DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 1

Deborah Tannen and the Disney Conglomerate

Kevin Lynch
St. Louis University
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 2

Deborah Tannen and the Disney Conglomerate

In October 2014, Loryn Brantz published her article entitled If Disney Princesses

Had Realistic Waistlines on Buzzfeed.com. The piece consisted solely of a series of doctored

images that purported to present a more realistic and accessible version of the female body

alongside the original hourglass shapes of Disneys iconic princesses. Not long after its

initial publication, Brantzs article went viral on social media, launching an international

conversation concerning the contentious portrayal of gender and body image in Disney

films. Throughout its 92-year history, Disney has developed a legacy of problematic gender

discourse; the entertainment giants ultrathin princesses and grotesquely muscular

superheroes have restricted the ideas of femininity and masculinity to very specific terms.

While the debates surrounding these problematic physical portrayals of gender are more

than justified, they have become inflated to a point of obscuring other equally important

discussions of gender in Disneys works. The verbal communication utilized in many of their

films, for example, is rooted in a seriously problematic assessment of gender. Deborah

Tannens theory of Genderlect Styles is perhaps the most logical place to turn when

attempting to make sense of this dangerously narrow engendered communication.

Gender and communication is an area in which much critical ink has already been

spilled. Sociology, psychology, and communication are just a few of the academic fields that

have, for centuries, studied the conflict that often emerges during cross-gender

communication. While many theories have been published on this topic, few are as

groundbreaking and controversial as Deborah Tannens theory of Genderlect Styles.

First introduced in Tannens 1990 book You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in

Conversation, Genderlect Styles makes many specific claims about the gender binary and

verbal communication. The central assertion of Tannens theory is that men and women

communicate from two unique cultural standpoints, and thus masculine and feminine
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 3

styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects (Griffin, 2015, p. 433).

Tannen argues that the (stereo)typical conflict that often occurs during cross-gender

communication is due to a refusal on the part of all involved parties to acknowledge that

their cross-gender communication is in fact intercultural communication. Just as when two

cultures engage one another in conversation, no genders dialect is objectively or naturally

superior to the other. These gender dialects are two completely different forms of

communication, and thus must be evaluated on two entirely different scales.

While these broad assertions make up the greater part of Tannens theory, the

legacy of Genderlect Styles is often defined by the specific characteristics that the theory

associates with each gender dialect. Tannen via Griffin (2015), argues that each gender has

a specific agenda or goal in mind when communicating: more than anything else, women

seek human connection, whereas men are concerned mainly with status (p. 433).

Feminine communication seeks to showcase the communicators emotional competence

and perpetuate the existence of a social community or at least an illusion of such. These

goals are realized in the uniquely feminine form of verbal communication: rapport talk, a

communicative form that seeks to establish connection with others. Masculine

communication, on the other hand, aims to raise the communicators social status and

reinforce his personal autonomy and independence. Men accomplish these goals through

their use of report talk, the masculine, monologic form of communication that commands

attention and confirms ones social superiority.

Tannen also examines the different modes of storytelling that are utilized in each

gender dialect. Since the beginning of recorded history, humans have always used stories as

vessels for revealing and illustrating personal values, beliefs, and opinions. However,

Genderlect Styles argues that the structure and tone of these stories is dependent on the

storytellers gender identity. While telling stories, for example, men are much more likely to
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 4

utilize humor and jokes than are women. Consistent with their yearning for social

superiority, mens humorous stories have a can-you-top-this? flavor that holds attention

and elevates the storyteller above his audience (Griffin, 2015, p. 435). Furthermore, men

often tell stories in which they are personally figured as heroic or even messianic. Women,

however, rarely use this style of storytelling, as Tannen argues that it would contradict a

womans desire for intimacy. Women, for example, avoid telling stories in which they are a

character, and when they do, they often figure themselves as prone to mistakes or

downright foolish. This self-deprecating form of storytelling downplays a womans sense of

self, and puts her on the same level with her hearers (Griffin, 2015, p. 435).

Tannen recognizes many of these key elements which make up these two distinct

forms of storytelling in masculine and feminine forms of public speaking. Much as they

often use stories to draw attention to their personal virtues, Tannen (1990) argues that men

most commonly use public speaking as a platform to draw attention to themselves: In the

public arena, men vie for ascendancy and speak much more than women do men use talk

as a weapon to command attention, convey information, and insist on agreement (Griffin,

2015, p. 434). While men use public speaking as an opportunity to win debates and verbally

dominate their colleagues, Tannen (1990) theorizes that women often avoid public

speaking altogether. Women thrive in private conversations where intimate connection can

be made and an inclusive speech community can be established. Despite the fact that they

speak more words than men on a daily basis Griffin writes that, women speak an

average of 20,000 words per day. Men speak about 7,000 (Griffin, 2015, p. 434) women

conduct most of their verbal communication in private settings and for selfless purposes:

Girls learn to involve others in conversations, while boys learn to use communication to

assert their own ideas and draw attention to themselves (Griffin, 2015, p. 434). Much as is
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 5

the case with storytelling, then, the differences between masculine and feminine forms of

public speaking are defined by two unique motivations.

Whether one entirely agrees with Tannens theory or not, it is clear that men and

women often communicate in different manners. So how are humans taught to act in such

distinct fashions, with relation to their gender? Tannen theorizes that humans are taught

these distinct gender dialects (both consciously and subconsciously) at a very young age by

those with significant influence over their emotional and intellectual growth, such as

parents and teachers. Tannen, for example, states that mothers with sons typically speak in

a direct and authoritative manner to their children that directly correlates with the

masculine dialects interest in status and autonomy. Curiously, Tannen does not directly

implicate the media in the perpetuation of these distinct gender dialectics. As Tannens

theory suggests that children are taught to communicate in a distinctly masculine or

feminine manner at a very young age, one could easily implicate a media conglomerate such

as Disney an omnipresence in countless childhoods, particularly in America in the

preservation and perpetuation of these dialects. Disneys beloved animated films have

proven to be a particularly problematic influence on Western gender discourse. While much

has already been said about the effects of Disneys idealization of both the masculine and

feminine body on the formation of childrens gender identity and perception of self-worth,

much could also be said about the connection between gender and verbal communication in

Disneys animated features. The application of Genderlect Styles to two of Disneys most

well-known animated features Clyde Geronimis Sleeping Beauty (1959) and Ron Clements

and John Muskers Little Mermaid (1989) not only helps shine a light on this media giants

complicated take on gender, but showcases the ways in which Disneys gender discourse

has evolved, devolved, and plateaued throughout the 20th century.

DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 6

One of the final films Walt Disney himself ever worked on, the legacy of Clyde

Geronimis Sleeping Beauty (1959) has been primarily focused on the films uniquely

beautiful animation style. However, the film also highlights mid-twentieth century Disneys

larger legacy of constructing intensely binary depictions of gender. Sleeping Beauty,

however, is a complicated film to analyze in terms of its depiction of gender. The films cast

is predominantly female, but this absence of a strong male presence does not lessen the

binary nature of the films take on gender, particularly in terms of femininity. Unlike many

Disney films, however, this discussion of gender revolves around someone other than a

youthful princess archetype: the three good faeries, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather.

These three characters, when viewed through the lens of Genderlect Styles, provide a

textbook example of what Tannen would label as feminine rapport talk. The film opens on a

public event (the celebration of the birth of Princess Aurora) and just as Tannen (1990)

would predict, these females remain quiet throughout most of the scene. As Tannen (1990)

explains, women are most comfortable talking when they feel safe and close, among

friends and equals (p. 94) and participation in this rhetorically public event would

contradict this desire for intimacy. The faeries, instead, keep their statements to single

sentences:

Flora: Little princess, my gift shall be the gift of beauty.

Fauna: Tiny princess, my gift shall be the gift of song. (Geronimi, 1959)

These brief lines, which double as incantations, are also literally gifts designed to build a

relationship between the faeries and the royal family, particularly the newborn princess.

This highlights the feminine desire for emotional connection that Tannen layouts out in

Genderlect Styles. After the evil Maleficents arrival and her curse is placed on the infant

princess, the setting of the film switches to the private arena: the faeries hidden home in

the woods. Once they are by themselves, the faeries abandon their quiet personas, and
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 7

instead become chatty and social. Tannen (1990) would argue that this change in setting

directly leads to the faeries change in communicative style: for women, home is a place

where they are free to talk, and where they feel the greatest need for talk, with those they

are closest to the comfort of home means the freedom to talk without worrying about how

their talk will be judged (p. 86). All of this private communication reflects the faeries

avoidance of conflict and desire for emotional connection. Even when discussing the

villainous Maleficent, the faeries refrain from using contentious language:

Fauna: Well, she cant be all bad.

Flora: Oh, yes, she can.

Fauna: Now, dear, that isnt a very nice thing to say (Geronimi, 1959)

Furthermore, the faeries desire for intimacy is demonstrated in their frequent use of the

word dear; throughout the 75-minute film, the faeries use this term of endearment a

remarkable 32 times.

Tannen (1990) argues that women will avoid any and all communication which may

lead to conflict or put a relationship at risk: To most women, conflict is a threat to

connection, to be avoided at all costs (p. 150). In accordance with Tannens theory, the

faeries go to extreme lengths to avoid putting their relationships at risk. When Aurora falls

under Maleficents curse, the faeries resolve to silence the entire kingdom (via enchanted

sleep) in order to avoid the emotional strife that will inevitably arise from the spread of this

disturbing news:

Merryweather: Theyll be heartbroken when they find out.

Flora: Theyre not going to Well put them all to sleep, until [Aurora] awakens.

Come! (Geronimi, 1959)

DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 8

The news of Auroras curse would not only send the kingdom into disarray, but would also

put the stability of the faeries relationship with the kingdom in jeopardy. While some may

argue that the faeries decision to silence the kingdom is not in line with Tannens belief that

women seek to involve others in conversation rather than exclude, the motivation behind

this drastic act is clearly a fear of conflict and emotional disconnect; no communication is

better than communication which puts the community at risk. As Tannen herself (1990)

writes, If a man struggles to be strong, a woman struggles to keep the community strong

(p. 152).

Some may argue that this intensely binary approach to engendered communication

is just a reflection of the larger view of gender prevalent in 1950s America. While this

assertion may be somewhat true, an examination of Ron Clements and John Muskers

Disney classic The Little Mermaid (1989) shows that Disneys use of binary engendered

communication has continued throughout the corporations history. This communicative

gender binary is most evident when examining the stories told by Ariel and her father King

Triton concerning humans. As Tannen (1990) writes, womens stories tend to be about

community, while the mens tend to be about contest (p. 177) and Ariel and Tritons stories

about humankind clearly demonstrate this:

Triton: You couldve been seen by one of those barbarians by by one of those

humans!

Ariel: Daddy, theyre not barbarians! (Clements & Musker, 1989)

Triton tells a story in which humans are figured as savage warriors; his use of the word

barbarian figures the relationship between humans and merpeople as a conflict to be won.

As Colleen Armstrong (1996) suggests while reflecting on her experience teaching in a co-

ed high school, this focus on conflict is typical in masculine communication: My male

students papers are more often about challenges met, law-breaking episodes, or brawls
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 9

theyve participated in. Boys nearly always portray themselves as either emerging

victorious or swearing revenge (p. 16). Men are socialized to be natural competitors, and

Triton is clearly no exception to this socialization.

Ariel, on the other hand, views humankind as something to be understood, rather

than something to be fought against. The lyrics of Ariels Part of Your World highlight her

desire to understand and connect with humans. Tannen (1990) writes that, womens

storiesrevolve around the norms of [a] community, and joint action by groups of people

(p. 177). This focus on community is clear in Ariels performance: Legs are required for

jumping, dancing / Strolling along down a / Whats that word again? / Street / /Betcha

on land, theyd understand / Bet they dont reprimand their daughters (Clements &

Musker, 1989). These lyrics not only demonstrate Ariels interest in the communal norms of

life on the surface, but her larger desire to understand and be understood. Ariels outrage at

her fathers punishing of her (Bet they dont reprimand their daughters) could be easily

seen as a symptom of the feminine revulsion toward conflict: discipline involves direct

confrontation, which most women are socialized to abhor (Armstrong, 1996, 16). Tannen

(1990) associates all of these traits with the feminine style of storytelling. Ariels story

about humans, then, clearly clashes with that of Triton. This disagreement between Ariel

and Triton concerning humans drives much of the drama of the film, and is a direct result of

their refusal to understand their communication in terms of the others engendered dialect:

Women and men are inclined to understand each other in terms of their own styles

because we assume we all live in the same world (Tannen, 1990, p. 179). Ariel is too

focused on the surface world to care about understanding the social world of her father,

while Triton is too busy attempting to anchor Ariel to the underwater world of Atlantis to

try walking around in her daughters shoes or in this case, fins.

DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 10

Engendered communication and the conflict that often arises from it, then, is a

common recurrence in Disney films. However, some may view their tradition of

constructing strong female villains as a contradiction to this pattern. The defining feature of

these villainesses, such as Sleeping Beautys Maleficent and The Little Mermaids Ursula, is

how they consistently subvert the expectations for how females are supposed to

communicate, as laid out by Tannen. Disneys coding of these non-compliant women as

villains suggests their loyalty to strictly binary engendered communication. Ursula, for

example, desires to take over the sea, and all of her verbal communication reflects what

Tannen would identify as a masculine goal. She feigns interest in building emotional

connection with others, while actually seeking to dominate those same people. This is clear

in her musical piece Poor Unfortunate Souls when she sings: Poor unfortunate souls / In

pain / In need / / And do I help them? / Yes, indeed (Clements & Musker 1989). While a

literal interpretation of these lyrics suggests her interest in building relationships and

establishing connection with others, Ursula uses her magic to transform those poor

unfortunate souls into submissive and silent slaves. Notably, this magic comes in the form

of an incantation, a form of verbal communication made into a literal weapon Griffin

(2015) writes that, men use talk as a weapon (p. 434) to silence other communicators,

a trait that Tannen (1990) identifies as symptomatic of a masculine desire to dominate.

Ursula even silences other women; she fools Ariel into surrendering her voice in what is

only the most recent step in her plot to conquer the sea.

Ursulas non-compliant communication, however, was hardly an original concept in

1989; Maleficent was undermining Tannens feminine ideal thirty years earlier in 1959.

Maleficents villainy throughout the film is rooted in her outrage at not receiving an

invitation to the celebration of Auroras birth a simple frustration toward her

communitys lack of respect for her. This focus on ones own importance clearly falls more
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 11

in line with the masculine desire for social superiority than with the feminine desire for

intimacy. Maleficent subverts the idea that, For most women, the language of conversation

is a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships (Tannen, 1990, p. 77):

Queen: And youre not offended, your excellency?

Maleficent: Why no, your majesty. And to show I bear no ill will, I, too, shall bestow a

gift on the child Listen well, all of you! (Geronimi, 1959)

Maleficent assures the queen that she is not offended by her lack of an invitation (an act that

appears to be an avoidance of conflict) then immediately proceeds to curse Aurora to death.

She subverts the social expectations of feminine communication in an effort to achieve

Tannens masculine goal of dominance. Much like Ursula, Maleficent turns her verbal

communication into a literal weapon to conquer others and affirm her superiority over the

good faeries. Furthermore, Maleficent draws attention to herself Listen well, all of you!

(Geronimi, 1959) a trait that Tannen (1990) would argue is demonstrative of the

masculine form of public speaking and the desire to demonstrate ones competency.

The non-compliance of these villainesses underscores just how strictly Disney

adheres to a gender binary in terms of engendered communication. However, it also raises

serious ethical questions concerning Genderlect Styles. Is Maleficent less of a woman just

because she communicates in a way that has historically been coded as masculine?

Tannens theory would suggest so. More than one feminist critique has been justifiably

made against the theory because of this point. Many critics have attacked Genderlect Styles

for its reinforcement of gender stereotypes. However, Tannen (1990) would argue that

these stereotypes are rooted in social truths; it is not Genderlect Styles that is creating these

stereotypes, but rather the society that the theory is examining. And therein lies the flaw of

Genderlect Styles. Tannens theory relies on societys view of gender, not an objective truth.

If societys expectation for each gender changes, then the theory loses its effectiveness; the
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 12

validity of Genderlect Styles is dependent on the time and place of the theorys application.

Genderlect Styles, for example, is inherently rooted in the expectations of Western

civilization, particularly American society. An application of Tannens theory to an Eastern

culture, for example, would not take into account that cultures unique take on gender.

Tannens theory is also dependent on time. An application of Tannens theory to William

Shakespeares work, for example, demands careful contextualization of that time periods

gender politics. Only after that contextualization takes place does Tannens theory begin to

regain its credibility.

It is no surprise, considering this reliance on social expectations, that Genderlect

Styles so easily applies to 20th century Disney film. Few would dispute Disneys central role

in the formation of modern Western culture; the corporations omnipresence in countless

childhoods gives Disney incredible influence over Western social values and expectations,

particularly in the United States. Disney and Genderlect Styles, then, are two halves of a self-

perpetuating machine: the skewered, yet binary, gender discourse present in Disney films

such as Geronimis Sleeping Beauty (1959) and Clements and Muskers The Little Mermaid

(1989) shapes the expectations American society has for each genders communicative

behavior, and Genderlect Styles then legitimizes these expectations from an academic

perspective. Genderlect Styles relies on Disney to shape societys expectations, and Disney

relies on Genderlect Styles to legitimize their portrayal of each gender. Disney, of course, is

not the only media giant engaging with Tannens theory in such a way, but their immense

wealth and brand recognition makes them one of the most complacent in the formation of

these gender stereotypes that feminist critics despise so strongly. Perhaps, then, future

criticism of Tannens theory ought to consider the other side of this equation; Deborah

Tannen is not (alone) guilty of constructing a gender binary most Americans likely do not

know who Deborah Tannen is, let alone what she writes about but she is simply one part
DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 13

of a larger, problematic view of gender and communication in Western society. Tannens

theory will remain valid (and problematic) until Disney and other media conglomerates

stop mass-producing such binary images of gender and engendered communication.

DEBORAH TANNEN AND THE DISNEY CONGLOMERATE 14

References

Armstrong, C. (1996). One persons opinion: Deborah Tannen comes to class:

Implications of gender and conversation in the classroom. The English

Journal, 85, 15-16.

Brantz, Loryn. (2014, October 29). If Disney princess has realistic waistlines. [Blog]

Retrieved from: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lorynbrantz/if-disney-

princesses-had-realistic-waistlines#.prXq2jrOKb

Clements, R., Musker, J. The little mermaid. USA: Walt Disney Pictures.

Geronimi, C. 1959. Sleeping beauty. USA: Walt Disney Productions.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand: Women and men in conversation. New

York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.