And it happened, after the first post! I delayed for a month and a half trying to find the time and the energy to write another entry. Oh well, at least I'm doing it now.
I've been pressured to write about gendered language--something that has always been a "battle" of mine. Changing how we think about language and the defaults that we create is an act that I see as being essential. What I find difficult about writing this post is that there are so many different directions that this post could take. Thus, I begin with a warning: this post could be read as scratching the surface of my thoughts, but it is in no way complete. More than likely, I will have much, much more to write on this topic. That being said, comments (especially constructive ones) are always encouraged. There ends my warning.
My battle for inclusive language began where many begin: God's gender and using gendered-language and metaphors for God. Mary Daly wrote/said, "When God becomes male, the male becomes God" (sorry, I don't have the citation for this). "He/his/him" and "father" are probably the most common Christian references for God--in common discussion, liturgy, and translation of the Bible. However, most Christians will say they believe that God is beyond gender or is genderless. Clearly this belief does not manifest itself in the practice. For many, this is fine: we know God is not actually a man, so it is okay to refer to God solely male imagery. It's more comfortable; it's what we've always done; it's strange to change the language; Jesus did it and so did all of the Church Fathers...and so the list of excuses goes on.
I maintain that this is in fact not okay. In fact, it's hypocritical. If you exclusively use masculine imagery for God, then the God you are speaking about is male. And, as Mary Daly says so well, once God becomes male, then men take the higher ground. Male remains the language default in which the female must decide whether she is included. The male in effect remains God.
I could probably continue write until eternity about male references for God and why I firmly disagree with every argument I've heard defending it. This will be the subject of a future post [hold me to this].
But I move to a more generally concern with gendered language, which is demonstrated in the battle of God's gender. This is concern is: male is default. It happens in every language, English included. But I've noticed it much more particularly as I have started picking up my "ancient lanuages" (Greek and Hebrew to be specific). Unlike English, these languages are actually gendered. Every noun has a gender, and every adjective must be coded to agree with the gender of its subject. There are a lot of ways this can go, but I am going to talk about markedness within language. This is a concept I originally learned in Greek: certain forms are considered more "marked" than others. Unless you have a good reason, you always used the least marked form. For gender, masculine is less marked, neuter and feminine are more marked. This follows in most other languages. If you are referring to a man, you use the masculine. If you are referring to a woman, you use the feminine. If the gender is ambiguous (or you have a mixed group), the gender remains masculine. English-speakers (to speak to what I know) have tried to correct this in common speech (it is now more correct to say "his or her" or even "their" than to say "his"), but masculine still remains the default (most people find it jarring to hear "his or her" and especially just "her").
The problem with this is that it privileges the male, which is the unmarked default. It sounds small, but it is not. Language has power; the way we choose to use language influences our mindsets and what we are used to hearing. To allow masculine language to remain the default continues a system in which men are automatically preferred by virtue of always being included in general language. Those not part of the unmarked group (women) must adapt to deciding whether the language actually includes them in any given situation and to being referred to as part of a gender to which they do not identify.
Of recent, my favorite example of this is from translation of Mark 13.15-16 (part of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus). My translation of the verse is: "The one on the roof must not go down nor enter from her/his house to take up something, and the one in the field must not return to the things-left-behind to take up her/his garment." If one chooses to bring out the masculine language in this verse, it would read: "The man on the roof must not go down nor enter his house to take up something, and the one in the field must not return to the things-left-behind to take up his garment."
Neither translation is technically wrong: if one interprets this passage to only be speaking to men, then the latter translation makes sense. If one thinks that Jesus is speaking more generally, then the former is more correct. When I produced the former translation on a test, my Greek instructor crossed through the "her" in "her/his." I argued--and still maintain--that my translation is correct as written. Yes, technically I have translated a third-person-singular masculine pronoun ("his" in English) as a gender-neutral term; but in Greek, the feminine equivalent would only have been used if solely women were in mind.
Some might call the latter translation (using only "his") more "literal" but I maintain that this is incorrect terminology. This is the most literal translation if you were translating the text in 1960, when it was still standard in English to refer to both male and female subjects using the masculine. This is no longer standard in English--it is still "acceptable," though I also maintain that it is actually not acceptable to permit sexist language. It is true that Greek does not have the same gender sensitivity that we have today, and it is also true that this makes translating a text into English a challenging task (for authorial intent comes into question). When we translate an ancient text into our own language, we cannot use the sexist language of the past as an excuse for us to continue using sexist language. As I have noted above, there is to much at stake in the way we use language and the power that gendered language has over our thoughts. The male will continue to be God until we are willing to enforce a change in how we gender our language in all areas.
10 years ago
