Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis
1403_914850_02_previ.fm Page v Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:13 PM
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
vii
Notes on the Contributors
viii
List of Abbreviations
xi
1 Politicizing Gender in Discourse: Feminist Critical Discourse
Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis
Michelle M. Lazar
Part I
1
Post-Equality? Analyses of Subtle Sexism
2 Power and Discourse at Work: Is Gender Relevant?
Janet Holmes
31
3 The Gender of Power: The Female Style in
Labour Organizations
Luisa Martín Rojo and Concepción Gómez Esteban
61
4 Gender Mainstreaming and the European Union:
Interdisciplinarity, Gender Studies and CDA
Ruth Wodak
90
5 Negotiating the Classroom Floor: Negotiating Ideologies of Gender and Sexuality
Kathryn A. Remlinger
6 Performing State Fatherhood: The Remaking of Hegemony
Michelle M. Lazar
Part II
114
139
Emancipation and Social Citizenship:
Analyses of Identity and Difference
7 Choosing to Refuse to be a Victim:
‘Power Feminism’ and the Intertextuality of Victimhood and Choice
Mary Talbot v 167
1403_914850_02_previ.fm Page vi Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:13 PM
vi Contents
8 Interdiscursivity, Gender Identity and the Politics of Literacy in Brazil
Izabel Magalhães
181
9 The ‘Terrorist Feminist’: Strategies of Gate-Keeping in the Hungarian Printed Media
Erzsébet Barát
205
10 Assumptions about Gender, Power and Opportunity:
Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects in a
Portuguese Newspaper
Carlos A. M. Gouveia
Index
229
251
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 1 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
1
Politicizing Gender in Discourse:
Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis
Michelle M. Lazar
A critical perspective on unequal social arrangements sustained through language use, with the goals of social transformation and emancipation, constitutes the cornerstone of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and many feminist language studies. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis brings together, for the first time, an international collection of studies at the nexus of CDA and feminist scholarship (which includes feminist studies of language.)1 The specific aim of the volume is to advance a rich and nuanced understanding of the complex workings of power and ideology in discourse in sustaining a (hierarchically) gendered social order.
This is especially pertinent in present times where issues of gender, power and ideology have become increasingly complex and subtle. First, feminist debates and theorization since the late 1980s have shown that speaking of ‘women’ and ‘men’ in universal, totalizing terms is problematic. Gender as a category intersects with, and is shot through by, other categories of social identity such as sexuality, ethnicity, social position and geography. Patriarchy is also an ideological system that interacts in complex ways with say, corporatist and consumerist ideologies. Second, the workings of gender ideology and asymmetrical power relations in discourse are assuming more subtle forms in the contemporary period, albeit in different degrees and ways in different local communities.
Grounded in specific empirical studies, the contributions in this book address both kinds of intricacy in their analyses of various discursive structures and strategies emergent in their different texts and talk. In a variety of cultural and institutional contexts – which include the news and advertising media, educational settings, workplaces, governments and transnational organizations – the studies show the complex and subtle ways in which taken-for-granted social assumptions and hegemonic
1
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 2 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
2 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
power relations are discursively produced, perpetuated, negotiated and challenged. That these studies are not merely textual de-construction for its own sake, but that the issues dealt with (in view of effecting social transformation) have actual material and phenomenological consequences for groups of women and men in specific societies, is put across in the volume.
‘Feminist critical discourse analysis’ and the politics of naming Why a feminist critical discourse analysis?
Over the last ten years or so, in several branches of discourse studies there has been a concerted move to explicitly include the label ‘feminist’ in the various sub-fields by feminist scholars working in these areas. For example, we now have ‘feminist stylistics’ (Mills 1995), ‘feminist pragmatics’ (Christie 2000), and ‘feminist conversation analysis’ (see, for example, Kitzinger 2000). In all these areas, the mainstream research has been characterized by a supposedly neutral and objective inquiry, which feminist scholars operating within it have challenged. Writing more broadly about ‘feminism and linguistic theory’ in 1992, Cameron explained that one of her main objectives was to ‘question the whole scholarly objective bias of linguistics and to show how assumptions and practices of linguistics are implicated in patriarchal ideology and oppression’ (1992: 16). The need to identify and establish a feminist perspective in language and discourse studies is of course part of what feminists in the academia have for many years criticized and sought to change across male-stream disciplines in the humanities, social sciences and sciences (Spender 1981).
One might nonetheless quite reasonably ask, ‘But why a feminist CDA?’
Eschewing the ‘disciplinary’ label and preferring instead to be seen as a research perspective (van Dijk 1994a) or a research programme (Fairclough and Wodak 1997), CDA is known for its overtly political stance and is concerned with all forms of social inequality and injustice. Moreover, the debt CDA owed to feminist approaches in women’s studies in providing an impetus to the fledgling field in the 1980s has also sometimes been openly acknowledged (van Dijk 1991). It is not surprising, therefore, that feminists have been working quite happily under the rubric of
CDA without needing to explicitly flag a feminist perspective.
Why, then, the explicit feminist label? There are a number of reasons for it. First, the most straightforward is that studies in CDA with a gender
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 3 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 3
focus mostly adopt a critical feminist view of gender relations, motivated by the need to change the existing conditions of these relations; thus what emerges from this volume, for instance, is clearly a set of distinctly feminist concerns. Even where individual authors may not use the term
‘feminist’ overtly, it is necessary as a collective to make explicit that shared perspective.
Second, the following reservations expressed by some feminists provide pause for thought. Cameron (1998: 969–70) wrote that ‘[CDA] is one of those broadly progressive projects whose founders and dominant figures are nevertheless all straight white men, and Wilkinson and
Kitzinger (1995) specifically remark on these men’s failure to give credit to feminists by citing their work.’ In my view, the social identities of these CDA practitioners per se are not a problem as frequently these same men are sympathetic to feminist concerns. What is striking, though, is that most feminist research in CDA is undertaken by a diversity of women in a wide range of geographical locations, not all of whom are white and heterosexual. In regard to Wilkinson and Kitzinger’s observation, one might note that more recent theorization in some quarters of
CDA does draw upon and include, among other sources, feminist works
(for example, Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). In terms of a feminist
CDA, however, we might envisage more than citations from feminist scholars, important as that is. It is necessary within CDA to establish a distinctly ‘feminist politics of articulation’ (to borrow Wetherell’s 1995:
141 phrase), i.e. to theorize and analyse from a critical feminist perspective the particularly insidious and oppressive nature of gender as an omni-relevant category in most social practices. Eckert, for instance, has pointed to the way gender operates in a pervasive and complex way from other systems of oppression:
Whereas the power relations between men and women are similar to those between dominated and subordinated classes and ethnic groups, the day to day context in which these power relations are played out is quite different. It is not a cultural norm for each working class individual to be paired up for life with a member of the middle class or for every black person to be so paired up for life with a white person. However, our traditional gender ideology dictates just this kind of relationship between men and women.
(1989: 253–4)
Third, a consequence of the absence of self-naming has meant that feminist critical discourse analysts dispersed across the globe have not
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 4 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
4 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
sufficiently organized themselves to come together in a shared forum.
This volume, it is hoped, is one such attempt to draw together international scholars working in ‘feminist CDA’. The issue of collectivity and gaining group visibility is important, too, for another reason. Although
CDA in its early years had a marginal status within the more established mainstream fields in linguistics, today it has shifted more to the centre and has become somewhat of an orthodoxy itself (see Billig 2000).
Writing in the early 1990s, van Dijk had remarked that ‘[f]or CDA to become a prominent approach in the humanities and social sciences, we should expect dozens of books, hundreds of articles and conference papers, and special symposia or conference sections yearly’ (1991: 1).
More than ten years on, all these have been achieved and more: for example, in the year 2004, an international CDA conference and, separately, a new international journal on critical discourse studies have appeared. The importance, then, of feminist visibility and voice in ‘mainstream’ CDA scholarship, interestingly, also has a political function.
Why a feminist critical discourse analysis?
It is now widely recognized that there has been a turn towards language or, more specifically, towards discourse in social scientific research.
From post-structuralist theorization, we have a view of discourse as a site of struggle, where forces of social (re)production and contestation are played out. Within feminist scholarship, the discursive turn, not surprisingly, therefore, is reflected in volumes outside linguistics (for example, Wilkinson and Kitzinger 1995) as well as within linguistics
(for example, Hall and Bucholtz 1995; Wodak 1997; Litosseliti and
Sunderland 2002). The present volume, from the perspective of feminist
CDA, is intended as a timely contribution to the growing body of feminist discourse literature.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995: 5) have noted that there is really ‘no necessary coincidence between the interests of feminists and discourse analysts’, even though the possibility for fruitful engagement is there.
In terms of feminism and CDA in particular, however, there is actually much overlap in terms of social emancipatory goals. Indeed, unlike feminist approaches that apply descriptive discourse analytic methods, feminist CDA has the advantage of operating, at the outset, within a politically invested programme of discourse analysis. CDA offers a sophisticated theorization of the relationship between social practices and discourse structures (see, for example, Wodak and Meyer 2001, for various types of theorization), and a wide range of tools and strategies for close analysis of actual, contextualized uses of language. Further,
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 5 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 5
under the umbrella of CDA research, explicit analyses of various forms of systemic inequalities have been developed. For feminist discourse scholars, much can be learnt about the interconnections as well as particularities of discursive strategies employed in various forms of social oppression that can feed back into feminist strategies for social change. The marriage of feminism with CDA, in sum, can produce a rich and powerful political critique for action.
Feminist CDA as a political perspective on gender, concerned with demystifying the interrelationships of gender, power and ideology in discourse, is equally applicable to the study of texts as well as talk, which offers a corrective to approaches that primarily favour one linguistic mode over another. Frameworks for analysis of discourse in CDA (for example, Kress and van Leeuwen 1996; Scollon 2001) also, importantly, acknowledge a multimodal dimension. Together with language, other semiotic modalities (such as visual images, layouts, gestures and sounds) are analysed, making for an enriching and insightful analysis. Clearly, a multimodal view of discourse has great value for a holistic feminist critique of discursive constructions of gender (Lazar 1999; 2000).
Feminist critical discourse analysis as political praxis
Key interrelated principles of feminist CDA as theory and practice are outlined below.
Feminist analytical resistance
CDA is part of an emancipatory critical social science which, as mentioned, is openly committed to the achievement of a just social order through a critique of discourse. As feminist critical discourse analysts, our central concern is with critiquing discourses which sustain a patriarchal social order: that is, relations of power that systematically privilege men as a social group and disadvantage, exclude and disempower women as a social group. One of the aims is to show that social practices on the whole, far from being neutral, are in fact gendered in this way. The gendered nature of social practices can be described on two levels (Connell
1987; Flax 1990). First, ‘gender’ functions as an interpretative category that enables participants in a community to make sense of and structure their particular social practices. Second, gender is a social relation that enters into and partially constitutes all other social relations and activities.
Based on the specific, asymmetric meanings of ‘male’ and ‘female’, and the consequences being assigned to one or the other within concrete social practices, such an allocation becomes a constraint on further practices.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 6 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
6 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
A feminist political critique of gendered social practices and relations is aimed ultimately at effecting social transformation. The social status quo is contested in favour of a feminist humanist vision of a just society, in which gender does not predetermine or mediate our relationships with others, and our sense of who we are or might become (Hill Collins
1990; Grant 1993). Analysis of discourse which shows up the workings of power that sustain oppressive social structures/relations is itself a form of ‘analytical resistance’ (van Dijk 1991), and contributes to ongoing struggles of contestation and change.
The radical emancipatory agenda makes for a ‘praxis-oriented research’, centrally based upon a dialectical relationship between theory and practice (Lather 1986). This entails mobilizing theory in order to create critical awareness and develop feminist strategies for resistance and change. The imbrication of power and ideology in discourse is sometimes not as apparent to participants involved in particular social practices as it is from the point of view of critical theorization of their interrelations (Kress 1990; Fairclough 1992; Fairclough and Wodak 1997).
In other words, to speak from the position of a ‘woman’ is not the same as speaking from the political perspective of a feminist. Grant (1993:
181) puts this nicely when she writes that ‘to know as a woman means to know from the perspective of the structure of gender. In contrast, a feminist perspective means that one has a critical distance on gender and on oneself.’ The critical praxis orientation not only informs the approach to social justice; it also shapes the theory itself. As Kress
(1990: 88) noted of CDA, such an orientation entails making ‘linguistics itself more accountable, more responsible, and more responsive to questions of social equity’.
A critical praxis-oriented research, therefore, cannot and does not pretend to adopt a neutral stance; in fact, as Lather (1986: 259) notes, it is scholarship that makes its biases part of its argument. To critics who discount overtly political research as lacking in ‘objectivity’ and
‘scientificity’ (see, for example, Widdowson’s 1995 criticism of CDA), the feminist position has been to raise as problematic the notion of scientific neutrality itself, because it fails to recognize that all knowledge is socially and historically constructed and valuationally based (Harding
1986; Fox-Keller 1996; see also Chouliaraki and Fairclough’s 1999 response to Widdowson).
‘Gender’ as ideological structure
From a critical view, ideologies are representations of practices formed from particular perspectives in the interest of maintaining unequal
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 7 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 7
power relations and dominance. Although such a view of ideology in
Marxist accounts was developed specifically in terms of class relations, the concept now has wider currency and encompasses other relations of domination (Fairclough and Wodak 1997), including gender. From a feminist perspective, the prevailing conception of gender is understood as an ideological structure that divides people into two classes, men and women, based on a hierarchical relation of domination and subordination, respectively. Based upon sexual difference, the gender structure imposes a social dichotomy of labour and human traits for women and men, the substance of which varies according to time and place. Feminists have long criticized the easy mapping of physiological sex on to social gender, and more recently some have critiqued the naturalness of
‘sex’ itself, arguing that it too is socially constructed (Butler 1993).
Grant (1993: 185) puts it this way: ‘[I]t is true that the structure of gender acts through and is inscribed on sexed bodies, but the whole idea of two sexes only has meaning because those meanings are required by the gender structure in the first place.’ Although, as individuals, people may deviate from the archetypes of masculinity and femininity pertinent to a community, this nonetheless occurs against the ideological structure of gender that privileges men as a social group, giving them what Connell
(1995) terms a ‘patriarchal dividend’, in terms of access to symbolic, social, political and economic capital. One example of symbolic capital accrued to men in English-speaking cultures, for instance, is in the way male pronouns and nouns have been given generic status in the English language, which by default always assures men of visibility, whilst simultaneously rendering women invisible (Spender 1985).
Gender ideology is hegemonic in that it often does not appear as domination at all; instead it seems largely consensual and acceptable to most in a community. The winning of consent and the perpetuation of the otherwise tenuous relation of dominance (Gramsci 1971) are largely accomplished through discursive means, especially in the ways ideological assumptions are constantly re-enacted and circulated through discourse as commonsensical and natural. The taken-for-grantedness and normalcy of such knowledge is what mystifies or obscures the power differential and inequality at work. One of the persuasive and enduring commonsensical assumptions has been the ‘naturalness’ of the ‘two sex only’ idea, and that of necessity the two, also in social terms, must be inherently contrasting. The contrast in most cultures, as Cameron (1996) notes, is read as complementary (that is, matching what the ‘opposite sex’ is not), and is rendered desirable such that at least some aspects of the status quo have appeal, even though materially that disempowers women.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 8 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
8 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
To say that patriarchal gender ideology is structural is to suggest that it is enacted and renewed in a society’s institutions and social practices, which mediate between the individual and the social order. It means, therefore, that asymmetrical gender relations cannot merely be explained by individuals’ intentions, even though it is often individuals who act as agents of oppression (Weedon 1997). Connell (1987; 1995) argues that institutions are substantively structured in terms of gender ideology so that even though gender may not be the most important aspect in a particular instance, it is in the majority of cases. This accounts for the pervasiveness of tacit androcentrism in many organizational cultures, in which not only men but also frequently women are complicit. (See the case of women professors in universities, and women employees in companies who perpetuate sexist attitudes and practices in Chapters 5 and 3, respectively, in this volume.) In turn, gender inequality gets perpetuated through women’s and men’s habitual, differential participation in their particular institutions, also understood in terms of particular communities of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992).
The various ways that the institutionalization of gender inequality is discursively enacted are examined in this volume in regard to a wide range of institutions and social practices: in advertising and news media, educational settings, workplaces and associations, and political institutions.2 These institutions range from the local (Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8), national (Chapters 6, 7, 9 and 10) to supranational (Chapter 4) levels. Although the prevailing gender ideology is hegemonic and is routinely exercised in a myriad of social practices, it is also contestable. The dialectical tension between structural permanences and the practical activity of people engaged in social practices (Chouliaraki and Fairclough
1999), means that there are ruptures in the otherwise seamless and natural quality of gender ideology. While a focus on creativity and transgression is important, this must be, at the same time, carefully considered in relation to the constraints and possibilities afforded by particular social structures and practices. Otherwise, a celebration of agency on its own can become romanticized; as Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 48) remind us, the extent to which, and for whom, interaction can be creative largely depend on the particular social structures. Another issue worth considering is whether acts that go against gendered expectations may unwittingly result in the reinforcement of the existing gender structure.
For instance, the ‘masculinization’ of talk by women in power (see
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 below), or the ‘feminization’ of forms of masculinity
(see Chapter 6), on one level, may appear to transgress the expected gender
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 9 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 9
norms for women and men; yet, on another level, these gender crossings inadvertently emphasize the underlying dualism of the gender structure and, as these studies also show, the deviations from the gender-appropriate norms are policed through criticism by others and/ or through containment.
Complexity of gender and power relations
Third-wave feminist and post-structuralist theories have contributed to complex and nuanced understandings of power relations and gender at work within particular social orders. Two important insights for a feminist CDA have been the recognition of difference and diversity among
‘women’ (and ‘men’), which has called for undertaking historically and culturally contingent analyses of gender and sexism; and the pervasiveness of the subtle, discursive workings of modern power in many modern societies (both of these are discussed below). While there is a diversity of forms which gender and sexism assume in different cultures and across time, the structure of gender (and the power asymmetry that it entails) has been remarkably persistent over time and place. An important goal, then, for feminist CDA is to undertake contingent analyses of the oppression of women, as Rubin has put it, in its ‘endless variety and monotonous similarity’ (quoted in Fraser and Nicholson 1990: 28).
Power relations are a struggle over interests, which are exercised, reflected, maintained and resisted through a variety of modalities, extents and degrees of explicitness. Overt forms of gender asymmetries or sexism include blatant exclusionary gate-keeping social practices, physical violence against women, and misogynistic verbal harassment and denigration. Such overt manifestations of power (or the threat of it), to varying extents, remain a reality for women in many societies, including Western societies such as the USA which, in spite of legislation against blatant sex discrimination, continues to witness a rampant
‘rape culture’. Much more pervasive and insidious in modern societies, however, is the operation of a subtle and seemingly innocuous form of power that is substantively discursive in nature. This form of power is embedded and dispersed throughout networks of relations, is selfregulating, and produces subjects in both senses of the word (Foucault
1977). From a feminist perspective, it is necessary to note, though, that even though power may be ‘everywhere’, gendered subjects are affected by it in different ways. From a critical discourse analytic perspective, too, it is useful to complement the concept of modern power with the view of power relations as dominance, particularly in Gramsci’s terms of hegemony (see Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). The effectiveness
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 10 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
10 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
of modern power (and hegemony) is that it is mostly cognitive, based on an internalization of gendered norms and acted out routinely in the texts and talk of everyday life. This makes it an invisible power, ‘misrecognized’ as such, and ‘recognized’ instead as quite legitimate and natural
(Bourdieu 1991). Relations of power and dominance (cf. Foucault,
Bourdieu and Gramsci), however, can be discursively resisted as well as counter-resisted in a dynamic struggle over securing and challenging the interests at stake. The task of feminist CDA is to examine how power and dominance are discursively produced and/or resisted in a variety of ways through textual representations of gendered social practices, and through interactional strategies of talk. Also of concern to feminist CDA are issues of access to forms of discourse, such as particular communicative events and culturally valued genres (see van Dijk 1993; 1996) that can be empowering for women’s participation in public domains (see
Chapters 5 and 8 below).
The mechanisms of power not only often work in subtle and complex ways, but the relations of asymmetry are also produced and experienced in complexly different ways for and by different groups of women.
A major advance in current feminist theory has been the acknowledgement that the category ‘woman’ in second-wave theorization lacked generic status – that is, standing universally for all women – in the same way that second-wave feminists found that the category ‘man’ did not encompass all of humankind. Even though women are subordinated to men structurally in the patriarchal gender order, the overlap of the gender structure with other relations of power based on race/ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, age, culture and geography means that gender oppression is neither materially experienced nor discursively enacted in the same way for women everywhere. For example, Butler
(1990), among others, has argued for the way systems of heterosexism and gender combine to produce normative gender identities that are implicitly heterosexist (see Chapters 6 and 9 below), which affords relatively more privilege to heterosexual women than to lesbians.
Lesbians, in fact, may experience greater discrimination in that not only are they marginalized by the hetero-gendered order, they are made further invisible as ‘women’ even in the gay community (see Chapter
10 below).
Acknowledging differences among women and the forms of sexism to which they are differentially subject does not eschew the broader feminist political project of emancipation and social justice for ‘women’; rather, there is a need for feminist political action to be inflected by the specificity of cultural, historical and institutional frameworks, and
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 11 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
11
contextualized in terms of women’s complexly constructed social identities (Lazar 2002). Feminist CDA then would imply a perspective that is comparativist rather than universalizing, attentive to the discursive aspects of the forms of oppression and interests which divide as well as unite groups of women. In the comparativist spirit, this volume brings together studies located in geographically and culturally diverse contexts, ranging from what is sometimes (crudely) referred to as the ‘first’, ‘third’ and (formerly) ‘second’ worlds. Even within similar groups, it is necessary to attend to points of commonality and differences. Chapters 2–4 all deal with professional women of high socio-economic status in affluent Western countries. Although the concerns of this group of women can be said to be fairly similar, and collectively very different from working-class women from non-Western countries (see, for example,
Chapter 8 below), they each also manifest different levels and forms of discrimination in their respective workplaces.
Discourse in the (de)construction of gender
Post-structuralist conceptions of discourse as socially constitutive signifying practices have been fruitfully combined with linguistic approaches in many CDA and recent gender and language studies. Along with
Chouliariaki and Fairclough (1999), feminist CDA takes the view of discourse as one element of social practices; of particular interest to discourse analysts are those aspects of social practices that are discursive in character (talking and writing, for example, are discursive ways of acting) and also discursively represented in particular ideological ways. As
Fairclough (1992; 1995) has noted, the relationship between discourse and the social is a dialectical one, in which discourse constitutes, and is constituted by, social situations, institutions and structures. The notion of constitution applies in the sense that every act of meaning-making through spoken and written language use and other forms of semiosis contributes to the reproduction and maintenance of the social order, and also in the sense of resisting and transforming that order.
The discursive constitution of the social may be analysed broadly in terms of representations, relationships and identities (Fairclough 1989;
1992). For feminist CDA, the focus is on how gender ideology and gendered relations of power are (re)produced, negotiated and contested in representations of social practices, in social relationships between people, and in people’s social and personal identities in texts and talk.
Underlying a critical feminist analysis of discourse in these three domains is the principle of ‘gender relationality’, which may be signalled explicitly or maintained implicitly in the studies. Gender relationality entails a
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 12 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
12 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
focus on two kinds of relationships. First, and primarily, the focus is on the discursive co-constructions of ways of doing and being a woman and a man in particular communities of practice. The concern is not with women in isolation, but vis-à-vis men within particular gender orders.
Gender relationality in this sense also renders analysable, from a feminist perspective, how men talk (see Johnson and Meinhof 1997) and are textually represented. Second, gender relationality entails an analytic focus also on the dynamics between forms of masculinity (Connell
1995): specifically, in terms of how these participate within hierarchies of oppression that affect women. Similarly, there needs to be a critical awareness of relations among (groups of) women: for example, how women may rally together in solidarity to oppose some form of discrimination, or how women themselves operating within androcentric cultures
(for instance, at home or at salaried workplaces) help perpetuate sexist attitudes and practices against other women. Where the aim of such analysis is praxis-oriented and concerned with social transformation of structures of gender oppression, awareness and attitudinal change by both men and women are necessary.
Social constructionist approaches emphasize the on-going, iterative and active accomplishment of gender (along with other identities) in and through discourse (West, Lazar and Kramarae 1997). Accomplishment suggests that people, through their linguistic (and non-linguistic) behaviour, produce rather than reflect a priori identities as ‘women’ and
‘men’ in particular historical and cultural locations, although the produced identities often get viewed as ‘natural’, immanent and transhistorical.
Within feminist CDA, the use of both the ethnomethodologically-based concept of ‘doing gender’ as well as the post-modernist idea of ‘gender performativity’ can be found. The ethnomethodological ‘take’ is quite clearly compatible with feminist CDA research in its insistence on situating gender accomplishments within institutional frameworks, and in asserting that doing gender means creating hierarchical differences between people (West and Zimmerman 1987). The ethnomethodological orientation is evident in this volume, for example, in Holmes’ and
Wodak’s discussions on ‘doing power’ and ‘doing politics’, respectively.
Post-modernist understandings of ‘gender as performance’, however, have been notably problematic for some feminists (e.g., Grant 1993;
Kotthoff and Wodak 1997; Hekman 1999), who rightly point out that there is a tendency by Butler, for instance, to locate everything in discourse and overlook experiential and material aspects of identity and power relations. Also problematic from a feminist perspective is the celebration of individual freedoms to perform transgressive acts such as
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 13 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
13
cross-dressing, which are not tantamount to a radical subversion of the gender structures; indeed, such acts unwittingly only help to reinforce those very structures. However, it needs to be noted, too, that Butler
(1990) does acknowledge (especially in earlier accounts) the coerciveness of ‘rigid regulatory frames’ that police gender performances in a way which makes the accomplishment of identities neither freely chosen nor entirely determined acts. A political ‘take’ on performativity, based on empirical studies, is of value to feminist CDA (see Chapters 5 and 6 below). Although typically gender and language studies have applied gender performativity to research on individuals in talk, Chapter 6 also shows how gender identities can be performed representationally in texts, and by institutional bodies.
Investigations of the interrelations between gender, power, ideology and discourse are necessarily complex and multifaceted, which explains why feminist studies and CDA alike (and feminist CDA at their confluence) are open to interdisciplinary research. The interdisciplinarity in feminist CDA is evident on three counts: first, in terms of the kinds of social and political questions it seeks to address, and the range of theoretical and empirical inspiration that underpins the research; second, it is evident, methodologically, in some studies, in the collection and contextualization of linguistic data based on ethnographic methods, which include interviews and participant observation (see Chapters 2, 5 and 8 below); third, in terms of actual collaborative research undertaken between scholars across disciplines (see in this volume the call by
Wodak; note also Chapter 3, which attests to joint research by a linguist and a sociologist).
The scope and approach to analysis of discourse within feminist CDA is also catholic. Based on concrete analysis, the data in feminist CDA includes contextualized instances of spoken and written language as well as other forms of semiosis such as visual images, layout, gestures and actions. While the analysis of data includes meanings expressed overtly, it is especially attentive to the less obvious, nuanced and implicit meanings for the subtle and complex renderings of ideological assumptions and power relations in contemporary societies. The approach and tools for undertaking principled analysis of talk and text are many and varied. The analytic frameworks and categories include those from pragmatics, semantics, systemic-functional grammar, narrative structures and conversation analysis. Although some would argue against the compatibility between conversation analysis and CDA perspectives
(see Schegloff 1997), feminist conversation analysts have found the engagement a fruitful one (see Stokoe and Weatherall 2002; see also
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 14 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
14 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Chapter 2 below). These feminist scholars stress both the value of the emergent character of gender in interactions, and the need for sociohistorical and institutional framing of the category of gender.
Levels and foci of analysis in feminist CDA are also wide-ranging, including choices in lexis, clauses/sentences/utterances, conversational turns, structures of argument and genre, and interactions between discourses. The latter, also known as interdiscursive analysis (Fairclough
1992), is influenced particularly by Bakhtin’s (1981) idea of the dialogicality of texts, and is concerned with the identification of, and more importantly the interaction between, different discourses (and also genres) within particular texts and talk. (See Chapter 7 below for an elaboration of the concept.) For example, I have identified the presence of two competing discourses of gender relations in a set of government advertisements – one based on traditionalism, and the other on egalitarianism – and have shown the complex ways in which the former achieves dominance (Lazar 1993; 2000; see also Chapter 6 below). The dual discourses attest to the changing social-cultural context of a community, which recognizes the complexity of interactants’ positions regarding views on gender relations, as well as contributing to the form(ul)ation of complex hybrid gender identities. The idea of the two discourses originally identified has relevance beyond the Singapore context, as can be seen also in studies by Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban about Spain (2003), and Magalhães about Brazil (Chapter 8 below).
Critical reflexivity as praxis
According to Giddens (1991), reflexivity is a generally pronounced characteristic of late modern societies, by which he means the increased tendency for people in this period to utilize knowledge about social processes and practices in a way that shapes their own subsequent practices. A critical focus on reflexivity, as a phenomenon of contemporary social life, must be an important facet of the practice of feminist CDA.
There are at least two levels for this interest. First, the interest lies in how reflexivity is manifested in institutional practices, with implications for possibilities for change in the social and personal mindsets and practices of individuals. Second, there is a need for on-going critical self-reflexivity for feminists keen on achieving radical transformation of the gendered social structures. Each of these will be elaborated below, with implications for a critical feminist analysis of discourse and practice. Reflexivity of institutions is of interest to feminist CDA both in terms of the progressive institutional practices engendered, and in terms of
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 15 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
15
the strategic uses of feminism to further non-feminist goals. Awareness of feminist concerns for women’s inclusivity and opportunity for just participation in the public sphere is reflected in the implementation of women-friendly programmes in at least some organizations in some contexts. For example, it is now fairly commonplace in many universities in the global north/west and in some universities in the south/east to include gender-related modules, including studies on gender and language, in their curricula. The relative acceptability and respectability for such studies in universities today is in no small part due to the efforts of feminists. When taught from a feminist perspective, such studies afford a space for discussion and reflection on, for instance, gender and language issues, and have the potential for raising critical awareness among students. Remlinger’s chapter on two North American universities (Chapter 5) reports precisely on such a case, noting the reflexivity of some (women and men) students in opposing sexist uses of language and dominant gender ideologies in class discussions. In a separate study, Wodak (Chapter 4) reports on another instance of institutional reflexivity, manifested this time in gender-mainstreaming efforts by a major supranational organization, the European Union, in a bid to ensure an equitable work environment for women and men employees. While it may be argued that institutional efforts such as those above still have some way to go, nonetheless they undeniably represent a positive step forward.
Unlike the above, there are also institutional reflexive practices that recuperate feminist values of egalitarianism and empowerment for non-feminist ends (see Gill 2004; Lazar 2004; Talbot 1998; and
Chapter 7 below). The advertising industry in particular is notorious in this regard. The problem is not so much the case of appropriating feminism merely for commercial gain, but that frequently such appropriation entails an insidious subversion of feminism as a political force.
‘Recuperative reflexivity’ is not limited only to consumerism; it is also used for other persuasive effects by governments and national newspapers
(see Chapters 6 and 10 below). The latter case provides an indication that institutional reflexivity of this kind is indeed quite pervasive, affecting other systems of inequality (such as heterosexism) as well.
Aside from a focus on institutional forms of reflexivity, there is a need also for feminists to be critically reflexive of our own theoretical positions and practices lest these inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation, rather than the subversion, of hierarchically differential treatment of women. One issue in need of clarity is what we mean and expect by the term ‘emancipation’. For feminist critical discourse analysts, the ultimate
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 16 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
16 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
goal is a radical social transformation based on social justice that opens up unlimited possibilities both for women and men as human beings; a discursive critique of the prevailing limiting structures is a step in that direction. From this view, liberal, reformist positions – even when embraced by some feminists – is inadequate (see Chapter 9 below) and can be easily co-opted by the dominant structures.
Contemporary feminist theorists have pointed to the inherent flaws in classical liberal notions of equality and freedom, as premised upon an abstract universalism and ‘sameness’. First, equality from this perspective implies ‘same as men’, where the yardstick is that already set by men. Instead of a radical shift in the gender order, women therefore are required to fit into the prevailing androcentric structures. Many of the problems encountered by modern women in the public sphere, in spite of (and as a result of) gaining access to education and paid employment, are due to the unchanging gendered social structures. For example, exclusion and alienation among peers and subordinates, the lack of female role models and self-determined leadership styles for women managers, suppression of non-mainstream voices in peer discussions, and the double shift-work shouldered by women in the office and at home. These social issues are also in part discursive in nature, which in various ways are analysed and discussed in the studies in Part I of this volume. Second, the dominant liberal ideology assumes the sameness of all women. It has allowed middle-class, heterosexual, Western, white women to represent their partial experiences as universally shared by all women, thereby ignoring the material conditions and needs of nonWestern, non-white, lesbian and poor women around the globe (hooks
1984; Mohanty, Russo and Torres 1991; Moghadam 1994). Several of the chapters in Part II of the volume attempt to redress this problem from the perspective of feminist critical discourse studies.
Although the existing liberal ideology is flawed – and what is required in the long term is a serious re-visioning of gender – there is implicit consensus among most feminists regarding the value of the ideals of liberalism for a current pragmatic feminist politics. Hirschman (1999: 28), for instance, notes that the ideals of freedom and equality are historically important for politically disadvantaged groups of women who have been systematically denied equality under the law and freedom to control their lives, make choices and act as agents in the world. It is necessary, however, to reconceptualize the category of ‘universality’ and rights along the lines of current third-wave feminist thinking. As proposed by Hirschman (1999) and Benhabib (1987), this involves viewing universality in ‘concrete’ rather than in abstract terms, based
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 17 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
17
on acknowledgement of specific differences in the material conditions, contexts and situations of women’s lives. Only by attending to, instead of negating ‘difference’, can feminists identify and theorize more accurately the commonalities of gender oppression, and build alliances among women in tackling specific issues and achieving concrete political goals.
It is hoped that Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, as an international forum based on concrete discursive analysis of different local situations, contributes to feminist politics in this way.
Even while acknowledging the usefulness of certain liberal ideals reconceptualized in feminist terms, there is a need to safeguard against slipping into the current mainstream neo-liberal thinking that is pervasive in the late modern societies of today. Of particular concern to feminist CDA is the global neo-liberal discourse of post-feminism (Lazar
2004). According to this discourse, once certain equality indicators (such as rights to educational access, labour force participation, property ownership, and abortion and fertility) are achieved by women, feminism is considered to have outlived its purpose and ceases to be of relevance.
Although the discourse tends to be particularly associated with the developed industrialized societies of the West, the dichotomous framing in terms of the global west/north versus the east/south is quite misleading.
Even in the case of the former, women’s rights and freedoms cannot be assumed as a given, for these can be contested through backlash discourses and changing public policies (note the recent contestation of abortion laws by the Bush government in America). Also, rights and freedoms are not total: for example, a gendered wage gap continues to exist in a number of these societies, as does systematic male violence against women in various forms and permutations which curtails women’s full social emancipation.
The discourse of popular post-feminism is in urgent need of critique for it lulls one into thinking that struggles over the social transformation of the gender order have become defunct in the present time. The discourse is partly a masculinist backlash that defends against the whittling away of the patriarchal dividend. However, it is important to recognize that some women, including those who explicitly identify themselves as feminists (for example, Walter 1999; Wolf 1993 cited in Chapter 7 below), also attest to the presence of a post-feminist era. According to these women, this is a time for celebrating women’s new-found power and achievements; it is a moment of ‘power feminism’ (see Chapter 7 below, which offers a discursive analysis of one aspect of this).
While it is important to acknowledge the social, economic and political strides achieved by a growing number of young women in many industrialized
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 18 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
18 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
societies today, there is a need also to exercise critical reflexivity on the matter. One of the problematic assumptions of post-feminist discourse is that women can ‘have it all’ if only they try hard enough, which makes women’s struggles and accomplishments a purely personal matter, obscuring the actual social and material constraints faced by different groups of women. Concomitantly, there seems to be an inward-looking focus and contentment only in the achievement of personal freedoms and fulfilment. A self-focused ‘me-feminism’ of this sort detracts from a collective ‘we-feminism’ needed for a transformational political program
(Lazar 2001). The focus on freedoms alone, moreover, is inadequate; as some have argued, freedom for feminists is only the beginning, not the end (Grant 1999: 189). In the current sway of post-feminism in modern societies, Segal pointedly argues for the continued relevance of feminism as follows: ‘Why feminism? Because its most radical goal, both personal and collective, has yet to be realised: a world which is a better place not just for some women, but for all women’ (1999: 232).
Finally, feminist self-reflexivity must extend beyond a position of theoretical critique to include one’s own academic and other practices.
I want to reflect here on the gate-keeping practices of research as well as an instance of teaching. In regard to research, the importance of internationalizing the scope in order to theorize more carefully the endless variety and monotonous similarity of gender oppression across diverse geographical contexts has been established above. Another part of feminist academic practice is the importance of including and representing where possible international feminist scholarship in research articles, in authoritative handbooks, readers and textbooks, and in plenary addresses at international conferences.
Referring to the overwhelming representation of (white) scholars from the north (or west) in academia, including in the more critical-oriented fields, van Dijk (1994b) has noted this as a form of academic ethnocentrism, based upon seldom questioned feelings of scholarly and cultural superiority. Although feminist linguists today are increasingly reflexive on the issue of representation and inclusion of diversity, two points are worth further critical consideration. The first pertains to researching a community outside one’s own, when undertaken not in collaboration with the locals or native scholars of the community, but from an external position of authority. This is problematic when the direction of expertise flows from traditionally privileged groups at the centre to subaltern groups. Therefore, when (white) scholars from the north (or west) make authoritative knowledge claims about communities in the south (or east), there is a danger of re-enacting historical imperialism in academic neo-imperialist terms.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 19 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
19
The second point worth critical feminist reflexivity pertains to what
I would call ‘marked inclusion’. This refers to the benevolent inclusion of critical and/or feminist discourse studies from non-Western geographical regions in international fora, but marked as ‘other’ instead of mainstreamed. For example, some years ago, an academic report written after the event of a ‘Language and Masculinity’ seminar held at a university in England scrupulously named the geographical locations of the ‘non-Western’ studies presented at the seminar, but left unmarked those studies from the West. In a separate event, the third International
Gender and Language conference (IGALA3) held in Connell (USA) in
2004 expressed in its conference publicity notices the aim to highlight the ‘international’ in the conference title. This was done by devoting a plenary session in the programme to ‘international perspectives’, in which four speakers from diverse non-Western countries (and a Western white male as the panel moderator) shared an extended timeslot. In both examples, good intentions notwithstanding, the practice of marking inadvertently emphasizes as ‘other’ non-Western research from mainstreamed Western studies or studies undertaken by scholars in the
West. (Perhaps, in the case of IGALA3, one of the non-Western panellists could have been offered an unmarked full plenary slot just like her other Western plenary compatriots in the programme.)
Interaction among feminists, too, requires critical reflexivity, especially in public professional situations such as teaching. I will offer a personal anecdote here as an example. Some years ago, I was teaching a feminist language studies module with two other (women) colleagues at a university where the conventional practice was to address members of staff in the classroom by professional title plus surname. While the module co-ordinator did this when referring to the other colleague in the classroom, at the same time she constantly referred to me only by my first name.
The differential naming was part of other subtle practices of avoidance of eye contact and neglect to show me the finalized exam paper. While of course personal antipathy among women – and feminists – can and does exist, the point of the example is that such slights in context cannot be read merely as personal (or unprofessional) but as political acts of denying equal professional status. This is because as feminists and critical analysts of discourse we are fully aware of the politics of naming and exclusionary practices, about which we also educate our students. So when we ourselves do this to others – in this case, ironically within a gender and language classroom and by one feminist to another – we cannot ignore political questions of disaffection and exclusion, and must be reflexive especially as feminists in our own practices with others.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 20 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
20 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Organization of the book
The volume is divided into two parts, each of which respectively, though not exclusively, addresses issues around two broad themes:
‘Post-Equality? Analyses of Subtle Sexism’, and ‘Emancipation and Social
Citizenship: Analyses of Identity and Difference’. These represent,
I believe, important contemporary feminist concerns that are complex and sometimes subtle in nature, which feminist CDA aims to investigate through nuanced, contextualized analyses of texts and talk.
Part I
Post-equality? Analyses of subtle sexism
This section addresses popular post-feminist assumptions that once a measure of equality, in liberal terms, has been achieved by women, gender struggles along with feminism have ended. The chapters in this section deal with various contexts that acknowledge (some) women’s visibility and ascendancy in the public domains of paid work, politics and education. Also featured are the concerted efforts by one government body to make visible men’s roles in the private domain of childcare and housework. While recognizing these changes in contemporary modern societies, the ‘post’ in ‘post-equality’ and the question mark in the title raise two things: first, whether we have really moved beyond equality; and second, even if we have, what the quality of that equality is. All the studies in this section show that beneath the appearance of emancipation, sexist discrimination thrives in covert forms in these contexts through deep-seated, naturalized, androcentric assumptions. The achievement of equality in liberal terms, therefore, is inadequate; what is required instead, as discussed earlier, are radical changes in the gender structure maintained in institutions and people’s mindsets. Of note in several of the chapters are the ways some women (and men) within the existing gendered organizational structures negotiate and challenge the dominant ideologies and power structures, indicating possibilities for change. The first three chapters deal with women’s participation in the public workplace. In Chapter 2, Janet Holmes shows that although women in senior management positions in New Zealand may ‘do power’ overtly like their male counterparts, there is an underlying pressure and constraint on women managers to mitigate their speech style through supposedly appropriate ‘feminine’ interactional behaviour. There is also an association of some kinds of work done in organizations with women, which men avoid. Holmes argues that gender stereotypes remain in the
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 21 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
21
background underlying workplace interactions, contributing to subtle forms of gender discrimination.
Like Holmes, Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban’s study in Chapter 3 also points to the deeply androcentric workplace culture in Spain, in spite of an emerging management ethos that seemingly favours women.
Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban note two sets of challenges confronting managerial women in their country: first, how do women exercise leadership and authority in a work culture that associates power with masculinity? And second, based on the emerging relational management model that relies on evaluations by peers and subordinates, how do women establish peer networks with male colleagues who exclude them, and gain respect from (male and female) subordinates who mistrust them? As noted by the authors, women managers in Spain typically face social isolation and exclusion, which poses real implications for their further professional development and promotion in the organizations.
Although Ruth Wodak, in Chapter 4, is also concerned with women’s participation in public organizations, her study is located at the supranational level. Her focus is on a ‘gender mainstreaming’ programme adopted in the European Union, which in its ideal form aims to promote long-lasting and all-round changes in gender roles and organizational practices. Wodak’s initial findings, based on a qualitative study on the European Parliament, suggest that due to the relatively open structure of this organization, women politicians can negotiate their gender and political identities in a range of different ways which are not usually possible in other more rigidly structured institutions. However, she also notes that although there is some representation of women politicians in the European Parliament, this is unevenly spread among member states; and that although there has been an increase in women’s participation in the other European organizations, women are still markedly underrepresented at the highest levels. Her study points to the need for interdisciplinary research in order to investigate the relationship between the nature of particular organizational structures within the EU and the achievement of gender equity.
Kathryn Remlinger in Chapter 5 discusses issues of participation and access in an educational context. Her study is based on two American university classrooms that read explicit gender-related courses, which are designed to foster among students an awareness of gender and sexuality issues. As Remlinger discovers, such issues ironically are simultaneously at the centre and at the margin of campus politics. She shows how, through negotiation of meanings and uses of the classroom floor, students
(and staff) discursively (re)produce, resist, and oppose resistances to
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 22 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
22 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
prevailing normative ideologies of gender and sexuality. Remlinger debunks the myth that the classroom is a gender-neutral site where everybody has equal access to participation and learning. Instead, in spite of possibilities for contestation, the predominance of a phallocentric, heterosexist ideology in subtle ways serves, through classroom interactions, to silence and exclude students with alternative gender and sexual values and practices.
Whereas a growing number of women in modern societies are entering and supposedly breaking the ‘glass ceiling’ in the public domain of paid work (previously men’s domain), is there an equivalent breaking of new ground by men on the domestic front of unpaid childcare and housework (traditionally women’s domain)? In Chapter 6, I explore this question based on a study of a government advertising campaign promoting family life in Singapore, in which fatherhood is prominently and popularly depicted. The advertisements are critically ‘unpacked’ to reveal a complex interplay of two discourses of gender relations, based on egalitarianism and conservatism respectively. I argue that the interdiscursivity produces a complexly nuanced identity for Singaporean men, which allows them to be optionally more involved in childcare, without a radical redistribution of parental responsibilities between men and women. Hegemonic gender relations and masculine identity thus are remade by a masculinist government for a pragmatic nationalist agenda, without sacrificing the dominant gender structure.
Part II Emancipation and social citizenship: analyses of identity and difference
Even while recognizing the limits of equality without a radical redefinition or transformation of the gender structure, this second part shows that certain ideals of liberal equality, for which a majority consensus among feminists exists, are still far from achieved in a range of geographical contexts, from Western industrialized nations to developing and transitional countries. In these different societies, women’s emancipation and full social citizenship are curtailed based on a variety of reasons; those dealt with in the studies in this section include the relative lack of women’s literacy, the systematic violence against women, the absence of guaranteed civil rights, and the lack of a public sphere for the articulation of alternative viewpoints by radical feminist voices. These issues are intricately layered by a politics of identity and difference.
The topic that forms the point of departure for Chapter 7 by Mary
Talbot is a stark reminder of women’s lack of full social citizenship and emancipation in present-day America (as in most other societies): the
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 23 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
23
prevalence of violence against women, as Talbot notes, continues in patriarchal societies as an overt form of power and control over women.
In this chapter, Talbot shows how the American National Rifle Association
(NRA), capitalizing both on women’s legitimate fears of assault and feminists’ call for women to resist victim status, discursively constructs an ‘empowered’ identity for American women through promotion of gun ownership by women. Guided by commercial profit, the NRA
(a right-wing organization which is opposed to anti-gun laws aimed at reducing a violent environment) appears to empower women, when what it actually does is subvert feminists’ call for non-violence, and perpetuate instead a climate of fear and continued violence.
In Chapter 8, Izabel Magalhães examines Brazilian women’s identity in the context of two adult literacy programmes, in communities where gender equality and emancipation are only recently emerging issues.
Her analysis of three separate genres in the programmes indicates, in varying degrees, the co-existence of ‘old’ as well as ‘new’ identities for the women learners. Whereas some aspects of the new identity are empowering for women, other aspects (namely those tied to global consumerism) place women in subject positions that are disempowering.
Based on her findings, Magalhães argues that the Brazilian government needs to invest in women’s education in order for them to become valued citizens in their own right in political and social life.
In Chapter 9, Erzsébet Barát investigates what space is available in the political printed media for the discussion and critique of bourgeois patriarchy in a democratizing Hungary since the 1990s. By and large, she finds a systematic masculinist gate-keeping strategy that is aimed at discrediting feminism. It is a misogynistic discourse that is also racist and heterosexist. Of the few feminist voices present in the media, Barát notes that these are liberal/reformist, and that they fail to challenge – and therefore are complicit in – the heterosexual and class bias of bourgeois patriarchy. Barát’s chapter is of interest to a politics of difference in two ways: first, in terms of the configuration of systems of oppression (patriarchy, racism, heterosexism and classism), and the implication this has for power and ideology enacted in relation to different groups of women; and second, in terms of the need to acknowledge differences in feminist positions, and to be critical of forms of feminism that contribute to the perpetuation of a hetero-gendered social order.
In Chapter 10, Carlos Gouveia takes as his central focus the deep-seated prejudice against homosexuals in Portugal. The study reveals important parallels and confluences in the discursive enactments of systems of oppression, in this case between heterosexism and patriarchy.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 24 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
24 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Gouveia’s analysis of special coverage devoted to homosexuality in a prominent Portuguese newspaper reveals that while the newspaper is careful not to appear blatantly discriminatory, it manages nonetheless to promote fear and prejudice against gays and lesbians by implying that they are a dangerously powerful organized group. Further, he discusses the fact that lesbians in particular are doubly discriminated against in Portuguese society based on their sexual orientation and gender. This is reflected in their representational invisibility in the mainstream news texts, as well as in representations by the gay men.
The invisibility and exclusion of lesbians in public discourse means that this group of women is hardest hit in terms of having their civil rights neither protected nor guaranteed.
Notes
1
2
Although studies in feminist CDA have existed for more than a decade, as a body of research it has been insufficiently made known. Up until now, publications in feminist CDA have been dispersed across a variety of journals
(most notably in Discourse & Society) and edited volumes on gender and language. Where overviews on CDA and feminist language studies exist separately, feminist CDA has received brief mention only in endnotes (see
Fairclough and Wodak 1997; and Cameron 1998, respectively). More recently, even where feminist scholarship in CDA is briefly discussed, the representation of work in this area has been disappointingly narrow, based on limited studies
(see Bucholtz 2003).
Apart from the present contributors’ works, a selection of other critical studies on institutional gender relations include works on medical encounters (for example, West 1990); judicial settings (for example, Ehrlich 2001); the police force (for example, McElhinny 1995); and the media (for example, CaldasCoulthard 1995).
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination (ed. M. Holquist). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Benhabib, Seyla (1987) ‘The generalised and the concrete other: The Kohlberg–
Gilligan controversy and feminist theory’, in Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell
(eds), Feminism as Critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Billig, Michael (2000) ‘Editorial: towards a critique of the critical’, Discourse &
Society, 11 (3): 291–2.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bucholtz, Mary (2003) ‘Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies’, in Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff
(eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 43–68.
Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
London: Routledge.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 25 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
25
Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York:
Routledge.
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa (1995) ‘Man in the news: the misrepresentation of women speaking in news-as-narrative discourse’, in Sara Mills (ed.), Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Longman, pp. 226–39.
Cameron, Deborah (1992) Feminism and Linguistic Theory, 2nd edn. London:
Macmillan.
Cameron, Deborah (1996) ‘The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation’, in Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing and Alice Freed (eds), Rethinking Language and
Gender Research: Theory and Practice. Singapore: Longman, pp. 31–52.
Cameron, Deborah (1998) ‘Gender, language and discourse: a review essay’,
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23 (4): 945–73.
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Fairclough, Norman (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:
Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Christie, Christine (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Connell, Robert W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Connell, Robert W. (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eckert, Penelope (1989) ‘The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation’, Language Variation and Change, 1: 245–67.
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992) ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 21: 461–90.
Ehrlich, Susan (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York:
Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, Norman (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in Teun
A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258–84.
Flax, Jane (1990) ‘Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory’, in
Linda J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–62.
Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane.
Fox-Keller, Evelyn (1996) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Fraser, Nancy and Linda J. Nicholson (1990) ‘Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism’, in Linda J. Nicholson
(ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–38.
Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gill, Rosalind (2004) ‘Feisty, fit chicks: the media globalization of technologies of sexiness’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities
Conference, Cardiff University, 9–10 January 2004.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence
& Wishart.
Grant, Judith (1993) Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 26 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
26 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Hall, Kira and Bucholtz, Mary (eds) (1995), Gender Articulated: Language and the
Socially Constructed Self. New York: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Hekman, Susan (1999) ‘Identity crises: identity, identity politics, and beyond’, in
Susan Hekman (ed.), Feminism, Identity and Difference. London: Frank Cass, pp. 3–26.
Hill-Collins, Patricia (1990) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.
Hirschmann, Nancy J. (1999) ‘Difference as an occasion for rights: a feminist rethinking of rights, liberalism, and difference’, in Susan Hekman (ed.),
Feminism, Identity and Difference. London: Frank Cass, pp. 27–55. hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End
Press.
Johnson, Sally and Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (eds) (1997) Language and Masculinity.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kitzinger, Celia (2000) ‘Doing feminist conversation analysis’, Feminism &
Psychology, 10 (2): 163–93.
Kotthoff, Helga and Wodak, Ruth (eds) (1997), Communicating Gender in Context.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kress, Gunther (1990) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 11: 84–99.
Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of
Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Lather, Patti (1986) ‘Research as praxis’, Harvard Educational Review, 56 (3): 257–77.
Lazar, Michelle M. (1993) ‘Equalizing gender relations: a case of double-talk’,
Discourse & Society, 4 (4): 443–65.
Lazar, Michelle M. (1999) ‘Family life advertisements and the narrative of heterosexual sociality’, in Phyllis G. L. Chew and Anneliese Kramer-Dahl (eds),
Reading Culture: Textual Practices in Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 145–62.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2000) ‘Gender, discourse and semiotics: the politics of parenthood representations’, Discourse & Society, 11 (3): 373–400.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2001) ‘Dissonant discourses: women and feminism in contemporary Singapore’, ms.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2002) ‘Women beyond borders’, Visual Communication, 1 (3):
337–41.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2004) ‘(Post-) feminism in contemporary advertising: a global discourse in a local context’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities Conference, Cardiff University, 9–10 January 2004.
Litosseliti, Lia and Sunderland, Jane (eds) (2002), Gender Identity and Discourse
Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martín Rojo, Luisa and Gómez Esteban, Concepción (2003) ‘Discourse at work: when women take on the role of manager’, in Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak
(eds), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 241–71.
McElhinny, Bonnie S. (1995) ‘Challenging hegemonic masculinities: female and male police officers handling domestic violence’, in Kira Hall and Mary
Bucholtz (eds), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self.
New York: Routledge, pp. 217–43.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 27 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
27
Mills, Sara (1995) Feminist Stylistics. London: Routledge.
Moghadam, Valentine M. (1994) ‘Introduction: women and identity politics in theoretical and comparative perspective’, in Valentine M. Moghadam (ed.),
Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International
Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–26.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, Russo, Ann and Torres, Lourdes (eds) (1991), Third
World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997) ‘Whose text? Whose context?’, Discourse & Society,
8 (2): 165–87.
Scollon, Ron (2001) ‘Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action’, in Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 139–83.
Segal, Lynne (1999) Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Spender, Dale (1981) Men’s Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the
Academic Disciplines. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Spender, Dale (1985) Man Made Language, 2nd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Stokoe, Elizabeth H. and Weatherall, Ann (2002) ‘Guest editorial: gender, language, conversation analysis and feminism’, Discourse & Society, 13 (6): 707–13.
Talbot, Mary M. (1998) Language and Gender: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1991) ‘Editorial: discourse analysis with a cause’, The Semiotic
Review of Books, 2 (1): 1–2.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1993) ‘Principles of critical discourse analysis’, Discourse &
Society, 4 (2): 249–83.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1994a) ‘Editorial: discourse analysis as social analysis’,
Discourse & Society, 5 (2): 163–4.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1994b) ‘Editorial: academic nationalism’, Discourse & Society,
5 (3): 275–6.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1996) ‘Discourse, power and access’, in Carmen Rosa CaldasCoulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (eds), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical
Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 84–104.
Walter, Natasha (1999) The New Feminism. London: Virago Press.
Weedon, Chris (1997) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
West, Candace (1990) ‘Not just doctor’s orders: directive-response sequences in patients’ visits to women and men physicians’, Discourse & Society, 1 (1):
85–112.
West, Candace and Zimmerman, Don (1987) ‘Doing gender’, Gender & Society,
1 (2): 125–51.
West, Candace, Lazar, Michelle M. and Kramarae, Cheris (1997) ‘Gender in discourse’, in Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London:
Sage, pp. 119–43.
Wetherell, Margaret (1995) ‘Romantic discourse and feminist analysis: interrogating investment, power and desire’, in Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (eds),
Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London: Sage, pp. 128–44.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 28 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
28 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Widdowson, Henry (1995) ‘Discourse analysis: a critical view’, Language and
Literature, 4 (3): 157–72.
Wilkinson, Sue and Kitzinger, Celia (1995) ‘Introduction’, in Sue Wilkinson and
Celia Kitzinger (eds), Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London:
Sage, pp. 1–9.
Wodak, Ruth (ed.) (1997), Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael (eds) (2001), Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 251 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index
access to education, employment 16–17,
21–2, 93, 135, 200–1 to resources and positions of responsibility 75, 85, 92, 196,
207, 223, 243–4 to symbolic, social, political, economic capital 7, 10, 103,
117–19, 134, 145, 248–9 activist/activism 106, 123, 173, 210,
220–1, 232–3, 244–5, 247 advertisement(s) 14, 22, 68, 140–58,
160–2, 172–3, 175, 181, 192–4,
197
advertising 1, 8, 15, 146, 168, 171,
174
see also campaign agency 8, 68, 86, 157, 212, 248, 249 agent(s) 8, 16, 63, 68, 155, 170, 187,
245, 247 androcentric 8, 12, 16, 20–1, 118,
122–3, 133–4 approval 44, 69 argumentation 108, 111, 116,
209–10, 212, 214–15
Austria 98, 100, 106, 233 backlash 17, 214
Bakhtin, M. 14, 168, 181, 184, 187 bias 2, 6, 23, 219
Brazil 23, 181–2, 184–6, 193–4, 198,
200
Bourdieu, P. 10, 66, 103, 106, 108
Butler, J. 7, 10, 12–13, 115, 143
Cameron, D. 2–3, 7, 24, 49, 86,
182–3, 201, 207 campaign(s) 140–2, 144, 148–50,
158, 199 advertising 22, 139, 141, 143, 146,
157
anti-gun legislation 174
Family Life 22, 139–43, 146, 150,
158–9
government 22, 146, 190 multi-media 142 national 139, 157
National Rifle Association 173,
175–8
pro-choice 176 pro-natalist 139 public relations 170, 173
Catholic church 184–5, 188, 192,
195–7
children 96, 106, 136, 142, 146–7,
149–53, 156–7, 159–61, 173,
175, 177, 185, 188–9, 195, 211,
218
childcare 20, 22, 142, 159, 185–6,
195
choice(s) 16, 80, 82, 140, 142, 146,
157, 168, 172, 174–8 citizenship 22, 172, 192 communication and gender 62, 74–9, 83, 85, 123 and structure 107 good communication between employees and colleagues 65 good communication with subordinates and equals 65 informal 79, 81 in organizations 65 intercultural 118, 131 practices 61, 63, 72 resources 73 style(s) 61–2, 64, 66, 69, 71, 75, 77,
79, 83 skills 56, 64, 66 strategies 67 communities of practice 8, 12, 56–7 community 5, 7, 14, 18, 117, 119,
125–6, 131, 133, 199–200, 232–4,
236, 242–3 lesbian 125 literacy 181, 187, 189–91, 197, 201 university/campus 119, 133 see also gay
Confucian-Asian values 143–4
Connell, R. 5, 7–8, 12, 141, 144 see also masculinity conservatism 22, 104, 144–5, 149,
158
conservative discourse 140, 143–5,
149, 157–9
251
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 252 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
252 Index construction co-construction 12, 143 de-construction 2, 232 discursive 5, 23, 100, 106, 139, 234 social construction 6–7, 11–12, 63,
123, 232, 245–6 structuralism and constructivism 183 consumerism 15, 23, 106, 186, 197,
214
contestation 4, 6, 8, 11, 17, 22, 48–9,
53–6, 126, 140, 183, 205, 207, 232 incontestable 32, 42–3, 45 context(s) cultural 1, 11, 214, 232, 234 national 14 institutional 1 geographical 18, 22 classroom/educational 21, 23,
115–17, 119, 181, 187, 190–1,
196
work(place) 15, 33–4, 50, 61–2,
65–7, 71–5, 77, 79–80, 84, 125 social 196 social change 181, 190, 198 academic 93, 119, 136 socio-political 141, 230–1 family 150 historical 178 and gender 55, 77, 81–2, 115, 148,
182
government, political 34, 141 traditional 185 racist debate 213 contradictions 144, 146, 158, 183,
187, 191, 198, 207, 213, 219, 239 conversation analysis 13 critical discourse analysis (CDA) 1–6,
11–13, 24, 31–2, 39, 42, 46, 49–50,
56–8, 63, 85, 109, 116, 119, 123,
141, 168, 178, 181, 183, 205, 207,
230–2
critique 5–7, 16–18, 23, 134, 141,
144, 146, 205, 207–8, 218 daddyhood 139, 144, 149, 162 see also fatherhood dialectical process 108 relationship 6, 11, 183 tension 8 directive(s) 33–5, 50, 176, 227 discourse and genre 191
and hegemony 9–10, 115, 140,
158, 206 and heterogeneity 168, 186 and ideology 134, 240 and practice 14, 183 and semiotics 5, 116, 183 and text 14, 170, 186–7, 197, 230,
234
and the social 11, 63, 107, 185 competing, contending 14, 156,
158–9
discursive practice 85, 207 dual discourses 14, 22, 140–1,
143–5, 157–9 governmental 22 multimodal analysis of 5, 143, 145 of conservative gender relations 14, 22, 140, 143–6,
149–60
of egalitarian gender relations 14,
22, 140, 143–9, 158–60 order(s) of 143, 175, 182, 184, 191,
197
discrimination and gay, lesbian 10, 24, 232–41,
244–8
and gender 21, 54, 92–3, 97 and sex 9, 20 at the workplace 11, 77, 86, 94 discourse of 213, 217
‘doing’
gender 12 power 12, 33, 35–6, 39, 51, 55 politics 12, 106
Dworkin, A. 167, 173, 177 education access 16–17, 21, 93, 97, 135, 189 adult literacy 23, 181, 187, 189–92,
196, 198–201 and women 20, 23, 62, 65, 142,
174–5, 184–5, 197 class(room) 21–2, 114–18, 120,
126, 133 universities 21, 133–4, 192 egalitarianism 15, 22, 44, 48, 94,
140, 143–7, 149, 158–9 egalitarian discourse 144–5, 158 emancipation 1, 4–6, 10, 15, 17, 20,
22–3, 144, 191, 216–17, 233, 249 empowerment 10, 15, 23, 123, 125,
168, 172, 177, 190, 208 disempowerment 5, 7, 23, 51–2,
125
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 253 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index ethnography 3, 39, 63, 85, 117, 119
European Union 15, 21, 95, 97, 101,
214, 243
(European) Parliament 21, 95, 98,
100–1, 103, 108, 243, 249 see also organizations exclusion of feminism 212, 215, 220–2 of other sexualities 115, 135, 220,
232
of women 9, 19, 21, 24, 63, 75, 83,
118, 135
Fairclough, N. 2–3, 6–9, 11, 14, 24,
32, 63, 106, 131, 143, 168, 178,
181–4, 186–8, 192–3, 230–1,
240
family life 22, 139, 141–3, 146, 149–50,
153–6, 158–61 nuclear 148 fatherhood 22, 139–41, 144–7,
149–51, 153–4, 156–60, 162 and childcare 20, 22, 96, 139–40,
142, 146–7, 149–3, 156–7,
159–60
see also daddyhood feminine 55, 118, 142, 172, 182, 186,
193, 197, 218 commodities 193–4, 197
‘feminine’ workplace 49–50 femininity 7, 74, 123, 141, 215 feminization of fathers 147 interactional behaviour 20, 51–6,
67, 75, 77, 84, 86–7 feminism and CDA 4–5 and choice 16, 140, 172, 219 and emancipation 4, 10, 15, 17,
20, 22–3, 191, 212, 216–17 and freedom 18, 176 and its relevance 17–18 commodified 168 definitions/meanings of 205–9,
213–14, 218 discourse of 170, 215
‘first wave’ 178 liberal feminism, reformist 172,
176–7, 218–19
‘me-feminism’ and
‘we-feminism’ 18 post-feminism 17–18, 20, 212 power feminism 17, 171–2, 177 radical feminism 178, 211, 216
253
‘second wave’ 10, 167
‘third wave’ 9, 16 feminist analytical resistance 5–6 conversation analysis 2 critical discourse analysis see feminist critical discourse analysis critique 5–6, 141, 144, 208, 218 linguistics 18, 95, 106–7, 141 pragmatics 2 stylistics 2 studies 1, 13, 141 feminist critical discourse analysis
2–6, 9, 13–14, 17, 20, 24, 109 firearm(s) 168, 171–2, 174–5, 177
Foucault, M. 9–10, 143, 168–9, 184 gate-keeping 9, 18, 23, 93, 206–9,
216, 222 gay(s) 115–16, 118, 229, 232–3,
236–49
and lesbian(s) 24, 229–30, 232–4,
240–1, 244–5, 247–8 and power 229, 235–9, 242–3,
247–9
as noun 237 community 10, 233, 235–6, 242–3 couples 247 effeminate/effeminacy 147–8, 245,
248
entities and performance 239 fatherhood, parent identity 144,
148
lobby 242–3, 248–9 men 24, 233, 244–5 position 216 rights 236, 239, 242–3, 245, 247 tourism 229, 249 see also homosexuality
Giddens, A. 14, 93, 184, 233–4, 246
Grant, J. 6–7, 12, 18 gender and class 3, 7, 144, 147, 211, 219 and ethnicity/race 1, 3, 10, 126–8,
136, 144, 185, 215, 247 and generation/age 10, 123, 142,
181, 191 and its relevance 31–3, 46, 49,
54–5, 57–8, 126, 128 and neutrality 5, 22, 96, 117, 123,
146–7, 245 and sexuality 1, 21–2, 24, 115–20,
122–3, 125–6, 131–6
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 254 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
254 Index gender – continued and the state 141, 143, 206, 216,
220
as ideological structure 6–7 asymmetry 5, 8–9, 140, 144, 149,
150–2, 158 blending 158 conservatism 22, 144–5, 149, 158 difference(s) 64, 85–6, 104–6, 118,
140, 152, 218, 244 egalitarianism 14–15, 22, 44, 48,
94, 140, 143–7, 149, 158–9 hetero-gendered 10, 141, 145,
206–8
identity see identities inequality see inequality mainstream(ing ) 15, 21, 93, 94–8,
100, 106–8 order 1, 10, 12, 16–17, 140–2, 149,
159–60
parity 142, 144–5, 158 polarity 115, 144, 158 performance 12–13, 115–16, 144,
150–1, 159 relationality 11–12, 143–4, 158 relations 3, 8, 11–12, 14, 22, 24,
32, 115, 140–1, 143–4, 146–7,
149, 157–8, 181–2, 193, 198 stereotypes 152 structure 7–10, 13, 20, 22, 100, 141 genre(s) 119–20, 184 advice-giving text as 170, 177–8 analyses of different 23, 116, 192 and adult literacy 187 and discourse 134, 181–2, 184, 191 culturally valued 10 generic 7, 10, 169, 176, 178, 249 interaction between 14 interdiscursivity in 183 media, newsletter texts and advertisements 181, 187–8,
191, 197, 210 music 123 of public life 196 structures of 14, 188, 191 global/globalization 184, 186, 234 and daddyhood 139, 162 commodified identities 196 consumerism 23 discourses 196–7 markets 197 neo-liberal discourse of post-feminism 17 north/west 15, 17
of lifestyles 234 revolution 234 trend 139, 162
Goffman, E. 101, 145, 148, 150, 153,
162
government/state 1, 15, 17, 20, 22–3,
31, 34, 46, 139, 141–3, 146, 158,
160, 171, 185, 189–90, 198–9,
201, 210, 221, 244, 249 campaign 22, 146, 160, 190 masculinist 22, 142 parliament 209, 216, 243, 247, 249
Halliday, M. A. K. 145, 191, 230–1,
237, 239
Hasan, R. 185, 188 hegemony 3, 7–10, 122, 140–2,
158–60, 206–8, 219–20, 222 re-hegemonize 141 re-making of 140
Hennessy, R. 208, 222 heterogeneity and discourse 168, 186, 191, 197,
219
and text 186, 190 of practice 196 heterosexism/heterosexist 10, 15,
22–3, 118, 215–6, 220 heterosexuality 3, 10, 16, 23, 115–16,
118, 120, 129, 133–4, 136, 143–4,
148, 205, 215–16, 220, 222,
246–7
hetero-gendered 10, 23, 140–1,
145, 206–14, 216, 219–20,
222–3
hierarchy differences 12, 15, 70 gender/sexual 1, 119–20, 122–4,
159
power/authority 63, 74 organizational 31, 37, 42, 52, 63–4,
84, 98, 106 homophobia 23, 215, 220, 222, 247 homosexuality 10, 23–4, 115–16,
131–3, 147–8, 232–4, 236, 238,
241, 244–8,
Hungary 23, 205–6, 208–10, 212–17,
219–21, 227 hybrid (ity) 14, 159, 186–7, 194, 197 identity (ies) and fatherhood 139, 143, 149,
153, 156, 160 and identity politics 196
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 255 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index and motherhood 143, 160, 197 careerist (professional) 144, 149,
153–4
commodified feminine 193, 196–7 different 103–4, 191–2, 197–8 domestic sphere 139, 154 emancipated 191 essentialist 184, 197 feminine/women’s 22–3, 97,
181–7, 191, 194–7 gender 10, 12–13, 21, 100, 103,
106, 111, 114, 119, 140–1, 181,
187, 190–1, 196–8 hybrid see hybrid (ity) masculine/ men’s 22, 97, 158–60 personal/ self- 11, 33, 100–1,
105–6, 212 post-colonial 196–7 sexual 1, 144, 220, 223 social 1, 3, 11, 100–1, 106, 230–1,
233–4, 238 traditional 184, 186, 191, 194, 197 ideology aggressive ‘ideology’ 215 and discourse/language 1, 5–6, 13,
133
and power 1, 5, 13, 23, 208,
212
and practice 208 androcentric 133 and society 48 and speaking strategies 117 as common sense 7 as a weapon 215 critique 207–8 dominant 133–4 heterosexist 22, 118, 133 gender 1, 3, 7–8, 11, 120, 131 liberal 16 oppressive 125 patriarchal 2 production, reproduction 117,
125, 134, 208 re-enactment of 140 sexual 115, 125–6, 131 inclusion 18–19, 117 inequality 2, 5, 7–8, 43, 75, 95,
123–4, 140, 185 institution(s) and discourse 184, 186, 191, 197 and gender inequality 8, 186,
191
and media 193, 216 and national 213
255
and organizations (and schools)
72, 83, 86, 93, 185, 196, 209 and practices 8, 14–15, 85, 97, 117,
169
and reflexivity 14–15 and reform 94 and social groups 134, 182, 184,
236 (see also government) and structures 11, 20–1,
43–5, 63 and the state, politics, government
8, 31, 141 authority/power structures 33, 37,
42, 44, 50, 62
European Union see European
Union
framing/frameworks 10, 12, 14 of hetero-normative marriage 220 workplace see workplace intercultural relations 186 interdisciplinarity 13, 21, 95, 100,
107–9
interdiscursivity 14, 22, 158, 160,
181, 183–4, 186, 189–91, 194, 197 see also intertextuality intertextuality 168–70, 177, 181 see also interdiscursivity knowledge 6–7, 14, 18, 63, 109, 131,
169, 195, 200–1
Kress, G. 5–6, 31, 120, 145, 147, 152,
192, 248 law, legislation adult literacy (Brazil) 199–201
Abortion Act (Hungary) 210
Civil Unions Law (Portugal) 247
Fetus Protection Act
(Hungary) 211 gun-control (USA) 23, 170–1,
177
Penal Code (Hungary) 222
Portuguese Constitution 247
Portuguese laws, generally 230,
247–8
US Constitutional
Amendment(s) 170, 172 lesbian(s) 10, 16, 24, 115–16, 118,
125, 132–3, 211, 215–16, 221,
240, 244–5, 247 discrimination see discrimination feminist position 216 movement 244 see also gay(s)
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 256 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
256 Index literacy 22 adult 23, 181, 187–91, 195–8,
199–201
and women 197 manager 34, 36–7, 39–46, 50, 52,
54–5, 64, 68 see also women management leadership styles 16, 21, 61–5, 69,
73, 75–9, 84–7, 94 models of 21, 61, 63–5,
74–5, 94 strategies 49 styles of 64, 66–7, 70–4, 83 marriage 142, 161, 218, 220, 246 masculinity and discourse patterns 49 and femininity 7 forms of 8, 12, 141, 144, 146, 148,
159–60
gay see gays government 22, 142 hegemonic 141–2, 159, 160 heterosexual see heterosexuality masculinist 17, 22–3, 142, 207,
220 (see also androcentrism) modern 139
New Man 146, 151, 159–60 politically correct (PC) 159–60 power and 21, 55, 65, 74–5, 85
‘real men’ 53, 160 representation of 144 see also fatherhood materiality 2, 7, 10, 12, 16–18, 154,
208
media 104–5, 139, 146, 159, 171,
192–3, 197, 206–10, 212–13,
215–16, 218–23 advertisements see advertisements newspapers 8, 24, 205, 207, 210,
229–30, 232, 234–9, 242–6,
248–9
political printed media 23, 205–7,
213
mother/motherhood 103, 106, 140,
143, 146–54, 157–60, 173, 185–6,
192, 195, 197 childcare 20, 22, 142, 186, 195 other-centredness 155 see also women multimodal 5, 143, 145, 162 visual images 5, 13, 144–5, 193 see also semiotics
narrative 13, 94, 100–3, 145, 161,
187, 209 networks peer 21, 79–81, 83 old boy’s 47–8 social 61, 78, 82, 85 support 177 newsletter 170, 172, 181, 187–8,
190–2, 194–6, 199, 210
New Zealand 20, 31, 39, 58 nominalization 238, 242–3, 248–9 normative (ity) 10, 22, 105, 107, 122,
125, 134, 160, 207, 222 heteronormativity 140–1, 144,
220, 233 non-normative 222 oppression 2–3, 5–6, 8–12, 17–18, 23,
123, 125, 134, 186, 233 organizations and communication 65, 85 and men 91, 94 and structure 20–1, 63, 85, 107–9 and women 15, 20–1, 53–4, 66, 75,
78, 82–3, 85–6, 93, 95, 103–4,
213, 221 and work 61–2, 70, 79, 86 corporate 31 culture 8, 39, 94, 120 glass ceiling see women and glass ceiling good practices 61, 85–7 governmental agencies 249
Hungarian GLBT 220 meetings 35–6, 38 models of management see management non-governmental 201, 216
NRA 23, 168, 170–8
NARAL 175–6 peer networks see networks power and authority 34–7, 41–3,
50, 52, 83 practices 21, 45, 106 transnational 1, 15, 98, 100, 111 see also European Union; workplace parenthood, parents 147 construction of 146–9 patriarchy 222 bourgeoisie 23, 205, 220 hetero- 140 heterosexism and 23
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 257 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index performance 12–13, 42, 74, 115–16,
139, 141, 143–4, 148–52, 159,
185, 206, 215, 239 politics 20, 31, 95, 141, 170, 182,
184, 218, 221, 235, 241 and consumption 168 and gender relations 141 campus politics 21, 129 feminist politics 3, 16–17, 216 of history 213 of identity and difference 22–3,
196
of literacy 196–8 of naming 2, 19 of representation 139–40, 158 see also government/state politically correct (PC) 159–60
Portugal 23–4, 98, 184, 195,
229–30, 232–4, 238–9, 241–5,
247–9
Portuguese 181, 185, 193, 249 post-structural 4, 9, 11, 32 power and ideology 1, 5–6, 13, 23 and discourse access 134 and gays 236–9, 242–3, 247–9 and lesbians 245, 247 and masculinity 21, 65, 73–5, 85–6 and politics 210–13, 220, 235 and solidarity 70 and women 8, 17, 23, 49–50, 52,
56, 73–8, 93, 103, 123, 125, 158,
171, 195, 197 asymmetry 1, 10, 126, 152–3 balance of 126, 140–1, 144, 160, commodified notion of 177 difference 7, 40, 44 dominance 10, 31, 116, 119 empowerment see empowerment exercise of 73, 75 gender and 57, 61, 75, 114, 208,
214
in the workplace 31–3, 39, 46,
48–9, 83–4, 140 of the state 206 relations 1–3, 5, 7, 9–13, 31–3, 39,
42–3, 46, 49, 57, 63, 82, 119–20,
126, 141, 152, 193, 207–8, 219,
222
manifestation/forms of 9, 32–6,
38–9, 44, 66 structures 20, 42, 126 systemic 32, 46 workings of 6, 9–10, 45
257
pragmatics 2, 13, 16, 116, 119, 126 praxis 5–6, 12, 14 presupposition 116, 154, 157, 235 reclamation(s) 122–3, 125–6, 133–4 recontexualization(s) 140, 182,
190–2, 196 reflexive (ity) 14–15, 18–19, 146,
158–9
critical feminist reflexivity 19 critical reflexivity 14–15, 18–19 feminist self-reflexivity 14, 18, 223 institutional 14–15, 146
‘recuperative reflexivity’ 15 self-reflexivity 14, 207–8, 223 representations 6 absence and presence 158 and feminism 18, 208 and gays 24, 230, 232, 237–9,
242–4, 246–7 and gender 129, 134, 150, 152,
158, 182, 232 and journalism 239 and lesbians 24, 230, 232, 244, 247 and women 21, 63, 85, 123, 150,
194, 197 linguistic 240 of men/masculinity 144, 148–9,
153–4, 157 of modern father/fatherhood
139–40, 143–5, 148, 151, 158–9 of parenthood 141, 146–7, 159 of practice 11, 85, 115, 140–1 politics of 158 textual 10, 12–13 visual 148
(re)production
and agency 86 and choice 178 and contestation, resistance 4, 133 and discourse 2, 10, 21, 43, 63, 94,
126, 143–4, 158–9, 183–4 and dissonance 158 and heternormative regimes 233 and ideas 119, 129 and identity 195, 231 and ideology 117, 125, 134, 208 and oppression 186 and power 9, 11, 31, 116 and representation 143, 232 and sexuality 115 and social order 11 and social practices 85, 108 and social structure 63, 116
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 258 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
258 Index
(re)production – continued and system 108 and text 108, 184, 230 resistance to social change 10, 21, 65, 74–6,
126, 128, 131 to status quo 5–6, 9–11, 21, 23, 49,
119, 123, 125, 131, 133, 167,
177
semantics 13, 93, 114–15, 119–20,
125, 134, 145, 182, 239 semiotic(s) 116, 183 co-semiotic structures 145 language as a semiotic system 231 semiotic acts 143 semiotic modalities 5 semiotic texts 193, 196 sex physiological 7
‘opposite’ 7, 222 discrimination 9, 11–12, 20, 24,
54, 77, 86, 92, 94, 97, 217, 247 stereotype see stereotypes topics related to 22, 118 sexism, sexist and classism 23 and heterosexism 10, 15, 23, 118,
215, 220 and racism 23 attitudes 8, 48 covert 20 language 15, 49 misogyny 9, 23, 206, 210, 214, 219 overt 9, 20, 56–7 social structures 123 stereotype(s) see stereotypes subtle 9, 20 uses 15 sexual allusions 82 differences 7, 222 ideology 115, 131 orientation 10, 24, 215, 233–4,
244–8
values 22, 135 sexuality and equality 233 and gender 21–2, 115–20, 125–6,
131, 133–4, 136, 206–7, 219–20,
222–3
and women 122–3, 125–6, 136, 167 elements of 246 heterosexuality see heterosexuality
homosexuality see homosexuality lesbigay 125 non-normative/ ‘outlaw’ 206, 220,
222
see also gender
Singapore 14, 22, 139–42, 144, 146,
157–8, 160 slogans 173, 175, 177–8 social change/transformation 5, 140,
181, 190–1, 198, 200, 208 and status quo 6–7, 42–4, 49, 56,
125–6, 128, 134, 207, 208, 219 social closure 75 social order 5, 8–9, 11, 86 hetero-gendered 1, 5, 23, 206–7,
222
see also gender order social practice(s) 3–6, 8–9, 11, 21, 33,
63, 85, 106, 114, 116, 140, 146,
181–4, 187, 207, 234 social structures 6, 8, 31, 63, 100,
116, 133 gendered/sexist 14, 16, 114 production, reproduction 63, 116,
183
Spain 21, 61–4, 66, 68, 70, 73–5,
77–8, 81, 85, 94, 230, 244
Spender, D. 2, 7, 114, 134, 182, 249 stereotypes about women 49, 51, 54–5, 73–4,
148
about men 51, 53–6, 62, 73, 103,
245–6
and marginalization 86 and prejudices/associations 73,
77–8, 83 assumption(s) 150, 245 gender 20, 46, 49–50, 56, 75, 130,
147, 152, 158 of gay men 245–6 sexist 72 traditional 53, 95 strategies discursive/discourse 5, 32, 49, 54,
106
speaking strategies 114–15, 117,
119, 126, 182, 185 subjectivity 143, 187, 197 discursive subjects 191, 230, 232,
236–8
women’s 23, 191, 195 maternal subject position 147
Systemic Functional Grammar
(SFG) see Halliday
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 259 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index
Tannen, D. 32–3, 49, 62, 64, 79, 81,
87, 95, 106, 114, 126, 133 text analysis of 5, 13, 20, 119, 145, 162,
231–2
and discourse 14, 170, 186–7, 197,
230, 234 and institution 107 and intertextuality 168–70, 181,
186–7
and power 10 and sub-text (implied discourse)
210, 212–14, 216 and talk 5, 10–11, 14, 20, 133 as choice 231 de-construction of 232 dialogicality of 13, 24 features/characteristics of
119, 134 hybrid 186 interpretation, reception 192–3,
196, 231 production of 108, 184, 188, 197,
230
and representation 13, 24 semiotic 193, 196 textually-oriented discourse analysis 231 text types advertisements/visual texts 140,
162, 192 advice-giving 170, 176–7 forensic 185 media 140, 162, 207 newsletter 181 newspaper 227, 229–30 religious 184, 187 see also genre
United States of America 9, 15, 17,
19, 21–3, 86, 93, 97, 108, 117,
132, 151, 153, 162, 168, 170–2,
174–7, 211, 214–15, 227
Van Djik, T. A. 2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 43,
116, 119, 134, 188
Van Leeuwen 5, 140, 145, 147, 152,
192
see also Kress violence against women 9, 17, 22–3, 167,
173, 177–8, 243 and victimhood 23, 167, 172–4,
176–7
259
implied violent behaviour 215 men’s violence 186 police violence 188 violent discrimination/ marginalization 206, 213 voice(s) dialogical relation of 181, 187, 197 double-voicedness 143 feminist 4, 23, 205–6, 216 misogynist (hetero) sexist 206 non-feminist 208–9 non-mainstream 16 non-hetero normative 220 of academics 219–20 of the culprits, prosecutor, defence counsel, judges and victims 186 of journalists 213 of speech 206 radical feminist 22, 207 reformist feminist 206, 215–16,
220
women’s/female 182, 197
West, C. 12, 24, 133
Wodak, R. 2, 4, 6–7, 12, 32, 168 women and career 61–2, 78, 83–4, 98, 142,
144, 154, 157, 219 and glass ceiling 22, 31, 53, 85, 93,
96
and housework 20, 22, 142, 154,
159, 195 as managers 16, 20–1, 49, 56,
63–5, 66, 69, 72–8, 80, 85, 92,
94, 217 as members of European Parliament
(MEP) 98 as mothers see mother/ motherhood as professors 8, 120, 122, 128–9,
131, 136 as students 15, 93, 117, 123, 125,
132, 136 as workers 73, 197, 212 difference and diversity among
9–10, 17, 22–3, 62–3, 181,
215–16
writers 184, 190–2, 195 workplace 12, 20, 22, 31, 37–9,
46, 48–50, 52, 54, 56, 61–2,
64, 66, 68, 70, 72–5, 77, 79–80,
84–6, 146, 153, 156, 182, 190,
195–7
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 260 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
260 Index workplace – continued and gender 46, 49–50, 72, 75, 84,
159, 212 workplace culture 21, 39, 44, 56–7,
72, 142
workplace interaction 21,
31–3, 35, 39, 46, 48–50,
52–3, 57, 62, 64, 66, 79,
83, 196 see also organizations
References: Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination (ed. M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. Benhabib, Seyla (1987) ‘The generalised and the concrete other: The Kohlberg– Gilligan controversy and feminist theory’, in Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell Billig, Michael (2000) ‘Editorial: towards a critique of the critical’, Discourse & Society, 11 (3): 291–2. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bucholtz, Mary (2003) ‘Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies’, in Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 25 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM Michelle M 25 Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa (1995) ‘Man in the news: the misrepresentation of women speaking in news-as-narrative discourse’, in Sara Mills (ed.), Language Cameron, Deborah (1992) Feminism and Linguistic Theory, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan. Cameron, Deborah (1996) ‘The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation’, in Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing and Alice Freed (eds), Rethinking Language and Cameron, Deborah (1998) ‘Gender, language and discourse: a review essay’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23 (4): 945–73. Chouliaraki, Lilie and Fairclough, Norman (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis Christie, Christine (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics. Connell, Robert W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Connell, Robert W. (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eckert, Penelope (1989) ‘The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation’, Language Variation and Change, 1: 245–67. Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992) ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of Ehrlich, Susan (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York: Routledge. Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in Teun A Flax, Jane (1990) ‘Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory’, in Linda J Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane. Fox-Keller, Evelyn (1996) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fraser, Nancy and Linda J. Nicholson (1990) ‘Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism’, in Linda J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gill, Rosalind (2004) ‘Feisty, fit chicks: the media globalization of technologies of sexiness’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Grant, Judith (1993) Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge. 1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 26 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM 26 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis Hall, Kira and Bucholtz, Mary (eds) (1995), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self Harding, Sandra (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hekman, Susan (1999) ‘Identity crises: identity, identity politics, and beyond’, in Susan Hekman (ed.), Feminism, Identity and Difference Hill-Collins, Patricia (1990) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Hirschmann, Nancy J. (1999) ‘Difference as an occasion for rights: a feminist rethinking of rights, liberalism, and difference’, in Susan Hekman (ed.), hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press. Johnson, Sally and Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (eds) (1997) Language and Masculinity. Kitzinger, Celia (2000) ‘Doing feminist conversation analysis’, Feminism & Psychology, 10 (2): 163–93. Kotthoff, Helga and Wodak, Ruth (eds) (1997), Communicating Gender in Context. Kress, Gunther (1990) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11: 84–99. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design Lather, Patti (1986) ‘Research as praxis’, Harvard Educational Review, 56 (3): 257–77. Lazar, Michelle M. (1993) ‘Equalizing gender relations: a case of double-talk’, Discourse & Society, 4 (4): 443–65. Lazar, Michelle M. (1999) ‘Family life advertisements and the narrative of heterosexual sociality’, in Phyllis G. L. Chew and Anneliese Kramer-Dahl (eds), Reading Culture: Textual Practices in Singapore
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
vii
Notes on the Contributors
viii
List of Abbreviations
xi
1 Politicizing Gender in Discourse: Feminist Critical Discourse
Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis
Michelle M. Lazar
Part I
1
Post-Equality? Analyses of Subtle Sexism
2 Power and Discourse at Work: Is Gender Relevant?
Janet Holmes
31
3 The Gender of Power: The Female Style in
Labour Organizations
Luisa Martín Rojo and Concepción Gómez Esteban
61
4 Gender Mainstreaming and the European Union:
Interdisciplinarity, Gender Studies and CDA
Ruth Wodak
90
5 Negotiating the Classroom Floor: Negotiating Ideologies of Gender and Sexuality
Kathryn A. Remlinger
6 Performing State Fatherhood: The Remaking of Hegemony
Michelle M. Lazar
Part II
114
139
Emancipation and Social Citizenship:
Analyses of Identity and Difference
7 Choosing to Refuse to be a Victim:
‘Power Feminism’ and the Intertextuality of Victimhood and Choice
Mary Talbot v 167
1403_914850_02_previ.fm Page vi Tuesday, May 8, 2007 6:13 PM
vi Contents
8 Interdiscursivity, Gender Identity and the Politics of Literacy in Brazil
Izabel Magalhães
181
9 The ‘Terrorist Feminist’: Strategies of Gate-Keeping in the Hungarian Printed Media
Erzsébet Barát
205
10 Assumptions about Gender, Power and Opportunity:
Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects in a
Portuguese Newspaper
Carlos A. M. Gouveia
Index
229
251
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 1 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
1
Politicizing Gender in Discourse:
Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis as Political Perspective and Praxis
Michelle M. Lazar
A critical perspective on unequal social arrangements sustained through language use, with the goals of social transformation and emancipation, constitutes the cornerstone of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and many feminist language studies. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis brings together, for the first time, an international collection of studies at the nexus of CDA and feminist scholarship (which includes feminist studies of language.)1 The specific aim of the volume is to advance a rich and nuanced understanding of the complex workings of power and ideology in discourse in sustaining a (hierarchically) gendered social order.
This is especially pertinent in present times where issues of gender, power and ideology have become increasingly complex and subtle. First, feminist debates and theorization since the late 1980s have shown that speaking of ‘women’ and ‘men’ in universal, totalizing terms is problematic. Gender as a category intersects with, and is shot through by, other categories of social identity such as sexuality, ethnicity, social position and geography. Patriarchy is also an ideological system that interacts in complex ways with say, corporatist and consumerist ideologies. Second, the workings of gender ideology and asymmetrical power relations in discourse are assuming more subtle forms in the contemporary period, albeit in different degrees and ways in different local communities.
Grounded in specific empirical studies, the contributions in this book address both kinds of intricacy in their analyses of various discursive structures and strategies emergent in their different texts and talk. In a variety of cultural and institutional contexts – which include the news and advertising media, educational settings, workplaces, governments and transnational organizations – the studies show the complex and subtle ways in which taken-for-granted social assumptions and hegemonic
1
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 2 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
2 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
power relations are discursively produced, perpetuated, negotiated and challenged. That these studies are not merely textual de-construction for its own sake, but that the issues dealt with (in view of effecting social transformation) have actual material and phenomenological consequences for groups of women and men in specific societies, is put across in the volume.
‘Feminist critical discourse analysis’ and the politics of naming Why a feminist critical discourse analysis?
Over the last ten years or so, in several branches of discourse studies there has been a concerted move to explicitly include the label ‘feminist’ in the various sub-fields by feminist scholars working in these areas. For example, we now have ‘feminist stylistics’ (Mills 1995), ‘feminist pragmatics’ (Christie 2000), and ‘feminist conversation analysis’ (see, for example, Kitzinger 2000). In all these areas, the mainstream research has been characterized by a supposedly neutral and objective inquiry, which feminist scholars operating within it have challenged. Writing more broadly about ‘feminism and linguistic theory’ in 1992, Cameron explained that one of her main objectives was to ‘question the whole scholarly objective bias of linguistics and to show how assumptions and practices of linguistics are implicated in patriarchal ideology and oppression’ (1992: 16). The need to identify and establish a feminist perspective in language and discourse studies is of course part of what feminists in the academia have for many years criticized and sought to change across male-stream disciplines in the humanities, social sciences and sciences (Spender 1981).
One might nonetheless quite reasonably ask, ‘But why a feminist CDA?’
Eschewing the ‘disciplinary’ label and preferring instead to be seen as a research perspective (van Dijk 1994a) or a research programme (Fairclough and Wodak 1997), CDA is known for its overtly political stance and is concerned with all forms of social inequality and injustice. Moreover, the debt CDA owed to feminist approaches in women’s studies in providing an impetus to the fledgling field in the 1980s has also sometimes been openly acknowledged (van Dijk 1991). It is not surprising, therefore, that feminists have been working quite happily under the rubric of
CDA without needing to explicitly flag a feminist perspective.
Why, then, the explicit feminist label? There are a number of reasons for it. First, the most straightforward is that studies in CDA with a gender
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 3 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 3
focus mostly adopt a critical feminist view of gender relations, motivated by the need to change the existing conditions of these relations; thus what emerges from this volume, for instance, is clearly a set of distinctly feminist concerns. Even where individual authors may not use the term
‘feminist’ overtly, it is necessary as a collective to make explicit that shared perspective.
Second, the following reservations expressed by some feminists provide pause for thought. Cameron (1998: 969–70) wrote that ‘[CDA] is one of those broadly progressive projects whose founders and dominant figures are nevertheless all straight white men, and Wilkinson and
Kitzinger (1995) specifically remark on these men’s failure to give credit to feminists by citing their work.’ In my view, the social identities of these CDA practitioners per se are not a problem as frequently these same men are sympathetic to feminist concerns. What is striking, though, is that most feminist research in CDA is undertaken by a diversity of women in a wide range of geographical locations, not all of whom are white and heterosexual. In regard to Wilkinson and Kitzinger’s observation, one might note that more recent theorization in some quarters of
CDA does draw upon and include, among other sources, feminist works
(for example, Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). In terms of a feminist
CDA, however, we might envisage more than citations from feminist scholars, important as that is. It is necessary within CDA to establish a distinctly ‘feminist politics of articulation’ (to borrow Wetherell’s 1995:
141 phrase), i.e. to theorize and analyse from a critical feminist perspective the particularly insidious and oppressive nature of gender as an omni-relevant category in most social practices. Eckert, for instance, has pointed to the way gender operates in a pervasive and complex way from other systems of oppression:
Whereas the power relations between men and women are similar to those between dominated and subordinated classes and ethnic groups, the day to day context in which these power relations are played out is quite different. It is not a cultural norm for each working class individual to be paired up for life with a member of the middle class or for every black person to be so paired up for life with a white person. However, our traditional gender ideology dictates just this kind of relationship between men and women.
(1989: 253–4)
Third, a consequence of the absence of self-naming has meant that feminist critical discourse analysts dispersed across the globe have not
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 4 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
4 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
sufficiently organized themselves to come together in a shared forum.
This volume, it is hoped, is one such attempt to draw together international scholars working in ‘feminist CDA’. The issue of collectivity and gaining group visibility is important, too, for another reason. Although
CDA in its early years had a marginal status within the more established mainstream fields in linguistics, today it has shifted more to the centre and has become somewhat of an orthodoxy itself (see Billig 2000).
Writing in the early 1990s, van Dijk had remarked that ‘[f]or CDA to become a prominent approach in the humanities and social sciences, we should expect dozens of books, hundreds of articles and conference papers, and special symposia or conference sections yearly’ (1991: 1).
More than ten years on, all these have been achieved and more: for example, in the year 2004, an international CDA conference and, separately, a new international journal on critical discourse studies have appeared. The importance, then, of feminist visibility and voice in ‘mainstream’ CDA scholarship, interestingly, also has a political function.
Why a feminist critical discourse analysis?
It is now widely recognized that there has been a turn towards language or, more specifically, towards discourse in social scientific research.
From post-structuralist theorization, we have a view of discourse as a site of struggle, where forces of social (re)production and contestation are played out. Within feminist scholarship, the discursive turn, not surprisingly, therefore, is reflected in volumes outside linguistics (for example, Wilkinson and Kitzinger 1995) as well as within linguistics
(for example, Hall and Bucholtz 1995; Wodak 1997; Litosseliti and
Sunderland 2002). The present volume, from the perspective of feminist
CDA, is intended as a timely contribution to the growing body of feminist discourse literature.
Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995: 5) have noted that there is really ‘no necessary coincidence between the interests of feminists and discourse analysts’, even though the possibility for fruitful engagement is there.
In terms of feminism and CDA in particular, however, there is actually much overlap in terms of social emancipatory goals. Indeed, unlike feminist approaches that apply descriptive discourse analytic methods, feminist CDA has the advantage of operating, at the outset, within a politically invested programme of discourse analysis. CDA offers a sophisticated theorization of the relationship between social practices and discourse structures (see, for example, Wodak and Meyer 2001, for various types of theorization), and a wide range of tools and strategies for close analysis of actual, contextualized uses of language. Further,
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 5 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 5
under the umbrella of CDA research, explicit analyses of various forms of systemic inequalities have been developed. For feminist discourse scholars, much can be learnt about the interconnections as well as particularities of discursive strategies employed in various forms of social oppression that can feed back into feminist strategies for social change. The marriage of feminism with CDA, in sum, can produce a rich and powerful political critique for action.
Feminist CDA as a political perspective on gender, concerned with demystifying the interrelationships of gender, power and ideology in discourse, is equally applicable to the study of texts as well as talk, which offers a corrective to approaches that primarily favour one linguistic mode over another. Frameworks for analysis of discourse in CDA (for example, Kress and van Leeuwen 1996; Scollon 2001) also, importantly, acknowledge a multimodal dimension. Together with language, other semiotic modalities (such as visual images, layouts, gestures and sounds) are analysed, making for an enriching and insightful analysis. Clearly, a multimodal view of discourse has great value for a holistic feminist critique of discursive constructions of gender (Lazar 1999; 2000).
Feminist critical discourse analysis as political praxis
Key interrelated principles of feminist CDA as theory and practice are outlined below.
Feminist analytical resistance
CDA is part of an emancipatory critical social science which, as mentioned, is openly committed to the achievement of a just social order through a critique of discourse. As feminist critical discourse analysts, our central concern is with critiquing discourses which sustain a patriarchal social order: that is, relations of power that systematically privilege men as a social group and disadvantage, exclude and disempower women as a social group. One of the aims is to show that social practices on the whole, far from being neutral, are in fact gendered in this way. The gendered nature of social practices can be described on two levels (Connell
1987; Flax 1990). First, ‘gender’ functions as an interpretative category that enables participants in a community to make sense of and structure their particular social practices. Second, gender is a social relation that enters into and partially constitutes all other social relations and activities.
Based on the specific, asymmetric meanings of ‘male’ and ‘female’, and the consequences being assigned to one or the other within concrete social practices, such an allocation becomes a constraint on further practices.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 6 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
6 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
A feminist political critique of gendered social practices and relations is aimed ultimately at effecting social transformation. The social status quo is contested in favour of a feminist humanist vision of a just society, in which gender does not predetermine or mediate our relationships with others, and our sense of who we are or might become (Hill Collins
1990; Grant 1993). Analysis of discourse which shows up the workings of power that sustain oppressive social structures/relations is itself a form of ‘analytical resistance’ (van Dijk 1991), and contributes to ongoing struggles of contestation and change.
The radical emancipatory agenda makes for a ‘praxis-oriented research’, centrally based upon a dialectical relationship between theory and practice (Lather 1986). This entails mobilizing theory in order to create critical awareness and develop feminist strategies for resistance and change. The imbrication of power and ideology in discourse is sometimes not as apparent to participants involved in particular social practices as it is from the point of view of critical theorization of their interrelations (Kress 1990; Fairclough 1992; Fairclough and Wodak 1997).
In other words, to speak from the position of a ‘woman’ is not the same as speaking from the political perspective of a feminist. Grant (1993:
181) puts this nicely when she writes that ‘to know as a woman means to know from the perspective of the structure of gender. In contrast, a feminist perspective means that one has a critical distance on gender and on oneself.’ The critical praxis orientation not only informs the approach to social justice; it also shapes the theory itself. As Kress
(1990: 88) noted of CDA, such an orientation entails making ‘linguistics itself more accountable, more responsible, and more responsive to questions of social equity’.
A critical praxis-oriented research, therefore, cannot and does not pretend to adopt a neutral stance; in fact, as Lather (1986: 259) notes, it is scholarship that makes its biases part of its argument. To critics who discount overtly political research as lacking in ‘objectivity’ and
‘scientificity’ (see, for example, Widdowson’s 1995 criticism of CDA), the feminist position has been to raise as problematic the notion of scientific neutrality itself, because it fails to recognize that all knowledge is socially and historically constructed and valuationally based (Harding
1986; Fox-Keller 1996; see also Chouliaraki and Fairclough’s 1999 response to Widdowson).
‘Gender’ as ideological structure
From a critical view, ideologies are representations of practices formed from particular perspectives in the interest of maintaining unequal
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 7 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 7
power relations and dominance. Although such a view of ideology in
Marxist accounts was developed specifically in terms of class relations, the concept now has wider currency and encompasses other relations of domination (Fairclough and Wodak 1997), including gender. From a feminist perspective, the prevailing conception of gender is understood as an ideological structure that divides people into two classes, men and women, based on a hierarchical relation of domination and subordination, respectively. Based upon sexual difference, the gender structure imposes a social dichotomy of labour and human traits for women and men, the substance of which varies according to time and place. Feminists have long criticized the easy mapping of physiological sex on to social gender, and more recently some have critiqued the naturalness of
‘sex’ itself, arguing that it too is socially constructed (Butler 1993).
Grant (1993: 185) puts it this way: ‘[I]t is true that the structure of gender acts through and is inscribed on sexed bodies, but the whole idea of two sexes only has meaning because those meanings are required by the gender structure in the first place.’ Although, as individuals, people may deviate from the archetypes of masculinity and femininity pertinent to a community, this nonetheless occurs against the ideological structure of gender that privileges men as a social group, giving them what Connell
(1995) terms a ‘patriarchal dividend’, in terms of access to symbolic, social, political and economic capital. One example of symbolic capital accrued to men in English-speaking cultures, for instance, is in the way male pronouns and nouns have been given generic status in the English language, which by default always assures men of visibility, whilst simultaneously rendering women invisible (Spender 1985).
Gender ideology is hegemonic in that it often does not appear as domination at all; instead it seems largely consensual and acceptable to most in a community. The winning of consent and the perpetuation of the otherwise tenuous relation of dominance (Gramsci 1971) are largely accomplished through discursive means, especially in the ways ideological assumptions are constantly re-enacted and circulated through discourse as commonsensical and natural. The taken-for-grantedness and normalcy of such knowledge is what mystifies or obscures the power differential and inequality at work. One of the persuasive and enduring commonsensical assumptions has been the ‘naturalness’ of the ‘two sex only’ idea, and that of necessity the two, also in social terms, must be inherently contrasting. The contrast in most cultures, as Cameron (1996) notes, is read as complementary (that is, matching what the ‘opposite sex’ is not), and is rendered desirable such that at least some aspects of the status quo have appeal, even though materially that disempowers women.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 8 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
8 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
To say that patriarchal gender ideology is structural is to suggest that it is enacted and renewed in a society’s institutions and social practices, which mediate between the individual and the social order. It means, therefore, that asymmetrical gender relations cannot merely be explained by individuals’ intentions, even though it is often individuals who act as agents of oppression (Weedon 1997). Connell (1987; 1995) argues that institutions are substantively structured in terms of gender ideology so that even though gender may not be the most important aspect in a particular instance, it is in the majority of cases. This accounts for the pervasiveness of tacit androcentrism in many organizational cultures, in which not only men but also frequently women are complicit. (See the case of women professors in universities, and women employees in companies who perpetuate sexist attitudes and practices in Chapters 5 and 3, respectively, in this volume.) In turn, gender inequality gets perpetuated through women’s and men’s habitual, differential participation in their particular institutions, also understood in terms of particular communities of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992).
The various ways that the institutionalization of gender inequality is discursively enacted are examined in this volume in regard to a wide range of institutions and social practices: in advertising and news media, educational settings, workplaces and associations, and political institutions.2 These institutions range from the local (Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 8), national (Chapters 6, 7, 9 and 10) to supranational (Chapter 4) levels. Although the prevailing gender ideology is hegemonic and is routinely exercised in a myriad of social practices, it is also contestable. The dialectical tension between structural permanences and the practical activity of people engaged in social practices (Chouliaraki and Fairclough
1999), means that there are ruptures in the otherwise seamless and natural quality of gender ideology. While a focus on creativity and transgression is important, this must be, at the same time, carefully considered in relation to the constraints and possibilities afforded by particular social structures and practices. Otherwise, a celebration of agency on its own can become romanticized; as Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 48) remind us, the extent to which, and for whom, interaction can be creative largely depend on the particular social structures. Another issue worth considering is whether acts that go against gendered expectations may unwittingly result in the reinforcement of the existing gender structure.
For instance, the ‘masculinization’ of talk by women in power (see
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 below), or the ‘feminization’ of forms of masculinity
(see Chapter 6), on one level, may appear to transgress the expected gender
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 9 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar 9
norms for women and men; yet, on another level, these gender crossings inadvertently emphasize the underlying dualism of the gender structure and, as these studies also show, the deviations from the gender-appropriate norms are policed through criticism by others and/ or through containment.
Complexity of gender and power relations
Third-wave feminist and post-structuralist theories have contributed to complex and nuanced understandings of power relations and gender at work within particular social orders. Two important insights for a feminist CDA have been the recognition of difference and diversity among
‘women’ (and ‘men’), which has called for undertaking historically and culturally contingent analyses of gender and sexism; and the pervasiveness of the subtle, discursive workings of modern power in many modern societies (both of these are discussed below). While there is a diversity of forms which gender and sexism assume in different cultures and across time, the structure of gender (and the power asymmetry that it entails) has been remarkably persistent over time and place. An important goal, then, for feminist CDA is to undertake contingent analyses of the oppression of women, as Rubin has put it, in its ‘endless variety and monotonous similarity’ (quoted in Fraser and Nicholson 1990: 28).
Power relations are a struggle over interests, which are exercised, reflected, maintained and resisted through a variety of modalities, extents and degrees of explicitness. Overt forms of gender asymmetries or sexism include blatant exclusionary gate-keeping social practices, physical violence against women, and misogynistic verbal harassment and denigration. Such overt manifestations of power (or the threat of it), to varying extents, remain a reality for women in many societies, including Western societies such as the USA which, in spite of legislation against blatant sex discrimination, continues to witness a rampant
‘rape culture’. Much more pervasive and insidious in modern societies, however, is the operation of a subtle and seemingly innocuous form of power that is substantively discursive in nature. This form of power is embedded and dispersed throughout networks of relations, is selfregulating, and produces subjects in both senses of the word (Foucault
1977). From a feminist perspective, it is necessary to note, though, that even though power may be ‘everywhere’, gendered subjects are affected by it in different ways. From a critical discourse analytic perspective, too, it is useful to complement the concept of modern power with the view of power relations as dominance, particularly in Gramsci’s terms of hegemony (see Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999). The effectiveness
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 10 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
10 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
of modern power (and hegemony) is that it is mostly cognitive, based on an internalization of gendered norms and acted out routinely in the texts and talk of everyday life. This makes it an invisible power, ‘misrecognized’ as such, and ‘recognized’ instead as quite legitimate and natural
(Bourdieu 1991). Relations of power and dominance (cf. Foucault,
Bourdieu and Gramsci), however, can be discursively resisted as well as counter-resisted in a dynamic struggle over securing and challenging the interests at stake. The task of feminist CDA is to examine how power and dominance are discursively produced and/or resisted in a variety of ways through textual representations of gendered social practices, and through interactional strategies of talk. Also of concern to feminist CDA are issues of access to forms of discourse, such as particular communicative events and culturally valued genres (see van Dijk 1993; 1996) that can be empowering for women’s participation in public domains (see
Chapters 5 and 8 below).
The mechanisms of power not only often work in subtle and complex ways, but the relations of asymmetry are also produced and experienced in complexly different ways for and by different groups of women.
A major advance in current feminist theory has been the acknowledgement that the category ‘woman’ in second-wave theorization lacked generic status – that is, standing universally for all women – in the same way that second-wave feminists found that the category ‘man’ did not encompass all of humankind. Even though women are subordinated to men structurally in the patriarchal gender order, the overlap of the gender structure with other relations of power based on race/ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, age, culture and geography means that gender oppression is neither materially experienced nor discursively enacted in the same way for women everywhere. For example, Butler
(1990), among others, has argued for the way systems of heterosexism and gender combine to produce normative gender identities that are implicitly heterosexist (see Chapters 6 and 9 below), which affords relatively more privilege to heterosexual women than to lesbians.
Lesbians, in fact, may experience greater discrimination in that not only are they marginalized by the hetero-gendered order, they are made further invisible as ‘women’ even in the gay community (see Chapter
10 below).
Acknowledging differences among women and the forms of sexism to which they are differentially subject does not eschew the broader feminist political project of emancipation and social justice for ‘women’; rather, there is a need for feminist political action to be inflected by the specificity of cultural, historical and institutional frameworks, and
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 11 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
11
contextualized in terms of women’s complexly constructed social identities (Lazar 2002). Feminist CDA then would imply a perspective that is comparativist rather than universalizing, attentive to the discursive aspects of the forms of oppression and interests which divide as well as unite groups of women. In the comparativist spirit, this volume brings together studies located in geographically and culturally diverse contexts, ranging from what is sometimes (crudely) referred to as the ‘first’, ‘third’ and (formerly) ‘second’ worlds. Even within similar groups, it is necessary to attend to points of commonality and differences. Chapters 2–4 all deal with professional women of high socio-economic status in affluent Western countries. Although the concerns of this group of women can be said to be fairly similar, and collectively very different from working-class women from non-Western countries (see, for example,
Chapter 8 below), they each also manifest different levels and forms of discrimination in their respective workplaces.
Discourse in the (de)construction of gender
Post-structuralist conceptions of discourse as socially constitutive signifying practices have been fruitfully combined with linguistic approaches in many CDA and recent gender and language studies. Along with
Chouliariaki and Fairclough (1999), feminist CDA takes the view of discourse as one element of social practices; of particular interest to discourse analysts are those aspects of social practices that are discursive in character (talking and writing, for example, are discursive ways of acting) and also discursively represented in particular ideological ways. As
Fairclough (1992; 1995) has noted, the relationship between discourse and the social is a dialectical one, in which discourse constitutes, and is constituted by, social situations, institutions and structures. The notion of constitution applies in the sense that every act of meaning-making through spoken and written language use and other forms of semiosis contributes to the reproduction and maintenance of the social order, and also in the sense of resisting and transforming that order.
The discursive constitution of the social may be analysed broadly in terms of representations, relationships and identities (Fairclough 1989;
1992). For feminist CDA, the focus is on how gender ideology and gendered relations of power are (re)produced, negotiated and contested in representations of social practices, in social relationships between people, and in people’s social and personal identities in texts and talk.
Underlying a critical feminist analysis of discourse in these three domains is the principle of ‘gender relationality’, which may be signalled explicitly or maintained implicitly in the studies. Gender relationality entails a
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 12 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
12 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
focus on two kinds of relationships. First, and primarily, the focus is on the discursive co-constructions of ways of doing and being a woman and a man in particular communities of practice. The concern is not with women in isolation, but vis-à-vis men within particular gender orders.
Gender relationality in this sense also renders analysable, from a feminist perspective, how men talk (see Johnson and Meinhof 1997) and are textually represented. Second, gender relationality entails an analytic focus also on the dynamics between forms of masculinity (Connell
1995): specifically, in terms of how these participate within hierarchies of oppression that affect women. Similarly, there needs to be a critical awareness of relations among (groups of) women: for example, how women may rally together in solidarity to oppose some form of discrimination, or how women themselves operating within androcentric cultures
(for instance, at home or at salaried workplaces) help perpetuate sexist attitudes and practices against other women. Where the aim of such analysis is praxis-oriented and concerned with social transformation of structures of gender oppression, awareness and attitudinal change by both men and women are necessary.
Social constructionist approaches emphasize the on-going, iterative and active accomplishment of gender (along with other identities) in and through discourse (West, Lazar and Kramarae 1997). Accomplishment suggests that people, through their linguistic (and non-linguistic) behaviour, produce rather than reflect a priori identities as ‘women’ and
‘men’ in particular historical and cultural locations, although the produced identities often get viewed as ‘natural’, immanent and transhistorical.
Within feminist CDA, the use of both the ethnomethodologically-based concept of ‘doing gender’ as well as the post-modernist idea of ‘gender performativity’ can be found. The ethnomethodological ‘take’ is quite clearly compatible with feminist CDA research in its insistence on situating gender accomplishments within institutional frameworks, and in asserting that doing gender means creating hierarchical differences between people (West and Zimmerman 1987). The ethnomethodological orientation is evident in this volume, for example, in Holmes’ and
Wodak’s discussions on ‘doing power’ and ‘doing politics’, respectively.
Post-modernist understandings of ‘gender as performance’, however, have been notably problematic for some feminists (e.g., Grant 1993;
Kotthoff and Wodak 1997; Hekman 1999), who rightly point out that there is a tendency by Butler, for instance, to locate everything in discourse and overlook experiential and material aspects of identity and power relations. Also problematic from a feminist perspective is the celebration of individual freedoms to perform transgressive acts such as
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 13 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
13
cross-dressing, which are not tantamount to a radical subversion of the gender structures; indeed, such acts unwittingly only help to reinforce those very structures. However, it needs to be noted, too, that Butler
(1990) does acknowledge (especially in earlier accounts) the coerciveness of ‘rigid regulatory frames’ that police gender performances in a way which makes the accomplishment of identities neither freely chosen nor entirely determined acts. A political ‘take’ on performativity, based on empirical studies, is of value to feminist CDA (see Chapters 5 and 6 below). Although typically gender and language studies have applied gender performativity to research on individuals in talk, Chapter 6 also shows how gender identities can be performed representationally in texts, and by institutional bodies.
Investigations of the interrelations between gender, power, ideology and discourse are necessarily complex and multifaceted, which explains why feminist studies and CDA alike (and feminist CDA at their confluence) are open to interdisciplinary research. The interdisciplinarity in feminist CDA is evident on three counts: first, in terms of the kinds of social and political questions it seeks to address, and the range of theoretical and empirical inspiration that underpins the research; second, it is evident, methodologically, in some studies, in the collection and contextualization of linguistic data based on ethnographic methods, which include interviews and participant observation (see Chapters 2, 5 and 8 below); third, in terms of actual collaborative research undertaken between scholars across disciplines (see in this volume the call by
Wodak; note also Chapter 3, which attests to joint research by a linguist and a sociologist).
The scope and approach to analysis of discourse within feminist CDA is also catholic. Based on concrete analysis, the data in feminist CDA includes contextualized instances of spoken and written language as well as other forms of semiosis such as visual images, layout, gestures and actions. While the analysis of data includes meanings expressed overtly, it is especially attentive to the less obvious, nuanced and implicit meanings for the subtle and complex renderings of ideological assumptions and power relations in contemporary societies. The approach and tools for undertaking principled analysis of talk and text are many and varied. The analytic frameworks and categories include those from pragmatics, semantics, systemic-functional grammar, narrative structures and conversation analysis. Although some would argue against the compatibility between conversation analysis and CDA perspectives
(see Schegloff 1997), feminist conversation analysts have found the engagement a fruitful one (see Stokoe and Weatherall 2002; see also
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 14 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
14 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Chapter 2 below). These feminist scholars stress both the value of the emergent character of gender in interactions, and the need for sociohistorical and institutional framing of the category of gender.
Levels and foci of analysis in feminist CDA are also wide-ranging, including choices in lexis, clauses/sentences/utterances, conversational turns, structures of argument and genre, and interactions between discourses. The latter, also known as interdiscursive analysis (Fairclough
1992), is influenced particularly by Bakhtin’s (1981) idea of the dialogicality of texts, and is concerned with the identification of, and more importantly the interaction between, different discourses (and also genres) within particular texts and talk. (See Chapter 7 below for an elaboration of the concept.) For example, I have identified the presence of two competing discourses of gender relations in a set of government advertisements – one based on traditionalism, and the other on egalitarianism – and have shown the complex ways in which the former achieves dominance (Lazar 1993; 2000; see also Chapter 6 below). The dual discourses attest to the changing social-cultural context of a community, which recognizes the complexity of interactants’ positions regarding views on gender relations, as well as contributing to the form(ul)ation of complex hybrid gender identities. The idea of the two discourses originally identified has relevance beyond the Singapore context, as can be seen also in studies by Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban about Spain (2003), and Magalhães about Brazil (Chapter 8 below).
Critical reflexivity as praxis
According to Giddens (1991), reflexivity is a generally pronounced characteristic of late modern societies, by which he means the increased tendency for people in this period to utilize knowledge about social processes and practices in a way that shapes their own subsequent practices. A critical focus on reflexivity, as a phenomenon of contemporary social life, must be an important facet of the practice of feminist CDA.
There are at least two levels for this interest. First, the interest lies in how reflexivity is manifested in institutional practices, with implications for possibilities for change in the social and personal mindsets and practices of individuals. Second, there is a need for on-going critical self-reflexivity for feminists keen on achieving radical transformation of the gendered social structures. Each of these will be elaborated below, with implications for a critical feminist analysis of discourse and practice. Reflexivity of institutions is of interest to feminist CDA both in terms of the progressive institutional practices engendered, and in terms of
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 15 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
15
the strategic uses of feminism to further non-feminist goals. Awareness of feminist concerns for women’s inclusivity and opportunity for just participation in the public sphere is reflected in the implementation of women-friendly programmes in at least some organizations in some contexts. For example, it is now fairly commonplace in many universities in the global north/west and in some universities in the south/east to include gender-related modules, including studies on gender and language, in their curricula. The relative acceptability and respectability for such studies in universities today is in no small part due to the efforts of feminists. When taught from a feminist perspective, such studies afford a space for discussion and reflection on, for instance, gender and language issues, and have the potential for raising critical awareness among students. Remlinger’s chapter on two North American universities (Chapter 5) reports precisely on such a case, noting the reflexivity of some (women and men) students in opposing sexist uses of language and dominant gender ideologies in class discussions. In a separate study, Wodak (Chapter 4) reports on another instance of institutional reflexivity, manifested this time in gender-mainstreaming efforts by a major supranational organization, the European Union, in a bid to ensure an equitable work environment for women and men employees. While it may be argued that institutional efforts such as those above still have some way to go, nonetheless they undeniably represent a positive step forward.
Unlike the above, there are also institutional reflexive practices that recuperate feminist values of egalitarianism and empowerment for non-feminist ends (see Gill 2004; Lazar 2004; Talbot 1998; and
Chapter 7 below). The advertising industry in particular is notorious in this regard. The problem is not so much the case of appropriating feminism merely for commercial gain, but that frequently such appropriation entails an insidious subversion of feminism as a political force.
‘Recuperative reflexivity’ is not limited only to consumerism; it is also used for other persuasive effects by governments and national newspapers
(see Chapters 6 and 10 below). The latter case provides an indication that institutional reflexivity of this kind is indeed quite pervasive, affecting other systems of inequality (such as heterosexism) as well.
Aside from a focus on institutional forms of reflexivity, there is a need also for feminists to be critically reflexive of our own theoretical positions and practices lest these inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation, rather than the subversion, of hierarchically differential treatment of women. One issue in need of clarity is what we mean and expect by the term ‘emancipation’. For feminist critical discourse analysts, the ultimate
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 16 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
16 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
goal is a radical social transformation based on social justice that opens up unlimited possibilities both for women and men as human beings; a discursive critique of the prevailing limiting structures is a step in that direction. From this view, liberal, reformist positions – even when embraced by some feminists – is inadequate (see Chapter 9 below) and can be easily co-opted by the dominant structures.
Contemporary feminist theorists have pointed to the inherent flaws in classical liberal notions of equality and freedom, as premised upon an abstract universalism and ‘sameness’. First, equality from this perspective implies ‘same as men’, where the yardstick is that already set by men. Instead of a radical shift in the gender order, women therefore are required to fit into the prevailing androcentric structures. Many of the problems encountered by modern women in the public sphere, in spite of (and as a result of) gaining access to education and paid employment, are due to the unchanging gendered social structures. For example, exclusion and alienation among peers and subordinates, the lack of female role models and self-determined leadership styles for women managers, suppression of non-mainstream voices in peer discussions, and the double shift-work shouldered by women in the office and at home. These social issues are also in part discursive in nature, which in various ways are analysed and discussed in the studies in Part I of this volume. Second, the dominant liberal ideology assumes the sameness of all women. It has allowed middle-class, heterosexual, Western, white women to represent their partial experiences as universally shared by all women, thereby ignoring the material conditions and needs of nonWestern, non-white, lesbian and poor women around the globe (hooks
1984; Mohanty, Russo and Torres 1991; Moghadam 1994). Several of the chapters in Part II of the volume attempt to redress this problem from the perspective of feminist critical discourse studies.
Although the existing liberal ideology is flawed – and what is required in the long term is a serious re-visioning of gender – there is implicit consensus among most feminists regarding the value of the ideals of liberalism for a current pragmatic feminist politics. Hirschman (1999: 28), for instance, notes that the ideals of freedom and equality are historically important for politically disadvantaged groups of women who have been systematically denied equality under the law and freedom to control their lives, make choices and act as agents in the world. It is necessary, however, to reconceptualize the category of ‘universality’ and rights along the lines of current third-wave feminist thinking. As proposed by Hirschman (1999) and Benhabib (1987), this involves viewing universality in ‘concrete’ rather than in abstract terms, based
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 17 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
17
on acknowledgement of specific differences in the material conditions, contexts and situations of women’s lives. Only by attending to, instead of negating ‘difference’, can feminists identify and theorize more accurately the commonalities of gender oppression, and build alliances among women in tackling specific issues and achieving concrete political goals.
It is hoped that Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, as an international forum based on concrete discursive analysis of different local situations, contributes to feminist politics in this way.
Even while acknowledging the usefulness of certain liberal ideals reconceptualized in feminist terms, there is a need to safeguard against slipping into the current mainstream neo-liberal thinking that is pervasive in the late modern societies of today. Of particular concern to feminist CDA is the global neo-liberal discourse of post-feminism (Lazar
2004). According to this discourse, once certain equality indicators (such as rights to educational access, labour force participation, property ownership, and abortion and fertility) are achieved by women, feminism is considered to have outlived its purpose and ceases to be of relevance.
Although the discourse tends to be particularly associated with the developed industrialized societies of the West, the dichotomous framing in terms of the global west/north versus the east/south is quite misleading.
Even in the case of the former, women’s rights and freedoms cannot be assumed as a given, for these can be contested through backlash discourses and changing public policies (note the recent contestation of abortion laws by the Bush government in America). Also, rights and freedoms are not total: for example, a gendered wage gap continues to exist in a number of these societies, as does systematic male violence against women in various forms and permutations which curtails women’s full social emancipation.
The discourse of popular post-feminism is in urgent need of critique for it lulls one into thinking that struggles over the social transformation of the gender order have become defunct in the present time. The discourse is partly a masculinist backlash that defends against the whittling away of the patriarchal dividend. However, it is important to recognize that some women, including those who explicitly identify themselves as feminists (for example, Walter 1999; Wolf 1993 cited in Chapter 7 below), also attest to the presence of a post-feminist era. According to these women, this is a time for celebrating women’s new-found power and achievements; it is a moment of ‘power feminism’ (see Chapter 7 below, which offers a discursive analysis of one aspect of this).
While it is important to acknowledge the social, economic and political strides achieved by a growing number of young women in many industrialized
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 18 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
18 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
societies today, there is a need also to exercise critical reflexivity on the matter. One of the problematic assumptions of post-feminist discourse is that women can ‘have it all’ if only they try hard enough, which makes women’s struggles and accomplishments a purely personal matter, obscuring the actual social and material constraints faced by different groups of women. Concomitantly, there seems to be an inward-looking focus and contentment only in the achievement of personal freedoms and fulfilment. A self-focused ‘me-feminism’ of this sort detracts from a collective ‘we-feminism’ needed for a transformational political program
(Lazar 2001). The focus on freedoms alone, moreover, is inadequate; as some have argued, freedom for feminists is only the beginning, not the end (Grant 1999: 189). In the current sway of post-feminism in modern societies, Segal pointedly argues for the continued relevance of feminism as follows: ‘Why feminism? Because its most radical goal, both personal and collective, has yet to be realised: a world which is a better place not just for some women, but for all women’ (1999: 232).
Finally, feminist self-reflexivity must extend beyond a position of theoretical critique to include one’s own academic and other practices.
I want to reflect here on the gate-keeping practices of research as well as an instance of teaching. In regard to research, the importance of internationalizing the scope in order to theorize more carefully the endless variety and monotonous similarity of gender oppression across diverse geographical contexts has been established above. Another part of feminist academic practice is the importance of including and representing where possible international feminist scholarship in research articles, in authoritative handbooks, readers and textbooks, and in plenary addresses at international conferences.
Referring to the overwhelming representation of (white) scholars from the north (or west) in academia, including in the more critical-oriented fields, van Dijk (1994b) has noted this as a form of academic ethnocentrism, based upon seldom questioned feelings of scholarly and cultural superiority. Although feminist linguists today are increasingly reflexive on the issue of representation and inclusion of diversity, two points are worth further critical consideration. The first pertains to researching a community outside one’s own, when undertaken not in collaboration with the locals or native scholars of the community, but from an external position of authority. This is problematic when the direction of expertise flows from traditionally privileged groups at the centre to subaltern groups. Therefore, when (white) scholars from the north (or west) make authoritative knowledge claims about communities in the south (or east), there is a danger of re-enacting historical imperialism in academic neo-imperialist terms.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 19 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
19
The second point worth critical feminist reflexivity pertains to what
I would call ‘marked inclusion’. This refers to the benevolent inclusion of critical and/or feminist discourse studies from non-Western geographical regions in international fora, but marked as ‘other’ instead of mainstreamed. For example, some years ago, an academic report written after the event of a ‘Language and Masculinity’ seminar held at a university in England scrupulously named the geographical locations of the ‘non-Western’ studies presented at the seminar, but left unmarked those studies from the West. In a separate event, the third International
Gender and Language conference (IGALA3) held in Connell (USA) in
2004 expressed in its conference publicity notices the aim to highlight the ‘international’ in the conference title. This was done by devoting a plenary session in the programme to ‘international perspectives’, in which four speakers from diverse non-Western countries (and a Western white male as the panel moderator) shared an extended timeslot. In both examples, good intentions notwithstanding, the practice of marking inadvertently emphasizes as ‘other’ non-Western research from mainstreamed Western studies or studies undertaken by scholars in the
West. (Perhaps, in the case of IGALA3, one of the non-Western panellists could have been offered an unmarked full plenary slot just like her other Western plenary compatriots in the programme.)
Interaction among feminists, too, requires critical reflexivity, especially in public professional situations such as teaching. I will offer a personal anecdote here as an example. Some years ago, I was teaching a feminist language studies module with two other (women) colleagues at a university where the conventional practice was to address members of staff in the classroom by professional title plus surname. While the module co-ordinator did this when referring to the other colleague in the classroom, at the same time she constantly referred to me only by my first name.
The differential naming was part of other subtle practices of avoidance of eye contact and neglect to show me the finalized exam paper. While of course personal antipathy among women – and feminists – can and does exist, the point of the example is that such slights in context cannot be read merely as personal (or unprofessional) but as political acts of denying equal professional status. This is because as feminists and critical analysts of discourse we are fully aware of the politics of naming and exclusionary practices, about which we also educate our students. So when we ourselves do this to others – in this case, ironically within a gender and language classroom and by one feminist to another – we cannot ignore political questions of disaffection and exclusion, and must be reflexive especially as feminists in our own practices with others.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 20 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
20 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Organization of the book
The volume is divided into two parts, each of which respectively, though not exclusively, addresses issues around two broad themes:
‘Post-Equality? Analyses of Subtle Sexism’, and ‘Emancipation and Social
Citizenship: Analyses of Identity and Difference’. These represent,
I believe, important contemporary feminist concerns that are complex and sometimes subtle in nature, which feminist CDA aims to investigate through nuanced, contextualized analyses of texts and talk.
Part I
Post-equality? Analyses of subtle sexism
This section addresses popular post-feminist assumptions that once a measure of equality, in liberal terms, has been achieved by women, gender struggles along with feminism have ended. The chapters in this section deal with various contexts that acknowledge (some) women’s visibility and ascendancy in the public domains of paid work, politics and education. Also featured are the concerted efforts by one government body to make visible men’s roles in the private domain of childcare and housework. While recognizing these changes in contemporary modern societies, the ‘post’ in ‘post-equality’ and the question mark in the title raise two things: first, whether we have really moved beyond equality; and second, even if we have, what the quality of that equality is. All the studies in this section show that beneath the appearance of emancipation, sexist discrimination thrives in covert forms in these contexts through deep-seated, naturalized, androcentric assumptions. The achievement of equality in liberal terms, therefore, is inadequate; what is required instead, as discussed earlier, are radical changes in the gender structure maintained in institutions and people’s mindsets. Of note in several of the chapters are the ways some women (and men) within the existing gendered organizational structures negotiate and challenge the dominant ideologies and power structures, indicating possibilities for change. The first three chapters deal with women’s participation in the public workplace. In Chapter 2, Janet Holmes shows that although women in senior management positions in New Zealand may ‘do power’ overtly like their male counterparts, there is an underlying pressure and constraint on women managers to mitigate their speech style through supposedly appropriate ‘feminine’ interactional behaviour. There is also an association of some kinds of work done in organizations with women, which men avoid. Holmes argues that gender stereotypes remain in the
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 21 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
21
background underlying workplace interactions, contributing to subtle forms of gender discrimination.
Like Holmes, Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban’s study in Chapter 3 also points to the deeply androcentric workplace culture in Spain, in spite of an emerging management ethos that seemingly favours women.
Martín Rojo and Gómez Esteban note two sets of challenges confronting managerial women in their country: first, how do women exercise leadership and authority in a work culture that associates power with masculinity? And second, based on the emerging relational management model that relies on evaluations by peers and subordinates, how do women establish peer networks with male colleagues who exclude them, and gain respect from (male and female) subordinates who mistrust them? As noted by the authors, women managers in Spain typically face social isolation and exclusion, which poses real implications for their further professional development and promotion in the organizations.
Although Ruth Wodak, in Chapter 4, is also concerned with women’s participation in public organizations, her study is located at the supranational level. Her focus is on a ‘gender mainstreaming’ programme adopted in the European Union, which in its ideal form aims to promote long-lasting and all-round changes in gender roles and organizational practices. Wodak’s initial findings, based on a qualitative study on the European Parliament, suggest that due to the relatively open structure of this organization, women politicians can negotiate their gender and political identities in a range of different ways which are not usually possible in other more rigidly structured institutions. However, she also notes that although there is some representation of women politicians in the European Parliament, this is unevenly spread among member states; and that although there has been an increase in women’s participation in the other European organizations, women are still markedly underrepresented at the highest levels. Her study points to the need for interdisciplinary research in order to investigate the relationship between the nature of particular organizational structures within the EU and the achievement of gender equity.
Kathryn Remlinger in Chapter 5 discusses issues of participation and access in an educational context. Her study is based on two American university classrooms that read explicit gender-related courses, which are designed to foster among students an awareness of gender and sexuality issues. As Remlinger discovers, such issues ironically are simultaneously at the centre and at the margin of campus politics. She shows how, through negotiation of meanings and uses of the classroom floor, students
(and staff) discursively (re)produce, resist, and oppose resistances to
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 22 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
22 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
prevailing normative ideologies of gender and sexuality. Remlinger debunks the myth that the classroom is a gender-neutral site where everybody has equal access to participation and learning. Instead, in spite of possibilities for contestation, the predominance of a phallocentric, heterosexist ideology in subtle ways serves, through classroom interactions, to silence and exclude students with alternative gender and sexual values and practices.
Whereas a growing number of women in modern societies are entering and supposedly breaking the ‘glass ceiling’ in the public domain of paid work (previously men’s domain), is there an equivalent breaking of new ground by men on the domestic front of unpaid childcare and housework (traditionally women’s domain)? In Chapter 6, I explore this question based on a study of a government advertising campaign promoting family life in Singapore, in which fatherhood is prominently and popularly depicted. The advertisements are critically ‘unpacked’ to reveal a complex interplay of two discourses of gender relations, based on egalitarianism and conservatism respectively. I argue that the interdiscursivity produces a complexly nuanced identity for Singaporean men, which allows them to be optionally more involved in childcare, without a radical redistribution of parental responsibilities between men and women. Hegemonic gender relations and masculine identity thus are remade by a masculinist government for a pragmatic nationalist agenda, without sacrificing the dominant gender structure.
Part II Emancipation and social citizenship: analyses of identity and difference
Even while recognizing the limits of equality without a radical redefinition or transformation of the gender structure, this second part shows that certain ideals of liberal equality, for which a majority consensus among feminists exists, are still far from achieved in a range of geographical contexts, from Western industrialized nations to developing and transitional countries. In these different societies, women’s emancipation and full social citizenship are curtailed based on a variety of reasons; those dealt with in the studies in this section include the relative lack of women’s literacy, the systematic violence against women, the absence of guaranteed civil rights, and the lack of a public sphere for the articulation of alternative viewpoints by radical feminist voices. These issues are intricately layered by a politics of identity and difference.
The topic that forms the point of departure for Chapter 7 by Mary
Talbot is a stark reminder of women’s lack of full social citizenship and emancipation in present-day America (as in most other societies): the
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 23 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
23
prevalence of violence against women, as Talbot notes, continues in patriarchal societies as an overt form of power and control over women.
In this chapter, Talbot shows how the American National Rifle Association
(NRA), capitalizing both on women’s legitimate fears of assault and feminists’ call for women to resist victim status, discursively constructs an ‘empowered’ identity for American women through promotion of gun ownership by women. Guided by commercial profit, the NRA
(a right-wing organization which is opposed to anti-gun laws aimed at reducing a violent environment) appears to empower women, when what it actually does is subvert feminists’ call for non-violence, and perpetuate instead a climate of fear and continued violence.
In Chapter 8, Izabel Magalhães examines Brazilian women’s identity in the context of two adult literacy programmes, in communities where gender equality and emancipation are only recently emerging issues.
Her analysis of three separate genres in the programmes indicates, in varying degrees, the co-existence of ‘old’ as well as ‘new’ identities for the women learners. Whereas some aspects of the new identity are empowering for women, other aspects (namely those tied to global consumerism) place women in subject positions that are disempowering.
Based on her findings, Magalhães argues that the Brazilian government needs to invest in women’s education in order for them to become valued citizens in their own right in political and social life.
In Chapter 9, Erzsébet Barát investigates what space is available in the political printed media for the discussion and critique of bourgeois patriarchy in a democratizing Hungary since the 1990s. By and large, she finds a systematic masculinist gate-keeping strategy that is aimed at discrediting feminism. It is a misogynistic discourse that is also racist and heterosexist. Of the few feminist voices present in the media, Barát notes that these are liberal/reformist, and that they fail to challenge – and therefore are complicit in – the heterosexual and class bias of bourgeois patriarchy. Barát’s chapter is of interest to a politics of difference in two ways: first, in terms of the configuration of systems of oppression (patriarchy, racism, heterosexism and classism), and the implication this has for power and ideology enacted in relation to different groups of women; and second, in terms of the need to acknowledge differences in feminist positions, and to be critical of forms of feminism that contribute to the perpetuation of a hetero-gendered social order.
In Chapter 10, Carlos Gouveia takes as his central focus the deep-seated prejudice against homosexuals in Portugal. The study reveals important parallels and confluences in the discursive enactments of systems of oppression, in this case between heterosexism and patriarchy.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 24 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
24 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Gouveia’s analysis of special coverage devoted to homosexuality in a prominent Portuguese newspaper reveals that while the newspaper is careful not to appear blatantly discriminatory, it manages nonetheless to promote fear and prejudice against gays and lesbians by implying that they are a dangerously powerful organized group. Further, he discusses the fact that lesbians in particular are doubly discriminated against in Portuguese society based on their sexual orientation and gender. This is reflected in their representational invisibility in the mainstream news texts, as well as in representations by the gay men.
The invisibility and exclusion of lesbians in public discourse means that this group of women is hardest hit in terms of having their civil rights neither protected nor guaranteed.
Notes
1
2
Although studies in feminist CDA have existed for more than a decade, as a body of research it has been insufficiently made known. Up until now, publications in feminist CDA have been dispersed across a variety of journals
(most notably in Discourse & Society) and edited volumes on gender and language. Where overviews on CDA and feminist language studies exist separately, feminist CDA has received brief mention only in endnotes (see
Fairclough and Wodak 1997; and Cameron 1998, respectively). More recently, even where feminist scholarship in CDA is briefly discussed, the representation of work in this area has been disappointingly narrow, based on limited studies
(see Bucholtz 2003).
Apart from the present contributors’ works, a selection of other critical studies on institutional gender relations include works on medical encounters (for example, West 1990); judicial settings (for example, Ehrlich 2001); the police force (for example, McElhinny 1995); and the media (for example, CaldasCoulthard 1995).
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination (ed. M. Holquist). Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Benhabib, Seyla (1987) ‘The generalised and the concrete other: The Kohlberg–
Gilligan controversy and feminist theory’, in Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell
(eds), Feminism as Critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Billig, Michael (2000) ‘Editorial: towards a critique of the critical’, Discourse &
Society, 11 (3): 291–2.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bucholtz, Mary (2003) ‘Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies’, in Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff
(eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 43–68.
Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
London: Routledge.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 25 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
25
Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York:
Routledge.
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa (1995) ‘Man in the news: the misrepresentation of women speaking in news-as-narrative discourse’, in Sara Mills (ed.), Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Longman, pp. 226–39.
Cameron, Deborah (1992) Feminism and Linguistic Theory, 2nd edn. London:
Macmillan.
Cameron, Deborah (1996) ‘The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation’, in Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing and Alice Freed (eds), Rethinking Language and
Gender Research: Theory and Practice. Singapore: Longman, pp. 31–52.
Cameron, Deborah (1998) ‘Gender, language and discourse: a review essay’,
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23 (4): 945–73.
Chouliaraki, Lilie and Fairclough, Norman (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:
Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Christie, Christine (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Connell, Robert W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Connell, Robert W. (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eckert, Penelope (1989) ‘The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation’, Language Variation and Change, 1: 245–67.
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992) ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of
Anthropology, 21: 461–90.
Ehrlich, Susan (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York:
Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, Norman (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in Teun
A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258–84.
Flax, Jane (1990) ‘Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory’, in
Linda J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–62.
Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane.
Fox-Keller, Evelyn (1996) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Fraser, Nancy and Linda J. Nicholson (1990) ‘Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism’, in Linda J. Nicholson
(ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–38.
Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gill, Rosalind (2004) ‘Feisty, fit chicks: the media globalization of technologies of sexiness’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities
Conference, Cardiff University, 9–10 January 2004.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence
& Wishart.
Grant, Judith (1993) Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 26 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
26 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Hall, Kira and Bucholtz, Mary (eds) (1995), Gender Articulated: Language and the
Socially Constructed Self. New York: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Hekman, Susan (1999) ‘Identity crises: identity, identity politics, and beyond’, in
Susan Hekman (ed.), Feminism, Identity and Difference. London: Frank Cass, pp. 3–26.
Hill-Collins, Patricia (1990) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.
Hirschmann, Nancy J. (1999) ‘Difference as an occasion for rights: a feminist rethinking of rights, liberalism, and difference’, in Susan Hekman (ed.),
Feminism, Identity and Difference. London: Frank Cass, pp. 27–55. hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End
Press.
Johnson, Sally and Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (eds) (1997) Language and Masculinity.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kitzinger, Celia (2000) ‘Doing feminist conversation analysis’, Feminism &
Psychology, 10 (2): 163–93.
Kotthoff, Helga and Wodak, Ruth (eds) (1997), Communicating Gender in Context.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kress, Gunther (1990) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 11: 84–99.
Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of
Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Lather, Patti (1986) ‘Research as praxis’, Harvard Educational Review, 56 (3): 257–77.
Lazar, Michelle M. (1993) ‘Equalizing gender relations: a case of double-talk’,
Discourse & Society, 4 (4): 443–65.
Lazar, Michelle M. (1999) ‘Family life advertisements and the narrative of heterosexual sociality’, in Phyllis G. L. Chew and Anneliese Kramer-Dahl (eds),
Reading Culture: Textual Practices in Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 145–62.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2000) ‘Gender, discourse and semiotics: the politics of parenthood representations’, Discourse & Society, 11 (3): 373–400.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2001) ‘Dissonant discourses: women and feminism in contemporary Singapore’, ms.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2002) ‘Women beyond borders’, Visual Communication, 1 (3):
337–41.
Lazar, Michelle M. (2004) ‘(Post-) feminism in contemporary advertising: a global discourse in a local context’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities Conference, Cardiff University, 9–10 January 2004.
Litosseliti, Lia and Sunderland, Jane (eds) (2002), Gender Identity and Discourse
Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martín Rojo, Luisa and Gómez Esteban, Concepción (2003) ‘Discourse at work: when women take on the role of manager’, in Gilbert Weiss and Ruth Wodak
(eds), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp. 241–71.
McElhinny, Bonnie S. (1995) ‘Challenging hegemonic masculinities: female and male police officers handling domestic violence’, in Kira Hall and Mary
Bucholtz (eds), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self.
New York: Routledge, pp. 217–43.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 27 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
Michelle M. Lazar
27
Mills, Sara (1995) Feminist Stylistics. London: Routledge.
Moghadam, Valentine M. (1994) ‘Introduction: women and identity politics in theoretical and comparative perspective’, in Valentine M. Moghadam (ed.),
Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International
Perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 3–26.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, Russo, Ann and Torres, Lourdes (eds) (1991), Third
World Women and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1997) ‘Whose text? Whose context?’, Discourse & Society,
8 (2): 165–87.
Scollon, Ron (2001) ‘Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action’, in Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 139–83.
Segal, Lynne (1999) Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Spender, Dale (1981) Men’s Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the
Academic Disciplines. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Spender, Dale (1985) Man Made Language, 2nd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Stokoe, Elizabeth H. and Weatherall, Ann (2002) ‘Guest editorial: gender, language, conversation analysis and feminism’, Discourse & Society, 13 (6): 707–13.
Talbot, Mary M. (1998) Language and Gender: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1991) ‘Editorial: discourse analysis with a cause’, The Semiotic
Review of Books, 2 (1): 1–2.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1993) ‘Principles of critical discourse analysis’, Discourse &
Society, 4 (2): 249–83.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1994a) ‘Editorial: discourse analysis as social analysis’,
Discourse & Society, 5 (2): 163–4.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1994b) ‘Editorial: academic nationalism’, Discourse & Society,
5 (3): 275–6.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1996) ‘Discourse, power and access’, in Carmen Rosa CaldasCoulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (eds), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical
Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 84–104.
Walter, Natasha (1999) The New Feminism. London: Virago Press.
Weedon, Chris (1997) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 2nd edn.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
West, Candace (1990) ‘Not just doctor’s orders: directive-response sequences in patients’ visits to women and men physicians’, Discourse & Society, 1 (1):
85–112.
West, Candace and Zimmerman, Don (1987) ‘Doing gender’, Gender & Society,
1 (2): 125–51.
West, Candace, Lazar, Michelle M. and Kramarae, Cheris (1997) ‘Gender in discourse’, in Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London:
Sage, pp. 119–43.
Wetherell, Margaret (1995) ‘Romantic discourse and feminist analysis: interrogating investment, power and desire’, in Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (eds),
Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London: Sage, pp. 128–44.
1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 28 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM
28 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis
Widdowson, Henry (1995) ‘Discourse analysis: a critical view’, Language and
Literature, 4 (3): 157–72.
Wilkinson, Sue and Kitzinger, Celia (1995) ‘Introduction’, in Sue Wilkinson and
Celia Kitzinger (eds), Feminism and Discourse: Psychological Perspectives. London:
Sage, pp. 1–9.
Wodak, Ruth (ed.) (1997), Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael (eds) (2001), Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 251 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index
access to education, employment 16–17,
21–2, 93, 135, 200–1 to resources and positions of responsibility 75, 85, 92, 196,
207, 223, 243–4 to symbolic, social, political, economic capital 7, 10, 103,
117–19, 134, 145, 248–9 activist/activism 106, 123, 173, 210,
220–1, 232–3, 244–5, 247 advertisement(s) 14, 22, 68, 140–58,
160–2, 172–3, 175, 181, 192–4,
197
advertising 1, 8, 15, 146, 168, 171,
174
see also campaign agency 8, 68, 86, 157, 212, 248, 249 agent(s) 8, 16, 63, 68, 155, 170, 187,
245, 247 androcentric 8, 12, 16, 20–1, 118,
122–3, 133–4 approval 44, 69 argumentation 108, 111, 116,
209–10, 212, 214–15
Austria 98, 100, 106, 233 backlash 17, 214
Bakhtin, M. 14, 168, 181, 184, 187 bias 2, 6, 23, 219
Brazil 23, 181–2, 184–6, 193–4, 198,
200
Bourdieu, P. 10, 66, 103, 106, 108
Butler, J. 7, 10, 12–13, 115, 143
Cameron, D. 2–3, 7, 24, 49, 86,
182–3, 201, 207 campaign(s) 140–2, 144, 148–50,
158, 199 advertising 22, 139, 141, 143, 146,
157
anti-gun legislation 174
Family Life 22, 139–43, 146, 150,
158–9
government 22, 146, 190 multi-media 142 national 139, 157
National Rifle Association 173,
175–8
pro-choice 176 pro-natalist 139 public relations 170, 173
Catholic church 184–5, 188, 192,
195–7
children 96, 106, 136, 142, 146–7,
149–53, 156–7, 159–61, 173,
175, 177, 185, 188–9, 195, 211,
218
childcare 20, 22, 142, 159, 185–6,
195
choice(s) 16, 80, 82, 140, 142, 146,
157, 168, 172, 174–8 citizenship 22, 172, 192 communication and gender 62, 74–9, 83, 85, 123 and structure 107 good communication between employees and colleagues 65 good communication with subordinates and equals 65 informal 79, 81 in organizations 65 intercultural 118, 131 practices 61, 63, 72 resources 73 style(s) 61–2, 64, 66, 69, 71, 75, 77,
79, 83 skills 56, 64, 66 strategies 67 communities of practice 8, 12, 56–7 community 5, 7, 14, 18, 117, 119,
125–6, 131, 133, 199–200, 232–4,
236, 242–3 lesbian 125 literacy 181, 187, 189–91, 197, 201 university/campus 119, 133 see also gay
Confucian-Asian values 143–4
Connell, R. 5, 7–8, 12, 141, 144 see also masculinity conservatism 22, 104, 144–5, 149,
158
conservative discourse 140, 143–5,
149, 157–9
251
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 252 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
252 Index construction co-construction 12, 143 de-construction 2, 232 discursive 5, 23, 100, 106, 139, 234 social construction 6–7, 11–12, 63,
123, 232, 245–6 structuralism and constructivism 183 consumerism 15, 23, 106, 186, 197,
214
contestation 4, 6, 8, 11, 17, 22, 48–9,
53–6, 126, 140, 183, 205, 207, 232 incontestable 32, 42–3, 45 context(s) cultural 1, 11, 214, 232, 234 national 14 institutional 1 geographical 18, 22 classroom/educational 21, 23,
115–17, 119, 181, 187, 190–1,
196
work(place) 15, 33–4, 50, 61–2,
65–7, 71–5, 77, 79–80, 84, 125 social 196 social change 181, 190, 198 academic 93, 119, 136 socio-political 141, 230–1 family 150 historical 178 and gender 55, 77, 81–2, 115, 148,
182
government, political 34, 141 traditional 185 racist debate 213 contradictions 144, 146, 158, 183,
187, 191, 198, 207, 213, 219, 239 conversation analysis 13 critical discourse analysis (CDA) 1–6,
11–13, 24, 31–2, 39, 42, 46, 49–50,
56–8, 63, 85, 109, 116, 119, 123,
141, 168, 178, 181, 183, 205, 207,
230–2
critique 5–7, 16–18, 23, 134, 141,
144, 146, 205, 207–8, 218 daddyhood 139, 144, 149, 162 see also fatherhood dialectical process 108 relationship 6, 11, 183 tension 8 directive(s) 33–5, 50, 176, 227 discourse and genre 191
and hegemony 9–10, 115, 140,
158, 206 and heterogeneity 168, 186 and ideology 134, 240 and practice 14, 183 and semiotics 5, 116, 183 and text 14, 170, 186–7, 197, 230,
234
and the social 11, 63, 107, 185 competing, contending 14, 156,
158–9
discursive practice 85, 207 dual discourses 14, 22, 140–1,
143–5, 157–9 governmental 22 multimodal analysis of 5, 143, 145 of conservative gender relations 14, 22, 140, 143–6,
149–60
of egalitarian gender relations 14,
22, 140, 143–9, 158–60 order(s) of 143, 175, 182, 184, 191,
197
discrimination and gay, lesbian 10, 24, 232–41,
244–8
and gender 21, 54, 92–3, 97 and sex 9, 20 at the workplace 11, 77, 86, 94 discourse of 213, 217
‘doing’
gender 12 power 12, 33, 35–6, 39, 51, 55 politics 12, 106
Dworkin, A. 167, 173, 177 education access 16–17, 21, 93, 97, 135, 189 adult literacy 23, 181, 187, 189–92,
196, 198–201 and women 20, 23, 62, 65, 142,
174–5, 184–5, 197 class(room) 21–2, 114–18, 120,
126, 133 universities 21, 133–4, 192 egalitarianism 15, 22, 44, 48, 94,
140, 143–7, 149, 158–9 egalitarian discourse 144–5, 158 emancipation 1, 4–6, 10, 15, 17, 20,
22–3, 144, 191, 216–17, 233, 249 empowerment 10, 15, 23, 123, 125,
168, 172, 177, 190, 208 disempowerment 5, 7, 23, 51–2,
125
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 253 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index ethnography 3, 39, 63, 85, 117, 119
European Union 15, 21, 95, 97, 101,
214, 243
(European) Parliament 21, 95, 98,
100–1, 103, 108, 243, 249 see also organizations exclusion of feminism 212, 215, 220–2 of other sexualities 115, 135, 220,
232
of women 9, 19, 21, 24, 63, 75, 83,
118, 135
Fairclough, N. 2–3, 6–9, 11, 14, 24,
32, 63, 106, 131, 143, 168, 178,
181–4, 186–8, 192–3, 230–1,
240
family life 22, 139, 141–3, 146, 149–50,
153–6, 158–61 nuclear 148 fatherhood 22, 139–41, 144–7,
149–51, 153–4, 156–60, 162 and childcare 20, 22, 96, 139–40,
142, 146–7, 149–3, 156–7,
159–60
see also daddyhood feminine 55, 118, 142, 172, 182, 186,
193, 197, 218 commodities 193–4, 197
‘feminine’ workplace 49–50 femininity 7, 74, 123, 141, 215 feminization of fathers 147 interactional behaviour 20, 51–6,
67, 75, 77, 84, 86–7 feminism and CDA 4–5 and choice 16, 140, 172, 219 and emancipation 4, 10, 15, 17,
20, 22–3, 191, 212, 216–17 and freedom 18, 176 and its relevance 17–18 commodified 168 definitions/meanings of 205–9,
213–14, 218 discourse of 170, 215
‘first wave’ 178 liberal feminism, reformist 172,
176–7, 218–19
‘me-feminism’ and
‘we-feminism’ 18 post-feminism 17–18, 20, 212 power feminism 17, 171–2, 177 radical feminism 178, 211, 216
253
‘second wave’ 10, 167
‘third wave’ 9, 16 feminist analytical resistance 5–6 conversation analysis 2 critical discourse analysis see feminist critical discourse analysis critique 5–6, 141, 144, 208, 218 linguistics 18, 95, 106–7, 141 pragmatics 2 stylistics 2 studies 1, 13, 141 feminist critical discourse analysis
2–6, 9, 13–14, 17, 20, 24, 109 firearm(s) 168, 171–2, 174–5, 177
Foucault, M. 9–10, 143, 168–9, 184 gate-keeping 9, 18, 23, 93, 206–9,
216, 222 gay(s) 115–16, 118, 229, 232–3,
236–49
and lesbian(s) 24, 229–30, 232–4,
240–1, 244–5, 247–8 and power 229, 235–9, 242–3,
247–9
as noun 237 community 10, 233, 235–6, 242–3 couples 247 effeminate/effeminacy 147–8, 245,
248
entities and performance 239 fatherhood, parent identity 144,
148
lobby 242–3, 248–9 men 24, 233, 244–5 position 216 rights 236, 239, 242–3, 245, 247 tourism 229, 249 see also homosexuality
Giddens, A. 14, 93, 184, 233–4, 246
Grant, J. 6–7, 12, 18 gender and class 3, 7, 144, 147, 211, 219 and ethnicity/race 1, 3, 10, 126–8,
136, 144, 185, 215, 247 and generation/age 10, 123, 142,
181, 191 and its relevance 31–3, 46, 49,
54–5, 57–8, 126, 128 and neutrality 5, 22, 96, 117, 123,
146–7, 245 and sexuality 1, 21–2, 24, 115–20,
122–3, 125–6, 131–6
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 254 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
254 Index gender – continued and the state 141, 143, 206, 216,
220
as ideological structure 6–7 asymmetry 5, 8–9, 140, 144, 149,
150–2, 158 blending 158 conservatism 22, 144–5, 149, 158 difference(s) 64, 85–6, 104–6, 118,
140, 152, 218, 244 egalitarianism 14–15, 22, 44, 48,
94, 140, 143–7, 149, 158–9 hetero-gendered 10, 141, 145,
206–8
identity see identities inequality see inequality mainstream(ing ) 15, 21, 93, 94–8,
100, 106–8 order 1, 10, 12, 16–17, 140–2, 149,
159–60
parity 142, 144–5, 158 polarity 115, 144, 158 performance 12–13, 115–16, 144,
150–1, 159 relationality 11–12, 143–4, 158 relations 3, 8, 11–12, 14, 22, 24,
32, 115, 140–1, 143–4, 146–7,
149, 157–8, 181–2, 193, 198 stereotypes 152 structure 7–10, 13, 20, 22, 100, 141 genre(s) 119–20, 184 advice-giving text as 170, 177–8 analyses of different 23, 116, 192 and adult literacy 187 and discourse 134, 181–2, 184, 191 culturally valued 10 generic 7, 10, 169, 176, 178, 249 interaction between 14 interdiscursivity in 183 media, newsletter texts and advertisements 181, 187–8,
191, 197, 210 music 123 of public life 196 structures of 14, 188, 191 global/globalization 184, 186, 234 and daddyhood 139, 162 commodified identities 196 consumerism 23 discourses 196–7 markets 197 neo-liberal discourse of post-feminism 17 north/west 15, 17
of lifestyles 234 revolution 234 trend 139, 162
Goffman, E. 101, 145, 148, 150, 153,
162
government/state 1, 15, 17, 20, 22–3,
31, 34, 46, 139, 141–3, 146, 158,
160, 171, 185, 189–90, 198–9,
201, 210, 221, 244, 249 campaign 22, 146, 160, 190 masculinist 22, 142 parliament 209, 216, 243, 247, 249
Halliday, M. A. K. 145, 191, 230–1,
237, 239
Hasan, R. 185, 188 hegemony 3, 7–10, 122, 140–2,
158–60, 206–8, 219–20, 222 re-hegemonize 141 re-making of 140
Hennessy, R. 208, 222 heterogeneity and discourse 168, 186, 191, 197,
219
and text 186, 190 of practice 196 heterosexism/heterosexist 10, 15,
22–3, 118, 215–6, 220 heterosexuality 3, 10, 16, 23, 115–16,
118, 120, 129, 133–4, 136, 143–4,
148, 205, 215–16, 220, 222,
246–7
hetero-gendered 10, 23, 140–1,
145, 206–14, 216, 219–20,
222–3
hierarchy differences 12, 15, 70 gender/sexual 1, 119–20, 122–4,
159
power/authority 63, 74 organizational 31, 37, 42, 52, 63–4,
84, 98, 106 homophobia 23, 215, 220, 222, 247 homosexuality 10, 23–4, 115–16,
131–3, 147–8, 232–4, 236, 238,
241, 244–8,
Hungary 23, 205–6, 208–10, 212–17,
219–21, 227 hybrid (ity) 14, 159, 186–7, 194, 197 identity (ies) and fatherhood 139, 143, 149,
153, 156, 160 and identity politics 196
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 255 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index and motherhood 143, 160, 197 careerist (professional) 144, 149,
153–4
commodified feminine 193, 196–7 different 103–4, 191–2, 197–8 domestic sphere 139, 154 emancipated 191 essentialist 184, 197 feminine/women’s 22–3, 97,
181–7, 191, 194–7 gender 10, 12–13, 21, 100, 103,
106, 111, 114, 119, 140–1, 181,
187, 190–1, 196–8 hybrid see hybrid (ity) masculine/ men’s 22, 97, 158–60 personal/ self- 11, 33, 100–1,
105–6, 212 post-colonial 196–7 sexual 1, 144, 220, 223 social 1, 3, 11, 100–1, 106, 230–1,
233–4, 238 traditional 184, 186, 191, 194, 197 ideology aggressive ‘ideology’ 215 and discourse/language 1, 5–6, 13,
133
and power 1, 5, 13, 23, 208,
212
and practice 208 androcentric 133 and society 48 and speaking strategies 117 as common sense 7 as a weapon 215 critique 207–8 dominant 133–4 heterosexist 22, 118, 133 gender 1, 3, 7–8, 11, 120, 131 liberal 16 oppressive 125 patriarchal 2 production, reproduction 117,
125, 134, 208 re-enactment of 140 sexual 115, 125–6, 131 inclusion 18–19, 117 inequality 2, 5, 7–8, 43, 75, 95,
123–4, 140, 185 institution(s) and discourse 184, 186, 191, 197 and gender inequality 8, 186,
191
and media 193, 216 and national 213
255
and organizations (and schools)
72, 83, 86, 93, 185, 196, 209 and practices 8, 14–15, 85, 97, 117,
169
and reflexivity 14–15 and reform 94 and social groups 134, 182, 184,
236 (see also government) and structures 11, 20–1,
43–5, 63 and the state, politics, government
8, 31, 141 authority/power structures 33, 37,
42, 44, 50, 62
European Union see European
Union
framing/frameworks 10, 12, 14 of hetero-normative marriage 220 workplace see workplace intercultural relations 186 interdisciplinarity 13, 21, 95, 100,
107–9
interdiscursivity 14, 22, 158, 160,
181, 183–4, 186, 189–91, 194, 197 see also intertextuality intertextuality 168–70, 177, 181 see also interdiscursivity knowledge 6–7, 14, 18, 63, 109, 131,
169, 195, 200–1
Kress, G. 5–6, 31, 120, 145, 147, 152,
192, 248 law, legislation adult literacy (Brazil) 199–201
Abortion Act (Hungary) 210
Civil Unions Law (Portugal) 247
Fetus Protection Act
(Hungary) 211 gun-control (USA) 23, 170–1,
177
Penal Code (Hungary) 222
Portuguese Constitution 247
Portuguese laws, generally 230,
247–8
US Constitutional
Amendment(s) 170, 172 lesbian(s) 10, 16, 24, 115–16, 118,
125, 132–3, 211, 215–16, 221,
240, 244–5, 247 discrimination see discrimination feminist position 216 movement 244 see also gay(s)
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 256 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
256 Index literacy 22 adult 23, 181, 187–91, 195–8,
199–201
and women 197 manager 34, 36–7, 39–46, 50, 52,
54–5, 64, 68 see also women management leadership styles 16, 21, 61–5, 69,
73, 75–9, 84–7, 94 models of 21, 61, 63–5,
74–5, 94 strategies 49 styles of 64, 66–7, 70–4, 83 marriage 142, 161, 218, 220, 246 masculinity and discourse patterns 49 and femininity 7 forms of 8, 12, 141, 144, 146, 148,
159–60
gay see gays government 22, 142 hegemonic 141–2, 159, 160 heterosexual see heterosexuality masculinist 17, 22–3, 142, 207,
220 (see also androcentrism) modern 139
New Man 146, 151, 159–60 politically correct (PC) 159–60 power and 21, 55, 65, 74–5, 85
‘real men’ 53, 160 representation of 144 see also fatherhood materiality 2, 7, 10, 12, 16–18, 154,
208
media 104–5, 139, 146, 159, 171,
192–3, 197, 206–10, 212–13,
215–16, 218–23 advertisements see advertisements newspapers 8, 24, 205, 207, 210,
229–30, 232, 234–9, 242–6,
248–9
political printed media 23, 205–7,
213
mother/motherhood 103, 106, 140,
143, 146–54, 157–60, 173, 185–6,
192, 195, 197 childcare 20, 22, 142, 186, 195 other-centredness 155 see also women multimodal 5, 143, 145, 162 visual images 5, 13, 144–5, 193 see also semiotics
narrative 13, 94, 100–3, 145, 161,
187, 209 networks peer 21, 79–81, 83 old boy’s 47–8 social 61, 78, 82, 85 support 177 newsletter 170, 172, 181, 187–8,
190–2, 194–6, 199, 210
New Zealand 20, 31, 39, 58 nominalization 238, 242–3, 248–9 normative (ity) 10, 22, 105, 107, 122,
125, 134, 160, 207, 222 heteronormativity 140–1, 144,
220, 233 non-normative 222 oppression 2–3, 5–6, 8–12, 17–18, 23,
123, 125, 134, 186, 233 organizations and communication 65, 85 and men 91, 94 and structure 20–1, 63, 85, 107–9 and women 15, 20–1, 53–4, 66, 75,
78, 82–3, 85–6, 93, 95, 103–4,
213, 221 and work 61–2, 70, 79, 86 corporate 31 culture 8, 39, 94, 120 glass ceiling see women and glass ceiling good practices 61, 85–7 governmental agencies 249
Hungarian GLBT 220 meetings 35–6, 38 models of management see management non-governmental 201, 216
NRA 23, 168, 170–8
NARAL 175–6 peer networks see networks power and authority 34–7, 41–3,
50, 52, 83 practices 21, 45, 106 transnational 1, 15, 98, 100, 111 see also European Union; workplace parenthood, parents 147 construction of 146–9 patriarchy 222 bourgeoisie 23, 205, 220 hetero- 140 heterosexism and 23
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 257 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index performance 12–13, 42, 74, 115–16,
139, 141, 143–4, 148–52, 159,
185, 206, 215, 239 politics 20, 31, 95, 141, 170, 182,
184, 218, 221, 235, 241 and consumption 168 and gender relations 141 campus politics 21, 129 feminist politics 3, 16–17, 216 of history 213 of identity and difference 22–3,
196
of literacy 196–8 of naming 2, 19 of representation 139–40, 158 see also government/state politically correct (PC) 159–60
Portugal 23–4, 98, 184, 195,
229–30, 232–4, 238–9, 241–5,
247–9
Portuguese 181, 185, 193, 249 post-structural 4, 9, 11, 32 power and ideology 1, 5–6, 13, 23 and discourse access 134 and gays 236–9, 242–3, 247–9 and lesbians 245, 247 and masculinity 21, 65, 73–5, 85–6 and politics 210–13, 220, 235 and solidarity 70 and women 8, 17, 23, 49–50, 52,
56, 73–8, 93, 103, 123, 125, 158,
171, 195, 197 asymmetry 1, 10, 126, 152–3 balance of 126, 140–1, 144, 160, commodified notion of 177 difference 7, 40, 44 dominance 10, 31, 116, 119 empowerment see empowerment exercise of 73, 75 gender and 57, 61, 75, 114, 208,
214
in the workplace 31–3, 39, 46,
48–9, 83–4, 140 of the state 206 relations 1–3, 5, 7, 9–13, 31–3, 39,
42–3, 46, 49, 57, 63, 82, 119–20,
126, 141, 152, 193, 207–8, 219,
222
manifestation/forms of 9, 32–6,
38–9, 44, 66 structures 20, 42, 126 systemic 32, 46 workings of 6, 9–10, 45
257
pragmatics 2, 13, 16, 116, 119, 126 praxis 5–6, 12, 14 presupposition 116, 154, 157, 235 reclamation(s) 122–3, 125–6, 133–4 recontexualization(s) 140, 182,
190–2, 196 reflexive (ity) 14–15, 18–19, 146,
158–9
critical feminist reflexivity 19 critical reflexivity 14–15, 18–19 feminist self-reflexivity 14, 18, 223 institutional 14–15, 146
‘recuperative reflexivity’ 15 self-reflexivity 14, 207–8, 223 representations 6 absence and presence 158 and feminism 18, 208 and gays 24, 230, 232, 237–9,
242–4, 246–7 and gender 129, 134, 150, 152,
158, 182, 232 and journalism 239 and lesbians 24, 230, 232, 244, 247 and women 21, 63, 85, 123, 150,
194, 197 linguistic 240 of men/masculinity 144, 148–9,
153–4, 157 of modern father/fatherhood
139–40, 143–5, 148, 151, 158–9 of parenthood 141, 146–7, 159 of practice 11, 85, 115, 140–1 politics of 158 textual 10, 12–13 visual 148
(re)production
and agency 86 and choice 178 and contestation, resistance 4, 133 and discourse 2, 10, 21, 43, 63, 94,
126, 143–4, 158–9, 183–4 and dissonance 158 and heternormative regimes 233 and ideas 119, 129 and identity 195, 231 and ideology 117, 125, 134, 208 and oppression 186 and power 9, 11, 31, 116 and representation 143, 232 and sexuality 115 and social order 11 and social practices 85, 108 and social structure 63, 116
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 258 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
258 Index
(re)production – continued and system 108 and text 108, 184, 230 resistance to social change 10, 21, 65, 74–6,
126, 128, 131 to status quo 5–6, 9–11, 21, 23, 49,
119, 123, 125, 131, 133, 167,
177
semantics 13, 93, 114–15, 119–20,
125, 134, 145, 182, 239 semiotic(s) 116, 183 co-semiotic structures 145 language as a semiotic system 231 semiotic acts 143 semiotic modalities 5 semiotic texts 193, 196 sex physiological 7
‘opposite’ 7, 222 discrimination 9, 11–12, 20, 24,
54, 77, 86, 92, 94, 97, 217, 247 stereotype see stereotypes topics related to 22, 118 sexism, sexist and classism 23 and heterosexism 10, 15, 23, 118,
215, 220 and racism 23 attitudes 8, 48 covert 20 language 15, 49 misogyny 9, 23, 206, 210, 214, 219 overt 9, 20, 56–7 social structures 123 stereotype(s) see stereotypes subtle 9, 20 uses 15 sexual allusions 82 differences 7, 222 ideology 115, 131 orientation 10, 24, 215, 233–4,
244–8
values 22, 135 sexuality and equality 233 and gender 21–2, 115–20, 125–6,
131, 133–4, 136, 206–7, 219–20,
222–3
and women 122–3, 125–6, 136, 167 elements of 246 heterosexuality see heterosexuality
homosexuality see homosexuality lesbigay 125 non-normative/ ‘outlaw’ 206, 220,
222
see also gender
Singapore 14, 22, 139–42, 144, 146,
157–8, 160 slogans 173, 175, 177–8 social change/transformation 5, 140,
181, 190–1, 198, 200, 208 and status quo 6–7, 42–4, 49, 56,
125–6, 128, 134, 207, 208, 219 social closure 75 social order 5, 8–9, 11, 86 hetero-gendered 1, 5, 23, 206–7,
222
see also gender order social practice(s) 3–6, 8–9, 11, 21, 33,
63, 85, 106, 114, 116, 140, 146,
181–4, 187, 207, 234 social structures 6, 8, 31, 63, 100,
116, 133 gendered/sexist 14, 16, 114 production, reproduction 63, 116,
183
Spain 21, 61–4, 66, 68, 70, 73–5,
77–8, 81, 85, 94, 230, 244
Spender, D. 2, 7, 114, 134, 182, 249 stereotypes about women 49, 51, 54–5, 73–4,
148
about men 51, 53–6, 62, 73, 103,
245–6
and marginalization 86 and prejudices/associations 73,
77–8, 83 assumption(s) 150, 245 gender 20, 46, 49–50, 56, 75, 130,
147, 152, 158 of gay men 245–6 sexist 72 traditional 53, 95 strategies discursive/discourse 5, 32, 49, 54,
106
speaking strategies 114–15, 117,
119, 126, 182, 185 subjectivity 143, 187, 197 discursive subjects 191, 230, 232,
236–8
women’s 23, 191, 195 maternal subject position 147
Systemic Functional Grammar
(SFG) see Halliday
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 259 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
Index
Tannen, D. 32–3, 49, 62, 64, 79, 81,
87, 95, 106, 114, 126, 133 text analysis of 5, 13, 20, 119, 145, 162,
231–2
and discourse 14, 170, 186–7, 197,
230, 234 and institution 107 and intertextuality 168–70, 181,
186–7
and power 10 and sub-text (implied discourse)
210, 212–14, 216 and talk 5, 10–11, 14, 20, 133 as choice 231 de-construction of 232 dialogicality of 13, 24 features/characteristics of
119, 134 hybrid 186 interpretation, reception 192–3,
196, 231 production of 108, 184, 188, 197,
230
and representation 13, 24 semiotic 193, 196 textually-oriented discourse analysis 231 text types advertisements/visual texts 140,
162, 192 advice-giving 170, 176–7 forensic 185 media 140, 162, 207 newsletter 181 newspaper 227, 229–30 religious 184, 187 see also genre
United States of America 9, 15, 17,
19, 21–3, 86, 93, 97, 108, 117,
132, 151, 153, 162, 168, 170–2,
174–7, 211, 214–15, 227
Van Djik, T. A. 2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 43,
116, 119, 134, 188
Van Leeuwen 5, 140, 145, 147, 152,
192
see also Kress violence against women 9, 17, 22–3, 167,
173, 177–8, 243 and victimhood 23, 167, 172–4,
176–7
259
implied violent behaviour 215 men’s violence 186 police violence 188 violent discrimination/ marginalization 206, 213 voice(s) dialogical relation of 181, 187, 197 double-voicedness 143 feminist 4, 23, 205–6, 216 misogynist (hetero) sexist 206 non-feminist 208–9 non-mainstream 16 non-hetero normative 220 of academics 219–20 of the culprits, prosecutor, defence counsel, judges and victims 186 of journalists 213 of speech 206 radical feminist 22, 207 reformist feminist 206, 215–16,
220
women’s/female 182, 197
West, C. 12, 24, 133
Wodak, R. 2, 4, 6–7, 12, 32, 168 women and career 61–2, 78, 83–4, 98, 142,
144, 154, 157, 219 and glass ceiling 22, 31, 53, 85, 93,
96
and housework 20, 22, 142, 154,
159, 195 as managers 16, 20–1, 49, 56,
63–5, 66, 69, 72–8, 80, 85, 92,
94, 217 as members of European Parliament
(MEP) 98 as mothers see mother/ motherhood as professors 8, 120, 122, 128–9,
131, 136 as students 15, 93, 117, 123, 125,
132, 136 as workers 73, 197, 212 difference and diversity among
9–10, 17, 22–3, 62–3, 181,
215–16
writers 184, 190–2, 195 workplace 12, 20, 22, 31, 37–9,
46, 48–50, 52, 54, 56, 61–2,
64, 66, 68, 70, 72–5, 77, 79–80,
84–6, 146, 153, 156, 182, 190,
195–7
1403_914850_14_Ind01.fm Page 260 Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:31 AM
260 Index workplace – continued and gender 46, 49–50, 72, 75, 84,
159, 212 workplace culture 21, 39, 44, 56–7,
72, 142
workplace interaction 21,
31–3, 35, 39, 46, 48–50,
52–3, 57, 62, 64, 66, 79,
83, 196 see also organizations
References: Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) The Dialogic Imagination (ed. M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. Benhabib, Seyla (1987) ‘The generalised and the concrete other: The Kohlberg– Gilligan controversy and feminist theory’, in Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell Billig, Michael (2000) ‘Editorial: towards a critique of the critical’, Discourse & Society, 11 (3): 291–2. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bucholtz, Mary (2003) ‘Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies’, in Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds), The Handbook of Language and Gender Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 25 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM Michelle M 25 Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa (1995) ‘Man in the news: the misrepresentation of women speaking in news-as-narrative discourse’, in Sara Mills (ed.), Language Cameron, Deborah (1992) Feminism and Linguistic Theory, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan. Cameron, Deborah (1996) ‘The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation’, in Victoria Bergvall, Janet Bing and Alice Freed (eds), Rethinking Language and Cameron, Deborah (1998) ‘Gender, language and discourse: a review essay’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23 (4): 945–73. Chouliaraki, Lilie and Fairclough, Norman (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis Christie, Christine (2000) Gender and Language: Towards a Feminist Pragmatics. Connell, Robert W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Connell, Robert W. (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eckert, Penelope (1989) ‘The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation’, Language Variation and Change, 1: 245–67. Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1992) ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of Ehrlich, Susan (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York: Routledge. Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in Teun A Flax, Jane (1990) ‘Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory’, in Linda J Foucault, Michel (1977) Discipline and Punish. London: Allen Lane. Fox-Keller, Evelyn (1996) Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fraser, Nancy and Linda J. Nicholson (1990) ‘Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between feminism and postmodernism’, in Linda J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gill, Rosalind (2004) ‘Feisty, fit chicks: the media globalization of technologies of sexiness’, paper presented at the Discourse, Globalisation and Gender Identities Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Grant, Judith (1993) Fundamental Feminism: Contesting the Core Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge. 1403_914850_04_cha01.fm Page 26 Monday, June 11, 2007 4:16 PM 26 Feminist CDA as Political Perspective & Praxis Hall, Kira and Bucholtz, Mary (eds) (1995), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self Harding, Sandra (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hekman, Susan (1999) ‘Identity crises: identity, identity politics, and beyond’, in Susan Hekman (ed.), Feminism, Identity and Difference Hill-Collins, Patricia (1990) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Hirschmann, Nancy J. (1999) ‘Difference as an occasion for rights: a feminist rethinking of rights, liberalism, and difference’, in Susan Hekman (ed.), hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press. Johnson, Sally and Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (eds) (1997) Language and Masculinity. Kitzinger, Celia (2000) ‘Doing feminist conversation analysis’, Feminism & Psychology, 10 (2): 163–93. Kotthoff, Helga and Wodak, Ruth (eds) (1997), Communicating Gender in Context. Kress, Gunther (1990) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11: 84–99. Kress, Gunther and van Leeuwen, Theo (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design Lather, Patti (1986) ‘Research as praxis’, Harvard Educational Review, 56 (3): 257–77. Lazar, Michelle M. (1993) ‘Equalizing gender relations: a case of double-talk’, Discourse & Society, 4 (4): 443–65. Lazar, Michelle M. (1999) ‘Family life advertisements and the narrative of heterosexual sociality’, in Phyllis G. L. Chew and Anneliese Kramer-Dahl (eds), Reading Culture: Textual Practices in Singapore
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Gilles, S. and Munford, R. (2003) Harvesting our Strengths: Third Wave Feminism and Women’s Studies, Journal of International Women’s Studies Vol. 4.…
- 1837 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
Feminists are a political movement who focus on the oppression of women and the struggle to end it. They believe that sociology has traditionally taken a ‘malestream’ view which ignores women. Feminism is a fairly new concept and it examines the women’s experiences and study society from a female perspective. In many of the original theories of sociology women were invisible and didn’t appear in ideologies. Feminists believe society marginalizes the roles of women and that society adapts a male perspective and their theory has been developed since the 1960s and they have attempted to explain women’s struggles by trying to place them at the centre of sociological studies. In this essay I will be assessing the contribution of feminist theorists and researchers to an understanding of society today.…
- 1123 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Tong, R., Williams, N.(2009,May 4) Feminist Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2009 Edition). Retrieved June 22, 2010, from SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/feminism-ethics/…
- 1775 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In this essay I will explore how the culture and identities of the women in the book are somewhat evolving in the due course of neo liberalism however, many still fail to see themselves as feminist or strong independent women. They may share the presumption that they are moving towards neo liberalism however, fall…
- 1407 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.…
- 1308 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
When considering the ideas of both sex and gender, it is universally understood, by most, that they are both intertwined; that is to say that gender cannot be discussed without bringing sex into the conversation, and vice versa. Here it is understood that the term “sex” is being used to signify the existing genitalia on an individual’s material body, and that the term “gender” is relating to markers of social difference between men and women (Halberstam 118). However, many scholars have attempted to create a distinction between sex and gender, which now many socialization scholars speak of as a body/consciousness distinction (Gatens 144). Both sex and gender, in theory, can be thought of as two separate entities, but it is important to keep in mind that an individual’s genitalia and material body are instant sources of proof when questioning one’s biological sex for gender to fall back on, when needed. The declaration of an individual’s biological sex (i.e. It’s a boy/It’s a girl) must first take place, and, once it does, their gender begins to slowly map itself out on the body, and essentially helps the individual create their own set of ‘cultural genitals’ that will be used to express their gender within society.…
- 1440 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
“The findings indicate that future research on gender difference in language usage should move from the documentation of sex differences towards an examination of underlying social and situational factors.”…
- 419 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Liz Stanley, 1990, Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, Published by Routledge a division of Routledge, Chapman & Hall Inc. pp. 262-264.…
- 1646 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Babb, P., Butcher, H., Church, J., and Zealy, L. (eds) (2006) Social Trends No. 36.…
- 85566 Words
- 331 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Through language, bias has proliferated in our culture against both women and men. Language expresses aspects of culture both explicitly and implicitly. Gender expectations, behaviors, and cultural norms, are determined through language. A divide between the sexes has developed which includes language usages, intention, and understandings. This has created obstructions to communication between the genders.…
- 3301 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies Fall (1998): n. pag. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 July 2012.…
- 766 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
This paper will conduct a critical discourse analysis on North American media coverage of the World Indigenous Games.…
- 2339 Words
- 10 Pages
Better Essays -
References: Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1997) Language and Gender. Second Edition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved From: http://www.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Chap1.pdf…
- 1101 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Mann, Susan Archer, Transgender theory, In Doing Feminist Theory: From Modernity to Postmodernity, (2012), (pp. 249-251), New York: Oxford Press.…
- 937 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.…
- 1890 Words
- 8 Pages
Good Essays