Transforming Language
Adapted from the article by Lethea F. Erz, PhD, “The Challenge of Language: Teaching the Language of Partnership.” It is taken from The Partnership Way: New Tools for Living and Learning, 2nd ed. by Riane Eisler and David Loye
How might we go about changing language to reflect a partnership orientation? Awareness, as discussed above, is a first step. Often it's possible to find less-common but still perfectly-serviceable words right in the English language. Using these words in place of commonly-used terms and expressions can create surprise in the listener, which in turn prompts them to listen more closely to the meaning of what we've actually said, and to contrast it with the meanings of the words we didn't say (but they expected). If there isn't a readily-available alternative to androcentric or sexist or racist or ageist language, it's sometimes it's sometimes possible to playfully invent a word or expression whose meaning is perfectly clear and which calls attention to the problems inherent in the words not used. Awoman might describe writing her last will and "ovariment." Or one might speak of finding a bunch of "senior singles" replacing "old maids." Such words, like "foremother" or "waitperson" may eventually find their way into general use; "Ms." has already done so. Although "prescriptive grammarians" (people whose goal is to define and enforce the rules of "proper" English) will be apoplectic about it, English is a living language, and we are perfectly free to make up new words, from "scratch" or by creative combining, as long as their meaning is clear.
To even speak of "partnership" itself - in a way that recognizes the centrality of the female/male relationship to all forms of social organization - requires the invention of new words. Riane Eisler coined the term "gylany" to describe equal linking between men and women, rather than the hierarchical ranking of patriarchal domination. While "partnership" is used because of its familiarity to most people, it has the disadvantage of having many other meanings (business partnership, for example). "Gylany" is a more precise, but less-familiar term. Perhaps if it is used enough it will enter common usage, but in the meantime "partnership" gets the basic idea across, with less explanation. This is an example of the kind of trade-off that is often necessary in our efforts to change language and consciousness.
Speaking of Language
"Gy" comes from the Greek "gyne," or woman; "an" comes from "andros," or man. The "l" that links them comes from "lyein" or "lyo" which has double meanings in Greek: "to solve or resolve" (as in analysis) and "to dissolve or set free" (as in catalysis). From Eisler, Riane (1987). The Chalice & the Blade: Our History, Our Future. San Francisco: Harper & Rowe, p. 105.
The adjectives "sexist," "racist," "ageist," and "homophobic" are relatively recent inventions of the English language, created to describe attitudes of inequality which once were taken for granted as "natural." "Sexism" implies that one sex is better than the other, "racism" infers superior and inferior races, and so on. Language which is sexist, racist, ageist, and homophobic is often fairly obvious and easy to spot, once one understands the concepts. But language can lack direct implications of inferiority, yet still promote inequality. Itmay be "androcentric"-treating male experience and perceptions as the norm while ignoring or trivializing female experience - without being overtly sexist. A quote from famous anthropologist Levi-Strauss is a perfect (if rather extreme) example of androcentrism: "All the people departed the next morning, leaving the women and children behind in the deserted village." Who are implicitly considered "people" in this statement, and who are not?
While religious language is not a major part of public school curriculum, in our private lives it's worth noting the androcentrism in "god-talk. "With the exception of the growing "women's spirituality" movement and reform movements in several major monotheistic religions, traditional references to deity still use male terms. Some questions to consider: in a partnership-oriented culture, what would be considered sacred, and how would we discuss it? Would a supreme being be gendered at all, and would only one sex have a direct line to it, as in traditional religions?
Just as gylany implies equality, linking and cooperation in all human relationships, partnership language must describe equality, linking and cooperation among all groups of people, and between humans and all of nature, including the earth itself.
