Page 117 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 117
. šorli ■ feminism and gender-neutral language: between systems and effects
sections of public libraries. More importantly, this practice is implement-
ed by institutions that, along with schools, have absolute authority over
the reading culture of children and young adults, and seems to contradict
the goals of promoting gender equality in everyday life (social, profession-
al and economic equality). This reproduces gender stereotypes – especial-
ly in terms of evaluative meaning, such as in “the feminisation of educa-
tion, society, etc.” – that perpetuate social inequalities both conceptually
and at the level of linguistic expression.
Conclusion
More in the form of an epilogue than a section proper, the latter theme
has highlighted daily experiences that, when evaluated in the context of
current social, political and cultural realities, can mean only one thing: re-
gression in the prospects of gender equality and the erosion of already es-
tablished standards of emancipation. To pursue the goals of equality and
resist the erosion of emancipatory practices, different and sometimes dia-
metrically opposed social approaches coded in language use and in teach-
ing materials should be adopted. Solidifying traditional gender roles and
gender stereotypes in educational processes counteracts the efforts to
make female literary authors more prominent compared to their male
counterparts. Moreover, it does not increase sensitivity to issues of social
inequality in general or make young girls and boys more aware of physical,
psychological and economic violence against the vulnerable, nor does it
empower young people to become socially critical individuals. However,
language remains a key factor in either achieving or undermining social
equality, which is why this issue was given prominence in the present ar-
ticle. The most socially influential groups tend to deny others the right to
challenge what is culturally taken for granted in discussions about lan-
guage and gender. The debate surrounding GNL is clearly less about the
language system and more about communicative processes and their so-
cial implications. Therefore, the focus is first on language as public dis-
course: language use is embedded in much broader social (im)balances,
with gender construction taking place through and primarily in language.
At the same time, the notion of language system cannot be completely
bypassed in any debate about language policies, as the levels of language
functioning are complex and interdependent. Some typical discourses in-
volving “feminisation” can be identified on the basis of corpus analysis
of the relevant contexts, in particular the conception of women’s domi-
nance as a deviation from the norm and male dominance as (supposed)
neutrality. This discursive phenomenon is analogous to the supposed neu-
trality of the grammatical norm whereby (male) grammatical gender is
115
sections of public libraries. More importantly, this practice is implement-
ed by institutions that, along with schools, have absolute authority over
the reading culture of children and young adults, and seems to contradict
the goals of promoting gender equality in everyday life (social, profession-
al and economic equality). This reproduces gender stereotypes – especial-
ly in terms of evaluative meaning, such as in “the feminisation of educa-
tion, society, etc.” – that perpetuate social inequalities both conceptually
and at the level of linguistic expression.
Conclusion
More in the form of an epilogue than a section proper, the latter theme
has highlighted daily experiences that, when evaluated in the context of
current social, political and cultural realities, can mean only one thing: re-
gression in the prospects of gender equality and the erosion of already es-
tablished standards of emancipation. To pursue the goals of equality and
resist the erosion of emancipatory practices, different and sometimes dia-
metrically opposed social approaches coded in language use and in teach-
ing materials should be adopted. Solidifying traditional gender roles and
gender stereotypes in educational processes counteracts the efforts to
make female literary authors more prominent compared to their male
counterparts. Moreover, it does not increase sensitivity to issues of social
inequality in general or make young girls and boys more aware of physical,
psychological and economic violence against the vulnerable, nor does it
empower young people to become socially critical individuals. However,
language remains a key factor in either achieving or undermining social
equality, which is why this issue was given prominence in the present ar-
ticle. The most socially influential groups tend to deny others the right to
challenge what is culturally taken for granted in discussions about lan-
guage and gender. The debate surrounding GNL is clearly less about the
language system and more about communicative processes and their so-
cial implications. Therefore, the focus is first on language as public dis-
course: language use is embedded in much broader social (im)balances,
with gender construction taking place through and primarily in language.
At the same time, the notion of language system cannot be completely
bypassed in any debate about language policies, as the levels of language
functioning are complex and interdependent. Some typical discourses in-
volving “feminisation” can be identified on the basis of corpus analysis
of the relevant contexts, in particular the conception of women’s domi-
nance as a deviation from the norm and male dominance as (supposed)
neutrality. This discursive phenomenon is analogous to the supposed neu-
trality of the grammatical norm whereby (male) grammatical gender is
115
