Path: utzoo!censor!geac!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Can feminists change the language?
Summary: YES.  We can and we _should_.
Message-ID: <1404@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 89 03:36:20 GMT
References: <47469@bbn.COM> <1329@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <28959@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <47878@bbn.COM>
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 70
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <47469@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>>>How does "one" change a language? "One" doesn't, unless one is
>>>extraordinarily influential and/or powerful. I'm not sure any "one"
>>>has that much power or influence. 
>>> [...]
>>> Feminists do not have this kind of power or influence, and
>>>they have no means to acquire it (that I can see).

In article <47878@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> continues:
>There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. I was drawing an
>ANALOGY between languages and gender systems, which I still think is a
>good one. 

I got that point.  And perhaps the analogy is good, but my point was that 
you were drawing the wrong conclusions from the analogy.

>Your partial quote obscures this point, but I've re-read the
>original twice now, and I still don't see the source of confusion. 

The point of the partial quote was that a change in the language itself
_is_ a change of a sort in the gender system.  And it's a very important
change at that, one which I think warrants a separate thread.

> [...] IF a gender system is like a languge,
>then the kind of change we would need to convert our gender system
>into a non-sexist one is probably similar to the kind of change which
>has taken place in the English language from its inception until the
>present day. A handful of neologisms are a trivial compared to this --
>if anything, such words show how little the language changes as a
>result of conscious effort.

I'm not convinced that this assessment of the degree of change is
accurate, Richard.  Have you seen any studies that support the idea
that recent "neologisms" are trivial compared to all the changes that
have taken place since the "inception" (how do you date that, btw?) of
English?

If anything, I think the rate of change in the language has greatly
accelerated in recent years, as has the pace of technological change.
In fact, this would almost be necessary for language to keep pace with 
the new technology it must describe.  And further, that new technology
has made it possible to propagate language changes much faster than
before.

>I was NOT AT ANY TIME talking about language changes brought about by
>feminism. Even if I were, the changes themselves are minor and of
>little significance.  

I disagree.

>                      The important aspect of the feminist
>investigation of language is the way it exposes the patriarchal
>assumptions with which we speak, write, and corresondingly, think.

Right, but I would say that language not only exposes, but to some degree
causes, patricarchal assumptions, and thus if we apply your analogy, it
should be possible, in part by changing the language, to change "gender
systems" faster today than ever before.

>Is my position clear now?

Yes, but you used your analogy to argue that change would be slow in
coming, whereas I would use the same analogy to argue that change can be
brought about very rapidly.

hb
-- 
Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET)

** MOBILIZE for Women's Lives on November 12th; details in soc.women. **