My previous post about language only touched tangentially on language ideologies and wasn’t specifically tailored to speak to feminism. I’d like to correct that, and offer something more concise and digestible for your reading pleasure. Do note that this piece does borrow upon the last post, however, and is probably best read afterward.

What is a language ideology, specifically? To recap, a language ideology is a standardized version of a language imposed from the top down. “Standard” English is an example of a language ideology – the notion that there is a correct and incorrect way to speak English, that words are pronounced certain ways and mean certain (or various) things. The problem is that, because thinking (and indeed, even fundamental concepts like personhood and identity) are entwined with our language facilities, language ideologies tend to have polarizing effects. (For more, see the post above.)

Language ideologies may be the common denominator in what defines a social group, to include a nation: “…The nationalist ideology of language structures state politics, challenges multilingual states, and underpins ethnic struggles to such an extent that the absence of a distinct language can cast doubt on the legitimacy of claims to nationhood” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). The language consensus – that is to say, agreement on what is and is not proper language and thus thinking – informs the way the state structures itself. Absence of such a consensus may cause the entire system to dissolve as people perceive the organization to lack legitimacy. These assertions are not based on pure abstraction, but rather on empirical studies of linguistic histories: “Macrosocial research on language planning and policy has traced distinctive ideological assumptions about the role of language in civic and human life and distinctive stances toward the state regulation of language, for example, between England and France” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994).

Literacy and orthographies (systems of writing) have a profound impact on language ideologies. They tend to lend credability towards notions of language consensus: “Ideologies of literacy have complex relations to ideologies of speech and can play distinctive, crucial roles in social institutions. Even the conceptualization of the printed word can differ importantly from that of the written” Additionally, literacy can often be fueled by cultural factors: “Anthropological studies of literacy…recognized belatedly that it is not an autonomous, neutral technology, but rather is culturally organized, ideologically grounded, and historically contingent, shaped by political, social, and economic forces” (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994). It is relevant at this point to call attention to the distinction in linguistics between ideologies of speech and ideologies of printed word. Imagine how hard it would be to enforce a proper way of speaking, for instance – especially without the aid of the written word! Thus, written word has a synergistic effect with the spoken word; the two working together can create a far more powerful language ideology than perhaps either could alone (though it is rather hard to imagine a written language without a spoken component – unless you count math). Language ideologies can form around the spoken word, written word, or both. This post will focus more on the written word (as opposed to considerations of accent and so on), which is more relevant to feminism. Concepts of literacy have a profound impact on society:

The definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a profoundly political matter. Historical studies of the emergence of schooled literacy and school English show the association between symbolically valued literate traditions and mechanisms of social control. Analyses of classroom interaction further demonstrate how implicit expectations about written language shape discriminatory judgments about spoken language and student performance. The nineteenth century foundation of English as a university discipline created a distinction between reading as aristocratic and leisurely and writing as work. Composition as skill training for employment is the dirty work of English departments, with consequences for gender politics (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994).

Stop and chew on that for a second. Consider what feminists have done to the education systems in the West – a topic that has been covered well by many other bloggers and authors (Christina Hoff Sommers comes to mind). Women thought they were being liberated by feminism, with its heavy handed talk of male oppression and patriarchy. Such words represent revisions; marriage was not always a synonym for oppression, patriarchy not always a synonym for totalitarian control. And yet women bought into this language ideology and structured their realities around such concepts. They traded one system of thinking – that exonerated the wifely duty for the benefit of society – for another system of thinking, one that exonerated careerism for the benefit of individuals (and often at the expense of society). But it is hard to imagine that most people have been doing any “free thinking” of late, given the mechanisms by which language ideologies propagate themselves.

One may ask at this juncture how it is that language ideologies are imposed and sustained in the first place. This is an excellent question with an unfortunate answer – the entire system is imposed right under our noses. It begins in the classroom: “Standard language ideology is a basic construct of our elementary and secondary schools’ approach to language and philosophy of education. The schools provide the first exposure to SL ideology, but the indoctrination process does not stop when the students are dismissed” (Lippi-Green, 1994). I hypothesize that this may be a result of how education has come to be synonymous with college (evidence by the phrase “get an education,” which generally means, a college degree) thus eliminating the perception that education is a multifaceted process and that there are many ways to become educated. This is probably unsurprising to those familiar with MRAs and the “men’s movement,” if you buy into that phrase. Critique of the modern education system is generally a component of such philosophies, but I think they’ve missed the subtle nuance of language ideology and instead blanket-blamed feminism. “Much of what the American educational system teaches children about langauge is factually incorrect; in this it is thorough, consistent, and successful across social and economic boundaries. The phenomenon has been observed by others” (Lippi-Green, 1994). After the school system, there are several other guardians of standard language ideology: “There are four immediately identifiable proponents of SL ideology…: the educational system, the news media, the entertainment industry, and what has been generally referred to as corporate America. At the end of the article, I argue for adding the judicial system to this list” (Lippi-Green, 1994). Lippi-Green’s article provides a convincing case to consider the judicial system as a fifth enforcer:

Transcription, or the written representation of speech, within academic disciplines and law, for example, relies on and reinforces ideological conceptions of language…In the American legal system the verbatim record is an idealist construction, prepared according to the court reporter’s model of English, against which incoming speech is filtered, evaluated, and interpreted. It is considered information if a witness speaks ungrammatically, but not if lawyers do, and edited is applied accordingly (Woolard, & Schieffelin, 1994).

I don’t think I need to make the case that the education system, news media, entertainment industry, corporate culture and the legal system in the West are biased against men. Those sacred cows have been gored before – far better than I could ever hope to gore them. But I think it is interesting to note that those five sources of woe for men can also be thought of as indoctrination engines, prone to propagating any sort of language ideology – of which feminism is but one kind. We understand the ways in which women have been divisive, but do we fully appreciate the mechanism?

I propose two steps. We need to eliminate the fiction that any language provides unmediated access to “the real” or “the Truth,” because it is precisely this fiction that has motivated many women (and men) to believe in feminism’s vile lies, double standards, and illogic. Feminism purports to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to its adherents, and they take such sentiments literally. A person who vehemently believes in feminism will be impossible to communicate with (and come to a genuine understanding with) unless you are speaking the same language (ideology). You can’t ever tell a die-hard feminist that marriage is a good idea, because that is not part of their perception of reality.

In order to do this, we may want to re-examine the way we approach language and language education. I theorize that refining languages to be more precise (as English has an awful lot of ambiguity) would help make them less susceptible to malicious abuse. Additionally, however, we should not teach children that there is only one language and only one correct way to speak that language. I believe we should encourage our young to learn many languages, if possible, so that we could learn to express ourselves in a variety of ways to a variety of people. Greater respect for diverse languages (and thus diverse ways of thinking) may engender a respect for coming to understanding as opposed to the more common approach of “winning” an argument. Communicating should not be viewed with an adversarial attitude, as that is antithetical to understanding. I do not mean to assert that we should all come to agreement, mind you – it is perfectly appropriate to understand another and disagree with them, and generally disagreements sprung from understanding are more respectful and civil than those sprung from misunderstandings.

Works Cited

Woolard, KA., & Schieffelin, BB. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82.

Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23(2), 163-198.