​​"RuPaul's Drag Race": Drag is Just the Tip of the Performance Iceberg

     “You better work!” shouts the most famous drag queen in the world on her hit competitive reality show, “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” The show’s premise is to find the next drag superstar. With each competition within the show, Ru reminds the contestants that the judges will be looking for their “Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve and Talent,” an acronym alluding to the feminine gender being performed. Beyond the performative aspect of drag, however, is a multiplicity of performances within “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” The “reality” aspect (the word reality appearing in quotes due to its lack of authenticity) is also a performance and is presented in three different scenarios: how the competitors behave backstage with each other, how they behave in front of Ru and the judges, and how they behave one-on-one with the camera. All of these performances within the performance (the television show) can cause “RuPaul’s Drag Race” to be viewed as a meta-performance, pointing at its own performativity. Because of this qualification of meta-ness, “RuPaul’s Drag Race” is actually hyper-real: the acknowledgement of its own performativity and falseness makes it more real than a show that adheres to its claims of presenting “reality.”
     Drag is the most obvious form of performance within the given context and functions as such in two ways: theatrically and gendered. Drag is, simply, a form of entertainment and nearly anything that qualifies as entertainment also qualifies as performative. There are lavish and eccentric costumes, equally qualified make-up, and there is always an audience, someone that the drag is purposed for. Even men that dress in drag just to go out on the town are performing for an audience—the general public. Drag is extremely theatrical and is performative in that sense, but it is also a performance of the feminine gender, albeit an exaggerated one. Judith Butler asserts in her book Gender Trouble, that “the action of gender requires a performance that is repeated” (Leitch 2500, Butler’s emphasis). She goes on further to say that “gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts” (Leitch 2500-1, Butler’s emphasis). Thus, gender is in and of itself a performance so the feminine gender that drag queens perform is a performance of a performance. The notion of repetition is also seen in Richard Schechner’s work. In his book, Between Theatre & Anthropology, Schechner introduces the concept of restored behavior. Schechner argues that “restored behavior is the main characteristic of performance” (35). He further explains this concept, saying that it is

     symbolic and reflexive: not empty but loaded behavior multivocally broadcasting significances. These difficult terms

     express a single principle: The self can act in/as another; the social or transindividual self is a role or set of roles.

     Symbolic and reflexive behavior is the hardening into theater of social, religious, aesthetic, medical, and

     educational process. Performance  means: never for the first time. It means: for the second to the nth time.

     Performance is ‘twice-behaved behavior’” (36).

Tying Schechner’s notion to Butler’s, then, gender is a performance, or a “twice-behaved behavior,” that is repeated. There is multiplicity of performance simply within the realm of drag. Drag is a performance of (feminine) gender, which is in itself a repeated performance. Butler quotes Esther Newton, author of Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America:

     At its most complex, [drag] is a double inversion that says, “appearance is an illusion.” Drag says… “my ‘outside’

     appearance is feminine, but my essence ‘inside’ [the body] is masculine.” At the same time it symbolizes the

     opposite inversion; “my appearance ‘outside’ [my body, my gender] is masculine but my essence ‘inside’ [myself] is

     feminine” (Leitch 2497-98).
The contrast presented by Newton’s concept of drag’s “double inversion” further presents the performance quality of drag; it does not matter which inversion is true for the performer, because both constitute a performance. Drag is obviously theatrically performative, but it also functions as performance of gender, i.e. a performance of a repeated performance.
     Repeated performances are also seen in television shows that are categorized as “reality.” “Reality” television can never authentically present reality as long as the participants are aware of the cameras; if someone knows they are being watched, they are going to act much differently than if they were alone, or unwatched. It is an instinctual performance. Before we get into the performance aspect of reality television, however, I would like to define the difference between reality and reality television using the words of Philip Auslander in the introduction to his book, Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture: “the live event is ‘real’ and…mediatized events are secondary and somehow artificial representations of the real” (3). Although Auslander uses the term “live event” to indicate theatre as opposed to television, this statement can also be applied in the context of real life versus “reality” television. Life as it happens without cameras or an audience is, well, real. Televised attempts to recreate real life in the style of “reality” television “are secondary and…artificial representations of the real.” To further clarify this statement, Auslander explains his use of “the term ‘mediatized’…to indicate that a particular object is a product of the mass media or of media technology” (5). The subject of this essay, “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” undoubtedly falls into this category; it is produced (a product) for wide broadcast on cable television (mass media, media technology). Thus, as a “mediatized event,” it is an “artificial representation of the real.”
     One aspect of this artificial representation is the difference in behavior of the contestants when they find themselves in one of three different scenarios: backstage with each other, in front of Ru and the judges, and one-on-one camera confessions. Before detailing each scenario, it is important to define exactly what is meant by the word scenario. According to Diana Taylor, author of The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas, “[t]he scenario includes…milieux and corporeal behaviors such as gestures, attitudes, and tones not reducible to language. Simultaneously setup and action, scenarios frame and activate social dramas” (28, Taylor’s emphasis). The three different scenarios mentioned above “frame and activate” the type of performance given by the contestants, which certainly includes “corporeal behaviors.” Backstage, the drag queens are precisely that, queens. In fact, throughout the entire show the contestants refer to each other only by their drag names, even while not in drag. From this fact alone we can conclude that the contestants privilege their drag identity over their birth identity on the show; they are constantly performing. In their performing, they are fulfilling all of the flamboyantly gay stereotypes: catty, bitchy, high-maintenance, and slightly overconfident in what they’ve “got.” This backstage sassiness seemed to increase exponentially from season one to season two. In fact in season one it was hardly there, which makes one wonder if the producers prompted the contestants of season two to act this way. This brings me again to Auslander who, though his main discussion is concerning theatre versus mediatized entertainment, argues that “the general response of live performance to the oppression and economic superiority of mediatized forms has been to become as much like them as possible” (7). In other words, “reality” television, or rather those who produce it, is trying to become more and more like fictional television, most notably dramas; hence all of the sass backstage—the more drama, the more viewers and viewer enjoyment. Do the queens all really want to tear each other’s heads off? Most likely, no. They are performing this way not only to attract drama-addicted audiences, but also because as flamboyantly gay men this is how they are expected to act; they are meeting their audience’s expectations. They are acting in accordance with Richard Schechner’s notion of restored behavior—other drag queens have acted this way before them, and many will act the same way after them; they are simply playing the part, otherwise known as performing, for their television audience. This restored behavior, Schechner asserts, “can be put on the way a mask or costume is” (37). These men are just putting on their big, sparkly, flamboyant masks and thus the audience never gets to see what is behind that mask (which according to Schechner is actually nothing, but that is another discussion for another day.)
     The presence of cameras obviously has an enormous effect on the behavioral authenticity of the participants. Nick Couldry discusses this concept in his article, “Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Television’s ‘Reality’ Games” about shows he refers to as “gamedocs,” specifically the show Big Brother. Couldry quotes John Corner, who comments that “Big Brother operates its claims to the real within a fully managed artificiality, in which almost everything that might be deemed to be true about what people do and say is necessarily and obviously predicated on the larger contrivance of them being there in front of the camera in the first place” (58). Note the phrase “fully managed artificiality” that Corner uses here. It is safe to say that “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” which can be qualified as a “gamedoc,” also maintains a “fully managed artificiality” as seen in the stereotypically gay backstage behavior undoubtedly prompted by producers. Couldry also quotes Gareth Palmer who argues that in gamedocs, “what develop[s is] not so much a self [as] a media self” (58). Any description of self that is preceded by an adjective that is not “true” or anything synonymous can be perceived as a performance. In this case, the phrase “media self” indicates an especially false or performed self because it implies an intent to entertain or give some sort of gratification to viewers.
     Cameras and the participants’ awareness of them indicate a constant performance, but just what kind of performance, or behavior, is dependent on the particular scenario within the show. The backstage behavior of the contestants has already been discussed, but that is a situation where the contestants are alone with each other (save for the cameras and crew). This behavior is greatly altered when RuPaul or the other judges are present, however. After all, it is a competition, and when the people who make the decision within said competition are present, naturally the contestants are going to try to make some sort of positive impression. Some call it “brown-nosing,” others call it “sucking up;” simply put, it is the contestants’ way of sweetening their chances of doing well in the competition by being on their best behavior when in the presence of Ru or the other judges. The participants’ in this show can be totally vile to each other, but as soon as Ru enters the room they all instantly become sweet little lambs. To the television audience, this is an apparent performance. In addition to trying to be generally sweet, the contestants are also trying to act the way they think that Ru and the judges want them to act. One who acts in accordance with the pleasing of another is obviously not being their true self. Thus, the presence of Ru and the judges causes an apparent change of behavior in the contestants and further brings the performativity of this show into the light.
     A third scenario that causes another change of behavior is the one-on-one camera confessions. The contestant is given the opportunity to talk directly to the camera and share their “true” feelings. This aspect of the show is supposedly the most “real” because the contestants have the opportunity to say and share things that they otherwise might not around other involved in the show. I would argue the opposite: this is the least “real” aspect of the show because the contestant is placed directly in front of a camera which indicates to the audience that the contestant is most certainly aware of the camera’s presence, which therefore indicates that the contestant is most certainly performing. Most of the time the viewer can count on the camera confessions as being a reaction to something so-and-so did that qualifies them as a “total bitch,” or a reaction to an extra challenge that Ru decided to throw in. Either way, this is one of the most performative aspects of the show. The contestant is literally talking to the camera, thereby acknowledging its presence, which serves as a means of pointing to the performativity of the whole show in true “meta” fashion.
     The previously mentioned three scenarios, drag, gender, layers upon layers of performance have already been pointed out, but there are still more multi-performances yet. There are performances that are meant to be seen as performances within this entirely performative show. Because the entire “reality” television show has been shown to be a performance, any performances occurring within the show are simply performances within one overarching performance; thus, the show can be viewed as a sort of meta-performance.
     When the contestants walk the catwalk in drag, they are in complete performance mode. Drag is a performance in itself; when cameras are added to the mix, drag functions as a double performance. Not only are they performing for Ru and the judges, they are also performing for the television audience.
     Some of the competitions within “RuPaul’s Drag Race” involve photo shoots and commercials. During such segments of the show, there are not one but two sets of cameras; thus, the participants are performing within the commercial or photo shoot as well as within the show itself. This doubling of cameras is probably the most apparent example of a multiplicity of performance.
     Performative reality television, which essentially is all reality television, has strayed far from its origin. Known as cinema verite (“true cinema”), this French film method involved the subtle placement of a camera, allowing real life events to simply unfold before it. Contemporary “reality” television claims to practice the same method; if these claims were true, then “reality” television would live up honestly to its name. Everyone knows this is not the case, however. “Reality” shows in today’s media are heavily performative and highly influenced by producers and audience satisfaction and enjoyment, though producers insist otherwise. “RuPaul’s Drag Race” is a “reality” competition based entirely in performance. Because the premise of the show is entirely performance-oriented, the show is constantly pointing to its own performativity. This acknowledgement of performativity, “meta-performance”, in fact makes “RuPaul’s Drag Race” one of the most real “reality” shows out there; it is hyper-real because it points to its own falseness. 
     I have revealed multi-lateral performance within “RuPaul’s Drag Race”: drag as a theatrical as well as a gendered performance; gender as performance thus making the performance of gender the performance of a performance; the “double inversion” of drag that adds to the performativity; “reality” television’s inability to reveal the participants’ true natures; Schechner’s notion of restored behavior and its relation to the stereotypical gay behavior of the contestants; different situations on the show that cause the behavior of the contestants to change; the performances on the show within the overarching performance of the entire show. “RuPaul’s Drag Race” is not centered on one performance, drag, but rather is entirely performative due to the participants’ awareness of the cameras. This show displays an extreme multiplicity of performances, which point to its own performativity. Thus, “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” and many other shows of its kind, is a meta-performance and therefore hyper-real; drag is just the tip of the performance iceberg.