Zurich votes on gender in official texts. The fronts are hardened, the positions are clear. But a sociological look shows: the problem lies deeper.
Today, November 24, 2024, a referendum in the Swiss canton of Zurich will decide whether the “inclusive” spelling using a gender star introduced for the city administration in June 2022 should be retained or banned from official communication (“Bye gender star“).
Advertisement
This offers reason enough to once again look at gender-appropriate ways of writing and speaking. However, given the intensive discussions that have taken place in recent years, this topic appears to have been discussed ad nauseam. The positions seem to be clear.
Proponents argue that gendering, on the one hand, promotes the inclusion and visibility of all genders in language by breaking the dominance of the generic masculine. It reflects social change towards greater equality and diversity. Gender-fair formulations are intended to raise awareness of gender equality and counteract stereotypes.
Critics, however, complain that gendered texts are often more difficult to read and understand, especially when gender symbols such as asterisks or colons are used. This can disrupt the flow of reading and make communication difficult.
Some see gendering as an unnecessary interference with the established language structure and argue that the generic masculine already includes all genders. In addition, the artificiality of some gendered formulations is criticized.
In order to bring a new aspect to the discussions, we look at the phenomenon from a sociological perspective. Using the communication theory of the sociologist and systems theorist Niklas Luhmann1, we analyze the social requirements and consequences associated with gender-equitable communication.
From a systems theory perspective, any form of communication is understood as a chain or synthesis of three selections – namely information, communication and understanding.
Communication is considered understood (which includes misunderstanding) when a distinction is made between information and communication, which enables the selection of further communication, i.e. follow-up communication.
Not knowing a language (such as Chinese) means that messages cannot be distinguished from information and therefore remain incomprehensible.
Nevertheless, despite all the lack of understanding, a foreign language can still be understood as communication by distinguishing it from mastered languages in which a distinction can be made between information and communication.
What is characteristic of any form of communication is that, on the one hand, it has a self-referential component related to the personality of the person communicating through the “message” component.
On the other hand, communication with “information” includes an externally referential component aimed at facts and objectivity. Similarly, in linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure distinguished between signifier (signifier) and signified (signified).
It is important to emphasize that the communicative components do not have a determining character (among each other). Therefore, selections can be assumed in this context, which can easily be illustrated with an example.
In couple relationships, the following dialogue could take place: “I did the dishes last night.” – “Ok, very good, the dishes have already piled up; the fat from the pan was probably difficult to remove.” In this case, the follow-up communication is obviously linked to the externally referential, informative aspect.
However, the sentence (in long-term marital relationships) may also be understood in a completely different way and thus trigger different follow-up communication: “Well bravo, should I award you a medal now?” – “You know very well that I always do the dishes, you hardly ever take part in the household work.”
Here the component of communication, the self-referential, personal aspect of communication is connected. What is more important in understanding here is not what is said, but who says it.
The possibility of communication, on the one hand focusing on the personal aspect (“communication”) and on the other hand on the factual aspect (“information”), is by no means trivial. As a result of this option for accentuation, functionally different communicative spheres or functional systems have become differentiated in modern society.
Moral and scientific communication can be understood as antipodes. In science it is about, if not eliminating, the personality-related aspect of communication, then at least minimizing its influence if possible.
Functionally, this ensures that (as always: provisional) scientific truths have a factual, supra-individual character and are not attributable to individual idiosyncrasies, be it reputation.
The same applies in science If possible, the assessment process is carried out anonymouslyor individual misconduct, such as falsifying research results for the sake of reputation, is taken into account punished with severe moral disregard. In addition, methods are used that keep the influence of researchers on the (empirical) research results as low as possible and thus ensure objectivity.
In contrast to science, moral communication oriented towards valid social values is always related to individual personality and is therefore oriented towards the aspect of “communication” of communication.
Functionally, morality is about assigning respect or disregard individually. The second answer to the example sentence about washing dishes above has a moral character. Morality, in the spirit of a “cancel culture”, must ignore or negate factual objections (“extenuating circumstances”) in order to leave no doubts about the validity of their judgments.
In other social spheres, too, apart from the extreme forms of morality and science in this sense, different emphases in the orientation towards personality or objectivity can be identified, based on the function of these social systems.
In keeping with their function of announcing new information, mass media generally tend to emphasize the informative, external-referential aspect of communication.
However, this does not mean that the aspect of “communication” (who said it?) does not play a central role here. For example, different news channels differentiate themselves (e.g. newspapers, television stations, influencers), which have different reputations for communicating valid information.
In religion, often oriented towards individual spiritual salvation, a personal language that relates to individuals prevails. However, as the history of Christianity shows, this makes this form of communication extremely vulnerable to morality; for example, by using the schema to assign good/evil individual respect or disregard.
In art, at least according to the artists themselves, the works should “speak for themselves”, i.e. a factual orientation should prevail, in which artists, so to speak, step back from their works.
In view of the difficult factual assessment of modern works of art (“My three-year-old daughter could have painted that”), at least in the economic, profit-oriented observation of art, a form that is extremely focused on personality has emerged. Not only the reputation of the artists themselves plays a role, but also the reputation of the institutions, such as galleries and art critics, who construct their reputation.
These examples may be enough to better assess the consequences and motivations of gender.
If the aim is to comprehensively establish gender in speech and writing, social corruption through morality through morality must be assumed.
Gendering in this sense systematically emphasizes the aspect of “communication” of communication (“Who said it?”) without taking into account the functionality of different forms of communication in society. This happens solely because of the emphasis on personality at the expense of the informative aspect of communication.
This may make sense in view of the functionality of moral communication. With regard to scientific communication, for example, in which the influence of personal, idiosyncratic “truths” should be eliminated as much as possible, an accentuation of personality should usually be rejected, although here too the reputation of scientists plays a role that should not be underestimated.
Gendering is particularly problematic in the social sphere of the mass media given its functionality – namely to inform. However, this does not exclude greater emphasis on personal views in opinion articles or columns.
A balanced relationship between “information” and “communication” also seems to make sense in politics. Ultimately, it is not only a matter of who the generally binding regulations are addressed to, but also what the facts are.
Finally, the question should be asked: How has society changed so that a somewhat delimited, imperial character of moral communication is acceptable to large circles?
This was clearly visible at the Controversy surrounding the translation of a poem by black poet Amanda Gorman as part of the inauguration of US President Joe Biden. The focus was not on the factual question of the translators’ competence, but rather on their morally charged personal suitability in terms of their gender or skin color.
One thesis is that the now socially dominant form of digital communication, which requires the penetration of society across functional spheres through stable user profiles, leads to an accentuation of personality or the aspect of “communication” in communication.2
Given the stability of user profiles – compared to the volatility of the information conveyed through them – and the reputation that can be accumulated on these profiles over years, it is becoming increasingly important who says something, not what is said.
This social development can be seen most recently with the election of Donald Trump as President of the USA. It is obvious It’s completely arbitrary what Trump communicates objectively (“Grab ’em by the pussy”); What matters is who communicates: a person who is morally deeply objectionable for opponents, a person worthy of respect and even worthy of glorification for Trump’s supporters.
The increasing reproduction of modern society by means of digital communication means that person-oriented, moral communication is gaining dominance at the expense of informativeness and objectivity.
Jörg Räwel is a sociologist. His current research interests include the application of evolutionary theories in the social sciences, the development of social media communication theories, and the study of social change caused by the “digitalization” of society. He is a Research Fellow at the Next Society Institute at Kazimieras Simonavičius University in Vilnius.
Current publication: Räwel, J. (2022), The next society: Social evolution through digitalizationVelbrück Science.
How does the article’s distinction between “informative” and “communicative” aspects of communication apply to the rise of “fake news” and its impact on public discourse?
This is a fascinating and complex article that touches on many important issues. Here are some open-ended questions to encourage discussion and different viewpoints, divided into thematic sections:
**Section 1: Understanding Communication**
* The author distinguishes between the “informative” and “communicative” aspects of communication. Do you find this distinction helpful? Can you think of examples where these aspects are clearly in tension?
* How does the author’s definition of “communication” relate to concepts like persuasion, manipulation, and emotional expression?
**Section 2: Morality and Objectivity**
* The article argues that moral communication prioritizes the “who” over the “what.” Do you agree with this characterization? How does this play out in different social contexts?
* Can science truly be objective? What are the potential downsides to striving for complete objectivity in fields like science and journalism?
* The author suggests that “cancel culture” ignores “factual objections.” Do you agree? Can any form of social criticism be truly free from emotional judgment?
**Section 3: The Impact of Digital Communication**
* The article claims that digital communication emphasizes personality over information. What evidence supports this claim? Do you see this trend as positive or negative?
* How has social media changed the way we evaluate the credibility of information? What are the implications for democracy and public discourse?
* The example of Donald Trump is presented as a case study of personality triumphing over facts. Do you think this is a unique phenomenon, or a trend that is becoming more common?
**Section 4: Broader Societal Implications**
* What are the potential consequences of a society where moral communication becomes dominant? How might this affect our ability to solve complex problems and make informed decisions?
* The author suggests that digital communication is driving this shift towards personality-driven discourse. Do you think there are other contributing factors?
* What can be done to encourage more thoughtful and nuanced communication in our increasingly digital world?
**Interviewer Notes:**
* Be prepared to share your own insights and opinions.
* Encourage respectful debate and acknowledge different perspectives.
* Focus on understanding the complexities of the issues rather than seeking definitive answers.
* Consider inviting others with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to join the conversation.
