Language, Gender and Reality

In the field of sociology, gender has been defined as a socially constructed identity category. As a socially defined category, researchers say that the roles and expectations that one associates with gender are determined through processes of socialization. Because language and language use are important factors in socialization, researchers have sought to understand how language contributes to the construction of gender and perceptions of reality. This article explores the complex interplay between gender, language, and reality from the perspective of social constructionism.

Keywords Conversational Style; Cultural Product; Feminist Social Constructionists; Gender; Interactional Styles; Intersexual; Linguistic Strategies; Male-Female Relationships; Marked Words; Perception; Reality; Social Constructionism; Stereotypes; Transgender

Language, Gender & Reality

Overview

Every day in the media, articles abound describing the unique characteristics that make women women and men men. In magazines and on the Internet, the "dating beat" produces stories that provide insight into what men really want or what women really need. The underlying message is that there is something essentially different about women and men. That difference creates a mysteriousness about members of the opposite sex that must be uncovered in order for relationships between the sexes to become deeper and more satisfying. But are these differences inevitable? Does the physical reality of having different genitalia necessarily equate to having psychological, emotional, and behavioral differences? Many sociologists, linguists, anthropologists and other researchers in fields related to the topic of language, gender, and reality believe the answer is no. There is no one absolute, biologically-driven set of behavioral characteristics that define gender. Rather, they say, gender is a socially constructed concept. This means that our understanding of what gender is and what it means to behave as a member of a specific gender develops through our social interactions in a particular culture. Throughout time, different cultures have conceived of gender in various ways, providing evidence that gender is not biologically, but rather socially defined (Boswell, 2003; Lorber, 2003).

For instance, take the case of the introduction to this article in which it is proposed that there are two and only two genders that exist in our society. Quite likely, many will read this and agree without second thought that this is indeed the case. Possibly, having already recognized your gender category, you are interested in learning more about how you differ from your gender opposite. This is almost certainly the case, unless, of course, you are one of the individuals who was not born fully male or female (Fausto-Sterling, 2003). If you are one of these intersexual people, born with both female and male genitalia, and perhaps told of how you were surgically modified of this somewhat rare but perfectly natural biological/medical condition, you might have a different perspective. Perhaps you are more open to a definition of gender that includes more than two polar opposites. Maybe you readily agree that men and women can exhibit similar behaviors. Theoretically, you might be prone to accept the idea that whatever is socially constructed can be changed. This may also be the case if you are transgender, or identify with a different gender than the one you were assigned at birth. Transgender people may identify with and may also present as the opposite gender to the male or female one assigned at birth, or they may identify with both or neither genders.

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is a theory that describes social realities as a product of human interaction. In other words, much of what we take for granted as being real was originally created by humans and only acquired the status of being "real" because individuals taught one another to see and accept it as such.

3 Stages of Construction

Researchers have defined three stages of the construction of social realities. The first stage is externalization. In this stage, cultural products are produced through human interaction. These products might be values or beliefs about a specific group, a social institution, or cultural artifacts. For instance, gender as a cultural product is defined by a set of culturally-appropriate beliefs about what gender is and how members of a gender behave and must consequently be treated. Once these products are created, they exist external to their original creators; they are available to other members of the group.

The second stage is objectivism. In this stage, the products take on an objective reality that is separate from the people who created them. In other words, individuals lose sight of the fact that they created the product and begin to see the product as existing independently in the world regardless of human interactions.

The third stage is internalization. In this stage, members of the cultural group learn the "objective facts" about the cultural products in their society. These facts are passed down from generation to generation and between members of the group through a process called socialization. This is the process by which individuals learn the roles, rules, and expectations that a society attaches to particular social positions (Ore, 2003). Because of socialization, members of the same cultural group learn to perceive the world in the same way and are not likely to question their beliefs unless they are challenged by a cultural/social system that has defined the world differently (Lorber, 2003).

The argument for gender as a social construction states that gender is just one category of identity that society creates, defines, and makes real through socialization processes. People are not born knowing how to act as members of a particular gender. Rather, they learn how to act through their interactions with other members of the culture. This learning process begins at birth when babies, who in a diaper alone might otherwise look genderless, are adorned in pink or blue to denote their sex. Dressed in their gender-marked color, others respond to them with language and actions they deem appropriate for girls or boys: "She's so pretty; look at her eyes!" or "Hey, little fellah, are you an ornery one?" As children grow, they continue to learn the rules and expectations that society creates for them, essentially learning to "do gender." (Lorber, 2003; West & Zimmerman, 2002).

The Role of Language

Language plays an important role in these socialization processes. Language is the medium of interaction, and as such, it is the means through which social norms are transmitted. Through language, individuals are able to describe their perceptions of reality, and in doing so, they shape how others perceive and respond to them and the world. While language is certainly not the only social factor shaping reality—society's social institutions such as the family, education, economy, media, etc. all play their part—it is an extremely important one (Ore, 2003; Tannen, 1994).

Further Insights

How does language create gender? Such a question naturally entails a complex interplay of interactants, contexts, cultures, discourses, languages, and power relationships, so there is no one easy answer. First, language allows us to name and categorize things. Once something is named, it can be investigated and facts and/or status can be associated with it. Consider the "invention of heterosexuality." Katz (2003) writes that prior to the late 1800s, heterosexuality was not the common sense way of perceiving relations between the sexes. Instead, couched in terms of the Victorian age, men and women aspired to be free from carnal lust, and sex was seen only as a means to reproduction, not pleasure. In the 1880s, however, new changes in the economy promoted a pleasure ethic that encouraged an exploration of human sexuality. The medical profession redefined sexual norms, "Doctors, who had earlier named and judged the sex-enjoying woman a 'nymphomaniac,' now began to label women's lack of sexual pleasure a mental disturbance, speaking critically, for example, of female 'frigidity' and 'anesthesia'" (Katz, 2003, p. 139). Along with the redefinition came new terminology.

The Language of Gender

The first uses of the term heterosexual came in 1892. Two different doctors used the term. Dr. James Kiernan described heterosexuals as having a mental condition impelling them toward both sexes. Dr. Krafft-Ebing defined heterosexual as an individual with feelings for members of the opposite sex, and as someone unique from homosexual (same-sex attraction) and pseudo-hermaphroditic (dual-sex attraction) individuals. Gradually, the medical profession came to define heterosexuality as an attraction to the opposite sex that embodies a perceived "need" (p. 141) for procreation. According to Katz, the emphasis on the oppositeness of the sexes reflects not only sex differences, but also anxieties about the changing role of women and men in an industrialized society. As the term became dominant within American discourse, it came to represent a concept for normalcy that separated it from other previously recognized sexual behaviors such as homosexuality and bisexuality. It also solidified the idea that male and female genders are opposite, a concept that continues to pervade the discourse on gender and gender role expectations today.

While it should be clear that language alone does not create reality, language and language use are widely perceived to reinforce individual perceptions of reality. Much of the sociological research on language and gender attempts to understand how language contributes to the maintenance of male-dominated power structures. One way this happens is through the marking of a language by masculine and feminine forms. In many languages, words are marked as either being masculine or feminine (e.g., in French, le chat is masculine while la chatte is feminine). Also in many languages—including English—male forms and pronouns have traditionally been used to describe both men alone as well as women. For instance, although not very common in the twenty-first century, at one time the use of the pronoun his in the following sentence—“A student should bring his paperwork to the admissions office”—would have been considered appropriate even if the student was female. The reason the example may seem inappropriate today is that feminist social constructionists have successfully made the argument—at least within academia—that the use of male-based generics constitutes a form of suppression of women. As Kleinman (2002) states, when male-generics are used, women become an invisible, linguistic subset of men. When any group is made invisible by another, it becomes easier for the more powerful group to do what they want with the less powerful one. Kleinman, like other feminist social constructionists, supports replacing words that mark members of a category as specifically male with gender-neutral terms, for example, firefighter instead of fireman and chair instead of chairman. By changing language, she says, we begin to view our world differently and that can lead to changes in reality.

Linguistic Strategies

The quest to understand how language recreates systems of dominance has led researchers to examine the conversational interactions between males and females. The speculation has been that men and women, because they are perceived to be of opposite natures, may use linguistic strategies differently. In so doing, they may create and reinforce power differentials (Tannen, 1994). The results of this kind of research are a bit fuzzy. Are there differences between men and women's interactional styles? Frequently. For instance, in a study examining conversational cohesion between genders across four age groups, Tannen (1994) found striking differences in the way boys/men and girls/women oriented themselves to each other. Girls and women consistently oriented their bodies toward each other and gazed at each other more directly when talking. In contrast, boys and men oriented in parallel with one another and rarely made eye-contact. Other studies have noted differences in the use of linguistic strategies such as topic raising, interrupting, and using silence or indirectness. But do these kinds of differences always reinforce male-dominant relations? No.

Tannen (1994), in her work on conversational styles and their consequences, says that there is no question that men tend to dominate women in society. However, one cannot ascribe the reason for that dominance to the use of any one linguistic or set of linguistic strategies. This, she says, is because linguistic strategies are neutral. They can be used for different purposes by different people in different contexts with different resulting effects. For example, in the context of male-female interactions, it has been found that men interrupt women more often than women interrupt men. Some researchers have used this finding to argue that men in these instances are dominating women because they are wresting the floor from the female speakers. Tannen disagrees with this interpretation. She states that interruption does not necessarily entail power, which in linguistic terms is associated with asymmetrical relationships in which one participant is subordinate to another. Instead, she says interruption can also be a means of showing solidarity—associated with relationships of equality—and support.

Interactional Styles

As a case in point, Tannen conducted an in-depth analysis of friends interacting at a Thanksgiving Dinner. In the conversation between East-Coast Jewish participants and West-Coast Christian participants, two different conversational styles emerged. The East-Coast Jewish friends used what Tannen calls a high-involvement style. In this style, speakers use frequent overlaps—beginning to speak over another speaker while that speaker continues talking—to demonstrate support and agreement. Though these overlaps would be considered "interruptions" in the traditional sense, she argues that they do not constitute a display of power but of solidarity.

Tannen contends that male-female interactional differences should be viewed as cultural differences. As when any two individuals with differing cultural conversational styles interact, miscommunication can occur. Frequently, the miscommunication works to the disadvantage of members of groups who are already stigmatized or who hold minority status in society. This is because those with dominant status control what is perceived to be the norm for interactional behavior.

Stereotypes

Differing styles become negatively stereotyped. For instance, Tannen refers to the stereotype of Jewish individuals as being pushy. This stereotype, she says, most likely formed as the result of Jews and non-Jews interacting with dissimilar styles. She points out that in the case of the Thanksgiving dinner, those participants without a high involvement style indicated that they thought those with such a style dominated the conversation. Stereotypes, she says, are created when the majority blames the minority for the effect of differing interactional styles.

In the context of discussions about male and female power relationships in society and discourse, Tannen goes further to state that if it is wrong to blame the minority for interactional differences, then it must also be wrong to blame men for dominating women in a conversation when each participant is exhibiting a different interactional style.

Viewpoints

Where does the research on gender, language, and reality fit in when contemplating the day-to-day interactions with regard to gender? Perhaps the greatest effect is to raise one's awareness that reality is not always the concrete, unchanging state of being that many would like it to be. Alternate ways of viewing the world are available and should be explored. One such alternate vision might be a change in the way the world defines gender. Maybe there should be more than two classifications of sex. This is indeed the proposal that Fausto-Sterling (2003) makes in suggesting that society should recognize five sexes. These would include male, female, and intersexual with intersexual people further classified into three categories according to their physical characteristics. The transgender community has also shown that there are more than two genders. While some transgender individuals identify with the male gender or the female gender, others identify as third gender, agender (no gender), bigender (two genders), genderqueer (any gender identification outside of the male-female binary), and elsewhere outside of the male-female gender binary.

Another result of raised consciousness may be appropriate at the individual level. If one can change societal views, one can also change individual behaviors. When one finds oneself in a heated disagreement with a member of another sex, angered by something he or she has said or done that seems insensitive, instead of assigning blame to that individual for the insensitivity, ask how style differences are affecting the conversation. Maybe, by mutually deconstructing the situation and recognizing common ground behind the differences, participants can find a calmer, more culturally-sensitive point from which to move forward.

The theory of social constructionism is the predominant theory by which researchers in sociology, linguistics, and anthropology explore the concept of gender. Using this theory, researchers have argued that there is no one set of biologically-determined behavioral characteristics that necessarily define an individual who is male or female. Instead, gender roles and behaviors result from processes of socialization. Because language and language use are important factors in socialization, these have been extensively studied. In particular, researchers have sought to define whether there are differences in male/female interactional styles, and if there are, how these may contribute to the maintenance of male-dominated power structures. Although differences in how males and females interact have been found, the argument has been made that the differences themselves do not cause male-domination. Instead, it has been suggested that dissimilar interactional styles should be viewed as cultural differences, and the consequences of the interaction of different styles should be examined.

Terms & Concepts

Cultural Product: A cultural product is an idea, value, belief, artifact, or social institution that is created within a society and which becomes accepted as something.

Feminist Social Constructionists: Feminist social constructionists examine how women's roles in society are created by the interplay of social forces and institutions. They say that because gender roles are socially created, they can be changed.

Interactional Styles: Interactional styles are ways that individuals employ their body and language when engaging in conversation with someone else.

Intersexual: Intersexual is a term coined to describe individuals who are born with both male and female genitalia.

Linguistic Strategies: Linguistic strategies refer to the ways that individuals employ language in conversation. Examples include interruption, using silence, and topic raising.

Marked Words: In linguistics, many words are said to have a basic, neutral form and a marked form. Although forms can be marked phonetically, phonologically, morphologically, syntactically, or semantically, in this context, marked is used to described how words are changed to reflect male and female forms.

Social Constructionism: Social constructionism is the theory that humans, through their social interactions, create the roles and expectations that are considered the norms for the society. The three stages of social constructionism are said to be externalization, objectivism, and internalization.

Socialization: The learning of roles and expectations of an individual with a particular position in the society.

Stereotypes: Stereotypes are over-simplified conceptions or beliefs that members of a society might hold about individuals, cultures, or other products of a society.

Transgender: Transgender individuals identify with a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth (often based on genitalia). Transgender individuals may identify with and may also present as the opposite gender to the male or female classification assigned at birth, or they may identify with both or neither genders. This identity is independent of sexual orientation.

Bibliography

Boswell, H. (2003). The transgender paradigm shift toward free expression. In T.E. Ore (Ed.). The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.) (pp. 114–118). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2003). The five sexes: Why male and female are not enough. In T. E. Ore (Ed.). The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.) (pp. 107–113). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Katz, J. N. (2003). The invention of heterosexuality. In T. E. Ore (Ed.). The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.) (pp. 136–148). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Kiesling, S. (2012). The interactional construction of desire as gender. Gender & Language, 5 , 213–239. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79344892&site=ehost-live

Kleinman, S. (2002). Why sexist language matters. Qualitative Sociology, 25 , 299–304. Retrieved March 26, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11302771&site=ehost-live

Lorber, J. (2003). The social construction of gender. In T.E. Ore (Ed.). The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.) (pp. 99–106). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Ore, T. E. (2003). Constructing differences. In T. E. Ore (Ed.). The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–17). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Perrin, P., Heesacker, M., Tiegs, T., Swan, L., Lawrence, A., Smith, M., & ... Mejia-Millan, C. (2011). Aligning Mars and Venus: The social construction and instability of gender differences in romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 64 (9/10), 613–628. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60686421&site=ehost-live

Prewitt-Freilino, J., Caswell, T. T., & Laakso, E. (2012). The gendering of language: A comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless languages. Sex Roles, 66 (3/4), 268–281. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71106552&site=ehost-live

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2002). Doing gender. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West (Eds.), Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power, and institutional change. New York: Routledge.

Suggested Reading

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

Castro, O. (2012). Introduction: Gender, language, and translation at the crossroads of disciplines. Gender & Language, 6 , 5–12. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88866590&site=ehost-live

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2013). Language and gender. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. ( 2002). Doing gender, doing difference . New York: Routledge.

McConnell-Ginet, S. (2011). Gender, sexuality, and meaning: Linguistic practice and politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ore, T. (2003). The social construction of difference and inequality (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.