wordplay, sexism and denial

[Amy Sheldon]

On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Brian King wrote:

> This is a curly one. I would have thought attention could be paid  
> to such
> denials in order to reveal the hegemonic work that they are doing.
> By making
> hegemonic ideologies overt rather than covert, hegemony can be  
> troubled. Or
> maybe that's too obvious.

It doesn't hurt to do that.
It's likely not to be sufficient.
Seeing a wide range of seemingly innocent and mundane concrete  
examples by which hegemony works, many of which are not obviously  
connected to each other, and some of which people are quite  
emotionally attached to, is a way of chipping away at people's  
resistance to acknowledging sexism (racism, etc.) in a single  
example. I work this way in my class. I think a resister needs to  
reach a saturation point with both examples, as well as an  
understanding of the social mechanism (hegemony), before they begin  
to reconsider (assuming they're somewhat open minded).  I think  
realizing the ordinariness of how social control works has to be a  
central insight in these discussions, as well as the transparency of  
language.
>
> Then again, perhaps Amy has a point, in that the denials are an  
> extension of
> the hegemony behind the sexist expressions.

yes, and denials are not proof of much.
Because there's real evidence that hegemony works below our level of  
awareness, despite what we think and deny. Both features of the  
process make social control effective: unconsciousness, and denial.

What might eliminate denial, or get our attention, is our realization  
that we are acting in opposition to our professed values, when we  
thought we were acting in accord with them.

In addition, making the case that any SINGLE instance, or class of  
examples, is sexist
can take quite a bit of connecting the dots to show the far more  
extensive and deep deep pattern of...or stance toward..., e.g.,   
misogeny, that's present in culture and language use.  If individuals  
have not made those connections, (and if they have something to lose  
by admitting them), we can expect denial and resistance.

> People who gain from hegemony
> seldom feel powerful, and many of us are unlikely to be convinced by
> arguments that attempt to reveal that power. Perhaps, as Butler  
> argues,
> resignifying the language used in 'son of a' constructions might be  
> a more
> effective strategy in the long term. If more of us said 'son of a  
> bastard' the
> point (thought covert) might be more effectively made.
>
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:18:21 -0500, Amy Sheldon <asheldon at UMN.EDU>
> wrote:
>
>> Since ideology is covert and hegemonic, why should we pay attention
>> to "ideological" denials?