Page 108 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 108
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
against the decision intervening in the Slovenian language system; in
their view, the intervention could only be about language use and policy.
Experts in social sciences and humanities (sociology, philosophy, anthro-
pology, law and others) actively participated in the discussion, confirm-
ing the interdisciplinary character of language studies. Among the objec-
tions to the initiative of the Senate of the Faculty of Arts that were voiced
by people who regard themselves as supporters of gender equality was the
exclusion of the transgender group from the (binary) conception of gen-
der; this objection did not, however, come primarily from supporters of
transgender-oriented language policy, who apparently understood the dis-
cussion mainly as an attempt to denaturalise heteronormative discourse.3
Furthermore, the objection to the politics of identity – which presuma-
bly characterises the “struggle” for gender equality in language and rein-
forces discrimination by accepting capitalist liberal ideology and the frag-
mentation of society instead of eliminating it (e.g. Močnik, 2019; Šribar,
2018; Vuk Godina, 2018) – is based on understanding GNL as a “wom-
en’s struggle”, when in fact it is first and foremost a “social struggle”.4 This
problem is embodied in the “universal” categories of male-centric syntax
and the description of, for instance, “human” in a dictionary, indicating a
close connection between grammar and social power, especially given the
centuries-long tradition of male-as-the-norm. It is often difficult to pro-
vide empirical evidence for gender discrimination and male domination
in language at the level of its symbolic structures. To understand more
broadly the promotion of GNL that can be observed in the post-structur-
alist (and post-rationalist) approaches to language, it is important both to
consider the insights of feminist linguistics and women’s studies, as well as
the sociolinguistic and sociological perspectives on gender and language,
while research is also being conducted on the connections between GNL
and gender stereotyping and gender discrimination as part of a broad-
er Marie Curie Initial Training (Language, Cognition, and Gender)5 re-
search infrastructure in psycholinguistics.
3 Helena Drnovšek Zorko: https://www.cep.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Perspec-
tives_DZorko_27.3.2.pdf.
4 Here lies the core problem of the binary conceptualisation of gender: “women’s” efforts to
achieve equality are first interpreted as a matter of “female identity politics”, and only then
as a matter that concerns “man” or humanity in general, while for men it is the other way
around.
5 http://www.itn-lcg.psy.unibe.ch/content/index_eng.html.
106
against the decision intervening in the Slovenian language system; in
their view, the intervention could only be about language use and policy.
Experts in social sciences and humanities (sociology, philosophy, anthro-
pology, law and others) actively participated in the discussion, confirm-
ing the interdisciplinary character of language studies. Among the objec-
tions to the initiative of the Senate of the Faculty of Arts that were voiced
by people who regard themselves as supporters of gender equality was the
exclusion of the transgender group from the (binary) conception of gen-
der; this objection did not, however, come primarily from supporters of
transgender-oriented language policy, who apparently understood the dis-
cussion mainly as an attempt to denaturalise heteronormative discourse.3
Furthermore, the objection to the politics of identity – which presuma-
bly characterises the “struggle” for gender equality in language and rein-
forces discrimination by accepting capitalist liberal ideology and the frag-
mentation of society instead of eliminating it (e.g. Močnik, 2019; Šribar,
2018; Vuk Godina, 2018) – is based on understanding GNL as a “wom-
en’s struggle”, when in fact it is first and foremost a “social struggle”.4 This
problem is embodied in the “universal” categories of male-centric syntax
and the description of, for instance, “human” in a dictionary, indicating a
close connection between grammar and social power, especially given the
centuries-long tradition of male-as-the-norm. It is often difficult to pro-
vide empirical evidence for gender discrimination and male domination
in language at the level of its symbolic structures. To understand more
broadly the promotion of GNL that can be observed in the post-structur-
alist (and post-rationalist) approaches to language, it is important both to
consider the insights of feminist linguistics and women’s studies, as well as
the sociolinguistic and sociological perspectives on gender and language,
while research is also being conducted on the connections between GNL
and gender stereotyping and gender discrimination as part of a broad-
er Marie Curie Initial Training (Language, Cognition, and Gender)5 re-
search infrastructure in psycholinguistics.
3 Helena Drnovšek Zorko: https://www.cep.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Perspec-
tives_DZorko_27.3.2.pdf.
4 Here lies the core problem of the binary conceptualisation of gender: “women’s” efforts to
achieve equality are first interpreted as a matter of “female identity politics”, and only then
as a matter that concerns “man” or humanity in general, while for men it is the other way
around.
5 http://www.itn-lcg.psy.unibe.ch/content/index_eng.html.
106
