Political Economy of Pronouns

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 3/23/2007 01:36:00 AM
I still remember a professor of mine from way back who was keen on writing mechanics complimenting me on a presentation I made--except for referring to a manager as a "he." Her advice as an academic was to get rid of this habit. "Think what a female reviewer would make of your political incorrectness in a journal submission," she effectively said. After that incident, I thought I wised up during a subsequent presentation by referring to the archetypal manager as a "she." I was slightly crestfallen when she was not happy with this substitution, either. Her next bit of advice was to use plural forms (they are managers; you don't have to assign gender to them).

Fast forward a couple of years and one of the well-regarded authors in our department has the custom of adding [sic] to quotations that use he / him / his in reference to generic individuals like citizens, workers, and public servants. In this age of political correctness, it is common to see writing that bears the marks of gender neutralization in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Unlike many other languages, the English language doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns when referring to individuals. Thus, the battleground has been set among traditionalists who see nothing wrong in using he / him / his and those who find reference to them inappropriate. Perhaps I stand accused of not being a sensitive new-age guy (SNAG), but I am largely indifferent to those who use the older convention. Though I have followed my professor's sage advice to use plural forms to avoid this trap--after all, I am just starting out and it would be dumb of me to offend potential reviewers of my work with un-PC terminology--I do not expect the same from my students. Many of them are international students and I believe that I should not burden them with following PC conventions in addition to learning to write in English.

While doing basic research for this post, I found this hilarious rant from Terry Watkins of the controversial Dial-the-Truth Ministries, who believes, among other things, that rock music is the work of Satan [cue up the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil"]. Though I have several difficulties with his beliefs, he did raise some though-provoking points about possible PC overreach. He got apoplectic over the gender-neutralization of Today's New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible, which is available online:
By far the most extensive damage performed by the inclusive-perversions is the extermination of the "generic" masculine pronouns, such as "he / him / his".

Known as the "generic he", generic masculine pronouns are the standard method used in the English language when addressing an "indefinite" or "undefined" individual. Masculine pronouns, such as "he / him / his" are utilized to address both male and female when the gender is unknown. The "generic he" has been the accepted method, literally, since the beginning of the English language.

In favor of the convention of using he / him / his, Watkins cites writing authorities such as Strunk and White and the Associated Press stylebook:

How does Strunk and White advise concerning that mean, sexist, "generic he"? "Do not use they when the antecedent is a distributive expression such as each, each one, everybody, every one, many a man. Use the singular pronoun [he, him, his]."

Strunk and White also state concerning the "generic he": "It [the generic he] has no pejorative [derogatory, or belittling effect, negative, sexist] connotations; it is never incorrect."
(William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, p. 60)

How does the AP Stylebook instruct the journalists on the "generic he"? "Use the pronoun his when an indefinite antecedent may be male or female: [Example] A reporter attempts to protect his sources."
(Norm Goldstein, The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual, 2000, p. 114)

Nor does using plural forms to avoid PC hazards get a free pass from either William Zinsser of On Writing Well fame or Strunk and White:

Author William Zinsser, in the best-selling, On Writing Well, warns of the effects of converting the singular "he" with the plural "they": "A style that converts every ‘he’ into a ‘they’ will quickly turn to mush. . . I don’t like plurals; they weaken writing because they are less specific from the singular, less easy to visualize."
(William Zinsser, On Writing Well, p. 123)

"Alternatively, put all controversial nouns in the plural and avoid the choice of sex altogether, you may find your prose sounding general and diffuse [not concentrated, indirect]."
(Strunk and White, Elements of Style, p. 61)

I will stick with plural forms despite potential costs to writing clarity. The benefits of avoiding PC-related snafus probably outweighs these costs, though things may change if I ever become Mr. Big Shot Author. As with many things, the political economy of gendered pronouns is largely about power--editorial power in this case. Let those editors have their way, for now.