<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Amy Sheldon wrote:</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">But how we theorize gender is related to how we theorize language and gender.</div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>This seems to be rather worryingly Whorfian. If by "theorize," you mean "talk about" or "write about," then I can accept your point. However, if you mean "conceptualize" or "think about," then I would have to demur. I'm not persuaded that language has a deterministic effect on our thinking. I'm fairly firmly committed to the proposition that concepts and categories exist independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of labels (i.e. words or other semiotic tokens) and that the mapping between the realm of thought and the realm of language is imperfect at best.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; ">Can you give an example of what "presents herself in a 'masculine' way" is and what the "masculine zone of the collective gender-space of her community" (or yours) is, or contains, or means, or a woman would behave like when they're there? And what is the "feminine zone"?</span></div></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>Well, let me start by expanding on the idea of "gender-space." First, I posit that gender is a socially constructed abstract aspect of identity (this seems fairly unexceptionable). In order to talk about this abstract construct, I'm using the model of a conceptual space. That space is defined by the features (and values of those features) that are relevant to gender in a given community. As the axes of features intersect and interact, zones of identity within the space are created. The masculine zone would be the part of the space that contains those features and values that the social group collectively view as "masculine" (i.e. associated with the label "masculine") Between social groups, the specific features and values that form the masculine zone of the gender-space could vary. The feminine zone would be a similar part of the gender-space characterized by those features and values that are viewed by the social group as meriting the label "feminine." Other zones of identity could also exist. For example, in some social groups, "macho" might be a distinct zone from "masculine" or "femme" might be distinct from "feminine." In theory, by mapping this gender-space, we could perhaps arrive at a more accurate picture of gender identities in a community, discovering specific zones that are not yet labeled but that nevertheless exist.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Okay, now, to the first question. By "presents herself in a 'masculine' way," I mean to say that the woman in question through behavior, speech, appearance, and other social and individual phenomena aligns herself with the features and values in the masculine zone of her community's gender-space. Thus, in a community where masculine is associated with features of strong verbal posturing (braggadocio or one-upsmanship, etc.), the "masculine" woman would exhibit these features. On the other hand, in a community where stoicism or withholding is a feature of masculine identity, then the "masculine" woman would exhibit this trait. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Nor would this presentation be limited to language behavior. It could include actions, clothing, facial expressions, physical posture, etc. In some communities (perhaps many), a woman who plays rough sports, wears sweats and a hoodie, maintains a closed expression and stands and moves in a certain way could be said to be "presenting herself in a masculine way." And yes, these examples are simplistic stereotypes. In reality, I realize that self-presentation is much more complicated, involving a vast number of variables. In a properly mapped gender-space some features would be neutral, either because they are not associated with any identity zone or because they are associated with several different zones. Other features or values might be more or less proximal to the center of an identity zone and thus more or less relevant in self-presentation. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>And of course, self-presentation would not necessarily be a phenomenon of the conscious self. I suspect that most people do gender identity and other types of self-presentation from a partially or entirely subconscious basis. It would be very interesting to study whether conscious self-presentation of gender differs from subconscious...and how it differs if it does.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>And once again, I think I'll stop here.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Ken</div><div><br></div><br><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><div>Kenneth Hyde</div><div>ELI & Dept of Linguistics</div><div>University of Delaware</div><div><a href="mailto:kenny@udel.edu">kenny@udel.edu</a></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>"No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulders will seriously cramp his style.—K. Z. Steven Brust</div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span> </div><br></body></html>