Causes and consequences of ‘gendered’ communication

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Causes of ‘gendered’ communication
2.1 Gender, Language and Communicative Competence
2.2 Approaches to explain gender-related variation
2.2.1 The Deficit Approach and the Dominance Approach
2.2.2 The Difference Approach and Cultural Psychology
2.2.3 The Constructivist Approach

3 Consequences of ‘gendered’ communication
3.1 “Complaint Stories” – A ‘female’ communicative genre
3.2 Asymmetrical ‘gendered’ communication in TV discussions

4 Conclusion

5 Literature

1 Introduction

“One is not born, but rather becomes a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature […] which is described as feminine.

Thus humanity is male and man defines women not in herself but as relative to him…He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other.”

(Simone de Beauvoir, “The Second Sex” trans. H.M. Parshley 1953)^[1]

As Donna Haraway states, all the modern feminist meanings of gender, despite differences, have roots in Simone de Beauvoir’s claim that ‘one is not born a woman’ (de Beauvoir, 1949; 1952, p.249) and in post-Second World War social conditions. Those conditions have enabled constructions of women as a collective historical subject-in-process . The concept of Gender was developed to question and contest the naturalization of sexual difference in multiple areas of struggle. “Feminist theory and practice around gender seek to explain and change historical systems of sexual difference, whereby ‘men’ and ‘women’ are socially constructed and positioned in relations of hierarchy and antagonism.” (Haraway 1991). Gender is a cultural and historical product. The refusal to become or to remain a ‘gendered’ ‘woman’ or ‘man’ is a political challenge also against the imaginary narrative of sex and race.^[2] Gender refers primarily but not exclusively to women. It defines the term ‘women’ as a very broad and internally differentiated category that includes differences as the highly relevant variables of class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and age. Of interest are the visible and invisible power mechanisms that influence women’s access to responsibility in social, economic, political, religious, intellectual and cultural life.^[3]“Male” and “female” are culturally produced, socially constructed categories and language is often seen as part of what constructs, maintains and reflects these categories. But on the other hand, we need categories to be able to analyse, study and describe in order to find solutions for change. Gender is transdisciplinary and a study of language, that is an essential basis for active participation in society is important. Today’s gender topics are not only of importance for ‘women’. In a continuously changing society they are also of concern for ‘men’ and require their active participation in a restructuring of society. A discussion and (re)negotiation of these issues needs participants who can and will take part equally. Over time, different approaches were developed to interpret differences in communication style between ‘men’ and ‘women’. In the first part of this work I will try to find out: What are the causes for gender-related variation? In the second part I will look at two case studies, “Complaint stories” by Susanne Günthner and “TV discussions” by Helga Kotthoff, in order to answer the intertwined question: What are the consequences of gender-related variation?

2 Causes of ‘gendered’ communication

2.1 Gender, Language and Communicative Competence

How do scholars try to explain the causes of differences in communication style between ‘men’ and ‘women’? The Linguistic behaviour, other kinds of human behaviour and the relation between language and gender according to Coates, Spender and McConnell-Ginet were explained the following by Graddol and Swann (1989: 9-11):

First, language reflects gender divisions: “Linguistic differences are merely a reflection of social differences. As long as society views women and men as different and unequal, differences in the language of women and men will persist.” (Coates 1986 p.6) Second, language creates gender divisions. “Language helps form the limits of our reality. It is our means of ordering, classifying and manipulating the world…Having learned the language of a patriarchal society we have also learnt to classify and manage the world in accordance with patriarchal order and to preclude many possibilities for alternative ways of making sense of the world” (Spender, 1985: p.3). Third, there is an Interplay between Language and Social Structure: “Talk works to create and maintain sex-stereotyping and male dominance. Our speech does not only reflect our place in culture and society. It helps to create that place.” (McConnell-Ginet, 1983: 69).^[4]

Much of language use is clearly determined by fixed social rules (Language system vs Language use, Saussure). Different “appropriate” “male” and “female” behaviour is socially constructed and so are “male” and “female” conversation styles and patterns.

Jennifer Coates explains in her book Women, Men and Language that the term communicative competence was coined by Dell Hymes (1972). In his view it is essential to incorporate social and cultural factors into linguistic description. The Chomskyan notion of the child that internalises a set of rules which enable her/him to produce grammatical sentence is not enough. To be linguistically competent a grammatically correct sentence is not sufficient for a child, it also has to learn when to speak or not, what to talk about and how to talk about it in different circumstances. Important is the knowledge of how language is used in a given society. This knowledge constitutes communicative competence. Thus linguistic competence is the knowledge of grammar, phonology and lexicon plus the knowledge of the cultural norms of spoken interaction. Men and women differ in their sense of appropriateness. Coates describes the acquisition of gender identity as follows: “Girls and boys learn during childhood to identify with one group or the other. They demonstrate their membership of the group by their use of gender-appropriate behaviour, and this includes gender-appropriate linguistic behaviour” (Coates 1993, 144).^[5]

The fact that the participants themselves are orienting to “doing gender” or towards sexuality in the talk in order to be socially accepted must be taken into consideration as Jack Sidnell argues. He comes to the conclusion that practices of speaking are not necessarily linked to gender, but also “…the product of concerted and collaborative interactional work by both men and women.” (Sidnell 2003).^[6]

But what is a good example for a gender-related variation and how did it emerge? Susanne Günthner explains the causes for the development of a certain, well known, ‘female’ communication pattern in Europe and the USA that she calls “complaint story”. Those complaint stories have been and are still a frequently used and common communication pattern among women. The classical attribution of the private sphere to women, the house and hearth ideology, and therefore the discussion of individuals and their private affairs contributed to the gender specificity of this specific narrative genre.

In the 16th century the gossip-reproach towards women was very common. The bourgeois elitist culture dismissed it as undisciplined and uncontrolled. The ostracism of women’s chatter was reinforced by the bourgeois “house and hearth” ideology and emphasized as a cultural differentiation of class: It was seen as a lack of discipline and morals of the lower classes, especially of lower-class women (Holenstein/Schindler 1992, from Günthner 1997). From the 16th into the 20th century, collectors and theoreticians of narratives differentiated between an artistically outstanding, meaningful narrative and the spontaneous, everyday narrative as being meaningless and unconnected, lacking profundity. Since the beginning of the 20th century linguistic, anthropological, and sociological analysis have demonstrated, that there is not a strict dichotomy between artistic and everyday language. Every-day stories contain certain artistic and aesthetic elements and powerful performance (Baumann 1986).^[7] A closer look on the linguistic characteristics of complaint stories and their consequences will be taken in the second part of this work, consequences of ‘gendered’ communication.

2.2 Approaches to explain gender-related variation

2.2.1 The Deficit Approach and The Dominance Approach

An early approach was made by Lakoff who contrasted women’s language not to men’s language but to “neutral language”. It is called the Deficit Approach where women’s language is a special or deviant case. This contains the idea a cultural equation of `femininity’ and `powerlessness’.

The Dominance Approach by O’Barr / Atkins, Fishman, West and Zimmerman looks at women as an oppressed group. The differences in women’s and men’s speech are interpreted in terms of ‘women’s subordination’ to ‘men’s dominance’ and how this is enacted through linguistic practice. ‘Doing power’ is a way of ‘doing gender’. All discourse participants are part of the interplay of sustaining and perpetuating male dominance and female oppression.^[8] O`Barr and Atkins (1980) studied courtroom language and in what ways female witnesses differed from male witnesses. They found out that the social status is more important than gender. Thus they renamed Lakoff’s term “Women’s Language Feature” into “Powerless Language”.^[9] But there are discourse studies that show, that low status men do not use powerless language and instead attempt to dominate interaction. The so-called “Powerless Forms” of Lakoff, O’Barr and Atkins are said to be in the sense of support and solidarity more effective because they promote cooperative discourse which is necessary for equality. So you could say that their approach only perpetuates the myth of “weakness” of women’s language and helps to maintain and support hegemonic masculine language.

The Interactional Approach by Pamela Fishman argues, that the ‘deficiency’ noted by Lakoff and O’Barr is not a result of early socialization either in terms of devotedness or gender. It arises depending on the situation. Thus the actual situation where the conversation takes place in is relevant for the social position. Not gender determines speech, but a form of situational hierarchy. Pamela Fishman criticizes Lakoff’s concept of socialization determining language. She says that an interactional situation is the empiric basis for a theory. Fishman (1980a) argues that women use more tag and yes/no questions than men for the reason that female speakers more often use them to keep a conversation going. Hedges (like ‘you know’) are attention giving devices. They are used to carry on a discourse in case the conversational partner does not respond. Thus Fishman comes to the conclusion that the notion of deficiency needn’t be a result of early socialization. It emerges depending on the situation. Hierarchy determines speech, not gender.^[10]

[...]

^[1] Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex. (French original 1949, trans. H.M. Parshley. New York 1953, pp. 301, xv-xvi. Excerpt from: Sabine Schülting (2007). Reader: Culture, Gender, Media I: Gender Studies. FU Berlin.

^[2] Donna Haraway. “Gender for a Marxist Dictionary: the Sexual Politics of a Word”. Excerpts from: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: the Reinvention of Nature, pp. 127-48. London: Free Association Books (1991).

^[3] Rosi Braidotti. „The Uses and Abuses of the Sex/Gender Distinction in European Feminist Practices“.

^[4] Sonja Kleinke (2007): HS Linguistic Gender Studies - Reader. Institut für Englische Philologie. Freie Universität Berlin.

^[5] Jennifer Coates (1993): Women, Men and Language. Harlow. 106-140.

^[6] Jack Sidnell (2003). „Constructing and managing male exclusivity in talk-in-interaction“. In: Holmes, J. and M. Meyerhoff (eds.) (2003): The Handbook of Language and Gender. Malden Mass et al. 327-352.

^[7] Susanne Günthner (1997): “Complaint stories. Constructing emotional reciprocity among women”. In: Kotthoff, Helga & Ruth Wodak (eds.): Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam. pp. 179-218.

^[8] Sonja Kleinke (2007): HS Linguistic Gender Studies - Reader. Institut für Englische Philologie. Freie Universität Berlin.

^[9] O’Barr, William and Atkins, Bowman K. (reprint, 1998): “’Woman’s language’ or ‘powerless language’?” In: Coates, Jennifer (ed.) (1998): Women, Men and Language. A Reader. Oxford. 377-387.

^[10] Fishman, Pamela (reprint 1998): “Conversational insecurity”. In: Cameron, Deborah (1998): The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London. 253 – 260. (From a presentation summary by Kalkhoff, Walser, Bröcker, HS Linguistic Gender Studies, FU Berlin).