Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Performing Gender Identity, by Cameron

    Uploaded by

    Esteban Romeu
    46 views10 pages
    critical discourse analysis on the topic of gender

    Original Title

    Performing gender identity, by Cameron

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    critical discourse analysis on the topic of gender

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    46 views10 pages

    Performing Gender Identity, by Cameron

    Uploaded by

    Esteban Romeu
    critical discourse analysis on the topic of gender

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    3 Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity Deborah Cameron Introduction In 19, «21-year-old student ina language and gender class Iwas teaching ata college in the souther USA tape-recorded a sequence of casual Conversation among five men: hinelf and four fends, THs young man, whom { will call ‘Danny’! had decided to investigate ‘whether the informal tk of male friends would bear out generalia- tons about ‘mews tlk’ that are often encountered in disussions of sender differences in conversational syle ~ for example that i = fompetitive, hierarchically organized, cents on “impersonal topics and the exchange of information, and foregrounds speech genres ‘suchas Joking, trading inalts and sports statisti, Danny reported that the stersotype of albmale interaction was ‘borne out bythe data he recorded. He gave his paper the tile Wine, ‘women, and sporty. Yet although I could agree that the data did com tain the stereotypical features he reported, the more looked at the more I saw other things ini to. Danny's analysis was not inace ‘ate his conclusions were not unwarranted, but his deseripton of the data was (in both serses) parti was shaped by expectations that ‘used some things to leap out ofthe record a ‘significant, whale ther things went unsemarked Tam intrested inthe possibilty that Danny's selective reading of Fis data was not just the understandable error of an inexperienced 48. Deborah Comeron analyst Analysis is never done without preconceptions, we can never be absolutely nonselective in our observations, and what the abject ‘of observation and sralyss has to do with gender it extraordinarily lffcul to subdue certain expectations (One might speculate, for example, on why the vignettes of typical” ‘masculine and feminine behaviour presented in popular books ike Deborah Tannen’s You Just Dow't Understand (1990) are s0 often apprehended as immediately recognizable! I it because we have ac ally witnessed these scenarios occurring in real life, or ls it because we can so readily supply the cultural seript that makes them meat {ngful and “typical” One argument fr the later possibility i that i you reese the genders in Tannen's anecdote, i i sill possible to Supply a script which makes sense of the alleged gender diference, For example, Tannen remarks on men’s reluctance to ask for dives tions while driving, and attnbutes t to men’s greater concem for st {us (ashing for help suggests helplesness). But las an experiment, you tell people itis women rather than men who are more reluctant fo ask for directions, they will hve no dificulty coming up with a dlfferent are equally plausible explanation ~ for instance at the reluctance reflects atypically feminine desire fo avoid imposing on others, oF porhape a well-founded fear of stopping, tall to Strangers? ‘Wht this suggest is thatthe behaviour of men and women, what ‘ver is substance may happen tobe in any specific instance, sina ably read through a more general discourse on gendcr difference itsle. That discourse is subsequently invoked to explain the pattern of gender differentiation in people's behavious, whereas I imight be ‘more enlightening to say dhe discourse consiracs the differentiation, ‘makes it visible diferensiaton | ant to propose that conversationaliststhemeelves often do the ‘same thing Ihave just suggested analysts do, Analysts construct to ‘ee about other people's behaviour, with a view to making it exer lily certain patterns of gender difference comverationcists ‘construct stories about themselves and other, with a view to pet forming certain kinds of gender identity Identity and Performativity mn 190, the philosopher Judith Butler published an influential book cilled Gender Trouble: Feminism ard the Subversion of Kentiy. Butlers ‘esay isa postmodemistreconceptualizaton of gender, en it makes Performing Gender entity 49 use ofa concept falar fo igus and dscoure analysts fom ‘spochvact theory: peormatiy. For Buller, gees formative = Tersuggestive phone, corating the Sen itis purported tobe Jost as -L- Austin (961 mula ht lcations ie promise’ 0 not describe a preexisting state of alisiry but actually bing one into being, so Bur claims tht ‘eminine’ and "masculine ee nat what we are nortats we ce, but eft we produce by way of att cla things we do: Gender the repeated saan oft body set of reposted acts within rigid egulatory frame which ongeal ‘overtime to produce the appearance of sbstance of “natural” ed tbe ‘This extends the traditional feminist account whereby gender is socialy consuuced rather tan "atust, famously expeoued Simone de Beauvoir dictam that ‘one is not bom, but rather tecomes a wom, Baer i sing tht Becoming a Wom’ (ore ‘man & not something you accomplish once and ral at an early sag fife. Gender Ran constarly tobe feafinmed ae publcy di paved by repeatedly performing particular ace in accordance ith the cultural norms (emeclvee fistriilly ond socially constructed, and consequently variable) which deine nacelle iy. “This “performative” model sheds an interesting light onthe phe somenoh of gendered spec. Spec oo» teat siz of the body the masculi’ and fein’ eyes of talking Wenicd by recarchers might be ought of asthe congealed Roll of orally assumes that people talk the way they do because of who they (already) are, the poetmodemist approach suggests that people are who they are becuse of among other things) the way they tak. ‘This shits the focus away fom a simple cataloguing of differences betveen men and women to a subter and more compsx inquiry ino how people use linguistic resources to produce gender differentia. tion. tao obliges us to attend tothe sig regulatory fame” within wich people must make their choies ~ the norm that define what Kinds of language are posible, intelligible and appropriate resources for performing, masculinity or ferlniity. ‘A further advantage of this approach is that it acknowledges the instability and variability of gender identities, and therfore of the behaviour in which those identities are performed. While Judith Butler rghiy insists that gender ie regulated and policed by rather ‘igi socal norms, she does not reduce men and women to automata, programmed by their carly socalzation to ‘repeat forever the 50 Deborah Cameron appropriate gendered behaviout, bu ets them as conscious agents ‘tho may ~ abet often at some social ost engage mac of tars {reson subversion and restance. Ac active proeuces rather han Fssve producers of gendered behaviouy nren and women may tse tee awarenes ofthe gendered meaning ut atlach parte Isr ways of speaking and acting to produces vay of fects Ts important, Because few, if ay, analysts of data on men’s and women’s speech woul! mlnain that te difeences age as cect tnd variant a. one might gh from sch oftcted dita as ‘Compettve/cooperative’ and report tlk/sappor talk. People do pecform gender dtfeenty in diferent cont, and do sometines Echaveln ways we would narmelly ssociate with he ‘ther gender The convertion Wich we row tum a nlable casein pon ‘The Conversation: Wine, Women, Sports ... And Other Men ‘The five men who took part in the conversation, and to who {will give the pseudonyms Al, Bryan, Cae, Danny and Ed, were demo- ‘Baphically a homogeneous group: white, middle-class American suburbanites aged 21, who atiended the same university and belonged to the same social network on campus. This particular con versation occurred in the context of one of their commonest shared leisure activities: watching sports at home on television tthe period covered by the taperecording there is & ‘basketball game on sere, and participants reglanly make reference to what is going on inthe game. Sometimes these references are just bret interpolated comment, which do not disrupt the flow of ong sng talon some other top; sometimes they led fo extended discus sion. Atal times, however its legitimate conversational move © ‘cominent on the basketball game, The student who collected the dat ‘drew attention tothe status of spot asa resource for talk available North American men of all classes and racial/ethnic group, to ‘rangers as well as friends, suggesting that ‘sports talk ist typically ‘masculine’ conversational genge in the US, something all culturally ‘competent males know how to do. ‘Bt ‘sports talk’ s by no means the only kind of talk being done. ‘The men also recount the events of tet day ~ what classes they had and how these went they discuss mundane details of their domestic fartangements, such as Who & going fo pick up groceries there is a debate about the merits of a certain kine of wine: there are a couple Performing Gender entity 51 of longer narratives, notably one about an incident when two men Sharing a room each invited a lalfiend back without their room: mate's knowledge ~ and discovered this atthe most embarassing ‘moment posible: Danny’s tile Wine, women, an sports’ f accurate Insofaras all these subject are discussed at some lengli ‘When one examines the data, however, st becomes clear there is ‘one very sigificant omission in Danny’s ie. Apert from basketball, the single most prominent theme in the recorded conversation, a3 measured by the amount of time devoted toe ‘gosi’s discussion ‘of several persons not present but kroven to the participants, with @ strong focus on ertcally examining these individual” appearance, Gres, social behaviour ahd sexual motes. Like the eonverstionlits temseives, the individuals under discussion are all men. Unlike the conversationaliss, however, the individuals under discussion are ‘oti as gay” ‘The topic of gays’ is raised by Ed only afew seconds into the tpe- recorded conversation (6" Ex Mugsy Bopues( my ame is Layd Gompers am thomsen 0 you know what the (Ta the nee Reman should have grabbed you know the te? Like ‘he ead thing? ‘abugsy Bogus’ (he name of a basketball payer isan acknowledge ‘ment ofthe previous furry which concerned the onscreen game Ed's ‘ext comment appears offtopic, bute immediatly supplies 4 ratio- nae for it explaining that he ‘saw the new Remnant = The Rensant boeing deliberately provocative sighting campus newspaper ‘whose main story that weck had beer an atack onthe Gay Ball & dance sponsored by the cllege’s Gay Socety “The next few turns are devoted fo establishing a shared view ofthe Gay Ballad of homosexuality generally. This ofthe men, AL Bryan and Ed, are actively involved in this exchange. A typical sequence the following (4-16) A ayes Be Spay why? ars what should read (gays wy? Bone (gays) ines What is being establishes! as ‘shared hare i a view of gays as alien (Ghat is, the group defines itself as heterosexoal and pussled by homosexuality (gays, why?), and. also to some extent comical 52 Deborah Cameron Danny comments at one point, i's hilarious’, and Ed caps the sequence discussing the Gay Ball (23-5) withthe wit Ieis at tis point that Danny introduces the these that will dominate the conversation for sometime: gossip about individual men wo are sald to be gay. Refering to the only other man in is language tnd gender class, Danny begins (27) Doge: My boy Ronnie was uh speaking pon the male perspective today way to mac “The section following this contribution i structured around a series of references to other ‘gay’ individuals krown to the participant a lassmates. Bryan mentions "the most effeminate guy Tve ever tit (@9) and ‘that really gay guy in our Age of Revolution clay’ (4). Bd ‘eamarks tht ‘You have never seen more homos than we have in our ‘lass. Homos, dykes, homos, dykes, everybody is a homo or a dyke? (64) He then focuses ona “at, queer, gooty guy’... [who's] 36 gay a5 ight si) (8-80), and on a ‘blond hain snide Mie queer werd shit (@8), who is further described ata ‘butt pirate’ Some of these efor ‘ences but not al inate an extend discussion ofthe individual coe ‘ceed. The conten ofthese discussions will ber closer examination, ‘The Antithesis of Man’ (Ore ofthe thing italy found most puting about the whole ‘Gye suena that he uy cea fer Stoprcing pop py appeared to have det So wth tone popes Kear Seaver Paco Te tee but pte a ‘utter werent, butsrpeingy edo twas un tome {hat he ial eed realy ee fomosexal ad tn he fn cane where Lacually Knew dw set of dcasion,seveuly outed ‘ent paling an exchange ete Bryan ad Ed abou theca sehre reply ss hr or 9 he ich ey compl at “oar homes ar condialy ag or nahng eal ove ol Payfrming Gender Identity 59 one of he women dec a the uplestas bch nthe Nor of Ske wort 2) One ght ave ups at eng ete es ‘ome would be sc tat inating mene er one roms swaeot ary pblemer contin is tangs Tiki dhs thane the deviance inte or the pop by the seman’ oto mich sl devin spor dence Beng ‘zy enn laling to mesrre up ote props snands of mae Caty or fens. The why ft makes seve el omen Sally foie se rot clhersex pte, coksonay fender roa an bea ato gsi aka ny Rtg oo “ely beh canbe cued as Momonenal baaiour prope sacral eget the bet of public sex! neret be Fak fst omal tt alata. “Aple! y he group ey fs in partial to iol sy mace ppeuance, do stop To use he will epreduce singer seqence of convention shut the realy By guy nour Ageat Revolution ca, which ends wih fl das Wetheantieisot mar ‘veh you know that relly gay guy nour Age of Revolation cas who st in fon os? he wore short again bythe way she 2 depec ut he ‘wore shorts again nughter [Ed Tt py is ee ‘speed, he wares speedo fo cae bes got Incredibly iy eg Ei wore) yo Ke "oa like thee shorts women vleball players weat?ire Me those its ike Bre you weae thas shor and ke «pth om (Glincsomited) Bronte got some condition that he's goto {ke have Neg expne a al times ore he's otra gon epee = ns probably es he ly Some he fn These at home combing seg ise Cin Nokes sha 54 Deborah Cameron Base doesnt have any leg hair tough= (es and oh Be hake avery long very white ad very skinny Brus thot ridiculous Resboks that are alvaysineaph) nd goofy wate socks always stipede [ee socks ‘that gh es the antes of an In onder to demonstate tha certain individuals are the antithesis of ‘man’ the group engages in a kind of conversation that might well strike us as the antithesis of ‘mews talk Itis unlike the ‘wine, ‘women and sport storeotype of mers talk— indeed, rather closer to the stereotype of ‘women’s tall’ ~ in various ways, some obvious, and some less 80. “The obvious ways in which this sequence resembles conventional notions of “women’s talk” concer it purpose and subject matter. ‘Tis is talk about people, not things, ahd apport talk’ rather than ‘report alk =the main point is lati not to exchange information It ‘is gossip, and serves one ofthe mest cornnon purposes of gout, samely affirming the solidarity of an ingroup by construcung sme ‘others as an outgroup, whose behaviour is minutely examined and found wenting “The specific subjects on which the talk dwells aze conventionally “feminine ones: clothing and bodily appearance, The men are crught up in a contmadiction: thelr erécitm of the gays’ centzes on thelr lunmanly interest in displaying their bodies, snd the inappropriate _garments they choose for this purpose (bathing costumer worn 19 class, shorts wor in cold weather with parkas which render the ‘fect ludicrous, clothing which resembles the outfits of women vol leyball players). The implication is that real men jest pall on thei Jeans and leave it at that But inorder to purse this line of enticxm, {he conversationalss themselves must show an acute awsseness of such ‘anmanly” concers as styles and materials (French eat spare dex, tbe socks), what kind of clothes go together, and which men, have ‘good legs’. They are impelled, paradoxically, to talk about men’s bodies asa way of demarstrating their own tot lack of sexual interest in those Boies. “The less Obvious ways in which this conversation departs fom Pororming Genter entity 55 stereotypical notions of “men’s talk’ concern its formal features, Analyses of men’s and women's speech siyle are commonly orga: rized around a series of global oppositions, e.g mets talk i com: pettve, whereas women’ is ‘cooperative’ men tlk to gain ‘statu whereas women talk to forge ‘intimacy’ and ‘connection’; men do ‘report talk’ and women ‘rapport talk. Analysts working with these ‘oppositions typically idenufy certain formal or organizational fe tures offal as markers of ‘competition’ and ‘cooperation’ ete The analyst then examines which kinds of features predominate ina set of ‘conversational data, and how they are being wed, In the following discussion Ito will make use of the conventional ‘oppositions as tools for describing data, but | wil be trying to buld ‘up an argument that their use Is problematic. The problesy is not ‘merely thatthe men in my data fal to it their gender stereotype pers feclly. Move importantly, I think iti often the stereotype itself that underpins analytic judgements that a certain form i cooperative rather than competitive, or that people are seeking stats rather than connection in their talc As I observed about Deborah Tannen’ vignettes, many instances of behaviour will support either interpreta tion or both; we use the speaker's gender, an our beliefs about wiht sort of behaviour makes sense for members ofthat gender, 40 rule Some interpretations in and others out Cooperation Various scholar, nay Jenifer Coates (989), have remarked on the eooperative’ nature of informal fal among female fer ror ing attention a numberof lnguistc features which ae prominent indata on all-female groupe, Some of thes, ik edging ed the we of epstmic model resign of attention t others lace. aimed at ‘inimizing confit and securing agreement Other such ath ‘ttume stmultaneous speech wher snot interpreted by parce ants a a wilton of tretaking rights (cr: ley, 198) andthe Epetion or reyaing of lel fee ane phases sos tars are Signals that convertion 9 ont produit partpan ee bulding on one another's contbutons so that ides te fl be ‘r0up property rather thn the property ofa single speaker ‘On these exter the convertion here must be ged a highly ceopentive. For example, in the extract reproduced above, tsk ingly lege numberof tars (aroun had tepn wih you know’ and/or conan the masher ike (you know lke those shots women ‘elleyball payers went?) The felons of these items lesecially ‘56 Deborah Cameron ‘tke’ in younger Americans’ English are complex and muliple? and may include the cooperative, mitigating/Tace protecting Functions that CCoates and Janet Holmes (19a) associate with hedging. Even where they are not clearly hedges, however, in this interaction they funtion in ways that olte to the building of group involvement aed conser ss, They often seem to mark information a© given within the group's Aiscourse (that, you know, Uke’, presupposes thatthe adaesece 'icoed familar with you know’ fas the Kind of hearer-oriented affecive function (aking others into account of inviting their agree ‘mend which Holmes atetbutes to certain tag questions while ike in Addition seeme to function fr these speakers at a marker of high lnvolvement It appears most frequently at moments when the inter actants are, by other criteria such as intonation pitch loudness, speech Ile, incidence of simultaneous speech, and of strong of taboo Iam {guage noticeably exited, suchas the ellow ig (829) Bx he’s mean e's ike a el arty fry fag e's {ike Gnd b's a0 pays Go tke relly [igh vice ad wae ri glass aed est net the uplest asthe ty ofthe weld Ex land rose land they eal iting om er oo, ike four It's also noticeable throughout the long extract reproduced earlier how much latching and simaltancous speech thee a compared fo ‘other forms of tum transition involving ether short or lng pauses ‘and gape, or interruptions which sllence the intesraptce. Latching tum transition without pause or overlap is often taken as a mark of ‘cooperation because in order to latch a tun so precisely onto the pee- ceding tur, the speaker has to attend closely to other’ contributions "The last part of the reproduced extract diseusing the ‘tally gay" ‘guys legs, an excellent example of jointly produced discourse ax the speakers cooperate to build a detailed picture ofthe legs and ‘what is worn on them, a picture which overal could not be attributed {o any single speaker This sequence contains many ietances of latching, repetition of one speaker's words by another speaker (Ed recycles Cal's whole turn, he sealy likes his egy, with added emphasis, and ital contains something that is relatively cae in he Performing Gender Wentity 57 conversation asa whole, repeated tokens of hearer suppor ike ‘yes" tnd that's ight "There are, then, points of resemblance worth remarking on between these mens falkand similar alk among women ss teportd by previous stulies. The question does arise, however, whether ts sale conversation has the other important hallmark of women’s os: ‘ip, namaly an egalitarian or nomherarchical organization of the floor. Competition In purely quantitative terms, this conversation cannot be sid #9 be cgaitarian The extracts reproduced 50 far are representative of the ‘whole insofar as they show Bd and Bryan asthe dominant speakers, ‘while Aland Carl contribute fewer and shorter tum (Danny is vai. abl; there are sequences where he contributes very ite, but when he ts he often contributes tur as long as Eas and Bryan, and he also initates topis). Evidence thus exets to support an argument that there ea Iierarchy inthis conversation, end there i competition, particularly betwoon the wo dominant speaker, Bryan and Fa (and {oa lesser extent Ed and Danny). Let us purse this by looking more lose at E's behaviour Ed Introduces the topic of homosexuality, and initially attempts to beep ‘ownership’ of it He cuts off Danny's fit remark on the subject With a reference to The Remnant: “what seas the article? cause you Know they bashed them they were like’ At this point Danny iner- rupt: iti clearly an interruption becauee in this context the pre ferred interpretation of ‘ike’ is quotative (see note 7) ~ Bd is about #9 repeat what the gay-bashing article in The Remnant said. ln addition to interrupting 0 that Ea falls silent, Danny contradicts Ed, saying “hey did't actually () cat into them big Atle later on during the ‘discussion of the Gay Bal, Ed makes use ofa common competitive ‘ratogy, the joke oF witty remark which ‘cape other contbations (the ‘lowers and fruits’ joke at 25-5, quoted above). Ths, however, cis laughter, no matching jokes and indeed no take-up of sry kind. Tes followed by a peuse and a change of direction if ot of sub ject a Danny begins the gossip tht will dominate talk for several minutes, “This immediately elicits a matching contribution fom Bryan. As he and Danny talk, Ed makes two unseccesful attemps 1 regain the for. One, where he utters the prefatory remark Tm gon be vey honest’ (20), 6 senply ignored. His second strategy ist ask (about 58 Deborah Cameron the person Bryan and Danny’ are discussing) ‘what’ ths guys lst ‘ame?’ (0), Fist Bryan asks him to repeat the question then Danny ‘eplies Tdon't know what the bell iti G2) ‘A similar pattern is seen in the long extract reproduced above, ‘where Ed makes two attempts to interrupt Bryan's first turn (Ta uy’ and “fs worse), neither of which succeeds. He gets the Boor eventually by using the ‘you know, lke” strategy. And from Out pont, Ed does orent more tothe norms of joint production: he over laps others to produce simultancous speech but does not intesrupt tne produces more letched tures, recyclings and support tokens ‘So far Ihave been arguing that even if the speakers o some of ther, ‘compete, they are basally in a collaborative and solidary ‘enterprise (reinforcing the Bors within the group by denigrting poo ple outside it, ar activity in which all speakers participate even i sme |e more active than others. Therefore I ave drawn atention tte presence of ‘cooperative’ feature, and have sie that more extern forms of hierarchical and competitive behaviour are not rewarded By the group. I coul,indood, have argued that by the ent Ed and Bryan faze not So mach ‘competing’ ~ afterall, thir connbiatons ace ot lanfagonistic to one anther but tend #0 reinforce one another ~ ae ‘engaging ina versionof the joint production of scour Yet the data might also support different analysis in which Ed and Bryan are simply using the collaborative enterprise of puting down gay men as an oceasion #9 engage in verbal dueling where Points are scored ~agairt fellow group members rather than agaiet the absent gay men = by dominating the flor and coming, up with ‘more and more extravagant putdovine In thi alternative aralyais, [Ed does not so much modify his behaviour as “ose” his dal ith Bryan Join prodction’ or “Verbal dueling’ ~ how do we decide? Deconstructing Oppostions ‘One response to the problem of competing interpretations ralsed ‘above might be that the opposition [have been working with — com ‘petitive’ versus ‘cooperative’ behaviour ~ is inherently problemi, Particularly if one is taken to exclude the other. Conversation can and "Usually does contain both cooperative and competitive element: one ould argue (along with Grice, 1975) that talk must by definition involve a certain minimum of cooperation, snd also tit there wl usually be some degree of competition among speaker fot forthe flor itself then for the attention or the approval of others ace co Hewitt chapter) vr Performing Gender entity 58 ‘The global competiive/ooperative opposition also encourages the lumping together under one heading othe other of hangs at could inprincple be distinguished. ‘Coopestion might refer agrecment nite als of talk vespect for other speaker’ nights or cuport for thee contributions But thee i not rays. peiet commence among these aspects, and the presence of anyone of them need ot {ule out compeitive’ element Partcipans ina conversation ot ther speech event may compete with ech other an atthe same time be pursuing a shared projet ox common agenda as Int irclt seins) they may be in severe dioageemnent but pune icusly observant of one anothers speaking ght (asin forma debate, sy) they may be overtly supportive, ad atthe same Ge ‘overtly hoping to score points or tha supportive “This Tas point strangely overlooked in some discussions of yromens tlk Women who pay solos attention to oe another's Ince are oe sid to be seking connection or good socal ators rahe thax tats; yet one could trey argue tht atercing to others fice ane ateeing to one's vn ae ot mutually exclusive here. he ‘galtarian’ nome of female iendship group eke all norms, to some degree coerive the rewards and punishments precuely cor erm one's stats within the group (among women, however, ts fuss called “popularity” svther an domunance?) A woman may gain stats by dapaying the coretdegreu of concer freer, ae foe status by displaying too ile concer for ots and foo mach for herself. Arguably, itis gender-treotyping tht canes wo toms tr minimize Ge satiesding cement i nema acne aed ‘he connection making dimension of me How to do Gender Language hope it will be clear by now that my intention in analysing male ‘gossip isnot to suggest thatthe young men involved have adopted “feminine conversational styl On the contrary, the main theoretical point I want fo make concer the folly of making any such claim. To Characterize the conversation Ihave been considering as eminine” fon the bass that it bears a significant resemblance (9 conversations ‘among women fiends would be to miss the most important point bout it that it i not only about masculinity tea sustained perfor= ‘mance of masculinity. What is important in gendering talks the ‘per formative gender work the tlk is doing, ie Tle in constituting people as gendered subjects. 60. Debora Cameron ‘To put matters in these terms isnot to deny that there may be an ‘empirically observable association between a certain genre or syle of Speech and speakers ofa particular gender. In practice this under able. But we do need to ask in virtue of what does the association hold? Can we give an account that will not be vite by cases where it does mo! hold? Fort scems to me that conversations lke the one 1 have analysed leave, say, Deborah Tannen’s contention that men do ‘not do ‘women’s tal, because they simply donot know ho, ooking [ime and unconvincing, If men rarely engage ina certain Kind of all anexplanation is called for butt they do engage in it even very cca. ‘Sonally, an explanation in terms of pure ignorance will not do, T suggest the folowing explanation Men and women do not ive on diferent planes, bat are members ofcllures in which a lage amount fof discourse about gender i constanly cxculting They do not only learn and then mechanically produce, ways of speaking ‘appropri ate’ to their own sex they lear a much brosdes st of gendered mea ings that attach in sather complex ways to different ways of speaking, and they predce thei own behaviour in the light of thove meanings. ‘This behaviour will vary. Even the individual who is mort ahan- Diguously commited to tditional notions of gender has «range of posible gender identities to draw on. Pesforming masculinity oF femininity “appropriately cannot mean giving exactly the same per formance regardless of the creumstances. It may involve different strategies in mined and single-sex company, in private and in puble Settings, in the various socal positions (parent, lover, professional, fiend) that someone might regularly occupy inthe course of every day ite ‘Since gender isa relational term, and the minimal requirement for “being a mun i ‘not being a woman, we may find that in many c- ‘cumstances, men are under pressure to constitete themeelves a= mas ‘uline linguistically by avoiding forms of talk whose primary ‘association is with women/femuninity. But this i not invariant, ‘which begs the question: under what eicumetances does the contrast With women lose Is sallence as a constraint on men’s behaviou!? ‘When can men do so-alled feminine talk without thvestening their constitution as men? Are there cases when it ght actually be 10 theizadvantage todo this? ‘When and Why do Men Gossip? Many researchers have reported that both sexes engage in goss, since is sockal functions (ike affirming group solidasity and serving Performing Gender dentity 61 48 an unofficial conduit for information) are of universal relevance, but its cultural meaning (for us) Is undersably ‘feininw’. Therefore we might expect to find most men avoiding it or disguising it as Something else, especially in mixed settings where they are com ‘ered to mark tee difference from women fee Johnson and Finlay, chapter 7). Inthe conversation discussed above, however, here are zo Women for the men to diffeentiste themscives frm whereas theres the perceived danger that so often accompanies Western male hhomosociality: homosexuality. Under these circumstances perhaps it becomes aceptable to tansgress one gender norm en dont gos sip, gossip is for girs) in order to affirm what i this context a ‘more important norm men in allmale groups must unambiguously

    You might also like