Doing Gender

In 1987, Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman published “Doing Gender” in the journal Gender & Society, a paper that fundamentally transformed how academics understand gender. As one of the most influential papers in sociology and gender studies, it proposed that gender is not a static attribute or role, but rather an ongoing accomplishment that people continuously “do” in everyday interactions. This theoretical framework not only revolutionized the theoretical foundations of gender studies but also profoundly influenced understandings of identity, power, and social order.

Theoretical Background and Problem Consciousness

West and Zimmerman wrote this paper against the backdrop of theoretical dilemmas facing gender studies in the 1980s. At that time, gender research primarily followed two approaches: one viewing gender as an individual’s internal traits or attributes, and another understanding gender as social roles. However, neither approach could adequately explain the complexity and dynamism of gender in everyday life.

The authors recognized the need for a new theoretical framework to understand how gender is produced and reproduced in micro-interactions. They drew on insights from ethnomethodology, particularly Harold Garfinkel’s theories about how social order is produced through everyday practices, to rethink gender issues.

Core Conceptual Distinctions: Sex, Sex Category, and Gender

A key contribution of the paper is distinguishing three often-confused concepts:

Sex: The classification of humans based on socially agreed-upon biological criteria, typically determined at birth or before based on genitalia. While this is a biological classification, the criteria themselves are socially constructed.

Sex Category: Social classification based on displayed and recognized sex membership in everyday life. People claim and are assigned to sex categories through identifiable characteristics like clothing, demeanor, and voice. Importantly, sex category assignment doesn’t always align with biological sex.

Gender: Activities of managing conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities appropriate for one’s sex category in specific situations. Gender is not something people “have” but something people “do.”

The importance of these conceptual distinctions lies in helping us understand why people can successfully “do” gender even when biological sex is ambiguous or changing, and why gender performance can vary across different contexts.

Mechanisms of “Doing Gender”

West and Zimmerman elaborate on the specific mechanisms of “doing gender”:

Accountability: People’s behavior is always subject to potential evaluation and interpretation by others. Regarding gender, people know their behavior will be judged according to gender norms, so they adjust their behavior accordingly. This accountability is omnipresent—whether or not people consciously “perform” gender, their behavior will be understood as gendered.

Interactional Achievement: Gender is not a monologic performance but a product of interaction. It requires others’ recognition, response, and co-participation. For example, male “gentlemanly behavior” requires female acceptance and response to be successfully realized.

Situationality: Doing gender always occurs in specific social contexts. The same person might “do” gender differently in different situations. For instance, a woman might display different gendered behaviors at work versus at home.

Routinization: Although doing gender requires continuous effort, it is usually experienced as natural and effortless. This is because the skills of doing gender are learned and internalized from childhood, becoming a routine part of daily life.

Case Analysis: Agnes’s Story

The paper analyzes in detail Garfinkel’s study of Agnes, a transgender woman whose experiences vividly demonstrate the process of “doing gender.” Agnes had to consciously learn and practice behaviors that seemed “natural” to those assigned female at birth.

Through Agnes’s case, the authors demonstrate: the learned nature of gendered behavior—Agnes had to learn how to sit, walk, and talk to be recognized as a woman; the fragility of gender—a wrong posture or tone could disrupt her gender presentation; and the role of others in gender construction—Agnes’s success depended on others’ willingness to see and treat her as a woman.

This case reveals that everyone is “doing” gender, but most people don’t feel the effort because of early socialization.

Reproduction of Power and Inequality

West and Zimmerman emphasize that doing gender is not merely a neutral social process but also a mechanism for reproducing power relations and inequality. Through everyday gendered interactions, the social order of male dominance and female subordination is constantly reestablished.

For example, in studies of interruption patterns in conversation, they found that men more frequently interrupt women, while women tend to yield. These micro-interaction patterns accumulate to reinforce larger-scale gender inequality. Even in seemingly equal contexts, gendered interaction patterns reestablish hierarchies.

Doing gender thus becomes a process of “doing difference” and “doing dominance.” It not only marks differences but also assigns value and meaning to these differences, typically in ways that maintain existing power structures.

Theoretical Contributions and Impact

The theoretical contributions of “Doing Gender” are multifaceted:

Beyond Essentialism: The paper effectively challenges gender essentialism, showing how gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Yet it avoids simple social determinism, acknowledging the role of bodies and biology in gender construction.

Micro-Macro Link: The paper establishes connections between micro-interactions and macro social structures, showing how everyday interactions maintain and change larger social orders.

Agency and Structure: While emphasizing gender’s constructed nature, the paper also acknowledges structural constraints. People are both creative and limited by normative expectations when “doing” gender.

Interdisciplinary Influence: This theoretical framework has influenced multiple disciplines including sociology, psychology, anthropology, and communication studies, becoming an important tool for understanding identity and social categories.

Critiques and Developments

“Doing Gender” has also faced some critiques and challenges:

Some critics argue the paper overemphasizes gender’s performative aspects, potentially overlooking material and bodily realities. Others note the paper primarily focuses on the binary gender system with insufficient attention to non-binary gender experiences.

There’s also criticism that the “doing gender” framework might suggest people can choose not to “do” gender, underestimating the compulsory nature of gender norms. West and Zimmerman responded to these critiques in a 2009 follow-up article, emphasizing the unavoidability of gender accountability.

Subsequent Development: “Doing Difference”

In 1995, West and Sarah Fenstermaker extended the concept of “doing gender” to “doing difference,” incorporating analyses of race and class. They argued that gender, race, and class are simultaneously “done” and mutually constitute each other in interactions.

This extension responded to challenges from intersectionality theory, showing how different social categories are simultaneously produced in everyday practices. However, this extension also sparked new debates, particularly about whether different forms of difference can be understood using the same theoretical framework.

Contemporary Relevance

More than thirty years later, the theoretical framework of “Doing Gender” remains powerfully explanatory. In an era of #MeToo movements, transgender rights movements, and increasing discussions of gender fluidity, understanding gender as an ongoing social achievement rather than a fixed attribute becomes even more important.

This theory helps us understand: why changing gender inequality is so difficult—because it’s embedded in the most subtle levels of everyday interaction; how transgender experiences reveal that everyone is “doing” gender; how gender is “done” in new platforms and media in the digital age; and how changes in gender norms occur through changes in everyday practices.

Methodological Innovation

“Doing Gender” is also methodologically significant. It demonstrates how to combine ethnomethodology’s micro-analysis with gender studies’ critical perspective. This approach emphasizes careful observation of everyday interactions, focusing on how people produce and maintain social order in practice.

This methodological orientation has influenced subsequent gender research, promoting attention to everyday life, bodily practices, and interaction rituals. It has also advanced the development of qualitative research methods in gender studies.

Conclusion: Gender as a Verb

West and Zimmerman’s “Doing Gender” fundamentally changed how we understand gender. By conceptualizing gender as a verb rather than a noun, as an ongoing achievement rather than a static attribute, they opened new avenues for understanding and researching gender.

The paper’s enduring influence lies in providing a framework that is both theoretically deep and close to everyday experience. It helps us understand the persistence of gender inequality while also pointing to possibilities for change—if gender is “done,” then it can be “done” differently.

“Doing Gender” reminds us that even the most seemingly natural social categories are products of human interaction. This insight is crucial not only for understanding gender but also provides important theoretical tools for understanding other forms of social difference and inequality. In the pursuit of gender justice, recognizing gender’s constructed and changeable nature is a key step, and “Doing Gender” provides us with an essential theoretical framework for understanding this process.