In completing The Left Hand of Darkness, the correlation between language and gender have come through quite strong for me. Much of the plot relies on the linguistic and cultural divide between Genly and Estraven, which no difficult doubt stems from their vastly different world views on gender. As we discussed in class, it’s to communicate without some common ground, a shared language, if you will. Indeed, their lack of a shared language structure made it impossible for each to convey the very core of their respective communication modes – Gethenian “shifgrethor” and Ekumen “mindspeech.”
When I say communication, I mean more than just the ability to decode a simplistic linguistic code to include comprehension, where both the speaker and receiver understand, even at a rudimentary level, the definition and context of the message spoken. The message is more than a verbalized utterance of coherent phonemes, but an exchange of information. In the framework of the novel, communication goes beyond Genly and Estraven’s ability to speak to (or perhaps more accurately, at) one another, but their inability to interpret the underlying meaning of each other’s utterances. Accordingly, a mutually-intelligible, shared language must mean more than a linguistic structure, but a pragmatic awareness that supports the edification of ambiguous and polysemic messages.
Taking these thoughts in conjunction with our class material, I wonder then, what a decreasingly engendered language would mean for the idea of gender itself. So much of our culture and definition of humanity revolves around the simple, arbitrary assignment of gender, and it’s restricted to the binary that we’ve read about all semester. Those who fall outside and/or between our two restrictive categories are then alienated and seen, as Butler suggests in Undoing Gender, as less than human. So what to do then? We know that some genderless utopia isn’t possible, nor would it likely be ideal. But what if we could, through a drastic restructuring of our linguistic modes and models, impart a deeper level of empathy and understanding across genders? Maybe, through shared experience and an, inclusive, mostly intelligible language, we could overcome some of the gender divide that separates the supposed “normal” genders and those who exist in the margins of said categories? Maybe, then, the varying degrees of empathy and recognition would proliferate and instead of a binary, gender would be more of a sliding scale.
This is all hypothetical of course, and probably a little bit too much of a “blue sky” idea. I just find that, the more I think about the novel, along with all of our readings in class, the more I see just how stifling and damaging the gender binary can be. And as an English student, I naturally gravitated towards the implications on (and of) language.
- terese
Terese,
ReplyDeleteI like the things you bring up in this post. It's clear that our language plays a large part in both enforcing the notion of gender and creating a divide between genders. Designating humans as "he" and "she" makes them separate things, and we generally treat one type of thing a certain way compared to others. Since the Gethenians did not have this, they did not have a notion of gender influencing both their actions and their culture. In our world however, I think that the way our language has an exclusivity toward those who identify as neither a "he" nor a "she" or have switched from one to the other. This ties in really well to what Butler talks about in Chapter 1 of Undoing Gender, and how queer people find themselves unacknowledged and undone.
-Ziev
Terese,
ReplyDeleteI'm also interested in the ideas we keep bringing up about the restrictions of language. The one thing I sort of thought about was what exactly was the author trying to get at by making the Gethenians so radically different biologically from us? I wonder if the impossibility of have that social structure due to these extreme differences leads at all to the difficulties of changing notions of gender in our own society. I think in that Genly is able to see himself at least from the perspective of the Gethenians LeGuin is pointing out that it isn't impossible, but was Genly's entire experience with that different society necessary? I don't really have an answer either but these are all the sort of practical questions worth looking at I guess.
This is a really interesting post! I like what you said about using an increased identification between the genders to eliminate the strong distinction between them. Indeed this seemed to be a major point in the novel. Only once Genly and Estraven where able to be em pathtic towards eachother were they able to communicate through mindspeak. I wonder in what ways we could increase identification between the genders to create a non gendered language... perhaps first would be through an increase in empathy for one another as in the book. Ifeel like when people are young and learning gender performative behaviors and language it also the same time when men and woman are the most separated and pitted against eachother. It is always "boys vs. girls" or that the other gender has cooties and what not. I wonder what would happen if children were directed, at this time in their development to instead try to increase their understanding of the other sex and try to sympathize with them. These are just some thoughts- very interesting idea!
ReplyDelete