Doing Gender by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman is a crucial work in the field of sociology and gender studies. In this text, West and Zimmerman explore the concept of ‘doing gender,’ which is the idea that gender is not simply an inherent trait but rather something that individuals actively perform and construct in their everyday interactions. Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman were prominent sociologists specializing in gender and interaction. Their work has been influential in shaping the field of gender studies, particularly in understanding how social interactions, language, and behaviors contribute to the creation and reinforcement of gender roles and identities.
Doing Gender was published in 1987.
Doing Gender | Summary & Analysis
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, scholars distinguished between sex and gender. Sex was seen as ascribed by biology (anatomy, hormones), while gender was considered an achieved status through psychological, cultural, and social means. However, over time, this distinction became more complex. Researchers found that biological and cultural processes were intertwined, leading to a reevaluation of gender as an accomplishment. This article proposes an ethnomethodologically informed sociological understanding of gender as a recurring accomplishment. Gender is viewed as something individuals ‘do’ within socially guided perceptual and interactional activities. It’s not just an individual property but emerges in social situations, shaping and legitimizing societal divisions.
The article critically examines sociological notions of gender as role enactment or display, arguing that these concepts obscure the complexity of gender in everyday activities. Instead, the authors suggest that gender is expressed and perceived in various activities within interactions. Furthermore, the article emphasizes distinctions among sex, sex category, and gender. Sex is determined by biological criteria, while sex category is established through social displays. Gender, on the other hand, involves managing conduct according to normative expectations for one’s sex category and reinforces claims to that category.
Perspectives on Sex and Gender
In Western societies, the prevailing cultural perspective traditionally categorized women and men as distinct, natural, and enduring groups, with psychological and behavioral traits linked to their reproductive functions. This view saw these differences as deeply rooted in biology, leading to profound psychological, behavioral, and social consequences. While social sciences didn’t always endorse this biological determinism, they often retained the idea of essential sex-linked traits. Role theory, on the other hand, focuses on the social construction of gender roles, emphasizing how these roles are learned and enacted. However, applying role theory to gender presented challenges, as gender is not a specific situational role like ‘nurse’ or ‘doctor.’
Gender lacks a specific organizational context and is not easily integrated into role theory. The authors argue that gender is not merely a set of traits, a variable, or a role but is instead a product of social interactions. They propose that gender is constituted through these social interactions, emphasizing Goffman’s concept of ‘gender display.’ This approach explores how gender can be exhibited or portrayed in interactions, creating the illusion of being natural while being socially constructed.
Gender Display
Goffman’s perspective on gender display suggests that during interactions, individuals assume that everyone has an ‘essential nature’ that can be expressed through conventionalized acts. Femininity and masculinity are seen as fundamental expressions, conveyed through routine behaviors that indicate regard, alignment, and the terms of social contact. Gender display is structured as two-part exchanges, distinct from more significant activities, and scheduled at specific junctures to avoid interference.
Goffman defines gender display as conventional portrayals of the culturally established correlates of sex, emphasizing that these expressions are optional performances. They are not necessarily reflective of inherent gendered traits but rather interactional portrayals of what individuals wish to convey about sexual natures using conventionalized gestures. However, this perspective has limitations. By segregating gender display from interaction, it overlooks the pervasive influence of gender on various human activities. Gender is not confined to the periphery of interaction but plays a significant role in how individuals are perceived by others. It’s essential to move beyond the concept of gender display and consider gender as an ongoing activity embedded in everyday interactions, taking into account the distinctions among sex, sex category, and gender introduced earlier.
Sex, Sex Category, and Gender
In this section, the concept of sex, sex category, and gender is explored through the lens of Agnes, a transsexual individual. Agnes was born biologically male but identified and presented herself as female, even before undergoing sex reassignment surgery. Her case illustrates how gender is created through interaction and simultaneously structures interactions. Agnes did not conform to the socially agreed-upon biological criteria for classification as female, as she had male genitalia. Still, she regarded herself as female, despite having a penis. This highlights the conventional notion of essential biological criteria distinguishing females from males, which may not always align with reality. Agnes had to continually manage her appearance and behavior to secure her categorization as a female, as her claim to this category could be challenged due to her physical characteristics.
The concept of categorizing individuals into ‘female’ or ‘male’ in everyday life relies on an ‘if-can’ test, where people are categorized based on observable traits without a need for rigorous criteria. Agnes aimed to present herself as unquestionably feminine at all times. Her efforts to accomplish gender extended beyond appearance and dress. She needed to produce behavior configurations recognized by others as normative gender behavior. This involved learning and conforming to expected feminine decorum, such as not insisting on having her way and not claiming equality with men. The process of doing gender is not easily regimented and cannot be reduced to a set of discrete, well-defined behaviors. While sources like etiquette guides may list gender-specific behaviors, they are necessarily incomplete, and the enactment of gender is context-dependent and subject to modification as needed. In summary, Agnes’s case illustrates the dynamic interplay between sex, sex category, and gender. It emphasizes that gender is not merely about appearance or adherence to predefined behaviors but involves the management of situations to ensure that one’s gender presentation is seen as appropriate within the context.
Gender and Accountability
This section delves into the concept of gender and accountability within social interactions. It highlights that members of society regularly engage in describing and accounting for various states of affairs to one another. These descriptions serve to name, characterize, explain, or place activities within social frameworks. Importantly, these descriptions themselves are subject to accountability. Accountability encompasses actions designed to be in accordance with culturally approved standards, making them unremarkable. The process of rendering something accountable is interactional, allowing actors to design their actions so that others can recognize them within specific circumstances.
Sex category plays an omnipresent and significant role in this accountability process. Virtually any activity can be assessed as either womanly or manly, and a person’s sex category can be used to legitimize or discredit their actions. Thus, engaging in behavior carries the risk of being assessed based on gender. This gendering of actions is not limited to conforming to normative conceptions of femininity or masculinity but extends to any behavior that can be subject to gender assessment.
Resources for Doing Gender
The section explores the concept of ‘doing gender,’ emphasizing how gender differences are created, not natural or biological, and how these differences are then reinforced. It highlights various resources and settings in which individuals enact gender roles. Gender differences are often expressed through physical settings, such as public bathrooms segregated by sex, despite both sexes having similar biological needs. These settings serve to honor and produce gender differences rather than simply accommodating them. Institutionalized frameworks like organized sports provide opportunities to express and celebrate traits associated with masculinity, such as strength and competitiveness. These occasions reinforce traditional gender roles. Selective pairing in heterosexual couples results in visible differences in size, strength, and age between men and women. This pairing ensures that men can display these traits when necessary, reinforcing gender distinctions.
Even in seemingly casual conversations, there is an asymmetrical ‘division of labor’ where women often have to ask more questions, fill silences, and use more attention-getting beginnings to be heard. This linguistic pattern contributes to the performance of gender roles. In formal relationships, individuals are still accountable for their gender performance. For example, women in professional roles may be evaluated based on normative conceptions of femininity, even if their professional skills are acknowledged. Occasions that create role conflicts highlight the need to manage one’s gender performance. These situations underscore that individuals are accountable for their gender expression. The section concludes that sex category and gender are not fixed aspects of identity but rather managed properties of conduct. People actively engage in ‘doing gender’ in their interactions with others, and this gender performance is integral to social life. The text raises questions about how cultures instill the need to achieve gender roles, the relationship between ‘doing gender’ and institutional arrangements, and how this process contributes to the subordination of women by men.
Research Agendas
The research agenda outlined in this section focuses on examining how gender is socially constructed and maintained through various processes. The conventional approach of sex-role socialization is critiqued for its inadequacies. An alternative perspective suggests that children acquire gender identities through categorization practices. They learn to distinguish themselves from others based on social competence and eventually claim gender identities like ‘boy’ or ‘girl.’ Understanding how these identities are formed and reinforced in childhood is a research area. The division of household labor and attitudes toward it are explored, showing that gender plays a crucial role in shaping who does what within families. Research in this area examines how gender norms influence the allocation of household tasks and how this contributes to the production of gender roles.
The influence of gender on work experiences is highlighted. For example, the work of flight attendants is discussed, emphasizing how it differs for women and men and how it simultaneously produces enactments of their ‘essential’ femininity. Further research can delve into how gender operates in various work contexts. The relationship between ‘doing gender’ and a culture’s prescription of ‘obligatory heterosexuality’ is examined. The text underscores how even those who challenge traditional gender and sexual norms still rely on categorical indicators of their sex. Research in this area explores how individuals navigate societal expectations related to gender and sexuality. The concept of transsexuality and sex-change operations are discussed. The research agenda in this context involves understanding how these procedures interact with cultural perspectives on sex and gender and how they may or may not challenge traditional notions of gender and ‘normal, natural sexedness.’
Gender, Power, and Social Change
The text argues that people inevitably engage in ‘doing gender’ because societal roles and expectations are heavily tied to one’s sex category (i.e., being male or female). This constant gender performance is due to the fact that individuals are held accountable for their actions and behaviors based on their perceived gender. Doing gender doesn’t just reinforce existing social norms and roles; it also legitimizes them as natural and normal. This process makes gender-based differences appear inherent and enduring, further supporting hierarchical structures where one gender often holds more power than the other. Social movements, like feminism, play a vital role in challenging the status quo. They provide both the ideology and the social support for individuals to question and explore alternatives to traditional gender roles. Legislative changes, such as equal rights amendments, can also help break down gender-related barriers. The text emphasizes that gender distinctions are maintained and legitimized through both institutional structures (e.g., laws, and policies) and everyday interpersonal interactions.
By conforming to these gender norms in daily life, individuals validate the larger societal norms and contribute to their perceived ‘naturalness.’ To bring about meaningful change in gender dynamics, efforts should address various aspects, including institutional norms, cultural attitudes, and everyday interactions. Understanding the interconnected nature of these aspects is crucial for effective social change. Gender is described as a powerful ideological tool that not only shapes individual behavior but also upholds societal norms. It influences how people perceive themselves and others and can contribute to the maintenance of existing power structures.
Doing Gender | Socio-Historical Context
The late 20th century saw the peak of second-wave feminism, characterized by activism and advocacy for women’s rights, reproductive rights, and equal opportunities in various spheres. This wave of feminism significantly influenced academia, leading to the establishment of gender studies programs and the incorporation of feminist perspectives into various disciplines. This era witnessed a surge in academic interest in gender studies. Feminist scholars challenged traditional gender roles and sought to understand how society constructs gender identities. They challenged the notion of gender as a fixed, biological category and highlighted its social construction. They argued that gender roles and expectations are shaped by societal norms, not inherent traits.
West and Zimmerman’s article draws heavily from symbolic interactionism, a sociological theory that emphasizes the importance of symbols, interactions, and meaning-making in social life. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the role of symbols, meanings, and interactions in shaping human behavior. It views society as a product of everyday interactions. West and Zimmerman’s work drew from symbolic interactionism to explore how individuals ‘do gender’ in their daily interactions. They examined how people engage in gender performances to align with societal norms and expectations. The article builds upon Erving Goffman’s work, particularly his ideas about the dramaturgical aspects of social interactions, wherein individuals perform roles and manage impressions.
Goffman’s ideas on dramaturgical analysis, presented in works like ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,’ influenced West and Zimmerman. They applied Goffman’s insights to the performance of gender roles, treating interactions as theatrical performances with individuals playing specific gendered roles. Goffman’s concept of front-stage (public) and back-stage (private) behaviors and roles played a role in understanding how individuals manage their gender performances in different social contexts.
During this period, there was a growing awareness of the distinction between gender identity (one’s internal sense of gender) and biological sex. Gender was increasingly recognized as a social construct. Gender Roles: The concept of gender roles, referring to societal expectations and norms associated with one’s gender, became central to gender studies. Scholars during this period rejected the idea that gender roles and differences were solely determined by biology. They argued that society actively constructed and reinforced gender norms and expectations. Building on Goffman, Judith Butler’s work on gender performativity (especially in ‘Gender Trouble,’ 1990) became influential. Butler proposed that gender identity is an ongoing performance rather than a fixed essence.
More women entered the workforce during this period, challenging traditional notions of women primarily as homemakers. The rise of dual-income households reshaped family dynamics. As women’s roles expanded beyond the home, there were discussions about the changing dynamics of who served as the primary breadwinner in families. The late 20th century also saw the beginnings of the LGBTQ+ rights movement. Activists advocated for recognition and rights for individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Intersection with Gender: This movement added complexity to discussions of gender, as scholars explored how sexual orientation intersected with gender identity and roles.
The text ‘Doing Gender‘ has been widely cited and discussed in academic circles and has contributed significantly to our understanding of the socially constructed nature of gender. West and Zimmerman’s analysis has paved the way for further research into how gender is enacted and negotiated in various social contexts, challenging traditional assumptions about gender as a fixed and biological category.
