call for discussion: item 1c.i

[deborah sweeney]

I would like to comment on motion 1c.i - Gala's self-definition in terms
of feminism  - before it is put to the vote. I agree with the position
that Sara Trechter put forward a couple of weeks ago that a diversity
paradigm, rather than a feminist paradigm per se, would serve GALA best.

If GALA aims to be the central organisation/journal for discussing the
interconnections between gender and language, it should aim to attract as
many scholars and other interested people as possible.

Although many of those who research, study and are interested in this
field work using explicitly feminist paradigms, this is not true of every
single person who works in this field. I think it is limiting to insist
that *only* scholars who operate from a highly articulated feminist
methodology should discuss gender and language.

This is not meant as advocacy for repressive positions.
It is, however, meant as advocacy for people (like me) who are interested
in this field, but wouldn't necessarily define themselves as working with
an explicitly feminist methodology, even though they would be happy to
listen to feminist scholars and read their work in GALA.

A little autobiographical background might be useful here - I am an
Egyptologist, I have been working on issues connected with women in
ancient Egypt for a number of years and have recently embarked on a
research project on women and language in the Ramesside period. I am
trying to acquire a more general gender and language/women's studies
background by reading and lurking on email lists such as this one.

I would like to suggest a definition such as "Gala welcomes and encourages
the work of scholars using a variety of paradigms, including feminist
paradigms."

With best wishes,

Deborah Sweeney