«Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal CELIA KITZINGER and HANNAH FRITH Discourse ...»
This article has argued that young women ﬁnd it difﬁcult to say ‘no’ to sex at least partly because saying immediate clear and direct ‘no’s (to anything) is not a normal conversational activity. Young women who do not use the word ‘no’, but who refuse sex with delays, prefaces, palliatives and accounts are using conversational patterns which are normatively recognized as refusals in everyday life. For men to claim that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns. We have suggested that the insistence of date rape prevention (and other refusal skills) educators on the importance of saying ‘no’ is counter-productive in that it demands that women engage in conversationally abnormal actions which breach conventional social etiquette, and in that it allows rapists to persist with the claim that if a woman has not actually said ‘NO’ (in the right tone of voice, with the right body language, at the right time) then she hasn’t refused to have sex with him.
Our analysis in this article supports the belief that the root of the problem is not that men do not understand sexual refusals, but that they do not like them.
Confronted with a date rape education ‘no means no’ poster campaign, seeking to disambiguate women’s refusals, nine male students at Queens University in Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at New School Digital Library on September 14, 2010 Kitzinger & Frith: Just say no? The use of conversation 311 Canada responded with posters of their own including slogans such as ‘no means kick her in the teeth’, ‘no means on your knees bitch’, ‘no means tie her up’, ‘no means more beer’ and ‘no means she’s a dyke’ (cf. Mahood and Littlewood, 1997). Similar evidence comes from a recent study of 16-year-old boys who were asked ‘if you wanted to have sex and your partner did not, would you try to persuade them to have sex? How?’: the researchers comment that there was ‘clear evidence of aggression towards girls who were not prepared to be sexually accommodating’ and quote interview extracts in which boys say that in such situations they would ‘root the fucking bitch in the fucking arse’, ‘give her a stern talking to’, or just ‘shove it in’ (Moore and Rosenthal, 1992, cited in Moore and Rosenthal, 1993: 179). The problem of sexual coercion cannot be ﬁxed by changing the way women talk.
In the present study, CA has made clear that there are normatively understood ways of doing refusals which are generally understood to be refusals, and consequently we believe that there is no reason why feminists concerned about sexual coercion should respond to men’s allegations of their ‘ambiguity’ by taking upon ourselves the task of inventing new ways of doing refusals. As feminists, we have allowed men (disingenuously claiming not to understand normative conversational conventions) to set the agenda, such that we have accepted the need to educate women to produce refusals which men cannot claim to have ‘misunderstood’. This, in turn, has led only to an escalation of men’s claims to have ‘misunderstood’, to be ‘misunderstood’, and, in general, to be ‘ignorant’ about women’s (allegedly different and special) ways of communicating. Men’s selfinterested capacity for ‘misunderstanding’ will always outstrip women’s earnest attempts to clarify and explain.
The technical ﬁeld of CA has not been attractive to feminists (but see Stokoe, 1998; Wetherell, 1998, for recent exceptions). Conversation analysis is often viewed as nit picking, obsessively concerned with details, and as unable to see beyond the ‘micro’ level of the 0.2-second pause to the ‘macro’ level of oppression.
It is so-called ‘critical’ discourse analysis (rather than the ethnomethodologically rooted variety drawing on CA) which is usually seen as most likely to advance political ideals. We hope we have illustrated here one way in which knowledge of the details of talk in interaction can help in formulating political arguments and practical programmes. Date rape prevention and refusal skills programmes need to be based on empirical evidence of how refusals are actually done and understood to be done, not on idealized prescriptions which ﬂy in the face of cultural conventions. Educators have lamented the alleged absence of ‘an empirical basis by which to guide efforts to say no effectively’ (Warzak and Page, 1990: 134): the ﬁndings of CA provide just such an empirical basis. The slogan ‘yes means yes, and no means no’ may make a good campaign slogan, but it is neither a description of actual human behaviour, nor a suitable prescription for dealing with the sexual coercion.
We would urge feminist researchers to consider these and other ways in which a close attention to the details of language use in ordinary conversation may be of broader social and political relevance.
Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at New School Digital Library on September 14, 2010 312 Discourse & Society 10(3)
The authors would like to thank the members of Loughborough University’s Discourse and Rhetoric Group (especially Derek Edwards, Jonathan Potter, Mick Billig and Charles Antaki) and Women’s Studies Research Group (especially Sue Wilkinson and Cath Benson) for stimulating discussions which informed our writing of this article.
1. To be absolutely accurate here, we should note that we do not in fact know anything about what B intended to communicate – and indeed B’s intentions and desires are unknowable by, and irrelevant to, conversation analysts. Conversation analysts do not claim to be able to use what people say to read off psychological phenomena like intentions, desires, emotions, or other cognitions. The claim is only that A reacts to what B says as though B were refusing the invitation, and hence that the structure of B’s speech is the kind of structure which ordinary members of the speech community commonly orient to as a refusal. See Edwards (1997) for a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between talk and cognition.
Antaki, C. (1994) Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organisation of Accounts. London: Sage.
Atkinson, J.M and Drew, P., eds (1979) Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Social Sciences Research Council.
Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J., eds (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1991) Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Burley-Allen, M. (1983) Managing Assertively: How to Improve your People Skills. New York:
Button, G. and Lee, J.R., eds (1987) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Cairns, K. (1993) ‘Sexual Entitlement and Sexual Accommodation: Male and Female Responses to Sexual Coercion’, Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 2: 203–14.
Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at New School Digital Library on September 14, 2010 Kitzinger & Frith: Just say no? The use of conversation 313 Campbell, B.K. and Barnlund, D.C. (1977) ‘Communication Patterns and Problems of Pregnancy’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 47: 134–9.
Cocoran, C. (1992) From Victim Control to Social Change: A Feminist Perspective on Campus Rape Prevention Programmes’, in J.C. Chrisler and D. Howard (eds) New Directions in Feminist Psychology: Practice, Theory and Research. New York: Springer.
Coudert, J. (1993) ‘Nice Ways to Say No’, Readers Digest, (Feb.): 56–8.
Crombie, A.B. (1994) The Art of Saying No: Creative Escapology. London: Golden Rule Publications.
Cvetkovitch, G., Grote, B., Lieverman, E.S. and Miller, W. (1978) ‘Sex Role Development and Teenage Fertility-Related Behavior’, Adolescence 8: 231–6.
Davidson, J. (1984) ‘Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection’, in J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds)
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 102–28. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1984) ‘Speakers’ Reportings in Invitation Sequences’, in J.M. Atkinson and J.
Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 129–51.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) ‘Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driscoll, M. and Greig, G. (1994) ‘The Art of Saying No’, Sunday Times (2 May): 24.
Duncombe, J. and Marsden, D. (1993) ‘Love and Intimacy: The Gender Division of Emotion and Emotion Work: A Neglected Aspect of Sociological Discussion of Heterosexual Relationships’, Sociology 27(2): 221–41.
Duncombe, J. and Marsden, D. (1996) ‘Whose Orgasm is this Anyway? “Sex work” in Long Term Heterosexual Couple Relationships’, in J. Weeks and J. Holland (eds) Sexual Cultures: Communities, Values and Intimacy. London: Macmillan Press.
Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
Ehrlich, S. (1998) ‘The Discursive Reconstruction of Sexual Consent’, Discourse & Society 9(2): 149–71.
Fensterheim, H. and Baer, J. (1975) Don’t Say Yes When You Want to Say No. New York:
Frith, H. (1997) Young Women Refusing Sex: The Epistemological Adventures of a Feminist, unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University, UK.
Frith, H. and Kitzinger, C. (1997) ‘Talk about Sexual Miscommunication’, Women’s Studies International Forum 20(4): 517–28.
Frith, H. and Kitzinger, C. (1998) ‘ “Emotion Work” as a Participant Resource: A Feminist Analysis of Young Women’s Talk-in-Interaction’, Sociology 32: 299–320.
Gervasio, A.H. and Crawford, M. (1989) ‘Social Evaluations of Assertiveness: A Critique and Speech Act Reformulation’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13: 1–25.
Gilbert, N. (1991) ‘The Phantom Epidemic of Sexual Assault’, The Public Interest 103:
Goodchilds, J.G., Zellman, G.L., Johnson, P.B. and Giarrusso, R. (1988) ‘Adolescents and their Perceptions of Sexual Interactions’, in A.W. Burgess (ed.) Rape and Sexual Assault.
New York: Garland.
Heritage, J. (1984) Garﬁnkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1989) ‘Current Developments in Conversation Analysis’, in D. Roger and P.
Bull (eds) Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at New School Digital Library on September 14, 2010 314 Discourse & Society 10(3) Howard, M. (1985a) ‘How the Family Physician can Help Young Teenagers Postpone Sexual Involvement’, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 19: 76–87.
Howard, M. (1985b) ‘Postponing Sexual Involvement Among Adolescents: An Alternative Approach to Prevention of Sexual Transmitted Diseases’, Journal of Adolescent Health Care 6: 271–7.
Howard, M. and McCabe, J.B. (1990) ‘Helping Teenagers Postpone Sexual Involvement’, Family Planning Perspectives 22: 21–6.
Hutchby, I. and Woofﬁtt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, G. (1984) ‘Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens “Yeah” and “mm hm” ’, Papers in Linguistics 17: 197–216.
Kidder, L.H., Boell, J.L. and Moyer, M.M. (1983) ‘Rights Consciousness and Victimization
Prevention: Personal Defence and Assertiveness Training’, Journal of Social Issues 39:
Kitzinger, C. (1998) ‘Expertise vs Commonsense: Theory and Rhetoric in Editorial Discourse’, Discourse & Society 9(1): 143–6.
Krueger, R.A. (1988) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977) Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McConnch, S. (1990) Assertiveness: A Personal Skills Course for Young People. Basingstoke:
Mahood, L. and Littlewood, B. (1997) ‘Daughters in Danger: The Case of “Campus Sex Crimes” ’, in A.M. Thomas and C. Kitzinger (eds) Sexual Harassment: Contemporary Feminist Perspectives, pp. 172–87. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Martin, J. (1982) Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior. New York: Atheneum.
Moerman, M. (1998) Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Moore, S. and Rosenthal, D. (1992) ‘The Social Context of Adolescent Sexuality: Safe Sex Implications’, Journal of Adolescence 15: 415–35.
Moore, S. and Rosenthal, D. (1993) Sexuality in Adolescence. London: Routledge.
Morgan, D.L. (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. [Sage University Papers, Qualitative Research Methods Series, No. 16]. London: Sage.
Morgan, D.L. (1996) ‘Focus Groups’, Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129–52.
Morgan, D.L. and Krueger, R.A. (1993) ‘When to Use Focus Groups and Why’, In D.L.
Morgan (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, pp. 3–19. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Muehlenhard, C.L. and Cook, S.W. (1988) ‘Men’s Self Reports of Unwanted Sexual Activity’, Journal of Sex Research 24: 58–72.
Muehlenhard, C.L. and Hollabaugh, L.C. (1988) ‘Do Women Sometimes Say No When they Mean Yes? The Prevalence and Correlates of Women’s Token Resistance to Sex’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 872–9.
Muehlenhard, C.L. and McCoy, M.L. (1991) ‘Double Standards/Double Bind: The Sexual Double Standard and Women’s Communication about Sex’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 15: 447–61.
Muehlenhard, C., Julsonnet, S., Carson, M. and Falrity-White, L.A. (1989) ‘A CognitiveBehavioral Programme for Preventing Sexual Coercion’, Behavior Therapist 12: