Page 111 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 111
. šorli ■ feminism and gender-neutral language: between systems and effects
Gender: Language and Society/Culture
One of the forms of power that increasingly appears as “a universality of
mind or morality” (Bourdieu, 1991) is certainly gender being convention-
ally conceived of in binary terms based on the biological dichotomy be-
tween man and woman. However, attributing the “bodily” gender is it-
self a social decision that has more to do with convention than biology
(Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 4; Butler, 1993, 1990). For this reason, Perger
(2016), for example, uses the term “a person who is socially recognised as
a woman/man” in her study of sexism in higher education. Money and
some other psychologists use the term “gender” to describe “an identity
or self-presentation of a particular individual” (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972)
that is always structured in terms of the demands of society. In contrast,
many sociologists (e.g. Lorber, 1994, in Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 4) use it
to describe a social structure that differentiates between men and women
and can drastically interfere with their personal freedom. Fausto-Sterling
uses the term “gender” in both of the above meanings and the term “sex”
when referring to issues of the body or behaviour: “An individual, there-
fore, has a sex (male, female, not designated, other); but they engage with
the world via a variety of social, gender” and, of course, language conven-
tions. “Gender, then, is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Sex and gender
presentation are in the body and mind of the presenter” (ibid., p. 7). Some
researchers from the field of social sciences and gender studies have there-
fore tried to relativise the role of biology. They speak of the social or cul-
tural construct and reject the widespread assumption that gender is based
on sex (Antić Gaber, 2014, p. 162). In reality, it is always the social conven-
tions, language or discourse structuring of gender (and sex) that is under
discussion, rather than the “natural” characteristics. Feminist (post-struc-
turalist) theory in particular (e.g. Butler, 1990) shows how complex and
inherently divided the concept of gender is, proving above all that it is im-
possible to separate language or the language system from the construc-
tion of social reality, which is confirmed by the statement that “every time
we speak, our language is the historical effect of language practices, usu-
ally controlled by the leading ideology” (Močnik, 2019, p. 357). French
post-structuralist theory itself knows different approaches to explaining
sex and gender in relation to language. Irigaray, for example, believes in
the existence of only masculine sex that “elaborates itself in and through
the production of the ‘Other’” (in Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 25):
In a move that complicates the discussion further, Luce Irigaray argues
that women constitute a paradox, if not a contradiction, within the dis-
course of identity itself. Women are the “sex” which is not “one.” Within
109
Gender: Language and Society/Culture
One of the forms of power that increasingly appears as “a universality of
mind or morality” (Bourdieu, 1991) is certainly gender being convention-
ally conceived of in binary terms based on the biological dichotomy be-
tween man and woman. However, attributing the “bodily” gender is it-
self a social decision that has more to do with convention than biology
(Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 4; Butler, 1993, 1990). For this reason, Perger
(2016), for example, uses the term “a person who is socially recognised as
a woman/man” in her study of sexism in higher education. Money and
some other psychologists use the term “gender” to describe “an identity
or self-presentation of a particular individual” (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972)
that is always structured in terms of the demands of society. In contrast,
many sociologists (e.g. Lorber, 1994, in Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 4) use it
to describe a social structure that differentiates between men and women
and can drastically interfere with their personal freedom. Fausto-Sterling
uses the term “gender” in both of the above meanings and the term “sex”
when referring to issues of the body or behaviour: “An individual, there-
fore, has a sex (male, female, not designated, other); but they engage with
the world via a variety of social, gender” and, of course, language conven-
tions. “Gender, then, is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Sex and gender
presentation are in the body and mind of the presenter” (ibid., p. 7). Some
researchers from the field of social sciences and gender studies have there-
fore tried to relativise the role of biology. They speak of the social or cul-
tural construct and reject the widespread assumption that gender is based
on sex (Antić Gaber, 2014, p. 162). In reality, it is always the social conven-
tions, language or discourse structuring of gender (and sex) that is under
discussion, rather than the “natural” characteristics. Feminist (post-struc-
turalist) theory in particular (e.g. Butler, 1990) shows how complex and
inherently divided the concept of gender is, proving above all that it is im-
possible to separate language or the language system from the construc-
tion of social reality, which is confirmed by the statement that “every time
we speak, our language is the historical effect of language practices, usu-
ally controlled by the leading ideology” (Močnik, 2019, p. 357). French
post-structuralist theory itself knows different approaches to explaining
sex and gender in relation to language. Irigaray, for example, believes in
the existence of only masculine sex that “elaborates itself in and through
the production of the ‘Other’” (in Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 25):
In a move that complicates the discussion further, Luce Irigaray argues
that women constitute a paradox, if not a contradiction, within the dis-
course of identity itself. Women are the “sex” which is not “one.” Within
109
