Lost in Translation-Muted Group Theory

Lost In Translation, Muted Group Theory 1
Lost In Translation
The Investigation and Application
of Muted Group Theory
Prepared by Catherine Hyle of Indiana University SE

Abstract
The following investigation explores cultural studies in terms of communication and critical
theory. The study further delves into discrepancies among cultures and narrows its focus on
muted group theory along with its many facets of race and gender. A review of literature is
conducted over muted group theory’s plethora of applications and effects on both micro and
macro levels of society. A research concept is finally proposed in an effort to broaden the topic
spectrum and to generate an even better understanding of the muted group theory.

Introduction
Imagine the following scenario: You mosey into the kitchen one ordinary morning to greet your
family, roommate, spouse or what have you. Yet, all of a sudden you realize that the words you
are speaking to them seem to no longer mean anything. You begin to understand that the sounds
coming out of your mouth don’t make an ounce of sense to the people around you. I mean sure,
they seem to recognize some of your words. Still, they are truly incapable of understanding what
you are trying to convey. Sounds frustrating, right?
This mind numbing, miserableness of constant linguistic misunderstanding and overall
expression constraint is unfortunately a reality for many minority cultures across the globe. The
muted group theory suggests that dominant cultures were the proprietors of language and all its
contexts. Thus, subordinate cultures are limited in the constraints of which they can verbally
express thoughts, feelings, and desires.
The following investigation explores muted group theory in its many facets of race and gender,
expanding on its many applications and effects on both micro and macro levels. A new research
proposal is suggested to expand even more on the theory’s concept
Overview of Discipline: Communication Across and Within Cultures
Cultural Studies is an academic field of critical theory that was introduced by British scholars in
the early 1960s and has since been adopted by many international, higher learning institutions.
The field itself is diverse in that it encompasses a wide range of sub-studies, theories, methods,
approaches and perspectives from an academic standpoint. It primarily concentrates on

contemporary culture’s historical foundations, political dynamics, conflicts and defining traits.
Professionals in this field focus on how a certain message relates to ideology, social class,
nationality, ethnicity, gender and/or sexuality of a distinct culture or area of the world. Cultural
Studies seeks to understand how meaning is generated, dispersed and expressed from the social,
political and economic spheres of influence within any given culture.
The scholarly fields of cultural studies, communication, anthropology, and psychology are
essentially fused to form the foundation, principles and theories that comprise cross-cultural
communications. In cross-cultural communication studies, researchers look to message reception
variables to better understand how communication strategies and power structures are affected
within a society. Furthermore, it takes a more in-depth look at how people from various cultural
backgrounds - both internationally and domestically - communicate in contrasting and similar
ways amongst themselves. This area of study and its scholars attempt to formulate parameters to
help people from diversified cultures better communicate with one another.
For years, researchers in this field had addressed the need for a precise, universally applicable
framework for classifying cultural patterns and trends. The later part of the 20th century
produced two advances in structuralizing cross-cultural communication. The first of these
proposals occurred in the 1970s when Hofstede, a renowned organizational anthropologist,
developed four cultural dimensions. These dimensions include: power distance; individualism
versus collectivism; masculinity versus femininity; and uncertainty avoidance. In 1997,
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner classified seven cultural dimensions based on a mix of
behavioral and value patterns. These dimensions include: universalism versus particularism;
communitarianism versus individualism; neutral versus emotional; defuse versus specific

cultures; achievement versus ascription; human-time relationship and human-nature relationship.
To this day, both prototypes are being actively used for identification and classification purposes
in cross-cultural communication studies.
All in all, cross-cultural communication can be summed up by several key parameters of
perception that must be taken into consideration because they vary so tremendously within
cultures. These points include: high versus low context; language and paralanguage; environment
and technology; social organization and history; conceptions of authority; nonverbal and written
communication.
Muted Group Theory
The concept of Muted Group Theory stemmed from Edwin Ardener who was a social
anthropologist and Oxford University academic in the 1970s. Ardener (1975) concluded that
many ethnographic studies were generalized to the male population and therefore biased and
distorted. Researchers would later cite that data to represent the culture as a whole, thus creating
a cultural hierarchy that ignored the perspectives of women, children and other voiceless groups.
The Muted Group Theory is based on the premise that language is culturally constrained and
seeks to rationalize inherent language flaws and the ways in which it fails countless users -
women particularly. Cheris Kramarae, often regarded as the true theorist behind Muted Group
Theory and former director of Women’s Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, expanded on Ardener’s ideas, inferring that men created language, which allows
them to have superiority over women (1981). She suggests that women do not have their own

words to uniquely express their thoughts and are forever bound to play within the rules of a
man’s language.
The belief, in essence, is that men created words and their attached meanings for the culture as a
whole, allowing them a more wholesome and utter expression of their thoughts, ideas and
feelings. On the contrary, women were excluded from word formulations and meaning
attachments, ergo they have been left without a channel to express what is unique to them.
The Muted Group Theory is firmly rooted in three primary assumptions. For starters, consider
that men and women have contrasting worldviews due to the acquisition of different experiences
that have distinctively shaped their perceptions. The disparities in experience have led to separate
and distinct societal roles. Secondly, we assume men misuse and perpetuate their power by
suppressing women’s ideologies and their meanings from gaining mainstream acceptance.
Lastly, as a result of the preceding assumptions, women are forced to modify their unique ideas,
experiences, feelings and meanings into a male biased language in order to be “understood” in
society.
This theory has led to a number of hypotheses surrounding women and their functionality as
communicators. For instance, women are believed to have greater difficulty forming expression
than men do. Women also seem to understand what men mean more easily than men understand
what women are trying to convey. Overall, it seems as though women are less satisfied with
communication than men are - often feeling a communication void between themselves and their
male counterparts. Though it’s presumable that women aren’t going to create an entirely new
vocabulary, they do sometimes create words with special meanings that are symbolic to women.

Muted Group Theory does not accredit this societal gender asymmetry to basic biological
rationale. Rather, the theory accuses men of a figurative, internal power struggle with their
female counterparts; the grappling notion that says they would risk losing their dominant
position in society if they began to listen to women, incorporate their worldviews into the
language, and make them equal partners in word conception and usage.
Muted Group Theory is found in a variety of practical applications. The list includes:
gatekeeping; sexual harassment cases; internet and email communication; the field of education;
revisions to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary; and co-cultural communication. Related concepts
include, but are not limited to, Feminist Theory and Female Standpoint Theory that agrees with
the idea of society being comprised of dominant and ‘subordinate’ groups; it recognizes power
imbalance in society as a whole.
Muted Group Theory has been criticized for its rigid belief that all men are the same and all
women are the same and the two eternally and undeniably differ from one another. Critics note
that there often tends to be more friction within groups, such as women misunderstanding fellow
women, rather than between two, separate groups. Many analysts propose that communication is
affected by much more than mere worldviews based on gender, but rather social status, age,
upbringing and ethnicity. Other theorists balk at the influence premise altogether, declaring that
cultural groups are perpetually evolving and cannot be pegged in stereotypes.
In order to gain a well-rounded understanding and personal opinion of the theory and its
applications, one must delve deeper into the broad number of research studies conducted with
muted group in mind.

Review of Literature
The foundations and concepts encompassing muted group theory are native to the field of
cultural anthropology in the years of feminist revolt (Ardener, 1975). Research conducted by
social scientists, Edwin and Shirley Ardener, sought to emphasize superior groups’ use of
dominant discourse to mute those deemed inferior (2005). The theory has since been expanded
on in the field of communications as a feminist and co-cultural theory. Cheris Kramarae (1981).,
a professor and pioneer in gender studies, theorized that “language of a particular culture did not
serve all its speakers equally”. She established that common language practices had been
constructed by men to better serve their expressions and experiences, consequently muting
women (Kramarae, 2005). Smith (1974), Hartsock (1983) and Collins collectively expanded on
this notion to form feminist standpoint theory. Contemporary theorist Mark Orbe (2012)
combined the frameworks of muted group and various standpoint theories to form the theory of
co-cultural communication.
In an article produced by Burnett, Mattern, Herakova, Kahl, Tobola and Bornsen (2009), a
textbook co-cultural experiment that relies heavily on muted group theory is effortlessly
demonstrated. In studies prior to this, it is widely suggested that college campuses stimulate rape
culture in which date rape of women is a borderline social norm. The purpose of this particular
study was to understand rape on college campuses by observing it as a communication paradox.
Through interviews with focus groups at various Midwestern universities, students revealed
insights on the creation and perpetuation of college rape culture. They openly discussed their
perspectives on the “possibility of rape, the negotiation of consent, the rape itself, the aftermath
of rape, and the reaction to date rape”. The researchers concluded that college students,

especially women, were undoubtedly muted in a university setting that perpetuates rape culture.
This study significantly contributes to the field of cultural communication in that it shows how
language discourse between dominant and silenced groups can lead to unjust and violent
consequences.
Muted group theory and its feminist principles are often applied to empirical research in the field
of business and organizational communication. In a study published by the Journal of Business
Communication, Haworth and Savage reveal the dissonance in standard human communication
frameworks. The findings illustrate how effective message construction and channel use are
essential to intercultural workplace exchanges (1989). Perez, Hibbler, Cleary and Eberman
(2006) administered a comparative study that applied muted group theory to gender-biased issues
in the athletic training workforce. In order to improve the overall workplace environment for
women, the authors suggested that colleagues encourage women to pursue positions of authority
while simultaneously supporting, recruiting and mentoring other women to pursue similar
positions.
The theory of muted groups has been ever broadened by the realm of technological
communications and web-based social interaction structures. In accordance with the research
done in organizational communication, Heather Kissack expanded on work-oriented linguistic
discourse through examination of email communication on an industry-level setting. The
findings of this study concluded that male and female language differences carried over to
company email and revealed that women are not only marginalized but muted indefinitely
(2010). In an earlier, related investigation, Hoover, Hastings, and Musambira (2009) analyzed
the sociolinguistics of online social networks. The researchers delve into the means of which

women use particular web platforms to create subcultures. This fraternizing allows free
expression of their uniquely feminine thoughts and feelings. Normally constrained by societal
expectations and judgments, the study discovered that women escape silencing by building
virtual communities rooted in the foundations of “interpersonal eloquence.”
Still, the muted group theory and its confines have not been restricted to a slew feminist
inference but rather a collection of feasible, alternative applications. Dukes (1999) and Lam
(2009) largely focused their reports on pivotal societal shifts within Hispanic cultures. While
Roecker, Fuchs, Cook and Henderson (2008) related the tenets of the overhead theory to group
identity and mediation research in both pending and post-divorce households. Within the past
year alone, Hendrix and Wilson (2014) applied muted group theory to their investigation of race-
related discrepancies in educational communication. The nature of these studies pay homage to
Ardener’s initial stance that muted group theory “was not only, or even primarily, about women”
(2005).
Research Proposal
In its most simplistic terms, muted group theory is one that strives to explain communication
conflict between dominant and subordinate groups in society. Only more recently has it grown
into a feminist ideology. As explained earlier, Cheris Kramarae interpreted that “men created
words and their attached meanings for the culture as a whole, allowing them a more wholesome
and utter expression of their thoughts, ideas and feelings. On the contrary, women were excluded
from word formulations and meaning attachments, ergo they have been left without a channel to
express what is unique to them.” A plethora of literature can be found utilizing the theorem in
terms of business and workplace dynamics, web-based and technological interaction structures,

as well as educational institution and race-related communication divergence. That being said,
it’s astonishing that not a single study had been conducted in the realm of romantic relationships.
Extensive research of various applications has ultimately led me to beg the question - are
intimate couples affected by the constraints of muted group theory? Encompassing hetero and
homosexual partners alike broadens this generalized inquiry.
This research study will strive to gain insight on couples’ perception of communication in their
individualized relationships and expand on the initial research question. For example, do women
in heterosexual relationships feel limited in their verbal expression to their male counterparts?
Furthermore, do homosexual male couples hold the secret to communication bliss since they are
both men who are communicating in a language built around them? Thus, is a lesbian couple
more susceptible to lingual discord because they are attempting to formulate expression and
meaning in their words but failing because it’s a “man’s language”? This study will presumably
prove that there is miscommunication in heterosexual relationships because the woman cannot
express herself to her full potential to her boyfriend or husband. In terms of homosexual couples,
this study will indicate that male couples have a stronger pipeline of linguistic expression than
female couples do on the basis that language caters to men’s thoughts and feelings.
This research concept will be conducted with several methods over the course of several months
if not years. First and foremost, the appropriate subjects must be selected to engage in the study
itself. A minimum of twenty couples from each relationship structure (heterosexual,
homosexual-male, and homosexual-female) must be used for optimum accuracy.
Experimentation will be done through initial and multiple follow up interviews, surveys,

ethnographic observation and continuous analysis. A concluding analysis and report will be done
to present the final results of the study.
It is speculated that this study will align with what it has set out to prove for the most part. On
the basis of muted group theory, it is predicted that heterosexual couples will have
miscommunication issues due to the fact that the female partner cannot express herself correctly
and/or to her full potential to her male partner. As for homosexual male couples, it is assumed
that these men will show a significantly small amount of inconsistency in communication due to
the assumption that language conforms to appropriately articulating their unique thoughts and
expressions. As for female homosexual couples, it is presumed that these women have adapted –
survival of the fittest if you will. Though muted group theory states that the dominant group (in
this case, males) created language to suppress the subordinates (in this case, females), this type
of relationship structure calls for women to shape new ways for effective communication for the
sake of themselves and their counterparts. Previous studies have proved that women congregate
and seemingly create their own language in order to better relate to one another and share
experiences. On the contrary, it’s predicted that the results will show one female in the
relationship exhibiting dominant communication tendencies whereas the other will have
submissive ones. Ultimately, this study will present evidence that there is at least some form of
communication disparity in all types of relationships, both hetero and homosexual, on the basis
of muted group theory.

Conclusion
To have the utmost, wholesome understanding of muted group theory is to not only actively but
aggressively pursue the origins and broad depths of research done on the multifaceted topic.
Muted group theory has roots in feasible applications and can be demonstrated repeatedly in a
multitude of situational contexts. The research review sought to apply what was learned and
demonstrates understanding of the theory’s ideologies, values, measurements and overall
constraints. In sum, the objective of this investigation was to bestow a radical ideology in a new
light through elaborate explanation and proof.

References
*Ardener, E. (1975). Belief and the problem of women. Ardener, Shirley (Ed.), Perceiving
women (1-17). London: Malaby Press.
Ardener, S. (2005). Ardener's "Muted Groups": The Genesis of An Idea and Its Praxis. Women &
Language, 28(2), 50-54.
Burnett, A., Mattern, J. L., Herakova, L. L., Kahl, D. H., Tobola, C., & Bornsen, S. E. (2009).
Communicating/Muting Date Rape: A Co-Cultural Theoretical Analysis of Communication
Factors Related to Rape Culture on a College Campus. Journal Of Applied Communication
Research, 37(4), 465-485. doi:10.1080/00909880903233150
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1986. Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Signiﬁcance of
Black Feminist Thought. Social Problems 33 (6): S14–S32.
Dukes, T. R. (1999). Beyond the Binary of Cuban Identity: Review Essay
of Bridges to Cuba/Puentes a Cuba. Cultural Studies, 13(2), 346-357.
doi:10.1080/095023899335329
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. Money, Sex, and Power. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Haworth, D. A., & Savage, G. T. (1989). A Channel-Ratio Model of Intercultural
Communication: The Trains Won't Sell, Fix Them Please. Journal Of Business Communication,
26(3), 231-254.
Hendrix, K., & Wilson, C. (2014). Virtual Invisibility: Race and Communication Education.
Communication Education, 63(4), 405-428. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.934852
Hoover, J. D., Hastings, S. O., & Musambira, G. W. (2009). "Opening a Gap" in Culture:
Women's Uses of The Compassionate Friends Website. Women & Language, 32(1), 82-90.
Kissack, H. (2010). Muted Voices: A Critical Look at E-male in Organizations. Journal Of European
Industrial Training, 34(6), 539-551. doi:10.1108/03090591011061211
* Kramarae, C. Women and Men Speaking: Framework for Analysis.. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 1981. Print.
Kramarae, C. (2005). Muted Group Theory and Communication: Asking Dangerous Questions.
Women & Language, 28(2), 55-61.
Lam, Y., & Dorian, N. C. (2009). The Straw That Broke the Language's Back: Language Shift in the
Upper Necaxa Valley of Mexico. International Journal Of The Sociology Of Language,2009(195), 219-
233. doi:10.1515/IJSL.2009.012
Orbe, M. P., & Roberts, T. L. (2012). Co-Cultural Theorizing: Foundations, Applications &
Extensions. Howard Journal Of Communications, 23(4), 293-311.
doi:10.1080/10646175.2012.722838
Perez, P. S., Hibbler, D. K., Cleary, M. A., & Eberman, L. E. (2006). Gender Equity in Athletic
Training. Athletic Therapy Today, 11(2), 66-69.
Roecker, J., Fuchs, N., Cook, J., & Henderson, M. (2008). Both Sides Now: A Bona Fide Group
Perspective of Families and Divorce Mediation. American Communication Journal, 10(2), 6.
Smith, Dorothy. 1974. Women’s Perspective As a Radical Critique of Sociology. Sociological
Inquiry 44 (1): 1–13.
*Primary Sources

Lost in Translation-Muted Group Theory

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Lost in Translation-Muted Group Theory (20)

Lost in Translation-Muted Group Theory