Answer the following questions in full sentences (either handwritten or typed is fine). Your answers should be 4-6 sentences, depending on the question. Include page numbers in your responses so that

Doing Gender Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman Gender and Society , Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jun., 1987), pp. 125-151. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0891-2432%28198706%291%3A2%3C125%3ADG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W Gender and Society is currently published by Sage Publications, Inc.. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/sage.html . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Tue Oct 9 21:24:17 2007 DOING GENDER CANDACE WEST Uniuersity of California, Santa Cruz DON H. ZIMMERMAN Uniuersity of California, Santa Barbara The purpose of this article is to advance a new understanding of gender as a routine accomplishment embedded in cvcryday interaction. To do so entails a critical assessment of existing perspectives on sex and genh and the introduction of important distinctionsamongsex, sex catcgo~y, and gender. We argue that recognition of the analytical indcpuimce of these concepb is essential for understanding the interactional work involved in being a gendered person in society. The thrust of our remarks is toward theoretical reconccptualiration, but we consih fruitful dircctiom for empirical research that are indicated by our formulation. In the beginning, there was sex and there was gender. Those of us who taught courses in the area in the late 1960s and early 1970s were careful to distinguish one from the other. Sex, we told students, was what was ascribed by biology: anatomy, hormones, and physiology.

Gender, we said, was an achieved status: that which is constructed through psychological, cultural, and social means. To introduce the difference between the two, we drew on singular case studies of hermaphrodites (Money 1968, 1974; Money and Ehrhardt 1972) and anthropological investigations of "strange and exotic tribes" (Mead 1963, 1968). Inevitably (and understandably), in the ensuing weeks of each term, our students became confused. Sex hardly seemed a "given" in AUTHORS' NOTE: This article is based in part on a paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, September1977. For thetr helpful suggestions and encouragement, we thank Lynda Ames, Betttna Aptheker, Stcucn Clayman, Judith Goson, the late Ewing Goffman, Marilyn Lester, Judtth Lorber, Robin Lloyd, Wayne Melltnger, Beth E. Schneido, Banie Thorne, Thornasp.

Wilson, and most espectally, Sarah Fenstermaker Berk. GENDER & SOCIETY. Vol. I No. 2. Junc 1987 125.151 0 1987 Sodologists for Worncn in Sodcty 126 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 the context of research that illustrated the sometimes ambiguous and often conflicting aiteria for its ascription. And gender seemed much less an "achievement" in the context of the anthropological, psycho- logical, and social imperatives we studied-the division of labor, the formation of gender identities, and the social subordination of women by men. Moreover, the received doctrine of gender socialization theories conveyed the strong message that while gender may be "achieved," by about age five it was certainly fixed, unvarying, and static-much like sex. Since about 1975, the confusion has intensified and spread far beyond our individual classrooms. For one thing, we learned that the relationship between biological and cultural processes was far more complex-and reflexive-than we previously had supposed (Rossi 1984, especially pp. 10-14). For another, we discovered that certain structural arrangements, for example, between work and family, actually produce or enable some capacities, such as to mother, that we formerly associated with biology (Chodorow 1978 versus Firestone 1970). In the midst of all this, the notion of gender as a recurring achievement somehow fell by the wayside.

Our purpose in this article is to propose an ethnomethodologically informed, and therefore distinctively sociological, understanding of gender as a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment. We contend that the "doing" of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production.

Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pur- suits as expressions of masculine and feminine "natures." When we view gender as an accomplishment, an achieved property of situated conduct, our attention shifts from matters internal to the individual and focuses on interactional and, ultimately, institutional arenas. In one sense, of course, it is individuals who "do" gender. But it is a situated doing, carried out in the virtual or real presence of others who are presumed to be oriented to its production. Rather than as a property of individuals, we conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social situations: both as an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of legitimating one of the most fundamental divisions of society.

To advance our argument, we undertake a critical examination of what sociologists have meant by gender, including its treatment as a role enactment in the conventional sense and as a "display" in Goffman's (1976) terminology. Both gender role and gender display West, Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 127 focus on behavioral aspects of being a woman or a man (as opposed, for example, to biological differences between the two). However, we contend that the notion of gender as a role obscures the work that is involved in producing gender in everyday activities, while the notion of gender as a display relegates it to the periphery of interaction. We argue instead that participants in interaction organize their various and manifold activities to reflect or express gender, and they are disposed to perceive the behavior of others in a similar light. To elaborate our proposal, we suggest at the outset that important but often overlooked distinctions be observed among sex, sex category, and gender. Sex is a determination made through the application of socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females or males.' The criteria for classification can be genitalia at birth or chromosomal typing before birth, and they do not necessarily agree with one another. Placement in a sex category is achieved through application of the sex criteria, but in everyday life, categorization is established and sustained by the socially required identificatory displays that proclaim one's membership in one or the other category. In this sense, one's sex category presumes one's sex and stands as proxy for it in many situations, but sex and sex category can vary independently; that is, it is possible to claim membership in a sex category even when the sex criteria are lacking. Gender, in contrast, is the activity of managing situated conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one's sex category. Gender activities emerge from and bolster claims to membership in a sex category. We contend that recognition of the analytical independence of sex, sex category, and gender is essential for understanding the relation- ships among these elements and the interactional work involved in "being" a gendered person in society. While our primary aim is theoretical, there will be occasion to discuss fruitful directions for empirical research following from the formulation of gender that we propose.

We begin with an assessment of the received meaning of gender, particularly in relation to the roots of this notion in presumed biological differences between women and men. PERSPECTIVES ON SEX AND GENDER In Western societies, the accepted cultural perspective on gender views women and men as naturally and unequivocally defined 128 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 categories of being (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 116-18) with distinctive psychological and behavioral propensities that can be predicted from their reproductive functions. Competent adult members of these soci- eties see differences between the two as fundamental and enduring- differences seemingly supported by the &vision of labor into women's and men's work and an often elaborate differentiation of feminine and masculine attitudes and behaviors that are prominent features of social organization. Things are the way they are by virtue of the fact that men are men and women are women-a division perceived to be natural and rooted in biology, producing in turn profound psycho- logical, behavioral, and social consequences. The structural arrange- ments of a society are presumed to be responsive to these differences. Analyses of sex and gender in the social sciences, though less likely to accept uncritically the naive biological determinism of the view just presented, often retain a conception of sex-linked behaviors and traits as essential properties of individuals (for good reviews, see Hochschild 1973; Tresemer 1975; Thorne 1980; Henley 1985). The "sex differences approach" (Thorne 1980) is more commonly attrib- uted to psychologists than to sociologists, but the survey researcher who determines the "gender" of respondents on the basis of the sound of their voices over the telephone is also making trait-oriented assumptions. Reducing gender to a fixed set of psychological traits or to a unitary "variable" precludes serious consideration of the ways it is used to structure distinct domains of social experience (Stacey and Thorne 1985, pp.

307-8). Taking a different tack, role theory has attended to the social construction of gender categories, called "sex roles" or, more recently, "gender roles" and has analyzed how these are learned and enacted.

Beginning with Linton (1936) and continuing through the works of Parsons (Parsons 1951; Parsons and Bales 1955) and Komarovsky (1946, 1950), role theory has emphasized the social and dynamic aspect of role consuvction and enactment (Thome 1980; Connell 1983). But at the level of face-to-face interaction, the application of role theory to gender poses problems of its own (for good reviews and critiques, see Connell 1983, 1985; Kessler, Ashendon, Connell, and Dowsett 1985; Lopata and Thorne 1978; Thorne 1980; Stacey and Thorne 1985). Roles are situated identities-assumed and relin- quished as the situation demands-rather than master identities (Hughes 1945), such as sex category, that cut across situations. Unlike most roles, such as "nurse," "doctor," and "patient" or "professor" and "student," gender has no specific site or organizational context. West, Zimmerman DOING GENDER 129 hloreover, many roles are already gender marked, so that special qualifiers-such as "female doctor" or "male nurse7'-must be added to exceptions to the rule. Thorne (1980) observes that conceptualizing gender as a role makes it difficult to assess its influence on other roles and reduces its explanatory usefulness in discussions of power and inequality. Drawing on Rubin (1975), Thorne calls for a reconceptu- alization of women and men as distinct social groups, constituted in "concrete, historically changing-and generally unequal-social relationships" (Thorne 1980, p. 11).

We argue that gender is not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings of some sort. What then is the social doing of gender? It is more than the continuous creation of the meaning of gender through human actions (Gerson and Peiss 1985).

We claim that gender itself is constituted through interaction.' To develop the implications of our claim, we turn to Goffman's (1976) account of "gender display." Our object here is to explore how gender might be exhibited or portrayed through interaction, and thus be seen as "natural," while it is being produced as a socially organized achievement. GENDER DISPLAY Goffman contends that when human beings interact with others in their environment, they assume that each possesses an "essential natureM-a nature that can be discerned through the "natural signs given off or expressed by them" (1976, p. 75). Femininity and masculinity are regarded as "prototypes of essential expression- something that can be conveyed fleetingly in any social situation and yet something that strikes at the most basic characterization of the individual" (1976, p. 75). The means through which we provide such expressions are "perfunctory, conventionalized acts" (1976, p. 69), which convey toothers our regard for them, indicate our alignment in an encounter, and tentatively establish the terms of contact for that social situation. But they are also regarded as expressive behavior, testimony to our "essential natures." Goffman (1976, pp. 69-70) sees displays as highly conventionalized behaviors structured as two-part exchanges of the statement-reply type, in which the presence or absence of symmetry can establish deference or dominance. These rituals are viewed as distinct from but articulated with more consequential activities, such as performing tasks or engaging in discourse. Hence, we have what he terms the 130 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 "scheduling" of displays at junctures in activities, such as the beginning or end, to avoid interfering with the activities themselves.

Goffman (1976, p. 69) formulates gender display as follows: If gender be defined as the culturally established correlates of sex (whether in consequence of biology or learning), then gender display refers to conventionalized portrayals of these correlates. These gendered expressions might reveal clues to the underlying, fundamental dimensions of the female and male, but they are, in Goffman's view, optional performances. Masculine courtesies may or may not be offeredand, if offered, may or may not be declined (1976, p.

71). Moreover, human beings "themselves employ the term 'expres- sion', and conduct themselves to fit their own notions of expressivity" (1976, p. 75). Gender depictions are less a consequence of our "essential sexilal natures" than interactional portrayals of what we would like to convey about sexual natures, using conventionalized gestures. Our human nature gives us the ability to learn to produce and recognize masculine and feminine gender displays-"a capacity [we] have by virtueof being persons, not males and females" (1976, p.

76). Upon first inspection, it wouldappear that Goffman's formulation offers an engaging sociological corrective to existing formulations of gender. In his view, gender is a socially scripted dramatization of the culture's idealization of feminine and masculine natures, played for an audience that is well schooled in the presentational idiom. To continue the metaphor, there are scheduled performances presented in special locations, and like plays, they constitute introductions to or time out from more serious activities. There are fundamental equivocations in this perspective. By segregating gender display from the serious business of interaction, Goffman obscures the effects of gender on a wide range of human activities. Gender is not merely something that happens in the nooks and crannies of interaction, fitted in here and there and not interfering with the serious business of life. While it is plausible to contend that gender displays-construed as conventionalized expres- sions-are optional, it does not seem plausible to say that we have the option of being seen by others as female or male.

It is necessary to move beyond the notion of gender display to consider what is involved in doing gender as an ongoing activity embedded in everyday interaction. Toward this end, we return to the distinctions among sex, sex category, and gender introduced earlier. West. Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 131 SEX, SEX CATEGORY, AND GENDER Garfinkel's (1967, pp. 118-40) case study of Agnes, a transsexual raised as a boy who adopted a female identity at age 17 and underwent a sex reassignment operation several years later, demonstrates how gender is created through interaction and at the same time structures interaction. Agnes, whom Garfinkel characterized as a "practical methodologist," developed a number of procedures for passing as a "normal, natural female" both prior to and after her surgery. She had the practical task of managing the fact that she possessed male genitalia and that she lacked the social resources a girl's biography would presumably provide in everyday interaction. In short, she needed to display herself as a woman, simultaneously learning what it was to be a woman. Of necessity, this full-time pursuit took place at a time when most people's gender would be well-accredited and routinized. Agnes had to consciously contrive what the vast majority of women do without thinking. She was not "faking" what "real" women do naturally. She was obliged to analyze and figure out how to act within socially structured circumstances and conceptions of femininity that women born with appropriate biological credentials come to take for granted early on. As in the case of others who must "pass," such as transvestites, Kabuki actors, or Dustin Hoffman's "Tootsie," Agnes's case makes visible what culture has made invisible-the accomplishment of gender.

Carfinkel's (1967) discussion of Agnes does not explicitly separate three analytically distinct, although empirically overlapping, con- cepts-sex, sex category, and gender. Sex Agnes did not possess the socially agreed upon biological criteria for classification as a member of the female sex. Still, Agnes regarded herself as a female, albeit a female with a penis, which a woman ought not to possess. The penis, she insisted, was a "mistake" in need of remedy (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 126-27, 131-32). Like other competent members of our culture, Agnes honored the notion that there are "essential" biological criteria that unequivocally distinguish females from males. However, if we move away from the commonsense viewpoint, we discover that the reliability of these criteria is not beyond question (Money and Brennan 1968; Money and Erhardt 1972; Money and Ogunro 1974; Money and Tucker 1975). Moreover, 132 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 other cultures have acknowledged the existence of "cross-genders" (Blackwood 1984; Williams 1986) and the possibility of more than two sexes (Hill 1935; Martin and Voorhies 1975, pp. 84-107; but see also Cucchiari 1981, pp. 32-35). More central to our argument is Kessler and McKenna's (1978, pp. 1-6) point that genitalia are conventionally hidden from public inspection in everyday life; yet we continue through our social rounds to "observe" a world of two naturally, normally sexed persons. It is the presumption that essential criteria exist and would or should be there if looked for that provides the basis for sex categorization.

Drawing on Garfinkel, Kessler and McKenna argue that "female" and "male" are cultural events-products of what they term the "gender attribution processm-rather than some collection of traits, behaviors, or even physical attributes. Illustratively they cite the child who, viewing a picture of someone clad in a suit and a tie, contends, "It's a man, because he has a pee-pee" (Kessler and McKenna 1978, p.

154). Translation: "He must have a pee-pee [an essential character- istic] because I see the insignia of a suit and tie." Neither initial sex assignment (pronouncement at birth as a female or male) nor the actual existence of essential criteria for that assignment (possession of a clitoris and vagina or penis and testicles) has much-if anything- to do with the identification of sex category in everyday life. There, Kessler and McKenna note, we operate with a moral certainty of a world of two sexes. We do not think, "Most persons with penises are men, but some may not be" or "Most persons who dress as men have penises." Rather, we take it for granted that sex and sex category are congruent-that knowing the latter, we can deduce the rest.

Sex Categorization Agnes's claim to the categorical status of female, which she sustained by appropriate identificatory displays and other character- istics, could be discredited before her transsexual operation if her possession of a penis became known and after by her surgically constructed genitalia (see Raymond 1979, pp. 37, 138). In this regard, Agnes had to be continually alert to actual or potential threats to the security of her sex category. Her problem was not so much living up to some prototype of essential femininity but preserving her catego- rization as female. This task was made easy for her by a very powerful resource, namely, the process of commonsense categorization in everyday life. West. Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 133 The categorization of members of society into indigenous cate- gories such as "girl" or "boy," or "woman" or "man," operates in a distinctively social way. The act of categorization does not involve a positive test, in the sense of a well-defined set of criteria that must be explicitly satisfied prior to making an identification. Rather, the application of membership categories relies on an "if-can" test in everyday interaction (Sacks 1972, pp.

332-35). This test stipulates that if people can be seen as members of relevant categories, then categorize them that way. That is, use the category that seems appropriate, except in the presence of discrepant information or obvious features that would rule out its use. This procedure is quite in keeping with the attitude of everyday life, which has us take appearances at face value unless we have special reason to doubt (Schutz 1943; Garfinkel 1967, pp. 272-77; Bernstein 1986).3 It should be added that it is precisely when we have special reason to doubt that the issue of applying rigorous aiteria arises, but it is rare, outside legal or bureauaatic contexts, to encounter insistence on positive tests (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 262-83; Wilson 1970). Agnes's initial resource was the predisposition of those she encountered to take her appearance (her figure, clothing, hair style, and so on), as the undoubted appearance of a normal female. Her further resource was our cultural perspective on the properties of "natural, normally sexed persons." Garfinkel (1967, pp. 122-28) notes that in everyday life, we live in a world of two-and only two-sexes.

This arrangement has a moral status, in that we include ourselves and others in it as "essentially, originally, in the first place, always have been, always will be, once and for all, in the final analysis, either 'male' or 'female"' (Garfinkel 1967, p. 122). Consider the following case:

This issue reminds me of a visit I made to a computer store a couple of years ago. The person who answered my questions was truly a salesperson. I could not categorize him/heras a woman or a man. What did I look for? (1) Facial hair: She/he was smooth skinned, but some men have little or no facial hair. (This varies by race, Native Americans and Blacks often have none.) (2) Breasts: She/he was wearing a loose shirt that hung from his/her shoulders. And, as many women who suffered through a 1950s' adolescence know to their shame, women are often flat-chested. (3) Shoulders: Hidhers were small and round for a man, broad for a woman. (4) Hands: Long and slender fingers, knuckles a bit large for a woman, small for a man. (5) Voice: Middle range, unexpressive for a woman, not at all the exaggerated tones some 134 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 gay males affect. (6) Eiis/her treatment of me: Gave off no signs that would let me know if I were of the same or different sex as this person.

There were not even any signs that he/she knew hidher sex would be difficult to categorizeand I wondered about that even as I did my best to hide these questions so I would not embarrass him/her while we talked of computer paper. I left still not knowing the sex of my salesperson, and was disturbed by that unanswered question (child of my culture that I am). (Diane Margolis, personal communication) What can this case tell us about situations such as Agnes's (cf.

Morris 1974; Richards 1983) or the process of sex categorization in general? First, we infer from this description that the computer salesclerk's identificatory display was ambiguous, since she or he was not dressed or adorned in an unequivocally female or male fashion. It is when such a display fails to provide g~ounds for categorization that factors such.as facial hair or tone of voice are assessed to determine membership in a sex category. Second, beyond the fact that this incident could be recalled after "a couple of years," the customer was not only "disturbed" by the ambiguity of the salesclerk's category but also assumed that to acknowledge this ambiguity would be embar- rassing to the salesclerk. Not only do we want to know the sex category of those around us (to see it at a glance, perhaps), but we presume that others are displaying it for us, in as decisive a fashion as they can. Gender Ag-nes attempted to be "120 percent female" (Garfinkel 1967, p.

129), that is, unquestionably in all ways and at all times feminine. She thought she could protect herself from disclosure before and after surgical intervention by comporting herself in a feminine manner, but she also could have given herself away by overdoing her performance. Sex categorization and the accomplishment of gender are not the same. Agnes's categorization could be secure or suspect, but did not depend on whether or not she lived up to some ideal conception of femininity. Women can be seen as unfehinine, but that does not make them "unfemale." Agnes faced an ongoing task of being a woman-something beyond style of dress (an identificatory display) or allowing men to light her cigarette (a gender display). Her problem was to produce configurations of behavior tha~ would be seen by others as normative gender behavior. West. Zimmerman 1 DOING GENDER 135 Agnes's strategy of "secret apprenticeship," through which she learned expected feminine decorum by carefully attending to her fiance's criticisms of other women, was one means of masking incompetencies and simultaneously acquiring the needed skills (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 146-147). It was through her fiance that Agnes learned that sunbathing on the lawn in front of her apartment was "offensive" (because it put her on display to other men). She also learned from his critiques of other women that she should not insist on having things her way and that she should not offer her opinions or claim equality with men (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 147-148). (Likeother women in our society, Agnes learned something about power in the course of her "education.") Popular culture abounds with books and magazines that compile idealized depictions of relations between women and men. Those focused on the etiquette of dating or prevailing standards of feminine comportment are meant to be of practical help in these matters.

However, the use of any such source as a manual of procedure requires the assumption that doing gender merely involves making use of discrete, well-defined bundles of behavior that can simply be plugged into interactional situations to produce recognizable enact- ments of masculinity and femininity. The man "does" being masculine by, for example, taking the woman's arm to g~~ide her across a street, and she "does" being feminine by consenting to be guided and not initiating such behavior with a man. Agnes could perhaps have used such sources as manuals, but, we contend, doing gender is not so easily regimented (Mithers 1982; Morris 1974). Such sources may list and describe the sorts of behaviors that mark or display gender, but they are necessarily incomplete (Garfinkel 1967, pp. 66-75; Wieder 1974, pp. 183-214; Z'immennan and Wieder 1970, pp. 285-98). And to be successful, marking or displaying gender must be finely fitted to situations and moddied or transformed as the occasion demands. Doing gender consists of managing such occasions so that, whatever the particulars, the outcome is seen and seeable in context as gender-appropriate or, as the case may be, gender-inappropriate, that is, accountable. GENDER AND ACCOUNTABILITY As Heritage (1984, pp. 136-37) notes, members of society regularly engage in "descriptive accountings of states of affairs to one another," 136 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 and such accounts are both serious and consequential. These descriptions name, characterize, formulate, explain, excuse, excoriate, or merely take notice of some circumstance or activity and thus place it within some social framework (locating it relative to other activities, like and unlike). Such descriptions are themselves accountable, and societal mem- bers orient to the fact that their activities are subject to comment.

Actions are often designed with an eye to their accountability, that is, how they might look and how they might be characterized. The notion of accountability also encompasses those actions undertaken so that they are specifically unremarkable and thus not worthy of more than a passing remark, because they are seen to be in accord with culturally approved standards.

Heritage (1984, p. 179) observes that the process of rendering something accouqtable is interactional in character:

[This] permits actors to design their actions in relation to their circumstances so as to permit others, by methodically taking account of circumstances, to recognize the action for what it is. The key word here is circumstances. One circumstance that attends virtually all actions is the sex category of the actor. As Garfinkel (1967, p. 118) comments: [Tlhe work and socially structured occasions of sexual passing were obstinately unyielding to [Agnes's] attempts to routinize the grounds of daily activities. This obstinacy points to the omnireleuance of sexual status to affairs of daily life as an invariant but unnoticed backg~ound in the texture of relevances that compose the changing actual scenes of everyday life. (italics added) If sex category is omnirelevant (or even approaches being so), then a person engaged in virtually any activity may be held accountable for performance of that activity as a woman or a man, and their incum- bency in one or the other sex category can be used to legitimate or discredit their other activities (Berger, Cohen, and Zelditch 1972; Berger, Conner, and Fisek 1974; Berger, Fisek, Norman, and Zelditch 1977; Humphreys and Berger 1981). Accordingly, virtually any activity can be assessed as to its womanly or manly nature. And note, to "do" gender is not always to live up to normative conceptions of femininity or masculinity; it is to engage in behavior at the risk of gender assessment. While it is individuals who do gender, the West. Zimmerman 1 DOING GENDER 137 enterprise is fundamentally interactional and institutional in char- acter, for accountability is a feature of social relationships and its idiom is drawn from the institutional arena in which those relation- ships are enacted. If this be the case, can we ever not do gender? Insofar as a society is partitioned by "essential" differences between women and men and placement in a sex category is both relevant and enforced, doing gender is unavoidable. RESOURCES FOR DOING GENDER Doing gender means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological. Once the differences have been constructed, they are used to reinforce the "essentia1ness"of gender. In a delightful account of the "arrangement between the sexes," Goffman (1977) observes the creation of a variety of institutionalized frameworks through which our "natural, normal sexedness" can be enacted. The physical features of social setting provide one obvious resource for the expression of our "essential" differences. For example, the sex segregation of North American public bathrooms distinguishes "ladies" from "gentlemen" in matters held to be fundamentally biological, even though both "are somewhat similar in the question of waste products and their elimination" (Goffman 1977, p. 315). 'These settings are furnished with dimorphic equipment (such as urinals for men or elaborate grooming facilities for women), even though both sexes may achieve the same ends through the same means (and apparently do so in the privacy of their own homes). To be stressed here is the fact that: The functioning of sex-differentiated organs is involved, but there is nothing in this functioning that biologically recommends segregation; that arrangement is a totally cultural matter. . . toilet segregation is presented as a natural consequence of the difference between the sex- classes when in fact it is a means of honoring, if not producing, this difference. (Goffman 1977, p. 316) Standardized social occasions also provide stages for evocations of the "essential female and male natures." Goffman cites organized sports as one such institutionalized framework for the expression of manliness. There, those qualities that ought "properly" to be associated with masculinity, such as endurance, strength, and com- 138 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 petitive spirit, are celebrated by all parties concerned-participants, who may be seen to demonstrate such traits, and spectators, who applaud their demonstrations from the safety of the sidelines (1977, p.

322). Assortative mating practices among heterosexual couples afford still further means to create and maintain differences between women and men. For example, even though size, strength, and age tend to be normally distributed among females and males (with considerable overlap between them), selective pairing ensures couples in which boys and men are visibly bigger, stronger, and older (if not "wiser") than the girls and women with whom they are paired. So, should situations emerge in which greater size, strength, or experience is called for, boys and men will be ever ready to display it and girls and women, to appreciate its display (Goffman 1977, p. 321; West and Iritani 1985).

Gender may be routinely fashioned in a variety of situations that seem conventionally expressive to begin with, such as those that present "helpless" women next to heavy objects or flat tires. But, as Goffman notes, heavy, messy, and precarious concerns can be constructed from any social situation, "even though by standards set in other settings, this may involve something that is light, clean, and safe" (Goffman 1977, p. 324). Given these resources, it is clear that any interactional situation sets the stage for depictions of "essential" sexual natures. In sum, these situations "do not so much allow for the expression of natural differences as for the production of that difference itself" (Goffman 1977, p. 324). Many situations are not clearly sex categorized to begin with, nor is what transpires within them obviously gender relevant. Yet any social encounter can be pressed into service in the interests of doing gender. Thus, Fishman's (1978) research on casual conversations found an asymmetrical "division of labor" in talk between hetero- sexual intimates. Women had to ask more questions, fill more silences, and use more attention-getting beginnings in order to be heard. Her conclusions are particularly pertinent here:

Since interactional work is related to what constitutes being a woman, with what a woman is, the idea that it is work is obscured. The work is not seen as what women do, but as part of what they are. (Fishman 1978, p. 405) We would argue that it is precisely such labor that helps to constitute the essential nature of women as women in interactional contexts West, Zimmerman :DOING GENDER 139 (West and Zimmerman 1983, pp. 109-1 1; but see also Kollock, Rlumstein, and Schwartz 1985). Individuals have many social identities that may be donned or shed, muted or made more salient, depending on the situation. One may be a friend, spouse, professional, citizen, and many other things to many different people-or, to the same person at different times.

But we are always women or men-unless we shift into another sex category. What this means is that our identificatory displays will provide an ever-available resource for doing gender under an infinitely diverse set of circumstances. Some occasions are organized to routinely display and celebrate behaviors that are conventionally linked to one or the other sex category. On such occasions, everyone knows his or her place in the interactional scheme of things. If an individual identified as a member of one sex category engages in behavior usually associated with the other category, this routinization is challenged. Hughes (1945, p. 356) provides an illustration of such a dilemma: [A] young woman . . . became part of that virile profession, engi- neering. The designer of an airplane is expected to go up on the maiden flight of the first plane built according to the design. He [sic] then gives a dinner to the engineers and workmen who worked on the new plane. The dinner is naturally a stag party. The young woman in question designed a plane. Her co-workers urged her not to take the risk-for which, presumably, men only are fit-of the maiden voyage.

They were, in effect, asking her to bea lady instead of an engineer. She chose to be an engineer. She then gave the party and paid for it like a man. After food and the first round of toasts, she left like a lady. On this occasion, parties reached an accommodation that allowed a woman to engage in presumptively masculine behaviors. However, we note that in the end, this compromise permitteddemonstration of her "essential" femininity, through accountably "ladylike" behavior. Hughes (1945, p. 357) suggests that such contradictions may be countered by managing interactions on a very narrow basis, for example, "keeping the relationship formal and specific." But the heart of the matter is that even-perhaps, especially-if the relation- ship is a formal one, gender is still something one is accountable for.

Thus a woman physician (notice the special qualifier in her case) may be accorded respect for her skill and even addressed by an appropriate title. Nonetheless, she is subject to evaluation in terms of normative conceptions of appropriate attitudes and activities for her sex 140 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 category and under pressure to prove that she is an "essentially" feminine being, despite appearances to the contrary (West 1984, pp.

97-101). Her sex category is used to disaedit her participation in important clinical activities (Lorber 1984, pp. 52-54), while her involvement in medicine is used to disaedit her commitment to her responsibilities as a wife and mother (Bourne and Wikler 1978, pp.

435-37). Simultaneously, her exclusion from the physician colleague community is maintained and her accountability as a woman is ensured. In this context, "role conflict" can be viewed as a dynamic aspect of our current "arrangement between the sexes" (Goffman 1977), an arrangement that provides for occasions on which persons of a particular sex category can "see" quite clearly that they are out of place and that if they were not there, their current troubles would not exist. What is at stake is, from the standpoint of interaction, the management of our "essential" natures, and from the standpoint of the individual, the continuing accomplishment of gender. If, as we have argued, sex category is omnirelevant, then any occasion, conflicted or not, offers the resources for doing gender.

We have sought to show that sex category and gender are managed properties of conduct that are contrived with respect to the fact that others will judge and respond to us in particular ways. We have claimed that a person's gender is not simply an aspect of what one is, but, more fundamentally, it is something that one does, and does recurrently, in interaction with others. What are the consequences of this theoretical formulation? If, for example, individuals strive to achieve gender in encounters with others, how does a culture instill the need to achieve it? What is the relationship between the production of gender at the level of interaction and such institutional arrangements as the division of labor in society? And, perhaps most important, how does doing gender contribute to the subordination of women by men? RESEARCH AGENDAS To bring the social production of gender under empirical scrutiny, we might begin at the beginning, with a reconsideration of the process through which societal members acquire the requisite categorical apparatus and other skills to become gendered human beings. West, Zimmeman / DOING GENDER 141 Recruitment to Gender Identities The conventional approach to the process of becoming girls and boys has been sex-role socialization. In recent years, recurring problems arising from this approach have been linked to inadequacies inherent in role theory per se-its emphasis on "consensus, stability and continuity" (Stacey and Thorne 1985, p. 307), its ahistorical and depoliticizing focus (Thorne 1980, p. 9; Stacey and Thome 1985, p.

307), and the fact that its "social" dimension relies on "a general assumption that people choose to maintain existing customs" (Connell 1985, p. 263). In contrast, Cahill(1982,1986a, 1986b) analyzes the experiences of preschool children using a social model of recruitment into normally gendered identities. Cahill argues that categorization practices are fundamental to learning and displaying feminine and masculine behavior. Initially, he observes, children are primarily concerned with distinguishing between themselves and others on the basis of social competence. Categorically, their concern resolves itself into the opposition of "girlhoy" classification versus "baby" classification (the latter designating children whose social behavior is problematic and who must be closely supervised). It is children's concern with being seen as socially competent that evokes their initial claims to gender identities:

During the exploratory stage of children's socialization . . . they learn that only two social identities are routinely available to them, the identity of "baby ," or, dependingon the configuration of their external genitalia, either "big boy" or "big girl." Moreover, others subtly inform them that the identity of "baby" is a disaeditingone. When, for example, children engage in disapproved behavior, they are often told "You're a baby" or "Be a big boy." In effect, these typical verbal responses to young children's behavior convey to them that they must behaviorally choose between the discrediting identity of "baby" and their anatomically determined sex identity. (Cahill 1986a. p. 175) Subsequently, little boys appropriate the gender ideal of "effica- ciousness," that is, being able to affect the physical and social environment through the exercise of physical strength or appropriate skills. In contrast, little girls learn to value "appearance," that is, managing themselves as ornamental objects. Both classes of children learn that the recognition and use of sex categorization in interaction are not optional, but mandatory (see also Bem 1983). 142 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 Being a "girl" or a "boy" then, is not only being more competent than a "baby," but also being competently female or male, that is, learning to produce behavioral displays of one's "essential" female or male identity. In this respect, the taskof four- to five-year-old children is very similar to Agnes's:

For example, the following interaction occurred on a preschool playground. A 55-month-old boy (D) was attempting to unfasten the clasp of a necklace when a preschool aide walked over to him.

A: Do you want to put that on? D: No. It's for girls. A: You don't have to be a girl to wear things around your neck. Kings wear things around their necks. You could pretend you're a king. D: I'm not a king. I'm a boy. (Cahill 1986a, p. 176) As Cahill notes of this example, although D may have been unclear as to the sex status of a king's identity, he was obviously aware that necklaces are used to announce the identity "girl." Having claimed the identity "boy" and having developed abehavioral commitment to it, he was leery of any display that might furnish grounds for questioning his claim. In this way, new members of society come to be involved in a self-regulatingprocess as they begin to monitor their own andothers' conduct with regard to its gender implications. The "recruitment" process involves not only the appropriation of gender ideals (by the valuation of those ideals as proper ways of being and behaving) but also gender identities that are important to individuals and that they strive to maintain. Thus gender differences, or the sociocultural shaping of "essential female and male natures," achieve the status of objective facts. They are rendered normal, natural features of persons and provide the tacit rationale for differing fates of women and men within the social order. Additional studies of children's play activities as routine occasions for the expression of gender-appropriate behavior can yield new insights into how our "essential natures" are constructed. In partic- ular, the transition from what Cahill (1986a) terms "apprentice participation" in the sex-segregated worlds that are common among elementary school children to "bona fide participation" in the heterosocial world so frightening to adolescents is likely to be a keystone in our understanding of the recruitment process (Thorne 1986; Thome and Luria 1986). West, Zimmermvl / DOING GENDER 143 Gender and the Division of Labor Whenever people face issues of allocation-who is to do what, get what, plan or execute action, direct or be directed, incumbency in significant social categories such as "female" and "male" seems to become pointedly relevant. How such issues are resolved conditions the exhibition, dramatization, or celebration of one's "essential nature" as a woman or man.

Berk (1985) offers elegant demonstration of this point in her investigation of the allocation of household labor and the attitudes of married couples toward the division of household tasks. Berk found little variation in either the actual distribution of tasks or perceptions of equity in regard to that distribution. Wives, even when employed outside the home, do the vast majority of household and child-care tasks. Moreover, both wives and husbands tend to perceive this as a "fair" arrangement. Noting the failure of conventional sociological and economic theories to explain this seeming contradiction, Berk contends that something more complex is involved than rational arrangements for the production of household goods and services: Hardly a question simply of who has more time, or whose time is worth more, who has more skill or more power, it is clear that a complicated relationship between the structure of work imperatives and the structure of normative expectations attached to work as gendered determines the ultimate allocation of members' time to work and home. (Berk 1985, pp. 195-96) She notes, for example, that the most important factor influencing wives' contribution of labor is the total amount of work demanded or expected by the household; such demands had no bearing on husbands' contributions. Wives reported various rationales (their own and their husbands') that justified their level of contribution and, as a general matter, underscored the presumption that wives are essentially responsible for household production. Berk ( 1985, p. 201 ) contends that it is difficult to see how people "could rationally establish the arrangements that they do solely for the production of household goods and services"-much less, how people could consider them "fair." She argues that our current arrangements for the domestic division of labor support two produc- tion processes: household goods and services (meals, clean children, and so on) and, at the same time, gender. As she puts it: 144 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 Simultaneously, members "do" gender, as they "do" housework and child care, and what [has] been called the division of labor provides for the joint production of household labor and gender; it is the mechanism by which both the material and symbolic products of the household are realized. (1985, p. 201) It is not simply that household labor is designated as "women's work," but that for a woman to engage in it and a man not to engage in it is to draw on and exhibit the "essential nature" of each. What is produced and reproduced is not merely the activity and artifact of domestic life, but the material embodiment of wifely and husbandly roles, and derivatively, of womanly and manly conduct (see Beer 1983, pp. 70-89). What are also frequently produced and reproduced are the dominant and subordnate statuses of the sex categories. How does gender get done in work settings outside the home, where dominance and subordination are themes of overarching importance? Hochschild's (1983) analysis of the work of flight attendants offers some promising insights. She found that the occupation of flight attendant consisted of something altogether different for women than for men: As the company's main shock absorbers against "mishandled" pas- sengers, their own feelings are more frequently subjected to rough treatment. In addition, a day's exposure to people who resist authority in a woman is a different experience than it is for a man. . . . In this respect, it is a disadvantage to bea woman. And in this case, they are not simply women in the biological sense. They are also a highly visible distillation of middle-class American notions of femininity. They symbolize Woman. Insofar as the category "female" is mentally associated with having less status and authority, female flight atten- dants are more readily classified as "really" females than other females are. (Hochschild 1983, p. 175) In performing what Hochschild terms the "emotional labor" neces- sary to maintain airline profits, women flight attendants simulta- neously produce enactments of their "essential" femininity.

Sex and Sexuality What is the relationship between doing gender and a culture's prescription of "obligatory heterosexuality" (Rubin 1975; Rich 1980)? As Frye (1983, p. 22) observes, the monitoring of sexual feelings in relation to other appropriately sexed persons requires the ready West, Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 145 recognition of such persons "before one can allow one's heart to beat or one's blood to flow in erotic enjoyment of that person." The appearance of heterosexuality is produced through emphatic and unambiguous indicators of one's sex, layered on in ever more conclusive fashion (Frye 1983, p. 24). Thus, lesbians and gay men concerned with passing as heterosexuals can rely on these indicators for camouflage; in contrast, those who would avoid the assumption of heterosexuality may foster ambiguous indicators of their categor- ical status through their dress, behaviors, and style. But "ambiguous" sex indicators are sex indicators nonetheless. If one wishes to be recognized as a lesbian (or heterosexual woman), one must first establish a categorical status as female. Even as popular images portray lesbians as "females who are not feminine" (Frye 1983, p.

129), the accountability of persons for their "normal, natural sexedness" is preserved. Nor is accountability threatened by the existence of "sex-change operations"-presumably, the most radical challenge to our cultural perspective on sex and gender. Although no one coerces transsexuals into hormone therapy, electrolysis, or surgery, the alternatives available to them are undeniably constrained:

When the transsexual experts maintain that they use transsexual procedures only with people who ask for them, and who prove that they can "pass," they obscure the social reality. Given patriarchy's prescription that one must be either masculine or feminine, free choice is conditioned. (Raymond 1979, p. 135, italics added) The physical reconstruction of sex criteria pays ultimate tribute to the "essentialness" of our sexual natures-as women or as men. GENDER, POWER, AND SOCIAL CHANGE Let us return to the question: Can we avoid doing gender? Earlier, we proposed that insofar as sex category is used as a fundamental criterion for differentiation, doing gender is unavoidable. It is unavoidable because of the social consequences of sex-category membership: the allocation of power and resources not only in the domestic, economic, and political domains but also in the broad arena of interpersonal relations. In virtually any situation, one's sex category can be relevant, and one's performance as an incumbent of that category (i.e., gender) can be subjected to evaluation. Maintaining 146 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 such pervasive and faithful assignment of lifetime status requires legitimation. But doing gender also renders the social arrangements based on sex category accountable as normal and natural, that is, legitimate ways of organizing socia1 life. Differences between women and men that are created by this process can then be portrayed as fundamental and enduring dispositions. In this light, the institutional arrangements of a society can be seen as responsive to the differences-the social order being merely an accommodation to the natural order. Thus if, in doing gender, men are also doing dominance and women are doing deference (cf. Goffman 1967, pp. 47-95), the resultant social order, which supposedly reflects "natural differences," is a powerful rein- forcer and legitimator of hierarchical arrangements. Frye observes:

For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that the structure not appear to be a cultural artifact kept in place by human decision or custom, but that it appear natural-that it appear to be quite a direct consequence of facts about the beast which are beyond the scope of human manipulation. . . . That we are trained to behave so differently as women and men, and to behave so differently toward women and men, itself contributes mightily to the appearance of extreme dimor- phism, but also, the ways we act as women and men, and the ways we act toward women and men, mold our bodies and our minds to the shape of subordination and dominance. We do become what we practice being. (Frye 1983, p. 34) If we do gender appropriately, we simultaneously sustain, reproduce, and render legitimate the institutional arrangements that are based on sex category. If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals-not the institutional arrangements-may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predspositions).

Social movements such as feminism can provide the ideology and impetus to question existing arrangements, and the social support for individuals to explore alternatives to them. Legislative changes, such as that proposed by the Equal Rights Amendment, can also weaken the accountability of conduct to sex category, thereby affording the possibility of more widespread loosening of accountability in general.

To be sure, equality under the law does not guarantee equality in other arenas. As Lorber (1986, p. 577) points out, assurance of "scrupulous equality of categories of people considered essentially different needs constant monitoring." What such proposcd changes West, Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 147 can do is provide the warrant for asking why, if we wish to treat women and men as equals, there needs to be two sex categories at all (see Lorber 1986, p. 577). The sex category/gender relationship links the institutional and interactional levels, a coupling that legitimates social arrangements based on sex category and reproduces their asymmetry in face-to-face interaction. Doing gender furnishes the interactional scaffolding of social structure, along with a built-in mechanism of social control. In appreciating the institutional forces that maintain distinctions between women and men, we must not lose sight of the interactional validation of those distinctions that confers upon them their sense of "naturalness" and "rightness." Social change, then, must be pursued both at the institutional and cultural level of sex category and at the interactional level of gender.

Such a conclusion is hardly novel. Nevertheless, we suggest that it is important to recognize that the analytical distinction between institutional and interactional spheres does not pose an either/or choice when it comes to the question of effecting social change.

Reconceptualizing gender not as a simple property of individuals but as an integral dynamic of social orders implies a new perspective on the entire network of gender relations: [Tlhe social subordination of women, and the cultural practices which help sustain it; the politics of sexual object-choice, and particularly the oppression of homosexual people; the sexual division of labor, the formation of character and motive, so far as they are organized as femininity and masculinity; the role of the body in social relations, especially the ~jolitics of childbirth; and the nature of strategies of sexual liberation movements. (Connell 1985, p. 261) Gender is a powerful ideological device, which produces, repro- duces, and legitimates the choices and limits that are predicated on sex category. An understanding of how gender is produced in social situations will afford clarification of the interactional scaffolding of social structure and the social control processes that sustain it. NOTES 1. This definition understates many complexities involved in the relationship between biology and culture (Jaggar 1983. pp. 106-13). However. our point is that the 148 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 determ~nation of an individual's sex classification is a social process through and through. 2. This is not to say that gender is a singular "thing," omnipresent in the same form historically or in every situation. Because normative conceptions of appropriate attitudes and activities for sex categories can vary across cultures and historical moments, the management of situated conduct in light of those expectations can take many different forms. 3. Bemstcin ( 1986) reports an unusual case of espionage in which a man passing as a woman convinceda lover that he/she had given birth to "their" child, who, the lover.

thought. "looked like" him. REFERENCES Beer. William R. 1983. Hourehusbandr: Men and Housework in American Families. New York: Praeger. Bern. Sandra L. 1983. "Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development: Raising Gender-Aschematic Children in a Gender-Schematic Society." Signs: Journal of Waen in Culture and Society 8:598-616. Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen, and Moms Zelditch. Jr. 1972. "Status Character- istics and Social Interaction." American Sociological Review 37: 241-55.

Berger. Joseph. Thomas L. Conner, and M. Hamit Fisek, eds. 1974. Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Cambridge: Winthrop. Berger. Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, Robert 2. Norman, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approch. New York: Elsevier. Berk, Sarah F. 1985. The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum.

Bernstein. Richard. 1986. "France Jails 2 in Odd Case of Espionage." New York Times (May 11). Blackwood. Evelyn. 1984. "Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes:

The Case of Cross-Gender Females." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 10:27-42. Bourne. Patricia G., and Norma J. Wikler. 1978. "Commitment and the Cultural Mandate: Women in Medicine." Social Problems 25:430-40.

Cahill, Spencer E. 1982. "Becoming Boys and Girls." Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California. Santa Barbara. --- 1986a. "Childhood Socialization as Recruitment Process: Some Lessons from the Study of Gender Development." Pp. 163-86 in Sociological Studies of Child Development, edited by P. Adler and P. Adler. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. --- 198613. "Language Practices and Self-Definition: The Case of Gender Identity Acquisition." The Sociologtcal Quarterly 27295-311.

Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Soczology of Gender.

Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Connell, R.W. 1983. Which Way Is Up? Sydney: Allen & Unwin. West, Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 149 --- 1985. "Theorizing Gender." Soczology 19~260-72.

Cucchiari. Salvatore. 1981. "The Gender Revolution and theTransition from Bisexual Horde to Patrilocal Band: The Origins of Gender Hierarchy." Pp. 31-79 in Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality, e&ted by S. B.

Orrner and H. Whitehead. New York: Cambridge.

Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Rmolution. New York: William Morrow.

Fishman, Pamela 1978. "Interaction:

The Work Women Do." Social Problems 25397-406.

Frye, Marilyn. 1983. ThePoliticsof Reality:Essays in Feminist Theory. Trumansburg, NY: The Gossing Press. Garfinkel, Harold.

1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Gerson. Judith M., and Kathy Peiss. 1985. "Boundaries, Negotiation, Consciousness:

Reconceptualizing Gender Relations." Social Problems 32317-31.

Goffman, Erving. 1967 (1956). "The Natureof Deference and Demeanor." Pp. 47-95 in Interaction Ritual. New York Anchor/Doubleday. --- 1976. "Gender Display." Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communi- cation 3:69-77. --- 1977. "The Arrangement Between the Sexes." Theory and Society 4301-31.

Henley, Nancy M. 1985. "Psychology and Gender." Signs: journal of Women in Culture and Society 11:101-119.

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Hill, W. W. 1935. "The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navaho Culture." American Anthropologist 37:273-79.

Hochschild, Arlie R. 1973. "A Review of Sex Roles Research." American journal of Sociology 78: 10 1 1-29. --- 1983. The Managed Heart: Commrrciallrotlon of Human Feellng. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Hughes, Everett C. 1945. "Dilemmas andConuadictions of Status." Amerlcan Journal of Sociology 50353-59.

Humphreys, Paul, and Joseph Berger. 1981. "Theoretical Consequences of the Status Characteristics Formulation." American journal of Sociology 86:953-83.

Jaggar. Alison M. 1983. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Kessler, S., D. J. Ashendon, R. W. Connell, and G. W. Dowsett. 1985. "Gender Relations in Secondary Schooling." Sociology of Educatton 5834-48.

Kessler, Suzanne J., and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. New York: Wiley.

Kollock, Peter, Philip Blumstein, and Pepper Schwaru. 1985. "Sex and Power in Interaction." American Sociologzcal Rmicw 5034-46.

Komarovsky, Mirra. 1946. "Cultural Conuadictions and Sex Roles." American Journal of Sociology 52~184-89. --- 1950. "Functional Analysis of Sex Roles." Amerzcan Sociological Review 15:508- 16. Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century. Lopata, Helen 2.. and Barrie Thorne. 1978. "On the Term 'Sex Roles.'" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 3~718-21. 150 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1987 Lorber, Judith. 1984. Women Physicians: Careers, Status and Power. New York:

Tavistwk. --- 1986. "Dismantling Noah's Ark." Sex Roles 14:567-80.

Martin, M. Kay, and Barbara Voorheis. 1975.

Female of the Species. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Mead, Margaret. 1963. Sex and Temperment. New York: Dell. --- 1968. Male and Female. New York: Dell.

Mithers, Carol L. 1982. "My Life as a Man." The Village Voice 27 (October 5):lff.

Money, John. 1968. Sex Errors of the Body. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

--- 1974. "Prenatal Hormones and Postnatal Sexualization in Gender Identity Differentiation." Pp. 221-95 in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 21, edited by J. K. Cole and R. Dienstbier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. --- and John G. Brennan. 1968. "Sexual Dimorphism in the Psychology of Female Transsexuals." Journal of Nmou and Mental Disease 147:487-99. --- and Anke, A. Erhardt. 1972. Man and WomanlBoy and Girl. Baltimore: John Hopkins. --- and Charles Ogunro. 1974. "Behavioral Sexology: Ten Cases of Genetic Male Intersexuality with Impaired Prenatal and Pubertal Androgenization." Archives of Sexual Behavior 3:18 1-206. --- and Patricia Tucker. 1975. Sexual Signatures. Boston: Little, Brown.

Morris, Jan. 1974. Conundrum. New York: Harcoun Brace Jovanovich. Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. New York: Free Press. --- and Robert F. Bales. 1955. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press.

Raymond, Janice C. 1979. The Transsexual Emptre. Boston: Beacon.

Rich, Adrienne. 1980. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Signs:

Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5531-60.

Richards, Renee (with John Ames). 1983. Second Serue: The Renee Rlchards Story. New York: Stein and Day. Rossi, Alice. 1984. "Gender and Parenthood." American Sociological Reuiew 49:l-19. Rubin, Cayle. 1975. "TheTraffic in Women: Noteson the 'Political Economy' of Sex." Pp. 157-210 in Towardan Anthropology of Women, edited by R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press. Sacks, Harvey. 1972. "On the Analyzability of Stories by Children." Pp. 325-45 in Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes. New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Schuu, Alfred. 1943. "The Problem of Rationality in the Social World." Economics 10: 130-49.

Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne. 1985. "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology." Social Problems 32301-16.

Thorne, Barrie. 1980. "Gender . . . How Is It Best Conceptualized?" Unpublished manuscript. --- 1986. "Girls and Boys Together. . . But Mostly Apart: Gender Arrangements in Elementary Schools." Pp. 167-82 in Relationships and Deuelopment, edited by W.

Hartup and Z. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. --- and Zella Luria. 1986. "Sexuality and Gender in Children's Daily Worlds." Social Problems 33:176-90. West. Zimmerman / DOING GENDER 151 Tresemer, David. 1975. "Assumptions Made About Gender Roles." Pp. 308-39 in Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science, edited by M. Millman and R. M. Kanter. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.

West. Candace. 1984. "When the Doctor is a 'Lady': Power, Status and Gender in Physician-Patient Encounters." Symbolic Interaction 7:87-106. --- and Bonita Iritani. 1985. "Gender Politics in Mate Selection: The Male-Older Norm." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Soaological Assoaation, August. Washington. DC --- and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. "Small Insulrs: A Study of Interruptions in Conversations &tween Unacquainted Persons." Pp. 102-17 in Longwge, Gender and Society, edited by B. Thorne, C Kramarae, and N. Henley. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Wieder, D. Lawrence. 1974. Language and Social Reality: The Case of Telling the Conuict Code. The Hague: Mouton.

Williams. Walter L 1986. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexml Druerszty in American Indian Culture. Boston: Beacon.

Wilson, Thomas P. 1970. "Conceptions of Interaction and Forms of Sociological Explanation." American Sociological Rcuicw 35:697-710.

Zimmerman, Don H., and D. Lawrence Wieder. 1970. "Ethnomethodology and the Problem of Order: Comment on Denzin." Pp. 287-95 in Undmsfanding Everyday Life, edited by J. Denzin. Chicago: Aldine. Candace West is AssociateProfessor ofSociologyat the Uniuerszly of California, Santa Cruz. Her past work includes "Against Our Will: Male Interrupfzons of Females in Cross-sex Conversation," "When the Doctor Is a 'Lady': Power, Status and Gender In Physrctan-Patient Encounters," and "Gender, Langua~e and Dtscourse" (with Don H. Zimmerman). Don H. Zlmmerman is Professor of Sociology at the Uniuerszty of Caltfornra, Santa Barbara. His other work on gender, also coauthored with West, includes "Sex Roles, Interruptron and Silences," "Women's Place in Everyday Talk," "Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex Conversations Between Unacquainted Persons," and "Gender, Language and Discourse." You have printed the following article: Doing Gender Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman Gender and Society , Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jun., 1987), pp. 125-151. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0891-2432%28198706%291%3A2%3C125%3ADG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References Status Characteristics and Social Interaction Joseph Berger; Bernard P. Cohen; Morris Zelditch, Jr.

American Sociological Review , Vol. 37, No. 3. (Jun., 1972), pp. 241-255. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28197206%2937%3A3%3C241%3ASCASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 Commitment and the Cultural Mandate: Women in Medicine Patricia Gerald Bourne; Norma Juliet Wikler Social Problems , Vol. 25, No. 4. (Apr., 1978), pp. 430-440. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28197804%2925%3A4%3C430%3ACATCMW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W Interaction: The Work Women Do Pamela M. Fishman Social Problems , Vol. 25, No. 4. (Apr., 1978), pp. 397-406. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28197804%2925%3A4%3C397%3AITWWD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D Boundaries, Negotiation, Consciousness: Reconceptualizing Gender Relations Judith M. Gerson; Kathy Peiss Social Problems , Vol. 32, No. 4. (Apr., 1985), pp. 317-331. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28198504%2932%3A4%3C317%3ABNCRGR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 1 of 4 - The Arrangement between the Sexes Erving Goffman Theory and Society , Vol. 4, No. 3. (Autumn, 1977), pp. 301-331. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0304-2421%28197723%294%3A3%3C301%3ATABTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C The Status of the Hermaphrodite and Transvestite in Navaho Culture W. W. Hill American Anthropologist , New Series, Vol. 37, No. 2, Part 1. (Apr. - Jun., 1935), pp. 273-279. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7294%28193504%2F06%292%3A37%3A2%3C273%3ATSOTHA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z A Review of Sex Role Research Arlie Russell Hochschild The American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 78, No. 4, Changing Women in a Changing Society. (Jan., 1973), pp. 1011-1029.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28197301%2978%3A4%3C1011%3AAROSRR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status Everett Cherrington Hughes The American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 50, No. 5. (Mar., 1945), pp. 353-359. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28194503%2950%3A5%3C353%3ADACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Theoretical Consequences of the Status Characteristics Formulation Paul Humphreys; Joseph Berger The American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 86, No. 5. (Mar., 1981), pp. 953-983. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28198103%2986%3A5%3C953%3ATCOTSC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 Gender Relations in Secondary Schooling S. Kessler; D. J. Ashenden; R. W. Connell; G. W. Dowsett Sociology of Education , Vol. 58, No. 1, Critical Sociology of Education: International Studies. (Jan., 1985), pp. 34-48.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407%28198501%2958%3A1%3C34%3AGRISS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 2 of 4 - Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties Peter Kollock; Philip Blumstein; Pepper Schwartz American Sociological Review , Vol. 50, No. 1. (Feb., 1985), pp. 34-46. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28198502%2950%3A1%3C34%3ASAPIIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles Mirra Komarovsky The American Journal of Sociology , Vol. 52, No. 3. (Nov., 1946), pp. 184-189. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28194611%2952%3A3%3C184%3ACCASR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M Functional Analysis of Sex Roles Mirra Komarovsky American Sociological Review , Vol. 15, No. 4. (Aug., 1950), pp. 508-516. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28195008%2915%3A4%3C508%3AFAOSR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X Gender and Parenthood Alice S. Rossi American Sociological Review , Vol. 49, No. 1. (Feb., 1984), pp. 1-19. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28198402%2949%3A1%3C1%3AGAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology Judith Stacey; Barrie Thorne Social Problems , Vol. 32, No. 4. (Apr., 1985), pp. 301-316. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28198504%2932%3A4%3C301%3ATMFRIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Sexuality and Gender in Children's Daily Worlds Barrie Thorne; Zella Luria Social Problems , Vol. 33, No. 3. (Feb., 1986), pp. 176-190. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791%28198602%2933%3A3%3C176%3ASAGICD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 3 of 4 - Conceptions of Interaction and Forms of Sociological Explanation Thomas P. Wilson American Sociological Review , Vol. 35, No. 4. (Aug., 1970), pp. 697-710. Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28197008%2935%3A4%3C697%3ACOIAFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 http://www.jstor.org LINKED CITATIONS - Page 4 of 4 -