understood to be shaped by the cultural systems in which it is embedded, but no variation within or across these systems is identified. Often, a single ideology will be identified in such cases. Characterizations of language ideology as representative of one community or culture, such as those routinely documented in ethnographic research, are common examples of neutral approaches to language ideology. Critical approaches to language ideology explore the capacity for language and linguistic ideologies to be used as strategies for maintaining social power and domination. They are described by Kathryn Woolard and Bambi Schieffelin as studies of "some aspects of representation and social cognition, with particular social origins or functional and formal characteristics." Although such studies are often noted for their discussions of language politics and the intersection between language and social class, the crucial difference between these approaches to language ideology and neutral understandings of the concept is that the former emphasize the existence of variability and contradiction both within and amongst ideologies, while the latter approach ideology as a conception on its own terms. Areas of inquiry Language use and structure Many scholars have argued that ideology plays a role in shaping and influencing linguistic structures and speech forms. Michael Silverstein, for example, sees speakers’ awareness of language and their rationalizations of its structure and use as critical factors that often shape the evolution of a language's structure. According to Silverstein, the ideologies speakers possess regarding language mediate the variation that occurs due to their imperfect and limited awareness of linguistic structures, resulting in the regularization of any variation that is rationalized by any sufficiently dominant or culturally widespread ideologies. This is demonstrated by such linguistic changes as the rejection of “he” as the generic pronoun in English, which coincided with the rise of the feminist movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this instance, the accepted usage of the masculine pronoun as the generic form came to be understood as a linguistic symbol of patriarchal and male-dominated society, and the growing sentiment opposing these conditions motivated some speakers to stop using “he” as the generic pronoun in favor of the construction “he or she.” This rejection of generic “he” was rationalized by the growing desire for gender equality and women's empowerment, which was sufficiently culturally prevalent to regularize the change. Alan Rumsey also sees linguistic ideologies as playing a role in shaping the structure