Analysis of a Paradoxical Logic: A Case Study

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 19:19-33, 1980

Analysis of a Paradoxical Logic: A Case Study LINDA HARRIS, Ph.D.a aPostdoctoral Research Fellow, Family Violence Research Program, Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Adjunct

Assistant Professor, Center for the Family, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

A case study of a normally functioning married couple was conducted to investigate the relation between their logic and their communication patterns. Two communication theories, the Interactional View and the Coordinated Management of Meaning, were employed in an analysis of the couple's logic and communication. A triangulated methodology, consisting of interviews, written self-reports, and role-playing, was used to elicit the couple's constitutive and regulative rules. The discovery of paradoxical rules led to several propositions concerning the circular relation between communication and socially created realities. Specifically, the analysis revealed paradoxical rules associated with restricted episodes in which the couple could not obtain their goal of eliminating conflict. A number of communication theorists, among them Watzlawick and Weakland (19) and Cronen and Pearce (4), have asserted that social reality is created through processes of communication. They each theorize that the system of meaning (social reality) from which two or more people communicate with one another is created and maintained by the communication process from which it emerges. If this is so, it has an exceptionally important practical implication: Our knowledge of communication processes should reveal and explain significant characteristics of social realities. Specifically, we know that the communication process is inherently problematic; it is filled with inaccuracies, disagreements, knots, paradoxes, and so forth. If communication and social realities are cause and effect of each other, we should expect each to share the same inherent imperfections. This paper reports a study of a family. The purpose of the study was to describe the logic by which the family moved through their social reality and to observe the communication patterns by which they created and maintained this logic. The family's logic refers to lines of actions legitimated by the juxtaposition of members' intrapersonal rule sets (4). The results confirmed the assumption of the mutually causal relation between communication and the social order and demonstrated the heuristic value of combining the two communication theories cited above. The logic discovered was curiously contorted in such a way that it perpetuated a form of communication that was simultaneously identified as the couple's greatest conflict and chief strength. This paradoxical logic is manifest in a mutually inconsistent premise at the "life-script" level of meaning. Other inconsistencies were exposed in a crucial "management episode." One is akin in structure to the classic paradox:

CONCEPTUAL TERMS To explicate this complex, but possibly not unusual logic, four conceptual terms must be utilized: the concept of paradox, borrowed from Watzlawick et al. (18), and the concepts of rules, hierarchy of meanings, and the juxtaposition of individual logics, from Pearce (10) and Cronen and Pearce (4).

Paradox In How Real is Real (17), Watzlawick defines communication as "the creation of a shared second-order reality." He makes the point that this second-order reality is not necessarily or even normally internally consistent. One of the sources of a confounded reality is paradox. Like all other complex conceptual systems which attempt to make assertions about themselves (e.g., language, logic, mathematics) communication typically encounters the paradox of self-reflexivity when trying to apply itself to itself. What this amounts to is that patterns of communication existing between oneself and others cannot be fully understood, for it is simply impossible to be both involved in a relationship (which is indispensable in order to be related) and at the same time stand outside it as a detached, uninvolved observer (which would be necessary in order to encompass and be aware of the relationship in its entirety). [19, p. 66] 1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Given the assumption that social reality and communication are mutually causal, this suggests that paradoxical forms of communication are both cause and effect of a confounded socially created reality. In formal logic, paradox refers to statements containing apparently obvious principles about truth, which lead, by apparently valid reasoning, to contradiction, e.g., "I am a liar" (14, 6). In communication theory, paradox pertains to contradictory command and report levels, e.g., "be spontaneous" (18). The study reported here was conducted under the premise that families create and communicate within their own field-dependent logics (16) in which their unique contradictory truth claims may be related to contradictory communication acts.

Rules In their development of the theory of the "coordinated management of meaning" (CMM), Cronen and Pearce (4) describe three terms that are consistent with, and extensions of, the "interactional view" of Watzlawick and Weakland (19). The first CMM tenet is that human action is seldom capricious but subject to organized patterns of behavior, i.e., governed by socially created rules. The concept of rules has been used in both theoretical camps as a bench mark for alternatives to reductionistic, deterministic explanations of behavior. There is, however, little agreement between Watzlawick et al. and Cronen et al. as to what a rule is (see Pearce, 11, for an extensive review of rules). The theory of CMM is distinctive in its development of a measurement model for rules in which rules are conceptualized as summary descriptions of cognitive functions: Human actors constitute component subsystems with the ability to organize their cognitions into constitutive and regulative rules. The conjoining of the individual rule sets forms the logic of the system. [3, p.1] The rules are stated in propositional form: 1. Construals of particular events take place according to the individual's rules for meaning and action. 1.1 There are two types of rules, each representing a different cognitive function. Constitutive rules represent the cognitive function of identifying a meaning at one level of abstraction as a token of a meaning at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., a connection between a message and speech act). Regulative rules represent the cognitive function of identifying appropriate sequences of events at given levels of abstraction (e.g., if other displays friendly act, it is legitimate to reciprocate with a friendly act). 1.2 Rules may differ in internal structure. (see Fig. 1). The simplist components include the antecedent condition, a deontic operator, a speech act, and a consequence. More complex rules exhibit equifinality and/or multifinality in which a variety of acts and/or consequences are involved.

Figure 1. Constitutive and Regulative Rules A constitutive rule might read: In the context of conflict (antecedent condition), "wipe your feet" (message) counts as "nagging" (speech act). A regulative rule emerging from this constitutive rule might read: When she nags (antecedent condition), it is obligatory (deontic operator) for me to withdraw (speech act) in order to avoid conflict (desired consequence). Both kinds of rules will be used as analytical tools for describing the family logic analyzed in the case study

2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

reported below.

Hierarchy of Meanings As a part of the measurement model of rules, CMM posits the existence of a hierarchy of meanings. The key to this is not that particular levels exist but that there are levels, each of which contextualize and are contextualized by others. According to Koestler (9), hierarchical contextualization refers to the relationship of a part to a whole, such that the meaning and function of the part is determined by its location within the whole, but not vice versa. The hierarchical model of CMM is stated in propositional form (see Fig. 2): 2. Messages go through various levels of abstractions when a person makes meanings of them. 2.1 The fundamental unit of communication is the speech act (15), which consists of relational meanings. 2.2 The level at which speech acts are interpreted is the episodic levelbounded sequences of speech acts with a beginning, an internal structure, and an end (7). 2.3 The fourth level comprises the set of episodes one draws from when identifying a particular episode with one's life-script (1), or the master contract (2.) with one's significant other.

Figure 2. A Hierarchy of Meanings Family members often make sense out of another's message by contextualizing it within their family's unique master contract, the particular episode in which it occurs, and the act it seems to infer. That is, any one, or all of these levels, may act as the antecedent component of their constitutive and regulative rules. The concept of hierarchy, as presented in multiple levels by CMM will be used to identify paradoxes at the highest level (life-script) that are related to paradoxical speech acts.

The Juxtaposition of Individual Logics Perhaps the most distinctive concept in CMM is that each individual is a component of a larger "logic" that is created by juxtaposing two or more socially constructed realities, such that the characteristics of the individual's logic may bear little resemblance to the interpersonal logic; two unconfounded logics may, when intermeshed, create a terribly confounded interpersonal logic; or two confounded logics may produce a coherent interpersonal logic. A proposition concerning the relation of the individual to the larger interpersonal system is pertinent here: 3. The juxtaposition of two or more persons produces an interpersonal rule system. 3.1 The characteristics of the interpersonal rule system are determined by the nature of the "fit" between the individual rule systems. As in any given system, the whole is not the simple sum of its parts. 3.2 Social behavior is constrained by the interpersonal rule system. The predominant feature of social behavior is alternation: Each person's behavior is both the antecedent and consequent of the other's in sometimes complex patterns. Given the structure of rules, alternation produces a "logic" of behavior in which an act by one person is interpreted by the constitutive rules of the other as the antecedent condition of a regulative rule; the regulative rule guides the selection of a next act in the context of expected consequences; and constitutive rules describe the way to enact the next act; and so on. The significance of viewing juxtaposed logics stems from the fact that interpersonal behaviore.g., family

3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

communication patternsoccurs in the context of interpersonal logics to which each individual has only partial access. Obviously, the potential for paradox is inherent in such a system. The original purpose of the case study reported below was to investigate the meaning management, logic, and style of "healthy" families, for which the theory of CMM is well suited. As the study progressed, however, specific contradictions at the interface of the two adults' logics emerged, and it became apparent that the concept of paradox was a necessary additional explanatory component. Thus, the two communication theories converged at critical points, as reviewed above, and were incorporated into the case study procedure and analysis reported here. (For a summary of the theoretical comparisons between the Interactional View and CMM, see Appendix.

CASE STUDY The general research question directing this case study was: how does a normally functioning family1 manage its meanings? The procedure consisted of modeling (by means using the heuristic power of the Interactional View and CMM) one family's logic for managing a crucial episode. The analysis consisted of a systematic investigation into the relation between the couple's logic and their communication style of managing that logic. The research procedure consisted of three stages: (a) selection of subjects; (b) individual and joint interviews; and (c) written self-reports, role-playing, and self-critique. Subjects were selected with specific criteria in mind for a healthy family. Individual interviews were conducted to elicit key aspects of each subject's life script. After a key recurrent and undesirable episode was identified by each member, joint interviews were conducted to reveal the couple's style for managing the undesirable episode. The third stage of the procedure focused upon the "fit" between their individual management logics and upon their management style. Written and role-playing accounts of their management episode were used to assess the fit between their management logic and their communication style. Finally, a self critique of their management style was conducted to pursue contradictions, inconsistencies, and disagreements that emerged.

Stage One: Selection of Subjects The original goal, it will be recalled, was to explore the meaning management of a healthy family. It was hoped that the information derived from such a study could reveal certain characteristics of families that manage their own conflicts without the assistance of counselors. Much of the literature concerning healthy families and good communication suggests that certain skills are necessary for the management of successful, satisfying, self-regulating relationships. Some of these skills include metacommunication (18), perspective-taking (5), validation (13), and self-disclosure or open communication (8, 12). Prospective subjects were screened on the basis of the experimentor's assessment of their skills. The assessment took place during open-ended interviews with each couple. One family, The Flynns, was chosen for further investigation because each adult member, Donna and her husband, Ray, appeared to be articulate, open, and proud of their ability to talk about their relationship to each other and to the interviewer. These characteristics were crucial and useful for an investigation of a competently functioning family.

Stage Two: Interviews According to CMM, constitutive and regulative rules at the highest level of abstraction serve as contexts in which many other lower level communication episodes and acts are interpreted. Both individual and joint interviews were conducted to elicit rules at the life script and master contract level of hierarchical organization. All interviews were audiotaped and conducted in the Flynn's home. Individual Interviews The purpose of the individual interviews was to get each member's perceptions of his/her personal life script (self-concept) and relationship script (perceptions of their relationship, referred to here as master contract). The interviews began with two open-ended questions: "Trace your own personal development within your family of origin," and "Trace the development of your relationship." These initial interviews revealed some general characteristics of the Flynn family, as well as specific descriptions of their "personalities" and their relationship. Married for seven years, the Flynns have three children, two of whom are hers by a previous marriage. They live in a comfortable old home they have recently rented and are in the process of restoring. Their house is important to them because it "allows room for the chaotic nature of their lifestyle."2 The Flynns presented to the interviewer an image of a modern couple who are well educated academically and culturally. She had attended college and nursing school; he had attended several undergraduate institutions as well as graduate school. Each professed to have been influenced by the current cultural norms endorsing open communication, individualistic priorities, personal growth, and rebellion against traditional middle class mores.

4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Each reported his/her perceptions of self and their relationship with each other. Ray described himself as a "sensitive" person who is "well liked, even though I project a cold/distant image." He perceived himself to be undisciplined, in that he had "never developed the discipline necessary to carry through on something I don't really enjoy or like." Two crucial differences in their "personalities," according to Ray, involved preferences for demonstrating physical attention and tolerance levels for conflict and tension. Ray claimed to be less physically demonstrative than Donna would like him to be, and he perceived himself to be much more tolerant than Donna. He characterized the relationship as one in which "we fight a lot and pick on each other. We know each other pretty wellknow how far we can go. When we go too far, we blow it off. That's our style. We have an open, loving relationship." Ray punctuated the central problem of their relationship: Her complaint is that I don't give her enough attention. My complaint is that she nags too much. She says she nags because she's not touched enough. I say "How can I touch someone who's always nagging and yelling." He thus described the perpetual conflict episode identified by Watzlawick et al. (18) as the classic withdrawal-nagging episode. Donna presented herself as "romantic, hysterical, and intolerant." It is important to her to be, and be associated with, "effective" people. She described Ray as "smarter" but not as "effective" as she. He is the "attractive one to our friends." Donna described their relationship as built upon an "intellectual and emotional intimacy" that preceded sexual intimacy. All physical contact was reserved for love-making episodes, a restriction that was disappointing to her. She agreed with Ray that the cyclical conflict involving nagging and withdrawal was their biggest relational conflict. They agreed also that these undesirable behaviors were inherent and therefore unchangeable personality flaws. Several life script rules were deduced from their descriptions of themselves. The rules reported below proved to be important components of their joint logics: Ray cR: For me daily hugging, kissing, and other displays of physical attention count as unnecessary and awkward. Ray cR: For me, daily conflict and tension count as things to be ignored. Donna cR: For me, daily hugs and kisses count as necessary for reducing tension and showing love and commitment. Donna cR: For me, daily conflict and tensions count as undesirable things to be confronted. Donna and Ray cR: Nagging and withdrawing physical attention count as undesirable, yet inherent, and therefore unchangeable personality flaws. Donna and Ray cR: Our personality flaws count as part of our "real" selves and therefore must be validated. The above rules when juxtaposed in the Flynns' relationship become paradoxical. The paradoxical rules are prevalent at the life script level, yet are disguised in their efforts to solve their daily conflict and therefore prohibit a satisfactory resolution. For example, their continued explicit validation of their unchangeable behaviors has solidified their belief that nagging and lack of physical affection are indeed personality flaws that must be tolerated. Consequently, they have institutionalized the belief that "we can't change." When the Flynns disclose to one another the undesirability of the partner's behaviors, they punctuate the conflict episode such that one's behavior "causes" the unwanted behavior of the other. The agreed-upon punctuation of events has institutionalized a second belief that "we must change." Consequently, the Flynn's open, honest, accurate communication has produced a paradoxical rule: we can't changewe must change. The paradox produced by these beliefs is handled by dissociation: the "inherent" premise is affirmed during a "confrontation" episode and leads to acceptance, while the "other's behavior," as cause, is affirmed during daily conflict episodes and leads to tension. This confrontation episode was investigated during joint interviews with the Flynns. Joint Interviews The purpose of this set of interviews was to elicit the couple's style of managing their daily conflict episode. By this point in the case study procedure, it was concluded that the Flynn's daily nagging/withdrawing episode was a central one in their relationship. Analysis was hereafter focused on this episode, and the meta-episode that served as conflict management. These interview sessions revealed a second meta-episode (what they called a confrontation), the desired consequences of which were to eliminate the conflict. The questions during these interviews pertained to the Flynn's management episode. The functions of this episode will be reported here. The Flynns had, previous to the interviews, talked directly and openly to one another about their relationship. As a result, they were quite skilled at metacommunication. In fact, they had institutionalized the "confrontation" episode for the purpose of eliminating the undesirable "personality flaws" of nagging and lack of physical attention. They were aware that the master contract of their relationship consisted of cyclical patterns of conflict, followed by confrontation/resolution. The Flynns differed from most of Watzlawick et al.'s (18) subjects in that they each could, and did, articulate the punctuation at 5

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a level of abstraction sufficient to include the perspectives of self as well as the perceptions of other. In fact, they took pride in their ability to engage in role-taking, validation of each other's self concept, and disclosures concerning "bad feelings" they had been having toward one another. The confrontation episode served two functions other than managing the conflict, according to the Flynns. It relieved tensions that had built up since the previous confrontation. Their willingness to engage in the long, emotional and exasperating session symbolized for them "a commitment to each other ... some of our friends (including their parents) would never go through what we do to solve our problems." A regulative rule shared by the Flynns and guiding their "confrontation" reveals a second paradox in their joint logic: cR: When the tension becomes intolerable, it is obligatory to confront the conflict in order to relieve tensions, eliminate the undesirable behaviors, and reinforce commitment to the relationship. Thus, their rule, multi-final in nature, contains three desired consequences. Two of the desired consequences involve the elimination of the conflict and the tension it produces. The third desired consequence involves a demonstration of their love for each other and a commitment to continue the relationship. They interpret their willingness to endure the long agonizing confrontation as evidence they they love each other and can "handle" their own problems. This interpretation can be summarized in a shared constitutive rule: cR: When conflict occurs, engaging in agonizing confrontation counts as evidence of love and commitment. When this constitutive rule is transformed into a regulative rule at the master contract level, the paradoxical rule in their logic is exposed: Rr: In this relationship it is obligatory to engage in nagging/withdrawal conflict in order to demonstrate love and commitment. The second paradox in the Flynn's logic is that they must demonstrate undesirable behavior in order to demonstrate love and commitment. Ray avoids daily displays of affection that, for Donna, would count as demonstrations of love and commitment. Both characterize the confrontation as their most important time for renewing their affections for each other. Thus, their rare confrontation carries with it most of their significant symbols of love. The antecedent condition triggering this valuable episode is "unbearable" tension. Therefore, the Flynns cannot demonstrate their love until they can no longer tolerate the tension. Two paradoxical rules have been exposed within the Flynn's shared logic; one is that they believe they must change but can't change; the other is that they must engage in conflict in order to demonstrate their love for one another. Two conclusions can be drawn based on the interview stage analysis of the Flynn's logic. First, this apparently healthy couple who possess all the modern skills for raising their awareness and facilitating self-regulating acts, were unaware of these "self-imposed" paradoxical injunctions. (This issue will be addressed later.) Second, the logic is further confounded by the fact that they cannot demonstrate their love in proportion to, or as easily as, they can engage in conflict. That is, they have daily episodes in which to demonstrate undesirable behaviors but only an infrequent episode for explicit demonstration of love. This issue was addressed during the third stage of the study.

Stage Three: Written Self-Reports, Role-Playing, Oral Self-Critique A premise shared by both theoretical camps reviewed above is that the nature of the causal relation between social realities and communication is circular. With this position in mind, the third stage of the case study was conducted. Having concluded that the Flynn's joint logic was confounded by paradoxical rules at the life script and episodic levels, this phase of the procedure involved an investigation of the fit between their individual logics and the relation between their joint logic and their management style. If the premise is valid, a paradoxical logic will be reflected in key communication patterns. A recurrent conflict episode and a management episode were discovered during the interviews. The third part of the investigation focused upon the management episode because its enactment represents the Flynn's style of managing their conflict. The written self-reports were requested to record relevant constitutive rules for nagging and withdrawing in order to assess the amount of agreement and accuracy between the couple and to acquire a description of the management episode. The role-playing session was used to check the consistency between their meanings (those pertinent to their management episode) and their behaviors. The purpose of the self-critique was to record their own critique of their management style.

6

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This task required them to draw upon their joint logic for the requested self-reflexivity. Written Self-Reports The implications of the existence of a paradoxical logic were unclear at this point in the study. It was hypothesized that there may exist some disagreements and inaccuracies, or both, related to the paradoxical rules. To test this hypothesis, two tasks were assigned. First, each subject was asked to list behaviors that counted as Donna's "nagging" and the attentiveness that Ray "withholds." (see Tables I and II). Results of this task indicated considerable agreement as to the kinds of behaviors that were discussed during a confrontation. After they finished this task, they read each other's list and agreed that each had accurately recalled the conflict behaviors. A typical conflict episode consisted of Donna's dual complaint about Ray's smoking and his failure to give her a casual hug. In their management episode these undesirable behaviors and lack of desirable behaviors were further confirmed as the cause and effect of each other.

Mr. Flynn

Table 1 Constitutive Rules for Nagging Mrs. Flynn

1. Demands perfection (according to her own criteria)

1. Criticize the way Ray does something

2. Picking up

2. Complain about mess he's made

3. Washing dishes

3. Complain about his smoking

4. Rejects other task methods

Mr. Flynn

Table 2 Constitutive Rules for Physical Attention Mrs. Flynn

1. Simple touching

1. Casual hugs

2. Arm around shoulder

2. Touches

3. Holding or Squeezing hand

3. Kisses other than hello or goodbye

4. Loving gazes, smile 5. More frequent sex

4. Any physical touches outside of bed in a casual but loving way

Second, each subject was requested to write descriptions of their confrontation. Each person was given a matrix in which to record the temporal structure of their management episode, the content of their dialogue, and the meaning of what was said to each other (see Tables III and IV). The task was accomplished separately. Once again the descriptions were remarkably similar in structure. Table 3 Mrs. Flynn's Prediction of the Unfolding of Their Confrontation Episode 1. The episode might come up: In the middle of another episode or at the end of another. 2. The episode will unfold as follows. Episode begins with

Content He may make some remark about my personality

Contrued Meaning Long period of excessive negging on my part (1 day or 1 week). No attempt on his part to be loving or understanding. I bring situation to a head with confrontation.

Episode develops into

Lengthy discussion Concession from me

Episode end with

A verbalization avbout our feelings for each other.

Emotion on my part. Sympathy and understanding on Ray's part. Agonizing. Reflection on vicious cycle of our problem. (One behavior feeding on another).

Acceptance of each other's basic per-

7

Constructive discussion

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

sonality Discussion of ways to help me modify my behavior and Ray intensify his Love-making sometimes

Table 4 Mr. Flynn's Prediction of the Unfolding of Their Confrontation Episode 1. The episode might occur: in the middle of another episode. 2. The episode will unfold as follows: Episode begins with

Content She: "You did a lousy job on the dishes."

Episode develops into

Me: "I can't stand much more com-

Construed meaning Nagging: She is angry or dissapointed with me. I get angry. I generalize about her nag-

plaining. Why can't you give

ging personality and its effect on our

me a little room for me to do

relationship.

things in my way?" She: "I'm always taken for granted

She answers.

around here. You never touch me or let me know you love me in a physical way. if you did, I wouldn't be so demanding." Episodes ends with

Me: "I haven't been very loving because you're always nagging."

I'm defensive for a while. I admit reason for behavior. We discuss differences in our personalities. We agree to be more aware of each other's needs. We tell each other how much we really love each other. We make love.

The Flynn's style for managing conflict consisted of daily avoidance, until the conflict became unbearable, at which time a familiar episode was initiated to eliminate the conflict. This management episode occurred three to four times a year and lasted several hours. The antecedent condition for engaging in their confrontation was a complaint concerning their undesirable behaviors. When a joint decision to confront the whole series of conflict episodes was reached, the Flynns waited until evening, "sent the kids to watch T.V.," and went to their bedroom for several hours of "accusations," "apologies," "defensiveness," "support," "emotional displays," "concessions," "acceptance," and "constructive discussion." It frequently ended with love making and promises of less nagging and more attention. A complete description of their conflict management style was acquired, but the hypothesis concerning disagreements was not supported by their reports, with one exception. Apparently the conflict and confrontation episodes were well-learned rituals in this family. The only disagreement revealed through the self-reports pertains to when and how the management episode is instigated. A role-playing session was constructed for investigating this enigmatic dimension of their otherwise well-rehearsed episodes. Role-playing Their ability to write their own scripts for the management episode is evidence that it is ritualistic in nature. The point at which there was serious disagreement pertains to who actually initiates the confrontation. A role-playing session was employed in order to assess the consistency between their written "scripts" and their reenactment of the actual confrontation. It was hypothesized that disagreements concerning how the episode began would result in difficulty in the enactment of initial antecedent conditions. It was at this point in the procedure that the Flynn's ability and willingness to expose themselves and their relationship proved invaluable. When requested to reenact their confrontation in front of an observer and a tape recorder, they

8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

proceeded with enthusiasm. As predicted, they could not decide exactly who was responsible for the initial act. They bypassed the antecedent condition and enacted a scene that represented the rest of their confrontation. They played their respective roles without having read the other's description of the episode, but their role-playing went so smoothly they appeared to be reading from the same script. This further confirmed, with the one exception cited above, that their logic and their communication patterns are consistent with one another. The disagreement that emerged again in the role-playing session was a signal that either an integral component in their logic was missing from this analysis or that there was some inconsistency related to the disagreement. A self-critique session was devised in order to explore these possibilities more fully. Self-Critique This critique session was loosely structured to allow the Flynns to analyze their own method of meaning management. It was anticipated that this analysis would require them to refer to their joint logic for their analysis. It seemed evident that the Flynns agreed on everything except when or how the management episode was initiated. Each claimed she/he was responsible for confronting the conflict when "the tension becomes unbearable." The Flynns' own analysis of their confrontation provides some insight into why they could not eliminate the undesirable nagging/withdrawal conflict. Their analysis has been summarized into constitutive and regulative rules. There is agreement as to the antecedent condition and goals for the confrontation episode: rR: When the tension becomes intolerable, it is obligatory to confront the conflict in order to relieve tension, eliminate the conflict, and renew commitment to relationship. Even though there is agreement as to the antecedent condition for confrontation, i.e., when the tension tolerance threshold is reachedeach partner has a different threshold for tolerance for tensions consistent with his/her personality. Donna is perceived by both as "intolerant," whereas Ray is jointly perceived as "very tolerant." Donna's threshold is thus legitimately lower than Ray's owing to their acknowledged personality traits. The ambiguity concerning how the confrontation begins lies in the fact that each partner thinks his/her own tolerance level initiates the confrontation: Ray: Finally you will intensify your nagging. I will decide that I've had enough of this. Donna: Yeah. But you would never bring it up. I think it would continue to go on unless I eventually brought it to a head. Each takes credit for initiating the confrontation. Tension must reach, then surpass, Donna's threshold before it precipitates Ray's sense of obligation to engage in the episode. Further probing into the Flynn's analysis of their relationship revealed a third apparent paradox that prohibits them from reaching any three of their goals efficiently, frequently, or to their satisfaction. The paradox was discovered in previously unarticulated constitutive rules: Ray cR: In the context of conflict, Donna's attempts to confront the conflict count as nagging. Donna cR: In the context of conflict, Ray's refusals to confront the conflict counts as withdrawing. A joint life-script rule emerged: In this relationship, attempts to confront and refusals to confront count as hostile behaviors that obligate reciprocal hostile behaviors (i.e., nagging and withdrawing). Thus, there are two episodes described here. One is a conflict episode in which two recurrent behaviors obligate the enactment of each other, creating a closed cycle with neither beginning nor ending. The second episode is a confrontation in which the goal is to eliminate the conflicta meta-episode. A paradox exists at the episodic level in which the conflict episode, which is cyclical and hostile in nature, is embedded within its metaconfrontation episode, which is goal-oriented and friendly in nature. Specifically, the episode for eliminating the nagging and withdrawing cycle contains the nagging and withdrawing cycle. This paradox, stated formally, might be: All statements in this friendly episode are hostile. Their inability to agree about who starts the confrontation may be related to the confounded episodes. It is usually impossible to know whether an act of initiating or refusing to initiate counts as an undesirable behavior that obligates the complementary undesirable behavior or whether it counts as a signal that the tension threshold has been reached. This is further confounded by the fact that Donna's lower tolerance level legitimates her efforts to confront sooner and more often, reinforcing her "bitchiness" and Ray's "lack of attention." The Flynn's self-analysis session, itself an illustration of the intensity and diligence of their management style, finally revealed a single speech act that obligates their confrontationDonna's crying. This is one behavior that does not count as nagging but serves as a symbol that the necessary tension level has been reached. Ray responds with either a suggestion to confront or displays willingness to confront. This interact"cry-suggest"obligates the confrontation, and plans are made

9

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

to have "a long talk that evening." This third paradox then exists in all attempts to confront except one. It, combined with the two others cited above"we must/we can't change," and undesirable behaviors must be demonstrated in order to show commitment, reveal an interesting relation between the Flynn's logic and their conflict management style. The heuristic power of the combination of the Interactional View and CMM will be used to illustrate, in a model, the Flynn's paradoxical logic and management style.

ANALYSIS The purpose of this study was to investigate the logic and the management style of a normally functioning family. During the process of this investigation several paradoxical rules were discovered at various levels of their hierachically arranged logic: in the life script, management episode, and daily conflict episode levels. According to the theoretical stance taken by the Interactional View and CMM, two premises concerning the circular relation between the couple's logic and their communication patterns are evident: (a) Contradictions at the highest levels of abstractions will contextualize and thereby serve to justify meanings for behaviors at lower levels of abstraction. (b) Contradictions in a logic will be reflected in communication patterns. A model joining the Interactional View and CMM that describes the relation between the Flynn's logic and their management episode will be explicated here. It supports the two premises stated above. Each of the three paradoxical rules can be associated with a level of their joint hierarchically arranged logic (see Fig. 3). At the life script level, the Flynn's juxtaposed individual logics produce a paradoxical set of rules concerning their immutable but undesirable personality "flaws." This, combined with their allegiance to an "open" relationship in which conflict must be confronted, produces the belief that we can't change, but we must change. At the next lower level of abstraction a management episode exists for the explicit purpose of confronting the daily conflict episode. Its paradoxical nature is related to the confounding of these two contradictory episodes such that the conflict episode is embedded in an episode designed to eliminate the conflict. Thus, the paradoxall acts in this friendly episode are hostile.

Figure 3. A Model of the Flynn's Paradoxical Logic The paradox within the next lower episodic level can be located at the interface of the conflict episode and their desired consequence to demonstrate commitment. The conflict is a necessary antecedent condition to the key management episode that symbolizes their love and commitment for each other. This suggests a potential relationship equationthe longer the conflict goes unconfronted, the higher the tension; the greater the tension level, the more committed they become to a relationship in which they can manage "unbearable" conflict and tensions. Each of the three confounded levels of the Flynn's logic should, according to the first premise developed above, be used to justify meanings at the lower levels. The evidence gathered in this study supports this position. For example, Donna's nagging is justified by her "immutable" intolerant personality; Ray's tolerance for tension justifies his unwillingness to confront their conflict as readily as Donna; engaging in hours of grueling confrontation is justified because it "shows our commitment"; the conflict must be confronted because we have an open relationship; and so on. The justifications themselves are unquestioned and therefore closed to reconstrual. Two theoretical propositions can be posited based on these data: (a) Contextualization will serve a justificatory function.

10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(b) Paradoxical rules at high levels of a hierarchically arranged logic will produce paradoxical rules at lower levels of the logic. The second premise concerning the relation between a socially created logic and communication patterns is supported by the evidence collected in this study. Two common characteristics of all the paradoxical rules are their categorical naturethey contain operators such as must, can't, alland their reference (sometimes implicit) to construed oppositesopen/closed, friendly/hostile, conflict/commitment. Their behavioral choices are thereby restricted to categorical and "polarized" ones. For example, their life-script rule "we must change" obligates them to confront the conflict, and their rule "we can't change" obligates them to revert back to displaying the behaviors that reflect their "real" selves, thus reinstating the entire conflict/confront cycle each time. A second example pertains to the conflict itself. Shared beliefs that Donna's criticisms must count as nagging obligates Ray to withdraw and obligates Donna to justify his reaction to her statements of criticism. The paradox that may contextualize and affect all other rules and behaviors in the Flynn's relationship is in structure, similar to the "all statements in this box are false" paradox. Formally stated it reads:

The higher-order meanings that serve to justify the lower-level meanings are closed to reconstrual within a relationship that is perceived and prized as an open one. This paradox is perhaps inherent in all self-reflexive systems. Two theoretical propositions can be posited based on these data: (a) A socially constructed logic will be reflected in communication patterns. (b) An unrecognized paradoxical logic will restrict episodic equifinality (behavioral choices). Utilizing what we know about communication based on two heuristically powerful communication theories, some discoveries were made concerning how it is related to socially created realities. The case study analysis of a "normal" and "happily" married couple has revealed paradoxical rules associated with restricted episodes in which the couple cannot obtain their goal of eliminating conflict. This analysis contributes to our understanding of the mutual influence of communication and socially created realities. Empirical research is now appropriate for further investigation of the relation between thinking and talking.

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 11

Berne, E., Games People Play, New York, Grove Press, 1964. Carson, R., Interaction Concepts of Personality, Chicago, Aldine, 1969. Cronen, V. E., Kaczka, E. E., Pearce, W. B. and Pawlick, M., "The Structure of Interpersonal Rules for Meaning and Action: A Computer Simulation of 'Logic Force' in Communication," in Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Winter Simulation Conference, (in press). Cronen, V. E. and Pearce, W. B., "The Logic of the Coordinated Management: An Open Model of Interpersonal Communication," paper presented to International Communication Association Convention, Chicago, 1978. Delia, J. G. and Clark, R. A., "Cognitive Complexity, Social Perception and Development of Listener," Communic. Monogr., 4, 326-345, 1977. Haack, S., Philosophy of Logics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978. Haare, R. and Secord, P., The Explanation of Social Behaviour, Totowa, N.J., Littlefield Adams, 1973. Jourard, S., The Transparent Self, New York, Van Nostrand, 1964. Koestler, A., Janus, New York, Random House, 1978. Pearce, W. B., "The Coordinated Management of Meaning: A Rules-based Theory of Interpersonal Communication," in G. Miller (ed.), Explorations in Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills, California, Sage, 1976. Pearce, W. B., "The Structure of the Social Order: A Review of Research About Communication Rules," University of Massachusetts, 1978 (unpublished). Rogers, C., On Becoming A Person, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Rossiter, C. and Pearce, W. B., Communicating Personally, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Russell, B., The Principles of Mathematics, London, Allen and Unwin, 1903. Searle, J., Speech Acts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1969. Toulmin, S., The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1958. Watzlawlck, P., How Real is Real? New York, Random House, 1976. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. and Jackson, D. D., Pragmatics of Human Communication, New York, Norton, 1967. Watzlawick, P. and Weakland, S., The Interactional View, New York, W. W. Norton, 1977.

Reprint requests should be addressed to Linda Harris, Ph.D., Skinner Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003. 1Normally functioning (or "healthy") here refers to a family that is not in therapy or counseling and thus manages its own social reality without the assistance of an external intermediary. This report is limited to the two adults in the family. 2Quotation marks through the case study signal direct quotations or paraphrases from the taped sessions.

Appendix A Summary of Comparisons Between the Interactional View and CMM Iteractional View Coordinated Management of Meaning Unit of Analysis

Family SystemMolar

Juxtaposition of individual logic system and the interpersonal system molar and molecular

Causality Nature

Circular

Circular

Necessity

Undeclared

Practical and Logical Necessity

Receiver oriented

Communication as both sender and

Message oriented

Meaning oriented

Messages hierarchically arranged

Meanings hierarchically arranged

Paradox exists when report and

Paradox exists as contradiction be-

Nature of Communication

receiver

command levels contradict

tween any of four levels

Rules Defined:

Interpersonal rebundancies

Representatives of intrapersonal and intrapersonal cognitive functions (logics)

Function:

Govern the homeostatic level of the family system

Guide the assignment of meanings (constitutive rules) and actions (regulative rules)

Method of discovery

Experimenter defined by observing re-occuring patterns

Actor-defined content, experimenterdefined structure by interview and observation

Predictive Validity

Undeclared

Variances in rule content complexity, equifinality and multifinality, integration and differentiation, will predict variances in the fit of intrapersonal and intrapersonal logics

12