http://gas.sagepub.com
Gender & Society
DOI: 10.1177/0891243208326874
2009; 23; 81Gender & Society
Barbara J. Risman
From Doing To Undoing: Gender as We Know It
http://gas.sagepub.com
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Sociologists for Women in Society
can be found at:Gender & SocietyAdditional services and information for
http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://gas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://gas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/1/81Citations
at New School Digital Library on September 22, 2009http://gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
FROM DOING TO UNDOING:
GENDER AS WE KNOW IT
BARBARA J. RISMAN
University of Illinois at Chicago
This symposium honors the importance of "doing gender" (West and
Zimmerman 1987) as a conceptual contribution to social thought. I
offer a critique not of the original concept but of how it has come to be
used or, as I argue, misused. First, the concept has been so integrated into
the sociological lexicon that the implicit feminist critique embedded
within it sometimes disappears entirely. Second, the feminist use of doing
gender has become so diffuse that we have created a tautology: whatever
groups of boys and girls, or men and women, do is a kind of gender. I
argue that the language of doing gender ought to be used carefully and
that as society changes, we begin to document the ways in which we find
boys and girls, women and men, "undoing gender." Undoing gender is a
concept first introduced by Butler (2004) and recently offered with a
slightly different twist to Gender & Society readers by Deutsch (2007). I
build on Deutsch's work by showing how doing gender research would be
improved by more attention to undoing gender.
The full incorporation of doing gender as a core concept in sociology
has sometimes stripped the concept of the intended feminist implications.
I illustrate this with a quote from a Social Forces article by Wilcox and
Nock (2006, 1327). They write,
The gender theory of marriage suggests that men and women are considerably
invested in "doing gender" even when they embrace an egalitarian role ideology.
. . . The dispositions acquired over the life course are reinforced by
a range of ongoing cultural and social pressures--e.g. cultural conventions,
gendered inequalities in the labor force, etc. . . . For these reasons, women
and men face strong internal and external pressures to produce gender in
their marriages. . . .
Thus, women may be happier in marriages where they are able to
successfully produce gender. Likewise, men who are married to more
traditional wives may be happier. . . . The gender model of marriage would
GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 23 No. 1, February 2009 81-84
DOI: 10.1177/0891243208326874
 2009 Sociologists for Women in Society
81
at New School Digital Library on September 22, 2009http://gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
82 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2009
predict that marriages that are strongly gendered make women happier and
make men more likely to engage in marital emotion work. (emphasis added)
Notice how the feminist concern with inequality is totally absent in this
use of doing gender. Wilcox and Nock cite the concept as if it validated
a gender model that supports women's and men's separate spheres. The
doing gender model has here morphed back to the future to become a
functional sex roles theory. The paradox is that while Wilcox and Nock
claim that traditional wives were happier (and such claims made headlines
in the popular press), the actual regression equations presented in their
article showed clearly that the most important predictor of wives' marital
happiness was husbands' emotion work (Springer 2007). Thus, the real
story in this research is that as men move beyond traditional gendered
scripts (e.g., the sturdy, silent, nonexpressive, hegemonic male), wives are
happier. When men undo gender, marriages thrive.
Ubiquitous usage of "doing gender" also creates conceptual confusion
as we try to study a world that is indeed changing. The finding that we all
do gender, even when we do not do it in easily recognizable ways, is
deceptive. Fundamentally, we must know what we are looking for when
we are looking for gendered behavior and then be willing and ready to
admit when we do not find it. Why label new behaviors adopted by groups
of boys or girls as alternative masculinities and femininities simply
because the group itself is composed of biological males or females? If
young women strategically adopt masculine or feminine behaviors to fit
the moment, is this really doing gender, or is it destabilitizing the takenfor-granted
personae that were in the past assumed essentially to match
sex category? As marital norms become more egalitarian, we need to be
able to differentiate when husbands and wives are doing gender traditionally
and when they are undoing it--or at least trying to undo it. Similarly,
as more opportunities open for girls to be athletic and success oriented
(Risman and Seale forthcoming), we need to be able to discuss the new
world they inhabit and how they are making their lives within it rather
than inventing a label for a kind of femininity that includes the traits and
behaviors previously restricted to boys and men. This is not to suggest that
we ignore the evidence of multiple masculinities and femininities that do
exist and vary by class, ethnicity, race, and social location. Nor should we
underestimate those instances when doing gender simply changes form
without diminishing male privilege. Instead, we should pay careful attention
to whether our research is documenting different kinds of gender,
how doing gender may be changing, or whether it is being undone.
at New School Digital Library on September 22, 2009http://gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Perhaps a criterion for identifying undoing gender might be when the
essentialism of binary distinctions between people based on sex category
is challenged (Joey Sprague, personal communication, 2008).
I would like to suggest that feminist scholars take seriously the real
impact of our work during the past few decades. Giddens's (1984) structuration
theory is a useful framework with which to understand the complicated
effects of the feminist movement on today's world. Structuration
refers to the notion that social structure both constrains behavior and is created
by it. Individuals are the products of their social worlds yet are not
determined by them. There has been more than a half century of conscious
feminist mobilization around gender inequality and, at least for the past few
decades, critique of the social construction of gender itself. Feminist academics
have been teaching for a generation, and today's young woman is in
fact likely to identify the college classroom as the place where she first
adopted a feminist identity (Harnois 2005). Feminist cultural influence exists
everywhere from girl zines to feminist presidential candidates. Backlash to
women's advances exists, but so too do critiques of that backlash.
As I have written elsewhere, it is very useful to think about gender as a
structure (Risman 1998, 2004). Every society has a gender structure, in
the same way that every society has an economic structure. The gender
structure has implications at the level of individual analysis, in shaping
interactional expectations that are at the heart of doing gender, and at the
institutional level in the organization and policing of social groups.
Gender structure may be consistent across individual, interactional, and
institutional levels of society, but it is not necessarily so. At the present
moment in history, we inhabit a gender structure that has been influenced
by the reflexive work of feminist activists and intellectuals. Does that
mean the gender structure does not exist or privilege men? Of course not.
But gender structure is not static. Young people today, especially girls, are
much freer to develop their potentials beyond the cage of traditional femininity
than in the past. To label whatever a group of boys or men do as a
kind of masculinity, or whatever new norms develop among girls or
women as new kinds of femininities, leads us to a blind intellectual alley.
It is perhaps often the case that at the same moment people are undoing
some aspects of gender and doing others (Anna Guevarra, personal communication,
2008). But why is it that any group of human beings with
vaginas should have their collective norms called a type of femininity?
Deutsch (2007) suggests that feminists highlight when changes in our
gender structure happen by accurately noticing when boys and girls, men
and women, do not follow traditional scripts, when they undo gender. If
as feminists we believe that gender is socially constructed and used to
Risman / FROM DOING TO UNDOING 83
at New School Digital Library on September 22, 2009http://gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
create inequality, our political goal must be to move to a postgender society.
Perhaps the defining feature of gender from a sociological viewpoint
(Lorber 2005) is its deployment in the service of inequality. A just world
would be one where sex category matters not at all beyond reproduction;
economic and familial roles would be equally available to persons of any
gender. No one should have to identify as female to appreciate silky fabric
and ruffles next to one's skin. No one should have to identify as male
to be allowed to be tough or domineering. Why categorize innovative
behavior as new kinds of gender, new femininities and masculinities,
rather than notice that the old gender norms are losing their currency? I
suggest that we take seriously, and take some credit for, what Giddens
(1984) calls the "double hermeneutic." The reality is that feminists have
been changing what we have been studying. Is this not the goal of feminist
sociology? We can honor West and Zimmerman (1987) no more than
by moving beyond our reliance on a doing gender framework, because the
very existence of that language has helped change the gender structure
itself. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and we are changing the world.
REFERENCES
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Deutsch, Francine M. 2007. Undoing gender. Gender & Society 21:106-27.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of
structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Harnois, Catherine E. 2005. Different paths to different feminisms? Bridging
multiracial feminist theory and quantitative sociological gender research.
Gender & Society 19:809-28.
Lorber, Judith. 2005. Breaking the bowls: Degendering and feminist change. New
York: Norton.
Risman, Barbara J. 1998. Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
------. 2004. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism.
Gender & Society 18:429-50.
Risman, Barbara J., and Elizabeth Seale. forthcoming. Betwixt and between:
Gender contradictions in middle school. In Families as they really are, edited
by Barbara Risman. New York: Norton.
Springer, Kristen W. 2007. Research or rhetoric? A response to Wilcox and Nock.
Sociological Forum 22:111-16.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society
1:125-51.
Wilcox, W. Bradford, and Steven L. Nock. 2006. What's love got to do with it?
Equality, equity, commitment and women's marital quality. Social Forces
84:1321-45.
84 GENDER & SOCIETY / February 2009
at New School Digital Library on September 22, 2009http://gas.sagepub.comDownloaded from