See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316364115

Discourse and Gender

Chapter · April 2016

DOI: 10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss150

CITATIONS READS
0 21

1 author:

Ann Weatherall
Victoria University of Wellington
79 PUBLICATIONS   1,401 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ann Weatherall on 28 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Discourse and Gender
ANN WEATHERALL
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
The topic discourse and gender emerged
and further developed gender and language
studies, which arose with the women’s move-
ment in the 1970s. Early feminist language
research had two primary concerns: the ways
gender inequality was reflected in language
and how the speech of women and men was
different. The issues presuppose a simple rep-
resentation relationship between language,
thought, and society where gender identity
and sexism are straightforwardly reflected
in language structures and use. Questions
of difference rest on essentialist ideas about
the nature of gender – that gender identity
is something stable and enduring and that
it underpins and reveals itself in speech.
These initial assumptions still underlie a
lot of sound gender and language research.
However, they have also been called into
question by contemporary ideas associated
with constructionism and poststructural the-
ories of meaning. Language’s more pivotal,
powerful, and dynamic role in the gendered
organization of social life and meaning-
making is captured by the term discourse,
which opens up new and exciting avenues of
research.
Constructionist and poststructural ideas
inspired a discursive turn in gender and lan-
guage studies. Discursive work continues an
earlier interest in the relationships between
gender, language, and power but greatly
expands its scope. Key issues such as gen-
der identities, parenting, sexual violence, and
workplace discrimination can all be examined
from a discursive approach. Different media
(e.g., advertising, books, magazines, and
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, First Edition. Edited by Nancy A. Naples.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss150
movies) can be examined for the ways they
draw upon gender as a broad meaning system
in their communications. Some discur-
sive studies investigate how broad areas of life
(e.g., science, religion) are variously described
or constructed in gendered ways. Others,
such as those using conversation analysis,
examine the ways gender becomes explic-
itly visible in recorded instances of everyday
interactions in institutional (e.g., courtrooms,
telephone helplines) and mundane (e.g.,
mealtime, children’s playgrounds) contexts.
One meaning of the term discourse is
language in use. However, it is also used
in the theories of social constructionism
and poststructuralism to acknowledge the
pervasive relationships between knowledge
and power. In this second sense, discourse
is deeply implicated in both the produc-
tion of gendered and sexualized identities
and the regulation of them. For example,
discourses of motherhood as a natural and
inevitable part of being a woman support
widespread access to medical services for
infertility. Motherhood can also be construed
using a neoliberal discourse of individual
choice. Women who choose to be childfree
are marginalized in a society where moth-
erhood is so closely bound to femininity.
The notion of motherhood as choice can
justify a lack of affirmative action to support
equal employment opportunities for women
in their careers. In sum, the mandate of
motherhood is a pervasive discourse that
produces and shapes women’s identities.
Poststructural theories posit that discourse
produces what counts as knowledge, which is
at the heart of its power. Used in a poststruc-
tural sense, discourse makes the gendered
organization of social life seem effortless and
not constructed at all. Judith Butler’s land-
mark work Gender Trouble (1990) described
2 DI S C OU R SE AN D G E N DE R
how cultural meaning systems and every-
day practices (such as gender assignment of
infants before or at birth) effectively routinize
and reproduce sex differentiation and het-
erosexuality in a way that seems natural and
inevitable. Butler overturned conventional
thinking about the relationships between
sex and gender – elevating the social and
cultural or discursive realm over a biolog-
ical one as producing pervasively binary
understandings of sex and gender, nature and
nurture. She also recognized non-normative
or marginalized genders and sexualities for
their potential to expose gender and sexuality
as products of discourses.
Judith Butler’s work inspired new lines of
inquiry in gender and discourse. The topic of
sexuality has come to the fore partly because
sexual identity has primarily been orga-
nized around gender categories (i.e., same-
sex or opposite-sex attraction). The notion
of heteronormativity has been coined to
refer to the pervasiveness and dominance of
opposite-sex attraction and desire. Gender
and language research has been criticized
for the ways it assumes heterosexuality. As a
result, language issues for lesbians and gay
men have been largely ignored. Notions of
discourse as power and knowledge are key
in queer linguistics, a newly emergent field
which addresses the historical heterosexist
bias in gender and language research. A
queer approach importantly highlights and
examines the sexual identities and desires of
those who fall outside culturally dominant
gender and sexuality categories. The notion
of performativity is important in studies of
gender, sexuality, and discourse. It captures
the idea that a person’s gender and sexual
identity is something that is done – a perfor-
mance – rather than an essential aspect of
their being. People who successfully pass as a
gender that is different from their sexed body
highlight the performative nature of identity.
Another area that has arisen from the
discursive turn is the study of men and
masculinities – a topic long absent in gender
and language studies. Studies of men and
masculinities show that multiple versions of
masculinity exist. The research also highlights
that masculine identities are changing with
the social world. The notion of hegemonic
masculinity has developed as a way of theoriz-
ing how traditional gender stereotypes persist
alongside new masculine identities that are
more feminine and /or sympathetic to women
(e.g., new men, ubersexuals, metrosexuals).
Hegemonic masculinities are elements of gen-
der discourses that create social contexts that
naturalize men’s dominance as normal. Phys-
ical strength, aggression, non-emotionality,
and hyper-heterosexuality are characteristics
associated with hegemonic masculinity.
Many studies have identified a male sex
drive discourse which underpins, justifies,
and naturalizes cultural practices that subju-
gate women such as rape, prostitution, and
pornography. It has been identified as part of
a cultural scaffolding of rape (Gavey 2005).
The male sex drive discourse supports rape
myths. For example, the idea that scantily
clad women invite sexual advances presumes
men have a predatory and uncontrollable
sexuality. A male sex drive discourse is also
a compelling and pervasive explanation for
prostitution – men need sex and perhaps the
only way they can get it is by paying for it.
Women are objectified and rendered sexually
passive by the male sex drive discourse, which
is proving hard to challenge. The emergence
of new, more active feminine identities such
as girl power and web grrls is an ongoing
area of research that points to shifts in gender
discourses. Feminist commentators point to
new femininities as being progressive insofar
as they produce an active and desiring sub-
ject. However, new feminine identities are
often also hypersexualized.

The discursive turn in gender and language
studies has necessitated the development of
new qualitative methodologies. Discourse
analysis is an umbrella term for a broad range
of research techniques that examine language
in use. Feminist forms of discourse analysis
share a concern with how gendered patterns
of power and privilege operate in texts and
talk. One dimension that has traditionally
distinguished the type of discourse-analytic
approach used is whether the data exam-
ined are written, visual, or spoken. However,
the development of new communication
technologies and social media blurs that dis-
tinction. Even with spoken language the level
of analysis can differ from an examination of
the micro or small details of talk, to an inves-
tigation into the broader meaning systems
that position people as gendered subjects
and justify a gendered status quo. Feminist
discourse analysis, feminist critical discourse
analysis, feminist poststructuralist discourse
analysis, and feminist conversation analysis
are some of the different types of approaches
that examine discourse and gender.
One of the earliest feminist discourse-
analytic studies that examined how broad
discourses produce and justify gender-based
inequality was Wetherell, Stiven, and Potter’s
(1987) analysis of the ways British university
students talked about equal employment
opportunities (EEO) for women. They identi-
fied two contradictory themes or practical or
culturally normative ways of describing EEO.
On the one hand, participants suggested it
was up to individuals to show that they had
the knowledge, experience, and skills worthy
of employment. On the other, there were
practical considerations (e.g., lack of ade-
quate childcare) making the employment of
women a problem. The contradictory notions
of individualism and pragmatism were mobi-
lized by speakers in ways that simultaneously
allowed them to endorse the concept of EEO
DI S C OU R SE AN D G E N DE R 3
and to deny that a general bias against women
in employment existed.
The subtle rhetorical management of talk
about inequality in ways that endorse egali-
tarianism and non-action has been dubbed a
“new sexism.” This concept highlights a shift
in how gender bias operates from explicit and
overt forms of prejudice and discrimination
to more complex and often covert practices.
Contradiction can be at the heart of new
sexism. For example, the notion of girl power
has emerged from feminism. Girl power
celebrates an active, youthful version of fem-
ininity. It is a postfeminist feminine identity.
However, it is also a highly sexualized identity
that is commodified. The objectification and
sexualization of women is sexist but that
sexism is occluded by the emergence of a
postfeminist feminine identity. Postfeminism
is now a new discursive context that itself
requires a feminist analysis, which is a newly
emerging area in gender and language studies.
Cultural and media studies have become
an important arena for discursive research
on gender, not least of all because of the
explosion of social media. Research investi-
gates how people produce their gender and
sexual identity in an online environment and
in virtual worlds. A quite different analytic
focus is taken by studies of gender and inter-
action, where questions about how gender
is reproduced are examined at a micro level
of structures that organize mundane talk.
Feminist conversation analysis is a new and
distinctive research approach that examines
how gender and sexuality norms are seen
in the structures that organize conversation
(Speer and Stokoe 2011). In gender and lan-
guage studies, conversation analysis has been
controversial. Its analytic mentality requires
that gender and/or sexuality be examined
only when they are explicitly and observably
visible in talk. Although somewhat restrictive
in its scope compared with more macro forms
4 DI S C OU R SE AN D G E N DE R
of discourse analysis, its rigorous ground-
ing in actual practices produces compelling
insights.
A conversation-analytic study of sexual
refusals illustrates the important contribution
the approach makes to the feminist language
research. Kitzinger and Frith (1999) show
two recurrent patterns in the structures
of response turns to invitations. In talk,
an invitation is typically accepted quickly
and straightforwardly. That is, a turn of
talk that accepts an invitation comes with
no delay after the turn making the offer or
the invitation. The accepting turn is also quite
short – just a few words, such as saying “that
would be great.” However, if the response is
rejecting the offer or invitation the structure
of the responsive turn is more complex. A
turn of talk that rejects an invitation is reg-
ularly started after a short delay. Its content
also tends to be more complex. There is
typically a short silence before the response is
begun – the responding turn is delayed and
the talk often is produced with perturbations
and hesitation. The turn is also longer in a
refusal than an acceptance. It regularly con-
tains an explanation for the refusal. Another
element that is typical of a refusal is some
kind of palliative that compliments the person
inviting – for example, saying that is awfully
sweet of you to ask. Kitzinger and Frith (1999)
used the conversation-analytic findings on
the ways refusals are done in talk to question
communication training that advises “just
saying no” to invitations, including sexual
advances. They suggest that communication
training that advises women how to say no
to sex, for example, ought to be grounded in
studies of actual talk – not in common sense
about effective communication.
A challenge for gender and language
studies that focus on language in use is to
analyze gender in ways that avoid the kinds of
essentialist and binary ways of thinking that
support gender-based inequality. Feminist
conversation analysis justifies its focus by
only examining gender and sexuality when
it is observably and explicitly relevant to
the people whose talk is being examined. In
other forms of interactional research a focus
on how women speak is justified because
of gendered stratification in the contexts
examined. Documenting the kinds of lan-
guage behaviors or communication strategies
women use to succeed in areas of social
life still dominated by men (e.g., in politics
and business) importantly contributes to the
study of gender and discourse. For example,
Holmes (2006) found that women leaders
working in areas traditionally occupied by
men were skillful communicators, often using
humor in the practice of their authority.
Feminism is as important in the study of
gender and discourse as it was in the study
of gender and language. It remains a critical
perspective in a social world that has seen a
marked increase in the commodification and
marketization of sexual and gender identities.
It also plays an important role in highlighting
women’s disadvantage on a global scale. An
ongoing challenge for studies of gender and
discourse is to appreciate the diversity and
dynamism of gender and sexuality. Some
gendered discourses challenge the legitimacy
and continuing relevance of feminism. A
feminist backlash was evident in the men’s
rights movement that constructed a world
where social change had gone too far, leading
to women’s privilege and men’s disadvantage.
Postfeminism is a relatively new concept that
has emerged and implies that gender equality
has been achieved. It is likely that gender
and discourse research will increasingly have
to consider the power of postfeminism to
erase enduring global patterns of gender
inequality.
SEE ALSO: Heteronormativity and
Homonormativity; Language and Gender;
Non-Sexist Language Use; Sexism in Language

REFERENCES
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and
the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.
Gavey, Nicola. 2005. Just Sex? The Cultural Scaf-
folding of Rape. London: Routledge.
Holmes, Janet. 2006. Gendered Talk at Work: Con-
structing Gender Identity Through Workplace
Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kitzinger, Celia, and Hannah Frith. 1999. “Just Say
No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Devel-
oping a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal.”
Discourse and Society, 10(3): 293–316.
Speer, Susan A., and Elizabeth Stokoe. 2011. Con-
versation and Gender. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wetherell, Margaret, Hilda Stiven, and Jonathan
Potter. 1987. “Unequal Egalitarianism: A
View publication stats
DI S C OU R SE AN D G E N DE R 5
Preliminary Study of Discourse and Employ-
ment Opportunities.” British Journal of Social
Psychology, 26: 59–71.
FURTHER READING
Baker, Paul. 2008. Sexed Texts: Language, Gender
and Sexuality. London: Equinox.
Baxter, Judith. 2003. Positioning Gender in Dis-
course: A Feminist Methodology. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cameron, Deborah, and Don Kulick. 2003. Lan-
guage and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gill, Rosalind. 2007. Gender and the Media. Cam-
bridge: Polity.