‘It is this ignorance we have to fight’

emergent gender normativities in an interview with Greek transgender activists

Authors

  • Stamatina Katsiveli Queen Mary University of London

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18949

Keywords:

gender normativity, transgender, Conversation Analysis, Membership Categorisation Analysis, news interviews, Greece, infrapolitics

Abstract

Growing legal LGBTQI+ representation in Greece is systematically targeted by Greek homophobic and transphobic nationalism, commonly articulated in public by (far) rightwing politicians and church representatives. The present article brings into attention a more subtle way in which discriminatory discourses make their way into the public sphere, disguised behind progressive narratives of inclusivity. I examine an interview with two transgender activists on the occasion of the gender recognition law passed in Greece in 2017. According to the journalist, the interview seeks ‘to fight ignorance’ and, by extension, transphobia. Drawing on conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis, I identify two discursive strategies through which the journalist disrupts his initial framing: (1) elaborated questions which invoke and assume gender normativity and (2) references to the overhearing audience, which assume (and reproduce) a generalised scepticism regarding transgender identity. This interview instantiates a new powerful genre of politics in disguise which deserves attention and requires nuanced interactional analysis in order to be traced and unpacked.

Author Biography

Stamatina Katsiveli, Queen Mary University of London

Stamatina Katsiveli is a PhD student at Queen Mary University of London. Her research focuses on the intersection of gender/sexuality and national belonging in (Greek) talk-in-interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. In her PhD thesis she investigates the intersectional experience of Greek LGB individuals as it is locally constructed in talk through membership categorisation practices, person reference and stance-taking.

References

Billig, Michael (1999) Whose terms? whose ordinariness? rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society 10(4): 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004005

Bolinger, Dwight (1978) Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Henry Hiz (ed) Questions 87–105. Boston: D. Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9509-3_3

Borba, Rodrigo (2017) Ex-centric textualities and rehearsed narratives at a gender identity clinic in Brazil: challenging discursive colonization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(3): 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12236

Borba, Rodrigo (2019) The interactional making of a ‘true transsexual’: language and (dis)identification in trans-specific healthcare. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2019(256): 21–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-2011

Bucholtz, Mary (2019) The public life of white affects. Journal of Sociolinguistics 23(5): 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12392

Calder, Jeremy (2020) Language, gender and sexuality in 2019: interrogating normativities in the field. Gender and Language 14(4): 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18634

Canakis, Costas (2013) The ‘national body’: language and sexuality in the Balkan national narrative. In Fotini Tsibiridou and Nikitas Palantzas (eds) Myths of the Other in the Balkans: Representations, Social Practices, Performances 305–320. Thessaloniki: balkanmyth.com.

Clayman, Steven E. (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. In Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings 63–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, Steven E. (2010) Questioning in broadcast journalism. In Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function Questions in Institutional Discourse 256–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0012

Clayman, Steven E. and Heritage, John (2002a) Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x

Clayman, Steven E. and Heritage, John (2002b) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623

Ehrlich, Susan and Freed, Alice F. (2010) The function of questions in institutional discourse: an introduction. In Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306897.003.0001

Epstein, Edward Jay (1973) News from Nowhere: Television and the News. New York: Random House.

Fairclough, Norman (1998) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.

Gialabouki, Lena (2008) Dimosiografikos Logos ke Diakimenikotita [Journalistic Discourse and Intertextuality]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Gialabouki, Lena and Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (2019) Beyond answering: interviewees’ use of questions in TV political interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 151: 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.07.014

Goffman, Erving (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving (1981) Footing. In Forms of Talk 124–159. Oxford: Blackwell.

Greatbatch, David (1988) A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society 17(3): 401–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963

Heritage, John (2004) Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data. In D. Silverman (ed) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice 222–245. London: Sage.

Heritage, John and Raymond, Geoffrey (2012) Navigating epistemic landscapes: acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In Jan P. De Ruiter (ed) Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013

Hutchby, Ian (2011) Non-neutrality and argument in the hybrid political interview. Discourse Studies 13(3): 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611400665

Jackson, Clare (2011) The gendered ‘I’. In Susan A. Speer and Elizabeth Stokoe (eds) Conversation and Gender 31–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org//10.1017/CBO9780511781032.003

Jefferson, Gail (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Kantara, Argyro (2012) Adversarial challenges and responses in Greek political interviews. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 5(2): 171–189.

Kitzinger, Celia (2000) Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism and Psychology 10(2): 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010002001

Kitzinger, Celia (2013) Repair. In Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis 229–256. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch12

Mondada, Lorenzo (2019) Conventions for transcribing multimodality. Retrieved from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription

Ostermann, Ana Cristina (2017) ‘No mam. You are heterosexual’: whose language? whose sexuality? Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(3): 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12240

Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (2016) Katagraphodas Tin Eliniki Glossa [Making a Record of the Greek Language]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.

Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (2018) ‘Giati argises toso poli?’ Erotisis me giati sti glosiki diepidrasi. [‘Why are you so late?’ Why-questions in (Greek) ordinary conversations.] In T.-S. Pavlidou (ed.), Erotisis-Apadisis sti Glosiki Diepidrasi [Questions-Answers in Talk-in-Interaction] 60–81. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.

Pomerantz, Anita (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.008

Raymond, Chase Wesley (2019a) Category accounts: identity and normativity in sequences of action. Language in Society 48(4): 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000368

Raymond, Chase Wesley (2019b) Intersubjectivity, normativity, and grammar. Social Psychology Quarterly 82(2): 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519850781

Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2016) Accountability in interaction. In Jeffrey D. Robinson (ed) Accountability in Social Interaction 1–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0001

Sacks, Harvey (1992) Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II. Gail Jefferson and Emanuel A. Schegloff, eds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Jefferson, Gail (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208

Scott, James C. (1990) Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Scott, James C. (2012) Infrapolitics and mobilizations: a response by James C. Scott. Revue Française d Etudes Américaines 131: 112–117. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfea.131.0112

Speer, Susan A. (2005) Gender Talk: Feminism, Discourse and Conversation Analysis. London: Routledge.

Speer, Susan A. (2010) Pursuing views and testing commitments: hypothetical questions in the psychiatric assessment of transsexual patients. In Alice F. Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds) ‘Why Do You Ask?’: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse 133–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Speer, Susan A. and Stokoe, Elizabeth (eds) (2011) Conversation and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, Tanya and Rossano, Federico (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258

Stokoe, Elizabeth (2000) Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism and Psychology 10(4): 552–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353500010004018

Stokoe, Elizabeth (2006) On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. Sociological Review 54(3): 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00626.x

Stokoe, Elizabeth (2012) Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3): 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534

Tennent, Emma and Weatherall, Ann (2019) Disclosing violence in calls for help. Gender and Language 13(2): 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.35106

Wetherell, Margaret (1998) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005

Published

2021-07-13

How to Cite

Katsiveli, S. . (2021). ‘It is this ignorance we have to fight’: emergent gender normativities in an interview with Greek transgender activists. Gender and Language, 15(2), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18949

Issue

Section

Articles