Chapter 7 of Strangers: The taijitu of androgyny

Yin and yang (yin-yang) The black portion of the symbol, the yin, is typically used to represent the traditional feminine qualities of gentleness, tranquility, and receptivity. In contrast, the white portion of the symbol, the yang, is typically used to represent the traditional masculine qualities of forcefulness, energy, and initiative. In the taijitu, masculinity and femininity are complementary qualities which, when appropriately integrated with each other, create a dynamically balanced whole. Yang = active, directive, assertive, forceful. Yin = reactive, responsive, expressive, gentle.

Parsons and Bales (1955) and bakan (1966) Parsons and Bales (1955): instrumental / expressive Bakan (1966): agency / communion Bakan argued that social systems, of which the dyad is the simplest form, tend to work the best when an optimal “balance” of agentic (i.e., masculine) and communal (i.e., feminine) capabilities are integratively applied. For Bakan, imbalance was the source of problems; and the greater the imbalance, the more serious the resulting problems became. Although Bakan was particularly concerned with the problems resulting from “unmitigated agency” (unrestrained self-assertion at the expense of others), more contemporary writers have also noted the problems resulting from “unmitigated communion.” They have argued that it is possible to be too self-sacrificing, too nurturing, and too willing to foster dependency. For a similar perspective, see Blake and Mouton (1978, 1982).

Bem’s (1974) concept of psychological androgyny Femininity Low High Low Masculinity High   Undifferentiated Feminine Masculine Androgynous

The bem sex role inventory

Theoretical postulates for a theory of sex-role influences in dyadic interactions (ickes, 1985) I. Dyads, as simple social systems, are optimally functional to the degree that both agentic and communal capabilities are integratively applied. These agentic and communal capabilities are located in the individual dyad members and are applied in their relationship through their overt interaction behavior. II. The sex-role orientations of the dyad members determine the degree to which agentic and communal capabilities can be applied and integrated within their interaction. Specifically: (a) traditionally masculine people can apply a high level of agentic capabilities, but only a low level of communal capabilities; (b) traditionally feminine people can apply a high level of communal capabilities, but only a low level of agentic capabilities; (c) androgynous people can variably apply their agentic or communal capabilities, depending on the perceived situational appropriateness of displaying or not displaying either or both sets; and (d) undifferentiated people can apply only low levels of both agentic and communal capabilities. III. By setting limits on the application and potential integration of agentic and communal capabilities, the sex-role orientations of the dyad members influence both the level of interactional involvement (an interpersonal outcome) and the degree to which each of the dyad members are satisfied with that level of interactional involvement (a personal outcome).

Theoretical postulates for a theory of sex-role influences in dyadic interactions (ickes, 1985) IV. In intimate relationships (i.e., those defined in terms of strong mutual expectations that one’s partner will provide a consistently high level of nurturance and emotional support), the degree of satisfaction the dyad members experience will vary directly with the degree to which they perceive their partner to be nurturant and emotionally responsive (i.e., high in communality). In non-intimate relationships (where the above-noted expectations do not apply), the degree of satisfaction the dyad members experience will depend on the degree to which the level of interactional involvement is consistent with their own disposition to be communal. Thus, (a) masculine and undifferentiated people should be satisfied with relatively low levels of interactional involvement, whereas (b) feminine and androgynous people should be satisfied only with relatively high levels on interactional involvement. V. The integration within an interaction of agentic and communal capabilities need not take the form of an interdependent integration. Each dyad member can apply neither, one, or (in the case of androgynous people) both sets of capabilities. Because the conditions for an interdependent integration of agentic and communal capabilities have not yet been specified, the status of this type of integration must remain an open question. Adapted from Ickes (1985)

Hypotheses relevant to initial same-sex interactions Hypothesis 1a. In the initial interactions of two stereotypically masculine males or two stereotypically feminine females (the ST-ST dyad type), the level of interactional involvement should be relatively low. This outcome should occur because only one of the necessary capabilities—either agentic or communal—is strongly represented in dyads of this type, whereas both capabilities are required for a high level of interactional involvement. Hypothesis 1b. In the initial interactions of two masculine males, the dyad members should be relatively satisfied with the low level of interaction in their dyads, because they are not strongly predisposed to be communicative and expressive. However, in the initial interactions of two feminine females, the dyad members should be relatively dissatisfied with the low level of interaction in their dyads, because it frustrates their strong communal-expressive needs.   Hypothesis 2a. In the initial interactions of two androgynous males or two androgynous females (the A-A dyad type), the level of interactional involvement should be relatively high. Because both agentic and communal capabilities can be applied by both dyad members, they should have little difficulty maintaining a high level of interactional involvement. Hypothesis 2b. In the initial interactions of two androgynous males or two androgynous females, the dyad members should be relatively satisfied with the high level of involvement in their interactions, because it enables them to fulfill their strong communal-expressive needs.

Sex-role composition of the dyads Data from the study of same-sex dyads by ickes, shermer, and steeno (1979)   Sex-role composition of the dyads Interactional involvement measures ST-ST A-A Number of speaking turns (talking) Duration of speaking turns (talking) Number of gazes Duration of gazes Number of mutual gazes Duration of mutual gazes Number of expressive gestures Duration of expressive gestures 33.2 68.4 17.9 60.2 7.4 13.2 4.2 5.2 48.1 105.7 26.9 92.1 11.8 19.8 8.5 9.9

Data from the study of same-sex dyads by ickes, shermer, and steeno (1979)   Male-male dyads Female-female dyads Satisfaction with interaction measures ST-ST A-A Perceived rapport with partner Overall satisfaction with interaction 7.8 15.4 7.6 11.0 5.6 7.3 8.3 12.4

Hypotheses relevant to initial opposite-sex interactions Hypothesis 4. In the initial interactions of dyads composed of a stereotypically masculine male and a stereotypically feminine female (the ST-ST dyad type), the level of interactional involvement should depend upon whether or not the male’s agentic capabilities and the female’s communal capabilities can be interdependently integrated (see Postulate V). If such an interdependent integration can occur between opposite-sex strangers, the level of interactional involvement should be relatively high; if not, the level of involvement should be relatively low.   Hypothesis 5. In the initial interactions of dyads composed of an androgynous male and an androgynous females (the A-A dyad type), the level of interactional involvement should be relatively high. Because both agentic and communal capabilities can be applied by both dyad members, the participants should have little difficulty maintaining a high level of interactional involvement.

Data from the study of opposite-sex dyads by ickes and barnes (1978) Opposite-sex dyad types   Interactional involvement measures ST-ST dyads (Masc ♂–Fem ♀) A-A dyads (Andr ♂–Andr ♀) Number of speaking turns (talking) Duration of speaking turns (talking) Number of gazes Duration of gazes Number of smiles/laughs Duration of smiles/laughs Number of expressive gestures Duration of expressive gestures 21.0 46.7 12.9 34.9 4.0 11.4 1.6 1.3 28.3 67.0 20.8 61.1 8.4 23.0

Evidence that a truly interdependent integration of agentic and communal capabilities is difficult to achieve First, the results of various survey studies reveal that traditionally sex-typed married couples (ST-ST), in which the husband is masculine sex-typed and the wife is feminine sex-typed, report significantly less satisfaction with their relationships than androgynous (A-A) married couples do. This finding may reflect the long-term difficulty that masculine men and feminine women have when they attempt to achieve an interdependent integration of their respective agentic and communal capabilities. Second, the results of survey studies by Janet Spence and Robert Helmreich reveal that married couples in which both partners are androgynous create family environments that are given the highest ratings by their adolescent children on the dimensions of warmth, democracy, and family harmony. The corresponding ratings are intermediate in families with a masculine father and a feminine mother (ST-ST couples), and are lowest in families with a father and mother who are both undifferentiated (U-U couples). This ordering suggests that although some integration of agentic and communal capabilities does occur in the families of sex-role-stereotyped (ST-ST) couples, it is not enough to close the gap between them and the androgynous (A-A) couples. Third, the results of a survey study by Rose Maxwell and her colleagues suggest that feminine-sex-typed women are more likely to be divorced than androgynous women are. Because the number of divorced women in their sample was relatively small, this finding needs to be replicated before it can be regarded as well-established. However, it may provide additional evidence of the greater difficulty that stereotypically sex-typed people have in making their marriages “work” successfully, when compared to more androgynous people.