Cover not available
Part of
Discourse, Politics and Women as Global Leaders
Edited by John Wilson and Diana Boxer
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 63] 2015
► pp. 19–42

Chapter 1. “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”

Margaret Thatcher and the discourse of leadership

| School of Communication, University of Ulster
| School of Communication, University of Ulster

Margaret Thatcher was the first woman to become Prime Minister of the UK. It has been claimed, however, that she did little for the cause of women. Part of the problem is Thatcher made clear that while she was a woman she thought of herself as a politician first. In this chapter we consider the linguistic consequences of adopting such a position, and we argue that Thatcher used specific discourse structures conducive to the adversarial style of the British parliament. As this style has been equated with male discourse patterns some argue that Thatcher adopted male linguistic norms. However, adversarial styles are not inherently “male” and we consider whether Thatcher was speaking like a man or merely as a politician.

Keywords: adversarial political style, community of practice, face threatening acts, gender and voice pitch, gendered discursive structures, turn-taking
Published online: 30 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.63.02wil
References
Aries, E
1987 “Gender and Communication.” In Sex and Gender. Review of Personality and Social Psychology Volume 7, edited by Philip Shaver and Clyde Hendrick, 149-176. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Beattie, G.W
1982 “Turn-taking and Interruption in Political Interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan Compared and Contrasted.” Semiotica 39(1/2): 93-114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beattie, G.W., A. Cutler, and M. Pearson
1982 “Why is Mrs Thatcher Interrupted So Often?” Nature 300: 744-747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bem, S
1974 “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42(2): 155-162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochel, C. and J. Briggs
2000 “Do Women Make A Difference?” Politics 20(2): 63–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and S. Levinson
1987 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, P. and K. Mayer
1988 “Interruptions in Political Interviews: A Study of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7(1): 35-46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catalano, A
2009 “Women Acting for Women? An Analysis of Gender and Debate Participation in the British House of Commons 2005-2007.” Politics & Gender 5(1): 45-68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Childs, S
2000 “The New Labour Women MPs in the 1997 British Parliament.” Women’s History Review 9(1): 55–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “A Feminised Style of Politics? Women MPs in the House of Commons.” British Jounral of Politics and International Relations 6(1): 3-19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, J
2003 “The Role of Epistemic Modality in Women’s Talk.” In Modality in Contemporary English, edited by Facchinetti, Roberta, Manfred Krug, and Frank Palmer, 331-348. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P., G.W. Jones, and B. O'Leary
1990 “Prime Ministers and the Commons: Patterns of Behaviour, 1868-1987.” Public Administration 68(1): 123-140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P
2008 “Variation and the Indexical Field.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. and S. McConnell-Ginet
1992 “Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender, and Power all Live.” In Locating Power. Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language conference, edited by K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon, 89-99. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. and J. Swann
1989 Gender Voices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gruber, Helmut
1993 “Political Language and Textual Vagueness.” Pragmatics 3(1): 1-28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, S
2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 12(4): 451-472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Alisa
2005 “Forging a New Political Culture: Plenary Behaviour in the Scottish Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 11(2): 275–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J
1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. and M. Meyerhoff
1999 “The Community of Practice: Theories and Methodologies in Language and Gender Research.” Language in Society 28(2): 173-183 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jalalzai, F
2004 “Women Political Leaders Past and Present.” Women & Politics 26(3-4): 85-108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Madam President: Gender, Power, and the Comparative Presidency.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 31(2): 132-165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, C.A., R.C. Anderson, and S. Peters
2012 “Sounds Like a Winner: Voice Pitch Influences Perception of Leadership Capacity in Both Men and Women.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279(1738): 2698-2704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, M
1992 “Gender Interference in Transsexuals’ Speech.” In Locating Power. Proceedings of the 1992 Berkeley Women and Language Conference, edited by K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon, 312-317. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad
1991 “Sporting Formulae in New Zealand English: Two Models of Male Solidarity.” In English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, edited by Jenny Cheshire, 200-212. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
ed. 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R
1973 “Language and Women’s Place.” Language in Society 2(1): 45-80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 1990 Talking Power: The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
eds. 1992 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackay, Fiona
ed. 2001 Love and Politics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Norris, P
1996 “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” In Women in Politics, edited by J. Lovenduski and P. Norris, 91-104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Barr, W.M. and J.F. O’Barr
1982 Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E
1992 “Indexing Gender.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, 335-358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perez de Ayala, S
2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics 33(2): 143-169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, K.E
1986 “Revelatory or Purposive? Making Sense of a ‘Female Register.’” Semiotica 59: 157-170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, K
2001 “Women’s Place in ‘Male’ Space: Gender and Effect in Parliamentary Contexts.” Parliamentary Affairs 55(1): 189-201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1968 “A Simplest Systematics For the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation.” Langauge 50(4): 696-735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, Sheryl
ed. 2013 Lean In. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Shaw, S
2000 “Language, Gender and Floor Apportionment in Political Debates.” Discourse & Society 11(3): 401-418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swann, J
1992 Girls, Boys and Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M
2013 Margaret Thatcher: The Autobiography. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, R
1995 “Sociocultural Aspects of Pitch Differences Between Japanese and Dutch Women.” Language and Speech 38(3): 253-265.Google Scholar
Weatherall, A
2002 “Towards Understanding Gender and Talk-in- interaction.” Discourse & Society 13(6): 767-781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar