part0014

S tarting from the observation that our image-culture is craving for something we could call “authenticity,” we investigate the tension and confusion that exists between what is authentic and what is not—which we will call “fake.”

Authenticity and fakeness are both slippery concepts: we cannot precisely pinpoint their meaning, but we feel that we can recognize them when we see them. RuPaul and Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, two personae who are quite ahead of their time, both show their very own approach to truthful authenticity and hollow fakeness. It’s time to let them lip-sync for our minds.

People commonly deem whatever appears natural, spontaneous, or original to be “authentic,” and therefore true and profound, while they consider anything artificial, constructed or manipulated to be “fake,” and thus superficial and despicable.

In contemporary society, authenticity is an end in itself: we want bio veggies unaltered by chemicals or genetic manipulation, we travel to visit untouched nature or discover old civilizations, we vote on politicians whom we deem sincere and we extremely value authentic self-expression. Authentic self-expression is a very romantic idea (as Rousseau already has spread the taint of self-expression all over philosophy).

Meanwhile, even if psychoanalysis has shown that our ‘true self’ is not something we have direct access to (Freud discovered the importance of the unconscious mind), and is not just one (not only Vivacious, but each of us has more than one self), and even if it might be naive to believe that we can express any authentic inner experience outwards without distorting it, authentic self-expression remains highly valued. Drag, and in particular RuPaul’s Drag Race , is an interesting phenomenon regarding this issue, for it seems to deal with the authentic expression of a self in a very artificial way, which therefore may seem unauthentic to some.

Like authenticity, “fakeness” is a more ambiguous term than often accounted for. The ever-growing and typically modern tendency to control, engineer, and enhance ourselves as well as our environments for the sake of efficiency and comfort problematizes the distinction between authentic and fake, as we are becoming increasingly used and indebted to artificiality. Artificiality, we could say, has become a second nature, which makes it difficult to still oppose it to natural, spontaneous authenticity. Furthermore, “fakeness” is an ambivalent term, for it can be associated with artificiality, falseness, or both. When something is artificial, constructed, manipulated and we are dishonest about it, falsely pretending it to be sincere, then fakeness can function as the opposite of authenticity. But when this fakeness, constructedness, or artificiality is genuinely taken on—like in drag—then the distinction between authentic and fake becomes blurry: our traditional ethical and aesthetic distinction and our preference for authenticity over fake lose ground.

Drag in general, and especially RuPaul’s show and notion of drag, provide the perfect scene to explore the significance and ramifications of authenticity and fakeness: drag has a very unconventional approach to authentic self-expression, as it expresses a self that we are not (at least not in the usual sense); RuPaul absolutely embraces the tendency to artificiality and enhancement; and he even has a conception of drag, according to which drag (as a performance of the self) is all there is.

As Ru tells us in her book Workin’ It , she grew up on the outskirts of San Diego. She was the odd one out, and got teased a lot. From a lifetime of rejection by other kids, RuPaul decided to shun them with their limited worldview, and to pursue her own ambitions, which required leaving San Diego. This did not bring the anticipated change, as Ru’s problems were not merely with some specific people in San Diego, but with her own attitude towards them. The experiences from those constantly negative and toxic interactions led her to ask the tough questions: “How did I get myself in this position? Did state of mind contribute to my predicament? What am I getting out of being so negative?” The most relevant insight from this experience, and what RuPaul went on teaching others, is that being joyful and positive is a choice, and therefore an action anyone can perform.

It is not easy to remain positive. This requires hard work. For RuPaul, this meant a death and a rebirth. First of all, the death of her desire to fit in. Subsequently, a rebirth in drag. When RuPaul realized that she did not want to fit in, she found that it is outside the box that there is freedom and truth. Outside the box to RuPaul means outside all dressings, skin colors, genders, or identities. Indeed, through her reawakening, Ru came to the realization that our passage on Earth is only temporary and that we are only a transitory incarnation of the energy that created the whole universe. In a spirit similar to the Buddhist chi, Ru claims that our power comes from a cosmic force, and that it is not dependent on or limited to the physical and material expressions in every individual: “My power isn’t contingent on my bank account, the car I drive, or the rings on my fingers. My power comes from The Source, The Force, or whatever you want to call it. It’s me, it’s you, it’s all around us. It doesn’t stop where you start.”

This idea has repercussions for the significance of drag. Indeed, if the material expressions of the cosmic force are only temporary and thus insignificant, this means that “we’re all born naked and the rest is drag” (as the song goes), and thus that for us drag is all there is. As a matter of fact, drag is not only what men wear when they perform as drag queens; it’s everything that we put on to play a role, be it a Chanel suit or a police uniform.

But it goes even further. We are also not our identity, skin color, gender, religion, or political preferences. All of this is drag, too. Drag queens play a special role here because they are essentially making fun of the roles people are playing. They are experts at parody, satire, and deconstructing social patterns. As they deconstruct the social stereotypes and make fun of the characters we play, drag queens break the illusion that we are our social roles, and lay bare the reality that drag is everything. This makes a lot of people who want to believe in the reality of their roles feel uncomfortable, but the realization that drag is everything is very liberating: it makes life more enjoyable and less serious, and it allows us to pursue our own style freely.

RuPaul achieved international fame in drag and has received Primetime Emmy Awards for RuPaul’s Drag Race in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The key to success? Controlling the image people get from you, and making that work to help you achieve what you want. If you wear a suit, you make more money. So if you want money, wear a suit! Style seems not to be the expression of any authentic self—since our real self is the energy force that created the entire universe, this self can take utterly any form—but just a way to make things work the way you want them: a means to freely and joyously make things work.

RuPaul’s main persona is a gorgeous, skinny blonde with big breasts and smoky eyes. This graceful, joyful, and sassy blonde, who always wears sophisticated outfits and flamboyant hairdos, is the perfect fit for hosting RuPaul’s Drag Race . In embodying this character, RuPaul entirely embraces artificiality inasmuch as she uses a wide array of tools to change her appearance and play with different looks. From endless layers of makeup to image post-production, from wigs to false nails and eye lashes, from body pads to tape and temporary plastic facelifts, from a strict diet to a highly studied walk—RuPaul’s willingness to embrace artificiality seems to know no limits.

Because of its artificiality, her appearance (just like the appearance of most queens) may appear as very fake to many people in the mainstream. Yet, in RuPaul’s worldview drag is all there is. Moreover, as we already have indicated above, our contemporary culture has become increasingly used and indebted to artificiality since modernity—artificiality, we could say, has become a second nature—which makes it impossible to oppose artificiality and fakeness to natural, spontaneous authenticity. Furthermore, that Ru’s “fakeness” would be a form of dishonesty seems unjustifiable, especially as she openly shares her tricks and her take on manipulating styles.

Like RuPaul’s, Zarathustra’s story deals with being an outcast, not caring about other people’s opinion, and with finding and sharing spiritual truth. When he was thirty years old, Zarathustra left his home to go into the mountains, where he stayed for ten years in solitude. After these years of seclusion and meditation, Zarathustra was tired of his wisdom and his heart was submerged, so he decided to descend from his mountain and to return amongst the people—even if he thought this would be his downfall. He eventually arrived at a marketplace full of people, where he tried to share the wisdom he had acquired up in the mountains.

Having come to the realization that God is dead, that all values are thus ungrounded, and that human existence is without pre-established meaning, Zarathustra wanted to go down and teach humans the meaning of their being, which is to reach the over-man: a fulfilled earthly being full of joy and gratitude. But the people did not listen to him; they made fun of him. Zarathustra understood that they were not ready to hear the wisdom he had acquired on his mountain, and that they mistook his calm brightness for icy derision.

After an eventful night, Zarathustra left the city and started wandering. He strayed some time, and in his wanderings, he found friends at last. However, when they became his followers, he felt that he had to leave them. He didn’t want them to be mere followers, but rather companions, able to be creative like him, so that his wisdom would bring about more wisdoms to be shared between him and his friends. Otherwise faith tends to amount to very little.

He told them he’d come back when they would have forgotten about him and found themselves. So he retracted and waited in solitude for years, like the one who plants seeds and must wait to see them grow. This time the solitude was painful for Zarathustra, as he desired to be with the ones he loved, and he felt that he still had much to give them. Indeed, Zarathustra thought to himself: “This is the hardest thing: to close the open hand out of love.” Still he left his dearest ones behind, and withdrew into a sorrowful solitude.

RuPaul’s message is more joyous than Zarathustra’s. She insists in Workin’ It that “style is a celebratory expression of your life force. You must approach it with a sense of joie de vivre. Open yourself to all the possibilities!” Of course, this is a simplistic view of how self-expression works. While RuPaul seems to proclaim a completely free and joyful approach to style, certain values seem to limit the free expression of the of Drag Race’s candidates’ “life force” (or ‘authentic’ self).

Firstly, this is a competition, so obviously queens are constantly judged by the judges as well as by fellow contestants and Mama Ru on their performances, on their outfits, their talent, their make-up. This ceaseless judgment is inevitably colored by mainstream assumptions of what female beauty is, as well as by the successful example given by RuPaul herself: long hair, plunging necklines revealing big and firm breasts, thighs, waist, open dresses, sexy attitude.

Even though some quirky queens like Jinkx Monsoon and Sharon Needles have won the show—they were quirky but still sexy!—the show generally glorifies existing female diva-stereotypes. True, Milk walked down the runway in boy drag and with a beard (thus inspiring Season Seven’s Episode 3 runway “Bearded and Beautiful”), Naomi Smalls managed to be successful without wearing breastplates, and Aquaria won Season Ten while wearing very unconventional outfits. But it’s still very rare to see a queen in trousers, with short hair, or without high heels. Moreover, even though bigger queens like Latrice Royale or Eureka O’Hara have made their way far in the race, and were called back for All Stars or later seasons, they never won in spite of their talent. Anyhow, if we should open ourselves to all possibilities, then why do queens almost invariably choose long hair and high heels? Are there no other ways? Female stereotypes are clearly at work in the show. It seems that drag queens are relatively free to explore their style within the realm of these stereotypes, but that they cannot venture too far beyond them.

Apart from female stereotypes, RuPaul’s Drag Race fully embraces capitalist values like consumerism, money, fame, and individualism. In the show brands such as Absolut Vodka and Southwest Airlines are advertised, consumerism is affirmed for example through the endlessly different and sometimes very expensive outfits and make up, implicitly asserting the value of money. Money is in fact a problematic value for Drag Race : ChiChi DeVayne and Monique Heart came to the show with very little money, and Miz Cracker said that many participants take out loans to buy things for the show. Yet, both Ru and Michelle Visage deny that money has anything to do with the contestants’ performance, which is clearly false.

In a beautiful interview with Oprah Winfrey, RuPaul remembers Wigstock, a celebration of drag queens that started out as a nonconformist statement about the superficiality of our consumer society where her drag-look was, as she calls it, “gender fuck,” less a female impersonation than a satirical social statement that suited the anti-Reagan sensibility of the time. So initially her approach to drag did question consumer society and capitalism, just like the movement of drag did worldwide—as shown for example in Paris Is Burning .

But RuPaul abandoned her non-conformist statement to better suit the demands of the market and make money. While openly admitting to being an opportunist and a show-off, RuPaul explains how she transformed her look to accommodate a change in the nightclub business during the late Eighties. She went for the sexy look and landed on “glamazon,” because that’s simply what works best in terms of fame and money.

It seems that for her, drag never was about sexual identity, non-conformism, or authentic self-expression: she adapted her style according to the circles she was frequenting. Rather than fighting narrow-mindedness, or opening more possibilities for gender identity, her “path” could appear to be purely driven by personal ambition or individualism. Indeed, for RuPaul it all seems to be about each individual’s own self-realization. When Oprah Winfrey asks what her first purpose on this Earth is, Ru answers, “I think it first starts with me. For me to experience this life and to enjoy it.”

Even though for RuPaul drag is everything , which could seem to make the distinction between authenticity and falseness irrelevant, authenticity is still present as a value on the show. Especially “realness,” or drag authenticity, remains an important criterion to judge a drag queen. But what could this authenticity be, if our ‘true self’ from which truthful expression would emanate is a cosmic ‘Life Force’?

Even when someone shows a lot of skill and talent, it happens that a contestant is considered to be fake, as when in the first season confessional after being eliminated, Jade says about Rebecca Glasscock: “She’s the fakest bitch I’ve ever met in my life,” when Michelle Visage blamed Derrick Berry (professional impersonator of Britney Spears) for not having a soul, or when contestants were eliminated after being told by the judges, “We still don’t know who you are.”

That authenticity remains valued over fakeness seems in contradiction with the idea that drag transcends identities, social roles and gender, and opens us up to all possibilities. Are we free to adopt any style only as long as we stay ‘true’ to our-self? What self? But then, who is to judge our truthfulness and based on what criteria? Using authenticity as a value brings the danger of the arbitrary: we tend to call authentic that which we like, and deem fake anything we dislike, without feeling we need to explain that judgment.

In terms of values, Zarathustra has an eye to uncover fake spiritual leaders. He calls them priests and wise men. One day Zarathustra woke up from a frightening dream. In his dream, a child held him a mirror and asked him to look at himself. But in the mirror Zarathustra saw a laughing devil!

The meaning of this dream was clear to him straight away: it was a warning that his teaching was in danger. Indeed, it meant that the image of his teachings had been distorted, thus embarrassing the ones close to him. Yet Zarathustra was happy, for the time had come for him to go down from his mountain again. He would find his friends who had been estranged from him, but also his enemies, to share his wisdom with them once more.

When Zarathustra ran across some priests with his disciples, he told them that their blood was related to his, and that many of them had suffered and were heroes, but that he considered them his enemies. For Zarathustra, priests are prisoners and marked men because they suffer from their own faith. The priests are those who once, when they were wandering and lost, stumbled upon something that appeared as a refuge and promised land to them. They took this, built a faith upon it, and became devoted to this faith. This devotion turned against them, however, as it denied their spirit to fly as high as it could. Indeed, this faith, to which they turned for protection against insecurity and shame, came to constitute a commanding value, a ceiling, an imprisonment, which nailed them down and impeded them from moving forward and taking flight.

Zarathustra prefers shame and insecurity to this type of imprisonment. Because of their faith the priests are not really emancipated, even though they call themselves so. They think they are redeemed, liberated by their values and faith. But how can they call themselves free if they have not invented or at least questioned these values? Must they not be rescued even from what they consider their savior, in order to be really free? From their position the priests speak to the people and preach; they lead them as shepherds lead sheep. But since these priests did not create the values they are devoted to, they are just like sheep themselves.

Now we can ask: For Zarathustra, is RuPaul a shepherd or a sheep? Are there values that put a ceiling to the freedom that drag can bring? Can RuPaul’s conception of drag fly beyond capitalism?

Zarathustra also spoke of the famous wise men, who are respected and honored by the people. If wise men are honored, it’s because they serve the people and their superstitions. Wise men confuse truth with reverence, and think that what is approved and worshipped must be the truth. On account of this, the wise men are nothing but servants for Zarathustra—harnessed draft animals who pull the people’s cart. Even if they’re clever and obstinate, and thus seem wise, they don’t know what true spirit is. Although they possess a spark like truly free spirits do, they stay too close to what’s familiar, to the superstitions of the people, and are not driven by strong enough winds: they have not experienced happiness in terror, they do not have the cruelty of the free spirits, and hence do not know the agony that increases knowledge.

In order to be really truthful and with a free will, Zarathustra believes the wise men would have to leave this concern for the people’s approval behind. But this has a price: the truthful, the free spirit, as he breaks free from his desire for appreciation, and does not support or reinforce people’s superstitions and values, is shunned and despised. Indeed, it seems that people always believe it must be the right thing to hunt down the free spirit.

Zarathustra explains this scorn and hunt for free spirits and creators through the observation that man has always believed he knew what is right and good. It is in the name of this good that good people must despise and reject the imaginative ones, thereby killing all true creation, and sacrificing the future to their own weary values.

These thoughts about freedom and truthfulness translate into Zarathustra’s attitude as a guide and a teacher. Contrary to the priests and the wise men, he does not want to be followed, and he does not want disciples. Indeed, once this was a reason for him to leave his friends so that they would find their own way, and become his companions rather than his followers. Even though he has found some wisdom, Zarathustra does not believe that the particularities of his own wisdom apply to everyone; nor does he think no other values should be created. For this reason, he does not think he should lead the way or instruct, asking: “This—it turns out—is my way—where is yours?”

What conclusions can we draw from these two stories? To begin with, Zarathustra and RuPaul have an opposite approach to the “mainstream.” Zarathustra does not comply with established values, even if this means that he’s an outcast and has to live as an outcast. RuPaul, on the contrary, even if she has experienced rejection and turned away from society at some point, afterwards turned around to comply with the social values: she went from outcast to superstar. This has consequences for their respective approaches to truthfulness or authenticity.

For Zarathustra, authenticity is something rather difficult to find, and very challenging to stay faithful to, for it means you have to go against mainstream opinions and endorse the social role of an outcast. Therefore, he does not want any followers, does not pretend he knows the way or the law, but rather encourages each to find their own. For RuPaul, on the other hand, authenticity seems to be something way more accessible, fluid, volatile and flexible.

Where Zarathustra resembles an idealist or an elitist, RuPaul just seems absolutely pragmatic: something is truthful or authentic if it works; you are truthful to your authentic self if you make things work for yourself. She created a creed—one could even say a brand—of which she is the leader, the example who possesses wisdom, and who gets to decide who has got it and who doesn’t, who wins and who loses. She portrays herself not only as the one who knows (the final decision is hers, as she consistently repeats in the final ceremonies), but also as a spiritual guide, a mother who supports all drag queens out there who feel insecure with wise words like: “how can you love someone else if you don’t love yourself?”

To readers of Nietzsche, RuPaul might therefore resemble the priests who in suffering found a secure refuge, a set of spiritual wisdoms—“your true self is the Life Force that created the entire Universe,” “we are all born naked, and the rest is drag,” therefore “pay them bitches no mind unless they paying your bills” and “style is something to use with full freedom and joy”—to which she now holds on, even though they might form a ceiling that doesn’t allow for a fully free flight.

These wisdoms indeed sound fantastic, but when combined with a desire to be a mainstream superstar, the freedom inevitably becomes limited, as one doesn’t become a mainstream superstar without complying at least partly with mainstream values. Therefore, RuPaul might also be found to resemble the wise men. Like them, she pulls the cart of existing, very established values: consumerism, money, fame, individualism, female stereotypes. The wisdoms she utters consequently may sound hollow or fake to critical ears. It seems like RuPaul does not go all the way, as a truly free spirit or creator would according to Nietzsche: she lashed down on familiar grounds instead of opening up to new realities.

Moreover, there are some contradictions in what she defends by basically adopting the following oppositions: I don’t care what people think of me but I want to be a mainstream superstar; and the real you is a cosmic energy force but I want to know who you are. This could be seen as an indication of dishonesty or hollow fakeness, but not necessarily. There is clearly some innovation in the way she approaches fakeness: Ru does so openly, authentically. While people tend to be hypocritical about how much they care about money, fame, and physical appearances for their own profit, the way RuPaul openly admits being an opportunist and shares all her beauty-tricks in her books blows some fresh air into the way we deal with what is supposedly authentic or fake.

Ru’s worldview (all is drag) as well as her honestly dishonest (or openly fake) postures make it very hard to tell when her words are to be taken as truths and when they are part of a celebratory expression of her life force that aims to open up all her potential. In the contradictions, RuPaul seems to reinforce values of fame, money and individualism, while at the same time creating confusion on the distinction between what is authentic and what fake.

So now, who’s flying higher, RuPaul or Zarathustra?

Zarathustra can be seen as a truthful but misunderstood outcast who brings the sad message that all values are ephemeral, that human existence may be devoid of any sense, and that each of us may have to find true fulfillment in joy and gratitude without any ground or support.

RuPaul is a drag queen superstar who proclaims a (spiritual) worldview that transcends truthfulness or authenticity (as our true self is nothing but the cosmic force) and thus presents a freedom that only capitalist society puts on hold—although drag queens like herself are masters in satirically ridiculing the roles that this society entails. She doesn’t care much about values and authenticity as long as one can joyously make things work for oneself.

On the one hand we have a rather pessimistic and hermetic message, a shameful death (Nietzsche died in madness from syphilis) and Nazi appropriation (his texts on Zarathustra were distorted and used by German National Socialism)—which sounds like the story of a martyr. On the other hand, we have a playfully fluid approach to authenticity and fakeness, combined to a joyful celebration of capitalist values like individualism, money, fame, and stereotypical female beauty, affirmed by three Emmy Awards. RuPaul managed to make a place for drag queens in mainstream showbiz, to become a vital icon to a worldwide LGBTQ+ community, as well as to find joy and self-realization in a societal context of fierce competition—is this not the story of a self-made hero, an example?

We can ask, however, at what cost? It feels refreshing that RuPaul straightforwardly and playfully admits that her sole purpose in life is pleasure and self-realization, but doesn’t this signify a disregard of certain very relevant and pressing things in our actual socio-political and environmental context? Indeed, what are the implications of affirming consumerism, standing for regular airplane travel, using expensive chemical and synthetic products for one’s own enjoyment and self-realization?

Just as Zarathustra’s position has been used as a justification for the most awful oppression, so RuPaul’s attitude may be seen to imply harm and disregard of the environment as well as socially disadvantaged individuals. RuPaul’s attitude points to urgent questions regarding what it means to be truthful, as well as to what we should be truthful to. Come rain or shine, Ru seems to be faring better than Nietzsche’s average priest. Perhaps she still has some work to do to prove herself truly free—or perhaps we will transform our ways of thinking until we see the full freedom in her behavior.