Eva-Maria Gortner
Nov. 12, 2001
Constructing the Irrational Woman – Narrative Interaction and Agoraphobic Identity (by
Lisa Capps)










Irrationality is a central characteristic of agoraphobia, which is twice as prevalent
in women than in men. Some investigations have found 95% of sufferers are
women.
Various theories propose that the problem exists within the mind of the individual
or that there are inherent traits that constitute the “agoraphobic personality”.
These traits are usually assessed through self-report.
There is a similarity between symptoms of agoraphobia and stereotypical female
gender roles (fear of being anyplace where one might be alone, unable to get help,
and vulnerable to fear and panic). Feminist theory proposes that women are
socialized into dependent, unassertive, and accommodating behaviors that are
characteristic of the disorder.
Language is a tool for such a socialization. A considerable body of research
suggests that women are socialized into indecisive, indirect, and deferential
communicative styles relative to the more direct, authoritative styles of men
(Lakoff, 1990). From a feminist perspective, such patterns of communication
both reflect and constitute women’s status as powerless. Enactment of
conventional female roles, whether by women or men, is also often considered
pathological. Indeed, neurotic symptoms have been conceptualized as an
extreme form of indirect communication (Breuer & Freud, 1957).
The study focuses on how psychological disorders are interactional achievements
that cannot be divorced from a particular sociohistorical environment. In this
view, identities are established through dynamic, collaborative social interaction.
This is a case study of a woman (“Meg”) and her interaction with her family. The
woman identifies herself and is identified by clinicians as agoraphobic.
In her self-portrait, she uses words such as “agoraphobic”, “less than”,
“irrational”, “crazy”, with fear being “constantly on her mind”. Her husband, on
the other hand, is the “world’s most nicest, normal guy, who must think” of her as
“irrational”.
The basic tenets of the present study are that people verbally attempt to establish
their emotions, actions, and identities moment by moment during social
interaction and that narrative provides a powerful resource for doing so.
In narrating, interlocutors attempt to construct themselves from a particular point
of view, describing a problematic event and the ensuing psychological and
behavioral responses and consequences. We get insight about the narrator’s
theory or theories about the event by looking at how they causally connect
emotions and events.
Narratives told in social interaction are jointly produced by copresent
interlocutors; that is, emergent narratives are interactional achievements. An
individual’s attempt to construct a particular evaluative perspective in narratives
requires the ratification from others, who shape the identities the narrator is trying
to create by their interaction with the narrator. Copresent interlocutors influence
the unfolding of the narrative through their gaze patterns, body orientation, and
verbal contributions to storytelling, either validating or invalidating the narrator.
Eva-Maria Gortner
Nov. 12, 2001

In the case of agoraphobia, these interactions provide a medium for the
construction of irrationality when they fail to ratify and validate the narrator’s
attempt to reframe frightening events and experiences in an attempt to regain
authority.
 This study looks at the Meg’s family’s dinner conversations. Previous studies
have found that during storytelling during family dinners, members assume
particular narrative roles that arrange protagonists and interlocutors in
relationships of power. Those who feel themselves to be irrational (mostly
mothers) often seek validation by initiating stories about their experiences so that
they can be ratified by the others. It is common to designate a particular
cointerlocutor as a preferred responder, placing him/her in a positive to validate
the storyteller’s explanation of events.
 This study examines the construct of the irrational woman by examining (1) the
distribution of narrative roles among members of the family in which the mother
(Meg) has been diagnosed with agoraphobia, (2) other family members’
contributions (e.g., gaze patterns, body orientation, verbal contributions) to stories
which Meg initiates about her own disturbing encounters and to stories in which
Meg is no the narrative protagonist, and (3) how narrative interactions might fuel
the perpetuation of “irrational” panicky thoughts and feelings associated with
events, which in turn may perpetuate Meg’s identity as agoraphobic.
Participants: Mother/wife (Meg, 36), father/husband (William, 38), daughter (Beth,
11), and son (Sean, 6).
Data: 36 months of participant observations, including video and audio recording of
dinner interactions and leisure activities and audio-recorded, loosely structured
interviews with Meg alone and together with Beth.
Data analysis: 17 narratives of videotaped dinner interactions were used to establish
narrative roles, 3 stories in particular were selected to demonstrate how the irrational
woman is coconstructed through storytelling interactions that involve family
members in different roles. Each story features a pit bull terrier.
Results
Narrative Roles: Roles that family members take in the narrative shape the identities
that emerge.
 The majority of narratives are initiated by Meg, center on Meg’s or the
children’s experiences, and are directed to William, establishing his power
as inspector. 80% center on her own distressing experiences. Thus, Meg
establishes William in a position to (de)legitimize her anxiety, confirming
his role as “the world’s nicest, most normal guy”.
Pit Bull Story #1 (initiated by Meg)
- Meg’s narrative contains many mental verb constructions (thinking and feeling
words): “But I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if …”, “I got to
thinking”
- These words are focussed in the present tense, conveying not only what she is
feeling, but also that she is still feeling and mentally preoccupied with the event. Her
statement is “I wonder what would happen if that thing gets loose” rather than “what
would have happened if that thing got loose”
Eva-Maria Gortner
Nov. 12, 2001
-
Meg indexes that the predicament has not been resolved but continues to plague her
present and imagined experience.
- She delivers the narrative in a way that elicits feedback on her thinking by proposing
her thoughts with pauses and hesitations that elicit responsiveness, i.e. “But I couldn’t
help but wonder (pause, looking down at food) what would happen (pause) if (pause)
you know (pause, scratches head, looks down at food) if he really did get into your
dad’s yard.”
- This is a characteristic of women’s speech styles in general.
Soliciting Validation – Meg mainly solicits feedback from her husband by orienting her
gaze and body towards him and inviting him to respond by inserting lengthy pauses into
her narrative. However, she experiences a lack of validation through these bh’s:
- although he nods his head briskly as a response, he does not maintain eye contact by
instead stares at his food
- he withholds feedback during lengthy gaps in the conversation, which are lengthy
conversational invitations to take the floor. His silences signal disagreement and
nonalignment.
- Instead of returning Meg’s gaze or answering her question, he looks at his children,
signaling to Meg that his attention is divided
- When Meg says, “They’re strictly there to chew up anybody who might come into
their yard”, he responds with “sure they are” while looking at his daughter, thus
downgrading his assessment so that it doesn’t match with Meg’s portrayal
- Due to this lack of validation, Meg’s anxiety escalates and she progressively
intensifies her story. Instead of confining the threat to her past experience, she
expands the danger that could happen to anyone who comes near the yard, stating
“they could chew up anybody”. She finally states to her half-attending husband her
concern about the “thing” getting out and “killing somebody”. This increases the
scope of the threat to not just anybody, but somebody, and not only in the past but
also in the present.
- These are Meg’s attempts to draw William into the story but also demonstrate how
pressing this event is in her consciousness in the here and now.
- By using the words “anyone” or “someone”, Meg asks her addressees to be in her
shoes. At the same time, she constructs her emotions as what would be expected of
“anybody”, attempting to fill her shoes with rational feet, trying to legitimize her
responses. However, the lack of responsiveness of her family leaves her feeling
unlike any other, coconstructing her interpretations as irrational and abnormal, thus
confirming her agoraphobic identity.
Pit Bull Story #2 (initiated by Meg)
- Meg tells this story jokingly and puts their neighbor’s mother-in-law in the place in
which she initially imagined herself and most feared being – in the yard with an
unleashed pit bull. By joking, she attempts to align with a “normal” stance toward
the situation.
- By the end, Meg’s anxiety about the dogs again becomes apparent. In fact, she again
reiterates how the pit bull “would eat anybody” (just like in the first story), and again
also shifts from the particular pit bull in the neighbor’s back yard to “any pit bull”.
Eva-Maria Gortner
Nov. 12, 2001
-
-
Again the narrated circumstance is not contained in the past but pervades present and
imagined time and space, conveying Meg’s difficulty with distancing herself from
fear. Moreover, she is again unsuccessful in enlisting her family’s support – again
leaving her to feel alone with her inescapable fears.
Her husband’s remark “I’d be afraid to have it…around the kids” interestingly
revolves around the dog being threatening to the kids, not validating the protagonist’s
– and by extension, Meg’s- fears. Instead, he is underlining that it’s ok for kids to be
scared, but not people/adults like him or Meg or the female protagonist in the story,
implying that such fears are irrational for adults. He also restricts the scope to the
initial story setting, the neighbor’s pit bull, further differentiating himself from the
irrational lot.
Implications
- members in Meg’s family routinely assume narrative roles that construct her
agoraphobic identity: Meg frequently addresses stories to her husband, establishing
him in a position to evaluate her rationality. He as “the most normal guy in the
world” rarely ratifies her story, propelling the dynamic in an escalating cycle where
Meg senses herself as irrational. This causes her to widen the scope of her narrated
anxiety, which often leads her husband to withdraw further, confirming her selfperception as “less than”, “crazy”, and “irrational”, and “first and foremost
agoraphobic”.
- The lack of validation Meg experiences may be her husband’s attempt to curtail her
panic and prevent the children from experiencing the same fears. His minimal
displays of involvement may be his attempt to shut down narrative emotionality
before it gets out of hand.
- Nevertheless, this lack of responsiveness from the primary recipient of the narrative
causes no curtailment, but an escalation of anxiety, confirming Meg’s coconstructed
agoraphobic identity.