(Re)making Scales: Communicative enfranchisement in Women’s Narrative Discourses About Health Dismissal

Abstract

ABSTRACT Dismissal of women’s health concerns is a discursive phenomenon with social and material consequences. A burgeoning literature documents how women experience dismissal through various forms of disenfranchising talk. Yet, women are not only subjected to disenfranchising talk; they are called to respond to it. Meaning, analyses of disenfranchisement should also examine efforts toward enfranchisement. One process by which scholars can study communicative (dis)enfranchisement is through people’s scalar activity, or how they contextualize experiences at different levels of social reality. Studies of scale demonstrate that the language people use to narrate their personal experiences has meaning for how they position themselves in relation to other social actors, as well as how they make statements about what matters, how much, and to whom. Drawing on 36 interviews with women whose health issues have been dismissed, we apply scale as a theoretical lens and methodological tool to study how women use language in particular, meaningful, and patterned ways in narratives about health dismissal. Our findings suggest that women’s narrative discourse is enfranchising in so much as women critique, resist, and transform the contexts of their dismissal. We document how they and others scale “realness” and “normality” across narrated and narrating events. We also note how women scale up from their own experiences to women’s experiences writ large, asserting truth claims about issues borne of the broader U.S. healthcare system. Findings have implications for how critical health communication researchers study how women’s health issues are constructed in talk.