Content uploaded by Dana Berkowitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dana Berkowitz on Jan 27, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Interaction of Drag Queens
and Gay Men in Public and Private Spaces
Dana Berkowitz, MA
University of Florida
Linda Belgrave, PhD
University of Miami
Robert A. Halberstein, PhD
University of Miami
ABSTRACT. This study examines the issue of internal segregation
within the gay community, focusing on the ways by which the drag
queen subculture is distanced from larger mainstream gay society.
Through the use of institutional ethnography, symbolic interactionism,
and a naturalist approach to sociology, the researchers sought to under-
stand the subjective experience of the drag queen, in particular how drag
queens perceive their interactions with mainstream gay society. Data for
this study were collected through a series of observations conducted in a
variety of spatial contexts and interviews with 18 drag queens. Findings
indicate that spatial distance between the drag queens and the main-
stream gay men is dependent on both the social context and the level of
professionalization of the drag queen. Although drag queens’ perceptions
Dana Berkowitz is a doctoral student of sociology at the University of Florida.
Linda Belgrave is Professor of Sociology at the University of Miami. Robert Halberstein is
Professor of Anthropology at the University of Miami. Correspondence may be ad
-
dressed: Dana Berkowitz, University of Florida, Department of Sociology, 3219
Turlington Hall, PO Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 (E-mail: dberk@ufl.edu).
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 52(3/4) 2007
Available online at http://jh.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_02 11
of their status in the gay community are also dependent on the latter,
discussions of relationship difficulties and the quest for a long-term
romantic partner illustrate that discrimination within the gay community
is both widespread and complex.
doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_02 [Article cop
-
ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-
HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com>
2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights
reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Drag queen, cross-dress, transvestite, internal segrega
-
tion, ethnography, gay men, gender bending, transgenderism
Gender blending, or transgenderism, is at the cutting edge of contem-
porary debates about sex, sexuality, and gender. The term “gender blender”
or “transgender” includes transvestites, transsexuals, drag queens, and
others–whether gay, bisexual, or heterosexual–who in their cross-dress-
ing and sex changing transgress the binary divide between the sexes
(Ekins, 1996). Prior to the categorization and medicalization of what
came to be seen as sexual perversions in the latter half of the nineteenth
century, gender blending in its various forms was, for the most part,
written about in simple descriptions of enjoyable experience and pre-
ferred behavior. Despite the efforts of Hirschfeld (1910) who reposi-
tioned homosexuality and cross-dressing from the realm of disease;
medicalization, for the most part, brought with it novel conditions and
the emergence of new identities (Ekins, 1996; Meyerowitz, 2002), as
gender blending became analyzed and studied in terms of scientific
categories. Much of the literature became saturated with psychiatric
jargon, approaching gender blenders with the tendency to label them as
ill or diseased (Talamini, 1982, Hopkins; 2004; Tewksbury, 1993;
Newton, 1972; Benjamin, 1966; Docter, 1988).
Following the emergence of psychiatric literature, researchers immersed
themselves in population descriptions, attempting to explore and describe
the demographics of the diverse gender-blending community (Prince &
Bentler, 1972; Bullough, Bullough, & Smith, 1983; Bullough & Bullough,
1997; Docter & Prince, 1997). More recently, however, the disciplines
of sociology and social psychology have focused upon theories of iden
-
tity and have looked to gender blenders to serve as a backdrop to better
understand identity formation and stigma management and negotiation
(Ekins, 1996, 1997; King, 1993; Tewksbury, 1994). Nevertheless, until
12 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
very recently the majority of academic interest in transgenderism had
yet to approach the issue from the standpoint of the actual gender blend
-
ers themselves (Ekins, 1996). Consequently, very few studies have made
a substantial impact on our understanding of the subjective experience of
gender blending (Hopkins, 2004; Taylor & Rupp, 2004; Brubach &
O’Brien, 1998; Feinberg, 1996, 1998; Schacht, 2000, 2002a,b).
This paper examines the experiences of one small yet significant
portion of the gender-blending community, the drag queen, or the gay
man who dresses and performs as a woman but does not want to become
a woman or have a woman’s body (Taylor & Rupp, 2004). Drag queens
constitute a small subgroup of the larger gender-blending community,
and although there is a dearth of research on their unique subculture,
interest is on the rise (Schacht, 2000, 2002a,b; Hopkins, 2004; Taylor &
Rupp, 2004). Drag queens comprise a community that is not only
labeled as deviant by mainstream society, but is also separated from
the stigmatized groups of non-cross-dressing gay men and heterosexual
transvestites (Newton, 1979; Tewksbury, 1994). The drag queen is part
of a subgroup that consists of the outcasts of two stigmatized groups,
gay men and heterosexual cross-dressers, and thus endures the effects
of multiple negative identities. Furthermore, the relatively small num-
ber of drag queens increases the likelihood that this behavior is per-
ceived as unusual and bizarre (Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988).
This paper grew out of a larger study investigating the subjective
experiences of drag queens in Miami Beach, Florida. It focuses on one
theme that emerged from the larger study, specifically the social inter-
actions between drag queens and mainstream gay men in both public
and private spaces. The primary goal of the initial study was to discover
possible issues and concerns of the subjective experiences of drag
queens in Miami Beach. However, it became clear that the lived experi-
ences of drag queens were not ones saturated with problems and con
-
cerns, but rather were just as complex and filled with both positive and
negative experiences as any person’s daily life.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A common theme in the literature has been the increased separation
of gender blenders who were once viewed as interconnected, a separa
-
tion leading to a transformation into worlds of mutually exclusive and
distinct behaviors and identities (Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988;
Namaste, 2000). A consequence of this is the separation of drag queens
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 13
from the larger, more mainstream gay community. This may be a result
of both scientific categorization and the need of the gay community to
form a cohesive, more “respectable” social movement (Talamini, 1982;
Namaste, 2000). One might think that the experience of discrimina
-
tion and difficult struggles endured by the majority of members of
the gay community would sensitize them to the trials of their cross-
dressing brothers. However, some of the literature points out that this
is in fact not the case (Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988; Namaste,
2000; Hopkins, 2004).
Fournet, Forsyth, and Schramm (1988) illustrated the divisions
between the two communities in their study of stigma management and
negotiation among gay males and drag queens. The authors found that
the majority of gay men in their sample expressed their distinctness
from the drag queens. This is illustrated by claims such as: “I think the
impersonators are sick . . . they get into trouble because they pick up het-
erosexuals too ...wegays don’t like them because they make the whole
gay community look bad . . . this is what makes a gay stereotype”
(Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988, p. 179).
Similarly, other participants in this study echoed these concerns,
remarking that drag queens perpetuate stereotypes of gay men with high
voices, limp wrists, and flaunting femininity. Such findings suggest that
there are substantial divisions between mainstream gay society and the
smaller drag queen subculture (Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988).
Further research in this area has consistently shown that drag queens are
perceived as failed men, and as the most effeminate of their gay brothers
(Taylor & Rupp, 2004; Schacht & Underwood, 2004; Tewksbury, 1994;
Newton, 1979). Thus, for some members of the mainstream gay subcul-
ture, the trials of a gay lifestyle are difficult enough without having to
deal with labels of stereotypical female conduct and images of picking
up straight men.
The divisions within the gay and transgender community are so
widespread that even drag queens go to great lengths to distance them
-
selves from transvestites and transsexuals. Drag queens attempt to
establish themselves as more “normal” than both transvestites and
transsexuals, as they stress that they have not altered their bodies through
hormones or surgery (Hopkins, 2004; Taylor & Rupp, 2004; Newton,
1979).
However, in public spaces, drag queens are even further distanced
from mainstream gay society through their reduction to performance.
Drag queens are tolerated in gay male establishments as long as they
remain in a space clearly designated for performance: the stage (Namaste,
14 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
2000). Drag queens are coifed personalities whose only purpose is to
titillate the gay male viewer. This restriction of drag queens to the stage
implies that drag is something one does and not something one is.In
Montreal, the organizers of the 1992 Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade
attempted to ban drag queens from participating (Namaste, 2000). They
believed that drag queens exceeded respectable community standards.
When challenged on their anti-drag attitudes, the organizers pointed to
the presence of a drag queen bar as evidence of their inclusive politics
(Namaste, 2000). Although Namaste (2000) did not consider that some
drag queens might in fact like the stage, the relegation of drag queens to
performance is a supplementary move of exclusion. Such exclusion
indicates clearly that although drag queens are appropriate and enter-
taining to look at, they are not people alongside whom one marches. If
drag queens are forced to remain within a space clearly designated for
performance, one might imagine the profound implications when time
comes to hear their voices, concerns, and struggles.
THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical paradigm that relies on
the assumption that human beings possess the ability to think and imbue
their world with meaning. Individuals are viewed not as units that are
simply motivated by external forces beyond their control, but as reflec-
tive or interacting units (Mead, 1934). This unique capacity for thought
is shaped and refined by social interaction. In social interaction, people
learn the meanings and the symbols that allow them to exercise their
unique capacity for thought (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969; Stryker, 1980).
In the process of social interaction, people symbolically communicate
meanings to the others involved.
The concept of identity is of tremendous importance to symbolic
interactionists. According to Stryker (1980) identity refers to who or
what one is, to the various traits or meanings attached to one by the self
and others. In a sense, identities are the most public aspect of the self.
Doing drag clearly involves the manipulation of identity. The identity of
the drag queen is assumed not to be inherent or essential, but rather,
emerges out of a social and interpretive process. Identities are of signifi
-
cance in that they help people to define and frame interaction by supply
-
ing shared meanings for behavior and situations (Mead, 1934). Although
an actor may stake out an identity claim such as “drag queen,” or “gay
man,” the validity of the claim depends on the responses of significant
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 15
others within the actor’s networks (Gubrium & Holstein, 1990). This
paper examines the responses to drag queens by mainstream gay men in
public and private spaces.
Dorothy Smith’s proposed “institutional ethnography” provides a
way into understanding the interactions between drag queens and gay
men in public settings (1987). Institutional ethnography draws on stan
-
dard qualitative research methods, such as interviews and participant
observation. However, the task of the researcher is to move from the
standpoint of the subjects under study to a conceptual scheme that
accounts for how people are related to their everyday worlds through
institutions and other ruling relations. Her framework of institutional
ethnography is directed toward uncovering how everyday institutional
practices shape the experiences of women (Namaste, 2000). Smith urges
us to acknowledge the world as women live it, and to offer an explana-
tion about the social and institutional relations that determine this expe-
rience. It is important to note that although Smith’s approach was
originally associated with conducting research relevant to women, it is a
theoretical and methodological paradigm that can be widely adapted to
other research settings. The symbolic interactionist paradigm coupled
with institutional ethnography are valuable theoretical and methodolog-
ical paradigms for understanding how certain institutions, especially
those of the gay dance club and the predominantly gay bar settings,
shape the subjective experiences of drag queens as expressed in their
first-hand accounts.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The naturalistic approach to sociology presumes that reality exists
in the natural environment of the social world (Gubrium & Holstein,
1997). The authors further state that the meaningful features of everyday
life consist of individuals’ orientation to and actions within this world,
as they carefully manage their realities. As a naturalistic researcher, one
seeks to richly and accurately describe these realities without disrupting
and distorting these worlds in the process (Adler & Adler, 1994). With
this in mind, we adopted a naturalistic approach to our understanding of
the spatial separation and subsequent segregation of gay males and drag
queens in public spaces.
This qualitative methodological approach was taken because qualitative
methods have a theoretical foundation that emphasize the distinctive
quality of different life experiences, the contextual nature of knowledge,
16 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
the production of meaning, and the interactive character of human
action (Loftland & Loftland, 1995). Data derived from qualitative
methods such as intensive interviews and observations are holistic
because they embody factual data as well as the participant’s possible
interpretations of these facts (Shaffir & Stebbins, 1991). Although the
spatial segregation between the gay males and the drag queens was
observed in our research, these observations would have remained
meaningless without the participants’ interpretations of the significance
of these internal divisions. Hence, we also used qualitative interviews
which stress the dialogical character of life, a research methodology that
relies on the form of social interaction (Loftland & Loftland, 1995).
Data for this study were collected by the first author (D.B.) for the
completion of her Master’s thesis. Please note D.B. is a heterosexual
young woman who is neither a member of the drag queen community
nor the mainstream gay community. Thus, the data and the interpreta-
tion of the data were influenced by her identity. In her interviews she
was able to employ the strategy of “girl talk” and develop a unique rap-
port with the participants, while in the observation phase she was able to
fit in as a “fag hag” or woman whose primary social networks and inter-
actions are with gay men. The advantage of not being a member of
either community is that she was entering a new world as a relatively
naïve researcher, in the position to take nothing for granted. Thus,
although her data and interpretations likely differ from those that would
be obtained by a gay man or drag queen, the researchers posit that she
was successful in obtaining rich and relevant data that yielded valuable
new understandings.
Observations
In order to become fully immersed into the social world of the drag
queen, D.B. initially performed a series of observations in public set
-
tings frequented by both the drag queen community and the larger gay
male community. She conducted observations in gay bars on specific
nights of the week reserved for drag entertainment. The bars observed
were Punch, The Grey Area, Roxy, and Eve’s. The seriousness of these
drag nights varied, from very professional, theatrical shows at Eve’s to
amateur performances at The Grey Area. D.B. also conducted observa
-
tions at Punch and Roxy, predominantly gay dance clubs that drag
queens frequented on a regular basis, either for work or enjoyment.
Since the majority of gay bars and dance clubs in Miami Beach, Florida
are exclusively male, interactions between the mainstream gay males
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 17
and the drag queens became a focus of the observations, with attention
to the frequency of interactions, the intimacy of interactions, and the
distinct situations within which these interactions took place.
For a period of approximately nine months, D.B. frequented these
four venues exploring the drag queen subculture, including interactions
with gay men, in each bar for about three to five hours a night.
Finally, D.B. conducted a series of observations in a predominantly
heterosexual bar, Life, where once every few weeks, professional female
impersonators perform a “drag show.” Here she simply blended in with
the rest of the audience while observing the scene and observed these
various types of drag shows for the purpose of achieving a better under
-
standing of drag entertainment because of the importance of the stage in
the drag queen subculture.
Interviews
The other phase of our research entailed intensive, open-ended semi-
structured interviews with 18 drag queens, using a self-administered
questionnaire for demographic data. The interviews took the form of
guided conversations, in that initial questions were asked and the
respondents were given leeway to raise other issues of import to them,
which we might have overlooked. All questions were open-ended and
were designed to introduce issues for discussion by interviewees. An
interview guide was used to ensure that all topics of interest were dis-
cussed. Topic areas that were covered in the interviews ranged from
family issues to romantic concerns to everyday life experience. Ques-
tions were developed so as to fill the gap in the literature addressing the
subjective experience of the drag queen, including social and cultural
aspects of this experience. The guided-conversation approach was espe
-
cially desirable, given that the researchers are outsiders to the community.
Interviews were audio-recorded (with the participants’ permission) and
transcribed verbatim.
When a participant did not voice any concerns of the sort discussed in
the literature, D.B. investigated further by probing those issues. Probes
in this portion of the interview relevant to this analysis included ques
-
tions such as: “How would you describe your relationship with this
[non-cross-dressing gay] community? Are there any concerns you
might have with your status in the gay community?” The use of record
-
ing and transcription allowed us to distinguish between issues raised by
participants and discussion that followed from probes.
18 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Participants
Eighteen drag queens participated in the interview portion of this
study. They were recruited using a multiple-start snowball approach
with participants introducing other participants. The ages of the partici
-
pants ranged from 19 to 43. Of the 18 participants, 3 had completed four
years of college and one had completed a Master’s degree in Business
Administration. Two had finished two years of college education or
less, nine had graduated from high school, and four had less than a high
school education. When asked about their primary source of income,
only three claimed that doing drag, or performing as a female imper
-
sonator, was their main source of earnings. The other 13 participants
were hair-stylists, clothing salespersons, high-class call girls, nightclub
or party promoters and organizers, dancers, servers, or bartenders.
Participants came from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds.
Six described themselves as white, non-Hispanic, including a variety
of European ethnic backgrounds; two simply stated they were of
American descent. Seven participants described themselves as His-
panic, with three born in Puerto Rico, two in Colombia, and one in
Cuba. Three participants identified themselves as African American,
with one being born in Haiti, the other a descendant from Trinidad, and
the third simply American. Finally, two participants described them-
selves as racially and ethnically mixed.
Data Analysis
Following each observation and interview, notes were written and
interviews were transcribed by D.B. There was no pre-existing coding
scheme applied to the interview data. Remaining true to the emergent
nature of qualitative research requires that the categories of analysis be
shaped by the data (Loftland & Loftland, 1995).
The textual material was analyzed with grounded theory methodology
for qualitative data analysis. As ideas, terms, moods, and the like sur
-
faced in multiple interviews, they were coded and given tentative labels
during the open phase of the coding process. As similarities in experi
-
ence, patterns, and emergent themes appeared, categories of phenomena
were labeled and entered into a code list. These categories consisted of
groupings of phenomenon that represent a more abstract quality (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). These became additional questions asked in future inter
-
views, if participants did not raise the issues themselves. Core or central
categories were the roots that anchored other categories. Saturation was
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 19
reached when no new categories were ascertained (Glaser & Strauss,
1967).
FINDINGS
Spatial Separation
Spatial separation refers to the distance observed between the gay
men and the drag queens at each location. We began our research with
the working assumption that the majority of those men who were pres
-
ent at each location were gay, since the observed dance clubs and bars
catered to the gay community, either on the night visited or all the time.
However, we later realized that this assumption is problematic in that
many bisexual and straight-identified men frequent these spaces and the
sexual orientation and identification of the male patrons is likely to be
more complex than we originally imagined.
Based on the literature, we expected to find a combination of a sub-
stantial amount of spatial separation and few interactions between the
drag queens and the gay males. However, this was not the case. The spa-
tial separation between the drag queens and the gay males varied
according to the social situation, and was dependent on the context of
the venue and the seriousness of the event.
Amateur drag night.AtThe Grey Area, which catered to the amateur
drag scene, there was no observed spatial separation between the gay
males and the drag queens. In fact, there was considerable physical
contact. This particular bar is extremely small, so it was fairly easy to
observe almost everything that was happening. D.B. observed many
gay men speaking with and even becoming intimate with some of the
drag queens.
When the drag queens were not performing, there was very close
contact with the gay patrons. This contact was far from superficial; it
included intimate conversations and even joint trips to the restrooms
(perhaps to participate in sexual activities or to partake in cocaine use,
which is reputed to occur very often at this particular establishment). On
one occasion, D.B. overheard three persons, two of whom were dressed
as drag queens, in the restroom stall snorting cocaine, (or possibly
another illicit substance), as was evidenced by the sniffing noises. Also,
on another occasion, the researcher entered the restroom to stumble upon
an intimate scene:
20 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
I walk into the tiny women’s restroom and see two stalls. I enter
one...Ihear moaning noises coming from the stall next to me.
I exit my stall and I see one man and one drag queen. The man
has his hand up the drag queen’s skirt grabbing her inner thigh
tightly . . . He sees me and gives me a look letting me know I am
not wanted. (Fieldnotes 06/02/2002)
During the shows, various interactions occurred between the gay
men in the audience and the performing drag queens. These interactions
included gay men in the audience either shoving money down the pants
(or skirts) of the drag queens, blowing kissing gestures to the drag queens,
or even putting dollar bills in the mouths of the drag queens and having
them bite the money in order to get “paid.” The performances and audi-
ence’s interactions were similar to those of an exotic dance club with
women dancers entertaining straight men. One night, D.B. observed:
The performer makes sexual gestures at the audience. She sticks
her tongue out and she plays with her tongue in an erotic manner
and sucks on a beer bottle so that it goes all the way down her
throat. She sticks the microphone between her legs and dangles it
erotically as if it were her own penis. (Fieldnotes 05/25/2002)
In short, this was a very sexually charged atmosphere strongly influ-
enced by heavy alcohol consumption and drug use. Members of the
audience were purchasing shots of liquor for the performers to get them
even more rowdy and excited. Similarly, the bartenders were simulta-
neously consuming alcohol and offering shots of liquor to the perform-
ers and the patrons.
Thus, the lack of spatial separation at Amateur Drag Night, and the
quantity and nature of interactions between the drag queens and the gay
audience members contradicted much of the literature (Fournet,
Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988; Namaste, 2000). However, the majority of
interactions were characterized by explicit, public sexual contact and
drug use. The contact was not only vulgar, but seemingly demeaning
toward the performers. The interpretation of this contact reflects the
meaning such treatment would have if experienced by the women
investigators. Nonetheless, the fact that this contact existed is important
in and of itself, since the literature overlooks the mere presence of inter
-
action between gay men and drag queens.
Dance clubs. The gay dance clubs observed could not have been
more different, as they were large and very dark. Here, the drag queens
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 21
were designated performers and had very little contact with the party-
going gay men. At most places, the drag queens danced very profes
-
sionally on elevated platforms at least five feet above the dance floor.
This elevation, coupled with the height of the drag queens’ shoes and
wigs, made them almost completely separate entities from those on the
dance floors. The dance floors were completely occupied by crowds of
gay men dancing very close to one another. In these larger dance clubs,
the spatial distance between the drag queens and the gay males was
highly visible.
Here also there was a mood of flirtation and eroticism, but this mood
did not extend beyond the dance floor and up to the platforms. The few
interactions that were witnessed differed largely from those observed at
The Grey Area. For example, at the dance club Punch the researcher
saw one obviously intoxicated audience member reach up and grab a
drag queen by the heel. The drag queen smacked him on the head with
full force and motioned to the other queens on the platform to be wary of
this particular drunken partygoer (Fieldnotes 03/06/2002). This exam-
ple suggests that it is not only the gay men who wish to remain separate
from the drag queens, but also the drag queens who wish to remain
spatially distanced from the gay males. It also might support the inter-
pretation that the groping of performers is a demeaning, rather than a
pleasurable experience for the drag queens.
The extremity of this separation was illustrated one night by the
following:
A number of drag queens descend from their platforms and join
the rowdy gay males on the dance floor . . . there are three drag
queens dancing surrounded by eight gay males. The drag queens
are at the center of the circle, but the men are still looking and
dancing with one another. They see what is inside the circle, but
they do not seem to care. The flirtation among the men is circum
-
scribed around the circle and they are ignoring what is inside the
circle. Simultaneously, the drag queens are dancing with one an
-
other also ignoring the gay males dancing around them. The drag
queens are looking at one another and up in the air, not paying any
attention to the men around them. (Fieldnotes, 03/18/2002)
In accordance with the literature, the drag queens were the object of
the men’s attention, as performers (Namaste, 2000). Beyond what the
literature reports, the drag queens also avoid contact. Neither drag
queens nor gay men seemed personally interested in one another.
22 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Nevertheless, there were times that drag queens were observed talk
-
ing with some of the gay male partygoers and these interactions,
although very few and far between, were characterized by what would
be expected behavior in any dance club scene. These interactions dif
-
fered immensely from those that were witnessed at the amateur drag
night in that they were less frequent, less intimate, and not debasing.
Professional drag shows. Professional drag shows are sometimes
formal events, typified by an audience dressed in trendy, evening attire
sitting at tables facing the stage, rather than sitting at the bar or standing
around socializing, as is the case in the amateur drag shows. However,
the majority of drag shows observed for this study were very informal,
with performers on a small stage and the audience standing, packed in a
tiny space. Regardless of the level of formality for the participants as
well as the audience, drag shows are serious entertainment, with a more
professional tone amongst the performers than at the clubs or bar.
Most of the performers kept a distance from the audience. It is
important to note that this distance was not hostile as in the club scene,
but a more professional distance, as any theatrical performer would nor-
mally keep. Although members of the audience did reach up and give
performers dollar bills, this was not done in the vulgar ways observed in
the bar at amateur drag night. For instance, one night, at Life, D.B. ob-
served as:
A twenty-something female at the front of the stage smiles at the
performer and holds her hand out. The performer walks to the
front of the stage and the woman patron reaches up and places a
bill in the palm of the performer’s hand. The performer and the pa
-
tron smile at one another ...afewmore people at the front of the
audience follow suit . . . the performer walks to the side of the stage
and picks up a bucket. She walks back to the front of the stage and
audience members toss bills in the bucket. I squint and can read the
sign on the bucket, it says “Will sing for tips” ...Afewseconds
later she places the bucket on the floor to the left of the stage . . .
After her performance, other audience members are still filling the
bucket ...Iplace a dollar in the bucket and see it is almost full of
money. (Fieldnotes, 04/14/2002)
Thus, the bills given to the performers seemed to be tokens of
respect and appreciation. Also, the ambience at these drag shows was
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 23
characterized by an expression of creativity and theatrical expression.
For example, during one performance, D.B. observed as:
A spotlight shines on a tall lean drag queen dressed in a dark green
sparkling floor length gown . . . the room is quiet . . . she moves to
the center of the stage . . . she is the center of attention ...she
lip-syncs to a ballad . . . she dances . . . every move is rehearsed and
perfectly timed to the music. (Fieldnotes, 05/17/2002)
Also, many of these shows involved audience participation, as the
audience became a significant part of the entertainment. On several
occasions an entertainer even pulled an audience member on stage and
always made a point to poke tasteful fun at the somewhat unlucky per
-
sons closest to the stage. One night at a show:
The performer finished her dance number and begins an unre-
hearsed monologue. She looks to the front of the audience and
begins to ask patrons why they were at the show ...Atwenty-
something or thirty-something-year-old man calls out, “We are
celebrating our anniversary,” as he put his arm around the man
next to him. The performer asked, “Oh yeah, how many days?”
The audience laughed . . . the man yells back, “Seven years!” The
performer replies, “Seven years with the same man, you poor
thing!” (Fieldnotes, 05/17/2002)
Rather than having the mood of a strip club as in the bar, or studied
indifference mixed with overt hostility, as in the club, these drag shows
were more like a combination of stand-up comedy and a Broadway
show.
In summary, the amount of spatial separation between drag queens
and mainstream gay men, and the frequency and intimacy of interac
-
tions between them were dependent upon the social situation. The two
major factors that influenced this were the venue, whether it was a bar or
a dance club, and the seriousness of the event, whether it was a profes
-
sional or amateur drag show. In the amateur scene, physical contact was
common, in both senses of the word. At the large clubs, there was very
little interaction between the drag queens and the gay men, as they were
usually separated by an elevated platform. Finally, at the professional
drag performances, some performers did interact with members of the
audience as part of their acts. Humorous remarks and friendly joking
characterized these interactions. Thus, contrary to the literature, drag
24 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
queens and gay men do interact in public settings. The nature of these
interactions varied from teasing of the audience by the performers,
through appreciation of the performance, to open disrespect by audi
-
ence members for performers, depending on the situation. Clearly, rela
-
tionships between drag queens and mainstream gay men are more
complex than previously recognized.
The Experience of Segregation
Perceptions of Segregation
Consistent with findings from the observations, interview participants’
perceptions of the segregation within the larger gay community diverged.
Some participants maintained that they felt alienated and discriminated
against by the gay non-drag community. One who was in the process of
undergoing a sex transformation explained:
I don’t really feel like I fit in the gay community, I feel like I am
taking myself out of the gay community because I think a lot of
people in the gay community think I took the easy way out, since I
decided to change my physicality so I would never be looked at as
a male. (Roxanne)
Although this person represents an extreme separation from the gay
community, these divisions were acknowledged by others, including
those participants who did not undergo sex reassignment surgery. One
active member of the drag queen subculture elaborated on his feelings
regarding his experience of alienation:
I think that drag queens are not accepted as equals in the gay
community. People love to watch us, but when it comes to getting
close to us . . . that is a different story. Once people get to know us
they treat us as equals, but prior to that they think we are some seri
-
ous freaks. People just like to judge other people. We are a product
of the society we were brought up in, that’s all . . . (Alexa)
Another participant voiced his concerns when he noted:
The muscle boys don’t like the drag queens and there are a lot of
different classes. There is so much discrimination within the gay
ethnicity. I know a lot of gay men who hate lesbians and I am like,
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 25
What? Those are your sisters. And some people don’t like the
flamboyant queens. (Krystal)
Another participant touched on these divisions when he explained,
“It is understood that the muscle guys don’t like the femmes, and the
femmes don’t like the queens, and the queens don’t like the trannies,
and we all don’t like the dykes” (Victoria). Thus, consistent with the lit
-
erature, many drag queens feel alienated and separated from the larger
gay community.
There is also evidence of discrimination by the drag queens against
other sectors of the transgender umbrella. For example, one participant
explained, “I do have problems with some, like with the transsexuals
and the hookers. I have a problem because other people get hurt from
their actions, a lot of people look at them and think we are all like that”
(Sharon). This is something that we were surprised, even saddened to
hear a participant say, much less bring up on his own, before being asked
about the divisions in the gay and transgender community. However, this
is consistent with Hopkins’ findings (2004). Accordingly, discrimination
and bigotry are real issues that divide the gay and transgender community
in complex ways.
Contrary to both our initial expectations and the literature, a handful
of the participants explained that they felt looked up to by the gay com-
munity. When asked about his relationship with the gay community,
one participant who was fairly young and a newcomer to the scene
explained:
Being a drag queen, the community begins to recognize you and
see that you put on a good show. I mean the gay community loves
drag queens, that is a worldwide fact. Everybody knows that gay
people love drag queens, I mean there are some . . . that think it’s
wrong, but the majority, like 99% of gay people love drag queens.
(Kelley)
A more experienced participant who had been doing drag for over a
decade and was a very respected member of the drag queen scene
replied:
My status as a drag queen, in my case I think they look up to me,
people like [drag name] very much, thank God. I am very lucky. I
try to live up to everybody’s expectations . . . they are very good to
me from the lowest to the highest, from the big club owner to the
man on the street, so it is great. (Bertica)
26 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Thus, drag queens’ experiences of their status in the gay community
differ. These perceptions appear to vary by their professional position
within the drag community. This is parallel to and consistent with the
ways in which drag and mainstream interaction vary by venue.
On Segregation
The search for a romantic partner. Although some of the participants,
especially those regarded as more professional drag queens, did not suf
-
fer such separation from the gay community, conversations about rela
-
tionships with men reveal another, more complex picture. A common
theme in the findings was the difficulty many drag queens had in estab-
lishing romantic relationships. Numerous respondents specified that
they had difficulty finding men who would take them seriously as a
lover and partner. One such respondent explained his predicament with
dating, “I have had men hit on me and then when they discover what
I do, they back off ...itisdifficult for a man to take me seriously as a
human being. They think of me as a freak, a slut, or a queen” (Alexa).
One participant admitted to keeping his drag identity a secret from
the men he dated until the relationship became serious, “I was dating a
lot, then I started doing drag and the dates started disappearing, one by
one . . . Now, I try to keep my life as a drag queen separate from the men
I date. Basically I try not to tell them” (Victoria). Although having diffi-
culty with other men was a common pattern among drag queens, Victo-
ria was the only person who actively used this unique coping strategy of
not initially revealing his lifestyle as a female impersonator to potential
boyfriends.
One respondent vocalized his concerns with finding a companion
when he said:
It’s strange. People don’t really take you seriously; they think you
are weird because you are running around in drag. Every guy has
this fantasy of meeting this other dude who is totally manly...Iam
pretty Bruce Willisy, and then they find out I am [drag name], and
they just can’t separate the character from the person. (Rhonda)
The fact that other gay men do not take drag queens seriously as
lovers is certainly a common theme running throughout the interviews.
Another respondent who is a very respected and professional drag
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 27
queen described his troubles meeting men before he found someone to
settle down with:
When I was single I used to meet boys and they would tell me how
cute I am . . . What do you do for a living? I say “drag,” and then
they ask who and I tell them [drag name], and they say oh my God,
you are her! . . . and then they say bye-bye. They like you as a per
-
former, but to go out with, no. They don’t have the brains to ana
-
lyze the person and to make the distinction between the person and
the character. (Bertica)
It is clear that finding a gay male lover and romantic partner is difficult
for some drag queens. However, even those who had not experienced it
directly had either heard about this dilemma from friends or otherwise
felt this sort of discrimination. One participant said, “Problems with
men? I have not had any personally, but I have heard. I only date danc-
ers and other actors.” (Daisy) Another responded with, “It is hard. Most
men do not take you seriously, but I really only like to date dancers and
artists and they are much more open than everybody else, so it is not a
huge problem, but it is still a problem” (Candy).
Thus, although participants varied in their own experiences regarding
the internal segregation within the gay community, it was unanimous
that difficulty finding a romantic partner was a major concern in the
drag queen community.
CONCLUSIONS
We began this study of the subjective experiences of drag queens
with their everyday concerns, difficulties, or problems in mind. However,
as the research progressed, our perspective changed, as we became
more aware of the complexities of the lives of the drag queens. The
research expanded in new directions. Also, our awareness of our poten
-
tial bias of looking for everyday problems came to mitigate it. The loca
-
tion of the study warrants discussion. The interviews and observations
took place in a particular area in Miami Beach that is considered to be
somewhat of a safe haven for gays and drag queens alike. While a rela
-
tively extreme social setting can be quite useful for such research (Loftland,
1976) with its goal of discovery and exploration into the lives of drag
queens, the sexually liberal setting makes these findings suggestive and
not necessarily generalizable to the larger populations of drag queens
and mainstream gay men.
28 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
According to the literature, internal divisions within gay and lesbian
populations are widespread (Fournet, Forsyth, & Schramm, 1988;
Namaste, 2000; Hopkins, 2004; Newton, 1979). However, the divisions
in this community are more complex than the literature suggests. Very
recent research has acknowledged a hierarchy of status in the drag
queen community where successful queens are held in the highest
regard and they reap significant status, self-affirmation, and empower
-
ment through drag performance (Hopkins, 2004). However, this study
goes one step further to give a clear picture of the continuum of drag sta
-
tuses. The analysis of both the public and private spaces gives evidence
that there is an admiration and a respect for those professional drag
queens that make performing their career, as is supported by much of
the literature (Hopkins, 2004; Newton, 1979, Taylor & Rupp, 2004).
At the same time there is a level of disrespect for, and distancing
from, those who do drag for enjoyment but not as a profession, as was
evidenced by those drag queens that performed at amateur drag night.
These amateur drag queens have limited status and are the ones subject
to the most overt discrimination by their gay peers. Although it was at
this amateur bar that we witnessed the most interactions between the
drag queens and mainstream gay men, much of this contact was charac-
terized by disrespect and vulgarity, rather than appreciation. Thus,
although Hopkins’ (2004) research briefly discusses the plight of ama-
teur drag queens, this research advances knowledge by more clearly
showing their low status in the community of both drag queens and
mainstream gay men.
The professional and more respected drag queens did not perceive
any internal segregation and many agreed that the larger gay commu-
nity in fact, revered them. Further, although there was spatial distance
apparent in the professional drag shows, this distance was not hostile, as
was evinced in the dance club scene. Rather, this distance was charac
-
terized by the same professional separation one would expect to find in
any theatrical performance.
However, when one delves deeper into the private experiences of
even the most esteemed drag queens, one uncovers a more complicated
picture. Although the professional drag queens did not regard their seg
-
regation from the larger gay community as problematic, it nonetheless
was a significant experience to them within their everyday worlds. The
fact that even the most respected members of the subculture have diffi
-
culties finding romantic partners indicates that discrimination within
the gay community is still pervasive and the gay community sees simply
being a drag queen as stigmatizing. Because we had no comparison
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 29
group, we do not know the extent to which, or ways in which, this diffi
-
culty finding long-term partners differs between drag queens and mem
-
bers of the mainstream gay community.
Our findings support the claim that gay cross-dressers cope with this
“double stigma” on a daily basis. Because drag queens are part of a sub
-
group that comprises its membership from the outcasts of two stigma
-
tized groups, they endure the effects of multiple negative identities.
Future research would benefit from moving to a deeper understanding
of how this particular subgroup internalizes this stigma, and how they
manage and negotiate this “double stigma” in their everyday lives.
Research in this area could add to the literature on internalized oppres-
sion, specifically internalized homophobia (Morrow, 2004, Troiden,
1988, 1989) and might ultimately facilitate the development of a more
cohesive gay and gender-blending community. On this note, future
inquiry should expand this analysis of internal segregation to an investi-
gation of the perceptions and experiences of other subgroups within the
gay community, such as lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals.
By examining the spatial separation within the settings of gay dance
clubs and bars through the use of symbolic interactionism and institu-
tional ethnography, it is evident that the spatial separation of drag
queens and gay males contributes to the overall internal segregation
within the gay community. However, it is still necessary to form a
deeper understanding as to why drag queens have such difficulty in their
search for romantic companionship. In particular, future research should
uncover how the socialization process of gay males, both within the
dance club and bar setting and outside of it, shapes the way by which
they view the sexual and romantic status of drag queens. A deeper
investigation into the development of the belief and value system of gay
males is needed. In short, we need to answer the underlying question
of–how it is that a community that has been discriminated against for
so long turns around and does the same exact thing to its brothers? Such
knowledge can begin to bridge the divide, to the benefit of the entire
community.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benjamin, H. (1966). The transsexual phenomenon. New York, NY: Julian.
30 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brubach, H. & O’Brien. (1999). Girlfriend: Men, women and drag. New York, NY:
Random House.
Bullough, B. & Bullough, V. (1987). Are transvestites necessarily heterosexual? The
Journal of Sex Research 26(1), 1-12.
Bullough, V., Bullough, B., & Smith, R. (1983). A comparative study of male Trans
-
vestites, male-to-female transsexuals, and male homosexuals. The Journal of Sex
Research 19(3), 238-257.
Docter, R. (1988). Transvestites and transsexuals: Toward a theory of cross-gender
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Docter, R. & Prince, V. (1997). Transvestism: A survey of 1032 cross-dressers.
Archives of Sexual Behavior 26(6), 589-606.
Ekins, R. (1996). The career path of the male-femaler. In R. Ekins & D. King (Eds.),
Blending genders: Social aspects of cross-dressing and sex-changing (pp. 39-48).
New York, NY: Routlidge.
Ekins, R. (1997). On male femaling: A grounded theory approach to cross-dressing
and sex-changing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Feinberg, L. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to
RuPaul. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Feinberg, L. (1998). Trans liberation: Beyond pink or blue. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Fournet, L., Forsyth, C., & Schramm, C. (1988). The process of deviance designation:
The case of the homosexual transvestite. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 16(2),
177-182.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qual-
itative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gubrium, J. & Holstein, J. (1997). The new language of qualitative method. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Hirschfeld, M. (1991). [v3] Transvestites: The erotic drive to cross-dress (Michael A.
Lombardi-Nash, Trans.) Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. (Original work published 1910).
Hopkins, S.J. (2004). Let the drag race begin: The rewards of becoming a queen. Jour
-
nal of Homosexuality 46(3/4), 135-149.
King, D. (1993). The transvestite and the transsexual: Public categories and private
identities. Aldershot: Avebury.
Lofland, J. (1976). Doing social life: The qualitative study of human interaction in nat
-
ural settings. New York, NY: Wiley.
Loftland, J. & Loftland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Meyerowitz, J. (2002). How sex changed: A history of transsexuality in the U.S.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morrow, D. (2004). Social work practice with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
Adolescents. Families in Society 85(1), 91-99.
Namaste, V. (2000). Invisible lives. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Berkowitz, Belgrave, and Halberstein 31
Newton, E. (1972). Mother camp: Female impersonators in America. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Prince, C. & Bentler, P. (1972). Survey of 504 cases of transvestism. Psychology Re
-
public 31, 903-917.
Schacht, S.P. (2000). Gay female impersonators and the masculine construction of
other. In P. Nardi (Ed.), Gay Masculinities (pp. 247-268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schacht, S.P. (2002a). Four renditions of doing female drag: Feminine appearing con
-
ceptual variations of a masculine theme. In P. Gagne’ & R. Tewksbury (Eds.),
Gendered Sexualities in the series on Advances in gender research (pp. 157-180).
Boston, MA: Elsevier Science.
Schacht, S.P. (2002b). Turnabout: Gay drag queens and the masculine embodiement of the
feminine. In N. Tuana et al. (Eds.), Revealing male bodies (pp. 155-177).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Schacht, S.P. & Underwood, L. (2004). The absolutely fabulous but flawlessly custom
-
ary world of female impersonators. Journal of Homosexuality 46(3/4), 1-17.
Shaffir, W. & Stebbins, R. (1991). Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualita
-
tive research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Talamini J. (1982). Transvestites: Deviant or minority? International Review of His-
tory and Political Science 19(1), 50-67.
Taylor, V. & Rupp, L.J. (2004). Chicks with dicks, men in dresses: What it means to be
a drag queen. Journal of Homosexuality 46(3/4), 113-133.
Tewksbury, R. (1993). Men performing as women: Explorations in the world of female
Impersonators. Sociological Spectrum 13, 465-486.
Tewksbury, R. (1994). Gender construction and the female impersonator: The process
of transforming “he” to “she.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15,
27-43.
Troiden, R.R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health
Care 9, 105-113.
Troiden, R.R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexu
-
ality 17, 43-73.
doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_02
32 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
