Evolution and application of Muted Group thoery, Study notes of Theories of Communication

Download Evolution and application of Muted Group thoery and more Study notes Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

Running head: EVOLUTION AND APPLICATIONS OF MUTED GROUP THEORY 1 Evolution and Applications of Muted Group Theory Raechal Wozniak-Sanford Northern Illinois University

Evolution and Applications of Muted Group Theory In 1975, Edwin and Shirley Ardener developed muted group theory, describing the muting of certain groups of people by more dominant ones through the use of language and an overriding form of discourse (Borchers, 2006, p. 130). Though this theory can be applied to any type of dominant versus oppressed group contrast, it has mainly been applied to the men/women gender divide. The central idea of this theory is that women are considered a “muted group” because the language used in American culture is designed to serve men (Borchers, 2006, p. 131 ). This means that communication is adapted to fit the standards of the more powerful group, therefore subjecting women to using language from male views of the world to describe their own experiences. Because of this, men often have difficulties understanding women, women seek alternative means of communication, and women are often dissatisfied with language. Following the origination of muted group theory, other communication scholars expanded their views on the concept and provided further explanations on the intricacies of it. Additionally, this theory still holds many applications today and, though it has been marginally altered, largely remains relevant. This essay will discuss the origins of muted group theory, its development and expansion by other scholars, and contemporary applications and examples. Muted group theory was initially developed in the early 1970’s to explain the lack of anthropological data on women (Wall & Gannon-Leary, 1999). Edwin and Shirley Ardener were both social anthropologists who were interested in the predominance of men in ethnographic studies. Through examination of how these studies were conducted, they found that, regardless of the gender of the interviewer, there was a tendency to be more inclined to accept and relate to male interviewee’s point of view. Because of this, female interviewees were perceived to be less articulate and therefore less significant to the study. Additionally, it was evident that

experiences. In 1985, Deborah Cameron, another feminist theorist, offered insight on the theory by proposing that women do, in fact, speak and are not entirely silenced. She suggested that women have no problem relating to one another and can communicate woman-to-woman adequately. However, the problem lies when attempting to communicate with the opposite gender. Cameron believed that women fear speaking in the public sphere due to the possible, and probable, judgement and constraints from men (Wall & Gannon-Leary, 1999). This is related to the idea that women can sometimes have the ability to express themselves on a small scale, but it is not easy for them to share their experiences in a way that makes sense to all people due to the overarching authority of men’s cultural language dominance. In 1991, Terri Lituchy and Wendy Wiswall performed a study regarding speech patterns in addresses by both men and women. Numerous individuals gave speeches in front of an audience while their behaviors were analyzed by the researchers. It was found that, between the genders, there were clear differences in word choice, intonation, and use of numerals. From this, it was also noted that women whose speeches more closely resembled men’s addresses were perceived to be more assertive, self-confident, and believable (Wall & Gannon-Leary, 1999). These findings suggest that, as a whole, men’s communication patterns exemplify a model of the expectations required for an individual to sound credible and comprehensible. Though muted group theory was created several decades ago, it still retains its value in contemporary applications. One such model exists in both the corporate and political spheres. In positions where leadership and power are crucial and evident, it is expected for women to speak according to men’s discourse in order to be taken seriously. This includes avoiding emotional statements, lowering vocal pitch, and excluding any language thought to be overly “feminine.” This can be seen in the political experience of Hillary Clinton. A common remark of her

communication abilities is that she often sounds like she “speaks like a man.” Over her career as a politician, she has been very successful and was even the first woman to be nominated as a major party candidate in a presidential election. In this case, it seems that adopting a more masculine form of discourse has actually helped her to be more relatable to the masses and a more widely-recognized politician. A related example of the complications of language was shown in regards to the possibility of Clinton becoming president, where it was apparent that political labels were an issue. During the course of the 2016 election, many Americans learned that, upon the election of a female president, she will be referred to as “Madam President” and her husband, the “First Gentleman of the United States.” Both of these terms were seemingly unheard of before the election due to the fact that in a male-dominated society, there was never a need for the creation of titles that described female leaders. Another application of this theory is the language use connected to harassment and abuse of women. For centuries, men were allowed to physically, sexually, and verbally abuse women with little to no consequence. Because men did not perceive this treatment as problematic like women did, there was no word to describe the behavior. It wasn’t until the Civil Rights Movement in 1964 that the word “harassment” was used and the practice was deemed illegal (Borchers, 2006, p. 132). The issue of women’s ability to speak about abuse effectively continues in today’s society. Oftentimes, when a woman is raped or sexually abused by a man, she is too fearful to come forward about it because she is unable to explain the situation in a way that would convince other men that the act was wrong. The lack of men’s understanding of women’s language creates a fear of judgement when a woman is contemplating standing up for herself. She does not feel secure or confident enough in her abilities to relay her experiences to men to make them look down upon other men. A final application of muted group theory that is not directly related to gender differences in

References Borchers, Timothy A. "Rhetoric and Oppression." Rhetorical Theory: An Introduction. N.p.: Waveland, 2006. 130-32. Print. Chadwick, Scott. "Muted Group Theory." Communication Theory. Oregon State University,

1995. Web. 17 Nov. 2016. Wall, Celia J., and Pat Gannon-Leary. "A Sentence Made by Men." The European Journal of Women's Studies. Vol. 6. N.p.: SAGE, 1999. 21-29. Print.