem meaningless and non-power-related in fact are aspects of sex privilege or reflect sociatal biases ultimately founded in power differences. (Henley 1977: 188)
  10. Power is the capability of influencing or compelling others, based on the control of desired resources. (Power, status, and dominance are different, though related and often confound, concepts.)
  11. The ultimate underpinning of power is force. The resources on which power is based are in demand and those who control them must defend them from others' claims. However, force is the last-ditch, not front-line defense.
  12. Power is exercised along a continuum, from least to greatest application of force. This continuum, from least to greatest application of force. This continuum involves at least the following points:
    1. Internalized controls. This is colonization of the mind, achieved through socialization. The easiest way to ensure we don't challenge the establishment is to have us stop ourselves, by implanting police officers inside our heads (through childhood teaching).
    2. Environmental structuring. Should our internal police be asleep, and we forget ourselves, strategically-placed reminders in our surroundings can stop us, one point further along the way to break through the control.
    3. Nonverbal communication. Should the environmental reminders fail to stop us, other people - both "friend" and "foe" - will make us aware of our place and what we're doing, by subtle cues.
    4. Verbal communication. Are we ignoring even the nonverbal communication? Words are certainly now in order. These, too, have their spectrum, from mild surprise, cajoling, and joking through straight-forward explanations and strong threats of consequences.
    5. Mild physical sanctions. When verbal communication fails to restrain us, our fellows must restrain us physically. A girl holds back her friend's arm from throwing a snowball at a disliked teacher, the wife holds the husband back from beating the child, buddies hold back two men from fighting, the police line holds back the angry crowd from appraoching the government figure. People take us by the hand and lead us away from our contemplated action, hold our arms and hands down, place hands on our shoulders to keep us sitting, kick us under the table or put their hand ove rour mouth (or wash it with soap) for saying the wrong thing, hold us by the upper arms or around the waist to keep us from somewhere, slap our faces or punch us or beat us up. Such physical sanctions take two main forms, temporary restraint and mild punishment. (Henley 1977: 189)
    6. Long-term restraint and its ramifications. When ordinary citizens, or nonpersonally applied police power fails, the state is allower to retain, imprison, isolate, and apply physical and mental punishment to its members should they break the legal/social code (or threaten it, or be suspected of it). The main tools of this enforcement are jails, prisons, and mental hospitals.
    7. Weapons, death, war. At this point it is clear that neither reminders, nor punishments, nor threats nor restraints will work to deter the person moving against the norms. All the stops are out, and those in power will attempt to stop the behavior at all costs. (And at this point the behavior will be harder to stop.)
  13. Generally speaking, the mildest form of force which is effective will be used. (Henley 1977: 190)
  14. Nonverbal behavior occupies a crucial point in the continuum, between covert and overt control (and between covert and over resistance).
  15. Sexual attraction cannot sufficiently explain men's greater usage of gestures which indicate both intimacy and dominance.
  16. Usurpation of the nonverbal symbols of power by women (and other powerless people) may be ignored, denied, or punished by others, rather than accepted.
  17. Denial of nonverbal power gestures made by women often takes the form of attributing the gesture to sexual advances rather than dominance.
  18. Much of women's behavior which is interpreted as self-limiting may in reality be the end of a sequence in which assertion was attempted, and suppressed, on the nonverbal level. (Henley 1977: 200)
The Hit Is Gone, But the Hurt Lingers On. From a historical viewpoint, we may note the preponderance of dominance behaviors that seem to be remnants of actual physical conflict. Moving close to or towering over another, staring, pointing, touching, leaning toward - all are elements of actual combat, and may be residuals of an earlier time when dominance was settled in more direct and over physical ways. (Some behaviors of dominance - leaning back, turning away, relaxing - do not carry this suggestion of aggression, but rather indicate the posture of one secure in the hierarchy. In such conditions, the behaviors of subordinates - tension, physical lowering, smiling, head and eye lowering - take on the characteristics of defensive and submissive postures.) (Henley 1977: 183)
"The personal is political" is a statement of the movement that has been taken in many ways, but basically it refers to the position that there is nothing we do - no matter how individual and personal it seems - that does not reflect our participation in a power system: our politics are reflected in the way we deal with others in our personal lives; they are the way we live, as well as what we profess. This belief takes on new dimensions when viewed with regards to nonverbal communication, in which we see just how much of the seemingly personal is truly political. (Henley 1977: 198)
Self-communication and personal signs reflect power relations.
Some people will contend that changing nonverbal behavior is the way to achieve social change - if every individual is changed, we will have changed the social structure. This philosophy pops up in different contexts among well-meaning people, but I cannot accept it. This slow-but-sure idea, favored because it is nonviolent and legal and involves a minimal bucking of the system, like other such plans has weaknesses in its nondisruptiveness and its direction of energies to individual (rather than social) solutions for what are really social problems. And we seldom if ever come into face-to-face contact with those who have the most power over us, anyway. (Henley 1977: 205)
Midagi muud:
  • Herdt, Gilbert, and Robert Stoller 1990. Intimate Communication: Erotics and the Study of Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Jones, Stanley 1994. The Right Touch: Understanding and Using the Language of Physical Contact: Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


Post a Comment