Halloween, circa the future.

There is no better stage than than Halloween night in West Hollywood to observe the implications of Judith Butler's "Imitation and Gender Insubordination". In this essay, Butler explores the concepts of gender and sexuality through the "performative" aspects of their social construction. By using the concepts of drag to symbolize her arguments, Butler is able to deconstruct the external expressions of gender by defining them not as pre-determined biological or instinctual truths, but as perpetually learned imitation. My observations of last night's sensational and glamorous gathering of all degrees of gender identity is living proof that expression of self cannot be confined to these social constructions.

Walking down Santa Monica Blvd. on October 31st, 2010, I was privy to a spectacular display of painstakingly elaborate clothing and costumes in all manner of expression. There were people dressed as animals, pieces of furniture (a "One Night Stand", to be specific), varying degrees of popular figures, from Thomas Edison holding a kite being struck by lightning to all manner of figures in history, popular media, and category of fiction. Liberally distributed through the crowd were fun-loving men and women defying the gendered conceptions of expression and, as Judith Butler eloquently puts it, "... [constituting] the mundane way in which genders are propriated, theatricalized, worn, and done." The concept of dressing in drag does not seem to imply the desire to be a woman so much as a impersonation of the definition of feminine as female.

In this atmosphere, the men that were dressing as women didn't feel like "others". In fact, they seemed to define the origin. They were celebrated, demanded respect, and were downright beautiful. Although they were dressing in descriptions traditionally reserved for women, they were presenting themselves with the same degree of comfort and confidence as any person abiding by social standards. And no one got hurt. In this carnivalesque environment, on a night when all standards are shed to allow expression of any kind, Judith Butler's provoking question "...how can something operate as an origin if there are no secondary consequences which retrospectively confirm the originality of that origin?" gives us reason to ponder. Because people were being allowed to dress in any manner they saw fit, it was easy to forget there was a way we were all "supposed" to be.

Even though many of these people could be defined as "drag queens", the fact of the matter is many of these people were not dressed to define either gender, any origin. One performance in particular was given by a character named "Prince Poppycock". He wasn't wearing sleek ball gowns or evening dresses, but he was wearing phenomenally elaborate clothing comprised of glitter, sequins, bright colors, and detailed makeup. He gave a thoughtful performance that only emphasized positivity, loving one and all.

In that moment, I felt proud to be a part of this moment in history. Perhaps it will soon be understood that the "negative consequences" of defying these social standards are not biological, but inflictions of anger and hatred from one another.