For Butler, the way in which our society employs the idea of trouble is such that trouble becomes inevitable; we are threatened with trouble in order that we might stay out of trouble. In response, Butler suggests that our task is “how best to make [trouble], what best way to be in it.” (2540) When considering gender, trouble can be perceived in the dialectical authority between feminine and masculine, between subject and Other. However, Butler takes issue with this view, wanting to make trouble with these binary distinctions inherent in popular conceptions of gender and identity.

One can observe these binaries at work in the popular distinction between body and mind. Butler questions the origin of this distinction, stating that “it is the result of a diffuse and active structuring of the social field.” (2544) So, rather than an inherent quality of existence, Butler suggests that the demarcation of the body is a product of social forces. As such, this demarcation is essential to the formation of one’s identity within society. We construct our selfhood upon a difference of interiority and exteriority this is defined by social hegemony. This hegemony draws the boundaries within which we establish our concept of self. Through this process, we expel those qualities which do not adhere to our “culturally hegemonic identities” (2546), and label them as other. “The construction of the “not-me” as the abject establishes the boundaries of the body which are also the first contours of the subject.” (2546) By denoting those things as other, we are able to construct identities that are stable and coherent.

Though stable and coherent, these identities are limiting. If one does not construct their identity within the predetermined confines of the hegemonic structure, they are ostracized from society. “If the body is synecdochal for the social system per se or a site in which open systems converge, then any kind of unregulated permeability constitutes a site of pollution and endangerment.” (2545) When the heteronormative gender boundaries are breached, it undermines the entire social structure through which individual identities are created. Hence, the regulatory society abhors those identities and practices which defy its parameters.

As one who promotes the right kind of trouble-making, Butler appreciates drag shows as sites of this beneficial kind of trouble, in that they defy the restraints imposed by hegemonic gender distinctions. While many feminists may find drag shows to be degrading to women, Butler argues that these shows are actually provide an effective challenge to the heteronormative, misogynistic ideology that dominates our society. “In the place of the law of heterosexual coherence, we see sex and gender denaturalized by means of a performance which avows their distinctness and dramatizes the cultural mechanism of their fabricated unity.” (2550) While the dominant ideology may portray gender relations as natural and inseparable from one’s biological sex, drag refutes this ideology and plays with the performative aspect of gender, emphasizing that all gender is socially constructed.

I relate to this concept in a minor way on account of my childhood, growing up with two sisters, no brothers, and a father who travelled for business often. I found myself surrounded by women for the majority of my childhood, adopting their mannerisms and interests. I played with dolls, watched innumerable “chick-flicks,” and even dressed drag on occasion (they called me Princess Erica, if you were wondering). Of course, these culturally feminine characteristics were constantly under barrage from the social milieu of masculinity that ordered me to stay within my “proper” place. Amongst my friends, I was considered the sensitive one, and often ridiculed for the things I was interested in and the way I acted. However, I had immense support from my family, who attempted to allow my sisters and I to find our own identities. While my family is not perfect in this regard, and they are only one influence amongst the many social pressures that shaped who I am, I feel that their allowance of these abject identifiers helped to make me into the person I am today, that is, someone who recognizes the value of making trouble with gender norms. In high-school, I had many friends who called me all sorts of derogatory names when I attempted to give a friendly hug. I persisted, and by the time a graduated, a few of those friends became life-long huggers. A few years ago, I left the restaurant industry and began growing out my hair. My grandmother at first asked me why I wanted to look like a girl. Last time I saw her, she said I look like Jesus. I may not be as courageous as a drag queen, but I will continue to make trouble whenever I can.

In Chapter 3, Subversive Bodily Acts, of “Gender Trouble,” Judith Butler challenges the ideas of the way society views sex, gender, and sexuality. She does this by examining the body along with the distinction between internal and external identity. In this examination, Butler writes that “‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds of the subject is a boarder and boundary tenuously maintained for the purposes of social regulation and control” (2546). She states that the inner and outer self is socially made and the hidden ‘inner self’ is forced into people: societal laws are “incorporated” and “manifested” into the subject. Butler describes this kind of image as the “soul.” She explains that often, the soul is seen as some kind of internal force that the body lacks, which is what creates the division between the inner and outer self. The soul is a deeper thing inside of the body. Butler disagrees with this idea. Using Foucault to strengthen her argument, she uses his quote saying “the soul is the prison of the body.”

       Connecting this idea back to her argument of gender and sexuality, Butler says that this inner self/soul that has been influenced by the politics of society is what creates the ideas of gender and sexuality that exists. Butler uses concepts such as “compulsory heterosexuality” to describe how sexuality has been taught and inscribed into our inner beings. She also uses the idea that the soul is the prison of the body to explain her theory that gender is a performance and is not something connected to one’s body. Gender is just another inner identity that works as an “illusion” to maintain political laws and regulations. To further explain her theory of gender as a performance, Butler uses drag queens as an example.

       Butler says that drag queens blue the line between inner and outer self. Using a quote from Esther Newton that says “[drag] is a double inversion that says, “appearance is an illusion.” (2549). This quote goes onto says that drag says that one’s outside is feminine but their inside is masculine while also saying that one’s outside is masculine but their inside is feminine. Butler says that this relationship of inner and outer self in drag perfectly encapsulates the idea of gender as performance. It takes the idea of what it means to be feminine and blows it up to create the performance.

       When thinking about this, I thought about the new rise of female drag queens who, while female, that the idea of femininity and enhance it into a performance. I wonder how this performance would tie into Butler’s argument.