Language as Control

Originally posted by The Unnamable:

Quote:

---

How is power exercised? Stalin and Hitler were able to exercise enormous power but it was obviously not because they were physically superhuman. So how is that power exercised? According to French Poststructuralist, Michel Foucault, it is through’ discourse’.

---

Foucault's mention of Stalin and Hitler in this context may suggest that this means of exercising power is a feature of 20th century totalitarianism. However, the moment anyone tries to control anything much bigger that a gang or a small tribe, reliance on brute force alone is seldom practical or reliable. It's also potentially destabilizing, as it can provoke a rebellion, possibly under the leadership of a rival. I suspect that the use of discourse has always played a key role in the exercise of power. (Obviously, I'd accept that in the 20th century the means of disseminating discourse, for example by radio and film/TV, greatly increased, but somehow successful earlier politicians also managed to reach their audiences).

It seems to me that a key feature of discourse in this context is the underlying set of beliefs and values, for example, the "divine right of kings", religion and nationalism ...

Actually, starr, "kaka" is a homonym for "caca," which is Español for human excrement. To my knowledge, most English-speaking babies use other terms.

There is lot here. I can't possibly respond to it all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

This is similar to the problem I had when I first began reading the theorists I mentioned. However, what is ‘just natural’ is itself a construct and variable according to the prevailing beliefs of the day. Look at gender.

---

Points well taken. But I was referring to people using language to their personal advantage. I won't say that this is an absolute, that every single person tries to frame words from their point of view. But almost everyone does. Perhaps natural was too strong a word here. Common might be a better word, although that seems to weak a word. There must be something in between.

Quote:

---

look at the following pairs of words consisting of a male and a female equivalent...these are obviously crude examples and whether or not they are exact equivalents is debatable.

---

These are poor examples. The only one I might agree with is warlock/witch. (Side note, the Salem witch trials of the 18th century were tried and executed by men, but the controversy was started by other women's accusations.) ***** does not carry negative connotations in the dog breeding/training world. (If applied to women, well, there are negative words that are out there that apply to men) King/Queen are both powerful words. I don't argue that men haven't been in power historically. I'm focused more on language here. Which brings me to bachelor/spinster. The implication here is that men have established the connotations. Well, I don't know if that's true. In my experience, women are much more defining and confining of other women than men. Can't you imagine a situation where a women might define, perhaps to feel superior, some other women as a spinster if she herself is married, and, if she is not, define a single man as prospective bachelor? It's possible. None of us know how such things evolve, including I might add the theorists. Perhaps there are some examples that might be valid. Historically more men have had the ability to read and write, so I imagine some bias (and I use the word here in a statistical sense) may have developed, but over time given that women are half the population I don't see this being a conforming trend.

Quote:

---

Thus ideology serves the needs of the dominant class. It does this by ensuring that subordinate classes believe they share the same interests as the ruling classes. Ideology thus seeks, invisibly, to make social conditions appear natural and, by gaining the consent of the subordinate classes, to bring about political control in the form of hegemony.

---

We don't have classes in the United States, so I can't really speak to how class struture developed or was maintained. It does strike me that the assumption is that the classes who are ruled do so out of any sense of free will or without a complicent consent. I can't get into the mind of someone in the middle ages, but if a person of the lower classes believe in the divine right of kings then there was no conspiracy to conform him as the theorists imply. I believe that these social structures evolved out of a tradition, not out of some slick speaking con artist. I'm not a historian, but until the Renaissance when perspective shifted, I don't recall large masses of popular rebellions.

Quote:

---

Your approach seems much more focused on categories that I don’t really know much about – ‘aesthetic theories’.

---

Well, aren't all these theories essentially questioning the aesthetics of a work? Isn't that what we do as critics? Discussing the philosophy of a work may be important to understanding its structure, style, themes, but if it doesn't expand to that then it's a philosphy discussion and best left for philosophers and philosphy classes. Aristotle doesn't evaluate the philospohic thinking of the dramatist he analyzes. He focuses on the work, the artistry. I think he was a true critic.

Quote:

---

They do and, in the case of the Marxists, I think that is their strength. No critical approach is devoid of ideological bias.

---

Perhaps so. But there are gradations. I don't feel that Aristotle or Sidney or Wordsworth (I've mentioned their aesthetic theories eslewhere) are ideological. Yes, they bring their history and backgrounds to the table, I don't feel they are imposing something to the facts (and we have to agree on some set of facts), which I can't help but feel from these other critics do. I'll give an example later in response to something else.

Quote:

---

I think your disagreement here stems from the fact that Marxist critics are not interested in limiting themselves to producing particular readings of particular texts. They do this but tend rather to look at how that text was created in the first place (both literally in terms of how it physically came into existence and in terms of how and why it was generated out of the prevailing ideology of the era in which it was produced).

---

Yes, you're right. I'm interested in literature and art not sociology or economics. If a critic wants to explore an author's background and place his work in the context of his times, good; that's apprpriate. The industrial revolution is certainly important to undertanding 19th century literature. But most of these critics take it beyond that. Here's my example. When I was last in school, oh about six or so years ago, the latest new theory was New Historicism. Our focus was Malory's Le Morte Darthur. The professor's arguement, backed up by New Historicist' commentary, was that Malory was reacting to the context of his times, the end of feudalism and the all ready establishing capitalism. I wrote a lengthy paper challenging this view. All the observtions they made were implied, almost nothing from the text. And then they draw the conclusion that the final battle between Arthur and Mordred was a conflict between feudalism and capitalism. What? Where in the text does Malory suggest anything about economics? I understand implications beyond what writer might realize can creep in, but this was absolutely rediculous, and frankly it was supported by published commentary.

I'm getting long here. So much for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaka

Originally posted by The Unnamable:



Foucault's mention of Stalin and Hitler in this context may suggest that this means of exercising power is a feature of 20th century totalitarianism. However, the moment anyone tries to control anything much bigger that a gang or a small tribe, reliance on brute force alone is seldom practical or reliable. It's also potentially destabilizing, as it can provoke a rebellion, possibly under the leadership of a rival. I suspect that the use of discourse has always played a key role in the exercise of power. (Obviously, I'd accept that in the 20th century the means of disseminating discourse, for example by radio and film/TV, greatly increased, but somehow successful earlier politicians also managed to reach their audiences).

It seems to me that a key feature of discourse in this context is the underlying set of beliefs and values, for example, the "divine right of kings", religion and nationalism ...

---

I don't know what Foucault says about Stalin and Hitler, but ultimately all power is enforced by the point of a gun, physical force. Pursuassion is not the excercise of power. Words don't force people to do things they don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

(If applied to women, well, there are negative words that are out there that apply to men)

---

Of course there are but doesn’t it strike you as significant that there are (at least in English) more negative words for women? Also, I was intending that the non-literal meaning of the word be considered. Even ‘queen’ is used disparagingly to refer to homosexual men. Why is ‘*****’ used to describe women? I think you’re taking things too narrowly, in a way. The implications resound far beyond the dictionary definition of a word. You must always be mindful of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

King/Queen are both powerful words. I don't argue that men haven't been in power historically. I'm focused more on language here. Which brings me to bachelor/spinster.

---

This is an interesting choice. I believe it reflects implicit assumptions about the expectations placed on men and women. While the words are not exact equivalents, there is the assumption that an unmarried woman is bad in some way. ‘Spinster’ is not a pleasant label. It’s not that a group of men sat around and decided the connotations; it’s more that the way society has been structured will help establish and reinforce such connotations. Many of Shakespeare’s own plays and much of the output of Hollywood reinforces the idea that a woman can be completed by marriage to a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

The implication here is that men have established the connotations.

---

While I don’t think that men have done this deliberately and consciously, the male perspective has had a far greater influence in constructing the world as we see it than the female perspective. Part of the reason why men have been in power is that they have had a far greater influence on how language evolves. Of course, it’s not just written language. Images are also extremely powerful in today’s media-saturated world. The B.B.C., famed for objectivity, now disseminates propaganda with a straight face. Between programmes, we are treated to images of non-white people in wheelchairs, playing basketball. This is done, I am sure, to ‘naturalise’ such people. I hope you don’t think I am being deliberately offensive here. My point isn’t that I don’t want to see non-white people in wheelchairs but that I am only seeing them as part of an ideological position with a specific agenda. Again, no conspiracy is involved. In our present ideological climate someone has decided that this is what needs to be said and they would probably consider themselves as having absolutely no political agenda. I believe that everything is political.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

In my experience,...conforming trend.

---

The fact that some women define themselves and others using such ideas is, surely, a powerful argument in favour of the Theorists’ position. It shows the extent to which certain ideas have been internalised and accepted as ‘normal’. I think that we approach things from the opposite direction – you believe that we make language; I believe that language makes us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

We don't have classes in the United States,... I don't recall large masses of popular rebellions.

---

This is the key to where (I believe) you do are not being fair to the theorists. They do not claim any conspiracy, as I said in the earlier post. No con artist sits plotting in his attic. It does, as you say, ‘evolve’ but like evolution, there is no pre-determined goal. Things expand to fill whatever space is available in whatever way circumstances permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Aristotle doesn't evaluate the philospohic thinking of the dramatist he analyzes. He focuses on the work, the artistry. I think he was a true critic.

---

But his is just another ideological position and I return to my earlier question – is Aristotle to be considered an objective authority who is simply revealing truth? Wouldn’t that make him God? While I certainly don’t think we have outgrown Aristotle, I find it impossible to accept this position. It depends upon the implied assumption that everyone else is wrong and only Aristotle could see the true nature of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I don't feel they are imposing something to the facts (and we have to agree on some set of facts),

---

Another crux – yes, we do, but whose facts and how are they enshrined as ‘facts’? In the end it doesn’t really matter whether the earth is round or flat, what matters is what those in power decide to accept (again, not as part of any conspiracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Our focus was Malory's Le Morte Darthur.

---

But Malory didn’t exist in a bubble. His perception of the world must, axiomatically, have been the result of all the ideas available to him. His medium of communication was not a private language but a pre-existing set of rules and processes. I think you are assuming that theorists and cultural critics simply place greater emphasis on the historical context in order to reveal something about the text. They don’t. They look beyond issues like plot, theme and character to issues of how any meanings are constructed.

Finally, I should add that I do appreciate you probing me and taking my responses seriously. I hope I am repaying the compliment.

The reason "queen" is used disparagingly to refer to homosexual men is because it's impugning masculinity. It's not intended to compare them to women, it's intended to comtrast them with straight men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

The reason "queen" is used disparagingly to refer to homosexual men is because it's impugning masculinity. It's not intended to compare them to women, it's intended to comtrast them with straight men.

---

I don’t know if this is meant to be serious but I’ll assume it is because, if it is serious, it makes my point very well. If it’s impugning masculinity then surely it is implying that masculinity is a positive quality and that lack of it is negative? So it’s a virtue to be masculine and lack of masculinity is something to be scorned. Do you agree? The implicit assumption is ‘masculinity = good”, “femininity = not so good”. I don’t think there is anything revolutionary about such thinking. From Freud to Simone de Beauvoir we see examinations of how femaleness has been characterised not as a quality in its own right, but something defined by ‘lack’ or difference from the primary. Shakespeare even wrote a play with a title that reflects this: ‘Much Ado About Nothing”.

Yes, that's the point that's being made, but you mistake my meaning--"queen" is only an insult in comparison to other males. The implication is that the addressee of the insult is not worth as much as the males--if the same term were to be applied to a woman, it would most likely be a compliment. It's a question of different standards within various genders of what is positive and what isn't. Among males, masculinity is a virtue and femininity is a flaw. Those standards are generally reversed among females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

It's a question of different standards within various genders of what is positive and what isn't. Among males, masculinity is a virtue and femininity is a flaw. Those standards are generally reversed among females.

---

What about calling someone (female as well as male) a ‘drama queen’?

Male experience is nearly always foregrounded in English phrases. I teach the Head Girl at my school. She recently asked me why, at the Christmas Carol Service, the Head Boy always speaks before the Head Girl. In school brochures, the name of the Head Boy always comes before the name of the Head Girl and this is probably true for most schools on the planet. We say ‘king and queen’ rather than ‘queen and king’, prince/princess, boy/girl/, husband/wife, even lion/lioness. There is always some kind of hierarchy apparent. I think you are not so much mistaking my meaning as not seeing the point I am making. This is why I said earlier that the way hegemony works is powerful – we are convinced that our ideas originate entirely from within our own autonomous selves. We are fairly blind to the extent to which those selves are actually constructed through the language and other systems of meaning available to us.

I disagree that the standards are simply reversed. It’s simply not true to say “It's a question of different standards within various genders of what is positive and what isn't.” Maleness is still considered primary, especially in the world of politics and power (and the topic of this discussion is Language and Power). During Shakespeare’s time, England had a female head of state, which would superficially imply that it wasn’t patriarchal. However, Elizabeth’s validity as a ruler was by virtue of her possessing qualities usually associated with maleness. In practice, patriarchy is maintained in spite of the presence of a woman at the pinnacle of power, by constantly insisting on Elizabeth's difference from other women. This is a familiar strategy even today, for having a female leader did not lead the British Conservative Party to revise its ideas about the role of women in society - on the contrary, under the rule of Margaret Thatcher, the ‘iron lady’ (an interesting locution in this context) reactionary ideas were reinforced and strengthened. One of the first things any woman in politics must do if she is to reach ‘the top’ is make sure her opponents aren’t able to characterise her as ‘weak’. You might argue that this is true for all would-be leaders but there is not the same expectation for men to be weak as there is for women to be. Richard III exploits such assumptions for his own ends:

“why, this it is, when men are ruled by women:”

Also, the very word ‘weak’ needs much closer scrutiny in this context. Women are deemed to be weak if they lack those qualities of physical strength and aggression usually ascribed to maleness.

I would be interested to hear your response to my point about ‘femaleness’ not being considered as a quality in itself by defined by ideas of difference from and inferiority when compared to ‘maleness’.


Feminist criticism is especially concerned with the way gender assumptions, especially about women, operate in the reading and writing of literary texts. They wish to show how literary texts either sustain or challenge the structure of patriarchy.

Feminist critics argue that gender inequalities are reproduced at three levels:

· in the production of texts;
· in the structure and language of text;
· and through reading practices.

The production of texts is gendered because the 'means of production' - publishing houses, printing presses, bookshops - traditionally have been owned by men. This has made the publishing industry more receptive to stories that support masculine views of life. (If you are reading this, Virgil, this is an example of how such views become embedded as 'normal' without anything conspiratorial being at work. Men who commissioned writers would, simply by virtue of the fact that they are men, be more likely to react positively to male experience.)

The language and structure of texts reproduce gender inequalities by rnarginalising femininity. The use of the male pronoun 'he' as the general term for 'human being' is one simple and often cited example of the way in which this occurs. Another factor is the emphasis on male 'heroes' in popular narratives. In many stories, female characters become merely the 'obstacles' or 'prizes', which the male protagonists encounter during the narrative. Women are reduced to the status of objects, whereas men are the characters who matter.

Reading practices combine with these textual structures to reinforce inequalities. Dominant reading practices encourage readers to 'identify' with characters in a story. In mainstream narratives, readers have the choice of identifying with the active, masterful male 'hero' or the passive, helpless, pretty 'heroine'. Male readers are therefore better catered for than female readers: they can identify with the hero (imagine being him) and desire the heroine (imagine having her). The choice for women readers is less clear cut. They must choose either to identify with subordinate character positions, or to identify with male characters.

Hmm. I see your point, and it's an interesting one on how the male counterpart generally comes first when both are stated. I suppose it is true that males generally get the high end of the stick, both socially and dictionally.

Still, both sides can get a little silly in the quest for political correctness. For examples, some feminists are calling for "Eve and Adam" to be the accepted phraseology as opposed to "Adam and Eve," despite the fact that the latter is both biblically chronological and alphabetical (if you wanted to get picky about things).

Besides, not all of culture is oriented towards males, subconsciously or otherwise. As an example, I turn to Star Wars. Yes, I realize it's not the most scholarly of sources, but please bear with me. It's a franchise almost entirely dominated by male characters, including either of the two arguable protagonists (Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker). Princess Leia, however, though in a definite state of distress at times, is far from helpless. Even when she is in need of rescue, she's not above demeaning her captors ("Aren't you a bit short for a stormtrooper?"). Even the Rebellion as a whole, the fundamentally "good side" in the original trilogy, is led by a woman, Mon Mothma. Nearly every female of importance is one more than capable of dominating whatever male she encounters, be she a princess, a queen/senator, a Jedi (although the female Jedi are more prominent in the non-canon literature), or a bounty hunter.

Still, I imagine Star Wars is a fairly uncommon exception to the rule.

First off I pretty sure Im agreeing with Unamable here except Im not sure I just understood everything. however anyways, first off the power of the choice of words.

In 1974 Loftus and Palmer did a study to prove that witness could be lead (meaning mislead) by the phrasing of a question. The short of it was tghey showed the participants a video of a car accident and divided them in to groups and asked how fast they thought the cars were going when, and heres where it differed, they either hit, contacted, smashed, collided or bumped into each other. Unsuprisingly the people who were asked using the word smashed estimated a much higher speed than those who were asked using the contacted.

My point is that the word leaves an impresion behind that influences a persons opinion whether (spelling :sick: ) consciously or not.
And the fact is the male equivelent is usually the stronger, rmore dominant , shiner if you like word, carrying the stigma of "better". Back to the bacholr and spinster anology.The word spinster often contotates a lonley woman of a certain age often assoiated with Cat ladies while bachelors are associated with freedom happiness James bond. ILL use starr as an example if you dont mind, just go and read some of his choice of words in some of his posts and youll see what Im talking about he illustarates about the best example I can think of off the tp of my herad this anolgy. And another thing(These arenot my words but part of a course I was doing before I dropped it in favour of literature) History? although come to think of it Im not convinced by this point.

As for the backing up of this in popular culture I first saw grease last year for a media studies essay and was leant the copy because all my classmates were horrified I hought I was deprived because I had never seen it. I was shocked I mean what message does that film give out? Women should change to suit men! I wrote a nice angry essay on it. But now I am gettng distracted. Point here being this film (which someone recently said is the most pure bit of americana ever to be capture on screen) illstrates a cultural norm women should change for men becasue men are right or better or somthing and language backs this up and this kind of idea backs language up so that they are so mixed up its pretty much impossible to seperate them.

I think that about it for now:D

With regards to Grease--yes, the girl changes to suit the guy, but in the lines of dialogue preceding her arrival, the guy demonstrates a willingness to change to suit her. The only reason that the girl is the one who changes is because she simply beat him to the punch, which makes sense because she has the faster-turning gears upstairs.

Nightshade,
first of all I’m sorry for putting you in the unenviable position of agreeing with me. I hope you won’t be too upset to read that I agree with you. ‘Grease’ reinforces patriarchy. Perhaps it would be possible to stage a production that reads ‘against the grain’ but all the productions I have seen, as well as the film, offer the reading you have discovered. Cultural norms are inscribed in language and reinforced by cultural artefacts, including those called ‘popular’ culture.

Robin,
Your response demonstrates the way that patriarchy reinforces its controlling position while ostensibly promoting freedom for females. In my view, it is simply inaccurate to say “The only reason that the girl is the one who changes is because she simply beat him to the punch, which makes sense because she has the faster-turning gears upstairs.” First of all, ‘the girl’ is a linguistic construct, not an actual historical person, so the writer who created her and the medium through which she is constructed determine her behaviour. You imply that she is a thinking, autonomous individual. Such a reading practice is one of the methods by which patriarchy ensures containment of potential opposition. It acts as a sort of pressure valve, enabling us to think that what is rarely equal in social reality can be so in the imaginative realm.


PS
Nightshade,
I’m glad your essay was ‘angry’. I think passion is a disappearing commodity.

If that is the case, then how would you suggest that I refer to the prominent female character in the course of the narrative? The way that I did in the last sentence? Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but I don't quite understand how I am to refer to the character of "Sandy" without using language. Nightshade made a point as to how the female character in Grease changes to suit the male character, and I was dissenting on the basis of the male character's willingness to do the same for the female counterpart. I was under the impression, however mistaken it may be, that we were discussing how society is reflected in the cultural parallels that it creates.

Robin yes I see your point what I meant was at the end the film when I did the analysis I was taught to do it seemed to me that the film left the taste of well yes it was better and more right for her to chnge think what a fool travolta looked in the cardigan and how "cool" sandy looked. But I see your point actually since the film is in its way historical its could be argued that it was trying to be acurate to the era.
What I was trully horrified by was that nowadays with all the talk about equality little kids are allowed to watch that alone and just end up excepting the implict value ( I cant think of what the theory is called). But since this is only my represntation of what its aboput it can hardly be called a fact now can it?
But another point on the unnbalnced cultural norms and the fact that languge contatins power (and by languge when Im talking about Tv, or the media I also mean music clothes facial expressions basically everything you see or hear) recently my younger sister (9 years old) was watching a cartoon when I came in so I sat down and watched a bit with her and There was this charcter that was well not evil in the proper way but nmot obviously the goodie so and this is our exact dialogue
Me: " sister, whose that is she the baddy?"
sister: : "Well look at her she old ugly and not married"
Me jumping up and down in shock"WHAt! WEhat did yousays? and what doesa that have to do with it?! I asked if she is tha baddy.. Dose that mean if I nevber get married Ill be a bad person?"
Sister: " No, move its only a cartoon I was explaining....go away Im watching"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Needless to say I was very very very shocked I mean shes generally a sesable person and such an old fashioned idea, I mean I can sort of accept it in grease but in a modern cartoon targeted at little kids with all these good moral lessons at the end and yet somehow my little sisters end up with that!

:eek2:
Actually Unnamble I dont really mind agreeing with you although I do think that all swearing should be censored.
:D