Abstract
This paper examines weddings, which are rife with gendered conventions, as a window into processes of gender (re)production. More specifically, it addresses the theoretical question of the relationships among dimensions of gender—individual, interactional, and institutional—via ethnographic data evidencing both consistency and contradiction among levels. While there is evidence that the institutional dimension is reflected in individuals’ assumptions regarding what a wedding should be, and this leads to reproduction of convention in the interactional dimension, I also find ways in which the institutional dimension is inconsistent with individuals’ understandings and their gendered relationships. I identify these inconsistencies as “visibility cues” that make assumptions evident and allow for alternative gender performances. In all, this research answers calls for a more complex understanding of gender as multidimensional and provides an analytic tool for continuing this work, while utilizing a micro-level focus that complements existing studies of the inequality inherent in the American “white wedding.”
Keywords
This paper examines weddings as a window into processes that (re)produce gender. Weddings are of interest to feminist scholars because they are powerful conduits for messages about gender inequality. They are salient cultural objects that, from a macro perspective, reinforce ideologies and, from a micro perspective, hold women and men accountable for their gender performances. As such, they reflect and support understandings that guide not just the ceremonies but everyday life. Still, despite pressure to retain tradition, it is possible to alter them to “fit” the couple. These characteristics, along with their historically heterosexual frame, position commitment rituals to provide insight on how gender is experienced both interactionally and structurally, and provide opportunities to explore how dimensions of gender are (or are not) aligned.
Below, I establish the significance of studying weddings for understanding processes of gender (re)production more broadly. I first explain how this work responds to calls to interrogate how dimensions of gender (individual, interactional, and institutional) interact with one another. I then present scholarship on weddings that documents the vast array of cultural images and historical foundations that support the conventional “white wedding” script. Though we do not have much microlevel data on wedding ceremonies (this project addresses that gap), research on proms and bridal showers demonstrates how gender expectations are conveyed in similar ritual interactions. There is, therefore, evidence of how weddings reflect dominant cultural understandings of gender, and scholarship on other gendered rituals demonstrates how gender expectations are interacted.
I add to existing discussions of gendered rituals and to the theoretical project of a multidimensional understanding of gender by examining how couples navigate their wedding planning experiences and, in so doing, offering the concept of “visibility cues” that indicate inconsistency among dimensions. The analysis first examines how the ritual components that reinforce gender differences and put forth a particular vision of a heterosexual gendered family become realized in ceremonies via their taken-for-grantedness (a tight, consistent link between the dimensions). Then, given this context of assumptions, I explain the development of visibility cues, which make evident where there are mismatches between the institutional dimension and aspects of individuals’ selves. Circumstantial and ideological visibility cues bring the context of assumptions to light and render conventions vulnerable. Given the existence of mismatches, it is possible to alter a ritual performance in a way that contributes a different message about gender. Finally, though, my analysis of how couples manage gender reproduction upon facing visibility cues helps us understand not only how individuals can create alternative gender interactions but the complexity of the relationships between dimensions of gender that exerts a more conservative influence.
Multiple Dimensions of Gender
When I speak of gender as multidimensional, I am referring to conceptualizations such as Risman’s (2004) and Martin’s (2004) that interpret theoretical explications and the body of empirical gender scholarship as suggesting that gender operates simultaneously in multiple processes in multiple dimensions of society. On the individual dimension, people make sense of gender for themselves and have ideas of themselves as gendered; on the interactional dimension, individuals might or might not behave in accordance with sets of expectations based on their gender status; and on the institutional dimension, there are ideologies and organizational structures that shape lives as gendered. The dimensions (used interchangeably with “levels”) are not incompatible, but mutually constitute each other (England and Browne 1992; Martin 2004; Ridgeway 2009). The goal of these more integrated approaches is to situate gender on a plane that allows the various ways it operates to be observed, and to convey the significance of it in shaping lives through various mechanisms. Central to this are calls to interrogate the dimensions and their relationships; how one affects the expression of gender on another and how actors and institutions mutually constitute each other needs attention (Martin 2004; Wharton 1991).
Some explanation of this relationship is available in West and Zimmerman’s (1987) “doing gender” formulation, which posits that gender is a routine activity in which participants behave and perceive others according to a set of expectations associated with their sex category. This interactional approach is fundamentally ethnomethodological as it focuses on shared assumptions of meaning that contribute to the accomplishment of everyday affairs (Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984). A member of society assumes that the others with which he or she interacts share assumptions about their experiences and the social order. Patterns of gendered behavior result not because they are “natural” but because members produce interactions that are consistent with shared ideas, as they demonstrate their competency concerning this commonsense knowledge.
The doing gender perspective is widely credited for its interactional focus, a departure from prior essentialist gender claims and from those that foreground social structural forces affecting gender patterns. Less widely acknowledged, though, is the structural basis underlying the gender-performance assessments that are essential for the theory. The terms to which we are held accountable are framed by and support the institutional arena that guides how we make sense of the world. As we do gender appropriately, we “sustain, reproduce, and render legitimate the institutional arrangements that are based on sex category” (West and Zimmerman 1987, 146). Moreover, if one does not behave appropriately, she/he is held accountable, while the institutional arrangements remain unquestioned. Not only is gender interactional, then, it is also structural, with its constraining force evident in the intersubjectivity that interactions require.
Ridgeway and Correll (2004) further articulate this aspect of the doing gender process with a focus on gender beliefs. Gender beliefs are ideas about men and women and how they should interact that operate as “implicit rules of the gender game in public contexts” (Ridgeway and Correll 2004, 513). They are a specification of the institutional dimension of gender, and empirical research demonstrates their effects on interaction—people reproduce inequality in their interactions as they follow the guides that gender beliefs provide (Ridgeway 2009, 2011).
While approaches that emphasize either interactional or institutional dimensions are useful for demonstrating the analytic distinctions among the ways gender operates, they should not be read as giving primacy to one or another dimension. Rather, each makes analytic progress in delineating the complicated ways gender functions. I add to this body of research that explicates the relationships among dimensions by suggesting analysts attend to questions of consistency—where ideas are easily translated among dimensions, and where they are not. The usefulness of consistency, and the corresponding analytic tool of visibility cues, developed via an examination of wedding rituals. As personal events and social performances that carry great cultural weight, weddings are a prime example of how gender is experienced both interactionally and structurally and are therefore useful for studying the processes that sustain gender inequality in multiple dimensions.
The Conventional White Wedding Script: Institutional Influence
Weddings are heralded rituals with particular cultural power that convey messages about appropriate social roles. Institutional logics such as family, religion, and the state, in addition to gender, provide a framework for couples’ and guests’ understandings of wedding ceremonies. Therefore, a couple cannot simply make sense of the ceremony for themselves, but they are held accountable to the expectations of family and friends regarding what a wedding is, appropriate roles for men and women, and what the ritual elements mean. There is significant institutional influence on couples planning weddings. While there is great variation in wedding ceremonies due to religion, nationality, and ethnicity (among other attributes), there is a conventional, American “white wedding” script that dominates wedding markets and representations of weddings in media. The majority of the small, though growing, literature on weddings concentrates on the macro level as it articulates the existence, development, and maintenance of the conventional script.
In the most comprehensive sociological scholarship on weddings and their ideological implications, Ingraham (2008) reviews the range of cultural objects devoted to weddings, from bridal magazines and wedding announcements to film, Internet, and children’s toys that, together, create a seemingly unquestionable vision of the ideal wedding. Historical study reveals that industrial and consumer forces sustain the conventional image, and there is intense pressure for brides to enact the consumer-bridal role correctly (Boden 2003; Otnes and Pleck 2003). The DeBeer’s advertising campaign asserting that “a diamond is forever” is just one of the many aspects of weddings that are regarded as “timeless” traditions, their commercial origins unacknowledged (Howard 2006, 55). Further, bridal professionals, such as salon consultants and photographers, reinforce the conventional script by giving advice and guiding the ceremony (Corrado 2002; Lewis 1998).
In all, the popular and consumer cultures, along with wedding professionals, collectively create a compelling influence, suggesting what people can expect, and should choose, for their wedding as they reinforce understandings of what a wedding is. In this way, weddings reflect values and impose social order. Weddings are especially useful for examining social roles, because expectations are typically made clear in status transitions and we use rituals to help us make sense of who we are in our new roles (Friese 1997; Montemurro 2006). More specifically, as celebrations of family formation based on a patriarchal heterosexual model, weddings reinforce traditional, unequal assumptions about gender.
The dominant image of weddings exaggerates masculinity and femininity. Brides and grooms are highly differentiated in their physical appearance and their roles in the ceremony. Conventions that express traditional femininity, such as the white gown and the groom asking the bride’s father for permission to marry her, emphasize women as innocent, childlike, and subordinate to men (Ingraham 2008). The man-initiated proposal and the groom’s permission to “kiss his bride” reinforce his position of power, and the convention of men giving toasts at the reception reflects the idea that public speaking is a masculine behavior (Otnes and Pleck 2003).
Though the gendered relations enacted in weddings reflect masculine power, bridal culture is extremely feminine, clearly putting forth that it is “her day.” Numerous current television shows, such as “Say ‘Yes’ to the Dress” and “Bridezillas,” reflect and contribute to our preoccupation with the wedding as a woman’s event as they highlight the special position of the bride and pay little attention to grooms. Stories about searching for a prince, media infatuation with real-life princesses of royal weddings, and wedding advertising targeting women are additional socialization agents that teach women (and girls from an early age) how important weddings are to their identity and that they should look forward to being a bride (Ingraham 2008; Otnes and Pleck 2003).
As Ingraham’s (2006, 2008) materialist feminist analysis of the wedding industry makes clear, conventional images are sold as a romantic ideal, and the implications for gender roles are ignored (as are queer couples, lower-class couples, and people of color, who are excluded from the ideal; notably, more egalitarian rituals are also excluded). The result is that individuals who adhere to convention—those whose weddings reflect the cultural images—are deemed “appropriately gendered and sexual” (Ingraham 2006, 200), while an unequal hetero-gendered social structure is reinforced. Interestingly, this is even the case in many lesbian weddings, wherein the couple includes a “woman bride” and a “woman groom” (Kimport 2012). More than simply providing a guide, there are individual and interactional consequences for challenging the institutional dimension (West and Zimmerman 1987).
Gendered Ritual Performances
Gendered institutional logics are reflected on the individual and interactional dimensions, as evident in scholarship on several rites of passage. For example, high school proms explicitly and implicitly socialize girls and boys into appropriately gendered roles that are quite similar to those enacted in weddings by emphasizing conventional constructions of masculinity and femininity and highlighting heterosexual pairing. Microlevel enactments of the heterogender structure include expectations for girls’ and boys’ prom clothing, the feminization of the event, girls’ attention on their appearances, and the managing of sexual relationships (Best 2000).
Gender roles are also taught in same-gender events. Bridal showers establish a “structured and specific way” for the women participants to do gender via gift-giving, bridal-themed games, and informal interactions (Montemurro 2006, 46). The parties typically reinforce domestic work as women’s work, and brides are expected to play the corresponding feminine role, even if it does not fit their interests or identities. Participants understand the parties as rife with gendered expectations, and behave accordingly. Their continued existence is an example of the persistence of convention on the interactional level.
Bachelorette parties provide an interesting counterpoint. A relatively recent phenomenon wherein the bride and her friends have a “last hurrah” before the wedding, the parties typically involve public expression of sexuality previously not acceptable for women, and their existence as a celebration of a woman’s choice of marriage over single life (with its accompanying sacrifices) brings the woman’s transition more in line with the man’s (Montemurro 2006). Particularly significant for the current project, the bachelorette party was not a possible interaction—it was not culturally relevant—until ideas about sexuality and marriage changed. That is, the interaction arose in response to a change in the institutional dimension.
These examples provide insight into the relationship between ritual performance and the gender order. They reinforce the connection between the institutional and interactional dimensions, as expectations for the rituals are emblematic of larger ideas about gender and the performances are examples of how gender is done. Ritual participants contribute to the “ongoing creation of gender” (Best 2000, 46) as the interactions reflect traditional or emerging ideas. Moreover, as breaks from routine behavior, they are highly idealized abstractions of the everyday whose influence is strengthened by tradition. Weddings, in particular, are conceptualized as once-in-a-lifetime events that are momentary intensifications of everyday understandings.
Existing literature, then, implies that cultural imagery regarding weddings is influential, and that the interactional dimension of gender in rituals is typically consistent with the institutional dimension. We therefore might expect that couples getting married will similarly contribute to the (re)production of gender. It is an empirical question, though, how each dimension of gender affects ritual behavior, or where there is space for challenges to the conventional wedding script that has dominated previous study of weddings. In what follows, I use an ethnographic approach to examine how couples perform or alter convention with a focus on the relationships among dimensions of gender as an explanatory factor. Specifically, applying a micro lens and a multidimensional approach allows me to see not only the influence of the institutional dimension but also where the dimensions are not consistent. It is the latter—instances where there is misalignment between understandings regarding what a wedding should be, individuals’ internalizations of those ideas, and interactional requirements—that led to the development of visibility cues as an analytic tool. Substantively, the focus on (in)consistency among dimensions enriches our ability to examine gendered rituals; theoretically, it informs us on how gender operates on multiple dimensions and how the dimensions affect each other.
Methods
Data are drawn from qualitative examination of eight diverse commitment ceremonies. I chose to conduct a series of in-depth interviews and do participant observation so that I could get to know the couples, learn how they understood their ceremonies (and weddings in general), and develop my own interpretations of the events (Agar 1996; Weiss 1995). I studied church weddings as well as weddings performed at home and in other public locations. The sample also includes one gay and one heterosexual commitment ceremony that were not accompanied by legal marriages. In general, the three church weddings (one Episcopalian, one Methodist, and one nondenominational Christian) were the most traditional, in both setting and how they reflected the white wedding script. They each included formal clothing and processionals, prayers, a homily, a ring exchange, vows, a first kiss, and a recessional. Many of these components were also included in the other settings. The two ceremonies performed outdoors by ministers varied in the degree and type of religious tradition included: Joe and Jim’s ceremony was mostly secular, with comments from the Minister about the lack of legal status of the marriage and one brief prayer; Stacy and Simon’s Unitarian minister also mentioned debates about the right to marry and offered a Native American blessing of the four directions. Apart from religiosity, many ceremonies included unique elements: Stacy and Simon involved Simon’s daughter in the commitment, including giving her a ring; Joe and Jim had an extended ritual of guests sharing stories about them; Tunia entered to a popular music recording; and Lexi’s stepmother officiant read several secular quotations about love in place of a homily. The musical talents of Marie’s family were an important part of the ceremony for her, as there were multiple live instrumental and vocal performances. Finally, both Natalie and Nick and Faye and Fredrico had significantly altered vows that were playful and reflected their personalities (for instance, Natalie promised to love Nick in good and bad times including, among other examples, “a stable home life vs. rearranging the furniture all the time”).
The sample, then, included a range of ceremonies, some that generally reflected convention and others that included more nontraditional elements. This was the result of purposeful sampling in order to maximize utility from a relatively small number of ceremonies (Patton 2001). The dominant white wedding script has widespread influence, and I wanted to get at how different people managed it, including those who held egalitarian gender ideals and those with more conventional perspectives. This sampling strategy allows me to explain how processes of gender (re)production happen across these dimensions.
To find participants, I sent letters to local professionals who worked with couples planning weddings (e.g., wedding coordinators, venues, caterers, ministers) and emails to a variety of student and community organizations. I also mailed invitations to couples that announced their engagement in the local newspaper. Two couples participated as a result of these letters, one was given a flyer from a professional at their reception venue, two received emails from student groups, and three were directed to me through professional connections. I did not know any of the couples prior to the study. Given the personal nature of commitment ceremonies, developing rapport and conveying my appreciation for their inviting me into their lives was particularly important to me. In lieu of formal compensation, and following the suggestion of Sneizek (2005), I offered to provide preparatory or day-of-help as the couple might see fit; two couples gave me minor tasks before or after their ceremonies in response to this offer.
Couples range in age from early twenties to early forties. One couple is African American, one groom is Southern European, and all other participants are Caucasian. Though for many participants this was their first wedding, some were married before. One bride and two grooms had children from previous relationships. Table 1 contains basic descriptions of the couples and ceremonies, which took place between July 2006 and June 2007 in midsize Midwestern cities (one was in a large Midwestern city); additional details about the couples are presented within examples in the analysis. All names are pseudonyms, chosen when possible by the participant, though many were altered for the purpose of having all names in each case start with the same letter.
Descriptions of Participants and Ceremonies.
I conducted individual interviews with each bride and groom before and after the ceremony. Initial interviews, most within one week of the ceremony, lasted about 90 minutes and, in addition to a detailed description of the ceremony, addressed preferences and priorities regarding ceremonial rituals, meanings of the elements, and decision making in planning. For instance, I asked whether there were any elements that the participant felt were nonnegotiable—that they wanted in their wedding no matter what. I also asked whether it was important that the wedding say something about desired roles for husbands and wives, and how those messages might be conveyed in the ceremony. I gauged participants’ perspectives on how similar their weddings were to others they had attended, and asked their thoughts about a selection of conventional rituals (such as the bride wearing white, giving the bride away, and having a wedding party). I encouraged the participants to tell stories and compare their experiences with other weddings, as I was interested not only in what they did in their ceremonies but also in how they talked about their experiences.
I attended all ceremonies as a participant observer. My goal at the ceremonies was to blend in, sometimes being an anonymous audience member, and other times actively engaging guests. My role shifted according to the guests’ behavior, the size of the ceremony (smaller ceremonies generally had more interaction among the guests), the formality of the event, and if I was seated for dinner. After each ceremony, I recorded my thoughts and observations in fieldnotes using the conventions of “field,” “method,” “theory,” and “personal” notes (Corsaro 1985). These notes complement audio and video recordings of the ceremony, transcripts of the ceremony, and ceremony programs, as they were available.
I again met with each member of the couple about a week after the event. Follow-up interviews lasted about 30 minutes and were more structured, addressing specific questions I had after the ceremony. I was interested in their overall level of satisfaction with the event, and also asked about any surprises or alterations from their plans.
With the exception of one initial interview, each member of the couple talked with me separately. Sometimes the interviews were back-to-back, and other times they were scheduled on different days to accommodate participants’ schedules. Location was determined by participants’ preference, with some occurring in my campus office, others in public places, and some at their home or workplace. While those that took place in the home set a more casual tone, I do not have reason to believe location or timing affected responses. Participants were quite forthcoming in both the more and less formal settings, and individuals whose partners had already talked with me expressed that they had not shared our conversations with them. Generally, I found both men and women to provide detailed responses.
I utilized a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967), identifying patterns in the data and developing theory from my transcripts, fieldnotes, and memos. The analysis was ongoing, beginning with fieldnotes I wrote immediately after the interviews. Before observing the ceremonies, I reviewed the interview data, noting what was salient to each participant and elements I was interested in paying particular attention to at the ceremony. I wrote fieldnotes addressing emerging themes after the observations as well. After all data were collected for a case, I wrote a narrative summary that noted general themes in the data, such as what was unique, how the ceremony reflected or challenged convention, and important influences on the couple’s planning. I also wrote memos that addressed multiple cases. As I met more participants, I noted developing hypotheses and considered how the interviews and observations were informed by and informed the other cases. As the patterns emerged to form the theory, I reviewed the individual sets of data again, searching for positive and negative cases to refine and confirm the ideas (Rizzo, Corsaro, and Bates 1992). In later stages of analysis, it became clear that instances wherein couples faced an inconsistency between their preferences, others’ expectations, and the wedding script were particularly informative. I therefore shaped the analysis that follows around questions of how consistencies guided couples, what inconsistencies couples faced, and how they managed them.
Findings
Data presented below suggest that individuals’ understandings of weddings are strongly influenced by gendered assumptions. The first section of analysis utilizes participants’ talk to demonstrate these assumptions, and the resulting taken-for-granted role of gender in weddings. In the second section of analysis, I present cases wherein the institutional dimension is not so clearly linked with individual gender ideology or lived gendered relationships. Here, I develop “visibility cues”—inconsistencies brought on by aspects of individuals’ selves that challenge normative expectations—as an analytic tool for explaining how gender is (re)produced in weddings and, more broadly, for gaining leverage on the relationships among dimensions of gender. Visibility cues, in identifying cases where convention does not “work,” clarify the relationship between the institutional, interactional, and individual dimensions and cue us in to opportunities for alteration. The utility of the tool is further developed in the third section of analysis, which teases out how couples manage the production of gender when it is visible. This section reveals that the cues help us see not only where alteration is possible because of inconsistency among dimensions but also where steps toward change are difficult because of the power of connections between related institutionalized understandings and the effects these have on conventional interactional expectations.
Gendered Assumptions: A Tight Connection among Dimensions
Interviews with brides and grooms provide extensive evidence that weddings consist of numerous gendered understandings. What follows are examples of participants’ perspectives regarding the centrality of the bride, the bride’s entrance, giving the bride away, and wedding party attendants. I find that how participants talk about these aspects of weddings indicate that brides and grooms take for granted the gendered aspects of the wedding script; the institutional dimension is evident in this context of assumptions.
One set of assumptions surrounds the special nature of the role of the bride. References to the wedding as “the bride’s occasion” and comments from grooms that suggest the bride is more invested in the wedding than they are reflect the notion that weddings are women’s purview, and women should be accorded more attention during the ceremony. Luke, who was married in a fairly traditional, though secular, ceremony at a country club, explained the importance of the bride in the context of a discussion about her attire: I want to make it about her because, I mean, it’s more important for her to have this than it is me. Because, I mean, it’s like I said before, I could go to Vegas and get married in jeans and be fine with it. So me standing out isn’t a big deal. She wanted it this way, so I would prefer to have her stand out over and above anybody else.
This quotation demonstrates that Lexi’s preference for the wedding took precedence over Luke’s, and that it makes sense to Luke that their wedding is “about her”; he has internalized this aspect of the guiding ideology.
Lexi’s comments, too, exemplified the assumption that the bride’s role differs in importance from the groom’s. She was excited to include a blessing from their families at the beginning of the ceremony that recognized both his and her parents. However, Lexi was not interested in having him escorted into the ceremony, a stark contrast to the particularly well-executed bridal spotlight she experienced. Lexi was delivered to the outdoor ceremony in a horse-drawn carriage with a young girl who rang a bell and announced the bride’s arrival. The couple went to a great extent to enact the special bridal role, keeping the carriage entrance a secret, even from the bridal party. The surprise of the majestic appearance was powerful for the guests, and the positive reactions were the aspect of the ceremony that Luke reported made him the happiest. Neither member of the couple saw the role differences as an inequality, and they, and their guests, excitedly embraced the gender performance that highlighted the bride.
The bridal entrance is the venue for “giving the bride away”—passing the bride from her father to the groom. The prominent place this ritual is given in individuals’ descriptions of their ceremonies indicates its significance for how people understand what a wedding is. When I asked Addison to describe her Episcopalian wedding, she explained: Basically we’ll do the marriage consent. My father’s gonna walk me down the aisle, do the whole “Who gives this girl to be married to this guy?” bit. We have two readings. . . . And so just readings and then [the minister] does a homily. That’s pretty much it.
When choosing very few aspects to share a sense of what the wedding will be like, Addison includes this ritual. Moreover, her use of “the whole ‘Who gives this girl to be married to this guy?’ bit” assumes that I have an understanding of what she is referencing. The casual language and attention relative to the readings, homily, and marriage consent (which took a significantly greater amount of time in the ceremony) are telling regarding the importance she places on this ritual. Other participants’ stories reflected a similar assumption, even when they were not planning on having it. Mark’s initial description of his conventional Methodist church ceremony noted that there was not “anything particularly unusual about the ceremony” except that “no one’s really giving the bride away.” Mark recognized that if Marie were not given away by her father, they would be acting out of the ordinary, and he therefore found it important to explain this to me. The commonly shared assumptions about this ritual shaped how both he and Addison thought about their weddings.
Assumptions of gendered roles extend beyond the couple marrying. Gender segregation and heterosexual pairing are evident in understandings of bridesmaids and groomsmen, a set of attendants that stand with the couple. Though most participants had never witnessed mixed attendants, I encouraged them to imagine a situation that breached their assumptions (Garfinkel 1967). Aaron (Episcopalian church wedding), who finds the alteration acceptable, exemplifies how even a supportive reaction is a reaction nonetheless, “I would not be upset, but I would notice it. I would say, ‘That’s not really the way it’s normally done. It’s cool. I’m fine with it. But that’s not how it’s normally done.’”
The seeming impossibility of mixing genders is apparent in the expectations that grooms’ sisters and brides’ brothers stand with their respective genders, no matter which partner they have a closer relationship with. Trey (Christian church wedding) was uncomfortable when I asked if he had considered having his sisters stand with him: “I don’t—I don’t think [chuckle] that I would like that . . . even though I’m real close with my sisters, ah, and they, they raised me. It’s just a way I can show them that I want them in my wedding, you know, to have them selected as a bridesmaid—something more feminine.” Trey and Tunia postponed their wedding for a year so his sister could be present, yet Trey was thrown by the suggestion that she stand with him. Consistent with dominant gender ideology related to weddings, his gendered understandings of sisters and of groom’s attendants were incompatible.
In sum, participants’ expectations for their ceremonies, and the way they talk about weddings, demonstrate a taken-for-grantedness of gendered rituals, indicating a connection between the individual and institutional dimensions of gender. Their understandings of what a wedding is are consistent with assumptions about gender performance. In this context of assumptions, it makes sense that the rituals persist on the interactional dimension. The link between dimensions contributes to why weddings are an example of the invisible reproduction of gender inequality in everyday life. Though the remainder of this article focuses on the challenges couples face when the assumptions are made visible, it should be noted that the assumptions (only a few of which are presented here) often do not pose challenges, but rather serve as helpful guides for wedding preparation.
Visibility Cues: Evidence of Inconsistency
As ethnomethodology suggests, we don’t “see” the accomplishment of our lives unless our understandings are violated (Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984). In other words, we do not recognize what we take for granted unless something disrupts our assumptions. I draw on this tradition as I develop visibility cues as a critical analytic tool for understanding how (in)consistency among dimensions of gender informs the possibility for change. Below, I explain how the two categories of cues emerged from instances wherein what the script would suggest is inconsistent with participants’ lives. As such, they shed light on how weddings typically operate, raise dilemmas for participants about how to navigate the context of assumptions, and draw attention to alternative ways of performing a commitment ceremony.
Circumstance
Sometimes, conventions that are generally assumed are brought to one’s attention because his or her social circumstance does not reflect the circumstance the ritual requires. That is, the interaction that the wedding script calls for does not fit with aspects of their lives. In these situations, people realize that the convention does not “work” for them. My data suggest that family structure, relationships with individual family members, financial independence, and same-gender partnerships act as this type of visibility cue.
Rituals of the conventional wedding script depend on a heterosexual, nuclear family structure. This becomes visible when brides have more than one father figure in their lives. For example, Tunia (Christian church wedding) had a father, stepfather, and uncle she considered including in her entrance. She assumed she would have the ritual, but how she would perform it was complicated by having multiple people who could fulfill the role. She, and other brides with stepfathers whom they wanted to include in the ceremony, had to negotiate how to perform the convention in a way that acknowledged their feelings for each man.
The father–daughter rituals in the conventional script also reflect assumptions about the substance of the relationships between fathers and daughters, namely, that the two are emotionally close, and the daughter is dependent. Stacey, who was married to Simon at home by a Unitarian minister, felt as if her relationship with her father did not fit this model. Having her dad give her away, or having a father–daughter dance (a common reception ritual), felt artificial to her: “It’s like it’s slapping on a level of relationship that we haven’t really had up to this point.” Assumptions about these rituals became visible to Stacey because she was uncomfortable performing an idea of family that did not accurately reflect her relationship.
Couples who are financially independent pose another challenge to convention, as they bring into focus assumptions that the bride’s family will pay for the ceremony. This dependent relationship is reflected in rituals such as giving the bride away and the lighting of the unity candle (a pre-ceremony ritual performed by the couple’s mothers), which became clear to financially independent brides as less-than-appropriate for their circumstances. Natalie (secular ceremony at a bar) was getting married for the second time and had lived with Nick for a couple of years; they also each had one child from previous relationships. In responding to questions about including these rituals, Natalie explained that they did not make sense for her, “We’ve both been on our own for so long. I mean, you know, we’re adults now.” Natalie and Nick paid for their ceremony themselves, and did not assume that they should include rituals involving their parents.
Finally, the same-gender ceremony is a particular instance of circumstance that poses sweeping questions about how to navigate cultural assumptions. It is important to note that Joe and Jim had a “wedding.” Though not legal, the implications of a public commitment were salient to them, and they drew heavily on the meaning having a “wedding” conveyed. This meant they had to manage the ways weddings are steeped in gender normativity. As Joe and Jim planned, they had to consider whether, and how, they would perform many rituals heterosexual couples take for granted. For instance, Jim pointed to the fact that “traditional vows are not set for two men” and Joe wondered what the minister would say at the end of the ceremony in place of “I now pronounce you man and wife.” The couple also had to consider how to include their women friends as attendants. Their dilemmas were about questions of how to interact in a ceremony that was inconsistent in many ways from the institutional guides for weddings.
These examples demonstrate that different circumstances provide different perspectives on what we typically take for granted and pose challenges for how to engage in ceremonial interactions. Relatively conventional ceremonies might be affected by a circumstance that calls one or two rituals into question. Other cases, such as the gender composition of Joe and Jim’s ceremony, serve, in whole, as visibility cues. These instances demonstrate that those institutional-dimension assumptions are not always easily translated to interaction. As I will return to in the discussion, these cases point to growing changes in family experiences that are not consistent with the institutionalized assumptions, and which open opportunities for performance of interactions that challenge the ideologies that once supported the rituals.
Ideology
A second category of visibility cues stems from individuals’ discomfort with ideological implications of conventions. This is another distinct way individuals’ selves are inconsistent with the institutional dimensions of gender. For example, Faye (heterosexual commitment ceremony) expressed a feminist sentiment about the ritual of giving the bride away, “No one can give me away but me. That’s very important. Someone said that to me once. I was like, ‘Why would I have someone give me away? No one owns me.’” Faye’s position is counter to the gender implications she sees in this ritual, and this draws her attention to it; her idea of herself as independent is contrary to the “property” interpretation she has of the convention. The way Faye internalizes gender is inconsistent with both the institutionalized understandings and what the conventional ritual interaction would require.
Several couples were similarly uneasy with the vow that a woman should obey her husband—a practice included in numerous Christian traditions. Tunia (Christian church wedding) expressed an egalitarian sentiment that leads to a questioning of vows that establish an unequal gender relationship: “I don’t think I would be too comfortable with the whole, ‘love, honor, and obey,’ especially if I’m the only one who has to say it.” Trey agreed that their vows should convey equality and should not say “one person is over the other.” Marie and Mark (Methodist church wedding) and Natalie and Nick (secular wedding at the bar) also had a preference for vows that did not include “obey,” and each of these couples planned to verify the text of the vows before the ceremony. The dissonance between the conventional vow and their ideal relationships led them to question what they otherwise might have trusted the officiant to provide.
Two additional issues were brought to Marie and Mark’s attention as a result of ideology. Mark knew that the bride’s parents are traditionally responsible for the cost of the wedding. However, his egalitarian ideals questioned this arrangement, and he preferred that the parents share the expenses. Also, the convention of throwing the garter at the reception caused Marie distress. Typically, the groom removes the garter from under the bride’s gown in a sensationalized display, and the man who catches it places it on the woman who catches the bride’s bouquet. Marie specified that she did not want her gown pulled up in front of the guests, and would allow very little exposure of her leg. She was also concerned that the ritual might be performed in such a way that those who catch the souvenirs would be put in an awkward position. In all, Marie was attentive to this ritual because she did not want herself (and potentially a woman guest) to be a sexual object for others’ entertainment.
The recognition that there is a convention that one does not want to participate in for ideological reasons is distinct from circumstance, but serves the same purpose of making interactional expectations visible. Changing families and progressive gender attitudes show how circumstantial and ideological aspects of individuals’ lives can be inconsistent with the institutional dimension. Interactional expectations are invisible when dimensions are aligned, but when there is an inconsistency, what happens in interaction is no longer taken for granted. As I will discuss, this analysis helps us identify impetuses for alternative interactions, which then have the potential to exert influence on the institutional and individual dimensions.
Managing Gender Reproduction: Outcomes of Visibility within the Context of Assumptions
When dimensions are inconsistent and conventions are visible—they are not assumed to be included in the ceremony—it is possible that couples might produce alternative messages. In what follows, I detail the processes by which couples decide whether they will accept the convention as shaped by the institutional dimension, or reject or alter it. In some cases, circumstance and ideology fueled alternative ritual performances. In others, couples’ decision-making processes demonstrated that they cannot escape some gendered assumptions; their decisions were affected by concern for others’ expectations and shared assumptions, resulting in re-creation of convention.
Circumstance, Ideology, and Alteration
Couples whose circumstances do not match those called for by the conventional wedding script have an understandable reason to make alterations to or avoid some rituals. For example, Natalie did not have her father escort her into the ceremony, nor did the couple include their mothers in a candle lighting. She framed both of these decisions as related to their financial independence and cohabitation, as she argued that these rituals did not fit her situation. She believes they are better for a bride who is living with her parents, and, in fact, she was living with her parents at the time of her first wedding, and her father did give her away. Though it worked for her then, it does not make sense for her now, and she guesses that her parents feel the same way. She explained, “I think if I had asked my dad to do it, he would have said ‘yes.’ But he would have been like, ‘You sure you want me to?’” This is an example of how a circumstance that does not fit with the script provides an opportunity to avoid certain rituals. Because Natalie was financially independent and was not entering this relationship directly from her parents’ home, not having the parental rituals made the ceremony a better representation of them as a couple.
Stacey planned her ceremony with an acknowledgment that some father–daughter rituals did not reflect her relationship with her dad. Because they are not “a touchy family,” she worried that emotional rituals such as giving the bride away or a father–daughter dance would be uncomfortable, and she did not “want to be uncomfortable on a day when I’m supposed to feel comfortable.” To give her father a role, she invited him to greet the guests before the ceremony. With this, he could convey his pride in his daughter in brief one-on-one interactions. Stacey’s goal was to “morph” convention so that it reflected who they were, and, after the ceremony, she confirmed her success: “I really felt like the whole process of the whole event felt comfortable for all of us.”
Joe and Jim experienced similar sense-making processes regarding the adjustments they made to fit their circumstance. Jim did not want to mirror heterosexual conventions because they did not reflect his relationship. So, the men needed to transform conventionally heterosexual rituals to fit a gay couple. For example, Joe grappled with how they might be pronounced at the end of the ceremony: “We now pronounce you man and wife is what is usually sticks in my mind. So we’re already men. So are they going to say ‘man and man’?” Joe demonstrates that the convention does not make sense for two men, and proposes an alternative: “Something that’s kind of generic, but would fit any couple.” They had to make an alteration that would “fit any couple” because they are not the type of couple the pronouncement was written for. “It is an honor to present to you in love, commitment and marriage, Jim and Joe” were the minister’s words, a slight alteration from the gendered convention that retained the meaning of the conventional pronouncement while avoiding the typically gendered framing.
Natalie and Nick, Stacey and Simon, and Joe and Jim were motivated to alter convention to create a ceremony that more accurately reflected the relationships they celebrated. Their circumstances propelled alteration of convention, as recognition of an inconsistency relaxed the constraints of conventional expectations. The institutional level would not make sense on the interactional level. Rather, their experiences offered different guides for sense making. While the alterations have implications for gender messages in ceremonies, their motivations are not necessarily tied to gender ideology.
We would expect those with ideological concerns about the conventions—the second type of cue—to follow their desire to alter or avoid the convention; these individuals’ discomfort with the convention opens them to alternatives. Marie and Mark, for instance, were opposed to taking vows that were not exactly the same for each member of the couple. This was particularly salient for them in their relatively large, conventional Methodist church wedding. They were legally married a year prior in a quickly planned ceremony conducted by a Baptist minister the couple did not know well. Though they specifically did not want “the whole honor and obey language” (Marie) in their first ceremony, they did not communicate this to the minister, and he presented Marie with the “obey” vow. This experience bolstered their dedication to verifying the language in their second ceremony. In this case, the couple was aware that their ideology differed from conventional vows and they took steps to confirm that their ceremony reflected their preference.
The roles of family members, friends, and other parties who are invested in what happens in a wedding, though, can pose a difficulty. When expectations conflict, a couple’s preference to avoid a ritual can be tempered. Stacey (married at home by a Unitarian minister) was especially uncomfortable with the prospect of the attention that would be afforded her as bride, and this was particularly disconcerting regarding the processional. When I asked her if there was anything about the wedding that was nonnegotiable, she responded, “I said no to the aisle. I was not walking down an aisle.” Stacey did not want to be the center of attention, which would conflict with the inclusive feeling they wanted to create. Simon’s 9-year-old daughter Sandy, however, was excited about the attention she would receive during the processional as a member of the bridal party. As a result of Sandy’s disappointment at the prospect of no aisle, Stacey developed an alternative.
Stacey, Simon, and Sandy were led into the ceremony by a pied piper, in a processional that also included both sets of parents and the couple’s siblings. The group entering together deflected attention from the bride. Moreover, Sandy carried a pole covered in small ribbons, each of which had been tied by a guest at the ceremony. The pole symbolized the group feeling that the couple desired: “I was like, let’s ALL, you know, have a good time. And let’s ALL do this together” (Stacey); “The reason you’re here is ’cause it’s everybody’s day” (Simon). This fairly elaborate alteration of the conventional bridal processional displays the possibility for creating new meaning that arises when assumptions are made visible and negotiated. Stacey and Simon altered the gendered implications of the bridal processional while creating a way to send their preferred message about family and inclusiveness. They were quite pleased after the ceremony, with multiple comments from guests conveying how grateful they were to have participated in an event where they felt they were such a part of the ritual.
Alteration to convention can come about, then, either by practical or ideological motivations as couples shape the ceremony to reflect their circumstance or preferences. The inconsistency between their situation and the convention the institutional dimension would suggest is a critical step in both categories of analysis; the existence of the visibility cue makes alterations possible. However, couples do not have free rein in designing their weddings. Next, I provide examples wherein couples were unable to escape the context of assumptions, despite the potential for challenging convention.
The persistence of patriarchal understandings: Giving the bride away
Stories of giving the bride away provide rich data on the persistence of a gendered ritual. For those brides who were given away in the conventional manner, their decisions were unanimously affected by concern for their fathers’ expectations, even in the face of circumstances that would suggest an alternative, or amid gender ideology that found the ritual problematic. These cases demonstrate how shared expectations about gendered family relations impose a conservative force that shapes ritual performances.
Lexi’s account of how she chose to have her dad, and not her stepfather, give her away at her outdoor country club wedding demonstrates assumptions from multiple parties about fathers’ roles. First, she clearly articulated that having her father involved in the ritual was not a question, as she explained that she would never consider not asking him. Including her stepfather was secondary. Lexi wanted to recognize him as a father figure, and she wanted him to feel included, but she did not assume his role as she did her father’s. Though Lexi believed that her father was “understanding enough” to not be upset with the stepfather’s participation, her concern for how including both men would be interpreted conveys the uncertainty about altering this core ritual, and her worry about making everyone happy. In the end, Lexi learned from her mother that her stepfather was uncomfortable performing the ritual with her father. Here, not only was the bride vigilant about what her father might expect, but the stepfather, too, did not want to encroach upon her dad’s role. Though her family structure suggested altering the ritual, the possibilities were mitigated by what the bride assumed her fathers expected, and she accepted the convention without alteration.
Marie (Methodist church wedding) had a blended family that led her to think about alternatives, and she and Mark were ideologically opposed to the gendered meaning of the father giving the bride away. They experienced, then, both types of visibility cues. Given this, one might suspect that this case would be the most likely to not include the convention. Her father, however, did give her away. Marie called the decision a “negotiation trick” and said it was “very much not about me.” Her ideology surrounding this issue was clearly important to her. Her stepfather was also important to her, evidenced in a carefully arranged private moment with him before the ceremony. Yet, her concern for how she believed she should perform the ceremony had the greatest force and led her to accept the ritual.
Marie’s performance was quite conventional: when she and her father approached the front of the church, Mark stepped down from the altar to greet them with an outstretched hand. Her father took his hand and placed Marie’s in it. To an observer, these actions mirrored convention precisely. But Marie made sense of her decision by redefining the meaning. Rather than a transfer of property or responsibility, she framed it as a blessing on the marriage or a statement of accepting Mark into the family. Because of the conventional performance, though, Marie recognized that most people would probably leave with the conventional interpretation based on shared understandings of the ritual. Though she was not entirely comfortable with this, appearing conventional was, in fact, part of why she did it. In her words, “I’m not pushing too hard on the father giving the daughter away thing.”
Concern for how others expect to perform gender and family, then, guides couples’ decisions even when alternative arrangements are available and when there is ideological opposition. Lexi’s example demonstrates that this concern extends beyond the bride to other family members, as her stepfather also was wary of performing the “father” role. Moreover, there was only one case in this study where a feminist preference to avoid the ritual was actualized—the heterosexual commitment ceremony. This is an interesting example because even though Faye, who was opposed to its implications, decided not to include it, she still expressed that her father might have liked to have given her away. Concern for his feelings—based on conventional expectations of the father’s role—remained, even with ideological opposition and in the most unconventional ceremony.
In sum, both categories of visibility cues provide opportunities for change not available when conventions are unacknowledged. If a convention does not fit a couple’s circumstances or ideology, they could alter or avoid it. I argue that these opportunities arise due to inconsistencies among dimensions of gender: the script for performing commitment rituals does not necessarily fit with how people think about gender or how their gendered relationships are arranged. In this way, this analysis provides insight on how institutionalized understandings are vulnerable to reconceptualization. The inconsistencies are due to progressive aspects of individuals’ lives (egalitarian ideals and nonnormatively gendered families) that outpaced dominant conventions linked with the institutional dimension. The examples, however, reveal that neither cue presents a clear-cut path to change. Rather, awareness of shared assumptions about what a wedding is and how men and women should perform it constrains couples’ decisions, an effect of the power of the institutional dimension. This is evidenced in the fact that couples can manipulate a gendered convention to make it work even in unconventional circumstances, and concern for expectations to reflect more traditional gender ideas can affect an egalitarian couple. Visibility cues arise, but they operate in a context of assumption that supports most gendered wedding conventions for most couples. In what follows, I discuss further how this analysis can be used to better understand the relationships among dimensions of gender, and how this informs us about processes of social change more broadly.
Discussion and Conclusion
The analysis presented here demonstrates that gendered conventions that reflect institutionalized ideas about men and women are assumed to be part of weddings and that couples must interact with them in some way. It is often the case that their taken-for-grantedness is not made visible, and they serve as a guiding force in planning the ceremony. These are instances in which the multiple dimensions of gender are consistent. At times, situational and/or ideological dissonance force people to confront the assumptions; analysis of these instances identifies potential paths to change. Nonetheless, assumptions that become visible can remain hard to challenge. Study of these phenomena is informative regarding the relationships among dimensions, the power of the institutional dimension, and opportunities for alteration that could eventually feed back to gender ideologies.
Gender is “done” in weddings via the performance of rituals that convey messages about what it means to be a man or a woman, and the relationships among men and women. The data presented here reinforce the role of structure underlying the doing gender perspective as they demonstrate that gender at the institutional level constrains couples’ understandings and decisions. The assumptions couples—and others to whom they are accountable—have about weddings are tightly related to the historical and material inequality organizing gender. It is significant to acknowledge that messages about weddings that have been studied on the macro level are reflected in what individuals take for granted: much of couples’ understandings is consistent with the industrial and ideological complexes surrounding weddings that reinforce the heterosexual imaginary (Ingraham 2006, 2008). With existing work on bridal showers (Montemurro 2006), this article adds empirical evidence that the considerable majority of wedding rituals are hyperfeminized and reflect vastly differentiated gender roles.
What this work adds to the discussion of gender in weddings and gender in everyday life is the development of an analytic tool that helps us understand how challenges to conventions come about. Wedding conventions are institutionalized interactions. They are accepted ways to have a wedding because of their connections with the frames that shape our understanding. The fact that the interactional dimension reflects the institutional dimension in this way makes sense to (or “works for”) people when that is also consistent with the individual dimension. The interactional dimension, also, though, is where people negotiate inconsistencies between the institutional and individual dimensions. In these instances, what is taken for granted becomes visible and individuals are provoked to negotiate with conventional expectations for interaction. Exclusion of a common ritual, an alternative performance of a ritual, or introduction of a new ritual sends a message that challenges the conventional meaning, and, in turn, the webs of understandings it supports. Stacey and Simon’s group entrance conveyed inclusivity that countered the conventional bridal spotlight, each of the couples that avoided the wife’s vow to “obey” expressed an egalitarian relationship in their vows, and Joe and Jim’s wedding shifted attention from gendered roles to those of committed partners.
Examination of what becomes visible provides insight on dimensions of gender and processes of change more broadly. Specifically, the form of the cues gives insight into where there has been structural change. Social changes such as an increase in blended families, older age at marriage (and associated decreased financial dependence on parents), and acceptability of same-gender commitments give rise to instances in which couples’ experiences do not map onto convention. Structural shifts can leave some conventions unsupported, and provide opportunities to alter them. Women’s vow to “obey” is one example couples challenged with relative ease, reflecting growing acceptance of more egalitarian gender attitudes related to this.
The data show that some rituals, though, are particularly difficult to challenge. I suggest that this is because, although they are affected by shifting structure, mainstream gender understandings remain consistent with them. Changing family forms and women’s independence at marriage challenge the ritual of fathers giving the bride away. However, brides’ extreme reluctance to alter this ritual suggests that there has not been as much change regarding ideas about patriarchy in families; concern for fathers’ feelings regarding the appropriate enactment of the father-of-the-bride role dominates. This finding gives more specificity to Ridgeway and Correll’s conclusion that gender beliefs have a “remarkable ability to persist in the face of social change that might undermine them” (2004, 527). By translating macro structures such as later age at marriage into interactional challenges for couples and identifying inconsistencies between dimensions as motivation for micro-level action that challenges gender beliefs, this analysis shows how some beliefs are less vulnerable to challenges, namely those at the intersection of gender, family, and parenting.
Moreover, my review of taken-for-granted gendered wedding conventions is not exhaustive. I gave particular attention to those rituals that became visible to couples and the focus of their negotiation. There are numerous other assumptions that were not made visible, including the division of labor in planning, the care work that brides and women relatives do for family members and guests, and differences in attention on and symbolism imbued in brides’ and grooms’ clothing. The fact that there are not visibility cues indicating dissonance among dimensions regarding these suggests there has been less change affecting gender expectations related to them.
Conventions that are not challenged remain pervasive, sustain the institutional arrangements they reflect, and reinforce shared assumptions regarding what a wedding is. Feminists might have ideological difficulties with their implications, but these results suggest that they do not in and of themselves cause a problem for brides and grooms. Couples are not experiencing inconsistency among dimensions regarding them. More scholarly attention on brides’ and grooms’ interpretations of these unquestioned issues would be a fruitful line of research that would speak not only to weddings, but to the gendered division of labor and issues of the body and appearance generally.
Interestingly, this suggests that widespread change in wedding conventions could result from forces unrelated to ideological concerns: though one path to change stems from egalitarian ideals, the other is the result of social circumstance. The ritual of giving the bride away is informative in this regard. This convention draws some of the most ire from feminists, and nearly all couples faced difficulty with it. However, only some brides opposed the gender implications. Others were faced with the challenge of negotiating it within nonconventional family forms. The only couples that rejected it were older and more independent from their parents and/or did not have legal weddings. Changing family demographics, later ages at marriage, postcohabitation marriage, and a rise in encore marriages, then, might be best able to present successful challenges to some gendered conventions most tightly connected to patriarchal models of gender and family. Even in the few years since these data were collected, we have seen dramatic shifts in marriage and commitment regulations, popular conceptions of family, and household composition that will likely continue (Pew Research Center 2010, 2013; Powell, Steelman, and Pizmony-Levy 2012). In this context, I would expect increasing prevalence of visibility cues that spur alterations to commitment conventions.
This has significant implications for how we think about processes of change regarding understandings of gender. Though gender-related attitudes liberalized significantly in the last quarter of the twentieth century (Bolzendahl and Myers 2004; Brewster and Padavic 2000), this research adds evidence to arguments that conventional notions of gender are deeply embedded in the institutional frames that guide our lives (Ridgeway 2011). Their reach is wide, and it is often difficult to identify how they affect our thought processes and behaviors. Circumstances that do not fit with convention, though, provide a context that allows a new gender message to be communicated with less cognitive and social difficulty. Guests can see how financial independence, having more than one father, or a close other-sex friend, for example, would lead one to perform commitment rituals in new ways.
Previous work by Hull (2006) supports the idea that enactment contests norms, even without intention. As the same-sex commitments Hull studied shift understandings of marriage, so, too, do rituals with unconventional gender arrangements. Gender-alternative rituals encourage guests to think about gender, family, and marriage differently—both as related to the ceremonies and in everyday life. A large-scale quantitative project that investigates the relationships between age, family structure, financial independence, gender ideology, and what people do in their weddings would likely uncover a range of innovations, speaking to the form and frequency of these challenges.
Shifting relationships between convention and the gender order could be explored further by studying other rituals. For example, we could examine how scripts for baby showers, birthday celebrations, and funerals align with gender structure. Examining patterns of similarity and difference across rituals could refine visibility cues as an analytic tool as it would provide data on paths to ritual change in other contexts: Are there patterns of situations in which conventional assumptions about gender go unquestioned? Do egalitarian ideals and unconventional circumstances motivate individuals to consider convention in other rituals? Are there other visibility cues that are context specific? How do visibility cues vary in their likelihood of motivating innovation?
While I have focused on gender, the meanings conveyed in wedding rituals are related to multiple social institutions, speaking to understandings of family, religion, and the state as well. Scholars interested in other institutions might study how those assumptions are made visible and how their meanings can be challenged in commitment rituals. This approach also allows for exploration of the ways in which understandings overlap and interact with one another (e.g., the relationships between understandings of gender and family, or family and religion) (Friedland and Alford 1991; Sewell 1999). As conventional performances reflect conventional understandings of each of these, the interlocking web of shared assumptions—addressing gender, family, religion, and the state—is reinforced. Exploring members’ understandings of multiple institutions and the relationships between them could therefore shed additional light on why many conventional wedding rituals persist.
In conclusion, this ethnographic examination of couples’ experiences planning weddings contributes an analytic tool to better understand processes regarding the reproduction of, and challenges to, gender inequality. Couples often perform conventional rituals because they align with the multidimensional gender order—they make sense to them as the way to perform a commitment and are consistent with the shared assumptions to which they will be held accountable. However, the relationship between the ritual norms and the related social structure is not a perfect fit. I extend the theoretical discussion of how gender conventions are negotiated in contemporary society by using visibility cues to draw attention to social shifts evident in couples’ circumstances and ideology. The instances of inconsistency provide opportunities to challenge conventions and the meanings the rituals support. Examples of blended families, independent brides, and egalitarian couples in these data are similar to Montemurro’s (2006) observations regarding changing ideas about women’s sexuality and the rise of the bachelorette party. This analysis gives us a tool to identify and understand instances like these, where there are shifts in ritual performances that reflect changes in the gender order. Still, it is important to note that bachelorette parties and alternative wedding rituals are not yet institutionalized, indicating that the structure they reflect is not as deeply entrenched as that which upholds many gendered conventions. And, many gendered conventions remain solidly grounded in individuals’ conceptions of weddings. Attending to the question of consistency among dimensions of gender better situates us to understand the complex processes of institutionalization, including the role of social circumstance, ideology, and individual action.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
For their comments during analysis and on earlier drafts, I thank Timothy Hallett, Donna Eder, Elizabeth Armstrong, Robert V. Robinson, Laura Fingerson, Laura Hirshfield, and Janice McCabe. A version of this paper was presented at the 2011 American Sociological Association meetings in Las Vegas.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: I received partial funding from the Indiana University Graduate School and Department of Sociology, as well as the New College of Florida Office of the Provost. These were internal awards at my home institutions and do not have grant numbers.