The dramaturgical approach to gender suggests that we are all actors, trying to give a good performance of femininity or masculinity. We know what the gendered scripts (see Gagnon and Simon, 1973) are — we know how to play the part of a woman or a man but we might each play that part slightly differently. This approach is derived from symbolic interactionism, which emerged from Mead’s (1962) work and is linked to early ethnomethodological examinations of gender as a performance (Garfinkel, 1967; Kessler and McKenna, 1978). A principle theorist in this tradition is Erving Goffman (for example, 1987/1959), who follows on from Mead’s argument about how we learn to be social human beings through interacting with others. Mead offers a way of thinking
about social expectations and how we learn what they are. He also suggests that how we act is influenced by our understanding of what other people expect in particular situations. Goffman argues that throughout our lives we continue to alter our behaviour according to how we think others might see us. We are actors, adapting social scripts in order to try and give the best impression of ourselves, depending on the social situation. We behave differently when at dinner with relatives compared to when out partying with friends. It has been argued that women are the epitome of actors in Goffman’s sense: continually constructing their selves through the perceptions of others (Tseёlon, 1995).
Goffman (1979) details how gender is produced as an unequal relation and made to seem natural because of the way we display our gender. Gender is understood as ‘the culturally established correlates of sex’ (Goffman, 1979:1). Displays are defined as events indicating the identity, mood, intent, expectations, and relative relations of actors. These displays have a structure. Goffman talks about the schedule of displays that constitute interaction, with most displays being at the beginning or end of activities. He calls them bracket rituals, indicating the start and end of interactions. So, for example, men used to stand up when a woman entered the room and you may know older men who still do this. Displays usually involve a statement and response and can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. So, for example, a woman might interact with her male friend in a relatively symmetrical way. However, a male boss might interact with his secretary in an asymmetrical way, displaying his dominance and her subordination. For instance, she might be referred to by her first name by him while she always has to use his title: Mr Bossman. There are also identificatory stylings that play a part in gender displays by showing who is to be dealt with. Thus women might wear their hair certain ways, women and men normally wear different clothing and use different tones of voice. This helps us decide how to interact, whether to stand up (a man for a woman), not swear (thought impolite in front of ‘ladies’), or what to talk about (children to women or sport to men). He outlines the various ritualized indications of gender as produced in everyday life.
Displays of gender are conventional, stylized, formal or informal, and sometimes optional. Some displays are sincere, others are not. Gender displays are conventional in that they follow widely held ideas about what is the norm for women and men. Gender displays are stylized in that many of the things we do to express femininity and masculinity become slightly exaggerated and ritualized. A now rather old-fashioned example is a man lighting a woman’s cigarette. Another example might be a ‘feminine’ gesture of flicking back long hair. There are both informal and formalized ways of displaying gender. An informal display might be women smiling at men
demurely; a formalized display might be a man opening a door for a woman. Some forms of gender display appear optional and men opening doors for women is an example. This is becoming a tricky decision for men as some women might think them terribly rude if they do not open doors, and other women might find it very old-fashioned and perhaps even condescending to do so. Gofman also notes that these displays do not have to be sincere. To take the door opening again, I have had many a nice young man hold a door open for me in a sincere manner, but when I was at the University of Aberdeen certain of my male colleagues developed a rather more ironic approach. Having read Norbert Elias’s (2000/1939) ideas on the civilizing process, they invoked exaggerated eighteenth century courtly etiquette in opening the door for me and other women colleagues. The door would be opened with a deep and profound bow, preferably (heaviness of door allowing) with a waving of one hand down a slightly outstretched leg. They opened the door, but they made it known that they did not sincerely think we needed doors opened and that it was a rather outmoded display. These colleagues had read their Goffman and they knew that gender displays reproduce gender inequalities.
Goffman analyzes advertisements in order to show how gender displays indicate and reinforce the unequal social position of women relative to men, and make that inequality appear ‘natural’. Looking at individual displays is not enough, but he argues that ifyou look at the overall pattern you will see that women are displayed as inferior and deferential to men. What you see when you look at the advertisements is larger men, looking down on smaller women. Men are portrayed as active protectors, while women passively shelter in their arms. Yet there are women who are larger than some men. On the rare occasions where larger women are shown coupled with smaller men, it is usually made into a joke. Thus the cumulative effect of gender displays is to ‘constitute the hierarchy’ between men and women (Goffman, 1979: 6). We keep seeing men displaying themselves as strong and superior, and women displaying themselves as delicate and childlike. We come to believe that this is ‘natural’. In fact, Goffman argues, it is an illusion. Gender is an illusion we create when we interact with each other. We follow scripts which lay down the gender norms about what our ‘nature’ as women and men should be. As Goffman (1979: 8) says: ‘[t]here is no gender identity… only a schedule for the portrayal of gender’. In other words, it is all made up; but the illusion of gender as natural remains a powerful one, reinforced through gender display. Therefore Goffman emphasizes gender as something we do, but presents it as acting out a part in interaction with others. He gives the impression that we follow these scripts without too much thought. West and Zimmerman, however, give us an indication of the work involved in the routine doing of gender.