call for discussion: item 1c.i

[Kenneth Allen Hyde]

On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, M. J. Hardman wrote:

> >1c. Philosophy
> >i. Relation to feminism
> >1. Issues to consider
> >a. Will the organization presuppose a feminist set of values? If so, will
> >these be stated explicitly?

> [snippage deleted] Of course, we should presuppose a feminist set of
> values.  Given the structure of our language, and our society, if we
> are not explicitly feminist then we are, by default, masculinist.
> For example, I have recently been made aware in a number of
> organizations where some of us have relaxed a bit, that all of a
> sudden, again, all officers are white males.  Ouch.

On the other hand, I hope that we won't go the other way, where we
discriminate against white males, or act as if there is something
inherently wrong with a white male in a position of leadership.  After
all, if we are going to take the rubric of "*gender* and language"
seriously, we will need to acknowledge and be accepting of all genders as
equally worthwhile.  I agree that there is something very wrong with a
group that blocks access to leadership positions based on sex or race.  If
the group that M.J. mentions has all white male officers because they have
unfairly exercised their institionalized power to subvert the election
process, then that's pretty awful and I'm appalled.  If they are in
positions of leadership because they were the only ones that were willing
to accept the burden of work and if they are doing a good job, then I
don't see where there is room to complain (especially since there would be
no reason that the situation could not change at the next election).
After all, I'm not going to complain if all the officers for GALA end up
being female, as long as it's not part of our charter that only women are
eligible for leadership positions.

BTW, I have to say that I think the feminist/masculinist dichotomy is
rather an artificial construct.  I agree that we should be feminist, in
the sense that as an organization, we should affirm the equal status of
all members, regardless of gender, sex, or whathaveyou.  If that's
feminist, then I can see where the perception of a dichotomy comes from.
However, it seems that if you are truly opposing a "masculinist" ideology
(i.e. men are better than women) with a "feminist" one, you would have to
have "feminist" defined as "women are better than men."  Needless to say,
this is a definition that I cannot support.

> >2. Feminism and gender
> >a. Will the association be focused on feminist issues rather than gender
> >issues (i.e., both female and male genders, at least, as well as other
> >'genders')?
> I would say, let's see what comes.

Here, I would have to say that I disagree.  I would like to see this
organization start out with a firm commitment, from its inception, to
study language and its interactions with gender.  And by gender, I mean
not merely masculine and feminine, but also str8 masculine, str8 feminine,
gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.  For that matter, I would love to see a
group that really emphasized the need to study *gender* rather than
physiological sex and really took that distinction seriously.  There is
such a dearth of materials that are committed to looking at gender and
language rather than sex and language, and it would be wonderful if we, as
an organization, could support and encourage more researchers to do so.

> >3. What it might mean to be a feminist organization
> >b. A feminist organization need not be based on ideology but on an
> >alternative structure:

One thing that did occur to me in talking about leadership above is that
in some ways, leadership can be a very controversial issue from a gendered
viewpoint.  Part of the objection to having white male leaders (officers)
has to lie in the very masculine interpretation of "leader" as a
hierarchical position of power and privilege.  On the other hand, if a
leader is viewed as a "facilitator" who has no extra power or privilege
and is not "higher" than other members, then what does it matter who holds
the position, as long as they do a good job.  This second interpretation
of leadership seems much more compatible with an organization that takes
the notion of equality among all members seriously.

> >- For example. if there is to be a journal, would it
> >be limited to academic style, or could there be more accessible papers that
> >might attract a wider audience? - If there are conferences, could there be
> >alternatives to the 20 minute paper and the 5 minute response, the
> >traditional conference model based on the traditional academic lecture?

I think that this depends on our goals for the organization.  If our goal
is mainly a teaching/outreach goal, then these might be excellent ideas.
If, however, we wish to establish language and gender research as an
academic sub-discipline which should be respected and taken seriously in
academe at large, these ideas might actually be counter-productive.  An
academic field or discipline comes to be respected based on the rigor of
its proponents work and their adherence to a high scholarly standard.  If
we, for however good a reason, choose to depart from the accepted
standards for rigorous scholarly work and presentation, then we risk
damaging our credibility in the eyes of the rest of academe.

That being said, I think it would be great if we could find a way to do
both.  Perhaps to publish a purely academic journal and sponsor a
broader-based conference?  In other words, have a refereed journal that
would be a respected show-case to present the best of gender and language
research, while also sponsoring a conference that would serve the goal of
reaching out to a broader audience.

> >4. Objections to a feminist organization
> >b. We don't really want to be giving litmus tests on people's feminist
> >principles.

This seems to me to be a very crucial point. While it is a good thing to
affirm a "equal rights/equal access" policy in an organization like GALA,
I really have to say that I think it would be impractical if we took that
to mean that we had to administer some sort of evaluation to all
prospective members to see if they were "toeing the party line."

> Or, rather than 'challenging' -- a war metaphor -- maybe we could build
> on each other's work, collaborating, compare and contrast?

Challenging is a good thing, I would have to say.  And it can hardly be
considered a purely masculine trait.  My first experience with being
"challenged" was from my mother, who challenged and pushed me to grow.
Actually, when you think about it, challenging is not part of the
discourse of war.  In terms of conflict, it belongs to the sphere of
personal and individual conflict.  It also belongs to the sphere of
care-giving, however. (This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, I
suppose, but I thought I'd mention it.)

May the seas be your solace and the forests a refuge for your spirit,

Cennydd

Kenneth Allen Hyde     |  No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife
Univ. of Delaware      |  between the shoulder blades will seriously
Dept. of Linguistics   |  cramp his style  -- Old Jhereg proverb
kenny at Udel.Edu         |  A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me

//www.ling.udel.edu/hyde/prof/ken.html