Ang Li Yi
A0113727J
UWC2101N: Clothing Identities
A/P Lo Mun Hou
Paper 3
23 November 2013
Title: Fabrications: A Comparison of Two Advertisements on Gender and Drag
Abstract
I will adopt Judith Butler’s definitions regarding the issue of gender and explore how the two
advertisements reveal the imitative and contingent nature of gender. Before I can explore
what the two advertisements reveal, I will first introduce Butler’s theories with respect to
gender and drag. Now that I have noted the meaning of gender, I can now put forward
Butler’s definitions and criteria for drag. This leads me to bring in the criteria that Butler
believes, are to be needed for drag performance to be subversive – theatrics and purpose. As
mentioned above, the exaggeration of gender through theatrics could allow for the subversion
of gender. Using this framework, it is easy to see that the MAC advertisement employs a
more obvious juxtaposition as compared to the HEMA commercial in terms of the theatrics.
Furthermore, the parody of gender can not only be shown by the theatrics portraying the
dissonance between the biological sex of the model and the characteristics adopted. It can
also be shown by the dissonance between the characteristics itself that are being performed.
Based on Butler’s definition, it would seem that the HEMA advertisement would be expose
the imitative and contingent nature of gender. The theatrics depicting the dissonance between
the gender of the model and the gender he performs is more subtle. Finally, I will touch on
the next criterion is the purpose of the drag.
1
In this essay, I will be using Judith Butler’s definition of gender and the criteria for
drag in the chapter ‘Subversive Bodily Acts,’ to compare two advertisements by Dutch
discount retail company called “HEMA” and American cosmetics company, “MAC” to
determine the extent at which the advertisements challenges our notions of gender. The first
advertisement by HEMA, depicts what appears to be a female model with platinum blonde
hair, wearing a red dress, posing with shrugged shoulders and displaying a genteel
demeanour. The model has all the stereotypically feminine attributes like high cheekbones,
beautiful blue eyes and a tiny waist. The only exception is that the ‘she’ is a ‘he.’ The
advertisement is to publicise the push-up bras sold by the company and its purpose is to make
a pitch on how effective their bras are, such that a physically male model, with no biological
breasts whatsoever, could obtain these deceptively legitimate female features. The second
fashion advertisement is by the highly popular cosmetics company ‘MAC’ whereby a female
model dorns a black PVC tube gown, flexing her enormous arm muscles, in a body builderlike fashion, with the word ‘strength’ plastered on the top of the poster.
Both advertisements are similar in terms of them demonstrating cross dressing. I
believe that cross dressing is more than just the simple dressing up as a different gender. I
think that cross dressing also encompasses the adoption of qualities that are associated with
the other gender say, a biological male adopting feminine characteristics. The HEMA
advertisement takes a more direct in its approach to cross dressing which is basically a man
dressing up as a women, as mentioned in the former while the MAC advertisement takes on
the latter through the emphasis of large muscles and aggressive stance which stereotypical
masculine characteristics. While cross dressing, which I use interchangeably with drag, may
be seen simply as such, it poses a deeper question of what then is a ‘different gender’ since
either gender can very easily adopt attributes of the other. In this essay, I will adopt Judith
2
Butler’s definitions regarding the issue of gender, which I will be delving into later, and
explore how the two advertisements reveal the imitative and contingent nature of gender.
Before I can explore what the two advertisements reveal, I will first introduce Butler’s
theories with respect to gender and drag. ‘Subversive Bodily Acts’ is a chapter in Butler’s
Gender Trouble which is a continuation of her concepts of gender in her other book,
Performing Feminism: Feminist Critical Theory and Practice. In Performing Feminism:
Feminist Critical Theory and Practice, particularly the chapter ‘Performative Acts and
Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,’ Butler explores
what exactly it means by gender and whether the essential self exists. Though the concept of
self is not discussed explicitly in my essay, it is important to note its meaning as the concept
is interlinked with gender. She defines gender to be ‘an identity instituted through a stylized
repetition of acts’ (270) and that it is a ‘constituted social temporality.’ (271) In essence,
gender is just a series of ephemeral portrayals of expected societal norms which also
constitutes it. On top of that, gender ‘conceals its genesis,’ meaning that gender has no
origins. (273) In fact, gender is just an imitation of what society perceives as gender and thus,
does not really exist in the eyes of Butler.
Now that I have noted the meaning of gender, I can now put forward Butler’s
definitions and criteria for drag. Drag, as explained in ‘Subversive Bodily Acts’, ‘subverts the
distinction between inner and outer psychic space and effectively mocks both the expressive
model of gender and the notion of a true gender identity.’ (174) She further explains that drag
‘implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself – as well as its contingency.’ (175)
Therefore, drag essentially subverts out notions of gender by being a ‘parody’ (174) of
gender, an exaggerated form of gender and since gender itself is already an imitation, drag is
an imitation of an imitation.
3
This leads on to the criteria that Butler, firstly, believes are to be needed for drag
performance to be subversive – theatrics and purpose. Drag is a ‘dramatize[d]’ performance
of gender and it needs to be exaggerated to highlight the idea that gender is an act. Drag is
more likely to live up to its potential of subverting gender through theatrics. In addition to
that, in order for drag to serve its purpose of being subversive to gender, it also requires a
purpose for the parody.
As mentioned above, the exaggeration of gender through could allow for the
subversion of gender. Using this framework, it is easy to see that the MAC advertisement
employs a more obvious juxtaposition as compared to the HEMA commercial in terms of the
theatrics. This is seen from the disproportionate size of the model’s biceps which is often
associated with masculinity. The exaggerated size of the muscles seems dissonant to the
biological gender of the model, as it is unnatural for a female to be so physically well-defined.
Plus, her muscles are also emphasized by the flexing her muscles, which is a masculine
gesture. The combination of the two examples seems to mock the societal expectations of
gender by showing how the adoption of such masculine attributes makes the model seem
more masculine but at the same time, it is still obvious how un-manly the female model is. It
is an incomplete adoption of masculinity that makes drag a parody, thereby questioning our
notions of gender.
Furthermore, the parody of gender can not only be shown by the theatrics portraying
the dissonance between the biological sex of the model and the characteristics adopted. It can
also be shown by the dissonance between the characteristics itself that are being performed.
For the MAC advertisement, even though she exudes an aggressive aura by her masculine
posture, her tight fitting PVC dress seems to be inconsistent with the pose itself. The fact that
she is wearing a dress that is made of PVC, a material with sexualised associations, is a
parody of the posture itself. In short, the dress is a parody of the parody. The material itself is
4
often associated with sadomasochism which encompasses the interplay between dominance
and submission. Dominance and submission are again linked to gender with dominance being
associated with masculinity while the latter, femininity. Therefore, the dress is an antithesis to
the large muscles and postures of the model. It brings in the notion that femininity, which can
be represented by the dress, can be portrayed as dominance, through the purposeful use of
material.Females can still be dominant over the male counterparts in context of sex.
Therefore, the dress questions the dominance implied by the muscles and posture and thus is
mocking the parody which is similar to how drag imitates gender. This, in essence, also
shows the imitative and contingent nature of gender.
Based on Butler’s definition, it would seem that the HEMA advertisement would be
exposing the imitative and contingent nature of gender. The theatrics depicting the
dissonance between the gender of the model and the gender he performs, in the advertisement,
is more subtle. The model in the HEMA actually looks like a natural female. It is only
through knowledge from an external source, can the audience then discover the true
biological gender of the model. The fact that the model, Andrej Pejic, looks natural, in
Butler’s point of view, is a failure of drag as it neither shows how drag is a parody of gender,
neither does its contingency with gender. This overall interpretation of the advertisement may
seem that way, but upon closer inspection, there are elements in the advertisement that still
fits Butler’s first criteria. At first glance, the model in the HEMA advertisement may be
alluring the audience through the use of a direct sensual gaze that seems to be laced with
sexual connotations. The tilt-down head and shrugged shoulders seems back this up and give
the implicit awareness of submission, a stereotypical feminine characteristic. On top of that,
her slightly parted lips imbue the advertisement with sexual implications that seems to bring
the audience into the advertisement. This seemingly naturalised expression of the female
gender, in fact, defies Butler’s criteria. The fact that the model stares directly into the camera
5
and unto the perceived audience shows that he is not as submissive as he seem. The
acknowledgement of the audience presence seems to show the power the model has over the
audience. The audience is no longer just passively looking at the model but there is direct
interaction between the model and the audience. His direct and almost confrontation gaze
seems to install a masculine quality to his otherwise feminine exterior. This dissonance may
not be as obvious as it is in the MAC advertisement, but it just shows that subtlety can also
show that drag is imitative and contingent of gender. In addition, theatrics may sometimes
wan the shock factor of drag, rendering it less effective in its revelations. Drag, in this
advertisement, is still a parody because the dissonance between the sex of the model and the
portrayal is inconsistent with societal notions of gender. Thus, the criteria of theatrics on
Butler’s part may not hold for all cases of drag.
Now, I will touch on the next criterion is the purpose of the drag. Butler quotes Fredric
Jameson saying that ‘without parody’s ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without
laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to
which what is being imitated is rather comic.’ (177) Basically, Jameson is implying that
without the purpose for the drag, drag loses it meaning and it proves nothing. In order for
drag to reveal the imitative and contingent nature of gender, drag has to, in the first place,
want to point out the concept. However, this is not the case for the MAC advertisement. The
main purpose of that advertisement is to sell products and the means by which to they do so is
to associate their product with strength. The catchphrase found at the bottom of the
advertisement supports so. It says ‘[s]trike a powerful pose, stand out and redefine the notion
of beauty in a colour collection too irresistible to ignore.’ The purpose of the advertisement is
just to encourage the use of MAC products to ‘redefine the notion of beauty’ and not to
highlight the physiological differences between a man and a woman. This proves that in order
for drag to be a satire, the purpose of drag need not be to mock gender explicitly. The mere
6
presence of the dissonance between sex and gender is enough to imply the parody of gender.
While the purpose may augment the imitation, it is not quite necessary for drag to prove the
imitative and contingent nature of gender.
In conclusion, the two advertisements reveal the imitative and contingent nature of
gender through the employment of drag, in accordance to Butler’s definition and criteria. The
requirements for drag to be successful in proving this, in Butler’s mind, are to provide an
exaggerated performance of gender and a purpose that mock gender. Since both
advertisements fits into one criteria but not the other just proves that Butler’s theory on drag
or even gender could be flawed. No doubt the concepts explained are interesting, but her
theories may not necessarily be true in reality because reality is much more complex than just
two simple criteria. Given that she did acknowledge the dependence on context, I think more
factors can still be pointed out before her theory can even come close to the truth.
Works Cited:
Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology
and Feminist Theory.” Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed.
SueEllen Case. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. 270-282.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 10th anniversary
ed. New York: Routledge, 1999. 174-177 (excerpt).
7
Primary Text
8
9
Cover Letter
Dear Prof Lo,
I hope this letter finds you well. I would like to thank you again for the impromptu
meeting and I really appreciate it.
As discussed, my motive for the essay is whether the two advertisements reveal the
imitative and contingent nature of gender through drag, as Butler wishes to predict. My thesis
is that in some aspects, the advertisements do but in others, not quite. However, the
possibility that the advertisements do not quite fit is because Butler’s theory, I think, is not
quite complete, although I did not head in that direction.
While you cleared most of my hurdles, I still somehow ran into more in the process of
writing. I find myself having to backtrack as I would ramble on t something irrelevant. Plus, I
had some difficulty analysing the advertisement to find more evidence.
I think that my main weakness of the essay is that towards the end, I head in a slightly
different direction from my original thesis. However, my main aim for that was to point out
my opinion on flaws in Butler’s theory. I am still afraid that my evidence are not substantial
enough though I do hope through other modules and can hone my skills better.
Finally, if I had more time, I would again scrutinise the advertisements to search for
more evidence to support Butler’s theory, despite the fact that I do not quite agree with it.
10