It is no wonder that because of the dominant male-oriented language that woman and minorities are not heard. Even worse, when they are listened to, women are perceived as not being worth the time it takes to be understood.

So how does Muted Group theory relate to my experiences and my understanding of our society? From my perspective, Muted Group theory explains why I, as a woman, have had a difficult time being accepted into and becoming a part of an organization whose rules have been constructed primarily by a white, male-dominated world. In this theory, males are the cause of women’s mutedness because they do not want to understand any language but the one created and constructed by them. Men do not want to acknowledge that there is a women’s "language" because by acknowledging a woman’s language men would have to give up some of their power to women and this would be difficult if not impossible for most males.

As a legal assistant a few years back, I had the opportunity to work with a lawyer who was defending workers who had suffered worker’s rights violations from their employers. What I found rather ironic in this job situation was that two of the male attorneys in the office spent much of their time defending women through arbitration, mediation or litigation because of sexual harassment or job discrimination. One might think that this was an ideal working environment, in which I would have been treated with the utmost respect, certainly listened to, and treated as a valuable member of the law firm. However, this was not the case. The only time I was listened to is when we talked football or talked about other macho male-related subjects.

The office consisted of four attorneys, three males and one female. There were three female legal assistants. Interestingly, the male attorney that I worked with responded very favorably to me when I carried myself in a feminine manner. He was cordial and charming and oftentimes acknowledged my intelligence but appeared to be extremely intimidated when I would approach him to talk about the cases that were open. The other legal assistant who worked for another male attorney was treated the same way that I was treated.

In spite of the way we female assistants were treated, the female attorney was not treated differently by the male attorneys. This difference in treatment was perhaps the result of her approach to them as one of the "men" in the office. She was holding a "male" role and took on that role by her behaviors and actions. However, when she dealt with her assistant or either of the other assistants, she spoke to us as one of the women in the office. The two male attorneys left her alone to her work and never, ever asked her to do anything for them. The two male attorneys treated the female attorney’s legal assistant in the same manner that they treated the female attorney. She was heard and listened to and her ideas and suggestions were oftentimes implemented. It was interesting that even when I came up with the same suggestion, I was not heard.

This case at hand is an easy one to assess according to Muted Group theory. If we take into consideration the main premises of Muted Group theory and apply them to the above case we will see the following which was conveniently found on the Internet (http://chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/mutedgrp.html).

1. Men and women perceive the world differently because they have different perception shaping experiences. Those different experiences are a result of men and women performing different tasks in society.
2. Men enact their power politically, perpetuating their power and suppressing women’s ideas and meanings from gaining public acceptance.
3. Women must convert their unique ideas, experiences, and meanings into male language in order to be heard (p. 1).

In response to the first view above, it was apparent that there were very different tasks being performed by the attorneys and the legal assistants. In fact, these roles are not only accepted but also expected in our society. The males have the powerful position of being an attorney while the females are in the servicing role to these power positions. When females take on these roles, they appear, dress, act, and talk like males. By doing so, they are accepted into the power structure and can be heard, not as women, but as a "different group of men."

As young children, we are conditioned to perform according to our biological expectations in our adult life. Men take care of the family through monetary contribution and women take care of the family through nurturing contributions. One might think that this view of roles in our society is rapidly changing. However, there are many statistics that show that these changes are not happening as quickly as we would want. Although I don’t have a reference for this statistic, it is a well-known fact that women still make only seventy-five cents for every dollar a man makes in an equal position. If women were indeed perceived as equals to men in our society this number would be consistently changing and becoming more equal. In the last couple of years the number has actually decreased only a few cents on the dollar for women.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that in our society men still have the majority of power positions. Women are still a muted group. There is no getting around this point at this time.

The second assumption above discusses power from another perspective, that men sustain their power to some extent by suppressing women’s positions on issues within the organization. In this situation, the powerful attorneys suppressed the ideas that their female assistants had by pretending to listen to them, but in actuality, they did not really hear what the women had to say. This is known because no action was ever taken as a result of any of the recommendations made by either of the two female assistants of the male attorneys. In contrast to the above, the legal assistant who worked for the female attorney was listened to by the male attorneys because she was viewed as a representative of the female attorney, and she had learned how to behave in a more "male-like" manner by working for the female attorney.

Another example of the political power exercised by the male attorney that I worked for is the many times that he actually put down what I was saying in front of clients. Here he was suppressing my ideas so that he would gain the acceptance of his clients.

The third assumption that "Women must convert their unique ideas, experiences, and meanings into male language in order to be heard" is the easiest to understand in this case. Quite simply, the female attorney changed how she talked and reacted to these male attorneys so they could relate to her. Had you taken her words and nonverbal communication, they would have been comparable to that which would have been expected from a male. Additionally, by becoming a professional in a male-dominated profession, that in itself connoted a "maleness."

Another point that is important to make here is that this particular female attorney, who was extremely sensitive to female issues, understood the men and their positions more than the men understood her position. She was able to fit in because she understood the male system well enough to be one step ahead of the male attorneys.

Because this female attorney was able to work with her legal assistant from a woman’s perspective and understanding, the power between the two was more equally distributed. The way she postured herself with the male attorneys allowed her legal assistant to be viewed very similarly. Indeed this was a very interesting case to compare to the Muted Group theory.

On one hand, two of the females in the office fell into the deep, dark tunnels of the Muted Group theory while two of the other females broke through the darkness into the light. But did they? They still had to express themselves from a male perspective, thereby giving up their female qualities to fit into a man’s world. Ultimately the men still had the power. Whose language were the females speaking when they communicated with the men? When the women were together they talked their own language, one that they did not use around the men. However, when they spoke with the men and wanted to be heard they spoke the men’s language, that of power and politics.

According to the Muted Group theory, a review of these three assumptions finds that the women in this case study were muted albeit at different level of mutedness! It is no wonder that language for many women in the workplace is their biggest barrier to being promoted into more powerful positions. A promotion in this case study might not change the structure of the attorney/legal assistant tasks at hand, but merely be looked at as a change in the power structure as being more equal or actually more male-like.

In my most humble opinion, I tend to agree with the Muted Group theory and I believe that this theory pertains to our society as a whole today. It is a step in the right direction to change. Kramarae (1996, 1981, 1974) has been studying Muted Group theory for almost 25 years, and there has not been an earth shattering change in the way our society sees and responds to women. Because of this, I believe this theory’s concepts should continue to be studied and examined even more. I would challenge anyone to answer some important questions before they express that our society listens to women differently, especially in the workplace.

Why would men want to change what they perceive as a good thing? The good is their power. Why would men want to share that power with women especially in the workplace? If you are comfortable in the bed that you are sleeping in, would you go out and buy a new one that might not be as comfortable? If you throw away the old bed for the new bed, you can’t get it back. Men are in a very comfortable position, one that I don’t believe they will give up without a fight. They are not going to give up their power without a battle. After answering these questions can you truly say that our society views women differently in the 1990s than they did in the 1970s?

Again I will refer to an article that I found on the Internet on Muted Group theory (http://chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/mutedgrp.html) where they talk about the premises and assumptions of this theory that lead to the following hypotheses about women’s communication:

1. Women have a more difficult time expressing themselves than do men.
2. Women understand what men mean more easily than men understand what women mean.
3. Women communicate with each other using media not accepted by the dominant male communicators.
4. Women are less satisfied with communication than are men.
5. Women are not likely to create new words, but sometimes do so to create meanings special and unique to women (p. 1).

Reviewing these five hypotheses makes one think about the studies that can be and need to be done in order to come up with ways that will enable women to take their rightful place in the workplace and in our society.

A power shift leading to a more equal power position for men and women will not happen if men feel they are taking a chance on losing their power. Rather a more sensitive (a woman’s word!) way to accomplish this equality could be achieved through research and implementation of new techniques that will enable both men and women to become equal partners in the creation and use of language. Once language has shifted and become more equal, the power shift will eventually happen.

At any rate, we are at the beginning of a new way to understand how to approach this change. But change without a total disruption of a system in place takes time.

When I began working in the seventies women were to be seen and not heard. I found myself continuously being put into secretarial positions oftentimes doing all of the same work as my male supervisor or boss. Interestingly, no matter how quickly I learned the job or how efficiently I performed my duties, the mailroom mail boy was promoted to those positions that I was more qualified for. This was just the way it was in the seventies.

Interestingly in the 1980s because of the women’s movement, some of the expectations of women began to change. Women began to find themselves in management and upper level positions. They were typically paid lower salaries than their male counterparts and they still were not heard. This was the eighties

Here we are in the nineties. Things just haven’t changed that much for women. Yes, it is true that college age women are aware of what they want as far as their careers are concerned. These goals appear reachable within the college environment. Unfortunately in the real business world, women begin to understand the Muted Group theory because they now work within the power structure of older generations. As much as Muted Group theory helps us to understand power and its structure, it doesn’t explain how to get around those situations.

There are some limitations to Muted Group theory. Muted Group theory does not explain all the interactions that are possible to obtain goals within an organization. If women use techniques with which they are inherently strong, they can often overcome the male power play. Some of these techniques include communication, cooperation and collaboration. Rather than mimicking male strengths of power plays, women can use their unique strengths to accomplish wins within the business world. These wins offset the male wins and can force the males to acknowledge and accept women as valuable members of the workforce. The alternative is that a male who resists will be forced out.

Another limitation as I see it is although this theory explains who, what and where most muted groups can be found, it appears that even the very powerful men who muted group theory refer to can also find themselves in a powerless situations at times. In these situations they become the muted group.

Knowing what you want is important but knowing isn’t necessarily getting. It is through this Muted Group theory and the work of dedicated people like Kramarae and other feminists that will help our society change their views. This takes time and only time will tell.

References

Griffin, E. M. (1991). A first look at communication theory (3^rd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

ISU Communication Studies. (n.d.). Context of communication. Muted Group Theory Information Page. <http://chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/mutedgrp.html> (1998, April 8).

Kramarae, C. (1996). Classified information: Race, class, and (always) gender. In J. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships (pp. 20-38). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kramer, C. (1974, June). Folk-Linguistics: Wishy-washy mommy talk. Psychology Today, 82-85.

Copyright notice