1887
Volume 24, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper uses membership categorization analysis to illustrate how five women invoke multiple female gender and sexuality identity categories in personal narratives to construct the device of womanhood. The five racially diverse women include four self-identified lesbians and one heterosexual and range in age from mid-twenties to early forties. Analysis of their two hour audio recorded interaction illustrates that gender and sexuality cannot be understood as a binary difference between men and women. These women use revolutionary categories, defined on their own terms rather than by outsiders, to characterize women they encounter in their personal experience (lesbian and otherwise). The revolutionary categories exemplify a diversity of female gender and sexuality identities and ultimately challenge heteronormative conceptions of female identity while simultaneously constructing a lesbian counterpublic. Thus, the personal experiences of these women, as related through everyday narratives, turn out to be highly political.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.4.06shr
2015-12-02
2019-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, N. , A. Schmitke , and A. Franklin
    (2005) Tomboys, dykes, and girly girls: Interrogating the subjectivities of adolescent female athletes. Women’s Studies Quarterly33.1/2: 17-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brockmeier, J. , and D. Carbaugh
    (eds.) (2001) Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self, and culture. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sin.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sin.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bucholtz, M. , and K. Hall
    (2004) Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society33: 469-515. doi: 10.1017/S0047404504334020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504334020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler Breese, E
    (2011) Mapping the variety of public spheres. Communication Theory21: 130-149. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2011.01379.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01379.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Cameron, D
    (2005) Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics26.4: 482-502. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami027
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami027 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caudwell, J
    (1999) Women’s football in the United Kingdom: Theorizing gender and unpacking the butch lesbian image. Journal of Sport and Social Issues23.4: 390-402. doi: 10.1177/0193723599234003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723599234003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Connell, R.W. , and J.W. Messerschmidt
    (2005) Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society19.6: 829-859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dori-Hacohen, G
    (2012) “With whom do I have the pleasure?”: Callers’ categories in political talk radio programs. Journal of Pragmatics44.3: 280-297. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) “Rush, I love you”: Interactional fandom on American political talk-radio. International Journal of Communication7: 2697-2719.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eckert, P. , and S. McConnell-Ginet
    (1992) Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual review of anthropology21: 461-490. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eglin, P
    (2002) Members’ gendering work:women’, feminists’ and membership categorization analysis. Discourse & Society13.6: 819-825. doi: 10.1177/0957926502013006759
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013006759 [Google Scholar]
  12. Elliot, H. , Y. Gunaratnam , W. Holloway , and A. Phoenix
    (2009) Practices, identification, and identity change in the transition to motherhood. In M. Wetherell (ed.), Theorizing identities and social action (19-37). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferencik, M
    (2007) Exercising politeness: Categorisation in a radio phone-in programme. Pragmatics17.3: 351-370.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Giddens, A
    (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Greco, L
    (2012) Production, circulation, and deconstruction of gender norms in LGBTQ speech practices. Discourse Studies14.5: 567-585. doi: 10.1177/1461445612452229
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612452229 [Google Scholar]
  16. Halberstam, J
    (1998) Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Henley, M. , and C. Kramarae
    (2008) Gender, power, and miscommunication. In S. Ehrlich (ed.), Language and gender. London, UK: Taylor & Francis, pp.133-154.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Higgins, C
    (2007) Constructing membership in the in-group: Affiliation and resistance among urban Tanzanians. Pragmatics17.1: 49-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hill, J.H
    (1995) The voices of Don Gabriel: Responsibility and self in a modern Mexicano narrative. In D. Tedlock , and B. Mannheim (eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp.97-147.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hymes, D
    (1962) The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin , and W. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, pp.13-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Impett, E.A. , D. Schooler , and D.L. Tolman
    (2006) To be seen and not heard: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ sexual health. Archives of sexual behavior35.2: 129-142. doi: 10.1007/s10508‑005‑9016‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-9016-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, G
    (1991) List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (ed.), Interactional competence. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers, pp.63-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.13-31. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiesling, S.F
    (2001) “Now I gotta watch what I say”: Shifting constructions of masculinity in discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology11.2: 250-273. doi: 10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.250
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.250 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kitzinger, C
    (2000) Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology10.2: 163-193. doi: 10.1177/0959353500010002001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010002001 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2005a) Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems52.4: 477-498. doi: 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2005b) “Speaking as a heterosexual”: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction?. Research on Language and Social Interaction38.3: 221-265. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Koven, M.E
    (1998) Two languages in the self/the self in two languages: French-Portuguese bilinguals’ verbal enactments and experiences of self in narrative discourse. Ethos26.4: 410-455. doi: 10.1525/eth.1998.26.4.410
    https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1998.26.4.410 [Google Scholar]
  29. Labov, W. , and J. Waletzky
    (1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, pp.12-44.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Land, V. , and C. Kitzinger
    (2005) Speaking as a lesbian: Correcting the heterosexist presumption. Research on Language and Social Interaction38.4: 371-416. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3804_1 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2007) Contesting same-sex marriage in talk-in-interaction. Feminism & Psychology17.2: 173-183. doi: 10.1177/0959353507076549
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507076549 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazar, M.M
    (2008) Language, communication and the public sphere: A perspective from feminist critical discourse analysis. In R. Wodak , and V. Koller (eds.), Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.89-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Leudar, I. , V. Marsland , and J. Nekvapil
    (2004) On membership categorization: ‘Us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse. Discourse and Society15.2-3: 243-266. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041019 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mandelbaum, J
    (1987) Couples sharing stories. Communication Quarterly35.2: 144-170. doi: 10.1080/01463378709369678
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378709369678 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ochs, E
    (1992) Indexing Gender. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.335-358.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) Narrative lessons. In A. Duranti , (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp.269-289.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Philipsen, G
    (1992) Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H
    (1974) On the analyzability of stories by children. In R. Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology. Middlesex, UK: Penguin, pp.216-232.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1979) Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (7-14). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, E.A. , G. Jefferson , and H. Sacks
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Linguistic Society of America53.2: 361-382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schiffrin, D
    (1987) Discourse markers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stokoe, E.H
    (2003) Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology13.3: 317-344. doi: 10.1177/0959353503013003006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003006 [Google Scholar]
  43. Speer, S.A. , and E. Stokoe
    (2011) Conversation and gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511781032
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781032 [Google Scholar]
  44. Stokoe, E
    (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies14: 277-303. doi: 10.1177/1461445612441534
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sutton, L.A
    (1995) Bitches and skankly hobags: The place of women in contemporary slang. In K. Hall , and M. Bucholtz (eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.279-296.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tannen, D
    (1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Direct and indirect speech. Berlin, DE: Mouton, pp.311-332.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wetherell, M. , and N. Edley
    (1999) Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psychodiscursive practices. Feminism & Psychology9.3: 335-56. doi: 10.1177/0959353599009003012
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353599009003012 [Google Scholar]
  48. Whitehead, K.A. , and G.H. Lerner
    (2009) When are persons ‘white’?: On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse and Society20.5: 613-641. doi: 10.1177/0957926509106413
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509106413 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilkinson, S. , and C. Kitzinger
    (2003) Constructing identities: A feminist conversation analytic approach to positioning in action. In R. Harré , and F. Moghaddam (eds.), The self and others: Positioning individuals and groups in personal, political, and cultural contexts. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, pp.157-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zimmerman, E
    (2007) Constructing Korean and Japanese interculturality in talk: Ethnic membership categorization among users of Japanese. Pragmatics17.1: 71-94.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.4.06shr
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error