1

Wide Linguistic Repertoires and Deconstructing Gendered Binaries in The Devil Wears Prada
Allison Wisyanski
ABSTRACT
In David Frankels film, The Devil Wears Prada, the main character, Miranda Priestly, embodies what is
means to be a powerful woman in the workplace. It brings to question what qualities a good leader shall
embody, whether they be masculine or feminine qualities and whether these qualities belong to a
certain gender. According to scholars such as Janet Holmes and Stephanie Schnurr, linguistic strategies
and workplace discourses play a large part in establishing identity. Scholar Jaime Lester also studies
gender in the workplace, arguing that gender may be socially constructed and that identity is fluid rather
than fixed. Some scholars, such as Patricia Lewis, argue that good leaders embody gender-neutral
qualities; however, I argue that leaders may embody either masculine or feminine qualities or both,
just as Miranda does in the film. In this paper, I focus on Miranda Priestlys character and formulate my
argument through both second-wave and third-wave feminist post structuralist discourse analysis lenses.
Through a second-wave analysis lens, I focus on Mirandas language at the sentence level, specifically
her use of the following four discourses: Maternal Discourse, Professional Discourse, Feminine Discourse
and the The Bitch Boss discourse. Moreover, I argue against the idea that stereotypical masculine and
feminine qualities belong to a certain gender, which supports the existence of gendered binaries, even in
these so-called post-feminist times. To break down these gendered binaries and instead explore the
complexities of gender, I utilize a third-wave feminist post-structuralist discourse analysis lens. Here, I
study Mirandas masculine and feminine behaviors, her wide repertoire of linguistic strategies as well
as how her character deconstructs binaries and generalizations about what female leaders embody. In
other words, stereotypical masculine and feminine qualities should not be assigned to one gender
when it comes to leadership in the workplace; instead, male and female leaders possess either, or both,
qualities, which contribute to a wide repertoire of linguistic strategies and workplace discourses that
constitute effective leadership. Miranda Priestly exhibits this repertoire by intermingling stereotypical
feminine and masculine qualities and uses different discourses depending on certain contexts.
Through these skills, she breaks down gendered binaries and generalizations in the workplace.
KEYWORDS
FPDA, feminine discourse, masculine discourse, repertoire, gender differences, gender complexity
EPIGRAPH
But this should not mean that the enactment of normatively feminine behavior should be a cause
for embarrassment and apology by professional women (or men) in the workplace
Janet Holmes and Stephanie Schnurr
(32)
I. INTRODUCTION
The Devil Wears Prada was a blockbuster film (2006) that was much discussed in in popular culture. The
film follows Andrea Sachs, a recent college graduate who lands a job at the prestigious Runway magazine
in New York City. She works as the second assistant to the powerful, demanding and ruthless Miranda
Priestly, the editor-in-chief of Runway, and finds herself having to choose between the glamorous lifestyle
of the fashion world or pursuing her dreams as a journalist.

2
Throughout The Devil Wears Prada, it is clear that Miranda Priestly comes off as a harsh character with
demanding qualities of a leader, portraying her as exhibiting qualities generally expected of a male leader.
There are generalizations made about leaders in the workplace that support gendered binaries but it is
important that they, along with these binaries, be deconstructed. By tearing down these binaries, we may
see that so-called feminine and masculine qualities do not belong to a certain gender, but rather that
either men or women may embody them, and to good effect.
Priestly, the films main character, is editor-in-chief of Runway, a fashion magazine equivalent to the reallife Vogue, in which she uses her leadership skills to excel in the fast-paced fashion industry,
intermingling both masculine and feminine qualities and forms of discourse. The two most important
characters in the film, Miranda and Andrea, display the dynamic of a workplace in which a female has
dominant power. Within my different analysis sections, I refer to several key scenes that show how
Miranda exhibits a wide repertoire of linguistic strategies and breaks down gendered binaries, proving
that women do not have to solely act feminine. In other words, stereotypical masculine and
feminine qualities should not be assigned to one gender when it comes to leadership in the workplace;
instead, male and female leaders possess either, or both, qualities, which contribute to a wide repertoire of
linguistic strategies and workplace discourses that constitute effective leadership. Miranda Priestly
exhibits this repertoire by intermingling stereotypical feminine and masculine qualities and uses
different discourses depending on certain contexts. Through these skills, she breaks down gendered
binaries and generalizations in the workplace.
My study of leadership language is important in terms of social and ethical issues within a global society
because it poses a different way to view gender in the workplace and how generalizations have been made
over the course of our lives. Rather than generalizing what it means to be a male or female leader, such as
scholars often do in leadership studies, we should instead focus on the wide repertoire available to leaders
and understand that males and females may embody both stereotypical masculine and feminine
qualities; language does not always discriminate according to gender. By understanding that binaries do
not exist, it will aid in neutralizing discrimination in the workplace while also shedding light on the
complexities of gender and how effective leadership is not something that is structured according to
gender. In order to reach equality among men and women in the workplace, it is first essential to break
down the binaries and gendered discourses that exist and rather focus on the mere qualities of a good
leader, whether they are stereotypical feminine or masculine. It is no doubt that stereotypical
femininity and masculinity exist, but whether males or females embody these qualities should not matter
or affect the way others view their leadership abilities. If we take a step back and notice the complexities
of gender and how leaders embody many different qualities, we may be one step closer to achieving
equality and respect of all leaders, male or female, in the workplace.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
From a linguistic perspective, there has been little work done regarding gender roles and gender binaries
that exist in the workplace in the film, The Devil Wears Prada. My analysis, then, will focus on two
similar lines of research in relation to the powerful main character, Miranda Priestly: First, gender roles in
the workplace and, second, the deconstruction of gender binaries as a way of better understanding female
power.
A variety of sources strengthen my first and second line of research in my analysis of The Devil Wears
Prada, which focuses on female power and the ability of females to step out of their supposed gender
roles. In Julia Spikers article, Gender and Power in the Devil Wears Prada, she states that the film
offers working women a strong role model in the character of Miranda. The character of Miranda
expresses female power and evokes power with every verbal and nonverbal action (Spiker, 2012, p.17).
Spiker takes a third-wave feminism approach and claims that feminist-minded audiences are able to

3
focus on messages of empowerment, while simultaneously rejecting messages of sexualization or
objectification (18). Miranda has power and knows how to use it, to the dismay of many of her
coworkers in the film. Miranda is viewed as a devil but, in reality, shes utilizing her power effectively.
My study suggests that there should not solely be a feminine or masculine way of leading, but rather that
good leaders possess many different qualities. The second-wave idea that men behave one way and
women behave another way should have less importance, because anyone can be a good leader if they
possess the right qualities. Spiker recognizes that if Miranda were a man, her way of leading would not be
questioned. My study builds off of this idea and suggests that diminished gendered binaries afford the
opportunity for plural ways of leading. A woman should be allowed to possess masculine qualities just
as a man should be recognized as possessing masculine qualities. In other words, these qualities should
not be assigned to one gender. In order for women with power to be accepted in the workplace, we must
first eliminate the idea that feminine qualities belong only to women and masculine qualities belong only
to men.
My research demonstrates the inadequacy of more traditional approaches to women's language in the
workplace such as exemplified by Janet Holmes and Stephanie Schnurrs, Doing Femininity at work:
More than just relational practice (2006). The authors take a more linguistic approach in which they
analyze a New Zealand professional workplace and conclude that both concepts of feminine and
femininity may be viewed in a more positive light, reclaiming the potential for women and men to
behave in feminine ways, and make constructive but unremarkable use of conventionally female
discourse strategies, even at work (45). The article claims that the basis for the negative stereotype
associated with the terms feminine and femininity is the exaggeration of features which are associated
with the construction by women of a normal gender identity (32). In one of their studies they observe
Jill, a company director in a male-dominated IT company, who uses both forms of discourse: normatively
feminine and conventionally masculine. My claim is that female leaders can use femininity to their
advantage, an idea that Holmes and Schnurr ultimately sustain.
Patricia Lewiss article, entitled Postfeminism, Femininities and Organization Studies: Exploring a New
Agenda, takes a postfeminist approach and claims that women entrepreneurs inhabit both masculine and
feminine realms (1852). This fact helps to support my argument that ones gender should not define the
type of leader that they are. For example, in the article Lewis states that success is understood as the
effective performance of fundamentally gender-neutral methods, routines, and rituals, allied to the strong
belief that individuals (male or female) have an equal chance to succeed if they are ambitious or
hardworking (1853). Instead of focusing on gender-neutral methods, though, as they may lead to genderblindness, I instead infer that people can succeed with a mix of masculine and feminine qualities. I
will expand upon this study with Baxters study of the language of female leadership, in which she states
that with a gender-neutral way of leading, women seek to play down their femininity and play up their
abilities on the basis of their hard work and achievements in the company (Baxter, 2010, p. 48). In my
study, I will prove that by recognizing both feminine and masculine qualities, gender still has relevance in
the workplace but should not be the main focus as, if it is, then gendered binaries will still exist. Women
and men should not have to behave in a certain way but rather in the way that they see fit. The emphasis
should not solely by on whether a leader possesses female or masculine qualities, but whether the
qualities are strong enough to make them a good leader, no matter their gender. I will take it even further
than the idea of gender-neutral qualities and claim that leaders should not have to deny their sexuality or
downplay their femininity/masculinity. Gender neutrality is nothing other than another type of gendered
discourse that sets women apart from men in a negative way, as it suggests that acting too stereotypically
feminine or too masculine does not make for a good leader. As long as we recognize that there are
feminine and masculine qualities, but that they do not belong to a certain gender, it may be concluded that
gender-neutrality is a faade.

4
In short, I argue against conventional gendered roles in the workplace. Women do exude power. In my
study, I argue that there are indeed feminine and masculine ways of doing things, but both males and
females may possess these actions. In other words, Miranda Priestly should be viewed as a strong, female
leader, not a woman who is trying to act like a man. She should be seen, then, as simply doing her job.
The deconstruction of gender roles will go a long way toward neutralizing discrimination and thus
professionalizing the professional world.
III. THEORETICAL STANDPOINT
For my analysis, I utilize third wave linguistics rather than second wave linguistics in order to deconstruct
the binaries that primarily exist between stereotypical femininity and masculinity in the workplace. Yet, in
my research, I will utilize both second and third wave feminism1 to support my claims, as well as
Feminist Post-Structuralist Discourse2 Analysis (FPDA). First, second wave feminism assumes that
normative features or socially prescribed requirements of femininity are the embodiment of patriarchal
domination and oppression (Schippers and Sapp 28). Third wave feminism, on the other hand, places
femininity within broader contexts and suggests, femininity can be collectively reworked in potentially
subversive ways to counter hegemonic constructions of femininity (Schippers and Sapp 31). Moreover,
Baxter defines FPDA as a feminist approach to analyzing the ways in which speakers negotiate their
identities, relationships and positions in the world according to the ways in which they are located by
competing yet interwoven discourses (1).
Baxter both compares and contrasts FPDA with CA and CDA. CA merely studies conversations in
everyday settings, whereas CDA focuses on the bigger picture and, although it has adopted some
microanalysis methods, it analyzes more formal talk as well as written word (Baxter). FPDA may be
compared with CDA in that neither focuses solely traditional notions of language; however, it can also be
compared to CA in that it takes somewhat of an interest in in micro-analysis of text or talk (Baxter 46).
Most importantly, though, FPDA offers up a brand new approach because of its more complex
perception of the ambiguities and unevenness of power (Baxter 55). Rather than focusing on structure, it
breaks down the barriers that CA and CDA present. She also states that FPDA puts forth a particularly
illuminating means of describing, analyzing and interpreting an aspect of spoken interaction perhaps
overlooked by CA [conversation analysis] and CDA [critical discourse analysis] the continuously
fluctuating ways in which speakers, within any discursive context, are positioned as powerful or
powerless by competing social and institutional discourses (44). As part of FPDA, I refer to doublevoicing, which is the idea that when we speak we are not simply expressing our own needs and goals
(single-voiced discourse), but we are also taking into account the needs and goals of our addressees and
constantly modifying what we say in the light of it (102).
Upon understanding in depth the definitions above, I will first use a second wave feminist lens to focus on
the structure of how femininity and masculinity exist as binaries and are represented throughout the film,
The Devil Wears Prada. Second wave feminist theory first aids in my study because it claims men behave
one way and women behave another way; in other words, second wave feminism believes that both
masculinity and femininity are individually denotative. Structuralism suggests that binaries create
meaning. In my analysis, I will deconstruct the claim that gender binaries exist. Rather than focus on the
mere structure of what it means to be a man or woman, I will instead view the film through a third wave
feminist lens and shed light on the complexities of gender and how femininity and masculinity do not
belong to a certain sex, to an extent, when it comes to leadership.
Furthermore, I will use third wave feminist theory perspectives to support my claim that gender is nondualistic. Gender is more complex than the way it is constructed through the second wave lens. In turn, I
will deconstruct the binaries and instead prove that sexuality does not necessarily determine feminine or
masculine qualities. Schippers and Sapp refer to a few perspectives of third wave feminism that play into

5
my research, such as, one, that femininity is a set of ideals of what a woman should be but also that it is
available to anyone regardless of sex category (31). It is essential to take this third wave perspective
and analyze how Miranda Priestly, the main character, holds masculine qualities, as it is a perfect example
that neither femininity or masculinity belong to a certain sex. FPDA will help my argument in that it
studies complexities, as this term relates to the complex nature of gender roles in the workplace. I will
specifically use FPDA to challenge the modernist myth that girls/women are universally and uniformly
subordinated by patriarchal order (Baxter 182). This approach does not make sweeping generalisations
about what it is to be male or female, (182) which I can use in my argument that Miranda Priestly
should be viewed as a powerful workingwoman with masculine qualities. Her qualities throughout the
film cause others to view her as a mean boss but, in reality, she is simply doing her job and doing it well.
IV. METHODOLOGY
In this study, I focus mainly on Miranda Priestlys character in The Devil Wears Prada, how her
coworkers perceive the way that she performs her job, and how she exerts power throughout the film in
what most characters perceive as masculine. For my analysis, I highlighted crucial aspects of the film
that demonstrate the complexities of gender and its non-dual nature, that is, how both male and females
can embody masculinity and femininity in their discourse.
In each scene, I analyze the ways in which postfeminism and third wave linguistics work together to show
that masculine and feminine behavior can extend beyond conventional gender ideologies. I draw on the
idea that reconfigured femininity exists in the workplace and that women can hold power beyond
traditional conventions and roles.
In order to explain genders non-dual nature and thoroughly capture the understanding of gender, I
initially use pragmatics, the study of unspoken social rules, to uncover gendered expectations in Priestlys
workplace. This tool aids in my analysis of discourses throughout the film. However, I use FPDA and
third wave analysis to examine genders non-dualistic nature. This analysis challenges second wave
feminisms theory that gender is stable and instead emphasizes the complexity of gender as displayed by
Miranda Priestlys power-driven character. Rather than simply claiming Miranda is a woman with
masculine qualities, I will go even further to assert that she possesses the qualities necessary for leading
and that she completely reconfigures the idea of femininity in the workplace.
V. CONTEXT
In the following sections, I will be analyzing pieces of dialogue and body language in several key scenes
from the film, The Devil Wears Prada, where Miranda exhibits her leadership skills. These scenes also
reveal how the other characters perceive her and how they feel about the way she performs her job. The
analysis is divided into three different categories: Mirandas intermingling of stereotypical feminine and
masculine qualities, her wide repertoire of linguistic strategies and double-voicing, as well as how her
character deconstructs gendered binaries and generalizations in the workplace. From the beginning of the
film, one of the characters, Nigel, presents Miranda to guests in the crowd as a sophisticated, elegant
woman interested in style, and as the film unfolds, the viewer can see why she is so successful.
Upon hearing that Miranda is about to arrive to the Runway office, everyone frantically runs around,
preparing for her entrance and making sure that everything is pristine, including their ensemble and outer
appearance. It is clear, from the beginning, how much power Miranda holds over everyone beneath her
and what she expects of them. In the first half of the film, Miranda has heavy demands for her second
assistant, Andy, for every morning she expects her to hang up her coat, fetch her coffee and lunch, and
complete many other tasks. At this point in the film, Miranda still refers to Andy as her old second

6
assistant, Emily. She is hard on Andy, a girl who is not very much so interested in fashion, until Andy
decides its time to gain Mirandas respect.
As the film unfolds, in a scene between Andy and another coworker, Nigel, Andy complains that Miranda
treats her poorly. Nigel reminds her that Miranda is simply doing her job and feels no need to sympathize
or make her feel better. Here, Andy has a revelation that in order to gain respect from Miranda, she must
take a stride into the world of fashion and show Miranda that she cares. It is in this scene that Nigel
makes Andy over, giving her a new wardrobe and hairstyle. As Andy walks through the office, head held
high, jealousy overcomes many of the female workers and, finally, Miranda refers to her as Andy.
Later on in the film, Miranda calls together a fashion preview of designer James Holts fashion collection.
She does not approve of it and, because she purses her lips, which, to everyone around her, means
catastrophe and that the entire collection must be changed. Here, she uses her femininity to an advantage
through this kind of body language. She holds power over many around her and her body language
dictates what should be done about the situation. Moving further into the film, Andy respects Miranda and
the way that she does her job and stands up for her in a conversation with fashion writer, Christian. He is
not fond of Miranda but Andy points out that if Miranda were a man, no one would notice anything about
her except how good she is at her job.
Throughout the entire film, Miranda portrays her leadership skills and proves to those around her how
successful she is at her job and, at times, she uses femininity to her advantage. Although she is demanding
at times and seems to come across as more masculine, she instead stands as a leader who destructs gender
binaries. Miranda may be viewed as a leader with both masculine and feminine qualities, but she should
also be seen as a woman who can get the job done. Her strong and sometimes harsh ways make others
around her determined to complete their jobs. In the end, when Runway is about to be taken away from
Miranda, she slyly comes up with a plan to deter the whole thing and reasons that if they find a new
editor-in-chief, all of her designers, editors, writers, photographers and models would follow her
wherever she goes. Her power proves that good leadership goes beyond masculinity and femininity and
instead emphasizes language that gets the job done.
VI. LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
The Devil Wears Prada may be most effectively analyzed by studying the ways in which Miranda Priestly
does not conform to gender stereotypes and shows viewers how one may act or respond in any given
context. By studying the complexities of leadership and the wide repertoire of leadership behavior and
discourse that leaders take on may be revealed through Priestlys character as the film unfolds. It is
essential to view the film through both a second and third wave lens: first, viewing the film through a
second wave lens would argue that Priestly is not acting conventionally feminine, whereas viewing it
through a third wave lens deconstructs the gendered binary and supports the idea that Priestly takes on
both stereotypical feminine and masculine behavior and discourse. This analysis will be broken down
into three sections: Mirandas intermingling of stereotypical feminine and masculine qualities in the
workplace, her wide linguistic repertoire and use of double-voicing, and, lastly, breaking down gendered
binaries and generalizations in the workplace.
Analysis 1: Intermingling of Stereotypical Feminine and Masculine Qualities
In the opening scene of the film (see Appendix 1), the office scatters about frantically, getting ready for
Mirandas arrival. We see only her Prada heel step out of the car and, soon after, her elegant strut into the
large Runway building. From the beginning, it is evident how much power Miranda holds in the office.
From a second wave perspective, Mirandas character comes across as extremely masculine and assertive,
with her constant demands and almost aggressive attitude, both atypical qualities of that of a woman.

7
According to structuralism, Miranda is not a conventional female leader, as she does not take on the
conventional roles of her gender. By focusing on structuralism and second-wave theory alone, it can be
concluded that Miranda takes on stereotypes of masculine behavior, such as self-confidence, assertiveness
and strength, rather than the stereotypical traits of women such as warm, emotional, and sensitive. On the
other hand, viewing this opening scene through a third wave lens suggests that Miranda possesses both
feminine and masculine qualities. We can clearly see Mirandas use of The Bitch Boss discourse here
(see Appendix 1) and even her aggressive tone as she says, Details of your incompetence do not interest
me.
The Bitch Boss discourse shows Mirandas aggressiveness and demanding manners, which are both
very masculine qualities. On the other hand, she acts feminine in this scene, as shes dressed from head to
toe in designer clothing, struts into the building and whips her designer sunglasses off of her face with a
determined glare.3 With the mixture of both stereotypical feminine and masculine qualities, Priestly
disproves the second wave view that females only possess feminine qualities. She steps out of the
conventional female role.
During Andreas interview, Miranda is extremely preoccupied, looking through papers and barely paying
attention to what Andrea is saying. Here, she takes on more of a masculine role, acting dismissive and less
attentive. Thus, Priestlys character would break down the claim, gender identities are a discursive
construction of what women and men should be (Schippers and Sapp, 2012, p. 29). Second wave also
supports discourse of gendered difference, which attributes polarised qualities to males and females so
that males are viewed as more rational, independent, competitive and confrontations, while females are
seen as more irrational, dependent, co-operative, passive, and conciliatory (Baxter, 2010, p. 44), making
women far less suitable for leadership. Miranda does have more of a masculine way of speaking, but her
other behaviors in this scene suggest a third wave analysis for better understanding.
By viewing this scene through a second wave lens and seeing Miranda as acting against her conventional
role as a woman, it is essential to turn to a third wave lens to study how context has shaped her identity.
Looking solely at the sentence level only reveals The Bitch Boss discourse from Miranda, which seems
to be more of a so-called masculine behavior and supports the idea that gendered binaries exists.
Through post-structuralism, however, the film may be analyzed above the sentence level and instead
focus on how her behavior is socially constructed through cultural context. The context of the film plays a
huge role in the way that Miranda behaves because she works in the fashion industry. Jaime Lester states,
watching how individuals represent gender by dress, mannerism, and social interactions, for example,
provides clues as to how the culture and context define gender roles (Lester, 2008, p. 284). The way that
she dresses and behaves in this scene show that fashion has shaped her identity because she cares about
her appearance, acts feminine but all the while maintains her masculine qualities, as well. In this way,
Miranda creates a hybrid performance by intermingling both stereotypical feminine and masculine
qualities (Lester, 2008, p. 298). The way that Miranda behaves leads to the next concept: double-voicing
and Mirandas wide repertoire of linguistic strategies.
Analysis 2: Mirandas Wide Linguistic Repertoire and Use of Double-Voicing
Throughout the film, Miranda uses double-voicing in order to exert her power and serve as a good leader.
The concept of double-voicing refers to the ways in which speakers mingle components of different
styles for particular effect (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 33). Miranda utilizes four different discourses
throughout the film: Maternal Discourse, Professional Discourse, Feminine Discourse and the The Bitch
Boss discourse. In Appendix 3, we see Miranda speak with a Feminine Discourse, posing a question to
Andrea rather than barking an order at her. At the end of the scene, though, she goes right back to her
Bitch Boss discourse and tells Andrea, Dont even bother coming back. It is essential to look past
second-wave structuralism, which would only claim that Miranda speaks outside of her gendered role, but

8
rather take a third-wave FPDA perspective and recognize her double-voiced discourses. Essentially,
effective women leaders typically drew skillfully and competently on a wide range of discourse
strategies, some regarded as indexing conventional masculinity, and some as enacting normative
femininity (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 42). Most importantly, the act of double-voicing works to an
advantage because it can be shaped for different audiences; in this case, she asks Andrea a question,
seeming calm and understanding at first in her Feminine Discourse, but then turns to The Bitch Boss
discourse and threatens her. The way that she uses double-voicing in this scene causes Andrea some
distress but, in the end, drives her to complete the task. Miranda, then, is successful as a leader because
she motivates Andrea to complete her job. These discourses intersect in that she uses both to her
advantage.
In addition to Feminine Discourse and The Bitch Boss discourse, Miranda also uses a Maternal
Discourse. These discourses show that she has a wide repertoire of linguistic skills and does not simply
come across as a demanding boss with no feelings, professional qualities or even a life outside of work.
She is a mother of two twins and, throughout the film, she takes on a Maternal Discourse and changes the
way that she speaks opposed to how she speaks in Professional Discourse to her colleagues In several of
the scenes while talking to her daughters, she takes on a Maternal Discourse, using a very kind and hightoned voice, as opposed to her usual string of demands to Andrea in The Bitch Boss discourse. The way
that her discourses interact in the movie is worth analyzing because she never lets her home life interfere
with work. Women with children may be expected to act as more maternal in the workplace. Miranda
goes from a Bitch Boss discourse to Maternal Discourse but does not let it affect what she says after
being on the phone with her daughters (see Appendix 3). In addition, Miranda comes off as extremely
demanding but also professional in this scene, as she switches from an intimate phone conversation to
giving Andrea a task to complete. She goes from saying Mommy in conversation to reminding Andrea
to have the task done by a certain time. In this particular scene, Miranda shows the difference between
Maternal Discourse versus both The Bitch Boss discourse and Professional Discourse. Altogether,
Miranda exhibits a wide repertoire of linguistic skills in order to thrive as a leader in the fast-paced
fashion industry.
Moreover, Miranda is able to shape her discourses around the different contexts. For example, at the end
of the film, she uses Professional Discourse with a pleasing tone when giving a speech in front of her
colleagues. In her ability to switch from The Bitch Boss discourse to a Professional Discourse, she
exhibits her wide repertoire of language that displays her different developed voices. During her speech,
she shows that she has developed a public voice, shown in the scene entitled The Big Announcement:
And so, it should come as no surprise that when the time came for James to choose the new
president of James Holt International, he chose from within the Runway family. And it's my
great happiness today to announce to you all that that person, is my friend and longtime
esteemed colleague, Jacqueline Follet.
In chair meetings at the office, however, she takes on her Bitch Boss discourse in which she expects a
lot from her peers (Baxter, 2011, p. 150). When someone suggests florals for the upcoming fashion line
she responds with, Florals? For Spring? Groundbreaking. She also repeats the word no several times,
shutting down mostly everyone except Nigels ideas. This scene (see Appendix 4) is one of the many
instances in which Miranda comes off as hard to please. In Baxters chapter on effective leadership
language, she mentions warm and cold ways of leading, both of which Miranda exhibit, as well.
Cold linguistic authority is used when it is necessary to establish clear boundaries and expectations
(Baxter, 2010, p. 150). In this scene of The Devil Wears Prada entitled Errand Girl, Miranda makes it
clear what is currently expected of her assistant, Andrea:

new

[Miranda]: I dont see my breakfast here. Are my eggs here? Where are my eggs? Pick up the
Polaroids from the lingerie shoot. Have the breaks checked on my car. [Truck Horn Honking]
[Gasps] Wheres that piece of paper I had in my hand yesterday morning? The girls need
surfboard or boogie boards or something for spring break.

During this scene, the camera shows Andrea working extremely hard to accomplish all of these tasks,
with all of her days beginning with Miranda throwing her jacket and purse on Andys desk for her to hang
up. From the beginning, Miranda establishes herself as a cold character by setting up exactly what she
wants from Andrea. Looking at this from a second-wave perspective would merely pit Miranda as a
stereotypically masculine woman and argue that she is not acting how a woman leader should act;
however, through third-wave analysis (FPDA), one can see that she is using this cold form of leading in
order to establish authority. Furthermore, Miranda expands upon her repertoire and uses warm
linguistic strategies, such as always speaking in a soft-toned voice. Near the films end, (see Appendix 6),
Miranda speaks warmly to Andrea, praising her for her hard work and voicing that she reminds her of
herself. She quickly switches back to cold, though, reminding Andrea that she took another colleagues
spot to get ahead. In the very last scene entitled A Secret Smile, Miranda sees former colleague Andrea
walking down the city streets as she sits in her chauffer and softly smiles but, soon after she barks at her
chauffeur, Go.
To add on to her linguistic repertoire and ability to use a double-voice, she also uses feminine body
language to her advantage in order to exert power. Mirandas body language in this scene shows both
stereotypical feminine and masculine qualities. By simply the purse of her lips, she implies that the
entire collection did not impress her. Rather than associating feminine behavior with lack of power and
influence, (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 32), it should instead be seen in a positive light. After the runthrough, though, she brings forward what seems to be a more masculine style of leading, stating that it
was a disaster (see Appendix 2). Here, Miranda expands upon the idea of double-voicing and pairs
masculine discourse with so-called feminine behavior, rather than just masculine and feminine
discourse together. This scene is a prime example of how Miranda complexifies gender, as she uses both
so-called feminine and masculine qualities to her advantage and use of power.
This type of analysis looks beyond the sentence level and reveals Mirandas ability to mix different
discourses in order to be a good leader. From a denotative standpoint, this scene would be troubling
because it does not suggest that men behave one way and women behave another way, but rather that
these behaviors may be executed by either males or females. With the pragmatics rules system, one may
look at Mirandas demands and automatically assume that she is going against her traditional role as a
woman, which is to be more passive and unfit as a leader. In this light, gendered binaries create the
meaning, as they claim that certain qualities belong to males and certain qualities belong to females.
Because Miranda is comfortable with her identity, though, she can effectively use both stereotypical
feminine and masculine ways of speaking. This way of speaking is often observable in the behavior
of senior women who were secure in their professional identity (41). Hence, Mirandas wide linguistic
repertoire, including her discourses and body language along with double-voicing, work to her advantage
in that they each strengthen her leadership abilities.
Analysis 3: Breaking Down Gendered Binaries and Generalizations in the Workplace
It is important to point out that although gendered binaries may be deconstructed, gender is still relevant
at some level in every workplace interaction, an ever-present influence on how we behave, how we
interpret others behavior, even if our level of awareness of this influence varies from one interaction to
another, and from moment to moment within an interaction (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 33). Rather
than femininity belonging to females and masculinity to males, both genders should be able to possess
either, or both, qualities. The way that a leader behaves forms their social identity and shows what types

10
of qualities that they possess. The distinction between two types of social identity is often difficult
because particular linguistic features are associated with more than one kind of identity (e.g. masculinity
and leadership, femininity and subordination) (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 33). It is important to
remember, though, that identity is not a fixed state of being, but a fluid process that is able to change
(Lester, 2008, p. 283). Here, in order to deconstruct gendered binaries and what it means to identify as
either male or female, I argue that masculinity should not be associated with leadership or femininity with
subordination.
With a second-wave approach, this gendered binary would be supported, as it structures how women and
men should behave; however, it may be argued that acting stereotypically feminine or merely being a
female does not halt the ability to lead. According to Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble,
individuals do not entirely act out a set of predetermined gender roles; rather, the roles are established,
recreated and reinforced within the performances (Lester, 2008, p. 283). This claim takes a third-wave
feminist post-structural discourse analysis approach as it goes against the support of conventional gender
roles. Rather than acting simply based off of gender, individuals may choose to perform however they
may with no ties to predetermined gender roles. In the film, Miranda is a character that acts both
stereotypically feminine and masculine and, most importantly, does not submit to conventional roles
of leadership. In the workplace, we are always aware of the gender of those we are talking to, and we
bring to every workplace interaction our familiarity with societal gender stereotypes, and the gendered
norms to which women and men are expected to conform (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006, p. 33). These
generalizations in the workplace refer to the second-wave view of gender, which forms sweeping
generalities of what qualities belong to a specific gender. Most of the time, the characteristics
stereotypically associated with such generalisations are often inaccurate, and day-to-day interactions in
particular communities of practice typically challenge the generalisations (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006,
p.34). Instead of describing Miranda as simply hard or bossy, she should be described as strong, bold,
or challenging (Baxter, 2010, p. 175). Miranda, then, eliminates generalisations formed in second-wave
analysis and instead embodies a strong women leader with both so-called masculine and feminine
qualities, not just the qualities generally associated with females.
Moreover, Miranda Priestly serves as the embodiment of strong women leaders in the workplace who are
looked down upon by many others (see Appendix 5). The papers make it seem like her divorce has been
caused by her dominant position in the workplace, meaning that she has allowed her work to drive away
another husband. Miranda is not only looked at in this way by the press but also by another character in
the movie, Christian, one of Andreas favorite writers. Here, I will analyze the following conversation
with between Christian and Andrea about Miranda in the scene, Dinner With Christian:
[Andrea} Okay, I just wanna say that yes, there are things Miranda does that I don't agree
with, but, [Christian] Come on. You hate her. Just admit it to me. [Andrea] No. [Christian]
She's a, She's a notorious sadist, and not, not in a good way. [Andrea] Okay, she's tough,
but if Miranda were a man, no one would notice anything about her, except how great
she is at her job. [Christian] [Chuckles] I'm sorry. I can't, I can't believe this. You're
defending her? [Andrea] Yeah.
In this scene, Christian refers to Miranda as a notorious sadist, where as Andrea interjects and claims that
if she were a man, no one would notice her masculine way of getting the job done. From a third-wave
perspective, these scenes can be explained by looking at Baxters examples of corporate linguistic
strategy in relation to senior women. In the corporate world, women are often described as hard,
difficult, scary, tough, mean, bullying, assertive, aggressive, volatile, overpowering, shrill, hysterical,
emotional, moody, and irrational, lesbian, feminist, [and] transvestite] (Baxter, 2010, p. 157). As a whole,

11
though, Mirandas character helps break down these generalizations about gender because she embodies a
more complex gender identity.
VII. CONCLUSION
From the beginning of this project, I was determined to discover the complexities of gender and how both
stereotypical masculine and feminine qualities are intermingled in the workplace. Though Miranda
comes across as primarily masculine through a second-wave perspective, my analysis builds on this idea
and, through third-wave analysis, concludes that she embodies both stereotypical feminine and
masculine qualities, thus creating her wide repertoire of linguistic strategies. Throughout the film, she
combines her so-called feminine and masculine behavior as well as body language and double-voiced
discourse and supports the breaking down of gendered binaries and generalizations. Gender should not
disappear in the workplace; however, its definition should be reconfigured, as male and female should not
be two-fold with masculinity and femininity.
With second-wave analysis, I study Mirandas language on the sentence-level and explain that viewing
the film through this lens aids in the identification of gendered binaries. By turning to third wave FPDA,
however, I conclude that with Mirandas so-called feminine and masculine behavior, wide repertoire
of linguistic strategies and deconstruction of binaries, she serves as a prime example of a good leader.
Most importantly, in my analysis, I conclude that femininity and masculinity do not belong to solely one
gender; in other words, individuals may possess either quality or both. In other words, stereotypical
masculine and feminine qualities should not be assigned to one gender when it comes to leadership in
the workplace; instead, male and female leaders possess either, or both, qualities, which contribute to a
wide repertoire of linguistic strategies and workplace discourses that constitute effective leadership.
Miranda Priestly exhibits this repertoire by intermingling stereotypical feminine and masculine
qualities and uses different discourses depending on certain contexts. Through these skills, she breaks
down gendered binaries and generalizations in the workplace.
My analysis suggests the importance of stereotypical masculine and feminine discourses, behaviors
and qualities in the workplace, no matter what person embodies them, and how they can especially shed
light on some real world social and ethical issues of language and leadership. We must get past these
generalizations of what it means to be a male or female leader and rather recognize that leaders possess
many different qualities, no matter if they are stereotypical feminine, masculine or both. As part of
the critical conversation, researchers could further study this standpoint. By analyzing the intersection of
so-called feminine and masculine discourses in relation to the wide repertoire of linguistic strategies
embodied by Miranda, researchers may highlight how breaking down gendered binaries could improve
the workplace. The best-case scenario leads to an understanding of gender complexities and equality in
the workplace.
VIII. ENDNOTES
Feminism is a term that has acquired a number of different meanings, many of which indicate key
turning points in the history of feminist thought. Feminist thought is sometimes characterized as occurring
in waves. The three different waves are first-wave, second-wave, and third-wave. First-wave feminism
concerned itself largely with gaining equal political rights and economic opportunities for women
(Cudd and Andreasan, 2005, pg.7). Second-wave feminists maintain that although important, political
and legal equality is not enough to end womens oppression (Cudd and Andreasan, 2005, p. 7). Thirdwave feminism, the most recent movement, began in the late 1980s. Third-wave feminists argue that
feminism should no longer be viewed as a cohesive political and theoretical movement with common
liberatory aims for all women. Rather, they maintain that we need a feminism that accepts diversity and
allows for multiplicity of feminist goals (Cudd and Andreasan, 2005, p. 8).

12
2

The conventional definition of discourse is any talk between people, and groups of people, in everyday
contexts such as the shopping centre, the classroom, the boardroom or the law courts (Baxter 7).
Discourse, according to Baxter, is defined and used in two ways in her book Positioning Gender in
Discourse: it is the relatively straight-forward, conventional sense of language above the sentence or
language at text level (Cameron, 2001:11). Discourse is also referred to as a form of social/ideological
practice (Fairclough, 1992); in other words, discourses are forms of knowledge or powerful sets of
assumptions, expectations and explanations, governing mainstream social and cultural practices (Baxter
7)
3
It is important to note here that these stereotypical feminine qualities are specific to females in the
fashion industry, as Miranda embodies the stereotypical feminine role by strutting into the building in
designer clothing. These qualities do not necessarily apply to all women.
IX. WORKS CITED
Baxter, Judith. The Language of Female Leadership. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
Cudd, Ann E. and Robin O. Andreasan, eds. Feminist Theory: A Philosophical Anthology. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Print.
Holmes, Janet, and Stephanie Schnurr. "Doing Femininity At Work: More Than Just Relational
Practice." Journal Of Sociolinguistics 10.1 (2006): 31-51. Communication & Mass Media
Complete. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.
Lester, Jaime. Performing Gender In The Workplace. Community College Review 35.4 (2008): 277305. Professional Development Collection. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.
Lewis, Patricia. Postfeminism, Femininities And Organization Studies: Exploring A New Agenda.
Organization Studies (01708406) 35.12 (2014): 1845-1866. Business Source Complete. Web. 20
Nov. 2015.
Schippers, M, and EG Sapp. Reading Pulp Fiction: Femininity And Power In Second And Third Wave
Feminist Theory. Feminist Theory 13.1 (n.d.): 27-42. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 23
Nov. 2015.
Spiker, Julia A. Gender and Power in the Devil Wears Prada. International Journal of
Business, Humanities and Technology 2.3 (2012 ): 16-26. Web. 1 Oct. 2015
The Devil Wears Prada Script. N.d., n.p.http://www.veryabc.cn/movie/uploads/script/TheDevil
WearsPrada.txt. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
X. APPENDICES
a. Appendix 1
Script for The Dragon Lady
b. Appendix 2
Script for The Preview
c. Appendix 3
Script for Delivering the Book
d. Appendix 4
Script for An Incubus of Viral Plague
e. Appendix 5

13
Script for Another Divorce
f. Appendix 6
Script for To Be Us
a)Appendix1:
[Miranda] Details of your incompetence do not interest me. Tell Simone I'm not going to approve that girl
that she sent me for the Brazilian layout. I asked for clean, athletic, smiling. She sent me dirty, tired and
paunchy. And R.S.V.P. Yes to the Michael Kors party. I want the driver to drop me off at 9:30 and pick me
up at 9:45 sharp [Whispers] 9:45 sharp. Call Natalie at Glorious Foods, tell her no for the 40th time. No,
I don't want dacquoise. I want tortes filled with warm rhubarb compote. Then call my ex-husband and
remind him the parent-teacher conference is at Dalton tonight. Then call my husband, ask him to meet me
for dinner at that place I went to with Massimo. Tell Richard I saw the pictures that he sent for that feature
on the female paratroopers, and they're all so deeply unattractive. Is it impossible to find a lovely, slender
female paratrooper?
[Emily] No.
[Miranda] Am I reaching for the stars here? Not really. Also, I need to see all the things that Nigel has
pulled for Gwyneth's second cover try. I wonder if she's lost any of that weight yet. Who's that?
[Emily] Nobody. Um, uh. Human Resources sent her up about the new assistant job, and I was
preinterviewing her. But she's hopeless and totally wrong for it.
[Miranda] Clearly I'm going to have to do that myself because the last two you sent me were completely
inadequate. So send her in. That's all.
[Emily] Right. She wants to see you.
[Andrea] Oh! She does?
[Emily] Move! This is foul. Don't let her see it. Go!
[Andrea] That's [Sighs]
[Miranda] Who are you?
[Andrea] Uh, my name is Andy Sachs. I recently graduated from Northwestern University.
[Miranda] And what are you doing here?
[Andrea] [Clears Throat] Well, I think I could do a good job as your assistant. And, um. Yeah, I came to
New York to be a journalist and sent letters out everywhere, and then finally got a call from Elias-Clarke
and met with Sherry up at Human Resources. Basically, it's this or Auto Universe.
[Miranda] So you don't read Runway?
[Andrea] Uh, no.
[Miranda] And before today, you had never heard of me.
[Andrea] No.
[Miranda] And you have no style or sense of fashion.
[Andrea] Well, um, I think that depends on what you're
[Miranda] No, no. That wasnt a question.
[Andrea] Um, I was editor in chief of the Daily Northwestern. I also, um, won a national competition for
college journalists with my series on the janitors' union, which exposed the exploitation
[Miranda] That's all.
b) Appendix 2:
[Nigel] Miranda insists upon seeing all the designers' collections before they show them. Great to see you.
Hello, James.
[Andy] And she tells them what she thinks?
[Nigel] In her way. Uh, this season really began for me with a meditation on the intersection between
East and west.

14
[Nigel] There's a scale. One nod is good. Two nods is very good. There's only been one actual smile on
record, and that was Tom Ford in 2001. An obi belt.
[Nigel] She doesn't like it, she shakes her head.
[James] This is the dress that we have designed specifically and exclusively for you.
[Nigel] Then, of course, there's the pursing of the lips.
[Andy] Which means?
[Nigel] Catastrophe.
[Whispers] Just, uh. Just go.
[Miranda] I just don't understand. I'm appalled. It's absurd. Appalled. You deal with it.
[Nigel] I'll talk to him.
[Andrea] So because she pursed her lips, he's gonna change his entire collection?
[Nigel] You still don't get it, do you? Her opinion is the only one that matters.
[Miranda] Call my husband and confirm dinner.
[Andrea] At Pastis? Done.
[Miranda] And I'll need a change of clothes.
[Andrea] Well, I've already messengered your outfit over to the shoot.
[Miranda] Fine. And, Andrea, I would like you to deliver the Book to my home tonight. Have Emily give
you the key.
[Andrea] Mm-hmm.
[Miranda] Guard this with your life.
[Andrea] Of course.
c) Appendix 3:
[Miranda] Andrea?
[Snaps Fingers]
[Andrea] Miranda, about last night, I
[Miranda] I need the new Harry Potter book for the twins.
[Andrea] Okay. Okay. I'll go down to Barnes & Noble right now.
[Miranda] Did you fall down and smack your little head on the pavement?
[Andrea] Not that I can recall.
[Miranda] We have all the published Harry Potter books. The twins want to know what happens next.
[Andrea] You want the unpublished manuscript?
[Miranda] We know everyone in publishing. It shouldn't be a problem, should it? And you can do
anything, right?
[Cell Phone Rings]
Yes, Bobbsey. I know, baby.
Mommy's working very hard to get it for you.
[Andrea] She doesn't get it. I could call frickin J.K. Rowling herself. I'm not gonna get a copy of that
book.
[Miranda] My girls are leaving on the train for their grandmother's at 4:00, so the book better be here no
later than 3:00.
[Andrea] Of course!
[Miranda] And I would like my steak here in 15 minutes.
[Andrea] No problem! [Panting]
***
[Miranda] I'll be back at 3:00. I'd like my Starbucks waiting. Oh, and if you don't have that Harry Potter
book by then, don't even bother coming back.
d) Appendix 4:
[Miranda] Where are we on that?

15
[Nigel] Zac Posers doing some very sculptural suits. So I suggested that, uh, Testino shoot them at the
Noguchi Garden.
[Miranda] Perfect. Thank God somebody came to work today.
[Miranda] What about accessories for April?
[Colleague] One thought I had was enamel. Um, bangles, pendants, earrings.
[Miranda] No. We did that two years ago.
[Miranda] What else?
[Colleage] Um, well, they're showing a lot of florals right now, so I was thinking
[Miranda] Florals? For spring? Groundbreaking.
[Colleague]But we thought about shooting them in an industrial space. We thought the contrast between
the femininity of the florals, and the more raw, rough-hewn background would create this wonderful
tension between
[Miranda] No.
[Colleague] Which?
[Miranda] No.
[Colleague] -Which?
[Emily Coughing]
[Miranda] No.
e) Appendix 5:
[Miranda] By all means, move at a glacial pace. You know how that thrills me. Okay. So, first of all, we
need to move Snoop Dogg to my table.
[Andrea] But your table's full.
[Miranda] Stephen isn't coming.
[Andrea] Oh, Stephen is. So I don't need to fetch Stephen from the airport tomorrow?
[Miranda] Well, if you speak to him and he decides to rethink the divorce, then, yes, fetch away. You're
very fetching, so go fetch. And then when we get back to New York, we need to contact, um, Leslie to see
what she can do to minimize the press on all this. Another divorce, splashed across page six. I can just
imagine what they're gonna write about me. The Dragon Lady, career-obsessed. Snow Queen drives away
another Mr. Priestly. Rupert Murdoch should cut me a check, for all the papers I sell for him. Anyway, I
don't, I don't really care what anybody writes about me. But my, my girls, I just, It's just so unfair to the
girls. It's just, another disappointment, another letdown, another father figure [Chuckles] Gone. Anyway,
the point is. [Clears Throat] The point is. [Sighs] The point is we really need to figure out where to place
Donatella, because she's barely speaking to anyone.
[Andrea] I'm so sorry, Miranda. If you want me to cancel your evening, I can.
[Miranda] Don't be ridiculous. Why would we do that?
[Andrea] Um, is. Is there anything else I can do?
Miranda] Your job. That's all.
f) Appendix 6:
[Miranda] You thought I didn't know. I've known what was happening for quite some time. It just took me
a little while to find a suitable alternative for Jacqueline. And that James Holt job was so absurdly
overpaid, that, of course, she jumped at it. So I just had to tell Irv that Jacqueline was unavailable. The
truth is, there is no one that can do what I do, including her. Any of the other choices would have found
that job impossible and the magazine would have suffered. [Sighs] Especially because of the list. The list
of designers, photographers, editors, writers, models, all of whom were found by me, nurtured by me and
have promised me they will follow me, whenever and if ever I choose to leave Runway. [Chuckles] So he
reconsidered. But I was very, very impressed by how intently you tried to warn me. I never thought I
would say this, Andrea but I really, I see a great deal of myself in you. You can see beyond what people
want and what they need, and you can choose for yourself.

16
[Andrea] I don't think I'm like that. I couldn't do what you did to Nigel, Miranda. I couldn't do something
like that.
[Miranda] Mm. You already did. To Emily.
[Andrea] That's not what I. No, that was, that was different. I didn't have a choice.
[Miranda] Oh, no, you chose. You chose to get ahead. You want this life, those choices are necessary.
[Andrea] But what if this isn't what I want? I mean, what if I don't wanna live the way you live?
[Miranda] Don't be ridiculous, Andrea. Everybody wants this. Everybody wants to be us.
XI. PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHY
Allison Wisyanski is a senior English major with writing minor. Her interest areas within the major are
literature studies, fashion and media writing.