User:Queenfeline/Thesisproposal

See also: Project Proposal
How do participatory speech practices about sexist language become a feminist method of unlearning and redefining?

Intro

In this essay I will explore how participatory speech practices can function not only as reflective dialogue but as a feminist methodology that enables unlearning internalized sexism and collectively redefining meaning. I will analyze that through my experiences of my project part, which is a series of consciousness-raising meetings that invite participants to uncover and speak about the (hidden) sexist patterns embedded in language.

Feminist linguists like Deborah Cameron, Robin Lakoff and Dale Spender support me with their books on the relation between language and feminism to scientifically back up and put my experiences into perspective.

I want to show why and in what ways language is a feminist issue we should concern ourselves with.

Chapter 1

This chapter introduces language as a social construct that reflects and reinforces patriarchal power.

There are multiple ways in which women are oppressed by and through language (silencing, semantic degradation), but that would take too long to discover so I will focus on the act of naming and how naming legitimizes, invalidates, or defines women's experiences. Naming is a political act, as it determines what counts as knowledge, whose experiences are speakable, and which realities become visible.

Chapter 2

This chapter will speak about the concept (and history) of consciousness raising groups in the late 60's and 70's

The groups emerged as small, leaderless meetings where women shared personal experiences to reveal patterns of structural oppression. The meetings were held under the premise of "the personal is political" and helped thousands of women see their emotions and problems not as personal failures but as the result of a deeply rooted patriarchal system. The meetings had horizontal structure, shared authority, they took experience as knowledge and speaking and listening as political acts.

Collective dialogue can lead to new interpretations of words and the feeling of togetherness can build consciousness, solidarity, political will and power.

Even though the consciousness-raising meetings opened a new form of discourse and raise awareness on women's issues, they were not really intersectional. Other forms of oppression and marginalized groups were completely overlooked. The non-authoritarian structurelessness, as Jo Freeman calls it , of these meetings was more of a hindrance than a help.

Chapter 3

This chapter will combine the theory with my lived experiences through the meetings.

What was my experience in these meetings? How did my role as the facilitator emphasized the feminist ethics of co-learning? What was other peoples experiences? (get feedback from them) How did participants speak about sexist words? Did anyone experience shifts in awareness or self-perception?

At last I will question where the practice confirmed theoretical claims and where it challenged them.

Do the methods of the consciousness-raising remain valuable today as they facilitate feminist awareness, they transform private and personal experience into collective insight and they allow individuals to recognize internalized sexism in language?

Conclusion

Compare my expectations to the actual outcome

Glossary

My thesis (obviously) also needs a glossary. It will contain words that, I find, need more explanation and context. (e.g. woman, patriarchal power, silencing, semantic degradation)

References/Bibliography

Cameron, Daborah (1986) Feminism and Linguistic Theory Macmillian London

Lakoff, Robin (1975) Language and Woman's Place Harper and Row Publishers Inc. New York

Montell, Amanda (2019) Wordslut HarperCollins Publishers New York

Spencer, Dale (1998) Man Made Language Pandora New York : Distributed in U.S.A. by New York University Press