🔊 Listen to this article

In 1975, sociologists Don Zimmerman and Candace West studied a total of 31 conversations and found that in the 11 conversations between men and women, women were interrupted by men in 10. All conversations were recorded in public spaces and hence were of informal nature. This is one of the oldest research studies that highlighted social power dynamics existing between men and women in ‘conversation’. In the 7 faculty meetings recorded and analysed by Eakins and Eakins (1976), they observed that while men interrupted more women than vice versa, they also found men spoke more than women did. This ‘interruption’ is institutional at its core and is reinforced at various levels and setups. Other studies also corroborate that even in formal setups men are more likely to interrupt women than men. These ‘interruptions’ surface in many forms – from being talked over, answering on a woman’s behalf, repeating a woman’s words (ideas) or by talking down to women, colloquially referred to as mansplaining – all insidious ways and efforts to demerit, ignore or at times silence women. When problematizing interruptions at workplace, Aries (1996) concurred with the above findings. She further added that interruptions at workplace occur from economics and insecurity stemming from competition layered with internal biases.

As “male behaviour has traditionally been seen as the norm and in need of no particular advice or attention” (Goddard & Patterson, 2000), female behaviour is seen as opposing and antithetical to the defined “norm”. Thus, arises the need for female behaviour to be controlled and conformed to serve this “norm”. An interruption in this sense would almost mean a reprimand, an indicator of conversational dominance and the power one holds over setting precedence or decision making. This reprimand took a violent form in the public shaming of Dopdi in Mahasweta Devi’s rendition and became feudal in the disciplining of Benare in Tendulkar’s Marathi play Shantata! Court chalu aahe. Though, this is not to say that harmless or casual interruptions do not exist. The difference lies in where one constricts the right to speak of another and thus, the control over narrative. Systems of power create relations, frameworks and structures where language is a tool for both the powerful and the suppressed. Using these structures, power represents and reasserts itself. Examples of gender-based censorship transcend through history. Virginia Woolf in ‘A Room of One’s Own’ wrote about the hostility attributed by the male dominated world of literature towards the literary works of women. Axiomatic even in today’s modern era, women are far more subjected to violence and abuse on social media. The form of abuse intensifies when the subject of abuse is a woman belonging to a minority background (race, caste, sexual orientation, age etc.).

Some argue that the presence of more women at workplace would certainly sensitise those around about internalised prejudices against women. It is, however more complex than it appears. What is incredibly agonizing is that research shows that both men and women are likely to interrupt and use dependent clauses towards women than men, going on to show the different standards women and men are held to. It also reveals a striking fact for us all, we feel more comfortable “interrupting” a woman. While gender predates capitalism, such power dynamics have been exacerbated in a capitalistic design which primarily exploits the labour of women. In this respect, representation is only operative and is tokenism at best, if there are no processes in place to challenge these unequal dynamics. Politics and representation are tricky subtleties.

Discriminatory undertones of such ‘interruptions’ extend and reflect in female labour force participation, the pay gap and the social perceptions around work. India for example, has the lowest female labour force participation in the world according to a World Bank report in 2017. The legions of lean-in feminists would argue that having more women in the workforce would contribute an X% to the economy or having more women at leadership positions would lead to perception change. The oddity of this argument lies in the transition of viewing a woman as a human being once economic value is added to the equation. As one can see with the feminisation of workforce in certain sectors (informal jobs, hospitality etc.), they cannot be held as a yardstick for a feminist work environment. Capitalism would continue to harp on the inequalities patriarchy offers and the ethos of gender politics would remain misunderstood. While there is no one kind of solution, being mindful of one’s actions especially interruptions, is the easiest step most can take but often do not. Gender after all, is a social construct.

 

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of CBGA. You can reach Sakshi Rai at sakshi@cbgaindia.org.