Felipe Gonzlez Silva

2078621G
MLitt Film and Television Studies
Dissertation September 2015

Its Not Personal, Its Drag: The Sassy Politics of

RuPauls Drag Race

Supervised by Professor Karen Lury

University of Glasgow

Word count: 14,840

Beneficiario COLFUTURO 2014

 Abstract

After the success of reality competition shows such as Project Runway and
Americas Next Top Model in the United States, RuPauls Drag Race reached
the small screen to be the first TV programme of its kind to feature drag queens.
Through textual analysis and theories of queer and feminist studies, this thesis
joins the fundamental debates about drag and its role in society. With these
debates as a starting point, this thesis is dedicated to determining the position
of Drag Race within the tension between gay politics and queer politics that lies
in the programmes construction of what drag is supposed to be. By focusing on
the relation of masculinity and femininity in drag, and on the role of sleaziness in
drag, this thesis argues that RuPauls Drag Race refuses to be located
unequivocally as a project of either gay or queer politics. This reading does not
only propose an innovative take on the programme but it also manages to
further problematise the distinction between the two kinds of politics.

Key words: RuPauls Drag Race, drag, gay politics, queer politics, femininity,
masculinity, sleaziness, gender, race

ii
 Acknowledgements
I would like to show gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Karen Lury. Her
impressive knowledge and sensibility about television and academia in general,
along with her commitment to my project, helped me develop this dissertation
successfully. Her genuine concern was fundamental for the completion of this
text during a difficult time.

I thank Dave for his meticulous proofreading throughout the process, and for the
comments, ideas and invigorating words. Also, I am grateful for all my great
friends from the course. I am proud of all of us.

To Josh, for being the person who believes in me the most and for helping me
realize that I am capable of accomplishing anything I desire.

Most importantly, and despite the distance, thanks to my family who are my
greatest supporters in absolutely everything. You encourage me to keep going.

iii
 Contents

Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Contents iv
Introduction 1
Research questions 3
Methodology 5
Considerations 6
Chapter 1. Conceptualising drag: Literature review 7
I. Introduction to drag 7
II. Courtney looks like a girl. Very pretty but that doesn't impress me. Its not drag!
11
III. Overview: The literature of RuPauls Drag Race 14
The gender of drag or the drag of gender 15
Discoloured and hyper-coloured identities: race and drag 17
The real fish: women and drag 19
Chapter 2. Femininity vs. Masculinity 23
I. Bearded femininities 24
May the best bearded woman win: a hierarchy of the beard 26
II. Beyond masculinity and femininity 29
Dissonant sway: dance and the limits of gender 33
Chapter 3. Sleaziness 38
I. Oh my God Almighty! Someone has sent me a bowel movement! 38
Authentic filthiness or masked purity? 40
Sleaziness, sashay away 43
II. The ghostly and outrageous femininity of Sharon Needles 45
III. Hello Kitty and the consumerist femininity 50
Conclusions 56
Recommendations 58
Index of images 60
Works cited 60
Bibliography 60
Filmography 64
Teleography 64

iv
 Introduction
RuPauls Drag Race is a reality competition TV programme initially broadcasted

in the United States by the network Logo. As the name suggests, the show is

hosted by the internationally famous drag queen, RuPaul, and the term drag

race is a pun that originates from the motor racing competition but, in this case,

the competition is not between cars but between drag queens. During each of

its already seven seasons from 2009 to the present, RuPauls Drag Race has

featured from 9 to 14 drag queens fighting for the title of Americas Next Drag

Superstar as well as a cash prize and other prizes given by the programmes

sponsors. The contestants, who come from all around the United States

(including Puerto Rico), face weekly challenges that conclude with the

elimination of a queen from the competition until a winner is crowned.

Typically, in every episode (week) there are three explicit moments of

competition that affect the judges decisions about who remains in and who

leaves the competition. These are (1) the mini challenge, (2) the main

challenge or maxi challenge and (3) the lip sync for your life. The mini

challenge occupies about 3 minutes of the episodes runtime but sometimes it

extends for a couple of minutes more. Some mini challenges are repeated

season after season while others have happened only one time. These

challenges usually give the winning queen(s) an advantage for the main

challenge. Examples of mini challenges are a photo-shoot (recurring), guessing

the price of items used to do drag (one time), a wet T-shirt contest (one time),

etc. Examples of advantages the queens earn after the mini-challenge are the

1
right to choose their team for a group challenge, the chance to pair up every

queen with something or someone related to the main challenge, and so on.

The main challenge, according to the judges comments every season, is

the most important factor in determining whether a queen stays in or leaves the

competition. As with the mini challenges, some of the main challenges are

recurrent throughout seasons while others have had unique appearances.

Some of the unique challenges have been to re-enact scenes from John Waters

films, to perform in a musical, and even to act for the trailer of an imaginary film

called From Earth to Uranus. Other challenges are not only present in most

seasons of Drag Race, but they are loved and awaited by the fans year after

year. Snatch Game, a parody of the game show Match Game, requires the

queens to do celebrity female impersonation. This is probably the most popular

of all challenges. Other examples are The Ball (which has a different topic each

year: Sugar, Glitter, Bitch, etc.) and the transformation/makeover (in which

queens have to dress another person in drag).

After the winner of the weeks challenge is determined, the two

contestants whose performances are deemed the worst of the week have to

participate in a final challenge called lip sync for your life. This means that the

queens have to lip sync to a song in front of the judges and convince them to let

them stay. Usually one queen sashays away (leaves) while the other is given

another chance marked by RuPauls phrase, shante, you stay. However, there

have been occasions when both or neither of the queens have left the

competition.

2
 RuPauls Drag Race has had a companion show since its second season.

This show is called Untucked and it shows the interactions between queens

backstage while they wait for RuPaul and the other judges to make a decision

about the weeks challenge. Untucked has aired on TV after Drag Races

episode every Mondaywith the exception of season seven, when it became a

YouTube web series, uploaded every Tuesday. Untucked does not have a

direct (or spoken) influence in the competition, but it reveals more of the

narratives the show creates during Drag Race. In addition to that, a spin-off

called RuPauls Drag U premiered in 2010 and ran for three seasons until 2012.

In every episode three queens from past seasons are selected to do drag

makeovers to three women. Every episode results with a one-off couple of

winners (a queen and her pair).

The format of the show borrows known conventions from other reality

competition shows such as Americas Next Top Model, Project Runway and

many others (Edgar, 2011, p.137; Marcel, 2014, p.16).

Research questions

The study of drag in academia has had a range of focuses, from specific

objects of study such as certain drag queens at ballrooms and TV shows like

Drag Race, to more general debates about drag itself. Some authors look into

previous discussions and understandings of drag itself before moving on the

programme itself.

The publication of The Makeup of RuPauls Drag Race: Essays on the

Queen of Reality Shows (2014) brought nine new articles to the body of work

3
about this reality show which had only been the subject of four academic pieces

by the end of 2013. Some of these essays inscribed themselves into existing

debates introduced by other authors (Anthony, 2014; Kohlsdorf, 2014; Marcel,

2014; Mayora, 2014; Morrison, 2014; Simmons, 2014), while others introduced

new angles and subject matters dealing with Drag Race (Chernoff, 2014; Fine

and Shreve, 2014; Norris, 2014; Pagoni Berns, 2014). While many of these

authors do not directly reference earlier articles about the programme, it is

possible to track some general debates about topics such as gender, race, and

sexuality. It will be my task to find, acknowledge, and react to the arguments

they develop when they intersect with my own appreciation and ideas about the

show.

Taking into consideration the literature that I have begun to engage with

and my appreciation of RuPauls Drag Race as a rich site for academic

discussion, this text will focus primarily on ideas of queer politics and gay

politics on the show. More specifically, I will address the following research

questions: (1) How does the policing of queens towards an establishment of

desired drag practices by RuPauls Drag Race define, complicate, easeor

simply negotiatethe tension between queer politics and gay politics? (2) If the

show were to be located closer to gayness, or gay politics, is it still possible to

find queer possibilities in such text as well? I will use the term queer politics as

understood by Greer (2012) as one of the functions of queerness. Queerness

may be characterised as anti-assimilationist, in opposition to the mainstream

project of lesbian and gay politics (p.3) That is to say, queer politics as a mean

of disruption of normativity and the refusal to become adjusted as a part of the

4
norm. Gay politics can then be defined as a project that seeks inclusion for the

subjects in question. For example, a specific project of the interest of gay

politics is the worldwide legalisation of same-sex marriage. This distinction

between gay and queer politics is a fundamentally strategic one. I do not intend

to argue that there is a strong and unmistakable line between the two; there are

in fact overlaps between them. However, this distinction allows this thesis to

debate with and identify assimilationist (gay) goals in contrast to disruptive

(queer) ones. In addition to that, such divergence harmonises with the equally

problematic tension between commercial drag vs. political drag which I will

address in the following chapters.

In order to answer these questions, I have identified several ways in

which the show can be read as a contested space for its version(s) of drag, its

meaning, and the value given to it. In this thesis I will focus on two of them. The

first is the tension between masculinity and femininity of drag, and the second is

the role of sleaziness and cleanliness of drag. In turn I will explain both in detail

alongside examples and discussion.

Methodology

With a view to discussing the research questions proposed above, I will

have recourse to textual analysis of the scenes, the challenges, and the

queens performances selected in association with a permanent and critical

dialogue with the pertinent academic literature introduced earlier. Textual

analysis, as explained by Alan McKee is an interpretation of texts in order to

try to obtain a sense of the ways in which, in particular cultures at particular

5
times, people make sense of the world around them (2003, p.1). In this

particular case, the objective is to approach the way in which RuPauls Drag

Race and its queensas represented by the showmake sense of the world

around them. In addition to that, I will consider the show as a site of active

meaning production, and not solely as an interpretation. Another component of

the version of textual analysis I privilege is its noncompliance with measuring

media texts to see how accurate they are (p.17). In other words, my study and

projected conclusions will not attempt to argue whether, for example, the

representations of Asian-American drag queens in the show are accurate in

comparison to their real-life ballroom drag counterparts. Instead, the

methodology Im describing seeks to understand the ways in which these forms

of representation take place, the assumptions behind them and the sense-

making about the world that they reveal (p.17). My goal is to look past

discourses of truth about media representations in order to move on to a

critical acknowledgement of powerful representations that allow us to engage

with current discussions related to gender, race, sexuality, age, ethnicity, etc.

Considerations

To avoid confusion and to ensure consistency, in this text I will always

refer to the queens with the pronouns she and her regardless of whether

they are in drag or not. Throughout the show, these pronouns are more widely

used than he, his and him and its use does not follow a discernible pattern.

6
 Chapter 1. Conceptualising drag: Literature review

I. Introduction to drag

Judith Butlers central argument about her understanding of drag, as part

of her discussions on gender, developed in her book Gender Trouble: Feminism

and the Subversion of Identity in 1990. Butler references Esther Newtons

Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America, which was the first book

dedicated to the study of drag. According to Esther Newton, drag unveils one

of the key fabricating mechanisms through which the social construction of

gender takes place (Butler, 1999, p.174). That is to say, Newton hints that

drag exposes the artificiality of gender expression and its social expectation for

some bodies to conform to and act in particular ways. However, Butler takes

this possibility further by arguing, drag fully subverts the distinction between

inner and outer psychic space and effectively mocks both the expressive model

of gender and the notion of a true gender identity (p.174). In other words, the

artificiality drag exposes is not only about an outer expressive space, which is

a body in drag, but also about the artificiality of a naturalized inner space,

which would be the performers true genderout of drag. For Butler, then,

gender, and not only its expression, is itself artificial from the beginning.

The subject of drag and/or the subject of who does drag are also central

to the discussions encouraged in Gender Trouble. While Newton and other

authors referenced afterwards in this thesis would simplify drag queens

identities as men who dress up as women (Newton, 1997 p.3), Butler

problematises the knowledge about this subject away from regularizing

7
assumptions. She argues that a drag performer is not merely a person from one

gender who plays an opposite-gendered self, but rather an unfinished product

of three contingent dimensions of significant corporeality: anatomical sex,

gender identity, and gender performance (1999, p.175). She further adds that

multiple tensions between sex, gender identity and gender performance arise,

in addition to the one-way street relation between sex and gender performance

that most authors identify (p.175). For example, Jinkx Monsoon (winner of

RuPauls Drag Race season 5; Jerick Hoffer out of drag), while presumably

being anatomically male, states that he identifies as transgendered or

nongendered (Ford, 2014), and performs as Jinkx who might or might not be

read as feminineor beyond. Jinkx displays different kinds of potential as to the

dimensions he identifies with and poses as. To argue that Jerick is a male who

dresses like woman would wholly disregard the convoluted dissonances, as

Butler calls them, between this performers dimensions. This fluidity and

confusion is as an example that reveals the distinctness of those aspects of

gendered experience which are falsely naturalized as a unity through the

regulatory fiction of heterosexual coherence (Butler, 1999, p.175). Jinkxs body

and expressions are not coherent to the expectations of heterosexuality

because she does not follow a pattern of male-masculine or female-feminine. In

addition to that, a simplified explanation of this queens existence (a man who

performs as a woman) would overlook her complexity.

In regards to the performance of drag, Butler moves on to explain that

drag generally parodies the notion of an original or primary gender (p.174).

8
Butler is suggesting that the body out of drag is no more authentic than the

purportedly fake performance in drag.

Butlers discussions about drag, and drag as a parody, led her to develop

her ideas in her subsequent book Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits

of Sex. Notwithstanding its status as parody, Butler warns that drag does not

equate with subversion and that drag may well be used in the service of both

the denaturalization and reidealization of hyperbolic heterosexual gender norms

(1993, p.125). Butler therefore complicates the analysis of drag by pointing out

its normative potential. What starts as a re-imagination of ones gender

dangerously shifts into a new way of reproducing the privileged status of

heteronormativity. Despite this setback, Butler envisions moments when this

practice could truly be subversive: drag is subversive to the extent that it

reflects on the imitative structure by which hegemonic gender is itself produced

and disputes heterosexualitys claim of naturalness and originality (1993,

p.125). Namely, drag brings to light how all gender is itself a reproduction of a

manufactured reality and never represents a true expression.

In Gender Trouble, Butler argues,

Parody by itself is not subversive, and there must be a way to

understand what makes certain kinds of parodic repetitions
effectively disruptive, truly troubling, and which repetitions become
domesticated and recirculated as instruments of cultural hegemony.
(1999, pp.176-7)

Here Butler is suggesting that parody (as enacted by drag) holds contradictory,

and sometimes unpredictable, promises that either unsettle or reaffirm sexual

hegemonyor both at the same time. The author does not offer a method to

identify which drag practices/identities do what. However, she exemplifies this

9
unrest by citing the film Paris is Burning as a product that reflects the tension

between appropriation and subversion (Butler, 1993, p.128).

Jos Esteban Muoz proposes a response for Butlers way to

understand when parody (drag in this case) is subversive and when it is not,

while developing his concept of disidentification (1999). Although Muozs

theory on disidentification is the centre of his text, at the moment I will focus my

attention only on the two kinds of drag the author identifies. The first type of

drag, Muoz argues, is the commercial, or corporate-sponsored drag, which

presents a sanitized and desexualized queer subject for mass consumption.

Such drag represents a certain strand of integrationist liberal pluralism (1999,

p.99). That is, the queerness of the subject is moderated and conquered in

order to be turned into a palatable product for a public that otherwise would not

accept it. The potential for drags disruptive activity to agitate normativity is

supressed for the sake of being accepted and included. This can indeed be

related to Butlers concern about domesticated parodies. The second mode of

drag, Muoz recognizes as a queerer, and even terroristic, political type of

drag that creat[es] an uneasiness in desire, which works to confound and

subvert the social fabric (p.100). This drag does not strive for hegemonic

approval, but rather to question the foundations of that order.

In-depth engagement with the distinct types of drag Muoz proposes,

along with a discussion with his theory of disidentification, will be useful for this

text when concentrating on my assessment of RuPauls Drag Race as a

predominantly sanitized drag space.

10
II. Courtney looks like a girl. Very pretty but that doesn't impress me.

Its not drag!

In the sixth episode of Drag Race season five, after the queens

performances at the anticipated Snatch Game, the remaining nine contestants

return to the workroom in order to adjust their makeup and garments for the

next runway presentation. Before this process starts, the queens converse

about their impressions of the popular Snatch Game. Alyssa Edwards, who had

been chosen as the winner of the previous challenge, won immunity and was

therefore safe from elimination for this episode. Jade Jolie considers Alyssas

impersonation of Katy Perry unsatisfactory and for that reason decides to

confront her about the luxury of immunity in the face of defeat. Alyssa replies by

assuring the group that she [does] not do characters. Jinkx Monsoon steps

into the conversation to remind Alyssa about the inevitability of RuPauls Snatch

Game every season. This, however, serves as a catalyst for Alyssa, and later

Coco Montrese, to criticize Jinkxs runway outfits. Coco argues, Shes all

comedy and no glamour. A while later, Jinkx decides to express her anguish to

Alaska. I have dealt with this my entire drag career, you know? Its getting

frustrating to have to defend a style of drag thats completely valid. Then, she

adds that she was not taken seriously when she started to do drag. I dont want

to have to keep explaining myself. Jinkxs discontent originates in the

accusations made by some queens who argue that some versions of drag are

not legitimate.

Cocos allegation is not unique within RuPauls Drag Race and certainly

not in the real world, just as Jinkx suggests. Examples of similar accusations
11
abound in the series. Some of these contestants who have condemned others

drag were Alexis Mateo about Raja (season three), Phi Phi OHara about

Sharon Needles (season four), Gia Gunn about Milk (season six), and Kennedy

Davenport about Pearl and Miss Fame (season seven). Although all these

accusations differ from each other, the tension about the meaning and

boundaries of drag is a constant of the series. These confrontations display a

certain anxiety about the goals and ideals of drag. Which practices are

perceived as acceptable and which are not? This anxiety also extends to the

judges and, more generally, to the TV programme itself. The core of RuPauls

Drag Race appears to lie in the definition of drag. What does drag mean? In

addition to that, more questions can be asked: What does drag do? Who can do

drag? Is there good and bad drag? What are its limits and limitations? What

are its intentions? Is it unavoidably linked to political proposals? Can drag be

divided into categories/types?

As I have said above, the academic study of drag goes back to Esther

Newtons book in 1972. The first element of her definition characterises drag

and female impersonation as identical practices (Newton, 1972). Although it

may seem an adequate equation, female impersonation is only one possibility

of drag and, therefore, drag cannot be reduced to impersonation. This is not

only evidenced by literature I will reference later in this section, but also by drag

queens themselves. During the first episode of the series, Drag Race season

ones runner-up, Nina Flowers, states that she strives for an androgynous

persona rather than for femininity. Second, Newton classifies drag queens as

professional homosexuals (1979, p.3) despite admitting to having encountered

12
a heterosexual drag queen during her investigation (1979, p.7). By failing to

consider performers who identify as non-gay and/or not as males, Newton

simplifies and homogenizes the complexities of drag. However, Newton was a

pioneer in the field of drag studies, but she also provided a set of stereotypes

and generalizations which still shackle some academics understanding of drag.

Some authors, such as Hopkins (2004, p. 137), contribute with an

essentially indistinguishable definition from Newtons since he also uses the

terms drag and female impersonation interchangeably. Other authors do not

replace one term with the other, but nonetheless insist that drag is about

performing as women (Mann, 2011, p.794). Moreover, there are authors who

define drag as an activity exclusive to gay men who perform as women (Taylor

and Rupp, 2004; Berkowitz et al., 2007) although some argue that not all drag

queens are female impersonators (Rupp et al., 2010).

In spite of the fact that these authors begin their theoretical frameworks

by committing to a definition of drag that serves as foundation for their research,

most of them do not problematise those definitions. Of the aforementioned

authors, only Taylor and Rupp briefly propose drag as a third gender (2004,

p.130), but they do not develop this idea or its implications. On the other hand,

a few authors, such as Ramey Moore (2013), reflect upon the meaning of drag

before discussing their specific object of study. Moore argues, A number of

scholars of drag, transvestism, and cross-dressing seem to take the nature of

drag as a cultural given, and elide specific definitions of what it means to be 'in

drag' (2013, p.18). Those scholars explicitly mentioned are Charlotte Suthrell

(2004), Esther Newton (1979), and Claudine Griggs (1998). For Moore it is not

13
sufficient to work with a superficial explanation of drag. Moore urges that drag is

not reduced to a formula of man dressing up as woman and performing.

After a discussion that includes ideas from Judith Butler, he suggests that drag

might be a performative act which attempts to re-inscribe new, altered,

transgressive, or, most importantly, parodic gender identities within the context

of performance (2013, p.19). I suggest that Moores proposed definition is not

solely relevant because it considers the progressive or queer possibilities of

drag, but also because the author does not join scholars who make

assumptions about the bodies, experiences, and goals that (re)shape drag.

Even though Moore attests for the constant mobility and complexity of drag, he

moves away from easier definitions that hold assumptions at their core by not

reinforcing the (gay) men in womens clothing blueprint.

III. Overview: The literature of RuPauls Drag Race

Considering how recent the programme is, the literature specific to

RuPauls Drag Race is wide ranging and accounts for numerous approaches,

methodologies, particular objects of study, and so on. As stated earlier, Moore

(2013) is the only author who, while writing about Drag Race, extensively

discusses the meaning of drag. The remaining authors either focus exclusively

on the shows vision of drag without engaging with more general discussions, or

privilege other elements (such as gender, performance, etc.) rather than drag

itself.

A first group of authors discuss RuPauls show focusing on gender and

gender performance (Edgar, 2011; Moore 2013; Marcel, 2014). Some research

14
has also been carried out about race and ethnicity (Strings and Bui, 2013;

Anthony, 2014; Mayora, 2014; Morrison, 2014); about the relationships of

women (including trans women) to the show and their position within it

(Chernoff, 2014; Norris, 2014); drag in a post race, feminism era (Kohlsdorf,

2014); pedagogy (Fine and Shreve, 2014); drag language and speech codes

(Simmons, 2014); and an examination of the judging and its supposed

arbitrariness (Pagnoni Berns, 2014). Due to space limitations I will primarily

engage only with some of these authors articles.

The gender of drag or the drag of gender

While Eir-Anne Edgar (2011) concurs with Butler about drags uneven

promise of gender disruption, she suggests, Drag Race arguably produces a

more normalizing view of drag performance (p.136). Edgar explains this

normalising view by exemplifying the way queens from the first season are

policed and rewarded by the judges. For instance, Edgar makes a parallel

between Nina Flowers, whom I have previously mentioned, and Rebecca

Glasscock. The author argues how Nina, due to her androgynous look, has a

harder time pleasing the judges in regards to her enactment of femininity while

Rebeccas performance and appearance conform to the judges expectations

better (Edgar, 2011, p.137). Despite this, Edgar asserts that drag queens,

including those featured in Drag Race, are occasionally able to undermine not

only drags simplified formula of man in womens clothes, but their own gender

definition and experience by being a layered construction of genders (2011,

p.141). Later, she adds, The individual is neither this nor that, but both; this

15
layering collapses the constructedness of the gender binary into a wonderfully

queer and messy reality (2011, p.141). That is to say, drag and its blurring of

genders have the potential to agitate normativity and its constraints. While

Edgars assessment is well founded, it focuses only on the first season of the

show. RuPauls Drag Race has evolved in certain ways as well as reaffirming

some of its foundations year after year. This will be part of my focus later in this

text.

Moore (2013) extends his new definition of drag into the evaluation of

Drag Race. He concentrates on the radical agency that, according to him,

Butler argues is sometimes found in the practice of drag. The author explains

this by mentioning how the contestants of the show are able to create their own

masculinities, femininities and any gender expression through their bodies

(Moore, 2013, p.24). Although Moore is more critical of the narrow definitions of

gender and drag, he does not consider the potentially normalising effects of

RuPauls Drag Race that Edgar suggested in her earlier article. Moore selects

the fifth episode of the second season, Here Comes the Bride, to sustain his

thesis. In this episode the contestants are asked to perform as both characters

in a photo-shoot of a newly married couple. This means they should get in drag

not only as the brides, as they usually would, but also as the grooms. Moores

point revolves around the idea that for the queens, performing as grooms

(which would be their normative obligation) is just as challenging as performing

as brides (2013, p.23). In addition to that, the author stresses that the

masculine identity chosen by the contestants is not themselves (Moore, 2013,

23). While Moores thesis is provocative, the textual evidence provided is not

16
sufficient, and it is uncertain if the way the challenge is set opens up

possibilities for other moments of the show or if it is solely a glimpse of

queerness in an ocean of normativity. In other words, the author does not

examine, or imagine, the possible implicationsif anyof this challenge to the

series in general.

Marcel (2014) attributes RuPauls Drag Races limitations to the

formulaic nature of its genre, reality TV, which moderates the representations

of drag queens by simplifying their identities and stories (p.26). However, the

author celebrates the programme overall for featuring positive representations

of drag queens in the televisual space that used to completely neglect them

(p.26). Again, similarly to Moore (2013), there is no examination about the

effects of those representations.

Discoloured and hyper-coloured identities: race and drag

Strings and Bui (2013) also recognize the obstacles that some

contestants have to face due to their assumed racial and ethnic identities. The

authors choose the third season of the show to argue that contestants are

allowed and encouraged to question gender rules but at the same time, are

expected to remain faithful to their racial truths (2014, p. 823). The authors

use examples of performances made by Alexis Mateo, Yara Sofia (Puerto

Rican queens), Shangela (black queen) and others, who were rewarded with

challenge victories only when they conformed to the ethnic and racial

stereotypes that the judges hoped to see. Although much of the evidence

provided to support this thesis is convincing, Strings and Bui do not concede

17
any exceptions found in the show to the arguments the authors offer. While

RuPauls Drag Races racial commodification (2013, p.824) can be alleged,

not every decision made by RuPaul, the other judges or the production can be

fairly attributed to the same cause. For example, suggesting Alexis Mateo

makes it further in the competition () arguably because of her effective ability

to appropriate the markers of femininity without attempting to transgress her

racial/ethnic identity (p.827) is a supposition that discounts other explanations.

This racial commodification, while probable, is only one criterion among many

others to judge and eliminate queens from the competition (for example, the

runway fashion, the quality of the performance, etc.)

For Mayora (2014) there is a tension between the normative restrictions

RuPauls Drag Race sets in terms of apparent racial identity and the

possibilities it paradoxically enables: the popularity of the show both

complicates and cements the notion of homonormativity and gay

cosmopolitanism (pp.106-7). Mayora develops the idea of this two-way street

by focusing on the queens who had a difficult time covering either because of

their accent, their skin color, or other features that marked them as Latinas

(pp.110-1). In other words, the Latina queens had to endure an extra challenge

during the competition because they were asked, explicitly or not, to become a

conventional product which could be easily sold to a mainstream audience.

Mayoras reflection on the reality show is in line with Strings and Buis

arguments in the sense that the visible others in the competition are

understood to face struggles that the white queens do not. However, Strings

and Bui argue about the dangerous racial constructions of the show, while only

18
Mayora considers the potentiality to disidentify within that alleged repressive

context.

The real fish: women and drag

According to Norris (2014), RuPauls Drag Race makes a clear division

about two types of fishy 1 contestants: those who look like dazzlingly

impersonations of women, and those who could essentially pass as cis*women

(p.33). Later she adds that the former, aided by the show, are at the top of the

hierarchy while the latter are dismissed. For Norris, these distinctions and the

values granted to one or other of the queens affect both trans and cis women

by reinforcing established standards of beauty (2011, p.34). However, despite

its shortcomings, Norris suggest that the show has begun the transition from a

purveyor of homonormative misogyny and trans*phobia into a safer and more

accepting space for LGBTQ identity expression (p.44) The author arrives at

this conclusion by developing a timeline from season two to five, focusing on

one queen at the time, and by evaluating the representation, or edit, they

receive from the producers (Norris, 2011, p. 35).

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Chernoff (2014) recognizes the

negative possibilities the show boosts from time to time, but argues that

RuPauls Drag Race is potentially queering the body () for cis women

(p.149). In order to provide evidence for this, the author takes a close look at

the makeover challenge from the first season. The queens of season one are

1
According to RuPaul, the term meant that you were so real that your between-me-
down-there would smell like something that would swim around in the ocean (Brumfitt,
2013). She also adds that it is now used as a compliment among drag queens and it is
associated with passing.
19
asked to makeover a female fighter into their girly drag version. The

conclusion the author arrives is that, during the makeover challenge,

masculinity and femininity are divorced from male and female bodies, but

norms about appropriate gender (or appropriate gender-bending, or gender

inversion) still guide the competition (p.154). In other words, RuPauls Drag

Race manages to step out of its own normative constraints for a period of time

by complicating the creation and readings of different bodies and expressions,

but then the show returns immediately to its regularizing practices. For example,

one of the queens, BeBe, is recognized by RuPaul as a more authentic

performer of femininity than Michelle (BeBes makeover partner) even if BeBe

identifies as male and Michelle as a female (p.155). But then, Ongina is

condemned for the excessive masculinity of her lookexpressed by her

decision to not wear a wig, not tuck (conceal her male genitals), and wear a

pantsuit; all signs considered not feminine (p.157). Chernoffs thesis will be

particularly significant when analysing episodes from different seasons in which

RuPaul and the show seem to break their own rules for a brief period of time.

In addition to that, I will examine the implications of these small yet valuable

fissures.

Homogenised identities: The post generation

By linking information about RuPaul compiled from her autobiography

and interviews she has given in the past, Kohlsdorf (2014) attempts to locate

Drag Race as a landmark piece of the alleged post feminist and race era

20
(p.68). The author argues that RuPauls incursion into (reality) television

compromises the revolutionary possibilities drag can have:

In order to maintain wide viewership and marketability, the identities

of the contestants are packaged as exotic and policed into dominant
understandings of drag queens when they disrupt or challenge binary
expectations of race and gender, which has a clear connection to
RuPauls sanitized and safe fame (2014, p.69).

That is to say, Kohlsdorf argues that drag queens identities, by entering

television, are stripped of their imaginable disavowal of fixed race and gender

certainties. Apparently, then, contestants need to conform to the precise

parameters of acceptable drag, like RuPaul herself. Kohlsdorf gives examples

across the first five seasons of the show in order to argue that the production of

Drag Race, with RuPaul in the lead, reminds both the queens and the audience

about what identities, practices, expressions of drag are adequate and which

are not. The author maintains that some queens were dismissed from the

competition for displaying undesirable characteristics in the eyes of the judges.

For instance, Victoria Parker for her fat positivity (p.76), Ongina for her boy as

a girl drag (p.79), and even Monica Beverly Hillz for coming out as a

transgender woman (p.83). Even though Kohlsdorf provides solid arguments to

sustain his thesis, he disregards the possibilities of exceptions to the rigid, and

often normative, restrictions set by RuPauls Drag Race on the contestants. For

example, the author mentions the controversial season four winner Sharon

Needles, who could be understood as a queen who tried to break some of

those barriers in the show (p.82), but he rationalises her victory by linking it to

an off-show performance that might not be relevant to RuPauls decision

whatsoever. Also, Kohlsdorf proposes a clear-cut distinction between bar and

21
ballroom drag and TV drag (p.83). However, he does not offer a thorough

evaluation as to how and why ballroom drag is more authentic than TV drag,

nor consider the differences between and within the audiences of the two

representations of drag. Later in this text I will engage with Kohlsdorfs article

closely to discuss the queer possibilities that are, at the same time, enabled and

disabled by the show.

22
 Chapter 2. Femininity vs. Masculinity

The introductory section of this thesis identified a prevalent academic

view of drag as a (temporary) transformation of a male body to a female one

through performance. Similarly, as Kohlsdorf (2014) mentions, there is an

obsession with such transformation in RuPauls Drag Race. There is, therefore,

an initial, and perhaps unavoidable, tension between what is constructed,

perceived and policed as either male or female (and in addition to that, as

masculine or feminine). In this first textual analysis section I will refer to

moments when there is a tension between masculinities and femininities, which

arise due to choices made by the production. Such choices open up a

discussion about the boundaries between these binary categories because

there is a certain crossover between masculinity and femininity. In other words,

in each of the cases cited in this section there are specific elements in the

queens performances that do not quite fit the expectations of a transformation

from fixed understandings of masculinity to those of a fixed femininity.

The moments when the contestants have been required to perform

anything other than pure femininity in the eight seasons produced so far

(including seven regular seasons and one season of All Stars) have been

scarce: four in total. Once in season two, once in the All Stars season (as a mini

challenge) and twice in season seven. The episodes in question are Here

Comes the Bride (season two, episode five), Queens Behaving Badly (All

Stars season one, episode three), Shakesqueer (season seven, episode

three), and Prancing Queens (season seven, episode ten). The first two

23
examples are episodes that require the queens to perform masculinity in order

to win a challenge. The main challenge of Here Comes the Bride, as

mentioned in the introduction, is a photo-shoot of the wedding of each queens

male and female side, while Queens Behaving Badly features a mini-

challenge in which queens needed to take a selfie of them serving butch-

male realness. The queens are asked to wear a beard for their runway look in

Shakesqueer (a portmanteau of Shakespeare and RuPaul), and to dance to

music mash-ups while being in half man half queen drag. While the other two

episodes deal with masculinity and femininity separately, both Shakesqueer

and Prancing Queens call attention to a performance that pretends to mix

what is considered masculine and feminine in a single body. Although the

former pair of episodes could be highly relevant to my thesis, I will only focus on

the latter pair due to space constraints. In addition to that, the exposed play

between femininities and masculinities, and the place of beards in drag will

allow me to connect to later sections of this thesis in order to create a concise

central argument that directly engages with my research questions.

I. Bearded femininities

Facial hair has been almost completely absent from Drag Race despite

the fact that there are a number of fairly popular drag performers around the

world who wear a beard. To date there has been only one queen who has

decided to wear a beard on the runway: Milk in season six. Milk makes this

decision on her first day of competition as an addition to the Toga party look

she created for the runway. She receives mixed comments about her decision

24
to wear a beard. The positive comments view her choice as brave. Santino, on

the contrary, associates the beard with a purported lack of femininity. For the

judge, therefore, having a beard somehow cancels out femininity regardless of

other characteristics that may fit into this category (the dress, for instance). It

appears that the sum of feminine elements is not enough if there is an

allegedly alien element in the formula. Milks drag is accepted as legitimate but

not so much as feminine, and therefore, insufficient for success.

A season later, the bearded and beautiful runway theme was

introduced for the third episode of the series after the Shakesqueer challenge.

The theme does not include directions about the dress to be worn; the only

requisite is to wear a beard. Some of the contestants receive favourable

commentary about the incorporation of the beard to their looks, while others are

subjected to disapproving critiques from the judges. For instance, Michelle

Visage congratulates Kandy Ho, who had issues with her makeup in the first

episode when the judges perceived her contouring as resembling a beard, for

applying makeup in a way the judges found acceptable.

Image 1. On the left, Kandy Hos beard runway look celebrated by the judges vs. her
first runway look on the right. The darker contouring, Michelle argues, appears as if she
contoured on a beard.
25
Michelle suggests that Kandys success in fixing her beard-like contouring for

the beard episode is an irony. Likewise RuPaul makes fun of Kandy for fixing

her contouring for this challenge in particular. In summary, Michelles comments

and RuPauls laughter are an unsettling happening. Their expectations of and

reactions to the presence or lack of a beard naturalize feminine bodies and

expressions. This is made evident by realising that, for the judges, a beardless

femininity is indisputably a real femininity. Kandys failure to comply with the

standards of femininity reproduced by the show is turned into an object of

ridicule when that (queer?) element is temporarily legitimized and encouraged

by a challenge. Michelle underscores her attention on Kandys contouring even

during the beard runway category. Her Fu Manchu type of beard, especially

tailored for the runway, is applauded while bad contouring would be spurned.

Thus, Kandys beard can be seen as an allegory for the usual treatment of

queerness on RuPauls Drag Race because such transgressions are only

acceptable insofar as they remain within the stipulated limits. In other words,

Kandys beard represents the caged limits of queerness that are otherwise

rejected if they spread to the rest of her body.

May the best bearded woman win: a hierarchy of the beard

Another queen whose beard was at the heart of the judges critique was

Kennedy Davenport. Main judge Carson Kressley argues, It just looks like she

had some old pubes laying around and she glued them and that was it.

Although beards are chosen to be the centre of the challenge, it is not safe to

assume that they are going to remain unregulated. Not every beard will be
26
considered desirable by the panel. In the beginning, as seen with Milk in the

previous season, beards are not considered suitable until that possibility is

opened. However, that disruptive (and potentially queer) element is monitored

and controlled. Chernoff (2014) previously argued that in season one, Drag

Races play with femininity and masculinity does not escape norms of

appropriate gender (p.154). In this case, the beard constitutes that playful

element between masculinity and femininity, but its presence does not assure a

total disregard of normativity.

Carson compares Kennedys beard to pubic hair in order to express his

discontent about it. Contrastingly, the judges acclaim Violets beard as she

look[s] very elegant and pretty. And thats hard to do with a full beard, Kat

Dennings assures. The comments made by the judges reveal an anxiety about

introducing an alien, masculine element into femininity and the purported

arduousness of mixing the feminine with the masculine. Adjectives such as

elegant and pretty do not seem to be widely used for a beard and for that

reason Dennings finds it difficult, and perhaps ground-breaking, to equate facial

hair with elegance. The audience does not receive a detailed explanation of

why Violets beard is complimented while Kennedys receives a negative

assessment.

27
Image 2. On the left Violet Chachki wearing one of the judges preferred beard after the
Shakesqueer challenge vs. Kennedy Davenports pube beard for the same runway.

Conceivably, we could imagine that Violets is preferred because it is

groomed and even, while Kennedys is patchy. However, what interests me the

most is the language used to express approval and disapproval about the

contestants facial hair. What makes the judges maintain that a boundary set

between femininity and masculinity was transiently overcome or not? Linked to

the idea that some expressions are not feminine enough (Milks toga party look,

for instance), a beard is only accepted and celebrated when the judges

consider that it is passing as a feminine beard. It is no accident that Dennings

uses both adjectives pretty and elegant, which are used throughout the show

to mark successful performances, because these are considered to bridge the

boundaries that the alien element the beard embedded in these bodies in

drag. Contrarily, the use of the phrase pubic hair to refer to a beard marks

Kennedys attempt as deviant and asserts its non-belonging nature. A sanitized

and desirable beard for the judges would not be likened to pubic hair.

In addition to that, it is imperative to reveal the possible connections

desirable and undesirable beards have with race. Strings and Bui (2014)

pointed out the explicit racist demands and consequences, translating into

28
positive and negative judging, the non-white contestants usually suffered in the

third season. For example, Shangela was rewarded for playing an over-the-top

stereotypical black woman during a stand-up comedy challenge (p.825).

However, I argue that there are more implicit race issues in the show (that may

or may not fall on non-white contestants). For example, during her runway

voiceover, Violet explains that her look is 1956 Dior haute couture. As argued

by Richard Dyer (1997), throughout history whiteness has been predicated as

an ideal and it has been associated with beauty in contrast to non-white people

(p.70). With this I do not mean to argue that the judges celebrate Violet

because she is white while Kennedy is criticized because she is black. The

point is that the high-class, groomed chicness of Violets Dior, as a clear symbol

of whiteness, is what is identified as beautiful whereas Kennedys unruly pubes

and lack of nobility credentials are not. Kennedys beard is criticized,

supported by implicit racist and classist discourses, the suggestion being that

the performance of femininity is incompatible with the wearing of a beard.

Additionally, I can argue that there is an element of sex symbolised by pubic

hair that Carson cannot welcome as acceptable. This element, overtly

displayed on Kennedys face, clashes with the demure and stainless qualities of

white femininity that the show prefers.

II. Beyond masculinity and femininity

While Shakesqueer introduces a masculine element to a supposed

unity of femininity created by drag, Prancing Queens challenges the queens to

be feminine and masculine at the same timequite literally since their

29
costumes and makeup divides their bodies vertically with equal masculine and

feminine sides. The remaining six competitors are grouped into three pairs,

and each couple is assigned a mash-up dance routine. The couples are Pearl

and Kennedy (Charleston Twerk), Trixie and Ginger (Country Robot), and

finally Katya and Violet (Tango Vogue). Before the live dancing in front of the

judges, every queen walks down the runway with their half queen half man

looks, while their voiceover explanations play for the audience. The runway

walk is interesting for two reasons in particular.

Image 3. Katya wearing her Flamenco Vogue attire during the Prancing
Queens episode. Her half man half queen drag look divides her body into two
opposite genders.

First, all of the contestants walk and stand on the runway in such

positions that let the audience see one side, the other, or both at the same time.

Also, the performance of one side is distinctively different from the performance

of the other side. For example, Trixie, when walking from the right to the left,

reveals her feminine side and thus plays a cheerful and sweet Country

30
character to the judges. Then, when she reaches an end of the runway, turns

around to reveal her masculine side, which is a man who pulls out and

frantically shoots and imaginary gun.

Second, the voiceovers of some of the queens remind us not only about

the tensions between masculinity and femininity but also about the discussions

of the nature of gender that drag is capable of unmasking. For instance, Pearl

explains that for her masculine side [she] painted on more beard than [she] is

capable of growing. Similar to Moores (2013, p.23) discussion of the season

two episode, Here Comes the Bride, Pearl did not choose to be herself for her

masculine dancer half. The gender binary is greatly supported by biological

discourses that divide men and women into two categories for their purportedly

different physical, emotional, physiological characteristics from each other.

However, Pearls reality is that she cannot grow a beard regardless of her

official biological status of male. This reality, in Pearls eyes and probably for the

audience and the judges as well, prevents her from performing an authentic

masculinity that successfully contrasts with her feminine side. The voiceover

continues to add, for my female side Im going for a classic roaring twenties

look. Here, Pearl is not explaining the mechanics crucial to enact femininity

even if her male body is normatively not able to hold femininity. In the previous

nine episodes of the season Pearl has proved to the audience and the judges

that she can paint, dress and perform femininity, and now it is her turn to prove

that she can perform masculinityregardless of her original male body.

Nature is assumed to be the determiner of reality. But, in this example, a

31
normative discourse of gender seems to be more powerful than what we

consider natural Pearl not being able to grow a beard.

In addition to that, Pearls half queen half man drag can be seen as a

form of disidentification, as explained by Muoz (1999). Disidentification resists

the interpellating call of ideology that fixes a subject within the state power

apparatus. (p.97). Namely, Pearl and the other queens are performing a form

of femininity while at the same time refusing to identify firmly to a category. It is

a process of both identification and rejection (p.108). Muoz later adds, The

woman produced in drag is not a woman, but instead a public disidentification

with woman (p.108). The queens of RuPauls Drag Race are able to unmask

the normative link between woman and femininity by themselves also being

producers of femininity. In addition to that, the performance of masculinity adds

another layer of disidentificationwith masculinity. Pearl identifies (literally half

of her identity for the challenge) as a male, but at the same time disclaims this

identity by rejecting the natural relation between her biological male body with

masculinity. Butler argues, gender parody reveals that the original identity after

which gender fashions itself is an imitation without an origin (1999, p.175). In

other words, drag as a gender parody exposes the misunderstanding of gender

as natural. Drag is not imitating an original because there is not an original.

Pearls drag, by having to paint a beard to reach what is believed as masculine

and by somehow naturalizing her ability to perform femininity, parodies the

myth of originality (p.176).

32
Dissonant sway: dance and the limits of gender

In his article, Edgar (2011) identifies a tension between what is seen and

what is allegedly known of drag queens (namely, their true gender). The

author explains, The tension comes from the queerness of the individual who is,

simultaneously, a layered construction of genders. The drag performer plays

with this tension and in those moments exposes and subverts conventional

gender expectations (p.141). This tension, brought by a subject that performs

and lives multiple gendered realities, is further problematised by the gender

play of performing man and woman at the same time, and suggests space

for queer possibilities. Furthermore, the apparent indocility of the dance

stresses these possibilities even more. After the runway presentations, Michelle

Visage introduces pair by pair the dancing sequences. The first dance is the

Charleston Twerk. The dance starts with the two contestants facing each other,

one of them showing their male side (Pearl) and the other showing their female

side (Kennedy). After the first step, they swap positions and now we see female

Pearl and male Kennedy. During the first steps of the dance, they keep

opposite gendered sides. For example, during the Charleston parts, the male

figure always leads and supports the female figure. However, the twerk bits are

less gendered. This is evidenced through some of the steps, which are

individual; the dancers do not depend on each other. Then, as the dance

progresses, the gendered line begins to blur intensely. The two identities blend

because the queens relative position to the camera (and the camera position)

varies greatly. It is always possible for the audience to see both sides of the

performers, but in the beginning of the dance, the shots usually frame the

33
dancers so as to focus only on one side of each. Later, during a twerk

movement, we can see both of their male sides doing a sexual wheel barrel

step. The dancing steps, therefore, create and play with different kinds of

couples (man-woman, woman-woman, man-man, etc.). This transgression is

made more overt due to the speed of the movements and the angles that the

camera offers. Their previously fixed gendered performances are questioned

and parodied.

Image 4. Kennedy Davenport (left) and Pearl (right) dancing the Charleston Twerk. In
this particular shot, we see both Kennedys masculine and feminine side while we only
see Pearls feminine side. The rapid movements and the camera position allow the
spectator to (re)imagine the perplexing dynamics of gender.

The second dance, Country Robot proves to be similar to the first one

in terms of gender distribution as framed by the camera. The dancers each

assume a male (Trixie) and a female (Ginger) identity in the beginning. Trixie

plays a drunkard male while Ginger plays a sweet woman disgusted by her

behaviour. The dancing incorporates both masculine and feminine

movements that are sometimes played indistinguishably by one of (or both)

34
their identities. Finally, Katya and Violet are in charge of The Tango Vogue

dance. While showing her female side, Violet is half sat down on a chaise

lounge with her feminine leg spread to one side. She is seductively looking at

Katya, who is showing her masculine side. Katya has a rose and she

approaches Violet to hand it to her while tango music plays in the background.

After doing some steps where they change their side back and forth, they start

dancing towards the camera and thus showing their male and female sides at

the same time, even more overtly than in the other two dances. The illusion is

explicitly broken and they are not either female or male, but both or something

else. Butler explains,

The moment in which ones staid and usual cultural perceptions fail,
when one cannot surety read the body that one sees, is precisely the
moment when one is no longer sure whether the body encountered
is that of a man or a woman. The vacillation between the categories
itself constitutes the experience of the body in question. xxii-xxiii

This vacillation between categories is materialised by the dance we witness and

its product is as uncertain as the possibilities drag sometimes enables.

Although it is implied that viewers of RuPauls Drag Race know the gender of

the contestants, drag has a way of snatching gender norms and its

performances to reveal the unnaturalness of those norms. We may or may not

be coming across transgressive gender performances, but to a certain extent

we can always discover its artificiality.

In spite of the playfulness of the camera to create and convey gender

experiences that exceed normative understandings of identity, all three dance

routines end in such a way that the potential queering of the presentation

seems to vanish. The final step (clearly framed for the audience) of the

35
Charleston Twerk ends with (male) Pearl kneeling in front of (female) Kennedy

while she lays one of her foot on Pearls upper leg. Then, at the end of the

Country Robot, (female) Ginger manages to neutralize (male) Trixie by

smashing a beer bottle on her head. Finally, (male) Violet ends the dance by

dramatically pushing (female) Katya onto to the chaise as she (Violet) climbs on

it. Namely, the fruitful confusion of the mash-ups appears to dissolve. The

energetic chaos of their performances allows any viewer to envision and enjoy

limitless expressions of gender, only to be drawn at the end to safer notions of

identity and desire. RuPauls Drag Race enables the possibility of creating and

representing bodies that resist not only fixed identities but also gender legibility,

but it surrenders those possibilities by assuring the audience, at the end, that

one way or another each dancer performs a certain gendered experience we

can read and are familiar with. Similarly, gay politics interest is about fighting

for the inclusion and the granting of equal rights for the LGBT community

without shaking the foundations of the very structure that oppresses it. Queer

politics, again, in its anti-assimilationist quality (Greer, 2012, p.3), is suffocated

by the shows insistence on returning to heteronormative reproductions of

identity.

36
Image 5. After finishing dancing the Country Robot, Ginger Minj (right) knocks down
Trixie Mattel (left) by breaking a bottle on Trixies head. Although this last dance
movement re-establishes normative female and male roles, this shot allows the
audience to see both sides of Ginger. Queerness may have smacked down, but some
of its pieces still remain.

37
 Chapter 3. Sleaziness

Heteronormative gender rules, both within and outside drag, not only

prescribe categories to which subjects should be attached, but also set rules

and limits on those categories that divide bodies into desirable and non-

desirable objects. RuPauls Drag Race is not the exception. Together with the

expectations of femininity required to award the contestants the title of

Americas Next Drag Superstar, the queens are required to perform and look

certain ways that are deemed glamorous, beautiful, or fishy, by the judges.

This section will be dedicated to a particular moment in which a dirty, sleazy

performance became the norm in opposition to those glamorous,

heteronormative assumptions that govern the programme. In this chapter I will

also evaluate the position of a queen who was crowned as the winner of her

season despite her uneasy relationship with femininity: Sharon Needles.

I. Oh my God Almighty! Someone has sent me a bowel

movement!2

The ninth episode of the seventh season of RuPauls Drag Race, Divine

Inspiration, makes an obeisance to drag icon Divine 3 . This homage was

extended to film director John Waters, who worked extensively with Divine.
2
Line from Pink Flamingos (1972).
3
Divine is one of the most notorious drag performers in the world. She starred in
multiple John Waters films starting with Roman Candles (1966) till 1988, the year of
her death, in Hairspray. Both Divines persona and appearance deviate from
traditional femininity. Her exaggerated makeup, violent and mischievous behaviour,
weight, and rejection of good manners locate her at an extreme distance from more
easily palatable performers, such as RuPaul herself.
38
Waters was invited as a guest judge. RuPaul introduces the guest judge as

The Sultan of Sleaze, The Baron of Bad Taste. Next he explains the episodes

maxi-challenge to the remaining seven queens as a Rusical (another

portmanteau of RuPaul + musical) based on some of John Waters most iconic

scenes: two of them from Pink Flamingos (1972) and one from Female Trouble

(1974). For instance, the reinterpreted scene Miss Fame, Violet and Pearl had

to enact for the musical was the notorious scene from Pink Flamingos in which

Divines character eats dog excrement. Good Divine (Pearl) and evil Divine

(Miss Fame) battle in order to convince a troubled Divine (Violet) to either to eat

it or not. Although the version of the scene written by the production does not

require Violet to genuinely eat faeces, as Divine does in the original film, this

challenge stains the sanitised space of RuPauls Drag Race with the inclusion

of metaphorical faeces in an otherwise sparkling TV studio space.

Coupled with the acting challenge, RuPaul asks the contestants to wear

their ugliest dress ever on the runway. Asking the queens to wear an ugly

dress not only asks them to share their opinion on what is ugly, but it also

engages them in debates on the construction of beauty as a performance, and

the value given to that performance. In other words, by granting the status of

desirable to an ugly performanceeven if only temporarilythe supposed

truth value of beauty is unmasked. As mentioned earlier, Butler suggests that

drag can expose the artificiality of gender (1999, p.174) and so the same could

be applied to discourses of beautywhich in turn reinforce heteronormativity. If

beauty, not unlike gender, is brought to light as artificial, we can contest

39
repressive normative models that render some bodies as undesirable due to

their ugliness.

The queens walk down the runway with their interpretations of the

ugliest dress ever. As in any other episode, the judges applaud some of them

while others are criticized for not wearing outfits considered suitable for the

theme. After the queens walk down the runway and the musical scenes are

played, the panel discusses the queens appearances on camera. The acting is

evaluated mainly based on how believable the judges consider it rather than in

terms of filth. In addition to that, the criteria for the assessment of the dresses

are not overt. The concept of ugliness is fundamentally taken for granted. For

example, about Violet, RuPaul argues: That was the ugliest dress, but we are

not given an explanation as to why. Some judges give vague clues about why a

dress is considered by them to be ugly or not. Demi Lovato remarks on the

colour scheme of Katyas dress, while John mentions how flattering Pearls

dress shape is, and therefore not ugly.

Authentic filthiness or masked purity?

It is imperative to question whether this musical (and the runway walk) is

yet another performance in a line of challenges that range from lip syncing to

spoken word of a flight-safety video for a fictitious airline run by drag queens, to

acting for an imaginary telenovela. Is Divines challenge one in which

sleaziness is yet another non-disruptive component of the performance?

Regardless of how we answer this question, I argue that the recognition and

canonization of sordidness in drag, or any other performance or gender

40
expression, enables possibilities to question the rules and ideals set on drag by

RuPaul as well as discussions that contravene what is desirable and what is not.

Placing Divine as a model or icon undermines RuPauls sanitised

pedestal by acknowledging and praising a character who does not wish to pass

as a woman, a character who does not wish to be smoothly incorporated into

society and, finally, a character who is competing for the title of filthiest person

alive and not Americas Next Drag Superstar. In addition to that, the fact that it

is Drag Race itself that celebrates that antihero adds to the tension between

gay and queer politics within and beyond the show because it is, at the same

time, restraining and applauding Divines unruly sleaziness. By turning Divine

into a mainstream productnamely, normalising Divines identity the show

risks stripping her of her queer, sleazy, nonconforming, and disruptive

possibilities. But simultaneously, her presence can queerly corrupt the

parameters of the show.

Also, the palatable is thrown into question when what was previously

undesirable is actively demanded and rewarded (namely, being indecent). In

a John Waters film, nothing is sacred, and clearly attitudes toward

masculinity/femininity, beauty/ugliness, gender/sexuality, and a host of related

topics are all valid for exploration (Schaub, 2010, p.249). The transposition of

Waters upsetting characters and situations to the relatively tame space of Drag

Race provides the means to perturb (or imagine the perturbation of) the rules of

the show and its version of drag. Additionally, what is desirable can also be

altered by taking into account the audiences impressions and recreations of the

programme. I will provide an example for this later.

41
 This parallel reality of the show, for a portion of one episode, manifests

not only during the challenge, but also in the way RuPaul expresses herself.

Some of her deep-seated catchphrases that signal pivotal moments of every

episode, such as the introduction of a new challenge and the departure of a

contestant (Anthony, 2014, p.61) are slightly changed in Divine Inspiration.

After announcing the challenge, RuPaul dexterously changes her usual phrase

so good luck, and dont fuck it up, into so good luck and, by all means, fuck it

up. Later, right before the runway presentation, she uses filthiest instead of

best: Gentlemen, start your engines, and may the filthiest woman win! The

original intention of this catchphrase is for the audience to understand the real

journey the contestants live in front of the viewer, which is the movement from

an original male identity to that of a female one, for purposes of entertainment

(Edgar, 2011, p.139). Nonetheless, the modified catchphrase directs the

audience to filthiest. By this point we have already naturalised that we are

going to witness a female performance, but now we are set to focus on how

filthy they can be. Notwithstanding the reality or falsity of their identities,

what is relevant here is how powerful catchphrases are in the (re)construction of

the shows own reality. To not fuck it up represents a piece of advice and a

warning that can be considered useful in order to be successful in a competition,

whereas to fuck it up would mean the exact opposite. However, when failing

becomes a means for success, the possibilities of subverting the desirable, or

any other performance or product, are innumerable.

Every role in the Rusical scenes requires the contestants to enact

behaviours that drift away from the sanitised performances that are usually

42
expected from the queens. For instance, the challenge winner, Ginger Minj,

plays the part of Edie from Pink Flamingos in a scene where her outrageous

love of eggs reaches its peak and her body ends up covered in them. In order

to play Edie, Ginger wears an ill-fitting, white, silky sleeping robe that reveals

about one third of her breasts. Throughout the season, she shows herself to be

proud of her body, wearing garments that flatter her body shape. In contrast,

her performance as Edie is not concerned with flattering dresses that conform

to normative versions of the desirable, but instead with Edies disregard for

discourses of hygiene and good behaviour. Gingers version of Edie (as well

as the original) sits in a baby cradle whose size she prominently surpasses. Her

robe is not only ill-fitting but it is also dirty, perhaps from the eggs she constantly

eats in her cradle and perhaps because it has been left unwashed for an

unknown yet certainly long period of time. Her long and bulky black hair is

dishevelled, and also looks unwashed, not unlike her face and rest of the body.

Her voice is low and gravelly, and her temperament appears short as her self-

absorption on egg eating makes her prone to intense bursts of anger; all I want

is eggs, she repeats over and over. Her anger and excitement cause her to

break raw eggs on top of her body. Although Waters argues that Edie has

certain loveliness, her obsessive behaviour for food and her utter disinterest in

beauty or cleanliness locate her far away from the regular demands of the show.

Sleaziness, sashay away

After the challenges winner and the bottom two are selected, the show

goes back to its normality. The bottom two have to lip sync to a song by Demi

43
Lovato. The dirty, sleazy elements of the episode have been taken away and

now Pearl and Miss Fame have to perform in such a way that RuPaul and the

judges will find suitable to let one stay in the competition. Demi Lovato, as a

pop icon, serves as part of the shows cultural capital. Pop culture references

are repeated throughout the series and that is a way of creating and

reproducing desirable models, icons, and heroines. RuPaul's Drag Race relies

upon and makes reference to a preceding queer history as a method of

validating permissible drag constructions (Edgar, 2011, p.134). So, although

Divine is named as a huge influence for drag queens, there are other, more

permissible icons that dominate the narrative of the show, and ultimately define

the construction of the programme. In fact, Divines legacy only occupies a

place on RuPauls Drag Race for the duration of one challenge while other

icons such as Diana Ross, Madonna and Cher are part of the foundation of the

show and reappear season after season. It appears that the show brings up

those elements that could be considered queer but at the end of the episode or

challenge, RuPauls Drag Race makes sure that its normality is re-established.

The order by which it is governed is restored, not unlike after the dancing

routines of Prancing Queens. Every week queens are challenged to perform in

one or other way, but one performance seems to be truer than the rest. The

contestants may play different characters every week and try to excel at

different arts (dancing, singing, among many others), but there is still a kind of

desirable, acceptable model required for the queen to be elected Americas

Next Drag Superstar.

44
 If the legacies of Divine (the first drag superstar, according to RuPaul

himself) and John Waters are infinitely important for drag queens, then why are

those characteristics that in fact make Divine and Waters special excluded from

the show so conspicuously? Why are filthy, unsettling performances not

celebrated and/or encouraged as a possibility for any queen of any season?

Sanitized performances and performers of the show are usually those preferred

by the judges of the programme. The most prominent exception to the

immaculate versions of drag revered by RuPaul is Drag Races fourth season

winner, Sharon Needles.

II. The ghostly and outrageous femininity of Sharon Needles

RuPauls Drag Race season four was first broadcasted in 2012. In

honour of the supposed Mayan predictions of the end of the world, the first

challenge of the season was titled Rupocalypse (another portmanteau,

combining RuPaul + apocalypse). Besides having an apocalypse-themed

photo-shoot, the episode includes a main challenge which consists of creating a

post-apocalyptic couture garment for the runway. This challenge proves to be

fitting and favourable for Sharon Needles as she describes her drag persona as

beautiful, spooky, and stupid4. Sharons drag and her place in the show are

immediately questioned and feared by many of the other contestants of her

season due to her eerie theatrics and aesthetic. For instance, Jiggly Caliente

says, I feel like I need to pray the rosary when Im talking to [Sharon], while

4
Emphasis is mine.
45
Sharon explains that occasionally she glues bags full of rubbish to her body

when doing drag.

Sharon designs a long sheath dress that covers her body from the neck

to the ankleswhile covering her arms as well. Since she retrieves the

materials for her outfit from a horde of zombies (drag queens from past

seasons), the fabric of her dress is worn out and its brown colour has different

tones spread unevenly around her body. She is also wearing shoulder pads that

match the colour of the dress and long strips of torn fabric adorn her arms.

Sharon decides not to wear a wig and, instead, she covers her hair so as to

appear bald, while lines of a material that resembles barbwire are wrapped

around her head horizontally. Her makeup is completely white, but her cheeks

and the sides of her face are covered in bruises and open wounds. The pale

colour of her lipstick and her white contact lenses complement her lifeless look.

Finally, as she walks down the runway in a zombie-like manner, she bleeds

abundantly from her mouth. Sharon is chosen as the winner of the challenge.

46
Image 6. Sharon Needles drenched-in-blood post-apocalyptic runway look. Her
makeup, garment, props and behaviour upset the literally sanitised version of drag.

Sharons look decidedly refuses to reproduce many of the desirable elements

associated with effective performances throughout the show. For example, the

blood she uses as a prop for her costume taints her face and her dress but

also the idea of a spotless femininity that the show so insistently attempts to put

forward. In addition to that, she is not only dirty but she also has the

representation of physical injuries on her face that mark her as unapproachable.

Normative femininity is welcoming while Sharons version of femininity is, at

least in this episode, hostile.

It could be argued, however, that the same runway theme allows those

kinds of momentary disobedience to normative femininitysimilarly to Divines

challengeonly to return to the more traditional rules with which the queens

and the audience have been familiarised. The task at hand provides the tools

and grants permission to perform as characters, such as zombies, that fairly

easily deviate from narrow conceptions of femininity. Nevertheless, it would be

disingenuous to simplify Sharon Needless spookiness and queer possibilities to

47
a single challenge that helped with the endorsement of her first performance at

the show. This can be explained with two mains points.

First, the assessment this contestant receives from the judges qualified

her success precisely in terms of the filthiness she exuded, and never in terms

of her feminine realness, especially in comparison to the other two queens

who receive favourable feedback from the judges. For example, Elvira (from

Elvira: Mistress of the Dark) remarks, I love the blood and this is a whole

different take on drag queens, and Mike Ruiz adds, You didnt survive the

apocalypse. On the contrary, The Princess, who also receives some reassuring

feedback, is told that her outfit was not good enough because she did not have

dirt on it. Sharon is lauded both due to the execution of her concept in fashion

and performance, and to the dirt and blood that covered her face and dress, in

contrast to her less tarnished fellow contestants.

Second, Sharons insistence on being a scary and somehow off-putting

queen extends throughout the season. Although she is sometimes asked to be

more glamorous, her vision remained almost unchallenged. This is particularly

significant taking into account that main judge Michelle Visage expresses, I

want to see [Sharon Needles] in girl drag too from the very first episode even

after celebrating her post-apocalyptic runway look. Episode after episode, there

is a prevailing attitude from some of the contestants and a handful of judges

who found her too spooky, or who warn her not to rely on shock value.

Because of this, she does police aspects of her persona and performances in

response to the judges critiques. Norris (2014) claims that throughout the

seasons queens should either adapt to the expectations of the series or get

48
sent home (p.34). However, this is not always the case. Sharon manages to

shrewdly avoid this heavy policing, and therefore her overall aesthetic does not

change. While struggling against that criticism, she finds moments to value the

words, attitudes and ideals associated with normative femininity as laughable

and unattractive to her. Having an extensive knowledge about these attributes

enables her to perform in such a way that can be considered within the limits of

femininity without losing her ability to mock them. For example, during a wet T-

shirt contest mini-challenge she plays sexiness with her whole body

including the fake breasts she received for the challenge to attract the male

audience only to spit water on them.

After winning four main challenges (a record number of wins for all seven

season so far), Sharon makes it to the finale with Phi Phi OHara and Chad

Michaels. When explaining to RuPaul what it would mean for her to win the

competition, she argues,

Being the holder of that crown would show that you dont have to fit a
certain mold to make it in any industry or in any desire that you want.
And for any gay kid out there or just weird kid that gets picked on just
know, you know, when in doubt freak them out. Do whatever the fuck
you wanna do, and if anyone ever boos you offstage, that is simply
applause from ghosts.

Sharons aspiration about being a leader for bullied children due to their weird

identities seems to be in line with a project of gay politics where, again,

acceptance and inclusion are keywords correlated with success5. However, she

still sees a legitimate possibility in freaking out anyone who does not agree

with how they are, and even to embrace booing. Sharons (queer) project

5
In addition to that, since the beginning of the season, Sharon affirms that she wishes
to receive RuPauls seal of approval. This adds to the potential normalisation of her
queerness by being accepted by the sanitised icon RuPaul is.
49
considers an empowerment that is not always based on approval. She

encourages the audience to experience their lives happily and freely without

having to conform or homogenise their particularities with the norm. Sharon

Needles sees being a permanent outsider as a plausible way of shielding off

violence and rejection. However, Sharon could also be seen as another sellable

product regardless of her disdain for more traditional versions of femininity (and

any other identity expression). It is possible to turn her eeriness into a

commodity which much of the audience would be interested to pay for in the

form of live shows, T-shirts, phone cases, music albums, etc. This, nonetheless,

cannot force us to underestimate queer possibilities that lie within her

performance and that menace the fragility of the regularizing and violent effects

of gender6. Sharon Needles can be positioned in the middle of the frequently

irresolvable tension between gay politics and queer politics.

III. Hello Kitty and the consumerist femininity

In sharp contrast with Divines sleaziness and Sharons spookiness, in

the 11th episode of the seventh season the queens are asked create a

character that Hello Kitty would like to call her new BFF [best friend forever].

Each contestant receives a huge Hello Kitty-like white foam head to transform

into the character they invent, along with a white jumpsuit that covers most of

their body, and white gloves.

6
I argued that by relating Sharon Needles win to performances outside of the show,
Kohlsdorf (2014, p.82) makes an assumption that might not be right. In addition to that,
the author misses the opportunity of engaging with this controversial character and her
overall position on RuPauls sanitised world.
50
 When Violet Chachki walks down the runway with her Hello Kitty

character, we hear a voiceover with the introduction of Hello Violet. Violet uses

quite a girly voice:

Hi. My name is Hello Violet and Im Hello Kittys new BFF. My

nickname is Lavender Trinket and everyone loves my onesie and my
shoes. One extra special thing to know about me is that I love to look
in the mirror. I dream of becoming a fairy or maybe even a model
and thats why Hello Kitty and me would be the best friends forever.

Hello Violet has wide eyes and mascara on her eyelashes. Her lips are pink and

she has a small mole next to her mouth. She is wearing a small periwinkle Afro

with a violet ribbon on one side of her head. Hello Violet is wearing a lavender

wrap dress made with a silky, see-through fabric. The dress is accessorized

with a lavender belt adorned with a violet pattern. Finally, she added lavender

ribbons on her feet.

Katya, with a harsh voice and Russian accent:

My name is Hello Katya and Im from the magic land of Siberia.

Everyone loves my bad breath. One extra special thing to know
about me is that I am the sweatiest woman in show business. I feel
like my socialist side will balance out Hello Kittys decadent
capitalism. Thats why Hello Kitty and I will be best comrades forever.

Her character does not look as clean as Hello VioletKatya herself is saying

that it has a bad breathand that is evident because we can see her big,

uneven yellow teeth coming out of her mouth, striking a contrast with her big

red lips. Her yellow teeth are probably meant to be caused by the cigarette

Hello Katya has in her mouth. Her eyes also have painted eyelashes and

eyebrows, but their look is much more severe than Violets, given their straight

lines in contrast to rounder eyes of Hello Violet. Hello Katya has a dishevelled

curly blonde wig that can be only partially seen because she is wearing a red

51
headscarf and a red ribbon on one side. She is wearing a sheath dress with a

colourful asymmetric pattern, and red shoes. Finally she is holding a small

Soviet Union flag.

Image 7. Challenge winners character Hello Violet (left) reproduces the

discourses of appropriateness that RuPaul approves of. Contrastingly, Hello Katyas
(right) brusque attitude and dirty appearance earns her a spot in the bottom two.

While each queen walks down the runway as their Hello Kitty character,

the original Hello Kitty is standing on a side of the runway reacting to the

contestants voiceovers. As Violet describes her character and shows her

costume, Hello Kitty seems happy and excited. On the other hand, she looks

terrified and uncomfortable when Katya describes hers. In addition to Hello

Kittys reactions, some of the judges (especially RuPaul herself) feel troubled

and did not fully approve of Hello Katya, whereas they celebrated Violets

version. RuPaul asserts, I actually appreciated that [Violet] was a little tamed

with her Hello Violet because you are dealing with such an iconic brand. Then,

in support, Michelle adds: Theres absolutely no way Hello Kitty is allowed to

hang out with this Russian hooker. Violet is chosen as the winner of the

challenge, while Katya is put on the bottom two to lip sync for her life against

Kennedy. Katya is eliminated. Along with the Hello Kitty characters, the queens

were asked to create a look inspired by Hello Kitty. The judges struggle
52
understanding Katyas concept of the dress and the execution of it. For

instance, fashion designer and guest judge, Santino Rice, reviewed Katyas

garment poorly.

Although the judges present arguments unrelated to the sleaziness of

Katyas character as justification for their decision to have her lip sync for her

life, I can argue that her filthiness was a defining factor for her elimination.

Normative conceptions of gender do not only defend a binary understanding of

gender as well as heterosexuality as the only legitimate practice, but also

reproduce very specific characteristics which bodies are supposed to follow. In

relation to business and reality TV, Marcel (2014) argues, the formulaic nature

of the maturing reality television genre of contest shows almost requires the

reduction or elimination of elements which producers (including RuPaul) would

consider not commercial. Even though there are other factors that could have

contributed to the decision to eliminate her (namely, the unsatisfactory review of

her garment), Hello Katyas yellow teeth and sweatiness do not fit into

heteronormative ideals for the beautiful female body. She is dirty, and

therefore undesirable, not unlike Kennedys pubes beard.7 Hello Violet, on the

other hand, looks cleaner, allegedly sweeter, and more approachable. For this

reason, RuPaul, while thinking about the Japanese brand, decides that Hello

Katya might not be the best option to be Hello Kittys new BFF because she

7
Similarly, although to a different extent, season six contestant Adore Delano finds
herself in trouble throughout the season due to her unpolished look. In the first
episode of her season she explains that she defuses those labels by affirming: Im
polish remover. Even though Adore is constantly criticised for her unrefined looks,
she reaches the top three of the competition while constantly refusing to fully adapt to
some of the normative beauty standards demanded from the panel.
53
does not conform to normative conceptions of hygiene and therefore cannot be

turned into as sellable a product as Hello Kitty is.8

These conceptions of cleanliness are not, however, disconnected from

questions of race. Dyer (1997) calls attention to the lists of the moral

connotations of white as symbol in Western culture (p.72). Among those, he

identifies cleanliness, virtue, simplicity and chastity (1997, p.72). These

connotations of white are used as judging indicators when RuPaul, and the

panel in general, describe some Hello Kitty characters (Hello Violet, Hello Pearl

and Hello Ginger) as successful while others as unsatisfactory (Hello Kennedy

and Hello Katya). For instance, Hello Violet not only presents a clean persona,

as I mentioned earlier, embodied in the aesthetic simplicity of her dress and

accessories in shades of violet, and with no trace of sexual desire (chastity), but

also falls in line with the virtue of whiteness understood as absence of sin

(p.75) due to her innocence and compliance with rules. Conversely, Hello

Katyas suspicious accent along with her nicotine addiction, sexual behaviour

and body odour locate her in a territory that RuPaul cannot regard as safe for

Hello Kittys uncontaminated whiteness. Hello Pearl, on the other hand, is also

praised by the judges but not without a reminder about the danger of the

8
An element that complicates the character of Hello Katya and its place in the show is
the fact that its image started to be commercialised shortly after the episode aired on
television. The art website redbubble.com began selling t-shirts, tote bags, stickers,
pouches and greeting cards with the image of Hello Katya. All of these items, except
the greeting card, have been more popular among buyers than those of Hello Pearl
and Hello Violet (the other two queens characters featured in the website). If,
according to RuPaul, Hello Katyas image is decidedly unsuitable for consumption due
to its indocility, how are we to understand its commercial success on the website?
Although this store represents a small sample of the retail industry, it is possible to
imagine consumer behaviour that deviates from the more narrow assumptions that link
it to the tameness of Hello Kitty. Finally, Hello Katyas purported rejection of capitalism
adds another layer of tension between the queer and the commercial.
54
sexuality that emanates from her reference to Madonna (expressed by her

minimal outfit that only included a black bathing suit, jewellery, and a long

blonde ponytail). For Michelle, while successful, Hello Pearl would not be able

to be Hello Kittys new BFF due to the absence of chastity in her character.

Once again, normative characteristics of beauty are being reproduced by the

show in terms not only of gender but also race.

Muoz develops his idea of commercial drag by arguing, the sanitized

queen is meant to be enjoyed as an entertainer who will hopefully lead to social

understanding and tolerance (p.99). This kind of drag, more in line with gay

politics, is supported by a commercial base that at the same time tries to foster

the un-problematised inclusion of queer subjects. In other words, for

commercial drag, consumerism and inclusion seem to be tied to one another.

This means that sanitising oneself and ones practices for a large audience

would bring acceptance. Such sanitisation occurs at different levels explained

previously. Its rule extends from ways of taking care of the body, to accepted

gendered practices, going through limits and ideals set by questions of race,

gender, class.

55
 Conclusions
RuPauls Drag Race proves to be a contested space perpetually moving

around what can be considered queer politics and what can be considered gay

politics. In other words, the TV programme ought not to be located

unequivocally on one side or the other. This ambivalence is evidenced both by

the productions treatment and evaluation of diverse drag practices, expressed

in the challenge design and the assessments by the judges, and by the effects

on the queens subsequent performances. The shows evolution throughout its

now six years cannot be described as a steady and progressive move towards

a more problematised understanding of gender performance, but rather as a

convoluted and sometimes illegible road with an abundance of exceptions,

ambiguities and setbacks.

For example, the introduction of elements such as the beard in a

performance of femininity does not automatically situate Drag Race as the

epitome of transgression. Considerations about the way beards are presented,

policed and celebrated has been necessary in order to engage in a discussion

about the discourses of appropriateness that inevitably value certain beards

over others. Although the study of drag seems to privilege gender as the central

determiner of the academic dialogue (including this text), questions about class

and race have proved to be inseparable from gender. It was not possible or

desirable to separate those identity markers when evaluating the tension

between gay politics and queer politics that inhabits the show. Race, age and

class haunt drag performances as much as normative conceptions of gender

and have clear repercussions not only as part of the competition but also more
56
broadly in the lives of the performers and in the audience. The beards, the half

queen half man drag and other performances have allowed me to examine the

way in which the show negotiates the ideas of what drag is supposed to be and

the limits that still imprison it on occasion.

However, it would be inconvenient to ignore that sometimes, even within

normative confines, there is a certain queerness to be found. Moreover, those

confines are sometimes what enable queerness to thrive. For example, I offered

the example of the Hello Kitty episode in which Katya bore the brunt of

discourses of appropriate femininity and cleanliness (related at the same time

to race and class) that labelled her performance unsuitable for consumption

and therefore unsuitable to continue in the competition. In spite of this setback,

Katyas sleazy presence left a trace in the uncorrupted territory of Drag Race,

along with its exaltation of the refined and perfectly white Hello Kitty, which

could open the way for other queer performances in the shows future.

Additionally, this characters repercussion also extended to the audience and

their endorsement of Hello Katya, exemplified by the increased sales of the

products with her image on it.

RuPauls Drag Race almost simultaneously queers the normal,

sanitizes the filthy, resists and conforms to normativity, and so on. Its constant

struggles and negotiations about the limits of drag and its subjects make the

show a fascinating text that does not surrenders to a simplified conclusion on its

influences, effects and possibilities. Just as Butler argues, when examining

Paris is Burning, that drag is one which both appropriates and subverts racist,

misogynistic and homophobic norms of oppression () This is not first an

57
appropriation and then a subversion. Sometimes it is both at once (1999,

p.128). Both Paris is Burning and RuPauls Drag Race have such quality of

creating and inhabiting ambiguous, and apparently contradictory, spaces of

their extraordinary performances. Drag Race allows gay politics and queer

politics to both collide and collaborate in the most unexpected ways.

Recommendations

Considering the influence the audience can have on the way we the

show is created and understood, there remain an array of aspects related to

RuPauls Drag Race which have yet to be explored. To date there has not been

any research done on the way the public consumes the show. Although textual

analysis holds an immense value that from time to time provides clues about

the way the audience sees the show, it is also necessary to do research

focused on the audience. As a gay man and fan of the show, I recognize and

imagine the significance of a show determined to reaffirm a sense of community

formed by people who do not fit seamlessly in society. This project of

acceptance and inclusion is, once again, tied to some of the goals gay politics

has. On the other hand, and as great as I consider the worth of those values, it

is also indispensable to find and encourage the transgressive, queer

possibilities that can come with drag. The shows insistence on putting forward

mainstream elements of music, film and television can potentially threaten

those non-conforming possibilities. Would Drag Race, therefore, become too

safe by pushing the mainstream in up to the point of suffocating queerness?

Who is the audience composed of, and how do they read and interact with the

58
programme season after season? Are the textual analyses made of the show

compatible with the audiences reading? These questions about the audience

are not only as relevant as they are regarding any other film, TV programme,

play etc., but they offer an additional layer that can be researched due to the

massive participation of fan interaction in social media (particularly Reddit).

Such further studies would strengthen academic conversations about the show

itself and about the related political/social proposals and influences it creates by

maintaining strong scholarly dialogue between different angles and methods.

59
 Index of images

Image 1. Kandy Ho Season seven, episode three. Kandy Ho Season seven,

episode one, p.25.

Image 2. Violet Chahcki Season seven, episode three. Kennedy Davenport

Season seven, episode three, p.28.

Image 3. Katya Zamolodchikova Season seven, episode ten, p.30

Image 4. Kennedy Davenport and Pearl Season seven, episode ten, p.34.

Image 5. Trixie Mattel and Ginger Minj Season seven, episode ten, p.37

Image 6. Sharon Needles Season four, episode one, p.47

Image 7. Hello Violet (Violet Chahcki) Season seven, episode eleven. Hello
Katya (Katya Zamolodchikova) Season seven, episode eleven, p.52

Works cited

Bibliography

Anthony, L. 2014. Dragging with an Accent: Linguistic Stereotypes, Language

Barriers and Translingualism. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag

Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 4966.

Berkowitz, D. et al. 2007. The Interaction of Drag Queens and Gay Men in Public

and Private Spaces. Journal of Homosexuality. 52(3), pp. 1132.

Brumfitt, S. 2013. RuPauls Drag Race. August 2013. Dazed. [Online]. [Accessed

20 August 2015]. Available from:

http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/16806/1/rupaul.

60
Butler, J. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York:

Routledge.

Butler, J. 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 10th

anniversary ed. New York: Routledge,

Butler, J. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York; London: Routledge,

Chernoff, C. 2014. Of Women and Queens: Gendered Realities and Re-Education

in RuPauls Drag Empire. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag

Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 148167.

Dyer, R. 1997. White. London: Routledge.

Edgar, E-A. 2011. Xtravaganza!: Drag Representation and Articulation

in RuPauls Drag Race. Studies in Popular Culture. 34(1), pp. 13346.

Fine, D.J. Shreve, E. 2014. The Prime of Miss RuPaul Charles: Allusion, Betrayal

and Charismatic Pedagogy. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag

Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 168188.

Ford, Z. 2014. The Quiet Clash Between Transgender Women And Drag Queens.

25 June 2014. ThinkProgress. [Online]. [Accessed 23 July 2015]. Available

from: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/25/3449462/drag-queens-trans-

women/.

Greer, S. 2012. Contemporary British Queer Performance. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Griggs, C. 1998. S/he: Changing Sex and Changing Clothes. Oxford: Berg.

61
Hopkins, S.J. 2004. Let the Drag Race Begin. Journal of Homosexuality. 46(34),

pp. 13549.

Kohlsdorf, K. 2014. Policing the Proper Queer Subject: RuPauls Drag Race in the

Neoliberal Post Moment. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag

Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 6787.

Mann, S.L. 2011. Drag Queens Use of Language and the Performance of Blurred

Gendered and Racial Identities. Journal of Homosexuality. 58(67), pp. 793

811.

Marcel, M. 2014. Representing Gender, Race and Realness: The Television World

of Americas Next Drag Superstars. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls

Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 1330.

Mayora, R.G. 2014. Cover Girl: Branding Puerto Rican Drag in 21st-Century U.S.

Popular Culture. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag Race:

Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &

Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 106123.

McKee, A. 2003. Textual Analysis: A Beginners Guide. London: Sage Publications.

Moore, R. 2013. Everything Else Is Drag: Linguistic Drag and Gender Parody on

RuPauls Drag Race. Journal of Research in Gender Studies. 3(2), pp. 1526.

Moreman, S.T. and McIntosh, D.M. 2010. Brown Scriptings and Rescriptings: A

Critical Performance Ethnography of Latina Drag Queens. Communication and

Critical/Cultural Studies. 7(2), pp. 11535.

62
Morrison, J. 2014. Draguating to Normal: Camp and Homonormative Politics. In:

Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag Race: Essays on the Queen of

Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.,

Publishers, pp. 12447.

Muoz, J.E. 1999. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of

Politics. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.

Newton, E. 1979. Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. Chicago;

London: University of Chicago Press.

Norris, L. 2014. Of Fish and Feminists: Homonormative Misogyny and the

Trans*Queen. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag Race: Essays

on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &

Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 3148.

Pagnoni Berns, F.G. 2014. For your next drag challenge, You Must Do Something:

Playfulness Without Rules. In: Daems, J. ed. The Makeup of RuPauls Drag

Race: Essays on the Queen of Reality Shows. Jefferson, North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, pp. 88105.

Rupp, L.J et al. 2010. Drag Queens and Drag Kings: The Difference Gender

Makes. Sexualities. 13(3), pp. 27594.

Schaub, J.C. 2010. Lethal Ladies: The Stars of John Waters Female Trouble and

Serial Mom. In: Parker, J.L. ed. Representations of Murderous Women in

Literature, Theatre, Film, and Television!: Examining the Patriarchal

Presuppositions behind the Treatment of Murderesses in Fiction and Reality.

Lewiston, N.Y: Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 247270.

63
Simmons, N. 2014. Speaking Like a Queen in RuPauls Drag Race: Towards a

Speech Code of American Drag Queens. Sexuality & Culture 18(3), pp. 630

48.

Strings, S., Bui, L.T. 2014. She Is not Acting, She Is. Feminist Media Studies.

14(5), pp. 82236.

Suthrell, C.A. 2004. Unzipping Gender: Sex, Cross-Dressing and Culture. Oxford:

Berg.

Taylor, V. and Rupp, L.J. 2004. Chicks with Dicks, Men in Dresses. Journal of

Homosexuality. 46(3), pp. 11333.

Taylor, V. and Rupp, L.J. 2005. When the Girls Are Men: Negotiating Gender and

Sexual Dynamics in a Study of Drag Queens. Signs: Journal of Women in

Culture and Society. 30(4), pp. 211539.

Filmography

Paris is Burning. 1990. [Film]. Jennie Livingston. USA: Art Matters Inc.

Pink Flamingos. 1972. [Film]. John Waters. USA: Dreamland.

Female Trouble. 1974. [Film]. John Waters. USA: Dreamland.

Teleography

RuPauls Drag Race. 2009. Logo Television Network.

RuPauls Drag Race: Untucked! 2010. Logo Television Network.

RuPauls Drag U. 20102012. Logo Television Network.

64