Running head: LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION: CAUSE OR SYMPTOM?
Language and Oppression: Cause or Symptom?
by
Brianna E. Cheyne
201104592
Presented to Dr. J. Edwards
in Psychology 347
Language and Communication
Department of Psychology
St. Francis Xavier University
1
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
2
Sexism has been widely documented by linguists and feminists as existing in the
structure and usage of many languages. Numerous parallels have been drawn between the
sexism that is evident in language and the prevalence of sexist attitudes throughout
societies in which these languages are spoken. While feminists have allied in their
condemnation of sexist language, there are disagreements concerning whether language
is the driving influence of societal attitudes toward women or if it is simply a reflection of
these attitudes. Cameron (1992) states that a divide can be made between those who
believe that sexist language causes women’s oppression and those who claim that sexist
language is merely a symptom of women’s oppression. A review of empirical research
demonstrates that language appeals to both sides of this debate; language is an
embodiment of culture that reinforces and perpetuates the inequality and discrimination
of women. Recognizing language’s powerful role as both a reflection of society and a
socializing influence is critical to implementing reforms that will be effective in
eradicating sexism.
Sutton’s (2010) interrelated metaphors of language as a vessel, barometer, and
lens offer a model for understanding current conceptualizations of language’s role in
intergroup relations. The metaphor of the vessel depicts the most basic function of
language: communication. Sutton views language as a container for holding or conveying
cognition. This is most straightforwardly exemplified in overt sexist language that has
been explicitly chosen to persuade or incite prejudice in others (Collins & Clement,
1992). The feminist movement originated in the 1960s as a critical response to the
pervasiveness of overt sexist attitudes within the public domain. Today, overt forms of
prejudice are witnessed infrequently due to the emergence of social norms that have
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
3
deemed them inappropriate. Language is now a vessel for covert forms of sexism. While
overt sexism still exists among some members of society, the majority views it as being
anachronistic and incongruent with modern attitudes. Covert sexism has developed
because of the difficulty involved with articulating overt sexism in contemporary society.
It is more difficult to identify because it can be communicated implicitly or with the
intention of concealing biased beliefs (Mills, 2008). Even in its new, less visible form,
sexist language continues to be an important issue for feminists.
Past and present arguments for the necessity of language reform attest to the
belief that the function of language extends beyond being a vessel that carries one’s
thoughts. A relationship is perceived between the structure and usage of languages and
the presence of sexist attitudes among those who speak them. Feminist arguments for
language reform are derived from the idea that language is not a neutral and transparent
means of communication (Ehrlich & King, 1992). Some writers on this subject are of the
opinion that language is a reflection of society and that changes to language will follow
from a more widespread upheaval of commonly held sexist attitudes. In contrast, others
have stated that changing the structure and usage of sexist language acts as a minimum of
the first step to eliminating sexism from society (Blaubergs, 1978). The latter opinion is
encompassed by the metaphor of language being a lens that can direct and distort
cognition.
The assertion that language can transform attention, thought, and memory is the
basic tenet of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the
structure of a language influences the cognition of those who speak it (Khosroshahi,
1989). Some have misinterpreted the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as advocating linguistic
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
4
determinism in which our thinking would be the direct product of our language (Mucchi,
2005). This strongly corresponds with the view that language is the cause, rather than the
symptom, of sexist language. Specifically, Sapir and Whorf’s theory was said to purport
that one could not perceive distinctions if one’s language did not have words that
specified those distinctions. In actuality, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stated that these
perceptions were facilitated by language (Blaubergs, 1978). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
can therefore be more accurately referred to as linguistic relativity, as language
influences rather than determines thought. Linguistic relativity also suggests that
language can preserve and be evidence of existing social structures (Wasserman &
Weseley, 2009). According to linguistic relativity, language also affects individuals’
conceptualizations of reality and the way that people see themselves in the world. It
supports the view that sexist attitudes are not determined exclusively by language, but are
facilitated and reinforced by it (Blaubergs, 1978). Support for linguistic relativity lends
itself to the idea that the relationship between language and oppression may be circular
language sustaining and perpetuating sexist attitudes that originated in society.
The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis has formed the basis of many studies of sexist
language. One of the best depictions of this theory can be found in the use of masculine
pronouns when generic meanings are intended. A pronoun is said to be generic when a
gendered pronoun is used to refer to both males and females. Generic pronouns are
typically masculine rather than feminine (Wasserman & Wesley, 2009). Attempts to
remove the generic masculine from language have been done under the assumption that
language somehow affects thought, since the word itself does not carry intrinsic harm
(Khosroshahi, 1989). Feminists claim that masculine generic words like he, his, and him
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
5
promote an androcentric worldview by making the feminine form of words act as
deviants of a standard masculine form (Wasserman & Wesley, 2009). In this manner,
language that contains masculine generic pronouns is a lens for perceiving males as the
norm.
A number of studies have demonstrated that writing or speaking in the generic
masculine can influence the production of sexist attitudes. A study by Briere and
Lanktree (1983) had participants read the first paragraph of the 1972 APA “Ethical
Standards of Psychologists.” Groups were either assigned to read the original version in
which the masculine generic was used or a second version that replaced “he” with “he or
she.” Participants then used a Likert scale to rate psychology on its attractiveness as a
future career for men and women as well as their willingness to refer a male friend or a
female friend to a psychologist. It was found that participants who read the original
version rated psychology as being significantly less attractive as a career for women. This
finding has serious implications. Not only does the masculine generic perpetuate the
sexist attitudes that individuals direct toward women, it is a lens that can negatively
impact the attitudes that women hold about themselves. Employment information that
relies on the use of the masculine generic could diminish women’s motivation to apply
for nontraditional jobs. Additional studies have shown that the use of the generic
masculine has detrimental consequences for women’s confidence in their ability to
perform a job and their own feelings of pride, importance, and power (Ehrlich & King,
1992).
Research that compares the influence of languages with different structures has
provided further support for Sutton’s notion that language can be represented by the
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
6
metaphor of a lens (2010). Wasserman and Wesley (2009) carried out a study that
examined whether reading a language that attaches grammatical gender to nouns would
increase sexist attitudes. They compared the attitudes of undergraduate students in the
United States after they read a passage in English, French, and Spanish. Unlike English,
French and Spanish apply gender to nouns. For example, the words to express “the
paper” are “le papier” in French and “el papel” in Spanish. The “le” and “el” indicate that
the noun has a masculine gender, whereas “the” is a definite article that is used with all
nouns in English. Languages like French and Spanish also use the masculine plural for
any group that consists of a male noun, regardless of the proportion of this noun in the
group. For example, if someone speaking French were to comment that a debate team
consisting of five females and one male made a convincing argument, he or she would
state, “Ils ont fait un argument convaincante.” The word “ils” is a masculine plural
pronoun. The use of the masculine plural can be said to promote the exclusion and
invisibility of women.
Overall, citizens of the United States have been more receptive to policies that
support the equality of women than citizens in Spain or France. Wasserman et al.’s study
recognized that this difference in sexist attitudes could not be attributed solely to
language, as there are many other cultural differences between these countries that could
be at work (2009). To control for culture, participants were American born students that
were enrolled in the highest-level French and Spanish classes offered at their high school.
Participants read a paragraph in their assigned language and completed a survey. It was
found that participants in the French and Spanish conditions expressed significantly more
sexist attitudes on the Social Attitudes Scale than those that read the English paragraph.
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
7
This study is in line with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis by showing that language had an
influence on thought even when cultural attitudes were controlled for. It is evident that
each language provided a lens through which gender roles could be perceived.
Wasserman et al. concluded that languages like French and Spanish that have gendered
nouns influence attitudes by implying that men and women represent two different
classes in society (2009). The fact that female gendered nouns occur less frequently than
male gendered nouns may contribute to women’s feelings of inferiority.
Substantial evidence that illustrates that language can influence thought has drawn
attention to the possibility that the nonsexist language could play a positive role in
changing the way people think about societal norms and gender roles. As a result, the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has acted as a foundation for many efforts to reform sexist
language (Khosroshahi, 1989). Although use of the masculine generic has declined
substantially since it was first targeted by language reforms, evidence is required to
demonstrate if this has had a corresponding effect on cognition. Based on consistent
findings that the masculine pronoun can be interpreted as excluding women even in
generic contexts, Khosroshahi (1989) explored whether individuals who had reformed
their own language and did not use the masculine generic would interpret generic
sentences differently than those who had not reformed their language. In other words, the
study sought to test the legitimacy of reforms and to determine whether those who were
more egalitarian in their language were also more egalitarian in their thoughts.
Students in Khosroshahi’s study were divided on the basis of their usage of
generic masculine pronouns (1989). Participants were regarded as “traditional” in their
language production if they consistently used the generic masculine in a term paper.
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
8
Those, who at least some of the time, replaced the masculine generic with he or she or
singular they were considered as being “reformed” in their language usage. Each
participant read a sex-neutral paragraph with generic he, he or she or they and drew their
mental imagery of it on a piece of paper. It was assumed that these images would be
related to the comprehension of a generic person. The results of this study found that he
or she evoked the highest number of female images (34%), they the second highest
(26%), and he the lowest number (19%). Overall, it was found that he or she was most
often interpreted in reference to a male figure. In an analysis of gender differences
between participants, women with reformed language showed the opposite pattern by
drawing mainly female figures. They also differed from the other groups by sketching
female figures when presented with the generic he. Khosroshahi (1989) explained this
finding in terms of an information processing theory called associative activation.
Females with reformed language likely interpreted he-paragraphs in terms of female
referents because they developed top-down, controlled processes to inhibit the
automatically evoked masculine generic.
In most cases, thought and language were found to be consistent. The majority of
men and women who used traditional language in their writing also interpreted generic
paragraphs according to male referents, making their language and thought androcentric.
Similarly, females with reformed language comprehended generic text in ways that were
consistent with the feminist ideology that they had adopted. It was only males with
reformed language that demonstrated discrepancies between use of pronouns and
thought. Their language included women, but their sketches did not (Khosroshahi, 1989).
In relation to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in which differences in language influence
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
9
differences in thought, it can be gathered that all groups supported this thesis except the
males that had reformed their language. These findings can be explained through the
introduction of sexist attitudes as an additional factor that moderates the relationship
between language and thought.
Khosroshahi (1989) states that whether participants with reformed language
displayed reformed comprehension of generic pronouns depended on the depth of the
underlying change of their sexist attitudes. When male participants assumed reformed
linguistic behaviour they appeared to have only been subject to a superficial change of
attitude. Rather than being motivated by personal convictions, this was likely brought on
by extraneous influences such as situational demands or societal pressures. Kelman
(1974) compared this overt compliance with a deeper, more personal attitude change that
he called internalization. Compliance occurs when one abides by a social norm in order
to avoid disapproval. The men who displayed reformed language appear to have only
changed their attitudes at the level of compliance. Internalization requires individuals to
engage in an authentic change of attitudes in which new values are fully integrated into
one’s belief system. The women in Khosroshahi’s (1989) study that reformed their
language can be said to have experienced an internalization of nonsexist attitudes, as they
have altered their own private conceptions of who the generic person is.
In his third metaphor, Sutton (2010) describes language as being a barometer that
reveals attitudes. At an individual level, the use of particular words and phrasing typically
aid a recipient to gauge a speaker’s attitudes. It is not always easy to successfully
recognize prejudice toward women because some forms of sexist language are not
reliably signified through language or may be difficult to identify. This was the case with
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
10
male participants in Khosroshahi’s (1989) study who had reformed their language but did
not show compatible conceptions of generic pronouns. Language’s ability to serve as a
reliable barometer depends on the depth of the attitudes that one holds as well as
situational contexts. It has been noted by Kelman (1974) that attitudes based on
compliance tend to only to come to fruition in situations when one is being observed or
feels pressured to conform to social norms. Attitudes that have been internalized are
much more consistent in their presentation, as they often manifest when surveillance is
not involved. Just as Whorf speculated that language influences thought, some
researchers insist that cognitive changes are brought on by genuine commitments to new
attitudes. People who actively initiate linguistic reform have a greater likelihood of
experiencing congruent reform of thought.
Societal attitudes toward reformed language can be dissected from a number of
angles. For example, a study by Parks and Robertson (2008) found significant differences
between the receptivity of an 18-22-year-old cohort to language reforms and the
receptivity of older age groups. An abundance of studies have outlined the ways in which
other factors such as gender, education, and religion can also act as predictors of
acceptance and usage of reformed language. It is unlikely that language alone is able to
affect the thoughts of people of different ages, genders, education levels, and religions
differently. In its role as a barometer, language measures or reflects attitudes that exist
throughout the various layers of society. It is important to differentiate between
individual attitudes and the attitudes that social norms judge as being appropriate. Social
norms regulate behaviour by dictating what attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs are
acceptable (Collins & Clement, 2012). Feminists are correct in their assertion that
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
11
language is a symptom of the oppression of women in society. In the early twentieth
century, social norms accepted overt sexism. These norms changed with the mounting
feminist movement, leading this overt form of sexism to decline in language. Although,
sexist attitudes are now widely intolerable in the public sphere, they are still
communicated covertly (Mills, 2008). Thus, it appears that individuals may not have
changed their attitudes to the extent that current social norms would suggest. By
analyzing individuals and prevailing social norms, it is possible to attain an
understanding of the ways that language reflects sexist attitudes.
A compilation of research demonstrates that language can be accurately described
a cause and symptom of women’s oppression. This finding can be applied to the
development and implementation of strategies for reducing this oppression. The most
effective strategy likely involves concurrent efforts to change sexist attitudes as well as
the sexist elements embedded in the structure of language, as these factors are
inextricably related. The outcome of gender-based reforms is contingent on the societal
context in which the language reform occurs. In the face of sexist attitudes, many reforms
undergo a form of depreciation in which non-sexist terms are misused and misinterpreted
(Peterson, 1994). For example, feminists have introduced words like “chairperson” to
replace sexist terms like “chairman.” Rather than being a word that is used universally,
“chairperson” is predominantly used in reference to women. Prevailing attitudes
significantly influence the extent to which non-sexist terms are used. This idea has been
summarized by Cameron (1992), who stated that, “In the mouths of sexists, language can
always be sexist.” It is important for language reforms to coincide with a widespread
discussions and challenges of sexist beliefs. Although sexist language reforms are not
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
12
always immediately or completely successful, they still maintain an integral role in
promoting gender equality. Language is one of the main areas that bring social
inequalities to light. Reforms make individuals aware of their linguistic behaviour and
encourage them to monitor their thought processes. This heightened attention can lend to
a gradual unlearning of prejudicial ways of thinking (Peterson, 1994).
If oppression is an illness of society, it is important that treatment is prescribed to
both its cause and the symptoms. It has been demonstrated that language is a bridge
between social and cognitive worlds. Language is influences and is influenced by the
external world. Its complex relationship with sexist attitudes summarized through the
metaphors of language as a vessel that communicates cognition, a lens that distorts
cognition, and a barometer that exposes cognition. While ample research discusses the
negative impact of that language and attitudes toward women can have, it is perhaps even
more consequential to recognize the capacity that reformed language and attitudes can
have for improving women’s realities. While language is generally implicated in
supporting prevailing social norms, it has also acted as a tool to change these norms.
Questioning the acceptance of norms and sexist language is source of empowerment for
members of disadvantaged groups. Efforts by feminists to understand the ways that
language and societal attitudes are interwoven can only serve to improve the
effectiveness of reforms.
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
13
References
Blaubergs, M. S. (1978). Changing the sexist language: The theory behind the
practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2(3), 244-261. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/60838533?accountid=13803
Briere, J., & Lanktree, C. (1983). Sex-role related effects of sex bias in language. Sex
Roles, 9(5), 625-632. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/60080216?accountid=13803
Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St.
Martin's.
Collins, K. A., & Clement, R. (2012). Language and prejudice: Direct and moderated
effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(4), 376-396.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12446611
Ehrlich, S., & King, R. (1992). Gender-based language reform and the social construction
of meaning. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 151-166. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61346731?accountid=1380
Kelman, H. C. (I974). Social influence and linkages between the individual and the social
system. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social power. (125-171)
Chicago, Illinois: Aldine.
Khosroshahi, F. (1989). Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of
a whorfian problem. Language in Society,18(4), 505-525. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61221425?accountid=13803
LANGUAGE AND OPPRESSION
14
Mills, S. (2008). Language and sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mucchi, F. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality.
Social Science Information, 44(1), 189-215. doi: 10.1177/0539018405050466
Peterson, E. E. (1994). Nonsexist language reform and 'political correctness'. Women and
Language, 17(2), 6. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/60274726?accountid=13803
Sutton, R. M. (2010). The creative power of language in social cognition and intergroup
relations. In H. Giles, S. A. Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.), The dynamics of
intergroup communication (pp. 105-115). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wasserman, B. D., & Weseley, A. J. (2009). ¿Qué? quoi? do languages with grammatical
gender promote sexist attitudes? Sex Roles, 61(9-10), 634-643.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9696-3