Drag Kinking and the Transformation of Gender Identities was written by Eve Shapiro in 2007. In the article, Shapiro overviews existing research on drag king, queening, and gender identity, and identifies a gap in it – the effects that gender performance has at the individual level. Shapiro utilizes this knowledge and a case study of the Santa Barbara-based drag troupe Disposable Boy Toys (DBT), as the catalyst for her argument: the performance of drag is a process whereby the act of performing gender, in tandem with ideological and organizational context, can provide a safe environment for individual (and community) political beliefs and personal identities around gender to evolve.

Shapiros primary research method consisted of a two-year empirical inquiry of 28 of the 31 members of DBT, including interviews, participant and video observation, and document analysis. The case study was complimented with extensive research into applicable theory and other secondary sources. Empirical studies are most often used to investigate social issues and when a large sample size is unavailable; given the fact that DBT was a small drag group with strong collective feminist identity, Shapiros choice of method appears sound. Although it is important to note that empirical studies are often criticized precisely for their small sample sizes and researcher bias. During the study Shapiro was an active member of DBT, which could be construed as suspect. However, I contend, (as humans do not learn in a vacuum), that no idea is without bias and Shapiro actively acknowledged and endeavoured to mitigate their own bias.

Shapiro’s article places great emphasis on the transformative power of four key collective mechanisms (organizational context) that were fostered in DBT: imaginative possibility (IP), information and resources (IR), opportunities for enactment (OE), and social support (SS).

Although some members of DBT came to the table with an academic understanding that gender is a malleable social construct, others joined never having ever been exposed the tools to question concepts like male/female, and masculine/feminine as false binaries. IP functions much like the metaphor, “if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Being shown (through communication and action) that, all gender (masculine, feminine and fluid presentations) could be performed by anyone, allowed individuals who may not have “even realize[d] there [was] another option” to imagine different possibilities.

DBT provided all members with education about transgender issues, activates and support (IR). Shapiro states “by serving as a resource on transgender identity, DBT was critical in facilitating gender and identity shifts among members.” While this conclusion appears to be based in the accounts of two cis individuals, who, through IR, shifted their preconceived notions pertaining to trans people and a third individual who indicated exposure to trans people helped them work through “a lot of stuff.” Knowledge is power and its transformative ability cannot be ignored.

The OE section examines acts of non normative femininities (Natural Woman, When I’m Gone), quotes several participants, and indicates that 21 of the interviewed members had performed both masculinity and femininity at least once. Shapiro uses this evidence to conclude that OE is the “most important function DBT provided for members,” as it offered a place where individual could physically experience/experiment/challenge and come to know their gender identity, whether it shifted or was reinforced with new understanding, better. The correlation feels lacking and the section ends by discussing how gender exploration was only facilitated through a white western worldview, excluding POC from participation. The progression into talks about racialized enactments of gender (or lack there of) in DBT was important to address, especially because it provides much needed counterargument to the essay. However, considering the sections ends with “many members dismiss these critiques as “personal disagreements” and ‘community tension,’” the addressing of the issue seems rushed over[i].

As far as SS is presented, it is almost a self evident notion that SS can foster/facilitate shifts in identity. SS helps individuals cope with stress, especially when they are facing difficult situations, such as embracing a shifting gender identity in a world that places straight, white, male at the standard.  

In the end, Shapiro indicates that, of the entire group, 25 came to DBT fully immersed in hegemonic understandings of gender identities (3 identified outside the binary), and 20 members experienced shifts in their identity and understanding of gender. These are significant numbers, worthy of Schapiro’s assertion that performance, coupled with ideological and organizational context, as facilitated in DBT, can lead to positive shifts in gender identity at the individual and community levels.     

Shapiro’s article was laid out and written in a succinct manner. Her arguments were supported with valid evidence from the case study and it was published in the well known sociology journal, Gender and Society. The fact that it was published lends it an air of credibility, as articles submitted to Gender and Society are screened through rigorous peer review, with only %10 making it through the process.  

---

[i]               The topic of race and DBT’s failure to address it in performances, is also briefly discusses in the SS section and conclusion.

Summary

In 2004, on an elevated stage at the Guggenheim Museum, Marina Abramovic enacted seven historically significant ‘body art’ performances (each piece had a dedicated day and each was perpetuated for seven hours). Flesh as Communication – Body Art and Body Theory, by Falk Heinrich, examines five of her performances, including Abramovic’s own Lips of Thomas (1975), Bruce Nauman’s Body Pressure (1974), Vito Acconci’s Seed Bed (1975), Varie Export’s Action Pants, Genital Panic (1969) and Gina Panes’ The Conditioning, first action Self-Portraits(s) (1973), through the lens of communication theory and argues that “’flesh’ in performance art is presented as an absolute presence, [however] it can only be perceived through a reflective bearing.”

For communication to exist there must be both ‘sender’ and a ‘receiver’. In art, those roles are facilitated by artist and audience, generally viewed as ‘agent’ and ‘patient’. To break down the meaning of these roles, Heinrich references Alfred Gell, who expands on this binary understanding of communication to include four roles in the communication process – artist, recipient, index, and prototype (each role is simultaneously agent and patient). The act of art, therefore, exists as a function of reciprocal exchange between all participants.

In Abramovic’s performances, her body (flesh) is the arena where these exchanges take place. Through this arena the audience ‘experiences’ emotional reactions, such as disgust and revulsion, and –  through reflection/empathy – a version of what the artist experiences (pain, orgasm, confrontation, etc.). The artist, also experiences the sensations brought on by the performance, both directly (in the physical sense), and through an internalized spectator position (reflection/empathy exchange with the audience).      

My understanding of this article is fractured. However, the Venn diagram above is an attempt to visually represent meaning. During a “body art” performance, the artist and audience both participate in the experience, but it is through the overlapping of shared experience (a two-way communication where performer internalizes the experience of audience and vice versa) that the implication of flesh (“as materiality, performance, and concept”) is realised.

Personal Example: Sex: Flesh as Communication

First, although solo is a valid form, I am referring to sex with a partner. I chose sex because it is a form of communication where the participants are both, simultaneously senders and receivers of information (both agent and patient to the experience). I have had sex many times, therefore, like with the re-enactment of body art, the act of sex is a reference to prior engagements, but it is also very much an immediate occurrence. During sex, each partner (performer) experiences sensation (hopefully pleasure) originating in their own bodies, however, they also experience sensation (heightened emotional and even physical pleasure) through the internalized spectator position, a product of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting and sometimes even smelling their partner’s action/reactions; when you see (or perceive) that you are giving please, you are able to experience heightened pleasure. The notion of theoria – “a meeting or practice where the participant opens, and gives [themselves] to presented event” – can also be applied to the act of sex.         

1. Is pain a form of art?
2. If pain is the medium, can the audience meaningfully engage with the piece as a spectator alone?
3. Is it possible for the audience to experience the artists pain through mechanisms such as empathy?
4. How far should the body be pushed in the name of art?
5. Who should draw the line of what is too far?
6. Are performance artists who engage in extreme body mods/live pain performance pushing/crossing ethical boundaries between audience and artist? or legal boundaries?
7. Do props, such as a model of the arm with the ear growing out of it used as a table, add to a performance piece?
8. What compels an artist to subject themselves to pain?
9. Is it possible to separate the body and mind during performance?
10. Is Sterlac a conceptual artist?

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton