Drag, a Cultural Analysis on the Subculture of Crossdressing and Artistry

Marco Marvin
Subculture Cultural Analysis Paper
SOC 107
3rd Period
Mrs. Rodriguez-Ziegler
February 17, 2021
For as long as there has been gendered garb, behaviors, and physical features, there has
been those who have deliberately defied these lines and sought to use these expectations to create
the illusion of the opposite and/or exaggerated version of gender. But because of this, it is
difficult to locate the exact date and location of origin of the practice. From the early days of
Greek mime and Mideastern köçek to the “boys-only” fueled performance of Shakespearean and
Kabuki Theater, it is clear that drag in its primitive form (cross dressing) was present around the
world and throughout history. Consequently, the innumerable areas in which drag sprouted from
each had their own reasons as to why it began. However, the drag that serves as an origin point
for the culture observable in the United States and present day is most closely traceable to the
Pansy Craze of the 1930’s due in part to the prohibition along which spawned the drag balls of
the Harlem Renaissance of New York during the same era and later, the 60’s in addition to the
renowned pageant circuits of the deep south. All of which were early examples of a sprawling
queer scene.
But what exactly is drag? It depends on who and when it was being asked. It is all too easy to
shrug off drag as “men dressing as women” but the thousands of women dressing as men (drag
kings), women and men dressing as hyperbolic versions of their own gender (bio kings/queens)
and people who mix and reject the strict lines of gender in their art (gender f*ck, yes that is the
actual term) would say otherwise. Therefore, drag is most appropriately defined as the
exploration and commentary on gender through make-up, dress, and performance. This aspect of
gender performance then attracts those who have been marginalized because of their conflicting
femininity or masculinity in relation to the gender they present themselves as.
The ever expansive subculture and community of drag serves as a home to queer people of all
types although the most visible and recognized members are usually (white) cisgender gay men,
and to a lesser extent, cisgender lesbian women. It is important to note however, that those who
comprise the most societally acknowledged plane of drag are not its founders. That title belongs
to the trans women (often of color) who used drag as a way to live vicariously as their true
gender through a drag “persona” in a time when the concept of being transgender was neither
understood or accepted. As time has passed, trans, POC and lesbian women have called for the
drag community to both recognize those who birthed it and accept straight, bi, and bio kings and
queens into the community.
As a subculture, drag exhibits the expected deviations and consistencies with dominant
American culture. As such, all the sociological levels of culture can be seen within the unique
biosphere of drag culture. In analyzing the three levels of culture and their origins, one can take a
deeper look into the fabric of drag itself.
The most cemented of the cultures is deep culture. Made up of an assortment of the
unconscious values and norms usually ingrained in childhood during socialization, Drag, like
many other later-in-life subcultures, sees its members already socialized at the time of entry.
Fortunately, the deviating nature (in lieu of an opposing one) of drag facilitates a smooth
transition from the dominant subculture and other subcultures (for the most part) to its own for
those who join its ranks. For drag, the most drastically noticeable labels are the concept of family
and kinship and the perception of self.
“We, as gay people, get to choose our families I am your family, we are family here.”
This famous quote uttered on the runway of RuPaul’s drag race (by RuPaul himself) perfectly
encapsulates the drag take on family and kinship. The practice of choosing one’s family is
nothing new and not exclusive to drag in the least. As long as queer kids have been getting
kicked out from their homes for being queer, the concept of chosen family has existed. But this
combined with the team-building nature of competitive drag (i.e. pageants, balls and bar night
competitions), is what makes up the foundation of the drag family unit. Beginning with the
creation of “Houses” during the meteoric rise in Balls and Voguing, “Mothers” (a title not
restricted to women) and occasionally fathers, would take a position of mentorship to younger
members within the culture with whom they connected with. In turn, these youth would become
part of the mother’s “house” emulating the behavior of a traditional family to the extent that their
ball or drag persona would take the surname of the house and or mother they belonged to. (see
figure 1) While this was often a professional relationship, it was not rare to see mothers who
provided housing, clothing, food and parental love to their “children” in addition to guiding them
through the ball gauntlets.
In more recent years with the societal shift towards queer acceptance, the need for this
particular family unit is somewhat falling out of practice. But make no mistake, the tradition is
still very much alive with drag mothers from New York to Dallas, taking children and creating
dynasties. Regional tendencies do exist, with metropolitan areas taking a looser less strict take on
what it means to be a drag family whereas southern drag creates more of the traditional (in
respect to both biological and their ancestors in ball culture) with strong familial fealty and a
sense of collective movement. The House of Edwards, based in Mesquite, Texas not only travels
and competes together but also celebrates Drag Christmas (Halloween) Thanksgiving, Christmas,
and Easter at the household of reigning matriarch Alyssa Edwards. Albeit being a label of deep
culture, the adoption of this value is understandably easy for the members of drag culture
because the American dominant culture and various Ethnic-American cultures notions of family
and kinship actively conflict with the unofficial common denominator of drag participants,
queerness. Subsequently, the Black and Latino kids of the ballroom scene were more than happy
to adopt this new idea of family when it meant that they could have a support system in the
absence of their biological one. These practices are indicative of the both subversive and deeply
cemented values that drag cultures places one the definition of family.
Figure 1. Assorted and famous drag family trees

Another central aspect of Drag is taking on the mantle of a drag persona. In this way, the
view of self in drag culture is split between the person you are out of drag and the persona you
take on. These entities most often assume a gender other from their owners (though with the rise
of bio kings/queens this is not necessarily fact). This results in the all too common confusion
between being transgender and doing Drag. Therefore, drag distinguishes itself as the
performance of a character as a form of expression and art. Unlike the theatrical or cinematic
performance where the actor may only share the gender and appearance of their character, drag
operates as it antithesis. As although the character may not share the gender of their actor, the
exaggerated aspects of the owners dominant personality or acting of previously repressed
mannerisms and behaviors are illustrative of the presentation of some part of the intrinsic self.
Most prevalently, drag queens cite the existence and joy in their drag to the femininity that they
were denied or harassed for in childhood and adolescence. The act of drag is then used to “make
up for lost time” and a celebration of the self-acceptance and actualization. At the same time, the
men, women and people doing drag often refer to their personas if they were entirely
autonomous beings. Thus this aspect cannot be ignored because the there is a commonly
acknowledged dissonance between drag character and their creator. Take Joey Jay, a drag queen
whose butch drag persona is a far cry from her self-proclaimed status as a “sissy little white boy”
out of drag. The high and tight cut resting on shoulders draped by a rugged (but violet) leather
biker jacket is both a performance of camp and an exploration into a form of masculinity that
was previously inaccessible sans drag.
 Less surprising, is the learned behaviors that comprise drag’s shallow culture. Shallow
culture, or the unspoken values and or beliefs that are taken on through the observation of others
within the culture, is another key component of the drag community. Of the labels that occupy
shallow culture, drag’s interpretation of emotion management and concept of time.
In drag, the expression of emotion can be seen through a variety of lenses, the most
general being the expression of men as their female drag personas and the expression of women
through their male drag alter-egos. For both, the performance of drag allows previously
unacknowledged emotions to be openly delivered and received.
In broader society, men are encouraged to suppress their emotion. Though the majority of men
who participate in drag are gay, bi, or trans men who are able to jump this hurdle, to some extent,
there is still a question of reception and acceptance of these emotions. By donning the guise of
womanhood, men are able to more freely express their feelings to an audience that is more likely
to empathize and validate them. On opposing end of things, women who dress as men experience
an inverse effect, relinquishing the expected and assumed emotionality that is often associated
with womanhood. That being said, the acceptance of sentiments expressed while in drag is not an
experience exclusive to drag queens. Ironically, as much as emotionality is expected from
women, when shown, society had a bad habit of not taking them seriously. Women are brushed
off as bossy, needy or crazy for the expression of emotions or arguments in which they become
emotional. But upon assuming the façade of a man these same whims are instead met with
willing ears. As said best by prolific drag king Mo B. Dick “instead of being an angry woman, I
became a funny man.” Albeit far from end-all-be-all solution, the presentation of manhood
packages the messages of drag kings, much like drag queens, in a palatable gender conforming
parcel. drag dictates that in order to truly bear ones emotions and be heard, taking advantage of
the gender dichotomy is an acceptable route.
Alternatively, drag traditions also dictate the ways one is should express anger. Way back in the
ages of balls and pageants, it was not uncommon for houses to feud with each other. Located and
populated by disenfranchised youth from the Black and Latinx communities of Harlem, rampant
poverty, racially motivated over policing, and gang wars made violence an easy path to follow.
But instead of resorting to knives and guns, these wars were dealt with on the ballroom floor.
Introduced to the larger world by Madonna, many are unaware that the art of Vogue was
originally created in the Harlem ballroom scene to settle arguments between houses. Though
what in essence, was a stylized and heightened dance battle may seem foolish, the now legendary
ball competitions “introduced…a nonviolent way to achieve supremacy.” The reverence these
balls had within the culture also extended to their results, leaving many a dispute peacefully
resolved. In conjunction with voguing, a common way for anger to be released was through the
practice of throwing shade. Similarly to voguing by the pervasiveness of black, latinx, queer and
black latinx queer culture meant that the word is now a household term. The meaning of which is
to ridicule or cast judgement on someone/something by the use of clever or nuanced phrasing
and nonverbal signs. The phrase “she’s very that” hardly comes off as abrasive–let alone even
grammatically comprehendible–but by inserting a pause in between ‘very’ and ‘that’ and adding
a sly side eye, “she’s very. . . that” becomes a prod at a desired target’s line of questionable
behavior or fashion. Drag is messy, and that includes the relationships between its members but
by diverting this aggression to dance and spoken word, participants learn that anger is best dealt
with to a beat and from the mouth rather than a barrel in the streets.
Finally, the shallowest of the cultures, surface culture. Made up of the more tangible
norms that form culture. Members of the culture often recognize this aspect of their culture and
are less likely to have a visceral reaction when it is questioned. This remains true in drag culture
where this awareness of being in a subculture manifests in the pride felt because of these
differences. A great source of this pride as well as controversy is the extensive drag vocabulary
and the make-up that makes drag what it is. In these labels an anomaly can be observed where
the ownership of talk styles and tradition of illusions are fiercely defended rather than ignored.
“Yass qween!” “Spill the tea sis!” “Werk” It is very likely that you have heard these phrases
outside of the context of drag. The influence that drag has had on the speech of the mainstream
undeniable. Unfortunately, mainstream society is a little more than negligent to acknowledge the
origins of these now ubiquitous terms. In a cruel twist of fate however, drag culture is guilty of
the same crime. The same “werk girl” and “slay queen” that are uttered in gay clubs and
gatherings alike were not coined by the queers, but by Black women. All of the aforementioned
mantras can trace their origins to AAVE/BVE or African American/Black vernacular English.
Many a Black member of the drag community have gone to great lengths to make this very point
only to receive backlash. This goes against the consensus that confrontations over labels within
surface culture do not elicit immense emotional responses. More often than not, after the crusade
has finished nothing changes and the cycle of linguistic appropriation begins again. On the other
hand, the failure to acknowledge and or address the issue may prove the theory by demonstrating
a collective cultural blasé to critique.
A similar pattern can be seen in the most popular aspect of drag, the make-up. For most drag
performers, there an expectation that if one is to achieve the look of the desired gender (or
neither) make-up is required. In recent years however, a conversation over the roots of time
tested make-up practices has arisen. In an effort to either emphasize or minimize femininity, the
nose is thinned or widened respectively. In theory, it is to mimic the stereotypical pinched nose
of the traditional woman. Problems arise when one realizes that the ideal woman that drag based
itself on long, long ago was a white one. Furthermore, when wide nosed POC queens (usually
Black or Asian) attempt to do the same the oddity of attempting to achieve this standard becomes
apparent. In this instance, the mild commentary has been met with a wall of silence, with the
entirety of the drag community continuing the status quo. This then begs the question, does this
prove or contradict the theory of reaction to surface culture confrontation? Drag’s white
influenced habits and its reaction to the voices calling out these habits actually corroborates the
proposed idea, but it serves as a reminder that the lack of rebuttal does not necessarily mean that
a confrontation will be the facilitator of change.
Sociology dictates that cultures, systems and behaviors can be explained or interpreted by
theoretical perspectives. For drag it is undeniable that conflict theory accurately explains its
existence and inner workings. Conflict theory purports that all actions taken and all the
institutions within society are instruments of power, serving to either gain resources or maintain
their influence on others. Drag and queerness are inextricably tied. Because of this, drag suffers
from the discrimination its members have historically endured. Karl Marx argues that as
conditions worsen or endure, the oppressed begin to gain awareness of their power struggle
climaxing in a revolt. This idea was epitomized by no other than the Stonewall Riots. The rights
of queer people were moving at a pace of molasses with both homosexuality transgender
identities criminalized almost nationwide. The liberties modern day queer people enjoy were
only available in a teeming but seedy and underground nightlife in gay clubs and bars like that of
the Stonewall Inn. Tension began rising when in exchange for tip offs of possible police raids,
bar owners were required to pay a fee, an inconsistent and costly method to ensure the safety of
patrons and the club owners. But on June 28th, 1969, by either a failure to pay, failure from the
cops doing the tipping, or both, Stonewall was raided. 13 people were arrested, many of which
were drag queens. Following Marx’s theory to a t, the Stonewall raids led to the Stonewall riots
and later the Gay Liberation Front. At the forefront of these movements were drag queens like
Marsha P. Johnson who operated as both drag performer who also used drag as a way to act on
likely being transgender. These upheavals of powers in the face of systems of heterosexuality
and cisgenderism invariably corroborate Marx’s societal posits as well as drag and conflict
theory.
Drag however, is not innocent from the less savory (but arguably more recognizable)
aspect of conflict theory wherein cultures and systems seem to uphold already cemented
practices of oppression. In no other place is this most visible than in the Drag queen side of drag.
Especially in more conservative areas of drag where the artform is defined as female
impersonation, this drag inadvertently reflects the greater view on what constitutes as a woman.
At the same time, the rules that they create around drag and the scorn members who break them
receive maintain the patriarchal power hold on womanhood. This includes but is not limited to
the expectation for queens to shave their body hair, corset and wear long hair. By this route, the
men who mostly perform female drag contribute to their own supremacy by reinforcing these
rules used to oppress women. Drag has also been used as a host for racism, in the contouring of
the nose specifically influenced by white ideals of femininity and the favoritism of white queens
in the drag competitions. Infinitely intriguing, drag is just one example of the many subcultures
that, through the varied levels of culture, equally evidence the struggle of the oppressed and
reassert the systems of oppression.
Sources
Cass, and Cass. “Harlem's Drag Ball History (Video).” Harlem World Magazine, 8 July 2017,
www.harlemworldmagazine.com/harlems-drag-ball-history/. 

Doonan, Simon. Drag: the Complete Story. Laurence King Publishing, 2019. 

Hall, Jake, et al. The Art of Drag. Nobrow Press, 2020. 

History.com Editors. “Stonewall Riots.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 31 May

2017, www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/the-stonewall-riots. 

Lindores, Mark. “Voguing: A Brief History of the Ballroom.” Mixmag, 10 Oct. 2018,

mixmag.net/feature/a-brief-history-of-voguing. 

Stabbe, Oliver. “Queens and Queers: The Rise of Drag Ball Culture in the 1920s.” National
Museum of American History, 11 June 2016, americanhistory.si.edu/blog/queens-and-
queers-rise-drag-ball-culture-1920s. 

Wolde-Michael, Tsione. “A Brief History of Voguing.” National Museum of African American

History and Culture, 26 July 2019, nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/brief-history-voguing.