Freak shows & Human Zoos Ball State University | Digital Literature Review | Issue 3, 2016 The Digital Literature Review The Digital Literature Review is a journal showcasing undergraduate student work in literature and cultural studies. The journal is produced by undergraduate students at Ball State University who are involved in the Digital Literature Review immersive learning project. Our goal is to provide a forum where undergraduate students can showcase their research projects and disseminate their valuable contributions to ongoing academic conversations. The Digital Literature Review is published annually in the spring. The deadline for submissions is in early January. We welcome original articles relating to each year’s theme. Articles should range from 3000- 5000 words; every article is reviewed by undergraduate students on the journal’s editorial team. Notification of initial decision is in Feburary. All authors receive constructive feedback concerning submissions. Further information regarding the Digital Literature Review is available at bsu.edu/dlr. The Digital Literature Review requires first publication rights. All other exclusive rights as defined in the Copyright Law, Section 106, will reside with the author. An ISSN number will be obtained for future issues. Digital Literature Review, vol. 3 (2016). © Ball State University. All Rights Reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article to [email protected]. The Digital Literature Review gratefully acknowledges Ball State University’s support for the publication of this journal. 1 DLR Staff Editorial Department Team Leader Kathryn Hampshire Nikole Darnell Olivia Germann Cassandra Grosh Allison Haste Sarah Keck Bryce Longenberger Amory Orchard Lauren Seitz Publicity Department Team Leader Jessica Carducci Brittany Ulman Design Department Team Leader Shannon Walter Isabel Vazquez Contributors Gabriel Barr Lauren Cross Ellie Fawcett Faculty Advisor Dr. Joyce Huff Associate Professor of English 2 Introduction: Freak Shows & Human Zoos n a discussion of the history of entertainment, freak shows and human zoos Ioccupy a problematic and complex space, full of nuance and contradiction. On the surface, these spectacles might appear to be a fun, lighthearted form of entertainment for patrons and an easy, unique way for the performers to make a living; however, there are much more malignant forces roiling beneath that façade. In the circus tents and cages of the freak show, issues of consent, exploitation, racism, sexism, and ableism come to blows with the forces of capitalism, sensationalism, and societal norms. Although the classic American freak show is no more, its presence is still felt in the academic, social, and pop culture realms. The term “freak” has often been used to describe an individual who does not fit into mainstream society. During the age of the classic, nineteenth-century freak show, this term was used to describe people who were put on display: people with both physical and mental disabilities, people who developed strange talents, people of different races, or even people who merely appeared or pretended to have these characteristics so that they could perform. In our study of the historical freak show, we became aware of the stark difference between freaks who were “born” and those who were “made.” “Born” freaks often had disabilities; society’s attitudes towards their bodies made them freaks. However, made freaks were people exhibiting an action or talent that would have been considered freakish from the audience’s viewpoint. This results in two different types of freakification, that of the body and that of actions, further distinguishing the two groups and the manner in which they were perceived and treated. One crucial element that both groups share is that a freak is a social invention. That is, whether a person had a physical difference, such as being born with no arms (a “born” freak), or a person had an invented difference, such as a costume splitting a person’s body into male and female halves (a “made” freak), both groups were socially created as freaks because it was the exhibition of these people as “different” and “other” that made them freaks. Some people could not give consent to being displayed. For example, there were many exhibits that contained “pinheads,” which were people with microcephaly, a condition in which a person’s head and brain do not fully develop. Because of this partial mental impairment, individuals with microcephaly could not fully consent to being exhibited in a freak show. Also, children were part of this group; because of their age, they had very little control over whether they would join the freak show and be exhibited. Many people from colonized areas, such as Saartjie Baartman, were also tricked into being displayed in the freak show and lacked the financial opportunities to leave. Furthermore, the issue of consent also extends to other areas, such as how socioeconomic status impacted a person’s choice of making a living, which coerced people to join the freak show to survive. 3 Connected to consent is the issue of the gaze and staring, which are alive and well in today’s popular media. Staring is an act that is central to the freak show, an act that sets the object of the stare apart as “other” and makes that person into a form of entertainment for the starer. Freak shows allowed people to stare at others without social repercussions because staring at “freaks” was considered an acceptable form of entertainment. A key component of the stare is the power dynamic which renders the person being stared at (the “freak”) as helpless and vulnerable, while giving the person doing the staring (the audience) the power of not only controlling the gaze but also of controlling what is considered “normal.” Many performers in the the nineteenth-century freak show had fictionalized biographies, which allowed audiences to “look” at their private lives. Biographies were often sold on small cards or handouts outside a performer’s stage. The potential audience would have the opportunity to read these “biographies” and determine whether or not they desired to pay to see a performer. However, these “biographies” were often exaggerated to such an extent that they were probably more fiction than reality. This exaggeration was done because the freak show was a world where fascination and exoticism serve as the keys to making a living; thus, the grander the biography, the better off a performer would be financially. In an attempt to capture and maintain the fascination the freak show held, authors over the past century have written works featuring “freaks.” These works aim to captivate readers and recreate the feelings that once compelled people to visit freak shows and dime museums again and again. Novels such as Nights at the Circus and Geek Love depict and glorify the lives of people who performed in freak shows, while plays such Venus and Elephant Man critique the treatment of these “freaks.” An overwhelming number of modern incarnations of the freak show are ever present on our television screens, taking on the forms of reality TV shows, drag shows, or even telethons that raise money to feed the underprivileged. A subject on one of these programs may have agreed to show themselves off to the world in order reclaim their freakishness, while others (such as children) may not have been willing to do so—often under their parents’ control or forced due to their socioeconomical situation. In the papers “Gender Performance: From the Freakshow to Modern Drag” by Olivia Germann and “Normal versus Freak: The Issue of Staring in The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Classic American Freak Show” by Nikole Darnell, the journal delves into how theatrical performance has been affected and influenced by the freak show through examining how today’s performances have both embraced and rejected some vestiges of freak show performance. Focusing on those objectified in literature, the journal has two submissions analyzing texts and their characters. “Freaks and Magic: The Freakification of Magical Creatures in Harry Potter” by Cassandra Grosh and “Kidnapped Amazonians, Severed Breasts, and Witches: Renaissance Perceptions of the Destructive Nature of the Freakish Female in Spenser’s The Bower of Bliss and Shakespeare’s Two Noble Kinsmen” by Laken Brooks both analyze the treatment of characters and the lack of equality many face due to 4 their differences. Beyond the words printed on a page, the genre of cinema presents further nuance to the ways that individuals can be freakified through literature. In “‘Man’s Hatred Has Made Me So’: Freakification and the Shifting Gaze in The Phantom of the Opera (1925)” by Kathryn Hampshire, and “A Freak Show in District 9: The Construction of a Freak Amongst Aliens” by Jessica Carducci, the authors explore the ways that these two films play into the structures and practices of the freak show. The issue of displaying human difference is also present in television and media today. Lauren Seitz touches on the freakish display of children in reality television in her paper, “Princesses and Monsters?: An Analysis of the Role of the Freak Show in Toddlers and Tiaras.” Additionally, Bryce Longenberger addresses issues of fatness and visual display in the television show The Big Bang Theory in his paper, “The Unseen Fat Woman: Fatness, Stigma, and Invisibility in Mrs. Wolowitz from The Big Bang Theory.” Finally, Amory Orchard explores the ways in which newspaper articles, reality television,