by: Alicja Polakiewicz
The Whorfian hypothesis (Whorf, 1956) postulates that the language we speak not only reflects our thoughts, worldviews, and perceptions, it also shapes them. Just how strongly language influences us is hotly debated amongst experts; however, there is consensus that language does have a constructive role and overwhelming evidence suggests that this role is significant. Many feminists are aware of language’s power and hence one great effort consists in promoting a language that is inclusive and non-sexist.
These aspirations, however, have provoked considerable backlash. Critics argue that feminist language reform is merely concerned with “political correctness”, a term that is often used derogatorily. Concretely, critics worry that there is an excessive and unnecessary effort to replace terms deemed problematic with terms that are newly designed to signal inclusion. They argue that term replacement is not only bothersome, but also ineffective. Another wide-spread concern is that feminist language reform amounts to a curtailment of freedom of speech because it challenges an individual’s autonomy in how to use a language (Mills, 2010).
In this paper, I will address the above concerns with a two-fold argument: Firstly, I will argue that language does have real-world implications and is not just reflexive, but also constructive. Secondly, I will demonstrate that language reform is possible, necessary, and diverse.
Language has real-world implications.
Research on the effects of sexist language is abundant. It suggests that the words we speak not only influence the person that hears our words, but also ourselves as the speaker. Thus, even though we choose our own expressions, these expressions can have an effect on us that we have not actively intended and are often unaware of (Hamilton, 1988). Because the number of relevant studies is so great, I will focus on three short examples only. Every study that I know of, however, clearly points in the same direction: Language has a constructive influence.
In 1973, Bem and Bem investigated the effects of pronouns and gender marked nouns on professional recruitment. They found that where job offers used exclusively male pronouns and masculine titles, like “chairman” or “policeman”, only 5% of female participants applied for the job. Announcements that used gender-neutral terms, in comparison, prompted 25% of female participants to apply. Thus, the gendered nouns and pronouns dramatically affected the actions that the participating women took.
Prewitt-Freilino, Caswell, and Laakso (2012) studied the relation between the kind of grammatical gender in a language and the levels of gender inequality in societies where these languages were spoken. To this end, they classified languages into three main categories: 1. In grammatical gender languages the noun always carries either a female, male, or in some cases neutral gender. The adjectives and pronouns referring to the noun are assigned the corresponding gender. Examples of grammatical gender languages are German, Hindi, or Russian. 2. In natural gender languages nouns, in the majority of the cases, do not have a gender, but pronouns do. English, and Swedish, for example, belong to this category. 3. Genderless languages completely lack a gender distinction in nouns – it is neither present in the noun itself, nor in accompanying pronouns. Examples would be Finnish, Sinitic languages, or Swahili. Controlling for geographic, religious, political, and developmental factors, Prewitt-Freilino, Caswell, and Laakso found that countries in which grammatical gender languages are spoken evidence less gender equality than countries in which natural gender, or genderless languages are used. This study shows that language has implications for entire societies.
In 2007, Hamilton et al. found that language could have legal consequences. In their study, they tasked students at the University of Kentucky to be a jury in a mock murder case trial. The students should decide whether the mock murderer, a woman, acted out of self-defence and to this end, they were given a legal definition of what self-defence entails. There were three sets of definitions presented to the students that were identical, except for the pronouns used in the descriptions. Where students were given a definition that used the generic he, only 5% granted self-defence. Descriptions that used he or she resulted in 16% of the students deciding that the woman acted out of self-defence. Where the generic she was used, 11% judged self-defence. Thus, this study shows that language can affect our judgement.
Language reform is possible, necessary, and diverse.
Together, these three studies indicate that language has an effect on our actions, our judgements, and it has wider implications for society as a whole. Because language is in many cases still male-connotated, women are often disadvantaged. The idea that language reform is necessary to end sexist oppression, then, is indisputable.
The tools used to bring about language reform are numerous. Below, I present only a small selection.
The most prominent instrument are alternative terms. For example, instead of saying “policeman” – a male-gendered word, we say “police officer” – a genderless term. As seen in Bem and Bem’s study, using male titles in job descriptions has a discouraging effect on women. And, because male titles in recruitment are most often used in connection to jobs that were in the past reserved exclusively for men, using male-gendered nouns reinforces patriarchal structures. It signalises to the woman working in the advertised job that she is somewhat out of the ordinary, and that a man is a better fit for her position. Thus, using male-gendered position titles could be seen as one way in which what Collins (1999) calls controlling images manifest. Controlling images are stereotypes against a certain group that are meant to prevent that group from breaking free from the matrix of domination within which the controlling images are embedded.
Neologisms are another tool of feminist language reform. They consist in the invention of new words to introduce a new perspective. These new words help conceptualise certain yet unspoken of phenomena and they help define experiences from a feminist perspective. For example, the neologism “sexual harassment” enabled women to understand what they were experiencing and empowered them to fight back. Neologisms are therefore useful in combating what Dotson (2012) defines as hermeneutical injustice. Hermeneutical injustice occurs when society is unable to understand the experiences of certain members of society. It can also be that the members themselves do not understand their own experiences.
Another strategy is the use of marked words. Employing marked words draws attention to sexist oppression. The word “herstory” is such a marked term. It was invented by Mary Daly to draw attention to the fact that in historical records, women have been almost completely omitted. Marked terms help to raise what Freire (1970) calls conscientização. Through conscientização, an agent acquires critical social consciousness; a state of awareness that is active and closely tied to the idea of standing up against the oppression that is recognised.
Conclusion
As evidenced in the studies introduced above, language can have a real impact on how we conceive of the world. It not only informs our thoughts and judgements; in some cases, it even directs our actions. Using one term instead of another can dramatically change a situation. This constitutes a strong argument against the critics’ concern that feminist language reform is mere “political correctness” and hence meaningless.
The variety of shapes that language reform can take indicate that feminist language reform is not aimed at curtailing freedom of speech. Feminist language reform consists of suggestions and instruments that make language more inclusive and non-sexist. At times, it uses language strategically to draw attention to specific forms of oppression. Those that feel oppressed, simply by being made aware of the oppression that they might be complicit in, should therefore rethink their stance.
The fact that feminist language reform is being taken seriously and is taking root in many societies gives reason for hope. Even though we have made great progress, however, we cannot lose sight of the ultimate goal: the end of sexist oppression. Feminist language reform is one of many approaches that need to be pursued. It alone, however, will not succeed. It must be integrated into a wider feminist struggle.
References:
Collins, Patricia Hill. “The Power of Self-Definition.” Black Feminist Thought, 2nd ed., Routledge, 1999.
Dotson, Kristie. “A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression.” A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, 2012, pp. 24–47.
Freire, Paolo. “The Justification for a Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Bloomsbury, 1970.
Gal, Susan. “Language, Gender, and Power - An Anthropological Review.” Gender Articulated, 1st ed., Routledge, 1995, p. 528.
Hamilton, Mykol C. “Using Masculine Generics: Does Generic He Increase Male Bias in the User’s Imagery?” Sex Roles, vol. 19, 1988.
Harris, Chelsea A., et al. “What Is in a Pronoun? Why Gender-Fair Language Matters.” Annals of Surgery, vol. 266, no. 6, Dec. 2017.
Mills, Sara. “Language Reform.” Language and Sexism, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
---. “Political Correctness.” Language and Sexism, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Mills, Sara, and Louise Mullany. “Feminist Linguistic Approaches.” Language, Gender and Feminism, 1st ed., Routledge, 2011, p. 224.
Prewitt-Freilino, Jennifer, et al. “The Gendering of Language: A Comparison Gender Equality in Countries with Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages.” Sex Roles, no. 66, 2012, pp. 268–81, doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0083-5.
Sarrasin, Oriane, et al. “Sexism and Attitudes Towarrd Gender-Netural Language - The Case of English, French, and German.” Swiss Journal of Psychology, vol. 3, no. 71, 2012, pp. 113–24, doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000078.