Pyle's column ignores link between language, thought

For someone who claims to be concerned with language, Jason Pyle is curiously imprecise and inarticulate in his column on the topic ("Language Doesn't Discriminate, People Do," Mar. 3).

Pyle indulges in a bit of hyperbole when he speculates that "the feminist movement may well attempt to strike any reference of gender from American English." Beg pardon? What feminist in her or his right mind has ever argued that gender equity can be achieved by eliminating all references to gender? There's a world of difference between attempts to move toward non-sexist usage and the Orweillian boogeywoman that Pyle conjures up.

I'm essentially in agreement with Pyle's central claim that the roots of social injustice go far deeper than the words we use to describe our world. However, language and our perceptions of the world are nonetheless inextricably linked. Pyle seems at moments to recognize this, noting that "studies show that when the ... 'generic male' is used, it is not universally interpreted as generic." For example (something Pyle's generalization-laden column is frightfully short of!), one such study showed that women readers were less likely to interpret an essay on the "rights of Man" as having anything to do with them than did women who read an identical essay on the "rights of all people." Yet Pyle draws from this recognition the odd conclusion that encouraging more gender-inclusive language would preclude attempts to address the underlying sexism of our culture and language.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Pyle frames this as an either-or question. A useful analogy might be drawn with the civil rights movement: even though the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s certainly did not eliminate racism or discrimination in American culture, they immediately and concretely improved the situation of millions of non-white Americans. Similarly, although encouraging writers to use "he or she" instead of the generic "he" obviously falls far short of fully addressing the sexism that undergirds our culture, encouraging such non-sexist language is certainly a useful, inclusive move in and of itself.

By Marty Kelley (letter)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 11, 1997