Would you suggest that a basic common value is antipathy to white male
bourgeois patriarchal rhetorical tactics?
Then again, sustainable community can't be built on antipathy, can it?
Jim Worstell, Delta Land & Community
920 Hwy 153, Almyra, AR 72003
Phone: 870-673-6346 Fax: 870-673-7219
www.deltanetwork.org jvworstell@futura.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheryl N. Swink [SMTP:sns7@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 12:51 PM
To: sanet-mg@amani.ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Language, invisibility, and dangly bits
I would just like to jump into this very thought-provoking etymological and
linguistic exchange on Sanet for a moment:
(1) to thank Misha Gale-Sinex for her in-depth analysis of the
communication dynamics involved, which made me think more about the value
of examining the underlying dynamics occurring in individual responses to
challenges others issue to the use of particular words and how such
challenges can serve help shift our perspective on/from the dominant
paradigms
(2) to ask Dan Worley to carefully check with his native
Spanish-speaking farmer friends to see if he is correctly correctly
capturing the word they use to name themselves as farmers (see excerpt of
his and Misha's comments below)
In my experience working with farmers in the Dominican Republic and
Argentina, the term used for "farmer" is "el agricultor" in the case of a
male farmer, and "la agricultor" in the case of a female farmer. This also
agrees with the information in my Spanish/English dictionary. "La
agricultura" is what they engage in, i.e. farming or agriculture.
While I am not an etymologist, the feminine gendered aspect of this
term probably derives from the same element of femininity assigned in many
languages to references to productive, pro-creative entities and processes
such as the Earth/earth and bringing forth life from seeds and land -
Analogies to the idea of woman giving birth, creating new life....
If I am correct in my suspicion that Puerto Rican farmers do not call
themselves "agriculturas", then Dan (and others of us who make similar
errors due to our occasional or frequent sloppy listening and usage habits)
may find it worthwhile to work at being more conscious of our use of
language. Fortunately , in daily communication which consists of more than
just words, most of us are fairly forgiving of such errors (consciously or
unconsciously) and respond more to the sensed intent rather than taking
offense. However, at times when we do take offense and in the case where a
underlying power relationship or assumption is being reflected, we may make
no direct verbal response to the offending usage, but responsive
communication can be cut off, become ineffective or misleading.
(3) Now, as to the use of the term "farmer"... I am still grappling with
that one and the following may seem somewhat contradictory to (1) above. My
more immediate response/opinion is that, like my life, it is what I do with
it, how I use it, that gives it its meaning. It may be useful to
contemplate my origins, the history of my ancestors and their acts in order
to more clearly see and understand myself in the context of the world, but
I don't believe that I need to "rename" myself or somehow transform my
existing physical body to a different one with a different history in order
to be a living expression of new, different, transformative values. Words
or terms are dynamically in transition and changing in meaning as we humans
and society change. Perhaps, rather than looking at them as carrying the
fortunate or unfortunate weight of their original usage, we could think of
them as evidence of transformation as we compare their origin to our
current usage and personal meaning. The farmers I know are those who have
given meaning to the term for me - and it is not the meaning attributed to
its original usage!
still pondering all this food for thought,
Sheryl
>> In many other languages the words can be, and are, either Feminine
>> or Masculine, depending on the language. In Spanish Agricultura
>> which I believe literally means Agriculturist, but is used as us
>> English speakers use "Farmer". Agricultura is feminine. So what?
>
>This confuses two different ontological realms: the analytical
>concept of gender in linguistics with the more with the practical,
>concrete concept that Pam was raising with her observation. It also
>confuses a Romance language's construction of linguistic gender with
>an Anglo-Saxon/Germanic-flavored language's construction of
>linguistic gender. Most nouns in English are gender neutral, except
>for those that specifically refer to something gendered, like "bull,"
>or "drake," or "bitch" (my own power animal, along with the
>cockroach). But "the farmer" is no longer gender neutral when paired
>with the qualifying pronoun "he" any more than "the farmer...she" is
>gender neutral.
>
>
>> It is defined in terms of linguistics and by language experts as
>> being "feminine". The fact that an overwhelming majority of
>> Agriculturas (farmers) in Spanish speaking countries are men is
>> unimportant and a red herring in the debate of who is acting as the
>> best "Steward" of the land.
>
>Unimportant to you, and a red herring in your eyes, Dan. Please own
>your opinions and don't go palming them off on some unspecified set
>of "experts" as the facts. That is *such* a white male bourgeois
>patriarchal rhetorical tactic! :^]
>
>Now back to Dan.
>
>> For anyone who has ever lived in, or even been around, a Spanish
>> or Hispanic culture, you know the nature of "Maschismo" in all
>> Spanish cultures. Fro those who are unfamiliar with it, Latin men
>> are extremely sensitive about their position of domination in the
>> family unit and in society in general. One of the greatest
>> insults one can hurl at any Spanish or Latin man is t in any way
>> challenge his manhood. Yet I do not see a grand effort to change
>> the Spanish language in such a way as to make the noun masculine.
>
>Couldn't that have something to do with the fact that
>linguistic/analytical gender and social/cultural gender are two
>entirely separate things? I mean, "olla" is feminine; that doesn't
>make pots girls. But farmers aren't pots, they're people. And "el"
>and "ella" are used to refer to men and women, and "la agricultura,
>el viene" and "la agricultural, ella viene" are used with their
>appropriate pronouns to refer to individual male or female farmers.
>You wouldn't call a male farmer "ella," regardless of the lingustic
>gender of the noun.
>
Sheryl N. Swink
Graduate Student
Cornell International Institute for
Food, Agriculture and Development
Box 14 Kennedy Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
e-mail: sns7@cornell.edu
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".