Page 112 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 112
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
a language pervasively masculinist, a phallogocentric language, women
constitute the unrepresentable. In other words, women represent the sex
that cannot be thought, a linguistic absence and opacity. Within a lan-
guage that rests on univocal signification, the female sex constitutes the
unconstrainable and undesignatable (Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 13).
However, Wittig argues “that the category of sex is, under the con-
ditions of compulsory heterosexuality, always feminine (the masculine
remaining unmarked and, hence, synonymous with the ‘universal’)”
(Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 25). In the section that more directly discusses re-
lations in language, Butler states that a performative twist of language
and/or discourse conceals the fact that “‘being’ a sex or a gender is funda-
mentally impossible” (ibid., p. 26). These theoretical considerations offer
possible explanations as to why the introduction of the feminine into lan-
guage (e.g. feminine terms for job titles, social roles, etc., or agents, syn-
tactic agreement with the feminine gender, etc.) often generate new asym-
metries, especially in terms of meaning and evaluation.
Discourse and GNL in Education
The field of education is particularly vulnerable to the transmission and
dissemination of ideologies because of the marked “natural” imbalances
of power between actors. The final section therefore focuses on the dis-
course and impact of GNL in education, based on some analyses already
conducted and on practices implemented. Pirih Svetina (2012) notes that
ideological properties can be attributed to different (linguistic) theories
due to their power and influence, which is reflected in language text-
books. Silverstein (1979) argues that linguistic ideology is a “set of beliefs
about language articulated by the users as a rationalisation and justifica-
tion of perceived language structure and use”. The historical role of text-
books has changed over the years, but they have always reflected the situ-
ation in science and specific philosophical orientations (Čok et al., 1999,
pp. 194–198, in Pirih Svetina, 2012, p. 23). Any social ideology is strong-
ly reflected in teaching methods and textbook development, and – of par-
ticular importance for GNL – in the transfer of scientific theories into
practice and actual (language) use (Pirih Svetina, 2012, p. 23). The prob-
lems of gender (in)equality are reflected in at least four basic areas of the
pedagogical process that affect the language norm in different ways: gen-
der-sensitive language use in addressing students/pupils, teaching ma-
terials, language resources and lexicographic discourse, and (systemic)
new stereotyping of social roles through gendered reading lists and other
school activities. In the present article, we will only briefly discuss the first
110
a language pervasively masculinist, a phallogocentric language, women
constitute the unrepresentable. In other words, women represent the sex
that cannot be thought, a linguistic absence and opacity. Within a lan-
guage that rests on univocal signification, the female sex constitutes the
unconstrainable and undesignatable (Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 13).
However, Wittig argues “that the category of sex is, under the con-
ditions of compulsory heterosexuality, always feminine (the masculine
remaining unmarked and, hence, synonymous with the ‘universal’)”
(Butler, 2006 [1990], p. 25). In the section that more directly discusses re-
lations in language, Butler states that a performative twist of language
and/or discourse conceals the fact that “‘being’ a sex or a gender is funda-
mentally impossible” (ibid., p. 26). These theoretical considerations offer
possible explanations as to why the introduction of the feminine into lan-
guage (e.g. feminine terms for job titles, social roles, etc., or agents, syn-
tactic agreement with the feminine gender, etc.) often generate new asym-
metries, especially in terms of meaning and evaluation.
Discourse and GNL in Education
The field of education is particularly vulnerable to the transmission and
dissemination of ideologies because of the marked “natural” imbalances
of power between actors. The final section therefore focuses on the dis-
course and impact of GNL in education, based on some analyses already
conducted and on practices implemented. Pirih Svetina (2012) notes that
ideological properties can be attributed to different (linguistic) theories
due to their power and influence, which is reflected in language text-
books. Silverstein (1979) argues that linguistic ideology is a “set of beliefs
about language articulated by the users as a rationalisation and justifica-
tion of perceived language structure and use”. The historical role of text-
books has changed over the years, but they have always reflected the situ-
ation in science and specific philosophical orientations (Čok et al., 1999,
pp. 194–198, in Pirih Svetina, 2012, p. 23). Any social ideology is strong-
ly reflected in teaching methods and textbook development, and – of par-
ticular importance for GNL – in the transfer of scientific theories into
practice and actual (language) use (Pirih Svetina, 2012, p. 23). The prob-
lems of gender (in)equality are reflected in at least four basic areas of the
pedagogical process that affect the language norm in different ways: gen-
der-sensitive language use in addressing students/pupils, teaching ma-
terials, language resources and lexicographic discourse, and (systemic)
new stereotyping of social roles through gendered reading lists and other
school activities. In the present article, we will only briefly discuss the first
110
