Signing up for the status quo? Semiological analyses of sexual harassment in higher education—a Swedish example

Abstract

This article explores the effects of certain discourses as they relate to sexual harassment in a Swedish higher education setting. Using a semiological perspective, the author analyzes notions of existence, range, prevention, and stability in order to demonstrate the way they aim at signifying a limited and, from a bureaucratic point of view, legitimate reality of sexual harassment. The empirical material consists partly of material drawn from public policies, legal documents, and research reports on sexual harassment in higher education, and partly of fourteen semi‐structured interviews with equal opportunity practitioners responsible for implementing equality legislation at a Swedish university. A semiological view on the construction of sexual harassment in public texts and ordinary speech is given through an analysis of the use of language and the internal and external relations of signs. By focusing simultaneously on the stable and variable aspects of the sign, interpretations of the specific notions of limitation, variability, and experience are put forward as critical tools aimed at changing normative views of sexual harassment.

Notes

For general discussions on different theoretical perspectives on the concepts of sign and semiology, cf. Kim (1996) and Lidov (1996). In accordance with certain ideas put forward by Kristeva (1996, p. 180), this text makes claims as to the necessity of every semiological project to become its own by relating critically to general principles within the semiological sciences.

Saussure's writing on the relation between the sign system and a principle of reality on its outside has provoked critical comments from other semiologists. On this point, as on other remarks on Saussure, cf. Barthes (1994, pp. 151–156, 1999, Ch. 2), and Derrida (1981, pp. 17–36, 1998, Ch. 2).

The perspective referred to here emanates mainly from a constructionist discourse analysis (cf. Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Potter, 1996; Wilkinson and Kitzinger, 1995).

A note on the transcription is useful at this point. “I” stands for the interviewer, and “Martha” is a code name for the practitioner. Slashes (/ or // or ///) indicate pausing in seconds; pauses exceeding three seconds are written in figures (4.0, 5.0, etc.); colons (:::) stand for a prolonged syllable; signs of equality (=) point out that there are no interruptions between speakers; brackets ([]) show where one speaker interrupts another; italics (xxx) indicate a pronounced syllable; a lower case x (x) means that the speaker is repeating him/herself or is stumbling; hyphens (‐) show a broken clause; and punctuation marks (! and ?) announce intonations. For the theoretical foundation of this scheme, cf. Atkinson and Heritage (1984), Button and Lee (1987), and Sacks et al. (1974). The transcriptions are used in accordance with West (1995) and West and Zimmerman (1985).