Structural Dynamics

Do you have family, friends, or coworkers where you know before it even starts how any conversation is going to go?

Do you know people who will always go along with what you say or, conversely, push back against it no matter what?

Have you ever watched the news with Aunt June who always seems to know and forcefully express how the so-called experts should really handle the problem while Uncle Jerry is always concerned about how those people must be feeling after what they went through?

Why explore structural dynamics when we are already learning about dialogic skills?

Even if we think we are proficient in using the dialogic skills of making space for the self and making space for others the specific ways in which we use language can impact the success of any social interaction.

What is Structural Dynamics?

After years of studying family dynamics, David Kantor noticed that verbal interactions fell into certain patterns and that people had certain propensities when it came to how they used language in their interactions with others. He found a structure to these interactions hence the term Structural Dynamics. These behavioral propensities are the surface manifestations of deeply rooted psychological characteristics developed over time since childhood. At Beyond Primal, we use David Kantor’s structural dynamics to explore the way we use speech in our interactions with others to help us fine tune the ways in which we can more fully engage our dialogic skills in the intended way. It is not just what we say, but also how we say it that impacts how we receive and are received by others. We look at two components of Structural Dynamics; The Four Player Model, and Language Domains.

Four Player model

In the Four Player Model there are four speech acts otherwise known as Action Stances we can use in conversation. People have varying propensities for each and while having access to each of these four Action Stances is necessary, sometimes people get stuck using one more often and are weaker with others. Furthermore, people often tend to rely on different Action Stances when they are under stress or relaxed or between work and family. Action Stances do not have a positive or negative connotation and all four action stances are necessary for a healthy conversation. Think about which of these you naturally gravitate toward at home, at work, talking about politics?

Action Stances

  • Move

    A Move initiates action or a direction in a conversation. Example, “I’m hungry, let’s go to lunch.”

  • Follow

    A Follow completes or supports a direction in a conversation. Example, “Sure. I could eat.”

  • Oppose

    An Oppose pushes back against an action or provides alternatives. Example, “ How about in half an hour? I’m not very hungry right now.”

  • Bystand

    A Bystand is a neutral observation or a synthesis of the ideas already presented. Example, “John, I noticed that you are getting fidgety. Do you need to eat now or can you wait?”

Patterns of Conversation

Very often, conversations follow a repeating pattern of action stances. For example:

  • Move/Oppose - One person makes a point and the other rebuts it. Common in heated arguments or parents talking to teenagers.

  • Move/Move - A conversation that resembles chickens in a yard running every which way. Not much gets done with this pattern.

  • Move/Follow - One person makes a point and the other follows. Often found with a leader who is feared.

  • Bystand/Bystand - Not saying much of anything. Occurs when people are overly polite and preoccupied with not upsetting anyone.

When you notice a conversation getting stuck in an unhelpful pattern, it can say as much about what is going on as the words that are being spoken. Productive conversations require a healthy mix of action stances. To break an unhealthy pattern, try a missing action stance. Bystands where you make an observation about the pattern you are seeing often work well in these situations.

The Languages We Speak

Our verbal interactions not only involve the Action Stances described above, but they also include the type of language we use that signifies what is important to us in the conversation. These can be broken into 3 Language Domains. Just like with Action Stances we may use different Language Domains depending on the context and we may get stuck using one most often. They all have their uses and none is privileged over the others. Often when we find ourselves getting really frustrated during a conversation it is because we are speaking in a different language domain than the other person. Imagine being being stuck in the Affect domain and the person you are speaking with is stuck in the Power domain. It may seem to you that they do not care about your feelings. Conversely, they may be frustrated with you because they feel like you are more concerned with feelings than getting something done. There needs to be a balance.

Language Domains

  • Power

    When we speak in Power we use forceful language that indicates we want to get things done. Example, “Let’s go folks, we are going to lunch.”

  • Affect

    When we speak in Affect, it shows we are concerned about others’ feelings and relationships. Example, “Hey John, you look a little frustrated, are you getting hangry?”

  • Meaning

    When we speak in Meaning, we seek understanding and truth. Example, “Data shows that this is the optimal time to eat lunch for increased productivity during the afternoon.”

Action Stances + Language Domains

The ways in which the action stances and language domains are combined has a huge impact on the way in which your statements can be interpreted. Below are a few examples.

Oppose in Power

“No, I don’t like that idea.”

Oppose in Affect

"I appreciate the idea, but I’m wondering if we can explore more options.”

Oppose in Meaning

“Interesting idea, but the data shows that this is not the optimal solution.”

Each of the above statements is basically rebuffing the idea, but think about how you might react to them. Would you become defensive, get creative, or maybe look at the data more closely to see what you missed?

Think about the last time you had a conversation about a highly charge political topic with someone who had a different opinion than you. What action stances and language domains did you rely on most? How did the other person react? How did the action stances and language domains they predominantly used make you feel? Did they help the conversation or make it impossible for you to continue? Are you still inviting them to Thanksgiving?