Startseite Damned if feminists do, damned if feminists don’t? Political significance of institutional inclusive writing guidelines in a Belgian francophone university
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Damned if feminists do, damned if feminists don’t? Political significance of institutional inclusive writing guidelines in a Belgian francophone university

  • Pauline Dupret

    Pauline Dupret is a F.R.S.-FNRS research fellow (PhD student) at UCLouvain. She holds an M.A. in Language and Cultural Diversity from King’s College London and an M.A. in Romance Languages and Literatures from UCLouvain. Her research interests lie in discourse analysis, especially in relation to gender and sexuality issues. She is currently studying Belgian non-profits’ discourses about sex work/prostitution, with critical attention paid to contemporary feminist and queer thoughts. Previously, she was also involved in research projects about asylum centres’ communication and Belgian politicians’ discourses.

    EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 4. Februar 2025

Abstract

Over the last decades, some feminists have put pressure on key institutions to convince them to adopt a particular type of linguistic policy, namely inclusive writing guidelines. These guidelines have nevertheless been criticized – by other militants and academics – for risking of falling short of their radical goal, or of their political one altogether. It is therefore worth asking the following question again, in a francophone and contemporary setting: can the implementation of institutional inclusive writing guidelines help pave future developments regarding gender equality, or is it offering a mere formal change of language? This paper starts by presenting a discursive study of the way multiple metadiscourses were juxtaposed and entwined within two sets of a university’s guidelines. Then, two in-depth interviews with the advisor for gender policy of the university offer insights into the institutional process of producing the guidelines, and their recontextualization in workshops. While the first part of the study shows that the “zero discrimination” discourse is largely dominant and absorbs other competing discourses, the analysis of the interviews points to attempts to prevent the guidelines’ total depoliticization. These guidelines turn out to be a hybrid political object, which raises questions about the institutional process of legitimating one type of feminism over others and also invites to reflect on institutional linguistic prescriptivism (verbal hygiene) more generally.


Corresponding author: Pauline Dupret, Institut Langage et Communication (ILC) – UCLouvain, Place Blaise Pascal 1/L3.03.33 (office c.380), 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, E-mail:

About the author

Pauline Dupret

Pauline Dupret is a F.R.S.-FNRS research fellow (PhD student) at UCLouvain. She holds an M.A. in Language and Cultural Diversity from King’s College London and an M.A. in Romance Languages and Literatures from UCLouvain. Her research interests lie in discourse analysis, especially in relation to gender and sexuality issues. She is currently studying Belgian non-profits’ discourses about sex work/prostitution, with critical attention paid to contemporary feminist and queer thoughts. Previously, she was also involved in research projects about asylum centres’ communication and Belgian politicians’ discourses.

Acknowledgement

The writing of this article was made possible thanks to a research fellow grant received from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS).

References

Abbou, Julie, Aron Arnold, Maria Candea & Marignier Noémie. 2018. Qui a peur de l’écriture inclusive ? Entre délire eschatologique et peur d’émasculation. Semen 44. 133–151.10.4000/semen.10800Suche in Google Scholar

Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham: Duke University Press.10.1515/9780822395324Suche in Google Scholar

Bauman, Richard & Charles L. Briggs. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.19.1.59.Suche in Google Scholar

Bereni, Laure. 2021. The women’s cause in a field: Rethinking the architecture of collective protest in the era of movement institutionalization. Social Movement Studies 20(2). 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2019.1679107.Suche in Google Scholar

Burnett, Heather & Céline Pozniak. 2021. Political dimensions of gender inclusive writing in Parisian universities. Journal of Socio Linguistics 25(5). 808–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12489.Suche in Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah. 1998a. Lost in translation: Non-sexist language. In Deborah Cameron (ed.), The feminist critique of language: A reader, 155–163. London & New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah. 1998b. Feminist linguistic theories. In Stevi Jackson & Jackie Jones (eds.), Contemporary feminist theories, 147–161. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474469500-011Suche in Google Scholar

Cameron, Deborah. 2023. Verbal hygiene. In Joan Beal, Morana Lukač & Robin Straaijer (eds.), The routledge Handbook of linguistic prescriptivism, 17–30. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003095125-3Suche in Google Scholar

Crémier, Loïs. 2023. Ce qu’iels font au neutre: Analyse sémiotique des guides de communication inclusive au Québec francophone actuel. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal Unpublished PhD thesis. Available at: https://archipel.uqam.ca/16757/.10.4000/glad.6266Suche in Google Scholar

Ehrlich, Susan. 2012. Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review 31(1). 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2012-0003.Suche in Google Scholar

Ehrlich, Susan & Ruth King. 1994. Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon. Language in Society 23(1). 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s004740450001767x.Suche in Google Scholar

Elmiger, Daniel. 2021. Y a-t-il un guide dans la rédaction. GLAD! 10. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4000/glad.2800.Suche in Google Scholar

Lillis, Theresa & Janet Maybin. 2017. Introduction: The dynamics of textual trajectories in professional and workplace practice. Text & Talk 37(4). 409–414. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0017.Suche in Google Scholar

Maybin, Janet. 2017. Textual trajectories: Theoretical roots and institutional consequences [pre-publication version]. Text & Talk 37(4). 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0011.Suche in Google Scholar

Mots-Clés. 2019. Manuel d’écriture inclusive. Faites progresser l’égalité femmes·hommes par votre manière d’écrire. https://www.motscles.net/ecriture-inclusive.Suche in Google Scholar

Ordorika, Imanol & Brian Pusser. 2020. Keynote conversation: Advancing the conversation on the politics of higher education. In Leasa Weimer & Terhi Nokkala (eds.), Universities as political institutions, 107–137. Leyde: Brill.10.1163/9789004422582_006Suche in Google Scholar

Park, Joseph Sung-Yul & Mary Bucholtz. 2009. Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk 29(5). 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.026.Suche in Google Scholar

Pauwels, Anne. 1998. Women changing language. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Tual, Morgane. 2018. Google attaqué pour discrimination envers les hommes blancs conservateurs. Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/01/09/google-attaque-pour-discrimination-envers-les-hommes-blancs-conservateurs_5239425_4408996.html (accessed 22 January 2025).Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-09-05
Accepted: 2025-01-13
Published Online: 2025-02-04
Published in Print: 2025-07-28

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 27.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2023-0171/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen