Biased Academics

In this essay I will be using Belle Edson's article on language bias in rhetorical theory to examine several other papers from our readings in Unit One. In order to do this, I will explain Edson's theory and how the authors we have read either avoided or fell into the trap of biased gender language.

Edson contends that within social rhetorical theory there is a biased gender language and perspective taken by most researchers (34). We as humans tend to research and question based on our own perspectives. As most of the rhetorical theorists have been men, and as this is a patriarchal society, most research has been biased in the direction of male based language and therefore, male supremacy.

Edson argues that until you have helped to create a language, you will never really be a part of it (35). You will always stand outside of it. You can learn the rules of the language; you may use the language every day, but if you did not help construct it, then that language will always be biased against those who did not help in the shaping of it.

Edson offers several categories in which male and females differ in their constructions of language (36). They include time, leadership, thought, relationships, decision making, power, etc...(Edson 36). Edson offers that we can bridge these differences between the gendered languages by making more of an effort in research to include the female perspective (43). This is an excellent idea as over half the population is female and as females construct meaning differently from males, the female of the species would be able to offer new and more thorough ways to examine rhetoric and its strategies.

I will now use Edson's theory to examine several other articles from the first unit of our study to determine if the language bias she proposes exists in them. These articles include perspectives by Sillars, Cathcart, Smith and Windes, Hahn and Gonchar, Simons, Andrews, Benford and Snow, Jensen, and finally, Polletta and Jasper.

Let's begin with Sillars. Malcolm Sillars theory deals with casting the widest rhetorical net (17). Mr. Sillars critique of the already established rhetorical theory is enlightening. In many ways, he avoids using biased gender concepts in his language. For example, Edson states that men see time as being linear, and women don't (Edson 36). In Sillars argument, he states that other theories have been far to concerned with viewing social movements as linear phenomena (18). Also, Sillars believes that other theories have placed too much emphasis on cause and effect relationships, also a male dominated view of events (22). I feel that Sillars does an excellent job of avoiding gender bias in this article.

Cathcart's view that every movement has a form with progress from one point to another, makes this theory male biased (233). It is the male thought process that moves in a linear fashion (Edson). His basic assertion at the beginning of the article biases the rest of the argument.

Smith and Windes focus on mobilization. Their assertion that "...organizations are created solely through messages" as irrelevant is a rather male focused view of the origin of meaning (5). As stated in the Edson article, women look at group membership in very different ways than men do (41). Men see meaning and power as given to the leader of the group, not the group itself, as the groups opinion is seen as subordinate (Edson 38). Women however, see the group as a collective entity that works together to created meaning (Edson 41). Therefore for a woman, an organization could be created solely through its messages.

Hahn and Gonchar take a look at the logos, pathos, and ethos behind a movements' rhetoric (48). They avoid the use of gendered terms by using the word "students" throughout the article (Hahn and Gonchar 50). As their argument does not show an overabundance of linear styled thinking in regards to analysis, I believe these researchers do a good job of avoiding language based gender bias.

Herbert Simons methodology looks at the uses of persuasion in social movements (1). And his work is rife with language bias. He refers to leaders of movements only as "he (Simons 7)." His choices in looking at movements efforts to gain and secure followers follow a male based linear logic (Simons 3). For example, the use of terms like "mold" and "efficient" in reference to the devotees of a movement, shows a bias toward the male centered areas of "work (Edson 36)." Simons falls squarely into the trap of gendered bias in language.

James Andrews article avoids bias by contending that as others see the movement process as linear, he does not believe that there has been enough information gathered to support this approach (68). This may be avoidance by default. But it is avoiding the bias nonetheless.

Benford and Snow focus on the how frames can help us look more closely at movements (611). The questions that they ask range from looking at movements from a male perspective of how meaning is achieved to looking at movements from the females' perspective of how meaning is constructed (Benford and Snow 612). They ask if a movement is looked at from a "coherent" perspective (male) or if they can be "pieced" together by looking at various factors (female). As it is a more balanced look at the issue, they avoid bias of one kind. But the construction of the phrases in their language proves it is still biased against women.

Richard Jensen looks at the evolution of rhetoric in general and protest rhetoric in specific (28). This article is a kind of a personal account of how he saw the movements changing from the 1960's to the 1990's (Jensen 28). It also looks with a historical lens at the events which made the protest culture of the 60's possible (Jensen 28). I do not think that his article shows a language gendered bias. Indeed, his noting of several new theories emerging in the 1990's which challenged the linear, powerless models of social movements shows that he gives credence to these theories and as these theories challenge language bias by their very nature (i.e. studying non-linear concepts and challenging the traditional ideas of power) this article shows a more balanced viewpoint than several others we read in unit one (Jensen 31).

Polletta and Jasper examine collective identity and how it functions within social movements (283). They state that "collective identity has been treated as an alternative to structurally given interests in accounting for the claims on behalf of which people mobilize (Polletta and Jasper 283)." This standpoint seems to say that they are viewing the process of mobilization from a female perspective. If it is an alternative to the traditional structure surrounding mobilizing, and if it shows how mobilization occurs due to shifts within the organization's structure, this would be a female approach (Polletta and Jasper 283).

Overall, I feel that most of the articles we have read did show bias of one kind or another, and Edson's theory is certainly valid. However, many of these articles did do a good job of trying to be balanced in their perspectives. I appreciate how hard it is for any researcher to go beyond the scope of their own perspectives, but I also, like Edson, realize just how vital it is to do so. We, as a part of the academic community, must first realize that there is a problem, and then do our best to correct it.