“But when we come to consider the history of man, was not the Negro a power, was he not great once?”

- Marcus Garvey

“He (Negro Writer) is being called upon to do no less than create values by which his race is to struggle, live and die”

- Richard Wright

Upon first appearance, one may observe the statements of Garvey and Wright as libratory messages for African people. This observation is accurate because both writers stress the importance of self-determination for African people. In spite of such uplifting messages, one must ponder why Garvey and Wright use masculine language (he, man, his) in order to define all people? In a society plagued by social and linguistic constructions, Garvey and Wright (like all people) are functions of the existing world. In other words, if society has determined that a hegemonic, patriarchal system will rein all facets of life, then the people of this society will generally act accordingly. In relation to linguistics, this theory applies because one’s language reflects one’s perception of society.

            To answer why Garvey and Wright use masculine language for generalization purposes, one must observe The Declaration of Independence. Viewed upon as the foundation for The United States, this document states the following:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" ?>Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among MEN, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Established by white MALE landowners for white MALE landowners, the founders of The United States of America were an esoteric, ethnocentric group who imposed their views upon other people. If these founders advocated for a patriarchal society, then their language will reflect such.  One can now understand how the statement, “people are functions of their existing society,” relates to Garvey and Wright. These authors like many black and white authors use generalized masculine language because the basis of American society is male dominated.

            Are women incapable of leadership, making it necessary to use generalized sexist language for all people? No, rather women have been socially constructed as incapable of leadership as the basis of American society refutes female leadership. It is imperative for ALL people to possess a more critical awareness of sexist language within our literature and discussions, as continued use only maintains a patriarchal society. Moreover, deconstruction of sexist language not only annihilates subtle male privilege, but it also propels everyone towards an egalitarian world.

Part II: “Common Lingo”

            Imagine a woman who greets her all-male class with, “How are you ladies doing today?” Now, picture a woman who greets her all-female class with, “How are you GUYS doing today?” The first statement seems unrealistic to many because it is not accepted within western, hegemonic social discourse. In contrast, the second statement is socially accepted because the foundation of western culture is male-dominated (hence the language reflects patriarchal dominance). Like Marcus Garvey and Richard Wright, we are products of the society that we live in. Hence, if the standard of our world reflects patriarchal discourse, then we typically use such language.              

            According to Ronald Barthes, “every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law, whether natural or not, which forbids talking about things.” In other words, language is a social construction that formulates from repeated use. For instance, man could be called woman, or other agreed upon terms, if people did not already agree to view men as men, and women as women. This statement may be difficult to conceptualize since the basis of our society propels hegemonic, patriarchal discourse as the standard. In addition to the complexities within gender constructions, one must note how the results of such constructions grant privilege to men. For example, women (let alone African women) are commonly left out HIStory (coincidence?), thus their stories, experiences, and ideological positions are also left out.  How often are students taught about the lives of Nzingha, Yaa Asantewa, or Maria Stewart? The answer is rarely, as socially important markers of the past generally reflect the lives of men.