1 _ Introduction In Search of Freaks ~0t o l('11 )ff'&tu jJww: r -for H~~(' oJcL'f &5 ~+ I o(V\ V\ lL ) fro f-I't. lA", vUr'r'+J 01 OTIS JORDAN, a man with poorly functioning and lIndelfornlPd limh~ who is helter known in tilt' carnival world as "Olisthe Frog Man." C ~\ LR-Y Pre) was banned in 1984 from appearing as part of the Sulton Side­ show at the New York State Fnir. A voral citizen had ohjecteo. calling the exhibition of people with deformities an "intolerable anachronism." The protester contendeothat handicapped people were being exploited and that tlw state's fair funos could he put to better lise by helping people with disahilities instead of nwking them freaks. As a result of the complaint. and in spilf' of .Ionian's ubjel'­ tions, Sulton's "Incredible Wanoprs of the World" was moved from the heart of the midway. wlwre husiness and visibility' were best, to the back of the fair. The showmen were asked not to use the terrn freak or allow perfonnances of I)('ople like Otis lorrlan. people the puhlic would consider disabled (Kaleina 19841. I On September 8, 1984, the Associated Press released a story ("City to Cite" 1984) about a committee formed in Alton, illi­ nois, to erect a statue in honor of Robert Wadlow, a local boy who had reached the height uf eight f'<>ct eleven inches beforl:' his death in 1940 at the age of twenty-two. Wadlow had appeared in the circlIs in the 19:30s and. u;;ing Ihe novell)' of his height. had gotten a job promoting shoes at stores throughout the United Slales (Fadner 1944). But a committee spokesperson wanted to clarify: "He was not a circus freak as a lot of people might think. He was an intelligent. caring man." During the past twenty years numerous intellectuals and art­ ists have confronted us with freaks. l Yet the frequent mention and coffee-table display of art-photography books, which in­ '.;J clude pieturps taken at freak shows. are no indication that freak IJl shows are now accepted. Hat her. as tlw work of Diane Arbus personifies, "freak" has become a metaphor for estrangement, aliena­ show's famous manager, spotted Earle in the audience; after the show tion, marginality, the dark side of the human experience (Arbus 1972; he approached the young man to ask. "How would you like to be a Sontag 1977). Indeed, Arbus's biographer suggests that her flirtation giant?" (Fig. 1). with freaks was but one dimension of her odyssey through the bowels While it is uncertain how much of this story changed on becoming of society-her suicide being the last stop on the trip (Bosworth 1984). incorporated into circus lore, it clarifies a point that freak show per­ Otis Jordan and the spokesperson for Robert Wadlow's statue com­ sonnel understood but outside observers neglect: being extremely tall mittee remind us of what we all sense when we hear the word freak is a matter of physiology-being a giant involves something more. and think of "freak shows." Seen by many as crude, rude, and ex­ Similarly, being a freak is not a personal matter, a physical condition ploitive, the freak show is despicable, a practice on the margin, lim­ that some people have (Coffman 1963; Becker 1963). The onstage ited to a class with poor taste, representing, as one disability rights freak is something else off stage. "Freak" is a frame of mind, a set of activist put it, the "pornography of disability."3 practices, a way of thinking about and presenting people. 7 It is the Although freak shows are now on the contemptible fringe, from ap­ enactment of a tradition, the performance of a stylized presentation. proximately 1840 through 1940 the formally organized exhibition for While people called "freaks" will be included in this discussion, amusement and profit of people with physical, mental, or behavioral the people themselves are not of primary concern. Rather, the focus anomalies, both alleged and real, was an accepted part of American is on the social arrangements in which they found themselves, the life. Hundreds of freak shows traversed America in the last quarter of place and meaning of the freak show in the world of which they were a the nineteenth and first quarter of the twentieth centuries. Yet only part, and the way the resulting exhibits were presented to the public. five exist today,4 and their continued existence is precarious. Per­ The social construction-the manufacture of freaks-is the main sonnel, plagued by low-priced admissions, poor attendance, and at­ allraction. tacks from indignant activitisls, cannot tell from week to week whether But don't leave! There will be exhibits (and it will be okay to look!). they can last the season. Barely alive, the freak show is approaching For we need examples-flesh on the bones of institutional analysis. its finale. We need to understand what it was like to participate in the freak Given the tradition of the study of deviance and abnormality, one show and what meanings emerged to make the enterprise coherent to would expect a large body of social scientific literature on freak the exhibits, the promoters, and the audience alike. shows. There is none. S The low status of the convention, combined with the decline in the number of such businesses. llIay explain this VOCABULARY lack in part. In addition, until the relatively recent interest in the Many terms have been' used to refer to lhe practice of exhibiting natural history of social problems (Conrad and Schneider 1980: Spec­ people for money and to the various forms that such exhibits took. tor and Kitsuse 1977), social scientists interested in deviance seldom "Raree Show" and "Hall of Human Curiosities" were early-nineleenth­ turned to the past for their data (see Erikson 1966 and Mjzruchi 1983 century terms. "Sideshow," "Ten in One," "Kid Show," "Pitshow," cil~- for exceptionsl. Thus freak shows have remained in the hands of "'Odditorium,'" uConl';ress of Oddilies ...... HCongress of Human Won­ ellS buffs and afew nonconformists in the humanities. Ibelieve, how­ ders," "Museum of Nature's Mistakes," ''freak Show," and a host of ever, that these displays of human beings present an exciting op­ variations on these titles were late-nineteenth- and twentieth-century portunity to develop understanding of past practices and changing designations. conceptions of abnormality, as well as the beginnings of a grounded A broad range of terms were applied to the peopte exhibited, the theory in the management of human differences. freaks. Because natural scientists and physicians were interested in many exhibits, and because showmen exploited scientific interest in The Social Construction of Freaks constructing freaks, the lexicon is a complex hodgepodge of medical In the mid 1920s, Jack Earle, a very tall University of Texas student, terminology and show-world hype. The more recent proliferation of visited the Ringling Brothers circus sideshow. 6 Clyde Ingalls, the euphemisms generated by the freak show's decline in popularity and 'J-) 00 Q\ 2 INTRODUCTION IN SEARCH OF FREAKS .~ FIG. 1. Jack Earle in the Rin~ling Brolhers. Barnum and Bailey Sideshow. Earle is in the top row, third from the right, wearing atall hat and military outfit. Other well· known exhibits in lilt' picture include the Doll Family, Koo-Koo the Bird Girl, Clicko Ihe Bushman, and Ik" and Eko. Photo hy Cenlury, c. 19:H·. (Hertzberg Coil., Sail Antonio Public Libral") ,~ 00 4 INTRODUCTION s 'J IN SEARCH OF FREAKS the moral indignation surronnrling the exhibition of human anomalies ticular exhibit actually represented a new species or was simply a creates a long list of imprecise terms. 8 "Curiosities," "lusus naturae," Illsus naturae. "freaks of nature," "rarities," "oddities," "eccentrics," "wonders," In the last quarter of the ninet('enth century the blurr('d distinction "marvels," "nature's mistakes," "strange people," "prodigies," "mon­ between species and freaks of nature became moot: all human ex­ slers,"9 "very special people," and "freaks" form a partial list. The hibits, including tribal people of normal stature and body configura­ exact use and definition of these words varies from user to user and tion, as well as people who performed unusual feats ;;uch as swallow­ from time to time. They do not, however, all mean the same thing; ing swords, fell under the generic term freak. indeed, some have very exact meanings when used by particular Those twenlieth-century authors who have wrillen about the side­ peopJe. The terminology wi" be clarified as this discussion proceeds. show, mainly popular historians and humanities scholars. address the question "What were the various kinds of human freaks'?" by concen­ TYPES OF FREAKS trating on the physical characteristics of exhibits with anomalies What were the various kinds of human freaks? In discussions of hu­ (Drimmer 1973; Durant and Durant 1957; Fiedler 1978; Howard man oddities in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there devel­ 1977). Their books and articles are organized like medical or special oped an important and revealing, albeit blurry and noninclnsive, education textbooks, with headings covering such topics as lillIe distinction between two types of exhibits. The distinction is revealing people (dwarfs and midgets), giants, hairy people, human skeletons. because it illustrates the connection between science and freak shows, armless and legless wonders, wild men, fat people, albinos. Siamese a connection that showmen profited by and tried to maintain well into twins, people with eXira limbs, half men/half women. people with the twentieth century. The distinction was between so-called ex­ skin disorders, and anatomical wonders. They are eager to provide <lmples of new <lnd unknown "races" and "lusus naturae" or nature's readers a quick course in genetics, endocrinolol!J', and embryology.