by Naome Dixon
One could argue that the competitive nature of the show undermines the way that Drag has historically functioned. This is because its individualistic approach, where the focus lies on beating competitors, is at odds with the original function of drag. Drag was often used as a way for the LGBT+ community to seek solace and escape the discrimination they faced. “Houses' ' were formed and this communal nature (that can often be seen in the Harlem ballroom culture of the late 20th century) led many LGBT+ youth to find family in the art form of drag.
While Ru Paul does often preach that one of the joys of Drag is that you can find your own family, the competitive structure of the show contradicts this. This is especially prevalent in Allstars, where the competitors are forced to vote against their own and focus on themselves climbing the ladder to become the winner. This “dog eat dog” (or as I would like to say “Drag Queen eat Drag Queen”) mentality mirrors the cutthroat corporate ladder, where very few become victorious. Queens are often criticised when they help their fellow competitors and this can be seen in season 10, when Asia O’Hara helped the other Queens in a sewing challenge. The judges criticised her own dress and even went as far as to condemn her actions as it went against the nature of the competition. Furthermore, only the very top-performing Queens get rewarded, even though all the Queens put their heart and soul into the competition and, while some could argue that the exposure given to all Queens is a reward in itself, exposure sadly cannot pay the bills.
To worsen the situation, many Queens spend upwards of $10,000 on the outfits for the show, in the hope of becoming the crowned winner. However, as previously stated, only one Queen will win the big cash prize. In order for the show to have mainstream appeal, it was vital that Drag itself was depoliticised to try and soften its message. While Ru Paul often does pay tribute to many historical gay events (like the Stonewall Riots) this sentiment is contradicted by the competitive nature of the show. In addition to this, as arguably the main concern of the show is to generate profit, Ru Paul has successfully created a monopoly on Drag-related shows. This can be seen when Manila Luzon was going to create a Drag show in the Philippines and Ru Paul (a day later) announced that the brand would be extending his franchise to the Philippines. This makes it harder for other talented Drag Queens to try and surpass Ru Paul’s level of fame and in turn wealth.
Also, even though Ru Paul’s Drag Race is marketed to be an exclusive place for all members of the LGBT+ community, the treatment of trans and HIV positive competitors contradicts this. The majority of trans women who competed later came out saying they felt ostracised by the setup of the show. The first contestant to openly identify as trans (on the show) was Monica Beverly (in Season 5) and the fact that she (at first) felt the need to hide her true identity reveals the exclusive nature of the show. This can been with old catch phrases such as “Gentlemen start your engines and let the best women win”; this exclusive nature arguably goes against the original nature of Drag as many trans women used drag as a way to express their femininity in our heteronormative society. Ru Paul himself even stated that he “probably” wouldn't have allowed Peppermint (a NYC-based trans performer) into the show if she had already undergone gender-affirming surgery.
This exclusive environment that Ru Paul attempted to foster undercuts the seemingly meaningless phrases of positivity and inclusion that are often utilised. Also, if you look at the treatment of Ongina (a contestant on Season 3) after she came out as HIV positive, it becomes clear that the prerogative of the show is to make money instead of providing rightful representation. This is because after the positive words of the judges, Ongina received criticism for not having the capacity to “represent” Viva Glam (who were the sponsor for that episode). She was subsequently told to “shanty away” (otherwise known as being told to leave the show) in the next episode. This clearly highlights the ruthless nature of the show when it comes to trying to acquire wealth. After the show, Ongina did become a huge representation for the HIV-positive community, so not all is negative. Nonetheless, one can also observe how many contestants are required to reveal deep-rooted issues they have had in order to be able to exchange their own trauma for emotional currency that they can cash out when it comes to the judging panel. This reveals that the contestants are arguably emotionally exploited as well as the gruelling physical labour that is needed to succeed on the show. However, the show is making attempts to try to become more exclusive. This can be seen in Drag Race UK Season 3's admittance of a cis-gendered Drag Queen to the show and the changing of many transphobic catch phrases.
Overall I would argue that even though Ru Paul’s Drag Race has some major flaws, it is still a funny, insightful show that provides representation for many people from all walks of life. So, please, please ,please give the show a chance despite the negative picture that I have painted in this article because it is just an exquisite show.
Sources
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/08/16/drag-race-philippines-host-manila-luzon/
https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/3/6/17085244/rupaul-trans-women-drag-queens-interview-controversy
Hamish Critchley (interviewed)
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.