Life in the Empire
Pronouns: A Theory of Atomic Linguistics
On the first RBC forum there was a discussion about pronouns. Pan joined the forum after I had been banned and posted to that topic, but of course I was no longer there and wasn't able to respond. Had I still been around, this is the sentence I would have responded to (my login there was Folkie):
Pan wrote: "However, though our society presents maleness as normative behavior, I do not accept Folkie's premise that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun. I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
First of all, I had not said that "he" was a gender neutral pronoun. I'd said that it was the default pronoun and that until recently it had been used as the traditionally inclusive pronoun. That began to change when feminists noticed that although it was theoretically supposed to be inclusive, it reality it excluded females.
In order for society to present something as normative, it is set as the default. Until feminists began to protest, "he" was the generic or default pronoun. When I was in school we were taught that there were three types of pronouns: 1. The masculine or inclusive (examples being "he" or "him"). 2. The feminine or diminutive (examples being "she" or "her". and 3. The neuter or indeterminate (examples being "it" or "that").
The earliest attempts by feminists to replace the generic "he," with either "he and she," or "she," was met with fierce resistance and ridicule by some college professors who rightfully claimed that it wasn't important for them to go out of their way to make specific reference to females when there might be one, none, or at most only a few females in any given class. Only as females began to be admitted in greater numbers to higher education was the concept taken seriously. Although females appear to have made steady gains in U.S. higher education since 1900, by the 1960s they were still no more than 20% of those receiving professional degrees.
In the '70s, females began to resent the fact that feminine honorifics like "Mrs." and "Miss" were based upon the female's marital status, while the masculine honorific, "Mr." was the same for both married and unmarried males. If it was no longer necessary for females to be referred to in terms of their sexual availability (already taken in marriage or not), then why was it necessary for females to be referred to in terms of sex at all? Why couldn't everyone have become "Mr." without regard to marital status or sex?
The same thing happened with pronouns. Upon recognizing that the traditionally inclusive "he" wasn't truly inclusive, feminists began to insist that the exclusive or diminutive pronouns be used in combination with the traditionally inclusive pronouns, to denote that females were actually present ("he and she" or "she and he"), or that the diminutive form ("she") be used as the generic. Both usages have become common. As with honorifics, there was no consideration given to the possibility of the traditionally inclusive pronoun ("he") being used so that it was actually inclusive.
Once a society presents something as the normative or default status, any other status becomes deviant by definition. In The Creation of Patriarchy, Prof. Gerda Lerner explained that you can't discriminate against a group unless you have a way to distinguish them from other groups. Pronouns and honorifics are the means by which patriarchy distinguishes between males and females when they are not present and visible, so as to ensure that they are not accorded equal treatment. Without the ability to distinguish females from males at all times and in all circumstances, there could be too many incidents of accidental equality for male supremacy to remain tenable.
It is indisputable that we are a patriarchal society and that females are discriminated against. When groups are asked to grade essays, the same essays are consistently given higher grades by both males and females when they appear to have been written by a male than when they appear to have been written by a female. It only takes a single indicator such as a traditionally masculine or feminine name, honorific, or pronoun, to trigger disparate treatment. It is not the quality of the writing, but the knowledge (or assumption) about the writer's sex, that controls how the writing is evaluated.
There's no rocket science involved in equality. There is more equality in a society where people are treated equally at least some of the time, than in a society where people are never treated equally, even if total equality is not achievable. What harm could it possibly do to society if all essay questions had to be graded without any gender role identifiers attached to them, so that only the quality of the writing could be judged? Would patriarchy be destroyed? Would civilization fall? My theory is yes, they would.
But before I explain why I think that pronomial fusion could save the planet as surely as atomic fission could destroy it, I want to briefly review the potential effects of pronouns on biological sex and on socially constructed gender roles. It goes without saying that there would be no physical changes to an individual or group if they were referred to differently. But there certainly could be enormous social and cultural changes if a patriarchal society was less able to distinguish between males and females and therefore less able to discriminate based on sex. For a system to be considered totalitarian, it must have absolute power, and anything that diminishes that power changes the nature of the system. Only the ability to distinguish between the sexes at all times, makes it possible for a patriarchal society to discriminate on the basis of sex at all times. So why do those who claim to be seeking a more egalitarian society, insist on retaining the linguistic indicators that make totalitarian patriarchy possible?
A quick google turned up an online copy of Douglas Hofstadter's essay, "A Person Paper on Purity in Language." Hofstadter's analogy makes it perfectly clear that sex-based pronouns are no more necessary or rational than race-based pronouns. I've used the analogy of African-Americans in the U.S. in a similar way. Imagine if, instead of adult black males taking offense at being called, "boy," they had said that while they didn't want to be called "boy" any more, they also didn't want to be called "Mister" or "Sir," since those terms were used to refer to white males and they didn't want to become invisible or lose their black identity, so they had insisted that a new term be invented, such as "Bister" or "Bir," to replace the world "boy" when used to refer to adult black males. Absurd, isn't it? Yet that's exactly what feminists did with "Ms."
I'm a philosophical anti-civilizationist. Although I do hypocritically avail myself of many benefits of civilization, I know their true cost in the despoliation of the planet. I believe that humanity and our habitat have been brought to the brink of extinction by the patriarchal concept of property that commodifies both people and things. More than 5,000 years of patriarchy and civilization have made both appear to be inevitable and invincible. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Animal rights and environmental activists have suggested that one way to revalue plants and animals would be to refer to them as living things rather than as objects, that is, as "he" and "she," rather than as "it." The way in which we refer to things is a good indicator of how much we value them. To the extent that we can eliminate unnecessary divisiveness, we create unity.
So back to Pan's statement, "I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
That doesn't leave much in the way of options. Perhaps a new term should be invented so that it can be used solely to refer to gender role deviates? Now that there are more female doctors, lawyers, and engineers, should we call them doctoresses, lawyeresses, and enginerettes, so as not to reinforce the patriarchal valuing of all things male?
Pronouns, in my experience, are the atomic forces that bind together the molecules of patriarchy. Without a way to reference a person's genital status every time we reference a person, patriarchy would begin to lose the ability to discriminate against all females on the basis of sex at all times. Without that ability, the entire structure would crumble. Not all at once, but little by little as discrimination became more and more difficult.
If an injury to one is an injury to all, then an insult to one is an insult to all. I have no fears whatsoever that the human sex drive might diminish without gender roles. It is one of the strongest forces in our lives, it existed long before gender roles were imagined, and if we can avert the destruction of the planet, it will continue long after gender roles have disappeared. There would be no difficulty in referencing an individual's sex when it was necessary to do so, as we could simply say, "He is female," or "he is male." But we would no longer be forced to refer to people in terms of genital status when it was not necessary, so we would no longer have to perpetuate patriarchy by distinguishing between people on the basis of sex every time we referred to them.
As a native English speaker first learning Spanish, I thought it absurd that inanimate objects had to be identified as either male or female to accomodate the language structure. The English language has the convenience of being able to refer to inanimate objects without regard to sex. Our coffee mugs aren't feminine and our champagne glasses aren't masculine, they're just cups and glasses.
I grew up in the nuclear age. For most of my life I've been aware that at any moment, I and everyone around me for miles, could be killed by a single bomb that would not distinguish on the basis of sex, race, age, or any other factor. Since we're likely to die equally, why shouldn't we live equally? But I believe that it is patriarchy, the subjugation of females by males, that prevents us from becoming an ecologically viable species able to control our reproductive rate in accordance with available resources and have a sustainable lifestyle without periodic overpopulation peaks and wars. So I believe that if we can abolish patriarchy, we would not be facing the inevitable extinction common to all ecologically nonviable species. If I am correct, and if pronouns really are the binding force holding patriarchy together, we might really have a chance.
Of course I could be wrong. It is possible that we could eliminate sex-based pronouns and patriarchy might continue just as before. I know what we might gain if I'm right. Can you tell me what we might lose if I'm wrong?
Pan wrote: "However, though our society presents maleness as normative behavior, I do not accept Folkie's premise that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun. I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
First of all, I had not said that "he" was a gender neutral pronoun. I'd said that it was the default pronoun and that until recently it had been used as the traditionally inclusive pronoun. That began to change when feminists noticed that although it was theoretically supposed to be inclusive, it reality it excluded females.
In order for society to present something as normative, it is set as the default. Until feminists began to protest, "he" was the generic or default pronoun. When I was in school we were taught that there were three types of pronouns: 1. The masculine or inclusive (examples being "he" or "him"). 2. The feminine or diminutive (examples being "she" or "her". and 3. The neuter or indeterminate (examples being "it" or "that").
The earliest attempts by feminists to replace the generic "he," with either "he and she," or "she," was met with fierce resistance and ridicule by some college professors who rightfully claimed that it wasn't important for them to go out of their way to make specific reference to females when there might be one, none, or at most only a few females in any given class. Only as females began to be admitted in greater numbers to higher education was the concept taken seriously. Although females appear to have made steady gains in U.S. higher education since 1900, by the 1960s they were still no more than 20% of those receiving professional degrees.
In the '70s, females began to resent the fact that feminine honorifics like "Mrs." and "Miss" were based upon the female's marital status, while the masculine honorific, "Mr." was the same for both married and unmarried males. If it was no longer necessary for females to be referred to in terms of their sexual availability (already taken in marriage or not), then why was it necessary for females to be referred to in terms of sex at all? Why couldn't everyone have become "Mr." without regard to marital status or sex?
The same thing happened with pronouns. Upon recognizing that the traditionally inclusive "he" wasn't truly inclusive, feminists began to insist that the exclusive or diminutive pronouns be used in combination with the traditionally inclusive pronouns, to denote that females were actually present ("he and she" or "she and he"), or that the diminutive form ("she") be used as the generic. Both usages have become common. As with honorifics, there was no consideration given to the possibility of the traditionally inclusive pronoun ("he") being used so that it was actually inclusive.
Once a society presents something as the normative or default status, any other status becomes deviant by definition. In The Creation of Patriarchy, Prof. Gerda Lerner explained that you can't discriminate against a group unless you have a way to distinguish them from other groups. Pronouns and honorifics are the means by which patriarchy distinguishes between males and females when they are not present and visible, so as to ensure that they are not accorded equal treatment. Without the ability to distinguish females from males at all times and in all circumstances, there could be too many incidents of accidental equality for male supremacy to remain tenable.
It is indisputable that we are a patriarchal society and that females are discriminated against. When groups are asked to grade essays, the same essays are consistently given higher grades by both males and females when they appear to have been written by a male than when they appear to have been written by a female. It only takes a single indicator such as a traditionally masculine or feminine name, honorific, or pronoun, to trigger disparate treatment. It is not the quality of the writing, but the knowledge (or assumption) about the writer's sex, that controls how the writing is evaluated.
There's no rocket science involved in equality. There is more equality in a society where people are treated equally at least some of the time, than in a society where people are never treated equally, even if total equality is not achievable. What harm could it possibly do to society if all essay questions had to be graded without any gender role identifiers attached to them, so that only the quality of the writing could be judged? Would patriarchy be destroyed? Would civilization fall? My theory is yes, they would.
But before I explain why I think that pronomial fusion could save the planet as surely as atomic fission could destroy it, I want to briefly review the potential effects of pronouns on biological sex and on socially constructed gender roles. It goes without saying that there would be no physical changes to an individual or group if they were referred to differently. But there certainly could be enormous social and cultural changes if a patriarchal society was less able to distinguish between males and females and therefore less able to discriminate based on sex. For a system to be considered totalitarian, it must have absolute power, and anything that diminishes that power changes the nature of the system. Only the ability to distinguish between the sexes at all times, makes it possible for a patriarchal society to discriminate on the basis of sex at all times. So why do those who claim to be seeking a more egalitarian society, insist on retaining the linguistic indicators that make totalitarian patriarchy possible?
A quick google turned up an online copy of Douglas Hofstadter's essay, "A Person Paper on Purity in Language." Hofstadter's analogy makes it perfectly clear that sex-based pronouns are no more necessary or rational than race-based pronouns. I've used the analogy of African-Americans in the U.S. in a similar way. Imagine if, instead of adult black males taking offense at being called, "boy," they had said that while they didn't want to be called "boy" any more, they also didn't want to be called "Mister" or "Sir," since those terms were used to refer to white males and they didn't want to become invisible or lose their black identity, so they had insisted that a new term be invented, such as "Bister" or "Bir," to replace the world "boy" when used to refer to adult black males. Absurd, isn't it? Yet that's exactly what feminists did with "Ms."
I'm a philosophical anti-civilizationist. Although I do hypocritically avail myself of many benefits of civilization, I know their true cost in the despoliation of the planet. I believe that humanity and our habitat have been brought to the brink of extinction by the patriarchal concept of property that commodifies both people and things. More than 5,000 years of patriarchy and civilization have made both appear to be inevitable and invincible. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Animal rights and environmental activists have suggested that one way to revalue plants and animals would be to refer to them as living things rather than as objects, that is, as "he" and "she," rather than as "it." The way in which we refer to things is a good indicator of how much we value them. To the extent that we can eliminate unnecessary divisiveness, we create unity.
So back to Pan's statement, "I understand the desire not to be labeled "she" or "it" but insisting upon "he" reinforces the patriarchal valuing of all things male."
That doesn't leave much in the way of options. Perhaps a new term should be invented so that it can be used solely to refer to gender role deviates? Now that there are more female doctors, lawyers, and engineers, should we call them doctoresses, lawyeresses, and enginerettes, so as not to reinforce the patriarchal valuing of all things male?
Pronouns, in my experience, are the atomic forces that bind together the molecules of patriarchy. Without a way to reference a person's genital status every time we reference a person, patriarchy would begin to lose the ability to discriminate against all females on the basis of sex at all times. Without that ability, the entire structure would crumble. Not all at once, but little by little as discrimination became more and more difficult.
If an injury to one is an injury to all, then an insult to one is an insult to all. I have no fears whatsoever that the human sex drive might diminish without gender roles. It is one of the strongest forces in our lives, it existed long before gender roles were imagined, and if we can avert the destruction of the planet, it will continue long after gender roles have disappeared. There would be no difficulty in referencing an individual's sex when it was necessary to do so, as we could simply say, "He is female," or "he is male." But we would no longer be forced to refer to people in terms of genital status when it was not necessary, so we would no longer have to perpetuate patriarchy by distinguishing between people on the basis of sex every time we referred to them.
As a native English speaker first learning Spanish, I thought it absurd that inanimate objects had to be identified as either male or female to accomodate the language structure. The English language has the convenience of being able to refer to inanimate objects without regard to sex. Our coffee mugs aren't feminine and our champagne glasses aren't masculine, they're just cups and glasses.
I grew up in the nuclear age. For most of my life I've been aware that at any moment, I and everyone around me for miles, could be killed by a single bomb that would not distinguish on the basis of sex, race, age, or any other factor. Since we're likely to die equally, why shouldn't we live equally? But I believe that it is patriarchy, the subjugation of females by males, that prevents us from becoming an ecologically viable species able to control our reproductive rate in accordance with available resources and have a sustainable lifestyle without periodic overpopulation peaks and wars. So I believe that if we can abolish patriarchy, we would not be facing the inevitable extinction common to all ecologically nonviable species. If I am correct, and if pronouns really are the binding force holding patriarchy together, we might really have a chance.
Of course I could be wrong. It is possible that we could eliminate sex-based pronouns and patriarchy might continue just as before. I know what we might gain if I'm right. Can you tell me what we might lose if I'm wrong?
Views: 99
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark on
-
What toilets? Rural India doesn't have toilets. The better off people in the cities do, but they're those Asian style deals which are just a hole in the floor that you squat over. Nothing an American would recognize as a toilet. That's one of the reasons that most Americans won't take the field jobs here that undocumented Mexicans take. No toilets and no toilet breaks. You're just supposed to squat right there in the fields and be quick about it so you don't slow down the harvest.
-
-
Permalink Reply by waldopaper on
-
You can't change the culture by changing the language. Technology exists to feed the world AND control the population... voluntarily. It's not the meat... it's the stupidity.
-
-
Sure you can change the culture by changing the language, Waldo. If you couldn't, dehumanization techniques wouldn't work and people couldn't be propagandized into committing genocide.
Technology doesn't exist to feed the world or to control population, voluntarily or involuntarily. What we call technology has never created an atom, a molecule, or a quark. Nature exists to feed the world and was doing a darned good job of it until technology came along. We existed for tens of thousands of years just living off nature's bounty before agriculture was invented. Like any other animals in the wild, we knew where things grew, when they were in season, and we went there and ate. We knew which plants induced abortion and when there were more people than a clan's territory could feed, the females used them. Technology is the business of turning living things, which nature made available to everyone free of charge, into dead things that can be sold for a profit.
When a big multinational pharmaceutical company wants a morning after pill, it sends researchers to visit remote uncontacted primitive tribes and ask them what plants they use. Then they get samples of those plants and send them back to the laboratories where we "synthesize" them. But not out of nothing. We take natural substances that are chemically close and alter them. Then we send our military to overthrow the governments where those primitive tribes live, so that privately-owned multinational companies can kill the tribes and drill for oil, mine for minerals, or otherwise irreparably pollute their land so that nothing can grow there. Ten years later we find out that the synthetic pill has a side effect the plant didn't have and it is taken off the market, but we have no way to replace it. When we need another drug, we can't send our brilliant researchers to ask the primitive natives what to use, because we've killed them, and nothing grows any more where they used to be, so our technologists can't make a poor substitute for something we can no longer identify or locate because we destroyed it and we killed everyone who knew what it was. What we call technology is just our penchant for killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Yeah, it's stupidity. If we started calling technology by it's proper name, stupidity, it might change the culture enough for us to have a hope of surviving.
-
-
Chris Hedges has a new article called, The War on Language
He concludes with this paragraph:
Our crisis is a crisis of language. Victor Klemperer in his book “Lingua Tertii Imperii” noted that the distortion of language by the Nazis was vital in creating fascist culture. He was repeatedly perplexed by how the masses, even those who opposed the Nazis, willingly ingested the linguistic poison the Nazis used to perpetuate collective self-delusion. “Words may be little doses of arsenic,” he wrote. “They are consumed without being noticed; they seem at first to have no effect, but after a while, indeed, the effect is there.”
I can't prove the effect of pronouns, but I believe that if I took a group of infant males, let them conform to the patriarchal gender role assigned to males in every other way, but arranged that they would always and at all times be referred to with feminine pronouns, the result would be that their brain stems and their overall physical growth would be stunted and be more comparable to that of females in our society than that of other males, and that they would exhibit the greater rates of depression associated with females in our society.
Each tiny insult, each harmless reference to them in ways that most males would find insulting, might have no obvious immediate effect, but the cumulative effect over time would be undeniable. Patriarchy would never allow such an experiment to take place, for obvious reasons. Institutionalized discrimination is best perpetuated by keeping it from being noticed, no less challenged. I only learned the truth accidentally, and I may never be able to convince others who haven't experienced it for themselves, but it is truth nonetheless.
Maybe Galileo never said, "And yet it moves," but if he didn't, he should have. Though all the world denied it, he knew the truth. I also know a truth that the whole world denies. Perhaps people will figure it out someday, or perhaps the world won't last long enough for that to happen. But institutionalized discrimination is not harmless and if something is insulting to the ruling class, it is demeaning to the subjugated however inured to it they may be. Only if you have a choice, can you have a preference. If you were never given a choice, what you think you prefer may be what you've become accustomed to and not at all what you're prefer if you had been given a choice.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
About
© 2024 Created by waldopaper.
Powered by
