Search results

The competition reality television show Dragula (Boulet Brothers, 2016-present) features a parade of monsters from the horror canon. Each episode, queer drag artists present outfits based on the show's aesthetic tenants: horror, filth and glamour. Nearly every outfit presented by the show's contestants, dubbed ‘drag monsters’, features some element of monstrosity and many pay specific homage to monsters from horror cinema. In drawing the monster figure into the world of gender performance, Dragula showcases the vast queer possibility of the monster figure. Like queerness itself, these drag monsters prove monstrosity is fluid and need not by associated to any one specific gender; the monster figure provides a canvas on which these artists can move between both human and non-human and male and female. This chapter traces the show's horror lineage – most notably the text from which it queers its name, Bram Stroker's Dracula (1987), and Stephen King's Carrie (1974) as well as the alternative precedent set by the drag legend Divine. Its analysis demonstrates Dragula's creative power in reimaging gender beyond the binary of man/woman by way of the monster figure.

Prior research has documented the importance of the state and social movements for the emergence and proliferation of alternative organizational forms. Yet, we lack a comprehensive and interactive understanding of the larger environment that sustains cooperatives and other collectivist-democratic organizations. Using the example of Brazil’s Solidarity Economy Movement, a longstanding social movement to address poverty and inequality, we describe how a multilevel ecosystem of organizations and institutions creates conditions favorable for the growth of alternative organizational forms – in this context, democratic cooperatives that the Movement calls solidarity economy enterprises (SEEs). Drawing from archival data, interviews, and a government survey of over 19,000 SEEs between 2005 and 2012, we map out the key actors at each level of the ecosystem, identifying three primary mechanisms by which these actors collectively enabled the creation and development of SEEs: (1) providing glue for action; (2) organizing for action; and (3) engaging in action. These mechanisms, in turn, allowed for greater communication and cohesion and the exchange of information and experiences among the Movement’s participants, thereby enhancing their interconnectedness and the institutionalization of their practices.