"Language, Gender, and Power" - A Reflection on Susan Gal

Susan Gal was a feminist anthropologist who is involved with linguistic anthropology. This selection entitled “Language, Gender, and Power: An Anthropological Review” was published in 1991 during the second wave of feminism beginning in the 1980’s, which was known for launching the now fairly well established concept that there is a difference between sex and gender. Her work, besides being influenced by this second wave of feminism, is also influenced by Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, both poststructural theorists. Using their ideas, she aims to show how language can affect and even create gender-linked identity (Gal 315).

                

Gal describes two seemingly distinct types of language and gender research: variationist sociolinguistics and symbolic or cultural studies, and states that they are better suited to work in conjunction with each other. Variationist studies correlate linguistic variables with the sex of the speaker. Gal states that they should not just limit themselves to categorizing speech based on whether the speaker is a man or a woman, but should go further to take into account that the categories of “feminine” and “masculine” are culturally constructed. Therefore, it should be understood that the categories they use are actually constantly changing throughout history and are related to the cultures in which the speaker resides and their idea of moral order. By combining variationist sociolinguistics with cultural studies, the cultural and historical framework can be taken into account when examining linguistic patterns (Gal 316). Likewise, those anthropologists focused on symbolic studies should not neglect the forms of communication and linguistic aspects of the people they study (Gal 317). Together, these two forms of research can create a more complete picture of language, gender, and power dynamics.

                

One example that Gal uses to support the idea that the links between gender, linguistics, and status are culturally constructed is that of the Malagasy people. In this culture, women’s speech is frank and direct, while men’s speech is reserved and veiled. In this way, they seem to be the opposite of what is usually thought of to be normal in Western culture, with women being the restrained speakers and men being blunt. Another example from Gal is that of silence. From a feminist perspective, the silence of women is unacceptable and shows passivity and less power than men. However, in Apache culture, men use silence as a show of masculine power in that it is a strategic defense against other people (Gal 316). Also, for the English Quakers in the 17^th century, silence was a mark of political protest, not passivity (Gal 317). These two examples show how what is considered “powerful” in terms of linguistics varies from culture to culture, and that in order to understand the differences, we need to take into account symbolic or cultural studies.

                 

Another example used by Gal is the tendency for people in the United States and Britain to characterize manliness with toughness and working class culture, and femaleness with refinement, respectability, and high culture. These symbolic attributes, while frequently studied in cultural areas, should also be examined in terms of linguistics, as linguistic practices are a driving force in how these associations and symbols of femininity and masculinity are strengthened (Gal 317).

                

Gal’s next point after establishing the link between sociolinguistics and cultural studies of beliefs is that together they can help to examine how gender relates to symbolic domination, or power. Gal states that one aspect of symbolic domination is the ability to make other accept and carry out your way of looking at the world and your hegemonic views. However, these dominant cultural orders are often challenged (Gal 318).

                 

One way in which these dominant orders are defied is shown through Gal’s example of Carol Edelsky’s (1981) study of two different “floors” of faculty meetings containing both men and women in one American college. Here, it is shown that the first type of floor is characterized by speakers taking turns talking in the meeting, but taking longer and fewer turns and having fewer overall people talk. The second kind of floor is characterized by the speakers overlapping and talking at once with collaboration and more participation. Both floors spoke about the same subjects, but the first floor was dominated by men while the second floor had both men and women participating.  However, the more formal and more male driven first floor happened more, and was considered the norm. In this way, the second floor is a critique of the norms of the first and attempts to change the values of the first (Gal 319).

Another example is that of Bedouin poetry of Egypt’s Western Desert. Here, the dominant ideology is honor, sexual restraint, and autonomy. In contrast, the poems who are performed by women and youths express the values of romance, emotional vulnerability, and reliance. These poems are both subversive and admired in the culture and undermine the values of honor held by men, and show contradictions in the dominant cultural order, just as the “floors” exhibited in America with its undermining of the typical meeting style that favor men (Gal 320).

                 

Overall, Gal points out that the ideas of domination and resistance through actions like the floors and poetry examples reveal that one strong aspect of power is that it defines social reality and how people should act (Gal 320). Through examining practices of domination and resistance, language, and ideology, we can form a more complete interpretation of dominant social institutions and history. One of Gal’s strengths is that she moves past the idea of man vs. woman. Since her work was published fairly recently in 1991, it is clear that she is able to synthesize the feminist writings from the 1970’s and 1980’s, and is able to move past the initial push of feminism to rectify the male bias in anthropology. Her research shows feminist anthropology taking an even further step into the ideas of power and hegemony in general, and analyzing how speakers subvert and undermine the dominant ideology of their culture, no matter their sex. Hopefully this is an indication of where anthropology is headed in the future, a place where humans, their relationships, and their actions, are examined not in the classifications of men and women, but instead in a broader, more holistic context.

Gal, Susan. "Language, Gender, and Power: An Anthropological Review [1991]." Readings for A History of Anthropological Theory. By Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2013. 315-323. Print.