Frannie Tannen On Continuum Analysis

Tannen discusses the intertwining of the control continuum and the connection continuum in familial relationships. The control continuum establishes a hierarchy in which “every relationship is a power struggle: someone is one-up, and someone is one-down,” with the determining factor being age (Tannen, 68). Parents usually fall higher on the hierarchical spectrum; however, this control continuum “entails mutual obligations,” in which a child obeys a parent in exchange for protection. For the child, “moving more toward equality entails a loss of protection and help;” for the mother, “moving toward equality means a loss of the connection that comes from feeling responsible for someone else” (Tannen, 69). Thus, this relationship is complicated

Earl demonstrates this through his blatant resistance to his mother’s authority as he attempts to move toward equality on the continuum. Dianne’s “wishes or needs…impinge on [Earl's] actions, curtailing [his] freedom,” so he overtly chooses to resist her (Tannen, 68). Simultaneously, Dianne attempts to retain her one-up position by pushing Earl to fulfill his household duties. The connection continuum also comes into play when Dianne wishes to maintain a good relationship with her son. Although she insists that Earl play his “fair” role, she adds that she ultimately wants to help him attain his goal, which can only happen if they make the current situation work. However, Earl admits that he “needs distance,” indicating his desire for more space on the connection continuum. He reveals that he can only reach the close relationship his mother desires in the future if he is able to get distance first. This seemingly trivial argument over a bedsheet is actually due to Earl and Dianne’s differing navigations around the grid of connection and control. Dianne seeks more control and closeness; Earl seeks more equality and distance. Overtime, the dynamics of familial relationships according to the grid of connection and closeness vastly changes as children

Similar to Wilmot and Hocker’s caution in Interpersonal Conflict, Tannen notes that “in an ongoing relationship – which every family relationship is – any comment draws meaning not only from the current context but also from a long history of comments that define the relationship” (Tannen, 211). This resonates when Earl says, “Whenever you nag or command me to do things, I get frustrated. Every time you raise your voice at me, it brings me back to my childhood, and I just shut down. Since this is how it’s been my entire life, now I instinctively just tune you out if you command me to do something.” In the absence of a long history with Dianne, Earl may have reacted in a different way – possibly by quickly complying to her demands. However, Dianne’s “simple” request, from Earl’s perspective, represents years of other demands that resulted in disciplinary action if left incomplete. On the other hand, Dianne views her request as a simple tradeoff for all the things she is currently doing for Earl. She even argues, “If you were living at a friend’s house, or anyone else’s house for that matter, would you do the same thing?” This discrepancy is common in family relationships, because “it can be easy to take family members for granted and neglect to offer those you love a level of courtesy and consideration that you would offer automatically to