Famous philosopher Wittgenstein noticed that language is rarely used without having any political connotation. Words used to describe the presence carry the potential to influence the future. Thus they are not static, but they have a power to trigger processes reaching behind their plain meaning. Yet they can lead to the ossification of problem leading even to marginalization of certain groups by capturing them in their meaning.For better understanding, consider following: “Regulation shall not affect his dignity”. Why should „his“, or put it plainly „men“, claim the possession and supremacy even on such an abstract level of discussion? Why should we uphold the persistent equality even by words?
It should be therefore embraced that it became common to use in text „his/her“ instead of „his“ when gender neutral issue is the object of the text. But even the „his/her“ or „her/his“ approach has obvious weaknesses. If „his“ is former and „her“ latter in the text than it necessarily implies that „women“ is the one which is behind the „men“ and therefore the domination of „men“ is in fact upheld. Yet if we switch the order, it suggests that the „men“ is behind because it is showing fake deference to the allegedly “weaker” gender. It is the same falsity which the men demonstrates when he opens the door for the women or when he helps her with the coat. That crude confirmation of his dominant position.
But tenable solution exists. Introduction of a new, gender-neutral possessive pronoun. I would explain how to breathe a life in it. In its construction, one should take into account that both masculine and feminine possessive pronouns contain the letter „h“. Therefore the letter „h“ should form the first and last part of the new pronoun. Thus no one would be able to distinguish which „h“ belongs to which gender. The explicit or implicit order will be erased once and forever.
So we proceed further by the application of negative argument. If the neutrality should be maintained, than it follows that nor letter „i“ nor „e“, which are middle part of existing possessive pronouns could be utilized. I would suggest to use letter „a“. One can object that considering the objective order of the letters in the alphabet, the letter „a“ is closer to the „e“ than to the „i“ which again would bring up the unjustified hierarchy. But the letter „a“, the truly capital „A“ has an utmost symbolic importance, quashing all such caveats. It originates from Greek Alfa symbolizing the beginning of everything, principle of creation. And this symbol of beginning relates equally to men and woman.
So the new neutral possessive pronoun „hah“ should be embraced since it symbolizes new beginning in promotion of equality between men and women. Let’s hope it will act as a self-fulfilling prophecy advancing the ideal into the often bitter reality. And final remark, as you remember, the newspeak used by totalitarian society in dystopic fiction 1984, written by Orwell is the only language, vocabulary of which is being reduced every year. In contrast, the introduction of new word in the field of pronouns, which has been unaltered for centuries, only confirms attachment to the idea of democracy and pluralistic society based on equality.
Erik Kotlarik
CCL LLM
0 comments:
Post a Comment