Gay men and drag: Dialogical resistance to hegemonic masculinity

Masculinity as strategy

Within I as Performer of Masculinity, masculinity was described as a strategy for adaptive strategic action. It was likened to a game of chess where one has to stay one step ahead of others. These strategies were seen in work or academic environments and in relationships.

Several examples were given illustrating this position, but perhaps the most emblematic was in response to an incidence of violence where House of D’Bus members were accosted by a group of teenagers.

Frieda: Talking about that switch being flipped, like you’re knowing that these kids, I mean it was it sounds so stupid, cuz I mean there’s only young teenagers but there’s just this herd of them.

Researcher: Oh yeah it’s scary.

Frieda: And and so we heard them, they started off with names and it’s like ok so we had this growing awareness and then …

Becca: One of them grabbed my wig off of my head which was which was what I mean by the oh no mother fucker don’t you dare moment.

Frieda: I mean once this starts, like that switch is flipped and I mean I had on like a chain belt and suddenly that’s around my wrist as I’m like …

Researcher: Hm.

Frieda: Ya know trying to get these kids and it’s ya know you have this this awareness of ya know ok I am vulnerable right now or I’m presenting as being vulnerable right now to ok I’m actually being attacked right now and it’s like ya know all this art all this illusion is gone.

The dialogue above illustrates the main aspects of this position in portraying how House members literally have to protect themselves from the subordinating violence of dominant masculinity. First, the dialogue highlights an awareness of the way in which gender is being assumed and projected by others, with Frieda’s acknowledgment of potential danger. It illustrates the purposefulness of embracing certain gendered characteristics as a form of adaptive action in grabbing the chain belt, raising voices, and taking on characteristics often associated with dominance (aggression, protection, etc.). It also highlights how gender presentation is an artifice or illusion that shifts as a function of context-dependent performances. The masculinity one sees in public is a performance that is drawn out by the context-dependent needs of a particular social situation. Finally, this dialogue illustrates the difficult tension and ambivalence that results in the negotiation between the vulnerable presentation of authentic selves and hegemonic masculinity’s attempt to maintain its homeostasis.

Masculinity as control

In the second strand of this position, masculinity as control is expressed as a purposeful thwarting of other’s attempts to presuppose gendered behaviors, particularly around the expression of sexuality. Within this aspect of the overall I-position of performance seemed to be a desire to not just choose masculinity, but to confuse, surprise, or “turn the gender-table” on another person. It seems to reflect empowerment, agency, diverse expression, and power over other’s construction of self. As Frieda explains:

Yeah and that that’s actually what I was gonna get to next, was that with this faggy presentation meeting guys, they think that if I were to go home with them that they’re gonna have this little “twinkie bottom,” whatever, and it’s like as soon (snaps fingers) as we were home or that, I was ya know, we were having sex, all of that drops.

Here Frieda describes how he chooses his gender performance and how he can switch it when he decides the time is right. While others may perceive him as a more stereotypically feminine, passive, and sexually inexperienced gay man (i.e., “twinkie bottom”), this presentation of self will change when Frieda has determined the time is right to do so. The awareness of gender is highlighted here as well as the empowered feeling that comes along with the ability to choose.

In both of these instances, I as Performer serves an adaptive function. It allows the performer to construct a fluid gendered self for purposes of safety and empowerment. It also allows for negotiating with the vulnerability and ambivalence that comes as a result of the potential mismatch between outside cultural expectations of self and inner constructions (Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2010). It allows the performer to disrupt essentialist notions of gender and masculinity and allow for fluid negotiations of gender and gender presentation.

Who is doing the talking?

This I-position was informed by several cultures in which House members interact. First, this position was influenced by the voices of parents, teachers, military leaders, and others who served as potential male role models. Several illustrations were given throughout the interviews in which House members were asked to “act like a man,” often in situations where hegemonic discourses were marginalizing their own self-expression. This commonly used phrase emphasizes how masculinity can be attained through adopting specific behaviors to meet others’ criteria.

Gay culture is also a strong voice in this position. The voices of friends, partners, and other community members seem to be representative of this position in emphasizing how masculinity can be attained through performance that is subject to social context. Several examples were given in which the clothing of masculinity could be adorned or the switch of masculinity could be turned on or off for the purposes of safety, intrigue, playfulness, or in generally attaining one’s needs.

As professional performers, the position also seems to be influenced by theater culture and their work as drag queens. Switching scenes, costumes, lighting, characters, and overall presentation is a common phenomenon in this kind of work. As stated previously, an important aspect of the House of D’Bus performance is the unpredictability of the gendered expression of the performer. For example, a performer may display stereotypically feminine make-up, make no attempt to hide biologically male body parts while lip-syncing to a song sung by a person whose gender may not match the gender of the performer. The fluidity on stage represents the fluidity within the I-position. The drag performances and social interactions that follow performances create a social context that allow for personal idiosyncratic choices around expressions of gender and sexuality in which the performer has control. Alternative drag performance in particular (i.e., where the gender expression, voice, clothing etc., is not easily predicted by audience members), contributes a powerful landscape to perform in, as it disavows outsiders/audience members/representatives of hegemony etc. the ability to predict, construct and essentialize which aspects of self will contribute to one’s identity and social action (Taylor & Rupp, 2004, 2005, 2006). Interestingly, while the shifting of I-positions is often viewed as a way to contend with ambivalence or uncertainty (see, Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2010), House of D’Bus performances purposefully heighten ambiguity in terms of purposeful unpredictable gender presentation in order to emphasize idiosyncratic fluid discourses and the ability to choose and perform as a way of easing tension and potentially accessing other I-positions.

As self-identified gay men, subordinated by hegemonic discourses that exclude homosexuality and queer culture, an I-position that stresses masculinity as a performance serves an adaptive function to resist marginalization. By constructing masculinity as a performance one can control, one only needs access to the symbols and cultural artifacts necessary to tap into masculinity. It also allows for connections to others in the gay community and is not in conflict with discourses that embrace a rejection of masculinity, since one is merely “portraying masculinity” rather than “being” masculine. It allows one to participate in negotiating with masculinity without embracing a dominant essentialized masculinity that is hostile to the ways in which gay-identified men may construct self.

Another important function this position serves is to negotiate with racialized expectations of masculinities. As stated, one of the ways in which hegemonic masculinity maintains itself is by marginalizing forms of masculinity that are still counted as “masculine” but do not adhere to the dominant narrative of masculinity (Connell, 1995). This can often result in subcultures internalizing dominant narratives and replicating that same phenomenon for subcultures by either mimicking expectations or creating other rigid narratives and marginalizing community members in unique ways. Subcultures then replicate hegemonic processes with different criteria for inclusion, marginalization, etc.

Racial/culture-specific narratives specifically limit diverse negotiations of masculinities by constructing masculinity as determined by a racialized body. In the interviews with House of D’Bus, several of these racialized masculinities were described. Two of these narratives concern the “playah” and the “rice queen.” The playah, often attributed to black masculinity, assumes the normative aspects of high sexual desire and a preference for multiple partners. The rice queen is a term used to describe gay men attracted to Asian men who presumably embody more stereotypically feminine characteristics. These kinds of racialized narratives reinforce essentialized notions of masculinities by fusing socio-cultural expectations with specific biological features. This creates different discourses of hegemony in which one must negotiate masculinity in contending with dominant narratives from the broader culture and dominant narratives within subcultures in which one identifies.

By viewing masculinity as a chosen performance, one can ease the tension and ambivalent experiences that result from these cultural and subcultural hegemonic demands in allowing for contextual choices in social action. Constructing masculinity as performance severs the presumed connection between biological characteristics and self, and places masculinity in the realm of conscious action, situation-specific strategies, and empowered choice and control.

Dialogical tensions

This I-position is in tension with two of the other three positions. The major source of tension between these positions is based on two major negotiations. The first concerns whether masculinity is essentially a function of possessing specific biological features (facial hair, male genitals, etc.) or whether masculinity is tied to a specific kind of social action. The second tension concerns whether dominant views of masculinity are an essential truth and therefore are not an aspect of self for gay men or whether masculinities are diverse and fluid in various communities. Rather than discussing these tensions here, they will be discussed following the next I-position.

Who is doing the talking?

Dominant discourses about masculinity serve as a voice in this position. House members mentioned several aspects of culture that emphasize directedness and aggression as the primary characteristics associated with masculinity. The media, military, religion, athletic teams, and experiences in families all provided fodder for viewing masculinity in this regard. As discussed in the transcript above, characters from television shows were often used to give examples of masculinity and to tease out what differentiates Peacock Masculinity from Dominant Masculinity.

The language of stake/space claiming associated with the position also has a historical voice. The phrase “staking a claim” was originally used to refer to the act of marking free land with stakes to claim it as one’s own (Free Dictionary, 2010). The phrase has also been used specifically in reference to land deemed worthwhile (believed to have gold or other minerals in it) in order to obtain it before someone else does. In addition, the phrase has been used in less tangible contexts to refer to a right a person has (such as a claim to liberty) as it is used here by House of D’Bus to lay claim to one’s gender and gendered expression.

Gay/drag communities seem to be the primary voice for the hybridization and negotiation of this position. The community echo peacock (and peacocking) is familiar within gay and drag culture and used to express this particular kind of masculinity (Brekhus, 2003). It can refer to a particular style of dress, a genital display in which pubic hair is pronounced, and/or a series of mannerisms that capture this “claim staking” in such a way that expresses stereotypically masculine characteristics (aggressiveness, directness) with traditionally feminine associations (color, dress etc.) by “shaking one’s tail feathers” (Urban Dictionary, 2010). The image of the peacock as a proud, lavish and colorful bird certainly seems to fit the presentations of House members who not only strut on stage in beautiful costumes (many of which are sewn and prepared by members themselves) but also “strut” off stage in various contexts of their lives.

As a method of resisting heterosexism, the Peacock I-position provides a powerful narrative both about what is being claimed and the manner in which it is staked. The landscape of gender and masculinity is constructed as free and open and valuable. It is also one in which one must compete and make it clear that you will be participating in constructing what belongs to you. The peacockishess style and uniqueness become the stakes or markers in which masculinity is owned and once placed, cannot be refuted. This position is adaptive in that it empowers House members to be in the position of directly participating in the construction of masculinities through including their own uniqueness in that construction.

Dialogical tensions

Since the previous position stressed masculinity as a kind of performance and peacock masculinity can be viewed as a performance of a kind, there are instances in which these two positions will be symmetrical. However, this position can be in tension with the previous position. The peacock specifies a particular way of being masculine. Because the previous position constructs masculinity as a form of contextual choice, it will conflict with any kind of masculinity that has specific requirements pre-determined in its definition. For the performer, masculinity is in the empowered expression of choosing, for the peacock; it is in the specific hybridized manner in which masculinity is expressed.

Who is doing the talking?

There were several sources that emerged as contributors to this I-position. These voices were primarily from people who seemed to want to assist House of D’Bus members in constructing a self that was absent of the demands of specific histories and social practices (whether gender, racial, cultural, etc.). Instead, this position focused on presumed shared human characteristics. These discourses came primarily from parents, community leaders, teachers, mentors, and peers who emphasized that masculinity is not something one needed to work toward, but rather something you are born with.

This voice is also represented in the broader dominant culture. The degree to which one is constructed as masculine is often a function of the amount and size of biological characteristics one has (or is presumed to have) (Lever, Frederick, & Peplau, 2006). In social situations there can be a kind of “sizing up” which is common in many western countries where one’s masculinity is often associated with perceptions by others of a person’s male physiology. Typically, it is presumed that there is a positive correlation between the possession and size of biologically male characteristics and masculinity in that the more body or facial hair, the larger the body, penis etc., the more masculine one “is” (Lever et al., 2006).

This voice is also negotiated within gay communities. This can be a source of internalization of dominant heterosexist and misogynist ideologies which associate “less than masculine” physical characteristics with femininity, which is often perceived negatively. Comparing penis size, muscular status, and other male markers are at times associated with assumptions about identity, sexual practices, and personal values and ideologies within gay communities (Johnson, 2005; Phua, 2007).

While often this sizing up is associated with competitiveness and negative consequences for those who engage in it (self-doubt, lowered self-esteem, anxiety etc.), this position serves an important adaptive function. In order to be sized up one must be counted as a person who can be included. In other words, it connects House of D’Bus members to the overall world of men and masculinity. While cultural constructions and expectations vary about gender presentation, expressiveness, and ideology, physical markers of masculinity can be connected across cultures and can be a powerful way of constructing masculinity and reducing ambivalence, particularly when these same cultures marginalize gay men. From a hegemonic perspective, this I-position shifts a person from potentially being subjugated through non-inclusion, to the possibility of inclusion and/or a series of marginalizations, which still indicate that you are part of the dialogue.

Dialogical tensions

This position is in tension with both previous positions. First, it is in tension with “I as Performer of Masculinity”, as its core adaptive function is equating masculinity with a physiological embodiment that one does not choose. Similarly, it is in contrast with I as Peacock since the Peacock I-position refers to a specific hybridized cultural expectation (directness/aggression). Here is a brief excerpt (which directly follows the dialogue above), in which Katya’s question shifts the dialogue from masculinity as a biological form to masculinity as a way of expressing oneself:

Katya: Do you put the seat down though?

Nicole: Yes.

Becca: I don’t.

Katya: That’s not masculine.

Who is doing the talking?

For many of the participants, various degrees of marginalization seemed to be a factor when speaking from this I-position. All of the members of the troupe had negative experiences they associated with masculinity, including rejection from peers and parents, harassment, and overall comparisons to others who presumably better fit into cultural requisites for maleness. This position accepts hegemonic masculinity, reifies one’s place in it, and results in an abandonment of masculinity through a rejection of behaviors, values, and attitudes associated with masculinity. As Katya explains, “For myself, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t even think about masculine or feminine because I know that I am really feminine.”

The voice of I as Outside Dominant Masculinity demarcates gay men as belonging to a unique and distinct subculture. Utterances, phrases, mannerisms, etc. seem to reflect dominant discourses within the gay community that reject broader socio-cultural hegemonic expectations around language and gender presentation for men. This position leads to feelings of camaraderie in the face of heterosexism and discrimination.

A metaphor for masculinity in general used throughout the interviews was a slovenly apathetic heterosexual man who does not care what others think. This apathy was often associated with dominant masculinity in that one aspect of masculinity is the lack of concern one has for the way in which you present yourself. Typically this image was rejected as something House members did not connect or aspire to. However, the I as Outside Dominant Masculinity position is a hybridization of that dominant discourse in capturing the rebellious nature of rejecting dominant norms and expectations. It becomes masculinity in rejecting masculinity.

Researcher: So even if doing what you want is being more feminine, you have in this space, it feels more comfortable doing that, and in a way that feels masculine, it might have been Katya I don’t remember, but there’s ah “I can do what I want, and that’s a sort of masculine thing, even if what I am wanting to do appears more feminine.”

Nicole: Exactly and I can do what I want, because right, and I have my girls with me and ya know dudes are like they roll deep when they go into spaces and there like this is my crew, you can’t mess with us, ya know, I don’t care who you who you think are. So, all of a sudden someone tries to start with us, the four of us, we have each other’s back.

This emphasis of having a “crew” also speaks through the voice of broader dominant discourses about masculinity. The notion of having an “all male” peer group in which one socializes is very common in dialogues about friendship and masculinity. Interestingly, this I-position both rejects traditional and dominant forms of masculinity and embraces aspects of it simultaneously. Becca captures this duality by emphasizing how the crew is defined as outside of the mainstream of masculinity while engaging in behaviors often associated with traditional aspects of masculinity (agency, impact on others, provocation, etc.).

Becca: We have been having these conversations at my day job about when these very iconic visual performers show up in places in which they are outside the uh … well entering spaces that are not theirs. What we came up with was when these people enter spaces, the very fact that they have entered the space has meaning, something is different now that they have entered the space and we can just ignore that or we can deal with it.

Dialogical tensions

This position is in some way in tension with all of the other positions. Since the previous three positions all connect the self to masculinity, rejecting that connection will be a source of tension. The most powerful feature of this position is in taking marginalizations, reconstructing them as cultural requisites, and forming community. In doing so, ambiguities about masculinities become less relevant, since the criteria is wholeheartedly rejected (i.e., I am not masculine, a man, etc.). However, the potentially ambivalence-increasing aspect of this position is in creating new dominant discourses that may neglect diverse voices for those who identify as gay (i.e., gay men are more emotional, expressive, more “like women”).