The New Pantagruel and the feminine pronoun

In response to my concerns that many “conservative” Catholics have no real loyalty to America and the West and only care about the Church, a reader told me of Catholics he knows who have given up the West for lost. He mentioned a traditionalist Christian—both Catholic and Protestant—website called The New Pantagruel, where he said the philosophy is, “We will lose, we will perish, we will be resurrected,” to which he added a gloss: “Triumph only in the second coming.” He sent me a link to a discussion there, but I needed to register in order to be able to read it, and in order to register, I was asked to read and give my response to the introduction to The New Pantagruel, written by Caleb Stegall. The introduction starts with a cogent account of modern society that will be familiar to readers of View from the Right—a picture of a society in which liberalism is the unchallengeable orthdoxy. So far, so good. But the second paragraph reads as follows:

During such periods of transition, traditional religious particularism—with ordering principles hostile to those of Liberalism—finds itself either fighting a rear-guard action from within fortified ghetto walls, or seeking an arrangement with the new power structure which gives representatives of the old order some seats at the table, still clothed in ancient accoutrements but stripped of authority. However, neither rear-guard actions nor seats at Liberalism’s table are attractive. Rear-guard actions are, by definition, doomed to fail, and all the sooner if they become entrenched and cynical. On the other hand, the newly fêted “Christian of influence” sitting at Liberalism’s table will likely be regarded with a distant respect, as if she were an exotic native in strange garb. But it will be implicitly understood that while the vestiges of her tradition are acceptable in the category of “cultural diversity,” she will be expected to discourse exclusively in the language of Liberalism, and she certainly will not be permitted to bring her ancient superstitions about the human soul to bear on any of the important decisions which must be made.

Here is a traditionalist website, claiming to stand against the whole modern liberal order, including its language, and in the very act of protesting the liberal requirement “to discourse exclusively in the language of Liberalism,” the author, in perfectly politically correct manner, dispenses with the traditional generic male pronoun and systematically uses “she” instead.

Talk about mixed messages. Talk about appearing not to have any notion of what resistance to liberalism means. Talk about undercutting any desire on the part of the reader to delve further.

- end of initial entry -

Chris L. writes:

Just to play devil’s advocate, could not the author of the article be using “she” as a general reference to the Church? In that case, the author is not falling into the language of Liberalism, but instead is using Christian terminology (i.e. the bride of Christ.)

LA replies:

Oddly enough, that is not impossible, as the the newly fêted “Christian of influence” sitting at Liberalism’s table could, I suppose, be seen as the post Vatican II Church rather than as an individual. But that’s a forced interpretation.

Jim Kalb writes:

It’s barely possible the generic “she” was meant ironically, since the discussion was of current public life (where that phrasing is at home) but maybe that’s grasping at straws.

Van Wijk writes:

I think you may be overreacting a bit. One of our nation’s most valued emblems is the Statue of Liberty. Many Western nations have traditionally used women as representations of themselves (France and Rome spring to mind, and isn’t the District of Columbia personified as a female? Aren’t statues of Justice female?). Sailors have always referred to their ships as “she.” This was the way I interpreted what the Pantagruel wrote. They did not refer to God as a woman, but Traditionalism.

We all flinch when some liberal debases the argument by inserting identity politics, just because it happens so relentlessly. But considering what the Pantagruel folks wrote to begin with, I think they merit the benefit of the doubt in this case. (Of course, I did not read the whole article, only the excerpt you posted.)

LA replies:

Your points are true in themselves, but not relevant to this issue. We’re not talking about the Statue of Liberty, Athena, the traditional image of Justice, the virgin Mary, and a host of other female images, themes, and motifs that are central to our culture; we’re talking about pronouns. What pronoun should we use to refer to persons of unspecified sex or to groups containing both sexes? The Statue of Liberty will not help us answer that question. Feminists rebelled against the generic masculine pronoun. But none of their substitutes works. For example, people will commonly start a sentence saying “he or she,” but, because it’s awkward and artificial to keep saying “he or she,” they immediately switch to the more colloquial “they” in the middle of the sentence—making a hash of the sentence, and, more importantly, of their own thought processes, all because of their unnecessary hang-up over using the generic masculine pronoun. “If anyone has a problem with this, he or she should send their questions to the main office.” To avoid the mess of “he or she” morphing into “they,” some writers (and, I gather, school textbooks) now use use “she” in one passage, and then “he” in another, not according to any rule, but just sort of going back and forth. This is ludicrous. I’ve also heard that some books simply turn “she” into the generic pronoun, systematically replacing “he” with “she,” leading to Orwellian absurdities where the context really is male, but the female pronoun is being used. ”

Also, many people deal with the problem by saying “they” when they’re speaking of an individual. This may be passable in casual conversation. It is not acceptable in writing or in formal speech

I recognize that it may be seen as awkward that the neuter pronoun is also the male pronoun. But that’s the way our language is. Every language is rife with peculiarities that are not “fixable” short of destroying the language. There is only way one of dealing with pronouns that works consistently with the nature of the English language, and that is the consistent use of the generic male pronoun. Also, I’m not saying that I never say “he or she,” or even “she.” But those usages are highly specific to context. The question here is their adoption as a general rule.

Self-consistent, non-contradictory language is indispensable to clear thinking and clear expression. Traditionalist conservatives who have recourse to feminist usage are conveying the liberal message that the generic male pronoun is indeed objectionable. Instead of setting an example of good English and clear thinking, they are encouraging their readers to remain in that indeterminate, unfocused mental realm where they keep switching restlessly back and forth between “he” and “she” and “they.” I can’t emphasize the point enough: if our use of pronouns and other aspects of sentence structure is unstable, our thought will be unstable too.

That’s the issue here. The Statue of Liberty is besides the point.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 13, 2006 03:27 PM | Send