Communities of practice, gender, and the representation of sexual assault

This article investigates the utility of Eckert & McConnell-Ginet's concept of "community of practice" for an analysis of the language used by women in a sexual assault tribunal. It is shown how the questions asked by two tribunal members (a male and a female faculty member), in a university sexual "harassment" tribunal, function to (re)frame and (re)construct the events in question as consensual sex. Although the female complainants (i.e. victims) in the tribunal characterize their experiences as sexual assault, two of the tribunal members - one of whom is a female faculty member - ask questions that presuppose the inadequacy and deficiency of the complainants' signals of resistance, suggesting that their so-called lack of resistance was tantamount to consent. Clearly, any homogeneous notion of "woman's speech style" or "woman's point of view" would fail to account for the differences between the discursive patterns of this woman tribunal member and the women complainants in this context. However, if (as argued by Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 1992a,b) our linguistic practices arise out of the kinds of community of practice with which we are involved, then an understanding of such local practices and activities should provide greater insight into the differential linguistic behavior of the women involved in this sexual "harassment" tribunal. (Feminism, gender, institutional discourse, power, sexual assault, social practice, discourse analysis)

[1]  S. Bem Dismantling Gender Polarization and Compulsory Heterosexuality: Should We Turn the Volume Down or Up? , 1995 .

[2]  Jenny Neumond Rezension zu: Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M. Bing, Alice F. Freed (eds.) (1996): Rethinking Language and Gender Research. Theory and Practice , 1999 .

[3]  Susan L. Ehrlich The Discursive Reconstruction of Sexual Consent , 1998 .

[4]  Alice F. Freed,et al.  Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the difference? , 1996, Language in Society.

[5]  Frank Burton,et al.  Order in Court , 1979, The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.

[6]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[7]  R. Wodak Gender and discourse , 1999 .

[8]  P. Eckert,et al.  Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice , 1992 .

[9]  M. Goodwin He-Said-She-Said: Talk As Social Organization Among Black Children , 1993 .

[10]  Kathryn Abrams,et al.  Gender Discrimination and the Transformation of Workplace Norms , 1989 .

[11]  Deborah Cameron,et al.  Theoretical Debates in Feminist Linguistics: Questions of Sex and Gender , 1997 .

[12]  D. Cameron Why is language a feminist issue , 1993 .

[13]  W. O'barr,et al.  Rules versus relationships : the ethnography of legal discourse , 1991 .

[14]  J. Butler Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , 1990 .

[15]  S. Fisher A Discourse of the Social: Medical Talk/Power Talk/Oppositional Talk? , 1991 .

[16]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation , 1978 .

[17]  R. Wodak Introduction: Some important issues in the research of gender and discourse. , 1997 .

[18]  S. Gal,et al.  BETWEEN SPEECH AND SILENCE: The problematics of research on language and gender , 1989 .