Feminism and scholarship

[Patricia Sawin]

I wrote this at the end of last week, but there was a computer glitch so it didn't get posted and
I couldn't try again until today.  Like Megan and other I do not want to exclude anyone, but do
feel passionately about the need for GALA to have a feminist commitment (a la Freed).
ontent-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> OK, I've been lurking long enough and will finally put in my two cents'
> worth.
>
> I'm among those who think GALA should describe itself as a specifically
> feminist organization and I'd like to persuade Chris and others who are
> concerned about this possibility that that by no means restricts our scope
> to the study of women and language.
>
> My thumbnail definition is that a "feminist" approach to the study of
> language involves attention to gender differences in language *with an
> awareness of the power differences* that go along with/are generated by
> them.  I'm grateful to Alice Freed, who opened my eyes to this simple
> distinction with her critique of Deborah Tannen's _You Just Don't
> Understand_.  As I remember Freed putting it, thinking about gender
> difference without acknowledging gender dominance is a deeply regressive stance.
>
> Further, this feminism is not a narrowly political move, not simply a way
> of saying, "I'm a woman and I want more!"  I follow Sandra Harding and
> Lorraine Code, who are proud to call themselves *feminist*
> epistemologists, in believing that this kind of feminist stance leads to
> better theory and better research.  Harding and Code argue that an
> "objective," empirical approach will be "weak" if we insist that it be
> coupled with value neutrality.  Such research claims to correct for
> possible errors by insisting on the repeatability of research results, but
> in fact, it absolutely does not and cannot correct for errors in the
> research design replicated over and over by widely held (hegemonic)
> attitudes of the researchers.  "Biases that may have infected the 'context
> of discovery'" cannot be eliminated by more rigorous empiricism.  "Strong
> objectivity" can only be achieved by taking power differences into
> account.
>
> So, by this definition, study of Gay and Lesbian language and Queer Theory
> are emphatically included.  Study of men's talk in purely homosocial
> contexts also fits right in, unless you completely ignore the possibility
> that such interaction plays a role in consolidating or (dare I dream? find
> me an example!) challenging male power or pretend that men's homosocial
> speech adequately represents an entire culture.
>
> Of course there are still practical problems:
>
> 1) I personally can be comfortable tracing a feminist genealogy for
> this position, but I am painfully aware that this "inclusion" can feel to
> some like appropriation.  White, heterosexual feminists have come in for
> plenty of accurate criticism for their own blindnesses.  If, to take only
> one example, a theorist of Gay language doesn't want his or her work to be
> subsumed under the feminist label, then that's a strong argument for some
> more inclusive language.
>
> 2) Men may feel that they are summarily excluded from a "feminist"
> organization since they don't share/aren't aware of the kind of definition
> I employ.  I'd rather keep the label and do some explaining to spread the
> strong objectivity epistemology.  I also suspect that, once we start
> having conferences or journals, people can judge whether they want to join
> us not on the basis of a word buried in a statement of purpose, but on the
> basis of the work we promulgate and the people who participate.  This *is*
> going to be a largely female organization, given who is motivated to deal
> with language/gender/power issues.  Men who join are taking a step in
> enacting a more egalitarian society.  I firmly believe that challenging
> gender roles (in our lives and our research) is liberating for men as well
> as for women.  But I believe equally firmly that gender and language
> research that does not ask about the associated power dynamics is both
> unethical and unreliable.  In that sense, to promote the best possible
> research, GALA must be what I would call a feminist organization.
>
> inclusively and hopefully yours,
>
> Patricia Sawin
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology and Curriculum in Folklore
> University of North Carolina
> Chapel Hill, NC  27599-3115
> 919/962-1572
> Patricia_Sawin at unc.edu
>
>
>

-- End original message --