In Communication Studies, before we can study Sex and Gender we need to determine what those terms mean and how they can be applied to academic study. First and foremost, we need to start from a critique of perceptual norms associated with culture: sexuality and gender are not stable categories and should not be treated as such. Instead we need to consider how and why the definitions associated with these categories have developed over time, and how they play out in culture.
Most gender-based critiques start from the perspective of a cultural narrative of the Other: anyone who is not a heteronormative (straight) male is the "Other" (de Beauvoir, 1949/2011). In her text, The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir explained that this leads to definitions of gender and sexuality rooted in difference, and the expectations that go along with that difference. It's important to realize that these concepts are culturally produced, and these definitions vary between cultures and have varied within cultures over time. For example, theorists of gender and sexuality often point to the greater acceptance of same-sex relations in ancient cultures.
Multiple feminist theorists point to the Greek lyric poet Sappho, who is one of the few recognized female voices in ancient Greek literature and philosophy (Skinner, 1996). She is known for writing sensuous poetry, meant to be accompanied by a lyre, that often focused on the love between women. Her life and poetry are associated with the isle of Lesbos, the root of the modern term for lesbian, and freedoms attributed the women of that island. However, the Greeks also illustrated exceptionally misogynistic tendencies in their literature and philosophy, as infamous passages about women in Hesiod's Theogony and Homer's Odyssey illustrate (Hallett, 1979). Therefore Sappho stands out as a unique feminist heritage from the earliest eras of rhetorical studies.
The power structures that ground communication practices themselves influence the "othering" of non-heteronormative males. When women communicate, they are using language that was structured and defined by men. Women's issues have to therefore be framed in masculine terms—especially if men are involved in the conversation. Therefore, in order to communicate, a woman must translate from women-centered though into masculine language structures so that a man will understand her (Irigaray, 1977/1999). Note that the job and responsibility of comprehension does not reside with the person in power, but with the person presumed to lack power.
From a behavioral studies perspective, gender is most generally viewed as a factor or influence on communication patterns. One of the more dynamic issues that can arise in a communication is gender difference, and the expectations that go along with that difference. The level of self-disclosure that women expect in a relationship seldom matches what men are looking for. This is because, whether we claim it as being natural or taught by society, men and women have different communication styles.
One of the more commonly cited Gender Communication theorists, Deborah Tannen (1990), gives us a means of beginning the discussion about how communication differs between the genders: Rapport-talk and Report-talk, or women’s vs. men’s communication styles. In other words, women communicate in rapport-talk in which they communicate to build relationships and community. On the other hand, men communicate using a report style that focuses on conveying information rather than on relational processes. The level of self-disclosure that women expect in a relationship seldom matches what men are looking for. This is because, whether we claim it as being natural or taught by society, men and women have different communication styles. Remember that report-talk is men’s style of communication, where they talk as if they are reporting facts and data, and minimize their emotional responses. Rapport-talk is women’s style of communication, where they use more storytelling methods and emotional contexts in their conversations. These behavioral communication patterns are used in interpersonal communication to look at communication styles and relationship maintenance.
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): "Muted" by WMMaddox is licensed under CC BY 4.0
Tannen (1990) explains that women are more likely to read “between the lines” than men are in a relationship. Therefore, women are more likely to be looking for deeper levels of communication in a relationship. Men are more likely to expect that expression remains primarily at the surface of a conversation. This leads to women expecting relationships to be cooperative while men expect to be more autonomous. Think about how this ties to the autonomy-connectedness dialectic, and to levels of self-disclosure. Tannen argues that these differences often result in miscommunication or misunderstood expectations about the relationships. As you can see, Tannen's differences do face some problems of application particularly when we realized these styles of communication are limited within the confines of a binary assumption of two core genders.
Feminist standpoint theory takes another approach (Hartsock, 1983; Harding 1986). This perspective assumes that marginalized groups have access to knowledge unavailable to the privileged, since the privileged only need to understand themselves. Therefore, standpoint theorists argue that embodiments of power and discourse must be organized into a united front to stand against the overwhelming power of patriarchy. When women communicate, they are using language that was structured and defined by men.
Women's issues have to therefore be framed in masculine terms—especially if men are involved in the conversation.This idea can be compared to Michel Foucault's (1972) archaeology of knowledge—those in control of the production of language also control its meaning. It also reflects W.E.B. Dubois's (1903) double consciousness—that black people understand authoritative structures and therefore white people better than white people can understand blacks, due to a lack of a clear frame of reference when the view of power structures is limited to the top. Standpoint also reflects Spivak's (1988) discussion of the Subaltern—women have to speak men's language, but men don't have to speak women's. Therefore, in a relational situation, a woman must translate from women-centered though into masculine language structures so that a man will understand her. Note that the job and responsibility of comprehension does not reside with the person in power.
The gendered nature of power dynamics also plays a role in gender communication. Scholars discuss gendered power dynamics in terms of masculine vs. feminine characteristics (Trethewey, 1999). Masculine characteristics are often viewed as being more valued by society. When a woman exhibits these characteristics, such as communicating aggressively, she is often labeled as masculine, i.e. "butch", or threatening, i.e. "bitch". Similarly, when men exhibit the less valuable women's characteristics and communication patterns they can be feminized, or labeled as "sissies".
In a sense, what society ultimately does to women, especially in the public sphere, is silence them. This can be witnessed in a literal way when, in some societies, women are literally segregated from power or silenced because they are not welcome to voice their opinions and concerns. Houston & Kramarae (1991) theorized about the processes through which women's voices are silenced in public and private discourses. Borrowing from an anthropology theory that looked at how ethnographic work focused on masculine ideals and sense-making, she used the label muted group theory to argue that basic communication patterns are created by men, giving them an advantage.
Kramarae (1995) argues that women must therefore be careful of what and how they speak. Women's arguments are constrained by patriarchy, and individual women are responsible for speaking in their relationships with men in a manner that neither threatens nor eludes men. And since men don't share in this responsibility, it reinforces a stereotype that women are mysterious and can’t really be understood by men. This reduces women's needs and desires—an argument that has been applied to workplace communication, sexual communication, and abusive communication arguments.
The issues related to the gendered balance of power build from there. In relationships, society has expectations tied to these behaviors and gender roles. Men are expected to be dominant, especially in public situations, while women are often expected to have more dominance in the home or private spaces. While these stereotypical roles have evolved over time, for some individuals this created a sense of uncertainty. This may play out by encouraging subservient and dominant behavior patterns to establish a sense of control. While some couples comfortably adapt, in other cases this leads to conflict, which may then lead to potentially abusive situations.
References
de Beauvoir, S. (2011). The second sex. C. Borde, & S. Malovany-Chevallier (trans.). New York: Vintage Books. Original work published 1949.
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903). The souls of Black Folk: Essays and sketches. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A.M. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. Original work published 1969 and 1971.
Hallett, J.P. (1979). Sappho and her social context: sense and sensuality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4(3), 447-464.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hartsock, N. (1983). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism, in S. Harding, & M.B. Hintikka (eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, methodology, and the philosophy of science, (pp. 283-310). Dordrecht, NL: Reidel Publishing Company.
Houston, M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Speaking from silence: Methods of silencing and of resistance. Discourse & Society, 2(4), 387-399.
Irigaray, L. (1999). When our lips speak together. In J. Price., & M. Shildrick. (Eds.), (pp. 82-90). Feminist theory and the body: A reader. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1977).
Kramarae, C. (1995). Talk, Sex, and Self-Help: Hite and Men's Power Anxiety. Women's Studies in Communication, 18(2), 229-244.
Skinner, M.B. (1996) Woman and language in archaic Greece, or, why is Sappho a woman? In E. Greene (Ed.). Reading Sappho: Contemporary approaches (pp. 175-192). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Spivak, G.C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson, & L. Grossberg, (Eds.). Marxism and the interpretation of culture. London: Macmillan.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.
Trethewey, A. (1999). Isn't it ironic: Using irony to explore the contradictions of organizational life. Western Journal of Communication, 63(2), 140-167.
