The interactional implication of gender

“In this way, as individual member of society, we actively replicate gender hierarchies in social interactions” (Cooke, 2006, 446).

The doing gender approach developed from symbolic interaction theory, where interactants strive to “create meaning out of their behaviors and the behaviors of others” (Zvonkovic et al., 1996, 92). Like gender role theory, doing gender theory assumes that behavior is oriented towards the expectations of others (Bittman et al., 2003, 190). However, in addition to the fulfilment of expected behavior, individuals also feel the need to make sense to each other.

“To make cognitive sense out of the world, individuals behave in ways that they can explain to others, and this leads them to follow other’s expectations, including those related to gen-der” (Bittman et al., 2003, 191). These two conditions constrain people to act in normative ways. This is compatible with Goffman’s theater metaphor. The actor feels the need to ex-plain his or her role to the audience, to make sense of his or her performance, in order to avoid misunderstandings or irritation in the audience. Since gender is not identical with the self, men and women have to be persuaded or reminded to be male or female (Litton Fox and McBride Murry, 2000, 1164). Hence, individuals “work” to “be” a gendered member of so-ciety. Theydorather thanaregender. These aspects are at the center of doing gender theory, which does not only focus on the interactional level of gender, but also takes into account social structure.

Doing gender theory focuses on the construction of gender and gendered identities. The social setting in which gender is done is the interaction between individuals, who are oriented to-wards gender production (West and Zimmerman, 2002, 4f.). In interaction people reproduce gender differences, i.e. the dualism “male” or “female”. In order to illustrate this, Gilde-meister (2008) uses the metapher of a house, which is not just there, but which has been constructed. The doing gender approach asks for the construction plan. At the center of the construction is interaction, defined as a construction process itself. Interaction implies con-straints for the actors and incorporates generative mechanisms (Gildemeister, 2008, 173).

Gender as a social construct embodies “cultural meanings of masculinity and femininity”

(Lorber, 2003, 66). Within interaction, the behaviors of individuals are always accountable according to male and female “natures”, which are socially perceived as different with regard to biology. However, biological criteria and gender are not identical concepts and therefore have to be differentiated. The differentiation between sex and gender goes back to Judith Butler, who defined sex as the biological and gender as the social sex, the social and cultural product of biological differences. Cases of transsexuals and transvestites show that gender is not “naturally” attached to a biological substrate but has to be learned by individuals (Lorber, 2003, 61). “Individuen werdensexed, aber nichtgenderedgeboren und m¨ussen erst lernen, m¨annlich oder weiblich zu sein” (Lorber, 2003, 66).

While Butler defines sex as a biological constant, gender theorists argue that sex is also so-cally constructed. According toWest and Zimmerman (2002, 4), society agreed upon criteria for being male (penis) or female (vagina), which are applied to the newborn child directly af-ter birth. Once classified, the individual is either male or female – an attribution which usually does not change during the whole life course. Sex thus determines the attribution of socially defined biological criteria to individuals.

However, since biological criteria are not exposed, individuals do not perceive them directly.

The individual is just assumed to be either masculine or feminine. These assumptions are made according to “insignia” such as suit and tie or skirt and high heels (West and Zimmer-man, 2002, 8f.). “From an ethnomethodological viewpoint, sex is socially and culturally con-structed rather than a straightforward statement of the biological ‘facts”’ (West and Fenster-maker, 2002, 65). Therefore, West and Zimmermann extend Butler’s sex-gender difference and add sex category as third concept. Individuals have to make themselves understandable for others and at the same time try to make sense of others. They apply existing categories involving certain attributes to each other. The categorization relies on an “if-can” test in ev-eryday life: “if peoplecan be seen as members of relevant categories, then categorize them that way. That is, use the category that seems appropriate unless discrepant information or obvious features rule it out” (West and Zimmerman, 2002, 9). The guidelines for these clas-sifications are normative concepts in society. In the case of gender, these are the concepts of male and female “natures”. Since sex category is an expression of the underlying sex, which usually cannot be verified in everyday life without problems, sex and sex category might not be identical. In the case of transvestites, for example, sex and sex category are different.

Individuals not only expect to be categorized as male or female by others, but they also pre-sume that others are displaying their sex categories (West and Zimmerman, 2002, 11). Gender displays, which are necessary for identifying an individual as a member of one category or another, establish the assignment to one sex category with the above-mentioned insignia (Fen-stermaker et al., 2002, 28). By using the term gender display, West and Zimmermann refer to Goffman (2001). Gender display is defined as “highly conventionalized behaviors structured as two-part exchange of the statement-reply type, in which the presence or absence of sym-metry can establish deterence or dominance” (West and Zimmerman, 2002, 7). In Goffman’s view, these gendered expressions are optional performances: less serious activities, which are only presented in specific locations. West and Zimmerman (2002, 7) criticize Goffman’s term, because it is limited to special spheres of society and segregated “from the serious buisness of interaction”. Since gender is done within interaction, where others have to perceive us as either female or male, it is not plausible that gender displays are optional as proposed by Goffman. West and Zimmerman (2002, 7) emphasize that individuals do not have “the option of being seen by others as female or male”.

To summarize, sex category is different from gender. Gender is the normative gender be-havior, e.g. being feminine in addition to the fact that a person is perceived as female (sex

category). The process of doing gender leads to gender-appropiate or gender-inappropriate behavior (West and Zimmerman, 2002, 12). “We contend that gender is an accomplishment –

‘the activity of managing situated conduct in light of normative conceptions, attitudes and ac-tivities appropriate for one’s sex category”’ (Fenstermaker et al., 2002, 29). Gender construc-tion begins with the assignment of children to one sex category, according to their genitalia, their sex. The sex category is then transformed to a gender status through gender markers or gender display such as name or clothes (Lorber, 2003, 56).

In doing gender theory, the differentation of two sexes is related to an asymmetry between feminine and masculine natures, in which femininity is subordinated and masculinity dom-inates. By “doing gender, men are also doing dominance and women are doing deference”

(West and Zimmerman, 2002, 21). Work done by men is valued more highly because men do it rather than women. Men are the norm; women are the deviation from this norm. “Das Leben jeder Person, die sich im Status ‘Frau’ befindet, ist ‘wie die Nacht zu seinem Tag – so war die Vorstellung schon immer’.” (Lorber, 2003, 81-82) Gender is done e.g. when he earns the higher income and is considered as the main breadwinner, while she, even if employed, assumes the “second shift” (Hochschild, 1989), and takes care of the household and the children. However, Goffman (2001) highlights that in contrast to other subordinated categories such as migrant or black, women enjoy special privileges, for instance when he lights her cigarette, opens the door for her or helps her into the car. However, these actions are based on the concept of femininity as being helpless and weak. They are expressions of the lower status of women as compared to men.

The social distributions of various resources such as merit, privilege, autonomy and also power are organized through gender (Litton Fox and McBride Murry, 2000, 1164). For example, with regard to household arrangements, doing gender creates power-imbalanced relationships.

Recent research has shown that it is generally the woman who assumes time-consuming and annoying taks such as housework, child care, or the care of household members in need of care (Bittman et al., 2003; Blaisure and Allen, 1995; Hochschild, 1989). In interactions, partners produce and reproduce their gender identities in everyday life. They feel disturbed in case these identities are challanged or even destroyed. In their studies, Brennan et al. (2001) and Hochschild (1989) showed that in the case of a violation of the partners’ gender identities, for instance if the female partner has a higher income, she does not define herself as the breadwinner, neither does she assume decision-making. In contrast,becauseshe is the main breadwinner, she assumes a greater share of housework (Bittman et al., 2003; Greenstein, 2000). By doing more housework, she does not only cope with the violation of her gender identity, but also with the violation of her partner’s identity. In intimate relationships, doing gender is a team performance. If one spouse fails to engage appropriately with his or her part, this may reflect negatively on the partner (Tichenor, 2005, 194). Gallagher and Smith (1999) found that men in particular are more likely to stress the male breadwinner role in the case

of unconventional asymmetries. If he becomes unemployed or retires, he does not assume more housework, but reduces his share of housework (Greenstein, 2000). Thus, partners compensate for behavior which does not correspond to their sex categories.

These examples show that individuals are sensitive to their gender identities and that they feel the need to cope with the violation of their identities. Since the allocation of resources is related to gender, individuals produce and reproduce a gender hierarchy when doing gender (Cooke, 2004, 446). Due to taking over a greater share of housework and child care, women have less time for leisure or other activities. They often have fewer financial resources than their partners because they are less active in the labor market. Hence gender inequality is reproduced by doing gender, often with women being disadvantaged.

When talking about a gender hierarchy which implies social positions for men and women in society, we already deal with the structural implication of gender. Although interaction is the setting for doing gender, the interaction between individuals is embedded within and restricted by social structure. At the same time, social structure is affected and might be changed by interaction. Giddens’ structuration theory (1984) is useful for understanding this interplay between interaction and structure. His theory will be applied to the subject of this study and will be used for explaining the structural implication of gender.