Language & Gender
One aspect of Foucault’s work that particularly interested me was the tremendous emphasis placed on the power of language. It is important to recognize the influence language holds over both impressions of the present and recollections of the past – as a filter for the human worldview, it regulates taboos, determines social climes, and passes judgment. Foucault recognizes that by studying a language, an observer can determine the values of the culture that uses it. In light of that, I find it curious that Foucault never (at least so far as I’ve read in the text) mentions the most classic and polarized linguistic dichotomy, one which is closely tied to the subject matter of The History of Sexuality – that of the masculine and feminine.
I can only imagine that an alien being studying the English language would have to conclude that the females of earth were a lesser subspecies. Though it would seem that, socially, we’ve become more enlightened towards gender issues, our language is still, in many ways, a reflection of the privileged status of the masculine. Professions are still engendered by the suffix “-man”. We are identified, as a species, as “mankind” or even just “man”, which normalizes the masculine while excluding the feminine and casting her in the role of the “other”. An overwhelming amount of slurs and insults are inherently gendered, by insinuating that a male is feminine (i.e., “You’re a pussy!”).
Likewise, female sexual pleasure (which doesn’t seem to be mentioned much in The History of Sexuality?) has long been considered abnormal – especially in the era of the Victorians. This, too, is reflected in language – most slurs that are traditionally specific to women are accusations of perceived sexual promiscuity (i.e., “You whore!”), for which no male equivalent exists. A recent feminist phenomenon known as “Slut Walks” has tried to take ownership of this double standard by redefining the word “slut”, and attempting to associate it with sexual freedom. I think it says a lot that the activists behind this movement recognized the importance of language in social change. The Slut Walks have been received with an extreme mixture of outrage and admiration, unsurprisingly, as many are shocked that women would choose to proudly brand themselves with a word that come to be considered deeply offensive. This illustrates that mysterious power of language, again: of the fury directed at the women participating in Slut Walks, much is not because of who they are, or how they act – rather, because of what they call themselves.
Words are not objective truths; we decide what they mean. It’s strange to think of language as something that can be consciously controlled, but it happens all the time. Language is regularly being shaped by politicians and popular culture, and I think it’s terrific that a movement exists to apply this to gendered language, even if it is only that one word.
by Kalliope Rodman Dalto
February 6th, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Hi Kalliope,
You are certainly right about the insufficient discussion of gender differences in this work. The next sections include one of the primary set of power relations around women’s bodies, but there is not much beyond that. Feminists of the time brought this up and criticized him and other analysts who simply assumed that “the subject” was a lot like white men. Foucault became more aware of the problem in the subsequent volumes of the series by making a point to differentiate between men and women in regard to practices of marriage and sexuality. That said, his analyses were also instrumental in strengthening and extending feminist analysis about power relations and gender. That is something we will continue to do in our discussions.
The slut walk debate is interesting in the way it follows from 4 decades of feminist analysis about language’s role in sustaining a patriarchal or masculinist system. (I use patriarchal in a more restricted way for older male-supremacist societies and masculinist for ours.) All the expected divisions have been voiced. From a Foucauldian perspective, which is largely historical, the consequence is what allows us to find out whether it was liberatory or not or if it had much effect. That is has generated a debate is a kind of renewal of various voices, which seems useful to a society that has such amnesia about the past. Some of the photographs of slut walks remind me of the corseted women in the photograph in my power point on the brothel and then Beyonce and the singers from Destiny’s Child are all dressed in similar outfits too. The impetus to respond to the sexist comment that prompted it seems to me the key element to keep front and center in the debate
February 18th, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Hi Kalliope,
I also found it interesting that much of Foucault’s text lacked focus on the masculine-feminine dichotomy. I’m not sure why though. Could it be that he was attempting to speak about the nature of power without including the dimension of a gender binary? I saw that maybe in that way, we could apply his findings to a context that contends with masculinity and femininity as discourses that we create, proliferate and deploy. His attempt may or may not be problematic because Foucault was male and male-dominated terminology may have overpowered his arguments. Do you think there was an intention behind leaving that dichotomy out, and if so, what do you think it is?