Language & Oppression

PHIL30811 Language & Oppression 20 Semester 1 Undergraduate Level 3 Mihaela Popa-Wyatt Unit coordinator School of Social Sciences 1 FHEQ level (Framework for Higher Education Qualifications) ' Last part of a Bachelors ' European Credit Transfer & Accumulation System Rating : 10.0 This course examines the ways in which social inequality and oppression of social groups are deliberately or accidentally expressed, instigated, and enforced through our linguistic practices. How can words oppress people? Examining the answers to this simple question leads us into core issues in feminist philosophy and the philosophy of race while enabling an appreciation of the diverse range of topics within the philosophy of language. For example, we will evaluate the arguments of feminist philosophers who have analysed pornography as a form of speech act which subordinates women and simultaneously deprives them of the ability to speak out in protest.We will examine philosophical theories about the nature of slurs: words which directly derogate and harm individuals by reference to race, gender, sexuality, disability, etc. How can a philosophical account of language make sense of the notion that a word can have a harmful meaning? Less direct forms of oppression have been argued to be embedded in the way that gender is represented in ordinary language. Many feminist philosophers, for example, have argued that apparently gender-neutral expressions like “nurse”, “president”, etc., encode gendered information which reinforces and perpetuates gender inequality.The course will also look at an area of overlap between linguistic and metaphysical issues by addressing the question of what it means to say that categories like race or gender are socially constructed. The course will start with an examination of some classic work in feminist philosophy of language which argues that (English) language encodes and enforces gender inequality in its treatment of noun phrases and its treatment of pronouns. While the focus here is on the meanings of words (are these gender neutral or not?), the next topic leads us into a question about what we do with words: what kinds of acts can we perform in speech? The case study is pornography, and the feminist arguments that pornography is best understood as performing a speech act which is harmful to women.We then turn to the topic of slurs, focusing first on the way in which racist slurs function. These expressions pose a significant challenge to traditional theories of meaning because their distinctive features – their offensiveness and ability to derogate – seem to elude our standard ways of thinking about meaning. We then compare the ways that racial slurs function with others kinds of slurs. Gendered slurs, homophobic slurs, transphobic slurs, and slurs aimed at people with disabilities, are often assumed to derogate in similar ways but closer examination challenges this assumption.We next address the question of coded speech or dogwhistle and how it can be harfmful. Why do people talk in code, or insinuate, rather than speak openly?We finally consider the question of social categorization and how it relates to prejudice, in particular in relation to the inferences that we can and do draw on the basis of these categorizations. Questions concerning social categorization and inference fall at the intersection of a huge number of areas within philosophy (philosophy of language, ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind) and the social and cognitive sciences, as well as legal theory.We focus in particular on generics. Generic sentences are sentences which generalise over things without specifying a quantity. So, for example, while “all ducks lay eggs” is a false universal generalisation (male ducks don’t), “ducks lay eggs” is a generic sentence which sounds intuitively true. Some have argued that generics are made true by stereotypes (the stereotypical duck lays eggs), but if this is the case, should we not be extremely worried about the generic claims we are liable to accept about social groups, lest they enforce harmful stereotypes? The overall question will be geared towards an epistemically goal: when are inferences made on the basis of social categorization rational? The unit aims to: equip students with the intellectual, textual, and philosophical resources to formulate, and argue for, views on a range of philosophical issues surrounding the ways in which language derogates, oppresses, and perpetuates social inequality. Students should be able to: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of key contemporary views of the social role of Language; clearly articulate philosophical claims about language.  Evaluate claims and arguments in the social philosophy of language; relate the philosophy of language to other areas of philosophical inquiry; apply theoretical frameworks from the philosophy of language to issues of real world significance.  Interpret and criticise both primary and secondary texts; develop their own arguments in response to texts; present sophisticated and rigorous expositions of important theories and texts.  Undertake independent research and apply theoretical knowledge to complex issues. Analytical skills Group/team working Innovation/creativity Oral communication Problem solving Research Written communication There will be a mixture of lectures and tutorials.Please note the information in scheduled activity hours are only a guidance and may change. 0 Other 100% Essay 1 - 50%Essay 2 - 50% The School of Social Sciences (SoSS) is committed to providing timely and appropriate feedback to students on their academic progress and achievement, thereby enabling students to reflect on their progress and plan their academic and skills development effectively. Students are reminded that feedback is necessarily responsive: only when a student has done a certain amount of work and approaches us with it at the appropriate fora is it possible for us to feed back on the student’s work. The main form of feedback on this course is feedback on your assessed essays, in the form of in-text comments and a general feedback report, both available through Blackboard. Feedback on the first essay will be available well before the deadline for the second essay, so that you have the opportunity to put any suggestions for improvement into practice.We also draw your attention to the variety of generic forms of feedback available to you on this as on all SoSS courses. These include: meeting the lecturer during their office hours; e-mailing them questions; asking questions during and before/after lectures and tutorials; and obtaining feedback on your ideas from your peers and lecturer during tutorials. Y Sally McConnell-Ginet, “Language, Gender, and Sexuality”Luvell Anderson, Sally Haslanger, and Rae Langton, “Language and Race”Both in THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE, eds. Russell and Graff Fara, London: Routledge: 2015. Lectures 20 Tutorials 10 0 170