emunix.emich.edu>
Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>
centum.utulsa.edu>Alexis MR writes: >Lydie Meunier seems to be asking which comes first, sexist language >or sexist behavior. But there is surely a third alternative, that >language and behavior evolve together, reinforcing each other. >It is also important to distinguish the question of how some form >of language or behavior arose in the first place from that of how >it is transmitted to successive generations. I would have little >doubt that sexist language plays a major role in transmitting >ideas which lead to sexist behavior, but it is difficult for me >to believe that HISTORICALLY sexist language came before sexist >behavior. You're probably right! Historically, sexist behavior probably came before sexist language. Yet, today we are born in a society already in place, and sexist language is likely to influence a child's mind and lead to a sexist behavior. Are we born with a sexist attitude? I do believe that many traditions (sexism being one of them) and perspectives are partially conveyed through language. However, like you, I tend to believe that language and behavior evolve together. I do believe that historically today's sexist interactive patterns are influenced --among other factors-- by sociolinguistic practices during biblical times when a wife had to address her husband as slaves had to address their master, or subjects their king. This implied that a man could also address his wife as a master his slave and a king his subject, i.e., using a clear rhetoric of authority. Today, conversational dominance by males in our judeo-christian society is not as extreme as during the biblical times, but interestingly it is still inherent to male-specific discourse and has become the focus of some interesting sociolinguistic research. As a matter of fact, I moved to the Bible belt one year ago (I spent 10 years on the East and West coasts in the US prior to my arrival in the Bible belt last year; originally I come from Europe), and after observations of interractive patterns among couples around me, I came to the hypothesis that the stronger a religious (or traditional) impact on people's life, the more sex discrimination is reflected in language use. I have also noticed much more instances of sex discrimination in language use in offices I had to go to in the Bible belt (e.g. doctor and lawyer offices, insurance agencies, etc.) than in other professional offices I visited elsewhere in the U.S. I found this extremely interesting. >(a) I do believe that people in all kinds of cultures themselves >believe that men and male behavior are superior in some sense to >women and female behavior, and I hold that this perception (even if >it were not accurate) is what must matter to us as we discuss >sexist language. Whether the perception is accurate is of no importance >in this context. Why should it be of no importance? Shall we just accept the discriminatory status quo as it is? What is the point of studying linguistics if it is for no other purpose than the pleasure of intellectual analysis? Shall we just remain at the analytical level and ignore the implications revealed by research, or could we also use research findings to help improve communication or even change subsconsciously (socially) acquired schemata? Studies in psychology have shown that females reading texts written in a generic "he" retain less information than when they read texts using a generic plural. Obviously, the impact of using a sexist language goes beyond the simple interest of linguistic studies within a certain context. Personally, I like to believe that my research will somewhat help society at large. What is the point of considering discriminatory perspectives as unchangeable or questionable facts whereas we all know that both languages and human psychology have the potential to change? >(b) I do not make any necessary connection between oppression of >womn and oppression of black people at all. I simply used the >example of black slavery as an example of the general principle that >to admit the existence of a form of oppression practiced by some >group (by white people) does not mean that one must necessarily >hate them. My point was that I am not a mysandrist just because >I accept that men have historically not been very nice to women. You are absolutely right! Hate does not help any purpose nor does it improve communication. Yet, black people needed the cooperation of open-minded white people to help them reach a status based on the principle of equality. The same applies to females who keep trying to communicate with males, and who meet open and understanding men whereas others still believe that sexism is a nonsense political issue brought up by angry feminists. Before being a political issue, it is a serious social issue that needs to be addressed through mutual understanding and respect. If males refuse their cooperation, some females may end up hating men as a natural psychological reaction. Simone de Beauvoir wrote in her book THE SECOND SEX that there is no Black problem yet a White problem (referring the civil right movement in the US in the 50's 60's), because so called Black issues essentially stem from the Whites' disciminatory attitudes. Black problems can be addressed by first revealing the problem of racism, and then by educating people to open their mind to differences as an enriching asset to the society, not a sign of deficiency. Likewise, women issues are primarily men issues, because we are still living in a world which has been historically organized by men who believed in female inferiority, whether politically, socially or linguistically. Communication between men and women is therefore the key to social improvement, hence the social mission of our research in linguistics, considering that language use is a social phenomenon. *********************************************** Je pense donc je baragouine.... *********************************************** Lydie E. Meunier / Department of Languages University of Tulsa / Tel: 918 631 2813 (O) lang_lemMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue