3.4.3 |
THE SEX AND AGE OF TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE |
The issue of sexism and language has attracted much
attention in feminist studies in particular, and it has been
convincingly demonstrated in these studies that the series he,
him, his, and words like man, cannot and do not
function as genuinely gender-neutral expressions in traditional
parlance. Moreover, it has been shown that sex discrimination is
endemic to grammatical conventions in the traditional
variant(s) of the present language (and considerably more so
in similar variants of certain other languages). Little or no attention
has been paid, however, to the crucial role played by the concept of
relevancy in questions of
sex discrimination, in the rejection of any other discriminatory usage
and in the logic and principles of conversation itself. Traditional
language does not only reveal that it is, or has been,
backed up by a sexist (or sexually
irrelevantist) world-view,
it is not age-neutral either. The intimate relationship between
the various attitudes, with regard to gender and age but also
with regard to class and minorities, can easily be
detected in ordinary traditional language. Such language is,
then, not only a product of stereotypes, it promotes them too,
or serves as an instrument for their promotion, notably by dint
of the emotive meanings of words.
If the old he and man could really be used in a
genuinely gender-neutral way, they ought to be applicable to any
person regardless of gender. But it has been correctly pointed
out that one cannot say, for example, "he is the best" of a
female, or "she is the best man for the job". Now, it has been
argued that if it is clear that the speaker knows the gender
of the referent,
'e is expected to specify this
gender. In other words, the speaker would not convey less information
than 'e could. But the rejoinder is then that it would be as
inappropriate to say "that is the best person" of someone
whose gender is known as it is to say "that is the best man" of
a female. Hence, a man simply behaves differently from a
person: the latter is undisputably gender-neutral, the former
not. Many similar examples in feminist literature show that the
so-called 'neutral' performance of he and man as
'advertised by traditional lexicographers easily breaks down even under
normal speaking conditions'.
Is it true, as has been suggested, that people do not convey
less information than they can under normal speaking conditions?
Of course not. Literally interpreted this suggestion cannot be
taken seriously. In pragmatics (as a branch of linguistics) it
is only stated that one should make one's contribution 'such as
required by the accepted purpose and direction of the
conversation'. This is called "the cooperative principle", and on this
principle one should not convey less relevant information than
one can, and not more than is relevant or than one believes to
be relevant. Relevancy, therefore, plays a central part in any
'normal' conversation; even
tho it may merely be
informational relevancy.
Whether a factor such as gender is relevant or not in a particular
situation or context is not always clear, but a linguistic system
which does not have any truly gender-neutral and -transcending
word to replace the yin and yang specimens is deficient in this
respect. This does not only concern pronouns and adjectives like
his and her but also nouns, or pairs of nouns, like
actor-actress, bachelor-spinster, launderer-laundress,
king-queen, and so on. (In the traditional variants of certain
other languages this even applies to almost all nouns denoting people
engaged in these kinds of activity or function.) The denotations
of king and queen and the connotations of bachelor
and spinster are remarkably asymmetrical: the former are
expressive of some more aristocratic, the latter of some more proletarian
type of sexism. Yet, the imposition of gender differentiation
in traditional language is not per se sexist in the
sense of being sexually unneutral.
If both the conceptual and the evaluative meaning run parallel, it need not
be.
In practise tho —as has been
argued— sex-distinguishing terms do not seldom go with a differential
appraisal.
Even if the imposition of gender differentiation were not
called "sexist" by itself, and even if, after having distinguished
them, men and women were put on an equal footing, the
factor gender itself would remain irrelevant (in many, if not
in most instances). It is only one factor or set of factors
among an innumerable number of other factors or sets of factors,
each of which might or could be pertinent in the circumstances
concerned. Why not have different nouns and pronouns for each
activity or function to distinguish the big from the small, the
good from the bad, the rich from the poor, without there being
an inclusive noun and pronoun to denote both the big and the
small, the good and the bad, and so on? Of course, the
idea is absurd; probably as absurd as those people find it
whose language has gender-transcending nouns and pronouns (in
addition or not in addition to masculine and feminine forms)
that there are languages in which the sexual distinction is foisted on
the speakers, however irrelevant. And probably as absurd and awkward as
the speakers of this language find it that there are traditional
languages in which different grammatical forms have to be used
dependent on whether one possesses a penis and testicles or a
vagina and uteris oneself; and that there are traditional
languages with (at least) two words for the pronoun you,
whereby the choice of which one to use depends on factors such as
age(-difference) and class(-difference).
In the latter cultures or subcultures concerned older people tutoyer
minors and younger people but expect them to use the polite form of
you nevertheless.
Fortunately, there is even no forced gender distinction
between a male second person (u?) and a female second person
(ewe?) in any variant of this language. People could, then,
not spell "you" anymore when writing to you. They would first have
to make sure whether you were a 'u' or a 'ewe'.
There are dictionaries painstakingly compiled by lexicographical worthies
which define man as human being, especially an adult male human
but woman as adult female person, and male as plant
or animal that is male but female as plant or animal that is
female, especially woman or girl as distinguished from man or boy.
The supposedly symmetrical harmony of yang and yin is definitely (and
painfully) lost in such definitions. Even with respect to the distinction
male/female it appears necessary to differentiate between men
and boys and women and girls, because boys are certainly not men
and girls are certainly not women (or if they are, then to their
detriment, as we will see). Some might object that male and
female are age-transcending terms which can be employed
instead of the longer phrases man or boy and woman or girl.
They are indeed age-transcending but at the same time so
impersonal as to refer to any unisexual plant or animal.
Is a 'boy' in traditional language just a male minor without any
special connotation? This can hardly be maintained, since the word
boy was at least in olden days also used for men of a class felt
to be inferior (namely servants) or of a race felt to be inferior.
The archaic meaning of knave (akin to words denoting 'boys' in
other languages) is, similarly, also male servant or man of
humble birth or position. (Not coincidentally it means dishonest
fellow as well.) According to the traditionalists' lexicon
a 'girl' or 'maid' is not just a female minor but, besides a
female servant, it is also an unmarried woman who is (still)
young or of any age. Again, the asymmetry in the meanings of
boy and girl is symptomatic. The only human beings escaping
from both boy- and girlhood are adult men who are not of humble
birth or position and who do not belong to a class or race felt
to be inferior (by adult men who are not of humble ... ...).
Girls and boys are small humans, and so are women, judging by
the traditional use of the diminutive -ette to denote, for
example, 'bachelorettes', 'suffragettes' and 'brunettes'. By now, it
will not come as a surprise to anyone that the counterpart of a 'man
Friday' is not a 'woman
Friday', but a 'girl Friday' in traditional language; nor will
it that 'bachelor girls' existed long before 'bachelor boys'
were born. And while boy(-)friend and
girl(-)friend do seem to be analogs, their use is certainly
not alike under all conditions. Where a woman could call any of her
female friends "a girl-friend", a man would in the same sexually
exclusivistic milieu provoke
quite different reactions by calling one of his male friends "a
boyfriend". The codes of behavio(u)r of some exclusivist dictionaries
allow solely males to have girl- and solely females to have boyfriends.
A dictionary belonging to that category may state that a man or boy
likes his girl-friend but may not be in love with her, while leaving
the poor user (m/f) in doubt as to whether females are always in love
with their boyfriends or not.
