REVIEW

Towards Synthesis

Towards Synthesis sets out to be a "new intermediate-level English course for young adults," to provide "thorough and systematic consolidation of the basic structures of English, along with development of the language." The course book is divided into 15 units designed to be taught over one academic year. Six activity sections, three revisions and three tests are given, as well as tapescripts for two extra cassettes. There are quizzes, crosswords, games and role-play. The unpopular word grammar does not appear prominently in the text; "grammatical points" are relegated to the back of the book and camouflaged as the Reference Section. The authors state in their introduction that synthesis "involves awareness of the fact that the components of language, structural competence, vocabulary, and socially appropriate language for communication cannot easily be learnt in isolation." They are therefore emphasizing "usage in practical, everyday context" and hope that "this book will be helpful" for students "to use English with confidence."

As a 1990s book, however, the material is ideologically unsound. The sexism in this book and on the tapes is blatant and blunt -- not only in the writing, but also in the pictures. Throughout, women are referred to in a condescending manner; portrayal is stereotypical: Females are the carers and males the darers. The nurturers are females only, and -- if given any occupation at all -- hardly rise above the level of secretary, shop assistant, or primary school teacher. For males, occupations are unlimited; favored professionals are engineers, medical doctors, or university professors. For recreation, males are the go-getters; they take part in rallies, team up with the boys, and sail away. Women read, write invitations, or go to aerobics. Exercises make excessive use of the male pronoun he, and there is a paucity of the female pronoun she. Pictorial presentation is also highly skewed: women smile, men don't. The two male authors have used photographs showing men in smart business suits and apron-clad women holding cleaning cloths; captions run in the same vein: (below a drawing of a male) "Successful young executives" and on the same page (below a drawing of a female) "Caroline needs a warm outfit." In activity 3 of unit 1, "Good and Bad Points" have been ordered to leave no doubt as to who is good: "Tom's rather intelligent and hard-working," followed by, "We say: 'She's not very tidy,' or `she's rather untidy." Generic usage of the pronouns here reinforces negative stereotyping.

The workbook has the same sexist leitmotif (e.g., unit 1, page 1, line 1, sentence 1); "Adam Henderson is a promising young actor," whereas Hannah Hauxwell is quoted as saying; "I'm like a little ditty" and "In the evening I might do some sewing, mending some clothes." In her opening sentence, she reduces herself to second best; "My little dog Tom is first on the list when I rise, even before breakfast" (p. 5, unit 1). There is method in this course book: That the biblical "Adam" was chosen as the first name is not surprising since woman came second, but, tomfoolery aside, the reappearance of "Tom" would have been better for a cat.

Unit 1 sets the tone. To wit, page 1, exercise 1, of the textbook: the ratio is eight males to two females; Mary ranks sixth on the list, just before Professor Michos (male); strategic engineering also for Mrs Stratton, who is second last, sandwiched in between Dr Michos (male) and Dr Watt (male). Resurfacing again is the authors' need to use English or Anglicized onomastics for their not-so-subliminal points: (virgin) Mary and Mrs. Stratton, strato- a word element meaning "low and horizontal," but [inventor James] "Watt" as bright as a light. The next exercise has the same male/female ratio when discussing occupations: Four to one -- occupational status, for example; Dr. Watt (male) is a surgeon, Mrs. Stratton a housewife. In the six lines of text allocated to the sole female, the authors could not resist a reference to her husband, a justification as to why Mrs. Stratton is in a hotel. Overleaf, more justification was deemed necessary for the presence in public of "The little woman with curly hair," her son is manning the reception desk at the moment. Dr. Michos, who had a sex change since page 1, is now female and promptly assigned a first name while the academic title remains for the male only: "Sofia Michos is talking to Dr Watt." Also on page 2: Five people are described in Language Focus: ratio three to two; but the focus is on quality differences in the responses: Mary makes tea in the kitchen, gender-bended Dr. Michos now wears a "lovely dress," whereas one is pleased to meet Esteban, the civil engineer, and inquires about his well being, equally the professor does not make tea nor is dress code an issue. Esteban is building a bridge, the professor is researching for a literary book, their physical appearance is not discussed, but Mrs. Stratton is "The little woman with curly hair" and Mary "wears glasses and she's rather plain."

Role-play at home in the English speaking world portrays males who watch TV or "get angry" when "the wife" moves "any of his things" (p. 6). Females do all the housework. When both work, the days start when "he goes jogging in the park before breakfast" (p. 3), making it abundantly clear who serves whom; the female then takes the sons to school on her way to work -- students are now asked to add (always) to her list of chores -- and she does "the shopping after work." The daughter who presumably finds her own way to school is given the following role-play on the next page:

Ellen:	We use the washing machine every day in our house....Apart from my father's shirts and underwear, there are his sports clothes, too,...Mum does aerobics three times a week, so there are all her track suits, and things like that. We know which are Barry's and which are Graham's because Mum puts their names in them, but they put on the first thing they see....
Julie:	...I suppose your mother washes yours, too.
Ellen:	Oh, mine are no problem. I take them to the launderette once a week. It's quicker and then Mum doesn't mix them up with hers. (p. 4)

1. Dirty linen is discussed in public, girl talk is limited to domesticity.
2. Parents are hierarchically ordered: male parent first, female second.
3. A male parent is respectfully referred to as "father," a female parent is just "Mum."
4. Clothes for males have specific vocabulary, clothes for females are "things like that."
5. Mum's efforts to individually label clothes for young males receive no respect by boys. Clothes for females do not warrant the same attention.
6. Fathers and male siblings have their dirty clothes washed at home; girls can say "we use X every day" but must take theirs elsewhere to be cleaned.
7. Mum is slow and too dumb to find her own clothes.

The tapes/tapescripts carry the same misogynistic tone, and negative innuendoes are plentiful. Women are frequently presented as opinionated, complaining, shrewd, biased nags, and bad mothers-in-law. Suggested behavior is, however, "she's always kind and patient -- she's generous to her grandson -- she buys him presents all the time;" but female kindness is immediately shown as trickery against other women; "she buys him presents all the time -- but not to [sic] Marge or her granddaughter." Daughters are referred to, like Sue, as "a good girl" because "she helps Marge a lot in the house," whereas boys have a right to be "spoilt" and "Mick always gets his own way." For the authors it is acceptable male behavior to be "very untidy, rude" and disrespectful which is made light of by "he just laughs" (all from unit 1, tape 1, tapescript 1.5). The tone is offensive and the authors take the liberty of presenting women hating women, as sufficiently demonstrated in their closing sentences from the same exercise:

June:	...he's a pleasant man. There's only one thing wrong with him, in my opinion.
Joyce:	Oh, what's that?
June:	His wife. I'm glad I haven't got a mother-in-law like Mrs Wilkins....
Joyce:	Perhaps she doesn't like women very much.
June:	Yes, that's probably the reason. She wants to be the boss.

Dr. Margit Waas teaches in the Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Her latest book, Language Attrition Downunder: German Speakers in Australia (1996), is a sociolinguistic inquiry into first language loss in a second language environment. She has published many articles on language, culture and society, and given lectures in Australasia, the Far East, North America, and Europe.