A (Deeply Simplified) History of Drag’s Political Potential
Author’s Note: In order to keep this essay tight, I focused on the history of cis gay men performers as they relate to gender treachery. Drag is not defined by crossdressing, nor is it always defined by exaggerated gender presentation. The artform is broadly defined, which is part of its political potential. Just remember that this is an overly simplified history. I do not mean to erase the importance of trans performers (who have made contemporary drag what it is), women performers, or even more conceptual performers who present outside of human ideals of gender. This is a surface level history of drag but I hope you still learn of its political potential even in a simplified form.
A primary criticism of drag as an artform is that it relies on gender roles, particularly for women. Drag queens in particular are thought to imitate women in stereotypical ways, as supposedly evidenced by the focus on make-up and beauty in drag performance. Considering that drag queens are seen as “female impersonators” critics state that the focus on beauty in relation to drag reinforces the expectations on women to perform beauty. This criticism implies that drag conforms to gender roles rather than subverts them, which ignores the role of gender anarchy in drag performance.
Anarchism itself is the rejection of unjustified hierarchies, whether in states, state apparatuses, or social hierarchies. Patriarchy is a social hierarchy that centers men above all other genders. However, gender roles maintain a social hierarchy without patriarchy, as the existence of gender roles implies that everyone must act in accordance with social rules determined by state apparatuses. How does one circumvent gender roles, though? If they are societal rules, determined by someone’s gender, and often someone’s sex, is there a way to act against them? Just as there are ways to act in accordance with anarchist principles through interpersonal behavior such as mutual aid, gender anarchy can be achieved through gender treachery.
Gender treachery is the act of defying gender norms. The gender norms are ill-defined in society, as what is normal is fluid within a culture. However the notion of gender performance clarifies the definition of treachery, “A gender traitor can be thought of as anyone who violates the rules of performance” (Hopkins, 233). Gender performance, as it is used in this definition, is borrowed from Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity. Although we are assigned gender roles within greater society, we perform those roles to signify our gendered positions. It is possible to perform against gender roles. In Gender Trouble, Butler explains the satirical nature of John Waters’ films, particularly those which star Divine, a drag queen. She explains how queer subcultures have subverted gender roles, “gender practices within gay and lesbian cultures often thematize ‘the natural’ in parodic contexts that bring into relief the performative construction of original and true sex.” (Butler, 2489) In Butler’s description of queer gender performance, she highlights the theatrical aspects of it. Unlike in heterosexual culture, queer people seem aware of their gender roles and the treacherous nature of their own identities. The thematic nature of queer gender performance such as drag performance reflects this.
Historically, drag has always been a political artform. The first recorded drag queen, and drag performer, is William Dorsey Swann. Shortly after gaining his freedom in 1862, he threw the first recorded drag balls. Much of his drag artistry reflected his status as a homosexual, black man and freed slave. As reflected in later drag ball culture, Swann’s drag balls parodied the dress of wealthy white women as well as stereotypes they gave to black, gay men. If they were meant to be effeminate, they would play it up to the highest degree. Although they are playing into the stereotypes put against them, they similarly deny it considering the paradoxical nature of racist rhetoric against black men. While black gay men were feminized to eradicate their masculinity, their masculinity was still used against them to paint them as perverted savages. The drag performances both make fun of this feminization and liberate them from the preconception of black men as dangerous. After all, what is so dangerous about someone dancing in a dress?
Other historical records of drag corroborate the political intention of the art. Namely, drag was utilized in Prisoner of War theater groups. Although this drag was practiced in a largely masculine, cisgender, heterosexual environment, it held subversive potential due to the inherent gender treachery in drag performance. The female impersonators were soldiers. In Western society, soldiers are a symbol of masculinity as they practice the aggressive violence associated with manhood in order to “protect” a country. Many of the training for soldiers relies on emotional gender traits for men, namely the stoic nature of the training. In these theatrical performances, the male roles often continued the tradition of stoicism, but the female impersonators were given opportunity to express emotion, even through a character.
This is not to say that hierarchical gender systems were not reinforced through these performances. While the performers were playing with their own gender, female impersonators were freed from prison time, giving an incentive to portray the role rather than being a truly free choice. Similarly, the female impersonators were largely treated with respect within the POW camps as they provided a therapeutic service to the audience. The men in POW camps were away from women for so long that they would latch on to anything that resembled the feminine. Thus, female impersonators gave them something to latch on to. Many impersonators continue their roles in everyday life in the camps, returning normalcy and sexual gratification to the POWs (Rachamimov, 362–364) The role of the impersonator then becomes paradoxical in the lens of gender anarchy.
If gender anarchy is the rejection of gender roles, and female impersonation is meant to return the audience to the normalcy of their culture, female impersonation is not gender anarchy. The normalcy that the soldiers wished to return to relied on the subjugation of women. Even in the POW camps, the female impersonators were objectified for the aesthetics they offered rather than uplifted for the value they may have had. Soldiers did not enjoy the impersonators for the transgressive effect of impersonation. They enjoyed them for the semblance of womanhood on a sexual level. However, if we strip down what female impersonation is: a man dressed as and acting as a woman, we find that this case is not as simple as drag as transgressive or not transgressive. If the POWs were sexually attracted to the female impersonators, there is inherent transgression in attraction to men by other men, especially when one considers the masculine training of soldiers. Yet, the attraction is tethered to the normalcy of heterosexism, leading this interaction to conform to societal expectations while denying them.
While the paradoxical nature of female impersonation can be found in many drag performances by cis male drag queens, explicitly transgressive cis male drag queens perfom gender anarchy and gender treachery to a high degree. The 70s was a famous era of transgressive drag as not only did infamous groups such as The Cockettes and The Dreamlanders rise to the top, but it was in direct contrast to the larger American public perception of drag. Drag has been used in popular culture to signify trickster characters who can only trick the most foolish people. It was a comedic trope that represented how womanhood itself was meant to be an embarrassment for men to emulate. In the gay community, drag was popularized through drag pageant shows, which many consider a cultural offspring of Drag Balls that largely erased the political messaging of Drag Balls.
However, transgressive drag performance rose in the underground club scene. As mentioned, The Cockettes were among the more famous groups. Most importantly for this conversation, The Cockettes are perhaps the most explicit drag anarchist groups even if they didn’t expressly identify as such. Not only did they participate in anarchist practices such as mutual aid and communal living, but their art was based on freedom of ideas and expression to the highest degree. The group did have a leader in Hibiscus though he rarely rejected creative proposals. Nearly every idea was attempted, leading to some offensive and some brilliant performances. The largest contribution of the group to larger drag culture was the refusal of rules within drag performance. Women were members of the group without cross-dressing as drag kings. Many of the queens would wear beards, playing with the expectations of womanhood from drag queens. Glamor was a primary goal of queens in this era and the previous decade, but they transgressed the idea, rather attempting a “redefinition of glamor, an ‘alien’ glamor” (Kelley, 3) that made audiences question what glamor, and gender itself, even was.
Divine brought queer drag performance into the mainstream through his success in Pink Flamingos and Hairspray. His style of drag was in explicit contrast to pageantry, perhaps even more so than The Cockettes. Divine rejected the phrase “drag queen” by itself, calling himself a “character actor”, though considering he acted in drag and has been a major influence on drag queen culture, I will be referring to his performances. In his performances, he is the opposite of traditional Hollywood beauty. The films themselves make the audience question this as Divine’s characters tend to be sexually desired by other characters such as when she is described as ‘becoming more beautiful’ as she commits more crimes in Female Trouble. The rejection of societal law is connected with beauty, treating anarchism as an act of aesthetic gratification in a way analogous to how classic Hollywood ingenues are aesthetically gratifying to the audience for their innocence.
While Divine was not a drag queen, his fame came due to his drag performance which was anarchic and rejectionist of gender expectations. While some of the draw of Divine’s performances came from the disturbing acts within the films, there was a public interest in the rejection of expectations. While some of the reaction was a comedic reaction to the idea of a man in woman’s clothing committing horrendous acts, the larger queer emulation of his performances reminds us of the importance of transgression within drag expression. His performances made the audience question the meaning of beauty and of the structures we rely on. Underground drag artists have continued this tradition.
In the wake of drag artistry as mainstream, there is a movement to take drag back to its transgressive roots. Namely, the popularity of RuPaul’s Drag Race has left the public to believe that drag performance largely relies on beauty, much like in the older pageantry days. Although Drag Race has had transgressive queens, even transgressive winners like Yvie Oddly and Sasha Velour, the reputation of the show has led to a softening of drag’s political meaning. However, the growing underground movement is causing us to ponder whether gender anarchy is possible under rainbow capitalism. The most popular example of this uprising is another competition show, The Boulet Brothers’ Dragula.
Dragula is a horror-based drag competition show, highlighting styles of drag which go against mainstream ideals of it. They have highlighted cis women, Non-Binary, and Transgender contestants. The season 3 winner was Landon Cider, a female drag king, the first drag king to win a drag competition show. However, these elements could still be present and affirmative to gender roles. The competitors are encouraged to reject beauty and gender roles. The three tenets of Dragula are described as “filth, horror, and glamor”, with filth being used to test the limits of what is considered acceptable and what is considered glamorous, continuing the tradition of gender anarchy. Even the judging of contestants is based less on whether they are aesthetically pleasing or glamorous and is instead based on how they applied their art to individual challenges. This judging style is in contrast to Drag Race’s where judges will base their decisions on how the contestant’s aesthetics fit in with the Drag Race brand.
Gender anarchy is possible through drag as an art, although it is not always achieved. As gender roles change, as does gender treachery. Drag is becoming more acceptable as an art, which is why transgressive drag artists are challenging drag itself rather than challenging gender roles as they have in the past. While some drag is affirmative to heterosexist standards, like that of POW theater camps, the paradoxical nature of it will continue to make the art transgressive and challenging of hierarchies.
Works Cited
Butler, Judith. “Preface to Gender Trouble.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism,
edited by Vincent B. Leitch, W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, 2488–2501.
Halliwell, Nikki. “William Dorsey Swann — The Original Drag Queen.” All Gay Long,
William Dorsey Swann — The Original Drag Queen — All Gay Long. Accessed 30 Nov. 2021
Hopkins, Patrick D. “Gender Treachery: Homophobia, Masculinity, and Threatened Identities.”
Rethinking Masculinity: Philosophical explorations in light of feminism, edited by Larry May and Robert Strikwerda, Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1992, 230–249.
Kelley, Mike. “Cross Gender/Cross Genre.” PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, vol. 22, no.
1, Performing Arts Journal, Inc., 2000, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.2307/3245906.
Rachamimov, Alon. “The Disruptive Comforts of Drag: (Trans)Gender Performances among
Prisoners of War in Russia, 1914–1920.”The American Historical Review, Volume 111, Issue 2, April 2006, Pages 362–382, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.111.2.362
