Back to index of Nerve 24 - Summer 2014

The wrong words, by the wrong man

By Val Walsh

In May 2013 the rebuilt Liverpool Central Library opened, and I went along to a poetry event held in its new foyer, arriving in time to take a look round its new spaces and facilities. On the 1st floor there is a wall of (unattributed) quotations. This one leapt out at me: I was stunned that in a newly built library in 21st Century the planning team had selected such a quotation. There are two significant objections to these words.

First, the use of 'man', as what came to be identified in the 1970s as a false generic, used as if to apply to/include us all, women and men, has been challenged as exclusionary, discriminatory and therefore unacceptable, in the context of growing awareness of gender power issues and the role of language in all equality campaigns (e.g. challenging racism, homophobia, misogyny, disablism, ageism).(1) Depending on the context, it can be replaced by human, humankind, people, etc., or men, where it is specifically men who are being named.

The fact that this quote had been chosen to adorn a wall in the new library indicated that there was no-one in the planning team who was aware of these issues, no-one who saw how inappropriate this choice was, or who was prepared to speak up at the planning stage. I found this shocking and deeply disappointing. Gender-sensitive language is no longer new or odd, but apparently has not penetrated the upper echelons of Liverpool's planners, designers and bureaucrats. What does this quote say to girls and boys today, for example, about their equal opportunities, their dignity and social status, no matter what their gender?

In addition to this linguistic and political objection, is my objection to showcasing the words of this particular man. I was told by the woman Project Manager for the renovation and rebuild, that these are the words of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), who I knew of as a celebrated "father of modern science"(2). My objections to him encompass gender and social class issues, as well as environmental issues.

This is a man whose ideas “were rooted in an emerging market economy that tended to widen the gap between upper and lower social classes."(3)

The utilitarian framework of Francis Bacon would prioritise techniques for control, which were "free of the ethical structures associated with the view of nature as a living being."(4)

In particular, "disorderly woman, like chaotic nature, needed to be controlled",(5) and "Bacon frequently described matter in female imagery, as a 'common harlot'",(6) inviting/requiring control and domination.

"Hierarchy and patriarchy, which supported social inequality in actual 17th Century society, were not even questioned by Bacon."(7)

His influence on the establishment of the white western scientist as elite, male, dominant, patriarchal, and instrumental in the manipulation and exploitation of women and nature has been considerable, enduring and problematic.

For all these reasons, I suggest that these words of Francis Bacon constitute a disastrous and offensive choice for our new public library and should be replaced by something more fitting, more inspiring, more socially sensitive, more relevant for 21st Century Liverpool. And in particular, for a library and the City's children.

Casey Miller & Katy Swift (1976) The Handbook of Non-Sexist Language, Doubleday Publishing, is one of the earliest and most comprehensive guides to gender-sensitive language. Shorter guides were later produced by various UK Trade Unions.

References

1. Casey Miller & Katy Swift (1976) The Handbook of Non-Sexist Language, Doubleday Publishing, is one of the earliest and most comprehensive guides to gender-sensitive language. Shorter guides were later produced by various UK Trade Unions.
2. Carolyn Merchant (1982) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. London, Wildwood House: 164.
3. Ibid.: 80.
4. Ibid..: 111.
5. Ibid.: 127.
6. Ibid.: 171.
7. Ibid.: 176/177.

Printer friendly page

Comments:

Comment left by carol laidlaw on 17th May, 2014 at 10:30
It irritates me when Nerve magazine gets used to promote loopy feminist ideology. This article is the sort of thing that brings the ideal of feminism into disrepute, and isn't worth the space in the magazine. Why can't the resident feminists at the magazine find more relevant targets? It would be strange if Francis Bacon wasn't misogynistic by modern standards, he was of the 17th century and held the dominant attitudes of his time - so what? He isn't particularly famous these days, and hardly has any influence on modern attitudes. Seriously, does Val think local schoolchildren are going to read that quote and start thinking "I see, promoting equal opportunities is wrong because this long-dead white male says so?" Get real. What is she going to complain about next, archive film of Martin Luther King's speeches being televised because he says "Negro" instead of "African American"? For counterbalance, I am proposing to write a series of feminist-themed articles for Nerve, which will be infused with humour, rooted in reality and relevant to the times. I will email Nerve direct with the proposed topics.

Comments are closed on this article