Muted Group Theory has many adherents, but as you would expect with such a politically charged theory, it also has detractors. The critique of the theory revolves around three of our criteria: utility, heurism, and the test of time. We will briefly discuss each in turn.

Utility

First, like Standpoint Theory, Muted Group Theory has been criticized for not being useful because it engages in essentialism, or the belief that all men are essentially the same and all women are essentially the same and the two differ from each other. These critics note that there is great difference within groups; sometimes the difference within a group (such as women) can be greater than the difference between groups (women and men). Some approach this from the perspective of other influences on communication besides gender, such as status, age, ethnicity, or upbringing. Others disavow the notion of influences altogether, claiming that both individuals and groups are constantly changing through communication. Therefore, any attempt to state what women or men are like falsely “freezes” those groups in time, as if they have a natural, unchangeable essence.

This argument was discussed in Chapter 27 in our consideration of Standpoint Theory. Like proponents of Standpoint Theory, supporters of Muted Group Theory agree that there are many groups that are muted and many standpoints. However, being female is to be part of a central group in our culture, and thus, even though women are not all alike and there is no essential womanness that all women possess, women in the United States are often treated alike. This treatment forms a common set of experiences that allows Muted Group Theory to make generalizations about men and women.

Further, some critics fault the usefulness of MGT because they note that women do speak out in public forums, and they point to women like Hillary Rodham Clinton, Christine Todd Whitman, and Condoleeza Rice as examples of women who are not muted at all. Muted Group theorists would agree that some women have gained a public forum, but they would also point out that they may have done so by becoming extremely adept at translation. Women who bring a uniquely female perspective to the table have not fared as well, according to these theorists. Further, until we are able to hear from a wide diversity of voices rather than forcing all who wish to speak out to conform to a narrow range of options defined by the dominant group, we will still need the critical commentary of Muted Group Theory.

Heurism and Test of Time

Other critics argue that not too many studies have used MGT as a framework, and those few that have often don’t generate much empirical support. Related to this is the notion that the theory was derived thirty years ago. Thus, critics claim the theory should be discarded because its dated assumptions are not empirically validated. Proponents would respond to this in two ways: First, more testing needs to be done, and second, a critical theory like Muted Group is not as conducive to hypothesis testing as an axiomatic theory like Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Chapter 9), for example.

Certainly Muted Group Theory is provocative and causes us to think about biases in language. It also shines a light on what we accept and what we reject from speakers. Further, MGT explains some problems women experience in speaking out in many settings. It is up to us to decide if these issues form a systematic bias against subordinate groups and in favor of the dominant group, as Muted Group Theory asserts.