Muted group theory

Muted Group Theory developed out of the cultural anthropology field, but more recently has been developed in communication mostly as a feminist and cross-cultural theory. Muted group theory helps explain communication patterns and social representation of non-dominant cultural groups.

Background

The basis for muted group theory comes from the work of two cultural anthropologists, Shirley and Edwin Ardener, in the 1970s: In Perceiving Women (1975), they made the observation that most other cultural anthropologists practicing ethnography in the field were only talking to the leaders of the cultures, who were generally adult males. The researchers would then use this data to represent the culture as a whole, leaving out the perspectives of women, children and other groups made voiceless by the cultural hierarchy. Edwin Ardener wrote: “Those trained in ethnography evidently have a bias towards the kinds of model that men are ready to provide (or to concur in) rather than towards any that women might provide. If the men appear ‘articulate’ compared with the women, it is a case of like speaking to like” (p. 2).

Muted group theory and communication

Cheris Kramarae and her colleagues further developed muted group theory in relation to communication, especially from a feminist standpoint. In her work Women and Men Speaking; Frameworks for Analysis (1981), Kramarae laid out three central assumptions to the feminist muted group theory:

• "Women perceive the world differently from men because of women’s and men’s different experience and activities rooted in the division of labor" (p. 3).

• Because men are the dominant group in society, the male perception is also dominant. Women’s perceptions and systems of perceiving are seen as less competent.

• In order to become participating members in society, women must transform their perceptions and models of perceiving into terms of the dominant group

Miller (2005) explains that muted group theory also posits that the dominant group in a culture (generally males) controls the various avenues of expression, including things like media outlets, the government and therefore the ways laws and rules are written, and the words that are used to describe the culture (i.e. books, dictionaries, etc). Because the dominant group controls these avenues, their style of expression will be favored. In the United States, for instance, evidence that white European males dominate the culture includes:

• Wide use of sports metaphors

• The dominance of rationality and lack of emotionality in public talk

• The number of derogatory words used to describe women, as opposed to the number used to describe men

The ways that the muted groups communicate will not be recognized or understood in the world of the dominant group. In this example, a woman’s emotional talk or metaphors about home life will not have a place in the world of the white European male, and women will be deemed inarticulate in public settings. These things keep the muted groups from feeling appropriate expressing themselves in public arenas, and members of these groups will tend to either avoid public communication or use other methods like journaling or online communication with other members of the muted group (pg 308-309)

Muted group theory across cultures

Mark Orbe is a communication theorist who has extended Kramarae’s work in muted group theory to African-American males and other groups made up of various cultures. Orbe, in his articles “African-American communication research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication” (1995) and “Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication” (1998), fleshed out two important extensions of muted group theory:

• Muting as described in muted group theory can be applied to many cultural groups. Orbe (1995) stated that research performed by the dominant white European culture has created a view of African-American communication “which promotes the illusion that all African-Americans, regardless of gender, age, class, or sexual orientation, communicate in a similar manner” (p. 2).

• There is not just one way that members of a muted group can deal with their position within the dominant culture. Orbe identified 26 different acts that members of muted groups choose from in dealing with the structures and messages of the dominant society. Orbe says that which act is chosen depends on previous experiences, context, the individual’s abilities and perceived costs and rewards. Some examples of these acts that members of muted groups can choose from are: emphasizing commonalities and downplaying cultural differences, educating others about norms of the muted group, and avoiding members of the dominant group.

In developing a "Co-Cultural Communication Theory," Orbe focuses on how different underpresented group members negotiate their muted group status. According to his work, this constant negotiation includes remaining muted, but also identifies the diverse ways in which individuals gain voice in different contexts.

References

Ardener, E. (1975). Belief and the problem of women. Ardener, Shirley (Ed.), Perceiving women (1-17). London: Malaby Press.

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

Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Muted Group Theory: Past, Present and Future, excerpts. (2005). Women and Language, 18:2, 55-60.

Orbe, M.P. (1995). African American communication research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 61-78.

Orbe, M.P. (1998), Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wall, C. and Gannon-Leary, P. (1999) A sentence made by men: muted group theory revisited. European Journal of Women’s Studies 6(1), 21-29.