Abstract

The culture of the 1600’s wrote the script for the next 400 years regarding the male as authority in the world of commerce. By creating a style of bookkeeping which trivialized the narrative writing of women, men effectively silenced the women in the world of commerce. Then, by establishing the term "expert" to be exclusively of the male gender, they made women invisible and created a male dominated establishment which has been carried down through the generations.

In the 1600’s, early modern commerce adopted a new way of keeping track of commerce and trade called the double-entry bookkeeping system. This bookkeeping system helped to the establish the "male as the authority" in the world of commerce. In this period of history the merchants of England were trying to gain respectability within the sovereign courts. Mary Poovey₁ tells how Edward Misselden, a prominent Hackney merchant, went before the courts and argued that the "courts could not even begin to assess the relative strength of England’s commerce" until they found someone capable of interpreting available data (5). Misselden then introduced to the courts the double-entry bookkeeping system which he said would protect the King’s interests because the "market would be visible to the king, who, with the help of merchant-experts, could then devise laws to prevent a decay of trade" (6). Misselden argued that these merchant-experts were the only men trained to convert the currently used narrative entries created by "women and young people" into "comprehensible, rule-governed-accounts" (3).

Women of the time had been keeping journals of commercial activities and the narrative entries Misselden mentions were written explanations about these activities. The women’s work was known as "memorials" (3). The merchant-experts used the information from the memorials to make their own entries into the double-entry bookkeeping system by translating the narratives into numbers. The women’s work was then discarded, and only the merchant-expert’s double-entry bookkeeping entry remained.

Misselden made the courts "believe that understanding the balance of trade was the clue to understanding wealth and that the merchant-experts were the only ones capable of representing—and therefore understanding—this balance" (8). Susan Gal would point out that by manipulating the reality of the courts, Misselden was changing their perception of who was able to understand the economy and who should have that social power. She says that "control of such representation of reality and control of the means by which they are communicated and reproduced are equally sources of social power" (157).

Contributions made by women were undermined by the "narrative writing style" and were depicted to the courts as "irresponsible, capricious, and possible seditious as well" (Poovey 8). Misselden convinced the courts that the merchant-experts were superior to the women because the merchant-expert had the ability to "see" what the women’s narrative writings actually meant and could transcribe those writings into double-entry bookkeeping entries—which would be impersonal and free "from manipulation" (Poovey 10). This way, the women’s work was trivialized to the courts and made invisible by the merchant-experts. Gal says that "this ability to make others accept and enact one’s representation of the world is…a powerful aspect of symbolic domination," and that "authoritative linguistic practices are not simple forms; they also deliver or enact characteristic cultural definition of social life...(and that) they serve the interest of some groups better than others" (157).

Besides the double-entry bookkeeping system, a second factor that helped establish the male as the authority figure in commerce was the change in the "style of writing about the market that signified expertise." This style of writing was meant to "enhance the reputation of merchants as a group" (Poovey 7). Merchant Thomas Mun, from Bristol, first practiced this style of writing in 1622 with the purpose of making the markets "transparent" and the writing seem "as a disinterested, even impersonal mode of representation" (7). This new style of writing was to be symbolic of the merchants themselves, who were trying to look like disinterested parties to the courts of England.

Like Francis Bacon before him, Mun opposed the then popular "Renaissance humanism" style of writing, characterized by "extensive reliance on classical authorities, the strict application of scholastic logis—the proliferation of language for the sake of variety and pleasure" (7). Mun "substituted a stark form of abbreviation—numerical representation—for the linguistic copia that was the hallmark" of the Renaissance style (8). The new style of writing, along with the economic expertise for which they were already known, enhanced the merchants’ attempt to establish power within the courts.

Mun used the linguistic device of naming to exclude women from this world of commerce. In his declarative and relatively unadorned style of writing, Mun creates the name "merchant-expert" and describes him as having these "excellent qualities…

1. He ought to be a good Penman…

2. He ought to know Measures, Weights,…

3. He ought to know Customs, Tolls,…" (8).

With his definition of "Merchant," Mun shows that the domain of "expert" was closed to women because only males were merchants and only merchants were experts. Dale Spender notes that "those who have the power to name the world are in a position to influence reality" (109). Even though the reality was that the women were the producers of the knowledge which the merchant-experts used for their double-entry bookkeeping entries, it did not keep those male merchant-experts from making the women and their contributions invisible. Women were "excluded from the kind of knowledge…associated with economic expertise…because they were not merchants" (Poovey 11). Spender notes that by using the "process of producing symbols (merchant as male) as a means of categorizing and organizing our world." Mun undermined the women’s contribution’s by declaring that the "authoritative style explicitly limited the ranks of economic knowledge producers (women)…because some kinds of observers (males) were superior to others" (102). Women’s writing, according to Mun, did not meet the "new standard for civility in writing about commerce" (Poovey 11).

The Merchants of the 1600’s invalidated the working women by trivializing their writing as being subjective and irrelevant to the more objective, numbers ridden double-entry bookkeeping system. This problematization of women in the world of commerce was done by

• "trivializing them…to keep them in their place
• setting low value on activities associated with women, and
• setting low value on women’s work" (Spender 111).

Gal points out that "gender relations within any social group are seen to be created by a sexual division of labor, a set of symbolic images, and contrasting possibilities of expression for women and men" (153). The merchant-experts had created a market system where they could govern, regularize, and administer. With the help of the double-entry bookkeeping system and a new style of writing, they transferred the narrative entries which the women had made in the memorials, then discarded the memorials, thereby rendering the women’s entries as "irrelevant" to a rule-governed system of numerical representation and excluding the women from the male-dominated world of commerce.

The early modern gatekeepers made certain linguistic rules which would influence the financial world for generations to come. Deborah Cameron (1995) says that the question of "who has traditionally ‘owned’" the language, and "who’s to be master" shows that language is a "shaper of ideas" and is "always and inevitable political" ( 121). She adds that the "truth" someone speaks "may be relative to the power they hold" (122). The Merchants of the 1600’s gained the power they desired when they gained control of commerce though the double-entry bookkeeping system and the non-narrative style of writing. They were defined as experts in a world where the work of women was excluded only because they were not included in the definition of "merchant as male" norm.

During this time, language was used to help build a power structure that gave the more powerful access to resources that were denied to the less powerful. As the less powerful, women

• could not own property, which denied them power and control over their futures;
• were dependent on men for their very basic needs such as food and shelter, which denied them control over their daily existence;
• were without decision making power, which denied them power over childbirth and sex and over control of their own bodies; and
• were denied the power to vote and participate in the politics, which denied them the power over their every day lives.

I purpose to show that the norm of the 1600’s which called for women to be dominated by men in the financial world is maintained in the world of commerce today where the male as the authority figure in the financial pages is the norm. I maintain that the financial pages of American publications effectively silence women as experts in the world of commerce.

The experiment was a simple one. One week of Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) newspaper was randomly chosen and analyzed for sexist language and bias. IBD content was analyzed for themes, phrases, quotes, and metaphors and included both articles and advertisements. IBD was analyzed the week of May 11 to May 15, 1998, and included 235 pages. In addition to IBD, four months (March, April, May and June, 1998) of Money magazine were scanned for bias in pictures. In both publications, pictures were counted of men, women and couples, including identifiable hands and arms.

Through an analysis of articles and advertisements in Investor’s Business Daily, I determined that IBD has completely eliminated the "neutral he," replacing it with third person "you." (Only one article slipped through on May 14, page A9). I also found that experts and analysts quoted in the articles were by men 84% of the time, and by women 16% of the time (251 men, 48 women). Of the pictures, 98% were of men and 2% were of women (118 of men, 3 of women). Metaphors in IBD were mostly of male dominated activities such as war, sports and games. The newspaper has both men and woman writers.

An analysis of pictures in Money magazine included men 63.7% of the time, women 20.7% of the time, and couples 15.6% of the time , as shown in Figure 1.

An examination of such influential linguistic institutions as financial newspapers and magazines reveals that women are still subordinate to the ‘male as analyst-expert’ in the financial world. The language which created the earlier ‘male as merchant-expert’ norm is today the language that reflects what was created. Language, passed down through generations, created today’s culture where the acceptable norm in the financial world is for decisions to be made by the male gender. The reality created in the 1600’s is now extended through the language of the present day financial pages to conform to that earlier culturally created norm. Just as it was the cultural norm to accept the earlier category of merchant-expert being male, it is now the cultural norm to accept the analysis-expert as being male.

Male as authority in the world of commerce is maintained in the financial pages of America, such as IBD, where the male analyst-expert is quoted 84% of the time while the female-analyst-expert is quote 16% of the time (See Figure 2).

The male-dominated financial institutions use the linguistic form of quoting the male-analyst-expert to perform the function of silencing the women and to extend the symbolic reality of the powerful male. The fact that women are quoted 84% less often than men in the financial pages shows the women’s lack of importance in the financial world and effectively silences them. Elizabeth Morrish says that "the truth of an utterance…depends on the significance of the writers authority" (337). The culturally accepted norm of male as the authority in the financial world makes his quotes more ‘true’ and reliable. Morrish adds that when the "writer classifies and categorizes," it is a conscious lexical choice (337). Scott Fabius Kiesling notes that men who construct the preferred gender identity are rewarded with power and that "society expects leadership positions to be held by men" (83).

Cameron (1997) says that "gender has constantly to be reaffirmed and publicly displayed by repeatedly performing particular acts in accordance with the cultural norm" (49 ). This cultural reality of the male as the analyst-expert is repeated so often that is internalized and unquestioned. Barbara Lee says that "making money in the stock market is not gender-oriented except in the eyes of those who perceive it to be so." She adds that "women have begun to conquer many areas…but only a handful have addressed…the financial world" (1). Emily Card says that the "wealthy are earning more income…but women aren’t proportionately among their number." She adds that "financial success is

still not emphasized as a goal for women as it is for men" (224). The reality of women in the financial world is depicted by the language of the financial pages where they are seen as subordinate to men as analyst-experts.

Pictures in the Investor’s Business Daily depict men 98% of the time and women 2% of the time, as shown in Figure 3.

The dominate number of images of men in the financial pages helps trigger the attitude that the financial world is a male-dominated world. Amy Sheldon says that "females become invisible if you rarely see them or refer to them and to be invisible is a way of being demeaned" (4). Since the 1600’s many changes have been made to allow women more power and control of their lives. They can now own and control their resources, take care of their own needs, make decisions for themselves, and participate in voting and politics. But what has not changed is the symbolic domination in the minds of women that makes them see their reality as being dominated by men in the financial world. In this world men are still powerful and are still in control of most of the resources of the world. Armstrong and Donahue note that "traditionally, money has been considered a male province" (59).

Along with quotes and pictures in the IBD, themes, phrases, and metaphors are mostly about male-dominated activities such as sports, games and war. Although the language is gender neutral and non-sexist, it still excludes women in tone. Words and phrases that exclude women in attitude create the assumption that only men are interested in finances. Ads quote women as saying "Investing Just Intimidates Me" and then show men fighting it out on the stock exchange floor. The women are depicted as helpless and needing to be cared for by the dominate male because she is unaware and in danger in the war-like zone of the financial world. Males perform as financial wizards which helps construct their gender identity as male-analyst-experts and constructs the women’s identity as needing the help of these men.

Man as the norm by default is at the heart of the gender studies movement. In the 1600’s the norm of male-merchant-expert regulated a cultural reality which excluded women in the world of commerce. The more powerful male forced the women into submission and constructed both the male and female gender identities which went unchallenged by the women. The women accepted their silencing as the norm and conformed to that silencing because their perception of reality was that men were the unquestioned leaders, would handle the business and finances of the world, and would direct the realities of the women.

In the 20^th century many changes have been made to allow women more power and control of their lives. However, the reality of a women’s financial world is dictated by the language of the financial pages where men are quoted as experts 96% of the time and depicted in pictures 98% of the time. The cultural reality of male as expert in the financial world is so internalized that few women have as yet challenged that reality.

Notes

1. Mary Poovey also researches three additional methods which were used to exclude women from the financial world in the 1600’s: woman were depicted as a fickle goddess who could turn fortunes upside down; women were believed to cause upsets in a "law-abiding market;" and women were scapegoated as "baits that ruined otherwise judicious men."

Armstrong, Alexandra, CFP, and Mary R. Donoaue, Ph.D. (1993). On Your Own. Dearborn: Financial Publishing, Inc..

Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal Hygiene. In Tony Crowley and Talbot J. Taylor (eds.), The Politics of Language. London: Routledge.

———— (1997). Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual Masculinity. In Sally Johnson and Ulrick Hanna Meinhof (eds.), Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 47-64.

Card, Emily, Ph.D. (1990). The Ms. Money Book. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Gal, Susan (1992). Language, gender, and power: An anthropological view. In Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz, and Birch Moonwomon (eds.), Locating Power. Berkeley: University of California. 153-161.

Kiesling, Scott Fabius (1997). Power and the Language of Men. In Sally Johnson and Ulrick Hanna Meinhof (eds.), Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 65-85.

Lee, Barbara (1982). The Woman’s Guide to the Stock Market. New York: Harmony Books.

Miller, Casey, Kate Swift, and Rosalie Maggio (1997), In Ms. Magazine. September/October. 50-54.

Morrish, Elizabeth (1997). Falling Short of God’s Ideal. In Anna Livia and Kira Hall (eds.), Queerly Phrased. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sheldon, Amy (1990). "Kings are Royaler than Queens:" Language and Socialization. In Young Children. January. 4-11.

Spender, Dale (1980). Extracts from Man Made Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Poovey, Mary (1998). Accommodating Merchants: Accounting, Civility, and the Natural Laws of Gender. From differences, Vol. 8, Number 3. Web address: Http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/journals/dif-art4.html.