Content uploaded by Alberto Grandi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alberto Grandi on Nov 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
*Corresponding Author’s Email: alberto.grandi94@gmail.com
Proceedings of The Global Conference on Social Sciences
Vol. 2, Issue. 1, 2024, pp. 14-30
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33422/gssconf.v2i1.510
Copyright © 2024 Author(s)
ISSN: 3030-0061 online
Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical
Communication: Power Relations Reiterated by
Language in the Social and Working Context
Alberto Grandi
Università degli studi di Bari “Aldo Moro”, Italy
Abstract
Feminist reflections have led to a rethinking of many aspects of our contemporary world, such
as the concept of masculinity and its power relations. In Western civilisation, in fact, man is
the archetype, thus making his supremacy part of the natural order of things. This very
naturalness, discursively produced and performed, is what has made man invisible and
universal, hence without the need to think - and think oneself - in terms of gender. As a result,
man has convinced himself that he is not influenced by his own masculinity and can speak for
all mankind, becoming the logos through which he declines the rest, prescribing ‘consonant’
ways of being a man or a woman. Historically, then, different power relations have developed,
generating violent forms of communication that, on a daily basis, reiterate a hegemonic and
sexist social model. This has led to the production of certain stereotypical attributes that have
subsequently flowed into different social dynamics, establishing different roles and work
possibilities that have welded structural problems: such as, for example, the ‘glass ceiling’. The
aim of this analysis, therefore, will be to reason about the concept of masculinity and the
consequent hegemonic-linguistic structures, wondering how such reflections can be translated
back into the corporate sphere. This is with the aim of producing anti-discriminatory and equal
systems that improve workers' conditions, as well as their general outlook on gender issues.
The methodology adopted will see the use of philosophical-pragmatic theoretical reflection, in
particular around the theory of linguistic performativity, fused with empirical data collection
in the corporate sphere as a result of questionnaires, contextual analyses and training courses
carried out at an Italian corporation.
Keywords: masculinity, sexism, stereotypes, language, discrimination
1. Introduction
Gender studies have generated several critical analyses around issues such as identity, social
‘roles,’ and power relations. In this, language plays a central role, especially since the
development of the performativity theory produced by the philosopher Judith Butler.
According to this theory, in fact, gender is not something pertaining to a stable and immutable
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
15
ontological core, but rather to a complex network of power relations, as well as stereotypical
attributions, repeated through linguistic acts. In this dimension, the relationship between man
and woman, within a necessary binary structure, sees unequal dynamics, favouring one of the
two ‘halves.’ In this regard, the philosopher Derrida speaks of phallocentrism, namely the
tendency to place power - identifiable in the possession of language (Cavarero 1991: 45) - in
the phallus; hence, in the man. The latter is, in fact, the one who has had the most presence in
reality, being able in this way not only to develop his hegemony, but also to naturalise it. In
time, this hegemonic male – patriarchal – practice has changed form, assuming symbolic traits
of domination and penetrating every aspect of reality, including the corporate sphere.
In this analysis, I would therefore like to focus on the present relationship between language
and gender relations, particularly masculinity, and then concentrate on the consequences today
in the workplace. The challenge of this paper will therefore be to attempt to translate the
theoretical philosophical apparatus into concrete paths that can be applied in business contexts,
thus attempting to overcome the barriers that often separate the worlds of research and work.
Indeed, philosophy can, on the one hand, retrospectively question its conceptual constructs,
comparing them with their problematic concrete outcomes. On the other hand, it can have a
social impact, proposing interventions that can open up more conscious communicative
alternatives, capable of weighing on the social dynamics of those involved. In other words, in
my opinion, philosophy can become a useful tool to put under criticism the social paradigm
that it has created and enlivened over time, so as to be able to develop something new and
equal, even in corporate contexts.
The analysis will therefore focus on an initial theoretical section, in which the specific
relationship between the gendered ‘male’ subject and the logos will be emphasised. Man, in
fact, by setting himself up as a social canon, has established and delineated every other aspect
of reality, exercising his power and shaping the world through his ‘voice’. This shaping does
not take place exclusively through the exercise of physical force, but also symbolic-linguistic,
acting as a control device within the bodies themselves. A device, therefore, fundamental to
maintaining the hierarchy between genders, being internalised and ‘naturalised’ through a
performative form of behavioural education, the outcome of a violent and patriarchal praxis.
In the following section, therefore, we will delve into the patriarchal practice underlying the
symbolic exercise of force. We will then discuss how male dominance has penetrated every
aspect of reality, developing a model symbolically encapsulated in the figure of the phallus. A
model that continues to perpetuate such domination through different forms and voices, being
embodied in every person. It has, in fact, produced multiple stereotypical categories that,
through language, are daily ‘nailed’ to the different anatomical bodies, encasing them in pre-
established hierarchical scales. This ‘compartmentalisation’ is what has led to the development
of specific gender roles, influencing relationships between people in all social spheres,
including the workplace.
Consequently, we will move on to corporate dynamics, delving into the topic from various data
obtained with some Italian partner companies. First of all, we will reflect on stereotypical and
sexist communication, analysing their mechanisms and internal structures. In this way, it will
be possible to comprehend how they work, so that, subsequently, we will be able to reason
about possible retranslations in the workplace. Afterwards, we will report on the path I have
implemented in the two years of collaboration with companies, accompanying the data
obtained with methodological and theoretical reflections. All this, with the aim of creating anti-
discriminatory forms of communication capable of laying the foundations for the development
of an equal environment.
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
16
To give more depth to the analysis, I adopted a methodology that merges two perspectives:
1) Firstly, the philosophical-linguistic one, which will provide useful conceptual tools to
critically read social praxis in relation to gender issues. In particular, I will make use of
the concept of performativity from both a linguistic (Austin 1962: 7-120) and a gender
perspective (Butler 1990: 115-200). The performative perspective, in its double
meaning, will be advantageous in this research because it will allow for a fluid view of
praxis, emphasising how language plays a central role in continuing to re-propose the
power positions of the man-phallus. However, precisely in relation to performative
capacity, altering language could: on one hand, interrupt this re-proposition of power.
On the other, create something new that not only counteracts the phallocentric paradigm,
but generates the basis for a new equal and anti-discriminatory praxis. In other words,
the performative perspective sheds light on both how to interrupt the overpowering
paradigm and how to resignify it.
2) Secondly, I will adopt an empirical approach that will see the use of surveys taken from:
1- the activities of Fondazione Libellula, an Italian organisation that raises
consciousness on the issue of violence and gender discrimination1; 2- analysis of data
collected through interviews, questionnaires and training sessions2 at two Italian
companies with which I work directly: Leader Confcooperative Puglia, in the field of
corporate training, and Node Roma, which focuses on digital innovation. The sample
includes the entire employee staff of the two companies, numbering about fifty people.
In particular, multiple questionnaires were adopted, submitted anonymously, then
analysed using intersectional sieves: i.e. separating the results according to different
factors, such as: perception of discrimination suffered, gender identification and age. In
relation to the data obtained, specific training sessions were then developed that touched
on the main theoretical themes, particularly linguistic performativity and stereotypes.
These training courses were structured in such a way as to have, in addition to conceptual
reflection, moments of open discussion and exercises, thus allowing both debate and
immediate feedback. Regarding the analysis of data obtained from interviews and
training courses, specific questionnaires were employed, always administered
anonymously. These questionnaires primarily focused on the methodology, aiming to
assess whether the approach was well received, as well as the participants' understanding
of the topics covered. The latter aspect was not evaluated through direct questions about
the subjects, but rather by examining their subsequent work experiences, seeking to
identify whether an increase in awareness had occurred. In these cases, the results of the
questionnaires were then analysed using intersectional filters, distinguishing
respondents based on their gender identity, age, and perceived discrimination. After that,
statistical calculations were carried out, enabling comparisons to be made.
In summary, the aim of this work is to show how certain aspects of masculinity, invisibilised
throughout history, have generated specific power relations, delineating and defining
stereotypes and categorising visions. Attributes that have then flowed into the different social
dynamics of our society, establishing different roles and work possibilities from the linguistic
repetition of those models. Once this dynamic has been highlighted, the aim then becomes that
of counteracting this paradigm, reasoning on more conscious forms of communication capable
of producing equal systems that overcome stereotypical and hierarchical gender binarism.
1 https://www.fondazionelibellula.com/it/
2 The data reported were collected over a period of time between January 2023 and July 2024
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
17
2. The Symbolic Domination of the Masculine through the Performative
Reiteration of Language
Delineating a precise history and definition of masculinity is an arduous task, considering the
different socio-cultural currents that have developed in different geographical and temporal
contexts. In fact, sociologist Connell, especially in Masculinities (1995: 58-61), reports on
numerous anthropological, sociological and ethnographic studies that indicate how the history
of masculinity is traversed by an infinite number of directions; although they tend to be united
by specific aspects: aggression, domination, alliances, competition, violence and so on (Ivi:
37). Moreover, it is crucial to consider from the beginning that, as Cavarero (1991: 44) argued,
the man-male has founded and shaped himself in and through the logos, invalidating and
making impossible a real neutrality of any science, including history. This is precisely due to
the intricate link between masculinity and language, which sees, particularly in the Western
philosophical tradition, a specific centring that can be defined as phallocentrism (Derrida 1967:
359-377). This implies that the history of masculinity depends on what men have said about it
in the course of time, developing specific positionings, interrogations and power relations.
In Western civilisation, in fact, the man-male is the canon on which the entire social structure
rests. Male supremacy, in this way, seems to be part of the natural order of things, in an
inevitable biologism that defines power relations. This naturalness, discursively produced and
performed daily by language (Butler 1990: 24-25), is what has made man invisible and
universal. Given this invisibilisation, over time questions have been asked about the speaking
subject's relationship with nature, with God, with other living beings, but it has never been
questioned that such analyses were always the result of a world of man produced and
universalised by his own language; never considered the result of a gendered being (Irigaray
1991: 279). Thus, the various thinkers throughout history have considered the masculine as
transcendental humankind, therefore without the need to think, and think of themselves, in
terms of gender. In this way, man has convinced himself that he is not influenced by his own
masculinity and can speak for all mankind, becoming the logos through which he declines the
rest (Cavarero 1991: 43): ζῷον λόγον ἔχον. As a result, definitions and categories have
developed from hierarchising dichotomisation, which in repetition have found a naturalising
and apriorist force upon which reflections, concepts, perspectives such as man/woman,
heterosexual/homosexual, citizen/foreigner, able/disabled, and so on, have been based.
Categories that were created and delineated from those who had the greatest possibility of
exercising language; hence, man, made universal and neutral 3. It is in fact the masculine that
has produced the different attributions, moving within a binary and, tendentially, essentialist
paradigm (Derrida 1972: 29-58). In other words, the Western tradition has not only oriented
itself in reality through the perspective of clear and distinct pairs producing stable meanings,
such as presence/absence, being/non-being, masculine/feminine etc. (Derrida 1967: 372),
seeing in the logos the way to unveil and describe them; but it has also posited the masculine
as the prince and invisible element, as the gendered holder of the logos itself. Therefore, the
paradigm of reference, as the French philosopher argues, is not only centred on the logos
(logocentric), but also on man (phallocentric), thus becoming phallogocentric. A paradigm,
therefore, always inclined towards one of the two binary sides: the masculine respect to
feminine, the heterosexual respect to homosexual and so on, placing that half as more present
and privileged. A presence, however, that, in order to be maintained, needs specific
legitimisation of an overpowering nature, thus necessitating the silencing of other voices: such
3 To explore the relationship between masculine and neuter see: A. Grandi, “Language, Neuter, and
Masculinity: The Influence of the Neuter-Male in the Reiteration of Social Models, A Philosophical Analysis
Starting with Cavarero, Irigaray, and Butler”, in «Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gender
Studies and Sexuality», Berlin 2024: https://doi.org/10.33422/icgss.v1i1.363
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
18
as the feminine ones. An aspect, the latter, that the Italian philosopher Gasparrini has traced in
detail, describing many violent rhetorics of inferiorisation and discrimination implemented
over time, from the pre-Socratics to contemporary philosophers (Gasparrini 2024: 11-64).
In any case, patriarchal hegemony thus seems to be the outcome of different forms of
aggression and supremacy, which have led the male gender to subjugate everything else
through always new ways. So, not only through acts of physical force, but also political and
symbolic:
Symbolic power is a form of power that is exerted on bodies directly, and as if by magic,
in the absence of any physical coercion; but this magic operates only by relying on
dispositions that have been instilled, true springs, in the deepest recesses of bodies. [...]
Symbolic power finds its conditions of possibility and its economic counterpart in the
immense preliminary work necessary to bring about a lasting transformation of bodies
and to produce the permanent dispositions that it arouses and awakens (Bourdieu 1998:
48).
Symbolic force operates, therefore, as an internal control device within the bodies themselves.
Where the set of norms and categories that serve to support the hierarchy between genders is
internalised and ‘naturalised’ through a form of behavioural and postural education that
becomes habitus. Thus, habits embodied, repeated and re-actualised in every action, in every
context, in every body and between bodies, until they penetrate our skin and insinuate
themselves into the psyché (Butler 1997b: 50-60).
A process that we will now explore in more detail and which we could define, in accordance
with Butler's reflections on gender, as performative.
2.1. John L. Austin's theory of Linguistic Performativity in the Process of Producing and
Re-Producing Reality
As we saw in the concluding part of the previous section, the repetition of specific actions is
what produces habitus in line with the paradigm, thus exerting a phallocentric symbolic force,
which penetrates the interiority of each person. This repetition is what we find underlying
philosopher Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity. However, before delving into
Butler's view of performativity, it is essential to introduce the concept of performative
language, in order to grasp the theoretical roots used by the American philosopher in greater
depth.
The first theorisation of linguistic performativity came from the philosopher John L. Austin in
1962, where he emphasised that language not only describes reality, but is an instrument for
acting on it, in particular with regard to the factual capacity of two of its effects: 1- the
perlocutionary effects, i.e. what the sentence produces, also on an emotional level, with the
possibility of modifying the situation and the surrounding reality (Austin 1962: 80-81). In other
words, the extra-linguistic effects that lead to orienting perceptions, as well as producing
emotional-sentimental reactions. For example, insulting a person might generate fear, sadness
and despondency. 2- the illocutionary effects. According to Austin (1962: 71-79), they are the
force of the statement, hence the possibility of the sentence to accomplish something. For
example, the command of a judge in court. Later, Butler (1997a: 61-70) reinterprets this
conception and emphasises that it is also what produces or re-produces social patterns. Thus,
the possibility of giving new life, daily, to certain visions through the use of language.
Language, in short, due to its performative capacity is not something that represents an external
world without influencing it but, on the contrary, is what constantly produces, consolidates and
reiterates social models; thus, constantly re-proposing the paradigm of reference. This can
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
19
occur not only through verbal or written language but through every possible form of
communication. The same mechanism is, in fact, triggered by behaviours, gestures, media
products, and even by the way we organise and assign meaning to objects: for example, toys,
which are rigidly categorised to guide “boys” and “girls” towards activities aligned with the
paradigm. This constant reinforcement of the phallogocentric structure, therefore, also
influences the formation of the individual and their “gender identity”
2.2. Judith Butler's Theory of Gender Performativity in the Process of Production and
Re-Production of the Person
As previously stated, language, understood in its broadest sense, is the human capacity not only
to communicate and describe but also to create, signify, and perpetuate certain models. It is
precisely on this productive and re-productive aspect that, some thirty years later, the
philosopher Judith Butler, in Gender Trouble, elaborates the theory of gender performativity
(1990: 11-39). According to the Butlerian perspective, in fact, gender is a sequence of repetitive
acts within a rigid socio-cultural regulation, which establishes the appropriate way of being
‘male’ or ‘female’ (Butler 1990: 45), in relation to a series of stereotypes based on multiple
comparatives. The iteration of these acts creates gender and does so beyond the awareness and
intention of the subjects involved in the action. Gender is thus the outcome of a language, a
bodily style that is implemented through specific performances. This repetition is, on one hand,
the re-enactment of a set of socially established meanings, i.e. pre-delineated stereotypical
categories; on the other, the ritualised form of their social legitimisation. This means that,
through the constant, forced, and rigid behavioural gender education that takes place
throughout life, individuals are directed to conform to the paradigm. This conformity has a dual
aspect. Firstly, it reproduces phallogocentric social models in the illocutionary sense of the act,
leading individuals to engage in a series of gestures, behaviours, and communications that are
consistent with and appropriate to the paradigm. Subsequently, as these representations are
continuously enacted by multiple individuals, they serve as a rhetorical “confirmation” of the
“naturalness” and “normality” of phallogocentric models, thereby justifying and legitimising
them. At the same time, alternative possibilities are excluded, stigmatised as “abnormal” or
“unnatural.”
In other words, this constant repetition of linguistic, verbal and bodily acts sees on one hand,
the confirmation of the praxis that created them, welding and stiffening, on a daily basis, this
stereotypical vision. While, on the other, the simultaneous reiteration of that same praxis,
moving it incessantly, as we will elaborate in the next section, in such a way as to maintain that
direction.
3. The Perpetuation of Patriarchal Practice through the Performative
Exercise of Masculinity
Patriarchal praxis, as well as the nominalizable categorization as masculinity, are thus the result
of the phallogocentric perspective performed over millennia of Western history, through the
exercise of a force-violence-physical, symbolic and/or political-that nails dichotomized
categories to anatomical bodies, shaping those bodies. The category “masculinity,” then, will
see a series of specific characteristics in relation to time and space, but still in line with this
paradigm. However, this does not imply that every subjectivity is completely adherent to the
traits of masculinity of its time; although all people are subject to patriarchal praxis. Indeed,
masculinity is a complex dynamic that is based on power relations, taking on different facets.
Consequently, as pointed out by sociologist Connell, there are intersectionally different
masculinities in relation to reference binarisms. For example, one can speak of subordinate
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
20
masculinities in the heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy, pointing to homosexual identities
(1995: 78-79), or marginalized masculinities in relation to skin colour (Ivi: 80-81). However,
the intersectional perspective complicates the situation, especially by shifting the discourse to
personal responsibility. This is because the patriarchal hegemonic exercise will not necessarily
come from people who adhere to each of those characterisations. For instance, a homosexual
man will be able to move the praxis through misogynistic language. This will happen because
the creation of hatred will not stop at the binarism of - in this case - man/woman alone, but will
charge the entire referential praxis, i.e. the phallogocentric one. As a consequence, all internal
dichotomies will be maintained and moved hierarchically: including the
heterosexual/homosexual one. Paradoxically, therefore, the misogynist language of the
homosexual person will push to reiterate a model that, indirectly, will also lead the hypothetical
person to be discriminated against precisely because he is homosexual. This procedure
highlights two interesting aspects of masculinity in relation to the phallogocentric paradigm.
First, as Derrida has repeatedly pointed out, that the maintenance of Manichaean views of
reality leads to hierarchising categories, fuelling hatred and discrimination even among
‘minorities.’ This further implies that masculinity is not exclusively about its relation to
femininity, but all the categorisations created over time: cisgender/transgender,
heterosexual/homosexual, but also able/disabled, rich/poor and so on. Finally, that the various
binarisms are all inevitably interconnected in a relation of (hierarchical) difference, creating
pyramid scales of privilege.
In short, the power dynamic of hegemonic masculinity, fused in patriarchal praxis, finds its
way to movement by tracing a series of more ‘privileged’ elements that, intersectionally, will
generate multiple hierarchies of oppression. From a performative perspective, then, hegemonic
masculinity is about a doing, rather than a being. A doing that will consequently create a series
of characteristics in line with that dominant exercise, in other words, all those attributes that
today can be defined as agency: competition, aggression, control, leadership, autonomy and so
on. An acting, therefore, concretised in the exercise of force, in the various dichotomies, of one
half over the other, on a physical, symbolic, and political level. Half, however, which has
already been delineated by those holding power, creating a series of attributions then nailed to
specific bodies. A procedure similar to what Lévinas describes as the creation of the ‘being-
nailed’ (1996: 209-215). Namely, a ‘being-category’ which, in patriarchal binary praxis, is
retranslated into ‘being-male or female,’ perceived then as a fatality from which it is impossible
to escape, an ontological category. This nailing leads to the incorporation of conditioned
possibilities as well as their repeatability; in fact, it is possible to perform that being-category
in a ‘right or wrong’ way where, in the first case, there is a confirmation of the established
ontological category, in the second the need for punishment or correction. In this dynamic,
therefore, language plays a significant role, both in orienting towards the ‘right’ way and in
aggression in the case of inadequate performance. From this, masculinity has thus ‘developed’
forms of communication appropriate to its domain. A language that enables the exercise of
force-violence, which is fundamental in chaining bodies to the symbolic and political
categories sanctioned by him.
4. The Functions of Stereotypes As a symbolic Force of Masculinity: The
Language of Force-Violence
Since masculinity rests on the exercise of force-violence, its language, as anticipated, will
necessarily embody force-violence, portraying itself in diverse ways in relation to the situation.
In this context, stereotypical communication is configured precisely as an everyday modality
of this exercise, playing a vital role in the reiteration of phallogocentric praxis and the nailing
of pre-delineated categories.
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
21
According to psychologist Volpato, stereotypes are mental representations that link specific
social categories to particular attributes through probabilistic associations (2013: 28),
triggering - consciously or unconsciously - each time they are linguistically reiterated. As
mental images, their strength concerns the ability to orient relationships and produce specific
expectations, indicating how people act or how they should act from two interconnected
functions.
1. The descriptive function, thus establishing how people are in relation to the stereotypical
view itself: in the field of gender, for example, through the characteristics of man-agency and
woman-communality. These characteristics are always in binary complementarity with each
other and, specifically, those of masculinity follow the need for the exercise of force-violence
as a creative act of masculinity itself. Consequently, all the stereotypical attributes of agency
relate to a specific male way of acting: competition, aggressiveness, independence,
assertiveness and so on. On the contrary, the characteristics of femininity are the outcome of
that exercise; in this sense they not only suffer the violent exercise of masculinity, but also the
attributions ‘appropriate’ to their being a woman. In this perspective, stereotypical descriptions
are part of a process of linguistic heredity. Indeed, language, as Derrida (1996: 11-17) argues,
is always a heredity, as far as it is unformed by us and therefore precedes and constitutes us. I
consider interesting, despite the theoretical distance, to connect Cavarero's reflection here. She
questions, in fact, the unequal relationship of this heredity, arguing that the masculine, adhering
to language, recognises himself in it, is in it (1991: 45). And because it is there, it is said and
thought in a language that is his own. On the contrary, everything that is not man must say
itself from a language that has already thought it. In the binary structure, therefore, woman (as
well as everything that is not man in the intersectional sense: heterosexual, cisgender and so
on), in short, does not self-represent self in language, but receives her representation produced
by man through his exercise. She is and is not, simultaneously, the subject of the language of
man-logos, in the sense of the Butlerian ambiguity of subjectification-objectification (1997b:
50-55) and the individual. The descriptive function of stereotypes thus leads to the inheritance
of a language that has already thought, phallocentrically, of every person as a being-category.
As Cavarero argues, the two gendered particulars (man/woman), in a binary logic, are one
another’s counterpart. But, in truth, the alterity of man is based in man himself, who, by
preliminarily positioning himself as the universal, then admits himself as one of the two sexes
into which the universal is specified. The alterity of woman, on the other hand, is founded in
the negative: the universal man, particularising himself as a gendered 'man', encounters the
gendered 'man' in the feminine form and defines her as precisely other than himself (1991: 44).
In summary, everything that is not man inherits a series of words, grammatical rules,
descriptions, connotative and denotative meanings already outlined within a phallogocentric
dynamic, and thus centred on the masculine.
2. The descriptive function is interconnected with the prescriptive function, in other words,
how people should be from descriptions, leading to cases of self-stereotyping (Volpato, 2013:
30). It implies, therefore, a ‘predetermined path’ that conditions every human being,
conforming them to previously delineated social roles. This path is linked to the performative
process, providing, precisely from the ‘descriptions,’ a series of consonant elements to be
repeated, internalising them down to the unconscious level (bias). Linguistic inheritance leads,
therefore, to the tracing of a suitable way that, as a consequence, develops a whole series of
disciplining and punitive procedures that influence and delineate the possibilities and
permissions of each person.
In sum, stereotypes on one hand say what characteristics are “appropriate” to being-category;
on the other hand, they trace the path of doing consistent with that prescription. Their use in
language is thus a symbolic but concrete exercise of masculine force-violence, enabling the
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
22
movement of praxis through every social dimension. In Derridean terms we might define
stereotypes as “traces” (1972: 35) that carry with them a history of meanings and prejudices,
but at the same time are incomplete and open to new interpretations. They are in fact the result
of binary visions and attempts to simplify and crystallize the complexity of reality, which stand,
however, on the process of concatenation of signs from difference. This is why they constantly
change over time and are never stable, even if rhetorically defined as that. Indeed, to safeguard
this vision of stability despite constant evolution, Volpato pointed out that there is a tendency
to develop stereotypical subcategories that not only preserve the stereotype but, paradoxically,
reinforce it (2013: 29). Thus, by seeing infinite men in the world who do not completely adhere
to the stereotype, other intertwined categories will be created. For example, “weak” men
(defined as complicit masculinities (Connell 1995: 79) or beta males), in their existence will
confirm - negatively - that the man is strong, putting the person under judgment instead of the
stereotypical structure of reference. In other words, discriminating the person as “weak” and
therefore not a “real” man, rather than critically revising the stereotypical.
Stereotypes are, therefore, a tool with which hegemonic masculinity reiterates its power and
positioning, welding together perspectives that orient every social dimension. Communication
in the workplace, for example, is dense with this dynamic, seeing in the terms agency and
communality, which we will now explore, a way in which gender roles are framed.
5. Stereotypical Communication in the Work Environment:
Agency/Communality
Moving now to the labour field, the symbolic exercise of stereotypical force-violence is
identifiable, as demonstrated (Heilman 2012: 113-135), by the clear tendency to describe male
workers’ performances with attributes afferent to the stereotypical sphere of agency, while
those of female workers of communality (deference, kindness, empathy, cooperation,
sociability, etc.). Such linguistic practices will then have profound impacts not only at the level
of direct discrimination of the person, but also at the level of social possibilities, for example
by obstructing the promotion. The agency/communality binarism, in fact, produces a perception
of inadequacy caused by the irreconcilability between stereotypical female expectations and
leadership roles (as well as any other job pertaining to the dimension of “masculine” and vice
versa). Career advancement, therefore, is difficult for the female worker not only in reaching
top positions, but also in performing the tasks that should be performed in those positions.
Indeed, since leadership positions require skills stereotypically associated with masculinity,
when a female worker succeeds in achieving them she is often evaluated negatively, perceiving
that positioning as a violation of gender norms (Heilman 2012: 123). An interesting datum in
this regard is provided by a survey of Fondazione Libellula: 62% of women say they are
considered aggressive if they show themselves to be ambitious or assertive (2022: 27) and,
from this, follows an increase of hate speech cases, as shown by data from the EIGE (European
Istitute for Gender Equality)4.
The latter datum underscores another dangerous dynamic of stereotypical language, namely its
retranslation into violent communication; although not necessarily evident or intentional.
Stereotypical language can, in fact, take on different modes of application, from hate language
to paternalism, as well as different directions, turning into communication that is homophobic,
racist, and so on. In the case discussed here it takes the form of sexism. In the communicative
field, in fact, sexism is something that is done through expressions in line with gender
stereotypes previously delineated by socio-historical praxis. Without stereotypes, it would be
4 https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
23
impossible to produce sexist phrases, as there would not be the categorizations that give
meaning to the phrase itself. Reflection around the agency/communality dualism falls within
the sexist dimension, diffusing it into the work environment. Data collected by Fondazione
Libellula, in fact, report that one in two (53%) women in Italy have directly or indirectly dealt
with explicit sexist expressions at work (2022: 21), but they also report that 68% of women
feel “the idea is circulating that a career woman has used the leverage of seduction” (Ivi: 19).
The exercise of sexism in the male hegemonic dynamic, however, does not only concern
expressions or considerations such as the last reported, but also different perceptual, relational
and/or recognition modes of competence and authority. The questionnaire administered to
partner companies, for example, shows that 80% of those who identify themselves as women
feel that their ideas, despite their competence, are not considered. In the survey conducted by
the Fondazione Libellula, in addition, we find that 44% of female respondents claim to be
interrupted often or listened to less than a male colleague (2022: 21). Both of these active and
perceptual dynamics are consequences of a stereotypical view of relationships and fall under
what can be defined as discursive injustice: i.e. those cases in which members belonging to a
certain, typically disadvantaged, social group face a systemic inability to perform linguistic
acts (Kukla 2014: 440-457). In other words, they are silenced or, in any case, see their linguistic
illocutionary force halved or completely annihilated, as they belong to the inferiorised or
paternalistically infantilised category. Interpreting these data in a linguistic-performative key,
it appears that stereotypical communication debases and, phallocentrically, subordinates the
figure of the female worker, enlivening the reference praxis and hindering real equality. This
aspect also emerged in the interviews conducted within companies. In fact, when asked about
equal opportunities and self-realisation possibilities, those who identify as a woman indicated
71% no; compared to 71% yes for men. Furthermore, it is important to mention here that even
more discriminatory treatment occurs for intersectional dimensions, such as for the
LGBTQIA+ community5.
However, these data are not irrelevant perceptions at the level of social practice. As also
reported by Volpato, in fact, due to sexist and stereotypical views present in multiple social
contexts, the perception of value and competence between men and women is often very
marked; statistically leading women to desire or be more attracted towards disciplines or jobs
more 'consonant' with their being-category, thus creating a dangerous vicious circle (2013:
102). Thus, the statistical tendency of women towards humanities subjects, for example, is not
the outcome of an inevitable presence of communality characteristics, but rather a specific
movement of the phallogocentric perspective. This implies that the language of masculinity,
through stereotypical patterns, not only affects the perception of discrimination and, therefore,
on an emotional and subjective level. But it penetrates deep down both at the individual
psychological level, orienting people, and their relationships; and at the socio-political level,
reiterating those same canons on which and through which praxis moves. However, as argued
above, its voice is not embodied by specific subjects, but by every person who adopts that type
of communication.
Proposing new reflections and new languages, both in the work and social context, therefore
implies a deconstruction and re-signification of the hegemonic aspects of praxis in which each
person is immersed. To do so, however, as repeated, one must critically interrogate the whole
'monstrous' paradigm of reference. Derrida wrote:
Instead of surrendering to normalising and legitimising representations that identify,
recognise, and reduce everything too quickly, why not take an interest in 'theoretical'
5 https://www.istat.it/comunicato-stampa/discriminazioni-lavorative-nei-confronti-delle-persone-lgbt-in-unione-
civile-o-gia-in-unione-anno-2022/
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
24
monsters, in monstrosities that announce themselves in theory, in monsters that pre-
emptively render all classifications obsolete and comical? (Derrida 1989: 38)
Before moving on to concrete action, to the creation of new norms, policies or interventions, it
becomes necessary, therefore, to deal with the theoretical ‘monstrosities’ that hide in the social
praxis in which we live. However, after trying to shed light on that paradigm, it becomes
essential to attempt to do something concrete, producing new languages that alter or reverse
the underlying mechanism. In the next section, therefore, we will look at some of the data that
emerged as a result of my corporate collaboration, outlining the path and reflecting on the
results.
6. The Experience with Partner Companies: Potentialities and Risks
In the preceding paragraphs, we reasoned on how the performative capacity of language,
particularly in the form of stereotypical communication, is what enables the reiteration of male
domination. However, in my opinion, the main tool for counteracting and re-signifying such
domination lies precisely in the theoretical potential of performativity. In particular, in its
centrality to the processes of gender creation in a Butlerian key. Indeed, if gender - and the
relations between them - is performative, it means that it can be deconstructed and re-performed
along different lines. Thus, stereotypes can be eliminated or re-signified through new
'languages', new performances that, over time, can come to resignify social practice itself.
These ‘languages’ can be of any kind and expressed in any social dimension. In the company,
as anticipated, such ‘languages’ can take the form of training courses, linguistic vademecums,
specific sensitisation, context and discourse analysis, and even martial arts classes in a
transfeminist key. Moreover, working on this perspective in corporations is useful, at least in
theory, as an opportunity to re-signify not only male praxis, but also the capitalist one, with
which patriarchy has now merged.
Clearly, intervening in companies on these issues always carries risks, because their aim is to
capitalise and, as Connell (1995: 93) argues, capitalism is totally entangled in the dimension
of male domination. It is crucial, in fact, to try to avoid falling into forms of exploitation of
these issues, such as so-called pink-washing or rainbow-washing: i.e. the instrumental use of
support for women's rights or LGBTQIA+ people by institutions or companies, with the only
purpose of improving their image for advertising and/or economic goals, often masking
problematic practices6
However, potentially, if combined with social, militant, educational revolutions and so on,
corporate intervention can make a strong contribution to the deconstruction of hegemonic
masculinity. Corporations in fact influence, in this discourse, in several ways. First of all, they
are perceived as real bodies that perform specific performances on the social horizon. Thus,
orienting a corporation towards an equal practice means making it interact in a different way
with the society outside. Moreover, they are moments of agglomeration and relations between
people. Moments, therefore, where power relations can be confirmed or altered, influencing
the perspective of individuals. Working in the corporate dimension implies, in short, acting on
two simultaneous dimensions, the macro-social and the individual. It remains fundamental,
however, to always have in light the theoretical paradigm one wishes to deconstruct, otherwise
one runs the risk of implementing ineffective interventions or policies. Hence, in my opinion,
a perspective is needed that is oriented towards becoming aware of the linguistic potential in
full, particularly from a pragmatic perspective, as well as deconstructing the binary
stereotypical categories.
6 https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/pinkwashing-definition-history-examples/
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
25
6.1. The path in the company: context analysis and training on performativity
Keeping in mind the risks and potential, in my experience with partner companies this attempt
at intervention looks promising. Although there is an initial difficulty, in fact, caused by an
Italian context that lacks adequate education on the topic of gender studies - objecting with
political and instrumental rhetoric, invented by the same right-wingers who use them
polemically, such as 'gender indoctrination' or 'gender ideology' (Gasparrini 2020: 34) -, the
procedure adopted seems effective.
Table 1
Disabled
Women
LGBTQIA+
Foreigners
Young people
Never involved
72,72%
22,73%
72,72%
63,63%
40,91%
Slightly involved
27,28%
13,63%
27,28%
4,55%
18,18%
Very involved
0%
40,91%
0%
27,27%
18,18%
Often involved
0%
22,73%
0%
4,55%
22,73%
Initially, contextual analyses were carried out and questionnaires were administered, trying to
identify those who perceived discriminatory acts against them or their colleagues the most. The
questionnaires were administered anonymously and digitally to a sample of approximately fifty
employees, allowing them to be completed without pressure and freely, with a two-week
window provided for completion. Following this, the results were analysed using a series of
intersectional filters, ensuring that certain data did not get lost in the multitude. It was
particularly important to categorise the results based on gender identity, age, and, notably, the
perception of experienced discrimination. Additional filters, such as length of service within
the company and role within the organisation, were also applied. Based on these subdivisions,
the data emerged, which can be compared in table 1, show that the biggest problems are sexist
(women: 63,64% very + often involved), ageist (young people: 40,61%) and to a lesser extent
also racist (foreigners: 31,82). As a result of these findings, I was able to develop targeted
training courses. The latter were structured in such a way as to encourage the free participation
of each employee, creating opportunities for internal dialogue. Finally, a space was provided
for feedback and reflections, which could be submitted either directly or through anonymous
questionnaires distributed at the conclusion. In any case, the course primarily focused on the
performative capacity of language, and subsequently on the relationship between practice and
individuals. In this way, the responsibility of every communicative act is highlighted, going
beyond the evaluation - or justification - of only the 'intentional' aspect of the linguistic act. In
fact, although the intentions may be ironic, humorous or refer to traditionally transmitted and/or
shared expressions, some phrases will inevitably reiterate discriminating models, thus
producing unequal corporate climates, and perpetuating hegemonic praxis. This factual
capacity of language, introduced in the previous paragraph7, is what Austin in How to do things
with words (1962: 10) defines as linguistic performativity, i.e. the concrete possibility of
language to produce effects in reality. Effects that can manifest themselves - in Butlerian
reinterpretation of this theory - both at an emotional-individual level (perlocutions), thus extra-
linguistic and concerning the person, or the group, receiving the linguistic act (in any form);
and at a social level, thus the reiteration of a specific model, for example sexist, that conditions
the horizon and (re)establishes certain perspectives. An explanatory example, reported and
discussed in training courses specifically on sexism, concerns the expression: 'you are such a
sissy' (Gasparrini 2020: 49). This phrase, in fact, makes sense because it is grounded in a very
specific view of gender roles that, consequently, establishes characteristics appropriate to one
and the other half of the dichotomy. In fact, if it had not been previously established that it is
7 See paragraph 2.1.
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
26
the woman who is the emotional category allowed to cry (for example), saying such a sentence
to a crying man would make no sense at all. Saying that expression, therefore, will not only
have an effect on the person receiving it, who may become angry or indifferent and so on; but
it will bring to life the whole apparatus hidden behind it. To the phallogocentric stereotypical
system that gives meaning to the phrase and orients relationships, nailing attributes to
anatomical bodies and enlivening patriarchal praxis. The use of such expressions produces
effects, therefore, on two distinct dimensions, that of the personal and subjective-emotional
sphere and, simultaneously, that of the social sphere.
Raising consciousness of this mechanism is substantial for reflecting on equal language in
working contexts, since it gives the opportunity to become aware of the more invisible and
powerful dynamics of language itself, not dwelling only on the grammatical or semantic
dimension; an aspect also confirmed by a questionnaire following the training. In fact, it was
asked whether after the meeting it had happened to witness discriminatory phrases directed
towards the person's sensitivity (perlocutionary): yes (figure 1) was found to be 12.9% (a very
positive figure, moreover, as it was reduced compared to the 69.39% of the first questionnaire
administered the previous year).
Figure 1
On the other hand, when asked whether this was done with phrases that were not intentionally
offensive, but which recalled a discriminatory social model (illocutionary), yes (Figure 2) vote
was 25.8%, doubling the figure and confirming an increase in sensitivity with respect to the
subject.
Figure 2
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
27
It is also interesting to highlight how the same difference in perception is visible when applying
a gender filter to sift through the data. Calculating the percentages among those who identified
as Male, we find that for the first question, 90% responded no and 10% yes; whereas for the
second question, 75% responded no and 15% yes. Among those who identify as Female, we
find that for the first question, 81.81% responded no and 18.19% yes; whereas for the second
question, 72.72% responded no and 27.28% yes. Therefore, filtering by gender shows that the
perception of those who identify as Female is generally higher, evidently in relation to the
greater discrimination they experience.
In any case, noting a higher perception for the illocutionary dimension is promising for the
development of all-round equal communication, as well as an egalitarian corporate climate and
image, as it emphasises a greater ability to differentiate subjectivity from the collective-social
plane. Therefore, delving into the deep mechanisms of language seems an effective way of
intervening in the workplace. Personally, in fact, I think it is not very incisive just to illustrate
how to 'use' an inclusive language, without the awareness of why it is necessary and above all
of the scope, as well as the responsibility, that communication has. Otherwise, it would risk
leading to a trivialisation of the topic - de-responsibilising linguistic acts - and moving
hegemonic social practice without being aware of it.
6.2. The path in the company: targeted training and results
Following the first training course, which focused on personal responsibility as a result of the
performative capacity of language, reflection moved on to more specific topics. The focus of
the subsequent courses, in fact, shifted from reflection on stereotypes to their retranslation into
violent communication, specifically sexist and paternalist communication. This did not take
place exclusively through direct and unidirectional theoretical education, but also through
situational examples, moments of discussion and concrete proposals. Interesting in this regard
was also the experience of a martial arts course proposed to the employees, used as a "training
act" and an acquisition of self-confidence and self-awareness, aimed at deconstructing the
stereotypical female image. Coherently with the performative perspective, in fact, if
stereotypes are nailed down - and retroactively assumed to be natural - through 'consonant' and
prescribed performances, implementing new ones implies initiating a procedure of re-
signification through, in this context, a specific language: body language. In Gender Trouble,
for example, Butler gives the example of drag practice as theatrical performance against the
dominant model (1990: 139). That is, literally dressing up as the opposite gender, turning one's
bodies into satirical, politically subversive instruments. The Italian philosopher and martial arts
teacher, Alessandra Chiricosta, sees in the martial arts a very similar resignifying possibility;
being able to acquire, through it, awareness of one's own body, of the meanings that constitute
it; but also of how culture and social relations decline, stereotypically, the perception of being
that body: for example, a body-woman (2019: 56-57).
To sum up, the aim was to gain awareness of the scope of linguistic effects and, subsequently,
to propose and implement new languages - verbal, medial, corporeal, written and so on - that
counteract the reference practice on multiple levels. To this end, I developed, together with
some colleagues, a linguistic vademecum8 dealing with the topic of language from all points
of view, from the grammatical and semantic to the pragmatic-performative. Hence, a handbook
that could be consulted when communicating, both internally and externally, functional for
8 To explore the structure of the vademecum see: Grandi, A., Panaggio, A. (2024). Dalla teoria alla prassi:
vulnerabilità e linguaggio nei Gender Equality Plan (GEP). Post-filosofie, 17(17), 80-102.
https://doi.org/10.15162/1827-5133/2001 and: Introna, C. (2024). I limiti delle strategie di contrasto al sessismo
linguistico nelle imprese e nelle istituzioni: Norme professionali di genere e ingiustizie discorsive. Post-filosofie,
17(17), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.15162/1827-5133/2005
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
28
writing e-mails, drafting documents, holding meetings, but also producing advertisements,
images and anti-discriminatory attitudes. This vademecum is, in other words, the
concretisation, in the form of a practical and advisory tool, of the various training courses
conducted within companies. It provides both practical proposals in the form of specific
communication strategies, as well as some considerations, flanked by example tables, of the
reflections made during the courses: from sexist stereotypes to different forms of leadership. I
consider this tool particularly useful because on the one hand it indicates what type of
communication not to use, thus interrupting the phallogocentric reiteration: for example,
avoiding using only the masculine grammatical gender in binary languages such as Italian, or,
in the semantic and pragmatic dimension, avoiding expressing oneself towards female
colleagues with informal expressions and paternalistic phrases. On the other hand, it also
proposes advantageous practical alternatives for the re-signification of the paradigm, thus
becoming a concrete tool for the purposes of the objectives of this research: such as, for
example, the use of specific symbologies to overcome Italian grammatical binarism or
producing images and assertions that do not follow the stereotypical phallocentric perspective.
In conclusion, all these interventions aimed to raise awareness and provide useful tools both to
produce internal equal environments and to deconstruct patriarchal practices at the bottom. The
latest questionnaires administered were encouraging, underlining, and confirming how
functional and effective this approach appears to be. Indeed, 100% of those identified as
Female and 65% Male claimed to have increased their awareness on the issue, finding a less
discriminatory environment; going from over 80% perceived discrimination in the first
questionnaire (dated April 2023), to 13% in the second (dated April 2024).
Clearly, underlying this work is a theoretical framework retranslated into a unique corporate
context. Each corporation, in fact, just like each individual, will have internalised the practice
in a specific way, producing different performances from the different people working within
it. Therefore, a contextual analysis to identify the core issues remains fundamental. However,
they will tend to fall into discriminating situations that are the outcome of phallogocentric
hegemonic dualisms; reducible in sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ageist
discrimination and so on, where language will play a central role regardless of the type of
discrimination in action. Therefore, I believe, the reflection brought here is potentially
applicable in different contexts, not exclusively work contexts, since the underlying social
practice is the same.
7. Conclusion
The analysis of masculinity through a philosophical and socio-cultural lens reveals the
complexity and depth of a concept that has deep roots in Western history and power structures.
Indeed, masculinity, as profoundly highlighted by philosophers such as Butler and Derrida, is
not a monolithic and static entity, but rather a dynamic and performative construct, shaped and
moulded by social interactions and discursive practices. It therefore plays a crucial role in
establishing hierarchies as well as perpetuating forms of violence, both physical and symbolic,
thus maintaining its dominance through a continuous reiteration of norms and stereotypes. The
latter then flowed, inevitably, into corporations, thus amplifying their reiterating power and
nailing, with even greater force and effectiveness, certain attributes to specific bodies,
producing discrimination and impartiality. To counter patriarchal discriminatory praxis one
must, therefore, question the whole phallogocentric structure with which reality has been
categorised. And, to do so, language is central. For language, in view of its performative power,
is both that which can daily reiterate the social models on the ground; but, simultaneously, also
that which has the capacity to re-signify them or write new ones. Every kind of language,
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
29
therefore, from verbal communication to written documents in corporations, can contribute to
countering the violent paradigm that sees the centrality of the phallus and, consequently, the
domination of man. In my opinion, moreover, as corporations are now substantial parts of our
society, being able to intervene in their dimension could have positive impacts, not only on the
lives of workers, but on the entire social reality. As anticipated when speaking of the potential9,
companies can be read, in my opinion, as real organisms. As such, they ‘communicate’
performatively in the social horizon in which they are embedded, for instance through external
communication, advertising, the products they produce and sell, and so on. Therefore, orienting
a company towards an egalitarian praxis, so as to make it ‘speak’ through ‘performance’ in
contrast to the phallogocentric paradigm, means making it interact differently with the external
society in full. To make this happen, however, one must start from within. Corporations, in
fact, are perceived as unitary ‘organisms’, but they are made up of multiple people who weave
bonds and relationships between them. Corporations are, therefore, moments of agglomeration
and relationships between individuals of all genders, orientations, ages and so on. Moments,
therefore, where power relations can be confirmed or altered, influencing the perspective of
individuals. Training courses, contextual analyses, adequate guidelines can, therefore, act as
important steps to re-orient internal relations and produce equal environments that, as a
consequence, lead the entire company to ‘perform’ in an equal manner. Working in the
corporate dimension implies, in short, acting on two simultaneous dimensions, the macro-
social and the individual. Addressing the individual ones could, potentially, lead to macro
social impacts. Thus to, as Butler says, expropriate the dominant discourse and create a
subversive space of social re-signification (1997a: 157).
References
Austin, J., L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford
(Translated into Italian as Come fare cose con le parole, trad. it. di C. Villata, Marietti,
Genova 2019).
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:
Routledge. (Translated into Italian as Questioni di genere. Il femminismo e la sovversione
dell’identità by S. Adamo, Laterza).
Butler, J. (1997a). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York, NY: Routledge.
(Translated into Italian as Parole che provocano. Per una politica del performativo by S.
Adamo, Cortina, 2010).
Butler, J. (1997b). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press. (Translated into Italian as La vita psichica del potere: teorie del soggetto
by F. Zappino, Mimesis, 2013).
Cavarero, A. (1991). Per una teoria della differenza sessuale. In Diotima, Il pensiero della
differenza sessuale. Milano, Italy: La Tartaruga Edizioni.
Chiricosta, A. (2019). Un altro genere di forza. Roma, Italy: Iacobellieditore.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Derrida, J. (1967). L'écriture et la différence. Paris, France: Seuil. (Translated into Italian as
La scrittura e la differenza by G. Scibilia, Einaudi).
9 Cf paragraph 6.
Grandi / Masculinity, Performativity and Stereotypical Communication: Power Relations Reiterated...
30
Derrida, J. (1972). La Différance. In Marges de la philosophie. Paris, France: Les Éditions de
Minuit. (Translated into Italian as La «différance» by M. Iofrida, Einaudi, 1997).
Derrida, J. (1996). Le monolinguisme de l’autre. Paris, France: Galilée. (Translated into Italian
as Il monolinguismo dell’altro by G. Berto, Raffaello Cortina, 2004).
Fondazione Libellula. (2022). Vita ed esperienze delle donne al lavoro.
Gasparrini, L. (2020). Diventare uomini: Relazioni maschili senza oppressioni. Cagli, Italy:
Settenove.
Gasparrini, L. (2024). Filosofia maschile singolare: Un problema di genere in filosofia. Città
di Castello, Italy: Tlon.
Grandi, A. (2024). Language, neuter, and masculinity: The influence of the neuter-male in the
reiteration of social model. A philosophical analysis starting with Cavarero, Irigaray, and
Butler. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gender Studies and Sexuality,
1(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.33422/icgss.v1i1.363
Grandi, A., Panaggio, A. (2024). Dalla teoria alla prassi: vulnerabilità e linguaggio nei Gender
Equality Plan (GEP). Post-filosofie, 17(17), 80-102. https://doi.org/10.15162/1827-
5133/2001
Heilman, M. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational
Behaviour, 32, 113-135.
Introna, C. (2024). I limiti delle strategie di contrasto al sessismo linguistico nelle imprese e
nelle istituzioni: Norme professionali di genere e ingiustizie discorsive. Post-filosofie,
17(17), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.15162/1827-5133/2005
Irigaray, L. (1991). Parler n’est jamais neutre. Paris, France: Les Éditions de Minuit.
(Translated into Italian as Parlare non è mai neutro, Editori Riuniti, Milano 1991).
Kukla, R. (2014). Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia, 29(2),
440-457.
Lévinas, E. (1996). Quelques réflexions sur la philosophie de l'hitlérisme. Paris, France:
Fontaine. (Translated into Italian as Alcune riflessioni sulla filosofia dell'hitlerismo by A.
Cavalletti and S. Chiodi, Quodlibet).
Volpato, C. (2013). Psicologia del maschilismo. Milano, Italy: Laterza.
