Abstract
My goal in this paper is to revisit interaction ritual theory as a theoretical underpinning of West and Zimmerman’s ‘doing’ gender paradigm in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of what is taking place inside the interactions of men and women as they ‘do’ gender. Recent work in ritual theory, specifically the work of Bell (Ritual theory, ritual practice, 1992) and Collins (Interaction ritual chains, 2004) expands the role of the individual in the ritual process by conceptualizing ritual as a form of ‘practice’ that can be mobilized in the pursuit of emotional energy. Through the narratives of 24 married couples, I explore how domestic labor functions as an interaction ritual that is driven by ‘emotional energy’. This emotional energy shapes the localized intentions of men and women as they ‘do’ gender thus transforming gender into something that we ‘use’ as well as ‘do’. These emotions and intentions can be seen most clearly through a new ‘window’ of ritual.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3.
Baxter, J., & Western, M. (1998). Satisfaction with housework: Examining the paradox. Sociology, 32(1), 101–120.
Bell, C. M. (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (trans: Nice, R.). UK: Cambridge.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688.
Butler, J. P. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical sociology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender and Society, 21(1), 106–127.
DeVault, M. L. (1994). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: The Free Press.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). Notes on the Balinese cockfight. In Geertz C. (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 412–453). New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23–28.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: The strategies for qualitative research. NY: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender advertising. New York: Harper & Row.
Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 322–335.
Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. NY: Viking.
Jewkes, Y. (2005). Men behind bars: “Doing” masculinity as an adaptation to imprisonment. Men and Masculinities, 8(1), 44–63.
Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leach, E. R. (1976). Culture & communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, P. Y. (2001). ‘Mobilizing masculinities’: Women’s experiences of men at work. Organization, 8(4), 587–618.
Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing”: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17(3), 342–366.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Montemurro, B. (2006). Something old, something bold bridal showers and bachelorette parties. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.
Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Boston: Blackwell Publishing.
Pringle, R. (2005). Masculinities, sport, and power: A critical comparison of Gramscian and Foucauldian inspired theoretical tools. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29(3), 256–278.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1945). Religion and society. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 75(1–2), 33–43.
Reskin, B. F., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.
Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450.
Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1993). Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 14(3), 401–420.
Stohs, J. H. (2000). Multicultural women’s experience of household labor, conflicts, and equity. Sex Roles, 42(5–6), 339–361.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12(2), 181–196.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.
Wharton, A. S., Rotolo, T., & Bird, S. R. (2000). Social context at work: A multilevel analysis of job satisfaction. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 65–90.
Winant, H. (2002). Symposium on West and Fenstermakers’ ‘doing difference’. In S. Fenstermaker & C. West (Eds.), Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power and institutional change. New York: Routledge Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, J.A. The Window of Ritual: Seeing the Intentions and Emotions of ‘Doing’ Gender. Gend. Issues 26, 65–84 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-009-9069-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-009-9069-9