Where are the feminists? Gender-unfair language in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution

Introduction

The 1992 Constitution is the fundamental law of Ghana, in addition to any other statutory and regulatory laws that are enacted and enforced from time to time. As is the case with the constitution of any country, our Constitution embodies our very existence, and those who wrote it must have thought about writing it in a manner that is all-inclusive. In other words, the Constitution addresses the diverse groups of people in the social stratification of Ghana: children and adults, the young and the aged, boys and girls, women and men, the physically challenged and the not physically challenged, the skilled and unskilled, people of different religious persuasions, people of different linguistic backgrounds, and more.

The starting point in addressing this range of diversity in the Constitution is the need to underline the importance of the concepts of equality and fairness. Indeed, as one reads through sections of the Constitution, one gets a sense of the intention to safeguard equality and fairness. Yet, unfortunately, these important constitutional principles are glaringly violated in the Constitution, either consciously or unconsciously, through the use of sexist language (known technically as linguistic sexism), which largely discriminates against women and girls and virtually excludes them.

In the 21st century, after several centuries of feminist struggle to empower women and the girl child, there has been a whirlwind of consciousness around the world about the need to be gender sensitive and to avoid any forms of discrimination against women. It is therefore somewhat surprising for a national constitution to be written in a gender-unfair language, as has been done in the 1992 Constitution. The use of gender-unfair language in the Constitution not only perpetuates inequality. It sadly reinforces gender stereotypes that continue to undermine the potential and growth of Ghanaian women and girls.

In this opinion article, I contest the excessive use of sexist and gender-biased language in the Ghanaian Constitution. I demonstrate that it privileges men over women, promotes erroneous perceptions of the capabilities of women, discriminates against women by restricting the occupational/vocational choices available to them, and ultimately normalises a patriarchal order that will be resisted in any modern society, especially by feminist-minded persons and groups.

What is linguistic sexism in English, and what problems does it pose for our society?

In simple terms, linguistic sexism refers to ways that a language is used to discriminate against one of the sexes. While it is possible for the discriminated party to be male, the phenomenon of linguistic sexism in English has mainly discriminated against females. There are historical reasons for this, especially if we situate sexist language within the broader context of gender studies, and how issues of gender have historically favoured men (the masculine gender) over women (the feminine gender).

Gender is a social construct, and it describes a process whereby a society assigns different roles to the sexes (male/female) and considers such roles to be culturally or naturally befitting or appropriate. For instance, in many African countries (including Ghana), the belief systems of most cultures endorse the idea that men are to provide leadership, resources and protection for the family, while domestic duties such as raising children and keeping the home are primary roles for women.

As a second example, in the 19th century in America, a sharp line was drawn between the sexes in terms of the occupations they could engage in. For example, the practice of law was the preserve of men and court judgements of lawsuits even ruled to deny women from practising law. In a Supreme Court case, Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), the Court upheld a state law denying women the opportunity to practice law and determined that “in the nature of things it is not every citizen of every age, sex and condition that is qualified for every calling and position.” I have cited just two examples here, but such discriminatory role allocation for the sexes, which generally privileges men, has spanned other areas of human existence. They, in fact, go beyond discrimination in the assignment of social roles.

Importantly, discrimination between the genders can also be seen in the way we use language to communicate. As you may know, texts – as any piece of written or spoken language intended for a specific communicative function – can be for good or for evil. In negotiations, language can be used to resolve a problem or escalate it. In court, language can exonerate a suspect or incriminate them. Intemperate media language can cause or trigger wars between different groups or tribes, etc. So too can the use of sexist language create gender problems for a society.

Linguistic sexism in English became pervasive in the early developments of the language and was legitimised in line with the general prevailing gender discrimination that had come to be accepted by society, as in the practice of law in the US, referred to above. Historically, English texts (written or spoken) – created for specific communicative purposes in domains such as politics and governance, the media, law, education, business, and health – became sites for the use of sexist language. Today, many words or expressions in English are either sexist in form or can be used in sexist ways, and nearly all the time, their use undermines women. Here are some of the instances demonstrating the nature of the discriminatory patterns.

a. The use of extra morphemes (affixes, here [-ess]) or words to refer to female professionals, such as actress, hostess, poetess, woman engineer, lady doctor, lady pastor, etc. Why refer to a professional woman as such when she can, just like a man, be referred to with the more empowering forms actor, host, poet, engineer, doctor, pastor? So, here is the problem: using the marked expressions that contain the extra affixes or words implies irregularity or deviance, suggesting that these jobs are odd for women (it’s men who are known for them and can do them best). It also draws attention to or reveals the sex of the woman, without any justifiable reason.

b. The use of the address term Mrs. for married women and Mr. for married men: when a married man is addressed as Mr., his marital status is not revealed, but addressing a woman as Mrs. reveals her marital status and, by extension, signals her sexual availability. That is linguistic discrimination, although some women, due to cultural beliefs, proudly prefer the world to see and know that they are married. For feminists and all those seeking to promote gender-fair language, it makes sense for a married woman to prefer the address term Ms., which equals the male form Mr. (both do not reveals one’s marital status).

c. The use of the male form man generically to include reference to females can be seen in uses like ordinary man, mankind, salesman, chairman, spokesman, etc. These often foreground men and erase women out of the discourse. More neutral or gender-fair forms like ordinary people, humankind, sales agent, chair/chairperson, spokesperson tend to minimise or eliminate the language discrimination.

d. The use of male pronouns (e.g., he, his, him) to refer to females in a generic context, thereby signalling masculinity or male dominance. (e.g., A lawyer must ensure that he does not make libellous claims/The writer should know his readers well). If your 15-year-old daughter reads these expressions, she could easily be left wondering whether only men can become lawyers and writers. This is where social perceptive influences can arise. To reduce the sexist tone and make them more gender-sensitive, these examples could be constructed as follows: A lawyer must avoid making libellous claims (which recasts the sentence to remove the pronoun), and The writer should know his or her readers well (which gives equal attention to the sexes).

Indeed, to minimise or eliminate the sexist tone in an English text, several strategic options are available, some of which I have suggested in the examples discussed above. But one must always be cautious not to change the meaning or formality of the original construction in the process of replacing sexist usage with gender-fair or neutral language.

Today, due to persistent advocacy and protests that have been going on in the last several decades, especially emanating from feminists and gender-conscious people, the world is now more receptive to issues of gender equality, gender mainstreaming and the need for women to be empowered in the same way that men are. After the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995, many of the discriminatory barriers negatively affecting women are being pulled down. Countries that take democratic rights seriously, in our modern world, are becoming extremely conscious about the need to engage in actions that promote equality and fairness between the genders, not only in terms of direct and physical discriminatory actions against women.

Discursive discriminatory practices through text and language use, such as the kinds of sexist language outlined above, are also under attack. Some language and gender feminists even go as far as reversing certain male-female typical order in their sentences (e.g., women and men, girls and boys, she or he, s/he), to suggest that the male term may not have to always come first (men and women, boys and girls, he or she) and that women and girls can lead too.

Instances of sexist language in the 1992 Constitution

Ghana’s Constitution is replete with sexist language use all throughout its pages. The most prominent one is with regard to the exclusive use of male pronouns that include a reference to females. As my analysis reveals, the pronouns used in this way are his (occurring 216 times in the Constitution), he (135 times) and him (65 times), as in these examples:

1. Article 62 (a), (b), (c)

QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENT.

A person shall not be qualified for election as the President of Ghana unless—

(a) he is a citizen of Ghana by birth;

(b) he has attained the age of forty years; and

(c) he is a person who is otherwise qualified to be elected a Member of Parliament, except that the disqualifications set out in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of clause (2) of article 94 of this Constitution shall not be removed, in respect of any such person, by a presidential pardon or by the lapse of time as provided for in clause (5) of that article.

2. Article 23 (3)

(3) Every worker has a right to form or join a trade union of his choice for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests.

3. Article 88 (2)

(2) The Attorney-General shall discharge such other duties of a legal nature as may be referred or assigned to him by the President, or imposed on him by this Constitution or any other law.

A second type of sexist language use, privileging men, or normalising their dominance, is the use of chairman/chairmen. The word chairman is used 88 times in the Constitution, and chairmen is used 29 times. Here too, the presumption is that the reference includes women, but why not use a gender-neutral term?

4. Article 44 (2), (3), (4)

(2) The Chairman of the Electoral Commission shall have the same terms and conditions of service as a Justice of the Court of Appeal.

(3) The two Deputy Chairmen of the Commission shall have the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to a Justice of the High Court.

(4) The Chairman and the two Deputy Chairmen of the Commission shall not, while they hold office on the Commission, hold any other public office.

A third type of sexist language in the Constitution relates to the use of men in reference to personnel of the security services, such as the Prisons and Police Services.

5. Article 208 (3)(b)

(b) the ranks of officers and men of the Prisons Service, the members of each rank and the use of uniforms by the members;

6. Article 203 (3)(d)

(d) the authority and powers of command of officers and men of the Police Service; …

With examples 5 and 6, I ask: why the use of men when a more neutral term like personnel could be used to eliminate the sexist tone and reflect the societal changes that aim to promote inclusivity, especially with regard to occupations? Is it not the case that Ghanaian women are now an integral part of the security services?

A fourth and final type of sexist language noted in the Constitution is to do with the generic use of man to include reference to women, as in 7.

7. Article 33 (5)

(5) The rights, duties, declarations and guarantees relating to the fundamental human rights and freedoms specifically mentioned in this Chapter shall not be regarded as excluding others not specifically mentioned, which are considered to be inherent in a democracy and intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man.

Conclusion

The instances of linguistic sexism in the Constitution discussed here may not be exhaustive, but I believe they are ample enough to warrant a relook at the way the language of the Constitution is framed. At the very least, every instance of sexist language should be recast in non-sexist or gender-fair style. Some people – notably lawyers – may want to justify the use of such instances of sexist language, particularly in legal documents, by arguing that such uses refer to both sexes.

This argument is far from convincing because it does not erase the fact of the inequality inherent in the sexist language. Why should he or his also literally refer to females? Is it okay for she or her to be used literally to refer to males? I am arguing that we ought to be gender-sensitive at a time the world is increasingly leaning towards efforts to liberate and empower women, and to reverse the marginalising impediments that history put in their way. This sensitivity should not only be confined to the crusade against the assignment of unequal/unfair gender roles or discriminatory social actions against women. It should also address issues of discrimination in texts, such as sexist language use, which may end up reinforcing certain gender perceptions and stereotypes.

As I conclude, I am mindful that the Prof. H. Kwesi Prempeh Constitutional Review Committee are still in the process of completing their work. While dealing with the governance and institutional issues needing review and reform in the Constitution, the Committee should also direct their minds to these language framing issues, which are equally important. They could include in their recommendations the need for a more gender-sensitive and liberating language to be used in those sections of the Constitution that contain sexist language. As English remains a language that easily lends itself to sexist forms of usage, we must all always be on the lookout to protest language uses that unfairly represent any of the genders, especially women.

Writer
Dr Richmond S. Ngula
Language Scientist & Researcher
University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana and University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +233243374647

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.